on rates. Instead, they voted on plan redesign. Uh the the one change that they made, which was a significant one, was to remove GLP1s from what they are offering, which will necessarily lower this number. you know, this is at the high end of the projection and it's one
that will come down over time as we get better information as they vote on their final plan and then as we, you know, match it up against our census which employees are taking which plans. That's something that I know last year it was provided closer to May 1st and I would anticipate the same. But as GIC sets
their final rates, we will also come back to you to refine these numbers and give everyone a better sense of where we are. Debt service is 7.6 million which is up 2%. pension is 6.7 million up 4.1% in state assessments drop down almost 18%
primarily due to the reduction in the charter school assessments. Uh one a couple things I'd like to note is that indirect costs are funded through water and sewer user charges and reimburse for the general fund to offset overhead that supports those operations. Um and then the solid wasteland is shown
is a subsidy. Uh the total fund right now I think it's about $180,000 is that right in the revenue from the bags and the rest is the subsidy. So moving on to the next slide. So the revenue overview a few key points that I wanted to highlight as folks take a look
at this slide. The budget was developed consistent with the direction that we had discussed last fall to use conservative res revenue estimates per the fiscal policy and to use excess levy capacity where needed rather than rely on aggressive assumptions. We were looking at level service in this first
recommended budget and we're we're open to feedback both tonight and going forward anywhere that you think we should be taking a harder look at numbers or figuring out ways that we could manage differently. Um we're proposing to use 2.8 million of excess levy capacity to balance the
budget to meet the fiscal policy. That leaves an estimated 1.6 million in remaining excess capacity. Something I'll address more when we get to the compliance summary at the end. On state aid, we budgeted based on the governor's budget, as I mentioned, which reflects two a nearly 2.4% increase, 2.9% growth
in chapter 70 funding, and a uh 2.5% growth than the unrestricted government aid, which goes to our government administration. Local receipts are projected using our financial policy standard, no more than 90% of prior year actuals, and the slight decrease you see reflects that discipline that we've
applied to this uh presentation. on the expenditure overview. Uh I, you know, want to highlight a couple of things. Again, the single largest pressure we have this year is health insurance. Uh we've budgeted 14.5% increase, which is approximately 1.18
million. I do anticipate that will come down, but to plan conservatively, Patrick and I, as we talked about this, did not want to be in a situation where it ended up being on the higher end. and we told you something tonight that was not reflective of what we uh could accurately forecast or um that we would
be coming back in a few weeks saying, you know, there's a crushing number that's come out from GIC. We see this as an opportunity to dial back down, reduce excess levy use or allow for any other changes that may develop over time. Did you have something to add, Patrick? Okay. I didn't know if
um so they've not yet been voted on by the GIC as I mentioned, but we will continue at each uh select board meeting. As we have information, we will update it and be working closely with Fincom as well as these numbers become better refined. >> Um the budget fully funds the town's pension obligation in accordance with
the approved funding schedule that's gone before PR Act and has been voted on by the retirement board. Uh the pension appropriation remains on track to address its unfunded liability ahead of the schedule set by law. Though >> on solid waste, we've increased the budget to a holding number of 15% in
anticipation of additional contract costs. Our current contract is up for renewal >> and neighboring communities have seen significant increases. And so again, it's something where we want to try to reflect as best we can where we think we may end up uh with a hope and anticipation that we'll do everything we
can to lower that number as we move closer to the the final budget that goes before town meeting. >> Um our goal there both with GIC and with trash is to conservatively estimate and manage risk where we can. So we don't give a rosy picture tonight that is not
reflective of where we may end up. Uh continuing on expenditures, the capital improvement program is consistent again with our policy target of funding capital at approximately 10% of the operating budget and the debt and service increases by 2% from FY26.
Looking at the operating budgets, um the town budget increases 7.7% or 3.2 million. That's inclusive of the solid waste sub subsidy and enterprise fund uh indirect costs. The school department budget increases 3.96% or approximately
1.35 million. Nonappropriated expenses, state assessments, and the overlay reserve are budgeted separately and not included in the appropri appropriation totals. Patrick, do you want to speak to the uh school department number?
>> Yes. So, in the line item budgeted before you, the school department general fund appropriation is increasing, I think, 4.6% in the budget book. Um, last year the school department budget was
supplemented with $200,000 from free cash for utility reserve and that's non-recurring. So, um, that's there's a little bit of a just difference there because we're not accounting for that funding source this year. Um,
>> so we just wanted to highlight that. That was something that as we started to circulate things was a question that we received. Do you have a you have a question, Doug? >> Yeah. I'm sorry that didn't quite help me understand it because I was >> the percentage shows up differently in different places. That's what you're getting at. Yes. Yep.
>> This 3.96 versus the 46. I saw it as four someplace. >> Um, >> but that's the explanation. >> So, last year's general fund appropriation plus the utility reserve compared to this year's general fund appropriation is a 3.96% increase. If
you take that $200,000 of onetime money away, it's 4.6. >> That 200,000 moves it that much. >> Yep. And so it's really looking at overall spend last year compared to overall spend this year. >> Exactly.
>> Patrick, do you have a microphone? I just can't see it. >> Oh, okay. Great. >> Okay. >> Just wanted to make sure folks at home could hear you. >> Yep. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, moving to the operating budget and we're obviously happy to stop for questions if you have them. I'd love to
be able to get through this and then answer them, but happy to stop if folks have questions as we go. Wait, doesn't that school number also include the Essex number in there besides >> not the number on on the slide that was just up? No. >> All right.
>> So, they're the school department budget that they present when we in the line items Essex is there, but it's separate and apart from the budget that's presented to the school committee by the superintendent. Mhm. >> So what I'm calling out here is just what was presented by the superintendent to the school committee.
Does that answer your question for now? >> For now. >> Okay. So on the operating budget, um you know, just looking at the distribution of increase, I thought it's something that's useful to consider. Um these slides are very small for me. I
need my readers here. I can't believe how far away this is. Um you >> want me to pull it closer? >> No, no. It's just funny that I look up at it and I can't see it. um of the total increase the school department accounts for uh 33.7% of the increase. Health insurance
represents 29.5% of the increase and town departments together when rolled off are 27.7%. Solid waste represents 6%. Um when you look within town town departments, that's another thing that's just a useful sort of quick view of what's
going on. Uh public safety is the largest contributor with an increase of 16.9% and that is reflective of the fact that it's two years with a settled contract. It's two years of colas and everything else all rolled into a single year of expense. Um you so it's nearly
17% of the increase but it's only 11.6% of the budget. General is 8.8% of the increase. That's that's carrying salary reserves as well as added staff uh and full-time conversions that we've had over the last year. And then DPW facilities, library and community services represent, you know, a small
fraction of the overall increases as you can see here. A contextual note on why department budgets look higher than in prior years. Many departments are reflecting compounding impacts of recently settled collecting collective agreements agreements and in some cases that means the the equivalent of two years of colas
as I just mentioned landing in a single budget cycle. Um and so when we look at what contracts are left, we have fire and library and then DPW which expires at the end of FY26 and clerical which will be up again in FY27. Uh this budget makes several deliberate
personnel adjustments. The net FT FTE impact is a reduction of 1.5 FTEES from FY26 generating approximately $82,000 in savings. The total budget budgetary impact of all personnel changes, new positions, restructured roles, and salary adjustments is approximately
693,000 as is called out here exclusive of the end of employment costs and salary reserve which we keep in a separate part of the budget. The key drivers here include the ratification of the police CBA covering two years adjustment to public safety overtime based on
historical trends and a number of staffing restructurings throughout the year. The taxpayer impact of all those personnel adjustments is estimated approximately $153 per year for the average homeowner. I do want to just call out the public safety overtime based on historical trends. Uh
in the budget detail, you can see that we are raising the number um that is recommended for the overtime line in both police and fire because the 5-year historical averages are significantly above what we have been budgeting. And so we've been really using um free cash
for an operating expense, using onetime funds for an operating expense, which is something that you know Patrick and I putting this together, but you all have heard from me previously is not something that is a great practice and something that I would like unless it's recommended here for the first time. Do
you have an idea of what the total uh transfers are just so folks can get a sense of how big those transfers are in overtime? Um, so between both police and fire over the last five years, we've averaged almost $222,000 a year in supplemental transfers into their
departmental budgets to cover overtime >> every year for year. Yep. >> Come on. Please fire. >> Yep. >> So a quarter of a million dollars every year. >> So at what point are we going to talk about the philosophy behind that? >> Yeah. I behind over the end or a detail slide for overtime or
>> uh no I think there's the police departmental and fire departmental. So >> Oh, let's go. >> We can talk about it right now if you'd like. >> Well, why don't we talk about it when we get to the their department? >> Great. >> That just gives the context. >> I'm good with that. >> Okay. >> Just one other time. >> Sure. >> Okay.
>> Don't slow down yet, Nick. >> Keep going. >> I'm rushing through as I am. >> If you pause, you might never get back on track. >> Come on, Doug. give me a little credit here. So, going into departmental detail. Great segue, Chair Failen. Um, you know, we'll start with
administration finance. It increases 9.5% to 4.28 million. So, I'll go through some of the drivers for each of these. Um, and then as the chair mentioned, this is a great time for us to talk about any particular department and ask questions specifically and Patrick and I will do our best to answer
them now and if not, we'll get you the information. Uh so on administration finance property and casualty in c casualty insurance uh per our um broker we are budgeting a 9% increase which is approximately $93,000. That's consistent with market trends.
It's property and liability. It's not simply that we have a building whether it's vacant or not vacant or or what it's it's liability for police, fire, employees, everyone, you know, it covers the the full package. I don't know if there's anything that you want to add. >> Nope. >> Okay. >> Covered it. the way you were looking at
me, I thought you might. Um, it also reflects staffing changes across the TA's office, accounting, assessing, treasury, and the clerk's office, uh, adding up to approximately 56,000. Uh, assessing, we're still looking to bring on a full-time assessor. So, that's reflected in here. Uh, we have a new
treasurer. Um, I'm sorry, a new clerk and a new treasurer. Um, and then the accounting office is finally filling out as well with an assistant town accountant. Uh the police and fire entrance and promotional exams are being funded within HR which is part of administration and finance since we left
civil service. We have been sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul in different places to pay for the different exams and different background and everything else that we do to um bring someone on and also for promotions. So we're trying to again represent what it costs to operate the community uh by carrying a
number here that is reflective of what we anticipate between the two departments. Uh election expenses and poll worker funding is up as well to approximately up approximately $24,000. This is just a reflection of the election calendar. Next fiscal year has a uh state general state primary and
then the normal um spring election here in town as well as town meetings. So again in speaking with our new clerk, we wanted to make sure we try to reflect that as best we can. The salary reserve is up significantly to provide flexibility for collective bargaining agreements. As I said, we have two years of fire that are out right now. Two
years now for um as we get into 27 for library and DPW will be coming open. Um so that's all uh reflected in there. End of employment costs. Yeah. >> Just for on on the salaries are on that number 243,000 I looked through here.
What's the assumptions that are backing that number for >> 243? Where did the number come from? So, it's looking at the contracts that are open now and where we anticipate settling them. >> I I get that, but I mean like specifically >> I don't think that we would want to get into the specific percentages that we're
carrying for each particular contract. It's it's where we reasonably believe that we would be able to land on the open contracts and then on the ones that have two years, it's carrying two years worth of that expense. >> Okay. I guess my next question was what was the downside exposure of decon fired
exceeded expectations but we're not going to talk about percentages I guess can't answer that either >> I think it would put us in a difficult bargaining situation for me to be expressing to you where we intend to land >> prior to us even having ground rules with DVW as an example. >> Okay.
>> Um are there any other questions? Okay. Uh and then the end of employment costs for both town and school are down approximately $87,000. It is one I want to call out as well. It's down slightly. Uh we anticipate um working with a new vendor on our manner
service provider side uh which we anticipate will help us not only uh with operations on the town side but will result in savings over time as well. Do folks have any other questions about administration finance before I move? Just generally with all the change in staffing and you know turnover etc in
the admin finance group do we expect this year 26 to be close to budget be over I mean I know we use some thirdparty accounting services to fill the gaps or how do we expect that to compare to the actual numbers at the end of the year? >> Patrick, do you want to jump in?
>> Yeah, I can just jump in. Eric, we're managing to budget. >> Can you speak up? We're managing to budget with all the changes that have occurred over the past year. Um we had an expected amount for example the accounting services that you called out. We're winding those down as we're
staffed up. The assistant town accountant actually started today which is great. So um we're we're managing >> you expect to be close to budget at the end of the year. >> That's my expectation. Okay. >> Thank you.
So, I have a question on the assessing department. Have we double checked on the assessing department if we're still within a good range of being able to get an assessor?
we raised the the offered number and I think our biggest problem is that there are not a lot of people that are getting into assessing and so you know I at different points um the remaining members of the board of assessors and others have opined as to whether or not
it might be worth getting someone else that is in a semi-retired role and have two part-time but are both very experienced. There's also opportunities there I think over time but not I would not budget for it in FY27 to look at a model that could be regionalized and the
examples there that I would point to for anyone that's interested is like reading Wakefield Lynfield share an assessor with full-time staff in each community but the the sort of lead assessor is shared among the three communities and manage manages the individual towns. I had a discussion with him not long
after I started about what he would think would work. And you know, from his idea, it's the communities have to be very similar both in property and um and uses. And so, you know, there are a couple of towns nearby that are very similar to us in terms of highly residential, limited, commercial,
industrial. Um but any conversation about that would take too much time for us to be building the budget around a hope of being regionalized. I would love to be able to come back to you you all at some point in the future and say here's a proposal and here's how it would impact the budget, but for now we're we're keeping we're carrying the
salary that we the salary range that we have listed as part of the department. >> And I know um I brought this up I brought this up with you guys, but I'm still concerned as far as the fire and the police entry entrance exams not
being in their actual budgets and as far as it's in their budgets that they move they can move it around. they actually don't move it around. You the town accountant, town town administrator does the moving around in those line items. Um, so there's two things here is one is
it's really this re shouldn't this be a reflection of what's actually happening in those departments and two I just really want to point out that when we left uh civil service to go into non-ivil service it was made very clear to town meeting
members that it would really it's minimal minute amount of dollars it was going to cost us to run any type of testing and 495 almost $50,000 is not a minute amount of money. So, this is a a pretty serious expense and I'm just
wondering if it really should be sitting in HR or if it should be sitting in the appropriate funds. So, I just think it just put a thought out there, not that there has to be a decision tonight or anything. >> Well, that sounds logical to me. And if we're virtually fully staffed, correct
me if I'm wrong, why do we need how does $49,000 compare to what we've spent in prior years or how does it break down? >> So something like promotional exams depend on the number of folks that are looking to take it. So a promotional
exam at the police department, if there's, you know, 10 people that are past the years of service necessary and they all choose to take it, it's more expensive than if there's five. And the same is true for police I mean for fire you know captain lieutenant exams where a number of exam people taking the exam
drives the cost. Um looking at what the police department had come to us with >> looking at what the police department had come to us with they anticipate a large number of employees that will all take the promotional exam at the same time. So we're trying to carry a number
that can be applied to either based on what's going on yeartoear. And I would argue that it makes more sense and gives us more flexibility in both the police and fire side to keep it in administration and finance wherever we house it as opposed to having you know 25 and 25 or 36 and 12 or whatever the
number would be uh to split between the two. It the the entrance exams also these things could be driven by thing by outside sources like uh injured on duty could result in someone leaving on disability. There could be a someone that leaves to go to a lateral transfer
that we're not anticipating right now and then we need to pull a new list for police or fire. So >> So how does this compare to prior year? Any idea? $49,000 >> the couple couple the last three years.
