[Music] Okay. So, uh why don't we go ahead and get started? We'll call to order the meeting of the uh Halifax Finance Committee on the 14th of July, 2025.
This meeting of the Halifax Finance Committee is being recorded by Area 58. Committee members in attendance are Cheryl Burke, Mike Bennett, Frank Johnston, Ed Bryan, uh myself, uh Mike Reignetta, are you on?
Mike is not on. Okay. So, we do have quum. So, we will go ahead and get started. Uh on the list of items we need to cover tonight is the acceptance of minutes. Um the first uh so first of all the the uh data for the
our meeting last week just went out uh today. U so we'll probably have those for our next meeting and also the hard copy of our meeting from town meeting the meeting prior to town meeting and what we did at town meeting uh also came out this morning. So, um we will hold
those for everyone to get a chance to review them uh and uh vote on them on next Monday when we uh have our two candidates come in uh for uh for the open position on our committee. Everybody okay with that? >> We're going to hold all three, Jim?
>> Yeah, I think so. >> Yeah. Okay. Yeah. >> Then we can just everybody can have a look at it and if any changes need to be made, we can do it at that point. >> All right. So, um, that takes us out of that agenda item, moves us over to line
item transfers, and Lindsay filled our mailbox today with some additional line transfers. >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. So, um I think the one of the holdovers from last week was $8394
from sick and vacation buyout to uh the home in home or health inspection services. >> So, that is a negative that's negative currently. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah, that's just the remaining from the um like the last day total and the
remaining balance from the end of 25. Um, I did look at the budget and what had happened. >> Mhm. >> Um, FY25 was budgeted $86,910.
He's a grade 11 step three and that is $87,591.554. >> Okay. So that is why um he had said that there was actually that doesn't make any sense now that I'm looking at it. >> No, not if it's n if the budget was 90.
>> Yeah. >> And the salary was 87. There should be a plus of three. >> Plus of three. Correct. >> Oh, I think animal inspectors included. >> Okay. in that 90 total. Is that does
that sound correct? Because when I was looking at it, he pulled everything and he is a grade 11 step three. >> Okay. >> But when I do payroll, animal inspector's also in there. So that might be the n the animal inspector comes out
of the health inspection services. >> Yeah. Thought that came out of the police budget. No. >> Yeah. I thought it was No, >> not animal inspector. No, that's that's animal control comes up. >> Yeah, animal control. Yeah. Yeah, animal
control is police. Animal inspector is um board of >> health. >> Okay, that makes sense. >> Yeah, cuz we pulled his change of status and his steps and all of that. So, I do know that he's a grade 11 step three.
>> Okay. All right. So, what are the numbers we're looking at here, Lindsay, on this one? >> Um, so he just needs the transfer of the 830 $8394. >> All right. And that would bring that
just brings the budget even for the year. >> That Yes. Yep. Okay. >> Okay. So there'll be no other overruns on that this uh fiscal. Okay.
>> Very good. All right. Um so uh with anybody have any other questions for Lindsay on that specific item? >> All right. Can I get a motion to approve $8394 to move from sick and vacation buyout over to the health inspection services
line? So move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes. >> Mike Bennett, >> yes. >> Frank Johnston, >> yes. >> Ed Brian, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes as well. That will be that is approved. Okay. So that takes care of that one. So the next one I believe is uh the
5500 from custodial to buildings. Is that so? I thought that one had been corrected but I didn't see any corrections on the forms. So building is what? It's now a word document. Okay.
So, the question I have is this is now higher >> than what it was a week ago. >> Yeah, the last bills got paid out last Tuesday. >> So, it's now $7,119
even um out of snow and ice to to preventive maintenance. So, do we know what the what the cost overruns were? >> Um, Scott, did you know?
>> Sure. Uh, so to be honest, most of the c cost overruns, no huge items. Most of it is just the fact that we've been level funding for years and if we have a bad year, you know, think a little bit here, a little bit there and all of a sudden
you roll over a budget. Uh we did have we did have several overhead doors that failed and caused us issues. We had issues at the at the library septic system >> which was a large crossover run
>> and we had some boiler issues but no one or two single items. Okay. >> Thought we approved uh money for the boiler issues earlier in the year for the um overruns for the replacement and
upgrade uh repair work associated with that. >> That Yeah, that was so that was a single that was a single unit that failed just recently. That that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about other units that we had uh coil leaks on and
you know just service calls in general that that cost us money with aging equipment. The the line item transfer you did for a replacement is is separate obviously that was handled by that one transfer.
>> So this is for other units Scott. the other two or three units that are in the in there. Is is that what you're saying >> throughout the throughout the town? U not just in the town hall. >> I was referring to the boilage at the
school. >> No, not the school. Is it Are we talking about the school the school budget at this point or we talking about the the town side maintenance? >> We're talking about the preventative maintenance of 7,119.
Yeah. >> So that's >> Yeah. So we're talking we're not talking school. We're talking about the town buildings. >> Okay. So this excludes anything associated with the uh school then. >> Correct. Correct. >> So it sounds like more more or less
rather than calling it preventive maintenance, it was it was just general maintenance it sounds like. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Some of it was some of Yeah. Yep. So, preventive maintenance, since I got here, when I got here, preventive
maintenance also included a lot of repairs. Um, anything that had to do with boilers because when you get in there, you go, "Okay, this part's broken, but while we're in here, you see these other things that are going to break." So, you end up doing as much, if not more, preventive while you're doing a repair.
