Uh good evening. Uh today is September Wednesday, September 3rd. It is 7 PM and this is a meeting of the Lunberg Capital Planning Committee. We are in the upper conference room of the Ritter Building and are also meeting in hybrid on Zoom.
In accordance with the requirements of the open hearing law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and will be made available at a later date v later date via the Lunberg Public Access YouTube channel. Uh there is a zoom link provided in the uh agenda for a hybrid
meeting. The meeting ID is 287854-4906. The agenda lists all the topics which may be discussed at the meeting and those reasonably anticipated by the chair. Votes may be taken as a result of these discussions. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items
not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by open meeting law. Uh I am calling this meeting to order and uh next item on the agenda is public comment. Is there any
public comment this evening? Seeing none, uh next item is reorganization. Uh so I never get this right from a process perspective. Mhm. >> Um, so I'll do it the best I can.
>> I watched you guys doing it like that for some reason. I just >> That seemed pretty involved. Oh, okay. Um, I would just try to reconnect. Um, I don't know why >> lost my Wi-Fi. >> Maybe
>> might have been. Okay. Um, so >> I don't know how to I can't Every time I turn the volume all the way down, it turns itself back on. >> That's weird. >> I cannot turn my volume all the way down. >> Yeah, >> I don't know. >> So, there should be a
>> things to save my life these days. >> There should be a on the carrot under audio settings. >> Yeah, you should be able to go to the bottom of the volume. when I try to turn it down on my table. >> Yeah, you can't. No, you have to do it from a Zoom. Do you mind?
>> No, go ahead. >> It might be. I think I just saw it. If you long press on the microphone, it might give you more audio. I don't remember. I don't know what to tell you. All right. Well, let's just go as low volume as we can and hope for the best.
Um, okay. Where were we? Reorganization. Uh so what we will attempt to do here is take nominations for the positions of chair, vice chair and clerk. Uh we will
go in that order. There are there any nominations for the position of chair? >> How do uh Mr. the chair if I >> how do we feel about chatting about this ahead of time and seeing what people would like to do because that way we're not nominating people for things they
don't want. >> The meeting is the meeting is however we want to do it. >> Great. Hey Peter, want to keep being chair? >> Yeah. >> So, um Chris actually reached out to me earlier on this today. Um I uh do not
have a preference. >> Okay. Um, I would say that my availability this year is substantially less than it's been in previous years. And um, I am also nearing a a point of frustration when it
comes to organizing meetings in the town of Lunberg, which I think is something that we all kind of share. Um, and maybe it'll get me to a point where I'll go to a select board meeting and yell and scream about it. I don't know. But um but beyond that, I'd be happy to keep us as organized as we can over the course
of the next several months. >> Yeah, I I'm tapped. >> Yeah, >> I'm >> You probably tapped, too. >> Oh, yeah. Pretty much. >> Just for the recording, I can barely hear anybody but you.
>> Okay. So, you guys got to speak up. It's coming through my microphone. Okay, >> thank you for letting us know. Um, yeah. So, Peter, if you're willing to keep being chair, I'm willing to help with scheduling and stuff as I'm able, so you don't have to totally go it alone.
Um, but yeah, >> we also do have, for what it's worth, this is getting a little bit out of order, but this year we have the luxury of not having a school committee member on the on the board,
>> which means that we can actually meet on Wednesday nights regularly as opposed to previous years where we've had to bounce the ball. Mhm. >> Um, so that that is a potential scheduling benefit that we will that we will have this year. >> I have a semic I have a competing
Wednesday night. I'd like to not miss uh I'd like to miss as few as possible on the two Wednesdays a month, but if I have to miss them, I I can miss them to be here. >> Okay. >> Master plan steering committee. They can function without me. um they're very
capable but sometimes having insight into the planning office >> is helpful for them. >> Okay. >> Um I >> So anyway, let's get back in. >> I would like to nominate Peter Beardmore as chair. >> Second.
>> Okay. We have a nomination from Mr. Brener and a second from Mr. Bowen. Are there any other nominations? Okay, I'll close nominations. Uh all those in favor of electing me as chair >> I >> I
>> I for myself. All right. Uh next is vice chair. Are there any nominations or discussion for vice chair? >> Did we have a vice chair last time? >> It was Tom. >> It was Tom. That's right. >> Yeah. >> I am vice chair. I
>> I'm willing to do it if >> we'd be happy to have you. All right. >> All right. I would like to nominate Rob Bowen as vice chair. >> Second. >> We have a nomination from Mr. Brener and
a second from Mr. Manard. Other any other nominations hearing none. Sorry. Um all those in favor. >> Mr. I >> I >> I >> Congratulations. >> Now you can't miss a meeting.
>> We'll see about that. >> All right. Uh clerk, this is the uh the easiest job amongst them. Are there any nominations for the position of clerk? Do you want it? You will be clerk.
>> That's fine. >> I'll nominate Chris Manard. Second. >> Okay, we have a nomination from Mr. Nulo and a second from Mr. Brener. Are there any other nominations?
Hearing none. All those in favor of Mr. Manard as clerk. >> I >> I congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Okay, so we have a slate of officers for the current fiscal. Uh congratulations.
