2026-10-27 - Select Board

Recording in progress. >> All right, it is Tuesday, October 27th at 6:00 p.m. I call the select board to order. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Okay, next is going to be the hybrid remote or hybrid opening

mini statement. Pursuant to Governor Healey's directive extending temporary open meeting law provisions until June 30th, 2027, the select board meeting will be conducted in a hybrid format and will be

recorded. Any person in attendance making a an audio or video recording of this meeting must notify the chair at this time. Recordings will be accessible on the town's website and YouTube channel.

Please be aware, participants attending via Zoom will have their video and audio disabled. If you wish to engage in the discussion, raise your hand. If the chair acknowledges you, you will receive a

pop-up message allowing you to unmute yourself. For agenda, YouTube, and Zoom links, please visit www. .suttonma.gov. All right, can we have a roll call, please? >> Mr. Chairman, I'm here in person.

>> Uh Christine Watkins, in person. >> Spangler, in person. >> And Jonathan Anderson, in person. >> I'm Justin Lemieux, by the way. I think everyone I know is >> All right. So, next we have public

forum. Public forum is limited to 3 minutes per person. Max time for public forum is 15 minutes. Anybody here for public forum? All right, I don't think there's anybody on Zoom, either. Okay. Next,

we'll do the do the minutes. >> There is someone with their hand raised. >> Oh, there is? Okay. Is there somebody on Zoom? Oh. All right, just your name and address, please. >> Teresa DeStefano, 130

Dodge Hill Road. >> Okay, thank you. >> I don't really know if this is the section where I'm supposed to speak about. I rarely join these meetings, but I had gotten a letter in the mail in regards to

underground electricity between my property and um where is the other property? And 126 Dodge Hill Road, so that's why I was joining this meeting tonight. >> Yes, so we are going to be having a public

hearing in a few moments. Um so, you can join in then when I call out to if there's any public comment at that time. >> Okay, thank you so much. >> you're welcome. All right, next on the agenda is

public poll hearing for Providence Road. >> Meeting meeting >> Oh, sorry, meeting minutes. Yeah, I jumped right over that. >> Okay, before we approve the meeting minutes, I just want to note that we

did note make two changes on um in in the minutes, there was a section where it said excess and we changed it to excise taxes under the budget review and then also under the discussion of the economic

strategy, it was a reference to 40R. We never adopted 40R, it was meant to be 40B. So, we just have to adopt them with these two noted changes. >> Okay. All right, well, that being the case, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to accept the October 6th, 2026 Select Board meeting minutes as revised. >> I'll second them. >> All right, any discussion? Okay, roll call vote, please. >> Justin

Lamonica, aye. >> Walter Zai, >> Spangler, aye. >> And Anderson, aye. >> All right. So, next we have the public poll hearing on Providence Road, Blackstone Street. >> Okay, I'll I'll read the notice

as posted [clears throat] in the October 1st, 2026 Millbury-Sutton Chronicle. Public hearing notice. In accordance with the provisions of MGL Chapter 166, Section 22, you are hereby notified that a

public hearing will be held at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27th, 2026 in the Sutton Town Hall, 4 Oxford Road, Sutton. Upon petition from Ngrid and Verizon New England, National Grid to install one

JO pole on Providence Road, beginning at a point approximately 200 ft northwest of the centerline of the intersection of Blackstone Street. Install 50-ft class H1 pole. Pole will be installed between

P58 and P59 Providence Road on the same side of the road as P58 and P59. Pole will be labeled 58-50. Also, for permission to lay and maintain underground laterals, cables, and wires in the above or

intersecting public ways for the purpose of making connections with such poles and buildings as each of said petitioners may desire for distributing purposes. Petitioner agrees to reserve space for

one crossarm at a suitable point on said poles for fire, police, telephone, and telegraph signal wires belonging to the municipality and used for municipal purposes. This will be a hybrid meeting with

in-person and Zoom option. To join with Zoom, please use meeting ID 825-867-842-53, passcode 563-303. Plan filed herewith marked number 313-674-79. >> Thank you, Christine. I declare the public

hearing open. All right, is anybody here from National Grid? >> Hi, good evening. Can you guys hear me? >> Yes. >> All right, my name is Colton Marshall, a representative from National Grid. The

proposed pole here, pole number 58-50, it is a midspan pole between existing pole 58 and existing pole 59. The purpose of this pole is to support what is called a load uh a yeah, a a load break. So,

it's a uh uh control device for our overhead infrastructure system. It's somewhat large and it needs to be on a dedicated pole with no other devices such as transformers or uh side taps. So, the

installation of a new pole has been decided as a best path in this location identified by our engineers as the ideal location for it. >> All right, thank you. Does anybody on the board have any

questions? >> Um I have one. Um correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I know at one point the town actually owned that parcel and we um sold it or our our town meeting allowed this uh land

transfer to a private owner um that owns the packing plant and I thought the intention was to use that space to allow the trucks to queue up. Um will the installation of this new pole um will it

interfere with uh the land owner being able to access that plot? Colton, do you know? >> He's muted again, it looks like. >> Yep. >> Yeah, he's muted. Oh, there he goes. Well, the hands are up. >>

Sorry about that. Um I I am not familiar um if if that was cleared or not. S- uh sometimes the towns have it reviewed by the local DPW. I'm not sure if this one got reviewed. Um it it depends town by

town. >> No, no, no. I I I am sure that um our our town officials went out and inspected the site. My concern was with the property owner himself because again, like I said, I I thought the intention

was to actually use this as a parking lot, so to speak, uh for trailer trucks to queue up. >> Um >> Yeah. >> No, this is under the bridge going towards Garetti's. I saw the NG mark on the road. >> No,

that's Yeah, that's on the other side of the bridge. Right? >> Millbury. >> Right. Yeah, exactly. That's on the Millbury side. So, Frank's garage is, you know, over across the street. Turn, yeah.

Yeah, we gave that parcel to the people who own whatever the meat plant is with the intention that they were going to have trucks queue up there. We did that several years ago. So, I don't know if

this is going to interfere with that. That that's my concern. Nick, remember when we dealt with that parcel? >> Yeah. >> So, that way I don't sound like the odd man out. >> Robert Namaka Namaka Board

of Assessors. I sat way in the back hoping not to come up here, but Uh I think the town just gave them the right to use it as a place to turn their trucks around. >> Right. >> So, they because they

had trouble getting in and out of their place when there was a lot of access. I don't think it was actually sold. >> Oh, I thought we I thought we actually sold the the land. We just gave the uh the

right away or the right to access the property? >> Yeah. >> I I get I'm going I'm playing by memory. >> It was an agreement that the the selectmen were to make with them to to allow them to use the

the area to turn trucks around. I don't think it [clears throat] was to maybe it was to temporarily park while they were waiting to get into their loading docks. >> Yeah, I the concern was is that the

trucks were queuing up when they were working on the bridges and they didn't want them all sticking out in the street, so to speak. But again, this is several years ago, so I'm just playing by memory.

>> It's probably 10 years anyway. >> Well, that's what happens when you're around for a while, you know, you kind of remember odd things that happened a decade ago. >> Uh you were around, too. >>

Yeah, I know, I know. So, so, all right, so, all right, well, at least I'm kind of in the ballpark, but I guess it's not going to impact the pole hearing, so I'm going to I'm going to reserve my

comments and I'll check with Jen on it. All right, thanks, Nick. >> Anybody else have any questions for Colton? All right, does anybody uh, in the audience or on Zoom have any questions? All right,

we'll close the Do I have a motion to close public hearing? >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. >> All right, anybody any

discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Jessica Lamanico. >> Watkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And Anderson, I. >> All right, Mr. Chairman, I'd also like to make a motion to approve pole [clears throat]

hearing number 31300139 from Ngrid for wrong one. Sorry, pole hearing number 31367479 from Ngrid and Verizon New England for Providence Road, Blackstone Street as advertised in the October 1st, 2026

Millbury Sutton Chronicle. >> All right, so we have a second? >> I'll second that. >> Okay, any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Jessica Lamanico. >> Watkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And

Anderson, I. >> All right, next we have a pole hearing for Dodge Hill Road. >> Um, as posted in the October 8th, 2026 Millbury Sutton Chronicle public hearing notice, in accordance with the provisions

of MGL chapter 166 section 22, you are hereby notified that a public hearing will be held at 6:05 p.m. on Tuesday, October 27th, 2026 in the Sutton Town Hall, 4 Oxford Road, Sutton, upon petition from

National Grid. National Grid is requesting permission to excavate and construct a line of underground electric conduits, including the necessary sustaining and protecting fixtures under and across the

public way or ways in accordance with the plan filed herewith, marked Dodge Hill Road plan number 31300139. National Grid to install plus or minus 16 of one phase underground primary from P70 in the

public right of way to the edge of the driveway at 126 Dodge Hill Road. This will be a hybrid meeting with in-person and Zoom options. To join with Zoom, please use meeting ID 825-867-842-53. Passcode

563-303. Plan file herewith marked number 313-00139. >> Thank you, Christine. I declare the public hearing open. All right. Colton, you want this for this one, too? >> Yes, sir. >> All right. >> Um

this is uh the hearings for the essentially the primary riser to be installed on existing pole 70 um in the right of way, and then it sweeps into private property where the rest of the infrastructure

will go. So, the the public portion of the hearing is uh two conduits from the customer at 126, their property line, to existing pole P70. >> All right. Does anybody on the board have a question for

