It's 7 o'clock on Thursday, February 19th, and I'll bring the finance committee meeting to order. Um, this is a hybrid meeting, and it is being recorded.
I have with me in the room from the finance committee Dean Nada, Sandy Oldman, Don Croft, Thar Morris, um, Lord Kraton, Peter Tanny, and myself, Sarah Melish. We also have in the rooms the town of industry Tony Valetta, the
finance director in Vainville and from the select board John L. My hope today is that we will get through most of the remaining towns. >> My hope for today is that we'll get through most of the remaining town
budgets >> swiftly. >> swiftly. Um, the first item on the agenda is the assessor and the building department. Um, are you going to explain that for us, Tony?
>> I will. Michelle is with us via Zoom as well. Michelle >> Oh, I see her. Okay. Yep. >> She couldn't be here in person. >> Okay. >> But she is prepared to speak to the assessor's office and um a memo was sent out to you.
>> Yes. Uh the the biggest change that Michelle will speak to uh that we're supportive of is the staffing position in this the uh full-time assistant in this department does both assistant to the
assessor and assistant to inspectional services. We're looking to divide that into two separate positions and uh our proposal for funding uh that change is through an increase in
the inspectional services permit fees and I have data about how we compare to other towns and how that can be done but speak to that when we get to building to instructional services. >> Okay. Do you have any comments to make,
Michelle? >> Not. >> Well, she's unmuted. Are you there, Michelle? >> Let me see your name. >> Let's see her. She have our rights, too. >> No race needed.
She just says that >> are we on? I can't hear anything. >> What >> she says? Are we on? I can't hear anything. Yes, we are on the phone back on. >> Gail, are you out there? Can you hear us?
I can hear you loud and clear. >> Okay. Thank you. At least I know we're working. >> Can I ask a question for Andrea while we're waiting? >> Yeah. >> On the um >> the 2025 revenue was 387. Go ahead. Uh
>> are you talking about >> for the assessor? >> Okay. >> Yeah. Uh page page the first page of the assess uh second >> page 29 >> that's building department revenue
>> assessor general fund revenues it says >> but it's if you look at it it's all building department >> right is that projected to go up this year is >> that's what Tony was talking about we'll talk about it when we get to the building department we're doing the assessor right now
Okay. >> Is she on? >> She must be real. >> Yeah, close. >> She's signed out till then back in. See if that'll work. >> Can I talk a little bit more about how this might be an opportunity to like use
someone within the department to rotate them in to help as opposed to hiring someone new? uh remote flexibility versus hiring someone new I guess is a mantra I would like to look at. >> Okay. I think the challenge is we don't
have bodies to move around. >> Well, if this is a clerical thing, which it doesn't sound like it is, it sounds like we need boots on the ground to watch what CST is doing. >> Basically,
>> anything. Well, are we trying to hire an inspector to >> No. >> No. >> We're talking about having Currently, we have one administrative assistant covering both the assessor's office and
the building department. >> And they're talking about having two people because there's too much work for the person to do both. And we need somebody in town hall answering people's questions when they
want to file a building permit because they don't know what they're supposed to do. And we have a part-time building inspector, >> right? Well, maybe the assistant clerk could learn that task. >> What assistant clerk? >> The assistant town clerk, you know, could answer questions. >> Have an assistant. Oh,
>> in the town clerk's office, she's full-time, >> right? But she's supposed to be taking down the archive stuff. And is that a priority over >> She's answering all of the questions of the public so that the town clerk can do
projects. >> Said she learned to answer the questions here, too. I guess is >> I mean I'm trying to cut down costs. That's all. >> They need to totally They need to totally understand the bylaw, the zoning by. Yeah. >> If they're going to answer questions. >> Yeah.
and >> you're not I I don't disagree that um you know having an inspector that had more time here in Manchester or another part-time inspector uh that we that we
would benefit from from that. But that's not part of this proposal. >> Okay, that's something. This is more about the full-time assistant duties within the assessor's office and within inspectional services. And right now, the one staff person is
being divided into two separate responsibilities and we're not we're not as efficient as we can be. M >> um it's not something that another position uh no no other position has free time
>> to share with other >> but we hired this person within the past three years right and it reached capacity that fast. >> We had two people there. >> Yeah. And they were merged into one person when they were hiring the land clerk
because the land clerk was supposed to be doing this. >> But the land court clerk is over in Seaside One and apparently is busy supporting all of the boards that she has to support. Mhm.
>> Um >> yeah, land use is is extremely busy between planning, Hong Kong, ZBA, um affordable housing trust, historical commission. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's kind of
the challenge. I guess Michelle isn't going to be able to connect. Is that what the situation? >> It taps into letting the the citizens do their own minutes as opposed to Well, that other proposal to let us do our own minutes, pay someone $50 to do
the minutes would tap into we would free up a lot of administrative. >> The minutes are being done via AI out of the recordings. >> I know. And it's been a problem, hasn't it? >> I feel like we're getting off topic. >> Okay. Well, I was waiting for Lisa.
Okay. Yeah. I was trying to fill time, >> but if she's not going to be able to join us, won't we? >> Hopefully, this will work. >> I I guess I don't understand what the assessor's office does, why they need so much support. >> And I'd love to know a little more about
the history. I'm afraid I don't know the comingings and goings of this position. I I gather by the memo that maybe there was an earlier time. >> Thank you. >> The staffing was different or 20. >> Yes. Yeah. Michelle, can you uh come off mute?
>> Oh, there she is. >> No, not great. >> Yeah, >> she's back on. But no, she can't still can't hear us. >> She can try calling in. Um well, I definitely want Michelle to
speak to what it is, you know, to talk at length as to all the different responsibilities. >> Yeah. >> Um you know, that go beyond, you know, the the valuation of properties and um keeping track of new growth and making
sure that we're capturing that tax revenue that comes in under that. Um certainly there's a number of uh other beyond just property. You have motor vehicle and um and personal property tax. And then
there's all sorts of abatements that occur throughout the year throughout all the building cycles and paperwork that has to be done related to that. Um as I said, Michelle can speak to it a lot more eloquently than I can. Can >> I suggest should we move on to a
different budget item and come back when she's joined us or we feel like we can get through it. >> I guess the question is is do people ask questions? >> Have a question. Is is this an additional full-time person or is this
>> Okay. So, this is this is a new hire. So, it's a new full-time equivalent >> with benefits. that currently there's a person doing assess supporting the assessor's office and the building department and it's my
understanding that that person would be supporting the assessor and a new person would be hired to support the building department. Is that accurate? >> Uh whether the person you know the person who works there now would move to one or the other. Okay. It's it's an option. Uh but you know, you'd be
creating a new position um a new full-time position there and the additional fund the funding would come from revenue through building, >> right? >> Um
>> I mean they have to update the value every 10 years or something. There's a minimum requirement. >> It's got to be held at market rate every year. >> Every year they have to. But she doesn't >> by is that by state mandate >> but the certification is every 10 years. >> Hi Michelle
>> 10 years. >> Hello. I can't see anyone but I can hear. >> Okay on. >> Good. >> Michelle can you start by you know briefly talking about all the different responsibilities within your office. Um
and then we were starting to get down into the discussion about needing to split the assistant position into two. >> Yes. So the assessor's office is responsible for um yearly valuation
based on sales. We make changes to assess values on a yearly basis. We are also required to see every property in town at least every 10 years. We see the properties a lot more often due to
building permits and um we keep up with that requirement through cyclical inspections. Um in addition to the assessed values, we handle motor vehicle excise abatements, boat billing, we have senior exemptions.
Um we have form of lists that we mail out and we collect the data for the businesses in town. Um we also send out information about income and expense properties. um those are the properties
that um rent out and they have leases and we do an income approach on those commercial properties and condos and um and then it's a whole slew of other responsibilities that we deal with
on a daily basis. No, I would right away say instead of doing assessment on a yearly basis, could we do it every other year and free up some time to do this other stuff? I mean, what would would that be an option?
>> The values have to be certified by the Department of Revenue on a yearly basis. And if we start to skip years, the Department of Revenue does not like that idea. All assessors in the state of Massachusetts do their assessed values
on a yearly basis. >> They don't like it, but it has to be done every 10 years, right? >> No, the No, the inspections and the data verification have to be done every 10 years. >> Assessed values are changed every year.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. And that could be just a a >> it's a lot more uniform and smooth and we stay within the do's requirements when we do the SX valuation on a yearly basis and that's the expectation from
the state. >> Go ahead Andy. >> Uh Michelle, could I ask could you kind of briefly explain your process that you have now with the assistant you have access to versus what you're proposing? >> Yes. What I'm sorry what the process is
with the assistant. >> Yeah. So your your current your current standing with the assistant that you have part-time >> that process versus what you're proposing. So my assistant um she
so she is with me and together we work on assessing inspectional services and I do mostly GIS. She doesn't really get involved with GIS so much. Um unfortunately right now because the building department
keeps growing and it's becoming busier and busier from one year to the next and you can see that from the fees that we're collecting and the increases in those fees from year to year. Um Terry spends I would say 85% of her time on
building department. So I am the assessor and I do most of my own support that um is actually listed under the
assistance responsibilities. She doesn't have the time to do it so I do it which leaves me with less time to do my own job. Up until four years ago, for the last 26 28 years, the assessor had a full-time
assistant and things were moving along smoothly. And since four years ago when the positions were combined, it has become a hardship which I discussed with the previous town administrator pretty
much in every um quarterly meeting that I had with him. So he was fully aware of what was going on. >> So the difference now is that the building department's demands are much greater. >> Therefore, the model that we've been
working with the last few years >> no longer accommodates your needs. >> Right. >> Exactly. >> So >> yes, >> in in 2020 there was 685 permits issued.
