Good afternoon everyone. Welcome to the rate review committee meeting. Today is Tuesday, February 10th, 2026. This meeting of the air rate review committee will be held in person at the location provided on this notice. Members of the public are welcome to attend this in-person meeting. Please
note that while an option for remote attendance and/or participation via Zoom is being provided as a courtesy to the public, the meeting hearing will not be suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast broadcast unless otherwise required by law. Members of the public with a
particular interest in a specific item on this agenda should make plans for in-person versus virtual attendance accordingly. This meeting will be live on Zoom. The public may access the proceedings by joining Zoom meeting ID number 978-772-8220 or by calling 9292056099.
For additional information about remote participation, please contact Carly Anteneellis, assistant town manager at atmir.mma. us or 978-772-8220 extension 100 prior to the meeting. All right. And first things up, has
everybody had a chance to look at the January 27 [clears throat] 26 2026 meeting minutes? >> I had one question.
It's on page two where I say Jay Livingston stated that the models are fixed scenarios based on changing the increase in percentage and use of retained earrings. Does that make sense to anybody? I remember saying that I was trying to
say that the models that we use are fixed, but this sentence just doesn't sound right. And I have no idea what it's supposed I think I'm I think it's supposed to be like that the models are fixed. >> Yep. >> And that we're
trying to ch live change it to show different scenarios. So, if we could fix that because I I looked at I'm like I had I know sometimes I can babble but good lord. >> Um >> having been at the meeting I know what you're talking about but >> yeah. So it just it just I kept reading
it and I'm like I have no idea what that means. So if we could just check exactly what I said. >> Um so are there any other comments? I'll make the motion to uh approve the
minutes as amended. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I chair says I meeting minutes have been approved as amended. All right. Thank you. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> We run out of chairs.
>> Anybody else need >> All right. So, next up is the review discussion votes on the FY2027 water, sewer, and storm water rate recommendation. So, I'd like to start with storm water first. As we've all
talked about, um we you know haven't the storm water started collecting funds like around September, October time frame. Okay. So, we don't even have any real numbers to look at to have any recommendations. So, as we all talked,
we're not doing anything with the storm water uh as far as the rate. So, I'd like to make that official um and vote on doing [clears throat] that. >> Okay. So, I will make a motion that the
storm water rate remain at the current $95. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I chair says I. All right, next up, water. I believe we were talking about um a
possible >> That one was going to be on the back here. >> First couple pages in the packet are the prior scenarios just >> Yeah. So, I know we were we kind of talked about um for water a 3% increase
in using 350,000 in retained earnings. That's where we left off at last meeting. >> Correct. Okay. Who wants to take it from there? So just one thing in the packet just that scenario is the very last one in the packet with the 3% 350 and then I
did also include a 5% 350 because I had it in my notes that we discussed that but this is forformational purposes. Um the one up on the screen is the 3% and 350,000 and the sewer at 5% and 50. All right.
And how does that affect the uh resident >> at this rate? >> My mouse working. So with this, it looks like we're going to go from the annual water bill from 133 to
37 for the typical single family residential customer, right? And for sewer from 413,000 annual to 433. It's a $4 increase on the water side. All right, which is basically a dollar a
quarter. >> Um, and then the $20 is basically $5 a quarter. Did you want to say something? Oh, okay. You're just looking at me. Okay. [laughter] I wasn't sure if she was looking at me like me next. Um, and what if we did the
5% water? >> Bring that right up. So, that's the next to the last scenario in your packet. Bring that up on the screen. Keeping the retained earnings at 350. I'm just going to change the percentage because we're just looking for the
effect of the taxpayer. Correct. >> Okay. That goes from a $4 increase to a $6 change. >> Okay. And then as far as for the what it does for us for future,
>> so going to a 5% when I did run the scenarios, it it looked like it made about a $40,000 difference in revenue for the year. 42 I think it was. That's an estimate based on me running the scenarios um earlier in the week. Um and
then for future, are we I'll bring that up to that fund balance. Okay. Here's your water cash flow. Or do you want to see the fund balance? I can't can fit them both on the screen fully. >> Well, that's we'll look at both. [clears throat]
>> So, the cash flow still looks like a decrease in 28 because, you know, we're not anticipating retained earnings being used at for 28 at that as of right now. And again, that's because the the rate model is fixed. It does. It doesn't know
what we're going to do, right? So, >> all right. That's what you meant. >> That's Yeah. [laughter] >> That's what I meant. >> And this is the 5%. >> Yeah. This is with the five% with And this is still with retained earnings being used, right?
