Hello, good evening everyone. Um, it is now 7 PM. Uh, I will call the finance committee meeting to order. Um, in accordance with open meeting law regulation 940 CMR29.10, please be advised that all FINCOM
members are attending this meeting remotely. In addition, because FINCOM members are attending remotely, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote. Lastly, if any members are not clearly audible to his or her fellow members of the or members of the public, please
notify the chair myself uh immediately and we will do our best to remedy the problem and inform the public whether the meeting will continue. Um so as a preliminary matter, I am Jillian Prrenergast. I am the chair of the finance committee. Please permit me to confirm that all members and persons
anticipated on the agenda are present and can hear me. Members, when I call your name, please respond in the affirmative. Linda, >> yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes.
>> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Uh, and Nail sent an email. He will not be joining us tonight. Um, and we also have um anticipated speakers uh on the
agenda and town staff. So, I see Justin, it looks like you've joined the call. You hear us? Okay. >> Good evening everyone. How are you tonight? >> Good. Thank you for coming. We appreciate your time.
>> Of course. >> Um, and Greg said he would also be joining the call tonight. Um, but he is running a little bit late, so we will continue on. um here reading the remote meeting script. Um so good evening. This is an open meeting of the finance
committee is being conducted via Zoom. Speakers on the agenda will be participating remotely and the chair may allow for the public to provide comment. Please note that while an option for remote attendance and our participation is being provided as a courtesy to the public, this meeting will not be
suspended or terminated if technological problems interrupt the virtual broadcast to individual attendees unless required by law. Accordingly, please be aware that other folks may be able to see and hear you, so please take care not to screen share your computer. Anything that you broadcast may be captured by
the recording. Later, you can find this meeting recording posted to the WAVM YouTube channel. Thank you, WAVM, for your support. For all meeting materials, uh you can find these currently on board docs. Um uh and we recommend that the members uh
and the public follow the agenda as posted there unless I note otherwise. Um and we will now uh be turning to the first item on our agenda which is uh talking with Justin tonight
uh with a particular focus on the water sewer and otherwise related articles um so we can gather information on those to make our recommendations as the finance committee. Jillian, I couldn't see article J and K.
Is anyone else having troubles with those? >> Did I mean to board docs >> on board docs? Yeah, I get I got an error. I can see V and I can see um DPW
control articles. Oh. Um, >> it's just um Jay and K. I can't see. I don't know if is is it just me? >> No, you're on mute, Katie.
>> Oh, you're on mute still. >> I keep muting and unmuting myself. Six days of Zoom. I think I would have this down. Um, so they're under 1A. >> 1 A. Yeah, >> I just put them under the >> I can see them. I can see them, but when I click on them
>> Oh, you're right. That's weird. >> Yeah, you're right. I'll work right now on um re-uploading them while we talk. >> Okay, thank you. Thank you, Katie. But they should be in the DPW draft control articles for finance committee
meeting file as well. All of the articles should be in there. >> Yeah, that does open. So there's J K all the related articles are in this one PDF. Okay. So um but we'll also troubleshoot
uh the articles um on board docs. Thanks for that Katie. And uh you need me to email them again. I can do so live. No, >> the email attachments open fine. >> And Linda, I'll have him up there in
like two seconds. One minute. >> Okay. So, thank you for coming, Justin. Uh, and thank you for your patience while we do a little bit of troubleshooting tonight. Um, so my understanding is that, um, Greg gathered
all of the like related articles in this one file. So, I don't know if it's helpful for me to sort of have that up while we're talking. Um, but I think the goals tonight are to talk to you about these articles, also to talk about some articles that aren't here yet, like the solid waste and recycling to learn a
little bit more about that. Um, and you know, sort of any other related uh information you think that would be helpful for us to write our comments for these. >> Yeah, of course, Jillian. Yeah, it will be super helpful cuz I don't know how you how they've been um assigned at this
point. So essentially when I submit them, they don't have um a letter alphabetical lettering. Um so yeah, we can go through each one as your committee sees fit. And I think what I see in front of me is the sewer enterprise fund budget FY27.
>> Yeah. >> Excellent. Yeah. So I'll kind of give a high level overview if incomed our yearly rate hearing with the select board who acts as your water and sewer commissioners for the town of Maynard. Um at that rate hearing um it was a
public hearing but we actually presented um two nights in a row. So um one meeting and then we actually had the hearing um after that at a second meeting in which the select board approved a 7% in totality rate um
increase um that is for both sewer and water. Um and within that 7% rate increase obviously if you're if you're unaware we split both those utilities in two enterprise funds. So it is seven in totality but each one was essentially 7%
in revenue raised. Now, that doesn't always equate to the uh increase to the budget. So, revenue is based off of um an evaluation of how we're selling the commodity and sometimes um the need for revenue outpaces the expense and vice
versa. It just depends on um what our trends are for um consumption. So, what you have in front of you is a budget that is representative of that 7% increase. Um, and you'll actually, if you go down, I don't know who's controlling. I'm assuming it's Jillian.
Yep. So, if you go down, this budget is a 2.32% increase from FY26. Um, the main drivers within both utilities at this fiscal cycle is um power commodities. If you're unaware,
both these utilities are your heaviest power users. So we use electricity significantly to run mechanical operations treatment process in both water and wastewater. And as your bills and you're seeing your bills and an everyday residential life go up through
distribution and commodity charges that is also something the utility sees. So the biggest driver in this fiscal cycle is electric distribution commodity pricing. We do hedge against the purchasing of electricity as we have a
three-year power purchase agreement. So, we're really rarely seeing the distribution increase, but across Massachusetts, distribution is increasing 20 30% year-over-year, which is uh which is substantial. Um, another main driver of both water and sewer enterprise funds uh increases is also
the health insurance and retirement liabilities. Um, when we're looking at the sewer enterprise fund, there's not much that this fund does for major improvements. This is essentially a budget that keeps us at pace with our
day-to-day operation. Um, and the reason that we're focused uh less on sewer and more on water is because of the need for water capacity in regards to growth and we have some sewer capacity. So, our improvement cycle has moved um priority
one over to water and less on sewer. So, that's why you'll see a representation of um a smaller increase in the sewer enterprise budget compared to the water enterprise budget. Is there any questions in regards to the sewer enterprise budget?
>> I know you said it's a not a direct connection, but if I I thought we were doing a 7% increase just for water. Why the 7% increase for sewer if water if the budget if the
sewer budget only increases 2.32%. >> Yeah. So Peter, so 7% is both water and sewer because that's the revenue needed to acquire or fund this budget. Even though the budget only went up 2.32%, we are seeing a drastic reduction in water
use. So Fortunately, it's a commodity purchase, right? So, they don't always equate, right? Like taxes go and then it's taxes spent, right? We have to kind of weigh year-over-year uh consumption. And as we see significant droughts and
we actually are seeing um reduction in usage across our entire portfolio, um I think one of the major major drivers of that is actually our tier 4 rates are very very expensive. So people are starting to weigh their luxury items
such as irrigation and pools um and starting to reduce um that use pattern which is driven down um the total revenue from previous um previous years of our tier 4 cy category which is our highest price category in both water and
sewer. >> Okay, makes sense. Thank you. Yeah, unfortunately also just to note I mean I think most of us are just seeing this so I haven't really done any year-to-year comparisons.
Um I mean you highlighted the utility expense and health insurance stuff and I assume when we look at the year-to-year differences that's what we'll see. Um >> yeah, you'll see the 2.32% compared to
last year's. I put together all the water and sewer articles. So, >> I try to make sure that the entire town um at town meeting truly understands what the year-over-year increase is because it can be confusing as we just
discussed when people hear rates at 7%. You know, most people would would assume that's a 7% increase in the budget and it's not. And when we're messing or dealing with uh water and sewer, which is again a consumption utility, um they don't always align. Um on heavy on he if
we have if we see an extreme consumption, sometimes the rates actually aren't as high as the budget and vice versa. Um, one of the drivers too that you'll see maybe in the next couple years, I actually would like the fincom to truly understand this is is we have a moratorum on um, new developments
and we're starting to we're starting to deny a lot of new developments, which does put um some heavy weight on the rates compared to the budget, meaning we can't grow oursel out of it. So, we're not acquiring new customers where that revenue can offset some expense uh,
increases. And that's one of the drivers you'll start to see is why there was a 7% increase versus a 2% um increase on the budget. >> Justin, when I look when I look last year for water, we had 3.2 million and
this year article K is also 3.2 million. So why is that the same? It's virtually the same as FY26. >> Are you talking about water or sewer? >> Water. >> Sorry. Okay. I'm not at water. Yeah. Do you mind going down, Julia? I mean, uh,
>> water was last year was was, um, >> yeah, if you go down just a little bit, I want to say it's almost a 0%. Yeah, it's 0.9% decrease. And so, um, >> how was that? I I >> Yep. Yep. So, you I feel like you you
understand the reason that the rates are increases versus why expenses may be different. And that's based on consumption. So, we're seeing consumption come down, which means to get the same amount of money, we actually still have to bring up the bring up the rates. Almost like your tax
rate has to adjust based on your levy and and your expenses, right? So, kind of think of it a little bit like that. When we're talking about water, the reason that we were able to decrease this is we're seeing the final um the final uh purchase and sale of the bond
for the well 4A phase 1 project actually coming in less than anticipated. So we had to adjust rates to anticipated cost before that project has come to a completion and we're seeing the uh realization of PNS. So we built in
funding and we're able to actually kind of remove that. We also built in over the last two years um year-over-year capital improvement funding costs for phase 2. So Rockland Avenue water
treatment facility and new well sources. Um, and based on the board's uh recommendation, we actually had to use less than what we anticipated for the potential $3 million bond. That's also as one of the articles you'll see later.
So, we were able to actually decrease um decrease the exp uh excuse me, the budget based on those functionalities. So, we built in a lot of contingency from the years. >> Sorry. >> Bonding is going to be separate from enterprise budgets. >> What's that? The bonding will be
separate from the enterprise budgets. >> Nope. The bonding will be 100% funded by this budget. >> So, but how how are we doing the same amount of money? I that's >> because I was able to build in financial contingency. That was our financial policy plan for the last six years and
the realization of those costs are coming to fruition and we overstated them. So yearover-year we put in about a hundred $200,000 so that we don't have major rate spikes every time we need to bond 20 or $30 million. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. >> And so what happens is when we come to that realization of where the bond ends, the PNS realization comes to fruition. We've already built the revenue in there. So then we get to reallocate it. instead of keep going up, we reallocate
that to offset expense costs. So, we already acquired the rates year-over-year for the last five, six years. And as those fall off, just almost like a debt ceiling falls off, that money is reallocated to offset expenses. And so, the same thing happened. >> So, last year, last year, are you in the
in the black? Say, say, and so you does it go to retain earnings or to some other >> 100% to retain earnings. >> Retained earnings. Okay. So retained earnings we'll see go up. >> Yep. You actually you did already. Our retained earnings for water and sewer this year. >> Okay. So we're banking that extra money.
>> Correct. Yep. And we use that as part of our financial policy. Linda is our retained earnings are utilized to uh fund our reserve funds for both water and sewer. And they're also used for what's called uh small short-term capital vehicle expenses, uh capital
improvement projects, things like that. >> Okay. And so now you have a good your your your balance sheet is looking better every year. >> Yes. Yeah. So we did so the five years of financial planning have come and they're paying dividends right now. Um
and that's a good thing, right? So we're we're able to readjust some of those um some of those financial contingencies towards our expenses while also staying in alignment with our long-term plans. >> Great. And do we ever see the balance
sheet anywhere in the warrants or >> like what you have in retained earnings and all all the other money that >> over the years? >> You should have acquired that from the town accountant. Those are that's certified free cash and you'll see it certified free cash and certified retain
earnings. >> Okay, great. Thank you. >> If you didn't, I'm sure if you if Jillian um if you want to email Greg and Kevin, I'm sure they can get you those numbers. Yeah, it's just not in this file itself.
>> Yeah. So, I'm happy I'm happy to water and sewer budgets alone >> amount of money to cause us to lessen our panic. Thank. >> So Justin, just to be crystal clear for
my sake, um the debt payments associated with this borrowing for the 3 million is built into that water budget. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. >> And then sorry, what does PNS mean when you were saying?
