people still joining and I think we're still I know um S may be a minute or two late too >> S's on I see him >> okay >> and we're just waiting for um Miss Heric and I know that Maddie is keeping track
of who's coming on um so um I I believe I'll just make my announcement now Madam Chair or do you want to wait till you call the order? >> Um totally up to you. Do do you need me to call the meeting to order before? >> No. No. This is just um all of the the
finance committee and the school committee have been posted um in advance of this meeting. Um and we have a number of town staff joining us tonight. So, we've put um a number of people, the uh finance committee and the um school
committee are co co-hosts on this um on this uh call as well as the select board. And that just enables them to be able to speak easier when the time comes if if you have any questions or if you're during public comment. So, it'll be easier for those folks to uh
participate. Um and then of course, Maddie will be in control of, you know, elevating people, asking them to unmute. that sort of thing. This is to keep good control in the meeting. Um, since we anticipate a fair number of people tonight, um, so we ask that everybody who's a co-host to make sure that they
leave the host tools up to Maddie. I will not even touch them. Um, and that she will let people in and out. She's keeping track of attendance and that sort of thing. So, um, that's all. We just ask that Maddie be the only person who, um, lets people in. Miss Heracasi
is here. Fantastic. Okay. All right. I'm gonna go ahead and I'm going to call the July 28th select board meeting to order. Um I am going to do a roll call vote um for the select board.
Um let me go down here. Uh Karen Rose Gillis >> here. >> Uh Chris Haley >> here. >> Uh Karen Heric >> here. Uh S Bante. >> Yeah, >> thank you. S and Melissa Murphy here. Um
S is not going to have his camera on. He had to tend to a family thing tonight, so he is listening in, but he is not going to have his camera on. Um Maddie, do we have any other boards or committees that need to call to order?
>> Um I know there's a few members from both finance committee and school committee. I'm not sure if there's a quorum right now. Okay. >> Um I I think I only saw Tom and Sean from the school committee and Ed Ross from the finance committee.
>> Okay. All right. Um for both of those committees, if you if it comes to a point that you do have a quorum, feel free just to um raise your hand or interrupt and we'll make sure you call to order appropriately. Um, tonight's
uh, Zoom meeting is being broadcast on RCTV. I believe they're also on Xfinity Channel 9 and FiOS channel 31. Also live on RCTV's YouTube channel. I am going it's on our agenda and we are going to go forward with the pledge of allegiance now.
>> Okay. [laughter] [gasps] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and
justice. >> Justice for all. >> Thank you Karen. >> Thank you Melissa. [laughter] Um we are going I will review the agenda which is short this evening. Um we will do public comment and then
the board will discuss and vote um on the override this evening. If anyone has um would like to make a public comment if you could please raise your hand now and Maddie can call on you. And if you could just please state your name,
address, and two minutes for public comment. >> I don't see any hands raised yet. I don't know if you want to give it another couple seconds. >> Yep. I'll give it a second in case someone's looking because sometimes I forget where the hands are myself. So,
all right. All right. We will move on then. So I am going to um open it up with Jane just giving us a little summary of um everything you know we've discussed and learned and talked about over the past
you know couple months. Uh maybe a little summary I think everyone knows what the fincom recommendation was and what the school committee has asked. And then after Jane gives us a little update, I am just going to do a quick straw poll and then go around and ask
the various board members on their input and see where we stand from there if that's okay with everyone. >> Yep. Okay. >> Hi, Jane. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um,
so just to level set uh for folks that might be joining for the first time, the uh town staff have been myself, Sharon Angstrom, all the department heads and numerous other people including our director of HR Sean Donahghue um have been working um since early April on
what FY28 is going to look like um you know with our budget. We have uh presented to we began with a presentation to the select board at your retreat in early May um in the middle of town meeting and that was uh televised
and that is available for folks on YouTube um through RCTV and that is where we began um the journey we're on tonight uh that the select board will be looking to make a decision. do we bring an override forward to the residents uh
for FY28 at the November ballot. That work began uh that conversation started in May and we continued on uh with a finance committee meeting in the end of May and we've had numerous other um select board meetings, finance committee meetings, the school committee has met
um to talk about what FY28 is going to look like. Um we did talk about it during town meeting um as we passed FY27 and the issue before us is that the town of Reading is experiencing a significant structural deficit um to the tune of
about $6.5 million this year and next year we anticipate that that structural deficit will grow to $9.8 million. We have asked the select board and the finance committee and school committee to review the numbers that we have. Um, we have presented multiple scenarios and
the full background of how we have a structural deficit and the and the amount that it is and then our proposal um for a $6.5 million override for f uh for FY28 on the November ballot. We have
also uh now that particular option would require the use of three to 3.3 million in free cash to balance that expected $9.8 $.8 million deficit that we will see um should we do nothing. So the
other option that we uh talked about was um and the finance committee had recommended a $9.8 million option as a higher tier. I had previously presented an option of $11 million uh that included that $9.8 $8 million uh that
would cover the full deficit uh without using free cash uh which would maintain fiscal health for the community. Um and also $1.2 million in additional positions that we do need. Our department heads have presented in their
budget these um these needs. So that was the higher $1 million option. The finance committee recommended not adding those new positions which brought down that $9.8 8 million higher tier option and then the $6.5 million um minimum
which um again requires the use of free cash. In the conversations that we've all had together as a community thus far, I've also proposed um a policy that limits the amount of free cash use um and and requires more discipline around
free cash use. And that would be um to limit what we use in free cash not to exceed how much money we spent on capital each year. Most communities spend money on capital uh at the in the fall after they have their free cash