>> Only for fiscal 27. It's not >> right. So what we're looking at, so this what we're looking at right now is 5% on the water with the retain with using 350K um on the retained earnings and the water fund layout balance.
How does it go down? Because we use retainer. Yeah. So, your fund balance will decrease when you use your retain earnings. >> If I may, if you look up a little bit, the other reason it goes down so quickly
is because the re projected revenue is so far below the line for expenses. So, it assumes that you have to dip into retained earnings in order to maintain your balance. And you'll also see the
proposed debt services for 31 32. It's because we have those larger projects coming on the horizon. So it's anticipating those without anticipating additional retained earnings being used. That makes sense.
focusing on fiscal 27 this scenario would comfortably in my opinion work >> yes >> um this does not include anticipated
increases in revenue >> does not we don't know what that would be >> because there ultimately we're going to see more of a level revenue but They said this is a very conservative.
>> It is a very conservative [clears throat] model. The way they designed it, um it does take your current information and then do very conservative projections. And if we did the 3% what are the
>> that we also have printed. That's the very last model in the packet. And um that's where I think we're okay. We're just a little closer. just a little tighter
at 3%. >> So, I mean, I know we can look at the numbers and, you know, say, well, it's only a $4 to a $6, but that might be fine for discussion, but how does it affect the resident,
you know, and with all the other things going on? So, discussion. >> Madam chair, I would just offer and point taken as we take into account the the rate payer as we discussed last time
perhaps the 3% with the 350,000 for FY27 and we have a big variable which we're cautiously optimistic about which is the clearwell. So revenue hopefully will production and revenue will hopefully go
up in FY 27. So then when we reconvene for FY 28, I think we would have more of the complete picture. So I mean just from my perspective, I think if you're looking to balance for the rateayer and
the taxpayer, I mean the 3% with the 350 um gets us there. we have a basically a year just shy of a year once the Clarewell gets on we'll have more of a production revenue picture. I mean I think if the three and the
retained earnings does it I would hold off on the the five scenario and until next year and we look at it. But that that's just my two cents. >> I think that I think that sounds reasonable. you know >> trending towards where we need to be but
yet still being of the rateayer I >> right right so >> is everybody >> I agree >> so are we comfortable or need further
discussion on the water >> uncomfortable comfortable >> yeah [clears throat] >> all right then somebody want to make a motion >> madam chair I will make a motion that the rate review committee recommend a 3%
increase for water for FY27 using 350,000 in retained earnings. >> Second that. All those in favor [snorts] >> says I. >> All right. Okay. That was good. [clears throat] All right. Yeah, I'm sewer. Oh, thanks.
[laughter] >> All right. So, we left off with a talking about a 5% increase using 50,000 in retained earnings. >> That's the model. That's what's up there. >> Okay. And scroll over. So this has the 50,000 in retained
earnings being used and the 5% going back to the 5% scenario that we historically have done. >> And what's the exact consumer? [clears throat] >> $20 annual increase for the typical
single family residential. Did we discuss like a 4% just I don't remember. >> We did and it would generate an estimated surplus of 16,700 and like me to put in 4% to see the effect.
>> Yeah, because here it says it would generate an estimated surplus of 16,700. But if we do a rate increase of 5% using 50, it would generate Oh, it would [clears throat] generate an estimated surplus of 10,000.
You know what? I think we need to go back over these meeting minutes because now >> where is that? What p? Oh >> yeah. >> Sew rate increase 4% losing 50,000 would it generate a surplus of 16,700.
