on >> Thursday, March 5th. >> Um, I will call the finance committee meeting to order. I would be in the room. Um, John Croft, um, Andy Olden
and myself, Sarah Malish. We also have in the room um Ann Harrison from the select board, town administrator Tony Barleta and finance director Andrea. Uh Dean Nad
said he was unable to make it tonight. He's somewhere in the air. Um, we will begin with the CPC which is on the last page of what Andrea
just handed out. So I believe we have discussed these items. Um the new one is there were a tund for 350,000
and the affordable housing trust was decreased from 200 to 100 in order to add a 100,000 more to the rotunda um which was the maximum money they had. >> Right.
Um any questions discussions on this? >> Just one reading. So the 472 at the bottom line that's the balance that's und designated. >> Yes. >> Yeah.
>> And in prior years there were hundreds of thousands undesated. >> If you appreciate it much less. Yes. >> A small amount. >> Yes. >> Is that right? No. >> Is there a reason though it's broken? >> No. That that is
Do you know what the undesated means, Andrea? Because they're spending it. It's not like they're not spending it. >> Right. So, they have a about 50 something,000 and so they've allocated those that 47,000 um to come from those funds >> that was left over. Oh, >> so they'll have like a little bit left
over but not much. >> It's the funding. >> Yes. >> Source. >> So that's not current current year research. Okay. >> Is that correct? Correct. >> Okay. So I was wrong on my prior explanation.
>> There's a line item of trash barrels and that's does that dovetail in with um trash and all that. These are decorative barrels somewhere. Yeah, these are >> exactly >> where are they for?
>> Different parks around town. They're like, you know, nicer looking receptacles rather than like your painted drum with a plastic cover on it. >> Upscale trash barrels.
>> Nice celebratory trash. Refitting of our time. Um, any other questions? I thought Jack was going to be on. I didn't see him. Muffin Driscoll
is on from CPC. Tony, what is the photo restoration? >> I don't remember what that is. >> Um, Jack Burke. >> Yeah, I'm here. >> Yeah, I guess we have some questions. >> Certainly.
Um, first was on the trash barrels. >> Say it again, please. >> Trash barrels. >> Number six. >> Yeah, I I actually don't have that sheet in front of me. What is it now?
>> Trash barrels. >> 4,000 4,000 trash barrels. >> Oh, I'm sorry. The trash barrels. Yes. That that was just to get rid of some of the ugly metal green trash barrels that are around some of the parks and and make something a little bit more attractive in our parks.
>> Great. >> Okay, >> Peter. >> Yes. And remind me what is the photo restoration for 3100? >> Yeah, the photo restoration is the elder brethren, all their old pictures going
back to the 1800s that they're going to restore. This is the third time we've um used CPC money for uh photo restoration that included the police department, fire department, and now the elder
brethren wants to uh uh restore and save and digitize all the pictures they have for the last hundred years. >> Thank you. Great to digitize them because they're going to get lost if they don't. Um, any other questions?
>> Um, do I have a motion to approve the $594,200 in CPC projects? >> I move we approve $594,200 for the community preservation committee commission. Second.
>> My second. Any discussion? Take a vote. John, >> yes. Andy, >> yes. >> Car, >> yes. >> Mory, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> And Sarah, yes. >> Thank you, Jack. You're all set. >> Thank you, Jack.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Oh, hash. And next on the agenda might be, since I don't seem to have the agenda, I think you have capital budget and budget objects in discussion. >> Yeah. So I think the other things we're
discussing tonight is is the capital projects and also any budgets that we can >> expend. That would be sanitation. >> Sanitation >> emergency services >> and debt service.
>> Thank you very much. Okay. Um, so we voted on the CPC projects. Now we're talking fiscal year 27 capital budget funding and projects discussion
and hopefully a vote. And Andrea has given us this handout. Capital fiscal year 2077 stapled on the bottom. Sorry. Sometimes I you have to I have to rotate the whole pages upside down to make
people right again with this. >> Um >> so where do you want to you're going to walk us through this right Andrea? >> Right. >> Okay. >> Where are we starting? >> So the first page should say capital FY2027. >> Let's see.
>> Yeah. So it's not staple on the bottom left. So, we're on this we're on Okay, >> I'm keeping you guys on your toes. >> We're on the expenses page. >> So, the next one is expenses. So, this is um a budget projection that we have
in our budget um workbook. And so I projected out I included FY27 proposed and then I projected out and the increase column is what I projected every annual increase would be after FY27.
Um so you can see in the town operating um salaries expenses salaries I put 2.5% and it flows over into projected fiscal 28 29 30 and 31. >> Okay. >> It kind of goes down from there. You have the enterprise funds same thing. Um then it goes into the school district
which I have at a 3.5%. Um the school debt is actual um from this latest schedules I received. Uh the next is the Essex Tech. Um I haven't updated that. I know they just changed their lottery um to a
lottery system. Um so I'm working on changing that projection a little bit because right now we have many kids. We have we have eight or nine kids >> in all four grades right now.
>> Uh the lottery system will allow for 10 spots per year for man for kids from Manchester and then I think it can even go up another couple spots based on you know an
additional lottery after that. So it's it's kind of hard to project what that cost could be, but >> that's for the upcoming year. >> Yes. But we get our assessment is based on how many students were actually there the previous year. >> Oh, okay.
>> So this year we have 10 call it 10 students in all four grades. >> Yeah. >> I don't know how many are seniors. Um do you know? >> Yeah. One. >> One. Okay. So next year, if the others are still there, we'll have nine and
we'll have 10 more possibly going. >> Yep. >> And 10 more possibly the next year and the next year. >> But we find out about that a year in advance. >> Well, we find out Yeah. We find out how many kids get accepted. Um but our Yeah.
Our assessments based on how many kids were there the previous year, >> right? So our number for this year is good. >> Yes. >> Yeah. And then next year we'll know the results of the lottery and have a good number. >> Yeah. >> Well, the lottery won't have kicked in
yet next year, >> right? >> If it's based on the 26 enroll 25 enrollment >> be 26 27 enrollment, >> right? Which would be based on 25. >> No, it's not. The enroll the charge is
based on the previous year. The number of students is based on the decision of the >> oh 26 >> the the decision that was made by the um all of the technical schools in the in
the state. So >> so ne so next year's assessment should be based on the upcoming school year's number of students. >> When we say next year, can we talk about what fiscal year we're talking about? Sure.
So, so fiscal year 28. >> Okay. >> Our assessment will be based on it should be based on the school year that starts in the fall of 206 which the lottery kicks in I believe. >> Right. Yes. They're holding the lottery
now for 26 enrollments. Okay. >> So, the the the point is is when you start to project out, >> right? you know that if if all 10 seats get filled four years, five years down the road, this could grow exponentially, >> right?
>> In theory, those students are kids that other otherwise would be going to Manchester Essex Regional. >> So, I'm sure we'll get a discount there. >> In theory, uh but it doesn't always necessarily equate to that.
>> Okay. you know, is is it fair to say we're under subscribed on the people that can go to the vocational that would like to? >> We don't know. >> I mean, >> in the past, >> yeah, I'm wondering, are there people in the in the Manchester Essex that would
like to go to the vocational school, but there is not a spot for them? >> I I think it's fair to say that there's been kids that applied and did not get accepted in the past because of the limited number of students. >> Not a huge number, right? >> I I'm not sure. >> Yeah. Okay.
So, we don't know if 10 kids will want to play. >> Dude, so this is a two-step deal. You have to be accepted and then you go into the lottery to see if you get in. >> No. >> No. >> The lottery determines whether you get in, >> but it's the other way around. >> Okay.
>> It's no long they no longer have quote unquote eligibility requirements. >> Okay. But we could >> theoretically have 40 kids there. Yes. >> Five years. Five years down the road. >> Yeah. >> But you have to have 10 kids in
Manchester who want to go, >> right? I understand. Which we I guess do right now. >> No, we have a total of 10 four grades. >> Yeah. >> No, but I mean that have applied. I think >> I don't know if it's that many. >> It was a lot. >> Yeah. I don't know. It's
>> like 10% of each class. Yeah. More. You're right. Yeah. It's a lot. >> Okay, let's move on. We don't want to dwell on that on topic for tonight. >> Uh the next one line is the capital
improvements. So I put in what we have for fiscal 27 so far and then um based on our prior year's capital um from taxation, we usually put in about 1.3. Um I did a little analysis on that. Um,
I can share based on our five-year capital and not enough taxation for next year, but I put in as a placeholder holder based on our prior assumptions. >> Um, then I put in like the
non-appropriated expenses. Um, community preservation I just kept as a the same amount that we had previously so it doesn't skew the percentages. Um when you did operating did you reduce it by the health insurance for retirees?
>> I did. Yeah. So you see in the first section um under health there's like a little thing. >> Okay. Good. >> That says that and you can put it in red so you can see the reduction there. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Um and then we go down to the total expenditures. Then below that I have the
revenue. Um, so that's like the our state aid, our estimated local receipts, um, CPA, any other available funds, Harbor Department funds, all all the different um, revenue sources we usually use and then
subtract that and then the net amount to be raised. And then below that, I have the real and personal property taxes. The two and a half% calculation is included in that. Um the growth I estimated around 200,000 that's what we usually
>> which does not include CST. >> Correct. Okay. >> Correct. >> Yeah. None of the estimated local receipts >> include >> include CST either. >> That's fine. Y >> um and then expected capital exclusion and then the Manchester Regional School District debt um excluded debt.
