All right. Good evening and welcome to tonight's meeting of the Lunberg Select Board. Today is March 31st. Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the requirements of the open meeting law, please be advised that this meeting is being recorded and broadcast live over the Lunberg public access channel on Facebook Live on the
public access Facebook page and will be uploaded to the Lunberg Access YouTube channel after the meeting. The agenda lists all the topics which may be discussed at the meeting and are 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 the open meeting law. We're going to begin tonight with announcements and I have a couple. The first is a 300th anniversary committee is seeking a creative original
logo to commemorate the town's 300th anniversary. The winning design will be featured on print materials, merchandise, signage, and social media. The design must include quote Lunenburgg 300. And if you would like to submit a
design, the deadline is April 24th, 2026. Any questions or submissions can be sent to Chris Sullivan at lunenbergmma.gov. And we are still accepting submissions for the FY25 annual town report photo contest. If
you'd like to submit an entry for the town report cover, the new deadline is April 10th, so you have an extra week. All right. Public comment. Is there any public comment from the board? >> Any public comment from the public? Mr. Bowen.
>> Thank you. >> Hello everyone. John Bowen, uh 162 Highland Street. Just with me a second. Okay. Uh again, John Bowen, 162 Highland Street. Tonight, I'm here to ask this board to take a stand for the integrity
of our democratic process. As we prepare for the annual town meeting, we must address the persistent issue of what we call vote stacking, which has plagued our last two overrides. We have seen firsthand how specific groups coordinate to arrive for one article and leave immediately
afterwards, effectively deciding the town's future while the rest of the room is empty or half empty. This is especially critical this year. The upcoming override has created a perceived contest between those supporting, as it has in the past, uh
those supporting the school budget and those supporting town services. This environment is ripe for the same stacking tactics that we've seen before here in town. We cannot allow our most vital financial decisions to be made by whoever has the best tactical attendance plan or who can last the longest. Under
Massachusetts General Laws chapter 39 section 10, the select board has the explicit authority to govern the order of articles in the warrant. The select board handbook that is provided by the Massachusetts Municipal Association also confirms that you control the agenda. Therefore, the law allows the board to
take a vote tonight to implement a lottery style system for the warrant order. I'm asking you to randomize the sequence of all non-fixed articles that this creates fairness by doing a few things. neutralizes stacking. When the timing of an article is unknown, residents are encouraged to stay and
participate in the entire meeting. Balancing school and town interests. A lottery ensures that neither the school nor the town budget is penalized by a late night slot when voters are exhausted. And it also restores representative democracy. It ensures that every article is heard by a full
alert room that truly represents the need of the town. It is your duty as our executive officers to create fairness in our process. You have the power to stop the tactical stacking that has distorted previous votes. I urge you to use that power tonight to ensure that this year's town meeting is fair, balanced, and
truly reflects the actual collective will of all residents. Key points in question that I have is that you may have for me is do I have the authority? As I had mentioned that the Massachusetts Municipal Association guidelines for the select board, not the
moderator, initially determines the order of the warrant when it is signed. the urgency that we have here as well that you may be asking. This is urgent because it emphasizes to you that because you're you're signing the closing uh sorry the closing of the
warrant soon that the duty to set this standard would be to do so tonight. And that's my public comment. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Bowen. All right. Any public comment on Zoom? Not seeing anyone else.
Okay. Okay. So, we have a meeting with town council regarding the town meeting warrant and prop 2 and half override. So, we have attorney Costa here via Zoom. Are you there, Adam? >> I am, Mr. Chairman. >> All right, cool. So we have um a couple
things that we identified um and then any questions from board members related to the warrant any of the articles uh or proposition 2 and a half we can cover. Um so the first that we had discussed at our last meeting um was the article
related to the trust fund quorum and we were just looking to get your uh feedback and thoughts on that article. Sure. Let me just move to it. So, I've got that specific article on my screen. Bear with me for just a moment.
>> Yep. I'm pulling it up, too. So, it's article T, trust fund commission quorum. >> Sure. Uh, Mr. Chair. So, as I think you've seen, as I know you've seen, although you may may not all have had an opportunity to review it, uh the town manager had circulated a version of the
warrant with my uh redline adjustments and and annotations that sort of appear alongside the document in the margin. So, with respect to this particular article, I'm just going to read sort of verbatim what my comment says and then I'm happy to to expand upon it a bit. So
um it says irrespective of the cause for or objective of article T certain aspects of the proposed bylaw amendment concern me. First the select board is authorized quote to approve distributions from trust funds only when the board of commissioners of trust
funds lacks a lawful quorum unquote. Yet certain trust funds aren't even within the commissioner's purview. Second, the wording of the bylaw suggests that the select board shall quote be authorized to establish specific voting requirements unquote. Yet, I suspect
that the proponent of the bylaw amendment might really be attempting to obligate the select board to comply with the structures that follow. And then third, I question whether or not these voting parameters can lawfully be created via bylaw versus special act. So
let's talk about if we could those um those three comments. So um so the first one uh is this issue of um approving distributions from trust funds only when the board of commissioners of trust funds lacks lawful quorum. And that
language is uh specifically in the first sentence of the proposed bylaw change. says, "The select board shall be authorized on a limited and conditional basis to approve distributions from trust funds only when the board of commissioner of trust funds lacks a lawful quorum." And the reference is
just generically to trust funds. Well, as I think some of you know, because this was a topic that required some involvement by my office and required us to address it months ago um when the membership of the trust uh board of trust commissioners, which had included vacancies for for a number of years, uh
when that board was reconstituted and became active again, there was a question about the extent of its purview. And we did some due diligence and I appeared I believe at at least one meeting of the select board to address the question of what trust funds were within the purview of the board of
commissioner of trust funds and what trust funds might not be. For example, library trust funds or certain school trust funds uh trust funds that would be administered by the conservation commission for instance. And so there are certain trust funds that are not within the authority of the board of
commissioner trust funds. And yet the way that this bylaw is structured, it just refers very generically to trust funds suggesting that this process might apply um whenever the board of commissioner of trust funds lacks a lawful quorum even if it's not a trust
fund over which the board of commissioner of trust funds has any authority. So probably an easy fix, but that language was of of some concern to me. Um it then goes on to say um the my my second comment related to the this
quote that the select board shall be authorized to establish specific voting requirements. And so I don't know that it is meant to authorize the board to establish specific voting requirements as much as it is intended to impose those voting requirements upon the
select board. Because when we look to the subp paragraphs within this bylaw, uh lowercase Roman numerals 1 2 and three, it it it preceding those Roman numerals, it states um the select board shall be authorized to establish specific voting requirements and
safeguards including and so I don't know what that process looks like. So the bylaws allowing the select board to establish voting requirements, but those require requirements, the way that they're worded within the bylaw seem fairly definitive. So authorizing the select board to establish these voting
requirements is not the same as saying that in the event the board of commissioners and trust funds lacks a quorum, this shall be the process and these are the voting requirements that the select board must follow the way that a typical bylaw would. Um it's suggesting that the select board would have to take the next step of
establishing voting requirements and safeguards which it could choose to establish or it could choose not to establish. And if it chooses not to establish those, does it still have authority in the event that the board of commissioners of trust funds lacks a quorum? It's unclear the way that the
bylaw is written. So those first two points are are less so issues about illegalities or or unlawful provisions within the bylaw and more so a question of how practically speaking this bylaw will be administered, what it requires, how it's going to be applied, how the
board of commissioners of trust funds and how the select board is going to comply with the with the requirements in the bylaw. My third comment is a more generic comment and that is the the the authority of the board of commissioner of trust funds is established in part by
state law and in part by your charter. Um what you're attempting to do or what the bylaw would be doing if it were to be adopted in this form is to allow for an alternative procedure to apply in instances where the board of commissioners of trust funds lacks a
lawful quorum. Well, where the pro where the where the process has been established not by some other bylaw, but by town charter and state law, I do question, and I I honestly don't know the answer to this, but the fact that I'm questioning it should tell you that I I do have some concerns. Um, I
question whether the attorney general will approve it as being consistent with state law, consistent with the town charter, or whether the attorney general might say, "If you intend to alter the voting requirements
um or or the the the the process by which um uh there can be an administration of trust funds in the absence of a lawful quorum of the board of commissioner of trust funds. you need to do that by amending your charter or you need to do that by separate special
act um that would address any potential conflict with the process that is established by state law. Certainly it is something you could do by special act and Lunberg has a special act charter. So to a certain certain extent whether it's charter or state law that you're concerned with a special act checks both
of those boxes because that is the same way you you would amend a charter would be by way of a special act. So, it could be accomplished in that manner. Attempting to do it by way of bylaw, I don't know whether that'll raise a red flag for the attorney general, but I suspect that it might. Um, is that
enough reason to not proceed with it? That's a decision for I guess in the first instance, it's a decision for the select board and ultimately it's a decision for for town meeting attendees uh whether to to to vote in favor of the bylaw amendment. Uh, and then I suppose worst case is it gets submitted to the
attorney general and the attorney general rejects it. >> Mhm. All right. Any questions on this article from board members? >> All right. Not hearing any. Okay. So, the second one is um an article uh recommendation that uh Mr. Leighton
submitted uh that I just wanted to have this discussion about. Um, so basically our food pantry, as you know, uh, is having to vacate TC Pacios along with everyone else in that building. Um, and Brian was, um, looking to start some sort of partnership that would, um,
incentivize folks in the community to provide space to them. Um, so I'm just going to read the article here too for the board as well. >> It's marked as JJ >> JJ. Okay. Yep. to see if the town will vote to establish a food access partnership initiative program for the
purpose of increasing access to food resources for residents in need and to authorize the select board to provide partial property tax abatements subject to appropriation to property owners who make space available at reduced or no cost qualifying nonprofit food
distribution services serving residents of the town or take any other action relative there too. Uh so would we be able to um go forward with this article as it's drafted or are there any other ways to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish here?