Uh next item is discuss goals, timelines and process for capital planning FY27 and beyond. Um so getting ready and I first of all I want to publicly say I apologize for being
out of touch this summer. I frankly needed to take a break this summer. Um, and given what was happening with the budget and the tribe board committee, I waited uh and reached out to the town manager a couple of weeks ago finally and said, "Okay, I think we're we're
ready to get the ball rolling. We're getting into capital planning season." Uh, and she agreed and here we are. That being said, um what we had attempted to do last year and what we had talked about this year, um was
attempting to accomplish not only what we have done annually over the course of now my three plus years on the capital planning committee in the way of a prioritization list for the town manager capital plan proposal. Um but also
trying to arrive at something that is greater than that in the form of a longer term five-year plan that includes some an eye toward finance that the capital planning committee um during the
the tenure of the previous town manager um was really kind of kept out of scope in the the financial planning part of that. I I think from my discussions from the town manager and I'll ask her to comment in a moment. I think that generally
speaking we are in agreement uh in terms of the position that I've articulated. Um however I think this year like all years comes with its own challenges. Um, and I think that we need to be cognizant of what is happening in
particular with the budget, with the personnel issue that we now have in the the finance office, um, and just our general timeline. So, I I think we need to kind of encapsulate all of that and figure out, okay, what what is feasible
for us to accomplish um both in the runup to the capital plan proposal from the town manager and our part in that, which is effectively to provide her a a report by the end of the year, um but also potentially beyond that. So with
that, um, Jen, do you have any additional thoughts or comments? >> No, I I think that that that pretty much adequately captures it more or less. I mean, I think that the gold star standard, right, is that we have a
robust five-year capital plan index to funding availability and that we really that we use that as a road map and we're only adjusting it for deviations. But I think that that's accurate that where we are right now, I don't know that we
could get there and so I don't want to overcommit and underach achieve. I would rather that we go through a good process for the FY27 capital budget. And at the same time, if folks know what their year two, year three, year four, year five
items are that are on the horizon, go ahead and submit them to start getting them in the queue. But to go through the level of analysis on those year two, three, four, and five items, I don't know that we have the capacity this year. But perhaps we can do some things
this year to make that, you know, this year is the budget task force year. Next year is the five-year capital plan year. >> So for what it's worth, getting submissions for years 2, three, four, and five from the department heads has really not been an issue. like they've
they've submitted >> five-year requests. The the challenge has been >> on our end. What do we do with it in partnership with the town manager? And we had a a long, you know, a long tenure
town manager who saw things differently than what we've just discussed. We had an interim and now we have you. And we haven't really exercised that muscle yet. I I think there at least a couple of us around the table who would like to, but I'm also very cognizant of our time available. I'm also,
you know, I'm I'm also thinking about the and I haven't paid close attention to the tri board meetings yet, but my expectation is is that we do need to kind of keep an eye on what are some of the bigger ticket items that are going to hit us on a pretty
regular basis over the course of the next several years. Last year, we kind of had a windfall. We were the, you know, in that we didn't have any seriously big capital works projects, right? We weren't doing any culverts or
bridge repairs or those kinds of things that are, you know, multiple hundred thousand if not million-dollar projects. They're coming like they're on, you know, we we know that they're coming and those are things that we do not have a long-term plan for, right? the track and
field, you know, so I I think that there are things that we've got to at least bring in scope and maybe build a dialogue with the tri board committee or something to to to account for, you know, the things that
if we do fund them, and we will have to fund some of these things, we're never going to have the luxury like we had last year where we, you know, were funding, you know, 15 projects in and around 50 to $100,000. We just we we'll never have that ability again.
>> Yeah. I mean I think you know like most communities probably a lot of work gets done and doing some analysis in the short term and then the list balloons in year five and it goes from being you know a reasonable $2 million worth of
capital to oh suddenly $25 million in capital all jumped in year five. And that's where I do think that the input, assistance, guidance of CPC in terms of structuring how that looks, if that's
not a space that CPC has explored previously, I welcome the involvement in that space. Absolutely. >> The other aspect of the longer term plan is there's a lot of what I would consider unnecessary projects remaining
on them. You know, there's many projects related to Brooks House. We would be foolish to dump a half a million dollars into Brooks House, but that was in the plan, at least as of last year. So, we've got to purge some of the stuff from the plan as well.
>> It was in the requests. >> Was it also >> two, three, four, five? >> Yeah, they were scattered plan. >> Okay, fair. If we're calling that then Yeah. >> Yeah. and and but that does you know like historically when Heather did the
fiscal forecast we didn't have a fiscal forecast I don't think really the last couple of years but it is called for in the the charter >> the the way she would do it was she would basically take the revenue projections and figure out what amount of would be applied to capital based on
projections and then look at the sum total of all the requests and report out the delta well that delta would get just outrageously big, but you know, there are clearly things that we're not going to do. So, >> you can just plug numbers too, right? Without you can say we know we need half
a million dollars in bridge work. >> Don't know which bridge yet, but bridge works in years three, four, and five. >> We know we need tree surveys again, right? We know a lot of the stuff that you can start to put into that. Yeah. in my opinion.
>> The other thing is I think like we we need to fill that little inside borrowing or within the levy limit borrowing. We haven't borrowed like that. That's I don't want to lose that within the budget. So
that's we should plug I would like your assistance in helping to >> Yeah. >> strategize around things like that. >> Yep. Yep. Okay. Um, so Jen, do you have a a proposed schedule
that that we should be considering as we're, you know, before we start looking at dates and meeting times and those kinds of things? >> We we obviously have a number of departments we need to >> So, I am telling the department heads, I've told the department heads um that
the the submissions are due before end of September. Um, I don't in saying that today earlier to somebody, I don't know that I made that expressly clear to the superintendent in the new facility structure. So, I need to make sure that's clear. Although, I do expect we're going to see a lot of those repeat
capital items from last year that got bumped off. Um, so, nonetheless, um, I I'm sure there'll be stragglers that come in, but end of September, real cut off, beginning of October with getting before this body in October for vetting.
Okay. Okay. So, I think that, you know, whether or not we meet again in September, we should plan for at least a couple of times a month in October and November to plow through those proposals.
>> Yeah. Um I would if we could get one meeting in in September, um the master plan steering committee has some questions they'd like us to answer. >> Okay. Um, there's nine I I sent out that uh
spreadsheet earlier, but there's nine topics they kind of want us to answer a series of questions on to help them evaluate a bunch of stuff for the master class. >> There's six or seven questions with >> Yeah. >> Okay. I thought we were going to cover some of those tonight.
>> Oh, okay. I didn't thought think I didn't think I saw it on the agenda, but that's fine. I'm thrilled with it. Great. Not a problem. >> All right. But not to say we shouldn't meet again in September, but >> if we don't have to cover that at another meeting, I'm thrilled. >> Okay. All right.
Um, so rather than sitting here on a recording and going through all of our individual calendars, what I would probably expect is that we will need at least five nights in and sometimes we can collapse
these, but I would like to plan for five nights in October and November to kind of plow through the um the proposals. Um, historically there were c like police and fire,
they're usually pretty well loaded and ready to go. Um, schools tend to take a little longer for the school committee to kind of get their arms around this. And given that we've got a new superintendent, I don't know what those ramifications might be. So, I will work
with Jen based on everyone here's availability. I'll work with you all individually just to get an idea. We can start on Wednesdays and then based on how rotating meetings happen with planning board and finance, maybe we can look at Mondays and Thursdays as well.