certified. Free cash is generated from um extra revenue that comes in that's not been accounted for. Um money left over from town budgets and interest income from investments. In reading, we invest in our infrastructure and our buildings upfront
in our operational budget. This has been a practice that's been done for many, many years. And we have been rewarded for this practice through the bonding agencies recognizing that we continuously um invest in our infrastructure and very responsibly. It's a 5% portion of our
budget, capital and debt together. So, with the recommendation for more discipline on how we use free cash, we believe that the $6.5 million option is an option that uh may be palatable for more people in the community and gets us
to where we need to be for about 3 to 5 years. Um, we will have to come back to address this structural deficit over time. And as the community in, you know, continues to grow, we need to be able um to to meet the need of our teaching
staff, our public safety staff, um and other other uh services that we offer the town. The presented budget for FY28, as it stands right now, is a level services budget. It does not have extras in it. As most people know, the townside
budget has been pretty much level funded for the last four or five years. Um, we haven't added I think we've added in that period of time one full-time equivalent employee, which was making two part-time employees. Um, making one part-time employee a full-time employee
and adding a part-time employee. So, we've been very, very conservative with our growth on the town side, and that is a practice we will continue going forward. The consequences of not passing an override as we've had extensive discussions about and which are available on a number of the other um
meeting videos that people can avail themselves of and which will also be on our website tomorrow morning. Um the consequences of not passing an override would be um cutting services in all in all departments on the town side. It would
be over $900,000 minimum out of the school department and it would require the reduction of um this equivalent of 67 um employees across town and schools together. So it's a significant
consequence for the town if um an override option is not passed for FY28. The question before the select board tonight is how to deal with this fiscal cliff and to does the select board want to bring an an amount forward on a on the ballot. Does the select board want
to uh choose a a tiered option and is the select board interested in phasing in um that that tax uh increase over time? And that's an option where we don't have to raise it all in the first year. we can phase it in over two or
three years depending on what the amount is. Um our finance director is on the call and we do have um slides in your packet that speak to what that would look like if we want if there's a need or desire to go over that again. Again, that information will be available
online um on our website. So, it's a I want to thank the board for the considered amount of time that you have put in over the ne the last few months with many extra meetings, lots of phone calls, um really working very hard to understand not just the FY28 budget, but
how we got where we are, listening um to the considered work and um and care that's been given by the residents, your finance committee, your school committee, and your town staff. Um, I think you've put in a tremendous amount of work and I know this is not an easy
decision to make. Um, but we appreciate these efforts. I'm here to support you this evening and answer any questions you have and we have a number of town staff here as well um as we go forward. Thank you, Madam Chair. >> Uh, thank you, Jane. Maddie, I see your
hand raised. Is it I think uh school committee might have a quorum. >> Yes, they do. >> Sean, do you want to call your board to order? Uh, who am I missing? I see Aaron, Tom,
and myself. I don't see a fourth. >> I don't think we have Cororum. >> Okay. >> We need four for Cororum, but thanks. >> Apologies. I thought it was three. >> No, no worries. >> Oh, good. All right. Thank you, Jane. I appreciate um the summary and um I know
that we all appreciate all the hard work that the town staff has put into all of the information we've ga gathered over the last couple months. Um I do want to ask the select board just to take a straw poll if you don't mind. Um just so we can kind of see where everyone
stands. Um, I'm thinking if we could just do a straw poll of where everyone stands on whether they would like to put one number or two numbers forward or there have been discussions about three. So, one, two or three numbers forward um
and whether they would be um looking to phase it in. I think those are two um spots we can kind of see where everyone stands and then we can go from there and discuss the numbers and maybe there are members of the board that don't even
want to put it on for November. So, there's that. Um I'm happy to start and say I'm still sticking with one number and I am um very interested to discuss further phasing it in and think that would be a really good option for the residents of Reading. Um, Karen Rose
Gillis, do you mind going next? >> No, no problem. Um, I would like to see two numbers on the ballot and I'd like the phased in approach as well. >> Great. Um, S, I'm just kind of going who I can see here. Oh, hi S. How are you?
>> Got back home. Um, so I would like to go the one 6.5. um preferably preferably tiered in um over two years. >> Okay, great. And um Karen Eric,
>> I would also like to um put one um ballot question forward um the 6.5 number and um I would like to phase it in and I'd like to have further discussions about how we make that as uh is the least painful manner possible.
>> Great. Fantastic. And Chris Thanks Melissa. Yeah, further discussion like Karen had mentioned, but yes, I uh I would like to see two options uh a little different than what everyone is thinking. Uh five and 6.5 million um as
my two options and I may be persuaded on a single 6 and a half with a caveat that we can go down that road if that's the way this is headed. >> Great. And what do what are your feelings on the phasing in piece of it? Yeah, I mean it's a no-brainer to save
residents, you know, over the course of what, two years or two or three, whatever it is. >> Okay. >> Yep. >> Fantastic. So, at least we know where everyone stands on the phasing part. Now, if um anyone wants to give further feedback to what we've already discussed, I can go down and or if you
just want to speak up or raise your hand, whatever is easier to give your, you know, thoughts since we've had the school committee meeting um since our last meeting. >> Um I I have a couple things to say. >> Great. So, go ahead. >> Um so, I I've talked to a lot a lot of
residents this week. Um, I feel like that's that's how I came to my decision is more talking to the residents and seeing [clears throat] what's palatable, seeing what, you know, would pass on the first, you know, first um, attempt.
