both of you. >> There's background noise somewhere. Okay. Good afternoon everyone. Today is the May 21st meeting of the finance committee as we continue to do budget reviews and uh today is the last of the
reviews with DPW, the Enterprise Funds and Water and Sewer Rate. Uh the first order of business is to make sure the members can hear and be heard. And seeing that we have a quorum, I will call out names as I see them on my
screen. Lynn >> present. >> Councelor Breick >> present. >> Kathleen Mitchell >> present. >> Tom Porter >> present. >> Joseph of Jane. >> Yes, I'm here with the background noise.
>> Okay. Um and uh there is still one counselor missing. Um two counselors missing. Um so I when they join I will let them know. And currently um Mandy is here not on the
committee. And Mandy since we wouldn't have a quorum of the town council do you want to uh should I make sure that you can hear us and we can hear you? I mean I can but I will monitor the
counselors and if a quorum comes in I will let you know otherwise I'll have my video off. >> Okay then um we we normally start with public comments at the beginning. Now we did mo I don't I'm seeing we have no attendees so I won't worry about public
comments right now. Um so I I think we can start right in. I see that um Guilford Moing and Amy Roski are with us. Um and um if you would m like to make any um opening comments, we welcome
them. And thank you very much for getting us written responses. Um uh we we received them around 11:30 this morning. So it was a quick read for many of us. So if we repeat some of the questions, um please excuse us. So,
Guilford, Amy, you can jump in however you might like. >> Um, I really have I just froze. Sorry. Um, I really have no opening comments. Um, you have the budget. If you have some questions, I'm just here to answer
them. >> Right. Amy, same question. Right. So, um, the lead on this set of questions, and I don't know whether you've had a chance to read the responses, Kathleen, Tom Porter, and Joe Jane, do you want to jump in with
follow-up questions um, clarifying on responses that we received? And if not, I'm willing to do it. Um, I I can I can ask a couple of clarifying questions that I had as I was um reading through, but I I only was
able to take a look at them um shortly before the meeting. So, um you know, apologies if I missed something that uh was was was really clarified already. Um let's see. Uh,
I was hoping that you could I know that there's been you could say a little bit more about the challenges specifically with the highway department. I know that there's been an issue of vacancies. There's been an issue of a frozen position. there's been an issue of um
that operating expense budget not being um increased for many years and now you got a little bump for you know for for next year. Um so I just was we sort of heard a little bit about it in different questions and I just didn't know if
either of you wanted to speak a little bit about the challenges specifically with that department because I know that we hear a lot about about the roads and I'm sure you do too. So in the highway department right now we have one person who's on
administrative leave. Um we have three vacancies and we have one person who has an accommodation for a medical condition. Um so we can have and then we have the
the eliminated position. It's not really frozen because you didn't fund it last year. So it doesn't exist this year. So, it was eliminated for 26. Um, I kind of like to point that out. It's semantics, but really that's what it is. It's gone. It wasn't funded for 26, so it's not
frozen anymore. If it was frozen, you could unfreeze the money and we could have a position, but it's not. So, that's bas roughly five to six people. We don't have every out of a 12 person crew. So that is the one division right
now besides wastewater. Wastewater is uh got two two vacancies. Um but they're and they have a longer startup time, training time than the highway department does. So they're
wastewater and highway are about in the same boat. The only issue is is that everybody in Ammer sees the highways every day, at least twice a day, going to work and coming home. So, um, that's that's a big problem is we just have not been able to recruit people. Um, people
we are getting to apply for jobs do not live close by. They live outside the area, so they're driving in. Um, they're now paying $4.50 a gallon for gas. Um, it gets to be uh gets to be uh trying to try to keep people in the
highway division right now. Um Guilford, do you do you have a sense is it the job itself? Um so are are Northampton or surrounding towns having a similar problem for this job or is it
our wage level? Is it what combination um with accounts for the this challenge? >> I I think the biggest issue is the change in the overall workflow workforce. I mean, you're hear you're
seeing stories about the adult male population checking out of the work for force. Um, you're seeing stories about people just not wanting to do manual jobs and those type that type of work. Um, we're not the only one. Northampton's in a worse position than
we are. I was I've been in training all week and I'm the Southampton highway director DPW director is in in the training with me and uh he's half he's half staffed as well but for him um he has eight total he has four people
for the whole whole department. So it's it's kind of a we're just at one of those positions in the in the mark labor market where we're uh not seeing a lot of people looking for these jobs. Jill. >> Yeah, this seems like a really complex
challenge and um I yeah, really difficult to manage, I imagine. And I just I had a question looking at the budgets year-over-year and thinking about as it says 18 vacancies in one year or a third of the workforce. How do you
manage that? the budget stays pretty pretty similar year-over-year for um with with that kind of fluctuation and workforce. How do you manage that from a budget perspective? That seems like an additional pretty significant challenge.
>> It it takes a lot of Amy's time. So, um, I basically lose half of Amy's time for for her to do the things that we need to do, you know, discussing things in water, wastewater with the outside regulators, which she does a very good job with. She spends more of
her time pushing paper and interviewing and scheduling interviews and doing uh doing background checks. >> Checks. Yeah, >> it would be it'd be easier. I could have more of her time if we didn't have that. You want to add, Amy? No, I was just
gonna I was going to throw in uh reference checks. That was the word you were looking for. But yeah, I mean, we call it job security. I guess that it's job security that I don't want. Um I'd rather have the workforce and be able to focus on other stuff, but um yeah, it's been a challenge. It's
definitely been a challenge. >> Do do you do you expect um the we Paul just told us the contract has been settled. Do you expect that to help? Maybe Guilford, I think you said with the manual labor, it's a more of a chronic uh people that want to do tough
jobs. Will it help with some of the other repeated vacancies or turnover? >> It's going to the signing the contract is is going to help on the water side. the water department guys. U I think this the changes in the salaries there
it will be greatly appreciated and we'll probably be a little more sta we'll continue to be stable there. The wastewater side um I'm hoping it stabilizes the the employees there. We have three people who are operators in training. They'll take their I think a
couple of them are ready to take their fours, aren't they, Amy? >> Yeah, Tom Thomas actually passed his earlier this week. Oh, great. So, so hopefully those employees will want to stay because the pay is is better. Um Thomas will get moved from an operator
in training to an operator um right now. Have you already did you process that Amy? >> Uh no, because he he passed the test so he has to apply for the license. >> I haven't applied yet. Okay. So, he'll be he'll get a nice bump in pay and
hopefully they'll stay. Um and then we don't know about the rest. >> I mean I am hopeful that it's part of the challenge also with recruiting these positions and with this contract thing lingering was at time as I'm trying to negotiate and you know we find a good
candidate we're trying to bring them on. I'm only able to offer them FY25 salaries. Um and so it's really hard to bring them on with that. And so I am hopeful that the um the contract being agreed to at least puts us in a place where we can offer a more competitive
salary and get some of this talent. >> Jill, >> just more of a technical question on that. the final stages of negotiations and any salary changes, are those reflected in the budget that we're looking at or there will would expect
changes as a result of the end of that process maybe for Sean or >> we included estimates um and so now uh we're working with human resources to see exactly you know where everyone falls in the new contract there were a lot of reclassifications of positions so
there's some bigger bumps in those situations S um so I think the budget should be good because we did um you know build those estimates into it but uh if there's any any budget issues we'll communicate that >> and Sean is that I assume that's also true for enterprise funds where some of
the bumps went up and we and we did that we did people increases um there >> yeah there's an additional operator in each each enterprise fund >> and that was built into the rates we're seeing y Okay, Kathleen.
