All right, we are recording. >> Good afternoon everyone. Today is March 25th and this is the Joint Capital Planning Committee on what may be our last meeting. We'll see if we get through a report. Um I my first order of
business seeing that everyone is here is to make all the commit make sure everyone can hear and be heard. So I'm just going to call out your names as I see you on the screen. Eugene. >> Yes. Lee, >> yes. >> Jill,
>> yes. >> Bridget, >> yes. >> Deborah, >> hi. >> And Andy, >> yes. >> So, we are everyone is here. Um, so I thought, you know, I got uh a few
questions over the weekend on exactly how much money we have to spend um and how that aligns with the Excel spreadsheets. So to the extent people want to go quickly through the overall table, we could start with that. But the
or what I the main thing what I was hoping we would do is brokers first on FY27. the first year and are there any other changes that anyone wants to make that are substantive? Um, right now
we've we've got uh because of what Shawn did was able to close some accounts and correct the debt assessments because he's been able to bring some projects in at lowest interest rates. It freed up enough money to fully fund the Crocker
Farm playground. So instead of it going into debt, it's now cash and to provide another 375,000 for roads. So he penciled those in because the committee had indicated we wanted to do both of those, but it was a big increase in roads. And that's in the Excel sheet
already that he showed last time a week ago, but it was a really quick rundown. So it was a combination of the 175 and the 375. and we're now looking at a $9,000 surplus on FY27. Um, so I wanted to just
start out with if anyone would needs a run through on the big picture, but then 01 on F27 on any other changes that people want to discuss. And then, as you'll see, you
saw in the draft, I went ahead and talked about the next four years as being in big deficits and where you might be able to find the money and made some other statements. So, today is that's a draft report and Sean can pull
the report up on the screen and we can be doing real-time edits and he's going to go back and he's already started looking at it any place. the numbers I put in weren't quite right, he's going to fix those. So, in terms of uh I
didn't add right or I pulled a number from an old spreadsheet rather than a new spread. So, people can say, do you want the overview or do you want to go right into the FY27 budgets? And is there anything you want to recommend a change in in the projects
that we're looking at? Uh should we start just with re any recommended changes? I'm just looking at wherever you want to start. You have a a draft report that hopefully we get through today and we voted out other than minor
final edits that we're finished and we don't have to meet next week. Bridget. >> Hey Kathy, I would love for you just to like look at that one sheet that gives us the overview. Maybe Sean can do it at the beginning because you've got that 10.5
and I read all the emails this weekend and then at the end we've got six and I just love to like fully grasp how the numbers go and then I think you know we have some proposals but yeah. >> Okay. So, so Sean that's the summary table.
>> Aha. And he's got the true false numbers over here. Okay. So just focusing on FY27. Okay. just the one column. And that's the same summary table that's currently in the report. So, uh, Sean could do this or
Sean, you can correct me as I go through it, but >> whatever you want. >> Okay. >> You have Sean do it because I didn't understand your explanation. >> Sure. >> Understand Sean. >> And And is this big enough for everyone to be able to see?
>> I can make it a little bigger. Okay. If it needs to be a little bigger, let me know. Um, so all the TRS are there. So you know that it's it all balances. That's what those are for. Um, so I'll just start kind of from the beginning. So just to recap, um, this is broken into sources and uses, right? So the top
half of this table are all the sources. The bottom half is all the uses. And this has changed from the initial uh version that was presented on the sec during our second meeting. Um, Kathy described the changes. We put some more money into roads. Uh we removed an IT
project. Um the debt came in better. There was one debt project that was new that got put into the general fund, but it's really a enterprise fund. So that got pulled out. Um that helped. Um and I think and then we we made the swap on the school projects uh that were
requested um from when Shannon came. So it's changed uh over from when you first saw, but the mechanics work the same. So this top part we put in here, this is just to let you know what the levy is. Um, and then the first real source of
revenue for the capital plan is this cash capital line. So this is basically the taxation from the current year or from the from the tax levy that will go towards capital. Now this is based on a prior year levy because we'd like to base it on the last known levy. So it's
based on a prior year but it comes out of the current year levy. So 10 12% is what we're proposing across the board. And you can see what that number looks like over the 5 years. And if if any point what I'm saying is not clear, just yell out. Um the debt exclusion number
is a plug. So whatever we are estimating the debt for the Amethyst Brook Elementary School to be, um the debt exclusion revenue number, which is how much uh additional taxation is raised during that year, will match. So down below in row 28, you'll see we're
estimating the debt exclusion payment to be 2.3. So the source or the amount of additional tax revenue we'll raise from the debt exclusion will be the exact same amount. Um this is still because the building with Brook is still being built and we haven't permanently borrowed for all of the the school yet.
This number still will change a little bit, but eventually we'll have a a set schedule for the entire amount. Um right now we have a set schedule for some of it, but not all of it. Uh, Community Preservation Act is similar. Um, Community Preservation Act debt is always part of this. It's not
something you really evaluate, but it's part of our general fund. So, we've always approved it or uh incorporated it. And essentially, whatever the debt is on Community Preservation Act projects, you'll see it down here um in the approved debt road 23. It's part of
that number. Um, and then there will be a source, which is the Community Preservation Act money that will come in to pay that debt. So it it's a zero effect on the money that's available for capital, but it does flow into this because um gen CPA debt has to be part of our general fund. It's just a
accounting state accounting rule. This Comcast funding, this is the last year of our 10-year agreement with Comcast. We're negotiating a new agreement. So there may possibly be new funding sources available in the future. Um but we don't know at this point. So,
this was a a set schedule where they give us $75,000 a year, and it's there to offset um some of the debt that's in row 23 down below. When we uh did the Inet or the municipal fiber throughout town, it helps pay for some of that debt, not all of it.
The other category is the sum of any money that we are proposing to come from the ambulance fund or um there's some money in there from the TNC money which I uh mentioned was like the Uber money
that we get which is actually going away. We thought that was going to last longer but it actually ends but we have a balance built up um over a couple years there. So, it's the ambulance money, it's the Uber money, and then it's also if we close out any old articles. So, that's another area that's
increased because it includes uh the close out of about $275,000 of town articles. We haven't closed out any school articles yet. Um I'm talking with Shannon, that's something we might do in the fall and that'll help next year's capital plan. Um, so this is and there's still some town articles that
are pending as well that will help next year's plan, but these are from town the 275 is from town projects that we felt confident we could close out. And then the last bucket is state aid and this is just chapter 90 money. Now one thing I mentioned to Kathy in the
report and you know the committee can recommend what they want. I might change it or I might recommend to Paul that we change it. This is the elevated amount for FY26, but it also relies upon uh in FY26, the um state approved the supplemental appropriation of about
$300,000. The ongoing appropriation is closer to 1.1. So, I think for transparency and and not being over overly, you know, optimistic, uh we should probably drop the future years
down to 1.1 um and not the 1.4. Um now that will that again will have a zero impact on it because this money is an in and then it's automatically put towards roads. So it will mean you know there'll be less money going towards roads from this grant but it's always going to
depend on what the grant is approved at every year. Whatever we get it goes towards roads. Um so keep that in mind. Any questions on the sources side before I drop down to the uses?
