Good evening everyone. This is the finance committee. Today is May 6th. It looks like it's uh 6:35 p.m. >> 5:35 5:00 p.m. 5:34. Wow. We'll go around the table and we'll get it accurate eventually. All right. Who's here tonight?
>> Joseph Di is here. >> Lita D. Maria. >> Paul Conley. >> Sean Sher Nolton. Wow. >> Get your Get your license. [laughter] >> It's my kid's name. All right. >> Had them on my brain. So sorry. >> Yeah. [laughter]
>> All right. And online we have RJ. >> Yep. Robert Harach. >> Robert. Thank you, sir. All right. Up first are the minutes to be approved. Well, first, um, public comment. >> Anyone online? >> All right. Wonderful. So, next up will
be the minutes we need to approve. So the first set of minutes is going to be for 4726. I believe it was absent. >> So I need a motion. Make a motion. >> I'll second. >> All those in favor? Joe Diddy. I >> Alita D Maria abstain.
>> Paul Conley I. >> Sherry Nolton I. Karen Dei. >> Wonderful. Next will be the minutes for 42126. R.J. and Alita were both absent. I need a motion. Motion >> second. All right. All those in favor?
Joseph DV I >> doain I Sherry. >> RJ Herajic abstain. >> Thank you. >> And then we have 42726. RJ and Alita both absent. >> Me too.
>> Were you two? >> Yep. >> All right. >> Wonderful. So I need a motion. >> Motion. >> All right. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you. All those in favor? Joe DD I >> D Maria abstain. >> Paul Connelly abstain. >> Sharon.
>> Arj abstain. >> Karen to my eye. >> Yeah, I think you were there, right? Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Then 428. We had another meeting. Uh RJ and Paul were absent.
I need a motion for a 428 meeting. >> Motion. >> Okay. >> Seconded. All right. All those in favor I >> G Maria I >> Paul Connelly abstain. >> Sher I >> RJ Roick abstain.
>> Thank you. All right. >> Up next is our business assignment of pros and cons for the financial article for the end of town meeting warrant. First one is article six voting.
>> It is just a time for voting for it. >> You won't tonight. All right. So motion. So the Gow. All right. So the pro is approving this article allow excess funds from a prior
project to be transferred to a new project to lessen the town's financial burden of the new fire engine. Yes, >> that is the pro. >> That's the pro for voting for it. >> Forwarding for it. Yes. Okay. >> So, we have money sitting. >> I'm playing Dave Matthew right now.
[laughter] >> Thank you, Karen. >> All right. >> We appreciate that. >> So, is it the >> This is awesome. >> Is this the con for voting for it or this just the the con? If we vote it down, the town will be responsible for this. >> This would be the con for voting for it.
So, because the vote says TC will vote to transfer I agree with that kind. >> How about the transfer funds? So, >> oh, where's the articles? They're in there. All right. Okay. So,
she had an approach to approve the article will allow access funds from a prior project. I don't see how that's a con. >> Okay. >> Do you David? [laughter] >> No. I just No. >> Because he's always like, "Is this a pro
for >> Yeah. >> pro for voting for it? What is the con for voting for it?" It's not. This is a the con because it's >> um will vote to transfer. >> Right. All right. Right. So the con the town will be responsible for
borrowing the full amount of the fire. I >> think they're still responsible for borrowing the full amount because we're still making payments on that 200. It's not like it's free money. It's just allocated >> from a different time of life, right? A couple years ago. >> So is that money actually
the experts? The money actually borrowed and sitting there borrow. Yeah. >> Yeah. So it is actually sitting there. >> Yeah. So then, >> so we've already spent that. Well, we've already acquired that. >> So, so when we do a bond, it's not like a draw. We do the
it's the full amount of the bond. Okay. >> So, instead of the full amount, would it be um borrowing? >> No, I think the con is if we if this gets voted down, the money sits there and we continue to pay principal and interest on the bond and it's not being
allocated. It's not being >> it's not being used. And that makes zero sense >> writing. So I know >> writing trying to say something. Okay. So, just wait for her to >> Yeah, she's fine.
>> Yeah. So, what do you what do you what do you have? >> Um, so say if not allowed, the funds will continue to be paid back to the borrowing, both principal and interest with no purpose. >> Yeah. Sitting there idle. >> Okay. Hey, >> finally.
>> All right. >> We're doing fine. Thank you for coming. >> Karen took your place. >> I took your place. >> Karen took your place. >> Excellent. [laughter] Yeah. I can hear it. You have to watch. >> A pro. Is a pro. Really a pro or is a con a con? [laughter] A con.
>> So, article six we're working on, which is the first one. Okay. Hey, do you approve the minutes? >> So, do we want to do we want to approve them article by article? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, do we need to make a motion to
>> We will >> I just want to get David up to speed. Sorry you got it. >> Is it here? >> Okay. >> Oh, I'd bring her with me with you.
for the pros and cons to rent. >> Oh, perfect. >> And we just changed the con the first one. >> Okay. >> The first one, articles article six. The pros approving the article will allow access funds from a prior project to be transferred to a new project to lessen
the town's financial burden on the new fire engine. The con was the town will be responsible for borrowing the full amount for the fire engine. But realistically, the con now is >> if not allowed, the funds will continue to be paid back to the borrowing, both principal and interest, with no specific
purpose. >> So, we already borrow this money. >> Well, that's a con because that's happening regardless. If we don't do anything, that's not a con because we're we're already doing that, >> right? We're already making that payment. >> So, why is that a con? We're going to
continue to do that. The the con is more that the money is just sitting there and it's not being used but we are paying [clears throat] utilized it's not being utilized hanging >> but but it this is for the reappropriation of the borrowed funds to the fire truck. So take take it into two
segments. The funds are there regardless. So if we didn't bring article six up it would be continuing to sit there. The reason article six is coming up is really article 7 which is the the truck itself. So, it's almost kind of like they're
>> out of order in a sense, >> but [clears throat] the the the So, really the con is is just money just continues to there's no con really to article six because if article six didn't exist, nothing would change. >> So, I don't know what we want to do with
that. It's like a it's like a vicious loop. >> So, there's no con. Well, I think I I think as it's written, we the con is we will borrow an additional 200,000 >> if not >> that we already have in the bank. >> That's what the original con was like that
>> we will borrow the additional 200,000 which we already have sitting in the bank bond proceedings. >> If we reappropriate the money, we're we're going to >> we'll incur additional interest costs. We'll borrow 200,000 more than we need.
>> Um I think that's the count. That's the original originally. >> But the original con says that. >> That's what I think. >> Yeah. The original one says the town will be responsible for borrowing the full amount for the engine. >> Correct. I think that that's appropriate. Leave it like it is because we're earning interest on I presume on
the 200 grand that's sitting in the bank is earning interest currently. Probably at a decent rate. >> Not a decent rate in Massachusetts. >> And we're probably paying more interest than we're earning. >> Yeah, >> probably. We are. >> Yeah. Massachusetts is really weird. We
had a huge meeting years ago when went over how our investments were doing. [clears throat] >> My brain melted. I couldn't handle it. >> Yeah, she's still in therapy. >> Well, even if you had it in CD, it's probably even CD. >> It's not making more than 2%. It's a whole thing. I can't even I can't come back to that conversation. Anyway, let's
move on. >> Yeah. >> Reverting back to the original. >> Yeah, the original con. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Okay. So now I need a motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article six. >> Motion
>> rep re rep I'm sorry the re reappropriation of borrowed funds. That's what it's called. >> Second. >> Okay. So the motion was made and seconded. All those in favor Joseph I >> Maria I >> Paulley I >> Sherry Nolton I
>> I can't vote. Can I? >> I no we have everybody. >> Yep. >> RJ Roch. Thank you, >> David. >> Yep. >> Karen de Mayo. >> Yes. Okay. And your question was >> I just need saying the motions and
seconding to please say their names. >> Yes. >> When they do it. >> Okay. >> We'll do. >> Thank you. >> And next is a motion to recommend article six reappropriation of bar funds.
Are >> we going to recommend this article? Do we want to keep the same shar? >> Sure. Oh, sorry. Sherry Nolton motion. >> Yep. >> Paul Connley second. Okay. All those in favor? Joseph D. I.
>> Alita D Maria I. >> Paul Connley. I >> Sher Nolson I. >> Marach I. >> Dave Murphy I. >> Karen May I. >> Okay. Next up is article 7,
fire apparatus acquisition. So Tom, so are we really doing 1.1 if we just put 200 down on it? [clears throat] >> It depends on whether the kind of vote. >> True. So we have to adjust it on the floor. >> [clears throat]
>> Well, you could say pending. >> Well, if it's or or any other amount or any other >> Oh, there you go. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Thank you. >> Can't see past my nose. To see if the town will appropriate 1.1 million or any other amount to pay cost of purchasing and equipping a replacement of engine
one for the use of the fire department and for the payment of all costs incidental and related therefore to determine whether this amount shall be raised by taxation, transfer from available funds, borrowing or otherwise. or to take any other action relative
therefore. So the pro was approved the article will allow the town's purchase of a fire engine to be locked in at a current price which current yeah current prices which are increasing the funds the funds in article six if approved
would move to offset the purchase price partially. [clears throat] >> Are we okay with that? >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean I'm okay with it. I'm not going to say it's but really the pro to the article is that the town will get
a new and needed fire engine, right? Isn't right that really the pro doing that? >> But purchase of a fire engine to be locked in at current prices. [clears throat] >> Yeah. At a at a f more at the most
favorable price that you know is available. >> Well, we hope. Yeah. But I'm I'm okay with as it is. I mean, people get it. I mean, terrifying fire. >> And the nice part is they get to read this sitting down. It's not like we read these out loud. It's a
>> Yeah. >> It's the peruse thing as we >> Yeah. >> go through the meeting. The con is the town will occur debt or the purchase price of the fire engine. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The debt, it's a big payment. True
statement. You're okay with that? Okay. So, everyone's on board for article 7. [clears throat] So, motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 7 fire apparatus acquisition.
