Good evening. Welcome to the Milton, Massachusetts Warrant Committee meeting of March 11th, 2026. Karen, can you call roll to start the meeting? >> We have Jay Funling, Macy Lee, Nicole
Boyison, Elaine Craig Head, Lorine, excuse me, Lorine D, Grace Doherty, Brian Maguire, Ronald Sea, and Cecil Yang. You have a quorum. >> Okay. Uh, thanks. So, for tonight, just to give you a outline of what we're
looking at tonight, we're going to be having a presentation on the uh I shouldn't try to read agenda and talk at the same time. We're going to have a presentation on the historic buildings bylaw. We have Steven O'Donnell, the chair of the historic
commission, I believe is the correct title. Uh he's going to be speaking us to us tonight. And uh the I'm looking at the other things on the list. We have sol the solar energy articles. We'll discuss those and hopefully put them to a vote. I know
Brian has a presentation he'd like to share with us. Uh the school subcommittee is not on the agenda except in the sense that sort of all of our town meeting articles are on the agenda. We're going to have the school subcommittee just give us an
update of what they heard this morning at the school finance subcommittee meeting. Uh talk a little bit about just town finance overall and then Atheton fire station is on the agenda tonight that says discussion
vote. So we'll circle back to that see if we're ready to vote. Um, keeping in mind that we've only got a couple more meetings and a lot of votes to cast and a lot of decisions to make. So, with no further ado, I believe I will turn it
over to I'd like to discuss the historic buildings by law. I Ron Sea has been the expert on this. Uh, Ron, would you like to introduce our guest and uh let them speak? >> Yeah, thank thanks everyone. Um, I think
we had talked the proposed article last week at our at our prior town meeting, I'm sorry, our prior warrant committee meeting. Uh, and if folks recall, there is an article proposing a definition for demolition uh, to get inserted into
bylaw 163. So, we had talked to Stephen uh about some of the concerns that that uh Jay and I had a call with Stephen and we we talked we shared some of the concerns that were raised at our prior warrant committee meeting and um you know I think Stephen I think you your
committee had a meeting yesterday or Monday to go through um some of those thoughts and then also I think you know thinking of how how can we try to um address some of those concerns. I did send over some proposed amendments which I I believe you had a chance to look at but uh but let us know. I I think there
there were you know I don't want to rehash all the concerns but there were concerns that uh broadening the definition of demolition or adding a definition of demolition that was broad that included uh outright destruction of the whole building as well as portions thereof. uh that that could put a lot of
different projects and renovations within scope and that could require uh property owners to um you know possibly go through a um you know review with the historic commission. So there there's some concerns there that it's a very broad uh you know definition of
demolition. >> Yes. Uh thank you. Um, so does the group have essentially a a background on where we are and why we're here with this now? >> I I think it would be great for you to
give the background. Assume we know very little. >> Okay. Uh, this this is euphemistically called a demolition delay bylaw. It's been in effect for many many years, probably close to 20 years. The
objective here is to provide a means for pro protecting the historic character of houses, of neighborhoods, and of the town. by trying to discourage demolition if at
all possible in favor of an alternative. Look, we can impose a 2-year delay on demolition under the right circumstances, which I'll outline very quickly in a minute. We cannot prevent
demolition. We can postpone it in hopes of giving time for people to find an alternative to demolition, perhaps renovation, uh perhaps relocating the building. Well, how does one get into this?
The bylaw provides that for buildings over 75 years old which require a building permit involving demolition that they be referred to the historical commission for review. Historical commission reviews in two
steps. The first is to determine whether or not the building is historically significant. If it is not historically significant, the commission is out. Now certainly the majority of buildings
in town are over 75 years old and the vast vast majority of those are not historically significant. So out of the buildings that are referred to us the vast majority really don't come under our purview at all
because of the lack of historic significance. If they are historically significant, then we would look at what exactly what is it that they want to do. If it doesn't involve the historic character of the house of destroying historic
elements, go ahead and do what you want. If it does involve that, that would trigger a public hearing at which time we would examine whether or not the building or the elements of the building are preferably preserved.
Now, as an example, in the calendar year ended in June 2025, we had 10 referrals from the building department for buildings over 75 years involving demolition.
Eight of those were declared not historically significant. We were out. The other two were declared historically significant. Went to public hearings. Both had two-year demolition delay
periods imposed. About a month and a half later, one of them came back with revised plans to preserve the building, retain the architectural character, and demolish a small part of the building and add to
it. That was the goal that we were trying to accomplish. which we managed to save, preserve the building. The 10th one, when we finished and declared the two-year demolition delay, the owner said, "Thank you very much. Now I have
two years to decide what I want to do." All they wanted to do was start the clock running on their 2-year demo delay. Well, the issue with the bylaw at this particular time is that although there
is a demolition permit definition, there's no definition of demolition. So, does that apply a little bit of demolition, a total demolition, a lot?
What we're trying to do is in response to a building department question, could you please define definition uh demolition for us so we know what we're doing when we're examining these building permits
per permit applications. So, we put together a definition of demolition that we put it together in conjunction with the building commissioner, which doesn't differ a whole lot from the demolition definitions in other
communities. But when you got it first, uh there there were some um discussions about being too broad and certainly you could call it a broadening of def of
the definition, but in fact there was no demolition. There was no definition before. So what what you look what I'm looking at at the screen is what we proposed. um
pretty straightforward um which again was satisfactory to the commission and to the building commissioner having feedback from uh some of you and again I'd spoken with
Mr. Sire and Mr. Friendling the other day um Mr. came up with a couple of suggested suggested modifications to the demolition definition. Now, we
don't get involved in new construction. We don't get involved in remove and replace your you need to replace the porch railing or the back steps or the roof or we don't get involved in any of that at all. We don't get involved in
new construction at all. All we're trying to do is to preserve the historic character of the building, neighborhood, and town. What I'm looking at now are in red the
suggestions that uh Mr. Sia and Mr. Funley discussed with me the other the other day. We did have a commission meeting uh Monday night. We managed to gather a
quorum on very short notice to discuss these and subsequent to our meeting I forwarded them also to the building commissioner. We would have no objection
to the section entitled demolition shall not include or if you will exceptions to the demolition definition. We we did have reservations about the
substantial portion wording. Now Mr. finally reminded me that when you first got our proposal, it contained parameters. Uh I I think we had a a 50% demolition, but I'm not sure whe there
was 25 or 50. That those parameters appear in many other towns. The building commissioner said he didn't want to be responsible for trying to figure out what 50% of a building was or 25% of a building.
his view and ours towards substantial portion suggests the same kind of issue. How do you what is substantial? Is it 20? Is it 70? It it's it's very nebulous and it would
seem that the exclusions in the lower section would really need to overlook the substantial. If if it's not affecting those elements in the exclusions, then
it's not affecting them. I think it might make sense perhaps for me to take some questions rather than just continue talking. >> Yeah, maybe I can go first, Stephen. So, so first, thanks, thanks for explanation. It's great to have that perspective.
Um, one question I have before we talk about the proposed uh, amendments. When you say there were 10 referrals, those 10 referrals were sent over to the historic commission based on do you know
what kind of definition the building commission was using? Were they looking at outright total destruction of a building as demolition? I would have to go back and look at them all, but when the building department asked us in 2023
to define demolition, we we gave them a definition and they were going by that definition. Although, as I recall, most of those 10 were total, but some of them were were partial.
I'd have to go back and and and look at them, but again, eight out of 10. And what what would what we're seeing recently is typically 1930s,
1940s, um relatively small houses on many of Milton's relatively small lots, ranches, capes that are going to get a second floor or maybe they're going to be demolished and replaced. There is
nothing historic about these houses uh at all. Yeah, understood. And I think the concern would be if there were 10 last year with a very specific interpretation of demolition, which is
outright destruction, then surely the number of referrals will increase dramatically if we use this new definition. Because a definition includes destruction of the building or a structure or portion thereof which could be a basic renovation.
