30 call this meeting of the Manchester BC select to order. >> Jeff >> here. >> Brian >> here. >> Kathy here. >> Ann is here. John >> here. >> There. >> There. >> Okay.
Um the first first I should say that this meeting is being recorded. Um the next is uh public comments on non-aggenda items. Okay. >> Nothing on one.
>> Okay. Um that there is no chairman's report. We can look at the um the uh action items.
I know there's one I think. Yeah. Um quarterly review of the town administrator is scheduled for a year before now. >> A year ago >> 2026. >> Okay. The rest we'll put that in there.
>> I'll take it. I'll take it. >> Well, >> I'll probably cost >> I'll probably do it for another month or so too >> until I get adjusted. Oh, >> now the uh the last time we did
quarterly review uh the police chief and fire chief were before us as well and we had a quick discussion after that that the board felt that wasn't necessary that the quarterly review with the fire and police chief should be between the town administrator. So I took them off
but left mine on. Um but uh just want to bring up at the next uh I'm actually away that week of our next select board meeting. So after this we >> so we have to uh talk about whether you
want to move the next meeting up a week back a week or just wait until the following February third. >> Yeah. want that 5050 as to whether or not I'd be able to call in because I'm also on vacation that week and flying that day. So,
>> it's a Tuesday the 20th is not a Monday. I thought we were going to be >> right. Yeah, that Monday. >> So, we have some scheduling to discuss. >> Um I don't get those days. >> Uh yeah, and I'm probably calling in on
that the 20th also. So >> Kathy is away on the 20th of February. >> 27th. 26th. >> 26th. >> Okay. I'm I'm away the week of the what is it? The 20th. >> Yeah. 26th. >> I'm here on the 26th. If you guys want
to do the 26th. >> I'm not here the I'm away that week leading up to March 1st. >> You've gone two weeks or you gone one week? >> No, I'm gone one week. So I depart on what? The 26th. 27th May. I I guess I'm I'm gone the 20 I don't know what it is.
I have to look at >> Would you leave on a Monday? >> No, I leave on a Saturday and return Sunday, a week later. >> So the 26th I can do the 26th. >> I think John is saying that maybe when he's not here. >> We can
figure it out offline another Yeah. >> outside of this meeting. We can we're allowed >> How's the agenda with even two religious space going to be on the agenda at this point? I have some um we have a national grid hearing that needs to uh be taking
place. We have uh the quarterly review updates on budget, things like that right now. >> I think there's no point in our meeting on the 28th if you're wonder the tw I'm going the 21st to the 28th. Yeah.
So, I will uh re >> connect with you guys and we'll pick a date, >> but John's gone the 20th to the 28th >> and and I'm I think meeting in another week is
either way, we're going to have two two meetings a week apart. So, >> yeah. Fine then find some time when we can meet. I will. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else that should be on the
actions list that is not. Okay. Um the next item on the list is the tree policy update and >> yeah um so sorry for the last minute
addition this morning um the uh there was a meeting myself Chuck Dam Ruth Fitzgerald and Jody Morris from Friends of Trees um we met right before Christmas to discuss um an approach for
updating the tree policy. So, I don't have a tree policy here for you to review with updates. It's more if we can get aligned on the approach, which is a two-phed approach, then we can take some next actions and and um do the refinements. So, basically, um as it
says in my note, the tree hearings we've been having over the past few years have uncovered areas of confusion uh surrounding the tree policy. So that's why, you know, we kind of all feel like it needs some updating. So we're recommending a two-phed approach. Number one, which we feel is a just go do and
could be done very quickly, is to fix the public shade tree definition that's in our policy. Uh there's an assumption written in the policy. I think Debbie actually included the policy in in the package. Um but there's an assumption in
there regarding the location of the right of way, the public right of way. And we'd like to eliminate that assumption, for example, that it's 11 ft from the pavement and some other verbiage that is unique to Manchester. Um, we'd like the tree uh public shade
tree definition to simply state that the public shade tree, it's highlighted in yellow on the paper here, any tree with within or on the boundaries of a public way, okay, other than a state highway and is further defined in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 87, Section One. So
basically, we don't want to redefine what a public shade tree is. The state already does that and we'd like to have that be the definition in our policy. So if you agree to that, what I can do is I can redline the policy, bring it back
here for formal okay >> review and you know, but we feel that's kind of a just go do and I'll >> Okay. So this is this is section E of two definitions that you would replace. >> Yes. >> Okay. Yeah. So that's that's the first
thing we can get alignment on this eliminating our unique definition. Um the second aspect here is we feel there are other changes that need to be made but we would like to have more input than than just either the select board
discussing amongst ourselves or you know the friends of tree and DPWs working it together. So we are proposing a small ad hoc task force to to address the items A through E on the on the sheet here. Um basically it's around
um clarifying any areas that are confusing um understanding the best practices in other towns and cities specifically what should be in a town bylaw versus a policy. Um and and the big thing I I
think is really establishing standards of care for the town trees um the roles and responsibilities and then you know if there's what kind of enforcement fees etc. So those are a lot of things that we have. Our current policy kind of
dabbles in it a little bit, but there are other tree policies and other towns that have a little more structure, a little more um clarity, information, and we feel with the right public input, we
could improve the tree policy. So um we are recommending a small task force to go do that. Um, personally, I didn't discuss this with, you know, Jod and and and Chuck and Ruth, but, um, for me, the task force is inviting people to
participate if they choose not to because they feel they don't need to. You know, that's fine. We just want to give people an opportunity to have a say um, in how we improve the policy. So, that's kind of item number two. And I'd like to hear feedback from the select
board. And then and then we have a number of members here from friends of trees and I don't know if Chuck or Ruth is on on the call from DPW >> who is going to be on this ad hoc committee. >> So that's the the bottom statement here.
Um so DPW so we did kind of recommend Ruth from DPW because she's in in all the nitty-gritty. Ruth Fitzgerald um a member of the select board. Concom certainly friends of Manchester Trees.
Um we'd like to get some input from the tree company that we actually use to do the pruning and care of the trees. They they probably have some input. Um certainly the tree warden and um an atlarge resident.
So again, these would be inviting these people to participate. They don't have to. They don't want to. But I certainly um you know we the discussion was myself, Chuck, Ruth, and Jod and the four of us thought this would be a likely group of people who would have an
interest in and helping us improve the post. That's >> We don't always use the same tree company, right? It goes to bid though. >> Um we usually Well, Chuck's on the call, but I think we use the same company
primarily. >> Yes. >> Um have to see. >> But if it's a larger project that triggers procurement rules, we'd have to put it out to bid. Um I don't know if we have like a multi-year contract with that company to service our
>> Yeah, Chuck can go into the he explained to us was that there's a primary tree company, but for some reason there's a sense of urgency or they can't get to it for scheduling, they would call in, you know, the secondary tree company, but we pretty much >> Right. So I I can chime in. Uh we we do have a on call contract with a tree
company. Uh it's a tree. It's a three-year contract and it's you know we have bid items in there for each kind of tree you know size and what they have to do with it whether you know takes a crane or a climber and all those types of things. So that's kind of the standard that we start with. But like
Tony said, if there was something different, you know, as part of one of our other projects, like a water man project or a roadway project that required additional work, like that would be done with a different contractor. Theoretically, we haven't really had much of that, but that would
that's how it would work. >> Thank you. >> Anything else from the board? It sounds like to me, this is me being me, sounds like we don't, we're not in any hurry because, you know, my feelings about committees and
kicking things down the road, everyone's going to have a say and >> uh I I frankly think that the group that met, >> okay, >> uh the the little group you had before Christmas is is perfect as far as just
working out the policy. then we can roll the policy out then if anyone wants to comment on it. But uh to just to get another another committee together, another working group together. It seems to me is is like we're shoveling excuse me, shoveling stuff.
>> Is there is there a timeline that's expected for this committee to come up with a final recommendation or maybe we should establish one? Is there like >> I think it's great if we do establish one. We did not discuss timing specifically. However, you know, I think
before spring would be nice. >> I I was going to give them six months, but >> Oh, yeah. May we hear from the friends of trees at some point, Jody? And >> I want to make sure that everybody on the board had a chance to >> Yes. I noticed your hand up.