Um and then that gives you that any the unused lively capacity. And you can see ears. Um, you have some money to find or some expenses to cut. >> Question. Why is CPA have revenue as well as an expense?
>> Because we get the tax revenue in um for the one and a half percent. >> Yeah. >> Um, so in order to balance it, not skew it, I have the expenses match the revenue for it. So it's just one for one. It can't go operating
>> you forecast the state match going down what >> most likely >> not not in this in this you left it >> this I left it the same. Yeah% >> last time. >> Yeah. But now Jack just told me it's now 15% directly 27.
>> So down 2%. So, see how close that page and then the next page, that page we just went over, it kind of flows into this one. So, the net amount to be raised line is up at the top. And
I brought that over just so I can follow through and say, okay, that's how much we're taxation we need. Um, what would our tax rate be then based on all those assumptions in the previous slide? Um, so that would be $8.85.
Um, I have to have a lot of time to check my >> increase of 1.75%. Right. Yes. >> Yep. And then what I did is underneath that I broke out each borrowing. So if you just did the PAS water system
improvements and I estimated the 16.5 over 20 years and it, you know, the first year won't be as much. The project is going on 150. And so that added to the net amount to be raised would bring the tax rate to 8.89 which is a total of
2.18% increase. And then I did that going that out years. And then >> the you're not increasing 1.1 million each year are you in your repayment.
That's a static number isn't it? it becomes static FY29 >> right so that it's not increasing so I think these increase percents don't reflect the difference from the prior tax rate
>> these do if you go out to like FY28 it's a 69% increase in the rate from 8.89 to 8.95 >> yeah but then you go up five 5.84% 84% which is because you're incurring long-term debt. But then you have
another increase of 3.63. That's not increasing. I mean, it's only increasing like 14,000. >> Is that because of expenditures in >> No, that's because my formulas. >> So that's
>> Yeah. Right. Because what we want to see is >> that difference. >> Yeah. We're going to see the handle on that difference. >> Right. >> So, this makes it a little worse than it is, I believe.
>> The other way around, right? >> Well, I'll I'll check those percentages in a second. Um, but >> so when it jumps up is when you enter into the long-term B. >> Correct. Okay. Um and then I did that for the retunda, the central street cover dredging like all each individual if we only did that project for the that
year. Um and then at the bottom I did total of all of those above to get the total increase. And that's if again that's if everything were to happen all in one year. And then below that I did the tax bill
estimate. So if there was no borrowing, I put in the FY26 rate based on a $1 million assessed value of home and what the increase would be FY27 28 going forward based on the rates above. And then underneath that is the tax bill
including all the borrowing. So that total all borrowing the 9.05 um tax rate is included in the FY27 column down below. And then below that I calculated the difference Below that, I know we talked about the
current debt service and when it drops off. So, I included that. So, you can see in FY2034 is when it drops down $1.4 million. >> 34. >> Yes, >> that's right at the bottom. But the very
bottom >> the very bottom of the chart is existing long-term debt service 34. >> I thought it was around six million. >> No, no, this is the payment repayments, >> not total debt. >> But if we if we looked out at the end of
the period on this sheet, which is 2035, um what is our debt at that point in time? 40 million. >> You're asking what's the debt outstanding? >> The outstanding debt. >> Assuming we don't do anything else.
>> That's right. That's right. >> Exactly where I'm going. >> Yes. With with nothing else. Uh $268,000. So, we paid it down to $268,000. >> He's talking he's talking >> principal outstanding principal.
>> So, >> everything is paid off in FY37. >> Okay. Well, >> for town debt, not school. >> Okay. Well, if let's just then talk about town debt. What is the peak borrowing level for the town of
Manchester on the for the next I 10 years or something like that? The debt service isn't supposed to exceed 10% operate. >> I'm not interested in the debt service. >> There's no limit on the amount of debt. >> I just want there is in my mind. So that's why I'm asking. >> Be the first year, right? Very first
year before I start advertising all this new debt. >> No, that's not true. >> Well, spending for the next couple two or three years. >> Yeah. I mean, >> your max debts for the year. >> No, because we're not entering into the long term. We're not we're not we're
only paying interest. We're not really entering into the debt until we enter into the long-term debt. >> It doesn't matter. Like you're you've got as much money and then you only start advertising it after the first year. So start it starts high and then it drops, right? Like your mortgage.
>> That could be. However, I'm I'm not so sure that our bondicip do we borrow under bond anticipation notes the total cost of each project? No. >> At the beginning? No. So that as we spend into these projects over the next two or three years, the amount of debt
goes up. And what I want to know is what's the maximum amount of outstanding debt that the town has incurred on this sheet >> currently without the projects >> looking without all including all of
these capital things we're we're voting on tonight. >> Those cards out. >> Yeah. Yeah. What is our debt if it's five or six million now? What does it go up to? >> 30 million, >> right? I mean, we're asking for 29 million, so 29 plus.
>> Okay. So, and what year is that? >> That would be 2028. >> 2028. So, we're going from borrowing $5 million. >> 29. >> Yeah, it's 29. >> Okay. 29.
>> I'm not arguing the art the years. I just want to know the amount. How much debt are we going to have outstanding at the max? >> 135 >> 35 million. >> But it'll be reduced by existing debt that goes down, >> right?
>> Okay. Well, I guess what I'm looking for is the net borrowing for the company, shall we say? We'll call it the town, but I call it the company. What is the debt? What is the maximum debt that we have outstanding over the next few
years? I I that may be irrelevant to everybody but to me >> I look at the total debt you know >> it'll be relevant to the trading agencies. >> Yeah that I mean one way to look at it is if you look at the Andrea's second
column we've got about $29 million >> new debt >> of new debt being added >> and then if you add the school in that's about that's another 40. But >> if you look >> but leaving the school out for so >> so 29 and and three to Gar's question
about three years into it we'll be totally committed. >> Yeah. >> And to John's point the the biggest hit is probably at the beginning and then it advertises down. >> Yeah. So, so we're going to go from 29 from 5
million now >> to 29 >> to 34 million including the five we got outstanding plus a new new 29. Is that >> wrong with right order magnitude? >> I just you know just in case
accurate and that's what's bothering >> okay >> because if you look at the debt service the decrease in the debt service you're obviously paying down your debt >> I assume so. So the 5 million is not an accurate number. >> Yeah, the 5 million probably advertises
over 20 years. So right >> no the 5 million equal it's equal payments every year. So it's it's 12 mortgage. >> Well mortgages are different. These are >> yeah these are constant principles. >> Yeah these are constant principal.
>> Okay. >> Yeah but each of these existing debts has been in existence for a different number of years. >> Yeah. But princip pay is equal every year. Right? So six if you have six million out now that six million is like roughly 120th every year.
>> I don't know about that. >> So in our current debt we have a mixture of >> depends on the term >> equal debt service and equal principal payment. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And then in my projections I just said equal debt service payment
is I know we have a lot going on at first. You don't want like really high at first. But I think the question that was asked is what is the maximum debt at what point and rough order magnitude it's about 30 years from now and it's about 29 million. Well
>> 27 >> fiscal year 27 >> the current debt town debt is about 5.5 million. By fiscal year 28 it's like 4.8. >> By fiscal year 29 it's under four
million. >> Okay. And by 30 it's three million. So it's decreasing about a million a year a year. Right. Right. Yeah. Right. 33 >> 33ish. >> So the number is 33. If you have >> three years three years from now.
>> Okay. Thank you Tony. Thank you Andre. Thank you. That's good. Um and and then of course uh if we decide we need to build a bridge to get COD or something like that or some other capital program
that's that will be additive to all >> as we go towards that year >> right that's a decision you'll have to make at that point >> right I think you include the school school as well our portion of it because we're the only people who can pay
So, whether it's school or ours, it's the same. >> It's kind of us. >> Yeah. Right. Right. There's only us >> and hopefully. So, I mean, this is a really good analysis because we've taken a group of key projects and we've
projected it out to 35. The question is what are we going to be talking about in five years from now as the next basket of projects that's going to extend out? >> Well, I I think a more immediate question is
>> tax rate. >> Are we comfortable with all of the projects on this year's list that are going to be bonded? or do we feel the numbers too high so
something should be removed from the list? That's really the question before us today. >> That's a very good summary. >> Right. >> Yeah. But if they're gonna it's like a you're going to push it like a year or two. It's not going to matter that much. >> Yeah. It's >> right. That's Yeah. Like we had that
discussion about Tap Street. >> Yeah. >> Last time. I mean we don't do it >> for the rotunda is >> we had all the various pieces that we put in and that we project >> will be available when you go to bonds on that project all those
>> the other thing we have to remember is for instance the culvert's on here for five million we're applying for a regional grant to cover the five million >> y lovely >> so
you I'm sure that will come through. >> But if it does, then the other thing is we have to remember is the amount we're appropriating
tends to be a high watermark because they need that they need the appropriation to go out to bid. >> So it could be less. >> It could be less. It can't be more because we don't haven't appropriate anymore, >> right?
