Good evening and welcome to the February 24th 26th meeting of the Esau Meadow Town Council. I'll call the meeting to order and ask that we stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Cheers. Need an oil. Ask that we take a brief moment of silence to reflect on all of the events. >> Thank you. In accordance with Mass General Law, this meeting is being
recorded by LCAT. And if there's anyone else in the audience recording, if you could identify yourself. Thank you, Cindy. Seeing no one else, public comments. Is there anyone in the public that wishes to make a comment this evening? >> No one physically in the audience and no
one with their hand raised on Zoom. Council comments, any counselors with a comment, >> please. >> Um, I just wanted to put out there I had a resident reach out to me um today uh
complaint um with regards to the notification of the delay for our trash. Um, I explained to him I thought it was just common knowledge that we had a snowstorm. It would probably be extended one day. Um, but what his complaint was
is he didn't receive any message until 8:30 this morning that that was going to happen and he said that's a little late. Um, I told him I would pass it along. So, consider it passed along y >> at earlier notification. And again, I I
do realize um when it's possible. Yeah. No, that we're we're always working on our notifications. So, uh yeah, Renee was answering the phone non-stop this morning to keep >> to ask. So, yes, we'll we'll continue to
work on our >> uh messaging and getting that out in a timely fashion >> and he does watch the meetings. So, >> is he there? >> Comments. Thank you, Ralph. >> Thanks, Rob. Seeing none, town manager support. >> Hey.
>> Hi, Tom. >> Good evening. Uh, I'll uh start with a current event and just say thanks again to EPW. Uh, once again,
uh, all the roads were clear the next day again after a huge long storm. And, uh, you know, I just want to say thanks to them for all their hard work. Those are long, long days. uh most of them, you know, in order to get it done that fast, they're they're
not hanging out chatting in a truck either. They're all by themselves in their truck and just doing their work. So, um just want to say thanks to DPW once again. Um attached are the project reports for February, the weeks of February 2nd and
9th. Um, regarding the high school and natiatorum construction, uh, we recently, uh, opened RFP and signed, uh, or about to sign a lease agreement. Uh, we're starting to talk about all the move. Um,
the central office employees have to get out of there so that Fontaine can start um, demo and abatement in that area uh, so that we can hit uh, the first day of school. Uh so central office is uh
located over on the Carter Monday campus from like April break through the first day of school. So um we're we're already moving parts uh to to move into a new building. So it's getting real close now. So um again the link for all the
information you could ever want on the building project um eastma.govhsb building project. Um, the East of the River Chamber of Commerce, CRC5 hosted a legislative breakfast at Lo Ledllo Country Club on
February 10th, uh, in addition to awarding community leaders with cultural impact awards, uh, Senator Jay Calivera and Representative Aaron Saunders, uh, answered questions from local students relating related to issues affecting our region. Topics included, stop, have you
heard me this before? Uh, transparency, education, and health insurance. sort of the big ones that are affecting everyone these days. Um, thank you to executive director Grace Baron and the entire ERC5 team for for organizing an amazing event
for our communities. Uh, on the same day, members of the town journeyed out to the Massachusetts Firefighting Academy in Stowe uh, in support of Deputy Chief Ed Lennahan. Uh, he graduated from the Chief Fire Officer program. Um, Ed has been an amazing
asset uh since joining our team and and we're happy to recognize his accomplishments. So, congrats to Ed. Um, I also want to congratulate Quinn O'Donnell on his recent promotion to sergeant uh at our police department. Uh, Quinn was originally hired uh back
in February of 2019 and has served the his community with distinction. Congrats to Quinn. Um the design team at uh VHB hosted a road safety audit for phase two of the North Main Street corridor improvement
project. Uh the boundaries of phase two will be the southern boundary of phase one uh which is just outside the window here on Lasal Street and all the way down to Brook Street, including the full redesign of the Westwood intersection which uh has more than its share of
issues. Um so public works, fire, police uh joined the working group consisting of VHB and uh various members of the mass DOT team uh analyzing crash data, road geometry, existing uh deficiencies and uh provided some much needed local
input uh that will eventually be put into a design. Um, shortly after that, we um, we did receive word that phase one, which I think I had previously told you was a little bit behind schedule. We
we're expecting an F FY27 um, start, um, has gone to 25% design. So, there there's like a a bunch of steps in the design process for Mass DOT projects. Uh, but 25% design is a big
one. meaning uh the overall layout is is um you know satisfactory and now we start to get into nuts and bolts design uh which will be a 75% design and then uh the 100 which will go on to bid. Um so uh it's taken a little long. I feel
like we've been talking about North Main Street for you four or five years because we have but uh we we'll we'll we'll get to see those investments that we've made uh in the design uh hopefully in the next year or two. excited about the second part of it too. That that
>> that Westwood intersection. I think uh I think the first time I asked for it, Kathy was president, we on a weekend grabbed a shovel ready project to get into one of the uh bond bills, transportation bond bills, uh which made it but never got funded. So, uh that
that intersection needs a whole bunch of upgrades. So, that'll be a good one to have on the list. Uh, if you got crosswalks with jogs in it, tea crosswalks, uh, you can't send somebody out into the pavement and not have them land on the
other side of the street. So, we'll have to I'm sure that will be part of the design. >> I think you can because we've been doing it for >> have been. Uh, so that's it for tonight. >> Great. Thank you, Tom. Any questions or
comments? Seeing none, uh, communications, correspondence, and announcements. The only one that I have this evening is that the fire department is hosting their 2025 recognition ceremony this Friday at 2 p.m. So, I will be there on behalf of the council to present some
citations to them. >> Nice. We have no public hearings under orders of the day, licensing matters. Just a brief update on the license revocation that we had at our last council meeting. So, uh, the police department had the
following morning, which was February 11th around 11:00 a.m. went and checked and at that point there weren't any coverings over any of the product um, or signs. Later that afternoon, they did put signs up and then the following day
on the 12th, they did have coverings in addition to the signs. And then the health department did a visit on the 18th um found similar things and then the 19th some of the coolers had been emptied and then the plastic and signs
had remained up. So so far it seems like they're working towards compliance. >> Do we know the timeline for an appeal? >> It was 5 days from the time that they received their certified letter. >> Do we know when that was? >> It should be past.
>> It should be past. Okay. >> So, I haven't heard any word of from the ABCC, but >> guess we'll find out if something comes to our direction. >> Um, the certified letter. Did we do return receipt requested? >> Yes.
>> So, at least we'll know when Winnie received it when he signed for it. So, >> okay, >> that was all I had unless anyone had any other questions. Okay, seeing none financial matters. Our first one was a discussion of the highle budget
forecast. Hey again, Tom. >> Hey. >> Oh, here comes Kim too. >> You wouldn't do it without him. >> No. >> Smart that. >> So,
>> hi Kim. >> Hello. Hi Kim. >> Welcome. our finances are >> into this made a weird noise and >> so uh again I I like I said last time I just
wanted to kind of have a a big broad conversation with you about um you know where we're at where we were where we're going um some specific topics like OPV which has come um our reserves. Just kind of a general
sort of overview of of the whole thing. And uh I know it seems like uh things are look pretty bleak when we talk about uh sort of forecasting and that that paper I sent
to you from MMA at the beginning of uh the fall. um sort of, you know, basically asking the question, how are communities even supposed to function without having to
cut services or go to a an override vote every 5 years? Um, so, uh, you know, I don't I don't want to I won't steal too much of Kim's thunder cuz, you know, she did all this nice work for us, but, um,
you know, the the the recap sheet, um, you you've obviously seen before, but the the the interesting thing that, uh, Kim Kim sort of provided us a projection with. Now again, we're we're sort of
assuming a status quo um with all of the assumptions that we make every year. And the reasons we the reason we make the same assumptions every year is we have the historical data to back it up. And you know, within a few percentage points, we always end up in a certain
place in a certain way. Um, and this just kind of shows that, you know, projecting out to 2032 that that I think the big thing to look at here is the the excess levy capacity, which parentheses are not good. That's
negative. Um, and uh, again, we have time to change what we're doing and how we're spending and and a lot of things can happen uh, and with a lot of these variables, but um, you know, there's not a whole
lot we can do outside of our projections unless we try to make some changes with what we're doing. And really the only thing that we have a little bit of control over here is is, you know, obviously
conservative budgeting and spending, but this this this new growth line item, and we've talked about it a bunch before, and I think, you know, these these initiatives about zoning and uh center town district and all these things are are sort of pointing at that line that
um we we've got this this sort of steady 500,000 uh growth number that we've been able to maintain miraculously with our residential development and our um you know businesses here and there.
But um you know this this is mainly to show that we really projecting out status quo. We really got to think about what are some of the strategies we can get on board with now so that we're not
having the cutting services conversation. We're not having the trash fee conversation and we're not having the override conversation. Um the the the two and a half is a real thing and
inflation and um our our spending it is although has come way down in the last couple years, it's hard to keep at that level. Um especially with health insurance and and retirement up over 10%
every year. Um these are these are driving our budget. they're driving everybody's budget. Um, and you know, thankfully, um, when when sort of this trend started, we were in a decent position with, um, our excess levy back in, uh, I
think we have some of that historical bad data back. I mean, we were back at what, 2.7 million in 2022 and 2023, which, you know, we've had to eat into uh, because of this. Uh we had um
some irregular budgeting uh in the to the tune of $2 or $3 million in our health insurance line item, which uh sort of has helped us stretch this this these dollar amounts across this many years. And again, uh, we're we're we're
still kind of in a spot right now where we look the same as we did last year, which is, uh, pretty miraculous, but again, we we keep getting there by taking our bare bones budget and skinning another layer off. And so,
we're we're getting to the point where we're sort of running out of that room, too. Um so again we talked we touched on a little bit last year with the uh you know finding some some additional revenue. Um the new growth is really the number that
that is is most influential influential. I think the problem with the other uh revenue and fees and these kind of things are it's the same group of people just paying in a different bill, right? So, um,
we we there's a lot to there's a lot to think about when you're when you're when you're looking at these numbers, and it's really hard to project, um, how you're going to sustain your spending all the way out to 2032. But, um, you
know, the these are the assumptions and this is sort of what it looked like. I just kind of wanted to give it a picture. I know we've been talking about and I'm sure you've heard it in the news how many communities have been going for overrides as of late. Uh and more
historically probably percentage- wise than than any other 10ear 5year period. But um anyway, this is I don't know if anybody has any questions on on that. Kim, did I uh do you want to add anything else? I'm sure. >> Feel like you always do such a great job
painting everything that there's not a whole lot that I need to add. >> Um, >> it's not nice. >> Just saying that she's got a whole list job. you touched on a lot of the points, but um I guess what the thing that I would
kind of focus on is our excess levy because we are, you know, in speaking to other towns and cities, we're we're kind of one of the few in this area that has any excess levy available. And there were a couple things, you know, um Tom
mentioned that we did have some excess budgeting uh when I first got here, which we've been slowly kind of dipping into to avoid digging into the excess levy um a ton. So, the other, you know, the other thing was back I think in like
2024, state aid went up about $2 million for us. So, that was another huge impact that helped the levy. And then, you know, last year we had targeted 1.4 million in excess levy so that we were only digging into it another 300,000 to
support the current budget. Luckily, we did have some um prior year growth, amended growth that we were able to go back and get. We had um kind of an increased amount of new growth due to subdivisions. So, our excess levy ended up at like 1.9 versus the 1.4 4 we
anticipated, which is a huge help going into this year because if you look at the draft level, um we aimed for 1.4. When we got our actual um requests in for level one or negative excess levy
and the majority of that was due to the fact that um you know the school's level budget is over a 6% increase. So, as we're view, you know, as we're reviewing everybody's budgets in level two, bringing, you know, the school back down
to that kind of 3% target that we're looking at for departments and school, that's the only way that we really get back up to 1.4 and you're still digging into excess levy um you know, half a million dollars in order to support
current budgets only at 3%. So I think that's the whole point of looking at the projection because every year if we just continue to do everything the same, don't make any changes. We have all the assumptions um you know that we currently have, you're looking at
digging into your excess levy 1.2 million, 1.4 million, 1.6, and it just progresses over time. So, I I think it just does a really good job of showing you this assumes 2.5% growth for these projection years for 2028 through 2032.