>> Motion Sharon Nolton. >> Second. Paul Connley. All those in favor? Joseph TD I. Alita D. Maria I. >> Paul Connley. I Sharon I. Arjek I. David Matthew I. hearing May. >> Okay. And then next will be a motion to
recommend article 7 fire apparatus acquisition. >> Motion Sherry Nolton. >> Second. Paul Conley. >> Okay. All those in favor? Joseph Dy. I >> D Maria I. >> Paul Conley. I >> Sharon Nolton I. >> RJ Harachek I David Murphy I car.
Okay. Next up was article eight. >> Now question about >> article eight. >> Article 8 is is this all finalized by the select board yet? >> You know [clears throat] and
is there some issue about the property value? So >> you watched the meeting, huh? >> Yeah. >> So how can we be saying when we don't even know what the actual property of
the value, how can we freeze [clears throat] it? >> That's what I [laughter] that scared me because they were huge in their difference between what the assessor was saying the property was worth and how much they were going to >> wasn't it almost double. >> Yeah.$
>> 188 million roughly for this tip agreement. roughly >> and the came back and said it's 6.5. >> Well, but your question is how can we what? >> So, what do we really >> have a good valuation on the property
right now that this tip kind of freezes the property value and the taxes we can charge them. Um, but if the property is not valued, right? >> Well, let me ask this. If regardless of the value of the property, whether it's six or 18 million or whatever,
>> right? >> Are we in favor of a tiff? >> I don't >> So the pro is the tax increment financing tiff is provided for the improvements only and in parenthesis it says 18 million.
>> I don't know that that's a tiff. That's >> and not an existing building. Normal revenues will continue to be collected on the existing building. The improvements expect to create an estimated 30 jobs over a 5-year period. The new structure will have revenues in
year 1, increasing through year 10. >> What does that mean? [clears throat] >> Well, if you look at what they did to Wall-E computer when they bought their new building, okay, you would think that they would use that as a blueprint. [clears throat] >> They referenced that.
>> So they So they did. And when they did the evaluation out with Wallally's deal, everyone was very comfortable that it came in really close, >> right? >> Even the assessor said, "Don't that for some reason that one actually the package looks good, >> right? >> yada yada yada."
>> But this one across the street, you know, and if you listen to it, he basically said, "But 24 foot ceilings in walls, you know, whatever I could do to make it the most." I think it was I'm only coming up with 6.5.
Yeah. >> So, I don't know where that puts us. I'm with you 300% when I heard the meeting, but I don't know because if this didn't say 18 million in the pro, no numbers are mentioned anywhere. >> Where did the 18 million come from? >> From the the TIFF the process of the TIF
agreement, >> I believe through the the owner of the property. >> Um, probably through the state because they're involved >> and that's the number they came up with. >> C can I make a suggestion? So we're we're are we talking about whether or not we are going to endorse it as a
finance committee or whether or what the pros and cons are? >> Well, that's what I'm saying. So if we take the 18 million out of the PRO, >> yeah, >> we're not talking any numbers anywhere, right? >> We're talking about a TIFF agreement. >> Exactly. >> And I'm with you. >> And so fundamentally, the PRO is uh it's an agreement that's that's uh you know,
favorable to the business person to allow to to promote economic development in the community. >> Right. >> Right. And the con is that it it reduces our tax revenue. >> Yeah. >> Um potentially
>> for 10 years. >> For 10 years. >> It steps it in for 10 years, >> right? >> Yeah. Tom will have to wait to receive full revenue from the improvements. >> So that's all the whether we endorse it because we don't know the numbers on this conversation.
So the the issue is with >> the valuation of the improvements not on the existing >> existing value of the property >> right the existing value of the property stays >> that taxes don't change just like with Wall-E >> while we add another building to the
property the original stayed >> and this is basically the new building only >> and of course the value of the land would change the new building on it but that's >> okay there was also questions about um how can you verify that
they they're actually creating jobs because this tip is dependent upon job creation, >> right? And they said that that meaning they said it went through the state at first that there's a checks and balance there built in whether it's through the
state or through the town to verify those jobs every year for those 10 years. So that that is built that that was discussed at the meeting. >> Okay. So it would produce 30 jobs in year one and they have to keep those 30 jobs or
>> 30 jobs starting over five years. >> Over five years. Okay. Yes. >> Over five years. Sorry. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I would think they were keeping those jobs, right? >> It doesn't say they have to be Celtic residents. It just says 30 jobs. >> 30 jobs. >> Yeah. >> What does it mean the new structure will have revenue in year one and increase
through year 10? What do they they mean? So, it's a 10-year deal and and say it goes up 10% every year. So, maybe our first year on the new building, maybe we're only getting 10% of the taxes on it, >> but by year 10, it's 100%. >> It gets stepped in.
>> Oh, I see. Okay. >> Right. So, that so that gives them the idea to stay in South and expanding. >> So, it does generate revenue because >> we could go there with no building there. >> Yes. Right. Right. Well, it it you mean tax revenue which tax.
>> So, rereading the article. >> Yes. >> The dollar amount needs to come out. It does >> because the article says nothing about anybody voting on >> confusing to people reading it too, >> right? And that would be up to the residents at the meeting to question
what the dollar value is, everything because we're not it's the article is only to approve the tiff, not dollar amounts whatsoever. I'm not that sentence is the right sentence anyway for the pro. >> Like I said, the tiff the pro of a tiff is it it incentivizes
>> the uh the >> business owner commercial business owner to stay and grow his business in the town. Right. >> And if you want to be specific and say buy 30 job or 30 positions or 30 FTEES over five years, right?
>> But that's the pro right there. >> Yeah. The pro isn't because you know it's only gonna do be doing it on this part of the thing. >> Yeah. The pro is is the revenue stream coming through. >> Yep. >> And the jobs. Yeah.
>> So the pro would be to keeping an existing business in town >> or incentiviz anyway, >> right? but incentivizes the commercial property owner to stay and grow
basically. >> What happens if the company goes belly up in five years >> it has >> or decides to move? >> Do we recoup? >> I would think so. >> The abatement that we had up till that point. >> Yeah, I would think so. Or someone's taking it over. >> Right. >> Okay.
>> You know, [clears throat] if they went belly up, that'd be a whole another story versus if they sold. >> Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> So, we're going to NY the first sentence. So we probably would have to have >> the first sentence kind of like what Dave said and then kind of keep this explaining.
>> Yeah. So if we start by saying approval will create an incentive to the business to remain and grow in town. >> And then we really don't need to say anything about the tiff is provided for the improvements not the existing building because that has nothing to do with what we're approving. >> Right. >> Um and then
>> uh remain in town. normal revenues will continue to be collected and that's a >> well I think that just helps people understand that that's changing the existing I think that that's on the only and not existing building it's it's more
information for the people okay >> yeah but that's in the article itself >> just going to say yeah it's not our job to educate those folks it's the pro and the con >> right >> the article should explain it or the person >> buted by select board. So the select
board should be able to speak on behalf of that so this whole article. >> So are we leaving it with that just that one line or are we going to say approval will create an incentive to the business to remain and grow in town and then continue with normal revenues will continue to be I don't think that's part
of the >> that's not >> so take the sentence two out. >> Yeah. And then do we continue with saying the improvements expect to create an estimated 30 jobs >> which is not in the article. >> Hang on a second.
specifically talk about any >> jobs. >> Yeah. Or or even improvements. It's just a financing agreement. >> The purpose isn't >> Yeah. That this all the only pro is approval will create an incentive to the business to remain and grow in town. That's it.
>> Right. Right. >> All right. Well, that the rest of >> might have a lot of questions. >> Then that's Yep. >> Yep. [clears throat] con town will have to wait to receive full revenue from its improvements.
>> And that's short and sweet. >> All right. >> Motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 8 tax and tax incremental financing. >> Motion Sherry Nolton. >> Second. Paul Con. >> All those in favor? Joseph DD.
>> Alita D Maria I. >> Paul Conley I. >> Sherry Nolton I. >> RJ Harek I. >> David I. Karen may abide. >> Thank you. Now we need a motion to recommend article 8 tax incremental bian. >> Motion Sherry Nolton.
>> Second. Paul kindly. All those in favor? Joseph DD. I >> Maria I. >> Paul Conley. I >> Sher Alton I. >> R.J. >> Hick. I. >> David Murphy. I >> Karen Mayo. I >> All right. Moving on to article 9
to see if the town will vote to accept the provisions of Massachusetts general law chapter 59 section 5 clause 41C which allows for the adjustment of eligibility requirements for senior bur property tax exemptions including reducing the minimum age requirement for
an exemption to 65 years of age as of July 1st of the tax year but take no other action therefore. So approving this article will assist seniors aged 65 and up to stay in their
primary residence. [clears throat] That is that is a very misleading statement. >> Why? just because it is because um right now I'm 70 years old and above and if you went in the assessor's office and
say what is what's my maximum income for me to qualify for this it's very low. So I think by you're saying that this article will assist seniors 65 and up to stay in their primary residence only a very very small portion of people 65 and
over will qualify. It is a a ridiculously low number from the state and it like if you drive in here with a brand new Lincoln Continental, >> you're kind of over the limit to begin. >> Yeah, we understand that. Which is why the operative word is assist, >> right? So, it should just say, right?