>> Um sorry, PNI. Oh, it's been a long day. Sorry, Peter. PNI, principal and interest. Oh, okay. Okay. Excuse me on that one. So, >> oh, all right. So, you're saying prior budgets had larger expectations
for principal and interest for debt. That's now bonded at a lower rate than you thought or less money than you thought. So, the actual debt payments are lower and that's why >> the budgets aren't increasing as quickly. >> Yep. And so the money that was set aside
for that PNI at the time kind of became a net positive and we were able to use that to offset expense costs in the water. >> And the same goes with the capital improvement plans. Uh so the same thing we were we were overestimating. I it's hard because year-over-year interest
rates constantly fluctuate, right? So, we're taking we're taking the 30-year bond at the time of essentially our planning purposes. And um we were kind of lucky at this year's close to see where that was prior to the the uh
conflict. So, we were actually at lower interest rates, so we were able to secure that. It's actually why you'll see there's a retained earnings to um finalize well 4A instead of bonding that. And that's a we actually saved a good amount of money um over the next 30
years by doing that. >> Um I mean broadly speaking on the use of water and how that is contributing to a decline in revenue. I mean is water usage down 5% 2% 10%. Is there a way to
quantify to say that that simply or is it more complex? Yeah, it's it's more complex because it's quarter over quarter, but I I mean in essence I would say that we saw a reduction between 10 and 15%. >> Really? Wow. >> Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Peter, it's it's quite
drastic. I I >> I mean, in some ways, it's good because we don't have enough water, but then if you're trying to run the system, you don't have enough revenue. >> This is always going to be the chicken or the egg that we we're we're heading to that wall, right? And that's Yeah. Just like the tax rate, right? All of a sudden, now you get the tax rate. Oh,
and now you have to start bumping it up if you don't get any new revenue. The same thing, we're almost the we're the canary in the coal mine. If I could give Fincom any advice, what you're seeing right now of like how our rates have to drastically go up even though our budget goes up small. Well, that moratorum is
going to affect new growth and that's going to be you're going to be next year you're going to see this happen with general fund and where all of a sudden the tax rates going to have to start to go up just to keep pace. And so that's kind of yeah, that's where we're at and we're we tend to be the tip of the spear because of a consumption um and that we
build quarterly >> and just I mean we I believe got this from Greg um and probably could get it if we waited through all of the water and sewer presentations that you've done, but just to reconfirm the
25 or 30 million that was floated um as possible bonding this year that really would not have done anything to kind of release the moratorum that that wasn't enough at New Water to do start
building again. >> No. So, I would say it it's a two-phase approach, Peter. So, so um if the FINCOM isn't aware, so we have long-term plans. If you haven't seen our master plan, I thoroughly encourage you to review it um just so you see kind of longterm. But
I'll give you a high level. So when we acquire new wells or new ground well sources, new water assets, the permitting and piloting process of going through the regulatory state typically takes anywhere between 3 and 5 years. Within that we also have to engineer the
treatment plant and we have to design it to handle that new source water. So the the 25 million that was pitched was the totality for both the engineering and construction. But that's that timeframe horizon would have still been 3 to 5
years, Peter. And so what the board and I discussed as part of our rate scenario was let's keep the ball rolling within that 3 to fiveyear window which is the $3 million bond which allows us to go through the permitting process in the design and not have the funding for the
execution of the plant and allows us to continue to move at the same time frame horizon but reduce the cost burden to the water and sewer rates because it would have been 47% % on each water and sewer >> so that we can have a real hard
constructive conversation of positioning water into the general fund category of debt overrides because that is the driver that fuels maynard in the future. Without it, we can't pay for schools. We can't pay for other facilities. We're
only going to drive our our taxes up. So in order for us to kind of get all the the wants in the future, we need to solidify the need and open up opportunities for expansion of new growth and uh new development which could pay for both. So acknowledging the
3 to five year time frame, I'm not saying it would be immediate, but at least as Greg presented it, and you know, from what I've gleaned from looking at your stuff, the 30 million still would be more of a in a redundancy
category for supply versus, you know, oh, we got enough water to allow new growth. Am I >> No. So it it's both. So we won't know what the So when when you hear the word piloting so permitting I think you understand we you know we ask the state
to allow us to drill we ask consom etc. The piloting part is when we drill a pilot well or a test well and we're drilling several in Rockland there's actually three and four identified and we have funding right now for three. We have to drill those wells and then we
pump them over different variable seasons and we have to write reports that go to D and what we look at is the availability to physically take out water while also not affecting and seeing how it affects the environment surrounding it i.e. the aquifer and
things of that nature. Meaning if are we going to drain a wetland if we pump too much etc. That actually essentially sets the permit limit. So, what most people truly don't understand is when you see us talk about our permanent allowance is X, but our pumping allowance is Y. Yeah,
we were permitted to withdraw this amount, but our physical capability because of droughts is here. But if we're not in a drought condition, sometimes our physical capability is higher than our permit, but we can never go over that. So, there's like two
ceilings and those ceilings kind of drop sometimes. And we're at this critical pinch point with the drill where our ceiling actually is below our permit. So I can't without executing that first year to two of piloting and permitting.
I cannot tell you with extreme confidence that we will not see more than enough water to also lift the moratorum besides just contingency. So our goal so just >> goal is to expand it. Yep. >> Yep. But to short to state it more
simply for myself then you just don't know how much water is going to come out of these wells yet. >> Correct. Yep. >> Okay. Y >> Okay. >> But I have Keep your fingers crossed. This is a good area. We have three potential big hitters. So that's the that's the key.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So we Yeah, we designed a Peter for more than one well so that we can build contingency while also building capacity. That's the goal. Okay, >> Justin, you said that we using 10 to 15%
less water in FY or you're projecting. Why aren't we seeing a savings in the budget? Are we do is it all fixed cost? Do we have no marginal costs? >> Yeah, it's all fixed cost. Yeah. Yeah. Pumping rates for the most >> Okay. So, it's all it's mostly all fixed cost. Okay.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, when when the pump's on, depending if it's pulling 100 gallons per minute versus 50 gallons per minute, it's on at the same same speed >> and the salaries the salaries and capital is all the same, right? Okay. So, we're >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So, and we saw we saw a potential increase. We just shifted money. Like I said, with water in particular, we were able to reallocate funds that were previously identified for capital improvement, and they were able to offset the increases to salary and
things of that nature. All right. Excellent. So I think we've had good discussion on um J which is the uh and K which are the the enterprise fund budgets. Uh do we have any further
questions or discussions? Can I just we don't need to go through it in great detail, but I assume >> water has the same drivers that sewer does in terms of utility costs, the health insurance stuff, and that there's
not no other major changes reflected in that budget. >> Yeah, those are the two major drivers. You're correct, Peter. Um and then really, it's a re-shifting of capital improvements. So, there is a driver. We are we we're very lucky that we're able to also put aside um a few hundred,000
to pay for the bond that $3 million bond for the next phase of our >> Right. Actually, you're right. Exactly. Okay. >> Good point. >> Okay. >> Oh, I didn't realize that the golf course was going to be in here. Is that under your purview too? >> Yeah, almost everything is
>> Yeah. So, I mean I could speak to high level um in regards this is the year-over-year um receipts receivable uh transfer. This is not an enterprise fund. So, we essentially acquire the payments from Sterling Golf um monthly and then the final payment as part of
the contractual obligation. Then we reallocate that um well not reallocate, excuse me, we allocate that into the capital improvement fund um identified for the golf course. Um we've been incrementally um driving that balance
sheet up. I think if you looked year-over-year, we're now at 311,000 and when we originated this over 3 or 4 years ago, we were almost at zero. Um, I cannot add much context for what the
future holds for this fund and or the golf course. As you may or may not be aware, the select board is engaged with a reuse committee for the golf course. Um, part of that part of our financial strategy over the last 5 years was to
acquire enough funding to do major renovations and repairs. And I think that is what the task force um that's what they'll be looking at. um multiple opportunities. Again, it's a reuse committee, so they'll be looking at many, many factors when it comes to the golf course, but essentially um this is
the allocation to make um that capital improvement fund um as healthy as it can be. Um and that's about where we're at with that. >> Um the 76,000 whatever change is the total payments from Sterling Golf to the town
>> of this last fiscal year. Y >> it's actually Go ahead. Where are we at with the sterling contract? >> Um, off the top of your head, >> I want to say we have one more year. >> Okay. Yeah, I think that was that was why the select board saw the opportunity
to onboard a reuse committee which would allow them a year to identify their uh recommendations and whether it aligns with Sterling >> coming back on or however the town wants to use it or just uh stopping that contract at sunset.
>> Justin, last year it was at 99,000. Why why did it go down 20%. This is a cost revenue sharing. So it depends on how many golfers come and go. >> So less golfers. >> Yeah, it's based that contract's 100% based on um cost sharing. So if they do
a healthy year, we see more money. If they do less, we see less. >> And do they take out any are they having to pay do they take out of their their contribution any repairs they've had to do? >> So we have two caps. So, we are responsible for anything over $6,000.
>> Yeah. >> That you'll see that the bud like if you looked year over year from what our allocations are to our balance, our our available budget, you'll see it doesn't actually align because sometimes the town actually has to pay for capital improvements to keep the keep the golf
course running. But Sterling is responsible for repairs and maintenance of um anything 6,000 or under. And it's not a totality, meaning if the railing broke, that's on them. And then the next day the a steer tread broke, it doesn't keep compounding. So they uh they pay
for a good amount of the repairs and maintenance. The problem with that facility, Linda, and and and like last year we said it was going to cost 780 to repair and this year was still saying 780, which >> Well, that's just the roof possibly.
>> That's not the whole that's not the whole facility. That is one one factor of that facility. Yeah. Okay. >> Yeah. The totality of that entire facility to actually bring it up to u what you would say is like industry standards for facility are probably
going to cost 1.5 to $2.5 million easily. And that's not even making major upgrades to site locations around it. That's just the facility. >> Yeah. I just want to make a quick note. So I edited the these comments today so I could update them because as you said,
Linda, these are from last year. with the the with the difference being the balance has been up has been updated. But I I made the note that, you know, the senior center is not going to be in there. You know, it'll be expected to to change locations. And then I I also noted that the select board appointed
this golf course advisory task force and but but that's it. I mean, I just sort of gave a snapshot update. It was a couple sentences and I think I got rid of the word current costs um under because that was because that's probably not current that
that 780 is probably gone up. So I think I just said estimated cost for >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Greg, last year the balance was 247 and we added 99. And why is the balance now only 311? >> Capital improvement upgrades. Greg,
those were the nets. Oh, okay. >> That's why I said anything over 6,000 the town is on the hook for. >> So, we we are actually drawing down on that 311. >> Yep. Based on liability issues. >> Okay. >> Yep.
But we limit improvements to high-risisk liability issues. >> So, anything 6K plus. Okay. >> Right. This Right. So, he's there's a couple of nets that we put up. That was what it was. A couple of the neighbors are getting upset about golf balls in the backyard. So, but we don't obviously
it wasn't like a quick we actually, you know, it was a lot of back and forth because we wanted to make sure it was like right. It was going to be worth that investment, which it it it ended up being agreed upon. It was like we didn't want we didn't want someone to feel unsafe or sort of uncared for just
because they did buy a house on the golf course, but we felt like it was worth it. >> Okay. All right. So, we do draw down on that. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any clarity on what happens uh to that that money in that that
capital improvement account if something like say for example we decide that we don't want to capitalally improve anymore and like we're just going to rip the rip the capital down or or something like is that something that the reuse committee is taking charge of or They should come up with
recommendations for that. Um I would expect them to. So if if if they haven't gotten that far, which they've only met once, so it's it's going to be a while. But um I think I would like to hear some recommendations from that group as to where that money would go. Ultimately, I suspect it would be if if the if we
didn't spend it on the golf course, we would have to figure out what legal, you know, how we could spend it. >> Not sure. >> Or we could go back to town meeting to repurpose it. >> Yep. No, that's true. But I'm just saying that's that takes a significant like that's that's an act in upon
itself. >> All right. Any other questions or comments from the uh committee on controlm? >> Okay. Uh all right. We're on to control P. The retained earnings water and then sewer.
>> Excellent. Yeah. So these are these are one and two. So you heard me talk about um how our retained earnings fund our reserve funds for both water and sewer. So $500,000 is our water reserve fund. It is funded by the retained earnings from the previous year. Um and the sewer
is $200,000. Um same principle. Um this is a year-over-year request. Um it has been put in place now almost four years. Um and this allows the water and sewer utility to be more responsive um by
creating the reserve fund which allows us to um react to events without having to go to town meeting to reappropriate retained earnings. So this allows us to be proactive in our financial stability. So I think one of the things and I think
we touched on this already is in our comments we would sort of like to put what the current balance of these are uh in our comments. >> There's no balance. Yeah, there's never a balance Jillian. So the second that the fiscal year closes, it goes to zero and then we reappropriate it back in for
the next fiscal year. Do you have an example of what like is it always spent down every year like in our for example in our finance committee notes we have the reserve fund we put in there sort of what it was allocated for in the prior year. >> Yeah. So this will be the first year
that we ever used reserve funds which was FY26 for water and it was done um to subsidize the water rebate program for $100,000. Right. um that money hasn't all been executed and spent. So, we
won't know the totality of that budget until all of the applicants finish. And actually, at the trend we're seeing right now, some of those won't finish until over the bridge of the fiscal year into FY27, which the select board actually already approved um FY27's
retained earnings for another $100,000 to supplement that program. But for the most part, we um we try not to use this um these either of these um either of these reserve funds. We also already
received approval for a security fence um and the RBC's, but based on where we're trending, you'll see that there's an RBC article. So instead of the retained earnings, by the time that project comes to fruition because of material delays, we may not actually use
the reserve fund. hit July 1st and now we have the appropriation of the article. So again, if you think about it like the second we hit June 30th, that money disappears and then we have to reappropriate it. We have to align our projects based on that schedule. >> But Justin, if retain earnings goes to
zero balance, the reserve funds have a good balance, right? >> No, the reserve funds go to zero balance and then whatever's left over in those >> creates retained earnings. So, let's imagine we leave $500,000 in FY26 for
water reserve funds. Once those books are closed, that $500,000 is part of the retained earnings plus any other unexpended line item, >> which is why you saw um I mean, I think Linda, you actually asked that you have not seen the certification of the free
cash and retained earnings, but Waters retained earnings, I think, were close to $900,000 and sewers was close to $700,000 in last fiscal cycle. 500 of the water is the reserve. >> And then so then you use that for
capital improvements or >> we use it first as priority one for reserve funds. >> Yeah, we use it first for reserve funds and then after that we look at the remaining balance budget sheet against our capital improvements >> and then can you save it year-over-year
>> retained earnings? Yep. Or >> Yeah, we keep a balance. Yep. We keep we keep about a 10 to 20% balance. >> Okay. >> It just keeps whatever we don't spend in retained earnings just gets flipped over to next retained earnings. >> Okay.