Um 2.5% on our levy is only $1.4 million. And that goes up a tiny bit every year. And then you're relying on 500,000 in growth. That's assuming we get it. If we don't get it, that's another hit to to to the levy. And then, you know, just the the only other thing
we have is taxation. Local receipts, state receipts, local receipts, they only go up maybe five, six% a year. We don't have a lot of options to increase them other than, you know, reviewing our fees, which we've done. Um, and then your, you know, your only other options
are to continue to reduce budgets, which we do every year. We look line by line. We sit down with the departments. We go through all their budgets. We've been able to reduce budgets, not cut budgets, we've been able to reduce them based on historical spending. So, we did have a lot of
turnbacks. There are a lot of departments that just aren't spending their money. So, that's helped us quite a bit. We've been able to reduce budgets over the past 3 years in order to prevent digging into our excess levy as much as we have. Um, but you know, if
you continue to do it, you're looking at overrides probably starting in like 2030, 2031, 2032. Um, there's, you know, there's always some other options that nobody wants to look
at. You know, a lot of towns don't have trash service. you know, they start to charge kind of a subsidized fee that allows, you know, the town to kind of keep a portion of their trash in the budget and then the fee covers, you know, the additional amount that the
budget can't support. I don't, you know, we're not there right now, but for the future, you know, those are some of the things that you look at. But the number one thing you look at is growth. How can how can we, you know, make some decisions that could help support growth
for the town so that, you know, we're continuing to grow and increase that levy. Um, is there anything that I missed? >> Oh, sure. >> Much like me, you talked for a while, but I I think you got everything. >> Okay.
>> Is there do does anybody have questions or I mean I know Let Kathy go first. I go first. >> It's up to Connor who goes first. Conor, I go first. >> I will start and just say that
>> thank you both for putting it together because I think year to year we're >> incredible detail. >> We're often so fixated on what next year's budget is that we kind of lose sight of what the projection is 5 years out. So this is helpful to kind of see the road that we're on and what we might
be able to change now instead of running into the catastrophe the year of. So, thank you. Um Kathy, we'll start with you. >> Um excuse me. Um just a comment to um Tom's um query that do we have any uh
thoughts about how we can do things a little differently. We can't control the utilities. We're at the mercy of all of the utilities. We certainly can't control um health insurance,
but I think one thing we can control is um how we going forward negotiate um bargaining contracts with all of our units. Uh and I you're you're
both a better guess at how many types of negotiation groups you have to work with. police, fire, school has several >> what town employees. >> Y they have two. >> Um in the past I think we your your
guideline was to stick around 2%. Am I saying that correctly? >> Yeah. The some of the contracts that are just expiring um we're at two and a half. Uh we're down to two at this point. I mean, we're still >> I think as unfortunate
>> last two contracts I've been to >> unfortunate as it is, I think we need to look at a leaner um parameter for negotiating. Um, unfortunately, we have a large
bargaining unit that did not adhere your to your recommendations or parameters, and that certainly cost a significant amount of additional funds. They're on the cusp of successor agreement. Um, I
would be very much in favor of directing them to be as lean as they possibly can because the um flip side for us is you just spoke about their the schools
um right now level service is still at six plus percent. um that's going to be impossible to adjust this year if there is a very um a successor agreement that exceeds um
the wishes of the finance team 6% looks like nine or 10 and so what is the alternative but to shave staff nobody wants to do that but the give back has to be somewhere else so I would
be much in favor of um looking at negotiating on the lean side. Every single one of our bargaining units um provides some very attractive benefits in not the least of which is of
subsidized health insurance, but attractive benefits in terms of incentive pay and other other things that um may be found in a lot of uh contracts. But what I guess I'm getting at is um this is not just an a a town
that has gives an hourly wage and then that's it, you go home, right? >> You have uh some very attractive um employment um benefits that um as much as it may not show in the weekly
paycheck, they're embedded. My dad used to say, "You can't eat hospital bills." So, you'd be glad you have an employer that provides you you with health insurance. So, that would be my two cents about You can take that two cents off the bottom
line. It'll be for free. >> It happens to be a nickel nut. There's no pennies, but >> That's right. Um I think that's a an avenue that has some potential for us to help hold the line.
Yeah, I I think that sentiment is is out there and being listened to. Um I think everybody that has a television set or a newspaper knows that this is a difficult time um when across >> the nation
>> AC everywhere >> and um you know it's sort of a be thankful for what we got kind of time. Um, and like Kim said, we are reducing budgets every year, but you know, most of that is on is on the
non salary side, so so to speak, right? Because we're we're seeing that spending, the the salary, those always get spent, right? But some of the the other line items don't get spent. So, yeah, I mean, um, we we it's a balance.
It certainly is, but I think um we've been talking about I'm going to get it wrong again. High impact, low cost. >> Got it. Uh just some things that we can offer that um are are those nice
benefits to to working for a community without without too big of a hit to the budget. >> Great. Thank you. >> Marilyn, >> hi. I just had a a brief comment about Kim,
what you said about um reducing budgets. People weren't spending money and we were able to do that. Does that make up was does that explain the negative 1.36% for town departments?
>> No, that's actually So, um >> that's what it says. I know. So, one of the things that we did cuz um we had the fire department go through their budget this year. Typically, what had happened with the
ambulance fund is they would just as as the ambulance fund started to um I guess as it was funded, they would just move a position into the ambulance fund and pay it through the ambulance fund. So, I had the um fire chief calculate a
percentage. How much time does someone spend in the ambulance? How much time does someone spend in the fire department? And then we broke the salaries down based on that. After doing that, we determined that the majority of the budget is actually the ambulance funds budget and the fire department
came way down um due to that. The only I guess the only concern would be the ambulance fund doesn't necessarily um produce enough funds to cover that entire budget. So, it's really what was happening in the past. You just had more
money sitting in the fire department that was being budgeted in the general fund and then you had less money in the ambulance fund. Now, you have less money being budgeted in the fire department, more being budgeted in the ambulance, but you still would need a subsidy from the general fund over to the ambulance fund to cover it. It just shows up in a
a lower line item on the recap as opposed to being in the budget. So, the budget does look like it's come way down. So, so this was we had a bunch of these conversations last year about the ambulance fund and and revenue, right? And so the exercise was well if if if
the number is not happening in the ambulance fund anyway, let's look at what an actual is because it's 2080 over there at best like 25 80 ambulance, right? And so if we're going to see what the actual number is, let's do the exercise and see what it looks like. Um
>> and now when you see the subsidy, you'll know this is the portion of the ambulance fund that um the town is actually subsidizing. >> Which makes sense. >> Yeah. >> That's sort of typical when you start an account like this, you you have this
this project this projection of where it's going to be with the revenue. But for the re reasons we talked about last year, that revenue just hasn't got there based on the information we had when the fund was started in 21 20 >> I don't remember when the ambulance fund
was started. Somewhere in there >> we we would have we should have been there already. But because of this split between the cost and what we're collecting for from a Medicare, we have to make up that difference. And that's that a lot of that that subsidy.
So, this is an actual picture of what work is actually being done by fire and ambulance. >> I appreciate that. I didn't want to see municipal departments just fade away. I mean, truly there, you know, when you go
to an override, people people support police, fire, and education. They don't often support municipalities because we send out the tax bills. So, and I just want to make sure that we're taking care of our people, too. >> Of course. Yep. >> And I I will point out this level two
budget is not complete. Um >> Sure. >> We still haven't met with a few departments and they're the larger departments. So, there still could be quite a few changes in that level two. >> Thank you. >> I do appreciate that split between the fire and ambulance compared to how it
was done in the past. Even though the town might end up contributing the same amount of money, it does make it easier to see where it's actually going as opposed to just kind of being lumped in to one bucket. >> Kind of arbitrary, right? Like it was just sort of making it look nice or half
and half or whatever. This is this is an actual portrayal, >> right? >> Ralph, your questions. >> You sure? >> I'm positive. >> I'm going to start with the ambulance. Um last year you had talked about we had
to have so much revenue, so much money sitting in there um that basically in the past what we had done is allocate um funding uh for it but that we needed X amount like a whole year salary
in order to move forwards. You need to have the entire budget that you're appropriating for the the following year in the fund >> and not the revenues that'll be coming in during the year to cover that. >> Are we there? >> So we >> last year we we switched money and all.
So we're at that point. Correct. >> So what we determined was that we could probably support about $2 million of the budget, but the budget is well over 2 million. So that's the amount of subsidy that's sitting in the
general fund on the recap sheet. >> So anything above that 2 million that we could appropriate from the fund would be basically be a transfer from the general fund into the ambulance fund. >> Right now that number is quite high because it's based on a request with a lot of overtime in it. Um I'm not sure
that that's where it will end up. Again, we have not met with um the fire department yet. >> And if I understand the ambulance fund correctly, we go on enough calls and if they were all private calls, the ambulance fund
would be turning a huge chunk of money back to the town. But because it's um subsidized Medicare um and what Medicare pays for us to go on a call is less than it actually costs us to go. Um
>> correct. So, >> which is 80% of the cost. >> I I would guess that when we have uh our senator come in and stuff that uh that would be a huge um place to start and to let them know that hey, at some point
you can't do this. And I guess it's not just for us. I mean, when you look at doctors and all, I mean, I get a bill and it's like, listen, if I have to pay out of pocket, it's $3,000, but because my insurance is paying, it's $287. Um, it seems like the same thing for the
ambulance, which just seems ridiculous to me. Um, but again, I rant. Nothing you can do about it at the moment. Um, we talked about health insurance. Um, I think the town offers like three different plans, don't they, in health
insurance and would it save four? >> And and again, I'm not saying it's going to happen anytime soon, but if we switched and basically offered one like most employers and say, "Hey, listen. We offer Health New England.