>> I don't have that. >> So I know the police promotional exam is between 15 and $20,000 they intend to do next year. So that's nearly, you know, the entire budget if we were just going to split it half and half for them without getting to new employees if
there's lateral transfers or if someone retires that we don't, you know, we can we will get you the details, but I know off the top of my head because I had the conversation with Chief Exado that it's nearly $20,000 just for the promotional exam. And so that's something that is anticipated and scheduled for next year.
And we're happy to break it out for you and we can get it back to you. >> That's a contract that >> correct? It's a contract where you have an outside person come in and do the assessment. >> We don't have an opening. We're holding a promotional exam. >> Excuse me. >> I didn't hear what you said. >> Even if there's not. >> No, the promotional. It's because of
anticipated promotion opportunities with retirements that they are aware of and vacancies that exist. >> And is that's for every single level like a sergeant. There'd be a promotional exam, a lieutenant. >> There are different captain. These are all three different >> as I said, it's driven by the number of people taking the exam. So, I I believe
that that is the sergeant exam, not the lieutenant exam, but I might have it flipped in my head. >> Okay. >> I want to get you the details to make sure I'm telling you the right thing for sure. >> I have a different question on this page. So I I do see I see the originally I was thinking Marilyn made a very
strong point about putting it in the budget, but now I do see the flexibility available for you guys >> to sort of share that line um based on um the uh the exams that come forward. So I don't I don't have a problem keeping it where it is in HR, but it
would be good if we just had some detail over the last three or five years. >> Yep. We can provide that. >> And if okay, it would also be what we anticipate next year. Yeah, I do have both point that's probably most relevant if they're very clear on who's potentially retiring and >> y >> well the other last question is that if
we're running tests >> if we're running test so if the fire the fire department and the police department are both responsible for running their tests and they're also spending overtime funds for running their test then I would just think that whatever it's going to cost for this
action that it should all be glump clumped together so we know the real cost of being outside of civil service. >> Okay. >> The overtime is still going to be carried in the overtime number. You just want it pulled out so that when we're talking about the value of what it costs us accurate.
>> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Well, and also so it's recognized. I mean, because I if if you're asking a department to take something else, something on new, which we have asked them to do, it's important to really see, you know, how much of their overtime is being
>> calculated in that. I just had a question about the kind of the math in the last two. So when is this going up 94.4% for salary reserve? >> What does that mean that we have basically no salary reserve last year?
>> Well, the biggest driver is that we're carrying um two years of propo, you know, an open agreement for fire. >> I get that part. Yeah. Just the 94% increase. Does that mean like we had
>> we comparing it to after we reallocate the salary reserve? >> Yeah, it's probably just >> normally we start with a salary reserve number and then sometimes when we we settle a contract we move it to the appropriate >> right poses reserve was like 135 or something before and so that's that's okay,
>> right? >> And then the end of employment is actually a negative. >> It's going down 40%. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So, we have not transferred any funds out of salary reserve yet this year because that would take an action
of town meeting and we haven't brought the CBAs to them. >> That was Eric's point. >> Yeah. Okay. >> What was last year's salary reserve number? >> $257,000 618.
>> Wait a minute. Now, how is that increase? That's what we're asking, >> right? Unless this is the amount it's going up and not the amount it Yeah, that's the amount it's going up. Approximately $243,000. >> So, it's more like 500 to Got it. Okay.
>> You got to the bottom of the chair. >> We got there. >> That's why attorneys shouldn't do math. >> Yeah. >> No. Yeah. That was good. >> Banner day. >> Are there others? >> No. >> Okay. Not not in the nitty-gritty. I mean, we're kind of I feel like we're
kind of going down in the depths before we talk about the overall, but so I'll just hold on that for now. >> We can do whichever you want. I just wanted I just meant on that slide before we keep going. Okay, go ahead, >> please. >> Um, so community and economic development. It's a decrease of 2.6%.
Um, so within that is the health department, the full-time public health and arts. We're transitioning to a contract role. Uh I've talked with the public health director and has he's provided a you know tenative budget for what that could look like and that's
where we are here. This reflects a service model change not a reduction in the public health capacity just so it's clear. Um offsetting that partially are modest salary and staffing updates in the building department and community development. Um plus I think it's a the
$3,000 expense for code books that are required for the building department as well. I want to note too that the um change in the um health department was also brought forward to the uh board of health and the chair it was discussed
with the chair. So >> yeah, >> just so everybody's aware >> there'll be no hate mail tomorrow. Is that >> I mean listen I can't guarantee that. >> So for public services um which includes facilities DPW cemetery the increase is
2.3%. The not notable items here are electric utilities which are up approximately 10%. Um facilities preventative maintenance which is up and it's an investive investment in the proactive upkeep uh to offset and it's
offset by the reductions in the extraordinary maintenance contracting which is basically a shift by max to move from break fix to trying to stay ahead of these things. Um, so that's the contracted consulting and then snow and ice is level funded, but obviously we'll
have further discussions about that throughout the rest of this fiscal year. Um, but we're keeping that number the same for budgeting purposes. >> Do we know where Snow House is now? >> Do we want to know? >> We don't. >> I do want to know. >> It's over budget. >> Okay. How much, Patrick?
>> I think Yeah, I think they were looking for an order of mag. >> Yeah, we we we authorized them to run over $100,000. So that's the order of magnitude. and counting. >> Okay. >> So, you want to do >> um I do plenty of surf shopping.
>> Moving moving on to public safety. Uh this is proposed at 9.27 million increase of 7.9%. The largest driver here is the ratification of the CBA for the police. We because we had budgeted at FY25 levels and FY26. This
represents a catch-up year of two years of rate increases. Um the overtime budgets for both police and fire up approximately 20%. This is based on the historical trends in our actual experience. The idea here is that we should not be paying for what I consider
an operating expense with onetime funds. If we were not making these transfers on an annual basis, we would not have raised this. But we want to make sure that we are act accurately representing what it costs to to run and man the public safety here in town as best we
can. Um the Lynn dispatch agreement represents an increase as well of approximately 45,000. And on the positive side, we're consolidating um police and fire administrative roles into the single share position that Diane moved to um which saves
approximately $44,000. Uh there's also firefighter step increases which are included here and are approximately $74,000. As I mentioned, we also have the open contract with them. You want to jump in? >> I I don't let Mary Ellen go first if she
wants to tee off on it first. >> All right, you chicken. >> I'll do it. >> I'm happy to go. >> Don't get the party again. Um so going to the overtime budget. Um yes, we have historically had to add to the overtime. However,
what we have also had historically is for the past 5 years, we've been significantly understaffed. >> And by being understaffed, we've had to put a lot of pressure on that overtime budget. The other thing that we've also done is we've renegotiated these
contracts so that Manning is now in a different category and it does give the chiefs a little bit more latitude on how Manning is being handled. I think that adding more money into the
overtime budget is a mistake. I think what we should do is we should leave it level of what it was last year if we're concerned about Hold on. I'm just back up. I think we should leave it level and I think we should spend more time with
uh focus on management and to really see what are the real needs are to really really articulate and to get some real empirical data on what is needed and from there make a decision next year on what to do with that overtime number. I
think we're just um we're premature right now. >> Well, that's what I have to say on overtime. Mary Ellen, is that is that com I'm sorry. >> Go right ahead. >> Is that comment you just made? Is that for the overtime staffing model is it
more around covering like training sick leave vacancies whatever or is it minimum safe staffing? What's behind you know the comment from the historical perspective? I think you just said like they just didn't have
enough folks and that's what they were relying on over time. Nick You want to answer my question? >> Sure. Go ahead. >> Okay. Um, so to answer that question, we were short, we've been short staffed by
many, many employees. So what you have to do is you have to have uh you have to have people out there. >> Yeah. >> It you even have to have quite a bit of forced labor. You have to force police officers. Um, I'm not sure about fire, but I know that you have to force police
officers to come in on overtime and that that starts ringing up ringing up your bill when if you're going to have a full staff or close to a full staff, you're not going to have to tax into your overtime budget as much. The other
question is from a management standpoint, how is overtime being given out? Are there times when we have situations where it doesn't have to be overtime? Are there times when the staffing should be staffed differently? I mean, are
there different different levers that can be used? I think that we just need a good solid year to really understand it and get some real empirical data as to what is this overtime really needed. I think the line item for overtime on training is the
same. Isn't that the same in this budget for overtime? There's in the budget there's different line items for overtime and I think for the training overtime you can actually calculate you can get a good number on what you're going to need for that. So then when you go to the
fire fire is different because fire is mandated by the equipment. So you have to have x amount of people on an equip on on the equipment and that's I just think there has to be some another level of management and some empirical data
and then at that point make a decision. >> I I agree. I think I think it also does beg the question like is it cheaper to have uh more additional FTEEs versus the overtime $227,000? Could we add another FTE? So we we did that study um Tim Dorsey did that study
um about five years ago, six years ago and it came out to an even number. Cinder McNierney about 15 years ago they did the same study and it came out to even
um whether or not whe whether or not to add more or to um go with overtime. And at the time, I know when Senator McNeer's finance committee did it, the police department preferred having the overtime, I I know when Tim did it, it
was it was just level and it wasn't it wasn't worth adding more. >> So, I would just say on the to get back to the original question, like during the winter fire, as an example, we run eight there's eight scheduled employees,
but one can go on sick time. >> Sure. vacation without triggering overtime because seven is minimum manning to the point that Mary Allen was making about being able to run the two pieces of equipment. Um I think there may be a difference of opinion between rank and file and management when you
say police wanted it versus like I I think it is something that is not necessarily an expectation but folks you know believe that they between details and overtime or whatever else can um achieve whatever level of income that they might plan to make. So I think from
our from our standpoint giving the tools necessary and accurately reflecting the cost is what we're trying to do. Um to your point Mary Ellen to both try to manage better but also accurately reflect the cost and not rely on um free cash knowing that it's an expense that
has repeatedly come up. The other just the nature of both jobs as well is one person going out IOD can significantly mess up the entire schedule and cause a significant problem when it comes to overtime. So it's we're talking about sort of a quote unquote best case where
there is not a long-term significant IOD, but just what can we do to better manage the resources that we have and the time that we need. I'm sorry. >> No. So I guess I'd just say I'm sure we all love our police and our fire. Um,
and I just I wholeheartedly agree with Marilyn if I understood correctly. You in terms level funding you you mean level to what we did last year or like there should be no overtime in the budget. >> What we did last year? >> What we did last year. >> Yeah. >> You're just saying pull out the the
additional increase the additional 227. >> Pull out the increase. >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, >> you know Yeah. Pull out the increase. I think at least I agree with that. >> Um because we really are on the verge for the first time at least in my short
tenure uh being virtually fully staffed if I understand correctly, >> right? >> Um so I do think we need a kind of bottoms up analysis. Uh really I want to kind of you know
lend my support to you Nick working with you know both the chiefs um if it even takes a little outside consulting or something in terms of optimization how this how this works um because that would pay dividends for
many years if we found there's you know uh various ways to make sure that we're covering in creative ways. Um, if we find out that there's no other way around it, at least we really know. Um, but just kind of putting this in here, I
understand, you know, on one level why you did it because you want to avoid that free cash draw later. Um, but I'd be willing to risk a little bit of that this year for with, you know, your leadership with the chiefs to really get
that granular analysis clear because it's just been floating for years and every year it's kind of been like, well, we have a lot of openings so we can't really figure it out. Well, now we've got an opportunity. I feel like philosophically I align with what Doug and Marilyn are saying which is
because we've been so short staffed even level funding overtime is an increase to them right now because now they have full staff. So from that perspective, just having it at what it was last year should be
matching it with some sort of managerial training or some I don't know if there's a better way to be keeping time of this overtime over a year over the year. Um I do understand that there may be like a
3 to six month period of time where like we're getting into that and that may create some overage but that would be dimminimous compared to what we are typically doing. Um, so I would cons I would possibly consider a small percentage of increase based on just
that philosophy rather than, you know, taking the entirety of the 227 and putting it in their budget. I do agree though like the rhetoric has to be made to the chiefs and to, you know, file and rank that this we cannot be
funding overtime through free cash. We don't have that luxury anymore. It doesn't make financial sense for us to have to be consistently doing that. It's now become a policy and it's a bad one and we need to write it, correct it. >> Yeah. >> Right. So, it becomes almost like a
performance Sorry, David. >> Um, more of a performance management tool for the TA to use with the chiefs because they are now more directly responsible for that line item, right? Because >> police is now fully fully staffed, right? So to me, just looking at it, I
mean, if I I'm not sure the methodology utilizing the historic trends plus 20% in this case because last year was a significantly different staffing situation than what they're going to be looking at for next year, right? So because they are fully staffed. So I don't know that that 227 makes a whole
lot of sense to me in that respect. So I I wholeheartedly agree with Mary Ellen here. Yeah, >> I think too we we negotiated successfully and closed out the police contract. >> Like it's a good time for us to have the we're at the table together. It seems
like we're moving in the right direction in in that house. So like it's not just the chiefs, it's actually the entire department agreeing that >> philosophically the town has to move in this direction and that that may seem
less overtime, but if you want us to keep investing in, >> you know, the services that they want, the increases that they want, the steps that they want, like this is how we're going to get there. We need to have a little bit of savings so that we can be doing that on the go forward. >> Yeah. I don't need to beat the dead
horse. Uh I'll ask I'll ask I'm generally in support of of what my colleagues uh stated. Um my question was really on the Lynn dispatch agreement which is up 16%. >> Is is that a function of capital expendit capital investments that are being made in the city of Lynn? How long
do we have on that agreement? And are there other opportunities where we may be able to regionalize outside of setup different setups that we should be looking at and not just hooking our wagon up to win. The only other regional one that exists
that I know of to answer that question, David, in this area is uh Middleton hosts one that has a handful of communities that sort of go north and east from there. >> Um I don't know what their capacity is or what the cost would look like, but we can certainly look into that as well in addition to trying to close out the conversations with Lynn.
