meeting 6:30 I call meeting of the management by the sea board to order. Jeff >> here. >> Brian >> here. >> Kathy >> here. Ann is here. >> John's here. >> This meeting is being recorded. >> Um, are there any other committees still?
>> I think I need to wait a few more minutes a >> Okay, >> I'll call it to order once I have >> Okay. Okay. 6:30 sometimes. In that case, I think we will just sit
here until >> they grab a chair. >> Yeah, >> she have a meeting. So, yes. Sounds like you need to call your account. >> Um, Peter said he can't make it.
Can't be one, two, three, four, five. Who's the other one? >> I'm sure he is. He has a very definite opinion. And we have a >> call planning board meeting to order. We
have Brewster. Yes. We could we could get started and start ourselves. >> Yeah, we have some non-action item stuff to go through first. >> Yeah. >> Um >> so the first thing is the town meeting
procedure and >> right >> you wrote that down. >> Yeah. So we called you all together uh to do a little bit of a rehearsal for Monday's meeting. this being Eli's first and my first, we thought it would be and I think the tradition is typically to do
this on Saturday, but we thought we'd get it done tonight. Um, so I think you know, Eli, I'll pass it off to you and Michelle's here to But as you in this handout I provided all of you, we've we've put together the uh voting
thresholds for each article and you have a copy of the motions. >> Okay. Well, this is going to look a lot like it has happened here before. Um, in fact, a lot of the opening comments are going to be precisely the opening comments you've heard before. The entire
sequence will be the same. Um, so, uh, we'll open the meeting. We'll have the, uh, the customary traditional offices voted in. Um and will be um
uh asked to make comments right after that. Uh hang on. Uh we're going to have closed captioning. It's going to be slightly different from before. It's going to be we don't have a person on site. Lots of people are doing closed captioning now. So the closed
captioning would be >> um but it will show up. >> Yes. Yeah. >> So, a little bit extra technology layers in there. Um, so after most of my opening comments,
um, I'll recognize Ann. Um, we have more than we don't need them. Um then we'll go through the methods of voting uh theft vote and um
couple of general comments that I'll make before we get into the articles dive into article one two and three are fairly basic. Um, in all of these articles, we'll do it the way we have before, which is, um, for the most part, I'll read the the main
motion um, and the mover and the seconder, and then turn over the podium to whoever is making comments on that particular article, unless the article doesn't have anybody who's going to make comments. I have a list of uh, the
articles that people look like they're making comments on. There are several that we don't. Um, if that's going to change, let me know and uh we'll update the list. Um, >> yeah, I'd like to be added to 11 through 16.
>> 11 through 16. We already have um Kathy on 11 and John Round on 12
and Jeff Delaney on 13. Brian Sollessy on 14 and on 15 and 16 we don't have anybody. >> So you want to be recognized in addition to the other speakers. to Yes.
>> All right. Um, we can we can we we had those down there, Sarah, before knowing that you were intending to speak on those. So, some of those we might pull select floor members off just to keep it keep meeting. May not be necessary to have
both do opening comments. >> Okay. Let me know. >> Yeah. I don't spend talk a long time except maybe for four and five. >> Mhm. Um, okay. Well, uh, speaking of a long time,
uh, so this particular meeting has a lot in it because we didn't do the zoning in, um, the fall. Uh, we also have three citiz articles in addition to the regular finance articles. So,
it's it's unclear if we're going to go to two nights or not, but the way we looked at it, we did some analysis of the how long we think the the various different articles are going to take. We think it's going to take a bit over an an hour maybe to get through the
planning board articles. So what we did is we structured the warrant so all the financial articles are at the front and if we get to um around 9:15 and we haven't finished the financial articles before then once we finish
financial articles we'll be looking to journ to the next day because otherwise uh every projection that I can make would have us carrying through to 11:30 or later good last articles and I think that that would be a healthy thing to
do. So, uh we'll make that decision a little bit on the fly. Um read the room a little bit, but uh the decision point will be around 9:15. Um
article one, nothing fancy about two and three. Um in on article four we're going to do it the way we have um done it in the past which is we will go through the
high level um uh departments and if people want to express holds we'll deal with the holds afterwards but individually and then we'll go back and we'll u uh go go with
the main motion. Um, want to make sure I'm absolutely clear. You call out holes on say police on the individual >> on the individual lines in the police. Um, do you just put them on hold and
then wait till the end of everything and go back to the police or do you deal with the police questions then? >> I would deal with police questions, Dan. >> Okay. Um and then uh
article five is capital and that is nothing fancy. Most of the other articles all will be dealt with the way they normally are >> under the um article five. >> Yep.
>> Is it okay if I speak to the other capital items separate warrant articles in my opening? Um let's see the other are there are
quite a few um >> right just in a general sense of impact on tax rate sense because I wanted to kind of do something globally to pull everything
together seemed like >> I should have said that actually we we recognize you in front of article four forgot that part >> yeah which is operating ing and then five capital. But then we have
all these other capital articles >> and >> and you like to split out those comments to do from operational and just focus on capital after we >> Well, I can think about that. >> I mean,
>> it may be that I can >> make those comments as well during article four comments. Yeah, >> because you usually talk about the overall state of the >> right the overall tax rate and I want to
pull in the oped savings to cover the cost of some capital but I can include that in our >> Yeah, if you can let's do that. If you think it would be better then let me know and we'll see if we can work something out about our
Um, zoning articles. Nothing fancy to say about those. The three citizens petition articles. The procedure on those has the same. Oh, there are two.
Well, no, the only one the citizens petition articles in terms of the motions are pretty straightforward. One of them um the um the petition article for the study committee for rank choice voting the
motion is long and um I will be reading that from the floor. There will also be a handout containing the motion. Um the other ones uh the motions are very short. Um
and it will be the standard um presentation and discussion by the practitioners. Um can't think of anything else in terms of basic flow. It's pretty pretty normal outside of the volume of stuff that we
have. Uh you might you might have a an article uh moving to take >> Oh, right. >> the library article out of order. >> Yeah. Decision on that yet?
>> I'm sorry. I had a music talk to Sarah Davis. I will do the >> Sarah is on the library. >> Yeah. >> And if the library board feels that that's important, I will be glad to make that motion. But if they are willing to
go with it as it is less confusion with that. >> Okay. Well, let me know and and I'll send you a text for the motion. >> Yep. Thank you. >> And we did put together a slide forward in case we need it. >> Better have it then.
>> And then for uh article 8 motion number three, I'll I'll update your packets. Uh but the Google just sent us their motions and we had the incorrect number for motion number three. So where we
have 2,590,239 that's going to be replaced with 2,573,924. Is that something that you think need to vote on at all? >> Okay. >> I was just going and see what we voted on. >> I don't we
>> I thought we had I thought we had the lower. Now, in the in your recommendation, it's the 2590 239, >> which is what you voted on at your meeting, which is their January budget
number, but in March, their latest budget and what they sent us today changes that to 2573 924. Is it coming down to them? It's coming down. It's not Yeah.
Michelle, do you think that's um >> there's no scope issue because there's no specific amount of money in the article itself. So I don't I think it's totally up to you that has some reason to do that
the eye number but sometimes it's about the eyes across the knee. So, >> well, we can come back to that when once you have a quorum if you want to take a vote to that, Sarah.
>> I'm just looking at what was on what we voted on because we might have done a recommendation, but we might have voted on a different number. Yeah, I think your recommendation is off of the January >> did vote a different >> that's that's what I think.
>> Yeah, you did. >> I don't have it up yet, but they maybe did vote a different >> I thought we had this 73 number. >> That's what sounds familiar to me. uh uh in the fincom book where we put remember this year we we put the uh
three recommendations that was based off the vote you took at the meeting and that's 590. >> I'm talking about our meeting in a fincom meeting. >> Yeah. >> When we did the budget. >> Yep.
>> I'm trying to get to the right page. computer is not there. Okay. >> 5903. >> Yep. That's Yep. That's what that was in our last packet.
>> Yeah. >> So, like we'll come back to that I guess once you have a quorum left. No, I need >> And then the only thing, Eli, you might want to just explain when we get to prior year bills because that's not one
that's on the warrant every single year and that that requires a fourfits >> threshold of voting. Yep, >> we've done that one before. This one's a little bit larger than the ones that we >> did last year. That's
generally. Are we going to need to explain that one? I I figured uh be prepared to answer questions on it, not necessarily an opening comment. >> And then
Yeah. There's a big one two years of audio. And then just the other thing just to note that we have there's two motions that we have for article 21 and article 22
uh the zoning article. So that is if if for some reason uh article 20 downtown zoning doesn't pass article 21 and article 20 would be we'd use the second motion. I was
reframed and so that was read from audio. So I just confirmed it and we'll get it to >> Great. Great. >> They weren't really framed. We're just saying
>> we have to amend if you don't make the motion. >> So if you would say is Peter Morton seconds. The article is printed on page 161 of the fin but remove from table 4.2
the columns of town center district and process. >> Okay. It's not an amendment. It's just a different It's an amended motion. >> Okay. So it's not >> correct. It's not a vote. It's amended motion >> or revised motion.
>> Pardon me. >> Revised motion. Correct. >> Less confusing. >> Yes. What kind of um public is going to talk about or are they here to just answer
questions about the capital? >> Well, Chuck will be there as far as questions on the prop on the prop two and a half capital items. >> Yeah. Um, if there are questions like specific to elements of the project, Chuck and
Nate, will you be there too? Chuck and Nate will be there to answer those questions. If I can't >> if there's questions about, you know, the financial elements of those projects, Sarah and I will be able to answer those questions.
Is there anything else you want to cover procedure- wise? Eli, >> I don't think so. Unless uh there is any speakers or >> Yes, it's just just on number nine, article nine. I I was originally scheduled to introduce that one, but I
had suggested that Sarah do it. I don't think we both just make that clear. I'm sorry. >> Yes. this year. >> Yep. That's my favorite one. Right. >> I don't need to rain on your praise.
That's a loyal, haven't we? >> Just to clarify that the zone that the 20 through 24 the main motion will be made by same person speak. >> Yep. >> Right now
>> and Brian's last name is pronounced Bri. Yeah. So 20 is 21 is fist only one pass >> 22 is Peter Morton 23 is Sandy Bner Turner. >> Yep.
>> 24 Sarah Crate and then well 25 does is not Do >> you think someone should explain the sale of rent? >> Yes. >> Yes.
>> I aware of it. >> Well, are you volunteering to speak to it? >> Uh, no. Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's once it's explained, it's well, it's the easier. >> Yes. On the face of it. Well, I told you I'm
gonna I'll bid him anyways. >> You know, I'll be prepared to speak to it. Michelle will be there as well if there's any questions about legal procedure regarding sale of land. >> And I imagine Mark is going to be there to speak, too.
>> In this case, I think we have to have somebody who explaining why we're getting the valuable pound. How many yards did we put on there? >> Dog houses or apartments?
>> Yeah, we can go. We can we have you on that one, Brian? >> Yeah, we can uh go over that before. A and the the request is in in appendix uh seven on page 64 of the book too with the map
>> his letters in there. Yeah. >> The chances that the majority of the people there would have read the whole book all the way through to the end. >> No, I I I would imagine your comments with reference, you know, reference 64.
Similarly, I imagine you guys will reference the appendix with all your recommendations. So, your recommendations are in the back of the book. Um, >> they are uh page 47 to 48. So, so
whoever's speaking on those articles, it'd be a good idea for them to just reference those pages when they're speaking so people can flip to the back and read, you know, and see the recommendations that you made as well. >> Okay. Or would it be more efficient for
the planning board? Maybe an introduction to the those five articles were recommended 204 recommendation 47 48. >> Yeah, Eli, that's up to you.
>> Seems to make sense. >> That makes sense. >> Yeah. Which one did you want to do? Well, we can either have Brian just include it in his intro to the downtown, which is probably most the action.
>> No. for sale of land you're talking about >> no planning board doesn't have to make a recommendation on that we did that chart about all the boards that need to take action on
>> I I I think I asked Sharen that question. >> A weird bible. So I just >> Oh, okay. >> Because we got caught up on this once a few years ago. >> Yeah, I can. >> So I worked on it with Alan and Greg. We
did a flowchart. Every board had to do a meeting. Let me just double check. >> I think we have to take action if we're right. And that may be it. That's why I'm saying it's a it's a weird >> unique. believe
>> Mr. >> There's a seat over here for you. >> Seat at the table >> because you are making our quorum. Ignore the period.
