Mary Foil, a resident and president of the teachers’ union, emphasized the importance of health insurance in employee retention. She presented survey results showing that health insurance was the most valued benefit among employees who had left the district. Foil clarified that while health insurance is included in the teachers’ contract, it is not a direct part of the contract itself. Speaking as the chairperson of the Public Employee Committee (PEC), she explained the committee’s role in negotiating health insurance matters for the town, which is a requirement under state law.

Foil elaborated on the PEC’s structure and its ongoing efforts to negotiate changes to health insurance plans, particularly in light of upcoming renewal rates for both Medicare and active plans. She mentioned the presence of a health insurance consultant who has been well-received by committee members. The PEC had recently discussed the feasibility of a higher deductible plan but expressed skepticism about potential savings without a Health Savings Account (HSA).

Highlighting the critical nature of these negotiations, Foil pointed out that the PEC operates outside the open meeting law, allowing for confidential discussions. Despite this, she assured that answers to many questions regarding health insurance could be readily available. She noted that the town manager frequently calls these meetings and that the PEC engages in regular dialogue about insurance plans. Foil voiced significant concern over potential changes to health insurance benefits, stating, “I’ve never seen us hemorrhage employees like this,” attributing this to prospective modifications in health insurance offerings. She stressed that such changes could undermine Lunenburg’s competitive advantage in attracting and retaining staff.

As discussions continued, the committee members directed inquiries at the interim town manager about future plans, although there was mention of a lack of communication from him, leading to uncertainty about his engagement with the committee.

The meeting also included discussions on the town’s investment strategies for its approximately $27 million funds for fiscal year 2023. Chuck Patterson from Barth, the town’s investment company, provided insights into the town’s investment options. The conversation acknowledged the absence of the Town Manager and Finance Director, leading the committee to skip their reports and delve directly into new business.

The committee reviewed the town’s investment strategy, which is divided into three “buckets.” The first bucket is reserved for immediate financial obligations, requiring investments in liquid assets. The second bucket encompasses funds that can be invested in longer-term instruments, including accounts like the Cemetery Perpetual Care and scholarship funds. The third bucket, which has seen legislative changes, allows for a broader range of investments, requiring town approval to activate.

A point of debate emerged regarding the third bucket. Recent state law changes now allow towns to authorize such investments directly through local votes, simplifying the process. The committee explored how this new flexibility could benefit the town’s OPEB (Other Post-Employment Benefits) investments, allowing for improved yield opportunities. The discussion also highlighted legal constraints and the potential implications of transitioning to a prudent investment strategy, which would afford greater flexibility and a diversified portfolio.

Concerns were raised about concentration risk, particularly with the town’s current strategy limiting investments to a list of 20 stocks. The possibility of diversifying investments to include options like S&P 500 funds or ETFs was discussed to mitigate risks associated with heavy reliance on specific industries. The committee considered whether approval for moving to a prudent investment strategy could occur during a special town meeting or at the annual town meeting.

The meeting also touched on infrastructural issues, particularly regarding critical pending failures concerning culverts and bridges. The committee discussed the status of a report on these issues, expected by October or November. The focus was on structural failures, with reassurance that no immediate failures were anticipated, though some infrastructure needs updating. The conversation included the challenges posed by changing storm patterns and the financial implications of upgrading older drainage systems.

The committee addressed the reimbursement process within the Department of Public Works (DPW) and its implications for the general fund. It was clarified that reimbursement returns to the general fund, allowing for a net zero impact on the budget. The conversation also covered Chapter 90 funding eligibility, emphasizing the need for a town meeting vote to accept additional road miles for funding.