Yes. >> Yeah, we're recording. Please go ahead, Kathy. >> Uh, good morning everyone. Today is the Thursday, November 20th meeting of the finance committee. And I want to apologize for everyone that I didn't get
the meeting agenda posted last week in time for the Tuesday meeting, but thank you all for the flexibility of switching it to today. Um, the first thing I need to do as always is make sure that everyone can hear and be heard because
we're conducting this meeting by Zoom. Um, I will just go around the room as I see faces on my screen. Andy >> present. >> Joe >> present. >> Mandy >> present.
>> Bob >> present. >> Tom >> present. We are all here and except for Alicia Walker who I believe can join us today. So I will announce her when I see her. We have a pretty simple agenda today.
The first item is public comments and then we're going to see how far we can get with a revision of guidelines. Um so um I will first open it for public comments. And Athena, you're going to
have to manage this for me, I think. Let me see if I can see >> because there's no one in the attendees list at the moment. >> Um, do do we have any members of the public right now? No, >> there's no attendees at this point. >> Okay, I can see it on my screen. So, I
um since we have no public attendees now, if some appear at the end of our discussion, I will open it up for public comments. So, I've asked Mandy to be a scribe today. I sent everyone the word
document. And so, what I think um if no one objects, I think would be the easiest thing is just to go through the document with a focus on the yellow shaded. Uh some of the other uh track edit changes are merely to change the
year to FY27 and the dates. And I tried, but I will double check to make sure any time I do a percent or a number that I link it to the document that Sean has provided us on the projections for FY27.
So I tried to just update all the numbers. The rest as we go through this are things we started to discuss on the committee um as we've had our preliminary discussions and several items that came up in either the um
Budget coordinating group meeting and or the council meeting on Monday night that were inserted that could be part of the guidelines. So with that, um, Mandy has volunteered to show the document and Andy, go ahead.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to know I, as I went through it and I found typographical errors and things like that, I noted them. Do you want them um pointed out as we go through or how do you want to handle that? >> Um, sure. If Mandy's a pretty Mandy,
what I've watched her do this before, she's pretty quick on those corre corrections, Andy. Um, so I'm sure there when I do things quickly, I always have typos. My I miss letters or mist type. That would be great. And that after this meeting, we'll see how far we get. Um, I
will we can resend a draft to have people do those kinds of edits. Um, so I don't think we have to have perfect wording this time, but if we if anyone's picked those up, that would be great. So with with that, if I see no
objections, I think we will start with Mandy showing the document on her screen. I think you should be able to see it and it it's big enough or do you guys need it bigger? >> Um, >> looks good.
>> I I can see it. So, I'll >> Okay. Um, well, let me see. I'm just I've never tried to do this on an iPad before on being able to see people's hands. So, when you raise your hands, I think you will appear um or a speaker
>> and I can't with sharing a screen. I'm I don't have a raise hand function. So, I'll just like wave at the camera if I want to talk. Okay, Kathy. >> Okay. So, I I'll I'll talk people through this a little bit. Um the um I added that one sentence other than
changing the um dates. We note that next year's revenue is particularly risky to uncertainty about state revenues. We had discussed this with Shan um that we're assuming the state remain aid remains of that. I thought that short statement
would just be an alert that um that item of the that item might be subject. We always don't know what it is at this time. So, if there are no objections to these, I think Mandy could go ahead and accept the edits um as as written.
And then the next paragraph is again those changes are to change from FY26 to FY27. And I put the number in as well as the percentage because I think it's
important that the public and all of us realize that we're working with um on our budget base a very small projected increase. Um so this year unlike last year I put the dollar amount in as well as the percentage.
And again if anyone is everyone's okay with these changes we'll just accept them as we go along. I'm not seeing any hands up, so I think that's a yes. So, this is the first insert um on fire
and EMS. Uh we heard loud and strong on Monday night at the council meeting, but we've also in the past addressed this. So, this has in the guidelines include a multi-year plan to increase. Um, and I'll just stop there. It's it's a
general uh statement and since our budget is very tight, any place we insert something on increasing staffing, we're going to have to figure out how to accommodate it within the overall budget. So, I'll stop on that one to see
what comments people have on it because it's a major change. And this could be people don't want it in. Um, it's not precise. It just says >> Bob and Andy have their hands up. Kathy. >> Okay. Yeah. I can't. Let me see whether I have any way of
>> So, Bob has Bob has his hand up. >> Okay. Bob, why don't I have you call on people because on my iPad screen I literally can't see those. >> Okay. All right. Well, the first the first thing I would recommend is first of all, I I I agree with this, but I think we should make it more general
because we've also tal heard a lot about uh crest staffing and possibly even police staffing. um you know maybe we should make it more general to in increase public safety staffing
including you know fire EMS crest andor police as appropriate or something like that. >> Um I'll take any other comments on it. Bob >> Andy Andy did you want to comment? Yeah. Um I think that there has been a long
history of uh concern about the uh fire EMS staffing. This is not a new issue and I don't know how to point that out other than that uh this is your last
opportunity to get my living history with all of this stuff because uh Paul might recall that um in 2017 there was uh the I think the most recent of a comprehensive study by an outside
consultant about the need for um staffing for that particular department. And um I sort of at this point feel like uh we ought to be recognizing that this
is uh been an historic issue, not a new issue. >> Uh Paul, did you want to weigh in? >> Yeah. So I I would what I would recommend is that instead says say you assume there should there should be an increase. I think what you really need to do is evaluate staffing for a fire
EMS because I think um you know you don't really have evidence other than sort of testimony at public forum uh that you know the people ask for additional staffing. Um so I think and I think an evaluation of staffing with a
plan to move forward if if additional staffing is required would be the right that's the outcome I would be seeking like is what is our staffing levels how does it compare to other pe to other um or you know organizations and and you
different towns and then if we were to increase staffing what how would you fund that? So the suggested language is evaluate staffing of fire EMS with a plan to move forward depending on um results,
>> develop a plan to provide funding or something like that. Yeah. To because I think it's a I think both you know what the fire chief has said in my our conversations early Monday was uh that we need a multi-year plan. It's not one thing, but we need a multi-year plan.
There's lots of different things that need to be reviewed. It's not just increasing fire staffing. I think it's you want to increase you want to look at the entire fire operations for this. >> So Mandy has slightly amended what you
said include in the budget a first year of a multi-year plan. Um >> so we may not have money to I don't know if we have money to do it. Adding anything this year is going to be a challenge. So, but I Mandy does have her hand up, Kathy.
>> Yeah. I Okay. I I'm I'm really apologizing because I cannot see the hands. Um and I can't figure out how to change that >> and I can't physically raise my hand with a raise hand button. So, I just have to like wave. So, I'm I'm used to
being missed because of this. >> Paul, I don't want to interrupt you. Were you done? >> Yeah, I am. Thank you. >> Okay. Uh a couple of comments. I think given the history of fire EMS, um, as
Andy just cited, with plenty of reports that go back years, uh, I would argue it's appropriate to focus on that over public safety staffing in general. Um, >> I agree.
>> So I I I think as Andy said, we have the history. So, I wouldn't necessarily support generalizing the statement um to public safety staffing in general. Um I think there's other issues we have with staffing regarding crest versus police
or not versus cuz that sounds bad, but you know, the interaction between crest and police and as that program goes forward that we might be able to address a little bit more. Um we're supposed to get an evaluation per the goals coming soon of the Crest program. um we might
be able to address some of that within the town manager's policy goals um versus the budget here because I think there's some decisions that need made there that are not as historically um have the historic support that fire EMS
staffing levels do. And for that reason I worry about language that Paul suggested of evaluate the staffing levels. Um, how many times do we need to evaluate it before we try to follow through with what's there? Um, I haven't read the 2017 memo and evaluation that
Andy referred to recently, but I'm pretty sure it called for a severe increase in staffing levels based on the call volume at that time, if my memory is serving me correctly. And so, um, I hesitate to say evaluate it again. Um, I
know there's probably not a lot of money in the budget right now for this. So, I want to just preview another section that um I think is down below, a couple of pages below that that I I think is
really important for us to put in this this memo and to talk about as a council, which is asking the manager to early on. I I think I I put a March one deadline in. Come to us and say what
given the the budget that you have, what do you have to cut? What can't you add? Can you not fulfill this say fire EMS staffing? Um and how much would it cost? in preview of and I know people don't like it but in preview of having a
discussion about whether we should ask for a two and a half override and I know many of us are not confident that if we asked for one it would pass. I I will say I don't think it would, but I think we need to have concrete numbers. And so I think we need to have concrete numbers
in a multi-year plan of how we would add fire EMS and whether that would require a two and a half override or what other services would need decreased to do so. So I see this statement of a multi-year
plan to increase fire EMS going handinhand with getting concrete information early on before a budget is proposed about in all four functional areas what this budget can support and can't support and
how much it would cost to support the levels of services that the people in town are asking us to support. So, I I would support the first of these two bullet point points, not the second. >> Um Kathy, just so you know, Alicia is
here. You need to confirm that she can um hear and be heard. And she and I both have our hands up. >> Okay. Um actually, because the um I don't see her on my screen. Alicia, um can you hear and hear us? >> Yes, I can. Thank you, Kathy.