Colton? >> I have a question. When you're burying the conduit in this case, it's the private landowner that I assume bears the cost of that. Is that always the case? Number one, and number two, if

it's going across public land and you're burying the line, who pays for it, and what's the justification for putting it underground versus overground, aside from aesthetics? >> The um the the the cost

of it, I can't speak on that. Depends on the customer who ultimately will get the bill for infrastructure. But the decision to go overhead versus underground um in this situation again, I'm not sure

what the cust- end customer is here. It looks as if it's a a building. So potentially, they didn't want a pole line running down their driveway. Um or perhaps there wasn't clearance. That ultimately

comes down to a generally come down to customer preference. Um in the public right-of-way National Grid has to do the civil portion of the work. And generally speaking, that cost is um transferred to

the customer. >> Okay. So, it's transferred to the customer, but in the case of it going under a public roadway or for National Grid's purposes, then National Grid you would think absorbs the cost of

that and then it's spread to every customer in the town. By default. >> It generally it it's on the cust- the customer's responsibility, but it varies by situation and it's not something that I deal

with. >> Okay. >> Um can I ask a question? This This pole is on the western side of Dodge Hill Road, correct? So, it's not going under Dodge Hill Road from the east to the west. The pole's already on

the west side. Is that That's what it looks like here. It looks like Dodge Hill Road goes up and kind of curves before it and that the pole is actually sitting in the right-of-way on the um side of

130 Dodge Hill Road? >> Correct. So, the the extent of the trenching will be I think the petition says 20 ft. So, it would It'll be extremely short and it's just going to run parallel to the road and

then go into the customer property. >> Right. So, the trench and then the customer's property are all on the same side of Dodge Hill Road. So, it's not going under. >> Yes. Not going under. Yeah. >>

All right. Anybody else? >> I was going to Yeah. Yep. Anybody else want to speak on this from the audience or from Zoom? >> From 130 Dodge Hill Road. >> Okay. >> She has her hand up. >> Hi, this is

Dan DeStefano 130 Dodge Hill Road. How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. So, my concern what So, the natural grade guy, Colin Colton. How are you? Are you [clears throat] changing out the

transformer as well on the pole? >> Uh no, this will I I I that isn't going to be part of the scope of this project. Um the customer will get their own transformer at the end of the line, uh pad mount

transformer on their property. So, that transformer as far as I know will remain. >> So, they're getting a mini pad? >> Correct. >> What size? What what Why? Just because the line is so long, you need

to upgrade it to a mini pad further down the road? >> Uh it's that's what the customer preferred. Instead of a pole line with a transformer, they decided to go underground to a transformer. >> So, the

conduit that's coming down the pole now into my property, um some of it is already broken. They did some excavation. Um they kind of took out the boundary wall and excavated it where they were going

to put a drain in supposedly, but I'm assuming now that you are going to dig that out. Are you replacing any of the hardware on the pole from the line down, some conduit and stuff like that that's

been disturbed from the project that's been going on? >> Not that I'm aware of. >> Can you make a note of it so that maybe that when the guys come, they could evaluate that and bring it back up to

where it needs to be cuz it has been disturbed. The ground's been disturbed. The utility pole is now you know, uncovered. So there's I don't know if you've been over there, but there's been some work

done that exposed that all all the wires and stuff. So it's kind of getting deteriorated since since then. >> This was done by the the contractor developer. >> Yeah. Supposedly it was going to be a a

uh some kind of a drainage or something like that, but it doesn't seem to be any work done to put any drainage in there. So I I just want to note that. >> Colin, did you get that? >> Yeah, I just

didn't under- I didn't follow how where National Grid gets involved in damage done by a developer. >> Well, I suppose you don't get involved by it if you're replacing lines on the pole and you bring

it in a mini pad phase one all the way up there to replace a few pieces of conduit that's already existing on the pole. I don't think that that's expensive to do. >> The uh secondary customer service

is installed, owned, and maintained by customer. So that wouldn't be our property to uh to do work on. But anything but the the primary riser being installed for this petition would be done by a

National Grid contractor. Generally they use like a vac truck. So they won't further disturb it. With that being said, we can't upgrade or modify your service because it's not owned by National Grid.

>> You're saying from the transformer down to the ground is is not yours. >> Correct. If it's a if it's a secondary connection, a low voltage 120 240 volt that's owned by customer. What's being

installed here is the high voltage. Um maybe 7,000 volts over here. Uh that is installed, owned, and maintained by us. >> Okay, so you're coming down from the primary then and going all the way up the

road. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And I guess my question would be like any of that excavation work that's going to be happening, is it disturbing our property in any way? >> Who's speaking, please? >>

Teresa DiStefano, I'm sorry. >> Teresa. >> So, to answer that, I mean that would be no. Um anything along the public right of way will be public property and that's what we're petitioning. And then

once it gets into private property, again, that's private. Um and that will be on the neighboring property at 126. >> [cough] >> Where is the voltage step down? You mentioned the higher voltage along

the road. Where exactly is the voltage step down? Is it on P70? >> The >> it at the transformer pad that's up on the private property? >> Yes, the high voltage will come down. It's on It's on the pole

tops. It's going to come down through a riser, through the conduit system outlined in the attached diagram through PB70-1, that's a pull box, and then over to pad 70-2, and that's where it will

ultimately get stepped down to um 120 240 volt for the customer. >> Okay, so the voltage step down is actually on private property. >> Correct. >> But you maintain the lines up until they are stepped

down, correct? >> Yes. >> So the individual customer is responsible for the step down voltage from that pad on the >> 70-2 >> Yes, thank you. 70-2 up till the second pad. That's already stepped down.

>> Yes, so once I get to 70-2, the customer will install, own, and maintain their secondary connections, the 120-240 V from the house to the transformer pad. They install [clears throat] and maintain

the whole thing. >> Where I'm going with that question is if the voltage isn't stepped down until PB 70-2, that distance between the road and that initial pad, once the lines are buried, that's not

stepped down voltage, so National Grid is still responsible for that, correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right, any other questions? All right, motion to close public hearing, please. >> I'll make a

motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> All right, any discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Justin Lamarche, I. >> Wilkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And Jonathan Anderson, I. >> I'll make a

motion to approve poll hearing number 313-00139 from National Grid for Dodge Hill Road as advertised in the October 8th, 2026 Millbury-Sutton Chronicle. >> I'll second that. >> All right, any other

discussion? >> No. >> Okay, roll call vote, please. >> Justin Lamarche, I. >> Wilkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And Anderson, I. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have a public

hearing on the Assessor's Tax Classification Hearing. >> Um as posted in the October 1st, 2026 Millbury-Sutton Chronicle public notice, tax classification hearing. In accordance with MGL chapter 40,

section 56 as amended, the Sutton Select Board will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 27th, 2026 at 6:10 p.m. at the Sutton Town Hall, 4 Uxbridge Road, Sutton. The purpose of this meeting is

to determine the percentage of the tax burden to be borne by each class of property for fiscal 2027. Sutton has four classes of property in the town and one tax rate. The classes are residential,

commercial, industrial, and personal. Assessors are planning to recommend a single rate for all four classes of property. The public hearing is intended as a way for taxpayer to express their views

and ask questions about whether the town should adopt different rates for the different classes of property. Taxpayers are welcome to participate and present their views orally or in writing. Written

requests must be received prior to the meeting no later than October 19th, 2026 by 4:00 p.m. Any person interested or wishing to be heard should call or sign into the remote meeting. If you have any

questions, please feel free to contact the Assessor's Office at 508-865-8722. This will be a hybrid meeting with both in-person and a Zoom component. To join with Zoom, please use meeting ID

825-867-84253. Passcode number 563-303. The Sutton Board of Assessors will be in attendance to provide information relevant to making such determination and the fiscal effect of the available

alternatives. >> Thank you, Christina. I declare the public hearing open. Thank you for having us tonight. Uh my name is Matthew Reed. I'm on the Board of Assessors. I'll let the rest of the Assessors

introduce themselves. >> Tracy Tady, Principal Assessor. >> Robert Nanamaker. >> So, um we do have one note before we get into the hearing. As you can see at this top of the presentation, uh the data

in this presentation is preliminary and it has not been approved by the state yet. Um little bit away. Thank you. >> it so I can >> Oh, sorry. >> [laughter] >> Um so it has not been approved by the

state yet. So, these numbers and figures are subject to change. You know, they could be tweaked slightly. So, just wanted to highlight that. So, getting into it, we have our agenda here. Going to give

you guys some background on the background of the classification hearing, go into the levy figures and the evaluation figures, and then get down to the votes. So, we'll start with the split rate tax

vote, the residential exemption, and the small business, which Austin actually highlighted this year, so that is new. So, the classification hearing, as selectwoman Watkins highlighted, is to

determine if the town is going to do a split or single tax rate. And what that means is that we would, you know, determine whether the residential and commercial industrial sectors are having the same

tax rate or we would shift the burden slightly to the commercial industrial side. So, as we keep going we're going to start with the levy limit. So, the levy is the the maximum amount of taxes I'm

sorry. Maximum amount of taxes collected for the previous year to get to the 27 fiscal year levy, we follow this formula. So, we subtract out the amended 2026 growth plus the 2 and 1/2% increase

allotted by prop 2 and 1/2, which is the 689203 number, then add in the new growth for fiscal 27. That gets you the levy ceiling for 27, and then you're going to add in the debt exclusion and

stabilization fund, which then brings you to the maximum allowable levy. So, that is the 32283407 number, which would be very close to our budget number for fiscal 27, as you guys probably know. >>

Did you want to highlight the excess capacity note at the bottom? >> Sure. So, it looks like we will have an excess capacity of 18742, um, which is the difference, I believe, between the budget and

the levy. >> Rounding error. >> With a rounding error, yeah. It's really just a small number. Um, so getting into the, uh, value of the town, this is kind of the breakout of, um, what that looks like.