>> As a balance, not Okay. I misunders >> Yeah. It's not a separate fund. >> Correct. >> Just generates more retained earnings the next year. >> Okay. But then it it keeps accum hopefully accumulating. >> You got it, Linda. That's the goal. >> Okay. But it's ju just in case, let's
imagine, you know, the scariest of issues where we had to exhaust all of retained earnings for an emergency. We could essentially go back at special town meeting or hold a special town meeting to reappropriate whatever was remaining unretained earnings that we
did not already appropriate. almost stabilization. >> Tell us what the balance is now on the retained earnings or what it was at the end of whatever fiscal year or >> Yeah, I think Jillian was going to reach out to Greg and Kelly. >> Yeah, I I have that. So, water was
912,000, sewer was 838,000. >> Okay, thank you. Okay, that's good. Yeah. Yeah, it's part of our financial strategy that we adopted over five years ago at this
point. I just want to clarify one point if I may. Um on the water enterprise fund comments, it mentioned that part of the reason that um the it's been a decrease is the removal of the water filter
rebate program from the operating budget. >> Correct. >> Yeah. So, and but I thought you said that the that that was paid out of the um revolving fund uh last year. >> So, last year, yeah, when the program initially went on board, the select
board adopted a reserve fund transfer and approved rates to include a $100,000 operating line item. At this year's rates, we had the board look at the 7% with the removal of the $100,000
operating line, but utilizing additional $100,000 of a reserve funds. So, essentially removing it from the operating line. This goes back to why that budget is actually a decrease. um and utilizing our reserve funds to fulfill the remaining weight list
applicants on the rebate program based on what we received for applications. We only needed an additional $100,000. So, we didn't need to keep carrying the operator operational line item, Nathan, because essentially the board wanted it to be a pilot program and they don't
feel that they want to continue it year-over-year. >> Makes sense to me. Thank you very much. I hope that answers the reserve fund articles. All right, I'm not hearing any additional questions, so I think it
does. Um, I'll uh I'll double check with you, Greg, those final numbers in case you want to put them in our comments. um that Peter just said about the 9112K and the 838K um for the for those uh retained ear uh
earnings. Is that's cool? >> Justin, I do have a question on >> we're moving from retained earnings into reserve, but where do we see that in the operating budget? >> So, it's a separate account that Kevin has to create and it's just called >> Okay, so reserve. Yeah, it's not in it's
it's operating without being operating. It's the way that enterprise >> enterprise budget. Okay. >> And then in order for it to be unleashed is the department head has to receive approval from the select board acting as the water and sewer commissioners and
fin just like our other general fund reserve fund. >> So it goes from retained earnings to reserve. >> Okay. >> And then back to retained earnings essentially >> if it doesn't get used. Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> I believe we list um free cash and retain earnings at the it's like page two or whatever it is of the of the >> you can do it in the comments too if you want, but it's it is at the top. >> And Jill, there's a February 4th email from Greg that has these numbers.
Oh, >> okay. Thank you. All right. Um, so I think we're on these are >> Are we on F? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Yep. So this is um utilization of sewer retained earnings for um the procurement of a service vehicle to serve the sewer department. Um this kind of goes back to the conversation of prioritization. So we prioritize our reserve funds in both water and sewer
and then we utilize u remaining retained earnings but not the totality of remaining retained earnings. We use percentages in which we identify capital improvement needs of that fiscal cycle. Um we look at utilizing retained earnings to offset bonding capital
costs. So the we do procurements of one-time payments to reduce our long-term debt and um interest payments. So this is an example that we've been doing now for about 3 years as part of our fleet replacement program within our water and sewer department. Um so this
is uh a service vehicle for the sewer department. Um, and its replacement is utilizing retained earnings from the sewer utility. >> Um, and the full cost of the truck is the 120,000. >> That's correct. Yes. >> Okay. All right. Sorry. At one point I
thought it was 120 from both sewer and water. >> So, Peter, some Yeah. Sometimes you'll I It's You're You're 100% on point. There's times where majority of the time I'll split the vehicle 50/50 because we can use it 50/50 um within water and
sewer. Now I do that for as much transparency as possible because our staff is both water and sewer. >> But in this time frame based on the needs of water versus the needs of sewer, we shifted this truck over to the >> Yeah. I just want to be clear that the total cost is 120 and not the 240.
>> Correct. >> How I thought it was for a little while. >> Yeah, it's 120. Yep. That's all right. That makes much more sense. So just to be clear and kind of close the loop. Um
sorry. So this is sewer. So, we had 838 in retained earnings. We're spending 120 here and then the sewer and then 200 on the reserve fund. >> Correct. >> So, we've spent we're spending at town
meeting 320 out of the 838. >> Correct. Yep. >> Yeah. And Jill, that's the kind of thing we might do in our notes is, you know, present a kind of more overall picture
to say, you know, we had 838, we're spending 320 here. We still have, you know, whatever it is, 400 unspent, you know, that will either go to next year's retained earnings or be available for emergencies, you know, with town meeting
action or something. Peter, I have a small Excel file that I sent with Greg Wilson. Greg Johnson, are you still on? I can't see. Greg, I don't know if Greg took off. >> It looks like he stepped out of frame. >> Greg Wilson had it because I do the I do
this quick. I do both certified retain earnings and then I big because that's how I base our financial policies. That actually already exists so you don't have to reinvent the wheel. It's super simp. I made it super simple. I did send it to Greg Wilson. Jillian, if you ask Greg Johnson to send it or just email me
tomorrow morning, I'll send you the Excel sheet. It It gives you the end balance after all of these articles for both retained earnings. >> Okay. Justin, last year last year we did two two trucks for water and one for the DPW
>> and now is this just one I haven't we haven't seen free cash yet. Um this is just one for sewer. >> That's correct. Yep. It's water with what capital planning recommends or do they not touch water and sewer? They they don't typically touch water and
sewer, but they are aware of our fleet replacement program. So, yes, water and sewer's fleet replacement also aligns with their fleet replacement process because they're different funding mechanisms. But last year, typically, Linda, our goal in our water and sewer utility is to replace two vehicles per
year depending on the type of vehicle. Some of the vehicles that we utilize or the equipment we utilize is specialized which could bring a a large price tag like a fire engine does. And these are uh service vehicles. This sewer service vehicle comes with um an upfitting
system that is specialized for sewer operations which drives the cost up a little more. Um but our normal cadence regarding retained earnings based on our portfolio is to replace about two of those vehicles per year. Now, when we're talking about DPW, the way that capital
committee has aligned that they they pay for DPW nonwater and sewer out of free cash. So, sometimes you'll see a DPW vehicle get replaced, sometimes you won't. Um, out of water and sewer, they're different funding mechanisms. >> Thank you.
>> No problem. And I'm assuming that this is replacing a truck that has reached the quote unquote end of its life as following your fleet replacement program. Is that like five years, some number of years? Is there a guidance?
>> Yeah. So, typically municipal vehicles have a life expectancy between 15 and 25 years depending on the type of vehicle. This is replacing a 2008 that no longer has four-wheel drive. um and the repair costs are starting to outweigh the cost
of procuring a new vehicle. So, this will help reduce some of our um our overhead and our operating repair lines that I don't know if you've been monitoring in the past fiscal year. Our fleet, specifically the DPW's fleet,
including water and sewer, is well beyond its expected life, which is driving up operational costs for repair maintenance. So, our program kind of aligns with industry standards for replacement mechanisms, but we're still kind of far behind as well.
Okay. Uh any other questions, comments, feedback on uh article S from the committee? All right. Rhonda to you. >> Okay. Which one's you? Let's see.
>> This is about the biological. >> Okay. Excellent. So, this is um our sewer also consists of our wastewater treatment facility. So, our sewer utility is not just sewer pipes in the ground or pump station. It also is our wastewater treatment facility. Um our
wastewater treatment facility is um the feasibility study that recently was conducted is um was presented to the board um and we'll be uh pushing it on to our website for long-term consumption which is really a long-term capital improvement plan for the wastewater
treatment facility. But while we're looking at long-term improvements, we have to maintain the current systems and RBCs are one of the critical failure points at our wastewater treatment facilities. Um, some members who have been on FINCOM for a while tend to see
RBC replacements come down the pike once every couple of years. Their costs are very, very astronomical. It is a system um of 12 and each one costs anywhere between a quart million to $350,000 to replace. When they fail, they just fail.
There is no proactive measures. The way that system is designed, it goes until it can't. Um, and we're at a situation where we have an RBC failure. We secured reserve fund transfers in FY26, but
based on tariffs in the um in the market, we had a 46- week lead time on the purchasing and procurement of this, which is to the conversation I spoke earlier. we were able to adapt and allocate money, but based on the amount
of time it's going to take for us to get it, we're going to crest over the fiscal cycle. So, we're creating an article and that reserve fund will just come into this. That's essentially just an accounting mechanism. >> So, this is a carryover from the last
town meeting. >> No. So we so remember uh when we use reserve funds we don't need town meeting. So last in FY26 we executed a reserve fund transfer of $250,000 for an
RBC and that RBC went through finan select board. Um it it was roughly around December and based on the lead time for this piece of equipment, we're actually going to surpass that fiscal cycle, which means that reserve fund no
longer will exist. So we secured and allocated, but we didn't use it. >> July 1st, it hit our coffers into our retained earnings. So now we're just appropriating it under an article. So it's the same amount of money, just had to go through the accounting
exercise of bridging a fiscal cycle. And why are you calling it RBC number nine? Is it like nine out of 12? Is that like >> Yeah, that's the exact number. Yep. Yeah, they're a train. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I like to keep the the community
understanding how many because they see RBC's in my six years I've replaced um three already and prior to that they replaced eight and so they're a recurring thing Jillian so what people try to I really wanted people to understand that they're not just
replacing them to replace them they are actually sequential and how they're getting replaced matters so they understand like oh didn't we just replace an RBC two years ago. Yeah, there's 12 of them. And unfortunately, this is the cadence in which we have to replace them.
>> And you said generally each single one of those 12 has like a lifetime of like a couple years. >> No. No. These these mechanisms are most of them are well beyond their expected life. Uh the town has only been incrementally replacing them when they
fail. Um, our feasibility study calls out programmatic um, approaches to replacing these at a uh, more um, proactive manner in which we're
doing two to three at a time so that we can bridge their life cycle costs so that they don't all fail at the same time, but we can um, we can kind of proactively identify a financial strategy. But unfortunately, the treatment plant as a whole needs major
upgrades, the wastewater treatment plant. So, it's part of a three-phased approach. I'll make sure that FINCOM also sees the feasibility study so that you understand the long-term process when it comes to wastewater treatment plant improvements.
>> Yeah, that would be helpful to see in another avenue. I was trying to follow it when you presented uh at the water sewer rate hearing. talk about that a little there. >> I'm not sure if FinCom is seeing um the the um clear gov capital,
but it's in there under the capital requests. So, the whole feasibility study goes with the capital article for wastewater treatment facilities. So, I'm not sure if you have access to that, but I think if if you could that would help
um it would help the entire FINCOM truly understand, you know, not just the snapshots because we put hundreds and hundreds of capital improvement requests in that never come to like town meeting, but it may help the your your team understand kind of where we're trending.
Um Benzelski, um I think he has it on clear gov. Um, I'm sure if you reached out, um, they'll they'll allow permissions to to your committee to just look at everything. >> Yeah, I think we've looked at prior years, but I think the way it's set up,
we would have to maybe ask again for this upcoming one. >> Oh, okay. So, yeah, they're not given totality permissions. I'm sure they would. um as I can't speak for him, but we we have a lot of permissions where we can go in there and and change them or
make improvements or upgrade them um or edit them at any time. And so it is kind of fluid and I think it would be very advantageous for your team to have the ability to at least view it on that same fluidity. >> Yeah, thanks for that suggestion. I'll
um I'll talk to Greg more about it. I think in the past we we uh didn't go that route because I think it would make us have another seat which would be an expense. Um but let's uh I'll revisit it. All right. Are there any other questions
on control article U from the committee? And you said that these they're generally past their lifespan. Do they have lifespan of like decades? >> RBC's? No. The So their lifespan is anywhere between five and 30 years. I know that's crazy to think about. It's
because they're in grit all day. Sometimes they just fail based on the flow of what's coming in, what they're trying to handle. Um, there's a lot of variables to these, so they sporadically just die. They're essentially a
biological rotating wheel that runs 24/7 se, you know, 365 days a year in sewer. And so bearing seas, lot of failures, the weight of the biology can shift and
the the alignment comes out of way and then all of a sudden the bearings are gone and it's junk. Um, so it's one of those mechanisms that um not used very often in today's wastewater treatment technologies, but was very common in the
70s. Uh, most plants have made major upgrades and removed RBC's as part of their treatment train process and shifted to other alternatives. Unfortunately, the town of Maynard has not done that. Our feasibility study does call out the possibility of looking
forward um to new schematic designs, design development of upgraded treatment processes throughout our wastewater treatment drains. Do we have an idea of when replacing those will become I mean the more
obsolete it gets more expensive it's going to get to start replacing and it sounds like you can't repair it. Do we have any idea what that kind of deadline is? What? For replacement of each one? >> Well, for like the point where the cost becomes unmanageable to replace due to the fact that they're obsolete.
>> Yeah. I mean, if we change the treatment train, we're talking about $20 million just to replace all the RBC's. And so that's >> so >> Yeah. Yeah. So, one of, you know, if you haven't heard me talk in the past, out of every facility asset that a
municipality can own, manage, and operate, wastewater treatment facilities are the most expensive. They essentially never turn off because flow never turns off. Um, so you know that's why Maynard hasn't shifted away
from its RBC's because the cost of the plan is you know that replacement process is so large and looming against other major upgrades across the community which is you know we can continue at this pace for quite some
time. These RBCs do come back online. We are not in violation. We are capable of financially and strategically aligning ourselves. That's actually why a reserve fund is roughly 200,000 because that was identified for an RBC about 3 years ago.