Tuesdays I know are basically impossible. So >> um >> well the last Tuesday of the month >> well now with this tri board thing though it's like it's endless. So >> um >> so your your Wednesday conflict is bi-weekly
>> is twice a month. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we could do it the other Wednesday. >> And if I have to miss some of those, I I miss some of those. It isn't the end of the world. >> Okay. because I'm regularly in contact with the chairs of that committee and
with the contractors. But >> it it would help me if we have a static night because I'm also on the bylaw review committee which is going to be composed of some people on other committees too. So
>> that's going to be a floating thing too. So to the extent we can stick to Wednesdays that would help me. >> Okay. I will reach out to everybody. I'll try to do it before the weekend is out and try to come up with a rough schedule. I know you've got business
travel. I have business travel that >> comes and goes. Um I have at least one trip in October that I need to be on. So, um we'll get through it, but we'll we'll figure it out. >> Um >> I think it's the last couple meetings that are most important.
>> So, yeah. And and let let's take a minute and talk about that as well. Um, typically what happens is, and Caesar, you're the the new member here. >> Um, we meet with all the department heads, review the proposals,
everything in the proposal is in scope. So, we tend to focus on over the past several years the FY whatever the next year is. In this case, it would be FY27. Um, but everything is in scope. So if we want to go years 2, three, four, and five in those discussions, um they
should be prepared to talk about anything on the on the proposal. Um, we then have and we'll talk a little bit about because there's some some proposed updates for the fiscal policy, but we have historically
um submitted to the town manager by the end of the year um a ranked listing of all of the capital plan proposed items. Um and typically what
that takes is two meetings, two-ish meetings to settle in on. Um the chair provides the list. Typically we come to the first meeting with sort of a draft of our prioritizations. We talk them through and then we submit
in the space of between the off meeting um a final sort of voted tally for every member and then I will bring back that final calculus presented to the group and we'll vote on it for approval. So it typically takes two. I think a couple of years ago for some crazy reason it took
three. I don't know if we had a somebody was out or did it wrong or I can't remember what but um anyway that so there will be very likely meetings first or second week of December. >> Okay.
>> Um and then we also obviously over the course of this thing will need to determine how we want to deal with years two through five, right? And and I think that one of the ways to look at it might be we make a recommendation like these
these things are very low probability and we just make that recommendation back to the town manager and maybe that's it. Maybe we could do a little bit more than that. I I don't know. But you know I think over the course of the next several meetings we can kind of talk about >> I thought last year's presentations even
on the LES were good. >> Yeah, they were good. >> So I did think last year was a better process. >> Yep. Um, which brings me to another topic. And Jen, I think we can take this offline, but I do want to um I do want to uh at least air this with the group.
Last year, we made an attempt to standardize the the presentations. Um, we'll just call it what it was. It was a failure. Um, we I think we did better. We made progress over the course of two years ago to last year. um in terms of
the presentations and the quality and the analytics that went into them, >> we were unable to land on something that was like uniform in that you'd expect to see more or less the same thing on each slide from each department head.
>> And what that has the effect of doing is causing us all to have to reframe when when we go back and do the analysis and start looking at the decks in December as we're doing our prioritization. It's like, okay, what are we talking about over here? This is this information is
presented a little bit differently. So, I'd like to work with you on taking another swing at that. Um, you know, at the end of the day, it is what it is. And and I don't think we are in a position to dictate how these things are
brought forth, but I I would like to make an honest effort at standardizing the the formatting of these. Um, and at a very minimum, the slide template. Um, >> I was going to say it would be helpful if um, you know, obviously there's some
categories that are just what's the useful life, what's the remaining value of all those things. Um, but if there's anything maybe maybe I could put together some suggestions and then you could react to it. >> Yeah. Yeah, I think that'd be good. Um,
the other thing is some departments do also provide a written narrative. Um, I don't think that that's mandatory. It's a lot of work. Um, historically the police department has provided a a really nice document to accompany the
deck. >> Um, I would continue to encourage that. Like any additional color commentary or context I think is helpful, particularly if it's written. I've gone back and many times referenced that document, but I once again I don't I don't want to put
an undue burden like if we're not if we're not getting the relevant information in our conversations and they're not part of the recordings or the minutes like we're not really doing our job in the meeting. So, um I I think we just leave it at that. I don't think we require a narrative.
>> Okay. One more thing to think about is um last year we did call capital planning meetings during the budget process. I think that was wise to do because things come up and I do think it's wise for
capital planning to weigh in on those things. So >> yeah, I think that's a really good point. Um so there I think we had two. Um, we had one with Carter >> where it was more of a dialogue with Carter at the time. He
then kind of put together his prioritization list. There wound up being two versions of it which caused a whole bunch of other downstream problems. >> But um, but I think it was a productive meeting nonetheless. Um, and then and then when Jen came on, we had a meeting
where, you know, quite frankly, we just needed to kind of catch up and clarify on a lot of information. >> It was the schools >> for continuity purposes. >> No, remember it was the schools and the >> Oh, we also discussed that, right? The >> the the green community thing around the schools. >> It was both. >> That was that last meeting with Jen. We
discussed both. Exactly. Right. Yep. >> So, I I absolutely think we should do that. Um I I think you know part of this is I think that the CPC and the finance committee
ought to be part of if not a real time dialogue some sort of staccato dialogue around okay does this funding level make sense and is this the right mix of raise and appropriate free cash debt whatever it might be uh to meet our needs you
know >> and and I' I'd like to be able to do that. >> Okay. And then the final thing that I it doesn't have to be solved tonight, but as the finance committee member on capital planning, one of the things we looked at real late in the game last year was the overall borrowing capacity
of the town and how major projects would intersect with capital planning projects as well as the operating budget. I don't know if that's where that falls between capital planning or um finance committee, but I think that's also one
that has an overlap effect. And I do think the funding side of things is part of the plan. I do not believe the plan is just a ranked ordered list of >> you and I are lock step on this. We we agree. Um
I I think that within the confines of the charter it's kind of ambiguous in terms of the level to which we get involved in the financing discussion. Um but in the proposed fiscal policy there is actually a new line in there
that says in the case you know in in certain circumstances we do need to make a recommendation in terms of the financing particularly if there's a a borrowing uh type issue. So, I can't remember exactly how it was worded, but we can look at it shortly. >> Um, so I think that if we were to
recommend that and if the select board were to adopt it, that effectively gives us, you know, some sort of enshrinement into that process as well. Okay. Anything else on
goals, times, timelines, process? All right, that was a much easier discussion than I anticipated. So, good. All right. Um, next item is discuss and respond to draft fiscal policies. Um, so apologies
for the timeliness of this. Jen and I got this together fairly late, but in your email today, there is a document that is a redline version of the draft fiscal policies.
Um, I think I have the tab open in some version of my browser, so bear with me for a second. Indeed. All right, Jen, do you want to share or do you want me to share or do you care? Either way, I'm happy to share.