>> Yeah, this may be more of a question for Sean or or Sean could weigh in if it's more relevant. Um, there was a couple of questions we had about the operating expense budgets um those lines and that they hadn't increased over time. And I think it's the I think one of the
responses said it added this year added let me see if I if I made a note of it get the right language. Um the operating budget is 100,000 higher than what was actually spent in FY25. So, I just wanted to clarify when
you say that, do you mean um like does that take into account money that was funds that would have been taken from vacancies to cover operating expenses? Um or you know I'm just I'm
just trying to understand like is that in total or is that not accounting for sort of the ways in which we've had to cover these costs in the past when when they haven't been sufficiently budgeted. >> Yeah. So that that's total operating expense budgets. So it's not including
personnel u but it is everything that's charged to the operating expenses. Uh and so you know Guilford's response I think about not having enough funding to support uh materials and things like that. I was just trying to clarify that
there's always unknown and so there with DPW in particular there's things that pop up during the year. There's different issues that happen that can drain a lot of Guilford's resources all at once. Um but at least sort of comparing it to FY25 we we've invested a big you know a large increase into those
accounts. Um, and I wanted to point out, you know, I carved out snow and ice because we don't with snow and ice, there's a we don't typically increase that um because there's a a carve out in in the tax rate setting process with snow and ice and uh so if we increase it, you can never decrease it in the
future. Uh so we kind of keep that level where it is. >> Lynn, >> yeah. Uh first of all, thanks for getting the responses to the questions. This really dovetales into what we've been talking about and that is as we
look at the budget the increases seem to be uh both a combination of personnel and operating and I'm really asking for confirmation that I'm reading that correctly. Okay. And then and I'm assuming on the personnel side it was
the two positions but it was also the increase in salaries. And on the operating side, it's this idea that we have not properly funded operating all this time and therefore we're increasing it. But yet, when I read the response to
the questions, the there's a nuance there, if you will, maybe it's not so nuanced, that basically suggests that we actually may still not have hit the operating number we need. And if you could just speak to that either,
Guilford, Sean, whatever. >> You want to start, Guilford? >> Yes. We have not reached the number we need. Um, we I mean, one of the questions and I was looking I came in today to look for my chapter 90 spreadsheet, but I can't find it. But
after we get through budgeting next our next contract for paving, we'll have 375 or around $300,000, which is the fair share money that state gives us. um that fair share money has no strings attached and we'll use that for potholes next
year. This year and next year we'll use that for potholes because there's no strings attached to it because there's not enough money has been not enough money has been added to the budget to cover our potholes. I mean Sean's talking about $100,000 added. There was some added to cover the contract
contract we have for maintaining the comfort stations. We we have to contract that out. Um, we added some money to cover some of our We actually have several licenses we must procure to be able to run some of our software and some of our
programs. Um, that's part of the increases. Um, what was increased was not enough to run the department. We'll still run short >> and and I can just add quickly
>> well we you do okay. personnel costs have kept up because the contract contracts kind of require that you keep the contracts and the personnel cost up. But in the operating side, no. >> And just adding to that, um, one of the areas that I, you know, looking at it with Guilford, utilities is always a
concern, rising electricity prices. I think somebody called out street lights as being an area, you know, that that made the major issue there is electricity prices. Um, another area is the collective bargaining agreement. the the wages are good in terms of the budget. Uh but there's also other parts
of the collective bargaining agreement that increase things like uniform allowances and different things like that that come out of Guilford's operating expenses. And so that's hard to budget exactly because it's sort of based on what everyone submits every year, but we, you know, we try to that
was an area we increase, but did we increase it enough? We won't know until we see how this year plays out. So um yeah, we made a large investment into the operating expenses. Will it, you know, will Guilford be saying, "I got everything I need for, you know, um, all the expenses that come up during the
year?" I think it's still going to be a challenge. >> So, Lynn, uh, Jill, then Lynn, then >> Jill and others, I'm I'm actually moving on to my next question. >> Okay. So, Jill, are we building you building off of this? Yeah, that
actually was most of what I was going to ask, but I had a just a small followup because I saw that the number of miles resurfaced jumped quite a bit from 24 to 25. Do you know what it was in 26 and or
what you expected to be in 27? >> Um, no. I don't know those numbers off the top of my head for 26. 26 will be less than 25. >> Okay. um because we did some more full depth reclamations than we did in 25.
Um so the we spent more money on the roads individually than than we did in 25. um 27 we are um we're doing about well we'll do about 6 to7 million between what's left on the
current contract we have out there which we're finishing and then the new contract is about five well it'll be about four million so I guess we're closer to the six range >> Joe >> oh thank you uh Guilford good to see you uh thank you for all you do for this
town. Um I last uh last year we just getting back to um challenges, staffing challenges. Um you you said efforts are underway to adjust salaries and make contractual changes through negotiations to improve uh retention. Is that still
the case? Is that still happening? So the this our two associations, our big associations, they uh voted to ratify what was offered to them. So I guess we're wait they're waiting for the final documents and then they'll sign contracts hopefully in the next two
weeks. >> Two weeks. Okay. Awesome. And are we um allowed to ask about paving projects yet? Is that or is that a separate uh Kathy? Is that something we should wait on? Um well, we we open the door to the
amount we're going to spend and the mileage is less certain. So, so go on to paving. Yeah. >> Okay. Um Governor, uh you just following up from kind of the notes from uh last year. Uh
are we still kind of two miles a year? Is that our is that our paving paving target? Is that still accurate kind of as an informal guideline? >> That's our target. We're hitting about three three to four depending on what type of surface treatment we put down. >> Okay. And um last year was
>> Can I clarify one thing real? Go for it. But that's not really our target though. I mean, if we wanted to keep our roads um at a higher quality, it's closer to like 8 to 10 miles, isn't it? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, we're doing three to four, but
aiming for 8 to 10 if we can ever get there. >> Okay. And so this two miles or or what whatever this informal guideline um is constrained by funding and staffing levels um but last year was noted that is it's often exceeded by combining
projects funded through water sewer and grant programs. Is that still accurate this year? >> It it is okay. >> Um that a little bit Gilford can just unpack that a little bit like when you're talking. Thank you. it is. So, we
have the chapter 90 work we're doing. Um, I was just looking for my quick list. I don't I'll look while you keep talk. Well, you keep asking questions. I can give you the list a little later. >> Um, uh, we have the Mass Works grant which is going on uh, which is a going
to University Drive the um, roundabout project and then we'll come in with our chapter 90 money and pave University Drive. Um, we have some CDBG money which will do some work in um hopefully on North Pleasant Street, just a small
section of North Pleasant Street. We've done a bunch of sidewalk work with CDBG money along the bigger section of North Pleasant, which is at the north end of town coming from North Ammerst heading back towards the campus. Um, we have some other money for sidewalks for you
to use for two sidewalk projects. Um and um our big our big our big uh actually this is kind of well our big grant we got this year was actually a grant that Pelum got and that's for water and sewer work we're doing in Pelum because we own
the water and sewer utilities in Pelum. >> Okay. >> But um that's our big grant we got this year. >> Okay. And last year you noted that the department implemented a program which focuses on these smaller repairs that you just referred to um through a
three-year bid cycle. Is that and is that still happening? These three-year bid cycles. >> Three-year bid cycles for the small work like sidewalk repairs, um water line improvements, sewer improvements, those are on a three-year we put a three-year
contract out. We're getting ready to put out um another three-year contract for the uh water pipe, sewers, and drain. Uh we're finishing the last third the third year of the sidewalk and small our carp project, concrete asphalt repair
project, our carp. >> Okay. >> Haven't found a good an acronym for anything else yet. >> Okay. And just one last thing. So, the these other projects, we we can't use this three-year bid cycle, which has kind of been successful on other projects because they're funded
federally. >> Well, the CDB, Community Development Block Grant, CDBG, um there's a bunch of federal requirements that go in those bids, and those bids are all independent bids. So, we don't group those. Um the Mass Works projects, we tend to keep
those separate. We group those and just do whatever the Mass Works project is. it's better and easier for the process of getting reimbured for the grant. That's just easier to handle. Um the paving we usually do in one year. We did two years this last year. Um we're
seeing how it works out. Um usually paving contracts do not work well that are multi-year for big projects because there's so much there's so much work in it. Um it just doesn't seem to work well and we get better prices when we do a
contract every year. And that's kind of how we're doing it right now. The we do have a a contract for we do a special treatment for the side the crosswalks downtown and we do have a multi-year contract for that. We have to bid that one out again.
>> That that works well. >> Okay, that's it for me for now. I appreciate it. Thank you for everything you do. >> Thank you, Lynn. >> Uh so, uh actually my questions are about roads. No surprise. Uh first of all, thank you for the street light on
Fox Lane. We got a wonderful Thank you from the people that live there. Um the um in the chart that you show, you show basically about half of the money for this year uh being spent. I assume the other half is because it was a two-year
contract >> for chapter 90. Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Now on the I just I'm I would like to just understand the difference of sources of money in chapter 90. Was it just this past year that for the first
time they said split the money and some of it is based on miles? >> That's the fair share. >> No, >> but that's the fair share money. >> That's the fair share miles. >> Okay. All right. So the chapter 90 formula which has not changed in 20
years uh remains as it is but the fair share money which you've said does not have any real strings attached to it um is basically based on road miles. >> Correct. And just and just to clarify, Lynn, the the money that doesn't have
strings on it is the direct payment they sent to us from FY24, >> which we we have in a fund and Guilford uses it for road repairs. The other money is sort of goes through a similar process as chapter 90, doesn't it, Guilford? >> No, it's not supposed to. Uh the fair
share money is just it's just there supposedly. So >> it's it's all in our B when you look at the table that we put it's in that allocation because they put it on our balance sheet for chapter 90. >> Correct. But it's you you use it differently. >> Okay. Okay. >> And and Guilford, do you have to apply
for the chapter 90? Is it project by project or how does that it draw down? >> So for for chapter if it's a true chapter 90 expense, you have to apply for the project. The project has to be approved and then if it's approved then
you go through the mass DOT bidding process or setup for bidding and then you bid it and then you construct and after you construct you can ask for reimbursement. >> Okay. so bureaucratic.