So we have our, um, residential, the 100 codes. You can see the 101s, 102s, um, miscellaneous, 104s, 105s, and then, uh, apartments and land as well. Um, so that is going to be a majority of the

town's value right there. You can see the counts and the amounts, um, at your leisure. And then we have the commercial industrial, uh, broken out, uh, with the 300 and 400, um, uh, codes. So, um, you

know, this can be referenced for any future discussions we have, but, um, as you can see, a majority of the town, um, I think that's, yeah, 2.3 out of the 2.8 2.8 total, uh, billion, uh, is

residential. So, um, shifting that burden, um, doesn't do too much when it comes to Sutton, um, but we will highlight that in another example. >> Are the exempt parcels state land and municipal land?

Is that what >> Yes, I think there's some, what, cemeteries as well, and some like road or, uh, yeah, shared roads. Yeah. >> So to follow up on that, all state land is exempt, correct? >> Yes. You can

keep going. Um, so then to calculate what the tax rate would be, we're going to take that levy that we calculated and then, uh, divide by the taxable value of the town from that LA4 we just

highlighted, um, times by 1,000, and that is how you get the tax rate. So the proposed, again, preliminary figures, um, the tax rate was proposed to be 11.33 for 2027. So that is down from the 11.55

from 2026. And the, um, this is just, again, expanding on that the town is very much, uh, heavily favored to be residential. We only have 16% of that value being made up by the CI portfolio. And this

is a breakout of those commercial industrial accounts. So, you can see that even a majority of those are going to be smaller accounts, which are going to be those mom and pop shops, you know, our

farms, you know, little things like that. We do have a couple of bigger players, but again, a large majority of our business is going to be smaller. And so, this would be some examples of what the

what doing a different CIP factor would result in. And if anyone does have any questions, feel free to to speak up or ask me to slow down if I'm going a little too fast. But >> Sorry, [laughter] Nick.

>> So, the first example is going to be a a CIP of one, which is going to be a level tax rate between residential and commercial industrial. So, that means everyone would have that 1133 number. And

that 662769, I believe, is our average residential property. So, we're just you know, comparing apples to apples. [snorts] If a residential and a commercial valuation was the same, that would be the

same tax bill of 7500. If you then if you did shift the burden to a 1.1, which would be a 10% shift or increase in the you know, waiting of the commercial portfolio, that same valuation would bring

down the residential tax bill by $146 and increase that same commercial bill by $756. And then the maximum allowable increase to 1.5, you can see the tax rate for the residential portfolio is

decreased by $1.10 per thousand. Um so they would see a decrease in about $700 for the average bill while the commercial bill would increase quite dramatically by $3,758. So, um you know, if you we

went back one slide, you can see that a lot of our um accounts are under that, you know, average residential amount of around 600. Um so all of those bills would be increased by around what those

numbers are in that next slide. Um you know, those bigger players would have a much bigger jump, um but that's just highlighting, you know, what our small businesses and and people like that would

see. So we can keep going. So, um we stick with Oh, sorry. Uh the pros and cons of this, um you know, the the major pro is that residential, which is again a large majority of our valuation, would see

some tax relief. Um you know, you for that average house, it's only it's a couple hundred dollars, um but it has those resident or sorry, commercial um accounts increase quite dramatically. Um and

that is the major con. Um and then you could see some, you know, decrease in commercial investments because of us splitting the tax rate um to where you know, they're taking more of that burden on. Um

and again, it would hurt those mom-and-pop businesses and small businesses that we do have a lot of. And we can keep going. And again, um the preliminary data shows that our tax rate would be at 11:33

for fiscal '27. Um and that is just another example of what that would look like if we shifted that burden to the 1.5 um CIP factor uh with the residential tax rate would decrease to 10:23 and the

commercial industrial would increase to 17 even. Uh and with that said, the Board of Assessors, um, as we have for the past couple of years, uh, recommend that we keep it as a level tax rate. Um, we

think that it would be detrimental to a lot of these small business we have in town, um, and we don't see that as being a huge lift to the residential, um, uh, tax relief. But, um, that is just our

opinion. And it is up to you guys to vote, which we will get to in a second. Uh, we can actually do that vote, uh, if you'd like to. >> So, we have them doing it all at once? >> Oh, you do? Okay. Um,

>> Unless you guys want to do it separately, but >> Yeah, if you do it all at once. >> Sure. Um, >> You're on a roll. >> Uh, thank you. Um, so, the next thing we want to talk about is the original

residential exemption, which Austin brought to our attention. Um, this is similar to a pied-a-terre tax, um, or similar, um, to what is now referred as the Taylor Swift law, as you see Newport, where

non-owner occupied properties, um, are being taxed a little bit heavily, uh, or a little more heavily. We're shifting a little bit of the tax burden to non-owner occupied, away from the people who are

domiciled in town. As Sutton does not have a huge rental market like Newport or somewhere down south like Florida, it's really going to be pennies, um, of relief when it comes to the, uh, owner-

occupied properties within town. So, our recommendation here is to, um, vote no on this as well. Um, but it's, and then we can get into the the details of the way that, um, shifts that burden if you'd

like to, but that's our recommendation. And finally, we have the small business exemption, uh, which Austin also brought to our attention. Um, so, this, uh, would be a shifting of the, uh, yes, a

shifting of the tax rate, um, for properties that lease out their real estate to small businesses. So, it's not the personal property assigned to the small business. Uh it's the resident or sorry, the

real estate tax bill for somewhere that a small or small business is operating. Um so it relies on the trickle-down effect of, you know, the property owner says, you know, okay, now I have a small

decrease in my taxes. I can pass that on to the tenant. Um or if the small business does own the property, it would apply there, too. Uh the small business is a list that the assessors gets from the

state. Um I believe it's in partnership with the SBA is how that's determined, and it is with employees uh 10 or less is how you determine a small business. Um and yes, uh applications are taken for

this one uh after the tax hearing, um and it again could change those preliminary numbers that we have mentioned a few times. Yeah. Um so it is up to you guys to vote on those three items, uh but

we're here for any questions that you may have. >> All right, thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, anybody have any questions? >> Uh I don't have any questions, but Well, actually, I do. Are these

last two items Are these new? >> Yes, they are. >> New statutes that have been passed or new to us? >> new to us. >> They're not They're not new. >> Okay, cuz I I don't remember these ever. >> Yeah.

>> Okay. All >> So So out of curiosity, when did the state adopt the 20% for the non >> A while ago. >> A long time ago. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> All right. Um so as far as my observations go, um

just want to point out a couple of things to those people tuning in at home, cuz I know we are the most watched cable access um television program in our time slot. Um on the slide that had the hard

numbers, if we utilize our 2 and 1/2% increase year over year, we're only talking about an increase in revenue of $689,203. So as we're getting into budgetary season and we hear about all of the the

expenses all of the wants that that are coming from the departments keep that in mind the increase that we're dealing with year-over-year is just about $700, and budgetary if we have a huge impact

with insurance that could gobble up a huge percentage of that. So I'm really hopeful that the department heads are are really mindful of the realities of the situation that we're dealing with. You

know, we have a small pot of money which we can pay things for. As far as the tax bill, I'm glad you highlighted the impact if we were to do a split rate. You know, ultimately the residents they would

see a reduction average home owner would save about $700. That's real money. I don't want to make it sound like it's not, but I also look at it on the flip side that we have limited commercial

properties and we're trying to fill them with commercial entities because ultimately commercial entities add benefits to the town both in the short-term and the long-term and they do not have a

disparate impact on our limited resources. They don't drain as much water. They don't send kids to the schools. They don't utilize the roads as much. So so I've always been a big favor in having the

equal tax rate. I mean heck if you go back in time as I know Nick and I can Prime Metals one of the reasons why Prime Metals came to Sutton was because we had a a unified tax rate. They were looking

anywhere and they could have gone anywhere else and they came to Sutton. So I see this is a winning strategy at least for the short-term. You know, maybe there may be a point in time when we are not