>> You know, why don't why don't you do it because you're more familiar with the document and get to the pertinent stuff quickly. >> Oh, except I'm restricted from sharing in this meeting. >> Oh, of course. >> Oh, okay. The host can't share. >> Uh, >> do you want me to show you the redline version?
>> No, I have it. >> Um, but what I can also do, you are the host. You can't share. >> No. >> No. >> What? All right, let's see where this brings us. Um, let me let me try to share and see. We
might be uh >> Why can I share when I'm host? >> I don't know. Maybe a different >> sharing is not turned on. That's the problem. >> Oh, wait. Allow. I've got a >> All right. Here you go. >> So, I think I think you can do it, but
you have to do more steps. >> We're on it. We're on it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Okay, here we go. >> Cooking with gas. >> Can you see my screen? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um, so I am in the capital
planning section. There was another section that had some red lines, but I don't know if they were pertinent, Jen. >> No, this is the beginning for you. >> Okay. All right. Um, do we want to do a live read through on this or what's the best way to come at
this? Can I just for the record just I I don't I think everybody's clear on what this was and where it came from, but just >> Yeah, please give us some background. That'd be helpful. >> Yeah. So, the Thank you. So, the um this was part of a grant funded project through the community compact best
practices grant that um Heather Levie had obtained and she contracted with the division of local services to formulate u a best financial best practices and policies document. So, we were actually supposed to finalize this a little bit
ago, but obviously things got moved around with priorities and here we are. So, um the red lines that you see today are mine. Um and so everything else was as all the other changes. I'm not sure
what the process was up to Heather's departure. Um but this is the document as was left by Heather and the red lines are mine. >> Okay. So additional context as I recall um was that this document was somewhat
based on our previous fiscal policies but also there was a substantial amount of new sort of best practices that were added as recommendations and there was no reference to where stuff came from or you know sort of the
origins of is this enshrined in our charter? Is it enshrined in bylaws? Is it enshrined in somebody in the state thinks that this is the way we should do things? >> And you know, in in my mind at the time, the last time we saw this,
>> it it wasn't clearly grounded in our other sort of founding documents and nor had any of the things that astray from those documents been discussed. So, I understand that there's a lot of water under under the bridge since the last
time I've been engaged in this thing, but but I you know, for what it's worth, that was my impression the last time I looked at this and we had discussed that as a committee. I don't I'm assuming that it's come a little further since then
>> enough and and in fact uh for the the section that deals just with the capital planning I went through that section and
annotated it to the best of my ability with references to the charter and to the bylaws and tried to identify where things came from. I did not bring that annotation with me here tonight, but I
do have that annotation. >> Okay. So, suffice to say, Chris and Jen, this is not really evolved since then, or is that a >> I mean, I think it's the same document that Heather shared with us. >> Okay.
>> Yeah, we haven't touched it at all. So, >> yeah. Nor have we. >> Yeah. >> But I don't know if between the time when you were looking at it, >> this was a year ago, Right. And you gave those reactions. Did she then take them back to DLS? I'm not sure. >> So, at that point, it would have been
Carter. >> It would have been Carter then this. >> No. >> Okay. >> Okay. Well, that's important context then. >> Mhm. >> Um Okay. So, I I I read only the red lines
that you provided earlier today. I did look at the inventory and criteria sections. Um, honestly, I think they're fairly aligned with how we've approached things in the past. >> Um, and I actually I thought that the
red lines were pretty aligned. Um, but I I think given where we've been on this, I think it might take a more thorough read. And Rob in particular, I think it
might be helpful if you took your analysis from last year. >> Yeah. >> And kind of gave it the once over from this y and >> and maybe we would table this discussion with that additional context. Can can I bring up two kind of key deviations that
I would be probably asking CPCs to at least consider? >> Yep. >> And they're not deviations from actually our current practice or policy. Um but it's the definition of what a capital item is.
>> That's up here. >> The the useful life. Um, so I actually was going on because I said three is awful low. I've not I've not really encountered um >> the useful life of three years where
Yeah. Right there in that highlight section. >> Okay. >> So when I I said I wanted to just check myself that the true best practice was five years. Um and I did did verify that. But in doing so I also saw that
that $20,000 number which had always really been 20,000. I've always called capital 20,000 useful life of five years or over that in some communities and in DLS's most recent recommendation has been increased by $5,000
to $25,000 and where we are adopting policy updates with the costs of all of these large capital items forever increasing. I didn't know if this was the time to consider upping the 20 to 25
potentially. And the three to five does make sense to me. I don't think a three-year capital item I I do have trouble with it although I know that it is enshrined in in the town of parks. >> We increased it to 20,000 what two years ago
>> from 10 or 15 >> from 10. So we kind of took a step function at that time >> and there was a discussion at the time of should it be 25 or 30 and it was like oh well let's take something a little more comfortable we'll go to we'll go to 20 >> but >> so it was a pretty rigorous scientific
endeavor. >> Exactly. You know I so I I just two thoughts immediately come to mind on this. First of all, we've we've probably experienced a sum
total of nearly 20% inflation just in just since the last time we talked about this. So >> So I think a $5,000 move on this is probably >> negligible. >> Um where I'm a little hesitant is on the
three to five and what immediately comes to mind are police cruisers, >> right? So they are funded though within the operating budget. >> No, >> no, they're not. They haven't been. If we're going to go if we're going to move to that, >> aren't they on the capital?