If you want the insurance, you take Health New England. Is that a savings to us?" Um, I mean, is like Blue Cross Blue Shield cost the town more per employee than what Health New England? And so if they all had to go on Health New
England, and again, maybe it's all new employees going forwards or something. And I'm only discussing um I just know most employers they offer a plan. >> So we're part of um >> Scantic Valley. >> Yeah. >> So I do you know the answer to that
question? >> Yeah. What I can tell you is without having any hard facts, you know, pulled from, I've looked at other municipalities in Scantic Valley on what it would look like to leave Scantic and
go to, say, you said Blue Cross Blue Shield. One of the biggest groups that we could go to for that would be the Maya um health trust and get our benefits through Maya. Their rates are just significantly higher. Um the trust has done a really really good job at
insulating the municipalities in it um as the costs have gone up. The trust was very lucrative through its years of investing and and built like itself a really good cushion and has then taken that cushion and and used it over the years to help subsidize some of the
drastic health insurance increases. So, we've seen significantly lower increases as members of Scantic Valley than other groups have. Um, the I think it's a Hampshire the basically Hampshire region version
of Scantic Valley um had increases in the teens last year that were um they're just and they're looking at it again. You know, we have to be part of a like a bargaining group for health insurance. So, it would really be GIC, their rates
are not any better. Um, it would be, you know, again, Maya and last I looked, their rates were were higher. Um and and we get, you know, we we have a good group in Scandic Valley where it's not too big that we're not being like overly
influenced by other um other groups ratings and things like that, but it's big enough that it allows us to kind of get that good benefit. I I we could always look at what rates would do. There's a lot of timelines for that. We wouldn't be able to do it right now. We'd have to start talking about that
maybe in August, September um to look at what rates could be for other years, but it I don't really think it would be a significant savings. >> So, just a follow-up question. I know Scantic Valley has been very good as far as cushioning us. Um but is that going
to catch up with us when they run out of money and all of a sudden are we going to get hit with a 27% increase one year? because all of a sudden now they they've been paying a portion and now there's no money there to pay it >> that would that would you're correct and that would >> so I mean again if we're going to look
out 5 years 10 years at what point do all of a sudden we get walloped one year and they say and we don't have anything all the money that we had in store we you saved here's your new rate you know $2,000 instead of the 700 you were
paying >> so what I will say about that. This year is the first year that what are we at? 11.2 >> 11.2%. >> Um it's the first year that they've actually started to um increase it a bit
more because I think over the past few years it was only 4% 0% I can't remember what it was 3 years ago but that was significantly lower than what it should have been. And this year it should have been about 17% and they did 11.2. So
what I will say is over the past few years we have been adding a cushion for that because we didn't want to see a 17% increase or a 20% increase. So this year when they said it would have been 17 we had anticipated at 18 they subsidized
it. So next year you know we'll do about 14% instead of 11.2 2 so that we will have a little bit of a cushion because with our cushion we're only looking at a 6 or 7% increase this year even though they're doing 11.2. So if we have that
cushion again for next year if those increases go way up >> right >> then we'll have that cushion. The you know the other thing is they do say that the GLP1s are the reason everything is going up so much and they did determine that we would not cover them going
forward. So that you know could be a help to those very large increases that we've been seeing. >> That's sort of why we've been insistent of budgeting more than >> right >> Scanic Valley has said what what it's going to increase so that when that
cliff happens we have a parachute. >> I didn't want to use that term. >> I know you I know you. And also I'll also just note the GIC right now is considering covering GLP1s and they have a couple different insurance plans. So they may be in a situation where they
could go up a lot more by covering that that item. >> Yeah. I just wanted to speak too to what you were asking about like singular plan versus multiple plans. >> Sorry you had to come up. >> Name an address for the record please.
Sorry. Um, so when you were asking about multiple plans and you know it this year Scantic Valley actually increased their plans based on what the providers were increasing. So Health New England was projecting the lowest increase. So they
are actually getting the lowest increase. We say it's 11.2. It's 11.2 overall but it's actually like 15% 15% 8%. So by having different plans, it gives different um experience ratings
for different providers and you end up having so we always have like Health New England is typically the less expensive plan um that we offer and then we offer a PO plan. Um, so having that variety,
it it helps us to be able to kind of have some plans that stay lower where if you only have the one, you're kind of putting all your eggs in one basket. >> And the one last thing I wanted to bring up is we've been talking about growth. Um,
if we're talking growth as far as new housing, uh, stuff like that, it also comes with an expense. Um, if you put that new house in and hey, yeah, we're going to get $18,000 a year in tax revenue, that's great. Except if they
have two kids in school. Um, now all of a sudden you're in the negative instead of the positive. So although it sounds great, let's get more money in growth, sometimes it actually hurts the town more than it helps the town. Um, again,
>> it's not created equal. >> You were to use that word of that right now. >> Know it's like the the the comment that comes up often, right? Like why do we have so many banks? >> Well, bank's not a bad business to have
in town, right? For for that reason. >> And I I think that's my point is we we don't have to look at just, you know, residential structures growth that way. I mean, some of the growth is our fiber optics. you know, if we get that going
and we get a 50% take rate, hopefully the revenue is more than the cost and hence that'll start contributing to the town. Um, I know we had talked about, you know, electric and stuff like that and if we can get in on a plan um to
help us offset some of those costs. So, I think there's multiple ways to do it, but it's hard to project it because >> I don't have a crystal ball, right? So, we do the best we can on a year-to-year basis, steering ourselves in the right direction.
>> Yeah. Because if we're if we're getting that 500,000 in new growth that we're budgeting, which we normally do, um that's what we've been doing, right? Subdivisions and housing and the occasional upfit of >> we just have a new tenant in Cardamund.
Um, you know, there's still places for to allow this development to happen. We we just need to look at if there's other places that we can change what we do to allow some more. But again, you're exactly right.
>> It comes at a cost. I mean, it comes plowing the streets, >> you know, taking care of everything. Uh, police having to do more calls. Uh, ambulance service doing more Medicare calls. Uh, like I said, so there's a cost to growth, too. And
>> you know, it looks great. Hey, 500,000, this is awesome. >> Except if it's costing you 600,000 to make that 500,000, it's not so good. Um, >> yes. >> Not in this line.
No, I think that's where you're right that there can be some kinds of growth that have costs, but there are others that would definitely be more beneficial to the town from that perspective. Like I would agree if if the only growth that we continued to have was single family home subdivisions. Like it's great for people
to live in, but it's a huge expense to the town cuz the town has to plow the streets, etc. Kids in school, all that kind of stuff. But other types of complexes like what we were talking about years ago, the mixeduse village thing, the town's not really responsible for nearly any of that. Mostly bringing
revenue into the town with very little town expense comparatively. So things like that could be advantageous. Um Marilyn, you had another >> So another comment or question. Nursing homes. How many do we have in
town? I some I thought someone said five. I can't name them. >> I know. I think there's actually six. >> Does that include assisted living? >> Is it cuz assisted living, I understand, is for profit. So, they pay taxes. >> Mhm. >> So, it would be the nursing homes that
are ex that can be exempt. Do do they do we have arrangements with them for a payment in lie of taxes? >> No, but we are looking into it. >> Oh, thanks. >> Um, >> again, not an easy time to go asking people for money, right? Uh but um we we
do have a a sort of list of calls to make. Uh that's sort of something that we we identified as an option. We do have plenty of um people on the pilot program. >> Okay. >> Um and so that that's something we we
have to look into. Yeah. >> And you know that goes along with ambulance runs. Um, you know, not everybody in a nursing home is on Medicaid. Um, however, many of them are.
>> And, you know, they're not paying any taxes and we're we're subsidizing or we're just sending, you know, we're taking care of their people, which is what we should do in terms of ambulance runs. But um I just wondered about um that
piece in terms of you know we lose money there, we're not getting any taxes from them and would be nice if we could negotiate something. >> Use that as a bargaining chip. We won't come pick up your people anymore. >> Yeah. I'm kidding. But thank you.
>> Y >> Oh, sure. >> I just had a quick question about the insurance. What's the percentage um of the town that that the town picks up versus the employee? >> 7030. >> 7030. Okay. >> And then >> 5050. It
>> was a good segue. >> Uh retirees are 5050 after they get to Medicare age, >> right? Which is 65. >> Um >> so they're 7030 still prior to that. So that was our conversation earlier and
sort of this this OPED letter that Kim um gave us for tonight was we were wondering the the the cost for our retirees benefits is almost $2 million and we have you know what what's the number
what's our balance in OP >> 15.7. >> So we were trying to figure out >> we have in there. >> Yeah. So, we were trying to figure out when it's advantageous to use that money because it's for current and future liability. And obviously, we have current liability and it's almost $2
million. And so, we were trying to figure out if there's a way to, you know, not use all that money obviously because we want to continue to grow that until we're at the 100% liability. But this letter sort of states that it's not really a good idea until you're at 70%
of your liability, which what do you say, 30 years? We'll be at 64.14 in 30 years >> at at doing what we're doing >> 100,000 a year. >> Yeah. Doing what we're doing right now. Right. Right. Right. Um >> right now we're been adding roughly
100,000 a year. That's what they're basing it on. >> Right. And the last >> more than that in the past we've put in a million here, a million >> that's included. So when they do the analysis, they look at everything you've >> liabilities keep going up in cost too.