>> Okay. that jumped to 870 in 2021, 200 more, and it's consistently stayed in that range. Uh it increased to 964 in 2024
and 828 last year. So in in the last five years, it's the the demand on the inspectional service side has grown significantly. So it's it's really not a change in the assessor's responsibilities or processes. It's a
change over in the inspectional service. >> So we have more need in the inspection that's causing the assistant >> not have time for in >> Yeah. In calendar year 2020 we had 685
permits and the fees collected were 183,942. In 2025, the fees collected were 593,985. And so the permitting side requires a lot of hands-on help from the
administrative assistant. The um the contractors need help. They pull permits on the wrong property. So we have to change those over and correct them. she has to help the contractors upload their paperwork when they can't do so. Um
there are issues where sometimes the font or the language being used in applications for the permits does not come through correctly. So um she has to go through and correct all of that. And
um also the integration with the um the assessor's database doesn't always work. So we have to have it jump in to correct certain issues so that the integration flows smoothly and the
permits that are um issued on a daily basis enter the assessor's database correctly and that doesn't always happen. So, um, the process sounds great if it works well, but it doesn't always work well.
So, it necessitates support. >> So, does that mean that we really ought to be looking at something in the inspectional services in terms of its staffing? I mean, >> that's I understand it's not an implication here. Yes, I understand. But is there something broader in terms of inspectional services that ought to be
rethought at the same time? >> Well, that's what we're doing. That's where we're we're proposing inspectional services fees to support this new position. So, you're breaking the position into two, but it's really being created in the inspectional services
side. >> Okay. >> So, the process the process is time consuming. Um, open gov is the standard system in the industry. So, most communities are going with open gov because among the permitting softwares,
open gov seems to be the one that works the best, but it's not 100%. Um, so I'm not sure that anything can be done at that end. And um you know also the projects that we have coming into
town are larger homes that require more inspections uh more contact between departments contact with the um with the inspectors. So it's just time consuming. It's it's not anything
unusual. It's it's just the way it is. >> Oh, go ahead Andy. >> Two part question. One was um the fees that you talked about increasing those with uh those would be the intended to cover the fully loaded decision cost. >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> Okay. And then the second question was um is the assessor's office need is it a full 40 hour position? >> It's 35 33 and >> 33 and a half >> which is full time. Does it need to be that much if she's saying 85% of the
time is with the inspectional >> um as far as as far as how it could it be a little bit less than I think >> hours a week or whatever it is. So you don't pay benefits whatever that >> I don't know I don't know if I would go that far.
>> Okay. It may not be a full 35. I'm sorry, 33 and a half for each position, but I don't know if I would go less than 20. I don't know if I would go that far in each position. >> You get one of them to be 20.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Certainly, you know, one and a half is better than one. Um, and then looking at the rates. Sorry, Dean. Go ahead. Sorry, Sarah. >> I'll I'll let you finish. I'm sorry. just we, you know, we took a look at the
rates of a lot of neighboring communities. So, we we charge $6 per,000 uh for a permit fee. >> Um the the high end is $15.30.
The average is $11.7. The low end is five. So, we are compared to our neighboring communities aside from Rockport, which is at $7. Uh, you know, we're still significantly lower
than the standard. We haven't increased. I was talking to Paul today. He said we haven't increased rates since the day he started, which I don't know how many years ago that was, but um, >> but um, we should do that regardless of whether we >> Why are we increase?
>> Why don't we increase? So, for the cost, you know, raising it from $6 uh to $9 would probably be enough to bring in enough revenue to cover the cover this cost.
You know, generally speaking, a dollar increase would produce 20 to $30,000 in revenue. >> Why don't you go up to the average? Well, we also try to justify the fee to
the cost of the department. We obviously bring in significantly more revenue than the cost of inspectional services. Most towns are like that. >> Um, we certainly could increase it to try to get to the a to go to the average to catch up to speed with our
neighboring towns, >> but just so you know, we only need to bring it up two or three dollars to cover this request. >> Yeah. Yeah. And is there any benefit understanding 85% of the position is now focused on inspectional services at
least 15% is there any if we went to halftime and then with the 15 there still could be some assistance from the inspectional services full-time person I think is that is that realistic or am I causing more trouble with that concept?
I I think that in my personal opinion, >> yeah, >> I I think that inspectional services today doesn't have somebody available who can answer as many um residents questions as need
to be answered regarding what they need to do beyond just the building permit >> I see >> stage they don't know you know they >> or planning board process or the ZBA process. >> Wait for Paul who's part-time
>> to tell them what like I have one where somebody's applied for a building permit. >> Yep. >> And Paul told him he needed to come to ZBA to ask whether it was dimminimous changes so he could move forward. >> Um the building permit was submitted in
December. >> This is just arising this past week. So, you know, if you had somebody there >> who was better schooled with more time, I think some of this stuff would be addressed earlier in the process.
>> So, your experience is that needs to be a full-time position over in inspectional services. Again, given what you just said. >> Yeah, because we have a part-time building inspector. I think that we need a Now, I don't know if we need a full-time person in the assessor's office. That's the piece I don't know.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but we hired someone just to do that a couple years ago, but the time he was front went more to assessors and stuff. >> No, we hired a land use clerk, >> but it was supposed to help with this stuff. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Okay. That's what I >> It was supposed It was supposed to solve this problem because the discussion we had was do we go to a full-time building inspector, >> right? >> Or do we hire this land use clerk? >> Okay. Well, >> I lost the battle and we hired the land
use clerk and the land use clerk is not supporting the building, >> right? I get it. Well, the other part of the question, you know, we were talking about increasing fees to cover it, but I'm talking about can we be more efficient like the inspections? Does the
assessor do their own inspections or can they just use the certificate of occupancy from the building department to do their assessing? >> They need to be going to the buildings and looking at them. But isn't that what our >> our guidelines from the department of
revenue require us to go to each property and verify the data in person, >> right? >> We can't just go by documents. >> Well, the building inspector is part of the assessor's office. >> People are doing building without
permits and the only way to catch it is through the assessor's office. >> Okay. That's not the uh inspection building. >> We have very poor enforcement. >> All right. Well, >> and people also undervalue
their building permit submissions. >> Well, I don't particularly >> the building inspector is looking at homes. >> Yeah, but the final inspection is pretty detailed for certificate of occupancy. >> Not always. Those two things those two things don't always line up. Yeah,
>> the assessor is assessing what's actually present on the property. >> That's >> that doesn't always line up with what >> right >> is permitted. >> Okay. Okay. >> And I and I also think >> we we assess what's on the ground as of
June 30th for improvement each year, which is what the new growth is based on. And when the January 1st bills go out, they're representing that assessed value that was on the
ground as of June 30th. >> Right. So, so we go out and we do permit inspections as of June 30th and we also conduct cyclical inspections so that we see 10% of the properties on
a yearly basis to keep up with that requirement to see all of the properties in town every 10 years. So, we have different programs of going out to see these properties and keep up with the requirements.
I would rather see a relaxation of that requirement and more forces go to an inspector. >> Hold on, Dean. Nor >> I just I I think if there's a way to do this down the road, it's a different conversation. Building inspections or inspection should be increased. I know
we struggle with not having enough inspectors. And quite frankly, there's stuff that goes on in town and certain people follow the rules and other stuff just kind of happens. and better inspection I think would be a good thing >> on the revenue side. Um,
I'm probably not going to be popular for this, but I think we should raise these fees because I think people coming to Manchester are not suffering a significant hardship paying for building permits and and quite frankly, you know, if you roll the whole picture into it,
building fees are the beginning of the the iceberg here, but some of these things roll to litigation and there's a whole lot of costs that tie into this whole process. So amping up revenues is not a bad thing in my humble opinion.
>> Well, CBA increased their application fee from 250 to a,000. >> Zero complaints. >> Didn't didn't part of because projects are so expensive. >> One perspective on that is that there are a lot of retired people with fixed
incomes that might want to do some improvements. So, I don't know if you can tie this increase to new construction or not, but mean >> if they can afford to do construction today, Yeah. >> they can afford to pay the building fees.