>> Okay. So I think because Mandy stopped sharing the screen, I can now see you all with hands up. So your hand Andy your hand is up. I can see you. Um >> well um >> I didn't know if you wanted to take Alicia first but uh I I would uh agree
with that that it should focus on fire EMS. I can't remember if we have a more detailed explanation of it below because we're not looking at the entire document right now, but uh you know we should have um probably be saying a little bit
more further in the document and I think we probably we don't have to own the result of the uh 2017 um study that was done by uh the Carlson group um which is consulting firm that
looked at it. Um, I will send uh either the document or the link to the committee later. Uh, it is on the town website too, which is how I got it this morning. Uh but I I think that uh there
is a long history and um there was a substantial um uh presentation made at the last council meeting. So I would I would uh agree with it with that
u recommendation from uh Mandy. So, I'm um Alicia, I am somehow not seeing you, but let me see whether she >> has her hand up, Kathy. >> Okay, Alicia, >> it may be because my camera is not on and sometimes there's a Zoom setting like on your personal Zoom that would
make it so that you can't see folks who don't have their camera on. >> Um, but yes, I have my hand up. Thank you. Um, I joined a little bit late, so I I missed the beginning of this conversation. Uh, but I did just want to share. So, I don't know if anything that I have to say has already been said, but
I'm feeling very strongly about this situation just considering, you know, what what we have just experienced as as a town, what we have continuously been experiencing in terms of um relying on mutual aid to address
sort of occurrences in the town. And I am not very familiar with the 2017 study, but if we have known for this a long period of time or historically that we have needed to increase staffing uh
for our firefighters, I just feel like we should have already had a plan for this. So, I I absolutely agree with keeping the bullet specifying um that we include a plan for um a multi-year plan for increasing
staffing at the fire uh for firefighter and EMS. And I do not wish to have another another evaluation. Um unless I guess maybe we want to know the the final number that we're heading for, but if it's just to gradually increase over the years, I think we need to get that
off the ground now. Um I would be in favor to looking to how we could even unfreeze the one frozen position for this coming fiscal year. Um because I think something that came up um in public comment that really stood out to me was
our sort of increase in uh student population like UMass is continuously adding students uh to uh admitting students to the university. We've I know we've had increases for the last couple of years numbers there. We are looking at densifying areas of our town and
building more apartment buildings and building more affordable housing. Like we are going to have more and more opportunities for things like what happened at Olympia Place to continue to happen in this town. And if we cannot address those things and we do not have capacity now, that is very dangerous and
it feels very irresponsible for us as a town to not start to work on that right now considering what has just happened in our town. I think we need to look at the percentage for capital. I think we need to look at the fact that we've been using conservative budgetary practices
and we have surpluses every single year and we need to figure out how to give fire and EMS at least one additional fire fighting position in this fiscal year and then maybe we move forward with a plan uh like a more long-term multi-year plan. But I think this is a
very serious issue. Like I it's public safety. Firefighters stated very clearly like we could have lost lives. I don't think we want to continue to jeopardize the lives of the people in our town. I think we need to be a little bit more aggressive with UMass in the future in terms of
getting more funding from them for fire and other services that they rely on for the town. But I think like what we can look at right this exact minute is what other small tweaks can we make in the upcoming fiscal year so that we can fund at least one more firefighter position.
And I would strongly encourage that we do that. >> Uh Sean, did you want to comment? >> Yeah, I just um so I just wanted to really quickly highlight some of the things we have done since that 2017 report. So, one thing that happened
since then was back then we had Hadley. Um, some of you may or may not recall that, but um, we serviced Hadley. Hadley decided to go their own direction and at at that time we didn't make any adjustments to the staffing at the fire. We left the staffing alone. So, in
effect, you know, it was this uh the impact of that was um, you know, lower uh lower call volume at that point and the same amount of staffing. And then with ARPA, we did add the four firefighters which was about a 10% increase in staffing. So I don't
disagree that we need a plan um and we need to address uh the feedback that we heard. But I do think it's, you know, looking at that report that Andy cited, looking at what has happened since that report and then deciding how to move forward is a good idea. >> Paul, did you want to comment?
>> Yeah, yes, just build on that. So, I think it really is important to read the report because the report really talked about when we needed staffing, not just around the clock staffing. This it looked at peak use times and is there a way to adjust the union contract to uh provide for day shifts. Um, so that's
been part of the plan. So, we hire PE we hire people when we need I think you know we we even this morning we've had conversations about how how to move forward with additional staffing for fire. So, I think we're in un we're understanding that. Um, but I also think we have to look at all the services that
the fire department provides where where we're allocating our firefighter paramedics. What, you know, what are the are we spending our money wisely in a certain way? But we are spending our money wisely, but just are we able to keep get the most out of our current budget and then how much additional
funds do we need to be able to staff additionally? I think the fire chief has already has thought this through and we've had really positive conversations and we will continue to have those because I think what I'm hearing from the council which I totally appreciate and agree with is that you want to plan
um with funding sources to to increase um our ability to respond to calls because it's changed since 2017. We have a lot more ambulance calls. We even though we've lost Hadley, it's a different uh profile of the community going on right now. So I I think we as
staff are really driven to to get a proposal prepared for the council uh during this budget process. >> Thank you. >> So I'll I'll raise my I'll raise my hand too. Paul, have we are all the vacancies
we Alicia talked about freezing one but we had several vacancies in fire. Had they all been filled? So, we have there's one um position that can be filled that we are interviewing they're interviewing for. It sort of got set back because of the fire. Um and we're
then we will have all the filled all the available positions filled. So, we're you know they they've been very um good at at working through hiring new people and and pretty pretty um excited about the people that we have hired. Um there is the frozen position. There are a
couple positions that where there are um long-term injuries where they're they're positions that were they're not utilized in our staffing model, but we're still paying the people. >> So, if we um if we changed
from the poll change from the change we had to instead of evaluate, what about devise a plan for adequately staffing fire EMS? >> Yeah. Or improve staffing I think. I I get what people are saying. We don't want to do any more evaluations. I think
that I think that's a smart thing to take out. Um but to improve staffing or response times or something. I'm not sure exactly. >> So devise a plan to improve staffing for firearms. >> Yeah. >> And if others can see the screen, that's
great because I can't. I'm happy. And so and so what here if I'm hearing the council the finance committee right it's like this is your number one priority in terms of budget is that if and I think that would be important for you to tell us if that's what your number one priority is or if you're going to have a
whole bunch of different priorities it'd be helpful to know how we should prioritize funds coming coming forward and I think you would also part of this is not just use ex are there other other funding sources that we can draw on which I think um councelor Walker mentioned And
can we go go to the university? Are there other grants out there that we can secure to not make it all land on the taxpayer? >> Yeah, I I would agree with that. So, go ahead, Mandy. >> You're muted. >> Alicia was first. Um, so Alicia should
go, but I'm I'm going to say one thing that that university renegotiation is later in the document, so we'll get there on comments on that. >> Yeah, Alicia. Um, okay. I was going to suggest
language for the bullet point, but I think you got it because I just wanted to make sure that the improving the staffing plan for fire and EMS also included the funding sources to do so. Um, but I think you added that. Um, so
yes, I think that Paul, what you said was exactly what I was at least trying to say. Um, and I I still would hope that when you're I mean I don't know if the finance committee will make this decision ultimately, but I would hope that we would look at trying to start
that immediately. Like is there anything we can do in this fiscal year to start that process? Um because I do also want to say while data, evaluations, reports, all of those things are really great and can help inform our decisions, what's actually really important is what is happening on the ground. What is the
experience of the actual firefighters? and they were really really clear that they don't have safe staffing levels. And I think they would know better than any consultant, better than any person that could come and evaluate for us the department that they're saying they're sending trucks out with one or two
staff. Like that is not safe. That is not okay. It's not okay that if there was another call to come in when they were dealing with Olympia Place that that wouldn't have been there would have been no staff for that. So I don't think I just I think it's very clear that
what is happening on the ground is not acceptable. Um and so I hope that we can take this very seriously >> and and if I can just we do you know just to confirm that we you know town staff the fire chief um Sean and I have
already had you were engaged in this conversation. You know, I just had one one more thing just to add on this. I you know, we in the past, not necessarily in guidelines, but we've talked about regional approaches. So, I think other small
towns, not Ammerst, but others, everyone is relying on mutual aid when there's a a crisis level. So, we give it as well. So I think the devise of plan and financing is important wording um to be
thinking of what's going on. Uh and I think part of it Paul you're saying are there places where that we can save staff time and re and reallocate it as you look through everything fire EMS does which I think deise a plan encompasses all of that.
>> So I see both Andy and Bob had their hands up. Andy was first. >> That is uh Do I have your permission to send the 2017 study by email to the entire group? >> Oh, absolutely. >> Okay.
>> And that was um I I also think that was we talked about this way back when because we thought we needed to look at it again with with Hadley moving out of us and and we never looked at it again. I mean, we we as a council never looked at it again. We asked that we would be
looking at it again. So yes, Andy, we should be all looking at that. Bob, >> yeah, I I wanted to point out two things. One is that Hadley has just gutted their fire department, >> right? >> So I don't know what's going to happen with them, but um but secondly, I wanted
to point out not to have people forget that when our fire EMS staff are out all out on calls, it puts the rest of the town the town's residents at risk, even those who are not being
served right away. In other words, if if I had a heart I'm 73 years old. If I had a heart attack on a Friday night, I I don't know if I would if they'd get there in time. Um, so it's it's not just the fire risk, which I agree. No,
>> it's it's the risk to the town that we don't have sufficient coverage. Um, and that results in even if we get mutual aid, it results in delays. And >> that can be, you know, in in a health emergency that can mean the difference
between life and death. >> And I also agree with that, Bob. I'm not sure when UMass did this, but their health their health center used to have beds, overnight beds for students that avoided ambulance, and they shut down that facility. So when Paul in the
discussions with them, those beds still exist. They're just not used. They used to take students and basically detox um and have them do what we're now doing when we bring them over to Kulie Dickinson when they're and and they don't do that anymore. They still have
the physical capacity to do it, but they no longer have done it. So UMass took that off the line in a way that affects week, particularly weekend uh ambulance responses. Uh the advice to some seniors has been don't have an emergency on the weekend.
