Um, and I'll take a roll call vote just to make sure um, everyone can hear me and to say who is in in attendance. Um, so I'll start with you, Linda. >> Yep, I can hear. Thank you. >> Great. Nathan, >> yes.
>> And Nil, >> yes. >> And Nathaniel. >> Nathaniel. Oh, hi. All right. And I won't make you say you're here, Jill. I already heard from you. So, um All right. Great. And
this is a remote meeting. I just the basics of the script. Um do not share anything on your screens. You don't want to be shared. Um and we don't have any public um or other attendees on with us. So, we'll
um just jump into it. And so one little um hiccup is that Board Docs wasn't working all day. I tried logging into it and it just did the like think think. Um and so I couldn't post anything on Board Docs. Um and I did email Greg Wilson and he was aware of it. They're having
technical issues. So um we're just going to have to pull everything up via the um emails that Jill had sent. Um, and I'll screen share as much as I can, too, so we can be on the same page of what we're looking at. Um, so I will jump in.
Really, we're just going um over the articles that we haven't voted on that there was some changes and adjustments on. I got some answers from Justin and Greg, so we can talk about that and see if we're ready to vote on a few things. Um, so let me share the warrant
which is in Oh, I have so many. I think it is this one. Share. All right. Can you see that? Okay. Hopefully. So, these numbers are highlighted which
makes me think that they're still not quite finalized. Um I don't see any notes on there, but we can clarify that when um Jill does pop on. So, I may note. So, number one is done. Scroll down here. So, article one is those are
the the reserve fund numbers. >> Okay. And are they accurate? They're they're good and done. >> They're accurate as of the draft of the warrant, which was from 417. >> I asked if there was any more updated version, but I haven't heard any feedback that there's that that exists.
>> Okay. >> Unless he emailed me while I was at my meetings today. >> I'm calling up the warrant is posted on the website, so I'm calling it up now. um to see >> because I would assume that they posted whatever the new version is after the select meeting like on the 21st or
whatever it was, >> right? Because they're not technically allowed to make changes to it now that it's been like officially approved and stuff is is my understanding. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Those those numbers look exactly like what's in the one that's posted. The final they're calling it the final.
>> Okay. So we can use these if we have to refer to them in our notes or comments. >> Yep, it's exactly right. >> Okay, great. >> So I have down that um article one we voted on, done, commented. Article two
done, commented. Article three done, commented. No changes in any of those. Um article four was the one that I feel so this is the free cash. Um, Peter was going to do the comment on, but we still, Linda, in the final version, is
there still option A and option B? >> No, there is not. It's they went with option B. >> Okay. >> Wait a second. They went with option >> the one with the solid waste in it. So, other Yeah, other it starts with 25,000.
Yeah. So, they went with option B. >> And I can check, but I think those numbers are They look all the same. 207 30 40 30 55
5211. >> Yep. Option B. >> So with this one, I see that they took out the high school cameras was a change. Um, general stabilation fund is or not a change but different from a is a little less. Um, police
cruiser is a little less and then everything else is similar except for the solid waste and recycling services. So that assumes that will get voted on and passed. >> How do we feel? Oh. Oh, go ahead. Now, Linda, is is the idea that that is
because I I attended the um remotely the uh select meeting last week. I was trying to follow along the solid waste discussion. So, that's starting on July 1st, but the 211,000 that's like to supplement the budget in case not enough
people sign up for the program. >> Yeah, it sounds like that's a big risk. That's what I I didn't understand that before that meeting, but I attended some of it and I finished watching it online. Um, and that's a big risk. So, I think
Greg was very articulate that that that the select board and the board of health went they're going to start July 1st. Justin and Lindy were they're ready to go, but we must have I'm not quite sure how that I was trying to go to board docs today to understand more how the
contract works, but I think we must have to pay the town must be on the hook to pay a certain amount, but if people don't sign up for the trash, then we're going to have to make up the difference. That's kind of what I understood. and he felt that this would make him
comfortable that in our first year we'd have a little cushion >> and then in year two we'd have a better idea of how many people signed up. >> How many people and what kind of you know what kind of plan if they're doing the more there's two tiers of plans.
Um, >> and and then if we if enough people sign up for the program that it's like self-sufficient, this money wouldn't be used and then we wind up in free cash at the end of the year. >> We have free cash next year. Yeah. >> Yep. Because before it was a different
story. It was if we were going to start in October, but it's a it is different. My understanding is it's different. We're going to start July 1st, but this gives us a little bit of um a little insurance in case
people don't sign up, >> which is better to be cautious. I >> Yes. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I Yeah. >> Yeah. I I I I did not like the sound of this is like paying to continue the sticker program until October, >> but I I do like it as like safety for
while we're like trying to figure out how the new the new waste Yeah. program is going to work, >> right? I agree. >> And there's a lot there's going to be a lot of push back just from, you know, the people the select board and the board of health is like this is different. You know,
it's going to be challenging. Change is hard. >> Yes, it is. >> Do we feel good enough to vote on this? And I'll pass Peter what our vote is and he could draft the comment. >> I would move to approve.
>> Second. >> Who is a second? Nathaniel. >> Nathaniel seconded. >> Yeah. Thank you. and I will take a roll call vote >> um that we recommend >> uh article 4. So, uh Linda, >> yes.
>> And Nathan, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And Jill, do you want to do you want to vote or should I skip you? >> Uh I think you should probably skip me. >> Okay.
Thanks. >> Sounds good. >> I will abstain from the votes tonight. I was I was worried there wouldn't be a forum, so that's kind of why I signed off. >> Okay. Well, we'll skip you. I won't ask next time. All right. And um I am a yes. So that is
four. >> And Nquille. >> Oh, I didn't. Sorry. Where did he go? Did he pop up? Oh, sorry. I wasn't ignoring you. You my >> No, no, that's perfect. Yes, I'm a Yes. Um >> Okay. made my gallery bigger.
So, five yes, one abstain. So, I'll let Peter know that we recommend it. Um, and then see if he can work on a draft comment. Um, Peter comment. Good.
All right. Um, sorry, my eyes. All right. So number um five is done. Number six is done and commented on. So number seven I I signed up to do the comment. We recommended it on this one.
We we weren't sure if my comment should um touch more on like other concerns that we have that yes we recommend it. However, we have some, you know, concerns in these areas and these are just to make a broader statement and
we weren't sure what we wanted that to sound like. Um, >> and and the number in the final warrant is a little different. >> It's very the bottom line is 575469. >> Okay. >> So, it's about just about $100,000
difference. I'm trying to see where it is. public safety. >> I think debt service is at least one of the differences >> was it was Yeah. >> Yeah. There it says 5.3. Yeah. And now it says 5.2.
>> Okay. >> And that looks to be the only difference actually in that item. >> Yeah. Thanks, NIL. >> So I guess that's good. It went down a little. >> Um, so how do you feel about my comment? Do you have anything that that you all
feel should be um included in it? Do you have like big feelings about anything or >> um perhaps we can uh uh come back to this a little bit later. Um >> get the voting done on the ones that we can. All right. >> Yeah. Yeah.
>> So, I'm going to mark on this one. back. Okay. >> Do we have to vote on it or did we >> No, we already voted it. We recommend voted. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Number eight is done. We voted commented. All right. Number nine.
I did get um a reply from Greg that I feel I didn't send Jill to circulate. So, I will um I'll read it to you guys. So, this one um what was off on this one? The numbers didn't add up, I feel. And so I'm going
to have you, Linda, look on the most recent one. >> Yep. Okay. I'm getting >> Greg had told me on nine, he said, "Sorry, because I removed the additional use of receipts for the other capital items about 100,000 worth and kept the article to just lease authorization. Per
usual, I must have not caught that the version of the warrant you had was not finalized in the appropriation because the the two numbers didn't add up to be the 328. >> So now the the number is 222,477. Yeah. >> Okay. So now they add up.
>> And they add up. Yeah. >> All right. So we just didn't feel comfortable voting. So it didn't match up. But now that they do add up, so it's the um the 121 for the E1 Typhoon pumper. Um, and then the third year of a
five-year lease um for the ambulance at 100,900 and then the balance I think was correct at 748 in the ambulance reserve fund. So now that they add up, does anyone want to make a motion?
>> I move to approve article 9. >> Okay, Nathan first. Do we have a second? >> Second. Oh, Katie, you did. >> Oh, no. You did. Linda second. >> Okay. >> So, we recommend this is article nine.
And I'll take a roll call vote. So, Linda, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> Nathan or Nathaniel, sorry. >> Yes. >> And I am a yes. So, five yes, one
abstain. And I don't think we assigned Oh, okay. There's a draft comment. So, passage of this article will move money from ambulance receipts to be used for leasing required equipment for emergency services. Does that sound fine? It's
kind of a black and white one. Do you all feel anything should be added to that? Oh, I guess I could be making edits. That's exactly what we had last year. So, I think it's fine. >> All right. So, I will un highlight that.
I always spell recommends wrong. Thank goodness for spell check. And then I'm going to go back to four real quick just so I don't forget. And put um that we recommend Okay. All right. Great.
So, now let's move on to 10 and 11 are done. Um 10 we voted on. We commented on 11 we voted on commented on. 12 is one that I had a comment from from um Greg. So, this was the um Is there any do you see
any changes um to this one, Linda? So, let me read I guess what Greg wrote. >> This one is the police body cameras. Okay, let me go. >> And so, Peter had a concern. I actually don't think that there is any changes in it. Um, Peter had a concern that they list in the sponsor comments that the
contract could be from um 3 to 15 years and generally we do 5-year contracts because that gives us more room for negotiating after the 5 years. Um, and so he was worried that that us recommending this meant we were okay with a potential 15-year and he just wanted to make sure that it wasn't a
15-year contract. So, Greg wrote that um, good catch. I'll straighten out the comments. Yes, the contract is for 5 years. So, maybe he did change the comment a little. The actual article I don't believe changed, but potentially the sponsor comment did. So this the
comments now reading the state's uniform procurement act MGL chapter 30B restricts contract terms longer than three years unless by legal exception. The town of Maynard was awarded 72,000 from a state grant for the acquisition of body cameras for use by the Maynard
police as a best practice because of efficiencies and price advantages are recommended by the MPD and town administrator to acquire services through the state's procure contract list of vendors. The state contracts for body cameras are for terms of five years and thereby
requires town meeting authorization as it is longer than three years. It is advantageous to procure long-term contracts for certain services such as body camera services because of favorable long-term pricing, consistency in meeting community
expectations and operational efficiency from staff training and execution. The articles passage would allow for a contract length of 15 years, but does not preclude shorter terms. So, it looks like the comments didn't change. >> They didn't change. So, he did say it
was a 5-year contract, though, and it could be that his comment didn't change because maybe in the article itself, it's written 3 years, but not greater than 15. I don't know. But, but knowing that it's a 5-year contract,
do we feel comfortable voting on it? >> Well, it's kind of weird that it still says 15. >> Yeah. Do you want to do you want me to maybe cl I mean it's not going to be changed right at this point. >> I don't think so >> because that's the final version. >> Yeah.