>> It's getting more. It used to be very It used to be a very simple, very easy program. Yeah. >> But it's actually becoming very bureaucratic. And actually the grants from the one-stop program is actually a >> much nicer to get those and much easier
to manage. So can um from the time you apply to approve to bidding to getting is that a year a half a year? >> No, it's not that long. It used to be it used to be we applied and we knew within
the next day if it was approved or not, but now it can take up to about a few weeks to get our approval. Um there's now two people in the chapter 90 office at district two. So, I think that's why it takes twice as long. Um, that's just
a joke. Sorry. Um, >> got it. >> And then once once you get it approved, then we have to go to the um the pre-bid office from DOT, get it approved for the pre-bid, get our get our work certified, and then get a list
of who which contractors are pre-certified to do this list, and then we can bid. It can take about a month and a half. >> Lynn and Kathleen. >> Kathleen, go ahead. >> Um, I was just going to ask, I know in
the past you've said that it it can be challenging for a town to compete for for paving contracts with like the state and just because they they they bid. I I I recall you having said or somebody having said, so correct me if I'm inaccurate, just that we're we're
bidding for such a smaller amount of a contract than some entities. And so then the question I would have would be, could we somehow, you know, pool with other towns to bid out? But but what you're saying about how we have to draw down, for example, chapter 90, it sounds
like that would be very challenging to sort of work in partnership if you're if each town is constricted in terms of how it um can draw down the money and it all the bureaucracy surrounding that. >> Um well, there are like the smaller
towns, the hilltowns, they work in their with their cogs, their council of governments. Um, and and there's a they they tend to pull all their money together and put out a bigger contract, but what their bigger contract is is about the same size as our contract. Um,
so they're we're about the same size contract. Uh, what we run into is when Mass Highway puts out a lot of work, people will want to bid that work more than they want to bid the municip municipal work. Um, Mass Highway is very
contractor friendly. Um, they have lots of things in their bids that provide uh additional funding to do certain things in their bids. There's a mobilization clause. We don't do we don't normally do mobilization clause. If we tell the
contractor you have to put your mobilization money and divide it up among your work items. It's not something that will pay you just to come to the job site. Um, but Mass Highway does. Um, and so it's it's more for a
contractor, it's more financially there's more financial benefit to do mass highway work. And then when you get a mass highway job, they have stricter requirements on getting the job done at certain times. So then they put more effort towards them and leave less
effort towards the m the municipal contracts. Um, UMass was doing their bidding more like Mass Highway and um, they actually switched more to our method of bidding. Um, Mass Highway has those really strict requirements.
UMass had really strict requirements. Uh, UMass was paying three times what we were paying to the same contractor to pave in Ammerst. >> Yes. >> And it's because of those. and the contractor whenever Mass UMass would call them, the contractor would say,
"Bye, we got to go and they would go get three times what we were paying them." Um, so UMass has actually started bidding more the way we do, which means they have bigger windows for accomplishing the job. It's not like you have to have it done in two weeks because graduation. They they schedule
it so there's a little more time to do the work. Um, and because of that, they have lower prices now. If you talk to Jason Vendetti or um Ray Jackson over at UMass, they'll tell you that they're getting better numbers in paving now because they've changed how they bid. Um
but then again, there are only so many bidding or paving contractors in town. Um there's one new one. Uh they they become a uh I wish I could remember their name. Giler, not Giler. Sorry. I'll remember
it later. There's one uh Andrich. Andrich is now a bigger contractor and um they're actually certified by Mass DOT. So we have one new guy in the in the area who's paving. They actually paved the roundabout at Amity Street. They did the base paving and they'll
probably do the rest. Um they did a lot of paving at around the North Common for uh for Caracus when they did the North Common project. So, there is one new contractor in town paving, but so we're up to four four contractors now we can
get bids from potentially. >> That was a lot. Sorry about that. >> That's okay. That was a good answer, Lynn. >> I'm still on roads. Um, so I assume that even though you have to apply for
chapter 90 money by project, there's a limit each year to how far we can go. Is that correct? >> The limit is the money in the in the in the budget and the well in our account is the that amount of money is the limit
>> is so the formula the amount the formula gives us that's our limit. >> That's our limit. And you mentioned that as we do projects, for instance, like uh the roundabout, um can we only bill for that project at the very end? Can't we
bill as we go along? >> No, the roundabout project, we can bill as we go along. Um actually, I have a I have a bill that's due soon. Um we try to do it monthly. It usually comes out to every two or 3 months, but we definitely have to have them all in by the end of the month, end of the year
>> because my sense has been that um Mass Highway wants to see their money spent before they give us more money. And so it's trying to figure out how to make sure we're spending down as fast as we can so that we look poor. I mean, that's
my way of saying it. >> We're pretty well caught up now. I mean, >> okay, >> with the la with the last request that Jason and and Guilford's team submitted, it drew down there were little pieces of prior ones left over from different variances that happened from prior approvals, but um you know, we're
halfway through the FY26 money in FY26. So, I think we're we're caught up. >> Okay, great. I think that's it for me. >> That's what I was going to ask. So the balance as you showed us in February, Sean, we're we've they keep a balance if
we don't draw down on a whole year, right? And then >> yeah, it rolls over and Yeah. So So the recent approval that we just received when Guilford goes out to bid and we get bid prices if they're competitive, a little bit of that could come back at the end of the project once it's done
and we know that there's no other expenses. Maybe a little bit of that could come back. But as of right now, that's committed for the for the projects they're working on. >> The most important thing is we in the past, we've never really had a good amount of money or a large substantial
amount of money coming from the town. So when the town gave a large infusion, we would hold off on the chapter 90 because next year if the town doesn't give anything, all we have is chapter 90 to pave. Um, so that's kind of how we would run the system. And then one of the
biggest issues in the in the whole Commonwealth probably is the fact that their capital money is based on fiscal year. So you have to spend it in the fiscal year or they have to do something to roll it over. Um so
the fiscal year ends in the middle of the construction season. Um so that's kind of a bit of a a hamper on managing your projects a bit. Go real quick. Um, the department would benefit from proposed changes in municipal bidding requirements that
would expedite the acquisition of parts and equipment. Is that's has there been any progress on that? >> Like there there has not. >> Okay. >> We we are the we are the lowest of all the different classifications of employees in the in the state. um for
what we can do. >> So, our limit our limit is $10,000 for up to $10,000 for best practices. From 10 to 50, you have to get three bids, written bids, and then written quotes. And after
50, you have to formally bid it. The state, the schools are allowed to do 50,000 is is the limit they have for best practices. from 50 to 100 they just get three quotes and from 100 everything
over 100 has to be bid. So we we have a lot of constraint constraints on how we can get things. I mean, you can't buy anything right now for $10,000, >> right? >> Lyn, >> um I Paul, I was going to ask, is this
part of what they're trying to do? I'm blank blanking on the name of the bill bill, >> but the municipal municipal empowerment act. and and and it's it's just like they passed it for they passed it loosening up the the purchasing guidelines to reflect more of today's
prices for the school districts but not for the towns. It just seems Mandy Joe's been lobbying on this at the state, >> right, >> Mandy? So it doesn't it wouldn't cover DPW. >> Um this municipal empowerment act is um
trying to equalize the DPW municipal to the school bill. Um so it would it would as far as I know cover all municipal spending so that procurement officers only have one set of rules to follow and
the MMA is uh highly lobbying for the passage of that particular section in the MEA. It would be nice if they just pulled that one piece out and enacted that one piece and then they can go argue about the other pieces which are slowing it
down because I don't think there's many people who disagree that that should be changed newspapers. >> So can um >> the news the newspaper lobby that's it. So um let me if if it's okay I would I
just want to do a switch uh for a general question about the enterprise funds and the water and sewer rates. We have we have already have a very good memo that was sent to us on why these water rates. Um and I guess my question
is do we to what extent do we um look into the future? I know we have uh with the big plant, we're expecting a big expense once you get the study done. Do we have a sense of what that's going to
do to water rates beyond this next year or you know the the first year I was on this committee, Guilford, we got a surprise in June with the Centennial plant that hadn't been built in yet, so we had to go back and quickly
do the rates. Um but but I'm just looking for um you know the timeline for some big expenses hitting the rates. Um >> so for water for water we we're pretty
water side is pretty good. Um we have a big expense this year which is the roof on Atkins. Centennial is up to speed. We'll have some smaller projects um that won't exceed probably what we're spending on the roof for Atkins over the next few years and that includes waterline
replacements. Um so the water is pretty pretty good right now. The um sewer will be the one that'll be the biggest hit um biggest change and it's probably going to be not it's it won't be ready for the 27 budget.
