Four, three, two, one. >> Good evening or good good morning. Uh, I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board and this is our regular meeting of the select board in the form of a workshop um for December 9th, 2025.
First order of business is uh going into executive session. I move that the fle go into executive session for the purpose of discussing strategy related to a litigation matter. The litigation matter must be discussed in executive session because an open meeting may have
a detrimental effect on the litigation position of the town and the chair so declares an executive session therefore be necessary. All in favor please indicate by saying I. Johny >> I. >> Paul Warren. >> Hi. >> David Pearlman. >> Hi. >> Michael Rubenstein. >> Hi.
>> Chair. Okay. Are we live? >> Yeah. Let him one guest in San M. You just let him in. >> Oh, I did just let him. >> Well, okay. I I thought worth
mentioning. >> It's It's hard to hear the audio. You know, at this end of the table, people are speaking at that end. I Yeah, there's this background ventilation going on. I think maybe we're all going to have to speak at an unnaturally loud tone of voice.
>> Okay, let's do that. >> Yeah, that kind of voice during this meeting because I think >> it's very hard to hear it. >> Yeah. And I'm sure it must be hard for people on, you know, the the Zoom feed of of this meeting, too. So, yeah. So, we'll all talk really well during this
meeting. Yeah. >> And don't infer anything. >> Yes. No. No. >> We're not angry. >> Okay. Okay. Let's start the meeting. Um, I'm Bernard Green, chair of the Brookline Select Board, and this is the regular meeting coming out of executive session of the select board for December
9, 2025. First item is announcements and updates from the select board. John, do you have something to say? >> I I do and thank you. Um, so, excuse me. I was absent um for a meeting a week ago. Um there was a matter that uh was
addressed at that meeting having to do with an appointment to the CDEICR committee on diversity inclusion uh equity inclusion and community relations. Um, and I have uh that there was such a public interest in the
outcome of that vote and in the what was at stake that um I I drafted a an email to the chair of CDEICR. Uh sent it to Ke Kevin McKenzie yesterday. Um, and I would like to have
that uh email to Kevin McKenzie just entered into the public record of this meeting because it states for people who want to know what would have happened if Mr. Vanco had been present at the meeting. Um it it it states clearly where I would have come down on the
issue in question. And also I I hope importantly um gives um uh a sense of my uh my wish that we will go forward um with more than just a um continuation of
the appointment process um but rather a review of the mission of CDEICR so that we have a clear understanding of what our expectations are of future appointees to CDEICR. And so I'm just asking permission to
have that email put into the record. >> I I don't think that's necessary. Um yeah, I I I think if we put it in the record of the meeting, I I have other ways of sharing it with people and so on, but any other comments for it from the board?
Seeing none, let's move on to our miscellaneous calendars. Um we have items 4 A through 4H. Okay. Uh I I'm sorry. It's not Well, something has changed. It's more than >> four I >> Yes, four I.
Um so I move I'd like to move in an omnimous fashion items 4 A through 4 I unless someone would like to take something out of the list and discuss it further. No one responding to that. Uh all in favor of
items 4 A through 4 I please indicate by saying I. down. >> Hi >> Paul Warren. >> Hi >> David Cmans. Hi >> Mike Rubenstein. >> Hi >> Jere. >> Now to the real meat of this uh meeting the financial forecast.
It's you Melissa. >> It's me and Charlie and Lincoln. >> And you're going to put something on the screen there. >> Yes. Do we >> Oh, here we go. >> I don't think it's still >> Yeah, it says 9:30.
>> It's not a hearing. It says 9:30. >> Yeah, usually. Well, >> we should wait till 9:30. >> Yeah, you didn't put the language in, but Tiff used to put the language in that said uh possible things could happen earlier or later. We don't have agenda. So, let's wait till
>> Yeah. >> Just send you all the resume starting in January. You you have found another miracle worker. >> That's good to know. That's good to know.
Ch. Should I send that email to Kate just for her purposes? Okay. >> Yes. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I gave Kate's upload to that. So, she >> Do you know what the how big a town is?
18,000. >> It's 10,000. It's right next to >> Yeah, it's right around the side. >> Oh, right next to South. >> But we we heard good things from the town administrator right of South >> um from Well, Tim used to work there and
then she also used to work in >> Got it. So, >> yeah, >> she's familiar with >> we have people that used to work with her and that work for us now. So you know frankly I would rather have somebody who worked for a town than a city. Well, when she worked, she worked during
the transition from city from town to city. >> That's that time we didn't know. Shea >> she worked at the top but she was assistant too and >> okay
with licensing experience with also the good stuff requests but also in every job she's been in she's been given more and more responsibilities seems like taking January 5. >> You got to keep things together till
January 5th. Charlie, >> doing my best. >> The 16th is when we're taking the licensing open. So we actually can't humbling to realize one never had a resume
page. I I had this career in journalism in full and over the course of one of those I had to actually show some nice >> just make sure people might be
>> specifically >> and I was always special One word here. >> Looking at a job when I was invest that's like an investment. >> Well, some of them weren't the greatest.
Okay. >> It's not stacked. You want me to stand? Yeah. I ordered all that. Oh god. >> I've been buying $10. gets expensive.
>> Oh, naming. >> It may be worth more. >> Me and the cast. >> There was some discussion about >> the new school is quite a lot. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. So, my basement isn't finished.
>> School committee is naming >> chat. As far as a better >> usually there was a committee that I remember committee that looked into the origins school names like >> really the only other
Lawrence. So Amos Lawrence on race issues, but there's some quotes from him such as why are we educated and then they have school named after someone who didn't feel women should be educated. So I could see that maybe becoming an issue
as >> in that era we didn't have like that. >> Well, yeah. Well, Driscoll, very solid individual. Michael, he was a school committee member for apparently
over 50 years when he first got >> that was that was >> and he was very generous town and also provided affordable housing for people and so he has a great background. He was from an Irish immigrant family. >> Uh Lincoln was very much involved in the
Underground Railroad. So a lot of them are pretty good actually. Lawrence is the main problem. >> I don't really remember Pierce, but I don't call anything negative. >> I don't I don't either. I actually have no I don't know anything about it. I'm just giving you as a slide on the rule.
It's a little heads up that I >> Are we signing a beam or something that's coming up for you opportunity to sign the beam? >> Where is the beam located? >> It'll be at the health department. >> Oh, it's not going to be on top of the building. >> Oh, good.
climb up there. >> I hadn't thought of that. Maybe they'd have you sign it before he goes up. >> This is my as >> Yeah, it's a huge base. It's all This is all pudding stones.
>> Yeah, I painted the base. You know, you know >> 1885. >> Yeah. It's kind of a mess right now. >> Maybe they should name the school after the president's chair. It's been getting
slowly getting this school. >> Yeah. Know >> walking down the stairs. >> That's been your dream. service director recently named award maybe give a few years
>> and that used to be >> huge and I I became since I couldn't stay mouse the false. >> Well, we didn't do that. >> I had a huge
so 36%. >> Yeah. I feel like we finally got ahead of it. Although Amy still needs still need a kitchen bathroom. >> Have you had that? >> Yeah, I bet you did. Yeah,
>> still in the middle of construction. >> Well, never it's never going to happen. I mean, the envelope snapped better. >> We need to do all the chimneys. >> All the just about every piece of wood
>> replaced with mahogany and custom. We have the kitchen from the 80s. >> I just needed >> Oh, yeah. >> I don't know why we didn't have >> We just finally >> I think we just finally got our basement back together from last semi-urban.
>> Yes. The transitory nature of the population. >> Okay, it's 9:30. Okay, wait 15 seconds. Oh, we can. >> Okay, let's get back to business financial forecast.
>> Yeah, probably >> Melissa Jo is present the >> news or otherwise, right? >> My voice and uh be closer to the screen
so I can read it better. >> I hear you. Uh so this is kind of a summary of what we're looking at uh for uh the forecast. Basically the the headline here is really that our group health costs are consuming most of what we have room and
so we're looking at a 12% increase in fiscal 27 uh and speaking with our health insurance consultant hoping that there would be a little bit of relief in the outy years. We're also assuming 12% for 28 and 29. It does not seem to be anything that we're looking at a downward curve just yet.
Um, ARPA spending is going to be ending in uh, December of 26. So that's halfway through 27th and um, we really tried to make sure that we didn't build recurring costs into our opera allocation and for the most part we were uh, successful with
that. Um, there is quite a demand for um, the transportation uh, services that were provided under AARPA. We we've heard a lot of that from the council of aging. uh you may have seen uh the Mass Municipal Association putting out a report about uh municipalities and the
constraints that they're feeling under enough and also uh you know when you imply apply inflation to state aid it really shows that um cities and towns are not getting kind of the same level of increase that the state is giving to
themselves. Um unfortunately um even with that report out we don't see that changing things dramatically in 2027. Um but hopefully there you know there might be changes to either the chapter 70 formula or some other relief. Um there'll be recommendations coming from
the Mass Municipal Association uh on the heels of that report that hopefully will provide some additional options um to consider. So, uh, what we're looking at for fiscal 27 is a, uh, town deficit of $2.9 million. Uh, and that is just level
services. And then with the collective bargaining agreements that we have negotiated, uh, in place. And then, uh, the school's deficit is $13.5 million, which is a pretty large number um, for them to try and manage. Um, they are still working on their projection. So um
the number that I have in there for the schools came from a projection that they had put out about a month or so ago. Um so that is continuing to be refined. Uh and the cost pressures are very similar both town and school. Uh you know in years past it's the same issues of you
know most of our money is in people. So collective bargaining provides a lot of pressure on the budget. Special education for the schools is uh definitely a a cost pressure for them. And then both town and school benefits is definitely an issue for us and you know collective bargaining inflation of
benefits in the town setting. >> But before can ask so I'm going to forget if is it okay to ask as you >> so um the 13.5 I noticed you were very explicit in saying that the 2.9 for the town was level service.
>> Yes. >> Is the 13.5 level service from the schools? So, I believe that the 13.5 um is still needing to be refined for it. Well, I think Chaz might be able to speak about it until he's gonna see it. >> Yeah. Um so, I've talked to the superintendent about this. It is largely
a level service budget. There are several things that are in there that are not that were not in there last year. I mean, se a couple of things that are in there that were not in there last year, but they are things that the superintendent views as vital to the operations of the school. for example, they need to revise their science curriculum. Their science curriculum is
up for so that's money money they didn't have in last year's budget they're putting in this year's budget. So you know in terms of function they intended to be a level services budget but in terms of things that are added in but for example is world is K5 world languages back in there? No. Um it's
only things that the superintendent thinks is educationally necessary. >> Okay. And then my other we didn't think we had before. My other quick question was related to the 12% increase in health care costs. Yes. Can you quantify that as a number? >> Uh
>> each each 1% is 421,000. So uh 400, you know, times 12. So 48 5 million. >> Yeah. 500. >> Wow. Yeah. Okay. >> I think we um a couple of questions. Um
to following up on the the school budget question, did that include things like um restoring the the position that got cut in terms of data management that that was a central office cut that was made last year.
>> I don't know where the superintendent is on that. I know they've been going back and forth on that conversation about the need to stabilize the central office, but I don't know whether that possession has been restored. >> And in terms of the So that 12% increase
represents $5 million. Um do you know what the overall increase to the budget >> for the town or on both sides? >> For the All the slides will go into Yeah, we have like we have like 40 slides for you. Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Just uh following up on the school budget question again. So you gave the example of reworking the science curriculum. I I doubt that's a significant percentage of this 13.5. Correct. So would you say that the vast majority of the 13.5 is for level
funding services? >> Yes. Steps and lands. >> Have we ever done an analysis of what our cost would have been if we had not gone into kick >> into what? >> The GS. >> Oh, the GS. So just to just to give you an idea, Bernard, um you know, most
other GIC communities are seeing similar increases. >> Towns that are not in the GIC are seeing larger increases, like 20%. Um there are a few outliers that are doing better, but they're very small communities. They're not they're not comparable to the work line. Uh, and so, you know, we
we haven't I don't think we've done an in sort of vast analysis going back all the way to when we joined the GIC, but we have a chart later in here that shows sort of how the health costs are just outpacing what we what we had thought they would be. So, they're like double what they were when we joined the GI.
>> And as part of the process when we talk about renewing our our options in the GIC, Pat, our consultant does those does the analysis every year. It says, should we be staying in the GIC? What are the benefits? What would it cost us? And I will just say just anecdotally, I say this every year, the joke is we know whether or not the healthcare market
thinks it's it's good when depending on how much we get propositioned at the MMA conference by you know by HMOs and you know trying to get us to switch and in the past two years no one um no one no one wants everyone understands that the market's bad. Blue Cross or any of the
other individual providers can't offer what the GIC is offering. they know it. Um even um the uh the other kind of big consortium that could be a part of Maya um the Massachusetts Insurance so they're local.
>> Yeah. Um their their premiums communities in in that group have seen their premiums go between 15 to 19%. >> Um so we're actually a little better off there. So, you know, a big function of the health benefits cost is the split that the town the share that the town
pays in terms of its health insurance, which if you want to change needs to be, you know, need to work with the unions to do that, right? And so there's there's a cost to doing that and you'll see there's some of that is reflected in the override slide at the end of the the end of the presentations talking about how to get how to bring
that down. So, you ready for your next slide, Melissa? Okay. Please do feel free to interrupt us and ask questions. This is expand. >> Oh, >> so these are just um showing some of the highlights of the assumptions that we have going through the forecast. So, we're assuming, you know, raising the
the property tax levy to the full levy limit. Um and we have a $2.5 million assumption for new growth. Um probably about three months ago, I was at 2.1. Um we did see a new growth number in fiscal 26 that was really strong. So, we felt
pl um comfortable kind of bumping that up a little bit. So, TED has really um done a lot of great work around personal property uh and so we're kind of updating our forecast based on what we're what we're seeing coming in the door. Uh right now for state aid, I have
a 1% assumption for um which is unrestricted general government aid. Uh and I have a 2 and a half% uh assumption for chapter 70. uh local receipts were growing by 4.1% um and then you know slightly uh more modest in the out years. We did see some
uh year-end numbers uh coming in stronger on u parking meters. So we were able to bump up the estimate related to that. Um also seeing some strong numbers from our motor vehicle excise. So um made some adjustments on that as well. Uh so for on the expenditure side,
>> can I ask a question? >> Sure. Um next year the the World Cup is coming to Boston. Um if we thought of is that going to be a significant uh have a significant impact on our uh revenues do you think? >> I don't I don't think that we have seen
any estimates anywhere else on like hotel motel and meals kind of in anticipation of the World Cup. I've been kind of looking at Boston and what they're holding for their projections and they're at this point they haven't indicated um any bump around that event.
In in fact, it may cost us more if we were asked to host anything asked to help. >> No fair. >> Well, that's that's what we're saying. We also not to denigrate FIFA, but they are not all they are not the best run or
least corrupt organization. They tend to do things last minute and say you should pay for the privilege. Um they're not very good local partners, >> but but any bump in revenue from an event like that would be one time. And so we wouldn't want to put put that into the, you know, recurring costs that we
have. So >> just what would we host? Like what would give me an example? >> You know, um I've just heard from the police chief that they're anticipating even cover events that are going to happen in Brooklyn that may happen on fields in Brooklyn or may happen in areas around Brooklyn. That's just what we've heard from appreciate that there's
>> all the watch party, you know, >> there's going to be soft costs associated with with World Cup coming to Boston that we're climbing have to people have to other communities talk about closing off the block, you know, when games are being played and showing the game on big screen. >> So overtime for trash pickup and all that other stuff.
>> Okay. So on the expenditure side, we're assuming that we are continuing to hold those six positions in the police department um open uh well and we can talk about you know override no override scenarios and what we're um looking for
with that. Um for health insurance we already talked about the assumptions there. We also have a subscriber growth assumption town and school as well. Uh sticking with our funding schedule for pension um that the appropriation increases annually 7.5%.
Uh for collective bargaining we have a 1.5% sumptuction in fiscal 27 and then 2% in the out years but then we also have the uh fire contract tail built into uh fiscal 28 um and that's about $800 $900,000.
Um we are assuming that we are continuing our uh policies around the funding of OPEs. You we pause that in 26. We can talk about that. Uh and then um going back to the 6.6% uh level for the CIP as well. Um so all of those
assumptions are carried through uh in in the plan. Go to the next slide. Uh so this is just a snapshot of um the town's history around overrides and kind of dealing with budget gaps and and how the plans have been coming together. Go
ahead and go to the next one. And so this is the overall picture town and school of the outlook through 2031. So you can see um the current year deficit of 16.6 $6 million and obviously each year we'll be closing that gap, but
you can see you know how it builds uh up to $42 million going into 2031. And so uh you know we'll be continuing to work on the the deficit and uh you know look at strategies to try and close the gap. But um you can see the you know the
structural gap is really you know revenue growth around four 3% and then you can see the uh the expenditure growth on the other side. So that is what we call the structural gap is when the revenue is not growing as fast as the expenditures. You got a a difference
there as well. So and um we go ahead we go to the uh slide. >> So this just shows I'm sorry could you could you go back? >> Yeah. >> I'm still looking at the numbers and you know it's there's a lot they're pretty small.
>> The the two lines at the bottom are your town ser town deficit and your school deficit. So it's it's it's 3 million, >> correct? 2.9 just under 3. >> And
do we Okay. 42 million deficit 31. Do we know what the uh cost in terms of or revenues in terms of overrides would be required for
to um to fill that gap? So, we have been talking with the expenditure and revenue committee about um you know the constraints and I think you know we've got a few slides at the end that talk that talk about what we think the town
uh override ask is potentially um and we're kind of working through that with the committee as well >> and and that's at least two acts between now and 2031 >> but no I guess okay no >> yeah there would be two override cycles there if you're thinking of it on a
three-year schedule, although that varies depending on who you're asking, right? Um, if you think of 27, 28, 29 as one override, 2030 and 2031, it could be another. I think something to remember about the fiveyear projection is that it's assuming nothing changes, right?
And a lot will change between now and then. A lot could change between now and then. We'll meet our pension obligation in 2030. Things like that will change. So uh the the idea here is to show you that that cumulative cumulatively over the years revenue continues to be
outpaced by expenses. That's really what this is supposed to show. >> And the the topline excuse me um the topline property taxes includes mean growth projections. >> Correct. >> Well, we have slides that go into the assumptions around revenue that um each
of the categories are kind of broken up in in a slide deck. you you'll probably answer this later, but just to help me get my head around this chart. Um, so by 2029, we're looking at like a $36 million deficit
>> between the two sides. Yeah. >> Yeah. Between the Yeah. So, just say that's the town, a big tea town. Um, what would be the ask in May? Just as an example, I know we're not, this is not saying what it is, I'm just trying to help. How does that fill in? Are you
asking for 35 million in May or what? So explain how the how the numbers >> we're asking for we're asking at least on the town side we're asking less than that and it's because on the one hand we're build what we're building into that is you know that that that amount allows you to increase the levy and then
the levy will increase percentage wise from there. So you can we do see a compounding of that levy growth all the time. >> Oh right because when you increase then you're getting two and a half plus the growth >> right every year. >> Every year. Yeah. you're going to get some benefit from um >> but just so chess just these numbers forget town versus schools just let's
pick make it a big tea town >> knowing that and I'm not saying just assuming these numbers to say to understand how it would in impact the spreadsheet >> what would be the ask in May to deal with a 35 $36 million budget
>> this is where it's really hard I don't want to speak for the schools until they're done with their work that's that's the big open question here Um, and it's the reason why we were pushing them to get done by this date. I wanted to be able to say at this meeting the ask is X. I know what the ask is on the town side is 5.3. Um, I don't know what
they ask about schools. >> Okay. So, the ask for the town would be 5.3 and and you're projecting an $8 million deficit by 2029. But you're asking for five, >> which you as well as some reductions that we plan to make with >> No, I again I'm just trying to get my
head around like how big the ask might be. Yeah. You know, that's that's also >> I think implicit in Michael's question perhaps uh as to what these top line numbers are projecting. Does this include potential growth from chess and
go out? >> Exactly. So assuming everything stays the same. >> Okay. But you did say it excludes some projected growth. So what specifically wasn't the >> So new growth growth is a line. >> If we dive into the um the slides, we can talk about each category.
>> Yeah. So the next slides we'll go through revenue and then we'll go through expenditures. >> So no no good. Yeah. So >> yeah. >> So I just wanted to follow up on Paul's question to make sure I understand this. So if we have we have a $35 million an
$8 million gap. You have a $5.3 million asset. Presumably some of that $5.3 million is going to be uh added to the levy in year one. So that it's going to be repeated in years two and three. >> Yes.
>> So that that that's what you use to make up the difference between the 8.3 and >> some of it. And then the other part of it is we are going to make some reductions. Um we're making budgeting around like $4 million in reductions as well um to make up some of that gap. And between those things we are going to get
to a number that is that that will carry us through this cycle. The other thing that we're recommending that's different we'll talk about in more detail a little later on than previous override cycles. In the past, we have done overrides phased in. Like we said, we're char we're not going to attach it to the full levy in year one. We're going to phase
it in based on what we need. This time around, what we're recommending and we want to discuss with you as to whether or not this is viable or anything appropriate is to tax the full levy amount in year one of the override, but not spend all basically build an override stabilization fund. So that in
the event in the likely event that there are unexpected costs, we're not in a situation where in year two and year three, which is what happened in this overlap cycle, we're saying, "Well, cuts." and people are saying why aren't any cuts have just passed approval. Um you know we want to build we want to
build certainty into the budget which is something that other communities have been doing in their overrides in order to ensure that the community is confident that what they're being asked to fund is not going to go is not going to be eaten up by unexpected costs in the future. >> Does that mean the override would be
higher? So the override so 5.3 includes um and I again we'll go into some detail on this because there are certain costs implicit in 28 and 29 that don't come online until later. it would build a stabilization fund into the budget for FY27 that could then when that money
when that money when the need comes online in FY28 and 29 particularly that tail fire expenses um even though then that's part of the regular budget we still have an override stabilization fund carrying around $1.2 $2 million
that we're carrying at least that second round. >> But the practical implication is that tax bills go up immediately for us, >> right? That's that's >> Yeah. And so that's the balance. That's what we want to talk to you about, Mr. W. >> We have a slide at the end that shows
how we're planning to close the deficit with the combination of the, you know, potential override reductions and increases in. So we'll we'll get we'll show you that question. We'll answer that question. Uh >> okay. Uh any other questions on this
slide? Okay. >> In other words, the override that we ask is going to be higher under this approach. >> Well, be the same amount. It's just that you'll tax you'll raise the full taxes for the override on the f first year instead of raising it slowly over three.
So instead of total of 5.3 million two first year two second year 1.5 you know whatever 1.5 the third year it's you know 5 million in the first year and like Paul says this has the practical impact of hitting tax bills the first year on the other hand there is
something more transparent about that in the sense that you know folks will immediately see the impact >> and say no >> and ultimately it is the board's decision this is this is why we're having this conversation right it's your decision >> I do want to add one one one one quick thing and I'm just saying from this is
my personal perspective as American school systems and a taxpayer >> um it's very select it's difficult for me to have this conversation with the uncertainty around the schools the schools are 60% of the budget right the guidance and and and recommendations or
advice to you staff on how you should deal with the town side and whether you should accelerate or not accelerate take cuts or not take cuts is greatly dependent upon the 60% % and so we're you're asked we're being asked to uh uh
reconcile the future finances for the town without understanding what the heck is going on with the schools. It's impossible >> in my view. We understand that we we we um and we're you know we're working we're working with what we have and we're we're working in good faith with the schools and both the school
committee and school and the the staff leadership there to try and get this to a point where you can make that informed decision. The good news is that the drop dead date for any potential ballot question is the end of March. >> Well, but and I and I've I've heard this uh that it's good news. It's actually
bad news because nothing is going to pass if we're having this discussion in March, right? I mean, there's there's so much education that has to happen with the community. If this board is going to get behind an operating override to get out and promote it and try to defend it.
Um, it can't it can't be March. No, >> it should be end of January, February, beginning of February at the latest. To have this conversation in March is way too late. >> In March, >> what's that? >> Yeah, good point. the conversation is going to be way before March.
>> Well, but then but the n but the number that you have to bring out to the community if if the schools can't figure out what the number is until March like we should be >> it's going to be way before we we really we we pushed as hard as we could to get the number right on this date. Um and
reality on the ground is the reality on the ground. We're we're doing our best. We're providing whatever support we can. You know, we anticipate that they're going to have and you know, we also understand it from their perspective. You know, they're it's not like they're not doing nothing. They're working, but their concern is if they come out with a
number before they've really done their due diligence and it goes up um as they provide as they refine it. Um that creates a a negative public narrative as well. like, oh, at first you asked X and now you asked for X plus one, X plus two, you know, so they're they're trying
to measure twice and cut once. They were trying to balance that the need for clarity so that you can make an informed decision and so we're we're pushing as best we can. >> David, >> so I I agree with Paul that'll be very helpful obviously to have all the details at this point so we can make an
informed decision. That being said, based on what you've presented to us, it sounds like whatever the ultimate figure will be, it's not going to be much lower than the 13 and a half. If they're saying that most of that 13 and a half, say for science curriculum and maybe a
couple other relatively minor uh line items is for level funding. So even if we very roughly assume that it's 10, it's still going to be a significant move. Well, I I I I agree with that, uh, David, but the issue is like, so I asked Jazz, what's the number? What does eight
million translate into an ask of a town instead of something like five? >> I don't know what $27 million, even if you just assume that's the number, take what take it, make it 30 million. What's the ask,
>> right? And I just it my sense that uh the longer this drags out, the lower the probability of anything passing. >> Yeah. >> And I think and I think a delay on the schools infects the town. Um I think that there'll be uncertainty all around
that. Uh and I don't know if we're going to piece this thing up and say you can have choice A, choice B, or choice A and B equals C. I don't know what it's how it's going to be presented, but the probability of anything passing greatly diminishes um with how long we wait to actually get it out and start betting
everything. That's that's that's my view. So, if the number is not perfect on the on the school side, that's fine. You know, let's pretend that they have a test due and they need to study for it and hit the date, right? Um March is too.
>> So, what is the date that we open? So they anticipate being able to give us their preliminary number of retro um and that's going to be yes and then you know we will continue to revise that as we revise both our January for us as both of us in the schools is crunch time as
we prepare our budget we prepare budget books then um and because this is a potential overriding year it's a dollar budget basically it's a yes over and so in conjunction with you and the expend revenue study committee the town the schools would be having those
discussions revising those numbers and then the budget books will be published in early February, but we will know the numbers before that date before the books go. >> Yeah, it would be really helpful if this board could start discussing in detail and deliberating in January the number before the budget books come.
