Let's do a uh roll call vote, please. >> Arnold uh here, >> here, >> Stevens here, >> Triola here, and we are currently missing David Modell, but we will announce him when he joins. Uh welcome
to the select board meeting of Tuesday, December 2nd. I'm going to run through the agenda for tonight. Um and you'll note a different an updated format to the agenda and this format is updated to be uh more accessible. So uh beginning
with community input at 7, we will then be uh doing volunteer appointments. Item three will be approval of loan documents for the police station renovation and elevator renovation projects. That will include a vote. Following that, we'll have approval or discussion and approval
of a grant conservation restriction. Also a vote at 7:35, we're scheduled to discuss the DPW building project. That's a joint meeting with the municipal facilities committee. Item 6 at 8:45 is ABCC 2026 renewal certification. That's
for liquor license. Uh item seven is a personnel policy discussion followed by um a discussion to revise the committee creation and appointment policy. I'll note on this one we've allocated 15 minutes. Um I don't expect that we'll
get through all the items in that, but we will at least begin the discussion and if we need additional time we will likely continue that discussion at a future meeting. Um at 9:50 we will review warrants and minutes. At 9:55
cemetery D transfer requests followed by liaison reports and ending with community input. So that's a lengthy agenda. So let's get started uh with community input. Does anyone online and I'll note we are remote only tonight
given the weather. So does anyone online have any community input that they'd like to offer? Just raise your hand. Okay, seeing none, let's move right into volunteer appointments. And for that, um, I'd like to begin with the
appointment of, and apologies if I get the last name incorrect, but Diane Stahily as a member of the cultural council with a term to end June 30th, 2028. And just to note, um, her residency has been confirmed since the last meeting. So, and I I also talked
with Mark Levitan who cons who confirmed the cultural council's recommendation for her appointment. >> Someone wants to offer that motion. >> I move to appoint Diane Stelli as a member of the cultural council with a term to end June 30th, 2028.
>> Do we have a second? >> Second. Any further discussion or deliberation? Seeing none, let's take a vote and I'll note that David Modell has joined. So, David, if you could just announce yourself and we'll include you in the roll call.
>> David Modell. I >> Okay, so let's do a roll call vote for the appointment um to Diane to the cultural council. >> Arnold I. >> Modell. I >> Snell I.
>> Stevens I. Riola I great. Moving on to the fire station building renovation committee. We have uh five separate appointments to consider. Um beginning with uh Eric Ballas of as the environmental sustainability committee
representative to the fire station renovation committee. Um the the ESC will be meeting on Thursday to vote their confirmation. Um but what was determined was that we could um essentially appoint him contingent on
that vote of confirmation. So that's one motion. I'll just run through them all just since there's several. Uh Tony Mariano as the board of health representative to the fire station building renovation committee. And then we have three um residents who have submitted applications.
uh Suzanne Spinny who is currently serving on the uh fire or the police station renovation committee. Uh Chief Fit Flannry uh submitted an application um and also Greg Zerlo and I I did have a discussion with Greg so we can briefly discuss that when we get to it. So we
have five separate um appointments to consider here. Do we want to begin with Eric? >> Sure. >> Yeah. Uh, is that something you want me to address?
>> Uh, no, Eric. I think do any we need to hear from Eric? I mean, Eric is very familiar with the fire station project. He's he served on the fire apparatus committee. Um, and I I think would make a great addition to this to this committee. >> Scott, do you want to um vote on each of
these separately or go through all five and if we're all comfortable, just do all five at once? Um why don't we go through them separately just since Eric and Tony are specific board reps. >> Okay. >> Yeah. If you could
>> Would you like a motion now for to appoint Eric? >> Please. >> Okay. I'm happy to move to appoint Eric Ballas as the environmental sustainability committee representative to the fire station building renovation committee subject to ESC vote of
confirmation. >> I second that. Any discussion or deliberation? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. >> Arnold, I >> Modell I. >> Nell, I. >> Stevens, I. >> Triola, I. Motion passes. Someone can
move to appoint Tony. >> Uh, I move to appoint Tony Mariano as the board of health representative to the fire station building renovation committee. We're gonna have to come up with a shorter name though. >> I second that. >> The FBS. Yeah, I didn't name this one.
Okay, so we have a second. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Any discussion or deliberation? Seeing none, another roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Modella. >> Nell. I. >> Stevens. I. >> Triola I. And I think so that motion
passes. I think we can do the three residents together. And I'll just say a brief word because I did have a call with uh Greg Zerlo yesterday. um and he has a wealth of experience um in architecture and construction documents. He served on the planning board in Lexington when he was a resident there.
He's recently moved to Carlile um and sees this as a great way to to get to know the town and be involved. So, um it was a great conversation and just based on his experience and his motivations to join the committee, I I think he'll be a great addition to the team. And again,
Suzanne is on the um police station building committee um and has been a great uh resource for that committee. So having her uh join this committee is excellent. And of course, Chief Flannry um has a great wealth of knowledge around the fire station and the fire
department and its history and its operations. Uh so he'll bring a a great perspective from a a fire department standpoint. So, I think between these three residents, we have a real diversity and wealth of experience that I think will serve this committee well.
>> Great. Um, I'm happy to move that we um appoint uh Greg Zerlo, Suzanne Spinny, and David Flannry
as at large members of the fire station building renovation committee. I second that. >> Any further discussion or deliberation? Seeing none, we'll take a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Modell I.
>> Snell I. >> Stevens I. >> Riola I. And just as a final note on the fire station committee um we still need an MFC member um and another ATL large member who may be also an MFC member, but they're going to be meeting I think
on Thursday. Um >> we are Thursday morning. >> So we'll we'll take that up at our next meeting. Um but uh we'll we'll get that committee up and running. >> So you said sorry Scott just to clarify we need another atlarge member and
another representative from MFC >> for the station. Okay. And there's there that atlarge member could also be an MFC member if if there are two if if they decide they want two members on that committee or um we can we'll have to
find another member from the public. But we have we have five appointed or we will have five appointed as of Thursday. Uh so that committee can can begin meeting which we need to do since we're on a tight timeline. Great. So, thank you to all the the
volunteers who stepped forward for both the cultural council and the fire station committee. Let's move on to item three, uh, which has five minutes for, I think, 85 pages in our packet, but it is the approval of the loan documents for the police station renovation and
elevator renovation projects. Um, Ryan, do you want to speak to this one? >> Yes, we actually have Sandy here to uh, give a brief introduction. Sure. Hi. Um, how are you?
>> So, we have um before you are the documents um that are awaiting your signature for a $5 million borrow. This um is the $2 million borrow that we did
last June is coming due in December. So, we need to renew that as well as an additional $2 million um to finish the police station renovation. And then there's a million dollars to go
toward the elevator upgrades um that was voted on last year at the town meeting as well. Um so, I believe there are seven pages there that have await your signature, Christine. There are two
additional pages just for you as the clerk. And we need a vote tonight to approve um awarding the loan to truest securities. Um they gave us the best
rate. Um this ban will be for exactly one one year. Um so it'll come due next December. Hopefully by then we'll be able to do a long-term borrow and not
just um roll it for another year >> and for and the motion in the packet is to approve the vote of the select board document in particular. So you need you need approval on that motion and you need our signatures contingent on that approval. Is that correct?
>> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I would move to approve the motions titled vote of the select board and dated December 2nd, 2025 is presented in the packet. >> I second that.
>> Any discussion? Okay, seeing none, let's take a roll call vote. >> Arnold, I >> Snell I. Stevens I >> Riola I and I think that sets a record for the long the biggest packet document and the
shortest discussion. So thank you as always Sandy and Kelly um for all the work and and all the expertise you put into into these efforts. There's a lot behind these short discussions.
>> Thank you. Quick question, uh, Scott, about signatures, uh, or maybe Sandy or Ryan, I don't know who this would be for. Um, do you need do do they need to be done? It sounded like from the the note that
Gretchen sent us that it needs to it needs to be done tomorrow morning. Was that the sense of it? >> Anytime tomorrow would be great. I have to um get these back to bond counsel on Thursday. I've got to send everything
over to them. >> Okay. >> And do you have them, Sandy, or are they at Gretchen? Will she have them? >> Actually, I think Ryan has them right now. >> Yeah. So, they're they're on Gretchen's desk for signature tomorrow. And not to
be presumptuous, but if the CR is passed tonight, those documents are there as well. So, if people can swing by tomorrow, that'd be great. We would have had them for you tonight, but the snow, >> right? >> Can everybody get by there tomorrow? I know Barney and I will be there.
>> Sounds like Christine, you you've made arrangements, Travis and David. Any >> I'll be there. I I'll do it. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Okay, that's great. Thank you all. >> Thank you, Sandy. >> Thank you. All right, moving to item number four,
approval of grant of conservation restriction. Um, and so there's a lot of information, a motion in the packet. Um, this motion or this approval or grant conservation has also been supported by the conservation restriction advisory
committee um through a unanimous vote and has the support of consom who voted to support contingent on the uh the the other vote. So, um, that comes to us with with both recommendations. Um, does anyone want to speak to this
conservation restriction? >> So, Scott, we have Meredith here. Um, >> who can explain what's going on? >> Good. >> Yes. Hi, everybody. My name is Meredith H. Hot. Hotton. Um, I'm with Sudbury Valley Trustees, who would be the, um, the grantee of this CR. I work on the
land protection team there. Um, so yeah, exactly right. As the chair mentioned, um this has been this matter has been brought before the conservation commission um in their November meeting um and just last night to the CR advisory committee uh for their support
as well. Um but yeah, so um we are essentially looking for your support um and signature on this conservation restriction. The restriction itself has already been approved by the state uh the department of conservation services who approves this. um their signature is
the last one. So the um EA secretary will sign following your approval if it is approved by you all. Um but this has been been vetted by them and and and meets the state standards and then again has been brought through the conservation commission and the CR advisory committee review. Um SVT of
course approves of this draft. We wouldn't have brought it before you if we did not like it. Uh and the landowner as well. So it's it's gone through a good amount of vetting to date just so you all are aware. Um but this is a this is a CR 77 acres of the property which
is uh just over 14 acres in total. Um the property um operates now as Sweet Autumn Farm. It's a small organic farm you all may be familiar with. Um and so primarily what we're looking at here is to protect that agricultural operation and future agricultural operations um
and and allow these soils and this important agricultural property to be maintained as such in perpetuity. Um there's also the scenic value component on pro P prospect street uh where this property is located. Um and as many folks are aware this is um across the
street from a expansive open space corridor um that connects to Esesterbrook Woods and other uh open space. Um this also helps advance some of the goals of the open space and uh recreation plan um as well as the
Massachusetts farmland action plan. Um, and I don't know if folks are aware, but at Sweet on a Farm now, um, there is, uh, a good amount of educational programming that that currently takes place. Uh, the Boston School of Herbal Studies operates out of there. Um, that is an interest of the landowner,
Missicott. And so the CR of course supports supports and allows that, uh, use to continue into the future. Um and yeah, I I think you know to be clear um the the land will stay in its current ownership and the restriction would be
granted to SVT. So SVT would be the responsible party for monitoring the restriction and enforcing it if if necessary and making sure the conservation values um that we've outlined for you all stay protected in perpetuity and and those special
qualities are maintained. So that's kind of the gist. I am here if you guys have any questions about either procedurally or just the content of the CR. Um, yeah. Anything I can clarify?
>> Two questions. One, so Ryan, from our standpoint, all the legal language and everything is in order and has been reviewed and vetted and all that through the process as far as we know. >> That's correct. Yep. And then is in the
in in going through this process has there been any objections raised to doing this conservation and if so uh what were what were the reasons for that? >> No objections from the conservation commission or the CR advisory committee.
They just had some clarifying questions you know ensuring that um you know if there is any role for the town here that they should be weary of or understanding if there's any responsibilities. The answer is no. you know, as as we mentioned, the um we will hold the restriction and so any enforcement and
all of that falls to SVT. Um you know, there's the normal town roles with with any property. You know, if if some actions were um proposed within, you know, the wetland setbacks and things like that, you know, that would of course come through the town. So, there's the normal responsibilities, but
in terms of the CR, um you know, that that falls to SVT. Um there were questions about, you know, um monitoring the CR and making sure the boundaries were properly located, which they have been. So just kind of questions like that to make sure folks understood.
We've we've done our due diligence and and we're all kind of on the same page. Um but but nothing of um you know, nothing of concern that came up. >> I I do have one question, Meredith. Um, I saw there's provisions for trails or
some type of use uh for the public to access this and I know that's important to Carlile is to have a trail system and interconnected trails. I didn't see on the site plan anything that showed that and I wondered if there is a provision for that and what is the plan for public
access and trails? Yeah. So, so this this conservation restriction is a bit different um in that it is an an agricultural operation and and even um you know once the current land owner moves on, you know, the hope is that this does stay in agriculture. And that
being such um this this has public access with permission of the land owner, but it is not allowing for sort of the normal public access on a publicly owned property. This is her residence. um you know so I think you know with privacy in mind and that those
are her wishes um so the the public access basically is as defined by the landowner um as as they would like it to be and it's not just kind of um you know across the board access. Um, so that would be for special events and you know
as we talked about these education programs that go on there now it would basically continue in that same way but there are no public trails on this property and no plans for such >> any other questions forgive my ignorance but does the SVT mi other properties in
Carile I'm not as familiar with >> yes uh Wood Haven Farm across the street actually. Yes. >> And there are others I'm sure too, but that's not off the top of my head. >> Okay. >> Okay. Any other questions or comments? If not, I think we can entertain a
motion. Uh, I move to approve the grant of conservation restriction of 180 Prospect Street, Carlile, Mass 01741, an approximately 12.77 acre parcel more or less described in a deed recorded at
Middle Sex County Northern District Registry of Deeds at book 27889, page 75 from grtor Katherine L. Endicott to grantee Sudbury Valley Trustees, Inc. pursuant to MGLC184
section 31-33 for the purpose of ensuring the premises will be maintained in perpetuity for conservation purposes as described in the grant of conservation restriction. >> Is there a second?
>> I second. >> Any further discussion or deliberation? All right, seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Odell, I. >> Snell, I. >> Stevens, I.
>> Triola, I. The motion passes. And thank you very much for all the work the SVT has done in support of this. >> Thank you all very much. Really appreciate it. And and um I did express to Gretchen sort of the urgency around the signatures on this as well, which I think you just addressed. So, we really
appreciate your attention to this. I know it's remotely tonight kind of throws a wrench, but very much appreciated. >> Yeah. And this will be part of the packet that folks will be signing tomorrow. >> Thank you very much. >> Good. Excellent. Thank you. All right. I'm not sure if we're ready to move on
to the DPW discussion. Um I see Mark Anderson did just join. Ryan, are we are or whomever from the MFC? Are we able to start that discussion or would you prefer we do some other small items? it would be okay with me.
>> Okay, let's keep plowing forward then and let's move on and discuss the um DPW building in a joint meeting with the MFC. And Jerry, I don't know if you want to bring your meeting to order. >> Um since we have three members here, I
think I need to do that. So, I would like to call this meeting to order. We'll >> do a roll call. Eric present. Travis now here >> Jerry Lurman here. >> Great.
So take it away. I think the so just to set the stage though um this is the purpose of tonight is to reacquaint ourselves with the DPW uh project which was presented to us uh earlier this year. um and to uh if not
tonight, uh by the next meeting as a select board discuss and determine um what the next steps are as we look toward the Springtown meeting and what the potential ask is as it relates to this project and design funding. >> And one note, please if I might, uh Mr.
Chairman, um this is Barney Arnold, and I just wanted to acknowledge that um I am going to butter to the the land in question and and we can determine if it's appropriate or not for me to vote when we get to that.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> It's a good question, Barney, because >> I know I should have thought of it earlier, but I didn't. >> That's fine. That's fine. >> Do you mind if I do some more table setting as well? >> Please.