Page three, middle of the page, middle of page number three. Let's see. sewer in rate increase of 4% >> using >> I don't know if I if it was 10,000
>> and the next one 5% it says 10,000 >> that could be a title >> that might be around 20,000 >> right so let's we get a fix so 5% is [clears throat] >> another >> we were but let me put in the scenario
>> [clears throat] >> The scenario was 5%. >> We put the 5% back and the 50 is already plugged in. >> We go look at the cash flow using 50 pound. 59481
>> at 5% with >> with 50,000 >> that would be a surplus of >> essentially. Yeah. All right. >> Fix that. >> Um I'm going to air on the side of caution that
>> these meeting minutes maybe be brought back to us at our next meeting for review. Um because now we we found something else that we didn't talk about when we approved. >> Should I make a motion on that?
>> I mean I can I can I can amend them. Let's Why don't we check plug in the 4%? >> Right. So >> check. >> Well, that's what I'm saying. I think we're going to need to to make sure that everything's correct. So, we [clears throat] did because we thought
there was one amendment, but now there's two. So, I'm going to make a motion to resend the approval of the meeting minutes from whatever date, January 26, um, 27th.
All right. And that they be redone and brought forward to us at our next meeting. >> I'll second it. >> Okay. Uh, all those in favor? I >> I says I >> thank you. It was just one of those
weird scenarios. So, okay. So, we're gonna those will come back to us. >> All right. So, what we decided So, >> yeah. So, it was going to be a 57,000 >> 59,481 estimated at >> 481 at 5% and 50,000.
>> Right. >> All right. And the 4%. So, we wanted to see the 4% effect on the tax bill, >> right? >> Bear with me. >> But what it was going to do on the cash flow, too.
>> So, it goes from a $20 increase to 16. >> Yeah. And that's with the 4%. >> And what was that going to do with the cash flow?
16,700. So there's your 16,700. Okay, good. 50 [clears throat] is the 16,700, which is >> 5% gives you a lot more. Oh, Christ. >> Um, >> okay. So, that one's
Look at the revenue line with this. >> Oh, the cash flow chart. >> Cash flow chart. >> Fun balance one or the cash? No, >> no, the sewer cash. >> Okay. So, we're still covering everything.
until what? 2030. >> All right. So, if we do the 5%, it's about a $20 uh annual. Annually, >> yeah, that's annual. And if we do the four, [clears throat] um, gives us still a little surplus,
we're still okay. Um, and it's like $16 on the resident. So, it might not sound a lot, but I don't know. How does everybody feel? I mean, the idea is that we got to achieve what
we need to achieve to be able to fix everything. Um >> well I I feel with the the 4% showing that continue to break even under sewer cash flow the sewer fund balance remains in the
black until 2020 2033. >> So we could treat this like we're treating water. Do it a little bit more conservative this year with next year um being a little higher. How's everybody feel?
>> Oh, this are we using retained earnings again next year? >> Oh, no. >> I'm just looking at the trend. I mean, would we be would the expenses be higher than say you did a 4% again next year? That's how what it's showing. I just can't see that revenue dot versus the
expense dot. You know, FY28. >> Yeah. >> So, if we do 4% this year with 50,000 We're okay this year. >> This year, but next year we may end up if you just did kept going up to 4% you still in trouble. You might you have to
bump up to five or something higher again. [snorts] >> Yeah, it looks very close. It's probably just under there. And the model does assume continuing a 4% um increase in this chart. If I may to your point, Dan, I think
with the sewer fund balance, the bar is pretty level. So, it's seems like it it wouldn't be eating away at retained earnings. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's like I'd say I'm more concerned about water than this one. [clears throat]
>> All right. How everybody feel >> with 4% with 50? What if we didn't do any um if we didn't do any retained earnings for sewer? >> How would that >> then it would be 16,700US
50 grand? We'd begative 34,000. >> Okay. So, we will go down. Yeah. >> 34,000. >> Okay. >> Okay. We have to do the 5%. >> Then you do 5%. You'd be 9,000 in the black. >> Yeah. Let's do the retained earnings.
