It is 7:03 p.m. on Thursday, February 26, 2026. Um, and I will call the finance committee meeting to order. This is a hybrid meeting that is being recorded. I have with me in the room from the
finance committee garis, Andy Oldman, Peter Twining, and myself, Sarah Melish. We have Dean Nihadus um from the finance committee on Zoom. The other two members uh of state. Um, also in the room is
Tony Barlet, the town administrator in Andre Mainville, the finance director, and from the school Ann Harrison from the select board and from the school district, Pam Dolan and um,
Michelle Cresa. And I'm sure I spelled pronounced your name wrong. It's how it was pronounced all growing up. Anytime there was a sporting event, my name was announced. That's the literal. >> That was the go-to pronunciation. >> I answered you at all.
>> Um, so our first item on the agenda is the regional school district operations and capital budget. And I think that certainly one of the u things that you may have a presentation ready, which is fine. um
you can give that. But one of the things I want to make sure we hit on is obviously there was like a 600,000 drop in our appropriation for the budget. So we'd just like to hear >> why the drop. Yeah. >> Not that we're complaining about it.
>> Nobody would >> and we might be getting some news by end of the week to share with school committee that it could potentially go down again. It's my understanding when I looked at your schedule, you're going to have the final appropriations by March 10th.
>> They've they've adopted a budget, so they we technically have >> No, but I want the final ones. >> You should have that by next week. >> Okay. >> Yeah, the final final. >> Yeah. >> Because I'm hoping to vote on the school budget on the 12th.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> We're going to report out to them what our brokers tell us. Yeah. and we'll see what efforts what they decide. Yes. Okay. So, we didn't come to make a full presentation. We can walk you through or
we can do a Q&A and you most of you have seen this presentation a couple of times already. >> Um nothing has changed really since that February 3rd >> right >> uh budget presentation and then the following week they adopted that budget. >> Okay.
Well, however you want us to proceed, we can kind of review the top level numbers. We can just jump into a Q&A. We can talk a little bit about we can jump right in with what's really causing the fluctuation from the December budget to the February budget if
>> Yeah, let's go over the high level and numbers and then what what caused what items would change it. >> I have a question. So, is it my understanding accurately that that the cost of running the schools is
$33,853,368? >> The general fund cost? Yes. We obviously have grants and revolving funds and whatnot. We >> What's the total cost? >> 10 million more than that. I'm not sure. >> Okay. >> Because this doesn't include the state funding, >> right? Correct. Yeah. And that does not
include actually that does not include the capital either. >> Yes, that's what it doesn't. Yeah. >> So, let me maybe clarify in case maybe I heard the question wrong. It does include the state chapter 70 funding. >> Okay. >> What it doesn't include is um targeted grants that we get. So, we get grants
that fall outside our general operating budget because they're targeted for specific purposes. So, we have something uh we have the idea grant, which is the special education grant that runs in the $400,000 range, but it's a special it has its own separate budget and separate budget sheet. So, at the back of our
budget, u Michelle has a top level um budget overview for each of our significant grants. The IDEIDA grant is its own grant. It's earmarked specifically for special education funding and we have to account and report on that stuff. So it doesn't
inter intermingle with the operating >> that's about 43,000 33,853,000 >> 43 million around 43.8 8 million. >> Probably about 40 million. >> 40 about 40 million. >> Yes.
>> And what does that work out to per student? >> We don't do that calculation. >> I see. >> That's the state does that calculation and it does it um it does it a few years behind based on our annual reporting sheet that they
send us. That way there they come up with a formula that is applied to all schools the same way so that you're looking apples to apples other otherwise every school would calculate their per pupil expenditure differently
>> and it's and it's in go ahead how many pupils do we have one 1,156 >> if I divide >> including school choice >> so if I divide that by 1,156 That's
>> I would get a number but it may not be comparable to other systems >> or how the state calculates it >> and approximately what is that number? >> Well, thank you. >> Anybody have a calculator >> or what was the last state number? I
think let me pull that up so I'm not just guessing. >> I I apologize wrong track maybe. 35,29 294. >> Okay. >> Based on 40 40,800. >> And the last state number was in the um
mid20s. Yeah. >> Yeah. That's it's one I've always used to hear. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. They don't use capital, they don't use the grants, they don't use any of that. And that's their calculation, >> right? >> And that's not the resident total. That's the total students. >> That's for all all the kids in there.
all the kids and all the needs. And it when you look at if you went to the per pupil expenditure page that's on the DESIE and the do site there's there are a couple of different numbers they'll give you too. There's your in in district students and then there's the number with your out of district students. >> Oh yes.
>> Accounting for the fact that the the cost of educating special education students outside the district is usually much more significant than in district. But then there's also a metric for accounting for indistance um in all of the additional services they need above and beyond the general
ed students. So if it's it should be simple but is actually a pretty complicated um formula that they use to make the determination. >> I'm I'm in favor of education. I used to be a high school teacher so u I'm not
raising this as a as criticism anyway. I'm just curious about that how it works. >> We don't ever take it that way. I just know over the years that's that in enrollment those two numbers are presented in multiple ways depending on which reporting mechanism you're looking
at. So they can still have a lot of confusion. Um and sometimes people are like shaking their head why can't this just be a simple just divide the total number of kids and the total budget. So I think I mean that's a fair local metric for us to use. >> Thank you. Sorry.
>> And page 20 of this report. >> Yeah. >> Um has the breakdown of the aroma stuff. It shows the the sped out and all that stuff. >> Thank you. >> And the history and sir, if you'll permit me to ask Tony a question. Tony, there's no new news or
any news on health insurance or insurance. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Just just want to be sure because it seems to be such a driver. So many thanks to them filled minutes. >> You guys at right now
>> we were asking for alternative structures uh plan structures that we could evaluate and our our Maya is benchmarked to GIC.
GIC was, you know, voting on different plan structures on the 12th that got postponed or or they were meeting about it again today. And so, uh, we're kind of waiting to see
what happens with that or Maya's waiting to see what happens with that before they give us actual um numbers for what to expect. But they've told us that to expect to be at the max And the new range the max is
around 15%. 14 and a half to 15%. >> And that is is that I I know these are different. >> I think that's about where you are now. >> Is that about where you are on this? >> That's where we are now. 14. >> The budget that's in front of you is at 14%. We believe it's going to come in.
>> Okay. >> At 10. >> Not significantly lower, but yes, it's lower. >> Hoping that it won't hear that. >> Oh, really? Yes, >> he's being contentious. >> No, >> that's what we're hearing. >> We don't want >> Okay,
>> we don't want to speak before we can >> confirm with our committee. Um but I think we you will be able to um bring that number down. >> Fantastic. >> We can use every cent. Yes, >> I have one more question and I'll stop. >> That's fine. What would you say our
capacity in the system for educating kids versus the number of kids that we actually have in the thing? Do we have more available capacity and how much is that? And maybe if if
there's no answer, it's fine. >> I have an answer. >> Um, >> thank you. So if if we look at our facilities and how they were built um using the middle high school as the model, we are built for on average about
a 100 students per grade level. Um the way that's translated is to like a 60/40 split at the elementary. So we typically run um probably between 60 and 80 students per grade level at Memorial School and about 40 to 50 at Essex
Elementary. So, we're running probably at capacity at some grade levels. We're right around the 100 benchmark and then we have some lower uh grade levels and Memorial School. There was some foresight there and there was some extra space built in. So, we can run up to three classrooms. So, we would fit
comfortably at the 60 to to 75 80 mark per grade level. And we're we're just we're bouncing a little bit around there. When we hit the spike, we were over capacity. So, I know we lived for many years with that 15 145 1500 mark, but we were busting at the seams. We
didn't have space. We were looking at potentially adding modulars to the middle school. So, we're we're I would say we're probably just below our just right number. Um, but we're running closer to where we were at the beginning of the district, right around that 1,200
mark. I say we can go comfortably to 1250 or 1300s, but then we're looking for more space. So we might have space for another 100 kids or 150 kids. >> Well, the memorial I'm just saying the memorial skill school was built with 435
as the design number and we're just I'm sorry 335 and we're just at 300 right now. So >> So and then the high school got a little more slack or something. >> A little bit more slack. I would say you're 100 about 100 kids more would fit
pretty comfortably. >> Okay. Yep. >> If they land in the right spot. So, >> we worked inside a school. So, if they all come in one grade level, we'll be lopsided and and looking for some elbow space, but I would say about five to 10 per grade level we could accommodate without having to make huge investments
or changes. >> And Pam, do you get a lot of change from year to year in the lopsided elements that you were referring to? >> We we got a lot of change as the bubble moved out of the district. So we've been consistently coming down but overall we
have um kids come they stay. We don't have a lot of transiency. Um so to a certain degree we can estimate yeartoyear how it's going to move. Um what we're keeping an an eye on what we think will move the lever is if
there's a real big change in the housing market which opens up capacity. It doesn't feel like we've gone we haven't um gone through the period we went through when I first arrived which was a lot of Linda Crosby was always a wonderful um kind of a source on real estate. We had a lot of empty nesters
exiting and a lot of new families coming in. We haven't experienced that and that's why I think we've gone we passed the bubble out without returning as many kids. But what I'm keeping my eye on, where I was going with this, is there's housing developments of different kinds in both towns um on on the horizon. So
that will likely have um a positive impact on enrollment depending on how you look at enrollment. It will add students to our schools. I think the development that's um under discussion here, they said 35 50 students, which is probably >> Jingle Hill, 35 units. It's never going
to happen. >> Soon, right? remained >> hard to predict. >> Hard to predict. Yeah. So, if it were to come to be, I think there was like a number of 35 to 50 students potentially. Um, and there's a significant um housing development going in in Essex.
