##VIDEO ID:iVCXjYJeloc## yes yes good morning everyone at the request of the chair um I'm serving as chair this morning because of connection issues he is on with us by phone um this is the finance committee meeting November 27th I am going to call on members of the committee as I see them on the screen to make sure they can hear and be heard by us um so I'll just call out names Mandy present tom present Matt present and Bob present and we expect that Alicia will be able to join us and Matt uh we don't think that Andy will be joining us so with Andy this morning and he has a got a family emergency so okay so so so I would like to start the meeting then um and I know Alicia had two areas she wanted to focus on and I have some comments on the draft as well so um maybe the best way to proceed and we're working on the draft guidelines would be to pull up the draft guidelines um Kathy yes public comment was listed first oh thank you I don't have yeah thank you very much okay great I don't have the agenda thank you very much to join all right so we are open for public comments recording in progress oh Bob you just need toon I'm just turning my phone off and Alicia is here let's confirm that she can hear um hi I can hear thank you Athena okay I am turning over the Chom back to the chair the chair thank you Cy sorry folks I I couldn't join by Zoom I had to reboot my computer that seemed to work so um so uh I guess we're in public comment uh Deb go ahead hi uh good morning I'm just calling to find out if you can post the uh the recording from the previous fincom meeting I haven't been able to find it anywhere hi Deb I'll send it to you this morning thank you very much okay um Maria you can please join please join us thank you Maria kapiki South amest I'll be really brief um the things that you're about to possibly talk about are incredibly complete Lex and Incredibly important and they require a very thorough analysis of the situation of the library project and indeed the assumptions made in the the model and and a real analysis of uh the implications of uh of that and the conclusions you you need to spend um that this deserves a lot of thought a lot of analysis a lot of information and data which you do not have right now um and I hope that you will um get that before you make any decisions thank you thank you for your comment um Deb your hand is still up did you have anything else no okay I think that's everyone Maria your hand is still up um okay I do not see any other um hands so oh one more Anita please join us thank you Bob um I I just wanted to expand a little bit on on um Maria's comment um I'm focused on your agenda item um about consideration of four models um to build for capital projects the town manager appears to um require approval of one of these for by mid December and I must question and I hope you will too um the reason for the urgency surely waiting even one month longer should not jeopardize any of of these um projects it appears to be an artificial deadline whose only effect will be to prevent the finance committee from conducting a thorough analysis of the models and the components including the library project um I I think even a cursory uh view of them will demonstrate that all four models are based on faulty assumptions and I'll mention only one by way of example they all allocate only $3 million each year for 30 years to address the needs of all other Municipal uh capital projects um properties and infrastructure this is unsustainable and I I really hope that you will not Bend to the pressure of this artificial deadline but take the time to analyze the models correctly so that you can make an informed recommendation to the Town Council you know this will affect at the town for the next 30 years for an entire Generation Um this is not um an analysis that should be made Under Pressure thank you thank you for your comment Kathleen please join us Kathleen if you're speaking you're muted and we can't hear you Kathleen you need to unmute to make your comment please Kathleen um you're you're still muted um I will reopen the public comment for you at the end of the session um so uh I you know I I do want your opinion to be heard um but we can't hear you right now and we are under some time pressure so um I will get back to you uh before we adjourn the meeting okay okay so at this point I'm going to close public comment uh except for Kathleen uh who uh could not we could not hear her so uh why don't we move on to the next uh which is next item which is the budget guidelines um Athena do you want to put the the draft up um while yes Athena is doing that um I think I I spoke with Andy Steinberg this morning and he he had some comments he wanted to make sure everyone heard um I think uh one of the things that we need to add in well first of all he wasn't sure that the executive summary is really going to be that helpful um because it the executive summary if if it all it does is summarize um options or recommendations without some of the caveats around them um it it we don't want the members of the public and members of the council to just read the executive summary and not see the rest of the the depth of of discussion so we may we may want to revisit the executive summary to see if it really is helpful or not um but uh for all segments of the budget here here's what Andy said and I I agree with all of these um for all segments of the budget what we need is we need to have long range a projection of long range costs and how that they will fit within the revenue growth that we have um I think that's particularly important for the the the schools but we don't want to single out the schools only at to to to say this but I think all of our you know our financial uh guidelines um need to be based on the fact that the schools the the the Regional School the elementary school the library and the town can all live within the the revenue growth that we have every year so I think that should be an important part of these guidelines is that that what we need is for each of these uh segments to provide us with information provide the council with information that shows how they're going to do this um the um the three $3 million for um for Capital costs in the out years may need to be adjusted uh to account for costs that are not anticipated so we need to put something in there that uh provides for amending that um to uh you know to make sure that we don't fall behind again in our Capital uh our attending to our Capital needs um so um one thing that's not in the guidelines now that should go in would be to support um incentives to uh support the uh Town manager goals in other words provide incent you know we we need we need to put that that the you know the the the the financial guidelines should support the town manager's goals um there's also so um there's a document Financial um objectives and policies that was developed and where we talk about the um the 5% in uh cash reserves and the 10% in general stabilization that is part of the those objectives and policies and so we should mention that not just that but we we we're we should be consistent with with all of those um and in terms of the the library funding I I I I