>> Thank you. >> Um, so my name is Jody Morrison. I'm actually the president of Friends of PE. I have a few board members back here that have joined me and I think there are a couple online as well. So, I really just want to speak to support um Kathy's leadership in getting this on
your agenda, getting this what seems like a minor change to the definition, but it is something that the DPW has been asking for, it seems like it was an easy change. Um, and as far as the ad hoc committee or the whole idea of revisiting the tree policy, couple of
historical points. We adopted this tree policy in January of 2021. Um, I should say I was not involved at that point. So, it's easy for me to come in and say, you know, what it should or shouldn't do. But, interesting enough, if you look at other towns and you look at the work that the Department of
Conservation and Recreation has been doing over the last five or six years on tree policies in Massachusetts, I think when this was put together in 2021, Manchester was a little bit ahead of the of the board of the game, so to speak. And I think it was something that
um has matured. Let me put it that way. I don't think this is going to be a difficult thing to do. There are so many policies out there. They have the again the DCR has a recommended approach to developing a tree policy looking at what our goals are, looking at what we
currently have. Um there's just a nice runway for us to use. Um, but I do think having a broader group involved than the DPW and the friends of trees, which is basically what we have been doing together, is important because this is
important for the whole town. People t people do talk about the trees. They do want some removed. They're shocked when some aren't removed. I think we need a ground swell of understanding across the town of how we do feel like our trees are important to us as a community. they're part of our architecture and
living, you know, infrastructure. So, I do think having a broader group, not to slow it down, but to just make sure that people are aware of what we're doing and that we present it um in in full form and whether the deadline is spring, I
think we can certainly manage that. >> Do you think it's likely that we will need a town bylaw? do the the DCR recommends that you have a bylaw. Um I think when we started this, my understanding looking historically, let's come up with this treat policy. It's not a bylaw. Let's
kind of try it out, see how we like it. I see no reason why not to do that again to so to present this as a policy, get everybody to understand it, and maybe do the bylaw the following year. But generally, you want to have some kind of um authority to uphold the rules,
whether it's you're not allowed to take this tree down and there's a fine if you do or whatever it happens to be. It's hard to do that, I think, without a bylaw. And Tony can probably weigh in on that. >> Well, I was I was also wondering I I was wondering the same thing because of uh
being a Tree City designated community if that required some sort of general, you know, simple bylaw. or if it just requires policy. >> It does require a policy. >> So, and we we have had a policy, but my understanding is that they have not
added it has to be a bylaw or you know any kind of a law. >> So, we're not going to try and put together something for April. >> No, >> not for town meeting. No town meeting. >> It was more for the the the growing season, for lack of a better phrase,
rather than trying to get something for town meeting. Yeah. >> Okay. But I I think you know Brian's bringing up a really good point. Is there a way to get that input in a different way? Um you know just working the small group that we had. I thought everybody was, you know, all on the same
page, so to speak. And then once we recommend some changes, going out to these other um, you know, uh, members to see what, you know, get their feedback, be get targeted feedback, um, and then perhaps through a communication campaign
with the residents, get their feedback that way. You know, I'm not opposed to doing that. >> Your point, why are we reinventing the wheel? If a DCR has all these policies out there, we can the small group can adopt what they feel is uh fits the
needs of the communities and then that becomes the uh foundation for our policy. >> But my experience, we put a lot of people in a room, they're all going to have ideas and it's going to take forever. >> Okay. I mean, I think >> that's just my opinion. >> I think the issue is, you know, we're
not going to start with here's a whole list of policies. I'll take one from column A and one from column B. A lot of this is is what do we want to get out of this? Do we want to protect our trees more than we are today? What are we willing to say is important to us as a
community? So, some of it is kind of coming up with the baseline, you know, like writing the policy is the easy part. What do we what do we really want to do? >> So, do we want to protect trees during construction? How are we going to do that? >> So, those are I think those are broader
questions. I get that. But I I believe that we make the circle bigger. There's going to be individual agendas. All right. and we're going to be beating our head for a while as opposed to I trust again you I
trust the friends of trees and I you know and I trust the DPW to do what they've been charged to do and now we're just asking you to further define what you've already been charged to do and with our help create a
bylaw you know you come up with a foundation for the bylaw then come back and then we'll put on the law >> I would say that the friends of trees already has a great deal of information and and given a lot of thought to to this already. So I do think uh we could
like you said we always talk about this being iterative a little bit because um you know we wrote that policy in 2021 I guess and then we had the hearings and okay we realized where some of our missteps were. If we take the iterative approach, do some things maybe maybe
make a couple of changes to the policy and and do that do it that way, we can we can get the input we need, you know, through some communication to the residents and ask for feedback. And so I'm not opposed to what what Brian's
proposed. I don't know. Chuck, what do you think? Yeah, I think it definitely at I think it's going to have to go wide at some point no matter what, right? So, there's no harm in us kind of drafting it and continuing it as a draft and then
um you know going going wider with more communication and more input. So, I'm I'm fine with that. Another approach would be to start by asking by having a a a forum >> and getting
that might this group would be able to bring in other people if they had so start with by by publicizing that we're working on this and and we would like community input. It can be written. It can be show
up. It can be Yep. Yeah. And maybe, you know, I I think, you know, Friends of Trees has a great sense as to what some of the questions are, right? You just spouted a few of them right there that we, you know, need answered from the community. We have a very targeted
campaign and get feedback. I think that's a great approach. >> I think we can do that. >> Yeah. >> I need I need I need your help, Kathy. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> But that's great. So, I mean, if you guys are okay with the first item, just I I would like
>> to move that we change um paragraph E of two two of the definitions of the public shade and town tree policy to state that a public shade tree is any tree within the boundaries of a public way other than a state
highway and as further defined in Massachusetts General Law, Chapter SE 87, section One second. Any discussion? >> Jeff, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Kathy, yes. >> Ann says yes. So, we don't have to have
a >> John >> and John says yes. >> We don't have to have another meeting to discuss that one. >> So, just from a process standpoint, when we've updated policies in the past, we had to redline them, bring them in for a first reading, and then do a second
reading. We don't need to do that in this case. So, do we need to do this? We don't need to do that in this case. >> I mean, I think that's when you're making just a quick adjustment. Okay. You know, if it was like a a full rewrite. >> So, the next next version we might have to have the red lining.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Once we go through this process and come together with some suggestive changes that'll be a little bit more formal, but this is pretty simple and I think >> sounds >> we could just make the adjustment. >> All right. So, I'll take that action to do that.
>> Right. And um that are we let's have a general consensus that the group that began >> um we'll start by soliciting input from the town >> and um working on a further rewrite and
that the meetings of that group be that the meetings be open >> and publicized. Yeah. Uh, Ann, are we going to put a timeline on all of this? >> I think we would like for them to report back >> um
>> 1 of May. >> Okay. >> We don't have to have a complete work product first of May, but >> that we would like to have >> So that goes on the action. Yep. >> 2026.
Yeah. >> You want to make you want to make it a true ad hoc committee. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Okay. Sounds good. Thank you. >> Is there anything else that the friends of trees or the friends of friends of
trees would like to add to this? >> I think this is great. We'll produce something for sure. Okay. >> Just understand. I think the committees are where good ideas go to die. And I understand where you're having
fun. Sure. Thank you. That's good. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. >> Appreciate it. Thanks, Chuck. [Music] Uh I forgot to get the papers today. >> Oh well that's how we again. Yeah it's
that time of year it is right. Um next item on the agenda is leazison of updates. Um, I can certainly state, but
none of the committees that I attend have done anything, but that's not true. >> Yes, Jeff. >> I don't I think >> Okay, Brian, >> I remember did we before or after the
ZBA approved the uh Chicago building or not? I forgot. Uh that was anyway Chicago building >> it was they met before >> so we've already >> but but our last meeting was the joint
meeting with the finance committee so I don't think we uh >> all right so Chicago uh after you know long conversations was uh unanimously approved it's on its way to the planning board now uh that's the
pox and wreck uh everything's going well. Uh I think that they will have their naming policy before us very soon >> and their recommendations and uh not only like the uh town
volunteers will not uh you know just need to vote on A, B or C or something like that. So that's uh I know they've got I think three or four and I don't know when that's going to make the uh the agenda
next to me on 121 and beyond that other notes I have >> actually had all my committees actually had very long meetings right after so um quickly u so if I can ped um one of the
co-chairs David Saunders um is resigning from the committee. He's just got a lot on his plate. So, we're going to need to post for a new member there. I think that'll be um I anticipate easy to fill. There are a number of people who regularly show up to the meetings and I suspect um we'll apply for the open slot
once it's posted. Um they did um see I think it was bike and ped maybe it was downtown improvement uh one of my committees uh asked about the prior commitment that we had. I think it was downtown improvement to follow up on
redoing the signs, the ones that were um uh posted around town that had the font that was too small. >> Um they just wanted an update on, you know, are we going to redo those? Are we not? Where does that stand? I thought
there was a commitment to redo them on the next order, but we've seen some other signs pop up like trail signs and stuff like that. It wasn't clear if we were going to get um >> yeah, the way that the last I had heard we we were open to,
you know, increasing the font size on those potentially just, you know, layering over the existing. Um, but we were wanted to have like a discussion of what that cost was going to be and how that would impact round two and whatever the
budget is. So, >> not sure who's actually >> that's the point. They're they're not clear because it's not really a committee responsibility. So, they're not clear who's taking the ball on that and where that stands. So, if you wouldn't mind just giving me something I can relay back to them, that would be
helpful. >> Okay. Um the MBTA um advisory board met as did the passenger rail committee. Now the MBTA advisory board has a new chair. Uh the Medford mayor is um taking that
role now. Um Boston University performed a comparison of the MBTA against peer systems and we should be getting a report that will be published in early 2026. Um, one of the things they mentioned, Tony, is that the board has regular
meetings with members of the state legislature and member cities and towns are welcome to attend those meetings. So, for example, when they meet with Bruce Tar, would you like to yeah, >> you know, attend. So, um, so the I'll get you the name of the person you just
send the request to and they will include you in on those those meetings. Okay. Um the big focus this year for the tea though is the World Cup presentation um uh changes they need to make to support all those people going to Gillette. So we'll see how much
attention is given to those of us on the Northshore. Um the interesting comment out of the passenger rail committee was we had a parking discussion. So, um the senior director of advertising parking and station access
presented um some parking information and it was really geared towards increasing parking at MBTA stations because that is a uh barrier to many people using the MBTA. They can't find a parking spot. So, I asked, "Well, what
about the times when that lot is empty? Can we use those spaces?" And he said, "Yes. So there is um a licensing approach they have that we could potentially license the parking spots
during periods of low utilization. So oh Tony, I didn't know if you wanted to follow up with him or you want me to follow up with him and try and get some more info on that, but maybe we could do that on summer weekends when you know not many people are driving to
Manchester to use the tea. Um, so anyway, that's a thought >> and have to drive through, >> right? >> Run the gauntlet right there. Go, no, I'm going over here. >> So maybe we could leverage those for extra spaces. >> Is there a cost for that or >> I don't know, but there's a program they
have that they will license. And what they said was I asked how do how do people pay for those spaces? They said in most of the lots they use license plate readers. Do we have any of that? I'm wondering if they even >> charge at all.