>> Um, I feel the 6.5 with the 3.2 is comes out to the same, you know, approximate level of funding as the one 9 as as the 9.8, I guess. Right. Mhm. >> So, what I f what I've heard from
residents is that, you know, um with all the new taxes with Kilum the senior center, they they would like to see more free cash come out and less out of the residents. That's kind of the, you know,
the gist of almost everybody I've talked to. Mhm. >> Um, so I I feel like putting two on there might hurt the people like lower income people who who can't really can't afford this and it would really hurt them. Um,
>> I I just think, you know, and if it wasn't going to be almost level funding, I would have a lot harder decision than, you know, putting putting the two on than one. I feel like it's going to be close to to the same funding just a
little less burden on the residents. I guess that that's how I came to my conclusion. >> Great. Thank you, S. Um, anyone else want to give their feedback on where we stand right now? >> Karen or Galis?
>> Hello. Um, so it seems that I'm outnumbered me wanting two numbers other than Chris, but I'm I'm looking at the 6.5 as the lowest and the 9.8 as the higher one um as recommended by the finance committee
and the school committee. Um I don't think five is enough. I think we'd be charging people more for less and I don't think um we really have to try and stay away from free cash. It's just not generating enough. And I think that that's one of the big problems. Um,
I think that I have a whole bunch of stuff written down, but um, I think we'll be going backwards. I understand 6.5 will last several years and um, I agree that even if we phase that in over time, everybody's going to get impacted. Costs are not going to go
down. I I we're hopeful it'll last a few several years, but we're not guaranteed that either because we don't know what's in store for some of these um costs that are coming in front of us. Um so I feel pretty strongly about
higher than 6.5, but um I I think I think we're doing a disservice to a lot of residents. I think that school age families and seniors are basically equal in percentages in town and neither group um should suffer more.
So I think um I really would like people to reconsider the two numbers on the ballot. I think that there are residents that are looking for the higher number and I think it would be a good way to measure what people are really looking for. If we only give them one option, we don't know what the other side has to say about, you know, really moving
reading forward and not going backwards. So that's pretty much what I have to say. >> Thank you, Karen. >> Thanks, >> um Karen Herrick. >> Sure. Thank you. Um so um Jane and
Sharon and everybody who's been helping. Thank you so much for um getting down and digging into this less than um less than fun effort um in your new position. I really appreciate it. I also appreciate you both collaborating to to
start to change the way we do things so that we don't find ourselves in this position again. And I'm I've attended almost every finance committee meeting and I did get a chance to watch the school committee meeting and um you know the finance committee didn't know that
we were going to have another week or they may not have made the recommendation they did. they might have waited but um nevertheless I also appreciate their um thought in this process. Um, so it's not going to be easy for the school committee either.
And um, you know, I heard that and um, I was I was a school public school parent with reading not too long ago and you know, it's luckily it's it's it's a period that comes to an end because it's not easy and um, so it's going to be
tough for everybody the next few years. Um, so I'm I'm being very mindful of that and asking for this u minimal more minimal option. And I also think my takeaway from the school committee meeting was that I agree with one of the school committees members. It might have
been Tom Wise. It's it's really important to protect what goes on in the classroom and that starts with the staff. And um, you know, my takeaway from that meeting is they still have more work to do. I I would love to, you know, follow up and and get some more
drill down in some areas, you know, where they've been working on the past couple years. Um certainly this community would be heartbroken to see um you know, free full day Kay go away. So, so I I respect that they like the town
side have a a hard job ahead of them and uh so we um I suggest we just get on with this. Thanks. >> Thank you, Karen. Chris, did you have anything that you'd like to say? >> Uh, yes. Uh, thanks Melissa.
>> Um, and obviously thanks Jane for everything that you've uh assembled in, you know, in a brief period of time. Same thing with Sharon. Um, and you know, most of the other boards and committees as well. Um, I did have an opportunity to speak with uh Dr. Turner
over the weekend. Um, so I appreciate his phone call. Um, and you know, we just went over more of my thoughts from my questions from that night um, regarding full day kindergarten and all those um, other scenarios. And I understand
that I don't have control over the um, school committee budget. They don't have under, you know, control over ours and vice versa and all this kind of stuff. Uh, but ultimately the only ones making the decision right now is us. And if we wanted to do hund00 million, we could just say hundred million um everyone
would uh you know recall us all and call it a day. So like it comes down to to us in this to listen to not just uh the the vocal majority of emails that all just want us to do the override with various
options um or you know people uh online heavily advocating um against it. I just think that if we can um just have a le little bit more um I don't know I would say accuracy in
numbers because it's unfortunate that I had to see reported uh by local news that we that the school committee and finance committee um uh both approved $6.5 million um and you know all the emails that we
received is go with the finance committee and school committee of 6 1/2. Uh that was not the case. So I want to make it crystal clear that the finance committee approved 7 and 9.8 million, not 6 1/2. The school committee approved
five, 6 1/2 and 9.8 million. Those were the numbers that were approved. The only 6 and 1/2 came from um Jane's recommendation. So, um hopefully that can clear up the inaccuracies that are out there because when you're dealing with a half a million dollars, uh everything adds up
like you know. So, I I just I I've listened to lots of people um on this, you know, and myself as well. Like I mentioned, last meeting I opened up my own tax bill and I saw, you know, when I did the math and said, you know, this is kind of getting
wild and I knew Kellum and recal weren't hitting yet. Um so we can't price people out of the town. Uh we just can't. So the reason for my five and six and a half number option is I think that there
is a strong mindset of people who are against the override uh completely. It doesn't matter if it was $5. And to somewhat appease to them, I understand that we can't do business at 2 and a half% every single year. Um, it's unfortunate.