It'll be very iffy if it's ready for the 28 budget. So definitely by the time the 29 budget comes around, um we'll have that study complete and then we'll have had time to discuss what pieces of that bud what pieces of that plan we want to
implement first and lay out a plan for doing the upgrades that they'll be listed on there. And we when we talked about this a year or so ago or maybe it was a year ago, Northampton was in the same process and
you were cross-checking with them. Are they are they further along than we are on, you know, the kinds of systems redesign? >> Um they have done upgrades. They have done more upgrades than we have and they're kind of farther along. They do have some
systems they do need to upgrade. Um and they're looking at those still. So when we look at a lot their rates, I mean, one of the these memos always compare our rates and say, "Hey, we're we're still not where the other towns
are." Is this where we're going to be starting to catch up to all of them at least on sewer? >> Uh we'll have we'll have a nice substantial rate increase. Yes. When the sewer study is out. >> Okay. Uh, councelor Ryan
and your >> Yeah, I'm you can't I'm puzzled. Sorry. Um, >> now you see the real me. That's unfortunate, but um, fiscal night 29 seems like a long way away, but maybe that's just the way it is. Um, for this to get into the
budgeting, um, is there any way that can be uh, sped up? Is it simply out of out of out of our control? Is it such a complex undertaking that this is just probably the reasonable amount of time it's going to take? And how worried are you about it taking that long to get
this into the into the budget? >> Um, so the scope of work when we we signed the agreement, the scope of work was uh for was it was scoped out that it's going to take 18 months to to do the project. So, and we're we're maybe a little probably
a month behind right now, Amy, I would say. We're not we're not really behind. We're kind of a month. >> Yeah. I mean, I feel like we're making good progress with that project so far. >> The the one thing we do have to integrate into the sewer study is the
comments from D. So, as we do the study and we come forward with our proposals, D will have some say in how we uh and and whether they think we're going the right direction or not. Um so there is a state uh part to this study that is a
little unknown. We we don't it's a new it's a bunch of new the regulators in D at D western region have changed over a bit and we're not quite sure how they're going to respond but we think it'll take a little longer with them. So that's where there I don't think there's really any
way to speed it up. Um there's some small things as we go through the process. There are some small things we might be able to identify that we want to tackle before the project's done. Um, but those won't be big changes. Those will be small changes. >> George,
>> so yeah, that's fine. So, it it's underway. It's funded and um we're paying attention. So, that's that sounds as good as it can be. And the one the one silver lining or oh
you know semi-positive is that we don't have a ton of long-term debt in the sewer fund currently. Um we have a decent amount of debt that is going to expire in the next 5 to 10 years. So our debt annual debt payment isn't that low. Um but we don't have a lot of large
long-term debt payments still on the books. So, whatever comes out of the wastewater study, assuming it it some of those uh projects are going to require borrowing, um some of it could replace debt that's on the books currently,
especially in like the FY30, FY31 um out years. >> And so, at that point, it would also be drawing on reserves. >> It depends how much it is and what it is. We don't we don't we don't typically tap reserves. If we had excess reserves, then maybe we could do that. Um, but
normally we would uh either borrow for it or we do have a certain amount of the operating budget for capital each year. >> Lynn, >> I just want to clarify. Sean, does the debt for enterprise funds does it have to fall under our debt ceiling? Total
debt? >> Generally not. Generally, water and sewer debt is outside the debt ceiling. So, a lot of it doesn't count towards it. Most most of it doesn't count towards it. We did get a sewer debt relief grant this year. I think we received like $1,200 Guilford towards our sewer.
They have to spread it out across everybody in Massachusetts. It's a very, you know, small appropriation, but we applied and we got it. And >> Gilford, do we get impacted at all by by Hampshire College closing? like does that impact water revenues or anything?
>> It's it's 100,000. >> 100. Okay. >> That that was the estimate that Sean came up with when he was running the numbers based on our readings. Um but Hampshire Hampshire College is kind of one of those unique people. They uh they don't really use that much and give
us that much back. It's just kind of an interesting place. >> I was just curious. Thank you. >> And is that is that mainly water fund or is that water plus sewer? It's >> water and sewer. >> Y >> you're muted, Lyn.
>> If I could, I'd like to go on to speed limits. >> Can we do it slowly? >> Yeah. Thank you. Haha. How about 25 miles an hour uniform? Um, is there any way to do a consolidated
application for Ammerst instead of having to do road and section of road by time? >> Um, there was I think what bothers most people is is that there's roads that have no signs on them that say no speed
there's no speed limit sign. Um there is a quick way that if we took all the roads that have no speed limit signs, we could adopt the measure which we've already adopted, but we change it to say
specific roads. So we adopt it and we say these specific roads fall under that category. And then if we do that, then we can post the road 25 miles an hour. is. But then again, anything that's over 25, it's already got a speed study, it
would stay at the speed it's at. So then you can keep that way is the quickest, easiest way to get signs that say 25 miles an hour on a road that doesn't have a speed limit. And then you can go back and you can put in order the roads you think should be lowered. And then we
could just work through that list and do studies for the roads that have to have a study. That would be the easiest way. Mass DOT doesn't recommend it, but that would be one way to do it. >> Well, it just seems like such an process, >> but I think it's important to know the
the default is the road the speed limit in Ammeris is 25 miles an hour. The town council passed that and that's the default unless it's posted otherwise. And so if if you don't see a speed limit sign on a road, you should assume it's 25 miles an hour. Is that accurate,
Guilford? >> That's accurate. people just don't believe it. >> So I I just want to follow up on Linds on sections. If you take 116 going east,
it's 35, then it's 30, then it's 25 when it hits the intersection. Going in the other, keeping going on Pine, it hits 35 right away. It never hits 30. Then it goes down to 25, then it goes back up, then it goes down
again. And I've been asked by several people who live on the can we just have a slow speed limit that doesn't change when you leave the intersection because the density of the houses doesn't decrease. And that's where East Pleasant comes in and we've had multiple
accidents. So the complaints are particularly trucks. They see that 35 and they do their grinding wheels or brakes. they go way up or they put so it's it's irrational those. So is there anything that we
could just do to at least address a stretch that it's inconsistent and irrational? >> You you can you have you would do that you take that stretch and you do a speed study throughout the whole stretch and then you would say we think it should be the 25 and that's the way the rule says
to do it. Um and it's not it's not a big speed study. I mean, it's probably five5 to $10,000 worth of work to bring someone in and do it and write it up and then it would be well then it has to be approved by the council to be submitted to this mass DOT
and then it would go through the process. It's just that's just kind of how it is. Um, but it's not hard to do. If you were going to do it, you would do the whole length of the road. >> Yeah. No, no, I would do it all the way from when you come into Ammerst all the
way over. But George, >> yeah, it when I listen to my constituents, as far as I can grasp, it it almost seems like speed limit signs are this psychological thing. It just makes them feel better.
And and maybe that's a terrible way to do do what we're doing. And so it's a but um yes, it's true that this townwide speed limit is 25 miles per hour where it's not posted. It's also true that that means nothing to anyone who lives in that neighborhood who sees somebody
speeding. Um and even though if there were sign there, the person might still speed, at least they'd feel like something was was being done. Um but it's also whack-a-ole. I mean it's it's you could put these signs everywhere. So I understand the challenge. I understand the problem from my perspective.