>> Well, one of the things that really struck me was when the chief was here, he said that when the police chief was here, he said that 80% of the calls that come in come into the police department, come in
to the 595111 number, and 20% go to 911. So, out of all the calls that are coming in, only 20% is going to that Lynn dispatch. And I just think we've got to really look at
this a little bit little bit differently. >> Okay. And just to make sure I'm clear on what you just said, Patrick, is the like that full basically 45,000 because we're assuming another kind of >> capital increase within that.
>> Unclear. So we're assuming that that could occur. That could work. >> So the contract itself doesn't cost 45,000. This is potentially on top of what we pay. >> It's the my understanding combination. Sorry, go ahead. >> Yeah. So the $45,000 is the increase
we're carrying in the operating budget and that would be that's based off of you know what we had this year for an assessment which included money towards capital improvements for the entire dispatch. >> Okay. >> Right. So I don't quite understand if every year we were assuming $50,000 >> increase
>> increase for >> then then you already have that high base and now you're saying it's going to be not just 50,000 but like 45 that >> the total proposed increase is 44,000
>> inclusive of any like capital that needs to be in that agreement that would be funded. >> We needed 50,000 we'd be short. What's a dollar? What's the dollar amount on the line item? >> That would be included in the $44,000 increase. Our baseline already includes 50,000. >> Yeah. Okay.
>> But we're saying it's a $44,000 increase >> assessment. Yeah. All right. But what is that line item? What is the is >> 328,000? >> 328. >> It's a lot of money. >> And I don't want to get like too lost in the number because obviously this agreement is upcoming and has to be
negotiated and that'll come before you all >> negotiated. Mhm. >> But I think you've given us clear direction not only to look at this but >> understand what its usefulness is burst by the state on an annual basis that is benefits that are given to veterans who
qualify and need that support. >> Library step increases here. Um again we have an open contract but this represents the you know anticipated step increases that we have and then senior center longevity and cola increases um represent a very minimal increase as you
can see here. >> Can you just talk on that um the senior increase there because it's very minimal and it's it's a little bit deceiving. It's really higher than that but we have a retirement coming up.
>> Right. So, we have a planned retirement coming. The right now we have I know at least one employee who's interested in addition to the fact that we'll be posting it. Um, so this sort of represents where we are based on those conversations we had. There was discussion about actually adding an FTE
there. That was something in my recommended budget. I did not include uh an administrative role because we were working very hard to limit or eliminate expansion where possible. Um, is there a specific dollar number that you think we're missing there?
>> No, it just it says uh it says the increase is 1.1% and it's it's only 1.1% because >> of the retire >> somebody's retiring it's it's really higher than really higher than that, right? >> Well, if if Heidi were staying, it would be higher, but she isn't
>> that I the staffing there is primarily part-time, right? >> And volunteer. So that that is the increase to those that will be remaining as of the beginning of FY27, >> right? >> The role going away. >> That's the dollar that's a dollar increase. That's a dollar increase, not
the percentage increase. >> Yeah. But if we want to replace with somebody else, I'm not sure I >> we're carrying her salary. >> Yeah. >> So not an increase to her salary. >> So is that >> Yeah. I just don't want people to look at this and say, "What? Seniors are only getting 1%." It's just the budget is
only having to go up 1%. Okay. Education. Uh, briefly the school committee requested um the approximately 1.3 million increase. Notably, no additional funding is proposed for the utility reserve. I just wanted to highlight that since we talked about it
quite a bit. Uh, and then the Essex Tech um assessment is showing an increase of approximately 31% right now. that is and correct me if I'm wrong Jason very much still up in the air based on how many students end up uh enrolling in this
freshman class incoming freshman class >> well this is from last year's right >> yeah so next year's would be fluid >> right >> so FY27 >> yes >> correct >> and so >> we could change we don't know who's
>> we know there's the opportunity for more people to be going we don't know how many will actually enroll And we talked about that how the lottery had changed, >> right? >> To eliminate the interview process and a number of other things that >> so let's talk a little bit about how
this used to go, right? So in years last year prior to this, it's now a lottery, right? >> It used to be >> anybody any child interested would go through a series of interviews, a whole process. >> So you know, you could have kids interviewing and applying but not
necessarily have any interest in going, right? So they've totally changed that now and it's entirely >> it does. Your grades, your attendance, all those things used to be sort of >> majority factors. Now >> major factors your your interview now they don't even interview. It's complete lottery system >> and >> siblings >> and your grades don't matter. No.
>> Nope. >> Wow. >> Yep. >> And that's primarily because it would it could be subjective. It could be you know your answers and interviews and and such would be used against you potentially, right? So maybe discriminatory in nature. So they went to this new model where it's entirely by
picking a lottery number >> right where they're trying this for this year. >> But we had I think requested a lower number >> as low as possible so it wouldn't affect >> us budgetarily but >> they didn't seem to care the same thing and the bigger cities argued. Yeah.
>> Yeah. >> It's a proportional school committee. >> Yeah. >> And so I've talked to other TAs who are also >> concerned and looking at it. I'm sure Jason's talked to other superintendents that are concerned and looking at it. >> The you know the that's sort of our
baseline. So it's if we have 28 attendee or 28 applicants and they all want to go there, they can all get in, >> right? >> But we might have 32 applicants and only 14 want to go there, in which case those 14 would get, you know, like it doesn't mean that they're going to get 28 students out of our school system, but >> right
>> that that is the minimum. But alternatively, it could be if there's 35 applicants and other communities don't hit their number, >> right? >> That they come back in, they go back around in the pool of people that could not get in at their minimum number in each community. >> As I understand that, >> yeah. And what they did not do in the past, not to bore you with this, but
they used to if if say you had >> 30 swamps kids apply and only 20 got in, they would just go back to the pool at large with everybody. Now they're going back to the swamps kids. If they're not interested, then they go back to the pool. Right. >> Oh.
>> So, there's a floor and a ceiling basically. >> And so, you could be affected by other towns. >> Yeah. There's no ceiling. >> There's no ceiling. >> 28. Is there ceiling? No. >> Oh, yeah. Number of applicants. It's >> Yeah. Oh, okay. >> No. No. So, it's not 28. It's a number of applicants from the district. The
floor is 28 acceptances. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Does that make sense to you now or No. >> No. So, they're So, if we have 50 people apply >> Mhm. 50 freshman potential freshmen. >> Yeah, >> then 50 kids could end up going.
>> It is depending on likely, but yeah, in the realm of possible. >> Okay. Sorry, I just I did I misunderstood that the 28 was a ceiling that there's a minimum. Okay, got it. >> What about the transportation number? Does that >> It's built into the assessment, I think, if I if I read that correctly. >> And we only pay for who goes, correct?
>> From our district, like say 10 kids go. >> If 10 kids go, that's >> that's all we're paying for. We're not paying for 20 or 28 or whatever the number >> and if less than our seats go. So say 10 kids go out of the 28. >> It's not like we're paying the difference that goes to the if our kids
don't go and a PBD kid goes PBD pays, >> right? >> Because that was my number one concern actually when I went there that are we paying for the minimum seats no matter what. Right? >> That's not the case. >> Okay. >> So >> that was part of the argument too. So then while we're on this page, um
just for everyone's benefit, at least hopefully it's for everyone's benefit, I just look back in the the budget summary you had just, you know, so since the headline number is 4.3%. Um and then the the subcategories, the biggest ones that move are admin and
school facilities, right? But in your detail here, you kind of you spell out what's driving that, right? And so >> in the um school budget presentation >> in the school budget sorry >> so on the admin even though it says it's
an 18% increase basically there's if I'm reading this right there's no discretion basically in in that in the sense that um
it's all driven by lane changes and salary increases that are already baked. Is that a Is that a correct reading of what I'm seeing here? >> I'm not sure what
>> Well, it says administrative cost center percent increase because you you look at it, you say, "Whoa, 18%." Wow. You know what's going >> um is driven by projected lane changes, 62% of the increase, and non-union salary increases. And then it lists all
the specific, you know, positions. >> Page nine. And I'm just trying to, you know, I I don't want to overread it or I don't want to underread it. >> Yeah. >> Um I just want to make sure I'm reading it accurately. And my my what I take
away from it basically is like there there's no flexibility there. >> Is that correct? >> That looks correct to me. I would need Miss Stella here to say for sure just in case I'm missing something, but that's what it looks like to me as well. >> Doug, we can email you tomorrow with a
specific answer to that question. It's a very good question. We'll That's what it looks like. But >> and then the same thing kind of on the facilities, you know, again, that was 6.75% increase, but it seems to say that this is really driven by a gas supply
contract and an electric supply contract. >> Yes. >> And so I'm I walk away with the indication that it's basically these are already set. They're fixed. There's no >> creativity or anything else possible here. >> You're correct. It is what it is.
>> Correct. >> But again, we'll we'll verify that too for you. >> Okay. >> Jason, do we have a a number on what is going to be generated from the solar and the geo like
>> I don't have that on me >> and okay. So that's a question is what what's what's the forecast for that and then what's the forecast for the actual cost? I mean, we know that it was 196 for those
specific periods, but there was a number of months that weren't included in there. >> That's a fair point because if you have all this kind of going up, >> you know, it it the whole point kind of was like, well, once we get that solar, it's going to be coming down
>> and yet it's going up >> 23% for the electric supply contract. It's kind of like, what? >> Right. >> Maybe both things are true. Yeah, I think I think cost of everything's going up. But still, but still 23%. >> And you think that you're getting the
solar working, you know, should be >> Yeah. I mean, we should definitely understand the differential >> gross number or the I don't know if that's a gross number like the contract may go up, but we're making money off the solar, >> right? >> Right. >> Right. But where is that money then? >> Well, be in the
>> could be factored in to this. >> You can't tell from the level of detail. >> So, that would be good to just Yeah. be super clear about. Yeah, we'll definitely that's a great question. We'll get answers to that. >> Thank you. >> So, another question that I have is um
we have a $1.3 million increase, but the big question is there's there was according to the 911 meeting, you had $575,000 that was moved over into the NATO revolving account. So, is this 1.3
million minus 575? >> I did not realize we were going to be answering questions tonight. We had the budget hearing on the 5th. We meeting with FINCOM on the 12th. So, I can't speak to that right now. >> I think that what as I understand what
was proposed, this is their cost to operate the school department and so >> Yeah. Not not funding. Yeah. Yeah. >> So it's not net of any of 575, right? >> Yep. >> Good point. >> So, okay, moving on.
>> But I mean, I think to Marilyn's point that that is still an open discussion. We've we to your point, Jason, we had the general meeting. We talked about a going forward plan to have some policies. So, we wouldn't be, >> you know, reacting to different levels of numbers. I'm not sure where that is
or but we we still haven't had a discussion about where that 575 stands today. I don't think anybody really in this group understands that or if we should consider if it's still there some discussion about using it to subsidize the general budget. I think those the discussions we just need to have because
we haven't had them yet. >> I was just speaking to the slides we have in front of us tonight, but absolutely agree with the larger point. We will work to get that on either a joint agenda or figure out a way to have that
conversation because I don't think we have everybody at the table here to have a fruitful conversation tonight. >> Probably should be joint meeting. >> Yeah. >> So, this is just a rundown of the debt service. Um, budgeted up 2% from FY26. Long-term debt principle and interest are both decreasing. Principal is down
2.8. Interest is down 6% reflecting the payown of existing debt. short-term debt service is increasing. Um, principal is up 156,000 and interest is is that right? Interest up 270.
>> Can you explain the last two, please? >> Short term. >> Yes. Um, so we have a short-term note that the board actually approved on Monday and um those purposes that are maturing in March of next year will be required to make a principal payown on
some of those. So that makes up the $156,000. Those are items we've been borrowing on a short-term basis for 3 years or more. And do requires us to start ticking down the payment just as if you had issued bonds. Um and short-term uh interest
reflects um new money that was issued in the note recently and a potential additional borrowing before the end of the year that will be needed for projects such as the ladder truck that are proceeding. Um, so this number will be fine-tuned downward, I would
anticipate, throughout the budget process. >> I think what's throwing me again here, Patrick, so they're up 60 and 42%. Meaning like just last year, we didn't do anywhere near as much of this. >> Funding for short-term debt, right?
>> It's just a short-term versus long-term >> and total debt service is only up >> 2% or something, I think, in total. >> 2%. So I think it's just shifting between long and shortterm that Patrick's giving you that detail, but it's not a >> Yeah, we did not issue any long-term
bonds this year, whereas previously we we had been doing that the last couple years. So >> unfortunately the pluses and minuses on the slide don't come out to be even though >> and not uneven. It's $100,000. >> It's not just simply a shifting from short to long term in terms of the
dollars. Now, of course, we're going to have increasing costs. That that's I mean, >> but the short-term debt is less than the long-term debt, right? So, when you look at the increase, the increase is greater because there's less money there. So, >> I Yeah, I get on that percentage, but
even the dollars themselves. >> Got it. >> We're adding. >> Yep. Got it. The question I have is >> So, we're hope So, what percentage of this this What percentage of is this in our overall budget? It's 10%.
>> It's under 10%. It is >> 9.7% of the proposed appropriated budget. >> Okay. And the rating agencies will have a it'll have a negative effect on us. We go over 10%. Is that true?
