Good evening. Like to call the May 4th uh 2026 finance committee meeting to order. First thing is the uh pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Uh roll callwise,
Paul is not going to be here tonight. Um and Steve, if he's here, will be 7:30. Um, >> there he is. >> Hopefully we're done by then. >> Wow, look at that. >> He's here. >> Steve.
>> Steve is here. Um, so Mark called me uh before this meeting. He's taken a lot of the fun out of the
meeting tonight. Um but with that said, >> meetings with this finance committee are always fun. >> What I u had proposed uh is well first I want to thank everyone for your partnership and with the two
remaining articles. They're both laws and they're kind of lengthy. Um, the DPW director one is about 250 pages and it would be cumbersome to attempt to do those at
this stage in the game. Um, with, you know, only getting the drafts back from KP Law very recently. Um, we'd still like to have the discussion and you talk about the high points and get some feedback. Um, but it seems that it
wouldn't be wise to ask uh to go forward on either of the personnel bylaw or the DPW bylaw at this time. What I would suggest is that we I mean that we take these back and we can continue the discussion. I I
do think these are both good articles um hopefully for the fall. uh but that we forward two sections what we normally do sections 10 and sections 11 for two of the positions on there and I can speak
to those individually if you like. Um one of them is the human resources generalist and one is the senior center director. So we've been doing a lot of work at the senior center. Uh they've been having an immense amount of success there. We're
looking to open it up to the community and to um redefine roles there. So things are running smoothly. We're looking to put um the existing assistant director into the senior center director, the the the previous director
of the facility to the human services director. Um so there are two changes on the chart that normally happen. Uh the other one is a human resource specialist. Um and this is a young lady who's done exceptional work on health
care and um helping to modernize our processes. She has been working in payroll and benefits and um her talents frankly have been woefully underutilized. So, we're looking to amend two positions and
their ranges and save uh the intense discussion um regarding the whole, you know, an overhaul of hundreds of pages redlined um for another day. I'm sorry, I see disappointed looks. Um
but open to open to comment, feedback. Um I wick And Mr. Chair, um can you just outline again the changes to the
senior/ community center and those roles? You just mentioned it, but can you give us a better overview so I can try to understand what you're trying to do? Um sure. So,
if with the chair's indulgence, um maybe I could have the assistant town manager in introduce herself and uh >> and explain. She's been working uh on these night and day. Sure. And for for everybody's
um might make it easier. Are we talking page 12 here? What are we talking? >> It's section 10 and 11. So >> yeah, >> 12 and 13. >> Okay. Thank you.
I'm sorry. Can you just rephrase the question? What was the question? >> So we're asking >> what what the new structure of the uh senior/ community center. >> Great. So, um, because of the sheer amount of people that were attending the
senior center now compared to when it was at the former senior center, we're talking about over 200% growth. Uh, what used to be 30 people coming in per day is now up upwards of 200 plus per day. Um, so in response to that, uh, we have identified
two very strong capable leaders, um, that were essentially doing kind of the same job. So what we did was we moved so saucy mian which I'm going to mess up the pronunciation um into a director role over the senior services meaning that
under her is the staff that does coordinating programming volunteers of which there are hundreds of senior volunteers that need scheduling and and so forth and things like that. the programming of which anybody who's seen the uh the monthly the or by monthly
newsletter that comes out from the COA their programs are an abundance is an understatement. They have hundreds and hundreds of programs. So Saui would be taking over that era. Beth Rossy, who is the existing um
director over at the COA, is going to focus primarily where her heart and her soul lie with the actual human services with grant writing of which she's already started another one. Um, in terms of shine, she'll be doing all of
the shine stuff, fuel assistance, any of the human services with the caveat that obviously many of these will overlap, but these two women have been working together kind of this way and now we're moving them this way and giving them kind of two departments so that no one gets left in the loop. Does that answer
your question? >> Yeah. Is so are we introducing anybody new to the to the senior center or are you just changing their roles? >> Changing their roles. Um, so an was the part-time veterans agent and part-time over at the senior service.
Um, now an is permanently over there. Um, Estella is hiring an additional part-time person to backfill Ann's position. Uh, an is going to assist Sauy with the volunteers, the coordination, things like that. And Karen, who is
Shine certified, will naturally work under Beth. Um, so those two people again already there. The only addition we've done is uh Estelle Flat, the VA agent, um is has volunteered to have hours over at the senior center. So, she'll be acting as a facilities over
kind of overarching. So, a lot of those dayto-day things can be alleviated from Beth and Sauy such as is the is has the snow been shoveled things like that. Estelle will kind of oversee all of that while maintaining office hours in the COA community center to make it a little
bit easier for some of our seniors who are already there participating in a program or speaking with Beth about one of the human services offered. They can also simultaneously talk to Estelle about any of their veterans concerns that they have. Finally, one additional component that we have added is um a DPW
worker, a part-time DPW worker who will be there. Um I believe interviews are going on right now. That person will answer to the DPW director to Justin. Um but he will be utilized there for a portion of the time. So he'll be helping with facilities. Um sometimes messes
happen over there that are of a concern and quite frankly, you know, our staff that's over there is not equipped to handle some of those messes. um that individual person will help with cleaning the facility, uh maintaining the facility, making sure that things
like uh shoveling, plowing, salting, those things are have been in effect. Additionally, one of the other things that they'll be doing is staying open later. So, they'll be locking the facility so this facility can now be used by the community as well. >> And all these changes are in the
recommended budget that we've already recommended. >> Yes, there was no increase to the budget. >> Thank you. Thank >> you. Paulo, >> Mr. Chair, could you also give us a little bit more of an explanation about the HR generalist position?
>> So, the HR generalist position um will be focusing heavily on the benefits um specifically with COBRA, Medicare, things like that. um she has been instrumental in helping us identify um an area where we could uh essentially
stop the town from imploding due to a um 8% increase in health insurance costs. So, um, Jen Soka was one of the ones on on the team that was able to identify that through her connections with other HR, um, kind of generalists as well out
there, uh, through the MMA and through negotiations with the, uh, South Coast Medical. With that, we were able to identify that we would be able to incentivize the HSA and the opt out program for individual employees to put money into their pocket while saving the
town hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is anticipated that we are looking at about $150,000 um retention for the town on this one, an increase this fiscal year. And should
we move forward and actually begin engaging with the PE, uh obviously Jensen would be instrumental with us dealing with the PE as well, uh we'd be looking to remove the HMO entirely and saving the town about 900,000 per year.
So, this is an existing employee that's getting a title change. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Thank you. >> Very welcome. >> Mr. Chair, >> Steve, >> I just want to um clarify that. Moving over to the high deductible plan that
was referenced during our last year's budget conversation. So I don't understand what the the difference is when we say we just found it going through the process this year. Can you elaborate a little bit? >> I can. So what we identified is that if
we increased the incentive to the employee for the HSA, uh it would generate more activity and and more people choosing to go with the HSA while still saving the town an enormous amount of money. Similarly with the opt out
program, we were able to give more to the employee to in in incentivize them, if you will, to look around and say, "Hey, my spouse has insurance as well. I'm going to look into this and have a conversation about what is best for our future here." Uh we've also been able to
um identify all of the health savings accounts information in order to generate which feels like a lot now a lot of uh information that we've sent out to all the employees to the select board where we've had countless meetings on this. Uh, additionally, Miss Roa is
also engaging in individual one- on-ones with all of the employees who wish to have a one-on-one um, starting, I believe, this week at 2:00 p.m. 2 days a week until 6:30 p.m. So, each individual has that one-on-one time to be able to go through both options, all three
options, if you will, and see what works best for each that individual and their family. >> Does that answer your question, sir? >> Uh, it does. So, in this budget, if we're incentivizing, are we paying them a fee to either not enroll in the high
deductible plan? >> And if so, is that budgeted? And I don't remember the conversation of what department or what line item that was budgeted in. >> I I can't speak to the line item. I'd leave that to town manager, but I would say that it's in the budget and it was
an increase in the opt out as well as an increase in a terms of a match for the HSA which goes along with the high deductible plan. >> That's right. Yes, it's in the the personnel uh section of for benefits. It's a net
decrease of 150 um because we're anticipating that extra savings to the town from the opt out program and from additional people joining the HSA the high deductible even though we are provide pro providing an incentive the first um year and uh potentially into
next year depending on negotiations with the pack. So it was a ne decrease there. I mean it it was still an increase because we anticipate I mean health insurance costs are going up. So it's still 7.5% increase but that increase was reduced
because of our initiatives to clamp down on health care costs going forward. >> So was that the only option for the now that is that all employees regardless or is it just town?