>> There's not a guarantee it's going to assist. >> Assist. Okay. >> Right. Instead of will, you could say may say may this out. >> All right. We'll change it to >> may assist seniors age 65 and up and leave it at that. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. I don't want the house.
>> Oh my god, I'm going to have to go in there and get that article assess. >> Yeah, I like >> leave it at that. >> Yeah. >> And then that means on the con, we're going to change the property tax amount collected to may be reduced, not would be reduced, right?
>> May be reduced, would >> y Well, you know, I the step back and think about that. All this is is a redistribution of who's paying the taxes. >> Oh, 100%. Well, the taxes are not reduced townwide. >> They reduced for the people who qualify
for the >> everybody else has to pay for those exemptions. >> I'm not well no because >> like a lot of those abatement and stuff that the board of assessors gives out to people whether it be veterans and stuff
like that that money comes back to the town on cherry sheet. So the town doesn't move that money. we get I'm pretty sure it comes back. Am I right or wrong? >> There there are some of some of it does come back. >> Some of it does does come back. So in
effect it doesn't affect it. We get reimburseed that money from the state in order to cover that. So >> some of some of it have to look I'd have to >> Right. Right. But I know some of that. So I know what you're saying. Right. I know in Connecticut seniors
[clears throat] do not get reimbured by the state. Veterans do. >> So it may be different in mass. >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. There is a but I don't know there is ament but I'm not 100%.
>> Exactly. Yeah. And I have an assessor question. >> I know some of that was reimburse anything that we give the veterans >> that the veterans apply for >> and we give them the abatements. Yeah. >> We get that money back on the charity. That's a veteran versus >> Yeah. but you're saying that is still
correct because it may be reduced, >> right? Get that. >> Yeah. Well, >> do we want to remove but just get rid of decrease >> decreasing revenue that Yeah. Maybe. >> Yeah, it's a redistribution of wealth is
what it's all >> kind of. >> Well, yes, the property tax amount collected would be reduced >> maybe. >> But that that's still misleading to the people. They're they're thinking decreasing town revenue. >> Well, the property tax amount collected
from eligible seniors may be reduced. Period. >> And that's a that's a pro. >> No property. approve for the senior. It's not approve for >> resulting in not approve for the town >> resulting in
>> property tax amount collected from >> those eligible may be reduced. >> Yes, but a con is distributes. >> But did we are we sure of that because all saying it's not 100% reimbursement. 100%. So that's why portion of it would
be redistributed to other >> tax >> other taxpayers. >> I'm in the audience. I'm reading it's going to be redistributed. I'm not ever going to read that there's a cherry sheet and I I don't know that. No, but >> I don't think that far ahead. >> People are going to think that we are
losing tax revenue because we're doing this. Yes. So >> So how are we going to make it up? >> That's the truth. we'd be losing tax revenue from it, >> right? But >> from some of it >> from some of it, but it is being
redistributed to all of us. So that's what >> I would want to know. What's the con to me is okay, we're re we're losing it from the seniors, but it's being redistributed to me. >> But I'm not comfortable putting that in a procon warrant article when we don't
have factual answers to say >> for sure how it would impact, >> right? Oh, so then I don't think we have enough information >> that might not even be enough might not even be enough people that it makes a difference. >> Sure that other taxpayers are going to
pay they may not pay all of it, right? >> But it is going to be redistributed to other >> taxpayers. There's no question about that. >> And my guess is the amount reimbured, I don't know about Massachusetts, but my guess is the amount reimbured are pennies on the dollar.
>> So the pro state if at all. >> If at all. Okay, that's my guess. Then I believe then we should state it like it was originally mentioned. Yeah. >> The property tax amounts collected from
eligible however >> eligible residents would >> would be in part redistributed to >> I'm not comfortable saying that though because if the question comes up well how what does that look like? What's the
amount? Have we run have we run any financials to say what? And the answer the answer is no. No, we haven't even heard about the article. >> So, so then is the is the question that we vote not to bring this article to town hall because we don't have enough data to even discuss this intelligently.
>> I think we're going around and around. I think Al already answered that. I mean, whether it's 100% or 1%, the town will be on the hook for some portion of the amount that's reduced. But as the final committee, it is our
responsibility to be able to field why we brought why we approved this to go to town. We don't have enough. Yeah. I mean, we can vote it down, right? >> But let's get through the pros and cons first so we can put that on on paper. I >> I'm still not comfortable saying a con
that it's going to be redistributed. Mhm. >> I can see what the board of assessors want to do because it's under the state mandate that the local board can bring it to the because right now it's at 70 years old
>> and they want to bring it down to 65. Okay. Very very laable thing >> from my history. >> I want to know can somebody tell me how many people approximately that they think will qualify for this? >> Probably not many. >> I can tell you what. So that's the first
question you can ask is host town. >> This is about how it's a threshold. Do you know >> it's 20 grand? >> It's it's like $35,000. They exclude your you could have a $2
million house that is excluded. But any any assets, vehicles, 401k, savings, and all that stuff has to be brought into the assessor's office and reviewed. That's why, like I say, when we were in there, people would come in. They go, I want to apply for the senior discount.
>> You read this >> and you look at it and you go, "Is that your car?" They go, "Yes." It's like, "You're already over. Don't even put waste of paper." >> So, to qualify must be, this one must be 70 years of age or older. >> Or if married, one spouse must be 65 or
older, the other 55, whatever. Residency must be doiciled in Massachusetts for at least the last 10 consecutive years. Ownership and occupancy must have owned and occupied the property or another property in Mass for at least five years. Income limits, gross receipts for
the previous calendar year. Income must not exceed certain limits. $20,328 for a single, 30,000 for a married couple through these can be adjusted by local option. >> Right? >> We can adjust that too. Apparently asset
limits whole the total value of assets including the home itself must not exceed specific limits. >> How can somebody earning that even own a house? >> We are we are because the house but but I mean we're we're like talking peanuts here.
>> So anyway, but who's bringing the article forward? The >> I would assume the board of assessors. >> Okay. They're on the >> or whoever it is. >> Or is it the match board? Yeah, they could write. >> They're on the hook to explain what the impact is numerically. Here's the odds.
Just like we had the conversation with the >> um the negotiations for health insurance. >> Let them figure that out. We're just doing pros and cons. Here's the pro. Here's the cons. >> Yeah, there's a software board. >> And we can decide whether we endorse it or not.
>> And you're just lowering, you know, they're already doing it per 70, >> right? So you're >> we're just dropping it so they can apply five years sooner. It's not going to change the dynamic that much. So >> if you're poor at 70, you were probably poor at 65.
>> But the fact of the matter is somebody's going to pick up the slack and taxpayers are, you know, are in are on the hook already, right? >> According to chat GPT, Mass Massachusetts finance committees should think about senior exemptions in three
ways. Levy impact. We should be asking what's the total annual exemption value, what are the number of recipients, what is the average exemption amount and what's the tax rate impact on non-exempt households. So those are the that was what we are it is recommended that we understand about reality. >> I think I think you're absolutely right
except let's have that conversation when we vote whether we're going to recommend it or not. Let's do the pro and con and get that off our plate. >> Yeah, understood. Yeah. Yeah. And we have the pro is the con, right? That's we're just going back. I think the con is the original wording myself or maybe
may instead >> may instead of what? >> Uh public t property tax revenues may be incre may be reduced by the amount um awarded to eligible recipients.
Well, we can argue with that one, right? That doesn't even tell you who's >> I think you're just saying too much. I mean, it's there. The property tax amount collected may be reduced. >> Okay. >> And I don't know if you have to put decreasing >> and that's a conversation for the floor. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> Right. Yeah. >> So, let's get that growing conotioned and then we'll discuss the next one. >> Okay. So, a motion I'm sorry, motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons
for article 9 lower required minimum senior property tax exemption aged from 70 to 65. I need a motion. >> Motion Sherry. >> Second. Paul Conley. >> All those in favor? Joseph DD. I >> D Maria I
>> Paul Connley. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Paul Conley. >> Sharon. >> Too many. >> Yeah. Karen de Mayo. >> All right. So now our next discussion is are we going to recommend article 9?
So it's at 70 now and they're doing whatever they're doing and they want to lower it to 65. Do we recommend that? I would say I would now I would agree with Lita and say not until I know what the impact is. >> And I think I don't want to tell anybody
as to how to vote but and in our explanation if we if our preponderance of our board agrees we we can just explain at at the time of this vote we didn't have enough information to recommend it >> make a decision. Would you have any with
the total increase for the 70 age group? >> No, that would be an assessor question. >> So if I if if an email goes out tomorrow asking all these questions, who answers those
>> assess the assessor. >> Absolutely. Wouldn't they? Yeah. Yeah. Good. Okay. All right. That's so >> Well, we can we can we can make a motion to not approve at this time due to lack of information and then I guess we'll
have that information on the town meeting floor. I'll ask for it tomorrow unless you want to have another meeting next week, but I want to be really busy on Tuesday. I don't know. We got some work out. >> Yeah, sure. No, we >> and and you know, I think we can just
>> honestly we have that discussion on the floor, right? >> Yeah. Because it's a real discussion, right? We do have update. Here's our things. >> Yeah. >> And then we either >> I don't I don't even know if we have to make a recommendation that night other than here's the facts. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Right. Because it's up to the town
people at this point. >> I mean, you usually say whether the finance committee recommends it or not. Right. Right. >> We do, but there by saying we don't recommend it only because when we looked at this, we didn't have the information yet to weigh >> the impact to the town.