>> I guess that's why they kind of left it together. >> So, >> it becomes hard to distinguish. >> Yeah, agreed. Yeah. >> Yeah. And it comes and it's difficult for us to understand it when it's just says preventative maintenance and it doesn't detail out the um types of
preventative maintenance in the different facilities that you that are we're requesting the funds on. So we could have more detail in the future going forward on that. Um would be extremely helpful to us to have a better understanding of of what your request is
for. So, >> sure. Maybe it makes sense in the future to to have a category for boilers just point blank. >> Yeah. >> You know, boiler repairs or maintenance, you know what I mean? Something like that. I don't know. >> Yeah. If you just call it out in your
request um for additional funds or overruns, um whether it's boilers, lights, alarms, whatever that may be, doors, or whatever it is, then we have a better understanding of what we're we're talking about here. Lindsay, is there a um is there a a
different account that would track a preventative expense versus a an expense that's coming up for m from a maintenance standpoint? Um so in looking at the accounts and soft I have discussed with the consultant is like
can we not rename them but can we kind of like change because it's always been kind of like an umbrella like just supplies or just meetings but in some departments meetings is meetings but in
some like mileage falls under that too. So, I have talked to him about changing certain accounts and doing maybe a new account number. So, things like this or even smaller things like can be tracked easier. Um cuz it would still be the
same amount that we budget. It would just be under a different account like one would be preventative and one would be >> additional maintenance cost or something like that. Um, so actually I have been talking about doing that and looking
into for FY26 how to do that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. But if we're not going that route, we can't do that route in these request forms. We need to detail out, >> right? >> What we're referring to here, whether
it's doors, alarms, >> lights, windows, boilers, whatever that may be. instead of just lumping everything under one umbrella. >> Yeah. Preventative. >> Yeah. It probably makes sense just for a soft reminder to go out to everyone as
you know partices just reminding them of what we need on them. >> Yeah. I also was talking about possibly like next year having the department head that needs a line item transfer join us in the meetings. Um >> Yes. because they obviously know their
department >> and what why they need it and stuff like that. So Scott's kind of the guinea pig for this year. Um but for next year I did talk about having that be a possibility as well. >> Awesome. >> Yeah, absolutely. Makes it a lot easier for everybody and we can get these
things moved through and we're not here on the on the witching hour um approving these. >> Yeah. So Lindsay, just a quick follow-up question to that. Do they Is there any type of quarterly review that you do with department heads to see where
they're at from a budget perspective? >> Um, I didn't do one. I know we did have monthly department head meetings with Cody, but we weren't really talking about like budget stuff. Um, but the last couple of weeks I have said out
loud to myself often that this next year is not going to be done the same way. Um, but so no, I can also that can be something I try to do for the next >> I think I I I think and I and I and I
would hope that Scott would agree here is that you know every every department head would know what their run rate is, right? Including whatever seasonality is with the spend that they have. So when they're when they get to the fourth quarter of the year, they should be able to forecast out whether they're going to
be over or under budget and start asking for line item transfers. Yeah, >> at that time instead of waiting until, you know, >> June, >> right? >> So, we we we had done that when I first got here. Uh I'm I'm not real versed in
in municipal monies. So, we we had done that when I first got here, and they said, "Oh, no, no, wait until we get to the end because, >> you know, you might have an easier last quarter and you might not need what you think you're going to need." >> Okay. So now we wait until the 11th hour
and and send them in. >> Right. >> Yeah, that Yeah, that don't fly. >> Well, we're going to try to not do that this year, Scott. >> Okay. >> Well, Scott's going to be the first one there giving this the old beta test here. >> The beta test.
>> Bring it on. >> All right. Anybody have any other questions for Scott? So, Scott, thanks for the feedback and the information on that. Certainly do appreciate it. >> Yeah. Thank you, Scott. >> Thanks for joining, Scott. >> Of course.
>> Okay. Uh, can I get a motion to approve the movement of $7,119 from snow and chemicals to town building preventive maintenance? >> So, move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes.
>> Mike Bennett, >> yes. >> Frank Johnston, >> yes. For the $7,119. Ed, Brian, >> yes and thank you, Scott. And I am a yes as well. Thanks, Scott. Appreciate it.
>> No problem. Thank you. >> To the next. The next is probably the elephant in the room at this point. Um, so there's a request to transfer $30,000 from veterans benefit from from veterans
benefit to data processing expense. And there are four things that are causing this issue. So Caesar, if you could do us all a favor and kind of walk us through how we got to this position. >> Sure. Um
the the the main reason well the four the three main reasons are um with our DUVA with our backups uh with DUVA which handle all of our servers and um
uh 365 accounts. the uh server backups are credit based upon the physical data that's actually backed up. >> Uh so in April of 23 um we had a
hardware failure and we went to go pull from backups and it turns out that not everything was being backed up but not in the manner for us to recover it easily. That was in April, which was three
months before the term would have ended because the terms run from July to June. When we brought everything back up, got everything restored, >> we went back into the um configurations
of our servers and backed them up. So basically we had file level restore which we didn't have prior for all of our servers. That way we didn't have to basically wipe them out
clean if there was ever an issue. When we did that apparently did they didn't get to me until a year later. That was a substantial increase that they did
not allocate for when they when they provided us proposal and um so come in April of 2024 is when they said, "Hey, like you're over on
credits." And that's when we realized that there was a um there was a very specific way that they had it configured on their end that that should have been done um but wasn't. And they refused to work with me on
trying to, you know, credit us and be like, "Listen, it's an honest mistake." And um that resulted in us having to spend an extra basically double our subscription to back up everything. Um that is not the case this year because I am we are
no longer with that company um as of July 1st and um it didn't really reflect on our uh cons our backup consumption our credit
consumption because when we made those changes there was so little time in the term between April and June that we had enough credits to handle that increased data backup from that
short period of time, which is how was explained to me why they didn't catch it until April, even though we requested a quote in December. Um, >> so hold on for a sec. >> So, and I'm probably just going to
repeat what I think I heard. We we signed a contract with DUVA. We were following the contract and we had some kind of failure and Duva came back and said the contract wasn't written right and you owe us more money. Is that basically what you're telling
me? >> It sounds like >> I don't think the I don't think contract's the right word because again it's credit based. So we're basically prepaying. >> Yeah. But you're still you're still signing a service agreement. You're you're still signing a service agreement which you know for lack of any other analogy is a contract.