>> It will be all employees. I I don't believe it applies fully to the retirees. Correct me. >> So the retirees would still no matter what happens it would it does affect the well they can't opt out but in terms of the future with the retirees the retirees we would we would have to still
maintain an HMO for the retirees. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then my last question just with the budgeted number what what's the anticipated number of people that will partake in the program? If I had that number for you, sir, I would be a very rich woman. Um, it's impossible to know.
O, open enrollment just began. We're keeping we're keeping an eye on it. We've had meetings with the unions. Um, there's been a lot of positive feedback from the majority of the unions who are all excited about this. Um unfortunately
we don't get the the glimpse of the portal until until after town meeting but I think it's the I think it's the third second week of of no the fourth week of of May I believe is when we get that first
snapshot we can see um how many people have enrolled in the HSA from the HMO because that that's the big difference we're talking about is people who are on the HMO who are coming to the HSA. In terms of the opt out, that we can see immediately because all people who are going to do the opt out, they have to
show that they were on the plan as of starting open enrollment this year. Um, and that they have a qualified insurance plan that they're going to. There's a form that has to be filled out which has to be sent to us. Those are coming in as we speak. Um, so we we may have a better
idea for you in another week or so, but this just opened today. But I can tell you that speaking with the unions um there's been a lot of positive feedback and a lot of interest and I know that uh Mr. Sroa has about 25 appointments already um scheduled for the next two
weeks of employees. >> Yeah. My my question wasn't the crystal ball going forward. The crystal ball is when we created the budget, what did we anticipate for the dollar amount that we budgeted >> conversion? I believe it was 150,000.
Correct. Uh, it's a dollar. That's a dollar amount. So, what are we anticipating for number of employees? >> Oh, I I see point. >> Oh, so that was um >> five individual plans, five family plans. Correct. >> What we anticipated?
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Kevin, maybe I mean you might have said it and I just it didn't register. So, is the plan longterm to phase out the HMO? Ideally, yes. Given the given the increase in the costs through the insurance, it's not looking
like this 8% increase is going to um be the highest increase and it's certainly not going to end. Um, one of the ways I mean other municipalities have been handling it different ways. Um, one of them is to increase the amount that the
employee pays in. Um, so you see a lot of other towns doing that. We really wanted to avoid that. Um, this is a plan that seems to make sense and depending on how many people we get to go from that HMO to the HSA,
we'll be having those conversations all along and obviously taking the HMO HMO out of the equation involves the PE and having lengthy negotiations with the unions at that point, which we're happy to do and those are kind of already in their initial stages right now. Um,
however, who knows if enough employees do this, it may actually balance out that we don't have to completely remove the HMO, but as I said, these are ideas that are kind of fluid at this moment. Um, we certainly don't want to rule anything out at this point. We want to
see where this lands us and take the next step from from there. >> So, if I may, Mr. chair. Building off of that, so that would provide the most cost advantageous method if we did fully phase out that plan and have everyone on
the HMO. That said, it's open to negotiation. So maybe we'll land somewhere in the middle. Ideally, we'd have the most savings to the town and and do that, but we also have to balance what the employees want and what's best for the the majority there. Also,
>> have the department heads weighed in or been informed in terms of a potential attrition risk? I mean, there will be a portion that aren't going to want to move off an HMO. I have to imagine. >> That's that's part of the discussions. We've had more outreach with the unions than the departments. Um, so that's
probably beneficial to continue those internal discussions and not move quickly, but to continue discussing. I mean, nothing would roll out um until next open enrollment, which is what in 6 months from now. Um so, we could potentially see
extra savings in this fiscal year 27. >> Thank you. Getting back to the um salary ranges. I'm assuming the individuals that are
going into these ranges, where are they? Where would they be in the range? Is is this a are we going to be revisiting this next year because come next year's raise are going to be
bumping on the on the high end again or how's that working? >> I a good question. Um these ranges are on every spring town meeting warrant. So if if not those I would think other
positions would be bumping. Um, but with that one, I believe they both fall >> in the middle. I don't think they're at the high end. Um, I I do believe they're both in the
middle. Um, around 75, which is actually lower middle. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Mr. Shar on that note like looking at the red lining that has been shared or the potential is the vision to kind of allow these salary ranges to be
flexed and managed through I say you know pitch and catch between the select board and the town manager versus any of this going to town meeting. Is that the vision? >> That was the initial thought. That's not the what's being
asked for today. Um but if we're talking about the whole red line rewrite of the whole bylaw, yes, that was essentially uh to streamline things and provide more because the select board's meeting every
two weeks and that provides opportunity for more public input and you're able to flex more and react to changing conditions in 2026 that maybe weren't foreseen uh when this bylaw was adopted uh 50 years ago. go even before the
charter. Um so uh but but for today um we'd just be asking to amend the chart as is. Hopefully that helps. >> Mr. Sure. >> Steve, >> and just uh as you're creating the
salary ranges, what salary surveys are you using to confirm that we're within I guess a marketable range or we just looking at the town itself? >> So, there are um groups um I'm in town
manager groups. our HR people are in HR groups and they regularly solicit peers. So we have uh comparable towns and um charts. There's you know dozens of towns and and charts. So we compare it with
peer communities um but with an eye towards the unique challenges and you know employee count the the unions the unique u situation we're in here. So, we've taken all that into
consideration and we're going to be doing a lot more of that. We're going to be doing more class and classification and compensation studies which benchmark um communities um comparable communities and
actually this position will be able to do that that this human resources generalist whereas other towns regularly pay 20,000 um I've even seen 60,000 for comparable studies for comparable market analysis
um we have that capability inhouse. So, we've already been using that. >> Mr. Chair, um I have two two questions. One, um the human resources generalist, what was the old position title? >> Uh payroll and benefit specialist.
>> Payroll and benefit. The payroll and benefits administrator here. >> Oh, administrator. Yes. >> Are we not taking that that position out? um just to have the flexibility in case who knows what direction the town will move in in the future with um
changing needs, technology, personnel, resident services. So, we'd like to leave it in there to have the flexibility. Um that that said, I wouldn't I wouldn't complain if the committee was inclined to take it out. I we're not going to I don't see us using
that anytime soon, but you never know. >> Okay. And my second question was um I'm not sure if you're aware we did just pay for a salary study a couple years ago. Um and we did just um we did that's that's when a lot of these and actually some of the same ones that are
increasing now were just increased um you know due to the salary study that was done. Um so I guess that's I'm looking at the three positions that have increased. Two were just established and the third was just increased. Um, I
guess I'm not not a fan of like the just, you know, changing it every town meeting every every year, whatever it happens to be. I I think, you know, when we when we choose these ranges, we're hoping that they're going to be good for a few years. Um, and the three that that
I see increasing are are relatively new in the old salary range, the current salary range. >> There's only two increasing and they are brand new. >> Yeah. Um, >> what am I looking at? The director of senior services. >> Um, that's on the bottom.
>> It was now 65 to 91, >> right? That was a a different position. Okay, I understand what you're saying. Um, you're saying the assistant human services director position was benchmarked. >> Correct. That was just that was part of the salary study that was just increased
>> um based on the salary study. We I know we we we kind of took that extra bumps and we were giving that position, you know, bumps every single for like I don't know two or three years I think over the course of two or three years. I think we just finally finished um paying
those increases if I remember correctly the last year and now we're now we're looking at another salary increase. That's I guess that my concern is that again um changing it when we just changed it. Um, this is a new position. It's a
reorganization and it's, you know, below the middle of the proposed range. So, I don't anticipate that would change for a few years as is your preference. Rightfully so, >> Mr. Chair >> Zack,
>> one that sticks out to me in this, uh, do you think you could get a director of anything for 40 to 50,000 a year, let alone, you know, director of parks and recreation in Massachusetts? >> No, sir. >> I mean, I think if there's one to fix, there's probably
one of them. That's that seems uh uh incredibly uh low, and I don't think you'd get anybody at least full-time for that kind of money. It's a better time is >> just my opinion. >> You're completely right. I I I won't
speak to the how it got in there. I think someone was optimistic and trying to create a parks department, which is a noble endeavor. It just um square peg in a round hole. So, the director of senior services,
the human resource generalist, and the payroll and benefits administrator are all in this budget at the moment. And we're and we're not thinking >> that we need the payroll and benefits
administrator. >> Uh that is not in the budget at the moment. >> Which >> the payroll and benefits administrator >> is not in the budget. >> Correct. >> Okay, >> Kevin.
