recording in progress. >> All public comment or ensuing discussion. Do we have any public comment? >> Nobody's raised their hands. >> Okay. Um Okay. Do we have any liaison reports from I don't see any town.
>> No leaison. >> Leaison here. Okay. Um, any committee updates? >> You mean by committee? Oh, well, the audit committee, but that's we're going to get to that audit sub committee.
>> Okay. I would we expecting anything on committee yet? >> Just I have that on there just in case Ray has anything to update from MLCA. >> Oh, yeah. So, well, if that's what that means. Okay. Um so the uh Massachusetts White Commissioners
Association um hasn't done anything in the last month. We we will be doing a meet and greet at NEPA and a chance to kind of meet other people, other commissioners and and the uh leadership of the MLCA. uh it kind of a way of introducing what
programming we have coming up for the end of the year and just meet some other commissioners who are doing things similar to us and share share notes and thoughts. Um so that'll that'll be evident when we get up to NEPA. Um but
other than that um not much more is happening. The um schools for reading uh are now the uh Kllum school is getting into design. the uh the sustainability
committee has moved out of public comment mode into actually modeling energy and doing design making design decisions and sort of narrowed the scope of involvement. I'm I'm hoping RMLD is still plugged into that. Are you still
plugged into the Kllum school, Megan? >> Yeah. Okay. call again. >> All right. >> Yeah, they they seem to be narrowing the their input from from us a little bit. It certainly I was told thank you, but
no thank you. Um, but I said got to keep RMLD plugged in. I mean, if you don't want me, fine. But there's a lot of things we could do there. So, >> I met with Matt last week as well. >> Oh, did you? >> Yeah. Told him we support him whatever he wants. >> Yeah. I mean it's, you know, they want they're looks like they're gonna they'll
be ownership of the solar we need to support. >> Yeah, they're going to do ownership of the solar they put on the roof of the building. If we want to expand that into a solar park and and do more with the other land area there, that will be something we'll we'd like to have a conversation. That would probably be
RMLD's investment, but that's a conversation down the road there. >> Wow. >> Uhhuh. talking. We're not talking to some class our call. So, >> yeah. All right. So, um yeah, that's
about it. I as far as the senior center recal um I I don't they're on their own timeline. Um and I'm not sure how they're progressing except that they got approval by the town to do something, but I don't know what their their design
team is doing. And I think that's the three things I'm usually plugged into. Okay. Um, so let's move on to presentation of the 2024 financial audit finding. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of
the committee. Uh my name is Scott McIntyre. I am a managing director, which is just another word for a partner uh at CBiz CPAs. Uh with me is Ed Boy, a senior manager, represent the leadership team on the audit of RMLD this year. Uh
just a real real quick note. Um at 5:30 tonight, we met with the the audit subcommittee and the town of Reading audit committee. Uh walked through the audit and the financial statements for about 45 minutes. I had some great questions uh qu
question and answers. You know, every time Ed and I come to reading, we can always count on there's being some good detailed questions. We actually like that when people ask good questions about them. Um this evening we're going to go in a little bit, you know, briefer manner. The committee still wants to ask
us detailed questions, be happy to answer them, but by design, this is designed to be a little bit of an o overview of what was gone through in detail at at 5:30. Uh before I, you know, say anything else though, um it's sort of my my third year here as the the
partner and three years ago I was here with what I'll call my legacy firm of Meansen. I was here a year ago. I think it was in May of 24, I indicated that Lanson had merged with Markham LLP because no one goes into public accounting anymore and we needed
resources and technology. Well, little did I know 18 months later that CBiz, a publicly traded corporation, would buy Markham. Uh so inside the last inside the last two and a half years, uh I've now had three business cards over
the course of my 38 years of public accounting. I had one for 35 years. So, uh, but with that said, I can certainly answer any questions on the name changes. Uh, but by and large, um, you know, I've been involved in this audit for for many years. I did bring Ed into it this year. He's done work in the town
of Reading before U, but I brought him into RMLD's audit. Um, as I said to the committee earlier, uh, we were originally scheduled to be here back in May, then again in June. We needed to defer it or delay it a little bit. Um in as you know our professional auditing
standards uh require that when there is uh turnover in key positions during the audit process we need to do some inquiry. We need to do some test work. Uh and that's why we were not able to be here uh in in in May and we just weren't done dotting our eyes and crossing our
tees in in in June as well. But happy to be here tonight. You know the results of the audit are are are very good. Ed's going to walk through the balance sheet, the income statement, and the cash flow statement. uh but in in essence after all the test work that we did and the and the standards that we followed and
we were required to follow both generally accepted auditing standards here in the United States as well as generally accepted government auditing standards after following all of those standards. Happy to be able to report to the committee that we did not need to propose any audit adjustments for your
statements to be uh in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Um, that leads to, uh, for those that might want to follow along, it's it's print page one. I'm not sure what page it is in the packet. I'm sure Erin or Erica can bail me out there. Uh,
our audit opinion is what is known as an unmodified. There are no modifications to our opinion. In other words, it means that in our opinion, your financial statements are materially fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principle. Again, it goes on for several pages. talks about
the uh bas the standards that we followed. Uh with that, we're going to skip all the way over to your statement of net position, which uh is Ed's going to tell me in a minute what print page it is. >> Print page eight. >> Print page eight. And I'm going to let Ed take it away and walk through a
couple of key accounts on this page. One or two on your statement of revenues and expenditures and maybe just a quick word on the statement of cash flows. Then we'll open it up to any questions that the committee may have. Back >> to page 16. Thank you, Scott. Um, as Scott mentioned, I'm going to go over a couple
of the elements of the financial statements. First statement that we're going to look at is called your statement of net position or what is commonly looks like a balance sheet. So, that's going to be on page eight and nine. Uh, that is broken up and really just for ease of of presentation as over
the years this is kind of expanded with accounting principles and just uh just for for clarity purposes that's that's the way it's presented. But really in short, I think on the asset side, you you would be looked at as in a favorable and strong position. And then over on the liability side, and we'll get to
that in a minute, u particularly your long-term liabilities, I think really the the theme would be managing them appropriately and proactively. So looking at really your assets, um you know, largely you had a positive overall
change in cash in cash position. Now, that's going to be a little bit more apparent when we look at your statement of cash flows. But something I just wanted to point out, we talked about it with the the audit committee earlier is, you know, the first number that you look at on page eight, you see that that cash went down. And I think that just would kind of raise the question, you know,
what happened. But I think when you look at the overall components of where the money came from and where did it go, your overall position went well. When factoring in your investment in capital assets, prepaying of certain things and some year end timing issues, that's going to be looked at as your decrease,
not necessarily a deterioration, if you will, which I think is important to to understand is that overall your cash position went up, but um just looking at year end and factoring in some of those differences. Um you know, that was really really the driver there. So, over onto page nine, I I had
mentioned your long-term liabilities. And you've probably heard to um almost nauseium at this point, particularly at these types of of of meetings, your discussion over your net pension liability and your net OPED liability. And OPED means your other
post-employment benefits, particularly retirey healthcare. Now, if we were to go back five, six, seven years, you would see that these numbers were probably significantly larger than they were now. Um, so what they represent is in net pension liabilities case, it's
your applicable portion of the the reading contributo retirement system overall net pension liability. So, you're about a 27% member and that's recognizing your your your applicable portion there. >> Can you speak up please a little bit? Can't hear you. >> Sure thing.
>> Thank you. Is this a little better? >> Much better. >> Okay. Um, so as you can see on the net pension liability in the comparative statements here going from all the way to the far right, which was 2023 to to the left is 2024. Your net pension
liability uh went down a little over $2 million. This is largely driven by favorable investments or investment activity um during during calendar year 2024. Um but also even in in in years prior to that uh it's something that uh is is
determined on an actuarial valuation. every other years. In fact, it factors in aspects like investment return um the overall census different metrics such as um you know retiree age mortality things like that and actually able to determine
liability and and again I think in looking at net pension and OPED the key phrase that that I like to use is just being proactive in addressing these liabilities as it relates to net pension liability. the amortization period for that
liability to essentially go down to zero is is 8 years from today. So so again in eight years from now kind of everything else being equal the hope is that's going to be zero. Now similarly on the net op liability side now that's that's related to p
primarily retiree healthcare u that went up a little bit over the prior year $4.6 6 million compared to 5.7. But similar to pension, RMLD has set up no pip trust many years ago. Uh one of the probably the early adopters
of of really actually setting aside funds and and trying to address these future costs. um you're seeing the fruits of that now where you've been you've been consistently contributing to that and those assets that are that are
dedicated for your OPED purposes are used to essentially offset the overall liability and similar to pension um in in in OPED's case it's about 15 years as far as amortization goes that liability is going to be down to zero so why I want
to bring that up is because it's I think it's really important when you're looking at these liabilities. This is not just an RMLD related item. Anyone that's issuing financial statements uh or any local government that's issuing financial statements in accordance with generally accepted uh accounting
principles is dealing with these long-term liabilities. So I think certainly on a local level and there's been certainly more discussion um at the Commonwealth level and nationally there's been a lot more attention uh and RMLD has been very very proactive uh and and I think in looking at these
long-term liabilities making sure that you're addressing them and to not um you know really have this become something that's going to impact bottom line and overall year-over-year budget question. Um so what are the assumptions
that go into your statement around the eight years or the 15 years? Is is there certain amount of growth for you know the employee base? Is there certain you know interest rate and or return on investments? What what are those assumptions?
>> Great great question. Um and those are those are actually disclosed in the footnotes. We can certainly look at a few of them but but just but to but to that point >> um no great great question. Um but it but it is there if you do want to look at it where it will it will it will give you the mortality tables that are being
utilized. It will give you the discount rate uh your payroll growth um things like that that really are the key inputs >> and those are things that the management of the organization from a growth or returns perspective provided. >> Yep. In conjunction with the actuary.
Yeah. Okay, >> probably more discretion on the OPED side whereas the it's the contributo retirement system that so other other folks outside of of RMLD will have some input on but any regardless it's folks
associated with the town evaluating those those key metrics and not only how um you know how how realistic they are but how how aligned they are with with also other local governments that are that are reporting particularly in Massachusetts
>> without the disclosures for pension and oped I think this report would be about twothirds as thick as it is the the disclosures are um robust I I think they you're hearing personal opinion I think they could be
scaled back there's so much information in there um >> and is that a town >> no that's a that's a gap generally accepted accounting principles require it And um it's just it's a bit overwhelming.
You know, Ed and I deal with it every day and there's just so much information in there. I I don't know that it I I always question how meaningful it is, but it's required. So that's why it's in there. >> Okay.
>> Any other questions on the balance sheet? We'll just go to the next page, which is the statement of revenues, expenses, and changes in net position. Um, this is really your comparative income statement. Um, and we're going to go about halfway down, and you're going to
see your operating income. Uh, for 2024, it was about 13.8 million compared to about 15.2 over the over the prior year. Looking just above that, you can see your operating revenues grew by about $5 million. Um and that on the on the
operating expense side, there was also a similar increase on on the on the expense side and uh both both years leading to positive operating um income to the June of 13.8 and $15.2 million. Moving down into your non-operating
revenue, really getting into more the kind of the smaller aspects of the finances as it relates to investment income. Um some some other revenues. Um, and then your return of investment back to the town of $2.5 million, which is which is pretty consistent
ultimately leading to a very favorable and positive change of $13.1 million. Now, I had mentioned earlier that with with GAP and and looking at the balance sheet in the income statement, it sometimes it
might be hard to really kind of see how we did. And I think the cash flow statement is always the the best place to go to uh in evaluating, you know, how you know how the year went when you're seeing what what inflows came in and what outflows came out. So that's on page 11. And really what we want to see in
looking at the cash flow statements when when we're taking a look at it is the net cash prov provided by operating activities, which is going to be that first first section. And we typically like to look at whether or not that the cash provided by the operating activities at a minimum is is covering
your your your debt service and making essentially generating enough cash to pay that off. But in RMLD's case, that's that's that's not an issue here. So, uh not only are you generating that that that cash from operating activities, you you really don't have the need to see that going out for borrowed um funds,
both principal and interest. And just moving moving further down you can see that while I had talked about cash going down earlier you know I think what what this really provides a nice snapshot of is well 13.5 is significant investment in your capital assets you
know so you have you have money that's coming back into into assets that you can utilize and deploy uh to you know to to your customer base if you will then third number up from the bottom also very important is overall what is our change in in in net cash. And you
can see that um for 2024 it was just under a million dollars at about $950,000. So it's a little bit different than looking at the balance sheet and the income statement, but I think this is a really nice snapshot into kind of letting the reader know and the user
know where you know where where your cash went. >> I'll pause there. Any any questions in particular on this statement? There is a cam. >> Okay, go ahead. Hold on.