>> I'm just gid. >> It's very expensive. Exactly. >> And if you're a retiree on fixed income, you either can't afford the project >> or you have to do it yourself >> or you can afford the project and afford
to pay the fees. >> Yeah. A million a year. >> Oh, yeah. I I I do agree as I said earlier with with Mory and Dean that you know having the ability to do more inspections by an inspector whether that be an additional
part-time person or trying to get more hours out of our part-time person now um generally speaking today to hire a full-time inspector you're you're in the $120 to $150,000 range. It's really
expensive. Um, so most towns are looking at regional approaches when it comes to an inspector or commissioner and then they have the full-time, you know, office staff to help and those the office staff is doing more and more
to just kind of set up the inspector to quickly be able to get through stuff and, you know, stamp it, get out there, look at it and and and >> well, I also think that for years I don't think the assessor's office was
looking get properties every 10 years. >> And I think that if the assessor's office is more more proactive at looking at more properties in town, then they're going to find more situations where
either the building permit was undervalued or non-existent. And that's, you know, that's the problem we have today is is enforcement. But if the assessor's office is doing is picking up some of that slack with
their >> Yeah. The other side of that is to your to your point about the example you gave. You know, if we aren't being efficient in our processing, >> it tends to sometimes people tend to do stuff on their own without coming
forward because it's faster, >> you know, see if they catch me. >> Exactly. Um, so if we can do better on our end on getting that stuff processed and kind of speed people through a permitting process, not, you know, still got to follow the law
and code and and our bylaws, but if we can be more efficient, may be more welcoming to people that actually go through the process. >> And I would think it would be helpful if we had this person with more time, then perhaps we do some social media stuff
where people understand Mhm. >> when they're supposed to be filing for a bill. >> We've tal we've already started talking about some of that stuff like different types website improvements, flowcharts, you know, being able to a one-stop shop for people to come in
>> and, you know, potentially set up pre-ermitting meetings with y >> members from boards. There's there's so much we can do, but we're limited with our current staff. Question. I found out I need a conservation permit to change the shrubs
in my front yard. >> Yeah. See, you're in the bucket. >> So, Michelle, what do we expect the position to cost? Am I missing it? Is that what's the same in the revised uh >> or is that the
shared position? >> So, the um right now the in the assessor's admin. Yes. That's >> that has been like the combined position. >> Yes. Now we're leaving that as is like >> Okay. So that's >> that and then we're adding under the
building department. >> Okay. >> Um >> 57,000. >> 57,000. >> Page 52. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm looking at the wrong page. >> Yeah. So it's split between the two now. >> 52. >> Hold on. Gar has a question.
>> Quick question. Um we're paying our building inspector 27,000. >> Yes. >> Is that right? >> Yes. Right. And what percentage of his life do we own for that 27 or time do we own? >> Well, he's
I'd have to take a look at the agreement. I mean, he's only he's in the office here. Office hours is is very minimal. He's here for I think two hours on Tuesday mornings and then three >> three or four hours >> three or four hours on Thursday
afternoon, but then he's also on call for he's doing inspections throughout the week. Okay. Um, but our agreement with him is that he gives us 20% of his time. >> Yeah. He would share him with Rockport. >> So 5050.
>> I don't know if it's I don't know if it's 50. >> But he was full time in Rockport. >> Yeah. I don't know if it's 5050. >> This is a extra for him. >> So I guess the question I have is um are we getting a are we getting full value?
Is he doing everything that he he ought to be doing? um which I have no doub I'm not saying he isn't I just want to know um and secondly it appears that the the shortfall in terms of performance that I'm hearing is in the building
department not in the assessor department >> so do we need to look and say >> um does the building inspector have a role as a department head
as in terms of leadership and so forth and running the thing like like a business or something or not not really back to your question of many years ago though should that position be different >> right
>> that's a discussion for another day >> okay >> okay I think we've beaten this into the ground >> but let me just f finalize so the person who does manage the building department is >> the assessor Oh, the assessor.
>> Yeah, the assessor. >> I handle I manage the building department. So, my assistant and I receive all of the phone calls that come in for most of our phone calls are for the building department. So, she and I
answer all of the questions about fees, costs, procedures, all of that. Um because the inspectors are not available. So, >> that's my comment about combined inspection. I mean, if that's the same >> department say, we're we're not going to
be grant I I have a question for Michelle. These annual inspections that are done, you're trying to do 10% a year so that you do all the housing. How long does an inspection take for a typical house year? >> It so for a full inspection, which is
what we're required to do, could be 45 minutes to an hour depending on the h the size of the property. and a lot of the issues that we're running into. >> Okay. >> So, what I was going to say is um part of the issue is that we're not allowed
to enter properties. Residents are not allowing us to enter properties, but we are required by the Department of Revenue to show up to measure the exterior if we're allowed to take pictures and verify as much of the data
as we can at the door or through an exterior inspection and then of course when we're allowed to enter the interior obviously that's the ideal situation >> sounds like CSI Manchester >> but we are expected we are expected to
be present at every property in town and and conduct these inspections and I should be able to go out to a lot more inspections than I am able to because I just don't have the time. >> Okay, >> but that's part of my job. That's part of what I'm supposed to be doing. So
what are the penalties if we don't meet this minimum standards? Okay. >> I deem in my opinion we're a town and we should be properly valuing our property. >> Yeah. >> If if I'm overpaying for my property tax
and somebody else is underpaying it. >> Yeah. >> That's not fair. >> Right. >> So we need to be valuing the property consistently. >> Yes. But the point I'm trying to make is that >> when when it comes to resident services on permits and beating us up with more
evaluation, I would prefer we focus on the resident services than the extra evaluation stuff. >> Dean, it's it's >> well, it seems to be it seems to be excessive >> is responsible for what every single
property owner pays in taxes every year. >> I understand that. And it darn well should be accurate. >> One guy did it for years and the town size hasn't changed that much. So what's changed? All the rules. >> Maybe it's more accurate. >> Yeah, maybe.
>> Mora, you had done that. >> I I just have a question and it I don't want to sound draconian about this, but when we issue a when we don't issue a building permit and somebody goes and does something, are there penalties involved or stuff
like that? And I have some ideas on this front, but >> $300 a day. >> They're not enforced. >> But do we have latitude to do anything or does the state guideline? So, for example, if Manchester said in order to
put in that septic system, you actually need to have a permit and you need to have an inspection and whatever. And if the person goes ahead and does it on their own, could Manchester come back and say, "Take it out." and we're gonna ask you to wait three years before you
attempt to put that in again. >> I think the septic system is a bad example. >> That's actually um that's actually two or three years and then you can come back and apply again. Where I'm going with this is >> people to enforce it. Well, where where
I'm going with this is if you decide to do something and you get caught, you may have to pay a penalty >> more than a dollar penalty and that may prevent people from deciding to go out on their own and do things. >> Yeah. >> And I'm just asking the question if the town has the latitude to do that or if
the state says no, thou shall follow these guidelines and you can't do that sort of thing. No, the town the town the building inspector has the authority to put a stop order on a project that doesn't have the correct permits, hasn't gone through the correct procedure. So
doesn't the conservation commission and so doesn't the board of health in the example that you gave related to septic >> maybe a bad example >> bad example but um and if someone built a structure that exceeded the height
limit absolutely you we have the legal authority to have them bring that down to cut that down. Um, and then we have through either zoning or general bylaws, we have the authority to put, you know, financial penalty. Yeah.
>> We don't we don't we don't do it. I mean, somebody once I heard anecdotally, someone once built a shed in a place where they they weren't supposed to build it and they just went ahead and built it and they were chastised or, you
know, hit with a ruler or who knows what, but that's it. No, no, no penalties. No. >> Yeah. >> Back to the fine issue. Someone says, "Oh, $300 or $400 a day on a $4 million property? No big deal. I'll just pay." The reality is if you had somebody in an
office with enough time to enforce some of that stuff and you didn't have to rely on a part-time building inspector that maybe we could follow through >> right >> with some of those because the example Gar is is giving
>> just anecdotal >> has been going on for a good six years. The building inspector made the person go to the ZBA for variance. >> The ZBA denied denied it. >> Right. >> That shed still stands.
>> Waiting for an avalanche to move it. >> I can give another example. Well, I recently replaced the front porch in my house. And in the contract, we said, "You're responsible for all the permits." And he replaced it. And we asked I I never saw a copy of
>> So, you know, it's like, "Take off your front porch." >> Yeah. >> Sort of we sort of revisited this year to year to year. But one question just going forward is if something happens to Paul or he decides to retire. Um sounds like there's a labor
availability question here. What what do we do? And you know if we're bringing somebody in from Framingham for 16 hours a week, that's going to probably be a problem. So you know obviously thinking ahead, what happens if he gets hit by a
buck? You know, what do we do? Yeah, we'd have to get creative very quickly. Uh try to find um start by working with our neighboring towns, see what we can do in order to uh purchase some hours from their staff, whether they have part-time or full-time, I
don't know, you know, really lean on that for the short-term solution. Um, then you'd have to start thinking about, are there, um, maybe contractors in town that would be interested in potentially being a part-time inspector that would work underneath whoever your
commissioner is. Um, but like I said, it, you know, even that that used to could get you could get away with that for like $10,000 a year. Mhm. >> Uh but now the amount of the the stretch energy code, the amount of training, the
it's it's a totally different world now. >> And that 10,000 isn't worth it to someone, you know, to not go to work one day and spend their day at a training in Central Mass or something like that. So, I've
I've been through this. It's chaotic. You'd have to get creative really quickly. Um, but it really does start in the office. The more that the clerical staff can tee
up for the inspector to quickly get done, then they can on the enforcement side, they can have more time for that. >> Yeah, >> it's not the full solution. There's more to it, but I think it starts there. >> Yeah. So back back to Mory's point about
um it seems like a we're missing a revenue stream, b we're not enforcing our codes, c we have this enormous and expanding infrastructure to deal with assessing and building codes. At the end of the day, you don't really have to follow. No, I I mean I I'm sure that
there is I'm sure there's a lot of stuff out there that we could be better on, but when you're looking at >> revenue, >> when you're looking at 828 permits last year for almost $600,000, that's not,
you know, nothing is being done. >> Throw it in these. >> That's a lot. >> We don't have 600,000 in these numbers calendar year. So, >> I'm wondering if someone like that's a lot, but clear missing another 800,000. I have no idea for >> Right. But it but it
>> maybe someone maybe someone should have paid you know double that like you pull the permit but really what did you actually do? >> Yeah. Yep. I mean that's another thing is are we requiring contracts with the permit application? Does our does our is
our staff our full-time staff capable of evaluating that and you know maybe suggesting to the inspector when they come in to review an application like you know seems like they they're a little under on this contract on the
cost per square foot based on the other things I've seen. So those are it it's it's stuff like that, you know. I don't know if uh we might be requiring it. We but we might not have the time to really like really look through that stuff, right? >> My point is like we have a there's a
revenue source. You said we don't have time. I get we can we could pay for someone to do this stuff. There's revenue on the other side to support it >> and it helps, >> right? Yeah. >> You know, people be able to feel more fair because oh my neighbor did this and now he's getting in trouble. >> Yeah.