think we should not really talk about that in the guidelines I don't know that it's really up to the council at this point um and if we do talk about it then I I think we need to talk about the cost of repair as an alternative um and what we're what we're really getting into so I I think it's better off that we don't address those that the details of the the library funding because it's not really up to the council at this point um or even the town manager at this point um it it's just it's really up to the library to um to uh you know take the next steps so that that's those are and I I would agree with all of these comments I just wanted to put them on the table because uh Andy can't make it so um certainly um but I the other thing is we we are limited in time so I do want to focus on a couple of issues that that maybe um we uh we should try to get agreement on if we can um or agree to disagree um and those would be the the the models um the four models which one of those we if we are going to recommend a model or not and um then what do we do about the the school budget um versus uh you know with the the understanding of that we need to look down the road to see whether we're kind of just kicking the can down the road or whether the school the schools can come up with a plan to get cost increases within um within the U the uh growth of Revenue but again not wanting to single out the schools uh I think we should make that a general principle of all of the four major segments so I'll open it up Kathy uh yeah Bob since you started out more generally I'll just do a quick General reaction and then go right to my comments on the two areas I thought we were focusing on uh first I completely disagree with Andy on getting rid of the executive summary uh The reason an executive summary needs to be here is it Flags key Concepts in the document so that the reader doesn't have to read everything but any reader who wants to go on can read more down below so I strongly urge that we keep them secondly the point you made I think or you and Andy made about that we should be a general principle should we are projecting long range costs and how it fits within Revenue forecasts I think it's easy we say that in the document but under what's now called General budget dielines all we need to do is put that sentence there so I would I would encourage us to add that sentence um you know projections should include long range costs I mean we do we do when we get the guidelines get a projection but it's not clear to me uh that we've uh looked at the four major areas so we can develop that concept more in the body if we need to but we do ask for multi-year and in the guideline in the indicators we're given multi-e we just don't talk about them so going on to what I thought was the main uh I have one major Main small wording edit on page six but um the two areas and maybe what we should do if people are okay the way the guideline this draft works is the two big areas on where we talk about what model and how much cash Capital the 3 million those are in the executive summary and I want to delete both of those and I want to suggest how to reward it in the body so maybe we can go to the body where those appear rather than just focus on um the executive summary so it's on believe I believe if that's okay with everyone I believe it's on page seven of the document when we talk about the four building projects and the modeling Athena can you scroll to page seven please um I can you had said that Alicia has an hour so I don't know if we want to do her comments first we can I I'm happy to go to page seven but I just wanted to check in before we get into that yeah Alicia do you have specific comments you want to put in at this point um I'm not sure I have like specific comments to add just that I'm in agreement with uh the statement and I'm a little bit unclear as to whether it came from Andy or yourself Bob um in the beginning about the library funding being included in the budget guidelines I'm feeling slightly conflicted because this is like a huge budgetary implication for us to not be providing any guidelines on it um however I do think that we need a more in-depth conversation and I personally was not available for the meeting where as a finance committee we went over the library funding um but it was also my understanding that there were a lot of other people related to the library who were not available for that meeting either and so I'm hoping that we might be able to have a full meeting before we use the model um that we think and that that recommendation not come down with the budget guidelines um so I was hoping that that would happen and then I also just have a question about today's meeting and whether or not we are intending to go past 10 o'clock um I know that you have a you have a a full stop or hard stop at 10 o'clock so I I wanted to try to get in everything done I think there's one sort of public comment we may have to to go back to but I do want to finish by 10 Alicia so that you have the opportunity to listen to things just so everyone knows um this isn't the last time we're going to have a discussion of the guidelines we will send whatever we have at the end of today um to the council uh for the meeting on the 2nd of December and the council will get back to us with any questions or comments that they have and then we're going to try to have a meeting on the 6th Kathy I know you're not going to be there for that one but uh you know you'll have an opportunity to respond hopefully uh to uh the the council's comments um but it won't go to the final decision until the council meeting of the 16th so Kathy you will have a chance to to weigh in in between the 6 and the 16th um it's unfortunately you know we're we're stuck we want to get these things done this year this calendar year and so we're sort of stuck with having to do that I'm going to try to also have a meeting um another meeting after the 6th maybe on the 10th um if uh I don't know if you can make that Alicia um say at our normal time at two o'clock um and see that'll give us another chance to to weigh in on on on the council's um questions so I know that's a lot to kind of deal with right now well can can we continue because what we're doing is using up time right now I know I know I'm sorry yes go ahead Alicia I just wanted to reply to your question I would be available at 3 o'clock on the 10th three o'clock okay okay for starters I don't see why we have to end at 10:00 um if if we had not shift the meeting time to Fridays we would have had a meeting on Tuesday so I would like to at least maybe we'll get through by two but I'd like to get to the two issues and it does relate to the library funding issue too the when we I think it's all on page seven um where we are taking a stand in this document on which model for the four buildings and I don't think we need to at all so if we can get to that part I'll also talk about why I think we should postpone that um okay believe that's I believe that's on page seven can you scroll down please Bob if I may I apologize for being late but I'm present and hopefully everyone can hear me thank you bie thanks sorry with the screen up I don't