>> Hi, this is Karen Herrick Reading Select Board. Thank you. Um, just a quick question. Um we were looking at finances over at the town our last select board meeting and and we did notice that the contribution to the town of Reading um
has um decreased a bit and the formula was designed to have that um fixed portion and then a variable portion that was that should increase when kilowatt sales increase. and it was just a minor decrease, but it is the first decrease
we've ever seen. And I was just wondering if we could get some clarification on um why there was a dis why there was a decrease. >> We had a fairly robust conversation about it at the 5:30
meeting and and I may defer to members of RMLD. Uh, I know it's based on kilowatt sales as was mentioned in the question, but those who may have a deeper pulse than Ed and I on on kilowatt sales um to to
address that. >> Yeah. Uh Karen um Ray Porter and chair of the board of commissioners audit subcommittee uh that was part of the discussion in the previous hour. Um the the formula was there was a lot of
discussion in years past about the formula and the formula has been adjusted so that the contribution is based on the amount of energy sales that RMLD has that we thought that that was a better long-term uh metric for providing
contribution to uh the contributing cities and that we service uh for lots of reasons. uh from year to year, kilowatt sales will go up and down. That's why that number actually is a three-year average. So, we roll that
average every three years and and base the contribution on that rolling average. Um so, the differences is very small. Um I mean, I guess $50,000 sounds like a lot of money um
relative to nearly 2 million, but um it's very similar. uh the numbers were fairly flat and therefore the the contributions uh were flat also um RMLD's contribution to the contributing cities is among the
highest in our in light departments. So um we're still I think returning good value of the communities. >> Thank you. Um, so I was just under the general impression, having attended a number of your meetings that kilowatt
sales have been steadily increasing year overyear. So that's where I'm confused. Um, and and I can I can dig into this a little bit offline. Um, because >> unless you guys tell me, oh, we we had a down year. So that's why that formula
should always be heading trending at least the way the economics have been working >> long long term that number should grow faster than the rate of inflation which is again why we use that metric but kilowatt sales is based on a lot of
things weather uh pound growth conversion of cars and heat pumps and that number is averaged over a three-year period so it is um yeah there's a lot that goes into it. To tell you exactly why that number came out the
way it did would require digging into it a little bit, but um long term uh we would be expecting increases in net kilowatt sales and therefore the contributions should be um generally increasing faster than the rate of inflation. It just didn't come out that way this year
>> because of the rolling average. >> In part the rolling average, but weather will play a big deal in kilowatt sales. I mean, if you have uh a warm winter, then you're not going to turn up the heat. If you have a cool summer, you're not going to turn on the AC. So, it it
it has it it could vary. >> Okay. So, I just need to um go back to the kilowatt sales to the last three or four years, and those will cover the three-year average because, you know, I was just kind of surprised. Um, it's
everybody's been using more electricity and I have not heard of y'all having a down year for kilowatt sales even with the weather changes, but you know, I can I can miss things. So, so I guess that's what um I'd like to do because that formula is not that complicated and the
driving factor is kilowatt sales and historically it's been going up. So, that's where the surprise >> and that's the expected trend Karen. >> Yeah. Okay. I will um I will go on your website and and track down kilowatt sales. Thank you.
>> And you have a cold year in the middle, right, is going to go down. >> And it's a negligible number. I I mean I >> it's $3,000 and clearly on that proportionally it's a tiny number. >> Well, it's not Yeah, it's not a it's not
a big difference except that you're expecting >> trend. She's concerned about the trend. >> Yeah. that you're expecting five or six% growth and it's the same. So, you know, it just the numbers sometimes work that way. Okay.
Um c could I go back to the pension liability just for a second and just so uh so I'm the newest person on the board so apologies if these are uh you know questions just of basic understanding here but um you mentioned that the
uh that you expect the trend towards zero uh for eight years and then 15 years for the OPB. I'm assuming that means that um RMLD is paying into a pension account that eventually will
balance out so that this liability can be zero and instead that account that particular pension account is covering all those expenditures moving forward and that the actuarials say that those expenses are covered by
that particular account. Is there an offsetting deposit into that account somewhere that or or is that buried into one of these lines >> that is increasing that account regularly?
Great question. An interesting one. Um Re RMLD is a department of the town of Reic. you have your what we're looking at here I'm pointing to the screen and you have on your iPads are what we call standalone departmental financial statements um in a similar way it's
slightly different but the reading contributo retirement system issue standalone financial statements um so the the outflow of dollars when when you reading municipal light plant make your contribution that's an actuarily
determined contribution uh that's an expense on on your books and in a revenue on the retirement system books. >> Does that answer your question? >> Yeah. Yeah, I think so. I think so. In other words, there's a they're paying into the I guess I'm wondering where the
where the payment into the pension plan is happening so that the uh you know, so that the pension accounts are taking over that. I I understand it's not a liability technically from their perspective, but this particular
liability it would be >> I think I think would be your operating expense and and it would be a part of salary and benefits I assume, right? So yeah. >> Yes. And yeah and so do those so so
those those payments are made by the individuals in a sense as part of their salary package that's coming out and that is in the >> uh sorry in the operating expenses on the income statement.
>> That's correct. >> Okay. And then to what Scott was referring earlier, if you so the the um the retirement system issues it standalone financial statements, but if you were to look at the town's it financial statements, both RMLD and the retirement system are presented there
and you would if you were to look at the retirement system, you would see member contributions, which would be RMLD um and then also employee contributions that are broken out separately. So that's where those inflows are going. It's just not a part of this particular document.
So why the liability for RMLB? How does that come into being? >> Because the retirement system, you know, has has very few employees, >> right? The the the liability is amounts of money that are ultimately owed to the
employees of the town and the various departments of of of the town. So the retirement system doesn't have the pension liability, it has the assets. Mhm. >> Um this the plan has is required to
under general accepted accounting principles to calculate what its total pension liability is based on the demographics of the workforce and retiree base here at RMLD as well as the town. I'll say the school department as
well. teachers are part of a different plan, but there are members at the school department that are part of the town of Reading contributo retirement system. So, uh the the concept under GAP or generally accepted accounting principle is the retirement system
doesn't have the liability. It's the contributing members that have the liability and and and need to carry that liability. >> All the enterprise accounts. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. as well as I don't want to say the general fund,
but the the the the town operations other than its enterprise funds also carries a a long-term liability. >> So So this could also fluctuate significantly just based on market outlook uh depending on what's happening with the pension itself, right?
>> Absolutely. >> This could go up and down. >> Absolutely. some contributions or or whatever >> in your this the column on the right of this page that's up on the screen. The net pension liability as Ed pointed out earlier $14.2 million in 123124
year before was 16.5. >> I don't want to over complicate this but the the liabilities measured 12 months prior to your balance sheet date. it >> it's permissible and in order to get everything done the actuary's got to get
its work done and the auditor's got to get its work done it's permissible so your liability at 123123 was based on market returns from calendar 22 which I know at this point it's several years ago but market returns in 22 were not good
>> that's why the liability was up last last year and 23 returns were much better so that's brought the liability down. >> Uh, okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, that's helpful for a big uh liability number. >> Yeah,
>> I probably should have added everything else remaining equal, meaning to what you're saying is that the actuarial assumption is close to reality. Um, but yes, factoring in some differences, it could could shorten or it could elongate that that period.
>> Yeah, that's great. Okay. >> Uh, any other questions? Um, I don't know if we had actually jumped over. The only other thing I wanted to point out was just, um, on pages 13 and 14, this is just where your OP assets and the
activity reside. just to show you that really that this is segregated from from the from it for operating um and that it again is separately called out but restricted for OPED purposes. That was very very high level just
really looking at some some key accounts. Um happy to take any other questions. >> Yeah. So I just have I have a I have a comment for Karen. So Karen, if you look at the previous page where it shows the
voluntary payments to towns this year, it was up by 65,000. Okay. And rating gets about fourth of that. So that more than that at least corrects for you know any reduction on the other side.
>> Yeah, I appreciate that. I'm not sure I have access to this document. it I don't it wasn't emailed with this um I don't know that's posted in so all I'm saying is if I just look at the numbers so at least I think if you look at the net contribution from RMLD to reading the
town of Reading based on these numbers it should be higher than last year okay >> yeah we'll check it out I'm looking at your annual statements 2022 uh kilowatt sales were down so that could be affecting the average but I'm going to
keep looking thank you I appreciate that >> all Right. So, so now I have a question for Scott and then for Ed. So, Scott, thanks for clarifying the combination business >> and name changes.
>> Yes. Uh the reason Yeah. The reason I'm asking this question is that >> last year when Markham took over Alensson, the audit got delayed. our audit got delayed and it it it happened with other organizations also.
So I know Markhamm was late on audits for a lot of companies especially smaller companies. I don't know how it was for large companies. My personal experience has been with Markham last year was slow on audits. Okay. >> Slow on what? I just >> on audits.
>> Okay. on completing audits. And this year again we got delayed and you explained that this delay this year was because of the change in the general management but it was already delayed a little bit coming to us this year because it was
scheduled delayed delayed. Okay. I'm asking this question to plan for next year. So going forward, I just want to know what you think we can expect.
I know you can't promise anything, but what should we be doing? And just from a planning perspective, you know, so we know that you guys are going to take time. We'll just plan for a longer time. So this is just good for us to know. >> Sure. I I think I can offer a response
to that. Um, I think we were on track to to be here in in in May. Uh, we we started the audit at the very end of March, I believe. Um, and it went went through several weeks in the in the month of April and I think we were were
originally on track to be here in May. Uh, then as I explained earlier, the delay we had additional procedures do, additional consultations to do. Um we have been a little bit delayed. We see
biz. Um you know you go through two mergers in two years and uh a lot of policies and procedures change and I don't mind saying this. We lost four key people. Um what I would what I really enjoy saying
as a followup to that is three of those four people have returned to us. So, I think we're in a situation uh situation where, you know, some delays that perhaps were caused by by
CBiz, my firm, I think we're we're in a a darn good position to cure those. >> Okay. All right. So, so thank you. And then uh Scott uh my next question is about you know and and I think you had mentioned to me earlier but it seems
your team has experience with other utilities is that correct with other municipal util municipal electric utilities. >> Yes. >> So you have audit experience with that. So based on the work that you guys have done historically,
what are the most critical metrics that your team considered in the report and that we should be sensitive to looking, you know, what we should be sensitive to going forward? What are some of the metrics we should look out for going forward from your perspective? Sure. No,
not from an operational perspective but from an audit perspective what do you think are the most important metrics we should look >> I think on on the cash flow statement looking at it's the one up on the screen here uh that first subtotal it's the net
cash provided by operation so inflows of cash from from sales and collections of those of those sales minus operating expenditures let me clarify obvious obviously I think everybody on the committee would realize that depreciation is a non-cash
operating expenditure. So excluding that does is that number as Ed pointed out a lot of times people will look at that and does it cover the principal and interest on debt. That situation isn't present here at RMLD because you generated enough cash to do
your own reinvestment in the in the in the property plant equipment here at RMLD. So the thing I would pay attention to as I look at that screen that first subtotal of numbers of $12.9 million is that covering your acquisition and construction of capital assets in
calendar 24 that the acquisition of construction capital assets was 14 pardon me 13.6 million. I think the difference between those two numbers is for an organization of your size and magnitude not uh problematic.
In fact, I think it's almost negligible. A lot of that's just timing issues. So, the key metrics is is net cash provided by operations, is it fully funding the capital requirements of the organization? >> Anything else?
Um I think um knowing the as Ed tried to point out and did point out the the terms remaining on advertising the pension liability down to zero and the OPED liability down to
zero. I think if I'm in your chair that's something that I want I would certainly want to know. Um because yes they're they're big numbers and they can fluctuate based as we talked a minute ago about market returns. Um but the
funding schedule how many years left on the funding schedule is an important metrics for you folks to understand >> in that context. How does RMLD do compare? If you compare RMLD with other unis, how are we doing?
>> Your your retirement system and by extension your proportional share of the retirement uh of of the retirement systems funding is better funded than most. That's what I thought, but I just wanted you to see. >> Yeah. And and on the o op O oped side,
uh I'm just going from memory from listening to Ed tonight, I think your your your assets in your pension plan are about 5 million and I think your liability is about 5 million. So you're about 50% funded. I would say with certainty that that is
also better than most. >> Okay. if there was an increase by RMLD to make that contribution, you know, down to zero at some point. Um, or to make that not contribution, interest in
contribution to make it zero. If you outpace the town of Reading, what would that impact be? That's another great question. um and one that's one that's
very complex. I'll do my best to answer it. So, Reading Retirement System is a cost sharing plan. So, the assets of of the plan are available to all members. So, if you plug in another $2 million,
you would need some sort of an agreement with the other contributing members that that the other $2 million that you plugged into the retirement system would be ex essentially for the exclusive benefit of retirees of RMLD because under the laws of the Commonwealth,
chapter 32 and the way cost sharing plans work um the the assets of the pension plan are available to all members. They're not exclusive to you or another organization. To maybe say that one
other way, um there are cost sharing plans. And then a term that really never gets used in this in in the Commonwealth is I was kind of pulling resources together,
but that situation is not what's outlined in chapter 32 of the general laws of the Commonwealth. You are a cost sharing plan, not an agent plan. So to do what you're hinting at, my assumption is you're hinting at it.