>> That's what I thought. >> Which is going to look to add fourbedroom homes. Um, so we should probably >> Is that the the 35 unit houses? Yeah. I just Yeah, I saw that. >> That's my 35. >> Most of them are four bedrooms. >> Yeah. So that will have an impact on
>> it is >> is it maybe near Apple Street? Is it Pond Street? I don't know. >> Let me it'll come to me. >> Okay. >> I just read about I heard about it and then I saw it in the paper recently and I just
>> So is your kindergarten class numbers like the younger kindergarten, first grade are those >> about where you've seen them over the last few years? They growing or >> over the last few years? Yes. Over our historic high, a little bit lower. >> First grade looks low.
>> Yeah, we're then we're exiting. We had been exiting more kids than we're starting. Um if you look at it, it's on our site. The MSBA um did an enrollment analysis and into the future years and it has us growing um growing a little
bit and then plateauing and then slightly um increasing over the next few years. So coming back to normal. Imagine Mayor Mandani and his school system. That would be
>> I'll take this one. Yeah. >> How does uh for preK is that um is that completely feebased? >> Um unless you are in need of services. So the base enrollment there is uh special education students. So we have a
child find obligation starting at age three. Um, and if a child is in need of services, um, they're entered into the preschool program. But to defy the cost of the special education services we've been taking in tuition students. >> What's the breakdown?
>> It says there's 35 38. >> Yeah, I think we have 12 special ed is it 12 special ed students and the remainder? >> It's 8 to 12 special ed and the remainder are are general ed. So, our capacity there is going to grow um if we
are successful in in um opening a new Essex Elementary because we'll be adding two preK classrooms there. We over the past few years, we actually added a third um preK because there was there was interest in demand um for paying um
for paying students. So, when when we get to the four classrooms, we should be able to um increase the general ed paying population more. I think something to keep um on our radar screen thinking of New York and Mandani and some of the conversations that have been having that are happening at the state
house. I really believe within within the next few years we're going to be looking at universal prek. I think there's a good e there's a solid economic reason for it. Um it's provides not only education but child care services for parents reason.
>> I'm sorry. >> Absolutely. there. I mean, there's a lot of pros to it and I think there are pilot programs running in smaller cities and and and more um at risk communities. I think we will eventually be looking at a phase in similar to what they did with
kindergarten when it moved from being voluntary in half day to um grant funding to move it to full day. So, I would expect that we want to keep an eye on that in terms of capacity going forward because it you're adding two grade levels, not just one because it's
foury old to foury old. >> What are you charging in relationship to what somebody would pay for daycare? Is it half the cost or less than half the cost? >> Less expensive than private daycare, but it's still pretty expensive. >> It's one of the most public school. Do you have the number?
>> I don't. And those kinds of trends are they all taken into account in terms of the state and the dealing with the the new building and so forth. Is that they're all those trends that you're speaking of
by full day and and mandatory prek and is that in the mix? >> I think it's a little not as much as we would like it to be because they don't want you to overbuild for something that's not real. So they do a projection. I see. We haggle with them about their projection and then that becomes what they call the design
enrollment number. >> Okay. >> What we do report to them is something like um the housing pro housing development that was on the horizon. >> Yes. >> Um so we did push on them um to make sure that they accounted for that. So >> but they don't necessarily take into account
>> evolutions of further >> shortsighted. >> Yeah. But you look at this history back to 2008 >> and student population has not been an issue here. >> No, no, I understand that. But in terms
of where the lumps and bumps come and you were speaking about that, >> I was thinking the lumps and bumps that are likely might be generated by some of these changes in terms of different what's the day like and so forth. >> Families can't afford it.
I say a couple of things and Andy, you're an expert in this as well. With the building project, they're going to ask us to do a couple of things. There will be spaces in the building that are kind of swing spaces or flex spaces. So, they may be a project room right now, but they give you an opportunity if you
need to add a grade level. And then they always ask you to um they ask the architects to provide an expansion plan. I see. >> Right. So if we know there could be let's say it's 10 years down the line this universal prek evolution um we
would have to have a concept of how you would add to that building to expand it and not have to start all over from scratch. So I think >> so that would be in the mix in terms of the final design of the Essex building. >> Yeah. And with the memorial building committee that was something that was very front of mind because as soon as we
had opened the the middle high school that's when you began we began that big upswing in enrollment. So I think that group was really proactive in ensuring that we had kind of historically we would carry three classrooms per grade
level at each like grade K and two and three and they we ensured that there are three classrooms per grade level to be used in case we have an enrollment surge. So there is some elbow room there if we if we grow. So budgetwise,
I know it's 10 years down the road possibly, but the impact of that to budget. So, does the cost of operating prek is it essentially completely funded through fees except for those that are
um you know the 10 10 12 students that you mentioned there that are or does your operate your your K through 12 budget supplement the costs of preK? >> Yes, both. both.
>> Our enrollment for prek is roughly a third special education. >> Yeah. >> Um our budget is roughly a third general fund. The rest is supported by fees directly.
>> Yes. So it is almost a a one for one. It's >> not. So if that happened tomorrow, you'd be looking at another third of the cost of an impact to your >> We had to stop charging. >> Yes, that's what I'm at. That's okay.
>> Yeah. >> You charge more so that you're covering the cost of the special. >> We would be into post we would into the 20,000 range at that point. I think we're we're in the low teens right now and we're higher than most public
schools. >> Are you finished? >> I'm done. I'm done. >> They're good. They're great questions. >> Do you have questions, Pet? >> No. I've actually come through with Gar's questions as well as what Tony said about health insurance. So, no. No,
not right. Not right now. Thank you. >> Okay. And >> that has that's been the big piece that's moved our budget from where it was in December. Yeah. Um that and we were able to uh utilize what they call the circuit breaker
funding. So we get re we get reimbursement dollars from the state. So we get paid after we expend the dollars for out of district special education that is um excessively high. So we get the money after the fact and you have
two years to use that reimbursement in your budget. So when Michelle did the calculations because we start tenative so early and all all the dust settled um she was able to identify an additional 250,000 in circuit breaker that we could put in. So that was the other sizable um
piece that helped bring it down. >> Yeah. So primarily we had the roughly 250,000 in circuit breaker that was received this summer. um we had a decrease in this version of um the budget for health insurance 258,000
and we reduced our oped contribution by 571,000. So really >> essentially that puts together that >> those three huge changes brought the tenative budget from um that high number down to the 3.8% 8.5% budget that we
that the school committee has already voted, but we do expect that to go lower next. >> Okay. Um Dean, you have a question. >> Yeah, I have two regarding the budget. Um one is regarding the reserves and where
they're coming from, why we keep having all this reserve money and what percentage reserves do we have remaining. So that was the first one. And then the second one is on the um OPED that you know we're using a 300k
flat OPE contribution but what percentage of the OPED are we not funding or are we funding it? Um, those are the two, you know, budget source questions. >> And maybe you can explain how you were calculating the old population in the
past because it's different than what the town did. >> Go for it. You want to try the old pass? You want to try the >> try the old that's that's a unique one, let me tell you. >> Um, see if I can do it in a simple way. So 2015, we renegotiated our healthcare
plan with the association. And at that time we agreed to put the savings from what we would be paying for the plan in 2015. The savings that we the savings that we ma we got from reorganizing the
plan in 2016. The difference between the old plan and the new plan would become the annual oped contribution. So every year we're talking about the percentage increase in the premium. That percentage increase is also increasing that annual OPED contribution. So, we've been able
to do quite well. Um, and it's continued to escalate. So, if we in the beginning we were we were depositing about 300 to 400,000 from the Delta in the first years, we were up coming up to this year $800,000. Um so as a way to make a direct cut to
the budget but still continue our obligation to fund OPED um we propose the the the concept to school committee that you hold the annual contribution um flat at 300,000 as a match to the
700,000 in interest that our our trust funds making now for an annual growth number of a million and we take the reduction to the budget to help reduce the overall cost. It was a way to reduce costs without reducing program. Um, it slows full funding if it slows us to the
date of full funding, but I think we're still making good annual progress. So, what we'll likely talk about if we do realize the better number we're hoping to hear or get from our um our broker is should we re raise that 300 for this year? >> I wonder. Yeah.
>> You know, so I think that's going to be part of our debate next week of what the or do you lower the use of reserves. So, we've kind of got those two two levers to to reexamine if we get somebody. >> And Dean's second question, where are we on terms of reserves?
>> Answer that. >> I'm sure it's hidden in these pages. So, >> yes and no. So, our END was just certified at 1.19 million um just this week. And >> we use a different terminology here. >> You use free cash here. I'm sorry. In a regional school, it's called S excess
and deficiency. In a town, it's called free cash. Same exact calculation. Same exact theory, same exact concept, just called two different things. >> Um, so yes, so we just had our END certified 1.19 million. Um, and our
stabilization fund is just over a million as well. So roughly our reserves are $2 million at this point, just a little over two million. And as a percentage of the budget, that is 5.2%. Right now, we last year we passed a
policy aiming to have our reserves roughly in the 8% target range. Um, with the use of this free cash and use of our stabilization fund for the feasibility study as well of a couple other projects, it has brought it down to roughly 5.2%.