Okay. And I think the part um Bridget, I'll I'm going to pop over to one other tab that I think will explain like the delta between what you're looking at because you're looking at the the sum of the proposed projects and seeing why it doesn't match. I I'll explain why. >> Okay, perfect. So on the um
uses side, so this approved debt, this includes our um CPA debt or the the debt that's funded from the Comcast, the 75,000, and then it includes any other uh general fund pro projects that were approved with debt in the past that we
have um payments on. So this is our general fund debt. Essentially, the projected debt right now, that's actually where the regional um there's two things that make up that projected debt. It's our estimate for short-term
interest. So, we budget about $50,000 for short-term interest um on bands for things that we may not know exactly what the interest is going to be. So, we include a buffer there. Um and then the rest of it is actually the regional school debt assessment. So, I think I mentioned before I might have said it
was in the approved debt row. It's actually in the projected debt row is where we have the regional school debt assessment. And then if you look in the outy years where it starts to jump up, that's when you see the DPW debt come in as projected debt. And then some of the other projects, there was um some
puffers pond projects as well. But the big increase from FY28 to FY29 and projected debt is the estimate of something for the DPW. And then the new projects, so these are the new projects is 4.2. This is the these are the new projects funded with
um the tax levy. So the difference between this number the 4.19 here and the six on the other page are the uh projects for FY27 that are funded with other sources. So for example in that list and I I'll go to it in a second. Um
there's 1.49 million of state aid. That's chapter 90 money in that list. Um and then there's 390 of other. So really, if you add the 4.1 and these two together, let's see if that adds up. I'm clicking long button
here. Um, that should get you close to what's on the other page. Um, let me show you. So the total here is 6,71,000. This is too small. Let me make it a little bigger. Um, the total uh for FY27 is 6,71,000.
that equals the sum of the 4,191,000 for new projects, the 390,000 that's coming from other and the 1.49 which is the chapter 90. So that's how you kind of tie those two spreadsheets together. And it's really that some of the
projects on that on the listing, they're not funded with the cash capital, they're funded with either a grant or another funding source. And then alto together that gets to the 10.5 >> the um it's it's actually more than 10.5 because the the the grants for example
like the state aid and those other sources that's in addition to the 10.5. >> So that's Bridget if you look up on his sources the total is 11.8 but it has all those pieces. >> I saw that one too. So, it's got >> to get that
>> 10.5 aligned with what we were spending here, but I think as he goes through it, I understand. Let's see if other people get it, too. >> Yeah, the 10.5 helps pay for the new projects and pay for our um debt essentially. Um but not all of it.
>> Yeah. >> Um I you lost me on the 4.191 plus >> the one it's the sum of the new projects. >> Yeah. plus the sum of the other, which is the um additional money we put into
roads and some of the ambulance uh capital that's funded from the ambulance fund >> and and it's the TNC money from for Uber >> and then the state aid. So if you add the other the state aid and the new projects together, you get the total from our um from the line item capital
budget. So another way to think about it is the amount of money we have to spend in 27 that is not allocated to something else already is 4.2 million plus part of the
390 or a large part of the 390 because road roads is >> so on the Excel spreadsheet there's 1.49 49, but that's chapter 90. It can only go to roads, >> right? >> And then there's a little bit of the
other. There's a tiny amount. 15,000 is financed by the ambulance fund, so it's not coming out of the 4.1. >> Yeah. >> And then Sean found this other by closing out. >> So he's got next to an increase in
roads, he's got the source being other. And this is where if you look at this sheet and and what you have >> I may not have explained this column very clearly when we first reviewed it but this shows what source the project is coming from >> and this is what totals to the other page and my check you know I have those
all those true and falses >> it's down below it just totals this and says how much is from cash how much is state aid how much is other how much is borrowing to make sure that it comes across correctly. >> Okay I understand I didn't need to but I do now. >> Okay. And then everything else in here,
the debt exclusion, the projected debt, and the approved debt, it's not on that list because it's debt. It's from projects that have been approved already or maybe approved in the future, but they're not um it's not a current year project. >> Okay. Thank you.
And so one of the things that happened when he closed out and then corrected one other piece in in terms of how much debt we were actually financing is it freed up enough money that the Crocker Farm playground could be cash. It used
to not show up at all as cash because we weren't going to start paying for it till FY27. So now it So the change there is not more money but not debt finance. So, it's a cash finance on it. >> And he changed. So, the new Excel
spreadsheet has that in red. Not because 175 changed, but the it's not debt anymore. It's cash. >> I understand. Thank you. >> All right, Kathy, do you want me to pull up the report? >> Yeah. And and and I guess if we start
in, we can go any way you want. um line item edits if there's just minor like wording and stuff um we can do at the very end or people can send them to me. But anything substantive, you know, so that there is uh we had a bunch of
projects proposed to us and we're basically the way this is drafted, we're accepting them with a few changes. So Shannon came in and swapped out what she had originally asked for and the report says we're accepting that. And Jeff Bag
said he wanted to combine two small projects into one. So we didn't make any cuts in the proposed projects that were proposed because we're able to balance the budget. We didn't have to cut anything to get to a balanced budget. And we
found we because of Sean found an additional amount of money to put on the roads line. Um >> and keep in mind Kathy I I pre-cut some of them. Um you have that list that shows what the department had originally requested and what made into the capital plan. So
>> they may feel even the amount that's in there was a cut. Just want to >> clarify that that was case. So at this particular draft that you have in front of you used what was proposed to us where Sean
had already reduced it and the question is are people comfortable with that? Um so um and I just know because of emails I had that there people that they're wanting to call in questions because right now we are accepting what was in
this version of the draft. I didn't hear anyone last week say they wanted to make a change, but that doesn't mean you had to say it last week. So, now is the time to make any changes. And Sean, maybe pull up I don't know what's easiest for
people to look at the FY27 expel line or to look at the words that go with each project. Any way you want to look at what is the project list we're looking at. Bridget, >> um Jill and I made um made a a proposal.
Could I share my screen and show that to y'all? >> Uh yeah, Sean is Sean is the host. >> Let me let me make sure you have I'll make you a co-host and that way you can do that. >> And and Bridget, what I just want to say on the proposal, you don't have to set a whole policy. You can go after a
particular line and explain what what you want to do with it. Um >> I I understand but I feel I feel very strongly because I was watching JCPC >> a couple of years before I came on >> and I'll I you know I'll I I feel like
if we had a policy then the departments could plan people could plan around it but also um you know in watching things happen before and after I would love to see Okay, let me see if I've got it.
Okay, you're seeing all my desktop. Let me open up. There we go. And let me move you all down to the corner. Um maybe I can even make you smaller. All right. So, Jill, do you want to talk
about the policy overall and then um or would you like me to? >> I I mean, yeah. And I think what we have here is pretty straightforward. And I'll just say I agree with it being then on the other side of this new to JCPC. I think it would have been helpful to have
this at the outset. And I think it it makes sense to do this before we just do another year of saying, "Okay, we'll say yes to all this and then we'll make a policy." Um, which as we know can lead to things just falling through the cracks. So, what we have here just says
um I don't know if it's helpful to to read it, but that the town of Ammeris maintains a safe, reliable, and fiscally responsible fleet that supports essential public services while minimizing unexpected failures, repair costs, and operational disruptions while being fair and consistent across
departments. And and then it has a couple of criteria here. and and then also includes an important exception that can be made in the case of major mechanical failure or structural damage that makes a necessary vehicle
inoperable. So, not at all saying that if a vehicle doesn't meet this criteria but is not usable that it that that means it can't be replaced. So, I think that that was an important distinction to add. um Bridget. >> So,
>> and I just wanted to talk a little bit about the reasoning. I think um >> I feel like we need a clear consistent standard and I don't think the 12 years or 175,000 miles is burnt in stone. I
ran the numbers and got a rough average and I saw that on the vehicles that we were placing earlier, for example, in some of the feedback from departments, they were having no repair records that at 10 years and 133,000 miles or
120,000 miles. So, I thought, okay, there's room to go here. So, I have some flexibility there. But our job right on JCPC by the standards that Kathy gave are to replace things that are urgent and essential. And without a clear
policy, we end up debating urgency between departments every single year. And we have a lot of inconsistency. Everyone probably here knows the story of when my son's school bus was coming down from Bircher East with ski team and the wheel and axle fell off the the
vehicle and it was declared unsafe by the by the state police who were on the scene and that vehicle was 20 years old and over 200,000 miles. And then I watched these very meetings replace other vehicles that were like three or four years old with like just under a
100,000 miles. And then over the summer, I know that um I was talking to some people who work for the town and we're like there's just this wide variation and it leads to sort of bad feelings between departments. Like some departments are more spoiled than
others. I think 12 years or 170,000 miles is a reasonable threshold for our budget realities and it extracts the full value of a vehicle without pushing it into the stage where we're getting a lot of costly repairs and failures.
And before that it feels hard to escalate but like I said I could compromise on the amount also if we direct more from this our proposal actually is to move the money from the vehicles that fall outside of this into
road paving then all of our vehicles will last longer. Um, so that's one of the things. I don't think we can wait two more years for um for town council to make a policy.