>> Yes. And to to simplify it to what you said then yes if that's if that's if you want to simplify it to that point then you can >> so so I think I think from hearing chair just for our own edification here Caesar
is what you're saying that the whatever agreement we had signed with them was a credit based scenario um which didn't have it like a not to exceed number on it. It was just it was x amount of dollars per credit and they
estimated what they believed we would use for credit not as a binding agreement just as a budgetary value for us. >> Correct. >> And they underestimated on that number but that number was never written in the contract because it's a per credit fee. >> Correct. And it's not really a contract
because we we resell it. So it goes, you know, it's not like we're working with them directly. >> Yeah. So, >> it's a pay as you go kind of situation, but we prepend those. >> Yeah. And and and when you went to data recovery in April, that's when we
exceeded the credits that we had allotted. Is that what you're saying? >> That's when the that's when that that action is what basically initiated it a year later because we had because we had enough credits to handle the growth when it
initially was recovered and we and that data was increased. was increased initially. It was only 3 months left in the term >> because it automatically renews on July 1st. So we would it was it was never caught. When July 1st came,
>> we were now backing up that full extended data set. And then by the time it came to April of 2024, they were like, you you're basically out of credits. time delay. Basically,
>> when we agreed to back up those that additional data set, those additional data sets, did we did we set anything with them in terms of an agreement on the period of time in which they would continue to back those up for us?
>> That's all configured on the um within their interface. That's all that is is done on this is on demand. Yeah, that's so that's kind of what I'm driving at. So somebody if they have to if they have to set it on their end, right, they need to get direction from somebody on our
end for what that setting should be because it's our pocketbook that's paying the bill. >> So do we have anything that captures that agreement so that we can go back and look at whether or not it aligns the fees that they they're charging us to what we asked them to do when they
started to back up those additional data sets? >> No. No. that all those settings are are done on internally. They don't they don't handle that. So when we backed up those initial sets after we realized when we recovered it, I worked with them
and we use our standard our our standard backup um retention schedule is what I'll call it. Uh which was not um generous, I'll say. Uh like it only gave us like I only did two
weeks um of the way their system works is this AWS is a little confusing to me. It was like two it was like a week or two weeks of hot storage and then anything beyond
that I had to reach out to them for but it was the amount of credits that it actually you utilized >> was less. Honestly, it's very confusing. Is this some kind of is this an active active backup >> or is it active passive?
>> I was just wondering the same thing. >> But it's passive. >> That's what then it should be a lower cost, right? Not active active or hot storage, you know, if it's active active. And I could certainly understand that as some type of real time access to the backups. >> Yeah. But the fact that they had to
search for it the way that they did when they were >> right. It sounds like cold storage or some kind of long-term storage. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um >> the the cold storage the cold storage from my understanding is
is like part of the part of the credit thing like they offer it. It's like included or something like that. Um but but the the actual configuration of those backup
policies were done when we first implemented the system like two three years ago when we realized that not like uh I'll use the technical term and try to translate the file level restore was not happening at everything beyond our
hypervisor level. That's why we went through each of the servers and did the file level restore. But what ended up happening is by doing that it was duplicating the backups on their system. >> Okay. >> Hey Caesar, when's the when just I shot in the dark completely random. When's
the last time we had a a topology update done on our >> last year. >> Last year. Okay. Um, the only other question that I have on this one is is actually it's not necessarily related to the bill itself, but I thought I heard you mention that
we are no longer using them as of July 1st. So, what are we doing as of right now? >> That was my next question. >> Yeah, I was going to ask that. >> We're moving over to something that uh is a lot more cost effective and with a company that I am more comfortable with
their um reputation and that's veh. We're gonna use their local um Y and they're gonna be handling our data and our 365. >> So are we doing >> are we currently on a monthto month then
so that we don't have or are we lapsed right now and we don't have a backup in place? >> No, we have a backup in place >> and that is >> right now it's going through the >> Okay. We have >> It sounded like you said we're moving to
which would tell me that we are in >> process. We're moving the lights right now. We're we have a there's a grace period trial thing that we have set up. >> So I guess you could say we're effectively on beh. >> Okay. >> They're just >> How many servers are we backing up?
>> Let's see. Two two host servers >> roughly. I would say maybe 10 VMs between both. Maybe 12. >> Okay. So, so five VMs on two servers. >> Yep. And then we're also backing up our
um which is a a third separate host that isn't at the town hall. The um fuel system at the highway highway bar. >> The what system? >> Fuel system. >> Fuel system. So, three servers.
Yep. >> Okay. >> So, are we reviewing are we going I'm I'm presuming that we're doing some type of cost review every quarter so we don't have another $30,000 mistake or error next year.
>> Um all all those errors have been corrected and should not occur of this next system. Okay. Well, you know, if we're going to check every quarter, then we'll know it won't occur because we should be on top of it. >> Well, how how are they charging for this
season? What what is it what what's it based on? Is it like an annual fee >> or is it you know again like a >> you know some kind of incremental fee based upon how much dat? >> It is an annual fee. One second.
one at this point. >> So, >> so it's a subscription service, right? >> I mean, everything we do is going to be a a subscription. >> Yes. So, the new backups are going to be um
they're going to be annual. And I guess the way that BEH does theirs is they license the hypervisor or the physical host
and then you get 10 VMs for each one. and they calculated, we sent them all of our data as of like it was like May
and they calculated what the um total data was going to be for them and I got assurance that um this isn't going to be one of those
situations where we run out of credits. somehow I guess built into there. I don't I don't think we have like a limit. Basically, you pay for the amount of data that's on your systems. You don't pay for what's
being backed up, I guess, >> right? So, you need to keep an eye on that. You got to watch that so that if you do get towards the >> the edge, you need to contact them and find out what it's going to cost. Well, just you know, and I'm sure you're aware, they're not going to call you to
tell you you're getting close to your credit limit. >> No, no, not at all. >> They're going to let you run over it and then send you a bill. >> Yes. >> I learned that the uh unfortunately the hard way after I I Yeah, I was not very
happy with um DUVA because theoretically when we reached out to them in December, they refused to say anything to us. So, so just just to for my own edification, the veh service that we're getting, is it a
subscription service? Is it a universal license? Is it a pay as you go? You know, what type of service have you signed up for right now and are triing before you, you know, flip the switch on it? >> It's a It's a It is a subscription service.