>> Sorry. Thank you. >> And we'll peek. >> Um through you, Mr. Chair. I believe the payroll and benefits administrator, that's the title that she has today. Mr. >> Yes. Okay. Um
I did some independent salary research on that position. just I was interested one night because I know all the work that she's doing and I believe that the max on on that title is pretty much the median in Massachusetts today. So I
don't know about the I think moving that up makes sense. Um but my question is why wouldn't we just keep the title as is and just adjust the the salary uh range because human resource generalist
I mean, she's doing all of the things that you guys described already. So, just leave the title as is and adjust the uh the pay scale. I mean, that's certainly an option. Now the the issue is we're looking to revamp
the the finance organization and in that it puts payroll underneath and reporting to the treasurer which is a more appropriate place for checks and balances. And so she would continue to do benefits but would work more with
with unions with um I I had a whole list in front of me uh with Mr. Chair while he through you. I believe it maybe at one point um that position worked under different departments uh under the treasurer. So
the whatever department it rolls up under I don't I don't necessarily believe that the title needs to change. just my personal opinion. >> I mean it was settled on through negotiations with the ASME union and
they had indicated that due to working closely with unions and confidential matters that it would be more appropriate to not be in the ASME union and to have the preferred position to be the payroll and payables person to work
under the treasurer. Okay, last comment, Mr. Chair. Um, my only uh concern is that the low end of that human resource generalist, like I mentioned, is the median today for a
payroll and um benefits administrator. So, setting these based on the the position, not the person. Um, in the future, you may want to uh hire somebody, you know, entry level less than that 65,000 uh
minimum. So, you may want to adjust that. Just my personal uh suggestion. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Mark. Did the select board vote on this? >> Uh the select board did not vote on
this. Um >> when are they are they? Uh so we discussed this at the meeting on um on Monday and we had at that time intended on going forward with a full you know 10 page
redline document and there was a little uh maybe apprehension is the right word and and going through this and devoting sufficient time. Um I I do believe that this is the a good course for Norton
would benefit the residents and the employees. Um but that said, I respect that taking a step back um is the right thing to do and that's the direction the select board was giving and um that was
heard loud and clear. But so they they didn't even vote though for this subsection that you want us to vote on >> essentially. But the what I took away
was it was a it was a de facto no action vote on the red line changes as a whole and that time was short to notice. We talked about potentially noticing a meeting this week and that that would be difficult with the charter obligation to
post the town meeting. Um so they did u suggest that it go forward to town meeting um based on the finance committee's recommendation. Um there there are two members here and they can
correct me if my understanding is not the you know they speak for themselves and I speak for myself. >> Bob, >> evening, Mr. Chairman. >> How are you? >> Good. How are you? >> Good. >> Yeah, we uh we've received most of this
information uh just prior to the meeting. Really didn't have a chance to really look at it. There's a lot of changes in here, but there really isn't a lot of changes, if you know what I mean. The um personnel bylaw has been around when I
was on the finance committee in 1987. We had personnel we had a personal bylaw committee that used to come to us with these ranges and with all these other this other information. You find that most of this document today is being generated by union negotiations.
Even though we're giving or he was trying to give the select board more authority over certain is parts of issues of it. Uh it's not really most of it's generated through negotiation and we just kind of play along with it. I would agree that some of it should be in
a personal personnel handbook today. Uh obviously the the committee the personnel board we had back then was abolished once we adopted the charter but the bylaw stayed in place. they never went away. So, one thing we always do and most of you have been here for a
while is the salary range is always something we bring up at town meeting and that's an assumption I think we we probably assume that that would be brought up and discussed because you have to have those especially when you're reclassifying some of the personnel. Um could it wait till fall
maybe but I think to clean it up a bit it might be best to do it that way. Um, one thing I always find interesting when I go to town meeting and I've been going to him for many, many, many years, um, is how this was used to be a lot more
when we had a personnel board. We had building inspector and some of these other union positions that we have today that we didn't we didn't have back then. So we had probably twice as many people that we had to deal with and and do research on and find out what the salary
ranges are, that kind of stuff. And the one thing that always surprised me was these are non-union positions and bring up a lot of discussion at town meeting every year, but yet I see Dr.
Dr. Neil back there, but we have the school committee every year. They negotiate contracts every year. They have to establish ranges. Every year we don't vote for them at town meeting. I'm just surprised that the the one that has the highest
salary doesn't have to comply with what we have to do. And the reason for that is because we had the personnel board. It was just a carryover. So, if we're going to look at this, maybe we should broaden out and explore additional opportunities that we put all non-union
personnel on this list, not just the municipal side, but all town employees as part of the uh future future growth. And I think that's one of the reasons why I thought it would be best to wait till fall. You know, I know we have to do the classifications and the and the
ranges and and try to clean all that up, but I think I'd feel a lot better. I'm sure some of you would too to wait till fall and we can talk about this the next few months and try to come up with a plan that makes sense. That's my personal opinion. >> Mr. Chair, >> thank you.
>> Can I ask a question? Yep. >> Um I I know according to the charter, we're supposed to have a bylaw review committee in years ending five. Did that ever happen last year? >> I don't believe so. No. >> Okay. Is there a reason why it didn't >> It was brought up It was brought up a couple of days ago, I believe, on Facebook and I went, "Oh, yeah. We sure
we probably should be doing that." Okay. We we >> to >> answer your question. I think that's something we probably will do, >> but a lot of this isn't in the in the charter. This is a bylaw, >> right? But the bylaw reviews are supposed to be >> and that can be can have a part of the review, but uh it's probably something
that'll be on our next agenda. >> Okay. >> To discuss. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chair. Zack Bob. Um so are you not in favor of changing the salary ranges at this point? No, I'm
okay with the salary ring classification I'm okay with. >> Okay. >> I think but something just to clean clean things up a bit. And by the way, I remind all of you that myself included, >> none of these salaries can be changed unless we vote for it at town meeting. So that's the other safeguard. No matter
what the town manager does, you know, he he can't go over the max and he can't really bring in these other positions that we that are blank without getting approval from town meeting. So, it's done. >> Well, we know how much you enjoy the town of Meeting, so we're just trying to
add a couple more hours to it for you. >> Love it. Love it. Thank you. >> Uh, Mr. Mr. Chair, can I ask a question too about the um if we're not at the maximum right now of these ranges, can we push this whole thing off till the fall, including the salary schedule, and
maybe get some more numbers on um comparable towns? Um because we just again, we have that salary study. Will we like maybe get an updated version of that? So, we have some I feel like this is just to me looking at this is kind of arbitrary that we're choosing these numbers and I'm sure that um thought
went into it, but without seeing what that look like, it's hard to gauge if these are appropriate or not. >> Mr. Chair, um I appreciate the the sentiment and the the comments. It seems if we asked 20 people what these
people's salary should be making, we would receive 20 different responses and all of them informed and insightful. Um, we did negotiate that this particular one with the union and that's where we landed on. Um, that said, I I think it is a good idea. Uh it would be a good
idea potentially to amend the lower range of the human resources generalist to 55 from 65. Um just in the future to to open our opportunities for cost savings that be
menable to that. >> But is this something that can't wait until the fall? It would really prevent us from moving forward in and filling positions that need to be put
forward. The treasurer's office in particular is they need more help and this person is focusing more on confidential human resources with the permission of the union. So, it's really in an interim
spot. This one would be really difficult if we did push it to the fall. >> And what about the other two? >> Um there's just >> um public works and IT. Could those wait until the fall? >> Um so it is not on the table. Public works is not on the table. Uh the other
one is director of senior services and and that one's really hitting the ground running. Um expanding programs that she really needs to be solidified in that position to support our seniors and
that's all within the approved budget. >> I'm looking at the IT director is has gone up from the current to proposed and so is the DPW director. >> I I think you're on a previous version. I apologize if if that was my fault. >> I see. >> That's
manager. >> Yeah, it goes on on page 12. You can >> Yeah, they're going up. goes from 126 to 133 and 170 to 180 respectively. >> And that's for the uh Department of Public Works director.