>> May not be big, but we didn't have the information. So we can recommend >> then the towns people can nicely turn right around to us and say then what do you recommend now that you have that information >> and then we'll go right down the row if you're forward or against it. I guess >> you can do that. I don't know if they really care that much
>> if they even read. So it's in paperwork. It's not a >> it's not a discussion unless someone read it and when we get to that article raises their hand. >> We can do that. >> Where's our information? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Y >> but to make sure the assessor addresses the three >> they'll be addressing that tomorrow morning. th those three items
specifically, that should be easy to get, I would think. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yep. >> So whether that goes into the into the paperwork after the fact, I don't even want to go into the weeds with that. But, you know, because we're not going
to apparently we're not going to approve what we see because we don't have anything to approve. >> Okay. Right. >> So, if we have that information, does it go out? They'll probably put it right up there as a separate piece of paper that folks can collect. >> I'm sure they will >> because [clears throat]
so the information that we're asking for >> which was >> and make sure you email that to Elizabeth. Those three pieces. >> Yep. >> How long do these town meetings last? Is this >> 16 days? [laughter] >> Last year was >> 11:30 I got out last year.
>> Are you serious? >> Serious. >> This is pure artif and less controversial. Yeah, there's really not much contract. >> Yeah, this >> Well, last year we was we had to take a paper vote >> and we had to take a paper vote in order to decide whether we should take a paper
vote. >> Uh, wasn't that the situation? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Okay. >> The year before it was like 8:30, right? >> Yeah. It wasn't too bad. It wasn't too bad the year before. >> Yeah. >> I would say 8:30 9:00. We're definitely done.
>> What time you been? I've never been to a town meeting here. >> Well, I know we voted our school budget down last night, so it was a good night. >> Yeah, a lot of towns. >> Overwhelming. >> All right, let's keep on >> in Connecticut. >> Yeah. Yeah. What town was that?
>> Was regional district 13 overwhelming. >> Is that the Windsor? >> Field in Durham. >> Okay. So, next up is uh a motion to recommend or I guess deny article 9 or no a motion to
recommend article 9 lower required minimum senior property tax exemption age from 70 to 65. Is there a motion? >> No. >> Okay. There's no motion. There's no second. So,
nothing was done. I will say if this helps one person in town to stay in his house, I'm all for it. >> Oh, absolutely. Yeah, I agree with you. [laughter] >> No, no, it's just whoever this >> we all are, >> right? Whoever you are, we're not voting
you. >> No, it's our responsibility to understand the impact to the town. >> You just said yes to everything >> and then the question gets asked on the floor. >> We're going to go, what did you vote on? You know, couldn't beat that. We're here because we're trying to everything good.
>> We're not Yes people, >> right? >> Granville Regional School District annual budget. The pro is passing this article will allow the schools to operate as budgeted, avoiding cuts in education services. The con, a no vote
will force the school district to operate using FY2026 approved budget on a 112th basis per month. The request for FY2027 budget would need to be presented at a special town meeting for each of the three towns
in order to be approved. >> Those are that's all pros, right? Because that's what happens. This is all the things that are like in favor of passing. Hey, if you do this, we get
uh same operating things. We don't have to cut teachers. Everything's great. That's all pros. The con is that >> that's always the tough part, but the con of this is >> you're, you know, you're paying for it,
right? you're you're funding the the requests and the current staffing. >> Well, I think I think if the budget gets approved at the FY26 level, they're forced to have staff reductions because of salary increases
which are the largest single expense. So, automatically there will be staff reductions to keep >> bargaining unit agreements in place. >> Yes. So that that is a it's a con to the educational system. Um
>> but it really is a con to the town. >> Well, what's the So the reason I I can be a stick in the mud and I apologize because I really don't want to. I I um suggested it makes more sense to do like the the state does when they're having a
vote on, you know, whatever they call those. Um, right. When we when you have a vote in an article and it says a vote in favor will mean this, a vote against will mean that. And I believe the select board at the time, and I don't remember
who, said, "Yeah, but you can't do that. The state is specific." And then you you can't say a you can't word it like that. You have to say what a pro and a con is to the article. And so if we're going to be true to that, you know, I don't want
to see all of the cons being masked as really pros in disguise, right? So what is the con to voting for this budget? And if there isn't one, you know, as a finance committee, we don't have to say there's a con.
>> We're spending the money, >> right? >> And if we don't approve that, the con would be it's the 112th budget period. If it doesn't go through, >> no. What's the con to voting for it? >> The con is
we would be approving >> well an increase in our regional assessment of 1.7 or or whatever it is now. >> That would be a comp. Yeah, >> that that would be the school budget approving an increase. >> Right. That's a difference between the
>> percentage over last year. >> Exactly. And by by approving that much for the school in the school assessment, it takes away from other town services, >> which you don't even have to say. Which
you don't even have to say. >> No, you're not wrong. >> I'm not wrong. But that if you spell it out, people understand it. It's simple. >> That will be warm in here. >> Well, we'll be we'll be hitting the schools hard, but it's >> No, it's not. >> Hey, Al was just there last night. I
mean, towns do it, right? They're like, >> "Yeah." Oh, no. >> Hey, we, you know, we can, there's going to be a time. There's going to be very well a time that you know everybody now that threshold >> on social media is saying that >> yeah, >> it's affecting other town services. So,
>> and the school the school should have a contingency plan for this. I would think it it shouldn't be a surprise if whether it's this town meeting or next year's or the year after that the town says sorry no can do you know we're all in that guy's boat where you know we're we're
going to be lining up for the you know property tax red >> what was the to what was the total I'm going to be rewriting the fund passing this article would increase each town's regional assessment by a total of >> and what mostly >> the difference between last year's budget and this year's
messed up. >> We don't even have to specifically say the number. We can say we'll we'll >> raise available funds of some sum of 15,381,890. >> That's the increase that total. >> That's the total >> total.
>> But um so just passing this article would increase each town's regional assessment. >> Yes. Right. >> Yeah. >> Let's just leave it like that. >> Perfect. That's the con. >> That's the con. >> Yeah, that's true. It's going to assessment. Yeah.
>> Costing more money. >> Are you okay with that? >> Okay. >> And you said pro is the same. >> Okay. So, the pro, passing this article will allow the school to operate as budgeted, avoiding cuts in education services. The con,
>> passing this article would increase each town's regional assessment. Do we want to refer to the other towns? This is our This is our town meeting, >> right? >> Do we want to refer to the other towns? They're part of it.
>> Their kids go to the school, right? >> But is that a con for South? They're they're having their own votes separately. Yeah. >> Yeah. So talk about >> the towns. >> The towns. The towns. Yeah. The town. Yeah. Absolutely. >> Towns. Yeah. >> Yep. >> Okay.
>> Apostrophe. Yes. Like for >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll give you this after that. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> And we were informed, right? Two out of three towns pass. It goes correct. >> Regardless, right? So, >> in other words, two out of three sex to be it. Yep.
>> Okay. So a motion to approve as discuss the pros and cons for article 10 region school district annual budgets. >> Motion Sherry Nolton. >> Second Paul Conley. >> All those in favor Joseph DD I
>> G Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sher Nolton I >> RJ Roach I. >> David Methy. >> Karen I >> Okay. Looking for a motion to recommend article 10 regional school district annual budget.
>> Motion Sherry Alman. >> Second Paul Conley. >> Right. All those in favor? Joseph D. I >> D Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sher. RJ Rochek I >> David Mey. >> Karen Deo. No. >> All right.
The eyes have it. Okay. Article 11 South Talon Graville Regional School District debt authorization. This is for the HVAC improvements. The pro is approving this article allow funds from retiring bonds to be used to
pay new debt source of the school's capital projects. A con a no vote will not allow the school district to address the capital expenditures. And no, we don't know if the bonds that are coming off is enough to pay for the
new project. Next question. Not that [snorts] it matters with us, but we don't know. And we'll just look it up. Anyways, see if the vote to disapprove certain additional debt authorization. That's
south of town school. Approve the authorization to occur debt by the insurance and sale of bonds or notes up to the amount of 600,000 for the purchase of items specified [clears throat] for the project. 600 total. So it
doesn't tell you how much is going off either. >> And it almost says flip number. >> So the pro is really that we're addressing facility needs. Yes. This is a boiler. It doesn't have anything to do with this debt falling off and
>> Right. >> Yeah. [clears throat] >> Yeah. because I don't know if we need to even talk about the bonds that are rolling off our world. >> So, >> the pro is we'll get a new boiler. The con is you won't get a new boiler. Pick your pick your
>> No, the con will again the con is capital. >> You get a boiler but it's going to cost you. >> Right. >> Right. >> Right. Sending a kid to school with a bag of coal >> or two jackets. >> With two jackets. [laughter]
Yeah. >> Okay. So the pro is what? >> The school will get a new ruler. >> Period. Great. Okay. Very simple. Real simple. And the con is we'll be incurring debt.
>> Yep. We'll be incurring debt. Okay. >> The school will be able to replace the >> same. Yes. >> Yep. Do you really like Kevin?
>> I don't hear that very often. >> Yes, you do. Of >> course you do. That's not true. >> Maybe not certain parts of your life, but [laughter] this part of your life. >> Always. >> You're going to miss me very
is this going to be what you want to >> heard that >> to the tune of up to 600. We're dropping all numbers. >> All right. >> Yeah, we'll just >> numbers. Yeah. >> Very good. >> So, a no uh no vote will wait. What's
What was the time? Did we say >> we will incur the debt? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's not It's just we will incur. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Article 11. Motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article
11 to see if the town of Southwick will vote not to disapprove certain additional debt authoriz authorized by the Southwick Allen Glamour Regional School Committee under a vote dated March 30th 2026
HVAC improvements >> motion Sherry Nolton >> second Paul Conley those in favor Joseph DD I >> Alita D Maria I >> Paul Conley I sharing Nolan I >> RJ Harek I >> David Murphy I >> Karen Deo I
>> Okay a motion to re to recommend article 11 to see if the town of Southic will vote not to disapprove certain additional debt authorized by the Southwick Talon Granville Regional School Committee under a vote dated March 30th 2026.