You'll probably see in next fiscal cycle that reserve fund of 200,000 for sewer kind of go up to 300 cuz this is the most common failure that happens throughout a fiscal cycle in our sewer utility. So, we kind of align ourselves and prepare ourselves for the failure of
an RBC and a replacement. And we can live like that for a while, for actually quite a long time. Um, unfortunately, we need to start strategically looking at improvements throughout the entire wastewater treatment facility process. And at that time, we phased it out. And
I think you'll be able to when you see the feasibility study, I think it will will be a little clearer to understand kind of where we're heading. All right. think we had good discussion about these RBC's. Uh there's no further questions from the
committee. Let's hop on to V. >> All right. So, this is the water borrowing authorization. So, it's a bond authorization, excuse me, for $3 million to execute full design, development, piloting, and
permitting of Rockland Avenue, which is referred to as phase two of our water capacity improvement um plan. It's identified in our water master plan as can be found on our website. Um, this is to accomplish I know me and Peter were somewhat talking about this about 20
minutes ago about how how we incorporated um the next steps. We heard Peter talk about Greg's position on the 25 million and how that would be effective versus the 3 million. Essentially, this $3 million allows us to keep moving at that timeline horizon
um to identify um new well sources treatment plant upgrades at our Rockland a treatment facility and keeps us in line with our 3 to 5year target of improvements there which um based on the conversation will build contingency and
redundancy in our system. It will also potentially build an increase in our capacity to open up the moratorum to new development in the future. But again, that won't fully be realized until all three um identified well sources go
through their 2 to threeyear piloting and permitting process. This is fully funded under the FY27 proposed operating plan uh excuse me operating budget which also has the 7%
approved revenue rates. So everything is paid for um under operating with the new rates. What kind of cushion is built into those new rates to account for the fact that there will be some percentage of people who will use less for various reasons
but the new rates would be one of them. >> Yeah. What's our contingency for revenue built in? Is that Yeah. So we essentially build contingencies about 10 to 15%. That's normal contingencies built into construction projects, improvement projects, even revenue
scenarios. So you heard you know I think it was Linda who asked or maybe it was Peter who asked what was the reduction in the consumption and we were seeing consumption reduction at about 10%. So our contingency plays um plays right into that. So we're in line with where
we need to be. I don't see a drastic reduction much further in our consumption based on the sheer fact that um you Vinc wouldn't truly understand this um because I see these numbers that our average consumer already uses close
to only 50 gallons per day per bedroom. The industry average is 110 gallons per day. DP's goal is 65 gallons per day. Our consumers are already below goals that D has for water conservation
metrics. I don't see our consumption dropping much further than it currently has. The only thing that would drive consumption lower than it was last year. Just so you know, we were in extreme drought. We're carrying that drought over into spring. Um the only thing that
we can reduce our consumption with further than just a moratorum is a complete blackout of outside water use. Right now we have a water outdoor water use restriction that's been in place for close to 20 years that limits um outdoor
water usage between certain timeline horizons and also certain days. So, if we ratcheted that down based on the need to uh conserve water, that would have a potential uh effect somewhere in the uh
5% range because there's not a lot of our consumers that have outdoor irrigation. Um so, we're we're really up against how low we can go for consumption. >> That's really interesting. Are there any
completely as an aside are there any grants or awards for being so low in a conservatory manner? >> Yeah. So I mean we we have our our UAC which is unaccounted for um water which is like water main breaks things like
that is under 10% under the D target and our average consumer is well below the D's target. Um those are all check boxes when we apply for grants. So, if you if you have not um seen, we received close
to $2.5 million in ECSDC grant from D for our OMR phase 3 process and PAS contamination removal designs and a lot of that award was far above a majority of other communities. So, we are very
advantageous with those metrics. Now, um we we go for as many grants as humanly possible. I think we uh we punch far above our weight for what we are for a utility and what our award cycle is. Um but there's also a negative to that meaning we have an extreme capacity
issue without redundancy. So so we're already using every tool in the tool belt to reduce our consumption and we're still at critical failure of water capacity. So that is why you know it is imperative
to put on the moratorum. It is imperative to prioritize water capacity improvement as priority number one in the community. Without it, as we discussed earlier, you're going to have no new customers to help offset expenses in the future and you're going to have
no new growth in regards to offsetting uh expenses for general taxation. So it's priority one. I think the board truly understands that. That's why our master plan is so uh stringent. It it hits every single level of a long-term plan process, multiple phases and
approaches. Um but yeah, we're, you know, we get we get kudos in one hand in some minor award, but at the other end, we have no redundancy and no ability for long-term failure. So, it puts us at a
critical pinch point. All right. Any additional questions for control Z. All right. I'm not hearing any. So, let's jump on to W. Repeat that. >> All right. So, um as the committee may
remember, um the town of Maynard is in a class action lawsuit against all of the major manufacturers of PAS chemicals and how they have contaminated public drinking water sources. This is a national class action lawsuit. There's many many communities in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and many many states that are uh participating in this class action lawsuit. The town of Mater was the recipient of close to 3.1 to 3.2 million in totality for um from DuPont
and 3M. Um we're waiting on two other uh manufacturers uh Tao and BASF. Um that $3.1 million was put into a trust um based on federal court rulings. That trust has a payout schedule of
close to uh 10 years. So we receive paychecks um semianually and within that pay period we have to allocate those funds um for t at town meeting into our capital water improvement fund and then we can utilize
those funds to offset any capital within our public drinking water systems. Um currently the balance of the PAS um process of allocation is identified to go towards a system that would reduce
our TTHM violations. As you may recall, you've probably all received notifications, consumer notifications of our TTHM violations. Um those violations are due to the fact that um one of our treatment plants does not use a chemical
system called permaganate. Instead, we use chlorine, which is very common. Most communities actually oxidate with chlorine. But unfortunately, due to our raw water degradation, the organics in the raw water, using chlorine creates
what's called a disinfectant byproduct called TTHMs. So, uh, the money that we're you that we see here for PAS is going to, um, install a peraganate design system, excuse me, a a peranganate chemical injection system
that would actually offset chlorine use and it is, um, it is known to reduce the TTHM formation and make sure that our drinking water is meeting all safety standards moving forward. So, that's where that funding is currently
identified to go. Will this appropriation cover the cost of that or is this sort of every year we think we'll be throwing that money towards that? >> Nope. So the totality I think of the budget balance did I put it in there? Was it I think it's close to 700,000. Is
it is it in the comments? I might not have I and I can get you that if you want. >> Yeah. Um, so I want to say that there's roughly close to $700,000 in there. We anticipate that system cost costing about a half a million dollar. So, um,
once we haven't we sent the designs to D. We we sent our application and we're waiting for D approval. Once we receive approval, we'll procure um, that process and then we'll realize the totality of those costs. Anything that we do not
utilize for that permaganate system would then sit in this capital improvement fund and can be utilized to offset future costs when we're talking about our master plan. So offsetting phase 2 costs, offsetting phase three costs and um reducing the cost burden to
our rate payers. Justin, did you say the town we've received about $3 million? >> No, the total award is $3.1 million. As of today, we've re close to about 700,000. The payout for the trust is close to 10 years, Linda.
>> Okay. >> 3.1 is great, but over 10 years, it's >> 3.1 over 10 years. Okay. Thank you. We are still waiting a word on the other two though. We are we are hopeful that we'll see another million far from what is truly needed for PAS
mitigation. Just so everybody is aware we this is a great thing but also probably about 10% of the reality of mitigating PAS from the public drinking water system. as a little bit of an aside.
Um, all right. Sorry, I wasn't sure I was off mute. Um, I'm thinking and maybe does MWR water not have the same PAS issues because they've managed to isolate the reservoirs and stuff?
>> You are fully correct, Peter. Yes. Quabin is aquafer protected. Um they have an extreme protection buffer around that and it's in western Massachusetts where there's really not a large population of manufacturing. So within the 128 belt is really where where uh
the Commonwealth is seeing extreme PAS and we're right outside the 128 belt. Um but we're also seeing that PAS contamination is Whites Pond is one of the highest PAR. >> Well, this the firefighting academy. >> You got it. Yeah, exactly Peter. But then the aquafers there. So if you're
unaware, if income's unaware, our um Green Meadow treatment plant and our old Malro treatment plant, they actually tap into what's called the conquered river basin aquifer that actually goes over to Sudbury, over to conquered, etc. It's a large interconnected basin that is not
defined by our subjective property lines. And so that is actually two two of our highest PAST raw water sites. It's actually Rockland is our least, which is why Rockland is phase two. So, >> okay.
>> And then just as a um I've I have some idea from prior discussions that towns around us are, you know, have greater water supply than we do. And that was proving a little bit of difficulty in marshalling them to
lobby for MWR water. I'm assuming their concerns about PAS makes them more likely to say, "Wait, MWR would be a great idea." >> Yeah, Peter. So, that is why our Metro West Coalition has been able to hold together um nine towns in totality. We
did um if you're unaware, I know it's not relevant for the articles in front of you, but I don't mind when you when you're when you're totally informed of the entire process. We executed a financial feasibility study with all nine communities to look at the MA
connection. And so um yeah, the driver for Maynard is water capacity and treatment where the double-edged sword, but a majority of the nine are actually um regarding PAS and treatment process because there's going to be this was if you're unaware, I've been in this
industry a very long time. PAS is the first man-made chemical to ever receive a contamination level according to EPA and D. The second they punch that door in with a contaminate a minimum contamination level, that means that
there could be a 100,000 other man-made chemicals t coming down the pike that will need to be regulated. Our industry will absolutely see extreme policy for the next decade or two regarding treatability of man-made chemicals.
Prior to PAS, we just treated naturally occurring mineral chemicals that had sensitivity issues to humans. So, we're in our industry geared up towards what's next. And so a lot of the
communities even with long-term capacity um redundancy and things of that nature, we see the writing on the wall that we won't be able to upgrade our treatment plants every 5 years to handle the next treatment at 15 20 $50 million every
five years. There's communities like Maynard wouldn't survive. We couldn't do that. Right. >> Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. >> So, and I think that might be something important for us to put in our comments.
So, it sounds like this this will be, you know, towards improving the water quality, but it's not necessarily for that specific man-made chemical of PAS. It sounds like it's for this chlorine byproduct potentially is the goals right now. Yep. What what does kind of happen too,
Jillian, is what when we preoxidize, so we draw swamp water and then we dose it before it even goes through a mechanical filter. And we do that to essentially um create those particles and we try to
expand their micron process, right? Make them larger. So essentially we're oxidizing to make them large enough to go through our mechanical filter and get caught. So there's not a direct treatment with permaganate in regards to
PAS, but PAS is a carbon that binds to other organic matter. And when we're able to oxidize that organic matter in advance of our green sand filters, we do naturally reduce the PAS that gets through to the finish water. So, it is not the ideal treatment process, but it
is a process that actually helps reduce the totality. I was hoping I would hit your science brain on that one, Julian. >> You did. I understand what you're you're putting down. >> Excellent. >> Make molecule big, not fit through
filter. >> You got it. That's it. Yep. That's That's exactly what we do. That's that's what oxidation does for the most part in front of our green sand filters. Every treatment process changes, but that's how our processes work. >> Yep. >> No, that's really helpful. Uh I'll make
sure that when we do the comment, we'll uh be thoughtful about that. >> I think you'll get a kick out of the master plan if you haven't read it. Julian, >> I started reading it and then I and then I had to pause. I was like, well, there's a lot of detail here. I got I
got to dig. I want to dig into it. >> All right. All right. No worries. >> Yeah. All right. So, uh, so X, we're doing some some trans. >> Yes. So this is um we kind of hit this
topic when we talked about the water enterprise fund. Why the water enterprise budget was a uh decrease and we talked about strategy when we talked about uh the PNI which is principal and interest payment. So well 4A which is
now commonly referred to as well 8. I don't change the numbers, D does. Um, but I like to refer to it as that was a that was a conversation for many articles which was phase one of our water improvement capacity program. Uh, that project has come to an end. It is
fully completed. Um, and we are seeing the realization of the total cost versus our bonding capacity. So what we were able to do is we received bonding allocation capacity at a larger rate than the actuality. And what we're doing instead of going out for another trunch
of bonding, we're able to actually execute with our retained earnings 148,000 which drove down the purchase the PR excuse me the principal and interest costs that we talked about on that debt reduction process at our operating budget. So this is a strategic
financial plan to reduce long-term debt payments. >> Justin, where is the money going to go to? It goes from water retained earnings to >> the expense account that was the project. So there's $148,000.
>> It goes back to the expense account. Okay. >> Yeah. And this is a project account only, Linda. So it's not an operating account. So it is a one-time project article account which was well 4A bonding. Um the totality of that project came in. We have
>> Okay, I get now I get it. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, >> no problem. You may see something very similar to this with the school. So we ask for like X to bond and borrow, but if we come in under budget, you actually may see a potential reduction. You may not see something like this because it
was only 148, but we bond in tranches for large projects. We don't just bond all 25 million because of the length of the project. So we were able to offset the next trunch of bonding which reduces the principle and interest by just simply paying for the remaining due balance of 148413
>> out of retained earnings. Yeah, >> correct. Yep. All right. Seems like we've got that one answered. Um, so now we're on to our lovely question mark article that we were hoping to learn more about here. So,
this is article AC, uh, solid waste enterprise fund budget. >> We're interested in how this mystery will pan out. >> Yes, I know. I wish I had numbers for you before this came out. So, we're kind of up against a little bit of a crunch line. some major delays at the beginning
of the um of the year on boarding our solid waste um coordinator. We're lucky that we actually have onboarded a very very um highle professional go-getter, very proud of our uh solid voice coordinator. Um she was able to start in
December and the goal was actually to start in July. So there was a six-month delay. With that being said, we had a task force that was um appointed by the select board that worked on a new solid waste program for over two years. As the
FinCon may recall, we adopted an enterprise fund so that we could shift our general fund obligations over to an enterprise fund to support a new program. That new program has been developed and an RFP was initialized. We received one proposal and that actually
happened about a week ago. We are currently in intense negotiations um with that proposer and we expect to receive final numbers within the next week or two which will then drive the budget. Um that budget will also need to
come with a rate approval by the select board. So I have a feeling you will not see these numbers until real crunch time right before town meeting. Um, I'm hoping to have at least this populated even if the rates aren't approved in the
next two weeks. Um, we're aiming to be on the select board's 21st meeting to see if they'll approve the rates that coincide with the budget. I wish that we weren't in this position, but we have a very tight timeline to
launch this thing in July 1, and we're kind of up against it. But um as we get this information, Greg will feed it to Fincom and the select board as fast as he can. >> And you said that projected meeting is April 21st with the select board for the potential rate hearing.