83.6% versus 16.4%. You know, maybe we could address it then, but at least at least for the next year, you know, I'm I'm going to agree with the the decision that was made by our wonderful group of

assessors and I want to support at unified rate. >> All right. Thank you, Jess. Anybody else? >> Well, my questions were answered in the presentation. >> All right. Any questions, Dan? >> I would just

agree that until we see a point if we're trying to attract business I think if we if we look at this yearly the point to change this is when the balance between the 101 accounts that are smaller than

than most of our dwellings um decreases and the and the the volume of entities 13 accounts over 5 million increases. [clears throat] You know, once we have business if we have businesses that are

skewed you know, more towards the bigger end then it's the time to look at it, but since 101 of our accounts are basically small I don't see a reason to change the tax rate. >> Okay. >> That's just if

you want to attract small businesses, which we think we do. >> All right. On that topic, um I'm in the same place I think at this point in time. I think it would have more impact on the small

businesses and um you know, I just don't think that at this point in time it makes sense. I think to my colleagues' agreement we keep talking about this over the years. If that makes changes then we

can have different discussions, but for right now I think we've got to be paying attention and be mindful cuz I think in the aggregate small businesses provide more jobs than the larger companies do

overall. So, we want to continue to support them. So, I think that's important. So, that's it on that topic as far as um you want to go ahead? Yeah. >> Yeah, just last year I think you told us also

what our neighboring towns were with regard to their percentage of residential versus CIP. And I thought last year we were relatively in a better position than some of our neighbors. Did Did anyone do

that analysis this year? Okay. Sorry. >> No, no, that's fine. >> I can make a note if you want. >> Cuz I think we've been improving, right? Weren't we higher at one point like 87% was residential then

85 maybe Nick would know and then now we're at 83. >> year we were um 84 a little over 84. >> Okay. >> And 15, so >> Yeah. >> But we're slowly changing. >> But it also affects, um, all of our, um,

chapter 61. And so you got to remember that, too. So any anybody that is trying to still have agricultural land and stuff, any split that we make, it affects them as well as the small businesses. >>

Personal property as well. >> something to think about. >> Yeah, personal property as well, because if you get the farmers out there, they're going to be taxing their equipment and all that stuff, so.

>> Yeah. >> Okay. Anything on the other two items that they wanted us to consider or >> I I I I don't want to consider those at this time. >> Yeah. Okay. All right, do I hear a motion? >> I'd like to

make a motion to close the public hearing. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Uh, any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Oh, excuse me. >> Yeah. >> Did you ask anybody from the public in the

audience? >> that's right. Sorry. >> Sorry, yes, before we close it. >> Yeah. Anybody from the public have any discussions around the the the tax rate? No? >> Okay. Good catch. >> so we got a motion,

we got a second. All right. Roll call vote, please. >> Justin LaManica, I. >> Al Watkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And Anderson, I. >> Do we have a motion from >> I'll motion I'd like to make a motion to

adopt the residential factor of one and not to adopt an open space discount or small commercial and residential exemption for fiscal year 2027. >> I'll second that. >> All right, any other discussion?

Roll call vote, please. >> Justin LaManica, I. >> Watkins, I. >> Spangler, I. >> And Anderson, I. >> All right, thank you. >> This is senior thing. You got to do the other one now. >> Yep. All right,

so we're going to discuss, um, Assessor's office review of senior tax work off policy. >> So I'll start with this. Um, this was a a request of our board of a wonderful board of assessors. Nice job, by

the way. Um, they do a lot of work at this time of the year. This is kind of prime time for everyone in municipal finance and a lot of this is driven by the work that the assessors do. So, thank you

for all you do. Um, they also in the meantime have requested for the select board to formally adopt an actual policy for our senior work off program. This program has been in existence after it was

adopted by town meeting in 2001 and and if you look at master law it also says that town should adopt policies or or procedures, rules and regulations related to the program and for everything that we

could look up we couldn't find anything that was ever adopted. So, since then we have provided for tax relief through this program for eligible seniors to provide for at for most years up to $750 and

and for the past several years $1,000 after providing services for various municipal departments. So, basically what we're looking to do here with the policy that's in place and presented to you folks

is to codify the existing program that's again been in existence for 20 plus years. Um, the program will still be overall managed by a combination of several departments. So, first and foremost from

the budget side and the finance side from our office and the assessor's office and then the actual application process combination of the assessor's office and the senior center. So, you see a lot of

mostly procedural requirements within this policy which will come also in the form of an actual application to be prepared by the departments and and and submitted to the senior center. This

essentially makes eligible seniors essentially employees of the town. So, they become an employee of the town. They fill out all kinds of paperwork to become a an employee. They provide services and

work for various departments. We have seniors that are providing all kinds of services across all departments, whether it's the senior center, uh town hall, transfer station. Um people are very, very

generous with their time, and um and this provides a a small amount of tax relief for them. Um I won't go through in extensive detail about the uh the program itself, but again, I'll just say we're

not looking to make any structural changes really at all to the program, just again, codifying what's been in existence and just clarifying who's responsible for what within the process. So, um I will

just say there is one thing that we will ask the board to uh strike from this policy for now. Jonathan brought up a great comment, I think, in his review um earlier today, and that's related to a

sentence within section D, uh which allows uh someone by proxy to be able to um uh to perform the services on behalf of someone if technically if someone wasn't able to provide those services

themselves. That language within general law has to be adopted by town meeting. That's a recent change to legislation from 2023. We did not go to town meeting after 2023 to do that. The rest of the

policy is still pretty good um and in compliance with what was already adopted 20-plus years ago. So, I guess we would just ask you, and I can certainly find the sentence for you unless you guys have

it in front of you, um just the uh sentence that allows someone to vote by proxy. And certainly, that could be a future discussion if we wanted to bring that to town meeting to allow for that, and we

could amend the policy at this time. High level, that's what this provides. Happy to answer any questions that the uh board may have. >> Is that the sentence that says a board or committee member who

donates an earned tax abatement to a qualifying senior must ensure that senior in independently meets the program's eligibility? Is that the sentence? >> Program of my sister's. Section D, I think

it's in the last paragraph. >> Yeah, the last sentence of the last paragraph. Is that the sentence you want to strike? >> Yeah. Think so, right? >> Yeah, I think >> Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And maybe

it's just the last sentence of section D. >> All right. So, yeah. The way that reads is the board member must ensure. Okay. >> Yep. And that has to be authorized by town meeting. Good catch, Jonathan.

You go ahead. >> Every good luck. I have a question. And I can't find it at the moment, but I read it earlier and it was something to the effect of um the open enrollment starts and the board of

assessors determines the specific abatement amount, obviously, but then the there was some wording in there. I don't know where to find it at the moment, but about the assessors department determines

the overall budget available for this um specific program. How do you determine the overall budget and what's available for the abatement amount? >> It comes out of our overlay. So, so from that we

have to try to figure out like right now we have almost uh I think 196,000 of the 200 with I think it was 200 last year or 225 last year went towards exemptions already. Not including senior the

senior work-off. So, that doesn't leave a whole lot for abatements. So, we we have to look at that almost yearly to decide can we do 20,000 this year you know, depending on what we might have. Like

this year we have a possibly some big abatements cuz we've got some big growth in personal property. So, we have to be careful of that. >> So, what what >> we would have to vote on it before then. >>

What was last year's budget for this program? >> That's what I was getting at. >> Oh. >> No, yeah. Go ahead. >> Same thing. >> Yeah. What was that? >> 20 20,000. >> Well, you you cap it at somewhere

in that ballpark, 20,000. >> Yes. >> So, typically there's more space for I think for typically there's been about 19 to 20 slots available based on that allocation. And just quickly um what is an

overlay? Right? Cuz that's a that's a term maybe some folks have never heard before. So, typically what happens is when we put together the budget. So, if you look at our financial plan, you see this

line that says allowance for abatement and and exemptions. So, that's what we call an overlay. So, basically what we do is we tax to the full extent of what we just talked about, the 32.2 million, and

then from that taxable revenue we take $225,000 and put it into essentially a small pot for abatements and exemptions. So, whether it's the senior work off program, any eligible seniors, veterans, the

blind, all all the exemption programs that are offered by the assessor's office, and also any appellate tax board decisions, we take that and that's the pot of money that is used to provide for

abatements and exemptions for everything that I just mentioned. So, this is included within that pot of money. So, this isn't a separate line item. You wouldn't find this for example in in the

assessor's budget. This is kind of a separate fund that is used to provide for those abatements and exemptions. >> Okay. And and the net that you're talking about earlier in this there's there's the

documenta- there's the the wording that this is all post tax because the town has to treat them like an employee. So, the 20,000 is the net post tax, not the pre-tax amount that they're earning

working for the town. That would make sense from >> set aside $20,000, right? And then they you know, their eligibility is up to $1,000, but in reality they get whatever the >> They get like 910. >>

