Okay. Um I want to open up the um short commissioners meeting Wednesday, April 30th. Bill Watson. I Ryan Dono. Hi. Okay. We have town council on Zoom and administrator and finance director.
Treasure finance. Um you want to do want to open up Jay? you have something to discuss with us this evening or I don't even know why you know so Jay's here because um myself
Dave Kathleen um I asked I I I called Jay at my request to make sure that whatever the sewer commission decided to do to make up for
the revenue loss um or to make up for the lack of funding to pay the to pay the bond for the land the the leeching field. It's done. There was talk about a
betterment assessment which can be which you can charge to new users and there was a talk there was talk about charging something along the lines of 25% to existing users because you can't charge full betterment for something they've already better
um or have have access to hasn't improved their their they've had they've had a leeching field for the last 20 years in many cases. So it's not improvement in the property to have an elevation, right? So the thought was we
could there could be a smaller percentage charge to exist if you want to do that. I then heard the term supplemental assess supplemental assessment special assessment by impression and I talk we
we talked to Jay and I and I don't want to put words in his mouth um you know if it smells like a duck and it walks like a duck it might be the duck which might be a better assessment. So I asked Jay to to attend today's or a sewer
commission meeting before final decision was made so we can just make sure that that whatever decision you guys make we the town the sewer commission has the authority has the ability
to to make whatever decision you want trying to get in. Yeah. So obviously we're she's on. So that's kind of why he's here to help. He's here to help you guys. She the right one. He's
here to help you guys, I guess, or provides any guidance you may have on the charges. whatever charge you decide to make to to speak to fund the leeching.
Elena, are you on phone? Okay. Can you hear? All right. Okay. Thank you. Um Brian, you we have a meeting coming up on the 15th, right? Public hearing, right? To discuss this. Exactly. So formal formalize whatever
decision we make I think is really the point. But I think Elaine should kind of chime in. This has been and Dave probably have more specifics on this particular item. We're talking about a special assessment or Yes. Okay. So that that
was what Keith was just introducing that point in what we're going to talk about today. Okay. And um and Jay's on with us as well. Okay. So, I I mean, from my understanding, I guess I mean, I think we've got the
the ruling to do a special assessment. Now, is it just a matter of uh the percent that we're going to be charging or um I just need to to know what the concerns are with us doing the
special assessment? My my concern, Elaine, and again, if Jay says it's it's appropriate, you guys have had Kathleen and I are absolutely not trying to get in the way of whatever you guys are doing. Um, we're just trying to make sure whatever you guys
decide to do isn't going to can't be successfully challenged and understood. from the concern the concern the the concern that I have is is in the in the in when we talk about percentages that we're going to
charge for existing users um it seems like it's awfully it's awfully similar to a betterment and is again I I think Jay has indicated that I don't want to put words in his mouth but he's indicated that a betterment for
existing users is allowable but at a much lesser percentage than a than a new connection. But again, the public hearing on the 15th, so nothing's been decided. But as
far as the leashing field, that specific debt, what we what we're looking at, it's a possibility, is not looking at it as current users versus future users, but just charge a fee based on the
capacity of the plant. I should say based on a Portland residential unit and that's at the full capacity of a plant rather than just current uses are going to pay I'm
making it up $5,000 and future users will pay $10,000. which is across the board does take the lease and field is divided up into equivalent residential units. So whether you're current or future, you
pay the same amount of money for the leasing field debt. Does that sound appropriate? Yeah. Let me, you know, we have talked about this about a dozen times, so I'm not comfortable with that. I think we've
been clear about this. First of all, it was a heavy lift for us to tease out of the case law that you could charge people a betterment when you've already charged them a betterment. But we did find support for the notion that you could if they are actually bettered by
an improvement. So this notion of a fee, I want to reject that. We've rejected that from the beginning. We're talking about an additional betterment on properties. The the theory that we charge everyone the same is not
accurate. And we've been really clear on this. It's a simple analysis. There's no magic to it. you get to charge essentially a reasonable approximation
of the amount that someone's property value is enhanced or bettered by the improvement. So obviously with original sewer for folks that didn't have sewer that's a big betterment
that's a big benefit. It's tens of thousands of dollars if not even more for some users based upon however you come up with the formula. There's different ways to do formulas. The cases indicate and common sense indicates that if you already have
sewer and you're just getting an improvement that might um enhance the quality of the sewer or enhance the durability or the lifespan of it. No question that you're getting a betterment. Your property is being
bettered by that improvement. I just but that the analysis has to be how much or and it doesn't have to be exact. It has to be reasonable. And I just don't think it's reasonable to charge everyone the
same. I think folks that already have sewer are going to be bettered less because it's an incremental improvement. We have said this over and over again. So I don't really care what formula you come up with, but it should
approximate the value of the improvement. And absolutely existing users of sewer are bettered less their properties are bettered less than new users of sewer that are getting the benefit of the whole shebang. So I
haven't done the analysis. That's not my job. I'm just saying the notion that everyone would be charged the same through a betterment process just isn't going to hold water. And I don't want you all to become vulnerable to a challenge that a betterment is unfair. I
will state incidentally that when property owners when property owners challenge betterments, it's like a reverse taking in a way. They they generally get a favorable view from the courts. I don't
want us to be in that situation. Okay. I can't and I can barely hear Elaine. that closer to the speaker. J, we talked about this. Can you explain that the less $2,000
I I can't really hear her. Really? She's doing a speaker phone. But let's see if we can just clear this up real quick. We'll get better communication. Yeah, I think so. Not it's really difficult for me to hear her.
