Hi everyone. >> Hello. >> All right. Uh oh, we have everybody, right? Yeah. Seven us except Haley, but I can't I met with her earlier today. I think she's going to be joining.
Let's give her a minute or two. Actually, while we're waiting, um, just to let everybody know, I just a minute or so ago, I sent everybody sorry to not get it to you earlier off the presses. We have the latest budget draft, which
few things changed. Nothing um massive, but uh few things to explain. And then I have uh also attached kind of an overview document that um George put together the tab that
says February 17th has some of a kind of highlevel uh consideration like um estimates terms of tax levy what's um the impact on uh average single family tax bill will be
and then there's There's a tab called considerations which is some not anything obviously reflected in the budget but just the beginning of some different ideas some of which George had some that
I had um to deal with the budget deficit that we have. So um that's kind of what those documents what's in those what is in those documents. Uh I got an email from
Bear with me for a sec. All right. I assume she'll join. Okay. So, um here's what I want to do tonight. uh is first of all look at the latest budget document,
go over what's changed since February 10th when we last looked at this. Okay. Um then uh also highlight what's kind of still in flux
um and may um you know may may change. Obviously there are a number of things but that sort of big things that that may change. Um then I want us to
start a conversation about okay well what are we going to do to what what are some proposals to address what you know we're looking at is is a basically a nine% increase in the operating budget
which feels like a lot to um to impose on taxpayers. because that actually translates to uh like a 12.6%
increase in the average single family tax bill. So, I think we've all assumed that we're going to have to do some things um before we actually get to the point where we have a sense of what our tax levy is. So, I think we want to
begin talking about some of those ideas, get some feedback on that, and then I want us to talk about the meeting with department heads um that is scheduled for next week. um
talk about some kind kind of what sort of context setting we want to do for that meeting, what our goals are, what are some um what kind of what are some things that we want to communicate and share and and what do we want to discuss
with them? Um and and also have a conversation about what we want to actually share in advance of the meeting because my I have some time tomorrow to work on stuff. Um I'm traveling but I I
have my laptop. Uh and so I think what I need to do is send something to Haley by kind of midday tomorrow that she can share with um everybody who's going to be attending. So, that's what I had
planned for tonight. Are there other things that folks wanted to um make sure we talk about tonight? >> Did you mention approving the minutes from the last meeting? >> Uh, we can do that. I was wondering if maybe I'd hold off on that just because
I was hoping not to keep everybody our usual two plus hours tonight, but we might we might get there. I don't know. We'll see. Uh, >> I wanted to mention that the personnel board was supposed to meet tonight to finalize numbers. We did not have a
quorum. So, we will be meeting Tuesday at 5. >> Okay. >> Okay. And Haley said that she sent you >> Yes. >> update. We didn't discuss that at the personnel board, but um, >> Tuesday at 5 is our next meeting.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. All right. Well, let me do this. Let me actually share the budget because that is one of the things I wanted to um make sure everybody was clear on. Uh so I'm going to start with the expenses.
Can everybody read this? Okay. Should I do my like we can hide a bunch of rows here? I'm sorry, a whole bunch of columns. Can I do everything through FY24? And then maybe make this bigger.
How's that? Good. Okay. All right. So, um, basically anything you see here in blue font, I went through this today. Um, so this comes from from Haley. Um,
and I compared this to the last budget that draft that we looked at on on the 10th. And anything that is in blue is an update. Okay. Um, you'll see many that
are just reflecting a new slightly different cola, uh, which is 2.59%. I think it was 2.41% for 1% in our last draft. I had assumed that when I saw that, I forgot to
actually ask her about this, but I assumed that was actually coming from um the personnel board that they did a new calculation, >> right? She mentioned and we we were not able to vote on it, but she did mention that the numbers looked a little different and that >> okay,
>> that's what these numbers are. Okay. So, a lot of the changes you'll notice if you don't see like a blue note in in the um in the notes column, it's probably
just a reflection of a new cola uh percentage that that's being calculated. So, it's not having a huge impact, but it but it is changing somewhat. Um and then anything else? I I sort of tried to put a note in here so that you could in
blue so you could indicate. So, um, one of the things I noticed uh, and I was hoping she'd be here tonight because there are a couple things I wanted to actually ask her about, but I don't see her yet. So, hopefully she'll she'll be joining us at some point. Um, so it
looks like there's a new an additional $925 that was added to the um uh I guess the town the general
government expense line. Um, and it's to reflect this financial training workshop which I assume is what she was talking about sending Brennan to. Um although I thought we had didn't we actually
discuss that as an FY26 FINCOM reserve item? Susie, you see your hand? >> Yeah. And I I thought we could um take it out of the FY26 select board expenses which is line six. I don't see it as part of rolling
forward. I thought we could do it out of um >> 20 and we could take it. the select board has an expenses account and he works for the select board. So I felt it could come out of there. >> Okay. So that would mean but also but I
guess even aside from that we're not entirely sure if this is an FY27 expense, right? Um so I'm going to just uh add to this note and when Haley comes in, let's ask her, is this a FY26
or FY 27 expense. Okay. So, we may have a small pickup of just under $1,000. Okay. All right. So, nothing here is changing. Okay. Uh so,
here's the thing. All of these items where we had previously had a note including year 2 salary alignment. Um, basically based on conversation between Haley, George,
uh, myself earlier today, um, where I think there were even some questions about the actual amounts that we would need to add for these part two of these um, salary uh, alignments. They've actually been taken out entirely
out of this budget and I'm only applying the same 2.59% cola increase to those lines. Okay. So that's all I think it's six or seven lines. I can't remember the exact number with so there's one exception. I'll get
to that in a minute. Um so everywhere I did that you'll see a note here that says removed salary adjustment. Okay. So, based on what the personnel board does next week, we may need to
put those back in um and do some recalculating. But I think it's going to require a a little more work on the back end because I think Haley was noticing some some wonky things in the
spreadsheet, which I think is in here, but I haven't even looked at it. Um, so that so that's one thing to keep in mind and so you'll see that come up in a few places. >> Okay. So here's another if I may. >> Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. >> Um, just for April's um benefit or for
all our benefits, but >> um Haley had indicated she was a little confused looking at last year's schedule how to actually apply the adjustments. So, if the personnel board does recommend that we adjust those positions again, she's just going to want clear
direction how to process that. For instance, would you take the amount of the adjustment, add it to last year's salary, and then apply the cola to that, or would you just add that number? Those specifics will be helpful if the personnel board can articulate that
clearly to her. >> Okay. Um, and I'm not suggesting we do this, but I would I it seems um it seems worth including this on the
table of a variety of of sort of potential considerations, cost cutting considerations. One might be that that I again I'm not suggesting that we do this. I want to think about it some more and talk about
it. But one possible suggestion if the personnel board approves this um the bincom might want to make a a related recommendation which is to pause
implementation of that. Again, I'm not saying we want to do this, but it's maybe something worth discussing to just get a kind of take the temperature of the the committee about whether they're whether what the pros and cons of doing that would be. So, but I I was thinking
of bringing that up in the in the context of assuming that the personnel board had approved it tonight. So, I it might be a little strange to have that conversation. might be a little preliminary tonight, but it is something I think is I think we ought to at least have some conversation about. Okay. Um
>> that was the plan. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh All right. So then uh here's another one where I've just removed the um the salary adjustment and just applied the same 2.59%
uh COLA increase. Okay. Same for the collector. All right, >> AJ. >> Yep. >> Just um Yeah, if could you scroll up to line 32 just for a second and this is just to make sure I'm trying to
understand how act this data >> line 32 the reserve fund. >> Mhm. >> The actual for fiscal year 25 was zero. Uh, no. I don't think that that that doesn't make sense. >> Yeah. So, that's Yeah. The reason I
bring it up is I just it makes me think, you know, what in general is data? Um, are there other things? Is there something here that's clearly >> looks out of whack? >> Are there other things? >> That's definitely something to to >> It make me question the validity, I
guess, of >> Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. No, I'm glad you brought So, anything of that sort you see, you should definitely bring it up. Um, especially if it's in
the FY26 budget column or the FY27 budget column because those >> those are there there are a number of things on the FY27 >> column that are working off of things in the FY in the FY26 column. So, um, so
I'm glad you brought that up. Okay. Um, and we can come back to other parts of this. I just wanted to make sure you all were clear on what has changed since our last discussion. Okay. So, again, a
couple more where we removed the salary adjustment. Okay. this uh board of registars expense line um had a fairly significant increase.
Um it was registered. Yeah. >> Uh I think in the last Oh, I thought I had that number. Okay. And I think in that last >> Yeah.
>> one it was flatfunded. I think >> I think yeah. >> Was it? >> Yeah. >> It has to be addressed. >> So I was wondering I just put a note here to get an explanation. >> Yeah. Is that Yeah, >> there must be >> there must be something that Haley
responded to that caused her to bump that up. Um >> I think it's the midterm elections. >> Yeah, Susie, >> I sent a list of items that I saw in the budget to you and George and Haley. This
is one of them because our elections go in cycles. Every year is not the same. We're having the lowest year this year with only a town election um in the budget cycle. And next year we have the
midterms. So it's more like um FY23 is the last time we had this particular arrangement. So I suggested it be at 7,000. And that may not even be the right number, but we can figure out how to make it up. And the other piece is that we're going to have a new town
clerk and the way she organizes the work could be different. So, this is just a ballpark going from the past. >> Okay, got it. So, that that's helpful. I did see her email connected to to this item, so that's good to know. So, she probably was just working off your um
recommendation. Um Okay. Uh some more cola changes. And then this one here, custodial wages. This is the one line that includes a salary alignment that I did not remove.
And that's because it also includes four hours of um addition four additional hours for the library which I couldn't disagregate kind of which part of that was for um
the cola and which part was for the the additional four hours. So, I did want to verify something which is I'm assuming because we added obviously in FY26 I think we added five hours for uh uh uh
to in anticipation of the new library. >> Yeah. I thought those hours were already added in. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, I'm not I wanted to add I was wondering and you might know this, Molly, if this was somehow in response to her following up with Maryanne. No,
doesn't sound like it. >> No, not that I'm aware of. >> Okay. All right. Um, so here's what would happen if I just Well, I'm not going to make a change,
but Well, I'll just see. Uh, all right. So, we would pick up about what was that about $1,400? Something like that. Um Susie, >> I'm looking back at last year's minutes
and um on April 1st, um it says the five hours per week was added to custodial wages and that was 5,220. >> Um so that's the number that happened and and we're not talking about a change
in that at this time that I know of. >> Right. Yeah. So I think I think we may need to um revise this downward, but I will confirm with Haley when we when we
get a chance to talk with her. Okay. Uh I'm not going to take it out just yet. Um but uh think we may end up doing that. Okay, let's see what else. More cola stuff.
Okay. All right. So, a version of the budget that she included early to us earlier today had the choice um out dollars and the charter sending
tuition dollars in here which was having a like I opened the budget and it was like >> a huge uh a huge increase. And so um I uh though actually my I left my note in here. So I in talking to George, we both
agreed that um well we don't usually include those in the budget and George you had uh an explanation that made a lot of sense to me. Do you want to just say repeat that uh for the full committee about why we don't usually put those in?
>> Yeah. Um so the school choice is on the revenue page in the um chap in the cherry sheet and we always subtract it out. So we don't use that revenue to balance the budget. So we wouldn't use So we wouldn't put that expense in the book. >> Yeah. So it would be odd to put Yeah. It
wouldn't make sense to put it on as an expense and then and then um delete it on the revenue p or remove it on the revenue page. Yeah. >> And and the charter charter side, I was a little more confused. I wasn't really sure what the answer to that was. I did notice that on the cherry sheet there's
a negative there's two negative amounts um that they're subtracting from our aid. And when I went online and did a quick quick research, I read that um the state sends what I read was the state sends the money to the towns that
are receiving the students. So that would explain why they decrease the money out of our chapter 70. They take it away from us and then they just hold that money and then they distribute those funds that they hold from all the towns to the charter schools. Um, and so
it appears to me that we don't actually make that payment. >> I see that makes that it's it's it's already it's already deducted from our chapter 70 award, right? >> Yes. >> Is that what you were going to add? >> If you look at the revenue page, you'll see that. But and then when we're over
there, we will see it. But yes. Okay. No, the only reason I raised this in my list of things was if you look back in earlier like I think it's FY23 or something those numbers in the lines. >> Yeah. >> So I don't know why they're there and that's all I was asking.