Motion Sharon Nolton >> second Paul Conley. All those in favor Joseph DD I >> related to Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sharon Nolton I >> RJ I >> uh
I'm sorry I gota the way you It's 11, right? >> I'm sorry. It is 11. Yeah. Yeah. And where where's the wording that says not to disapprove >> in the in the word >> in the after one article? >> Yeah.
Okay. We'll vote not to disapprove that. So in other words, we'll vote to approve it. >> Yeah. But that's question. >> Yeah. David Methy I >> doesn't make any sense
>> the monthly ranch >> this is a regional school district debt authorization town will vote to not disapprove certain debt authorized by the south of town granwood regional school committee under a vote dated March 30th 2020 search which reads as follows voted approve
voted approve the authorization to incur debt by the insurance and sale of bonds or notes up to the amount of 192,000 for the purpose of items specified in the STG SDFY 2027 capital improvement
plan as follows >> should read the same as the the way that we have it now that it needs to read the same as article 11 then >> so this the school will be able to refurbish the track and the con would be the town will incur the debt for the
track refurbishment, >> right? >> Yep. >> So, >> to worry. >> Yes, I got it. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> Well, is it the town? Sorry. The town or the school will be incurring the debt. Well, here's the assess part of it. >> Right.
>> So, this is the one that they're going to take 100 grand. >> Yeah. >> From our um >> CPC. >> Thank you. C I hate those capital expenditure, right? >> Is it called capital expenditure committee? community preservation.
>> I'm sorry. Community preservation. Thank you. >> Thank you. Right. Right. >> Thank you. >> Um so we're taking 100,000 from that, but that's neither here or there, >> but they've already approved last year the 100,000 to go towards the track, which will then lower our debt. And the
192 is on everyone's warrant article, Granville and Talent. They all have the same number. They would all get their piece of it in the end. So in our case, the 192 100 of it we're already giving through CPC.
>> So it'll get reduced down and whatever amount is will be, you know, whatever's left. >> But all three towns say the same thing. >> Okay. >> So if you ask Go ahead. >> So with 192,000 we tend to get like 85% >> right >> of So that would be our portion would be
about $163,000. So that full $100,000 could go towards artists. >> The hundred would >> the hundred would so the 60 roughly we would still own it furnaces. Yes. >> Okay. I just wanted to make sure. >> Absolutely. >> Yep. So that's where we're at with it.
>> Okay. >> So we're good with the pros and cons. >> They match the other one. >> All right. [clears throat] >> So motion to recommend. Nope. I'm sorry. We made a motion. >> We got to do the pros and cons movement first. >> Yes. I for some reason I already circled it. Motion to approve and discuss the
pros and cons for article 12 to see if the town of South will vote not to disapprove certain additional debt authorized by the South Talon Granville Regional School Committee under a vote dated March 30th 2026 and parenthesis track refurbishment
>> motion Sharon Alton >> second Paul Connley all those in favor Joseph DD I Maria I >> Paul Connley I Sharon >> Nolton I RJ Roch David. Yeah. Bar may. Okay.
>> Motion to recommend article 12 to see if the town of Southic will vote not to disapprove certain additional debt authorized by the south of town grain regional school committee under a vote dated March 30th, 2026. >> Another question. >> Yes. >> Um we approved last year $100,000 to be
put towards this project. >> Can we put $63,000 towards this project? another $63,000 from the CPC. >> I think they >> know the CPC wasn't interested in covering all of it. >> Yeah. >> Last year. This year there was no
article coming forward for it. Last year's article moves over as far as the funding was already approved and still there. The 100. >> Okay. >> So, there was no article in front of CPC this year to add 63 to it. >> Was there a reason why it was only 100 last year? I believe they went for all
of it and that's what the CPC decided that they would contribute and it would have passed last year but what happened is someone else looked at it of higher purpose and said Taland and Granville did not do their portion >> I think
>> and that's why and that's why it stopped >> the state reviews >> year 10 15 years earlier when we did that then it passed with just south of paying for it out of CPC back then or I shouldn't say that a young man contributed some money and CPC um
checked it. >> Yeah. The majority of it was donated. >> Yes, it was. >> Um >> I think we're forgetting that part too because we hear we hear 190. We go, "Oh my god, I thought it was around 400,000 when we did it 50 years ago."
>> The track was donated by a former student who ran >> Yes. Um, >> and I believe 300 of that was donated. The 100 was >> I don't know the amount, but >> yeah, but it was up there. >> But then it was us that did anything after initially putting the track in. >> Correct.
>> Would there be anything to prevent us from going to the CPC again to covering the other $63,000 say like next year and then we just put it towards it? Can they can they >> if they can fund it after the fact? I I don't think they can.
I think we've tried that discussion before on certain well upstairs did at certain times in our lives. >> Yeah. >> And I don't I don't think that was allowed. >> Great question though. >> It is a great question. Yeah. >> Really? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Somehow they could fund part of
it. Is there a reason why they couldn't fund >> all of it? >> Right. >> You're not wrong. >> No, you're not wrong at all. It's unfortunate. Um but no they they felt that was the number and I if I think
back I think they that was a hard fight for that number on Mr. Peron had a lot to do with because they felt whether it's refurbishing or fixing up it you know the guidelines are strict it can't be a repair >> that was on a CC so yeah understand
>> right I know Mr. Rome went to bat quite quite a lot on that project. >> He did look into other um towns and districts that did use it on school project. >> Yeah. >> And I think they just ended up at 100 to maybe appease people that they did
something. But I don't think there was a lot of love there to do the whole thing just cuz some of them I think thought it was repair more than a refurbish, >> you know. And those words get sticky. >> Yeah, >> they truly do. So So that's where we're at. >> Okay. >> Okay.
So, did we finish this or no? >> Yes. >> So, did you say yes? >> We have to wait around. >> We didn't do that. Okay. That's right. You had a question >> before we made the motion. >> Did you make a motion? >> Motion. Sharon. >> Okay. Second. Paul Con. Thank you. I'm sorry about that. Joseph the I >> Paul Townley I
>> Sher Nolton I >> RJ I >> David I >> Karen Deio I >> number 13 article 13 out of district school assessment to see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of 660,000
for our outofd district school assessment for fiscal year 2027 com commencing July 1st 2026 and ending on June 30th 2027 or take any other action therefore >> pros and cons right?
>> Yep. Yep. Yep. >> So maybe the this will allow South students to attend vocational schools. >> Yes. So it says yet the pro is this will pay for South students to attend a vocational school. >> Well I I would change the pay for to
this will enable South students to attend vocational schools. >> Yep. >> And then >> uh the con is again >> we're going to pay for it. >> Right. So the same way we worded the other ones. >> We're going to incur the debt associated
[clears throat] with the uh vocational program out of out of time program. It's not debt though. No cost >> expense. >> But I think No, the students they'll just go to the regional school
>> or their >> So if we don't pay >> No, not if we don't pay. If we do pay, what's the con? We got to pay for it. I mean, if we do vote for this, again, it's always, you know, if you if you vote in favor of this, there's a pro and there's a con. Not if you vote against
it. If you vote in favor of it. >> So if you vote in favor of this, the pro is you're enabling students to go to vocational schools. If you vote in favor of this, the con is it's going to cost the I don't know. Is it going to cost the school or what? Maybe there's no problem.
>> Yeah, >> it does. Okay. >> There's a cost. >> Yeah, there there's a cost. Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, >> and that's why this got separated out because for years >> Southwood paid 85% of that cost. Um
where they've now figured out if you want the kids from your town, you pay it. >> So, the the con is really the 660,000 weaves the school district. >> Yeah, it does. Yeah. >> So, that's the con. >> Yeah.
Is this something we have to do statutoily? Does math say you must if a kid wants to go to vocational you must provide that school choice? Yeah. >> I mean I don't know. >> Yeah. Yeah. [clears throat] Yeah. So if we have to why do we even have to bring this up? We have to
>> because you still have to you still have to appropriate the money to do it. So in the past up until probably three years ago this wasn't here. It went through the school system, >> part of their budget. >> Part of their budget. But what we learned was Southwood pay 84% of that
dollar of value. Say it's 15,000 a kid. [clears throat] >> Right. And then each other town paid their portion. But in the end, they felt it was just cleaner if each town paid for their own children. >> Right. Right. So the >> and then they came out of the school system by doing that. our our numbers
drastically or well didn't drastically but they changed and our dollars changed because now each town each town literally has to do this now. Okay. >> So if the town votes Article 13 down then the school is on the hook because it's it's an obligation. >> Yeah.
>> To fund it themselves out of their own right. And they'll they'll be back on their heels saying okay what can we cut because we've got to do what article 13 tells us and the town isn't going to fund it. Well, what they would most likely do is for if these kids wanted
vocational training, they would force them into CEK >> because they still >> dollar value though. >> Is that still is that >> Oh, that's like that's 10 instead of 15. But yes, we So the collaborative we still have to pay for. We're just >> Oh, so even the collaborative
technical difference it was because that was our of choice. our our choice thing worked because up until this past year, if you had 15 kids for collaborative, they all went. If you had 20, they went. Since there's such a demand for our
great children to actually be using their hands, it's all changed. Now there's a it's it's a it's a lottery for each each deal. West >> and they all don't get in now. And there was a So I think Talon got no one or Granville got no one. Okay. It really
matter. >> Nonetheless, the schools, whether they sent everybody to CEK or not, whatever they're on the hook for, it would be the school >> to have to figure out how to fit it into their budget, >> right? >> Which would then probably come back to the taxpayer with >> come back because that's what they kind
of said in our last meeting. >> They actually came out said apparently it's against the law the way we were doing it and this new way of doing it is the right way to do it. Well, >> that's how it got pushed on us three years ago. Anyway, yeah. Yep.