>> Um so you know certainly the actual amount bonded could be less. >> So to that point, PAS project is went out to bid. Uh we'll be getting those
back I think April 8th. Uh so we'll be able to adjust this number before town meeting. Hopefully it comes in lower. >> Great. >> And we we have been approved for SRF. Uh we'll talk a little bit about that
tonight if you want. >> Uh Chuck sent in some information. >> SRF through >> what is SRF? >> State revolving fund through D. It provides long-term lowinterest
loan program for water sewer projects. >> Great. Um it it is it's great. Uh however, when you go through that program, it does add cost to the to the project because of um mostly uh Baba
compliant, you know, Americanmade products are required. Um so what we did with this bid is the base bid is nonsrf. If we were to borrow at a three or 4 percent on our own and then the adult
bid is if we were to go through SRF what would that additional cost be which would be more like a two to 3% borrow but we want to be able to do that analysis and find out >> yeah the break >> what's the best option so that should come in couple weeks before town meeting
we can adjust that number accordingly >> both of those numbers will come in that is >> yeah they're both due April 8th and then and then um what's the other one I was going to oh C on Central Street Culver.
So essentially, we have to go out to bid for the culvert sometime in April in order to meet your September to March construction schedule. So we thought about like could we could
we wait until next year? But when you when it's a debt exclusion, you have to do it at April town meeting and then it has to be voted on in May. So we're asking for it now. Hopefully, we get either our brick funding extended or we
get the regional grant before April of next year and we can utilize that. But if if that doesn't come through, we'll have to make a decision about, you know, can we can we wait another winter or do
we go forward out in the meantime? >> So, are you not planning to start it in fall of 26? >> Correct. Yeah. I don't think we were already too late. Uh >> so we're planning to start it in fall of 27. >> Mhm.
>> Which delays when the bond would come in. >> I mean, >> and that's what that's not what's on this chart, right? >> Unless unless between now and in the next three weeks, like all permits came in and brick funding
somehow we got an extension. Yeah, I don't see it happening this coming winter. So permits will be okay carrying that long. >> Yes. Yep. >> Yeah. >> So that pushes the the long-term bond
out a year. >> What? >> So it doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be on this list until next year. >> No, because we need the appropriation to bid. >> So you can go out to bid. Yeah. But it doesn't mean borrowing would occur. >> Correct.
>> It'll be pushed out. >> So the 150,000 would be pushed out a year because we wouldn't spend and the 3665 would be pushed out a year. >> Right. >> What a deal. >> Yeah. >> So 150 is about a half a percent of a
tax increase. >> I guess >> less than that. 4%. >> Yeah. I feel comfortable with that. We did we already um we went out to bid a while ago for the pre-cast uh arches and
got a great price on that and entered into a contract and um we'll apply the cost of that to the brick funding or to the mastto funding whichever one makes sense. So those both those match the current design. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. I'm not trying to open up a can of worms here, but we had a list like a year or two ago that listed capital projects going out like 25 years and it was frankly it's pretty scary list, but it had things on there like DPW facility,
>> right? >> Moving potentially moving this all that stuff. Do you is this sort of the your best estimate of what we can handle over the let's say the next 10 years, seven years and the rest of those items kind of >> go out?
>> No. >> Because where I'm going with this is if that list is real, >> we may be overlaying another round on top of this, >> right? Yeah. >> And and I just, you know, decisions made on these projects have a bigger impact
in the future than the ones that we're going to be talking about in three years or four years. >> I think I mean, we can theorize all we want, >> right? >> But I I I think what we have to look at is the need for these projects,
>> right? >> I mean, I I I think >> I'm not doubting these projects. I'm just saying is there something we've >> left off or >> left off? >> Have you thought the priorities through? >> Well, we had this 25 year thing in this
in this booklet, >> right? >> Um and obviously these prices have increased, >> right? >> Um >> I mean, we had a list floating around a year a few years ago that Greg and I worked on and it came up to like 225
million. >> The 25 year We didn't really send that around much. It was more like >> I think we looked at it. What are we thinking? >> I think we looked at it when we first started this year. >> Okay. Good. >> And it's in last year's thing.
>> It's it's it may be that. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Now, I want I want to just point out that we we did already appropriate the design money associated with the the DTW project and I had a facilities planning
meeting earlier today where we we talked about it and I I cautioned uh Chuck and Nate just to say, >> you know, there's a lot of different projects that are kind of in the hopper right now and you know, the timing of this may need to get pushed out a bit, but it's still, you know, even if it's
pushed out pushed about, you know, three, four, five years, it's still going to be lumped in with this traveling debt service. So, >> yeah, I mean, I think that the additional stuff on the list was the Bennett Street at 4 million,
um, DPW garage at 21 million, >> right? Um, public safety at 30 million, >> resilience, >> resiliency at 30 million. >> 30 >> and sewer treatment plant relocation. Oh, we don't know. We need >> How much was that?
>> 70. >> And I didn't I didn't hear >> and those were 30-year bonds, not 20. >> I didn't hear grally pond PAS on that. >> Well, the PAS here was listed at 19 million.
to >> that was that was like for both. >> Yeah, that was for both. >> But but Lincoln up >> climbed up. I mean >> I think it was like >> they supposedly doesn't need >> as much >> any building and new building >> they can modify the existing.
>> That's my understanding. Yeah. >> I mean and it's >> I'm still going to be a few million. >> Yeah. about when you go out 25 years or whatever, you're basically probably at the end of the life or approaching end of life of the high school,
>> you know. And the scary thing is we're always we're always kind of going to be in the school building business. You know, when the debt rolls off of one thing, >> you're kind of around, but that building is approaching >> 20 years old right now.
>> Opened in 20. >> Are the items on this capital budget need to do? Well, I you know I think that you know we we also have to look at the the uses or the purposes of these things. Health
uh public safety. >> I mean I went to a high school where the school building was built in 1870 and the and the Latin grammar was just as tough when I was there as it was in
1870. So maybe all school buildings don't necessarily have to be torn down and rebuilt. I mean of course it could be who knows but but I think we have we we have to look at the purposes for which
these capital undertakings are undertaken and uh and and screen out um >> nice to have. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I mean I think I mean PAS I
>> I think this is a good list >> people clean water >> I think well so safety health >> health health for a while >> you look fine school question um uh at the 25 year mark for that school
which is about 2030. Um they're going to need massive um upgrades in science labs and in um systems. >> So that's it's not as much as a whole
new school, but it is what will allow us to use that school perhaps for more than another 50 years. >> Yeah. Okay. It's good good maintenance practices. >> Yeah. which which in some ways argues what I've been arguing for and have at
other institutions is funded depreciation. Um that the real cost of running anything, >> right, >> has to include setting monies aside so that when they have to be replaced,
there's a syncing fund or or at least a kitty >> that you could draw on. You know, I I disagree with that regarding the taxes we charge residents. I mean, do we want to charge residents
for 30 years to accumulate a kitty to build a new school in 30 years? I don't think so. I I think we want it more pay as you go that when the charge comes up, whoever's a resident then starts paying
for it. >> Yeah. Yeah, the department of revenue really doesn't allow you know syncing funds >> fund funded depreciation right but >> well government you look at uh our federal government as a great example
>> I I would just say that our our I I don't think our position is unique you know we're this is any town USA you know with a couple of minor exceptions we we deal with some coastal issues that other other towns don't take But I don't we we
chose for years not to do anything about you know pipes and wires >> right >> so and then we consciously chose to pursue a over a long period of time kind of upgrade and replacement project and I I I don't know it would be a shame to
see that um wither away. Well, and and the other thing we have to remember is that in the operating budget, we expect next year to have a flip of about 700,000.
>> Yeah. um with the OPED and it's possible that some of that 700,000 could be used to fund some of these
projects before we incur the long-term debt. >> Yeah. >> Um >> right >> that we have another year or so and if CST comes online that's another 500,000 >> or be used to pay debt service. I mean,
it's it's new cash. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'm just trying to support a point, I think. >> Well, but next year, if we have an extra 700,000, >> right, >> we we can't really prepay the debt service. >> No, I'm I understand that.
>> So, the only way to keep the debt service down is to put cash towards the projects and decrease the amount of new bonds we take, >> right? But if they go into bonds, they'd not go into bonds. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. to to decrease the long term. >> Yeah. Hey Sarah, wanted to ask
>> we spent several years um working Greg over to get him to, >> you know, sort of stop what we thought was over underestimating receipts and under overestimating, you know, the expenses, >> right? And but yet, you know, to his
point, all those all those years, you know, to have that, you know, what what became a capital exclusion kind of money was very helpful when it came to things like these, you know, like a Tapen Street project or or Bennett Street. Um, I'm not I don't think we've really talked about that much that, you know,
for this year. So, I'm not sure where we are >> tracking, you know, that that kind of process. >> The whole where's the whole capital budget? I mean it is a bit of a philosophical change because we really did try to kind of live with capex
>> for seven years eight years >> and and it went well but you know the some of these projects have come along that don't fit within the capex envelope anymore >> well and so it's a bigger game I guess you can say
>> one thing we have to remember is because we're reducing the capital exclusion from 660 down to 250. >> That the base tax rate's only going up about 2%. >> That's right.
>> So a half a percent of this capital increase, >> right? >> Is not quote unquote a current tax increase, >> right? But this is sort of the nature of my question about five, seven years from now when the next
T happen street comes along and the public safety building and prepares to, you know, we're going to be layering another one of these things on I don't know 570 or something. So just um need to be aware of that.
Yeah, >> we've also been rescued by a rather large increase in our assessed values over the last few years like >> big time. >> Big time. >> Yeah. The the next slide here is a look
back um the town you know to some of the points that are being made here. The town is I would say actively tried to counter the increased valuation with either a zero you know
tax rate increase or limited amounts are you know I know it's a lot this year and looking forward but there is a little bit of a story to tell looking back that the town's tried really hard to limit that impact on the residents.