>> Yeah. >> Yeah. No, that's >> 14. >> Yeah. >> I think I So I think they're usually added in the actual but I don't know why that is. Yeah, you're right. Um >> because they're probably putting a revenue side for that. And I would say, Susie, in those years, we'd have to go
back and look, but chances are when we were building the budget, we left the revenue number in from the state for the um choice. We weren't subtracting it out. Um I know that's true for 20. >> I don't think that's I mean, I this is
reminds me of the battle with um Bob and Becky trying to present it. Um I think there was a process to do something. I just didn't know why it was in these past years and should we understand how to use it currently? >> Got it.
>> And but when you say it's >> when you say it was in in these past years, you mean in the actual columns, not in the in the the budgets that we would look at at at town meeting or do you mean that? I was I I can go back to figure that out by looking in the past,
but um it's on this sheet and I you know and you remember the argument Bob and Becky could have about where do you put the school choice thing and um so I don't know I I I can look back and and get back to you to see how
>> how it went in the B um when we proposed a budget to town meeting. I'm looking back at the revenue page in in actual 25 in 25 in 20 in the previous years which are hidden. If you unhide those columns,
you're going to see that we used to include in the you got to roll up. Yep. All right. And then >> there it is. >> Cherry sheet. So you can see we we took it out in 22 23 24 but in the prior
years we weren't taking it out. So if we're not taking it out of revenue then we would need to leave it in the budget. >> Got it. >> So we changed policy. I'm sure Vicki had a good reason. Maybe she talked to the D desi or do >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Got it. >> Yeah. It changed our picture radically and I didn't necessarily think that's what we should do. I just needed to understand, >> right? You just wanted to understand. Yeah. No, I'm glad >> because I was Yeah. >> So, just so I'm trying to understand
this. So, it either needs to be in the revenue and the expenses or in neither the revenue or the expenses. >> Yeah. Exactly. Because because those things >> because they should offset some. >> They should offset. Yeah. And what's what's what our our best understanding right now is that what's happening is
that is that the the um the school choice is already is deducted from the in the cherry sheet already. Um and the same for the charter sending tuition
actually we deducted from yeah our chapter 70 um award. So, yeah, >> I think it probably does warrant more research. Yeah. To understand that. I mean, I could reach out to Becky. I don't know if that's appropriate.
>> Becky's on medical leave. Um, >> yeah, she won't be she won't be back at work until I believe FE March. >> Well, she's a resident of the town, >> but she has medical. >> Oh, so you should don't leave her alone. In other words,
>> I would say so. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. All right. All right. I might ask I I I have a meeting with um uh um uh the a couple of the other town fin
people um school people and I might ask them how they um if they have the same assumption or understanding as as what we what we think is happening here. So okay. >> Um all right. So then those uh so those are a couple of items to
flag and then um oh I just added a note I think we need to just have some kind of explanatory note for the you know this what's a significant increase in the snow materials.
Um is that it? Let's see. I have a question about the library which you just went by. >> Um, so with these numbers, I think we're $146 short of making the MAR the
municipal appropriation requirement. >> And so I my suggestion would be to increase the um once I mean my suggestion would be to do nothing until we know what the salaries actually are going to be. But then if if they were to
stay the same to increase the expenses by $150 just to make sure >> that we get up to that 2.5%. >> Okay. Make final adjustment to ensure
a 2.5% >> and that's 2.5% for the salaries and the the expenses. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, what was that? Up to 150. >> Right now, it's 146, but I'm worried because I I know East Hampton had to have a special meeting because they
rounded down instead of up. And so, they were a dollar less than a dollar off and had to have a special town meeting about it. >> And so, that's why I think it's $146. I would suggest 150 just to make sure. >> Yeah. Okay. How about this? So I think I
think the the alternative is to sort of just have a flag here to make sure that we do a final calculation on this. Um >> yeah, I I will do that. >> Yeah. >> Before when we know the actual numbers. >> Yeah. And so this will this note will
stay in here until we have um a finalized budget then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Great. Um, okay. Let's see. Okay. Then there was a fairly significant increase in the fur cog. Did
this come from you, Susie? Uh, uh, >> which one? >> So, this is line 226. There was >> I don't have that. >> All right. So, the the last budget >> Oh, Jesus Christ.
had a pretty >> I'll tell you exactly. >> Yeah. >> Wow. >> That at the capital planning meeting. I mean just kind of as an aside type of thing. I mean they changed like the just kind of our values like one of the
values kind of changed. Um in addition like I think there was just kind of some services that have changed like the dog stuff. I mean I think like electrical or plumbing or something like that also. >> Okay. >> Jeez. >> Um so the so the in the last budget that
we looked at on the 10th the furcog expense was $13,682. So we are adding >> 10,000. Yeah. More. So, I'm assuming Haley has an explanation about that. Um,
that we'll just have to wait for. Um, okay. I think that's that's it. I forgot to include that here. Let's see. Let me just add this real fast. Uh, so I just was making a a a little table
just for our benefit of being able to see what has changed from 210 to 219. Oh, it's in here. Okay. So, yeah, it's a $10,400 difference. So, here are the basic, you know, the non
sort of cola related changes or salary related changes. um they total um about $20,560. George, >> before you leave this um if you look at
column M, the gap um for actual FY25, that 80,000 and Jim's right. I think we could probably just put the 80,000 up in the fincom reserve. That would go to 903, which I think would be >> Oh, yeah. All right, that's good. Let's see.
you know, it was probably in there and it just got >> Well, I looked it was it was also not there last week, so I don't know. >> Okay. Yeah. All right. Uh Okay. So, um So, here's what we're Well, I
guess a question. So, I think might have just been Jim. I can't remember now. Did anybody else miss last week's meeting? >> Um, so some of the you might be seeing some of this for the first time. I just want to make sure if there were any
questions folks had about this latest budget draft. just like clarifying kinds of questions before we sort of discuss the high level sort of implications and what we might want to how we might want to
respond. Susie, >> um >> I had wondered about um and and this way of looking at things is a little hard. I wondered if the t uh town clerk certification was taken out. That's line
63. All right. So, >> uh, okay. So, the I think there was a a a row that got deleted from >> So, it's actually 62 in the the current one. So, no, it's in here.
>> It shouldn't be in there. There's no chance anybody's going to need certification >> um there. I wonder I wondered if the police holiday pay got clarified. That was a a
placeholder. It's line 10, I guess. 104. >> Yeah. See, >> so I think we So that has not changed. um >> we could use an update on that because
that is likely to be high. >> Given >> Yeah, let let me follow up on that. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Great. Thank you. >> Yeah. Any other? >> Yeah. And so I I think I think what I
heard with the upshot of the custodial salary was more information is going to get searched out, but what I what I saw where was that one? Um on line 80. Now um that
it was listed as less than FY26. Where is that? Line 80. Yeah. So, right now it's listed as a 12.9% increase, but that I think is because
she's both added some additional hours plus I don't know. Or maybe it's just the salary alignment plus um the 2
59%. It's It's not clear. Her note in would suggest that she added some hours, but I'm not convinced she did because >> I think it could also be just the the salary alignment part two. >> Okay.
>> So, we'll have to get clarity on that. >> Okay. Uh any other >> Oh, did line 30 Oh, line 33 was just It has no entries. It's the GIS. Uh, so it
looks lying. It was fine. >> Did I just say? >> Yeah. Now 32. >> Yep. It's got 5,000. >> It's gone now. >> So we're not >> It wasn't >> It should be gone. >> Yeah, it should be disappeared. It
wasn't being paid for in the whole schedule. And so we took out some lines because we knew we didn't need them in there. And that's one of >> And they hadn't been used in prior years, >> right? >> Okay. >> All right. There's nothing in there. >> All right. So, we can zero that out. In
other words, y >> it's gone. >> Zero what? Oh, hold on. I'm not looking on the minutes. >> So, line 32 on the on today's budget uh February 19th budget >> GIS. >> No, no, nope. Sorry. That's what we're
doing. We need to have that. That's the GIS web hosting. But there used to be a line called 33 and it was called GIS dimension data. >> Oh, I see. So that must have been the line that she that got removed. >> It changed all the numbers, right?
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay, I understand now. Yep. All right. So that Yeah, that's the one that got taken out. >> So what's the new bottom line on the budget? >> All right. So the new bottom line is
8464 538. >> Okay. Okay. So before I do any anything else, I'm going to just update the excess levy capacity number to get this
thing balanced. >> Pickup. Nice. >> Yeah. So, I think I can just change this to three. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, um what we're looking at is
a 9.06% increase in um the operating budget. Um, obviously I don't need to tell you guys, but you we've got um
uh $148,000 insurance increase, $167,000 increase in debt service, uh $50,000 increase in our OPED
contribution, $164,000 increase to the elementary school budget. I think those are the the the big ticket increases. I think in terms of department departmental budgets,
you know, the the only one that's I think kind of u another sort of significant increase is the highway department budget which is between that between the department's budget and snow removal. you know, we're increasing by
about 40, you know, a little over $40,000. But I think just based on our conversations uh over the last few meetings, we're what we're recognizing has been a a sort of chronic
underfunding of the highway department specifically and we're just like constantly, you know, you know, zeroing out these budget lines like in the middle of the year. And I think in this case we can
um safely say that what we're doing here is actually making increases that are kind of overdue. Um so and then of course there's the point we want to communicate around the school
increase which looks significant but most of that is a function of um you know an an obligation out of district obligation that we have that has shifted from a public to a private education
placement. So, that's what we're dealing with. Um, right now, no cash reserves applied. We would need to utilize,
let me get the exact number, 220 plus 16380. We would need to utilize 300 just under $390,000 of excess levy capacity to to balance this budget. And
it would have the impact of increasing the average single family tax bill by $851 or 12.6%. And we still think there are
some items that may need to be um actually that that may increase the the operating budget not by huge amounts but by some we have these part two of these salary adjustments which we may be doing. So, but I think the sort of floor
that we're dealing with is a 9% increase in the operating budget, a 12 a.5% increase in the average single family tax bill. Molly, >> I don't think that Haley has incorporated the additional library expenses in there either for the water testing and stuff. And that's
>> several thousand dollars still. >> Yeah. Um, she has not. Um, and you know, I think I'm going to sort of add I was going to add that um to a kind
of list that uh we are starting with of of potential sort of I don't want to call them remedies but adjustments that we might make. um which would be uh potentially to utilize cash to fund
those increases that are beyond the custodian increase that was already, you know, already already included here. But we we'll get to that in a minute. But yes, you're right. That's that's um that's one of those things that I think
I think there are sort of two kind of things that we're waiting on or I should say. Yeah. two thing types of things that we're waiting on that could impact the budget. It could increase it. One is salary adjustments and then two
are additional library expenses. Um there's also I I guess a new uh you know we have a placeholder in here for the town administrator salary. I don't know how accurate how close that's going to be to what eventually gets negotiated, but that's I guess another thing to
consider. Susie, >> I thought we put the $4,000 for water testing in where water testing used to be, water quality testing in the expenses. >> That's not the only thing, though. >> I understand that. But >> you're right about that, though. Yeah,
>> she said two things. And the other one isn't in here is the HVAC 5000, but I the uh water one >> You're right. Yeah, you're right. The water one is already in here. Oh, that's good. >> I Yeah, but I think there were
um the HVAC testing. Um I think carpets were going to be covered by the >> the um Yeah. Or >> Yeah, the carpets and the windows I think were going to be covered by the the friends for a while. I think the other thing was supplies like toilet paper now that they have toilets.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Right. >> So So there there may be I think they're going to be minimal, but we'll we'll see. >> Yeah. if the 4,000 the 4,000 was the big one. So that one >> if that's already included that helps a lot. >> HVAC was 5,000. So there's another
piece. >> Um the other question I have is in re I couldn't read um what is our current excess levy capacity. >> Okay. >> Before we use any of it >> before we use any of it is
this number here 617,472. It gets reduced to $227,546 if we don't use any cash reserves or cut any budget items because we are using $390,000
excess. Yeah. >> I'm sorry. So, you said the number is on line 17. It's the far No. What is it? >> No, it's it's line 14 on the revenue page. >> 14. Okay. says less excess levy capacity. >> Oh, okay.