>> Yeah, it' be negative. >> In terms of budget preparations, it might actually be more than two, right? Because depending on how we would structure a potential ballot question, if we lay out three different options, for example, we would need three additional budgets depending on which option would pass.
>> Yes. >> But I think, you know, on the town side where we are, we've been thinking about we've been studying other communities, thinking about how other communities have done this um model for example, you know, uh you know, in Medford last year.
You know, there is something to be said for like a pyramid style override, but I, you know, you'll see what we talk about, at least on the town side. This is not an override where we're asking for new things, right? This is not an override where we're saying, wouldn't it be nice to have, you know, cataloges and
so forth. We're saying in order to maintain the service that people have expected and people have voted for, town meeting has asked us to provide, this is really it. This is what we need. Um, and you know, where there are line items that didn't previously exist, it's in the service of either providing those
services or seeking new revenue. Um, you know, for example, some of the new revenue that we would be generating from increased parking fines would be going towards improving the parking system, which is both what community has been asking us for, and what we need to do in order to make sure that that revenue
given the amount of money we spend on. So, you know, we're not we're not in a situation where we would say option A is level services, option B is some nice things we would like to have um like we were last time we talked a bit about um accomplish music accomplishment. That's not on the table this time. Um we think
we're we're not in a place where we're asking for these things. Um obviously if the board thinks there is are new things that we should be asking for, we'll go back to the run to think about how that in place. But on the town side, we're not. Well, this is not a luxury club. >> So, I mean the question is do you do you
keep services as are or do you cut and we already have a level of pay that's really right? >> Yeah. And we are and you know I will say even in an override scenario the town is talking about making cuts. The town we've already over the course of this last override cycle because of collective bargaining pressures cut a
lot. Um and there has been impact to services uh that we have done our best to conceal from the public um so that the public has confidence in the services that we are providing. Um but we're really nearing the end of what we can do that can be disguised for the public at that point. Um we're going to
make cuts where we can um and we're going to demonstrate to the public that for example say you hire a bunch of consultants. Do you have you know do you have money lying around? What about free cash? What about revenue? All that needs to be part of a public education demonstrate that we are being good
stewards of people's tax dollars. Um, and that at the end of the day, what we're asking for potentially is not something radical. It's something that provides the level of service that people are asking to buy. >> I just have to step out briefly to do a
Zoom court, but I'll be back. >> I'm sorry. >> If you don't mind, Michael. Um so I just want to raise a different issue and it's kind of a a hobby horse of mine. Uh I hope it doesn't seem
repetitious on my part. Um, but I find it very difficult to evaluate all these issues, uh, in the absence of clear statements of if we were going if we're going to tell people that this is a level services budget, um, is it is it a
level FTE budget? um or does it turn out that level services mean that we had x number of FTE in the previous year and there's actually 10 additional FTEEs in this budget? Um I I without those
numbers I I can't really figure out if we're giving people a straight story here about what happens and require that requires an override. Is it that positions were added maybe or is it that actually these other known factors here
and that's especially true uh I'm sorry to say to my friends on the school side where the school side is concerned and there's another kind of major factor that rarely gets discussed here because you know it makes people uncomfortable to discuss it because it implies that
there could be layoffs but the number of people served by the school system varies and it sometimes varies significantly. Um and in recent years we had a a drop of some you know hundreds and of students that are served by the
school system. I think perhaps the number at this point stands at about 800 less than at peak. Um, so it's very relevant to talk about how many FTEEs does it take to serve a school school
system of X versus a school system of X - 800 students. Um, and we rarely get that kind of analysis of what's going on with the school department numbers. So, um, I'm hoping that along the way we're
going to have those numbers, but I'm not sure we can make a convincing case to voters that without an approval of x of of a certain amount of override, there's no way we can continue to provide the services that you expect for your whatever children, etc.
um when in fact uh well actually you know we might not need that money if if there were 17 kids in a classroom on average versus 16 uh in a classroom on average. So if we we don't get into that level of discussion, I don't know how
voters can have confidence in in what they're being told about the need for for this or that amount of overright. Um Michael >> um so you said that the school was going to come back in the 18th. So in this
inter in this period of nine days um what in from your perspective is the risk that that number will go the 135 will go up as opposed to down.
Um, and I guess the other question is once those nine days have elapsed, assuming that we get through this, we're not it's going very quickly, but assuming that we get through this, um,
how how much do how much are we going to have to like revise their revise our thinking or how valuable is how valuable is today's are today's numbers relative to what we're going to see under
>> so I think this this is so to your first question um recall that this assumes everything stays the same and some of the cuts that we are proposing reductions that we are proposing because they have will have an impact on the school side as well so some of the things that we are proposing come to
split um for example raising funds um that would provide the schools additional revenue reducing the revenue funded CIP by the schools with additional revenue Um, all of those things will have an impact on that number and it will drive it down. Um, so I think that number is more likely to go
down than up. But that said, I don't know what the schools are going to find as they continue to go through this. So I'm reluctant to say, you know, 100% that number is going to go down. I think it is more likely to go down up, but to David's point, um, I don't I don't know
by how much. Um, I don't think we're going to see, you know, seismic. Um, but I think I could do I think we're going to see bias. >> Yeah. Paul, >> I just wanted to John raised an interesting point about FTEES kind of being a proxy for for the numbers. I
think we have to be >> while I appreciate it. I think we got to be a little careful. I'll use an example. Um, as costs increase, collective bargaining, health insurance, and others, uh, that money eats into into the the the money that's available to fund physicians. A perfect example of
that is policing. We have we're holding back six positions, right? So, we don't have a level service budget on policing because we're holding back six positions. We're going to have the same situation on fire, right? We're expecting some benefits and uh reducing overtime. That may not come out and as a
result, we're not going to have a level service bus because we may have fewer firefighters. I'm not saying that would happen, but I think we have to be careful about headcount being purely uh a proxy for whether a level a budget's level service or not. On the school side, as you said, it wouldn't be level
service if you actually increase the the the students per classroom, right? That wouldn't be the same. You'd have to consciously say this budget means you're going to go from a class size of X to X plus. Um and that that's just but but you do raise a good point. It would be very helpful to have more transparency
about the number of employees that we have in the in in the tax. >> So this one, >> yes. >> Um so this just shows kind of our revenue composition and you can see that property tax is really our biggest piece. uh coming up behind we you know
the enterprises are also um kind of separately factored in and then local receipts and then state aid and then followed by free cash which obviously you know we talk about a lot is one time in nature and then other other available are reimbursements for benefits. We go
ahead and go to the next slide. Uh so this shows the changes in revenue. So you can see um you know property tax is it's kind of the same slide just in bar format here. um slightly lower estimate for free cash and then slightly
uh slight reduction in other available as well. Um and that is uh around the uh marijuana money um being fully utilized. Um and so that won't be an additional funding source in fiscal 27. So you can go ahead and
>> I just have a question about the free cash estimate. Yeah. Um, is the baseline for that estimate in fiscal year 26? Uh, how much actual revenue was that? Or is that based on the budget? >> We're assuming a $23 million estimate in fiscal 27.
>> Well, what about fiscal 26? Because this is a reduction from fiscal 27. >> Correct. So, we um so our fiscal 25 free cash gets appropriated in fiscal 27. So we are the money that we're using in fiscal 26 has already been certified and so we've already allocated all of that
money and so um we'll be looking to kind of >> so so the fiscal year 26 number is not an estimate 26 is was certified >> and the and the free cash is based when we're talking about estimates and baselines it's it's it's based on
pre-certification but it's based on you know the actuality of what we're seeing from our accounting system and working with the comp trailer. So, it's not like, you know, we have a base and building it up or down. It's it's based on, you know, the actuality of of what we're seeing and how a fiscal year ended
in terms of revenues and expenditures. Um, it just just not fully uh certified by the state yet. Okay. >> So, L got the next couple slides. >> Good morning. So, um a little bit more
into property taxes. So um as mentioned earlier uh uh projecting a 5.1% increase in in property taxes in fiscal year 27. Um you can see in the green column um you know how that that levy is
built up taking the prior year levy applying the two and a half% across um across the entirety of of the tax base right built property but across the entirety of uh Melissa mentioned new growth the new growth estimates have
come up uh some for fiscal years 27 through 2031 I was looking at the historical new growth there's two pieces of that. Um, number one, we have seen an increase in in new growth, particularly over the last eight fiscal years. So,
over the last eight fiscal years, we have had new growth of at least $2.5 million, and we're seeing that, you know, hopefully that's the new normal going forward. Um the other big piece of the uh $3.56
million in new growth um that was uh confirmed by the state division of local services is the increased um investment in looking at personal property and making sure that we're taxing all personal property uh fairly and
correctly. Um so with uh you know with the with the the continued investment in in that and looking at personal property there we do believe that we can you know continue to maintain a higher uh new growth figure for the next few few years. So that's a bright spot there as
mentioned. Um then the uh so then we have our new levy limit without debt exclusions of $314.1 million. And uh the debt exclusions we'll go a little bit more into in the next slide. Um that is the uh third and
fi and projected final year of borrowing for the pier school renovation and reconstruction and um and the third year of five total of of borrowings for the fire station um reconstructions and
renovations. >> Oh, Michael. Um >> yes >> what are the inflation rate projections available with this? >> So so we don't have inflation rate uh projections here. I mean we we we can do that analysis. You're saying you know
overall inflation as >> I'm I'm assuming that these numbers are all not and and are not inflation >> these are non-inflation interests. >> Correct. So there is a there is some projection of inflation that will change these numbers
>> wouldn't it doesn't change the revenue because remember um the the structures of proposition 2 and a half do not take inflation into account. >> I I I understand I understand that but it does what it what it affects is the purchasing power of
>> absolutely no doubt. No doubt. So that's what I'm trying to understand is what what is the change of purchasing power level of the annual levy. >> Understood. Yeah. And I think you know I think we can we can discuss that a little bit more as we get into the expenditure side of things you know and
I think that's further analysis we can do as well. Well, that so um one of the things that's really helpful when we when we set the set the tax rates is that we get to see what the average property tax bill will be for a single family home or a business or a
condominium. Um and this doesn't really translate to that. Um, is it is it possible to get to overlay these this information and just assume all assumptions are the same as to we're maximizing the shift, right? We
whatever we've done typically the status quo, how that would translate into tax bills, especially when we start getting into a potential operating because that's that's really where the rubber hits the road for for taxpayers and
where they're feeling it. Um, and whether we accelerate, you know, take the full amount with the override in the first year or not, it's just the what what I'm hearing, and I think I my colleagues are probably here, we're hearing a lot from homeowners that their bills are going up significantly. And
it's and and to try to explain it, it's well, why is my number gone up so high, my bill, if it's just two and a half? Well, it's because these other bills are coming due that you that was approved by the voters. So, it would be really helpful to overlay this into what the uh
average tax bill would be for our classifications. So, one thing we we definitely will do again if there's an override on the ballot is a individual property based property bypropy based um calculator so that someone can can put
their address in and see based on this override and based at my current valuation >> what what will my taxes look look like in the ensuing fiscal year if if this override is passed or not. Um, >> I would argue that we actually need to mail that tiff.
I would mail it to the taxpayers as opposed to make them go to it. But I do appreciate that. But for this purpose, >> for this discussion around uh the budget and also what it would mean to increase the levy. Um, it would I really like to see what the impact is on tax bills.
>> Mike, >> um, and adding on to that and I and I agree. So like how much of your tax bill is sold for the debt exclusions? how much is going for the increase, how much is going for the override, how much is going for all the prior years years. Um
I would ask that when when we sort of generate those numbers, um you know, this is my hobby horse, John. um >> that in that either instead of or in addition to talking about condos and single family homes that we talk about
homes by price level because my understanding is that a $ 1.5 million condo is taxed exactly the same way as a $ 1.5 million single family home and that division is sort of an arbitrary element of our classification when it comes to taxes. So for example, what is
a million dollar residence cost? is a $2 million assert hospitals that really public >> just to have that information as part of our messaging so that we're not just pitting condo owners and you know single family homes on a travel.
>> Understood. Yeah. So we can so you know we we can definitely do some of that. Yes. >> Just say thank you. >> Yes. >> Uh so uh yeah unless there's any further questions on this slide let's move on to the next. Uh so again this is uh an
analysis of the debt exclusions that we currently uh have going out until uh fiscal years 20 2031 and then the projected again the third and and projected final final borrowing for Pierce school at 77 million and laying
on that debt um in beginning in fiscal year 2027. And then uh again fire the fire station renovation projected uh borrowings three through five. Um and you can see uh four the fourth the third borrowing coming on for the first year
in fiscal 27. The fourth coming on for the first time in fiscal year 28 and the fifth borrowing fifth and final projected final borrowing coming on in fiscal 2029. just to give uh you and you know and the other uh watchers here a
picture as to what the impact is of already uh approved debt excluded debt outside any possible new program over so I'll go back to Melissa to discuss state aid thank you >> uh so we talked about these assumptions
earlier at the beginning uh so 1% increase in unrestricted general government aid uh level funding for veterans benefits uh 2 and a.5% for chapter 70 level funding for charter tuition uh assessment reimbursements and
level funding for um offset aid which goes directly to the library so showing 2% increase in fiscal 27 slightly more optimistic in the outy years um but you know we're not hearing a lot of good news at the state level as well and obviously they're concerned about their
federal funding and the ripple effect that might have as well Michael, >> um where is federal grant funding in this? >> So the um if it if it's coming from the state, it would probably be in the form of a grant. Um this is money that is
coming off the cherry sheet directly to the town. >> So these are our local receipts and so uh we're growing those by 4.3 after a 10% growth the prior year. Um so we did um change our estimate for the motor vehicle excise size because we we saw
our year in 25. Local options are still holding pretty steady right now. Um you know marijuana obviously has dropped off and um you know meal we're keeping an eye on especially you know the economy changes even further. You you might we
might see a decline in that as well. Um but hotel mot hotel still looks pretty strong. Licensing and permits is pretty standard every year. So, that's level funded. Um, parking and court fines, we'll talk about that later on in the presentation. There's a proposal uh
potential increase in in fines to to help support some of the expenditures that we're seeing. Um, general government uh specifically that is um building permit related. And you know, traditionally, we've been conservative with our building permit estimates because a lot of the activity that we
see on building permits are, you know, one-time permits that get pulled and, you know, um, generally that is used to support the CIP and not recurring expenses on the operating side. Um, interest income uh is, you know, modest growth as well. Um, we've talked about
the fact that there's not ARPA funds kind of sitting in our bank accounts anymore and that the interest rate environment is also changing as well. um pilots just a an assumption of normal growth there as well. The BEu pilot is our biggest and obviously um in a
declining economic condition. You know that we're very concerned about preserving the existing agreements that we do have. Um and so just trying to be mindful of what that might mean going forward as well. Uh for refu we are assuming the increases that the select
board voted last year for the sanitation feescludes. uh that is included in the forecast here and then um we are also assuming that that funding will go directly to support the sanitation uh expenses just like it did in fiscal 26 as well. Um departmental and other so
that bump up there is directly related to parking meter fees but these are also fees that departments charge for a variety of services as well. Well, >> was could you um with because 25's not here, it's hard to see. What was the what was the bulk of the 10% increase
from 25 to 26? >> Some of it was trash. Um some of it was local option and uh some of it was uh building permit as well. >> You know, because there's there's been a narrative in the past that we're
underestimating um >> local receipts and therefore we should be putting more. Um, and I know and I actually support being more conservative because there's no guarantee. Um, I just it would be helpful to that that 10% was a big number. What do you know what it
was the year before what the growth was >> on local receipts alone? >> Yeah, I I want to say it was probably north of 5% but um, you know, this is only 10% of our budget and I will say that you know the surplus that we saw in local receipts last year was 11 million.
free cash was around 20 >> 23 24 million. So some of the sources of free cash don't necessarily come from local receipts but this is the one area that we have certainty that we are budgeting conservatively in order to generate the level of free cash to meet
our fiscal policies. >> But the but the interest income was where we saw a big jump right was because we had so much ARPA money sitting in the bank. Right. >> We had a high interest rate. Okay. Okay. I just think it's it's important next when this comes up because it I'm sure it will come up. >> Oh yeah, it already is coming up.
>> One thing to keep in mind as Charlie Melissa said the motor vehicle excise and the local option taxes and the interest that those three categories were the primary area that was generating surplus and that and the increase in in those areas, the motor vehicle excise and local option taxes um
was significant for several years but again volatile, right? um you know based on economic conditions um for all three >> also they were low because of co and then they bounced back right so you saw a big percentage very susceptible to a downturn from >> sure
>> can someone break down the local option taxes number as to I'm assuming it's sort of divided between marijuana dining what else >> meals and >> meals marijuana and um hotel motel so
marijuana is around 300,000 um meals is around 2 million and the rest is uh hotel too. >> Okay. Okay. So, the marijuana number at peak uh does anyone remember what that was?
>> Over a million dollars. >> Yeah. Okay. Oh, well. >> Yeah. Well, that's another example of why, you know, building that into your recurring expenses is is a little bit dangerous because it can it can go away. We and we saw that happen. Um so, You
know, that's why we're continuing and monitoring these and and make sure that our estimates are conservative enough that we're kind of buffered against shocks like that. >> It hasn't been coming down over the years. >> Uh there's been um coverage of u I think it's a Governor Healey
initiative to uh see if the legislature will approve allowing lo people at the local level to bump up pretty much those areas that you just mentioned, right? Um, has has anyone done a, you know, quick calculation at what that might
mean to our revenues if the legislature were to approve? >> We looked at it last year, I want to say I think we were looking at like $700,000 of growth >> maximum. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. >> And then obviously the >> I have the legislator is listening to
meetings like this one and you know taking seriously, you know, it's not just Brooklyn. Every single municipality in the state needs that kind of a bump up. >> David, yeah, I just have a question about interested interest. Well,
>> so the town has, you know, cash on hand that Lincoln invests to make sure that we are trying to capture >> interest income and then there's also delinquent taxpayer interest as well. So all of our cash sits in bank accounts
basically. >> Is there any way to try to expand that the interest? >> It's a great question. So interest income is I think it's cranked as far as it can go. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. >> The question was whether or not you could we could earn more on on the cash we have on hand income.
>> So So for the most part, no. So, but because so there's there's different categories of how we may we the town may by law uh invest it. >> Excuse me. >> Uh and so um and and the the the the
primary answer is that is that uh it it has to be a more liquid thing. So for example, with the exception of trust funds, none of our funds may be uh may may be invested in equities in stock, right? So so what we're really looking at is the
in you know the the the interest rate environment that's set by the Federal Reserve rate and you know slightly below that. >> What about CDs? Every now and then there's a 12-month CD that's around 5%. Yeah, we can um
remember that um for the most part we we need to stay relatively liquid. Um but but uh we but we we can do seeds. Yes. >> And what what are we getting on money market? >> On the money market right now uh we're we're at depending on the bank we're at
like four four and a half to 4.7. >> That's not bad. >> But that's you know but that's been that's been ticking down, right? That's not what it was, you know, a year ago. >> Yeah, definitely. So, what percentage is this an interesting what percent are you getting interest?
>> It's well, it's it varies by what funds you're you're talking about. So, in general, it's probably hovering around what you know what three and four, right? >> Yeah. >> Correct. >> It very much follows. So if Fed lowers rates, we'll see lower interest. And the
the the large numbers have been from having large balances associated with AARPA, which have AARPA is down more than half expended. So we had 40 million in the bank and now it's ticking down. We're well below that. So So again, these are nominal numbers
and what this is actually showing is that our local receipts on a real purchasing power level are dropping. >> Yeah. Correct. Absolutely. >> Other available. So these are um mostly
reimbursements from the enterprise funds and the revolving fund to pay for the benefits and associated costs uh that they have in the general fund. So sending those funds our way. Um Cemetery provides $100,000 in support of cemetery
division within parks and open space. Uh and then we have the opioid and stabilization fund. So the assumption for 27 through 31 is um just the opioid funds because the HDA funds have been exhausted. >> Yes. Um so this is our free cash
estimate here. So we talked about uh $23 million and we'll kind of go through the way that free cash is allocated for our policies. So the first um bucket that we need to replenish 25% of the funding for the reserve fund comes from free cash.
So that target number is 892,000. So for uh the reserve fund is uh 1% of prior year net revenue. That's the target. Um then we are looking to um put money into our un undesated fund balance stabilization fund. So we you know
purposely uh don't appropriate around $2.8 million so that that becomes the state following year's free cash. It's kind of a way to provide us with a little bit of flexibility and a little bit of certainty around what we know is going to be kind of redeposited into um
into free cash. And then we're um looking to put 3.5 million into the st stabilization fund um you know per our fiscal policies. We're trying to to meet the targets um to preserve our tripleA rating. And so that that's another um
infusion of free cash that we're looking to support that u that effort as well. Um you'll see the liability fund. This is a rather large um requirement for the liability fund that also has the target of 1% of prior year net revenue. Um you know you may recall that we had a a
settlement with the police in in the police department um that's contributing to that. And then obviously the the more recent um school department related settlement um you know did draw on a lot of those funds. And so in order to kind of get the balance up to where it needs
to be for our self- insurance program, um we're looking at another 2.1 close to 2.2 million for the liability fund. Uh then we are looking at our capital plan and trying to get to 8.1% of prior net revenue. So our CIP is
funded from operating uh funds, 6.6% of prior year net revenue, and then we use free cash to get to 8.1. So, um, to get to that level, we're looking at the $5.3 million. And then once we've visited those first four buckets, we look at
what is still, uh, remaining in the in the free cash number. And 15% of that then goes to the affordable housing trust if the balance is below $5 million, which it is. So, that's another $1.2 million. And so, um, after those are all exhausted, we are looking at
special use. At this point we are looking at um special use all exclusively going to additional CIP. Um we are talking about potentially um you know reducing that slightly uh and potentially recommending um additional
funding going to uh the approved time liability fund that we set up um because we are looking at a couple of hits at the end of the year that u may require that we are um needing to replenish some of the some of the funding uh for that account. Uh, but at this point we're
looking at additional CIP, so a total appropriation of $20.2 million. Pause right there if there's any questions, cash questions. >> Yeah. >> Um, h have we closed out all of the ARPA spending at this point?
>> ARPA's deadline to expend is uh December 26, so it's a year from now. So there's still quite a bit. >> Okay. Most of that is in our uh subreients like the nonprofits we're working with. Yeah. Most of the town departments have their projects.
>> Yeah. So, we still have Tyler on board for another year, for example. >> And and are we um anticipating any turnbacks? >> Yeah, it's a great question, Don. We are actually doing some outreach now to all of the subreients to say, hey, listen, if you want to turn back money, now is
the time. We have done a little bit of research on whether we can reallocate those funds. We can't reallocate them to new projects. We can only reallocate them to existing buckets. So maybe we have some town projects we could expand on or we have some subreients we could
give more money. We have not heard about any turnbacks at this point. Um we budgeted ARPA down to the penny. So uh so we really we don't think there's going to be significant money available. Do you think most most of these projects going to spend right down to the the lesson?
>> We we'll keep you updated on that as we learn. If we need any feedback where >> um the liability reserve line, the 2.1 um you said that that was a particularly large hit for that line. >> Yes.
>> What is the typical hit? >> So um >> typically there are >> a few years >> um >> are there are there typical So, um I would say that we have had two settlements in mo most recent years that
are multi-year, which is unusual for us. Um but we generally don't draw on the liability fund that frequently. And that's something that Joe has talked with the advisory committee about because some people are saying, well, is it does it make sense to be self-insured? Is this really something
that we should do? And you know, given the town's claim experience, it, you know, self- insurance does still seem like the way to go. Um, but these two claims obviously are a little bit of a departure from >> Right. And is that 2.18?
>> Um, does that fully fund the gap or >> it brings the liability fund back up to the policy target >> and including the expected expenses? >> Correct. Yeah, the projection for the multi-year settlements are are embedded in that as well.
>> I was just going to add that on the self- insurance part, as someone who's participated in some of these settlement negotiations, it's very helpful in keeping the settlement amount within the broader range uh range of reason of reasonableness because a lot of
potential claimments do not want to have to go before town meeting and be very public about why they're requesting what they're requesting. And so it does somewhat lower what the settlement amount will be. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um can you explain a little bit further additional CIP? >> Uh so I have a lot of >> repeat that. >> Could you could you uh please go into a little more detail about what additional CIP is? >> So uh essentially it basically is providing more funding to do more
projects, cash projects. And so we have a lot of requests. We'll be talking about the CIP I believe next week. weren't quite done yet. Um, so you know, we we have a lot of uh unforeseen project requests that, you know, weren't in the plan last year that um, as an
example, the AC at the at the town hall failed over the summer. >> So So the 7 million is the funds that are left over after the free cash flow. I understand. So, so my so my um I'm not saying we shouldn't be using that money for the CIP,
>> but the prior chart showed um a significant debt load that we're carrying. >> Yep. >> And should we be considering we don't want to use free cash or operating funds, but it certainly could be used to pay down debt,
>> right? >> Yep. >> Do we have a policy at all about paying down debt? Have we ever developed one? So I think there's two different things about. So you've got the debt that is debt exclusion related. Yep. >> And then you have the debt that's within the levy. And so the debt within the levy, we have um the overall funding for
CIP is 6% 6.6% of prior year net revenue. And we try and make sure that we have 4% you no more than around 4% of debt. So then then we have the flexibility to do these cash projects. And so changing that balance between
cash and debt only just provides relief within the CIP because the policy limit is really what's setting what the town can take on for debt. >> Is there is there a policy against or will you would you not be able to apply some of those funds to the debt that's in the levy?