We're the committee who decides on vehicle replacement. And so I think it's within our purview and it makes sense. And this way there departments can plan ahead. There's no misunderstandings. Everyone's treated the same. No apartment department is advantage or
disadvantaged. all of our emergency vehicles idle. Most of them run 247. There's a short break in DPW shifts, but they still run most of the day. And um so I just trying to balance that fiscal
responsibility and operational reli reliability. I wanted to talk for a minute about what vehicles it impacts. So, we would still keep the fire prevention, the school maintenance vehicle, the special ed van, the DPW
loader, and the DPW roadside mower. These vehicles don't meet our standards, which are three DPW vehicles, one pickup truck and two midside stump trucks. One is at highway and the other at tree and grounds, and three BP PD vehicles. The
oldest PD vehicle was 2016 with 133 miles. And per Chief Tang's um information there um there have been no repair history. And um they can if they plan ahead, they can get an extended warranty for only $3,000. The documents
he provided um show when on a $90,000 vehicle that sounds like a great deal. So that's where I'll stop for now. I'll go back up to the motion in case there's any changes or comments, etc.
>> So, let me just make a statement first and then take people's reactions to this. JCPC is an advisory committee to the town manager. And so, it it actually doesn't make these kinds of policies. It's it it has
never we can propose a policy and he would typically take it to some place in the council. So it's this is not out of line and trying to think of a policy but for us to come up with a policy and make it the policy
is probably stretches the limit of what we are. So if one possibility would be in this report to say here is a possible policy that we're proposing and to the extent
it applies to proposed purchases this year we could decide we want to apply it and explain why you So, I'm not saying that's out of the range of us saying these three vehicles. And Sean, I I double checked on which vehicles the
police were actually repos. I was never sure which lines. A few of them are listed as very poor condition. Bridget, two of them are, one is not. And and Sean can put that up, but just on, you know, how bad a shape are some
of them. And a couple of them were high mileage. So, I wasn't sure which ones they were replacing, but so with that said, I'd love to hear people's reaction to this idea of a policy. And last year, JCPC
left off with one person who's no longer the count counselor. Bob Hegner said over the summer he was going to try to work with people to come up with one. And when he went off the council, he said, "Oh, forgot to do it." So, Bridget, you're absolutely right. It didn't happen. So, just any thoughts on
the actual this idea of a proposed policy and then I'd like to get at which vehicles are actually on the list for this year, you know, on uh because I think DPW is down to two rather than three. So, just in terms of going back
on the the vehicle list. So, Jean and so I want to first just deal on the concept of the policy as it is being proposed. Gan, I >> I I think this is a good idea again into the context of what you were talking about, Kathy, you know, whether or not
um it's within our our scope. Um I just wanted to ask a question probably maybe Sean would know when we talk about a police cruiser, it probably has it probably spends as much time idling as it does driving. So is miles
a good measurement for a police cruiser? that I'm assuming the police cruisers don't for instance have a an hour meter like a generator has on it because that would be probably helpful because enable us to quantify it. >> It's a good question. I also like the
idea of a policy. I think we would definitely want feedback from department heads on the policy. Like I don't know for example that this policy reflects the electric vehicles that we have or the hybrid vehicles that we have where you know when a battery comes up for
replacement it might that might be the time to consider you know especially school buses that might be the time to consider replacement. Um so I like the idea of a policy. Um and I think you're right. I think different departments will have feedback on how their vehicles
are used and I don't know if one threshold for all vehicles is the it may or they may have feedback that it's a little bit different because the police they're in those vehicles most of the hours of the day and they're running for long hours um versus a vehicle that's
used a little bit you know vehicle might be fine after 15 years if it only has 20,000 miles. Um, so I think that's that would be my recommendation, but you're right, Eugene. I think um some vehicles might have different metrics that you'd want to consider. >> And could you scroll back up to the
policy, Bridget? Just um you've got on your screen and I just want because we can certainly write this into the report as a recommendation. So I'm not saying we this is an out of scope thought of proposing a policy. Um, I
just want to get So, Jean brought up uh idling. Um, Deb, >> so I understand that, you know, there's a process and there's been a process and >> what you muted yourself
>> and I'm new to JCPC, but perhaps this could be something that we use to make some decisions on today and then going forth um suggest that the town come up with a form of policy.
Yeah, that's what I you know, so if there were specific, you know, going to our project list, if we want to say this one on some level doesn't meet this, we can then recommend a cut and then we can say where we want that money to go. We
can definitely do that. So, I'm not saying we can't. So, I just I'll have a I have a quick reaction. There are some vehicles we have that are older than 12 years that are not listed as being fair or poor condition, and I wouldn't want to replace them. So I think in terms of
a policy I want it to work. Um there might be some vehicles that before 17 you know so consider you know these are things to consider as you go on. We last time
we talked this through and we had wording such as um at the point the repairs of the vehicle get to be so consequential that buying a new one. So whether it's 12 year olds or 175 if it's falling apart all the time
it's we got a lemon you know so you've got total mechanical failure but we had some s Sarah was actually talking about you know that we are spending $3,000 every year because this is failing then this is failing um so trying to think of
a rash a policy that really works I think is what you're aiming for Bridget you know as a screener so that people aren't proposing a replacement just because the thing is a bit on the old side. You you'd like it to be in the shop a fair amount
or you know rusting out something about the vehicle is starting to fail. So I don't think we need to solve this right now. And if people are more or less comfortable with the concept, we can figure out there's a place in the report
saying we need our policy and this is an idea we've come up with and we are proposing that further work be be done on it and then I don't want to I'm I don't know enough about each of those vehicles. So, we have a vehicle list with the listing is
fair, poor, fair, good, excellent, and we have a bunch of them that are in not great shape that no one proposed to replace this year. You know, it's the other the flip side. Sean has held down the last several years. We haven't been doing very much buying. So, I don't want
to start buying more vehicles than we need either. You know, I want to keep the number as low as possible. So, I see Andy's hand is up. Sean's hand is up and Bridget I'm just going to do in that order Bridget. So Andy first >> um
Bridget can you scroll down so we can see what the impact would be of the of this on on what on the various So basically this is saying that you know DPW and the police would take the you
know would would take the hit this year uh based on on these um standards. And then scrolling back up again, I guess the uh um you know the
I'm just I like the idea of having a a standard, but I again I I'm sort of concerned about just implementing what to me seems like a sincere, you know, first step, but it doesn't seem to take
into account the different uses of the of the vehicles and, you know, idling versus running. And um I just, you know, I'm concerned about having, you know, a
policy that's not, you know, run through the various processes that would make sure that it's count considering the various um you know, differences or the you know, having the right metric for considering the condition of a vehicle. Um,
and then having that just and then saying, "Okay, based on this, we're we're cutting all three police cruisers and a couple of heavy trucks that DPW says they need." So, um, you know, if if we were still trying to cut the budget, I'd be like, great. Um,
otherwise, um, you know, we have a balanced budget now that's already been pretty much trimmed um before it even came to us. And I I just think it's gonna be a problem. I think it's problematic not to have a tighter definition and then say,
"Sorry, no police cars this year and no and and you know, no dump truck for for tree and ground." So, I don't know. I I think it's pro I think it needs more thought. >> Can I can I just ask a point of clarification because I was under the
impression that the DPW vehicles were moved already moved into next year. So, I just wanted to >> That's correct. That's why Andy from your point, but I just wanted to like side clarify that quickly. >> There are a few that are on this list that aren't up for FY27. So, I think it
it would be good to focus on FY27. So, Bridget, go ahead. And then Sean, because he has some information to bring to us, too. >> Bridget, you're muted. >> Sorry. Yeah. No, I was bouncing all over. I was trying to go back to that
other sheet but realized I shouldn't do it while y'all are sharing my screen. So um so first thing I I thought a lot about this question of idling and I just I must have thought about it too much since the PD presentation and the other
one because there's a school bus that sits on my block for like a half an hour every morning idolling and then goes stop go stop go and then you see them again waiting between the next shift just sitting there idling all the all and that's like a small example but
everybody else who does patrols. DPW does extensive patrols. They drive the whole town over and over again looking for projects and everything. And then anytime the vehicles for fire or or DPW have their lights on, they're also
idling. So, I think that that's important to think that that a lot of these vehicles are getting pretty intense and similar use. Um the other thing is and I think the fair good excellent is another um good good thing
maybe to even add into our standard but the mileage and and it says my it doesn't say oh let me go up and see when they meet it says when they meet either right it doesn't say both but I
think those are the criteria that are kept that are objective. All the other ones are sort of I would love to know what makes like the fair, good, excellent objective or or subjective as a measure I guess. So the the reason I
chose those is because that's what's available to us as a committee on a regular basis and that's always been been what's been provided across the time. So, um, and the last thing I wanted to say is it says major mechanical, major mechanical, and so I
think that's like your axles, you know, all the things in New England that go down that are famous, like those those types of things. So, it's I think it's got a lot of wiggle room in it. I went back and forth between 10 years and 150,000 miles. So, I didn't know how
everyone felt about that. But I really feel like if we operate with some sort of standard, a lot of the subjectivity that has existed in the past in the process could be handled. And that's all I have to say. >> So, let let me talk get to Sean. So,
what I'd like to do since we have to focus on a report that we're writing is I will propose that I take this I draft it into a separate memo that says here's a proposed vehicle policy. We can make an appendix to the report any way that
flags it. So, Paul sees it, council sees it, and we don't spend a huge amount of time trying to get to a final policy here, but we say here's a beginning step at a policy. And so I noticed you, you know, fair poor. We could define those,
right, Bridget? We could say you can only list it as a fair in the following way. So we could, what Sean said, we So let's move to the vehicles we have this year that we want to question whether we should be buying them or not. Um, and
have this I'm not saying we wouldn't write this up, but we could expand. I can drop it into there's a section in the report that says we need a vehicle policy and I can say here's a proposed vehicle policy and just take this text
and plop it in with some comments we've made on it but trying to not wordsmith the policy till we think this is the perfect policy but we can say here's a proposed beginning one would that work in terms of not spending I'm just it's 540 and I'm
going to try to end the meeting the two-hour meeting because there is the rest of the report as well. So, and so I think it's the I think it's the three police cars that that were questioning because the >> these three were already taken out and moved to next year.