Hold on. Let me think of this. You are right. >> I They should a police cruiser if in Jen's school a police cruiser is operating. We've had that discussion before and the
thought behind that was that >> because we buy we have such a small fleet generally speaking >> it just kind of spikes in in es and flows right in the number you may buy in a year which is why we kept it on capital I'm not saying that should be
where we keep it that was just the rationale for >> but we have had anywhere from zero to three vehicles for the police department in a given year >> and that num the total number in the fleet has gone up notably since I even
joined capital. So it as our town grows as the police force grows that may become something in short order that could be more regular. >> I mean I think it's worth a discussion. I don't I don't have a strong opinion on
it. I I mean I can maybe for police cars if you wanted to even do a carbo but for most other things you don't want a capital >> I item that you know useful life of three years. >> I'm also okay with just including them
in the the operating budget >> because they just show up and they get approved. I mean it's >> yeah we we do it anyway. Whatever they ask for we do when it comes to cruisers. Like we're not messing around with it. I think maybe one year we shaved from >> three to two and then kicked it out a year. But
>> and they've been very good about their asks, please. I mean, and fire too for that matter. They've been very thoughtful about their useful life and when they can ek out more and when they realize they can't. So, what I I think
what I'm hearing, Jen, is we would go either way on that, but I think carve out for the cruisers may be a either way, put in the budget or carve it out here because I think to set a
precedent that we expect a police cruiser to last 5 years is not is not realistic. I mean, we have police cruisers that are well over 5 years old on our inventory, but they're not used every day. They're the, you know, we still have a Chevy Tahoe running around. It's got to be seven or eight years old
at this point. >> Yeah. I'd defer to town manager's preference on that. >> Mhm. Okay. Is that sufficient, Jen? >> Yeah. And I think everything else, you know, take the time to digest these edits. If anybody has questions of why I
did what I did, um I think it was pretty prescriptive in the evaluation criteria as it was drafted with really the ranking being that something was a number one, number two, number three and then the point system was assigned. I
tried to say that basic leave this committee enough room that you could decide your own evaluative criteria if you wanted to. But these are some things you should be looking at. But even so far as saying that it shouldn't be a
bright line rule in your evaluation. There should be some sort of human discernment that occurs when you're the the reality on the ground, not just reduced to a formula. Yeah. >> So, but allows you the flexibility within the policy to adapt as the CPC
changes. >> Yeah. I I think what you wrote here is well aligned with our practice. >> I agree. >> Okay. So, we're going to take this as homework.
>> One question though as part of I don't know if it's policy of best. We use that Colin scoring. I never look at it. >> So, thank you for everyone who puts it in there, but >> are we going to continue to utilize that Colin scoring portion of the spreadsheet?
>> Yes. So, Jen, do you want to comment on that? the evaluative criteria here that was listed. If you were to look at the Colin scoring, my guess is there is almost an 80% or more overlap there. Those are pretty that list is pretty standardized.
>> So, we did not and we probably should have discussed this under the the previous agenda item, but um Jen and I talked about this a little bit last week when we spoke. Um, last year we did not follow PA past in
terms of using the what was the app called? Open gov. >> Clear gov. >> Clear gov. Gov >> um and and requiring the department heads to go in and do the call-in scoring in advance and report that as part of their presentations.
Part of that was because clear gov was a train wreck. We had a we had an interim town manager. It was just a mess. Um I don't think we were I I don't think we were handicapped for not using it last year.
>> So, but I I do think that there would be a benefit to having some sort of automated online way of showing these proposals and maybe even voting on the proposals using some some sort of online tool. Mhm.
>> Um, so I I don't know if you have any thoughts on that, Jen, or or any other members, but >> I I definitely we're paying for clear gov. I mean, I I want to use it, but I don't want it to handicap anybody. So, I think it's a good way to get all the
projects in one space, all similar ways they're being reported. It's a great way to track. Um but again and and I I still think those categories of labeling you know is this something that alleviates
or reduces harm to health, safety or welfare or is this something that improves those things are still important. Um, and if you want to as a committee decide that you want to score things and the score is however you want to do it, informative but not the end
all beall, I think that you should be able to kind of decide how you want to approach that. >> So I I don't think there's any argument here that we are not going to be bound by the Collins scoring. I think that the question here is are you going to require the department heads to go
through that process and that evaluation and enter that information in clear go? >> It's probably not going to be entered in the same way that it was in the past. >> Okay. >> If there's information going through the system as it's set up that I think is informative to anybody that's making a
decision on funding, I think keep it. If it seems like there's something that is a lot of extra leg work for department heads, it's not going to yield much utility for you as decision makers. >> Okay. All right. So, suffice to say, you're going to make a decision on that and run with it. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> And I, >> like I said, I don't I I know Chris's opinion. My opinion is whatever you say, you're the boss when it comes to the department heads. I find the clear gov stuff helpful. If
it's literally a tie in my mind and I'm looking what's going to be above the other one, I'll go to the clear gov score and at least that sort of informs my thought process. >> But in the past, my rankings have been way out of whack with Collins, you know, for
for all of the reasons we've talked about over the last several years. So, >> um, >> and since we didn't use it last year, no frame of [Laughter] Yeah, fair fair point. >> One final discussion point before we
review this I think is how we incorporate the aspect of grants into this. Um because I I think we give like lip service to it but I don't think we do enough during the planning aspects associated with what truly are grants
available and things. And then last year with, you know, the schools and the the uh green community grant that obviously threw a huge monkey wrench into everything. And should we have known that beforehand? Possibly. I don't know.
Um >> but >> yeah, I know I know Green Communities wants to be involved in in this process more and knowing what projects people are looking at so they can do their work as well in this space.
Um but we can certainly on um application on submittals and narratives you know are there grants available yes or no for this type of work and what you know what are the considerations that are associated with such grant
funding. So I think in the past that was there on the form >> it was I think the department heads really don't have a lot of the tools to fill it in properly the research tools if you
will. So it seems as that's an area that outside >> in general grants typically typically don't cover the things that municipalities are expected to fund
annually or regularly. So, so I don't know. I don't know without talking to them if it's just, hey, there's not really grants other than the safer grant for or safe grant for fire apparatus and that's really the only one. I don't
know. But >> I feel like last year we got more feedback from the department heads about potential grant opportunities than we have in the past. It wasn't a lot and we didn't have a
great like a really concrete solid way of incorporating it, but I felt like they did a notably better job of saying, "Oh, there may be some grants for this or I know about something like this that we
could be brought in to help." Uh yeah, I guess my view on this is knowing that there might be a grant and knowing the pertinent details of the grant.
There's a big there's a lot of space between those two things, right? And you know, case in point, we had grant whiplash last year over that green communities thing, right? And over the course of the year last year,
like I mean I got into it with the green committee community's chair over this at a couple of public meetings because we were getting conflicting information about this thing. And then when it was all said and done, great, you get this awesome grant opportunity, but you know,
there's all these, you know, short-term strings attached and funding and all this stuff that like it it it caused a massive change >> in everything that all of the assumptions we had made around our strategic plan, >> right? >> So you I I think grant whip grant
whiplash is really the right way to to to describe it. So I I just have mixed feelings about like I do want to comment >> putting a lot of stock in the grants. I guess >> I I do want to walk back a little bit what I said about >> I'm gonna undo some of my statement when
I said that there's not typically funding for our traditional operations. The one space that there is becoming more and more funding um is going to be for DPW with culvert work, anything
that's related to storm water, runoff, flooding, hazard mitigation. There's lots of money there for bridges, culverts. >> Is that from the state? Because I >> Yes. >> Okay. Because I know MRPC has been
effectively hosting a support group um for for all the local planners who are finding that a lot of and DPW etc. who are finding the federal monies they were going to be relying on for grants
are not only non-existent but they keep disappearing further whatever is left uh we were thinking >> there was just a bill there was just a bill or proposal something there was some news about this within the last couple of weeks um from I want to say
the governor's office I can't remember what but it was in that vein of bridges and culverts >> there's infrastructure money out there >> right state is wonderful. I know we were thinking things like there was some indication that we still might be getting some federal brownfields money
which is less relevant for Lunenburgg. We were very fortunate to not have very many brownfield sites but then we're finding no even those that the government feds were saying were likely going to be maintained aren't. Mhm.