>> So it's a fair question and I I did have an opportunity to talk to the town manager about um the the background or the context in which the article is being proposed. Uh and I think that certainly it's it's well intended and I I do understand what uh the board and
and uh members of the board are attempting to achieve. The challenge of course that exists is um I think one more so of timing than anything else. If if this were something that was and the board is aware of this because you've done this in other contexts where you
envision offering some sort of a um tax incentive or benefit to um to seniors or to other individuals in the community. Um you've gone about establishing programs uh effectively abatement programs um that you have uh you have
proposed by way of special legislation. The role of town meeting is to approve and authorize the submittal of a home rule petition to the Massachusetts state legislature. The legislature then reviews that. The House and Senate vote it. The governor signs it. And once that
goes into effect, uh you can then begin to administer the program. um my understanding is that that sort of timing may not work for what you hope to achieve with this particular article. Having said that, there's a reason why that process exists and why that process is sort of tried and true. And that is
because in Massachusetts tax abatements are statutory. And so in order to offer a tax abatement, there has to be statutory basis for it. And as we know, um there are all sorts of tax abatements that are available um to um individuals,
individuals that um veterans, uh seniors. Um there is an abatement process in instances where individuals claim overvaluation or miscatategorization or classification of their properties. Um but in the absence
of statutory authority, municipalities don't have the authority to abate real estate taxes or personal property taxes. Um and so by going the route of a special act through a home rule petition, you are effectively creating that legislation. A special act
functions much the same way as a general law would function, a state statute would function, except it's very specific to the municipality for which it's adopted. Um, so you could do this, I'm confident you could do this by way of uh, special legislation, assuming that the legislature supported it and
voted it. Um, but to do it simply by way of a town meeting action um, in in my opinion u, it it wouldn't be valid and I don't think that it would be um that it would be enforcable. Um, I did talk with the town manager about some potential
alternative approaches. Um, and we attempted to to sort of think outside the box a bit. I haven't had a long time to to to give this consideration. Um, one thing that the town manager had referenced was whether there would be any ability to use um pilot a pilot a
payment in lie of taxes. Uh, the challenge with pilots is that similarly they are authorized by statute. When I was talking to the town manager earlier today, I had said I think that there's three or four instances where pilots are permitted. I I I underestimated I think that there are I found the the state guidance. There's
actually seven different instances where pilots are authorized, but they don't none of them quite fit the circumstances we're dealing with here. So, um, you know, certain municipally owned electric utility companies, uh, solar installation, uh, nonprofit land owners
that wouldn't otherwise be liable to pay property taxes, uh, tax increment financing agreements. These are all instances where pilots are authorized. But again, in the absence of some sort of a statutory scheme that creates the um the the opportunity for a pilot,
there is no ability to simply um to to simply adopt one or require one. So, I think that um this this uh objective probably requires a bit of additional research and further thought as to how we can um do what it is that the town wishes to do. Um but I'm not sure it can
be done and again except through special legislation. I'm not sure that it can be done by way of uh partial property tax abatements. >> Okay. in special legislation, too. I feel like it kind of defeats the purpose here because we're trying to do this as a short-term fix and you know, we have
we're working on a matter of months here, so I don't really know if there's like a good solution here. Um, so I don't know. Thank you. >> Yeah. Any any questions on that one? >> Okay. >> Go ahead.
>> Through you. Um on a tiff, Adam, the job job creation numbers need to be it can't be like volunteered keeping jobs in the community. Is is there any possibility for a tax increment financing to kind of work it in that way?
>> So um so obviously tiffs require state approval. So just to be mindful of that. That does add um a layer of complexity and also can affect the timing. probably not to the same extent as would special legislation which as you've experienced can linger in the legislature or even on
the governor's desk for quite some time. Um but um it is possible. I mean I've I've I've negotiated a number of different tiff agreements over the years. Um job retention is something that can justify uh a tax increment financing agreement. So I can look more
closely at the requirements of that statute to see if we can meet them. Um, again, um, you and I have only had a single conversation about the town's objectives here. I think I understand them. Um, but I would have to understand more clearly, you know, what we're talking about in terms of job retention,
um, and the other benefits to the community that would need to be detailed to support qualification for a tiff. >> Okay. Um, thank you. So, I just wanted to go back to I forgot that I missed this other trust fund related article. Um, so the trust fund commission legal
fees article, we had a lot of questions on this and we um just wanted to hear uh your opinion and thoughts on this one as well and I don't know if any board members are going to have specific questions related to that one. Uh, but I wanted to just go back to that one too
>> marked as article S. >> Yes sir. So, um, so I'm generally aware of this in part, of course, because I reviewed the warrant, but I was aware that it would be appearing on the warrant because, uh, Mr. Bowen, who spoke earlier tonight, uh, as the chair of the
the the board of commissioners of trust funds, uh, had made me aware that he'd be, um, he'd be proposing it to the select board. Um, I've had a number of discussions with Mr. Bowen about u several different trust funds that are within the purview of the board of
commissioners of trust funds. Um these are trust funds that are I would say lower value trust funds and I I guess everything is a bit relative but um but but lower value in terms of dollar amount than uh maybe some others. Um and in several instances they are trust
funds that uh the purpose of which can no longer be served or we're not certain whether they can be served because we can't find the originating documents that created the trust. Um sometimes we found uh secondary documents uh in large part due to Mr. Bowen's independent
research that might lend some some insight as to um why a particular fund exists. Um in one instance we've been able to determine that in administrative there's a process referred to as uh cypra the Latin term c y space p r s cyp
prey uh it's a process that exists in Massachusetts and in a number of other states uh whereby uh the entity that is responsible for administering uh and overseeing trust funds can pursue typically what has historically been a
judicial process to get authorization from the courts to uh define or redefine as the case may be the intended purposes or permissible purposes uh for which trust fund monies can be used and for which they can be dispersed. Usually in
instances where the original objective can no longer be served or where the documentation that would be necessary to determine what that original objective was or is can no longer be found. Um the cypra process was modified somewhat back
in 2010 or 2011 in Massachusetts uh when the uh the administrative cypra process was created. The administrative process is really quite similar to the judicial process. Uh the difference being that the administrative cypra process uh
avoids the need to make a filing in court and allows for a process to occur administratively through the state. uh in certain instances provided certain criteria are satisfied um including a limitation on the the dollar amount the
the balance of the trust fund. But the administrative process would allow for um the uh the administ for for the agency to make a determination that the uh the trust funds can be expended for a particular purpose um maybe inconsistent
with or different from the original purpose. um we determined that the the administrative cy process can probably apply to one of the funds that um is within the purview of the board specifically the the uh worthy poor fund
as it's referred to. Um, but there are there there's at least one other fund and I believe multiple other funds um that uh that documentation doesn't exist for that probably would not qualify for the administrative process and thus would require a judicial process in
order to uh get a court order in effect that dictates the permissible uses of these trust monies. So, um that's about as much as I can say on topic. This is again something that's been brought to me. Um we have been working with um with Mr. Bowen um and through him I suppose
with the board of uh uh commissioners of trust funds on the administrative cip process and we have the paperwork uh I believe complete um on the administrative cy process for the worthy poor fund um but my understanding and again Mr. Bowen um could probably speak
to it better than I can, but my understanding is that this money that is proposed in um what is it? Warrant article S. Um this $14,000 plus or minus uh is intended not for the administrative process, but for a possible court process or multiple court
processes um to uh to pursue permission for uh dispersement um uh and administration of other trust funds. Okay. Any questions on this one? >> Yes. So, my understanding is there's there are four funds
that we need to look for the paperwork or prove that we can't find it. And it's hard to prove a negative. So, if there was never any documentation to begin with, I don't know where that ends. Adam, how do you
How how do you come to a conclusion >> through a court order? And that's why I think we're distinguishing between um those funds and the worthy poor fund. So in the instance of the worthy poor fund, we do have documentation that provides some insight as to the creation of the
fund, the history of the fund. And that's why I believe that the administrative process through the attorney general's office is likely appropriate. uh process requires that the fund be in existence for 20 years or longer, has a value of $75,000 or less.
The worthy poor fund checks those boxes and we have some documentation. In instances where the documentation doesn't exist, that's where we have to sort of throw ourselves at the mercy of the courts and ask the court to issue an order. And and I will tell you, you know, this is not unusual. It's not
unusual in in in the SI pre context. which is not unusual in other contexts where um to your point, it's hard to prove a negative. You know, we deal with this with some frequency both in private practice and in representing municipalities where we're attempting to clear title to property and we simply
can't find uh heirs or heirs of heirs or heirs of heirs of heirs because it's been generations. And so we have property that is effectively a no man's land, title to which is unclear. and we file a quiet title action in court and we litigate that action asking for a
court order to determine that um because the the the rightful owner can't be found uh the title shall be vested in the the city or the town and so you know this is not quite apples to apples um but we would be providing the court with
as much information as we have. The court could require, for example, affidavit of diligent search, indicating that we've uh searched for the information. We've been unable to find the information, identifying where we've searched, what databases we've looked in, what municipal records we've reviewed. Um, and uh that'll either
satisfy the court or the court will require um more be done before the court is uh in a position to u issue an order. So, I guess my concern is is the amount of money in the article.