910. Okay. >> So, they take taxes out of that. >> Only federal. Not state. >> Which never mind. >> I'll I'll let that I'll I'll let that go. >> [laughter] >> So, the state maximum is 2,000, but we're

choosing to stay with the 1,000. Is there I'm what's the the rationale behind that? Just so people understand. >> Yeah, and certainly assessors, please help me. Obviously, if you increase the the

amount that's just less people I think overall within the program budget that would be eligible. So, I think we're trying to maximize as many people as possible, but you know, certainly if if we boost

our overlay by a bunch, which I know the assessors would love, we could provide for more tax relief if we increased it to the uh the max. I mean, they did recently increase it as I mentioned, I think

for beginning FY 25 from 750 to 1,000. >> Okay. >> And just cuz I know the age cohorts, it's only about 1% of the seniors would actually even be able to get, right? So, don't we have about 1,600

people or so at that cohort? So, 20 people are getting the benefit. It's not like it's a big program that really helps a lot of our seniors. It helps a small group, right? And you all have to have to

apply. >> Yes, they have they have to apply, yeah. We would love to give it to more, but we financially just don't have it. >> Right. Yeah. >> Is that cap per household or per person within that

household? >> Household. >> Household, yeah. >> Household. >> Good question. I did. I don't remember what it is now. Um oh, yeah. If if for some reason somebody is uh eligible, they apply, they're

working, and then they decide they don't want it anymore, they move out of town, or or something else happens, are the new positions posted? Cuz cuz I I know that there's a bunch that work down the

senior center, and there's certain tasks that they are involved in. If there's an opening, is it posted somewhere so that way people know when to apply? >> go through um Janine. >> Yep. >> Um >> So,

she would recommend it. >> she and she would we would let her know this person's not helping us anymore. Could you send somebody else or recommend, you know, >> So, the application process all goes

through the senior center. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? All right. Do I have a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to adopt the senior tax work-off

abatement policy as amended. >> I'll second that. >> All right. Any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Jessica Lamonica, >> Wilkins, aye. >> Spangler, aye. >> And Anderson, aye. >> All

right. Well, thank you very much. All right. Next is the ratified chairperson signature on WestPro Amazon's drone letter letter. Justin, do you want to give a little bit of a >> Um sure. I mean, I I

think either you or I could do it. So, uh Town of Westborough uh last week or the week before uh had sent out a communication to all of the towns that could potentially be impacted by the proposed

Amazon uh Prime Air. Forgetting, there's all kinds of different words there for this interesting program. Um to uh the FAA, so the Federal Aviation Administration and also Andy Jassy, the the CEO of

amazon.com. Um you know, summarizing basically asking for a lot more community input uh at the local level for this proposed program. So, uh site-specific environmental assessment, any impacts uh for

the program, uh not just in Westborough, but regionally. So, if you're talking about noise, any again further environmental impacts, privacy. Um again, asking for more participation with the

communities. That's something that we definitely heard a lot at the community forum. I uh uh was neighboring towns really wanted some input and at least to be able to hear directly from uh the

representatives from Amazon. Um so, asking for that. Um and probably some more public comment periods. Uh the night of the community forum, at that time, representatives from Amazon did not commit to

any future public sessions. I would imagine that may change as there's been a lot of uh certainly feedback um seems like nationally, especially with this program. Um so, essentially, it's just asking

for more involvement and more participation. They asked the select board and mayors from all of the impacted towns. Um they were asking for essentially the chief chief executive officer, in this case,

the the chairman of the board to sign. Due to timing, we weren't able to have a select board meeting before this was due to the Town of Westborough. So, uh Jonathan did sign through DocuSign the

document uh last Friday, and we're asking the board to ratify his signature to give your formal approval of Jonathan signing the letter. We've included the letter in your packet for you to review. The

The letter fully signed letter was actually sent out this afternoon to to the FAA and Amazon with the full signature of actually all participating communities which I was actually surprised they were

able to get all those signatures by by last Friday. We also did include in your packet sort of related to this letter a letter from MassDOT to Amazon. Also notifying them that they're also required to

receive MassDOT approval. It's something that they did already say at I will say in the community briefing that they were aware that they needed to go to MassDOT but just to make you aware that there

was a letter that came from DOT to them as well. So there's been a lot happening I think certainly with this program. There was a special town meeting in Westborough that actually believe passed a

zoning bylaw to restrict this use from a land use perspective in Westborough and I believe it did pass. We will certainly see where this goes and if there's any further developments with this program

but again just summarizing what this letter has and and what we're requesting you tonight is just to ratify Jonathan's signature on the letter. >> All right, does anybody have any questions? >> No. >>

Nah, I guess not. >> No. >> All right. >> Do we have a motion? >> Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a motion to ratify the select board chair to sign Westborough's Amazon drone letter. >> I'll second

that. >> All right. Any other discussion? Okay, roll call vote. >> Just a minute. >> Welcome, Jay. >> Spangler, I. >> And Anderson, I. >> All right. Next is town manager updates. >> [clears throat] >>

Thank you board members. Just to be very brief, going to cover a few different items. First and foremost, we have started the budget process officially sent the notification to the select board

yesterday. We sent that to every department the budget instructions for fiscal year 2028 based upon the feedback from the select board at your last meeting and also our tri-board meeting that was also

held on the 13th, I believe. Interesting discussion with tri-board as well. So, budget requests are due to our office by November 20th. Again, this is sooner than we have probably ever developed a

budget officially. Normally, we'd send them out, I think, in December, have them due by January. But again, I think given the the nature of where we are in terms of our overall budget deficit, I want

to get this resolved as as soon as possible. Certainly a lot of work to do, I think, with all of our departments. But we've officially started that. Capital instructions are sent to be sent out to

departments on November 6th. And they'll have, again, about a month or so to develop their capital requests. Want to notify the board and the community effective November 1st by agreement with the

Teamsters Union, we will be changing the transfer station hours on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Um only those days. New hours for Tuesday will be from 7:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. and Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to

2:30p.m. All other operating hours will remain unchanged. The reason for this is after discussion with staff at the highway department, transfer station staff, and certainly Nick Repecki, our highway

superintendent, the primary concern is safety concerns, especially as we get into the times of year where it's getting dark earlier. Um um during the fall and winter months, there's limited lighting

down there, quite honestly. Um and later in the afternoon, it it just becomes a hazard not only for staff, but also residents that are using the facility as well. So >> So, this is a temporary change

because of the winter. >> Well, permanent change in terms of fall and winter hours, right? But right, is that correct, Nick? >> That's how I envision it. >> Yep. >> Yeah, and we did run this by

because it is a we believe a slight change in working conditions. We did run this by the union. They did agree to it. Again, ran it by all the staff and they agreed to it as well. So, effective

November 1st, um changing just those two days hours from 7:00 to 2:30. And still keeping the same hours for um Thursday and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. >> Is that an >> overall reduction in the

hours that it's open? >> No, it's just a shift, right? >> right cuz we open on Tuesdays [clears throat] so late in the day. >> usually at 10:00, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah, so 10:00 It's normally

10:00to 6:00. >> 10:00 to 6:00. >> Right. >> Yeah, 10:00 to 6:30. Yeah. >> So, shifting earlier in the day. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Just want to make the the board and community aware. We'll be posting

some information, signs, and everything is all ready to go. Just wanted to run it by you guys first. Um and then one final thing related to um a small portion of the town common, the intersection at

uh Boston, Uxbridge, and Singletary, um and then all the way down to Tuttle Road. MassDOT, as we kind of talked about several months ago, I think also related to the common project, MassDOT, as a part

of their TIP program, has a a sidewalks and crosswalks program for um District 3, which is our district, um improving sidewalks and installing crosswalks, uh well, installing crosswalks, installing

sidewalks, and improving those facilities as well along various areas in the district. They're proposing to install a new sidewalk all the way down to Tuttle Road, a crosswalk from essentially right

across from the Sutton um youth soccer facilities um with rapid flashing beacons, um and then also improving the intersection, um some new sidewalks and crosswalks at the intersection here just

outside of town hall, and installing a sidewalk from Boston Road to the first crosswalk on the common side. To the first crosswalk on the common side. So, just remember our discussion a few months ago

about sidewalks on the common side. Also installing a new rapid flashing beacon um at that crosswalk as well. >> So, where's that crosswalk over here? Goes from >> the library. >> Library across. >>

Yeah. >> Where it is now? >> Yes, but currently right now there's no sidewalk on that side, so it's not an ADA accessible. >> So, they would fill in the sidewalk >> Yeah. >> to meet the ADA

compliance. >> Yep. Yep. >> And I'm assuming they would take make access of the town's four right-of-way on the road to widen the road to put the sidewalk in over there. >> No, or would they just take

the common and make it like the other side where the sidewalk goes from where the road is? >> right Nick? That's my interpretation of the plans, yeah. Yep. >> So, they wouldn't be touching the benches

cuz the sidewalk will be what? 4 ft wide from the side of the road to >> Yeah, and I don't Is there a bench that that far down? >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just to make you aware, something they're

planning to do. >> Is it an all or nothing? >> Uh what do you mean? >> Is it all Can we accept their proposal in part? >> Um Sure, we can provide feedback. You know, ultimately it's something that

they're not asking any resources, for example, from the town as a part of this project, but do you have feedback that you'd like to share? >> Yeah, I would. So, how do they put a crosswalk that's

going to go to Polly's Hill without having a sidewalk over there? So, they're going to put a sidewalk kind of if you came out the Polly's door and crossed the street there, you'd get on a sidewalk and

then be able to cross from the common to the >> So, the point is I think that they're making improvements to the overall intersection for pedestrians. >> So, the question is >> So, you don't want a

sidewalk there, do you? >> no, no. So, the question is when are they going to initiate the change between their ownership of the M route route and our ownership of Central Turnpike to be vice versa?