So, as we take on additional debt or liabilities, if our pension liability, you know, went sideways, >> that would negatively impact our rating. Whether or not it tips the scale completely depends because they weight all different criteria. So, they'd have to that's why they review all of our
different um aspects financially when we meet with them. Not just that, but that's one metric. >> Okay. So, we have to be really concerned and diligent about what we're doing with this debt number as it goes over the as it fluctuates around that 10% for the
next 5 years because we've got five years left. I think it's five years. Am I right there? Five years. 20 >> for what? >> 203 20 What are we 2031 or 2032? >> For for retirement pension. Yeah. >> 31, right? >> 2032. I think it's 32.
>> Fiscal year 20. >> All right. So I >> think it's two. >> You're saying until then >> we've got a really diligent of what we're doing in this pocket here because we also have we've got the middle school. I mean we've got some big things
we're looking at as far as debt. The middle school is one of them. It was the big one. >> Yeah, I think you're making a really good point. I think we've invested a lot in our assets over the past 5 years primarily through borrowing. >> Right. So our debt position is higher
than it had been. You know, if you look five years ago, we we built a whole school and we made all these other improvements that had been deferred for so long, it seems. Um so we've been in a in a mode of borrowing. But as needs are still out there and our capacity is, you
know, we're coming up to our policies, we we need to look to, you know, prioritization one and to, you know, other funding sources, not just debt. Can you send us the debt schedule of when things are falling off within the next seven years? >> Yep.
>> And is are these debt service numbers uh assuming what's in the capital plan? >> So what's what's proposed in the capital plan and before finances will be borrowed for sometime next year
for debt service that will come on in FY28. Typically, that's the cadence. So, that's one year behind. So, we have the full, you know, 30-year projection. And um >> so reducing theoretically reducing the capital plan
>> do less borrowing >> isn't actually going to help us in FY27. >> Not for this budget. Nope. Okay. Okay. Um, I'm not sure. Oh, >> employee benefits. >> I know. Just trying to
>> Do you want this? >> Yeah. Can I just work from this for a second? Go ahead. >> Well, we figured that out. Okay. So, unemploys. Um, where are we here? >> The pension is up 4.1% which is approximately 264,000. It fully funds our obligation for this
year. The health health insurance is the the story as I've mentioned a couple times here. We have it at 14 14.5%. I do not anticipate that will be the final number, especially with the plan design changes that were voted on last week, but we as we put this together were very
conservative to reflect the high end of both last year and the guidance this year was someplace north of 13 um as the as the high point. That will obviously come down now that they've eliminated GLP1s. Um as that gets finalized, we
will come back to you with more information obviously. Um the enrollment table which we cannot see up here shows the shift in plan enrollment from January to 20 25 to 26. We'll post this online uh as well. The most significant movement is a large migration from
Health New England to Harvard Pilgrim, 24 individual and 17 family plans. The premium difference is approximately 3% for in individual, 9% for the family. This contributes to the overall cost increase. um and it's independent of the overall rate adjustment. One of the things that we will be looking at here
in addition is working with an outside consultant that can help us to potentially design a plan to incentivize folks to move off of our health insurance. Uh we would come back to you with any proposals, but that is one of our goals uh to look at all potential levers. So whether it's cost share, it's
an incentive if you've been on for 12, 24, 36 months, whatever it's been, uh that savings would be split in some way between the town and the employee with an incentive to move off. Um we would also look at things uh other options that that have worked in other communities. They work with both GIC
communities and uh communities that are self-insured. So we have sort of a full plate of different options that we can explore with them. Step one is to scope something out with them and understand what costs look like. And that's a discussion we hope to have in the next couple of weeks. Um, next is state
assessments. Just uh question back to that for one second. Let's just go back to >> So, can we go back one slide? >> Just one >> benefits. Yeah. So, I think our average I think I when I came in and chatted with you guys about this, our average
increase for GIC over the past three or four years is roughly at 10%. So hopefully, even though we're estimating 14.5, I think they just voted the new rates recently. >> No, they were originally scheduled February 26th. >> They had pushed back plan design from
the 12th to the 26th. >> Okay, so we're close. We're sort of one meeting behind, I think, >> right? >> But they haven't posted their agenda for the March meeting yet. >> So hopefully at least a couple points are shaved off of that 14 in. >> We think it will >> in hope. I just don't have a number yet. >> Typically is around 10. The other piece
is the incentivizing of employees um to get off of our health insurance, right? And that's a push that a lot of towns, cities and towns, Melrose, Danvers, um they incentivize their employees to actually not take our insurance. And that's something that we've kind of lagged in in thinking about, but now is
the time and and I think you're going to do some investigative work there um to see where we could potentially have some savings because I think that would that would help us. You know, I know we asked that question um when Doug and I were meeting with the past town administrator. We asked that question
and I what we were told was that was looked into and that it it wasn't a benefit. But I'm glad we're going to look again. The the other thing is when we also when we were looking at this, we talked about redesigning a plan to be more beneficial for town employees
because there are things in the plan that people don't benefit from and yet the town is paying and the employees are paying. So >> I'm just wondering if the consultant should also be talking to the union leaders to find out what they're >> we can include that as part of the
scope. I think ultimately I think that's ultimately >> it's a a >> right >> public employee committee or council. It's a >> it's a group that is made up proportionally of union representation. So it is it's something we could absolutely look at but it's you know it
requires 50% of all union employees in the town to go along with any decision like that. >> Right. >> So it's just it's a high bar to clear but it's definitely something we would include in what we investigate and see what's possible. And >> and it's important to note this year with the GLP1 elimination um that's
having a significant impact on health insurance costs. Right. Correct. >> Um so hope that is something that I would suspect will drive GIC costs down as it is. And >> that alone could bring it down a couple of points. >> Was was that in was GLP1 in last year? >> Yes. What about the year before?
>> Yes. So GLP1s are the drugs you might be familiar with Zbec, they're Monaro, those of that nature that health insurance and companies are now removing their coverage. They're extremely expensive. So they're now, you know, a lot of health plans are adjusting how
they cover it and what the requirement is for coverage for their for their people. Um so it's bringing costs down when they're taking those out as covered. >> It's driving losses in private insurance, never mind. Employee insurance. >> Huge. Yeah. >> Huge. So hopefully that will help us. >> Half a billion dollars for Blue Cross,
right? Um >> Oh, sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, >> Mr. >> I think last year we talked about leaving GIC. Is that still on the table? And do we know if that's going to give a cost saving or not? >> The contract expires at the end of June in 2027. >> Okay.
>> It is one of the many things that we would ask our outside consultant to look at. There's costs that come with that and we have to set up a trust to carry you know anticipated expense and everything else but certainly within this the it's within the menu of things that they offer and we can include it in
the scope in the beginning to understand what our costs are to to bring them on to look at it incentivizing plan redesign and certainly you know what they're seeing in the marketplace about communities leaving GIC or planning to leave GIC >> and this consultant is that part of the budget
>> we did not put money in there for this because it's something that we've been looking at like in the last couple of weeks is we've we've had some discussions earlier this year with them, but we didn't have scope from them and we're now trying to get an actual price from them. It's something that we would probably try to find money to pay for in
the current fiscal year though. >> Okay. >> But any any change won't happen until F8. Right. >> Right. But the buyout >> Well, no, buyout would not need to wait. >> Right. the bio wouldn't get point
and and something like that would be funded by the savings. It would not be that we're looking you know a portion of the savings going to the employee. >> So that's a short time frame obviously about that and putting a proposal and everything for employees. We're helping the consultant will help us structure that too.
>> That is the hope. Yes. >> And we definitely will be paying out of this year's budget since Yes. Okay. >> Is there a notice provision for the uh is it autorenew >> contract auto renew? GIC. Yes. >> Well, it'll auto renew if we don't tell them. We have to notify
>> December 31st. December 36. So, >> 12:3126 is really the date we have to monitor. >> Okay. >> So, that's what we're working towards. >> We have to notify them prior to we're thinking about leaving. >> Yeah. >> Because I I think there's no takes these vaccies. >> No. >> No. Then because we that's what happened
to us. We got hit with another three years. >> Okay. Okay, it's a comedian. You guys, >> um, state assessments have dropped as you can see. Um, the primary driver here is a large decrease in the education assessment. It's the charter school
um, assessment that dropped the most and that's charter going. Is that right, Jason? And >> what does that actually mean? >> So, Patrick, on the It's the assessment is the charter going out, right? Tuition, >> correct? Yeah, it's Swamp Scott students enrolling in charter schools elsewhere.
>> So just mean Swampscott students don't want to go to those charter schools anymore. >> They want to stay in our great >> they want to stay here. >> Right. That's what I would say is that they want to stay in district for all the programs that we have put in place. >> Excellent. There we go.
>> Um and then general government assessments are up. MBTA being the example. The other ones are like the mosquito control board, MAPC, things like that. the things that the state giveth and taketh away at the same time as part of the keto. >> No, we're moving on. Doug, >> excuse me. >> Nothing. He's kidding.
>> We can't we can't argue that one. >> Um, then getting into the enterprise fund. Sewer enterprise >> pest control >> is up 4.4%. As you can see here, labor costs are actually decreasing due to staffing changes and normalization of
standby standby pay to match the 5-year average. Um, we've also removed some of the paving funding from this budget in anticipation of the increased chapter 90 funding that is moving its way through legislation right now. On the cost side,
Lin Water and sewer assessment is up 7.8 approximately $80,000. Pension contri pension contributions are up 34% uh and interest repayments are up as well due to capital improvements uh at their plant. This does not include the indirect cost reimbursements for the
general fund which are funded through the rates as well. Um and those are the things that go back to cover things like accounting, HR and other things that we provide for the enterprise fund. >> Did we qualify for the loan S
>> SRF >> SRF loans? >> Yeah, we did get an approval for I think 3.28 million SRF loan. >> We got we just got that. Yeah, we have the long commit. >> Good. >> The water enterprise fund is up 3.8%.
Similar to sewer, paving funding has been lowered in anticipation of chapter 90 support. The largest cost driver is the assessment from the MWR, which is up 7%. Um, pension contributions and principal repay repayments are both modestly increasing as well.
>> How are the pension contributions so different between the sewer and the water? lot of people >> is census driven. >> Yeah, it's an actuarily determined contribution. So, it's based on census and earnings how that is allocated. So,
I don't have a whole lot more detail to share on that, but we can talk actuary >> another time perhaps. >> Um, PEG is down. Um this is Joe's effort to stay within the um license fees that
we're getting. Uh we also have an open license with Comcast right now. Uh in addition just you know sort of environmentally within this world. I think it's important that we think over time that this funding is slowly disappearing.
>> So this is solely based on the cable license. So, if someone is a cord cutter, does not pay for cable, uses a streaming service like YouTube TV or UO or whatever, but pays Comcast or Verizon for their internet, we're not collecting. >> The legislature has looked at it through
multiple um multiple cycles. It's not it's not something I think will move in any session just based on lobbying, but it's something that they've looked at repeatedly to see if there is an assessment that they can attach to uh internet service to try to make up for that. uh over the longer term there are some communities andover be an example
where they're taking the government of PEG and moving it into government funded somehow and I know this is not something we're looking at right now but it's something that we should all just keep in mind to make sure that meetings like this and other you know resources that are made available so the community can
connect with government are are supported um in a way that's meaningful. It's just one way that you know out of multiple different models that communities are looking at over time to try to find ways to fund this. you know, Joe's aware of where we are and then obviously as we get the um next license
with Comcast, we'll have a better sense of what their capital commitments are over the life of the contract and also what they anticipate for fees. You have a question? >> Yeah, I do. Um I I know there I know there had been legislation um that was proposed u on Beacon Hill regarding
streaming and adding that 5% fee onto the YouTube TV and I just wasn't sure if Joe or yourself had an update as to where as to where that stood as of as of today. >> I don't know where in the legislature is but I believe this is the third session it's been so it's been raised for six
years five or six years and it never makes it to a vote. So I can get the exact detail on where it is the committee for third reading if it's in a committee wherever it is. Um but it's something that has not moved over the last few sessions. >> No understood. I Yeah. And I I just
share the concern that we're reducing small capital equipping costs by you know a draconian amount. Um understanding that we need to to live within you know the you know the the budgetary constraints that we have because more people are cutting the cord. But I do share the concerns that
we need this is an essential service and essential need for >> I think we're lucky to have Joe and when you look at communities like he's certainly an engaged in a way that many >> um public access leaders are not that others will just sort of make sure it's on and so he I know he's thinking
creatively about it. We've talked about it since when I first started um and he's connecting with other communities nearby and even down in the Southshore to see what they're doing. So, I think we're very lucky to have him being the one that's working on it, but you know, he's also very aware that his his pie is
shrinking year-over-year right now. So, >> Yep. >> But the long and short of it is that thankfully he feels like he can make this work. I mean, but there's obviously a major reduction in video interns and other things, but he's willing to make
this work. >> He will do the best he can to make this work. Yes. I think he would prefer that we are funding at a higher level. like many departments but this is certainly one that is more significant in its changes than than some others solid waste enterprise fund um so I have
this at holding a number of 15% as you can see here the contract is up the contracts that have been awarded in neighboring communities are slightly frightening in their increases and we have been working and analyzing quite a bit with the folks on the solid waste
advisory committee to put together some uh a an RFP that focuses on both, you know, an option A, for lack of a better phrase, that is continue to make sure that we get a great level of customer service like we do now and things go as they do, but also, you know, option B is
add organics and then an alle cart to say there's a lot of things we're interested in. We want to understand what pricing looks like so that a final decision can be made, you know, anywhere in that on that horizon. Um, just as it's highlighted here, the solid waste fund is not something that's
self-sustaining. That's the place that the funds are parked from selling the extra bags. So, it is something that we subsidize from the general fund. Um, we will continue to sort of update everyone as we have updates on a regular basis. This and healthcare, we would
love to have both of them come in well below so that it gives us more breathing room. Um, but I did not want to be in a situation where we're coming back to you the fourth week or the third week of uh, April saying, "Oh my god, you know, both of these things went entirely in the wrong direction. What are we going to do?" So, this is this is meant to
represent a conservative estimate of where um, we would like it to land and be able to move forward. >> Um, I don't like the fact that we're hanging out a 15% rate increase for this going into contract discussions.