I know how how that number came about, but we really have no way of knowing what the legal fees would be, right? >> That that's correct. And um again, I can't speak to it as Mr. Bowen can. That's his number and not my number. Um
I certainly didn't provide any any any any kind of a a formal estimate of of monies. I I do think Mr. Bowen might have asked me the question. Do you have any sense what it would cost? And I suspect I answered that the the I don't recall, but I I believe I answered it
the way that I answer that question um when I'm asked it all the time, which is it could be $2 or $3,000. It could be 22 or $23,000. It could be $75,000. It's it's hard to know, particularly in the context of litigation, what it's going to cost until you see what the
litigation involves. And particularly in an instance like this where we don't know what a judge might even ask of us. Um it's quite possible that um you could resolve multiple cases through a judicial side prey process for that sum of $14,000. It's also possible that you
may not be able to resolve even a single case for $14,000. It's just it's hard to say until um the process gets underway. So, I guess if if it were to exceed the $14,000 in the article, what does that what impact would that have?
>> Well, without getting too deep into the into the particulars of of um your your legal budget, um as you know, the way that the legal budget is currently structured, it's approved on an annual basis. Your fee agreement with my firm is uh a what we refer to as a flat or
fixed monthly fee agreement. It's a retainer in effect uh where you pay that retainer and you get access to to legal services. Uh in some months that access is minimal. In some months that access is extensive and over the course of a
year uh it it averages out. Um so to the extent that the work that we were doing was within uh the fixed fee estimate um then what you'd be looking at is funding um diligent searches, funding court costs, things of that sort. Um, I would
have to look more closely. I I believe that some of this litigation would be within that fixed fee. Um, but there would certainly be components of the litigation that would be outside the fixed fee. Um, if you were to exceed the allotment of $14,000 plus or minus, um,
then additional costs would additional monies would need to be found, whether they be found elsewhere in the legal budget, um, whether they'd be found through uh future appropriations of free cash. Um that's a that's a budgeting issue. But um the again the number
wasn't my number. Um the number was something that I believe has been proposed by Mr. Bowen. >> An additional money would mean it would go back to town meeting >> or no if it exceeded the amount. >> It depends. >> Okay.
>> Okay. I mean the challenge with litigation as the board knows is once you become involved in litigation well I suppose at any point absent some sort of a counter claim brought against you which I I don't fear in an instance of this sort because there's not really a
true defendant. Um but absent a counter claim you always have the ability to to to drop the lawsuit to to to withdraw um and um voluntarily dismiss the case that you brought. So, I suppose that worst case scenario, if monies were expended
and it became apparent to the town that costs would continue to increase, then sure, the town could simply voluntarily dismiss the suit. But barring a voluntary dismissal, um, so long as the case remains active, I have a legal
obligation, as does the town as the plaintiff in the case, to continue to litigate it. And the monies need to be found wherever they might be found. again as a as a as a um through through the budgeting process. All right. Any other questions on that
one? Any other warrant article related questions for time council >> questions on just the override? >> Yep. Okay. All right. So, now we'll move to prop two and a half. Um so, I only have one. I actually asked the town
manager on my way here and then she was like, "Oh, you should ask town council that tonight." Um, so right now we have them labeled as question one, question two. Um, >> talking about on the election warrant. >> I am talking about the election warrant. Yeah. Sorry. Um, can we do 1 A and 1B
instead? Is that something that we can put on the ballot like that? >> Yes. >> Okay. I figured. All right. >> Yes, you you can. And in fact, if you if you were to look at the um the Proposition 2 and a half uh ballot
question um bulletin that's been issued by um the division of local services within do um they've got uh samples, it's an appendex to the bulletin. They've got samples of the different types of overrides that can be presented including the tiered or the pyramid
override that you're opting for here. And they use that that's the numbering that they use in the sample. 1 A 1 B 1 C. >> Okay. Just wondering. All right. Any override related questions? >> And this is article marked as article >> M >> M. >> So the the warrant article
whether it's structured as two separate articles or 1 A 1B needs to match the ballot question. Correct. Same format. >> No. >> No. >> Does the numbers have to match? >> No. >> No. >> Not necessarily. >> Adam, what did can you just walk through
that for the board? Sure. Um, so I'm I'm looking because I now see Jen, and you know, forgive me for not having had much of an opportunity today to look at the latest revisions, but I see that you've reworked what is now article M. So remember, with respect to an override,
the functions of town meeting and the the the voters at the ballot box are separate and distinct functions. It's not like uh some instances where um something has to go to town meeting and get approved. I've got a community right now that is uh increasing the membership
of its select board and the function the the way that that process works under its charter is town meeting first approves it and then the same question gets posed to the voters at the ballot box and so yes there needs to be the the the two articles uh or the article and the question the the two the two
different questions need to match the same question needs to be asked of the voters at the ballot box as was asked of the attendees at town meeting with respect overrides or debt exclusions for that matter. It's different because the function of the voters at the ballot box
is to increase the levy limit. That's what the voters are doing. The function of town meeting is not to increase the levy limit. Town meeting has no authority to increase the levy limit. Town meeting's only function in the context of municipal finance in these circumstances is to appropriate the
monies that are available within the budget. And so that can happen one of two ways. You can go to the ballot box. You can pass an override which increases the levy limit and then you can subsequently go to town meeting and town meeting can appropriate the additional
funds all the basic funds but then the additional funds that have been made available through the passage of the override or if that's occurring in reverse order then town meeting can appropriate the additional monies contingent upon a proposition 2 and a
half override at the ballot box. And then if the voters approve it, um that appropriation becomes effective because the money is available because the levy limit has been increased. And if the voters don't approve it, then that that article that was voted by town meeting
is of no effect because those additional monies have not been made available. The levy limit has not been increased. And so they don't match entirely. And there are actually a number of different ways that the town meeting warrant articles can read uh to appropriate these monies. I've had some instances where um the
override is worked right into the budget so that the budget presumes the passage of the override even though it's not going to occur until after town meeting. And if the override doesn't pass, you got to go back to town meeting to amend your budget because you don't have a balanced budget any longer because those
monies aren't available. Um, other instances I've seen a budget that has multiple columns, a without the override column and a with the override column. And then maybe the the safest of the ways to do it, or I would say maybe the
clearest of the ways to do it is to have a balanced budget that presumes no override and then have a separate warrant article on the town meeting warrant that would appropriate the additional monies um to specific purposes. if the override in fact passes
and obviously that vote that motion would be subject to the passage of the override. If that occurs and if the override ultimately fails then you still have a balanced budget because the the budget was voted separately. >> Can I ask a kind of follow-up question
on that, Adam? So, um for example, our tier one override appropriation number would be 2 million. We'll just call it 2,354,000 and change, right? So, we would be
appropriating to the 2,354,000. But for I think ease of the voters, it would likely the board hasn't taken any of these votes yet, but it would likely be instead of a $2.354 million override, a $2.4 million override. And
similarly in for tier 2, 3.245 245 would likely become 3.3 for the ballot question. So rounding to the whole numbers on the ballot for the town meeting appropriation. Is it cleaner, easier to just
appropriate to the 2.354 and 3.245 245 respectively or or appropriate the full um extent of the the benefit of the override.
>> You're you're under no obligation to appropriate to the full extent of the benefit of the override. So that's up to you those if you don't then you haven't appropriated the additional monies. You're not under any obligation to do so. Um you've increased your levy limit. You're
always permitted. you can increase your levy limit more than you needed to increase your levy limit and then simply not appropriate those monies. So I I defer to you in that regard. I as I'm looking here at how you've got article M structured, um I think it works. I I
think the question is just going to be and you and I haven't discussed this yet and I hate to sort of do this live but I I think the question is going to be do we do we um do this as a single vote on article M or whatever it becomes in terms of an article number or do we do it as two separate votes? I see how
you've structured it. I see that you've included the contingency uh of the passage of the Proposition 2 and a half override question at the ballot and I see that you've included language that it is with the understanding that um the amount are be amounts are being presented on the ballot as separate
questions and that if more than one is approved in other words if they're both approved that only the highest amount would be implemented. >> Yeah, that was my question as well. So, under this one article, would we vote on each tier separately or >> you you can do it how you'd like?
>> That makes the most sense to me. >> Mhm. >> But >> yeah, I thought I looked at this and I thought it's going to put the override on there or not. It seemed like it was a one vote and I was okay with that. But yeah, >> so so what we're talking about is not the article, >> the motions under the article,
>> whether it's >> one motion that we're voting for both tier one and tier 2 appropriations in one or are we separating them out and having two separate votes? Right? That's what those those are the decisions. So
basically that we could take one vote to appropriate up to tier one and tier 2 or take an vote on the appropriation for tier one take a vote on the separate vote for the appropriation on tier 2 um the ballot's going to control
>> right and I guess so is there really for the purposes of town meeting is there a benefit of having two separate votes or because really it's the ballot as you said which determines and how much the levy limit is increased by. >> That's why I think it should hopefully I
don't know. I I that's why I lean towards one vote. Like do we want to put an override ballot question on there? >> So So that that's not the decision. That decision is made before town meeting. >> So the decision to put an override
question on the election warrant might happen tonight. It might happen next Tuesday, but it needs to happen by the end of next Tuesday. So, by the time we're at town meeting, that election warrant is already going to be printed. >> But I think it would get confusing if we
appropriated one of the tiers and not the other. That's where I have a concern. >> Well, would it be would it be possible for us to leave town meeting appropriating tier one, not tier two, and then tier two passing at the ballot? >> That's my concern. And then you need to
come back and have another Well, so if tier, right? So if tier only tier two passes, sorry, if tier two passes at the ballot and only tier one passes at the town meeting, you could only spend >> up to tier one. It's the appropriation.