>> Exactly. >> And and I I I will say my wife had an emergency. She got to the hospital, okay, but the hospital was understaffed and she sat for four hours without any kind of treatment. >> And that that was the issue that it's also a queuing up inside the emergency
room. Um uh >> Mandy, >> being mindful of time, can I accept these and move on? >> Yeah. >> Yes. we spent a lot of time on. >> Okay. So, if you do share screen, I I'm
going to have to take I think it is going to have to look at my computer because it won't let me restart it either. Um so, I am going to struggle on with iPad and Mandy, you're going to have to show it again um on the screen for me or maybe I can just because I'm
not seeing it anymore. But >> that's weird. Everyone else is seeing it, right? >> Yeah, I can see it. >> All right. So, just keep going and I can imagine it. >> It might be a setting on your iPad where you see the speakers over the shared screen. >> Okay, let's see.
>> Sometimes it's a swipe to the swipe to the left to get a different view. >> Okay, I Okay, I got it back. Thank you. >> It was in the attempt to see the hands are up. So Bob, I'm relying on you to
watch for hands. >> Here, I'll watch for hands. >> So the second one um is basically the same as last year was equal changes um just now last year at
this time in the fall was 3%. >> Can we accept the revenue projection change? >> Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Thanks, Mandy. >> Okay. So the second one is I've left it as equal. This wording is exactly the
same as last year just with an update to 35 because at this time last year we were at 3%. And and just as we're looking at it, there was a question, should we maintaining the contribution of OPED at 600? Just so people understand this,
this is a reduction of 50,000. In Sean's projection, they have it go it has it going up to 650. So we also have the option of saying decrease it. So right now I left it I left the wording as it was last year.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I agree that um that we should we should keep it at 600,000 unless Paul or Shawn this is going to cause you know heartburn for our our um
rating our bond rating. >> Are there any other hands on either >> either of these two item the the equal and or the post oped? You call them. Mandy has her hand up. >> Um, I agree for those two bullet points.
I agree with um Bob and and what's written at this point. I think we need to later on put some wording in regarding the equal percentage increases um as we cuz cuz if we're adding staffing, you know, there there's all sorts of questions there. But um for in
here at this time with the information we have after BCG of everyone's facing the same hardships um I'm willing to leave this one at equal percentages for now. >> Hey Sean, did you want to weigh in?
>> Yeah, I think keeping um keeping the contribution 600 is fine. Um with a caveat that one thing I am hearing from our auditors is that they would like the finance committee or the council at some point to not like firmly commit itself but to
vote some sort of um plan or policy around funding of OPED. Um in particular that when retirement pension assessment um when the retirement system is fully funded and our pension assessment starts to go down that there is at least the intent to shift some of that funding
towards OPED. That's sort of the big like the big piece of our funding plan. Um and that has um you know we've disc discussed that before but the committee has never sort of adopted or voted that they agree with that plan. So I think at some point in the spring uh that would
be a uh a critical step and if we don't do that then the the discount rate that our actuary uses and when our auditors evaluate that that might go up and it will increase that liability for us. Um, so that's separate from this, but I think keeping this at 600 would be okay.
And if we could work on that other piece that would um sort of offset that impact. >> Any other comments on these two? >> All Yeah, just a quick note. So I think I agree with Sean on that, but I and I just caution. I think if we start to reduce that number, that's a bad sign to
the rating agency. So I think level funding is is is okay. And that that Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree. I I don't want to see it reduced either. Um >> Okay. So that I think we're accepting both of those changes, Mandy, those two
bullets. And I suggest we come back to the elementary school budget. We've got a text on this. The issue on the elementary school budget base I think everyone knows um or hope everyone knows
is in the projection that Sean has as per the council and the finance committee's guidelines the one-time funding is not part of the base. So the three and a half% is applied not to the
current operating budget but to the operating budget minus that extra money. Um and that was the intent of that or the expectation was that the sixth grade the con consolidation of going from three schools to two schools would save money and that the elementary school
just needed bridge money to get to that point. Now there's some question on that depending on what the decision is under the sixth grade that the sixth grade may absorb some of some of that or most of that savings. So, this was just I left
this in drafting. I just left this blank because it wasn't clear what we should say here. So, Bob, whatever hands are up on this. Um, we should talk about this here. >> Okay, I see Alicia. >> Uh, thank you, Bob. Yeah, I just wanted
to add though that I think regardless of when the transition for the sixth grade happens, like I don't think we should change the the way we're approaching approaching the financing but too
proactively like even if the change were to happen this year, I don't think that that means we see immediate savings. I think we need to keep that money there while the transition is happening. Um because there will probably be unforeseen costs or things. It's a big
transition. It's unprecedented at least in this town. We don't know what it's going to look like. We don't know what it's really going to cost us. So, I would be opposed to changing anything just yet. >> Um Bob, may I
>> Mandy? Yeah, go ahead. >> Thank you. Um, it that that line in in this section I think is extraneous um because we have something similar to below that is sort of slightly highlighted. I don't think we need it in
both. I think we do have to discuss it. Um but >> but in terms of the projections, what we did last year was if there are surpluses, do the base first. Um, and I think we need to discuss that because of some of what Alicia said. I I think we
also cannot forget that and and let people know and remind people that I believe our capital plan for FY26 has capital money for a transition um for some of those expenses at least that would be on the capital side. Um, and I
understand, Alicia, that you might be be talking about more operational expenses that might sort of be one time as as things happen, but we can't forget that there are some transition expenses. So, I would be in favor of deleting it from the highlighted area, keeping sort of a
comment down here um in the prioritize increasing. It was the regional last year, but um keeping a comment in there that says revisit um that sentence for elementary school. And then I just want to highlight this one. I am in favor of this last bullet point before the
revised projections one about increasing expense lines to reflect current expenses. Um, I I think we're slowly running into or we're or devolving into concerning budgeting practices where our budget doesn't
actually reflect known expenses well that it underbudgets what we know we're going to spend in certain areas and that concerns me. So, I would I would support this this other yellow bullet about increasing expense lines.
And and just just for those who weren't part of the budget review in May, one of the things we realized was that the operating expense budget for for example for DPW had in essence been frozen
dollar-wise and each year as a result it's spending more than that operating expense budget but relying on vacancies to fund it so it doesn't come in over budget. So this line would ask for more accurate forecasting of the expense line, you know, to at least what we're
spending now. That just I'm just explaining what that yellow line means. So I think the recommendation here is to remove the standalone bullet on elementary school budget base. Just take it out and then keep the second yellow one.
Um if people can indicate whether they're okay with both of those changes. >> I agree. Okay, Mandy. So, we're removing elementary school base. Just take it out as >> Okay, we're going to come back to
elementary, Alicia, so it didn't disappear. >> Okay, >> that Well, that's what I was going to ask. I'm not opposed to taking out either of those bullet points. I just wanted to know what that would mean about our recommendation for the base for the elementary school. So in the
next one is where Mandy's got prioritized increasing the Ammerst elementary school budget to its full blah blah blah. Um that the first amount of money would prior to and now it should be prior to the three and a
half%. Mandy. Yeah. So that is where so it's basically that little line 269,000 is I think my memory of it. Is that on the base or not? So this second one
would be if there's money if so if if the revenue projection goes up we keep that money in um rather than that would be the first place the revenue projection goes up that's where the money would go. That's how we worded it last year for the regional school.
>> Um I'll I'll call on myself. Um, >> yeah. >> I I one of the thing that we have later on in the in the draft is a sort of a stabilization fund for special education. I wonder if we should make
that a more general um stabilization fund for unforeseen expenses. Um that could include um transition to um the element, you know, transition to the sixth grade. it
could include special education. I mean, they gave the the example we heard was one family moved to town after the schools opened with three kids who had special education needs, and that was not really sort of planned for. Um, I I
I think if we have revenue, if we have free cash, one place to put it would be to in to put it into some sort of a stabilization fund for education. Um, and I'm I'm thinking for the
elementary schools. Um, so that they have some buffer there that, you know, I mean, it it the the danger is they're going to use it all up every year. Um, which of
course that's not the intent. Um but I think if we somehow label for emergencies or for unforeseen expenses that um maybe we can um we can uh you know that that's one way to deal with
this issue about the budget because if we leave it in the the the base of the budget, it's there forever. Um it'll never come out again. Whereas a stabilization fund is really more of a buffer fund. You know, it's more buffer
funding. >> So Bob, just so I I want you to call on the other hands, but I want to understand. So you're >> saying rather than prioritize putting it on the base, you'd rather create this this uh emergency stabilization fund. Is
that is that is an is you proposing that as an alternative? >> Yes, I am. just because we could use it to as a buffer for the transition or they could use it as a buffer for special education needs or for any
unforeseen, you know, I I just think of, you know, if if they're building a budget and then all of a sudden after the school's open, they have an unforeseen need, then you know, it seems to me that that they should be able that that this would be
able to be tapped for That's for that. That's that's my that's my thoughts. Anyway, uh there's uh Sean and Andy and and Alicia have their hands up. Sean? >> Yeah. So, um Bob, I don't think you were at BCG, but so the schools do have a
special ed stabilization fund. I created it back when I was there uh in early 2016, 17, 18, sometime around then. Um it has never been used. There is $242,000 in it. Um it was and it's been increased
a little bit over time. It was looks like they put some more money into it in FY21. Um it was initially seated with some money um back in looks like 2018. So there is a is a fund already with $242,000 in it. I wouldn't recommend
putting more money into it until that was used first. Um and again it has never been accessed since it's been created. So they have that that buffer and that contingency there. Um, and it's a little bit unique in how it's used. It was a new fund that the state allowed.