>> Is this one that will be going forward? So after 5 years they could then thus enter into a 15-year because of how this is worded or is this just for the one a one-time use?
>> That's a good question. I feel like um based on based on 30B they would if they wanted to do like another contract that was longer than 3 years they would have to do like another warrant article but that's just as one person that's my sort of read of it.
>> I just remember him talking about last time how he wanted this to be I mean I guess he was talking more in general but he was saying he wanted to get past the rule of 3 years indefinitely. So that kind of sounds like that's what this could be doing, but I'm not entirely sure how this works
with the MGL as you just mentioned. So I don't I don't know um the particular um I don't know if this would be helpful for folks. Um the uh particular sort of I think relevant section um general law um chapter 30B
section 12 subsection B um a pro a procurement officer shall not shall not award a contract for a term exceeding 3 years including any renewal extension or option. So maybe that would seem to suggest that if they wanted to you know do it uh again for for more than 3 years
they would have to still be abiding by like that that state law and and come back to town meeting and stuff. But again, that is just me as one person sort of reading it. Um, so >> yeah, I would think any new renewal or contract we would still have to vote on.
>> I think for me the main challenge is that Greg says it's a five-year contract, but it's not signed yet. You know, >> right? >> What if during negotiations there's some great deal and he can extend it to 15 years? this article would give him authorization to do that. I'm not saying
that's what he's gonna do, but right you have to go with what's written because that's what's real. >> Do we have another >> Oh, sorry. >> Is there any possibility that this sponsor comment like isn't fully up to date? Like I I guess Greg said he was going to change it, but maybe it didn't
make it into the like the copy that we would have in front of us tonight by by any chance or is this like going to be >> Well, Linda read the final one. This is the one that was posted as the final one on the >> on the town website. So
>> this is be the one that gets m I assume it we still get it in the mail. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Exact. Yeah, that's exactly right. I mean the the one on the website that also says like the 15 years and stuff. Can can we can we if we if we vote to recommend could we say in our
comments that we generally think this should be for 5 years because that's specifically here not 15 years and we're very concerned about um long-term contracts especially for technology.
Do we have one more meeting before like is this our last meeting to finalize all of our things? I should have looked at that. Um like can can I >> the meeting we have a meeting our public hearing is on May 11th and then I think
the annual town meeting is the 18th. Um >> okay schedule another meeting 4th. Is it May 4th? >> Yeah. >> That's the Monday. >> Yeah. We don't technically have one scheduled right now. I won't be able to
make that meeting at all. But I mean we can make another meeting for that May 4th if we want. So, I mean, I could I could email Greg with that question. Um, if if it will matter on our vote
if people were willing. I mean, I don't know if we're going to have to have another one anyway. We'll see how far we get tonight. Well, I guess what this may be leaving it a bit too late, but I guess what we could also do is just like once we have sort of final confirmation like at town
meeting itself, um what the the term of the contract is, we could base our recommendation on it at that point. I mean, we would obviously decide it beforehand, but we don't need to maybe necessarily finalize until we we know that number certainly because it seems like it's obviously important. Um >> but I don't think he can they can't sign
the contract until this is voted on. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. But I mean, but I imagine that they would like give the town like information about like what the year would be. Like here's our our understanding, you know, at this point of what this what the term is going to be. Um, and then they would I mean then they would have the authorization, I
guess. But I I feel like they they they got to like tell the town something, I suppose, at the >> at the meeting, right? >> I think some of it might be like contract negotiation, too. So I don't know how much he can disclose about what the actual term is, >> right? >> Yeah.
So I don't know if that's also why he says whatever it is in the term 3 to 15 years or something. >> Yeah. I mean it certainly gives him a lot of leeway and stuff. >> All right. So should I do you want to table this one and come back to it? Um,
I can email him to clarify that nothing did get changed in the comment. And was that intentional? Um, and we would have to book another meeting then if that's the case to to vote on this or like Linda said, we can recommend it
but put in our comment that of our concerns. And I guess I could almost feel comfortable with that because it's it's it's a contract for a specific thing that's tied to grant funding. It's not from our operational budget. >> Um,
and so it's it's a very constrained article. >> And if we voice our concerns about the contract period, you know, from the comments, I think that shows where we stand on it. >> Yeah. And maybe >> we can technically vote on stuff on the 11th as well. that just will make it
trickier when I try to figure out what I have to post the public hearing for a certain time. So, we can either have our normal meeting before or after the public hearing. Um because we've gone to town meeting before where we say that the recommendation will be at town meeting and it's just not
I don't even know if we had a printed handout once like the numbers were so changing we had to take a vote on town floor which was a little stressful. If the grant requires that it's five years, and it may end up just being five years, too, if it's like a state grant and stuff,
so because we might have at least one or two more meetings, do maybe we'll come back to this at the end of the night. Do we want to think about it or how do you guys feel? We could t we could table it, I think. >> Okay. >> Yeah,
>> this is number 12 table. Highlight my notes and remember. Okay. So then the next of them, a lot of them are done. So 13 is done. 14 15 is done. Voted on. No changes. Oh,
this one 16. Um I think the number changed. And I'm just I'm just scrolling down. >> Um, so I think the ones where red highlights, that's something that was in
the 417. So I think it's highlighted to show you what the transfer is going to be from or something. Um, something >> I'm not sure what the final version of the ATM says, if they if that text is in there or not. I think it's just sort of a footnote. I don't think the numbers
themselves have changed. It sort of it seems like context. >> Linda, on the final one, does it show? >> Yeah. So, the the final one where it's red, it says the $600,8836, but then that parenthetical phrase is
gone. Doesn't say anything about budgeted for transfer. Budgeted for 533,000. So, >> it's just slightly higher than was originally budgeted for.
Yeah, the bottom line is still the 3.2. That number matches exactly the 3.249 million. >> Okay. >> Exactly. >> And we did already vote and comment on this one. >> So that was just just for us to know.
>> Yeah. >> All right. And then 17 we voted. We commented 18. We voted. We commented 19. Oh, this one we we did vote on this one. Um I think Nathaniel, we had left
this comment. >> Yeah, I sent it to Chill, but I think she's been driving. I have it. If I I mean, if I send it to you, will you get it right? >> Email it to me. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, sure. You could email it to me and I'll um
I'll copy paste and see. >> It'll be in your inbox right now. >> Awesome. Let me go to >> Yeah, I just wasn't sure if I was supposed to email it to you directly. So, >> um Okay, let me go inbox.
There it is. All right. So, this is 19, right? It looks thorough. All right. So, let me delete this. Oops. I will paste um comment sponsor. What did I do? The
committee. Oh, I did something wrong. >> Katie, do we have to say at town meeting? is all these comments are now going to be on a separate sheet. >> Yeah. So, all after this, >> you'll figure that out. You'll figure
that out. Okay. >> What I usually do is I'll copy all of the ones that say at town meeting in the printed warrant um onto just one page, like a onepage document. >> And Jill, I know I'm making changes to this, but you have the last version of it, right?
I have a version of it. >> Okay. The version you emailed at least we have that on on document. So >> yes. >> Um okay good. So um so Nathaniel said um ensuring and again this was for
>> oh yeah appropriating 3 million for the um engineering and design for the um for the water. So, Nathaniel said, "Ensuring an adequate adequate and resilient water supply is among the most significant long-term infrastructure priorities facing the town of Maynard and has been
consistently identified by um as such by the Department of Public Works and other town boards committees. This project represents an important step in implementing the town's um water master plan by advancing the engineering and design of additional groundwater sources and related treatment plant upgrades necessary to meet current future demand.
The finance committee notes that the debt service associated with this borrowing is intended to be funded through um water enterprise revenues and is already accounted for within the recently adopted 7% water increase with approximately 2% of that increase um
attri attributable to this project. Um >> I wanted to verify those numbers. Sorry to interrupt there but >> Oh no, thank you. >> Continue. I wasn't sure about that piece. >> Yeah, and I'll have to look back. I'm not sure either. Um, the committee further supports the town's decision to fund this investment through the water
enterprise rather than through a general tax override. I like that line. Financing the project through water rates places the cost on water usage rather than property taxation, aligning the burden of payment with system users rather than homeowners. For these reasons, the finance committee
recommends approval. One thing I already want to edit was the I actually don't agree. It's not long-term infrastructure priorities. I'm not agreeing with myself, I know, but I just wrote it now. Um, it's a long-term priority. This is like the first sentence. I don't think infrastructure it's just it's just a long-term the
priority of the town right now. Infrastructure or not, >> I don't think anything else competes with the water personally. So, we don't have to change that. But >> and the 2% is is also in the sponsor comments. So I think that's correct.
>> But I think it would be um it would be priorities. I think I >> Oh, okay. >> Yes, >> there you go. >> I I know that the 2% is correct, but I wanted to make sure it was part of the seven that already happened, right?
Is that what this that is? Okay. That's my understanding. Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. Because I thought this is this is their essentially permission to use money that they're already going to effectively get. >> Yep. >> Right. >> Right. This we're not asking for $3 million extra dollars. They've already
gone ahead and done it. I I just want to double check on that. I believe so. Good enough for me. >> I think it sounds great. Do we want to mush it all into one or do we want multiple paragraphs? How do we
feel about the >> I think um >> and it says above that this bond is funded through the recently adopted water rates. So you're right. They are we already >> we already >> we already figured out a way to pay for it. Yeah. >> Right.
So, this does seem a little weird, but all right. Are we good as is then? >> Nice job, Nathaniel. >> Yeah, I think it sounds great. Okay, so Nathaniel, comment done. Okay. Um,
so article 20 had updated numbers and Jill entered those. Um, Linda, in the final warrant, um, it >> says 662, >> $225. Yeah, that's it. And 42. Yep.
>> And we've already recommended and commented um on this. So, we're just noting the updated numbers, right? For our understanding, >> I think since the numbers updated, I think technically you're supposed to revote it, but I mean, I don't think it's page anything
>> because it's a different al it's a different allocation. What's the word? >> That makes sense. >> Yep. >> All right. We could take a quick vote on it and just leave our comment the same. Do we still recommend article 20 with
the new updated numbers? Um, >> I'll move to approve. >> All right. And I'll second to approve. And we can take a roll call vote. Linda, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> Nathan,
>> yes. >> And Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. So five yes, one abstain. So we got more which is great. All right. Um so we got that number 21.