So you don't need to go back and have another override vote. >> You'd have to have another town. >> You have to have another town meeting to appropriate. Well, you don't have to, but you could have another town appropriate to the full benefit. >> So I think I asked that incorrectly. I didn't use the right language for what
I'm actually asking here. So, if we just have one motion and one vote on town meeting, I guess I'm just asking what what are the cons with that? >> So, so Mr. Chair, here here's here's my question and it's it's a question I would have had even had had the town
manager and I discussed this in greater detail before tonight's meeting because we have not we're still working on the warrant itself and we haven't moved along to motions yet. But when we look at motions, I mean, I'm looking at the tiers here and I see tier one override is 2.4, 4. A tier 2 override is 3.3.
And I see that those monies are going to be appropriated to both the general operating budgets of the town and the Lunberg public schools. Well, you know, in in in what ratio and when it's when it's when it's when it's appropriated to the general operating budget of the town
where within the town, right? Because when you adopt the omnivous budget, you have a line item budget where in a departmental budget where you're dictating where the monies go. You don't just appropriate the total budget number and be done with it. You dictate where the money is going to go. So usually the
motion um because again some communities this is part of the budget itself. You've broken it out which makes some sense uh and as I said I think is a cleaner way to do it. But what is the motion going to look like in terms of where these monies are actually being appropriated? what's going to the general operating budget and what's
going to the public schools. And then with respect to the general operating budget, how is that breakdown within the budget? Where where is the money going within the general operating budget? On once you make that determination that the answer to that question is going to be different for a tier one override
than it is for a tier 2 override. So what I can see happening if you try to do this allin-one motion and you know part one of the motion is to address a tier one override and an appropriation partly to the general operating budget partly to the Lunberg public schools and
here's how that money is going to get divvied up between those two. Pause. Take a breath. Okay. And as part of that same motion in the event that there's a tier 2 override let's talk about the money going to the general operating budget and the schools and here's how that breakdown's going to be.
That's one one heck of a motion. >> Yeah. I don't know. It probably seems cleaner to me. Just do two different motions, two different votes. Maybe. >> Yeah. I don't know how you could do one vote but cover both appropriations.
>> Very long motion. It has an and >> but one. >> Yeah. But but you risk if someone is supporting one override and not the other, you risk >> just no across the board. I don't know. I was I was assuming I was on the of the
mindset of two. So >> yeah, I think it would be helpful to do two probably >> if the if the scenario um were to come to be that uh t the town election approved one that approved basically the
second tier and town meeting did not. The earliest that we could have another town meeting would be the select board to call a special I think is what 35 days I want to say >> that was for election was 35 days
special election I don't know >> just just to add in a couple extra two cents I think >> it's more likely that we are going to get both tiers to pass at the town meeting I think it's the challenge is going to be the ballot box so I think I'm okay with it going in two directions
at the town meeting. >> Yeah, I think it's also just better to like the whole point of the tiers is that we want people to have options and you know I think it I mean I'm also just interested to see how the votes go separately on the two tiers at town meeting and I think it might just be the
cleanest way to do it. But anyway, a lot of discussion on that. That's kind of where I landed. So, okay. I also think having the two motions gives us an opportunity to educate folks on what each tier is doing and what it means and then actually
preparing for going to the ballot and seeing these two questions. >> And I think understanding the vote, what a vote for tier one is going to represent and what a vote for tier two represents and whether they should or not vote for both. >> Mhm. >> Mhm. >> It's kind of like a practice for the ballot.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> And Mr. chair through you. It it it may be worthwhile for the town manager and I to to further discuss how this gets structured. I mean, I I do sort of wonder I think that the moderator should be consulted, right? Because what I don't want to have happen is we talk
about two motions on one article and that that's objectionable uh to the moderator. >> Um it is um somewhat unusual. Um, so the other way to do this, if that's problematic, is to simply break out this single warrant article as two warrant
articles. One with the tier one override and one with the tier two override. >> I agree. >> All right. Yeah, sounds good. So, we can continue to have those conversations and if we want to break it out, then we can. >> I I do want to note that as I pulled up about special town meetings. >> Um, no money shall be raised or appropriated at a special town meeting
except by a twothirds vote of the voters present. >> Okay. Thank you. starts it into a higher threshold. >> Yeah. >> Now we know. >> Okay. >> Did it say the advanced notice the timing? >> I don't think there's anything on there for specials. I think it's all geared
towards the annual. But all right. Any other Prop 2 and a half override related questions for town council while we have him here. All right. I am hearing none. So, thank one more. >> I'm hearing one. Just to confirm on the ballot because in in the warrant we
there's a lot of you know the summary the explanation there's a lot of information here but on the ballot >> it there won't be a lot of explanation. Is that correct? It'll just be a simple question. >> Correct. >> Okay.
>> All right. Thank you very much, Adam. Thanks for spending the evening with us. >> You're welcome. Thank you. >> All right. Have a good night. >> You too. >> Thanks, Adam. >> Adam. Thank you. >> All right. >> I'm just pulling up. So, that was from
the bylaw. Well, I'm off. Let me just pull up the uh >> We have the town manager report next, too. >> Oh, I don't have >> You don't have Okay. >> No. >> All right. >> Town meeting. >> Um Okay. So, moving on to old business.
So, discuss warrant articles for 2026 annual town meeting. We're going to go through it again. um and also discuss ordering. Uh so we'll do that as well tonight. Okay. So article A we recommended approval. Article B recommended
approval. C we recommended approval. >> D recommended approval. E we recommended approval on that one. F we recommended approval. >> G Okay. authorization to pay expenses
from a prior fiscal year. Um, okay. So, we have two outstanding invoices now owed to Aeroseptic in the amounts of $1,317.50 and $577.50. Um, probably hold off on this one to see if there's any more. >> I would suggest you officially defer to
town meeting recommendations. >> Okay. Um, so as a note, Amanda is here, but she is via Zoom now. Uh, so we'll have to take roll call votes. Uh, so is there a motion to include article G in the warrant and to defer? >> You've already included Mr. Chairman.
>> Oh, okay. Thanks. >> Let me also look at this, too. Um, is there a motion to just defer? >> So moved. >> Second. All right. This will be a roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian, >> I. >> Glenn, >> I. Amanda, >> I.
>> And an I for myself. Article G is deferred. I was going to get you a ruler, but >> Oh, it's okay. I'll figure it out. >> Okay. Article H uh included in the warrant as well. Um fiscal year 2026
budget adjustments. Okay. Uh >> right now we don't have any uh FY26 budgets. >> Okay. So, we might as well just defer on this one as well. Um is there a motion to defer? >> Move to defer article H. >> Second. This will be a roll call vote.
Renee, >> hi. >> Brian, >> I >> Glenn, >> I >> Amanda, >> I >> and an I for myself. Article H is deferred. >> Okay. Article I, fiscal year 2026 closeouts. Um, so 615,000.
Um, is that in addition, is that anything other than? >> So, so right now the snow and ice deficit is looking to be around 600 approximately 615,000. Okay. We are going to close out as much of that within other by transferring from other
budgets as possible. Um this board has in front of you a free cash spending plan. I have earmarked $500,000 of free cash to be used towards the snow and ice close out for FY2 if necessary.
Um and so basically once we have all of our bills in um and we're about another month along here, we'll take a look at where we can um finish uh transferring from and whatever delta remains will be from free cash. I hope it's less than
the 500,000. Um I would suggest you to defer to town meeting on this one. >> Yep. Okay. Is there a motion to defer? >> I'll move to defer article I >> second. Roll call vote. Renee >> I. Brian. >> Hi, >> Gwen. Hi,
>> Amanda. >> Sorry, I couldn't unmute. I And just as a note, thank you for putting up with the roll call votes. I had to get out of the fluorescent lights because I have a migraine. So, I'm going to try to get out through the meeting in the dark over here. >> It's okay. No worries. We're still going to get through the business. All right.
Article I Oh, and an I for myself. Article I is deferred. >> Okay. Jay, fiscal year 2026, capital program funding reauthorization. and we've voted on this one. Recommended approval. Okay. Then article K, fiscal year 2027 capital program.