>> But I didn't get a swim. Never mind. >> When you're a half an hour late, you get the >> Oh, thank you very Thank you, madam. Chair. >> So, it is 6:58. >> I will call
Section eight. Yeah. It's 658 p.m. on >> today's the 23rd. >> April 23rd. And I will call the finance committee meeting to order. I have with me in the room Gar Morris, Mory Kraton, John Croft, and myself Sarah, which
makes a forum. >> It makes sense since the board is here just make have the planning board approve it. >> Absolutely. >> I didn't realize you folks. I think that's a wonderful answer. >> This is
a motion from the planning board to approve the sale of land this sale of land comp >> contemplated in um great um have people had a chance to at least read the material
You give it before we vote on it. >> Just the five minute 5secure summary. >> Five second summary is there's an isolated piece of land uh adjacent to the long channel leading to the which is
um the it is landlocked by property other properties and one of the adjacent properties belongs to >> I don't know Mrs. Glovesky. >> Mrs. Gloves. Yeah, >> Elm Street is because it went >> Elm Street. Mrs. Schlubski, um they
would like to acquire that property. Um they have they're contemplating some changes and and they think it would be more convenient to have. >> Um >> the town has the town has >> it's about
>> it's 900 just under,000 square 900. And um the town is retaining the right for transit across the land when they need to do repairs to the wall. >> Planning board. Any other discussion? Um
all in favor? >> I. >> Great. Thank you. >> All right. Uh do you want to now that you have a quorum, do you want to go back to HC? Thank you.
>> Oh yes. Um that's right. Thank you. It was the right motion. And here's the right number.
Um it having come to our attention that we um voted the incorrect number for the um Manchester Essex Regional School Committee um debt assessed to town
Manchester. Um do I have a motion to revote that amount in the amount of two thou 2,573,924? So >> second, you second it. Any discussion? Take a vote. Gar. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> John.
>> Yes. >> Sarah. Yes. Thank you. >> What? >> We in all. >> Where's all we have? >> Procedural point. >> Yeah. Go ahead.
>> Outside speakers. We have all the department heads. Um, Michelle Rando, you had >> I'm not um and I have um for land transfer
uh I don't have anybody else currently. Does anybody else have any outside counsel, outside expert, outside anything? >> We might ask Mark Mark. >> Mark, wait. I did have you. I have another procedural request.
>> Yeah. >> Um given that the zoning we had wanted to try to do it in the fall, it pushed off. Um, and that's I'd like to consider trying to have that the downtown part of
2021 at least on first per site like the hour is not so worried that they're and a great deal of work and potentially
pushing them off if there wasn't for him on the second night again till you know next a year from now. Um, so that's I mean certainly if you want to draw at the ins and driveways
I think we'd be understand that rationale but but um I have agreement with the board that we would advance some just um it may be a game decision. I
understand that but like to make like Yeah. So, so your point that we might not be able to get a quarrel on the second night, part of the reason why I wanted to keep on in the second night if we have to go to because it pretty much
guarantees that they'll be a quarant zoning will on its own. >> We've had no people at our appearance. >> That's a good thing. So um articles the collection of zoning will definitely form. I would be concerned
that pulling cherrypicking zoning articles out pulling in the first night might exacerbate the increase the risk that we wouldn't have on the second night which is not really um so
>> well I guess I just ask for your consideration. Thanks. >> I'll I'll consider it. But right now, my approach is probably minus one. Is there any other procedural issues? >> I don't think so.
>> Okay. Um No, I don't. >> Yes. Um just what we do have a testing on this vote for the article 20 and I guess Michelle is kind of looking for that but it seems to us that
the ruling that the uh lowering thresholds for Yeah. And I think we had a couple of concerns that with the the definition of mixed use is not the one not the
statutory definition and so that could raise a question about the the quantum and that there may be other things that you're doing in this that independently on their own would require two vote but we can collab on that text make sure that you know we thought about it but
like we can walk through it in more detail before the meeting we're all on the same page >> I think we would even entertain amending something to to get to that threshold. This is
>> it's the same procedure in terms of I mean we have that as well. >> Again, I know we raised these comments initially when we were looking. >> No, they were not raised. >> I can show Well, I have them right here.
I I looked at them before um just to see what we had what our comments and recommendations were. So I don't know if there was like sort of some further discussion about it but absentee can work it out if it's not substantive but
let's have that discussion so we can >> Okay. So my next question question was does the planning board have a meeting schedule report? Yes. >> Are ADUs 2/3 too, Michelle? I had to go through all of them before
the issue was that if books be attached to attach which is you know different >> right I yes I mean I'm sorry I'm late but uh I have
laryngitis so I'm attending remotely tonight >> thank So finance committee additional members have arrived in the uh Dean Nadis and Andy Olden. Thank you. One more call for procedure.
Okay. The second um next item is a recommendation vote on April 6th for the senior community center project. Um at the moment the uh select board has said that they will
make their recommendation recommendation. I believe you were in the same position. >> Correct. I am going to you start this discussion. >> Um so we met last Thursday night.
um and were unable to make a recommendation and we asked for additional information and Tony has sent us additional information.
Um so do we have the information we need and what are our thoughts and questions? I'll say I have some concerns and my concern is nothing to do with I
mean I fully support the senior center. My concern is that it's a fun a property for which we're a 23 condo own. And normally when capital changes are made,
condo owners share in the cost. And the town is being asked to pay the full amount of design services instead of having the Masons pay onethird
which is what their ownership shares. So that's a technical concern. And then I also looked at the condo documents online and it appears to me that the condo units
are drawn post construction which means we paid a million but if we pay for six million let's say in rehab costs in effect we're enriching the
masons by another two million. Uh, and I just don't know if the town's aware of that, but that raises concerns where we're we're going ahead as if we're the sole owner when in fact
we are not. >> So that was my >> go. >> Thank you. Um, I think part of the million dollars it was like $750 for the property and
250 to build the addition. Um, so that's that. Um, I want to support a senior center and keep a project moving.
I don't want to go through the same thing as last year where we gave him 50,000 and that was going to be it to fundraising and now there's another 350, but I'd like to keep the project moving
somehow. Um, I I've shared some thoughts about trying to make it more of a banquet hall type facility where it might be um good for rentable income similar to Tux Point if
we could um you know move the main room up front with a veranda overlooking the harbor. We're not going to discuss redesigning the building at this meeting. Our sole purpose at this meeting is determining
whether or not we're recommending an expenditure of 350,000 for design. If there's design input to be given, that would not be through the finance committee. That would be directly with
the people running the project. >> Right. Well, if it comes down to a yes no vote on that, I would probably lean to no unless pending further discussions. Thank you. Madam chair,
>> um I have expressed concerns about the process by which this uh admittedly and enthusi I am enthusiastic about having a senior center, but I am very concerned that our process
is flawed, that we have not been candid with voters I think we are obliged to tell the truth.
We told the voters I don't know couple of years ago. You buy the property that's it and this will then pay for itself.
That's not the case. Okay. I recognize that's not the case. But we got a lot of We got How many voters do we have? like 3,000 voters in this town, 2500 who are under one impression and we're
about to walk in and say, "Well, just put in another 350. We're not quite sure what it's really going to cost, but you guys, you voters, you taxpayers are going to put up a substantial portion of whatever thatever that number
is. Tough luck. If you care about your seniors, vote for it. If you don't care about people over, and I am one, over the age of 70 or whatever they I'm well over that.
Um, if you don't care about Gar and all the other seniors, vote against it. But if you care about him, vote for it. Even though you don't know what you're doing, I just don't think that's a good system. I don't I don't believe in it. I I want to have a
senior center. I want to have a place that when Gar is in his doage and whatever, not that I'm not already in my doage, I'll stop. Um uh that that Jody can drop me off and I'll go in and spend
the day. So, I'm I'm all in favor, but I don't think we're doing it very well. And I if if those of us in the room who've been involved take that as criticism, yes, that is criticism.
Sorry, I don't doubt anybody's good intentions, but I don't think this is going very well and I therefore I could not in good conscience vote to recommend this to the voters. >> I'm wondering if there's an opportunity
to pass over and move to the fall. I Sarah, I'm glad you brought that up as an option. I wanted to hear what the finance committee had to say. I I watched the tape of Thursday night. Um and then when we had our meeting on Monday, I'm like, whoa,
there are some gaps in communication that were clear. Um, and based on what I'm hearing now, it feels like the fincom has not been
fully educated on the special side agreement with the Masons. The fact that it's not a traditional condominium arrangement, that there's a side agreement for as long as the Masons own unit one, things are different. and
that it I'm I'm not hearing an understanding of that piece and and so I understand you know a lot of that could not be discussed while we were in negotiations with the Masons right but um you know those negotiations ended and
I'm not clear that everybody's been brought up to speed on the east side arrangement and if I'm wrong correct me but I that's kind of what I heard Yeah, I mean we we closed on the property >> 10 days ago. >> 10 days ago,
>> right? >> So, no, we haven't had that discussion with the finance committee since then. >> And I think when you do understand the side agreement, there is significant financial difference from a traditional
condo association agreement, you know, declaration of trust. Um, so I can understand their um, reticence. >> What are your thoughts, Martin? >> Perhaps I can speak to this. I I
recognize what you're saying, Kathy, and obviously with negotiations, we are not tied into all those details and would like to learn them as we go on. I think our concerns are probably a little bit higher level and and sort of listening to Gar talk about this and we've all talked about it. The process is
something that I think is really important here. So, you know, we originally started thinking about this senior center and I want to clarify I am very much in favor of this, but you know, we talked about the church next to the fire station. We've been talking
about this for eight or nine years and really trying to make this work. And as we understand it now, it's a community center, senior center, town municipal offices in a building,
um, shared by another nonprofit organization. Lot of complexity there. And as Dean sort of said, the number began here and now we're hearing numbers that are closer to maybe 9 million. And
>> no, >> so >> so we we kind of look >> a million already. Oh, got it. >> When we when we kind of look into this and you know, I'm I'm kind of one of the proponents on the fincom about long-term thinking. And you know, when we look at
our capital plan looking out over the next 10, 15, 12, 20 years, we're looking at almost $200 million worth of capital. And you know, Essex Elementary's numbers are frightening at this point. So, I think there's a lot of issues that the
voters are going to need to collectively think about here. And I feel like this project needs to fit in with the facilities planning committee, understand where it sits with DPW, public safety, the whole plan. And it
just feels like we're kind of rushing into this pretty quickly right now. And again, that's the timing. >> St. Louis, you've been working on it for six years. Well, we've been sort of in a holding pattern until about a week ago. I mean, one of the comments that comes up in our meetings annually is, "Have we
signed this yet?" And, you know, it takes time to get it over the finish line, but a lot of things changed one week ago, which triggers a whole bunch of new changes, but I'm not sure we've had time as a town to plan through what those new changes are. >> Yeah. Can I ask a question about the process? Because I agree with you, the
process here is definitely different. Um, however, I disagree that the facilities planning committee, which I I am on, would help us prioritize, which is what I kind of heard you say. I disagree that
that's the charter of the facilities planning committee. It's our job to advise, okay, the boards who make the decisions. But I absolutely like where you're going that we have not had a conversation with the town on the
overall priorities. Right. And my concern about not just article six but all of these. Okay. Um I think we've done what we can to educate people on each individual one. And I I think the way things have been done in the past
is, you know, you put the articles out in town town meeting floor and people have a good debate in person and they vote yay or nay, right? I like town meeting as a way of debating a single issue. I don't think it's the
proper forum for prioritizing or for understanding what the town's priorities are. I think we need to have a holistic public forum on our capital priorities and yes the facilities planning committee and others can feed into that
but that should happen long before we put you know seven capital items on the warrant but that's my thought but Kathy one of the challenges with this senior center community center is that has never appeared I agree on
the five-year capital plan it has not appeared on the 25-y year capital plan. Whereas all the other capital items on the town warrant have been on the five-year and the
25-year plan and we DPW we pushed that off because we couldn't afford it. >> I I agree with you. I made those comments on Monday night. I I made that exact comment. you know, it was on the five-year plan and the 25-year plan. So,
I think that's what we're talking about to some extent when we're talking process. >> I agree. But when I talk process, I'm not referring to the FinCom's priorities. I'm talking about engaging the public like we did. I keep going back to the rotunda, right? We all got a
ton of communication from the residents. What do we want to do about the rotunda? Well, let's have a public forum around all of the C, you know, the big buildings we have to we have to deal with, right? So, I'm totally in favor of that. The question is, we are where we
are now. What how would you like to proceed? Because quite frankly, you know, if we're going to start passing over stuff, you know, you you could you could make a case that some other things don't have to be done right this second, right? So,
whatever. Yeah, where we are, you know. >> Um I guess like everyone, I I do want to see the project go forward. I think we need a commitment to start to go down this road. Um I think part of what's um in my mind as I think about this is is
how the cost of the project has has inflated since we were thinking about it versus authorized it. And um I'm also I'm not sure that the next step is necessarily full construction documents that are biddable. I I I think we talked
about a process before that was more toward pushing it um to be able to get some some sponsorship, raise some money. And in order to have that, we need some some renderings. You
know, we need to have a preliminary concept design. We need to have some nice kind of semi photo little realistic renderings of the project and then we need to have a road trip and uh and we need to you know invite some some investment from the public hopefully and
and I think for me that would that's sort of the next step in the process and because it feels like if we commit to construction documents then we're going to be talking about bidding those documents and awarding a construction contract and then the town
is going to be fully on the hook for whatever that cost is. And that's not the process that we talked about. >> Yeah, I I I totally agree with what you just said. I I would say there's probably a couple of different ways you can do it, though. One of the things
that I think should be part of the pro process is to set a um financial target for the fundraising, right? Kind of a go no go. But but I think what we're struggling with and maybe you can help us with the article or with the motion.