You know, as we discussed, if you renovate a room that that could, you know, trigger this type of review. >> Well, perhaps, but wouldn't that be covered under the exclusions that have
been proposed? >> Certain renovations. I think that's why I'm trying to recap where where we've what we discussed to lead to some of these exceptions for the rest of the committee. What I see in these exceptions doesn't
affect our goals at all. I mean I I you know obviously everybody interprets things differently. Um, I suppose I have the benefit of knowing what we've been doing over the last 8 to
10 years when in fact the vast majority of our referrals involve buildings that are not historically significant. Um, as far as what we're looking at, what I'm looking at here and the consensus of
our commission meeting the other night, these exceptions don't impact what we're doing at all. >> Yep. Understood. >> If if the warrant committee and the town is happy with these exceptions,
it that's that's quite fine. Yeah. And may maybe just for I mean you can read the language on the screen. Hopefully everyone can read it. But the exceptions that we we proposed um would exclude kind of general maintenance,
you know, repairing a structure that otherwise stays in a similar appearance and design. And then also uh we add an exception for ex you know expansions um as long as that expansion does not
kind of take away from the historical aspect of of the structure or the building >> or the portion. So >> okay uh one thing I want to throw in Ron you said we there a couple times >> me >> this okay yeah this was your proposed
wording I believe. >> Yep. Yeah. >> Um and uh so I see Brian and Elaine. Brian, go ahead. >> Yeah. Um so just so I understand, I apologize if I missed this, but any house that's over
75 years has to go through this process. Correct. >> If the building permit involves demolition, yes. >> Um or like if you redo your kitchen, is that demolition considered demolition? We
have no interest, no control over the interior of a building at all. Just >> exterior concerned about the historical character and the exterior. >> Okay. Is it easier in I was wondering if it adds a delay to the process because if
somebody does something and they if like so many houses in Milton are 75 years or older if it delays their process to build something going through this it could
if they are going to impact the historic character of the building. Now we the first step as I mentioned before is determining if it's historically significant. We have the bylaw requires that decision
to be made within 45 days of the time we get the referral from the building department. Again, if it's not historically significant or if the work that's being done doesn't impact the historic character on the exterior of the building, wear out.
The only time it would delay is if in in the requirement for a public hearing and the determination of whether or not the building is preferably preserved. I don't recall an issue with a partial
demolition, if you will, as opposed to a total demolition. the the ones that go to the public hearing are almost entirely a total demolition of the building.
So the could it anything could happen? Is it likely? Extremely unlikely. >> Okay. >> I'm sorry, Mr. O'Donnell. Can I'm sorry to interrupt you, Brian. Can you say that again when you said you don't
recall an issue with a partial demolition? I I'm not sure what that statement >> going I don't recall an issue with a partial demolition going to a public hearing which might impose a 2-year demolition delay.
But but Steve, I think the purpose of this article is to allow the building commission and the historical commission to bring a partial demolition to public hearing.
>> Yes. >> Right. So So you could based on the definition of demolition that's that's being proposed. >> Yes. Could. >> Yeah. but highly unlikely that it would delay.
>> But I'm a little confused. Under the current Well, there is no definition. >> Under the current bylaw, it sounds like it's interpreted as total demolition. So, when you say you haven't recalled an issue with partial demolition, is that just because it's not thought to be
covered currently? I don't recall ever having to go to a on impartial demolition ever having to go to a public hearing to consider a 2-year demolition delay. When we've been in when we've been faced
with a partial demolition situation, it's virtually always a case of something not involving the historic character or the exterior of the building. >> Brian, I think I interrupted you. This is your question.
>> Yeah, that's okay. I was just wondering if it might be if it delays somebody who it doesn't really it's not historically significant if it would be easier to designate all the houses that are of historical significance in advance so that you don't they don't have to go
through the process. That would that's my >> Well, that would be that would be a terrific idea, but the historical commission doesn't have the means to survey every house in town in order to produce a list of what's historically significant. Is there a definition of historical diff
significance? >> Uh there is >> and I apologize >> and that's >> if you said it >> um in the in the bylaw. >> So I have the bylaw.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Under definitions, it defines historically significant building right below demolition permit. >> Brian, can you see this? >> Yeah, I got it. >> Okay. >> See, thank you. >> So, there's some judgment on it.
>> Yes. Okay. Thank you, Elaine. Um my concern is that the language significant portion of um is way too broad, way too vague, and that this is
something that at town meeting is going to be discussed um at length if we don't in some ways tighten this up. Well, again, the historical commission and the building commissioner are both
not in favor of the term s substantial or significant for that reason. It's it's too open to um interpretation. Yeah. So, so on the article,
this language, these two edits that I suggested, uh, I had added them to to hopefully give some guidance on what types of
projects should be referred to. And if we remove it, I think that's totally fine. It it just it would leave it to the building commission's discretion. This is my understanding, Steve. Correct me if I'm wrong. So the building commissioner and his his team would have
the discretion on when to refer something and send it to the historical commission. >> Correct. >> And what what is what is the standard they use today? Is it just if they think it could be historic or anything 75 years or older automatically gets referred?
>> Anything over 75 years gets referred. >> Okay. So, so now it would be anytime there's a permit being pulled for a building over 75 years old. You it would get sent to the historical commission >> which involves
demolition. demolition to this the building a structure or any part thereof except in theory except for the exceptions we've defined >> below. >> Okay.
>> Yeah. So in that case I think we should just take out a substantial portion of because if it meets the exceptions it it's it's going to then be kicked out no problem. Um if it's not,
you know, if if the historically significant um aspects of the building are found not to be um you know, destructed, destroyed if they're only dealing with part of the part of the
residence or building. >> Yeah, Ela, that that makes sense to me. I just I just I quickly propose this just to give us something to talk talk to. Um, I'm I'm not stuck on any of this language. Um, the the the thought I had
was if someone does renovate part of their home and that renovation does touch on an aspect of the home which will be considered historic in nature, if they're not making a substantial change, I would think leave them alone. >> Absolutely. What we're saying here
though is any change should still get referred to the historic commission and the historic commission would have that review time which I believe was 45 days and it would trigger uh that process and I'm not saying the historic commission needs to disagree or object
to the the renovation but at minimum if they touch anything that that impacts the historical nature that there will be a review and they need they need to factor in that time >> and again that's a maximum of 45 days from the time we get it
and and one of the reasons I think the 45 days was established way back was that typically meetings are once a month so there isn't a there isn't a a significant delay period but again the commission and the building
commissioner um were not in favor of that substantial portion and as Miss Craig had said, I think the exclusions, if you will, um, pretty much cover
small, large, or anything else. >> Y, >> so for purposes of this discussion, Ron, what do you think about taking out the substantial portion of a insignificant? I'm sorry I didn't quite do Do you still think those are important things to have
or for purpose of this discussion? >> No, I think we just need to understand that if we remove them that any renovation project that involves pulling a permit would get reviewed by the
building commission and sent over to the historical commission for their assessment. And unless they were minor, it could be a minor >> unless they were those two bullet points that are explained. >> Yes. Except for the exceptions, but any any minor change that could impact the his the aspect of a historical building
would have to get reviewed and and go through the process. So I I'm fine with that. I think it's something that, you know, makes sense. Uh Mr. O'Donnell. I don't see any hands raised. So, I' I'd like to ask a question. Can you say more about
>> I guess I would phrase it as what is the problem this is solving? What's what's motivating this? What have you seen examples of? What what specific? >> Oh, go ahead. What >> I was about to say specific examples or
not specific examples? General examples. Just what's the problem this is solving? It it's only a problem that the building department asked us to please define demolition. that what we've seen in recent years
are not only request to demolish entire buildings but to do partial demolitions of buildings or to alter the historic character of the building in such a fashion that the historic character is
destroyed. One example I can I can give very quickly and I did mention this I think during our conversation the other day was a late 19th century shinglest style house in Milton designed by William
Ralph Emerson prominent 19th century architect lived in Milton designed his own house in Milton. The house is on off Adam Street on Milton Hill. And the new owner
uh did not want to totally demolish the house, take it right down to the ground, but he did want to demolish part of it and then make such extreme changes to the rest of the house
that the character of the house would be totally destroyed. Um and it was the building inspector who um after all of this started going he says you know I saw those plans said that's going to absolutely destroy the house.