>> So, it's gone from eight down to 5.2. >> Yes. >> And just one followup on that. Um, w will do we have to meet a certain percentage to get favorable bonding for
the new Essex Elementary School? Do they look at this number to see if we're a healthy organization, I guess, is the concern. >> They will look at our number. Um, they rely more heavily on the town's numbers, believe it or not. Um so the financial
position of the two towns will impact that bond rating more than the districts as long as we are not in >> disarray which we are not. >> Y >> okay thank you. Thank you. >> Thanks Dean. I think we are we have been throwing the
caution flag on the on the reserves though because >> what we modeled for the school committee was if we if we hold our reserve usage flat for the next few years. >> Um we're probably looking at our total reserves coming down to about the 4%
range. Um, if we assume that we don't and we we have yet to ever spend through all of our budget, we usually end up about 1% um in the black at the end of the year and can return that it that 1% would be equivalent to 50% of the
reserves. So we've modeled out if we use 50% of the allocated reserves and return it at the end, we can get to 2029 before we have to have some type of a correction for the fact that there won't be enough money to continue to to lower
assessments by adding END. >> So it gives us a few years to to figure some things out. >> Question Sarah, >> go ahead. Thank you. Um uh you was it last year you lost the the facilities director
Steve is still there. >> Yeah was excellent. Um and uh are you are you adding somebody back or >> we aren't at this time. Okay. >> Um I think we've assess that the model is working quite well with Steve. What we're trying to find is more uh boots on
the ground support for him. um where we have the deficit. That's where we have the deficit of need. It's not in the more the managerial piece. It's just enough hands to go around. We just haven't been successful finding anyone >> to do the work. So, um other than that,
I think the model has been streamlined and actually working quite well. You see, he's just wonderful. >> Yeah. >> And he's really doing a fantastic job. Yeah. of what we might need to look at when Essex opens up. And I think something we're just, you know, kind of brainstorming around
is the changing nature of facilities management and its tie back to to tech management because so many of the systems have um >> have a tech nature about them and that's something Steve has picked up on and he's been explaining to us as well as kind of where we might see a need in the
future. So you know looking three to five years out just kind of remodeling is it is there some type of a combined role that in combi that is this combined facility network facilities safety even our safety tools are all very heavily um
technology based so what kind of how is that going to evolve in the future I think we feel comfortable right now >> but with another new building with new systems coming online maybe three to five years we need to >> yeah if you know for what it's worth my comment would you know, if you find the
right person, otherwise they tend to be like two different camps, you know, the facilities, >> building management system kind of folks and then the IT folks. Yeah. >> If we could find person, it would kind of be interesting. >> Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. But more Steves. >> More Ste. Well, it at some point the more hours we have Steve spending on managerial issues, the less he can actually do hands-on. So, it's more of the hands-on. >> Yeah.
>> And um and I think it's it's a particularly important topic given the age that the building is coming into, you know, where you're starting to have to do more replacements and repairs. >> Yeah. >> He's incredibly proactive and he's really good at catching things before
they get too far. But >> yeah, >> you know, it's amazing to believe that we are, you know, we've been in that building now for 16, 17 years. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Do you see significant curriculum changes coming in the next, I don't know, three to five
years? I mean, and therefore the nature of the kind of teachers you need and I mean, I'm hearing you speak about that in terms of physical structure. Uh, is that in in terms of the curriculum generally? >> Could be here all night on this one.
Yes, but I don't foresee them being something that has a significant direct cost. I think the nature of teaching in curriculum is changing and um I think the nature of teaching is going to be more about bringing the human
connection and human value in coaching in and leveraging technology tools to assist us in some of the more mechanical work. We are going through curriculum changes but it's really about evolving our practice in our pedagogy to meet the needs of the kids that are in front of
us today. Kids change faster than we do. >> Well, that's a little bit why I'm asking the question. I can see the kids changing very quickly. >> Um, >> part of this issue is relationships and and and that matter >> and that's where we're trying to so that's not like a that's not a large price tag. It's really kind of a
retraining ourselves to address the need for police >> and is there of course is our training material our training budget >> submission. >> We were just talking about that this afternoon. I can foresee us wanting to invest more training dollars. I think that's something we can do with shifts in our budget. Um so I'm not seeing
significant direct added costs like we need, you know, an additional $500,000 to take on this initiative. I do see some in incremental growth and shifts from different areas of the budget into P into PD.
So the PD piece is really about finding helping teachers find their way forward and a lot of it can be it's really through training, development, patience, time in co in and coaching. So I appreciate the question. I'm not seeing a huge outlay.
>> Um but we will we will signal it if that changes. I think our huge outlays really are coming but we put them in a cyclical um buying pattern. It will be through technology um and eventually with the building going it'll be 25 years old in 2034. Um we're trying to keep up with
technology infrastructure, but my assumption is things like science labs, tech labs, um the technology infrastructure that's in the walls will need a significant upgrade at that point. >> Roughly 34ish >> 20 34. Yeah.
>> All right. Sorry. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> How many hours do you devote um to teacher development per per teacher? There's no set number per teacher per year. If you wanted to use a set number,
I'd say we've got 10 early release days. >> Okay, >> that gives us about two and a half hours. >> Okay. >> Um and then we have a couple of full days. I would say depending on the grade level or the discipline area and the targeted
work we're doing in a particular year, you could have a group getting 20 to 40 hours in a year and a group getting kind of the standard 10 release day collaborative work in curriculum building. Uh right now we're looking and we're working um with a with a
desibacked group. It's called TNT and we're doing a pretty deep analysis of our lit our uh middle school literacy approach. So right now that's where we're spending some PD dollars on um having some external consultants come in and lead us through some exercises and
help us do some reviews. So that we're spending about 25 to $35,000 on that. But that's that's almost rolling money. It's like a different project every year. >> That's okay. Um, so it's not like we've added a a funding source specifically
for that. Um, so that's an area that's getting a lot of attention. We're also doing a math review. So their their number will be higher. >> We're not required to give a specific number. >> Okay. Yep. >> Differentiated I think would be the
word. Differentiated based on need and project. >> Other question. That's a great question. >> If the budget comes in as voted and so forth, will need an override. >> They haven't stated definitively
that they will. >> I was just wondering if there's there's no indication that >> it doesn't seem to be this year as big a potential perhaps if years ago. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, I think the numbers aren't
as high. The the delta I don't think is as high. I think they were talking 200,000. I don't know what they were talking. >> I mean, they didn't say no, but they didn't it doesn't seem to be doesn't seem to be the same sense of urgency and concern around it. Um, but I don't know that it's off the table.
>> I don't hear the background. I don't think they they were far enough along in their >> budget process like we weren't, >> you know, to >> Mhm. >> to really give a sense. I mean, certainly with the first budget that came out,
>> my sense was we'd need an override, but then with the reduction, it seems like we're working our way through it. So, >> the overrides off the table. >> We've been doing this a long time. It's so frustrating the timeline of healthcare.
um because it does it does force you to be to start conservative and go with the numbers that the experts are giving you and you know you hope that it'll follow the annual process of coming down but you never really know how much it's going to come down. So I feel like we
start in December. We start in the same place every time knowing and hoping it's going to be lower and waiting into we start early. So we're not waiting till the end, but we're always waiting till the end because the number >> doesn't count. >> Well, and interestingly for us this year, um the increase in our budget
is 40,000 less than the increase that the school is telling us we have. Because when we did our budget last year >> Oh, okay. >> We didn't have the final lower number when we went to town meeting.
>> That's right. >> That's right. That's right. Yeah. Yes. >> Um, so we're showing an increase of 605, I think. And I think they're saying 645. >> Um, >> right. Am I right, Andrew? >> You're right. So that means we have that
extra 40,000 to go to free cash >> for your own transfers. >> You know, someone nice is kind of bracing this way. >> Imagine how much easier all this would be if we had universal health care in
our country. You wouldn't have to even talk about this. Well, who thought going into education that I would I never imagined I would know so much about the health care system and be spending so much time on >> everything from plan design to premium
increases. It's fascinating, but it's unfortunate that it takes so much. >> So, I'll say the difference in there's no comparison between what I paid for health insurance in private industry >> and what I pay for health insurance
under Medicare. It's the difference is astronomical. So I'm not convinced that universal healthcare will help anybody. >> I think a midway step >> would be to have the entire state mandated into the GIC.
>> Like just have all just like we have MTR all the teachers have to be in MTRS. You have to be in G G or whatever they designate as the state program. That would save the locals a lot of time and energy. Yes. because they could bargain >> on the state or regional level. >> Yeah.
>> And then and therefore have more persuasive power in the bargaining. >> Okay. >> Has that been a topic in the state house or >> we have our regional meetings and we bring up lots of ideas and >> hasn't gotten anywhere yet.
I would love to see regional teacher contracts too for the same purpose. >> Yeah. superintendent. >> Honestly, >> I don't take it as a joke. I think it would be I think it would be progress if we went to more of a county system
similar to other states >> or France. >> We got we got rid of our counties. >> Yes, we did. I can't remember when that was, but yeah, they used to >> many years many years ago. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> There's such wonderful value in being able to make local decisions, but there
are a lot of local decisions that if we could scale to to the region, I think it could be a little bit more efficient and >> yeah, >> um more time focused on the pedigogy and the teaching and the instruction and less sometimes on the business side, but it's going anywhere.
>> We won't break. Do you have any questions? I know regional school district budget is different for you. >> Uh it's not that it's not that far different. I mean um I did have just one small question on page 10 where it
>> talks about the change on the staffing for facilities and maintenance. Is that what you were? Is that what you were talking about? That double that two stars there like uh >> staffing level of the increase on the total cost. >> Is that what that refers to?
