Welcome to the select board meeting of Tuesday, December 16th, 2025. Uh let's do a quick roll call to um open the meeting. >> Arnold here, >> Modell here, >> Nell here, >> here. And select board member Stevens
will not be joining us tonight. Um, let me quickly run through the agenda and then we'll get right into it since we're already a few minutes behind. We're going to open with community input followed by volunteer appointments. Uh, followed by the FY27 budget presentation. That's a joint meeting with the finance committee.
Following that at 8:00 PM, Cranberry Bog House discussion, a joint meeting with the Affordable Housing Trust, followed by a uh DPW building discussion focused on a proposed committee charter. At 8:50, we're going to revise uh or
discuss and potentially vote on revising the committee creation and appointment policy, followed by an additional employee health insurance option presentation, followed by uh a quick overview of how we're going to attack uh the remaining personnel policies that
that need our consideration. >> Attack well, how we're going to approach that process. just to okay at 9:40 we're going to review um some amended language on the TA bylaw some some language changes came back that we
will review from the legislature followed by the TA report review of warrants and minutes liaison reports close with community input so with that let me uh open it up to community input does anyone in the room have any community input they want to provide
seeing some headshakes no does anyone online have any community input they want to make at this time. Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to volunteer appointments. Uh we have one appointment tonight for consideration, >> Jerry.
>> And that's Jerry Lurman um as the MFC, the municipal facilities committee representative to the fire station building renovation committee. >> Does anyone want to speak to that or make the motion? >> I can make the motion. Um, I move that we appoint Jerome Lurman as the
municipal facilities committee representative to the fire station building renovation committee. >> Second. Second. Okay. Any discussion or deliberation? >> I think it'll be great. >> Seeing none, let's do a uh voice vote. All in favor?
>> I opposed. And I will note we still have one open seat on that committee. So, um, if anyone's interested or know anyone who's interested in serving on the fire station building committee, please submit a volunteer application.
>> So, that would be as an as large as an community res. Great. >> Okay. >> So, anyone can serve on that. Any resident can serve on that. >> All right, moving on. We're right into the budget presentation. So, this is going to be a joint meeting with FinCom. So, James, do you want to bring your meeting to order?
>> Sure. I'd like to open uh the finance committee joint meeting uh with a roll call. Um >> here I think Mark I can I can't really hear James but here
>> please come up to the table. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Bernstein here. >> Brown here. >> Kachio here. Leah here. >> Leang here. >> Here. >> Can you hear us? Okay. Now, Nath Nathan, >> that
>> or can you hear me? Okay, Nathan. >> Yeah, >> much better. Thank you. >> Great. Good to go. >> We're good to go. >> All right. Just to remind the finance committee and the board, tonight's budget draft one is a a work between
Kelly and I and all the department staff. We gave out guidance based off the financial forecast and the capital planning work we did. You remember all that work we did this fall? That guidance instructed departments to essentially uh zero increase their budgets unless there was something
something that they needed to for for operational purposes. So less than a level services budget a a zeroed out budget. I'm happy to report that all the departments complied with this request and then they submitted 1% cut narratives to the finance committee through their liaison for their review
at their marathon meetings. So, this is a um compilation of all of those budget drafts, put everything in context with some background information for you and the public to digest. Of course, I can answer any questions as we go along. >> I would note the next in January, the
the finance committee will be meeting with the departments. That's January. >> Oh, gosh, I should know off top of my head 145. >> 145. Thank you. >> And that's your opportunity to ask questions of the departments as you formulate your budget recommendation. >> Correct. Yep. Thank you, Scott.
>> And I should mention I have Kelly, our budget manager, is here as well to answer any questions uh detailed information that that you might want to grab. And again, cannot thank her enough for all the work she did. So, we put together this document here. >> And Ryan, in terms of the select board
tonight, this is moreformational, correct? >> Yes. >> Yeah. There be no budget decisions tonight, but certainly a lot of information to adjust. So, this will become a public workbook that we give to the finance committee. Just giving you
the background work for all of this. So, all the department requests were put into a draft one line with the increases. I have a much more concise presentation to give you. I'm just showing you the background work. We forecasted the revenue.
We analyzed the levy. this significant debt document. Shows all the things that we're considering and doing with debt that we've talked about. And then there's tabs for reserves and warrant articles. So, this will be view only for the public. It'll be view only for the finance committee.
They can download a copy of this and anybody can look into it and and play with it. Um, the official seat is is carried by Kelly and I just to protect it. All right. So into the presentation. This will be a public >> presentation which you sent around a little bit.
>> Just sent it to Yep. the PDF documents for you to to look on. Um we wanted the most up-to-date information possible. So we were working on this today. So it is a draft one of the budget. We feel like it's pretty complete for where we are at right now, which is that department request.
So we'll start with just a simple introduction. It proposes a 6.58% increase in the operating budget, which is estimated to be a 6.91% increase in the average tax bill. And the sections we're going to go through here with you are revenues,
expenses, debt, the tax impact, the capital plan, any proposed warrant articles that we've received so far, where we are with town reserves, and then the next steps in the budget. I'm going to skip right to the the graphics and the information. As you
know, the town relies mostly on its tax levy. Another source you have is onetime revenue, state aid, and local receipts. This budget projects state aid and local receipts at at 1% for state aid and 2% for local receipts. That is a conservative number. That can increase,
but we should not rely on the state. Even a even a 5% increase in state aid would be 20 $30,000. not not something that's going to solve the budget. It's going to help and and all my we'll take all money from the state. I don't want them to think we're not going to take it. I did not include any one-time
revenue use in this projection. That's for you to talk about and discuss. Last year used 250,000. 50,000 from the ambulance reserve fund, which is receipts we get for any ambulance use and billing and 200,000 in free cash.
for expenses. Perhaps the most interesting part about this budget, it's a 6.5% increase in town spending structural changes. You know, we've been working on the structure of the budget. There's not as many this year, but one significant one is we moved the facilities department over a million dollars from the school budget to the
town budget. We did move last year's numbers into the budget as well. So, you can see an applesto apples comparison, but the town budget did go up and the school went down because of that switch. So, um, Ryan, so the 56, as usually I'm got twothirds of my money.
That smaller percentage of education is a result of moving million books or whatever over the other bank, right? >> Yep. Facilities moved into the town budget. The CPS facilities, not CCHS, >> right?
>> We also reconfigured the sustainability coordinator position to assist with land use efforts. This is repurposing two assistants. It's a zero 0% impact on the budget, but the sustainability position is now supporting instead of building conservation and the finance assistant
is helping building. And I can discuss that more if you want, but it's a it's a small change that we wanted to to highlight. And then we combined the historical commission assistant with the town the assistant town clerk, made that a full-time position. So, we moved all the historical commission money into the assistant town clerk line. And that position is not only doing historical
commission but also helping with what we call um orphan boards that don't have minute support and other assistance. >> So here are the expense requests by category and this is percent of the projected or proposed operating budget.
Education as you as you know leads the way at 50 almost 57% of the budget. This is the combined though CCHS and CPS >> and vocational >> and voc okay >> to include the debt insurance and fringe is is our next highest at 12.85% public safety is at
10% and so forth and so on. You'll see that debt is right around your target of 3.33% but there's a lot of debt coming as you know. And I will say uh well I'll get into that in a second but this budget does project that the DPW and the
fire station are passed in the spring. So you can see what that impact is. Of course, that is a huge assumption. The town has to vote on that. You still have a lot of work to do on that, but you keep telling me you want to see it. So we we've made it part of the budget. So some of the highlights, Carlile Public Schools is requesting a a 4.83%
increase. You'll see this is different from their 466 number, and that's because facilities moved. So if you take out the impact of the uh facilities increase, the educational increase is 4.83%. The increase for CCRHS, which includes
their declining debt number, is 9.08%. That's that large enrollment shift we've been talking about for a little while now. We did include a 2% COLA for all non-union non-contract employees. So, you could see what a 2% cola would look like. So, that number is built into this budget.
>> Wait, the Ryan, the the 9.08% is that that includes what increase in the high school budget? Absolutely. because I know they're doing a bud budget presentation >> tomorrow. >> Tomorrow. >> Yeah. >> So, this number we got from them this week. >> Okay. So, that reflects whatever they're presenting.
>> Whatever their local number is. >> Okay. >> Uh so, it looks to be about >> a better >> 750,000. >> I think it end up >> okay >> allocation. >> And then with debt, I think was just
just under 1%. >> For the high school overall, that's a Okay. Yeah, the majority of this impact is this one time. Well, you say one time. >> You're saying, Victor, the operating budget only went up by a percent. >> Really? >> I think it's one and a half
>> between one and two. >> How are they able to do that? So, >> I haven't looked at the looked at I'm going to be I'll hear it tomorrow. >> It'll be interesting to see. It'll be interesting to see. >> All right. Any contractual union wage increases and one step uh 1% step
increases for non-union were included. All those are merit-based. So those have to be earned and the 1% for or the contractual wage increases are included and that's I'm assuming the school included theirs and the town included ours. Talked about the employment
changes um added a very tiny bit for professional development. I believe that's important for succession. I can call that out if necessary. It's about $1,000. The town's retirement assessment increased by 8.02% 02% and we thought
this was the good year. So that's good. We're projecting a 20% increase in health insurance contribution and that does include a continued 1% increase in health insurance splits which you have not approved but we wanted to show you what that looks like. There's a pretty big bump in IT maintenance. This is
mostly because the public safety computer systems in dispatch and police had to be carried by what used to be drive techch and is now called the 20. So they need to be managed systems in uh in order to comply with state law. They were not managed at the time. So all the
computers here are managed. Those need to be managed as well. And that adds about $2,500 a month to the budget. >> Additionally, you in approved and installed a CAD system last year, which is around $40,000 a year in software costs.
That's a yearly expense. >> And that will continue. >> Yeah. >> Yes. Forever. And then um you'll see there's an 8.42% increase in town debt and that includes your declining debt and your new debt. And I'll show you debt in in detail
right now. So this proposed budget includes the high school debt which is carried through the assessment. Your previously held town debt which continues to decline your recently approved capital projects to include the elevator, the police station renovation borrowing and the fire station design
costs. And then it also includes proposed projects to be considered at town meeting right now which is building renovation uh DPW building renovation design and fire station renovation construction which we can show you. Okay. And this
again I'm trying to note it as much as possible that those are projections that you can you can pull out or not include in here however you want to do it. This is just a draft. Two things that you remember approving but are not in this so far the fire truck because that's a couple years out. That cost is built into our long-term debt projection, but
you won't see it in FY27. And the same thing with the library fan coils. If the renovation was to start, say, in the fall of this year, which I think would be a stretch, we wouldn't be paying for those library coil uh borrowing until the following fiscal year.
So, I'll pause a little bit so you can see the chart. So, on the the left, you'll see total, non-excluded, and existing debt. And then we've included excluded debt in line two. And you'll notice the sharp
increase in 2029 and 2030 when we add the fire station and the DPW if we add. So that creates a total debt. So you are at and have been for a while 3.3 3.3% of your operating budget and then you'll
see the increase for three years a real strong increase and then it starts to decline. Okay, this is you have a policy of keeping your operating budget around 3 to 5% of your operating budget. So you are ex with this excluded debt saying you are going to go over your policy for
these generational building projects. >> Is that percentage I know it's not in line with what we typically do but in the context of taking on excluded capital projects is is this acceptable in terms of
percentage of total? >> What does acceptable mean? Well, I mean, in terms of like financial soundness, I mean, >> you mean how much debt like leverage that carries? >> I'm sure historically when we took on the school project. >> Well, let's ask it a different way. It's
a good question, Ryan. In your experience, the bond rating agencies, how much do they care how much is debt or do they only care how you cover it? >> They do care how much is debt. I would say because of the size of the town and
the commercial industrial mix we have here, you're never going to go higher for your bond rating. So the question is are you going to hold it, >> right? >> The this would not kick you out as long as you have accompanying debt exclusions and and reserve levels that you have. >> But like kicking up into 9% debt doesn't
trigger like there's not a point where they say there's, you know, a little too much debt for the as a percentage of your operating. I think they'd want to see your capital planning and your your your plan as long as you had a sound plan. I I don't think so. No. >> Okay.
>> And you are below the state mandated. There is a cap that you can borrow and we're nowhere close to that. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, another way to visualize the debt, your existing debt is in green. You'll see it going down. Your new debt
but non-excluded. So that's the um elevators and library coils. >> And then the orange is >> three three big projects. The fire engine because that was voted on and excluded and then your two building projects.
>> So the police station is that little bit of orange nub in the beginning. It's not that much or what? >> Yes. >> So it's not really that much in the grand scheme of things. >> It doesn't hit hard until 28. But even still, if you add in,
>> it's not much though. >> Fire station and DPW, I'm assuming you have $32 million approximately >> in potential >> compared to four and a half. Yeah. >> Compared 10x, >> right? Got it. >> So, just a way for you to visualize the
debt. >> All right. Tax impact. I know this is a section people care about tremendously. So, this projects an average tax bill increase of $1,291 or 6.91%. That's using the FY27 tax rate. So, this
is a projection and a tool we use. It is not 100% accurate, but we try and >> for next for 27 >> 27. Yep. This would hit next year next year's tax bill. So the cost in that in that number for just the building
renovation projects alone which right now is the police station is is $160 $7 a home which is 045% of that increase. So if you wanted to isolate the operating budget increase or the non-building projects you're looking at
about $1,100 per home or 6.45% four five% here >> estimated fiscal so I'm not quite following that the oh just for the building projects just for the now >> just fire station right
>> yeah we've already cover the police station >> yeah that's kind of a meaningful statistic because we already voted that right >> correct but you voted it saying that this would be above prop two and a half so I do think it's important to continue to note it >> okay
>> otherwise you're going to crush This has to be considered outside of the normal increase otherwise you're going to crush yourself. >> Yeah. >> So I think it's important to carry it and know it. >> Okay. >> Okay. Some factors in here uh are excess
levy capacity and I'll show you what what that looks like with this budget that these projections are preliminary. Expense expense revenue and impact are all preliminary at this point. And property value fluctuations and changes mean the average tax bill impacts people differently. So this doesn't mean that
everybody's going to go up 1100 or 1,291. It means it's spread out based off your values. Okay. So with your levy analysis, this is how we get our numbers here. The operating budget is this top number. The
new debt exclusions are here. $315,72. Combined, those become the new budget. >> Wait, I got to catch up. Okay. So you got the operating budget operating budget debt exclusion expense new. So the 315 that's the fire station and
the coils and things like that. >> So that would be the excluded debt. So the fire station, the police station and that's it. >> The fire station design funds for the fire station. >> So because of the way we have to borrow, there's going to be interest payments
until we permanently borrow and then you'll have a more solid figure. All of these estimates are at four and a half% and uh reasonable useful life projections. So there is some variability in those costs. We're seeing interest rates a lot lower than that right now. But the world is the world
and I don't want to project too >> too nice for two years from now. >> When you say a lot lower, what do you mean? >> Uh we're in the threes. We're projecting this at four and a half. So it's it's a pretty big impact on the amount we're borrowing.
So, uh, cherry sheets, state charges, and overlay. These are consistent charges that you have to pay annually that we increase at the historical rate, and we're pretty accurate there. So, the total expense line is 39.4 million. You subtract from that the revenue that
we talked about. So, state aid, local receipts, any one-time funds that you want to use, and what you get is the the remaining number is the tax levy, how much hits the taxpayer. Okay, this calculation below the line is just for the way we calculate the excess
levy capacity. So I don't want to confuse anybody but it's necessary so you can see excess levy capacity. So if you look at FY27 here is your proposed change in levy the 6.91 tax bill increase the average
tax bill dollar amount and then your average bill. So can I stop debt exclusions new? We just covered debt exclusions existing. We just covered total maximum
levy. Where does it show how close we are to the levy limit? >> So max levy minus levy equals >> you didn't do that math. >> Levy capacity. >> The remaining excess levy capacity. >> I know, but I have to do math. You didn't do that math. >> Well, it's 2 point.
>> I did the math. It's right here. We're going down at >> the bottom right down there. And then this Okay. So, this also >> I got it. Thank you. So, and then >> the top one is everything >> for the tax bill. It's everything 6.91% everything we just presented. The bottom one shows you operating budget and it
shows you the debt exclusions for the building. So, you can see the impact of those projects. >> And but the bottom line at the very last line of that little section 3 and a half% levy limit capacity just got whacked down to 2.2. too. Pretty steep.
>> You cut 1.3 million out of your excess. >> And when you project that out with your other things, when do we run out of room? >> Same as the forecast, about four years from now. >> Assuming that you're going to carve this up a little bit and not just pass this blindly.