>> This this number in the final recap column is the starting point of what we begin the year with. >> Okay. >> In terms of excess levy and this is what we end up with. >> Okay. >> So, the difference between those two is just about $390,000. >> Okay.
>> And Right. And that's the utilization number. >> Yeah. I guess that's right here. Yeah. >> This is how much we're using. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. All the numbers there. Yeah. Um, okay. Um, so yeah, and again, here's the here
here's what this all translates to for the average single family tax bill. So, um, any questions at this point before we talk about some adjustments that we might want to I'm
calling them adjustments, but what I mean by adjustments are there's really I think a few few categories of adjustments to discuss. One is potential um items that we can either fully or
partially fund with cash reserves. So that's a one type of adjustment. Another type of adjustment is to um you know recommend um a cut or maybe a delay of
implementation of on a certain expense. So that would actually be cutting um a budget line, not necessarily zeroing it out, but maybe maybe reducing it. Um, are there any other sort of types of
kind of like I'm just thinking in terms of the categories, the types of of adjustments that we could make? I mean, um, obviously on the revenue side, there's not really anything for us to do. Uh, Jim. >> Yeah. Not not to get to your question, but something just before that. Um, and I apologize for not being in the meeting
last week and and maybe Yeah, >> just from my understanding. I just trying to digest where the big increases are. And I'm looking at lines look at line 209. >> Okay. >> And then >> you're just to make sure you're looking at the >> at the uh the February 19th budget that
got sent around earlier today. >> The budget lines are off. >> I think I think it's that one. Yeah. Yeah. So it's okay. Yeah. >> That line and 214 and 215. >> Yep. >> So are those all related to the library?
>> Yeah. So you'll see here that the the debt service line is increasing by $136,000. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um 117 of that is the first
principal payment due on the new library uh loan. >> Okay. >> Okay. And then >> the rest of them Yeah. You can see um uh actually Yeah. Where is the rest of it? >> Yeah, I was looking at 214 and 21. >> The interest is down below
>> 214 and 215. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> But but Oh, yeah. I see. Um right. Okay. Sorry. >> So, no, it's it's the PAS loan. That's that's the other that's the other new principle. >> Okay.
>> That um you'll see here that's an 18. So, basically, um, these two that I've that I'm just selecting right here, th those two items are are brand new principal payments that are due, which is which is where
where this $136,000 increase in debt service comes. And then uh on the interest side, we have uh a 29 almost a $30,000 increase in um in in
interest payments. And that is uh >> that's probably mostly the library. >> That's mostly the library, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Because everything else the interest goes down as the principal goes down. >> Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay. And this is all based on the uh uh was it a 10-year based on
>> So this is all based on a 10-year loan, which is what Ryan is recommending. We've had a conversation last week and I think once before about recommending recommending uh potentially, I should
say, recommending a switch to a 15-year loan. 20-year loan seems like it's not on the table >> given Ryan's feedback, but um >> yeah, >> but he he he left the door open for 15 years.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I just asked these questions just so I understand the uh what the big contributors are. Yeah. >> Well, and we have a on the uh summary sheet. I just want to say AJ on the summary section the other one there's a bridge showing last year's budget and this year's budget and all the items in
between the material items in between. >> Uh you're talking about the the um the the the budget estimate document. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Which I think you're going to next anyways. >> Yep. Exactly. Yeah. Uh
All right. So, let me stop sharing this. All right. Make this bigger. All right. So, here's February 17th. Okay. >> Yeah. If you go to the top of this page, you'll see the the biggest items. The only thing the all other um is over by
$1,000 now. >> Mhm. >> Because our new number is 8464539. >> How about I just >> Yeah, just take it out here. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> Yep. There you go. Okay.
So, um All right. So, let's let's make sure everybody's clear on this. So, we've got uh >> Oh, I see what this is. >> Yeah. So, this is So, this is the other document I emailed. Uh >> yes, >> just before we
>> and this is the one with the considerations. But before we go there, this everybody can kind of see what the big drivers are that are affecting us >> that incre our budget's increasing by 700,000, right? >> And those are the items um that make that up.
>> Yeah. I think the only other one, if this becomes part of something we share, which I think it should be at um next week's meeting, I think the only other one I think we should >> uh >> Cola
>> is No, I was thinking the highway um department um >> yeah, because I think that's of the of the departmental budgets, that's the only other one besides the elementary school that I think has a pretty sizable
increase. >> I think I'll add the cola too. Do you think the sugar cola? >> Yeah, I think that'd be good. Um, so help me understand what these percentages are. So these are uh >> so the total is 9%. Right. I'm t I'm not
looking at it right now because I'm doing minutes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Right. And each one those add up to it. So basically I don't even know why I put it there, but basically I threw that in there. You can see the percentage of the total budget that it's 2% of last year's budget is going to
equal the increase in elementary school this year. >> Yeah. Okay. Got it. I think Yeah. I think um in in the version of this that we might share, I think we should not include these because it makes it seem like the elementary school budget is increasing by 2.1%. Which is
>> okay. Yeah. No, I'm taking not but but it's helpful. Then no, you're basically saying what is the component of this overall 9.1% increase that >> Yeah, I think for tonight's for tonight for for tonight's exercise, I think this is good information. Yeah,
>> totally helpful. >> Agreed. Agreed. >> Okay. Um All right. And then >> so so AJ, you can just do that for >> Yep. Yeah, I will. Um I just want to
verify one thing. So this this library debt that includes both principal and interest. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> Okay, great. Same with the PAS. >> Same thing with PAS. >> Okay, good. All right. >> Uh actually, >> uh I don't know about the PAS. I'll have to look at that.
>> Okay, got it. >> It shouldn't have the interest because the interest really didn't increase from year to year. Well, >> yeah. >> Okay, >> it did. Yeah, it probably is interest, too. Yeah. >> Okay, got it. All right. Um, >> actually, AJ, I'll do it. I'll I'll do
all these things. I'm making a note on the side. Um, because I'm going to insert Rose, too. So, don't worry about it. I'll take care of it. >> Okay. >> Delete. I'm just writing. >> I'm going to leave it for now because I think as Jim said, it's helpful for us to >> Yep. For our version, we'll >> discuss it. Yeah, >> you got it. >> Okay.
>> All right. So, um All right. So that this is the revenue needed to uh fund the budget. Okay. Yep. All right.
Because this is just totaling all of these. Got it. Okay. >> Right. So you >> So this is what >> Yeah. This is this is this is what it boils down to is um
All right. So, this is the tax excess levy that we're using before we do make any adjustments. Uh here's our new growth. Uh very conservative estimate. Uh and then this is our estimated tax levy. That's the
12.6% >> increase. And this is how it boils down to single family. Okay. Any questions about where we are right now before we talk about adjustments, Jim? >> Yeah, just the excess le levy capacity
need. What? >> Yep. >> What that 389 how? >> So that means um Okay. So we begin the year, this fiscal year with excess levy capacity that we've accumulated over
many, many years of >> $617,472. That's what we begin the year with. Okay. right now because of the um P prop two and a half obviously we would
be if we didn't have ex if we didn't use excess levy capacity we we would need an override to fund this budget right but we we basically to to balance this budget before making any adjustments before you know injecting any free cash
or doing or reducing to fund this budget right now with zero no cash reserves. Um, we would need to utilize $389,926 of that excess levy capacity. >> Okay. >> To to balance the budget. >> Got it. Okay.
>> All right. Which would bring our excess levy capacity at the end of the year down to $227,000 and change. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, George. >> Um, yeah. Um,
uh, I was going to say something. Oh, so one thing I want to point out on this schedule is that $851. Um, last year we got burned. We we underestimated. >> One of the things I did this year that I didn't that probably we shouldn't have
done last year was on row 40, assessed value of taxpayer property. That's the same number it is for FY26. I'm not we we adjusted it up last year for new growth >> and by by doing so we lowered the estimated
>> single tax bill every single tax bill. So we're a little conservative by leaving that number flat. So I want to point that out to everybody. But I am going to talk to the assessor at the next assessor's meeting. >> Okay. the person who is going to become our new assessor. It looks like he's
he's been coming to our meetings and I'm going to talk to him about how the decreased value of personal property, specifically the depreciating utility property caused some of the more the burden to go on the taxpayers. I'm going to ask them to how we can build that
into this model if there is a way to build that into this model. >> Okay? I don't know that there is, but I'm going to talk to him about how we can be a little more conservative because we we don't want to get burned on that. Again, the other thing I want to talk about, the re the first reason I
raised my hand, new growth is $20,000. >> And I'm getting on my soap box right now, I've heard a lot of towns talking we right, anybody reading the Gazette knows we are not the only town in this situation. This situation is horrible. We're one of the fortunate ones that
don't need twothirds vote to increase the tax levy because we can do it with a majority vote because we have excess levy capacity and we don't have to raise the levy limit. >> So, but that still means the voters got to
approve an $851 increase if we decided to use all the excess levy capacity. >> The reason, one of the main reasons we're in the position I'm we're in, and we all know this is we're bedroom community, right? where 96% of our revenue comes from residential property.
The other reason is we don't have new growth. We have no new growth opportunities. We don't have we don't encourage any businesses to come into our town. I don't I don't know that we discourage them. I know we've had referendums on things and we've limited
some of the growth that we've allowed in the town. our one big opportunity for new revenue um has ended uh solar project and so >> people need to understand I'm not advocating for the solar project or any
other project whether it's batteries data centers farms you know marijuana plant farms but when we say no to new development when we make policies that make it difficult for opportunities for new revenue to come in town we have to pay
for that. I don't want to make the school pay for that. I don't want the education of the kids to be compromised. I don't want the highway and the safety to be compromised. That's me personally. But I think that's a concept that I'd like us as a committee to consider and
communicate >> if you all agree with me. Um because that new growth number in the years it was good allowed us to build up excess le levy capacity and we had two years ago we had 112,000
>> 10 years ago the weak project we had like 80,000 those are big numbers in one shot. >> Um >> so I think that's something to some extent that we do need to communicate. Yeah, I think that I think we also need to acknowledge that okay, let's say this
I'm not if this were to be our budget um for for you know FY27 if all it would take would be another year, one year um with similar pressures and we are in
>> override territory, right? We're utilizing >> yes >> um you know $390,000 of excess levy capacity under this budget proposal here. So we wouldn't have that um in in in the year after this. Um so that's
another I think point that we have to um you know we we have to communicate is that we're not like um this is not something that we can rely on always being there. Um uh we are
making um significant cuts. We cut into it quite a bit last year. We used uh let's see well uh yeah we went from 862,000
down to 617,000. So yeah we are rapidly diminishing that capacity. Um Jim and then Susie >> I'm sorry but I I >> Oh >> my hand was still up from before. >> No problem. Uh Susie. So, I think this
is messaging that all goes under the heading something has to change. Um, because we know that if we don't have a different revenue source and we use up all of our less excess levy capacity, we will be looking for an override. Um, and
politically that's tough. Um, >> but I I guess before we work on the messaging, I would like to work on some of the alterations that we can do so that we're not >> working at the extreme end of this. >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I think that's good.