>> A little bit. It just triggered a general question. >> Um I know I know you know guys are always managing those things and so >> I think we still I still see that as an area where we could explore kind of a regional approach, you know. So if
you're in a single town municipality, sometimes DPW takes care of the maintenance and and custodial work in a school. Yeah. >> You know, so is there >> as we're always trying to explore ways to find efficiencies to streamline things, is that an area where we could somehow collectively the three entities
come together and create um some type of a system that could work for everyone? >> I mean, we we do it de facto. I mean, the team is great. like in a snowstorm, everybody's at the ready and very easy to access and communicates really well. So,
we have it. It's not like that on paper, but I think people work pretty well collaboratively. >> People have towns people parking in the school parking lot during snow. >> Um, not officially, but they you certainly could use it if you had to turn. >> No, I'm just wondering if you're see if
you're seeing people parking there or not. No, >> because you went to school. No. I drove by two storms ago. There was no one there. >> Okay. Well, our lights just went off at six o'clock today. Yeah. >> I didn't see anyone in there either when
I >> It's It's not really been like I'm sure the need to move in there. They're trying to clear and you know, we welcome that. But if it's if it's a >> helps with when the blue lights are on, >> if we're not in session, that's definitely a great place for you guys.
>> It doesn't. It's appreciative, but I I don't think it does help because, you know, our our once that storm is done, our next top priority is getting you guys ready for school. You know, getting sidewalks and
parking lots or whatever done. And to be dealing with people who are parked there >> and getting them out in order to do that would be would probably end up making it harder to be honest. Well, I don't see complaints on social media, people not being able to find places to put their cars.
>> I haven't seen anything like that. So, it doesn't even seem like we really have the need out here >> except for the ones that have been in town parking lot for three storms. >> We do have to put like a
send the cops to like >> is this person okay? This car has been three months. Okay. >> Well, there's a truck that's been at uh Tux Point >> from Idaho or someplace that's been so snowed in. I mean, it's >> I think Yeah, that's that's the
caretaker for Bakers Island. >> Bakers. Okay. >> Okay, that is funny. So one question about special education is the percentage of special education needs percentage then of number of students is that changing much in terms
of the overall data ever rising number which is the way I read it but I'm not sure that's a true picture or is it or is the specialization the offsite cost I mean can you give me a little feel about where special education's going here or
is that a mystery or a mystery? >> It's is it's it's just on an upward trajectory. Yeah. I mean, I think our identification number hovers right around the state average. So, we're somewhere between 19 and 21%. I was talking to a colleague today. They're up
to 28%. Um I think it's the cost that is on an ever upward trajectory. So, we >> it's really not a it's the percentage change is is in the speed of the cost increase. the there's the identification number which is relatively steady
>> and then there's the cost of the placements which is >> skyrocketing. Um and then the complexity of the placements, the residential placements, um transportation associated with distant placements, it's so
individualized. Um we're going to give a presentation to the legislators tomorrow. um what the superintendents in the Northshore just again advocating for um the out of district portion in in our mind needs should be a state level
program um where the state is funding directly um those out of district placements that's again another place where there's greater leverage I mean we carry a legal bud >> more out of state uh I mean out of district rather not out of state >> uh we have a pretty solid 20 25 students who are out of district so our number is
relatively low compared compared to some of our neighbors, but it's the cost of the placement because of the complexity of the issues. And then a lot of them can become they can become latigious because we're always trying to provide the service for the student but also be mindful of the of the budget. Um so we
have a lot of recommendations about how special education could be overhauled to make it more cost-effective. um not have the schools carry the total burden of the entire out of district placement because there's the educational component. But in a lot of
these placements, you also have medical need, a psychological need, uh maybe some type of uh health care issue. It associated with the disability that the child is entitled to and needs those services, but they are far beyond just
providing an educational environment. So, we're trying to to work with the state. I think we're going to see some movement um and some review and some of the legis the special ed regulations over the next few years because if there's there are a couple of things that are universals whether you're a
rural or a suburban or a city district and the cost of special education and special ed transportation is one of those universals. um because those are dollars, particularly those out of district dollars are just coming right out of our our school budgets in going
to um private placements. >> Um and the only way to really battle that rapid increase is to directly increase the size of your budget. And we're always trying to keep our budgets growing at a modest rate. So something's always got to give. So a lot of times
we're we're making in district reductions to fund the audit district costs. So >> my question is driven a little bit by my ignorance which is the circuit breaker. >> Yeah. >> Um >> because I relate that rightly or wrongly to special education particularly out of
district placement. >> Y I thought maybe there was some change going on in terms of the number of kids or as I think you call it the identification. Yeah. >> Um but I that may not be the case. I I mean the circuit breaker changed a bit
and that that was part of your your funding change, right? In terms of the changes here, >> but it's not related to necessarily the number of kids that have >> Well, it's delayed, right? >> It's delayed in a certain year.
>> You you qualify for circuit breaker if the out of district placement cost, the tuition cost is over a certain amount of money. >> I see. >> That trigger triggers the circuit breaker. So you had more of those >> $100,000 placement or
>> $100,000. So roughly just in rough numbers, >> the district is responsible for the first 50,000. >> Um anything above that, that's not the exact threshold, but that's the approximate threshold. Anything above that, the state will then contribute a
certain percentage of the tuition. um it's usually in the 78% >> okay >> ballpark but we get that two years later it has to be used within another two years and then recently right before COVID they put in um the
legislature put in a change where transportation is now also reimburseable >> to a certain extent >> within a >> within the north but that's limited to the state's capacity and the number of claims claims they receive. So that's
what that 250,000 was. All of a sudden at the end of the year they're like, "Oh, we have extra transportation money. >> We'll give it to you." It hit this summer. >> Percentage changes. Is that what changes basically? >> Yes. So right now, because the state added more funding to their circuit
breaker pot, we're getting the full funding available for our tuition piece and then whatever is left over goes to the transportation piece. So those >> are you guys speaking about that too with legislators? >> Yeah. So you'll hear I mean I'm sure you've heard over the years we're
advocating for full funding of circuit breaker because sometimes they don't >> they short the money but you don't get the full amount you're supposed to. So it's it's helpful but it's not reliable. >> Yes. >> And you're not getting you're still having to budget and carry the full cost
of it and then you're getting it back in chunks of reimbursement down the line. So, we don't want it to go away. We want them to streamline it. And that would be another place where >> and make it direct >> direct pay. There was just a headline in the Boston Globe on that. And that's what they're talking about like just pay
our transportation costs, just pay the tuition directly, >> pay that percentage. >> Um monitor them, you know. So, the agency that's setting the rates on the private school is separate from um the group that's running the circuit breaker. So the whole thing is pretty
fragmented. Um again we don't want it to go away. We want them to increase the funding and how and what the the threshold is. So when they will enter and offer funding >> they don't make it simple either. It's >> make it simple.
>> Do we have to pay for education for a certain subset of students up to age 23 or is that come out of the state? >> Okay. Okay. >> Through 22. >> Through age 22. Okay.
>> Yeah. If you're identified for special education, it's age 3 to 22. >> And do we have people >> in that category? >> 18 to 22 category. >> Yeah. And the education in that case might be >> it's t it's typically um
I would say for us the typical uh 18 to 22 year old is on the severe special needs side and it's life skills and transition um helping them develop a plan and have some life skill basic education so they can direct transition
to either group home living or semiindep >> and that's an outof district place. Right now it is out of district because we don't have enough students to make a cohort here or any really the right facilities to build the program. >> And my last question maybe not last
question maybe I don't promise you transportation I you know just hitting the major categories buses and I assume I assume that's athletic buses and and normal dayto-day >> um is that world changing at all? I mean
I you're still required to people take buses. I mean I see lots of cars all over the place but I don't know. Uh >> the only significant change with busing is um the cost basically the trajectory is
just going skyhigh. The lack of >> highest percentage as a category in terms of >> the lack of drivers since COVID has been um astounding. the our contract, we have been under a five-year contract with um Salter, our
current provider for regular transportation, and that contract expires at the end of the school year. So, we are going out for a new contract. They are telling us our cost is a little bit under where it should be, so we're expecting a larger. So, we built it in.
>> That's encouraging. I love that expression. The good news is I have had a couple new companies show interest. >> Um, previously it had just been one or two people you were getting companies you're getting bids from. Now I've actually been in touch with two new
companies that are interested in our business. So I'm hoping there's some good competition which will result in some good prices. >> Kids take the bus. >> They do. Good question. >> So yes, as the the cost of transportation goes up, do you increase the fee for those who are using the bus
within the >> we're increasing the fee by two and a half percent. The the p portion of the fee it it's so minimal. It really does not impact our transportation budget. The total we budget for revenue is roughly $10,000. Our contract is
hundreds of thousands of dollars. So $10,000 is drop in a bucket. Really doesn't have too much of an impact on those. We're just for reference, we're required to as a regional to transport all of the students except within is it a mile and a half? >> Yes, a mile and a half.
>> And if we so we can only charge kids who really don't need the bus want to take the bus. So it just doesn't produce a large number of kids. Yes. Who are signing up >> as a regional school where we're required. If we were a regular mun municipal school, we would not have to. >> And we could even stop busting after
grade six. But >> Oh, really? Yeah. Yeah. It's just it's just I think the assumption being you're a larger geographic footprint so you need to provide access to >> it doesn't matter. Yeah. >> Have we have we considered uh electric
buses? >> We have. >> Okay. Just just curious. I'm not saying we do it. >> Taking some meetings in hopes that we could have gone in that direction with a new contract. I think we got some very interesting advice from advocates of electric buses which is this may not be
the time to get in from here. >> I didn't hear you. I'm sorry. Did you say >> we were pursuing look knowing that coming up? um >> who was an advocate of electric buses and trying in advising that maybe this isn't the best time to get in because of
all of the fluctuation in regulation, the rebate programs. Um that the cost of it may not be beneficial at the cost of an electric bus opposed to a diesel bus is roughly two to two and a half times more. >> So it's it's significant when you look
at >> the tax credits are tougher. >> The tax credits are tougher. Exactly. Um the grant programs are there but they're limited >> and the life of a bus roughly is about 10 years. >> Funny. I thought you were going to say technology whether because I was hearing
that the COA the castled aging buses don't go the whole day whole day buses. >> Yeah. And I was just curious whether you say the technology is not there to make them be >> they've got a long time to to recharge. They go in the morning and afternoon.