>> Mh. Um I mean I think you've shared various scenarios you know some kind of nightmare scenarios some other scenarios um I think we all know that there are going
to be challenges in this contract depending on what we want to do and how it gets spread out over the contract and barrels and this and that if it's automated. Um but is there not a way in which we can give you guidance that helps you in
negotiations um to say that this this is not acceptable? I mean we haven't gotten to the punch line. We you know this is the thing about this whole conversation. The punch line is the last slide. I mean it's just something's got to give in here as far as I'm concerned in in a major way. I
mean maybe we're going to get something on health insurance. Maybe we're going to get, you know, do something about the the overtime. Um, but this this all adds up to, as far as I'm concerned, a very unacceptable bottom line for taxpayers.
Um, so I personally want to put more pressure, helpful pressure hopefully on you. Yep. >> Um, in negotiating this contract. Um, and we need to be creative. If there are new barrels, we don't have to pay for
all of them in the first year, you know? I mean, if that's what's happening to people and the big increases, it seems to me. Um, so that that's my, you know, desire as much as that's possible.
>> I want to echo Doug's sentiments. Um, and then also just ask, you know, just from the revenue perspective, uh, are we also looking at, I mean, I know it's peanuts in the in the context of an $80 million, uh, budget, but I mean, are we looking at, you know, pricing for the
overflow bags, the bulk item stickers? Are we is that something that is a discussion point of the u of the solid waste advisory committee? Are they are they exploring those those revenue opportunities um on an ongoing basis? Yeah, I I I believe that with an
enterprise fund, we have to match the cost for something like the bags whether bag plus disposal, not just the plastic bag. >> Yeah. >> Um with any fee increase, it is not something where we can be trying to drive a >> um a profit that is above and beyond the
cost for the service being provided. >> Um but the they've Eric feel free to jump in. I think you have all spent a ton of time looking at a million options even before I got here. >> Yeah. Yes. >> Yes. >> So,
>> so can I just say I just want to make sure everybody on the board knows um Eric Schneider, Wayne Spritz, Kathy Milin, a number of people have been working diligently, Gino Christa diligent diligently, I mean
around the clock on this RFP. It's massive and there's so many components to it. It will drive you nuts to sit and hear it. And they have been incredibly dedicated to looking at every single part as far as what can be serviced and what can be done. And we're almost
getting ready to release the RFP. So, what are we looking at possibly on that release? >> I mean, Wayne's literally looking at it. >> Wayne's looking at it right now instead of watching. >> Right. So it's we're almost right there and then that has to go out. But you
have to remember this contract is up the end of June. So there's a lot of stuff going on with this. >> Well, that that's a little bit, you know, I want to if if we all send a clear message, Nick, >> about where we really need to drive this
and he has that backing as the negotiations play out over the next month, >> right? uh we'll know what the actual is and in some ways it it will be what it will be um and it'll fall basically to the bottom line in terms of additional
costs but um you know just kind of throwing up our hands and saying you know I'm not saying that's what you're doing but saying 15% um there may be good reason for it I'm not saying it was plucked out of the air but it still feels like this is a big big ticket here
>> well I think we collectively asked Nick to create a budget that leveled services. And so if if this what is the cost of solid waste services that we have today on the go forward, which I think is what the 15% where the 15% came
from and no, you want to disagree. I heard you. >> I don't know. I I don't think we know that definitively. >> Okay. So I guess then maybe we just should know that definitively given the direction we gave for the budget. is like is this just keeping what we have and it's going to this is the increase
to that or is this like >> what >> including more >> I think keeping what we have is not feasible because no one is doing >> right >> hand uh manual pickups anymore so everything involves an automated pickup where the arm comes out picks up the
>> the trash and then there's a question on you know there's two components right there's the cost of picking stuff up and there's the cost of >> disposing of it And the less frequent you pick stuff up, the cheaper that cost is. So if you do recycling every two weeks, >> yeah, >> that would be a cost saving, right? If you
>> I I actually I actually mean like take out go one step back like >> our more what you were where the direction you were going. Our trash gets picked up x number of times regardless of how it's picked up. Our recycling gets picked up x number of times regardless of how it's picked up. Okay. Now you guys have to get into the nitty-gritty cuz we can't do it the way
we've been doing it cuz nobody does it that way. So that's an increase if even if we level set our service, there's an increase because we have to buy barrels because that's the only way we're going to continue to be doing potentially what we're doing if nobody's doing it. >> I think even the cost of doing it like
automated is higher than what we're currently paying. >> Okay. So there's an increase no matter what. So then is are is there room and I this is what you all have been doing, right? Like what could fall off? Is there something that could fall off? Is there something else? >> The simplest is recycling. But I think
what we had talked about as a group was asking for a price for what we do now. >> And then once we have that harder harder number >> to say okay what what is the impact if we go every other week? What is the impact if the barrel is this size for recycling versus that size for
recycling? Right. >> We do we are starting at the idea of level service other than manual >> and saying >> yep >> we want it to disappear at the same frequency just as often and if not more often with better customer service and
once you give us that if it if it is something that we cannot manage then then we would look at and say size of the recycling barrel frequency of recycling you know those are the types of things within the continuing standard service that there is some flexibility.
But you know beyond that it's it's basically like automated is avoiding the cost of manual. You know like manual is more expensive than automated but automated more expensive than what we have now because the contract's 10 years old basically. >> Yeah. >> And anyone who's doing manual now is
carrying higher insurance costs and they're not one of the ones that do it at scale. So we expose ourselves to quite a bit of risk. >> Um >> so I think what's difficult about this though is the timing of this. Right. So we're still at the point where we're just getting ready to release an RFP, right? We're in March, right? So we're
So, you know, to Doug's point, this 15% that we're just kind of plucking here, right? How real is that number? How logical is that? Right? >> Other communities have had higher numbers, >> right? >> However, they in some cases have included the cost the cost of the
barrels all in the first year. If we >> have one size barrels to begin with or >> but the thing we've already everyone we've spoken to we said you know there'll be differentiz barrels they'll standard recycling and standard trash. We have the standard trash that is smaller than what many of them would
normally be doing if they were starting from scratch. And they said that as long as you know trash day they're all the same we're good. Recycling might be if you go every other week it's a different size than we would have otherwise planned. That type of thing. Um it's got to be standard. So in that case, we as a
community are have a portion of the capital cost already laid out >> because we have the barrels. They're getting to the end of the useful life within this contract. So it's something that you know they're not the repairs haven't been overwhelming and it's something that I think it was either Wayne or you Eric that had mentioned at
one of the meetings like it's just something we have to keep in mind in the out years of the contract as we think about what's going on. We're not looking to replace what we have for the barrels that we have. In addition, there will be a capital expense of some sort whether it's included in the contract or repay it.
>> Um, so Daniel timing, right? >> I think we'll actually No, this isn't like a >> four month process. I I didn't get the sense right now. >> Yeah. So, so the trash contracts are excluded from 30B. So, we've had conversations with or not we but
>> individual Nick and Gino had conversations with different haulers >> and there's been some back and forth and information exchange. So, in terms of what they're looking for, what we're looking for, >> right? >> Um, yeah. >> It worries me that we're already at March and we're, you know, it's kind of like still hanging out there that we
haven't even begun to have these conversations like >> No, no, no. You let me finish before I even finish my statement. We didn't we haven't had any we haven't been able to uh solicit any feedback from any resident about what this potential new program would look like, right? So, if
we're scaling back services, we're doing recycling every two weeks, we're not, you know, maybe we're charging more for blue bags. That's all stuff that that needs to get out there and get digested by everybody, right? And I just feel like we're March already and we're talking about a budget where we really,
you know, we the minutiae of it hasn't really been decided yet. And we really haven't had a chance to I don't know any of the specifics of it, never mind let the general public know what they're going to be looking at. You know, I don't want to get us into the position we were in when we rolled out these tiny
barrels how many years ago, right, that people are surprised to say, "Okay, look at what I have to do now." >> I think Danielle makes a good point. Solid waste is already a sore subject. >> Yeah, for sure. >> I mean, people are still talking about the size of their barrels. >> It's like we we can't get >> I love my barrel.
>> I love that you love it. >> Me, too, Doug. >> But people are still talking about it. Whether they love it or they hate it, we'll just say that, >> right? So, I do think that given that there's a little bit of a scar, we do need some runway to smooth some of this conversation about as we get to it.
>> One of one of the conversations we've had with the three biggest was that if we were going to make a change on something like recycling, it would not be on July 1st. It would either be partway through the year or maybe even year two. >> Okay, great. And I think two of them said had experience with communities
north of Boston where they signed a 5year or three-year contract with multiple renewals and they didn't do it in year one. So the total cost of the contract which is not what we're talking about in this budget but the total cost they sort of managed it over time so that there could be socialization discussion talk about the plan
>> and then roll it out not on July 1 but at a future date no later than sort of the end of year one beginning of year two but at some point in that window. So I think that gets to many of the issues you raised doesn't address them all >> but even on their side they recognize that's something that you know you don't want to rip the band-aid off and change
your behavior like that that quickly >> right and you want you want to understand you know the alakart options right and how much difference it's going to make if we do recycling every two weeks every four weeks what that is going to look like to both the resident in terms of what they're going to go through and how it's going to affect our
bottom line. So all those pieces are kind of question marks to me. >> We're not talking about every four weeks. Just >> whatever it might be. >> $25 blue bag. >> I want to make sure that wasn't clipped and misunderstood. >> No, just so you know, for the almost the
past year, uh, the solid waste advisory committee has been discussing this in public, too. So, it's been a lot of conversations around this. Well, I'm going to guarantee a lot of residents probably have no idea what's been discussed because who's who's watching that, right? If they watch us, we're lucky. >> They're missing great.
>> Of course they are. But once they see the new barrel or whatever we roll out, they're going to say, "Well, what did you even though we've been talking about the more we we get actual real life scenarios out there with costs associated, the better off." >> I'm going to guess the RFP is going to be released, would you say, this week?
Wayne's night. I said world. >> No, let's pressure Wayne to do his best to get it out as soon as possible so that we >> Wayne is doing his best not need pressure on >> he's done a lot of work thus far but I just want to know if these numbers are real right and this is like what we can
really propose to Doug's point about 15%. Is that accurate? Is that really >> or is it not? You know we need that stuff is obviously the more important piece. So in some ways I'm almost like I want to reduce that number to put pressure on us to be more disciplined
about pursuing creative options. Right. Yes. Because if a number's on a page and it's 15% then human nature is like oh now I'm playing within 15%. Right. So I actually want us to say no play within% or whatever >> you know or something. Um
>> I'm definitely hearing no to the 15 even if you all don't pick another number. I I understand the no to the 15 for sure as we enter into negotiations. >> Well, it's one of the biggest levers you have here, right? So, it's one of the biggest drivers of this budget, right?
This this solid lease contract that we haven't renegotiated in quite some time that's gone up considerably. So, it's one of those things that's going to be very impactful, right? Or the most impactful maybe for the whole budget season. >> So, what would be the savings, Peter? Just make sure I'm doing the math. Like
if it were eight, >> do you know what the >> have that in front of me? D >> 900,900,000. >> Yeah. >> If the increases, >> but that's the total. >> Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Oh. Oh. >> Yeah. That's right. Second level. Second order amount that we need. Right.
Exactly. Yeah. >> That's back out the enterprise fund. >> What's that? >> You're saying what is it backing out? >> Oh, actually it's the fourth bullet, isn't it? So, cut the fourth bullet in half. >> Oh. Oh, solid waste is not something >> cost increases 241. >> Oh, okay.
>> There you go. >> Okay. Well, not as much as I hope, but >> yeah, I mean I >> something real still. I think given the reaction we had from the last change in solid waste that even though this is 15% feels egregious to some of us if that's the
service that the town wants to pay for and if that if we're saying like okay the impacts on impact on the taxpayer is like you decide you want that bigger trash barrel or you want to buy a second trash barrel or we going to recycling every other week benefits or negatives like this is how it's affecting your
taxes and some people are very much willing to pay for it as far as as far as solid waste is concerned. >> Yes. >> But there are also people who can't pay for it and there are also difficult decisions that >> totally understand that and that's why it might need to be a conversation about you purchase a second barrel and there's
a cost there or something like that because there are homes that need that and we have a lot of seniors who live in place who don't need that, right? >> So maybe it's, you know, something more along that lines where you pay for double the services because you're receiving double the services.
And that part of the discussion has been whether it's two barrels, >> if someone wants that, they can go and pay for that versus just the bags because it's the holidays or you had a barbecue in the summer or whatever, >> right? >> Or you need extra, you know, volume on a certain week. So that's even that has
been part of the discussion, but I definitely hear the feedback that we are to sharpen our pencils particularly on this and make sure as we go into negotiations, we reflect that conversation. So what are we saying here? We want this number in half.
>> Um >> I don't think that I mean >> that I mean >> without the detail it's not fair to say that I I feel like but >> I think we want to understand what the detail is as it corresponds to what the actual number will be right. So I think we want to be able to tell people okay
for you know two barrels it's going to cost you X or this is the impact it'll have on you know the budget right if we do if we did it this way. If we went with recycling every two weeks, this is how it's, you know, or at least for us to know it's going to save us X.
>> What I'm hearing Doug say is that number is too high. I want a lower number. And then what is your lower number? And then how are you going to work within that lower number? >> Yeah. And there's two two levels to it, right? There's the level of, you know, Nick, Wayne, whoever with the the vendors, >> right?
>> And then and then, you know, pushing that number down, whatever the options are, >> right? >> And then the options, what we want to do about the options. Mhm. >> So out of the gate, you're though, you're saying get that number down and then come back to us and the finance
committee later on and tell us what what the levers are that we have. >> I wouldn't be surprised you come back with an option that has 8% or maybe even less, but it has some significant ramifications to it, right? And then there's a higher number to deal with it, >> right? I think we could find a contract in a
number that any of us picked, but whether or not it fulfilled the goods and services that members, the majority of the members of the town were looking for, that's why it's unfair to say get it down to eight because you can get something for eight, but what are you getting, >> right? Barrels, 15 gallons.