>> Um you it I think it could be done. I think you'd need legal counsel and I think you needed, you know, some some rock solid agreements uh that would essentially carve out that in my illustration. I think I said two million an extra $2 million contribution that
that would be exclusive to RMLD. But as a general practice, you we should stay in pace with the town. I I if if from a if it's a all equal, staying on pace with the town would be the way to
go. I That's Yeah, I'm going to say yes. It's kind of beyond my my scope. Yeah. >> Um but I try to put myself in other people's chairs when I'm asked questions. um
>> as long as the town is not going the other way. >> Yeah. The the pension liability I think it's like $14 million. That's a big number. Don't get me wrong. >> Yeah. >> But relative to to others, it's not. And
with a relatively short remaining amortization period, I probably keep doing what you're doing for eight years and bring it to zero that way. But that's not my call. >> That's not our call.
>> Well, it sounds like if you wanted to accelerate it, you would at least have to change some fairly significant existing structure, right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> So that that would be like the first step. >> Yeah. >> But you do have some flexibility with
OPED given that that is RMLD specific. That's what the trust that trust is strictly for RMLD. So you could you have a little bit more flexibility there in advancing those contributions which like I think last year was about $300,000
>> been doing $300,000 a year for the past three years I think. >> Yeah, I think that sounds right. that you it would might be something to look a little bit more into because as Scott said, I think as long as you look at the amortization period and that eight years
doesn't turn into 10 and then 12. If you're staying on track, then I think at least from a cash flow standpoint and expense, it's not you're not really taking a one big hit. And with OP
again just given that that hemorization period is a little bit longer you might think about okay maybe we can do a little bit more of that might change that that period by one or two years just at least another positive step if you will. Another thing if if I may uh
madam chair is to just piggyback on what Ed is saying. We're seeing more organizations as their timeline for bringing their pension systems to be fully funded, developing a a an approved policy at at this level
that says, "Okay, once we're fully funded on the pension side of things, we're going to reprogram those dollars, whatever they are, you've been paying into the pension system for x number of years, and in a few years, a handful of years, you'll be fully funded. And then
let's capture those dollars. I'll make up a number and call it a million bucks. Totally just made it up. So when pension's fully funded, then start reprogram that million dollars over to pension. >> OPE op. Sorry. Sorry about that. Thank you.
We're seeing that as a trend out there in in in the in the governmental environment in the Commonwealth. Karen hearing. >> Okay, another question. Karen, >> unmute. Okay, let's see. Can you hear me?
>> Okay, thanks. Yeah, no. Um, these are great. I just wanted to comment that we are having similar conversations. Um, the comment is that RMLD has always been closer to fully funding their pension and f further ahead in OPED than the town has been. Um
the town of Reading specifically has been we are given the tightening financial situation we are talking about um extending our fully funding of our pension out a couple years. That was the last discussion we have. No decisions
have been made but um and and we would also um do as um the speaker said you know once that's fully funded we would probably focus more on OPED. we are um nowhere near the same um level that RMLD
is at in terms of funding our OPED and and there is no mandate in the Commonwealth either to get it funded. So towns are all over the place now. Um I don't know whether you guys have those same OPED um uh regulatory issues or whether
because you have your own um you're managed separately you might have different but yeah it is interesting and I just want to let you know that you know as towns are um exactly as the speaker said as towns are um running into financial challenges we're we're going to talk about you know maybe
needing to extend the timeline. Thanks. >> Any other discussion? >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Um I think we can go ahead and um talk with the motion. Uh Ray, would you want to read it? Um move that the RMD board of
commissions accept the 2024 audit report from CBIS advisors fiscal year ending December 31st 2024 is presented on the recommendation of the board of commissioners audit subcommittee and the
interim um general manager >> uh any further discussion please vote all all in favor Motion carries 5. Uh let's move on to approval of meeting minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Thanks. >> Thank you, Patty. >> Yeah, Patty. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Your work. >> Good work. >> Thank you. >> You want to do um Yeah. First. >> Okay. Can we get a motion? >> Move that the RMLB Citizens Advisory
Board approve the following 2025 open session meeting minutes as presented on the recommendation of the interim general manager and the board secretary May 29th and June 25th. >> Second. Okay. Uh I just have a comment
so on the >> Okay. There's a typo, small typo, just minor, but on page 84, page one of the 18 uh June 25th minutes, the RMLD,
it's got an E before it, it says E RMLD. >> It's electric. >> Our next branding change, >> you know, yes, multiple. So I I read these. >> They dropped something there for you.
>> Reading 40 pages. It's hard to find what need. >> Thank you. No, that's it. That's it. >> Do you want to put on your >> uh just want to know if there's any other discussion? We ready to work? >> All in favor?
>> I do have a motion on our side. Move that the ability board of commissioners approve the following 2025 open session meeting minutes as presented in the recommendation of the interim general manager and the board secretary for May 29th and June 25th.
>> Dave second. >> I did. >> Okay. >> Yes, I did. >> Any discussion? >> I didn't find the e in >> extra singers. All right. Uh all those uh all those in favor.
>> Okay. Motion carries 5. Thank you. >> All right. Uh uh logo update. >> Right. >> Um I don't have any slide but I think two about two months ago uh we were
asked to do a poll of the customers whether they like the load or not. So we didn't do a full survey. We we did the poll uh when we sent out the pick alerts uh which we had um you know 12 13 P alerts over the last
two months and we also sent out um two uh kind of event emails what uh about the heat pump webinar and then most recently we sent out the July uh newsletter. So these are all the uh communications that we did in terms of
polling the customers. Um and we got 141 responses. Uh and then 76% of them thumbs up. So that's a little bit update. >> What was the question that you asked them? >> We asked do we we we you know we have
the new logo. Do you like it or do you not like it? Did you say you say which which logo do you like this logo or that logo or >> No, it's the the logo we the new the new logo. >> Oh, you didn't ask what what they thought of the old one relative to the >> uh I think the ask from the board two
months ago was was to ask customer if they like the new logo or not discussion. I you know at this I I let my opinion be known uh regarding the logo. I would I don't mind the boldness of the letter. I think it the lettering
is the correct size. The coloring I I the coloring I like the old logo of the light bulb and I'd like the coloring to return to black. I think it's more pronounced. I'd like our truck branding should be specific to say RMLD. big bold
letters on the side with the distinguished light bulb of what it had previously. I think that is a return to the original light in but with a change of going back to black lettering would be preferred. I and in in my opinion I
just think that the I think we had mentioned to Greg on the change before I don't think it was well accepted um by the board um I you know 70 people come back and say yeah okay great that's it's
it's that's it's a too small >> that's 76% >> 76% out of how many >> 140 years >> 140 that's rough >> 140 um >> I mean I just want us to do a full survey and then go all the way back.
>> Um, we could. >> No, I I I don't I don't think that's necessary. I don't think doing a survey is necessary. I think it's just more of a decision of returning the logo back to something again. I >> I do want to provide the context. If we
go back to the old logo, our website design will be we cannot move forward with that because their new design, the old logo, I don't I don't know all the technical terms of you know the digital logo design. The old logo wouldn't fit into the new um website structure.
>> So that logo has a light bulb, right? >> It does have a light. >> Yeah. It just doesn't have I I don't the coloring the coloring I I just again I just find it hard with the coloring. >> That was that that was like a mixed opinion on the both. Right. The color. Right. So I know you you like the black
and gold like like my shirt. >> It's on that page there. >> Yeah. I just would prefer that it return to black and maybe the a new if the light bulb stays that maybe you know as you >> so we have the black and white version
of the logo. Do you mean you'd prefer that instead of the colored ones? Um, I don't mind the bold lettering on that logo. If if it's impossible to return to the original light bulb with the
sunburst around it, >> I think that's the one that had problems with miniaturization. >> I find that very difficult to absorb >> because it was >> I do I I apologize, but I >> because it was designed 30 years ago. The file even the file format is was
different. >> Recreate it. I don't think it's that difficult today's digital age to recreate that. I I I really Does it have to be exact, but could it be close to it? >> Um I I I I I don't know. I I I fully understand your your opinion and it's
your opinion. So I don't know what to do moving forward. Should I take your opinion and then we change it back or what what should we do? Right. >> All right. I get I I like the star thing also, but
I also totally accept the change. Um it's appeared on a number of other things. It's gone out nearly 80% agreement. 76% >> find 76%. >> I don't think it was given a side by side, you know. It was given, hey, look
at this. >> It wasn't a side by side. Show me. You want a survey? Show me five different options. Which one do you like? Here it is. Great. Yeah. Thanks. I'm going to get >> you suggest we put out a boat for customers. >> I'm I'm I'm >> No, I don't want to see another survey.
I don't I what what I would prefer is again I could live with the light bulb, but I can't live with the colors. I I just I I that not that is not I just can't live with the colors. I personally I just think if we go back to black and
put black on the side of the truck, we're rebranding a monopoly, right? It's that that's a whole other aspect of this, right? Um >> it's facilitating the ability to go into digital format. That's the issue. >> Well, if the light bulb works then
>> and standing out. >> Well, and that's so that's the where he's saying the bold lettering works. >> Yeah. in terms of the standing out, but being able to go into the digital environments and have a scalable >> um format and um
>> well, and I think the specific concern around the color, yeah, that's not a relevant that you know, it's not relevant to the digital, right? We could still do the digital. I I would >> my opinion is you're always going to have differences of opinion of colors and things like that. I think this is um
we did we did a survey. It was it was overwhelmingly positive. I think that we need to monitor the color and make sure that it is working. You know, is it does it fade when it's on a truck? Things like that. Let's just keep an eye on it. Just make sure that, you know, in
situations where that is a risk, we're defaulting to the black and white or a darker color. But otherwise, >> choice of materials, right? Fading would be a choice of materials that you use for paint. >> Sure. Um, I don't think it's a a thing
that the board needs to >> Well, I I go back the way it all went down. I I just didn't I didn't like the way that it went down. I think, you know, it was something that we we mentioned we didn't like it and it was still completed anyway. >> So, I I did I again I the process that
it went through in order to be completed I I just didn't I didn't like that process. I you know there was >> a lot of resistance. I heard I heard that from the first person. I just wonder what what should we do moving forward? >> Question. I mean
>> if if you want to know whether a logo is having its intended effect, then you put it before people who aren't the employees and the boss is saying is this do you think I did a good job? And then it's not just show people one thing and say do you like it? You you you say here
are two logos. Which one do you prefer? Which one do you think is more forward-looking? which one is more and then that's how you it's called AB testing that that kind of question if if you were saying 76% said this is more readable this is more toward the future
than the other one then okay then we'd be done but it it just was giving them one thing and saying do you like it so it doesn't really mean anything >> versus I I'd like I'd like a really clear instruction on what to do so you'd
like me to do another poll Would the board be willing to draft that question because I don't want to come back next time and you say, "Oh, did you ask the other question?" So, I I really need a clear instruction. I'm really willing to to do whatever you need us to do, but
it's not clear right now. >> What What I would say is take that logo that you have, change the color to black, right? Have that >> what color? >> Well, you have that color. >> Change all teal to black. change that
color. Have that one then have a black one with maybe some different coloring on a light bulb. Maybe we can >> just to clarify, you'd like to change all teal to black and keep the white, the light blue, and the red. Is that Is that the
>> I I I would almost think a yellow around the light bulb, right? To represent light. >> What What color code of the yellow you would like? because that's that's very specific thing that we need to know to actually present a new new version.
>> Yeah. If I gave a task to you and your team, just come up, email them to us, right? Throw a couple different versions, put put them out there to us before you do, you know, send in. >> So, I I'm hearing so we're redesigning
the logo now and I want to I we can definitely do that if that's a board's intention. I I do need to say >> that doesn't represent if we're designing the logo, the website work has to stop >> because the website won't be able to move forward.
>> Okay. It's a it's a it's a label change at the bottom of a website. It's it's not >> Oh, no, no, no. you I'm trying to explain to you the the revamping of the website which is also what the board asks us to which we also want to do >> the vendor that we have to we we we have
uh civics plus they do the websites for most of the municipalities and MLPS the way they design website logo has to be all set the very very first step step zero actually it's out of our control so
if the logo is not determined the website war cannot continue. >> Okay. I will work with you, Megan, over the next couple of weeks about colors if that's acceptable. I I really want to change this. I >> No, I I hear you and I I respect that
opinion. I >> it's it's not my favorite color in the world either, but >> I also think the the organization went through their process. We can absolutely give feedback on the process and say going forward we want a different role
in this but it is not something that we necessarily have to approve and I don't want to spend more money on a whole >> chain. >> I don't want I don't want to delay a website that we're you know investing
money to to transition. it it doesn't feel to me like the something that we need to tell them to go back on. That's my opinion. >> I just, you know, at this point I think it was forced through. I didn't like the
way that it went through. Period. Um I and uh you know I I mean I'm one person. I'm willing to take a vote of the board up or down. >> Y and we can do that. Yay. Yay. And if
we choose to accept this logo, it it is what it is. If we want to change it to black, then we can at least change the lettering, you know, to black and maybe work on the I'm not against the overall design. I'm just against right at this
point the colors selected in the design. Just to be clear, can I ask a clarifications all all with this kind of color way but with black font options, right? So, if it's a black and white print, >> it's going to be a black. You know, if it's it's a
>> shirt or something that's black and white, it's going to be in black, right? >> So, I don't know that that's a redesign. I think it's a choice of which kind of version of the approved logo you would prefer to see. >> Correct. I would I would prefer >> Can you pull it up?