If you want to just do that tonight, we could be done. It's >> Scott's third term. >> No, no serer than that. Um, so I think a couple of I mean obviously you're going to be going through the departments. I think some key questions are going to be around
like given we have this allocation increase this year. Do we use onetime funds? >> What does that look like over time? I think it's a one-year increase and they expect it to I don't know either hold or go down but not continue to increase. >> Correct. The high school. >> My memory is it's going to be level for about two years and then drop off.
That's memory. >> I see the growth number here. I know that's a conservative number. We always use a conservative number, but >> that's not that conservative. >> So, we expect less growth next year compared to this year. >> You're talking about internal real estate growth or state homes.
>> We're right around 300,000 all the time. >> Except last year we were 390 >> 390. >> So, I mean, some of those things will inform I'm assuming those will adjust these numbers, but a lot of it comes down to operating budget.
>> Yeah, that's the point. and the um where's the uh >> seems like we're this the high school will be it's a lower ask than it has been out of the gate this year which is helpful.
Um Carlile public is higher. Um and then yeah these other retirement all that other stuff is health insurance a killer the big drivers are the schools any community in New England schools and
then you have um the new debt is is rel it's 8% growth on 1 million so there's a little bit of a hit there and then health insurance retirement >> but for the insuranceances and the retirement funds is there a disconomy of scale or a big town gets the same 20. I mean there's
not there's let me ask you different like let's say healthcare 20% increase is a healthare I think >> we're not really being penalized for our size like big big towns and cities are getting wiped with that too right >> we're getting whacked also for our performance
>> but you but you could again have that in any size city >> same with retirement I mean again you know as we talk about the viability of a small town in a modern era Uh you could say, well, you should regionalize some functions, but those
things you're going to pay no matter what you do, unless you just have fewer employees, right? Correct. All right. So, any questions there? So, I thought maybe if you wanted to cut 1% from the tax bill,
make sure I get this right. Well, 27 >> $100,000 is a quarter%. >> It's a quarter%. >> So 1% decrease is 400,000. >> Find your fin. >> All right. I'm going to move into
capital. Fincom's much more familiar with the capital plan at this point or I know that you want to contribute. So, I'm going to try and move through this quick. >> Yeah, you go ahead and I'll color. >> Okay. 3.762 million in capital requests that includes adding $430,000 to address the Culbert maintenance plan that you
that you saw this year. Implement a advanced EMT program. These are new things. We've combined the Grant and Robins RTU projects into a $500,000 project that's going to be grant funded. And the MFC use their funds to seed to
seed this uh climate leader grant which was good work by our sustainability. >> You said so grant funded and then there's a grant building. You mean we're not paying for this se HVAC? >> You will not be. No. >> Okay. >> If we do our jobs right.
>> Um the some deferred costs. you received a donation for your drone and the the finance committee deferred the sign board for the police department for the time being. The recreation commission rep prioritized their projects. They're looking and they're doing a townwide assessment on need before they propose
anything, but if they do propose things, it will be CPA funded. So, facilities department added some things. Serve protect. This is uh MFC and facilities surge protection at CPS and police department. You know, new radios for the facilities department. A
server upgrade that's necessary because of uh some windows shenanigans. And then the outside main staircase, the one that you're familiar with going up to vote at Corey, not to vote to town meeting, uh needs to be replaced pieces of it.
Some considerations for you for FY27 capital. There's not enough free cash to fund the entirety of the request, and I'll show you what that is. And maintain a 12% reserve and use money for the operating budget. So, I think that's an obvious statement, but it needs to be said. And the finance committee is
considering, you'll be talking maybe about this, but the town hall projects being combined into one. More to follow on that. Uh, in terms of your financing, you should obviously continue to borrow for your large renovation projects and combine permanent borrowing when
possible to reduce costs. So, we think these numbers are on the high end. We can't promise miracles, but they should come down. You should fully allocate your chapter 90 towards a road maintenance plan, which we believe will still be around 450 this year. Use CPA when possible and consider alternate
funds like that advanced EMT. You might consider using your ambulance reserve fund or using ambulance reserve for operational purposes. So, if you look at the finance plan, here's your department requests. Um, I didn't do this funky lettering. That's a PDF thing. So, that
wasn't me trying to be cool. The department requests are here. Your alternate revenues such as grant chapter 90 state funding takes away uh 1.6 million of that. Let's say you use 1 million in free cash. That's an arbitrary number. Um, you'd
still have a deficit of 1.1 million. And I'll show you where you're at with reserve levels. The only Warren article that's been proposed that has a financial impact so far is the perpetual fund discussion that we had last year correcting an error that was made in the perpetual fund. Right now that's projected to be a
$34,000 ask to make the perpetual fund care whole. >> DPW this doesn't >> right >> well this DPW design could be a warrant article fire station. Yeah, that would be a debt exclusion.
>> I'm sorry. Okay, so this is just for >> So the debt exclusion was included in the operating budget. >> These are just one time us capital. >> Yeah, there'll be warrant articles for MFC, DPW, but they have different funding sources. So your reserves right now you're at 1.4
in stabilization, 3.17 in capital stabilization, and your free cash estimate, which is being certified as we speak, is is 4.74 million for a total of 6.4 47 million. That's 16.48% of the
proposed budget in this draft before you make any reductions, which gives you 1.8 million above reserve for use. So if you took if you paid for the entirety of the capital plan that's not
funded from alternate service sources, which is another 2.3 2.2 $2 million. You used all of it, then in including that $34,000 warrant article, your reserves would be down to 10.89% of your operating budget as projected.
>> So that does not include using one-time funds to offset operating or anything. >> You see, >> what was our target? 12. >> Here we go. >> Project. What's the projected expenses? You're applying it to capital and operating a capital deficit.
>> Capital deficit. >> In a prior chart, you used a million of it, >> right? >> And then you had a shortfall. >> Two charts ago, it would show a million >> and then there was a shortfall. Now you're saying use all of it to cover everything.
>> Yeah. I showed you two >> no nothing to operating. It's all apply all the spare free cash to capital. >> Yeah. >> And then you'd be at 10 11%. So >> like 12 I guess is >> trying to show you the variability of use.
>> Yeah, Ryan, in the past we've had discussions of whether we should be counting in our reserves um are the amount that Carile should be credited for that uh CCHS holds as
reserve. You're not including that. >> I did include that. >> Oh, you did include that. >> That's in this number. >> Have you always included? You have it in the past. >> Always included. How much is that? >> Well, they have they've reserved the money for your what is their assessment?
9 million. >> They can only reserve 5%, right? >> They have enough to cover any calamity on the Carile side for that entire chunk of money, that 9 million. >> Okay. But you include it's included. That's what you're saying. >> So, they're backing up about
a quarter of your budget, 20% of your budget. How? So >> they have a budget that's similar to our budget. >> The reason for having stabilization is the state tanks. We don't get that money and we got to cover that hole. >> Right. >> Uh they have enough money to cover their
own hole. >> Is that END or it's a >> Yeah. >> But END is statutoily 5% of the budget. Right. >> Correct. >> So they have a same as us a 30 whatever million dollar budget they're >> but that that's >> so they got a million8. We're like a
quarter of that. I'm not quite following him yet. >> It would be a pretty significant >> economic shift for them to have to use all their END. >> No, but I mean Mark's question is >> separate reserve. >> What do the agencies look at? Do they count
>> that amount? >> They probably would. >> So, let's do the math again. We have our budget. What's our operating line here? >> 37 >> 39 >> 30. I'll call it 40. So 40 would be 800,000 of Indie. That's the most they
could have. The most is 800,000 of which were a quarter which is 200,000. So that's it. You say backst step a quarter of us but they're not. It's just 200,000. >> So that's more than our assessment increase. So they could cover one year of calamity is what?
>> Yeah. But I don't think I mean maybe I misunderstood the question. I think in this calculus is that 200 find its way into reserve. It doesn't. No, >> it does not. >> Yeah. Yeah. In the calculation of the 12 >> does not. Yeah. I don't think that's where that's what I was trying to get. We've never done to my knowledge.
>> But why wouldn't we? >> Well, because I don't think the agency >> because you can't tap it. >> Yeah. >> You can't tap. We don't have any control. >> It's not on our balance sheet. >> It's on theirs. >> You can tap it with town meeting, but it's it's hard. >> I mean, it's good to know what's there, but >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, a lot of these next steps, you know, we're identifying large outstanding discussions to include the revenue coming from the Commonwealth, which will help, but hopefully help, but it's not going to solve the problem. Health insurance projections, we we hope we're high at this point, and they come
down a little bit. The school budgets are still in their own process. We need decisions on non-UN cola and employee benefits and any onetime revenue use is an obvious outstanding question. Well, bullets two and
>> four are kind of related, right? >> Is cola in the six in in the budget here? >> 2%. >> 2%. Okay. >> But that's just us. When we don't put it in, there's a lot of questions about it. So, we just put in a placeholder. >> Yeah. No, no, that >> that could be not enough.
>> So, bullet two is how much our health insurance overall is going to go up, >> right? >> Bullet four is how much you're going to contribute on the >> But they're related. staff here >> kind of. >> So there's something >> boy. >> And then the for the public the budget
schedule in January is when the finance committee does their marathon meetings. The governor comes out with the first draft of the state budget and our health insurance estimates become a little more real. >> February and March is your analysis time. April is your public presentation
of information time. And then May, you have annual town meeting on the 18th and the annual town election on the 2nd. really >> included in this document is a line by line summary >> which I'm not I'm not going to go
through >> unless you have questions but it is available >> and then the full 10-year capital plan as we know it now. So, I know you guys love colors. The colors coordinate with other funding sources or yellow and red
are removals or changes >> that's on the capital. >> Well, that's a nice chart. >> So, this is a link a public link. If you go to town administrative page, budget information, the capital plan link is live and goes right to the spreadsheet. You can download it.
But this is for the presentation. All right. Who's excited? That's about it. >> It's good analysis. I I it's back to the kind of basic I'd like to calibrate our basic emotional principles first. Like
maybe I you know in my mind there's kind of three categories. There's the excluded debt projects that we kind of have already chewed over. We've all kind of raised our hands said yes. We need a fire station. We need DBW. So, I don't want to revisit that. That that has a
cost, but we've already kind of in my mind, we've already crossed that bridge. We don't pulling back from that script. Then we have all the rest of the capital, some of which it looks like we could defer. And then we have the operating line and whether we are going to get tough on the operating line.
And I'm interested in fincom and select boards, you know, emotional feeling of like which levers to read as hard as >> and then I would nominate a subcommittee of >> people who aren't running again to be the hammer.
>> But anyway, I am >> I am interested in you know that feedback on that, right? because you got like a 7% a nonsustainable operating increase line and a pretty heavy capex including if you want to throw in uh you
know the bridges and I mean the >> culverts and all that >> my kind of thought is what what have like we project out I think you have done that a little bit but this is you know seven% or whatever 6.9% increase to the tax
bill for next year what does that increase look 28 >> per 28. >> It's like two grand. >> If the if the school assessment returns to quote unquote normal
and you pass this high a budget, then next year's average tax bill increases relatively low because you're starting this one. Yeah. >> As you bring this down, that one will go up. And I I think we need to see what we can
do. I mean, we don't >> we don't use free cash for operating expenses typically. So, that's the first challenge. >> But the one the one operating expense that's not really an operating expense is that allocation shift and is there >> how do we how do we attack I keep using
this word tonight. How do we approach that? Um >> and the recommendation for fiscal 27, can we take some depending on what we do for capital, can we can we take some free cash? to offset some of that allocation increase for one year and kind of step
>> the allocation as in the CCHS >> CCHS. >> So a speed bump. I mean we talked about we do that periodically. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> This is a this is a large I mean and we we benefited >> but then you got to peel it then you need to peel it from >> then capital has to get a haircut. >> Yeah.
>> Right. >> But the capital also has and we haven't been through it all. It has the full 800,000 road >> but um Ryan We decided that a 1% decrease in the budget is 400k. >> How many How much do we have to
>> No, 1% decrease of the tax >> average tax bill. >> The average tax bill is 400k. >> They're pretty close though. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because a $40 million budget is >> Yeah. >> About right. >> All right. So, right. 1% is 400k, right?
Okay. So, and as you go, you said we're four years away from Armageddon. So, >> it's not was that term >> levy limit. >> We're four years away from crashing into the levy. So what would we need to do?
How much like I don't know how much by how much we would exceed at that point like broadly speaking what percent over each of the next four years would we have to trim? Like what glide slope would we need to buy ourselves another year and another year? That's kind of
>> really interested in pushing that horizon. without any growth. >> Yeah. Well, not no regular old >> without any new growth beyond what is average. >> Yeah. Right. >> Then you would need
assuming that you're okay with it, you need to keep your operating budget tax impact between three and four and a half%. >> Okay. >> Get another year or two. But I will tell you with >> you know with this with this enrollment
shift there's no >> well you >> there's no way you're getting to a three this year unless you do significant cuts at the schools and then the town >> what is the operating budget increase without CCHS or if you just wave
>> so that >> because the public school the K through eight schools got a pretty healthy increase. Take the 600k out. It's like 1.5% roughly, right? That allocation. >> Okay, it's 1.5 >> out of seven. So you're at five and a half. You still have to carve 2% out of
that >> and the biggest user is >> K through. They're at 4.8. I don't see how >> they're not at Are they >> people having taken facilities out? >> Yeah. Right. Right. Right. You've got
you got to go apples to apples. >> 4.83 is is apples. >> It is apples. >> We're still Yeah. >> Just doing the math. They're up to 4.8. Something's up more than that to get us to >> Yeah. What's up more? I mean, I know
>> Yeah. Healthare retirement. >> Right. Retirement. Health and retirement are probably the other two. >> What do you guys think? We're doing a lot of job building. >> First time we're seeing it, too. So, that's a good question. But >> you got to reduce it.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> You got you got to get closer to two and a half%. >> I mean, that answers your question. >> Yeah. I mean, my guiding light is get us on a path to buy us more time before we hit. >> We got to start now. can't keep
deferring deferring till the final year. You'll just never get there. So, no. >> And the reserves I would try not to use for the operating budget because you're kind of misleading. >> The only argument the argument Scott's making is one that we've used in the
past, which is you've got >> the old adage, at least from my era, was you only use free cash in the operating budget when you have this anomalous event. >> Yeah. You never use it to throw to use
the term peanut butter, you know, >> but you're just paying for it next year then. >> Well, you are, >> right? So, if you use it for a capital budget, it's a one time >> Yeah. >> onetime cost and it's sort of more >> I mean you you still have the issue, >> right?
>> Yeah. Well, the only difference though, is that um what wouldn't be good is if we force down the operating budget because we're not using free cash, but then we give a pass to the capex and let them
use that free cash. You shouldn't do shouldn't do that. >> Yeah, >> there's a few things we've gone um department by department on the capital side. There's not a whole lot that we felt could be cut, but there's a few areas that we felt that we wanted to
discuss with the select board. So, um the uh one is the ongoing roads and maintenance, right? So, >> we set a budget level there. Uh you all did uh with a study. Um but certainly
we're in a tight belt period. So, I think it's something that we can revisit and discuss if if it continues to make sense of the 800,000 for the the roads and the whatever it is 450 for the coverts and such or if we should use that as a lever. Uh the other one was uh
that was built into this year was the um a number of individual line items for this building for town hall for renovations. Uh and this is a 30-y old building roughly. It felt to us that we're not just talking about maintaining windows and maintaining, but it's more
of a almost like a renovation of this building. So, should that be something that's another building project? That's another debt exclusion or not? >> Take it down the road and put it behind the D after the DPW >> potentially. Yeah. >> The only issue being on the MFA, the
only issue with that is the HVAC is at the end of its life, relatively speaking. Yeah. So the the H the RTU up there, the HVAC system is a target for the climate leader grant. >> We are applying for design funding which
we're going to get from climate leader. That should inform how much that costs. The complication is um we think that the climate leader accelerator grant would pay for the whole thing, right? So design and but if you're going to do that, you probably
should do the roof at the same time. And that's because then you'd be working around uh you'd be doing it twice. So that's not going to get funded by a sustainability grant. So then the town has to pay for that >> roof. But
>> it's it needs to be repaired in the next five years. And if you're doing the RTU, it's time. >> Yeah. So I think >> I can show you some pictures. >> I don't think we the way we talked about it at our last meeting was not was not postponing doing the project. It was just bundling all together and and
putting it and taking out a you know borrowing money for it which then spreads out the cost. >> Right. But the question mark is >> so we reduce the cost. >> We're like the airplanes at J on a Sunday night. Right. So we got the we got the >> the uh the um fire station the police
station has landed. The fire station's kind of getting ready for final approach. >> Yep. >> TBW's out there circling around waiting for its slot. This thing's going to be behind that. It's going to be a while. If we do that, it's going to be a while. >> The alternative is I think the overall
projects over the next 24 months are about a million bucks for the town for the town hall. Is that right? Roughly speaking, >> a million. >> So, it's a million out of our reserves. >> Otherwise, >> right? So, spreading that there there is the option that it could take from the
DPW. That's obviously a risk or concern. Um but the question is otherwise are we if these things need to get done are we lowering our reserves by a million and this is what we are grappling with. We don't have an answer. >> Well I'm hearing kind of we have five years to make the decision here other
than the fact that there's this grant but in fact they're always going to be grants. >> I can't tell you which >> we'll hit that million dollar threshold on the this project though. The MSSE doesn't think there's a fiveyear window,
but that's right. >> They think yeah, >> all the departments are telling you that this has been deferred for wild roads, cohorts, buildings. So, >> right, >> switch. But we're to me, we're in a state where we're taking a lot of projects on to mitigate for lack of
investment and maintenance. Yeah. >> And we don't want to go into the realm of um comparing our financial health. But if I do think it's time to look at that reserve range and if we're rather being on the low end of healthy versus the high end of healthy,
>> now's the time to start thinking about that because otherwise what are the reserves there for? I mean again we don't want to do anything that >> certainly low end what is the low end of healthy? >> I don't know what it is these days. 10. >> We've always thought we always >> 10 to 12 seems to be our window. >> We always knew this day was coming with
>> Yeah. And I'm not saying you >> and this is why we had a 12% reserve. So like I think I think if we went to something like seven or >> Well, and if we're applying it to these long-term projects, >> I think that that was the intent of having that >> planned way. So we're not >> I agree.