Well it's not a total demolition. It's a partial demolition but it's having the effect of destroying the character of the house and potentially contributing to the destruction of the character of the neighborhood. Now, that's the most recent one that I can
think of and and that frankly is what triggered the challenge to the partial demolition, if you will, because demolition is open to interpretation. Is it full or is it
partial? So we were trying to come up with the definition of demolition at the building department's request in order to address this kind of situation. Yeah, I totally understand the the desire to have a definition of
demolition. I guess you know one definition of demolition would be complete and total de demolition. So when I asked you know what problems is this trying to solve? I meant what problem is this truck, you know, defining it as something other than complete and total demolition? What's
the goal? And I think you answer that. So, I appreciate that. >> Again, I see no hands, so I'll I'll continue to fill the air. Um, I will say one thing that you and I agreed on that might be useful to the committee is that uh when this was passed in by town
meeting in 2017, the de the demolition delay that that discussion at town meeting, you're very clear that it did not cover partial demolition. that what town meeting voted on in 2017, you said very clearly that this does not
cover town partial demolition and that's a town meeting approved and I think you and I agree on that and so now we're looking to do something different. Correct. Well, as I mentioned before, what has that was 2017.
Um, what has transpired since is more incidences of not total demolition but rather partial demolition. And this isn't just Milton. This this is everywhere. As I mentioned, the language
that you see in front of you for demolition is very similar and in some cases virtually verbatim for a lot of other cities and towns around who have had to make the same kinds of decisions in in
in terms of re reflecting or responding to changes in the community. You know, it's also interesting since you brought up the two 2017. I I'd like to read two sentences in the
Warren Committee's recommendation for that article. The first is the changes requested are in keeping with practices in other towns in the Commonwealth. And the other one is the purpose of the bylaw is not only to preserve
historically significant buildings, but also to help ensure that the character of the town and the character of the neighborhoods is maintained. That's what we were trying to do in 2017. That's what we're trying to do in 2026
in response to changes in the world, I guess you could say. Okay. Um, I've got another uh question or yeah, a question. So, in that 2017 debate, so as you said, this doesn't prevent anyone from doing
something. It it delays it. If you want to, you know, currently the bylaw says if you want to demolish your historically significant house, the most we can do is delay you for two years. And this is, >> you know, changing the definition of demolition. Now, in the town meeting
debate, it was discussed that the point of the two years, and I'm paraphrasing, is to look at options to say instead of demolishing your historic home, would you rather renovate it? Would you rather sell it to someone who wants to keep it?
Such and so on and so on. And that makes sense to me if we're talking demolishing to the ground. But if someone wants to renovate their house, add a room onto the back, something like that, I'm having a harder time understanding the
the goal of the two-year delay. Can you speak to that? >> If someone wants to add a Well, yes, I can speak to it. If adding a room to the back of the house is not compromising the historic
integrity of the house, particularly as viewed from the street. This goes on all the time. We I I'm not sure how putting an addition on on the back of the house or on the
side of the house perhaps is is going to affect the historical character. >> That's okay. Maybe that was a >> Jay that's >> maybe that was a bad >> that that would be excluded in the second bullet
as long as that extension did not change the historical character. >> Um well maybe maybe not. I mean I could be I could have a four season porch on the back of my house and I want to take out that porch and put in a more
substantial room. So maybe maybe not. But Mr. throw it on a if my example was bad, then then come up with a good example. Maybe the one you talked about a few minutes ago. >> What would the two-year delay accomplish >> on the example I gave
>> on the house? >> Well, again, the the delay might indeed encourage the person to do something else. And if he chose not to do something else, if he was adamant that he was
going to demolish the house or totally change the character of the house, then if he wanted to wait the two years, he could wait the two years. It it's it's it's an encouragement. It it's a discouragement, if you will. Um, if
somebody wants to demolish it or essentially destroy the historic character, we can't prevent it. We can the the demolition delay is an incentive to find an alternative. If you choose
not to find an alternative, so be it. Yeah. And I I guess, you know, sticking with that example you gave, I don't know the situation. I certainly don't want you to say a name or an address or anything. You know, let's keep it sort of hypothetical, but I don't know the
situation of that person. I don't know, you know, the demolishing and rebuilding. Was it because they had kids and had more kids and needed more space and that was the way they were going to achieve more space? Um, you know, if you have kids and you, you know, this is
what I discussed with my wife when we had onto our house. You only have kids in your house for so long and the sooner you do it, the more you get to enjoy this new expansion with your children. So, I I don't know the situation of that person. I, you know, let's keep it hypothetical, but a two-year delay can
meaningfully affect someone's life. Um, I guess that's not a question. Sorry. I I agree. >> Well, I think that the example I gave is is is kind of unique really in in what we've
experienced um because it was not a total demolition, but it was effectively a demon demolition, excuse me, of the character of the building. And that is is has been done
or is being done whatever. Um I I cannot um imagine somebody who wants to uh put an addition on the back of the house or take off the sun porch and put a twotory addition on the side of the house. Uh, I
cannot see that triggering um the kind of situation that you're suggesting. Thank you. Uh, so the way we often do business at the warrant committee is
we'll have a guest, we'll throw out any questions, and then we'll discuss among ourselves. I don't see any hands raised and haven't for several minutes. So, I think this, you know, Mr. O, I would encourage you to stay with us. May more questions may come up. You may be able
to clarify something that we're confused about. I would like you to stay with us. I think it might be time to switch to the discussing amar ourselves portion of this >> and then perhaps going to a vote. >> Jay, I just had one one more question for our guests. >> Great.
Uh, aside from the two exceptions that are shown in the amendment here, are there other situations that that you've seen or you've heard about where um someone has wants to do a a project
on their home or or property and if the property is historic in nature, you would say there are certain things they can do that your commission would, as a general rule, be okay with are there other groups or buckets of exceptions we could add here?
Not not that I can think of. Um it just hasn't been in it just hasn't been an issue. Um, I understand the word could, but but
could and realistically possible or probable are are are two entirely different things. >> Okay, thank you. >> Should we go to internal discussion, Jay?