>> Let me check. I I think that was passed at last town meeting, so I can pull that up. But that the intent was not to amend those two. >> So I'm fairly certain that was a cut and paste error. I can bring up what was voted in October momentarily. So kind of continuing
this discussion though, the director of senior services based on kind of what you alluded to the current salary would fit into the existing pay range.
the payroll and benefits administrator that you're trying to switch over to human resource generalist would not >> the correct I'm looking at what was voted in October
it looks like we did vote for the public works director to the amended range so that is a cut and paste error it was already voted and the IT the director was voted 81 to 111 and change.
So >> last fall. >> Mm- >> last fall. So those two were already voted. >> Okay. So the only ones that are changing are the director of senior services and the human resources generalist.
>> Correct. >> Okay. 24. >> Mr. Chair, >> Zach, >> so 111, >> how are you planning on amending this? We have article five. That's this whole packet. So, what article does this
become at town meeting? So it stays article five as amended by the finance committee to approve section 110-10 and section 110-11 of the salary plan to amend the two
positions as stated >> last. >> If I was making the motion that's what I would say. So essentially the bottom two in this chart. >> Yes. >> The only thing that the people at the
town meeting would be looking at and voting on nothing else. >> Correct. Well, the two people in the chart and is the same as the two people in the list. So the list would be amended on the
previous page on page 12 on page 11. Yeah. >> So, page 11 and page 12 >> both ref reflecting just those two people. So, the last Yeah. Same same thing. >> Mr. Chair, >> Brandon. >> Mhm.
>> On page 11, >> section 10. It looks like it was red line. >> So, are we not approving that? We would only be approving >> correct >> the Okay. >> Correct. So, so disregard all the other red lines. The only changes would be in
those two positions, >> Mr. Chair. >> Bonnie. >> Yes. Um, it looks like also the first position, is that Christiey's position? Um, has an additional or an addition to it. So, is that change being made as
well? That change is preferred by me, but I understand um that it I mean there was concern raised that it might not apply to to everyone in that position. Well, it
certainly applies to the incumbent. Um it might be hard to find a future executive secretary liaison to the select board who also has um a series 7 license and is very talented in financial um analysis. Um, so I
understand the hesitation to change that one. >> Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Want me to make a motion? >> Um, yeah. I'll take a motion of some
sort if no further discussion. >> Mr. Chair. >> Ah Kevin. >> M. Thank you Mr. Chair. Just one uh comment since it's established that this article really um is going to this town meeting
um for the human resource generalist position in all intents and uh purposes. Um, well, a couple thoughts. The payroll and benefits administrator, if the plan is to keep that position, you know, you can always keep that position, keep that
range. If you hire somebody, like I was mentioning earlier, that doesn't have the full set of skills, you have a lower range there already to, you know, attract a replacement who's not going to be a complete HR generalist. Um, but I
would like personally to see the two job descriptions between those two positions and perhaps the town meeting would like to see that as well because there's going to be a lot of debate on this one article basically around this one position. So, it would be good for people to see what the HR general this
is going to do that the current person doesn't do in the current role. Thanks. >> Thank you. And and I I I guess circling back, >> what would the harm be
and just waiting until October that we've negotiated with the unions, we've essentially placed this person in a interim position at a
high level of um expectations and when you do that and you don't fairly compensate people, it it hurts the organization. Um not that I mean we've discussed with the unions and it's the right thing to do for the town. This is
already producing quantifiable savings. um $400,000 in helping to negotiate the health insurance premium down, another $150,000 and potential more money on the
horizon. Um this is it. It just wouldn't be moving the town in the right direction from anyone's perspective. Frankly, I I I get it and I don't get it because there there is a
If you don't have the position existing, how do you promise it to someone ahead of getting the position? It it's in a sense it's like the tail is wagging the dog.
>> That's detention and it's needed, but it's dependent on town meeting approving it. And if they don't approve it, I have to say to this person, I'm sorry. I had the best of intentions and I I tried my best. We'll try again. And
I I mean or we just, you know, wait 6 months, wait 12 months and then it's just we're we're providing a reduced level of service is what it is. So as a committee,
would we be preferring to be ahead of the select board essentially or are we more comfortable going someone else can bring it up at the at
the town meeting and we're just no action. I I I don't know where this committee stands on that. M >> Mr. Chair >> Brandon, >> I I think the the big issue is that this
was given to the committee last minute and people haven't been able to digest, right, or take a look at it or do their own research or whatnot. So I think that is the biggest trepidation with everyone,
>> Mr. Chair. Then I think you know just having this conversation the last possible meeting we have before town meeting um I mean this is a kind of a bigger discussion and I feel like if we had discussed it earlier I maybe could have come back with some more information and some more numbers that
would have helped us feel a little more comfortable. Um, but right now the way it is, the way it's being presented, I feel like it's, >> you know, it's it tonight we have to vote on it, right? Because we don't have any more meetings to vote. And so we don't really have the information we necessarily need to um to make that
decision or at least I don't. >> I mean, we chairman, thank you. Um my thought on this is there have been a lot of changes in town offices the past few months and
in an effort to reorganize and and modify and change things and take person A and put her or him somewhere else. All that process has been narrowing down to this what's what you see in this document. So, I kind of agree that, you
know, we need to give these people the proper classification in these new positions we're creating. Um, sorry at the last minute myself. Uh but at the same time I think this is important enough that we should consider allowing the manager who has been trying to
reorganize and get things done in a a more feasible maybe I want to use the word cheap but more reasonable way uh and realign some of the some of the positions so that it it makes sense for
us as a town and I think we're allowing this to go through is just it's not costing us anything, but it is helping in his in his process to realign some of these departments and make it more efficient, you know, less costly to us.
And I I would encourage you to to to work with him on this and just take out everything else. I agree with you on that. M >> and just use these two chart 11 and 12 10 and 11 and try to try to get those uh through so he can continue to reorganize
and re redo uh what we're trying to do here at town hall and come back with a maybe a whole different kind of management that we haven't had for quite a few years with some different ideas and I don't want to jeopardize that by
based based on what we call people I guess you know if it's that important >> Mr. the chair. >> I It is costing us more though. >> Correct. >> So don't don't say it's not. >> I keep hearing it's not costing us more.
>> Well, you said the person will be going from a payroll and benefits administrator to a human resources generalist and that's more. >> She's doing more work and she's produced half a million dollars in
for a potential it's salary increase, >> right? But it's costing more. >> No, I get it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Zach. I guess I'll give you my my two cents on it from the uh children's table back
here. It's no uh it's it's probably no secret that uh me and the town manager don't agree on a lot of things, but uh like I've told him privately, I I want him to be successful because his success is uh our success here living in the community. So, I don't like where we
are, but we've approved these budgets with these positions in it. So, for me, I'm willing I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and put those through at this point. We've already approved these budgets and whatever happens, we can clean up in the fall.
>> Mr. Chair, I I thought I heard that it was not in the budget. >> It is in the budget. >> Okay. Mr. Chair, >> Kevin, >> I I think we're getting a little bit of
uh I'll call it analysis paralysis. I mean, if we're talking about a payroll and benefits administrator and a human resources generalist and the pay range is off by a scale of $20,000 on an $84 million budget, we've spent about an
hour haggling on 0.023% of the operating budget. If the role has already been offered up and it's in the budget, I don't see a reason to be paralyzed in fear making these what are ultimately minor changes and kicking the rest to the fall.
>> Paula, >> quick question just because I don't want to uh go through my papers here. What exactly was the salary that we budgeted for Jen's position for the FY27 budget? Uh, I believe 75,000.
>> Thanks. >> Sorry. Sorry, Bill. I know you fortunately you got a good part of your agenda removed uh at the beginning. So um in from a practical point of view, if this position is approved at the town
meeting, then I think that will unlock a lot of capacity and and roles and responsibilities that she can focus on during the summer months leading up to the October town meeting when we have the full article to be voted on. for example, she can do the update the
salary um surveys um discuss some of the other HR components of the bylaw and as well as continue the work that she's already doing. So I think that little bit of investment um and enabling her paying her
appropriately to do more work especially between now and October is going to be beneficial to the uh to all of us. So thank you. >> Thank you >> Mr. Chair, I I just want to make a comment that this is just very strange
that something that seems so incredibly important to you, Mr. Town Manager, that we're just seeing this for the first time, you know, 24 hours before the warrant is due. So, um I think just in the future if something is incredibly
important to you and could be, you know, involve a complex conversation that we definitely um put it on our agenda earlier in the process because this is ridiculous. >> I agree wholeheartedly that um I should follow up on legal counsel
better next time and and I and I will. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I would like to make a motion to vote on article five as amended
regarding the two positions and respective salary bands. two positions being >> director of senior services and human resources generalists.