>> Okay. So we have it here 1,830,000 also using the um the vehicle fund as well. So raise and appropriate is going to be 244,576, 594,000 from the special purpose uh stabilization fund and then $991,627
from free cash. And so, um, capital planning has not met again. I'm not sure if they're going to meet before town meeting. Um, this is in their ranked order. I had originally,
um, skipped over items five and six, the primary school playground design and the second cruiser. And then I I did not have the uh security intercoms at Tricky
Hill or the public safety control upgrades or the adult activity center network upgrades. So with the additional free cash, I have picked up those projects. >> Yeah, I was wondering if we're going to meet first. Um >> I'm not sure. >> I don't know either, but >> I did talk to the chairman of the
committee. >> Um I sent him this. Mhm. >> He was going to I I'm not sure if he circulated it with the members of the committee to see if anybody wanted to meet or not. Um >> yeah, I mean I don't have any issues with it. So like I would be prepared to vote on it, but I don't know if maybe
what do other members think? >> Well, if there's no rush and we haven't heard from the the chairman, maybe it would be best to wait. >> We could just give it another week, maybe. But I mean, >> I I don't know that they're meeting. So this is the this is the ranked order that >> capital planning came up with. It's not
a deviation from that order. >> So I'm ready to vote and recommend approval. >> Ready to vote. >> All right. So is there a motion to recommend approval on article K? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Ryan >> I. >> Glenn. >> I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes
unanimously. All right. Fiscal year 2027 omnibus budget. Okay. We're still waiting for some of the dollars here. Y >> um article M FY2027 Proposition 2 and a half override. I guess we'll have the conversation, see what the moderator thinks, see if we're going to split it
out and >> so we haven't included this officially. Well, no, we did at the last uh tri board meeting, right? There was a vote to officially include this. We didn't take a vote here. So, >> yeah, I don't think we >> include an override, >> but include >> two tier. Do we do we say it was going
to be two? I don't remember. Um >> I think for for cleanliness purpose and just to be clear, we should take a vote to include article M in some we do want to split it up. >> If we split it up, then we do, but we can still vote to include this one tonight. Um so is there a motion to
include article M in the warrant? >> So moved. >> Second. And um roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Ryan >> I. >> Glenn I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. Uh so we'll decide if
we want to split it out and then we can come back recommend approval on them separately. Uh M1 special appropriations. Okay. So TC Pasio cost and certain decommissioning expenses because we're removing it from the operating budget. >> Correct. >> $121,800 and the special assist. We know all
about that. 27,500. >> So the plan motion under this article, Mr. chairman is to transfer the $121,800 from certified free cash and to transfer the $27,500 from the assessor's overlay. >> Okay. Anything else that we need to add
to this or modify or is this ready? >> I believe it's ready. >> Okay. Do we want to keep it as M1 >> for now? >> I Okay, >> that's kind of where it would belong. >> Sure. All right. Is there a motion to include and recommend approval? >> Can we do it in one motion? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Uh, make a motion to include and recommend approval of article M1. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian. >> I. >> Glenn. >> I. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously. All right. N. Salary administration plan
adjustments. We recommended approval. OPED trust fund recommended approval. Um appropriation to the compensated absence reserve fund. Recommended approval. Okay. Uh so the appropriation to the 300th anniversary committee recommended
approval. Um the one >> where's the I assumed it would be right after it. It's not. Okay. We'll come back to that. >> No, cuz there's monies. >> Yeah, we'll come back to that. Article Q1 appropriate free cash to the stabilization fund. Okay. Um so 250,000.
>> Yep. So this will bring So the current balance of our stabilization fund is uh 3,147,178.96 and our policies state that we should have minimum of 5% of our current operating budget. Um we're at 6.3. Um we
did not make a transfer into the stabilization from last year as we transfer that those funds to the Lunberg public schools. Um, but especially where we're headed for some rough years uh ahead financially, I think that this would be a good good time to sock some away.
>> Right. Okay. Any questions? Is there a motion to include and recommend approval? >> I'll make a motion to include and recommend approval of article Q1. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Um, Renee
>> I. >> Brian >> I. >> Glenn. >> Hi. Amanda >> I >> and an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Q2 special purpose stabilization fund. Same amount, right? 250,000. >> Same amount. Um we have a few special purpose stabilization funds. This one
would specificly be going to the health insurance special purpose stabilization fund. Okay. >> Uh the current balance in that fund is a little over $11,000. Um the goal here is that we set aside some funds specifically if we have another big spike that we can brace ourselves
perhaps even as soon as next year for another large health insurance increase. >> Okay, makes sense. All right. Is there a motion to include and recommend approval? >> Uh make a motion to include and recommend approval article Q2. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee
>> I. >> Ryan >> I. >> Glenn I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously. All right, here's the one I thought was up next. Establish a 300th anniversary gift fund. Um, so I didn't bring it up because I thought town council's feedback was pretty clear. Um,
but it doesn't sound like we actually need to do this. So, we do have an account from that prior um, allocation for a couple years ago. Um, and we can use that account pretty much um, the way that we intended to use this gift fund.
Um, so I don't know. I think we voted to include it. It doesn't look like we voted to recommend approval on it yet. Our Yes, we did vote to include it. >> Um, so I think it's okay for us to remove it. It sounds like we can use that existing account the way that we
want to. So >> any questions or anything? >> You want to take an official vote to >> Yes, I do. I just wanted to see if there was any. >> Doesn't sound like there's any questions. So is there a motion to remove article R from the warrant? >> So moved. >> Second. Roll call vote. Am um Renee
>> I. >> Ryan >> I. >> Glenn >> I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. Article S. Trust Fund Commission legal fees. Um I don't know if we voted to include this one. >> No. >> Uh no. Okay. So where are board members
at on this one? Whether or not we want to include this. So would Adam's firm be doing this work? So it would part of it would be covered under the retainer or would have to go to someone else. >> So Adam's firm has already done the work for the worthy poor, right? That's what
>> for administrative side, right? But we some of these I think wouldn't be >> I'm not going to answer that question on behalf of the commission. Mhm. >> I think that they have thoughts that they expressed at the finance committee meeting that they wanted to hire independent council separate from town
council. So, I'm not going to opine as to what their goals are. >> Okay. Brian, Glenn, Amanda. >> Well, I had some concerns how that number was how they came up with the 14,000. It didn't seem like that was a
clear process that came up with those funds. I'm certainly not opposed to at some point providing some funds, but I think a little more clarity um and where it's been a very long duration problem. Um at least at this point, the snapshot
in time, I don't have any um compelling reason to to rush forward >> at this time. I I I don't support putting it on the on the warrant. >> Okay, Amanda, >> I agree. I agree. I think based on especially with the comments from town
council tonight, I think it's not ready. Not saying that in the future we couldn't address something. I just don't think that this one's ready. Um I would I wouldn't support putting on the warrant. >> Okay. Um I do want us to be able to actually use these funds. Um but I feel
pretty confident that with the green light to work with town council that we're achieving that we're working towards that. Um so I'm comfortable as well not including it in the warrant. I don't think it's strictly necessary. Um, so, okay, Trust Fund Commission quorum, where are
members at on this one? >> Uh, I had concerns about the language, uh, especially, uh, hearing from the attorney. Um, I also I don't want to set a precedent that we are when when committees um, get under a quorum that
we would do this. I don't want to do this for finance or school committee um, and other committees. So, I have uh, concerns about this one. I don't I don't want to put it on the warrant as well. >> Yeah, that's my concern too, right? When we have a quorum, we should be doing everything that we can to get people to
run or get appointed, right? And my concern is that if we say, well, all right, if we don't have a quorum, then another board can pretty much do the responsibilities in the absence of it, that that quorum is just going to stay there, right? And we had this conversation in the bylaw review
committee for quite some time actually around that. Um, and it wasn't something that that group wanted to incentivize. Um, so we ended up kicking it to the select board, too, because that group didn't really want to just sign up another board for extra responsibilities. Um, but that group had
serious concerns about essentially incentivizing a lack of a quorum. Uh, so that's where that group landed as well. Other members? >> Yeah, I would just further say we don't share the same expertise that uh those boards would have. All right. Anything from Amanda or
Renee? >> No. >> No. I agree. And I think again based on town council and you know what he was talking about with the Was this a special legislation one? Sorry, my brain's a little fragile. I I either way I don't think um
>> Okay. Yeah. I I'm not prepared um to put this on the either. >> Okay. Article V, amendment to the sewer bylaw. We did that one. Article X. I don't think we did these ones. Okay. So, this is public education government access
enterprise fund. Uh so, we have a couple. Okay. Go ahead. >> Yeah, you included uh the pack enterprise fund on the warrant. >> Uh we were working on this budget even up to today. So, um I I think that you can make a recommendation at your next
meeting. I don't think you'll have to defer to town meeting. >> Okay. >> But not tonight. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. Uh why solid waste disposal program enterprise fund? Is that the same or do we feel >> you can go ahead. >> Okay. So we voted to include this one. Is there a motion to recommend approval?
>> Uh recommend approval of article Y. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Ryan >> I. >> Glenn >> I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. Okay. Z Water Enterprise Fund voted to include and we
have the amount now 120,000. I just want to confirm one item on that amount with the finance director, but so if we can just wait till next week on that. >> Yep. >> Sounds good. Z1, transfer of funds to the OPED sewer trust fund, and that's $1,600. Uh, do you feel ready for this
tonight? >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval? >> Did we we already included it? >> Have we included it? Good question. No, we haven't. Thank you. Good. >> So, I'll make a motion to include and approve article Z1. >> Second.
Roll call vote. Uh Renee >> I. >> Brian >> I. >> Glenn >> I. >> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. The motion passes unanimously. Z2 FY2027 sewer enterprise. Uh okay. Looks like we
haven't voted to include a recommend approval on this one. >> So on this one you can include it. Um but wait until next for your approval if you don't mind. >> Okay. Is there a motion recommend? I mean, excuse me. Is there a motion to include? >> Uh, so moved. >> Second.