It was like a special legislation that was passed to allow the creation of it. So, I believe in order for them for the schools to use it, they do have to come to the council and get approval. Um, which is good. You'll that's way you'll know that it's being used and that's what it's intended for. Um, but it's
specifically for unanticipated special education expenses. That was the specific intent behind it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Yep. Andy. Yeah, I think that Sean may have covered most of the intent of what I have to say
and that was but it was simply that Northampton um I know has um a fund and they have been using it and it has been very effective because it's um special
education expenses um very quickly year for year and if in extraordinary years um they have found it to be a really uh valuable buffer to have. Um, and I know
that from my, as you know, I've had many conversations about budget with uh the council president there. >> Hey, thank you, Andy. Alicia, >> uh, thank you, Bob. I was not aware that
the school had that uh fund. So, thank you for sharing that, Sean. Um although uh what I was going to say anyhow was that I I support that idea but not as an alternative. Uh I'm not sure if you all
are aware of the situation in our elementary schools beyond like what has been shared uh from the school committee but our schools are in crisis like actually currently right now very very seriously um in terms of like being able to
provide the resources that they need specifically to uh special education children but just in general. Um and so I think it would be a mistake for us to not include the funding in the base right now. Um our schools are very much
so suffering. I have three kids who all have special needs and their needs have not been able to be met at the school uh for for many reasons and there are many challenges happening in the elementary schools right now. Uh so I don't think this is the time to to take that money
out of the base. Um, and I'm glad to hear that they have that stabilization fund for unplanned for uh expenses. And I'm hoping that we might actually be able to contribute to it because 200 I think you said 242 or something like that is not a lot of money and I don't
think we want to exhaust it before we contribute to it again. So, I would be in favor of figuring out a way to contribute to that on a more regular basis and to keep the base funding for this uh fiscal this upcoming fiscal year. Thank you, Alicia. Uh Kathy,
>> uh yeah, I think Sean, um when I read the legislation, and thank you for providing a link to it, um there's a limit to how much can be in the funds. So, the way this is worded, we could change the wording, it would be up to
the limit. So, to the extent we used needed to pull down on the money, there would still be money. So, I don't know what that limit is. Um, so we're not at the full limit with 242. You know, it the legislation allows for this, but does it cannot be any more
than x% of the base, I think, is the way it up to the limit allowed by law. So, this would allow replenishing it, you know, if we draw down on it, you know. So, um, so it's, so if it's 242 right now
and up to the limit, I'm not sure what the dollar amount difference is that and we can come in how that would, but this would put enough money in it and replenish it if you get these sudden surges and then you don't draw on it unless there's a surge again. So, in theory, the budget should anticipate
ongoing, not not the one time. So, I was going to suggest that change, but also we could put a footnote in here and we don't have to do it now that lets the world know there is such a fund already and that it has money in it because this was a discover. We thought
we were going to have to create it and we discovered that we have it already. So, it would be good, I think, to just put a a footnote in an unusual footnote, but a a footnote allowing people to know it exists. >> And thank you, Paul.
>> Yeah. So just for clarity, if I'm understanding what the what you've come to so far is that your expectation is that any additional staffing for fire would come out of the town's 3.5%. Um, and then if there's additional money
that's coming in, there are these two bullets, uh, possibly three for free cash, but to, um, prioritize increasing elementary school budget. Um, and then increase town budget, all four budgets,
uh, overall. And I guess those are those are in order of priority. Um, just want to be clear that those are if that's an order of priority or if you were going to put in additional funding for for fire in this list. So, just if you give me clarity on that, that'd be helpful,
>> Kathy. >> And and I see Mandy Joe has her hand up, too. >> Okay. I can't see Mandy. Sorry. >> No, I think that's a good question, Paul. and and in the fire EMS. I mean, part of it was a a heavy push um back to
UMass so that it doesn't have to all come out of our budget. So, I do think we need clarity here. And I'll just speak to the capital budget where I've been the only person so far who has wanted to reduce the amount coming out of the operating budget to capital. But
that's one of the ways I thought that yes, we could increase both the school budget, the school, the elementary schools budget and the town budget to allow for for the fun. >> Yeah. I guess my question is it doesn't matter where the money comes from, it's just what are your priorities is my >> Yeah. No. So, so I understand what
you're asking, you know, that where the new if we find new money, you know, revenues are higher than we thought, where do we put it? And so in this list, are we putting it um uh so the other would be distribute it proportionately? But the I think what Paul is asking is
do we put a bullet before that says distribute it secondly to the town budget to allow for the fire EMS? That's I think what you're suggesting Paul is is it up there in the priority list? My question is, is it a is it subject to funding for additional funds or is it
something you're saying reallocate funding if you're exist within the town's budget to make this happen? >> I'm taking my hand down. Let everyone else respond to that. I think it's a good question. >> Mandy, I can't see you, but I understand your hand is up.
>> Yes. Um, a couple of things. Um, I' I'd like to hear from Sean why he wouldn't suggest appropriating, you know, the way this bullet is regarding the special ed stabilization fund is appropriate from free cash to the special ed stabilization fund. So, not out of that.
And and why wouldn't you suggest doing that? Um, in that when I read the state law, um, there were a couple of questions I had regarding the state law, right? The balance can't exceed 2% of net school spending. So is that required
net school school school spending or our actual operating budget those are totally different numbers right required net school spending is 17.5 million operating budget is about 29 so that's a total balance of 350 to 580 if I did my math right um if the
current balance is 250 that's an extra $100,000 from what at this year we're expecting to be a $10 million free cash well a $10 million surplus and I know 3.8 eight of that is already going to replenish free cash. So, it's not it's
not in there. Um, you know, and it appeared the bigger thing is it appeared that the funding of that special ed stabilization fund needed to be in the school budget in their school budget that it's not something that can be done say in our November um free cash
transfers that it has to be in a yearly budget. And so, if that's the case, why wouldn't we say put it in the budget? um instruct the school or Paul to try and put it in that budget so that it's there using free cash. I'm not trying to take it out of other things because that's a
way we can use that you know plan for the November free cash transfers. This is one of those planning tools. Um you know do do they have to happen in the budget? Could we do it in November is one question, right? Um another one is the region also has one. What do we do
about the region? Um I don't know it's it's not does it have to be in the budget? And then I guess the next question is it sounds like the stabiliz the spending of the stabilization fund can happen at any time during the year. So I'd like clarification if that's correct. So so that if that emergency
comes up in August, we just get the the request from the school committee in a financial order or I I don't even know would it be a financial order um to to approve spending from the special education stabilization fund. Um, so those are the questions I had about
that. Why wouldn't we appropriate free cash for it if it's not at its maximum um so that it's there if there is a a thing? And then in terms of Paul's question, he's got a great question. Um,
I I think I would put fire over elementary school at this point simply because we don't have enough information about um the what has always been assumed to be a savings when the two
schools open, when the one new school opens and consolidates the two schools such that that's why that that wasn't included in the base. And until we have more information as to what that budget
looks like, that re sort of reformulated quote level services budget. Um I would prefer to prioritize our any any surpluses. Right now it's a half million
dollar deficit. um to fire EMS over increasing the elementary school base to a level that we assumed would not be in terms of that amount that is is there that we said was one time is equivalent
to almost the anticipated savings on um utility costs in the new elementary school. And I understand there's other concerns there with the elementary school budget. Um, but I think we need to deal with those and
have a better conversation of of who gets more money from their typical base. And that's that's something that I'm I'm I tried to deal with later on in the in the document with the conversation and reports by March one.
But I I think I'd put the EMS above the elementary school at this point and keep the free cash for the elementary school step sped fund. >> Are there other reactions to this? So this is >> put Alicia and Sean have their hand up.
Alicia, >> um I I don't want to say I disagree, but I just like for me these things are not mutually exclusive. They are all priorities. It's not a one two three. I think both things need to happen. Um and
so to the best of your ability, Paul, and if if other finance committee members agree with me, I would hope that you would see a way to to make both of these things happen. Um, and I do am now thinking a little bit more
about uh Kathy's suggestion of uh going a little bit lower on our capital contribution to make that happen. Um, I think both of these things feel very critical right now. I also think that again, I don't know when exactly we'll see savings. I I
think the school is due to open in the fall, but we'll still also have operating expenses for Wildwood. I think Paul you mentioned that. Um and so I again I don't think I think it's too soon to be rearranging our budget for those
uh anticipated savings. I think that we should look at that in the next fiscal year. I think right now it would be really important to make both of these things happen. >> Thank you, Alicia. John, >> thank you. Um, responding to what Mandy
Joe had asked, so why I wouldn't put more money necessarily into the special education stabilization fund. One, again, has not been used in seven years. Um, and two, if there was ever an emergency, you we could still uh the council could
still appropriate from free cash to the schools middle of the year if there was a, you know, unexpected placement. um even if it surpassed everything that was in the special ed stabilization fund, the council could do an emergency appropriation from either general stabilization or from free cash. So by
moving it, it's just kind of reducing the flexibility, I guess, that the council has um with its reserves. It's not necessarily, you know, it's again that this money is really supposed to be for things that are not anticipated. It's not meant to be an alternative to budgeting for known placements. That's supposed to be if
again a student moves in has high needs that wasn't that weren't budgeted for or you have a out of district placement that you didn't budget for um because you didn't know about it. That's what these funds are supposed to be used for. Um and between it not being used and that we could still address that uh
emergency with free cash or general stabilization. That's why I I felt that way. Um and then to your question how it can be used. Um so it requires a majority vote of the school committee and then it comes to the city council and it requires a majority vote of the city council to use it. So similar
threshold um for this the council of using free cash would be a majority vote. >> Kathy, >> hey I have a I I have a suggestion kind of comment on all that
we're looking at. one is um I would I do think we have to make choices uh Elishia we have to live within a budget so we don't like our choices is one overall comment I would make but if we keep the
bullet the first bullet as a priority and if we reward the elementary school budget pending an analysis by the elementary school committee on the costs of the sixth trade and the budget
because it not just doing it automatically because one of the issues that Bob raised is once we put it on the base it's on the base and we don't we want to avoid a situation we're actually reducing it and we expect all the need school needs to do to recoup the utility
is lock the door of Wildwood and turn over the building to the town and then it's no longer on the school budget Wildwood you know so if the town decides to open the door and turn on the lights and heat the building. It would be town cost. So there's real savings on
utility, just it requires action. So I would I don't know I have the exact wording on the elementary school budget, but I think it should be dependent on an analysis. We haven't seen an analysis and the what I understand from the school committee is they're still
looking at a way if they could keep the sixth grade in the two schools and avoid this freestanding uh freestanding sixth grade in the middle school. And as Mandy pointed out, there's $450,000 of capital like money and I don't know whether that's funible or not but for
that move. So I would change the wording on elementary and then on the third I would dis delete the third distribute proportionately altogether. I don't think we're going to have enough money to do that and we might need all of that money for the first two. And then on
Sea's thing instead of appropriate up to the limit to replenish it I would just do to replenish it if it gets used up. I would change the wording to so if they have to draw down the amount to replenish it. So, right now it wouldn't
necessarily require any new funding, but it would send a signal that we plan on replenishing it. We used free cash this year for the banks building. So, we do in sometimes draw on free cash. So, I
would change the wording to an existing fund. So, I would reward it that way to avoid prejudging whether that money has just been drained. So, those would be my suggestions going through all of those for everyone to think about.