>> I have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion hearing? None. Steve, >> no. >> Zach, >> yes. Gavin,
>> begrudgingly, yes. >> Kevin, >> yes. Honey, >> no. >> Sandy, >> no. >> Tracy, >> no. >> Paula, >> no. >> Brandon,
>> no. >> I am a yes. But I think that failed. I've got six to four is what I have, but that's is that >> six noses. >> Paul's not here. >> So, it's four to six. >> Four to six.
>> Four to six. >> So, that motion >> if if I may, Mr. Chair. Um, if the committee so inclined, we're happy to provide job descriptions and notice a meeting Thursday evening that would allow us to post the warrant on Friday.
>> Mr. Chair >> Brandon, >> I'll speak for myself. It was a good chunk of it was because it was last minute. >> Mr. Chair, >> Sandy, >> I kind of like what you had said before that if the select board wants to move this, maybe someone from the select
board can move this at town meeting since we won't be moving it. >> So, playing politics here >> or anyone doesn't have to be select could be anybody. >> I would then
entertain a motion to reconsider to no action. >> Is that preferable in some way? Just not as >> I I I would prefer no action than a negative vote. I'll I'll entertain a motion to take no
action on the article. >> What is it different? >> Do you want to make the motion? >> I said >> it's going to go out in the war. people at the at the >> town meeting are going to see ah the finance committee said no
versus no action where it's like and then someone else is going to raise it at town meeting and then there's no negativity already out there
at least from us >> and I think like if if the point is that that you know it was the last minute and we're not necessarily opposed to it holistically, then saying no action is saying I just I'm not ready to vote on it. Um, and somebody else can move it.
>> So, I we would need a a motion to reconsider. >> Mr. Chair, >> Brandon, >> I'd like to make a motion to reconsider or vote on article five.
>> Second. I have a motion and a second to reconsider article five. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Steve, >> no. >> Zack, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes.
>> Kevin, >> yes. >> Bonnie, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Paula, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes. I to yes. So that's was that >> 10 to one. >> 10 no nine to one. >> Nine to one.
>> Nine to one. >> Okay. So now I need a motion for article five. No action. Mr. Chair. >> Brandon.
>> I'd like to make a motion. No action >> to uh for no action on article five. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second for no action on article five. Any further
discussion? >> Hearing none. Mr. Chair, >> where I heard Kevin >> I just I don't think it's going to make any difference and I think that this budget cycle has been a bit chaotic with the new administration. And I think that's just a nature of what happens
when you have turnover in your executive branch. And so I appreciate people saying they have concerns about the timelines and I think we've come into every meeting feeling kind of rushed and got blitzed in a couple different meetings, but I also
am vacasillating a little bit on this is the kind of stuff that it shouldn't be this hard. Um, but it is. Um, that's it. >> Thank you. I second that.
>> Me, too. >> I mean, what I mean, what do we want to do? We just going to have a circus at town meeting. I mean, this is going to go on and on and on and on and on. I don't like it like nobody else likes it. It's been a chaotic season. I I agree.
But, I mean, what do we I don't know. I I mean I I I understand. I really do. And >> it's it's not intentional. I'll promise you that. And I mean I I'll offer Thursday evening, but I understand you've given a lot of
time and I appreciate the the feedback that you given and trying to make changes um with a system that was not operating properly, not saying anything negative about anyone before. It's a lot of work.
and to be able to put the pieces in the right place it shouldn't be this hard. Um, like we said, this is less than a fraction of 1%. I don't think it's a big ask. Maybe the 10page red line, maybe the 250 page
red line would have been a big ask. I mean, >> well, it would have been >> m Mr. Sandy, >> they say it's it's, you know, we look at the we always look at the percentage increases on budgets, right? And and so then all of a sudden when we see a huge percentage increase on a on a personnel
line item, everyone says, well, how did it go up that much? And it goes up that much because we increase the salary ranges, right? And so this isn't nothing. I don't think this is a this is a guideline to when when contracts are negotiated that that you have to stay
within these salary ranges and I feel like some some there should be some backup right to being able to say we're going to increase these or change these and I would be able I would like to be able to myself say this is why we're changing these. So when people in the public say
why is this salary line going up by x% I can say well that's you know we do the salary study we looked at other other towns that's to me justifiable right that's concrete that's something I can I can defend just changing it and again I'm sure there was research done in that
but we don't see that in front of us and so I just like to see the data right that's that's my only >> m Mr. Mr. Chair, maybe we have a a joint meeting Thursday and I I do apologize for taking more of the committee's time. >> I can't >> and we'll provide job descriptions,
salary data that we have. Happy to take any questions. No one's hiding the ball here. This this will allow us to be more effective for all departments, town, and especially school. It's going to help everyone. A rising tide helps all boats. And we've
been working closely to to help all departments. And this this person actually spends about 40% of their day helping the the school department and you know employees across all town departments. Um and it's it's it's
frankly not fair to be to to this employee to be talked about in in public without being here. Um, but this is the system that we have and happy to work with with the committee and do the right thing. >> Mr. Chair
>> Brandon, >> as far as process, can I withdraw my motion and then offer up a new motion? >> Well, we have a motion and a second. If you withdraw it, then the second has to
be withdrawn, too. It wasn't you seconding it. >> Why? >> Because the more I think about it, Mark was hired to make some changes. And
I personally think he recognizes that we don't appreciate that this was brought upon us last minute. and I've been thinking about it and I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and I
think the residents will bring up their frustration as well, but I'm willing to give Mark the benefit of the doubt. And again, I know it's last minute and I I think he realizes that, but
he was brought in. Um, he is new. he's trying to make a lot of changes and the way the process is I I do think it kind of ham hamstrings him a little bit. So in in the history of
Fincom taking myself out. Well, Steve has been on as long as I have. H how often have we pushed an article forward without the
select board having voted before us? >> I don't think ever. >> We've had to vote before them before. >> And we've sat in the like the high school cafeteria >> debating it.
waiting for their vote for us to then vote. Right. >> I mean, even in the cycle about half of them were voted, >> more than half were voted from finance committee before than the select board. Actually, all of them. >> I thought they were.
>> We have a motion and a second. Whatever you guys want to do. Well, I was >> I I'm still wanting to vote no action. >> Okay. >> So, it's no action at this point. So,
without further discussion or not hearing any further discussion, uh we are voting no action. So, Steve No, >> Zach. No.
>> Gavin, >> I'm confused. >> Do my math here. >> Yes. >> No. Vote would be >> yes. >> Whatever. Whatever. >> We're not going to do it, but No, we're not. I mean, I disagree. Yes. Yes to no action. >> No.
>> Bonnie. Yes, >> Sandy. >> Yes, >> Tracy. >> Yes, >> Paula. >> Yes, >> Brandon. >> No. >> Six to four by my count.
Oh, so my vote doesn't doesn't matter. I was going to be yes, but okay. So, that failed. So it's four to six. >> Wait, no. >> Seven. Yes. >> You were Yes. Yes. >> I was a yes.
>> Six. Yes. Four. No. >> Six. Yes. Four. No. >> Okay. So that passes six to four. >> Six to four. No action. >> Okay. >> All right then.
Um, Mr. Chair, if I may. >> Mark. Um there's another one that um well I I'm not sure if the >> Did we do 26 yet?
>> 26. We're asking for no action. >> So I'll take a motion for article 26. No action. >> Mr. Chair >> Brandon, >> I'd like to make a motion uh to vote on
no action for article 26. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. And article 26 was to amend bylaws
in multiple locations reference to the DPW director where appropriate, so on and so forth. Um, any further discussion hearing? None. Steve,
>> yes. >> Zack, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. >> Bonnie, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Paula, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes.