>> Roll call vote. Rene. Renee >> I. >> Brian. >> I. >> Glenn. >> Hi. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Okay. So, aa fund the first year of the professional firefighters union collective bargain agreement. So, we held off on these. Um, assuming we made that decision, we're
going to stick to that. >> I think on all three of these, Mr. Chairman, >> I think the details are So, the articles are are asis. The details are going to be in the motion. Yeah. >> Um I would defer >> all three of these to town meeting. >> Okay. >> We're not going to have probably much
more information right >> by next week. >> Yeah. I figured. Okay. So we can do this in one motion. Is there a motion to defer articles AA B and CC? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian >> I. >> Glenn >> I.
>> Amanda >> I. >> And an I for myself. We deferred those three articles. Okay. DD vacation system transition liability reduction. Do we vote on this one yet? >> We voted to include it. I don't think we voted to recommend this one yet.
>> No. And on this one, so I just want to pull up a document. >> So on this one, the ask of town meeting is to buy off 100% of the liability at the $270,000 amount. However, we are obligated um to
buy off some of the liability if that motion were to fail. Um which is what I'm pulling up right now. So, I I think that we need to be prepared to have a backup motion under this article. Um if the $270,000 does not pass for just the portion of the liability that we must
buy off. >> Okay. >> Um which I was going to see. >> Can we revise the the motion? So that it's >> so the way it would work is would would have the would call for the vote. Motion
would be for the $270,000 take an up down vote on that. If it passes, great. >> If it doesn't pass, somebody will be whoever's motion it is will be prepared to offer a follow-up motion. >> Right. Okay. Um, and we can explain that
in the summary that this much of this must by contract and the personnel bylaw must be um bought off. >> Mhm. >> And I'm just opening this up to see if I can give you that number really quickly. >> I didn't know if we needed like a second
article. No. And then >> pass over it. So we must approximately uh 57,000 minimum. >> Okay. >> And 270 270,000 >> buys it all. >> Yep.
>> This is going to be one that I I'm actually working on a flyer for this, a handout for this. This is a more complicated concept than it is in reality. It's a difficult concept for folks to understand because >> the employees aren't getting we're not giving an extra benefit. We're not it's
something that they're already owed. Um, and so that's that's going to be difficult, I think, for folks to understand what it is that they're actually voting on. So, I'm trying to parse that out, >> right? Okay. Um, are we ready to vote on this one tonight? >> I I don't see any reason why you want to
be. Yeah. >> Anyone? >> Okay. >> Is there a motion to Did we include this one? >> You did include it. Yep. >> Okay. Is there a motion to recommend approval? >> Uh, re motion to recommend approval of article DD. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. Brian
>> I >> Glenn I >> Amanda >> I >> and an I for myself the motion passes unanimously. Okay E amendments to the salary administration plan. So this one change HR director to just HR director and adds
the assistant town manager. Um looks like the language is finalized on this right. >> All right. Is there a motion to include and recommend approval? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian >> I. >> Glenn. >> No. Amanda >> I >> and an I for myself. The motion passes
421. All right. FF participation in this. >> Okay. That was included and approved, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, >> Oh, do you want to take two seconds? >> Yeah. Yeah, I guess. Um All right. So, >> yes, you'd have to whoever made the
motion withdraw the motion. Second that. >> All right. Renee, can you withdraw your motion? >> I withdraw my motion on article E. Do we have to vote on a withdrawal of a motion? Yeah. All right. Is there >> or is it a motion to reconsider? >> I >> No. So, so we did the two things.
>> We did the two things in one motion. I think we want to vote on inclusion. Well, let's just ask it this way, Glenn. If we vote to do this separately, are you going to vote to include it >> or are you going to vote no to not include it in the warrant? Because if
the answer is four 41 both ways, we might as well just leave it, >> right? Um, >> yeah, I'm fine with including it. Yeah. >> Okay. So, Renee, make the motion to >> So, yeah, I made the motion to withdraw inclusion and approval of article E.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian, >> I. >> Glenn, >> I. >> Amanda, >> I. >> And an I for myself. Is there a motion to include article EE in the warrant? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I.
>> Brian. >> I. >> Glenn. >> No, you're including it on the warrant. >> Including the warrant including. All right. All right. We did. I >> Okay. Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously. Now. Is there a motion to recommend approval? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee.
>> I. >> Brian. I. >> Glenn. >> No. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes four to one. Okay. FF participation in the central mass mosquito control project. So we put this one off uh a couple weeks. Um it sounded like we were moving
towards not including it. U I don't remember who spoke and who had what opinions, but we wanted to hold off on it. Um do we want to include this one? >> I I would vote in favor of keeping it on the warrant. I did ex exchange a couple of emails with the the people that had
initially responded and they still did have concerns. I, you know, I forwarded them a link of the proposal. So, I just think the way that it was brought up, you know, soliciting people's, >> you know, input that I think it would be appropriate to keep it on the warrant. >> Okay.
>> I'm fine including it. I I wouldn't recommend approval, but um I I think it is important if it is included that all of the the work that's part of this program is like the presentation we
heard >> has happened again at town meeting. >> It needs Yeah, that information needs to get out at town meeting. >> I don't want to include it. I don't think it makes sense because then again, you're just adding to town meeting where they're going to give the presentation. I believe the community believes in this and I think we should also do the
research after to try to reduce. >> And Amanda, I think you weren't in favor of including it, right? >> Correct. I do not want to include this on the warrant. >> Okay. So, my real issue with this, I mean, look at how many how many warrant articles do we have? This is a lot. >> We have a lot. >> Okay. We already know we're going to be
there for a while. We're >> and I don't like that being a reason to not include something. >> This is probably going to be like over an hour, you know? I mean, I just I know this is going to be a long conversation here. >> It >> um >> it does require I'm just reading Adam's
note here. I didn't really get into it too much um because I thought that the board would be inclined to probably withdraw it, but >> um his note here is each Massachusetts mosquito control project or district has its own enabling legislation and said legislation generally dictates the right
sometimes limited to withdraw there from as well as the process. Therefore, do you have the applicable legislation? I do not. Um, and he said, "If not, I can research it." >> Oh, interesting. Okay. >> Oh, so it varies from tone to tone. >> Mhm. All right. Well, I'm not in favor of including it anyway. I think we save
something for another another year if we want to bring this up again. Um, so, okay. F if we didn't vote on that. So, >> anybody feel like they need to vote on it? >> I don't think so. It's okay. Not voting to include is kind of also the same as
voting to not include, right? Yeah. Okay. GG. Notice of town meeting. Uh did we vote to include this one? We did, but we did not recommend approval. Um is there any discussion on this that members want to have any outstanding questions or comments?
>> Did the the subcommittee kind of come up with a group? >> We did. So, this includes um the recommendations that um Mr. Franco of the Council on Aging and I uh worked through. Um, and then we also had a meeting as a select board after that and
I know we were still sort of word smithing. I don't remember exactly what we modified. Um, so we did review this and sort of go through edits uh as a select board as well. Um, so is there anything else that we want to discuss on this?
>> And to that point, Mr. Chairman, if if you included Well, you have included it, but if you recommend it tonight and somebody sees between now and next Tuesday that there's a word out of order, not an issue and making that correction next Tuesday. >> Yeah, for sure. So, I mean, I'm okay
with putting it off, too. We don't have to vote tonight. We can just vote next week. I'm fine with that. >> All right. So, sounding like there's much discussion. So, >> if there's not, the the finance committee was requesting as many votes as possible tonight. Okay. For their all >> for their deliberation of their study.
Is there a motion to recommend approval? >> Uh, make a motion to recommend approval of article GG. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian. >> I. >> Glenn. >> Hi. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously.
All right. What's next? Kids Kingdom. We voted on that already. >> No recommendation tonight on that one. >> I think we just voted to recommend approval. >> No, you voted to include it. >> Didn't we already include it? >> You did, but those were the words that were >> Oh, I didn't hear. I didn't. That's okay. So, >> I'm sorry, Renee. I didn't actually hear
your motion. Um, >> your motion is to include. >> Was it >> really? >> Let's just vote again. >> All right. I'll make a motion to approval. >> Approve. Recommend approval of article GG. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian. >> I.
>> Glenn. >> I. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. No, it's fine. >> I didn't even hear I don't have my my uh cheat sheet of what >> we're almost we're almost to the end. >> Yeah, we're almost done. Only two more,
right? I think there's two. >> Um okay. Well, three, I think, cuz you added that one. Uh trans. So, kids kingdom. Okay, we vote on that one. Open skate space. >> Oh, can we get school committee to take a vote on that just to support it? >> School school committee has voted to sponsor it with us, >> right? But also,
>> you're saying to vote to recommend approval? >> Yeah. Just because of what happened. >> They're meeting tomorrow. or maybe they can revise their agenda. >> Okay. Yeah, I forgot all about that. Um, >> well, no, they did vote to So, they took the vote earlier. That's what we were our main thing. So, I >> I can ask them uh yeah, if they can
recommend if we could put that on the article. I'll reach out to the superendent. >> I know we had discussed that. I don't think I ever brought it up. >> Okay. Open space committee. I think we voted on this one. >> Oh, no. We did not recommend approval. Should be included though. It is included. Yes. Okay. Is there a motion
to recommend approval? Uh um make a motion to recommend approval of article I I >> second. Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian >> I. >> Glenn >> I. >> Amanda >> I.