>> Thanks, Kathy. Alicia, >> um, thanks. I have a question and a comment. My question is, um, is it a reasonable expectation that we would have that analysis from the schools before May 1? >> They have to.
So do we know when we are expecting to know that? >> So Paul and Paul and others and BCG I mean they have to have a budget by March. Correct. >> April one. >> April one.
>> And and in the region well yeah April one and they tend to pass it in mid-Marchch. Um, and BCG, I think Shannon stated they might have an initial guess, guess is the wrong word, an el
initial estimate of the new sort of budget structure and stuff. January, is that what Shannon said? I think. Um, so, so not in time or late December or something. So, not in time for our
budget guidelines to be passed, but but shortly thereafter is what was said in BCG. >> Okay. I feel like that is just another one of the just already existing flaws of our our budget process. Like getting information after we set the budget
guidelines feels a little bit frustrating. And so, I'm I I don't have a clear sense of this in my head, but I'm wondering if we could adjust the language to reflect that. uh because I just don't want us to give a recommendation that then is
contradictory to whatever comes out. Um and then we don't have another chance to discuss it as a finance committee. Um does that make sense what I'm what I'm trying to get to. So Alicia, if we change the second bullet to say pending analysis
of the elementary from the school committee on the district on the elementary school budget potentially increase. >> Yeah, I think that would feel better for me because again I just don't want to lock us out of the recommendation that
we think that that needs to happen. Um, and we don't really know what's going to happen. We don't know what's going to happen with the sixth grade move. Um, we don't know how long, I know you said it's a simple decision, but we don't know how long that's going to take uh, for Wildwood to be turned back over to the town. And so, I think we just need
to be prepared to not be locking ourselves into a little bit more of a complicated situation. >> Mandy, I see your hand up. I don't know when you put it up relative to others, so go ahead. >> Well, thank you. Um I was wondering about regarding these two, you know,
we're down to sort of two if projections indicate surpluses, right? Um staffing for the library. Um, I don't know how we want to deal with or discuss um the the comments that the librarian made at BCG and has made in the past to
finance committee that that the town's portion the town's support for the library budget no longer covers the staffing salaries that it used to completely cover. Um, and therefore they've had to essentially cut down
staffing levels. And and I I'm I'm trying to to approach this delicately because I recognize the schools are in the same situation, right? the schools have had to decrease some staffing that um is not
necessarily related to decreased enrollment and all, but but how do we address that issue in here as we're talking about revised projections that might have surpluses? That's normally how we try to do with equal percentages.
We're all facing awful choices this year, but but how do we address or talk about that issue with the library, too? and it might not be here. It might be later on in the budget, but I wanted to just bring that up.
>> Thank you, Paul. >> Yeah. So, two points. One is I think you know in response to Manny's that point, we are also we're sitting on five frozen positions as well. And that's not noted here at all. So, I just want to note that. And also Kathy, you mentioned that the bank center renovations are coming
from free cash. really that's coming from ARPA funds that had to be moved into free that we moved into free cash as a defensive posture. So I don't think you can really say that's really free cash. That's really had had I not recommended that we move that into free cash, we would have just spent it out of
ARPA and so I think uh that's not a good comparison I think. >> Okay, thanks Paul Sean. Yeah, I'm not necessarily looking to add more things to your priorities, but um maybe it's somewhere else. I don't see anything
about the regional schools. Um and I, you know, just based on experience that the regional school budget has has had more challenges over the last 10 years, um especially with funding and um it reliance on state aid and how little that grows year-over-year. And so this
is very specific to supporting the elementary school. Maybe again, maybe it's somewhere else in this document, but um I feel like that should be somewhere um the regional schools as well. >> Can I just add to that? >> Yeah, go ahead.
>> So, I think you know there are a lot of nuances to this regional school budget. So, one of the new things that will happen is the new track and field which will bring additional expenses that are not expected not they're not in in the regional school budget. So I think that's something we want to recognize as
well. >> Yeah, Kathy. >> So I amend my taking the third bullet out because that's where the region is, Sean, or that's where the region was. Um, >> so if if there's enough money, here are three things we'd like you to do with
it. Um, so I wouldn't take the last part out. I did hear um one of the towns said if Amoris goes to three and a half and the regional agreement assessment method
continues to be what it is, they will have to do an override. So it there's there is going to be stress on the regional budget even at three and a half from the other towns. I just it's that's just an observation. That's not a that I wouldn't change that.
>> Manny, >> I'm sorry Kathy. >> That's all I just wanted to say that you know we've got three places for the hoped on. We get more money than we think we have. Three places to put it. Yeah. I take my hand down.
>> Mandy, >> you're you're on mute. Sorry, thank you. Um, for the region budget, I think the concern is how do we discuss it? Um, because as I asked at BCG, our three and a half% guidance may or may not be the defining factor in
what the region total assessment is because it might not be us driving the affordability of the assessment. Um it you know I if if our share slice of the pie of the assessment decreases that
3 and a half% might increase that we're to our assessment level um that we're we've put into our guidelines might be represent logically a 7 8 or 9% increase to a town whose slice of the pie goes
from you know 5% to 5 1.5% you know where That's a, you know, five to five and a half is a a 10% incre in increase, right? Um um right there before a dollar's been added to the assessment. And I don't know how we write that into
the guidelines that that and and how we plan for that frankly um when it might, as Kathy just sort of said, that three and a half might not be where we are. um we might be because of what the other towns can afford at three or 2
and 1/2 and and maybe we need to put into our guidelines something about how do we deal with that if we can do three and a half% but the other towns can't what do we do with the the
excess up to three and a half% um but until we get some information about that and what we were told was we can't get that estimate until frankly like March February or March from the region which is very hard then to to talk about in a
guideline. Um but maybe find a way in a next draft of talking about that. >> So I >> I agree that this is a a tricky a tricky situation. I mean these are guidelines based on what we know now.