Oh, I have a note on this one. So this is the sewer enterprise budget. So same we um we did already recommend it. Um, we just have a short comment on it, but the number did change site slightly.
>> So, Linda, it's the final 400,000 that's in there, correct? >> Yep, that's in there. Yep. The 400,557. Yep. >> But since the total number is the same, we probably don't need to vote on this again. Okay. Um,
so then I'll take well I'll just leave that. Um, and then we had wrote this article creates the FY27 budget for the sewer enterprise fund. This budget is increasing 2.3%. The budget growth is reasonable and doesn't include major changes. Are we still good with that?
I'll take that as a yes. So that is 21. All right. 22 we already did. We voted on and we made a note. 23 we didn't. And I do have a um this was emailed to everybody from Jill. Um Justin, he
probably was annoyed with all of my questions. Um I printed the Here they are. So what was our question from? It says 23. >> Well, the the title now it takes out the um
>> still says the 50%. >> No. Well, now not in the in the in the in the warrant as published on the website. >> Okay. >> It's article 23. It says sewer retained earnings transfer
capital equipment. >> Okay. >> And it's still 120,000. >> And so he had Oh, this printed in yellow. It's really hard to read. Um he said during our meeting we discussed this um small capital such as equipment is
funded um in varying ways when it is shared equipment. these decisions split versus water versus sewer um highly dependent on the available retained earnings and weighted against priority capital needs. Anyway, he didn't really address but he
took out the 50%. So, I think that was our biggest concern. So, now that whole 120,000 that's for the truck itself, I am assuming it's not for half of the truck. Yeah, I'd have to double check my notes. I think it has something to do with like
just like the back end, like how they think about it, like like they're going to use this half for water and half for sewer. I don't I don't know that it it had to do with 50% of the cost, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. >> Yeah.
So service truck would take 50% of that 120 and or Yeah. So this is just voting that we would take 120,000 that is going for the Chevrolet truck. Right. Linda did the note the comment
didn't change. >> Okay. >> The comment didn't change from what I can see. It's still the 3500 I think the comments look exactly the same. Just the title. Just the title actually changed.
>> And do we feel comfortable voting? >> I'd move to recommend. >> I'll second. >> Great. So, I will take a roll call vote to recommend article 23. Um, Linda. Yes. >> Nathan.
>> Yes. >> Uh Nikquille. >> Yes. >> And Nathaniel. >> Yes. >> Great. And I am a yes as well. I'll put Roman. And I spelled that wrong because I put
two C's. Uh, do we um want to come back to the comment or do we feel we have enough information to draft a comment? We have like three others to vote on. I
know. One, two, three, four others. Maybe we'll Let's get our voting done and we can come back to comments. All right. So, this is 23 comment. Okay. So, 24 is done. We voted. We
commented. Oh, 25. This was um Nathaniel. So, we did vote on this one. This was the outdoor lighting and we recommended it >> in your email. >> Yeah. Let me go grab that now. I had
this right up. This is 25. >> So, I read the uh post meeting notes uh but I had not watched the video. So, I'm not entirely sure if the discussion changed too much at the meeting I missed where we voted or were the committee voted to approve this. So, I did what I could there. But, if there was more
discussion that was missed, we should definitely tweak this cuz again, I wasn't there at the last meeting. >> We'll see. It looks looks very thorough. So, the committee recognizes that this proposed bylaw is the result of a multi-year effort by the Green Manor team and has undergone substantial revisions throughout its development.
The sponsor presented the article to numerous town boards, committees, and incorporated feedback received during that process, resulting in a thoughtful and well-developed final proposal. The committee notes um that the bylaw applies only to new and replacement outdoor lighting fixtures and includes a
grandfather provision exempting existing features. Therefore, no immediate changes are required for current residential or commercial property orders. During deliberations, the finance committee discussed implementation and enforcement considerations, including questions regarding which town officials or departments would ultimately be
responsible for administrating and enforcing the bylaw. The committee also considered the technical complex complexity of the proposed regulations but concluded that the extensive vetting, expert input and um and iterative revisions undertaken by the sponsor um provide confidence that the
bylaw is sufficiently developed and practical um for adoption. Overall, the finance committee believes this article reflects sound engineering and planning practice, promotes environmental stewardship, improves lighting quality and safety, and provides long-term benefit to the community. For these reasons, the finance committee
recommends approval. >> So, I know Peter's not here, but um I did want to mention one thing at the meeting. I did I did get a chance to watch the recording because uh I missed last time, too. But, um one of the things that I sort of share is I'm not entirely sure. I know that this has been
a thorough process. They've gone through a lot of committees. I think some of the key players are still not on board like the board of health planning board um the zoning board and approvals. um they're not on board with this. And I
mean it didn't go through like I sort of share a a similar I share a concern that it's so complex that why couldn't it just go formally through the bylaw committee instead of being a citizens petition and I know you know we got some different reasons from the sponsor of
the article and that's what citizens petitions are for. Uh, but I still have concerns about enforcement, particularly when the like enforcing board is not comfortable being the enforcing board. Um, so I think your comment was written
nicely to align with the vote to recommend. Um, but if I was at the meeting last week, I would have voted not to recommend um as one member. So the comments are not written like when it's not a split vote, they should be written for how it is,
>> right? how that carries. Um, but I did want to sort of just express I I I'm not sure why there's such a rush to do it and why why it can't like why it's so like hesitant to go through like the the
zoning board or the bylaw board. It sounds like they just I know the bylaw won a few times, but it sounds like zoning board of appeals people just would like them. Thank you. They did not recommend it. I think from
the memo we got from um Chris is Chris the leader of the uh >> Right. Right. Right. >> They the that board voted not to recommend this. >> So I just want to state that for the record that they're not recommending
from what I remember. I don't have it in front of me. >> I think you're right. >> Okay. Thanks. That was my two cents. Right. >> So it sounds like we need to add and hear more of um you know although
there were some concerns. >> What part do you talk about the administration part? >> So when I start the committee also considered the technical complexity. You could make that a new paragraph and expand upon it because that's supposed to be the I just I wasn't there. Uh
that's supposed to be the negative side. >> Okay. Right. So the committee also considered >> we can get rid of the um the vetting >> for now but or during deliberations actually sorry the
>> enforcement questions about who would do it technical capacity those are the three things that were the big big pushes I'm not I mean I understand that it might feel rushed because we haven't seen it I'm not sure I entirely personally agree that it is rushed if this has been multi-year process it just
might not have been pushed to the right people at the right times. >> But I wouldn't say I wouldn't use the word rushed. >> Yeah, I'm sort of conveying what was prior meetings and by other members of boards who are not here. So, it's a little bit of pizza that she said, but
um I think when people see it for the first time, they'll it's very it's a little overwhelming. So, brushed is maybe not the right word. Um but yeah, I understand what you're saying. There's been it's it's not they've been very thoughtful about this
process. I completely agree with your the comments that you have for that part. >> So after the deliberation sentence, do we want to add something different? >> Is is this the last one? I mean do we still have things to vote on? >> Oh, we do. So we can come back to the
comment. Yeah. So let me that is this is what number 25. So we can come back Yes. Okay. So, the next one we voted on the comment though. Um we were going to do a town meeting. So, let's we'll come back to that. Um there's just I feel
there's two more that we need to vote on. And that is 28. No, wait. >> 26 I think. >> Why do I have 28? 26. I think we need to vote on because
we I don't think we had that number before. >> We voted on it. >> We did vote on it. Okay. >> I don't Oh, that's 25, right? Um >> cuz it says Fincom recommendations at town meeting. >> Oh, this is lighting. 25 is such a long one.
>> 26 is Oh, right. Okay. Sorry. Oh, no. We Oh, yeah. At town meeting. Okay, you're right. Thank you. So 26 I feel this was the solid waste enterprise fund. I believe we had a
Yeah, I have a note from Justin. So we all have a note from Justin on on this one. So he said oh it sounds such um the town has Oh Linda, you had concerns about the indirect expenses being so low. >> Yeah. And they said and he said it's
going to be two part-time employees. So they're not going to have they're not going to have benefits. >> They're going to do the 19 hours or under, I think. >> Right. >> And the 2000 was just the town gets provides some mailing services or
whatever. >> Right. Um and then he said once the program launches in July, we will hyper evaluating the budget and revenue projections and we'll make any budget adjustments at special town meeting um and or revenue supplement needs. This
program is an opt-in and we have developed the rates and revenue projections on customer assumptions that were developed by the task force. Any other discussions on this one now that we know that's clarified?
>> So, um, so this is like the expected cost of the of administering the plan and like paying for like the like the trash pickup and disposal. And we're we're assuming that or we're hoping that enough people opt in and the rates are
set correctly. So that's going to uh pay for this, right? >> Correct. >> Okay. And this is this is like the total cost of the program even though is is there is there a contract already or like where are these numbers coming from
exactly? I believe there is a contract because because of that presentation they had the rates set. They had the rates set and the board of health was um approved the rates on when was that last
Tuesday. >> And it looks like the sponsor comment did change. >> Yeah, the sponsor comment I mean it ends with now the this program will begin July 1st as approved jointly by the select board and board of health. Okay. >> Yeah. So they
>> so following the recommendations of solid waste and recycling task force voters approved for the mayor select board recommendation for the creation of solid waste and recycling. This article reflects the budget for the new enterprise to fully support the costs associated with operating maintaining the new automated curbside curbside
collection program. Although this is industry um is exempt from state procurement law that would require public pro procurement. The collection program will be executed through a contract negotiated um after the public request for our the RFP um or evaluated by the evaluation team which included
town. So I don't know if they so they did vote on it then it sounds like >> they did vote yeah they did they definitely voted on it the select board and the board of health on the u last Tuesday >> and the numbers didn't change. It's
still the one >> the Yeah, the numbers didn't change. >> But then they talked about the 200,000 which we voted on earlier just as a little safety net for the town. >> Okay. Cuz that plays into this article.
>> Yeah. So they're a concern the one the the revenue from it might be shy of of these particular expenses. Yeah. If people don't opt in cuz the you know
it's it's it's um it's an opt-in program. So, you don't have to do you don't have to do it. If all of a sudden everyone I don't know what they're going to do with their trash, but if you don't opt in. >> No. Um I I I move to uh recommend
um article 26 >> and I'll second article 26. All right, I'll take a roll call vote. Um, Linda, >> yes. >> And Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes.
>> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And I'm a yes. So that is five. Yes. One abstain. And then we could come back to the note on that one. All right.