>> Uh there's DP DPW has the one >> I just looked at the list. Sean's got Sean can let Sean come in. DPW has one uh one large the highway loader is the
one that's on it and otherwise it doesn't have anything other than that is the roadside mo mower. Those are the two DPW roadside mower. >> So the three DPWs, the one pickup truck in the midsize truck that wouldn't meet our standard have already been moved to
next year. >> They're they're not >> they're not on the list. >> They were not. No, no, they're not on the list for FY27. They've never been on the list. >> No, they Kathy, they they were never they were never on our list. Where they were is >> Guilford's list.
>> Guilford submitted them and we made him prioritize and so they never they got pushed into an outy year. >> So that's why I'm saying Sean has already moved them off because he said which is in the worst shape, which is the the top priorities. So in terms of our $6 million that we're spending or
the four million, they're not on the list. So, we won't save any money if we delete them because they're not on the list. That's just I just want to make that distinction >> because a lot of vehicles have been pushed off over time, but the police >> someone decided already those ones
weren't up to the standard of replacing yet >> and the head of the department decided that they were lesser, you know, made an urgency. One one is falling apart versus others. So, there has been some rational thinking. So that also speaks to the
need for a policy. But Sean, you can jump in because that's the one the police are on for 270 for three vehicles. That is they >> so so I think um you know we looked at it Kathy there's one the two vehicles that are in poor condition. I would
still recommend that those be considered for replacement. I think going down one um could be justified. I think you know the thing that the the other thing the policy so another suggestion is maybe we schedule a date in July for this group to come back together and we could
review you know I could have work done and get feedback from department heads and we could come back together and have this policy um you know re-reviewed before next year's JCPC cycle but the things that I don't think it considers is having a replacement schedule for
vehicles so every department has a fleet and I worry the again the way in its current form It might be one year you have a whole bunch of vehicles that come up. Are we going to replace them all? And then years there's none and it right now we try to do it on a schedule where it's sort of spread out over 5 10 years. Um
like the ambulance, the fire department for example, they come every other year for an ambulance. They may not exactly hit those numbers that are in the in the um policy, but it allows that to be predictable and smoothed out. You don't always want to wait necessarily and we
actually we try not to wait for something to break before we replace it because then we get calls like why are we waiting for things to break before we replace them? We should stay ahead of you know stay ahead of the maintenance on these things. Um we hear that a lot with our buildings for example. Um so I think that's just another thing we would want to keep in mind when we draft this
policy is replacement schedule smoothing out the cost considering the factors in terms of the thresholds for when it comes up. But how do we also budget for that over a 5year 10-year plan? Um because that's then we're trying to make guesses on when things will hit those thresholds.
>> And it might be helpful that we he went back Sean went back today to said we exactly which vehicles are you talking about the police and they flagged two um that are older with higher mileage that are rated as in not great shape. And
then the third Bridget you would every I think all of us would question why is that even on the list? So maybe you can put the vehicle pull they they named which three are you trying to replace and I was surprised by the answer. So
there's a vehicle list and they gave us NP and J as the vehicles. Um, so I don't know whether Sean you want Sean to save the list, but two of them were older and in not great shape and one is one of the
newer hybrids. And I >> I stopped sharing, right? Do you want to share, Sean? >> Yeah. I don't Kathy, I don't know if I have it in a way that's helpful. I think I sent that little snippet to them and they responded with their vehicles. >> Well, they did. If you bring up the
vehicle list, they they gave us the the they gave us the vehicle name. So there was vehicle number N, vehicle number P, and vehicle number J. And on your vehicle list, those numbers showed up. So that's what I went back and looked at.
>> NMP, I'll just read it up. NMP are in fair position. >> Kathy, share your screen. So >> share my screen if I can find it. Wouldn't that be nice? Hold on, Kathy. I can get it. I can get it in a second here.
>> I'm looking on my iPad, Bridget, because I don't keep the vehicle list, as you might not have noticed, but in my draft report, the vehicle list was not in it. It's an enormous list. >> So, this is these are the vehicles.
>> Okay. So the police when we asked exactly which things NMP, so it's route row 36 and row 37 that are used daily that have over 100,000 miles. They're gas and they're in fair condition. Um nothing nothing
seems to be so they're not proposing to replace one that's actually listed in poor position. And then the other one was J. But just to clarify, Kathy, that like the poor one, that's a vehicle they use very infrequently and it was donated to them and they probably won't replace it necessarily
when the you know a lot of a lot of departments have vehicles that were either gifted or donated to them. Um you know like the the Harley's like they won't replace these Harleys for example when they're no longer usable. These were things that are sort of a legacy. Um
>> so and the intention on NMP is also to get off of gasoline and go to hybrid. So they're that's why the price tag is high for those. So N and P are two of them. And then the other one is J and J is row number 56. >> Yeah. And I would want to follow I think
they might have that wrong. I mean that's >> they might have just given us the wrong number because >> I don't know if the letter got because that doesn't I agree with you like that seems >> unless there was an accident or something that happened to it and it changed the condition but um the miles are relatively low and the years you
know only three years old. So I I wonder if they made a mistake. >> Yeah. So that was a surprise to me because I thought they were going to pick the three that were high mileage and gas. So those first three NPT, but
that's not what they and one is an administrative SUV, not not a patrol car. So they're picking them also based on whether it's out every day and they're racing to go to an ambulance run and get there as part of the the group. So I
think the question is 270. I'm certainly not prepared to say all three don't meet a criteria that we don't even know what the condition is. Um are we do we want to say one less? And when we asked could you live with
one less the answer seemed to be yes. Um, that was a a Q&A. Um, seemed to be Yes, Jill. >> Yeah, I just want to remember the fact that we're talking about urgent needs this year, especially in a tough budget
year as, you know, we had difficult conversations about putting money to the roads or the auditorium roof or these other urgent needs. I know that this isn't a dollar amount that is on that level. Um, but I think we need to show
that we're we're we're doing what we should be doing in terms of really focusing on urgent needs and two vehicles that might be, you know, might might need repair at some point in the near future. Just that
doesn't meet my own personal criteria for the word urgent. And I think that that's our charge. And I think that that's just something I want to remember as we have this conversation. Um, and and also the fact that we were going to go forward with this without
really discussing this detail just emphasizes that I appreciate Bridget raising this up because it's easy to just say sounds good, sounds good, sounds good. And and I think we don't even really know what this third vehicle is. So, so I'll hear Bridget speaking, but I just want to make the point that
the list that was brought to us by Sean already cut off most of the vehicles, which is why we didn't have to make the harder decisions, Jill, they were already cut way back. Um, and the year before the same thing happened. So, vehicles, um, I'm not arguing for these
three vehicles. I'm just saying that it helps >> a committee that has never looked at a vehicle before that the list has already been paired way down before it gets to us. The first year I watched ACPC, it was 5 million's over budget for the
first year and everyone said, "What do we do with that?" And the town manager came back and said, "No vehicles this year." And made life easy, you know, because all the vehicles that was the first 2018 Sean, do you remember that? I mean, it was like an impossible task. And everyone said, "Well, problem
solved." So the the the town has been working hard to get the list down. So not you shouldn't feel you're not living up to expectation. So I guess the question is and Bridget has her hand up. >> The question is are people do we have
enough information to make a suggestion and again it's a recommendation that we reduce the number of vehicles and with a focus on the police. So that's Bridget and you're up. So I think that's what we're down to into the 27year in addition to we need a
vehicle policy. You know, I was thinking of the standard without looking at who it hit and just trying to think what's reasonable, you know, and I mean many many vehicles last much longer than this. They say the average new car can go 200,000
and you know, my parents have a Prius that's at 300,000. So, I don't think the hybrid is necessarily the thing. But in our town, we're we have to be like responsible stewards for very limited resources. These particular vehicles don't even come close to the lowest
standard that that I considered. They're certainly not urgent. And everybody in that I talked to in town and maybe because I'm on school committee, but they say roads and schools, schools and roads. We don't want this pitting of one against the other that they really want
both. And then we have a situation here where where we could put more money to roads. Are we going to do it or not? So Lee is next and then I think what what's being proposed is you you're just I'm I'm calling on you Lee next to but I
think what's being proposed is do we want to consider recommending not do the police not do the 270 Lee >> I'm not sure where I am in this but it I mean I I hear you and I hear Bridget
and it sounds as though like over time or prior to this the lack of a policy encouraged the the town the encourage people to to come in with a wish list.