Yeah. Hang on. How far out are you? Is any better? Little better across J. Any better for you? Little bit. Yep. I'm at I'm at treetop. Okay. Basically what it is
is I probably it's me focusing on the leeching field debt. What we're looking at for future c future customers is the leeching field debt of let's say it's $2,000. If we go with the thought process of everybody paying the same the
existing customers would pay $2,000 for the leeching field. Anybody else who's buying additional capacity or is connecting new to the system is going to pay the $2,000 in addition to what the cost of
the plant is. And we're numbers have been figured around. It can be anywhere from 36,000 to 42,000 for new customers. Whereas the way we would determine in a
leeching field allocation was just the same price, but in theory the sewer c existing sewer customers would be paying $2,000. Future sewer customers would be paying anywhere from $36,000
upwards to for sewer. It's two separate projects. one pro the $36,000 is for the plant expansion u which you know I
I don't know is to me I'm just I guess I'm a little concerned if we if we're focusing on just the leeching field and again I'm not trying to be argumentative but me as an existing user shouldn't be pay I think my my the value of my
property is increasing the same amount as the proper the value of a property of a new connection for leeching field and because of that I shouldn't be paying the same bet whether it's 2,000 or whatever the number happens to be and I think that's kind of the basis for
uh Jay's comments it's I I've already been bettered and I've already taken my my the value of my house is been has taken into consideration the fact that I'm a current sewer user and while while
I have a new leeching field that I can send my send my sewer to, it's not it's not of the same value as it is for somebody who who's brand new to the system to the to the wastewater
uh enterprise. Okay. And this is probably it's like Google everything I've been reading with DLS and DOI says if it's a special assessment then you know it's it could be for infrastructure
why would an existing customer code tolling my name is Marsha Makans Marsha Marsha is here for the meeting has a question I have a question and my question is why are you proposing an
existing customer pay $2,000 for the leeching fields. Why wasn't that part of the original betterment analysis? Because leeching
fields are depreciating capital assets. So when you build in to the the charge the really clear need to have to replace I want to hold your trip off for a
minute. Um all your comments and and we want to hear all of them but we probably better set the setting for that would be public hearing. Okay that's the public hearing. We have we have internal you know discussion here with town counc
okay make a point of the initial leeching fields were not paid by the town. So this new leeching field is being paid by the town that's okay. I'm just asking. Oh, I
appreciate it. Ela, are you still there? Yeah. All right. Are you a tree top right now? Yeah. Can you can you Are you driving now? All right. We're going to take just about a five minute recess if we could
please because Elaine really is the has really been working on this and talking and communicating. So, um we could do that. We're just gonna move to some other business if that's okay. Jay, can you hang on for another five minutes? Yeah. All right. All right. Thank you.
All right. Um we could still do David. Do you have any updates? Well, just I don't know if I just addressed the point of charging the leeching fields initially on the betterment. You can't charge for new leeching
fields that weren't built. So once the leeching fields are done, then you can charge a betterment. They couldn't have charged you back in 2000 1998 for a leeching field you were going to put in 20 years down the road. this is a new
asset if you follow I do follow that but it just strikes me as I mean I have to do a deeper dive into the law but um it it it's like um the plant expansion these are depreciating capital
assets especially a leech field they have a designated designated lifespan after which you have to just establish another one. So I'm just a little takenback that when we first even though
we didn't build the initial leech fields I I mean we just accepted faith that they would last forever. I mean we knew they were going to have to be replaced. That's a very good that's a very good point. just and I think it's irresponsible that we did not do
something immediately knowing that those leech fields needed to be replaced and now we're grappling with with this they have they have been replaced I know but we don't have pay for part of the problem if I could they know
how they knew how they were going to pay for it they were going to pay for it just like they were going to pay for the for the expansion of the sewer plant they were going to pay for it by new connections because the water department um
indiv as a as a single group just made a decision to place a a water moratorium on new connections. the funding source or the revenue source that the sewer department was going to be depending on to
uh pay for um the expan the plant expansion in the leeching field is now dried up low but I was told that this water this is like I don't know why we're we're worshiping at the altar of the water
department I mean as a town the water department the water department has the ability they they're responsible for the operation and and the towide moratorum. They can I don't believe they have the power and I think
it is irresponsible of the town to just let them get away with that. Their position is that they can't produce enough water to satisfy the town. I've been told that that's not true. the DP that there is a letter that says D says that the town has plenty of water if it
wants to pump it. So that's a whole different thing and this going back going back to the question you brought it up. Sorry we have all these excuses. Okay, that's fine. We're just we're we're that discussion. We're just going to go into
some just some regular business if you want to take I would urge you again I'm not trying to be argumentative. I heard from selectman yesterday there there is this water from D. There's no water left from there and I think I
think the what? We're just discussing water decision by water commissioners. I would you still on there? I'm going to here now. So that's but we can do something. We just sitting on our hands. We we're trying to do something
collaboratively, but we need all parties to work collaboratively. Right now, I I don't think that's happening. The more time is declared. All right. Um, back to this the original discussion council. I'm here Jay. Okay.
So, what formula does do people think would be acceptable? So Elaine, I'm I've said this a number of times and and you know, you and I are old friends. So when we bicker like this, people shouldn't think that I'm mad at Elaine either. So we've been bickering for years and it
always ends up ends up fine. So I don't care what your formula is because the the cases suggest that if you come up with a reasonable formula, you're likely to get difference. The thing you have to focus on is you're going to have to put
the particular properties that are getting bettered by the sewer into the appropriate category. People that are getting sewer for the first time are going to be have to be subject to a different formula
because their betterment is that much larger. people that are getting an incremental benefit from improved infrastructure, new leeching field or whatever it is, new pipes, whatever it is, advanced treatment system, I don't care what it
is, their value is going to be improved. Their property's value is going to be improved, but not as much as when they originally got bettered the for the first time when they originally got sewer, right? You should work with your engineers, work with your staff, look at
assessor's data, and come up with a reasonable approximation. You know, when we do betterments, it's not like we get and if we're bettering a thousand homes with a new sewer project or 300 homes or 100 homes, it's not like we're doing a
100 appraisals. We don't do that. But we do consider a reasonable equivalent residential unit kind of what it is and essentially what you would be getting. So brand new sewer system, you know,
what is that value to someone? They never have to replace a septic system. That's kind of a value to it. Is that 30, 40, $50,000 in this day and age? That might be appropriate for a brand new sewer system. Agreed. Or a customer,
right? for someone that is getting already has sewer and is just getting an advantage to maybe improving the sewer service or getting a longer life to their sewer, it's going to be a smaller number because it's like getting a
septic system repair. So, if I'm if I need to get a septic system repair, you know, a new debox or a new tank or something like that, that's not the 50 grand that I had to pay for my septic system. it might be 10 grand. So, I'm not an expert. I'm not going to come up
with a formula. I just think you have to be careful to when you're thinking about the categories of folks that are going to get betterments for this that it be reasonably commensurate reasonable and it doesn't have to be exact. Reasonably
commensurate with the value that you're improving their property by. Okay? So, let's let's just say it's the $2,000 That would sound That seems like a no-brainer to me. That sounds fair for a replacement repair, right? But you're a
sewer commissioner. I'm not. You talk to your engineers. I don't. You have assessor's data that I don't have. That sounds approximately reasonable to me. But, you know, I I I'm happy to look at
it on the back end just as to form, but I'm not an expert in in these values. I'm I have common sense and I might be able to tell you that. Oh my gosh, that's insane. You guys can't charge that much. That seems crazy. But I think that's the kind I don't
really care what your number Well, I do care, but but what what the number is right now isn't important to me. We can look at the numbers on the back end and say, "Hey, this is what we backed into it." Look, does this look about does this look defensible? Are we going to get a
hassle from people? People don't like getting betterments. Let's be clear. Let alone people that already paid a betterment. So, I would be very cautious. And I just want you to have the right process. And I think that's all that Keith is asking for, too. And
Kathleen, let's just go through the right process. Put people into the right buckets. Talk to your engineers. Talk to your professionals. Look at assessor's data. kind of figure this stuff out that way.