see everybody okay so I might be is it on page I'm just looking it's on page five or maybe six it's the prior highlighted commented area not this one it's on this one whoops whoops you just you were just on it no down where there's an actual comment written a comment box there okay so let me what I'd like to do is try to address both the library issue where I don't think we go on in on the library issue very much but on the model I think the model needs a lot more work in terms of the data behind it uh not just what model choices were being asked to I looked at the five-year Capital plan and we The Debt Service levels that the model is carrying the current debt service level and then if we look at the debt service levels if DPW comes in aren't modeled in the model correctly I think they are higher debt service levels so I'd like to get to what we've already agreed we're going to fund and this includes a projection on the Regional Schools Capital debt where when I looked at the indicators that line seemed to be not matching with what we'd seen earlier so I think this notion of multiple years and looking at what we're talking about is really important in talking about taking on new large projects so my recommendation would be to be silent on the model for now um just say we recommend that this deserves a further discussion um and the Jones Library debt in particular is one that needs to be put in the model because right now the only thing that's being carried for Debt Service in the Jones library is the 15.8 million and when we voted on the 46 million the council we had a spreadsheets that sh talked about short-term interest rates and Principle as the when we start assuming this project moves forward so I'm just assuming it moves forward there were banss uh Bond anticipation notes with substantial interest in debt service and we pointed out and JC PC that in The Debt Service projections those bands had not yet been adjusted those lines they were just carried at 50,000 and it was substantially more over a three-year period it was like 750,000 so those lines need to be revised and Melissa will just have to go back and look at current and projected debt to get to as accurate and I'm not just talking about new projects I'm talking about existing projects that we've already taken on DPW was in the 5-year plan coming in a year later than this model currently has it and it was coming in at a price tag of 30 million and now we're talking about a price tag of 35 million so I think we need basically just a much longer discussion on the model options because there are things in between and and this affects the other thing that appears in the the uh executive the agreement to hold us to just 3 million for everything else I think that needs to be looked at really closely based on what we were Pro what we were projecting for example the crocker Farm roof and HVAC system were on the projects in in the first fiveyear period we have to not just be thinking about new building projects but buildings that we already have so I my strong recommendation would be if we leave this in at all where it says at the November 18th you presented and and just to say we believe this needs more work and a longer discussion so period that I completely agree with choosing a site um the that the other question was where does DPW go where does fire I would put High uh emphasis and priority on going ahead and getting a plan for DPW I I mean a design for DPW underway that was in The Five-Year Plan already DPW was on the list to move forward so if we want to say start first with DPW I am fine with it but I think we need to revisit this and that would cover that would do Bob what you said Andy wanted to do is not have a long discussion on Jones in this thing just it's a call for relooking at the debt schedules and and really say what are we taking on that we know already um including the Jones 15.8 and any short term just just going back and really scrubbing those numbers because we've already committed and Bob was on jcpc we've committed to bringing in a communication system for fire and and EMT that we had a first year and a second year so we've got some new debt coming on that we we committed to that's coming on in jcpc FY 26 so we need we need to not just throw everything out while also saying we should be moving forward particularly on gpw so my recommendation is delete the 3 million delete the reference to the model in terms of a recommendation for a model right now until we can have a further discussion so that's my main take I don't have any other substantive ones on the current document I had some typo and just why I'm pressing for if we need to go past 10:00 to have a more of a discussion on this is that we didn't have time to post the meeting for yesterday I won't be here and I don't think the council's going to do the guidelines on Monday Bob I just looked at the the Athena is nodding her head I think that got pushed off so I don't think no it's on the agenda for a discussion of the draft okay well then I strongly want to get to a draft that does not have these in them so my recommendation is to take the these out and I don't think the other one I have is a minor we talk and and I'll just send it's it's more a rewording of one sentence um so I will stop there um should uh one one thing that came up um has come up Kathy in particular is the locations for the Fire EMS the current planned locations in the DPW um and the reason that it's important for us to in these guidelines say yay or nay that we support or we don't support them is it would they the current locations that are being planned are on town-owned land so there's no there's no purchase or leasing lands I I agree Bob and so if we take the model out we could we could do I meant to say that we could say we agree with the recommendation recommending citing and we can make we that sentence is not in here at all so I totally endorse that we we agree with that particularly because it's on Town own land so we don't have to buy it so that makes a recommendation but I want to take the model out on when do we start on each of those because that's what the model is doing you know when do we bring in two major commitments um and I think we need more I I I think some of the basic numbers are wrong you know or need update is the other way to think of it not wrong for us to get a better sense on can we start in 28 can we start in 29 and what's the impact on other things in the pipeline so but yes I'm happy with endorsing the siding okay does anyone else object does anyone object to that councelor hanii thank you I've had my hand up for a while um I know I'm sorry um so I got a lot of comments um I disagree with removing the executive summary so I agree with Cathy on that I think we need one the document is long enough that we should have one um I think we need to talk about the budget surplus section that is highlighted in Gray in the document I tried to highlight colors that tag colors in the document with colors in the executive summary so it was easier to figure out where things needed changed I don't actually agree with everything in Gray I put things in that budget surplus section that I I listed