>> So if we paid off debt earlier because for whatever work ash you want to jump. >> Yeah. whether or not. >> So, so for existing debt that has already been issued that
it for the most part it's difficult to prepay that. However, um for for um excluded debt that has not yet been issued, it could you know some of this could be applied to that and the debt is
never issued. I I mean I just I don't I don't it would be worthwhile having that discussion to to possibly consider a policy around that because it certainly is beneficial to lower our debt load and obligation
and if you have to set up a reserve fund or something to prepare for that time um versus always just saying let's do that next CIP project because we have a a a wish list of things to do. Uh our debt is what's really holding us back I think. So we did get an interesting
analysis from Sergio Mediglani which explained how using debt is actually better for the town's finances long term because of the nominal value of money. So essentially his recommendation and we can send you this analysis. It's pretty good. Uh shows that you you're better
off borrowing money now to pay for projects than using cash. And you'd be and the cash should go to you know other one-time expenses. In other words, he was arguing for increasing our debt, not decreasing it because I didn't high value the money and
>> uh it it's because uh it's because in the long term the value of that money now is higher than if you than if you were to uh it basically that there is a there's an economic driven and we can show that to you but it's not like we
necessarily adopted Sergio's point of view but it has made us think about you know whether or not strike me right balance. >> Well, I guess I would and all difference to uh to Sergio uh you know I I think that's actually the perview of the select board and not him. So if we're
going to start >> he was asked to do expenses >> well I'm just saying so that's great but I'm just saying I think that the the select board should deliberate on that and not just have staff taking I know that's not what you're doing but you're saying that's we're inclined to do what
he's suggesting. I think very decision selector. >> I I do think it's very interesting when we're talking about sort of the time value of money and trying to eliminate the structural deficit. This come this eventually comes down to long-term decisions, not best serve the short term. >> And and we do I mean I do think that we do have those conversations, you know,
around the high school. We we decided that we weren't putting the full amount of the high school on the debt exception. We absorbed $35 million in the CIP. So that is hitting, you know, within the money that we have to spend on CIP. That's a pretty substantial amount of money that we can't utilize
for other projects. And so, you know, and we did that with the Ridley School as well. You know, $40 million was supported uh within the levy as well. So, I think it's really a question about, you know, when we are looking to take on additional debt, what how much of it should be funded within the levy
and how much of it should be funded outside of the levy and what the ramifications of those decisions are. And again, this would be revisiting the free cash waterfall, but it might be worthwhile to have a discussion about should some of that money go to a reserve fund that could potentially pay down that. >> Yep. And as an option,
>> that's also, you know, what we'll be talking about a little later on in the slides is like to provide operatingly relief, we are recommending that we continue what we're doing with the um, you know, bringing down the policy level u in order to provide some relief as well. So
>> I will say and we're not where we need to be in ter we're going to bring the CIP to you next week hopefully. But I will say that >> it is it is not again it's not it's not projects that would be nice to have like CIP is very tight this year. Um there are a lot of unexpected expenses like
the town hall like a couple of other things that are eating into the CIP would be kind of half. Um and that does not leave us with a lot of money for discretionary work. Um and we are we're trying to honor all of the commitments that we've made to community. For example, community wants the data
management plan to move forward. We want more roads paved and we want roads paid. We want roads done more efficiently. Um less transformative work, more, you know, repaving sealing work. So we're doing that work. Um but that just then means that in order to meet all of those
demands, it is really a juggling game. So you'll see that there's there's not as much there's not as available in the CIP as we'd like. Um so it's this this money is really vital in terms of getting the projects that need to be done. Um so look that is not to say that
we can't make those tradeoffs that our trade-offs be made. you they're they're not it's not like oh we can put this off and then you know it's it's not it's not a need to have there are a lot of need to have to say well I guess just in closing we don't
currently had a pulse where if there was a windfall of funds or extra funds uh having an option to put it into debt is that >> um no I think you know we could I mean there's no policy that says if precash is over x amount then you use the first
you and add another bucket here and it's going to reduce the debt load but it's something we could think about. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think Paul, you know, uh is pursuing an important question. At the same time, I'm not sure there's an absolute answer to the question because
a lot hinges on your expectations as to future interest rates. And um you know, you could be in a situation where uh you say, you know, let's let's only borrow a little bit of the total that we're going to need over the lifetime of a project and then we'll borrow a little bit more, then we'll borrow a little bit more.
Well, it might turn out that you're paying a higher interest rate every time you move to the next phase of the borrow. And you have to sort of measure that against if we had borrowed at all at the beginning. Um you know, what what would be the additional cost of that? What where would we park the money that
we weren't using? what would be better than that. So there's no there's no one answer. Um but I think we do have to be making our best guess at these policies along the way and you know I I I appreciate the research Sergio has done.
Um and I think we should have more discussions about it. That's all. Um I just want to confirm where in the free cash or if it's somewhere else the getting rid of the pension liability and
the oped liability payments of all. >> So in the past we have had special use towards u opeds and um and additional money for the pensions as well. Um I would say that you know uh prior to a
few years ago it would have been uh less in bucket number two and more in those other buckets but we we've gotten the the indication from movies that we really need to focus on our reserve fund balance and so to the extent that there was less of a need to put money in that
bucket then that would probably be the recommendation to have. And so does this free cash choice affect the end date of meeting our pension obligations? >> Not at this point. >> Not not in a significant way, right?
Because remember that for example, you know, we we uh the town appropriate additional $1 million towards pension um towards the outstanding pension obligations. But remember that you know the outstanding uh amount due in uh 2030
is like 50. So, you know, it's not a huge significant factor when you're considering the overall outst. >> So, this is just another we had this illustration last year. Um, kind of looking at our fun balance levels and trying to make that we're hitting the
target around these uh metrics as well. So, um let's go on to the next. >> Sure. >> In the next Yeah. >> Yeah. >> talk a little bit about expenditures for a little while, which we've actually spent a lot of time in, so I'm not going to get into too much. This is a look at
your current year FY26 budget about $20 million in the general fund. And this is the you know by pattern highlighting here is that salaries are 50%, benefits are 21%. So a total of 7 and a half% of your budget is salaries and there are a
few other major categories like debt uh that take up uh what there would be for a discretionary fund. So not very much in terms of discretionary funds in the budget. I'll let each slide for a second discussions if you want. Again, this is FY26, but what we're doing here is
taking all of the costs that are in the town's budget that are actually school costs and reallocating them over to education to show you what percent of the budget are the schools actually taking out. And this year, FY26, it's 57 to 29%. So benefits over here is just
town benefits. Then over here is just town debt. So you can see the non school debt is right about 4%. Um, and so that's the plan. Just give me a second. >> Yeah. Wait, >> go back. >> What happened to our one second?
>> You have one second one. >> Yeah, exact May I just a quick question? Um, you know, a meaningful uh to me meaningful um additional bit of information. uh since we see this pie chart every year, you know, uh year to
year and and the only thing that might change would be, you know, a teeny little, you know, adjustment to the relative proportion of of various uses for the monies. So could that be
accompanied by a you know the portion of the pie allocated to education represents an increase or decrease uh from the prior year of x% so that we get a sense of where the how the money is moving around from pi size to pi slice
and it doesn't move around much >> I was going to say this is relatively state uh yeah I don't think the numbers are that much different >> this is just a look at the current year budget but it is an interesting idea to think about projecting this on the 27 and what changes if the pie shifts at
all. I think largely depends on what where that school number ends, >> right? >> Uh because let's say for example they had to go up 13 million and the town had to go up zero significantly changes. >> Yeah. Well, and I I will just go ahead and make a point of my own which I I've
done some, you know, looking at these things and and it does become uh meaningful the more that you go backward, you know, and then take a long-term view like a 10-year difference between the 10year-old pie versus the posit. And you know what I've seen when
that whenever we do that is that uh pretty much everything that's departmental either stays the same or shrinks a little bit and that debt um thing keeps growing and then the the the other piece that keeps growing it's the benefits you know keeps growing. So and
you know it's important for people to kind of get that sense of what's happening over time. We do we see debt growing over time? I think it's should be relatively stable. >> Not going forward. >> Yeah. I think even I think even looking back it's probably you know
>> the debt exclusions. >> I'm talking about applies to the debt exclusions. >> Right. Think of debt exclusions. Yeah. This is non this is just you know non-excluded debt. This is just debt that's in the >> Okay. >> So you would I think if you included other funds other than the giant fund.
Yeah. That I mean the pie actually would be a bit different. You have for example excluded debt included in this pop. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> That excluded debt is in it is >> Oh, it is in the general fund operating. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. It's got to be
somewhere, right? >> It is. Yeah. >> So, we're factoring that. I mean, so I just thinking that this is 4% being would be not, but you're you're right. >> Okay. Any other questions on the we
>> um so my you said before if I recall correctly that about 85% of our expenses are ret is that right and and presumably that 85% or whatever the actual number is is
distributed across this entire pie chart but you know things like non-school debt and I'm assuming that the education ends a portion of that in school debt you contains 0% which is not poss and I'm
assuming things like public works when we're contracting out roadway repavement or whatever um those parts are not are not personnel costs. Yeah, we we so we could Michael we could show that next
pie then by category within each this percent of each of these categories is personel services though what we're actually saying is that personnel costs are 71% that's what we're actually 71% okay
>> that's what we're saying >> salary plus benefits >> salary plus benefits what you do >> well you get to set Great. >> Thank you. >> Yep. No problem. >> Happy to let it let it soak in. So we
could we could theoretically show this you know but for for the purposes of this discussion right of this 59.7% 70% is sal. So you can make the assumption that that 70% of that number is >> right and then a certain percentage that
and then the rest of it is is service. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's the other things we list on this >> charity, right? >> Not a lot of places to make changes to person. >> That's correct.
>> Yep. Okay. Um this is showing the now we're looking at FY27 going forward here. This is showing the major expense categories and how much they're they're increasing. We have the school budget increasing by 13 million. We have the town departments increasing by 9 and a half million. This
is personnel costs, your collective bargaining steps. It's the new sanitation contract and it's utilities. I just want to emphasize there's no growth in departmental budgets here. This is a stress point for departments. We hear about it every year. We heard about it this year at you know some
folks have said in the past well could we just limit the department's increases to zero or to 2%. This is level funding everything except the what is fixed costs reinvestment. Then benefits which is both town and schools are increasing by almost triple the town appropriation
um increase. We can talk more about benefits on the slide here soon. These are special appropriations and that's partly because of a good free cash number and partly because we're re we're increasing the amount that we're funding um the special appropriations out of the operating budget from the 6% to 6.6%
six% of prior year net revenue as Melissa just talked about a previous slide and then debt service are those projects that are finance it's the fire stations uh it's pierce and uh it's pierce so and Melissa had an earlier slide you know the outy years annually
increases 1.8% as you can see expenditures out years >> 3.2% 10%. So there's >> perfect illustration. >> Charlie, >> you're going too fast for ahead. My aging my aging my aging%. So >> um I just want to I want to understand
what you're put in here. Um so this slide is showing how the 34 million is being allocated. >> This is FY27 total total growth 34.1 million and it's showing the major. >> So an 8% increase in expenditures >> corrected
>> projected 26 and 27. And this is how it's allocated. Schools, town departments, benefits >> by major category. >> So, >> and when you I'm sorry, Michael, I'm just I just I have a couple It's going to take me a minute to get through my You are going too fast.
>> Um, so when you say town departments is 3.6 million, right? What is that? >> Yeah. So, that is personnel. It's collective bargaining and it's steps >> and it's the new sanitation contract >> and it's utilities. In other words, it's
just fixed cost. >> So it's so it's salaries and utilities is what you're saying in cont. >> It's fixed. It's all the fixed costs we have. >> There is growth assumed in the nonpersonnel of 2 and a half%. But we are trying to pair that down in order to come back. So to get at John's question,
um I don't mean to be speaking for you, but I'm going to advocate for the question. Then that 3.6 are there additional headcounts there? >> No. >> No. So this is just flat headcount, increase in steps and lanes, increase in >> collective bargaining.
>> Okay. Um Okay. Thank you. That that that helps me. >> Someone else wanted this. >> Michael two questions. Um, one, am I reading this right? 34.1 million is an 8%
increase. Then about a $4 million increase in any one of these bars represents 1%. Is that right? So the school budget there is roughly 3% increase overall total total budget
>> of the of the 8%. >> Right? >> You can also think of maybe this in terms of an African, right? So uh of the 8% yeah it would be like three three% >> 3% that schools schools fixed cost and then another two
at 100% is better. >> Okay >> Charlie that that 3 point 13.2 from the schools that ties back to the number we saw earlier. >> Correct. >> Okay. All right. Great. And and and the other the other question I had is that
um if you divide if you divide the increase in our personnel costs by the number of people that we that we have to support that. Can you give us any sense of like what the median cost is for
either a junior or a senior person on staff? You know, are we talking like on average 200,000 personal, 300,000 personal to be >> per staffer? You know, it is there's a huge difference between say director
sales and and front level and frontline employees, right? >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, each it depends on the the employee class too. You know, mid-managers versus clericals, they get a different level of a step increase. There's difference differences in their public. public safety has large
increases and they have they have you know increases associated with um you know other additional pay reaching reaching >> okay so then then maybe what I'm looking for is the average across the world so for example if we are holding off six
positions in the police department like on average that that we know for example police officers around00 >> including benefits >> yes fully loaded police officers >> and over time >> in retirement Correct. >> Yeah. >> Well, not uh maybe not.
>> No, not includes the salary and benefits here. >> Just just >> Okay. >> One other question, Charlie. So, the 34.1 million increased expenditures. What was the increase in the levy
without asking for is how much you know what I'm saying? So, how much are tax how much did our revenue go up? >> Uh well, actually touching on it, >> but it's uh it's in what is it? It's uh >> it's 5.1%. >> 5.1% increase in the levy from two and a
half from Prop 2 and a half plus new growth >> and a dollar plus >> the dollar value. >> So, okay, so we have a 34.1 growth in expenses and a 17.1 >> 17.6 >> 17.6 million growth in revenue. So the
gap is between 34 minus 17 >> in in the levy and what's the what's the delta in the non- levy? >> No, that's that's total >> that's total >> that's total. So the levies >> so 34 well no but so the gap the gap is
34 I'm just round numbers 34us 17 right >> that first slide that we had with all those numbers that was >> that 16.6 6 million. I think >> we can go back. >> Okay. No, I just I'm trying to tie what he's talking about to what we see. >> Absolutely. >> Absolutely.
>> Uh okay. Any other questions here? These are the these are the major categories. We'll talk a little bit more about benefits on the next slide. So, all right. So, very quickly I want to recap the fast school split which gives us the revenue numbers, you know, the bottom line budget numbers that the
deficit's really working off. Okay. Follow me on the FY27 column only for now. So you have the FY26. Each year we take the total available revenue, which is $436 million here, and you subtract our non-departal fixed costs. This includes stuff like pensions, benefits.
This is your above the line adjustment to the to the split, right? So we're taking we're take $195 million off the top and now there's $241 million available for the town schools. We take the prior year split. So if you look now in the FY26 column at the bottom, we're
taking the 40 and the 59 there, buying that corners, which gives us two new numbers for the schools. Before we can call those final, we have to add our adjustments, which these are the below the line adjustments. And we're we're
moving 500,000 from the schools to the town side to pay for utilities this year. Last year there was an adjustment in the opposite direction to uh to account for the school's cutting uh school building uh repair and maintenance, but this year it's a it's a reduction on the school side in addition
to the town side to pay for utilities adjustments. And so after you apply those below the line um adjustments, which includes things like utilities, R& payroll, etc., you get the new bottom line numbers of 99 million for the town,
142 million for the schools, which gives you the new split at the bottom. So, we're talking about the schools being $13 million over a number. This is the number that they are currently $13 million over and this is the number that the town is currently $3 million over. So, this is sort of just giving you an
idea of how it is we calculate the amount of revenue that's available to town schools. It's supposed to be done so in a fair way, right? allocates the cost fairly. Some folks may ask why is it the school numbers going down? That's a typical thing that happens because of
it making adjustments for things like payroll, it pur any questions on tech. >> Sure. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> Just in terms of those reimbursements if that at all impacts the rates that we get. So, for example, usually if you
bundle everything under one umbrella, you get a slightly better rate. So this does not adversely impact whatever rate we are getting for utilities. It's merely the school budget will reimburse but it's not at a higher rate. >> Correct. So uh essentially what this
means is we pay utility bills for all the schools on the town side and so we need to make an adjustment that says okay we need to charge you for the amount of money we're going to be paying out of our budget for school utilities. That's the 500,000. It doesn't adversely affect what we're paying.
Charles, could you just just cover why was that number 195 last year and now it's a negative just >> Yeah. Once again, so these are your below the line adjustments. So these are all the costs that were not factored into the market. >> I'm just talking utilities. >> And so for the 195, what happened there
is the schools cut school building repair and maintenance. And so in order to give them that money, we had to reduce the town allocation which has school building repair maintenance in it. reduce that by 195 and give it to the schools in order for them to realize their cut. So, for example, if they
said, "We want to close the schools on the weekends and we're not going to have any natural gas costs and we're going to save 500,000." These two numbers would flip because we would then be giving them the money from the town budget that they're saving. >> Does that make sense? >> It does. So this year it's it's a
500,000 because >> because of a brand new supply contract for natural gas for utilities. >> It's going up. >> Correct. So cost is going up. >> Correct. We we settled a new contract starting this April. Yeah. >> Uh which doesn't affect this fiscal year, but essentially we've benefited
from having very good fixed supply rates for natural gas for the past few years. And now you're seeing folks in the community complaining about their bills going up. At the same time the town's bills are going up. >> What about electricity? So electricity we have a fixed contract through next year and so in FY28 we have built into
the forecast another adjustment lower for electricity. We have a fixed contract for now but we will we will see a bump in F28 counts. Michael >> um this the school number the bottom line school number 142 you said that
they they have a budget that they're working on that is 13.5 million higher than that because that's uh 155 um how does that number compare to the
current or the closest to their actual fiscal year 26 which is that >> well um that this should be their 26th number. >> So that is that is their actual 26th number. >> So >> sorry I can't do the math but so they're
saying that it's growing at about >> 56% >> 9% 9% 9% from 142 to 155 is 9%. And $2 million of that growth is their structural deficit that they kind of
help you out last year, >> right? >> Yeah. >> So, so if you if you shifted that in the other >> Yeah. I think also, you know, this slide also just illustrates that the non-depart costs are consuming. I mean,
that's another highlight on this. >> That's a good point, Melissa. We're seeing $17 million in growth in our little bit more slides. Uh I I just want to say that one of the other things I find difficult to get my
head around in in these budget processes is it feels like you know we're a dog chasing its tail all the time in that um you know as Charlie just said very you know very well um okay so here's how we blah blah um you know we look at what is
coming in in revenue we got that bottom line number that we're going to have available to us and then the second part of what he said was and then we look at what we're spending Now, is it what we're spending now or what we budgeted the prior year at? Um because h how will
we know what we have spent by the end of FY 26 when it isn't yet the end of FY26? >> The forecast takes the current year budget, so fiscal 26 budget and implies an two and a half% of inflator to non-personnel rights and then also adds
in a factor for collective bargaining. So the one and a half% and 27, right? the 2% in the out years plus an estimate for steps. The estimate for steps is based on Charlie's work over the summer and then an estimate for utility. >> Right? So, and I think we're all saying the same thing. So we're essentially
saying the budget builds on the budget from the prior year, but sometimes it comes out the budget builds on what we had to spend this year or have to spend now to we use these expressions like you know for continuation of services or you know a structural deficit and so on. But
we don't really have a hard number because the actual number often is different than what was the budget itself. >> And we don't have that hard number until after we've already taken care of the next fiscal year's budget, >> right? >> Um and that's why, you know, I tend to
keep coming back to these questions of, you know, what what are the FTEEs here, you know, and and and how is that changing? Um and u so I just I just hope people who are listening to this discussion get that that that it it
isn't quite as um set in stone as to uh where we are in all of this as it might seem like uh if we don't absolutely ask for you know an override of blah blah blah we're we're not going to be able to sustain our services. Well, that depends
on whether your actual spending in FY26, which doesn't end, you know, until June 30th of 2026, um, comes in at where you thought it would come in. >> Um, so want to make that point.
>> I mean, I take I take your point in terms of the the estimation, but given that se what is it 70% of our costs are personnel? Yeah. Um, and those personnel costs are fixed unless somebody leaves
or we hire somebody those >> which happens all the time. >> Well, it happens. It it happens. That's true. But to the degree that as a percentage of our town staff, I mean, we're not
getting like >> what is the percent what is the percent turnover of our staff over here? It's not it's not >> it's not that high. So, so I I think there's more certainty in the numbers than you're giving them, >> but just because you raised this point, but um and again so that people
understand all of these budgets are built on positions that are not necessarily filled during the course of the year, >> right? Make assumptions about, you know, what level they'll be filled at. So, we know that somebody who's leaving, we're going to be resetting that salary before the budget comes up. And you know, we're
going to be, you know, estimating of where we think that's going to land the follow year. >> Yeah. I also say that for the three biggest departments in the tan side, DPW, fire, police. Yes. >> Depending on usually DPW is the highest and then police and fire. Um
we in all three of those departments for one reason or another we have historically utilize those salary savings to cover some other aspect of the budget. Right. >> Um so where for example for and where we
haven't done that like last year we've had anybody reserve on um and in DPW's case the big outlier was snow and ice. Snow and ice is the only thing that the congest spend on. Um, and so every year I I send usually right now around the
first snow emergency of the season, I send a letter to you and to the treasurer and to the state saying, "Hello, we're going to defus Ben to start out because this is how we this is how we play with snow and ice." And in the past couple years when we've had relatively mild winters, we have been
able to use whatever savings we have in other parts of DPW's budget to cover snow. in the case of police and fire, we haven't been able to use those salary savings and I would say to some of the Charlie and I think you know Liz and the
team at PSPO would say is that in some ways that's a good thing in the sense that the departments are really starting to understand and internalize what it means to live within the means of their budgets. Yeah. >> Um but they haven't been able to cover all the extraneous costs where things go over like overtime or what have you that
we've had to go to the reserve fund. But those three departments are the lion share of what we do. And then when you think of the other departments, that's really a bounding curve. Like one positional planning is not really make a significant difference in terms of our projections. But it is it is a good point. It's a good point to run down. Um
but I just want to understand that for the three big departments where there are salary savings, we use them in other places. M and just to put it into perspective for the public that may be listening or may listen in the future. There's currently forecasted I think you
said a $16 million >> deficit, right? The actuals are not going to material impact that, right? I mean, maybe you're talking a couple hundred thousand, but it's not going to it's not going to make us a debt and a deficit, right? Um and I just think that's I think that's important to
understand that the deficit's significant. Um, and if we don't have a few positions that that aren't hired, um, or a project isn't done, we're not talking material impact. >> And we've also instituted, you know, we've we've seen this deficit coming.
So, obviously, we've been trying to plan and prep for it. And one of the things that we've done is um kind of added a layer to our hiring process. We've created what we're calling a position review. And it's essentially enough before we put an authorization to hire on the board's agenda. We are talking
with the department head to talk about, you know, here are the potential reductions that we're seeing. Where does this position fit within kind of what we're looking at? Is this something that's essential? Is this something we can hold off on? And so obviously, you know, we are holding open positions in certain departments in anticipation of
those being reductions next year. So I agree with both Paul and John but at different levels of the discussion. So with you Paul I certainly agree that in the grander scheme of things a couple of salaries here or there that get resets is basically a drop in the
bucket. It doesn't resolve a structural deficit. But to John's point, sometimes a strategy for uh making sure that we have a balanced budget each year is I'm not suggesting we do this, telling every department you're cutting 2%. Or whatever that number may be. Yeah. And
from a departmentto department basis, what John's saying does make a difference because often times a way to meet the department budget would be this position we're not going to fill like we've done with the police department traditionally. And I'm sure they're not happy about it, but we do that most
years. And uh so at a department level I think it actually is fairly significant looking at who's leaving what those salaries reset to broader picture though it's less so and so we need to try to find other ways to uh resolve this and and to that point I wanted to ask a
little more about >> non-dep departmental fixed costs. I know a lot of that is tied up in collective bargaining. Are there any elements there that we do have more direct control over? go into all of those.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And I thank thank you David and Paul for coming. Um I I I just want to sort of make my same point but in a slightly different way. I think some of this stems from the language that we use in these budget discussions. And I I
personally don't think deficit is the right word to use to describe what we're basic um in my in my world no in my world a deficit is you come to the end of your fiscal year um and you realize holy cow
you know we haven't paid all our bills there's about you know $8 million worth of bills still outstanding but we have spent all of our revenue allocation we're in deficit. >> Y >> what we're talking about is budget
planning and we are talking about a gap in future years between what we would like to spend and what we anticipate as revenue but it isn't c it you know it's not set in stone it it as David just
said you could you could plan a budget that is balanced and it would We're going to balance this budget and the plan the planned balanced budget for FY27
requires us to ask all departments to cut back their payroll costs by 2%. >> So that's what and that's what we're going to plan. You know >> that is what we are working towards. So this is if we do nothing. >> Yeah. >> We're going to be at the holy cow at the end of this. Yeah. >> But what our budget we are not allowed
to do that because we have to have a balanced budget. Yeah. And so in February, we're going to show you the strategies that we needed to employ in order to get come into bed. >> Right. Yeah. And and just to be I just want to this is an important point. John, I appreciate your perspective on this and I'm not diminishing your your
point of view. There's there's an issue with respect to level of service. So given that our what percentage of our our expenses are labor and commitments with steps and lanes and contractual and collective bargaining
and healthcare and all that, >> we do know with reasonable certainty >> what next year's budget of the next three years will look like. Yeah. >> Right. And and if we are not able to increase revenue to meet the meet that
growth, which we have already made commitments to, they're committed. >> You have to change the level of service, which means layoffs. You're going to have to lay off people on the top. You're going to have to lay off people in the schools. That's just reality. You can't say give me 2% each department
and close a $16 million gap. U that's going to happen over multiple years. So I again I just I think that this conversation is leading to a very important realization that we have to talk about publicly is that without
finding a way to close the revenue gap uh meaning raising more revenue that we are going to have an impact on service. We're going to have an impact on the service of the schools and we're going to have an impact on the service of the town and that's it. and and the voters will have to make that decision. But
that's what's going to happen. >> Um to follow on to that point and I agree with you completely, Paul, that that is that is the decision we are facing. So we have about a $16.6 million
deficit to cover. Um, I heard before that, you know, on average across we've got about a $100,000 per person in costs, which is about police, police, fire, etc. Um, but I'm what I'm trying to figure out is how to
translate that 16.6 million into a number of people. Is if it's 100,000, then that's like 16.66 people. And now I'm trying to figure out that 166, what percentage of like the
town staff overall is that number? Like are we cutting 2% of our staff? Are we cutting 5% of our staff? Are we cutting 10% of the staff? We should we should know that. >> That's right. That is the question you're trying to understand. >> On the town side, if we you'll see this
at the end. If there were to be we were in a no overright and we were not able to raise revenues significantly in a better meaningful way beyond what we've identified here, we'd be looking at eliminating a whole 20 positions. U now
we have around 700 some odd people down staff. So 20 positions you do the math it's lower percentages but yeah that's 20 positions and that's across many different departments. um that's a that's a significant production of
service and I would argue the the other unfortunate thing here is that we'll talk about is and some of those positions are positions that have a potential increase right um
>> it's always the first thing to go um >> talk about these things that's not that doesn't make it fair that's the reality of circumstance and so >> yeah if you if there were if we we're unable to close this gap in other ways, we will be looking at 20 plus positions.