>> Shed. Yeah, right now our our the assistant is being pulled, you know, at certain points of the year being pulled into the assessor side or versa, you know, and it's just not >> Yeah. >> And this is where I would hope someone
like Nate or Mark Resnik or someone could pitch in with their department because they're qualified to do that stuff, too. >> No one Dean, I appreciate all your comments and I'm here to answer as many questions as you have. But a lot of it seems to be
based on an assumption of what people have, you know, do or or the amount of free time they have. >> The amount of flexibility >> they don't everyone here is everyone here is their plates overflowing, >> right? >> It's not No, it's we don't have the
ability to pull Nate or or Mark in to help with random inspectional service tasks. But is it overflowing with the correct things or is it overflowing with development? >> Not our job to run the town.
>> We deal trying to maintain it, not develop it. But anyway, >> it's not for us to determine what employees don't. That's his job. >> Yeah. Okay. >> We don't like some advice to him. >> Yeah. I have a way of being asked for approval.
>> Half time or full-time position? I believe it's a full-time a new full-time >> and the cost of it found in the building department even though >> whether the person is in the existing job is probably stay in the assessor's office that >> it doesn't matter >> it I know it doesn't matter I'm just
trying to figure what the cost >> well the current person is making 64,000 >> right >> so they're looking at hiring a new person at the 57,000 >> okay >> and there might have to be a movement of salary between the two departments If
the new person is in assessors versus a building >> and the new person is a full talk person, >> that's what's I think I need for the budget. I need that in there. >> If we end up hiring someone that works less hours than that,
>> I'm okay. Uh, >> okay. It could be less than 33 and a half. I'm not trying to get into your business. I'm just trying to understand how it's filling the need. That's all. I think we really would like
>> would like to make a request that there's a real determination made as to exactly how many hours are required in the assessor's office. >> Yeah. Correct. >> Yeah. >> You know, it seems like building department needs a full-time person. I'm not convinced the assessors does if
they're only using 15% of a person today. But that's >> Yeah. Yeah. And I guess I'm asking is allow us to rightsize that over time. >> Yeah. >> Okay.
>> And >> I would just make a suggestion that the board of selectman consider raising these fees or the town administrator recommend to the board of selectment to raise these fees higher than they are now. >> I mean the average of 11 from six. >> That would be a good step.
>> Six $6 and the high end is 15. Seems like we got some room to go here. the select board. We've we've talked about it briefly at a previous select board meeting. Uh they were supportive, asked me to do more research. Um
so we'll be bringing it back to them for approval. >> Okay. Do I have a motion to approve? >> I have a couple two housekeeping questions. One is the assessor salary went up by 10%. Is that step plus
>> that was requested? Uh we didn't include that in my recommend recommend. >> Okay. And then the revenues look like it goes down from 24 to 25 this >> because I think there were fewer
permits. >> I felt permits that um Some funny was reading off our calendar year. Sometimes the timing is off like um but >> we're near 600,000 and people are throwing out a $600,000 number and no
year has been even close to that. >> Yeah, >> we do have CST coming up which might be >> So I talked to Michelle a little bit about that today. Maybe she can speak to it. Um, but we received in calendar year 26 like Eaglehead >> 25 or 26.
>> Let's see. >> Well, she gave you calendar calendar. >> She gave me calendar year. Um, number >> 25 was 828 permits for $594,000. >> So, I I show fiscal year numbers, so I
only go through June 30th. What's >> the number for 24? Uh >> those are all calendar years. Those numbers I pulled from the insectional services >> system and it's based on calendar year not
>> if if it's calendar year or fiscal >> they should be much closer the fiscal should be much closer to a calendar year. If you're talking 900,000 for 24 and 600,000 for 24 calendar year, then I
would expect the I mean for for 25 24 and 25, you're talking 900,000 and 600,000 for calendar years. Then I certainly would expect the fiscal year 25 to be at least in the middle of that number. >> Right there.
>> Not close. >> Right. >> Not close. >> No, it's not close. They >> Yeah, I' I'd have to. >> So, somebody's not paying their permit fees. >> Well, no, I don't think >> including electrical and gas.
>> The calendar year 2021 total revenue calendar year 2021 >> was 302087. So, here your fiscal year uh 22 is 302173.
It's clo it's closer, >> but these more recent ones are close. >> 22 is 327. >> Fiscal year 23 is 353. >> So they get closer, but you know, >> the last two years don't seem to be
close. And it also seems to me like counting the permits, you're including not just building, but also electrical and gas, which are lower, and plumbing, which are lower building lower fees. All of the permits are included in those
numbers. >> Okay, >> those numbers 302087, they include all permits, building, plumbing, electrical, gas. >> So plumbing and electrical fees are much less. I think electrical, they don't even charge for a a fee for an
electrical permit if it's part of a building permit. If I recall correctly, >> electrical permits are half. So if building permits are $6 per thousand, electrical permits are half of that. So $3 per thousand. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. They got >> So it looks like we have >> comment. Yeah. Nothing need I mean we there's the structure of the fee the fee structure is also many towns separate a fee for
you know uh groundup single family construction verse addition verse ADUs verse demolition verse you know they break out a different free fee for a lot of different activities we basically just go with a straight >> $6 per thousand
>> so there's there's a lot work to be done there. >> Yes, agreed. >> Are we through with our questions on the assessor's budget and the building department budget? >> Yeah, >> I move we approve this. >> Okay. The assessor
>> we we've also made some suggestions. >> Yeah. But so a motion to approve the 240,788 for the assessor's office. >> Yes. >> I second. It's only 3%. I'll second >> both.
>> Dean, >> yes. >> Indie, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Bar, >> yes. >> Andy, >> no. >> Lorie, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. And Sarah votes, yes. >> Now, the building department, a motion to approve 151,254.
>> Okay. >> 52. And the fees related to the building department on are on page 29. >> All right. So move >> second. >> Seconds. Any discussion?
>> Take a vote. Dean, >> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> God, >> yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. That was painful. But two budgets in less than an hour.
>> Well, they are separated by 25 pages. So, >> yeah, navigating. >> Um, we have capital items for the assessor's office. >> And this is different than the discussion we had about updating other
software. This is specialized. There's RRC personal property valuation system and services and catalyst patriot ca software upgrade diversion AP something
>> what page >> 85 >> 7878 >> 78 >> Michelle can you speak to the capital requests >> yes so the patron properties request for
upgrade to AP5 software system. Right now we're on classic and classic is no longer being supported. Um it's an old system and um several communities have already upgraded to AP5 which is cloud-based.
um the reports are no longer being supported and um it's time to transition to the upgraded version AP5. Um, I put in a request for RRC, which is
a company that specializes in personal property, and they also take care of the utility appraisals, which we are mandated by the Department of Revenue to do every year. They also offer support
if we have to go to the appella tax board and defend that value. And um I use RC in a different community. Uh unfortunately, Patriot Properties, personal property is what
we're using right now. And um they're underst staffed. I spent a significant amount of time out of my own time to format um reports and Excel to be able to send these to the department of
revenue for our reertification year because the person at Patriot Properties doesn't know Excel. it's only one employee who goes around to verify the data as opposed to RC where they have a company um full of employees that focus
on personal property. And I did mention in the capital request that our number one the highest taxpayer in town is Mass Electric which is valued somewhere around $49 million which is a personal
property account. So, it's a significant source of revenue and we have to be careful um who we work with to defend those values and make sure we tap into as much revenue as possible. >> How how uh wedded are we to Patriot
Properties? >> Yeah. >> How I'm sorry, I didn't hear. How do we have a contract a long-term contract with >> No, our our contracts expired this year. All of our contracts expired this year.
So, we are in the process of um drawing up new contracts. So, this is actually the perfect time to make this transition if you agree. >> And you would go to whom?
We would go with RC for personal property only for the portion portion of personal property. We would go with RC. >> Same with Patriot properties for >> and we would say with Patriot Properties
for residential >> for assessing. I'm sorry. >> Have we looked at what else is out available? >> There isn't really anything else that's available. Um, RRC is a company that's
freestanding and they solely focus on personal property. Ryan Pelatier, who is the principal of RRC, started his career at the department of revenue and so >> I'm asking properties. Is there any
other option? Um I mean there is vision appraisal which is similar to Patriot properties but they have their own
struggles and the system is quite different. So I don't know that that would be a better option. I don't think that would be a better option. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So what is the lifespan of this? Like
how long is it good for? Five years, 10 years? >> No longer supported, >> is it? >> I mean, we've we've had this classic system since the late 90s. >> Okay. So, it's been >> Yeah. So, it's been it's been quite some
time. I'm I'm not sure that I can answer that question. I I don't know. Um, but I would I would say it would be quite some time before another upgrade would be necessary.