But be I I know we've been chasing dollars on paying for this sewer stuff. I think you have to as much as we want to account for every dollar, you got to put that stuff aside. You you got you just got to this is an independent calculation, not on
how much the sewer system cost you, but how much it's benefiting the properties. If I could just jump in real quick and again, whether it's $2,000 or $20,000, if it's $2,000 for an existing user and some larger amount for a future
user, you're not going to collect the future user fees for the future. So, you still have a significant shortfall in your revenues. Well, that's another conversation we can bring up. Been tracking the 1.6 6 million that is in our reserved
betterment account and Jeanie's been dealing with division of local services on that. I don't know if you want to speak to that and but we haven't heard from the finance um but with talking with the lawyer
um he was stating that he is not a finance person but the legality um where half of it had already been used Um and then there were considerations that need to be made because of the account that it's held in. So he didn't
want to give a definitive answer until the legal financial person would speak on that. Just like the benefit, this has been discussed several for for more than a month and this the the reservation we've had it is a poor financial
decision to suck on one to use a significant amount of the $1.6 million. It and it's not this is all we're trying to get everything in line so we can have our public hearing. You need to increase rates. That's the way you have to do it.
We can't do it through soon. That's on the table as well. It's been discussed on water bills. We're doing our homework on that. Okay. And again, I'm not I'm not trying to be obstruct. I'm really not. I just don't want to I what you guys
decide ends up falling on to us in that do is gonna is going to potentially challenge whether or not the sewer department in this case is has a balanced budget potentially will hold up our free cash certification and and
that's that's where I'm hesitant. So, and that's and lastly, and I'll stop talking. You got whatever decision you're gonna make, you got to make like tomorrow because and I understand you have a public hearing in two weeks, so tomorrow is a little bit, but as I think you heard, we've got a little bit of a
challenge now with Munice. We You're running out of time to get up to get whatever you want to put on a bill on a bill if it's going to go on a property tax. We understand all that. We understand it. Okay, fair enough. It all happened yesterday. The board was going to be updated tonight.
But since I have Jay Jay, we do this on the utility bills. We do it on the water sewer bills. Can we still lean the property for that fee amount? A betterment is a lean. Okay, that's a no matter how it's built, right? You
can, and we've talked about this before. We can't There's no I mean, you can call it a supplemental betterment. No matter what way we do it, it quacks like the duck that is a betterment. So
you're going to follow the same process that and and create the same kind of leans as if you were doing a regular generic betterment. Okay? So let's let's say if we do it on the water and sewer bill and we make that Listen, I'm not
other people are going to have to talk about the billing stuff. I don't know how the town bills. That's not my forte. When you impose a lean on someone that the betterment is that lean. Okay. But what I want to know, can that be a flat
is a flat rate acceptable? I I don't know what you mean by a flat rate. Okay. We have quarterly service fees. We have a consumption rate. We have quarterly service fees. Can the quarterly service fee be
increased to cover this? Is that fair if we did it that way? It's just a different animal. You know, we've talked about you guys raising your fees to pay for either debt service or other capital expenditures. That's just a different
discussion. I I you have every right to change your fees to increase your fees, legitimate fees. I don't know what other fees you have to pay for expenses. Sooner or later, people get angry when they see their fees go up. But, you
know, it's a it's a reality that it's expensive to run a sewer system and you're going to have to increase your fees. What I'm trying to get an understanding of is if it's if it's connected to a utility bill, does
the same proportionate for new and current and future users come into play? That's that's the question I have about that. Or or fees. Yeah. If we if we put it on the water sewer bills. Well, if if you're doing a
fee, you're probably charging the same across the board. But I'd have to get much smarter about your fees because fees are generally part of just user fees across the board. A Betterment is a different thing because you're measuring
the improvement to someone's property. But I think that Jay, I think the question Ela's asking, let me be asking a different way. So we've established that if we did a betterment, an existing user should be charged a lesser amount
than a new user because the existing user is not getting nearly the benefit that a new user would get, right? I think I mean maybe we could have a split fee. I I mean I could look at that. I haven't done the research on that. That's a a slightly different question.
The question the question the question I think Jay is so we I think we've established we can't we can't charge the same betterment for new users versus existing users but I think what Elaine is asking is if we decided to if the town if the sewer
department decided to have a um a a fee on their quarterly on their quarterly sewer bill they charge um the new users and the a a new user in
the future and the existing users now the same quarterly fee that would basically be funding the same debt that they in a different way than a betterment would be. So meaning I mean you can cover debt
service with fees I mean so and again treating a fee dealing with a fee and dealing with a betterment are two are apples and oranges. So there's going to be a basis frankly for why you're charging existing user
um a betterment for arguably something that you're replacing that they've already paid a betterment on. But a a fee it a quarterly fee itself you can charge the existing user and any future user the same amount of money
um on on their quarterly bills and collect collect the amount of money they need to collect. I mean, frankly, it's the same. Again, I would argue it's the same thing, whether it's some sort of a fee or it's increasing the the sewer rates to to collect that. You're
charging a a a fee to fund your operations. So, whether it's a lump sum or it's in it's it's in the it's in the rate, uh it's still the same it's still serving the same function. I I just like to talk
just now that I've listened to some of this. The the problem I have with the fee is the fee is going to only people who hooked up. So they're going to be paying if we make this equitable, they're still going to be paying more under the fee structure because it's really for operation maintenance
anyways. It's not really better. But if we took take the logic that the existing field was always meant to be temporary, which it was never meant to be a permanent field. The new field was always meant to be the permanent one.