Yeah. Which is great. It's great. >> It's great uh on the on the rate side, but because values have gone up um which you hold on to, so that's a positive, but your tax bill doesn't exactly tell the same story. >> No, it doesn't.
>> Right. >> And and and to the to the free cash thing that you're talking about there, Andy. So, a couple slides back, as Angie was saying, she's held 1.3
for capital uh going forward and looking at the the that debt uh that capital, >> tried to do an analysis of like what of those projects would fit in that 1.3
versus what would be a debt exclusion vote. Mhm. >> And 1.3 really isn't enough >> to cover that. So, as you look forward, the operating budget becomes harder and harder.
>> Um, you know, I I know you we've worked you've worked a lot about, you know, how we do reserves and having some of it in stabilization and having some of it in free cash. I think you could maintain the
philosophy of estimating, you know, you know, how much free cash comes in. I think it's worth another time, another day to think about potentially, you know, shifting slowly some of that
reserves left in free cash to stabilization so that you have that free cash for one that one the growth of 1.3. But I think that's a longer conversation for later later.
>> I don't see how that helps. I mean our total reserves are the sum of the stabilization free cash >> do does our bond rating or um >> well eventually >> accountants you know pay attention to stabilization versus free cash I know
we've always tried to maintain >> kind of a ratio but our ratio is pretty low compared to a lot of other communities on that is higher than what we the policy we set >> right right yes most had more in stabilization. Is that right?
>> Right. Because it takes more of a vote to get it out. >> Well, it still does. It used to. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Still does. >> 2/3. >> Oh, okay. I thought it was one and a half. I thought I mean I thought it was 50%. >> Well, at some point when we were told >> I thought Yeah, I thought it changed.
>> Yeah. >> I don't >> I think it's been putting money into it. Used any of the two vote to put money into it. Changed >> to 5050, but you still need the two/3s to get it out. >> Oh, >> okay. So that was kind of miss.
>> So just a just a question. Um I know Essex has all these reserve funds. Do they have to go twothirds to pull any of it out on a regular basis? >> They've been pulling it out. >> Yeah. But that's an interesting hurdle to >> talk through people. So,
>> and I I see for me I think stabilization the priority should be for operating expenses, god forbid some major economic catastrophe. You have the money there to keep the cash flow and
the lights on. Um it's hard to do both like have stabilization and a capital reserve. It's just you don't have enough. There's not enough there to like really be to get to that point. >> Um,
>> but if we have two, how much free cat like got certified? 2 point >> out a lot of numbers. Yeah. Are you talking free cash or are you talking total of free cash and stabilization? >> Free cash certified amount is 2 point
something million. We we leave a certain amount of that to count towards our reserves and then we use and then >> you I mean we look at the total of free cash and stabilization
and say it needs to be about 8% of our operating budget. It's the total of the two. We don't treat free cash and stabilization separately and then we only use those funds for capital. We we've never used stabilization andor
free cash for operating >> because we've never had to. >> Well, right. But that's our our policy is you don't take out of and and so that's one of the reasons why we've wanted to keep >> the amount of free cash down
>> um because operating was funding excess operating revenue was funding the free cash, >> right? Which is great. But I mean in a way every organization needs to have what I >> working capital >> and we are fortunate because on a cash
flow basis we collect these taxes and the taxes come in >> pretty predictably >> goodness >> and and they're very high and and but if for instance there was a god forbid some something some thing where everybody
decided they we're not going to pay any more real estate taxes we're going to stop paying real estate taxes. Well, you know, we'd be out of business. >> There's no question about it. And and and our working capital, even if we've got a couple million dollars and work, I ain't going to go very far, right?
>> On a on a budget of what 3040 million dollars a year that we spend to keep this operation going, you know. So, am I saying your >> I think the question on the floor was, are we in favor of these projects? >> Exactly. >> I mean, seems to me we debating these
projects very thoroughly. look at the whole capital list. Why don't we look at that? >> Can I just make a comment about what Tony was saying about the stabilization versus >> um if I talked about this and I didn't understand at first, but what he said is saying like, okay, we're going to be
keeping 8% of our operating in reserves, whether that be free cash or stabilization. So, if we're going to be doing that anyway, why not just put all the 8% in stabilization? So that way every year when you certify your free cash that's the number you use for for capital.
>> We don't want to do that. >> So clarify a little bit >> to access. >> We felt that we had too much in stabilization that we don't in in this town. >> We don't need a huge reserve.
>> I'm not changing the amount of the reserve. >> Yeah. But we want to use >> in my in what I'm saying >> your calculation for the use of capital is keeping the total reserves at about 8%
but we don't want our hands held by having all of the 8% and stabilization so it takes twothirds to come out because we could have a year and I thought we were going to have it this year that we didn't >> that we could have a year let's say it's
fiscal year 27 seven and all of a sudden CSD applies for a building permit and it's $500,000. We know at the end of fiscal year 27 that 500,000 is going to go into free
cash. So we could make a decision for fiscal year 28 to bring down our free cash below the 8% knowing that the 500,000 will bring it back up to 8%. when it's certified at the end of the
year. So it the free cash gives us more flexibility in that light because we can't project revenue building fees revenue for CST unless and until
they apply for a building permit and we have an understanding of how long the construction's going to take. >> So >> um and that's a big number. >> Yeah. So I guess what I'm just in a theoretical approach of of it is that if we have
if we have 2 point I'm sorry 2.6 million certified in free cash. >> It's not in free cash. >> Okay. >> Right. So >> we we're only taking about 200 something thousand of that to contribute to our
capital. The rest of it is built within taxation. >> No, we're taking the difference between the sum of the stabilization and the free cash minus 8% to come up with what we spent. That's what we're spending on capital.
>> That's how we came up with the 225. >> Yeah. >> And it happens to be 225 this year. Last year it happened to be 1.5 million >> or something like that. So if your if your free cash amount, let's say it stayed straight, you know,
it it stayed steady in future years, >> we wouldn't be using it because the operating budget would be going up. So the 8% would be going up. So we wouldn't be using it. So what I'm saying is because because you have this
and in this outlook this burden growing on the one on the need for capital within the taxation that 1.3 doesn't seem like it's going to be enough in the future years. >> What 1.3 >> what we do what we have this year. >> Oh well for capital
>> maybe decide maybe we have to change our policy say we don't need 8% >> in reserves. I mean that's that's a whole separate discussion. >> Well, I'm not >> related to this year. >> No, it is. I I'm I'm not suggesting that. I'm I'm All I was saying was if
you shifted some of that 8% from free cash right slowly into stabilization, >> what do we gain >> then in the next year? That amount that you move to stabilization is that amount
of free cash you can use towards capital. the next year. >> That's not what we do. >> Well, it doesn't increase the amount of reserves. It's just a different it's it's kind of a slow approach to >> we don't need to up the stabilization
because we have enough and it requires a twoth3 vote. We were putting 100,000 into stabilization every year and our total reserves got up to 16%. And we said, "Hold on, too much money." >> I I agree with you. I'm not saying build
8% up. >> The issue between free cash and stabilization, the auditors say it's not an issue. We see no reason why we would want to move more into stabilization to tie our hands >> because we'll come back to it.
>> Look at both things together as one pot. >> Yeah. >> I don't understand the benefit of of putting more in, >> right? Well, because you're freeing up free cash that you're currently saving for
uh reserves on an annual basis to be used in that current fiscal year for for something like capital >> I think >> because it's going to sit in the stabilization >> in steady state the reserves would just sit there static suppose suppose the budget didn't grow at all 8% that would
that money would just sit there and do nothing >> both unless something we freak cash. >> Yeah, it would just sit there. We would never use it. >> Everything was stable. >> Some of the two. We don't look at them individually. >> 58%. >> So, we wouldn't spend it unless something weird happened, then that's what it's for.
>> No, I I know. But I don't know what what I'm not explaining or missing, but your free cash, you're getting a a sum of free cash at the end of every year. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we're deciding to hold some of that for reserves.
>> Stabilization stays in that account. It doesn't grow each year. It stays. Right. Yeah. >> So, what I'm saying is if you start to shift some of that what you're holding in the reserve side and put it in the stabilization account, the next year
that free cash amount that comes in that you would hold that amount for your reserve now becomes available for one-time use. >> That's not the way we're doing the calculation. We're not using money coming into free cash this year in
the next year's budget. We're looking at the 8% overall between stabilization and free cash. >> Does what I said make sense though? What I just said makes sense. >> Okay. All right. So, let's just move on.
>> Some other time. >> Excellent. >> Let's move on. Let's look at the the this sheet he gave us the article >> all the capital budget. >> Yeah. >> And
I added I added a capital request unit. Uh >> oh. Find a cemetery software. >> Yes. >> Highlighted in blue. Why not green? >> Sorry. So, it's >> um I thought we just needed a forward
vote um to move money from the perpetual care funds because they're the cemetery commissioners. Um but we need a actual town meeting vote for that. >> What's the cemetery software? >> It's Can we not just stick with like written log books?
>> We can, but it's a it's a lot easier. like it also um this software also like connects to our GIS system and it just it's a better way of tracking like barrel plots um and things like that instead of old cards and >> having having gone through this in the
last year not myself personally but for a family member I definitely could see some improvement in this area >> things were not where they were supposed to be in the ground and is that the difference it tracks more effectively.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Sounds beginning to sound like a Gothic sleing around in the middle of the night. >> Okay. >> Is this like a one-time thing that'll last for a long time? >> Yes.