>> Yeah. Thank you. I think it's better to just close it right now because >> Yeah, >> we don't want to stretch this out. >> Yep. We can jump to another item while they're digging it up if that that's helpful. >> Okay. Does anybody have any other anyone who
hasn't spoken? I >> I mean I guess I'll voice I I really don't have an opinion. I'm fine with this logo and yeah it >> I'm I'm fine with this logo. I >> I would say move forward. >> I'm sorry, Bob.
>> No, that's true. I'm a I'm a Democratic guy. >> Opinionated Democratic. >> I did. I wore the colors today. My least favorite shirt. >> See it again. All right, thanks for the conversation
around that. Um, appreciate it. Thanks for the update. >> Um, all right. So, why don't we move to the annual report approval? Um, this we reviewed last time. We looked at the report. We decided we wanted to take some time to look through it. I think
there were a couple of pieces of feedback that were provided. Um, I assume I think those edits were made. >> Were they made? >> Just confirming. Yeah. >> Can you go through like what what the changes are since last time or is that what if it takes less than a minute or
two? >> Are we prepared would you be prepared to go through the changes that were made to the >> Yeah, there was a planned >> few corrections that were noted in the last meeting. >> Yes. >> We don't have that that I think it's
some handwritten notes. I w I w I wasn't here. Um, so I will just kind of go through by my memory if it's okay with you. >> My question here is that it says from the general manager and this is going from Greg and is that do we want it to
go from Greg's name or should it go from >> because it is because it's for the year 2024. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So for 2024 got it. Okay. >> Yes. I think one comment that we had last time is we did have some comments and
the last page says insert financials and we didn't have audited financials and so we we pushed back on the need to finalize it then pending the audited financials now that we have that um >> yeah they need to be
>> and we can now sign off on on this >> yeah I think there was also a change in one of the >> yeah charts. >> I think that's from the Vec, right? The because we reported uh up to 2022 because there's two year lag for the uh
electricity emissions. So, we reported the direct emissions also to 2022, but now you requested to add the past two years which we have data for. So now that's added. >> Okay, >> the the data is added. So that's the first one. And then
there's a kind of a wording change in the uh uh in this chart if you go. Can I move that? Oh, you have to move it. >> Oh, how do I move it? >> Want to move to the next page?
>> Can you see the document page that that's on? >> Um >> 18 >> 18. Thank you. >> In the PDF, it's 122. So packet 12218 annual report. Got it.
>> Yeah. So basically we changed the kind of wording from energy portfolio to kilowatt hour sales. So that's like that I think that was requested. So we just changed that. And then the label was also changed to kilowatt kilowatt hour
sales. Um, one more ch change on wording is certificates and then I think the last change we made actually was a internal edit by someone probably.
Um, correct. So I think that's all that we were asked to change. >> Well, there was somewhere and I don't know where it was now where it said renewable energy when it meant non-carbon. >> Right. Right. That's Yeah, that's the the wording change that um Okay. um was noted here that we changed.
>> Okay. Then I remember asking what were in it what does innovative grid solutions mean and it was explained that it meant storage solutions, right? >> Yeah. And and that's in the minutes the minutes do. >> So that still says innovative grid
solutions. >> That's okay. It's okay. I'm I'm fine leaving. >> I don't know what emissions aligned means but at this point like with the logo, let's move on. Whatever is in here, >> it's it's good enough. It's good enough. >> It's emissions aligned.
>> It's it's a good report. It's a good report. It's well written. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Logos in white on the back. It's in white. >> All right. Any further discussion on
>> I get a special edition t-shirt. >> Any further discussion on the contents of the annual report? Okay. One thing about for like defining um I can't remember what page it was
when we talked about the year and we wanted to note it was supposed to be on two pages. I think on >> 121 122 of of the presentation supposed to be um a clarification of the
um time frame if I remember correctly from the last discussion it was >> that was page 17 that was the two years that we had >> I can't remember exactly what that was I'm not seeing anything there >> was the difference between 17 the time
periods for each. >> Yeah, I think it was 20 and it was it it was very >> there was no there were uh >> it was like 2022 and it was then it was mentioned in 2024 and then it was 2022 on the next page. >> So the state the state provides only up to
>> Yeah. And it was just I think we wanted a clarification on that but that that's all right. It's >> so that you're saying there was clarification in one case and not the other. >> Correct. It was I think I remember that. >> Yeah. We want to >> I think it was the scope one emissions goes through 2024 but scope two is only
recorded back up to 2020 >> parenthetical that says it's released with a two-year lag. I think that is provided. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. So maybe that was it. That was the change. Okay. Thank you. >> You ready for your vote?
>> Yeah. So can we get a motion? moved that the RMLD Citizens Advisory Board recommend the RMLD Board of Commissioners approve the annual report for the calendar year 2024 as presented on the recommendations of the interim general manager.
>> Second. >> All in favor? >> I do. uh move that the RMLD board of commissioners on recommendation of the CI advisory board approve the annual report for calendar year 2024 as
presented on the recommendation of the interim general manager. >> Second. >> All those in favor? Okay. Motion carries 5. All right. Um procurement request. >> Yeah. So, uh we're purchasing a new uh
floor truck. Um, we had uh put out the bid four biders. We received two bids. The lowest bid was uh the estimate we had was 50,000. The total submitted price was $34,770. Looking for permission to purchase that um truck
>> discussion. 22 weeks delivery. >> Yes. >> The other one was four to five. 22 weeks. I think the second bid it was a couple thousand dollar difference. >> Yeah. Is that good enough? 22 weeks. >> Yes. Yeah.
>> The old model is 2007. >> We're not paying for it until it shows up. >> What's that? >> We paying for it now or when it comes, right? >> When we received. Okay. Any other discussion?
Uh, who would like to read the motion? >> I can read it. Move that bid IFB 2025 20 for one fork truck year 2025 or newer with tradein be awarded to WD Matthews
Machinery Company for $34,770 pursuant to MGL30B as the lowest responsive and responsible bidder on the recommendation of the interimm general manager. Second. >> All those in favor?
Um okay. Discussion on ENE board of directors appointment. So my understanding is um with a a new interim general manager um we have an open sheet from RMLD on ENE. Um, and so
it's uh standard to nominate the general manager or intern for that seat. Um, before we do that, I just wanted to ask we've got a bunch of new board members. You know, I think we've maybe heard a little bit from E&E,
but um as part of kind of this conversation, I would love to have come to one of our meetings and then just kind of share a little bit about what is it that they do for us and what
are we, you know, our association with them and spending our interim general manager, our future general manager's time on the board. What are we getting out of that? Yeah, we're gonna set it up September. >> September. >> That's right. >> Yep. So, yeah, it's in Mike's update, too. But we um they are planning to come
and present to us in September. Mike went down there last week, I believe it was, and um just got a lot of good material kind of like E& 101, which is great. So, we'll do that. For this particular seat, it's because we are a part owner and it's an appointment for
that seat. So, um that's just kind of how this one works. And it's usually it's all GMs and IGMs. The appointment's normally three years. We made this one year just um as it's an engine appointment >> and then when the new um GM is appointed
or hired then we'll make that person the chair is usually how it goes. >> Go ahead. >> Uh I yeah sorry just a quick question. Is there something we could read some material or something on on EN just for
even for in preparation for that particular meeting so that we can understand? I'm not sure really what it is. >> Has some power points I could send you. >> Yeah, something like that. Uh just to get a high level idea. You said we own or part owners. You know what does that
>> 8.33% Yeah. bought into the company. So, >> so pretty much they do they do um the majority of uh the power purchasing for us and they do um they offer other things like uh different programs like uh if if you
want to buy a battery, they'll review the battery program for for you as well like help negotiate prices for you. Um uh energy efficiency savings, stuff like that. They have different programs they offer as well. >> Okay. So, we we we own a stake. Yes.
>> In this entity, >> I guess it was purchased um I think by Colleen for I think an investment of 300,000. They say now it's worth I think around 690. It's gone up in value. So >> yeah. So I think I think there are just questions around okay,
you know, kind of what does that look like? Are we getting a >> Yeah. The cost >> are we getting compensated for our ownership stake? How does E& get compensated? I think they're a forprofit organization. So what does that mean? So I think having
come and share their strategy, their benefits or approach that they use um would be would be helpful. >> I agree. >> That would be good. I >> Yeah, we have three out of five of us
are somewhat new. Uh and actually it's a great idea. Is there a reason why we can't do this at the next meeting? >> Yes. Um the only reason is because there is an A&E board meeting on August 6th which Mike has been asked to attend and in order to attend and participate in that meeting he needs to be appointed.
>> Oh I think we're going to appoint him >> but we'll put No, I think my question was any come August instead of in September. >> But we're just saying for this for this Yeah. Let's I mean if you don't mind scheduling it for August Pam. >> Yeah. I don't know that we have a ton besides the GM uh search. I'm not sure
how much we'll have on the agenda for August. So, if they're able to make the August meeting, that would be great. >> Yeah. Because I think the only thing, Megan, we are thinking about maybe doing a customer survey presentation then, but we could do that in September if needed, too. >> I think we
>> Yeah, we would. >> Yeah. So, um August, too. >> Yeah, let's Yeah, that would be great. >> Thank you. Um, is there any other discussion around the nomination or appointment? I think it makes sense to being fully
engaged because we're we already owners there. >> Yeah. >> So you have proper representation >> of our own. >> So >> so so what's your point? >> Point is wait a minute. >> Yeah. It's not something we regularly do and yet they're very much a major player
in a lot of what RMLB does and buys and a lot of our contracts and their lobbying positions are also potentially of interest. They lobby for things on Beacon Hill. Um they're very involved. So >> actually I think that's a really good reason to kind of push for August if we
can because that is ahead of the next legislative session. I think there are >> be helpful to understand what what their position is on some of those >> some issues that are out there now. So >> would it make sense to actually kind of uh point out what what kind of they they
they provide a lot. I think Mac was there for maybe three hours or or so to listen to their presentation. So maybe if it would be helpful if you like you really want to hear about legislate the uh uh work or you really want to hear about you know something else power
supply >> and ask questions maybe they can be here and explain the high level the 101 and we can ask questions. >> I'm sure they can supply like a powerpoint ahead of time too. >> Yeah. I think there might be a multi multi-meating type thing for sure.
You're not going to get it all in one. I think, you know, we're going to be a composite. >> Yeah. I mean, again, if there's if ahead of the meeting if they want some guidance on what would be most impactful, like I'm happy to talk to them to give them some guidance or, you know, ask one of the other board members
to do that. And I have um I'm gonna send Mike I'm I'm pretty sure it's okay to send this um I'm going to send along five presentations that they um shared and then maybe after you guys take a peek at those you'll have you know areas of interest or things as well >> and internally we can also I don't know
what's the process um we can send you like what we currently do with them like just so those are they don't have to repeat what they do for for us right now. >> Yeah. So in addition to being a owner, we should know this is this much. In addition to being an equity owner, we make a payment every year. A fee. What
is that? What the amount of that? >> Yes. I just you want to >> what is the amount of that payment? >> Yeah. So uh each month it will add up to uh almost 40,000.
>> So half of the year ballpark. >> Yeah. >> Is it a percentage of power purchased? It's a straight payment. >> Uh there's uh there are two two straight payments. One is on power supply services most of the uh uh wholesale
market uh services for us. The other uh sort of fixed payment is on energy efficiency. Even though you even if you don't take any programs from them as a owner, you still pay uh 2400 each month.
And then if you do take a program, you pay extra. >> Well, I think you already >> monthly payments based on like the size like your investment in >> spread out like some small municipal part of it as well. So, right.
>> And then when they when they when they bring power supply contracts to us, >> so as a for-profit entity, this is one question that I know I would like to ask is what is it? How are they making money from the power supply contract if any
that we're >> approving like what is what is that? How does that work? >> They uh so they they actually engage a a legal firm to negotiate the contract. So the the the kind of the theory behind this is they can represent multiple
MLPS. So it's better bargaining and negotiating power with the suppliers to so hopefully lower the price of the PPAs. Um so for that expense they will allocate to each participating MLPS and
then um after if we signed up for one of those PPAs uh we'll pay them a regular monthly fee for them to basically they call it manage the contract and then track the certificates. So they uh transact all the certificates for us.