everything people wrote um and I don't think I think we need a conversation on that so I want to get there too as for this um model I would support deleting the entire Jones Library debt the paragraph that starts with Debt Service for the Jones Library project I am fine with deleting that entire paragraph um I am fine with deleting at this point the paragraph on the model uh that begins at the November 18 2024 meeting or modifying it in some sense as Kathy said about adding a sentence deleting the blue part which you can't see on this draft because it's part of the pink part that has we recommend proceeding with model two so that's like the last sentence of that um and changing that sentence to something that Kathy said I do not support putting in a recommendation regarding the locations that is not on our agenda that is not part of a budget guideline that is something else that the council needs to talk about that does not belong in a bu budget guideline in terms of where the locations are in my opinion so I would not support putting those in the next paragraph that begins the financing plans severely restricts I think we can reward but I do not support taking that out I think we can say the the financing plans presented severely restrict funds for other I think we absolutely need to request a CIP a capital Improvement plan that comes from the manager this year in FY 26 that shows future years that fit Within in these financing plans because right now they do not and so I think we absolutely must put in this budget guideline um that the fiveyear that we look to the manager to present a CIP advised by jcpc that meets those things and manages the needs within the financing plans models we might have to modify that wording because it we would be referencing multiple models but every single model presented had a 3 million annual Capital spending with a 25% increase every year starting in the next year but we need to see a CIP that fits within those models we can't continue seeing cips that expend five or six million in cash capital A year when the models were being presented for DPW fire and Library financing expend three 3 million in cash Capital so we need to ask in the budget guidelines that the cips that are brought to jcpc and the council in FY for FY 26 fit within the financing models that have been presented to us for the three additional major building projects I'll stick to those comments for now I have many other comments thank you councelor hanii uh Bernie uh quickly um just to speak to what I I've just heard in terms of locations um locations are important because if you want to get a reasonably accurate uh cost estimate on the design location is important so if even if the committee chooses not to endorse those locations basically we should ask for uh designs based um if they were there because that will that will give us better better models better estimates in in terms of of you know most of Kathy's comments not it's difficult to argue against having a comprehensive view of what the town's Debt Service will be over the next five to 10 years um all sources all projects uh that's a critical piece of information that needs to be updated we don't necessarily see in in model two um which is model two is is something we've talked about forever uh and and it it can use a certainly always benefit from a ref fresh and place it in context of other other debts the town might incur Kathy he I'm I'm I'm going to repeat what I think I heard Mandy say because I think I think we're in agreement um you know on an edit here which will edit the executive summary so it's I believe it's delete the paragraph on debt service for the Jones Library project delete that entire paragraph and then change um then my recommendation is we delete what is currently written at the Kathy can I can I ask you to pause and just do one at a time and tell me where okay so the paragraph that starts after FY 26 Debt Service for the Jones Library project was authorized and is included in your projections the recommendation was delete it just delete the entire paragraph um so I just um I concur with that because the I I added the money about the short-term debt because I just I just think we don't yet have a good Bernie you just said we don't yet have like what is five years what is 10 years of Debt Service look like we we need to have that in front of us and so and then in this next paragraph not come out saying we are choosing model 2 um I say we can FOC I'm okay with focusing on DPW but uh I would delete the recommend model two we recommend coming back and having a a full discussion with the finance committee about the model along with debt predictions you know a rewording there rather than endorsing model two and right that's say an additional and then just the next I'm gonna wait Mandy can react to this but then on the third paragraph that the one next one severely restricts that's all true and Mandy when I looked at the the current five year it's it's not this is isn't quite accurate it's that um it's 3 million over and above the amount for Debt Service but some of the debt service was current and projected so we've got a five-year plan right now that is allocating about three million to everything else however in the new project line a new debt service line uh the Regional School budgets in there there's some quer form you know so it's this is n quite accurately worded but I so I would just do um use with a climates lens so if you we get delete the last sign and manages these needs Within A Five-Year Plan a 5 to 10e plan you don't need to have the three million in here so I would just manage these these needs within a fiveyear 5 to 10 year plan it's a we might not need the three million but I would say we need to mention the finance the proposed financing plans within the within the pro proposed financing you know that any it's basically any if we adopt a plan it should be able to pay for it and we should see that um So within so it's take and manage these needs with within whatever financing plan is adopted is I think the way to say it that last sentence is Athena in the thirdd pink paragraph and delete 3 million but see and manage these these needs within the financing plan adopted I I'm not sure if I need to let somebody else edit this because I'm having a really hard time following where you want me to put what Kathy okay I think I've got it um I can send you the the changes that I've already made here or you can tell me what exactly the words that you want me to put in here because Kathy um no criticism intended but you tend to say what you want to change and then continue talking and I lose track of where exactly you want me to put which words so I need the exact words in the exact place because you mentioned three million but I know you don't just want me to take out no so it says managing these needs see this sentence managing these needs within the financing plan period thank you and I think Manny wants the financing plan that does the the big model but you know we we had DPW on the fiveyear radar when we looked at the last fiveyear plan we just didn't have fire station um so I think that addresses the don't adopt a model right now back