>> They could recharge. we would have some athletic trips we wouldn't be able to cover with electric buses and therefore with our contractor we were talking providing diesel buses for those instances. >> So it's it's a variety but primarily right now it's the cost that is probably
keeping us on the diesel trap >> in her indication that it's so unpredictable what what would happen to some of these tax breaks and rebates and incentive programs in any given day. So Right. Right. Yeah. You want consistency.
I love consistency. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anything else? >> Um, yeah. General question. >> You said you were done. >> I know this, but this is a wrap-up question. >> Okay. >> Are you satisfied
with the education that your program is providing? >> That's a never mind. So, you know me well enough. I'm never satisfied. >> I know. I know. Thank you. >> And there's always more for us to do. I
think um I think we have a group. We have a wonderful staff, very talented, very committed to the kids and we do produce a really strong program. I think we are wrestling with what I said earlier. How do we move as fast as the
kids move? So I think that's just the chronic struggle which is we can we're very good at finding the problem and we want to solve them. We're not always so good at celebrating our successes. So I think we are getting a really quality product but we it's not good enough. It
can always be better. >> Good. >> Um Dean, do you have any more questions of Pam or Michelle? >> I'll give you one last opportunity. >> No, no, I'm all set. I >> Okay. Thanks. >> School budget. Yeah.
You gave us a lot of your time. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thanks for coming. It's $34 million. >> Yeah, I know. >> Fair enough. We'll we'll take good care of
>> uh the finance committee at our last meeting, the finance committee made a lot of comments about how pleased they are that you guys attend these meetings and that it's a good relationship that we have with you and wanted you to know that they're they're appreciative of you guys coming to these meetings and
>> walking through the budget with us. >> That was a secret to me. >> This is one of our favorite meetings. They should know. >> And I just want to say I I'll say in public session another thanks to the DPW and and the safety personnel. They were
really helpful during the storm and helping advise on Tuesday. We really wanted to get in, but we kind of I I knew you can tell. Um >> yeah, >> just when we get hit like that that it just takes a little bit of time, but everyone was really great. We appreciate it. >> So, thank you.
>> Luke, when does school get out? >> Oh, we're into the next week. I have to look at the calendar. >> It must be the third week. I think it's June 23rd. >> Either the 23rd >> and there's that holiday that pops up in >> I have a feeling we're going to get
another one, too. >> Yeah. Yeah, >> I do. >> Another Oh, >> snow day. >> I know. >> Oh, another snow day or another high. >> No, I think we're I just have a feeling. >> Well, Tuesday they backed down on >> they back down. >> Good,
>> but they could go up again. But on April 1st be the one 17 inches in Tuesday and now it's down to under two inches. I'm glad I didn't hear that. >> That makes me nervous. I know. >> That's what happened with
>> Sunday night. Yeah, >> right. >> Yeah. >> Oh, it's going to be over here. >> Thank you very much. >> We're happy to come anytime um answer questions. Maybe we'll have a good update in the spring on uh Desert Building Project that's chugging right along and
>> it's a great group working on it. So, >> yeah, I think one of our concerns will be how it's funded >> when you when you end up taking out the long-term bonds >> because we're looking to push things out. >> We have communicated that >> to to Hilltop and I think they're going
to be ready to do some modeling with us um yes in the next couple of weeks. >> Okay. So we can they won't be definitive but they can start to talk about what options >> and I I hope that if if you have members if you have somebody from the Essex Finance Committee I hope you invite
somebody from the Manchester >> of course >> finance committee because I read something that in >> Mr. Zubri's report saying there'd been a meeting with the Essex Finance Committee and the I don't know this was several months ago on the funding for the
school. No meaning we're trying to set up a meeting. Um >> I saw your email. >> I'm communicating with Tony and Brendan and then we will make sure everybody who needs to be represented. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. We'll get out of your way then. >> Thank you.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. That's a big backpack. >> I don't go anywhere without it. >> Watch out for your scarf. It's ragging. >> Thank you. >> Is that your model? I can work anywhere. Yes. Thank you.
>> So that's it. Just kidding. >> So now what we've talked a lot about capital, we've talked about the individual projects. >> Um tonight I don't want to talk about
the individual projects. What I'd like to do is to kind of talk about the funding for the 27,
the projects that are on the list for fiscal year 27 and the impact of future projects and what the impact is to the tax rate. Once we've done that and figured out the impact, then after that,
if we felt it was too expensive and we needed to go back and delete something, that would be later. >> Does that make sense? >> Sure. >> And we're not going to dis so we're not going to discuss individual projects
tonight. >> Okay. And we're working from Yeah. >> Yeah. So, this front page uh eliminates the requested capital that was not included in our recommended >> Oh, good. Okay. >> So, let's
>> so we're not confused. >> Get that. Sweet that off. Um and then what Andrea did here was organized it based on funding source. So first you have taxation
>> and then um fund balance, borrowing, capital exclusion >> and and enterprise >> and the taxation takes us up to the two and a half plus the excess levy limit. >> Okay. >> Less than 20,000 that's only
>> less than what >> 20,000 we still have available. Okay. So page one and page two marry together. In other page two, which begins to have some of the effect on the tax rate, >> right?
>> It assumes it assumes what you've done on page one >> only for the borrow. >> So page two, I have to say true. Yeah. But I that's what I want to check off. and the fund balance we're using
what we have available that looks low to me the number >> yeah it's actually a little bit more than what we have available >> so it'll be like seven >> available% >> or so instead of 8% target >> what do we have available in the fund balance
>> it's about um $190,000 >> that's we're going to add some in >> at the end of the year because we're going to save money the 40,000 excess school unless we need it for snow.
>> Well, no, still because we can run snow over to next year. >> You can if you want to, but then you're going to reduce your free cash and have it on the >> tax rate that all of your bonds you're assuming 20 years.
>> Yes. And why are we using 20 years instead of >> it's kind of like the average. It's, you know, for any of these projects um they're usually 20 years. Originally for PAS and water systems, I had 30. >> Yeah. >> Um because that's normally standard for
um those types of projects. But when I was talking to Chuck the other day, if we do go to SRF, they usually do 20. >> Um so I updated it to 20 years. Okay. >> There. Um, >> does that also relate to the to the useful life of the asset?
>> Yes, it's supposed to. >> Yeah. >> But historically here, we've always tried to go on as early as we can. So like if our useful life is, you know, 15 years, we'll try and do 10, right? For the borrower, >> as short, as short as we can.
>> Yes. So that's what I've kind of done here. So like on this page two um under project I put the authorized so that water and sewer upgrades is that 7.55 that we've already authorized >> um last time meeting. So we've already banned um the 4.1. We're expecting to
ban the 3.4 this June. Um so I've included those payments as well. And then we assume in FY28 we'll have the full bonding um on the tax rate >> for both >> both. So you're you're not bonding the water upgrades until 28,
>> correct? >> Okay. >> Because I wanted for the water upgrades. Yeah. >> Um >> part of that like capital assessment that was added to the water bills um is supposed to go for three years. So I have proposed in here 271,000 of the
meter fees that we've received so far to pay down that ban. Um and then I'm going to be doing that next year and the year after. >> Okay. Um and then going down the proposed authorizations for FY27. There's the PAS for the 16.5. Retunda is
down to 2 million now. Um Central Street cover culvert for the 5 million. Hopefully we don't need it. We'll find out about the grants >> soon. >> Soon. >> Well, no, we haven't >> I know. >> We haven't even applied for MVP yet. It won't be >> Well, you did the first part of it,
right? The 2.0. >> Yeah, we we did our expression of interest. Um the application will be submitted in March but then it'll take a few months for that. >> So we won't know about it before time. >> Unlikely.
>> And going back to Rotunda at 2 million that's making all the contributions that from CPA that we've discussed and so forth. That that's what brings it down the 200,000. They went up to 350.
Yes, total project cost is 3.6 million. We already have 800,000 in the general fund. We already have 500,000 in CBC and then CPC is going to give us another 350 and that brings it down to about $2 million. >> What a deal.
>> Yeah, what a deal. >> Um and then d uh dredging. Um, >> why I'm I'm a little concerned about using 20 years on dredging if we're what we dredge every 40 40 years and
we're doing it every in sections every 10 >> in theory. >> Right. >> So I I don't understand why you wouldn't bond for 10 years. >> I could put it in for 10. I mean,
>> well, Sarah, I have a question. >> Go ahead, Dean. >> Wouldn't it wouldn't the length of the bond depend on how much the waterway fund can contribute to it? Because I mean, we were promised that it would be paid for by all this transient docking.
So, it's going to depend on how much income comes from that to fund the bond. No, I I I I agree that the I mean once again the amount on our capital list is the appropriation we need to go out
to bid. It doesn't mean that we ne necessarily actually end up needing >> the full bond amount. But at this point we just need to make that assumption. So we're conservative. >> Right. So >> I would I would only approve such an
assumption if if the the prior guarantee were made that this the payments would be coming from the Harbor Department. >> I don't think I I disagree with you, Dean. I don't believe there was that guarantee made. It's my understanding
from what Mory said to me that a dredging fee was added to everyone with a mooring. Is that correct, Dan? >> I don't know about everybody. Oh, it's me. >> There's an assessment and that's part of the waterway funds that I'm >> on my bill. >> Yeah.