And even though it's only an upgrade from classic classic to AP5, it's quite a different system, a lot more user friendly. Um there's going to be a learning curve and if we are to split
out the positions and have an admin um focus solely on assessing this would be the perfect time to have this person start on the new system as we would transition on July 1st. So it would be beneficial from
>> will their residents see a difference on like the the map GIS website with this new >> this is Patriot Properties. >> Yeah. You know how you can go into >> but it you can get the Patriot property card on the GIS.
>> You can get it directly through Patriot Properties too. >> Yeah, >> we can. Yeah, we can we can get the personal property card through GIS. Um that's that's on there right now. The printable card. >> Um >> would this software make any changes to
that or no? >> Yes. Yes. The the property record card would look quite different. A lot more information. >> Right. Okay. I can just out of curiosity, how much do we pay paper properties for our residential system?
um for the residential system. Well, we pay a license agreement to them and so >> this is would be annually. >> Well, we have software. >> Yeah. So is that the software line of
the budget would >> be 216855? >> No, it's um we have a license agreement that >> GIS is >> Yeah. No, GIS is separate. Um, so we
have a license agreement with with Patriot and it's around 11,000 $12,000 a year for the license agreement and um yeah, for for the support that they
provide on a yearly basis in case we run into any issues including um the permitting integration, Patriot has been very helpful and very proactive in helping us identify any issues with the
open gov integration. So >> that's on the computer. >> It's money. It's money well spent. >> Capital sounds like a permanent. >> No, it isn't in capital. It's just the upgrades in capital, >> right? Yeah. Why would it be a annual
increase? >> Because we wouldn't have the same increase next year. That's like a one time like um data conversion if you will, >> right? >> Okay. >> Um and FY26 was $12,184
>> and that's under the library and like the the official accounting you could call this capital even though it's not really a physical asset. >> Yes. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you, Michelle. We're done with you.
Thank you. >> Thank you for answering the hard questions. >> Um, >> thank you for your time. >> Thanks, Michelle. The next item on the agenda is page 40,
benefits, pension, and property insurance. Now, we don't have a final number for health insurance, right? >> No, we don't. But um I spoke with them today and 15% is clearly what we should
expect. >> Okay. >> Maybe a little bit under that. Somewhere between 14 and a half and 15%. Okay. >> What did we >> I don't want to put it at 14 and a half and come back to 15.
>> We're good. >> Will uh they were waiting on remember I talked about how GIC was taking their vote on their plan structures on the 12th. >> They didn't. >> They didn't. >> I read that in the paper.
>> And um now they're meeting I think on again on the 26th. Uh so hopefully we get final numbers after that. >> Okay. So this page includes group health insurance, workers comp, casualty and
liability insurance, unemployment comp, and FICA and Medicare. >> Peter, you had questions on >> casualty and liability. Is that correct? >> Yes, it was. The question I want to ask is what do we carry for liability?
And who's the carrier? >> Maya is a um >> And how are they rated? >> They're rated very well. Um most communities in Massachusetts use them. Um they're very much like a pulled um insurance.
>> What are we covered? I mean, what's our max liability or what are we covered for our liability? >> We're covered for like the way their policy works. Um they add up all our buildings. Um, and that's like our max. It's like $47 million. Um, in our
shopping cart, >> $47 million. And then that's like per occurrence. Um, and then it's it breaks it down by that. I mean, our our policy is about 353 pages. Um, that covers, >> right? I'm not I'm just asking what the
max. So, it's 47,000 per occurrence. 47 million. Excuse me. My mistake. >> Per building. And then for >> Well, that's property. >> That's property. >> What about vehicles? So vehicles it um I mean it breaks it down by like you know like your standard you know personal car
insurance of you know 40,000 for you know >> personal property and things like that. But >> the reason I'm asking the question the DPW sent me from the last meeting the list of vehicles. We have about a minute and a half of DPW
vehicles of one sort or another. And it led me to think about what was the coverage on these vehicles. Um example, is it a replacement value? Is it depreciation value? You know, what's we got some fair number of vehicles floating around here. >> We do. And I was wondering what our
exposure is if there's a a casualty of some sort substantial to the vehicles as well as liability. And I I'm not sure I I quite understand what the I know it's Maya's cover, >> right? So, so for instance, you know,
our loader is $250,000. It's if it's under 10 years, then we do a replacement cost. If it's anything over 10 years, then it's actual cash value. So, whatever the value is at the time. >> So, it depends on the age of the vehicle. >> Yes, it does. >> It's my understanding that when we had
an issue with our fire chief's vehicle that was new, he didn't pay anything. Is that accurate? >> That's accurate because we had >> because it was in within the time frame. It was a fairly new vehicle probably. >> Yes. Yeah, when I got here, we it was all over the place and then I, you know, I was like, you know what, any new
vehicle or equipment or anything like that, it's going to be a replacement cost. Um, because the premium difference between actual cash value and replacement cost wasn't that much. And I'm like, I'd rather have a replacement cost because, you know, as soon as you drive it off the lot, you know, how much depreciation? So,
>> um, so that's how we handled that. >> Thanks for your question. >> Question just Oh, >> hold on, Jean. Jean, go ahead. >> Just a pony on, um, beach and harbor. Are they both covered under here? Because those are places where things can happen.
>> Yeah. So, actually, interesting enough, like a couple years ago, I was looking into that because, you know, we've been doing a lot of like the floats, the docks, um, you know, and and it came up, you know, a question about our insurance and they said, you know, do you have a marina? And it's always been, no, we don't we don't have a marina, but that
doesn't necessarily mean that we don't need a marina policy. Um, so a couple years ago we did add a marina policy. So, it does cover all of like the mooring areas, um, anything like off of the dock spaces and things like that. So, that's a separate policy. Um, as far
as like the singing beach and like those areas and the docks, um, are all covered under our Maya property policy >> and and the liability policy. >> Yes. >> Where's the cost for the separate marina policy? >> That's that's within the casualty and
liability. It's in that line. Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. >> That was my question too about whether it covers the hook. >> Yeah, we we do a very thorough like um analysis every year. Um we always have Maya come out and you know talk to us. We talk to other carriers as well,
especially for workers comp. We just switched carriers this year which saved us a bit of money. Um the other thing too is we just want to make sure we're covered. Um I don't know if you guys know 40 Lincoln Street over by this um high school middle school area. Um it's like that kind of like abandoned looking
building. Um Maya won't cover that. Um so we have to have a separate policy for that too. >> Thank you, sir. >> Any other questions on insurance and other benefits? >> Is the um 2.86%
increase in C. Is that panning out? Because I with California and everything, I thought that would go up more with all the fires. No. So I have a motion to approve the insurance and other benefits in the amount of $2,498,122. >> You do. So moved.
>> Moves. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Gar seconds. Vote. Dean. >> Yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Gar, >> yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Sarah says, yes. Can I just add if we find out in the
next week or two that the rate is actually 14% or 14 and a half on health >> if we revisit Yes. >> because the increase of $270,000 is is big money and you know lop 40 or 50 grand off that would be nice.
>> Absolutely. >> That's up to you right there. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We'll definitely do that. >> Yeah. Good. >> Okay. Next, >> we are going to go to the beginning of
the book >> and we are going to do select for town administrator expense on page 19. We're just going to go through this book, all the ones we haven't voted on in the
next 45 minutes. This is speed like we should have done like buttons or something. >> That's right. Speed data. Speed data. >> Well, if they were all two and a half% then it would be no problem. >> So we have select board town
administrator expenses. We have selectman salaries went up quite a bit. Sir want >> 19 >> the community the community communications
coordinator went way up. >> Yeah. So that >> I thought we put it a full-time last year. >> It's it's I I think you didn't in the budget but there was agreement that it was going to be a full-time position. So >> you get a year-end transfer last year
because it and then because it was after the budget. >> Okay. >> So this isn't a salary increase. It's the the salary for the full fiscal year. >> Okay. >> Uh there's a 2 and a half% there, but
it's not >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And professional services HR is a big jump. >> Yeah. That's our contract with Hamilton. So, have we expanded the HR service, Tony? Did we?
>> We We have not expanded it. Um I think we've consistently underbudgeted that line. >> Um so like our original estimate of what we thought it was going to cost with Hamilton was lower. Um and this is hopefully right sizing it because if you can look at FY24 and FY25, Yes. Yes.
>> it's it's more than what we've budgeted in the past. So, we're actually charged for the number of hours we use. Are we? >> It's 10 hours per week for the whole year. >> Okay. >> And so, then they do a calculation with like um a bunch of other different factors like, you know, partial cell
phone reimbursement, um things of that nature. >> Retirement. >> Yeah. Retirement insurance. >> And are you satisfied with that working setup with Hamilton? Is that a that that works well? >> Yeah. Would they be amiable to eight hours per week?