>> You don't have that here because it's a shared >> lot. >> The MBTA ones are kind of block not blocked off but they are >> labeled, >> right? But usually those license plate readers are when you have one entrance and one exit.
>> Yeah. >> So I I think it's a free-for-all and it's it's a underutilized asset in the town. So, I think we we should pursue that, especially if they're willing to license the utilization to us. Um, >> I think that's what they use at the garage in Beverly.
>> Beverly. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But he actually he didn't say garages. He actually said lots. Most of the NVTA places in the suburbs like Andover and stuff like they don't have garages. They all have lots. So, I'm I'm wondering if it's really, you know, gate or if they
have something. I don't know. >> I I I don't know. We got to get more info. Back in the old days, you'd have to go remember the the uh >> it was like a big board and you had to uh find the number you were popped at, >> right? But >> yeah, they moved away from that.
>> Even the electronic version of that they moved away from where it's just, you know, there's no gate. When you drive in, it reads your plate. When you drive out, it reads and then it >> mails you a a bill. >> Yeah. It's either a monthly program or they mail you a bill if you're not on
the monthly program is what he said. So anyway, >> but it's not it's not like they don't have a camera in front of every space is my point. So I don't know how they would be able to do that. >> I don't know either. So anyway, it's worth digging into a little bit because they're always looking for revenue
generating opportunities. So that's that's potentially one. Uh the other thing I mentioned was that um I have heard from more than one resident. Um I think it was during the um festival by the sea um and during some of the
downtown improvement committee meetings. People would like that station to be a little more welcoming. You come off the train and we we would like it to be a little more welcoming. So that's one of the things I'll probably advocate for um as we go into the next year. But anyway, the parking thing was interesting. So
thought I'd mention that. And I think that's it. the one group that I almost we we met with the the U finance committee. So, we all know what
that's about. Um the board of health um had there's a move by the state to consolidate boards of health. Absolutely.
And and a first step is providing money for a pair or more of towns um to hire an inspector and it's a fairly generous amount of money. Um and Gloucester has offered to
join with us but the deadline was uh December 31st and the board of health felt that they hadn't had time enough to look at the at the proposal. Um and part of that was that took three months to look at the
proposal. So um we have informally been granted some extension but I think there is feeling on the board of health that their independence is important um and that
they don't really want to be a subsidiary of Gloucester. >> Sounds to me as the state would disagree. >> I this happened four or five years ago. Hamilton and Wenham and
Ipsswitch I think were forming a group and wanted Manchester to join them and eventually the board cup. >> What about now? What does Essex rather? >> Essics Essex is in with uh Essex took our place. >> Oh, in Hamilton >> in Hamilton with a Hamilton group.
>> What happens if we were to ask Essex to leave and come with us? >> Well, this may not be a good time to do that. >> Yeah. And they Hamilton that that group did extend >> another invitation to us.
>> Oh, they did. Okay. >> Uh but when they did, uh our board was already in discussion with cluster. >> Okay. >> So, they did reach out and invite us to their group. Again,
uh just to take a step back, the the added inspector services is kind of like a an add-on uh to the idea. What the state had done was an
analysis of local boards of health and how they're performing as to their requirements, their existing requirements under state law for reporting to the state and what their standards are. Um, and most communities
fell short of that because, you know, local boards of healths are typically underfunded and there's a lot that they're already obligated >> uh to do. So, the state then put funding to kind of help communities come up to
the performance level that they want to be at through a regional approach. So, the I think the the core of the approach is to actually help your board of health or your health department meet your existing
obligations as far as tracking and reporting and process. And then some additional benefit there is if we needed another inspector for whatever reason to come in, we could call, you know, the the regional
>> um agreement and and bring that inspector in. But it doesn't I think you're right you know that the board of health was a little hesitant at first because of how it could impact their independence but after the
discussion that we had and the follow-up information I think they're starting to see you know where >> there could be some benefit there. So is it so it's not combining boards of health, it's combining the town city
resources that the board of health leverages >> to do their job. But the board of health for Manchester would still be an elected absolutely um you know whatever board. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Here. Okay. >> Yeah. And so Glosser is already Glosser
is the primary town under the grant from the state and they're looking for towns to because it it is supposed to be regional. They've already brought in some staff paid for through that grant to look at their procedures, their
reporting, review the assessment that every town did and see where they're were underperforming. come up with re ways to, you know, meet that obligation and they've already done a lot of work there,
which I think could benefit us, >> you know, just be able to uh adopt some of those procedures. Um, so I think there's I think there's benefit there. Uh but certainly
I can understand you know a local our board of health and their concerns but I think that could be fixed with having some internal policy as to when our staff lean on that agreement and for what reasons. you know, they they
uh talked a lot about how when they went to the town to ask for the funds to hire a health agent, it was primarily to to handle those inspections. And so they were concerned that if they started leaning on the inspector through the
regional agreement that it kind of went back on their original intent. So that that they don't have to do that though. That could just be an asset to use when needed. So >> the money is specifically for new
service or new it can't be used to pay existing employees for what they're currently doing, >> right? So those are enhanced services. >> So there's no upfront savings. It would be additional down the road type savings.
Well, it's I guess it would be avoided costs is the way I look at it because uh we do have our department has an obligation, you know, to the state as far as certain types of reporting and all that. I don't know the details, but
um I imagine if we don't, you know, start to improve on those things, there could be costs down the road. So, this is a way to help us with that. So Glosser's approach is to really use the funds to standardize a lot of their
procedures so that if the funding goes away, it's in place and they continue to do it in house. Um, which I think we could possibly benefit from. So in essence, this is mutual aid just like you know
>> I was going to say it's very similar sounds very similar to even what um the chief of police uses that he taps that extra regional agreement he's got for July 4th and stuff you know um I agree it's an important approach and what I
would >> that part is like the the additional benefit the core of it is establishing standards within our existing staff and process. >> Y
>> um that so that we're meeting our requirements. >> So as you talk with the board of health, what I would encourage you to um help them understand is when it comes to compliance that is a target-rich environment for shared services. Mhm.
>> Regionalization is just a form of a shared service because there should be no differentiation >> between how Loster and Manchester and Essex answer this the state's question. Okay. Exactly. There should be no
differentiation. So it is a target-rich environment and it helps us practice >> um you know the behaviors we need for good um you know shared services agreements with other towns. So it's it's a very good use of that.
>> The question is who's whose decision is it? Is it ours or the board of health? >> Board of Health. >> And and I I guess I'm I signed the inter municipal agreement as well, >> but they have to agree to the interun agreement.
>> Yep. >> Yeah. To Tony, you said most board of healths are not meeting all of the state requirements with regard to reporting and other aspects. I'm assuming that there are probably some areas in Manchester where we're not meeting all of the requirements that the state has
set and that this would be the target for this initiative. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And and the other reason for standardizing um shared services around compliance is once you standardize the processes then
you can automate. Okay. Then it becomes even lower cost. So it's it's really important. We don't have the breath and the the girth to do any type of automation in that area, any real automation. But once you get a big scale, you can make it a lot easier for
people to do it right. >> I'm a fan. So >> yeah, there meeting Thursday morning. that discussion. >> Um, the consent agenda.