>> And it's, you know, >> so so but I don't think that that was started soon enough to fully pay for this first round of dredging is the challenge. >> I think last year was the first time I hated. So, it's pretty clear that this uh harbor docking stuff is not going to be
able to pay for the dredging then is what it sounds like because we're doing a separate assessment to pay for it. >> I think it's just too early to say. I I think that it could contribute to that to the debt, but I don't know if we can reasonably say that it's going to cover
it all at this point. >> Right. No, I know. So that you know >> but but I think Dean's asking a broader question. If we can't say that is it our longer term view that that is our goal
in other words is is our intent even though not able to do it now to have that happen as the fees are collected over a longer period of time as well as the transient fees. >> I don't know how the dredging fees were
calculated. I don't know the assumption used to come up with dredging fees. >> Um, >> can you help Sandria? No. >> No, I'm not familiar with how the amount was came to be. >> Okay. >> Yeah, >> I do account for it separately, but I
don't wasn't part of how the amount like was decided >> and I I don't think >> I had that impression too, but I knew we couldn't do it currently because we >> did we just didn't have that revenue, but I didn't know if the longer term that was what we were trying to achieve. think that transient fees were
specifically pointed towards covering dredging. They were supposed to be covering >> Yes, absolutely. >> expense. >> Yes. >> Maybe I made the assumption wrongly so, but I I thought there was a longer term effort to get to the point where those
fees >> on on the harbor regulations. The um dredge assessment I think was $2.50 a foot for the boats. So if someone has a 20 foot boat, it would be a $50 dredge assessment. >> I pay about $75 and that mathematics
would work for my boat. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That's not very much. >> No. No, it's not. No, it's not. And I But I didn't know if you know, should we look at is it our goal? Should we look at the fee? Should we look at that's how that's calculated? Right. >> I mean, I think that's that that's my
suggestion >> because I I think it's a worthy thing to do to have that be our longer term intent. I think certainly I don't own a boat so I'm saying this as a non-boat owner I from what I hear I certainly fe feel
that the fees we're charging for somebody using a mooring are probably a relatively small portion >> of their total cost to own a boat >> and that is quite true >> significantly less than if one pays to be at a pier
>> it's priceless >> so it seems like there might be room. >> But I'm I'm expressing a view at least as one member that I think it we should look at those fees with the understanding that is our goal in the longer term from these various sources
to have that cover to the extent absolutely possible what the dredging the total cost of the harbor you know that including the dredging but because I have no idea how that 250 was arrived at. >> Yeah. And I don't know.
>> Yeah. >> Not knowing that before committing to that goal, I mean that could turn that fee into >> a large a large number and >> it could and that's >> so we ought to look at it again. >> Yeah. Agree.
>> They're trying to put forward what the intent is and testing that by asking you all is that a subject to I mean if it comes in a giant number it's just crazy. But right now, I think that the morning fee is quite modest actually.
>> Yeah, I think it it comes down to the details. I think it's a good goal to have, but it comes down to exactly how it would Yes. all work together. >> So, I'm trying to support what Dean is saying that in the longer run that would be our intent to look at these things with a hope that they would pay for the
dredging also. >> As long as it's clear that it's a hope at this point. >> Let's see. >> But I think we ought to look at the and look at what that fee would need to be >> for that to be >> case. Agreed.
>> I agree. Along with all, you know, any capital just in general, not just dredging, but capital, harbor capital as well. >> New votes. >> Well, I >> go ahead. Go ahead, Dean.
>> There wasn't a hope. It was a promise made by the harbor master um to to pay for the dredging with all this Reed Park business. Um but he's made several promises before and and you know it it's hard to make >> there.
>> Um what I wanted to say was I wanted to question what we're going to gain from this dredging. Um because with sea level rise seems to be rising faster than silt siltation and if we're not getting any new moorings or anything what is the dragging?
>> So it's just a matter of questioning the expense from >> No, we're not discussing the projects tonight. We're discussing the funding. Next week you can discuss the project. >> Okay. Y very good. Yep. Okay.
and unrel Have we asked Andrea to look at a 10-year bond instead of a 20? >> Yeah, that's what I think. >> Yes, I wrote that down. I'd like that, too. Yeah, >> I just think that makes sense >> because if we're dredging every 10 years,
>> yes, I agree. >> Though, we hadn't dredged for years, but >> we can. >> Our first 10 years ago, I hope seems like it. >> Yes, was less than 10 years, but you know, it was do things in pre and postco and
you know co is almost 10 years ago that way up there. >> Um the next is Tap and Street. >> Yeah. >> Um and so then I totaled that because that's just that's town related items, right? And then below that I put an estimate for the Essex Elementary School. I know it's very early um but
it's a significant change. So I did include that in the out years. Um and then going below funding sources I put possible different funding sources. So, there's the taxation within Prop 2 and a half, there's taxation outside Prop 2
and a half. Um the water capital fee. Um I still haven't estimated for 27 or 28 what I think we might be able to pay down for the ban, but I'll update that. Um the available funds that 17,000 is premium that we received on the ban um that we have to use when we go to pay it
off in um June. >> Um >> so that's a credit to us. >> Yes. Yeah. What's What's the Essex number based on Essex Elementary? >> I looked up online and it said like the project was like 25 to 35 million or so. >> I figured that was way off.
>> I figure >> I know that was going to change. I just put something in there. So, I literally put Manchester Memorial in there. >> I think it should be Andy. >> I think it's going to be uh at least 60 million >> for the total >> total. So, we'll be 40.
So, can we adjust this to 40? >> Yes. >> Yep. Yep. >> And I can ask for a better estimate. I we're we're actually starting to get some estimates done on some of the different uh approaches, >> right? Yeah. I think it was a little too early. >> It it is early, but >> I want to put something.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> So, >> I think our aortionment was 63 million in the last uh the school budget based in on January 29th. Yeah. We're talking about the building.
>> Yes. Yes. >> It was in there on the last page of the maybe not on your handout, but the the one I downloaded from their website had 63 million for us and um 32 million for Essex.
>> No, it's a $90 million project. >> That's that's what they're thinking. Yeah. >> Yeah. It's got to be including something else, right Andy? >> Uh, yeah, maybe some other town's project. >> Andy building committee and he's saying
if the total project is closer to 60 million. >> Okay. Yeah, I just saw what was in their budget book. >> Um, and do you think that they're going to start paying bands in fiscal year 29 or is
that too early? >> Uh, that's a good question. I think that might be too >> I downloaded the the latest timeline from the last morning. >> Yeah, 29's a good guess. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I didn't do like a full bond. I just figured that's like the start of the
project then. >> Okay. >> Um and then going down total expected tax need um is what I expect the um estimated taxes that we'll need. Um, and then the increase is, you know, for FOYA
27, it's 0.21. So that's 21 cent increase on the tax rate. >> Okay. >> Right. It's not a percentage. It's the actual like cent change >> to the tax rate. So if our tax rate is 870 right now, yeah. >> Then next year would be 82 like 8.91.
>> So we take these amounts and divide it by the tax rate to come up with a percentage. Okay. >> And I can add that. >> Yeah. >> In there, too. >> Can you do that? >> I like to talk percentages.
>> Yes. 21 cents a thousand doesn't mean much to me. >> That's why when I go down below further under >> I don't really know what my assessment is. But I I >> I agree. Yeah. >> You know, so that therefore if I have a
percentage of my tax increase, you know, tax bill increase, it just >> Yeah. >> registers more easily. >> Yes. >> I mean, I don't find assessments too much, but >> but if you go down under estimated annual tax bill impact, I did it by like
a $1 million valued house, a 2 million, and a 2.65 million. Um because that's as high as the calculator went. Um, so then you could see like on the bottom line I put for the 2.65 million I base those percentages below them on the change
between the previous year to the current year. So from $106 per year increase to $556 per year increase is $425%. I don't know if that really maths well. >> So explains well.
>> It's an additional 5.56 in 27. It's not the 106 is not included in the 556. >> Correct. Um and then it just kind of goes goes on from there. Um and then I also broke out the Essex Elementary School, what that increase impact would be um based on
those all same values. And then at the bottom I totaled both of them together. And then on the last page, um, I broke out each borrowing individually. So you can see if we only approved PAS, this is what
the potential tax impact would be based on again the 1 million, the 2 million, and the 2.65 million value house. >> Does the make sense? >> Does does this show the We talked a lot in terms of when
projects, you know, >> fall off, >> the bonds mature and fall off. Yeah. Yeah, I have not meshed those two together. >> Okay. Because our I don't know a year ago or more when we were kind of talking about this, it was in relation to like where
is it now? Is it going to go up and then it goes back kind of thing? >> Yes. Yep. >> This is good though. Thanks. >> Very helpful. I mean obviously the cost of running the town
outside of these capital items is not going down. So basically what we're doing is saying this is just incremental on top of >> the normal increase >> regular increases we're going to see.
>> And it does not include as it couldn't the unknown increases. right >> that we may see capital or operating >> right >> we get >> the way I try to count it is to say the
percentage increase in the tax rate so that if somebody knows if you do the re retunda it's a three quarter of a percent increase in your tax rate >> then that is you know right >> that's I think that's easier to explain
than dollars I think dollars gets confusing Right. Because we think in terms of the two and a half. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Um and of course as our assessments go up
>> so it gets even more complicated. >> Then these go down, >> right? >> So you bring CST on and all of a sudden it's less. But that's okay. >> We don't complain it's less, >> right? >> So far I haven't included any of that.