>> Good. >> Okay. So, we're good with the con. >> Mhm. The funds leave the school district. >> The funds leave the school district. Okay. So, go with the pro and con. Post article 13. So, motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for
article 13 out of school out of district school assessment. I need a motion. >> Motion Sherry Alton. >> Second. Paul Connley. >> All those in favor? Joseph DB I >> Alita G Maria I >> Sharon >> Alton I >> David Methy I
>> Sharon >> Deo I >> motion to recommend article 13 out of district school assessment >> motion shar >> second Paul's in favor Joseph DD I
>> D Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sharon I David >> RJ Harachki oh sorry >> David I Say it. >> Okay. Article 14 is the uh roads um pro is approve the
article will allow the select board to authorize payments for necessary roadway construction and it should be a million dollars. So this is an extra million dollars to put on our roads that we bond for. The pro approving the article will allow select board to authorize payments for
necessary road construction. The con the town will incur debt as a result of passing this article. >> I'm good with it. It's who who determines what's necessary because that's >> we could we could do that word. Huh? >> AI. >> Yeah. Because if we remove that word
then it's just a straightforward, you know. >> Yeah. >> It is what it is, right? >> They redid it. So the AI tells us what we have to do now. And then I believe the select board looks at that process. >> Oh, the AI. >> Yeah, we had a system in place for years, but >> Okay. What's AI?
>> What? Artificial something or another. >> Okay. Okay. I thought you were like alluding to some No, I'm being 100%. >> No, only AI that ever >> And it's I get it. It gets a better use of the roads, the cracks in the roads. >> But like I've always said, if you just
walk out to your front street and look down, >> you don't need AI. you can just say, "Oh yeah, there's a pothole." >> Yeah. Or you drive around and Oh, this one. This one. There you go. >> But I get it. I get it. It's It's another baseline to go by. And um >> and then unfortunately a million dollars will not get a spot.
>> The good news is we are gaining on roads. I know it's hard to believe, but we are actually gaining. All right. So, I read the >> I'm good with >> the I read the pro. We're all good with that. >> Yep. I need a motion to approve article
oh I'm sorry motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 14 roadway construction borrowing >> motion sharing >> second Paul Conley. All those in favor Joseph Dy I >> Gia I >> Paul Conley I >> Sher Nolton I >> Marach I
>> David I >> Karen I >> motion to welcome amend article 14 roadway construction borrowing >> motion Sher Nolton >> second Paul Conley. All those in favor Joseph DD I >> G Maria I
>> I >> David. Okay. Article 15 the annual budget. Pro approving this article establishes the process by which monies are spent and will allow for the transfer of reserve funds for unforeseen expenses
>> wide. Why are they unforeseen? >> It says right in the article how much it is. >> Yep. It does. So >> 18,914,79. >> So why would we have four unseen expenses >> on the end of that sentence,
>> right? >> They're just expenses, right? >> Yeah. >> Well, no, because unseen expenses we might have to tap into free cash for >> or your reserve fund, right? >> Your reserve fund transfer. >> Yep. So unseen will allow for the
reserve funds, right? The article is only naming the 18. >> The scene expenses are budgeted. The scene expenses are the 18.9, >> right? Are your budget, you know, for seen or whatever. >> That's those are the necessary expenses, >> right?
The con disapproving this article would prevent the spending of money. >> So the and is kind of like capitalized or if you will or boldfaced and so it's got it >> and will [clears throat] allow and >> Yeah. My brain's getting it now. >> Okay, get it.
>> Transfer reserve funds from unflunding expenses. >> But the conving this article would prevent the spending of monies unnecessary expenses and eliminate the fund for unforeseen expenses. >> No, wrong answer.
>> Try again. It's like the gong show, right? [laughter] >> Con would be the town would no longer work properly because it would have no one working for it getting paid. Right. So, however you say that eloquently. >> Well, the con would be the town was shut down.
>> Exactly. >> And it could be that short. >> No, no. The con of approving it. >> Yeah. >> Uh because that's that's a pro a pro for approving it. Keep the town running. >> No, you get it. >> Yeah. So the the con to approving
>> is you guys [laughter] not >> it's scary I'm thinking like >> keep the town running also known as establishing the process by which monies are spent and will allow for the transfer of reserve funds for unforeseen expenses >> right that's the pro that's the pro but that's what I'm saying that's the town is running yes we don't need to change
that >> so the the con for >> approving this it's the same as the con your government is working. That's either a pro or a con [laughter]
>> depending on how you look at it. >> Well, the con is taxes are going up. That's a con. Be it does the 18 million include the school? >> No. Nope. >> Just
>> But taxes taxes will go up anyways to two and a half, you know. So, >> no, we're this far below that. So, >> we made it by the hair of our chin or whatever that name is. >> If we didn't approve this, we could
still keep our taxes the same. [laughter] >> Well, would be lower? >> If we didn't approve it, would taxes remain? Would spending remain at the 26 level for the town just like it does for the >> school goes to a 112th budget. I would think the town would have to do the
same. >> Town does the same thing. >> That would be the con, >> right? Right. Right. >> Yeah. >> Which really would be a benefit because your taxes, >> but we had that for the con for the school budget and we said it was enough. So we can't have it one way for the school and not the
town budget. >> The the con to approve it the found budget. >> It's the same. It's the same as the school the difference between last year's budget and this year. That's what we're going to incur by moving this
mechanism. Right. So let's take the wording from the town. Yeah. What did we put for the school? >> Passing this article would increase the town's regional assessment. That was for the school. >> So passing this would increase the
town's budget or increase the town's taxes. But here you'll have to deeper in your pocket. Okay. Okay. >> You finally got us to listen to you after how many years, Dave? [laughter]
>> So, do we want to >> It's more laidback doing it now. >> Yeah. >> And then, right? >> So, do >> Come on, Sheep. Follow me. We want to say passing would increase the town's uh >> tax.
>> Tax assessment was what I wanted to say. Does that does that work? >> Okay. >> Nice. >> Okay. A motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 15 the annual budget. >> Motion Sherry. >> Second Paul Connley.
>> All those in favor? Joseph Py I. >> Alita G. Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sharon Alen I >> Marjgerie >> Harajek I >> David Miy >> Sharon Deo I >> motion to recommend article 15 annual budget
>> motion Sharon Nolton >> second Paul Conley all those in favor Joseph Du I >> Alita G Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sharon Alen I >> Hatchek I >> David Iron Deo I
>> Right. All right. 16 meals tax adoption. The town will receive additional revenue from the meals the meals tax. That's the pro. The town will receive additional revenue from the meals tax. A con, the additional tax would have a
financial impact on restaurants, restaurant consumers visiting South establishments, and may potentially dissuade non-residents from purchasing from South residents, South restaurants.
>> But a period that has to even be in there, >> yeah, >> put a go ahead. I would say it it would potentially dissuade or um whatever just um people not necessarily residents or
non-residents, right? Just people from um >> because you just ended after the word establishments and >> establishments patron. Yeah. patronizing just who made himself very additional tax
on restaurant. >> Just end it end it right there and just leave the rest. >> Additional tax would have a financial impact on restaurants. >> Patrons is better than consumers. >> Patrons. Yeah. >> Restaurant. Restaurant patrons. >> Yeah.
That's how it's referred to. >> Yeah. Okay. Otherwise, we're happy. >> So, we're good with that. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You're going to bring your send your notes to her, right? >> Elizabeth. Leave it. I'll
>> leave it with her. There you go. Motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 16 meals tax adoption. >> Motion Sherry Nolton. >> Second. Paul Conley. >> All those in favor? Joseph DD. I >> Alita J. Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sherry Alton I
>> RJ Herk I >> This is for the pros and cons >> David I >> All right recommend. So I need a motion to recommend article 16 meals tax adoption.
>> No >> anyone else I'll make the motion. Okay. Fail >> this one. >> No recommendation. >> So much I say. All right. >> We could let it go to the floor and have a discussion, but >> I think it will.
>> It still will, right? Showing that we didn't yet. >> Nope. >> Our economic development didn't recommend it or deny it either. So, >> okay. 18. What happened to 70?
>> We don't need to make any decisions on it. >> I believe >> not for our department. >> Double check, >> right? No, that's the umving account >> is our revolving accounts. >> Two >> 18 department revolving fund annual
spending limit authorization. So this authorizes the CIA town will vote to fix the maximum will vote to fix the maximum amount that may be spent during the fiscal year 2027 beginning on July 1st, 2026 for the revolving funds established in chapter
25 of the code of town southwick for certain departments, boards, committees, agencies, and officers in accordance with MGL section 4453E1/ /2 as indicated below or take any other
action relative therefore. So this limits >> how much they can spend in that account up to 60,000 up to 40,000 up to 50,000. >> Does it ever change? Is the same as last year? >> It's >> Yeah, it's pretty much boiler plate.
>> Yeah, we just have to reaffirm. >> Yep. >> So the pro >> So it doesn't tell you what's in the accounts. It just tells you the limit. And I'm not looking for it. I'm just a discretion. >> This tells you what they can spend up to. >> Next year on any form, we're going to
have a real big discussion about all this. I don't care where I'm sitting and you'll be included. If I'm up in heaven or if I'm down in health, you'll still be included. >> Sorry, I shouldn't scope that way. Um, okay. So the the pro approving this article provides the mechanism for
establishing the related funds limited to certain department revolving funds used for operational processes. Approving this article provides the me mechanism for establishing the related funding limits for certain departmental
revolving funds used for operational process. of the con disapproving this article would prevent the various departments the ability to function as designed >> David is that right [laughter]
>> what's right either >> so what is the con to approving >> is this would it be considered they have the discretionary authority to spend up to this month at this amount with no governance.