Uh, George, did you >> have something you wanted to >> I just wanted to make a comment about what you said and that is AJ, we might want to look at our long range projection once or two times more before we get to uh annual town meeting because you did make the point about how long
our excess levy capacity is going to last >> and maybe we should kick around what those future years would look like. So >> yeah. Yeah, that that's a good definitely something we want to do. Um, all right. So, let's look at this very preliminary list. None of this has been
reflected in the budget. Obviously, would be um overstepping to do that, but there are things that we may want to discuss. And so, again, just to make it clear, there's this is a mixture of items that where we would um
potentially use cash reserves. And let me let me because we have you know a couple new members um we ought to just talk about sort of the principles of around sort of where we think it's appropriate to use cash reserves to fund
operating budget items. Um it's not a good practice um because it essentially just replicates this cycle where we have and you know ongoing
regular anticipated expenses. Um those should not be funded from cash reserves because it just puts us in a hole the next year because those those you know those expenses are going to be there. They're not going anywhere. They're part of the just what it
routinely requires us to spend to run our town in in any given year. So, in the past several years, we've made an exception to the idea that you shouldn't use cash reserves to fund your operating
budget, which is we've looked for budget expenses that are by their nature temporary. they're not like a long-term feature of the budget that is just going to get, you know, replicated in the next
year, the following year. So, you know, if you added a new staff member that was not a temporary staff member, would not be a good practice to to to use cash reserves to fund that. So, that's one scenario. Then last year there was a
second scenario where we had um ex um sort of extraordinary increases in to to specific budget items like health insurance premiums where we said let's cushion
the blow. It's not that that's a temporary. We don't think our health insurance premiums are going to go down. Um but we said, you know, rather than hit taxpayers with 100% of that, you know, that that uh that um
you know um exceptional increase in one year, let's kind of cushion the blow and do a partial, you know, funding of that increase with cash reserves. I Are there any other scenarios where we've used cash reserves to fund operating
expenses? Anybody think of any? I think those are the only two. Susie, >> we we said when there was um some school expenses, we expected them to drop out eventually. >> So, it wasn't a long-term operating um
>> commitment. It was shorter, >> right? >> So, the two So, yeah, the two you said were using cash reserves to fund um expenses that are not ongoing. use cash reserves for um what was the other one you said?
>> I said yeah. Yeah. Easing the impact of extraordinary increase to >> and I was going to add >> right easing the impact of new or unusual increases. >> Yeah. >> And then the other one I was thinking of was
funding lines that will get reimbured for in the future. Circuit breaker goes directly to the school so we can't do that. But I think veterans benefits we get money back for. >> Yes. And we have done that in the past, right? We did that. Yeah. >> Last year. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Recent past. >> Yes. Um Okay. So, uh is everybody kind of clear on on that? So, that's that's sort of one type of adjustment.
there are some suggestions of possible kind of ways areas where we might want to use that um uh here and then there are at least a couple on here that I'm I'm
indicating with the word cut where I'm actually suggesting that we actually reduce the um the uh actually I should put that here reduce the
the the expense on on our operating budget. Um okay. So should we should we go through these or Susie did you >> I just want to say one other use of cash reserves is for um um capital expenses sometimes. >> So it's not like we only use it here.
>> Right. In the minutes it's just in the context of the operating budget. >> Yes. Right. So, we're just talking about it right for now in the context of how are we going to fund this operating budget and potentially minimize what we're starting off as a 12.6%
increase in the average tax bill. Uh George, >> yeah, real quick for everybody's purpose, I I threw this together um so we could really try to see what the impact of each item would be in terms of the average single family increase. I threw these numbers in here. Um, some of
these because we had talked about them already. The first two, those are just the maximum amount. That's the increase. No, that's the amount of the tuition and the amount of transportation. I didn't necessarily intend for us to do that amount, but I wanted the full amounts in here so we could just pick a percentage
if we decide we don't want to do the whole thing, but we would know what the number is. We wouldn't have to run back and try and figure it out. So, I wasn't necessarily expousing anything here. I was just putting this in here knowing that we as a committee would mess with it. Yeah. All right. So those let's go through
these quickly just to make sure everybody understands it. So So we do have as mentioned an out of district placement to private school. It's um a significant expense. Um,
and to be clear, these amounts are actually are these the actual expenses or are these the increases to those? >> I think it's these are the increases because I think the total expense was like over $200,000 for that that placement.
>> Uh, I don't know. I off the budget those two. We'd have to pull up the budget and look, AJ. I thought those were the numbers. I I can look. >> I might be I might be wrong. Um, I don't know why. in my head. >> Those might be the increases. That is possible. You know, I don't remember. Sorry. I can take a quick I'm going to
pull up the I'm pulling up the budget right now. >> Okay. That the school budget. Yeah. >> Yes. >> Because I'm pretty sure the Well, maybe not. I might be wrong, but uh we we'll get that clarified. So, it's either >> it's either the increase in the out of
district placement costs from last year to this year or it's the whole amount of >> All right. So, I'm looking at the budget and um >> I'm looking at >> the tui the tuition >> 69 um
>> that's what they have in the budget >> 69927. Yeah, that's what they have. >> So, the tuition >> the tuition increased by 69 927, right? Well, it's interesting because last year we uh >> well,
>> it's probably because the FY26 cost um >> they probably applied right >> wasn't happening and so um >> or they applied something one of their one of their grants to it. >> So they took out 12,000 and they put in
69927. So, it's a a change of 57. Um, >> okay. >> 8.99. >> All right. >> 69 927.
>> Yeah. Went from um the number is 57 um $8.99. >> The change is 57. >> The change, right? Because >> but their budgeting is 69,927. >> Yes. >> Okay. Got it. >> And the same thing with transportation.
You're budging the full 66,000 which is a 44,000 increase from last year. >> Yeah. Okay. Uh All right. So So that Okay. So that that that's an important clarification. So
these are the full amounts of those um Oh, no it's not. You know what it is, George. >> Okay. >> Grants. It's they're applying grants. So Susie had shared I think it was Caitlyn that
put this together this document. So this is what was stuck in my head was this 227,000. So the actual expenses are $228,000, but the amounts that we were funding
from the operating budget, >> right, >> are the 69 and then the 66. There's actually over 90 $92,000 of the actual expenses that they're using grants for. So that's important
for communicating, I think, because to me that actually justifies what we're doing in here. We're not saying we're going to fund the whole >> all of the costs of that placement. We're funding the portion of it that the school wanted to fund through the um
operating budget. Right. >> Yeah. They they planned 128 5 128,000 out of circuit breaker >> and so um >> so I wanted to make sure um we only um
put in free cash for money we were actually going to get back and that's not so is that right? Okay. So, according to this document, the amount from funded through circuit breaker is
45,000 for tuition and zero for transportation. Is that is that how you're interpreting this as well? >> I'm reading that last page. Okay. What am I getting? Why am I >> Oh, I see.
>> Circuit breaker total. Oh, so the >> so it's grant and circuit breaker, >> right? Okay. 475. Yeah, it's 45 for the tuition. >> Yeah. So, okay. So, this is this is
helpful. So we we think 45K of circuit breaker uh reimbursement although they've already built See, but I don't want to put that here because they've already built that into
>> 36. Yeah. Yeah. So I don't want to put that there. But um Okay. But I think what we could say is, let me get the number plus. So that's $135,927 divided by 227.
Okay. So we can say that this is it be precise 59 6% of total cost of district placement. Can I say
that that that that that's what this So that's what these these two amounts represent is basically just under 60% of the total costs of the out of district placement% >> right. >> Yeah. Um rest
funded from grants and circuit breaker. So, um I don't know any comments or thoughts about that. Does that seem like
we should be be funding portion of of what was budgeted in, you know, to come from the operating budget as opposed to 100% of that? Desperate times call for desperate measures. That's
>> I say >> it's going to take do we have a goal for what we want the average single taxpayer bill increase to be? Do we have a a threshold we're trying to get below? Um I don't see how
we're going to get it to a low number without something large like this. >> Yeah. The other thing is the circuit breaker system with their delay is that um you
have to meet a certain threshold and then they'll pay 75% or whatever they've decided for the year past that. um you know, so we could we could go deep this time and slowly work our way
back to um only using cash reserves for what we know we'll get back. But um because we don't really know how this year that started the tuition started in January since we really don't know that yet, we
could just wing it and go ahead with these two amounts. They seem a little high to me, but there we go. >> Yeah. Um, okay. We might want to come back to this. I mean the only other thought I
have is I and you know sometimes we get like a little too attached to like round numbers but um you know one thought would be to say you know if we cover half of the total costs of replacement um you know that would be
>> 115. >> Yeah. >> Let's see it would be >> what was it 220? So 227,927. So that would be $114,000. Um,
so wait. Yeah. So that's very close. But did I do that right? >> Yeah, you did it right. Yeah. >> No. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhm. So we could say like so half of the transportation is 33,000.
Okay. And then half of the tuition is >> $35,000. >> Well, yeah, but that's not half of the total. That's not the 114 that you're taking the 60%. >> I'll tell you what that is. uh divided by >> you'd have to go back.
>> No, no, you're right. I I can't I can't do that. Uh >> well, if you bring up the other schedule, we could do it pretty quick. >> Yeah. Let's see. >> Although, it was breaking up in many pieces, wasn't it? >> Yeah, it was. >> A waste of our time. I think for now,
just say 114. You know, 50% of sped and we can break it down. If you'd like, send me that and I can break it down for you. Yeah, let's just say 114 >> when I send you the schedule for um Monday. >> Yep. Okay.
So, is this calculating correctly, George? Yeah. Okay. >> All right. >> $125 impact. >> And you can see Yeah. >> on grants. Circuit breaker
and tax. Okay. All right. I'll just leave it like that for now. Um, >> does that 114 include the uh the transportation or >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. So,
>> yeah. So, basically Yeah. >> Yeah. I just combined >> I combined the two of the two of them. Yeah. >> Until we get the actual We'll go back and look at the numbers and do the actual split. >> Yeah, exactly. >> The 114 between the two lines. >> Yep.