>> And we can confirm what's what keeps our bond rating. Then those are the things we should be doing. >> You borrow from a position of strength. Sy's online. Maybe she could say it'd be all these excluded debt is great if you have plenty of reserve because then they
say give you a nice low rate, right? So, >> you know, Sandy, you got anything to add there? >> She can certainly add, but that is definitely a policy. >> Yeah. So, >> we can change it >> is not the time I would say. >> So, I mean it's she's entering a high borrowing period.
>> Yeah. It's the exact opposite. >> Wow. Wow. >> Keep it as strong as you can, >> but not overly strong. >> Don't go over 12. >> Keep it at 12. >> Why? >> Oh, but if if it's the same difference between 10 and 12, why are we keeping the >> Maybe we should ask somebody before we
>> Maybe 8% is fine. >> Inclusion, right? >> Right. It is >> back in the day 12%. I mean, we we we kept it high for this purpose. >> I mean, this is what we've talked about for like the last six years. We wanted to squirrel money away to cover >> these all these buildings that were
coming up. >> Yeah. Let's cover them. >> Yeah. Because we knew we had the fire station, the police station, you know. So, I mean, >> yep. >> I had a slightly different qu just can you remind me. Sorry. >> When you calculate, you said that >> uh the 6.91%
increase in the tax bill. That's be and then it's not an increase. And then on top of that is the CPA assessment assessment. >> Correct. >> Yes. >> You don't roll that in. You always talk about it without the CPA.
>> And then there's another line for the CPA. So just hear me out. So as the tax bill goes up, of course, the CPA assessment, the percentage >> because the the the net the the the sum of the tax bill is getting bigger. So the money gathered from CPA also
>> increases. So I do think it's timely that we consider whether we really need to be gathering. Forget about the percentage all that money from CPA because what a a taxpayer sees is not this and then CPA he sees he or she she
or he sees the total. So any way you make the total goes down is a good thing for the taxpayer. And I would say we've got a lot of reserves in CPA too. So we should for the benefit of the taxpayer
consider consider reducing the CPA assessment like consider it for the upcoming tax year we have to however we have to do that >> town meeting. >> Yeah it's a town meeting vote.
>> Yeah. Okay. So that's before the the new fiscal year will begin. >> But you can vote >> uh it may there may be a year lag on that actually. >> Yeah. There may be a year lag. Can you vote? >> Well, so there's a year lag. Whatever. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. But let's let's I I think the select board should look at that
carefully. >> No, I agree. And I I think we should we should be doing that as a matter of course anyway. >> Yeah. The other thing is did you make So we've got a new uh law on the books which is of course the new um
ADUs are much easier to build and by right they can be built. Are we seeing yet any increase or are we projecting any increase in the next couple years and have you added that because I mean increases our tax base obviously we have
a lot of data >> there's not enough data for me in good faith to increase our growth but if we did see that we would >> it hasn't been high volume historically but >> well okay we've never had it by rate though >> that's something to look at right yeah
as we go into this process >> may >> that would increase your excess living capacity for sure. >> Yep. >> You would not reduce your tax rate. >> You could though if you want to. >> I mean, if we can >> bring in the same amount of money >> and we're over we're we should maintain a a position of being conservative in
the revenue forecast, but we should validate. >> Yeah. >> If there are some things that could favorably help our revenue, we should it's good to get that number >> right or as close to right as we can and still be a little conservative but not overly conservative.
probably should take a look at fees across the board again, you know, like transfer station and >> but again, in the world of Mark Bernstein, most taxpayers are going to say, "Well, you're just >> Yeah. >> moving the tax bill." >> Well, it's a use fee, right? So, if
you're using >> what you want, he's going to say, >> "Well, I I I I'm not just picking on transfer station. There are fees at the school. >> There's there's fees across the board. And and if you're going to increase >> taxes,
>> yeah, >> uh and you can offset that by some new fees, at least >> you can make a case that you're using >> every resident has to pay $100,000. >> Done. >> Well, look, I I already wanted I have already said for the record, I think we
need to reduce this budget. >> So, I'm definitely committed to finding ways to >> Yeah, I'm with you. >> Reducing >> I'm with you, Erin. I'm at budget reduction strategy. >> I think we need to >> then you later we showed a calendar. We got a couple months here
>> because it's going to fit the pieces together to see >> these are relatively good times and so you're going up >> you know a lot of this has to again has to do with the high school and obviously CPS as well especially around certain
you know I mean uncontrolled costs at CPS as well. So, >> well, you let right. So, on your fee question, I mean, if you if you push back on the CPS budget, let them solve for other sources that they want to put in to get fees. We don't we don't need
to manage that piece of their process. >> But I I guess FinCom, what I'm saying to FINCOM is maybe we we add that to as a question during our January meeting, you know, really focus on fees. I mean, we did a couple years back. >> Sure. you know, but if if we're looking
for $400,000, if we can pick up a hundred,000 >> Oh, sure. >> $200,000 in fees, um, every little bit's going to help, right? >> Well, that's the idea, right? Is we make smaller, sooner adjustments and affect
that glide path because the more we can do of that, >> the more we avoid a emergency break in a few years. >> Yeah. >> Um, >> it's it's also past 8 o'clock. I do want to just do a time check with folks. Is there anything specifically you want to discuss?
We can still have a few questions, but is there any other materials we want to go over at this point or kind of unloaded the >> So, I think in January, February, March, your focus is going to be on what you were just talking about, which is your budget cuts. So, I'm strongly
recommending again that you focus on making those capital decisions now because it's more of a known quantity. So you don't tackle how do you tackle capex first and then opex or you do it all at once. >> This year's new so in the past we did it all at once. Uh this year we brought in
the departments over the past six or eight weeks to talk about capital. >> So that's now you've done that. >> We've done that right. >> So you're now going to look at everything you want. >> So now we're going to look at it big picture. >> Come back and recommend to us what you >> correct. And I think for us we need to
specifically they've identified really taken a look at the road maintenance and they mentioned a few things that we should discuss, >> right? I mean I remind us you know like on that score I know uh Ryan came up with an idea of parody roads and that makes everybody feel good but really if
you're utilitarian like you you can't do it all. You got to tell some people I'm sorry crappy road there you want it. It's hard to rebuild our town buildings and repair all our roads and >> we just I don't Yeah, I I guess our
appetite we have to restore an appetite. >> You mentioned decades of of neglect. >> Right. Right. >> But the fact is it wasn't it wasn't neglect of not paying attention. It was neglect in the sense
that we made hard trades and we knew it imposed hardship, but we were conservative and We've kind of gone a little maybe too far into the appeasement mode in my opinion and we just got to go back to some harder choices and just say you know too bad
some roads are going to have potholes some culvers aren't going to make we just >> don't be stupid but >> I think the deep the >> some DBW management has also changed in terms of awareness and >> no we know more
healthare we can't >> have a real analysis of what needs to be done >> right yeah Okay. Is there anything else? Oh, sorry. Barney, did you >> Oh, I I just have three things. One is um >> this >> who >> do we have a is it the who's
>> government does >> uh going head-to-head with the conquered on the CCHS budget? >> Who's representing our financial interests? because um we I think we have a case to make that
because of this um very unusual year where our assessment is really gone up that we should be taking a hard look at some of the practices of the conquered um uh their budget and is there a way or
the or the school budget. Is there a way to um push harder for them to uh either reduce their OPED or reduce what's the other thing they always do?
>> Amenities building. >> But I think there is I mean that was offered up last year in terms of discussion. Um maybe not so much END but definitely OPED. >> Yeah. >> But we can we can open that discussion up. We've actually brought it up with Conquered Bincom. Yes. Before
>> but but it it feels like this is one of those times when we really have to make our voice heard. So if you need more con caral voices in or coming from other directions at other um committees in
conquered sure >> that we should do that we should put a full court press on them around this issue. Will their response Victor you mentioned is their opex is only going up like a percent and a half. It's actually I looked it back my memory is not good so I always have to
reference it's two and a half that is uh without debt >> without debt and then debt push >> with debt is one and a half >> right so they're getting the windfall of now the school building is starting to come down >> but still even at two and a half >> yes >> I'm them I'm like well fix your own
house first your public school's asking for you know >> four >> four like why don't you fix that then come back >> but even so I mean I think this is something that you know I liaison for a few years trying to cultivate this aspect that we're working together and last year was the first year that they
said you know this is an issue then let's talk and here are some areas we can talk about we never actually pulled that trigger on the >> the um OPED but it was OPED um at the very end of the day they had offered up OP and then I think we did take that
there was some type of technology thing that they had line item that they had that I think we said reduce that and that impact very small amount. >> So they brought it up last year as an opportunity. So I think that's something we can talk about. END might be a little tougher. I don't think we've really had a lot of conversations about
>> END before, but >> quickly last other two points, Barney. >> Yeah, I'm trying to remember what the other two were now. Sorry. >> Got a long process. >> Although I know the um so um
Brian, you said the estimates on revenue are low, are very conservative. or what was your phrase? >> Quite conservative or something like that. >> They're conservative. They usually are this time of year. >> I know. But but I think that is while I
completely agree we need to reduce the spending. I think we also need to look at the revenue um and maybe not be as conservative as we have been in the past. If in fact it's it's really
on the conservative side, right? Is there a middle ground that we could be considering in terms of the revenue? >> Yeah, >> I forgotten what >> you'll have a better state, right? Yep. At the end of January, >> January 23rd. >> So you you'll know that piece of the conserviveness,
>> right? >> All right. So, we're just at the beginning of this process. So, thank you for presenting all this info. >> Thank you. >> Y >> can I can I add one thing, >> please? Nathan. Um so um I just want to
um point out or state a preference that um that you know we really I think you know I think this budget should go down as well. I agree with the others who said that. Um and I also agree that we need to um really push hard on some of
these things. Um, and I also think that that means, you know, to me there is other money that in the future could be potentially um, leveraged in some way for some things that may come up and that's the CPA funds.
>> And so I just think that we need to be very careful um, in what we're agreeing to spend CPA funds on now because it could help us in the future for some projects. >> Yes. And I think we really want to try to identify that, right? So we know what
we're sort of saving for. >> Well, I don't think that we necessarily have to know that right now. It's not a this for that thing. It's just just making sure that what we're spending the CPA money on now is really a high priority for the town. Um,
knowing all of these other things that are going on. >> Yes. I think I certainly agree with that and I'm sure Fincom I know you've discussed it initially but >> we have yeah we haven't taken a position but we generally feel the same way I would say.
>> Okay. Wonderful. So thank you guys. Do you want to close your meeting and then we can >> So I can take a motion to close the meeting. >> I'll move to close >> the Nathan I'll second Nathan. >> Okay. And a roll call. >> I
brown eye. Katrii >> gober eye. >> There we go. >> Thank you all. >> Thank you very much. Much more to come. >> Ryan, thank you again. >> Good night, everyone. >> All right. Thank you. Uh we're ready to move on to the Cranberry Bog House discussion. >> So, if um Julie and members of the uh
Affordable Housing Trust want to come up to the table, that'd be great for folks watching at home. >> Before they start, well, well, I appreciate everyone thanking me. Um, just want to say Kelly is like my human AI, so >> he doesn't get a lot of facetime during
this, but she does most of the work. >> Okay. So, to set the stage on this conversation, I know we're going to we're going to get a presentation um on the potential cranberry bog house project. And I think the goal tonight is not for us to necessarily dive into the
details or make any specific decisions, but as a select board express, if we feel that way, support for this project moving forward. So that there's some kind of high um look for high level support to continue
to work on this project and and continue to push it forward. We're not looking to make specific decisions or we're not expecting to have specific approvals or anything like that tonight. It's really um to get an overview of where things are at and and give our uh level of support for the project. So, I think
with that, I'll turn it over to you, Julie. >> Great. Hi. Yeah, thank you for having us back. Um I think the last time I came before you to talk to you about this project was in February. Um so, I'm glad we're we're here now in December. Um, and I'm back working on this and I have
recently gotten kind of caught up on the things that happened over the summer when I wasn't so involved in the project. Um, but I'm gonna let John kind of kick kick this off. See, I can do it that way. >> Okay. So, um, I'm John Ballentine. I've
been working on housing issues in Carlile for 40 years. And so, I want to give a little bit of background on this. And I'm these are K Schiller SLI slides of what's happening to housing markets in the United States and it also reflects what's happening in
Massachusetts and in Carlile and what you see there on the left and this is just the context. So why we have a housing crisis is that since the financial crisis the real price of housing has more than doubled and basically if you look before 2000
you basically had housing prices and incomes basically parallel so people could afford their housing. So this is the whole affordability issue and so this is no surprise. Why? Because we've not been building enough housing. Very simple. When you have under supply
worldwide and in the country, which is what you see there in both in single and multi-unit housing, it dropped before the financial crisis and it stayed low and so about 40% low. So that's a real that's the broad issue and that's what
Carile's facing. And so feeding back into what we were talking about CPA, we're trying to come up with a project that's winnable. Unfortunately, as you know, in the MBTA discussion, we weren't talking about housing. We were talking about why we didn't have it in certain places rather than what our needs are.
We know throughout surveys in the past 30 years, people in Carla want more housing options. So the issue we have and this is what we did with the when we talk with the cons is how to come up with a winning strategy to build more housing that people accept that then
then can move on to other projects which feeds into how do we get more housing in carile that fits and grows our base and that's you know not just affordable units but just the whole cross-section. So I think that's what I think the context is that we want to look at this.
We met with the conservation commission two years ago at Kate Reid's suggestion and they said yes, let's look at the boghouse as a real possibility of something that could be a win and that the state would approve. But really that's a step in everything. And so I think you want to look at this just as a
step of doing something that looks good that people say yes, we want to do it and more things can follow which means more housing units which means more tax revenue. >> John, can I interrupt you? Did we actually open the CH? >> Yeah, I'm sorry. Do you need to open the open? >> Yes, we can open it. We only have three member. Yes.
>> Oh, yes. Sorry. Oh, yeah. I I look Yes. four. Yes. I'll open the >> housing trust meeting. Yes, it's open. >> So, do a roll call. >> All I present >> Valentine eye. Thank you. So, that's
where we are. And so now we're gonna kind of look at the the cranberry bog, but I kind of want to put it in the whole context of housing in Carl and how to kind of move forward. Go ahead, Julie. Okay. >> And so Julie and I have been working in parallel on this for two years, so it's not like >> we don't know what's going on.