>> That's correct. >> Yeah. And so everybody's trying to figure out how to or how to make it so that so it's more reasonable. So it's what what you really need because it's a real world and
how how these different entities interact. And so I'm not sure, you know, what's best to do at this moment, but I agree that it something needs to be done to get the people coming in to
understand that there's a budget and there's um a town increase every year and your proposals, our proposals need to come in within those parameters.
So that's all I have to say, >> Sean. And then Andy. >> Yeah. Again, I don't think they come in with a wish list. I think they're looking at their whole fleet of vehicles and thinking about the how do they manage this fleet and keep their fleet up and running over, you know, 10 to 12 years. I know the fire department does
that. I know the police department does that. And I think the the other thing I would just keep in mind and you know the committee's recommendation not trying to sway it in any way but when from the time a vehicle is purchased it could be 6 to 12 months before that vehicle is received. So if if this was approved for
example it possible that these cruisers aren't received until July you know the spring of 2027. So just keep that in mind when you're looking at the mileage and the condition and all that. So if this if they get let's say they get pushed off a year then we're talking you know June spring
of 2028. Um so that's especially when we're looking at like fire trucks and um ambulances. Those can take you know north of 18 months to two years. You may not want to wait till they get to these thresholds to approve those because then by the time you actually replace them
they're going to be well over um well over the the thresholds that have been set. Especially now with the way vehicles are, there's a long lag time, uh, a long lead time to get them replaced. >> Andy, >> um, I I'm curious about this point about
keeping the fleet from, you know, uh, trying to make sure that you can turn over the fleet and maintain a fleet, uh, over time. So I think that's an issue that this doesn't or at least the criteria that we have right now
don't take that into account. And I I do feel like there are some departments that use their shifts more their vehicles more intensively, you know, three shifts rather than one or two. Um, and I'm I'm concerned that, you know,
that we establish the idea of a of a policy without really consulting the departments on it and then say the result of that policy is that the police are the one department that doesn't get any vehicles um or that gets cut. So, we
just got a letter from the police on a different topic, but talking about morale problems, and I I would feel concerned about singling out a particular department without having a really good reason for doing it. Um, so
I I agree with Andy. I I this is for Sean, right? And maybe Kathy, do you think it's possible to design a policy that would take in these nuances
and that you know not all vehicle usages are the same and or you know or do you think it's better to just keep ad hocing it department by department?
Yeah, I mean I think it it's it's going to be challenging. I don't think it's it's not going to be as cut and dry as what was proposed. Um which again in some ways I really like that because it makes it my job really easy when when vehicles get submitted by departments. I can say it didn't hit this threshold, you can't submit it. So, you know, trust me, I I would love a policy like that if
um if if I thought it would that as written would completely work for all departments. But um I think it's it's not it's going to leave some room for flexibility is I think how we would have to do it. It's going to have to leave room for flexibility and considering replacement schedules. I think the other department we would want to hear from is
sustainability because I think the other thing that's not factored in is if we're going to run all these vehicles to 175,000 mi, especially gasoline ones, you know, is would we want to replace them sooner? I guess um especially the gasoline vehicles than letting them run for that much longer. I I don't we have
we do have a replacement um a sustainability policy on vehicles and how when they get replaced what we can do with the old vehicles. Um so I think we'd want their input as well on whatever is uh proposed. Um but I think we can factor that in but I would need
help from department heads thinking about how we do that. dead. >> So, the data nerd in me would love to take a look at um which vehicles have been um replaced historically and what
conditions they criteria they met, the mileage, the state, the department, and just to see if there's any patterns that emerge from that before um if you're talking about long-term policy um before making those kinds of decisions. um I
think that would inform and then you can create a rubric and then see how it applies to the other vehicles that were denied in those cycles. So I think there's there's a place for doing it systematically. Um I also think that um
a system is better than no system. So I I mean the the conversation was should we deny things based on something that hasn't been studied? Um, and then the flip side is should we approve things based on no criteria besides the fact
that there has been a process before this this list came before us which again I'm I'm new on JCPC but it seemed like the fact that the the budget was balanced before it came forward makes me
wonder exactly what my role is since it is just a recommending body. So I I just last year and they didn't do enough on it probably when we had them here. The police made a case that a couple of
their vehicles when racing to an emergency had failed and they can't afford to have that happen. You know, in terms of the the condition of them, we didn't press them hard enough. I totally agree on the three they want to replace. like how so I think we're in a situation
right now and I'm just going to ask whether we could put it to a vote. It looks like we have three vehicles that are in question. Do we want Right now the report is silent on
cutting a project in FY27. it calls for a vehicle policy and said we've asked for this before and we don't have one and we can write that much stronger and and what Sean said convene a group in the summer to come up with one get to department heads engaged in this and
Lee's concern is have a policy that people can live with but has some nuances in it. going to be different if it's um an ambulance um uh or a uh the only uh one of the things Gilford had
this year the only vehicle that can do certain things for road work and the other one's in the shop, you know, and it's breaking down for whatever reasons. Um and Bridget, you've cited a bunch of vehicles that have lasted a long time. a neighbor of ours hit one of the town's
top potholes, smashed a radiator, and bought a new car, you know. So, we we also have where we have some unusual wear and we have some unusual wear and tear on a vehicle, but what I'd like to know is um and I'm want to put it to a
vote. It's basically three cars that and we can right now the report version is silent on the three. it calls for a vehicle policy. We could say instead of three, two, reduce it by one and have
the police decide which one. Or the other piece is don't fund any of the three because we don't have enough information. This is and again this is all a recommendation from us. The the town manager doesn't have to do this. Then the flip side of that is what do we
do with that money? And when you're saying roads are a high priority, we are funding everything the school asked for. So I just want to make that clear. The elementary school got their full request. Um and so the place to put that
money would be roads. And so we could say we're going to increase this the money on roads. So that would be what say if we're going to do anything I think the recommendation should then put it into roads. Um and and Bridget originally over the weekend you said put
more into the playground but Shannon had said 175 will do exactly what she wants for that. That was her estimate. And then the big playground doing a brand new accessessible is on the list for next year not for this year. So she didn't ask for.
>> So we moved to roads. Yeah we heard we got your >> So I'd like to actually put it to a vote if people are willing to. Um, and the question is, do we remain silent, which it does now, and so it accepts that Excel sheet with three vehicles at 270.