>> Yep. As long as we don't have an issue with our negotiations, I feel that they're going very well and I'm um actively looking to reduce the initial proposal costs. Um, so we're we're very
comfortable. It's almost aligning where we thought as a task force it should. The fees are a little higher, but it's based on the fact that the original quotes that we received as a task force were almost 2 years old. So, if you're unaware, this is a prevailing wage service. Prevailing wages go up based on
union contracts, insurance, etc. The state provides prevailing wages. We don't control that. So, there's a driver there. and the timing didn't align exactly how I would have liked it in regards to um the oil commodity market. So just imagine solid waste drives every
day all day, right? So they're driving trucks. They have to bake in the cost of the um gasoline and petroleum market and I'm working with them uh the proposal right now to make sure that they're not looking at these spikes based on the current situation in the global market
as the norm for the next three years. So, I think we can drive down some of the initial proposal costs based on a commodity market that has been pretty steady for the past three years. Justin, we're seeing salary costs and
all these indirect costs here. Are we going to see reductions in the operating budget? So, somebody was doing this before, right? Managing our trash collection >> to add people. Why do we need to add people? because this guy does too many
things, Linda. So, in order to launch the program, the task force identified the need for a full-time uh solid waste coordinator. At the time, there wasn't enough funding because it wasn't an enterprise fund where they actually identified a part-time, which was absorbed in this fiscal cycle. Um but
based on the programat uh the programmatic approach and what the task force was envisioning outside of just curbside collection, they wanted to have a transfer station in the future and they wanted to grow this program. They identified a full-time staff member that would coordinate that, which is not
abnormal or uncommon in the industry. Most communities that have a program like ours have a full-time staff managing just that program. Um >> so we went we went with that. No questions asked. Okay. >> Yeah. Well, I mean we didn't the task
force took 54 meetings to develop that in the select board made that re that recommendation was made to select board and it was taken in kind. >> Yeah. We wouldn't be able to launch the program we're going to launch if we didn't hire staff and then we would have kept the
allocation under the general fund of almost a million dollars a year. I think Greg will be able to speak to the reallocation of the general fund of close to a million dollars and where he went where he brought it for FY27's budget. If um we didn't move this
program by July 1st, you would be looking at a million dollar budget deficit somewhere throughout the FY27 budget. All right. I think it's a little challenging. You know, it'll be great to see when we actually have a little bit more uh
less question marks and more numbers. So, uh we appreciate that this uh this can take a while. So hopefully the uh talks will continue to go well. >> Yeah. And I'm assuming Greg will also update the sub finance committee. Right. So this one's super fluid. I wanted to
get a control in front of everybody just so that no one forgot that this is in line. Um and then again we'll populate this um according to the task force recommendations and um based on what we got for proposals.
And so to be clear, an enterprise fund would be moving away from the current sticker ways that the trash works and it would be >> correct. >> Yep. Okay. >> Yep. So the the whole programmatic approach would go towards automation. So you'd have automated carts for solid waste and recycling. So you all have
recycling automation, but right now you use stickers and bags in your own trash barrels. It would be a automated system across the board with potential overflow bags for those who want to use different price tier points. The option would be a bi-weekly um solid waste pickup, a weekly solid
waste pickup, or a two-tier weekly, meaning two barrels for solid waste. And anything above that would have a purchase bag from one of the vendors that you currently purchase stickers. Um the bags would be priced at the highest because we want to reduce our tonnage. So, we're looking to reduce our overall
costs long terms. Um and all of the sticker revenue um according to the stakeholders at this point the select board have determined that 100% offset is is the goal. So all revenue earned from the billing cycle will offset the expense costs here. No general fund
allocation. Um and the billing will be quarterly on your water and sewer bills for those who opt in. This is an optin program, not an opt out program. So, you'll see you'll see a lot of information in the next several weeks
talking about applications with price points. Um, and that will help align where our revenue projections are and where our budget is. >> Good to know. Uh when you refer to automation, you just mean that um there standardized
carts that can be lifted up by the truck, right? >> Yeah. So automation is mechanical lift versus manual lift. Right now under our program, the trash operator, the the driver essentially some depending on each location. If you just threw bags, Nathan, on the side of the curb without
a barrel, he actually has to physically stop the truck, get out and and throw those bags in there, which drives up cost. Automation is an efficient metric to actually help reduce or curb labor costs. Um, it's something that most communities of our city stature, I know
we're a town, but we have citystyle services. Our city stature moved to close to 10 years ago. And if somebody doesn't opt into this program, they would need to arrange for private trash collection. Is that right? >> Yep. Correct. And that's currently how
our rules and regs are now as well, Nathan. So you are an optin user and others there are there are residents across the community that choose to hire and procure their own private service. >> Cool. Thanks. >> You're welcome.
>> All right, so I think for the ATM that's all sort of the the related articles that I'm aware of. Um did I miss any Justin? No, those are all I did have a potential retained earnings for a um the storage
water tanks uh road replacement but the costs were too were too drastic so I had to pull it. But yeah, so that because again it goes with our retained earnings uh financial plan. Nope. That's everything I have. And the article in front of you, solid
waste is my prime target that we're working on. Um, so I'll try to get you those updated numbers as soon as we can get them. >> Excellent. >> All right. And um just I think we've talked about it before, but just to
state it here, the the the larger potential override that we were talking about at the beginning of this cycle, the like 25 or $30 million for the water improvement plan that's been delayed and sort of baked into the the next
feasibility part has been baked into that 7% increase in the water sewer. >> Did I get that right? And we're revisit that number in the future. Yeah, Jillian, I would just not refer to feasibility because actually we'll be in full design development. So I know like
some people see feasibility that's Yeah. Yeah. We'll be in full design development, but yes, you are correct on every other aspect. >> Okay. So once we do that 3 million, we'll have sort of a better >> we'll have a 100% of >> that total
>> 100% engineering estimate. Yeah. And that's what we typically base a real budget on. Is there any I don't want to say it out loud. Is there any potential danger that we're going to pay for this totally not feasible feasibility study um and then
not go forward with the next phase which is the like is there any sort of bakedin contingency for that? The $3 million looks at treatment plant upgrades to Rockland that include PAS treatment removal. So imagine that we didn't hit on three wells. The need for PAST
treatment in that facility is paramount. All three of our facilities do not have PAS treatment. So we're baking in well contingencies etc. Now we will hit. It's just how much do we hit? Kind of the me and Peter's conversation. So just so
just so Fincom is unaware is aware, Rockland Avenue treatment plant was designed um in early 2000s to produce 1 million gallons a day. It has multiple bedrock wells. So we always build uh ground well treatment plants with
multiple contingencies wells. the there was a lightning strike that took place over 10 years ago that actually decimated one of the well sites and collapsed the bedrock well which we lost almost 40% of our raw water pumping
capacity. So that we have a treatment plant that was designed to handle 1 million gallons a day and it's only treating roughly 3 to 500 uh pretty much 50% of its design capacity. So, we anticipate that D will allow us to tap
more straws and at least backfill that loss capacity. So, that's the redundancy and contingency. But, if we're able to hit on those three wells at a a raw water pumping of more than a half a million gallons a day, then we're essentially going to push the avenue for
increased capacity. And that's the goal. While we're doing that, we're also taking the treatment plant that has to have PAS design and we're designing that system in there to take on all of the new water source plus all of the treatment processes that take place per
policy statute currently. Killing two birds with one stone is what the old-timers would say. Jillian was that exact I think one question you were trying to and I apologize uh um if this is Justin did gave a great description of like what
the what the purpose of this is but I think your question may have been what happens if we don't move towards the debt debt exclusion or other or rate increase or otherwise in you know 1 to 3 years is that was that your question like if we make if we make this investment of you know a $3 million bond
which falls within 7% rate increase that buys us time, if you will. And it does the plans and it does the study, but it and the permitting, but does it does it give us the like I if tell me if I'm wrong was your question like what's our
level that we're going to actually vote yes in three years? Um me and Justin think it's a we we're pretty confident that in three years we'll say yes, you you should vote for the funding of the of the project now that we have the plans, the designs we've been talking
about for three years. I mean that that's that seemed to be the it seemed to be the um I don't know the consensus if you will this the sense of the meeting um with the select board. That's and that's all I can really say.
>> Yeah. And I mean I think at that meeting you sort of did a nice job of driving home that just increasing the rates would be quite quite a shock uh rather than trying to go for an override because I think you know the rates could potentially increase by like 50% I think
was one of those charts you showed. So >> yeah it was 47% Jillian. Yeah. >> Yeah. So we have to think about the politics of it like it's it might be it might be easier to sell as a debt exclusion. It's still a cost of living increase. So whether whether you're seeing that on one bill or the other
bill, what's the correct answer? I don't know. There's going to be conversations we're going to have to have, >> right? And there's nothing in the meantime where you can sort of do phased increases over the next three years that would cover that 47% because that would just not be
>> Well, we could we didn't pitch it like that. I guess I guess I guess if we had said like hey let's do 15 and or 20% for the next couple years but we didn't um we didn't pitch it like that >> but that's a strategy the conversation was right
>> stakeholders to define the split whether it's a 100% debt override general taxation or a split somewhere between water or sewer um receipts and general taxation I think that's the part of I think that's where I felt the board
wanted to have a year's conversation of financial strategy and we could bake in whatever that policy split is in next rate process. So let's imagine that the the stakeholders of the community all come together and
say we want 50% water and sewer bills and 50% general taxation. We would adjust our next fiscy year rates to start to build towards that 50% capacity. Okay. And the rates are set yearly. So
that's like a yearly, >> correct? Yep. >> So, and Greg shared a nice article about Actton about how some of their uh proposals for increases did not pass at town meeting uh for I think it was for
the the enterprise. They they don't go to town meeting for their water. They have a water district. I was only pointing out that like it's a difficult conversation either way. So there's there's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And so maybe maybe that would be incentive for Actton to also want the
MRA. I I happen to be joining you right now from Actton and I and I don't go to the Actton water district meetings. So I don't I 50 of my fellow residents did and they decided not to vote everything that was pitched them.
Yeah, it's a little different process, Jillian, than what we do. Um, I will say based on what was happening over there, um, I think it got shot down because they were asking for revenue that was well above the expense line. And so they, you know, and they weren't able to
explain why the amount of revenue that they were trying to raise was much higher than their expense in operating. And I, you know, he's a Matt is a very good colleague of mine. I don't know where that he kind of dropped the ball on that one, honestly. Um either didn't
have a plan or wasn't able to speak to it well enough. >> Well, or at least that's how the article was written. I'd be curious like what actually went down, but yeah. >> Okay. >> Oh, they did just invest heavily in a brand new 1 million gallon a day
treatment plant with PAS removal. So they're already seeing the back end of improvement. So it might have been just a cost burden on top of previous cost burdens that you know some push back kind of gets back at um or potentially gets in the way of
things meaning greed versus necessity. >> Um I did want to ask male asked me because he's out uh sick tonight. He's not here. But for X, we just wanted to double check for the comments. Um, so he's written some draft comments. I think, um, this $912 number is what we
were sort of talking about before, but I think we just wanted to double check and see to close out the eight, was it an $8 million project? Do you know that number off top of your head or is this something I should email you and follow up on later? >> Yeah, you have to email me. I I believe
it's actually close to $12 million in totality. I have to look back because ARPA was also allocated to offset bond costs for this project. >> So we had two I want to see bonding authorizations and ARPA allocation.
>> Okay. All right. So we will follow up on that then. All right. Does the finance committee have any additional questions, comments, discussion on water sewer articles uh for our friends tonight?
All right, I am not hearing any. So, I think you've nicely answered all of our questions, Justin. Thank you very much for your presence. Um, we appreciate uh discussing these topics with you. It's always very informative. Um, we'll
probably maybe follow up with a couple questions on our comments just to make sure we get certain line items correctly and we can keep you in CC, Greg, too. Um, for that topic, >> of course. >> All right. >> Thank you. >> Great.