>> And and that particular issue that you talked about in terms of revenue generating positions is I think something that we as the select should talk about. >> Yes. Because >> again, this is it is your decision how this is why we're having this conversation now so we can continue to
refine these occasions and break to you and tell you this is not what we want to see. What what other options do you want us to do at this point? So that's why we're having this discussion. >> If we end up in the direction of needing to cut town staff further, are there
additional opportunities that you see for privatizing certain services? I'm not saying I endorse that approach. I just like to know not right now. Um I don't nec the we're we're not in a pos I don't see us
as in a position where the costs that there's cost benefit analysis there's there's a benefit that outweighs the potential cost there ultimately at the end of the day right theoretically by cutting something inhouse then I could for example hire a consultant to
do it and maybe they use one type of funds for that lot of different ways I will say that one of the things that I became one of these that is just a particular strength of Brookline financially and the way that and something that I inherited from Mel and
Melissa and the whole team. and I'm very grateful that they put this in place is that Berkeley thinks very very strategically about what services it wants to keep in house and what services it wants to app who don't have large budget contracted services and that's
different communities um and I think particularly in the building department and capital projects we have really reap the benefits of that by having internal project management which has saved us a huge amount of money in the long run um and so when I think about doing contract
focuses out. That's kind of the gold standard that I look at. Um I don't necessarily I'm I I am not dogmatic in the sense that services have kept in house. You know there are there is an argument for taking ser for using private services where we don't have the expertise to do
so. But I don't currently see a function that we provide inhouse that make more sense. >> John yeah and I I I think it's interesting that that you know We've now sort of heard about the the question of
um grant funded positions in our budgets and and the process by which we hire grants and the question of staffing levels versus you know grant productivity. Um because I think that's
going to be an important question to deal with in future budgets for the time being because it's in the headlines every day that this or that traditional expected grant funded um OP program that
starts with the federal governments, flows through the state and then eventually reaches the municipality that Trump is going to blow that up. Yeah, that's not going to exist anymore. And it almost um demands that there be a discussion well if there's going to be a
can we can we put a number on how much less grant funding is going to be available to us next year versus the current year versus the year before. And do we not then take the next step which is to say
in terms of the number of staff people that it requires to pursue grants do we keep the same number if the number of available grants is shrinking and that's a hard thing to have to look at but I think it's a necessary thing to have to
look at >> we yeah I I I do want to be mindful of the time it is that is that is a worthwhile conversation to have I'll go into a little more detail on that talk about But yes, >> just getting again to uh staff cuts. So we talked about on the town side it
would be about 20 out of 700 and and not to minimize the 20, but I think that for most in the broader community, that doesn't necessarily sound like a lot. So I think it's important to be able to explain how the level of service and the
qualitative nature of it as well would be reduced by not having those 20 positions and what that would actually mean in terms of impact in the community. On the school side, I think it can sometimes be a little more clear to see what that impact would be because
much of this deficit is on the school side proportionally. And so the reduction in force that we would see on the school side would be a much larger number than 20. >> And when do they announce the reduction force?
>> Uh so typically it's in May that they but after >> Yes. So 20 divided by 700 is 2.9%. >> Yeah, it's you're you rais a good point. I would say again this is a community of 63,000 people, right? It takes a lot of
people to keep this place open. Um it is it's it's a unique community. It is mixed in character. It requires a lot of hightouch effort to get a lot of this stuff. Um and we have you know there's
things there are cuts we made through the pandemic that we still haven't restored the departments ask us you know for example we have this huge drive to maintain our treaty we don't have a horri you haven't had this 2020 um do you have any yes we're desperate to get that position back I ask every year you
have to say every year um like the community wants it length um and so to go in the opposite direction for example if we eliminate a building all building. It's going to cause more of an impediment to growth. What I desperately
want to avoid is kind of a death problem, right? Where the cuts and services get more cuts and services because to go. So, we're even even at that level, you know, it's it's not we're we're running that risk. Um, and that's
it's tough, but it's just in the absence of something changing. That's those are the kind of cuts that we have to realize. >> And we need a more fundamental change because while some in the community might accept 20 out of 700 for FY27 and
FY28 probably be another 20, then another 20. And at some point you do reach a level where you would just have a collapse. >> That's the death. And I and you have the same problem on the school side, >> right? >> Right. If you diminish if you increase
what whatever the factors are that that have people valuing the education in Brooklyn, um we saw people pull their kids and put them in private school during the pandemic. Um we start lowering service levels um impacting the quality of education. That will see a
reduction in people that send their kids to schools in Brooklyn. It means our it impacts everything. It impacts property values. It impacts why people want to come here, why they would actually vote for an override. Um, everything. Uh, so I think we we really have to be careful.
Um, and that's why I I say that it would be better to have this discussion settled with the schools quickly so that we can begin the process of educating the community because it's going to be a significant lift. I think most most operating overrides that have been on
the ballot recently have failed, right? uh that Arlington, Newton, Wubert, was it Wuburn? I mean, there's been a number of uh ballot questions that haven't succeeded. >> It's been mixed. Melrose just passed the largest override after
>> and last night, Lexington, a debt exclusion for a $660 million high school that is too small. >> So, so it's mixed, but you're right. It's certainly trending in a direction where it's less automatic than it used to. >> Not automatic. The one I'm watching is still today actually
>> is where never passionate. >> But but I also think it's important to keep in mind that we're not taking the simplistic approach of this is the gap so this will be the override pass. As mentioned at the outset, it would be a
combination of asking the public to increase their property taxes but at the same time making some internal cuts. And I think that needs to be part of the narrative as well. Both what the community would be losing if we don't maintain the current levels of service and at the same time the efforts that
have been made to really operate a bit on a shoestring budget anyway and still make cuts in spite of that. And in fairness to the schools which are often much maligned in this context that they they do the same thing. It's really tough because on the school side, they're dealing with unfunded federal
mandates that we don't really have as much of on the town side, but on the school side, that's enormous. And there there is an issue with more and more students on IEPs. And some argue that some of these IEPs are not truly necessary and
that there's doctor shopping that takes place. I don't know the extent that's true, but either way, it's it's it's a growing problem and it's very real. We do have our unfunded mandates for town meeting. We have a few looking at that. >> All right. In the interest of time, I
have had some reactions, but I'm gonna >> All right, let's talk about benefits. The overall increase of 9.5 million. Benefits overall are going up by 10%. There's a few things I want to highlight here. Pensions are staying on the the existing schedule to get to funded by 2030. Ops are getting back onto the
schedule of $250,000 a year, which is pause on 26. group health we're assuming 12% again so that's the largest increase there the only other thing on this uh slide that I have is we have unemployment um we're adding some money to that fund um in in the face of
potential layoffs any other thoughts here in front of them talked about the stuff quite a bit already so health insurance totals 46.7 million uh 47.6 6 million. We're assuming that 12% rate increase. You know, we have an assumption of new
subscribers. John, I just want to point out one thing you mentioned, which is that when we budget fully for all positions, we don't actually. If we had some room that we thought we could bring those numbers down, we would do it in group health. Melissa shakes out whatever savings there is potentially health. We don't fund group health to
the tune of every position having a family plan at the highest rate, right? There's some flex there. So, we we are we are positions where we think we can. Um, and again, Each rate increase of 1% for health insurance equals $42,000. So on the
pension side, we're going up by $3 million, which keeps in line with our annual appropriation requirement of increasing by 7.85% as the appropriation gets larger. As the 41 million gets larger, that 7.85% puts more and more pressure on the budget. You'll see that
on these coming slides. So for OAPs, our other postemployment benefits, again, we paused those a couple of times. We're assuming that in in 27 at $250,000 and we're doing everything we can to uh to save money on those as well. >> That 250k
>> y >> is just for covering the unfunded liability. We're still making contributions to cover our >> pay as you go. Correct. We're still doing pay as you go as well as um funding the unfunded liable. Exactly.
Any questions here? Sorry, I'm moving quickly because we're a little out of time. Um, this is our health appropriation. What we're really trying to show you here, we had to join the GIC at one point. We saw a slight amount of savings and then ever since then, the cost had been been ballooning. We're actually well past the point of
that savings. Um, in the out years, you know, we're projecting continued um significant increases. Um, without any change to market, we really can't project out of this. So, this is really we'll talk about this more on the next slide. Uh this is really one of the
things that consuming huge amount of the revenue is coming. Go ahead John. >> Um uh I I just want to add because you know you're talking about the ballooning cost ballooning even more in the out years. Um
I think this raises a question which I'm not sure I've ever heard uh discussed uh directly and that is to what extent does the town's partic participation in helping employees to cover the cost of their health care count towards the cost
of living increase that is accorded to um you know the rank and file under as a result of negot negotiation continent negoti ated contracts, excuse me. Um because it seems to me that we always
pull it apart and sort of say, well, there's this cost of living adjustment and they say it should be 3% because of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, blah blah blah blah blah, and the most we can offer them is 2 and a half%. But I'm not sure I've ever heard us say as a negotiating position,
we are take going to take the position that um you know we're helping you to fund your cost of living through our contribution to your health care costs. So when we calculate what is the cost of living increase in this contract part of
that is what we have especially when it's if it is in fact going to be increasing by that amount um year to year and I will say as you know someone who spent decades um as a private sector employee that's not unheard of.
>> I like the framing of that John. Sure. I think that we we do try we do try and make those statements um when we're talking about humps and you know other communities and looking at their premium split versus you know ours um you know a lot of them are around 7525 if not
lower. Yeah. >> Um you know so I think we do try and highlight it but I I kind of like that in in the framing of cola plus. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Of course, cola in in Massachusetts isn't really cola. It's really a percentage of what is
15,000 when you're talking about pensions 12,000, but okay. >> Well, no, I'm talking about how, you know, how how do people approach the negotiating table, you know, uh when we've got contracts up? And in general, you'll, you know, you'll hear from one
side of the table, uh, well, you know, the latest number just came out as the cost of living increased and it's about 3%. Therefore, we should get a minimum 3%. And and did we ever say, yeah. And two of that 3% is going to be a bump up
in your paycheck and the other 1% is going to be our increased contribution to your health care. because you know there's nothing more basic to cost of living than cost of covering your healthcare. So >> David another way of looking at what John's raising and I'm wondering if we
have the number on this. So currently our split is 8020 I believe 83 >> 8317. Okay. So if 8317 were to become the more standard 7525 what would that look like in terms of reduction in our non departmental costs
moving forward? Do we have some idea what that looks like? Yeah, I haven't run it in a in a little bit. Um, >> reinfor Yeah, I can't. We can get that back. Yeah, we'll get back to that. We, you know, it's been a while since I've run it. So, but I just would want to do it with the 12% projection,
>> noting that it needs a green, >> most of which are schooling avoidance, right? So, >> right. And a lot of that's locked into the current contracts, but moving forward, this is a long-term problem as well as a short-term issue. I'm wondering whether that's something worth exploring especially if we are the only
community that's at 8317 and everybody else is at around 75 because we we are still offering additional benefits beyond healthcare just the material city program which I'm not sure how well we really advertise but I mean you know I I
we we have made this point collective bargaining and I think you know in other areas in particular when longevity of the role was a world you know, but the the workforce is changing when and the unions realize this. And the argument they made back to us was is what people
care about is the money at the top. Um they don't realize, you know, when they get a paycheck, they're not necessarily looking at the deductions and being like, "Oh, I could get more of this deduction at the lower." Um they're saying this is the amount of money I have and I take over. Federal government takes taxes, the state takes taxes, I pay for my healthare, pay attention and
that's what I and that what I what I get is what I uh and you know these questions of the the the abstract are argument uh it's not a it is more abstract in their eyes they say our our
members are not necessarily going to look at this and say well thanks so much you cover my healthcare costs they're going to say the number is the number I want the number to go Um, and this also ties into the privatization uh discussion. And again, I'm not saying it's a path to go down, but obviously
the more people you have on 1099s, the the less of an impact you have on these pension pressures. >> Question is that 8317 number blended so it's standard across all of our >> I think there are a couple of um
indemnity plans that are are less, but Most of our funds are accepting. >> All right, let's keep going. >> So other post employer benefits, we are increasing the funding from the operating revenue by $250,000 a year. That was paused last year. We're
assessing the enterprise funds for their OPEC costs and we're using whatever runoff we can within the systems to help um to help reduce the overall liability. So uh you see this 250,000 OEP this year. This is earlier likely you asked or somebody asked I forget how much play
we have in the in the you know non-EP departmental fixed cost. This is one of those places where the select has made the decision in the past to pause um to save some money. So again the pension full funding date is FY30. We're uh we're assuming a slightly lower rate of return um of 6.8%. Um and as I talked
about earlier the annual required contribution being 7.85% is growing each year as you get closer to FY30. So the pension is essentially putting more and more pressure pension obligation is putting more and more pressure on the budget as you get closer to the funding date.
This is a this is an interesting chart that Melissa added this year to illustrate something we just noticed for the first time. So on the left side here you'll see percentages and this is because what we're looking at is the percentage of the Prop 2 and a half increase that's being consumed by
pensions and groupell. So in other words, this is the first year that more than 100% of the Prop 2 and a half increase has been taken up entirely by pensions and repel. So in other words, you know that in in the history of two Prop 2 and a half, the those numbers
have always been below what we're getting from two and a half. Now for the first year, you're seeing Jones are eclipsing what we get just from 11. So uh and that's going up each year in the out years as you can see. So this is just something we wanted to illustrate that we're, you know, pensions and uh
and health benefits are the old are really consuming the revenue that we have coming in to go to the town. >> That's where the money's gone. This is where >> is there any reason why you would not in future versions of this chart include opex?
>> It's a great question and I think I think you should I think it's because we've got to pay opex as much as we've got to pay attention to. Right. I think actually that's a good point, Michael, because we're showing we're showing the funding for pensions dropping off in 2030. What would happen
based on conversations like before is that this would stay really level and it would go towards a pension state. But presumably because we have more control over that, we wouldn't need it to eclipse 100% every year. We could, you know, you could tag it at
>> if we changed our public. >> You could I'm just telling what you have up. Go ahead. >> Question. Do we know um the projected savings when we privatize trash collection with respect I know for
OPEZ and and and pensions. >> So we won't see that until we reset our schedule. Um and you know I think that there are a variety of assumptions that change when we reset our schedule. So I don't know that we'll see a significant shift in >> based on that change. it'll be reflected
in the in the experience rating for so that the next the next measurement date for for example for pensions is December 31st of this month and then coming into the spring um you know that that drop off will be represented there
>> but but so we but we should see that it won't increase this right pensions and >> in so far as that >> because you don't you're not carrying those >> in so far as that's not offset by
you know by uh uh expected expected life lifespan of retirees at that moment in time um to the extent that that's not offset by perhaps an additional decrease in in the expected rate of return from
>> right I mean so that'll factor into the experience I guess is that that's >> I think I think Okay. >> All right. So, we don't have the CIP for you this week. We'll hopefully have it next week. But all of the years of the forecast I'm showing you are following the CIP policies, including returning to
the 6.6% Australia year net revenue policy. Um, which increases uh total spending on special appropriations by 4 million. Uh, so you can see the change that we made last year. And just really quickly summarizing FY27, we have roof repairs, Pierce Fire renovations. Um,
and know we're talking about the Austin set still in there. Um, and then out years we have Lars Anderson, Davis Foot, Davis Path, foot bridge, and Washington Streets coming off of the death schedule projected. So we'll have more on the CIP next week, but that's just to give you
quick. Do we have a do we have a funding commitments for a national district at this point? Was that money still? >> Um, so we we've committed to the state that we're doing the work in order to get there. >> And they Yeah, but they've been they have money to to get us what we need.
>> Yes, they still haven't as far as >> we have not heard anything indicating the best. >> Are you talking about a possible federal clause? >> But but beyond that, didn't they have to still approve it? There were many communities that were applying for that money.
>> We we're on the tip. So we're we're on the list of approved projects. The consent is always at some, you know, at some point if we missed the deadline or if we came out of compliance with what we said we were going to do, they'd take us out. >> Okay, let's keep going. >> All right. So, this is not appropriated.
These are our state uh state and county charges, which are the other side of the state aid sheet that we get. Uh we're assuming modest increases in these. There's not a whole lot for us to go over here. Uh but you know just to give you an idea we will have some costs that we'll see when we get the governor's
budget there'll probably be some changes here. So anything else on this? I don't think. Uh all right this my last slide. This is your structural deficit. So we talk about a deficit that's current year structural deficit refers to your next and future year budgets. You're projected to have a deficit because
expenditures are rising at a percentage rate that is higher than the rate of revenue growth. So in FY27 just say we have eight 8% on the expenditure side and 4% on the revenue side. That's what we talked about earlier. That's the chart on the left. On the right we are showing these numbers cumulative. So the
cumulative growth of that expenditure. So it's 8% in 27. It's 21% by 2029 and uh revenue will be growing by 11.6% by 202. This is your structural deficit. Mhm. >> So we've um
we keep lamenting the cost of the the county fee. >> Yes. >> Is there what does it take to get out of that state? >> The state has the legislature >> has to vote to let us leave and move us
move to another. >> Has that ever been done? >> All the other >> Yes. Other other communities have changed hands. >> Yes. >> And and what does so what does it what does it take? Well, it would take Quincy wanting to lose our money. Uh, >> I mean, it's it's it is a political
question. Um, >> is it is it a purely a question of the legislature or is it a valid question? >> It's a legislation. Um, the legislature gets to decide and we can petition in petition in um I know that discussions
have progressed beyond a theoretical level. Well, the fact of the matter is the speaker of the house is currently in Quinsley. Uh, and I don't think he's going to let us go. Um, I would love to be wrong. Um, but I think North County sees a immense amount of value. Um, they
try and demonstrate they provide services to us and I anywhere and commissioners are great people work dedicated to the work that they do employees do. I just think other communities other other counties don't have this level of governance. um is
what really sorry >> I was just going to say that I I I think it would be worthwhile for us to have a discussion about will we want to put home petition from tell me >> I think the other big the other big question that you'd have to answer there is where would we go do we go to suffic we go to middle sex
>> right that's important >> and to that point I would want to know what's the charge for middle sex what's the charge for middle sex doesn't have a >> no except both of us can't both of those can't get involved state directors and services there
>> for the charges to the state. Yes, we still we would still pay some. >> Okay. So the question is what will we pay because even with Norfick it's about 1.1 million if our charges to the state are going to be roughly the same at most point >> they would be
I guess I it would be good to put this on a future agenda to get information so we can have discussion. >> Um >> I heard um the word audit a couple minutes ago. Um, what what is our most
recently published audit and and when do we expect our next published audit to >> the question? >> I thought it was a good question. >> The year 2023 is our most recently published audit. >> Yeah. >> Uh, we have been working um diligently
to get uh our fiscal year 2024 complete. Um that's been complicated uh through different factors but primarily uh the our longstanding audit firm in the last two years has been acquired
once and then twice by now a large national one of the larger national firms. Um and we know that the delays that we are experiencing we are not alone. um they have acknowledged that uh they
are having some difficulty in meeting their obligations under completing that. Um but we are very close. >> What kind of consequences? >> Yeah. >> Might this have for us? >> Don't we have to file with Emma by March?
>> Yeah. >> So, and we haven't done that in the last couple years. >> No, no, no. So, so, so with Emma, there's a um intermediary filing that we've met. >> Um, the the primary concern uh is is uh
with our rating and our rating agency having our our finalized fiscal year 240. >> So, we're we've sent now draft financials Moody's which they've asked. Um Moody still wants our final audit and they want it in short order. We are not
the only community dealing with this delay. There are at least 10 or 20. Uh and so Moody's understanding of this they have still said get as much as you can when you get it otherwise but you basically on probation say
we can't make it. We can't we can't make a determination until such time. Um so we must also then be behind in terms of the most recent Moody's uh evaluation of our >> No because Moody's the the only formal
evaluation happens when we issue D. >> But it does raise the question of should we be rethinking elimination shutting. >> We're going to have absolute we're going to have an indepth post tomorrow morning. It's just boy,
>> I've got on some deep phone calls. >> Okay, that is the structural gap and I will turn it over to >> Oh, you had a question, Mike. Go ahead. Go ahead. >> What's happening in 28 that our revenue is growing negative?
>> It's flat, you know, it's flat. It's >> should be the same as the chart rather than the slideshow. So the pierce debt exclusion is causing the bump in 27. Um and then the um there's a lower estimated free cache as well.
>> That might be our estimated change. >> So if we if I were to go back, it's many slides. Just give me a second. >> We to go all the way back to the beginning here. >> Melon's explanation was actually >> right. Yeah. You'll see that the free cash number is well it's actually
>> this should be should be grabbing from here. >> Yeah, it is grabbing from there. >> Yeah. So it must just be the the data change. So um any other questions on structural gathering had a different question altogether. Uh
winding back to conversations few minutes ago. Uh the topic came up of our you know settlement funds you know for legal costs etc etc. Um, I'm not sure I've ever seen and I would definitely like to see some kind of a report um on
the trend in legal settlements uh paid for out of our budgets um and so that we can say if we see something you know um that's indicative uh gosh I mean uh looks like we took a real hit you know
last year um and can we expect to see similar hits, you know, in the years ahead or was that just extraordinary? Um, you know, is there any kind of data we can get on the eb and flow of costs of legal settlements u agreed to by the
town year by year by year by year by year. >> In the budget book, we have a history of the um liability fund and it shows the >> it's just the fund as a whole. But do we ever say, you know, that was for the settlement of these? >> Yeah, we can. >> Yeah. Yeah. I have seen that in going
way back, you know, in some past years annual reports and, you know, it's it's and it's good information. I mean, it tells you things that you appreciate knowing about. Yeah. Hey, hey, there were 47 last year. This is typical of
them and this is not typical of them and so on. Yeah. >> Okay. I think I'm turning it over to Jazz. All right. want to be mindful of the time. Um I want to know to continue this discussion next week and we will be continuing this discussion over coming
months. Uh this is where we current these are the highlights of where we are in terms of our plan to close the deficit in the coming year override or no over. We're going to level we recommend level funding. >> That generates roughly 100,000 lost savings on the town side and a little
bit more on the school side. As we did this past year, we would capitalize revenue funded CIP at 6% and 6.6%. That is the single largest grow of your revenue that in the entire proposal. Um on the town side, it's
around $800,000. School side two. Um with that said, you will see in the CIP how that comes. Um there are a lot of things that are competing for our limited dollars in terms of our capital expenditures and that's going to make
it's going to require us to make difficult choices there. With that said balance of things based on where we are that's probably the lever that we want to pull in terms of minimizing overall impact. Um, we will have to make tougher
choices on the CIP side of things, but it is not a swapic level choice that we'll be making. It's a matter of again letting it our needs. We're revisiting some of the override commitments from 23 from the 23. >> Um, this we will be looking at in the
event of a no override scenario if there was no accompanying. um short-term rental monitoring, climate capacity, roaming control, all things I believe actually short-term uh rental monitoring was in 2018. Can't remember. I can't
>> I'm sorry. 2018 or 2014 short-term rental monitoring. We added uh capacity in both the building and buyer departments to deal with um the increase in short-term rentals, Airbnb and so forth. If we paired that back um if we paired back um planning capacity, you
know, um if we you know, one of one of the areas if we if we are going to say that committing to you know searching out increased revenues in multiple areas then perhaps what we do is we cut economic development that is not something that I would recommend um it's
not something that I would want to do um I think we think we should be going in the opposite my recommendation to go in the opposite direction ourselves to a robust economic development um but in the event that we don't have the resources that is an area where we might
need to see cuts. Um, rodent control is the other aspect of this. Um, you know, we added positions in both health and um, uh, DPW to address the problem. Um, we've had some success there. Obviously, it's an ongoing and evolving struggle.
Um, but if we those are the most recent positions we added, so they would be the most recent positions we take out. chess. Um, and I'm I'm not suggesting we do this, but I I know there's been some discussion about this, but sustainability and natural resources. >> Yes. >> Right. Is the newest thing. >> That is the >> that is the newest thing. And I I'm
surprised not to see that as on the list as a potential consideration. >> So, we've been trying to preserve sustainability where right now sustainability is granted. Um, so that is a leap, but we won't see much benefit there because right now it's not on the function. What's so what's how much
grant funding is required for sustainability? >> So right now sustainability has been running on a $750,000 grant in the course of three years. Um so that then next year grant can expire. So there would you would be able to carry sustainability for one more year in FY27
and it will be FY28 um sunset date in the event that happens. So by FY27 we have the money to sustain sustainability um and then we would be looking at options to you know either either retain that capacity in some way reduce that
capacity or what have you uh but that's that's where we are on this would be in year three of our sustainable >> quick note there um because u you know as a person who really felt that we
should maximize our commitment to sustainability And in part because there was going to be such a blow of federal dollars. It was initiated under the Biden administration. Clearly that is threatened. But I feel feel that I have
seen evidence already that private sources are stepping up u and taking the place of what was the anticipated continued flow, you know, in that area. So I I I wouldn't, you know, give up um
uh sustainability as being something that can be supported through revenues that are from corporate grants, uh nonprofit grants, etc., etc., etc. >> No, I I agree with you and I think actually I this is a testament to the
sustainability team and to to Alexandra, to Aaron, but also, you know, to Cara and the whole team of planning and and everyone else who's been involved in this process. I think the sustainability division has been successful pretty. I think we have really seen already the positive impact of winning grants public
and private focusing our energies on how to be strategic about this. And now we're starting to see though that translating into action. We're going to see over the next couple years for example conversations about solar power which is going to have not just sustainability impact, environmental
impact but fiscal impact on our community. Um, and that's going to have positive impacts down the line. Um, so I think I I think sustainability is an incredibly worthwhile investment, particularly well integrated into an operation department like it is now. I
think, you know, the the numbers are going to tell the story. Um, so I really do want to, you know, put a plan sustain sustainability >> and we've got a really strong person. >> We do. We're very lucky to have Alexander. I have a whole team. >> Yeah. So, >> yeah. But I think I just want to make
sure when you frame this that it's that you know, rodent control, these other things that are really important to the community in which they which they approved for an operating group. >> Yes. >> Right. You're cutting those saying those are the newest things. They're not the newest things. >> That's right. >> And and I and I and the sustainability
and natural resources in fairness, I can put everything on the table. Yeah. Was not approved by >> That's right. >> Right. So, we just have to be we it's really important that we just be honest. Yeah. and straightforward and clear when we're talking about this stuff because um because we're gonna be called on when
we're not after. >> Yeah. And I think that's fair. I think the answer there too is that it's they're the newest things on the operating sustainability has to race to not have to not rest in the right. So I I guess that raises raises the
question. Uh if if we were to propose a three-year overall and the grant funding is running out for sustainability, would we plan in that override to include the funding for sustainability after the sh?