>> So, the um the select board did did hear this presentation already. So Mark Anderson is here from Lero and the MFC works through this problem. So the MFC being one of your major capital committees considering facilities took
on the question of what would a DPW renovation and what would a new building look like. So to equate this to the fire station, they were serving as um your your committee in order to look at the conceptual design, the the very first
design with with a cost estimate. So, we're at the same spot that we were with the fire station at the fall town meeting that we have a conceptual design and the next step would be to get schematic design money and put the
project out to bid for a bigger project. However, that's contingent on the select board being comfortable with the current design and making sure that you add project goals so that you can feel comfortable with with what's being proposed. So that discussion came up
earlier. You were in the middle of many things, MBTA, fire station, etc. And you paused that conversation until now. So tonight you have the MFC to describe the way they went through the building design process. You have the architect here to discuss that and to go over any
of the report and then uh you you can deliberate and or discuss where you want to go if you want to go anywhere at all. >> Yeah. And I think from my standpoint, I think there's what I'd like to what I would be most
helpful to me is to is to reacquaint ourselves with the different option or pathways at a high level that that you initially talked about. Um and then we can discuss also the process a little bit more that and and and what information and all the all that was
considered in in coming up with those different pathways. um versus I don't and anyone else can step in, but I don't think we need to spend a lot of time um on the existing condition of the building. I think we all recognize a lot of the deficiencies. Um and so maybe
just jumping in um with with those those different pathways and the different options that that you had presented to us. >> Okay, I think I can do that and I will do it um at a a high level. So we looked at at three different options. One was
renovating the existing building. The other is replacing the existing building with a new building. And the third path was replacing the existing building with a pre-fabricated a modular structure.
the costs associated with those different paths. The the cost for the renovation in place is just under $10 million. And that would leave us with an
improved building but with the same footprint and the same amount of space. Um, a new building would cost about $14.2 million. And that would give a building that has
about 3,000 square ft more space and um substantially improves the resources of the building for furthering the the um furthering the the projects of the
DPW. The third pathway is a module building which costs just under $14 million. um and would also be 10,000 square feet and would provide pretty much the same
structure as a custombuilt building but perhaps a little less fancy. If you look at the cost per square foot for those three different paths for the renovation path with a $7,200 square
foot building, the cost per square foot would be um $1,000 plus a little more. For a completely new building at 10,000 square feet, the cost would be $1,100
per square foot. And for a prefab building, the cost would be about $1,000 per square foot. So the cost >> the cost for renovating the existing building actually is slightly more per
square foot than the cost of a prefab building. Um >> yeah, >> may I just interrupt quickly? I I just wanted Mark to confirm uh the square footage on that because I think that the
7,000 just refers to the bays and not the entire structure. Is that right or do I have that? >> So the the existing footprints right around 8,000 square feet all in >> the the projected. >> No, that's the existing footprint. And
then if you add the trailer next door where where the uh dwelling space would be and the the meeting space etc. that's approximately another thousand square feet. So you're right around nine. Yeah you know for the existing >> for the existing but the the new
structure is significantly or is larger. >> Yeah. You're going to be at about 11,000 square feet with the footprint we're looking at. Exactly. >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Jerry, to interrupt. I just >> Well, I I I think the I think my summary
numbers still hold that the cost per square foot >> for renovating the building is slightly more than the cost per square foot for a new modular building. >> And to be clear, the the current building is a what? An indoor a horse
arena. Correct. >> That's how it started its life. Well, it sounds like it wasn't modified too much. Um, but it I don't know. I mean and we we can get more into into the details but it it based on the existing condition
and and how it was created and it doesn't seem like what was the recommendation from the MFC was it was it one of the pathways because the first pathway just doesn't seem to make functional or financial sense to me >> that well the MFC recommended path three
which is the modo building which um would save the town um about a half a million dollars compared to um a customuilt building. There's some question about whether a
modular building would um take less time to complete than a customuilt building. >> Um I've gotten opinions both ways. Some people think it's faster, some people think it would be about the same.
Can you talk about in the pathway? I know there's floor plans in the um in the documentation. Can you just briefly speak to how the proposed square footage will be used at a high level and and the and the various operational needs that drive
that to to inform like why the additional square footage is needed and what it what it basically provides the department and the town. Well, is >> is there a um a sketch? I know I looked through the entire document, but is
there a good um single graphic or im or design that would be worth looking at as you're walking us through what's >> May I uh share my screen or would somebody else like to
I have something ready I can share if you like. >> Yeah, let's >> Great. gave you access. Mark, >> one moment, please. Me rotate a couple things and uh bring us in. Okay.
Please let me know if you can see my screen. >> Not yet. Oh, there it is. Yep. >> Okay. >> Just enlarge. >> Yeah. So, I'm gonna, if I may, I'll just give you a quick shot of what we're looking at today. Is this legible to
everyone? the main structures are some of that's better. >> Okay. So, here you have with where my hand is the existing DPW proper, right? And then the office space directly to the plan east edge, right? Then you have
the the existing fuel island which is slated for replacement in 29, I believe, and the old the old S salt barn uh directly to the east. So that's the existing uh through any of the pathways right
except for pathway one which we're maintaining the existing footprint you can see the existing footprint um below here in the dark graded cha rectangle along with the office structure and the new f footprint is indicative of where
our new placement would be. Um, so you can see kind of a little bit of overlap there. Slight adjustment to maximize sight circulation really. So, uh, one of the improvements I'll speak about on the next slide, but you can begin to see it here. There's improved access when you
enter as well as, um, exit. So instead of all coming in this northern entry here and exiting through that uh this site or both both pathway two and three have a a roll through scheme where
trucks come in there are double deep drive-thru bays and you exit on the southern side >> and roll out this way. And we we've relocated the fuel island in both pathway two and three as well to kind of maximize sight flow. So the fuel just
just because I know the fuel the fuel replacement is a big item capital item in >> in the DPW project that would basically be replaced with a in a new location and that work would be done in conjunction with a DPW project.
>> So we took the liberty in planning thinking knowing you know this takes a little bit of time to work out that it it might work out that way in terms of timing. So yes, that was the thought process >> cuz that's a large that fuel station I
know is a large investment and I would hate for us to replace the fuel tank in an area or in a place that limited our ability on the DPW project. >> So wait, Mark, I'm not clear. I thought you said that was being done in 2029. Is
it being done now in it's not as part of this scope of work? It is 2029. >> Yes, that's when it it's slated to be replaced. Um, but just thinking about general timeline of things and not knowing when this might actually, you
know, get off the ground. Uh, we rolled that into the thought process as kind of an optimal scenario, right, to really maximize site flow, etc. for future state. Have you got it located at a different place then in your
>> Yeah, let me let me do a control two here for you and I'll I'll show the existing and the new side by side here. >> While he's doing that, can I ask kind of a regulatory question? If you don't if you didn't touch the
fuel, I mean, there could be groundwater contamin ground contamination and >> all kinds of things when we talk about fuel and I I don't know the rules. If if you didn't do anything with it, >> are you okay? And the minute you disturb it, you have to do all kinds of sight
work or not because that might be important to know. >> Well, >> so we did I'm sorry. Go ahead. Um we we have to do something with the fuel with the fuel pumping station whether it is
replacing it in place or in a different location. Um the equipment is is past its useful life and needs to be replaced. Um that replacing it of course would be a good time to relocate it.
Well, you're you're thinking in terms of architectural, and I've got my liability, >> regulatory risk hat on right now. And I guess it seems to me we ought to get a an expert who can tell us what we can and cannot do and what it would and wouldn't
trigger and then soil sample that area because, you know, we can have daisies all over again. The costs will double when we have to, you know, remediate huge piles of dirt because they contaminated with fuel. I just get very nervous when we start talking about that
sort of thing. So I suggest that that item be taken up by some experts who really know understand the rules and we need to do soil sampling. So just just to show you the it it's a
slight relocation again to optimize circulation and uh you know fueling pit stops etc while maintaining circulation. But you can see it was right here kind of in line with this pathway
um that rolls right through to another storage facility plan south of what we're seeing here. So we we've moved it just slightly uh southwest and rotated it uh to be in line with this flow through.
>> Clarification in both diagrams it looks like the fuel tank is in the same location or is that just the >> No. So here if you can see this small rectangle here >> right under my hand. So that was more
about where this green island is, this vegetative island. >> So you're you're you're moving it to David's point, you're extracting the old tank, you're putting in a new tank, and the question would be if you do that, does that open you up to a whole bunch of additional
uh regulatory testing requirements because you're moving it, you know what I mean, versus replacing it? So that's a good question. Okay. >> Uh but I can uh I can put up the floor plan to the earlier question
uh just so you have an understanding of kind of the improvements and I can highlight them quickly if you like. Right. So we've more than doubled the existing storage capacity uh as well as improved kind of just flow
through operations and movement with having the double deep drive-thru bays. So we've increased the number of bays by double. So >> this is the old This is the old the existing. >> No, this is the new >> This is the new one now.
>> Exactly. Yeah, this is the new showing the old one. There we go. Yep. It's just lagging. >> Oh, sorry. Okay, >> that's fine. Now we see the we see the the colored floor plan of the new design. >> Yeah. So,
yeah, we we've we've increased number of bays and made them drive through as you can see uh here. So you have the the opportunity to kind of stage vehicles as you wish and uh pull vehicles out without moving a bunch of other
apparatus which just improves your response times etc. >> When when you said you doubled the storage space, do you mean for vehicles or >> Yes, for the apparatus. >> Is it doesn't look like you've doubled the area? Is that just by by virtue of having the drive-thru double bays, you
can fit more stuff in into the bays or >> that and we've increased the number of bays, right? So, I think today you have boy, it's been a minute, but I think there are going to be four bays currently,
the mechanics bay. So, um, yeah, here we've we've, uh, yeah, almost doubled the opportunity for undercover storage, I would say. >> And in the existing building though, you're not doubling the square footage
of bathe or what that space. So, is it just the current space isn't really efficient >> that part of that. So, but we've also so again we have the existing footprint for the DPW and then you have the the office
structure directly adjacent to it. So, and we you know the DPW by itself, yes, is significantly smaller uh in terms of square footage. We've added a couple thousand square feet extra to the overall facility from a program
perspective to kind of envelop that office trailer. uh program piece under one roof here. >> So all of that that the trailer all of that would be removed and
>> Yes. This is this would this would replace that. Exactly. It's all under one roof connected. You can see uh you know you have a a public entry at the northern facade here and more of an employee work entry at the southern
edge. Uh and this whole eastern edge is administrative and and dorm sleeping area as well as some supporting functions along the seam. Uh then a small some small supporting functions here with the tool room, mechanic's office, etc. And
storage up above all of this area. It's more of a a loft style storage space. And do DPWs have a similar or analogous concept to fire stations where there's there's separation of certainly bad air,
but any kind of chemicals or contaminants from the living space or the workspace. I'm sure it wouldn't be as as as strict or as comprehensive as a fire station, but is that concept baked in here? >> No, you're absolutely right. And we have
a a hard line here, right? This is our This is the seam. I'll draw a line. >> Yep. >> That edge right there provides a nice seal between those two functions.
Certainly. No, it's you know, these are these vehicles are are very much like anything you would see in a fire station, right? All big vehicles running off the same type of fuel source. So, u it's certainly the same same type of
sensitivity. And so with regard to the vehicle bays, um you know, again, when when the when folks are looking at this and when you're looking at the number of recommended bays, I'm assuming this this accommodates the current fleet
and likely builds in some appropriate space for maintenance and and potential future growth slashflexibility. >> So this doesn't house every last piece. That's the thing. So, we we tried to maximize the site and I'll go back one
slide uh so you can see what we're up against here. And we did only look at this site. We didn't look at any others, >> but we are up against against a wetland boundary here, right? Um so, we will
have to go in front of the conservation committee >> regardless. But the good news is, you know, we made a slight shift with our footprint, but you can see, you know, there's a little bit of overlap here, and we're trying to maximize uh what we
what we can provide on the site while still making it kind of optimal from an operational standpoint. U but we're actually kind of in the buffer area less than the existing footprint. So, I I
don't think you're going to see any uh any any more restrictions upon this parcel, you know, based upon what we're looking at today with this footprint. Um, but we did try to maximize it. And I guess to your point, there's still we're
still not capturing every last piece of equipment. You know, there is a list at the end of the report and we we tried to maximize what we could with the site that we have. So Mark, that list, if I read it correctly, um had two vehicles that were
outside. Is that right? And then are those same two vehicles are going to remain outside? Is that the ideal? >> Um, you know, I can't speak to which two
vehicles were out going to be outside. >> You noted them as being outside on this list. storage location says outside next to two of them or is it three? I can't read this. >> Oh, right. Right here. Yeah, I see what you're saying.
>> There's one right here, here. Here. >> Yeah. And so are are all three of those still or the three of these on the inventory? I don't know if it necessarily be the same vehicles will be stored outside. Yes, there will there's
still there still will be a need for some residual pieces, right? Whether they're they're kind of stored in their current state or or not. Yeah. Now, I my sense is is that um more pieces than are are noted on this list
that say outside are actually outside. But >> yeah, because there's a fair amount of equipment. >> Yeah, I I I'm not sure. This was a list. I think the gym at the at the time he gave us what he had. U but I'm not sure
the nomenclature about where it exists today is completely accurate. And in terms of the components of a modern DPW building, um I mean obviously having appropriate bay space and maintenance space and
work and living areas. Is does the proposal include kind of all the spaces you would typically see? Is there anything that's omitted from this design or um included that you normally wouldn't see? I mean, going back to it,
it seems fairly straightforward in terms of some some bunk rooms, some common area, office. >> Yeah, if I may, I I'll share the program with you if you can see this. So, you know, we started out to your point,
right? So, this is a very paired down facility compared to what we do see. And I know that the Carile community is taking care of some other pieces that sometimes we see integrated into a DPW. You know, some shared
program pieces. >> Is there any way to enlarge this, Mark? It's pretty hard to read. >> How's that? There might be a delay. Let me know. >> Yeah, that's better. >> Okay. So, there's there's really three
distinctive areas that we're looking at. There's a small oop sorry a small public piece which is the entry node. Uh then you have the ad administrative area which was off to the plan easterly edge of the plan we were just looking at and
that has a couple offices bathroom small amount of storage dorm areas uh minimal bathrooms to support that. Um actually I think we're taking care of it with one uh unisex full shower area, a
small kitchen and pantry and then you have the bay area itself. So like in in the current in our current building if you know this information like maintenance bays is that does does this improve our maintenance? I know our maintenance bay condition
isn't isn't very good. Does this dedicate more space to maintenance bays or less or? >> Oh yeah. So this 4 bay nomenclature is your existing that that's what you have. And uh so if we look at our new plan, right? Uh I believe we have seven.
>> Okay. >> And they're slightly deeper, right? To accommodate the double double deep piece which would easily accommodate two large pieces of equipment, right? I think it's 80 feet from north to south. And that's
that's kind of a similar parameter we use in fire station design for a double deep apparatus bay. Um so you have you know lots of good space there. So we increase the width by three more bays and increase the depth as well as having the pull through
option. So significant increase. you know, like I like I say, I I don't think we're going to be able to accommodate all the parts and pieces uh under Jim's purview, but u it's a definite uh increase
net positive. >> Scott, I can answer that question a little bit better. Um in terms of the the town's approach to space usage, right now the mechanics bay is one of those bays. >> Yeah. >> But it's it's converted and it's not deep enough. So for small vehicles,
there is a lift in there that can be used. For the larger vehicles, they have to keep the door open in order for the vehicles to fit inside and or send that vehicle out for for maintenance somewhere else because of the space. So the way this is configured, the mechanic
can um work on any piece of equipment undercover. And it's it's one of the big issues in the winter in terms of both safety and efficiency. So keeping all the doors open all the time is not great for heat and if you close them u right
now that's a that's a dangerous situation or an unsafe situation for our employees. So we kind of have both problems at the same time. >> Right. So the the new building will provide adequate ventilation so that engines can be left running while work
is being done on them and their exhaust will be vented to the outside. I think one of the one of the key takeaways in looking at the fire station, obviously storing equipment outside is is can be uh pennywise and
pound foolish when you look at the cost of the equipment over time and if you can extend the life of equipment by keeping it in a conditioned housing. It that can more than offset the added construction cost of the extra space. So, does this design also allow more
vehicles to be stored inside or is it just provide better space and and more maintenance space? >> Oh, no. Oh, go ahead. Sorry. I >> was going to say it it accomplishes both. That was the one of the goals the MFC had when looking at this.