>> That's what happens when you get in the grounds, you know, >> right information. >> Okay. So we have all these items and we have funding taxation fund balance borrowing
capital exclusion sewer sewer retained earnings a fair funds we don't have any harbor harbor funds on this list what care funds >> perpetual care okay that's just that's a
just care funds okay Yeah. >> Um question is the dredging that's the town's commitment on this. Is there are there other things contributing to that like grants or anything like that? >> Yeah grant
I just asked the question is it enough and I know we're trying to save but we come around and do this about every 10 or 15 years. Are we doing the job completely enough so that we get like a 15-year run out of that as opposed to a
>> we change the bond to 10 years, >> right? I'm thinking about the job dredging every 10 years a >> Right. I'm sort of thinking about the job itself like are we are we doing enough of the job so that this won't come back on the list >> or that for a while,
>> right? >> Like mother nature's working out there. Are we doing enough to >> It's like actually like a 40year cycle for all four locations. >> Okay. >> We do one every 10 years and cycle it. >> Okay. Good.
>> And the question is whether 10 years is the right period for both mother nature and the bond and I guess the answer I understand yes. >> I think the answer is yes. Brian would have a better answer. You know, be
better to answer that question, but >> and one of my questions was we're collecting dredging fees. >> We've collected about $70,000 so far. >> I can't hear >> $70,000 so far
>> for what's that? One year, >> two years, two and a half years. and it does not include this year. The bills just went out. Um, so that money will be coming in. >> So, we're not collecting very much.
>> If we need 1.9 million every 10 years, >> essentially, >> I know that, and again, this is sort of a did this with a um friend looking at the amount of
siltation coming into the harbor and um sampling depths from 1985 and 1987 combining them and then looking at the most recent dredging and I think we came up with a really rough order number that
is about to Gar's point like 275,000 a year ought to be put aside to basically hold even on dread ing and if the amount of stuff filling in the harbor costs us about $275,000 a year to keep up with rough order
magnitude. So it's not we we're we're not collecting enough. >> We can't use any of that money to offset this cost because we're going to need it 10 years from >> and who knows the next 10 years or 15 years might be a lower number or higher number. So >> prices are not getting cheaper. So it's
probably going to be higher. >> Why can't >> Yeah. And half of this grand >> it's just not enough. >> In other words, it's the magnitude of the >> but it would encourage us to raise that fee. Exactly that. Okay. >> Yeah,
>> I agree with that. >> There is an awkwardness. We have about the highest rates on the Massachusetts >> and the law technically says that you
can only have a moing fee that accounts for the paperwork and tracking the borings. Nobody does that finally. >> That's true. >> That's really that's what the law says. >> Crazy. >> But it's one of our revenue sources.
>> Yeah. And you know, probably nobody will ever bring a case against that, but from the select board point of view, I don't want to raise a big complaint about that.
I mean, we do hope we we do hope that with uh the Reed Park float extension, we'll get more revenue in through DOCA, which >> which theoretically most of that will come from non Manchester by the Sea
Boers, right? So, that's a net positive to our tax b >> Yeah. Our revenue base. >> Yeah. Um, and then looking at the fees. >> Okay, I got the answer. Yeah, >> I'm still concerned about the match on
the Morse Pier. I asked for information. Um, it appears as this is to benefit six to seven votes, which is about 20,000 each. And I asked whether they were
Manchester residents and I received a roundabout answer saying we can't discriminate about non-residents. Well, we have the right to determine whether we're going to fund a project based on whether it's Manchester residents
or not because it's Manchester taxpayers money. And I don't know whether those people are Manchester residents or they're all non-Mchester residents, but if they're non-Manchester residents, I have a concern about
spending 113,000 of taxpayers money to benefit people who could be at some other port. >> That's it's commercial, right? >> Yeah. >> So, I thought we said I mean the town has said we want to keep a commercial fishery here. It's
a nice thought, >> but this is enhancing revenue by having the stock. >> There's no enhance. This is a match on a grant that was received to expand Morris Pier. There's really no revenue from Morris Pier. I think that it used to be
that the winch they have maybe they pay $450 a year. >> Thanks. I was I was using that per Yeah. >> So it'll be like six to 7,000 per year. Thousand per commercial boat. Um, and this project will also alleviate
congestion and navigational hazard hazards in the harbor as well to provide commercial and recreational community with improved access to navigable waters. >> And it's not it's not >> so the some of the commercial boats that
are on moorings now will go to the dock. Not all those moorings. We want to remove some of those for the navigation piece, but the other will be the others will become available. Let's see. >> We
>> and then grants. Yeah. So, um where did he put that in there? >> He didn't. I did at the top. So in addition to sort of assist the town in being eligible to receive any future grant appointment with the community. >> Yes.
>> For what >> I think for any grants SEC grants you know that most of the the grant programs that we've been able to utilize for dredging or other harbor projects having commercial
in the harbor benefits our competitiveness in that. >> But I don't see the The Norse fear project really impacts whether or not we have commercial
>> and people have to get in a little dingy to get to their >> I mean you have a you have an aging you certainly have like an aging uh workforce. >> Yeah. >> And you also have an aging peer.
Uh so you know to incentiv you know to try to help keep that fishery around making investment in it will hopefully bring the next generation into the fold. I mean as that as that pier deteriorates it's certainly
not a benefit to the future of the commercial enterprise. So, >> but you can repair the pay without extending it to the extent it's without the scope of this project. >> Well, then you don't I mean you you
don't get the improvement to the navigation. You don't free up a couple more moorings for people on a wait list. I in my opinion I think the you know if we were funding this project completely on our own I'd be probably a little bit
more on where you're sitting on this but where you have the grant funding included it I think it's a net benefit to the town >> do we have a sense of what the fishing revenues are coming into the town
>> she's saying from both. >> I I meant Yeah, >> we don't get any portion of the catch. >> No, I'm just generally curious as a business, if you think of the fisherman as a business, what's the revenue coming in there? >> What is it about earn? >> Because I've heard some numbers in the
past which I don't believe. And if the numbers are that big, then it would be like somebody ought to be funding this themselves as opposed to the town. I just want to make sure we don't get to town meeting and somebody raises their hand and says the revenue from fishing
landings in Manchester is this and everybody says why are we paying for this when this these businesses could be offsetting it. It's it's more of a let's not get ourselves in a corner on that one. It's why I'm asking the question.
>> It certainly was something a number of years ago to the 600,000. >> I I can look with that number. I heard a number that was three and a half times that and I was thinking 18 wheelers rolling into town to support that but I don't think that's where we are. So
>> I mean the only way we >> be able to capture more of that is through the fees, right? >> But >> I'm I'm thinking of it less about >> I'm thinking of it less about revenue to the town and more like what's the scope of that business and what's its ability
to pay for its resource >> is the way I'm looking at fairness actually. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Interesting that we charge half the boring fee for commercial. >> Do we really? >> Yeah. >> So, again, another thing to look at.
>> Yeah. I I just I I kind of lost thread on this whole Morphe thing whether or not it was like was it an expansion that was sought and therefore we pursued the grant and and that's why it is the project that is
or we got a grant and the grant supports I think it's the latter >> been in the works for years >> and I think the finance committee recommended against going to the clinic >> years ago >> but they did any >> they did anyway
And they got the grant. >> They got the grant, >> which is how much? >> No, the 113 is a 20% match. >> So it must be 500,000. >> Something like 80 or something. >> Yeah.
>> They got a $500,000 grant and we got about a 20% or about 100,000. >> Yeah. >> And we're deciding not whether or not we should put up 100,000. And for that we're going to get a bigger pier or an improved pier, right? and a couple places for three or four boats to tie up
all the time. That's a another question. Do you want to have stinky fishing boats tied up at Mas Park? That's okay. Never mind. >> Tie into the real park and it all becomes what? So, I mean, are we are we
so what? >> Yeah. >> Just spend the 100,000. Let's not let's not get ourselves tangled up in our underwear about this. >> Thank you. Plus, you spend 100,000 bucks to get a $600,000 asset. >> Yeah. I mean, that's an okay deal. >> The other part of it, another possible
part of it is we're worrying about a harbormaster office. And the Harborm office will have bathrooms and the people who use Basin Park would like it in Basin Park. And if we have a
continuous bridge, then the um harbor master can get to his boat without having to run all the way around. >> But we don't have a harbor master office on any of our >> Yep. >> long-term capital plans. >> That's true. >> Yeah. >> We have bathrooms.
>> Just to set the record straight, it's not on our 25th five year capital plan. >> Definitely. >> Including a house boat. >> Right. >> That house boat's still out there somewhere. I'm convinced. I'm sure it is.
>> And I I guess I'll just say generally if our goal is to bring in enough revenue to try to assist or cover the cost of the dredging >> that we have to do no matter what.
And we want to try and bring that revenue in through through grants or fees and things like that. you know using grants to improve the overall asset for bloat
you know different harbor projects a a harbor master facility will help us attract you know those long-term stays and that extra revenue at the through doa and things like that. So
>> that's the that's the general like highle kind of approach on it. Well, let's put that discussion off to another day >> and go forward with that >> after we've expanded all of our docks and see what revenue we receive to cover the cost of a harbor master's office.