>> Exactly. Yeah, I'd like to and and I appreciate you staying on, Mr. O'Donnell, if you're able to. >> I'd like to turn to internal discussion. >> Who'd like to kick us off >> Macy? >> I found Mr. O'Donnell's explanation is really helpful and answered a lot of the
questions I had uh last week um about the language about demolition. So, thank you for being here. >> Yeah, I think he did a much better explanation than uh than I could have. So, very helpful. Thanks, Steve. >> Well, he was the architect of this,
right? um no pun intended even though this is a language. Um I'll say something quick. Um my only concern I didn't raise my hand, but my only concern is um any delays like anything we could do to try to speed up
delays for somebody who had a house project that was a little bit delayed. Um that can be frustrating for people. And I know it's like it could have happened or this happened, but that's my concern. >> Yeah, Brian, I think that the the
purpose of the the bylaw and this article is to insert the possibility for a delay for certain projects. So I think that that's just saying to reduce it. No, no, no. I think it's it's
to make it clear it's intentional that that is the purpose of the bylaw is to add an up to two-year delay for demolition of historic homes. And I think the article here is proposing that the demolition includes not just
outright total demolition, but also demolition of portions of that home which which are historic in nature. And I think that's that's it's kind of unavoidable, right? The goal is to delay certain types of projects. Hopefully, not every project. I think that's where we can try and net out is the vast
majority of projects should not get delayed because they should not be historic in nature. But if your house is 75 years or older, there is a possibility that when the building commission passes the permit over to the historical commission, they they could find out
that the house has historical aspects that maybe the homeowner or property owner wasn't aware of. And then you get into this process as I don't know how we can how can we we can avoid that type of delay because that that's the purpose of this article
and the bylaw. >> Thank you. >> I'd like to encourage the members of the committee to speak up for one thing. the other day quite a few people had thoughts on this and also because you know in my subjective opinion this is one that could go either way here at the
warrant committee it could go either way at town meeting and unlike you know I'll pick on like the solar articles I think I think the solar articles are probably going to pass pretty easily and maybe don't require a whole bunch of discussion I think it is incumbent on the warrant committee to discuss this
and say why we're thinking what we're thinking if we like it you know I don't want to just go to a vote and eight people vote one way and seven people vote a different way and that's the way we go. If people like it, I'd like to hear why you like it. If you don't like it, I'd like to hear why you don't like it. So, I'm encouraging people to speak
up, please. >> Mr. Tagy, >> thanks. So, uh I guess based on that encouragement, Jay, thanks for that. Um I I would say that I am opposed to this. uh I feel like there's already uh
sufficient um speed bump and in the reg regulations the way it is already written and uh there's already a fair amount of uh information that's subject to interpretation and I think unless we're going to
clarify with more precision what is historic or undertake an inventory of what's historic like trying to create additional uh uh information that's subject to interpretation but maybe narrow down a little bit I'm against. So I'm I
wouldn't be against this. >> Hey Jay, I just had a couple of thoughts. Um I in general I think it is good to provide more guidance for any bylaw that has a standard and if the standard is not defined I think it's great to define
it so people know what they can and can't do and what are the implications and processes. So so in general I think it we should have a definition of demolition if there if there are these concerns raised by the historic committee and the building commission. I I personally prefer less restrictions on
on homeowners and property owners just in general. I think people should be allowed to do what they want with their properties, you know, within reason. But I understand that town meeting and the the that the town wanted to protect
certain buildings that have historical significance. So, you know, I try to separate my own personal thoughts on historic buildings from what the town wanted. But, uh, but I do have concerns that this is a broad definition and it it goes from whole building to portions and portions could
be just the entry steps or, you know, maybe the the the the chimney. Uh so so I think that is a major you know expansion of what demolition means and has been. Um
you know I I my thought is the hope is that the exceptions I added here help give some homeowners clarity on what projects would not be delayed from this process. But um yeah as as a compromise I think it's
reasonable but I think like minds can differ. I think this is one where we each had to think about what do we what do we think the town cares about more preserving historic nature or individual decisions on their own property? And I think people can go either way, right? I think there's no right answer. It's just
what what do we think is more meaningful for this town? So, I'm not sure if I would be for it or against it. Yeah. And as a process note, I will just say that, you know, I mean, this committee can make any motion and do
lots of things. I think the two most likely motions that we might make and vote on tonight are number one, we might move to um accept the language as you've amended it and as we're looking at it right now. Number two, we might vote to recommend
that town meetings send it back for further study. Uh partially because I think, you know, further study could mean, yeah, should demolition mean total demolition? Should demolition mean demolition of everything except the chimney? So, just as a process note, I think
those are the two most likely motions that I think we might be making and voting on tonight. blame. Um, yeah, at this point because I think that there are more potentially more
exceptions that we could add to this that I think that Ron was trying to get at. And because the any portion thereof or even significant portion thereof, if we put that back in it, it's I think I
think it needs to be clarified in some ways. I think this is I think the scope of this is um difficult. I do think though that I I appreciate the
impetus behind this article because if if people are trying to do only partial demolitions that is something you just alluded to Jay like I could say it's a partial demolition if I keep my chimney or I keep my chimney in the foundation
or whatever and if that falls under not total demolition then people are getting around um there they found workarounds um from uh total demolition. So I appreciate the nature the spirit of this a lot. I'm
just not sure it's ready and I I would vote to table it. >> Yeah, Elaine, I think that that workound would be you leave one wall but you tear down everything else and maybe that one wall is a backfacing wall. then then effectively you can destroy the building
and you would just say I I left something and you bypass the bylaw I guess >> Lorraine >> um again I'm also like others kind of unsure I agree with a lot of what Elaine
said, um, I would just like to know more about what makes a house or a building historical. I mean, how much I mean, there's some obvious ones in town because, you know, Forbes, you know, like a museum and stuff, but what would
make the house historical? I think it would cause a lot of confusion and the way it's written right now it seems like it's um could fall more into individuals perception of it versus I mean I did I
did see that this was put up before but I still think it's a little unsure of because the house is over 75 got that but as people were talking about doing partial stuff, but is the partial stuff
can you how much is partial? Um, so it it's I I don't think it's a bad idea to put back for more um description, but that's a >> Lorraine. Is that a rhetorical question
or is that a question you'd like Mr. O'Donnell to speak to? >> No, I mean it's it's fine if it's rhetorical. >> Yeah, it's it's rhetorical. Uh, I will say there was one part of our discussion with Mr. O'Donnell earlier this week that I thought was very clarifying because it came to a point
where I had one opinion and Mr. O'Donnell had a different opinion and we saw eye to eye. We just had different opinions. Uh, Mr. Mr. O'Donnell, do you remember the the example we discussed which was like I think it was like changing the siding of the house and if it changed the siding of the house which
then I I'll let you put it in words better than I could, but a situation where changing the siding of the house would change the historic nature. I think you and I had an honest difference of opinion there. Can you speak to an example like that?
>> Well, we we did. Um and what I said uh I believe was that uh in the past we've seen situations particularly when aluminum and vinyl sighting came in that people stripped
the architectural character items of architectural character off the exterior of the house in order to simplify sighting it. They took off the corner boards, the coins, the the window casings and trims, door casings and trims, and ran the siding right up to
the window sash. And they essentially removed any architectural character on the exterior of the house. And if I remember correctly, your response was, "So in other words, they wouldn't be able to resside their
house." And that is certainly not the case. If you were going to resside the house, uh, take off wooden clapboards and put up hardy board or whatever, leaving the rest of it intact,
fine. But it's when you're stripping off those architectural elements in order to ease the installation of the sighting. That's what I was referring to. Thank you very much. I thought that was a great example when we discussed
earlier and I still think it's a good example and you obviously can speak much more to architecture than I can. So, thank you. Uh I will turn again to the committee. I if Lee Michael was here, he'd say Jay, stop talking the committee and move to a vote. So, I'll turn one more the
committee. Uh does someone want to express their feelings on this? If not, I will entertain a motion. As I said, two motions we might consider are accepting their language as we saw it on the screen. Another motion we might consider is we recommend it sent back for further study. So, one more call for
people to discuss their feelings on the >> Nick. I was ready to make a motion. If you're ready to hear it, >> I am. I'd make a motion refer this back to the historic commission for additional refinement. >> Second.