27, we recommended. We wrote a a note. 28, we recommended. There's a note. Oh, um maybe Jill did this one draft comment. So, this was the um the marijuana um
zoning. It was just zoning um as they were changing it to business use. So the our draft comment is the finance committee recommends article existing recreational marijuana establishments in the central business district um are successfully integrated into the district. These establishments
contribute a regular source of revenue to the town. Any new establishment or change in the use of an existing establishment would be reviewed by the planning board and granting a special permit. The planning board can establish regular reviews of the permit. And then the meaning Oh yeah, I remember
this one. All right. Are we good? >> And this actually did make it into the final warning. >> Oh, good. Okay. >> All set. Looks like >> All right. Awesome. So, we can move on. So, 29, this is the um the dog licenses.
That's right. We did not vote on this one. Um but we did get an email showing what different towns fees are um just for comparison. So, this one t it it's it's upping the fee a little bit. And then it's also
adding like a a um daily fee, I believe, for as for every day it continues to be late. I should pull up pull up that email. Um but we knew Jill, you had some some important thoughts and concerns on this one. So, I know we wanted to also hear
what you were thinking about this. Yeah, I was trying to follow the select meeting about it. Um, but I've been work has just been flat out. So, uh, I don't really have any new information here, honestly. Um, I think
that I don't think they did they change I don't think they've changed the feeds or the structure. I know that they sent around sort of the like comparative towns to kind of show that it's similar a similar rate to other towns, I guess. Um, but I wasn't
sure. Did they discontinue like talking about the the monthly fee that keeps stacking on top of each other? >> A one time fee now. >> No, they didn't. Okay, >> Linda, the final one. >> I'm trying to I'm trying to find it in
the final one. Actually, it's kind of interesting because they show the um bylaw as it exists with all the strikeouts. So, it's more clear what changed. I'm trying to find the part in number seven under A.
>> Yeah, >> it says number seven under A is the transfer license. Yeah. >> Oh, okay. I lied. Um >> and that's $5. And then number eight is the annual fee.
So it shows it's very clearly that it was 10 which is struck stricken and then it says 15 and then neutered or spade 15 and changed to 20 for intact. I don't see where is the part where it talked about
if you were >> under D. It's >> under D. Okay. D late fees D B C D. >> It's um the owner is required to pay an additional $15 fee
>> and then $15 for each additional 30-day period. >> Yeah. So now it reads, "Shall be required to pay pay a fee of $35 for each unlicensed dog over and above." >> So they took out the additional >> every month. And if the above license
would not be obtained by the 1 of April, they're required to pay an additional $15 fee. >> And does it end there? >> Yeah. And so the but they struck the in the in the one that's in printed if that last sentence additional late fees in
the amount of $15 shall be assessed for each 30-day period. >> Okay. >> So they struck that sentence. >> So they did take that out. >> Yeah, they took out the >> Okay. >> Thanks. I appreciate that for doing my
speak and spell. I'm almost home. >> You're good. Be safe. Do we feel that helps us be able to um take a vote on it? I mean, I guess we have all the information we're going to have.
It did seem in line. I mean, when I was looking at the numbers, it seemed in line with other towns as far as the increase in the fee. It didn't seem astronomical. Um, and I suppose that's good that they took out that last part.
I would move to approve this. Just want to see what article >> move to recommend rather. >> Um, I will second. So, I'll take a roll call vote to recommend article 29. Um, Linda,
>> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> And Nathaniel, >> yes. >> I'm a yes. So, that is five. Yes. One abstain.
We can come back. Oh, Peter said he'd write the note on this one so I can let him know our vote. Um 30 we did already 31. Um >> all right. I I'll see you guys on on the other side of that. >> Oh, okay.
So, this is the tax collection one. And since this, I know an email has been um council had um said that some changes needed to be made in it for it to be legal and
they did make those adjustments on it. Um I can screen share here. Let me change my screen share. Hold on. Stop. Share. Share.
I think it's all these. So, so yeah. So, Lisa was finding um some issues that she um saw on it that it can't it was I was just reading this before the
meeting so I didn't go too deep into it. Um but it was about what can um apply as a hardship. So like commercial, residential, industrial. Um and so he needs to strike out that it applies to everybody cuz it can't apply to everybody. Um
let me go to here. So these changes had to be made um or or were made. So um the biggest one though is replacing section B with um applicability D which is also no that was minor. So striking um subsections E
and F which is a larger change but also one so E and F I feel here's the final one. Sorry. Yeah. So, the proposed bylaw sections dealing with financial hardship agreement um if applicable to only tax title parcels would appear to violate the statutory requirement to treat all
classes of tax titles the same. Um to the extent this bylaw um intends to speak to hardship exemptions under blah blah blah that statute vests authority in the board of assessors meaning this bylaw conflicts with the state statute um by stating that the authority would be bestowed upon the treasure collector
rather than the board of assessors. So he took that out. So, they seemed they seemed to um change it per how the town um attorneys legal wanted them to change it to from how it looks.
>> Now, I see the one that's in the warrant under under B still lists the four categories. Is that not >> so on um re so on section C2 they had to um replace must be with R A R E it's
minor >> C2 C2 >> is wrong because C2 has to do with all real estate taxes and water and sewer user fees due for the current fiscal here. Huh?
C2 with R must be and so it's still saying must be >> Well, this draft is dated April 17th. >> Yeah. And this is >> Oh, I think he was going to um >> And this is the third amendment on the floor.
>> On the floor. You're right, Jill. Yeah. Right. >> So, if we're voting, are we voting based on the um you know, the article that's not compliant with the law that's in front of us or are we
>> you have to vote on what's in front of you. You can't vote on what they're going to change it on the floor, >> right? >> We're gonna have to revote at town meeting if they do change it on the floor. So that's fine. >> So then I would think we would not
recommend this per >> per the attorney. >> Yeah. Per town council. Now, hypothetically, if those changes are made on the floor, what are people's feelings about how we
would vote when we're like on the spot and don't really have time to deliberate um in the presence of all the voters at town meeting? That's a good question as well because we can write our comments, you know, disapprove based on the
written above and, you know, legal. However, we're under the impression XYZ will happen and we are favorable or unfavorable for these reasons, right? >> The comments don't have to be tied to what's written. They can be tied to our
understanding. I'm still uncomfortable because the uh the treasurer collector the the town's uh staff are not really in support of this even if the language is updated
from my understanding. Um that would be that would be my uh voice of concern is that even if it is updated that uh I mean I think the feedback we got from town council uh not town sorry uh the
treasurer collector is that it's not um that's not something they're necessarily in favor of. Did they state their reasons? >> Yeah, we got an email from them about it. Um, >> so I'd have to go back and double check
it. Some of them were addressed by um I believe his name is Todd. Um, but I think there were there were concerns around um this hard to do while you're driving. >> I know. You should have to. I should
find that email. Yeah, I can. Uh, yeah, I'll I'll get back to you. I'm I'm pulling in, so I can call back in in like 15 minutes. >> Okay. And I'll I'll try to pull it up in the meantime. >> All right. I'll be back.
>> Go to my email. >> Um, in my memory, I thought that they were more against it simply because it wasn't necessary, not that they necessarily had a specific >> reason, right, >> issue against it. It was more like we have enough tools, we don't need another
one. It wasn't this is a bad tool, which I think is probably an important distinction. >> Mhm. I agree. So, I I like what this article is attempting to do.
Um, I can't find it. Was it in all of her comments that she sent to us? Let me look under documents for a I don't know. I'll have to let her find it and maybe we'll have to come back to this one.
>> What are other people's feelings? What were your temperatures on it? >> It's Yeah, it's >> Sorry. Go ahead, Nathan. >> Um, it's tricky. I'm not I'm I'm still not quite sure where where I land on it.
I mean, my major concern was what Jill said, like the person in in charge of, you know, collecting this doesn't think it was necessary. It wasn't really in support of it. Um, on the other hand, uh, and and on the other hand, one of
those concerns was wanting to collect, you know, the interest and not wanting to have to wave it, but, you know, those interest rates seemed like punishingly large to me. Um it it seemed like very easy that somebody could who was like struggling to like pay for um their
property taxes who like miss who who was behind on it having a really hard time keeping up with the interest. Um and you know there's a lot of there there's a lot of concern in town about you know increasing property taxes and
to pay for all the things we kind of need to pay for. they probably going to have to they're going to be even higher a few years from now. Uh so I like you know anytime there's something that can provide some relief uh for people who are struggling to meet it. Um I do want
to take advantage of that. So those are kind of like but you know I don't you know this probably only affects like a a small handful of um people in town and like those cases are going to be like so individual and specific. Um
>> I I really would lean towards um like the advice of the person in charge of actually collecting that. You know they have the experience and the expertise um on like the particularities they run into that I just I just don't have in front of me. I pulled the email up. I actually
forwarded it to Katie and and from from what I can see on it, it's it's effectively just it's a tool that they don't see the need of. And if that's the case, then giving them another tool in their tool belt, >> sure, they don't use it, right? That's my opinion of it. It's not forcing
anyone to do anything. It's just allowing someone to have another choice. That's how I understand it. At least that this is just simply another avenue. So even if it could apply to some small subset, it doesn't mean that it's even ever to be used.
So I'm personally in support of providing more more options for people to try to help under different avenues as possible cuz maybe it's not perfect or great right now, but in 5 years, maybe it's a really good thing to have. I
>> think it's this one. Was it this one? >> Yes. I'll say one feeling I had in support of it is given everything else that we voted on this year. It's a little bit of a balance because we voted a big increase with, you know, with more debt
that we're paying this, those tax bills are going to go way up this year. Our water bills are going to go up 7%. People are going to have to be paying way more for trash than they did with their stickers. And you know it's pe some people are going to be squeezed and
if it's only you know he mentions if there was a very tiny number of cases that we bring to land court. Um but just as a balance if if somebody needs it it it gives someone a chance to
get caught up um and maybe not get kicked out of their house. So, I thought it was just imbalance with all the other fiscal woes we have and all the fiscal burdens we're placing on homeowners. It might be nice to have one more tool for the treasurer collector.
So she said, "I I feel our current system is suitable as I have the ability to enter in into a payment agreement prior to the taxpayer even going into tax title and also the ability to allow the taxpayer to make payments to clear it prior to turning it over to our tax title attorneys. While I am not opposed
to the law, I would not recommend waving interest." So it was for them, it's the interest. Um, this office prides ourselves on treating everyone fairly. those in tax title already receive a large interest rate covered under MGL. Um, compared to those
residents that pay their bills but perhaps late. Um, and then she said, "As for the towns that have accepted it, I've not heard anything yet, but they did list a bunch of towns that have already moved something like this. So, the current interest rate for those
who pay their taxes late is 14%. Um, but tax title, as Allison has already mentioned, was reduced from 16% to 8%. So those that go into tax title already have a benefit over those who pay. >> Yeah. I mean I don't know. I I don't know how how convincing that is for me.