Maybe you can help us because what we really need is a good estimate. That is really in my mind the way and I'm I've been on the fence on this one myself. Right. >> And we're saying the estimate from December is not good.
>> It's based on it's it's based on 10% design. It's not% >> design. >> Yeah. I would appreciate your >> Yeah. expertise in what what would it take to get a good estimate because in fairness to the people who are doing the fundraising they don't know what to target unless we get a good estimate. So
we we >> if I can just correct one thing I this does not commit the town to >> bidding or awarding a contract. In fact we would not be allowed to award a contract without construction dollars in
hand. And I don't think that the select board has committed to that either. The select board was presented the three concepts understood that concept one would likely exceed the cost or the cost
would likely exceed the um capability of fundraising and thus town funds would likely need to be added in order to eventually build. But they were careful to to be clear that that decision comes
later when you have a up-to-date cost estimate and understanding of how much fundraising is and what the true cost would be to the town and how that factors into the other capital priorities on the table at that time.
And I I think that was a wise decision by the select board to be clear about that. >> 350 is a lot of money. But I re I recognize that you want to you have to kind of authorize that then next step and appropriate the money and all that. But I guess I'm what I'm
saying is that um like there's pressure upon us to prove this next step as a logical next step. And I I guess what I'm saying is I don't necessarily see this as the next logical step. >> I I I can I ask you a what what is your
opinion of the next logical step? I think I think getting uh we do want a realist budget and I don't know what's behind the numbers that we did see. I don't know if it was like a a full tallying of spreadsheets of all the trades. Um I'm assuming that was what
was behind it. >> Yeah. And um and and so you know a reasonable estimate for for that you know concept designing and then um and then again you know just
some discussion around that as as saying okay that is a reasonable budget for this project. Yes we support that um and yes we want to go forward with full assumption. So, so let me ask you, Nate,
what would it take to get to there? Do we need 350 to get to there or can we do it cheap? >> Um, I mean, I think we would have to come to an understanding of what what variance in cost estimates we're looking because the further you progress
the design, the further you can narrow that kind of band that cost estimate has. So like when we're very early on like this 10% estimate has a you know plus 50% to minus 50% ban because just there's so many unknowns. So the further
we can get into design the further we can narrow that down. Um you know if we get to 60% design I feel like that starts to narrow the band enough that you can you know get a bit more accurate. um in Andy I guess what would
you where would you think we need to get to to >> well I would say well percentages are you know >> yeah we we know what they mean but they're kind of nebulous at the same time >> I would say you know oftentimes we think in terms of 30% design so that's like a
a schematic design process where uh the whole programming has happened you know there's there's been some consideration yes do you want to add this no we want to take that um but it also lands you on the spot where um okay you get a budget
and talk about the budget but then it also leaves some room for um you know value engineering project so that's construction documents don't leave it there without then further investment and revising those documents so I would
say we want to draw back from that biddable document >> so what are you recommending what you know something that's schematic design. >> So what like what percent design is that? >> What's that? >> What percent design? >> So 30% is% what we might think about
that as. And I think we're >> well >> based on the drawings that I've seen I think we are we are there. They've done some programming. They they've kind of you know proposed an addition two additions. >> Um so I think that's a good thing to
talk about. The only thing that I think is really missing then is uh you know relative to the the fundraising or the running. >> And let me say something about that Andy. Um I'm not sure whether we get to 80% or 90% or 30%. I think for
fundraising, I don't want to you sort of necessarily say anything out of out of turn relative to Susan's position. She's here is that we may be able to fund raise with 10 10% or 20% giving us a ballpark number.
What's very difficult to fund raise without is a heavy endorsement from everybody in town because the people that the fundraising group are going to be visiting want to know that the town is 100% behind this.
Okay? And you know the amount of money that we have to raise is is kind of important. People need to know that. But they need to know they're not we're not the only ones that are jumping in. And if we're going to write a check that the town is fully behind this in uh
supporting to make this make this thing go forward and if we don't have everybody kind of pushing behind this, it makes the story pretty difficult. >> But I don't think it's 350 that I don't think that requires spending together. >> Maybe it doesn't. Maybe it's an I I'm
listening to this information. Um, and maybe something less than that is probably appropriate, but >> I know a suggestion >> pretty critical is that we're all kind of pulling in the same direction. Can I ask if a million dollars from the town
of Manchester is an evidence of commitment? Or you're thinking that your donors would go, "Well, no, that that's just a million. If the town of Manchester could put up five million, then then I might
get on my checkbook. >> I I don't think what he's saying is about the money. It's about >> the endorsements behind it. The the major boards in town are behind it. If they see that they're we're not behind this, they're going to second guess this.
>> With respect, everyone's saying they want to do it. Words are easy. >> Words are easy. And and all I've heard is >> Yeah. But I haven't seen any I haven't seen any checks from any donors either. >> Well, you don't have anything to show them. >> Yes, sir. >> I've raised a lot of money for
nonprofits. I've gone house to house on Smith's Point and raise money for conservation, for housing, for you name it. We didn't have any plans, >> but we we had a pretty compelling story
to tell. But I'm not hearing >> people want to see much. >> People want to see exactly what they're paying for. And we have we can't show them anything other than a floor plan like as you point out. We don't even have uh renderings. Uh and we've already
seen cost escalate outlandishly. Okay. And to keep on kicking this can down the road, we're going to see him continue to escalate. I want to I think that $350,000 we're not asking the taxpayers for that money. >> It's t it's municipal
>> town money. It is town money, but it's not it's comes from one pocket to the other. Yes. >> I would like to know what it would cost to get to the approach that Andy has suggested. >> That's a good That's a really good
question. >> Fair enough. >> Yeah, I'm okay with that. >> I'm okay with that. >> Right. I have a compromise. I have a pretty reasonable compromise that you know I I agree that I with John that we need to keep the thing going. I also think that we're about at 30%
now. But what disturbs me is I don't really like what I see in the floor plan of the best option and before I can endorse going to final design which inevitably leads to construction, I'd like to see some changes. So I would
favor going to the next level of 60 to 75% complete documents to keep the thing going but with the expectation to see some changes because I see this as a potential significant revenue stream.
It's a showcase property and if we have a a decent function hall there, it would be a significant revenue stream that would also justify future town funds. >> Dean, we are not discussing that tonight. If we want to discuss the
design of the building, the proper way to do that is through public forums. So, everyone in the town has the opportunity to contribute and >> right. But the compromise for the keep moving forward option is to fund a
lesser amount to the 60 to 70% design. I I would endorse that and you know the town would be unified. >> Nate when Nate and I met with John Harden to talk about the scope of work that the 350 would get us to um you know
to get to the full design and bid documents, permitting everything. 350, you know, was was pretty close to it. And that's with holding tight on that scope. You know, as you get through the
process, you start adding in other desires, your budget starts to break down. So compromising to a lesser amount to get to se say 75% design uh may be doable but I don't know how I don't know
Nate if you off the top of your head you know could I don't think it's much less than 350 >> what we spend on the rotunda when we hit those public forums >> if we like the progress we can approve the rest of special town meeting in the fall
>> I want to say it was the renderings and All that for both was like around 20,000 20 to 25. >> I mean it it it seems to me what's missing on this project is the public input. >> You've got input from a small segment of
town, not the broader town and that we don't need to hire an architectural firm to do public forums. >> But how do you give people an accurate number of what you need? See this is >> we need the input from the public forums
first to nail down the design and then you can move forward to say okay what is that design going to cost which is what happened at the rotunda there was >> the rotunda is not a change of use it's the same thing you're rebuilding the
same thing people know what the rotunda looks like >> but there were three completely different projects >> yeah there were three options >> that went for towns people and towns people selected the option
they liked which then enabled you to get into the detail and figure out what it was going to cost. >> Okay. So I think so let's say so let's say this >> if we come up we come up with three different options for the senior center
how are we going to design those three different options how do we come with that >> we do the same pro >> that's going to cost money it's going to cost something >> he's saying 20,000 >> 20 40 >> 6000 >> also we can't go that we can't go back
to that point of the design we This >> we vetted this. >> This is vetted and it's included in the closing documents. >> There were three forms associated with this for meetings mostly attended by seniors of course because they were they were interested to go through
>> public forms open to the general public. >> They were bonus point. This is part of the condo docks now. >> Yeah. >> These are the condo docks right there. >> This is Yeah, that floor plan. I mean the interior walls what we do inside the space itself is we have the ability to
make changes to that but it's not going to change very much from what we went through extensive uh alternative analysis we looked at scale three two or three different
scaleback options and and even had those priced out as well and we I think we've we've accomplished that part and and back to you know a logical process. I I think about I think about like the school building
for instance you know I don't that when when the voters are asked to increase you know to to approve a two and a half override to pay for design that doesn't commit them to the ultimate 90 something million dollar cost of the
project. That's part that's how you go through that is the logical process that we're going through. We're asking for 350 to get to the next phase. And then when that cost when you get through that phase and you have that additional
public input and fine-tune it, then you're going to the public to say this is what we need for construction. the schools. I believe it was closer to a million on a $90 million project. And with this, we're talking 350,000
on maybe a $6 million project. So that 350 just seems really really high to me. >> Well, just just to be clear, um so the school project will be voted upon for the full construction appropriation based on commitments, >> right?
>> Not construction documents. And when the when the funds are appropriated for the construction project, we're also then appropriated for the full design record. >> And at what percent design is the school project at when you're
asking for funds for the design phase? >> 30%. >> So that's so we're so we are in a similar logical process I would argue. Who who in this room
>> is going to explain to the voters that we told them put up a million that's all you have to put up? >> I'll do it. >> You'll do it. >> Absolutely. You messed up and you have it was we had an error. Okay. And my point is we either own it and then move
on or just scrap it. And this is I'm hearing scrap it. >> That's one thing about hiding behind something. No, we are saying that what needs to be done, what do we need to spend in order to
start the fundraising? And Andy seems to be indicating to me that the cost of the school is approved long before they have final construction documents. Is that correct? >> So, we don't need final construction
documents. So, why can't we spend a lot less money to get where we need to be? and not be pushing it to final construction documents. >> I don't think it's going to be a lot less to get 75 >> somebody else >> to get to 75%.
>> Well, Andy, what's your opinion? >> You know, if we're at 10% now and we're saying we're going to have 40%. >> I honestly don't know what percent we're at. I mean, those look a lot like a schematic design. >> This this isn't this is >> so I think that's all there is. This is this might be analogous to the level
that we would expect the you know the the school project to be brought to. There could be some differences worth talking about but generally if this represents the will of the people for this particular project then if this were the school project we would put it
in front of the voters as the cost to do full design and the cost for construction. That would be the package that would be in the chart >> which is what we're >> the design numbers. You're not talking about the construction.
>> Well, 350 total project can bring in >> Yep. No, I'm not going to be design which is a very different procurement method. So, I just want to be clear on that's design. I mean we could go see
more but I would be very surprised if you uh I think the the more predictable path is design but build for this which you do bring full design documents then you go out for bidding and then construction I mean >> value engineering after that
>> we don't know what the value engineer because we don't we need to come out >> right >> and I would say the facility planning committee hasn't weigh in we really need to advance the design beyond I would say 30% to have a reasonable discussion with the facility plan committee if that's what we're talking about to
>> to value engineer to to make some design decisions that you know have the ability to do anything when it comes to value engineer. So let's let's let's look ahead then. Let's let's assume that we approve the money for full construction and I don't know what time gets done
that >> fall of 26 >> December >> by September October. And uh so at that point then it's a decision you know you'll have the
opportunity for a more detailed cost estimate at that point. Um and we'll see you know what happens. I guess you know typically what you would do is you continue cost estimating as you're doing your design. Um somewhere between now and September or say July take another
snapshot of it and see what that what the cost is coming in at. And that would be an opportunity to to find >> you could manage that budget too and basically only spend of the 350 spend until you get to 75% design and then not
complete construction documents until you feel you're ready to get to that next step. >> Can I ask a question? If if we design this in pieces like that, will it end up costing more money? >> Yes. Well, I mean, the longer you wait,
the longer you push it out, the more escalation happens, for sure, right? >> Um, that's that's that's a fact. >> Let me have had projects fail in the past and I am concerned that this one,
if we get to the point where we've got ready to bid and then we go to town meeting, the town meeting says, "No, no, >> we spent all this money >> and I I think the value engineering part is is a really important phase. Believe Pam
said that they it was significant in the memorial school. >> Yeah. Yeah. There were a lot of there were a lot of cuts >> and and it would be nice to have a feeling of where the town is
between whatever design stage you're at for value engineering to get a good feeling that the town is actually behind this and if you don't get that feeling then you have an idea of the scope of the value engineering you have to do.