>> I mean, going to be dropping them off with Gino again, which was sort of funny. >> Maybe that is an option. Who knows? So, do you feel like you have guidance on what >> I feel like I have guidance and we need to come back to you with more information. I think step one. >> Yes. >> Perfect. >> Correct. Excellent. >> Thank you. And thank everybody. This
conversation has been ongoing. We're not meaning to pull it out by having any of this conversation or belittle any of the conversation that's been had. It's that conversation is just striking accordance about additional knowledge share and info to be had. >> Okay, we good with this one?
>> Let's go to the best one. >> Yep. So, obviously Doug said the punchlines at the back, but I wanted to walk through how we put together a budget that the services that were requested and um sort of how we got there. So, you know, looking at this and
that the impact on the taxpayer based on FY26 property values and the current tax rate shift, the proposed new levy of 68.2 2 million is estimated to increase the property tax rate by 87 cents per
thousand to 12.87 per thousand for the average home valued at 956516. That translate translates into an annual tax increase of approximately 8.49 inclusive of the CPA search charge. Commercial industrial tax rates are estimated to increase by
162 to 2377 per thousand. I I want to be clear. This is an estimate and will change. It's based on the FY26 certified values and will be refined once the final budget is adopted and the tax rate is set in dem in December.
Um any you know shift decisions that are made and whether onetime funds are applied to reduce the levy. So I will stop. It looks like you have something that you would like to say or >> Well, I mean I think I've already said it. I mean, um, and I did talk with Nick
and Patrick earlier, and I guess, uh, just reconfirming that this is in the realm of what the increase was last year. >> Yeah. The average single family home bill increased $860 last year. It >> was higher.
>> Yeah. >> Well, we put but those are what the values. >> Yeah. So, yeah, it is higher. >> And your sentence was with the values of what? We put money. >> No, the FY26 values will go up for the
FY27 tax bill. >> Correct. >> So, it would bring it above eight. >> Got it. >> At some point. That's what I'm saying. It's an estimate. >> Then once those values need to be refined before we have the final number, we're basing it off the information we have available right now. >> Right. >> Got it. >> There's that. And then Marielle Allen, you were saying, did we did we get down
to that 860 with free cash? >> No. >> No. No. >> This is this is the number. This is the number before we add anything in there. We might not have anything to add in there, >> but but let's >> we go down to 860 using the excess levy
effectively, >> right? >> Okay. >> But just back up. I mean, look at you know, look at what our excess levy capacity was, what it is now going into this next fiscal year. I mean, if we spend at this level, if we just said,
"Yep, approved. Let's go." I mean, we're calling for an override in two years. follow up to next year. >> Calling for an override next year. >> Next year. Yeah. >> Next year. So you we need an override next year and the following year and the following year. >> So we need So we need to make difficult decisions today.
>> You're right. >> Exactly. >> So I think that's I think that's kind of one of the main things. We've kind of been talking a bit about having you know some kind of fiveyear projection that's more than Yeah. I mean to your point simple math can tell you we're going to need over over but I think we need more
little more than that to understand like the timing of some of these revenues. That's still kind of a black hole a bit is like when might the revenues go up from different things that are going in town. >> I know I know it's not imminent but still we need to know if it's in a year and a half or five years like hotel and
other things that we're doing >> right >> because that'll tell us how many years. I can't I just can't >> fathom standing up at town meeting and saying we need another 2.8 8 million and not being able to say, well, what's going to happen next year? Because >> this is obviously the first question.
>> So, I think part of that is informed obviously with solid waste because we would also have the outy years to understand expenses. Yeah, >> but like to your larger point, you know, there's Vinnon, there's Pine Street, um,
Hadley, and then what may come of, you know, anything else on Humphrey. >> Yep. >> So, we're limited all around. So I do think it it leads to the idea that we start with this level service where we think we need to be and then it is you
know pointing us in the right direction to come back with information and the impacts for you know changes that get a number down that's more manageable or that extends out any potential need for an override or gets to that new revenue
or whatever the case may be. But I think what we tried to be tonight was responsive to the idea that we wanted to do level service access levy capacity for that. But we're more than happy not only with the items we discussed but in further discussions with you all to
figure out what levers there are to >> to lower that maintain a level of service as best we can and and make those value judgments that you're talking >> and just and yeah and project out that growth and the timing to your to your point Eric as to when that's going to come online. And I think that's I think
that's going to help be helpful to the to the finance committee, to the select board, to the school committee, to the town at large, to the taxpayer. >> Yeah. >> I'd much rather say our operating budget can't go be above X and then figure out what goods and services fit within X than say these are
the goods and services we want and then keep going in that direction until we can like we can't maintain it anymore. I mean like we have to live within our means, but is it easier to live within your means to the top as top as possible? No. Like you want to have some
wiggle room every single year. that gets harder as the wiggle room gets smaller obviously, but I think we need to be very thoughtful on the go forward that you know we we've been utilizing free cash quite often and we're not going to
have that luxury on the go forward and we really need to I mean part of this is my fault but I'll just say it anyways have those discuss policy discussions about whether the policies are long-term for the next five years whether we can actually live within the policies that
we have set for ourselves. We could at the past 5 years, but can we on the go forward? Um >> I'm totally glad you brought up policies. >> Great. I knew you would be. >> Um so one I want to talk about is um the
90% assumption on local receipts. Um so, uh Patrick, can you do you happen to have uh available kind of what either
have we come in at 90% each year or is that just very very conservative budgeting and then we're just forcing a free cash at the end of the year because we usually come in within 98 to 102%. % of what we really project.
>> So generally we're building revenue estimates that are conservative so that we should be meeting or exceeding them at the end of the fiscal year. Obviously any exceedence goes to free cash. >> Right. But if you if you if you're choosing 90% then you actually had a 100% number to begin with. Right.
>> Correct. >> And so what do we actually come in at? Do we actually come in at pretty much close to what we thought the 100% number was? >> Right. Generally, we'd come in at 100% or more. >> Okay. So, why are we doing this?
I mean, I get it. I I get that we don't necessarily want to maybe budget at 100%. But why are we >> projecting >> right out of the gate cutting off 10%. >> I Patrick, correct me if I'm wrong, but
I think it's guidance from the Department of Revenue and other like statutes. >> Is it required? I I don't know if it's required, but it's >> recommended. You know, you know the answer, right? >> I can just jump into my >> experience with the Department of
Revenue. um at tax rate time we have to report our revenue estimates and if they are in excess of the 90% of the prior year actual they'll scrutinize that more and we could be in a position where we're using revenue estimates to build a budget and then at tax rate time if we
can't back it up they're going to force us to use a lower estimate which would increase our levy at that point in the year after the budget's been passed. Um so that's that's a check and a balance that we have to do with them. Trying to think about that increase our
level. >> I don't I don't see the estimate as really as much of a problem. Well, >> well, it forces the tax rate up kind of. I think that I think the gamble on the
other side I mean the gamble on the other side and the pressure that we're going to get from do I think is is much higher. >> Remember we're not setting the tax rate. We set the budget. >> That's right. >> So if we run around free cash, we can use free cash to the tax, >> right?
>> Yeah. We have time literally. >> We have time in there. I'm saying it's before that you should make that correction with free cash. Mhm. >> And and if you don't have excess levy, if it comes time to the when you set the
tax rate and you overestimated your receipts and then you don't have levy to tax, then you have to >> lay people off, >> lay people off and redo a budget middle of the year. >> Okay, this is sound all a little catastrophic. I, you know, just but okay.
>> Do we know what similar towns do? Is everybody at the same mindset of 90% estimating their their receipts? Anybody know neighboring towns? Marblehead. Well, not not that we want to mirror their situation, but >> yeah,
>> you know, sorry, Marblehead. Um, >> best practices. >> Yeah, I think this is in line with best practices generally. Obviously, everyone locally makes their own decisions. >> Everyone has to do things a little different. >> Sure. Um, I'm happy to survey some neighboring communities and report back
next time we look at the revenue. Um, >> that might be helpful just of similar population towns, right? I mean, just to get an idea just to answer, you know, Doug's question really. >> And I think as as Patrick said, I think if you know if something's going to be different, you can estimate it. >> Of course, at a different level,
>> justify it to >> Yeah. Right. >> Right. Like we know Hadley's eventually going to happen, right? But when? Right. >> Right. or but like you know if like I think some of it is built in so that if you >> you know if people aren't buying new cars then the excise tax that you're
going to receive is going to >> go lower so you have to you can't estimate 100% on that and sort of it's a line by line >> y >> analysis >> but for instance like I I know a few years ago at town meeting we approved an increase in the uh local option rooms tax >> right >> so right >> commenate you knew that was going to
happen you knew that that was going to happen so we I believe we raised that estimate previously I mean, do we think the, you know, the new restaurants in Vinn Square potentially will have an impact when, right? When will that happen? When will we see anything? You know, >> I don't I don't know that we would want
to balance a budget on year one. No, but you do not which is why you have >> with the exception of Hadley because we would have an idea of what they're telling us they anticipate for >> when that >> wellad >> for occupancy over the course of a year we would still under shoot but we would
not obviously pretend that that doesn't exist when we're getting the 90% of >> the rooms tax in plan for the year they intend to be open >> but for Eric's to Eric's point of looking are we looking three five years how what are we going to look at you know potentially seeing what we're you know the Hawthorne Right. Well, how is
that going to impact? What is that going to? >> Right? And just kind of thinking about it, it's like if if this isn't our situation, but say we were one year away from the hotel opening that was going to drive an extra million dollars of revenue to the town or whatever, >> right? >> You could consider perhaps being a little more strategic with your reserves
that you have and say, "We're going to dip into this reserve this year because we know the hotel is going to come up and we're going to put it back in. We're not there." But that's kind of why it's so important to understand when are we going to be there >> is that helps us paint a picture for the taxpayer. How many times are we going to come back for the excess levy or when
are we coming for the the override? I think the sooner we start telling that to the town. >> Yes, >> I know we've been saying it for a while that it's coming, it's coming, we're going to be in trouble, but >> I think we need to know those other >> those other >> inflows when we make those same comments, >> right? And I think our intention looking
six months from now or less than that is that starting in July and August, we will be talking about what everything looks like in these projections, not just once in November and again in December and again in January or February. The goal is to have this for Patrick and I and the rest of the finance team that's coming on board.
This is something we're coming to you all on a regular basis throughout the year, not only to socialize it, but also other people might have good ideas of things that we can be doing differently as long as we're talking about it more and having an open and direct conversation about it throughout the year. The timing for this year did not
lend itself to that based on when we were all getting here, >> right? >> But that gets to the larger point. It's not only the five-year, but socializing and understanding what it means as we go and as those levers move. But we will be able to have some semblance of a strategy for the next
five years when we present to town meetings. Yes. >> Okay. Great. >> What what say >> like some semblance of a strategy for the 5-year projection when we're talking to town meeting. Yes. Right. So that that way we can say like you know whether it's a combination of what's coming on, what's falling off,
>> and then how long we think >> the doom and gloom is happening for Doug as Doug, you know, like how long it how many times we're going to take another bite of this apple. >> That also should shape our judgment when we're making these choices. Like if you know to Eric's point, if you know you're
making it for one time, you might make a more risky choice. If you know you're have to gonna have to do this for the next five years, you want to be pushing this much further along the process than so >> right now. The select board I'm just you know the select board might give different guidance to the town
administrator if you see three years of overrides in a row as far as level service or having to start cutting deeply. Right. >> Yep. Okay. But we kind of know like this isn't going to get solved this year. >> It's not going to get solved the year after that either. The best case maybe
is Pine Street maybe is going in FY28, you know, like Hadley >> Pine Street isn't bringing it. Pine Street is going to bring in what 60,000 in Yeah. taxes and >> Exactly. Hadley's not really going to be rolling. So we we know it's going to be
multiple years, >> right? >> Yeah. >> And that that's that's that's what's really bugging me a lot more than last year because now this is two years of this. >> Right. Right. I mean, this is a $1,000 basically.
I mean, just in this environment, I I just feel like we need to be more aggressive in one way or another um than, you know, than it feels like we're willing to be. Um, you know, I talked to Nick and Patrick earlier about uh
retirement. Okay. Well, I guess the retirement numbers are already in for next year. It's locked in. So then we, you know, what about getting, you know, getting ahead of spreading that out? >> Um, because we're in this trough. That's
another way of dealing with the trough. >> What other options are out there that we're not thinking of, right? What what other things can we investigate? It it makes you think of solid waste, right? One of the biggest drivers. you know, at some point we're going to have to have a
discussion about hopcorn, right? How is that going to play into all of this? Does it does it play in what, you know, what happens with that site, right? >> Well, and frankly, I mean, I know we looked at all the the detail, but you go back to the summary page and you see general government going up 6.6%.
>> I know once you kind of look at all the nitty-gritty, it feels like there's nothing you can do. But, you know, hate to say it, but with all these conversations we've had about the schools in the town, you know, now we got the town going up 6.6%.
It doesn't I'm not saying the schools should be off the hook either, but you know, yeah, everything's on the table, right? So, everything is we something we've got to look at and we've got to look at closely. I mean, there's no two ways
about it really. I mean, I think your point's well taken, but at the same time, when you look at that gener general government number, it's made up of so many little pieces that some of which are predetermined and some of which are not. So then there's even less levers to pull. This is what the school says also. Like there's only
so much that we have the ability to >> pull for a lever. Some of so much of it is flexible that we don't control the flexibility, right? like special education and like and retirements and like we we replaced almost every single
department head in town hall this year. I mean we replace a ton of folks coming in and out or moving them from positions and so there is a cost of that and I think what's difficult is to come before this conversation and say that that
number should be further scrutinized and we approved individual contracts and have conversations like okay well each one of these is a small bite at an apple that's only so big and eventually the apple's gone. So I mean yes we have to take responsibility for owning it but
also like how do you manage the business of town government if you don't have good people involved you want to have less employment funding that's going to come at a cost right that's a service too that trash and police and fire are not the only services we provide we provide
a lot of services in town hall so I >> but I but I think the alignment of when that re when the next when that growth comes online is helpful to be able to determine if we can swallow this $849 increase this year and what that's
looking like in fiscal year 28, fiscal year 29, and fiscal year 30 until >> and the override next year. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> The one piece I just want to add as color, this is not something that only Swampscott is struggling with. >> Of course not. Yeah,
>> it's the ma it's the big obligations that everyone is responsible for and whether it's Danvers or Marblehead or Lynfield or Manchester or Nant everyone is in a situation right now where it's not just this year like you're saying it
there's a a valley that everyone is trying to navigate. So I think what you all have done over time to get to today is giving us more options right now and gives us a little more time and gives us the ability to have some of these hard discussions that you're talking about.