>> And an I for myself. The motion passes unanimously. Okay. The last one. Um establishment of a food access partnership incentive program. Um so it sounds like we would have to do this through special legislation. Um, and I didn't leave that conversation with a
good feeling that there is something that we could bring to town meeting to address this. I don't know if other members did, but that's what I got from that conversation. No. >> Um, >> I agree. >> Yeah, >> it was a really good idea. >> It was just trying to help out, not
trying to find a way to >> I saw it and I was like, "No, that's too good to be true. We're not going to be able to do something like that." Right. >> I thought that pilot that perhaps there would be an opening for a pilot agreement, but >> Yeah, that's special legislation as well. Huh. >> Well, no, it's approval still by the state for a TIF, which is a type of
pilot. Yeah. >> Right. Right. Yeah. It's too bad. So, yeah. I don't know. Thank you, Brian. I mean, thank you for really looking into this and and proposing it. Um, it's too bad that I don't know. We can't just do more at the local level. I don't know. All right. So, that is it. That is the
entire warrant. Um, now we can discuss the ordering. Um, >> and as you discuss ordering, if there's items that the board feels as though would be appropriate in the consent agenda to the public who is not aware of what a consent agenda is. Um, it's a
variety of articles at the beginning of the town meeting that the moderator asks would town meeting like to bundle together. any member of town meeting can withdraw um an article and uh it does
whatever the voting threshold is of the highest article in there. So if it's a majority the entire thing must pass by a majority. If it's a 2/3 on one of them the entire consent agenda must pass by twothirds. But it's a way to handle a
lot of the articles that are more mundane, routine um housekeeping, so to speak within uh one vote at the beginning of town meeting that of course the voters could could alter that. >> Right. I haven't even started thinking about
>> Well, I have some where I have some suggested. >> Yep. I'm looking at the suggestions here. Um I can take a look and then we can bring that bring that again >> if we can too. Uh reach out to the town moderator. I do appreciate his feedback if he has any feedback on what should be in the consent calendar.
>> Yeah. So, normally that's really where we start this conversation is when we do that pre-town meeting um and then we end up kind of like reviewing it uh here as well. Um >> except that hold on. I'm trying to think in the book
just if I could just have one minute. >> Yeah, >> I'm just trying to think if the book we put in what's in the consent agenda or if that's just in a handout. Yeah. >> If it's just a handout, I think no matter what I open, I think you might be right. >> Yeah. >> Cuz I feel like we've done it after it's gone to print.
>> Oh, we have. Yeah. >> I think you're right. >> So, it should be a handout. If not, >> do have next week as well. Um, >> okay. So, for ordering, I think the question here
is really where in the meeting do we want the override to be? Um, I think it makes sense to do a little earlier. I don't want to sit there in anticipation all day, uh, you know, thinking about how that vote's going to go. Um, I don't want it to be like one of the first things, but I do want it to be higher up.
>> Um, anyone else have any thoughts on this? >> My thought was the the budget should probably be taken care of first and then the override. So, I think early but not >> first. >> Yeah. the way in which it's the the warrant is currently laid out,
especially kind of the top half of it, I'll say the more standard articles is the general flow that you've had your warrant articles in the past. >> So if if the omnibus budget is L and the
override is M, you have potentially four, if not more articles above it that are likely to be in the consent calendar. So, reports of committees. I pulled committees and I have not had any committees saying that they're giving
oral reports. Um, the economic development committee revolving fund, I can't imagine taking more than 10 minutes. >> Priory year bills, again, probably not more than a few minutes. >> Um, we don't have any FY26 budget
adjustments right now. The FY26 closeouts is at um is just the snow and ice capital. Typically those two live lives before the budget. >> Mhm. >> But if you wanted to move J and K,
>> you know, >> below the budgets >> just to get it up quicker. But I mean, I know folks might see this and say one, two, three, >> no, >> you know, 15 that it's far down and it's really >> it's it's pretty high up in the top of the
>> I could see J taking a little bit to explain. I could see article J taking a little bit to explain. >> J Yeah. >> Capital cleanup. >> Well, I almost want to put J I almost want to put Jay in the consent agenda because it is housekeeping and it's more confusing. >> Yeah. than
it really needs to be something that Tom meeting voters already authorized >> last year at town meeting and it's cleaning up. It is it is bookkeeping, >> right? >> I know but >> but nonetheless it can take a while to >> it could I don't remember what it was
but there was one article we had in the consent calendar last year where we thought maybe that might be controversial. We had it in and then the moderator did ask at the beginning, anyone have any questions about that and no one did. So we could probably do something similar for that this year too >> to put that in the kit potentially in
the consent or we could just I mean we could do that as well. We can do that. We can put capital behind >> even if we still have it in the consent agenda. We could put capital behind the operating >> um >> but the budget is >> I was going to say the capital article not not the cleanup article but article L
>> has potential to take an hour. Yeah, the capital. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> L you said >> Lud. Oh, I must have a different version of this spreadsheet because for me it's K or unless you Okay. >> No, K is right. >> Oh, okay. Um, yeah, we could do that.
That was the one. You never know, right? Sometimes people might have a question about a particular capital project and then it turns into an hourong discussion. >> I think it was last year we treatment of the >> pond. Marshall pond. >> Um, okay. So, I think we could do that.
we could move capital down to, right? Um, but it is actually earlier in the meeting than I thought just by going through the warrant. Now that I can actually see this, it's a little easier. Um, I mean, we could easily get there probably around an hour and a in an hour
and a half, which is sort of like where I was kind of aiming to have that. Um, so I think this actually could work pretty well. Yeah, because I think having the override article earlier in the meeting because as a day goes on, people just get tired and
>> your brain's just not not firing on all cylinders. >> Yeah, for sure. All right. Anything else? Anyone want to move any of the other ones? But I think it's looking pretty good. All right. Not hearing anything.
Okay. We can have this conversation again next week. We have a couple that we still need to recommend approval and vote on next week. Um we can talk about consent calendar a little more. Um anything else on the warrant anyone wants to talk about tonight?
>> All right. And next we have discussion on FY27 budget. Uh so tonight I would like us uh we already voted on the tiers. See if there's any last minute conversation on the content of the tiers. Um vote on the dollar amount and the language of the
ballot and maybe the inclusion on the ballot tonight too if we feel like we're ready for that. >> I think that so town council got that uh election warrant language very late late last evening. It's pretty basic though. So I think you could certainly approve it subject to >> his
>> his final edits by town council. >> Okay. All right. So, let's start on the dollar amounts. Um, so I think we had this conversation in the tri board as well. Uh, it sounds like we want to go
with the rounding up. So, 24 for tier 1 and then 33 for tier 2. Um, are we good on finalizing that? >> Yes. So, I understand you don't have to appropriate up to that full amount, but do you tax to that amount
>> on the election? No. Okay. >> You only tax um up to what you appropriate up to. >> Okay, good. Just wanted to confirm. >> And I would just like to say at this at this point, it's you know, I still have some serious concerns overall with the sustainability
and the affordability of of the overrides. So right now in this snapshot in time, I'm still kind of focused on the balanced budget because participating in all these these meetings and watching the committees, two things are clear to me as it as it
relates to the override. When using in an emotional lens, things are very clear. And when using a financial financial lens, they're also very clear. So I just I do want to make it clear at this point, you know, to the public. um
that I'm very concerned with the numbers as presented in tier one and tier 2 and part of it without getting into all the the details are the the aspect of the creation of new positions you know even in the balanced budget you know I think
um not creating any new positions uh specifically we throughout but even in the uh balanced budget I think is is um is is more attractive. So it it is still a month out and I think it's important
um that the the the public understand of you know my my concerns at this point and I'm available at any time to meet individually or uh to come to a group and even I saw there was a post relative to like yes for Lunenburgg um you know
if invited I'd be thrilled to to come but I just at this point at this snapshot in time I just think it's it's important to express my my concerns and to identify that I am just one vote up here, one of, you know, one of the five.
And certainly at town meeting is where the the decision is made and I do appreciate that. So, um, regardless of what my my vote is, it's very important. I do believe people understand that these critical disc uh, decisions are made by the community.
>> Okay? And it's important to remember that no new positions were added without making cuts somewhere else. I understand. >> Right. So yes, we're including firefighters for the four shift that came with cuts across several departments, very extensive cuts. So it
was more so about prioritizing, right? We're not just creating new positions. >> Okay, Amanda, >> sorry. >> Sorry. No, I don't have anything to add right now. >> Okay. So, the question was on the 2.4
million and the 3.3 million, the rounding up. So, it's >> Sorry, my >> whole appropriations, whole numbers. >> Yep. I'm fine with rounding up. >> Okay. Okay. Um, anything that we want to discuss with the tiers? I don't think so at this
point. Right. >> No. So, we have next week is >> the last week. Yep. Um, so I do want to vote to include it on the ballot tonight. Um, like the town manager said, subject to approval. And then of course we do have next week if something
happens and we need to modify the language, we can still do that. Um, all right. So any conversation about this? I suggested um doing the questions as 1 a 1B. I don't know. It just mentally just works for me. I don't know. Does anyone feel strongly about that?
>> Question one two versus 1 A 1 B. As long my I was thinking about this. As long as people understand they should answer both questions and I don't know if having it as one A and one B someone might just answer either A or B. You cannot combine it.
>> No, no, no. Question one, question two. >> Mhm. If if someone for example prefers tier two and then they only fill out tier two's question on the ballot and they leave question ones blank, that's a concern. So I think it's just public education. I I'm
>> I think the public education might be better with a one and a two versus talking about 1 A and 1B in conversations. >> I think if you see question one, question two, you have to you're expect you you know I need to answer question one, question two. A and B sounds like a either or.