listened to my constituents, at least the ones that speak to me about it. Um, it seems more a sense like we had these signs, then they were gone, and now you tell us that, well, people should just know, you know, as you're zooming in on on West Pomeoy in from Hadley, there's a
sign right at the, you know, the border that says, guess what? Speed limitless 25 everywhere except where it's where it's posted otherwise. And, you know, that just doesn't people don't buy it. But that is what it is. So maybe I just have to keep repeating that to them over
and over again. Um and just have to suffer my the slings and arrows >> there. There. >> Go ahead. Go ahead. Go for it. >> There was a meeting um Jason went to it. I think it was yesterday and since I've
been in class I haven't caught up with him. Um there there was a meeting to talk about a program mass highway has about funding signs and one of the things that of the signs they were funding for speed limits. It had the de facto it had at the bottom it said
deacto speed on it. So um they mass highway or mass DOT may have come up with a way that we can put signs up um but I'm not I have to find out more about that. That's just something coming up. Paul. Yeah. >> I think the other thing uh for all the
counselors is, you know, if there is speeding, you know, just let us know, let the police know. They will put, you know, speed patrols out there periodically. Um and that enforcement is is a piece of the puzzle, too. It's not just the signage because people to tend to drive, I mean, I ask you, how many of
you drive, you know, 55 or 65 on the highway? You drive what you feel comfortable. And so, it's not just a sign. it's it really is um enforcement as well. So I think and that's something that the you know the chief always asks for a patrol officer to dedicate it for
that but when they have availability they do I've seen them um sit out in certain places and and they are responsive to the neighbors when if they say this it seems like there's a lot of speeding on this road can you have a directed patrol here and they do that. >> So I I just want to follow up on on two
issues around that. So, Route 63 would be a gold mine if you pulled plum trees at the right times a day cuz nobody slows down to 35 when they come down the hill coming into. So, I'm just I'll I'll write the police chief. So, my question,
we asked you, Guilford, if we want to petition the state on a state road um and counselors write the letter, will the town back us up? And your answer was sort of I think your written answer was you don't need to. It's enough to have
the counselor say it, but should we get the police chief to back us up too? And this is an issue with the new housing units coming in that we'll have many of them will have families and kids and getting the 35 moved way up the road and
lowering the speed limit coming in and all the storm drains are also plugged with leaves. So you the they're backing up. So, one more question on 63. Do they do up to the intersection or does the state road end and then start again? You
know, by the church where it's disintegrated again. >> Oh, so that line, that disintegration line is the town line. That's basically we take over at that disintegration line. >> So, so if if Jill and I are the counselors for for district 1 write a
letter, will the town in some way say we agree? Um, can we get something that's more than the last time when I got it lowered? I got 50 residents to sign on to it. I'm just looking at what might give it more oomph that this is a problem. >> What would give it more oomph is just
the town council voted and said this is a this is a issue for us and we agree this should be lowered and we're >> the whole council has to come in on it. But ma mass do mass DOT likes it when you have clear concise statement from
the town saying this is what we want in our town. That's what they prefer. >> Okay Jill, go ahead. Yeah, since we're on this topic, I just wanted to chime in and just, you know, something I've been hearing from my
constituents is around the speeding is related to, you know, people are excited that their roads are being paved and, you know, people tuned in and and read the list of roads that will be paved coming up and um then are concerned about people speeding on these newly
paved roads. Is there money in the budget for next year for speed calming? And how do you plan to approach that? >> So, it is it is ironic that people complain about the inverse inverse speed humps we have in town. They just uh they
they want speed humps, but they're just kind of adverse to the inverse ones, for some reason. They don't like those. Um, so one thing one thing we do we do have is hopefully the transportation parking commission
will take on the request for traffic calming and then they'll organize them and put together a priority list of what they want done and then we'll they can take we can take that as public works department and put that into the capital plan as a request saying based on the commission's requests and priorities
these are the ones that should be done next and then we can ask for funds next year. We do have some funds this year to do some do some things and to do some studies if we want to. Um but then the commission hasn't really got together their working way how they're going to ask for those or how they're going to
prioritize which ones they want to do first. >> And real really quickly, councelor Breick, there's 75,000 in the plan, but it's every other year for trafficcoming that Guilford submitted. So, this year's a year where there's not a request, but then next year there would be and then
it it'd be every other year for um $75,000. >> Does that mean there isn't money in the budget for it this year or that mean come through JCPC? >> There's not a project for FY27 for traffic coming in and FY27. There is it
is on the plan for FY28 >> and he may he may or may not have spent 26 Jill. No, that there's there's money available to do some work if we want to from prior appropriations because we try to >> we we don't want to be left and not have
any money. >> This is a new area that never used to be in capital plans previously. So, this is something that must have been added in the last few years to um have a specific line item for traffic coming. >> It was it was added last year.
>> George, >> can can I ask just keep going? Sorry. >> Sorry. Just a very small follow-up question because someone asked me this and I'm curious about it. Residents have asked like if they can fund their own traffic calming um and and someone told
me they had heard, you know, hearsay that like you could we residents could pull money together if they wanted painting done um or something like that. Can can you clarify what uh the parameters are around residentled speed
calming? If um if residents go out and install something in the road, which we consider to be a hazard, we're going to take it out. So, if they pull together their money and paint the road funny, they put the Sergeant Pepper stripes down the or what is it? Abby Lane, Abby
Lane stripes down the road, something like that, and we think it's not appropriate and it shouldn't be there for because of the rules we have to follow. We'll take it out. So the best way if if they want to fund traffic calming is maybe to do the same way as some of the other well some of the
institutions in town they'll donate money and specify it's for traffic cominging here for a project here. That could be a possible way to do it. Um but if you renegade it and it's doesn't make sense, we're going to take it out.
>> Okay. There's no way for them to do it in concert with the town, I guess, is my question. Um, we're not going to want to do it in concert together because one, uh, you're not town employees and if you get injured on the job site, uh, well, how do you how are you protected if you're
injured on the job site? And do we have responsibility if you get injured on the job site and the town has to do something? There there's rules and insurance things that c that cause us to not really want to have everyone says the roads are dangerous. I don't want to put residents in a dangerous situation
and then something happen to them. Council Ryan. >> So I think Paul is absolutely correct that enforcement is the key element. There's really I see it three elements to this uh signage which I see is more
psychological than anything else but there's signage there's traffic calming the kinds of changes you make to the streetscape which is can be very effective. And the third is enforcement. And I think if I could go to my constituents and tell them that the town is is creating a new position in APD and
the position is for traffic enforcement and that officer or officers over the course of a week is is going to be out um doing traffic enforcement and they're visible and they can be moved from neighborhood to neighborhood. that would go a long way to at least addressing some of the the the concerns that
there's actually a concentrated effort to address uh this this problem. Enforcement is a key element and you can put up all the signs you want. Um that's still not going to stop that percentage of people are going to speed no matter what. Um, and you can certainly make
changes to the streetscape, but that's very expensive and and complicated. And um, you know, it's really also if we would make a commitment to at least funding one position um, that would be dedicated to that job. I think that would that would be an important step.
And that's not what we're talking about right now. It's a different department, but still that's my thought. Elsa Ryan, did you raise your hand again or is that up and down? Okay, that's up and down.
So, any any additional questions? Um, you know, I see you answered Go ahead, Kathleen. >> Oh, yeah. It's on a different topic. Um I just I know you had mentioned the the possibility of starting a storm water management um enterprise fund and I just
was curious about the timeline and the setup costs and sort of um and in addition to the workload um and how how you see that as fitting in and sort of when when those costs would hit versus the eventual revenues and what are the
thoughts on that? Guilford, I'll start real quick because I modified your response um after talking about Paul because we were we talked about this a week ago. Um in terms of timing, we plan to introduce the topic this fall. Okay. >> Um now whether it's in place for FY28 or
if it takes longer um that'll be part of that discussion and planning process, but we have a couple accounting structural changes that we're planning to that kind of are similar that we plan to introduce to the council. um this one and then a couple revolving funds that have been either recommended or
requested. So um we're thinking the fall for introducing the topic >> and then I guess your question then Kathleen is there a cost to set it up and is it staffing? Will this it stretch the staff? >> Yeah, I know I just recall last year listening to these meetings I think when
it came up I think Melissa was concerned that it was that there was a substantial setup cost. I don't know if that's you know if if if that was her recollection or sort of what what you envision as as it requiring to set up if there's
mapping and you know >> yeah I mean we need to figure out how we'll build folks there's models around us to do this we're you know we're definitely not the first I think Beluretown already does it and if Gilford is Northampton already doing it >> they do we we have almost everything we
need in house if we decide to we want to do this as far as the mapping goes. The thing that has to be decided is rates and how how you give credits and how you move forward. >> And
can I just mention that uh Amy and Guilford just got a grant for a new covert. Um can you just explain where that is Amy? >> Yeah, so we we got a grant for it's for design and permitting. So, kind of the
first step for improvement on um it's a culvert in North Ammeris. It's the one on or one of the ones on Sunderland Road um up in North Ammeris. So, um so we're excited. So, hopefully that one will start moving forward and move towards replacement. >> It's also a grant we don't see the
money. It's a >> it's managed by Mass DOT and they they have they choose the con the consultant will use and they'll pay the consultant directly. So we don't have any to handle any money. >> Kathleen, >> yeah, just another unrelated question.
And I think I had asked and I don't know if you got around to the answer um about theou with the with Ammerst College and just I it sounds like some of that $250,000 is can be used for infrastructure roads and sidewalks and I was just curious if
sort of how that generally gets used in a in a I know it's I think we're in the first year of of that money so um there may be some lag time but sort of what how you see that as helping your budget or is it additional things that you're taking on that you wouldn't have
otherwise done. >> Well, right right now I'm putting actually I'm trying to finish a memo to Paul about what we're doing with it. So, we want to take part of the money and it's it's probably going to be around 40 to 40,000 to $50,000 will be used for
maintenance of the two commons. Um seed lom fertilizer planting material things to keep that to keep it looking nice and get it looking nice. Um then it'll be um the proposal is Paul hasn't gotten this
yet so he might fall off his chair. The proposal is to take some of the money about another 20 to $30,000 and hire season two seasonal employees up to two seasonal employees. and their goal will be to work specifically downtown in the downtown area. Um to do some of the
maintenance in the commons and also to just give us a better eye and do little things, do a little hand sweeping, work with the bid people more, uh take care of the little things that get broken downtown more often. Um that's part of it and then the rest would be capital.