>> Um we can kind of revise you know we've done that in the past. We've we've revised the budget by, you know, by changing the the direction to the town manager. Um, I don't know. It's I I don't know how to I
mean, I think we should maybe we should address it and just say that we don't know what what the other towns, three towns in the region can can afford. Um, we may have to revisit this. So, do
I have a suggestion? I'm just looking at the time. It's 11:15. Um, can we My suggestion would be to leave these as written and we can put a comment bubble. need to may need to revisit and get to
some of the others. And then my other is the council has this on their agenda potentially for December 1st to discuss and it's not clear to me that we are going to have a draft finished by tw in
the next 45 minutes. So, um I what I can do is the council has a I can tell the council president we won't be ready then and we have a meeting on December 3rd is when we would complete it. So, I just need people to weigh in on that. And I'm
not saying we're not going to finish, but I just we're moving on to the next parts. So, just alert people to the two timelines we're up on. I I think if we plug through this the next the the descriptions will go quicker if we can get through these section because this
is sort of the big recommendations. >> Okay. So then the the the next one is capital. Um I had raised the issue of lowering this amount and I didn't say to what um and 10.5 and it was to free up
money for the operating budget and I thought in terms of two things about this that if we started moving in so I I need I can't articulate the way the two interact in numbers but I could if people wanted to. if we started moving
in some of the money that's in the capital reserve to supplement the capital budget and we had a plan to move in and I think Sean the last I saw was in just when the budget when we were looking at the budget but there was nearly 11 million at that point and it's
been earning since then. So we we started moving in some of that money with a schedule. It would begin to pay for there were line items for DPW for that building as it comes online for construction andor
for the study. So it wasn't to decrease the amount we're spending each year on the capital budget, but it was to start to supplement it. So I thought we could go lower on the 10 and a half for not just this year but for a couple years by pulling down that capital amount that
was allocated from capital. We could also be it might not be just for deep. It might be to supplement roads. So it would be the notion it's a capital budget. Let's capital reserve let's use some of it. So that was my two pieces on
why I thought it could go on lower. But I left it in this draft. It still says 10.5. I'm finished. And I see Mandy's hand is up. Bob. >> Okay, Mandy. >> Thank you. Um,
I am concerned that every year when we see tight operating budgets and you know, we suggest decreasing the capital budget below what our target is. And I and I guess this the question is is our target 10 and a half or 10 at this
point. you know it at one point it was 10 and then when we looked at all the models including the models from last year it was a 10 and a half target and I think we should pick a target and stick to that target without saying oh but the operating budgets are tight so let's
decrease capital for that um because we've seen the result of decreasing capital when operating budgets are tight that's what happened in ' 0708 2012 where our capital line was like 5% instead of 10%. And we're
seeing the results of that now with the capital demands we have because we didn't fund the the ongoing maintenance of capital. We we deferred it all in order to support operating budgets and
and that deferral has come home to roost and and I I worry that it is seen as an easy target to reduce even a 100,000 here or there that then doesn't you know that then we hear you
know one of the things we most hear from from our residents is not just schools and fire and operation ating it's capital investments and so I don't think we should be looking to capital to reduce it and the models that were presented last year and that the council for nearly the entire time for the last
5 years I think that I've been on the council has has worked with is 10 and a half% not 10 um even though I know some of the guidance before was 10 um to do that um in terms of the allocating supplemental capital funds model two
from last November had us starting to do that I think in this in FY27 expecting that DPW was there and it included a minimum of 3 million in in cash capital. I think this budget season
we need to sort of start saying what is our minimum cash capital and then maybe we start following that model too that we talked about last year in finance of if we don't hit that minimum cash capital given all of the debt whether
that be for DPW or this or that then we supplement with the capital stabilization but what is our minimum cash capital is it three is it three and a half is it four model 2 had three three might be a little low nowadays Model 2 was before we saw lots of inflation on capital spending in terms
of costs. Um, you know, should it be three and a half or four and that's what we supplement for. Um, so I don't necessarily like this wording, but I I agree with some sort of wording regarding using capital stabilization funds to supplement the
capital budget to maintain a certain minimum of cash capital um, payments because the debt is the debt. Um, and we will deal with that as it comes. But I don't support out reducing that 10 and a half to 10 unless we see models that
that we haven't seen regarding the capital budgets and the projects at a 10% capital allocation because I think we've been operating at 10 and a half. And I do think when we the the fourth bullet that's in yellow roads and sidewalks I think we should set a number
um of of what we are not just an annual target like allocate you know the capital budget allocate a certain amount of dollars for roads and sidewalks repairs that includes and then all of those things and capital improvement and and Paul and Sean can figure out how you
get to that number. Um but I think we should set a number. So, I I would put a number in that fourth bullet point. >> Thank you, Alicia. >> Um, I do agree with Mandy Joe in terms of setting a target. I think that that
would just be helpful for streamlining um especially moving forward in the future. Um, not that I personally think that that means that we always need to meet that target, but I do think that that would be a helpful step. Um, I am particularly interested in exploring
what that might do for us if we do go down to 10% for this uh for the next budget cycle and what impact that would have on both the capital side and on uh the municipal budget side. Um, because for me, if that's the difference between
us meeting all of our other priorities and not, then that seems worth it to me. Um, but if it's not going to have that impact, then I think that that would also be helpful to know. >> Thank you. Uh, Sean
>> on the set setting a number for roads. Um, I would caution, not caution, but we're working on a plan that would be presented to the council at some point in the next couple months. Um and you may want to either tie this to that plan or the discussion that happens following
that plan um before sending a number here because it might you know be below or above whatever whatever would come out of that plan. Um and then on the 10.5% for capital. So yeah so it it you know ultimately
just dictates how much we can do right. So, if you lower it, it may impact the timing of um you know, uh when we could take on the fire station project, right? I think we're focused on the the DPW sort of the one that's queuing up next. Um but we also have the fire station on
the horizon as well. So, you know, could it go lower than 10 and a half? Yes. But it would be a trade-off. It would be either less for cash capital or it would uh you know, reduce the ability for um for us to complete that project. So, you know, I've been away for a little bit. I
haven't dug into the latest plans for the project. Um, but if we use the the money and capital stabilization to towards the DPW project, again, that's a big change from what we were looking at a few years ago. So, I just got to wrap my head around how, you know, how we adjust for that. But, um, I
like, you know, I'm always in favor of flexibility. Um, so, you know, I think the goal should stay 10 and a half%. But if this is a year where the debt hasn't started um for the DPW for example, you know, it's unlikely the debt will will be there in FY27 and our cash capital
requests, which we haven't received all of them yet, you know, are not overwhelming, then it's possible we could go lower than 10 and a half% for FY27. But then that's something that would have to be when we get to a future year. If the council wanted to go back to that, then that's a step up in future
years. So anytime you step down to get back there is going to be more painful. We're kind of at that level um now. So just keep that in mind. If we step down and we do have to go back when we go back it's going to be a a big you know a big decision.
>> Thanks Andy. >> Yeah I'm struggling with the 10 and 10 and a half% question too. the the 10% is what is in the financial policies of the town and uh but I think that there are
solid arguments that have already been made about 10 and a half%. Maybe we should consider a little bit more flexibility of in language saying allocate a minimum of 10% and if
possible 10.5%. and then leave it to the manager to make the decision as to which amount when more uh information is available. >> Kathy,
>> uh I like Andy's suggestion a lot. Um you know on a and and you know Mandy, you asked for a number and the number I was going to put in was 10. Um the 10 and a half was predicated on we thought
we'd be rolling out all of the buildings at the same time. We don't for a variety of reasons the DPW and fire have been delayed. We don't quite have a committee yet. That means we don't have a schematic designed for DPW and we've
said that's our first priority. So for to leave it this way, we can remove the other piece. I think we're going to need that amount of money to do the things we've just said we want to do uh with the budget for this year. So that's what
I'm looking at. And and Sean, you can do the math better than I can. We're talking about another uh 300,000ish that would be available for the I think if the difference between 10 and 10 and a half would be available from the
operating budget. So we can get that number so we can explain to people what this does if people are comfortable with it. I'm comfortable with it and I'm still I didn't what I'd like to advocate is I don't think it's good to keep
building up a capital stabilization fund and never use it when we said we have these capital needs. So I didn't I don't care what the number is, but I think we should begin to you draw on some of that money. Otherwise, everyone is looking at it saying, you know, your savings
account for buildings is growing while the operating budget for every all those buildings is shrinking. That's just not a good dynamic to be in. We need to start drawing down on that. So, I'm I'm comfortable in leaving this
that we haven't made a decision on how to draw it down yet, but to start to bring it in. And Sean, you remember we did this. We pulled money in um we actually pulled in from stabilization during COVID when we couldn't supplement enough. We just had a line in the
capital budget where we were we were doing it out of the current revenues and we were bringing in some money. Um, so that's the way the line would look in when JCPC sees it in February. >> Yeah. I personally like the minimum of
10% because the way it was originally worded, it could go down to nothing. >> Yeah. >> Um, and I I I think we we need to maintain at least 10%. Um but I if we can get a little bit of extra money for
for for operations I think you know certainly this year u but I mean it does uh to Sean's point next year it'll be more painful to go back to 10.5% if we want to.
>> So are people comfortable with um Bob you can see the hands. Mandy just did a quick edit of all three lines. Um included, we didn't say a specific amount for roads, but asked that we have a target around for roads. Um
are people comfortable with the rewarding of those five bullets, I guess. >> Yes. >> Yeah, it's good for me. So the next bullets and what what you could leave this with just if we can get
through the executive summary I'll go back and make the changes as needed the explanation of these and send people a draft so you can comment on it. So what Mandy was saying is we can get through the executive summary the rest of the document then starts to talk about what
we talked about here. So with these, are there any questions, changes? Um, and I think and I think one is potentially very controversial. The middle school roof budget as big as and here's one of
the typos, man, Andy, that you said for the middle school roof. The middle the middle school roof MSBA funding excluded the auditorium despite the fact that there is a report documenting the leaks. And if you walk in the auditorium, your eyes will
document the leaks because you can look at the ceiling and the buckets. Um, and they are working, I double checked last night with Shannon, they're working at a getting an estimate of what that augmented amount would mean beyond the budget they already have for the rest of
the roof um from the estimator. So, I don't I don't know the number that is, but it was in the million million.2 range when I asked um in September. So I put that in um as a place. So this is
when s certified free cash comes in, what are our recommendations on potentially where to use it? So the two were roads and sidewalks and the middle school auditorium and then the rest to
revenues to the stabilization fund. So if there were any left after that. So, those were came from those are brand new compared to last year. >> Mandy, just take out the O before the
middle school auditorium. >> See, there's there's a there's a typo. Yep. >> Sean. >> Yeah. So, I I think that's the one that I'm concerned with. I think if the region wants to propose that, there's a
capital plan process for them to propose that that all four towns would contribute to. Um, I don't know why Ammerst would fund all of it or or do sort of a a process outside of that. Um, again, they they're doing a capital planning process right now. That'll be
part of their budget. They could um if if you know, it's up to I think we're not their facility staff. We don't know what evaluation they've done in terms of repairing or or maybe you do. I I don't know what valuation they've done in terms of repairing that roof. I also don't know if that roof is one year away
from being MSBA eligible or two years away from being MSBA eligible or 10 years away from being MSBA eligible. I mean, if it's if it's 10 years, then yeah, something needs to be done, but I would still feel like it should go through the established capital process for for the roof, which would would fall
on all four towns to to help fund it, not just uh appropriation from Ammerst. Can I speak to that? Um if if others are not up Sean, the reason I put it in here is construction is due to start in June.