That's just the way that it goes. I I I think that Massachusetts has the money for us in every other community. They just choose to uh do things their own way, which is unfortunate. And all these communities are needing overrides and suffering because of it. So
between the five and six and a half, I I just think that if I gave the $5 million option, it gives people who don't want the override to at least vote for something because you don't want to know what's going to happen if it failed or if it didn't, you know, you you run the risk of it being
more next year. Could be 9.81 12 on the ballot. You don't know what's going to happen. Um nobody does. So that's the reasoning behind the five. Uh, I also think that other items um can be cut. Once again, I don't have the control over this, but that kind of leverages it
into that position. And I know that the school committee put down a bunch of items that would be on their list um of losses, you know, and and my idea would not be sacrificing any teachers or anybody in town. It it just comes back to full day. And I understand that's a
hard pill to swallow and it seems like regressing. Um, but it like we got to feel the pain either way here. We're we're not talking about um going with recycling anymore weekly. That none of us have even advocated for
that at this point. So, we're losing 500 grand right there. Like, I love recycling. I'm not going to want to do it every other week, but it ain't just about me. You know what I mean? And it's a very difficult position for us to be in because you know whether this
passes, fails or whatever, it's all going to fall on us. The school committee will have to deal with a fallout if it if it fails on their end for the schools. Absolutely. But like fingerpointing and everything else, it's only coming in these directions, unfortunately. So that's kind of where I'm at with the
between five and six. Like I said, I I I thank Henry for speaking to me. I I mean on the weekend he you know he he's putting his time in for this uh as well. So oh and the reason for not doing 9.8 OPE is going to be funded you know um by
2032 3 million is going to be coming back if we go ahead and start digging residents for that money now. Um they're paying for something that you know is permanent on something that's coming back to us in the future. So that's kind of why I I wouldn't want to go for the higher option. Plus, it just puts other
people in a horrible position if that ended up passing. So, that's where I'm at. And I can go over the other six and a half caveat if we don't end up if votes fail or whatever ended up happening. So, thank you. >> Okay. Thank you, Chris. So, I saw that
your hand was raised. Did you have a question? >> You're muted. >> No, I'm good. Sorry. >> Okay, great. So, I just want to add like I I um want to thank town staff and Jane for all the hard work that you guys have
put in. Um all the department heads. I know that you've worked endlessly over the last couple months to get these numbers to us. Um I want to thank FinCom and school committee for, you know, having the meetings, giving us your recommendations. um whether we agree with those
recommendations or not, it's not meant as any disrespect, but you know, I just want to say we appreciate your work and your input on it. For me, the 6.5 million represents an amount that I know I can support um putting before the voters. It addresses the structural deficit that the town is in right now
and it helps maintain the services our residents, you know, rely on, but it also recognizes that, you know, people can only take so much. And, you know, residents came out and strongly supported two big debt exclusions. Um,
and I don't take that lightly. And, you know, I saw it in my own tax bill. So I know that, you know, adding thousands of dollars to people's tax bills in a short period of time is going to be hard for a lot of people. So I
believe the responsibility of the board at this point after we make come up with a number to you know make a clear recommendation and you know put it out there to the residents. I don't think the right approach is to give a menu option because I think that you know we
need to be able to strongly clearly simply explain where we are, how we got here and you know what happens if we don't pass it and also what happens if we do pass it and it's you
know keep level funding. So that's where I am right now. And um I think that a lot of the board members are in a similar spot. So if I will open it up to the other boards, FinCom and School Committee, if
you have any input you'd like to give us before we um vote, >> Melissa. >> Yes, sir. Can we I guess uh before the vote we we'd have to do that tiered in option just to see how it would how it
would look. >> Fair. Um >> that that's what I would >> Jane Jane um quick question. The tiered in option >> when we go to vote on the wording for the ballot question does how specific is
that tiered option wording? I know it's probably >> it's not in what you're going to be voting on tonight. >> So, you can you can have a vote and tell us that you want it to be tiered in. >> Um I mean, I'm sorry. You want the the amount that you approved to be phased in.
>> Phased in. Say, >> yep. Yep. No, that's okay. So, um in your packet on page 26, there is a slide that shows what that would look like. I don't know if you want to see that. We can Maddie can put that on the screen for you.
Um, and what that shows is that if we were to pass 6.5 um over two years, then we would look for 5 million in year 1 and 1.5 million in year two. And that would look like on
the average valuation based on the FY26 valuation, uh, $56652 uh, increase annually for year 1. and then year two would be $169.95 or effectively $170 um on the second year. So, so instead of
doing 6.5 in one year, it's still the same impact. It'd be $73647 again on the average valuation. The average valuation that we're using is $944,000. Um that's FY26.