So it's about 150 is what's left over for capital items. So, this year we're going to do the lighting, which we didn't buy for the common South Common. So, we're going to buy the lighting for the South Common, lighting for the uh I didn't mean to say that. Um lighting for
uh the Kendrick Park area, which we didn't have it installed. And then from there, we're going to take the money and use it for upgrading things like we'll probably redo some of the crosswalks, redo some of the ramps, and improve things like that. Um the only uh Yeah,
that's the plan. And that's I'll send that me sending out to Paul soon. I just have a couple more things to verify my memo. >> Thanks. That's really helpful. It sounds like it'll be a really helpful addition to some of the areas that you don't generally have funds available to to
take care of. >> Joe. >> Oh, thank you. Um Guilford, I apologize. Uh I was in a meeting when I actually started this uh finance committee meeting and I missed I I think I overheard you saying something about the frozen position. Has that frozen
position been now eliminated? >> Well, it wasn't in the budget for 26. So I I view it as it was eliminated. >> Okay. Thank you. >> It exists in our spreadsheets, but there's no FTE next to it. So >> So go for in terms for all intents and
purposes, there's no funding for it. We can't fill it. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I I'm just looking I have one completely unrelated and I and I see your answer to it in here, Guilford. Um
I'm looking for any questions on roads, speed limit, downtown calming. Uh we've already heard department staffing woes um that we hope will be uh
fixed sometime soon. I'm not seeing any others. So I have this is a a narrow question. Um when this new school opens, all the traffic for the cars and the buses will be entering and e leaving out
of the south entrance unlike where it will and that'll happen for about 6 months, you know, while the old building is taken down and the finishing in and that is incredibly close to this cut off road that comes in on the back side of
the bank of the bank off Route 9 where if you observe what cars are doing, they only sometimes stop at the stop sign. Um, and so they they come zipping around to avoid the light. So your answer on why you can't shut that was there are
three businesses there. But when I look at it, the businesses can get in and out. They just have the equivalent of a dead end. You know, they come in and then have to go out back to Route 9. So it it's and it was just looking for what
what we could do to ease the stress short of putting lots of crossing guards out there um because of what's going to happen with traffic um as it all because it's buses, vans, and cars rather than eventually some will be coming in and
out of the north entrance and some out of the south. So is is it really impossible? and and I I can understand the reluctance, but if we talk to the people who are in those businesses um and talked about how they can still get
out and they can they they get in the same way they would always get in and I'm assuming if they want to go over to Belchuretown, they don't necessarily come all the way out and go to the intersection and go out again, but I haven't watched them. So, it's And then if we can't do that, is there anything
else we can do for at least that first six months? the the most expeditious thing to do is is to have a police officer there during the morning and afternoon. Um, if you make the change there, you have
to turn that into a two-way road. So, when you come out of it heading, you'd be facing towards Beluretown. If you want to go to Belchuretown, it why stop at a stop sign? Just you just shoot out into Route Nine and cut across the traffic. If you're making the right to
go into into Ammerst, you have to make a very hairpin turn to come around and go that way. So, um I don't know if there's any trucks that go in here for deliveries. It's but it's just a bad intersection the way it's set up at the other end. Um
so, you're changing you're you're you're just moving which side the bad intersection is on is what you is the way I look at it. So for six months I would or I would just assume put a cop there for six months to
enforce the stop sign. >> So right now it's one way. >> It's one way right now. >> Okay. So they can't ever go back out to Bel. They have to go around to get get out by the light >> right now. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you,
Joe. Sorry, I I forgot to lower my hand from last time. I'm all good. >> Okay. So, I don't see any other hands up. And I want to thank both of you who are
taking time with us. And let's hope uh there's a generation of workers out there who like to work with their hands, who want to come and and and fix the potholes in Amorest. Um because it being
a chronic um you know uh and it's a decent it's a it's it may not be a decent job, but it is a job and who knows what's going to happen with the economy over the next couple years. But I'm I'm so right now, as I
understand it, would it be safe to say that Guilford is worried that the expense budgets won't hold, that they'll run out somewhere in FY27? But what's happened in the past is you keep running these vacancies, so your budget is sound. It's just you're not pulling
you're you're not spending on what you expected to spend it on. Is that correct? Well, the the pre the the previous three years we actually had snow and ice uh extra money and we use that to balance the budget and then we have we have had
vacancies and that helps figure the budget as well. Um the uh I don't think I've been to told by the finance department that we can't use salaries anymore to balance the operating budget. So that'll that's that's a loss we're
going to have there. So, it'll just have to be we just have to hope for a really strong El Nino event and that we have a really bad winter or a really mild winter, not bad winter, so that we don't spend a lot of money plowing snow and then we'll probably make it.
>> Okay. >> Any closing comments? Um, you know, we we're we're going to try to get the the wage and the rate memo back to the council by June 1st because it's scheduled for a first reading that
night. So, next week we'll take it up and and vote it out. Um, and I don't think there are any other questions, but if there are any, we'll just send them to you, Paul. >> Yeah. I just want to make sure because of the timing of the water and sewer rates if there are any questions for Gilford and Amy that you might have that
we can address now in advance of that because you will need we will be hoping that you'll make an actual recommendation to the council next week. >> That was my intention Paul. So I asked I asked about the built-in and I got enough of an answer. So I don't know whether anyone else had any. Um Tom
>> Paul I don't know if this is the kind of question that you were anticipating. Um and I if I'm misunderstanding this um please correct me. My understanding is that u as people who are um
who are not on town sewer move to town sewer. the um the population who who remain uh under their own um means absorb uh generally absorb a
disproportionately large uh portion of the of the fee. Um and I guess I'm Kathy, you're shaking your head. That's not >> I don't think that's I don't think that's correct. Lynn is shaking her head, too. So the the water side and the sewer side are still separate. So,
unless you just stop using water. Um, >> sorry, maybe I'm I'm speaking incorrectly. Um, as as in as homeowners choose to move from move onto town sewer, they leave a dwindling population who
absorb uh collectively with uh fewer and fewer people absorbing a a disproportionately larger town expense. Is that an accurate statement? And if so, I was going to ask about nope. Everybody's shaking their heads. >> Tom, what what type of expense are you?
>> So, if you're not on water and sewer, you don't get build for the water and sewer. >> Is there another type of expense that >> that you're thinking of? I'm >> uh I'm >> Are you thinking
where like at times when we're expanding the water and sewer into these new areas, the current water and sewer users at times are paying for that expansion. So, I think it's it's kind of the opposite where Guilford always says the goal is to be the last person to connect,
>> right? Well, I guess I guess that's it. But I I clearly did misunderstand. But since we're on the topic, I will just ask what what would have been my question, which is um what are you seeing with the trend uh of of uh people
connecting onto town service? uh if you if you know that number >> and that percentage >> there really we don't we don't really see a it's kind of hard to it's I guess we could go in and we could look at the
permits and we could create the numbers and and put together a little breakdown of who's connecting. Um we don't really see that many people connecting to town sewer because their septic systems have failed and they're moving over. That's
not the highest number of people who of new connections we're having. The highest number of new connections we we're having is the new buildings that are being built >> development. >> Okay. Okay. Good to know. Thank you. And sorry for my confusion earlier. >> Maybe you can ask it in a different way
to um Tom. If we're on we're on septic, but if if we were on sewer, it wouldn't affect our use of water at all. Right. They're there. I mean, our water, whatever we're using on water, it's not like the sewer water counts as a
different kind of water, right? Correct. I mean, it's the flow out through the sewer, you know? It's so it's I'm still the same water user. >> Yes. Yes. I mean, I mean, Amy's right. I mean, because we don't charge betterments for when we expand the water
or sewer system. um the rate payers who are already customers. If you're a longtime customer, you're actually paying a higher rate to cover that expansion. So truly, you want to be the last person in Ammerst to join the sewer system, and you'll pay the least amount
over the life of your service than the people who've already connected is really what the way it works. >> Are you gonna ask the follow-up question that I'm imagining? Oh, I'm sure because last time last year we discussed I've
never heard the use betterment. Um but I um maybe that's the term I've been looking for, but it does seem to me that uh especially when we bring on other communities or whole sections that
somehow or another those um should pay some additional cost of connection. uh and not leave it just to the existing rate payers. Now, is that the term betterment that you're using? Mo >> most people call it a betterment. I
mean, betterment is used loosely. I mean, you you be charged a betterment for a new sidewalk in front of your property. When they people when the town installs a new sidewalk, uh some communities charge a betterment for the sidewalk. Uh if you connect to water, it might be a betterment for connecting to water or connecting to sewers would be a
betterment as well. It's just a term that's used. And then impact fees is something somewhat different, but it's an entrance fee into the system paying for some of the capital costs. So it doesn't all hit, you know, and we don't have those, I don't think. >> Correct. An impact fee is more than
what's being done in front of your house. So if we did put sewer in front of your house, that's just that little small project. An impact fee would include all a percentage of everything that's been done up to that point. Somehow you figure out that and you add
it to connect the impact fee for MWR. If a community joins MWR covers all those costs they put into the system to maintain the system and have the system that they have and they kind of proportion out a percentage to you of that cost and that's how you pay your
impact fee. Should we put one on the books >> to avoid this uh sense that the >> or like subsidizing >> but that the the current the current users on sewer system are paying for new users to join in terms of
infrastructure. Can't we somehow you know we can have a longer discussion on that but just draft something that we would put on our books. It it is a longer discussion to have because if you think about an impact fee to join MWR or I think Springfield has one for
communities that join Springfield Water and Sewer Commission. Um when you when you look at that it's it's quite it's quite different than just expanding up for I mean we're doing we're expanding in in Pelum for sewer but actually they're they're paying for the whole
thing. Um but it's only probably 20 20 houses that are joining. So there is a we we expanded sewer into uh leverage. It was only it was less than 20 houses that joined that one as well. Um
and that was to take care of a that was to take care of an environmental issue. But I guess there's maybe a little difference. That's something to be thought about. Um, I thought that this was somewhere in town manager goals. Maybe I need to go back and look at the goals.