And to your point, it was meant to be a permanent for a very long time, like 80 years. It's not one of these depreciating things. It's designed so that we can balance and move things around. It's bigger than it has to be is what I'm saying. So to go to what Jay's saying was I'll say here, if we were to
take if you take the position that the value of the leeching field that's there now was far eliminated. It's actually used 15 years more than it should have been. So we're putting in a brand new field that in fact is bettering and
replacing that is the users that are on and we're going to be charging those going forward. So is is the question then if you take $8 million is roughly what the new field cost if we were to take some kind of depreciation to benefit the
users maybe a third of that instead of half uh something I'm just thinking out loud to it's less than the full amount and then the 2/3 or something like that goes to the future users and then
complicating this is what we have a vote now 1/3 2/3 right yes so it does so does that does that attempt to get to the point you're making um well all of you are making I don't we depreciate but we we we lessen the
amount but it's still a it's still a betterment because it is a replacement to an existing field that was going to fail had to be replaced I get it it's an upgrade for all the users that are current yeah everybody's benefit to Jay's point and temporary
field 25 years There isn't much contemporary fields. I would um we got lucky. Okay. Um the original plan called for it to be eight years. I I get it. So, but I'm I'm trying to find if there's a
way and what I'm saying that meets what you're saying is that if we took that 8 million and divided it not 50/50 or not 100% to everybody which is the way it is now. if we went 5050 or one third two-thirds or some proportion that goes
to Jay's comment about um those people who are paid the betterment versus those who are going to come up and the way then I would take that the actual betterment for everyone who as as Lane just said we're going to make that we're taking the
$22,000 and prorating it with inflation and it should be around4 something thousand which it again So, a couple of things. First and foremost, you you better you better raise enough money whatever you decide to do it to pay the
debt the annual debt. So, that's the challenge you have for fiscal 26 today. That's our challenge. Moving forward when this water moratorum is lifted um then you'll be able to charge
benefits to the new users of that leeching. Mhm. And you could then reduce if we wanted to if there's enough money coming in from the benefits you could reduce those fees that you're charging Exactly. to the current to to what are
going to be current users. Um so that's how you deal with I think fiscal 26 and as as we start getting new connections and I think this is frankly why you may not might not want to put in a rate you could you may
have more flexibility with whatever the fees going to be. you can say, "Okay, I'm going to collect $100,000 in fees in fiscal 27 so we can moderate or modify the amount of money we're charging in this in this fee." So, let's do this. If we take I'm just looking at it a
different way. So, we're about 50% full of of sewage that we can can take. So, take the bleaching field. It's say $8 million for the permanent one. Let's take the number 4 million and do all the rates on 4 million knowing that the 4 million that's not being paid for later
is going to be incorporated to the betterment for later and then take the 4 million we have now in front of us and come up with the right number to pay whatever bills whatever that comes out. Does that does that address that your question these all these questions that it's not it's not
100% of the cost it's now 50%. And so again, you're a fee to me is a fee that you would need to charge to collect the amount of money in fiscal 26 to pay your debt. Right. Right. Moving
forward, you can better people or better the new users and take whatever revenues you've been collecting and apply those against this fee that you're you're you're creating. But I again the better of an assess in my simple mind the better of
an assessment is if the project's $8 million and you can get 8 million just my own stupid math 8 million user or or whatever you guys are calling these things units u that's our
erus and your benefit your benefits a dollar an in eru it's not $22,000 times inflction inflation is $8 million divided by the EUR erus that you're going to be able that you
increase based on the increased capacity and that is your veteran. That's the formula we've been using for every project. That's why this particular leeching field is has been a challenge because typically we take debt divided
by the equivalent residential units and we have our amounts. But this time around, that's not um the approach. So that's where we have our challenges and that's where we've been bouncing things around for a few months now. And I know there's been a lot of conversation
outside of this meeting that the whole board hasn't been involved in, which is why it sounds like we've been talking about it forever, but with Jay's presence, this might only be the second time the board's all talked about it as a as a whole. So that's why there's all
these different questions. So it comes down to figuring out a formula. If we go the betterment route, if we go the um water sewer bill route, it sound it sounds like we can do a a um
fee, increase the maybe the service, the service that would be able to and we can still put leans on properties for that amount of money. And then and at some point in time as as things level out the service fee can be
reduced at any any time that we feel that we have extra money. So it's right the service fee really is sounds like your balancing number and the shortfall in your your revenues. Yeah. That's what it comes down to. So, because when this came up yesterday
about Munice, we've been brainstorming a lot, Genie and I, and with Stacy, trying to figure out what our timing is with them if we wanted to do something in the water sewer and they can accommodate us after our May 15th meeting for the next
billing, right? For the next billing cycle. So, we we we've been trying to have different options to talk about tonight so we can have a more uh definitive approach before the 15th on which way we're going. Um but yeah, this
all came up yesterday and it it you know my my concerns have always been the lean having make sure that that paid because the only time there's a lean on a water sewer bill is if the
whole bill is not paid. We want our little piece paid. So that's but Jay one more question that's a repeat. So if we go water sewer route we have a service fee for
this. Can I can we put a lean on those properties? Yeah. I mean you can't double tip. No. It would be one of the I mean well it could be a it could be a cocktail. I mean I I don't if you want to charge fees
and charge a betterment I no in in lie of the betterment forget the betterment. No again you could put all of this on the back of fees. I mean I I think in some part there there might be a some concern by folks. I'd have to look at
the the classes of fees you're trying to do, of course, but you've always had the authority to raise fees to meet your expenses, right, at a certain point. I mean, I I know that you've kept fees down over the years, so there's going to be some sticker shock, right? So, not
necessarily the not for me to say. You don't send me a bill for sewer. So I don't you know we just increased the we put a lean on the property for that that piece of the de
again the lean is coming through the s the betterment. Okay so not the fee. You don't put a lean on for fees unless someone pay. That's what I needed clarity on because right have a debt out there with no Well, if someone doesn't pay, there is a
process to put the lean on their property or to have a municipal lean certificate recorded or whatever it may be. But you don't record fees, you record a betterment. I just wanted to be clear on that. That's Yes.
Okay. So, part of that same subject that the talent is is going to be paying a third of this region debt, right? for this year. For this year, how will they how are we billing them? We billing them the town. Yeah. How I mean, how do
we get that revenue into our our It should be the same way. Okay. Basically, would it be on the on their their water? No, it's just a one debt payment they pay. Yes. All right. So, that's part of their whole tax bill. Yeah. And then when the debt payment comes Okay. They
will charge $137,000 to the fun to the sewer. But the users that are paying the two3, how are they being built? That's what we have to discuss whether we were going to do the betterment or water sewer bills. That's not going
that's our public hearing. All right. I lo I lost lost myself on this. The rest of the town is going to be part of the general, right? general sorry and the other two/3s to the users is not going to be part of the general tax bill. They'll get that but well they will they will
get the they will get the one-third part out of the tax pool. Right. So the other two/3s have to come from our office. Yes. Okay. Yes. All right. So we have to figure out whether that's going to be part of the user fee. Right.