I I'm comfortable with 4% and then the 50,000 retain during again the it seems the cash flow is pretty break even as sewer fund balances remains strong >> everybody comfortable with the 4% 50,000
>> I had to mold it over for a little bit but I'm Okay. But [laughter] um All right. Any further discussion on this? Okay. I'll take a motion. Madam Chair, I'll make a motion that the
rate review committee recommend a sewer rate increase of 4% with 50,000 in retained earnings for FY2027. >> Seconded. All those in favor?
>> I say I have our recommendation. >> All right. Yeah. Cool. All right. Next up is the review discussion vote on the FY27 water and sewer rate schedule. The connection and other
tab over >> on the internet. >> Yep. >> Right here. I see it. Got it. >> And then just tab over. There you go. All right.
>> Would you like to reiterate? >> Sure. >> So, the first up is the backflow fees. So, we currently charge $100 per regular test and $75 for a retest. Um, and I'd
like to recommend that we standardize that because it cost us the same amount of money no matter what kind of test it is, whether it's a B test or a test. Okay. Anybody have any questions? Okay. Okay. Make a motion on the backflow
tests recommendation. >> And that the backflow fees be standardized to $100 per test whether they are retest or test. >> Second. >> Great. All those in favor >> I share says I [clears throat]
>> All right. >> Recommendations been made. Okay. Next >> second item is fire service connection fees where we do have 2in fire services now going into the system. And at this current time we don't have a fee
schedule for that 2-in fire service. So, I'd like to recommend that we introduce or establish a 2-in fire service. And based on the other fire service numbers that we do have, I recommend that it be
at $2,000 for a 2-in fire service. >> You have any questions? >> No. >> I'll take a motion. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that uh we recommend to establish a new 2-inch fire service connection fee at
$2,000. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I I say I now it's the water and sewer connection fees. So, yeah, we did this last time, too, but um we relooked at the water
sewer connection fee calculation and um you know, those are based off of um upcoming capital items, II removal. There's um you know, legally what we're allowed to base it off of. And plugging that in, um it's been since 2023 since
we've updated these. We get a new connection fee for the water for the 1 in one and a half inch service and 2 inch services of $5,100 per equivalent residential unit. It's a three-bedroom house
and sewer connection fee. Similarly, from $6,000 to $6,375. Um, and so that's what Kimberly and I recommend moving forward with. Any further discussion? I know we kind of talked about it a
little bit last meeting. So, >> um I'll make a motion for the FY27 water and sewer um connection fee rates. Those increase from water increases from 4,800 to 5100 for the 1 inch, one and a half, and 2 in
services per eru. and sewer. The connection fee increases from 6,000 peru to 6375. >> Seconded. >> All those in favor? >> I say. >> All right. We have recommendations.
>> All right. Scheduling up the public hearing. All right. No, you can have March 3rd or March 17th. March 17th, you have to wear green.
>> We usually do it that >> Yeah. Give it time to advertise and promote it. >> Oh, yeah. That's true. Public hearing. Yeah. Okay. Well, public hearing will be March 17th. >> Well, the meeting starts at 600. We'll have the formal schedule for the public
hearing, right? We'll probably have it like about 65, 605, 610. >> That'll come out further. >> Okay. Um Okay. Now, as far as the presentation goes,
do we all want to meet again to review the presentation prior to the public hearing or >> what the group wants? >> Yeah, >> I've primarily given it, right? And then
Barbara, you've helped out a few cards maybe and Kimberly. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But sometimes we look at it prior to that. So >> So if you want to do it, we can >> I'll defer to whatever you want. I'm >> How long would you think we need to get
get the ready? >> Couple weeks. I could have it ready in two weeks. >> Or we Yeah. That would be the 24th. >> February 24th. >> Okay. 4 o'clock.
>> Unless you wanted to do March 3rd because you're already here for select four units. But >> that I'm I'm good either way. Whatever works for everybody else. The 24th or March 3rd. Whatever works for everybody. >> 24th. >> Okay. Right. 24th. Good for everybody.
>> All right. >> And that'll just be to review the presentation and >> whatnot. So, all right. Well, I think we've covered everything. Anybody have any further questions? >> Motion to adjourn.
All those in favor I >> chair >> says I we are journed.