>> I' I've I've given my report yet and >> I was s out of mind here, John. >> Okay. Sorry, John. >> That's correct. >> And I I just want on the record, there really isn't much of a report to give. Um, the library and the HDC did not meet
since we've uh met last. uh the DPW and I were both out probably as much as we were in over the past two or three weeks or so. So, it's been it's been uh business as usual there. No, no new developments. The seniors continue to ask uh where we are with regard to the
uh purchase and sale agreement and perhaps you can comment on that Tony because that changes I'm not say daily but it changes maybe during the week every week and I I don't have necessarily the latest information but if you can uh update all of us on that in your uh in your report that would be
great. >> Thank you John. Sorry. Fine. >> Consent agenda. >> I move that we approve the consent agenda. >> Discussion. John.
>> Yes. >> Answers. Yes. Kathy. >> Yes. Brian. Yes. And Jeff. >> Yes. >> Okay. Uh we can start sighting.
>> Uh so before getting into the operating and capital budget, just couple other items. So, for the senior center, last last week, um Chuck and I met with members on the on the Masons and our and
John Harden, uh taking a look at the proposed um land. And part of part of the uh documents that'll be included in the closing is showing what is Mason's area,
what's the town area, what's the common space. So we wanted to talk with them about um where we were and we made some adjustments that made that a lot simpler. Uh so John is putting together
that there'll be the existing floor plan, the future floor plan, and then the um plan that shows what's common and what's town and what's masons. Uh so we had to do make a couple adjustments
there to make it simple. Uh the re the most recent versions of the master deed, the condo docks um have been shared with the masons. They were meeting today internally to go
through some of those and hopefully get some feedback, but I think we're pretty close. I feel confident that we're close there. The other document that I want to really wrap my head around is the side agreement. I think as far as the elements of the side
agreement post construction, I think we're all on the same page. Uh the part that I haven't really dove into myself is the arrangement between the town and the masons preconstruction.
Uh the this is another you know tricky part of this process here is that if we close tomorrow uh and construction doesn't happen for x amount of time in between that the masons are actually
on you know our side of the building and the space there that we could use in the meantime is on their side of the building if you're referring to a condo docks. So the side agreement has to speak a little bit to
how that works preconstruction, you know. So we're working that part out. Uh, and then we um had we had a request that I I emailed all of you and I did
not double check to make sure it got on the agenda, but we had a request uh for um track use or rec, you know, the track team uh to use the cemetery for practicing.
uh their season goes from December to the first week of February. So, they're halfway through their season. I emailed with them today to see what they, you know, how they would like to proceed because the policy says that there's no
recreation allowed. However, the select board can make an exception if uh if they desire. the um coach requested that it be brought in front of the select board for consideration.
Given the dates and the season, uh I'm asking him well how he'd like to proceed if it's something that uh they want to put in front of you for, you know, at this point it would probably be for next year. Uh and I also asked, you know, is there anything else? that there
alternatives that he's uh thought of that we could maybe help that don't have that non-recreational policy attached to it. So >> So this is not for Pleasant Street extension >> I believe. So yeah. >> Oh, is it for the cross country like the
long distance runners or not sprinters? >> No, it's long distance. Yeah. >> I guess it's a I guess the loop there is the loop there is 400 meters. it's like perfect for what they're looking to do. >> U but I can understand the pol the
policy and why >> it is the way that it is. >> So unfortunately I didn't think because it didn't make it on the agenda and people may want to weigh in on >> that. I didn't think we could add it to tonight's meeting. Uh the other the
other one I had sent you was about uh whether the state would whether we're going to send a letter into the uh speaker of the house about the special election for rep. Ferrante seat. Uh the day I sent that to you.
The day I sent that to you, they announced uh the special election. So we didn't we don't have that here. >> Is there a budget issue? >> There is uh the state will cover some of that cost. Uh so on Thursday when I meet with the finance committee, I'll give
them a heads up of what we estimate our cost to be. uh that's you know the reserve fund uh that's perfect for that type of request but we'll wait until after the you know the invoices come in to
seat the the reserve fund request but it's probably around you know it could be plus or minus a couple grand from 10,000 yeah luckily it may come down because we don't we may not be required to do like
extensive early voting. >> Okay. >> Uh on the culvert, I just we we got a first draft from Tai and Bond for our MVP uh action grant application. It's
extremely thorough, very pleased with it. uh where Nate is reaching out to our contact at the state to see if we can schedule a meeting to go through that with them uh prior to the RFP going out for the grant application process
because once that goes live, they really can't talk to us about our application. So, we're trying to get in to talk to them about our draft prior to that happening. Is this a draft of the design or >> No, this is the a draft of our
application for the grant. >> And since we're going for the most the $5 million, the largest uh amount you can ask for, we really need to make sure that we do a good job with the application. And they offered to talk
with us about it before the grant gets released. So, we're going to try and take advantage of that. Um, we have the Christmas tree bonfire this uh this Friday at Masco Park at 6 PM. I met with um the police chief and
fire chief at DPW today uh to go through our plan for that uh event. They did a very thorough job um putting together an incident action plan and I think we got all our bases covered. And as far as
forecast right now, it looks like Friday is probably the better day. So likely we'll go Friday. >> Uh to that point, and I asked Jake earlier, uh a couple people approached me about the asphalt itself and will there be any potential damage
to the uh and then >> we're moving it to the grass. >> Okay. >> Uh so that opens up parking, prevents the you know, we don't have to put sand down to protect the asphalt. his fans >> and uh it's better for crowd control. So, we're actually going to move it
over. >> Yeah. >> Oh, okay. Trying toward the W toward the south or >> it'll be like um in the outfield. >> Oh, okay. >> Basically, yeah,
>> that doesn't sound so good for the grass. >> Actually, it actually >> there's no grass. Yeah, I was saying >> it actually won't um >> better for the grass. >> It won't the grass will probably grow back better. We've >> in in the hot when we did it, we always
did it on the grass and we never had any long-term >> I think they do a little control burn and what no other burn. >> Yeah. So, we're so uh we're moving it there. >> Uh and then that opens up parking too. So, yeah.
Um, I interviewed uh a candidate today for the sustainability committee as well. Uh, so I'll put that on the agenda for our next meeting and then we can get into budget. Uh, so if you if you look to the
PowerPoint that I printed out for you, you've seen the first few slides there. >> Sure. I have that. Sorry, I didn't. I put it uh on it was there when you got here. >> Okay. speak that >> uh what I would suggest you do if we
skip to the end uh if you rip those if you rip that last piece off and put those two slides side by side it's probably the best way to have this conversation. So, where we left off with the finance committee, we hadn't gone into capital requests
yet. So, on your left, uh, in the green table, those are all of our capital requests, uh, and the recommended, uh, dollar amounts and the funding source. Um so road
resurfacing is this is our annual maintenance according to our uh paving schedule as well as drainage and sidewalk improvements. Uh DPW facility is is not recommended for this town
meeting. We still have more work to uh with the facility committee before we bring that in front of the town. general building upgrades is uh I think in the last year or two uh the town combined facilities you know under one
umbrella so that that's for all town buildings Bennett Street reconstruction that 150,000 that's for design um and then Tapen Street reconstruction is the full pro is the actual project so
we'd like to design Bennett street so that we can ask for the reconstruction costs in a future year. Um and then standard fleet replacement that's a part of our vehicle uh fleet schedule. Central Street Culvert is a
double backup plan to brick funding uh not being extended or MVP action grant not being awarded asking uh the town to authorize the borrowing for that. It's
possible. >> We know. Yeah. Well, we know >> Well, we wouldn't borrow. First of all, we wouldn't borrow it until we needed to borrow it, right? So, um, but it's possible that we hear back about MVP
before town meeting. I doubt we'll hear anything about brick, uh, before that. So, you got that at 5 million, but it's I mean, the project's more than that, right?
>> Uh, the the brick funding was like 4.7 That's really what's at risk. There was other funding sources from Mass Dot uh from and Noah and then I think we had our own some funding that we
appropriated in the past as well. >> So those other things are still in play. >> Correct. >> Okay. Y and with MVP uh the Noah grant can be used as our matching portion for state money but
mass dot cannot because you can't match state with state money right so we actually it works out well that we can use the no money as a match so I think what we do if we haven't heard yet from MVP or from brick uh we ask the voters
voters to approve or to authorize the borrowing, but we still wouldn't actually borrow, you know, we wouldn't borrow right away. We give ourselves some time to hear about what happens with MVP and then it kind of all works out to be a scheduling
thing. >> With that money uh approved, we could start going out to bid too, correct? >> Yes. Yeah. Uh >> permits first. >> Yeah. But I mean the whole process can start. >> Yeah.
>> You know, >> is this all this all angled for the fall of 2026 >> start? >> Yes. Yeah. That would be that would be the ideal sometime, you know, September to March is really our
>> primary window. So hopefully we get permits secured and then funding secured and we we're doing the project in the fall winter of 26. But if it
extends um then we're pushed off to the fall winter of 27 because we want to minimize traffic impacts during the summertime on uh you know right downtown and >> problem as well. There's also some
limitations with the fisheries >> and and we will have answer on these funding opportunities or possibilities plan A and plan B by that time right >> I don't know that they they told us that
the MVP action grant application process will get launched in January um you know we could find out late March It could be the week of town meeting, in
which case you'd still have the question on the warrant. >> You at that point, you'd still have you'd still have it included in the draft ballot >> from May. Um, so we'll just kind of have to figure it out.