>> But again, the the footprint of the building is determined by the wetlands that surround it. This is about as big as you can go. In other words, >> yes, >> exactly. Yeah. To to meet the turning
radiuses, etc. So, we we did look at this through the lens of having municipal vehicles come through here with a ladder truck, etc. Navigating around the site and coming through here for a fuel stop.
And if I'm not mistaken, I think most bays will accommodate uh two vehicles. Is that right? >> Absolutely. >> Yeah, that's what I thought. >> Yeah. >> And these bays, you said would be similar to a fire station bay. So in the world where you had to do some
maintenance on a fire truck, I don't know you do it here, you do at the fire station, but you'd have the extra option. It would seem that doesn't exist today. So typically we see that happening in DPW buildings and yes we can easily
accommodate that. >> We don't really do that today do we or >> do we do firetruck maintenance at the DPW sometimes? >> I don't think so. >> This would allow for that to your point.
And then in the documents I looked at in the packet um there was um discussion of u a storage space that did I understand this correctly that it's a temporary storage while the the work is being done
on this renovation. >> Yes, exactly. That was that was part of our discussion. Uh and that is in the appendix. Exactly. Right. And we're because we're just looking at this site in order to maintain operations,
uh we would want to be looking at um you know being able to maintain those through avenue like that. >> So where would you where is the plan to put the storage? Um and it looks like is it a rental? You're going to rent some
kind of a structure? >> Yes, we looked at two pathways. one was a purchase versus a a rental. And I I think every given everything that we talked about, the rental is probably definitely the best way to go forward for
for the town of Carile. >> And also just to point out whether we do either of the three paths, it will be necessary to store equipment offsite, >> right? During construction. Yeah.
And u what's the estimated I know you don't have the you know the detailed construction documents but what's the sort of current estimate on how long it would take once the project began.
Yeah, I think that was around. Let me scroll up here. I think we were looking at uh 9 to Okay, here we go. Yeah, pathway one was about nine months and pathway two and three a better part
of a year. H okay. >> But again, pathway one reminds me of kind of option zero or whatever it was where it's like the you put all this money in and you end up with something has a useful life of like zero years because
it's not meeting the the base requirements. Um >> yeah the the challenge with pathway one if I can just enter or add to for a minute is you get into a bunch of code triggers right like the envelope is in
severe disrepair. So as soon as we we start attacking that and redoing the envelope then that triggers system upgrades you know just by virtue of code um etc and how much you're touching any particular building. So it what what
seems like u a more affordable option quickly snowballs into something, you know, that doesn't seem to make sense, right? Uh when it's all said and done, >> it was never built I mean it wasn't
similar to the fire station that didn't have an architect when they built it. >> It was never built as a dedicated DPW or it was but it was using a horse barn basically. Um, so it's not like it was built to a specific function. You kind
of the town kind of retroed something that you wouldn't build it like that. So to spend that kind of money around a a structure that really wasn't the intended purpose just doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
>> Yeah. end up, you know, to to piggy back on Jerry's intro here, just to be completely transparent, you know, the square footage costs are what they are. We did add in the site improvement cost to pathway one as well, just for a
complete apples to apples comparison. So, you know, when you look at an overall project square footage cost that we're we're incorporating that into the thinking as well. Now, you could you could leave any uh site improvements out of that, but you're still stuck with
what you just said, right? Which is, you know, a betterment to a building that is has a short life on it, I suppose, and doesn't really improve your day-to-day operations that much. >> I'm also assuming that like the septic
requirements don't really change that much in this new design. I mean, we'd obviously have to that would have to be looked at and coordinated with the board of health, but it doesn't look like there's a whole step change in terms of septic requirements. >> Correct. And I know, you know, this this
analysis was built upon work you had done in 2020, right? We're utilizing um that work and not redoing it. We would be adding in a a sewer injector pump, but that's about it.
But in that same vein, Scott, the the big addition to this is a underground sistern of pretty substantial size >> and I think we touched on that at the last meeting or we talked about it. That's one of the costlier site items
that is in this and you know I think should be considered as a you know how we address that relative to its size >> for the fire system. Correct. >> For the fire system. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, you know, and it might be if we decide to move forward with this in
any way, shape or form, right? There was some information we were not able to get a hold of uh to to that point. Uh so we accommodated the storage system. Uh there might be an opportunity to get do away with that, but uh that would be on
the next leg of effort, but that would be an important piece to tackle >> or at least to reduce its size. >> Exactly. Yeah. But that cost Travis is that part of the current estimate the assumption of the sistern. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And to David's earlier question, say you couldn't move the fuel system or was just triggered a whole slew of issues and problems. Could the could the proposed options work with the existing
fuel station location >> or is that contingent on moving the fuel station? Meaning that's a that's a critical path item we need to figure out. >> If I interject, Scott, I regardless, you know, I think the the town will be
obligated to upgrade the system. There are certain lives to the tanks that and and at the end of their life, they have to be replaced. And as David points out, testing when you test, you're going to test this site. So if you determine
there's, you know, a leak or something, we're going to deal with it in any event. >> Okay. >> Whether it remains where and and I I believe that to be the case, but we can get an expert to validate that. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Let me just jump in. I think if you're talking about, you know, strategically our plan for spring town meeting to present something, we should have those questions addressed, right? We we owe the town people, you know, a full
analysis and that should include the implication of that. So, we should test before we, you know, go go with a request. >> Yep. Do we have funding to test, Ryan? Do we
have Can we do that work? >> We can do we have funding for that right now? No, we do not. >> So there wouldn't So there's not a way to get the information before town meeting about whether there is any contamination.
No, but I it to everyone's point here now that that they've said that, I do think that we should build that into the the design ask and do that first. >> I was wondering if you could give us a sense for the um useful life for these
buildings. um you know what is end of life for these and is there any difference between pathways two and three >> shouldn't be >> so no no difference really between pathway two or three u in terms of
lifespan u I think you're looking at you know 60 plus years >> 60 okay >> wow And and with regard to pathway pathway two and three, I'm assuming is it the
same essential floor plan under either scenario or >> it is. Yes. >> So would would you in the design phase I guess do you need to know pathway two versus pathway three before the quote unquote full design phase? Do you commit
to one of them or does the design phase inform or confirm the pathway that was preferred? Do you know you know what I'm asking? It >> idea >> when you get into the design phase is an outcome we can't do prefab. Um so it
can't has to be pathway two or is it based on the design and the construction method you know we do recommend prefab or is that have to be decided before um that funding is applied? >> No you can so when we when we worked
with the prefab uh entity uh for this report right they were they were looking at this floor plan. So essentially what they cover and quoted was this floor plate with exception of these recessed entry points. So
>> pure rectangle building um no layered coverage they only take care of the shell. So walls and roof and structure and the fit out happens under the GC. So all of the interior programming pieces
which is relatively uh minimal here. They provide all of the fenistration openings, but the GC infills them with whether it be a garage door or or glazing, etc. So, uh, operationally, the plan would remain the same. Uh, you lose
maybe a couple of, uh, nicities architecturally. Uh, we have an awning out front. Uh, they might that might get trimmed back a little bit. I can give you a glimpse of the the exterior is a very simple efficient design with a a
five degree shed roof on it to accommodate future solar. Um, and that's in line with the way the sun travels around this site. So, it's, you know, in terms of geometry, it's it's very streamlined.
Uh, simple metal skin, etc. for the community. I I know like right now we we basically do hazardous waste. Um I don't know what else you would possibly do at a DPW, but are there any other community benefits aside from supporting the department and their
operations that this would offer? Um, sorry. Can I think I frozen up? people frozen or >> No, >> I think Barney's frozen. I'm looking at
Barney. I think she froze out. >> I can hear you. >> Sorry. Yeah, the question Sorry, the question was community. >> Are there any other community benefits? Um whether it be better supporting hazardous waste collection or any other additional things that the community would consider. Well, it it will make it
easier for people with disabilities to access um the building, the offices. I think Eric Ballis had raised his hand. I'm not sure yet. >> Well, yeah, actually I was I was um just a little bit off of the current discussion. And I was trying to recall
for the meetings that I did I was able to attend. Is the shed roof um flexibility the same between the modular design and the customuilt design? >> Yes. >> So we don't lose any any flexibility on the shed roof angle or anything like that. Okay. >> Correct.
>> I couldn't remember that. >> Are we going to add solar to that? I mean given the the climate leader opportunities that is a right now that's an unbelievable asset for the town uh perfectly south facing the amount of power that we produce from that the
capability is just we would make up the uh the first costs in a in a quite in a short period of time >> but that's is that in the cost estimate presently >> I do not believe so we should I mean we should take an action to add that
>> well but there that probably would want to be done separately because of all the um the rebates and and other incentives that are available. >> Well, that's a separate issue. I mean, I think I mean, if we step it up a level,
let's just get out of the minut. So, uh, Scott, when you pres presented the fire station at town at the special town meeting, you in your model, you alluded to the DPW
coming online. And did you use a number that is approximately pathway two or three? >> Yeah, we said 15 million, >> right? >> So, sort of over. Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, I mean, we've sort of already
socialized that idea with the town people and they voted the fire station knowing that there was a project behind it and that the average tax bill would go up by a thousand bucks or whatever. So that's no new news.
Um I wouldn't get too tangled up in the weeds. I think we owe again if if we're angling toward a similar presentation at Springtown meeting as we had at falltown meeting but for the DPW then we're asking for design
funds with a you know ballpark all-in cost of a full project and we should just add all that stuff in and if we save a little money because of rebates and blah blah blah okay fine you know that's great but I think let's just I mean I wouldn't I wouldn't get it
overly complicated. I think it's important as Mark said, you know, we have a good it's a good >> location for um uh solar and it's a good flat surface for solar and we should kind of emphasize I think that would
help us. Um that's I guess my view. Now I got one other question which is what paid for Lowhigh Rose's time so far? I don't remember how we authorized that. So this this came from authorized MFC
funds to look at town facilities. >> Okay. >> But there's no extra funds like that if we were to do a soil sampling or something else between now and springtime meeting. >> There is not. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Yeah, I mean essentially what we're looking at from a select board standpoint is we either, you know, support the conceptual design and take the next step of asking for the design funding or you go in a Springtown
meeting and ask for additional funding to do more conceptual design, right? And that'll, you know, I don't know if that's similar to what we asked for the fire station is 100K. I don't know what it is. Um but you're also probably delaying
the project likely a year which is you know another big issue. Um it's just the as we know the escalating costs of construction aren't aren't expected to abate. So um you know there's just there's just general urgency um around
this project as well given the state of the existing building given escalating costs all those factors. Um so we're kind of >> Yeah. I mean, I agree with you, Scott. I think the
to me, we've set the stage. The uh voters I believe, again, going out on a limb here, but I believe that people are sort of at they're understanding that we have the intersection of three capital projects in, you know, sort of
one kind of period of time. They've approved the police station. They've approved the fire station. I think they're going to approve this. And then we have to say, you know, those are the three big projects. And we're going to take a break after that. But
but let's not be too shy. Let's like include the things we need. You already set socialized 15 million. It probably will be 15 million by the time we get done with all the, you know, site work and remediation and solar and blah blah blah. It probably will be 15 million.
and then you know it's okay and let's get done with that because I'm very I'm concerned and this is you know beyond the scope of this particular discussion but I am concerned that a few years after that we may face overrides if we bump up against the um levy limit right
so let's get all this let's clear the decks let's get these projects approved and let's move on I I I agree I think we should not ask for more money for the study of the study we should just like say Okay, this is our best estimate. We're asking for these design funds and
this is the vision, etc. as as we did with fire station. So, I I'm supportive. >> Yeah, I am as well. Yeah, you know, when we when we initially looked at it, we had I think some of the questions were around do we need all this the space space and you
know, I think a lot of the a lot of the small details around the floor plan and the layout will naturally evolve and change during a design phase, but in terms of where we're at conceptual design, we're kind of locked into a to a a footprint by virtue of the space. I
think we all support keeping it where it is, building a new building. And so, you know, you can cut it a lot of different ways, but I think you're going to end up at about the same place. So, um, to me, it would make sense to to move forward to the next step, um, of the design,
full design and construction documents. And then, you know, we can talk about timing, but if we get approval for that at town meeting, you know, maybe the I don't know if the bullseye is a special town meeting or just the following spring town meeting where we're looking for full project funding and it would be offset a year from the fire department,
fire station rather, which is, you know, I think not ideal but reasonable for the town. >> But what do we have what do we have funding for right now till spring to do? Because I'm not clear.
So, uh, David, you don't have any funding. So, this is this would be again where we were at with the fire station going into the fall town meeting. So, you have this conceptual design and the next step is to ask for the design money. So, we
would prep for the ask, but in terms of any funding, there there is none. So there's not nothing we can scrape out of somewhere else to do some stuff to advance the ball from where we are today in the next, you know, six months.
I I mean later in the year there might be some some money that opens up, but as of right now, given the scope of what you're talking about, there wouldn't there isn't any fund that exists in an ideal way. Let's let's do the other way. Let's do the Bill Gates
approach. In other words, if money was not a impediment, what would we like to do between now and what would we like to have prepared for town meeting in the spring that we don't today have besides
all the work that Mark and his team have done? So the one difference between this and the fire station is you did a lot of that site work and testing prior to the fall town meeting. So your numbers were a little more accurate, >> right? >> So that that would be what we would
>> that's accuracy. Okay. I can we can live with a degree of inaccuracy. But in terms of hard data designs, I mean you know they've done a fair amount of work. Three options if we are proposing say option I don't know three I guess the modular one. I don't know which which of
two and three we're going to end up with, but you know, if we pick one of those options, do we need more stuff in people's opinion, including Mark's opinion, and what would that cost? >> Well, the only the only thing I can
think of, and your point about um testing the soil around the fuel tank is is one thing that be done. We have surveys of the the wetlands. Those have been done previously. Um
I'm I'm not sure what else. >> Okay. So from a footprint. All right. So So um from Jerry from a footprint like a an architect's view of the plan, you you're pretty happy with what you see. You can pick one and
make a presentation out of that. >> I believe so. >> Okay. Good. So, so now I maybe could we tap some uh consom or board of health? Is there some other pot of money we can tap to,
you know, Julie had a groundwater study? I don't know if she spent all that money. Is there some other pot of money we can do to do a little more like testing, hydrarology or something like that? We don't have to answer tonight, but I I mean it would seem like we should be a
little more creative and try to see if we can tap some money somewhere to uh do that. One thing I might suggest, David, that you we could do that wouldn't necessarily cost money, but is involve those two boards that you just mentioned, consom, because there is a
major component of this project that involves the wetlands. And to date, I don't think they've really been apprised of what's going on. And I think if we, you know, politically reach out and do a lot of leg work ahead of time, I think
we'll be ahead of the game in our permitting and our processes and making sure everyone's on board. And and that same with the board. >> Yeah, I I agree. And I think just more broadly, as we've learned, you know, the more boards and committees we can get to
endorse whatever it is we're proposing, the better, right? So, we should definitely work to that. There is the um there is the the motion or proposed motion that that Gretchen
added around you know are we at if there is support you we can also form a a building committee and and form the charter. I don't know that we need to do that tonight, but you know, that's something we we could and should do in advance of um or following this meeting
or the subsequent meeting. And and those people, you know, we can think about putting like we did for fire station, putting a board of health member on this committee, putting a cons member on this committee so that they can >> get into the process and at least get up to up to speed and review and chime in
on all these things and answer the questions that may be asked and raised prior to town meeting. Yeah, it's a good point. I think we we took on as a select board a disproportionate share of that >> right prior to town meeting and now only now today did we actually form the
building committee after it already been approved. But >> right, >> probably a smarter way is what you just said, like let's get the building committee engaged now and make it their issue and let them analyze it and and think about the things we can do for no
money, you know, or little money. >> Mark, >> yeah, there may already be info and data out there that we don't know about that consom has access to or guidance they can give. Um >> and and since we have Mark on the phone, I Mark, you had some ledge assumptions.