So what what Anna you're proposing then? >> What about Sarah's thought to pass it over until fall town meeting? >> I think that'd be a really bad look. >> Yes, >> I know it'd be a bad look. >> Yeah, >> I'm not prepared to do that. >> And and you put the brakes on this.
>> I was trying to understand her comments. >> But I wasn't quite sure if Ann was advocating for moving forward with 350, moving forward with a lesser amount or passing it over to to fall. So I'm just for clarification, >> let let me let me ask this question to
Congress. If we go for a lower amount and then we design to that then we're going to go back for more money to design more. >> So we're going to be asking again for more money. >> What about what about you're not going
to get to 100% design for less. >> What if the estimate had come in at $17 million? What if it did? >> What if it did? >> Would you say, "Well, that's that's the price. We got to pay it." >> No, I'd say we have to look at it. But we can't go up or down in what we're
building. We don't know what we're building. >> There's I totally agree. I'm going to >> But I think I think you're all missing the point because the point is to fund the job until the sh the fundraising can take it over.
So, I mean, I would support if $50,000 got us to 30%. Then another $150,000 should get us to a point where the understanding is that private funding will take it over.
So, I would support that as a change. >> The not to exceed number. I mean, we're not going to uh what's not necessarily going to spend, right? >> No, we can spend whatever scope we want. >> We don't we don't fund a wish a wish
number >> because you'll spend it. >> Um we don't do not to exceed numbers. We we like this >> number supporting the work that needs to be done. And there are those that think
that the 350 is the number. >> Well, there's a lot of stuff in here that I don't think we need at this point. This includes bidding. We're not to bidding. >> It's preparing. It's getting ready to pay >> documents. We're not there.
>> Yeah. The only way you got to find out what the number is until is when they get the construction. >> No, that's not true. They're they're going part of it is getting to 30% design. That makes >> I suggest that we thought it was going to be 165 for the uh Lincoln Street
until we went out to bed bid. What's the number? >> Well, it open so far 11, >> but plus everything else is coming around 15. >> We don't know until we go out to bid. >> We just saved a million dollars. Let's
put that towards this. We really don't know until we put in the draft, >> right? >> I don't know what the reluctance is here. >> I can see the reluctance. >> I don't know. I I said if if we come up with some other number, say half of that or something you get there and then
>> are we as fundraiser or she thinks >> Susan's taking all of this in at some point from her >> from her. I think it's important that people support it and I think we need to come up with a number that people can support
>> in particular the finance committee >> right well so there's two numbers though there's really there's the totality of the project right but then there's the number that we may be asking taxpayers for which we was previously zero
>> it was zero >> it was zero right so there'sact there's two numbers And and the question I think on the table is how do we start with the first number the the project total and then I think we need it personally I I would
want a target okay for you know private fundraising um before we entertain thinking about how much taxation we would request. >> Can you speak to this >> the fundraising piece here? Do you want
>> I just want a procedural would you mind if the planning board to another room maybe with Michelle to understand this quantum if there any changes I approve you have been very patient >> I'm surprised you wait this long time so
if we could just have a planning board adjourn to >> okay thank you >> this is Oh, yeah. so fast to get out of >> Okay, I think Susan was
my >> So, um, just to set a little contest, right, we had a a town years ago 24 approved a million dollars talked about the fact that we fund raise against this. The next step was there was procurement of a grant which paid
for a feasibility study which we looked at over the course from February through September 25. It looked specifically to a senior center. It had surveys. It had interviews. It had a professional view
in terms of what was needed. this basically the scope, how to raise money for it, all the different things. There was a wealth screening and the recommendation came back because back then we thought it was $2.5 to3 million and the professionals and the folks that
did all the due diligence on this felt very comfortable with the amount of wealth that we have in this town that we should be able to get to a $2.53 million number. So, we were getting ready to launch. We're getting everything ready to go. We want we've got fundraiser advisors,
people that are going out there and doing asks and we're putting together a whole program. The challenge is is that the Mason deal didn't close yet. Okay? So, we all live in this world of waiting for that. And that's not a criticism. It's the fact of where it was.
>> So, the funding people that we talked to, the potential donors say, "Well, I'm really not comfortable committing to anything if the deal hasn't closed. I'm really not committed to um putting money in anything when I really don't know what it costs. So, we go to the next
level last year, 50,000 and did the next level of design, right? We got to the 10%. That's the piece that we brought forward um this fall and they and uh we went through a lot of process with the architects. We had we did have open meetings whether people knew or not, but
they were there. We got a lot of input. There were renderings. There was a lot of work that was done that came back. We did some initial feeling of what that would look like in terms of cost in December. We got the scary news that what we thought was 2.5 was now going up
2.5 to three was going up to six. And the difference was as I call it in my language was a fully loaded project when we looked at the $6 million number. It wasn't just the construction cost. And I don't know what built the 2.5 or three honestly, but we knew that was the
target that we started with. So with cost escalations, all of the things that are going on, we know what's happening everywhere. We got to that number and we stopped because we're not going to go back to fundraising people and say, "Oh, by the way, we now need double of what
we're looking for." So we came back and looked at the process and said, "What other things can we do? Can we cut back? What's the way? how can we value engineer this to make it look a little bit more valued those back to the select board in February this year and came up and
realized at that point that the differential between the three options wasn't that great but the fact that it really couldn't be supported just for the seniors that if we expanded the use for the full community being in fact that the community center now is sort of
down by the as quiet that we could actually have a very lovely engaging community space which will be a revenue producer. There will be opportunities to bring people in and do parties and revenue produce arts and rec and re
programs there outside of the senior center. But what is the core structure of this is a place for our people 60 and above which is the number they're looking at. 35% of our population which is growing to have a place to call home.
And if you look at the current programming of the Council on Aging, they do a damn good job getting things done with nothing. They've got buses and they've got the church. And you know, it's a small group that they serve, but there's a lot of other things that can happen here. So when I look at this from
a fundraising perspective and sort of building the ask and what we're talking about, it isn't just about a place for seniors, it's about investment back to our community. And I I know we all agree with this. So that's not the point. The devil is in the details of how do you
get from A to B. And we've been waiting a very long time, this entire community, for having this topic come up. And I just personally think at this point for the fundraisers, and I don't remember who made the comment, but it's absolutely true. They want to see what
is our leadership saying about this. How is our leadership discussing this? Are they supporting it? Yes. But how are they supporting it? Do have they done as much homework and availability of what we've given them in terms of information? If there's more information needed, let's get to them. But let's
have the debate with the voters that will make the decision. And I think what I've experienced in my 30 years or whatever it is on town meeting here, we usually get to the right answer at town meeting. I mean, I honestly do believe that when we go through the process, we get to the right answer. But I think as
a leadership team between the FINCOM and the board of select man select board, there has to be guidance and leadership here. And I really think it's important that these discussions happen right now because everything needs to be heard. But I think the importance is getting to
a conclusion that can move the school forward. Um, I know seniors in my heart, I go to the meetings all the time. I listen to what they say and they're press falling when they hear that there's another delay or there's a problem or there's something is happening. They feel like they've done a
lot to support the school district and the town over time. They just want their little piece of this. Um, so I can't answer your question in terms of what should happen next. I know if I was running the show, I would certainly want to move forward with this and say let's
get to whether it's a up to 350, let's get 70% of the design, whatever we need. We need a number to fund raise. Three things I needed. One, the deal to be closed, two, what it's going to cost, and three, does the town support this? >> Those are the three key messages that
are needed for successful fundraising. We don't have that. We have one, but we don't have the other two yet. Susan is you you're a great communicator. You're very good. Um you made that speech to
fill in the blank. There are hundred mega millionaires across the water over here. If you if you could get one and give that whole speech and say, "Come on, I need you."
>> We we have Okay. So, so I'm just to be clear, we have done some quiet conversation and the feedback has been consistent with we want to see what the town is willing to step up to understanding knowing full well I think
it was a two I mean look at powderhouse that money was raised in like three weeks right what almost $2 million or whatever it was yeah >> so we know we have the capacity right but I think there's a reluctance >> to understanding
why understanding to move that forward without the political will. >> Is it possible that there's a flaw in all this? >> Of of course. What would be the flaw? >> Well, that we don't have a a a mission
statement. We don't have a compelling need. >> And I'm not saying this isn't compelling. I I'm sure it is. But is it possible that we just haven't coalesed this in a way that because most of these
guys that you know they started companies they're they got all this cash they're whatever I mean they're they're imaginative. >> Yeah. >> They're innovative. They they take what you say or what I say and then they make it even better. That's their skill.
>> Well, and we do we do have a case. We do have all the funding. The whole feasibility study was built around building this case. It was doing all of that. We've got the case statements. We've got the everything we need to do. We've had to shift and literally pivot from a senior center to an immunity
center because it doesn't make sense to spend x number of dollars on just a small population. >> So, I think that there's been a lot of give and take. There is a tremendous amount of communications that are built behind all of this. I mean, I've been sitting and writing. everything sort of
sits behind it now. And I've got some really great people who are out there ready to communicate this and make those asks happen. And the early asks have been I want to see if it closes. I want to see what the leadership has to say and I want to make sure that the town is
supporting the call. >> So who so if I may ask who was prepared to speak at town meeting? >> Well, in terms of what the >> any of the people they just mentioned. >> Well, I you know what? So, I' I've I've certainly said to people, anybody I've talked to, I said, I can't force them,
but I do. >> You know, I said, I'm hoping that you will stand up and speak. I know John's going to speak on behalf of my >> article, and I'm assuming Brian and other people will step up. I'm hoping some folks from the Masons will step up and speak to that. Um, Council on Aging
folks, people in the general population. I mean, we've been reaching out and trying to educate as best as we can with this, but to the point it closed 10 days ago, right? So, we're all in the same boat. I feel your pain. Believe me. But I think that the the compelling issue
here is >> we all want this to happen. Mory, to your point, we've been waiting. I mean, eight years, 10 years. I when I was on the select board, we were negotiating with Masons the first time. You know, I mean, it's it's been going on. It took us 30 years to get a regional school district and a school built. I mean
things do move at somewhat of a glacial pace but at some point you have to look at the reality and say wait a second this is getting more expensive every minute we waste and we're not wasting but every minute we wait it gets more expensive more expensive more expensive
so how do we minimize that value engineer it respond to our constituents and like I said the the going to the community side of this is great because we're opening the door up for a lot of other usage it's not just seniors at this point. It will be the whole
community. So, um you know, I think I think we're prepared. I've got some great fundraising adviserss who can speak this and know how to do it and make the ask happen. And um I'm very confident that we can raise the money. I don't think we can raise $7 million. I'll be really honest with that.
>> That was going to be my question. We know you can raise the money, but what do you think you can raise? Well, I mean, I think >> because to the to in fairness when you asked the question previously, it was just for a senior center, right? >> So, if it's not just a senior, is there the potential to raise more?
>> I don't know. I mean, I I logically the step would say yes. And how good are we about asking for money and who can we target on it? I mean, opening the doors up and getting to a larger group of donor base, you know, um we might be able to do that, but I can't I can't get a feel because we're it's like the
chicken and egg, right? Everybody wants some answer first before the next step happens. So there's just a reluctance. So all I'm saying is put a stake in the ground. Put a stake in the ground for us. Give us a chance to go do the work that we want to do here and whatever that may be. And I trust all of you. I
mean you've done a great job. All you do for years and years you've been running this town very efficiently. So just put a stake in the ground. Let us get some work done and let's move forward. I mean that's what has to happen right now. If if I can offer somewhat of a
compromise, I think that I think that we would be we'd be comfortable uh with, you know, getting the 75% design, not going all the way to construction documents. However, I'm hesitant to
come up with the correct dollar amount that gets us there in this room without understanding that. So if there is a, you know, an agreement to to authorize the 350, but a some sort of
agreement in this room that we're not that we're going to manage that budget in a way that we stop spending money of that, stop spending down that 350 once we get to 75% design. That I'd be more comfortable with something like that. I'm just nervous about reducing the
budget in this room without having that dollar figure in front of us and underfunding our ability to get to 75%. >> I'm I'm reluctant to approve 350 >> on a basis of trust me, we won't spend
it. I'm I'm sorry, but if if you look at town government, we we have a budget and maybe It's not spent over here, but we move over here. In the end of each year,
we're spending how many did we have last year were moving money so that they found a way to spend everything almost everything that was in the budget? And I I just look at this proposal and a good half of it is is not stuff we're looking
for. Bidding, construction documents, um you know, Yeah. Andy, >> I guess, you know, just if I pull back for a second, the the the proposed fee for the for the design is not necessarily the thing that scares. It's
a I think it's a reasonable, you know, project. Um to some degree I think what I and the many are were a little bit reacting to is just a change in approach with that kind of came very quickly down
the pike and that was perhaps a result of just how long it took to get to where they got to to get to those estimates. Um, so in and in in the back of our minds, we have things like the the ramp in our head. We have we have examples of
things that that can go wrong and and and nobody wants that and and I don't I don't believe that that has to be the outcome. So I think um for my part I I would say I could I could reconcile with
the deal that's being proposed given that again I think it's a reason you know I do think it's a reasonable fee for the go forward. My my concern or what I would want to have some agreement on is is the way in which that design
gets executed. I would want that interim step and just make sure that you know whatever the seven million additional doesn't turn into a larger number. There's some way of of managing to the budget
because three became six or seven and >> one started started >> one started. >> Yeah. And we're we're now at uh between a,000 and $1,200 per square foot.