>> Yeah. Thanks very much, Justin. >> Thanks, Justin. Good to see everyone. Have a great night. >> Have a good one. All right. Um, and then I think Greg, I just had a follow-up question about the articles. So, you know, we've nicely received some of the
articles. There's still, you know, a handful of articles that haven't yet been finalized. >> Yeah. >> Is there do you have an estimate on those >> that might be coming up in the next week or so? >> I appreciate. So, I think there's maybe four that I think I think there's
four. You're probably waiting on the general fund, free cash. >> Yeah. maybe ambulance receipts and then but no I think I gave you the ambulance receipts although I do want to speak to that really quick. I the ambulance
receipts is actually the the traditional article or the consistent article is for the lease approval because we lease our ambulance we lease ambulances and fire trucks and then we lease to purchase and so we do that every year we update it. Yeah, there you go. But I I threw in a
last line. see where it says and the acquisition of capital assets. So I in order to not use free cash, we looked at our our ambulance receipts and we saw that we had plenty in ambulance receipts balance like carried over balance that
we could cover some well you can see the listing there. We can cover we could cover capital equipment out of ambulance receipts and not out of free cash. Um, but my clever town accountant said the easier way to do that is to just show
that it's revenue from ambulance receipts as indirect costs to the general fund budget and then it's not an article and it's not a complicated set of accounts. It is just like we do already. we just increase the amount of
indirect from ambulance receipts to the general fund and then we purchase these items. So that and he's and that that is more accurate because the because this article is for the approval of leasing and I'm not talking about leasing
this this capital assets. I'm talking about I'm talking about purchasing these these capital assets. So that came up today. So, I'm trying to I'm I'll keep I'll update this and I'll get it to you as soon as possible. Um, but that does, as
I just said, that does affect the general fund. And then, um, so general fund, free cash, ambulance receipts, and then you have an article in there about, um, authorization for contracts over three years. And I I can explain that,
too. By the way, if I'm going too fast, Jillian, you can tell me to stop. Greg, just on ambulance receipts, the numbers aren't quite adding up. They're close, but they don't quite add up. So, but that it sounds like the article may be in flux. >> Yeah. Was I off by a couple hundred bucks? Because I think I was.
>> Yeah. There's some minor differences, but >> Yeah. Yeah. Kevin Kevin caught that, too. That's why he's the accountant, not I'm not. So, um he Yeah, good job, Linda. So, yeah, he caught that. Um uh but but as you you're correct like
I'm I'm probably going to NYX that last line about the capital assets anyways but the oh yeah oh salary revenue plan. Thank you for for reminding me Jillian. So um this is a >> this one which one you're talking about. >> Yeah this is a pretty standard article every year. Um in this case I believe
the highlights are we're increasing the minimum amount. I mean we just as Oh yeah. As the comments say we haven't increased the minimum. We we regularly increase the maximum um by a few percentage points every year. Um and then and this is again this
is for the handful of um you know non-UN employees. And then um and then we give the veterans agent a 2% raise every year. But again, this this doesn't speak to specific individuals. This speaks to the
the range. Um, and this is this is just a sort of like natural increase the cost of living in industry standards. >> So in this cycle, I'd have to go back and look at the last cycles. You're not changing the maximum, it's just the minimums this time.
>> Uh, I believe so. >> Okay. >> No, it says no, we increase the maximum this time. Do you see that? I'm sorry. So, thank thank you for bringing that out. So we also increase the the the maximum by 2%. I think that's what we do every year.
>> Okay. >> So Stephanie Dugen, the assistant town administrator, she she drafts this and she just found that we hadn't we hadn't changed the minimum in a long time. Okay. And the 350 per hour is approximately 2% since 2019 to now. >> Correct.
>> Like each year, >> correct? >> Okay. Okay. All right. Uh, that's all the questions I have on this one. Did you have any other articles you wanted to highlight, Greg? >> Uh, please please tell remind me if
there's something if there's ones I'm forgetting. I know those those and and I I will say like for the free cash >> I think the prior year fiscal bills is one that I don't know if I've seen yet either. uh
part of your fiscal bills. There was that's so I so I apologize you hadn't seen that one yet. Okay. But um so if you haven't been briefed at all about that I think it was $61,000 of of bills
sort of like prior bills from Eversource billing that pertain to the school department. And I'm not I'm not like blaming them. There was a change there was a change in the Eversource billing of how they of how their systems and Eversource said that we owed them more
money than we thought we did. Now the that also affected town departments and our town facilities but we had encumbered enough money to be able to cover that. So I didn't there wasn't you know we we used FY25 money into FY26 to cover those bills from FY25 but um
school department didn't have didn't have that. So, um, there's $61,000 that I'm recommending we use free cash to cover. Um, but I'll get that >> and that will be the
>> Yeah, because we haven't seen the free cache article yet. Um, and re re allocating of old free cashache, I don't think. >> So, let me let me explain the free why you haven't seen the free cache. I actually have had it ready for, you know, in different evolutions. I've had it I've had it ready to show. Um but and
this is something Justin didn't talk to. If if the select board says we need more time for the uh to transition to the new trash enterprise, as I call it, the solid waste and recycling enterprise. If the
select board says we need more time, >> I need to find a budget to cover to cover, >> you know, that delay, if you will, >> between right >> July 1st and when we're going to start this new enterprise. Um, and so I came up with a scenario to use free cache.
>> Um, but I want to swing that by the select board because I don't I don't want them to say they don't like that idea or or I don't know. So I I want I was a little cautious to show you guys. I'm just letting you know that's why the free cash hasn't been shown.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. So, I think we we've seen the ones that have dates in them, but I don't think we've seen the ones that don't. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Um if that's helpful. >> Okay.
Um can I just ask um is the operating budget then well one are there any dramatic changes or updates since I guess the last budget subcommittee meeting and is that then
not released because the potential impact of doing trash through it or >> no seems pretty settled. >> Yeah, I think you're right. I think the I think that this the general fund is pretty settled. I just wanted to have sort of like one last warm fuzzies
before I send it to you guys. But I I think you're right, Peter. There's not I mean I got >> there's like a couple thousand dollars here and there because costs were either higher or lower. I do I am I am um I might have said this at the last budget
subcommittee meeting. I am curious how tomorrow how the month ends for revenues because I'll get the motor vehicle excise the cannabis excise and I just generally I just want to see the rest of our revenues of where we are at the end
of March to see if I need to make any adjustments to the general fund budget you know recommendations so that >> uh >> that that could be it but I mean like you no you're you're right Peter I mean I was pretty confident already about where we were like otherwise
Um, and I and I could change the general fund budget every day till the cows come home, but I I'm I'm pretty good. We're probably okay where we are now, but I I wanted to have at least that last month, this last month of revenue. >> Okay.
>> Um, so my I mean my my my plan is and I hope I'm not wrong. My plan is to when you know for for this Friday to have the materials for next week's select board I would also provide you meaning the finance committee through Jillian the same data I give
them. So that should include the general fund the free cash all the all the rest the articles. >> Okay thanks. Can I can I take this opportunity to explain um because I haven't said this to the select board and and you you're very smart people in front of me so I I I kind of want to take advantage of
that. The um the article related but also Jillian you can tell me not to if the if this distracts from everything else but the the article related to the >> I'm looking to get authorization to not have to go to town meeting if we want to do any any contract over three years.
So, uh, state law, the procurement law, chapter 3B, requires, um, there's some exceptions, but requires if you wanted to go a contract more than 3 years, you have to go to town meeting. So, and 3 years is generally a good length for contracts,
that's I'm not I'm not mad about that. But the but if you want to go above that, you have to go to town meeting. Now, now like usually there's not a question about that at town meeting. I think last year we did and we normally do like a 20-year terms for,
you know, like leases or we'll do we'll do a lengthy term for, I don't know, golf golf contract, you know, like the the golf management contract, like we do that from time to time. But let me let me explain why this came up. And I got this language from town council. Um, so
uh um the police body cameras state contract is a five-year contract. So if the town wants if towns want to take advantage of the state bidding system to which is good, you know, it's usually advantageous pricing and it's
and it's like reputable source and etc. So um the you know and my police chief recommends that we do get the 5-year contract through the state bid list and and the select board is they have some questions, but I think they're they're okay with the concept of body cameras.
The select board just needed to see some of the math a little bit more. But then um I would still have to go to town meeting. So even if it's a state contract that I'm just I'm just purchasing off the state contract list, I have to get town meeting approval because it because it's a five-year
contract, not three. And so I haven't I haven't asked the select board how they feel about this. They may tell me they may tell me to get out of here, but I don't know. I I figured it doesn't hurt to ask. And so I'm I'm guess I guess I'm just floating by the finance committee.
Um, is there is there opposition to um opposition to the concept of getting authorization for contracts to go more than three years? >> Yes. >> Okay.
As as one member initially reading this, am I comfortable giving the select board and the town administrator >> right >> blanket authorization to do 20-year contracts? >> Right. No, I'm not. >> Okay.
Okay. Fair enough. Fair enough. You You got That's the bottom line. You're right, Peter. That is what I'm asking. >> Yeah. No, I'm not. >> Okay. Okay. >> I We We would spend forever cursing prior town administrators for some
contract that was 15 years old. Um. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, excessive. >> No, I get it's fine. I mean, if you I mean, and I I mean, I actually think three years is a good
distance or term. I mean, could I potentially be convinced for five years maybe, but it would have to be some concrete examples of why the town I I don't think Tom
Meaning's ever said no to this. >> Um, >> I don't think so either. I So, I would need some examples of why the town meeting process is really that cumbersome and where it's come up that >> we haven't been a able to be nimble enough or something.
>> Okay. Okay. That's true. Okay, fair enough. Well, that's why I don't work for you, Peter. I work for the We see we'll see what they say. No, I think I think the board obviously they respect a lot of they respect the
finance committee in your opinion and and Yeah. So, it's fine. >> But also, I mean, as we're supposed to be an organ of town meeting, >> Yeah. >> I have some reaction to the idea that we would give away that town meeting authority. >> Yeah.
>> Um without really really good reasons. And I'm, you know, just as a matter of convenience doesn't seem like a very good reason. That's you're you're correct. It might like it's not I don't even ask for it's not like every town meeting we I even ask
for a longer contract term. So it would be like what every let's say every other town meeting I would say like hey there's this contract that is we'd like it to be more than 3 years and it usually to your point that goes like that at town meeting but if you wanted the amount of
articles from 41 to 40 articles >> right but you could swap this article to you know specifically say you know we you want authorization to do a body camera article or contract. >> That's what it'll say. Yeah. Okay.
>> If it doesn't if it's not this, it'll say body cameras. >> All right. Okay. >> I guess I guess I would I guess I would I have to think about now. I should shut up because I'm thinking out loud, but I I would I would probably do I would probably ask for authorization for up to
20 years for body camera contracts, not in instead of having to come back every because my guess is once we get body cameras on the police, we're probably not taking those bad boys away. So, I would that's I have to I'll see what the board feels about that because otherwise I have to come back
every five years, >> but that So, all right. I'm just going to say because we have to do town meeting recommendations and I'm only one member, but >> uh um I would be concerned about a contract
for technology that is that new and changes fairly quickly that it wouldn't and you know just the general concern about body cameras you know even if it's would mostly be pro body cameras but
>> to lock us into anything for 20 years at a fairly early stage of technology. >> No, no, I agree. I wasn't I think I I don't know how I would say this, but I agree with you. I don't want to sign a contract for body cameras more than 5 years, but it was more like I don't want
to have to come back every 5 years. I was just going to get body cameras. Well, whatever. I'll I every 5 years is fine, too. >> Yeah. I just don't see it as that ownorous. I mean, you you could have put this article out in February and we could already done a recommendation. >> Yeah.
>> So, >> okay. >> Sorry, Jill. I I don't mean to monopolize the comments, but that one I feel >> No, you have to save my voice. You're bringing up all the points I want to bring up. You're perfect. >> Thank you, Pet. Thank you, Jill. Thank
you, Madam Chair. But this is what I asked for, so this is fine. you now you're getting a snippet of what the budget subcommittee meetings look like. So this is this is how this is how it works. Um so anyways, Madam Chair, that that thank you for going over this with me, but and and I took some notes for based
on what I heard the conversation with Justin. So I might I it was good and I I could see maybe there was a little bit of cleaning up to do in our messaging, too. So that was helpful. >> Excellent. And I don't know about you guys, but I'm a visual guy. So, every time we talk
about water with Justin, I have to look at my map and figure out what we're investing in and when. So, we're uh if you guys were following along, I'm really impressed. It's tough. Well, I mean, I think if there's visualization methods too that you think
would be helpful, we we're happy to disseminate them or put them on board docs uh for people who are are looking to understand better. They might also be visual as well. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Yeah. So, I think once you have
the articles that would be super. So, um, just some additional information. On April 6th, I've invited the four different citizens physicians to come and talk to us. Um, so I'm not sure. I think I might have asked you a few questions about those,
Greg, on email. Um, but I'm not sure. Um, I guess I can just I'll just ask them again since you're here. Um, for the u for the citizens petition about the changing the state flag and seal. Yeah.
>> I'm not entirely sure how that sort of ties into our town. Is it like did town council give any guidance on like I don't feel like it's a binding? >> It's not really That's a good question. Um
it's more of a gesture. So the so the so the so the state the governor is already moving with the legislature. I believe you can check ahead. >> They just can't decide anything. >> They've had a commission for five years or something. Yeah. And right and you can even go online, you can see the
different options and everything like that. So I and I believe this article is not picking one of the options. I think they're just saying we do want a new seal and flag. >> And I and they're asking the town to basically agree that we do need a new Commonwealth seal and flag.
>> So like it's not it's it's it's legal. I mean it's the same language. Town council said that they've seen this language across like a lot of towns, but it's not it's not >> okay. It's not binding so much as like we don't have to do anything. It it'll just I'll just if it >> right it's not gonna trigger any
financial charges for >> Yeah. I'll send a quick email to Rep. Hogan's office and I'll say this this passed. Peter brought up a good point um either last week, last meeting or two meetings ago about this though that >> there's a little bit of a concern for
you know some other concerned citizen having some other topic that they want the town to write an email for. >> Sure. >> Is doesn't that get a little bit cumbersome eventually? Is there not some precedence to essentially not have this on some tech?
>> I think that's for our recommendations. I don't I I'm I'm not I don't know that we need to ask Greg to opine on that. >> Okay. >> No, we just if it's a if it's if it's permissible by the charter and bylaws. >> It is what it is. Okay. >> Yeah.