Do we go to a smaller number, which could be two, which saves 90,000, three, two vehicles only, one vehicle only, or all 270. So those are it's a range of 90,000 to 270 off of that one
line that would go to roads. Andy, >> um, I'd like to hear from Sean about what what what his take is on, you know, the impact of cutting from three to two or three to none. I >> I think three to two they can manage. I
think we did ask them that question and I agree with you Kathy. The sense was that one would be um manageable, but they also were reduced last year. Am I right Kathy? In terms of their requests is what I understand. Um, I think going from three to none, it's just, you know,
they're going to have to make do. It'll it'll I'm sure they won't be happy with it and I'm sure they're they'll have concerns over the condition of some of those vehicles. Um, you know, having them for, you know, at least the next two years. But, um, but, you know, again, as Kathy mentioned, ultimately
it'll be at the town manager that will make that decision and consultation with the police chief and and what he feels comfortable proposing. So, I will say and I'm I will put it to vote. I'm not comfortable with doing three. I could consider one, you know, saying
recommend two rather than three. And when I'm looking at the high mileage and they don't get a new one for another year and they're running gasoline and it's already listed in fair condition. Granted, we don't know what fair means, but it means it's not good. There was a choice on that. I would not be
comfortable in going to zero. So that's my opinion, but I'm willing to and and people can tell me how to put it to a vote, you know, whether it's leave it the same would be the first vote, cut by one, cut by more than one. Um Eugene,
and I won't call for a vote until I hear from everybody. Yeah, >> I I Yeah, I mean I it's almost like there's three votes. I would agree. I wouldn't be comfortable going down to zero. Um, and they've already kind of uh police have already kind of said that they'd be willing to lose one. And while
we were discussing this, of course, I started googling and uh, you know, municipal vehicle retention policies. There's a really good one from Milton, for instance, that is quite a bit more complex because it does bring up the, you know, what is that vehicle for? You replace a vehicle that's used in
emergency situations like an ambulance or a cop car probably a bit quicker than you would something that's not quite as critical. I I definitely would vote I would agree with you, Kathy. I would vote to to trim one off because it does seem three, especially considering the state of our roads. I'm on Middle
Street, which is there's some very interesting sections to that. >> Um I I I would I would I would let's get a parameter for like what are our voting options? 0, one, two, or three. I I don't think you know. So So how do we do
that? >> Yeah. So, u Bridget, you can suggest I mean the first would be is don't >> I think Yeah, >> sorry Kathy. >> Go on. >> Um I just thought well we made the motion we brought it forward. So I
haven't got a second on it but we start with our motion. If it doesn't pass we move down to two we move to one and then if at the end we vote to give all of it. So we just move through the process. So your motion is to eliminate all three.
>> The mo Yeah. The motion we had was to follow the >> Okay. I will put I'll put I'll put reduce to three is the first vote and I will take a roll call vote. I'll go around. Um Eugene, >> this is to reduce to zero to take three.
So no, I would say no. >> Bridget, yes. Deb. >> I'm going to abstain. I'm sorry. >> That's okay. >> Andy, >> no.
>> Lee, >> no. >> Jill, >> yes. >> And Kathy is a no. Okay. So, so do I flip to cut by just one or do you
want me to go up the ladder? the next for 180, right? Like, so cut two and then that puts 180. >> So, so I'll I'll put the vote cut two but leave one. So, the vote is do we
reduce from three to one. And a yes would be yes, cut two. And a no would be no, don't cut two. Uh Eugene I'm going to say no.
>> Bridget, >> yes. >> Deb, >> yes. >> Andy, >> no. >> Lee, >> no. >> Jill, >> yes.
>> And Kathy is a no. So, let me just Can someone help me count? So Jill, Deb, and Bridget were yeses. Is that correct? >> Yeah. >> What? >> The motion fails.
>> Okay. So I I just wanted to make sure I'm counting right. Okay. Cut one vehicle. Eugene, >> yes. >> De uh Bridget, >> yes. Deb, >> yes.
>> Andy, >> yes. Jill, >> yes. >> Lee, >> yes. >> And Kathy is a yes. It's unanimous. Isn't that nice?
>> Well, it is. I mean, it is on some level nice. When we voted for the Fort River School, the final vote was unanimous, but we took four votes to get there the school. Um, Deb, >> so what is the criterion? So what the
the two that passed assuming we use some sort of age condition. >> Yep. And we did ask >> I'll say the two criterias we asked the police >> in an earlier and showing up >> could they live with two rather than
three and they said yes they could make do and they've named two of them that are in worse shape and they're listed as fair right now um on their list. >> What are their ages and miles? Got it.
>> 2017 and 2016. And they have 133,000 and 120,000 mile in that neighborhood. And they would be a year older when when they would have them. And they're gasoline. So they're proposing to go from gas to hybrid on those two. and and
the one that didn't pass. >> Well, Sean thinks Sean thinks they they gave us the wrong one because it no, you know, and they quickly responded to us when a J because it's unlikely that they meant a fairly new hybrid with low
miles. >> It's unlikely unless there's something about that one. So, we aren't going to tell them which one, but we're going to tell them they they only get two. Well, that's not fair because they can replace the easier one and then game the system for next year, right? No.
>> Yeah, we would only we would do the two older ones. Um, again, unless unless there's something about that hybrid where, you know, as Kathy mentioned, it's a lemon. It would be the two older ones that would get replaced. Our goal is to, >> you know, make our fleet more sustainable and and that would be two more off the list of um gasoline.
>> Okay. >> Remember, there's a procurement process and it goes through one of the people in this room. That's right. call Sean, you know, it's not just uh >> Okay, so the we've gotten to the point on the report at 611 that we add a
recommendation um that uh we reduce the rec the reduce the police from three to two which is a savings of 90,000 and is everyone comfortable with saying and redirect that to roads?
Yes. I don't see anyone saying no. So Sean can bring up the expel spreadsheet if he wants to. And it will be the way the report is written is we're going to shade anything in red
that was affected by decisions we made um during it so that the town manager can follow it or anyone who's reading it. Um, so if we go through the decisions we've made and since he's so
that is changing to minus yeah there's okay he's going to do it right in real time here and then so that changes to red and then roads change goes up by 90
wherever roads is. >> Deb do you want me to share the resident capital feedback at this point or no? Yeah. And so then the So the other one Yeah. So road goes up by another 90. >> I I didn't get the question.
>> Oh, sorry. I said I meant Cath Kathy that remember. >> So um >> and that and red shade that one Sean too. >> So one of the follow-ups from last time was to look into those resident capital requests that were submitted and one of them was for
soundproofing at the North Ammeris Library. Um, I did talk to Paul and Paul said he would be supportive of a recommendation from this committee to um add funding for that. We got a quote of between6 or $7,000. Um, I think the resident capital requesttor was for 10.
So somewhere between those two um would be uh the right amount. And if this committee wanted to recommend that, I would suggest adding it to Jeremiah's um to Jeremiah's request because he would be the one that would uh lead the
purchase of that and uh get that installed at the North Ammerst Library. And just so people know, the um the last version we saw or the one we're working with right now had 9,000 and
some odd dollars in change that if we spent it, we we balanced it out. So it's it almost exactly matches the soundproofingness. So the the is it would be moving
moving that nine down to zero and moving it up into the Jeremiah facility line and our wording would make it clear that that num that number assumes that that's going to happen and we'd have a resident proposal that we said yes to. So it's a
question did the committee want to do that because that nine could also be put to roads. you know, it's 9,000. Um, the the budget had a minor surplus in it. Deb,
>> I would support the moving it to roads. >> Andy, I don't think it would make any difference on on what on the condition of the roads and I think it would make a difference on the usability of that room. I know a number of us have been in that room a number of times and it's very echoey and just putting down some,
you know, non non-slipable um wall to-all carpeting or something might make it a huge difference and make it more useful for community events. >> Deb's hand is up. I I take any comments on this. This is, you know, whether
we're recommending and I, you know, on some level Jeremiah's got $750,000. So he could potentially do this out of that budget. Dev, >> was there some discussion about whether
or not the people who installed the who the designers were responsible for making that more um user friendly? >> Yeah. So we're getting um we've reached out to Kun Riddle for help. um they're um you know giving us information but
they would never buy the you know it would never be on them to buy the materials needed to make it soundproof. Um, so again, I think they're, you know, we've reached out to them for help in designing what would need to be designed, but it would still be on us to to buy those whatever those improvements
are, whether it's panels or I don't I don't think it'll be carpeting. I think it'll be some panel system that addresses the echo. So what there's been one voice that said just balance it out, put it in roads and urge the town to do this out of its own
resources so it wouldn't be increase Jeremiah's line and Andy. So we could we could say anything we want in this report by the way, you know, in in terms of of that we think Jeremiah, for example, out of his 750 ought to be able
to find the money to do this or we can explicitly add that 9,000. So I'm just saying we we can get it down to zero if we want and still express support for this being done while adding it to roads. Bridget,
>> I um I I did a silly Google which was how many potholes could $270,000 spend, but basically it's like $1,000 per pothole. So, this is like nine potholes that are sizable and go deep.