>> When is our date for town meeting? Is it the third week of >> It's the four I think it's the fourth Monday of April. That's right. 27th. >> So that's really a backup backup plan. Um
ratunda unfortunately we were told that we did not get the SEC grant for the ratunda. Uh so we have two options there. We could do a borrowing uh through the town or we could do
borrowing through CPC. Um, going through CPC, you have two options as well. You could just borrow for it and then the debt service is paid out of CPC's annual appropriation. Or you could temporarily increase the CPC rate to
cover that debt burden until it's paid off to not negatively impact CPC's, you know, budget. Um the positive doing that way is you you get 15 20% match from the state so
you get some savings. Uh but it does increase you know temporarily would it either temporarily increase the CPC rate on residents or it would temporarily impact CPC's overall budget you know for however however many years that debt
service >> what would be the term of that >> Andrea put together a uh an analysis on that do you have do you remember how many years you were looking at
>> I was looking at 20 >> and that would be about I believe off the time I had $2,000 a year. $220,000 a year. It's about half of what their um expected revenue is annually right now. >> That's that's without a temporary
increase >> to the rate. If you did a temporary increase to the rate, I think that time frame shortens up. >> Okay. Does the time frame short enough or do we because we're currently at
about one one and a half. We could raise it to three, >> right? So I think that I think part of00 a year >> I think part of the analysis that Andrea was doing was to like to minimize impact
to their budget. So, if you raise it outside, if you increase it to 3%, >> you might be able to speed up that pay down. >> Um, but that's something for us to look at.
>> Uh, and then in accounting, we have the municipal financial software replacement. Uh, we're deferring on that uh for the upcoming year. it does need to happen but um we may not even be able
to con you know to complete that conversion in the upcoming fiscal year and given the financial constraints it's something that we felt like we could push off to next year. Um, >> is that something we're doing that's
unique or part of the um, you know, IT consortium we have out of Danvers collaborative? >> I think it's separate from that. This is this is financial software. >> Yeah. See, I'm just saying there's certain things
like we just talked about compliance. Finances is another one. We're not different. So why would we go off on our own to do something rather than leverage a collaborative? All those towns cities should be doing
the same thing. I I think >> I don't know what Yeah, go ahead. >> I was going to say I can answer that. I did speak with a consortium um you know like the town of Danvers is our you know kind of lead liaison on that consortium and we talked to them about you know they have munus a lot of the other
communities have munus um we used to have munus and you know we could go back to that but when we spoke with the vendor the vendor is not interested in doing um a group um contract or anything like that. um they would have individual like we all
have our own chart of accounts. Um yes, they're like standardized, but they're also all different. Um we have different enterprise funds. We have um it does vary a little bit. Um so they would still have to have our own um individual server
if that answers your question. So it is something that we've we've discussed. Yeah, I just think there needs to be more emphasis on those types of discussions because if you know a 20 billion dollar company can use one set of software to run all of its factories,
then the little towns and cities in Massachusetts can learn how to do its financials in a way that they can leverage software. But I understand, you know, that there's no incentive for the supplier, the software supplier to um
save money, right, for us, right? So, but I think we need to start leveraging um leveraging our weight >> um computer IT upgrades. That's again that's a standard IT
schedule um replacement in assessor. Uh the personal property valuation system and Patriot software upgrade are included. The Western Woods land
surveying and title research is not included. I believe they uh I believe there's a CPC uh funding for that. Um so we were able to shift that out
under the town clerk. We have pole pad upgrades in police um tasers and the police vehicle. Again, part of the fleet schedule. Same with the OIC vehicle for the fire department.
>> So, what's under fleet replacement up towards the top? What is that? >> DPW. >> That's DPW up there. >> That seems like pretty short money. Like Just one truck up.
>> Yeah, one truck. Each one of these are one vehicle. I I think all of our fleet schedules are track are for those types of vehicles are set up to do one per year. If you had to go get a front-end loader or a
fire truck, you know, something that >> right >> is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. We'd be looking at a it wouldn't be part of like your separate line. Well, what what's the police truck? >> Uh the the police vehicle there. I it
said police truck. I think they're going back and forth on whether they're getting an SUV or a or you know like an Explorer or a Tahoe or a a pickup truck or you know they're kind of looking
through numbers under the state contract to decide what's the best way to move forward. So truck is kind of an all-encompassing term. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's it's possible. It's I think that they we
I did speak with them as you can see uh lower on the list. Harbor Department had come forward with a request for a vehicle and they were looking for a an upgrade with the truck. Um, but we don't we we might be able to do it,
you know, if the police get a truck that can tow, you know, maybe we can do it better, more efficient that way rather than have two separate >> say an inventory of all of the I won't call them toy the trucks the vehicles. I
mean, we had done that for the fire department, right? >> Yep. And I know the DPW, but it would be nice to see what the little town of Manchester has for vehicles and um you know how many are new versus just replacing what we have. You know, it
just >> all of these are replaced. >> But the harbor asked for something new and we said >> that was right. Yeah. >> Uh so the these are all trade in for a new.
Um the cardiac monitor AED replacements um are recommended in here. They're I think they're all they're expiring. >> What am I doing?
>> It's actually the third payment um of a three-year payment for those. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The fire engine replacement fund is something that we typically do on an annual basis. That's something that we're uh deferring.
So that would mean that next year if it's time to purchase the the truck, we'd have $600 something thousand to come up with versus just the additional three. So I think the town's approach
has been to kind of put a port a third of it away each year or so much of it away each year so it's not such a big price tag when the time comes. But again, we don't we're really in a tight uh spot this year. So, pushing off on
that firefighter equipment. I think that's uh hose replacement. I think that's what is required to be replaced. Um that I mixed up with the cardiac AED replacement.
Uh the construction funding for the ADA bathroom at the library. As you can see, we have that listed as a capital exclusion. Um, and then under the harbor, uh, you know, there's the trailer, the
vehicle. Uh, both of those we're not recommending. Uh, we don't have, you know, we we we kind of looked more into detail about how to approach that. the the vehicle that Harbor has
is in need of replacement. It really doesn't satisfy the needs there, but we can get another year out of it. >> Is there a way to hand something down from another department? >> I think >> when we trade these vehicles in, we're getting nothing for them.
>> The trade in the trade in we're getting it. It's better than uh surplus actually. we're getting a better value on them than surplusing it. Plus, uh, when you do the trade in like that, it reduces the cost of the new vehicle
versus when you surplus a vehicle, that money goes into the general fund. Then you have to appropriate, you know, the complete cost of the new vehicle. Um, I believe their truck, their Ranger is a handme-down
from the DPW or something like that from the past. So, it's >> Well, I'm just thinking the vehicle that we're looking to replace, but >> you know what I mean? >> Still most of the vehicles that we're turning in have
>> pretty much had it. They pretty much had it. >> I want to Tony, I want to go back to the library bathroom. >> Didn't we at some point in the past uh learned that the cost was not $300,000 for this ADA bathroom?
>> Yeah. I have an I have a note on my spreadsheet in my on my computer that that may come down. We still expect it to be, you know, in the 200,000 250. >> Right. Right. As I recall, >> that may that may be reduced.
>> Okay. I think the bathroom was 160 or 170 and then there needed to be some modifications to accommodate the library director. Yeah, there's that's why >> put it all together it was 200 >> could be like 220.
We're we're waiting for the 90% design and cost estimate to come in any way now. >> But Tony just on but on on some of these vehicles I mean what is the typical um life that we're getting out of them?
Mileage years. I mean, the police cars are on the road, but >> police cars are probably the shortest life uh because they're constantly in use, constantly running. >> Um
I'll have to look at the fleet replacement schedule, but all that is it's all in there and kind of estimates what your typical lifespan is of each. >> Can you send that to us because I I really would like to understand what >> y >> when we think they're done. >> Yeah. Well, the problem with like DPW
vehicles and stuff. You're fighting Ross. You're fighting. >> I'm not talking about I'm, you know, we're talking Harbor Master. We're talking other vehicles that are not, you know, there there's so many different types of vehicles. >> I I agree. I've seen the master vehicle. It is that thing is done and it's
useless for them. So, I agree with that. >> Um, you know, fire admin vehicles, you get good life out of those. the police admin vehicles, you get good life out of those. But the police patrol vehicles, >> they're on
>> they don't last that, you know, I think we have that scheduled so that you're you're on a schedule where you're replacing one every single year. >> Um, and you know, none of them get older than probably six or seven years old, whatever the it's in the it's in the
schedule. >> Okay. I'd like to see it if you could. >> Yep. Um the other in the under harbor is Morse Pier. We did get that grant that we we were notified that SEC approved
>> was I think that was an SEC grant. Um we did get the funding for that. So that 116 is our match >> and that's going to wrap the pier all the way around. >> Yeah. Yep. And then we have a separate grant
which I don't think we have any match requirement that will extend it to >> the bridge. Yeah. From re uh so I I felt you know it was important that we put funding towards our match obligation there.