>> But great love. State money is wonderful because more predictable right now. >> Okay. Um All right. So, we're going to go back look at fiscal policies and that'll be on the agenda for our next meeting. Um I
I think with that in mind, we may want to consider a late September meeting just to cover that. um because I I don't want to spend too much time on this and not spend time with department heads about requests. So,
okay. Um next item is discuss and respond to master steering request for I guess I should have said master steering committee request for input, but we'll call it good enough on the agenda. >> Yep. >> Um do you want to lead that discussion?
Uh >> certainly I can >> Sorry, I should have alerted you to that. >> No, it's fine. It's totally fine. I have it up. Um it might might be helpful if I share my screen actually. >> Sure.
>> Um and let's pick the right window. Okay. And you should be getting my ex Excel spreadsheet, right? >> Indeed. Y >> Okay. Super. So
um as we're nearing the final steps in the master planning process, the master plan and steering committee working well the the overunder the contractors we're working with working with uh the master
plan steering committee have narrowed down several goals for the master plan. And what they want to do is identify effectively they've made their best stab at we're pretty sure these groups have
some kind of impact or influence on these goals. And what we have is a spreadsheet that they'd like us to fill out that gives them the input they need for figuring out who they should talk to about further things. um a certain level
of initial input from us here um as well as figuring out even going on further into implementation once the master plan is eventually approved by the planning board. This would also help the imp our eventual theoretical implementation
committee know who to be speaking with on different topics as well. Um so what you see is in column A we have our goals some specific recommendations
and um then relevant committees because you'll see there's more than one and then a set of questions. We can just go through them one at a time if that's works for you Mr. Chair. >> Yeah great dig. So, >> so one one comment just before we start
that when I was looking through these my my sense is for our committee we're we're a reactionary committee. We wait for the other committees and departments to
present us with capital requests. We don't propose them or create them, at least we haven't, on our own. Mhm. >> So it it didn't seem like the way our committee functions we plug into this very well.
>> I would ag I would agree on that level. However, we are the committee with among the most insight to several of the larger projects in town and we also have in this room a better idea of the
cadence of how some of those projects fall. And that input would also be valuable for them as well. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, full agreement that we're at this point especially largely reactionary. Um
so among the goals support a range of housing options for all ages and income levels. um with the recommendations for being encourage the development of an assisted living complex in an area that reduces
impact to surrounding areas. Um is this controlled by your committee's bylaws or policies? >> No. >> No, >> we don't have bylaws and policies. >> Fair. So this
correct? Um but I mean no committee has bylaws. So part of it is is it >> our >> the controlling bylaws or policies? >> Yes. >> As associated with the >> but no we don't really have we have very little there as well. >> Um
and do we have a bylaw or policy on this already? Because it may not it may be the case we don't control it but we know we do. Mhm. >> I'm not aware of anything about an assisted about assisted living for us. >> No, >> like bylawwise in the town.
>> No. >> I mean, I haven't read the housing. >> That's fine. This is meant to be for us to give feedback. We don't have to go through with a fine tooth comb. >> Um >> I have to go through some of them with a
fine tooth comb with other hats, but >> yeah. Um, >> not explicitly at least. >> Yeah. So, how does this recommendation align with your committee's current goals and priorities? >> Well, we don't really have
>> it doesn't priorities >> um related to your board committee commission. What is the impact of implementing this recommendation? Are there possible unintended consequences? irrelevant for I I don't
>> not in terms of capital planning >> not in terms of capital planning >> unless it's diverting other funds to >> unless >> right I mean depends on by the way my read on the whole deck is all wonderful to have but where's the money like you
know and and the the problem with the entire deck is >> if we do that then we're not doing this right so I >> and so what's missing from some of this is in the end the recommendations Any
recommendations based on public feedback are going to be uh they're also going to have a ranking on a monetary scale. You know, how many dollar signs, right? There's going to be a ranking in terms of priority for the town. There's going
to be a ranking for time frame we might want to look at it. So, the idea isn't we would necessarily be looking at all of these at once. And there were some that will will probably fall out as yeah, if we have the money in the end, that would be good. So just because it's
here doesn't mean they're all contemporaneous, equal in budget, or viewed at the same level. >> There's going to come a point at a town meeting two, three, four years from now where something on this list is going to come up as an article. >> Mhm.
>> And there isn't going to be money for it. Mhm. >> And somebody is going to say, "Yes, but it's on the master plan that we all agreed to." And we're going to say, "Yeah, but what are you going to cut to fund this thing?" And we're not going to do it. Like that's how this is all going to go down.
>> That is we've talked about that, too. >> Yeah. No, you're right. And that's why master plans, if you don't do work on something like an implementation committee, there's other ways to approach it, but I I am personally in
favor of implementation committee. Um, yeah. No, if you don't have someone watching implementation, it ends up sitting on a shelf. You have a nice expensive book that sits on a shelf and doesn't get used. And one
thing and thankfully the master plan steering committee is very passionate about this doesn't want that to happen to their two years of hard work. So there is a lot of thought about what does implementation look like? um how
would an implementation committee work with other committees to help frame and think about and some things here necessarily um so we have like this one I'll use an example encourage the development of an assisted living
complex in an area that reduces impact to surrounding areas. Um that doesn't mean the town builds an assisted living complex. What that does mean is right now in assisted living complex, our
permitting for those are really wonky. You need a special permit from the ZBA unless you're doing it in a commercial district in a specific kind of commercial subdist in town. Then it's a special permit before the planning board.
And it might actually be that this should be a the assisted living should be a buy use, for example. So, a lot of these things aren't necessarily the town does it. It's >> setting it up so that >> it can be done. >> You know, so private entities can do it. >> Yep.