>> I guess 10 to zero. >> All right. Next. >> So there was a previous one on article three and then all articles are mentioned in the agenda. So it would be
appropriate to take up if the committee desires to revisit the 4 to7 vote on amending the zoning bylaw table of dimensional requirements. If the committee is interested in u potentially,
you know, being able to make a motion on that at town meeting, it might be a better ide, you know, I'll leave it up to the committee if if they want to consider uh there is the proponent of this article in the gallery if the chair
is inclined to >> Can can anybody refresh my memory? And I swear this is this is the article where I was remote and couldn't hear you guys half the time. Why this didn't pass? I
have no recollection of it. >> So this is changing the feat from from um what is it from 60 to 45 from four stories to three stories. That's that's what this does. >> But why were we against it? Does anybody
recall? Mr. Chair, I don't think we had too much discussion against it. Um, I voted against it because I didn't want to reduce the number of stories
allowable and that's zoning if that is the one that we're talking about if I'm remembering right. Um the other piece of it which was making the max height consistent I didn't have a problem with but it was the other piece
>> and and this is the VCC district to clarify >> chair Bob. And so I approached the PL town planner, the then town planner and two members of the planning board with my concern about these new buildings being proposed in the center of town that were going to be four storage
structures and the impact it was going to make on our center of our town. The village commercial core district runs roughly from Howard Street up to uh just about this area of Honeydew Donut. It's a very narrow stretch of
property. My initial intent was to ask town meeting to avoid it, take it away, whatever we had to do. Now, the reason I brought this forward was because where the old Mansfield National Bank is next between the church and the historical
society. The developer originally came in with a four-story structure, 60 ft tall, 20 24 condos with a retre of land.
I thought that was rather extreme and unfortunately that's what the village core allows. You're going to see another example of that very soon where Honeydew donuts. You're going to see yet another example of that where Rich property where the
garage used to be will be a three-story structure. So, you're going to see some of the ramifications of what we're proposing here. If you want to have a a get a general idea of what that's going to look like, the building behind McDonald's is probably a better example of it. That's what a four-story
structure looks like. Now, when you're talking about a four-story structure on I think that was about four acres of land there, that's not so that's not so bad. Uh when you're putting 22 24 condos and retail or commercial property on
half an acre of land, then we should be concerned about that. That's the density is just too much. So, in my conversations with the town planner, my, like I said, my initial was, I'm just going to go to town meeting and
we're just going to dissolve this district. They asked me to consider allowing my main concern about height to be addressed by dropping this down to 45 ft instead of 60 ft. And I agreed to back off and allow that to happen for
now. But I want to see what the future brings because I don't visualize the center of our town looking like the train station around Mansfield. We're not it's not the same setup. It's not
the same design. And my concern is as long as these this village core is in place, Wheaten College owns a lot of land around town common. Just visualize. And you can't because you haven't seen the first building go up yet because through the persistence
of the historic district commission, it has been dropped down to two levels instead of four. But it's still going to be about 14 condos when they're done. Um, if we'd allowed that to go through, you can almost visualize everything around
the common, the Wheaten houses on Library Square where the Wheaten sign is right down to the old town hall. All that Wheaten property could in reality have been nothing but fourstory structures
on very small pieces of land. So being part of the historic historical society, we had grave concern about what that would look like in the future. The historic district did take action and did bring it down. But I think you're going to see other examples of that as
you see as you as the development on Honeydew and on um the old rich property. I think you're going to see what's going to happen as far as the amount of density on this very very small piece of land. There's another parcel that's just been uh
proposed, Mr. Town Manager, down on Mansfield A where the old across from the old package store. Uh that's going to be another high-rise building with retail commercial on the bottom. So, we've got a number of these that have popped up.
And I asked that the just as a band-aid, if we could drop it from 60 to 45, it at least won't be overbearing. And that's basically the reason why this article is here today. Just to see if we can just keep it lower. That's all. I don't want a bunch of buildings like the one behind
McDonald's in the center of our town. >> Mr. Chair, >> Brandon, >> I I voted yes. But just out of curiosity, with all of these being proposed, they would be grandfathered in. >> Absolutely. Yeah. >> Unfortunately, but >> Well, I think unfortunately I think most
of them are well, there might be one full story, but I think the others are going to be three. 45 ft. >> And is there a reason um if if if you're trying to keep it
more countryish, for lack of a better term, why are we allowing 75% of the lot to be a building? I agree. It's still in the village core, by the
way. that was originally part of the village uh village commercial. So, it still allows some of that to happen even in that in that district. >> And then if I'm reading the the little aspirate note there, it says by special permit it can go even
higher. >> Yeah. So, Mr. Chair, so Mr. Kimble, we're putting 14 apartments right next to the church and then a highway in between them where we and and the 3 ft
out your window. The suggestion to the developer of that property way back because I also chair the I chair the traffic safety committee was that you need to make sure you're aware of the fact that we are going to be putting a street sorry right next to your
building. He moved it back a few feet and he went to the side a few feet. It's still gonna be on the street by the time we're done. So, but that's I mean he he has a right to build there obviously and he and he's going to do that.
Mr. Chair. >> Yes. Um Bob, what was the uh what were the the grounds that the historic commission used to get that building made from you know four stories to two stories? Cuz I was when I vote
yes for this I you know having similar concerns for the historic aspects in the center of town. I think of that as the stop gap. So places that you know the honeydew not a historic building uh getting redeveloped obviously different situation than across from
Weaten. So is that not I guess the question I'm really asking is that not a like a an adequate safeguard to sort of keep in the character of the center of town. >> Well the historic district commission >> Yeah. Yes. >> is the uh was the body that convinced
them to lower the building down by two stories. But I have to tell you, they didn't have to do it. He was trying to work with the town. He knew we were upset about the height of it on a very small parcel. And he was, to his credit, he did work with us.
>> If we had denied the permit, if the historic district had denied the permit and gone to court, he could have come back and very easily built a four-story building. >> I can't either. >> Okay. He was also trying to buy a piece of land from the historical society. I know there's a lot of historical stuff
going on here, but there's the historic district, historical society, and the historical commission. So, there's three different historicals. >> Okay. >> The schoolhouse is controlled by the historical society. And uh the original proposal was he went to the then town
manager and said, "I want to buy 30 ft down the line to expand my parking." and came to the historical society and we said you can't do that. Furthermore, the town transferred ownership of the
property in 1971 and we're a nonprofit so we we don't have to oblige by whatever the town wants to do or doesn't want to do. So he backed off and dropped it down to three stories because he didn't have sufficient parking for the fourth story. He needed the land from the historical society to do that. And
but then to his credit, he did drop it down one more just just to get the permitting in place so he could he could build what he can what he can build. >> Gotcha. I guess it's I wish they had a that was the stronger
stop gap for historical buildings and as opposed to having to change the zoning for the whole area. Because when I think about places like as much as we don't want dense development, we got sewer there, we got sidewalks, it's near the schools, it's walkable. If you're going to have
it somewhere, it seems like from other aspects than the history side, you know, it's the right place to put it. So, I was hoping that would be a better answer as far as what the historical district commission had in their >> other issues and I know one of their big
issues was u egress and order the bank is gone because it moved years ago because they couldn't get anybody in and out of there. >> Mhm. >> And then we put the traffic light there. That made it even worse until they got out of there. The only way you're going to be able to get into this new condo
until we build a new road. The only way they can get in there is coming down from the schoolhouse and taking a right into the property. When you're coming out, you can't you can only take a right. You can't take a left. >> Yeah. >> So, there's going to be some real serious issues there, you know, in the
future. And that was very obvious to us because there was a school bus park in there for a while and they would get into the center of town and make a left-hand turn and the entire center of the town shut down. while that bus tried to make the lefthand turn till someone made enough room so they could get out
of the way and then we would the traffic could go again. So he he's hoping I I believe he's hoping that we actually put that street straight through by the church because now he may have another access in the back of it which he doesn't have now. >> Yep.