So unless it it's similar to what you did three years ago on track and field where Emer allocated some of it to the track and field project. So the timeline is such that if the money isn't there, the rest of the roof gets built and except done except for the auditorium
roof. And in terms of it's within at this point, it's probably within one year of being old enough. It's a pretty rigid rule that says it's leaking, but it's only 20 it was 23 years old when they applied. Now it's 24 years old. Um,
so I think it's within one year if we got back into accelerated repair, but it would mean setting up to do all the roof except the auditorium roof and then later come back and do the auditorium roof where there's actually been um there is a fullblown assessment of it. I
could share with you that it's not just leaking, but it's leaking badly and tiles have fallen down on people's heads. So, it's I I don't understand MSBA putting an arbitrary uh limit on part of a roof, but they did. And >> can I
>> Yeah. So, that that's that's all I wanted to say about this. Yeah. >> Kathy, can I respond to that real quick? >> Go ahead. >> Um, so maybe more flexibility in this one. I've had a conversation with Shannon about this a while ago, so there could be more information on it. At that
time, it wasn't clear whether we would even be able to include this within that project. Um maybe there's been additional information since then that they could, but um it wasn't clear that we would be able to adjust the scope um
of the contract to include this. Um, but if if there is, I I still don't know how the time I don't know for sure that the capital process at the region would prohibit them from doing a um uh a vote and getting that out at Springtown meeting and getting the the
funding approvals at that time. It might, you're right, maybe it would need to be done, but maybe just consider additional flexibility working with the regional schools on this. >> Mandy has her hand up. Yeah. >> Can I go? >> Go ahead. Um, I don't like this bullet
point, particularly the way it's worded. Um, you know, the next one below is allocate the remaining to capital stabilization funds. I I understand the need and desire to potentially do the whole roof at the same time at the middle school, but it is a region. Um,
and I I I feel like a broken record with the region. It is four towns responsibility, not one town. Um and and there is a process as Sean just said if it is found that they want to do it at the same time and they need to borrow
money to do it, they pass a borrowing authorization and each town has 60 days to say no to that borrowing authorization. Um and we would have 60 days to receive a um funding plan from Paul in a sense um
either for borrowing or you know for cash, right? You know um to potentially pull it out of and and maybe Paul would recommend just borrowing and do rolling it into the borrowing plan for our our yearly capital. or maybe Paul would
recommend pulling out of capital stabilization um with a a financial order for capital stabilization that the money's going in. We can access capital stabilization at any time that Paul submits a financial order. So, I don't like this bullet point the way it is
worded um at all because it ignores the other three towns and and it is their responsibility to maintain that building too, not just Amorisks. And we're still working on figuring out who can pay cash and who can't. And should we be gifting
a million dollars for something that might not be done when all four towns really should be contributing to it. Um, and maybe it goes into borrowing, which might be a better allocation and use of our resources than a cash. I don't know whether it is, but we could have that conversation. I know Pelum's trying to
prepay their current roof obligation, right? Um maybe but but we can do that at any time through the capital stabilization fund if the money is reverted to the capital stabilization fund. So I would delete this bullet point completely. >> Any other comments on
>> and I was just going to quickly respond. I I'm not this is just really a point of technicality. Um technically the region could vote a debt authorization at any point. We always try to do it within 60 days of town meeting so that town
meeting had the chance to act on it. I will say more often than not, and this is going back when I was in the region, I don't know if it's the case anymore, more often than not, it wasn't even brought up at town meeting, so it just passed the the 60 days, you know, they they they didn't bring it up for a vote.
Um so so if it's truly an emergency, you know, they could vote a debt authorization, you know, in December and then each town could decide whether or not they wanted to call an or, you know, call something uh call a special town meeting to act on it if it's an emergency situation. Um
not saying that's I recommend that, but I think again if it was a true emergency, that's the kind of thing that might happen. >> Andy? >> Yeah. Uh, of course, Sean, we just did do that exactly for the u whole roof of
the middle school. It was done out of cycle uh for the town meetings. And uh I think that some flexibility in the language would be helpful too. Um,
and I it could be just something like be prepared to allocate funds um as necessary if the region asks for capital for the uh middle school auditorium
roof. And then uh it sort of puts the the thought there but doesn't make a specific uh allocation.
Um I just I think that I think that wording capital improvement for so once Manny finished writing for the auditorium roof that would allow the points that have been made is that
may not need a million because if it's financed with that it's something lower than that um for each year. So I would be since I added the other bill I am comfortable with this because we've got it in the collection of we can
transfer some money in from the capital reserve as needed. >> So I would with that change I would be comfortable with deleting the allocate up to a million. >> I agree. >> Is it okay that I put it into the capital budget section? I think it makes
more sense there. Yeah, I think well unless we think everyone moves so fast that we're do doing certified free cash in December where we've got a proposal in front of us. So I think that's right Mandy that we can we can do it out of cycle um just the way we did before
if is that's ever okay but because it is it is a capital expenditure So um it's it's a I think it's a quarter of 12. Um and I'm just uh those of you who can see more than I can see because
of my uh limited zoom. I don't know whether we have any public here for public comments. Uh we still have no attendees. >> Okay. So we can continue doing what we're doing. So most of the rest is
going to um go through explanation. Now, the one thing that we have up in the beginning and then we reiterate it that we're at we're advising against an override um
because we're already high taxes and we've got the vague because Paul said it's 15. It's likely to be in the 15 to 20% range. We don't know what health insurance is. So, it was just
left vague unless we get a new number. And then this one and then the other is a saying that we're we're advising against um an override but reminding everyone it's going to be a very difficult year. And this was this
language of update us where all of this is by March 1st. So it's before it's before the final submission. We're really trying to avoid what happened last year where the council was revising guidelines without a lot of information, but we need to get as much information
as we can. So, that's also new, that yellow. >> I agree. >> Kathy, I have a comment on that >> on this yellow section. Um, thank you for putting it in. I know I'm the one that sort of suggested this. I wonder if March one might be too late because
that's when the budget hearings for the B for schools are already. Um, so maybe we're looking at like February 15th or something so that maybe we could discuss it at our second February meeting of the council. Um, I'd like to hear Sean and Paul's thoughts on that. But the other
thing the my my thinking on this this request is and and it's not necessarily the greatest of wording. Um, and and it's missing something that I wanted to make sure was in here is I think we need a really good estimate of what the
impacts of what our budget guidelines are. So, if it's three and a half%, what are we losing potentially position-wise or department-wise or or that for for each of the four functional areas? But then I think we also need what does it
cost to put them back in? What does it really cost to put those and fund those three library positions that haven't have essentially been frozen for seven years, six years at this point? What would it cost to actually unfreeze every
position we froze last year in the municipal as well as whatever might have the proposal is to remove or to add positions and for the schools, what would it cost, right? Um because I think that's the number we also need to see is
not just what our budget can support now, but what does it cost to support what we're losing or what we're trying to add in because we get a lot of requests for a lot of different additions to our budgeting, but we never
see how much that would cost. And to me, we need to know those numbers and the public needs to know those numbers because that goes into, do we ask for a 2 and 12% prop 2 and a half override? What number would we be asking for? You
know, on a on a property tax revenue of about 70 million I think is our property tax revenue. You know what what what are we missing? Is it 10% of our revenue that to fund everything people are asking for? or is it 20%. Like like what
are the numbers? We need to know the severity of the issue and how much. So I want to put in a sentence that that says and an estimate of how much additional operating support would be necessary for each department to receive and that's the four major functional areas sort of
things in order to fund the positions and requests like what would we need too? Not just what are we losing but what would we need? So, I would like to add that sentence back in or put it in here so that we can and then potentially change the date so that we can actually
have that conversation early in this process. >> I agree. I agree. That's a that's one piece of the puzzle that's missing. We don't know, you know, what is the shortfall, so to speak. Is it 2 million?
Is it 20 million? Is it five million? We don't know. The reason I have my hand up is that's a tough question, Bob. And uh the but there are so many other things that have
been asked for or we recognize that we need getting back for example to the roads and uh what what is needed to um fund the uh on an annual basis road
construction at an adequate amount to actually get somewhere which is something that uh Sean and Paul are working on Now uh so it's it's a uh it's a difficult question and then you have to add into it. Uh we get lots of
requests at various times to do all sorts of additional things. Uh we just got a fairly comprehensive um de request or whatever you want to call it from CSSJC about um the issues
that they've raised. So, u I think it's important that we get get something in there, but not limit it to just the positions. And it's going to take some creative writing to do that.
No, I agree, Andy. I think I think it's also important for the the public to know, you know, here's, you know, I've said this before. We, you know, we have requests that are this big and we have funding that's this big. Um, but no, I don't know how big
this, you know, how wide my hands need to go. Um, >> so I think what this paragraph is asking for, so Sean Sean and Paul need to react to this. It's this uh a look at uh what
it's going to take to live within let's just assume it's three and a half% right now. That's what's on the table. What's it going to take on how would you get there? And then the flip side is Mandy what Maddie has just said if uh the
library thinks there is x number more positions or the town thinks what would that total cost be? Um, you know, this is not dissimilar from the wish list on vehicles that we see on the capital budget. Like these are all the vehicles we would want. And then you get down to
can you live with this many? And it turns out, oh, we can actually live with quite a few. It's not the same, but I think this is that we're up against hard choices. So, can this happen with some kind of a pro-forma?
uh this is this is where we're at. How would we achieve it? And if we were to have all of those in the budget that are being cut, what would that cost be to us? You know, how much more would it be? That kind of discussion. Sean and Paul,
is that possible to do before we ask you to figure out a way to do it? >> Yeah. Is okay Paul if I go? Is Paul here? I think he chopped off actually. Um so yeah I I I I see it as two parts. I think one part is easier than the other part. So the first part just what
would level services look like and um particularly at the schools and at the library and at the town I think when we build the budgets we can um keep track of what are those positions that maybe are either being eliminated or not filled the the frozen positions that um
I view that as part one and that is not um too bad for us to do. I think part two is more challenging and we can try to do something. I just don't know if it'll be perfect. Um and that's new things um you know new investments in roads, new capital projects, you know,
um uh new just things that we don't currently have numbers for. So requires more estimating and more assumptions around uh how we would pay for them. I think that's where it's more there's more creativity I guess I would say in that part of the
the analysis. So, we can try to do something there. Um, but you know, for example, like we've heard a need for more a new senior center or an improved senior center. Um, you know, we would have to come up with an estimate of what that costs and then how you know, we're not going to pay for it in cash in one
year. So, you're estimating debt. So, it gets it gets a little um more complicated, I guess, than just um than just knowing the knowing what the thing is and what the the upfront cost is. >> I think the suggestion is just focus on people right now. just, you know, don't
>> Yeah, if it's if it's level services and it's people, um, that's that's simple. And then, you know, you can let us know if there's new things you want us to include in it, >> except for fire EMS staffing above the frozen position, which we already talked about earlier.