I I'm just trying to like like think it over my head right now. But it's not like people are going into tax title in order to get a break on, >> you know, their interest or for like a tax benefit or something. Um, >> you further down the email. Sorry to
interrupt. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> I'm not doing very well with interruptions today, but it's I was actually reading and it's seems to be pretty important. Allison's email um number two is actually
seems pretty important. I'm not sure about the interest though. The interest seems more of like a if you don't do this then here's the club. But number two is actually >> so collection of interest is essential to the fiscal health of the municipality. Collection of tax title
accounts is not found money or added money. It is built into the annual budget and the municipality is um harmed when taxes are not paid on time. The municipality cannot defer its bi-weekly payroll obligations and other debts it must pay. Collection of interest um protects the municipality against the
financial harm. It is already sustained when the money did not come in on time. There is no replacement of the funds lost to a municipality when interest is waved through a um 62A bylaw. The Commonwealth is not funding the waiver or adjusting its cherry sheet analysis, a free cash certification process to
make up for it. The financial burden is simply being shifted from the delinquent property owner um to the other property owners and businesses located within the municipality. we can talk. >> So, Nathaniel, what what did you want to highlight about that section?
>> Oh, I just thought it was interesting because it wasn't necessarily covered in detail in um uh Jen's email. Jenzimo felt much more about the tool concept >> and you know we shouldn't do interest but that one speaks pretty heavily
towards you know this isn't a fee or a fine this is something that was due that it's been planned upon as a cost of being in the town right it's not an optin with a dog or anything like that
>> so I just I just thought it was interesting it would help help clarify the the interest piece of it. I'm not sure exactly where I feel on it still. I still think another >> my understanding is the interest waiverss would only apply to
um resident homeowners and the and the financial who meet the financial hardship was that which was that very strict poverty line. But may maybe I'm reading it wrong. I thought anyone else who
is not going to get the interest wave, but you know, if it's not a if it's a commercial property, no interest waiver. I thought it was only financial hardship. And I'm sure the people who wrote the
article had some reply to that particular comment because this was March 23rd. And then it looks like she, you know, said some things that if you did accept this, these things need to be included. And I'm sure they were. Oh, no. Waiver
of interest is in there. >> Now, now some of some of that is going to be affected or is hypothetically going to be um affected by like a an amendment from the floor, right? the owner well sorry I was zeroing on the
owner occupied single family homes but um and thinking about how it it's only eligible for right town council was saying that like commercial properties open spaces that that's actually >> um >> right
Well, sir, we well we have one well see what number is this? We have one more new one after this and then that is it. So, is our strategy going to be to not recommend tonight based on town
council and then at town meeting if it's amended, we'd have to revote since we have to vote what's in front of us. Right. Right. We have to vote regardless on what's in front of us, which is not
recommended by town council. >> I think our concern was more how do we >> right what happens in a couple of weeks. Yeah. So I guess we could take a vote on it >> and our comment >> vote not to approve based upon the
written stuff above. >> Um I also before I voted there I spoke I I unmuted for a different reason was we also I know that Jill wanted to talk about this. This might be one that we circle back on potentially writing comments and
>> and how we would handle it on the floor. So maybe we we we can vote now because I'm fairly confident it's just due to the >> Yeah. >> Um due to the situation is all going to be a flatout no. But anyways, >> yeah, I agree. So we got a one for not
recommend. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> All right, Linda second. I'll take a roll call vote um to not recommend article 31. Um Linda, >> yes. Nathan, >> yes. >> And Nquille.
>> Oh, Nil is not. >> Oh, you're not. Sorry, you cannot speak. Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And I am a yes. So, we still have a quorum. Um, so four, yes, for not recommending. Um, and to abstain.
All right. So, we still need to comment and we will come back to that because we have a new article to discuss and I will move on to that. Um but first I will put um does not does not recommend.
All right. So this is the new one. transfer from capital stabilization to see if the town will vote to transfer from general stabilization the sum of $22,423 for the cost associated with the acquisition of police cruisers for the
town. So they must have been like underbudgeted and they needed more. This article draws from the town's capital stabilization fund to pair with the recommended free cash appropriation for the acquisition acquisition cruisers for the Maynard Police Department.
22 isn't enough for a cruiser. So it it to me that sounds like they underbudgeted and need more. >> I think this was one of the differences when we voted on free cash earlier. >> Okay. >> That um they had to in order to fund
give that cushion for a solid waste. They had to move this money here and they really >> coming out of a different >> That was my understanding. >> Sorry. General stabilization. I mean, it's a fairly small amount. I'm
sure it's been thought through. And I think it's okay because in the free cashache we're putting some in general stabilization and then from that >> when we voted on that list of um old accounts >> moved to pay for snow and ice we also
moved money into >> general stabilization. So we're taking some of it back. So it should be actually more going in and coming out. So, I think it's okay. To me, it's okay. Any negative concerns about it,
>> I mean, I'm concerned about the uh the the balance in the capital stabilization fund, but you know, I I kind of wish that that we were we were paying back into it with the with the free cash, but um it is what it is. I get this is something we
need to do. Um, but >> and was that one of the balances at the top? >> Well, that's what I'm looking for. I'm not finding it. Let me see. >> Yeah, there's only 416,000 in there now.
>> Oh, yeah. Well, no. in the um capital is 416 and then the general is 2.3 million, >> right? >> Those are really tiny. I mean, we could vote on, you know, if we do pass it, we can comment that we
are nervous about the >> Yeah. >> cautious about the balance. Oops, I didn't go all the way down. There we go. Does someone want to make a motion to recommend? I'll move to recommend.
All right. And I will second and I will take a roll call vote um to recommend the new article 32. Uh Linda, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nquille,
>> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> And Jillian is abstaining. She's not here. So that is five. Yes. And then the comment we need to come back to my eyes. I have trial contacts in right
now. And so if I keep touching my eye that is why I apologize. I'm not crying. All right. So if we are assigning and I don't know how this works. So like Peter is listed on two of the comments. So, if we do have
him do them, we're gonna have to meet again, right, and all agree on those draft comments or could we do that at our I'm just wondering, are we going to have another meeting anyway other than the public
hearing due to these potential comments? I don't know. Can ask Jill that too when she pops on. But so >> in the past we've done the the public hearing and then if needed we've had a
essentially backto-back meetings. We just do the public hearing into our meeting and we tend to try to avoid that because that could be an incredibly long night. >> Right. Right. >> We might have our hand forced. >> Right. We also have the fourth, May 4th, of course, as well as still the Monday
that's currently unoccupied and stuff if we needed to to use that time. >> And Jill can't be there, but if we get her opinions enough on that one, I mean, I I can be there. So, if we can get her feedback enough that we feel confident in drafting and commenting on the
comments, then um we can make that decision, I guess. So, right now, Peter's for number four, so I'm going to skip that for now. Um, I'm number seven.
I guess the question on um article 7 was we did recommend it but are we concerned about rising cost and other things that we want to highlight in our note that we want the town to know that we're concerned about
or do we want to just kind of take you know what we wrote the past year and do a a copy paste. It was just kind of a general comment that we had last year and didn't highlight any specific concerns that we had.
Excuse me. Excuse me. I think it was more Peter that was, you know, wondering if we should put in some larger picture things into our comment, but We can come back to that one when Jill hops on too.
See her thoughts. Um, number 12 was the next. Just see if any of these are easy. Probably none of them are, but um Oh, this was we had a vote on this one still. This was the body camera one.
Greg had a comment. Oh, the fiveyear. So, do we feel comfortable voting on this even though it doesn't specifically say 5 years? Do we want clarification from Greg? I mean, it can't be changed. So, do we want to just vote on it and put in our note that we are under the
um, you know, impression that it is a 5-year contract, which is why we are recommending it. And if we had to go into another contract, the town would have to vote on that regardless. >> That sounds reasonable to me. >> Yeah.
>> All right. So, does anyone want to make a motion to recommend this? >> I'll uh move to recommend article 12, contract length authorization for police body cameras. >> I'll second.
>> All right. Great. And I will take a roll call vote to recommend article 12. Um, Linda, >> yes. >> And Nathan, >> yes. >> Nikil, >> yes. >> And Nathaniel, >> yes.
>> And I'm a yes. So that is five one abstain. So we recommend um recommend. All right. I just saw an email from Jill saying that she was um stuck in the Zoom waiting room and
I don't see how to >> I admitted her. I got >> sorry Jillian. >> Thank you >> that you were probably waiting there for a while that I forgot that that's a thing. So we just voted on um article 12 the
police body cameras. we voted to recommend but um agreed to put in our note to stress the 5-year term um that that it's a concern that it potentially says more than that, but we're under the impression that it will
be a 5-year term, but we haven't got to the comment um portion yet, but while I have you on here, I'll come back to one that we So, most are voted on, I believe, at this point. It's the comments. Um, so I was going to say, so
Peter was the one who was going to take um the comment on article 4. Where am I going? Here it goes. The certified free cash. If we're doing um, you know, what's your, I guess, opinion on if we're doing comments
from people that we can't vote on it today or say yes, we >> we just do it live if we want. It depends on what the committee wants to do. So, if we if we have the good words today, we don't have to wait for Peter to make a draft. >> Okay. >> Um,
we can just finalize it ourselves if that's the route we want to go. Um, >> cuz I think this was the the comments and then planning for the next meetings and then just sort of other business I think were our topics today.
So, do you do we think is a group we can write a comment for now that we know it's option B? We did vote to recommend. Um, >> I would double check and see if the sponsor comments they're probably updated in the version Linda was talking
about. Um, >> from the one I have cuz I I meant to it's like a >> right >> 16-hour day here. So, >> so long. I'm uh talking to you and eating dinner here at
almost 9:00 at night. >> This the sponsor comments are very long. They're very detailed. >> Okay. And it seemed like they just weren't finished. So I kind of wondered if they were updated. Oh, >> okay. So here, yeah, it looks like
>> So it does talk about in keeping with >> it looks very it looks very um similar the existing bleachers. Yeah, it's very similar except maybe the last except maybe the last >> um paragraph where it talks about
>> Yeah, I just wanted to make sure the comments covered whatever option they actually went with option B, >> right? >> Cuz the version I had still had A and B. >> And it's interesting here because we were just talking about body cameras.