Gotcha. Thank you, >> Kevin. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks for letting us speak here. I know this is not a public hearing. Appreciate the time. Um, a little uh history background. I was on the planning board back in 2020 when this um new village c
uh center was uh proposed. The concept um was that it would create a walkable downtown, provide more density um make it more developable um financially for developers. And the the thing with um uh
our zoning uh requirements is it clearly lays out for a developer what what they're able to do and what they can't do. And what um this developer did with 10 West Main Street, he he basically
negotiated, modified his plan, but as Bob mentioned, he didn't have to. And the thing of it is is a new developer who may not be as um uh flexible doesn't have to do that. And if we don't have the zoning proper, they
could come in thinking they can build a four, you know, a fourlevel 60 foot uh building, do all the finances, determine what, you know, their um basically break even point is and that kind of thing, and then learn later through the um
the historic uh district commission that they have to modify in order to comply with their requirements. And then all of a sudden you have a developer who was all in and now is caught in a difficult place where they can't make the numbers work. So this developer with 10 West
Main Street probably spent at least a year more than he should have um in order to build the building that he's going to build. And by the way, it it if you haven't seen the the drawings, it's going to be a really nice um building for what it is. um the aesthetics and
the design are well done and he made a lot of uh modifications. But the the point behind, you know, any zoning is to make it easier, more defensible in court um and clear cut for developers to come
into town and um and work the numbers before they put a proposal together, spend all of the design, uh you know, and engineering uh expenses with the way it is right now within especially given that it's a historic district commission um or
historic district. They could come in, have a plan, look at our zoning bylaws, run up against what this developer ran up against, and then waste everybody's time and money. And we, as a business friendly community, we don't want to we want to make sure that they can look at
our bylaws and understand what the requirements are going to be before they get into the process of presenting to the uh planning board and the uh historic district commission. So, it's just a matter of making it cleaner, uh more defined. I you can go back to the
tape in 2020. I was against uh going um to 60 feet in uh in four uh levels myself. I was one of the few at the time, but I know we were pushing for some kind of a um a zone in the center of town that would encourage
um a walkable community um more businesses, potentially residential, and that was kind of the concept. And it was during CO as you remember. So the vote was taken out in the middle of the uh the high school football field and
>> and the um the village uh I'm sorry the historic district commission they had gotten an update via Zoom that really didn't give them the opportunity to debate it and work with the uh planning board. So it really kind of went through too quick. And I think what this will do
is give the town the opportunity to dial back a little bit of this VCC um and put it back in the town's hands to reconsider now six years has passed. Um at least to change some of the the zoning requirements that might make it a
little more, you know, give them more of an appetite uh for what we actually wanted when we approved this the first time. So, thanks. >> Thank you. I was looking for your name, >> Mr. Chair. >> Motion to reconsider article three.
>> Second. I have a motion and a second. Can you hold on one moment? >> So, >> you're the chair. >> Does this scroll to that actual article, though? >> I don't know what they're looking at. >> YouTube, we're fighting. If we voted it
on >> or the national is what it looks like >> unassigned refresh still un >> just zoning laws I was in favor.
>> Okay. Um, sorry. I have a motion and a second to what are we doing? Reconsidering article three. Any further discussion? Mr. Chair,
Gavin, >> uh, I was just looking at the, uh, the zoning map based on what Mr. Kimble said and uh this is indeed a ridiculously small amount of town. So I've been convinced by the discussion tonight. So I'll be voting
yes to recommend this if we get there. Thank you. Got to get there first. Um motion and a second to reconsider any further discussion hearing. None. Steve.
>> No. Zack, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. >> Kevin, >> yes. >> Barney, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Paula, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes. >> I Yes.
>> Mr. Chair. >> 9 to1. >> 9 to1. >> Brandon. >> I'd like to make a motion to vote on article three. >> Second. I have a motion and a second
to vote the changes presented to the zoning um in article 3. Any further discussion
hearing? None. Steve, >> no. >> Zack, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. Kevin, >> yes. >> Barney, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Paula, >> yes.
>> Brandon, >> yes. >> Hi, Tumor. Yes. >> Nine to one. >> Nine to one. >> Mr. Chair. >> Bonnie. >> Yeah. I just have a question about the way that article 3 is presented in the
warrant um where it says select board recommended finance committee four members approved. I recognize that that has since changed but a and then planning board recommended. >> Yes. Six to one planning board. >> Right. It doesn't say that in the
warrant. However, it says select board recommended finance committee four members approved and planning board recommended. Not traditionally how we present our either recommendation or not recommending.
right >> an article. >> This was the only one that was not recommended at the time. So, uh, and now it will be amended to be recommended. >> I understand that. I'm just my my point is that the presentation of our not
recommending is typically that it says not recommended. So, if this were to have stood, um, if that would have been what was printed in the warrant, it's not how I would think we would want our, unless we were consistently going
to say what the voting tabulation was for every article. Uh, I would think that it would say that it was not recommended to be consistent with the other 26 articles unless we changed it to where it said how we voted ultimately
how we voted which I recognize as I said has changed. >> Mr. Chair, that was legal's recommendation. Um, but but I would put it before the committee not to jump the gun. I I think the next thing on the warrant,
>> I'm not sure the past practice here with the Springtown meeting, would it be to vote the finance committee's recommended language on the warrant or is that typically left to legal counsel? I don't know. I'm I'm asking I thought that was
>> just goes to the chair in the past. I think >> the chair would go through the motions and >> suggest any edits to >> I always thought legal came back with yours, >> right? But yeah, you're as chair though
you get it first to review to see if you have any issues with it. >> Mr. Chair, I just did just half of town doesn't know how many people sit on this board. >> Right. No, I I get what Bonnie's saying and and that was a good catch because it
should >> say not approved or not recommended. >> Mr. Ch actually came up last last year too when I was chair and I had asked if it could just say not recommended. >> Right. That that four members approved is not something we would
>> we have historically ever written it that way. It's either approved, >> not approved, or no action. >> It will now say recommended >> appointment, >> right? >> And just for um but yet since we're all
new to working with you, I just wanted to mention that. And just if we're going to mention um where the planning board weighed in, they've not been listed under article 21. So it also struck me as strange that they were mentioned for article 3 but not mentioned for their voting for article 21 which we had
recommended. So just those little types of consistencies I think are things that to in transparency for the town and for residents who are attending town meeting often hearing about things for the first time um that they know where each board stands if that's what we're going to
present because the select board obviously votes on a number of things as well and they were listed in article 3 and not in other articles. So, it just makes it seem like it's it's making a different statement than is maybe necessary.
Okay. Uh so now we go to the finance committee report. >> Uh Mr. Just one more quick thing on the warrant.
>> Um, we are striking article 27, correct? That's just it's not going to show up on the warrant, right? The sidewalks, it's showing up here right now, but it's not going to show on the final warrant. >> I had thought it would be would show up as no action, but um >> Did we vote no action? I thought it was
just being struck. >> It was pulled off the table. >> You You told us it wasn't happening, so we didn't vote on it. >> We can strike that. >> It's on here, >> right? the materials we received this evening. So, >> so we can vote it to exclude article 27
or or are you not voting it? That's I can just admit that vote no action. >> We would vote no action if you're going to leave it in there. >> Did we vote? >> It shows that we voted no action. 11 is arrow on 427. >> Okay.
>> Oh, okay. Great. I thought it was just going to be taken >> just according to this. I think that was the original intention and I do remember saying that Sandy and then at the and then because I didn't want to, you know, mix up the uh or Paula, sorry, to to mix
up the uh the order of the >> the warrant numbers. So, I was thinking that one, but then to keep it consistent, I was just like, "Oh, well, all of them were would not going forward. We'll just call them all no action." >> Okay. >> So, >> awesome.
>> 427 was that room if I recall. Yes, that's >> so we did we did vote no action >> the little room. >> Um so now we get to the >> up there
report. Um the heck is that? I'm going to say one well a couple things. Um, for for
purposes of reading, pick a format of the number and stick with it. So, we have millions here. We have the word thousands here. We have
uh 1.77 million here. We have the full number somewhere else. Pick a version and stick with it throughout. >> Bill, which version of the report are you talking about? >> I'm talking about the one Brandon did. >> Okay.