>> I don't think that's true. >> I think I think it is. >> If you do the 650 >> 7,200 7,200 square feet. >> Yeah. 7 million. It's almost 1,000 a square foot. Yeah, that's not >> that's
too different. >> Okay. >> It's just division. >> Well, again, that's based on a very very preliminary. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Uh and I don't know how they got there other than, you know, we've got some
things in there. Okay, let's throw a number here. I know that when I'm pricing something up budgetary, and I've said this before, I I'm always high >> because I don't know what I I know what I don't know, and I'm going to make sure I cover my ass. And it's easier to come down on pricing than if someone if they
hear $7 million and then we come down at $5 million and they're thrilled. If I come in at $5 million and now it's up at $7 million, we're screwed. So it's always um this at this level everything's always very very high.
>> Agree. >> Okay. I agree. >> And that's what this whole what we're trying to do is narrow this down. Then we have to look at what do the needs of and I'll use Kathy's needs and wants. All right. Is the kitchen too big? All right. Can we get by without the big
wraparound uh deck for right now and maybe add that on later? Okay. These are things that we can't determine until we get an accurate take an accurate pricing and then when we go out to bid give me an add all that deduct on this what's
this value and that's when the value engineering happens is once someone sees the takeoff and the pricing and each of the trades come in uh and we can't get there until spend a little bit of money. Bear in mind that when we first started talking about
when we floated the idea of borrowing money two years ago, that was to kickstart this thing as opposed to waiting for fundraising. All right? And then we were going to pay it back. We were going to borrow the money and pay it back through fundraising. Okay? So,
the intent has always been even these soft costs to pay back that money was just a short-term loan that we paid off through fundraising. We don't know what the how much that fundraising is going to be, but we don't we got to get started somewhere. And I don't think
that and I I hear it's town money, okay? But we're not asking the the uh the voters on a to to uh approve money. I mean, uh a tax increase or >> pocket. That's not a good
>> Okay, we spent 500,000. The last time we spent this much money out of that account was four years ago. We didn't we weren't even given the information that there was that much money in the account to know that we had it to spend. >> You actually don't have it to spend.
>> Well, you do for recreational programs, >> but it has to come from >> correct. That's a that's a separate I mean it's it's it's a minor detail, but like every eight or nine years we have to deal with the turf at Coach Head Field. >> Mhm.
>> That's about an 850 grand hit. So we go to the taxpayers for that or we pull it out of the revolving fund. So you know it no money is free here. It's just not it's just how we use it, you know, at the end of the >> So So I'll tell you what would make me
more comfortable because I've always been a little uncomfortable with this myself. I want a timeline. I want commitments. Okay. So if we if we go forward with this, you know, what percent design is
going to be done by when and when are we going to get I presume that would include a budget, you know, a a an estimate for the entire project, right? But included in that number is how much do
we expect the fundraising target to be? Okay? Because that's the only way we're going to know what we're really asking the town for. Um, so I want a timeline as to when we're going to have that information,
what the decision is going to be on the next step, when it's going to happen, and most importantly, who is going to make the decision. I want a full timeline. >> You know, it's a little difficult. >> It's Thursday. >> No, no, no. I'm just saying >> vote on Monday.
>> It's not. So in terms of >> well I think that's in line with what we've talked about. I you know we >> I'm asking there's a lot of marble stuff. I want something on paper >> this as far as when we get an updated cost estimate. >> Yes.
>> At 75% design say um we're talking about October. >> I understand. Yes I understand. Um, and then we've always kind of said that we would not be going to town meeting for construction dollars until we understand
where fundraising is. So, it's not really quite um you have to raise this amount by this date. It's more of until the fundraising gets to a certain point and that delta is a certain point depending on what else is on the table. I understand what I'm saying is,
>> and I'm frustrated because I used to do this for a living too, okay? Project management, you know, $85 million programs. I get it. Yes, you can do what I'm asking, okay, by Monday. Okay? Because they have the information. I'm just asking it to be you. You said put a
stake in the ground. I'm asking the people to put a stake in the ground so then leadership can support that. I'm not going to recommend approving something that is too fuzzy from a schedule standpoint and a commitment standpoint. You want commitment from me.
I want commitment from the people who are going to do the work. Oh, and I'm looking at DPW town administrator fundraiser. Okay, that's who I'm looking at because this is frustrating. It this is I don't want to use the term only $7
million, but you can do this stuff. Okay. Make put a timeline together. Okay, because uh it's a communication tool and I think where we lost some of the momentum is because we didn't
think to bring in fincom early enough into the conversations. You know, my bad, you know, everybody's bad here. Okay. Um that I think we like I said, and Sarah articulated it again, they went through a whole capital planning
process. This really wasn't, you know, it wasn't in there. It wasn't in the 25 year plan or 30-year plan, whatever we have. We're kind of throwing something in there. We want to move fast. All good. But let's respect the fact that,
you know, this is not normally how we would do this. >> I I don't I only haven't been here since July. Um, I don't I I don't completely agree. I you know, this the I don't and I don't want to spend a ton of time like arguing
back and forth about that. I think that um this project wasn't on the capital plan because at the time that the capital plan was most recently developed, it wasn't >> perceived that there was going to be
money. disagree with that, Tony. This price came in on December 15th, >> 2025, >> which was prior to the start of this budget cycle, >> and it was not added to the capital plan in this budget cycle like it should have
been because you knew when that price came in that they weren't going to be able to the select board did not >> did not until February. Sarah, we didn't discuss it until >> and actually >> I'm saying the price was there >> and actually >> didn't come to us >> and actually the council on aging
facility was included in the first draft of the capital request submitted to the fincom back in November but at the time we didn't feel we had we had so much capital at that point and construction asking for construction dollars was way
too early so we ended up moving it off and then we kept going with the process and it was February, early February that we went to the select board with the updated cost estimates and discussion about scaleback options and things of that nature. Once the select board made a decision, we had to then you know talk
about that with the masons and then we brought it to the fincom on March 18th. So I you know and and the harbor like I look at like the harbor the harbor master office you know that's not on the capital plan either but it's but it's
>> you know in the >> very low >> but it's out there and that's because it's uh you know grant funded right so while once this was determined to exceed
the feasibility of fundraising that's when it really became and introduced into that formal >> 100% agree but I I think we collectively I'm not putting this on on you collectively we should have run to Bencom and said hey guess what
>> we I did I mean from from >> I guess I'm not >> a month it was a month apart >> well >> but with what number because you don't know what that number is >> well the same the same presentation yeah >> that we gave the select board February we gave to been common in March.
>> Yeah, >> I wouldn't say I don't necessarily find that March versus January. I mean, necessarily it's >> that December 15th budget, you know, which probably drew some reaction from
that were directly involved with that that effort like, oh my gosh, you know, it's $7 million or $6 million. What do we do? How do we approach this? It's more than fund raise. The the point is is that might not have been enough time to to fully think this
out in a way that it could be presented at this particular town meeting versus the practice. >> But we are where we are. >> So just a statement of just general clarification. My sense is you're concerned about our
perspective on this. We want this community center. The reason we're paid the big bucks here is to think about financial issues >> more than us >> how the town approaches financial issues and that's just it's raising red flags and so
>> deep in our deep in our hearts we all want this um I will say we've been you know we meet every single week through the winter and we ask Tony and we've asked Greg what's happening with the community center what's happening with the central street dam what's happening
with the 111F it just goes on and on it's like where's the checkpoint and we've been getting the same answer up until really recently. And it's it's a timing problem. It's great. It's gone over the the the hill, but it was just like a week or two ago. And that's part
of our concern here is on the process side. We're just like, okay, this is opened up, but we're are we have all the rest of the ducks in a row here? And that's what we're that's what we're struggling with, frankly. So >> well I mean I I feel like it was you
know it was I I only feel the need to correct you just because we are you know talking about timeline it it was March and at that time you know the fincom made it clear uh we're not going to consider
recommending this until this property is closed on. We had two requirements. Yeah. >> One, it was closed and the other was to have some letters of commitment. >> The property was closed a few days ago. We've never seen any letters of commitment.
Um, so that we didn't get both pieces of what we asked for. And that was, you know, March 19th when it was raised to us was basically when we concluded the budget process.
I mean I think our last budget thing is from March, you know the book. >> Yeah. Um so that's a challenge and to your point
Kathy and to your point Sarah you know this is a it's a little bit of a wiggly situation in terms of letters of commitment. We know how this runs with fundraising so good and so on. The one thing I can commit to is if we know and we have town meeting on Monday and we move forward with whatever whatever
decision happens and if it's moving in the direction of fundraising, we're ready to go and we're running a parallel process here. It's not waiting for the design money or the the idea to understand what it's going to cost. We're already doing that. So by the
fall, October, November, what we're targeting for relative to a number right at this design number, we will have a number of fundraising and I will feel good about that and we will have letters of commitment because we've got those vetted. We're working with ECCF to make
sure that those are signed. No money will be transferred to anything until the project is approved and ready to go, right? But we can get letters of commitment and we were working on that and we know we have basically from April through October to get what that number
looks like. So I'm ready to put the stake in the ground on >> and right now you're I mean you you go out there and work with this six to7 million number >> we've been talking Yeah. I mean, we've been talking about >> something people already know that >> but they do and they know that that's not realistic. But I think for the for
the larger investor or it may be realistic, but the >> the the people that want to step forward are doing it because they're doing it because they need in the community. They want to support it. They want to understand it, but they also are fiscally responsible people. They look at business the way they look at it.
They want to understand it's been vetted and they want to understand to the best of the ability what am I paying for and what am I contributing to. So we can certainly move in a general direction but it's a much stronger story to say we're working on the documents. We're
going to have a better sense in our par parallel process of what the costs are going to be. In addition to that we know generally we're going to run in this direction. So how much are you willing to put in? This has got to be sort of a give and take right between both. So from a timeline standpoint, what I heard
was both project and fundraising estimates will be available before the November town meeting >> should be. I mean, if you want to set the target on that, yeah, >> I'm uncomfortable doing anything without target dates. It's just in my DNA.
>> Well, it's what it's understand, but you got to we have to set target dates. So, all right. >> As far as as far as the work with Olen, that's what we that's what we were targeting. >> Okay. And so I'll suggest that we decrease the amount of money asked for
the 150,000. When we ask for that money, we explain at town meeting that it could cost 6 million and we expect that a portion of it will need to be paid by the taxpayers.
>> So with how far does 150,000 get us in design? Well, when I look at this what was presented to us, um, two big things were construction documents and bidding. We're taking those off. >> So, how much was that worth?