It's got 71,000 for the body cameras. Wait a second. Certified free cash. >> The last paragraph, Linda, >> 52,000. Yeah. Now, here it's saying 71,000. D. Oh, this uh so it says the state grant
was 71,000, but later it says it's 72,000. But anyway, >> the last paragraph talks about um the trash sol. >> So maybe that is Yeah. So maybe that is the uh the same.
>> Did they take that out though because it says it will not initiate until October 1st and I know it's July, right? >> No, it doesn't say anything about October 1st. >> So they did change it a little. >> Yeah.
It says blah blah in the upcoming FY27 a new enterprise fund for the town solid waste already authorized by town meeting will be implemented as meant to replace substantial reliance on the general fund and tax levy. However, the new system will not have a customer base already
paying into it funding its funding model to meet contractual obligations. Therefore, free cash is proposed to be appropriated to provide reserves to support the program while it initializes and initializes and matures.
Yeah. So, that did change. I know some of these comments I feel are going to be hard to to draft on the spot because they're so long. I mean, do we want to assign um people to comments tonight and then do a May
4th meeting just to okay comments? just speaking as one member, my my preference is generally to have, you know, like uh two meetings that go for like not until midnight rather than, you know, one meeting that goes for a long time. But again, that's just, you know, as one person. Um but um also happy to
receive an assignment, too. So, >> see, we have a lot to comment on still. We have quite a few comments. >> Yeah, if we want to divide it up, that's totally cool. Um I can help arrange a thing. um I won't physically be present um for that meeting. So, but you're
doing an excellent job. Two thumbs up of running the meetings. I just wanted to say great job. Thank you. You're amazing. >> No problem. >> I have to do two or three out of the whole year. I'm okay with it. No, I'm just kidding. No, it's all good. You You plan stuff so
well. You're like so prepared already with it that it makes it easy. So, um, but I could I could on May 4th, we could do just a comment meeting if that is helpful cuz So, there's this one that Peter said and then >> you're going to Katie, you're >> I'm going to do seven. >> Seven. Yeah.
>> And so, Jill, I guess um good feedback from you on seven. Um, just in my drafting of this note, Peter wasn't sure and that was Justin was confused with my with my question. I did not word it very well to him. Um but do we feel so we recommended it but do we feel we should
address you know some bigger concerns in our comment that yes although we recommend um you know this budget here you know as a finance committee are are still our concerns that you know we I don't know want to note to the the
town. Yeah, I mean we can definitely pontificate. I just don't want to necessarily draw attention like this article is for the general fund and we can say you know the concerns we have you know we're not funding enough capital we have water sewer infra like
but water sewer has nothing to do with the general fund. >> So I don't think we should mention anything about that in this article. That's my personal opinion. >> Um >> because it doesn't have to do with general fund unless we're doing an override. Um, I mean, we could mention overrides saying like, you know, there's
some things that are coming on the horizon that are not going to fit in the enterprise funds like a DPW garage or, you know, some water sewer infrastructure or something, but >> those are on the horizon. They're not in this article. So, >> right,
>> I think we can definitely mention like stuff's hard. Um, but I think we need to be really thoughtful about how it relates specifically to the general fund. >> Um, is my personal opinion because I think a lot of the stuff we talk about nicely in some of the other articles
about the enterprise funds already. >> So, I'm not sure if there's other comments we want to add in on the general fund itself. Does that make sense? >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> So, I'm not against it. I'm just saying I think we should be thoughtful about
what >> Yeah. >> what we say where and specifically what comments. >> And I had a draft that was um pretty pretty similar to the one we used last year. So I'll probably use that as a base and just tweak it a little bit. Um
but that's assigned to me so I can we can just make sure other people >> I mean you can definitely add the line at the end or whatever. I cuz I watched most of the last meeting but I didn't finish it. Um about how you know there are some like crossroads coming up or like important key decisions
>> that you know just to get on people's radar >> but like I don't know that we should necessarily mention the numbers in there because it's not they're not asking in this general fund budget for $60 million for a DPW garage or something >> like it's going to be in the slides I
think that the select board's going to present. There's going to be some kind of like the last slide in that four slide deck that they talked about at the budget subcommittee meeting. >> So, >> okay. >> You could probably also plagiarize from that presentation.
>> I have it downloaded. So, yeah. Okay. >> Do we want to include anything on a handout, you know, that's beyond just the the comments for specific things? is if if there are broad things we want to talk about stuff on the horizon that
might um make sense for you know like the the book ends to our comments if we're if we're printing out our own handout. I think that would be great if we can get like our comments to like a page or two then we can have like half a page to
one page on you know the state the finan financial committee state of I don't know whatever you want to call it state of the address >> so we've done that in like past meetings I think Ken used to do those um so they
should be on past warrant like in the ATM documents. >> Okay. >> I'll look for those and see how he >> worded that and listed that. All right. And then so the next one then just to move on from that would be
We did article 9. That's done. Um 12. So 12 was the body cameras. So this was the one where we we were concerned about the 5-year and we just wanted that in our
comment. Do we feel we could draft it right now or does someone want to take that one on? >> I I can draft it. I'll volunteer to draft it. >> Okay, great. So, I'm going to put Linda
Linda comment. We'll highlight that baby and then I think we're good until we're good for a while. I think it is 23 is the next one. Just make sure. Yep, those are new numbers.
Yep. 23. So, this was the 50%. Um, and I know it doesn't look like this. He took out that service truck 50%. Um, does anyone feel strongly about this one or can we write write it right now? feel there's been past one similar to
this. Yeah. That we could >> Yeah. You know what it's I'm looking at last year's and it says at town meeting and I don't have a copy of of what we did. I I'm sure it's in my
>> on the town there's a handout. There's a link to the handout on the >> There is link to the handout. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, usually it says something like, you know, this has gone through the capital planning committee and has been vetted by the, you know, service and there's like a replacement schedule for these
machines and this is its time and blah blah blah. So, I think >> exactly what Jill just said, >> blah blah blah. >> Finance committee additional comments. Okay, here we go. Uh this last year was transfer from
sewer retain earnings to sewer enterprise reserve. Well, here's a similar one for water. if I I can't paste it, but I could email it to you. Um Katie, >> sure.
>> And then we could just tweak the water and sewer. >> Just change water to sewer. Yeah. should check. Close this. Did you send it? Is it in there? >> I did send it. >> Okay. Oh, there it is. Okay. >> Just make sure. Okay. Yep.
>> So, let me copy. I will go back to this. I'm going to paste. change obviously how that is in there. But um I don't like that. Why did it do that? So this article would transfer 180,000 of
sewer >> and it's 120 >> to do to use for capital. These funds would allow the purchase of of a new truck which is correct to replace a is it we don't know that it's 15y old truck
p so just purchase of a new truck unrepaiable truck this to probably service the town's water um sewer sewer operations and repairs maintaining an aging fleet of vehicles can add additional cost to The town through vehicle maintenance
repairs finance committee supports his transfer to strength and the DPDs to leave. Yeah, I think the rest bit fits and it's 120 though. >> So this article would transfer 120,000 of sewer retained earnings for the DPW to use for capital equipment
procurement. These funds would allow for the purchase of a new truck. This will allow the DPW to properly service the town's sewer operations and repairs. Maintaining an aging fleet of vehicles can add additional cost to the town through vehicle maintenance repairs. Finance Committee supports his transfer to strengthen the DPW's fleet as rates
will not be affected. >> I'll make it format formatted better, but >> uh if it's important, I'm looking back with my notes from Justin. It's replacing a 2008 vehicle. >> Oh. And >> Oh, that's old. >> Um it's old. So, they said that the repairs would outweigh the new vehicle
cost. So, >> um, as the existing one is from 2008 and repairs would, how did you word that, Jill?
The repairs would um, >> the repairs would outweigh a new vehicle cost. >> Thank you. So, and these are the notes I have here, too. He said the full cost of the truck is 120. It's not 240. Um,
yep. I think that was the only other question from the car, Brian, when I didn't have my notes in front of me. The life expectancy is expected to be 15 to 25 years, but in the fleet planning program, that's the fleet planning pro
fleet planning program is his replacement schedule. >> Okay. Um, but I don't think we need to put that in. >> Okay, I think it's good. >> Katie, you might want to just move where it says article 24 down to below.
>> Yeah. Yeah, I'll and I'll unbold it. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> You could do this right now. Is it good? All right. Cool. Moving on. So, that was what number was this? 23.
So 25 is the next one. Oh, lighting. This might take We might not be able to do this one here. Um, Nathaniel, do you want to tweak this one
some knowing now the um the opposition or just the other thoughts from Jill and Peter? >> Yeah, happy to do so. Okay. So, that's what number 25 tweak.
>> Just I guess as long as Jill's now here and able to read and see and >> yeah, >> focus more on on the screen instead of driving. Not that she's looking at a screen while driving. Um >> there isn't necessarily anything in here that was missed. It's just more about
flushing out the other side. Correct. because I think this would have been a five two vote at the end of the day. >> Yeah. And you know, it's still a recommends. So, you don't have to write split comments is what I'm trying to
say. Um, I think I just wanted to state since we were talking about it sort of what my opinion was. Um, and you know, I think it's nice that you recognize that it's like Excuse
me. I just wolf down my entire dinner. Um, I'm so hungry. All right. Um, so I'm trying to read it. I'm still on my phone here. I'm zooming in. Um, >> oh, it's hard on your phone. I think it was like during the during deliberations
the finance committee discussed implementation enforcement um including and so maybe like after that part saying that we recognize that you know implementation is not yet adopted or that that's a concern maybe putting
something there. >> Yeah. I mean, you potentially could. I mean, at the end of the day, if like a board is told that they're they're going to be the body who does this, that's what's going to happen until the article gets amended and someone else does it. So, um like once
it becomes a bylaw, it could potentially be amended in the future. So, you know, I would, you know, I'm not sure that I during deliberations, the last sentence in there is that the bylaw is sufficiently developed and practical for adaptation.