Um the public safety votes unfortunately we did not get the grant uh for that. uh we still have a need there, but we think that we can figure out a way with the funding that we have in place to satisfy, you know, our public safety
boat issue. >> We have two Well, we have two harbor masks, right? >> But then don't the fire don't the fire department have one or the police department? >> Uh fire has a inflatable Well, it's it's
not an inflatable. It it >> it's a rib of some sort. >> It's a rib. Y >> um so our the safe boat that we have uh is really costly to the town as far as running it, maintaining it. Uh, so
>> it's >> there's there's other versions of a safe boat that are less costly that we could pursue and probably >> it doesn't work very well because it has you have to have two people on it which makes it
>> that was the discussion we had last year, right? >> Yeah, we've had that discussion a few times. >> Total cost of ownership includes staffing. I'm confused because the the public safety votes
are list were listed here at $217,000. >> Yeah, that that's what the request number had come in. I don't think we added >> Is that is that the match for the grant? So, we're talking about a million dollars worth of votes. >> Uh that
there was a double counting in that 217 number. >> I hope so. We started looking at it and talking through it because I think the town had appropriated some funds for our match in a previous year >> um that we can use to
uh you know as an alternative way of dealing with the issue. But um so that request was high it was I think it was a mathematical error and I don't think I >> it's breathtaking. >> I don't think I adjusted it here. Is that right Andrea?
Yes, that's correct. >> What is the actual number, Andrea? If you know, >> we currently have set aside 116,000, which was the original um estimate for the grant for the U match for the boat grant. Um when we went to apply for the
grant, it ended up being for two boats instead of one. And therefore, the amount of the grant request increased to the two the two number that you see there. But even for two boats
>> been on the boat show lately. >> I'm going on to go find you. >> I'll be busy. I always do. >> Yeah, but we're talking two million. There's there's nothing.
Two million. >> I don't think so. I think >> there's an extra zero. No, the I believe the two total of the grant application was almost about $800,000. >> What >> or two boats?
>> Two boats. >> Sorry. >> Having recently bought a boat. I mean, even looking at even going just going to the boat show and and and dreaming that's ridiculous. Just doesn't make sense. So we need to understand >> was going to be outfitted for the uh
fire department. >> We just need to understand >> but follow up with >> I don't know I don't I have two cars I don't know >> I I I have some idea of that but um I wonder why we need firefighting
equipment on the harbor. I think part of the well I might be wrong here but my understanding was part of getting the grant was because it had fire apparatus on it. >> That might have been but sometimes that is a an element of a grant. Yeah.
>> But we haven't had anything that's on the shore. >> We have a fire department and I there was a fire a boat fire. >> Yeah. Right on the right on the town ramp. right on the town ramp.
>> Could have been handled by the fire department. >> It was Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> if just if we don't have a grant >> Yeah. It's about, you know, our fire department. We pay to protect our infrastructure here, which includes, you
know, our town, our >> if something happens out on the water, you know, we're we don't have to entirely devote our taxpayer dollars to that, right? I mean, there should >> I think I think the idea was that if if
you had a fire, remember when Mata Marine burnt? >> Yep. >> Like years ago. >> Yeah. you could fight it from the water side if you couldn't get access. I mean, I'm not saying it's gonna, you know, >> wait, we eventually,
>> right? I mean, >> but like you said, it might have it might have been might have been a thing of the grant. >> If you include that, then it made you eligible for a grant. >> That's what that's why I >> which then covers >> X% of the town's cost. So, sometimes
that's how you get to that point. I I the I guess the board, right? >> The boats that we currently have, I think together didn't cost us $200,000.
>> I don't know how that might have been. >> It wasn't. I'm not sure how I'm not sure how it how we acquired those >> like the safe boat if that was >> the safe boat was the Coast Guard decided that those particular boats were undesirable and got rid of a bunch of
them for very low money >> and then we repowered it though at some point >> because we were told that those engines were we were paying just for those engines and then two years later those engines weren't weren't any good anymore. So >> yeah. >> Yeah. Well, doesn't look like it's
happening. >> Okay. Anyway, >> yeah. >> Um, dredging that is, uh, I believe that's a match as well to a grant. Um, and then we have sewer system
improvements and PAS. So if you look at the table with the blue on it, um the far right column is,
you know, the requested amount verse the recommended amount which is the budget that we put together. The biggest issue here is the school budget. We're about $800,000
under what the school requested. So to me, when I look at, you know, if I take a step back and take a look at what the challenges are for us this year, that is definitely a major issue for us. And then when you look at the capital
spreadsheet and you have Tapen Street, uh possibly Central Street Culvert, possibly Ratunda Library, ADA bathroom dredging
and water system uh PAS >> that's six override questions. >> I I have a question about the PAS. So, this is just for Lincoln Street. Well, but how far away are we from round two
of this? >> Uh, I think the as far as up at Grley Pond, >> I think the the good news is that it doesn't sound like we're going to need uh an additional building or a building
expansion when it time when it comes time to do Graly Pond. So, it shouldn't be as expensive as this project. But Chuck's on the call. He can answer. >> Yeah, the the requirement for that one will be uh by 20. Right now it's
supposed to be 2029. EPA might extend it to 2031, but we will be, you know, it won't be in when this project is over, you know, meaning we're done paying for it. So, it will be, you know, in the next five years for sure.
>> Yeah. So, you you've seen the long-term capital plan that Greg had put together, you know, even if you look just to next year, um potentially having the DPW facility designed, potentially having
Bennett Street reconstruction, potentially an elementary school, um senior center, you know, those are That's the other challenge that I see is,
you know, how many questions, how many override questions and what amount, how much, you know, how often are you going to ask uh, you know, residents to support that. So, that's the that's the big challenge. So I, you know, I look at the list on the left, you know, Bennett
Street reconstruction design. We could roll that 150 into the borrowing for Tapen Street and that would free up $150,000 of taxation that we could put towards school. Gets us a little bit closer.
There's another 50,000 43,000 that is untouched currently in in in our budget. So, you're getting closer to the school by about 200,000. Um, you could, you know, road resurfacing we
have funded through taxation and fund balance. That could be a capital exclusion question instead of a uh school uh override question and take that 450,000 and put it towards the school
budget. and then maybe the school comes down a little bit. Um we're also looking at OPED. So we have two years left of uh funding to get fully funded to OPED.
Andrea's get get has been talking with uh folks yesterday and today uh I'm sorry today and tomorrow and getting a final number on that. It's, you know what we could do is we could ask the town to do a
general override to fund the cost of fully funding OPED and then a general underride to kind of pull it off. It's just a technicality. You can't do a debt exclusion, a capital exclusion for that type of
>> need. So you could pay that off through an override this year, eliminate the burden this year or next year, and then shift those funds towards the school budget. >> Only buying you a year, though. >> Well, we'd be full. If you do the total
amount owed this year and next year, it would get us fully funded. >> How much is that? That's what we're >> Oh, you still >> There's a Yeah, we're >> I guess is what happens next year, though.
>> Well, so we >> You got all these capital projects coming next year, too. You're going to be in the same position. >> Cap the capital the capital issues are going to stick around. going to continue to have those. >> On the operating side, once OPED is paid
off and CST is up and running with some new tax revenue coming in, um I feel better about that. But that's a couple years down the road. So on the operating side, is there a way to bridge that bridge that gap?
>> Yeah. But if you're talking override, you're not talking about something temporary. You're permanently increasing. Well, on override I'm using as a general sense. So on so if you did OPED, it would have to be a general override, but you'd vote
in a general underride that would kick in right afterwards. >> For the others override questions, uh it's either borrowing or, you know, a debt exclusion or it's a capital exclusion. Capital meaning >> you raise it in that fiscal year. debt
exclusion, meaning you borrow for it and once the debt hits down the road, it impacts the tax rating. But either way, it's six, possibly seven, depending on what adjustments we make here, you know,
questions. I we talked a little bit with the finance committee about rolling them, you know, trying to group them together in a way. Uh but it sounds like the common practice and preferred practice is to be specific on those questions
that that fund is for this project, you know, versus a larger amount for a number of projects. >> It's been a while since we did a general override. like 10 or 12 years.
>> Yeah. Your first year on a job is >> um >> yeah three >> 2026 isn't starting off good for me. >> But I'm what I'm what I'm saying is it's hard to say what our general practice is
since we haven't done it in more than a dozen years. Well, >> I guess uh capital there's been capital exclusion. There's been capital exclusions. >> There have been capital exclusions. There have been debt exclusions, but there has not been an override,
>> right? Because we've relied on the increasing property values and and asset growth, property growth to cover the increases in spending each year, >> right? But for example, if we >> that's kind of leveling the other way now, right? if you if you know if you
tried to group some of these debt exclusions into one. So instead of having three questions, you had one. But uh I guess the common >> the preferred is that is to make them specific. So you don't lose two things because the third one
isn't popular. >> Right. Right. So do we know >> what the so would look like on the tax rate? We're doing an analysis on that for each, you know, for each one of these questions.