>> Uh >> So, I think there was some stipulation that the M route had to be improved before the town would consider taking it over from the state and then in return the state would take over Central

Turnpike. So, who who's in charge of that discussion or does the state just make that decision and we have to accept it? >> Well, I don't think they can just We would certainly that's goes through the

whole town meeting process to accept the new public way. Right? They They can't just all of a sudden say that it's town property. It still has to be accepted by town meeting. Laying out the public

way, there's a whole legislative process for that. Accepted by town meeting. >> So, the DOT would have to come to town meeting and say, "We would like to transfer um ownership or maintenance of the M

route to the town." And then the town itself at town meeting has to vote to accept or reject. >> As with you know, for example, with with subdivisions, right? If If at some point they're turned over

to the town, it has to be, you know, laying out the public way, there's a whole process there that you have to follow. Select board's involved, there's several meetings, and then it goes to town

meeting for legislative approval. >> Okay, so DOT can't do an eminent domain switch or anything like that outside of town meeting? Just out of curiosity. >> Uh well, so I mean, if they want to Are you

suggesting or are you saying that potentially there's another road in town that they would take by eminent domain? >> Turnpike Turnpike. They would switch. So, the town right now maintains Central

Turnpike. >> They could they could take by eminent domain. They could not force another road onto us. >> Right. >> We would have to vote to accept to take the other roadway. >> But But let me just say

this, that has not been discussed since I've been here. So, I've heard that rumor that that happened before, but since I've been here, no one has ever discussed them taking Central Turnpike and us

taking the M route. >> Okay, so how can This has never came up when I since I've been on the board either. >> Okay, so how can they put a sidewalk on a parcel of land that's not under their control?

So, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have a sidewalk over there, but if the town owns the common, how can the Mass DOT put a sidewalk on the town's property without >> Well, so if you want to say no

to a new crosswalk and sidewalk, that's fine. I think they came they they came to the town because remember, they don't own half of the intersection, right? Because that's half of that is still

technically part of the M-route. Um >> Right. Singletary on the Boston Road, right. >> So when they're looking at that for them, I think they're thinking it doesn't make sense for us to just improve

one side and not try to improve the other. If their overall goal is to make pedestrian and safety improvements for everyone that's using the intersection. >> Right. So if they were going to do a

crosswalk from the Sutton Mobile Station across the street towards the blacksmith shop along the side of Polly's, across the front of Polly's, so that have another crosswalk there to cross over to the

common. Then it would make sense to have a a sidewalk on the common to just put a like a hanging chad sidewalk on the common that doesn't have access to anywhere safely through a crosswalk. >> it

could be ADA compliant. Cuz if you're going to put an ADA compliant crosswalk, which is something that's mandatory, you have to have a receiving area. >> Right. >> You just can't put a [clears throat]

>> They don't have control of Oxford Road. So why would they put in >> Well, that's the reason why I asked if we could have say over part bits and parcels of the project or if it's an all or nothing.

>> Yeah, I mean certainly I could if if there's things that you want we us to provide for feedback. If you don't like that idea of them installing a free crosswalk and sidewalk for the town and

abutting property owners, we can certainly do that and tell them that and say no, thank you. >> Well, >> Just say this. So they're looking to install I just I just pulled up the the latest revisions,

right? So >> So can you pull it up on the screen? Is there a diagram that we could actually see what you're talking about? >> This was intended to be a brief update, but not surprised this is more

involved. Um >> Do you have the diagram? >> Yeah, well, I mean I don't show a diagram for everything, right? So there's there's the proposal. >> So there is a sidewalk in front of Polly's. >> Yep. >>

So rapid flashing beacons from town hall. Um so there's your brand new beautiful crosswalk. ADA compliant. Um >> Can you add that to this meeting's package cuz I'm sure people would be interested. >>

I could do that. >> And so is that the town's right of way in front of the brick building? So there's a 5-ft Because I know Boston Road from when you turn from Singletary onto Boston Road is a 60-ft

right-of-way. I don't know what the right-of-way way is for Boston Road going down towards 146. That wasn't part of the old county road. The old county road I think came Singletary to Boston Road. So,

I don't >> show I don't I mean I can't see it clearly from here, but they typically show There's your 1936 massive right-of-way on the common. Right? Um >> They could actually cut in more if they

wanted to. >> And then I don't know if this is the same thing here. Uh Nick, if you could see that, but >> That looks like the same thing over there. >> Yeah. >> On Boston Road. >> Yep. >> So, there's

your public >> you can see the the the dotted line of the county layout. >> Yeah, and that's the same thing. >> It goes well beyond the benches. >> Right, so who owns and Oh, he left. Nick. >> And on

the Boston >> Who So, who owns the county layout? The town or the state? Town. It's a town road, so it's our it's our layout, right? >> Not necessarily. The only way we >> You know, it's like the

intersection down the police station. Uh it still has a county layout down there. The state has the controlling [snorts] interest. That's the reason why we were not able to shrink that intersection

when we were talking about uh the the changes when we put the police station in. >> Thank god, cuz it's going to have a traffic calming circle pretty soon, so it's good that it's that wide. >> Um

Yeah, in the road. So, they would take care of that. >> So, what they're doing is they're getting rid of the long crosswalk that goes across the entrance to the library. So, when we did O'My Gordon

had our event at the blacksmith shop, it was horrific to try to cross people there. So, they would be extending the sidewalk down um towards across from the old beehive, making people cross there and

come up the sidewalk, or cross the sidewalk and then have a short sidewalk in front of Polly's. Which are they Would they have to then put a retaining wall, cuz that's a huge hill? You know, that >>

Yeah, it looks like they're they're I mean, there's a still very much draft plan, guys. I mean, I think they're at the stage of asking for feedback from us. >> Yeah, well, this is feedback. >> Yeah, I

I hear you. Um >> I mean cuz originally before they redid the road, Paulie's didn't have that hill. The road was higher. They sunk the road down when they changed it. That's how that big hill came.

Because there was >> And this would be installed by the state. Would this be maintained by the state in the long term? >> No. >> Uh I think the stuff that's accepted within the town's right-of-way,

no. I mean that would That would be our sidewalk. That would be our rapid flashing beacon. Um if it's on the state road, it would be theirs, yeah. >> Right. And the state road only goes Singleterry to

Boston Road heading west to Putnam Hill Road down to the Douglas line. >> I'd be okay with this. >> And so just to be clear again, they're looking to go all the way down to Tuttle, so there's a

section obviously that there is no sidewalk, so >> Yeah, we we had residents that came before us several years ago saying that they wanted us to extend the sidewalk just so they could have more area

to walk. >> Yep. >> But I think this would be great. It would uh deal with our concerns about, you know, access to the common from the library. Yeah. Yeah, I'd be okay with this. >> How How far is

that to Tuttle Road? Quarter mile? >> Oh boy. I >> Probably more than that. From where the sidewalk ends cuz it ends at the >> guy who knows roads. >> Maybe about a half mile? >> Yeah, it's more than

a quarter. It's more >> It's It's not too far beyond Paulie's. >> Paulie's. >> It doesn't go all the way to Johnson Crossing. >> It's a >> So then that that leads to >> decent stretch, right? >> So

Austin, if if that sidewalk went on the common, um then does that solve the issue about parking on the common? Cuz now the the sidewalk is going right along the existing road and it's sitting on the

farthest point of the right-of-way. So once you get to the crosswalk, now if you're going to allow cars to park, that sidewalk would have to jog in and then run along the other side. It wouldn't make

sense. You'd have cars parked up to the crosswalk, then your sidewalk would curve around the front of the the last parked car to pick up the sidewalk put in by the DOT. So does that just kind of solve

the problem now? Because how many how It looks like the sidewalk's going right past the crosswalk. >> Yeah, cuz I think that's ADA, right? So, it's What is it? 10 or 15 ft you got to go beyond. >>

Right. So, then what do you What do you got left from that >> Oh, boy. I don't know. >> Nothing. I mean, what? Four cars? Three cars? It doesn't solve the problem. I think I think you're going to have

to Should you have a public hearing before you accept this? Who's authorized or does this have to go to town meeting? >> Typically no. I don't believe so. Right, Nick? For something like this, town

meeting? >> Oh. >> Hey, can I get in on this for now? Or you against the rules? >> Jonathan, are you going to let John give us his two cents as a senior statesman? >> [laughter] >> I'll give you a

couple minutes. >> A couple? What's that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. I just want to Maybe I don't understand. >> mic first, John. >> It's good you're giving me time. Wow. John Caffey, 75 Leavitt Home Road.