>> I think it is. And then we're we're going to do the we're doing a water water rate study. We have a proposal to do the water rate study and that'll start this whole process. And then hopefully we'll wrap up the process when we get the sewer feas sewer. It's called
what Amy? the wastewater >> the comprehensive wastewater management plan. >> When that's done, then we'll have more information and you'll have more more data to talk about this. >> Okay. But it would be something that we should look at for both water and sewer.
Mhm. >> I I can say because we're just going through this with the CWMP and I was pulling together all this stuff and so we looked at the three major sewer extensions that we've done in the last like 10 years and we've had 115 new
sewer customers. Um and we have about 350 additional houses that can connect when their sewers or when their septic fails. Um, so for what it's worth, you know, there have been some over the last 10 years, but that also shows you the
rate of how how fast people are connecting, >> but again, it it coming up with the cost of joining is the way I put it. >> Yeah. Call it a betterment fee, call it a whatever. Um, as long as it's legal,
it seems to me we should be coming up with that figure. >> Thank you. >> Yes. Just if I so that just to clarify so we haven't done that in the past like for Amist Hills was that it Guilford that we didn't charge it
>> we haven't charged the sewer uh su sewer betterment for any of the expansions since before I got here so it's over 25 years I think we did the first expansion was in 20 when 20 2001 was the first one
and we have >> was it was it Ammerst hills or woods or what Ammer Ammeris Hills had to install their own sewer. Um, but the first one we did was on Southeast Street Chapel Mechanic.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> But Paul, in the last 10 years, that's the Ammerst Woods, Harkness Road, and then going up into Pel like extending up Pelum Road and into Ammerst Road up to our
Centennial plant. And we actually needed that sewer. So that was something we needed. Not really the community of Pelum needed, but then Pelum got a benefit from it because everybody who was on the sewer line could connect
and and just the math of that works in our favor because the more customers you have, the more those capital costs are spread out. No, I think we've um Paul, as far as I know, we have asked the questions that we might otherwise have so that we can
we'll we'll we will do that on Tuesday. you we'll take it up as knowing that we we need to get it out and you know draft a Athena suggested we think of a short memo but the memo last year was only two pages so it it it wasn't a long memo
because you you all provided us with a very good memo justifying the rate increases so we just referred it to that um and I don't I want to make sure we have a financial order that we can what whatever we need to vote on other and
yes to the memo. Um, so so any anything else while we still have Guilford and Amy with us? I think the answer is no. And I'll double check again. Uh, we have no attendees.
So the record will show that we had no public comments because we had no attendees. Um no one raising their hand. So I think everyone knows we we go back to uh a discussion of what we've heard
and drafting uh sections of the report. um to the extent you can get sections to me by Monday morning I'll pull together pieces of it and the one I know we will do the rates the one I know will require
I think a longer discussion is the elementary school budget um and I don't believe we got any answers to our follow-up questions is that correct Sean >> not yet they acknowledge receipt um but I will reach out to them and see if they
have a a sense of the timing. >> Okay. Because we we we did a due date of the 26th, you know, just to give them time. We didn't say ASAP. We we gave them a couple weeks. Lynn, >> we briefly discussed whether or not we
actually wanted to invite the school superintendent and the elementary school um chair of the school committee uh back again and have you thought further about that and when would we do that? So I guess I asked the I asked the question in the last two minutes of
Tuesday's meeting and I didn't have any takers. Um I think you know it well it has to be Tuesday or Thursday next week, one of those two days. Um and Tuesday's quite short notice. Does anyone feel they would like to have that happen as
opposed to just get feedback on our follow-up questions? I will just say that I still find the mixed information we're getting about the I'm not going to come up with the
right name, but it's the special ed people that were cut and then put back in the >> the interventionists and the case loads. Yeah, we got very different two two quite different stories. Yeah. >> Right. And I don't know how we're going to sort through that. Um, and I still
find that a difficult issue. >> So, Sean, perhaps you could when you talked to them stress that one because that was one we sent the memo we got from the interventionists um that said the numbers we were looking at were quite different than what they think is.
If you could at least get a response on that. Um, so you know, I I don't want to have to put people on the spot, Lynn, if we can avoid it, but I think we do need a response on um what is it we're what is it we're looking at?
>> Is that correct? You know, I think there was a um during the meeting uh there was a recalculation of uh staff load for the special ed teachers um that was given to us verbally um that they looked at back
at the numbers and it wasn't exactly what the special ed group had said but it was nearer to what they were saying. >> I mean basically we've now heard three numbers. We've heard what the school district has said. We've heard what they've corrected and then we've heard
what the teachers have said, >> right? And and the interventionists were their own category. I mean, it's different than the other ones. >> Yes. And and therefore, being the person that's supposed to rate this section up, I honestly have to say I don't have a
clear picture >> other than to say we we got contradictory information. So Sean maybe if we can at least >> Kathy I don't do you know do you remember was that one of the questions that we asked them though? >> Yeah it was one of the questions and you said you'd already sent to Shannon
attached the memo the interventionist memo that we got which listed the names of all the people >> and what they think their >> uh uh case load not case load but the number of kids they see. >> Okay. Yeah it does ask about the interventionist. I don't think it asks
about the special education though. It's the interventionists. >> It was the interventionist. >> Okay. Okay. >> And and many several of our questions um focused on a whole cluster of questions focused on that issue and that's where we got conflicting information and still do not have a
solid answer. >> Okay. So I guess you know it's what we have one of two. if they could get us written responses clarifying it from the the school's internal records, >> then we won't need them to appear.
Otherwise, if someone could come and talk to us about it, uh it would either have to be Tuesday or Thursday. >> And Kathy, can I raise one more? You know, a question I had after that meeting >> and maybe it was clarified and I just didn't um hear it. I'm still unclear
what is being requested in terms of the additional funding. Um the school committee voted additional funds for very specific things and the you know the superintendent explained her priorities if funds were
to be restored which didn't align with what the school committee voted. >> Correct. >> So again I'm just thinking from a finance committ perspective. I don't know if you if the committee feels like they have clarity on that or if they need more information on that. >> No, we don't.