I think that would be another big variable in addition to the testing for the fuel to make sure that we don't have any unknown risk there. But the the rock outcropping that is kind of located on the southern part of the site there. Um,
is that something that we could test for or does that just be dis is that discovered as they start excavating >> now? We certainly could. And that's a good point. And I was just thinking of bringing that up as something that to think about right between now and
spring. And uh, we covered I think 5t below the surface not knowing how deep it goes. So yes, that could and uh, probably should be explored a little bit more. Geotech. >> Yeah.
>> So, Scott, I had a uh two quick questions if I could. >> Yeah, please. Eric, >> um just from an order of magnitude, um since I haven't been directly involved in this before, but what would the approximate cost be for soil testing? And then also the second suggestion from
uh Travis on on some of the sub, you know, subterranean impediments, right? Ledge and stuff like that. I mean, what kind of dollars are we talking about for that kind of exploratory work? Anybody have a ballpark? >> Based off of the cemetery work and the
fire station, I was just trying to pull that together, Eric. I would say 50 to 100,000. >> Okay. Um, that's useful. And then the uh other question was and this is maybe more for uh Mark um is there any benefit to increased fidelity of the cost
estimate at this point based on the design or is it have we gone about as far as we can given the level of the design and you know you can only do so much with with cost costing the uh construction. >> I think we're at a good point for the
level that we're at. Uh so PMNC, not sure if you're familiar with them, but uh we've worked with them a lot and they're very accurate uh from feasibility through construction. Uh so we have a pretty good comfort level with them and uh we did talk through this
process with with them at pretty good length on the front end. So, I think, you know, until a couple more stones are unturned, pun intended, yeah, I think we're we're we're as close as we're going to get really.
>> So, so let me let me comment on both of those comments by Eric. So, one is I guess it's a question for uh Brian maybe. If I'm a homeowner and I want to build a wing on my house and they have to do a geotech to see if there's ledge
and wetlands, blah blah blah, I have to put up some kind of money to pay for that, right? >> Yes. >> And so that's similar here except the town is the one that would have to put up the money. If we were proposing something and we wanted to do some geotech
analysis to the point you just mentioned 50 or 100k we would have to come up with that money to pay for that right >> correct >> okay the second question so I don't have an answer for that but the second
question uh goes to uh the cost estimate and so we're here in fiscal 26 >> we're going to go to town meeting in fiscal 27 budget, we're going to ask for
design funds, right? Not construction funds, design funds. So, it sounds like it's a fiscal 28 construction project. >> And did it's a maybe a mark question. Did we did you factor in like an
inflation estimate in what year number? >> Yeah. So, we carried 4% for escalation. >> Yeah. which is low in today's environment I would say right >> yeah so yeah so I I mean it's more for us it's more for us internally when we
present is probably to increase the contingency to cover timing issues of that >> yeah maybe 6% >> yeah okay >> right and as to the answer to the first question I don't have a good answer unless we can find somebody maybe you
know the uh Ryan MLAN Memorial DPW shed rings very well if he wants to put a h 100,000 into it. Yeah. Right. Okay. So, we have to deal with that. But I I I like the idea of creating a committee and making them
sort of their mission to kind of work the issues through to town meeting. That seems like a good good thing to do. >> Yeah. There's a there's a draft charter in the packet that that Gretchen pulled together based on the um the fire
station one that we could we could vote on tonight or we could revisit at the next meeting or a future meeting. Do people want to create a committee tonight? >> I wouldn't I think let's Can we home in
on pathway two or three? Do we need to decide that? Well, that's where I don't know if pathway two or three you need to decide prior to design if >> okay >> you know what I mean like the construction method the footprint and maybe you do but I don't know that >> no I agree with you I I think it's a
good it's a good job for that committee so what do we need to do tonight >> I think we just need need to come >> so one one variable here is timing and I just want to pull the board for timing so you are going to ask bore in theory
the fire station is ready for annual town meeting in May. You're going to have a significant ask for that building plus a ballot question. So, the question I have is, are you going to add the DPW design cost and ballot question and then try to go for a fall town meeting
>> or is this something that you want to push a year? How do you want to time the two projects? Uh, do you want to do it all at once or do you want to space them out? I think you should have that discussion. So there's a right. So there's a political and there's a operational component to that question.
The political question is do you risk people rejecting the fire station or the request for DPW funds because you've paired them in the spring? So that's a political question.
The operational question for you, Ryan, is how long can Jim hang on? So, in the timing that I just discussed, I think we'd be okay. So, if it's a two-year decision, if you wanted to to wait one year, then that would be fine. It would obviously increase cost. So,
there's that variable. Um, but I think this problem is going to just like the fire station require an answer in a five-year time frame. So, it does have to be decided at some point. Well, we're not going to kick the can
that far down the road, but So, do you perceive political risk in the intersection of the two asks as you just proposed for spring? >> You know, I like to be decisive, but that is what I'm asking you.
>> David, I I seem to remember Scott presented at special town meeting. I mean, Scott, remind me what did you present a time horizon for DPW or did you just say something like close on the heels of the fire department? >> I said next year we'd be back with, you
know, um potential ask for DPW. >> Yeah, >> I think I mean I I I don't see what delaying the ask for the design funding gets us. If you kick it a year, I mean, at that point, the cost of the fire department will start hitting tax bills.
So there's the the two are linked no matter what we say or do. There's not going to be a magic way to to um smooth that out. But I I think you just we we we primed people at special town meeting. I think you come back with with
the ask and let the town decide um you know if they want to support both and I think they will um if we provide the requisite information and background. >> Yeah. I think holding it past you would if you don't do it at special town meeting for
the design funding I you wouldn't have a fall town meeting for design funding just on its own. So you might not have a fall town me so you might not be back for another year for design funding and it's just sitting on the shelf for two years almost. >> I think there's some momentum already
having been built and I would think stalling out would not be wise. Well, and you're stalling out to try to like >> for political reasons, which I I think we should just be straightforward and transparent and give our recommendation and the town can tell us to hold our
hold our water if >> you know if if if they can't support both and in which case we we go back and we come back the following year with something else or or the same same ask. >> Yeah. But it does put pressure on the overall
budget discussion which we're we're going into headwinds regardless with with the operating budget. >> Yeah. To be clear, everything that was forecasted and discussed in your financial discussions included both of these projects. But now I want to say
it's a little bit more real, but it's it's definitely more tangible. So, there's a scenario where the fire station design is not done for annual town meeting, but you're asking for DPW design funding, and then um you're going to have to time the fire station project
with the time it would take to finish the DPW document. So, I'll ask Mark, um just throwing this out there, how how long would it take a firm like yours to go from this conceptual design to a bid?
six months. >> Is it June, July, August? I'm counting my fingers. >> Yeah, you're looking at November again. >> Well, >> on the on the aggressive side, like that's with no late November
>> of 26 >> 26 >> 26. Well, I I mean I think >> I think our voters are sophisticated enough to distinguish capex from opex. I I I really feel like people kind of understand that. So I think there's
support to tra to Scott's point. I think there's support. You know, we've already presented it. We socialized it. We say, "Look, we got these three buildings. We got to do these things." Blah blah blah. So I think they're going to support it. What they're going to do then is say, "All right, great. what are you doing
for me with regard to opex? Right? That's where the pinch point will be and that's a much thornier in a way discussion because we've got a school committee wreck that already wants like 6% or whatever they want and you know costs are just going faster than the two
and a half. >> Yeah. >> So that's to me a more pressing sort of operational decision. I'm totally in favor of what I'm hearing, which is press ahead. Take the advantage. We've presented three buildings. We've got two passed pretty
much. Well, one and a half passed, I guess. And you know, let's just keep going. I wouldn't stop. Do we need to So, so we can form the we can form the building committee in the not too distant future. um and get that up and
running. Um is there anything else, Ryan or Jerry, that you need tonight aside from kind of the the select board support to press forward toward special town meeting or annual town meeting?
>> Not really. >> Okay. >> The decision would be good. >> You want a formal vote? Travis, do you have >> report tonight or >> Travis, do you have a comment? >> I just had a question. Um because maybe it it could be decided, but we talked
about the design for either the FA the second or third option which is new construction either, you know, a a prefab structure or not. And I'm wondering and maybe Mark if you have thoughts on that, but is that something
that that should and be done in tandem or should we be making that decision ahead of time? Because I think that's a pretty important process to understand. >> I I think you can do it in tandem,
Travis. And you know, so there is this immediate thought that prefab would be cheaper, right? And so we went through that exercise but and uh it was funny because we had an in-depth conversation with the cost estimator at the front end of this as well thinking just that and
he's like you know it would surprise you uh we really don't see it uh without scale right so the bigger the bigger your footprint right that's when you begin to realize the savings so uh I I think the the differential is so small
and you know the differences is in terms of eliminating those two um covered entryways. Uh that really doesn't affect your your program at all. Um they're nice to haves, but uh something like that to me is is fairly minuscule and
can be decided later. >> Does it impact your timing? So if you were to to then go through with the design schematic designs of this, you're down two paths. It probably costs more money to do that. And I'm wondering about timing.
Oh, so we would want to decide that you know once you know if we were fortunate enough to move forward with this would that that would be something we would want to decide on the front end of that process but I don't think it has to be decided until design starts right you
know >> well and I I would just like to point out that the select board that the difference in customuilt and modular at least with the information we have right now is half a million dollars. That that
is not a a is not an amount of money to be ignored. Mhm. >> And also with the timing of the architectural work required and and the you know if it takes you
longer you have need more resources to deal with the two paths and and you said well you can decide right before you start but we're not going to know anything more between now and when we get the funding if the town votes for it >> to decide. So unless there's something
that I'm missing. So from from our standpoint, it's really how we're going to package it if it's prefab versus not, right? And how we kind of make that scope clear in the bid documents and kind of isolate, right, for for the
shell for the prefab pieces, right? In coordination with our engineer, but it's really how we package it, you know, for the for the bid piece. >> Okay. And I would say whatever the most cost effective aesthetics aren't that
important here and whatever the most cost-effective approach is. So if if prefab achieves the floor plan and all of the objectives and is less then great, do it. >> I mean I don't know enough. >> Well, and the the the uh DBW building
committee can do a lot of things for zero dollars, right? I mean they can query industry people about where prefab is going. I mean there's a lot of things we can do that basically don't cost anything just by asking questions. So I think I like the idea of not
presupposing option pathway two or three just kind of give them that mission and say look you know here's your mission for now till spring figure out what the path you recommend is figure out all the possible contingencies that you can think of when
you talk to people you know finalize your recommendation and like package it up like that's that's plenty to do and then they they'll have a reasonably high fidelity uh proposal and that'll be fine. >> So, I think we can design a charter for those guys, you know, in the next month
or so and set them up and that'll give them a few months to work. >> Yeah, we'll want to get that formed definitely in January because >> Yeah. No, no, I wouldn't wait. I wouldn't wait, but I don't think it's a you know, it's not a huge lift. It's like a very specific thing. You need to
do these things by May. So, and then you know if it's approved, you'll roll into actually being a building committee, but right now do these things. I think be fine. >> Yeah. No, it's it's a fair lift because
you got to start socializing and doing everything in market. >> Oh, there's a lot to do. There's plenty to do. It's just not we have no money, right? So, it's not things where you have, you know, commission to study. you just have to go call experts
and you know get information and put it together and discuss it. It's actually in a way it's more empowering of the committee than it is of the experts because the experts are only going to give you
you know their opinion based on no funding and the committee actually has to do the work and think about it. >> All right, we need to we need we're going to wrap up this section. Um I think uh Mark needs to jump off. Um so it so do we want to I mean it sounds
like and speak up if otherwise there's the the the select board's expressing its support. I don't know if we want to make a motion or a vote. I don't think we need that but um we can form a charter in an upcoming meeting. Um, but that, you know, I think I support and it
sounds like the other and if you don't support it, you know, please speak up, but the moving toward the Springtown meeting with the conceptual design, um, is the path we want to take. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yep. I'm
>> um in the remaining few minutes um it's not for discussion tonight but um Tom Bada who's on the line did contact me um and was asking about this discussion. He's on the uh transfer station advisory committee. Um and if you're familiar, uh
they were asking to meet with the select board in conjunction with with um the DPW project to discuss their recommendations for the transfer station expansion slash um
renovation. I'm not sure what the right term is. I guess my high level question is one from the MFC standpoint, is this something that um you've looked at it all with regard to the DPW project in particular um and two from a select
board standpoint um figure out the timing to have them come in and meet with us. Um the MFC has not looked at it as part of the building um renovation or or
rebuild. Although there will be some paving that will be part of that project and there might be some cost savings if those paving projects are done at the same time. >> Um but it may not be a substantial
amount of money. I just don't know. >> Okay. It seems like though the the the timing of the I'm just trying to line up the timing. Um where we we have a design phase to go through
for the DPW. Um I think we should have the transfer station action committee probably in in in in January though to to give us an overview of what they're thinking about. Um, so we can we can discuss that and see
>> my go ahead. My understanding of the project is that it it doesn't it doesn't really impact the the building um project other than the access road to
to the DPW site and the transfer station and what effect um rolling heavy equipment down that road might have if that paving happens prior to the the DPW building. You'd be crazy to do a paving
before a major construction, >> right? >> Period. Just don't do it. Just don't do it. >> Right. I guess I guess it's something that And I don't I think Tom is off the line. I'll I'll go offline and with Tom and and you know I think what he I think
when when they talked to us last and I I don't recall specifically but I think we said as a select board we wanted to understand what they what they were requesting um so that there were efficiencies and it was a project we wanted to pursue we would consider that but um I think we can cover that off in
in at a later meeting and we will because we don't have time tonight. So, I'll I'll get with Tom and and figure out when to schedule that. Okay. Is there anything else on this topic or do we want to move forward to talk about liquor licenses?
>> Do we adjourn the MFC part? >> Oh, yeah, please. Thank you. >> Yes, we should. >> I have a motion to adjurnn, Eric. >> So, made >> um and a second. >> Second, >> I favor.
>> Snell. Snell I adjourn >> I. So we will be adjourned at 8:43. >> Very good. >> Thank you very much everyone. >> Thank you guys and thank you Mark. >> Thanks a lot. Appreciate it.
>> All right. Moving on to the ABCC 2026 renewal certification. And I know Gretchen had uh provided some commentary on this one that we are basically um
informing whomever that we are not renewing a license. I don't know Ryan if there's any better explanation you can provide beyond what Gretchen said, but this seems like a pretty straightforward motion and request unless >> So I practiced this with Gretchen so I wouldn't get it wrong because she's
going to watch this and watch me get it wrong. But what happens is you annually certify your licenses. Normally you would certify a license, but you don't have any right now. So you're just certifying what you have. And right now what you have is nothing.
>> So >> you have to do it regardless. But sometimes there is a license you need to approve, >> right? So basically >> I think the term in the motion is no active license on file. >> Right.
And then the uh future or um whatever if someone needs a this needs to be a new request essentially at Fern's um under new ownership, >> right? >> Um so this seems like a fairly straightforward administrative thing unless I'm missing something.
>> Okay. >> Yeah, >> guess I'm not. Does someone want to make the motion? Number six. >> I lost my packet, so I got to find it again. >> I can do it, Barney. >> Thanks. >> I move to approve the 2026 Alcoholic
Beverages Control Commission licensing renewal as presented and acknowledge there is no active alcohol license on file in the town of Carile. >> Second. >> Further discussion or deliberation?
Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Modell I. >> Snell I. >> Stevens I. >> Triel I. The motion passes. Congratulations. We are a dry town. Uh, okay.
Moving on. Uh, personnel policy discussion. So, is Aubrey out there? Yes, she is. >> Hi, everybody. So, unfortunately my camera is not working. The joys of remote tonight. >> Y >> um but yeah. So, uh Ryan, if I am able
to share my screen. Oh, I'm going to send a request actually. >> You're good. >> All right. So, okay. Everybody can see that. Um,
>> and this is just what's in the packet, Aubrey. >> Correct. >> Okay. Pull it up. >> All right. So, if everybody can see the packet, right? >> Yep. You're good. >> Okay. All right. So, thank you again.
Um, most of these are just um minor uh revisions to what I presented at the last meeting. So the uh first is um revising the last se section of the terms of holiday pay. Uh there was concern that it wasn't
clear if you're on FMLA status whether you'd be paid for the holiday or not. What our standard is is if you're unpaid status meaning you're you've been using your acred time to get paid during that time then you would be paid for that holiday that would come before and or
after um your paid time. But if you're, you know, you've run out of your paid time and a holiday falls, you don't just get paid on a holiday that, you know, you're not getting paid otherwise. Any questions with that? Uh, sick leave. So, I just uh updated
got rid of the personnel board. So, that won't be in there. And again, of course, when we do this full revision, all those references will be updated as well. Personal leave, uh, I believe, yes, Barney, uh, sent there was a little typo that was
actually in the 2021 version of 312A, uh, employees department head. It should be head, even though some folks might technically have more than one. When it comes to actual approvals, there is an approval process with just one person.
Um, one ask that I have been asked by staff is actually to make it 15minute minimum for both personal leave and PTO. Um, I apparently after the last presentation um it became clear that actually making
any smaller does make it more difficult but 15 minutes is fine. >> So are there any questions with that? No, if the you know if the accounting >> Yeah. >> doing the accounting can can live with it a lot.
>> Exactly. And so it's the same and right here on the bottom same thing with the PTO just making it so it's just down to 15 minutes and now they're consistent with each other as well. uh for resignations. Um I think there was another typo that
uh um Barney pointed out on 353 to return all town property. So I will update that as well. Um but we added the town reserves the right to recover the value of any town property not properly returned. Um so you there are options to
try to get that town property back. >> Is that Aubrey? Is that parallel for involuntary? Sorry. >> Is is the language parallel for involuntary departures? >> Yes. Yeah. For if you're leaving and you
don't return your equipment. >> I mean, you're right. Because this is a voluntary 350 is voluntary, right? >> Uh, yes. Correct. >> So, there's some other section involuntary and it's parallel. That's all I'm trying to make sure.
>> No, that's a good point. I can make sure that if there's if if they define termination making sure that this is included as well to make sure that we have our property protected. >> Okay. >> Absolutely.
Let's see. So 33 updated to DPW director and then also number two just as determined by the DPW director and then also the allowance will be determined by the town administrator so the select board doesn't have to formally confirm that
amount for the allowance. Then >> are you I'm sorry I'm trying to follow where you are exactly. Yeah, I'm sorry. >> That's okay. I'm looking at my copy because I made a few notes. Um, have you gotten to safety and uniforms yet?
>> Yeah, that's what that was. That was what that was in reference. >> You just did. Well, just a question for you. I you know, I don't know if it really matters that much, but if you go down to um under the DPW uniforms and
then go down to the policy and then it says appearance standards. Mhm. >> Well, if it's appearance, h how do it? So, the first full sentence says employees are expected to report to work
in a neat and professional manner. So, I don't know how you how you define a professional manner. I don't know if there's, you know, >> right now it's under the, you know, the direction of the director, but if you
feel like it needs to have more details of what that looks like, we can, you know, I just, you know, to be able to follow through with that, you know, >> I just was thinking if a, you know, if the if the director was not happy with somebody because of
their professional manner, it's really that's kind of a different thing than your appearance. >> Yeah, that's a good point. So, there's two different issues here. I think >> yeah, >> you should probably keep number one to appearance >> and maybe
>> man or go somewhere else >> in a to report to work in a neat and appropriate >> Yeah. >> appearance. Report to work neatly and appropriately attired or whatever. The DPW director may provide feedback to
employees whose appearance is deemed unsuitable or unsafe and such feed. It is expected or something like that that the employee will amend his or her attire to comport with the director's
recommendations. I think you should close out that second sentence with some action. >> Okay. Yeah, that makes sense. Okay. All right. So, uh 383
just taking out the finance department just making so so folks will come to me with any questions with anything. So, they're not trying to reach out to multiple folks. I can be that first point of contact
regarding any of these policies. Aubrey, is there are we going to have a future discussion on attire slash? >> Yes, that is actually one of the recommended uh policies that will be coming. >> And will that apply to DPW? So I guess will this
>> will this be replaced slash augmented with a future policy? The whole >> we could we could refer to you know the like a centralized policy for all appearance, right? and so that it's not just directed at DPW and then make that
section just focused on um safety and allowance. >> I guess to David and and Barney's point, we should just put a pin in this one so that if we we do approve that policy, >> there's likely a a clause or language that we'll want to refer to. Um okay,
under this one, >> right? And there can be overlap a little bit for sure. Um, sure. All right. So, I do have my first new policy update request. So, this is going
into the staff request section of these. There's many more to come. This is the first one. >> So, this change, Aubrey, sorry. >> Did this change? I know Gretchen had sent out some updates, but I didn't focus on. >> She said this is new, Travis.
>> No, no, no. I know that, but but um it was in the packet, but I know >> No, I haven't updated this. I haven't updated my uh documents. >> Okay. >> Um so, this is a new policy update request to for paid parental leave for
non-union employees. As you know, uh the teachers already do have paid parental leave. Um but none nobody else in town does. And so, this would be make it so you'd have up to 40 days of paid parental leave. um or a non-birthing sec
secondary caregiver up to 15 days of paid parental leave. Um so there's a lot of those kind of details. This is because for whatever reason the state did not count count uh municipal employees and their PFML. So
most of the entire state has paid parental leave now except for municipal employees and a few others. uh which is very difficult for a lot of folks and that's not going to be helpful when we were trying to recruit um to not have that option and right now you do have
your job protected up to eight weeks even if you haven't been there for at least a year but it's not paid so you still have to use your acred time >> okay so so two two uh case questions for you case one is >> I'm a male
>> I'm a Carile employee my wife is not employed. We have a new child and I claim that I am the birthing primary caregiver. >> Is there any audit on that or I just claim it and I get 40 days off?
>> I could look into what that would look like to audit that. >> Okay. And and case question number two is I'm an employee and my wife is employed somewhere else either municipal or private and we both claim we're
private you know primary caregivers because we both have to say parallel policies. Is there any audit on that? Sorry. If they're if they work somewhere else, >> they work somewhere else and they, you know, have a
>> so generally I wouldn't um it wouldn't matter if the where if they worked elsewhere and had that. It's usually if it's both of them work in the same if they both work for the town. That's what >> Well, if they both work for the town, it's easy. But I'm just asking the
general question. Is primary mean one or is it irrelevant? I mean we you're you're distinguishing between say non-birththing like adoptions or >> No, that's a good question. I think um >> I mean here's the correlary.
>> So so if I was taking it more like for child birth recovery and but you're right if if they were both claiming to be primary and they work in another >> they work or they don't work. I mean, there's no really audit function on the other spouse.
>> The spouse that works for Carlos says, "I'm the primary." Right. What are you going to say? You can't really say they're not. >> So, I I just don't know if there's any remedy for that. But >> you would recommend putting some processes in place if we did do this to make sure those are in this policy.
>> I have a great question. There's It's hard to police that, right? because how are you going to know about someone who's outside of the employment of the town >> and you know you have to take the employees word for it essentially. >> So with other HR processes there are
ways to ask for another like a spouse's um employer to provide documentation um for different scenarios. So there are ways to require qualifying events. Um, >> I mean, I would just say 40 days of paid leave is a lot.
>> So, it should be a relatively high bar to prove >> and we, >> you know, in the absence of any words, then what's to prevent them from saying, "Sure, I yes, I'm the primary." >> I I was wondering too in the paid family leave act, it's it's for both parents
and it's equal time. Is there any problem with legality of deciding to have two different times for primary versus secondary or is that not an issue because we set the policy? >> That that's a good question too. Um >> and and
>> not that I know of. I think this was probably kind of trying to compromise on this, but I but I would, you know, if it was up to really me, I wouldn't even have that secondary. I would just allow them to have that as a parent. It shouldn't
discriminate depending on which parent. >> What do you mean? Say say a little more on that, Aubrey. Yeah. >> If it was up to you, you would just have a a 40 days paid parental leave for any anyone whether they're the primary
or secondary. >> Correct. >> Uhhuh. >> Right. Because you know if if it's basically saying well one person will just have their salary the other one
you know like you know for a two income household you know it's still going to impact them negatively to have one person not be paid. >> How how did you come up with the 40 days too? I mean, why isn't it? >> So, some of this was based on um Ryan
Mlan's previous request um and some other situ um well, no, his was shorter, but I think it was based I think it was based on more on the PFML itself. So, it can be shorter.
>> Did you Did you look around at any other um uh mis you know municipal governments that >> Yeah. So geographically there's not any in the immediate surrounding that have um
confirmed this but I can do some more investigation. This is more prel preliminary. This isn't for you to vote and approve. I would highly doubt you would do that. >> So it's more this is more of introductory and so these questions will help guide where this could go. >> Yeah.
>> So but is your overall theory or strategy Aubrey a retention? I mean there's there's three things right there's sort of the statutory minimum if there is such a thing there's uh retention and then there's maybe the
broader question of sort of employee equity like what's fair right so >> yeah you know >> some of this is also based on the teacher contract as well so that's kind of I mean teachers are overwhelmingly female and they're presumably and I
don't want to get too sexist here but they're presum presumably the primary caregivers in most of these cases. So I can understand that and that's probably there's probably a lot of union slash there's probably a lot of
precedent for the 40 days with teachers. But I I guess to whoever made the point, I think we should look pretty hard at comparable towns and non-teer employees who typically in many cases are male and what is you know what is the standard
like we should just look at that. Yeah, >> I do know the cities Cambridge, Boston, Somerville do have paid parental leave. >> I know it's not completely comparable to us, but for folks who live in between Carlile and those cities that that can be a good incentive.
>> Is it 40 though in those cases? >> I can look I think they're, you know, at least 12 weeks or at least eight weeks from what I could tell, but I can I'm I I'm going to dig further into it. >> Yeah. I mean, >> but this is a really hot topic for a lot of folks because towns weren't part of
the adoption of PFML >> and it's becoming more and more of a conversation and what more towns are doing are in general just the general knowledge is that they are adopting their own version of PFML >> because it's a lot easier to manage it internally. Um but you know when it
comes to uh retention and also um being attractive versus private industry like this this is huge. Yeah. >> You know I mean >> that's okay. I'm okay with I'm okay with setting it with the understanding that it's a retention it's a recruitment and
retention tool. I just want us to be kind of cognizant of what our strategy is. The other thing I would say is that you know you spoke about the dual standard of of non-birthing parents say versus birthing parent. I mean there's a medically
valid underpinning to a recovering mom who gave birth >> and >> that's where this is stemming from, >> right? And then there's a secondary thing which came out through adoptions and maybe >> dads basically which is like okay my
wife is laid up but I still have a lot to do with this infant and I need some time and that's okay too but it might not be 40 you know. So, I mean, there may be some middle ground between those two pieces that you have there. Maybe
it's 30, you know, for for nonbirthing parents. Just don't even bother with trying to get into the quagmire of whether you're primary caregiver. Like, if you're a birthing parent, >> you get 40. And if you're non-birththing, you get, I don't know,
25, 40, 30, whatever it is. and just try not to make it so discretionary because we're going to get into a real difficult situation to assess what primary means. >> I just want to make sure it's it's legally works. >> Of course, it has to be it has to be
legal. But I mean, what I'm saying, Travis, is there's a medical I agree and I think we should continue this. I I I think it's good and I'm not opposed to it. I think you're right, though. It's just about getting the language correct and something to one other thing. Aubrey, maybe I missed it
in there, but um is there language about if you could take the time concurrently um you know after the 40 days. So if you had one and then you know some the other parent wanted to take you know because I one of your things said at birth and
then the other it it was unclear I think at least when I read it and I haven't I'm struggling >> so it might not be clear in this version. FMLA itself does not have to be concurrent, right? FMLA you have up to one year to use up to 12 weeks. My
I would like to make it clear. I mean, my suggestion would be to um kind of mirror that where you use it when you need to, right? Um because I think that's what a lot of employees try to do already, right? one one their spouse
goes back to work. So now they're out for a little bit longer so they can try to extend staying home. >> That's fine. I just think you need to clarify. >> Sure. >> So Aubrey >> um when I was a library trustee, we
endorsed um this exactly and the premise was a child who's now probably coming up on middle school. So it's good to see it finally come around. But now I am on the different side of the equation and I want to know is there are there any financial analyses that have been done
for the revised leave policy? What what are the financial implications to the town for this? >> I could dig into that. I think there's a lot of variables with that, right? Because it depends on who it is, right? So there's a wide range of pay and what that looks like and if they need an
interim or if it can if their position can be covered during that time. So there's a lot there. Um, yeah, paid wise, the paid part is the the difference, right? Um, coverage won't change. We already had that. That
won't change. Um, >> would it be possible to ask FINCOM to do this analysis um for you? Does that make sense everyone? >> So, Christine, which analysis you looking for in this >> financial implications of a leave policy
to the town? So would it are you just looking for eight weeks paid for any employee? Like what what which other >> Yeah. I mean what I don't know how do you model this out? I have no idea. >> I mean you could just and like just look
at the um chart from one one to you know 15 15 grade and step and look at what 8 weeks looks from that entire range. >> Well, we could look back to who's taken a leave and and quantify >> Yeah. what that would have cost,
>> right? >> I mean, you can I would start with the school. The school is going to have plenty of data of who took lead. That's a, you know, a a conservative estimate because it's again overwhelmingly women and probably a lot of them of
childbearing age. But so that'll give you a guidepost at least the the maximum case. And in those cases, they have to hire a replacement. There's no question, right? That person's out, they hire a replacement. Um, so that would be one fence post I guess separately.
I don't know. I you know, look at past history of >> I guess I would just say leave the methodology to Fincom. They'll figure out an intelligent way to go about it. But I I think they would good job of drawing up a arms length, you know,
analysis of what this is really going to look like to the town. >> So I don't know that it's a as much of a financial consideration as is a service delivery situation. So, this only applies to a very small number of people in town. Most people have paid family
leave in the Commonwealth. Um, most people in Carile have paid family leave. You're only talking about a very small subset of employees who don't have access to this benefit. So essentially, as an employer, we're saying that this uh small group, which which I would
argue is is primarily also women, um does not get paid leave, whereas the rest of the town and the rest of the Commonwealth does. >> So what's the size of the pool we're talking about here then, Ryan? >> So you're talking about full-time employees in Town Hall and the library
and the police department. >> So a few dozen. So, just to also give context, town hall was built in the 90s. I am the first >> to have been pregnant, come back and and been on parental leave. >> Yeah.
>> And and they had to come back and have, you know, that >> wellness room designed because there was nothing before, right? So, I am the first since the '9s. >> So, if that gives some context of how frequently this is.
So the issue for for service delivery in in my opinion in terms of staffing is when you have a department that's one or two people, if someone's out for 40 days, then you're you're not going to be able to replace someone in a town hall budget or you're going to have to have some additional coverage from other
employees. So there would be a service dip, >> right? >> So maybe the impact is negligible. I don't know. But I'd like to see an anal some sort of like, you know, no kidding. this is what what modeled out you know high, medium and low whatever however they want to construct it.