to us and talk about it addresses the issue of we don't have to focus on Jones here but it's a strong message that we need a full discussion on what Debt Service looks like in the context of what can we do to move DPW and fire nearer to on some kind of schedule so I'm not going to um I'm G to stop because I'm sure Mandy's hand is back up and she suggested going back up to surplus funds but is there any objection to what was just done here is what I would say I mean I think that fixes and then that's going to affect the executive summary as well because those lines just go out um alog together um so I I asked Athena today to put into the packet for today but maybe we just make sure everyone has it the five-year capital Improvement plan that was adopted the last page of it has a debt schedule has a 10-year debt schedule and that's what I was focusing on with saying wait a minute what I'm what I saw in the modeling plan didn't match what I saw in the indicators didn't match just so we need to go back and really get our handle on what have we already committed to and what does um and and it did as I said it had some fairly substantial expenditures for Crocker farm and an increase in capital allocation for the Regional School capital budget which is not reflected in the indicators that we got those numbers were going down um so I just think that it's like this multi-year guideline idea is correct you know that we have to include it all so I'm going to I think that addresses this section and I'm fine Mandy with you you want to go back up to Surplus um so I don't know M's hand this up Melissa yeah Melissa so I just want to make a clarifying comment about the models so the models address authorized debt so regardless of what's in the um jcpc modeling that's not authorized debt those commitments haven't been formally made that's why they're not included and the three million speaks to how much extra funds we have available for either new debt service or cash Capital um and like I discussed uh I think with the council um on um on during the presentation it may be that we end up financing things in the short term of those first 10 years where the where we have limited cash available because it will be able to spread it out longer while our um tax rate increases and so yes it severely restricts but that's the only path forward is to to f figure out a plan to um move forward with these big projects while still incorporating some portion and this is what was affordable within the 10 and a half% and available reserves for that and so I don't disagree at all about making the um jcpc plan um you know concurrent with the modeling it just did you know the modeling did not take into account unauthorized debt so just because you talked about a project in jcpc and said maybe we'll do this in a future year if the debt was not authorized it was not in the projection and the debt is not authorized to do short-term debt for the library in addition to the 15.8 again therefore not in the modeling so that would have to be further authorized by the council and those are decisions that need to be made within that $3 million limitation so I just want to explain that the the rationale behind the modeling and why and what was considered and I don't disagree at all that you know when we do the jcpc 5year plan that you know modifications need to be made based on decisions that are being made today about how we move forward um and I want to remind the committee that the modeling does have a delayed start but delayed um and that I believe that was the third option um but there are cost implications that further limit our ability to do other projects because of escalating costs so I just wanted to make those clarifications while you're talking about this Kathy yeah Melissa I do appreciate that um the reason I flagged Jones and we're taking it out when we authorized $46 million we knew about the short-term interest it was part of the financing so we in in effect financed that um if the project moves forward so I just I just think all of this says we have to take a close look that we we we've got one project that we authorized on the books in fy2 that has a second half to it in FY 26 so in that context this decision on when do these buildings start not will they start but they when do they start is important um so I I think this edit there's there's a slight grma the proposed financing plan severely restricts so that s should go out it's we've turned it into a plural so I I don't disagree with what you've just said but this is why I think we need more time um we can make a decision on where they go the buildings and we can proceed to design a DPW and then we uh plug it in to it was supposed to start in the last Five-Year Plan we already had it budgeted for a piece so I I think this addresses my concern about moving too fast with these and I'm ready to move back up to the Surplus section okay I think we can do that um Surplus is actually lower or ready to go down it's page end of six maybe beginning of seven there we go so Mandy I think you were the one who said um you put everything in you got but you you weren't sure you agreed with it so well I think it's too much um and so I think we should there's there's six bullet points here um for well I I have two things um you know when I drafted this I drafted it based on in some sense past practice um and putting a lot of money into Capital stabilization but not saying how much of whatever needs to go into Capital stabilization right um but that's that sort of past practice where that was sort of the default of anything remaining after the 5% the 10% the reparations the opoid whatever's left goes into Capital that's sort of been the default plus some spending otherwise and then there's these six bullet points of if you're not going to put it all into Capital stabilization what should the thing be um and and I think these six are too much some of them conflict with each other um uh number one um and I think we should maybe have a discussion as to which ones of these are more important I actually believe you know and thinking about some of this emergent capital projects make some sense um you know I think um the one about um having the CIP in June and may when it's proposed and jcpc identifies some that if there's Surplus at at July 1 essentially and November spend it there that makes a lot sense but I also think it makes a lot of sense to say you know maybe we put a dollar number on it a million every year given the conversation we just had about the all the financing plans that are severely restricting in some sense the cash capital and future borrowing and how however we're going to refer to that um that maybe it makes a lot of sense that if we have surpluses at the end of the year that we send a million of it to the next year's fiscal budget for Capital spending to add to that cash Capital amount so that there's 4 million instead of 3 million to take on projects maybe we have to borrow less than um and then you're not having um as the town manager said he tries to avoid having essentially another Capital allocation session in Fall if you just say we're going to what we expect you to do is save it and then add