>> So to get specific without getting super detailed for tonight's conversation, I just wanted to go back to the project goals as I understand them. Um, preserve historic structure. We want to maintain access to and viability of the open space and trails. Um we want to create four units of housing that are ownership
um so available to um households um eligible households for an ownership possibility and then affordable to households earning between 30% and 100% area median income which is important because that is the bracket for which we can spend CPA funds right um and then
related to that is pursue the use of CPA funds so we can offset the additional tax burden on residents I have in the last couple weeks spoken to town council and to the housing consultant that we're this close to contracting with um just to understand
strategy and ask basically fill in knowledge gaps for myself so I can try to kind of guide this process um and figure out what we don't know and then look at big picture strategy early on so that we don't miss something that's really necessary and then realize two
years from now oh no we didn't set this up correctly right so just a couple notes I want to just say from the beginning from my conversations with these experts um town council did say the legislative process for article 97 it could take the full two years the EA is moving the EA is the um executive
office of energy and environmental affairs they're moving really slowly um so just managing expectations all around that could be a lengthy process um the other one of the key recommendations from our housing consultant is that the town really should permit the site
before we issue the RFP for a um nonprofit affordable housing developer just because um that would then ensure that we're selecting the winning bidder and giving them a project that's in their sweet spot and their sweet spot typically is not the permitting process.
Um so if you take those two things together that kind of brings me to this time and consideration that we should try to permit the site while the legislative action is pending. Um just so that we don't have to delay the time frame or push the time frame out even further. Um, so that's something I'm
going to coordinate with our housing consultant on in the early part of 2026 just to figure out um procedurally what the best way to do that would be. And then just for all to note um units that are created through this would be subject to an affirmative fair housing
marketing plan which means that they cannot the units cannot be sold to the town and the town cannot determine who lives in them. So, no worker housing can be >> Yeah. >> We don't want to get too detailed into that, but that is the initial feedback that we've gotten from town council and the housing consultant. Um, so just a
little bit of an update on the things that have happened the last two years and what um staff and housing trust members are currently working on. So, as you might remember, we've learned that four four to six units actually are feas physically feasible in the structure. Um, four is kind of the ideal number
because it respects the historic building envelope and it avoids the need for the need for and cost of an elevator. In terms of utilities, um, the, uh, well, um, driller expert that I spoke to, I gave him the information that we have on the well, he believes
the flow rate is adequate for four units. Um, there were test bits done over the summer for the septic. There's a couple viable locations. I did receive a concept plan for um a septic located behind on the property behind the house uh just a couple days ago. So that I'm
working to vet with staff. Um there's a couple changes we've already identified need to be made, but um that's something that we'll continue to work on. And then of course the board of health will need to confirm all of these things. So that's a piece I'll be coordinating. Um we completed a top too survey and a
wetlands delineation but because of the um some the discussion about the septic and the location of the septic has changed a little. So we actually need to extend that delineation and wetlands um the survey to the western part of the site. So we're working on a little bit of an
additional scope for niche engineering to complete that piece. Um and then the consom really needs to confirm the wetlands delineation as well. So that will be built into that. So in terms of consultant support for 2026, as I just mentioned, we're we'll have a little
more scope for niche engineering. I'm going to try to have them price out um like what would be the cost of like a full engineered site plan. Um and I can talk about that more in a minute. And then we have a we I'm very close to finalizing a scope with our housing consultant. We met with her last
Thursday. Um, and so we hope to have those two contracts done by the end of the year and ready to get going or in early 2026. Um, and then in terms of getting the site permitted before we put it out to bid, um, we would need to have some
a a relatively detailed site plan and schematic design plans to take it through the local permitting process. So that's something that we >> so on these on those two points it the part that's really important is the schematic plan and have something so people can visualize what it looks like
and so the housing trust you know is supportive of this these ideas so that we go forward and say here's what's possible and here's what if we go with a twoacre used zone this is how it would all work and there's access to the bog so you maintain the conservation values
because it still is the largest conservation property in Carlau All right. And then in terms of work for 2026, just some of the actions. Um, so confirming the site layout. So conser confirming the septic location. Um, the
wetlands delineation and then where we might relocate parking. So the parking that would be next to the house would be used for the housing, right? And then we would have to create parking somewhere else on the site to support the trails. Um, so figuring that piece out. All of that will inform the area that we
propose for the carveout from um the article 97 um legislative action. And so kind of figure all that out in 2026 so that in early 2027 we can um submit the legislation for the 2027 2028
legislative sess session. Um, so in terms of article 97 there, one of the big things that I want to try to get answered early on with town council's help is whether we can get a waiver from the replacement land requirement. The guidelines actually have a specific um
justification that if you're changing ownership of a piece of the property from one t one municipal entity to another, but you're not changing the use, you may be able to to not have to provide replacement land. So I think we have a strong argument we can make. Um, but I want to probe that a little further. If we can achieve that, I think
that could potentially speed up the legislative process, but it would certainly reduce costs locally. Um, because we would not have to pay for a survey or appraisal of that of that replacement land. Um, so that's that's something to try to figure out early in
2026. Um, and then in terms of the like zoning and entitlement for the property, so currently we don't have any way for anyone to do this besides the 4DB process, right? Um, so there might be like a slight wrinkle
with with the with whether we can do the friendly 4DB while the legislation is pending. And that's something that I would work with our housing consultant to try to figure out. Um, if we can't pull the trigger on the friendly 4DB until we like have confirmed site control through the legislative process,
then we might want to think about is there something we can do locally in zoning that and then we can at least get the permitting process started while we wait for the legislature. So, those are two kind of big questions that we need to get answered early on in 2026. Um >> the two being the get out of the land
swap and can you >> and and figure out what the permitting and entitlement process would be for multif family housing at the bottom. >> Yeah. Ideally, if you do a friendly 40b, then we could talk to all the boards and then be set up for the final approval. That's the ideal way to do it and that makes that's the kind of
>> right the right easy way to do it. If somebody makes it more difficult for whatever reasons, we might have to do that. Are you envisioning doing the permitting having as planning director or whatever doing the permitting yourself or will you need a consultant to >> We would lean on the consultants to help us through that process for sure.
>> Um so we would have the schematics, we would have the site plan, we would have our housing consultant. We would if we did a friendly 4DB, it's you know with the select board and the housing trust and you know whatever other entities leading that process with with support from consultants and staff. Um, yeah.
So, the friendly 4DB is kind of like the night like the streamlined. I hate to say that a 40B is a streamlined process because just in my experience, it's not, but it is it can be a more streamlined. It's a one-stop shop basically. So, um, it could certainly be easier. Um
so >> and the idea is that during this whole process over the next three four months we're talking to the relevant boards and going through that whole process in this education >> right >> to get feedback and comments. >> So go ahead.
>> Yeah. So and then just I just outlined some things that we may need to consider for annual town meeting. So there might be a CPA funding request. We need to kind of figure out a little bit more about that >> um in ter like to to pay for surveys and appraisals and then potentially additional funds for schematic design
and site plan. >> Um >> that that's kind of my question is when you put those together, what is the cost to the town at this point that you're anticipating? >> Well, okay. There's the kind of basic work cost which is the design and at
least we've gotten sort of estimates in talking to Suzanne Spinny that you probably the architect maybe cost 25,000 and the consultant we've kind of looked at it putting a 15,000 is what >> the 15,000 is already coming from the housing trust >> correct and so these would be come from housing these are coming from housing
trust monies we have $100,000 in the housing trust for doing affordable housing so the money's there in the CPA in the housing trust which has of course been transferred over by CPA. The bigger question which is what yours so we could go through financials is what happens if
we go forward. What level of CPA support might be necessary to make this happen and we can go through we've got a schematic slide that shows some of the cost on that. We can review that with you >> for sure. Um and then there would be a bunch of actions that we would try to line up for fall town meetings. So we
figure out the carve out. We figure out if we need replacement land. Um >> assuming there's a fall town meeting. Right. >> I would hope there would be one if we had these big things to accomplish, but um right >> that's not my decision. >> The annual >> 26 is 29 is it?
>> This is 26. We're talking the next four months from now. Basically >> a lot for May town meeting special meeting would be >> um >> well no I got that from now answering John's question. >> Okay. Sorry. Um fixing an annual town
meeting in May of 26. >> Correct. Is there time to do those one and two items? Yes. In your opinion, >> we've got the housing consultant and we're about to engage an architect so we could do that. >> We think we could do it.
>> I mean, >> okay. >> But there's obviously >> we reserve the right to change the schedule, but >> depends what other boards say to us because there's got to be cons. I mean the concom is key part of it and obviously board of health and uh others but
>> yeah it is a bunch of work to in the first half of the year right to lead to get us ready for the second half of the year but um so there could be maybe four actions at fall town meeting depending on how some of these things shake out right um
and then I do have a slide about 2027 but we don't have to get into that unless you really want to um >> you know 2026 is a time whether we decide as a town and you that this is really feasible and goes forward. >> Do you want to show the financials? >> Um yeah, for some reason this is not
going down there. >> And big picture if we're not if nothing is done with the cranberry in the bog house, >> right? >> We as a town either continue to maintain it or remove it or something.
It would be it would become part of your deferred capital maintenance plan, your building plan. >> We have two people living there, but at the lease terms is only for two years, right? Correct. >> There's no lease. >> Just a understanding. >> Town employees, keepers of the boghouse,
>> right? So the this slide is sort of the larger financial issue and just as a schematic of what could just illustrate the challenges because this gets to how much is it going to cost to renovate and again I've kind of run this by Suzanne
Spinny and and other architects and we've just sort of checked it but it might cost up to $2 million to renovate in selling them and again what the units would sell for and this is all these are just to illustrate you might get a million dollars so about a million dollar gap
And again, these are the type of things that we'd want to confirm. Now, the question is, how do we make up that million dollar gap? A notfor-profit would help us raise monies and you could cover a significant portion of the gap. So, this the subsidy from town, from
CPA, we're hoping is under $500,000 and maybe even less, but that's the process that we're going through in the second phase. But that's naturally a question that the finance committee and other people are going to ask is how are we using CPA funds and how does this happen
and we can't we can illustrate it but we can't answer it now. We hope by May that we have a much more definitive answer and can go through that and saying here's what you're getting and then there's the process. So that's that's just to be just the money matters and we
got to kind of go through this stuff and we can talk theory about housing and everything else, but then how do you make it happen is really the issue and that's what we're >> going to work towards. >> Well, at the end of the day, you could always change the ratio of affordable
units >> to cover the differential. >> Not all you could you'd lose. >> Well, right now if you >> Well, yeah. I'm just saying as a as a worst case scenario, if you didn't raise the million dollars and you needed to come up with a million dollars, you're g
you're saying we're allocating zero dollars to the land, you know, because we could we could fund that through, you know, pricing units, but you just have fewer affordable units. >> That could be the case, but then there's a whole bunch of issues with the state
saying taking taking it out of taking it out of, you know, article 97 and that we said it's doing affordable. So that's the we have to make sure that those things are aligned properly and so that's >> well I mean in a 40B there's still market rate in so this is a 40B I'm
assuming you could do market rate >> you could build some across the road >> depends on I think it depends on how you set this up in your RFP >> right >> but I think your point is really well taken >> it would be better to raise the funds if you have donations and to be all
affordable and people want affordable housing can donate to that. >> Correct. >> But there are develop there are developments that are both, which is your point. >> Yeah. And in case you can't raise the money, you just want to have a plan B so that the town's not on the hook for a million dollars.
>> Correct. And that will that's a wrinkle that we'd have to look at. Is there another piece of land that you could build some market rate units that's not in the boghouse necessarily? >> I don't think we want to go down that route, but >> okay.
>> Definitely food for thought. So >> tonight, what you're looking for is uh general confirmation that the select board is uh supportive of going forward with this. >> Yes. That we're going to go through our
due diligence and meet with everybody and come up with the information. >> Looking for hard nos. If there's a hard no out here, we'd love to talk about it. Um I've talked about this with the planning board in terms of using Julie's time. my time will be allocated towards sort of the legal side of this, the RFP
procurement side, and then we have a variety of staff that would be thrilled to pick up little pieces of this and help us. So, it will not interfere with main work, but it will be a a good project for us to work on. I think it's a good use of, you know, it's in in some
ways, I hate to be quoted on this, but it's short money for a, you know, project that's affordable housing and it's it's has relatively low risk to the town is what I was just getting at. So, like how I mean I think it seems like a
good investment if you're trying to build affordable housing without having to have town pay for it. >> But it hinges on I didn't I must have missed it in our prior meetings. Maybe I didn't pick up on it that we can't earmark any of those
units for employees because that was one one goal was to try to get some units for firefighters. So that's come and gone. >> That's the preliminary read. Okay, I understand. And then the the other slippery slope we have to be conscious of is to Travis's point, if you go to
traditional 40b where one of the four will be affordable, then you're at three at market. What have you really done? >> Well, to John's point at the beginning, you've built four new units. And if you're in a housing crisis, you just got four units. >> The people who afford market are not in a housing crisis. I guarantee you. I think
>> well, but they're more modest units than we have. >> But I mean, I want us to keep I want us to keep us framed on the social goal. So if we went to 100% affordability and we have that million dollar gap, that's where the third party affordable housing
organizations help raise money. >> Correct. >> So when you say 100%, it's 100% AMI. >> No, he means all >> I understand 30 to 100% of >> because have to stay to if we've already used the CPA funds, right, then we can't
we'd have to give some of it back if you win it for market rate. Were you talking about 100% in terms of all four units? >> What I meant Yeah. Let me be clear. So if if we design it so four of four are affordable houses
um 30 to 100% of AMI then yes we qualify for uh CPA funds but not for the whole thing right or yes for the whole. >> Yeah 100% yes for you would. So, so I mean, but we're not going to follow this route, but I think but Travis, you
mentioned it. If you had a mixed development and if for some reason you had a little bit larger parcel, which Cons may not agree with, that you had some market rate houses that kind of were in the 500,000 to a million across the street, that might be possible, but we're not going to pursue that.
>> We're not going to pursue that. Other develop other, you know, other we're not going to pursue that. That has all kinds of problems. We want this to be a win-win rather than rather than spend a lot of time listening. That's >> from the record, >> right? No, but I mean people do that. >> People do that. We're I don't think
that's what we're proposing. >> Liability is bigger that you end up right if you do nothing. You're going to end up paying for this thing like we're paying for the Highland building and you'd have to either tear it down which I think that may not fit within our Carlile character and things that still
expensive. So this is relatively short money to explore this. >> So my point is and you made it exactly right that there are three there were inbound to me three objectives. Preservation of a >> history building. >> Y >> uh fill the missing middle in the
housing and try to get some housing for employees. Can't do the third. We have to work hard to make sure the second one we do in my opinion. Correct. >> We don't go down the slope of nonaffordable units, right? >> Affordable units. That's it.
>> Right. >> And as to the four versus six, >> your feeling is we're and say ground if >> housing units. Uhhuh. >> Not to >> I think that's really the construction of the building. You want to maintain the historic structure. What's easy to put within that within that envelope?
Once you start doing more, then you get to a third floor, then you get to elevator. Answer that question. >> Right. And then yeah, the well capacity and then the bedroom considerations. Right. >> Fair enough. Start somewhere. Okay. Thank you very much. >> Yeah, I mean to me it it comes down to resource. So if if you're saying that
the town has resource to support the work that needs to get done between now and whenever then that's important. And then two, as long as we're not looking at a big capital another capital project and there's funding sources for this, >> that's going to be critical as you've
described. Yeah. >> Yeah. I I think that the the safety valve for that is if you had to move to more Margaret because you couldn't raise a million dollars or find the >> doesn't sound like we have to raise a million if >> so. >> Well, so I don't see any reasons not to
pursue this way, right? Like we'll have to once we get the information and all the stuff pulled together that that people are going to work hard to get, then then we can make an informed decision. And I think Julie and I in particular are willing to put the effort in with the with the other consultants
talking to all the boards. All these things take work as you know time and effort. So allocation of people's time. >> It hits a lot of things that I think are often are part of our master plan and what the community wants but are often aren't achieved. Right. Right. >> Um
>> so if we can make this happen, great. >> I think that's a resounding vote or anything needed other than Yeah. We we support the effort and continue onward. >> Great. >> Yes. Awesome. >> Okay. Great. >> Thank you. >> So, we'll figure out the next we're
going forward with the next steps. >> All right. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Adjourn your >> Yeah, please adjourn your meeting. Thank you. >> Housing trust, would you want to adjourn the our part of the meeting? >> Um I uh motion to adjourn the meeting. >> Second.