I don't think we want to cut on HR. >> Okay, >> that's where we get into large legal bills. >> Okay, good point. >> From having experience in the business world, >> maybe we should be offering more. >> Yeah, actually that was like my when you
asked the question, Pete, my hesitation was more so on the side of I wish I had I wish we had more hours. >> That's what I was asking. you know, is it enough? I mean, >> but it it it works. >> That's HR is big. >> It it it's it's it fluctuates. >> You know, there's
>> you you can never tell when it's going to happen, >> but it always happens all at once >> and then all of a sudden, you know, you don't have a personnel issue for a while and then all of a sudden contract negotiations come up or other types of things. So, it's hard to
>> it's hard to predict. >> And they're involved in the hiring process. >> Yep. as if >> there in Hamilton who does this on their staff. >> Same person. >> Okay, that's what I'm >> It's the same person who spends, you
know, some hours here or some hours there. >> Okay. >> We haven't noticed anybody stealing employees. Detroit. We have >> I have no other questions and you want to move it. I'd say the selectman
revenue is a little short of their expenses. >> We are uh we are proposing a change in the definition for short-term rental um that may bring in more licensing fees
under that change. So right now it's a six day >> Yeah. minimum. We're changing it or proposing the change of town meeting to align it with the definition that's in the zoning which is 30 I think 31 30 days. >> It's Yeah, I think it's that's a state
definition. Yeah. >> So, may bring in some new revenue there. Short-term rentals is another thing that we'll be looking at in coming years that could produce some additional revenue through fees. >> How does that get administered?
Right now through the select board's office there's an application form and certain paperwork you have to submit >> office. >> Yeah. >> Well, don't we also get revenue from the state? >> You're right. So then there's then we have a local tax. >> Yes, >> that's actually what I was asking about.
>> Right. That we're getting um that one's not really subjected to our definition of six days. Okay. >> Or less. I believe any any uh >> Airbnb, >> you know, anything going through Airbnb
or VBO or anything that's registered as short-term rental through the state. >> Uh if you when you pay for that rental, uh it's collected by the state. Yes.
>> And then transferred to us quarterly. And it's my understanding that there are administrative people in the town who actually try to track down properties that are on that list. >> Is that thought I thought the
administration would be tough >> don't have the you know don't have the approval from us but it's my understanding that that list doesn't include property numbers only streets. So, it's >> but you could be on you could be on that
list and be renting seven night minimums and technically you're not falling under our definition. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Any more questions on this budget? >> Just questions on the revenue on rentals for cell phone tower spring water. Is
that all just negotiated by somebody else and they say here's what you have, take it or leave it or is there >> I guess what I'm wondering is are we leaving any money on the table here or >> I mean those those should be
uh under some sort of lease agreement with the companies. >> Uh where they stand in their term, I'm not sure. Have to take a closer look at that. >> It just seems like it's a bulk of the revenue coming in. Yeah. >> area focus on
>> what cell towers do we have where >> we have at the older >> the old compost >> the old compost >> the water tower >> and the water tower >> and for ours >> police station >> police station too
>> I think I missed it here >> station cell tower which I believe is on the police station. Okay. Yes. >> School antenna, which I believe was the old compost >> and water tower, which is a water tower.
But there's also one at the new compost. >> That's a big one. >> Right. >> That's been there for years. It was at the transfer center for years. I don't see that listed. >> That might be the two together. >> How many carriers?
>> You're generally getting 20 to $30,000 per carrier. Lot of revenue coming through these things. Yes, sir. >> I mean, I'm just looking. So, the school antenna, there's one. >> It says Sprint. >> Yeah. >> Right. Water tower. There got to be two carriers there. I don't know who they are.
>> 147. I have no idea. That's a lot. >> It would seem like it's more than one cell. >> Now, there's also one at the marina. If that's on private property, >> we would church one. >> A church one. And the schools got schools got one. That's
>> yeah that would go to the district. >> Just just a thought to >> check on that at some point. Curious about the 147 though. >> Yep. >> It's probably the other two. >> Okay. Any other questions on this budget? Do I have a motion to approve
this life board town administrator expenses in the amount of 708,763? So moved. Second. >> Mory second. Vote. Dean. >> Yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Gar, >> yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter,
>> yes. >> Very, yes. >> Okay. Next one is legal and professional services page 21. >> Yeah.
I I think that um we've this is legal expenses is some as a is an item that we've typically needed to do a transfer at the end of the year to cover. Um, if we do have some savings
in health insurance or, you know, other areas, this is where I might suggest adding additional >> adding over and above than what you're suggesting here. >> Yeah. More than the 175.
I mean, usually we're able to I think we've been able to figure it out at the end of the year, but >> um >> but it's been we're closer to somewhere between 185 and 200 I think is more consistent.
>> And what about the professional services? What are we what are we spending that money on? That's a lot of money. I think it's just audit. I don't know. Can you speak to some of the history of that?
>> Yeah. So, um in the past we've used it for um the public record software. We use it when we first started that um recruitment the governance project um different consulting um projects with MAPC um emergency preparedness technical
assistance um and any like 40B related professional services not legal related. stuff like we needed a survey or that's a good example but that's what we've used that for >> and what's the justification for the big
change this year >> for just a professional services >> yes 75 >> no dropped into 78 um because that's been like our average >> because it went up the year before okay >> that was that changed the previous
>> not include Andrea the fundraising advisor for the um senior center there. There's Did someone get hired as a to to help in that fundraising? That that's not included in this. >> That's not a town expense, is it?
>> Oh, you're probably right. >> Not supposed to be, >> right? >> Is the town paying it >> right now? Yes. >> Yeah. I don't know. I mean we have there was some money appropriated for there was 50,000 appropriated for
something that's not in this >> that was for thematics so that they could they needed the schematics in order to raise the money. >> Yeah. >> We were very definite when we approved the million to acquire it. >> That was it. >> That that was it. And that no additional
town expenses would be spent on the senior center. So, we're paying a consultant out of here. I have >> There was something at the end where we agreed to fund a a minor amount. Yeah.
>> The 50,000 for the schematic. >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> So, there is that, >> right? >> Okay. >> But so, >> not the >> you need to be aware of that. >> Okay. Um, and then I mean in full disclosure,
there's also legal expenses involved in the negotiating of the sale, you know, so that's going to be falling under somewhere in this legal expense line item. We can't we we need an attorney to close on the property. So there's obviously
going to be cost >> spend as much in legal services if we closed on the property two years ago. >> I mean maybe >> just to make it clear. >> Maybe maybe so >> we shouldn't be suing as a loss either.
>> Okay. >> Are we close to closing on this? >> But how are we doing on that? >> Yes. >> That's a safe answer. >> What's the definition of close? It's >> it's changed. It's changed over time. We
are um >> closer than we've ever been. >> I I I don't want to put a time frame on it. >> I know you don't >> because I've done that >> already a few times. Um but
all legal documents are with the Masons. Uh we've discussed a lot of the changes with them. We're in agreement with almost everything. They're now >> they're now literally going line by line
on the track changes version of the document accepting or not. Um and I believe they're through three of the four documents. So, >> uh, I'm hopeful that we'll get, you
know, at least that narrowed down to whatever outstanding issues there may be, which I hope there aren't many, but it it's been the most even even our legal team uh, is it's it's a
it's the condoization of private property of a nonprofit with a municip. municipality on registered land. It is not a simple it has not been a simple process.
>> Well, I think don't think anybody understood because it was going to be signed before last year's time. >> Right. Right. So I think there's been a lack of exper I I would I would like to stand up for
the administration in this case. Um the the the way this contract has worked has been evolving is with many many many reviews mostly on the part of the nations.
So it's it's not that our administration's been apologizing. All I can say, Ann, is in October of 2024, >> I was told I had to rush
to complete the ZBA decision because they wanted to close the end of October of 2024. That's a long time ago. And they thought they were close. So there's something happened along the way
where there was a lack of understanding of what needed to be done to get it completed. That's all I'm the permit's going to run out and then they're going to have to start all over again. I would make a suggestion that maybe a town meeting and somebody
probably you Sarah or maybe some of the selectmen footnote this because the town voted and under the understanding that this was going to get pinned down two years ago, >> right? And I think when we have capital
related things that stretch like this, you we need to come in front of people and say this is this is happening and this is why >> you know because if we don't say something and somebody raises their hand, it's going to be less good.
>> Well, yeah, we'll be >> uh I mean we're giving weekly updates, although they're not much different by the week, right? um to the seniors, the friends, the you know the m you know
>> so we can we can Yeah. Yeah. >> You may get questioned on it. >> Yep. >> We'd be driving piles on the retunda right now if we had that million dollar. >> You want a motion? >> Yes, please. Motionally we approve
$2445,000 in the legal and professional services. >> I have a second. >> Vote Dean. >> Yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Car, >> yes. >> Murray, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes.
>> Sarah, >> okay. um finance committee and reserve fund 22 >> our salaries. So what's our hourly wage >> update we increase 28%.
>> We increased our income salaries to be more in line with what we actually spend. And the reason we spend a lot of money is because we have lots of changes to the minutes which requires the minutes to be rewritten >> at a cost.