Just one question. Uh just one question. >> Yeah. >> The one at the library. >> Yeah. >> Are you going to eliminate parking up up to that uh uh crosswalk? >> Right. Um so, north of the crosswalk. >>

North and south. >> Yeah. Cuz they're supposed to be a certain distance from a crosswalk. >> read 20 ft, but uh I don't know if it's uh To me, the the the parking should be eliminated on that library

side, we'll call it. >> So, Nick looks like he wants to chime in, too. He's standing. >> This side. Why not? >> Yeah, I'd be happy to. >> you got? Comments? >> Nick, do you have a comment? >> Near the

curve, it probably would. Yeah, from that crosswalk. >> He's he's not coming? >> From basically here on. >> Oh, there he is. >> There'd be no parking there. >> Unless you widen the road >> forward,

too, because I think they're supposed to be 20 ft from a crosswalk. >> Unless you widen the road and you do what Millbury did and you did the bump outs. Good evening, board members. >> Hi, Nick. Good

evening, Nick. >> Nick Repecka, Highway Superintendent. Uh >> Uh, so, my interpretation of this plan is uh, obviously safety upgrades for the town. Um, I we already plow the sidewalks from the center

down Singletary Ave to just pa- right around Cole Ave or a little bit past it. So, I would assume we would pick up the sidewalk plowing to have that connectivity down to Tuttle. Um, the rapid flashing

beacons, my understanding um, if they're solar, uh, obviously there's no electric bill, but they would be ours, especially the ones that would be uh, put in the right of way. And essentially what I

see the state doing is they're um, they're going to fill that gap, right? If they're they're putting a crosswalk from the uh, from the library across Fitchburg Road and then connecting the sidewalk,

they they're just filling the gap. >> Right. >> Um, we don't have anything in the plans yet. We we applied for that grant um, for design work for the part to the south, which would be to my left. >>

When did you apply for that grant? >> Um, a couple months back. >> After your meeting? >> Yeah, after your meeting we applied for the grant for engineering. >> So, was that a shared streets grant

again? >> Uh, yeah, so it's the um, I forgot what the DOT calls it, but it's it's Yeah, they're going to they're going to plug it into whatever grant is applicable for that design. >> Did the

application require a public hearing cuz the prior [clears throat] one that they sent several years ago, you had to check whether or not you had had a public meeting about the potential >> And I I see

where you're going. I think the distinction between the last program is there. I think they were actually asking for actual construction. >> Okay. >> In this case, we're looking to advance your goal

to get to some sort of idea for a design so we can tell you how much it'll cost. >> Okay. >> So, that's what that grant is is for the design and construction estimates of anything beyond what they're

doing on on this design. >> Cuz remember, I think you your feedback from you guys was very substantial reconfigurations of the common. You're talking about teeing off an intersection, um, making

improvements to the entire common both on the church circuit side. You also talked about a parking lot on the other side of the red house here. So, that's a pretty substantial program that needs

substantial design for us to come back with a cost estimate for it. >> So, this would improve safety if we wanted to use the municipal lot to the north of the gas station that we own the old high

school lot, too. For a parking because now this would improve the intersection to make it easier to cross the road with the B sidewalk. >> And if you if you can see they're reconfiguring uh where

their crosswalk is now, that the long one that you mentioned about going to the blacksmith shop, that's getting moved further down away from the stop sign. >> Is there going to be a cross There's not

going to be a crosswalk down there, either. So, >> that I'm aware of. I don't think it's >> crosswalk would be here and then at the soccer fields. So, not at Collab or anything, either. >> No. >>

Yeah. >> Well, cuz you can't put a crosswalk to nothing, right? So, you they'd probably put AD improvements at the on the other side of the road to get them into the soccer field side. >> Yep. >> So,

here it is right here. Here's the [snorts] entrance, right? And then >> Yep. And those are rapid flashing beacons there as well and a little piece of connectivity sidewalk into that >> Into a gravel

drive parking lot? >> They've met the requirement, right? >> And then going all the way down to to Tuttle where there's a crosswalk here as well and then the brief bit of Sorry, it's a little delayed.

Brief bit of sidewalk there as well. >> Yeah, unfortunately that crosswalk goes to nothing, but >> Right. >> Yeah, why do they have to have it on the other side like that? >> I think to make it ADA

compliant, right? >> It's got to go somewhere. >> Yeah. Even though it's nothing? >> But it's crossing a street, that's why. >> So, that's where in our discussion about the common, that's where things

get complicated. If we wanted to improve our crosswalks here, we then have to extend the I'm going to call them the wings out, right? And then you have wings going to nowhere, especially on this

crosswalk to this crosswalk. You have a bit of grass. >> So, that's why when we were talking with you guys, it's like, well, we'd probably have to install a sidewalk. >> So, would they approve improve

the sidewalk where it enters the the gas station? Because you have to walk across the gas station and there's no sidewalk there. >> Right, but that's a that's not a I mean yeah, essentially it's in

the public way, but it's a driveway. I mean you wouldn't put a crosswalk across somebody's driveway. >> But would you have a sidewalk because they're in a public way there? How would Now it's not safe

for people. So, I'm pushing my grandmother in a wheelchair. I get to the Sunoco station. I have to run like heck because people are pulling in and out. >> No. If someone pushes that my baby carriage

across your driveway when you're pulling out your driveway. >> It that's just an expensive piece of asphalt. >> It's a it's a expensive driveway, but it's still the same as going to >> They don't

install like those warning things or anything for driveways or anything. So, it's just for like crosswalks, right? >> Right. Typically. >> So, let's say we had let's say this plan wasn't here and we

were talking about doing ADA compliant crosswalks which we need to do anyway. >> You'd have to do crosswalk here and you'd have to have 10 ft on each side. >> [clears throat] >> So, in this case

they're they're doing a a little bit of the work for us. And installing a new crosswalk on the other side going to Polly's. >> But essentially leaving a blank slate on the left-hand side of where

we're all looking now. On the extra Druid side, yeah. Essentially leaving blank slate for us to do whatever may come from a design. >> What's the What's the length of that? Right now what do you get

mostly all the way up right to the crosswalk not even leaving the 10 or 20 ft on the crosswalk, but you pick up six. So, you're going to lose you're going to lose that as well, right? So, you'd have

maybe five spots and you'd have to jog you'd have to have a sidewalk now cuz you'd have to have a crosswalk at the town hall. Yeah. And in that case you've got to leave 10 ft on either side. >> The

direction I got from you guys was to to not have parking on that side. So, we're going to come back with something that >> wouldn't have parking on that side. >> Oh, yeah. Unless you change your mind.

But >> Yeah, we talked about doing the takings on the back side. >> Yeah. >> on the church circuit widening that road. >> Or the parking separate parking lot that would provide much more parking than

Church Circuit. >> Yeah, well, I think you guys said both, right? You want to see everything. >> To see the cost differences. >> But but I'll just say right now >> I thought we wanted to see all three

possibilities. >> Yeah. >> This takes care of This takes care of a portion of >> Yep. >> the design without having to deal with the ADA compliant >> Yep. >> side crosswalks. >> Yep. >> I I Well, I was

>> design that would be that you'd be coming back to us with would be from here down. >> Yeah, and around this the church. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Circuit. >> Yep. >> How about um See, where the

crosswalk is, yeah. Um why can't you eliminate parking on that side? >> This side? That's what we're talking about. >> common to the 10-ft where the All the way go Go south of the crosswalk. See the

two rectangles that are in darker color with the arrow? >> Right here? >> Nope. Up towards the >> Yeah. >> Go over to your to your left. >> My left, yeah. >> One, two. So, they can't be any car parked

in front of those two spots to be ADA compliant, either. So, right now people park right on either side of that crosswalk right up to it. Yes. >> lose all the spots on that side unless they widen the

road. >> Or unless two >> You're going to lose You're going to lose all the parking on both sides. >> There's going to be another crosswalk up here, too. >> Well, maybe not. >> Well, there has to be

cuz how do you get from the common to the town hall? >> to have to do that that one. >> Yeah. >> And again, you that whole design is still up in the air. We don't know where it's at yet because we

haven't been awarded any funding for any design work for it. So, >> Yeah. >> I mean, what essentially is there now is essentially there until something changes. So, like I said, that whole left side

outside of this plan is still a blank slate, right? We don't know what's going to happen yet because we don't have a design for it. >> Well, how about what I'm asking? I'm Yes or no, I'm I'm not

getting an answer to this crosswalk. That can you eliminate parking on this side? then you have a wider road. See uh right there? Am I in the right >> Well, I think they had mentioned previously that

the current parking spots on this town hall side are not code. They're not wide enough. So, I mean, we already have So, we're out of compliance on this side, and we have no lines on the other side,

and we're jumping a curb with this which is illegal. So, in all honesty, the parking on either side of this road isn't up to the state requirements. >> Which could change with a potential new design.

We just don't know what that is yet. Because we haven't been awarded funding if we can even get any funding for a resolution. >> So, what's their timing for this? >> Uh it's in the tip uh 20 Do you do

you remember the topic? >> I should have brought my my >> Former MPO member, do you remember? This was not in the tip at all. This must be way out. >> It's it's it's a little bit hard to find because

it's not distinct to sudden. It just says district wide. So. >> So, was it for FY 28? >> So, the the last the last tip program that I that we were discussing there was some major projects that got

shifted. So, there was opening of monies. So, it's possible that this could go to the 2028-2029 time frame. See if I can find it. >> So, one question I have is let's say we go forward with this plan,

and then we you come back with your plan, and we have to widen this road, what would happen to this sidewalk here? Like cuz more than likely we're going to have to take it from this side. So, what

would we >> Well, we don't know. But, we don't know. I mean, I think if the state comes in, we would have to widen it on both sides. >> [clears throat] >> No, the state's not asking us to widen it.