Every year >> insurance goes up. >> So does that, right? I mean, sorry. Go ahead. >> No, no, no. Um, so when they do the analysis, they take what your current balance is, any additional money you put in. Right. So that includes anything you've done additional in the past. What
we did last year, I think we did an extra five or 600,000, something like that. Um, and this assumes all of that and then it assumes we put in 100,000 a year going forward and it assumes how much we will earn in the fund. So
there's it's already accounted for all of the earnings. It's already accounted for our $100,000 policy. That would bring us to the 64 in 30 years. Um, that's why and we do have we have an
OPED draft policy at this point. We don't have an approved one, but in that policy, I think it's a really good idea um to include, you know, that we'll do the 100,000 annually. If we can do more, if we have free cash that we can put in
there, we should totally do that. We want to get to this point as quickly as possible so that we can not have to rely on the general fund to support um the retirees. And then you know the other thing that you can do there there is this large amount which I can't get a
really good number for and I don't want to give you a number until I have I know exactly how much it is but there is a portion of our payment that goes to the retirement um every year that is funding our unfunded liability that is supposed to stop in 2037
I think um >> right around the corner. >> Yeah, right around the corner. It's not that far. Um, so that's supposed to stop that's supposed to stop in 2037. And at that point, all that extra money that's currently in our budget, we could include in our policy that would we would take a portion of it or all of it
and start putting it into the old PB fund so that we could just could get to that finish line quicker. It's, you know, some towns already have it in their policies. Um, you know, we don't have to say we're going to do 100% of it, but I think it's
a good thing to have in the policy. That's one that would be interesting to me because I I thought it was a neat idea up until seeing that we shouldn't do that sort of thing until we get to >> a higher percent. Um,
but I wonder if this would be similar to the discussion we had about 382 North Main, like if we if we were to chase funding OPED too hard, are we spending a lot of money in the interim just to try to save $2 million in the future when
the time value of that money over the 30 years now is much more beneficial to do with something else? >> Yeah, I mean, it's a good it's a good comparison for sure. And this liability is only going to go up. >> Right. >> Right. So we we really don't have a
choice to stop. >> We don't have a choice to stop. But I suppose I personally wouldn't be in favor of making it more than we need to or taking excess money when we could use that to support the levy gap that we >> Well, you don't really want to support
the >> I know, but you know what I mean. Yeah. Although there's other places. Yep. No. And again, this is the whole balancing the budget, right? That that we have that this is the point of this whole conversation is there's all these
things to look at and depending on which lens you're looking at it through. Yeah, that seems like a good idea, but you're you're lo it's got to all even out at the end. Um, but since we had brought it up, we just wanted to make sure that we hit on this
OPAB and that, you know, even though we uh are high up on all the lists for where where where we're supposed to be funded percentage-wise across the state, we're not at a point where we can start chipping away at our current liability in the budget or we shouldn't is is sort
of the advice, right? We we can do whatever we want. Um, but I think other than the fact that it would take us away from the finish line a little bit, that's not something that uh lenders want to see you doing with
your fund. >> At the very least, you want to be following your policy. And if we start taking funds out, all of the assumptions are they know what our interest should be. They know what our investment income should be. Those are in our those are in
the assumptions here and they're in our policy. So doing doing it at this point wouldn't um be it wouldn't be recommended. >> Sense. >> Sure. So, if I read this correctly, our
liability went from 65 million down to 60 million based on retirees and what they're taking and stuff like that. >> So, that's good news. That's $5 million. >> Um, and we have 15 million in it. So, we're only talking 45 million,
>> right? >> Just Yeah. Just just putting it out there. I it it's actually um when we started looking at it, it's actually better, you know, with the percentage where we're at than most of the towns in
the Commonwealth. Um but I do I I I appreciate this because it gives us a heads up as far as Yeah, you really shouldn't be taking any money out right yet. Um what did they say? 2081. If we're taking money out and it would run out. Did you
say 2081? >> I think that's what it said in the way. >> I don't think I've got that about that. >> Yeah. If we if we did what we want to do, >> but that timeline gets pushed out. >> Yeah. >> Something, right?
>> Yeah. Something like that. It was >> which I mean Esau met is still going to be here point, >> right? True. We have to do our part to to make sure this keeps heading towards 100%.
>> At least 64%. Seriously, it would be nice to hit 64% and be the first one in the state to be able to actually say, "Hey, this is the tipping point." Um, but again, we're talking a huge amount of money. It's not like we're going to be pulling that out in the next few months.
>> Yeah. And years. And again, uh, our investments have done very well. Um, that's not a guarantee. Um, but, you know, if it continues to perform like that, it's just going to be on a larger balance every year. So, um,
you know, maybe we'll be a little more fortunate and we see this kind of growth in this account, um, for the next few years. My only final comment is I think there's um avenues within the budget um
and within contracts and all that we have to actually look at um you know and it may be down the road um not right away or anything but we may have to look like a um you know private company where hey you know what we can't afford 7030
anymore for health insurance um starting at such and such a point we cut back to 50/50. Um, again, these are just >> different items down the road. Um, >> I mean, there there's got to be other ways. I mean, like you said, um, Kathy,
with the school, um, I think our net school spending was what, 70 70%, 73%. Um, >> I don't remember the percentage off hand. >> 73.2 I believe it was. Um, but when you with that, you have to look. I mean, I I
we constantly get bombarded with our residents. We pay a lot in taxes. What are you doing with our money? Where's it going? And when you tell them, well, the school's taking 70%. And you know, within the other 30, we're doing capital projects. We're running the town. We're
running the DPA. And they don't want to hear that. Um, >> well, and then >> they want their roads fixed and they want everything else done, but they also want us to spend money on education, the kids, and it's like, hey, it only goes so far.
>> Well, that was part of the other conversation here was there's there's other things that we really have to do to be financially responsible as a community. And yeah, that's not a sidewalk or a road, but it's really important that we do this. And it's it's
a it's a necessity, right? I mean um so so thanks for starting the OPED conversation. We were really this was my so when I read the MGL and it said current and future liability I immediately was like current to me seems
like the current year. >> Can we try to shave some of this off the uh the general fund budget? But um we can but it doesn't seem like that is a prudent move at this point. I appreciate you researching it though,
leaving no stone unturned. >> Trying not. >> Yeah. Um and then I think um we had sort of a we wanted to sort of let you know about a
it's not really changing a policy but sort of a little bit of a pivot in terms of um what we want to keep in uh well stabilization is always been 8% um which we've hit um and we're we're
over and So, um the free cash piece of that was between the policy says between free cash and um stabilization should be around 13%. No less than 13 which left 5% in free cash and we um because of the
position we're in um want to want to keep a little more in free cash. One um it's it's revenue for the general fund. whatever whatever that free cash makes goes into the general fund whereas OPED and stabilization those stay in their funds.
>> Um and also um we've been doing um we've been doing a fair share of borrowing from ourselves for short-term borrowing. Um and we'd like to continue to do that because we're not paying any interest on short-term notes. Um, and we can do that if we continue to keep our balances
where they're at, um, to borrow money from ourselves before we go out to borrow to borrow. Um, it's really it's it's going to save us a ton of money in the long run in terms of, um, interest payments. So, um, again, no real change
to that policy because free cash is at least 5%. Um, so we we I think we're going to try to do an eight and eight. So, so um to to give us a little more uh cash flow so we can we can do that
borrowing from ourselves. Um I think I just wanted to have a further discussion about I I had some thoughts on um the remainder of that free cash that we have sitting there is like 11 and a half. I I don't want to get the numbers wrong. Is it
somewhere 116? >> Uh we have 116. um >> we retain 6.3, you'll have about 5.3 available. >> So, we're we're talking about putting 5.3 uh into the into the community in some way, shape, or form. And and uh the
way I've broken that down in my head is uh about a million and a half towards specific paving projects for next year. Uh $2 million. And again, I I need to figure out we're not at the finish line yet, but $2 million for fiber. Um start
the the the roll out of that plan. Um what else we have on it? We there's certainly an OPED um >> oped >> contribution at some point I think is is a really good idea. Um >> capital stabilization, >> put some money in that capital
stabilization fund. Again, we we the the policy doesn't necessarily require um a budgeted amount going in to that every year, but I think when we have money, we should put some money in there. >> Oh, um the Maple Shade roof. Um we had
uh we had the MSBA uh money um uh or was that is that meeting tomorrow? That meeting is tomorrow. So, we'll find out tomorrow. uh we'll assume M MSBA is on board. We had the 800,000 uh from uh other
projects that we already borrowed for a school and then was it 700,000ish uh would would put that project uh to bed. Um um and since we have the money um in free cash, I I think it's probably a
good idea instead of borrowing 700,000 when we go borrow everything else. So um >> 250 Uh oh. Just I'm earmarking some some I'm telling you this obviously there's no votes in front of you tonight. Um but I'm I'm sort of maybe expecting that
there could be next meeting. Um but I want to hear your thoughts on it. We we have some money set aside for um the 250th. We haven't uh put anything in that account that we created by the GL. Um, we we we we keep having this
conversation every year about our our budgets that um have um anomalies from year to year. And this year we're looking at um the election account um and whether or not we want to
um budget for multiple elections in any given year just for that budget to come back down the following year. meaning it's a a pseudo one-time expense that happens every four years, so to speak. Um, but rather than mess with the
budget, we can sort of pay for those costs of a state election um with with our retained earnings, with our with our free cash. This is this is a a new one this year. I don't we're still in the budget process. I don't know if that's
actually going to be uh how it goes down. Um but that was part of our thought process. We we're trying to not um we're just we're trying to not tax for this expense that will not be there the
following year. Um we we had this conversation and it hasn't happened yet when it first came up with um the assessing budget because they do the full every fifth year and so that budget jumps like 60 grand which is a tough hit
especially in a year like this when $60,000 makes or breaks somebody's budget. Um, so that's the thought process there is is trying to keep these budgets as level as possible so that we can plan them out and if we need to pay more for multiple
primaries and elections, we can do so um with our bank account. Yes. >> Could with with elections if if there's an estimated amount that you would expect for Yep. um an election and you divide it by four years or however many
years, is there a way to encumber that money for one year, you know, it's and then so that the total of the four would be the cost of one election. >> Yeah. We we'd end up rolling it back because it wouldn't get spent in the year that there wasn't >> and then we'd budget it again. We'd >> in the account so you don't have to
budget. >> It's the same function, >> right? >> Right. It's the same It's the same. We're either >> can't do that. >> We're either not budgeting it. so that we're not taxing everybody on it and then paying out a free cash >> or budgeting it and rolling it back to
free cash just to budget it again. >> So So there's you're not taxing everybody the full amount every year. >> Does that make sense? >> That's what she's saying. I think >> Yeah. But 25% over a four year. So each year you pay 25% and it just rolls in
free cash and then you pay for it on the fourth year. >> You guys are saying the same thing. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I thought you were asking if you could keep rolling it over the four years so that it would be available, >> you know, from election to election.
But, um, I, you know, if you know what your costs are going to be and and you're budgeting something for one year that you don't use, if you could put it in a reserve account or something for that purpose.
>> Oh, election stabilization fund. Ding. Please, no. You know, >> these are all good thoughts because we we for most of this stuff, we've just done things the way we've done things >> and there's other ways to think. There's other ways to do this stuff. We we have
been uh last year was the first year we took it out. We've been budgeting a primary for a local election since you became a council. >> Yep. >> Never used it. Never used that money. So, every single year >> once first year. >> The first year. Sorry. you know that
>> the first year you're you're absolutely correct there was 30 something right >> 32 >> so but after that >> didn't use it once so we said why why do we continue to budget for this when in all likelihood it's not this will be the year it happens obviously um >> year
>> they have plenty of free cash >> the these this is this is a good thought process because you don't have to keep doing things the way you have always done them there's other ways to to look at it Um, and this was a an attempt to
sort of remove things out of the budget and we pay for these costs with free cash. Again, I don't know if that we still have a bunch of departments to go through. So, I don't know if we need to take it out of Jackie's election budget yet. I just we
keep doing it's like every other year we're we're trying to figure out what we're budgeting in that account and I want to try to find a way to make it so so we can project it out. Um the did I miss anything on that list? >> Uh the free cash.