Um Okay. Uh should I move on to the next one? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, George at our last meeting had put together um a uh
a a schedule that showed us the implications of sort of payment schedules for a 15-year versus a 10-year loan. These this is obviously an estimate because it assumed the same uh
interest rate for that that was suggested to us I think by by Ryan now is as is likely. So um but if we were to sort of push back on this the current
proposal and say we think we're we're recommending as a committee and we've built it into our budget. um think that would result allow us to cut $39,000 um from the operating budget from the
the debt service category. Um so I don't know we talked quite a bit about this last week. I don't know if anybody has any new ideas but again the principle here is that this is a little bit different from other kinds of borrowing because this has this this
this asset is going to have a long life should be cost of of it should be of of um you know borrowing should be shared by um residents over the course of the next 15 years as opposed to 10 years. Uh,
George and then Jim, >> did you talk to Ryan? Have Have we reached >> I haven't. No, I'm going I wanted to have this conversation just to make sure this is something we we wanted to actually not only recommend, but build
into our budget sort of pending any, you know, updates from him that we can't do this. Uh, and so, um, okay, that was my thought here. Yeah, I'll give him a heads up if we want to do this. I will give him a heads up
before the the meeting um with the department heads. Jim, you're you're muted, Jim. >> Yeah, just two points on this. um you know one the overall long-term cost to the town would be lower with the lower
with the fewer years with the lower years the 10 years that's as that's one point the second point is at least from my perspective >> is uh I guess I I'm somewhat hesitant to push cost to future generations in general. I mean, I understand the the
age of the building, how long it'll last, but uh future generations or generations beyond us are going to have capital expenditures, too, that they're going to need to take on. >> And um >> I guess what's the different the difference between this kind of capital
item is that it has a different lifespan than a truck, >> fire engine, you know? It's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> But I understand. Yep. I mean, that's that was clearly obviously Ryan's concern is that, you know, it's there's
a there's an interest there's an added interest expense that um comes from from stretching out the borrowing to to 15 years. But you know it's I think it's that that that sort of weighing you know are we willing to live
with the the added you know interest expense over a longer period of time in the interest of spreading the costs of these payments over 15 versus 10 years which will include I mean we're talking
about future generations I guess but we they're not literally generations they're but they're but they are like you know people who might move into town in years, you know, 10 to 15 from now who are going to have access to that resource, are going to benefit from it,
but under the current model would not be contributing to it. Um, at all. >> Yeah. I just thinking the overall long-term cost to the town. >> That was 100,000, wasn't it? 102,000 is the added interest. >> Yes. For five 10 to five years. 15. Yes. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Uh, George, >> yeah, I think you made all the good points, but I do I do I don't want to call it future generations because it's not. >> Yeah, >> it's just five years, not 30 years. >> No, I that's important because, you know, people are moving res going to
benefit from it. >> It would be nice if we could stretch it over the life of the loan, but people other people are going to benefit from this library and they can contribute some to the capital cost. Um, 20 years would have done a better job of that. And I do understand in the long run we
don't want higher costs of the town, but the reality is it's the taxpayers that are paying the bills and taxpayers are coming and going and the ones who live here would get a slightly lower tax bill each year. Um so from their perspective it's not going to look like a cost
savings and that's you know the what you're describing Jim is what bond counsel and Ryan is the way they're thinking. This is absurd to them that we would pay more in interest, but we, you know, we need to think of what the benefits we're, we we're asking for it
because we see the benefits. And AJ, you laid them out really well. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I think, you know, we again I agree we should sort of avoid the generation term, but I think if if we want to include this, but I think to be precise, what we're talking about are
literally people who will move into this town between years 10 and 15 from between 10 and 15 years from now, right? That that's that's precisely what we're what we're talking about. Who are not here will not be here in the next 10 years, but will move into town in years
11 to 15. And I'm just going to throw this out because many of us made contributions to the library over the last 10 years and some of the cost of this library has been decreased because those taxpayers who've been living here before it was even built have been paying more than their share of property
taxes to allow this building for everyone. So I don't feel bad about people who move in this town later on paying a little extra. We all benefit and we're I think most people are willing to spend it on this library. Yeah, that's actually that that's a
useful point because, you know, for years we were actually even in the budget we were contributing >> $25,000 a year to a library building fund which is partly, you know, which is one of the funding sources. So that that's it's not just
this loan, it's Yeah. Yeah. It's all of that. Not to mention many volunteers. Yeah. Uh April and then Molly. >> Yeah. I don't want to tell you how old I'll be at the end of this loan. That that was one thing. But but the other thing is that this also could be a way
to get some new growth. >> You know, the having the library built in there that we could attract more people building homes >> and new growth. >> Yeah. Mic. >> I just wanted to let you all know that I'm at work and the building is closing.
>> So I'm going to leave the meeting and join you from my car. >> Okay. So, just when I disappear and then show up with no video, that's what's happening. >> Okay, sounds good. Thanks, Molly. >> Keep warm. >> All right. Yeah. Uh Jim, did you have something
>> you were about to say or? >> No. No. >> No. Okay. >> All good points. >> Okay. All right. Um the next item is uh George, you had the suggestion of
this is kind of a basically a a similar thing that we did last year, although >> um not quite to the same extent, but funding a portion of the health insurance increase. So this would be a third of the increase or a little more than that. >> Yeah, I just picked a number, but I don't know, you know, how people feel. I
just threw that in there. Um because it looks like we're this year's increase is also very large 20%. And I don't know if Ryan >> is I I read some towns and even the region were actually cutting that increase their increases down. And so I'm wondering if the number we have in
the budget is actually the right number. >> Okay. Well, given what we might be doing with this topic that we just discussed, I'm going to be reaching out to him, try to get him um on Monday. So, uh actually
tomorrow I'll give him a call and see if if I can I'll I'll ask him about that as well. >> Um Susie, >> in the theory of easing, I believe we used more cash reserves um last year by the end of special town
meeting. So, we're still working in the right direction and um I agree that we should ease this one in. >> Yeah, I think my feeling was we should make some kind of contribution from cash
reserves, but not anywhere near what we did last year because that's giving us this is one item where we cannot justify this as a temporary expense. it's not going anywhere and I would be, you know,
concerned about, you know, putting us back in the same position next year where we're going to see a huge increase again in health insurance because we have, you know, if if we were to do something to the extent of last year. So, I'm comfortable with
this this amount. It's much smaller. I can I I think I think last year we did I'll get the number but it was quite a quite a bit because we did it in two stages. We did the original budget that we approved at town meeting and then we
got the new updated assessment and it was terrifying. And so we did another uh we made another another decision. So we basically did it twice. So yeah. Okay. Um, anybody else have a thought
about whether this is a valid use of cash reserves or whether it should be higher or lower? >> Thank you, >> Jim. Oh, you're muted, Jim. >> Just more of a general question.
>> Um, we also have to look at what we have for cash reserves. What are we at the 700,000 plus range >> uh right now with what we've got proposed with capital and >> other y >> other needs. So we need to be looking at how this impacts
>> where we where we end up with cash reserves and how that lines up with um where we think we need to be to be healthy. >> Yep. I'm glad you mentioned that because in your in the the Google Drive
document, thanks to George. Say that a lot. Thanks to George, >> Mr. Spreadsheet, >> we have an updated capex. I'm going to just quickly show it to you because I I
don't want us to uh get too derailed, but we have a new capex. look for the FY27 uh sheet. Um and the important point point about bringing it in here right now is
um if I zero this out. Okay, this shows us what our um free cash amount is right now before using any any of it for um for um
operating expenses. It it does use a bunch which we will talk not about talk about not tonight but at probably our next meeting. Um it does use a bunch for capital items but um yeah >> right this that's this 133,000. So
assuming those are approved and end up on warrant articles and they pass that would leave us with $910,000 of in of free cash and $433,000
of stabilization funds. Both of those are above our current guidelines right now of 5% of our operating budget in stabilization funds and 10% of our operating budget in C free cash reserves
that those are the guidelines we've been trying to sort of follow and mostly been successful. Um and but we will come back to this um based on some of the discussion. We we're going to finish up uh here. Uh but that's the quick answer
your question, Jim, but at least where the starting point on those numbers are. >> Yep. Thanks. All right, Laura. >> I just wanted to confirm that I understand kind of the two and a half percent. So I mean if we spend cash I mean instead of levying I mean that's
like less money like a like increasing I mean our like our capacity like in the future. So like am I like >> like the more we spend in cash like kind of the less that number goes up the next year.
Um it so it's it's what what yes I mean it's it's the more the the more cash reserves we use >> the less excess levy capacity we need to use to balance the budget. So yes in in effect that will leave us with a balance
of of excess levy capacity that is that much higher depending on on these adjustments here. Yeah. So, if we if we if we use $100,000 worth of of of free cash reserves to fund the operating budget, that means we can we can drop
the um excess levy capacity by uh actually uh am I right about that, George? >> We would drop the amount of levy capacity that we would need to utilize. So, the 390 by >> would go down by to 290.
>> Yeah. And the impact of that means the levy would be $100,000 less than what we think we need right now to balance the budget. And the impact of that is lower property tax on the average single family home. >> Right. And George has has taken the step
of actually calculating what each of these injections of free cash translates to in terms of the average single family. >> Yeah. Give or take a couple bucks. you know, give or take one, you know, >> roughly what it's going to reduce it by. >> This is all rough. I hope that you we
can when we present this stuff, we can talk more in ranges. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I mean the excess levity capacity. Yes. But like I mean also just kind of like how much like levy capacity we have like so like the two and a half% that we're increasing. I mean >> that's on the previous that's on the
other sheet here. It shows you if you show if you go to the other sheet AJ I think we can answer Laura's question easily. Well, you had the right sheet just on the B. There's two. >> Oh, I see. >> On that Excel spreadsheet. >> Yeah. >> If you go on the other one, we can see
where the new revenue is coming in to cover the budget. >> Yeah. >> And one thing you'll see is Yeah. Not this the summary sheet, >> the pre preliminary estimate sheet. >> Yeah. the one that you had. There's it's
a different tab on that. >> Uh >> so go back to the considerations. >> Yep. I'm here. >> Uh no, you're in the budget. This is what I see. >> Oh, sorry. >> He's looking at
Okay. Uh All right. Uh >> yeah, you're talking about this. >> Yes. So if Yeah. So if you look at row 18, right? We need 703 in revenue. And where
are we getting that $73? There's our two and a half increases our limit. And then debt exclusions are increasing which goes right into our tax levy because we approved it. New growth, right? And then increase receipts. >> But then last year we used cash and we
aren't this year. So, >> so I think my question is for line 21, I mean that is based on how much we levied last year, >> right? >> Right. Actually, yes. You want to go down to row 31 is where we really want to go. >> Yeah.
>> And you're right. Row 33 is is allows us the law allows us the law the law increases our tax levy limit. That that just automatically happens by 167. And then we know we have new debt exclusion and we have new growth, which means
we're $390,000 short of balancing the budget. That's the purpose of this section. And so we're going to use 390. We balanced our budget. Now, what we're doing on the considerations page is how can we decrease the that 390 that's on row 32,
thereby re reducing row 36, the levy, thereby reducing the very bottom rows that show the average single tax. So this this exercise has potentially
benefits in two ways. I think to finish is it reduces the amount of tax levy we have to raise and preserves more excess levy capacity for future budget years. >> Great.
>> Okay, Susie. And the one other thing is that when we figure out next year's two and a half levy capacity, if we use less excess levy capacity this year, then what that two and a half will affect
will be smaller than if we used more excess levy capacity. >> I don't believe that's true. You don't think >> the two and a half >> isn't the capacity is the difference between what we need to raise and what the limit is and the limit is always
that number. It's just always higher than what we need to raise. That's what the excess levy capacity does. If we went to the revenue sheet. >> No, I'm just saying what excess levy capacity we incorporate into FY27's budget means that what we get for 2 and
a half in FY28 will be a little larger than if we didn't use any excess levy capacity. >> I I don't I that I don't think that's true. >> Oh, interesting. If we look if we could go to if you go to the revenue page where the levy capacity is calculated
that two and a half is always calculated in a number that's above the excess levy capacity. The excess levity capacity is just how much of the levy we're not using to balance our budget. The levy will always go up by two and a half. So
if you look at row four in FY27, 6.7 million, that number comes from row 9, line 9 in FY26. All right? And that number 6717
automatically gets increased by two and a half. Next year, our 2 and a half is going to be 2 and a.5% of 6.9 if new growth is $20,000. The excess levy capacity is below all that. What the excess levy capacity does is it takes your levy limit which is row
9 plus row 12 7133 >> and it looks at what you need to raise which is 6905. Your excess levy capacity is the amount of that limit up on row 9 that you're not using
and so it does not affect the calculation of levy. It's a good >> of two and a half mill. >> It's a good conversation Susie. >> Yeah. So it doesn't it doesn't impact the levy limit next year. What you're saying >> that's why this is great. I mean you
know this is what people need to understand because the two and a half confuses everybody and most people say well how come my tax bills are going up more than two and a half%. It's like >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> The same thing. >> Thanks. >> All right. Uh okay.
So I think sounds like I think we have some consensus around potentially using 50 cash reserves for health insurance. I didn't see any other alternative numbers there. And George, you found out
interesting things about how our oped fund is doing, right? So do you want to tell us what you learned? >> Uh yeah, here let me open up the schedule. I mean what what what I'm seeing here. Let me open up the schedule. It'll
make it easier for me. Um I almost want to show it to everybody, but we could you know we could schedule an OPED me uh uh >> on a few items. >> What is interesting to me is the model we're using and I updated it with the current balance. Our current
balance is $1.2 million in the OPED fund. and the analysis I've done, you know, playing with these numbers and we we've all looked at this in the past. I just kind of keep it up to up current. Um, if we start drawing on it in fiscal
2031 and we continue to put 50,000 in per year, we have we will be able this fund will not be depleted until 2067. Okay. So, what's that? 41 years from now,
>> if I take the $50,000 annual contribution out of it, funds are depleted in 2055, which is right 30 years from now, 29 years, we'll say. And so,
who knows what the world's going to look like then? What I began to question why we're funding this so much. And what I will tell you is in my in this model, interest in 2026 will be roughly $70,000. That's the interest income. And that number just gets higher
year-over-year because we're not taking a lot of money out of this fund. It won't be at any material levels for probably 8 to 10 years. And >> the the only money we're taking out of it is just for expenses >> for Yeah. for having the fund, right?