>> So would you be talking about like their age? I mean like what what kind of modeling are you looking at? Because all I could I you know very direct without putting anything of the pool of relevant employees. What are the ages? I you know I have no idea what else they might take
into consideration. >> Dine to your point how do towns deal with this? Um because you can't increase your budget. So someone goes out, do you do a reserve fund transfer if you have to backfill it like or is there a separate
leave fund that we would create? Most towns our size would just provide less service. So there would be less service delivery during that time because you can't hire employees for for
40 days. uh say in your I don't want to I don't want to be discriminatory so I don't want to pick a department but um you're not going to hire a temporary employee for that time. So you would you would figure out a way to provide that service. Uh library is a great example. You might
have less hours or um increase part-time hours. Yeah, we've in the time that I was trustee, we had at least two women go out on leave and um it was just a matter of everyone else like pitching in doing
a little extra. We didn't I don't we didn't have a we we just had interim, right? When Martha was out, Jennifer took over, everyone just kind of stepped up. Okay. But I don't think the I mean it might be
that the impact is negligible. I don't I don't know. But I'd like to see like a you know the facts of the matter. >> It really comes down to the assumptions in that and there the assumptions could be so wide. I mean your one assumption
is Aubrey's model of herself as the only employee since 1990 or whatever that has done that. So that might be the low case. If you wanted to say a high case, I don't know, maybe you take every employee, but I mean, you have new employees coming in that could be, you
know, of age to to want to take that leave. Um, I I mean, and you could obviously adopt or, you know, there's I don't know. I don't know what what assumptions. >> I don't think Yeah, I don't I don't think modeling is modeling going to change our That's why I respectfully
disagree with the approach. I think if we strategically are saying that it's an important thing for employee equity small E and or it's important for recruitment and retention tool
>> to be competitive then then >> and I'm I'm a huge supporter David I mean we were we wrote up the original language to this when we body of trustees >> you think we should plan for it intelligently because the cost I suspect is not negligible >> I don't know I mean what happens when
we've I'm sure we've had medical leaves, right? Where people get sick and they have to go out for a while, >> right? >> And what do we do then? >> What do we do when somebody >> needs cancer treatment and they're out for six months? >> They can use their sick time unfortunately. Uh >> no, but they're not there. I mean, to
the service model, it doesn't matter how they >> right. And that's the thing, this will actually, you know, we already offer eight weeks unpaid protected if they're are not covered by FMLA. If they're covered by FMLA, that's 12 weeks unpaid. So the service levels, this doesn't
impact that necessarily. It might encourage them to be able to use their full FMLA protected coverage, >> right? But what do you do? >> Yeah. Costwise, I I just I don't want to I'm a little I have to say I'm a little concerned about doing the age thing, too, just because it can be anybody from
the age 15 and above, right? So >> No, but I mean, maybe I'm not asking right when people go out regardless how they're paid. Let's separate the economics. What do you do when somebody says, um, I need to get treatment. I'm out for eight weeks. Or they say, I am
exercising my FMLA and I'm out for 12 weeks. >> You're not paying them, but >> what do you do? Like how do you backfill those people right now? >> Depend. And so that that's definitely depends, right? It depends on the situation, what that their position is. Usually it's just covered by the rest of
the department or um other departments that can help with that. um if it's a long-term situation right then we might have to do an interim while they are out for >> right but longterm is many months it's longer than the 40 days we're talking about so it seems to me up to 12
honestly I don't I don't think mathing out the respectfully Christine I don't think sending them out on some exercise with widely varying assumptions is relevant like >> if we think it's the right thing to do we should do it but we should do it in
two ways. One is we should be consistent with sort of our comp goals because we're, you know, competitive in a competitive employment situation and we should tighten up the rules because it seems kind of loosey goosey about deciding who is eligible and who's not.
That's my recommendation. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> I don't know. I took a quick look. I don't I mean I know Conquer seems like the surrounding towns it doesn't seem like many towns offer this. M >> um so just understanding that doesn't necessarily direct our decision but I would like to
understand you know where like as David mentioned in our comparable towns or who we're competing against what are they offering if they're offering anything what are they offering in terms of just a just kind of a high level competitive assessment in terms of >> a do they offer b what are the general
terms we're seeing um in other locations in other towns Absolutely. >> Um, okay. So, I think I think with this one there's more more discussion to be had and I think Aubrey I think your goal was
to socialize this initial draft. >> Correct. >> And I think if you have any additional comments or questions, we should probably just direct them directly to Aubrey. >> And then I assume I know we have more personnel policy discussions in the
queue. So, I assume you'll be coming back >> um next steps for this policy. Aubrey, do you want to um >> consider some of the feedback and questions and then revisit this at the next meeting? >> Absolutely. And would you like another
policy presentation at that point as well? Just continue. >> Well, what you had some other I know you had some other um policies that that we need to review. So, I think >> yes, >> I think it's always good to at least tee up even if we're not making a decision. A lot of these that we're into now,
we're going to need some discussion and probably some >> we'll have questions. So, I think the more you can tee them up for discussion, you can get our initial reaction and questions and then there'll be some additional work after that. So, I think it would be absolutely to um >> however many >> whatever you think is a reasonable
amount to discuss at the next next meeting um we should do that. >> Great. Thank you so much. Thank you all. >> These will take some time, I think. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thanks, Aubrey. >> All right. Thank you, everybody. >> Aubrey, hang hang on one sec. Do you need us to approve?
>> Oh, yeah. The >> formally the the earlier ones that you laid out that were based on the the conversation we had, you know. >> So, the last motion was to approve it with the, you know, assumption that they were going to be revised, but it's up to
you all if you want to approve specific ones. again now that they have been revised because I know that there's at least one that you wanted a little >> Yeah. The only one that I I think was the uh DPW one about >> neat and professional
>> appear manner and appearance is that am I right? >> Yes. >> The other ones I think everybody felt fine with. So I'm just wondering we we have not formally voted to approve the others or have we? There was no motion
in the packet and I think to Aubrey's comment I think we approved the policies with the edits discussed and this is reviewing the edits. >> Is that correct? >> Correct. >> We can we can approve we can just do a
quick motion if we want to approve the revisions as as presented and discussed. >> Yeah. I and I would say all but um the um >> the parenthes >> what it's under the uh >> the new policy update request.
>> It's the um the only thing to leave off and come back to I think is the piece about the DPW uh safety and uniform section and then we can vote through all the others. I'd say let's see the revised language first, Barney, and then just do
it all in one fell swoop. >> Well, the language it has been revised for all the others. We're looking at the revisions. >> Oh, you saw the marks. Yeah, >> but it's the it just >> Okay, let's approve all but the DPW. And
we not taking up the new request yet, right? >> Yeah. Right. >> All right. I'm good with that. >> Does that work for you, Aubrey? >> Yep. That's perfect. So, the motion would be to accept um uh to approve as revised in the packet.
Uh I'm just going back to the numbers we're talking about. It's um what is it? It is 21-3 the terms of holiday pay, 23.0 sick leave, 31.0 know personal leave
and 35.0 resignations and 38.0 financial policies and reimbursements. >> Okay. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion or deliberation?
>> Yeah. One comment just to add is Aubrey has agreed that she will make involuntary terminations parallel to the resignation section. >> Yes, thank you. >> And if they're not, then you can bring that policy for approval at a future
meeting. >> Perfect. >> Okay, let's do a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Modell I. >> Nell I. Stevens. I >> I thank you, Aubrey.
>> All right. Thank you all. >> We're getting into the fun stuff now. All right. Speaking of fun stuff, let's talk about committee creation and appointment policy. Now, on the agenda, we only have 15 minutes for
this. I suspect we may need um some additional time on this one andor additional thought and edits just given I think some of the some of the changes in language. Um and this is one where Gretchen did have
some notes. Um I don't know if anyone wants to speak to what's being presented here. Barney, I know you met with Gretchen and um >> but let's see. >> Well, just as a a little background, we
did >> we'd all forgotten those of us that were involved with this a couple years ago had forgotten that we actually had a a policy, but that's what we were revising. Uh that's what we realized we needed to revise. And so that's this is
um I think what Gretch had tried to do was show the um the changes to our existing policy and so she's noted those um in yellow I think as you go through
this. Um >> yeah, and she calls out obviously needing really needing discussion um in her email if people want to refer to that. A number of comments on the residency
section that I think we need to discuss um and also some of the creation of new committees section. Um >> yeah and this that whole discussion about statutory and um >> there's a fair amount there's a fair
amount of meat on this bone um >> when you really get into it um >> to my my init like well I don't know where to begin at the be so a general comment I had for whomever is there's I'm conf I was confused at the
outset on the term of board because it's defined in the beginning as board and committee are interchangeable But then it seems like the select board is referred to as a select board, the board, the SB. So one piece of feedback is we should just call it the select board whenever it appears because it
does get confusing when it's saying the board. >> It's also referring to board of health, board of assessors, what's being um commented there. But when we get into residency, you know, I I don't know how
others feel and if we want to dive right into this, but I mean, I support a residency policy, but I do want us to leave the opportunity as long as it's allowable under law to appoint non-resident members if if there's support from the
committee and support from the select board. So, it feels like the language that is included here is pretty pretty specific about non-residents shall not be eligible for appointments on a number of a wide range of committees um that we really haven't talked about. Um
>> and to me that seems a little too much. Um, I liked in the second section that there is an allowance for non-resident appointments when there's I think it said unanimous support of the committee or whatever. But my general
comment is I do support a residency policy and we should heir toward that. But I do want to leave the opportunity in some cases for non-residents to be appointed. >> Yeah. And I think the one question for
that, Scott, is are they um may they be appointed and also be a be able to vote because the I think from from some folks I've talked to here in town now, not a lot, but you know, a few folks are concerned about some situations that we
have currently where um a person is voting around uh a policy that affects people in town, but they don't live here. So, they're making a decision in the sense about,
you know, what happens in the town that is they're they're not going to be governed by that same decision. You know what I mean? So, I think that's one question for us. >> They're voting they're voting on a in that case, you mean something like a
recommendation or a position? I mean ultimately town meeting is >> No, I meant you know you have a you have a >> like the land use >> a committee. Yeah. A committee and they there's someone let's say for example moves out of town but they've been you
know a really active helpful member on the committee and you'd like them to continue. Um so that's that exception. Do you have them continue even though they don't live in a town being able to vote on
policies that affect the residents of the town? >> And kind of building on that, I I guess I have a I fall on maybe a stronger side of that argument where I I I don't know.
I'm trying to think of examples where you know you can always have anyone to a public meeting and these people can participate but it's a different level of to be a resident where you're making decisions on behalf of other residents
and I just think it's I >> that dubtales into my question. So in town meeting to Travis's point you we the public body are asked to vote
on things which may have direct financial or other impact and so that's important but in committee here's my question are these committees are there committees that re that um do committees make any decisions that
don't have to drive up to elected boards, select board, cons, whatever. I mean, I'm trying to think of an example. >> Every committee makes policy decisions that have some impact and arguably
everybody has some financial or, you know, lifestyle impact on on the community. I was thinking of every land use board that decides which trail is where or whatever. No, but they they but the land use boards tee up to some
elected board, right? Conscom is that elected or >> Yeah, but but at the at the the smallest level, you're you're having the policies determined by those people who may not be elected. Now, granted, if you have one person, you're right. It's like,
well, that's never going to matter and that, you know, but it does. And it's the level of influence you want to have from outside, you know, of >> Okay. All right. No, fair enough. Okay. So, what we're balancing is that point
of view versus having the flexibility to appoint people who we think are subject matter experts or otherwise have value ad that no longer are are not residents. Right. >> Right. And my argument would be a a
subject matter expert could still present and there's nothing preventing a person from participating in a public meeting. >> But why don't we what maybe the policy should make those people exeicio non voting? Just leave it at that.
>> Yeah. what exeicio typically means. You've been on the body and you have retired or resigned or something. >> I'm not sure. Yeah. I mean, I don't know the legal definition. >> You have to look that up. Yeah. >> Let's not get into those weeds. Just non- voting. Give the committees the um
authority or the flexibility to appoint various non- voting members who do not need to meet residency requirements. >> Yeah. that that would apply. So in the in the draft here there is a carve out
for committees without statutory regulatory authority for occasional exceptions. The feed like the comments now would say just don't make a distinction. It's just non-residents may not serve on
uh be a voting member on any board or committee um without exception. Essentially, >> I would consider it like the town meeting where if you're not a resident, you know, you sit in a separate area,
they do allow you to speak, but you can't vote. >> Yeah. And one of the other questions we want to address is um you know what happens in a situation where someone is on a committee uh they
live in town and then they move um do they immediately have to resign as a voting member or do we you know have a policy that they can complete their term or you know what happens in that
instance. Barney, for the select board, if you are going to leave town, you I believe have to resign. >> You're done. >> Yeah, but if I'm I'm an elected member, um I mean, would that be true of somebody who's not an elected member of
a body? >> I I would argue you shouldn't make the distinction. I think that, you know, if you're no longer a resident of town, you know, you could be, if we're going to agree to an exofficial status, you could be that a non- voting. You could continue to, you know, involve yourself
to the extent you want, but I just worry that we're going to, I don't, this is my pontificating, but I don't want to have people move to Florida and make decisions on Zoom. >> Yeah. >> For Carile residents,
>> right? I agree. I agree. So I think I think the language should just be amended in eight. It's it says non-residenty shall not be eligible to appointment of any committee blahy blah. But we should nuance that language
to say they're not eligible as voting but they're >> at the discretion of the committee they can be non- voting. I mean, some like >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Let's not get into the weeds of whether they moved out of town, they moved into town, they used to be in town, they
never were in town. I mean, that's too much stuff to >> I think you got to keep it simple. I did have a question and I don't know who's drafting, but uh under residency and the B, it talks about members should have a current year annual street listing
census form on record. And I wondered, you know, that seems pretty cumbersome for every committee to have that. Um, I figured you just refer to the town clerk and ask if the person is a resident. >> That's what I think that's what they
Yeah, but this is to explain what what you what qualifies you as a resident. So, it's not that you vote in town, you know, that you're a registered voter. It's actually that again this is according to Ashley's you know looking into it that you have to have completed
the town census and so it's something you have to do every year. >> It's quite it's close. So I got it. >> It's one or the other. So you have to be a registered voter or have a census form filled out to be considered. That's the easiest way for us to tell if you are a
resident because you can't do those things somewhere else. So, how does it h what's the cross check, Ryan? If I have my house here and my summer house on the Cape, who's checking that which one I'm the resident of?
>> So, that's what this is getting to is is the only clear way that we can say if you're a resident is if you vote here or you fill out your census here because you cannot do that somewhere else. >> Okay. So, >> you can't pay taxes on the Cape. You can live in Florida, but you can't vote down
there and maintain Carl Isle as your primary residency. >> Okay. All right. >> So then we have to this first paragraph then shouldn't make it sound like it's just having done this town census. It's either or you're saying.