>> I don't know. But there >> 25 grand. >> Well, why? >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'm just I'm not I'm just trying to realistically kind of put a number out there, >> but it's that number. We can't really
throw with random numbers either that you made up. >> Oh, you don't like my I mean >> Well, I could be totally right, but >> I mean, you want a real You want a realistic number? >> The whole design. They have the design done. >> They don't have the They're telling me they don't have
>> all the mechanicals done. Good price. >> We have We have lines on a paper. We have 10% plants. That That board is what we've shown. We have done no vetting beyond moving squares around for space layout
on a sheet of paper. there's been nothing further in terms of design development to develop any sort of you know solid cost estimate you know MEP um you know I think even going a bit philosophically like we need to decide
are we going for lowest capital cost so basically doing you know building code meeting building code or are we going to look at a more progressive more like 30-year cost life cycle cost analysis
where maybe the capital cost is slightly higher but in the long term we save a ton of money because we put solar that pays you know for itself in a few years or we do other you know we do more insulation or other things that we can
would reduce the 30-year life cycle cost but ultimately has a higher upfront cost so I think those are things we would want to evaluate at least I would want to evaluate during the design process to make sure that we are making solid sound decisions for the next for the life of this building. Um so I think that's a
big part of it going forward. Um and so like we just have to do all the groundwork to get us there. Um we have put together I have put together a bit of a schedule is assuming a July 1 start date for when we can get funds to
execute a contract for Olsson Lewis. basically taking it from 10% to 30% I have from uh basically July and August uh I have included placeholder uh
placeholders for a presentation to the facilities planning committee because I think we need to define a lot of those early goals and what we're actually designing the building design standards. uh we'll have a stakeholder, you know, workshop for the community at large to start getting some more of the, you
know, uh finer details on what we've come up with already in this plan. Uh I believe we're going to need a ZBA renewal. >> So, we'll have to do that. And then I have also a select board presentation included. uh starting September we go
from uh 30% to 75% design between September and November 15th. We will need uh site plan review by planning board. We may need uh conservation approval depending on the uh impact of
the landscape architecture and how far we get in and you know what we do there. We're kind of like right on that line. Um and then this is where I have a 75% uh cost estimate uh basically what they
define as a class two. So kind of a narrow band much narrower band on the plus minus on a cost estimate >> and that's by November >> and that's by November 15th. I I sent a clip over to John Harden this afternoon
and he you know thought that that was doable. Um, >> so why aren't we allocating the amount of money at this town meeting to get us to that November 15th and then we have the
opportunity once we've get got things a little more definitive to look for more money in a November time. >> We don't need to do it. >> I think we'd be okay with that. I just
don't know. It's just hard to say in this room what that dollar number >> Yeah. What is 75% how much does 75% cost? >> I we don't we didn't break it down in that manner. I would have to talk to John to see get a better handle on what he feels is an appropriate number to get
us to that 75% you know in mid November. You know I think that's looking at you he's gonna have to talk to some of the sub some of the subcontractors sub consultants will need to do more of the full scope of their work. others not so much. Um, so I wouldn't want to take a
guess at that number right now, but I'm sure I can talk to him tomorrow and try to come up with a more pal palatable number for getting us to 75%. >> I was going to suggest $100,000. >> Sarah suggests $150. I didn't hear you.
>> At this rate, we're gonna owe you 20,000. No, I don't think so. Anyway, I I could go with 150 and I think if we were to tell Olsen Lewis that's that's what we got and this is what you got to do and
this is the time by which you have to have it. >> I've done it plenty. >> You want to be the front man to do it. Well, he's going to tell the town about the four million. >> He came up and we thought it was going to be a million dollars or $2 million.
Okay. >> And that was three uh that was what we put up$1 million and then now you start. >> We said that the rest we looking at $2 million. That was three years ago. Okay. And that we felt comfortable that we
could do that fundraising. Prices have escalated. Costs have escalated. Construction costs have escalated. We were wrong. >> Okay. >> Added a community center >> and we're adding the community center and town offices. Let's not forget the fact that what was the value of it?
Remember when we looked at those options? We had the uh >> the 1 million was back in 2020 just to set the >> right I think that's when saw that $1 million. It just went to $2 million three years later. Uh as three years
ago, right? And we had different looks at the uh there was three different options. The one didn't include municipal offices. >> Correct. Yeah. We looked at three different alternatives. We looked at >> Now we're adding municipal offices which the town. >> So, so I think that what the story
you're suggesting is once the um once we realize the cost had escalated, we sought ways to increase the utilization of the building because an empty building is an expensive building, right? So,
>> so in order because we couldn't figure out a way to cut those costs yet, we can certainly do things, take actions to increase the utilization, >> moving people out who are going to who are in the basement going to get flooded out anyway, right? Um add in some
programming from parks and wreck that will allow revenue to help pay for the building, right? That's what we did. Okay. And guess what? You know who also might be interested in using some of the space? Other other town depart the library has always been looking for more
space to run programs. Guess what? We could approach the library trustees and say, "Hey, you want to help us with the fundraising?" Okay. So, there's by expanding the utilization and increasing the utilization of the building, we also increase the likelihood that fundraising
can raise more. >> And there's no expectation that >> that's how I'm looking at it. doing fundraising for municipal offices. >> You're not going to get fundraising from municipal offices. >> I agree. I totally agree. >> But you're going to get fundraising for other >> That's how we've been able to uh expand
the use of the building and feel more comfortable asking for money from the town. We just don't know how much money that's going to be. Yeah, >> that price point. >> Uh, Weson and Samson provide us, I think I shared this with all of you, a average cost per square foot and how it's
climbed over DBW projects. In 2020, that was $376. In 2025, that's gone up to $89 per square foot on average. >> So, there you go. >> And then if we wait for another two years, another year, it's going to be
$1,000. But we could say that about every single project in town and the fact of the matter is they don't have money now. >> We don't have the money to spend for every project. >> But I think it helps explain >> explain how these costs have escalated. >> Yes. >> We're still not going to like it.
>> If if we were, you know, because we're wrestling with this lesser amount to get us to 75% of the realities that Olson Lewis, but um if we were to alter the language in the article with possible at
this stage. >> Yeah, you can always amend it. >> You can always amend it >> on the floor in the in the motion. It can be the amount can be changed. >> Yeah. uh the select doesn't yeah >> because I could I could get behind the
idea of authorizing sufficient divine design funds to bring us to 75% or rational that also includes a midway stopping point of 30% to to also do an evaluation
scope versus budget. So, the select board doesn't have you have a meeting posted for Monday. The select board does not um as far as voting on a recommendation tonight. The select board would have to make their vote tonight. And um I guess the fincom
could wait until we get that number from John Harden and make a decision Monday to a lesser amount. Are >> we Is it realistic we're definitely going to have that number? >> No. >> By Monday? Yeah, by Monday
>> I think we should be I think John should be looking for an estimate from Yeah, you're looking at four months worth of work. Yeah, if they estimate we're >> deal I don't think it's going to be I don't think it's going to be significantly less.
>> Right. This is what I'm thinking. What if they come back at 300,000? Is that is that going to do anything for you? Right. >> That's what I'm hearing. Yeah. So >> So what do we do? I guess each board's >> I mean that's I mean if we disagree we
disagree. >> Yeah. I'm willing to recommend 150,000. >> We go two. >> I would second that motion. >> Can we get that up to two? >> Please. >> Thanks Dean. >> You you have the opportunity to wait and
until we get an answer from John. >> I don't want to wait. No, because that puts you in a difficult position if you don't like the number. Right. So, >> right. And I mean, we as a town should come up with the amount of money we're willing to spend between now and
November. We should not be having John Harden dictate to us how much we should spend. >> G, I'd like to go to we're pulling numbers out of thin air. Well, to be clear, John Har shouldn't be how we responded to an RFQ that we put on the
street. Like, this is not like we just picked them because they're our faith. They were the responsive, most attractive bidder on this based on qualifications and price at the time that we did that. So, there there is, as Nate just pointed out in the schedule and a lot of other things, we have a
prescriptive process that we have to follow in municipal world on these projects and that's what we're following. >> So, I I don't think that's out of line at all. But I think that's how we how we get to this point is that we we are following a very prescriptive process. >> That's not what I'm saying, Chuck. I'm
saying if we say we have 150,000 now we're willing to spend. >> What can you do for us? >> You Olson Lewis, what can you do for the 150,000? >> Right. It's you can do and then if we need more money in November, we have the opportunity to put more money out. >> Listen, that's that's your call and
that's your decision. I think I need to it is it's a good technique for for controlling spending. It's an absolute when you get into these >> it's a great one for controlling benny. It's a bad one for predicting how the rest of the project is going to go. >> It depend. It depends. We haven't heard
what they can give us for the 150th. >> But I don't think it's realistic to get to 75% at half the money. I mean that's not a realistic approach. >> But maybe it doesn't get to 75%. Maybe >> I'm hearing 75%. That's what I heard.
>> 30%. >> We don't We already said we want 75%. >> No, I Well, just to be clear again, the school projects what that what the Essex elementary school project is going to when it comes before town, that is going to be based on an estimate that's on a
30% design. That's that's what gets voted upon to appropriate the money. That's a scary $90 million, >> man. I have a big I have a big thought. Um
I've had my hand up for a while, but a big elephant in the room seems to be now that we're opening this to a community center, is there a certain percentage that the town is willing to fund versus
private fundraising? I mean, because that seems to be the >> We're not there yet. >> Right. Well, >> we're not there yet. >> We won't we won't get there until we have a a price for a project and we
bring it before town meeting >> and can tell the project is and how much is being donated. So, it's premature to discuss that tonight. >> Okay. I mean they they talk about design
development 30% of design which is including coordinating electrical, mechanical, plumbing, fire protection etc. I mean that seems to me 30% as a stepping point isn't that bad. They only have four months to work on
before November because they can't start to July 1st when nobody's there. >> Well, they can start. They just can't annoy us >> once the once the money's approved. >> I just think it's important
>> to have the board support it. >> You just Yeah, it is. >> Critical. You just could be setting yourself up for a scenario in November or whenever we get to that point that >> you're looking at a cost estimate based
on >> less information that has a wider or less confidence in that cost estimate. >> Right. So, but they should as part >> back to where we are today. >> Well, that's correct though, but not exactly back where we are because what
we're only at 10% design, right? So when you go to that next level, what I would expect them to have is some kind of a risk register that's itemized or costed out. So you would know, you know, how what's the um what did you call it earlier, Nate? Um
what's the window how narrow it is? The um >> spread. >> Yeah, the spread. Okay. I'll say >> that's usually some type of >> Yeah, that's the usually confidence level in the estimate, right? So you
know how far off you are. And so let's say that number is $2 million and you got a 50% confidence level. You know that's not ideal, right? But what we would want to ask is for 150, let's say we use that as a number. What type of
confidence level can you get? What level of design can you get us? And what confidence level? Right? That should give us the overall boundaries of what this thing can cost. You just do the math. So >> can I ask relative to the schedule you
were referencing earlier >> when when did they get to 30%? >> Uh so I have them by September. >> Okay. Because technically you know going the next step to the 75% figure in November doesn't leave us a lot of time
to all that together. 30% in September. >> A good amount of time to to kind of think about that, talk about it, position it and uh% >> Yep. I agree. >> So the challenge is to figure out how much 30% is or come up with a number
that we think will cover that >> or Yeah. Yeah. Or >> right now. >> Yeah. The fees the fee is based on on time hours spent you know over the course of the schedule. So 30% die design, you
know, we could probably wrestle a number, but I' I'd rather give John Harden the opportunity to actually, you know, say what that is. >> Um, but uh I I don't think it will be too far off from some of the numbers we're talking about 150.
>> Well, that's what that's what I think that's what I hear we have to do. We have to come up with a number tonight. >> Yeah. >> Well, we're not going to come up with a number tonight if we have to ask John Hart. Well, yeah. But if we have to have one, then we have to >> Yeah. >> Well, Harden, if if it's over that, what can we get for this?
>> Yeah. But give give us what this >> But we rely on you and Nate to say this is what an intelligent number is >> because we have to do we have to come up with a number tonight. I understand we can't really wait. I I'll say in the in
the world of you know school design of most firms that are that do you know windows projects to bring them up to schematic design they operate at a loss to get to that point. Um and that that I'm not professing that's an approach
for referrals for Louiswis but I'll say that is that's what happens and then they recoup. >> Okay. >> Y no that's right. We've all done that. Is >> that the way you were, Brian? >> There were times when back in the day when we were doing uh tenant work, I would go in really really tight on the
base building. >> Yeah. >> All right. >> Promise of make it up. >> I change orders. Change order. >> More tenants. >> That too. >> Okay. So, >> I will say also just talk about the
market at large. Architectural firms a lot less busy today than they were two years ago. There's a lot less confidence about the economy today. >> My daughter's going to college for architecture graduating
with price requests. >> Are you busy? Well, you're especially good. So, >> you're especially good. >> All right. So, where are we? Are we all comfortable with 150? >> No. No make up numbers. >> First of all, process is a problem in
the first place. It's a big problem from day day one until now. And we start making up numbers that we're just making worse. It just gets worse and worse. >> Well, we're setting a number that we're targeted on the project.
>> Yeah. Subject to order that we just made up. Well, I'm looking I'm looking for the >> Well, that happens. >> I have a certain number I'm willing to spend on it, right? >> You know what you're getting, right? We're still kind of not sure we're getting
>> what I'm willing to spend. >> But I think the key here is we're putting a number in that >> from our judgment we feel better with. We have another practice in November, >> right? So, this isn't just like an open runway.
>> And I think there's time for fundraising to start happening, for community involvement to start getting >> I like it because it's less and I feel like there's more process checkpoints along the way. >> We have a timeline. We have a timeline and checkpoints. >> I'd rather the whole project
changed a lot. >> Here's a new deal. Here's why we did this. Here's the new deal. And now there's town money involved. A significant amount of town money involved. >> That's the first time I've heard that's that's a thing. >> We don't know what that's going to be.