>> Yes. So here and then we'll talk about reductions to services um position reductions even in an override scenario we're talking about um positions either that are currently vacant um or um that could potentially be moved onto
nonoperating sources of revenue. Um making those moves um for example putting a recreation position onto the revolving fund putting a health position onto the opioid stabilization fund. um to get some relief in the operating
budget um where where and other positions and conditions um went vacant uh to eliminating those positions. But we're already at 18 plus we're already 18 in the current version of this and I'm up to 20 in in an updated version that I'm still working on um in a
potentially low override scenario. Um as Melissa said, we have this new position review committee. We're doing that vacancy analysis. We're not if if in the event that there is a position that is identified for congressional reduction. Um so a lot is then kind of riding
operationally at all the the decision wherever possible. We want to avoid layoffs, right? We don't want to lay people off who positions move them to other sources if we can in an appropriate way sustainable. I don't want to just it's not I don't want to treat this as a shell table. So for
example, opioid stabilization is a relatively longterm source of funds on health record. It impacts operations in some ways, but it is sustainable. Um so it's not like we are on time money and invest um
>> go ahead. Um the in the position reductions how many of those >> three >> in each case? >> Yeah. >> In the 18 plus >> and in the four case >> do you want to take this opportunity to
comment on the use of survey work to >> Yeah. try to uh align whatever choices we make with uh the community at large and their views on these things. So we take all data from what it's worth. Um
so I will say that over the last couple years we have done a number analyses. We've gone out to people in different contexts and ask them about different questions in different formats. The national community survey I think is kind of the gold standard there. That's from last year. So we have relatively
recent statistically significant data on that front. We know there's been community concern about the poll that was taken more recently in flash bowl. Absolutely. As Paul pointed out at the last meeting, there are lessons that we are learning there and that we need to be mindful of respect for reflection of
the community for there. I am anticipating that we will be getting weighted results from that data later this week. uh which I think will be again you know we take it for what it's worth but I think it be more enlightening in terms of um you know how
how that how the reflects the makeup of the community uh and then from there you know we can make those adjustments accordingly I will say there is a trend community wishes people care about safety uh people care about senior
services people care about what works uh and you know broadly those are the big categories that we often hear people emphasize that they do want those services preserved even in an override scenario. So that's where we are
focusing on. Um I will say to point though that David made a little while back, this is FY27 to talk about FY28. You know, fire in a no override scenario when fire contract comes on the line. Yeah, we may be talking about layoffs that even impact public session. Um and
so there wherever possible we are prioritizing. community has asked us to prioritize but there may be specifically that's I just want to make my own comment switches because I I do know that there was a you know there's a bit of a you know why are we doing this why
haven't found community members been informed etc I think that a lot of people who saw the end result uh welcomed that the initiative they might fibble with really I don't that doesn't match with what I
think people value you know that kind of But to me the answer isn't to simply for doing any surveying. you know, okay, so so how do we do the next survey? You know, how do we make sure that any flaws that people
perceived in in this measure and then does the next survey confirm pretty much what we got out of the first survey? And the other thing that I know from personal experience um in in our household that people who don't normally engage with town government found
extremely interesting was all of the individual comments. Yeah. I mean, when was the last time that we saw from the community over 300 individual comments >> on things that people like, don't like, wish was different, you know, in the community and the more we do of that,
the better as far as I'm concerned. >> Yeah. I think this is an inner process. >> Results of the comprehensive plan. >> Chess. So, I just want to make sure just on expectations about waiting. >> Yeah. There were no questions that would allow some sort of representative simp,
right? I mean, the only thing that was asked was your name and your address >> in the in the poll. So, how would they be able to wait >> when you signed up? They took demographic data when you signed up. >> No, they didn't. >> They didn't. >> Nope, they didn't. Did you take it? I took it. They didn't. They didn't ask
any any demographic information >> a little bit. >> Oh, maybe you're a homeowner or a renter. >> There's that. There's also your address, so they can sort of get where you are geographically. I think there might have been something on age that part I don't I think that's just before you get too far and
again understand as we said I want to take this forward so I'm waiting for the waiting is only as good as the metrics we have >> but I'm with John we shouldn't be tossing discarding it >> absolutely it's valuable information and I want to commend you on the relationship that is built has been
built I hope it will continue with the Kennedy school and the students Kennedy school extremely useful resource for that and for Tiffany as well that was a great opportunity for us and I really enjoy the students are great
they're very >> all right let's keep going here so we can you can have lunch uh obviously this is the big you know we have previewed this slide several times um and it's been forever this is the first time it's come to you um this is this tracks with
the 2020 23 override process and uh in that we made an initial potential controvers override presentation. Um if there were an override place on the panel, what would it go to? Um
if it's all right with you, what I'd like to do is start at the top and go down. I will say that you can see this top number here doesn't line up with what was earlier in your um in your packet. That number's gone up a little bit. um you'll see it it doesn't impact this number for reasons we'll talk about on
the next step. Um so continuity of service is the single largest aspect of this maintaining services. Um in order to make that up you will see on the next slide how we do that there is combination of um reductions
uh revenue increases and then a potential oil. So, of that amount that we're looking at of almost 3 million methods, we would be seeing just under half of that in a potential operating room um 1.35 million. The fire contract
um the cost of the new contract meeting in FY28 is $910,000. This is the tail. Um, so in order to pay for that tail going into the FY28, we need an additional $910,000 operating measurement.
Overtime, we had this conversation. We talked about minimum staffing. We want to maintain our current levels of staffing and not have to deal with reductions in service like 9, losing a company. >> We estimate that it will cost based on the prior year's uh request to the
reserve fund about $800,000. Um, so between those two line items, you're looking at around $1.7 million for the fire department. That is the single largest departmental increase uh in any potential override.
Sustainability and other DPW is again what I talked about stability is 325,000. um an increase in uh operations for uh for tree protection on the long term is
$250,000. Uh and that pretty much we're talking about here and the position. So that gets you 65. Um those are the three initiatives that um will be covered under uh the operating
restoring six police officers, $600,000. Um adding money to the collective bargaining. This is something that is relative a re relatively recent addition. It was a question that was raised in the 2023 override. Why isn't there money going into the collective bargaining reserve? Why aren't you
budgeting ahead of time for this? And the answer we gave at that point was well when you increase the collective bargaining reserve all the unions look at that number and say well that's um and it's difficult to then kind of but the reality of the situation is we are dealing with an environment in which
contract increases are effectively fixed costs. um we will see costs beyond the cost of living adjustment um just as a natural consequence of some of these negotiations. And so having money in the collective bargaining reserve to potentially cover for that and building
that into the operating budget now so that we have that installation of those rise is going to be important and recognizing that is fortunate well not unfortunately I would say in terms of the benefit to our employees it's fortunate recognizing that it's a fact
of life is going to be critical for so putting some money in the collective bargaining reserve on an ongoing basis so that we have some funds as we continue to renegotiate because all of our contracts uh the contracts that we currently have at the beginnings
uh so having some of that money there the senior center transportation $35,000 um that accounts for potential costs cost inflations and so forth um we're confident um with the Council on Aging
that that's the right number in terms of uh moving that appropriate for filtered basis and then operating adjustments for the police department. Um there are system their system laram more needs to be upgraded. Um the other big thing is that with the increase in uh salary of
the police department of the unions um in terms of wages and so forth the gap between the command staff who are people who are not in the unions the deputy superintendent superintendent um is now very low is is is very
minimal. So there's not a lot of of wage differential between lieutenants and the deputy superintendent and the superintendent. You factor in the fact when you factor in the opportunities that people in the union have, lieutenants have, and so forth for alternative sources of funds that the deputy superintendent and the uh
superintendent don't have. Um it's a disincentive for people to want to see promotion in bubble. Um, you know, we're very lucky um that we have, uh, Ted Hatchet's uh, going to be our uh, if you when you have that 416 great candidate.
We're very excited for her, very excited for deputy superintendent Campbell to superintendent position. Um, but there's not a lot of interest. Um, and so in order to get the next generation of people, we need to increase those. Um,
and so that's where we are on police department front. Um, and that subtotal gets you to 500 5.3 million, which adjusted for inflation is the same amount the town saw in 2023. It's actually
these items down here are things that are on the bottle, things that other departments have requested um that we would we would suggest for your consideration. Again, roadway repair and maintenance, BPW would love $2.8 $8 million to continue, you know, that's
what it will cost to get up into that level where we're actually improving the roads rather than just maintaining. Um, I do think that number is going to change and and and move depending on how the pavement protection program goes into effect. We have some time to look
at that. And so I think it's I don't necessarily think putting more money into the budget for roadways now before we start to see the impact of the change that we've made to our policies is necessarily where we want to go. That said, people like you put money in
roads. So there's that question. Is that is that worth having a conversation or do we want to or do we want to wait and see what the pract practical impact of the increased amount of work we're already doing have is going to be um digitization IT infrastructure almost
every department asked for more money for this over course itself um the building clerk's office it um people want their systems to be better accessible and worldwide and they believe it will make them more responsive and save
Um, and so the question of whether we're going to do that and sort of wipe again is one that I think is worth to consider. Modernizing parking meter operations. I've left this on here and I but I want to talk a little bit about um revenue in terms of how to get there. I think we can get there ideally through
raising um parking funds. And so I don't necessarily want to add this to an operating. I would rather see that come out of money that is intended to use to fund that program. Paying the class at DPW um the roughly 10% if we were to
implement the changes of the paying class study that DPW conducted uh for its employees it would roughly increase overall salaries uh for the unionized members of that team. Um and then there are not impacts across the board. What
we are going to try and do is phase that in um over time to limit the shock to the budget and to be able to build on that year-over-year focusing on the critical decisions first. If we wanted to speed that up, you could. Um but then
it's a question of how much and what do you prioritize. Um and then the last thing in our office, we have a budget analyst positioned by ARPA. I know one of the BAC recommendations is having a long-term budget analyst in our office. I would also make that person
responsible for grant coordination. To John's point, even though there are fewer grants available, there are not zero. And I think having centralized grant administration is something that we would benefit from. >> So that is a potential thing out there. But as far as things go, that's inside
baseball. Um I don't necessarily know if you go out to the voters if they understand or want you to talk about Senator Wallace position. So that is what it is. That's where we are now. Um I want to emphasize that this is a draft. Um this
is the first time you are seeing this up board. This is what we are bringing to you for your feedback. We want your feedback and your suggestions for things that should come on this list. office list, whether you think the general number is right, whether you think there
are things that we should be considering elsewhere. Um, and I know as Paul said at the outset of this, it's very hard to do that without being in conversation with the schools. Um, but I still want you to have our initial thinking on this so that we can get your feedback as a
board and have an understanding of how to refine this as we continue these next elements towards final number hopefully by January. So, um the uh six uh police officers um can we show specific benefits of
bringing them back >> because I think people sort of gotten used to those positions being open. They have the department has >> um of course >> last last year we had to go to the reserve fund for the first time for overtime. Part of that is because
>> and I was awful, you know, we and the chief has had to reduce overnight staffing. We've gone to summer staffing. I mean, the summer it's, you know, Dare Bones in terms of overnight officers on duty. Uh the chief would really like to have more people on the street in the summer. Right now,
they can't do. So, we're lucky. Again, this is this it's it's reflective of the broader things that we've done and what the ends mean, right? be if we do it right, public doesn't see it. Public says, "Well, we don't need it, do we?" Um, but I think if you talk to the chief, we do get
>> Okay, that needs to be clearly explained. >> And uh, thanks, Bernard. And the way a lot of this has to do with how we would structure it, >> right? So, Stonem had two questions, right? They had a $9 million question. Yeah. >> And they had a 12 or 13 million.
>> Yes. >> And I assume their 9 million version was what was in yellow. Y >> and their 13 million was what was in yellow and pink and red, right? So I think that's why it's so important to understand the schools because they may have a Senate chart that says this is,
you know, continuity of service for the schools and this is what we'd like to do to expand and restore something that maybe was taken away in the past. >> Yeah, >> you got a chance. >> Taking notes. Uh, and uh, you know, here's one of these questions that I just think comes
up every time there's an override. Um, and it's hard, I think, for the public to grasp. It's hard for me to grasp. Um, if if there there is an approval of an override, you know, given the amounts that you've laid out here, um, what does that mean? Does it mean that uh, we've
got those all of those needs funded for one year, two years, three years? Um if it means three years uh then what about the fourth year um etc. So what what exactly do these numbers mean?
>> This is structured for three years. Um and again what we talked about at the beginning is the big difference here is that because some of these costs don't come online until later in that cycle we are building out a reserve override reserve fund >> so that we can credibly say to public in
the event that there are costs we your services are not going to sell out the money and so on um at least for that week and then we'll be able to assess where we are if Charlie's political inction local pension. We'll be having
an influction of local debt. We're going to hit peak debt with all of our projects in 28. After that, slowly the amount of burden on taxpayers or excluded debt will start
to decrease. >> Now, that means we're in for a rough few years because, you know, excluded debt and think about it this 20 23 operating override alone
increased people's taxes by roughly 12% town schools a little less than% um I think and I'll double check that uh roughly in that area the pier school increasing people's tax by 6% um the debt debt expert
>> um and so when people see an operating over in isolation um having become so used to them being coupled with debt exclusions, right? They may think, "Oh man, that impact has been huge to us." When what they are actually experiencing is the combined
weight of several debt exclusions over the past half a million dollars in count last 15 years. >> Um that's that the taxpayers have agreed to. engage >> in terms of how the ballot questions are
presented. So Paul outlined sort of having your yellow category as one and then yellow plus the two different shades of pink is another >> potentially a way that I I would consider looking at it though is by theme. Y >> I think that would be the most
transparent. It's always bothered me a little bit how sometimes ballot questions bundle a lot of uh different programming together. that's actually not at all related to one another. And then you don't really know well did something cross the finish line because
something more popular was part of that package or did something sink because something very unpopular was part of that package. I think we saw that when Baldwin and Driscoll were bundled together. So I personally would lean more toward the category of doing it by
theme. So there could be a public safety one, there could be a DPW one, a schools related one. There are a couple others here that don't neatly fit into any into any of those categories. I'm not sure exactly what I would do with those because also we want to be mindful to not have 10 ballot questions.
>> That's that's we refer to that as cafeteria, >> right? >> Um you have what Paul's referring to is called pyramid and that's a cafeteria and I will say there are benefits and robs. The another reason I'm attracted to the cafeteria style override is we
were just talking moments ago about surveys and understanding what the community really values. That's really the best way to see what the community values are. They're going to the voters in a very direct sense category by category. Yeah. I think one potential drawback there is to some of these
things are hard to categorize and some of these things are you know the the reason why sometimes a lot of things are together is because on their own it's not particularly attractive. But it is um for example a lot of us services you know increasing
salaries increase in healthare about question there you want to pay more in the abstract for you know our healthare I think people kind of look at that and say um it's and so bundling things together
gives you the sense of you have to take the good with the bad um and so there's there's of course a con Um, first of all, thanks to the entire T doing this work. It's it's awesome. Um,
there's a there's a there's a another column of information that I'm thinking about just in terms of messaging for some of the items. Um and that is for lack of a better term uh return on investment over the over the three years
or maybe over five years or something because some of these requests within my understanding some of these requests or some other potential requests from May are specifically in order to generate future revenues or generate revenues in
that time frame. So for example, if we are able to beef up our enforcement capacity and that enforcement capacity brings in more revenue than the cost of the enforcement capacity or we expect it to then that's a that's a story that we
should we should try to tell with some of these items that are that are tougher tougher to explore. >> Yeah. One of the hard things I find there is always overpromising um or not being or and sometimes the causation and correlation between the two. Um it's for
example I think it is incredibly important to sustain our economic development capacity. What what dollar value do I attach to that? I suppose um you know I mean there are historical values that like they've worked on this and then that's already so we can we can
develop but even if even if the story is not numeric but is narrative um to be able to maintain that still is is going to be really important. >> I want to be mindful of your lunch time. We'll give maybe take a few more
questions then we'll speak on the last >> I just had one quick comment if um two uh so the the messaging or the answer about how long is this money good for in the three years Um, we're going to have
to deal with world language having been approved by the voters and then taken away. We're going to based on your proposal, uh, rat enforcement, which probably is one of the number one on the list. >> So, I say in this propos override scenario, rat enforcement doesn't go.
>> Okay. >> Part of the continuity, sorry. >> Part of the continuity. Okay. I just I think it's really important to be clear about what what people are getting because there's there's a growing distrust. >> Yes. that's taking place with the voters that we're not >> sticking to our commitments and that's a
problem. >> Okay, John. Uh I I realize this decision as as I understand you has not been made yet, but I would advise um that we be very careful about creating a bundled
question. And people in Brooklyn who were around for the initial attempt at a Driscoll bundled with Baker um school question, excuse me. Thank you for um Baker's next.
>> Yeah. uh I think we'll recognize um put putting things in a bundle might be clever in in that you're saying to the voter, hey, if you really like that stuff in B, you can have it, but only if
you approve A and B because there's no option for approving B but not A and B. Um and uh that what happens in that instance is you you know you maybe pick up some votes for A uh from people who
really really really want B but you may lose votes from people who say this is this is manipulation. This is cynical. I was given two choices but not the choice I wanted. you know there will be people who will want to favor an infrastructure
uh you know amount but not necessarily operational amounts um so I'm not saying that that decision has been made but I think it needs to be made very very carefully let's speed through the last couple slides this is how we cover that continuity of
service that's the actual gap there these we would propose this amount in cuts we would realize about $350,000 in initial revenue additional revenue and then that dollar amount from the override you see there a little under half the total there. Um that leaves us
with almost $200,000 that would go into that override stabilization fund. Between that and the $910,000 of year one that would go into from the fire and the $400,000 in collected bargaining. And that leaves you with a very healthy override stabilization number that can
be used for a variety of purposes um to cover these three years and potentially beyond. It will impact the course of what a future override would look like three years out to see how well we did. We managed that money, how well we manage the community's expectations in
terms of services we provided. And that would then provide the basis of if we needed to go back out again, here's how we do. Um that's that revenue opportunities very quickly. Um you can see where the line share of it is and the parking
violations. The four if we raise the four uh biggest uh ticket u uh causes by $10. Um we would generate approximately we were estimated initially to generating
approximately $900,000 initial funding. um assume that you would see 90% of that because enforce because compliance would go up. Um people would stop being willing to pay a $40 ticket for before they would pay a $30 ticket. U what what
would it look like? I'm sorry. What would it look like if we actually because we're not enforcing there's where people are flaunting the overnight parking regulations. Um there's people overstaying their stays on meters regularly. the two limits being we've
got people breaking traffic laws, sitting at parking lanes, double parking on Beacon Street. None of these people are ticketed on a regular basis. >> So we do we do you know I I know I know there's it's the perception is very similar to the perception on rats if you see one it's you know and you and you get you get a sense of there being a
pervasive problem. We do enforce because we see significant revenue influence um we are issuing tickets and the tickets are getting paid. Um there is this question of >> the six positions would help you enforce. >> Yeah. Yeah. Six positions right now. >> That's true. Um but you know so yes we
you know increased enforcement would see an increase in revenue but it's that's hard to project. Um, and it's also, you know, I I don't I don't necessarily think it would be you you're not going to see a one for one turn uh at a certain you're going to see diminishing
returns in terms of enforcement increases as opposed to I mean you'll see diminishing returns here too because you but it's on a different state. >> I'm just I just I want to I want to encourage us you
>> Yeah. >> communicating with the police chief. >> Yeah. to start enforcing our traffic laws, to start enforcing parking more. I see parking people I I understand the level of enforcement, but I also uh as much as anybody else, I am up and down
the streets all the time because I'm taking kids everywhere. Um we do not enforce our traffic laws. I I very rarely see blue lights behind vehicle. I almost never see blue lights behind a vehicle parked in a parking in a bike
ramp. I never see blue lights behind a vehicle blocking Beacon Street uh at the travel lane because someone's Uber Eats is running in to get stuff or someone else has decided to go to H. It's just not happening. So there's we are leaving significant
uh uh revenue on the table because we're not enforcing to the extent that we should be and two we're making our our streets in by not enforcing law. So, I think there's a lot more moment for John, >> and I I get where Paul's coming from, but I I do want to say I think what he
has raised is a question for the board as a whole to discuss um in terms of, you know, police department operational policies and so on. It's it's uh I feel a frustration, but I'm not sure there's a clear answer um until we've had a
thorough discussion with the chief and looked at all sides of this question of what happens when you start doing rigid, you know, law enforcement because we've we've been there. >> We know what can happen. >> Um I just first of all, I agree with
you. Um, I mean, the number of times I've written down a bike lane and the bike lane is blocked by a truck or a van or happens a lot. Um, and it slows down traffic and it it's a
quality of life issue in the town. Um, this is part of the narrative on return on investment. So, like when I was thinking about such officers, I was thinking about like are they just going to do more enforcement? Uh, what are they going to do? Are they going to just
relieve our overtime budget? Are they going to increase that enforcement? You know, those are those are really important. >> I was going to say to uh John's point about police department enforcement. I actually think this issue goes beyond just police department enforcement. We
have other departments who have the ability to issue fines. And I I've had some discussions about this with you and others in private and they're they're just not really enforcing the fines. And I think that's problematic for two reasons. one is leaving revenue on the table and two it sends the message that
you can ignore our bylaws and our street laws doesn't matter. So I I do think that's a discussion we need to have that's more broad and across departments. >> We we we had a period of time when we select police department told not to
enforce laws. So we're recovering from that. >> Well that's not this. >> Pardon me. >> That's not that right. >> Not this select >> right. Okay. But it hasn't been revised >> for your time. >> I mean, I think we need to actually revisit it and have a broader
discussion. >> Let me move forward here. That's okay. Uh, go ahead. >> Yeah, let's let's keep going. >> Yeah. Um, these are where the cuts are coming from. Um, I'm not specific positions here, but um, a lot of those
numbers are in personnel. Um, we're reducing some um, um, areas there. I said zero. I'm sorry. I will I will there is one position >> and to be clear these are cuts that will get the ask down
>> to to the level of the ask. >> Yes. Yes. >> On that slide two slides ago I said find services this much that bottom line was the cut to get to there is one position planning. >> So could you talk louder? >> Yeah I'm sorry. There's one position >> I'm as bad as John.
>> Yeah. Um it's so you can see where those those initial cuts would be coming from but again as I talked about single largest one there is CIP reduction from 6.6% 6% to 6% trying to move forward.
>> Yep. >> This is the new over scenario. The numbers much there are more things. So as you can see the numbers are much smaller. I apologize small numbers but you can see um
>> it's personality. It's personnel. Um, and I would say the other part part of this is that I would likely pair this with your permission with warrant articles to potentially repeal services that we can't afford to do. You know, the
are we going to be able to do the level of, you know, tree protection? Are we able to do some of the things that we want to do in RA and elsewhere? Probably not. Um, enabling force of Dark Skies by law, probably not. um you know so you will need to go to town meeting and
where everybody's laws are on the books we might ask them to come off the books um but again that's your decision that's your point that's your variety of and as you can see that that kind of only gets us to around 2.5 million um when you factor in revenues and so forth
and get a little higher 2.8 eight nine. So, we're right around where we need to be, but as I said, they're still looking at the last couple of cuts close the gap that went right now. That is just where we would need to look very hard to
environment. >> What um I mentioned the plan the police department since opened positions. Yeah, >> I believe planning has five open positions right now. >> Yes. >> And
are are those positions part of the cuts or are they to be eliged? >> Three of the three of the positions are potentially being >> position. Yes. I would also say that Manning is in jeopardy because of CDBG,
right? There are positions that are funded by CDBG that are checked. So there's that issue too. Let me just say that uh we missed our lunch. >> Yes. >> Work straight through it. It worked straight through lunch. >> So
it was great that >> we train 15 minutes. >> 15 minutes. >> Well, it'll be very tough to get our afternoon schedule in if we start 15 minutes. We were kind of hoping to start you at the tail end of your lunch. >> So we're willing to stay beyond 2:30.
>> Paul can't. He's got You have a hard stop at 2:30 usually. >> Not today. >> Not today. Okay. So, would you go into >> Okay, let's not go too far. >> But the one hard stop I have will be 3:30 because the Lars Anderson meeting is four o'clock at town hall. >> We also have to check with Abby and make
sure Abby can go longer than 2:30. Uh, okay. All right. Good. So, let's um >> So, so why don't we take our um our lunch and and eat while we start the discussion? >> Well, could I suggest just a 15 minute >> 15 minute?
I agree. Since we're going past 2:30, we can >> profile as well as some lunch >> recess. The word is in recess. So you better figure Okay. Let's see what
Jack. um is really important part of like this is going to be your document and the the implementation of it relies on the fact that it reflects your priorities and that you are bought in and you want to things happen. So the transition there of getting a lot of detailed feedback is
trying to take all the synthesis from things I heard from you in vertical form and try to get it in writing and give you something to really in detail react to. Um today what I'm hoping we can do so I took a look at all of your feedback. We have different feedback of course um
tried to synthesize it the best I could and I'm hoping that we can look through the guiding values and the goals. like a one-s sentence fake goal statement together and get agreement on it. I wanna I want to know if there are big concerns, any flags with critical things
missing. I don't want us to spend a ton of time smithing. What will happen after this meeting is I will send you this draft in document form and you can we can do track changes edits as much as we want but for today I want to know like what like on the face of it is this
reflecting the general sentiment are there key gaps or key things that are included that maybe should come out um and I really want to make sure we have time to talk about implementation so I'm hoping to have at least 15 minutes at the end of the meeting to really outline what are the details you all want to see
in the implementation ation um path forward and I know some of you I'll just tell some of you in your feedback really specific awesome feedback on the implementation details like you know talking about the key performance indicators or roles and like I have captured that we're not going to be
talking about that today that's going to be an implementation discussion >> um >> just to clarify >> um when you say implementation do you mean the creation of the roadmap itself or do you mean the implementation of the tasks of erosion.