>> Right. >> Right. >> Yeah. So, >> sounds good. >> Right. Uh >> it's not in this budget. >> It's not. Yep. >> Your focus was do we have any question on these projects? >> Correct. I raised the one I had a question on. We
decided my concern was not valid. So, we should go ahead with it. Anybody have any other >> Well, I mean, I I just look at the big ones. >> Yeah. >> You know, I guess we're going to do the rotunda. That's not That's not going to
That's not up for grabs. >> I don't think so. No. >> Okay. So, there we got that one in there. Uh I mean the culvert we got to do >> got to do the culver or else we can't drive across >> right and we're hoping maybe we'll get some to cover it but we don't know
>> we've also invested a lot in that project and time effort engineering it's >> just going to get that over the finish line and call it done >> the 808 bathroom in the library >> yeah no >> I'm in favor
the bathroom that's there I haven't used it. But >> while you get in, you might not get out. >> Do system improvements. >> Sorry, you add color. >> Thank you, Peter. >> Road resurfacing. That's a hefty number.
>> But that's about what we do. That's about we do every year. >> We have a run rate on that. Yeah. I mean, the real action is, you know, these these bigger projects. The rest is >> kind of keeping up with things,
>> right? >> This is the last year. Oh, it's all green. >> I mean, we got we got about 28 million in the last five items. >> And you know, in the typically >> in a given year over the last 10, we might only have
>> two or three million is a thing. So, we're kind of maybe paying the piper now or we're funding ahead on a bunch of things that need work, but it's all kind of landing on this year. >> Well, I think that we for a number of
years we spent a lot of money on water and sewer lines, >> the sewer to get rid of the INI, the water because they're 100 years old. And so, we spent a lot of money >> on that. The PAS we didn't expect.
>> Somebody invented PAS. We didn't even know they were doing it, but they did. And apparently it's real. >> And and >> it's hitting DPW. Now it's hitting the fire department with turnout gear. Curious where else it's going to go, but that's another discussion. Yeah. To a budget.
>> Um, so I I think >> we for we applied for a federal grant today for design on grally for PAS as well. We're trying we're trying to, >> you know, pick out everything we can
pick. >> But, you know, I I think that >> if we didn't have the PAS, >> I don't think we'd be having a discussion, >> right? >> Right. >> And I don't see that there's much we can I mean, I think they've spent a lot of time and effort.
>> Yeah. >> Trying to figure out what they need to do. >> Unfortunately, the building's not large enough. I still haven't figured out which building it is. I think it's three. >> Yeah. >> Oh, well, yeah. They need >> Is it the brick one? >> They need a separate additional building
to house the equipment for this project. Yeah. >> Is it the brick one? >> They're both They're both brick. That's the one on the right. >> The one beyond the overpass. >> Yeah. When you go >> when you go under that to the left, there's two buildings there. One on the
left and one on the right. The one on the right is being rebuilt. This is closer to the school. >> It's not It's not the old building that's sort of been condemned. It's the ones that are under the overpass.
They're just square buildings. Functional buildings. >> How close are the Okay. >> Like >> small currently small >> 150 250 square feet. Not that big. >> Oh, that's why I don't have >> I mean, as Chuck explained, they're putting in the the old themed one.
That's the only one that was there. Okay. >> The one we can't use because >> and and we also can't use it because of the stream, >> right, >> between it and the other buildings, >> right? >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, you probably wouldn't even >> So, it's not a big building. We're
increasing the size. >> No. >> Yeah. The design is pretty close to being complete as as I last saw it. >> It's done. Yeah. >> Construction. What size of building are they adding?
>> I don't know how many square feet it is. I don't know. >> I just wrote about it. It's in the It's in the Cricut. I just wrote about it in the cricket. >> I think it's it's it's going from about you know 100 square feet is the current well building and it's literally just a wellhead and then the the new building
is about 900 square feet. Uh but it is a little significantly taller because the equipment you know has head space requirements and you know needs to be replaced in the future. But um if you go on the website uh you know the the whole 100% design set is there. So feel feel
free to uh >> you know put in a price if you if you want >> $16 million square foot building >> about 4,000 >> I think by bathroom >> dollars per square foot. >> It's like building a refinery like is
>> a lot of buses. Okay. >> I think I think we're here. >> Okay. >> I think done it. >> Yeah. I I don't I don't see a lot. >> So, do I have a motion to approve article 5 in the amount of 31,92,492?
No. No. Sorry. Wrong. >> Yeah. >> Yep. That's right. >> That's it. Keep going. Oh, you got 92. Yeah. >> $492. I'm confused because there's a separate recommended but the numbers are the same. Okay. >> It doesn't include the borrowing.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> Do I have a second? Oh, do I have a motion? >> I'll the motion >> and I'll discussion. Um, vote. John, >> yes. >> Indie, >> yes. >> Gar, >> yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter,
>> yes. >> And Sarah votes, yes. And one of my plans is in the fin report >> is to try to break out each of these big project to to kind of explain
>> that number one we do the appropriation and then we do the bonding you know when we finish the project but then to break out each of these projects with this information that Andrea had just so people understand what the impact is >> right >> on the tax rate. I also was going to do
a section on the tax rate calculation >> 101 is so people can understand >> the levy calculation then you add the debt exclusion and and divide it by the assessment. So if your assessments go up
faster than two and a half% your tax rate goes down. >> Andrea, we talked to our bank about what adding a whole bunch of borrowing might do to borrow either credit rating or passing to borrow. um not directly but when I've talked to our financial advisor like we're even
with the 30 million added like we're so far below our maximum borrowing capacity that come >> okay >> each subsequent year now you guys are going to have to come back and say okay how much are we going to borrow to push
these projects along wherever they are >> no >> no >> we're we're doing bond anticipation notes. >> Oh, okay. So, so that's all >> for the amount of construction as it moves along. >> So, Andrea figures out how much money
she needs and does a bond anticipation note >> each year. >> Each year, all of we're approving. >> You say, "Okay, Andrea is going to tell you what these projects are." >> We're approving all of the borrowing. >> I understand you're approving all of it, but you're not going to take it all tomorrow. You're going to you're going
to take a little bit at a time based. Each year in the budget, the debt service will include the bond anticipation >> and that's going to be that'll that'll move around and what you're seeing here is not necessarily what it's going to be. That's my point, right? So, you're going to have to look at that every year and say, "Okay, I prove it. You were
going to borrow 500,000 for this project this year. Now, you're going to have to borrow 750 because it's going faster or slower or whatever." But you know what your top is >> and then we'll know like when we get grants >> all these grants that are going to come
from the sky >> understood. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Then can we continue with the packet? Um I have one more slide left. >> Which is it? >> It's the very last slide. >> Very last slide. The bill 2026
additional debt service. kind of what have I brought up last meeting? A quick summary. In June of 2025, the town issued 4.1 million of the 7.5 million already authorized at the April 2024 meeting. Um the 4.1 relates to the
water system improvements that included the water meter replacement project. Um interest on the ban is 164,000 and is due June of 2026. um we did not include that in our debt service for FY26. Um so our do rep when
I was doing the tax recap said okay you have 17,000 of premium that we received in addition after paying off the issuance costs so we have to use that and then we need another 146 which I've already raised for 26 I just need an
appropriation vote for it. Um, so that's one vote that I need. And then the next one is we've received $271,000 for water meter fees or water capital assessment fees. Um, and we have talked about before when we did this borrowing
authorization that we were going to use that capital assessment to pay down that um, debt, >> right? And so this is um I didn't have that number at the time, but this is what's in retain earnings right now from the water capital assessment that I want to use to pay down that 4.1 million.
>> That's good. >> Right. >> Right. Right. Right. Got it. >> So I need the two votes for 164,000 with funding sources of the premium and taxes from F26 and then 271,000 of water retained earnings.
>> This votes from us or votes from town? >> Both. >> Both. I move we we proceed to arrange for 271,000 of water meter fees >> um and uh 164,000 of the premium or the
overage uh to uh to use to uh pay for these uh water meter costs. Is that adequate? >> No. >> No. So I think it's 164 separate. >> Okay. the the
>> So, you want two motions. Am I correct? >> Yeah. A motion to apply 271,000 of water media fees collected >> to pay in water retained earnings to pay down the $4.1 million.
>> So, move so my second >> vote Joshy. >> Yes. >> Gar. Yes, >> Mory. >> Yes, >> Peter. Yes, Sarah. Yes. >> Um, now this other one I'm confused on.
>> This is the 164,000 of premium >> from from the uh notes that we monies we didn't use. >> No, we got 17577 from premium >> plus plus 146,000. >> Where'd that come from?
>> Taxation. >> You said you raised it. >> I did on the FY26. So, it was in our budget. >> Yeah. It's okay. I've raised the revenue. I just don't have the appropriation to pay it. >> Okay. It's not like you've taken >> I still have the money. >> Fiscal year 26 other budgets. You had it
in the budget we approved. >> Yes. I just don't have the expense appropriation for it. >> So, >> so I already have the revenue sitting aside. I just need the vote to spend it. So we need a motion to approve >> truth
>> using the 17577 of premium received on the issuance of the b 164,000 ban and 146,423 raised from taxation in fiscal year 26. >> Yes. >> So moved.
>> Yeah. >> Second. >> Yes. >> Andy. Yes. >> God. >> Yes. >> Mor. >> Yes. >> Yes. Is that Yes. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Beautiful. You did that.
>> Thank you for laying it out. >> Yeah. >> Hi. I tried to I'm usually really wordy, so I really tried to make it. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Okay. So, we're finished with capital items.
>> Yes. So we have So is the debt service we need to approve in this one? >> Yes. >> Okay. Where would I find that? >> Is it in that separate handout? >> In the I included in that handout. Yes.
>> It's at 78 >> 71 right in front of capital. Okay. Whatever you want. >> The one she sent at 6:49 tonight. >> Yeah. Sign out. >> Yeah. Online. >> Okay.