>> Yeah. >> No. >> All right. Um but again I'm I'm sort of I'm I'm all ears. Um that that that's a pretty sizable chunk of money from a couple years of rollbacks. Obviously, we've invested very well with our
borrowing. Um, we we have to make sure that we I guess another reason to to not spend it all right now is um we do have one more ratings call in August for for the last borrowing for the school. And so we we just want to make sure we're we're
still in that good very solid financial position when we borrow one more time. Um, so but again, if we're at eight and eight, we're we're in great shape. And we had more than we had last year. I think you remember us saying there was a couple of parameters that we had to make
sure we kept our eye on so that we we didn't lose our rating. Uh we didn't have to answer too many questions that we just answered in November. Um so again, that those are some of my thoughts. I don't know if anybody um has any other thoughts on
spending money >> or not. Ralph. >> So, the capital stabilization uh fund, if you read it, it says yes, we should have 8% in there. >> It also says that we >> capital or the stabilization,
>> just the regular >> sorry, regular stabilization. 8% um is what's listed, but it also says that when you use any money out of it that you shouldn't go below 8%. which would tend to mean that we need more than 8% in capital stabilization if
something else is going to come up. And what do we have in there now? I thought we said right around 8%. >> We have uh we 6.7 million target would be 6.3. So we're like 350 over budget
>> which means that's target >> which means we can only use 350,000 out of that, >> right? But what's our what's the revenue on that account up to January? The revenue up to January is 332,000. >> So we're actually at almost 700,000 over the thing. But
>> but wouldn't it make more sense to have additional monies in there that we can use when we need it and not drop below that 8%. >> Well, that's we can use free cash for that. >> The problem with free cash is from July
1st to October 1st, you can't use it, >> right? So hence the reason with the free cash if you have it it should go into different stabilization accounts or used for projects or whatever. >> So I think I think the point would be >> otherwise we have a fund here of money
just sitting there and we can't really use it because if we do use it it's going to affect our bond rating because we're going to drop below to 8%. So there's really no money in there. >> Yeah. To be used. >> It's a combination of the reserves. But again, I think the point is if in the event that you have to use your
stabilization fund, which would only be for an emergency, >> right? >> You need to get back up there post haste, right? That that's the policy. That's what it says. >> So, if you have money, maybe you don't put it into OPED, you put it back into stabilization to get back up into
policy. Does that make sense? >> I I understand what you're saying. I don't think of extra funds like that. I think of a stabilization fund. Hey, an emergency came up and we've got an extra million dollars in that fund to to use
because we've thought ahead and put it in there. >> Where this is basically, hey, use it, but guess what? Next year you had better tax like crazy because you got to make up all that money. >> So, I I think it's I think the way to look at the stabilization fund is it's kind of a disaster fund, right? I mean,
if something if something terrible happens and we need an excessive amount of money, you would be able to use that fund. The policy just states that you're going to put 100,000 in there until you reach your target. So if you did have to utilize a portion of that fund because
of an emergency, you would just continue to keep putting 100,000 in there until you reach that target again. >> Understood. But how's that going to affect us when someone looks at us for bond rating and hey, you've used all this money. >> Hey, you're not looking too good
anymore. You know, the hope would be that if you're putting another 6 to 700,000 in this fund every single year from interest, you're you're going to you're going to be well above that 8%. I know the target moves because your budget moves. Um, but I think that's
something we have to evaluate on an annual basis, >> right? Um, and then you know once we get up even a little bit further past that 8% you know you can always create a policy that states a portion of the interest that's earned on the fund we'll use for onetime expenses transferred
over to something else use it for something specific. Maybe not right now because you only have 350 over but soon >> or when you get up there you switch it to capital stabilization fund something on that idea. sort of there's no reason
to get to 14%. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Or it could even be like if one fund >> now has an excessive amount over the target, any extra interest goes to one of the other funds that's below a target or something, >> right?
>> Yeah. >> You want to vote? >> There's a lot of moving parts in it. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Yeah. Yep. >> And sorry, Connor. Um, >> am I under the assumption if we vote to move the free cash and use it here or
there and something comes up in six months, we can always change and say, "Hey, I know we set it aside for this. We're no longer going to use it for that. We're going to use it over here." >> I'm sorry. What did you want to do? >> The answer was yes.
No, I mean you can't take the money out if we put some oped, right? That's sort of what we were just saying. We're not touching that, >> right? >> In case of a >> catastrophic event. >> Yep. >> Can you borrow from your money that's
sitting in OPAD? >> No. >> Can you borrow against it? >> No. You No. >> Are you sure? Please check into that because from what I understand you can um it's your money
sitting there. If you need to borrow against it, you're actually able to. Um that's what I understood um through a conversation with another gentleman. Um but >> I but it is but I'm talking catastrophe.
>> Yeah. I mean >> something break the glass. >> Exactly. Let's hope >> let's hope we never never >> Let's hope we don't get past our 8% stabilization fund. >> That goes quick. >> Yeah. >> So, like you might be talking about the internal borrowing where they basically
take your stabilization fund balance, your free cash balance, and then they determine that you can borrow from yourself, which is what we kind of talked about. But I didn't think OPED was listed on there. I thought it was just general stabilization and your free cash. But I will double check. Yeah,
>> the pub should be listed on there, >> especially for us cuz we >> and then >> pretty good in there. >> Uh the the last sort of moving part with the budget and another reserve fund, unfortunately, it won't last very long,
but um there's going to be a energy credit revolve >> uh stabilization >> stabilization fund. So, the new high school um had had some estimate of uh a
$600,000 electric bill per year, 100% electric building. We won't have PV on top of it when it opens. Um and so we want to offset um the money that we got for rebates for building the school all electric from grid, which is 1.3.
>> Uh thank you, Kathy. Uh, and we want to put that in account and use that money to offset the bill until PV comes online, not not the whole increase because that just is going to create a hole in the budget, but we can expect
30% from the solar. And so we'd like to use that money to fund that 30% until it comes online and then we can put that whole rebate uh into the general fund uh and and sort of cancel that account. But
>> and it usually takes upwards of a year before they go go live with it. >> Yeah. Yeah. At least. And and that that timeline could be a year or 18 months. Again, we we're only budgeting for uh nine months of a school year in 2027 uh
because the building won't come online till September. So, we're trying to sort of calculate that out and figure out um to use some of that money from the rebate to to offset that electric bill. So, it's not this huge increase that I know that sounds bad. We also had a
$300,000 gas bill at the high school, which is obviously going away now. So, or most of it is going away. Um, so the the offset is really only like 300 and then we'll we'll take out um whatever we expect to generate at at the at the PV
um and and use that money with with your blessing obviously, but um we we can't handle that much of a jump in in that budget um when we know we should be receiving that benefit from the from the solar. So,
>> the warehouse, any chance that we will have that in terms of tax revenue in the future? >> No comment. >> Okay, I hear you. >> That's a shame. >> Yeah, >> we'll wait to see how it plays out.
>> Oh god. >> Okay, everything else. >> Good discussion. >> Under stabilization and reserves. >> Thank you. >> We've got compensated absences reserves at 104%. Being that we've reached uh 100% are we
actually using that fund to >> Yes. So when somebody leaves and we pay out vacation or when um when somebody leaves at the school if there's a retirement bonus something like that those come out of that fund. >> So we are reusing it. >> So yeah. So we continue to replenish
that at $75,000 annually. >> Okay. Thank you. Great. >> Thank you. >> I have more. I'll talk to you later in the week. >> I think I think that pretty much covers all of it. Thank you.
>> Yeah. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. >> Very thorough. >> Anything else from everyone on the budget or the free cash? >> Yeah, I jumped agenda items on you. Sorry. I mean, I think overall on the recash
side, I think I'm mostly in general agreement with most of the projects. I would question one personally, but the rest of the the other four that you mentioned, I think sound like the same sort of goals we've been talking about for a while. So, those make sense to me.
The only thing I would say as far as you mentioned um doing roads, um I would like to know what roads and at what cost. >> Yeah. >> Instead of I mean in the past we took out a bond to put into uh sidewalks.
Yeah. >> And at least when I put it forwards, the thought process was, hey, we can get a lot better deal on concrete and asphalts if they've got a $1.2 $2 million, you know, budget and we can have, you know,
20 sidewalks or miles done or whatever. And instead, they just took the money, put in an account, and they're slowly taking it out, which >> completely went against what we were thinking. I mean, our thought process was use it all right away, get all of
these done, and then we'll slowly pay for it with the 75,000 a year that we're setting aside. and it just didn't work out that way. So, I think the only way to combat that is to say, yeah, we'll allocate, you know, 1.5 million to do
these roads. >> So, I sorry, go. >> I was going to say that was something that Tom and I have been talking about at length, too. And yeah, cuz previous years we would just say, oh, you know, if we got, you know, 900,000 in chapter 90 funds, but then we'll add an extra
half a million, but we never really knew what it was >> going towards or it never did enough of a stretch to make progress. But >> if we're going to allocate extra money, it'll be because we know we can do this entire segment and this is what it's going to for. >> That that perfectly said that that was
the direct. So, instead of putting a request in for a nominal amount of money for paving, um, I've asked Mark to put together, um, an actual project with an actual estimate that will be
added to the capital plan. >> Perfect. >> Good job. >> Great minds think alike. >> Yeah. Great job. >> Okay. If there's nothing else on the budget, we will move to approval of our minutes from February 10th.
>> I approve to move the February 10th, 2026 open session minutes. >> Second. >> Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. Opposed? Passes. >> Next, under old business, we had the
250th anniversary recurring topic. Um, I know an idea that I got thrown out at a I forget which meeting a couple meetings ago. Um, was having like the same sort of shirts for, you know, like the council and town manager and that sort of thing. Um, but before I looked into
it, did anyone have any preference on what those might look like? Are we thinking like a polo shirt kind of thing or >> hockey sweaters? USA. >> Team USA. >> I like the polos personally. Um,
>> but you know, whatever the pleasure of. >> Yeah. Okay, I'll look into that. >> I mean, I thought we should get sashes, but I guess >> guys wear shirts. >> Or you guys could wear >> I'm not kidding. I'm fine. >> Polo is fine.
>> All right. I will look into that. >> Wear tuxedos. >> Yeah, >> that'll be the one day it's 102 degrees. That's right. >> Exactly. >> I don't know if you had anything. I I don't have anything really concrete to add. We are meeting uh Thursday morning uh so I can have a little bit more of an
update. Um um the group is sort of uh reassembled uh so to speak and uh it looks like we've got a timeline pretty much all set and we're going to start uh you know doling out tasks and advertising and the
whole thing. But like I said, we're we're going to meet uh Thursday morning uh and I will update you next time. Perfect. Thank you, Tom. >> Nice. Very nice. >> And next under old business, we had the transfer station waste oil tank replacement. This is something that we
had talked about number of meetings ago. And I think you have an update for us, Tom. >> Yep. Um, so we ended up getting some um, uh, as luck would have it, uh, uh, our the budget meeting with DPW was
yesterday and they were out doing something else. I don't know. they all canceled on me. Um, so, uh, I don't know where this sits in their budget submitt. Um, however, this is the cost of replacing that tank.