it to the financial indicators as a free cash line and a capital on the revenue side and a capital budget line on the on the expense side to supplement our cash capital and jcpc process in February and through the next fiscal year that to me also makes a lot of sense um that if if we go that route I don't think we need public way projects because we would potentially be adding that into the jcpc process in the spring so we wouldn't need to redo some in the fall um we might not totally need the emergent capital projects line um we might not even need the projects that yield Savings in operating costs we might not need the funding of elementary school Capital needs in an amount equivalent to the amount returned to the town from Under spending their operating allocation like we might just be able to go with one or two of these bullet points if we can have a discussion as to what makes the most sense for us Kathy I agree with that um and I think that means we delete bullet one bullet two bullet three bullet four and and Mandy I don't know whether you were getting all the way down to just one I like the idea that you know if if we say after we've done the above so we've put the Cannabis money in we've done this we've done that we take anything else and we put it toward the coming year we're talking about a November knowledge of surplus of excess free cash and we're putting it into a capital plan that we're talking about in February start to talk about it is for the next year so the the thing we miss is the current year but and you can we can always um because the fir one of our first actions as a council was in the middle of a cycle a bridge collapsed and we pulled money out of reserves to pay for the bridge so we can always do that if there's really an emergent Capital issue um so I think it gets down Mandy I think you're getting down to just one if you may may choose would be we recommend allocating to next year's capital budget is that where you were going just get rid of all the others in a way yeah and potentially us discussing how much we would recommend so maybe you know we have this reparations gets X do we could potentially say up to a number or if work up you know a number but yeah I think I was getting to just that last bullet point and if you did a number we could do up to a million but the issue is you know we've said above put some into the capital reserve and we didn't say put X into the capital reserve um so so not putting a number on it is probably safer than putting a number on it you know because we also would like better ections you know more you know if if we think we've underprojected revenues and we get more accurate we're going to have less Surplus that's going to be the intended consequence of um what of of doing that but I I would be fine with that so I'm just looking toward any other reaction here the the question I have is how is this how does that differ from putting it in the capital stabilization fund I mean it's there we can always draw it down the capital plan never pulls on the capital stabilization fund Bob unless we've voted on it you know so one one year covid year we pulled out of reserves 400,000 some amount of money because we couldn't take out of the levy and still and not cut the schools so one year we said we need to spend something on Capital so we pull so one could put it in capital stabilization and say we'd be willing to pull it back out again but we haven't been pulling out a reserves recently but Mandy's going to react but Melissa's each of those models is pulling out each of those models is pulling out of that $1 million we booked so far so going forward if we put the model in we'd be talking about bringing million or a million and a half in to help Finance the buildings because we're drawing down on those reserves when we start those buildings so you're right you know that it's not that different yeah counc hanii so a couple things um this is sort of setting a policy that says keep summon free cash and use it to supplement don't put it into reserves free cash has a voting Quantum of a majority Capital stabilization has a voting Quantum of nine so um this keeps it where it would have the same Quantum to use as the budget as a whole um but we have in practice said Capital stabilization is for those three now because one's one's now a debt exclusion three major capital projects initially and so that would in some sense if you started spending that for supplementing capital budgets you might be kind of changing an informal policy as to what we created the capital stabilization for not not a a full policy and it's certainly usable for any Capital but but we kind of when we created it we sort of said this is for those big three the three big buildings and us getting ready for that and so keeping it out of that and and doing it this way in a sense recognizes those two different uses a use of for those buildings and also to supplement um a separate thing a little easier um and it I guess those are the the two things I would say as to why doing it this way I it it sort of says if if it all goes into Capital stabilization there's no indication and no chance sort of in the fall to potentially have that full conversation of how much do we want to supplement um before we've put it into stabilization to me it's just a little cleaner to to do it this way with a clear we this if if you don't want to put it all into for the four building projects because maybe we don't need it we're going to do it this way um I don't know I'm not explaining it right so Athena I think with the changes you've made it would be the next two bullet to to go to that it would be the next two bullet points also deleted so just leaving the last one but it would become one sentence so no bullet points anymore it would become a sentence that says we recommend instead of the following guidelines it would read we recommend allocating funds to the next year's capital budget should move down to four yeah that the green that is highlighted um would start we recommend and then then going to allocating immediately um funds which is the beginning of that last bullet point um and the rest of the lettering of that last bullet point and it would also then need changed up above but we can I'm tracking the changes up in the executive summary that we're making here so I can do that later by the way um uh councelor Walker can stay Beyond 10 o'clock so we we can move you know we can go as as late as we want to assuming that people don't need to get get in a car to drive somewhere today but um B I have a hard stop at noon okay well hopefully you I've got a hard stop probably at 11-ish so certainly 11:30 so because got to get ready for the kids to come um Tom um hey Bob um I do have a hard stop I do have to go to the airport and make a pickup so um I'm gonna have to jump off okay thanks thank you you can what whatever just make make your comments if you want to to edit the document please do sure thank you okay thanks Tom is there anything else major Bob that people see um I have a minor wording edit and then I did have way up a i your sentence about projection of long range costs I think can be go into the general one and I think