So, um that's just to explain. So, it's um slide 26, Maddie. >> There it is. >> There you go. >> Yep. So, similarly, if you were to go for like the $9.8 million option, you could
look at the 10, which would be similar, and we would do 4 million in year 1, 2 million year two, four million year three, and that spreads it out a little bit more. We would have to um be careful about how we
um you know manage our staffing in that first year um because it's you know the same thing would be true in year one with the with the phased in approach but over the course of three years or two with the 6.5 that might be um more
palatable to your taxpayers. Um so that's food for thought. This is an example. Um and um uh the CFO is on the call if you need to ask for any questions. But the way this works is that um we manage the phase in
over time. The CFO will um increase the um the taxes to the town's people um in increments in those in that two or threeyear increment. So it's not something that's administered by the state. It's um residents could look
online and look at the excess levy capacity and see how much is left. Um so they would know, but the the amount of the levy capacity would still go up this the full amount in the first year. We just wouldn't charge the full amount in the first year. We would keep it to the second. They would phase it in. So this
is the model we're looking at right now. >> Okay, great. Um I saw that Karen Herrick raised her hand first. >> Um thank you. [clears throat] Um thanks for the slide. Um I um I prefer not to discuss this now because
um because things can change. Um our free cash gets certified in the fall. Um I want to make sure that um Jane and Sharon have the flexibility they need or or or I should say we could discuss it. I don't think we need to decide it tonight. We could discuss it in the fall
and we should be prepared about how things are looking. But, you know, the more flexibility that I think Sharon has to keep an eye on our operating cash flows, um, the more accurate the answers will be. And then to that, um, the more
accurate information that we can put out to our residents. And so, so Chris, you said earlier that when you opened your tax bill and you saw the increase, but you said the debt exclusions for our two capital projects hadn't hit. In fact, that is that is what you're seeing. That
was the jump this year plus the you know inflation plus so but to your point I made the call to Sharon. I think as a body we might think about doing a much better job of communicating before the
first bill next July and for the f first bill the following July and letting people know, you know, at that point or whenever it is that staff, you know, puts the numbers together with the assessor and they're ready to send it out and we let people know, yep, your tax bill is going up and we want to we
want to tie it back to what you decided earlier. you know, say the next year it's like the first first phase in of the override if you voted for it. Um year two, maybe it's the second phase of the overrides. And at that point, I think, and Sharon, you can correct me, but what my understanding going forward
at this point is that um not next year, but the year after hopefully will be when the final final borrowing debt issuance for our two capital projects will also hit the taxpayers. and you know so as time goes on also maybe we
have some flexibility and it stretches out three and a half years who knows but I would like to um be a little different and and just communicate in advance with people about yep your July tax bills come in and it might look a little different here's why
and we just be clear I mean and remind people thank you >> thank you Karen um Karen Rose Gillis >> so I guess um with the 6.5 spread over two years. Uh Jane and Sharon have done a great job um listing what we're going
to lose at the 6.5 as a as a one-year thing. I don't know what the 5 million in the first year, what it is that we would lose and how that would impact things like our bond rating and our ability to borrow and all that fancy stuff in the background.
>> Anybody know? >> Shane, do you have any input? because I think if I understand it correctly, Karen, well, I'm gonna let Jane explain this [laughter] because maybe I don't understand it correctly. >> Well, I [snorts] think that that we wouldn't really be losing anything. I
think it's just if we have a past override that will help us when we do our bond rating because they know that you have the backing of the residents. Um, and I think that we would end up using a little bit more free cash, like instead of just three million, we would kind of cover it with additional free
cash, I would think, because we would get the money back the next year. So, I mean, I think it would still work out. I mean, obviously, ideally, the 6 and a half and the first year would, you know, make it so that we'd use minimal free cash. Um, but that that would be if that's the approach that the select
board wants to take in terms of phasing it in. Um that's that's kind of have to be like something that we have to be willing to do or withhold kind of some of the expenses that we maybe were going to add or something of that nature so that we could stay within what we were hoping which was like the 3 million or
3.3 million. >> Um and just to that point Sharon um madam chair if it's okay what is the capital what's the capital number for FY28? Do you know >> it's three it's just under $4 million.
It's 3,989. So it's just under $4 million >> just for the capital. So if we were to continue with that policy of limiting free cash, then I would say we would limit our free cash to no more than 3.9
and we make up the difference um in maybe not filling some positions. So you know what FY28's going to look like if and I've put in a hiring freeze right now. So that's kind of on the town side. That's what I would recommend is sort of
we don't exceed that capital number. We use that fiscal discipline, we, you know, pledge that to the community and when we address this fiscal cliff, but then um when we come in in the on the second year, you know, we can fill some of those those roles. It may impact
services to residents um and most certainly will. We're feeling that a little bit now, but um I think that that is the conservative responsible approach. And if we have the latitude to do it um and and kind of, you know, save here or save there so we can fill
positions um that matter to residents, we'll do that. Um but I think that we can that would be the impact is sort of we only >> the only thing I would add is that um in order to you know include the full cost
of the new buildings we did the a full year even though those buildings won't be in place for a full year for that first year. So that those are other areas where we could, you know, we could bring on the like if we did half of the cost and then bring in the other half in the next year, you know, just depending
on how we could break it out cuz we we're trying to make it fully loaded to make sure that the baseline is 100%. That's another area where we we could look at and say, okay, we really don't need 100% that first year. We'll probably need, let's say, 50% or 60%. That could be another area where we
could just knowing that you're going to get the the the additional funds in the next year, it would make sense to just have that increase come in with that second tier of the override. >> That's a great point, Sharon. >> Thanks, Sharon. I just want to add, Chris, I respect your opinion that we
don't want to price people out of reading. Um, that's happening whether we do this or not. I mean, people, it's it's a real struggle right now. And I think that we do need to recognize that we're completely aware of that that people are getting priced out just because of the financial climate right
now. So I really appreciate everybody's attempts to try and make this as fiscally feasible as possible. And I know there's a lot of services out there for people that are having a hard time, but I think that we should also include in our advertising or marketing blitz for the override so that people know at