>> We have a motion. We have a second. I am opening up this motion for discussion. The motion is to send it back. Usually the wording we use is send it back for further study. So is there a discussion on the motion to send it back for further study? Seeing no hands, Karen, can you do a
roll call? >> Nicole has a hand up. >> I'm sorry, Nikki. >> It's okay. I used a real hand. I gave you the fake hand. Um, so, um, I agree with this. When we do that, I mean, obviously, my opinion is going to be
reflected in my vote, but when we send it back for further study, do we make re specific recommendations about the aspects that we wish to be further studied? because otherwise I think we're in just some big circle. >> That's a very good question. The official answer is town meeting says
send it back for further study. The unofficial answer is I will encourage discussion at you know just as we've had discussion here about our concerns. I will encourage discussion at town meeting to say okay town meeting if you want to send this back for further study
what do you want to see what do you want different about this? So informally they listen to the discussion at town meeting and take that to heart. >> I I think can I add to that J? I think any whoever writes the um war committee
comments on it should push the put that in there what the issues are. >> I I would think the comment should at least flag what we had concerns with. I don't know if the comment would instruct the other bodies on what they need to
do, but I think we can at least express this is why we feel it should be sent back or not. And yeah, I mean, common sense would say you read that and you're like, okay, I understand what Warren Committee was concerned with. >> Thanks. I like that idea. Yeah, we're it's not our job to tell town meeting
what to do, but our opinion and sending it back could be frustrating for them if we don't give them some thought as to why. And I know everyone loves to watch our meetings continually on a loop, but you know, it would be nice for them to have a paragraph so they don't have to wait through it.
>> Yes, certainly. Uh, Mr. O'Donnell, I assume, will speak to this at town meeting and I will also speak to this at town meeting and anyone else who wants to. Well, so any more discussion about the motion to recommend this be sent back for further study?
Okay, Karen, can you do a roll call vote? >> Yes. May I ask who uh seconded the motion? Was it Lorraine? >> No, it was me. >> Okay, thank you. All right. Um Macy, >> yes.
>> Nikki, >> yes. >> Elaine, >> yes. >> Lorraine, >> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. Larry >> abstain. >> Brian,
>> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> sorry I was on mute. Yes, >> Cecil. >> Yes. >> And J.
Mute. J. abstain. >> Okay. The motion to refer back carries. >> Okay. I'd like to thank Mr. O'Donnell and also uh also Miss Hall for coming to us and uh
we appreciate your input. Thank you very much. >> Thank you all for your time. >> Thank you. Okay, the next thing on the agenda is Aton Fire Station. It says discussion vote. Now, we've discussed this a couple
times. We had the fire chief in um two days ago who answered quite a few questions for us. And also, you know, just being blunt, we've only got a couple more meetings before we've we've got a long way to go and a short time to get there. We've
only got a couple more meetings before we've got to have this warrant wrapped up. If people feel, first of all, I'll open it up to discussion of the Athetherton Fire Station. If people feel we're ready to vote tonight, someone could make a motion. Now, keep in mind what we would
be voting on and what town meeting would be voting on is approving $1 million for the study of the Athetherton Fire Station. And we all know what plans they have in mind and what plans will presumably be studied.
Is there discussion about the AI Empire Station specifically? You know, discussion in general or if one of you wants to speak up and say we should not vote tonight and here's why, you can say that. Uh I'm opening the floor up to discussion. >> Um I believe we do we have any
outstanding questions? I don't think we do. I think we got everything answered for the most part, right? Uh Wi-Fi BS. Um was there any talk of raising it? I mean, we had a number of questions and I think we got them all answered. So,
seems to me that we're ready for a vote, but I just wanted to make sure that there isn't something that I missed that people are still wondering about. Karen, are you able to share the article on the screen? >> Sure. Give me one second. Yeah, it's the diagram of all the
equipment. That's what you were looking for. But it's um I mean that's not that's just something for the presentation of a town meeting, right? It's not necessarily it wouldn't impact our vote. Yeah. Okay, you can see it on the screen. The proposal again is to
put a million dollars to uh architectural engineering and project man to design to design the fire station. I will entertain a motion from the floor. Well, I'll make a motion that we approve the article or that we recommend a yes
vote on the article. >> Yeah, I'll second it. >> I'll second it. >> We have a motion in a second. Is there any discussion on this uh motion? >> Karen, can you do a roll call vote?
Sure. Um, is Macy here? >> I believe Macy had to drop. >> Okay, so Nikki, >> sorry. Yes. >> Fellain, >> yes. >> Lorraine,
>> yes. >> Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> yes. Brian, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. Uh, >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile,
>> yes. >> And Jay, >> motion carries. >> Okay. So to tell you what I'm seeing for the rest of the evening, we have uh Brian talking about the solar articles and after that I want to talk a bit
about town finance at a high level and then hear from the school subcommittee what they what their current status is and then do a bit of looking ahead to future meetings. Uh Brian, are you ready to discuss the solar articles? I believe
you had a presentation, which I'm embarrassed to admit I didn't look at. I should have just got my mouth shut. Um, do you have a presentation you'd like to share and say more about the solar articles? Sorry, I was on mute. Okay. Um, I went
ahead and tried to answer my own questions. Um, sorry, I'm doing a bad job here sharing. Here we go. Um, >> can everybody see my screen?
>> Yes, we can. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, basically I want to see the economics on the solar panels. So, uh, it, you know, it it is good. It's economically good for the town to go ahead with the lease option. Um, I did a
net present value on it. Uh, grid power is costing us about 14 cents a kilowatt. Solar, um, it would take 9 cents off. Solar, there's a 2% increase every year. And basically the total annual savings.
Well, I should bounce back. Um, we were I a was able to get a full year's worth of data for the library. I was only able to get one month worth of data for the animal shelter which I just um
used and extrapolated for the entire years to get a savings on that and the town hall I did not get but Nick seemed to think that that was unlikely that they would do that. So, uh, basically,
um, it would be total annual savings based on what we think that they use for kilowatt hours of about $28,000. Um 20-year economics is a net present value
with 2 and 12% escalation and in what they would charge us what they'll charge us along with electricity costs 5% borrowing rate it'd be about $350,000 would be the net present value of that.
So my other question was so based on that it looks like it's the right thing to do. Um, and it also helps, which I don't have in this, it does help our climate goals for the town, which is very good. Um, but I also want to know
what was the cost of ownership if the town bought it instead of leasing it. And um, I put a lot of work into this, but um, I have the sizes of what the the solar
systems would be, um, what the insta what the estimated installation cost would be. So, for both the library and the animal shelter, it would be about $700,000 to buy equipment. What I'm estimating at, uh, to buy equipment to put solar
power on those buildings. Um, there is a smart program in Massachusetts where we would get money back. Um, so that's good if we put it in. Um, if it if you lease it, you wouldn't get that money. the leasing company would
get that money. I'll get into that what the detail is on that bad formatting here. Um, basically solar systems receive a payment for every kilowatt hour of electricity produced for a fixed period. Um,
so incentive levels vary by project. Um, but again I mentioned that if the town leases the solar system, the developer receives the smart payments and they get money based on that. And I believe that was um going back it was about $25,000.
So significant. So if we buy at ownership assumptions is the electrical price is 14 cents per kilowatt hour we would get all those savings the same assumptions 2.5% 20 years. Um
they seem to be sized to get 70% of the building electrical use not the whole thing. Um the cost of the watts have another thing in here significant. Oh the big other big thing is there is a federal incentive program that right now that's
going on that we would get 30% back on the cost of the system. So for $700,000 we would get $214,000 which would drop it to $500,000 roughly. Maintenance costs are estimated to be 1%
on solar um projects and estimated annual savings that the town owns the systems is 465 per year. So um I have an Excel spreadsheet on this too if anybody's wants to delve into that. But um basically
uh net present value let me go back. Did I get that right? Yeah. I'm sorry. Um, if you do nothing, there's no value to it. If you do a solar lease, you the net present value over 20 years is $350,000. If you own the solar, the net value is
$810,000 is what I recommend. So, owning definitely seems to be the way to go for me. Um, but there's a struggle with that. It's struggle. You have to put a lot of money up front, but you get more back.
and that's it. So, um I'm a little nervous about the fact that the language calls leasing and there are a lot of companies that run around and they say we want to lease, you know, we we'll put in a solar system and you lease from us.