it's already in the body of the report but those are I have one minor one and then that one that you raised when you originally the pro section one is the very last paragraph um in section four we recommend that the four major budget functional areas provide a three-year projection of operating expenses showing FY 26 27 and 28 it is important to you to understand the extent of stress over more than one year so I knew we had that those sentences there so that is that a recommendation that we want to pull up to the executive summary was my question you know just copy and paste it to the executives under General um I I I actually think we should make it stronger to to be that you know whether it's three years or or or longer that over time they have to show that they're able to stay within the anticipated Revenue growth that we have um if we want to add the revenue growth section I would say we delete that paragraph in section four and add it to section two okay um we could do it after the at at as the very last paragraph um because that would make more sense um if we delete it there and put it in as the last paragraph of section two after the override um um and it could say something like it is important to understand the extent of the stress over more than one year um or let's see major budget functional areas provide a three-year projection of operating expenses showing FY 2627 and 28 and how they and how they I don't know how the wording would be fit within a projected 3 to 4% increase yearly or something like that yeah that's fine with me I I think we need you know we can Wordsmith it but um I think the the the thought is that we want to direct we want to make it you know the policy that these four budget areas should basically the the growth of their expenses should line up with the growth of revenues at you know we need to find out when that that can happen and it should happen sooner rather than later because so a yeah Athena I think that means after FY 28 at the end of that sentence it's not nicely worded but we'll have another shot at this after the council meeting um add a comma and then say and how they can fit into a projected 3 to 4% yearly increase and then we have to figure out how we want to word it in the executive summary I would say I would say in a three or 4% yearly increase in Revenue in Revenue great that's fine for now I mean it's I you know we can Wordsmith it but it I think it's important that we say something like that Kathy uh yeah I I'm fine with what we just did I just want to point out that when we got the full indicator projections they were projected out to FY 29 so you you Bob you you you asked about why just this but but should it be four year four years so it it's actually is projected 26 27 28 29 we've been getting those but it's really saying you know this is where all of our projections are I I have I think I wrote the 26 27 thought I thought at a minimum we ought to be able to do three years I think once we get out four years we're in a what's the world look like four years from now but but in any case the indicators have been doing Pro three plus the projection but we're we're not we're not focused on any more than FY 26 so that's what this is saying we need to focus on the whole whole Spectrum here yeah I I think that's a question of is FY 26 in this year's Financial indicators considered a projection or the next year's budget so what does threeyear projection mean yeah no exactly Mandy the entire guideline is about FY 26 right and we're right so so so we could add an FY 26 through FY 29 something like that yeah I would I would not whether it's for or three years is irrelevant it's FY you know from FY 26 to FY 29 fine that then that's fine so that's I was we we should all be staring at those numbers as well as the one-year number is that you know everybody in putting these budgets together well I think you need the word through or did you put a dash therea hard to it's hard to see but there is a dash okay it's hard tell when say um I would also eliminate threee and just just say a projection that way people won't get into whether it's three years or and that's that's a significant enough recommendation that it should just be copy and pasted into the executive summary under General right so we've yeah yeah yep so I'm going to do that it would be the third sub bullet point under General budget guidelines before Revenue projections nope go up here right I think you start with the word four here yeah is where you should just start with oh and we don't need the last sent it is important to understand the extent of stress isn't needed you and I have one comment or one other thing to talk about but Holly should probably go first Holly um I just want to I just want to ask a clarifying question here so we in our projection we project out the the years past the next um fiscal years budget that we're working on what what you're asking here is that each one of the um the the major budget areas the library the schools the regional schools in the town we just increase them by the two and a half% in the out years so just to clarify you are asking each one of those four entities every year to project a budget and how it would fit into that number because I just think that's I just think that's a that's going to be a a a bit of a hard task for everybody to put together a budget that fits into this number in 27 28 and 29 and then next year they're going to have to update all that to fit into 28 29 and 30 and then the following so you're asking them to do draft budgets and then like a four-year draft Budget on how they would fit into that number when that number is not even uh it it's just going to be a projected 2 and a half% increase on down the road I just want to clarify if if I'm understanding that properly um I I can try Micky so the way I see it Holly um is not do a full budget but but for example um I'll use the Regional Schools as an example they last spring the interim superintendent um came in with draft future budgets that showed that even if we raised the budget by 6% last year over the year before for every assessment that the years Afters the way they did it with level Services would need another increase of six or s% and the year after that for level Services would need a six or seven so the way I the way I personally see this this guideline and this bullet point is we need to know you know for each functional area how much do you think you need year-over-year to maintain your budget versus what we suspect might be a three or four or two and a half and then we need to know that difference basically so that we can on the expense side know how bad it is or potentially bad the upcoming years are um for each of the areas so I see it as more of kind of what the interim superintendent for the region did last year when he basically said we have a structural deficit and it is this much um which gives us a lot of information without also giving us very specific information but but does give us a talking point on on a way to have a discussion about budget stress people might disagree with how I'm seeing it though but but Mandy so it Holly Holly's question the indicators might still show this