>> Yeah, >> perfect question. Um, I usually think of information as two things. One is the details of what needs to be in the in the road map to enable it to happen. So, you might want to know the timeline. You might want to know like the cost of it. You might want to know who you might
want to know how to measure. Those are the details I'm hoping we can talk through today is like what are those categories that you got to include in and then I think of like the process part of implementation which is more how often do you check in on the road map how often updating the road map and that
I think we can have at the next discussion in March okay and so then what will come after today is we'll do refinement on the specific language we will flesh out the implementation details um exactly who
and how I want us to discuss what it should look like. Um we will meet again in March where hopefully we'll have the refined text of the road map as well as implementation details for you all to take a look at. Uh and then the idea is that I would present this document at I
think the April select board meeting um for the wall to adopt and you would have a lot of chances for either of >> Okay. Um so today so this is now out of date. I'm going to aim to have everyone up by three if we go a little over I
think 3:30. Okay. Um so we'll talk about the guiding values and the goals. Um and then I'm hoping that we can talk through the strategies. To what detail I'm not yet sure. It's going
to depend a little bit on the findings. I think they added Oh yes. Okay. One of the challenges in today's meeting is time. Like you have a lot of strategies and a lot of categories. And so my goal is to try to get us to talk through each of the categories of strategies. Um
which means we're going to have to move a little bit quickly through them. And so I might even set a timer so I'm aware and you're aware of time we have. Um and then the other challenge I think is going to be like the altitude. Like again we're really not trying to get into the word smithing the details. We
have time for that. I'm trying to get a sense of do we have the right goals, the right values, are we headed in the right direction on the strategies that we can then move forward and flesh out. Okay. And as I said earlier, we're going to try to keep uh 15 minutes 20 minutes at the endation and I because I want to
leave this meeting uh with really clear direction of what we would be pushing in our >> and then very finally in this framing just a quick reminder in strategic planning type processes people use a lot of different terms. You can take your
pick for the sake of this effort. We've been using these three. So we have the goals um which are what we want what you want to achieve and those were taken from the priority areas that we had developed earlier. The strategies are how we're going to operationalize those things and then actions like a bit more
of shut how are you getting to some of those strategies. Um we have started to talk through actions. Some of you suggested a lot of actions. Um we're not going to spend too much time on them today because I want to make sure we have the right goals and strategies.
Okay. Is that okay? >> Time. >> Okay. So, for the guising values, I'm going to let me highlight some of the changes. I'm going to for the next slide, which is going to be the list of batting values. I'm going to attempt to
quickly summarize the changes that have been made since the last version of this based over the last two weeks. Um, and then again I'm hoping to know like any big red flags, any big missing pieces or generally in the right spot. Um, again
these are on the slide hand out if you leave a closer. Um, I would say that the first one has had a bunch of word changing from you all. Um refine is committed to being a welcoming welcoming accessible and open-minded community that is diverse race ethnicity of
income. Um one major change is there were three values if you recall that were taken from slightly different places that all referred to um community input and decision making I would say and so there were a number of suggestions from you to combine them. Uh and so the combined version is that
feedback from stakeholders and broader community must be heard and alongside science data expertise left to consider decision making. There's still the element around transparency and responsiveness making it a predictable fix to live that has
and maybe be tweaked but not much. Um a good governance and collaboration efficiency and outcomes I don't think that has changed much. And then this last one is a new addition proposed by someone. Um resources must be allocated responsibly balancing service quality
term fiscal sustainab >> please. Yeah. So let's open it up again thoughts. Yeah. >> Um I don't see where it is here but feedback or acceptance. >> Yeah. >> Stakeholders regarding deferred. I'd
like to add and accepted because one of the issues is you know we listen to people but we don't really accept what they're saying. Um >> when do you say accept it? I mean so there's a lot of ideas can't accept them all.
>> You can't accept them all but but you at least listen and try to understand and accept that that you can accept and maybe accept is not the right word. >> Yeah. Accepted but I reflect >> right. I think the word reflected
meaningfully heard but it can't be accepted because sometimes you have two groups who are opposing each other on an issue and you can't well sometimes you can't I mean I'm not always right. So if your position is different from mine maybe I
can learn from yours. I mean that's that's the concept I'm trying to get across. >> Learn from maybe. Okay. >> Okay. I think it's the word. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'm taking notes on on these options, but okay. Your point taken, I think. Were you going to add something?
>> Okay. >> Can we confirm the final one because that's the newest piece that you haven't. >> This is fiscal responsibility, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. It's always a garage hatch.
I >> mean there there's actually I mean there there's actually three values there, right? There's service quality, there's fiscal sustainability, and there's the value of batters, >> right? And >> all wrapped into one beautiful one
beautiful sentence. And I'm I'm just wondering where where that sentence and sentence number two about feedback and because because number two is really about decision making right that that mean
>> well number two is is really community engagement >> well I think it's about community engagement it's saying we we engage with you and Bernard's saying we listen to you right we consider your input we act on it >> but it's true that this second piece is
more about like inputs into decision Yeah. >> Right. Right. I mean that both of those things are there and and so when we talk about allocated respons responsibly that's like manifest
good decision making right so that's that's why I think the two of them is as >> so I so I I will so I will uh be transparent and I added that to the last one because I think we need we we need to say something
>> and have a goal around being uh careful with our resources and fiscally sustainable. That's what that's what it is. Now, can you squeeze it into the second bullet? Maybe. Um but I I think it needs to just be specifically called way word it any way you want, but I this
is we need to make sure that we're grounded in fiscal sustainability. So could I ask I mean Michael if you want to think about how like Paul you're saying this is important to include I think other >> I think but others I don't know >> open to it and Michael you're saying there's like maybe a shifting or a
reframing could I give that to you as like a takeaway >> sure I mean the the the thing that I >> I I can think about it more briefly science data expertise resource capacity or fiscal capacity you
know is the tag it right on On the end of that sentence, you can almost say considered in decision making to allocate to allocate resources responsibly balanced balance and service aggreg incorporate fiscal responsibility and sustainability into our goals and our values.
>> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. whistle. >> Um, >> I want to give you a second maybe to read the next slide and capture that. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a little bit just a little bit more time on this one? >> U, I find it useful um to take each of
these five bullet points and try to come up with one word that captures what is captured in each bullet point. And I'm sorry if this sounds like word smithing. I don't think it is. Good. Um the the word I'd use in the first one is is openness. Um okay, welcoming,
accessible. The word I'd use in the second one uh is responsive. Um you know, take in input. >> Um the word I'd use in the third one is a kind of a mystery to me and I don't think of predictability as being one of those things that people elevate as a
value. Um so I I have a question about that third one. Um collaboration. Um, that's a strong word. I'd use that for the fourth one. And then fiscal responsibility, I guess, is the fifth one. But, uh, and and I leave that to
others as to whether they think there's a better word for that. Uh, I just think that's helpful. And it has arrived, it has allowed me to sort of, uh, come to the conclusion that the third one doesn't is the weakest of the five. And I'm wondering if other people feel the
same way. >> How about predict? You don't like the word predictable >> or >> Well, I'm just not sure I would I would raise predictability as one of five essential guiding values. >> Well, so I I think predictable is important because for people to come and invest in our community, you're a
business. Can you count on, you know, stable services, a stable tax base, um I think that's important. If you're going to come buy a home in Brooklyn and you're going to invest in the school because because you want to be in the school system, is it predictable that the school system is going to remain a
high quality? Are they going to continue to pick up the trash or my taxes going to go up 20% in a year like in Connecticut? >> I think it's predictability. >> Any other like response? >> Yeah. >> Um I mean I think that the predictable and
stable is very important. I think the I think what makes that weak is is is the first clause tying it to the second. I mean predictable and making Brookline a predictable and stable place to live
is a value. Being transparent and responsive is a is potentially a different a different value or a means to an end. And and furthermore, I think was kind of covered in two. >> I was just going to say I wonder if maybe transparency could go in like good
governance sentence. I think. Um and then the responsiveness building up responsiveness. >> Okay. All right. Um >> these are very dense. >> Yeah, I like the I like the cashier
opening sentence chart opening. Um okay, let's keep moving because I'll just remind you those you had actually already developed then we've added some things too. So they might have a little bit of the like multi >> camel or whatever. >> You're saying in the ballpark is what
you're saying. That's what >> Yeah. Um and then the what's coming is newer. So you're going to have more to say on it. >> Um okay. So again very similar for the goals. I'm going to try to highlight the changes um as best I can and then again
like wanting to confirm that we're in the right sentiment. I will I think a lot of the meat of these are in the strategies which were suggest gets sprayed from the goal language. Um and then to know what's not in here. So I did not include the framing language
which you all had a lot of edits to. Some people offered like full rewrites which is great. Um that is captured in the written version of this and again you can have which is in the packet. Um and I'll send that out to everybody following this meeting. So if you want
to get more into the words in the framing like totally feel free but for the purposes of today I was hoping we could not do that. Okay. All right. So there are seven goals. Um
the first one is still around the core services. Um so deliver core services to residents wisely efficiently within a limited resources. Um, I will say this one we made from your comments less
about high quality because there are many types of things you might want to emphasize like efficiency or speed. Um, and change the word critical to poor. I think the because the comment is like how are we defining critical really uh which you could say the same about core
just to note. Um, and then I'll just quickly add that in the framing many of you highlighted that like public education and public safety were not included as like in the long sentence of types of services. So that's in there. The second goal here is um more internal
and strength and alignment efficiency government. Um this is a rewrite but pretty much the same thing. Um there's a lot happening in this in the strategies around this goal. Just a
reminder. Goal three, nothing has changed in the phrasing. There was a rewrite framing. >> Um same with goal four, which is in communication to an engagement with residents as I said language.
>> Five, expand and preserve affordable and middle income housing. this has changed slightly. And then goal six, maintain and improve infrastructure quality. That's the same. And then seven, improve the town's ability to mitigate climate change and
increase resilience capacitance to climate change. Um that might have had some tweaking from Yeah. So my question for you again is like are these hitting the mark? Are they capturing the big gist of the highest
level goals you have? um anything that's missing that you would want to to go take. >> So on number five, expand reserve affordable and middle income. Um
I am I am I am concerned that that goal does not uh adequately represent the breadth of reasonably priced housing across many different dimensions um that we might
that we we might want to we want to create over time because we I I'll I'll be blunt and say, you know, I think I believe that our overall supply of housing is insufficient, you know, of of
whatever, you know, whatever price point it comes in. Um, and so the thing that I'm I'm worried about is if we sort of set a goal that that only deals with specific tiers of housing from an income
perspective that the larger picture of our housing goal might get opposite. >> So you have to say something more along the lines of um like expand reserve all housing options. But before
but before we get before we go to that point, I don't know that I that the consensus among the five of us >> I don't think we need any more $20 million homes, Michael. Uh I just don't think we need So you know I think that
where we're seeing the most pressure, we're losing the middle. We know that. >> We know that >> we're losing the middle rapidly in Brooklyn. Um, we're building 10, 20, $30 million homes in Brooklyn, chopping down all the the the trees around them. Um,
I'm I so I'm fine with limiting. I don't think we should say we should build any housing. I think we should be focused um and and and the housing goal and not say all housing is equal. All housing is not equal. And we're not saying to the exclusion of
you know high price housing the goal of of the town fully affordable and middle inome housing. That's what we should point as it as that's our authority. >> Yeah. John and then David. Well, you
know, I think I think Michael raises an interesting point and it it gets to in my mind the connection between housing that is developed that and you know in some cases so stresses it is luxury housing, but we use that as kind
of a bargaining point for us to bargain some benefits in terms of support for middle income and low-income housing. and it's been very effective and um you know I'll cite the example of the the Newberry development where the Fisher
Hill development um and you know you don't get much more luxury level of housing than that complex and we put a lot of work into it and it was to the overall I'm convinced it was to the overall good of the community in so far
as it had spin-off effects um and um benefited our pursuit of some additional units at the current employee departments. Um so I'm not sure you can only mention um affordable and middle- inome housing. I would I would regret
anybody in the future if another one of those types of opportunities came along saying to the psychore, "Yeah, but you know that's inconsistent what you say your values and your goals are, but so let's not do it." So >> there's a middle option you're on that's
like something of maintain improve preserve like all housing with a special attention to >> let's get David in the mix. >> Yeah. Yeah. So I would agree with the middle approach because I appreciate Michael's point and then another element of that is from a demand on town
services perspective your $30 million homeowner is actually providing a lot of benefits to him. Let's build more build more of those. >> Well, that's not quite what I say. So, that does pay that that they pay a lot of taxes and
>> they also pick up a lot of land. >> True. But they're not demanding as much in the way of town services typically. And to the to the earlier point about how sometimes the reality is that if you don't have that luxury component to a mixeduse development, for instance,
you're not going to get the increase in affordable housing. Then there's also the if you have new housing that's at the high end, >> sort of the existing stuff will presumably go down in price at an
aggregate level. So there are some beneficial impacts even to having increased high-end housing. >> We've been listening to some state statewide propaganda too much. >> That being said though, as Bernard pointed out, it's the way this language is currently constructed, it's not
saying to the exclusion well of luxury and high-end housing. And to the extent that in order to expand and preserve affordable middle income, you need to have a luxury component, that's still competent. So let's let's move forward with like a middle option like I was
proposing and then give you guys a chance to weigh in on that to me. But I >> before we change it, Bernard said earlier that that because you have that doesn't mean you can't still do luxury. So John's example is still well within within that goal
because it's a means to achieving that goal >> except I think John correctly points out that some members of the community might be very liberalist in reading our goals and say so we have this proposal for 80% highend housing that doesn't meet
our goal. What are we doing? We should reject this even if it would actually be beneficial to Tim. So I do see John's point about where further works with Nick would be potentially useful here or a footnote or something so that we're not creating a situation as John just
stated where we are under pressure to reject a proposal that would otherwise be beneficial because it doesn't meet the literalist interpretation of the goal as it's >> wanting the library housing as a tool to something else. >> Right. >> Okay. But I want to keep going on our
like gut check here. >> Can I add one thing? I mean this is sort of a goal that also includes the issue of diverse um pool of residents and I don't see that anywhere >> um that is a that we have as a strategy
right now within let me tell you which >> there's always been a goal of the selectable panel to increase diversity racial as well >> can we let me make a note to come back to that because it is in here you want
to elevate it. That's anyone else. >> So, I guess I don't understand why that's a strategy and not >> and maybe it needs to move. Yeah, let me let's look at it in a full picture of it and then we can >> um
Yeah, I think it might be informing the funding session tonight. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, can we go into the strategist? Like it seems like this is generally passing the gut check. Um, and just to
>> but I I do want to go back because I think this this is an important point. Michael raised something and we gloss over it to about should Brookline's goal be to increase housing supply to the point where we can drop prices down. I think that's kind of where you where you
were coming at. >> That's you know that's an abundant housing statewide initiative which is bill build bill. We're going to somehow drop prices in Brooklyn and by having more inventory the the risk is that
Brooklyn's market is luxury. We could build five $10 million homes till the cows come home and they would all sit. Um, and that's what developers will build luxury. That's that's their preference. And it won't change pricing in Brookline one iota. It might help
Everett. It might help some other community, but it's not going to help. And I think that this we have to have this conversation because this is a fundamental difference between the build build build and those who want to be more intentional around housing outcomes. Um and I think that that
should be a fundamental discussion between the board try to figure it out because we're not all in agreement that we should just build build. I'm not sure that that's but that is kind of I'm being firm with my language but that's essentially what he's saying is that housing and all
print codes we need to increase inventory because that'll lower prices in public it will not lower prices >> I think this is like you all do have different perspectives on the way to achieve some of the the goals right and so right now we can see it once we get there but there's only one strategy
actually in your housing section >> and I think it's fine to have both Sorry. >> Probably needs more, >> right? Exactly. Yeah. There are a few of these that are especially the last >> three I would say are quite light in the strategies and I think there are a number of strategies you all could
advance towards some of these goals and maybe one is like we the current strategy is really more focused on low-inccome workforce middle housing and maybe there's another thing you want to add around the role of luxury hous to other housing. >> Well, but this I mean this is what the comprehensive plan is doing, right?
Right. The comprehensive plan is addressing this issue incorporating what's been done by the housing production plan. So, you know, the the the board's goal, one of the board's goals should consider somehow how do we incorporate this idea executing on
comprehensive plan which includes us >> and let's get David in. I was just going to say that I I don't think necessarily it's about bill build bill build verse affordability for all from my perspective uh regarding the not necessarily being against some uh 20
million $30 million homes is looking at it from the demand on town services and tax revenue perspective. >> Yes. >> Because if you build bill to the extreme including in areas that currently are more expansions you can't afford the increased demand on town services. So
that's another reason why Having housing across all price points is beneficial in terms of a predictable giftable tag. >> You predict or beneficial, but is that really a goal that we as a select force should have?
>> I mean, is it >> I mean that our need is affordable and middle inome housing. That's our need. We don't need although I'm not saying it's bad. Yeah. Uh other housing types you high income housing types. >> Yeah. Let's get
>> Okay. So, so I think my my position is a little more balanced than you described. >> I didn't mean to mischaracterize it. >> You know, for political effects sometimes it helps to to put things out in the extremes. So, I actually applaud
it. That's number one. Number two, getting back to Bernard's point about the makeup of our community, I mean, I think in terms of our in terms of our housing goals, um the the reason the
reason that that that we need housing at so many different price points and we also need the sort of cross fiscal polization that you talked about before is because the situation that we have right now um is not sustainable in terms
of a diverse and vibrant community. Right? That's that's what we that's what we've been talking about. So, it's possible that when we talk about our housing goal in in the broadest sense, what we're really talking about is we
need to have reasonably priced housing for the breadth of the community that we want to have in the right. And right now that community is primarily either people who are very
wealthy and can afford to buy homes, people who bought homes a long time ago and have benefited from the appreciation or people who are getting um some form of assistance, whether it's government or wealthy relatives or whatever. And as you say, that middle is isn't here. But
the goal in all of that is to have a housing supply that that's supports the diversity of our community. >> Okay. >> I want to Okay, last >> one question. Bernard, were you talking about economic diversity, racial
diversity, all forms of social diversity? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> And I and the one final thing I'd like to say, I know you want to move up, is that I think the most important thing that comes out of this is that we have to be intentional about what we want. We
can't it can't be left to market forces because if it's market forces, we're going to get luxury. That's what we're going to get and it's going to displace people. So I whether you reward the the goal or not, I don't know. But I think it just needs to be very intentional about what we want to have as an
opinion. >> Okay, let's move to strategies for this just really for the sake of time. Um okay so for each of these I'll just say we you all have done less thinking on the strategies and some like the goals
and the themes are not new. Um the strategies really are not new either. They've been we've all been sharing them over the last few months. They've gotten some refinement. I think we will definitely need to come back to them. Um, and so more what I'm looking for
today is I want to show you how they've gotten tweaked and reworked. And there I've tried to roughly put them in the prioritization ranking of you all. Like you all kind of different types of feedback. So it's not going to be the neatest piece ever, but they're in
roughly the right order of like people who thought they were the most important ones at the top decreasing. Um, and I want to hear your like strong reactions to specific things. Like are there ones that you can't live with? Is there something that you desperately think is missing? If things like feel okay,
that's great. We can do the words smmithing piece pieces later. Um, okay. I'm going to set myself a timer to about 10 minutes per bowl. Okay. And we're all going to hear it when it goes up. Um, okay. Let me
>> facilitate >> desperate >> um okay so this is going to be these are the strategies for the service provision goal um and again if you want to follow along in the written version if you
prefer because then you'll see the goal um these start on page one and you'll also see some of the actions that we have for each of these. So this might feel a little incomplete because there are starting to be actions. Okay.
Um so let me try. Okay. So document the required base services each department provides and the source of the requirements. So this came out of the request of like what are we actually being required to do and where are those things coming from? um
communicate to residents the strength of town services and improve the transparency on service performance. This was something like tracking and dashboard type interests here. Um and this also came out of the idea that like I heard a lot talking to department heads and others like we have really
great services. should this uh prioritize maintaining existing services and adding additional services only when some current services are eliminated or otherwise modified to accommodate the new proposed services. This is a bit of
the multi-headed camel one, I think. Um, prioritize staff resources and physical buildings and space and upcoming budget cycles as those necessary to service petition. So, I'll give you all a moment uh
instead of these. Yeah, go ahead. >> So, I have a little bit of an issue with three. I I'm a bit concerned that we shouldn't always presume that maintaining what we have right now is the ideal scenario for potentially changing conditions on the ground from
time to time. So I think we should modify the language there. But I like the second that add additional services only if the current ones are eliminated or otherwise modified. So you don't want to we have
limited bandwidth. You can't always add it up too. >> And I think that was the main point from some of you is um and from some of the staff too is we get requests for a lot of new services. If we take on all of those that means other the quality or
frequency of others will get diluted. Um and then I so wanting to have some that second pause and then I think David you're not alone. other people are saying, but hey, what if our current service is just status quo and is actually not that good and we should be switching to something else. So maybe we
need a as necessary or kind of something. >> Yeah, if I would I would add in addition to u adding additional services only when some current services are eliminated or otherwise modified or you find the money for those
services. >> Okay. because you know as time goes on we need more services can't can't really afford that then it may mean cutting back someplace but it
may mean just finding the money >> y other yeah >> so is this number three which we all seem to sort of add on to um is this about fiscal responsibility or is this about
um you know streamlining our services so that so that the things that we provide like people understand them and it's a cohesive body of services or is it or is it both because because the question I have about this one is
like why why is this important like what which of our values is it tying back to and I'm not I'm not sure it's clear in the writing and I'm not sure like we all necessarily have the same idea. >> I mean,
>> I'm trying to think back to some of the comments from this. Um, I think this is more about um >> this is a if everything is a priority method is a prior. >> Yeah. Yeah. Right. Right. Right.
>> Yeah. I think that's good, Melissa. Um, >> so, so it's more about like how do we communicate like how do we talk about what we're what services we're providing? I mean, as opposed to saying like what are the
what's what is our capacity? What is our resource capacity whether it's fiscal or people or space and only providing services to that level. I think this might be trying to do two things because I think it does have the
fiscal element of the um but it's more let's not dilute our existing services because we're just adding on ones that take money away. >> So what we what we're really saying is let's be conscious of what we're
providing as services and making sure that you these are the proper services that we want. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> The thing the thing that the thing that's missing and maybe this is trying
to get at it is continuous improvement. >> So if you continually improve the service delivery, >> um you may find a more efficient way to do it. Um you know, you may find an alternative service that might replace it, but this just says maintain the
status quo essentially. um and eliminate it eliminate a service if you want to add a new one. I don't necessarily think that's completely true. Frankly, I think with the advent of how quickly AI is developing that
we're there's things that are going to happen in the next five years, we'll go, "Wow, we never in the world did we think that you could have an automated vehicle drive around and pick up trash without a person, you know, uh that we'd still do trash pickup." I'm just making a blue
sky here, but we'd save a lot of money and we could add an additional service that we don't have to. >> Yeah. >> So, I think that's what the otherwise modified is intended to cover what you just mentioned that if there's an improvement uh if there's an efficiency that's identified and innovations. So
maybe can we can be more precise on the wording to capture that. uh but I I do think this idea is important both in terms of the financial perspective of it because you can't prioritize everything uh and there are limits to bandwidth and
and also from the cohesion perspective that uh Michael identified because you want to make sure that everything's working in concert with one another and is complimementaryary competing or somehow diluting from the core existing services which is what I
think the initial intention was in terms of prioritize maintaining existence. I doubt that any of us actually believe that we should never change the status quo. I I I think it was more about being mindful of the implications of a change somewhere in stream.
>> So it's so it's not ex it's core services because not every existing service is a core service, >> right? So there's a base level of services. So maybe it's a risk. >> Okay. >> Right. >> I think we can take that. Yeah. >> Right. I think to your point about continuous improvement that may actually
be a separate strategy right which is to identify opportunities for continuous improvements for the services we provide. >> Okay. >> Oh the word that David used is a word that really is critical here and that is mindful.
In other words, we we we're thinking about what we need and making decisions based on really appreciating um you know the entire story. >> Okay. Any any of the other strategies
you want to implement on >> um I think the word prior well sorry I word something for the gist is right there's What is what's four about? What is that getting at?
>> Yeah. Um, this was coming from a number of some of the department heads and then some of you said that you wanted to elevate it up and this is the idea that staff and physical spaces are essential to the services that you're providing and so that they should be when you're
thinking across the budget if you if you want to be focused on your services then you would staff and support them. >> Yeah. So, so in order to make that clear one suggestion, um what you this is
about is aligning staff resources with service provision. I think I I don't know that I entirely agree with this trash >> uh particularly the part about
prioritizing the physical buildings and spaces. I think in in general that's probably a good thing, but there might be times where that's not necessarily a priority, especially in uh current times where remote work is more feasible. Do
we really want to prioritize maintaining a physical office somewhere for somebody who doesn't really need to be in that office? So, I don't know that I would agree that in every instance you want to prioritize. >> That goes back to the align. That goes back to the align because sometimes align means you take this thing down in
order to match what you need to deliver the syllabus. >> Uh as I say where for is coming from is is an understandable reaction uh on the part of departmental staff that um first of all let's not
lose sight of the fact that pay pay scales have to be competitive. Okay. Um and um facilities can't be consistently neglected, you know, without there being consequences to the ability of us to
operate within these facilities. Um so it's kind of a cry for help here, you know, >> don't forget about us. >> Say the time has so if we could do last quick comments, then I'm gonna >> So that I think what John really
triggered it for me. So this is really about taking care of our people in our in our facilities like like you know keep them in mind as we're instead of heaping stuff on them >> right let's say exactly >> I think that's what I think that's what we're hearing from staff probably >> and then I'm just realizing that we're
missing one actually I missed one um so let me just highlight it for you in the written version of this >> this one yeah >> yeah this working version on page to
the last this last bullet is around prioritize information technology efficiencies to achieve service delivery even lower costs. >> Yeah. >> And then there's a number of examples. So I just want you to know that's there. Sorry it's not in the slides.
>> Okay. Great. >> All right. Um with that for now I'm going to keep us moving again. This is not the last time we will. Okay, the next piece is on internal
alignment. So that's the um strengthen alignment, efficiency and governance across town government. One thing to note is I think you all have a lot to say on this and a lot of ideas which is great and so there are a lot of um
proposed or potential actions for each of these strategies. Um, so they are captured again in this word document version. It might feel like some of the details are missing from this and that's because they all you all shared because it's in the written. Um,
so okay at the top we have modernize and streamline operations. This is around the digitization the permitting. This is sharing resources between department on grants staff etc. Um there was an idea to conduct a comprehensive cross
department whole of town operations assessment to identify some opportunities for efficiencies and pockets. Um okay strategy number two is increase alignment and awareness across town departments and governments. Um this has things like compiled goals and
objectives from all departments to um integrate the sustainability natural resources department more is happening. So on that sharing regular updates with you all. The third strategy >> probably not boarding but you need to
work on that sentence but someone coming out from the outside wouldn't know what you're referring to. Which one you're referring to? >> The second uh increasing alignment and awareness of what >> I guess >> goals, work activity.