And there's also this thing affidavit of residency is my understanding is there's actually some sort of a form that you can fill out. Um, >> I think that's if you missed this. I don't This is Gretchen's gonna have to
>> provide the correct language here because I I do think the affidavit if you don't complete your census. I I don't know. There's a there's a distinction there. >> I think there's some, right? I mean, we have to let's not be too ligious. I will tell you the anecdote of when I first
moved to my little town in Connecticut, which is many years ago. I went in to register to vote and I filled out the form with my address and the lady, the clerk I guess, made me take an oath that I was a resident of the town. It was Graanby, Connecticut. And I asked her at
that point like, "Okay, great. But you didn't ask for a driver's license or any other proof. And what's to prevent me from going to every other town in the, you know, put in the valley and registering to vote?" and she looked at me like I dropped off of Mars and said,
"You took an oath." I mean, we're New England, right? I mean, people are not really going to game this. I think if we write it properly, it'll be fine. >> Yeah. >> I I do think in and I don't want I'm sorry I'm getting the weeds, but in that sentence, members should have a current
year annual street listing. I think we need to be definitive on these policies rather than should have which leaves it open to interpretation of is that should like maybe and they have it and what's the penalty. I think you need to say
they must or whatever it is needs to be so clear there's no ambiguity. >> Yes, they should. >> That was kind of my point. And we should and we should we shall we must um one of the points of feedback in the last goound was >> we like our our application form now
should have a something about like confirming or indicating or something around residency >> because there's right now I don't as as far as I understand nothing in the application >> that causes people to even think about this um or think about oh I should go do
an affidavit or I I didn't I just moved to town. Um, >> right. But we flag it. The town clerk flags it and then we usually circle back to them. Right. >> Usually, but sometimes we don't and then we get into awkward >> Well, we should put Yeah, we we should put
>> something on the form that >> Yeah, >> that's a very good point, Scott. >> Um, >> so just to to clarify this point because it's it's important. If you want staff to be able to flag definitively whether someone's a resident or not, then the more specific you are with what makes
you a resident, the better. >> So, we're we're recommending these two things are they're not infallible, but they're pretty strong. If you don't have one or the other, then it's likely >> that there's something there that someone would be able to question your residency,
>> right? So, you can always have an appeal like I didn't want to fill out the census because of my personal beliefs and I don't want to vote. But it should be like you can't until you solve that problem. You you have to have one of these two things, >> right? >> I support that. >> Yeah. I'm telling you, every residency
issue we have is because >> Okay. >> Someone >> So, that paragraph is finest written then, right? >> Which one? >> The first one. >> The first one. The first one. >> No. They'll be determined by X, Y, or Z, right? >> No. Well, it needs to be said more
precisely and it needs to be a must, right? That was >> shell in in legal speak, shell is will, right? I know, but for the for for the average Joe, you know, it should say members must have a
>> I think I think we need to we can I'll talk to Gretchen tomorrow, but this paragraph should >> should remove the distinction between statutory, regulatory, and be more definitive about all committees. And we should just be very clear about the specific requirements or options to to confirm residency as
supported by our town clerk and and Gretchen doing the confirmation. >> Yeah. And you know Gretchen raised or she and Ashley raised the basic question about why does statutory authority or
regulatory authority matter? Um, if we were just to say that, you know, you have to be a resident to park. >> Yeah, I I wouldn't I I agree with you. I I would get rid of all this
land stewardship historical. Just get rid of all that. Just say I mean, you have to meet paragraph one should be very clear. You got to meet these requirements. And if you do, fine. And if you don't, then in paragraph three, I guess, you know, you could be appointed
as a non- voting. There's got to be some word smithing. >> Yeah, >> you got to be n you can be non- voting and that's it. Leave it at that. Like >> the committee can decide to be non- voting but they cannot if the person doesn't meet paragraph one they cannot be voting. Period.
>> Yeah. >> How are we circling back on this? >> Well, it gets revised and brought back. Yeah. >> By whom? >> Who's drafting? Who draft? >> Probably. and I can I can work with her having been part of the conversation,
but I mean she can also listen to the minutes. Um >> yeah. >> Yeah, I think we can >> Barney or I can work with Aubrey to get this revised to reflect the discussion tonight. >> Um and there's just a comment I'll read
um from the public just also making sure that and I think this would take care of that non- voting members can't be chair or an officer of a committee. I would assume that. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. You should you should clarify that, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um >> um the other thing just to point out in
here further down near the end is um because this question had come up and this puts it now into this policy that residents living at the same address who are interested in being appointed to a committee shall not serve on the same
committee. >> And then there is a workaround on that one, >> right? I could imagine scenarios where I I don't >> I don't know. >> We had that come before us, Scott, before you joined the board that that
someone came and said, "We would like we will only be on this committee if both the spouses could serve on the committee, >> right?" >> And at the time, I think the select board was reluctant to
do that. Does this rule out though like Benfield like if you have two Ben, you know what I mean? It's like residents at the same address like I understand like I guess spouses. This is residence. So you you
>> or maybe you clarify it to say residents living in the same household. >> I don't know, right? Rather than same address >> y >> or something. I I this is such a rare exception. But it's this is two different things, right?
One is simply I want to join and my wife also wants to join and then the committee has to take that up. The other one is I will only join if my wife joins. They're two different situations. >> Yeah. >> So do we care? That's the first
question. Do we care if a husband and wife say for example sit both are on a committee? Do we care about that? I don't >> I don't I don't I think it's the thing that you know you you hate to think about the the worst
case scenario but let's say you have a pretty small committee you know there are five of you and two of the five are living in the same household and you know have the same opinions or position on things
influence you know they have more influence I guess Right. So you don't you don't want >> you don't wouldn't appoint them if we were concerned about that. >> Right. >> You could defer to that. But David's point about the distinction if if there if they come to you and say we will only do this I don't like to be strong armed
on >> right. >> Well then you don't >> we would just say no. We would say no. But but let's say >> we want to give we want to give the staff though that are getting these questions. We want to give them a way to say no because this is the policy that
the select board has approved. >> What about I mean let's say Barney let's say you you're not moving and Michael decides he wants to run for my open seat. >> Is he not allowed to? >> No, he can. >> Well, of course. So why
>> it's elected? You know, it's a little different than being a >> Well, it's not really. I mean, yes and no. I I I guess I want to push back a little on the husband and wife thing. I >> It's unlikely anyway, but >> do we really care? At the end of the day, do we really care? >> This is one of those things you could
say spouse, resident, it's it's a slippery slope. I I don't think we need it. >> We can decide on based on the appointments, the committee of their recommendations as long as they're residents because you could be you could be >> people can have all sight sorts of different relationships that are close
and serve on a committee. And so we're singling out physical residence. It could be any number of things. >> I think that's >> that's right. You could be good friends, right? I agree. I think we should strike it. >> Well, okay. All right. Um and then the other is just the note that the uh we're
saying it's typical. Typically we say you need to be 18 years of age or older to be appointed to a committee, but there's the exception. This is in the paragraph just above what we were just talking about. What was the rationale for that?
>> Um, >> frontal lobe development, Travis. >> Well, no, they're they're allowing I I was actually asking because I I'm trying to understand why anyone even though I
really want civic participation and I would love that and I think my children because I think they're so special even though I I'm not saying that. No. Could they serve? Yeah, you'd like every all these kids to be on that, but I don't think if you're 18, you know, under 18.
I mean, you're you're not even legal to vote, >> right? Well, that's that's a that's that >> why would you even open this up to >> that back to if you can't vote? >> I mean, do we have a restriction like at town meeting? You can only vote
if you're a a taxpayer and b 18. What's the rule on voting? You have to be a registered voter. >> And what does that mean? You >> have to be 18. >> So a homeowner like Mike's son cannot vote because he's not he's a resident
but not 18, right? >> Yeah. >> My daughter who is n 20 now, she can vote, right? >> Yep. >> Okay. So I mean that would be consistent. You shouldn't be on a you shouldn't be a voting member if you can't vote, right? I don't even think
you should be on the committee. >> All right. So just say that last Travis let me just offer the other is >> here you have you know let's say a high school kid who is really invested in uh
you know sustainability and uh protecting the environment and they are willing to put a lot of work you know a lot of time into figuring out you know what are the uh native plants that should
promoted versus something else. You know, why not allow that person to both learn what it's like to be involved in a town committee, uh, give back to your town, but also that it's, you know, it's
helpful to the committee to have another active volunteer, >> non voting member, >> non- voting member, that's fine. But if you're talking about a voting member, again, this is someone who is living in a residence but not paying taxes to the
town and making financial or somewhat implicit financial decisions on behalf of a committee that could affect me and my taxes or my livelihood in the town. And I I think they just don't have a vested interest in that.
>> Okay, got it. So you would just take this off and it would fall under the same uh thing as the other residency issues which is any young person that wants to participate in a committee that's under 18 can just come to the committee. >> Yeah.
>> Meetings. Yeah. >> Great. >> The first sentence stays intact. The second sentence can say >> we can clarify that >> they can attend or >> non voting member just like right. >> Yes. And then the very last section under
here I Oh, I guess >> Oh, can I can I make two points prior to that? Yeah, >> I noticed um there there I was wondering this is a question is if we mention a suggested timing of resignation >> um that came up relative to elected
positions but maybe it doesn't need to be there when when Kate resigned and then you had to have a special like do you want to mention like this is a good time to resign or or not? >> Now would be a very good >> Right. Right.
>> Well, I think I think I know that you can offer guidance. >> Strike strike that. Okay. >> Well, I think I what I think we should say to some effect is um >> if once people Well, yeah, if they resign, they resign. I practically speaking, you're going to need at least
two weeks to advertise the position and a select board meeting to a point. So, there is a timeline there of say three weeks where you can't backfill that position whether that matters or not. >> Yeah. Um, but we're running short on time. The
goal is not to get through all this and there's more meat on this bone uh when we get into like the creation of a new committee. Um, I think we should focus on that first one and then we can we can tackle the rest of it at at either our next meeting or the subsequent meeting
unless >> Okay. Do we have to vote anything today? >> No, >> no, no, no, no. >> All right, let's move on. Okay. And we'll we'll we'll give this feedback to um Gretchen. I have some additional feedback. >> I have feedback to I'll give it to
Barney or to Gretchen. >> Why don't you give it to Gretchen and I'll work? >> Yeah. >> For OML. >> Okay. All right. TA report
more substantive stuff. >> All right. I'm up. All right, here's my town administrator report for December 2nd, 2025. Was supposed to have my coffee hour today, but nature ruined that. So, we are pushing it to next week, December 9th, 10 to 11:00 in the parlor room at town
hall. Going to focus on the budget, long-term financial planning, but residents are encouraged to stop by and discuss any priorities. I know there was a couple that that said they were going to stop by today, so we'll see them next week. Also reminding uh residents in the board about our municipal newsletter,
our email alerts and podcasts so people can stay up to date. It's it's pretty easy to follow along when town meeting is all-encompassing, but following now will allow people to be ready for those big decisions that are coming in the spring. I don't have any appointments to
notify you of. Aubrey did include some information in her HR report. We're seeking part-time drivers to support our transportation program. They're very difficult to hire, but it is a a very important position and rewarding position for for folks if
anybody knows anyone that is looking to to drive a van and to make a difference for our seniors. our um recreation director Holly Mansfield, our assistant town clerk, Melissa Danish, our assistant director and head
of technology Jennifer Pike, and our accountant Kelly Byer u partic are going to participate in a multi-module skill development program offered by Speechcom. This is um in conjunction with some of uh David's employees actually. And uh we're we're hoping to
have some of this investment in our professional development and uh emotional awareness increase the capacity of our town. So just amplifying our continued emphasis on professional development and updating our staff's
skills. Some department updates for you. We received a $10,000 grant from the Greater L Community Foundation to help with food insecurity. This is thanks to the work of the COHS staff and Jeff. I think that's great. It's obviously
timely with the news uh that has been has been circulating federally for quite some time. It will provide access to emergency food assistance when necessary and that's very important this time of year. >> Ryan, was it on that point in the notes where it said we can't accept direct
deposit? We have to take a live check. >> Yes. >> Why is that? >> I don't know the answer. I I do know that that's come up a few times and it is not allowed, but I will get you that answer. I'm going to write that. >> What do we need to do to change it? Because that seems a little uh out of
step with the times. >> Probably a home rule petition, but I will um I I will get that answer. >> Meaning approval at town meeting. >> Uh yeah, and then the legislature. I'm I'm assuming this there's probably a
Well, it could be reasonable. could not. It's it's a state law. So, I will get you that answer >> for two two votes for your consideration. One circulated a letter to you about the Tabat Mills Dam removal in Bel Ricka. There are letters in your
packet from the conservation commission in the ESC for this project. It is a a regional project. We're recommending that you authorize if you if you approve sending a supportive letter, your chair to sign this letter on in support of it and mirroring the the attached letters that
we've already received. So, I'll pause there for for questions and your consideration. >> Um, I circulated some articles about this and there's the ecological benefits are pretty clear. Um but you know there are concerns or the the Ricka Historic
Commission doesn't believe this project is in the town's best interest. The select board has has expressed concerns about their water supply. So there's there is an opposing view to this project that I'm quite simply not familiar with in terms of all the ins
and outs. Um, so again, I don't I don't really have much information on this project to feel comfortable for me saying, "Here's here's a letter of support." Um, I I think >> Yeah. So, I was I was all set to support
it and then you sent all that stuff today and I haven't had time to review it. So, I guess can we how what's the urgency? Can we table it? >> Yeah. Did you see the note from Dan Cook? I think >> the vote happened last night.
Didn't the the appeal happen last night? >> I thought it was uh Yeah, it's >> the Bill Historic coming up in the next couple days. >> They denied there's an appeal to the
Bill Ricka Historic Commission's denial um on a whatever. And that appeal there's there's you can submit comments in the comment period which ends Friday. Um, >> yeah, Christina, the public hearing did
happen last night, but then there's going to after the hearing, you're saying, Scott, there's a vote. >> No, I think they're just appealing Bill Rick's >> They're trying to overturn the historic commission's >> denial of whatever. Um, right.
>> It's on private property. So, I again, I'm not an expert on this thing, which is why I'm hesitant to kind of jump into it. But it's it's a dam on private property. I think their select board has which seems to have its own dramas if you start reading about the BICA select
board but um they express concerns about the water supply. There's a study that says it's not a concern but they haven't they're kind of basically it looks like staying out of it um to some extent but there there is opposition to it. I mean,
that's that's the point I want to make is Dan Cook and all the all the links were given is is definitely the the one side of the argument and it's certainly a strong argument. Um, I just haven't been exposed to the the other side of the argument and all the information around that. And I'm also hesitant to
kind of step into overturning another town's historic commission's decision um for a dam on private property in a different town. Even though it does have an impact um on the on the conquered river and I certainly support
statements, I don't know what our role in this is. Well, it's just an additional level of support. >> Yeah. >> I mean, what's the impact to Carlile? Is it the our side of the conquered river?