>> It's a subscription service. Okay. >> For one year. Yeah, I think just as a general rule of thumb, um, we should probably just make sure that moving forward we have any agreements captured in writing with with vendors and don't take their word for anything. Um,
>> it's it's unfortunate that we have to work that way, but >> things like this happen if you don't. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. But EJ, that's just standard business having an agreement in place in on both sides. Everybody understands terms and conditions. Yep. Right.
>> Then there's no surprises. Fees are the fees. We know them on the front end. We go over X, it's going to cost us this, >> right? >> And not know in the in July that it's costing us $30,000.
Right. >> Well, I you know I will say that um there was actually the so that was the first issue. The second issue which I take full responsibility for was the
fact that um there was a typo on my um budget sheet that resulted in a $10,000 difference. Um that's that has been since corrected. Um,
>> so we're paying $28,000 for security software. >> Well, that includes our that that's uh compiled. That includes our firewall renewals, our antivirus and um >> is the antiv so I'm going to presume
that's at the node level or is it protected by the firewall? >> It's at the node level. every we have we have uh antivirus in each other workstations and because of the um cyber security insurance requirements we are unfortunately having
to get it with the uh MDR um feature which increased that cost substantial [Music] and I guess my final question is how could we not account for the open gov
renewal. >> Well, um I didn't handle the >> Yeah, I didn't handle the uh procurement on that particular product. Mhm. >> Um when we started, well, when we were
told the budgets were due in December or the fall of that previous year, um we weren't made aware, at least I wasn't made aware, that we were getting the system until January of 2024. Um we didn't actually get it until
February. And um yeah, I just I didn't get any of the invoices or anything. I like it just wasn't done through me. So it I didn't account for it. Wasn't done. I didn't handle the
procurement on it. I didn't handle the uh the the quoting. I didn't handle the invoicing. Nothing. And it had we not had to expend that 30,000 um there wouldn't even be a line of entrance.
>> Well, no, I'm I'm I'm sure about that. I but I I guess where if you're saying that you know you had if this was procured by February of 2024 it has nothing to do with well I guess it you know it certainly would impact the 2025 budget but then
that's something that you know we would have we should have anticipated through a line item transfer you know >> well no because the first year was paid out of the grant >> okay >> so it wasn't even out of it wasn't even pulled out of our budget. for the fisc
for fiscal 24. >> Okay. But that was only a couple of months of fiscal 24, right? >> It would run it would run through February of 2025. >> Okay. So, we knew it was one year. Are we saying that we didn't realize the one year would expire the following
February? >> Well, I I don't I wouldn't say that we I I wouldn't say that it was like we didn't realize um ignorantly. I would say it was just overlooked. It was just it was that timing. It was overlooked. It sounds >> are due at the budgets are due at the budgets are due by the end of the year.
In this case, they were due by the end of 2023 in December. We didn't find out we were getting the software until January. We didn't get an invoice until February >> and I didn't handle the procurement. So, I I couldn't. >> Sounds like there was an assumption that
the payment for 25 was a was a July 1 through June 30 expense when it when it actually wasn't. There was a portion that was covered in FY24 through a grant >> and we were only budgeted through February based on the way that we drafted up the budget because we we've
used the wrong dates. That's what it sounds like anyways. >> I mean, it's possible. I didn't handle the camera, so I can't really answer to it >> cuz the shortage was March, April, May, June, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Lindsay, who's who's responsible for
department budgets? >> Um, so the his is under the selectman, >> right? But who's who's responsible for managing the budget during the fiscal year? The department heads or the the
selectman? >> It would be the department head. >> His this specifically falls under the selectman's department. Yeah. Um, but it is the department head. >> Got it. >> Yet another reason to have monthly
budget updates. >> Yeah. >> All right. Anybody have any other questions for Caesar? Caesar, thanks for the uh the feedback. >> No. >> All right. Is there a motion to move
$30,000 from veterans benefits to uh IT uh or data processing expense? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes. >> Mike Bennett, >> yes.
>> Frank Johnston, >> yes. $30,000. >> Ed Bryan, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes as well. So that that will be that is that is approved. So Caesar just you know for with for this fiscal
year you know track the expense licenses you know get a list of all the licenses that we have when they expire what the renewals will be because I anticipate data processing expenses are going to go up this year just based on the economy and everything that's going on around
us. Um, and if we need if you get, you know, to even if you get to December and you see you can forecast out that you're going to need some additional funds, let's get that stuff done before June of of this year. >> Yeah. No, I totally agree. And I and I
and I do I don't know if anyone has been told this, but I had um communicated to uh Cody basically ever since uh we started off with our with our juven that this was
going to be an issue specifically for that for that plat for that overage. Whether or not that was communicated to you guys, apparently not. Um, but I made it, you know, I communicated that to him to let him know that we're gonna at
least need a transfer for that. Um, you know, I try obviously I tried my hardest to keep track of it. Um, but >> it's your checkbook, my friend, for for 12 months. It's your checkbook.
>> I mean, I mean, if I'm going to be tech am I technically the department head? I'm only the department head when it when whenever uh they need to put the uh the hat on someone. >> So, you know, I you know, I'll take the responsibility.