>> I cost I ch >> Valentine I. >> All right. >> Thanks. Great. >> Thank you all. Yeah, great great work. >> So, besides liaison reports, if there's any additional information needed about this, be happy to give it to you. And
this probably will not appear back in your agenda until the town meeting warrant article discussions. So, >> yeah, >> just keep that in mind. It's going to pop back up, but >> it'll be worked on in between. >> Okay. Okay. Moving on to uh DPW building
discussion. So, what's up for discussion and a potential vote tonight is a DPW building committee charter. >> Um, we previously talked about the work that needs to occur between now and annual town meeting to get to being able to ask for the a design potential design
funding request. Um, if we approve a charter tonight, the intent would be to advertise it over the holidays and prior to our next select board meeting and to be in a position to appoint committee members and begin that work um in January, which when you look at the time remaining is
is uh is kind of a requirement. So, >> yeah. Um, I had sent Gretchen some feedback on what was kind of the standard um, committee draft and added some language that I can call out here. One
was to be clear um, that one was, you know, that we can discuss. I put the number 15 million in total project costs in there. Previously, it had been 20, but I didn't really feel comfortable putting 20 million in there. If as the process, as it plays out, if it drifts a little bit, we can adjust
that. But I didn't want to offer up the 20 million. >> Right. >> Um >> so this is saying if it if it's gonna go past that, they need to come back. >> This is just the bogey for the committee to work under. Right. >> Yeah. >> And then there was I've added some language here just to just to clarify
that what this committee will be focused on um is presenting a funding request for the design at our annual town meeting. and if that funding is approved to continue the work >> um like the fire station for project funding no later than 2027 annual town
meeting. So there's some discussion if we do that in the fall a fall town meeting or I just put language in there to just say the expectation is at the latest we would be the next just to set the general expectation but >> I think the rest is relatively boilerplate I believe and then we can
talk about the members at this point um which >> and one just small little I think typo there number five member says one-ashlarge members >> no that we mean one large member so height or Yes, you're right.
>> Where you got to weigh in, huh? >> No, it could be height. No. >> Oh, okay. >> There's some hard-to-reach places in the DPW. >> Yeah. Um, >> and then the next line is >> uh if any of the above boards declined to
provide a representative. So, but we've already filled the >> You have one from the MFC, >> right? We've we've got these top four filled. So, but this I guess is just >> well on the road or something. >> No, the discussion was um we we weren't
sure like if Conscom, for example, might want to put someone on this at this point. And if they decline, if they say we don't >> we don't we don't have or want someone to put on here, you can just do an atlarge person in the absence. >> Wait, this is this is in place of number five. >> We need a
>> Oh, I see. If number Well, don't we have a >> We don't have a consequence. You have to have a concom voluntary thing >> and we don't have somebody that stepped up from KNSCOM. >> No, we need a board of health. A >> con board of health, right, Tony? >> No, this is the DPW.
>> I got the wrong one. Yes. Sorry. Shoot. >> We haven't recruited. We haven't recruited this yet. Right. >> Travis has stepped forward for the MFC. Is that been correct? Yeah. So, Travis, >> I don't know if I haven't been voted, but I Yeah, I volunteered. So we could we could strike the language that last
sentence. I I think when we were drafting this we weren't sure who should be on it. And so >> right >> we could we could strike that language and just have the four and one at large at this point. >> I yeah I think board of health cons MFC are >> required my view would be
>> be essential. >> Okay. because of the components. Um I think the the fire chief will be involved in this too because he's needs a sistern and there's a lot with the sprinkler system and you know >> and but he could be one of the non- voting
>> non voting but I yeah like >> you want to indicate that down here is a possible non- voting member >> I think he's >> possibly the fire chief >> isn't he in there >> or his designate >> we have the TA or designate and DPW director designate >> yeah you definitely want the DPW
director Do you want to say fire chief or designate? >> Yeah. >> And that's okay if we're have an even number with five as long as the voting members are. >> Yeah, that doesn't matter. >> Odd. Yeah. >> You have four. Oh, five of you. Have we
filled the fire station? >> We need one more. >> So, we're going to be putting this on not having already filled one. >> It's a lot. I mean, we're stretching >> these particular comm. >> We're mandating are you're man Well, you've got an MFC volunteer. We're going to mandate consom. Are we going to mandate the other two?
>> I think you need a board of health. >> Okay. So, four of the five are mandated. So, you only have to fill one. >> And I would I would suspect >> boards have to select somebody. Yeah. >> Correct. >> Right. But it's not like you have to cast that. >> That's right. Committee.
>> That's right. >> Okay. So, we can strike the language under number five. specify those five >> created in a way >> voting members and then we would have three non- voting members and we would add the fire chief or designate. >> Sure.
>> Um and then you know >> if folks are generally good with that we can approve it if there's something we find between now and >> we can always amend the charter as needed if if we need to. >> I thought it was fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Good.
>> And so then this would now then get publicized. get publicized and we can we can recruit >> some volunteers and hopefully >> in our next meeting on the 13th or whatever it is about a month from now. >> Yeah. >> Um we can appoint and they can get to work. >> Yeah. Okay. Great.
>> Good work. Thank you. >> Do you someone want to make a motion to approve as amended? >> I move that we approve the MFC >> DPW >> DPW. What is it? Building >> renovation committee committee charter
as amended. >> Second. >> Okay. Any further deliberation? Seeing none, we'll just do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion passes. >> All right. We are >> along. It's catching. >> I knew that one might go a little
faster. Okay. >> Now we're going to run into a speed bump. >> Now we got um item six, the revise the committee creation and appointment policy. Um and let me begin on that one. So as a recap, we had discussed a revised policy
last week. Um we had discussed some of the parameters, some of the language. >> Um I know I Travis, you gave feedback to Gretchen coming out of that. I gave feedback to Gretchen coming out of that meeting and what she circulated was a new draft based on that feedback. We
also decided in our um in our planning meeting to to circulate the revised draft to committees to to get their input. We did receive um input on that and I won't go through all the the individuals but the you know some of the
comments uh that we did hear back are I think are all things we've also discussed amongst ourselves and that was you know concerns about the overall size of the volunteer pool and by limiting it to residents um does that compromise our ability to populate committees um there was a question raised that we will
discuss about um can non-residents serve as non- voting members I believe we discussed this at some level and said it's okay for >> for non-residents to serve as non- voting members on a committee. Was that a minute? >> It's in there. >> Okay.
>> So, that's fine. Um it was more an issue of having residents being voting members. So, non-residents um would be allowed to serve as non- voting members. Um >> it's not in it's in our minutes. I'm seeing it under B residency.
>> It um >> it's not in the bylaw thing. The policy >> the policy um >> there were it appeared twice so they I I assume that was an oversight this >> No one was modified one was the original and >> I don't know which is which
>> the first the first one I think was new new version and the second one was the original I think >> I don't have my computer >> well Gretchen from it would be easier >> mark had a red line yeah >> you can go to the vote to the section that changed which was
>> I know but that's Okay. All right. So, you're saying >> there's a lot of >> If I go to B, residency 2B, 3B, 2B, or not, >> do we go into the cleaner red line? >> Well, none of them are red line, so I can't >> No, you're right. They they were in
there twice and not like it wasn't clear >> that what's in here twice. Aren't they just duplicates? No. If you have to go look I'm still not seeing the residency section >> it's silent with regard to non-resident >> is the so in the packet is it the is the
first one that appears the latest version and the one that appears below it is the um >> I don't have it in front of me but you can look >> there's a clean there's committee appointment 12625 clean file that I'm pulling up
>> but in neither one does it show, >> right? And if I >> non-residents could be non- voting members, >> it doesn't really matter for this discussion. >> You can also look at the 18 age because one of them says that they >> Yeah, a person younger than 18 may be
appointed to a committee as a non- voting member. >> Right. >> Right. Right. So we would also add >> discussion of the >> So I would I would add under here we can add the clarification that um >> wouldn't it be listed under the residency requirement?
>> Yeah, it's there but the second sentence has to be modified. Committee members >> voting committee members shall be residents >> and then you should put it in there like you can pick I mean that's I presume that's still our consensus, right? >> Yeah. Voting committees shall be residents of the town of Carile, right?
>> Um, >> non- voting may a Yeah. Would we do it the same way as the 18year-old thing? >> But does that fill a committee? So, if a committee has a five member committee, do they what if one of them is a non
voting non-resident? Well, we're saying they wouldn't have it they wouldn't be Yeah, it's a whatever the charter says like we just did for the >> But is that clear on all the charters? >> We probably have to clear it up. >> Sure. Yeah. >> But let's before we go there, before we go to word smithing,
>> I'm going to step back and just go high level. Right. So high level from what I read there was some pretty good comments. >> Yeah. And I can I can finish going through these too. So there was the um question about non- voting members, non-residents. Um uh there was a
question from Debbie Bentley about non- US citizens who are residents, right? >> To clarify, right? >> Are they able to serve on committees? Y >> um and then let's see from the ESC there were concerns about lack of
institutional knowledge and if we were to enact this policy um their request would be that uh non-residents could serve out their term and we had we had talked about we had had some discussion about if we approve this policy when do we either does it become effective on a
certain date do we make some accommodation for people sitting on committees >> right >> and then we Right right So um >> which we haven't said >> right so I want to go to the what problems are we trying to solve right so one problem is as articulated by
Christina I think uh on the ESC we don't have enough volunteers as it is right so why why shrink the pool another >> also holding on to the institutional knowledge of somebody that's serving >> well that's a separate >> that's part of >> no I know but I'm going insert okay so the first thing is the pool's already
kind of small so why would we shrink it that's >> number two is if somebody has either institutional knowledge because they lived in town or they have a lot of >> subject matter expertise. >> Yeah. >> Like why not take advantage of that, right? And then um I think those are
kind of the main ones and and there's a subset of that which Scott's talking about which is if you are in town and you are serving and your circumstances change and you move like why chop it up at >> how long do you have >> which also was reflected by somebody
who's leaving stepping off the um trails committee or what was the one I got was any >> um Ellie thank you Ellie. So, I think I like that like you don't have to go off immediately. And by the way, you could be a non- voting member if you're really
committed to um now the balancing act on the other side we said was it's not really fair for someone who's not going to pay taxes in town to be making decisions about the town that they don't have a stake in the outcome. That by the
way would not be the case for the foreigners who residents who do pay taxes. They don't vote but they pay taxes. Right. So I think to me the line of demarcation is not whether you can vote but whether you pay taxes. >> So if this resident
>> it shouldn't matter what your citizenship is I guess is my >> correct. And that that's why the residency requirement is that you have uh completed where does it say it the you know what what they're calling the annual that you're um
>> listed on the annual street listing which is determined by having completed the town census >> has nothing to do with your citizenship >> correct or your voting frankly >> that's the I I feel strongly about that to to define residency that way because that's what's recommended by the town clerk and by Gretchen the people who
have to validate the process that's >> in their opin opinion or in their judgment the best clearest way to do this. >> You may not pay taxes yourself. You may not write your own check, >> right? >> You may arr fine, but you're paying it through some method. I mean, some way. So, I want to
just say one more thing, which is there was a comment by a certain individual that said that something like, you know, they don't need to be a pariah by not voting. I think that's over the top. I think the the critical thing is if you are interested in the issue enough and you have something to add and you really
want to serve and you can make that case >> yeah that committee >> serve and help out whether you vote or not it's not that important. So I I mean I come back to where we landed last time and I think that that's a good policy. >> Yeah. And I want to just point out for if for those that may be listening and
are concerned about this as a liaison myself to a number of committees I don't vote in those committee meetings but I go to them and I participate uh particularly the ones that are sort of
larger and have more uh programmatic or service provision here in town and that's a per I those committees have typically really appreciated having the liaison there and and hearing their input. So >> I think the thing about Yeah. If a
committee wants to have you, they're not going to treat you >> badly because you're not voting right from the vote. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> So in terms of um >> how we might change this. >> So it Yeah. >> So just ticking through a couple of the >> Yeah.
>> specific questions. One would be to clarify in the policy that non-residents can serve as non- voting members and we should do that probably in that one sentence second paragraph under B residency >> right >> and we can have Gretchen put the exact
language in that works but we >> and it would be up to the the specific committee to um >> put them forward and then the select board >> do we we always appoint non- voting members or do we >> well we don't I mean haven't had to.
>> Yeah. I mean, what we've done is what we just did for the DPW. We Right. >> Well, we do the exeicios. No, we do. Right. >> If we say like in the prior one that Ryan's going to be on the DPW committee, does he have to swear himself in or just
>> what happens like when the Ryan >> Question for the town clerk, but I think if you serve on a committee, even if you don't vote, you should be sworn in because you're affirming. Well, you're affirming that I'm there to do service. >> I'm not arguing. I'm saying is that what we do,
>> right? >> Do we make I know she said she was going to be available for questions. Would she know? >> So, do we swear in non voting members? Yeah. >> Or or would we? >> Or do we do we appoint non- voting members? >> Right. And would it make sense for us to appoint them or allow?
>> We already do, right? I mean, >> no, we don't not non- voting members. >> What did we do for the fire station building? >> We just say fire chief or designate. is a non- voting member. >> Yeah. >> For like the >> Isn't that an appointment? Didn't we appoint? >> Yeah. But it's not a it's not somebody
who's um they're because they're staff, not because they're don't live in town. >> No, no, no. I'm not talking about living in town. I'm talking about like we formed just now the >> DPW. Didn't did we not just appoint three non- voting members? I think we
did. >> Correct. >> So, we did appoint. Now, the question is >> do they have to go swear? I mean, that's sort of a mechanics. It doesn't really matter. I mean, I think I think we do appoint voting and non- voting. >> I mean, maybe it's a nice thing to do, right? To recognize them
>> and make it clear that we value their participation. >> I think town employees are probably exempt because they're town employees. They don't need to be I don't know the mechanics, but >> they don't need to be sworn in. >> Right. But we But back to the central point. I got a little off topic on the swearing in. I apologize.
>> Nope. >> Question. This is like so many. more we appoint them. We still appoint them >> by naming them in our charter or whatever. Right. So, we do appoint >> and
>> but wouldn't it be um aren't we saying it's allowable for any committee or board to choose to have if they all of these the boards and committees that currently exist, they already have their charters established. Are we saying they have to
We have to redo those charters. >> We may have to go through them and make it clear. Well, it should be in this little policy >> right in the policy >> in such cases. I mean, >> I think Eric Bis said it >> we set the we set the voting number, right? Where is that?
>> That should be in the charter. I would assume each charter should set the number of voting members, >> right? >> And I guess the number of n I don't >> I just think that's up to them. >> Up to them. Yeah, >> but then does it have to be >> said somewhere that >> they can choose more if they choose as
non voting? Maybe >> maybe just leave it at that. >> I think that would go into the creation of a new committee section where you're specifying do you need to specify you need to you need to specify the
constituents of the like what the board is comprised of how many voting seats and non I would assume. So that's a minimum thing that they have to describe. >> I would assume you would just have to do that in forming a committee or subcommittee. >> So by practice you have been appointing non- voting members but it's generally been staff
>> right >> and although we want to clarify with with Ashley we don't believe by in practice non- voting members have been sworn in. >> Does this speak to charter at all? I if you want to be really clear when you create a charter you should specify
whether or not that committee can >> right >> create new non- voting members or if you want to retain that ability >> what's needed >> section 8 sub.1 the charge should include a recommendation for the number of members and their length of terms
>> okay so maybe we just want to say the number of voting and non- voting or just say the number of voting members >> or number of members in parenthesis voting and non- voting However you want to work. >> No, because that's still ambiguous. >> I would say we want to set the number of voting members,
>> right? >> You want that to be clear. >> That's clear. >> There you go. Number voting. Yeah. Just that non voting. >> You may parenthetically. >> Yeah. And the length of their terms. >> Non- voting members may be also selected at the committee's discretion or something. >> And those don't count toward the quorum.