least that there's some places that they can go and get some help and we start talking about it. Yeah, good point. Um, Chris, you had your hand raised. >> Yes, thanks Melissa. Um, to address Karen Herrick's question to me earlier, I'm well aware that Kilim and Ral were
included in my tax bill, but that is just the first round before the second round of borrowing that Sharon has going through. That's unrealized in the numbers that we're presenting people with. people are going to think that even if we didn't put an override on the
ballot, that one passed because the remaining number from Gillum Enrique I is, you know, just going to be there. The everyone's taxes are going up anyway regardless. So, um
I I just think that to get me to the to the six and a half, we need we need a firm commitment from not only this board, but obviously Jane and she briefly touched on it. Now, just a pledge and commitment to draw down this free cash because we're doing six and a
half and you're talking about three 3.23.3 million. It's really 99.5 million is what we're doing. So it's kind of masquerading it around as only six and a half when we're really just burning through free cash to be able to pay for this. So we need a a commitment that we
are going to draw that number down and be held you know responsible for making sure that you know every single penny coming out of here is uh the same way that I would be doing my own business and my own finances at
home. I I complained about a bench at uh the conservation thing with $2,500 bench and all that stuff and it might have looked like I was picking on them, but it it was under warranty. I wanted it covered. And sure enough, today it got posted that, you know, Polywood just got
them three new benches over there. Um covered under warranty. And then um the uh NextStep Ministries also did the the foundation for all that stuff. So I I am very cognizant of money because I I handle this as if it's my own. And if I'm criticizing a bench, I will
criticize anything and everything else in this budget. So I take this beyond seriously what I do up here, as I know we all do. Um it's just, you know, a very difficult spot to be. And I know that it's just going to further push
people away. The affordability in reading just doesn't exist. affordable housing is a completely different ballgame as well, which will never exist. So, that's kind of where I'm at. I I just want a commitment that we're going to draw down this free cash. But when you give a range of 3 million to
3.2 or 3.3, I want it to be three. That's it. No more than that. I also want the tiered option like uh the impact spread over more one more more than one year explained to people right out of the gate. I don't think that we should be like, oh, wishy-washy. It
might be 4 million. It might be, you know, uh, 2 1/2 or whatever it ends up getting phased in. No, here is the number. This is what is going to be happening. This is what you can expect because the first hit 566 is pretty significant. And then it falls back to
169, which is an easy number compared to the 566 from the year before. But all of this stuff is permanent. it it's it's not going down. So, we need a commitment that we're going to do better uh not
only for myself but all of us to just get the free cash number out uh under control. Thanks. >> Thanks, Chris. Um thanks for the clarification, Jane, on whether we need to vote on the tear tonight. Um, while I agree with Karen, we don't need to
discuss that tonight, I do I would like us to have that on our agenda um as soon as possible because I think that going forward, we really need to, you know, be transparent and um know the information we're communicating
to the residents of what they're actually voting for in November. So that's all I'll say is that I think that we just want to have that discussion much sooner rather than later so the residents know what they're voting on. And um so if we can go back to what we
had a motion on and I'm going to look and see. I don't know if they're in the packet. Are the motions in the packet? They are not at the end. Yep. Um
just H2. Yep. Okay. Sorry. Um so, uh Karen, um do we want to vote um on the first motion with 6.5? I'm
getting the feeling that's where we all are and see where we go from there. if it doesn't pass. >> Yeah, I think so. Um I feel like these motions have changed. Did they change? This is I'm looking at the one 727 2026.
Is that the most recent or it says 728? >> Yep. You can just if you're going to >> A1B on the last page of the packet. Is that what we're talking about? >> Uh you can look at the one on page two of the packet and I will put it up. >> I mean we keep getting these multiple packets. It's, you know, there's a lot
of junk mail coming through here. All right. Um, if you want to put it up, that'd be great. It's very short. >> Yeah, that's the one I saw. And then I'm looking at the one in the packet, and that's not even close. Okay. This one's much simpler. >> Yes. So, um, so I would say Melissa,
that's a good suggestion. >> Okay. If you want to, um, do that motion and then we'll do roll call obviously because we're all on Zoom. >> Okay. Move to put an override request of 6.5 million on the state election ballot
in November 2026. >> I have a second invite. >> Can I have a question? >> Are we asking both questions or just one? >> Um I think it will depend on how the vote goes. >> Okay. >> Um so second in by Salante. Do we have
any further discussion? and we will do a roll call vote. Um, >> I had my hand up. >> Oh, I apologize. >> Actual hand, not my >> Sorry, I was scrolling through, so I didn't see it. Go ahead, Chris. Sorry. >> Uh, like I mentioned, I I just want a commitment. Board members don't have to answer it if they don't want to, but I
want a commitment that we are going to do our very best to draw down this free cash from the 3.3 to keeping it three or under. That's it. and hold everybody accountable, ourselves, down staff, everyone. It just we got to get this
under control. And and that's where I'm at. I understand the five uh nobody's going for that unfortunately or fortunately, whatever direction. Um but I I just want a commitment that that's what we're going to do. >> Yeah, I don't disagree with you, Chris.
I do think that we need to um make a commitment to set the free cash number and stick to it. Um Karen, I see your hand was raised. >> I I just Thank you. I just Chris, I don't understand. Drawing down means spending all our free cash. Is that what you mean? I don't understand what you're
asking. >> No, Karen. It's It's >> That's what draw down means. It means spend all your money. >> Thank you, Karen. Uh I also say physical instead of fiscal sometimes too as well. Uh it just, you know, >> the way that >> 6.5 million I don't want to make mistakes.
>> Well, well, no, I agree with you. Yes. Uh, I mentioned multiple times that it's three to $3.3 million. I want to keep it as close to three or under as possible. Not three, four, not five, three or under. And if you don't want to commit
to that, that's fine. But I I I'm just putting it out there that the six and a half number is really not six and a half when it's really going to be like 9.8. So, I want to reduce that number. I've been saying the whole time uh not
tonight but in all prior meetings we have to reduce the denominator and this is what we have to do. We have to do it. So we don't have control over the school committee. I understand that. But hopefully with us going with the 6.5 here they see that we're serious about
this and maybe they sharpen their pencil and a couple other items as well. But we just have to do a better job all of us. That's all. >> Thank you for explaining that. So, um I have been a vocal advocate for um we were both in that meeting when DLS came
and met with the town of Reading and talked to us about, you know, best practices and policies. And um I've been a vocal advocate for reducing the use of free cash for our operating budget. I don't want to I don't want to pin Jane and Sharon on a number right now, but I
definitely Let's have another discussion in a in a soon select board meeting. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, I see that Sean and Erin have their hand raised, so I'm gonna let Sean speak first because he did have his hand raised first. Go ahead, Sean. >> Thanks, Melissa. Um, >> yeah, no problem.