So, I guess it's just a trade-off. I'm I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other because um I can see the value in both. >> Andy, then Jill Um I I got the sense that um the facilities budget was already less than
he wanted. I think it it was already cut before we got it. Um and if we're going to tell him to do something extra that he wasn't planning on or we have the money, I think it's probably again it's $9,000. It's not a big deal either way. But it seems to me that
that's if we're going to say do this and then we have $9,000, it would be worth saying here it is. >> I'm also fine either way. I I just think it's budget season, so giving them an item to work on for this year at that
dollar amount should be something that they can incorporate into their budget as they're planning the their work plan for the year. I don't think it's that out of the realm of possibility. Um, and I think it sends a strong message to put these funds toward the roads as we're
hearing so much about that. >> All right. So, um, I think the draft everyone saw mentions this and said if the money can be found, it would be a good idea. And I just am looking any way people want me
to write this. I don't care to tell you the truth. I you know it's it's it always feels when people talk about participatory budgeting the only place we have right now that residents can propose small things is JCPC in theory
over in this new transportation advisory commission they'll be able to come with traffic coming and in theory they can apply to the community preservation act but it's rare that little projects get through over Um so it if if you think of
it in this category of the town opened up the possibility of residents applying for things um it's a slightly different category but as I said I don't really care. So I just would like it's 619 anyone can tell me what what we think we
should do. Um it's written the draft right now mentions this and if funds can be supported we think this is a good idea. We can balance out the budget by again every you know making a sincere effort to get all the money we can to
roads say balance the whole budget out put it all in roads but make it one of the items that the facility manager wants to do. So we can write it any way we want is basically what I want. And then Paul Paul is working with this and does it
stay in as a flagged item in the final report or not the final capital improvement plan. Um so does anyone want you know I I hate to take this much time up on as what everyone pointed out if we're we're
spending four or five million dollars and we're down to 9,000. Um, Deb, >> I'm still going to say put it in rugs, but I'm not going to oppose it if nobody >> Okay, >> that's a good idea. Or >> syn. So, so what I can do is is write
this as balance it by showing a zero. So, Sean can put the, you know, John is making sure the numbers always tally. So, Sean will show zero in the main table and we can write it that we're assuming that that the 9,000 went into
roads. So roads goes up by 9,000 and change. Um we have I don't know whether people succeeded in writing all the way to the end but we said to the extent the close out of the outstanding grants uh
projects if money becomes available when we start looking in the fall roads should be at the top of the list. So we've named roads again at the end of the report if money becomes available. So, we will have said roads several
times and that the road budget is is falling short and I just wrote a long paragraph for the council president in the testimony to talk about roads, you know, so so Sean can do make that change in the
sum. Well, he everything is interactive when he does it and so that I think that closes that conversation. Is there any other project? Andy, go ahead. >> I I'm just wondering do we do we have a
figure? I know I had heard 6.4 million that is available for roads now and now and I think it it ended up being 5.7 million, but what what's the number and and this is just separate from this discussion. I just want to know.
>> Yeah. So um so there's the 2.7 that was approved and then there's one49 in chapter 90 and then right now and how they structure the bid you know this technically the money in this is not
approved yet right um but the money that we currently have here is 975,000 let's say um for road repairs when I add in the cash capital into the other
category. Um so whatever that adds up to which is I think around 5 million >> and and Sean didn't add there's a line for sidewalks in there too. Yeah, include sidewalks >> and it so if you go back to the spreadsheet, Andy, that was I tried to
do that the weekend, but you just go in roads sidewalks and we can show the Excel again. Um, but that and then it's the additional 2.7 that just came from cash capital. So this is all looking at
fiscal year 20 22 27 which starts they can and you think about this money becomes available for contracting over the summer and it's that's the amount of money and DPW hasn't we haven't spent all of the current allocation yet either
but that's you don't you you pave roads and you do road repair not in the middle winter you know so that >> they go out for big bids. Does that answer your question, Andy, as of how to add this up? >> I guess I mean this this adds up to 5.165
if I'm adding those numbers correctly. So 5.165 million plus the sidewalks. Um but that that can't be spent till July 1st. So there's still money left over for them to spend during the spring and up until June. Is that right?
>> Yeah, they have some leftover money from last year's contracts that they bid out. um that is basically subject to whatever they have left from prior years. And then uh they're actually the DPW is going to be making a good presentation I think to TSO is where they're making that presentation where they're going to
explain the you know go over the road index um talk about you know the different conditions but they also um will go over the plan for what's going to be uh replaced with this money um which is about it's about $5 billion
worth of of roads. So, um, yes, there's going to be some le spring work that's left over from prior contracts, and then there will be a new bid, which is going to be in the $5 million range. >> And andy, the Sean, the 27 that came out
of free cash, that's not time limited in terms of that could be >> that was that could be Yeah. And even >> that can be pack that can be packaged sooner rather than >> even even the money in the capital plan can be subject to appropriation with
bids. Um it's likely if if we get a $5 million bid, they might not all get done this year anyway. Um so you can always do the bid subject to appropriation as well. Um we don't like to do that, but I don't we have done that. We used to buy school buses that way because we we
wouldn't know what town meeting was going to do when we got approval. So, we would do it subject to appropriation. Um, so they're they're pretty good with the 5 million right now. Um, bidding that out, which is what we were what our target was for the first year of that plan.
>> Okay. Thanks. >> And and Andy, I I think I put that number in the report, but I'll get the number from Sean for the section on how much we have to spend. And and the tricky thing is JCPC is just looking at this one column. We're not also looking
the 27 that's coming from what the council just voted on. You know it that's the extra from free cash. It's not in the budget we're looking you know the next year budget. So was there it's it's um there were a
couple other items that I just wanted to draw people's attention to. I and and Sean is going to fix my numbers. Um I toward the end of the report point out that we're stressed in the next four years on the
capital budget. Um and that and and recommended that a few of the big ticket bigger ticket items that the town to the extent they can seek grants for them. So again, the town manager that we're not making we're making any decisions other
than this year and he won't be either. Um so some of the and some of it was Bridget was to reexamine the vehicle policy because there are two years where we in those two years we were buying a lot of vehicles, you know, to really be thinking about can we get that vehicle
policy down and I and and I just pegged a number, you know, was $2.7 million worth of vehicles. Could we get it down to one and a half? you know, I mean, really trying to be where where can we squeeze more money out. So, the report is written about squeeze more money out so that we have money for roads and so
that we have a balanced budget. And I don't know whether people had any edits in the report as you read on um and the one so I'll stop take a pause there. The other thing is I included the pie chart
that Sean put together for us that shows the total spending including the regional school debt um and chapter 90. And I think that's a better pie chart than the chart that the town has typically done in the comm community in
the five-year plan. So, I was going to recommend that the town manager and the finance director use that in the final report, you know. So, it's showing the fact that we are spending something on Jones Library. It just happens to be in a debt
service line. You know, it didn't come out of cash this year. Um, and and it it looks it ends up looking more balanced just because there are big ticket items that are in like regional debt, regional school capital didn't show up at all. if
we don't put regional schools in and we are spending money on schools. Um so I think that's a healthier way long term to show each year's capital budget. Um so I I so that that was a draft report
you all received whatever day Monday morning. Sean started going through it to doublech checkck numbers. So, I had some numbers that weren't quite right because I didn't look at the fact that he'd redone the debt table and and Sean, you might want to bring up the debt
service table. So, people, it's the last page of the draft report and we don't have any control of that. That is through the miracles of our finance department. Some of the lines changed a lot from what we saw in February. And
it's because when they went out for the bonds, the interest rates were lower, you know, so the debt service went way down and the Jones Library one went down by quite a bit. But that table is keeping a track of things that we are
financing with debt. And at the very bottom of it, it says how much has to come out of general fund. Bridget, you know, when you're looking at when we raise new capital each year, how much is already going to be spent because we've incurred debt from a prior year, which is why
trying not to incur debt when we can avoid it is good because the next year we have to pay the debt. So it jumps up a lot when you go out when the DPW building comes online. Assuming
that we can finance the DPW building at 35 million, which is a number we've just put in. We don't even know that that's a real number yet. So when we go out over time, there's going to be less and less each year for a JCPC
to look at in terms of what money is available because debt service will be taking over bigger shares. And >> yeah, and Kathy, can I just add real um and like the bond anticipation note interest estimate for FY27, we might be
I might be able to reduce that a little bit. When we first did this, we hadn't um borrowed money yet. So, we were still not sure what our interest rate uh would be and what the cost would be next year. We now know that. So, I if I reduce that for the final plan, I think the
directive direction I've heard from this committee is put it into roads if that uh lowers the um >> lowers the cost. U but all but the other numbers up above for the most part are set now that we have uh our financing in place. And if people who know the
regional school long-term capital plan, Sean has pensled in a million, a million and a million going out a few years. The last time I saw regional school, the number was bigger than that, you know. So that is, you know, these are these
are driven by decisions. JCP's not making those decisions, but the towns are making those decisions. So all of that affects um what we can spend on everything else. So, I just wanted to make sure people knew that table was there because it's it's a little
complicated, but it shows you why buying a ladder truck has a long-term consequence because it was an over a million dollar purchase. So, it's with us for a long time. Um, the year we bought it, we didn't have the money to do it. Um,
>> and right now this bundles, there's a bunch of Crocker Farm projects that are, you know, bigger ticket items with the roof and the playground and HVAC and uh, fire alarm. Right now they're bundled just for simplicity sake cuz they're in out years. Um, and then same thing with
Puffer Pond. Uh so right now besides the DPW, the only other projects that are in this plan projected to be funded with uh a borrowing are those two >> and and and as Shannon said that she wants to do a full building look of
Crocker. We those numbers are placeholders right now. We don't actually know what those numbers are and whether they are assuming that you go for MS the school co-unding and this is the net of the
town. So all of this is um taxpayer dollars is the other way of looking at it >> and it may look like we have a lot of debt but for a long time this was this looked really good. just so you know before we before we started these building projects. This looked really
good and now we're at that place but which we knew was going to happen was once we start taking on um the building project, you know, two buildings and now we'll eventually have a third when the public works gets uh gets going. Um we knew this was going to increase and you know we're just catching up to where a
lot of other towns are. Andy, >> I'm just looking at the bot the bottom two green lines, the water enterprise fund debt and the sewer enterprise fund debt. Um, that's debt that we'll be paying, but we'll be paying it with the enterprise fund revenues, right? So,
>> yeah, long term, you know, and maybe next year if if I can figure um I can do it, you know, the one recommendation from this committee for a while has been to incorporate enterprise fund um capital into this process. Um we haven't quite done that but this schedule uh we
want to include all the debt. So yeah that is those are capital projects that are in the enterprise funds that are funded by the the water and sewer rates. So like Centennial um is in the water fund. Um gravity bell was a big project we did in the sewer fund which are the make up the most of those numbers.