>> It does remind me of the the state questions, right? You want to answer question one, then you're going to answer question two, then you >> I was if tier one is one, tier two is two. >> Yeah. >> You know what that uh that might be a really good point, Brian? Um, okay. >> I don't know. That's that was that was
the thought I had today. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Well, we don't have to finalize that, but the language of the >> actual ballot questions, >> the structure and the language we don't have to finalize finalize, but putting it on the ballot. Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean, it's very standardized.
>> All right. So, maybe I do. I think Brian, I think you just convinced me to go back to question one and question two here. Um, >> something to think about. Yeah, Amanda, do you have strong opinions about this?
>> Um, I think Brian also convinced me one and one and two. >> Okay. >> All right. So, I guess we'll go back to question two. >> Um, all right. Any other discussion on this or do we want to um vote on this now? >> I'm ready to vote. >> Ready to vote. Is there a motion to
include on the ballot for annual town meeting a proposition 2 and a half override question as um as written in it's not a document it was an email that you sent but as written in >> shared by the town as shared by the town manager.
>> It's just clarify it's the town election warrant. >> What did I say? >> Yeah. U town meeting town. >> My apologies. I'll amend my motion to say annual town election ballot. So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Ryan. >> I.
>> Glenn. >> Hi. >> Amanda. >> I. >> And an I for myself. The motion passes unanimously. All right. Anything else budget related we want to discuss tonight. All right. Hearing nothing. Minutes. We don't have any. No warrants. Any action
items? All right. Committee reports. I do have I'm one behind for the planning board, but on March 16th, they had several public hearings. Zero Reservoir Road was
continued to April 13th meeting. Same with 30 Summer Street was continued to the 13th of April. 475 Lemonster Shirley Road, a site plan change. It was a minor change for they're going to install
rooftop solar as well as battery sto uh storage in seven excess trailer storage area to the north of the building. 860 new west towns and road a common driveway permit site plan approval and storm water management plan
uh divided into this I spoke about this a few months back with the zoning I mean the um zoning board of appeals had given them a special permit but it's divided into four lots uh each lot will have a town home with five units 20 units total and and that was also continued to the
April 13th meeting 225 Lemonster Shirley Road wasn't necessarily a public hearing, but Powell Powell Sand and Gravel got a minor change to their site plan to building a building of some sort down there. The
change was a fire system in place of a the water main supply uh power supply alteration and a slight modification to the building. They discussed at 1083 Northfield Road, which was the writer of first refusal,
which they passed, which is old news. 181 electric a storm water permit. They're seeking a certification of completion early. So they're going through the seems like a lengthy process to get that approved prior to completion.
And actually they had a in their board discussions they had a very lengthy discussion about the a master plan and I found it to be quite interesting and would recommend that if anybody wants to kind of hear what's upcoming in their their coming year and their plans as
well as an extensive discussion about the master plan. Uh it actually was quite interesting. It was a very conversational tone and covered a lot of ground. Um in in that the planer identified areas of zoning that they would like to work on focus on in the
coming year and years. That's it. >> The school committee is meeting tomorrow at the middle high school at 7:00. They uh have on their agenda uh a decision on the bus fee as well as a draft letter
for legislators. That's >> uh finance committee had their public hearing last week very very long meeting um and they are meeting Thursday to vote on articles and discuss their report for town meeting
>> 300th anniversary committee met last night uh we spent a lot of the meeting discussing fireworks uh because we're trying to get a fireworks show potentially too we haven't decided yet um but we uh met with uh Chris Ruth and
there is uh pretty much a company that can work with us and also handle things like permitting uh to make it a lot easier for us to get that scheduled. Um we talked about a presentation at town meeting um so not just for the funding but pretty much just like a status
update on that Warren article to discuss um the progress that we've made and what we're planning so far. Uh and we also plan on making it a fun presentation given everything that we'll be considering that day. Um, so Bill Tyler
is looking at uh finding some good old photos to display. Uh, we also went through I thought this was really interesting. Uh, someone had brought an old calendar from the 1978 celebration and the last page of that had examples
of articles from past town meetings which was really interesting. Uh, so one of them I'll just I'll just read one of them because I just really want to share it. Um, so in 1769, the town of Lunenburgg voted at town meeting, quote, because mad dogs were running around
biting many domestic creatures, and bites were proving fatal, it was recommended and resolved by town meeting that year that every person owning any dog should immediately confine or kill the dog to prevent further damage. So, anyone who is attending town meeting and
thinks that uh the issues that we'll be voting on are tough. Uh Lunenburgg at one point voted at town meeting to potentially kill uh their neighbors dogs. So it's really not that bad. Uh so I thought that was really interesting. Uh so that presentation should be fun
and uh very historical in nature. And that was pretty much it. Um we did review the submissions that we have so far for the logo. Uh we had two submissions already and they were very good. Uh and I think that's pretty much it. Uh oh, we also discussed we've been talking about this for a while. if
you've looked at any other towns, but there's this huge cake that keeps going around uh municipalities. It was in Peril last. You should Google this and look at some pictures of it. Um, but we are very interested in getting that in Lunenburgg at some point as well.
Okay. So, if we just want to take a step back here and go back to FY uh 27 budget, are board members interested in also having the school committee weigh in to recommend approval of the override warrant article so we can include that
as well. Is that something that we would want to do since we're reaching out about Kids Kingdom? Do we also just want to have them include anything for that? >> Sure. I mean they were part of the tribe board. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I also have concern too about if we are breaking it up into two articles then they would need that information as well. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Well, the response is a little lukewarm. So maybe you just >> I'll leave it at the >> You're looking at pictures of the cake. >> I was going to send it to the board.
>> Yeah. Send it to the board. >> Tomorrow's our last meeting before the warrant goes to print >> school committee. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. Yeah. So if they don't >> just a last opportunity to get anything included. I think we just wanted to flag and point out >> together with a photo of the this is the
pepper town manager that you're getting. >> Oh, okay. I was wondering who that was. >> All right. Public comment. Any public comment from the board? >> Public comment from the public. Mr. Bowen. >> Yeah. The cake's kind of cool. >> Yeah. Did you see it, too? >> Yeah. >> It's going to go right outside of Ritter
at some point. kind of like absolutely cool to have that cake in town. Put it in the comment. Uh anyways, John Bowen, 162 Highland Street. Um I'm actually going to speak uh as commission chair at the moment uh
based on uh the information that was presented uh not including information about your vote or your choice of vote and whatnot just as some clarification for future uh understanding. So when it comes to because you had raised issues uh with regard to a bylaw committee worrying about you guys assuming roles
and duties u the rule of necessity which is a strict last resort legal mechanism uh that's only used in an emergency situation and in the absence of a corman that would be an emergency. Uh the trust fund commission when they're in an absence of a quorum cannot give money
out to help people. So, as historically has been applied, the trust fund commission doesn't stay constantly staffed, but in the absence of an emergency, which would be to just only hand out money, uh that would fall under the ru rule of necessity. It applies specifically to the management and the
dispersements of the funds only. It's tailored. It's not you can make rule changes and so forth. The definition of trust duties refers to the approval and denial of applications only. The accountability and the process that's involved is that the voting structure
that was set up there is designed to act as a check and balance uh where any kind of conflict of interest would have existed. So to ensure that the public money is granted uh fairly and on donor intent only and there's no conflict of interest by somebody asking for money that somebody may have a personal
connection to would like to recuse themsel. So um other than that the rule of necessity just ensures that if the commission is paralyzed the resident's application can still be legally reviewed approved by the select board and maintain its essential functions and that was basically the purpose. The
secondary issue that I just wanted to raise real quickly is that uh when it comes to uh the town's responsibility as trustee. So the town is a trustee over these funds and under 203E the town the
manager and the executive has to utilize funds and resources to be able to make sure that all that cyre is taken care of. The purpose of us bringing that before your board was to hear your in your edge on that. If you watch our last
meeting, uh we mentioned that that it was brought forward knowing exactly what the outcome would be. So, we have recently filed a breach notice with the town uh on breach of fiduciary duties and we've asked for a 30-day reprieve on that and that was approved at our last
meeting. So, uh, I just wanted to let you know that the town is a trustee for these funds. The town has a fiduciary duty to correct these funds, including pay for Cypre. Uh, it doesn't have to come out of a request from uh the town residents for town meeting or anything
like that. So, I just wanted to just clarify that. That's all. And that we've asked for 30-day response from the town for that to be able to get all these things taken care of. And I really appreciate you guys time and and you know reading through all that. But I just wanted to clarify that particularly the rule of necessity issue is that we
never would it wouldn't be right absolutely to hand you something because somebody else isn't available. But in absence of an emergency where it benefits somebody attorney general would be more than likely to probably say you know it's an emergency. Uh these people need money. They have to be able to get this money from somewhere. How do we get
it to them? And that could sway the attorney general. So, in that um outside of that, I would uh I will discuss with my board whether or not I come back before you after my next meeting to be able to make a reconsideration on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I appreciate it. Thank you.
>> Any other public comment from the public? Anyone on Zoom? >> All right. Not seeing any other public comment. Is there a motion to adjurnn? >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn at 8:46 p.m. >> Second. >> Roll call vote. Renee >> I. >> Brian. I >> Glenn >> I
>> Amanda >> I >> and an I for myself. The select board is adjourned. Have a good night everyone.