>> So maybe the town doesn't want to spend I don't know how many millions. So this has changed dramatically. back and say look this is a whole new deal here >> have one meeting
>> that's back and said look >> and now our new plan is do this and this and this >> you want to get 15 now >> I think I I think one of the questions that we haven't really asked but will
certainly come up on town meeting floor is what is the trigger point for donations at which point the town says we'll backfill the balance. So if this is a $6 million project and Susan's able to go out and raise 1.5
million, will the town step up and do four and a half or five or will they wait >> or will they scale the project back? And I'm not a That's a question that somebody's going to be asking about. >> But that's what I That's why I asked for the timeline. I'll have in November.
>> That's what that's what I'm expecting in November, >> right? I asked, you know, what is the target? So then we can tell the town, look, this is what we can fund raise and then that'll give an opportunity to say, >> right, >> you know, maybe we can't afford this project or here's how we move forward.
But I'm that's why I asked that question. interesting to that point, which is fair. If you're only funding, if you're picking 150 out of the air and you're limiting the amount of design work that you do now, the cost estimate that you
have in November that you're using to make an informed decision at that checkpoint as is less confident because it's based on less of a design. Mhm. >> So that's why we were trying to do this to get
confident as a cost estimate in November as possible. So you can >> So you can put >> $700,000. >> I think >> will we be really sure of ourselves? >> I I think it would give us enough 150 will give us enough to know whether we
need to walk away from the project or whether we can afford to do it. I don't think >> based on what like how do you how do you get there? >> Because you're going to have a better cost estimate that 30%. >> He's saying that's what they do in the school building.
>> We're going to be making that decision. >> That's the number we're going to be dealing >> there. There are there are different there I mean there are there are designs that based on what the state requires and minimums and Okay. So that helps with the design. right now we don't know
what we we don't know what we don't know okay and build to a certain >> and to be as graphic I don't want to halfass this thing okay and I think that we've asked our architects
have said or we've said 350 we have to respect that that's the number that they feel comfortable with that we can go out to bid with >> they're giving us a scope that we don't need at this point >> that's what I hear the difference. >> That That is the difference. >> I think I've heard Nate say that it's
about $25,000. >> Going back from bid documents >> bidding is probably about 20,000. They have a spec consultant for 10. So >> that sounds like 300, >> right?
>> No. Okay. So I'd like to say that you know Olsen Lewis is a pretty small firm and 150,000 would would be about 15 man
months worth work or person months. So um seems like enough to get it to the next level to me. >> Well I'm not going to pretend to know their business. also 11 consultants subconultants you know from MEP to civil site landscape architecture structural
engineers kitchen consultant code consultant specifications environmental consultant if we have to do concom geotechnical engineer >> but we don't need all of that before November >> you need a good majority of them
to define the project enough to have a an estimate that we feel confident bringing forward. >> Well, if we if we spend the 150 now and it's not far enough along, then we spend more in November. >> Can I ask a question?
>> If if just going along this line, right, the concern is that there hasn't been enough stop points or gaps here to really do some testing to see what looks good. What if, don't shoot me up when I say this, what if you do up to the 350 that we're agreeing to, but there's a
there's a pulse point in August or in July or whatever time frame that says it's a go no-go based on what we get to at that point. And that the money is there. It will not be spent unless the fin and select board agree to spend it out of the revolving fund. But at least
the money is there so we don't have to go back and ask again in November for more money. But it won't be spent unless that pulse point in August, that 30% is where it needs to be. >> So I mean >> that's something we could easily write into the contract and that's something
we do with our consultants all the time of basically giving it task based you have authorization to proceed on specific tasks. You're not authorized to go beyond until you know we say so. So we could and honestly that was some of my comments. I have comments on their
proposal to get more detail. Um this is a rough draft we got yesterday. Uh you know getting more of that detail detail and that's something we could incorporate into and give us a line item breakdown or I shouldn't say line item but by
phase breakdown for the work that's associated with getting us from 10 to 30 and then from 30 to 75 then from 75 to bidding. >> Three three phases. Did you have a motion that authorizes the full amount,
but spending is in some way subject to the approval of the >> No, I'm trying to figure out a way to be expend this this is not a new situation for for
us in our projects. We we did it on PAS. We've done it on, you know, there's certain scope that we award to get the answers we need to get. We just frankly don't keep you guys involved because it's not necessary. >> Nothing. >> Just to kind of prove the point a little
bit like Andy, you mentioned the boat ramp. Neither of us were here for that boat ramp, but do you think it was because they didn't spend enough money in design or because they didn't spend enough money in design that they had the issue? Nobody was watching the >> construction. Construction was the issue. So anyway, I guess
you know >> this this is this has been a flawed process as John has said from a long time ago and you can say well if the Masons had only come to the table three years ago we could have done a deal and we wouldn't be talking about it. That's a if only if only
>> to blame but not blaming the Masons on this. >> Okay. They are wonderful. I agree. They're lovely. Um, so it was I'm I'm somewhat offended by that conference. >> Well, whose fault is it that it took so long? >> It took two years to sign >> because we had things that have never been done before.
Okay. And once we had again, you see it right here. Once we get into committees, things just it's where good ideas go to die. We were 80% there and then we had to go between their building committee. We had to come back and forth with their attorneys. So, we've worked very closely
with them and I find it somewhat offensive to blame them that why it took so long. >> Well, I'm just trying to figure out why it took so long. That's it. >> Okay. Well, >> maybe there's no answer at this point. It doesn't matter. We're we're we have we I think we all need to just focus on
what do we do now? We we're we're in this we're in a pickle. >> And what do we do now? >> I don't think there I don't think there's an agreement here. That's what I'm here. >> Yeah. >> Really don't >> I agree. I agree with you. There is not an agreement. >> I just think
>> No, no agreement. >> It's not that I don't like you guys, but >> I we like you, too. >> You know, it's it's the reality is we might have to go two separate ways here. That's all there is to it. >> Absolutely. I I mean, I voted whenever it was last
Thursday or a week ago. Let's let it put it on the on the warrant, but I I'm not going to vote to recommend it. And I seem to recommend to support 150. >> Well, that's because I, you know, I've been persuaded, but I don't like it.
>> We'll go to two. Did you just get it up to two? >> No, it's it's it's critical that both groups are behind this effort. >> I don't see it, Joe. I want it, but I don't get to that that point somehow because that's so critical for the
fundraising piece here. >> We lock the bathrooms and nobody gets to leave. >> It really is. >> I I think you could I don't know how you reduce the amount by half. I don't think that that's going
to get you where you want to go. I think you could reduce it down to 300. I think you can make a commitment that we're not going to spend once we get to 75% or and we'll check in at 30. But I don't I don't think pulling a number out of the
out of thin air is the right. >> It's not pulling money out of thin air. >> Well, it's not. It is. It's >> coming up with a number that we're comfortable spending until we have more information. >> Yeah. It's It's not
>> It doesn't You have There's no When I say pulled out of thin air, you don't know what 150 gets you. You don't know what information that's going to provide more than we have today. >> It will be, >> right? But it may not be a better estimate and a level of the
front half or the rear half. >> It It'll be a better estimate with a level of confidence in that estimate. >> That's what I would expect. I'm not I'm not confident that's the case. That's the problem. I could go with 150 if somebody could tell me, "Yeah, we are
definitely going to be there." But I that >> I'm not saying it's not going to be a worse estimate. It's going to be a better estimate. And that is Is that enough to fund raise? Is that enough to move forward? >> He's saying she's starting to fund raise
any without spending this money. >> So pull So pull the whole article. Right. >> That's what I suggested at the beginning. Pass it over. >> No, I think you you still have to have an endorsement from the two uh two
boards. >> I I agree with you, John. >> I don't I honestly don't see it. Um I'm not hearing it. >> Yeah. Sometimes it's a leap of faith that we take the 300 and you have to trust
our OPM and and our our staff, the people we've hired to do their job to do their job. >> That's like Brian, you arguing that anytime we're going to spend money, we pick a number and expect to spend less, but we're
gonna we're gonna pay for it anyway. That's not a good argument. It's not a fiscally responsible argument that you should be spending what you're comfortable spending at any point in a project.
>> I'm comfortable spending 350. >> Well, is it is it fiscally responsible to come up with a number that you don't know what you're getting for that number? >> You don't know you're getting the job done 150. You can create a $90 million
>> I don't want to compare >> project based on you. You're talking about an MSBA project. They build these all the time. MSBA has you build to a certain spec and part of that is in there. So you have a lot more a lot
better of an idea what you're going into at 30%. You're building something nobody's ever done before. And people build this sort of thing every day. This is not rocket science. This is an addition. Two additions to an
existing building. >> And I think it's I think the the correct approach is to say what is the information that we want and then what is it going to cost us to get that? That's the approach. And if we
want to get to 75% design, it's not going to be accomplished by cutting this proposal in half. >> No. So, so here's here's why I'm comfortable with going with some lower number because let's play devil's advocate here. Let's say we have what's our current number at 6 million or
something. The estimate something like that. >> Oh, it's really >> okay. Well, I mean, we have a 10% We have a 10% design at 6 million. Okay. Let's say we spent 150k and all of a sudden the number went up,
right? Which is cool, >> right? Let's say it goes beyond 6 million. You know what would we do then? I'd rather spend 150 or 200, whatever it is to find that out rather than spend 350 to find that out.
>> What's going to happen is what's going to happen is you're going to say, "Well, >> we're not super confident on that cost estimate. We need more design to get an updated cost estimate and then you're going to be mo months down the road and the inflation is going to continue to rise. I think it's just you're you're
just it's a >> it's a penny wise impound. >> It just delays. >> If we if we went on that argument, we would be building $200 million worth of capital projects today. Correct. >> Because we don't want future costs to impact us and that's not realistic.
>> That's right. Well, but I'm we're not committing to construction dollars here. We're talking about getting >> No, but you're talking about doing it very quickly because the cost future costs could rise. And I'm saying that's that's not a valid argument or else we'd
be doing everything today, >> right? I'm saying let's get the information that we need to make an informed decision when that time comes, not pay for a lesser amount of information to
then be faced with the decision of do we need more information to make that informed decision. That's that's what I'm saying. >> So I don't think there's a rush. I'm I'm sorry. This this proposal is including stuff we don't need at this point. >> Agreed. But I don't think it reduced. I
don't think it's half. >> I can't support this price because it's including stuff we don't need. >> Right. But I don't think it's half. I don't think you just cut it in half. >> What you're objecting to is about $35,000. >> No, I don't agree with that. And >> Okay. So, you're going to
>> I think it's a huge difference. >> Okay. What What is it that you don't want? >> Don't want to go from 75% to 100%. Don't want the bidding. don't want the construction documents. Um,
you know, I want the 30% design. >> Which includes four meetings and presentations. >> We're going to talk about with the four meetings. >> I'm just, you know, there's really nothing nothing to talk about with 30%.
Right. >> I don't agree with that, Brian. >> Obviously, we're not going to agree on this at all. Okay. And now we're just being a dead horse here. And to Jeff's point, and John, I I totally agree with you. You have to show
the the uh this support of these two boards, right? But I don't see it. I don't I don't see >> I I think what I'm hearing from Fincom is there may be some support for a lower number and the question I think we need
to ask ourselves is it more important to show movement and support of both boards or is are we letting perfection get in the way of good enough? >> Well, let me ask this. So, you want to
cut it to 150. What's going to what's going to be the answer when the seniors come and say, "Why are you only designing this to 30%." What's that? Who's going to answer that? And what is that answer? >> Why would they ask the question?
>> Because it's the senior which which Yeah. Tell tell me the group that's holding the rudder here among the >> they're the same people that are going to vote for every other capital. Okay.
>> I'm a senior and I've rece I've had zero input on this project. So you it's a small group of people >> who are pushing this project. I think to answer your question, Jeff, the answer is that when we started down this path, it was just a senior center. And now in
order to increase the utilization of the building, we want and because there was an outcry when the community center in downtown went away, we we added that to our scope. Now that we have a different scope, we have to bring other people in
and in, you know, bring other people along this process. We haven't had time to do that because we just closed on the building last week. >> Okay. So, so to that point, we've added uses to it, right? >> We've added uses. Yes. Which could affect the design if we're not careful,
right? >> But that could also cost more to design. So, let's say that the senior center is 30%. All these town offices are a certain consent to design. >> The
parks and wreck is a certain amount that's got a design. So let let's say that's 60% design. >> When you say 60, I'm not sure that we're using that percentage in the same manner. We're not
>> we're saying so say you want to say to 30%. >> Yeah. But that's for a senior center. >> No, that's a >> No, no, no. I think that's the source of confusion here. >> No, that's the whole building. >> Um the definition um Nate and Chuck, can
you help us all understand what 30% design means? It's not 30% of the square footage. >> No, it's 30% of the work to design. >> Yeah. But inside of that, >> there's going to be more work to design
a building that's not just a senior center. >> John John just responded to me. >> Oh, good. >> He said he said he you can reduce it by 87500 which brings it to 256200 >> to get 30%.