>> Oh >> yeah. On the on PPA that we have >> manage the certificate purchases and sales. >> Yes. >> Why do we need them to do that? >> I don't know. I didn't know. >> So some Yes, >> that was part of the package of the service.
>> I think the questions are probably going to be around Yeah. What are the services? What are the fees for the services? What are the benefits that we're getting for those services? You know, the ownership stake values gone up. are we getting some sort of dividend for that? Um and I think then probably more internal conversations once we
understand that you know internally do we believe we're getting the value for that um investment but I think we need to understand what that investment is and what the services are first before we can have that conversation. >> Yep. >> Thank you. Okay.
>> No. >> Any other discussion or are we ready to read the motion? You read the motion. All right. >> That pursuant to section 3.2 of the operating agreement of Energy New England LLC, Reading Municipal Life Department Board of Commissioners hereby
appoint Michael O'Neal as class B director of Energy New England LLC board of directors for a term of one year. >> Second. All those in favor. what to do. Congratulations, Michael.
>> Big summer for you. >> All right. >> Can I ask one more question about what what do the board of directors do? Like what do you what do you have to do on August 6th? Like what's the agenda? >> No. So they'll go and they'll things that are for public consumption. They'll review uh what what they're working on some things that are behind the scenes
like I guess they'll hand out all the pamphlets and information kind of review it and then you kind of talk like are you for something like this? You think this is a good initiative for them to push forward and stuff like that? then uh they'll take it back like they don't want it to the public because uh some is like uh could be um like somewhere
buying power think it would be a good investment kind of talk about that stuff I guess >> because they don't want to you know people to know that what they're what >> power supply can be executive session >> right because they are a public entity like an MLP they're an MLP cooperative
>> they are a public entity >> just like we are but they're a cooperative of MLPS so anyway >> they're LC See, so >> they're that too, but they are legally a cooperative of it. >> They do the work the private sector as
well. They t contracts in as well. So any profit that uh they make off that goes back into the company. >> Okay. >> Okay. On to your IGM update. >> Okay. >> Uh yeah. So, as far as the team members,
uh the management teams, we hold regular meetings, uh review the workload, the projects. Uh team, everything's going uh pretty steady right now. Uh no major issues. Um recruitment uh director of finance and accounting, we put that on hold. That uh
waiting until after the budget. Uh Patty's been the acting director right now is doing a very good job and she's comfortable as she is. And uh materials manager, we're going to that's one we're going to post. That was uh Paulo Larry who recently retired. We'll uh probably post that within the
next couple weeks. Uh the union contract. So uh we had a mediation session with IBW. Um we're going to schedule a second one. Uh kind of similar process probably is going to follow LMS and CT. Uh KP Law is supporting us on that as well. Uh on all
those contracts. Um one thing we need to probably do is uh schedule an executive session to talk about the contracts. So I don't know if we could maybe settle something like that in the next week or two or something. >> Oh, you in between meetings? >> I think so. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Then uh
>> come with some parameters and get some feedback. >> Okay. I know we had we could talk about it in scheduling maybe, but we did have like a tentative mid August meeting before NEPA. Is that >> Yeah, we did have I think we if we get
it before August 12th, it' be better. August 12th, we have a second meeting. So, >> okay. >> Uh, with the IBW and mediate the mediator. >> Okay. >> So, it helps to get some clarity and some things. >> Let's make sure we talk about that scheduling. Okay.
>> Um, uh, the weather, like I said before, uh, we really haven't had too many uh, um, setbacks due to uh the heat or uh, any storms. Um we are monitoring the weather for uh uh Friday with a high heat and a chance
of thunderstorms in the afternoon, especially if you're being on Friday afternoon. Um a fleet update. Um we said we received our material handler with the electric and hydraulic PTO. That's not not on the road yet. It'll be on the road. It's here on the yard, but it'll
be on the road uh within a couple days. And uh the second one should be in any any time now within the next couple weeks. So those are big purchases. Uh the projects AMI metering. So uh we have about five uh itron meters that
showed up. Uh it's working on the collectors programming and uh we should be getting a bunch of meters. I think um supposed to go around 500 500 of them in August for a pilot. Once we get the collectors and everything set up, we'll start rolling some of those out for a pilot and do some testing on them.
Um, station six, like I said, uh, actually earlier they asked about it. Uh, yeah, the transformers are on site. They've been, uh, uh, assembled and filled with oil. Uh, the testing's ongoing. Uh, we did have a couple issues. One of them was missing wrong size radiators. So, waiting on Virginia
Transformer to fabricate those and they'll have to install them. Also, Virginia test Virginia Transformer is going to come up and uh, do some additional testing of transformers as well. So, that's uh, scheduled for the next couple weeks. Then uh the budget uh that's scheduled
for uh October, early November. Then uh EM we'll uh we'll try to get them uh for August. Get them in here. And uh the ME annual meeting that's uh September 18th and 19th in Plymouth members are invited and
uh also we met with um uh running town manager and uh town manager last week also. So >> yeah, talked to Ray talked about the solutions. >> Uh >> do you have any do you know any more about the meme meeting that's two days?
They have an agenda or >> I have some information. >> Okay. >> I don't think they have an agenda out yet. >> Anybody go to last year? >> No. I don't know what that would be
covering. another. Okay. >> Um but again, that's September 18th and 19th. Um the agenda is in development, but one of the confirmed speakers is the new telecommunications, utilities, and energy committee chairman, um Representative Mark Puzzac of Brainree.
Um it's just a good meeting where you guys can network with other GMs and as they drop the agenda, that's kind of where it's at. >> Um >> it's in clinic. What one of the things that the MLCA is trying to do is be a
part of me in which they would be provide us with some administrative support like website and communication and finance financial help. Um otherwise we would function as a separate committee or or separate organization within it. That discussion has been
ongoing. Uh whether it gets to the point where it a topic at this annual meeting I'm not sure. Um but we've had meetings with them and that is a plan to give us a home. >> Ray, I got I got a quick question >> for the um
for for that group. How do you avoid a quorum? >> Um it comes under the exemption. We're not talking about business of any one utility. And if it got into that, we would interrupt that discussion. So that it is it comes under the heading of
training and education. And so we bring in groups and and talk about broad topics which it's difficult to like a new person coming in what is E&E and and what programs are out there and what's legislative to take up a meeting time to
get all the basics is difficult. But if we have monthly meetings where these topics come up and you can learn about them um then you you avoid you avoid forum because you're not talking about a specific utilities um
questions. It's it's background. It's education. Thank you. >> Anything else Mike? >> That's it. >> Oh, so sorry if you could just let me know if anyone's interested in attending me. I just need to let Vin know even if you're not sure but you're kind of
interested. >> I like I would like to learn more. >> Yeah. >> About what's going to be covered. So yeah, please. >> Okay. Um next topic is GM search process. Um so couple things that we have to do
with this. Um our focus for these discussions is alignment on the process and appointment of a subcommittee if if we agree that that will be part of the process. Um and then review and approval of the job advertisement strategy as
well as the description. Um before I start talking, do you want to cover anything here Susan or run? I >> I I don't need to speak yet. Um Erica put together this fantastic schedule for us and um I can speak some more when you
get to the if anyone has the questions about the Edison. >> So >> yeah, Susan and I worked together and and of course with uh Erica and Erin on on what this should look like. We leveraged as much as possible what has been done in the past. So I think the packet actually includes where we have
things like a a change in the job description or change change of the posting plan. You can actually see the red lines of what is different now versus the last time we went through this process. Um but essentially the if
you look at page one of the topic page 138 of the full packet um the recommendation is that um we have a preliminary screening committee um who would go through the initial interview
process um and would recommend a set of candidates for uh final interview by the board. Um it does not have to be three. We kind of I think we said somewhere between three and five would be ideal, but it's really
is up to the subcommittee how many we want to recommend um to go to um public interview. Um in terms of the uh
timeline that is on page two. So objective would be to have the search process, the committee, the advertisement and the description approved tonight. Um then we would post Monday and have
the job posting open for four weeks. Um we would also have the committee kick off next week um and ensure that we have a plan for what would the initial interviews look like, what topics are we going to cover. We need to be consistent
about that. um and align on what the attributes are and all of those things that we're looking for. Um and then that application window would close uh the week of the 25th. As applications come in, the committee can review those applications. I think
the thinking is that committee would meet weekly to check in on the status of the application process um and prepare for discussions and if we need to decide on things like maybe we need more time or maybe we need to clarify something we we can do that. Um
then the discussion of the applications would be the week following the closure of the application window. The interviews would happen the first half of September. That's on the next page. Um, and we would ideally bring candidates
uh to final BOC interviews early October. >> That's pretty fast. >> Yeah, >> I were on to the last time and met quite regularly, but it took a while.
>> We met Yeah, we cranked through and we thought we were going fast. Yeah. >> Yeah. And so >> it was a lot of applicants. So it was probably what 50. >> Yeah. >> Last time >> and >> I'm sorry you can finish. >> And and then Yeah. And then we did
inperson interviews. We narrowed it down. We did in person and then we got down to the finalists. >> Yeah. So very very similar to >> very much pretty much how this is laid out. >> Yes. Exactly. >> We use that as the template for sure.
So, I guess the question is, do we feel like we need to from the start allocate more time to this timeline or do we want to leave ourselves some freedom to extend if we're not seeing the applications that we need or or that
we feel good about or that we need more time to prepare for interviews? >> I I I think that you you you have to push based on what you get, right? and and then and then you you'll you'll see what see what comes in. Um
and then um trying to get through um all of those um in two you know that two week period does seem to be aggressive.
>> Which one are you talking which >> I'm talking about you have Labor Day >> week six weeks preliminary virtual screening. I did my first round of applicants. You have a holiday weekend in there um that that was going to be busy. So, I'm I I would suggest that you
would almost be um screening at least screening through September and then beginning in October, you might have your first first rounds
of um interviews and that will take uh depending on how many you're going to go through um is going to take longer than two weeks. >> Okay. >> Um so >> so I think we're saying preliminary virtual screenings would go would extend by a week
>> at least. >> Okay. And then from there that that also means identify first round applicants as extending by a week >> and then first round interviews. I think I missed a step in that my previous comment. It's the screening and then it's the kind of more formal
interview, but again still in committee. Um that's also two weeks. So we're saying potentially that would also be an extra extra week. >> Yeah. If you could get through two people a week, I think that would be out of six. That's three weeks. That's pretty aggressive. >> Would the interview be at night too?
>> Yes. >> Right. So >> yeah, it's in for we did it at the library, a neutral site. Um we used the Reading Public Library. It can it can be anywhere, but um we ended up booking the room at the at the library last time, so
that that ended up working. >> Okay. >> Um >> so just to clarify, sorry, you're saying you want to do three weeks for preliminary virtual screening, so like phone screens and then three weeks then you'd have identify first round applicants also three weeks because you're going to mirror those two. >> Correct.
>> Okay. So we're going to extend that and then first round interviews also >> additional week. Correct. So that would start the week of the 20, let's say 21st or so, 22nd. >> Well, you've already accept of of of
September and then that's going into the second week of October. >> So that'll end week 11, October 10th. >> You're shifting by three weeks. >> So right now we're shifting by two weeks.
So that means by October 10th we have the finalist applications identified. >> I thought you were added by one plus two. >> Yep. Right. So one week >> one week to the virtual screenings in
the first round. That's a concurrent process. That's one week >> and then you're adding another week to the first round interviews. >> That's two additional weeks. Yep. >> Um the question, would you like us to make these edits following this and send it or do you want to edit this live
quick and approve it? >> Um >> what I would say is let's take take the feedback and then when let's get the committee set up and the committee can have that as their first >> assignment. Okay.