>> Just two just two things. Um, you know, one is at 6 and a half million. I I when we passed the override in 2018, the trajectory we put ourselves on was, you know, starting a period of several years where we were building up our free free
cash balances because regeneration exceeded the use of free cash. As as I understand it, if if if we do a $6.5 million override, we essentially are already on the wrong side of that hill, already sort of back into where, you know, we're drawing down. And Chris, I think that's the point you're making
about constraining the use of free cash and living with the consequences. And I understand the the premise behind that and don't, you know, don't sort of fundamentally disagree. What I will say though, I I am, you know, and I'm probably more more speaking as a resident than as a school committee member on this point, but you know, at
least certainly as a resident, it is disappointing to me to think that residents wouldn't have the opportunity to even decide whether they're willing to support an override amount that does actually address the structural problem. um 6.5 million, you know, while yes, we
can make the FY28 budget work with 6.5 million plus a heavy use of free cash, it doesn't address the structural deficit. And so every year, FY29, FY30, etc. It just gets worse. And I, and I get that there's, you know, some upside coming in OPED from OP and FY32. Um, you
know, but it's not it's not we're not going to make it to FY32 is my understanding. And so, um, you know, I hear the concerns about I definitely agree with the concerns about people getting priced out of reading, but I also think there are plenty of residents in Reading who fully understand that
things are getting more expensive. Um, that, you know, property taxes are no exception to that and would like to at least have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they want uh they want to support a level that that fully addresses a structural deficit and allows us to maintain the level of town
services that people, you know, prefer and are accustomed to. So, um, you know, I just want to get that off my chest. I don't think I'm going to change anybody's mind, but that's, um, that's how I feel about this. >> Thank you, Sean. Aaron,
>> uh, thank you, Melissa. Um, >> I appreciate the difficult position that you're all in. Um, but I'm having trouble speaking. I'm I'm really frustrated. Um, and I'm having a
hard time listening to you all to be blunt. Um, it feels like you're making an assumption that a majority of voters are going to
be okay seeing cuts to personnel and services rather than giving voters the opportunity to fully understand the situation we are in. we are going to
be in for a few years and giving them the choice to make an informed decision feels like you're cutting us off at the knees. Um, you know, I've heard a lot of people talk about pain points and wanting to see the
schools make adjustments. Um, the majority of the school budget is personnel. It's not there's not really room in there to make adjustments that aren't going to involve cutting
personnel. And even at 6.5, maybe we scrape through fiscal year 28 if there's enough free cash to get us through, but then it's that much more free cash we would need to have a
balanced budget in fiscal year 29. Um, so like Sean, I have a lot of concerns about us getting to fiscal year 32 with a $6.5 million override. Um, so I I am
concerned about the idea of not giving residents a choice to make an informed decision based on the options that have been requested by town staff, by school staff, by your finance committee, and by
your school committee. So, uh, I wasn't going to speak because I don't really think I'm changing anyone's mind at this point. But I also decided I would regret it if I didn't say this out loud because
I'm very nervous about having to go back in in fiscal year 29 and explain to the town, "Yep, you passed an override, but now here we are making even more cuts because you didn't pass a big enough
override." Thank you. >> Thank you, Erin. Ed. Uh thanks Melissa. Um appreciate it. Um so Ed Ross um 16 Kensington Nav um finance committee member. Um
>> um I I had stuff written down and it and I think Erin read off of my notes. Um she pretty much said on most of what I was going to say. Um I doubt um I'm going to change any hearts and minds and um I share the disappointment. Um
there's been a lot of deliberation and I appreciate the the the board's um um kind words uh about what we um in finance committee and the school committee um deliberated and recommended
um and there was a lot of thought um that went into that um those recommendations um and um and again I think Sean was you know really much more eloquent than I um in in in explaining that um the one
thing I will point out in just just tonight um even in your deliberations um you're talking about you know drawing down free cash not drawing down free cash um that's already you're it's
already complicated um so I don't see how putting another option to the voters changes anything. I think again I think you're and and again I I I mean this with the utmost respect. I don't think
you're giving the voters credit for being able to digest more than one option. Um I think empower everyone wants transparency. Everyone wants uh the ability to make an informed decision. And I think to Erin's point
and and and I think Sean said the same thing. Let's play this out. If you'd only want to spend $3 million, well, that there's there's a there's a a a cost on the other end, whether that's in the schools, in the town, um you know,
uh in the services that they provide, but play it out for the next, you know, couple years and then have to explain to them uh to the voters why why we're we're short again. Um I I I just think
that it at the end of the day um we we should be looking a little bit more uh grander in as uh that's not really even a word that shows you how um you know kind of disappointed I am in in in the discussion but again I appreciate your
deliberation um and I hope you reconsider. >> Thank you Ed. I don't see any additional hands raised. Um, so we are going to move on with our vote. Oh, Tom,
just in the nick of time, Tom, go. Name, address, please. Two minutes. >> I think he put his hand back down. >> Okay. Tom, did you want to speak? >> Sorry, I put the wrong button. So, thanks, Chris. Tom Wise, school committee 181 South Street precinct 4,
blah blah blah. Um, I actually do hope I'm going to change minds. So, you know, I'll leave it at that. Um, I think you all have paid attention or watched FinCom. You've paid attention to watch school committee.