>> They don't count towards the quorum. >> And you c you can't serve as a officer of the committee if you're not a voting member. I would assume >> that's also was that already in somewhere else >> that was raised as a question as well or a topic of discussion. >> One of the comments was it seemed that
that person thought it was reasonable to say a non-resident couldn't be an officer. But >> you have to say is a voting only a voting members can be offic. >> Did we all get that individually? >> Did you all receive that too? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Individual and then from Scott. >> It already says each committee shall
annually elect from among its voting members. >> Okay. What section is that? Section three, it is desirable that each committee elect a vice chair. Um, so you may want to further specify uh elect a vice chair also I would say
parenthetically or office by commas elect a vice chair also a voting member to serve in the absence of the chair. Why wouldn't you just do a blanket? >> Well, he just Yeah. >> No, >> no non voting members can be officers or
>> Yeah. in the affirmative. >> All All committee shall elect from its among its voting members semicolon or colon a chair >> or Okay. >> A chair. >> It's going to take a little bit of >> Yeah. Okay. But we get the general gist. So in the three, we'll make it clear that
>> yes, >> only voting members can be officers. in the eight. No, in the what's the residency one >> that's >> six I think it's six or something I'm sorry it's not yeah 6B residency
we're going to say all committee voting members of the committee shall be residents of >> Carlo make some nod to the fact that they can >> I'm sorry oh 6B yes non-residents may serve as non- voting members of the committee um and I do we also want to clarify per Debb's comment that um I
mean, it's implicit. >> I think it's implicit. No, >> but I mean the the foreign the non US, >> but it's already we decided it's already in the census thingy, right? >> Yeah. Right. I don't think it needs to be said because it said but but in in
>> um somewhere either in 6B or in the charter but maybe easier in 6B when we're talking about non-residents serving as non- voting members we might say the number of such shall be at the discretion of the committee or something just to leave it like we're not capping
that and then when we go down to the charter we just say they'll fix the number of voting members. Yeah. Um right. So then the other other question that is about um
with this once this policy is finalized and approved by us if then it means there's somebody serving on a committee who is not an resident then they need to what is what is the uh
going off the committee? What is that process? How what's that timeline? >> Right. So, we didn't address >> becoming a non voting member. What is that timeline? >> Meaning the the midstream one where you're you're in mid you're in midterm and you leave. >> Yeah. >> Are we aligned that we would allow those
people to finish their term if they so desire? >> Well, go ahead. Go ahead. No, you go ahead. I defer. >> No. No. >> I Well, I think there's two things. I think there's we're in a transition. So, we have people sitting on committees >> for any any non-residents sitting on
committees. Now, do we want to set basically an effective date to to finish a term? And then if if some if someone were to to leave Carlile, my answer is a little bit different. If you're on a committee and you move, I think you should >> there should be the 30 days or one meeting and then
>> So, you want them off though. You don't want to let them >> if they're moving. If if they're a resident when they got on the committee and they leave, I think we should put a shorter term than >> Okay. So, not finish your term. >> I think to accommodate this transition, we can we can give a longer runway. >> What's the runway now?
>> We don't really have a runway. >> We don't have one because we haven't had >> No, I know. But today, like people leave like you're leaving, you know, like if you were to leave >> like Kate left, like how soon did she have to go? >> Well, she's elected. So elected is a
whole different I think in a lot of committees it's whenever they say I I either they say I'm I'm leaving I can't be on the committee anymore or they don't like and no one >> so you'd give them 30 days or one >> that's what this policy says right now is 30 days or the next next fine yeah I
think it's fine that's >> but do we want to make an accommodation for this transition yeah >> like do we want to say now because then technically anyone who's non-resident is 30 days and they're they're off >> so do we allow them to finish the term
in in recognition of some of the points made that it's you know most committees didn't know this was coming or knew >> oh we can roll we've now made a path where they can roll to a non- voting role >> they just they're going to roll to a non
voting member which is what the policy is >> I think that's the fix that >> well that's true that so maybe that's >> like the guy that's coming off LSC he could be non voting >> you have to um the policy as it's written in here. You have to stop being a voting member.
>> You can still days or whatever you participate and u at at any point you may become a non- voting member at the discretion of the committee. >> Well, there's two things we can have like we can do an effective date of like >> January 1 or February one and that would
trigger the the language which would be the following meeting or 30 days from that. So you could >> we may have to review the final anyway, right? So the final review of this policy will be >> J13 or you think we're done? >> Well, I mean >> we're making some changes. >> Well, we do need to I think we because
we've made some >> more than you know uh >> we aren't going to meet till >> dramatical changes. >> That's what I mean. So it may solve itself. >> I think we need to vote on >> make it affect. Well, we'll vote on it tonight. >> Okay. >> Well, maybe. Okay. >> That's why I think we need to look at the final version. We als we also
haven't I mean I don't know how closely people have read the >> the whole creation of a new committee and that stuff like I don't know if we there's a lot going on in this particular policy. Um >> we have limited time on upcoming agendas
so we don't want to >> keep kicking it down. But on the other hand if >> I thought we just covered that in the charter right there's a charter isn't that in the charter section. Um I'm trying to think >> creation of new committee >> there's it does change the process a little bit.
Uh so committees of the board may form subcommittees. So we're allowing >> wait what is that section 123? >> The committees of the board may form subcommittees using the process outlined above provided that they report to the EATA and board leaison of their activities.
So >> what's the EA executive >> executive assistant which is Gretchen? Yeah. >> The board must be notified at a public meeting before the subcommittee begins operations. So it's basically saying we don't want to approve every little subcommittee but we want to know >> if you did form create one.
>> We want to be aware and >> the board capital be a select board. >> Yeah. >> If there are any concerns brought to the attention of staff or the board the board may review the subcommittee's charge creation. basically gives it allows committees to create subcommittees, but there's a feedback loop where we're at least aware and if
there's something that is >> out of order >> is a concern or something. >> It's okay. I I don't really have a problem with it. I think the only edit I would make here is in the first one where we clarify that they're going to specify the number of voting members. >> Yes,
that in in one we would add the word recommendation for the number of voting members and the length of their terms. So, we would add the word voting, >> right? >> Now, it doesn't speak to staggering, right? And we we're not mandating staggering because >> No, that's in here somewhere,
>> right? There's that the general term the general length of the term. I'm trying to remember where we >> say that they'll seek to >> Yeah. Uh >> I don't remember. Uh chart. Let's see. C2
residency >> terms of volunteers. Yeah. C2 three in the home. >> Yeah. Unless otherwise specified in the committee's charge a term of three years and staggered. So there's some continuity from year to year. >> Okay. I think we've covered it. All right. So it's probably good to go. Uh
>> and we can it's a policy, right? So >> you can always change it. >> We can it's not a bylaw. >> I'm good to vote. >> I'm good. >> I'm good. >> Good. I'm I'm going to approve it with the changes as >> you saw the 18year-old can still participate. They're just non- voting members, >> right?
>> Okay. >> Good. Excellent. >> Okay. Does someone want to make a motion to approve as amended? >> I move to approve as amended. >> The uh committee policy. What's it called? >> The policy. >> The committee creation and appointment policy.
>> The committee creation and appointment. >> Is this actually I think we have a motion here. Yeah, here it is. Can we make it the revised committee employment policy as >> you want to do it January 1 >> or January 1? >> Make it effective effective January 1. >> 2027
I'm stuck on fiscal years now. >> Yep. >> I second that if it hadn't been seconded. >> Okay. >> Any further deliberation? >> Seeing none, let's do a voice vote. All
in favor? I >> I >> opposed. >> Okay. I'll get the um I'll review the edits with Gretchen tomorrow and we'll circulate the updated. >> But we didn't Huh. It's interesting. Nobody Suki's on the Yeah.
>> Call >> Okay. >> I want to keep on time. >> All right. We're moving on to >> Bobby. >> Healthcare. Health insurance. Now, >> most thrilling. >> I want to So, on this one, um, as as
noted in the the TA report, there's two components. There's, um, what's the select board's level of support for adding this additional health care high deductible healthcare plan. >> That's what we want to definitely get to tonight. And then the other piece is this whole
>> um, funding of an HSA and what that amount would be. Yeah, >> I don't think we I don't think it's realistic or we want to get into that tonight because we just haven't had time and with all the budget discussions going on. So, >> we'll probably focus on the first step and then come back and and hash out the
details if there's support. >> All right. Well, thank you all. As Scott mentioned, we'll focus more on just looking at this high deductible plan. As you know, uh the premiums continue to escalate and that's not only an excess
uh cost for employees, but it's also increased costs for the town. So, we've been working with Maya on other options that we can add. This will not replace our other three options that we have right now. This will just add an additional option for employees.
Uh I I'll just touch base about the HSA that contributing to it by the town would just help incentivize. Yep. >> That's that's all I'll mention with that. What we've modeled is an assumption that the select board uh uh
approves to continue the one-step increase annually in this coming year will be 59% versus 58 in this current fiscal year with the assumption that it's also will stay at 56% with retirees as I saw that as one of the
>> so no increase for them >> correct and that wouldn't be effective until January 2027 >> the increase >> for retirees Oh, for retirees only. They're on a calendar year. >> Yeah. Okay. It's staggered. >> But we're saying the current employees >> changing them anyway though, right? I'm
sorry. >> Sorry. >> We changing the contribution for the retiree. >> No. >> No. So, it doesn't >> It's one of the votes that was on here. So, I just wanted to touch base on that. >> Um, if that was part of your decision-m process for the 59%. But if we if we're
we uh include the 1% keep the 1% increase for uh current employees that would go into effect July 1. >> Correct. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So with this high deductible uh this means not surprising increases the deductible. It makes it so the risk
is more on the employee. So if something happens and they have a lot more that they have to pay >> upfront. Um, but that also can help reduce their an uh monthly premiums, which is, you know, it's tough everywhere, so it's not a surprise.
>> So, even if we contributed, we still as a town also save annually. So, that's helpful. >> And I think you you've you've re reviewed this, so it kind of gives you general understanding of what that would look like. So, it's just savings on both ends. And an HSA is also a great option
for employees because uh >> would the HSA only be to those who chose the high deductible or >> correct? It's part of that. >> So let me ask you three question. Well, that was question one. So two other questions. One is in your experience, what's the appetite for this? >> There's been a lot of questions for them. There's a lot of people who ask. I
from my understanding it used to be an option here. >> Okay. >> Um no longer was. I don't know the full history of that. Um but folks have been asking for it. There's a lot more. They have an H natura offers a lot more options than an FSA which we still also offer.
>> Let me be let me ask I didn't ask right >> what's the appetite for the high deductible low premium. >> There's definitely an appetite. There's a really >> and then you said then there's >> right it's crushing for a lot of folks um >> and it's hard to offer one and not the
other. I know that Scott said we should table it but to me they're paired. I don't think it's con good conscience of us to expose allow our staff to get into trouble >> medically without giving us
>> and I'm not feeling very hopeful with the upcoming increases. We don't have an an idea yet, but I'm I think it's pretty easy to assume that's going to be continue to be high and it was 15.54% last year. So that's >> it's way out stripping of whatever we
can do. It's high. >> Exactly. And with that increase last year, even with our step increase in our colo last year, folks came went home with less pay because of that increase. So it's it's significant. So if if people feel that they don't have to worry as much about the deductible or
are willing to make that risk, then this lower premium can help them with that. >> And there's no HSA option at the present. >> Correct. Just an FS FSA. >> Yeah. So I mean my view is that they're paired. You should pick a ticket as a pair.
I guess do the other >> the high deductible lower premium plan coupled with an HSA >> right but do we want to define but the other question was are we going to contribute do we how do we what amount >> well I think you did the math right of what we could say there's some options
here you can see so yeah >> you can read it I mean it's pretty >> so probably did a good job summarizing >> the employees you know they would continue to have the same savings if we contributed or not um But even if we did contribute, we still would have savings
over overall. So >> it still would be worth incentivizing. I also modeled, let's say 20 individuals and 15 families decided to carry over >> to this new plan. We still have annual savings no matter how much we
contributed. Um I my understanding is that the town might want to look to contribute that much no matter what whether they match or not. the 5001,000. >> They can match with pre-tax dollars. >> Correct.
>> But that's up to them. And then they It's portable, right? >> Exactly. And they can invest. >> It's not use it or lose it like that. >> Exactly. Exactly. >> Do we offer an FSA now? >> We do. >> Okay. But that's annual. And then you don't spend it. >> Yeah. There's only up to 660 that we allow it.
>> And how what percent of people would you say take advantage of? percent is I would say don't know on the top of my head there's definitely at least 20 folks that use the FSA I would say um >> we're talking about town and and uh >> school school teachers correct correct
>> which is how many like approximately how many >> so there's approximately 185 employees that are eligible for health insurance I the fire employees technically are eligible but they would have to pay 100% pre premium so we don't have to worry about that >> and how many of the 185 approximately
How many >> about 119 are in the health insurance right now. >> So we're talking 20%, >> right? And so FSA is a much smaller amount that actually use that. >> So which chart is the relevant one for us to look at?
>> So >> the biggest one would be looking at the annual savings per employee. >> Is that what Ryan has up on the screen? That's yeah, that's what I've I'm sharing right now is >> Yeah. >> And so um
the biggest amount is just looking at how much you want to save versus how much you want to incentivize folks to move over. Um my recommendation is 500 for an individ individual and a th000 for a family would be enough to incentivize, but it also would still
have good cost savings for the town. um you would still have cost savings if you go higher, but I don't think that's >> What's the deductible in that plan? >> So, let's look back. So, this shows that additional option on the very right that we're proposing. >> Okay. Yep. >> So, that deductible does go up a lot,
but >> 4,000 is that >> I mean, really, that's when you think about um most >> most plans that's pretty normal, right? We have an unusually low deductible on the other three plans. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, I mean, that's the thing,
Scott. You >> No, I Yeah, >> you expose them to 20,000 4,000. You got to give them something. >> No, no, I agree. I I I if if we want to agree on the actual contribution, I wasn't sure we'd be able to arrive at the specific >> I mean, I think Bob's done a great job in analyzing.
>> I I I like HSAs. I mean, we have my company. I think they make a lot of sense. I just didn't know if your numbers had taken into account because you're assuming what 15 or you you made some >> So, it's not an assumption. So I can model a little more. So I did try to put it a little bit of a model here. So if
you wanted to move the numbers and see what that would look like >> and that assumes not only the contribution of the town of the 1500 or whatever. >> So this one I didn't get as far to get add that math into it, but this is if if there was no town contribution, but the
other ones would be just numbers just adding to that, >> right? But the HSA you'd have to put the town contribution in and then divide it. I don't think that was in there. >> Yes, it was. So that's uh Hold on, let me go back >> before you leave the screen. Those rates at the bottom, the total
which is now 59. >> Yes, that's that's the total that's this is provided. This is the analysis provided by >> 30 something or 40ome% is what the >> correct. So this these are the models. So this
middle one here on the second page is if this is what the annual savings would be or the monthly yeah annual savings would be per employee if we contributed 500 to an individual or thousand. So >> so I'm looking at giving >> So you would save annually
>> are you on this on the chart? >> So this is uh the second grid on page 45. >> Yeah. >> Um >> it's the middle of the second. The middle one. Okay. So that top one is if you didn't contribute at all. So your savings per individual will be $814
annually. >> Town saves 300. The >> employee pays >> this is monthly, right? And then the employee saves >> this be annual. >> Oh, annual. Annual. This is for individual, not a family. >> Correct. And then family, the town would
save almost $2,200 if they didn't contribute at all. >> If they contributed a,000, that's $1,000 less per employee. Right. So that they would still be saving almost the town would still be saving. >> Is the family analysis in here or not? This is just >> that's the second one. Sorry, it's a
little complicated. Um >> so that first number >> the three >> here. I'll just get up. >> Well, you can >> Yeah. So the first number >> I see. I I think >> here is individual. >> Yeah. >> And that's the savings for the family. So that's consistent with all these. So this first one is if you don't
contribute at all. Second one is if you do 500, >> right? >> So it's going to be 500 less than that. >> Right. I understand, but show me the savings per >> family on the fam. Do we only have two tiers? >> Employee and family. There's no employee. So, show me in that middle grid.
>> That's >> I see town and >> yes, >> I see the 300 and the 566. >> That's the So, the family would be the almost 1,200 in savings if you contributed,000 towards the family. >> Okay. So that's >> because it's an annual >> it's the second line is that any savers
that we're talking about >> or I see it's all one thing. Okay. Sorry. >> Yeah. I mean I you know I I worry families who pick this up or I think singles are going to pick it up because a lot of if they're young and they're healthy they're going to gamble and okay fine deal. Right. But it's really the
stresses on families. Families that are stressed are looking to save. they're going to be attracted to this without any understanding of what they're walking into in the risk pool, right? And we and you know, we do what we can. >> Hopefully, we would educate as much educate. But I mean, the prudent thing
to do is to say, I'm saving I'll use the family example. I'm saving 1,500 a month. >> I should a year, I'm sorry. I should park that >> for catastrophic plus my,000 I get from the town.
>> Yeah. Now I've got 2500. I don't have to use it, >> but it's there in case. >> But it's there in case at least the first year. Maybe if I don't end up using it the first year, I leave it and I can use that money because it'll add a thousand each year, right? >> Is that true? It adds a thousand each
year. >> Offering the Yes. >> That's also up to to the board. >> Up to you annually. >> Yeah. What annually? >> It'll be up to you annually. >> But there's minimum. Isn't that the minimum that you have to do? There's a minimum on an HSA. you I think that you that they don't
offer you you have to contribute that the employer has to contribute. >> The employer has to contribute. >> No, I don't. >> So that wasn't that wasn't one of the op so we were given an option to not contribute at all. >> Zero might be an option but then you don't have an HSA. He might be saying if
you >> get the break of an HSA there's a minimum. I don't that's not what Maya >> it might be different from but anyway I think the point is that I guess >> I like it I think the education to me is in year one
>> you really need to save some of that money by the time you get to year two if you haven't used it I mean we can tell them they'll do what they want but >> it needs a few years to build the HSA to the point where they're basically selfinsuring
>> so what we plan to do is have the Maya folks come in. >> Yeah. >> And make it mandatory that every employee sits with them. They can sign a waiver saying I don't care about this education, but all we can do is sit them in front of the person. >> Yeah. That's all you can do. Right. Could you make more? >> And then reason for bringing it up now is because we want to start.