Uh, I think in Bruce's email to me, um, depending on the size obviously that we'd be looking at an additional whichever tank we decide, uh, an additional four, four or five grand for
uh, concrete uh, a concrete slab. >> Yeah. >> Stairs, signage, uh, B is going to have a lot of input on what needs to be on this, what needs to be around it, what can't be around it, this kind of thing. So, um, again, we we we realize that
it's been there forever and that it's provides a service to the community. Uh, the the thought was, um, it's a little bit of an environmental liability even though it's on a landfill. Um, but like everything else, the the regulation of
the D has caused some of those operational costs to rise, inspections, this kind of thing. So, um I just wanted to make sure everybody was either for or against putting it back um before we spent the money to do it because again
it is a bit of a a liability um and and work for DPW to handle D. >> Yes. >> Two things sorry the two things come to mind. Um the first one is if we don't
have it what are they doing? What are our residents doing with the I mean are they dumping it somewhere? Is that become environmental? You know, >> this is this is the conversation we had with the dump pass and everything else, right? If you if you out if you price people out of a place, they're going to go somewhere else and do something with
it, which is not good. Uh almost everywhere you can buy oil, you can bring oil. So that there for for most of us, if I change the oil of my car in my driveway, I can bring that old oil to Napa when I buy oil, >> right?
>> I don't change my own oil. Uh I don't have the skill set for that. >> Um >> anybody now with these cars, >> it would be easier probably to get rid of your oil at the dump,
>> right? In terms of that operation being an potential environmental hazard, I would think that there might be some way to contain the area >> so that that would if there was a spill that it would be within a certain Yeah.
>> that should help offset that. >> Yes. And I think the the from the conversation from last time, I think it's a lot easier to pour oil into these things than the one we had. Uh we had a bad setup in an old building and you know trying to pour a five gallon pill
you know down a candy cane. Uh so again it's not so much that we're worried about a big huge spill in an old tank like the old one. It's just that it's one more thing that will be regulated that we will have to have
inspected and it will just be an operational cost. Now, albeit we've always had it because we've always had one there. So, we're not adding cost. I just it's it's become a bit of a a difficult thing to deal with D up at the
at the dump. And so, we before we put this back, we want to make sure that everyone's on board. That's all. >> Is it operational now? >> No. >> No. We took it out um after the spill, right? So they found I guess the the
tube disconnected from the actual tank. >> So when you were pouring in it wasn't going into the tank. It was going into the concrete >> containment area. >> Landfill. >> No, the containment area. I mean run TV. So how >> I know I No, of course not. And it was
cleaned. It was tested and cleaned that the whole site was cleaned up. That was the >> How long operational? >> Oh man. >> Yeah. It was the >> February 14th. >> Yeah,
>> the year to the death. >> 25. Yeah, we're close. >> 24 years. >> One year. >> 24. >> We came up with the date we found it. But >> it was the Zoom meeting. You were in the conference room. >> So that probably
>> So that might have been two years. >> So the whole thing was is at that time we were under the assumption that we were working towards putting a new one in, right? Hence, when I see uh a revised proposal, >> um it makes me believe that we already
received a proposal on the cost of this and it never got to the council to approve. Right. >> So, >> um >> is anybody missing this? >> I hear I hear from a lot >> except for Ralph. >> I hear a lot of people. Yeah,
>> you just went up on our stickers for the transfer station and you >> took away this and you're taking away that and now you're charging for this and that and >> Okay, I'm just >> Well, that's what I'm saying is it seems like we're going up on the price and we're taking away services which stinks.
>> Okay. >> Y >> um I do have a couple questions though. What size was our existing tank that we >> That I I'd have to look back on, but >> and do we have any idea of how often that tank was emptied? Do we need the
larger tank? Would the smaller tank work? Um, >> yeah. The this this would have all been questions I would have asked Bruce if it was in his >> and that's why when it's on LCAT, you'll be able to remember these questions. >> Yes. Um, so the question becomes, do we
need the large tank? Right? Th this would this would undoubtedly be an increase in Bruce's budget. Therefore, we'd have a big conversation about why this line item went up. And so why why do we want I know they don't
want it, but if we were to do it, is this tank do we need a bigger one than we had or a smaller one? So that that's the other part of the the environmental piece is we don't have we're not testing the oil before it goes in there,
>> right? >> It gets tested when they haul it away. And if it's like the rest of our dumpsters, people throwing stuff in there that is not okay. >> You don't pay the price per gallon to get rid of it that we thought we were going to.
>> So if it's contaminated oil, then we end up paying more for that. Again, >> that >> it's hard it's hard it's hard for us to know if I walk in with a substance in an oil container. You just assume that I'm
dumping oil in there. >> Is there a leness test? You can dipstick. >> Yeah. Could we look back at prior years though since we would have had to have been doing that to see what our actual disposal cost does? >> Yep. >> That's what I was asking. Yeah. Yeah, >> cuz if it's still a reasonable amount,
>> I think it's still a valuable service. But if we find we were spending hundreds of thousands of this, then >> and it guards against people not going back to Napa or wherever, >> right? >> And just taking matters into their own hands and dumping it somewhere,
>> right? Which we don't want. We of course we don't want. And again, >> we have no way to measure that. This is not a a question of I think we've talked about this enough to know that the dump the transfer station, excuse me, does not make money. We we even though we
went up and for $10, we're offering more of a service to the community than they're paying for. This is just another example of that. So, it's not about saving money. Certainly, uh if there's enough people and it sounds like the the the the input is we really liked that
service, we want it back, we'll put it back. it. We're still in the red at the transfer station whether it's there or not. >> So, one of my other questions is does the DPW still use their waste oil burner
for heat? Have you ever used any of the waste oil we've collected for the heating of >> So, no, because the waste oil burner is permitted by DP and that all has to be tested before it's burned. And if it if
more than the parts per million is burned in there, so they're not going to take people used to leave oil outside the the garage doors thinking that we took it. Can't burn that cuz I don't know what's in there, right? >> And if we are outside of our permit for any reason, then the town of Islam gets
fined. >> So what are they using in their waste oil burner? We're not purchasing oil. >> No. Whatever. When they do all the oil changes to all the fleet >> to the fleet. >> Yep. And they'll burn that oil. >> And that that was my They know that that
Right. Exactly. They put it in there. They took it out. Oil is taken away and they have to test it to see if it's contaminated or not. Is there anyone that can test it on site? >> Well, this is this would be an added cost, right? >> I'm just saying. >> No, I I get it. >> They test it and the oil is good and you
got 396 gallons instead of >> Right. >> And again, I'm just trying to think outside the box. I hate to pay someone to take it away if we can burn it and keep our DTW workers warm. >> Most of it, this is like the the whole
trash conversation. Most of it cost this much to haul away, but somebody put one Coke bottle and now the whole thing costs this much to take away. So again, we I guess I'll get more information on what we've been paying
from from the transfer station to to maintain this whole process. >> And maybe I didn't get all the information or hear all the information when Bruce was explaining this is an environmental nightmare. Maybe he didn't mean cleaning this up as a pain in the butt. It's actually costing a lot of
money, right? So, uh, I I think I think what I'm hearing is, uh, we should put this back. >> And >> that's what I'm hearing. >> Thought occurred to me when when we have those, uh, annual hazardous waste days
collection. >> Was uh, motor oil one of the things you could you could drop off? >> I don't know. I don't. >> Did you? Okay. So, it'd be interesting to know. Um, of course, I know it's
regional, so it wouldn't just be, >> wasn't it last time over in Minog at Minich High School or whatever? >> We did one in town at the fire department. >> Fire department back over the summer >> and it's scheduled >> the summer again. We had to we had to schedule it like the next day to get a
July date. >> Oh, wow. >> Yeah. Like nobody does this anymore. So So the the prices are astronomical. It'd be interesting to know what portion of the drop offs >> was oil versus >> Yeah. >> paint or whatever.
>> So, they paint. >> They basically on that day uh were taking unlabeled liquid. >> Yeah. >> Cuz I brought some of that. >> Mhm. >> Uh because it says on the thing everything had to be labeled. >> Well, they took it. >> Triton. Triton. Triton. Whatever. Sorry.
Maybe I didn't. Uh I Yeah, >> it does say it on there because I've got stuff at my house that I'm like, I don't know. The label came off and >> so maybe there maybe there's a solution to to testing at least some of the oil.
Again, this >> again, I don't know. >> Yeah, this is this this will be >> question. >> This will be either, you know, cost whoever's taking this away or or some sort of supply chain for our guys to test oil. And maybe that even makes the case for
the smaller of the tanks because then there's less risk of contamination >> making the cost higher. >> Okay. >> But again, part of my concern was if we can't get a hauler to come in on a regular basis and pump it out and use it,
>> then you need the bigger tank to hold it. >> Yeah. >> But I think there's just more questions. >> Yes. I I think I it seems to me that that that this is a something that should be at the station or put back. It was already there. If if you think that enough people have
reached out to say we liked having this option, you just cranked our rate up, you know, 20%. Uh we we'd like to drop our oil off there if we can. That that that's not a reasonable thing to say that that was
already a perk of having a dump pass. So, um, let me make sure that there's some >> crazy costs >> that that were that I didn't gather from Bruce's argument.
>> Great. >> Thank you for the update, Tom. >> Thanks, Tom. >> Yep. >> Created more questions. >> Well, hey, that's what happens. >> Okay. Next under new business, we had a discussion on the April 19th, 2024
police department investigation report. Uh so this was something that I had brought up at our last meeting under the announcements that we would have this discussion. Um which in part had stemmed from the article that had been reported on this
report that had been conducted. And we wanted to both from the council perspective ask and answer questions but also questions that as the council had heard from the public try to share some answers at least to questions that we can talk about publicly anyway at this
time so that everyone has the same set of facts and understanding around the matter. Uh so thank you to everyone on the council for submitting your questions to myself. I had shared those with Tom and he had then kind of compiled them all and put some answers
together for each of those. Um there were definitely a lot of overlap in terms of a lot of the same questions that everyone had both in the public and on the council. Um so in no particular order, I figured we could just sort of run down through the list and we'll skip
any that we previously answered as duplicates. Um, and I'll kind of just phrase the question and then Tom will provide his answer so that everyone has the same understanding of it. Uh, so kind of the
first starting one is knowing that there was approximately $35,000 at least in one of the instances. Why was only $7,000 collected in restitution? Okay. So, uh, sort of simply stated, uh,
Mass Wage Law has a three-year statute of limitations. Um, and so that full amount was smaller amounts collected from 2013 through 2023. Um, and so at
the time of the uh, investigation, the restitution only went back for the payments made in years 2022 and 2023. makes sense. Um, let's see. The next question that we
had was, was there anyone else identified in the audit that had received any amount of money that they were not entitled to? So yes, uh that uh was found to sort of be um
a clerical error, so to speak, and that the person that received that fund did in fact have a degree in a uh ineligible course of study. Uh and that uh that person uh did not um was not aware that
it wasn't. and nobody there was a a a disconnect from whoever sort of checked the box in 2013 and what was allowed to happen up until that point >> sense
and then would the town be auditing all employees that had received either a pay increase or stipen based on them having received a degree or certification. So not will we we already have again th this this investigation came after an
audit in 2020 late 2023 into 24 of the police station. Uh we've done one at fire at this point. Um we have a whole new process in place at HR during the onboarding process to make sure uh we're receiving official transcripts. Um and
that's all part of the the process that sort of came out of this situation to make sure that you know this doesn't happen again. >> Right. And then that was similar to the next question was that that was assuming that our HR department now confirms that
>> degree in the correct field of study. >> Correct. >> Which would happen with those transcripts as you mentioned. >> Correct. Um the next duplicate question we basically just answered. Same thing with the $7,000. Um
>> can't do that. >> Yeah, we will skip the next one. >> Do you think we can do number four? >> I don't know. >> Uh no. Okay. explain. Yeah.