>> Yeah. >> Well, that's again that's the >> is that how >> that's if you vote it down. >> I mean they can use these accounts up to that dollar value. >> No, that's not if you vote it down. That's if we approve it. >> If we >> Oh, >> we're giving them the authority to to spend up to 50,000 for lake management
with no it's a so no governance. So it's discretionary >> to the 50. Yeah. >> Yeah. Sounds good to me. >> Yeah. You'd have no oversight. >> That can't be. That can't be. >> I mean, they got to use it within the
>> right >> the parameters of the revolving. >> We run the risk of them interpreting the >> run the risk of that every day. >> I know. Which we've seen before. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, um,
the hell did I just say? Um, on provides department's discretionary. Hang on, let me write for a minute. I think it's just provides departments discretionary spending on revolving accounts >> to their limits
>> a to holding yes to the maximum amount. There's really not a con. I got to be honest with you. >> You know, it's not a con. I mean, a con is is that they the amount of the available revolving
funds are are reduced by whatever they decide to spend in any given fiscal year. So, if you have 100 grand, you're limited to 50 and you don't spend it, you still have the 100 grand. >> Don't spend. >> If you do, if you do spend it, you only have 50.
>> But if they spend it, yes. So, I get what you're saying. But if they spend it, it it technically is discretionary even though it has to go under the guides of the revolving account. >> There's it reduces balance. There's no checks and balances. So it could not be
smart spending even though it's allowable spending >> which is discretionary. >> So did you have anything about reducing the balance? >> No, but I can add that. So provides departments discretionary spending on revolving accounts to these limits
thereby reducing the balances in the revolving accounts. where you can say where >> I mean you're making it sorry you're making it sound like they can just willy-nilly spend it and there are you know >> there's always
>> the balances built into >> you know my maybe our con is there isn't one >> yeah no I think the reducing the balance >> reducing the balance I think yeah >> I mean someone signing the check taking responsib Maybe discretionary spending.
>> It's not just that they can do whatever they want. They there are checks and balance. >> So it reduces the balance in their account. >> I think Yeah. I think it's just >> keep it simple. >> Yep. >> I think it's just spending. >> Yeah. They can't use it for wages,
salaries. >> Spending a no French benefits. So please so just spending against these funds will reduce the balances. >> Yeah. the revol
in the revolut devil's advocate for >> you know is it really worth uh you know articulating a con like you're saying if there's no there's no con there's no con and if we force to put one in does it is
it more [clears throat] >> does it do more harm than inform them by by misleading them? I'm just asking the question, you know, >> well, let me throw this out there. If if you have a committee picking any one of those uh you have the leak committee and
they have 50 grand in the account and they say, "We know that we can spend 50,000. However, we know in two years we're going to need 125,000 for this specific project.
>> So even though we're authorized to spend 50, we are purposely electing to spend nothing for two years >> so that we can potentially accumulate enough money to spend >> yeah more in that given year. I don't
know if that's possible. If they came to us and said, "We're not going to spend anything for two years because we need to spend 125." Can we increase the threshold in year three to allow for them to do that? Can it become a savings account for a project?
That's a question I >> Yeah, I don't I don't know. I know in years past, I don't want to say it's evolving, there was issues or ambulance. Um, when me and Mr. Steinhardt would work together. We would purposely put X aside because we knew in two years we needed an ambulance, right?
>> And and we did that and that was different than the revolving account of course. >> Okay. >> But these they have set purposes that they're using them every year for you know >> okay >> you know it's not money because they collect fees and stuff.
>> They collect fees. So, you know, those >> let me just play that out like how how is that going to help us with the company >> or but you're not going there >> because if there is a max of say $50,000 you can spend and you spend that $50,000
it reduces the balance in the revolving account >> that you may be saving for a different purpose >> but a year or two down but this article doesn't tell them to spend it or not this article just gives an >> it's just so economic It just is you're
you're reducing the balance of whatever >> simple not overthink it. >> We would want to keep the balance. >> I was just asking is it if we say that is it is it necessary to even say that at the expense of uh at the risk of >> just a statement.
>> Yeah. >> I think I can just >> because understand it's a revolving account. So money is coming in and out. So just because we spent the $50,000 doesn't mean that it's not going to get replenished by fees. People know that
there's usually fees involved. And that's what >> Well, that's what I'm saying that if we say it's going to reduce the amount in the revolving account. People are going to go, well, I ain't voting for that. And did we, you know, are we informing them appropriately by just putting that
statement in place even though it's factual? I'm asking I'm not >> well then again on the other on the other hand too. Okay. So, let's say the inspectors, you're revolving. Okay. The limit on spending, let's say, uh 60,000.
What if there's 120,000 in the account, >> right? >> Okay. So, all we're all we're all we're doing by this is just saying how much. You might get caught in that thing where like Al said, you might want to save up,
but if you limit what they can spend, yes, you've just screwed yourself. >> Okay. Okay. So, the con to approving a limit is that if the ballot there's >> for a project, they want to stay for projects. Yep. >> They'll get stuck because we voted this
limit in. >> Well, I thought the limit is only max they can spend, not that they have to spend it. >> No, but let's say but so like in one year. All right. So, let's say we did this like with a fire truck for instance. Let's let's say there was a a revolving account for you know fire
engines. So every year, let's say that $100,000 went into that account and they didn't touch it for 10 years, but we say you can only spend $100,000 out of that account. Well, after 10 years, if they have a million dollars in that account, want to buy a firet truck, but we just limited to spending $100,000.
>> Wouldn't you want to hear that they are that they were doing a single ticket item for a million dollars, though? >> Well, you would. I mean, you know, which I agree, but if >> voting on this is telling them, no, you can only spend this amount of money. So that's the con. That's what he's saying. That's the con, >> you know.
>> So, and we don't really know what the back door of any of this is. There could be >> 300 grand in one of these accounts and we don't know that. >> Nor did they come forward and say, I wish you would change our limit >> because we would love to purchase something out of that. >> I would think if they wanted to, you
know, they would present it. Yep. >> Right. I guess you could bring it up, right? Yeah. Okay. So, let's leave it where it is then. It's going to reduce a balance or do you want to >> the funds will reduce the balance? I mean, it's just a factual statement.
>> Yeah. Because necessarily because we're limiting so they can't go money going out >> willy-nilly spending, but it's also a con because then they would not spend. There's a reason behind then maybe you
say approving this article may limit >> which it is doing. It's limiting the amount that these agencies are right >> can spend. That's a con. If they want to spend more and they have the money, they can't. >> They can't. Right. That's what I'm saying. They're they're hog tied.
Basically, they're >> hands issue is that spending on this could may reduce the balances in the revolving account. If not enough money is coming in coming out, then that triggers your problem where then they don't have enough money building up for a project. I don't think the worst part of it is though the limits. We need
checks and balances. You shouldn't just give somebody a limit of whatever they have in their revolving account and say >> you can spend it all. >> That's why we have the >> and it might be a a con to the department head in one case or another, but it's not necessarily a con
>> to the taxpayers. It's if you spend on this account and you don't have enough money coming in or so the operative orders may spending against these funds may reduce the balances in the revolving account which who knows what we're going to need it for. a fire truck, a lawn mower, whatever it is.
>> Okay. So, proven provides a mechanism for establishing the related funding limit for certain departments revolving funds used for operational processes by proving this. >> I thought we were good with the pro was the con.
>> Yeah. But I you know, because we just found a pro and a to this limit, right? So, the limit is funding limits to related. So the pro is that we have like a stop gap. There is a limit.
>> The con is also there is a limit if you want to [laughter] spend more. >> Yeah. >> So that there there's >> I don't think that's the con that there's a limit in case you want to spend more. I think we want the checks and balance. I think this the con is just they're allowed to spend this money
within the realm of the the the the framework of the revolving account. But if they do, the money may not be there for something that's really needed. And now they're coming back to the finance committee for free cash or reserve fund transfer or now it's in our budget for
next year and our taxes go up, >> right? >> Yeah. >> But that's what would happen if you disapproved the limit. If you disapprove this, taxes go up. Does someone has to pay for that expense? >> No. >> But that's
>> Well, yeah. taxes don't take outd just for the revolving accounts >> and they bring in the fees to cover their expenses of what is being allowed this one >> we boil it back down to the simplest
they the car the the pro is there's a limit con is it's going to reduce the amount when that limit is when when that >> taken advantage or whatever, >> right? Or when it's spent up to that limit, >> right? >> However, we had it,
right? >> [laughter] >> I think guys are getting too a little too >> right >> into the weeds with this one because they are bringing in and they can't I mean yes they are going down but once
that money it is a con because if they do they don't bring in the money then the it goes down but a majority of these >> are bringing in and they are >> well no when we say goes down it
technically You know, I mean, you might have other revenue streams supplementing it, but you're whatever you're taking out of it, you're taking out of it. And that's because the spending spending. Yeah. >> I get what you're saying, Laura, but in in simple math, if the boat, let's say
the boat ramp revolving account has $75,000 in it, and they have a $50,000 limit and the money that we took in for the boat ramp is $30,000. We've decreased that amount. we haven't made everything back that was spent if they
spent that $50,000. So, I get what you're saying, but the con is to to them having I know it's not discretionary, but the con is to giving a limit to spend on a revolving account where they're not forced to there's nothing
that says you have to spend only if you're taking it in like you have to have a balanced budget. Is at the end of the fiscal year that revolving account could be lower than it was when we started. And if something happens, then we don't have the money in the revolving account. I think that's just what we're trying to get at,
>> right? So you'd say it may potentially, you know, >> is there >> reduce the the >> It may reduce the balances. So when they spend out of the revolving account, do do they have to already have the money in the account or do they spend on
future account? All right. So you have to have the money. >> Yeah. Okay. Are we good? >> I'm good. >> You got that >> on this one.