I'm like, you know, worst case scenario, like CCT didn't >> No, I >> or anything like that and this would be the most >> you mean when they were originally coming in, >> we felt a little more confident about the timeline and then with the whole federal grant situation, the timeline is
not as secure. So, I don't feel comfortable making an assumption and putting them in a difficult position. of our bonds which are now as I recall about 6 million >> are going to go up to
30 million. >> So um >> it's a it's a big borrowing. We're not it's not like we're >> $ 38 trillion or something like that federal government seems to be doing but
you know we we are burdening the future. we're mortgaging the future, which you know that's that's life. You gota got to do some of this stuff. So, >> well, and and I think we did go for a number of years doing the capital
exclusion instead of doing the long-term borrowing, which actually has created an anonym an anomaly in this year's tax rate because we're dropping the capital exclusion
from the what was it 600 >> 660 down to 250, our normal tax rate increase is going to be closer to 2% than 2 and a half. >> Yeah.
>> Because we're backing up. So therefore this increase which I'm not exactly sure what the total percentage is however is not I don't think it will bring us up to two two and a half% is
but right because if I take I'm going to be interested to what how you do this. You're >> a 1% increase in the tax rate is still 390,000 because our assessments of 3.9 billion.
>> Okay. >> So this is like >> so I should be able to take >> like4% or something. 04%. Yeah. On a if you look at the million the $42 Well, I was looking at that 146 number
ra 390. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So that's so that is you add that
it's like 37, >> right? That was last year. So now Fiscal year 27 it's 8:45 which should be six
two over two and a half%. >> Yeah. 390 and 3. Yeah. Close 800. Yeah. A little over 2%. >> Yeah. Oh, using a calculator. I didn't pull mine out.
>> Yes. >> So, fiscal year 27, 2.2% for capital and about I think it's 2.05 or something on the normal tax rate. It's about 2%.
>> So, a total tax increase we're looking at is 4.2%. And it it gate is where you really start to like see >> real impact that is remains kind of constant >> going further out.
>> Yeah. And that's where I thought you were going to take us because 28. So 29 >> again. Hopefully we get a grant for the culvert and don't have to use any of
that. Hopefully the um PAS project comes in less than 16.5. >> And remember these numbers, you you would subtract out the prior year when you're talking the tax
increase. So if you're talking fiscal year 28, >> right, >> the actual increase for that year is the million, which is going to be just under 3% increase, >> right? any like Andy was saying, anything that's falling off as well, >> right?
>> That that falls off is not included in here yet, >> right? So, I guess we need that falling off thing to >> Sarah, I had a high level comment. my buddy Mike Pratt used to say um
the concern like based on past experience um we had a lot of work last year and I felt like it was too much for our staff to adequately supervise and too much going on in the town at once.
Um, you know, we had identified the biggest water waste in our water conservation study as the sewer plant was using processed water to treat their water and we designated money to do that and they still haven't gotten around to doing it. Um, it was supposed to go
before the water mains. it was a bigger priority, but they have last year they did Pleasant Street, Lesix Road, and Mil Street, and it just seemed like a lot. And we're hiring third-party vendors to help us with this stuff at and paying
their overhead and profit again. And it doesn't seem efficient for a town our size to be doing this much work in one season. So, that that's a general top down from this bond um proposal that that I feel.
>> Okay. Thank you. I mean I I yeah I I I think I it's my understanding that part of the reason of having some of this stuff together
is to enable us to go out to bid for a larger project. to presumably save money, but that doesn't necessarily mean everything
would be completed next winter and therefore it's possible that some of the bonding would be delayed further than this. >> That weird. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I think that's true. >> I mean, this is the worst case like
>> like if everything were to happen all at once, >> right? This is assume she's assuming when the projects will be completed and when they'll be ready issue the bonds but we know things sometimes get delayed. Y >> in some sense you're looking at the
worst case. I mean some >> Exactly. >> So understand but still the impact the I'm sorry also you know like with the ratunda >> we're concerned about how much longer it'll >> it's going to stay there. >> It'll stick around you know or the
Culver you know we're concerned that that could >> uh you know be shut down by DOT or or something worse you know. So, I mean, gen to that to that comment, generally speaking, you know, that these recommendations are coming from the
staff, >> right? >> They don't they don't gain anything by making their lives harder. They're doing it because >> we need to do it. >> It needs to get Yeah. And we just have to adjust, you know, as far as
how how to get things done. It's always in the mindset of what's best for the town. You know, trying to think about whether costs are escalating over time or the current condition of the project, you know, the the asset or
combining them together because we can have some cost savings. A lot of different factors go into why we make these recommendations. >> Chuck said you could speak to it you want. and Andrea this bands thing and bonds that timing you wait until the it's
completed and the last payments made when you go to a bond from a band you use bands up to the point of total completion >> is usually try to >> okay >> it depends on like when the band cycle is normally if like the ban cycle say
for instance like the water um the 4.1 that we just banned we did that last June that's going to end and be due in June of this year and then I'm going to roll it again to June of 2027. But if I know we're going to spend the last like, you know, 30% of it in the next fall,
I'm not gonna ban it again. I'm going to probably bond it if it makes sense, too. >> I was just thinking about the power of Sarah's comment about timing. >> It's a very important influence on this whole tax rate deal. >> What's the difference in the interest
rate you pay in a band versus a long-term loan? Um, it all depends. Um, some usually it's a little bit lower. Um, >> oh, a ban is low. >> A little bit lower than the vol. >> Yeah. Um,
it's been my experience lately, but it could change. And I've been told that like the larger amount that you go to borrow for like or um for long-term debt, the better interest rate you'll get. >> Um, we've all done like smaller >> borrowings so far. Um, so it's been
average. So talked to some peers and they've gone out for a large debt and they've gotten like 3% does >> but 3% there's also a constant >> in a bond. >> There is a constant but you're also
inflation expect >> you have your interest rate and then you have to make >> margin >> the the uh principal payment. So the constant on a a 4% bond may be 6.2.
>> That's pretty accurate, I think. >> Yeah. Well, I I I used to be a lender. >> Congratulations. >> The numbers out in the air. >> The way you phrased it, I'd say it seemed a little more. >> Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Well, >> and in these projections, I've used 4% um because when I talked to our financial advisor, that's what they recommended. >> Put the C. >> Hopefully, it comes out low. >> So, Sarah, is one of your intents of tonight's conversation
in an effort to the the 28 29 increases to me look very substantial. Are you looking is was that some of the focus here to see if we could shift anything by years? Right. >> And I ask Tony's response is we need to
get them done because need to get them done. I sell it. I >> mean uh I I ratunda and pas >> and you know
>> essential >> and central although hopefully we don't hopefully either our existing brick grant gets extended or we get MVP grant money to replace it. So hopefully, >> yeah,
>> we don't even have to borrow that money. But the the reason why we're going for it now is because of what we talked about in a previous meeting and the schedule of having to have the funds and the permits in order to bid in order to meet a certain winter season for
construction >> and the fact you need to get done. >> Um, dredging is due. It's a match to a grant. Tapen Street, you know, my understanding Tapen Street is is a project that has been in need for for
it's been passed. It's been pushed many years. Um, you know, could it be pushed again? Maybe. But, you know, how long do you how long do you run that risk? Because if if you have some major utility issue,
>> you know, I've seen >> then it's emergency. I I I've seen a million-doll project that only fixed 10 feet of pipe. >> Yeah. >> You know that that's what you're trying to avoid. >> Well, effectively, how long are you actually going to delay it? We talking,
you know, two years. I mean, because if you're talking five or 10 years, then you're really >> And this doesn't include any of the other projects, >> this is just these projects. >> Yeah. >> What's that? >> Then we have the other stuff. >> Yeah. Other stuff. This is Yeah. This is
This is >> above the This is tax bill impact above the >> tax bill impact. >> Yeah. The other the other projects live within the >> right within everything. >> No, I'm talking about the other capital projects. We have the bond >> our 25 year
>> plan. Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. Well, and so it kind of goes back to the earlier comment about, you know, like the weight that we've been bearing and how this kind of compares with that. >> Yeah.
>> Because I think, you know, as we've talked about it in the past, you the goal was to try to keep it flat if possible. >> If not, >> it won't be, but I mean this the school
happens sooner than expected, right? Yeah. There could be some comments from the taxpayers about this respons. Sure. >> Should I ask the question what the tax rate is when you put it all in there? I mean, you know, two and a half the bonds
and >> what what year are you talking about? >> 28. This is this is just what's on this page. This isn't I mean >> this is a debt exclusion,
>> right? So >> So this is assuming that our tax rate increase is 2 and a.5% a year under Prop 2 and a half. >> Yep. >> And this is a debt exclusion in addition to
the normal tax rate. >> Exactly. >> Right. And what I want to do is I'll add a line on that so you can see what that extra >> Yeah, I guess that's the line because I'm having >> point of missing. That's the line. >> Yeah. But if I mean I I think that these
numbers are big, but it's not that big an increase in a given year. And I think that's the difference. >> Well, I guess I'm waiting to see >> 28 and 29. So 28 is a million more than 27
and 29 is 900,000 more than 28. >> But as far as tax bill impact, you may have Isn't old school debt coming off? Yeah. >> In 29 or >> 32?