I understand I'm responsible for the licensing and everything, but I mean >> I only have so much uh >> I only have so much reach. >> All right, fair point. Then uh put together a list of all the licensing, all the renewals, and the costs and get it to Lindsay so that the finance
committee can have that. again. >> Can you do that for us? >> If you guys can, if you can uh send me an email of what exactly you're looking for, I will compile everything in for >> Okay,
>> very good. All right. >> Thank you, Caesar. >> Thanks, Caesar. >> Thanks, Caesar. >> Thanks, Caesar. Okay. Next item. Um, we have a new request for moving $13,000
from veterans benefits over to the board of health expenses for um the PAS study. Apparently, it was unbudgeted. >> Um, yes. So, there is that settlement that's going on. Um, the PAS
testing and >> Yep. >> Um, we have started the testing. We're doing it with a company that is already contracted for both water and board of health. It's Tai and Bond. Um so Bob had
I believe they asked do you want us when we're doing landfill to also start doing PAS and he just said yes. Um >> I see >> the settlement's not over >> right >> and we haven't received any money from it because it's not over. Um but because
they have started testing it was um it did go unbudgeted. So the grand total that's why there's two here. Um the grand total that he needs is being taken out of the veterans and also the COA wages.
>> Mhm. Um, >> but it says another transfer is being requested from snow and ice >> from >> Yeah, it was 4,000. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Oh, >> the one with the 13,000 says it's snow and ice. And if that's you know, just
take that line out, I would think. >> Yeah, it's not. Um, we changed it. So, I must have sent you the old one. >> Okay. >> I thought I deleted that. Sorry. It's um COA wages, but it's $4,000 still, >> right? Um but yeah, so it's just the POS
testing. We started testing. Um Oh, I see what was He didn't change the wording. Um but yeah, so it's just the POS testing. We haven't gotten the money from the settlement yet, but they did start testing for it. >> Okay. So
that's I know that we had talked about the POS testing a couple of times when we were doing budget discussions. >> Yeah. Mhm. >> So, is that a decision or when when that when that project starts, is that just
the health officer's decision or is that something that the selectman or the town administrator say we now have x amount of dollars to do this study so let's go ahead and get it done and you know how what is that process? I'm just curious cuz it sounds like we just said yeah go
ahead and do it whether we had the money or not. Um, so if I was understanding what Bob said correctly is it's actually Massachusetts the D says you have to have it tested and if you don't you will be fined.
>> I don't know if there is >> um I don't know if there is a specific time it has to be done by or if it was just an overall. Um, so I think that Bob probably was told a time frame and he
that's why he just said okay. Um, but it is coming from Mass D and they will find towns and cities that don't do it essentially. >> No, I'm not saying we won't do it and I'm not saying
>> no should not not do it. Right. >> Yeah. trying to understand when does that spend get authorized >> and I >> Yeah. Um I would I think it was just Bob. I may maybe he had a conversation
with Cody in their one-on-one meetings. >> Okay. >> Um I'm not really 100% sure. >> I just think he probably >> we don't do it, we'll get fined. Ty and Bond offered to also test when they were doing the landfill testing and he probably just said okay.
>> Um based on a conversation that he already had >> is what my guess would be. >> Sure. And aren't things that are over $15,000 supposed to go out to bid. >> They're supposed to Yep. They're supposed to get three bids. Um
whereas it's with the same company. I don't really know how that >> I don't know. I don't know. >> Yeah. I don't know how that part of it works if it still falls under that umbrella um >> so to speak, but I do know it is the same company.
>> Okay. >> All right. >> Okay, >> Jim. My understanding on that um we're required as Lindsay said >> by a certain date from the state to implement a quarterly PAS testing. I'm
not sure what exactly those dates are. And I believe they and we had talked about this in a couple of our meetings of getting additional quotes from other >> um engineering firms and um seeing
what that cost would be to do it. And if I remember correctly, these guys came in at a lower rate because they were adding it to their suite of um sampling. they were currently doing already. >> Well, the budget specifically, if I
recall correctly, we we threw in an extra $10,000 for POS testing. >> This is now $9,000 higher than that. >> Was that for 25? >> That's what we budgeted for 26 >> was an extra $10,000.
But this is probably for the last Well, first of all, we're doing it now. >> Hopefully, we're not paying $13,000 a quarter for POS testing. >> God, I hope not. >> I know. >> Well, if we would have had bids, we
would know, wouldn't we? >> Didn't Lindsay say that they started it? >> Yeah. >> Lindsay, didn't you say they started it, meaning that they are still doing it? Um, yes, I did have a bill that they were starting that. Um, I know there was
one of the summer conferences, there was a lot of people freaking out cuz they thought that the time frame to have this testing started was June 30th and it was the middle of June when the conference was. And there was somebody
from the do that said um, basically there were three different answers to that question. if you asked a different person, it was a different answer each from each person, right? >> Um, so on that part, it's I think it's still a little it seems up in the air,
but there were multiple people that thought it had to be started by the 30th. So that's probably what Bob also thought. So then that begs my concern here with $13,000
to get it into by June 30th for a quarterly sampling. Typically the sampling's done at the last of the month. >> Yeah. >> Which would be June, January, February, March, April, May, June. >> They would do their well sampling. So,
are we paying $13,000 for quarterly sampling of PFAS was my question. >> I think we need to get that information from Bob. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I do not know the answer. >> We need to get that info. I mean, granted, we don't have time between now and the deadline, but
>> we we we would like to know that nonetheless. >> Yeah, we need to understand what testing is costing us on a quarterly. >> Absolutely. I can definitely >> understand it's only for four wells. >> I that I also don't know.