>> Um okay. Um all right. So the third one, decrease general awareness and budget coordination between the select board and school committee. Um there's a lot here around town school partnership ideas. um
general coordinating and develop criteria to advance major planning projects. Um this involves an inventory of launch planning processes, develop criteria to identify projects that would benefit from large planning processes and creating a
townwide roadmap of planning processes in um build on the public bodies to increase efficiency and efficacy of public bodies. These are a lot of ideas. Thought about that one that he had. Um,
streamline the creation and staff review of warrant articles. Um, a lot of ideas to develop a legislative agenda that aligns with the road map. Um, this was a new idea from someone um really to say to make clear about what your
legislative goals are, what are those types of things you would want to see. Um, and then improve enforcement of policies. I will say again the number these are versus and border um people's interest and some of the newer ones are also at the bottom this one was the
lowest um but then people had ideas of actions that they got excited about I think um and so um that includes to update the charges of public bodies to make those rules for enforcement to assess exist assess
existing bylaws and regulations to identify and prioritize level of enforcement to periodically review master plans and to develop a policy for when permits are waved. So you all then had some more ideas on that one and maybe it's um as a result okay this is a
lot shall we discuss anything stand out again looking for like the strong so I I will um I'll say I added the develop legislative agenda um the reason why I added that is I think I think that
My experience on the board brief time is that we get caught up in the hearing on the operations, the approvals, licensing, stuff like that. Um, and changes that are are the community is looking for often coming from uh some
petition warrant. And I think if if the board could look at its goals or a strategic plan and come up with a legislative agenda and bring warrant articles, one that would help focus staff on the things that are most important to the board uh from a warrant
article view and two um it might it it would help the board in achieving its goals. Let's take housing as example, right? We want to build more affordable different price point housing. Um the board could initiate a project to do that and then bring a Warren auditor
forward to town meeting uh and get you know I think more paying for its buck on planning versus planning having to go respond and staff responding to every article that came to town meeting. That that's that was the the thought either. >> Yeah, David.
>> So I really like that idea. I think that it fits very nicely with a broader strategic plan and in terms of implementation if we're very mindful about the steps that we need to take in order to effectuate our vision and we ourselves
board with support and staff crafting those in direction as opposed to in what happens now where it's it's somewhat random. take up land based on when a town meeting member decides to make a proposal. And I'm not trying to suggest
that we ignore what town meeting was moving forward, but in terms of following our strategic plan, it's not necessarily in concert with the more goals that get brought before us. >> Any responses to that or to any other strateg? Well, I'd like to know what a
is talking about. >> Okay. um >> enforcement of policies and that that except for policies select board which we really have to carry out u we're not going to enforce policies on on the public and to the
extent that we're talking about for example boards and and commissions I think that can be addressed in five >> other ballist other policies that not only coming from the board but that may be in bids
uh that were on I mean do we know the extent to which all the policies and regulations that we're supposed to be enforcing that's because that's our swarm both um that we're actually enforcing in life have we ever done an inventory of it I thought that I thought inventory was the word that was used
maybe in one of the original versions >> so if you go on in the written version page four um and so Bernard I think a lot of people agreed with you they were like what is going on with this it doesn't feel that important but then there are some new sub bullets of potential
actions that might alert it. >> Oh, there it is. I lost. It's on page. >> Yeah, page four. >> You're about to >> So, we have, you know, sidewalk shoveling laws. We've got I mean,
there's all kinds of stuff that that we're asked to in our bylaws were supposed to enforce as as the select board. And that ties into our earlier discussion a little bit about collecting revenue from fines because I get these calls and emails. I'm sure some of you
do as well whenever something's not being enforced. What's going on here? My neighbors doing XYZ. >> Yeah, I get those calls too. >> Yeah, we don't have >> It's really enforcement. >> I think our regulations too. >> I think we could look at it more broadly
to include whether we ourselves as a board follow our own policies. So we often will enact some policy and then maybe go down a different path regardless. And it's important to make sure that our actions are in alignment with existing policies and to the extent
that we need to change a policy because we feel very strongly particularly the course we want to take that we do that rather than ignoring it. That's >> yeah some and some some policies or bylaws are um complaint driven and others were proactive. We may want to
reassess that and so we may want to be we may want to be more proactive on >> but what policies would would would we want to enforce? I mean I I think of that as a bylaw bylaws or laws. I think policies might be the wrong word here. It might be the course of bylaws.
Policies might be I mean what about for example the policy I think it's in the select board handbook that says board members have to show up at twothirds of the of their meetings like on all boards and commissions. I don't know what the exact number is
but but there is but we have a policy about attendance on boards and commissions and if they don't then >> do then we ask them to resign that >> I think that we want to make sure we're
focusing on bylaws. >> I think it should be rules and regulations bylaws. >> Okay. Well and and yeah that that could be addressed in the uh in item five. Um Yeah, sound way. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Um, so the I guess the question I have about legislative agenda is is wouldn't a legislative agenda come out of the actions within this roadmap itself? I mean, doesn't wouldn't this
road map end up creating a legislative agenda? So why I wouldn't assume it would unless we say we want to have to we want the board to start crafting an annual legislative agenda. I think >> it's never been done before. So an an annual budget.
>> Well, we take we staff comes to us and say, "Hey, we'd like to do this, but but we do not sit down as a board to say what do we want to achieve this year and does that, you know, based on now we're doing a strategic plan. We haven't done this before, you know, and is there a change in our bylaws or a new bylaw that
we need in order to affect that, >> right? I I don't think I can't remember a select board that's ever given me has ever >> presumably I mean we do have fiscal year 27 goals. Um who's the person who or the group that decides well in order to
effectuate that goal we should like do a bylaw. I mean if it's annual it's that's where it is. >> It's it's current I'm saying it's currently not happening. That's all. >> Okay. So we'll figure out how to put it into your current. >> Okay. And maybe it happens at that point where you're developing the yearly
goals, which again like the goal moving forward would be look at this road map, a five-y year road map, and then can trickle down to your goals for each year. And then maybe >> yeah, >> just to capture that, could you add a an action under develop legislative agenda
that talks about our fiscal year goals and figuring out incidental goals? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So, so as a practical matter, the only time we have do we have time to do that would be our September workshop
because later on we're focused on the budget and >> well I think I think that if we >> if it's a good idea I think you could I think you could do it in the summer. So the first summer session that we have, don't we do it in that summer? Yes. >> In the summer, in the summer session,
carve off a period of time that just says, you know, review of a of strategic plan or something or goals and is there anything that we should be addressing as that time? >> I guess what I'm thinking is that in in in that first meeting, we we're just
beginning to work on our goals. as not until later on that's the explor I think there's still time to sort out >> but it seems like there's some interest in this >> okay get that um like maybe one more
minute on on these strategies um I'll just say I think this is where you have the most strategies and the most actions like this is clearly occupying a lot of your thoughts >> and I recognize I'm creating work for you because I will not be able enjoy that traditional
city. >> Number two, what I think is an important element, very often we'll have various studies of something that don't always have representation from every stakeholder group. What ends up happening is we then have these
competing committees that are drafting proposals that essentially cover the same material. And I think a better approach would be make sure that all stakeholders are included from the get-go and do it with one group. And so that's sort of where I interpret number
two to an extent. And that also improves efficiency. It also improves um stat resources somewhat if you're not repeating the same study over and over again and just looking at it from slightly different angles. when I thought about number two and I
think I gave some specific feedback on this um was you know we talk about aligning different departments and the way the way I articulated this I think I said have a KPI I think a KPI that
departments should have overlapping goals how many goals are in common between those departments um because otherwise how do you how does increase alignment awareness at time department what does that mean they talk to each other during lunch I think you have to have specific goals in their annual goal
setting departmental goal setting that says there's some commonality >> that's why I mentioned sort of these multi-disciplinary project studies so this comes up a lot in the context of transportation infrastructure where we might have a study that's
just with u sort of focused on bicycle distinctions another one focused on low risk. Why don't just put them all together? I think that would be I think it would lead to a more fair result that has community buying. Okay.
>> Yeah. Right. Y >> at a at at a higher level um this particular goal and I think the one before it have a lot of detail um because you know they are a lot of what they deal with is sort of processoriented things within town
government and I'm cons I'm worried that that that is going to make this roadmap too internally focused and not responsive enough to like what the community needs. like we could have all the perfect processes that we that we
can dream up in within within this road map and still not meet the needs of our of our town or actually address that address those concerns. So, I'm just you said, you know, there's eight things here and it's there's lots
of actions underneath and and I just want to be mindful of the amount of energy that we can pour into the process without making substances. Yeah, I think this this reminds me of one of the conversations we had I think at the first workshop where there's some like
different perspectives amongst you all of like is this really about trying to get our like in our area of control getting our own house in order or is it more about the actions that we're trying to get our staff to do like around the climate and housing stuff and so I think I still see that tension for sure and
you're going to see it in the yeah >> that there's the scarcity of other let's give John the last random >> well just in along those lines is, you know, I I there's a part of me that questions whether what we're doing here
is um taking on the responsibility of our town administrator and and uh you know uh that's the that goal of uh increasing alignment and awareness across town departments I'm sure is something he
thinks about all the time. um then I'm not sure we need to enter into that level of strategizing but you know it's part it will certainly be part of our evaluation when that time comes of the performance of the town administrator
but um not sure it sort of rises to a level of something that we ought to be taking the lead on. >> Chaz, do you want to respond to that a little? Yeah, I think that's I think that's true. And I but I and I also think it's it's okay in my mind, you know, I think the feedback come back
from departments whose departments think they've worked really well together, right? Um yeah, the department and and I think that on our side that's true. I think there's always room for improvement and efficiencies and you know, so some of the things I've spoken to you about, for example, in services and parking and so forth, those are
midterm goals for inter departmental food that I want to work on. >> Yeah. But yeah, I don't you know I think you know to the the departments feel like they're doing a good job working together and I think by and large they are just because that's true and doesn't doesn't ob need for it to be a goal or
objective. >> I think it's helpful for us to have that reinforcement that yes we know this and we are expecting that certainly I am expected I have an expectation from you to continue that that work. So knowing that knowing who's in charge of that and
knowing that I have my marching wish you would like there focus on that operational integration result. Just one quick thing and then we'll go to David which is I wonder if an action after this meeting Chess is for you to go through and especially these internal
ones you say I think just having the strategy from you to back to reinforce this is enough and actually the the actions on the implementation a little in a different it should be in your heart so maybe you could flag >> I think that level of collaboration that
Chaz is addressing is important also in a context that might be to be candid sometimes uncomfortable for if there are competing interests between departments and that that can sometimes arise especially in the context of uh physical space as we were talking about
earlier and I think that's where a political body might be in a better position to uh prioritize in part well sometimes you know I I think you're I think you're right it depends on the >> talk about Fisher Hills the decision
about what's going to happen at Fisher Hills what Um and we can provide support, we can provide feedback, we can provide advice against but ultimately the political bodies are going to make that decision about what happens.
>> Um you know there are a number of turf wars that that don't rise to your level. Sometimes I have to deal with um you know sometimes right down to um you know how many how many rooms does the IT department get you know currently at the the you know at the upper school of
Pierce um several that and and those are and those are more you know you know interning struggles that we deal with internally and don't necessarily arise but you know I think we do a good job
generally flagging the issues that rise to that level and we don't right we we know that at the end of the day we can we our our our role is to provide support to you which is how these companies interest
play but it's ultimately the community's decision made um for internal things like >> you know >> who gets access to gym that's more that's my that's my >> I don't want and it's unless you really want to get involved I don't
>> right is more focus on the strategic pieces. Okay, I'm gonna move >> Jazz. I think this is going to be an important section. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> All right. Let's move to the uh the fiscal health goal. Um so this is
increase the town's fiscal health disability. This is if you're following on in the written version, this is on the bottom in the word doc version, not the slides. It's on the bottom of page four. Um, I think this one has maybe been rearranged the most. Um, I'm not
sure that it's really deserved that much new, but there are some suggested rearrangements. So, the first one is pursue ways to increase revenue. Um, there's a number of things, potential actions that were proposed, including proactively seeking out commercial
development opportunities. um work with the legislative delegation to petition for local options taxes, develop a new growth plan, taxes, funding schemes, etc. Um then there was prioritize investments
and so this is still around a lot of the trying to maintain the triple a bond rating and funding reserves and unrestricted funds. Um there's a new idea of developing a fiveyear service and funding priority list. Um pursue ways to reduce costs. Um this
is focus on hiring that will reduce costs or increase revenues more than the cost hires. Um review the pilot use agreements with the local profits to reduce additional facilities costs and identify someone suggested identify efforts and services that should be
prioritized for work and funding over the next five years. Not quite sure what to do with that, but we can always come back to specification. And then advanced fiscal accountability. Um, and this included developing standards for warrant articles, which might include identifying funding sources.
Um, and developing a process to regularly publicize and engage residents about the procarity and breadth of the financial challenges. Um, and then like, okay, that's enough. Sorry. Um, so this is the fiscal health goal. I wanted to run
through a few more of this random the actions. Any thoughts on this? >> We ought to res re bring back that budgeting 101 class we had to address a
piece of this. We do it agreement. We're looking forward. >> Yeah. John and then >> Well, I I must say I I had a different impression as to what prioritize investments was all about. Uh and and that was um you know what are the what
are the things that we can focus on that will yield long-term improvements in our fiscal situation um you know as opposed to take keep keep a close eye on how we are where we are depositing our money yeah that kind of thing so um I'm not
sure which it is both are good things to encourage um but I think the one that's that's more important and would have better long-term health funds is, you know, how can we strategize there being
a expansion of the tax base and investments in Brooklyn that yield tax benefits to the rest of us. Um, you know, through property development and so on. >> I think that's develop a new growth plan
in the first >> Well, okay. Could be there's overlap there. Sure. David, >> in terms of fiscal accountability for me, I think an important element there is making sure that we have objective measures so that we have an
understanding of a return on investment based allocating. I know Michael frames things often return investment. I know that we can't do that. there's a subjective qualitative nature
of the things but to the extent possible that we can measure whether something is successful I think that helps in fiscal accountability. >> Yeah. I think that this topic of fiscal accountability actually has has more to
do um with with aligning people's understanding of like what they're asking for with the resource requirements of that of of what they're asking for.
So, are you saying it's a little more it's not for for the select board, it's for other people like bringing petitions or >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it talks about like standards for warrant articles. >> Yeah.
>> Things like that. >> So, mismatch perhaps between actions and then >> Yeah. Um, I think there's a good amount of like continued discussion on some of the actions in here, but for the sake of today and getting like the strategies
clear. It sounds like generally people agree with this. >> I would probably either swap one and two or swap two and three because you know increased revenues induced. >> Yeah. And this is more in the order of like people like definitely include this
one. Um, so that's all it's worthying. >> The um, okay, the one thing that that we're doing as part of the the uh, operating potential overhead is this deep focus on revenues and expenses
looking forward. Um, can we continue that after we're done with this round and have this body instead of having to reconvene react every couple years? Um, is it
worthwhile having a board or commission that's focused on long-term financial health? >> I thought that's what the environment committee was designed to do. >> Well, well, it's but it's temple. It's gonna I assume it's going to disband after you're done with this
recommendation. >> Long term. >> It's set to it's currently set to disband. I think it's its membership would like to disband members. >> Yeah. >> And maybe those that are doing it would want to, but I I think it's very helpful beneficial to have expertise kind of
staying on top of not saying that staff isn't doing a great job, but be able to have this longer term focus. So you thought it was going to continue sell tickets? >> Well, no. I I thought the idea was that this was was a process that would
continue even if the committee itself won away. >> I mean, the the goal here is to hand the baton to the town school partnership. That's really what that is supposed to be, right? A venue, the town partnership is these discussions about what is our what are our policies like? How are we
going to deal with this stuff in the future? And I think you know what we're seeing now because we're for example we're trying to be much more deliberate about how testing partnership works is to build up that capacity at those percentages. Uh but if that's not where
you think it should live we have perspective about >> I don't know I I do think that what what is currently being done is very beneficial to get done on a regular basis who I guess doesn't matter to do. Yeah, the current committee is very
strong very good. So just I want I don't I don't want their work to just go on our shelves and I want it I want us to well continue to >> and so one way might be if it does not sunset in some iteration. Is there a way
to add some? Do we want to add something here? We don't have to decide how it it's executed because that's all we're doing right now. But um you know uh continue long-term financial planning focus. So >> hearing no disagreements.
Okay, let's >> Can I give you two corrections? >> Is it words? >> No, it's not. >> Um >> let's see. couple reasons now. U prioritize investments issuers don't assign AAA bonds. It's the rating agencies,
>> right? >> And secondly, I'm not sure why payment of taxes is under >> reducing costs >> as a way to reduce the cost that you would spend. It's a bit of a stretch, I'll admit, in the grouping. >> It's it's it's really a way to increase revenues.
>> You want to add there? Yeah. Okay. A way to increase. Yeah. Increase. >> Okay. Um >> well it could also reduce it could reduce cost because you could have access to facilities that is the line of thinking that I had but I
>> we need to elaborate a bit. >> Yeah. >> Um okay I think >> we're at the point that we can move on on this one. Um okay let me take you forward. Okay. So, moving moving to communications and engagement goals,
which is improve communicating to and engagement with residents. And I already see >> where I think I know what Bernard's um so I'll just one thing that happened with this is we combined a few people
suggested combining the a few goals to be this first one which is improve communication engagement and having village and town building and services for residents. that one that has a number of likeions in it. Um, diversify the residents engaged in town processes
and then this one that is in the wrong place I think is increase the diversity of refine residents. So, someone suggested pulling that out as a separate thing and now it's in a weird category. Um, and then lastly, we have improve the select board's ability to respond to residents. And this was some of the
ideas from you all around like having a person that's assigned to respond to emails or um having more detail on existing communication protocols or having listening sessions around town at different. >> So is three we're going to take three
out because it is doesn't really fit anything. >> It does. I Yeah. What do you all want to do? Do you want to pull it out as it's a goal? Is there a hopeful place? >> Well, it should be a goal seems to me. Um >> we have one argument for each goal
>> and strategies with respect to that >> separate issue and that >> might be homework. >> Yeahiz >> well it's it's currently um under four and you know the strategy includes
developing a marketing plan. So I think that that that's what that's that's what a strategy is the goal, >> right? And maybe it needs more if it's going to get >> disagree with that. >> Um this may be a little crazy, but I'll
throw it out there anyway. Um but maybe if this becomes its own goal, then what we currently have as goal number five is actually subsumed within that goal. the the the whole business about expanding and preserving affordable
middle- inome housing. The conversation we were having before getting back to that but the diversity is broader than just middle income alone. >> Sure. Sure. This that's why I'm saying it would just be one action amongst many within this area of diversity.
>> So you would re refra label this as something about diversity. >> Right. Right. have a goal about diversity and one of the actions that we take to maintain diversity is to improve our affordable and rural housing >> right
>> and defining diversity right I mean I think that's the other thing is everybody has used the reason why you responded to Michael's I think as you were talking about it's not just economicity it's racial >> yeah right diversity includes you know
upper income blackness challenge >> right I mean we we talked about a value of diversity that includes race, ethnicity, ability, origin as part of our values. So, >> okay. So, the option that's on the table
right now is to take out the strate divers, make it its own goal. We can board Smith that if we need um and then include in that the strategy of like marketing plan and then also around housing for long.
And just on number one, and I'm not going to engage in the specifics of the word snapping, but I think the way the way number one is currently phrased somewhat implies that we haven't already made strides in that category and I feel we have the website was recently revamped. There these alerts
that are specific to different committees. So I think in that area is um >> continue to >> we've had tremendous problems in the last year or two. That's great. >> So Paul suggested continuing to improve.
>> Yes. Or or build up, >> right? >> Okay. This is now firmly in the words. >> Uh >> okay. Anything else here? >> Improve the select board's ability to respond to residents. You know, we have
a policy on this. It's just that it's not it's not carried out because everyone responds to people who call them and uh there's no real cohesion there. So I'm not sure. Um >> and this did rank very low just to be clear like people were not in the do you
think it's important but does this rise to the level of inclusion in that? >> So I I don't think it does because to me this is in that category of it goes without saying you do that. >> Yeah. And when you when you have too many of the uh to go over that same I
think it'll be all about >> right and and and this maybe is covered in the previous um uh part of this where we talked about the um tell um
someone help me here >> the first oh talked about uh enforcing policies So, I'm hearing a few nudges towards removing >> Yeah. >> this. Any concerns with that? >> Um, as long as you put it somewhere else.
>> Oh, you want it somewhere else? >> Well, you could take the actions and put them like you could take those three actions and put them under improving communication, engagement, and ability. >> Right. I find that that's an action. Doesn't necessarily think it rises to the under.
>> Okay. It's exactly what I was saying. >> All right. >> Okay. Let's keep moving. Okay. Right. So, this had been the housing um and we just discussed now moving this
strategy to be within the new goal around increasing diversity. Um, is that is that all you want to say about housing or is there something about housing that you would want to say still and maybe it finds another home? But this is
>> so so let me add why is housing its specific goal when we also have climate needs at all. So we have climate >> y >> um the last infrastructure climate and housing and where those are coming from is when I talked to you all in those
one-on- ones these three were like the topics that you all were like this is a really big important thing in >> so uh this is just talking about um strategies for existing middle income
workforce and housing we also want to talk about um creating new house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I agree with you, Bernard. I'm not sure why the emphasis on preservation was that intended in the very literal
sense of >> Well, I mean, we have a lot of known housing in town already and they're being they're being torn down to be, you know, right >> for uh serial box housing. Yes. >> And you know, that that's you know, the idea there. >> More and more you lose, the more you
have to then go ahead. Okay. So, we can add though a bill too. I think this from a conversation when you all developing the fiscal year goals section, but I think it's totally fine to add. >> I I think one of the strategies should be to start taking action on the plans that we develop,
>> right? >> On the plans that we develop. We've got a housing production plan. We should start to execute on >> we have the housing production team. >> Yeah. constantly, you know, doing things.
>> No, I think this is an interesting avenue you could go because for both the housing one and the shadow, the um climate one. Um someone suggested this first one that's actually a few people suggested
this strategy which is really to like work like implement the carp that's being developed right now. And so I think it was in almost in response to saying hey there's a lot of thinking the town staff how to do this and implement it and so we rather than redoing that
thinking ourselves action in our role be to support that and I think that's a little bit what you're saying the >> I think we got a lot of planning activity already um so so are you saying that we should
have a strategy to uh implement the comprehensive plan uh implement the housing production plan. >> I'm not sure what you're talking about is basically a report on where we are.
Isn't that what the one on the car was about? Yeah. >> Adopt implement and track. >> Okay. So that's sort of a report. Where are we? What have we done? So I would so I would just so that so you know we haven't finished the carp but the carp
will you know have specific actions that needs to be funded executed and tracked. I would do the same with the comprehensive plan which incorporates much of the housing production plan but you could do both of them if you wanted. I just think we should execute on plans that have been developed and make sure
that we're we're moderating making adjustments at the end. And to your point, I mean, I think the word implement is important here. So, it's not just a report. It's to take the existing plan and actually control it. >> It's something we can look at and say,
well, we've accomplished something or we haven't accomplished something. >> Yes. >> Yeah. So then right now what we would have what you would have for housing is you would have this goal with some smithing word smithing around new construction um
and also the adopt well sorry uh implement track the comprehensive plan >> the track I I would I would do both I would say the comprehensive plan and the house approach plan there's >> you know the housing the comprehensive
plan may not exactly pull in everything from the housing production plan. The housing production plan might go much more specific, but that's the direction I would go in without words. >> Do do either of those plans
if if we if we did implement both of those, would we have met the strategy as well >> of incre of of increasing housing? Well, preserving of preserving middle- inome workforce and low income.
>> Yeah. So the next So the next step Yeah. It's a process. So the next the housing produ the the comprehensive plan even the housing production plan has not yet developed zoning changes. Right. >> Right. >> So so there'll have to be a follow-on activity from the comprehensive plan to
go start building out. Okay. Are there additional further studies for areas of town to determine what the zoning is that that needs to be brought to town? blah blah blah like that that what needs to be done. >> Okay. >> And so I think what you're signaling with with this idea around a housing piece or
climate is that you all really like this is a priority for all of you and you really want staff and residents to know that and take it and run with it. Um and that you know there are a lot of intermittent steps to get there. You're not going to rehash them here, but
you're going to look to what's >> we're going to develop a new plan. There's no new planning activity. It's like >> execute on the plans that are being that are currently underway or have been completed. >> Right. It's it's it's totally to fund them to staff and to
>> and you know I mean this board may or future board may decide that what's in the housing production plan a portion of it needs to be >> or could be a portion of the of the comprehensive plan could be executed you know at a certain time but um I think those are the two studies that that
should be followed >> it could be a worthwhile exercise thinking about the implementation is each year when you're developing your fiscal year goals if you could maybe check in with the people that are with implementing the comprehensive plan and the car to say like what are the immediate priorities this year like what
would need select for an action and then those would flow from there. >> Okay. Can I move us to infrastructure? >> Yeah. >> Can I ask one question before we start because I'm I'm now kind of in the weeds of goals. Did we have an economic
development goal as well? You don't have >> I probably did where John proposed specifically I think it was five00 project >> oh you know someone referenced a new growth plan I actually didn't know what that specifically was
>> new revenue >> I mean it that new growth plan might include commercial >> well that's my point is housing and commercial a lot of that is go hand in hand because we're doing mixed In the fiscal zone, you have uh uh proactively
pursue commercial development. >> I feel I feel like economic development at separate level. >> Is there a plan that exists that we would do a similar type of >> cohesive? Right. >> So maybe you would see one. It may it
may initiate you know and refine the myriad of economic lawmakers. >> Any responses to that idea? So basically to add a goal around economic development and that would include as a
the main strategy to have a plan. Yeah, the goal might be Jo I think Joe you know some number right that I think somewhere I read it didn't I see five to 15 or 15 to 20 million in new gross revenue didn't >> that was an idea that had some
>> I'm not sure I've seen that so could be >> yeah so somewhere we we lost the idea of economic development growth >> Oops. Are you talking about about economic development purely in the SE measured
purely by incremental tax revenue or are you talking about economic growth for a different purpose? I would make well how you want to measure it I don't know what the measurement would be but I think it's it's new revenue >> right I however we get there I think the
important measure is net new revenue >> right so let me ask the question this way >> what is the guiding value that drives the need for that goal >> financial stability >> okay
that term financial has some type of economic wellness We should >> we we we think we think about this in terms of discrete projects and but I mean the so I think I think this is
where I do think this discussion is really right >> there's an opportunity there's an opportunity um and I think you're going to hear this from expend members discussing these issues of um we say we brother and then when specific things
come up there I think we got to figure out what that how to how to how to get through that how to stop thinking in the abstract and start thinking about yes this for example west is a great example of this you know we we've now identified
opportunity for what we are working at refining they're trying to bring in with small stakeholders the process is working. It's it's it's a it's not the easiest process, but is you know it's moving towards a meeting the spring which is great. Um it's very it's
a very discreet we don't have a comprehensive for revenue growth. So EDAB which I'm now the leazison on I think they do a lot of this thinking. I don't necessarily think it comes boils up bubbles up into a formal actionable
plan that that is supported and executed and monitored by the select board. And I think we should commission >> they do come to front of the board. >> Yeah. Well, they're trying but it's but it's more like you know any board and commission come in like we I think we
need to elevate it to a specific goal and strategy for the board and then it's monitored and executed with with performance metrics. >> Well, I certainly agree with you Paul. I think to some extent the planning department might very loosely or internally have an idea about the order
in which to do things because we did Harvard Street first that was somewhat related to the MBTA >> totally reactionary to to >> it was reactionary but that explains the timing of really everything in way right now it's Ches Hill west because city
realy bought that parcel uh up next I anticipate will be comment but we'll see >> it's all reactionary That's it. That's the problem. >> But okay, but I but I I want to push back a little bit. Um, for example, in
the MBTA Communities Act, there were at least two years of study on Harvard Street before MBTACA became an issue. And I think what happened the opportunity was that you
know we needed to comply with MBTACA and the planning department had which had been studying Harvard Street you decided to use that opportunity in order to move forward that that plan for Harvard Street and in the same way
Chestn Hill commercial area you know was planned for redevelopment and then city realy ble space and now it's sort of morphed because of that opportunity. But I think that those things were part of the plan. The place that I see planning on this as as sort of more challenging is when
there are citizen petitions that come and to the planning department and ends up taking staff resources away from the things that they're act that they were intending to do. You know, like Cox Perry has been sitting around for years.