Just >> so we paid $50 a meeting for a committee member to do it. We'd be a lot less. >> We are not going to pay $50 for a committee meeting member to meet >> to edit the AI notes and for the next
meeting. >> Do we? I mean it would give us a lot more control over what's said in this meeting. >> Members of the finance committee should not be controlling the minutes. The minutes should be created >> voted at the end. Of course,
>> they should be created out of the tape recording which is what's being done using AI. That still takes a person's time. >> Yes, it does. And then every time there's a change, >> I'm taking it out of the government
services whatsoever. >> What >> I I'm proposing to take that task out of the government hands whatsoever, put it in the volunteers accounts for a stipen, of course, but I I think it would encourage more resident
participation in these committees. I think it would do a myriad of things. I can't imagine anybody who would join a committee so that they can take the minutes. I'm sorry. >> It's just they'll feel like their that their words aren't being suppressed when
they're dissident. That's all. It would make it more forunt. >> Okay. >> What do you think that the amount in the reserve fund is realistic? >> I I I just want to just check in. I I
know it's remained fairly constant. >> We've spent some of it. I I think that what we've been doing the last few years is something I don't like and that is balancing the budget at the end of the year using the reserves. I
would prefer the reserves to be used for specific expenses that come up that we weren't expecting like we did for the match for the scuba gear for the fire department that that >> I think it's supposed to be
unanticipated. >> I just but I was wondering >> so it should be enough. >> Okay. I I well that's I just wanted to just check in because it's been fairly steady and I know we do a lot of >> it used to be higher. >> Yes I did I think we highlighted in
yellow as a place of you know where you could potentially go up but I noticed the trend of it seems like there was an effort in from 24 to 25 to reduce it down. So >> right >> um
>> been very effective I think in bringing funds within the categories I can't remember how it works quite >> right so I went back and I I wanted to look because I know it's been we discussed this before in the last couple years every year at the end of the year um my stress level gets higher and
higher every year to find out money um so I went back and I looked at how much did we use for reserve fund and how much did we use for interdep departmental transfers for the last five years um FY21 uh we had a budget of reserve fund
of 160. We used 127 and then we had 139,000 of interdep departmental transfers. >> Um so that's a total of 266. And then going from there FY22 was 345,000, FY23 is 354. Uh FY24 was $55,000.
Uh FY25 was $457. Um, so I just that's a lot. >> Yeah, it's a lot. >> So that's the total number of inter department transfers and the buffer if
you can't >> match up people in like departments is you come to us and we tap the 150. >> You probably didn't do this analysis, but uh would transfer to cover snow and ice be part of that? Yes.
>> It'll be interesting to see how much of that is snow and ice, >> right? >> We haven't used any in last. >> Yeah. >> One year we did. One year it was like 17,000 or something like that. >> Yeah. >> So, not a lot. >> Not a lot. >> Um,
>> so remind us again if if we don't have enough in fincom reserve and you're not able to do that, what happens? we don't pay bills and have a motion at the at a fall meeting
to correct this or what what happens? >> Um there's a couple different options you can do. You can either deficit spend that line, you know, say for instance, I'm going to pick trash. Um because it's one of the ones that you're not legally allowed to overspend. Um so if we had a deficit in that, we didn't raise it or
transfer money from another account during the fiscal year. um we would have have to raise it on the recap the following year. So that would reduce how much we have available for taxes for that current budget >> and then we would also get a reduction
in our free cash. So it's kind of like >> also get a reduction in >> in our free cash certification. >> It could double the double. >> Could you could you cut back on current services in the current year to make up for the shortfall? >> Sometimes like I try and keep an eye on
it at the end of the year. Um, some departments it's hard because a lot of their expenses come in June. Um, so I can't be like, you know, you can't renew your subscription. Um, you know, things like that. But I can say, you know, don't buy office supplies. But in
reality, that's not going to add up to $300,000. No. >> Yeah. >> Can you bring something at annual town meeting if you know? >> Yeah. So typically we shoot for eight and we end up for 10 with 10 because of the the
rain barrel effect and that seems to be where we want to be. I don't see a reason to change. We shoot for 8% reserves. >> Yes. >> But because of the stuff that comes down >> the reserve fund. >> No, no, no. This isn't reserves. This is
the finance committee reserve fund which is an allocated >> Oh yes. Yeah. Right. No, I remember it. >> We go through this a lot because we get confused. >> No, >> you're not the only one. >> I remember now what this is for. This is our only trump card to take care of an
emergency. >> Yeah. The expectation of this fund is if there's an unusual expense that comes up that couldn't be foreseen, >> right, >> that it comes out of this fund, but it's not supposed to be used for
>> foreseeables, >> right? for for foreseeables or for people failing to follow their budgets >> because the expectation is now we've used it for overtime a lot. >> Yes, great deal.
>> We have a couple of big prices due this year. That might be an unforeseeable >> usually usually that type of time is linked to something that was unforeseeable. you know, an injur injury on duty, an extended leave, you know,
stuff that you couldn't predict. >> Well, but we've we've beefed up the staffing, so we shouldn't have that issue very often. Sometimes sometimes it covers you, >> but um it's also usually if the overtime is high,
>> yeah, >> the salaries are lower because we're using overtime to cover people who aren't working. That's what it should be. >> So then that's the year end transfer >> rather than Yeah.
Motion. >> Yes, please. >> I move that we approve $150,000 for the finance committee in reserve fun. >> And how about the 6,800 for finance committee expenses? >> Oh, excuse me. Am I using the wrong
number? >> No, there's no total. >> Oh, there's no total. Um, add 6,800. So, I It's 56,800, right? 56800. >> Yeah. >> Y >> have a second.
>> Second. >> Second. >> Vote. Dean. >> Yes. >> Andy? >> Yes. >> John? >> Yes. >> SC? >> Yes. >> Lori? >> Yes. >> Peter? >> Yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> 39. Pension expense. We've already discussed this.
>> This is not >> right. This is what the state tells us we owe. And >> a number of years ago, we were told that it would start declining and it just keeps going up. And it's well the other thing is it's a
function of our level of salaries. >> Yeah. >> Not the cost of the retirement benefits. It's strictly based on our salaries. So the more people we hire, the higher our percent goes up. >> Yet the return should have been really
high last couple years. Way above their expected. >> The returns been very good. >> That hasn't been reflected. Is it a fixed percentage of our gross salaries? A fixed percentage of a grow of the gross salary.
>> It's an actuarial calculation. >> It's an actuarial. >> So they Oh, >> okay. >> Yeah. >> I got it. Yeah. I just thought it would be a contribution, >> but it is a present business and all the towns are wearing it. Yeah.
>> But it's got an actuarial component in it, I guess. >> Okay. Okay. Do I have a motion to approve 2,65,57 for pensions? >> Strong move. >> Second. >> Dean,
>> yes. >> Andy, >> yes. >> John, >> yes. >> Gar, >> yes. >> Lori, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Sarah, yes. >> Journs and other benefits. We already did. Okay, we're all the way down to
building departments, school education. We skip page 63, veteran services. >> Is this the one that we share with Foster? Well, what does it mean to share? What is what? I'm not sure I'm familiar what we
share. I mean, how we how this works. >> Our veteran service agent. Um, >> so part of the cost of the agent in in >> service. >> And then we have the veterans benefits
>> which is a property tax cut. No, it's >> separate. >> It's Can you explain what the veterans benefits is because I always get it screwed up. >> Sure. So, the this veterans benefit line covers any um veterans that are eligible
for reimbursement for like medical expenses, um home energy expenses, um things like that. Um and it's it goes through the whole veterans process through the veterans agent. Um, and so that they can vet that it's a qualified
they're qualified to get those costs and then they submit it through the state and then we get reimburse 75% the following year >> and they administer the the benefit. >> Yes. >> But we we pay 25% of the benefit as the
town they live in >> essentially. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Essentially. Yeah. We pay 100% and then reimburse 75. >> Yeah. >> And it's not optional. >> Correct. No. >> I move we approve veteran services for >> I move we approve veteran services for $22,750. $22,750. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Yes. >> Yes. >> Andy? >> Andy? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> John? >> John? >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Moy? >> Moy? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Peter? >> Peter? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Sarah? >> Sarah? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Okay. Now at Now at debt service. Can we do that before debt service. Can we do that before we've done capital or should we wait?
we've done capital or should we wait? >> Oh, wait. Okay. >> Oh, wait. Okay. Debt service. Debt service. No. And that is all the town budgets. Is that correct? >> Unless you want to do prior year bills or oped. >> Well, we can do OPED and prior year bills.
>> Are we going to have a visit from Dan Sherman this year or not? >> Not later. We said >> later. >> April. >> April. >> Okay. >> He's the actuary. >> You sent that to us. >> East pension and Okay. So if you want a quick
liaison update, CPC approved the recommended. They went down to 100,000 for the housing and they put 350 to the retunda. >> Fantastic. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So these are separate warrant
articles. >> So >> I'm sorry. >> Andrea sent this today. >> Oh. Then I >> and she sent us three documents. One was the budget. >> Yeah.
>> One was the explanation of changes and one was the separate warrant articles. >> If you can't find them, I can read them to you. >> Please do. >> Please do. >> Yes. >> One is OPED paying from taxation
420,000. And I think the reason we came up with a 420 was because Andrea talked to Dan Sherman and we were going to put in 360 I think and he said if we put in 420
that should fully pay up our unfunded liability which means in next year we can pay 450 odd thousand of retirey premiums out of the trust. We won't have an OPIP contribution of 300 odd
thousand, but we still the premiums we pay out of the trust have to be offset by a normal cost of about 100 120,000 which is the amount we're setting aside each year for active employees so we don't get to the unfunded situation
again. So when they retire all the money saves >> this is what we discussed earlier, right? Yes. when I correct it again like this the end of June of 2026 would be a full revaluation year all of our calculations are based on the rollover
year >> right >> um but like I think when you look at it I think we were did better in our um investments so I think I think that the 420 is a good number to go with this year >> okay >> so depends on how investments do so it's
not >> I'm sorry did you send this today because we got >> yeah I didn't see it I guess >> um I got something that said draft proposal revised budget which is the big book and I have an excel spreadsheet which is summary of budgets to date >> and then we have a word doc which is
proposed budget changes by revision >> right so the second one that you mentioned open that there's a different there's a tab on the bottom >> okay tab >> so the spreadsheet has a tab on the bottom >> tab sorry >> thing >> also it's also on page 15 of the big
book Oh, >> first. >> Sorry, that was my bad. I was telling you the pages. >> I know. >> Okay. >> So, do I have a motion to approve the OPED trust in the amount of 420,000?