I don't like the word betterment. I don't like them going back because then it's a whole different thing. is a lean and it's very complicated and that's not what it's for. It's it's an upgrade. It needs to be done I think in the fe as we're all talking. Yeah. It makes it
cleaner and you know Okay. So we'll be discussing it but we're talking about it being a specialty. It's separate from the on and cost that we already established. It's kind of this it's like here over here that's how I'm looking at and we've got our challenges with that because it we still go by equivalent
residential units. So you've already figured out they'd be like it's working with Stacy to have multiple charge codes based on your EIUS because just for more clarification as we sell off that 410 and we take in the
betterment revenue and we use that to pay off the capital. Yeah. We can reduce the and reduce and then go back in and reduce those amounts to the town to use. Yeah. It gives us more flexibility to be able to do that. And if town meeting were to accept next year taking a third
of the debt from the leeching field each year it's going to have to go back to town meeting. So each year you can adjust according you get more users on. Was that the way it was worded? It wasn't until it's just one year. And on that note are you considering how to
bridge that gap in FY 27 28? Yeah that's part of our discussion. Is that part of your going to be part of your rate structure? Y uh because it was just a one-year deal, correct? For this short. Yep. We know what our debt going out is.
We know how many uses we should get and we divide them basically come up with that based on the same unit formula we already established. So that's that's in place. Yeah. So I think we we good with Jay. I mean, we know it's now up to us
which approach we're going to take. Think so. The simplest one, before you let him go, are you clear on that 1.6 issue or we just we're going to wait to hear from Genie's working with
Yeah, because it's not it's not drawing the 1.6 isn't drawing down a half a million dollars in a year. We've got a Yes. Can Kathleen speak on um the 1.6? Sure. Go ahead.
Yeah. So, I know we've talked about this in the past. The those funds, it's a prepayment that was put in with all the other Betterment funds and it's been allocated for the next 10 15 years debt service. So, there's like a certain
dollar amount. It's about $57,000 that's allocated as part of having enough coverage for the debt service for this. Right. So Jay, correct me if I'm wrong. I can't remember the chapter, but that section 53J having to
do with betterments. Um it's a little wordy that provision, but it was to the gist of it based on my discussions with the DLS attorneys was you're supposed to take the same amount for each year for
debt service out of veteran funds. You can't just it's not a you know it's not a slush fund. You can't take whatever you need. You have to justify it. It's got to be pretty basic. You have to have it mapped out. So you can't take out like 800,000 this year and 100,000.
Yeah. No, those would be separate Betterman events. I mean I think the plan is that you're kind of like for the next 15 or 20 years these folks are going to pay this amount. You know here the total betterment they're getting is this and this would be the annual if
you're doing it on a 30 year or 20 year or whatever it is should be uniform. Should be uniform. Yeah. And that's what kind of was mapped out when Carol had kind of put everything together. And that's the 1.6 million of and I think at least three
years of it's already been used right towards debt service. So it's already like following that same process. So I I don't know that it would really pass muster. I don't know. What do you think, Jay? if you would change
how it was being treated. I think while it's already once it's already been treat, you know, set up one way, I don't know how you would justify taking it out and using it differently. That's why Genie's asked for for some guidance. Some, you know, again, we've been
looking at everything and anything we can to make it all work. Yeah, I talked to Jay I talked to Ken Woodland at DLS about this because I wasn't sure and um you know they they won't give you a formal opinion that was he was of the
mindset that it has to be you know pretty even like you know annualized you know that money was for a 20year project so you're going to divide it by 20. Well and a lot of what numbers as well don't include the interest of like $70,000 we
get each year too. So that those numbers we can certainly bring into play. Well, that kind of does help you in a sense for those people who haven't paid their veterans. I think that that's you think about it. You don't want to mix your cash up with your commitments. It gets a little No, I'm just saying there's
revenue out there that we haven't there's interest, but there's also some betterments that haven't been paid by people because they're, you know, they're late in their taxes. So you don't want to think that you're getting 100% of your principal betterment
payments and then all the interest is gravy. It kind of I think it's kind of and Jay correct me if I'm wrong. I think the interest is kind of to cover your costs and to give you flexibility if you don't collect everything. Well and I haven't seen that as part of the
equation. So that's all. Yeah. I mean the interest is statutory more or less, right? I mean there's so yeah I mean I think it's calculated it's all committed interest. I'm I'm talking about interest that we earn on our bank account to make it
simple. The money in the bank that's in our enterprise fund we earn interest on that and I believe one it was like 70,000. Yeah. That's part of your revenue escalate for your operating budget. That's what's reported to to DR.
That's one of your revenue sources that helps funds your operating budget, right? But we haven't put it into any of our numbers. That's all I'm saying. But so again, it's it's just for argument sake $2 million a $3 million operating budget. You've got
a variety of revenues to offset that one revenues offsetting that interest income. So it's already being applied there. So So if I understand what you're saying to suggest you bet $70,000 your number that hasn't been allocated yet. I
don't think that's true. It's been allocated to offset cost us. Yes, but we haven't included it in our numbers is all I'm saying. I I I don't know what numbers you guys have. So, I I can't speak to that. I can simp to simplify that based on our user
fees, usage fees, and quarterly fees and septage revenue. That's what we calculate our numbers on. we don't include that $70 interest which is done on the back end you know Kathleen something but again so I understand that
but just to be safe you know you're basing your the user feed on 100% collection they might get and that's help that's what helps offset that difference between 100% with whatever
the percentage you're collecting is offsetting something really interesting So I just again you're getting you're I don't you're splitting hair. You get you're I'm willing to get as creative as you can get. That I think is
it's just that's all it's conversations. That's we're brainstorming. We're looking for all the avenues we can to make this Absolutely. Yep. We understand. That's why we've been talking about it for months. I get it. We want to make sure that once we we pull the trigger, we've done it right.
Yeah. And we're fair to everybody. Fair and equitable. That's all we're trying to achieve and to pay the debt. So, you good. Yours. Okay. Yeah. It's all clear as mud. Ready to
go. Thank you. All right. Talk to you. Thank you, Jane. I'm gonna turn the show back over you. Um, you want to go into the rest of the stuff? You want to talk about this a little bit more? Thank you, Keith.
Do we want to decide or discuss? We're going to Tuesday. Next Tuesday. I can't make it Tuesday. We can change the date. Yeah. Wednesday or Thursday. more.