That's a that's more of a housing. I guess my my raising a good point, but that is all reaction. The point is I as a select board member can't point to an e economic development plan that we're executing. >> Is anyone against that idea to try to
have a little more comprehensive approach developed for economic development? And I I will just say I would go I would go I encourage you doing this to go back and look it when Cara presents the planning department presents uh as part of the annual budget presentations. I also think they do one
of the better jobs of of explaining what the department is doing and why in particular I think Karen does a great job with these graphs which talks about level of you know level what does the community want how much effort is it going to take our departmentwide you know so I think going back and taking a look at that as a potential jumping off
point saying if that's if that's what we're looking for more of that or or a more regular update on that that's certainly something we could do or if there's something more to that um that you might want from us >> I think I think what I'm suggesting suggesting is that economic development be elevated into our 5-year point.
>> So, I I I agree with Paul and I've often made this point at prior workshops. I I really think a major focus of ours needs to be proactive economic development, not reactive. Very often we're reactive. A parcel goes for sale, maybe we can
jump in on time like Newbury and maybe not. And there's now a very recent example of that in Hellenic. Uh so I I do think to the extent that we develop an economic development plan and that we adhere to it and that instead of waiting for opportunities to pop up and and
thank you for explaining the broader context around Harvard Street. It was entirely reactive but often times it is reactive when we time a uh study that we undertake or a proposal. We really shouldn't be doing that. We have a map of the town. We know what the major
parcels are. We should determine what is it that we want and and go for it. But you know, Chess, I think it's just one point because I because I I'm hearing something I want to make. This isn't a commentary. >> This is a commentary that the selector was talked to, >> right? This has to be a major pillar of
the select film. >> Um, one area, one other place that we might want to look is um to ask if it's time for an upgrade to the major crisis center. And what was the what's the name
of the other study that goes with that? But but we do have a we did have a study for 2015, I think, of all of our major parcels. >> And and maybe we need to look at that again is the foundation developer. >> Okay.
>> And and also the real property asset committee that we >> propose and then would be nice. Yes. Well, I just again, so if we could come up with a an assignment
so to speak for EDA and they've done a lot of this work, state planning has done some of this work and say the select board would like to have a comprehensive plan for economic development, including the ABC um and and then and I think I think we'll do
it. I think they would love to jump on it to tell the truth. I think I'm hearing enough support for this idea that we should include it for now. If um Paulie might especially invite you if you want to look back through some of those presentation like if you could start to delineate what AB and C
>> are you saying would I'm gonna I might even put on the action list. >> Um I think that would be great. >> Okay, let's move to infrastructure. Um so
infrastructure right? Okay. So right now there are two strategies and I'll note that this first one is kind of similar to what we were talking about development and department. It's basically that it would be helpful to have a comprehensive town
infrastructure. This is one of this is an idea from someone actually two I think a few people kind of were getting to this in their um that would basically list out and prioritize what the infrastructure needs are. Um
and then we have a schedule for what would come and potential funding sources. Um and that also has a sub point around the balancing roadway maintenance and complete street guidance. >> So one of the one of the the complaints I had about what was put in front of us
was there was too much. >> It's a lot. >> It's too much. I just too much strategy, too many goals. It was too It took me three days to get you the feedback. I sat down for like an hour and a half at a time. >> Um it's too much. Like I think that we
probably already do this. It's part of DPW. It's part of like I don't necessarily think we need to have an infrastructure goal with a fiveyear plan. Um somehow that can incorporate into something else, a CIP, but some this thing needs to be trimmed because
we're just we're doing this two months. Um, did anybody else feel like this was uh well too much? >> You feel like the feedback is too much, but do you feel like has too many in effect? Isn't the fiveyear capital improvement plan our in our
infrastructure long-term plan >> infrastructure or it includes infrastructure? But that's not we're talking about something broader than just that. Well, well, I mean, you know, water,
sewer, you know, has plans. Uh, highway has plans. Um, you know, in terms of how Yeah, building department has plans. I I don't feel like we're lacking um long-term look at our infrastructure
needs and and a certain amount of planning and even, you know, try to identify how much is going to cost in each of the out years and where's the funding going to come from, etc. We already do that. That's kind of an essential part of our budgeting process. >> Well, I mean, another way to look at
this is to look at it in ways similar to the way we've looked at other things, right? Um, we could say, you know, incorporate vision the vision zero plan just approved, incorporate the transportation master plan. Um, you know, as you say,
there are there are plenty of plans and we don't need that wheel, but but having sort of >> turning this road map into a road map for implementing the plans that we've developed might actually be more
efficient and easier to to parse. We talked about this with Abby and this was one of the goals that it felt like there is constant interest in maintaining and improving infrastructure but there's not very many strategies and actions that come out of that. It's just a value that the select has. I wonder if
what you're pointing to Michael is almost that you know this maybe could be subsumed into one of your other goals that already talks about you know already talks aboutmenting you know what we what we have out there already. >> I feel like one then I You know, just to
push back just to push just to just to push back a bit. >> I think that's like something that we actually do good. Yeah. >> Right. We spend a t a tremendous amount of time talking about maintenance of schools, maintenance of we got a a pavement index thing. We talk complete streets. We got more plans and focus on
infrastructure. I think it's actually one of our strengths. So I don't again I just >> I think we already got it. That's my >> John. Well, um, for me, uh, from my point of view, what we're most in need
of in that area is, uh, some kind of measure, uh, that compares h how much bang for the buck we get for road repair and maintenance dollars uh, with other communities and very specific
reporting. Um, it's 2025. These are the streets we said we would do. These are the streets we did. This is how much we paid for asphalt. This is how much we covered, you know, how how much mileage we got covered with the
asphalt that, you know, we paid for and this is what other communities are paying. Do we get as good a price on the raw materials? Do we do the paving in the same ways or or do we do paving in a way that is more expensive but maybe better, you know, cost-effective in the
long run? I never see that level of specificity. Um, and I don't see that level of tracking. you know, how much does it cost us to fix a street quote unquote per yard per, you know,
>> I mean, DPW has provided similar similar reports and maybe what you're asking is us to uh specifically ask them from departments for updates on, you know, their infrastructure work. >> Yeah, >> I think they're getting better at
>> David and then we can cut to Michael. So I think some of what uh John is mentioning the the data is available. We it's sometimes part of it is presented to us. The part that I think might be missing and I hear this often from members in the community is what is the
methodology behind which street receive gets repaved for instance or gets worked on. What is the order? Why is it done in that order? Uh why does it seem that >> communic that gets back communication? >> Well I don't think it's just communication. I think it's also about
what is the rationale behind an order that we go in. What is it? Why this street ahead of why street X? >> So we should just ask BPW or whoever to do that. >> Let's go to Michael. >> Okay. So I actually think that they have an order and they have a methodology and
it is communication to be able to communicate that and we already have that goal. It's part of goal number one. It says communicate to residents the strength of town services and improve transparency on service performance. Right? That that is the goal. I think that the the strategies around
infrastructure like what our goals should be should should more focus on like what are the infrastructure how do we want to either maintain or improve the infrastructure that we have
like for example I've brought up vision zero before do we want to make our systems safer safer right that would be a broad goal that would be appropriate for the road but the communication of the details on our activities I agree with you you know that's a communication
and transparency issue but this goal here has to do with the improvement and maintenance of our of of what kinds of improvements and balance to our system we want >> I think what I'm hearing is one a proposal to get rid of the first strategy here um
recognizing that some of the communication desires that David and John are talking about are captured earlier in goal one and maybe there's also just like an internal thing about more reporting from DPW to you all on these and then maybe it's a public thing I'm not inition um and then Michael
you're proposing do we want to strategy that's kind of the adopt implement track progress on your existing plans like vision zero whereas Paul's proposing should we just take out the so any thoughts about those two options
adding in implementing existing plans or just removed this. >> I think maybe as we did in previous example, turning it into an action underneath another goal >> or a strategy underneath another goal.
>> Which one? >> So part of it was about communication, right? as you and Paul said, captures >> where John and I were just concerned >> and then the part about >> identifying infrastructure that we want
to preserve or enhance um >> sort of squalor, >> right? >> Right. I mean the re the reason why I I lift up something like the transportation master plan, the bicycle network plan or vision
zero is that those are really sort of tangible choices that we are making in terms of what are the improvements that we want and just in terms of communicating with the rest of the public. I think I think
that it's helpful in in this kind of area to be tangible because it means that we're making choices. They're tangible, but they also, you know, are visionary and uh I'm not sure they, you know, um relate directly in
measurable ways to how will we know what that that we're making progress towards vision zero? Well, you know, the the Navy, you know, simple answer is you you'll know by virtue of how many speed hops, you know, projects did you do in a
given year? H how many intersection improvements did you do that are safety related to prevent, you know, collisions at intersections? >> How many injuries and fatalities we have? >> That's what yeah. and and um you know I'm not sure we
approach our annual spending on street maintenance and street uh projects in that fashion where you know we sort of say the these projects will get us closer to our vision zero goal >> but this is a roadmap for two years >> so I mean we're going to need some more
time to figure out whether strategies for infra infrastructure is a strategy or a goal or but let's leave it the way it is for now My sense is we're running out of gas on this. >> Yeah, I sense all are running out of gas. Um I do want to quickly go to
climate, but I I also sense our appetite maybe is um decreasing. Um so for climate there was again this like adopt implement harm. Um there was another one suggest another strategy suggested
develop an action plans to reach the climate goals that you have already set. Track progress and periodically update goals realistic and achievable. Um involve all departments of climate change and resiliency work and balancing
the cost of achie achieving climate policy goals between individual residents. Yeah, these are this one did not receive a ton of appetite still included on the >> I think in number two the part periodically update goals and action
plans goes to the thing that David said before and it goes without saying >> great. So that's proposal to remove that. >> Yeah. Good. Got rid of one. No, >> no, not the entire goal. Just the second.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. We have a 2030 or 2040 plan. Am I not correct in saying that? We just changed it. Now it's 20. Now it's 2050. >> Are we 2050 now? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So I mean, you know, wouldn't the
obvious approach under this category be um you know, commit to supporting achieving the goals of that plan and then each year report on our progress in meeting the goals of that plan? And is that in the >> we don't we don't have a plan. >> We develop
>> that's just a goal. There's not a plan for net zero. >> Right. Right. That that's why developing action plans is important. that mean as a as I said a roadmap test >> being action
rained >> and I don't and I you know I want to I want to make sure I phrase this properly because this is um I don't want to be misled but this is there's this is a changing landscape around climate initiatives and you know the states
moved out at state uh we know that there's pressure coming from uh from federal agencies ities that are going to potentially reduce funding um prioritization of uh you know various goals around
fossil fuels. Um you know this is we are not in a stable environment for being able to uh plan and execute a plan because it's it's it's it seems to be unstable. We have dramatically rising
political costs, dramatically rising gas, uh putting a lot of pressure on residents. Um I just I'm wondering what does that mean for us? I'm not trying to change the goal, but it certainly the the situation the environment that we're
now working in is much different than it was six months ago in a year. Would you agree with that? Um I think you're talking largely about the sort of political and economic environments. >> Yeah. >> There's also the science >> and science,
>> right? The science is another factor, you know, that that we can't ignore. >> Yeah. Look, I'm Yeah, I'm not I'm not questioning the science. I'm questioning the stability to be able to execute them and how do we build that into our into
our goals? And we're using grant funding right now. Um I if I may I I think you know we're at a moment of opportunity here because you know we we've now got Alexandra Beio you
know put clearly in charge of a you know sustainability effort under the channel administration and I think a good direction to go in would be to put the emphasis more on what is being offered
to us by our sustain director in and that division um as being important uh uh things to fund and achieve in in year 1, year two, year three, year four and
you know take away this whole business of there were some very visionary goals adopted five years ago or updated two years ago or whatever most of which most people don't think are realistic and just get the conversation back on you know what what is the informed opinion
of our our department person and and there and the department that she works under as to the things we could do should do and will do year by year that are >> trying to make a difference I I agree
with John largely but also I think that especially category we want to have measurable attainable goals that we as a town can accomplish is to Paul's point we can't really effectuate the broader
vision independently in our own and it's a bit unfair to hold ourselves accountable in a category where we have a very infinite decimally small impact and so to the to the extent where we are in full control of something we should
articulate what that something is maybe it's tree protection and that becomes one of our measurable goals >> yeah I would say Um and you know in the conversations I've had as the leazison Zab and conversations I've had with
director Beckio that I am very confident that she would answer that question implement the carp right >> it's practical and feasible I believe >> yes yes is a practical >> it's designed to be an achievable set of
goals and and it's all being sort of worked out in that in that context so it may that we actually don't need goal number two at all because goal number two is subsumed within the car. >> I agree if I'm hearing get rid of this
one focus on the car making change. This one is involve all the carbons and climate change. It could also be like just really support the work of the sustainability division that's new and doing or something like that. >> But but I'm sure that I mean that that's the way that she's treating the car.
>> One in four are really Okay. >> Yeah, I agree. >> Um, >> we can't do it offers. >> I'm sorry. >> I said we can't do it all ourselves. >> Let Abby wrap up. >> Okay, we're doing so great. Um, let me
try to we have I think like let's try to do 10 minutes on implementation. But okay, I'm going to try to be snack >> and then we're done. And then we're done. Okay. Implementation. Um to Mike's point earlier. Oh, wait. No, that's fine. Um
when I think of implementation, I think of two things. The details of what we want to include in the road map so these can happen like roles, responsibilities, timeline, budget, things like that. And then also the process of checking in. I wanted to talk about that the first bullet today of the what details need to
be included in the road map because then some of some people are going to spend the next three months trying to flush that out. Um the process we'll talk about in March. >> Um >> when you say some people, which people? >> Well, this is a question I have. >> Okay. >> Um I mean, I'm happy to help with some
of this and I'm also not the person to make the work plan for staff. It seems like there are some select board members, I'm not going to name name, who are really good at thinking in the weeds on details and have already started brainstorming things to include in the
um implementation details and maybe they want to be involved. Maybe we get the department heads involved. I think it could agenda of um let's skip this for time. These are just some of the things you all said in your interviews that you guys are looking for.
Um I wanted to share just a few really quick examples of what this can look like. Um so this is just a one this is a very high level static version where I was this is a school committee and they were working they had like kind of their goal
they had interest instead it looked better for them and then they had like the main direction they didn't do a lot of action planning at all because they were handing this to their superintendent who was then going to go and do all of that work. So this is one version.
Um you could have a bit more detail and also static. This is another group we worked with um a water quality protection report. So they had they have objectives which we have our work goals some framing and then they have a long table. It's kind of precise but where
they have a task which would be your strategy the actions that would happen um indicators of success. So having reaching it, who's involved in a date? Um and then there's a more live version. This is actually an example of our um uh
>> from um so this is being updated continually I understand. Um and it has some more of those details. Um but it's more it's used as a worksheet over time to update. Um so I just wanted to give those examples. What do I have next? All
right. um some potential details that could be included. These are based on things you all have said. Um so some of you said like who's the responsible group, the timeline, you could do like a fiscal year or it could just be a short long term type of uh strategy,
performance indicators, cost could just be a low, medium, high rather than like trying to figure out a specific budget allocation. The type of action you could include. So is it like a budget action or something else? the level of effort and the priority. So, those are just examples. Um, I would just caution that
the more specific details you put in, there's a lot of make work that happens for that. Um, and maybe that's something you deem be really important and that's great. Um, but just to flag that it then requires a more active process of updating it and it's not something you want people to really spend their time
on and that's fine if you do >> updating the road map. updating the or no just tracking the actions not even updating the tools but like tracking the actions. >> Um so I just I'm trying to get a sense of like which of these details are important to because again from this
meeting some people including >> perhaps some of you u are going to have to go and fill this out and so they you need to know. So I've got the so I u this doesn't mean I'm a volunteering for anything but I do want to u but so the thing that we struggle with
even as we were having discussions around the goals is it a goal what do we mean by that goal you know um my brain's too tired to think of all the let's say housing what's the goal for housing or what's the goal for economic
development um I do think that there should be a very specific measure measurable goal. If we're talking about economic development as an example, we would say we want to increase net new taxable revenue by $5 million
and have a target date. Maybe it's by the end of the the five-year plan, but it I think it needs to be that specific. I wouldn't have a whole bunch. I wouldn't have five under each economic development, but that way it'll ground us in what we're talking about. Otherwise, it could be a wordy goal and it's like, well, what do you mean by
that? Um, so that's that would be the one cont one contribution I'd like to make last discussion is have it be measurable so that when we do come back annually or by annually we can say how are we doing tracking against that if we're coming up short why is it we need
an adjustment in our strategy etc. So kind of tracking the goal, not the actions, >> not the well well we can talk about later, but I'm just saying at the high level each goal should have some new measurable expression that's measured an
expression that's measured >> others. Um I think um you sort of glossed over it quickly, but you also mentioned by when. >> Yes. And so in addition measurable that that would be time bound.
>> Um and we're we're getting close to to just smart goals if anybody's familiar with that strategy. >> Yes. >> And just to question um are you saying because I thought one thing you were saying Paul was like maybe it's by the end of the five years we would have developed
>> whatever it could be. It could be it it could be you may have, you know, some goals that you could start measuring next year right away and something else that it wouldn't be measurable for three years because you haven't built it out yet. Um, but I'm just saying it's got to be measurable, identified, measurable,
and as Michael said, time buff. When are you going to do that? >> Spec what is it? Specific, measurable, actionable, time frame. U relative relevant >> attainable attainable
>> I'm just going to note that like for the metric thing I think you all might have a lot to say about each metric. Um, so we should >> and I think I gave you a bunch. I already gave you so I already >> I did not work. I didn't give you a bunch. >> Um,
yes. I would say that you don't need to share ideas for that because you have those. But I think you all are then going to want to discuss because the the metrics that you're putting forward I think some of you might disagree with. Do we want to get into the like numbers back and forth in which case I I think we might need another meeting beyond
March because I think >> you guys could get really into that and that's fine but we need the time >> and Bernard as an example just a great example. So you brought up diversity, right? We want to increase diversity. What does that mean? Is that racial diversity? Is it economic diversity? If
it is, do we have a target? You know, right now black population is less than 3%. Do we want it to be 5% by a certain day or 3%. I think it should be >> you can't >> you can't set these targets and expect to achieve them. It's a pro. It's really
a question of in in terms of increasing black population, for example, a marketing effort targeting different uh income categories uh to encourage them to move into uh to
to reach out to hospitals, universities and other employers who bring people in to get them to, you know, support. >> Did it happen? So I mean and you and you never know how successful you may be. >> I agree. But I think if if you don't express it, if you don't express the
goal almost merit or some some or some way to increase say increase the black population by some percent or just increase it, you won't know even to measure that that metric. So I think it's just important to have >> I agree with Paul broadly speaking that
it's important to have a measurable metric for each of our goals so we know whether we're on pace to achieve it or not. >> My example may have been a bad application >> in the context of diversity though I'm a little more uncomfortable. Yeah, I agree. I just >> trying to increase certain groups by X number which
>> as a percentage has an impact on lowering some other group and that's very uncomfortable. >> It was merely just an except >> but but I like how Bernard was proposing measuring that it could be through marketing efforts. >> Still your point stands have a measurable way of looking at each of our goals.
>> Could I actually not like I don't want to take this example further but I want to use it as an example of the amount of conversation I think you all will want to have on each of these. And I think one way we could do is we could have another outside of your normal workshop, we could have another meeting to really go through it line by line. That would
be if you thought this was a lot of feedback to give like that's going to be the org. That's that's okay if you want to do it. Another option is if I think we could have can you have two select board members together is if there are two people that want to get into this that feel strongly about some of these
things, we could do a small working group and break it up into chunks and then >> propose that. multiple different colleagues. >> So I mean your experience because you've done this for other >> Yeah. >> groups like ours. What what is most
effective? Is it to have a numeric expression? Is it to leave it more wordy? What what what's >> Yeah. Um I think it does depend on the group. I will say that my this is also a bias that I have. I would
actually try I would leave it a little bit wordier. um and less try to nail down every specific detail because I think that ends up like things change, things are evolving. I think the the goal of this effort as I understood it was to try to tell staff where your
priorities are. And yes, it's great to send a date. It's great to send a responsible person, but and I like I think you could have a more informal check-in on it every year. Maybe invite the department heads to share how they're doing. I think it might just end up being a lot of work to lay out some
really specific things. >> So maybe that's a next step. Maybe it's something that we refine that future. >> I I also think one of the advantages of putting into our strategies the implementation of other plans that already exist is that those plans
already have responsible parties and um goals and timelines as well or at least >> you should. Um, and so for example, you know, if implementing the comprehensive plan or taking the next steps, I mean,
I'm assuming that when the comprehensive plan comes, there's going to be a set of goals within it, you know, and how those how those goals are achieved. So, we don't necessarily have to do have to do that. >> So, I think we can do both in terms of
have the the wordier elements, but also have specific goals. I'm a little uncomfortable with it just being words because what ends up happening and John you made this point in prior conversations and I share your view for the most part on this that lots of communities have strategic plans if
they're all words you kind of ignore it after a little while and that's just the reality and if you have those specific metrics that keep you grounded I think that that you have something clear to work toward that's important and that's not to discount the words because you
still want to have a more global idea of what it is you're pursuing and conditions do change and you might want to refine those goals but I think you need specific targets so that you know what you're working toward because for example with diversity in increase diversity improve communication if
that's all coils down to what are you really doing and it gets ignored >> well whatever whatever the measurable goals are let's make it one page so it's easy to update and follow and it's not a ream of a binder full of >> but to Michael's point I think what we could do is look at the existing plans
and maybe try to call out some of those specific targets that they make so that we have sort of one place we can look at for what our metrics are and all these different goals because it might be a little difficult to be constantly
referring to some other plan somewhere and having to dig out the elements you want from that plan. And I'm not against referencing it, but for our own purposes, I think if you have a centralized list of what your can be helpful. >> Yeah. I'm not sure with the with the
plans that we're talking about because they are all so detailed and that we want to go through the exercise of going through those plans and extracting our most important goals given that the people who created those plans have already put a lot of thought into that
work. That sounds that sounds duplicative. >> Okay. I think people are reaching their end. I don't think we have an answer on this. Um, >> Abby, when do we run out of your time? What's So, what's the what's your constraint? >> Right. I think that the target that you
all have set was the April meeting, which is currently when my I mean, we could do a no cost extension on my contract and have this as a longer discussion. >> We wanted to stay within budget with whatever we're doing with you. >> I think that >> it's April and you said that we're supposed to be >> April is the And I think part of the timing there though was to keep you on
track for updating your next year fiscal year goals. So you want to have this stuff framed up so then when we go to do the specific annual rules you're ready. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> I mean presumably you have a >> may you have many meetings so we could
if we want to do a slight extension >> but we wouldn't get another workshop in timing wise if >> I think we might want to try to slide one in though even if it's partial because this idea of having just two of us set the goals I mean I might agree with some of them but but we might not. And I think ultimately the five of us
want to agree on what the goals are. >> Well, it's more about the measure, right? The goals you will have one, >> right? I mean those specific metrics to the extent that we're going in that direction with specific metrics. I think all five of us would want to discuss them. >> So So we could have this as a part of our regular meeting.
>> Yeah. Exactly. We have your fully remote or another regular inerson meeting uh where we should put this as an agenda. Well, if we have on one of our meetings that's light and it's more just consent and a couple of um you know approval of uh of commissions or something, maybe we
can add this. >> And I think this is actually a topic that would be of >> immense interest to the general public and I think that the general public follows our evening meetings more than our workshops. >> Okay. So that sounds good. So why don't we do for next steps here? I'm going to
take our conversation today and make an updated version of this working version of the road map and send that all for you to if you want to get into some of the word smithing details one document too. Yes, it would just be
this if I were >> um >> I think I could confidently say >> um the end of next week. >> Right. Okay. >> Um so then because it'll I just I'm going to stack three actually right now speaking so I I don't have so much time
this week. Um but next week would be fine. Okay. And then so then you all can have some time to review it in the simultaneously I know um Paul put together some ideas of KPIs maybe we could use those as a starting point and then when I come together maybe before
March we could do this addition >> to keep it going. Does that sound >> and and I have one action item? >> Yes. >> To combine >> Yes. Um the fiscal responsibility to the decision. >> Okay. Okay. every week.
>> So I can get that to you ready and we proceed. >> We also talked about limiting requirements and assignments. So maybe this could be an opportunity for you to combine some of them. This is where you >> Yeah, I think in particular, Paul, if we can circulate your proposed metrics to
>> I'd have to I'd have to see them again. Did you send me what I sent you? >> I didn't get a record of what I gave you. >> Do you want to do that with these? I mean, only Paul has looked at these. I feel like >> Let other folks take it to you. Paul said yes. So maybe why don't I do that? Why don't Okay, I I will in one document
I will send the updated working version and then I will add the proposed by Paul KPIs >> which by the way they were just exempt. So >> yeah and it was great. So just know it's very much that we've had it all. >> I did a lot most of them here.
>> Yeah. Okay. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you. >> Great job. Yeah, with