>> Yeah. I like it. I think it's great. >> Yeah. I think that this will be a good good option as the pressure continues with the premium increases. So this can help with that because again these are modeled after the current rates, right? So this is >> going to just increase no matter what for all of them.
>> Um I think that you're you're right that folks need to be aware that with those premium >> biggest risk is the first year when your HSA account >> right if you don't account for that those higher deductibles >> and you can use the HSA for if it builds up to a point where they get a lot of it
they can use it for non-medical. >> Yes you can invest it as well. You were right there. There's no I thought that there was >> I knew there was the first announcement. >> There was a requirement. >> Okay, good. I'm good. >> I think >> we have to vote anything. >> Yeah. >> Let me go back to
>> There's a motion in here. >> There are three. So, it's up to you how you want to. >> So, sounds like you're expressing support for the middle option, which is or the the middle grid. >> Yep. the contribute that includes the
HSA specifying the HSA contribution of 500 and a,000. Is that >> that's my that would be my I would follow Aubry's recommendation. >> That's your recommendation, Aubrey? >> Yes, it is. >> You go with it. >> We're going to try something. This is we're getting killed by health insurance.
>> So, we're saying um the second >> ironic >> second motion is about the >> 1% increase in what the town's going to pick up. Right. >> Correct. And then the last motion is what the uh >> what the town's going to contribute for
those that go on this >> option. Right. >> The last motion is the retirees which isn't changing. >> Oh, you're right. So um >> Oh, I see. So it's the first motion >> where we're indicating >> it's kind of in reverse of the conversation. >> Yeah. Okay. All right. But we're the
number that's going to be filled in here is a thousand for a family and 500 for an individual. And then it's up to you if you want to call call this one time or you know Got it. this time and review it on an annual basis. >> Yeah. To be reviewed annually.
>> Yeah. Maybe we add that language to that first motion >> to be determined annually. >> Yeah. You want to do that? >> Yep. >> You all right with that? >> Yeah. I was going to say you if you want to make that >> Oh, yeah. Sure. Um,
so, uh, I move that, uh, we approve the additional employee health insurance option and that we include a one-time yearly, uh, $1,000 incentive for the family plan
and a $500 incentive for the individual plan to a health savings account for each enrolled employee to be reviewed yearly. >> Okay. And can I for clarification that incentive is for the enrolles in
the new high deductible option not to all employers right? Yeah. >> Let's see. To improve the additional employee health insurance option, right? That's >> Well, we should say >> maybe we need to describe it >> a high deductible.
>> I would say instead of an the additional, it's nonspecific. >> Is that is that an appropriate way to higher deductible employee health insurance option? >> Yes, that would work. >> Okay. So, >> and for this option to include
>> Yeah. So to improve the additional uh higher uh deduction employee health insurance option, right? >> Right. >> And for this to include >> first option to include a one year >> to be reviewed annually.
>> So let's vote that before we progress. >> I second. >> You got I think we got it. All right. Any further discussion? Deliberation. Seeing none, let's do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. passes.
>> Then I move that we set the town's employer contribution >> all right >> to in current employee health insurance premium costs at 59%. Is that what we're saying >> now? Do we want to do this now prior to
all the the continued budget discussions? So our guidance is from you was that you're going to tore this every year, right? >> But you do have to reaffirm that every year, >> right? >> What's the what's the um cost of the of
the 1% on on the town side >> was a rough estimate of a 100,000 used to be the rough estimate? >> 20 20,000. >> Okay. That sorry >> about a $2 million budget. So >> yes, sorry. 20 the incremental cost is 20,000
>> but strategically we're >> doing it because >> we know that it's important >> employ your attention >> right and it will at least help >> even if it's just marginally >> the ones who don't choose or anybody it's still they're still facing a 20%
>> right so I I okay so we're comfortable continuing with that so I move to set the town's employer contribution to current employee health insurance premium costs at 59% with the remaining 401 >> 1% the responsibility of the current
employee. >> Second discussion or deliberation. >> Seeing none, let's do another voice vote. All in favor? >> I >> opposed. Motion passes. And I move to set the town's employer contribution to retired
employee health insurance premium costs at 56% with the remaining 44% the responsibility of the current employee. >> It's not the current employee. The current employee >> with the response remaining 44% the
responsibility of the current retired employee. >> Oh, you wouldn't even say current. or I say retired of the of the retired employee. >> Is there a second? >> Second as amended. >> Okay. Any further discussion?
>> Seeing none, we'll do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. Motion carries. >> Great. >> Very good. Thank you, Aubrey. It was good analysis. >> Thank you for the work. >> Thank you all. >> Don't leave. >> I know. I'm not I'm just not sharing anymore. >> Remaining person right now,
>> right? Miss it for the world. So we had a discussion in our planning meetings on how to address the remaining personnel policies which are a bit more complex require a bit more discussion and um I think we agreed on an approach that Aubrey will share.
>> Yes. So uh with these last few and I know it was a lot of debate just for one of the policies the last time. So I think for efficiency it'd be great to meet with each of you individually in the coming weeks. >> Okay. um and go over those last dozen or so um
requests. These are more uh tailored to staff recommendations or requests. So, it's really um going to have a lot of complex questions from you and so I'd like to gather all that information and then present to the board as a whole. >> Um
>> so, you would send those policies to us in advance for us to >> I can do that and then yeah oneonone. >> I think that would be great. Are you really willing to do that five times? >> Oh yeah, absolutely. >> That's absolutely. >> I think it's going to go faster than trying. >> Way better than doing this.
>> Oh my gosh. Right. >> And when you look at our agendas, it's like trying to slot those. >> No, it's good. I think that's great. >> And what would be your goal to get those done in January? >> I would love that. That would be great. And then once we have those finalized, we'll have
>> pretty much all the updates. I think there's a couple operational ones that might have surfaced since then that are pretty easy, but I can add that to this conversation. Um, and then once you approve these and they're all approved, then we'll be sending it to legal to make sure the personnel policies are
fully updated and integrated. Approve that new version and then that's the new >> and they go into employee handbook or just >> that'll be all Yep. It'll completely update that >> sounds good to me. >> Handbook. So, >> and and all of them, >> like for instance, if we were to adopt a parental leave policy.
>> Sure. >> When they would become effective as of the beginning of the fiscal year or that would be up to us to determine. >> I think it would be up to you to determine. I would >> Okay. >> It's up to you. I mean, we would recommend a reasonable start date to give us time to figure it out. >> Right. >> Right. >> Okay.
>> Right. I and I think one of the also one of the reasons because as we have continued to approve policies, there's been a lot of questions from employees across town. >> Have we dribbled out the other ones or are we holding them all for the >> Sorry. >> Have we dribbled out the other personnel policies that we've already approved?
Have we put them in as we >> everything is >> generally aware? But it's one of those things where once we have an overall approval. >> No, but I mean if we approved some policy, I don't know in September. both is effective of that day that you approved it. We haven't >> did. Have you done that? Have >> we been fully enforcing those until we
have this full personnel policy? >> So today somebody looks at the policy. It's mostly >> it's not going to show those additions. >> So we really should get on with >> that's part of >> So I would say not necessarily wait there's no magic to July one. Right. >> When you're done get it out there. Right. >> Right. And it could be effective the day
it's published. Right. >> The other thing and I've mentioned this in years past. I mean you guys have done a really tremendous blast of updating all the policies financial and everything else. >> The next challenge after this will be
>> you got to get on something like a three or four year cycle >> where you pick say a quarter of the policies every year and say we're going to review them, right? Because otherwise they'll go stale again in a few years. >> Absolutely. >> That'll be part of our retention plan.
>> It's like our capital plan. As soon as you're done, start clock at the beginning. >> Painting the George Washington. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> No worries. >> Good. Sounds good. >> Great. >> Great. >> All right. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Aubrey. Take >> the rest of the night off. How's that? >> Appreciate it.
>> All right. Moving along. Um, item nine, review the amended language of H4414, an act relative to the town administrator of the town of Carile. So this has come back from the legislature with uh some edits that we would
classify as non-substantive. A lot of capitalization changes >> from Mr. Walsh of Peody. >> Who is he? Who is that guy? >> Wow. Select boards devoted to lowercase. >> Yeah, he's a he's a state rep, isn't he? >> Or is Mr. Walsh somebody? No, he's like
Oh, no. I don't. In any event, so um and Ryan, you can set this up, but town meeting part of the language included was to allow for um >> edits coming back from the legislature that that did not substantively change
the direction or intent of what the what the town approved. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, in looking through this, it's all a little bit of technical wordage, a lot of capitalization, lower cases. Um, I don't know. Do you
want to speak to it at all, Ryan? >> We sent the with town council sent the copy of this to the legislature. Legislature reviews this piece. >> They sent it back to us. I sent it to council. They reviewed it and said this is all substantive. They talked to legislators coun this legislative council and they agreed.
>> Nons substantive. >> Okay. >> So, what the select board needs to do is approve the new non-substantive changes as authorized by town meeting. This will go back to the legislature and back into the back into the mixer. So, we do plan on having your legislative delegation come visit the next couple months and
this and health insurance and budget and capital and all that should be discussion points, but this should be one of them to get this through. Otherwise, it'll just sit. >> All right. >> I move we approve the non-substantive changes made by the >> You've got one, right? You want the
motion? >> I don't have it because Yeah, I'm sorry. No, that's my computer >> completely died. I move to approve the language of H4414 an act relative to the town
administrator of the town of Carile as recommended by town council and presented in the packet. >> Perfect. >> Second. >> Second. >> You go. >> Okay. Barney seconded. Any further discussion or deliberation? >> Seeing none, we'll do a voice vote. All in favor?
>> I opposed. Motion passes. >> Mr. Walsh is the chairperson of the House Committee on Bills in the third reading. >> There you go. See, he is. He's a state rep. >> He's a state rep. Yeah, >> that's what I said. >> Oh, yes. >> Did Simon have office hours recently? I
saw in the paper, but meant to >> Yeah, they were in the paper. >> Was it? >> I saw it came in >> 3:00 in the afternoon somewhere. >> We missed it probably. I wasn't going to go see. All right. >> All right. On to the TA report. >> You probably call him, David. He'll take >> I know. I can. >> Yeah.
>> All right. Good evening everyone. This is my town administrator report for December 16th, 2025. I hosted a coffee hour as we do every month in the parlor room because I'm running out of places in the public and it's pretty cold outside. But the discussion included questions about tax relief, upcoming
infrastructure projects like sidewalks, potential grant opportunities, and general budget topics, which I'm guessing will be >> topics that we uh handle heading into the town meeting season. I'm going to hold these monthly because we're heading into that town meeting season and the next one will be here at town hall on
January 13th and then I will start a tour of public buildings. Uh hopefully the police station at some point with the library as well. If people are interested in looking for information coming into this important town meeting season, they can sign up for email alerts. They can look at our municipal
newsletter and then follow us on our podcast on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. A quick update from our assistant town administrator and HR director, Aubrey Thomas. So, the town continues to work collaboratively with Carile Public Schools to streamline the HR process. Town Hall oversees payroll
and benefits management, ensuring that employee compensation benefits are handled accurately. We also coordinate with the school to facilitate onboarding and training for new staff, ensuring that all employees have the necessary resources to succeed. >> Can I ask a quick question on that? Is that part of our budget? Do we get
credit as a town compared to the school? Because if we're taking responsibility off of their staff similar to with the facilities, is there any monetary? >> No. So they they have staff that helps in the business office, but we we do supplement a great deal of it here,
>> but we've taken that on. So we've taken off. >> It's always been there. >> We've always been doing it for the school. >> Yep. >> We're just trying to make it more robust and uh collaborative. And on that note, to streamline that communication support, Aubrey has
formalized points of contact for different HR related questions and tried to direct staff to make sure that the right person is answering their questions to reduce frustration and and make sure we're not getting redundant questions. So, we're continuing to work on this collaboration and process to make it better. Adding an HR department
has changed the way that we interact here. So, it's less employee based and more system based and that's going to continue to grow and improve. >> That's great. Yeah, just want credit for >> terms of department updates and information. First, I want to talk about Gretchen. So, she's volunteering as a as
a tap dance instructor for the COS, but they uh would like to compensate her for this. She did it for a while for free and that's and that's great, but they they do pay all of their instructors and we we think that Gretchen should be paid for it. However, she needs to disclose that she holds two paid positions with the town and you need to agree. So, if
you're willing to agree or want to talk more about it, you should vote to acknowledge or not and accept the disclosure that she submitted in your packet. >> I move to approve the disclo disclosure by a special municipal employee of
financial interest as required by Mass General Law Chapter 268A section 20D for executive assistant Gretchen Galammore to teach dance classes for the Council on Aging and Human Services. Second.
>> I'll second. >> Any further discussion or deliberation? >> Tap away. >> Never hidden talents. >> You can. >> You can. Yeah, we could all go and you don't even need tap shoes. >> You the young guy. >> You can have enough tap dancing.
>> Specifically requested that you participate. >> I wouldn't let her down. >> All right. Uh, let's do a voice. >> Okay. >> And then did you want to say something else? >> I was moving on, but you haven't. >> Let's do a voice vote. All in favor? I >> opposed. >> All right. Tap away. What would happen?
Because she already did it this afternoon. >> Well, she I don't think she was getting paid yet. >> Not getting paid yet. >> This had to go. Did you see the form she had to fill out? >> I'm sure it's ridiculous. >> She's a great and ethical employee. She's doing it right by the book. >> Oh, no. No. I think it's terrific, but I just looked at
>> I had to fill that out for the training that the emotional intelligence. I had to do the same thing. >> Yeah. We're trying to protect everyone from >> Yeah. >> potential claims. >> Yep. Um, and we vetted all to make sure that it's legal and it's in >> No, it's good. It's good. >> So, this says that I would have a
natural gas contract update for you, but I actually do and it's it's really new. So, I'm going to review just what I have now, but I will provide more detailed analysis of this later. So, on the last time we talked about this, the price in front of you was 1021 per dec
uh you authorized me to pay up to $11 and the next day it spiked to 10.87. 87. So our adviser said that we should hold off and wait until there was a break in the weather. Uh the next update for >> the January pricing it spiked again to 11.84.
>> Um >> it's not our friend. >> However, the the last 10 to 14 day shift in the market and I don't understand the market forces but it dropped because of the weather tumbling down to 10 984 and we locked it in right there because we do think it's going to go 1112.