So, you can't me Tuesday, correct? I cannot. Okay. Um, Monday, Monday. Is that better for you? Wednesday's too late, right? Oh, no, that's the other Wednesday. Yeah, Wednesday's works. Wednesday. Okay. Wednesday's better for me. Wednesday
works. Okay. Next Wednesday. See, we can find a room. Yeah. 4:30. Okay. Okay. I'll have to check and then I'll All right. You need 4:30 cuz you work till 4 on Wednesday. Yeah. That's all. Yeah. And then we can between now and
then work on a couple of approaches with betterments and um water sols just so we can Yeah. No, we'll definitely have that discussion. Be prepared for the 15th. Make sure 4:30. 4:30 on the 7th. Yes. I
have to confirm that we have the room. Okay. Any room we do. Yeah, we could find one. Okay. So, we'll we'll just um But yeah, if you want to continue the conversation. Yeah. So, um Genie talked to me and was if you
want to fill everybody in on the vet. So, they had given us a template that has to be like a VPN uh template where the parcels there's breaks in the sequential numbers. you can't mass
import from that template. It won't work. Uh the only option we would have is to do like a mass create for the ones that go sequentially and then have to
add in the ones that are offnumbered. Okay. So by property they could it could be let's just make up um evergreen street parcels 1 to 10 then the next parcels answered
property so there's a gap okay and then we pick up uh green street which is parcel 110 to 150 okay they can't do it because of the gap in between all right now I know why So, it's been listed there. Why
can't you just They would all all of them would have to be manually entered and you'd have to add in if it was going to be like a Betterment um the 20-year payments where if you do something on a mass create level, uh it would figure
out all those schedules based upon the criteria that there's quite a few houses that have already paid off the original benefits when they change in that they are better. Yeah. So there's a lot of people that build that. Yeah. There's over 500 so far, right? That Well,
that's part of the audit we're doing. Yeah. Figure that out. Yeah. So, anyone that's a user, not necessarily paying rent, starting to pay off, right? And those people we would pick up on this, right? On user, right? Because that's so
you can get them now. Yeah. Everybody at the same time. And that and that's controllable to a point where if we if we start to lower we could lower once we start to solve. Yeah. It's just a matter of again if you take the EIU philosophy
which you know we just well that's the rules we have. So yeah. So that so we'd have charge codes based on one EIU up to the mall. The I think the apartments are like 150.
um that it's figuring out the well it' be the same amount as how how do we do that? How do we treat any money that comes in where they pay should be and they don't borrow any money you know they pay the benefit because if I got a
single house I'm I'm going to borrow the $30,000 $36,000 and pay 2% for for the years. Yeah. But if like the mall did, they they came and they paid lump sum and that's where we spent half of it on the infrastructure, another half of it in the bucket. But in the future, how do
we handle that? Do we take that one lump sum and say, "Okay, we're going to pay it off the top end of the debt." The debt won't The debt won't change. The numbers won't change on it, but we could No, we to aggressively pay it down, but that's still not going to take it off,
you know, scheduled out. Correct. Correct. And who wants to who wants to pay down a 2% loan, 1%? We're locked in for the 20 years. Yeah. They get the interest either way, right? In the admin fees. Yeah. But but pay it off early.
Yeah. But if somebody pays off if somebody pays us a lump sum, can we put that in a a savings account and take the car interest back into it? Well, there so even if you the money coming you paid two years
of interest. We only pay two. Say again. I don't know. I just think ahead could be done yearly it's paid down. It's it's not like a car loan. It's not like if you pay it off, you know what I mean? Like it's these are committed payments. So if
you get you're going to be charged X dollars $100 for this year, they're going to calculate there's a separate charge that gets added. It's 2% of that $100. If you no longer owe 15 years of payments at $100, you no longer will be
are responsible for the interest that corresponds to that and you pay it off. You pay the principal that's outstanding. You do not calculate 2% of that outstanding balance and whack that too. because, you know, you're you're paying
like because they're borrowing, you know, you're you the town pays up front. So, it's it's a town's money that's out when we're paying, you know, cost associated with it. So, that's kind of offsets those costs. It kind of makes it a little um it helps the town cover
their their their costs and it's the net present value of the money. you know, we have we're out all of it and so you're being paid incrementally back and we're, you know, because we borrowed the money, we're taking their money and paying our our debt service
back. But it is kind of, you know, set up in a way where it's, you know, it's not a money- making scheme. You're not trying to has to be reasonable and it's you know the reason being is there's cost associated with you know maintaining all that sort
of you know the collection process and you know taking into account that you're not going to collect 100% of what you build. Okay. So we go on the rest of think so. And just one more thing. Y um
with the department of revenue attorney that I talked to yesterday. Y if we do put it on the water bill, water sewer bill in the pamphlet it says a reasonable amount of time. So there is
no like case study or anything that has come up. But when in talking with him he was saying six to eight months would be reasonable after completion. Okay. He wouldn't go any more than a year. And when we were
talking, the comfortable is like 6 to 8 months. Yes. Okay. But and not to jump in but to kind of clarify the reason we want to start sooner than later. So you have more orders of billing and collecting those fees. So you will have
more funds available for 27's debt service right now. I mean that's the intention. Right now we're paying 26 without any additional money coming in. Yeah. You're paying 26 with a capital article that appropriate. Right. So So it's it's it's money from before which
you know is instead of being set aside for say a capital purpose it's being rolled in operating. We're well aware we can get it going. Oh, just so it because it there's so many different buckets of money and and for everyone who's
listening just but that's what it is. But if you if you start like really late in the year, we don't plan on doing that. So what I was saying is if you start later in the year, it just because of the way the billing cycles work, it it
does make it a little bit tricky, but at least you're not constrained by the tax billing cycle. That's that was the betterment issue. That's that's why we were talking about deadlines is because we have to have all the information in units to know we we test for all the tax
weeks. Agreed. That's why we had our hearing the 15th and that's why the target date we had been given was May 27th. So yeah, we were we were working with the deadlines we have. Again, a public hearing is the 15th and a decision will be made if it's
better or use the fees because that's the purpose of the public hearing what the amounts will be. Um like we said earlier that they can get on the water sewer bills probably hopefully for the next quarter. Yeah. If that's the route we take. So yeah, today this quarter
just closed out. Yeah, they read the news today. Yeah. yesterday. So, well, they they take peak six weeks to get before you get them. Yeah. So, we So, um we do have 26 debt paid and you know,
we were fortunate enough town meeting voted for 137. So, that also gives us um you know, some some revenue that going to make a difference. So, all that will be all taken into consideration when we move forward with the with whatever approach we're going
to take. You have any more questions that you might may or may not be able to answer before our public hearing? Uh, no. No. In terms of what you're doing now, I have a lot of questions about why um why things the are the way they are,
but that's way too few on this meeting. Yeah, just in what what fashion? You know, I just the um the lack what appears to be a lack of cooperation between
uh significantly important town uh departments. Can you clarify that for It would be the water department. Okay. We're not the water department. I know you're not, but it's you're But you're in our Zoom meeting saying lack of
cooperation issues. You're you're in the spot you're in because we don't have it. We haven't had any new water new development for two plus years. And
according to the water department, um, our new well won't be online for another seven to 10 years. Well, that we're all working together, specifically Brian, to try to uh work with the water
department and they work with us. So, we're all trying to get to the other side of that and make that not sooner than later. It didn't come across that way at time. It came across that everybody was I really don't want to talk about the water. No, I know, but I
mean I I can't speak for the water department, so I don't want to And it's not fair to them for them not to be here to be able to I know, but then don't ask me. I didn't know what you were going to say. Well, that's the risk. That's why I'm here. Welcome
anytime. Commission. I will go to their meetings as well. Um, it's a significant concern um to me. Okay. Um, I don't know how we're going to pay our bills.