>> Yep. So, >> yeah. So, we can again, we can quantify that based on our existing staff, but I guess the question would be how many um how many staff and would it all be in one year? or would it be and you know phased in over a certain number of years? Um again some of that will be
part of the uh analysis and the plan for how to improve uh the fire department staffing. >> So Mandy is Mandy is amending the wording as we talk but I think >> trying to figure out how how we bring the budget guidelines into it. So, I I
think this wording, at least I'm thinking that it's fairly clear and if we if we all if we get to a stopping point, I don't know what comes next, Mandy, but I'm just it's now
we're approaching 10 minutes of 12. Um, so some of it is just decrease and then later explaining what we've done. So, um, what I would what I'm going to recommend, um, Mandy, scroll down a
little bit because I think some of it is just wording on a, um, conservative revenue increases. So, some of it is explaining what we set up in the executive summary. So, what I would suggest is that
everyone, Mandy, close this down. um saved these changes as of today's date 11:20. I send it back out to everyone for comments on the remaining thing where we've accepted some edits and then we see whether we're
at a point that we think we have a preliminary draft. So some of this >> question >> can I attempt to well accept all these changes that we won't have gone over with an attempt to match and change some
of this to match the the executive summary section because now given our changes to executive summary some of this doesn't match that before I send it to you Kathy so that it's a little less work for you. That's fine with me if everyone else is
and and then Mandy will get that to me and I will get you and then I will just double check it with against my notes and send it back out for comments from everybody. Does that work? So, she's going to go back through the places that these yellow highlights were matched up
to the executive summary and then leave it in track changes so people can see that in this body of the report, not in >> that body of the report. Yes. But can I accept some of the other stuff that that is in track changes that doesn't get changed? You know, if if we're looking
at here like something like that or I don't even know what part of this is, but something like this, the biders one, um, you know, or the changes in numbers so that it's just an easier document to read. >> Yeah, that's fine. >> So, that's okay with anyone. If there's
no one saying no to that, that's the procedure. So, Manny's going to get this back to me um by tomorrow and then I'll get it to you by the end of the day tomorrow and everyone will have a week to get any, you know, and the comments
can be edits that are purely typos and whatever and I'll incorporate all of them. If there are any major concerns, um I'll figure out whether we think we're ready to go to the council or not. this this revised document will be put
in our packet. Um and uh if we're ready to go, we can do annotated we can do comments that there wasn't full agreement on this or there were some alternatives. I can put them in comment bubbles because this will just be sent as a draft. Is everyone okay with that proposal?
>> I have hands up by Andy and Mandy. >> Okay, great. >> Andy, go ahead. Um, I had some additional thoughts of uh changes uh later in the document and I
don't want to go into them instantly, but um is there a way that I should be sharing them with the chair or somebody else so that uh we can uh keep moving without extending this meeting? How do
you want to handle that? Well, depending on what the the rules from up high are, I would be fine with you saying here are some additional thoughts um on where they would go or if
you have in if you can rattle them off in a couple minutes, Andy, just in terms of topics, so if you want to share them, then I we can figure out where they would go as potential changes in this document.
And if if two and I'm just trying to end it at at noon um not keep people longer than 12. We'll quickly go to page um I think it's four that starts with uh
that the projection that in the current version or the version that I have and uh I'll just draw out some um see if I can see them on the >> she said she you said page four Mandy I
don't know whether >> given we've accepted changes I just need a section Andy, it would be easier if you give me a section. >> It's in section three. >> Okay. >> Um,
see where we can get to where you have the words. see has the words add um add wording for elementary here question mark that gives you a sense of what page to look for.
Um okay. Um in the very prior word that'll be on the prior page take out the word region. Um and uh the u another minor one is uh where it says the projections show a
deficit. You will just needs to be separated into two words. But that was uh um the the major point that I wanted to get at was when we're at the point of we
also recommend um budgeting other um postmployment benefits OPED $600,000 rather than increasing it as proposed at the financial indicators meeting in continuing this budget amount in future.
future years. Um, and Sean might have some thoughts about this. Instead of saying in amount in future years, I said until pension until the pension fund is fully funded because the intention of
the policy all along was that we would get the pension fund uh fully funded and then the money that we have allocated to the pension fund would be used to address the OPED. >> I think that's fine. And I was going to
add a footnote on that too. That works well. >> I'll leave it at that. >> Andy. >> Okay. And if you have any others, ma Andy, that are particularly that are just word wording where the wording is odd, just just send them to me and I'll
incorporate them. >> So Mandy had her hands up. >> Yeah. Um I in a different section um regarding there was there's always a section on
on like I'm trying to find it in mine and I don't want to scroll on yours um about a sort of shared services and all um and the the reduction
this this section here redu reduction expense strategies. Um, I wonder I I I would like to see us potentially open that up to not just a focus on I I've always read this as focusing on
municipal budgets um but a focus on all four functional areas of reduction expense strategies. Uh, for example, encouraging, say, the library to work with the municipal
um, recreation department and senior services center to ensure coordination on on on programming that might reduce expenses overall. Um, you know, regionalization, but within obviously our government, but also things like um
the apologize for the cuckoo clock if you heard it. Um the the elementary school committee just posted or will be posting agreed to a meeting on December 9th, I think it is, to discuss potential alternatives to moving the sixth grade
to the um middle school building um as a potential way to save money and should we mention something like that in these guidelines about encouraging other departments, not just our municipal department, to seek um reduction expense
strategies in particular, something for like the school that that would serve the students as well or but but while serving the students as well or better than they would get on say a plan to move the sixth grade into a sixth grade academy only at the middle school. If
they can keep them somewhere for less money that would produce the same educational quality or better, should we put that in this budget guidelines document? And so essentially expand this paragraph to be not just
municipal focused but four functional areas focused too. >> So here's my suggestion since we have now hit 12:00. Um, we'll draft language there because one of the other thoughts on that is if we get more
technologically sophisticated with our heating and air conditioning systems, do we need a higher level facilities person that works with any building? It doesn't matter whether it's a school building or a town building. So, we're not trying to get high-skilled staff in every budget.
So we'll put if everyone's we can add a sentence here that talks about coordination between things and it'll be yellowshaded so people will see it. Does that work? >> Y >> and so people can expect to see this here as an advising and I think at one
point our facilities person was the school's facility person but I'm not saying just in general but there's some places where we should share a scarce resource. And with that, I'm going >> ask Kathy. Alicia has her hand.
>> Sorry. I just wanted to mention my I agree with what you said, Kathy, but I particularly agree with what Mandy Joe said. I think that's going to be extremely important to start now and I think it should be a practice that we continue um especially while while we're going to see these sort of uh continuous
budget crunches into the future. So, I just wanted to agree with that. >> Okay. So, pay attention to whatever page this is going to end up on. In fiveish, there's going to be new wording on whether we capture that that concept. And so, with that, I'm going to make a
motion to adjourn the meeting at whatever time it is. And then Kathy will try to get her laptop fixed so it can work next time. And we don't have another meeting until December 3. So everyone will have to participate by um
sending me. So I make a motion. >> Can I say one more thing before that motion goes forward? Sure. >> Um I think it's important that we put whatever draft comes out of this and whatever changes you you feel comfortable making before it comes back to finance committee to the council for
discussion on December 1st. Um our next finance meeting is December 3rd. Then we actually don't have one until the council is done meeting. Um, so I think the council does need to see our vision and where this draft is so that we can
basically finalized for the council on our meeting on December 2nd or 3rd or whenever it is. >> That that was my intent, Mandy, if I didn't make that clear. So that's this draft everyone's seeing is the draft that's going to the council. So people need to respond to it in time to get it
on the the count. And I realize when I say next week, you have all next week. You really It's Thanksgiving is sitting in there. So, um, you have a few days next week, so we'll try to get it to you by Friday after by tomorrow afternoon or Saturday morning. Anyway, you'll have it
>> and it should really be to Athena by probably Wednesday morning. >> Yeah. >> Um, to get posted in a council packet. >> So, I'll put a deadline for comments when I send it to everyone. >> And it's 12:04 and I second the motion to adjourn.
>> Okay. So, um, Bob, if you can go around the room. Um, oh, I can do it if I put it back to gallery. So, uh, Andy, >> yes. >> Mandy, >> hi. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Tom, >> yes.
>> Elicia, >> yes. >> And I don't know whether Joe's still there, but Joe, uh, and Kathy say yes. We are adjourned at 12:05. Thank you everyone for moving. so quickly through a complicated document.
>> Nice. >> Thanks for Thank you.