So, we're voting for 1,171. 1,171,144. Is that correct? Yes. >> Could you just take a moment? The W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W PAT administration fee, what's that all that?
>> So that's the mass water pollution abatement trust um administration fee. So we borrow debt from them and they charge like a small administrative fee. I see. >> Okay. So maturing is altered interest
temporary loan. >> So the temporary loan was during the bands. >> Yes. >> And can you remind us what those bands were for? >> Well, that is an anticipation of whatever we might borrow.
>> Okay. So that's based on the capital budget. We just approved >> the fans for those projects. >> Got it. >> Okay. >> So, so I'm hoping I put that in there so that way next year I don't have to come back to you with that vote that you just did for 26,
>> right? >> And is that impact is that number impacted by pushing off the >> co year or we don't want to worry? No. Okay. We don't want to worry about that anymore. >> And I just want to make a note too. this temporary loans this 360 anything that
would be like if I don't use it I don't raise it >> right >> so it doesn't go into well it goes into the tax rat >> only if I use it >> okay okay >> because it's over and above two and a
half% so I have to I raise it if I need it Okay. >> So, this relates. >> So, these are for four outstanding existing thoughts. >> Thank you. So, you have a motion. Do you need a second?
>> I need a motion to approve the 1,171,144 debt service. >> So, before you ask for a second, remind me again for what? Which which loan? Which which >> let's have a second first and then you ask your question. >> Thank you. Second >> gar second. Okay. Discussion
>> just to remind me which borrow this is a water borrowing is for what purpose? >> There's four different um municipal purpose loans. Um it includes land acquisition, building construction, um land cleanup, water system
improvements, sewer system improvements. >> Okay. So what we did is when we have a lot of authorizations and then we would go out to bond and so that would just be a municipal purpose loan. Oh. >> So it includes multiple categories underneath that. >> And then I just take the debt service in total.
>> I didn't know what that was saying. >> And we sort of do it every year. >> I mean it's uh it changes a little bit, right? But >> it does change a little bit. The >> um and these are >> how many year bonds?
>> They are So hard to tell because we did refinance >> a couple um but that municipal purpose loan of 2011 that gets paid off in FY31. >> The loan of 2014 gets paid off in 32.
Um, the loan of 2018 gets paid off in 33 and then the M WPAT1 gets paid off in 37. >> Thank you. Well, the good news is we're paying $645,000
of the principal, which I always like to see, right? 64,000 in Okay. Any more questions on the debt service? >> No. >> We're ready to vote. >> John, >> yes. >> Indy, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> Um, and next one is the emergency fire emergency
>> emergency management. >> Yes. So, I talked to you about um you got a quote to do uh drone flyover surveying of our coastal properties so that we can be prepared to potentially
have to make claims for storm damage to FEMA in the future. Um, we have the that the first time you do it when you create that baseline, that's the expensive element of it around $15,000.
And then annually they'll come out and fly the coastal properties and that's only about $2,000. And then if you have a big storm and you want them to come out like on call, it would be $2,000. So, we found 15,000 in
the current year's budget so that we can just get the first year done. And so, we reduce the ask here for to $4,000. So, we have the extra two in case we need it, but hopefully we only spend two a year.
>> Wow. For the pound own portions of the coastline. throw them. The first year is the entire coastline of the town and then that two grand is just town owned property.
>> So this so that budget is now adjusted by >> 4,000 >> 4,000 >> annual updates if needed. >> Got it. So, I have a motion to approve the fire emergency management budget in the
amount of $11,500. >> So, move. >> Andy moves. Do I have a second? >> Yes. >> John second. Any more discussion? Vote. John, >> yes. >> Indy, >> yes. >> Gar, >> yes. >> My yes. >> Peter, >> yes.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, the other thing I did want to point out is the school budget came down.
>> Oh, >> another almost 73,000. >> What happened? >> Decrease in the insurance. Health insurance. >> Oh, that we've got the health insurance. >> Yeah. >> School. That's the school. We we did too, but that the school saw a pretty
significant Yeah. improvement. >> Um >> Oh, that's hunky dory. >> Yeah. >> But >> the fire >> now has a butt. >> Yeah.
>> But do you have the sanitation here? >> Yeah. Yeah, >> DPW sanitation >> that came in high significantly higher 57 >> I'm looking for where the fine is
>> 57 >> 57 >> it's right at the other side of debt service but the side of the course of course I should have known. >> So uh I guess what we're walking through here is we got updated number from the
school. We got an updated number from Essex Tech as well which was less than what we originally had in there. >> And then we remember we had about another 20 something thousand that we hadn't appropriated yet. >> Yep. So, we took the sum of that to help
cover the initation number that came in high to cover that additional emergency management 4,000. We put an additional 25,000 into legal and then we're also
increasing our revenues on trash bags because those fees need to go up according to the cost of the service as well. So then now we could go that's the bigger picture. >> Did we get a new number on health
insurance that brought ours down? >> So we our number came in at 14.4%. which is only about a $10,000 difference than what we have in there. Um, and I'm still going through contract negotiations. So, I prefer to just leave
it at the 15% that we have it in. >> I see. >> Just leave. >> But with this change, we'll have to revote the legal and professional. Yeah, we'll have to go back till we go and read. >> So, >> on the sanitation, I mean, um, so
raising the cost on the price on the bags, the revenue on the bags, but that's only a one-year thing, right? Because next year we're going to have to go to >> something other than bags, are we are we doing something in the short term that's just going to hurt us in the longer term here?
And we'll be able to throw out >> 700,000 swing in the revenue next in the patches next year. >> We keep bringing that up. I feel like it's been I feel like it's been used multiple times. >> More than $700,000 worth like it's like
an echo, you know. >> Uh I'm not keeping track. >> Yeah. I mean, we have we have a serious, >> you know, when it comes when it comes to the sanitation budget that the all of these haulers are going to automated collection, right?
>> And in fact, the price that we got uh was for automated collection, but we explained to them we wouldn't be able to do that by July 1st. So, we may get a little bit of a sir charge. We've built that into this cost. Um but the we we
really need to switch to automated collection. Um right now our revenue you know from bags >> is 300 something thousand. So when we when we switch to automated collection >> we're going to have a significant budget
gap >> unless we offset that with fees which I know we >> painters themselves. I don't know if that's been >> well hopefully hopefully we can get those paid through a grant. uh we could finance them through a long-term
contract, but I the the loss of the bag revenue is the is the big issue. >> But in the short term, >> um you know, our bags, our large role is about $16. I think a lot of towns are in the low 20s.
>> Um and our contract just went up significantly. So I think it's reasonable to increase the bag fee. We won't find more trash along the roads, will we? >> One thing Greg actually mentioned was, you know, there's a there's a point of
where we end up more trash along the roads and you're not >> No, uniform barrels are going to are going to be a positive on that because now you're going to have recycling in a barrel versus an open container. >> Trash is going to have to be in a barrel
as well. >> Okay. I mean, do you think of I don't have When I pick up a thing of bags, I don't kind of know what I'm paying for. >> Oh, >> it's not.
>> You want printed on the bag? >> It's not There's no tag on it to tell you. Um I don't know. Do other people pay attention to what they pay for the bags? >> Well, the bags are not cheap. I mean there's $16 to $20 for I get the big the
big bags and that's you know >> doesn't break the bank or anything but uh I'm aware of it. I I guess my question is how much do these automated barrels maybe we make everybody buy their own automated barrels and take one. Do they
>> $85 a barrel or something like that? A >> recycle big recycling one that was 150. You must have gotten the one from Tiffany's or something wheeled and it was big and it went down to the street.
>> It's it's more the it's an operating it's an operating issue really. You know, the cost of the of the contract is constant, >> right? >> That even if people paid for the barrels, hopefully we can get a grant that pays for them. You don't have to pay for the barrel, right? But even
that, even if they did, it would only be a one time. >> Yeah. >> Well, I guess what I'd say is, look, you don't have to pay $20 for that roll roll of orange bags, but you do have to buy your >> barrel $140 barrel, >> whatever it is you got to spend.
>> I mean, we might be able to do you better and say you just don't have to pay for bags anymore unless you need them for the transfer station. But >> um >> yeah, >> and then it moves the cost of trash into the tax base. But it creates a $300,000
burden on >> So if there still are people that bring it to facility, do they have to have those bags? >> Yeah, >> probably. We you know, we haven't gone through the details of that part of it, but >> we I think we would want them to still
use the bags just to show that >> they made a contribution. When we went when we went to the bags, which was a long time ago, it was partially because we want people to pay kind of relative to what you generated waste. Some people didn't generate much waste and other people generated a ton. >> Yeah,
>> the bags work really well for that >> and encourage recycling. >> Yeah, right. So, yeah, you got stickers for the bags cost. >> I still have a lot of those stickers. I don't know what I'm going to do with it, but >> No, you're going to have a we're going to have a bag exchange.
>> He starts writing in about this transition. There'll be an uproar about >> how do you how do you do that with volume >> barrel by the way >> you're limited you're limited to what is in the barrel >> what that's in the barrel >> so that's how you
>> I use my barrel like once every three weeks someone uses theirs like every week >> right >> or I'm not here in this in the winter >> right yeah no you're paying >> tax your taxes are paying for it so it's not
>> you lose some of that pay as you throw element Right. >> But the industry just isn't >> Yeah. Yeah. There's nothing we can do about it. >> Yeah. Now with there are other cost savings we talked about is if we go with a larger recycling barrel uh or give
people the opportunity to buy a second, we could switch to every other week recycling, which would cut that recycling collection cost in half. So there's a number of different things that we're going to have to sink our teeth into. By the way, I think Black Earth, who
seems to be running the collection area out there at the end of Pine Street, does a great job. And the woman that they have running it is great. Very nice >> person. >> Happy to hear that. >> Yeah.