Thanks. Um, okay. Town meeting. Squid away with that. Financials. I think we've done that update from superintendent. Uh, yeah. Just uh one of the new
developments is we had our laborer start this week. So good. Started Monday. Um so far so good. He's gotten his hands full. Uh it's been pretty busy just the last two days. So um his name's Ryan McKe. At
some point I'm sure you guys will get to see him out and about. Um, other than that, we've worked through our effluent pro pump that we had. Uh, we've got two up and running. We had a failure of one a couple weeks ago. Uh, now we've got an electrician
that determined there's two little components in there. So, we're just getting pricing on two little components on it. Um, I had the BFD manufacturer, the the drive mechanism that tells our pump to run. They wanted $6,000 just to
come in the door to look at it. So, we're trying to find another avenue at this point to just replace the two pieces based on our own electrician's assessment. So, working on that.
Um, yeah, nothing else crazy going on. And it looks like the punching punch list for the leeching fields getting wrapped up. Yeah. Uh Brian and I um have reached out to CDM and we have a site visit lined up
for the top. I haven't my calendar yet. Monday. Monday. Uh Wednesday the 7th at 9:00 a.m. So next Wednesday. So hopefully we'll get through some of those hurdles, try and get through our
punch list on that end of things. and plan expansion is that touch list. The plan expansion should be all complete. I did mention to Tom in our Zoom or Teams call the other
day that there might be some miscellaneous reimbursement items that Genie had asked me to check with Tom on and he told me he'd take a fresh look at. Okay, very good. It's all I have the the leeching
fields of the receiving up yet. One thing that Dave and I have to do now that town meeting is over is surveying the the well that's out there that doesn't seem right and uh check a couple of the other wells while we're out there
and I'll try to do that with sometime in the next couple weeks. Get the elevation squared away. I want to check the wells because the flow there's some discrepancy that the way the water here's the flow from all the data that CVM had most of it flows towards
the golf course when you look at all the data I have that's been done previously by DEM and others it flows the other way so a lot might be going on um but they when the MBTA took all that gravel
I think that it, if I'm correct, should be mostly going to smell Brook because we're right on the top of the hill. Yeah. Okay. And that's a very important thing for some of the water department pieces that we started talking about a little bit of time meeting as it gets into the water
management. So that's I want to just take a couple of those. It won't take us an hour to do this. And and when will that permit be closed out? That promise is done. Actually, all they have to do is um we need to give them this data and do it the samples. We
were going to do that anyways. We should be doing the samples anyways. No matter what that should be done, when will the loan close out on that? Um that's closed. We have our first payment due in July.
I know we The good news is the field's available to do. matter if something happened tomorrow that fields are available. That was the main thing getting Yeah. If you didn't have it there, you just don't build it overnight. But now that it's there, that's the crisis is over.
Just a quick followup question. The leeching field that's underneath the transfer station now that's not receiving anything or is not certified to receive it yet? No, that can't Well, we we saved money by not certifying. So, we can use it, but before we use it, we
have to test all the wells. Okay? Which actually reminds me, I was in a discussion recently that the police department might be put in some sort of shooting. I heard shooting at the
transfer station and my concern was if they use bullets with any sort of lead in them that that could contaminate that. Absolutely. And that area would test. So, there's been discussion about them getting I told it was indoor indoor
or outdoor. I think it's outdoor. Yeah. I can't see them putting up a building. They're looking at getting nonled. Yeah. Bullets. Well, the other the other bit of a The other option is if they're going to be using a
uh a direct mound as the with whatever they have. I've done a bunch of these cleanups of They're using our plant as the back stop. Yeah. But the idea is you put a liner. So behind that dirt mound, you have a imperous liner that's down
about six or seven inches and underneath all the way in front and then you all the lead pieces get collected and they're easy to pick up. Uh and they don't infiltrate because that lead is very soluble and it will contaminate the groundwork.
So that would be so those concerns were brought up at a department head meeting and the let's say leaving there they were going to look at getting bullets that were nonleted so it doesn't contaminate any of the natural smell
work leeching field are they start tra are where our plant is up top. Yeah, it faces it's got to face that way because the tractor proper beach is facing the other way. Yeah. I'm not sure exactly where they were talking because it might
be a good idea just to suggest what Brian said even if they are using nonwled. They they did talk about that that they they put a liner in and then every couple of years or certain specified period of time they actually go in take the soil sift through it get
all the right the fragments out put the soil back actually in the in the front of the it can be thinner so you actually take all the dirt out because there tiny little fragments there it's there a tiny little fragments you can't see that are soluble more soluble so you take all that soil
out but then in the mound Um, that's something you can we do the same thing, but typically if they're using 45s or whatever, they can penetrate into the soil foot. So, it all depends. Take the whole thing out. You know, it's every, you
know, it's 3,000 bullets in there. So, that's a lot of lead. And it's amazing how shraply that it is blow up in all kinds of pieces. So, there's all these little tiny pieces of lead. And that Yes. So to answer your question, as
long as we test it, we can use it. Okay. But now that the new leeching field was put in, it would just be more testing expense, right? Right. By testing. Once you start using it, you've got to test it every month. So we don't we don't test that like every five years anyways,
no matter what. Only if it's being used by our permit. It's if we're going to be using it. I would like to just get a base Yeah. test done on it because we had two new wells drilled and seeing we haven't used it. Be good to have a base.
If our effluent pumps ever let go, like we had that issue the other day. If we had to just gravity feed it over, that would give us the option to gravity feed over. Oh, very cool. And u so it's it's another safety net for us and and having
a baseline test on it would be a good idea intermittently very because there's a whole bunch of data about where that water go that's why the treatment the leeching field was never put there. Oh really? Because Barry Matias complained about it on his bugs. The the discharge
from that location go right under the highway into his bugs. Oh that's why it was moved. games. Okay. So, all those bugs along either side of the tree. That's that's that's where that
sorrow based on Is that all from memory? It has to be because I never saw that. Yeah. I've been reading through these recently and sure enough. Amazing, huh? It still works. They get hit by a truck. They're all set.