>> I asked him about that. I sent that text up when we were talking about 75%. >> Ask him about 30%. No. >> Yes. Because if he's a professional, he can tell you what. >> Can I ask a timeline question because we're
>> there's are are we truly aiming for fall town meeting to have a project to then vote on authorizing money? >> No. >> Okay. So, what's the next step beyond once we have the design and a uh sufficient to to get a reasonable cost
estimate, what's our goal timeline >> and for suda to go to town, right? I think it's dependent on how much is brought in outside of town funds so you understand what the delta is and then it's going through our you know understanding
>> no no what I would what I what I was envisioning is you have two numbers in November right and then we have to get together and the first question is is this a go or no go >> the two numbers the two numbers being >> being the total estimated cost of the project and the amount we can get
through fundraising because that would tell us what the delta is and then I think we all get together with town input and say is this a go or no go because anytime you have a checkpoint the only useful checkpoints are go no-go decisions okay and we haven't had the
time to talk to the entire town about the concept of a joint right senior and community center so at some point there's got to be a go no no go decision and the question is can we spend can we allocate some money at this meeting to
get more information when a to make that go no-go decision a better decision. That's kind of what's in my head. I don't like spending 350, but I don't think it one thing that's a factor on on this timeline is the money
raising activity and the the soft soft launch is what's happening in the fall. Okay. The actual kickoff of this doesn't happen until October or November. In other words, you don't want to go out there unless you've already got half the money kind of in the bucket or some some
sort of a number and that's the number that might be available at October. But in ter in terms of a total number, if you're trying to say, all right, how much money have we got? October, November is not the time, >> right? >> We aren't going to know. We're going to know kind of how things are going. >> Well, we'll get an indication. So, so I
think we've been underway to get an indication to what I'm calling it is, you know, the anchor funds, right? These are the ones that are going to be the anchors, the larger donations that we can get a commitment letter on. That's what now
>> the more information we have about the cost of the project, the better. >> The more definitive that we are in terms of the group coming in and a decision on this, the better. Whichever way that goes, but be putting really clear
guidelines around that's important. Honestly, if we're going on this route now, we're talking a year out, April town meeting next year to bring this up because if you're getting all the information in November, if there's a November town meeting, we're not going to,
>> right? So, now we're a year out and that actually >> benefit, you know, there's both sides to this. I mean more money may be able to be raised but it also delays this another year um before we can actually >> well I mean the decision- making I was
saying >> but it doesn't it doesn't delay the the project and it wouldn't >> because it wouldn't be ready anyway >> be ready anyway decision making again I go back to >> all of this is really important the other side of this is the political will and obviously the community spirit
that's around this and what we don't want to do is diminish that >> by getting in too deep to your point of is it good enough to go can we make this stuff happen. I think that if we can just stay on task of getting some numbers in November that are realistic
whatever they may be working parallel process to look what we can get in terms of donations and letters of commitment through November taking that promise and saying but there has to be a definitive date to your point of whether it's a go or a no-go we can't and and the impact
>> can't keep stringing people along >> and the impact we now have a contractual agreement with the Masons that have this in the contract documents. So this this gets so much more complicated than just that. So you know in for a penny, in for a pound to some degree. It doesn't mean that we have to spend all this
ridiculous money. We need to be very careful about it, but the train is on the tracks, you know, and we've got to be very careful about how we're managing that. So that's all. >> Are you saying, Susan, we're committed to this project no matter what?
>> No, because No, but but we have a contract. We have a deal closed. There's all of this in there. You know, with the Masons, I'm talking about the condo agreement is there. Whether or not the senior center happens, there's certainly an out and it doesn't dozen, right? I mean, I'm assuming that's part of the contract. But, I mean, that's a scary
thing, right? After all this time and effort, >> I'm not going to be able to tell seniors. Oops. He's saying 250 gets you to 75. If you I mean if you if you're comfortable with two and that gets both boards together and supportive of it
>> 225 >> you guys can go >> I've been pushing too >> you know >> I don't want to hamstring the design >> no >> I I will say that it's it is it is not unusual to have full funding a whole
proposal for a full design that we authorize and then we control the spend to a certain point, you know, that there are these checkpoints. I I I will allow for that. I >> He's willing to include that in the contract, too. >> To me, the the more important thing is
is is that there are those checkpoints and that at 30% and that, you know, whatever is 75 or whatever, we have this opportunity. I have no problem to further discuss, >> you know, where it is, >> make sure that it's, you know, it's not, you know, looming, you know, beyond some
budget reason. >> I'm I'm open to that. >> So, what how would you re two and a quarter? Two and a quart that he can't proceed without town approval after a certain checkpoint. >> Yeah.
>> You can have two checkpoints, three checkpoints, whatever you want to make it. I guess I can have to pull 350. >> Yeah, >> I'd be willing to go two. >> Two. >> No. >> Give us 50 grand. We'll do this right
now. >> Honest to God. Give us 50 grand. We can go home. >> 200. >> Give me another 50 grand right now. God, give us another 50 grand. You did 250 in the bed right now.
>> You did 250 with a checkpoint at 30%. >> I will 250 gets you to 75% but you can't go there until you check in at 30. >> So what is just let me ask what does check in mean? Does that mean in August
15th when people are out of town, we have a meeting here and we talk and talk and talk and everybody nods their head and we say, "Okay, let's spend more." Or is there something definitive that happens at that date? I mean, and I'm not being physicious about this. It's
real town money we're spending here. And you know, part of me is like, okay, am I comfortable with 200, 150? And you know, part of me also says, is our objective here to create a sense of support amongst the voters of the town that
these two committees are firmly behind this and that we want to bring it up in its entirety in November >> and actually say we are working on this. We've had great progress, but when we get to November, we're going to have a plan. We're going to have more
fundraising information and we are going to be prepared to vote on some level of money in November. Unfortunately, that may be matched up with the school situation, but that that is also >> have enough information. >> Yeah, we won't probably have enough information, but
>> let's let's not worry about what we're going to do in November. We don't we're not ready. >> We can easily slide that to the next. So, um yeah, but okay, we've been the two boards that are part by 50 grand.
>> Yeah. Come on, guys. >> The the um impression that it will make on town meetings of support for this project is worth more than that. >> The measure >> we want this project to go forward. Every nobody here has been saying it's
only 15 seniors and they can go wrong. Um >> right. But it will be much more effective if we can agree on a number. >> Or said another way, I I think if both boards don't support it, we're risking a
no-go right now. I honest >> Yeah, that's a that is a not a very bad look. >> And that won't get erased. >> And this is a number that our architects say we can we can work with.
to 75%. >> To 75%. >> No, I would say 200 because we don't need to go to 75%. >> Yeah. >> Okay. You really Okay. We We needed Yeah. >> Well, Brian threw up two and a quarter
which was splitting. But I'm going to go I mean >> I'm going to go with what John We asking him. He came to the number. Okay. It's $100,000 less than we first talked about. I think that's a big ask and a
big move on our part. I think 250 is not unreasonable. I'm going to ask you to stop digging your heels in. All right? And let's let's move forward and let's just let's just get this thing done.
Not a big number for 40 million. >> We're not asking $50 million. Okay. >> Oh, the overall town. >> Oh, the overall >> Yeah. >> Yeah. We're dealing with a lot of money. >> 39 >> we need it's a regional process to say look we need the 75%.
That's what we need to fund raise to figure out what the whole thing's going to look like. Now that's changed a whole bunch. So we're and we got a solid number from our architect. >> So we're doing two. >> So it seems reasonable and >> prudent. >> Okay. Mory. Okay,
>> I'm good. >> Okay, Gar, >> so uh does this have a check date in it? >> Yes. >> What is the check date? >> 30%. >> Anybody know? >> Is that a date or is that a a >> I think it
talk. >> How do you enforce the checkpoint, Nate? So when we put the contract together we will designate a type task but not to proceed beyond you know so 10 to 30 30 to 75 and and so forth. So we can
>> okay milestone date too. >> Okay. So I have I have a calendar date go with that? >> Yep. So I have uh in my schedule I have >> Columbus Day >> for August 31st. >> August 31st happens to be a Monday too.
>> Thank you. And who makes that decision? in regard to >> well it's August 31st >> they check something there's a checkpoint as Kathy says there's a go or no go day who gets town >> review
we're going to so we're going to the select board to present what we've developed from 10 to 30% and then at that point if the select board likes what they sees or they have comments or whatever iteration of that we can then go from there
>> and would that be accompanied by an updated cost estimate for the project. >> We had not discussed the we had withheld authority doing a cost estimate in that section because we didn't think it was going to be reliable enough and to add
and it also adds cost to go >> you're adding cost. So we we had not we deliberately not included a cost cost estimate in that phase and shifted them to >> so what's what's the basis for your decision of go or no go
>> that's not I I when I use the word no go or no go that was November when we have a real you know the best estimate at that point plus the fundraising okay >> estimation I think we need both >> there's no point in having that >> yeah so what do you want to learn from this
>> in What do you want to learn from this 30%? >> We can make adjustments. I mean that if we're looking at stuff at 30% and say, "Well, you know, that looks like can we move something up?" Basically, >> for sure. It could be worse. >> And that's important.
>> So then I would ask get those break ones 30% and 75% that we then have the opportunity to gather back together. >> And I think we should this just be >> a decision made by not just by the select. This is this group. >> Yeah, we should all be agree.
>> That'll be great. >> So to Andy and Gar, can we >> want a processment at 30% as well? >> Sure. >> Yes. >> Then for that, we're going to definitely need a 250. >> Yeah. >> Yep. >> Because now we're asking
>> because the cost estimate has gone to $12 million. 50 on this side of the table. >> We're going to want to go >> a different set. >> You heard? Everyone heard that, right? >> Yeah. >> 253. >> All right.
>> All right. 250 is good. >> All right. All right. I'd like to make a motion. that the selection approved the use of $250,000 from the um parks and recolving fund to
further develop the plans for the cleaner and >> community recommended. We our recommendation for town meeting >> yes and we'll make a floor. >> Uh it'll be amended on the floor. Oh, you can just do it in the motion, can't
you? >> This will be the main. >> Yeah, you don't have the motion yet. >> All right, that's fine. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Right. >> Yes. >> Kathy. >> Yes. And says yes. >> John says yes.
>> I make a motion that the finance committee recommend article number six in the amount $250,000. >> Second. >> So move. >> I'm sorry. second before the but you know we don't have a schedule issue that
>> take a vote >> yes >> John >> yes >> guard >> yes >> my >> yes >> dean >> I'd like to see substantial changes in the floor plan of the original >> but I approve >> I approve
>> in Sarah votes yes >> move it forward >> that is unanimous show >> right that will be in the motion also unonymity. >> Oh, we're already >> This is justformational.
We made a group on the quantum uh for the chemical articles. >> Okay. >> You don't actually have to debate anything. I'm just going to >> because we're really good at that. >> Articles 11 through 15. Um, we said that Quant was 23.
>> Majority. >> It's majority. >> Yeah, I knew that. >> You're crazy special. >> 11. Which one? >> Two of the ballot and then the majority of two and a half. >> Thought we could get this one quicker. >> Um, the ballot these articles on town
meeting floor will spawn each one will spawn two measures on the ballot. One is the actual indebtedness and one is the prop two and a half override. The special act says just so that people are are aware
um uh with respect to such indebtness. The town determines by majority vote that the incurrence of indebtedness shall be submitted to the voters at ballot question of town election. the ballot question as to such a concurrence
or shall is approved by a quantum a vote sufficient to authorize it at town meeting. So the special act actually changes the way the works for everybody else it's twothirds of town meeting. >> Okay. >> For us it's majority town meeting and
twothirds on the ballot. >> Okay. So different. >> So that applies to number 15 also. No, it does not apply to 18 because that's below limited. Is it what which one's it? >> 11 through 15 >> are going to be majority vote on town meeting floor
>> 23 vote 2/3 at the ballot for the indebtedness and majority for the two and a half override at the ballot >> right and and Eli for the for the library it's majority >> across
the library at town meeting. Okay. >> No, because your bylaw sets the threshold at 1 million >> and some amount refers to the amount. >> Oh, when it's less than 1 million, it's harder.
>> Yes. >> That's what that is. >> But we don't put it on the ballot. >> It doesn't go on. >> Well, it is. It's a capital. >> It's a capital exam. >> That's majority. >> Majority on the ballot. >> The day it was going to be.
>> Okay. All right. I didn't I didn't put together. >> I'm done now. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> I think I seconded that motion to anyone paid attention. >> Nobody voted. Motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> All in favor.
>> Thank you. >> Eli, just tell them that unanimous counts. >> Unanimous counts.