>> Meeting with them Monday morning. I'll >> Well, they they seem to do a good job. >> That's good. I mean, we want to be pushing the that's another thing is that that's what partly of the meeting with them is I want I want to be push we want to be pushing composting.
>> Yeah. >> Because that's going to reduce our tonnage on the on the waist side. So, >> um we got a lot of work to do there. >> So, go back to you were talking about how we're covering the additional cost.
Could you just repeat the way you had a number of components that you were applying? I've lost track. >> So we we we had savings from a reduction in the two schools systems and then we had like another two $20,000 that we
just hadn't appropriated yet. Okay. So, we have roughly 100. >> So, so we're using that >> to cover this additional expense, but then I'm also increasing the revenue side
>> on the bags. So, that contributes to it and some of that savings then gets transferred to legal our legal fee. Our legal is what I did. >> So, um just um raising the revenue in the bank say sorry I missed that a moment ago. So does that mean increasing
the bag prices? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> So I'm just kind of looking at the optics of that. We're raising the prices of bags and then a year from now we're going to say there's no more bags. But you get a benefit of having it on your everybody pays for your fraction.
>> Well, we're still going to have bags. Sounds like >> for a smaller portion. >> You shouldn't have to spend it much on bags moving forward. >> Right. Just go to the transfer center till you need to bag you before.
There >> you go. G stickers. Yeah, >> those are old stickers. >> Would you pick up mine on the way? >> There was a Yeah. >> Okay. So, the sanit. So now the we we had been looking at 520 for collection
and now we're looking at 633 just in case people didn't see that. >> Yeah, I was afraid he has to point that out. >> And the disposal went from 200 to 252 that am I correct on that?
And then the Yeah, >> I'm >> hoping that this budget maybe I can um combine the collection and disposal into one budget line in article 4. >> Sure, >> that's fine with that. >> It's just trash.
>> Trash is trash. >> Okay, >> that's fine. >> We see it all as one. It's is it's the net of the cost of and and the um and the tipping fees and that it's two separate lines that just
basically >> Well, one goes to wheel, >> right? >> That's why it's separate, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And and Black Earth. >> And Black Earth. >> Oh, yeah. And Black. >> It's fun.
>> Thank you. At one point we had an option of a contract with Black Earth that wasn't going to charge us for collection. >> Yeah, >> they don't. >> Just so you're aware of that. We had three options.
>> One of them was a 99-year lease which gave us >> free collection. Okay. >> And the feeling at the time was to give a 99-year lease to somebody who might go out of business in the next two years. It was a bad idea. It's something that we could probably
revisit with them um not right away but when we are convinced that they are in fact a flourishing organization. >> Yeah. >> I think two other touch points on that just briefly are they are they're collecting materials from all sorts of
communities. I see their trucks in Boston. So monitoring how much of that is coming into Manchester to support their business is an important issue. And then I think the other one is that their proximity to Gravaly Pond is important. >> Yeah. >> So I think always keeping an eye on at
least those two things, making sure they don't get out in front of us. >> Yeah. >> And how are we doing that? >> Contract has restrictions. >> That's that's part of what I part of what I want to talk to him about is
better data collection on how much tonnage they're collecting from Manchester. obviously they know how much tonnage they're processing at the plant. So that's that's one one of the elements I want to talk to about. >> Right. So I'll just can I just add real
quick on the on the on the >> it's it's still an active landfill and so we have third party landfill monitoring. So that goes to your other point my and we do have monitoring wells uh around that. So that's all done separate of anything Black Earth is
doing. You know, that's not that's not information we're trying to get from Black Earth. That's information that we're required to do on a semiannual basis anyway. >> And am I correct, Chuck, that the contract with Black Earth restricts how much they can bring in from other
communities? >> Uh well, so there's definitely a uh tonnage, and that's part of the conversation that Tony and I will have them on Mondays for sure. Uh but so there the it there definitely is room for them to collect more Manchester tonnage locally uh if we can get more
people to participate in the compost program and then that will be so that will mean less comes from outside of town. But right now the you know we're at a 30 tons per week run rate uh through the facility and you know my estimate is we're somewhere between five and 10 tons per week that's coming from
Manchester probably closer to five than 10. So there, like you can see there's there's quite a bit of run room there. >> Uh Chuck, does the DPW use compost from Black Earth >> when you need to use compost? >> Yeah. So Andrew Andrew is good about uh
you know, if if there's something that, you know, we need, he he's happy to help us with that or, you know, make it available. Um there's actually still some up at school street which I will be using if it doesn't leave the school street site >> because I you know our our property is
basically rocks and so all of the dirt we have on our property where we live has come from black earth. I mean it's their dirt. That's the that's why anything grows there. >> Yeah. We take a few scoops from here and there to, you know, put in different
areas. >> Great. >> Any more questions on DPW sanitation budget? >> No. >> So, do I have a motion to approve the DPW sanitation budget in the amount of
960, 0309? Second, >> Andy moves gar. >> Yes. >> John, yes. Andy Gar. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Peter. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Sarah. >> Yes. Okay. Next year it will be a
million. >> Yeah. >> Maybe not. >> Maybe less. >> Okay. >> So now you want us to revote the legal and other professional services. Is that
correct? >> 21 >> 21. >> So I think we've looking back uh legal and other professional services is tends to be one of those uh transfer items at the end of the year. M
>> I think we're usually in the $185 to $200,000 total expense range on an annual basis. Um and this was budgeted at 135 last year. >> So we had already requested to go up to
175. Um now we're requesting to go up to 200. >> And you dropped the consultants by five. Um did we >> earlier? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Comparative. Yes.
Yep. Um you know hopefully hopefully it's a transfer item for the benefit and we're pulling money out of this account um at the end of the year for other uses. But I think it this is more of a
right sizing uh issue. Well, then unfortunately it's better to have the legal upfront than me. >> I move we uh approve the 270 for legal
and other professional services. >> Second. >> One second. Vote. John, >> yes. >> Indy, >> yes. >> Car, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Yes. What's happened to the insurance and other benefits?
>> Nothing. >> So, we already voted on that, correct? >> I guess. >> Y >> I just included it because I knew we wanted to talk about the rate. >> Okay. So, we're good. What will we have on the schedule for
next year? Yeah. I hate to be that. Excuse people like >> um so next week is the 12th >> and we're going to vote on the schools.
Sounds like you got to revote the I don't know if we voted for the vote deck but that number changed. So we're going to vote on the schools and warrant arts. You voted on all the help budgets correctly. And maybe I'll have pieces of fing.
>> We've done that. >> Oh, we've done that. Okay. >> We did that last week, >> right? Yeah. >> Yeah. Of the prior year bills, >> right? um minutes.
Do people have a chance to look at the 226 minutes? >> I move that we adopt them. Approve them. >> Have a second. >> Second. >> Oh, John. >> Yes. >> Go. >> Yes. >> Morning. >> I'm going to abstain because I wasn't
here. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Yes. Anything else we need to discuss? >> I have we have a draft warrant. Uh Andrew and I are speaking with legal tomorrow. Okay. >> So hopefully tomorrow we can send
send something to the committee. >> Okay. >> It's a long warrant. >> It is. Wow. But there's a lot of planning board items that we normally don't make a recommendation on.
>> Did you have something and you're frowning? >> Yeah, I'm frowning because the two of the articles are intended to raise business in town. It make it easier for businesses.
These are land use articles that are >> land use articles changing the zoning regulations for the Harbor Edge District and the downtown. No, it's not doesn't start with a D. I know because we had too many D's already.
>> So the question would be Andrea, do we get any revenue from businesses? And if so, what's businesses? >> Well, it's a forecast. >> It's pays a single tax rate. I guess if it's
a if it's prepared foods, >> right, >> you'll get local meals tax. >> I I just want to have that list for next week when we go over the warrant so that we can determine whether it's a dimminimous
>> financial impact or not. >> They like that. >> I like that a lot. One of the one of I believe one of the zoning center provides for >> small hotels or something like that in
>> ins old in >> traditionally when we talked about planning articles >> we haven't done a financial analysis or a vote on whatifs.
>> Okay. Um it's more on if there's a specific project like the S sov it was a specific project or calculations were done but just because it allows for an in >> well >> doesn't mean an in would happen
>> right but if there were an in if there >> there would be room tax >> right >> so and I'm not suggesting we change our approach but I think >> I think there would be a >> don't put that on the list >> to preclude like residential tax like if
you turn the old quarter in for example into a residence and you have property tax versus it's kind of a it's a complicated issue super complicated issue we're just guessing about anyway. >> Yeah. Right. >> But sometimes we do venture out of our lane. So like a year or so ago there was
a discussion about whether the town should m tree maintain trees 11 ft back from the center line of the road 17 >> and you know normally we're like no we don't care but when DPW comes in and says we got 2,900 trees we now have to
have in our jurisdiction that becomes a cost issue. So >> I mean I do think it's important to think about these things. Yes. And and how it tips. Anything else? Any ideas on updates? >> Uh just for me.
>> Okay. >> With that, I take a motion to adjurnn. >> I will note. >> Very good. Very good. for the pretty good