And and I think I know we have um reference checks. Those can be concurrent, right? So you could take that time for interviews and um identify it doesn't you know
>> so the thinking is um we really should reference check only those who are going to be finalists just yeah >> from our timing and not to waste their time. if you're gonna call in their current employer, um that may trigger
some stuff. So, you might want to wait to have the final because then that's public information anyways. It's gonna be public, >> right? But we, you know, if you know, heaven and prevent some, you know, something came back that didn't work out from a reference check standpoint, we're
not then call we're not then bringing them to a public forum before that happens. But we could we could down select from there if we need to. But I think what that says is the week of the 20th of October is when we would
be starting the final interviews. So really what kind of we're talking about like by November 1st essentially is when we have the candidates selected. Um which I think is important that we try to get to that point before the
holiday period. I just I I I can just tell you from experience this was at least a 60hour effort >> from us I I would say at a minimum so that type of time >> subcommittee members or all
>> subcommittee >> yeah okay important for anybody who wants to be on the >> sub no it was intense it was it was >> it was a lot um >> to to to be on a part of that committee so you are busy couple nights a week at
least um u doing that work. So if you're you know anybody's in you know that it was a time commitment um from from that perspective. Mhm. >> Uh I also think um I know I knew you had it in here on page one um the contract
negotiations uh and >> um so I would like to say that there could be a second subcommittee and that second subcommittee could focus on the contract >> while in parallel while you're looking
for a candidate another subcommittee could be focused on the um contract which >> so like key terms and conditions that we want to ensure are covered >> and partnering with KP Law. >> Correct. Correct. And and I think that's
that's something that that if we you want that not to work that out at the end. You want that you want to have that in parallel. And I think that could take such significant amount of time. >> A great idea. Yeah. >> I think um >> I like that too >> because also it's something where in the interviews it's like hey we'd like to
make sure the contract says X. Is that a problem for you? You know, like something that we want to make sure is in there or isn't in there? >> Um potentially. >> Yeah. Like >> or or whe whether it's expressed that way or not. >> I think the idea of having the
subcommittee >> Yeah. >> been done before. So we already have a structure for a GM contract committee and >> Yeah. >> Okay. Back up. >> Yeah. >> And you can do some relative compare. they can at least do some deep diving into others previous current
>> y >> and and then create create one that when we're ready that would be something to Dave's point I think seeing that as part of the final candidate um would be something I think would be important for
that person I'm not saying it's offering the job but this is the contract that you're going to enter into so I think that that would be um >> something that would be very very important have solidified before >> yes >> before that happens >> and that and that this is of course when
the time comes but when we vote to whoever we recommend it's move to enter contract negotiations with X >> as opposed to move that this is the GM and only then you've already >> which is I think what yeah that's the right way to do it
>> that's how we approach the yeah >> the most recent one too so >> that actually isn't we but that's >> oh oh might okay yeah Yeah. >> Um, okay. So, we'll add the subcommittee
for contract negotiation or contract drafting. >> Contract drafting. >> Contract GM >> GM contract >> contract committee. I think it was called >> Yeah. GM contract committee. Love it. >> And I think as before, I would put one member with the cab. Yeah. >> On that.
>> So, let's So, we have the two subcommittees then. Um, so that's that's great. And these are these would be executive sessions uh for both of these uh topics. Yes. >> Yes and no. Um >> so you'll do so the GM search committee
and yes like mostly will be done in executive session. There are things that you will not be able to do in executive session. One thing I noted in here on off the first page um with this little >> Yeah. >> Um >> interview questions. >> Yes. So that was a point last time we just might want to consider um you're
not open meeting law prohibits you from creating them in executive session but there might be an exemption um that had been discussed with KP law before just like a note but generally your meetings will be regular session and then you'll enter executive accordingly. So, let's
just take the action that if we're if we if we cannot create them in executive session, then we should put that on the agenda for August. And maybe Susan, we could talk about having a set of questions again for kind of pre
preliminary screening and then first round >> and you can have you can even have your committee draft all those and then recommend it to you at the August meeting as a full board as well. Okay. I don't recall that we did that. I we we
did not do that in the first search. We did not we didn't want to expo expose any questions in a public forum because then then you can if you're paying attention you can go back and look. So, >> which is part of the argument for
keeping it in executive, but I definitely think it's something we'll want to discuss with hotline. >> So, definitely it you to be fair, you ask the same questions of every candidate. >> Yes. >> But, you know, that's the whole the whole point is to draw something out
while you're having those discussions, right? I mean, that's the that's the the questions are supposed to be designed to be interactive. Um but but yeah, no, we did we did not the the final just as we did on the last one. Yeah, we they're they're public because we put them out
there, but you can't you can't give them out there ahead of time. I I don't agree with that. Sorry. >> So So Erica, what is the point that you're making that in you cannot formulate questions in executive session? >> Yeah. So you just generally that's the
guidance on just before you decide to do or not do that. I would just check the paper law and then make a resization going in because we have been doing them in public. I just wanted to bring that to your attention to just make sure that it's properly done for when you do it. Um it actually I think is a specific
bullet on the subcommittee checklist on from the state. So I'll send that to you guys as well. >> Yeah, good good point because Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay. So we'll proceed uh to
vote to form um both the search committee and the contract committee. Um let's just talk briefly about the membership of each. Um you know certainly the recommendation would be two RMLD commission commissioners and
one cab member for each of these. Um Susan would also be a non- voting member of the committee uh to help move us through the process. Um and then we also have some optional um participants
maybe mut uh municipal utility expert or maybe an existing RMLD employee. Um, obviously the more people we have participate, the more schedules we have to work with, which makes it hard. Um,
so I think we should be super thoughtful about again the time commitment we're asking somebody to jump into as well as scheduling. Um, does anybody have a particular opinion around any of the optional participants?
>> Have we did last time did we have an external utility expert. >> No, but the two times before there was there was the two times before had um an employee representative and a outside person. They were actually pretty good big committees, but then I think in 2022
it went down to just the basics. >> So when Colleen was hired, there was the larger >> Yeah. >> committee. >> Do we know how long that process took? that was
>> took a while >> that I I I wasn't >> that on um when Colleen was hired that search committee >> when when they had um we had to do Phil so you have to answer this question
>> John Ste was involved right >> I was here for that now so what's the specific question when she was hired >> we have what was the process we used outside experts >> oh report it So >> new most recent would it make sense to
do that again or not? and they had an employee on the search committee as well which >> so one thing on that one I Susan and I discussed this as well is um uh it's not on the agenda but we we we
are planning to release another employee survey um and so there's an opportunity potentially to ask for input around like qualities of a general manager as part of that survey and use that as input >> I think that that >> that Yes,
>> we said full in full. >> So that would be an alternative to having asking an employee to spend 60 hours of their time in the evening. >> That sounds what you just said. >> Would the outside person be a paid consultant? >> Only if you elected to hire an outside
paid consultant. >> You can't see somebody doing it for free for 60 hours. >> You can tap other general managers to to volunteer their time. Yeah, that's I will say the biggest challenge I've ever had with all of this committee type stuff is just getting
everyone to be able to attend and that's what rules the process more than anything else >> and you know to to you don't want to go ahead without them because you want to give everybody their ability to have their say in the process and you know that's way you you really have to have people fully engaged
and just to go back to one second the public body checklist for executive session Just so you know where we got that one of the last bullets here is the preliminary screening committee may not enter executive session to prepare questions to ask candidates or to discuss the review process. Such
discussions must occur in open session. So we will double check with KP law because I do I totally understand your concern and it's it's ours too >> and >> and you're not a you're a you're not a quorum. You're you're technically a
subcommittee, right? So is it is it I don't know if it's ne it's not >> you're still going you're going though executive session so you have to have reasons to go to executive session and you have to go by those >> yeah it always gets into a quagmire right but
>> but the whole the whole point of it is to ask questions that someone doesn't know right that's the >> some of it >> and I would just stress one other thing please everybody here. When we do start
getting resumes in, keep in mind all of the candidates are not public. No one should mention a name. No one should reference the community. I can't stress that enough. It is really really important to the candidates. And I I just say this right now, they're
listening. We will be very sensitive with their information and it will be kept >> non-public until they choose to go public, right? Should they make it to the second round? >> Lot of NEPA hunting to do >> the initial interviews. You're not going
to do them through Teams calls. You're going to bring them in person because your teams calls you you can bang out a lot faster than in person. You have more flexible people. >> True. >> That was the initial screening we did through Teams and then we picked out of that we picked people that we wanted to bring in >> for the first round.
>> First round in person. >> It says ver preliminary virtual screenings. So that suggests that you would be teams. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And then you get your first round applicants. >> I think that makes sense. >> That was the thought we had.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. So why don't we focus for a second on um nominations for these two committees. Um, so unless anybody has any other comments on the makeup of the committees, we'll focus on the two vote
BOC members and one cab member. We look start with the um screening committee. Does anybody have a nomination for themsel or someone else? >> I think a nomic vivic representative.
Yes. >> Second. >> Okay. >> Would you accept? >> I accept. I accept. I accept. >> Okay. Excellent. Um, >> I'll I'll be on the screening committee.
I I'm I'll do either or screening and or or I'll be nominating people. Yeah. >> Yeah. Whatever you want to do. I nominate Dave for the contracts. >> Okay, >> I accept that. I I think you'd be Well, I mean, probably any of us would want to be on the screening committee.
>> Yeah. >> I mean, I think I don't know. >> You have any interest in >> Yes. >> scared scared me with the 60 hours there. >> So, it was it was a decent amount of time. >> Yeah. 60 hours by then pie on the fire
side. >> And you can do meetings not at night. We do them in the morning at lunch if you want. >> We did meet in the middle of the day a couple times. >> Not sure what my following. >> Yes, you feel guilty in the car. >> Yeah. Can do a rule of thumb. Is anybody not
interested? Start there. besides band funding. >> I mean, I I would be um happy to participate on the contract committee. I don't think that would be >> I'd probably be more inclined on the contract side, too, if there's others
who are so inclined on the screening. >> Sounds like we have a consensus. >> Well, so okay. >> So, I'll be on the contract to make sure. So maybe Dave and Reg's contract and Ray and Bob screening.
>> That sounds like a comedy show. >> It does. >> Show. >> Um Yeah. >> Okay. >> Is that what you want to do? >> All right. >> Did you have a >> No, you're you're for it. >> Yeah, exactly.
>> Um >> about um contract. >> I'm not interested in a contract. So I don't know if you are if we want to won't make the person select you know >> but so I can't say that I would do it but there's nobody else then I'll you
know step up to the >> he's already doing one so >> right >> do you want I was going to say do we do we if the cab feel uh that they want to have a representative on the contract >> we really wouldn't have a vote anyways
right we would just be >> you would disre regarded. Okay. So, no leaping over the doz right now. >> I got I think we'll take you up on that.
>> No, no participation. >> That's Charlie. You can ask Charlie if he wants to do it, but >> we can email him. >> Yeah. Yeah. He can always add him later, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I would just the one thing I would suggest is that we come out with
four or five because >> give give the full board >> more than just three. >> Yeah, I don't think we restricted it to three. >> You could have three if whatever you'd have three commissioners on it. >> I mean >> uh we can't have three commissioners
that >> I mean how many screening committee? So it does I think we should um >> I think we should just make sure we leave ourselves room in this process that it could be it's it's like a target number but it could be more than that
needed. But you could also put in a substitute, right, for each you have a subcommittee. It's two people, but you also have an alternate. So, >> yes, sorry, we're talking about candidate numbers, >> but I do agree with you. Is that is that allowed to have a substitute committee
member if that feels that feels like >> KP askpite juror, right? Yeah. >> Yeah. But the alternate juror sits
through the entire hearing and then >> Yeah. >> feedback on only some >> and that that's that would be a problem, right? >> So my only as the as the >> casino of the board at this point. He would say this is like the only thing we
do is and it's true. which is basically that's the one thing we do on the DS and we have some other things that we do but they don't they don't add up to a lot they do but um my point being that the full board should have a good slate to
choose from and it should be all five that really is thinking about >> and that the screening committee is really just screening like okay obviously these folks aren't >> well it's screening and it's first round so but I think the point is >> we don't have to force ourselves to three if there's four fabulous
candidates. >> Exactly. >> So, >> I guess I would say >> we are not going to just have two. >> Sure. >> You know that. So, we need to It's like a three to five is ideal. >> Yeah. And I I guess I would just tweak that to say aim for five, but if you don't have five, then don't bring five
forward, you know, and then we'd have the it also could maybe save you time because you're not nashing teeth over >> over it makes your job easier. for the subcommittee members. Is that direction clear enough? >> I mean, do you guys agree with it or is
it >> you want to have a chair >> your side? >> I I don't think we can make that decision until we see who the applicants are. Sure. I mean, if >> you know on on the applicant side, um they're now coming into a public session
where they're opening themselves out to job and career change and whatever. >> Yeah, that's true. and and if it's only a 15 or 10% chance you're going to get the job, do you really want to expose yourself to that sort of public presentation? So,
>> so yes, I I think three sort of a minimum. I think five starts to get a lot more choices, but what what the number is I think will depend on what we get for applicants and
>> and and there are a lot of lot of value that you can have in bringing that forward. >> You asked a different question around the chair. I think that will be part of the subcommittee >> agenda to just try to >> That's the first thing we did in the
very first meeting. >> There have been other times where the subcommittee chair was assigned. Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. So, um, we're going to form the Let's talk about
the second. >> Now that we've had the discussion, do we want to go back and read the motions? >> Yeah, that's what I'm just trying to make sure I understand what this first motion is. Appointed preliminary screening committee >> and >> and contract committee.
>> Um, okay. So, we're going to form those two committees. Can you amend? Yeah, just add that. move that the board of commissioners appoint a preliminary screening committee and a contracts committee for the consideration of applicants and interviews for the GM position.