>> You're not I mean you're not wrong. That's citizens petitions because keep in mind another an article otherwise if it's like through a town if it's like official means then it has to include funding. So it you like it's it is a little different. >> It's a little different. >> Yeah. Yeah, and that's that's kind of what I wanted to ask the citizens
petitions don't necessarily have to do that. Um Okay. Yeah. So, and we'll also have the citizens petition about the outdoor lighting coming. Um so, there's lots of >> interesting uh features in that article. So, I'm hoping they'll give us some more
background material because it's very meaty. >> Lots of different lights and regulations and things in there. >> Yeah. that they have to go to like the bylaw or the zoning committee. >> Yes. So, they they did went to the bylaw
and they you should ask them, but they because they'll tell you where they went to, but they they went to the bylaw committee. I I don't remember if they went to planning. I don't know if they went to planning, but they they may have Oh, and they went to board of health and they went to
conservation. Okay. >> And >> yeah, I think we're just trying to figure out the potential financial impact, which is not your obligation because it's the citizens petition, but >> No, but that's a I mean, my board's going to
>> So So what they say, and don't just ask them this, ask them the same question, but what they would say is no financial impact because they're only talking about >> like when it's time to replace any new ones. They're not they're not saying I have to go back and fix all the street
lights or whatever, you know, like that this impacted. They're going to say anytime if but if the next time I fix a exterior light on the outside of town hall, it has to be compliant with this with this um dark sky policy. So there's no immediate cost.
>> What about the idea you have to run around >> measuring everybody's lumens because you're the enforcement officer? >> You got it. Um, so yes. I mean like is there a cost? It's hard to it's hard to I was I had a hard time sort of grasping and it seemed like
it was going to pass any like it seemed like they had a lot of like a lot of goodwill behind this like I I felt like I had to either tell them how it could look if it did pass. So that so that's what I tried to do. So I instead of identifying
my health agent, my building commissioner, police officers, I mean it was I I couldn't really figure out which of the town staff was like the person to be the um you know the regulatory the enforcement agent. And so I said just
make it the town administrator or my designate and it'll be because here's the other thing more often we'll probably get it'll come through complaints. So, a neighbor will say that, "Hey, my neighbor's light is too bright." And then it'll be in the middle of the night. And then, so I'll
have to tell the police chief to ask a cruiser to go by the next night. Or else I asked my building commissioner to stick around until nighttime or or I'm coming back at night. Like, someone has to come by and just take a quick picture. It'll probably be a police officer. So, is that ideal? No. Is it is
it costing anything? Arguably not because the cruisers are going around anyways. It's hard to say. It's hard to say >> um for a citizens petition like this. Um I guess you know for me to form a recommendation on this. I would love to
get feedback from town staff. So whether you have any feedback, you think this is, you know, I' I'd love the idea of less light pollution, fine. But whether this particular article is the best way to achieve that, my feeling is they're
dumping, you know, 50 pages on us, you know, and why can't this sit around for a year and have a lot of people with a chance to comment on it >> and a chance for it to go through planning board and to hear from Bill Mender and
>> they they have done that work. I'm I'm not touching all the work. You should ask them all the they have done a lot. I've met with them a number of times. They've met with Justin. They've met with Bill Coleman. They they have done a lot of of leg work. I think they're meeting with the board of health this week because because I I recommended
they've been open to recommendations. I I'm trying to give them a lot of credit. They they when um they went met with me a number of times. They they made adjustments a number of times. They were receptive to when town council gave them some input. And then um um and then I
said the select board I think had a lot of comments when they came to select board. all things they didn't have to do as a citiz. But then um and I recommended making the board of health be the appealing authority um as opposed to the select board because I I felt like if anything it kind of was a health
issue because it's like light pollution and sort of like nuisance to people's eyes. So anyways, I I said it's because the select board doesn't not want to hear like appeals to, you know, I think it's I think it's $25 a week is what you have
to pay. And so um so if I write a ticket to somebody because they because they because their light bulb is outside of the I don't know. So >> yeah, >> select board does not want to hear those. So I uh I made it to the board of health. But I to my point like as soon
as I said that they were receptive to it. >> Yeah. >> So I I don't know if you're in a position to give an opinion and I'm not trying to push one out of you if you think it's inappropriate, but So you're not terrified of this bylaw. You think
this is kind of workable? >> I I don't know what I don't know. And I think that's I I don't I'll tell you my opinion. I I like the idea of reducing light pollution as well. Like I don't I I I can agree to that. I
um I was grateful that they were receptive to a a lot of the input that I gave and my staff gave um cuz they wanted to just copy and paste from a different town and I was I was glad that they were sort of modifying it to Maynard cuz I I don't
know I I have a hard time predicting sometimes how town meeting is going to go. So, I I wanted to make it as as palatable as possible for me and town staff, assuming it passes a town meeting cuz I don't know what I don't know what the correct answer to be honest. I don't
know what the correct answer is like. How how do we regulate light pollution without some sort of bylaw? And I and I don't know what the right way. I don't know. >> Yes. But I guess my feeling would be if we thought there was an urgent need, I would have liked to see this coming from
planning board with, you know, Bill Nemser and, you know, building commissioner or somebody else kind of shaping the policy. >> So, >> as opposed to a citizens petition that >> is a, you know, a rough way to legislate.
>> Generally, I'm I would agree with you. This is not going to sound very pro-democracy of Greg Johnson, but I I I exactly as you just said, I prefer to policies to come up through the various boards and committees. So, and and that
I was also I had a similar I had a similar sort of distaste in my mouth when it came to the um net zero carbon like the opt-in building code because that was a citizen position whereas I wanted it to come through you know planning board, select board, whoever um
bylaw committee um but this this group this dark sky group similar to other you know ad advocacy groups in the past just felt like they didn't want to they want to do Right. But I also think that's a valid
reason to recommend against but but as one member. >> Um I I wanted to ask something. I don't know if people want other people want to ask about Dark Skies, but um in the absence of that, what's the status of
the zoning thing at Parker Street? >> Oh, >> is that an article? Yes. Is this his petition article? Is it? >> Yeah. The 141 Parker Street, I think his name is I think is sponsored. The person who sponsored it said that they will come to our April 6th meeting to talk
about it. >> So, as far as I know, it still is happening. Um, but that was also on the list here. I was going to ask you about, Greg. >> No, that Yeah, that's one of the four, right? I think you have Yeah. >> Dark Sky. >> Yep, it is. >> Flag. Um, the the one from the finance
committee member who's not here tonight. And then the and I'm not saying that derogatory. I just don't remember what the details were of it. And then the and then the um and then that one and >> um on the zoning one, can I ask a similar, you know, your opinion on it or
>> Yeah, I mean to me it actually seems okay. >> I I I I'm fine with it. So like um the B and I'm yeah I'm sorry Madam Chair if we're if it's just if this meeting is just a Peter and Greg shooting the bridge >> but then okay so um >> these are all the questions I have on
the list here. So >> okay but I I'm Greg Johnson is okay with it. I'm not a planner though so you you know check what they say. I think they're endorsing it as well. But I I I I'm okay with it because my bottom line requires it. So there's So if you look
at 141 Parker Street, >> it also includes the parcel also includes that old white house um that's like right right kind of next to it. And the Lex Vest who owns 141 Parker Street who's about to be my landlord with the senior center. They want to do something
with that old house property, but they don't want an old house. So they want to tear it down and they want to make it a business. It's industrial zoned. And so the business petition says, "Can we just make it from an I to a B?" They want to make it business. >> So that's fine. I mean, like I don't
have too much of an issue. They because we know those guys, they already went to go see Justin and they just said like, "Hey, how much water could I get?" And Justin's like, "What do you want to put there?" So they threw out some ideas. Jify Lube, Starbucks, whatever. And and he was like, "That sounds fine." Like you're use it's like pretty minor sort
of retail. That sounds fine. And it helps our bottom line. It gives us some tax. It's a it's a gets rid of like a sort of a property, you know, that sounds fine. The it it got some of my board got a little squirly because of it was coincidentally the same time that the planning board was recommending
changing the zoning to allow medical marijuana to go to business districts and and that that key word is B for business, which is now what 141 wants for. And so some of my select was like, whoa, whoa, whoa. If we allow medical marijuana in business districts, that might now also include 141 Parker
Street. and they don't want to see marijuana outside of downtown. So, um, and that just coincidence. There was no like there was no conspiracy. There wasn't like Lexfest was trying to get marijuana like it was just and, uh, um, so that conversation is going to be
coming up at the next select board meeting because they want now that sort of like unearthed um, a lot of feelings about marijuana downtown, but it's not but as far as >> But it still requires a special permit. >> Yeah. And nobody's going to build medicalonly marijuana nowadays.
>> And I haven't I haven't heard from Lexfest that that's what they want anyways. So, um that so as of right now, I'm on board because I also try not to restrict unless there's like good cause and otherwise, but like I try not to be
arbitrary in the sort of economic opportunities of the town. And so if this if this allows for an a private owner to do what they want with their private property with within reason, I'm okay with that. >> All right. Sorry, Jill. Don't mean to
keep dominating, but >> yeah, >> I have one question. Hold on. >> Okay. >> No, one second. I just want to double check. So, if we're reaching out about 141 Parker Street and the leting bylaw, the best committee for us to talk to to get
their opinion on would be Chris and Bill or >> Yeah. For the for the zoning. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For the for the um >> for the zoning, >> you should ask them about about the um you should ask them about the dark sky. They may not have an opinion on it, though, because it's not really zoning.
It's more like building. It's like the It's like the building. >> Yeah, it's more building stuff. So I don't know. Yeah. >> So So in that in that regards if you want you can I mean you can ask me but you can also ask um uh Casey Casey Melon is our health agent
and he's briefing he has been in talks with the dark sky people for a while and he is briefing the board of health on it. Um or or ask the board of health to come talk um Kathy ask Kathy McMillan to
come talk to you because I don't know how they feel about it. Board of Health may be like get out of here. They don't I mean like but I I don't know how they felt about the polystyro polystyrene I'm forgetting the bylaw but like the one that you're not allowed to use certain >> the styrofoam one
>> styrofoam containers >> and uh regardless of how the board of health felt about it that that passed and now the board of health is still the you know enforcing agent for that bylaw. >> Okay. >> But I again they're not the enforcer for
this one. I I said I would be, but they're the appealing authority. >> Appealing. Okay. >> Okay. Thanks. You had more follow-up questions, Peter. >> Yes. Um I was going to ask again for your opinion on a citizens petition. Uh
this one about the treasurer collector sponsored by um one of our members. Um so >> yeah. or have you do you know if the treasurer collector has any response to it? So >> yeah, >> from what I can tell it seems like it
would be minimal impact, another tool in the quiver to try and collect taxes >> without going for I appreciate that. Um I'm not prepared to give my because I'm just don't know enough about it yet. So, when I I did ask the treasure collector
if if she could tell me and I and then she was on vacation last week. So, I'm I need um >> I I want to be able to give you like this is what we think about this like the official stance. >> Okay. I would love to get that. Um >> yeah, again,
>> my one concern that I had in reading it but because more carefully is Nquila set out an income standard, but he never does an asset standard. And like for affordable housing, you need to check people's assets. And I I didn't have a chance to ask him that, but I don't know
if the treasurer collector has anything. >> She has an opinion on this. I forward this to her right away. >> Yeah. >> I'm also curious, and you can ask Male if you want, but like I'm also curious like what other municipalities are doing this. And and also and and if that means
there are more than because I male is very smart. So maybe he wrote this language or maybe he he got it from another municipality and >> he got it he got it from another municipality and there's a list there. >> Okay. >> You can see the screen. >> So there might be in that case there
might be uh an opinion. Oh yeah. So in that case there might be an opinion from the um association of treasure collectors of Massachusetts like >> and so >> that would be great, >> right? And so they might say, "Hey, we like this or we don't like this." But but if this many municipalities have
already approved it, it then probably the MTCA, Massachusetts Treasure Collectors Association, they have probably come up with like recommended like this is how you do it. But um Okay. And again,
>> and it's unfortunate that he's not able to be here tonight, but we did get clarification from Dick since he is a finance committee member that in the future he cannot even be part of the discussion of this article. So, someone else that he worked with to make this article will have to present it to us
and answer our questions and he will have to remain silent. >> Oh, okay. and that if he wants to speak at town meeting, he has to leave the stage and speak from the floor. >> Anyway, so yeah, Peter, as soon as I get
I I'll try to get an official sort of >> I'll tell you how I I'll get you official statement. >> Yeah. And you know again my starting point with all of this you know as one member only is you know why if this is a good idea you know why
aren't we proposing it internally from town government as opposed to citizens petition. Um so >> yeah. >> All right. Thanks Jill. Sorry, that I think those were my questions about the citizens petitions.