>> Little under $5,000 a well. >> That sounds >> That doesn't sound good to me at all. >> No, >> they're already out there sampling. It's just adding one more test >> to the suite that's going I did this stuff for 30 something years of testing
monitoring wells. >> You add one more to it. You got the analytical service, you got a little bit more report writing to do and that's it. >> Right. Right. >> So, with that said, I think we need to have uh Mr. Bob come in to our next
meeting if all >> Yeah. >> or thereabouts because since we're starting in January, March, May, June, July, August, September will be the next quarterly samplings. >> Yeah. So on the on the one from this the money
from the COA the $4,000 expense it says the DP ordered a study of certain town wells because of PA's concerns. So it's is it some of them or all of >> I mean that's the ultimate question but it sounds like it could be some of them not all >> not all
>> I mean the wording the wording is not precise enough to say it's it's all of them >> right >> in my opinion >> you know. So, yeah, we definitely need to have a conversation. >> We need to talk to Bob. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> All right. Well, but in the meantime, we have an invoice sitting in front of us, so we need to take care of that, too. >> Or does this invoice include overage on other things that the consultant did for us associated with the landfill?
>> This is just for POS testing. >> This is just Yeah. Yeah. Well, then we definitely need to be having conversations. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Before we sign anything. >> Yeah. >> Well, but we have to pay this and if we
don't approve it today, >> right? >> What happens, >> right? Well, they're not going to obviously they're not going to do PAS testing for us, I'm sure. Having missed 19 grand, >> we're kind of up against it, I think,
unfortunately with PA with the mandate for the POS testing, >> right? >> And you know, in in line with what uh but but I also um am aligned with Frank on, you know, they're already out there. It's not like it's anything, you know,
they're not taking 30,000 additional samples here. >> I did way too much of this work. I know what it takes to do it. >> It's one more vile. It's one more bottle.
>> It's one more suite at the analytical lab. They're already running. >> They just throwing the P5s in there. Just like getting blood work done. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Even that's expensive the frick.
>> This is just crazy. >> Even that gets expensive. >> Okay. Um, so I think I think before we before we entertain any emotion on it, I think Lindsay, we need to make sure that our department heads understand what the procurement process
is, especially for things over $15,000 cuz that's mass general law. >> Um, you know, that's, you know, just saying, "Yeah, okay, we'll do it." is going to, you know, that's going to put us in a pinch later down the road. Yeah. >> Um especially if we have to do an audit
or we get audited for any reason at all. >> Yeah. >> So if uh if the interim town administrator can get something out in an email to our department heads, >> okay, >> as a refresher, that certainly would be helpful, I think, moving forward.
>> Sounds good to me. >> Okay. Um, anybody have any further questions on this? >> No. >> All right. So, well, I guess we'll do them one at a time. Do we have a motion
to move $13,000 from veterans benefits to the board of health expenses to cover the PAS testing? >> So move. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Cheryl. >> Yes. Mike Bennett,
>> yes. >> Frank Johnston, >> yes. For the 13,000 for PIFA. >> Thank you. Ed Brian, >> yes. >> I am a yes as well. So, second motion to move $4,000 from COA wages uh to the board of health
expenses for PAS testing. >> So, moved. >> Second. >> Just one question. So, we're talking $17,000. There is um the remainder is already like left over from his original um
account. >> Total is 19. He's 17 short. >> Yes. >> Total is 19. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We got to have some conversation here. I want to see some papers with
with numbers on them with the ink signatures and the whole the whole thing. M >> be nice. >> Mhm. >> It's huge >> cuz our annual contract >> with these guys for the landfill is only
like 23 28,000 if I can remember correctly. Maybe 30,000 now on an annualized basis. >> Yeah, I think that's about right. Yeah. >> Here we are. We're short
17 19,000 for additional sampling. I'm not adding up here in my mind. >> Yeah. So, I said four wells, it's about $5,000 a well. >> That is ridiculous. >> And that's if they're testing all four wells,
>> right? >> Only testing. >> We don't know that either. >> We don't know that. >> How much is the fine? >> I do not $2,000. >> Be less than this. >> I'm sure it's more. >> $1,500 a quarter. I have no idea.
>> Uh >> I can find that out, too. >> No, Bob can explain all that. >> Yeah, Bob can tell us. >> So, uh let's let's invite Bob to our to our next Monday, uh meeting. We'll just have a quick chat with him.
>> We don't have him on the agenda. >> No, we can we can we have time to do that? >> We can file an updated agenda. >> We have time. Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Okay. So, do we have a motion to move $4,000 from COA wages to board
of health expenses for PAS testing? >> So, move. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Right. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes. >> Mike Bennett, >> yes.
>> Frank Johnston, >> yes. for the additional $4,000. >> Ed Brian, >> yes. >> I'm a yes as well. Okay, that is it for the line item transfers.
I think that should close out our books. >> Um there was the updated one from Steve. >> Oh yeah, we have a vehicle maintenance. Yeah, he just changed the um account numbers and the account totals I believe was what the issue was with that.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah, that was the one. Right. Right. Right. Right. Right. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Okay. 10. All right. Well, that makes sense. Okay. So, there is a line item transfer
for $9,89355 from Snow and Ice over to Vehicle Maintenance for unexpected repairs. Oh, what?
>> Well, this is the one where he submitted a receipt for like tires and valve stems. And >> I thought we already took care of those tires. >> We I thought we talked about it, but the issue was on his request, he didn't
change. >> The numbers were the same top and bottom. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, he had to rewrite his request. Yeah. >> So, this is for the four tires. >> Yeah. >> Four tires and some other looked like
preventive maintenance items that he bought. >> Yeah. >> And no detail on the preventative maintenance items. >> Not really. >> No, >> man. Guys are killing me here tonight.
>> Detail. need detail. >> It's simple stuff, detail. >> But if you look at the form, it doesn't really pro, you know, provoke you to put detail in there when you got a little line to put the reason up, >> right? But he did attach a invoice to
the last to the last request. >> He did have that invoice with him >> that was on there. >> Yeah. >> Which is how I know it's four tires for a Bobcat, >> right? It showed what he wanted, but didn't give the reason why. Right? >> You know, are they old worn tires? Did they puncture a tire?
>> Right. >> What was that total again, Jim? >> 9893.55. >> Thank you. So, can I get a motion to approve moving $9,89355 cents from snow and ice to vehicle
maintenance? >> So, move. >> Second. >> Thank you. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes. >> Mike Bennett, >> yes. >> Frank Johnston, >> yes. >> Ed Brian, >> yes.