Yeah. >> Yeah. That's right. What happens is the real only real OPED costs the most the 99% of it 95% of it is health insurance for retirees. >> Yeah. >> And that number is projected based on
the last actuarial study goes up by about less than two and a half% per year. If we want to keep it around two and a half% per year then we start using it. And that's what I did in my model. And so at some point those increases start to get so high that we start to use this. I mean, we could argue we
should do that now, right? I mean, health insurance is going crazy. Um, I think in absence of an actuarial study, we could probably put a pause on this for now, given that even if under our current analysis, we would still be good for 30 years
if we didn't fund it at all again. But I think we need to see the next sexual study because I think they're going to change the numbers. I think the two 2055 depletion date will go down to 2050 maybe or you know it's going to become closer.
>> Got it. >> But we're earning a lot of interest and I actually think the interest assumptions were using this are are conservative. So I think to let it ride another year without funding, we're taking no risks. >> But in this picture you're saying 50,000
out of cash, correct? >> Uh no, I'm saying don't fund it. cut it. >> I don't know what I wrote there. If I wrote the wrong thing, I apologize. >> No, I I I put the word cut here to distinguish >> items that were funding through through cash reserves and those that were actually >> I see
>> would be potentially proposing to cut. >> Yeah, that's what I mean by with no additional town contribute. Yes. >> One other factor to put in is when we did nothing. Is that what we did last year? Nothing. >> Yes. Zero. Um, the answer by I believe
it was Gail Weiss or it was Ryan is um it's not a good um it's not a good what's that called um >> precedent. >> It's not a good reflection of your economic system and it might affect bond
ratings and things like that. And and so I was thinking maybe instead of the 50,000 coming and operating, we would do 25 um and we could do it out of cash. I I think I think zero was advised
against as a as a precedent last year. So, so you're suggesting we reduce the bud the expense to $25,000 and we fund that with through cash reserves as opposed to um tax levy.
>> I I think that's better than zero. >> Okay, Jim. And then George. >> Uh yeah, I I was going to suggest that we get Ryan uh in in on this discussion. Um, >> yeah. >> And, um, and George, you mentioned
another, you know, another review with the with the the fund with the fund people. Is there any timing on that? Do we know when there's another update? >> Yeah, I think it happens next year. I think he said >> I think it's probably happening now, maybe even. >> Yeah, it might even be happening now. Yeah. >> But I guess I just suggest getting input
from Ryan, an update from him. >> I don't have an issue with what you're proposing here given the overall set of circumstances we're dealing with. Yeah. >> And this is this is a way to go forward. Uh but I think it would be good to get Ryan's input or at least understand his
latest point of view. >> Yeah, I think it's safe to say that he would he would probably not endorse um us zeroing out the budget line. He might be okay with us funding it through
through cash. I'm sure he would prefer us funding it through through cash reserves. Uh but Susie suggested a compromise which is to do both sort of cut but not zero out the expense and fund it through cash which I think makes
some sense. Um George. >> Yeah. Um I'm fine with that if you want to do that. I think we're going to come back to it because I think we're just not going to be able to make a substantial jump dent in the 851. Uh, you know, the people I've heard from in town were
pretty upset about a $500 increase last year. I don't know how we're going to get there without doing some desperate things. And honestly, I think a lot of towns should be taking actions like this. The state would start getting nervous if all their municipalities started to see their
>> bond ratings go down because >> strike on OPED. Yeah. I you know I just think we need to start sending some strong messages and >> so but yeah let's make it 25 now. I'm fine with that. Um but I I think we're
going to go back to it. I think probably going to do other stuff too so it doesn't matter. >> Yeah. >> You know and I mean at the end of the day it's the voters that vote on this. It's the voters that decide. >> Yeah. Well,
okay. So, uh, we're going to say cut expense one to 45K and fund
through. All right. So, let's see. got to add. >> I Yeah. >> Okay. Uh, April. >> Yeah. I'm I'm wondering if we should look at that. I I like what I like that
proposal, but also look at funding town building maintenance repair fund out of cash reserves. I I worry about cutting it entirely. >> Yeah. Um, >> so, um, here's here's what I would say about about this is, um,
we've used very little of this line um, in FY26. Um, I I'm I I have not discussed I have it on my list of of uh of of calls to make. I've not discussed it yet with the
building committee, but because I did I did mention at our last meeting that it'd be helpful to get an update from them. Um, but I would say right now they're going to it's hard for me to imagine they're
going to spend a considerable amount of of of that current balance from from this year. Um, and so It's a lot of money to contribute to a fund that we all understand the need for
it, but that doesn't seem to be getting spent at I think the rate that we were expecting. And you know, it might be that they're perfectly good explanations in terms of their schedule of of
repairs, but um uh what what did George say? Desperate times call for desperate measures. So this is this was my this was not George this was my uh suggestion um in terms of a a desperate measure. Um the other one
would be you know while we're here is that what say these new library expenses are that are already built into the operating budget are $5,000.
Um, I was going to propose, again, this is more of a cushioning thing than a than a temporary thing, but um, using reserves to fund that for this first year of the library. I don't know what folks
think about that. >> Yes. Um, unfortunately not here right to chime in on that, but uh >> I think funding it from cash without um
is different than not funding it at all. >> Yes. >> So I I think that's okay. I looked at the building expenses. They've only spent like 14% of their budget um so far. And >> yeah, >> I think the word um
moderator delay is kind of in here and and along with the other it's the clicker one. I mean, I don't know why we're marching down the road for clickers right now. It seems like that's one that could be not >> could be delayed or put off. >> Yeah, >> it's a pretty small number, but yeah,
the capital planning is going to have to talk about that. >> The clicker I I I meant to ask you about this. It is a a capital item, right? It's not a subscription kind of um um ongoing operating expense is that >> there was a request about the capital
planning. Sorry. >> Both. Okay. >> Yeah. So there's an initial cost and then there will be a subscription cost. I mean there's like a little bit it sounds like probably a little bit more like initial subscription cost because we can get people trained and then once people are trained like then >> they don't have to do the training again.
>> Um and I think the reason they wanted to do it sooner rather than later is because we're trying to trade in the ones that we got from Ammerst. So um like that value will depreciate on them the longer we wait because they are already out of warranty.
>> Got it. Okay. >> Um >> all right. >> So do we have a firm number um of >> so >> the clickers would cost that we could put under free cash or cash reserve? Yeah, it the uh I don't know about the
subscription cost, but it was on that schedule that AJ showed us for the capital. >> Okay, so let's see. Uh >> so it says clickers for town meeting $5,700, but I guess yeah. Is that is that was that the full cost for year
one? That's the capital cost that Laura was referring to, not the subscription. >> So that's just the hardware. That's not the subscription, >> right? >> But um that's the only number I see on >> Yeah. >> the the capex. So So there's not a
>> subscription fee should be in a budget somewhere. I I don't know if we've actually put it in our budget. >> It isn't. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> All right. So I'm gonna put a question mark here. And I believe the town will end up
voting that item separately so they can vote. >> All right. >> All right. Uh maybe I'll I'll I'll email see if she has a quote on the subscription fee. Um okay. So any other
suggestions of either variety proposed cuts, proposed budget operating lines to fund with cash reserves, adjustments to any of these amounts.
I wonder >> sorry Jim and then Susie. >> Yeah. Yeah. I just saw in the capital capital expenditure you have 5,700 built in there for clickers. >> Yeah. So we think that's for the hardware. So that's the actual capital
component but not the operating subscription fee. >> Okay. >> At least that's that's that's what we think. >> All right. Uh George, did you have something?
>> Oh, yes. Um, so we do need to really read the tea leaves with the taxpayers. I I know I said it before. What are they willing to vote for? 573 increase in their in their property tax bills. I don't think so. That's 150 a
quarter. It's really 300 in the third and the fourth bills of the year. >> Don't think people are going to be open to that and >> we are leaning towards a structural deficit. We are getting close. You know,
we've been walking the tight rope of funding the budget with cash, even ongoing expenses. We do know that our free cash always seems to replenish pretty well. Two to $300,000 at the end
of the year. I don't know how many more years we can go on, but I do think we need to reduce this number. We need to roll the dice for another year because I don't think I, as I said earlier, I'm not a fan of cutting the budgets. I don't think that
you know these towns are these departments are asking for a lot of extra in their budgets. Most of our departments other than the school are one, two, maybe three people full-time equivalents. I don't think there's any departments that are more
than three or four people other than, you know, the the two schools. And I'm not a proponent of cutting the schools. Our our elementary school has been keeping their budgets pretty lean. And if you look at the percentage increases in their budgets, if you take out the
out of district placements, they're not large requests on a budget that's very large. We all know that sped costs have taken over elementary school budgets, our elementary school budget. And so I'm not necessarily a risk taker
financially, but I think that I want to protect the budgets for one more year. But people need to understand if the environment that we live in continues, we may have no choice. But I really want to stay away from trying to
cut too much pain for our department managers and for the people who are impacted by these things. >> So George, are you saying that the way to do that since we're not going to cut expenses is to put more cash reserves against some of the operating costs?
>> Yes. >> Okay. That check checking where we're going. Yeah, I guess I didn't really say that, but yes, that is where I'm heading. >> I think there's a there's a I I think I agree with everything you said, George. Um, the only thing I would add is that
they're they're um I think we could potentially make send a message that this this is not a year, a great year to
add any significant staffing, service, so on and so forth. And I say that because I, you know, I it occurs to me that, you know, we have not the one thing we have not discussed tonight is this um proposal that Haley
mentioned at our last meeting around adding a new position of a facilities manager. And while I understand her um you know she's done some thinking about
this and thinks that it it will be um over the long I think over a period of time something that will actually um reduce costs and bring in revenue. I think it will I don't think there's any reason to think that can happen
in the in year one of this. And so I don't think this is a year to to to do that kind of a a move. But I although other other than that I agree with you that the only budget that I think has a
substantial increase that's not like easily explained by a one or sort of non-discretionary kind of of component like the out of district placement is the highway department and that's I think we have that's well documented
that you know we're gonna we're going to spend that money one way or the other in in you Bincom reserves or you know line-to-line trans you know like that's clear that that budget has been underfunded. So
uh April and then Jim >> yeah a couple of things. One was we haven't talked about the proposed capital expenses. That's that's something. But also, you know, if we are consistently getting back into free cash
$300,000 more or less a year, then using $253,000 make it doesn't put it seems like that's perfectly safe thing for us to do. Um but yeah, where are the capital expenses in this budget?
>> Yeah. So, so I will say I don't want to like go through it in detail because I think that's a separate meeting. But I can tell you >> a ballpark >> in in Georgia's spreadsheet there are $133,000 worth of capital items that are
um related to FY27. There are a couple of big items that I think planning committee sees as hitting the the you know the town in FY28, right? Um but
>> or later, but um but in terms of FY20 what we have to plan for it currently looks like 133,000 and change. Um, so you know, we're talking about in these various proposals we've discussed
here, we're talking about utilizing $194,000 of cash reserves. Um, >> actually AJ about that. >> Is that right? >> Well, you're using I think the 25,000 for OPED is in there and shouldn't be.
>> Okay. So that is Well, I You want to fund that OPED with cash? >> I thought that is what we discussed that we would um >> Oh, I didn't realize that. I I know we said put 25,000 back in the budget. I didn't realize also apply cash to it.
>> Uh so wait, we're uh so I think that Yeah, I think I think that's what we >> Oh, okay. >> Here. Okay. My impression. >> Got it. That's good. I'll get that in the notes. >> Yeah. So cut expense line to 25K and fund through cash reserves. Yeah, I think that's at least that was my interpretation. Yeah.