>> Want a second? >> Second. >> All those in favor? Okay. So formed. Um okay. And then so who wants to move for >> I move that the border commissioners
appoint um Ray Porter and uh >> Cer >> Cer, sorry, Bob. Um to the screening committee and Dave Talbert and Rick
Swanson uh to the uh contract committee um for the general manager search. Sorry guys, I really should get to know you guys sometime. >> You want to second that one? >> Once a month's not enough. >> All those in favor? >> There's a cab.
>> Okay. Can I get a motion? >> Uh s uh moved that the citizens advisory board appointed back to the general manager search committee. >> Second. >> Okay. All in favor? >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Excellent. We are formed. Um okay. So
then we have two additional documents. One is the GM job advertisement and the second is the job description. Um, I don't think we need a motion on this,
but we just want feedback or consensus. I know this was sent out uh for feedback direct student. Anything that you wanted to clarify? >> You wanted to just quickly I'll just run through what was changed. >> Where is what page is it again in the book? >> So 142 is the advertisement
and you'll see the current recommended one and then the one from last time with edits. >> Right. So, the edits we we just obviously changed some normal numbers that we just had to update and number of um customers we were serving and
employees we had and that kind of thing. Um the salary I expect you'll have a little more discussion about that here. But what that was something we put in because there is um new new uh legislation going in this fall about
>> actually I think that's a little hint. >> Are you guys with us now? >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> You there? >> Yeah. Okay. >> Page 146, right? >> 142. >> 142. >> I just kind of didn't want to be rude and cute. Um but there is new legislation coming out about you know
transparency in pay. Um Pam and I had talked this over. I had looked at some data of the MLPS that we would compare ourselves to in any way, you know, like a little smaller, a little larger. We
took out the outlier of the one that has gas, electric, and uh telecom. and we kind of just said what are all the salaries in this group of 13 MLPS that were ranging from 225 to 275 and um so
we did we didn't do anything more than that so that's kind of what the range is right here um and you guys may want to discuss that amongst the the group here tonight that's up to you um the other
things that I changed just slightly Um, our old advertisement said references and salary requirements. Um, we for legal reasons, we like to use a an employment
application to gather references because it requires the applicant to certify what they're saying is true and can be checked by us. And so I opted to instead of getting a list of references to get
references that were on an application. The application gives me more information to later do a background check as well. Um so that's one of the things that I changed. And then the other was to um also ask for a cover letter. Um we had not asked for that in
our previous one. The other the previous applica the previous um advertisement that I saw too for some reason was very specific to in-house candidates. So I think that was kind of part of what required a little bit of changes here for us. And I did put a little language
as far as the new link of where to find instruction etc along with the deadline um for that information to come back to us and to include some of the contingencies because when we were dealing with only internal candidates obviously those people had been already
vetted, tested, met the contingencies to working at RMLD and I wanted to be sure that any applicant understands the testing and everything that is required of this particular position. >> Full full disclosure, I did talk to
Susan about um references and and I my fear was we would see the references because I when you get an applicant, you like the the references, but it's not going to interfere. >> Nope. I will make sure everyone sees and
the references that we check everybody can share that information, but it has to be um it has to be done in the um executive session because we're going to be >> I'm going to have to check on that too when that's going to hit exactly because
it may actually come out when they become a public candidate. Um, I may be doing it when they agree to go on to the next one as a contingency to go on. Right. >> Did you want to do reference checks before they're they're like a final
candidate? >> Well, that's this is the point I was making too is that you don't really want I we we do a background check and reference checks. The background check is the last thing it happens when they're, you know, we're ready to offer them a job. And those are the contingencies to coming aboard as an
employee and that file goes into your personnel file. And >> we we do like on the venture side, we do background check right up front. You want to know there's no hidden skeletons right up there. So you should I mean I would do that up front because if you
can that's all the police records and all that, right? >> Yeah. >> I wouldn't I wouldn't do that too early. Yeah. I mean, if we've got 20 applications, we don't need to do 20 background checks. 10 of them are just going to be Yeah. No, but but but fair enough. But you don't want to you don't want to you don't want to nominate
anyone. >> Oh, yeah. >> Who would be flagged? >> So, you're suggesting that the background check and the references are done at the same time. >> No, the reference checks are done when you have a serious candidate. Before you choose someone to be a serious candidate, you've already done a
background check. Um, I would think anybody who's putting in for this job really, their background check is going to be clear anyway. I don't think there's a big risk there. >> You never know. >> That's why you do it. But >> you never know. >> No, no, no. Please don't don't don't.
>> No. I I you know, a driving license, you know. >> It also does cost money to do check. So I would I would al I would re I see your point like maybe we don't contract without that done but we we should probably narrow the candidate pool.
>> I can vet this a little further. My caution with that is the background check isn't something I'm going to discuss in a meeting. You know what I mean? So for me, it's just really part of the the closure on the candidate to make sure that we've we've checked
everything in the end because there's a tendency that if I'm doing it while we're you don't use it to determine whether they can be a candidate, but to determine that they cannot be a candidate. Well, I think I guess that's probably the point is is we don't want to necessarily bring somebody to a
public forum and interview them as a potential one of three or four or five final candidates if they're not going to pass background checks. So what I what I can do is I can talk to my colleague >> who does because for for for us he he
does it that's the first thing he does and I want to know if there is a free analysis one can do to make sure people who are who they are you know people >> this can be worked out also right as part of the process we don't have to
have we don't have to do this now we can yeah >> we can talk about it with the actual committee that's and we can make a decision Okay. >> And in the >> you're on the committee, so you can you can >> you can argue all day long. >> Yeah. >> I mean, you'll help decide. >> Yes. Well,
>> I noticed that you put in the salary line from the last. >> Was that not in the last? >> It was not in the last one. Like I said, the legislation's coming out in October to encourage people to actually mandate that you put a salary range, but it's
very um specific in that it's where you expect to hire is what they're requiring. It's not necessarily demonstrative of the whole entire range you might have for the position, but where you expect to hire is what you're supposed to put in there. That's the
language that they have in the statute. And they the statute says you have to put that in the job >> advertisement. >> Advertisement. >> Yeah. The job posting when you post the job. Yeah. And it's it's supposed to equalize, you know, fairness in hiring.
>> So that someone knows the range of the job that they're going for even if they're underpaid in their current position for other various reasons. >> Yeah. >> Are you advocating to remove it? >> No, I was just curious. um you know I I guess I was curious to know why it was
added here and if yeah what what the advantage is I mean I understand if it's a legal requirement or whatever but apart from that you know is there a I don't know I guess it feels disadvantageous necessarily to sort of
post a range of salary because >> yeah it just changes your negotiation you know with the candidates >> and since it's not required till October. We had this chat too, but I would I would actually advocate since we don't have to to remove it. But um
and is it generally assumed that anybody who applies to this position in their job description understands the after hours requirements here? >> Um it's not just 40 hours. You're here. Yeah, I'm sure that I I would like to think that anyone
taking this position would would expect that they are the general manager of a utility, but I hear you. You know, >> usually it's in the >> Yeah. >> saying you're expected all hour. >> Yeah. For us, >> you can add to it. >> Yeah. If if it's not listed like the job
description >> and like you just got appointed as a commissioner now on the other one. >> I'm not mine didn't have that. That's not respons. >> You should have two hours. >> We are. >> So, so >> I I would advocate for striking the
sentence and I thought I heard Rich say it too. >> I I would too. Um but I don't Yeah, I mean I don't know all the consequences of that. >> I think a lot of job posters do have that now. >> I think everybody is transitioning. Ma mass law did it because I think discrimination cases people saying like
>> I should have been in this range. I was never high in that range. You hired this guy at this range and why didn't I get in that range? >> I mean >> so m I think that's why mass salaries are public information. The people who are applying for these jobs are going to know what are >> well exactly. So that's what targeted for why.
>> So why not just post it and say hire? I don't I don't see any >> I mean, if you if if the group certainly expects to hire lower than this range, then that's another thing. That's another >> I just I worry that it pegs us that nobody's going to want less than the top number, which is what we we've never
paid that much. >> It's all based on experience and qualifications. >> I mean, this is the public meeting, so anybody that's doing any research is going to know it now. >> Slow it down to 160. >> It really is. I think they all know anyways. I do believe they all know
anyway. But uh I think it's it's whether or not you interpreted that it expresses a willingness of us to pay that that's a different that's a different topic. But I think people know the salaries that are out there. I like I don't think that's you know hidden.
>> I'm rereading it. There are two minor changes I would propose. Um and one is an addition where we're saying that they should have all these qualifications adding after strategic planning including for >> sorry are you looking at the job
advertisement or the job description >> um I guess I'm looking at the job advertise >> what page >> 8143 >> okay >> so uh contracting go you so the the the second paragraph from the bottom adding
like and strategic planning including uh strong, you know, peak power management and efficiency uh uh topics or something like that because it just says, oh, manage the utility, but we really need to keep managing like peak load and have that be something we really want
somebody to understand with that. >> Let's be able to talk to Megan about peak power load. So, so I I would I would say we just want to keep that that's clear in the job functions. >> Um it might be a little bit too much for
for the advertisement, but I would agree that it should >> pretty long ads already. >> Well, right. So, >> I mean here, but >> so nobody wants to add you know it is the single biggest thing somebody can do to save us a couple million a year, >> you know, is get it really take it to
the next level. We are live at any time. Any proposed changes? Mr. >> Does anybody feel if people don't like >> I'm okay with the phrase as included peak including peak management >> including including strong peak management you know aggressive peak
management just to make sure that we're really thinking about this right now. >> I would put strong or aggressive. >> Okay. It's >> I might go peak power management. I don't because peak is a adjective not a >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. Fine. including peak management.
>> Yeah, if you guys are okay with that. >> It's on the It's on the screen. >> Y including >> peak or peak load management like Jason said. Okay. >> Load management. >> Load load might be better. >> No problem. >> Planning peak load management.
um to save words, I would trim the last sentence in the second paragraph because as I read it, it's like, yeah, it's true, but are we are they really interacting with utility related organizations at the federal level? What does that even mean? What's a utility? what's a federal utility related
organization and what's a local utility related or you know it's like yeah and that and that it is subject to 164 but it's also >> EPA FK >> the last sentence in the second paragraph >> and then yes it's subject to the 164 but it's not the only thing it's subject to
so I it it seems to go without saying you know >> so I guess you have utility related organizations would be APA, NEPA, MEM, >> but NEPA is not federal >> meme. >> Those aren't federal government.
>> No, no, no. But >> but that's a state. That's a state state and local, right? I mean, so so all that's why I said >> APA is public transmission assets through regional. >> Yeah. >> Um
I mean NEPA and APA both schedule like sessions going down to Washington DC and lobbying with your representatives. So that would be a federal level. >> Yeah, you need to keep us goes to that one. >> So I mean, yeah, >> I would I would also I would agree to
keep it and I would also keep the master general law. We we want somebody who maybe that's not the only thing it's subject to, but they need to understand that very plenty of experience. >> But it goes back to this thing of like this the only thing that ever matters is that one. >> It doesn't say it is exclusively subject. that want to add just add comma
and other relevant statutes or other relevant laws because it it's just it's that other discussion that we need to go back to >> or is it just adding a word including chapter 16 the position is subject to >> Massachusett laws and to laws including that. How about that?
>> Including chapter 164 laws and >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So before chapter 164 including >> you want to be in the contracting committee. >> Well because I mean like you got to pass the general procurement laws >> right
>> and then you also got to do chapter 164 which is how you run a white plant. >> Right. Exactly. Um, and may I'd say >> I don't know what elected officials the GM is what elected officials have you interacted with in the past two weeks. Mike
>> elected town manager, assistant county manager. >> They're not elected. >> You and me. >> You've interacted with us that that you have >> a board. >> Yeah. >> I'm just saying I don't know how often the GM is actually down there at Beacon Hill interacting.
>> Oh, yeah. I think >> you told me to shut up. Yeah. Just go ahead and say it. Jason. >> Okay, fine. Shutting up now. >> I'm done. No, we're good. That's fine. >> Okay. Any other
comments or changes on the advertisement? >> Okay. Um, add on the posting. Um, >> there was one sentence added by you, Pam, >> on the job description. >> I'm sorry. Yes, the job description. Can we just go back to the ad really quick?
I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. So, we are approving this changed ad with all of these marks. Um, including the ones we just did. >> Oh, sorry. Including the ones we just did.