Uh I think the next few are all I can probably talk about number four under Cathy's list of questions which was just whether the discipline that had been provided was in the employees
permanent files and your answer to that >> of course. Yep. And and again all personnel all personnel files are now centrally located in HR. Uh this will be sort of the overtone of this whole uh process going back 10 12 years
and the real the real importance of having a centralized human resources department. >> Right. And similarly, that was the next question as well that we do now have the list of all of the sworn officers and
their degrees and it's all part of the records in AR. >> Just as kind of tangential to that, um, are the majority of the sworn officers holding some sort of college degree?
>> Yes. Yep. Might that be a bargaining uh point when you get to that next round of negotiations? I mean, it on the school side, it's obvious you can't be right in the classroom as a paid teacher without
a bachelor's degree. But in Massachusetts, you only have five years from the time you invoke employment under your bachelor's degree to achieve a master's degree to remain employed.
Um, I know you can't. It's mostly apples to oranges. police and fire. But it strikes me that um there ought to be some kind of language in their bargaining
agreements that require if you're going to work and many of them have some attractive salaries at the end of the year as we've seen in our salary overview a few meetings back. Yeah.
>> Then ought not that come with the necessity to possess a college degree. >> So >> again, I know it's not that way now and I respect that, but it would strike me that, >> right? And again, the the the the
thought of the whole thing was to sort of incentivize um higher education for officers, right? And it's really hard to take away a benefit. >> I'm not saying take >> No, no. I I I know. Um >> if you're saying the the majority of
them already meet that, it would not be really um that's there's an official word for it, but it wouldn't harm >> you mean >> majority of them if they've already if they're already holding at least an associates degree and some many have
bachelors. I don't know if it's reasonable to think in the criminal justice >> area, unless you're working in a a a different sort of um agency like an FBI agent that you might go forward with a a
a master's degree in some sort of um criminal um justice realm. Uh but I think it bears some discussion. I >> Yeah, >> I'll leave it at that. Okay. Yeah. >> So, if I understand, Kathy, you're are
you saying that, hey, to become a police officer in East Long Meadow, you should have at least a an associates degree or a bachelor's degree? >> Yes. >> And I think that's something I think most of them have. >> Yeah. >> Going for you. I mean, if it's one or
two, then do you grandfather them? But for new hires going forward and new bargaining agreements, >> might that be a threat? we we've sort of gotten away from requiring anything from
an applicant. Uh it sort of shallows the pool really quickly um to say you have to have this because people immediately don't check that box and we have to throw away a good applicant because they didn't meet the minimum requirement and
maybe that was the only applicant we got. So uh we we we say things like preferred instead of required, right? So th this is sort of an ongoing some years we get 20 applicants and then some years
the the posting sits there and uh we wonder why and so we we end up going through these job descriptions >> sort of on a rotational basis to say is there some reason we can't get somebody to apply for this. So, but your point is
taken and these are things these are conversations that just keep happening because everything always keeps happening. So, we need to keep up, right? And so, we are we are I I hear what you're saying. Yes. >> Do you have something if you want? Yeah.
>> Oh, okay. >> You're out here. >> I see you couldn't hold me anymore. All right. Paul, >> um I want to say too that we have to keep in mind that um certain professions, particularly public safety, when we look at fire and police, while we want to
encourage um higher learning and condition, you know, continued education, they're not degreed-driven industries and the majority of the education that they learn is given to them in their specificies.
So, and it's and it's on the job training and it's it's uh their inservice that they are going to quarterly and all of these continued um trainings that they're taking throughout their profession. A degree while
maybe you know again we want to encourage them to because you know they may gain some new insights, new whatever from it. It's really not the end- all beall for these positions because it's not what drives them. They're not, you
know, you don't typically you don't see somebody who's like, "All right, I want to be a firefighter, so I'm going to go to school for my four-year degree and then get out and then I'm going to go start looking for a firefighting job." It's more of a progression or, you know, you get into it and then you get trained and then you you learn. So, it kind of
is the same for policing. So, I just want, you know, in kind of speaking to what Tom had said that by starting to require a level of degree in any sort of fashion, then we really may be um missing out on some really good
candidates that are out there. Um, you know, because it's again, it's a it's a service industry and it it takes a certain special kind of drive to be in that, you know. So, I just wanted to put my my nickel in your nickel.
>> Thank you. The next one that we had was um just more of a timeline question. So, under the circumstances, why was the individual promoted to a sergeant?
>> So, he he was promoted prior to this whole incident. >> Makes sense. Then I think the next three questions were pretty simple answers to questions we already previously had. Um so then the next one would be what
deficiencies in the town's processes or procedures allowed for this to occur in the past. >> So um >> no that that that's fine. Uh the easy answer again is is just HR. uh we
back back back then uh every department was sort of siloed into taking care of their own stuff. Um and so there wasn't this whole pile of processes and procedures and policies that we go
through all the time now. Um you know it it's hard to it's hard to say who did what back in 2013 and why this happened or that happened. uh we all just have to take a little bit of the blame because we're sitting here now. That that that's
that's how it is. Um it's hard to know what what could have went wrong that there wasn't at least a check of who's got a degree and who doesn't and who did what and when and who said what and when. Um I don't I don't I don't I
physically don't have those answers from from from way back then >> which I think goes to your written explanation too which we know but for the benefit of the public that back in 2013 when these things started we didn't have a centralized HR department and in
fact we didn't even really have an HR department at all then. >> Um yeah >> and that was also three police chiefs, three town managers, many town administrators and a completely different form of government. So that's not to excuse what happened, but it is to say that there's a lot of reasons why
things slipped through the cracks over the years because a lot of things have changed. >> Through the chair. >> Yes. >> We the town's been dealing with educational incentives for our police
department since 1988 to 1997. And at the time um the whole issue of the Quinn bill was out there and you know we recognized the importance of recognizing that they have an education
and it will improve their performance and so the town went to that and created our own educational incentive without the Quinn bill and then I got off the council I mean I got off the selectman and the following year they gave them the Quinn bill but the point is that
this has been around for a long time. It's not like it just happened and everyone I mean your sergeants, everyone knows about it. So I don't understand how it got so crazy, how it got so messed up. Um just because we had changes in in our government or changes
in our town manager or it's been there. It's part of you know every negot every contract I'm sure it's part of. And so I'm a little bit discouraged that this happened, but I understand that it did
and I appreciate the steps we're taking to make sure it doesn't happen again. >> Conor may sure. So, Beck, like you said, 13 years ago, 10 years ago, uh, with the form of government change, the charter commission when we actually analyzed the
form of government we had, this was one of a lack of HR was a huge reasoning behind um, pushing for a change of government and pushing for different um, variations and departments and stuff. um
we were able to see it uh the nine members and this started the whole thing, but we realized we're going to keep finding stuff over the next 10 years or more. Um it'll keep improving. We're going to keep getting better. Um but there's
going to be certain items like this that pop up and when they do it, it's it's disappointing, but you knew it was going to happen. I mean, especially with a lack of an HR department when um we had department heads holding their own
personnel files and stuff and um you know, there was no central place to go for them. You had to go ask the person that you were reporting to. >> Yeah. Um you know, discussing or whatever in executive session and you have to ask them for their personnel
file. It it was it was a tough way to to operate and I think everything is getting better but we're going to have these hiccups and um that's what I'm going to call it. It was a hiccup. It was a mistake that was made and we move forwards. >> I think that's a good way to look at it
too cuz I mean there's >> there's always the potential that it would have been caught eventually no matter what. But there's also the potential that under the old form of government no one would have ever noticed. because there wasn't central functions to be able to audit some of these
actions, right? >> Which leads into the next question with the town change to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. >> Yeah. Uh and again the the the whole process now has has been totally u
beefed up at in HR. Uh there's finance component now. uh all this stuff is loaded into Munis and finance won't cut the check if the documentation isn't in Munis. So it's like a checks and balances now there not just one person
is saying okay you get this the document all the documentation has to be there for payroll to cut the paycheck. So, uh, it's it it's sort of multi-layered and everyone's looking at this more than once and and we'll decide, um, you know,
if if there is in fact a statute of limitations that is so long that I think we should be auditing inside that window so that we're not getting to that point or outside that point. Um, I just told them that for the first time right now. Uh but I don't think it's going to be an issue because we have all the stuff now
in the same place and it's not going to be hard to audit this stuff um aside from a few uh you know new hires over the years. >> Thank you. And then does the town have a consistent policy and procedure with the school
department >> uh given the education aspect? >> Yep. And so I did reach out to Gordon. They have a similar procedure and process at the school that they've been operating for a while, but they also have uh further guidelines and
guardrails that sort of prevent uh steps in those uh um benefit outside of the budget cycle. So they that you can't just leave for the summer and come back with a master's degree and we don't have a budget for that. So there there's
other guidelines that that um the school has which maybe we can sort of check in on uh and and add that to whatever policy we're working off to. So yes, it's a long yes. And then
probably one of the most important ones too is what what is the full timeline of events? um and in a concise format because while a lot of these details may have been in the redacted report just a bulleted list for everyone to have the same
understanding. Um so I guess the first sub bullet of that was when was the first payment that should have not have been made. >> Yeah, >> that was in 2013. And then when did it end? That was 2023.
uh when was the first signal that there may be something wrong or in the past? >> Yeah. So the and again the investigation sort of indicates that there were some rumors of oh this could be back in the spring of 2022
>> and then when did the chief find out? >> So aside from rumor uh there was uh that that audit was completed in the fall of 2023. Um you keep going. I don't want >> of course. Yeah. And then when did the chief take action?
>> So right after that audit um the uh benefit was taken away from one of them and then the other one was told that that was their last year. >> Right. >> And then when did the town manager find
out? >> So uh it didn't come to my attention. She forwarded me a formal complaint that somebody made to the post commission on March 7th. 2024. Um,
and then we immediately placed uh, Sergeant Engles on administrative leave um, on the 7th and then um, hired the investigator on March 8th to begin the investigation. That was administrative leave pending
the investigation. Should I guess I should clarify. And just as a followup to that, um I know this is something that we've talked about many a times. Um but seeing that you hadn't been apprised of the issue for I don't know depending on what you
consider the fault to be four to 6 months or so until after >> it had already happened and had been found out by the department itself. like that raises some red flags as well that there's some communication breakdown between leadership at the
police department versus town manager's office. >> Correct. Um and that um those conversations have been had and there was discipline for that as well. >> And then when did the town manager take action?
>> Uh yeah, shortly after the Oh, is that Sorry. Yes, that's sorry. Did Did I already answer that one? I I went I'm sorry. It was >> a question. >> Yeah. >> Once once I had once I found out immediately went to the paid
administrative leave and then hired the investigator next day who is already in town doing handling another matter. >> Okay. And then when did the discipline action take effect? >> Uh May 28th, 2024. Uh shortly after the
investigation was completed, we reviewed the findings with labor council. Uh went through the conversation and meeted out discipline. >> And then the restitution that was paid, when was that actually paid back to the
town? of equal installments in payroll from July 2024 through July 2025 >> in full. >> Can I say something? >> Sure. >> I have a question about the post commission. >> Mhm.