I I personally disagree with that. Like, I think this bylaw is super complex and I don't think it's practical. Um, but I did not I'm not in the majority of the finance committee. So if the rest of when you all voted and you
voted to recommend, these are these are supposed to reflect why you're voted to recommend, you're not supposed to you don't have to voice the minority opinion, too. Do you know what I mean? >> Yeah, it makes sense. But this is also this is incredibly complicated and
there's a lot of layers here. So I mean I as one member would definitely want to especially in this one being effectively would have been a 52. I mean it's not the 43 vote where essentially it is >> right. Um, but I still think that because of the complexity of this that
it shouldn't we shouldn't ignore the disabilities. And I mean I think that would be a fair thing to say in like your closing statement, you know, that you believe that it's reflecting, you know, all of these positive things and, you know, despite the, you know, some
concerns ultimately like the finance committee recommended approval um by majority or something. >> Yeah, I I tweak it. One thing I'd like to see in here, I I I have two comments on on what's here. Um
the first is right where in the second paragraph where the committee notes that the bylaw applies only to new and replacement outdoor lighting fixtures. um as part of that sentence uh saying that the
what it is um prescribing what it's saying that we have to do is have like a different shaped light. It's not saying that we need to have like more expensive like I don't know like super eco-friendly or it's not I mean we're the finance
committee so I I think what we we should we should comment on we do not believe that um lighting that would be in compliance with this would represent a significant um incre increase in the cost of like projects. >> It's just a different standard that you would follow.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So something about that, you know, it's not just that it's not calling for us to replace things, but even when a new thing is put in or replacement is put in, it's not going to necessarily cost
any more than, you know, what we what what we could buy that's not in compliance. Um, that's that's my first thought. My second thought is um this the the second part of that paragraph where it's talking about you know the finance
committee had deliberations we discussed implementation um all of that kind of it's like framed around what we did and I don't think that you know a person going to town meeting is going to like care about that so much is they they want to know like what we think about like the effects
like how how much does it cost um and I I like the like I like your last bit where Um, the article reflects sound engineering and planning practices and it does all these good things. Uh, I think that's like a strong ending for it. Um,
and I guess like a third comment is I'm I really don't I I still don't like how this applies to uh residences. I really like how it applies to municipal stuff. I like how it applies to commercial stuff. Um, I think I think it's really complicated and broad and it doesn't
have a good enforcement u mechanism in place for residential. I think that's just like a whole can of worms this bylaw didn't need to go into and I you know I voted in favor of this. Uh but I'm but if the residential part was
removed I would be fully in favor of this as opposed to kind of feeling on the fence and leaning in one one direction. But I don't know if that needs to go it needs to go in the comments. But I'm yeah I uh
in terms of having sort of like the the downside reflected like the con side um I I'd like to I would throw in with um Jill and Peter and having having some concerns in the comments as well. I did want to say like one thing too is
I kind of want to make sure we don't like I don't want to be super critical of the board of health saying that they're not comfortable enforcing this because I think that's totally fine. Like I think if you want to mention things like specifically about that, I think we need to be like thoughtful about it if that
makes sense. because I want them to be open and communicative of like their opinions and I want to respect that. So, I just wanted to note that too. Yeah, that makes sense. >> All right. You think you're good,
Nathaniel? Got enough input? good enough to at least get something on on paper for an extent. >> Okay. All right. So, then I put that you're going to tweak that one. Oh, this one. Um, so this was the free
cash or sorry, solid waste enterprise budget. So, the trash. Um, we didn't vote on this one. Did we not vote on this? >> I think I think we voted on that today.
>> We did. We recommended it. I just didn't update it. >> Yep, we did. >> Recommends. Okay. Um, does someone feel strongly about trash?
Yeah, I I can write I can write something for that. >> Okay. So, I'm gonna put >> Nathan comment any input we want to give him for the comment or is that one pretty?
We've discussed it quite a bit probably. Um things that I would want to say in the comments just to you know do do a little bit of brainstorming is this is going to reduce overall costs to the town because um because it's an
automated system so we don't have to pay as much for labor which is one of like the really expensive components of um the solid waste. So, um, automation cheaper. Um, >> yeah, I would I would I don't know if I
would say cheaper, Nathan, because last year I thought we paid around a million for our pay as you throw program, which was, you know, the the budget was around a million and we got about half a million in receipts from the stickers. And actually, I I thought it was going
to go up a lot more. So, 1.2 from a million to 1.2 to um >> Yeah. >> And I don't think individuals and I don't think many individuals will think their trash bills are going to go down
when they see the rates. >> Yeah. So, I mean, so there that's the second part is um >> we have I want to I want to point out that we've been subsidizing um the sticker program has never paid for itself. We've always been subsidizing for the program um with uh
with >> property taxes. That's just not visible when you're, you know, buying stickers from Market Basket or whatever and putting one in your bags each week or every other week. >> Uh so, so this and this is going to make it
more, you know, directly tied to the expenses of like heavy users of the program. The downside of course is that it's going to be much more expensive for people who are used to putting out a single bag every other week um than it is like they're going to see like a much
larger proportional increase in the cost. >> Yeah. Because, you know, in part because if you put out a bag every other week, the cost to you, the cost to the system, to the town is not half as much as if you do it every week because the drivers
have to drive those routes no matter what. >> Um, >> because it's it's not it's not just about the quantity of trash that's being disposed of. It's it's about like the labor um doing those routes and picking everything up.
Um I mean I also think that um it has like like I like like the health impacts of having like a covered cart instead of plastic bags. Like every every every week when I take my dog for a walk, I see after like trash day, there's so
much so many ripped apart bags the animals have gotten into overnight. You know, if we're >> Yeah. passing bans on rodenticides. I mean, I I don't think any rodenticide is going to be as effective at like reducing rat population as improving
our, you know, solid waste disposal system this way. Um, I don't think I really we really need to get into that in the comments here, but I think that's like a really important part of this this new plan. any any other any other things that we
should highlight in in comments? There was a really thoughtful email I think that I circulated in the documents for today talking about some of the things you were mentioning about, you know, every week versus once a week uh versus two every two weeks and things like that and about how if they do the
two week program and things like so um and I think I'm not sure if it was from the trash force um >> yeah I saw that >> leader was it um so that that might be something to look at for the comments. as well cuz that was a pretty thorough email.
>> That was a good one. Like you get a discount if it's um Oh, shoot. I don't know how you manage all the tabs. It's so hard. >> That's why I just don't turn my camera
on. My computer's like, "Okay, I think it was this one." So, um, right, it was from Lindy. So, Justin and I listened to several of the initial select board members feedback um,
regarding trying to further incentivize the price for residents who choose the bi-weekly option and took a tar. As a result, we've decreased the bi-weekly residential collection groups cost to 60% of the standard cost. And she said a lot more. So, and you you got this, Nathan, right? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Stop my share. Back to this. All right. So, Nathan has that one. All right. I think 28 is the next one. Right. Nope, we're good. We did 28. 29
is the Yes. So, we voted on the um the dog licenses. Um but we need to comment, right? We voted on this one. We recommended it. >> Yep. >> Did we? No, we didn't. >> We said we I had Peter will write the
note. Does do you have that, Katie? >> Yes, I do. Peter and that we recommend it. So, let me recommends and then the note I'll just put Peter.
Okay, 30 is done. Um 31. >> I'll see you guys on the other side of that one. Okay. So, this one we um as written did not recommend.
Um I mean, we could maybe draft this now. >> Yeah. >> Because it's just per town council. So, how how do we want to how do we want to word it? Um, per feedback from town council, >> I think there was an article like this
last year where like it was out of order or something or it was considered advisory rather than enforce enforcery >> the word. >> Uh, I don't know if that's something we want to mention. Um, that was around
when I had to dip off the call uh when I got home. So I missed part of the conversation on this in the vote I think. >> Yeah, we just we I we had decided that like we can't recommend this. >> This was on the senior tax relief last year.
>> Yes, >> if this helps us. It says Fincom is not able to recommend this article as it is not legally permissible. Um and I can I can send you and says it does call attention to the real issue of affordability.
Um, but we might want to just use that first sentence. >> Yes. >> Linda, >> pardon. I'm gonna email it to you. >> Okay, great. >> Got to find
my Outlook new mail. Oh, I see your email. Jill, can you let me in? Sorry. All right, I got it, Linda. Um, so so Fincom is not able to recommend this article. It is not legally permissible. However, it does call attention to the
very real issue of affordability for many seniors living in maybe we just ended at that. >> Yeah. >> Not legally as as drafted or >> Yeah, I think we should have a little bit more um be a little bit more
specific there. Um, especially if there's going to be like a floor, something amended from the floor. >> Do we want to site the specific things that it's not legally permissible on? >> Uh, I mean, I think that's probably what
this person will motion on the floor for. Um trying to find what article number is this? 32 >> 31 >> 31 so the main thing is striking sections E
and F, right? Those were the biggest which I feel changed who this was applicable to. >> Yeah. Can can you scroll up a little bit? Can Can we see ENF?
So, I think my main question since I missed part of this conversation is if they're going to strike these things on the floor, does it still have the same merit or values to what the original intent was? Like, if they're going to get rid of the financial hardship clauses and all these
other things, was it for everyone or was it for just a specific group? >> Feel they were getting rid of it just for a specific group. Could be wrong on that. Let me see if I have
um Okay. And I also found the treasurer collector email. Did you guys talk about that or I can read that? Yeah, we pulled that up. >> Okay. Um, so in um the response it says striking subsections E and F. So they would
substrike strike E and F. So those would be taken out entirely it sounds like. Right. So as one one member I'm I'm a little confused. I hope that you know Todd will
um elaborate like if if those if the financial hardship clause is stricken then I don't >> I don't understand >> the point of this >> yeah I thought that was the point of this article so
and maybe they would replace it with a a differently worded I don't Oh, cuz I think legal did say the payment agreement had to be for 5 years, not six. So, do we want a more elaborate elaborated comment or are we good with
the short and simple and we'll maybe discuss our feelings on it more on the next one just so we have we don't have to think on the fly at town meeting but >> he's not able >> all right well we'll move on for now um so 32 this one was new this was transfer
um from capital um stabilization for 22,000. Um, we wanted to say that we were concerned about the balance. Um, and that it's low, but we did recommend this one.
There you go. Does someone want to take this one on or do we want to draft it now? I'd be happy to take this one on um if if that's okay. >> Yeah. All right. So, let me go back up to the
beginning. I think that's all of them. Sorry. Make us all dizzy scrolling. So, done. Done. Free cash. We'll tell Peter that we recommended it. Didn't put his name on there, but he
said, "Right." Yeah. So, I'm going to put Peter comment. We'll highlight that. All right. Five is done. Katie assigned to that one. Linda's going to comment on that one.
Outdoor lighting. Um, Nathaniel's going to tweak that one. Nathan is going to comment on that one. Peter and I think the last one is Nil. I think that's all of them. So, are the others okay with the May 4th
meeting? Just to keep it short that we don't have to do these at our public hearing. >> Yep. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, Jill, will you add that? Will you send that as like a I don't know what you that Okay.
>> All right. Right. So, I guess that's it for ATM articles. Do you want to do you want to take it from here, Jill, or how do you want the flow to go? >> Uh, I'm still on my phone right now. Um >> Oh, yeah. No, you can't do anything then.