But I I just want to make sure that you recognize like the effort that you all have put into this point has given us a position where we have more flexibility than other communities do certainly this year even into future years. But I also think that it's important that the feedback you're giving us, we, you know,
Patrick and I and Jason and other department heads, we all sit down and say, are there areas that make sense that we can do something else that do everything we can to maintain a level of service or very near it? And what can we do to lower costs? But
a lot of the cuts that that have been made over time mean that there's not a lot of expense left anywhere in town government, school, town, anywhere. and it very quickly becomes its salary, its staff. And >> it doesn't mean that we can't do that. I just want to acknowledge
>> you all have done a really good job of doing everything we can to get where we are. >> Um, and I want to make sure that that's acknowledged because there's community Denvers is a great example. They talked about it last week. Like this is something everyone is facing. It's a very very difficult environment. I guess
to to follow up on that, I think if you look at Nick's numbers, like if we didn't have the excess levy, we would be looking at a I think $2.2 million shortfall. Right. >> Right. >> And so we're in a position where >> we have to make hard choices, but we can make choices and we don't have to
override this year. >> Right. >> Yeah. But >> and and then but then like what do we do? Like it's not just a this year thing. It's >> next year and then the year after. And the year after is when we're starting looking at the middle school, which we >> Right. >> You know, you want to balance. We want that,
>> but how much can you ask taxpayers to do this year and then come back again and again? >> For sure. Right. >> Right. Because you want that vote to pass. >> Right. >> Right. >> And to be clear, the Texas levy capacity is nice, but it doesn't really make a difference to the taxpayer. I mean, it's we just didn't have to have them vote
for it. We're just having Tom eating vote for it. I mean, I believe I I get the flexibility it gives us, but it's not like it's free money that's sitting there that we're just using as we all know. It's still >> it's a nonvoluntary override, >> right? Effectively, >> exactly. >> Y >> or force, some would say.
>> You know, we haven't felt the pain of of what many towns have been feeling for years, right? Because we haven't had to have a technical override. So, this is going to be, you know, it's painful. It's shocking, right? But that doesn't mean our our job ends, right? It just begins now because now
you really have to figure out how you're going to focus and drill down as much as you can. And to me, we have to, you know, it's not so much the one FTE town hall or, you know, 0.5 of this. You you've got to look at the bigger ticket items that are going to have an actual
impact. >> And there aren't quite that many of those, >> right? There aren't a lot of them. That's the problem. >> So, in my mind, I like I said, I'm thinking solid waste. I'm thinking >> health insurance. >> Health insurance. Right. Those are the two biggest things that we saw here tonight. >> Overtime.
>> Over time. >> Overtime. >> You know, those are things that we can control a little bit more, right? >> Well, you also have to remember we have $575,000 in a nont revolving account. That's
cash. So, that number has >> over that was moved over. And you know, there's a there's opportunity there, too. But we can't spend that money. >> Just so we know, um, that 575
um, we'll get an exact number of what the balance is as of tonight. >> Thank you. >> It's far lower than 575. >> That was a snapshot in time. Patrick, what what would do you happen to know have any sense of like, and this
is just going to be arbitrary, but to get the tax increase down to $500, do you have any idea like what we're looking at in terms of how much we'd have to cut? >> I I can do that. I think I've prevented presented this board with some scenarios
of that nature in the past, closer to a town meeting. So, um, if there was a target you wanted to peg to that metric, I could back into it and share that with everybody. >> That would be helpful. >> Yeah. >> And how much of that is So, the CPA
search charge is in there about is that likeund and something >> 100 bucks. >> 100 bucks maybe roughly. >> It's 1.5% of the property tax is you know the computation on the increase. So, it's most of that is property tax >> on the revenue. What did you I just
don't remember off the top of my head. What did you count for the revenue on interest? >> Uh we're carrying 350,000. >> And what was what was our interest last year? Last year was
1,78,000. >> But that's because we had >> that was 25 FY25. That's for FY25. For FY26, we budgeted 425,000. >> What are we looking at >> so far? Year to date, we're at 432.
>> Okay. So, even though we're showing that we're sub 900 of a tax increase, that doesn't include money to be put towards it to offset it at future time at the >> You mean to buy down the tax rate?
>> To buy down the tax rate. >> That's what Eric said without earlier. Yeah. So >> that's important. So, I guess maybe two scenarios would be, you know, but if anyone else has another number they want to throw out, you know, how much will we need to cut
to get down to a $500 tax increase and then um if we use a million dollars of free cash again to as we've kind of done in various years, what does that bring the
tax increase to? So, we can't really do the math on what it brings down until we are at that point. I And we like it's not just a million dollars on off of the expense that we're showing today because it is the FY27 values that will be set.
>> I know it's an estimate, right? >> Okay. >> Just like now this is an estimate, right? >> Yeah. >> And I go ahead. I think what was helpful in the past is like you would say like okay for every hundred or for every $100 we decrease the taxes by this is what we sort of had to >> find
>> and then we can incremental would be great and then instead of just picking like a number like 500 we could just sort of work backwards from there like what >> Sure. And just to be clear, this is for us to go through the exercise with department heads and others to come back to you with a proposal at 500. Like, are
you just looking for the raw number? Lowering the budget by X makes it a $500 tax increase. >> I just want to give some sense of what we're after. >> We're not looking for the detail. >> Yeah. First, give the number and then we'll be able to say from that number like what what is realistic in the
budget for us to even ask for. I think it's hard to say like, "Hey, find us a million dollars without knowing how much that decreases. How much is that going to impact the taxpayer? Is it worth it to like nickel and dime services? Like
what's the value to um >> what's the value to the taxpayer versus the value to the budget? >> Okay. >> You know, the biggest thing here is just not the value for this year. It's the sustainability over the next several years. I mean, we could get through this
year. We can even we get through this year but next year it's going to be an override and the following year an override and >> because we're also creating a base of expenses or two that you're going to be building off in the subsequent years. >> Okay. So then like what is the solution then? You just want to start cutting
service like services. >> Well I mean my concern is what the solution you're going to go for an override and and the town is going to tell us what the solution is. That's I'd rather I want to stay away from that as much as much as we can. And I think once we get some additional numbers,
>> we can we can see where we can shave, where we can make some haircuts. Maybe we'll have some good news with the insurance, good news with solid waste. I mean, >> we're just a little early. >> Yeah, I agree. I think it's a little early to be saying, you know, but I
think the value is >> the conversation we were having about value to the budget versus value to the taxpayer is important in the context of what you're saying because we have to understand if it's worth the exercise. I know you're saying, of course, it's worth the exercise. It's obviously worth the exercise, but I
think it would be good to for the taxpayer to understand how it actually impacts them. >> Because if we say like, well, let's get rid of trash and now all of a sudden you pay your own trash. like what does that mean to the taxpayer? Is it worth it to go down that road? What is the value we're getting versus the value we're
putting on the taxpayer? Because maybe it's not in their tax bill, but they still have to pay for trash. So, that's sort of like the costbenefit analysis that I think about. That's just one of the services that we're talking about. There are other services that we have in town hall that we could eliminate that wouldn't go to every single taxpayer.
Okay. But are we are we there yet? Sounds like we might be, but understand what that value is that we we want to try to attain like get to. >> Makes sense. >> Okay. >> I think that's a um you listed in here, Nick, that we
gave you clear direction to kind of level service. >> Level service. >> Level service. I guess I don't remember it that purely and simply. Um but regardless to what Katie just said, I don't think Katie said it because she really wants
to think about this, but um but I think we are at a point where we really need to think about and I think you the way you said it was a really great one and even even in the extreme about trash and whether or not people just pay for their own if they really want it, right? Um
but are there places where we could >> less than level >> less than level service? >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> What does that look like? >> Right. But then understanding if there is a true savings like maybe for some people there will be a true savings. Take trash as an example. There would be a true savings from a tax bill if they
paid for their own trash. And then there would be some people who would probably be paying more. And >> and what is the long-term impact? Right? So if we go down that road, what is the long-term impact? Right? How how many years do you does that give you a reprieve, if you will? Right. Um, you know, or what position does that put you
in? How much of a difference does that make? Right. >> And could we frame it in a way of, okay, so we're going to make you pay for trash for 5 years because this is what we're projecting the next 5 years is going to be. We're committing to at the fourth year going back to looking at trash and putting it back in because something is
dropping off. >> I mean, it's you're robbing Peter to pay Paul, but at that point like I think we have to be smart about that and are people going to be happy? No, but then you say, "Okay, it's this or >> we touch the schools or we touch this,
>> right? Insert whatever subtrash >> should we talk about capital >> or is there more?" >> Sure. >> About the policy detail if it's, as I said, we can post this so people can look at it. Um the policies we met are pension funding, conservative revenue
projections, no reliance on one-time revenues. The ones we've not met, preserving excess levy capacity, funding OPE, uh and then there's a couple yellows in there, things I think on debt, we're getting close to 10% as an example. Um not read the slide in front
of us again. I apologize. Um but we can move on. You know, this is what I was just saying really. As I said, this was conservative res revenues in a portion of the levy. Um, these are the things that we have funded
and the ones that we have not. So, and and is there is there a one-time revenue source? You said preserve, you know, don't use onetime revenue. >> I think you know I disagree with this. Um, especially in a trough. Um, I mean, do you do we know of like someone time
revenues that we're purposely not using because we have a principle of not using them? reserves and stabilization, things like that that we are meant, you know, in in planning for it. We're meant to save for an not just a trough, but really a cliffh
>> and it will also have a negative impact on our credit rating if we were to touch them. >> Mhm. >> So, those are the types of things that I'm talking about. Not so much. Um, you know, if we were building the cash or sell a building or >> selling a building, >> selling a building, >> but selling a building means we have the
cash this year and next year >> doesn't solve a long-term problem, but solves a today problem. >> And it gets into an issue where you suddenly have a cliff that's an $8 million deficit as opposed to, you know, like towns that use onetime revenue for operating expenses are the ones that
suddenly have a huge cliff that they fall off and have a massive override that's necessary just to operate. Well, it depends on how you do how you do it, >> right? >> Yeah. >> I just don't know. >> So, as you can see here, the projected increase is above the five-year average.
Um, the foundation for future years and budget uh sorry, I can'tud >> historic five-year average spends and other opportunity. Those are areas where we need to provide additional information to FIMCOM and also to the community at large so that we can better
plan. Um this does absorb the increases to health insurance and solid waste that we anticipate. Um but also we would like to lower those >> just in case you know you might have a question. >> No >> and I think with that we can
>> yeah this is just the SIP detail after this which is the individual portions of the plan. Um, >> I was not sure how we wanted to move through these. So, we just have them. This is tiny for us. >> It's tiny. >> My goodness.
>> Where is that in the packet? Sorry. >> I do not think that's at the end of it. It was >> You do not think it's at the end of it. Where do you think it is? >> There it is. It's >> I mean, I can't see >> of the way through. >> Okay. >> The plan is also in the back of your
budget book. Very last tab. >> Thank you. You >> have that. prettier. >> Capital capital. Here's here it is. Okay. Hold on. Where is it? >> Is this it? Capital. >> Yep. >> Hello. >> Here. And here.
>> It's easier in here. Tab. Is there Jesus? >> Here. >> Oh, thank you. >> Yeah. Got it. >> Much better view. I appreciate that. Miguel, here. if you want. >> Okay.
>> So, just looking at FY27, um, have folks been able to find it yet? >> Mhm. >> Oh, this is it's on my print. >> Okay. Have the board members been able to find it? >> I think so. We all have a Yes. >> Yes. Okay.
>> For FY27, um, you know, again, I was going to run through these just this is similar to what we did with the capital improvement committee. Um for 27 we have at the DPW replaced the equipment for
the sander 650,000 for paving we do we are carrying the track at upper Jackson uh and then seaw wall repairs which I believe are Eisman Patrick is that right? >> Yesman. >> So that's continuing the work that's been done over time. Do you all have any
questions about this page? I was just going to go sort of page by page. >> I have a question. And when I say page by page on that deck for folks that are listening at home, um that's that's what we'll be doing page by page for you all. We have right now just public works
um which is the top of the table in front of you all. >> Did I did capital improvement like grade these in terms of uh >> criticality like will the will the world end if we don't do these things
basically or not? >> No. I mean is there any is there any degree of like urgency that they attach to these when they go through them? >> So I think from our requests before they go to them we do try to sort of manage
urgency along with what's available to us. um they looked at it, they had questions both for the proposers, the department heads and Patrick and myself, but there was not a discussion of you know the world ends with this if it happens in 27
versus 28. Um do you have a particular project in mind that you wanted to discuss? I mean, at what point do we say all, right? Like, if we're talking about what we just talked about, at what point do we say literally everything in FY 2027,
how is it not up for grabs if we if we can't afford to do it, right? Yeah, >> like I hate to say it that way, but what what can we look at here that can be eliminated, pushed back or you know reconsidered >> like based capital
>> but >> at what point do we have do we say that the >> and have that hard real conversation right >> but I think it's it's c projects that are up for appropriation and approval in 2027 it's not that they're added being added to the operating budget in 2027
the impact is in 2020 20 next year >> eight, right? >> Well, some of them I understand your point of some of them would be actually spent in 27. >> Some of them haven't been spent when they were appropriated last year. And even if even if they're not spent 27, at least you're getting on to 28 then. >> You're getting on to 28.
>> Yes. >> Yeah. >> But what did we appropriate last year that we didn't spend or that would potentially I mean what >> I think the point is I don't think cutting something from the capital budget would change the >> Does it not change? Right. >> Yes, I think that's right. that corrected the next year, >> right?