>> And I'm a yes as well. So, I think that should take care of everything. So, um Lindsay, just one quick question before we wrap up the budget piece. When do you think we'll have like the final budget for last year like done? >> Um hopefully by the end of the week. My
assistant did start. So, I'm have I'm like showing her we did payroll today, bills and all that. So, um hopefully I'll be able to do that by the end of the week. That'd be great because if once that's done, if you can get us a copy so we can just have a look at kind of how we did and what the performance
was for everybody. >> Okay. >> Because I have, you know, I want to I want to take that and kind of compare it to a couple of the other budgets that we had. >> That Okay, perfect. Thank you. Um, so that closes out the line item transfers.
So correspondence and as may arise um I only I have one question that and Lindsay maybe you can help me kind of get some wrap my head around this. I know last year we were doing this big software update and we had um you know a
consultant that was you know getting this software ready for us to use at a municipal environment. Um is it been launched? It was supposed to launch two uh what 14 days ago. >> Yeah.
>> And we spent what $80,000 last year. >> So what Caesar, when was it? Like May. Um we found So I'll back up. I went to a conference in Amherst, the annual
conference, and I was talking to other town accountants, and I mentioned it to somebody because they always ask like, "What software do you use?" And I said we were making a change as of July 1. And her response was, "They told us they
wouldn't be ready for Massachusetts until 2027." No, 26. And I was like, "They told us this year." So, we called them. We asked them why Sandwich was told a whole year
later than what we were told. And they said that Sandwich wasn't a client. They didn't get past the sales, all of that. Um, it was probably May when we had a meeting Cody with Cody and them and they said that
Massachusetts has a lot of other regulations and rules and they were not built out for mass yet. So basically we were >> not >> truths were withheld basically every
time we asked. So, we're not paying. Um, they are still working on updating it. Um, so no, it did not roll out a couple days ago. >> Days ago. Yeah. >> Um, and it's probably going to be July 1
of next year. Um, but we're not paying any longer for this. Um, they credited what we were supposed to pay. um they're still working on it. We're going to be trying to learn more
in softrite and because that is still they're not updating it but we can still use it and still use it to more capabilities than we currently do. Um and that's kind of the update on that. Unless these are
>> we're not we we don't we I hope we don't have a consultant coming in all the time now, right? since they don't have anything to consult on. >> So the accounting consult is is still coming in to train me on things, but that's completely separate from
>> the software. That has nothing to do with the software. Yeah. >> Nothing to do with the software. >> Okay. That's more just you you're teaching you the job. >> Correct. >> You and your assistant, I presume? >> No, I am training the assistant on what
I was doing in that role. And now I'm being trained on more of >> the accounting side because there was things that I could do >> um that I was shown on the accountant side but
>> two days out of the week were assistant jobs like the bills, the payroll, that type of thing >> that I have to do. >> So he was helping out more so on that end. Now it will be I train her on that and then I get trained on the full
rest of >> So So if Lindsay Martinelli wins the lottery and leaves >> who backs up what she does? >> Um it would be the consultant that we
currently have and the assistant. But wouldn't it be more helpful to have the assistant trained just like you are so that if you know when you're driving off in your Bentley, you know, she can just start doing the work you're doing. >> Um,
>> as from a and even from a succession planning type of >> Right. >> Yeah. So ideally that would probably but >> she needs to know the most important parts of her job first
>> which >> is what we're doing. >> Um >> and then if I won the power ball tomorrow >> Yeah. >> she would >> you wouldn't be here the day after. >> She would be thrown into the same situation that I was thrown into.
>> Yeah. Let's just hope it takes a Powerball winning set for that to happen. Um >> Jim, I do think that um I do think the way that they're they're approaching it puts Lindsay more in the driver's seat for her getting what she needs out of
it. Meaning that she can keep the consultant focused on the areas that she is is um more interested in from a training perspective and she can also delegate what is most important for her to delegate this way. So, I I do think it puts her in a good driver's seat.
>> Well, my my thought is though, if we train the assistant too well to take Lindsay's job over, they're going to leave. They're going to find a town accountant job somewhere in the area and wander off to that because they know they can do it. They've been fully
trained for that. So, are we really training someone else's town accountant if Lindsay doesn't happen to hit the Power Ball? Well, you know, I think that but that's that's a risk you take now. >> Yeah. But that's what's also created a
lot of turnover in staff over the over the years was the fact that, you know, well, it was either, you know, low pay or >> maybe they're too well trained. >> Okay. I mean, it's it's it's okay to train them a little more, I think, than than
what they need to know, but if you train them too much, I think they just start looking at it as, hey, I can I can go somewhere else and do this. And now you're just revolving all the time, and the cost of training goes way up.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're still using the ex consultant. They're not billing us and uh Lindsay is being trained on the full spread of how the software works, right? >> So,
that's kind of like two separate things. So, the consultant that's training me is training me on the accountant's job. The software that we were supposed to start, we're not starting and we're not being bu on. And that has nothing to do with the
consultant information. Then all right then I've conflated two things then so that's my fault. I'm talking about the software training not the accountant training. >> Okay. The software training is we have more so check-ins so they can tell us
where they're at because they haven't been able to they oversold the product and they are in they didn't realize how deep Massachusetts regulations go for certain things like
tax title and that type of thing. >> So on the treasur collector side they have next to nothing. So, we are not going to continue to use two systems and train on two systems if they're not going to be able to match easily for us.