>> I never knew it existed until this. >> Um I find it interesting that they knew about everything and we w we didn't. Um where does the information come from that goes that the post commission is
able to with specific details? So when the investigation is concluded, we report >> folks >> we report our findings to the post commission >> and they publish >> and they review the process and then it
is published. Any discipline that had taken place and and I will admit I did not know that they had that list because I think you've heard me say before that personnel issues and disciplinary things I do not talk to you about. That is not a thing to say. Well, because we have a
post commission in Massachusetts, they post those discipline right on their website. Uh, which I found out in I think October. Thanks, Audra. Uh, this year. Um, I was unaware that that was something that was public knowledge uh,
up until that point. >> Okay. Makes us feel a little bit uncomfortable when that happens simply because it's like we're we're asleep at the switch. They all know what's going on, but we don't. I understand what happened, but >> and this was particularly frustrating
because they had this information shortly after May 28th and didn't process and post until December of 2025. Um, so, uh, I I think that there's a lot
of sort of backlog and I don't know what the review process I don't know enough about the post commission to to sort of speak intelligently about that, but it it took a while it seems for the paperwork to be processed and then >> it's through the chair. It's fairly new commission. So, I think it was created
in one of the major crime legislation or um, criminal justice legislation like 2020 or 2019. I might be wrong on the exact year, but this is a pretty new thing and I think it's unique to the other, >> you know, areas of our town like, you know, there's not a post commission, I
think, like for teachers or for other types of it's kind of unique for our law enforcement. So, >> who makes up the post commission? So, it's a a public body that the governor and the attorney general appoint to and then there's a number of other exeicio
folks that are represented. I think like the district attorney association is represented in that. So, there's like a couple entities. Um, so and it's independent from like the public safety. It's it's kind of walled off in such a
way where they it kind of help helps have these kind of investigatory powers so that but the downside of that is the communication aspect I think is a little bit lacking in terms of us not not knowing about it. Um but the idea of it
is trying to bring a little bit more accountability um when situations like this or a tons of other situations have happened. I mean, they've descertified office in a few instances. That's pretty rare to my knowledge. Um, but just as more of a
sort of an accountability measure at a statewide level. >> Okay. >> Do you have to have any and I don't know why I'm asking you, but it seems like you know about it. >> This is one of the things that I've in my role have like helped to point people
to it. So, like I know some of a certain peripheral uh knowledge of it. Do you have to have some type of any type of like require is there any requirements for someone to be on the >> Yeah, like each seat has like um certain like law enforcement sort of
credentials. Um I think like each each person has to have like certain experience or a degree in something. So like you know certain seats the governor can only appoint somebody with a particular background. So it's not like
composed of like it's it's composed of citizens but it's not composed of like just randoms >> at large citizens. So that ideally when you're reviewing these kind of very important cases that you're trying to have like >> each elements represented
>> you know law enforcement background but then having you know other type of criminal justice background so that there's I think a balance ideally. >> Sure. Um, following up on that, when the post commission descertifies a police
officer, what does that mean to the officer and the uh municipality he or she works for? >> I, and again, somebody can correct me on this because I have kind of limited knowledge, but I think it makes it I
don't think they're able to work anymore as a um police officer in the Commonwealth. >> I could correct. I could be if I could be wrong, but I think that's >> Do you want Yeah, that that's the gist. >> I'll just come join you guys.
>> Um yeah, >> Jim's chair. Yeah. >> Um so, generally, there's an appeals process. Um and then after but if it's if the ruling of descertification is upheld then they are no longer to be
able to be um a police officer or a law enforcement agent anywhere in the US >> and there's a pretty high bar >> like it it makes news when one single officer gets descertified in the state. >> Yeah. And in the appeals process there's
there's different parameters obviously as there usually is in this type of a of a thing. Um, and it can take a while. It can take a while. There's um, people who have been in appeals processes for since the start of the post commission. So,
other than that, your your description was very good. >> Let's see the next question. I think the next one is probably even more of a duplicate, but we'll just say it for what was the process for verifying eligibility for incentive pay, for
example, like the HR, police department, finance, etc. Um, I think we've mostly >> yeah, >> answered that before all the >> Yeah, I mean what I don't know what was the process that that that's sort of an issue, but we know what the process is now and these are these documents are
all fully vetted through HR and finance. Um, so we and and again like everything else, we we'll continue to move these policies and procedures wherever wherever the labor world takes us. >> Right.
>> The next one I think is a duplicate, but there was or is there routine verification or reertification processes for degree eligibility over a 10-year period? And similarly, we weren't sure if there was or ever had been in the past, but there's a process now to
>> Yes. >> Which then has the town implemented a formal audit schedule for payroll incentives across all departments, not just police? >> So, yeah. So, we've touched all the departments >> and you also mentioned that it was verified documents that are centrally
retained in HR. So that answers the next one. Um, when senior leadership became aware in spring 2022 that incentive pay might be improper, what policies governance the obligation to act immediately?
>> So that was uh just neglect of duty under the PD policy and procedure what 4.0. Okay. Um, >> do you think we can say number nine? >> Um, >> no.
>> No, not no. >> Okay. >> I think we pretty much talked about number 10 again >> and 11. We talked about having transcripts that are official coming from the institution. Uh how does the police department
reinforce ethical obligations related to truthfulness, disclosure, and personal benefit? So, in in addition to sort of revamping all of our procedures and policies through HR, um there's also a whole lot of training uh in this area,
supervisory, um ethics, whatever, whatever the topic may be. Um and so that has really started to ramp up under our new director. Um and so that is sort of um how we plan moving forward to train our
staff. I think uh everybody maybe in the past was doing the two-year click of the button thing. U did you? Congratulations. >> Um I think I think these are things that we we can we can do as a community to
make sure we have all the information and obviously with Audra's talent and wealth of knowledge and information we can uh we can do a lot of this in house. Um, so that that's that's that's a huge benefit as well. >> Great.
And then what steps are being taken to restore public confidence following findings of conduct unbecoming and neglective duty? >> Yeah. So again, um just this this sort of projecting this attitude and
Audra has um extensive background in public safety, community relations, uh humanizing the badge, community engagement, uh transparent processes and procedures. She's working with both chiefs already um to to make sure that
we're out in the community and sort of building this this culture that we want people to know about. um you know a lot of things um a lot of good things are done every day by by >> y >> people in the police and fire departments. So that will just continue
to sort of project the good work. >> And the next one was a duplicate. So what lessons from this investigation are being institutionalized townwide rather than treated as a one-off personnel matter? So obviously operationally because this sort of happened a while
ago um most of these things are already in place but um you know just having proper procedures they're written down doesn't matter whose turn it is to go here and do that everything's sort of in its spot and and centrally located and
we are checking these things with regularity so that we don't look back 16 years from now and be like whoops we checked the wrong box back in 2026. Um I think uh you know all the employees sort of working together in a way that
everyone's sort of checking everyone and and and making sure all the work is sort of harmonious which is kind of fun to watch. Um we we've like you said we can always get better. Uh but we have gotten a lot better and we continue to do so and continue to and we will continue to
do so as well. >> Sure. So all new hires start with Audra and her department. So and so that's how >> we actually start with Audra in the interview process. >> Well, thank you. But the point is that
so whatever policies are established for that particular position, they will know about it. So there's no excuse that they didn't know. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yep. And yes, everybody that comes in for a job here runs through HR until I shake their
hand. >> Gotcha. Nice. And I think that just as a followup to that last question, I think that answers it from like a auditing and HR perspective of what we're doing and how we you know formalize that sort of
stuff into policies and procedures moving forward um from this like specific incident and preventing those sorts of things from happening. But what about from like an overall like communications and transparency perspective?
Not that any of us intentionally want to, you know, put the town at a bad light in a public setting, but it it is important to report that yes, we did find something. Suppose something else happens in the future. >> Yeah.
>> Well, on top of it, and we're correcting it. >> That's right. And so >> the public only sort of find something after the fact. >> Correct. And that's something that I can report to you and will. >> Uh at the time it happened, I was not
aware that that was a public thing. Uh I'll be perfectly honest. I I would never bring personnel issues to you in an open session almost ever. Um but again, if something were to happen like this, again, uh this is this is in the
public. It's a different sort of thing. And so from a communication standpoint uh that we for this type of in this in this instance right you shouldn't be finding out for mass live you should be finding out.
>> Is there any other comments or follow-up questions? >> Just a quick comment. >> Sure. >> So again this is something that happened three years ago is just now coming to light. Um, I just want the public to
understand that when it was identified, um, we did an audit, we researched it, we did our appropriate due diligence, we handled the matter. Um, we did everything that we possibly could. Um,
again, the one negative part is it looks like we're not being transparent that, you know, all of a sudden an article comes out to show it. Um, again, that's unfortunate. Um, but it is one of those that we've learned from. Our HR department is on
top of it. We've adjusted policies. We've adjusted procedures and we're trying to do everything possible so something like this doesn't ever happen again. Um, you know, it started with a different form of government and now
we're catching up and correcting things. So, um, >> I think to add to that, it's There is never an intention from the town or this council to hide anything or
>> make it seem like anything's being covered up. But it is a difficult balance as well, especially in employment matters and what we can legally share versus what we can't share. >> Even though there's a lot of things we wish we could talk about and say at the
moment. Um but that said that there it is still certainly an opportunity that we recognize and want to be even more transparent in the capacities in which we can for incidents that happen going forward because we don't want to talk about things 2 years after they happen.
>> Right. Right. Um but with that certainly is a vigilant eye and corrective action had been taken and things will continue to be looked at under a microscope in the future.
>> Fair enough. >> Anything else? Okay. If there's nothing else, uh, action items for our next meeting. We may have some answers to the additional questions that we posed about the oil tank.
>> We have a report from the licensing subcommittee on the tomorrow. >> Yeah, Thursday. >> Thursday on the um comparative study of uh alcohol license fees in the area.
>> Great. Thank you, Kathy. >> And I am hopeful that we can have a general bylaw committee meeting in between um and move that forwards. >> Kathy 1:30. >> Okay. >> Okay. Of that.
Uh we may have an update hopefully with the two charter and not charter questions, the two ballot questions that we had talked about in previous meetings. I know when I had talked with Tom about it um last week preparing for the meeting, Jesse was out of the office
for the week, so we weren't able to make as much progress as we had hoped. But hopefully by March 10th, we'll have some updates there. Um otherwise, the other things that we had listed in our calendar, we had already done because we already had the employee wages updated
previously and the financial audit had already been delivered to us. So, we'll see what else gets added. Guess I have penned in. >> Okay. >> May have a few financial matters. >> I'm sure we'll have some things, you know, based on some of the discussions
we've talked about, but >> as of now, that's it. So, if there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Motion is made and seconded. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? We are adjourned at 8:19.
Thank you. Thank you.