>> Um, so I was going to say for could divert other funds if town funded. Um, and I can give them more answer on that. >> Um, are the other committees not listed? No, I generally their lists are very
good. So if you see it and see something, but I'm not going to go through that on any on all of them. Is there any other feedback we want to give? I'm assuming not. If we want to give feedback, voice it. Uh protect farmland and support farmers was another goal. Uh create a
conservation fund to preserve farms. Um such as upon the sale of land to reduce development. So right now we have things like first right of refusal but that money is >> hey if we happen to have it kicking
around >> right >> the uh is this controlled by our by our bylaws? >> No >> no >> um we don't have a policy or bylaw on it. Um,
does how does this re uh recommendation align with the committee's current goals and priorities? I would assume none. >> No. >> Um, how does it relate uh to what will the impact of
how could how could this impact our committee indirectly or by if it happens? >> Well, it's probably the same answer, right? depends how it's where's the money going to come from. Uh for the goal of build upon efforts to improve natural open spaces and recreational opportunities,
improve parking act parking and access to all trails in town. Um, is this controlled by your board's policies? I would say I mean,
>> well, it's not controlled. It's it's it's >> it's related. >> Yeah. I I'm going to say yes. And then we can give them I would say yes. It it and we can nuance it. It's not controlled, but it would
come before us. That's what I'm talking about. We're reactionary. somebody, some other department would be proposing a change to a conservation land or something >> and it would be proposed as part of the capital plan and then it would impact
us. But we're not initiating any of this. >> No. Um agreement. Do we have do we have a bylaw or policy on it? No. Um how is it aligned within our priorities and current goals? It would
likely be a capital project, I guess, would be our answer. >> Yeah. >> Or to the extent it's a capital project, it's in our purview. >> I like that wording more. And And as an aside on this one, I've
been watching Facebook chatter with people complaining about our conservation land and how it's in disrepair. And the response of the conservation committee has been, "Well, what do you expect? We're relying on volunteers."
>> I know we haven't as a committee proposed our own capital projects, but that's one that I am thinking about. I would be interested in hearing how that would be a capital project. I don't disagree and I also agree on the need. I
just don't have that but that would be another discussion. >> Well, you got to rebuild the bridge and >> Oh, okay. Yeah. Fair. >> Yeah. But it's it's interesting because given the committee given the committees and departments that we've typically heard from,
we've never had a conversation with conservation. >> I know, right? Because >> maybe that would fall through DPW, but I don't know explicitly if that would fall. >> That's because conservation is planned to have the Boy Scouts do it. >> Well, which is fine. >> Yeah. >> Or the Snow Riders.
>> Yeah. Which is all very good. like that. >> I do think we should involve other boards and commissions in our process. >> This has been a departmentrun C process devoid of direct input from other boards
and commissions that have a stake in that. conservation >> in in a theoretically ideal world, conservation would be able to get its voice heard here through
their town professional um who would feed into this the same as planning board would yeah would get needs through the planner um to or the land use director. >> So wouldn't that technically also be
conservation too? because it falls under >> Yes. >> organization, right? >> We see the problem is when we have committees that are staffed by volunteers without reliable professional staffing
backing them. >> Gotcha. >> They don't have the same kind of seat at the table >> right now. >> And conservation is a good example where we've just had a, >> you know, kind of a revolving door for a couple of years. >> Yep. Um for some support community gathering
spaces um assess uh assess develop town green in between TC Pacios adult activity center for outdoor community space that we don't have anything
bylawwise about it like it's not controlled by us. We don't have a bylaw. Correct me when I'm speaking out loud about that if you disagree. I'm just trying to move us quicker. >> Um, how does this align with our committee
uh uh with our priorities to the extent it is a capital project? It's in our purview. >> Yeah. >> And on the ones where we say that I'm also saying competing funds because as shorthand for if it was a capital project it would be in competition with
other capital projects. So why is this different than the prior one? >> Um on the yes no and H. Oh h you you are correct that should be uh I I you were correct. I think that should
be a yes because it would fall under our processes >> if it were conducted as a capital project. I was say the first one while we were chatting I was thinking well if it was a capital project and the next one was thinking well if it wasn't a capital
project but they should be consistent and again this is a spreadsheet to make coalating of initial data easy that the discussion still happens at a granular level. Um develop options of 30 school
street space including parking and green space. The committee believes that parking in the town center is a much needed priority. I >> think it's the same as the last >> I agree. For those watching on this, I'm not going to scroll over to do the um set
that last column because so I know it'll be the same. I'll just copy later because my horizontal scrolling is not great right now. Um develop a large gathering space on on large town owned properties. I >> same >> same
>> same. Yeah. >> I am aware that my copy paste is also has a incorrect spelling. That's fine. I'll edit it later. Um for the goal of optimized use of municipal buildings and properties.
Um the goal would or the recommendation would be inventory and create a long-term plan for all town owned land and buildings. >> So the charter states that we're responsible for an inventory, >> right? And that's in the policy assets.
>> So this is this is directly within our >> Yeah, it's within our meant to discuss >> how how if ever have we ever done that? >> We actually did the year before last. Uh >> we got a >> what was effectively a vehicle inventory
>> uh from the town manager which was very helpful. >> Um but it was a one and done kind of thing. So um Jen, I think that's something we should probably discuss too. >> We can talk about how to do that. Absolutely. >> Yeah. Um how does it align with our
current goals? We are starting work on this is progressing but slowly. Um are there any aspects that need
further clarification? I don't think we need clarification from them on this right now. Um what is the impact of implementing this recom There's no real impact on us from
oh no it will help us with capital planning. >> Was that my kid out there? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Sam, there's your snacks on the corner by on that filed cabinet right inside the door. >> You bring snacks for everyone? >> No, I brought I brought them for my son
who didn't get to finish dinner before we went to Scouts. Um, uh, to be the child of a public official. You spend a lot of time sitting in the backs of meeting rooms. Um, okay. for the goal of improved
school facilities, funding, and opportunities, renovate Turkey Hill. >> That is going to be yes because it's within our purview. No, we don't have a bylaw on it.
And to the extent it is a capital project, it would be a capital project. But >> yeah, >> foster safe and resilient town infrastructure. Develop a town center plan that encourages small businesses, walkability
in communal gathering spaces. That's not I mean, >> yeah, >> that's not us, I would say. >> Well, oh, tell me I'm I love being wrong. I mean, it could be if you or the DPW
director brought forth a plan to renovate open space out here to help accomplish that goal. >> That would factor into our that could be something that would factor into our f into our capital. You're right.