And we don't know yet, Andy. There was a discussion just at the beginning of last year's council meeting on the the treatment plant and the extraordinary expense because it's falling apart and we don't know yet what what that so
that's not yet there. Um and that's enterprise fund. future uh sewer enterprise fund, >> but we do >> increases. >> We do have funding for capital improvements and system improvements regularly. It's just is that report
going to come back with a number that's much bigger than what we currently invest in it or say we need to replace the whole system. That would be that would be a big number. So if if um are there any other comments or
questions on the draft report and I this is what I will commit to doing and I will share it back to everyone is I will write a longer section in the middle of it on a potential road policy. Here's here's uh car pol vehicle purchase
policy um in the middle of it. here's the beginning ideas and with a strong recommendation at the very beginning to call a meeting together to come up with one that that governs uh replacement and to come up with definitions I think also
I heard is what is fair and good you know how when we're rating a vehicle what is the criteria being used for those ratings um you know some kind of repair history you know what it looks like so if if if if people will trust
that I will do that. Well, I will share the report back. I don't have to get it right away to the town manager and I can send a revised version with some corrected numbers in it. But what I'd like to see if people are comfortable
enough with it with those changes to vote on it so we don't have to meet again next week. Otherwise, we would need to meet next week. So the vehicle one less police car is in it. It that's been changed. We will write a section that's stronger on
vehicle purchase in the middle of it. And otherwise there aren't many significant changes from what you saw that you got three days ago. Deb, >> I am not going to vote for another meeting. >> Tim, do you need a motion, Kathy? I need
a motion to approve the report as amended. Um, you know, with with the with with the edits and changes as discussed during the meeting. Yeah. >> Okay. I can move that. Um, I move that
we accept the um edited JCPC report with adaptations as discussed in the meeting of March 25th. Um, and um, that's it, I think. Yeah. >> Is there a second?
>> Okay, I will put it to a vote then. Bridget, >> yes. >> Kathy is a yes. Eugene, >> yes. >> Deb, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> Jill, >> yes. >> And Lee,
>> yes. >> And what I will do is I will make these changes. And this is a process we've used in the finance committee. If it's okay with people, I'll make the changes. I'll send them out and if there are any last minute red edits, like the word
choice isn't quite right, as long as it's minor and not substantive, I'll incorporate them in and ask you just to send them back to me. And the report then goes to the town manager. We submit it to him and
we send it to the council just as a courtesy. It's not a discussed report. And usually I write a one-page summary of the longer report because then it goes into the capital plan planning. And Sean, one of the things at the end of
this report, I noticed that the Northampton capital plan >> includes this section at the very end that talks about enterprise funds. So, I didn't think that JCPC would have to talk about it, but just when the town manager talked about capital, there's
general fund capital and there's enterprise fund. So, I did I just thought that was a good way for the public to see it. And I don't know whether you can do that next year or this year, but it it was I just thought you could see the kinds of investments
that the town is making regardless of where what the source of the money is. So, it wasn't that we would start reviewing enterprise funds. Yeah. Um, >> so I think we just got to um a closing
point. >> Yes. And so I do need um I do need minutes. A couple people were drafting minutes from different meetings. I'll figure out how we uh capture this. Um maybe someone can
do a a quick report of these of today's minutes so we capture this one. Um because we don't have a minute taker for today and um I can't think of what else. So we will place this edited report also in
today's packet once I get it done. You know once I get it done so we'll have a record of it. The final one. Deb >> there is no packet today. I couldn't >> There wasn't any packet for today probably because the the draft report
>> didn't make it. Okay. >> Didn't make it. That was the only that was the only change for today. So we can put >> I can put it in Kathy. Um if you you know once the re updates are put in I can add it to the packet today. >> Right.
You know particularly because Sean picked up a couple things where the numbers were just wrong so we didn't post it. Um >> okay. So I I am supposed to do think of terms of public comments. Public comment I can't just adjourn. So we do have a
member of the public. This is a time if you would like to make a public comment. We welcome any public comments and the hand didn't go up. So I will make a motion to adjourn unless there are further comments. Andy.
>> Yeah, I just wanted to thank you um Kathy for running the the the team and I really wanted to thank Sean for all all his work and helping us understand um this and you know showing us the effects of different changes. So appreciate the
appreciate the group and the process and and and the help. >> Lee, I want to join Andy really. Thank you and Sean both for It's amazing. Thank you.
>> Those people said they're new to the >> Kathy doesn't need me anymore. She's been doing this for so many years. She could she could do this without me if she wanted to. So, >> well, but the worst thing is trying to find Didn't we already fund that too? So, Bridget, when someone said, "Didn't we fund the croc?" I said, "I'm sure we
voted on that." You know, at what point did we fund it? So, um, yeah, I I personally love the JCP process because even if Jill, when you're feeling like most of it has been decided, that's so much better than trying to trade off
things where we don't have enough information, but you get to see what the capital needs of the town are. And it's a real eye openener every year on how hard it is to juggle the different needs. Um, and you think of what's not
being asked for. And I'm kind of cringing with uh Dave Zox going out and raising awareness of all the wonderful things we could do with Puffer Pond. The only problem is it's another $5 million and you know, so it's it's we need to
dredge it. We don't want it to overflow, but these are such big ticket items compared to our sources of revenue unless the state starts kicking in. So, I love the JCP process just because I learned so much about where things
Shannon brought to us I never would have thought of. Um, so I thank you all and I thank all the people who come and spend time with us. And so I am going to make a motion to adjourn and thank you all for for being here. Um, and I think it's
seconded. So I'll do it do it to a quick vote. Kathy says yes. Eugene. >> Yes. Bridget, >> yes and thank you. Deb, >> yes. Andy, >> yes. >> Jill, >> yes. And thank you everyone.
>> And Lee, and do I do thank you for for pushing us hard on vehicle policy. It will strengthen the report to put that section in. We are adjourned at 6:43. >> Thank you. Bye. All right.