>> Oh, yeah. Those are two years where it's going. There's a couple other things that are coming down, but >> yeah, 32 was kind of our year that it dropped dramatically. >> All right. >> But it's I just so happened to have this little
booklet with me >> that didn't get left in my office. It's now closed off. Um >> was that last year's? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And it has it's going down
so by about a million a year, right? So it's a little over 6 million fiscal year 2526. It goes down to 5 and a half million 27 and it goes under five and by
>> that's the that's the over >> total debt >> the existing debt outstanding debt before this new stuff. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> And by fiscal year 33 it was going to be under a million of existing debt >> and fiscal year 32 was one and a half
million. So it's going down significantly each year >> maybe each. >> Sarah, I had a question on the um 2 and a half% annual. Does that include added assessments from
like especially CST or you know just I mean our assessment went way up between the previous year and last year as you know our our property and does this build that into it or is it conservative by just saying two and a half% of
current salary of current >> the the way the calculation is done is you you can increase your t your total tax levy by two and a half% of the prior year
plus growth. So that if your assessments increase, you're calculating those dollars on a larger number. That that's why our tax rate keeps going down, >> but the percentage
is staying at the 2 and a half% increase because your assessment's going up, >> right? I understand. Is that how this it's so that's how we built that in? This does not include this assumes a level assessment which is valid um and
it doesn't include CST because we don't know right >> when that will come on the books. So if if CST comes on and is additional 500,000 in revenue then that changes the picture significantly.
>> Right. Um, but we just and the building fees are would be about 500,000, but and those aren't included in any estimated revenues because we don't know when they're going to commit.
>> So, this sheet might be a little bit conservative. >> Yes. >> I think I would I would call this pretty much the worst case scenario, >> right? >> Wait a minute, too. >> Okay. and by what you've just said. >> Yes, exactly. >> Um,
>> and I'd rather be worst case scenario. >> I absolutely agree. I I I believe this is the worst case scenario and if it occurs, there may be some of our voters who are kind of shocked by this. Uh, >> we did in
>> and it may take some time. Absolutely. >> In last year's booklet though, we did include that if anybody read it. We did include that 25-y year >> capital >> good good >> assumption. >> I'm glad we did >> because I came across it and I said, "Oh
my goodness, we included that last year, but we haven't talked about it this year." >> I don't know where it is. >> I was about to say point us to it. >> What? >> It should be at for the front. I think I think there's been >> um Paige >> it seems like there's been a lot of
discussion about >> significant future capital needs over the past few years so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise but the magnitude of >> you know how it is when you get the bill. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But we we had the 25 year thing last
year and it was showing one and a half% you know. >> Yeah. The other the other thing too is if you go back to I think like COVID years,
the town has tried to offset increase in value assessments with less increase in the tax rate. Yeah. >> So for the last, >> you know, there's been excess levy capacity.
>> Yes. >> Almost every year. So, it's kind of like the two the two now happening at the same time. It's like, you know, we we've enjoyed the last few years. Now, it's time to >> Yeah. Because we did a 0% tax increase for CO
>> and then the next year I think we did one and a half percent and then I think the third year we did 2%. Right. Right. So, we we did >> purposely keep it down helping people out, >> but we're about to enter a period where we're going to do four and a half%.
I don't think it's going to be that high. >> Pretty close. >> What do you think, Andrea? >> Everything all happens at the same time. Yes. >> Well, I I don't know in these projections, you took into account the
reductions also in in developing this. Uh, >> no, she didn't. >> She did. She didn't. Okay. >> So, maybe you're right. is not going to be four and a half >> but >> because if I you know >> but I think there's something about this
>> you got 2.2 two. Yeah. And two is 4 point. Yeah. >> Well, I mean, we're Does it relate at all to the new town management? >> I'm the lucky guy.
>> It's got to somehow relate, right? >> They knew you could handle it. >> Well, say if you're only if say your tax bill is 50,000 a year, it's only $2,500. that and not to not to go back to
previous discussions that that's why I was weeks ago kind of like really talking about the retunda option of CPC because it was one thing we could maybe move aside but I that's why I was doing that but I understand just so you know
>> we could decrease the impact on taxpayers by eliminating the 1 and a half% CPC search charged. >> Yes. But then >> that would offset the 4 and 12%. >> You got to put it back.
>> If I'm going to say it's 4 and a half% increase and I eliminate CPC, >> well, we end up with some we won't get some of the funding that we're demanding from the CPC also. I mean, it has many impacts. Many counterveailing impacts, >> right?
It's it's an issue with the projects in CPC, >> right? It's, you know, are we are we you know, if we're getting 70% from state, which is also our taxes, >> um but if we take that as, you know, just like all to the good for us,
>> are we are we spending are we spending like that 17% and more on >> $16,000 signage, right? Are we spending it wisely? >> Exactly. I see your point. Yes. >> It's it it's
it seems to me that for the most part, probably with the exception of the rotunda >> Mhm. >> for the most part the CPC expenditures have been nice to have, not need to have. Though I did see something about the
somebody was asking to rent the grow legally. I saw lights on one day last week. >> Yeah, things are looking up. >> 750,000 CPC funds for that.
>> Okay. >> You know, I'm on the CPC committee and um I know that, you know, I'm particularly irritated with the number of like operational supplements that our town departments hit raid the CPC. You
know, I'd like to try to build a kitty to do something at the the bath house or a real job that residents want, but we keep getting hit with all these supplementary operational things. It's like Cheryl Marshall's, you know, little
candy store sometimes. It feels like >> the See, it's not the department's issues. It's the CPC issue. They're the ones that approve the projects. I hold CPC accountable. You can say no. >> No, you're right. I mean, I dissented on
some of those things, but yeah, >> we try to support what what the requests are, you know. That's >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is that it? >> Are we good? >> Yeah. >> I think we're fine. Sadly fine, but yeah. >> Are you going to make these adjustments?
>> Yes. >> I'm going to add the other that schedules and so you can see >> see how it >> Yeah. flows in totals. That includes the reductions following the >> include the red the netting off of reductions that will happen over that
period of time in bonds that >> you can just show percentages. >> I'm fixated on percentages. >> Percentages are good. >> Um so next week
we have our vote on CPC. Hopefully we'll vote on capital. people vote. I thought we'd already voted CBCC. >> We did not take a vote. We just discussed the projects, >> right? Because they were modifying, >> right? Because they weren't it wasn't a final list. >> Okay. >> Um
>> hopefully we have a >> do we now have number >> as well. >> Right. That's what I'm hoping is that we can also vote on the held budgets. >> And there are two or three of those. Not a whole lot. >> Three or four. >> Okay. >> You got sanitation. Yes. We've got
emergency services. >> Yes. >> Anything in DPW? >> And two others. >> Sanitation. >> Oh, sanitary. >> And emergency services. >> The only come to my mind. >> No, we passed Harvard.
>> Harvard. Okay. I was out. >> Yeah. Passed it. Um >> I think you want to keep like I mean I know you guys voted on health insurance, but >> Oh, the health insurance. I'm expecting to get a circle back.
>> Well, the beauty of that gets down to 4% be just great. >> I'm trying. >> Yeah. Or >> I keep telling him if you give me a if you can give me a 5% increase to give me new plan structures, I'll I'll go with
that. >> It's 14 versus 15. What is that? What's 1%? I I can't remember the number. 60,000 or something. >> Uh debt service we held also. >> Yeah.
>> Cuz we can't really do that service until we >> until we deal with this. Yeah. >> Yeah. That was it. Three lots. You were right, Peter. Other >> ones. Okay. Did we was was there also
the um legal and reserve fund like we might do we vote >> we don't we vote >> we >> did you did vote on that >> legal and other professional services we voted on and we voted on the finomecom
reserve fund >> I'm kidding you voted >> no I I didn't know if it was one that we held >> is It's probably four or so. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> If school's budget comes down a little bit more and health insurance comes down
a little bit more, then depending on what happens with >> sensation, >> right? That's the big >> Yeah, >> that's the big unknown. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Okay. Um Peter, to answer your question, it's $18,000.
It's 1% 14 or 15%. >> Thank you. Oh. Sorry to interrupt. >> So, did people receive the minutes? >> Yeah. Well, I received some minutes. I looked at two new sets, I thought, this week
>> from Gail. I think it was around Wednesday we got them. >> Yeah, Wednesday. I saw just one. >> He looked fine to me. >> I saw one for the 19th, >> but they do like Mory's comment of being
very sort of short on the discussion. I mean much longer on the way they get recorded by >> what I wanted and we weren't didn't seem to be successful in doing it is I wanted a version with the detailed AI
and then with a middle AI so people could see the difference but they had troubles generating them. Oh, >> they didn't make sense as to what it came out page wise what it came up with. One was 11 pages, one was six pages.
>> I see. >> Um, >> well, >> so are we okay with these, you know, >> I was okay with the ones that came this week. >> Yeah, I only saw one. I saw >> two attachments.
>> Yeah. Make a motion to approve the February 19th. >> Any minutes? Do >> I have a second? >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I go eye. Okay.
Got the minutes approved. Um, any on updates or anything? >> Nothing more than I mentioned. >> Okay. Um then so we vote CPC, we vote, we do capital,
we do health budgets. Is there anything else we need to cover next week? And then on the 12th I have the school, I have any other outstanding budgets in the war documents. True. And then again on the 19th of
>> the only >> we put a lot of placeholders there at the end of the schedule just in case. >> Yeah. The only separate warrant article >> I have is for the debt for June this June
but I'll explain next week. It has it has to be a separate article because it's coming out of FY26 funds instead of FY27 operating for debt service. >> Okay, we'll talk about that next if it's
complicated. We can't finish it in 30 seconds. >> That's right. >> So So we had two sets of minutes uh back on February 18th. They were for February 12th and February 5.
We did that la last week. >> That's what I'm confusing. >> Okay. >> Yeah. No. >> Um, is there anything else anybody wants to raise? >> Okay. >> Then I will take a motion to adjurnn. >> I move we adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor? I I
>> Thank you. All right. See you. Bye.