>> So, I think it's important. I personally would like to see a chart on the growth of the tax bill, you know, not the rate, okay? Because the rate is just a distribution mechanism. >> Yep. >> But what people see when they get the bill, right? the past, you know, four
years and what we are projecting with >> Well, but that's hard because so it isn't consistent. >> No, I know. I'm just you take your average average home value >> and and and on that same graph outline
what the inflation rate was that year. You know, it's easy to find those. Okay. And the reason I I say that is we spend a lot of time talking about individual things which by themselves are very important. Okay.
But we're talking about we've had some pretty big increases in in people's tax bills and it's getting it's not getting any better. And I don't know anybody that's getting a 5% raise, let alone a 7% raise or a 10% raise. And then you
add on top of it the health insurance increases that have happened. Okay. I know my bill went up by 30%. >> Yeah. >> We don't want to kill people and send people out the door. So I just would ask that we have a chart that shows in some
form you you and Andrea work it out whatever you think makes sense but shows the trend line. Okay. for the total spend we are asking of the taxpayers not just the operating not just the you know they get a bill and the only two line
items they see your tax and CPA I think right >> when that's what they care about the bottom line what does it look like and what are we projecting it's going to look like and I just think we need to think about that before we make final decisions >> I think
I think the challenge with that because I'm I I'm right there with you. You know, I I look at these things and try to think about what's the impact and what's our obligation, you know, and our responsibility. Is this a is this a need
or is it a want? You know, I I go through all that. Um and even some of the needs I've said, can we get another year? You know, >> there there are some wants on the list. There are some things that are wants and and
>> I honestly the honestly I think this is narrowed down to to less you know to needs and less than what we truly need to do. I think we've tried to narrow this down the there are things you could say no to but there's a
compounding effect. see the issues. >> No, I'm talking about things like I mean, did we have the the senior center design in here or did we pull that out? Was that not in capital? >> We don't have that in here. >> We don't have that in there. Okay. Because that's a want because we said we wouldn't fund that with tax dollars. >> Yeah. >> As much as we love the rotunda, right?
Can we do fundraising to help offset some of that cost? You know, no one's going to it it's it's important to the town, but it's not the same type of important as public safety and drinking water, right? >> Agreed. And so that's that's >> problem the problem I think with the
rotunda is that I don't think you have the time. I think you're going to get a good storm and that thing's going to be in the water. So, a lot of these things, that's what kind of where I was going is that a lot of these things, you know, when I
look at this list, you can't really wait on PAS. >> You can't wait on even dredging. >> Uh you can't wait on Tap and Street >> or Design for Bennett. Uh the Culvert, you really can't wait on
>> the >> You know, a lot of these things are >> Why can't Why can't you wait on Bridging? Uh I think because we have a grant, I'd have to look at >> Okay, fine. If we have a grant, but also the but
>> the other part of it is similar to road resurfacing or fleet >> Yeah. >> or fleet schedule or uh drainage or sewer improvements. Like you could wait, but these things just get more costly and
they continue to get older. dredging, >> you know, it gets worse and worse and worse each year. So, you try to stay on a schedule >> to to keep right because don't we do every 10 years we try to do another section. >> That's very theoretical.
>> Yeah. >> I I just think it's something we need to look the the schedules are good. Okay. It's good to have that. It's an operational it's a plan. Okay. But to your point, deferring a year here,
defer, it's not going to be the end of the world for everything. You're not going to defer everything, but sometimes we have to prioritize. And I don't think we've had a prioritization discussion. I still don't know, you know, are there other sources of funding? You know, you're right. We
can't wait on the rotunda, but there maybe there could be a friend of the Rotunda community that can do some fundraising because, you know, >> Yeah. I'm not saying that that's not a thing, but I think it should have been a thing. >> I agree. >> Years ago, >> if you give me a choice between the
culvert and the rotunda, my vote is for the culvert. >> Well, how do you know the culver can't wait another year? >> That's true. >> So that not not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the other side, the other perspective here is >> some of the reason we're faced with this
challenge is because of that process in years past. >> Understand? So many things have been deferred. >> I agree. >> And that's why that's what I said all coming. >> We're the uh >> stuckies. >> Yeah, we're stuck with 50 years worth of
kicking back here down the road. >> But but all I'm saying is schedules are a plan and depending on like the even the vehicle schedules we talked about. Okay, you have to do the the cost analysis to really understand if you can wait another year because the technology
changes whereas you know >> the problem the problem with vehicles is you have >> but you need to physically look at each like you can't just look at the numbers >> and say this vehicle is good or it's bad. You need to physically look at that vehicle just like a house or a building.
You need to physically look at it and see. >> I don't disagree with that, but I'm just saying a plan. >> Plan is just a plan. >> You can't have >> you can't have a truck. This is right. And this is what the town of Wenham does. They drive stuff until it stops
and they park in the backyard and then they have >> we can't have a call, right? >> Whether it be police, fire, DPW, harbor, and you go to turn something on and it doesn't start. >> I understand. That's not my point. My point is a plan is a plan and in you
know 10 years ago maybe the plan was every five years because stuff wasn't built as well it is now and now we've increased it to seven years or whatever okay have we taken another look at the plan to see whether or not seven is the right number and I understand you do have to use you know look at each
vehicle etc but I'm just talking about the generalities that are on the chart okay we we stick to the plan when it makes sense to stick to the plan Okay. But it never hurts, especially when we're in dire straits, which we are right now, to to objectively look at the
plan and understand the total cost and whether or not you can or cannot defer because sometimes you have to pull stuff in because the to to Jeff's point, the vehicle's falling apart and you plan to replace it two years from now, but you can't wait, right? Yeah. >> So plan is just a plan. We we have to
>> I get I get what you're saying. >> Yeah. I I mean I'm looking at the whole list here and when you're talking about vehicles and other things really we should be talking about the big money items. They're really half a dozen big money items. They're going to drive all of the borrowing or whatever we do,
whether it goes $50,000 or $100,000 for any of these other items. That's not affecting the finances anywhere near as much as those other items. And I think we need to get a kind of a discussion on the big items and that includes, you know, I'm looking here, PAS, the DPW
facility, um, you know, Tapen Street, uh, the the Culver, the Rotunda, etc. and and see what people want to do to prioritize here because that's where the money is.
It really is. The rest of the stuff is I'm not calling it a rounding error, but in in the aggregate it's several hundred,000. It is not millions of dollars and these items are millions of dollars. I think what you want to what you want to the to in addition to what you just
said, John, is looking at the items that are in the taxation or the fund balance columns. >> Yeah, >> that's what I've looked at to try to see, you know, is there a shift there? Because freeing up some taxation or fund
balance could be used really on the taxation side could be used to help solve the deficit in the school budget. >> Well, let's go the school. I mean, that's the elephant in the room here. >> Like for instance, road resurfacing.
You could move, you could do a capital exclusion for that 450,000, but really only 300,000 of that you could you could put towards the operating budget of the school. >> It helps, but you're probably still
looking at a question of an override of some sort for the school in addition to that, you know. So, >> but that's not solving the problem. Yeah. >> Right. that that's that this is the process that we're going through right now. >> Okay. >> I guess what I'm concerned about is
though that we're going to be in this same position next year. This is what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. Because I mean especially I mean you have Bennett Street
potentially senior center potentially DPW uh public safety building design and then on top of that school you know that's a big >> So yeah so anything we push off a year
we're just dumping on to next year's disaster. >> Exactly. Exactly. And that and that and I think that's possibly part of you know what the past what's happened in the past is we've
rightfully so the town's been constrained on what it could afford and reluctant to ask residents to put more towards these these items and then it kind of just builds and builds and builds. I mean looking at the documents that
Greg had put together for the finance committee meetings in the past he's kind of put that you know 10 20 30 year outlook on for capital and >> you know yes once old debt comes off and new tax revenue comes in it gets old
school >> that we're paying now is supposed to come off and help >> relieve >> but these next two >> sound like the debt's coming on faster than it's going Not I mean we're not retiring. >> That's one of the reasons why we need to scrutinize every new vehicle, whatever
you want to call it, boat, etc. because, you know, a certain number of years later, it becomes something that you have to replace when maybe you didn't have to buy it in the first place. You know, that's it. It's it's it's scope creep, if you will. It's financial scope creep. I I I agree I agree with what
you're saying, but I think to John's point, >> the vehicles are not putting a dent in this thing. >> No, I'm not talking about I'm just talking about why we were so picking on the boats and stuff like that, you know, because it's not that we're trying to
pick on the boats. We're trying to not add stuff that has to be replaced. Okay, this is why we're not taking a total cost of ownership view. And I keep saying that. We're just talking about a point in time view and it's hard to make financial decisions when you're not
looking >> it's a every town deals with that challenge and it's you're debating you know when you're looking at it just through the financial lens >> but when you're also you know
>> what >> we're making a lot of assump level of service >> what's the level of Service is the other coin, the other side of the coin. >> Yeah. >> And we don't talk about what we don't do is present the information to the residents in a way that we can engage
them and get their feedback on what is important to you. Because if this was a business, you'd outline here's the cost of doing X and you can have, you know, bronze level service, silver or gold. What would you like to pay for? Here's what it would cost and here's the
benefit. People want gold and they want to pay for copper. I mean, I don't want to pay for pretty expensive >> honestly. >> But, you know, that's we we present the information in a way that just talks about what we're spending and it it's
not a it's it's not as helpful in having a conversation around priorities. That's all I'm saying. I mean, I think that that's why you have all these >> meetings leading up to town meeting, you know, where >> you're having a discussion in the in a
public forum. You try and do more and educate people on that leading up to town meeting so they can uh make it educated. >> Yes. I mean, maybe some of your newsletters, right? Your your letters in the Cricut or whatever and blogs. And I
think we don't do enough about that. We don't talk enough about here are the decisions we're weighing. Do we do X or Y? >> I mean that >> send us your feedback. You know, >> I think having six or seven
debt exclusion, capital exclusion override type questions. That's exactly what that is, right? So leading up to that, it's explaining to them the pros and cons of voting in favor or against those questions. That's literally saying
voters, we don't have the funds within our budget to accomplish these things. If we want to get these things done, you have to pay for it outside of your >> and but phrasing it in such a way that they still understand the total amount
the aggregate the accumulse 10 things your tax bill might go up by $500 and your answer might be different. So, how we present financial information has a direct impact on whether or not folks wake up, I guess, is the what I'm
trying to say. It's so I just >> what I'm worried what I'm worried about is 500 bucks this year, 500 bucks next year, 500 bucks the next, you know, this is what I'm worried about. >> Yeah. >> And that's what I'm that's what I'm seeing here. >> Seeing more than that. >> Well, yeah.