>> So, moved. Do I have a second? >> Yes. >> Any discussion? >> Dean? >> Yes. >> Indie? >> Yes. >> John? >> Yes. >> Scott? >> Yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter. >> Yes. Enthusiastically.
>> Terrible. Jess. Okay. The next one is how are your bills in the amount of $1,867? Which means we didn't get the bills in by the deadline. And what are they, Andrea?
>> What? There's two. One is for um equipment um which is like about $300. And then the other one is for um John Gilo who does our um >> public relations for police and fire.
>> Yeah. >> And so these were not ones we forgot about because in prior we Last couple of years we've had ones that came in the town hall and didn't get to the right desk, but these weren't that.
These just didn't come in. >> They didn't come in. >> Okay. Makes me feel better. Do I have a motion to approve the $1,867 in prior year bills? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Where's the money coming from? >> Andy taxation. Where's the money? >> This year's pleasure. >> Taxation. >> Yes. >> John, yes. >> Star, >> yes. >> Peter, yes. >> Yes. >> We just include it in this year's tax rate because we didn't
>> I I just didn't know. We >> Okay. So, we did that. >> Well, we're told we can't spend it. >> Is that it? We're done. >> Now, we still have What? Oh, I was going to say you still have your list of
labels still have >> that's everything. >> Yeah. Well, we have on hold emergency services, you know, >> which we put on hold because you were talking about a coastal thing to >> the issue is is are we in a position to
put that? I So I'm holding on I'm holding on that until uh final health insurance number. >> Okay. >> Uh our
waste collection number. >> Yep. >> That's another one. We I think you held that too. >> Yep. um capital >> and then
as I mentioned today, you know, legal expenses or reserve fund could be revisited if things shift a little bit. Um and then school you hear from next week. >> Did they did they do their was there on
the TW are they doing on the 20? So the the school committee did approve the budget that we'd seen and I believe that um under their their schedule that on March 10th is
when they finalize the appropriations for the town. And so they're talking to us on the February 26th. So we won't take a vote then, but we'll vote for it um on the 19th.
We probably could do it the 12th depending on >> how fast. >> Do we have any kind of read on how Essex accepts the school budget? Because that's usually a big factor at the end. >> I I think that this year actually
>> we're on good behavior. I think >> their percentage increase is less than ours. It kind of switched a little bit and >> Well, that's good. I think they still may need an override, but it sounds to me like they were supporting it, >> right? Okay.
>> Time will tell. Is that your sense, Ann? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> And that's it. That's an enrollment change. I mean, that's >> Yes. The aortionment formula. >> Well, I know it's one of the factors, but I didn't >> The largest factor >> largest factor.
>> That's interesting. It's minuscule difference and it just impacts the appropriation. >> We also had new valuations. >> I wondered if it was valuation. >> The valuation it's like they use two
years of one valuation and then one year of another. So there's one year of a new valuation in this year's appropriation. >> Well, that's why I asked. I I thought it might be a valuation, but it's an enrollment. It's both. >> Yeah, it's both. Yeah. Um,
okay. So, you gave us an update on CPC. Thank you, Dean. Any other leazison updates? >> Approve minutes. Yep. You gave us two sets of minutes. >> Two sets.
No, we have the minutes from February 5th and February 12th, >> right? >> Any comments on the minutes? >> Nope. I'm good. Right. Move we approve them.
>> February 5th and February 12th. Do I have a second? Second. >> Take a vote. Dean. >> Andy. >> Yes. >> Don. >> Abstain. >> Gar.
>> Yes. >> My >> yes. >> Peter. >> Yes. Yes. Thank you. >> Any card on minutes now? >> Yes. Goodness. Sure.
Okay. So, our next meeting is with the school on February 26. I suggest that we also start working on capital. That make sense? Because I don't think the school will take two hours. >> Okay.
>> I'm going to try to remote in from >> I'm going to be away, but I will try to remote in. >> Okay. Okay. >> We have a meeting with the school. >> Yes. Since we have no control over what what's it what is the purpose basically?
I mean we're sort of handed it, aren't we? >> Well, um we've had years where we've pushed back really hard on them. I think that we asked them to give us their budgeting philosophy and I think that I mean this year they came in with a
really high a real high number. >> Yeah. Beginning >> like you reported on >> and then it dropped way down. So I think it's worth them explaining to us what they've done >> psychology. >> It's just to educate us more on how >> they're setting their budget because
there was a time when we pushed them >> as our opportunity to kind of give input as to >> so it's sort of been an evolution getting to this place. There was a time where they basically said, "No, we're not going. You come to our meetings."
And that got a little uncomfortable. And then um and I think it's been very beneficial to have Pam here to basically just say like, "How do you guys find insurance and what are you worried about? What are the triggers that might send this budget on and off the rails?"
And it's been a very very useful back and forth >> and I think we're lucky to have it. And I think we want to keep I think we really want to hang on to this meeting. It's important. It's a huge element of our town budget. >> I don't think that's helpful.
>> Yeah. >> Uh for for if we do get into capital at the next meeting, would you be starting at the top, working your way down the list? How do you which capital item should we uh address? >> I think what we need to do with capital
is to understand the funding of the items that are on the list >> and figure out >> is it affordable. have a discussion about how long how many years the bonds
would be perhaps what the difference would be if there was different years used and to kind of get you gave us something last week or something about how they're spread out. I think it would also be helpful to know
what's hitting the fiscal year 27 taxes from the prior >> bond authorization, >> right? >> Um, and just kind of discuss that a little bit and then see if we're comfortable with that and then look at
the underlying items to see. And I think we also should talk about what makes what capital items it makes sense to pay by taxation and what we should bond. I mean we may
wish to come up with some number of saying if a capital item is under x amount it should be paid from taxation. >> Um I don't know but I think that's a discussion that's worth having whether we resolve anything or not. I don't know
>> and maybe touching to the extent we hit on, you know, the stuff that's been happening in the facilities planning. >> Yes. Committee. >> Yes. That would be real helpful. >> Yeah. >> Will you be able to talk to that? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, we'll talk about that too and
just kind of set the table and kind of see because we've had discussions on all these items. >> Yeah. We've already gone through them. Yeah. >> Right. Um and we didn't take a vote. We didn't really get we had nobody, you know, >> but Andrea, I'd be particularly
sensitive what what what what's hiding in the past that's suddenly going to hit the tax rate because I've lost track of that. >> Yes. And I included that in that spreadsheet that I sent. >> Yeah. >> And the other discussion is going to be how much of this bond to put uh outside
of the cap or within% cap >> that's paying for tax, right? How much of the bond payments will be outside of the tax rate versus within the the the two two and a half%. You know, we don't want to have an override bond, but
>> Well, well, that's why we haven't voted for debt service yet because the debt service is a piece that's within the tax rate. >> Yeah. And we probably need to have a conversation about the cash exclusion and the impact that has on the tax rate
because based on the proposal, we're reducing the cash exclusion which is meaning that the tax projected tax increase for 2027
is 2 something% not 2.5 because >> I I don't follow Could you say it once more? I'm not with you. >> Because we've decreased the amount of the cash exclusion, >> right? >> The cash exclusion is approved outside of Prop 2 and a half.
>> Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. >> And because we decrease that amount, then the increase in taxes is lower because we're not having a portion of that. So, I think we need to have a discussion. >> Yes. all of it >> on that which which then means the
impact of the bonding isn't as great if you're using >> almost half a percent >> you know >> from the reduced tax that fee which isn't a reduction but you know so I think we need to have that whole
discussion too so that people are comfortable with that and just kind of talk it through because I think it's very important what the impact is on the overall tax rate. >> Yes. Very. >> But yet, we also don't want to spread
projects out so far that we're paying them for them for the rest of our lives and we have other projects coming on. >> Yeah. >> I'd like to discuss putting the POS plant and the enterprise fund as well. >> Funded through the enterprise fund. >> Yeah, we'll discuss that. What portion
is Yeah. >> What enterprise funds are available for for funding things? Yeah. Okay. Anything else on capital that people want to make sure we hit on so that Andrea's kind of prepared? >> Okay.
>> Not for me anyway. >> And I think that will go a long way towards having us figure out what to do. >> Yeah. We will we also have the school business landing in here somewhere. >> Yep. >> So, you know, we're talking about our own debt. We're talking about all of
that, but this is also going to affect individual households. So, >> right, >> we need to >> Well, the long-term stuff we've been doing, we got to pick that up again because I noticed that that was in the 25-y year plan was in last year's Bingcon report and we haven't talked
about that recently. >> No, it's been a while. >> So, >> because it shows a problem working on current busy on. >> Yeah. Okay. Anything else? With that, I'll take a
motion to adjourn. >> All in favor? >> Hey, Andy. >> Very good, Sarah. Nice job.