And um it's a little bit, you know, anytime you lease something, it's like a car, you know, it's always cheaper to buy the car. actually someone's making money off of that and that's what you see if you go back to this. Someone's making um $460,000
over 20 years. So that's why they want you to lease and I get nervous because I think there's two incentives. It's easy to lease. You don't have to manage it and it's also uh less money up front. So that is
something that the town has to get by to say that they have to go through and do a warrant and stuff. But I do think they should look at it like I my thought is um it's going to my opinion is it's going to be easy to lease and that the
select board should almost somebody should be looking at buy options since it's a significant amount of money. So I came up with other language to have as a warrant and basically um I don't know if you guys got any of this if this is
>> Brian can I >> Yep. I'm I'm sorry I did not send around on your presentation. Can I interrupt though because >> Yeah. When you know I I copied you on an email to Mr. Milano this morning that and Mr. Milano confirmed that currently
they can buy solar and under these changes they can buy solar. They'll these changes will give them the option to buy or lease. So I guess I wanted to make it for sure. I came up with language because I wanted to make it certain that
they actually do look at the ownership of it. I mean, they can do it now, but they don't, you know, and it seems like it's the right thing to do. And um that's I I put I came up with language before obviously uh Jay looked at that
afterwards that would say that the select board can look at um purchasing solar system, which you don't really need to have. This is what Jay is saying because they could do that now. Correct, Jay?
>> Uh, yes, >> that's the point of that. >> Yeah, I I I appreciate the work, but >> I I guess I would say I'm I'm not thrilled about introducing language we make up. If, you know, if they weren't
able to buy and we were putting in language that said they could buy, I'd be a lot more inclined to >> be excited about that. But that that that that's my view is I'm not thrilled about changing the language.
Sorry, I I didn't mean to catch you by surprise with this. >> No, you didn't not catch me with surprise, but um No, I know. I just think it's a uh I think it kind of I I think like leasing is an easy way out and it's not the most economical one for
the town especially a town that seems to >> what I would say is and maybe this will get to what you want. I mean, you've done the work on this. When you know, when I get up in front of town meeting and talk to these issues, I will stand up and say this gives the town the
option to lease, but buying is much more economical and the town should absolutely keep that in mind. I'll, you know, I'll say that. I'll share your numbers, you know, once we've had them checked. I don't know if that helps at all. You know, standing in front of town meeting saying, "Guys, please." Okay,
I'll stop babbling because I see Lorraine and Larry both have their hands up. the ring. >> Yeah. I mean, this might be a silly question, but I'm assuming that the structure of the buildings I know the animal shelter's new, but um we have solar here that wasn't a problem um in
my house because we had a new roof, but we have neighbors that wanted to do solar, but the company said they needed to repair their roofs um before they would put it on, which again added an extra cost. So, I was just wondering structurally because I know some things
in the town hall um you know windows have to be replaced and you know different stuff structurally has to be replaced. Has do we think anything is going to be you can lease these or own these but you have to get paid this much money to have
the roof secured or or whatever >> that is an unknown for the library. >> I do see Mr. Milano >> I will say Mr. Milano has joined us and his hand is up. So maybe he can address that. >> The animal shelter was built to be able to take solar on the roof. The library,
it's unknown. So that would be part of that has to get added. I guess it's unknown if it would take it. >> Okay, Mr. Milano. >> Yeah. No, Brian nailed that. I agree. Um, animal shelter was designed for it intentionally. Fire headquarters,
obviously brand new building designed for it intentionally. Town Hall has solar on the roof already. So the purpose of including that in the authorization was, you know, if and when those panels reach end of life that we're prepared to to go through this process. The library is again probably
the more um open-ended one because that building is, you know, that roof is already got 10 15 years on it. Do we really want to put something on it that's going to have to stay on it for 20 years? So that is um an open discussion item. The provider we've been talking to is interested. it does pencil
for them to put it on the library. Um it's really balls in our court to verify on the structural side and the and the roof warranty and all that. So um that kind of summarizes those those four uh potential properties. >> Thank you very much. >> There was a hand up previously that went
down. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I was just referring to to Nick, but um so the whole lease versus buy discussion um it doesn't I mean is that really you know I think you know if you speak
to it Jay you know and we include something in the comment I think we're probably covered there. >> Yeah, I'll speak to it. I don't know if that's uh >> going to make the difference between voting a yes or no on this. I wouldn't think so, but it won't it'll probably come up. I mean, I'm sure someone would have that question. I can imagine.
>> You know, >> so we might So, I've mentally lumped 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42 all together in my brain as these are all solar and energy things. Uh,
so I think I'd like to go through them one by one. Karen, can you show them one by one? I'll ask for discussion on each of them. Again, if Lee Michael was Harry, he would tell me not to, but he's not, so too bad. >> You want to start with 38? >> 38. Yes. >> Brian, are you ready to talk to the
nuances and differences of these five articles? >> Um, yes. Uh basic I got to go back to my other presentation. >> If not, Mr. Milano might that's what we pay him for. >> Yeah. The first one is the um entering we can enter an agreement for purchase that it authorizes select board to enter
into agreements for the purchase of electricity or solar credits from any renewable energy facility. Um and basically I think that's not uncommon in towns and that's a good thing to have that they have that ability to do that if they want to. Okay.
>> Any discussion on this? All right. Rather than us all looking at each other virtually, Brian, do you want to take the initiative on making motions? >> I make a motion to accept article 38 as it's written. >> Seconded. >> Second.
>> We have a motion in a second. Any discussion? >> Karen, can you do a roll call vote? Can Nikki? >> Yes. >> Elaine, >> yes. >> Lorraine, >> yes.
>> Grace, >> yes. >> Larry, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile, >> yes. >> Jay,
>> abstain. Motion carries. >> 39. >> Cool. >> 39. >> Getting there. >> I think that was Well, yeah. Mr. Milano, can you say in 15 seconds or
less what article 39 means? Uh sure. Yeah. So um renewable energy facilities are um taxable and so the providers typically seek to enter into a pilot agreement so they can spread the burden of that tax over the course of the lifetime of the agreement rather
than have it be a huge tax bill upfront that depreciates very quickly. So just spreading their risk over a longer period of time. I'll be the first to say I don't 100% understand, but uh well, maybe I shouldn't.
>> Well, they can tax the >> Well, I'm going to abstain, so who cares? >> Think of it like a motor vehicle excise tax bill where you get the sticker shock in year one, but by year three or four, the prices come way down. So the providers seek to spread the taxes that they'll pay over 20 years rather than
kind of in a 3 to 5 year window of fast depreciation and a high cost. >> Can you do that to my car, Nick? >> No comment. >> So is this the uh is this the leasing company? Like the providers they're leasing the solar panels to us and they
have to pay a tax. Is that how that works? Like who's being taxed? Yeah, we would be entered into an agreement to purchase the power from an entity that own the panel. So the owner will uh be taxed um I get it for they'll retain ownership of the panels. We buy
the power generated by them. >> Um >> I see. Yeah, they're collecting the payments and being taxed on that. Okay, that makes sense. I get it. >> Okay. Uh I'll entertain a motion. >> Motion to accept 39 as written.