>> So everything that we appropriated for FY 26 was spent. >> No, we're not no >> typically what you're authorizing for the coming fiscal year. So FY27 Y >> spending will begin and then we'll issue bonds usually second half of the the
year and the debt service become becomes due in the following fiscal year. Right. >> However, this is a five-year plan and we've been talking about long range planning, right? Um, so I'll just contextualize a little more. >> You know, there's big ticket items in the outears here that we're all, you
know, talking about and that are a thought and when we think about, you know, items we certainly will need to borrow money for, we don't have a funding source for, >> um, building capacity in the out years becomes >> I mean, we we do have things in this budget that we cannot
>> go without. I mean, it's going to come in later on, but the middle school windows, we we just cannot kick this can. >> I mean, yeah, it's going to it could be $2 million if we >> right or damage >> has to be done. Does >> But but at what point, you know, I think
this came up before. If we do $2 million windows, then we're looking to renovate a middle school in three years. Does that make fiscal sense? Right. Do >> does that project hold up? Right. Do you do you reconsider that knowing that you might have to do something else in three
to five years to that entire building? Right. All of these things >> correctly on that one >> pieces that go together >> to from the like a zerobased one at a time up. I mean, that's one that rises to the top for me because and I feel like we all collectively have made a decision and we made an investment in
the design of it and it was like truly like >> inhabitable for right like so I mean that doesn't mean from my perspective that you end up with zero for 2027 >> but I do think in general there's a
mentality that pervades that says oh well we tend to spend x million dollars every year so that's the kitty we kind of move things in as opposed to starting with zero and saying, you know, what absolutely has to happen right now. >> Right.
>> Right. >> I guess I'm saying is there anything that would help us? Right. That that from last year, is there anything that we didn't utilize or didn't actually fund or appropriate that would help us for this FY27 budget? >> Well, wouldn't it be that we
>> that we borrowed it, but we haven't spent it? So, town meeting voted authorizations in May. Yep. >> Those are out there. Spending can occur at any point once that's authorized. It's not like the operating budget where it closes out in a year. >> Um, and as spending comes on, we match
borrowing with spending best we can. >> And so, you can resend authorizations >> uh via town meeting and that frees up space in the debt forecast because we assume that ultimately at the ultimate point, we're issuing all the debt.
that's been authorized when we know that won't happen. Projects get abandoned or come in under budget. >> Y >> and so there's authorization that can be rescended. So >> you mean like the basement design? >> Yeah, like that was an example, right? I think we actually repurposed that
authorization toward a new project at last. >> Yeah, we didn't. But is there anything else hanging out there that >> Well, let's get a list. >> We have one, right? >> Yeah, we can go through. That's something that CIC that's on there. any other favorite projects of Mary Ellens that we want to >> that was my only
>> um but I do have a question like on the seaw wall repair the sea coast advisory committee I think that's what it's called do we do we have no chance at getting uh funding for something like sea >> um seaw wall repairs like
>> seport advisory council >> there I thought >> there might be an opportunity however I think generally it has to also drive economic development >> and So, I understand that protecting a beach and making sure it's available for recreation can like there's a stretch that we can try to make, but it's
generally like >> there's a dock that's publicly accessible or there might be ferry service in one at some point long in the future. >> So, it's something we can explore for sure and make sure that it's on the list of things that we're always keeping an eye on. >> There are other grant possibilities for that. MVP would probably be Yeah, I
don't know what round two of MVP would if it's moving just from planning to execution or what, but that would be another one that comes to mind immediately. >> You know, when I when I went through this budget, I'm just going to say that, you know, the vehicles. Um, we have $100,000 in here for facility director
and DPW. And I just don't see why we need to spend, you know, $50,000 for a facility director in a in a a Bronco or whatever it is. This we have these
electric cars that are at town hall right now. Why not just add another electric car like a Chevy Bolt? Chevy Bolts are like $28,000. um we have vehicles if if we're trying to get a vehicle for one individual to drive around in, I think these large
ticket items really need to be reduced. And another example I have is the ticket item the the vehicle for um I think it was the fire for the fire department. Where is that one?
>> Replace car 21. >> Yeah. So, for the Chief's car, the Chief's car only has 70,000 miles on it. Um, >> 92,000. No, it's >> Well, the amount >> that's a dollar amount. >> The dollar amount is 92, right? So, that
car only has 72,000 miles on it. Just get a couple more years out of that. Easy. And then again, for the other vehicle for the fire department, get one of these vehicles, these the Chevy Bolt that we have parked outside. Again, you have one
individual driving around. You don't need a a large a large uh vehicle. >> These are the things I think we need to really sharpen our pencils. >> Mhm. >> I agree. >> You know, the school copy machines. Um I
think yep, maybe that's maybe that's a good idea, but what's the difference between that versus having it in the budget? And is there a possibility we should be looking at the town and the schools together and having is there a possibility of getting a better lease arrangement or a better purchase
arrangement? I think that's just something to look at. I don't have a an answer on that. I'm just saying just look a little bit tighter. >> I mean, if we're looking at if we're looking at the police department, like we're talking about fiscal year 27, we're talking about cruisers, cruiser
laptops, and radar replacements. So why is the I mean are there looks like >> so it's a car and then the car has to be outfitted >> with the computer >> with the technology so that it can run as a >> police car. >> That's just one cars
and that's that's within our rotation. >> Yeah. We we don't rather than having buy five in one year we spread we on our rotation. So Right. >> Got it. And are those hybrid vehicles or are those electric vehicles? >> No, I think they're regular gas. >> They're they're hybrids. the h No, they're going to be gas powered for the new ones. The hybrids that they've
purchased have had significant >> significant issues >> issues. Yep. >> And currently there's only one >> pursuit rated um EV. >> So >> So we got to go to >> We're We're a town of three square miles. We need pursuit rated vehicles. >> I >> I
>> I'm just asking, right? >> I think as a I think as a practice we would prefer that the police do Yes. >> I don't want >> We can certainly talk to the chief about it, but I actually suggested to him like we should an EV in a town of three square
miles could work. So if we can find money for it to help defay the cost like that's one that I actually I do think it would be worthwhile. But you know I I all the vehicles that we buy them are pursuit rated. So I don't know why we would not do it just because it was an
EV as an example. you know, put them in a Chevy bolt to to be able to other than maybe, you know, someone that's doing trainings or >> I'm sure we could make a case for similar case for every single item on
>> but at some point somebody has to um bite the bullet and say we can do without X. It it we just have to there. We could make the case for anybody having every one of these things, but that's not going to get us out of the situation we're in. just not. So either
we're going to consider giving and taking somewhere, right? I don't even know that that would help us, right? Would that 170 or 150,000 would it help us long term? Is it going to get us out of this little pickle? Probably not. But I mean, it's that mindset of we need, we need, we have to have.
>> I think the place that we should really look at that on our side and bring back to you is on operation and expense. doing that and capital improvement is literally just kicking the can down the road in almost every ca not all of them there's certainly >> if we to go through this we could
identify a want and not a need but to just move a need out understanding we're in a valley and understanding we need to get there it's still an expense that we're anticipating and having to find at some point >> so if we're saying we're going to move out capital expenditures and then also
have more revenue that we think can keep us nearly full service in three years like it suddenly starts getting very expensive three or four years from now when Hadley comes online or Vinnon's complete or there's more housing somewhere. >> I I would agree is we I mean I'm not saying everything on here is a need by any means, but I think this we have to
just be careful. This is long-term capital replacement infrastructure type stuff. If we ignore it, we'll pay the price in pay inflation. >> Sure. But what what on here is but one year is not going to I mean >> I know but but one year is one year and then next year we we're facing an
override next year. So what are we doing? But guys, guess what? If you look at next year, you're looking at 12 million instead of seven. >> Exactly. >> So like really, you're not looking at anything until fiscal year 2030, which is like around three. So if you could push something out three years, maybe there's a benefit, but you're not
looking year is more of a >> just to be realistic, and I've said this before, year one is what we're actually voting on. Year two we really anticipate happening. Year three we're getting spongy, and four and five are like aspirational. >> Okay, but I'm saying two is worse than this year. So pushing it is not helpful
unless you can determine it's a sponge G3, >> right? >> So that's really like the >> you're pushing them all. It is helpful. >> We still have >> we can't here here's an example. High school HVAC. All right, that's $100,000 and the next year is a million dollars,
right? >> That that's an that's an important investment in this in this building and we need that 100,000 for design, >> right? >> So to turn around and say, "Oh, let's just push that out." I don't I mean that's >> right. That's a good example of one we
can't push. But what is a good example of >> I mean maybe you're right, but I don't I don't know that for sure. I mean Okay. I mean maybe it's just like the windows. I I don't know. >> Um does Max know definitively that that thing is starting to break already and we're repairing it a lot and therefore that's where it is. That's one scenario.
If that's the scenario then I agree with you. >> Um >> I mean maybe social network upgrades at the high school. I don't know what that means. I don't know if that's something that can be done in FY29 instead of 27. Do you know what I'm saying? It's defining that stuff. Not everything is going to be something we can reconsider,
but maybe there's something that can, right? >> So, is the ask that we're doing that leg work now or we're sending it back to capital and we're asking them to help us understand better or Nick with capital and finance? >> I think we're tasking social network. That's a matching grant from the federal
funds and that's over five years. >> Okay. So that's I think >> that's a school network upgrade >> from the feds. So, >> okay, >> that's another one that >> Okay, so that's is this one? School network, that's school network. >> School network operates the matching,
>> right? So, that that's another thing that's important to note on these things, right? Like there are things here like street >> we have Burl Street in here. I'd like to make a comment if I could. I mean, please go ahead >> because keep as a reminder, we have a capital improvement committee who didn't
just rubber stamp these things. They've had these discussions. So I think it's fair to push it back to them and say, "Look guys, the budget's really tight. Can you please take another look rather than one offing having these discussions here cuz we don't know the answers individually." >> Exactly. >> My comment. >> No, I totally agree. And I think we
first tasked Nick with with your suggestion about the operating budget. Take a look and see what you can come up with. >> I think the comments across all right like we don't have enough. >> Yeah. >> Oh, I think the school committee's here too. Like we're saying it to you too. We don't have enough and we all need to
find places where we could unfortunately cut. We know it's not a um there's not a lot of wants in here. Most of this is a need. Now we have to determine what's a real need and what's a maybe we can hold off this sheer need.
>> Right Katie, I can tell you that we will definitely go back. >> Thank you. >> And take a look. So let's just >> there is one there is one thing I just want to please >> the number one one of the one of our bigger force main study >> and the air relief valves
>> under our sewer fund. >> Yeah >> these are really important things. >> Well the first main study is an asterisk. >> Mhm. We have asked, >> we just don't >> we've asked >> the water department DPW to give us a very real number on what that will cost
the replacements for the air release valves because we had one fail last year. >> Mhm. >> And this is to replace them so that we do not we're not doing emergent brake fixes on them >> of all the things especially that. >> Right. Okay. >> Okay. So, let's let's we're giving you the directive to go back to the
operating budget. Same with capital. Maybe capital can take a look and see if there's something um some some re moving around some >> or just balancing prioritize prioritize >> you know so that we can get an understanding of this >> a better understanding >> David suggested that we might have a
group project about painting the water tower we could just all do that >> some kids climb it >> yeah the ladder the ladder a bunch of Chevy bolts >> make a comment what I heard earlier which I think is good and and thankful but it's probably necessary is just changing the fiscal behavior around
services we talked about it for trash recycling, but less than level service is what I heard. Yep. >> I think that is a very real thing we need to be looking at is less than level service, citizens paying for services that they are using and that not
everybody is having to suffer. >> We talked about in February last year changing the uh structures around uh permanences, licenses, fees, and fines. increasing that um people that are using those services or affected
that they are carrying that burden and not everybody is. I think that is something we really need to look at for sure is how do we back out some of the services that are causing the increase and only citizens that are using them are paying that and that the town of
Swamps is not shouldering it holistically as a burden. That's a very difficult conversation conversations rather >> but um if we're talking about really where we need to be looking >> not just projects behaviors as well as here and services I I think we got to
put that on the table. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. Absolutely agree. >> I agree. >> I think that's it's behavior is not something that changes overnight. We have to just keep bringing it up and bringing it up and letting people face the reality of what's happening here. And um to Doug's point, like
it's going to be uncomfortable and but we're coming to a point where we don't have a choice. >> No, we don't. >> We don't we came to a point last year where we didn't have a choice, >> right? >> To be honest, >> timing. Yeah. >> And you know, so we're back to that same >> spot. Um so, you know, nobody should be
shocked, although I'm sure we'll find some people who are, >> of course. >> All right. Okay. >> Do you want to do you have anything else, Nick, on this one? >> I think we talked about the capital plan at least. >> Sorry. >> That you gave us a direction and and
also for the volunteer committee as well. So, we spend time with those >> and thank you capital for doing the work putting the plan together. >> Appreciate your second look with the uh direction from the board. >> Um, so I think that's it. Let me go back
to the agenda. But that was it for tonight. Well, thank goodness we separated this guys because we were going to do all this last Wednesday. So, oh, my apologies for rescheduling last Wednesday. Thank you all for being flexible coming this evening and thank you guys for popping online uh who couldn't make it in person. Had a family
emergency and had to reschedule some stuff. So, appreciate your flexibility in doing that. Um, select board comments. Does anybody have select board time? >> Is that on the agenda? >> It is. It is. It's F.
>> Select board report. It says select board report. So, does anybody have anything they'd like to report? >> No. >> Okay. I have one thing. >> Just let me bring it up. Uh due to the storm on Monday, there were quite a few people. I had three people citizens who
reached out looking for snow help. Um senior citizens, one was a veteran. And I want to commend Anthony Kala, John and Thomas Cogleaniano and Graham Morren and James Schnafnit.
Sorry I snafenet >> shaft. >> Schnafnet. Thank you. I butchered a lot of that. But um >> what did they do? >> These community members stepped up when we needed them to. These are all kids who um are at the high school >> and they showed up to shovel out some seniors who did not have snow angels
this year who needed help. And I just wanted to appreciate them and their parents for raising good human beings. >> Great job. Great. >> That's all I have. >> And who do we have back there? Mr. Moritzky and who else? >> And
Bshine. >> Nate Bshine. Mr. Moritzky. And who? >> Selene. >> And Seline. Where is Seline? >> Don't talk. >> Well, thank you. Thank you very much for working again tonight and doing a great job and working in a very tight budget. You guys,
>> do you guys need to you guys need to close? >> I have a motion to adjourn, please. >> Second. >> Second. >> We are income. >> I get a motion to adjurnn. >> So moved. >> I be online say I.
>> Motion to adjurnn. Liz says >> says I. >> Uh I hear a motion and a second. >> Second. All in favor? Hi. Thank you everyone. >> Thank you guys for coming.