They're putting it right from the county layout 1936 to the current existing sidewalk. They're going from the county layout. >> Right. But, with the county layout, they could go in to where the

benches >> But, they're not doing that. >> wanted to. >> And you're up against it on the town hall side. >> Yeah, he wants to what I mean. Mhm. >> You eliminate parking on the town hall side, you that

widens the road. >> Right, and a parking lot would solve all of that problem. >> No. >> All right, well, we're not getting into that right now. >> you aware. >> Yep. >> Uh what do you have? >> Thank

you. >> Bye. >> Thanks. >> That's it. That's all I have. Sorry, guys. Yeah. >> All right, any other questions for Austin? >> No. >> All right, next we have announcements, select board round table,

correspondence, and business topics. >> Uh I have a few, Mr. [clears throat] Chairman. Uh first off, I would like to congratulate all of the fourth group that put on Oh My Gourd. Um I came at the end

of day. It was phenomenal. The just the creativity of our residents, you know, just it just boggles my mind. Um the winners of the scarecrows and the pumpkins, uh just incredible. And I know that

April and John and Mark and everyone else that volunteered their time, including a really scary-looking witch that had her face in a book, um that spent some time on the common this weekend. Um you

know, it was really great event. So, and from what I understand, our trunk-or-treat went off really well, and the the costume parade was awesome, too. So, um thank you to everyone who gave their time

to have a wonderful event Sutton. And speaking of Halloween, of course, Saturday is uh Halloween, [clears throat] so just be mindful as you're driving around, you know, we got kiddos out there in

costumes. And I'm sure most of them will be up in the Highlands, but uh you never know where the random kids are. So, just slow down on Saturday evening. Um of course, we got election day. Don't

forget to go out and vote on Tuesday. And we do have an extensive food pantry list. They're looking for tomato soup, potatoes, canned potatoes, canned spinach, mandarin oranges, canned pears, Spam,

hash, coffee, both regular and decaf, raisins, pancake syrup, cold cereal, Pop-Tarts, hot chocolate, juice, juice boxes, juice bottles Hamburger Helper mayonnaise cookie mix pie filling pie crust

cooking oil paper towels toilet paper hand soap the liquid kind women's deodorant dish soap sponges laundry detergent, the family size and wet and dry cat and dog food. And of course you can drop off

items at the Sutton Senior Center directly during normal business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. You can drop them off at the box in town hall. St. Mark's does a collection, the First Church does a

collection, there's box down at Market 32, and of course you can always drop them off at the transfer station. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank >> Thank you. Anything else? >> Jesse hit it all.

>> Dan, you have anything? >> No. >> Okay, I have um one thing is um so around the review process, I know that you and Jim were >> Yes, so we're looking to get >> [clears throat] >> on an agenda um

transferring Austin's review period to June to June instead of having it be in December. Um but we I think that has to be a an agenda item instead of just a general discussion. So, if we can get that

on the next >> Yeah, cuz we need to get that going cuz if we're not going to change it, then we need we're going to be starting the process fairly soon. So, we need to do that probably within the next

meeting. >> Wasn't that changed when he was hired? >> No, that that Well, it was changed from the original. I think it was more like in the fall, but now it was moved to December. So, it's in his

contract. So, what they're suggesting is we move it to June. >> So, under the prior town manager, it was always this December >> It was It was It was like October. >> It was the annual date was his

start date. >> [clears throat] >> So, it was always in August when we did the preliminaries and we did the evaluation in September. What we did when we made Austin's contract is we wanted to give him

6 months to get grounded and then use that 6-month period. That's the reason why the language in the contract the December just to kind of gauge him at that point just to kind of give him you know

kudos or props and and and all the rest. So what we ended up doing last year is we did the trial run. >> Mhm. >> And then what we basically said is okay, well we gave him goals also and we couldn't

measure the goals in December because some of them needed to get done this during the June. So we kind of gave him a preliminary evaluation and and we kind of really didn't really go back to the goals

>> No. >> in June. So we kind of missed that ball. >> But we were looking to have a formal change from June to June and just for the record Austin was was okay with that. So >> Yep. So yeah, so I

think we should discuss that at a proper meeting. So I just want to bring that up cuz the time is ticking. So if we don't then we need to start the process of the review now like within the next few

weeks like probably early December is when we would start. So we're almost into November. >> Um while we're at it Austin expressed to me if we're going to be discussing contract he uh expressed an

interest in increasing the length of time of his contract longer. So he would like us to discuss that as well if we'd be interested in another couple years or I don't know what your thoughts are but

>> So we look into >> [clears throat] >> renegotiate a new contract or just negotiate an extension? >> Extension. >> extension. Yeah, I'd like to stay longer if you'll have me. >> And I think as we

talked about in our subgroup first and foremost I think um uh my contract is very much um in many cases a copy and paste of of Jim's contract. There's some things that I think both mutually for the

select board and for myself I think we can change. So I have some some suggestions elsewhere within the contract that I think would be reasonable to both both of us. But the primary as I mentioned to

to Jonathan is um I'd be interested if you were in in staying longer. >> Yeah. So um So I guess the best way to do that cuz we obviously want to review something as a board. Do we want to discuss it

all as a board or do we want to have like a sub-subcommittee of two people to sit down and look >> Executive session. Just you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, but I say as a board, not Yep. >> Yeah, yeah, in

executive session cuz that would be contract negotiation. Yeah. All right. So, there's two pieces >> Technically I'm sorry. >> Yeah, no, no, so there's two pieces to this. So, there was there's the

review process which would is part of >> your contract now >> would be modified and then some items that you're coming to and then also your time. >> Yep. >> Okay. So, we should definitely get that

going as soon as possible. All right, anything else on that? All right. Um one last thing that I wanted to uh address is um just around the um the leadership group or the tri-board. Um I just want to

be make sure that people understand um what the role of that board is. Um you know, that board was really put together to create a communications path between the select board, the schools, and um the

finance committee during the budget season. And um what I want people to understand is at the end of the day uh that that that group can kind of give a recommendation, but at the end of the day the

select board is accountable for the budget as a whole. So, they may make a recommendation. Austin came to us with that recommendation at a meeting. We discussed it. And we he gave us some options and

we chose the hybrid option which would be for [clears throat] the in order to meet the budget deficit we would use some of the um reserves that we have and then the town and the schools would have to

figure out where to make the appropriate cuts to to meet the budget for this year. So, I just want to make be sure that people understand kind of uh how that process works. But at the end of the day,

we are accountable for those decisions. We also want to make it clear, too, that the um you know, the reduction that is being requested of the schools is from an increase that they're requesting this

year of $1.1 million. This the the 600k that we would be asking them to look at would come out of that $1.1 million increase, not from a decrease in level funding. So, I just want people to understand

that cuz I don't think that that's quite clear and um obviously things are going to change. This is very, very early in the process and um as we discuss strategies and try to figure out ways to deal

with this, this needs to be a joint effort between the town and the schools and other departments to work together to solve this problem that we face. And we've got a lot of structural issues as

Austin had put out there, we're facing at some point if things don't change, $11 million deficit. And it's going to be a um a you can we can't tax our way out of that. So, um I just want to caution

everybody from starting to point fingers at each other and to work together to solve this. And uh if if this just turns into a you know, um pointing fingers at each other, we're going to end up and

it's going to be a lot harder process. So, I just want people to understand um the importance that I don't think there's a person on this board who wants to see cuts happen, but we're facing this

situation and it's not prudent. The board made a decision about this cuz it's not prudent for us to use all of our reserves and unfortunately we're in this situation. So, I just want us to be mindful

of that and uh make sure that we're communicating with each other. So, that's what I just wanted to say. >> Anybody else have anything? >> Oh, no, I agree. I agree. Um one of the things that we've

seen over the last couple of years is that particularly from the school committee side, you know, they they do a little I'm not saying they do smoke and mirrors, but they do use, you know, tricky

language and semantics and you know, I mean I get it. They're a department. They're advocating for their department and their department's important to them, but they got to understand that they are

the largest line item in the town budget and we are responsible for the town as a whole. So, now is not the time to play games. Now is is the time, as you said Mr. Chairman, for us to realize the

situation we're in. You know, understand that there was a lot of decisions made in the past that got us here, but there's nothing we can do about those decisions. We need to deal with the realities of

today. And and we saw this on our our our our our tax structure. You know, a $700,000 increase. That's what we're looking at between this year and next and and if one department's coming at us with a

a budget request increase of in excess of a million dollars, there's not enough money for that to happen. So, now is the time to go to work. We we as you said, we have to be collaborative and it's

it's we're not here to play spite. We're not here to attack any department because all of the departments, you know, have to tighten their belts and I think if we work together, we'll be able to get

through this next budget season. Won't be fun. Won't be easy, but we've done it before and we'll do it again. >> All right, thank you. And then part of our discussion on that, as Jonathan just

mentioned, dipping into the reserves, as we're going forward, you need to understand and everyone needs to understand collectively that there is a short-term window that we need to fix and have

answers for, but we also need a long-term view and dipping into reserves to to cover one year um doesn't make sense and leaving zero. So, that's why we were discussing the percentage of what to take

now and not not just raid the reserves to cover a one-year problem that took a a problem that took four or five 10 years to build. So, you can't raid the reserves just to fill one budget item or

department. Those reserves have to be have to be kept as we're developing a long-term plan. And by kept, I don't mean zero, but we decided somewhere around the 50% mark on on a couple of different

items is what we talked about at the last meeting. But, the reserves aren't there to be completely raided in 1 year. >> Well done. >> Thank you. >> All right. Um anything else on the correspondence or

anything? Okay. Um next we have executive session. Anybody have a motion for executive session? >> Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion to enter into an executive session pursuant to Mass. General

Law, Chapter 30A, Sections 21, number seven, vote to approve select board executive session meeting minutes from October 6th, 2026, with the sole purpose of reentering regular session for adjournment

only. >> Second. >> Okay, any other discussion? Roll call vote, please. >> Justin Lamonica, >> Walker, I. >> Spangler, I. >> Anderson, I. >> Good night, everyone. >> I just need signatures. >> Are we

off? >> Nope.