I'll second them. >> Great. Uh, we have a motion. We have a second. Any discussion? Okay. Karen, can you do a roll call vote? >> Nikki, >> was that yes? >> Yes. Sorry, I keep muting so you don't have to listen to my cat meowing.
>> Elaine, >> yes. >> Lorraine, >> yes. Grace, yes. Larry, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick,
>> yes. >> Cecil, >> yes. >> Jay, >> abstain. >> The motion carries. >> Okay. Can you show us article 40? I think I can summarize the next three
are all transferring land from general purposes to general purposes plus solar. Uh the first one is the town hall area which includes fire headquarters and town hall. Any discussion on this?
>> Brian, would you like >> motion to accept article 40? >> Yeah, I guess recommend that the town vote to transfer the parcel shown on the town of Milton blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah think it's clear what we're voting on is it
>> okay >> the land >> uh yeah I make a motion to accept article 40 >> Alex >> yeah I was asking for a second thank you Lorraine any discussion okay Karen please
>> Nikki Yes, >> Elaine. >> Yes, >> Lorine. >> Yes, >> Grace. >> Yes, >> Larry. >> Yes, >> Brian. >> Yes,
>> Ron. >> Yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile, >> yes. >> Jay, >> same. >> The motion carries. Okay.
>> Article 41, similar to the previous article, but talking about the library property. Uh, Brian, would you like to make a motion? >> I make a motion to accept article 41. Allow them to put solo in the library. >> I'll second that one also.
>> Okay, we have a motion in a second. Any discussion? Okay, roll call vote, please. >> Nikki, >> yes. Lane, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Grace, >> yes.
>> Larry, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick, >> yes. >> Cecile, >> yes. >> NJ,
>> abstain. >> The motion carries. >> Great. Article 42. I'm already thinking like can the town moderator have voice votes on all these? I don't know. Uh that's >> this is for the animal shelter basically
transfer the land. I don't know why the health board of health owns it or runs it but it's the way it is. Um but basically to same thing. >> So I make a motion to accept article 42. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. That's trivia. Okay. Thank you for
the motion. Brian, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Great. Uh motion is a second. Any discussion? Okay. Karen, can you do a roll call vote? >> Nikki, >> yes. Elaine, >> yes.
>> Lorraine, >> yes. Grace, yes. Larry, >> yes. >> Brian, >> yes. >> Ron, >> yes. >> Nick,
>> yes. >> Cecil, >> yes. >> And Jay, >> abstain. >> The motion carries. >> Thank you, Brian, for your work on that. Uh the next thing I'd like to and this gets in the generic other non-budget
articles part of the agenda. Um one thing that we have coming up that we haven't discussed that well it's probably the biggest thing we haven't discussed and we've discussed most things is um the community preservation committee wanting to do work on Warf
Park. Uh we've got scheduled for that on the agenda the next meeting which is a week from yesterday. It's Tuesday and then the meeting after that. Um now the meeting on Tuesday is mostly going to be talking to the
school committee and school administration about the school budget. Uh I was emailing people today trying to figure out I mean I'm of two minds on this Warf Park. I think it's a big deal and we should er it among ourselves as soon as possible, but it might be such a
big deal that uh it would take up too much time in this meeting that we have dedicated to meeting with the school committee. What I'm thinking now is that we'll have the guests from the community preservation committee come on Tuesday, present about their thoughts about the
warf park. We'll discuss it 30 40 minutes and then move on to discussion with the schools. Um, I think that'll work. Uh, I would encourage our, uh, I'll encourage our experts on this issue to
maybe send out some preview information for us so we can be ready for the meeting on Tuesday to make it productive. Um, okay, I'm sort of rambling at this point, but just to say that our our meeting on Tuesday will have two big issues. one of them being the schools
and the other one being the Wararf Park. And we'll start with that and try to get a good discussion going with the thought that we may we'll probably wrap up that discussion the following week. Uh I will say the next couple the rest of the articles the rest of the issues
that I think we're going to talk about all either directly or indirectly relate to school finance. So Ron if you'd like to drop that's your choice. I know you were accusing yourself of school related things. Uh the next thing I'd like to say is sort of on the big picture town
finance bucket the uh the select board discussed and m Mr. Milano um well I I'll call on Mr. Milano if I need him to chime in. There is $500,000 in free cash that we sort of haven't decided what to
do with. U Mr. Milano was discussing it with the select board earlier this week. One choice might be to in some form or fashion transfer it to the schools and have them put it in their circuit breaker stabilization account. If you
don't remember what that is, uh you're forgiven. Think of it as a savings account. Uh another option is that it could be placed in the uh special ed stabilization account which was created by town meeting last
year and is a fund of money for when special education emergencies come up and in order to spend that money it needs the approval of the school committee and the select boards. There's some external supervision of that outside of the school committee.
I I would I think I can certainly characterize the select board's discussion as they were much more inclined they're more inclined to put money into that than to give it to the schools to put it in their account. Um another option is to do neither of those
and take that money and put it into, you know, I'd ask Mr. Milano, should it go into a capital stabilization account? should it go into where should it go that it would be useful maybe to help alleviate the snow and ice deficit that we had this year maybe for other
reasons. Uh I believe all of you were sent a memo I wrote on this topic two weeks ago. I am 115th of the warrant committee. My opinion on this matter is no more or less valid than any of yours. U but I I
shared my thoughts on that in that memo. Uh, one reason I'm bringing this up is because, you know, it it probably will be discussed next Tuesday when the school committee comes and visits us. It might be discussed at a separate meeting specifically to talk about that issue
between the school finance subcommittee and the select board finance subcommittee and me. And some, you know, if some of you have strong feelings and strong opinions and want to share them, please do so.
uh and it may come up on two weeks from now when we're sort of making our final uh touches on the budget. What I'm imagining is two weeks from now we'll be finalizing the budget and uh this issue that I'm discussing right now
is probably one of if not the only open question that we may be deciding. I'm hoping that if it's still an open question by the time that meeting rolls around that we'll have representation from the select board and the school committee sitting there right with us so they can give us their input, maybe give
us their blessing if they so choose. Um, now it's certainly best to go to when we go to town meeting with a budget. It is the warrant committee's budget, but it's certainly best for everybody if we go in with the warrant committee's budget and the select board and the school committee agree with it or at least
don't strongly disagree with it. So, that's why I'm saying if it's still up in the air, I'd like them at our meeting two weeks from now when we're making these final decisions. Uh, Mr. Milano, you don't have to chime into that, but if you have something to add or something that I misspoke, you're
welcome to. >> No, thanks Jay. I think you did a great job capturing kind of the state of play on it. I appreciate it. And I'll um I just to put a number behind the stone nice deficit to for the transparency we discussed last night, select board, we're looking at about a $ 1.5 billion
deficit right now. we have any number of pathways with which to erase that deficit, but it does include potentially at least impacting free cash if not um appropriating from at least future free cash. So, that is certainly um worth keeping as part of the consideration.
So, I appreciate you flagging that issue specifically and I'll prepare kind of a summary of um what the deficit is and pathways to close that and the options that the town has to do so and the timing of that. Thank you. Uh Brian.
>> Yeah, Nick. Nick, $1.5 million deficit. Is that does is that mean the school is that a school issue? Are they on budget? I'm kind of confused. >> Sorry, that's a it's our snow and ice deficit for what snow and ice operations have cost us this fiscal year.
>> Um so it's it's on the town side of the house, but it's the deficit for snow and ice removal across town. >> Yeah. Um my question actually is um is the school budget this year on budget? Does anyone know
>> f the year we're in FY26? >> Uh yes. >> The year we're in. >> I don't know if Nick knows. >> Does Elaine want to respond to that or Nick? I >> No, they didn't discuss it in the last few finance um subcommittee meetings.