>> That was article 18. >> Yes. >> Motion to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 18 revolving fund annual spending limit authorization. >> Motion sharing [clears throat] opens. >> Second. Paul Conley. >> All those in favor? Joseph DD.
>> Ali Marie on. All kind. >> Sherry Nolton I >> RJ Harek I >> David Mi >> Karen Deo I >> motion to recommend article 18 departmental revolving fund spending limit authorization. >> Motion Sharon open
>> second Paul Conley. All those in favor Joseph PD I >> G Maria I >> Paul Conley I >> Sharon als article 19 >> I'm sorry David meant the eye [laughter] I'm getting tired.
>> All right. Article 19 community reservation annual budget. A pro. A yes vote would keep the town in compliance with MGL chapter 44B outlining the transfers. Excuse me. If individual reserves are
specified within the article, it will allow the transfer of monies to be used for administrative and operational expenses of the community preservation committee. The con, if we do not approve this article, we would be in violation of our agreement with the Commonwealth and Town of South. There would be no
monies available to help administer the programs. >> This is every year, right? >> Every year. >> Every year. Same thing. >> What What is the general unreserved portion? What is that? The others are open space historic. I I get that. What
is general? >> So they can be used I think amongst any of those. >> They have those. >> Yeah. That always has I don't have it with us, but that always has the most in it. >> So that can be used. So if they're low on X, that can go over there to to help
with that. >> Okay. >> Yep. But it has to be used >> for those category. They're very specific. >> Okay. >> To the general fund to use be used for no specifically for Okay, I get it.
>> And it's 3% of your >> your tax bill minus the first 100,000. >> Yeah. >> All right. So, we're good with that. >> Yeah. >> To approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 19, community preservation annual budget CPC. No
recommendations needed. It says from the CPC. Need a motion. >> Motion. Sherry Nolton. >> Second. Paul Conley. All those in favor. Joseph DD. I >> Lita D. Maria. I >> Paul Conley. I >> Sher Nolton. I [clears throat] This is pros and cons.
>> Yes. So again, the con if we do not approve, what's the con for approving it? >> Con is we're in violation. [clears throat] >> Be in violation of the common law. >> Well, that's the pro for approving it.
>> You want to be in violation? >> No. What's the con? If >> if we >> if we approve it, we will not be in violation. So that is a pro. The What is the con to approving it? >> We would be violating our agreement. >> That's an
That's if we don't approve it. >> Yeah. What available meeting. >> So there's no [laughter] there is no >> we thought we had our >> um >> I think there is no So if I need to vote I'll say um
abstain or something but >> okay that's fine. You can say no. >> Yeah. I mean I I prefer we just change the con or say there's no con. >> We don't we don't have to have a pro and a con. So we could just remove the word con and just say if we don't approve this article, we would be in violation
of our agreement. >> Oh, really? Which is which is a pro. That's good. Which is part of the pro. So you have a pro and no con. I'm all right with it. >> Town rules. >> The state of Massachusetts doesn't require pro and con. It's by town. It's town by
town. >> There you kind of was the last one. Oh, David's on a win. You know, I should have told him half an hour. [laughter] >> Thank you. Good night. >> I know.
>> Definitely. >> So, do you want to just leave it as the pro? >> Yeah, >> that's fine. I'm not disagreeing with that. >> Okay. >> Get rid of the word of >> everybody needs to know that. >> Okay. So, vote to approve as discussed the pro of for article 19 preservation
annual budget for the CCPC. No recommendation needed. >> Motion sharing. >> Second. Paul Connley. All those in favor? Joseph DD I >> Alita Dur I. >> Paul Connley I. >> Sharing Alton I >> David I.
>> It's not asking for recommendation. The next one is pros and cons for article 20 which is the alum treatment debt service. every >> same thing, right? For approving this article allow for the use of community preservation funds to make the interest
and principal payment of the $600,000 bond issued for the approval approved alone alum treatment on Kongaman Lake. >> Are we okay with that? >> Yep. >> Yeah, it's the CPC doing it. >> Yep. Yep. >> Yeah, we're good. >> Okay. And then the con, here's the con. Failure to approve this article will
require the use of a general fund appropriation to fund a debt payment. Just get rid of the con. >> Oh, get rid. >> No, you want to get rid of the con. You got to keep the con because one is saying they're going to use CPC money for >> the other is the town. >> If you don't do that, then it's going to
come under a pro to >> now the con to approving, >> right? >> And that's not a con to approving. That is a pro to approving. >> So, >> so just get rid of the con. >> Yeah. Again, I don't think there is a con to this
>> to approving it. what you're well you're still spending $600,000 on the treatment >> but it's only the payment of $63,900 from CPC. >> It is our money and you know >> right but no I but there's no con necessarily to
>> Well there is you're taking money out of the CPC and you're >> that comes out hundreds of thousands it's got $728,000 in it. That's why we're saying there's no con. >> We're still spending. >> We're spending it either way, whether
it's out of CPC or out of our own right, >> base obligated to do the treatment. >> Unless you want >> Oh, treatment's done. We're obligated to pay our bill. >> Pay the bill. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Last I checked. >> Okay. Yeah, then fine.
I'm I'm for Yeah. Who gets it? >> Wait, hang on. Chat chat GPT failed me. >> Oh, no. >> Yeah, it did. Do you have the Wi-Fi password? >> No. Oh, that's not why. Okay. >> I don't need it. So, sorry. Section 24
of the Southwick bylaws. I'm on EC code 360. Um, the finance committee uh needs to do pros and cons of each article at least 7 days prior to the time said we need a course of action there. >> So, we can say there is no comp.
>> Yeah, we can. I guess we could. Although, is that is that legal? Why is it >> I don't think they're gonna come and arrest Joe in the middle of the night and be surprised. [laughter] >> If you're two pros and cons and you say
there is no con that is that really >> is that a con? [laughter] >> I don't know. I give up. >> Cons of being on this committee. >> But that would mean we need to go back to our to >> I didn't hear you. So we're on the last one. >> Okay. Sorry. [laughter]
because I think wasn't there an approval a few years ago? >> It's already approved >> to take this out of the CPC. Wasn't there an approval? >> Yeah, it's part of that when they decided to do the alum treatment. >> Yes, the CPC did fund it. Yeah. >> But why is it presented every year?
>> We have to because it's CPC. >> It's a payment. So every year we have to do the vote for the payment to come out of the CBC even though we've already >> approved it and bonded for it. >> It's just that part of it >> payment
the boiler plate we have to >> the con is our bill would be paid >> right and this is the con we used last year >> delinquent. No that's a pro to >> Yes. It's a pro. Yes. Being delinquent is just bad all around
whether you say yes or no. [laughter] Yeah. Some of them just really don't have a con. >> Well, even I mean just for the average person walking in and reading it, it's going to sit there and go, "Okay, it's already paid for it through CPC. If we don't vote that through, then it's going to come out of my it's going to raise my
taxes." Very simple. I don't think it's all that complicated. I mean, you know, I think sometimes we get a little too carried away. >> Just the average person is going to walk in and just I mean, I read that in 30 seconds. It was clear to me if we don't vote to do it, it's already paid for.
The money's there. And if we don't, they're going to raise my taxes. So, okay, that's the cut. My opinion, >> I can go for that. >> So, no. >> I would leave the con in. I mean, it's it's just very simple. Well, look at the
money's already >> already in for the CPC. So, okay. And if we don't, then you're going to dig a little deeper in your wallet. >> All of that you just said is a pro. >> Yeah. >> And we're saying because we're obligated to put pros and cons. What's our con? We
can't think of one. So, >> right. >> Scary. I I understand his thinking. So again, I don't think there's a con to this >> just change it to say the finance
committee cannot >> does not see a con or just eliminate it like five and they're both community preservation. >> So >> right, the pro is the pro and that's the end of it. >> Well, if the CPC doesn't make the
payment, who makes the payment? Who's who's the debt instrument is in the name of the city of South Wales. >> Are we obligated to make the payment? >> Oh, the town the town >> if it went to a town meeting and the
town approved the debt. >> Yeah. >> And they say they're not going to pay it, then the taxpayers have to pay. >> Oh, absolutely. I don't see how >> that's a that's a >> No, we're not saying we're not going to pay it. We're not going to take it out of the CPC.
Right. Right. If we're saying if >> Yeah. What's the There is no >> Yeah. What? Yeah. There. >> There is no pro. >> Thank you. >> So, we're going to just go with the pro. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. I need a motion. Uh vote to approve as discussed the pros and cons for article 20 Hallum Treatment Debt
Service >> CBC. No recommendations needed. >> Motion. Sharon. >> Second. Paul Conley. >> Okay. All those in favor? Joseph DD. I >> believe G Marie. family Sharon and I
>> RJ Haraj. >> Folks, that's the end. >> That's all folks. >> Is there anything else for Miss >> We didn't do that. We don't do that for CPC or we didn't do it on >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It's not on my list.
>> Yeah. >> You said Yeah, we just did that. That was our no recommendation. >> Is there any other new business >> might be different? >> Any new or old business we need to discuss tonight folks?
>> Nope. >> So we are done with our process. >> Motion to adjurnn. I >> see you tell me then. Second. Thank you. Motion was made, seconded. All those in favor? Joseph DD >> I
shar. >> RJ Ro. >> David. >> Folks, it's been a pleasure. Thank you. >> Thanks.