>> We we don't you know basically I what I heard was you'll you'll know what my priorities are when when I get the money and right and gave us a list that I think was a rank order list. >> Right. there's there's staffing impacts for those things that require you it's
not like they'll be decided in September because there's staffing impacts, >> right, >> for people who are in those positions that have to be worked out sooner than that. So, I think that's where my confusion comes from. >> So, Paul, Kathleen, and then Paul. >> Yeah. I mean, I was just going to say my
impression was that we won't get 100% clarity on the restor the specific restorations in part because with the consolidation and with so many moving parts to me, the superintendent sounded like she was indicating that she really
has to see where the need is. And you know, I I agree with folks that we can seek some more clarity, but I'm not sure in terms of 100%, you know, exactly which positions and which programs they would be situated in because it sounded
like the need is is evolving. So, >> we we also have to remember we can't tell them how to spend their money, right? >> We vote we vote a bottom line. >> We we vote money. Yeah. And so they can do with it whatever they want
afterwards. We can provide them with a lot of comments that basically say this is what we're thinking. But that's not binding. >> Yeah. And and even the I think the discussion between school committee and the superintendent had been that within
a cost center even the school committee can vote the cost center but within that the superintendent is going to make a decision about specific positions and allocations of resources and and if there was money moving between the cost centers, yes, she would return to the
school committee for moving that money around. But at the end of the day, yes, it's not town council and it's not even school committee that that can indicate some of these specifics. >> Paul, I just want to emphasize that because I think there's a lot of emp
save this position and the council may say yes, we agree, save that position, but that doesn't mean anything. You're just the question is do you want to increase the budget or not and how do you want to do that? So, I think it really is imperative for the council to communicate that even if you do vote
more money, it doesn't necessarily go to what people are requesting. So, I just think making that abundantly clear to the public because I think it's it's very confusing to the public otherwise. >> Yep. Jill. >> Yeah. I I think to Lynn's original question, I think just getting the the
information. I think our our goal here in this stage of the process is to make sure we're providing the full council with as much accurate information as we can so everybody can make their decision, you know, their own judgment. But I think that issue and the discrepancy between the the case loads
of interventionists and all of that, which is not really an expense that will change in the new school year. you know, of course there's always some change with new classes coming in, but that is not something that the consolidation will affect the number of children um that they'll have in the building. And
so I I do think we should be able to get closer to the realistic and factual information there. And >> so I think what I'm hearing, Sean, is do your best to get some reconciliation between what we heard so at least we can write up what we heard. >> Sure. without saying we have two
different versions of the same reality or two realities of the same situation and then we can make a decision. Um you know I think everyone knows it the budget right now that's in the town
manager's budget has $69,000 more than uh was originally in it. You know at at the 3.85. So the amount that wasn't spent on the region was allocated. So we we we
basically won't and and we don't really have any way of increasing the total budget unless we find a place to decrease the rest of the budget. Um so we just need some clarity on on this thing and then we can have a
longer discussion on the elementary school budget. The the other thing I think everyone will remember is we heard uh the town is absorbing the cost of the lease which isn't in the elementary
school budget out of uh in theory. Um so a question we asked Sean I think you have to come back an an amount that was vote voted for capital that's not being used for capital reallocating it toward an operating budget or a lease. somehow
we have to know whether that can be done. Um >> yeah, there there's two different pieces. So the um the lease the first year of the lease, we checked with our auditor and she felt the first year lease cost could come out of the sixth
grade transition funds. Um the following years would have to be built into an operating budget. Uh but given the transition and the negotiation, it felt like that was um con clo, you know, consistent with uh being a transition cost for the first year. And then the
piece that we need to come back to the council are the utility costs for Wildwood um and maintaining that building, which is not funded any there's two months that the schools have built into their um operating budget and then um the rest of it's not funded.
So Lynn before I call on you I just want to tell Guilford and Amy if you would like to leave the meeting we thank you very much for joining us but you do not have to stay for this part of the discussion you are you are you can be consider yourself adjourned unless
you're fascinated by what we're talking about thank you very both very much Lynn >> so I think it would be useful for this committee um as well as if there were public listening but they're not um or at least we don't well they that's not
true they could be on um Ammeris Media uh what exactly are the rules for adding or taking away in terms of our charter and the state
rules just put it out there >> really to Paul and to Sean. >> Yeah. So, we're going to, you know, clarify with legal and make sure there's nothing we're missing. Um, but this committee would make a recommendation. Uh, you know, could that could be to
support the budget as is or could propose some modifications to it. That would be a simple majority vote. Um, that will go to the council. The only line item that councils are allowed to increase above what's been
proposed to them are uh school appropriations. However, they can only increase the school appropriation if they're if it doesn't push them over the tax levy. Um and we don't right now the budget we've proposed uses essentially the full tax levy and uses all of our
revenue sources. So, in order for the council to propose an increase to the school budget, it would have to first cut something else. Um, so there would have to be a vote to reduce something else, which would then create the funding um which then the council could by a twothirds majority vote cuz to
increase something it requires a a supermajority um to increase the school. So first something would have to be reduced and then next could be the vote to increase something else >> and we must be specific about what we want reduced.
>> That's my understanding. Yep. >> Thank you. >> And and just to follow up on that, it's I see it the hand is up. It's it's not a it's one of the line items in the budget as opposed to go use reserves or go use
some other pocket of money. Is that correct? Yeah. I mean, in terms of cutting, you're not you can't propose an alternative appropriation. You'd have to propose a a cost center or something specific to cut. >> Athena, >> the school budget is really not on the
agenda for today. And this is going to be an a really important issue for members of the public who are interested to to know that this committee is discussing before you get into a greater discussion of these mechanics. So, I encourage everyone to think about this,
send questions to me and Sean and Paul, and we will do our best to get you good information for your con conversation on Tuesday and Thursday of next week. But I I really don't think that this is an appropriate conversation for um this
particular meeting because it's not on the agenda. >> Thanks, Tina. >> Thank you. I agree. Paul, >> is it on the agenda for Tuesday? It's it's called discussion. >> The d the budget uh review and draft
report is on the agenda for Tuesday and then the voting the recommendations is on the agenda for Thursday. >> Okay. >> And that allows us to have this conversation on Tuesday. >> Yes, it does. >> Okay. >> Now, and and Athena, I also want to post
uh June 2nd. So, if you could just post it, you know, that would be the final. We're We're probably going to need the final report. We're not going to Maybe a miracle will happen and we'll get finished on Thursday, but but I but but
I think we're going to need uh that uh we already have a meeting scheduled for that, but I just want to grab remember to post that. >> Okay. I will I will pray and post the meeting >> and and you can do it as need, you know, as needed. final final report for the
you know finalized report to the council. Yeah. >> Okay. And just uh just to be absolutely clear, we we are hoping that the the committee will at least vote the water and sewer rates on Thursday by Thursday. Okay. >> I I'm intending to do them on Tuesday. >> They're not on the agenda for Tuesday.
They are on the agenda for Thursday. So, if that's your intent, I can update the agenda for Tuesday. Uh >> what's today? If you have time, go ahead and put it on for Tuesday. >> Okay. I'm assuming that's okay with everyone. It gives us more time because uh to
draft a memo, draft a memo, we have to uh get the council ideally likes them several days before they meet and they're meeting on the first. So, um Okay. Thank you, Athena. Anything else? Um Kathleen? Yeah, I just
wanted to ask um are we set on I know like we're I'm coordinating with um Tom and Joe about the DPW section and I think we I think we're coordinating on email and set on that, but I I wasn't clear on the water and sewer rate memo
and where that overlaps with the section we have on the enterprise funds and sort of how you've how you've organized that in the past and if there's anything that we need to know about our section, you know, relative relative to that sort of you're muted
Kathy you're muted sorry it within the section on enterprise funds if you capture briefly the discussion we had about enterprise funds in terms of the new hire um and that the expectation is they will be able to staff those then uh
the water and sewer I can draft. I can draft that memo. It's a two-pager. It is. If you look at the the recommendation to the council last year, it was it pulled a lot from the memo that was sent to us, you know. So, we
didn't uh but but what we heard today was also like future, you know. So, so putting some of that in this report, then I will also put some of that we can also put that in the memo, you know. So, I'll have time to do that. Um, I don't mind doing that. I mean, I have uh, you
know, it's I just have to remember to change the names of the committee to give everyone credit for the work they're doing. But you know so so do as much you know it doesn't have to be at length and we are including you know the
way I've done the outline for it was similar to last year but because of what Sean's done all of those responses that we got today the written responses are going to be in appendix A or whatever it is. though you can also say C appendix C
appendix A to to not be repetitive as needed. No, whatever you think of last year's memo, the goal is not to be super long. It's mainly to highlight things that we heard that uh you couldn't get from just
reading the budget book, you know, or to or re-emphasize things that um you know, the the fact that they're down that many highway staff is worth re-emphasizing as as a highlight, you know, and it's because people don't want to do the job. It's not just it's not the pay. Um, so
it's it's trying to look at and to the extent it's super stood out to us, we'll put it in an executive summary, you know, and we can make a decision. Again, the goal is not length, but just draw people's attention who didn't sit through the hours of discussion we'd
had. Is did that help? >> Yeah. No, that's really helpful. And I guess the three of us can merge our DPW section and send that all to you in one if is that more helpful then? So we can make sure we've cut out any over like any overlap in our own three sections.
Okay, great. Thank you. >> Okay, so thank you all and and Jill, you know, you and are doing safety, public safety, so >> I'll hand it to you tomorrow. Yeah. >> Okay. So thank you all and I seeing it's
5:15 I make a motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Uh then I will put it to a vote. Lynn, >> I >> Kathy is a yes. Joe, >> hi. >> Councelor Breick, >> yes. >> Kathleen Mitchell, >> yes.
>> And Tom Porter, >> yes. >> The finance committee's adjourned. Mandy, do you want to adjourn the council? >> I don't think she ever called it. >> I don't believe the council called to order, so we don't need to adjourn. >> Yeah, the council was never called to order.
>> Okay. So then Mandy then you are adjourned as well and thank you both Paul and Sean for staying with us throughout the month of May. Thank you very much for all the work that went into this but also the work in pulling things together. Thank
you.