>> Yep, those touched on all mine too. Do uh any other members have any other questions at this time for those? >> Could we uh following up on what >> sorry uh following up on what Peter was saying there for you know how these things are getting originated? Would we be able to get an answer from
effectively the other committees on if let's say Dark Skies or uh the one that we just had up on the screen don't get approved, would they consider creating either alternate versions of them to come up through the quote
unquote correct pathway or is that they don't actually think it's a good idea? Uh, that's a good question. I can definitely ask in my outreach to these groups. All right. Um, okay. So, I think that's that's all the questions I had for Greg
tonight. I want to be sensitive that it is 9:30 full day at town hall. >> So, um >> yeah. So, I think once once you start getting the draft articles uh for the other ones we haven't seen yet, uh we'd be interested to see them. We'll keep an
eye out, too. It sounds like next week select board uh meeting will have some >> neat topics on it, too. >> Yeah, the board I I have a sort of like marching orders to have the select board see all the remaining articles. So by next week,
>> yeah, my understanding is everything will be sort of collated into that one document we typically get. >> So um and our comments are due April 15th. Uh so we'll try to get as many done as we can. >> Um >> we'll have our meeting next week. Uh and
then this is probably a surprise to the committee, but I'm going to be absent for the majority of April after that. So, um I don't I will not be able to make our scheduled meeting on the 13th, which will be the last meeting we have before
our comments are due. Um so, that's something we'll touch on coming up, but I did just want to put it on your radar, Greg, for like the next like 13th, 20th, and 27th. I'm probably not going to be in commission for any finance meetings. So,
>> uh Okay. I mean, so the the 15th we set so that we could have your comments, Greg Wilson could put it into the documents. I could have it ready by Friday so that the board can see it the next Tuesday. Like, it's it's all just, you know, that's how it is because the board is the the select
board is supposed to approve the final warrant April 21st. >> 21st. Okay. >> Yeah. And so Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't think I'll be making the 13th or the 20th, but I might be
able to make the 27th, which won't help your deadline. So, but we are a seven member committee and we will persevere. >> Uh, wait, Jill, I'm sorry. Um, one more question or potential question. Is there
still the article sponsored by the town clerk about changing >> Oh, the timing. >> No, she's pulled that. >> That's pulled. Okay. >> Yeah. So, she Thank you for bringing that up. Um, >> yeah, she wanted she she might come back
in the fall. >> Yeah, >> she's working she's working with Bill Coleman about that. >> Okay. All right. Okay. All right. So, I think uh thanks so much, Greg. We appreciate you. Uh we will continue our meeting. You're of course welcome to stay, but not at all
obligated. >> I got I got lunches to make. You guys have this. Okay. Bye, guys. Have a good night. >> Thanks, Greg. >> See you. >> Thanks, Greg. >> All right. So, good discussion on the articles tonight. Um
All right. So since we're moving on, we'll be moving on to our topic here about the ATM. So, so I think we talked about we got all of our budget updates and the articles and discussion that we have right now. Um, I got some notes here for potential
outreach to these. So, I did confirm like I said all the citizens petitions will be able to come next week. Um, I recommend giving them no more than 10 minutes or because there'll be four of them. Um, and I ask them if they'll be able to
share materials. Uh, I would propose I'm going to share this screen right here. So, I would propose in terms of being impartial or otherwise that I ask them to present in order that they are on
these draft article warrants. Um, so we would start with the state flag and seal and then do the outdoor lighting and then Parker Street and then the tax title payment uh adjustments and then that way if anyone asks why we went in a certain
order, it's because that's the order of the draft warrant. Uh, I'll be able to keep time on that. So it'd be great if we could do all of the presentation and discussion in 10 minutes. Um, but I definitely I wouldn't recommend the presentation to be longer than 10
minutes. Um, since there's a bunch of articles and we'll need to do some voting next week, too. >> I understand being impartial, but could we maybe kind of decide on timelines based on what we feel our
questions are going to be? So, like outdoor lighting versus this resolution, I would go like, you know, 3:1 ratio. in time. I wouldn't I don't think that they're all equal in complexity at the very least.
>> I don't disagree with you. Um I think I've looked at other select the select board meetings when they have citizens come and do presentations and typically there's a set set amount of time each person gets um so I don't want to dampen because I know
some of these articles are more dense than others particularly the lighting one. Um, I >> mean, I guess you have the ability to to cut them off. I just don't feel like I to be honest, I don't want to sit through 10 minutes of finding out why they want the state flag to be changed,
for example. >> Um, >> I don't disagree with you. >> It doesn't feel like a good use of my time. >> We need to uh I feel like I need a number that, you know, if they're going to keep talking and there's not new information, then I can be like, "Okay,
we're done. Thank you. Anyways, just just food for thought. That was just 10 minutes felt like very long. I mean, I can say 5 minutes and then we can go from there. I just think five minutes is too short for all of the other ones.
But theoretically what will happen is that the person will present and then they'll be done and then generally they'll leave the meeting but they're of course welcome to stay since it's a public meeting but I can propose up to 10 minutes. Um, >> yeah, I would I mean I get what
Nathaniel's saying or Nathan, I forget which, but I I also would hope that the discussion and you know reaction of Fincom would guide a little bit of how long as long as we don't start questioning
details of the flag that it'll go quickly. >> Right. Okay. All right. So, I'll reach out to them um sort of with that general outline in case the people near the end want to log
in a couple minutes after seven. Um, that's their prerogative. All right. And I'll also reach out. I'll see if I can get a response from the um the other boards and members like we
discussed with Greg um that have potential for these um articles to impact like the health health board and um the bylaw and planning and otherwise um and see it'll be a quick turnaround
since it's you know the next Monday. We'll see what we can get. Um, are there any questions, concerns, or otherwise for the citizens petitions for next time? All right. Um, so I think Am I sharing
the screen right now? Sharing this one. Um, yeah. So, I think that'll that'll be good to get those in. Hopefully, uh the select board meeting is coming up soon, too. So, like Greg said, we should have the remaining articles that we don't have yet that don't have
the date in here. Um I think we should really start to discuss, vote on, and make recommendations for some of these so we can make something for the printed warrant because we only have two meetings left after this meeting. Um before that is due. Um, I would say our
prerogative isn't necessarily to write every single article. I want to make sure we do our diligence um where we can, but I also want to make sure that we don't have no articles voted on and have written recommendations for by that
date. So, um, and like I said, I'll be available on the 6th, but I will not be available for the meeting on the 13th. So Katie, are you comfortable running that meeting? >> Sure. Yeah.
>> Okay. I'll ask if they can also like make it so that when you log into Zoom, it's not necessarily a waiting room just in case there's a challenge logging into the Zoom account. I know sometimes that's tricky. Um, but that's also why I like forwarded you
the invite too, so that you'll be able to start the meeting as well. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Great. All right. So I think in terms of our articles that we have from tonight, um
there are people that are assigned to sort of write the comments for them. Um I did get some draft comments from male. Um, there are still a couple of articles that we talked about tonight like um that don't have so like J and K don't
have someone assigned yet and V um does also not have someone assigned yet. >> All right. Um >> people who would like to volunteer. I'm I I'm pretty sure I'm light on doing recommendations. So, I mean, I can take
the sewer and water ones if nobody else wants them. >> And I only did one, so I could take a couple whatever's let whatever if >> I don't I don't have any. And $3 million for engineering design is right up my
alley. So, I'm happy to do that one. Okay, great. Um, we don't really have the solid sewer one yet. Um, >> and I think these are routine like A, B, >> I'll do those if I >> are pretty.
>> I can just copy from last year, right? I'll do A, B, and >> Oh, no. Sorry, that's not the right one. I want this one. All right. And then it sounds like we're going to get a new ambulance um article.
So I think maybe just we won't h have anyone jump in there yet. >> Peter did. >> Uh I'm not aware that we have I yet or L or N.
Uh these are all cancelled. We don't have AC yet. And then we will need people to write the recommendations for citizens petitions. Um and then I don't know if we'll be going forward with the AJ or not. Um
Greg will be presenting that at the select meeting coming up. Um, >> so >> it might I I on the citizens petition ones I might argue that we should, you know,
do our discussion and recommendation and then out of that it might yield a na more a natural champion or opponent that you know is reflective of of the board's of our committee's decision.
uh and then you know that person could write it. So for instance if you know >> if everybody agrees with me on the flag one then I'm happy to write it but I don't want to write it the other way.
>> That makes sense. Yeah. Okay. >> All right. So this is helpful. Um I'll save this. Uh I'll be able to circulate it. So, we have an updated list here. Um, great. And we should be getting on Friday, we
should be getting like a collated version of all the articles where we can just sort of put our comments in that like single word file document so we don't have to keep jumping around everywhere, which I think is very helpful. So Greg's making that this week.
Okay. All right. So I think that sort of covers the uh planning for our next meeting and sort of our next steps for ATM. Do any other members have any concerns or topics you want to raise for the ATM um discussion?
No. >> Um, not that it's, you know, a big concern and we could do deal with it either way, but just more so I know. But, um, are you anticipating you're back for a town meeting, Jill, or is
that undetermined yet? >> That is a great question. Um, let me pull up the calendar or >> which you don't have to answer that either and you know that it's not an urgent thing and I'm sure we can deal
with it either way but you know >> Yeah. No, May 18th is totally fine. >> Okay. >> Yep. And also actually then I'm sorry but May 11th is the one where it's the finance committee public hearing on our
recommendations which is you know a depending on who shows up um can be a >> substantive meeting also >> May 11th is fine um okay but if we need a meeting before that on the 4th I am
not available on the 4th >> okay and So, I'm sorry. You're doing April 6th and then beyond that, the 13th to 27th, and then if we do one on May 4th, that's
all on us to decide. >> So, I will be I need to get my other calendar. Sorry. My schedule is a mess for the next couple weeks. Um, so the 13th is definitely no. Uh, the 27th is fine.
So, I'm not around for the 13th or the 20th, but I could be on the 27th. >> Okay. >> The 20th is a holiday anyway, so I don't think we can meet Patriots Day. >> Yeah. Actually, I'll be out of town the
20th also. >> Yeah. So, I don't think we can meet on a hall. I thought that was kind of the consensus. doesn't show up in my phone as a holiday, but that's good to know. >> Well, it's Patriots Day. It's uh
>> Yeah, Patriots Day. Yeah, >> it's a state holiday. It's not a federal holiday. >> That's what happens when you work for a European company. You don't know what any of the holidays are anymore. >> Do you know what Boxing Day is?
>> Yep. You'll have Easter Monday, right? >> I know, right? >> Yeah. >> All right. Okay. So, I think um that's helpful for planning purposes. Um if you want help posting the meeting for
uh the 13th, I would need to know, but on our next meeting, like I could potentially post that for you all um on the April 6th, like after that meeting. And then technically the next meeting would be the 27th. Um,
so hopefully I'll just miss one meeting and then we'll have our public hearing. So, we don't have a lot of meetings between now and when our written comments are due, A, and B, when all of our comments are due by the public hearing, which is May 11th.
So there's only like three meetings, maybe four if you add an extra one before the public hearing the 11th. So but I will not be available on the 13th, 20th or May 4th. So my availability to
guide you will be limited. But this is a seven member committee and there is a lovely vice chair who is very capable. >> So you think no we we'll be fine. >> So we know
>> Yeah. So I think that you know either way uh things will get done. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, that's sort of the planning part. Uh, I'll double check and see when we
need to post our public hearing by. I think it's just like a normal meeting posting. Um, so I think like just like a week or two before. Um, so I would propose we probably post that after the meeting on the 27th of April.
So, okay. Any other topics for future planning? All right. Um, I do have the prior meeting minutes here for our approval tonight. Thanks for sharing, Linda. Right.
So these are meeting minutes of the 23rd where we had the come and talk with us. I think this whiff might be a will contact sponsors >> for section 3. And since everyone will be able all the citizens will be able to come to the
April 6th meeting, April 13th will uh be able to be focused on the ATM articles. Oh, but at the time of this meeting on the 23rd, that was plan B. Do we have any further amendments or uh
suggestions for the 23rd meeting minutes? >> No. Would you like to accept them as amended? >> Uh I'll move to accept them as amended. >> I'll second. >> A move in a second. Any further
discussion, comment? All right. Hearing none, I will take a roll call vote. Peter. Yes, >> Linda. >> Yes, >> Katie. >> Yes, >> Nathaniel.
>> Yes, >> Nathan. >> Yes, >> I am also a yes. Um, so they are approved as amended. >> Great. Um,
are there any updates from members that you would like to bring to attention of the committee? All right, I'm not hearing any. Um I think the only other thing uh I will mention as an update um it it should be on board docs. There were additional documents that Justin shared
about sort of the state of the water um and the drought. Uh so those are also available on board docs for additional information on sort of what's happening not just at our level but at the state level and other uh surrounding communities. So I did want to highlight that that is something that's been
shared. Um, and the link to the water sewer master plan can be found on the DPW's website. So, that was also discussed tonight, but it's not explicitly linked on board docs. Um, because the file is very huge. Uh, and I think it wouldn't attach it wouldn't
even attach to an email. So, um, it does exist on the DPW website. And I think that's all the additional updates that I have. Um,
just noting and it is on board docs I guess received under 2B, but there was I had some back and forth with Bill Coleman on the dog bylaw. Um, highlight that. >> Would you like to highlight any of that
in the discussion here? I did on board doc. >> Um I mean the only thing from my point of view is I guess there is a state definition of kennel that you know
would supersede our bylaw anyway. So that's why they don't need a definition of kennel in the bylaw. Good to point out. All right. Well, if there's no further updates for members, I believe that brings us to the end of our topics for
this evening. So, um I will be posting this meeting um with WAVM afterwards. Uh I'll also be doing outreach to the different um citizens petitions um and our local uh
town municipal uh service providers. So, the different boards and otherwise to see if they also have any opinions on a citizens um petitions to get additional information and do our research. So, I think we got our action items. I'll circulate that um spreadsheet with
sort of everyone's names next to the different articles. So, if you have any um draft articles you'd like to get put together, uh draft comments for the articles you would like to put together before our next meeting. Um, that could also potentially be helpful because we
will need to in the next three or so meetings uh make as many votes and recommendations as possible. I think the goal next time will be to do briefly the citizens petitions and have learn some more about those and then start voting uh and making
recommendations on articles we do have in hand to make the printing deadline for some of the articles. And that is all I have. Would we like to adjourn for this evening at 9:54 p.m.? >> Uh, I'll move to adjourn.
>> I'll second. >> All right, we got a move in a second. I will take a roll call vote. Peter, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Katie, >> yes. >> Yes. Nathan,
>> yes. >> I am also a yes. We are returned.