>> Yeah. >> My college. Have they ever tried forums on capital? That ought to be a snoozer. But it may be something that, you know, we need to do or the finance uh finance group needs to do that to to really let people know
there there are choices that really have to be made here because I think we're sitting here and we're not sure which ones we we don't know how this prioritization should go and I think if we survey each one of us, we'll come out with a slightly different order.
I mean I mean to Tony's point though I don't I don't see what you can cut out of this and turn this thing around. I don't see it. >> Yeah. It's really I mean the the
operating budget as you can see it's even if you take out the uh the 794,000 that lower part of the blue uh table you know if you take out the school every every category we've
reduced the public works is really because of the trash. Uh so, you know, we've tried to be as conservative as possible and we're still running into these issues. It's really driven by,
you know, the school operating costs, health insurance is a huge one. >> Grants that we've lost. I mean, we've lost quite a few grants for the rotunda and everything else. >> Yeah. I mean, that's your capital. That's capital side, you
know. I think you when you prioritize this, it's it's your operating side and then you try to do as much capital as you can in your budget and see grants for the additional or ask for the, you know, taxpayers to step up. But
the operational side, you know, is where I'm most nervous about. But I also looking to the future on the operational side. I think it gets better in a year or two once OPED is off, CST is up and
running. You know, we have these other potential >> housing developments. Um, >> so we took >> school comes off in three years. >> So I think it's important though to actually show that in a in a chart or two. And I know you hate charts, but I I
think visually we talk in abstracts. And I think if you were to show, you know, the dips, etc. in a in a in a chart, it you can have a conversation. Some of the standards that we're currently, particularly, I think, in
terms of the roads, um, we've been using the the, uh, CO money and that's gone. But I don't remember I mean
the the Pleasant Street work um was much more extensive than and and Walker Road. >> Yeah. >> Than I remember roads being done 15 years ago. >> Yeah. They just
>> 15 years ago you grind it pave it. >> None of this dig up everything and replace it. But I think sewer projects and water projects have been part of those, >> right? >> So that's what expanded this whole road. >> Yeah. Well, >> you know what I mean? So they did this
water and sewer and then did the road. So that's what >> normally if you're just paving a road, you just pave a road. You're not digging it up to >> That's what's that's that first road resurfacing line, that annual resurfacing schedule.
>> Yeah. But like Tapen and Bennett are full >> uh sewer, water, drainage, curb, sidewalk, pavement. >> Yeah. The whole >> utility, you know, any other underground
utilities. So those major projects, >> but and Chuck's on the call like uh I don't think we have any after Bennett. Chuck, do we have Yeah, we don't I don't think we have any major projects like that
the following year if we might down down the road, but no pun int. >> Yeah, I'm still here. Uh yeah, we're not we're not looking at many I mean >> like I tried to say like we we have a
plan for we have a lot more water man to do but it you guys are right we we don't need to reclaim every road but certainly the ones that we've been to so far it's really been required. So you know there there are kind of engineering practice that we look to to make these decisions
and so that's that's why we've been where we've been and why the price has been the price and you know so on. So, uh, but I think after Bennett and Tapin, which is again a full water, sewer drain on both and sidewalks and, you know, roadway when we get
there. Um, you know, I'm looking at more just like cleaning and lining pipeline projects that, you know, only require, you know, minor resurfacing or a a mill and pave, which is probably what you guys are more typically used to, but it really hasn't been an option for the
roads we've been doing lately. Well, can you put a scenario for us together about paying off with a see what that >> Yeah, once we have what that total number is and put that together tax bill impact and
you know all all of that. >> Yeah. Um, we could, you know, we could just contribute a very small amount to OPED this year as well, >> right? >> Uh, but the town's been on a
so close to the finish line of this goal of paying it off. Yeah. >> Um I I'm not saying abandon the goal, but >> what once we paid it off, I I have some idea of the magnitude what currently paying year by year, but what we still
have to contribute for for current employees. What's the difference? What? What? >> Andrew, do you have a estimated savings in annual operating expenses once OPED
is fully funded? >> Um, I don't I'm working on that. Um, but it will significantly reduce what we have to we contribute because the trust will pay for most of it. So, so like but
>> so that's just a number I'd like to have. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, that's part of that. >> That's on my list. >> Right. So, if you get that right, then we can make a decision by maybe looking at some of this stuff and saying, "Okay,
if OPED's going to be gone in two years, that's it, right? Are there some things that we can delay for a year or two that we know we will be able to afford then because we'll have that that room in the budget, you know? >> Well, the the the OPED analysis that
we're talking about or possible alternative approach is an operational >> I understand versus >> capital project. >> I totally get it. But what I'm saying is the school budget, right, for example, we don't see any other trend there but
up. >> Right. >> Right. So I wouldn't want to go in front of the residents and ask for a real Proposition 2 and a half override this year. Okay, which would permanently
increase, okay, our our our tax umbrella, right? spend up to the to the living on it. >> Understand? But what I'm saying is we've got a two we've got a two-year operational situation which will get better, right?
And we're and the number you're going to get us is going to tell us how much better it's going to get. Once we have that number, we can make some maybe do a little horse trading which will help on the operational side because I I understand that capital is separate, but when you get that bill, when a resident
gets the bill, they don't care. You know, they don't care. >> No, I I completely understand. >> I'm trying to find relief wherever we can, understanding how bad it is out there right now. >> I I completely understand. I think the
only operational relief that you could kick down the road that I see really is OPED. >> You know, kicking a capital project down the road doesn't help you with the school deficit
uh here. You know what I'm saying? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh so that's why I I said that. But, you know, really what I I just kind of wanted to give you guys an update as to where we are with capital and what I see is kind of our biggest challenges. This is what I'm going to talk about with the
finance committee on Thursday night. >> Um, have you heard anything from Essex on this school? I mean, we when we met with them and they presented their initial draft, they they spoke about it as if it was
it was pretty uh conservative, like as if there wasn't much wiggle room there to reduce. They tried to be as conservative as possible with their >> this is the school or Essex.
>> But when we met with the school on their tenative budget, >> right? ESC. >> What does Essex say? >> What kind of position does that put them in? >> Oh, I don't I No, I haven't gotten that. >> I don't know what they're putting in for
their draft budget, what they have the school. >> They're in a slightly better position than usual because the the share their share had been going up. Not that it was as high as ours, but going up year over year. And and
>> um this year their share didn't go up as much. >> So it's just the percentage increase in the budget and not the percentage increase in the budget plus the fact for students. Uh so I will I'm gonna I think it would
be good to have capital and operating as a uh standing topic on our agenda. Um as boring and long- winded as it can be sometimes, but the finance committee is meeting weekly now starting this week.
So >> do they have the schedule yet? which topic they're going to do, which that's what they first meeting. >> I think they're going to figure that out Thursday. >> Um, and so I can report to you, you know, uh, and Ann, you go to the finance
committee meetings, too, so we can talk about what was discussed at a previous meeting and what, you know, kind of where we are in the process and which direction we're heading in. All right. >> Is there a motion move to return? >> All in favor? I
>> I >> I >> Thank you, Don. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Tony. This is good information. We do need to talk about the ex I do. I found you. I grabbed it. Thank
you.