>> I'll pull up what was next on our agenda. Um, let's see if I can pull up our agenda. Bear with me. >> I think it's probably other topics and uh >> yeah, it's just routine. Well,
>> yeah, routine agenda. So, I'll pull we'll do the minutes. Um Ken, this came up last week, so I had missed posting one on Board Docs. Um, so we didn't vote on it, but because they were emailed to all of us, we can still take a vote on them even though they weren't posted on
board docs. Correct. >> Yeah. I mean, they'll be posted on the website eventually. The challenge is like right now board doc isn't working. So, >> right. >> All right. >> Ideally, everything is that's discussed at the meeting is posted publicly before
the meeting, but >> sometimes it just doesn't work that way. All right, let me stop share and I will share. So, this is the one from April 6 that Linda did.
Everyone was present. Citizen petition guest speakers were on with us. It was a long one. >> Yep. When do we Yeah, we didn't get over till 10:32. >> Yeah.
>> Thanks. >> It looks thorough. Anyone want to make a motion to approve minutes for April 6? >> Uh, so moved. >> All right. Nathan made a motion to
approve. I will second. >> And I'll take a roll call vote. So, Linda, >> yes. >> Uh, Nathan, >> yes. >> Nil, >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. and Jill.
>> Oh, I'm not muted. Yes. >> All right. So, we have six. Yes. No. I'm saying now I think I have to stop my share to share the other one, which is this one.
All right. So, this is from April 13th. Um Jill and Nathaniel, you weren't with us, but there's still four of us to vote on this. And we just I don't think there was any guest speakers. We just went and voted on a bunch of things on this one and
assigned comments. Lot of articles. Any comments on it? >> Uh, I will move to um approve the minutes for the finance committee meeting of April 13th. >> Awesome. I will second the um minutes
from April 13th and roll call vote to accept them. Um Linda, >> yes. >> Nathan, >> yes. >> Nil, >> yes. >> Nathan or I keep saying Nathan.
Nathaniel, >> abstain. >> Oh, right. You weren't there. And Jill, I >> I am also an abstain. So for yes to abstain and then I feel the rest is updates um from any chairs
and members and then future meeting planning. Any updates out there? attended the select board meeting on the solid waste program last week, but I think we talked about pretty much every aspect of that so far.
>> Um, I did have a couple updates as I emailed out. So, um, the 141 Parker Street article, >> yes, >> um, there was a public hearing on, uh, April 14th by the planning board. They voted to recommend that to reszone it from industrial to business. Um, so I
just wanted to share that verbally. Um, I also am reaching out to please request a volunteer to help evaluate the town meeting recognition program. So that is um, we need to decide by May 12th. Um, my understanding is that up to
three awardees will be presented to employees of the town and or school department and one to a non-elected volunteer. Um, so currently I think there's three employees that are nominated, three or four, and then I think three or four
volunteers are nominated. So, um, so if I think I think you did that last year, Nail, maybe. >> Yeah, I thought I thought I had actually signed up to do it this year as well. Um, >> okay. I couldn't remember. >> So, um, maybe you did, and I'm a potato
brain, so um, but I did want to bring that up as a topic. So if that's the case, I can divert that to you. >> Perfect. Yeah. No, happy to receive those. Whenever I I receive those, I can I can do that. I think last year we just everyone who got nominated, we just gave the award to pretty much. So it was all
very, >> right? I think there will be a choice this year potentially. So >> Oh, interesting. Okay. >> Um >> I can I can certainly do that though. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So I will forward you those articles. um
we don't post those articles on um board docs or otherwise because it's like a secret until the award comes out. So that's why the applications uh were not circulated. So >> that sounds great. >> Okay. Um okay. So it's a super secret
until the final decision. So that's that's just what I wanted to re-emphasize. We won't talk about it in our open meeting, but if there any questions, let me know, please. Thanks. Um, okay. Then I linked a couple other things sort of for your information. So
MMA is the Massachusetts like um association and um Greg highlighted some like budget matters for our awareness. So I think I circulated that email. Um so if it's about like the various items if they're passed they could help the
budgets like the schools, the general government, the circuit breaker and stuff. Um so that artic that email was circulated. There's also a seminar. They do seminars, like informational seminars. One on May 13th about managing your budget without an override, which I
thought was kind of applicable. There's also one on June 10th about cult cultivating transparency after a yes vote. So that's if a town does vote for an override, how you can sort of be more transparent about what that means, how does that
work. Um, so because there's a lot of municipalities in Massachusetts that are considering overrides or have done overrides recently because budgets are just so rough right now. So, um, just wanted to highlight that for your awareness. They're free Zoom seminars.
They're usually at like a random time in the middle of the day though. So, not always super convenient for people who have to work during the day. Um, but I wanted to let you know they exist. um from >> but if you register they send you a recording.
>> Oh, okay. I didn't know that. That's helpful. >> Yeah. >> Um >> and I think the recordings are available on their website as well. >> Okay, cool. >> Uh there were a couple other things I just wanted to bring to everyone's
attention. So, from our prior town meeting, the attorney general said that the bylaw to prohibit rodent rodent poisons from town properties is okay. but um does not believe that prohibiting it from all properties including private is
legal. So, and I circulated that notice. So, um just to let you know about that. So, I think if it's not legal, it probably won't become a bylaw, but I don't know if that's what that means. Um but I did just want to make you aware that that's sort of something new
information. Um I also circulated a bunch of stuff from Justin. So um sort of highlighting their continual efforts to engage regional planning partners to um and like focusing on like state the state level to address like water and sewer crisis
affect affecting the the housing crisis uh development in the state. So um that's something you know that he continues to champion that we've talked about in the past. So I did circulate information on that. Um, there were a couple items from the budget subcommittee meeting that I also
circulated that I thought were informational. There were some slides on the budgets from the town and the school that are good overviews that I I think might be presented at the annual town meeting too. Um, and the school department also provided some like uh like I think it was an attached
spreadsheet about more um information on some of their revolving funds um and things like that. So, um, and then there's also some notice we got from the school department, too, that there is a detour at night along
Great Road, um, for like the next week or two, um, while they're putting in some infrastructure there. So, um, and I think those are all the updates that I have. All right. Is that good for updates then? Thank you, Jill. And I don't know
when we do get access to boards, we still need to go back and upload all of all of this. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. So, I'll keep checking it um and upload these items so we can reference them in the future.
And I guess the next item then would be future planning if no one else has any updates. Um so May 4th we'll do a meeting and then May 11th is our public hearing
and then the 18th town meeting. >> Yep. Um, so in terms of logistics, um, so I have to post for Oh, that's not the right way. Post for May 4th.
Post for May 11th. Is that correct? So for I have to post two postings the according to the clerk. So one is for our regular meeting and one is for the public hearing.
Um, so, uh, I'll probably kick it off with our regular meeting and then in the regular meeting, I'll also like say that we're going to have our public hearing and then she wants a separate piece of paper that's just for
the public hearing. So, like I can say the public hearing starts at 7:05 or whatever. Um, and then we close that. We can continue with the normal hearing. Um, I can look and see what the legal words are that I wrote in the last time we did it because I think the heading of it is
a little different, but the topic should be the same. The agenda for next week on Mayh 4th, I would assume is today is the same as today's. Um, >> yeah, >> without any real substantial change. Um,
and then the one for the public hearing, I'll just post it as it has been posted in the past. And then I think I also have to post uh a meeting for like at starting at six like 30 minutes before
the annual town meeting just in case we have to deliberate uh and go. So I have to post those meetings and then one two three four. Technically, we can't have the meeting on May 25th because that's Memorial Day.
Um, so our next meeting would be June 8th. Um, and then we'll start the July meetings. Um the July meetings are when our new fiscal year starts, right? So we're
going to have to revote for all the different roles in the committee and everything again. So Dick Downey would open our first meeting in July. So we could have a meeting on June 8th um and then the following the 4th Monday
um >> 22. >> Yeah. June 22nd >> and then July 6th. >> Yep. >> Sort of just briefly on that subject. So, I guess if July 6th is the um >> Fourth of July weekend, huh?
>> Yeah. It's not a great weekend or a great week. >> And I guess if that would be the first new sort of meeting, um as I'm sure all of you all know, of course, I'll be off to law school sort of in August. Um so, I would be resigning like around that time. So, I guess my question would just
be would I be resigning in June or or in July? Like, should I resign before or after like the official sort of kind of break line? I guess >> it's in the middle of your term, so I think it technically doesn't matter. >> Okay. >> Um, if you would like to still serve
until you go to school, totally fine. >> Okay. >> Um, okay. Excellent. >> I think we can also remind Dick. So, Dick probably will want to like put it an not an advertisement, but sort of like say that there's an opening at town meeting, too. >> Right. Right. So, um,
so I think that we should maybe remind him, um, ahead of town meeting that that's something that's coming up. >> Okay, perfect. >> And if it's if it's in the middle of term anyway, I guess maybe which side of July 6th that it falls on doesn't matter too much then, so that's fine.
>> No, I don't think it does. I think it's all good. >> Cool. Cool. >> All right. Okay. Yeah. So, I can get I can get the meetings posted for May. Um, and then we can go from there.
I'm not sure what we can start talking about in June, but I kind of want to just get through annual town meeting first. It'd be like a debrief on annual town meeting and crying about it probably. So many articles. >> Hopefully, it's done in one day. One
meeting. >> Yeah. Okay. Um I don't know that I had any other topics. So um you know I think some of the citizens petition people are going to come on May 11th. At least some of them have already confirmed that to
me. Um it's it's obviously a public hearing. Anyone and everyone is welcome to come and learn about the So I'll just um Katie if you can like share after the May 4th meeting. Um we'll just have to have like an updated document
with all of our >> votes and comments in it. >> Sure. Yeah. And I'll try to clean up today's like I'll make a separate one of all the ones that we updated today that weren't on the written one and just have those on separate individual one.
>> Um so I'll I'll work on that so it's not all combined. >> I appreciate that. That be super duper helpful. >> No problem. >> All right. Yeah. So I and I can take care of making sure the meetings get posted on YouTube, too. So >> Awesome.
Awesome. >> All right. All topics. >> Anyone want to make a motion to adjourn? >> I move to adjourn our meeting at 9:34 p.m. I'll second. >> All right. And I'll take a roll call
vote um to adjurnn at 9:34. Uh, Linda, >> yes. >> And your screen is different. Nathan, >> yes. >> And >> yes. >> Nathaniel, >> yes. >> Jillian, >> yes.
>> And I am a yes. >> Excellent. Thanks, everyone. All right, sleep good tonight, Jillian.