You can which is including 164 and then including peak power management. We're keeping the salary range as >> Yeah, in in spite of promising Bob, I would shut up. um you know we don't mention the possibility of bonuses and I
know we do we have paid bonuses in the past and we've done them every year I think and I think it's it will be part of the compensation. So, do we want to when we're saying salaries, do we want to make a range and then it could include bonuses for meeting exceptional
goals or >> that that's too much detail for this. This is salary expected range. How how that's formatted. >> It it could be 225 and then the differences in bonuses with probably an upper limit expectation
that if they do a really good job, they might get to the 275 number. 274,9.95. >> Kind of what I'm thinking. >> But to me, that's that's I think you'd put that into the contracts discussion. So, >> okay, that makes sense. >> Yeah, this is just a gross range of
where your your compensation would fall. It's not >> then you want to change salary range, not total compensation. >> Yeah, maybe maybe we could say count compensation compensation. >> Compensation is a better term, I think. >> There we go. >> Yeah. Yeah. All right. The expected
compensation for this position is a hiring salary the expected compensation. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The only thing is if you include benefits and things like that is well over 275. >> The compensation can be a lot all of that stuff is comprehensive
benefits. So >> I think well the benefit me is is your pension healthare >> and all of that in right is going to be well over 275. That's my point. So >> is if we say the expected compensation range then that's not
>> a reason >> what is the way what's the way to to do this that gets at >> the it's the expected base salary range >> say what if you add what if we just add >> oper it's in there
>> so that you say if you use compensation it's two you know plus RLD offers comprehensive benefit the package full that covers the >> it's B 225 to 275 was intended to be the base salary range. >> Yeah, not
>> you're not saying total. >> Yeah, that's the >> I'd keep the salary myself because I think you're you're going to have those discussions and you're going to be able to say what you're willing to do and what you're not vague. It can cover a lot of things.
>> Go back to salary. Yeah, >> I I I would just go back to what it was. >> Salaries negotiate. >> I guess my my my point on this is that salary, you know, some people call it salary inflation. It it salary pressure
goes up and it goes up fast and you can't claw it back. You can't get it back. >> And so anything to be conservative at the front end is helpful. Otherwise, you know, as soon as you have an the top executive makes this much, then
everybody else makes, you know, the the I don't know, the curb goes up and it goes up really fast. And we want to compensate good people and, you know, this isn't about that. It's just about making sure that the pace of that upward pressure is manageable.
That that's that that's kind of my I guess my fear and my point in the >> So for the sake of the opening position, do you want to change it to 200 to 250 >> and then there's your entrance. Is that what you want to do? >> I
>> or 225 to 250 because I know you're going to say there's people that make already make more than 200. >> Can I share just a little bit of data just to say? Um, so there were just there were four four out of the group of 13 that was sort of in in and around our
range and size and possible um likenesses. There were four under 250 um above 225. There were five in the range of 250 to 256 and there were four 266 to
277. So, >> but one second there though because we we gota if we're going to start using comps. First of all, a lot of those people might might have been there 10 to 20 years. Some of those are are doing multiple lines of business including
broadband, gas, and so there only one and we took that out. We didn't count that. >> But I'm just saying just putting those numbers out there. It's it's kind of goes to Rich's point of like we're all like racing to the top here. >> So, >> yeah. I I'm not I'm not leaving out
anything. I'm just telling you what's there. It's just it's the data that anyone can >> Are are those um people with some experience? Is this entry level for GM or
>> I don't know who those people are and so >> just existing salaries across right are similar. It's 40. >> The largest >> we're not the largest home we're running. We're running one business, not three. So that's >> and we're leaving that one out.
>> Leaving that one outp that do ga that do broadband and there's a whole bunch that do gas. So there's not only one, there's a lot. So I'm just saying >> there really isn't just in terms of the data here just there isn't any entries on those gas, water or telecom lines for
any maybe one or two have a water and a telecom. Everything else is blank just like I think this point this is you're supposed to put in what is what do you think that you will land at in terms of expected >> salary range >> I think based on the data that we just
heard that is a very reasonable expected salary range does it have to be where we land if we're finding somebody who's at a different >> why don't we >> experience level finish we do not have to offer that
exact number but we're we're trying to give our best guess of where we will land from a salary perspective and if we use market information that is likely where we would land. Why even give a range that's 50,000? Why not just say your expected salary for
the position is 250? Because that's dead center. And obviously it's could be higher, could be a little bit lower, but the potential salary for this position is 250. >> Typically, it's the range. >> It's a range. >> Well, every posting I see now is a
range. >> Yeah. It doesn't take into consideration the varying levels of experience. >> I mean, 260 would shave a little conservatism there. I would put a little bit of conservatism there. I I've said my piece and so >> how about 20 to 26. There you go.
>> Thank you. >> I know it's shaving it's shaving pennies. >> You're gonna hire the person you want from the president. They won't come or they're not. >> I mean you're also sing to candidates, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> I mean, you got to look at it both ways.
You know, >> you might I mean, you got to make sure it's >> competitive. and that you bring out the best candidates. >> Yeah. What was the proposal on the table? 220 to 260. >> I heard a median of 250 and plus or
minus 25 puts us right in that range. So plus or minus 10%. I I'm I'm happy with the numbers presented. >> I'm I'm I'm fine with them. Leave it. >> Okay. All right. We'll leave it.
Okay. Um, so job description. Moving on. Yep. >> That was the job posting. Um, you said there was a >> just the one sentence at the end of the job summary paragraph. Um Pam, you had
asked for um something that would reiterate the mission >> and I just tweaked the sentence that was there a little while ensuring the organization is focused on delivering reliable, lowcost, increasingly non-carbon energy to its electric customers. >> The the other piece that I um
uh would like to add is around the experience. So we in the job advertisement we reference having senior leadership experience but we don't do that in the experience section of the job description. >> We just say like 10 years of any facet.
We should probably say like increasingly >> um increasing senior increasing leadership experience or >> I'll have to go back and look >> progressive. Thank you. That's exactly progressive leadership experience >> qualities. Where do you want that to go?
>> Underneath the experience bucket where we have 10 years of all of these different things. We need to specify that there should be two >> progressive leadership experience. >> Thank you. >> How about the last the fourth one? 10 years of experience in progressive
leadership and project management. >> Sure. added in the last >> um also the special requirements that the last it's a valid is it say valid driver's license not necessarily a mass
>> so as long as you have a valid driver's license you're okay >> doesn't have to be Massachusetts >> it should say valid driver's license and it doesn't have to be in mass It could be >> that's valid. That's the reason we rewarded it like it is so that it
doesn't have to be mass because just that it's as long whatever license you have as long as it's valid for you to drive in mass. That's what that says. >> Valid in Massachusetts, not a valid mass license. >> Yeah. It doesn't say valid Massachusetts license. It just says valid in Mass. So, whatever you have >> has to be let you drive here.
>> That's the craziest wording. That's like a lawyer. >> It was a lawyer. >> Valid driver license. that that that I I would that's confused. I >> that that could be an international license also. >> There's no such thing as a national license. You get one issued per the state, right? Per
>> No, no, you get international driving licenses also. >> You don't actually get one. I've driven in Europe and you don't really get a license. You >> get a car, you can get international drivers permit, but all right.
Um but I don't know who made the point about uh additional hours, you know, representing RMLD uh you know, and and conferences um offhour meeting, off-site meetings. I
think that that if you are going to >> that's general manager, >> the general manager represents RMLD um at at at um off-site offhour meetings, however you wanted to say
that. Um I think that that would be something good and and that is an essential job function uh >> extolling our MLDD mission to local governments um third parties,
however you want to say it but you know expectation is to represent our D in offhour um offour times. Do you want this as a separate number or do you want to somehow incorporate it into number four like that um
interfacing situation? >> I think your point is around like there's there's evenings and other you know commitments >> maybe that's expected evening um expected evening work is you know off
hour um time commitments are expected from the general manager. It could go in six also. Feels like a little clause. >> Yeah, I would I I would make it a separate number and just to specify it's like a
>> it's a schedule thing >> in addition to it. >> I think you just should make it general off hours because it's not just going to be meetings. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. you know, general manager the record. >> Yeah. >> Responsibilities. >> Responsibilities are required by the
general manager. >> Author is including >> I would just say responsibilities. >> Recording stopped. >> All right. So, um I think we're good. Any other comments on the job description?
>> No, I think that's fine. >> Great. So, we >> recording in progress >> and the plan was to put the advertisement out Monday. >> Yes. >> Um, >> why don't we just do this? You can just
send the subcommittee um for the search the final posting over email. >> So, I think You guys, either committee or you as a board need to vote to approve this
posting and direct HR to post it. I think you have to make that. Susan, we >> Oh, we don't have that in motion at that. >> We didn't do that. Okay. >> We just we just said we had to verbally agree. We had to >> Well, we just It's a job posting. So,
it's it's done. We've agreed to it. Love it. Why you need to vote? >> Oh, I said VC works to approve the JD, but I didn't give you the suggested vote to refer to the altitude director of adjotic post advertisement to be agreed upon channels
because we also have channels here. >> Motion stated I Erica. >> So moved. >> So moved. >> So second. >> All those in favor? Yes. Thank you. >> For both the ad and job description and to direct Susan to post it.
>> Yes. and we'll put it on the website and HR Jazz puts it out to some job boards including LinkedIn etc. and we'll do NEPA and AA. >> Great. >> Perfect. >> Okay, thank you all for >> Is there anyone else that is just to
make sure I got it right? We have the full committees that we need. We didn't need anyone else appointed to those committees. >> What you can do is I think you guys decided to not appoint anyone else. However, if you are in the committee and the committee decides they want to add a couple people, that's totally fine as well. Okay.
>> And then just to be clear as well, resumes, application packets, all that are just going to the committee, not anyone else. >> Yes. >> And I'm I'm going to be part of the just as a >> voting member. >> Yep. Non- voting member to the um committee that presents the candidates,
but not to the or do you want me at the contract meetings to? Doesn't matter to me, but just let >> Why don't you guys decide who else you might need? The contract subcommittee can decide if they want anybody else. >> So, you envision being at all of these committee meetings? >> No, I'm just envisioning doing whatever you want me to do.
>> Is that the right answer? >> What you meant by being part of >> careful what you >> search committee is uh Susan will reach out to you guys to schedule the meetings um and she'll do basically what Erin and I do, posting, drafting, that stuff. So, she'll basically be doing that admin
work for that committee. Um, the contract committee could go whatever way you guys think best >> would. Okay. Scheduling. Um, okay. So, August 27th would be our next
uh regular session. Do we want to do an executive session? You said you need by the 12th. So that would put us at August 6. >> If we're going to do a Wednesday, >> no, just I I could do the 7th, but I
couldn't. I could do the fifth or the seventh. I can't do this. August >> of August. >> Oh, yeah. I'm out that all week. My son's getting married tonight. >> Cool. >> What's on this 12? No. >> Is it possible to do like a teams one? Probably only take like 15 20 minutes in Vermont all week. >> Can we have a will we have a quorum on
the fifth? If we did the fifth, >> is anybody else out for the fifth? >> This is second session for update on union negotiation. >> We don't need the count for that one. >> No, good. I can I can do the fifth. I can do the fifth.
>> Just a second. Checking. Uh yeah, I can do the fifth. >> Okay. Do the fifth for a virtual executive session. >> Uh time six five >> six.
>> Yes. Good. >> Yes. That's virtual, right? >> Virtual. Yeah. >> Oh, sorry. Is that where >> Yeah. Why? I I haven't booked a thing for the next three months.
>> Okay. Um can we just get uh meeting invite out for all of these? Just been by the calendar. Okay. Uh any other questions or concerns on any of the upcoming meetings?
It's the th the Thursday. Um, November 14th, I don't think is correct. Right. And I I can't do I could do a Thursday. >> Probably be November 13th Thursday. >> I couldn't do a Thursday. >> So, but was there a reason we couldn't
do a Wednesday? Was that like a conflict with a town meeting or something? >> November. We must have November 14. I think that's it. November 14th. >> Yeah. So it would be the 13th, but we're it's not the 12 the 12. >> We can plan for the Oh, well, there was
a kill school building committee meeting. Maybe that was why. >> Unless Ray wants to go to that. >> He threw me out. >> All right, then. We're all We're all in. >> It's up to you guys now. I thought >> Ray, we want you at that meeting.
>> All right, >> guys. So, Wednesday, November 12th, and that's just a potential a potential additional budget meeting if we don't get through it. Is it the 13th or the 12th? >> The 12th. >> This what it says for >> That's right.
>> Wednesday, November 12th. >> Okay. >> I I I think it's just you just plan for it. Like last time we did the budget and two things. So this time also just plan for it. So it's not potential. It's just >> on the calendar and canceled if not
needed. >> Right. Is the 19th happening? November 19th if we're doing the 12th. >> So 19th is the definite date. 12th is the potential date in case we need two dates to get the budget done. >> Oh, all right. Okay. >> We could block that though. The 12th
could be the actual meeting and the 19th could be the extra additional and stuff. >> All right. So I got to save the time either way. >> Yeah, either way. Uh, do we need to >> do any warrant schedule stuff?
>> Warrant August. It's going to be Dave doing AP and doing >> Yeah. Just think, can we just maybe for next time just the year? >> I have the actual full. >> Okay. All right. >> Excellent. Okay. Um
>> John >> motion second >> move that the army LD citizens advisory board adjourn regular session. Second all in favor [Music] >> move that the board of commissioners
adjourn regular session reporter and roll call required reporter I >> Richson I >> Bob I >> okay thanks everybody thank you
>> thank you for this camera There.