>> Yeah. Sorry. Got it. So yes, >> that's included that's included in your total for cash applied. >> That's included in in this in this line here. So what happens is we're decreasing the tax by $253,000,
but some of that is a cut to the library debt and some of that is a cut to OPED and some of that is a cut to um town building
repair fund. Uh Jim, >> yeah, I I'd say along the same lines. Um you know, you look at all the big drivers uh for these for the increase that the the big the big hits here and most of those are locked in.
>> Um I guess you could argue that maybe school is not locked in, but I don't think we want to do anything that the school is what four and a half% increase total. So it's not >> uh it's a big driver as far as increased cost, but the percentage drive on schools isn't that big.
Um the others are pretty much locked in. Um so I think I I sort of agree with George on this that if we're going to take a risk with regard to our cash uh cash reserves level, this is maybe a year we need to to take that take that chance. Um, I think to April's point,
even even with, you know, even without looking at capital the capital plan, um, I I still I think we're going to have to take the jump with regard to uh eating into cash reserves uh this year. >> Yeah. Um,
>> I think the only other thing that and I I I well I mean one thing we haven't discussed is is pausing the salary alignment adjustments.
I I wouldn't be personally I wouldn't be opposed to doing that. Although I think the message around that should be that um that that we we will incorporate those
adjustments um and you know next year or uh I I don't know if we would want to be need to be specific about it but um >> that doesn't get you much of a dent though does it a >> it doesn't it doesn't do a lot but you know it it I think it
>> you know we're sort scraping together, >> you know. But you're right, it doesn't do a lot. It's what maybe >> 25 >> 25,000. I think the original adjustment was 10,000.
>> I think 10,000 per year. >> Yeah, it it's closer to 10,000. I I like your idea, AJ, of what you suggested about this putting off this increase that Haley, this additional person, you know, putting that off and maybe a delay on that. >> Yeah. To be clear,
>> that actually has a that has an impact, >> right? >> Just to be clear, it's not in the budget right now, so it doesn't doesn't save us anything, but it was something that she >> mentioned and and shared some some documentation about at our last meeting.
So, um that's why I bring it in now. But yeah, >> uh George and then Susie. So, I just want to remind everybody the um we did have a conversation with the school committee about ex uh creating a stabilization
uh sped stabilization fund and certainly one of the justifications for using money is that I would like to anticipate that someday we will have such a thing. Don't know how we're going to fund it. Don't know what our options are. But something to keep in the back of our
minds when we talk about using cash for this as well. And I did want to reiterate, I also want to reiterate um AJ's point about adding new employees to the town is this is not the time for
that. The facilities one in particular, we need to have conversation with the buildings committee and what they're doing before we decide about that thing as well. So, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think it's probably a good idea. I don't think the librarian should be the one who has to worry about keeping
the snow off her air conditioning units or HVAC units. I don't think the principal should be dealing with oil water getting in the oil tank. There should be somebody who can help them with that. That's not their job nor their area of expertise. So, and other
point I want to make is I think employees deserve pay increases. >> Inflation is going up. We're asking people to do more with less or at least hang in there with, you know, level funding. Um, and I'd much rather see us
not hire a person or if things got really desperate, laying one person off so that all the others could still get their pay increase. If we have to make those kinds of decisions, I think the people we keep, we need to make sure that they're motivated, productive, and feel supported.
>> Yeah, >> I think that's it. Yeah, that >> Oh, and one other thing. Yep. And as far as the capital planning goes, those $133,000 worth of items, they have not been approved yet by the capital planning committee. So, that's our that's probably going to be one of our our next
meeting is with the highway chief. He's got a tractor, a sprayer, a grater, and um >> Wow. >> If all goes well with the and a plow. Thank you. And if all goes well with the greater, it will have no impact on us.
If we don't get a grant for 250,000, we're going to have an issue with how to fund the greater if the capital planning committee approves it. Um, and that may be debt in the future. It probably would be debt in the future. The other two items that the capital planning has are firetruck and the highway, I'm sorry,
the elementary school parking lot. If we approve the fire truck, it won't need to be financed for until FY28. And that's why it doesn't have an impact now, but it will have an impact. And then the same thing
with the they gave us an estimate for the parking lot at the school of 1.2 million, but nobody really knows. That's that's really a a wag for sure. And um there's a consultant coming in uh
landscape consultant who has who did the parking lot who engineered the parking lot for Deerfield I believe it was their elementary school will have much better number on that. That is also something that would not impact FY28 might even go to FY29. So those things are in the
background as well. >> Um >> George what's the timing for meeting with capital planning? And so we're going to meet with Thank you. We're going to meet with the highway chief like I said on March 4th and we as the finance the capital planning is on the
4th. We have them scheduled to meet on the 10th. The goal is to have everything decided so that the finance committee will know what they're going to be um having to fund. >> And that's when roughly >> March 10th. >> March 10th.
>> No, they're scheduled to meet with us on March 10th. And on March 4th, they plan on going through the whole list and doing the yays and the nays. >> Okay, >> Dizzy. >> Um, couple of things. I I feel we need
to get that a clear number on the um adjustment schedule for those six positions and then I would support doing it because it's part of where we are trying to go. Um, and the other thing is
in general, um, there was a woman that spoke or wrote about Ammerst and she said, "We're having a funding problem, not a spending problem." And I think that's a really important clear message. Because every department can take back to their um can
sit back and say, "Yeah, we're not spending too much. There's not enough funds." And so, um, there was an article following up on rural aid today in the Gazette, um, working with Joe Cmerford. Um, it is pie in the sky or it's not
money in our hand, but it is a orientation to understand that we are having a funding problem and we don't want to put it all back on our local taxpayers, but it doesn't make the problem go away. So, I agree that we
should spend up our cash reserves and I think we could even go below 10% in our cash reserves this year, although there's not not sure what else we would put in this list to use cash reserves. Um like um since we started this
meeting, the idea of some of the new library expenses being eased in by using cash reserves, that's a kind of thinking. Um, >> yeah, >> but I I think we have to um I personally would like to see that number under 500
since last year it was over 500 the impact on the average tax bill. But we can't promise anything that isn't our it isn't us. We're not doing this. C >> can we So So two things I guess one is a one is a comment, one is a question. So,
one thing that I don't think we can we're going to be in a position to implement in this budget, but I think I want to alert everybody to a possible area of cost savings in
the future is um I had a meeting with um the highway superintendent and Haley today about an issue that was not known to me, but some of you may be aware, but that the the highway way department has
for many years now had a practice of plowing um a series of private roads around town >> including a bunch around >> the the lake >> can you guys hear me? My microphone just
died. Yep. >> Yep, we can. >> Okay. So, um and you know uh so so I see some nodding heads. So, I think some of you I did not know this and uh I think there are a few
cons obvious concerns. One is sort of just like a basic fairness and equity issue because there are plenty of people who live off of private roads in town that are paying out of pocket for snow removal. So why does some why does some, you know, houses benefit from it, some
don't? Um there's a liability issue, you know, if if one of our vehicles it damages a card plowing a private road is the town responsible probably is that issue um and so and and then just a
basic fair question about why why are all why are why is the town essentially subsidizing or paying for a service that it's not required to provide and that you know it it is not part of public public infrastructure in
town so Haley had I think an interesting uh suggestion which was she's been doing some research on these on the concept of a betterment assessment where um the impacted households could have an
additional assessment added to their property tax bill to cover the cost which Dave has begun to disagregate from his overall snow removal expenses. is um
that's one potential strategy. And another strategy that we talked about was some of this work is actually being subcontracted out to people because these are some of these roads are quite narrow and not appropriate for the the
highway department's equipment. So he actually has to pay external vendor and you know the town is covering that expense right now. Um, so one suggestion was to just we could the
town could have all of all any plowing it's doing currently on private roads be subcontracted out and have the those costs very clearly disagregated because
they're because they're being paid through a subcontractor. having those added to people's property tax bills through this betterment assessment um strategy. That would be a model. And then another model is just to say the
town is no longer going to plow and that you know those those roads or even arrange for the plowing and ask for residents to reimburse you know to to pay the town for the for those services through this.
So that that's also another and and essentially leave it up to households to you know make arrangements themselves. Um this is there's obviously complicated stuff. There's there's a lot of lot that needs to be figured out. Dave doesn't
even have 100% understanding of who owns all of these private private roads. Like he knows a lot of them but um so there's fair amount of research. I think this is something that
is being examined and would potentially come up before the town at a special town meeting in the fall before the winter season and could either potentially reduce costs or bring in if
we're going to continue to pay for this out of you know by you know through vendors we could get reimbursed for for a portion of that. in terms of what like I think the low end of what this cost he said was about $20,000. It's more than
that because that's just what um that that's just like the materials cost. It doesn't factor in labor. It doesn't factor in the you know anything for uh the equipment maintenance. It doesn't factor anything in for
you know sort of liability. There's the it's more than that but that would be the the sort of low end of that. So, that's one thing um to alert you all of. Um struck me as a kind of a pretty like I think there's a bunch of
justifications, not just a cost one, but but but a series of them that seem to make a lot of sense to me, but uh but there'll be more on that in the future. Um and then uh oh god, I lost the sound thing.
Um, oh, I was a question for you all. Do you think we can set as a kind of goal to I'm just piggybacking on something Susie said of of getting this
um adjusted increase in the average single family tax bill under $500. If we could somehow set that as a goal for our kind of collaborative discussion >> with department heads, is that one of
the things we can essentially communicate as sort of a working goal for that that meeting? Just try to establish ways to get there. I don't know. That's one thought. George. Oh, sorry. April and then George. No, I I just wanted to touch it, swing
back to the the payraises that I I think that we made it very clear last year that that it was going to be done in two parts and maybe a compromise would be that the two that the cola be added to the current wage and then the increase added to that and and this this um
plowing thing would more than covers. >> Yeah. >> But also, we're going to pause the um the alignment study for the next year. We're not able to pause that. That will be the next part of that. >> All right. Uh George,
>> oh boy, I think I forgot why I raised my hand. But what I will say is I think the plowing issue will it's it I think it's a stretch to think it's going to be resolved before um we get our budget done. >> No, I agree. >> It's not it's it's a special town meeting thing in the fall. It's not it's
not going to get >> right. Yeah. There's a liability issue with not paving those roads and you got to be able to get to people. um in case of emergency. Oh, what was the other I'll I'll raise my hand now. >> Hold on. I will say on that, George,
that there there are people including myself that live at the end of a private dirt road and I I pay for that to be so I agree that it's like but I think it's my obligation as a homeowner to ensure that emergency vehicles can access my
home. I I don't I don't think I appreciate that's responsibility to do that for me. >> No, I appreciate that. I got neighbors who live on a private road and they're and they all get together and they're they pay a guy to plow it. But I'm not sure everybody at the lake's going to agree with you. >> That that is the arrangement I have. We
have three families that or three households that share our road and we chip in to, you know, to to get that plow. But and yeah, but I understand the point. Um Susie, >> so back to your original question. Yeah, George. Um, I'm not sure the town
managers are interested in talking about what's the right tax increase on the average single taxpayer. You know, we can tell them that's our goal and that's what's driving our decision- making because we're trying to balance their needs with the taxpayers's
needs, but you know, I don't know that those who don't live in our town and are on those boards are going to be motivated by that. Just want to throw it out. So, would that include department heads as part of that? >> Yeah, I mean, if I'm a department head and you're asking me to do my job, I'm
going to tell you what I need for money, and I understand. I don't want to hurt the taxpayers. I'm a taxpayer wherever I live. Um, but I don't know what the right increase is for Shootsbury residents. >> That's the finance committee's job. Their job is to,
>> you know, they're they're more interested in what we're how their budgets are going to be impacted. Yeah. >> So, I'm not sure talking about that goal >> and asking them for input on that goal is important. I think talking about it is important because we want them to know what's driving us and why we're,
you know, we're doing the things we're doing. But from their point of view, I don't think they're going to say, "Oh, I think 600 would be, you know, if I'm a department head, I'd say $1,000 would be the right number because I'm going to want as much money as I can get." So, you know, >> I'm just they care about that.