>> I I I wouldn't be putting mine forward if but Brandon's putting his forward. >> Okay. All right. >> Which one? So, you know, in in one, two, three, on the fourth paragraph, I'll I'll just use it as an example. We go 2.5 million. We
go 1.77 million. Then we go 500,000 full number, couple sentence or lines down, 730,000. Stick with the version and run with it throughout. I I agree with you, Bill. Looking at
previous years, it it was inconsistent as well, >> right? It It's just It just makes it easier to read. Um here >> the the other thing
and and I've been called confrontational this year and whatnot. So >> you have >> I have so I don't mean this to come out confrontational
but it is a fact that the significant change to the personnel within this building has made this process harder.
than it historically has been. It's not, again, it's not meant to be confrontational. It's just a fact that some of the people that we used to be able to reach out to, they're no longer
here. Some of the people that have institutional knowledge are no longer here. Whether they're qualified or not, you know, those were the people that we
could reach out to to to make to to give us information if you were not able to. Those people aren't here anymore. It just made it more difficult. We've
gone through meetings and meetings and meetings of oops, oh, there's a mistake there. Oops, there's a mistake there. Is that just mistakes or is that because, you know, the people who would
be providing the information aren't here anymore, so other people are trying to jump in at the last second. I don't know. It was the people who are no longer here provided the mistake the mistakes. >> I I would
I mean obviously we're going to vote on this document. I truly think if we're talking about all the issues that this town had, you know, this budget season,
personnel was one of them for this committee. That's my personal opinion. I don't know how the rest of the committee feels. Is that a question? >> We'll get to that. Now, have has has
everybody had a chance to read the document and are they in agreement with it? Do they have changes? >> Bill, can I just ask is it I only found one place where it says million. Um, is there are there other places? The 1.77 million. >> Are there other places where it says
that? >> Not. Okay, >> that's just the one change. >> Uh 1.77 million, but million showed up somewhere else. >> I don't see
>> Well, the the 1.77 million two lines down the 730,000, >> right? But if that one changes, that's the only one that's not consistent with the other ones. >> Yeah. Everything else is like 300,000 500,000. So it would just
>> the free up cash. >> It's that one spot, >> right? >> This is the one here. >> Well, no. Two lines up 2.5. >> That's not even million. That's a >> I think you're looking at Mr. Shar. >> I think you're looking at >> You're looking at a different version
than we are. There are two versions in our packet. >> I'm on yours. >> Yeah. >> I thought that might have been happening. >> It said something sooner. Okay. >> Okay, that's better.
And I I >> Okay, so that's right there >> for operational cashes every day. >> On page 4748, >> Mr. Chair Zack.
>> So this was last year's budget, not this year. I don't want to be controversial either, Bill. Sure. But on the the section that says the town has
become overly reliant of the use of free cash, if anybody sees that. Um, we used stabilization funds. It says we didn't use any stabilization funds. We did use >> we use them for FY26. the snow and ice. >> We using them in FY27. >> No, FY26 for the snow and ice for was
FY26. >> Okay. >> Not FY27. >> All right. >> I thought the same thing at first. If it makes you feel better. >> Me. Me too, >> Mr. Chair.
>> I see one missing word from uh this one on the second page where it says additional thanks to finance recording secretary. I think it's supposed to say finance committee. It says finance committee on the other version. So just in the editing process somehow that
got up taken up. >> Where was it? >> Additional thanks to finance recording secretary should be finance committee. >> Oh yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Mr. chair, >> Zach.
>> Not to be controversial, >> but uh the line, you know, I would object to the line that says we rely on non-recurring revenue to fund operational expense as well. 80% of your free cash is excise tax. Even the third party accountant that did the audit
stated that to the select board. And I don't know about you guys, but I get an excise tax bill every year. So, if we're going to use that language, then you know my next bill I'm going to come down town town town town hall and say I already paid this and it's non-recurring. So,
too bad. I mean, that language is to be variable funds, but it's recurring year after year after year. Okay. Where are you that same paragraph? >> Okay. So you would want that change
>> up to the committee. I'm just that's my personal >> Sounds like his suggestion is to change the word non-recurring to variable. >> Yes, that would be my suggestion. >> Sounds good to me. Agree.
>> I'm a volatile. >> Yeah, >> wicked volatile. >> Okay. Any other changes? Any thought to incorporating what I started this section? Just
>> ask you If you've got the >> language, >> the language, we can take five if you want to. I let out the thought. If we're into the thought, then
I think otherwise I'm I'm good with how it is. But I I truly think and again, no offense to Mark, no offense to the people who are in this town hall day in
and day out, but there have been extensive changes. So much so that an email went out addressing and and
what's the word I'm looking for? Acknowledging there's been a lot of changes here that are making your day in and day out difficult. >> Mr. Chair, >> I'd say that's a mischaracterization.
How about inserting just a line that says due to the changes in personnel, it's been a very difficult budget season. Something as simple as that. You can probably insert that in that the first sentence of the second paragraph there has been challenging process due
to lack of available funds and >> lack of present present town accountant I don't know or personnel changes >> multiple personel changes >> multiple lack of available funds and multiple personnel
changes is. So there's that. There's changing non-recurring to variable. There is uh spelling out
uh one point excuse me $1,770,000 and then adding committee in the last paragraph. I think four updates. One, two, three, four.
So, I if we're all in agreement, I would take a motion to accept the finance committee report as amended. Um, pressure is you would need to send it
out to Mark and myself by >> Thursday, Friday. >> Thursday at the latest. The constables prepared to post Friday morning. >> Do it tonight or tomorrow? >> Okay,
it's four changes. >> I mean, go up to my office tonight and make the changes after the meeting with me or Well, what whatever. >> Someone else need to make the motion. I wrote it. >> See, seeing that you wrote it probably. >> Okay, Mr. Chair >> Paula,
>> I recommend um that we vote on the report of the Norton Finance Committee as amended. >> Second. I have a motion and a second to submit the Norton Finance Committee
report as amended. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Steve, >> yes. >> Zach, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. >> Kevin, Bonnie, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy,
>> yes. Paula, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes. >> Ium, yes. That is unanimous. Um, are we So, we are essentially done with
voting everything. >> Appears that way. Uh the last thing is that the motions are in the hands of town council and I will get that to the chair and vice chair as soon as I've received that.
>> Okay. Um do we need a meeting next Monday? >> Do we have one scheduled? We might have. >> We do not. I believe um >> why would we need that? >> The committee wants to they certainly
can. I mean that'd be after the warrants posted. >> Do I mean some communities notice a meeting right before the town meeting? >> Oh, we've done that. >> But I I don't think >> we're not a fan of that. N >> um and unless unless something
catastrophic happens between now and then. Um, would there be minutes for next meeting? >> Just a bit pressure minute machine.
>> So, so we don't run into the problem that that we've been trying to correct here. I would say we have a meeting for all the minutes and and just put
that behind us. If >> if if I may, Mr. Chair, I was speaking with the interim town accountant and he suggested we placehold the middle of ju of June in case there are end ofear transfers. So whichever Monday falls in
the middle of June, if it if the committee agrees, we'd placehold that for a meeting. >> Usually, >> Mr. Sure. >> Haven't we normally done that like the first or second week >> of July? >> That's what I was going to suggest is that we typically have that meeting then
so that anything that has changed up until the 30th can be within there was a certain time frame. >> Yeah. Those like >> that we could two weeks. Exactly. So, we would typically meet, well, not everybody's around that first week because of the holiday, but the second week, um, during that week, and then I
think that would be a great time to catch up on minutes because we'd have everything caught up to date by then. That's just me personally. >> That is that is the law. Two week two weeks into July. So, that >> that would mean >> July 13th.
>> And it as long as it's not after the 15th, >> right? July 13th, maybe. folks. >> Yeah, it's the 13th. >> 13th. >> Yeah. So, that would be the drop dead meeting like it couldn't get postponed.
>> I know it's going out a bit. Do most people know their availability? >> Mr. Chair, I heck >> I will be across the pond, so I will not be available. They don't have Wi-Fi and all that kind of stuff.
>> I'll have to ask the king. Anybody >> pond or chart pond? Which pond? >> Got it. >> Anybody else at this point know that they're not available? >> When is the next meeting?
>> Could be July 13th. I'm >> trying to figure that out, Peter. All right, I'll take it at this point that most of us most everybody else is available.
If you are not, as soon as you know you're not, please let me know. Um, is it 13th? July 13. >> Otherwise, does that work for the town? >> July 13th works
>> the night before. on our end and for the minutes I guess >> teammates in India. >> Yeah. Do we want to do that July 13th or do we want >> I think I think he's saying do it July 13th as well. >> Okay. Then unless there is a catastrophic
event >> in the next two weeks. >> You got it. >> I'll see everybody at town meeting. I'll see Brandon at town meeting. >> Excellent. >> 7 o'clock.
>> Um, does anybody have anything else? Then I would take that magical motion at this hour. >> Mr. Chair, >> Brandon, >> I'd like to make a motion to adjourn. >> Second.
>> I was like, whoa. >> I don't know who seconded. It was kind of a tie. We We'll go with Paula. >> I win. >> Um Steve, >> yes. >> Zach, >> yes. >> Gavin, >> yes. >> Kevin, >> yes.
>> Barney, >> yes. >> Sandy, >> yes. >> Tracy, >> yes. >> Paula, >> yes. >> Brandon, >> yes. >> Ium, yes. So, that is unanimous. Thank you all.