>> Okay. So, it's still within your guidance, but not where it was. And I will provide you more evidence, but we did sign a contract, >> right, >> to lock us in. >> Okay. >> And a special thanks to our consultant who's all over it. >> All right. Uh, some budget updates. We
talked >> a lot about that tonight. Um, this this update was really to inform you that we're going to be doing tonight's update. And I would advise people to go to the town administrator page under budget information where we're posting all the the analysis and information
that was presented tonight in a we hope a neat and coherent way dated so people can understand where we are in the budget process. Also, I provided you with a significant amount of health insurance uh discussion background. You did go over that tonight, but for those who are listening to this report, the um budget
projections assumed that the board would continue the 1% increase, which you did tonight. This is on the town contribution side, which lowers the impact on employees. Your stated goal is to continue to increase that until you hit 60%. Which we did a comp analysis of
of area towns and we are very low even at 60%. So this was something you decided a while ago. We also wanted you to consider a high deductible option and a potential ASA for people to switch to to HSA, sorry, to lower their costs and
premiums and lower our exposures and premiums. And you did that tonight. So for those looking for more information, we will be putting that out publicly and also discussing with all our employees those options. And lastly, about insurance, Aubryy's going to put together a proposal for an insurance advisory committee, which is a
very formal investigation of our health insurance. If prices are going to continue to be 15 to 20% increases, then we do need to in good faith look at our plan structures and potential savings that might come from our plan structures. This is not uh going to be an easy thing. There's unions involved
and employees and the IA is is typically a a look into that and a negotiation almost like a union a union negotiation. >> But is this made up of outside subject matter experts or >> it can so internal people who volunteer? We'll be looking for um select board
finance committee and then we'll bring in our consultant and anyone else that wants to inform it. And the unions will have reps and so will the non-union people. >> But we got to look at it. Uh health insurance is crushing us. >> So the the high deductible option is something we can do because it's just an
ad and no one has to do it. This type of change is looking at things that that would be forced upon employees both good or bad and that needs to be discussed and then eventually bargained with the unions in the the non-unions in some sense for a capital project summary and
and timeline. I submitted a document in in your packet and I encourage people to look at it but it it tries to capture the timeline for all of the big capital projects that are going on. I'm going to continue to update this and use it as a reference document because people keep
asking when does construction start, when is design. >> So, it does help you see that and I will refine it as as details evolve. We finalized the contract for the elevator modernization project with New England builders and contractors. We expect this project to be completed within a
one-year time frame from now. And the FY27 budget includes the initial cost of this borrow which is interest only and FY28 will see the realization of all the costs. the town hall bathroom renovation and mechanical room expansion. We signed uh a contract with Fort Meadow Builders and
are working on a timeline for restoring and rehabbing all four town hall restrooms. Right now, it's in the permitting process. And um although the MFC agreed that the contractor for the town hall mechanical room expansion was highly qualified, they chose not to proceed
with the contract because of the cost uh over $50,000. So instead, the facilities team is going to complete most of this work inhouse using overtime and and some of their skills and outsourcing the plumbing portion. So that should reduce costs for that project. It does put a little stress on the facilities department, but we're going to make sure
that they're compensated properly. That'll help us save some money. >> This is staff that are going to do the work. Yes. Not the committee. >> I want to say Steve Steve Canerney stepped up to volunteer to do this. And he's not volunteer. He's going to get paid to do it, but he's going to actually save the town some money. in
the >> Great. >> That's impressive. >> All right, >> CPA project updates. The the main one I have for you or a couple here is Cranberry Bog Dam number one repair. They did the ground penetrating work to look at the burring and the the animal
disrupting disruption that's causing some emergency necessary repairs. So, the GPR is done, but the weather is we're going to get to it when when we can when the contractor can fill in some of those holes and finish that project. the uh CHAT met with you tonight to talk
about the boghouse. You're well informed on that and we'll put out information for the public. Also, uh the Benfield keyless entry system. Our facilities department worked with the vendor to install new main building entry system and individual apartment entry systems. The project's now complete. We went and
saw some final uh some final issues that residents were having. Some of it was training the residents to use it correctly and others were just simply not working. So, we identified that. Steven's working with the vendor to make sure all of that is is um is good to go. There is some some user hesitation with
the system that we're working on, but it's more of a training issue and it's it's it's really Noah's issue, but we're trying to help facilitate that because these are our residents and we care about them. In terms of building uh construction projects and updates, I attended the police station renovation
building committee last week. They decided not to to reaffirm not doing alternates two and three on the project, which was some heating in the uh the garage space that they don't think is necessary at this time. They also received a report from CMS that the dirt
that is known now to be dirty has been exported. About 30 truckloads of dirt were taken out of that area. Uh they do expect the cost of that to be 30 to 40,000 and there's probably conservatively two to three times more
dirt uh depending on >> this is from Daisy's contamination >> uh from the contamination that that was there. We're hoping that the end cost and we do believe with the conservative estimate that the end cost would be under 100,000 and that'll come out of your contingency. You also have to add
the consultant that helped with this this project. So we're still on track. The contingency is still intact and the project is moving along at a at a good pace. >> Fire station renovation. Uh CMS and Tecton continue to work through the design process and I initiated contact
with the new fire station renovation building committee to get their them up and running and hopefully appoint a chair so that they can take over that process. Tecton and CMS are moving. Your building committee is going to meet them at some point and then they'll start working together. But design continues even while this committee is getting
assembled. Their main goal is going to be to finalize the conceptual design and to socialize the permitting process with the various boards as you detailed and know. Some discussion topics that are upcoming. You're going to continue to review personnel policies as you discussed with Aubrey tonight. You have
a goal review on your schedule for January. So, make sure you're thinking about that over the holidays. >> Select board goals. >> Select board goals. >> Previous goals. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And uh those will inform my goals. So, I care about them. So, please do a good job. Your um CPA wants to come in and
discuss long-term CPA approaches. You heard a little bit of that tonight during the budget process, how to allocate the funds that are available, what CPA should be in the community. Those are good conversations to have. And as I said to you before, your legislative delegation, we have one scheduled with Representative Catalo in
January and Senator Barrett has agreed to come in March. So, you get to meet with >> Oh, good. Good. We reviewed and approved a bunch of signs and in the Rotary and on town land that you can review. None of them
violated your policy, which is good. And for staff recognition, got a couple to recognize here. Sandy, our treasurer collector, um, re renewed her certified municipal treasurer uh, certification and municipal collector certification.
These are five-year professional certifications. They require her to go to school and continue to be a subject matter expert in in the concepts of treasury and collecting at a municipal level. Sandy is one of our financial foundations. Just her her presence and her skill and her ability to guide all
of our financial operations. Over the past year, she's worked not only to fund and support all town operations, but to analyze borrowing strategies and provide transparent financial information needed for you during these proposed major capital projects. So I bring a lot of this to you but I vet it with her heavily and she's involved in the entire
creation of it. Having her in this role is a tremendous asset to taking advantage of her experience and strength and we are working to make sure that post Sandy we have that same level of qualification. So that's part of our sustainabil sustainable plan but um I
don't think she's replaceable. So hopefully we can figure that out. And then your DPW director, James Hall, recently completed a seven module Massachusetts qualified tree warden training course, which sounds riveting. Uh he knows more about trees and he
keeps pointing them out to me and I told him to stop because it's too much. Trees are too expensive to remove. It is uh designed to educate tree wardens about what they need and and how they can fulfill their duties. And there's a lot of things in Mass General law that are related to being a tree warden. So, it's a credit to him that he sought this out
on his own to increase his knowledge. And of course, the town will benefit from the certification. And now that we know that it exists, we'll demand that future gyms take it. So, >> MQTTW hammer, it looks like a nail. >> All right. Um, some dates of interest
coming up. I am taking our um a little afternoon professional holiday professional development with the staff on December 18th. So, we're having an early closure here of town hall and then there's some closures over the holidays >> Thursday, right? >> That professional development. >> Yes. >> 16 178. >> I'm thanking my department heads for
their >> valuable contributions to the town and then uh your meetings in January are on a regular schedule and like this month, so the 13th and 27th. I will hope to send out a draft after the chair and I discuss it tomorrow so
that you can see what's coming up in January so that everybody can see it because there's a few weeks off here. So, want to make sure you're informed. >> A draft agenda of the next meeting. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> What's our timing, Scott, on the goal, the goals and the the evaluation?
>> All right. So, you should be scheduling appointments to meet individually with uh Ryan now. And then we you owe me your scoring and summary paragraph on
let's see what did we say it we would present it on the January 13th meeting. So, I forget the exact date, but it was the I want to say January 6th might have been the date we >> like a week before or something. >> Okay.
>> So, you need to meet with Ryan, finalize your review, and then send me your paragraph and scores by the 6th of January. >> And the form is the form that we've seen. >> Okay. >> What's that? >> I'm just thinking that's like the day
after I get back. Yeah, me too. >> Well, you can. I mean, as long as I have it honestly by the end of that week, that's fine. I don't have to do too much to it. So, >> do you need Does Ryan does do you need that evaluation of him before the
holiday here? >> No, I don't need it. >> Okay. >> But you should schedule your >> What you What's your What when are you here, Ryan? Between now and 23rd,
>> I I can make myself available, but I'm here next Monday, Tuesday, and then I'm off until January. >> January what? >> The due date. >> Six. The six is due. >> Oh, okay. So, >> no, you can you can >> book him on the end of the week.
>> Yeah. >> The 9th and >> the 11th if you really want. >> Okay. Now, if we can't find that form, uh, it's >> I can resend it out. >> Yeah, >> be good. >> Ryan sent it out with his self-evaluation. >> Oh. Oh, great. Okay. So, we have the
same as last year. Um, >> yeah. >> Yeah. >> And, uh, >> it came from Ryan, so I can find it. Ryan, when did you send that? >> You sent yours out last week. >> It was after Thanksgiving, so it was the around the end of end of November.
>> It was a week or so late. though. >> Yeah, we're gonna that's going to affect your score. >> Take an extra week if you need to. >> Well, we have to take an extra two weeks. >> Just endeavor to get your schedule your time with Ryan >> self review and goals. All right.
>> Okay. >> All right. We need to do the >> find an hour >> minutes. >> Yeah, let's do the minutes. >> Yeah. Review. Okay. With that done, let's move on to the review of warrants and minutes. We have one uh December 2nd, 2025 minutes. >> I move to accept as written.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion or deliberation? See none, let's do a voice vote. All in favor? >> I opposed. On reports. Anything to report from the field?
>> Not a lot. We um I did have a TMSC meeting and pretty good discussion. I did meet this might be interesting to Mark uh Wayne and I met with Whan folks because they're sort of leading the charge on remote
>> participation >> and uh they we had a pretty interesting conversation and you know there's a lot of good it's a slow process but there's some grassroots kind of wake up of uh you know can we do
it smarter can we use remote technologies there >> like zoom Uh yeah, a zoom >> essentially zoom right essentially zoom I mean the the guy I have to review his presentation but he's presented to League of Women Voters
he addressed a lot of the issues >> so they're uh they're out there I think our town moderator is not a fan so there is that >> generally speaking I think you know there's beginnings of a ground swell to say look this is kind of silly what we should be
doing and Israel planning to or have they started? >> Well, it's this long multi-year process with the legislature. It's not anything quick, but >> Oh, you have to go. >> There's innovation. Oh, yeah. But there's innovation. And the interesting thing is that >> one possibility is sort of a pilot
program. You pick a few towns, >> you run a mock town meeting, like it's not real town meeting, it's mock. and you see if everything works and you kind of run a parallel whole like thing going on to get everybody >> Oh, fun, Ryan. Fun.
>> But I mean, it's I would say it's an interesting >> Yeah, I got a lot warrant. >> Anyway, that's enough of that. Thanks. >> All right. Well, it be interesting to see how that progresses. >> Anything else we want to go over tonight?
>> Okay. Lastly, uh any remaining community input? Susan, I see your hand up. Hi. Yes. Um, so as you know, I sent you a bunch of uh emails and um so watched your vote tonight. >> Yep.
>> And um so I'm a little confused as to how things are going to happen because I'm vice chair of LSC and with this residency and resignations that drops our membership down to seven and our
charter says 10 to 12 voting members. um how are we going to handle that between our next meeting is January 13th, but there's holidays and all that stuff. So, I know this is just community, but maybe just something for you to think
about. Um >> so, you're um >> and it also then throws our subcommittee into a bit of a mess. Yeah, Suki, you're saying that um your your current number of members is 12, but you already have
>> pardon. >> Our current number is 10. >> I mean, your that's what your charter is. >> Our charter says 10 to 12. >> 10 to 12. Okay. >> And we have 10 right now. But if Brian and has leave due to residency, Warren
will be leaving due to residency. And Judy is planning on resigning. >> So you're going to lose three members. Two from the residency requirement and one as a resignation. Or you you're going to have seven and
you'd need six for a quorum. Is that what you're concerned about? Is that the quorum? >> Well, that but I I guess our charter says we're supposed to have 10 to 12 voting members. >> So, how does that affect our
uh legalities and stuff when it comes to making decisions and our actions? Well, whatever number of members you have is you don't um you're not required to
have the the 10 members as your charter defines. I mean, >> right. I mean, you you can have >> you need a quorum. >> You need a quorum, >> but not of 10. It's a quorum of the of the people that have been >> well I mean I think she's bringing up a good point that maybe we have to circle
back on our >> policy that >> well right now if it's effective January one they can have their meeting in January >> well that's her specific situation but if we expand it to the more abstract >> if the charter says we'll use a simpler number say the charter says there 70
>> right >> and then some people resign like we haven't addressed that at all like can Do they have to stop meeting or do they >> can they meet and >> and have a lower quorum? I mean >> with the
>> I did a quick I mean I did a quick in between you know your vote and now I did a quick um you know Google search and stuff and it says it said that that not meeting your charter does put some of your your decisions and
actions legally at risk. Is that per like statute or you mean just if you haven't addressed it in a >> it's open meeting law >> open meeting law >> in open meeting law. >> So you mean a quorum of voting members >> right? we establish the quorum or we
establish the number of members >> and in that case >> but if you can't get enough members for that committee then you can't >> no but if your charter says seven >> and two and your quorum is four >> yes >> then two resign
>> yes >> is your quorum still four >> number of voting members >> yes >> it's still four even though it's four or five now >> yes >> and then >> you have to get new members >> you have to go get some new members But you have to meet the >> quorum. >> Yeah.
>> And is that OML? In other words, it's not that you can't meet if you have fewer than you just have to meet with a quorum. It doesn't >> I think I'm answering the wrong question. If if if the committee is down from 7 to five, but it still meets the four.
>> Yeah. >> It's okay. It doesn't matter. >> As long as you have four, you're still meeting quorum. >> You're still meeting quum. So that's that. So, Suki, does that make sense then? That so your number is 10. So, you'd have to have six to have a quorum.
>> And so, if you lose three, >> it just means every single member that is left has to >> six. This wouldn't impact the first meeting in January because >> right, we've allowed that to be >> I do think in that example though that it's ambiguous 10 to 12 members. We
should you should only you should >> we shouldn't allow a range. We should probably make get clear >> in the policy that it cannot be a range. >> It needs to be a number >> fixed number. >> I think it's a number of voting. So I would say the number is not a range. >> Right.
>> Right. Um >> somehow they came away with it. >> But I think it's something we'll have to get in touch with KSCOM about because isn't didn't they write the charter or who >> it's your committee. >> It's our it's our committee who approved it. >> LSC made the wrote the charter but
Kanscom I think approved it. It's a subcommittee. >> I'm not I don't remember. >> LSC is a subcommittee. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's a subcommittee of the >> Congress on this policy. All those are supposed to come up to us now, >> right? >> Now, but now you are the LSC appointing authority.
>> All right. Well, anyway, we should clean it up. >> We are the appointing authority. >> But can we clean it up in real time like in January so that we get Sugi out of the box? Let's >> Yeah, we'll put that on the chair. >> What do you want me to do? I mean,
>> we should review the LSC subcommittee charter and make sure it says 10 >> at their January or January 13th meeting. >> Sure. >> But they can meet at their they can have their January with the with the existing members. >> They can meet with the existing members, but we should clarify it's 10. >> Yep.
>> Not 12. >> Unless we want it lower like 10 is >> I mean that's the other thing, Suki. You could I think you should be involved in the discussion about the review of the charter and just see if it makes any sense to lower
it. >> Yeah. Why is it so many? >> I can't remember. Was it 10 because there were just a lot of people that wanted to serve? >> Yes. I think at that point, yes, we had quite a few people, >> but we lost one to Huh.
>> That's big. >> We lost some to I lost, you know, Dwight went to the planning board. >> I would even numbers are not great either, >> right? I would actually even think in our in our policy we should say the maximum number is seven.
>> Well, we can so big >> even let it get big. >> To put add a little context, this is a working >> so they they do need more membership because they have a lot of people. >> Be reluctant to set a max. Okay.
>> But if you set it to nine, you need a quorum of five. >> Do you know what I mean? Well, even if you lowered it to nine from 10 to 9, they could do that. >> Well, it sounds like they may have people who are on the committee who are not voting members, too. So, they'll still have people who can help out doing if it's a working board.
>> They want to hit their quorum, >> right? >> Okay. >> Okay. All right. Got it. >> So, >> but that's helpful. Thank you. >> Short short answer is you can proceed with your January meeting as you would before. This wouldn't take effect till after that meeting. And in our our
January meeting, we can look at revising the number of committee members to assist with um the quorum and just your membership overall. >> And do you want Okay. >> Do you want to talk to them about just triangulate on what the right number is?
>> Yeah. Um Suki, when is your first meeting in January? >> Our first meeting is the 13th also. >> Oh, >> that's one of the problems. >> Well, you can get the input, but you can get the input. >> Yeah. Let's just see what the right number is, >> okay? >> Because you may want to talk it over
with the rest of the committee, right, Suki? >> Um, probably. Yes, we could also have the 27th. >> Do it at our 27th. >> Yeah, the second meeting. >> Suki, your following meeting after January 13th. Are you anticipating meeting again in January or >> do you think No,
>> because we're going to meet again >> usually. No, >> because we can meet on January 27th and make any required adjustments after that meeting after your meeting in January. Yeah. >> Okay. I mean I can see if we want to change when that mean you our ne next
meeting is or or what. >> Yeah. And and you can also you know explore with Warren and Brian would they continue on the committee as non- voting members you know if they want to and you
want them. >> So >> yes. Okay. >> Yeah. All right. >> All right. Well thank you. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Any other >> I'll be in touch. Suki. >> Any other community comments? >> Seeing none, I'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I second.
>> All right. Voice vote. I >> All right. >> Finish. Absolutely. >> Four minutes.