>> Yeah. It's the, you know, the the ecological and environmental argument is it restores I mean, I can't get into all the specifics, but, you know, it's better for the river. So if our own cons thinks it's a good idea, >> right, and so does DSC,
>> then what do we care what Bill Rick thinks? We we think it's good for us, I guess. Right. >> Right. >> I don't really know because I'm confused. I didn't have time to absorb >> late, you know, late breaking news
>> presented to us. I we haven't you know I didn't even know about this really until I was started googling it more yesterday just to try to get educated on what was going on. >> Generally when we have these types of
things we do seek a hearing on it or some type of you know more information. And I think of like the handsome issue, you know, how it impacts us and and you know, I think that that's a valid thing to just understand before we launch into
it. But not to say I'm not I I mean, from what I've read so far, yeah, it seems like as Christina texted there, you cleaner water. There are lots of reasons to support this, but you know, you're getting involved. I feel like just reading that stuff that Scott's on,
you could be getting involved in a dispute that's not even, you know, we don't even know about private property or all this and and we're weighing in on something we don't we haven't been following. >> Scott, who asked us to get involved? I mean, at like at whose behest are we
being asked to weigh in? >> Well, do you I don't know if you remember Dan Cook, uh, who he is on the Suasco. What's that acronym? it stands for the Sudbury Valley River Stewardship
Committee or something like that. And um and he and he he uh does a lot of work around sustainability generally. And so he wrote to me and said, you know, here's what's going on. And I had a phone conversation with him
and I said, "Well, you know, u I'm I know that what I would be saying if you came to the select board first is, well, what's the consom have to say about it or what does the sustainability committee have to say about it?" So, he went to each of them first and actually
I think he did a presentation uh for both boards and and so each board separately wrote their letter of support. Um and then uh I think it was the ESC maybe it was also KNCOM encouraged the select board
to also um write a letter of support. So that's how it ended up coming to us. >> Oh yeah, thank you Eric. Um >> having that time to reach out to the Bill Ricka select like anybody to say what you know >> what are the issues here. Yeah. what are
the issues or at least give the opportunity to hear what the opposing views are and what it comes down to on the opposing side is historical significance local and national and their water supply um again and there there have been other studies as I
understand this it's not an impact but you know I don't know I don't I just don't know um and so I mean I'm happy to chime in I just feel like we should we should know a little bit more or at least have somebody give us an overview of it. I don't >> Well, we would presumably if you feel
that way, you need to schedule next meeting to invite both maybe the somebody from the Bara site who didn't like it and somebody who likes it and present. >> But do we want to allocate 45 minutes of our
>> I don't know. That's the question. I mean, >> yeah. Is this significant enough of an issue? That's what I was >> when we have the letters of support from our conscom and our >> you know I mean our guys support it. I guess my feeling is I don't know enough because I didn't do enough research but
if our guys support it did they do the research that you did I guess that's the question and if they did and they still feel it's worth doing then shouldn't we support our guys? >> Yeah. Okay. I I just found the email from Dan Cook and it says um
the final deadline to submit comments to the Northern Middle Sex Council of Governments about the Talbot Mill Dam removal appealing the Bill Rea historic district's commission denial is December
5th. December 5th. >> Okay, there you go. Well, >> okay. time to I mean if if if if they whatever that committee or whatever that body is says you have to remove the dam,
what does that mean to the homeowner? Like what happens then? >> I don't I have no idea. >> I don't know. >> Then we have to just pass. I mean then >> they're trying to overe right now they're trying to appeal a decision by
the Bill Ricka Historic Commission. As far as I again, I I just don't know all the details of what's going on. Um say, >> you know, we support the the the overturning the historic >> No, we can't I mean, if we don't know
enough, we don't know enough. >> No, we would just write a letter. Um I mean, similar to what the you know, KNCOM and ESC have written just be a you know, >> but we we have to know enough, right? I we don't know what we're forcing on some
poor Bill Rico land owner. >> Um I just don't know what the letter would be. Like we again this is coming up in the TA report at the end of a meeting. >> Yeah, >> we haven't >> we didn't give it enough I mean I saw
the lengthy stuff on it but as to your point we got sort of a one-sided view. So we didn't really do bottom line is we didn't do our due diligence right we we took verbatim some one side of the view and only because you did some work uh
Scott at the 11th hour we got some other views so >> and it's and for the record what I what I shared with the select board was uh the the recent article or the the articles that were on the l sun on this topic it wasn't I wasn't trying to push any particular >> No I know but we didn't do you know I
mean if we were if we had taken it more serious Seriously, we would have had that due diligence. I'm not blaming anybody. I'm just saying. >> Yeah. No, no. I'm just saying >> nobody took it up to say, gee, we got to do some work. Uh like Hansum was a slowmoving thing, right? It was going on and on and we
invited >> various people to come and they didn't come and then we kind of did our own due diligence. But at the end of the day when we got all done, we said, "All right, we've done enough work to to support that, you know, right? >> Okay." We haven't done that here. So, I I don't think we can take it. I think we
just have to punt. >> I mean, >> it's not a fight, right? >> The one thing we could do is is um we could just essentially point them to the the committees that took the position and just reiterate
their position in terms of, you know, but I don't know. I again I think we if if people aren't comfortable with the select board saying we support the um you know the decision the recommendation
to remove the dam then I think we just shouldn't do anything at all >> just let the cons and the ESC stand >> um their comments. I will say >> it's not it's not a it's not it's not a um again that like the BICOR select
board it's private property so they don't really have a say in the matter it's not like it's a town dam it's private property um >> right but this is this is around the appeal right these that's that's what the
so this is the Friday >> I don't have enough basis to reject Bill Rick's like the historic commission's arguments even if I don't even know what They they seem kind of thin, but again, I just it I don't know. >> Does the M nmcog
have the authority to order one way or the other? >> I don't know. >> No, Nimco's like uh MAPC. They wouldn't have that authority. >> So, what is going to force this?
What thing regardless of who supports it or not? What what I what action would require the dismantling of the stam and at whose expense? >> We don't know.
>> It's Yeah, it's a it's complicated. I And I get like again I get the arguments for removing it and all that, but it's for us to I don't even know like what the letter would would be. Um >> Right. Yeah, I I don't think I think we got it.
I mean, there's enough people who are going to weigh in on this. I There's 300 3,148 dams that all need this. So, you know, maybe next time we should be more prepared. >> Yeah, >> we're we're putting emergency repair
money into dams. >> I mean, they they they say all these great things that it would be for Bill Rick, but Bill Rick said, "No thanks." So, what do we know? Right. >> Well, I again, I don't I don't know all the ins and outs. Um, again, that's that's part of my challenge here is it's like authorize me
to write a letter and I'm like, I don't even I don't feel comfortable writing a letter based on the information I have. >> Yeah, I I agree. I think we just got to let it go and see what happens. I mean, there there enough there enough people who are energized to try to force it and let them carry the ball.
>> And Christina, I see your hands up. I think what we're going to do because I want to get through the TA report um and then we just have some some final administrative things that we'll let's we can circle back to this in the community comments at the end of the meeting. I just want to get through the other stuff and then we if you have a
comment on this we'll we'll take it then. Okay. >> Just one question actually. >> Yep. >> If I may. Um the ESC has not submitted um the letter to to Bill Raa. Uh we only submitted it to to you the select board.
So, is it okay um for us to submit the letter to Bill Reka as a committee or um are we should we stay in our lane as strictly advisory to the select board? >> I think be Yeah, go ahead. >> I mean, you serve as an advisory
committee to the select board. I think it would be up to us to finally figure out what the position is and then submit something to Bill Ricka. Well, that's not quite I mean I think qu the first question we took up is whether we the select board have enough information to write a letter of support or not and I
guess we concluded we don't but earlier in the discussion and and to Christina's point the two boards that have taken it up and believe it should be done I personally have no reason to say they shouldn't write directly to
whatever authority to express their support. I'd be okay with it, but it is up to the chair of the select board. >> Well, the other the other option very briefly is I could I could essentially write a letter, a cover letter that says uh the the Carlilele select board, you
know, has not taken a position on this particular item, but we wanted to convey the recommendations of both our both committees include those. >> That'd be okay with me, too. and send it kind of on their behalf, but also just indicate that, >> you know,
>> we we we didn't really um we didn't take a position on it given >> I don't know, whatever. I could write a brief cover letter and then attach those two letters. >> Yeah. >> Christine, >> yes, absolutely. Thank you. I just
didn't want to step step out of line by sending it. >> No, that's fine. I'll um >> precisely >> if people are amendable to that I'll just write a brief cover letter and make sure that those are sent to whomever maybe you can direct me who they should be sent to. I'm not sure clear on that.
>> Thank you so much. >> Okay. All right. Let's move along. >> All right. Continuing on to our Minute Man memorandum of understanding. So your COS director is requesting your endorsement of anou between town of
Carlile and Minute Man. They provide free and valuable programming to our residents, especially our senior residents. We have a relationship with them in many different ways. They're requesting use of your town hall. So, it does require your approval if you're willing to make that.
>> Sure. Someone want to make that motion. Is that in the packet or >> Yes, it is. Um, let's see. We had it a minute ago. Yeah. Okay. So, I move uh that we accept
the memorandum of understanding between Minute Man Senior Services and the Carile Council on Aging and Human Services for use of town buildings and authorize the town administrator to sign on the town's behalf. >> Is there a second?
>> Second. >> Do roll call. Any discussion or deliberation? Seeing none, let's do a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Mod I. >> Nell. I. >> Stevens. I. >> I. Great.
My report includes a green communities annual summit report from Sarah Wasman, our land use and sustainability coordinator. She attended the summit on behalf of the town and we like to provide information when our employees go and receive information regionally.
So I included that in my report for you. Uh she learned a lot, connected with sustainability folks and um it's definitely worthwhile for our our staff to engage regionally. Like to thank officer Corwin and the police department for securing a grant to improve health comes health outcomes
for our police officers. Hard Starts or Proactive Health program that assesses our officers for any anomalies or or any issues that come from the stress of their job. It's been proven to to um on occasion identify issues that will help
extend our officers lives. Um and it's it's great to have this grant and thanks for their service and what they do and make sure that they are safe. >> Brian, is that applicable to firefighters too or just police? >> This one is specific to police. Um, we are looking at firefighters as well.
This one is a stress based stressbased syndrome >> which obviously would apply to uh firefighters as well, but this one's police focused. >> An update on the natural gas contract I brought before you. Uh, natural prices,
natural gas prices spiked last week, shortly after you had authorized me to negotiate. Based off guidance from our consultant, we're going to float the rate through December and try to find more favorable pricing in January. Remember, it was in the late in the high
$8 range. It's it's in the $10 range now. So, we're we're hoping that will come down so we can secure a year-long contract. For budget updates, I'm meeting with the finance committee on Thursday. They're going over the recreation and facilities request on the capital plan that would
uh finalize their scrub of the the 5 to 10 year capital plan so that they can focus on some recommendations in clearing capital for what was identified earlier as a as a coming difficult discussion about the operating budget. Departments received their guidance. They are submitting their budgets to me
by December 5th and we will have a draft for you at your next meeting. Uh the first look at the town's FY27 budget. We did receive some good news. Like to present that when we can with the budget. We locked in another two-year agreement with Maya and Cabat Risk with
our general liability insurance for a 0% increase in FY27 and a 2.5% increase in 28. So that is good news. Some capital project updates. We awarded a a contract to New England Builders and Contractors.
They will be completing the elevator project. We're going to sign that contract this week or early next week. and the MFC agreed to earmark another $25,000 to cover the difference between the bid amount and the amount that was approved at town meeting. So, we should
be good to go. According to the architect, we don't expect the need for a large contingency. This project is pretty straightforward. The brick building HVAC and weatherization project is now complete. I was able to tour that with our facilities department and everything
looks great. We're going to be paying that bill soon. more renovations in the town hall bathrooms and the mechanical room. Both bids came in relatively relatively strong or in our favor. So, we awarded the product to Fort Meadow Builders, both projects. And
specifically, the bathroom expansion, we had bided out as two bathrooms or three or four, hoping that the costs would would not exceed um 50,000 and they came in right there. So, we're going to be able to do all four. And the mechanical room expansion also will allow for adding a water softening unit which
should help with some of the problems that we saw uh in terms of flooding and overloading the the pipes. CPA projects we signed a agreement with a designer Lula design hope saying that
right Lula design studio they're going to be designing dimmit park with the subcommittee that's overseeing that project design. So that should come before the town next year. For Cranberry Bog Dam number one, we have signed a contract with Sumco.
They're going to be doing the emergency repairs caused by the animal burrowing. That'll shore up the dam in time for us to bid the phase one of the reconstruction project in the spring. And then phase two of the project is the uh if you remember the larger more cons controversial discussion about spillways
etc. That's going to be informed by the hydraologic studies which we should be getting any day now. So three parts. We're going to do the emergency part now. Phase one in the spring should really shore up the dam. And then phase two will be the final part. Building construction projects. Nothing
new in the library. Police station renovation. We were going to remove the dirt this week. The the dirty dirt. The dirty dirt will move next week because of the weather, but we have that all squared away. Once that's done, the project will move into its more straightforward phases of just construction.
for fire station renovation. Both of your proposals with CMS and Tecton have been executed, so we're good to go. Tecton has developed an aggressive design schedule that will start next Monday. They're meeting with fire department staff and going over some of the design elements that have changed since town meeting, all within your
budget and parameters. They will now work with the fire station building renovation committee as it gets off the ground and they still believe that we can make the annual town meeting timeline in May. So, that would be great. Yeah, >> you talked a lot about the DP. I'm sorry. Is there a question?
>> Okay, I'll move on. The DBW building, you met with the tonight and discussed that project. So, we'll be taking the notes from this meeting and recommendations and and moving that project forward as well. Some upcoming discussion topics, of course, the FY27 budget's going to dominate a lot of your
agenda uh for the next few months. The boghouse is coming back to you for more discussion with the CHT and our town planner Julie Mercier and CPC. That will be part of your next meeting. You know that we're going to be doing more personnel policies with Aubrey and some
of the the policies we're moving into now will involve more discussion like tonight's did on parental leave. and you have also scheduled a goal review for your annual goals that will help inform my new town administrator goals once you are done with my evaluation. I did
approve one rotary sign under your policy that that fell within the parameters and then I have one staff recognition I would like to make this week. So Telene Shaman from the library. So many many residents are already familiar with the tremendous contributions she makes as our teen and
children's library and reference librarian, but her dedication and creative programming are consistently recognized by families across the community. And more recently, she assumed additional responsibilities when we had a temporary vacancy in our child children's librarian position. So, this helped bridge a critical staffing gap
and ensured uninterrupted services at the library. She did this because she loves the library and she's a strong employee. this example of people stepping up to fill in gaps when we need them to. Um, and we very much appreciate that. She is a notable example of our
versatility and resilience and she always steps up, but in particular, this was a important time, too. So, I doubt that anybody noticed a lapse in coverage even though we lost a key employee at the library. So, thank you to Tene and our entire staff for their hard work. And, um, we're excited to on board our
new children's librarian, Jill Soros. I have attached an agenda for you to review uh after this meeting and many of the topics I discuss in the report be coming up for your discussion and unless there's any questions that is my report.
>> Great. All right, let's quickly move through um the remaining items here. So, uh we have a warrants and minutes from November 18th in the packet for review and approval.
Does someone want to make a motion? >> I move to approve the minutes from November 18th meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion, deliberation? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. >> Barney, wake up. >> Mute.
>> I'm on mute. Sorry. I had one comment on there. >> Okay. Go. >> Um, but it's more of a it was just a typo, I think. >> Yep. Um, under my section at the end, Travis Snell has noted the municipal steering committee. I think it's municipal facilities committee.
Other than that, this was good. >> All right. >> Sorry, I was muted. Um, Arnold I, >> Model I, >> Snell I, >> Stevens, I and we'll we'll incorporate the the one
typo correction. All right, let's move on to uh cemetery deed transfer requests. We have four four deeds. If someone has the the motion in front of them,
um number 11, >> I can do it. >> Okay. I move to transfer land in the public burial ground at the Green Cemetery described. Deed 859 to Samuel Gould, formerly of
111 Pine Brook Road. Lot D 182 graves 1 and two. Deed 860 to Jennifer Bush, 68 Church Street, lot D, 164, graves one, two, three, and four. deed 861 to John
Richardson, 547 Westford Street, lot D, 356, graves, 12, three, and four. And finally, deed 862 to Charles and Arlene Davis of 29 Woodland Road, lot D, 187,
Grave One. >> Is there a second? >> Second. discussion of deliberation and uh Ryan, do these also need signature tomorrow? Are these part of the packet?
>> If they're if they're ready, then we will have them out. >> Okay. Otherwise, I'm assuming we can sign it. All right, let's take a roll call vote. >> Arnold I. >> Model I. >> Now, I >> Stevens Iola I.
>> All right. Leazison reports. any um hot topics. I think we'll be getting um a lot of information over the next couple of meetings. >> Yeah, the cat is going to come next meeting on the Bog House uh town meeting
study committee is going to meet finally again this week to try to rrestle down this final report. We're all exhausted and >> yep, >> want it to be over >> like town meeting itself. >> Yes.
Anything else? All right, let's move on to community input. Um, does anyone from the community have any additional comments beyond what we discussed tonight? And um,
Christina, I will I replied to your email. I will get that cover letter finalized tomorrow to send out. >> Thank you. >> Great. Okay, seeing no additional community input, we'll take a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second.
>> Second. >> Quick voice vote. Everyone at once. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. All right. Good night, everybody. >> All right. Thank you all for your extra time tonight. Appreciate it. >> Thank you. Bye bye. >> All right. Good night. Good night all.