Um, six of us are elected. Nine of us are appointed by you um to go through this and look at this with deep due diligence. We have the same
concerns from a town perspective in terms of pricing people out or not pricing people out. We have the same constituents that are speaking to us about what they can or cannot afford. Um you just happen to be the the five that have to make the hard decision.
uh in terms of what is willing to be put on a ballot, but respectfully you're making it harder than it needs to be. There there is a lot of information out there that provides you with options and interestingly enough the five of you
have already put all the three options that we've all talked about on the table. You just haven't coalesed to as a group those options. And Karen, you know, Rose Gillis, you have 9 and 98 and 65. Karen Gayely,
Heric, Melissa, S, you have 65. Chris, you have 65 and five, right? We all across the the different thing. The only thing you haven't put on the table is seven, which the finance committee recommended because of, you know, uh, our our friendly neighborhood
recycling situation. But in the in the grand scheme of things, if you look at it, options are options are good. It does allow for a worst case scenario, a Goldilock scenario. And if for some
reason a significant enough portion of the town wants the blue sky scenario, then it it puts us in a much better situation. And you then have the option as a select board in the blue sky scenario to say, you know what, we're going to start with the
Goldilocks and then and then phase in the rest of the blue sky as you talk about some of the other stuff. So you can still control quote unquote the purse strings by managing the the the the spend of the 9.8 over time.
You have that option. Nobody's saying you can't do it. You can still manage the control, the impact on on on on residents over time. You could potentially not even do the 3.3 for two or three years if you don't want to, but it gives you the option that if push comes to shove and we do determine we
need it, you have that lever to pull. Just as technically you have the option to say, you know what, we don't have to charge 2 and a half% this year. We're only going to charge two and a quarter. You can do that. So rather than constrain yourself and
rather than say to the town, you only have one option, take it or leave it, in which case you're very much likely to ex receive a leave it because they haven't been given any options. We're going to be back here in April.
And I I think that's that is the worst case scenario. That puts all of us back behind the eightball. that puts all of us going through a budget season with a really bad situation, a hopeful situation, and who knows what else. That
leads to an April election that might get a pass, and then has to come through town meeting in April that says, "Okay, yay, we got this. So, this is the the budget we're talking about, or we didn't get it. So, guess what? We're we're facing the the cliff of cuts that we've been talking about."
You've heard me say it before in your past meetings. You heard me say it in select in the school committee meetings. Part of this is being strategic to give options. Optionality is strategic. The lack of optionality is not strategic. And I'll stop there, but thank you for
your time. I appreciate you all. Hopefully, we can come to a you all can come to a compromise that gives the the town some choice. Thank you. >> Thank you, Tom. I see Maryanne's hand raised. Mary a name, address two minutes, please, which I'm not sure if
we've been using the timer or not. >> Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. Thank you. >> Sorry. Sorry. I I couldn't find my mute button for some reason. Maryanne Downing, um 13 Heather Drive, speaking as a resident, not as the chair of the finance committee, and I don't want to
be redundant to what was said. My biggest point is in terms of um people saying giving the voters credit, you do not have a lot of time to educate voters left and right when I'm running into people who are talking to me about this override, people do not know. They do
not understand that it's coming, when it's coming, and as as Tom just said, options will help because I think the average voter does not understand if you gave me an option of 6 and a half and 9.8 or seven and 9. or anything. They
think they're getting more with more money. There's no service difference is between 6 and a half and 9.8. It's just a matter of how fast we're drawing back down the free cash or how how um how long we'll make the override last. And people still don't understand that. They
just think they're getting more with the money. I I think there's also a presumption and that peop that everyone thinks voters want the same amount of services that they've been getting. That may not be the case. That's I'm also hearing and it's not necessarily representative. Oh, we don't need this.
We don't need that. You know, we're already they're they're all complaining about their their increase in their taxes. So, I I I think providing several options um what whatever they are are going to give you a sense of what the what the
voters value. But I I guess whatever you choose, please educate the voters because people might understand one number, they might reject it and you'll be coming back in the spring. But I think the average voter won't even understand. They'll they'll see options,
but they still won't understand the options. And giving them options without conveying what they mean is not going to do much because they're just gonna I think they're going to misunderstand. That's all I had to say. Thank you. Thank you, Marian.
I think I'm not sure if Karen Oh, Karen, I think is back. I think we're going to move on with the vote where we stood. We had a second and then um Karen, you read it. We were on discussion and now I think we need to do a roll
call vote if I'm correct in where we were a minute ago. Um so, I'm just going to go down my Zoom image line. So, I have Chris Haley. You're on mute. [snorts] >> Almost got away with it. Uh,
for 6.5, uh, yes. >> Uh, Sal Berante, >> yes. >> Karen Rose Gillis, >> I'm going to say no because I'd like to vote on the next question. >> Got it. >> Karen Herrick, >> yes.
>> Melissa Murphy, yes. So, we have 41 in the affirmative. Do we have a motion to adjurnn? I don't think that we have anything else to talk about. I don't think we have to vote on the second one because we've all approved the first one.
>> That's true. Motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you, S. Um, I have to do a >> Thank you. Uh, roll call to uh close the meeting. I have Chris Haley. >> Yes. >> Salmone, >> yes.
>> Karen Rose Gillis, yes. Karen Herrick, >> yes. >> Melissa Murphy, yes. And Maddie, we did not call any other boards or committees to order. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay, great. Well, thank you everyone. I appreciate all the hard work. Great.
>> Thank you. Have a great night.