Oh, we got too much to do. I'm anxiety. I'm really tired from yesterday and today from, you know, a lot of stuff, a lot of should um let us know when you think it's it's good for us to have a meeting with water just to It's going to be
soon. Okay. In fact, uh I hope I hope that we can have a special meeting uh sooner than the 15th. Okay. um so we can have a fair discussion and uh
and things are going in the right direction. Okay. I'm surprised at how much the the world knows about what I'm doing. Some information accurate some. Yeah. Yeah. Well, that's why I kept my mouth. I mean, I'd love to answer the question, but it's another that's why I, you know,
I think it' be good to have a joint meeting, but the the point has been made that um if this is resolved, it answers all the questions that were being discussed and provided these projects go
forward that have been delayed. Right. Right. As far as the committee next week, that's just to kind of get a wrap up how commission feels about going forward with these Legion field expenses. Yeah.
The fifth in preparation for the 15th. So we can at least pick a direction so when we get to the meeting we're going to know it's going to we can vote either the user fees or betterments and have that discussion but at least have the
data understood and everything. Yeah also we need to do we have a number on actually what we need from the existing customer at this point in time. Not after tonight. I mean,
well, even for the town, they they have to know what their third is at least. That should be easy, right? Yeah. Oh, yeah. That's easy. From the custom, uh, what is it's okay. Uh, 266 because the town paid 13. The town's
contributing 137. That number should be fixed. 137. Yeah. And then it's how we break the other one up into two numbers. 266 if we went with betterments. Well, it's not two it's not actually two numbers. That's what's confusing me. We only have one people to build. We don't have we can't build non-existent
customers, right? So, there's only one build. So, we have to adjust that down to reflect that we're going to pick it up later. That's how I repair it. Right. Well, if doing it on water, and I think that makes it easier for us. My my suggestion was trying to let's take half
of that. It's not 8 million anymore. It's 8 million for the town because that's a longgoing thing, but it's only 4 million for what we have shortly. It's half of it. You know what I'm saying?
Yes. Th that formula comes into play if we went the betterment route that we can't charge existing customers, right, for we have to proportionately charge them based on how they're bettered. But I thought the same formula also would
work on the fees. That's the impression I got on the fees was no. Okay. All right. So that that is it. Did I hear that? If if it if it's fees, we're back to the same place we were always. It's a fee. We're back to the same place we always were. Yeah.
Yeah. If if a short ball would have for easy map 400,000 say range. Yeah. that town took the 137 leave somewhere in that 260 range and then you divide it by your amount of ERU essentially only EU
instead of each house it's EUS we can we can set up different charge codes to be appropriate for the particular property because if we otherwise the apartments have 150 EIUS and we want them to I mean
I would think we would want to pay more than someone with a single year. That makes I thought that was going to do any that was what we would do anyway. Yes. And if we do it on the water sewer bills, that brought a whole another um it's the same thought process, but how do we mechanically physically make that
happen in the system it it without putting it individually? That would be better. the water sewer bills. We can have a a couple of charge codes associated to one EIU. They could pay and making it up
$100. Um the 150 EIUS can be what's that? $1,500. $1,500. So, and then we just have to talk about um in the rules and regulations the mechanism and let's just say
it's $2,000 per EU. over the 20 years. Um, I was going to say that gets paid off, but we have to think this through. I mean, I like the flexibility of it, but if someone Oh, the new new the new
owner would take it. Okay. Yeah. really relying more on you guys and this when this is like whoever's getting bought whether it's you and the house or someone else buys that house later on they get same water bills.
Yeah, it'll follow the property. Yeah, I was thinking you base it on user fee that's just a flat rate. So let's say somebody has five bedroom five times coming out.
Yeah, that's why we'd have to do different charge codes. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Yeah. So, it be it would the flat fee would be the same amount, but then you would be multiplied by EIUS. Okay. So, the So, realistically on our
bill, it should say user fee, usage fee, and then there should be another line item on that that says um leeching field upgrade. Yeah. And then you have five, you know,
five get that five. Yeah, it seems to make sense because it follows that eru unit rate formula we've been using all right. So, if we were to go that direction, we should probably consider,
like you're saying, it's something we're going to look at carefully going forward. If in the future, like right now, that fee is for the leeching field, but say something catastrophic happens that we need additional money to fund
something. Say we have an unusual high tide and I don't know some equipment gets wiped out. Would it be a I don't know an asset maintenance fee or just some other word? So it's not just tied let's say to the leeching
plant upgrade because they're not they're not paying. Yeah. I'm not sure what verbiage to use, but you know, is it something? Yeah. I would asset asset fee.
When you pay your electric bill, it's a distribution fee, right? What they use it for. Yeah. Electric, but 10 of them. Just so you're not pigeonholed into something, right? Right. you know that hey that's all you can use that for is a legion field you
know just a just a more generic name of some sort yeah you know going to that point this is another thing I was thinking about the way we were talking about it and we're not bettering everyone same I keep thinking we are but let's take that if
somebody if say the pump at summer street go down and we put assessment then somebody in Rocky says we don't use that pump it goes this way that pumps a bunch. So you can start doing that kind of stuff. Well, that's why maybe just facility maintenance fees. If you start
splitting hairs like that, well, really, but so but everyone shares that. So I'm still not buy that. But that's what the answer is. continuity of services infrastructure. When looking at the different towns, they have a variety of
line items. Administrative fee, um, user maintenance fee, property management fee. There was like a school of line items that different towns had on their bills. Okay. An infrastructure upgrade or infrastructure m infrastructure
improvement fee. It's not maintenance. It's in you know that would be use the same thing for for your example the new one we ever an example infrastructure be number one infrastructure number two that's for this giant pump station whatever continuation of service yeah
but again the onm I mean the uh betterment process and the well the fees we charge should be going to the bank the on andm fees for that emergency too we should have a big bank account so that we should we've been using what we
have see water mar we've been using our emergency funds to pay for this right town meeting we have a nice big number we have to we have to pay ourselves back and keep us track of all those numbers has to pay ourselves back and the good
thing is that we are paying this year um with the article money like you said that would need to be uh replenished so that it gives us a year to start building up some some money for for the debt in
27. So, and whatever the amount ends up being, if we go on the water sewer bill, it would be four quarters. They'd have to pay four quarters. So, I'll make a motion to second. All in favor? I