They're focused on as they should be. I think right now they're focused on getting the the budget to us and getting the presentation done for us, but um I haven't heard anything about whether they're on budget or not. >> Yeah. I mean, what I'd heard as of whether was a month or two ago was that
yes, they are. They were. Yes. I haven't heard anything to the contrary. >> That ties up with uh what we've seen in their quarter 2 report is available. They're approaching that, you know, at the end of the third quarter. They'll provide a further update, but they've remained on track to um be on budget.
Yeah. >> Oh, and I guess um in the spirit of keeping everybody up to date, another thing that was discussed at the uh select board meeting, was that due to various uh positive recent developments,
specifically I believe it's the Blue Hills Technical School bill and our insurance bill, not health insurance, but every other kind of insurance. We're $350,000 better than we're expecting to be. Uh the select board and Mr. Milano
discussed spending I I know I'm sort of stealing your thunder here, Mr. Milano. Uh spending $250,000 on it specifically. That's to hire the police technical police IT person to help them with their body cameras, etc. that we've discussed.
and the other expenses were onetime expenses for to the tune of 250,000 which I think still leaves 100,000 better that they don't have plans to spend. Um I I guess I would give say in my opinion
you don't you don't need to spend it if if the well that's just my opinion. Uh Mr. Milano is that a good very short description of recent developments? it is. And feel free, I know we sent you kind of the cliff notes version, but feel free to share that with the full
committee if that would be helpful. And I'm happy to speak to it in greater detail if and when um you'd like me. >> Yeah, I should forward that email. Thank you for saying that. Um okay. Uh so that's sort of the budget
overview. Again, we'll I'll be discussing the fate of the 500,000 in the near future. And please let me know your thoughts on that if especially if they differ from mine. Uh now I think the main thing left is the school subcommittee
might want to give us an update of where things any recent developments. Turn it over to Elaine. >> Yeah. Um so this this will be pretty quick. Um the I attended the finance subcommittee um for the schools
this morning uh by Zoom and what they were doing was voting to recommend fee changes in three key areas. Um increases or you know there they discussed whether they just kept
them the same or they increased um these three areas. They were transportation um student activities uh and clubs including sports um and uh building use. So um
they voted to approve increases in two of those areas. Um the bus fees, well this is a recommendation for the full school committee to vote on tonight. They've either already voted on it or they're voting on it now or they'll vote
on it very soon. Um they uh the finance subcommittee vote voted to recommend to school committee that bus fees be raised um by $40. They had lots of different um options from $25 to $100 in terms of
raising the fees and you could see how much money they would generate. By the way, none of these increases will actually touch uh will actually reach the full cost of what it costs to offer
transportation, student activities, etc. Um but they'll come um it comes closer. Anyway, um so the bus increases vote, they voted to recommend $40 increase
with no change to the activity feeds. Um and I'll say a little something more about that in a minute. And they also voted to recommend a 10% increase in building uh use rental
costs for using the buildings. Um, the reason they raised the bus fees $40 was that there was some concern about fuel search charges going forward, which I didn't know this um but the but the
transportation companies in this case First Student um passes along any search charges in fuel costs um above and beyond a certain amount back to the schools. And as we know, um, gas prices have increased. They probably will
continue to increase. Um, so, uh, that's what they did with that. They decided that the bus fees and the building use fees were wider spread. They were spread across all the schools. Raising the student activity,
clubs, and activities fees, um, would only affect the high school. Um, and they wouldn't generate very much money for every $5 increase in student activity fees. And they looked at 5, 10, 15, and $20
increases. Right now, it's $25 a club. They would uh realize less than $4,500 from each of those $5 increases. So they decided to increase the bus a little bit more as it's shared more widely um and
not touch the student and activity fees. Um that took the um that took the lion share of the hour and a half meeting this morning. Um and the last part of the meeting they reviewed
the presentation for us um for uh when they visit uh next week on the 17th. Um, I I'll say this, Jay, when you were talking about the agenda for Tuesday, they already have a substantial number
of slides in that presentation and I have sent them the questions that I received from various members of the warrant committee. So, they will probably have to add slides to address those questions um or at least add
information to certain slides to address that those questions. and it seems to me like it's going to be take up a very long time. Um, and so I wouldn't want um I wouldn't want the other presenter on Tuesday to get
shortch changed and I wouldn't want to be in that meeting past 10:00 cuz I I know other people on this committee get up early like I do. But in any case, I I don't know what you want to do with that information, but I just thought I'd mention it. >> Thank you. Thank you. when uh yeah, the
email I sent around to various people today about the other presenter and I was I was suggesting would that take less than 45 minutes. I might pull that back and say, you know, it would be a hard stop at 7:30. I I would like to at
least have that other issue, you know, at least aired, at least have us know what's going on with it, but a hard stop at 7:30, maybe even 7:20. Um, I I appreciate that, Elaine. Thank you. >> Yeah,
>> and that's that's about it that I have for now. >> Thank you. Did they discuss the questions we brought up or >> they have not they did not have time to get those questions, you know, to get responses for the questions. Although
they did note in their discussion of the budget they said oh no in their discussion of the presentation they did say oh some of the questions that we got from the our subcommittee for the schools um would they were already
addressing in the presentation but I um have a feeling that um not everybody on the subcommittee has looked at those questions yet And some of the questions were substantial
uh long. Yeah. >> Okay. Okay. Um so if some of us were inclined to cheat, could we watch that meeting from this morning and get a preview of I'm I'm serious. >> Yes. Oh, sure. If you got a spare hour and a half uh lying around um that you
want to use it for that, >> please do. Um >> well, you said the line share was talking about the fees. So, if we cut to the last >> Oh, yeah. If you cut to that last little portion, you'll see how many slides. I It was in the 30s for the numbers number of slides they have right now. It's
around 35. They were talking about moving some to I forget what they were calling it, but basically it's an appendix or an agenda for us to look at later. and and yet I know they still would have to add slides to address some
of the questions um that members of this committee had for them. >> So it sounds like they didn't go through the presentation really. >> No, not exactly >> this morning. Okay. >> No, you can see it because they went through the they looked at the actual PowerPoint, but they were just clicking
on slide after slide. Oh, this one stays. This one could go in an appendix kind of thing. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. And yeah, I guess I don't know if I'm saying this to you or the world or whatever, you know, we will want to keep
in mind, I mean, our job is the total dollar amount. What what total dollar amount do we approve or not? Um, you know, secondary this $500,000 side issue also is sort of related. Um, I do want to keep in mind, you know, I have to
keep telling myself I'm not an expert in curriculum, you know, staffing for schools, things like that. They're the experts in running the schools. We're sort of overseeing the, you know, are they getting an appropriate amount. So
hopefully keeping that in mind, we'll keep the discussion contained. Um, any other any questions for our school subcommittee right now? >> Um, I just want to thank the people that sent me their questions and everybody
got it to me um before end of business uh yesterday. So, I really appreciate that. >> Thank you. So, I appreciate everyone coming to this second meeting of the week. Uh, I think we got some good stuff done. Um,
I will entertain a motion to adjourn. >> Jay, can I ask your question? >> Oh, yes. Yes. >> Sorry, I the CPA U plans. Is there a way that they could You probably won't have that meeting now on Tuesday, but can they just send around what their plans are before so we can just take a look at
it and prep? >> Yeah, I I would I I'll ask um Cecil and Ron whom I already kicked off. Cecil and Ron are the experts on this. Whatever you can get for us to get our hands on about this that we can look at outside of a meeting would be great. So,
>> thanks. >> Yes, I think we're on. >> I'll make a motion to adjourn. >> Great. >> Second. >> Okay. Wave at the camera if you agree. >> Okay. Good night. Thank you everyone.
>> Thanks. Night.