So, yes, it's kind of us as much as things here are us. No, there's not a specific bylaw about it. >> So, can we go back to the um Turkey Hill? >> Yes. >> So,
this may be semantics. I'm not sure in the way that our role is set up as a committee and our duties that a building project is a capital planning project. Well, it's
>> renovated. >> It's renovated. >> This would be Yeah. But if you're doing a renovation, that's not a capital project. >> You're doing a debt exclusion. You are assigning a building committee. You are involving the >> I guess it's the same that involves a capital project. It's in our
>> Yeah. Because there have been I mean, are we talking renovation as a whole? like this is the project we're doing or are we talking about now we're going to upgrade electrical? >> No, I don't think that's the the nature
of this discussion is to the tune of like I want to say like the the ante number was like $16 million or something. >> Yeah. Yeah. because you can't the the problem the problem with Turkey Hill is is that once you take a bite out of it,
>> you've exceeded 30% of the assessed value of the property, which means that you trigger all the ADA stuff and you you're you are literally swallowing the apple hole. >> So like it's a it's going to be a big debt excluding thing.
>> We typically do have capital for >> a little two cents on that. Shouldn't it still though like yes there would be a special building committee that would be stood up but capital planning will have a substantial impact because of such a
project and would want to be having some level of seat at the table and get at some point of that project. >> I'm not saying we shouldn't have a seat at the table. I'm saying in terms of how our duties are prescribed like I just I I think uh the the way the
state deals with a building project the way the MSBA MS Massachusetts school build MSBA deals with building projects like this this is a school committee driven thing with the MSBA and it has very little to do with us. Well, so I
disagree and it's to my my my prior statement on a plan is not just ranking the the end number of projects that come before us. It's ranking those looking at all available funding sources as well as
borrowing capacity or or free cash capacity to fund those capital projects. So I think historically we were kind of kept away from that but I don't think we should be kept away from that. I think we should that is a capital item. A building is a capital item
>> and we should have a say in that. >> And last year >> recommendation >> sorry didn't mean to cut you off. >> Um last year the school committee maybe it was two years ago but did submit the big series of Turkey Hill proposals that included >> broken down
>> if we did this at this point. if we did this at this point. And I mean, if they're talking a full renovation, no. But do they mean I I can't tell you off the top of my head, cuz I don't think it's clear from this or clear in people's minds if they're talking a full
renovation or the things you do to keep the building functioning and useful. Um, we did the window safety film. We've looked at replacing individual willed uh well the uh vestibules that still are
>> yeah yeah I mean there's the there's the the biting the the one bite at a time versus the whole apple and we have been biting one bite at a time. I I don't think that this is addressing the one bite at a time. And the the context here
is we approved we got some ARPA money last year and spent a whole bunch of money to do that evaluation around a build, you know, rebuild versus renovate. and and quite frankly I disagree with the conclusions that the consultants came to but at the end of the day
the recommendation is that it's a big project however you do it and it's a it's a multi-million dollar MSBA project that is going to be you know voted twice a town meeting and a ballot vote and the
whole nine yards right so I'm not disagreeing with you that we shouldn't have a say in it but our part in that process would be negligible. >> I Well, so the other thing is there's the architecture architecting as well as
the the initial schematic designs that do come through as capital projects typically. >> Uh >> it is a phased implementation to get to the end goal. >> Yeah. But I I I tend to disagree in terms of the way
>> I think that it involves the capital plan. It's within our purview. >> Yeah. All right. I mean, I look I I I sounds like I'm in the minority on this, but I I I think we need to be >> No, you're right. It may not involve the capital plan, and therefore, it won't be in our purview.
>> I also think we have this history of funding architecture and schematic design >> and then we put them on a nice shelf somewhere, >> doesn't go anywhere. >> And they don't go anywhere. >> Right next to the master plane. >> Yeah. I >> I we could have you all could have a a
special section of >> our expensive shelf. Um I've included a note that our committee is somewhat divided because it kind of depends on how big a thing you're talking at any
given point um as like a one-s sentence summary. Um, right. Those are the I mean that those are the topics they wanted from us. Thank you for taking the time. But now we have that feedback. I
will tidy up what I've typed because those who watch me type know I am the worst typist, you know. >> Good. Thank you for doing that. >> If you want to watch walk Finn come through this. Um, if you want help with it, let me know when you're meeting
because I will see if I have time. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um, no further commentary on master steering master plan steering committee input. Okay. Um, a little while ago I circulated minutes recirculated minutes
from our March 20th meeting. Um, I apologize that those were late, but they've been in all of our inboxes except Caesars for four or five months. >> I did read them. >> Any comments? >> I read them. >> I'm fine with them. >> Okay.
>> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I. >> Okay. March 20th, minutes are approved. I will get those submitted. Is there any public comment? >> Okay. I will be in touch very shortly about meeting availabilities. Um, look
at your Wednesday calendars over the next four months and we will uh we will talk. Oh, one thing I did want to um ask back to scheduling. Um the town manager inquired of me when we were talking a week or two ago um about
scheduling for these meetings and I I know that there's a concerted effort to try to move meetings in particularly when we're trying to keep trying to not keep our staff here late into the evenings. Um is there any appetite for starting our meetings either at 6 or
6:30? >> That works for me. >> It doesn't matter to me. >> That's fine for me. Chris, come on. Have >> you ever driven from Wuburn? >> Yeah, I work in Newton, so it's worse. Um,
>> I'm not opposed to it. I just may not be here. >> Yeah. >> Well, you do have the jet, the helicopter, right? >> It's on the >> It's on next year. >> It's on the capital. >> What's that? Lieutenant Governor, right?
Right. Okay. Um, we will continue that discussion as well, but please consider that. Um, I it it is problematic for me because I'm expected to be in the office three days a week and my office is in Newton. So,
>> um, and those of you familiar with the way the traffic works, if you leave at 3, you stand a pretty good chance of making it home by quarter after 4. If you leave at 3:15, >> right, >> it's Yeah. Right. You know, it's it's insane. So, um, >> and if you leave at 6, you would have
passed yourself somewhere along the way. >> Exactly. Right. >> So, um, so anyway, but you know how things work in an office where, hey, you have two seconds to discuss something and a half an hour later you've blown your commute window. So, that's how my life works. Tuesday, Wednesdays, and
Thursdays typically. So, um, we'll we'll try to at least do it on occasion and and try to plan for that. >> Okay, good. >> Motion to adjurnn. Is there a second? Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I. All right. Thank you everybody. Thank
you, Jen. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, everybody. >> All right. Take care everybody.