>> I I get that. But I guess, you know, if part of the framing is is that, you know, we we need we need to get this budget approved by town residents, right? So, this is it's and and they're, you know, they're
they've got something at stake here, right? It's not it's not, you know, like this their increases are not going to just get, you know, necessarily rubber stamped, right? have to build
>> um support for a budget that we collectively with them have a high degree of confidence is going to get passed and approved by by town residents. If part of that means that we have to demonstrate collectively that
we've done everything we can to moderate the increase that that that taxpayers are going to experience in this year where we have to quote Susie a massive funding problem not a spending problem we agree but but a but a but a fun
funding problem nevertheless um then I think you know they do have a stake in coming up with, you know, helping us get to a bottom line that's that's workable and and, you know, achievable. >> Yeah, I that's a good point. I mean, if
you want to get your we one thing in our letter, we asked them to consider the possibility that we might need cuts in this in in in the winter and we kind of are there. And they also have to understand that if there isn't support from voters because we're coming with a
number that's too high high, we're going to be cutting budgets. >> Right. >> That's >> Susie and then Jim. I just want to say the discussion around the roads showed to me that we have a lot of new people in our system in administration, supervis superintendent
and stuff and their their awareness of how we got to this about roads is shows that it these people haven't been with us a long time. There are lots of pieces of why the lake
is a difficult issue to figure out. So I'm just I'm just feeling that that's a that's a factor that we are experiencing kind of everywhere that we have a lot of new people in the system and they um
don't know all of the history that got us here and all the ways to unwind it. And so I I feel like that's going to be that's going to come up around the roads. Even the idea of holding it in the fall when people aren't at the lake, that's the kind of stuff that
>> hits people. Um but I think that we somewhere between we we explain to the um we're going to the summit. Um we explain to people what we've done and we explain to people where our efforts have
are and what else is left to do. Then who decides that clearly is the fincom. But I do think we're bringing the revenue numbers and the cost numbers to the departments so they know we're not holding cards. There's not like extra money over here or there. And and this
is where we've come up with and we feel that we would like we we feel we would need to get this number so that town meeting can support it. >> Yeah. Yeah. May maybe that's the way to frame it is that is to say is to give a
sense of where we are in the process. You know we receive budgets. We've had meetings with department heads. We have preliminary estimates on you know expenses and on revenues. And that has brought us to this
particular point where we currently have you know a budget draft that is includes this kind of expense. We've talked about potential adjustments. These are them and we are continuing to work to from
our point of view to drive that increase below the $500 mark. and and but I guess one question I have for you and I I know you have your hand up Jim so I'm going to get to you next is is is the purpose
of this meeting to communicate where we are and what we think we're looking at >> I think so >> okay yeah >> I guess I was also under the impression that there was maybe an opportunity to do some kind of collective
problem-olving work with them but maybe that's not that's that's not a part of the goal of this meeting. Maybe it is a communication exercise and and >> we did say that to them in our letter. There's a possibility we're going to be asking for help with cutting budgets.
>> Yeah. Uh Jim, >> yeah, I I to the point for the message next week, I I I think that is the message that we've we've done our work. We've done our analysis and and we've got we've got some work to do and we need your help
>> uh to lower these budgets. Uh maybe the $500 number that might not resonate with these heads. Uh so maybe it's more like a percentage number or something that we need to put out there with the heads >> um for the reasons that were described earlier. You know, that's just
>> maybe not their interest. But one way or the another, we need their we need their we need to work with these heads to get to some number that's lower than where we are today. >> And you know, whether we talk $500 per house or whether we talk percentages or whatever,
>> whatever that means. >> Whatever that means. Yeah. >> Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah, you're right. The number depending on sort of where where you sit, you know, to one person it might seem like a big number and >> I think to many people it does, but not maybe not to everybody. Um, so yeah,
that's a good point. Uh, Susie, >> I think also we want to encourage the departments to help figure out the messaging we want to give. They have constituents, they have support groups,
they have networks. We want to have them float some ideas about what sounds like a uh usable message um to represent something from them. not getting into advocating for one department over
another, but they need to hear that this is we're going to try to present something at town um town meeting and what kinds of messages would support that? >> It's great idea. >> Yeah. >> Okay. I know it's getting late, so let
let me ask this. Um, do we think this um, February 17th sort of preliminary estimate document or some portion of it can be shared to show folks kind of
where we are in the pro in the sort of budgeting process at this point right now? Is this too much detail? Are there are there sort of parts of this that would be worth sharing? >> I think the first part's important. We're basically showing the budget's
increasing by 9% and these are the big these are the big reasons why >> Yep. >> That's a good one. >> All right. So, I'm going to just highlight the portions of this that >> Okay. And I would think this portion >> I think we need to simplify the revenue
part. >> Yes. >> Um Possibly lines 31 through 36 are somewhat explainable. >> 31 through 36. Yeah. >> I mean, that's, you know, that's where
our new revenue is coming from. Yep. >> And the focus is on the excess levy capacity, >> right? >> Yeah. >> Right. >> AJ, when I send this to you, I'll just I can just hide the columns that you don't want, rows you don't want to see. So, I'll leave them there, but they'll be hidden so that nobody will see them. >> Okay. And probably the use of cash
reserves needs to be on here. The proposed use of cash reserves. Maybe not even by um broken out. I don't know. >> Yeah. So >> instead of the other page, right, you're right. That's a good point. If if you
scroll down >> that of this page you're saying >> and yeah we want to see the detail but we'd also you're saying incorporated in the bottom here row somehow in the >> it's one of the boxes you're using use
the box of use of free cash. >> Yeah. So oh you know what we can do row 36 where it says estimated FY tax levy. I can insert a row that says less reserves, cash reserves, and then put
that number in there. And then the 6905 decreases by whatever cash we use and the dollar amounts below it. Calculate the 851 changes based on that. >> Yeah, >> I can do that. >> Okay. Um, so I think I think what would
be helpful is George, if you could do that, send it to me >> and then I'm gonna just draft some bullets. >> Yeah. >> Um, is anybody available? I'm going to email it to the whole committee, but if if some of you could just >> chime in, give me a thumbs up, something
um before um I'm going to send those around tomorrow morning. So like probably before noon. AJ, I'll try and get this done first thing in the morning. I'll try and get to it tomorrow and get it to you by say uh 11.
>> All right. Then I'll I'll send you some bullet points um you know, kind of late morning tomorrow. Okay. Then if we can if you can ch get back to me by like you know 2 o'clock in the afternoon or whatever and I'll give Haley a heads up
that I'm going to be sending her a document that we want hopefully Brennan to share with everybody in advance of that that meeting. How does that sound? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. I am going to include in the bullets the
details of these some preliminary proposals. Yeah. Yep. >> Um, okay. All right. So, think we've got a plan. >> Um, George, I notice this number here.
Uh, >> so that for for new cash that reflects what we funded last year and right now we're at zero. >> Oh, right. I gotcha. Yeah. Yeah. So, um, >> I mean, I could set that to change based on the amount that we put on the other
page to be used by cash, the 194. >> So, now that number would be a a swap, an increase of 60,000. Let's just say that less than 60,000 >> and that would flow down. But then that means you want to leave this on. >> Yeah, you're right. You know what? Let
let's leave this because I think what we want to do is just show them where we start and then before we're making any adjustments, >> right? >> And then show them that what we're doing is we we we're we're considering a series of steps that reduce this from
851 to 573 and we're continuing to work to get that >> right. So we're going to hide the rows from 17 to 29 and then I'm going to make a new row at 37 that shows cash used. 38 will be the new tax levy number after
cash is used and the calculation at the bottom will be based on that. >> Okay. Got it. All right. All right. I think we've got a plan. Um thanks everyone. Anybody else? >> And could I just check your timeline? So
once you get um talked to Haley at two, is this information going to be able to be emailed out then or is it going to wait till Monday? I'm hoping that that uh >> goes out Friday. >> Yeah. So, I'll give her a heads up first thing in the morning, but then I might even text her now. Um
>> but then but I'll tell her that by two, you know, we'll have a document and I'm hoping that Brennan can email it to everybody before the end of the day tomorrow. >> Yeah, >> George, I just want to be safe. So the conversations that are going to happen
are not going to happen between any of the members of the committee except the feedback you'll get. You're going to send things out and then people will individually send feedback to you about what you sent. >> Yes. >> And you'll make
>> right just reply to me. Don't reply at all. That's the key. >> And you'll just make decisions on your own as our committee head what to do with those comments. >> Yes. And hopefully you guys will okay with that. >> Just want to avoid deliberation. >> Okay. >> All right. That sounds good.
>> And I think we also need to have a message at this summit is we're working really hard and all of it comes in now and we don't know the answers yet. We're still it's a work in progress. >> Yeah.
Yeah. I mean I I have a few just notes just so I know I know a bunch of people have have talked about this you know problem the the I thought I really like the the funding problem not a spending problem line we've talked earlier about
no new significant prospects for new growth um and about how we you know we we we have just well we
um I don't can I say we've sort of what the the few attempts to sort of generate um new business have for variety of reasons >> not panned out been discouraged yeah I want to say something along those lines
>> uh we want to raise the point about one of the things that's happening here because of this these challenges is we we have a diminishing ex excess capacity that will if if if this trend is not a sustainable trend we
will very soon run out of excess levy capacity and be in sort of override territory. Um so so those are a few of the I mean >> messages I will I will make I will add a series of bullet points that make clear
what you know that that sort of expand on some of what's uh in here these budget incre like the point about how the SCES increase is largely a function of a a nondiscretionary out of district
placement um yeah so there'll be a few of those kinds of uh bullet points as well. >> And are we scheduled for a meeting? Um we know the fun fiscal summits on Monday. Are we meeting on the 24th, the
next day for fin? >> Uh is that I'm trying to remember what I thought you said we we do this instead. Yeah, I think we said we would do this instead and then we would do our next meeting, but
>> I don't have our calendar. I don't know what else is up. >> March 3rd. I think we said the third. >> Yeah, it would be March 3rd. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Does that make sense? Yeah. >> Yep. >> And if something happens and we have to meet, we meet.
>> Yeah. Exactly. Somehow Laura and I are going to take what happens at the fiscal summit and turn it into whatever we can, but the timeliness is going to probably change. And then I just want to say rural aid is working to do advocacy.
We're going to have some kind of action in the week of uh March 9th through the 13th. I'm not representing the fincom in this. I'm representing myself and I we don't know what action it will be but we're working on something on beyond
postcards and part of what happened was talking to the Gazette got today's article out there and so we might ask people to put in letters to the editor um but we're probably going to go down to Boston and um read off the names of
all the communities that are being affected by this. Oh, they're all in Western Mass. Wow. Hm. >> How'd that happen? >> Yes. >> But I'm not representing the fincom on this. I'm just me. >> Okay. >> Go get him.
>> Okay. I will make a motion to adjourn. >> Second. >> George >> I. >> Cashu. I. >> Moer. I >> do. I >> And Steini. Oh, right. Steini. Then Walton.
>> Walton. And I was there supposed to be a fincome reserve uh a transfer. It's on the agenda. You had a transfer >> think there was but uh we I think we did uh >> Oh yeah, the SC. >> Yeah,
>> I think Haley would needed to be here. No, >> you know, I I I um >> Good point, Jim. >> I posted a meeting for the fiscal summit. We could hang around for 10 minutes at the end of that meeting and do it then. >> Okay. >> Do you have the information for that?
>> I don't. >> Yeah, I think Haley has it. >> No, I I do have the bills, but I I think I need I need I need some >> actual request. >> Some Yeah, like I I'm not sure because there are a bunch of different bills, right? So, it's not clear to me what the
total is. So, we'll get that figured out and and do it at the end of the the fiscal summit meeting. >> Okay, good. >> Okay. organized. Oh, yeah. Okay. >> We had another meeting. >> Good night, everybody.
>> Have a good night.