>> So, that's what they're going to still work on. They're going to update us, but we're not getting trained on it. We're not paying for it. >> Okay. >> And they'll let us know >> when they have a better product. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, I guess the follow-up question
there is this. When are we going to determine that what they have sold us isn't going to work for us? I mean, like a final decision and we go look at something else. I mean, we've already, you know, we've already the sunk cost is, you know, is something that we
really don't need to discuss cuz we're never going to get that money back. >> Yeah. >> Um, when are we when does the town or when is the select man or the team that's that's at town hall going to say, "This isn't going to work. We need to go in a different direction.
and just cutting these people out of the picture totally. >> Yeah. Um we have told them that we're not happy and Cody was ready to pull the plug >> and then they said that they wanted to have more frequent meetings to update us
at no cost to us besides obviously our time. Um, and Cody said it would be up to the next town administrator to make the decision because we might get somebody who doesn't even use soft either and want to change to
a different thing. Um, but we are basically it is going to be left up to us and it is going to be based on the update meetings that we have with them. Hey, Lindsay, where so where are where are you and whoever else from the town
that you're that you need to be involved with on this? Where where are you guys in terms of conversations about shop shopping around a different alternative? Um providing that this doesn't happen in 26 because I'm assuming that the ultimate goal still needs to be to get
you to a new software one way or another. >> Yeah. So, we were kind of all in agreement about we want to see what they have updated because it does what they've shown us does look really
good and looks like it would be beneficial. But we're also in agreement that if they cannot if we have another meeting with them and they still have not made any movement on the collector side of things that we probably should start looking around
because at that point, yes, we've already spent a lot of money, but we're also wasting a lot of time to have conversations that feel like they're the same every single time we have them. >> Things change. So that's kind of like where we're at.
>> Yeah. There needs to be something specific that we're waiting for them to say for us to be comfortable that they will have a product for us July one of 26 and we have to decide a date on when not hearing that information from them is going to cause us to turn the other
way. You know what I mean? Otherwise, because I would hate to see this happen to you next year and you're going to be waiting another year for the software to come in, you know? >> Yeah. Exactly. So I agree with that. If we start shopping a new product, we're at least ready when it all, you know, if
it all falls down, we're ready to go. We >> We don't have to commit to buying another product. We just need to know what's out there, what what would work for us and and that type of thing. But have that information handy. >> Yeah. And we have been told that soft it's not getting any updates, but it's
also not going anywhere. Like it's not just going to we're not going to log in one day and it's going to be gone. um it's just not being updated at all. >> And there are some things that if you call support, they'll say they can't help, but we're also not using it to the
full capabilities. Like you can do budgets in soft. Um department heads can enter their own and request their own purchase orders in soft. We're not doing that. So there are a couple things that we can definitely start doing in soft
rate that would make I mean even probably line item transfers a little bit easier. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Well, thank you for that. It's very informative. >> You're welcome.
>> Anybody have anything else? All right, not hearing anything. That takes us out of correspondence and as may arise public participation. Is there anyone from the public that would like to make any comments or questions for the finance committee? Okay, hearing none, we'll close out that
line item and move into next meeting planning. So, I believe currently we have the 21st at 6 on the books. uh virtual meeting. Uh we will have two candidates uh to join the finance committee to be to be interviewed. Um
and then we'll file the next the follow on meeting is when we'll take a vote on the two candidates. So we won't do it at that specific meeting. We'll just interview them and then do it at the next meeting or do the voting at the next meeting and we'll have uh see if we can get Bob to join us to talk about our
our well testing. Need to have some paper for this. >> Yeah, I'll email him. >> Needs to bring the goods. >> Yeah, >> I'll email him in the morning. >> I'm gonna want to I'm going to want to see numbers. >> Frank's tough about this stuff
>> with what what it's >> this is right in Frank's wheel, >> guys. >> For additional sampling, cost sampling, the whole the whole kick kaboodleoodle. >> I will let him know. >> Yep. It's going to be a tough fiscal year for
everybody. We can't just say go ahead and do something without, you know, having the numbers in front of us. >> I just can't I just can't get over these numbers for that P5 testing. >> Yeah, it's insane. I didn't think it was going to be over 10, but that's just me. Um
>> he did me like when we were talking about in department head meetings he did say that it's like crazy and he didn't really get it either like they're already testing like Frank had said they're already testing like >> it's an extra
>> so he also was a little surprised by the pricing it sounded like >> Pete Fox testing for y'all to know it's been going on for several years now. um when this all started coming coming
about about six or seven years ago and then the EPA finally stepped in about 3 years ago and said, "Hey, maybe four years ago said, "Hey, we're going to we're going to finally come up with a criteria for sampling associated with
PAS in soil, PAS and groundwater, drinking water standards, all of that. And this being a monitoring well for a closed landfill is a little bit different type of testing, but it it it's testing the
water. It's all the same. It's just a different level of reporting of the PIS. You know, there's a there's a different window that the PIS can be higher because it's an industrial landfill versus the groundwater versus a drinking
water well, things of that nature. So, and like I say, and when they write these reports, it's not that much more work, when that consultant is writing the report and putting the data in the table and presenting the table to the client in the final report and then
getting signed off by the senior engineer. It it it's it's not much more work. It's just not there. >> That's my rant on that. >> And it's just a test, not remediation. It's just a test. >> It's just sampling the water.
>> Yeah. Little tube. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Whether it's a a liter or 40 mil VOA or whatever the criteria calls for and they run it through the um system and come out the other end with a number. They're already running the
water through there. >> Right. >> Interesting. Okay. Well, Frank, when he gets on next week, I'll leave it to you. >> I just want to see numbers. >> I hear you, man. I hear you. >> And frequency of the testing as well,
>> right? Oh, yeah. >> Definitely. Definitely. >> Okay. Well, I think that is it for this evening. I want to thank everybody for coming. Do appreciate it. Uh, may I get a motion to adjurnn? >> So, moved. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Roll call vote. Cheryl, >> yes. >> Mike Bennett, >> yes. >> Frank Johnston, >> yes to adjourn, please. >> Ed Bryan, >> yes. >> And I am a yes as well. So, thanks everybody for coming and we'll see you all next week, same time.
>> Thank you. >> Bye. >> Bye. >> Bye. [Music]