two and a half nness but meanwhile there's another document that says if you're going to hold us to two and a half we have the following problem right so we wouldn't ask you staff to to do it it would be the other areas yeah I think that's what we're saying here whether those words say that or not that's the intent okay I'm I'm trying go ahead Bernie are we basically asking for three years of level service budgets being projected that you know that's what that's what I'm hearing you know what your what would your level service budget be we've got your 26 estimate what would you be 27 28 29 um and and that you know that would then give you an indication of how much over two and a half uh people departments are expected I I have a tough time with you know projected budgets given all the variables uh and they they are helpful but um you know look we starting from the base and then projecting what inflation will be the impact inflation will have on those level service budgets over the next three years because that seem that seems to me to be fairly doable uh in short order but to to go through and create accurate budgets over you know three years projection is is is a heavy lift I I would say what Bernie said we're looking at what's the projection based on the FY 26 budget that you're is that's proposed for each of you for each of the four areas what are your projections for 789 given knowledge now about inflation and health insurance and all of that um yeah so I guess that is technically level Services yeah level and Bas on current might people you might give people the option of saying rather than simply replicate a level service budget each year Service uh mix each year uh and this year we might want to innovate um and do this which will either add or reduce our costs although costs never seem to go down um no I think that's accurate you know the the one area that something will be different is if we can finally get out of the bidding process and award the contract to build the new school elementary school will be down to two schools and there's some operating cost Savings in by doing that at a minimum on utility costs because we're we're we're offsetting the electric costs so that's kind so so Bernie yeah so a few of them something structural might have happened that FY 27 or 28 looks different you know you can live within a different amount of money well that's my my practice had been to ask department heads yeah uh to to give me a projected budget for the next two or three fiscal years and tell me what the pinch points are going to be and then tell me what um where they might want to innovate uh and and what impact that might have on that that level service budget um that's relatively simple when you're doing you have a smaller town um you know and the schools off on their own uh so so that you know the other thing is is that you know we're talking about schools we that assumes the sixth grade goes to the middle school and the middle school will have to be leased and it's the building's problematic so there's going to be there's going to be some challenges there as well so I'm not willing to assume that there's operating savings anywhere going forward yeah you know that but yeah I I do agree with you the sixth grade was included in the cost of the elementary with the consolidation to two school you know I we I work with Mike on the pro forer so yeah it it didn't go away as no it didn't and um you know what we can well dust off our crystal balls um we'll probably have a short period of time when we're going to see U easier interest rates um and and you know one never knows what goes on with with pressure from program in National programs for the you know borrowing or uh grantg so you know doing a doing a level what what a level service budget would look like three years in advance um is a a relatively easy projection and that's something we can U we can take into account and look at but um the accuracy is going to be pretty variable for one and for two my concern is again this anchoring phenomena well you know you said you would only need x million of dollars in the next in FY 27 what are you coming in at this number for so so we have to be careful doing this it it'll be it'll be useful information up to a point guess I'm going to council hanii I I wanted to talk about I I guess this is a nice place to do it the it it's here on the screen now in the executive summary but also the the general guidelines the highlighted in green part um that was sort of my compromise I guess on the discussion we had last meeting last Friday on um how to distribute any additional Revenue um you know when we talked about potential surpluses once all the changes are made and and all of that and updates are done and we know no health insurance costs and you know our retirement costs and better state aid numbers and things like that um that green line was my compromise because we talked about we had some disagreements on proportional proportionally Distributing but also um coming back to finance or BCG or the council um to talk I came up with a 350 number because that represents approximately a half a percent of the operating budgets as a whole the the total operating lines I believe I think um I think that's what it is on the on the expenditure side the projected operating budget expenditures total is approximately 78 million or in budget 25 it's 76 million so the 350 is just shy of that half a percent of that number so that's where that dollar amount came from um when in trying to give guidance of well if it's below raising everyone a half a percent just raise everyone a half a percent sort of thing but if it's above that let's talk but I thought we should have a discussion about that green portion Kathy I like this a lot it's a way of sort of Expediting it um and my only if others like my suggestion would be to put in pen it's a 0.005% you know half a percent because it's like where you just told me where you got 350 and you know it's like why not 500 why not 200 otherwise so you're saying if it's if it's not much just go ahead and do something if it's more than much and you set a benchmark so I'm comfortable with this um and maybe in the body of the text you explain that it's it's uh 0.005 yeah yeah and it's point it it it's the approximate equivalent of right now the recommendation is 3% year-over year increases and if it goes beyond a three and a half% year-over-year increase that that's what that 350 approximately represents so I don't know it's not of the whole revenues it's not of this or that um so I think I think it would be something like in parentheses another 0.5% year-over-year increase or something something like that I I'm not sure how we'd word it but I don't think that wording needs to be in the exective summary that should be down below and and and just a think is going to hand this back to you right because capital budget a bunch of things we just deleted in the executive summary so just uh reconcile body of text with thing okay I see Holly's hand is up oh so once again I just want to clarify this one so we do our projections on a on a constant basis um you know next you know just going to throw some examples out there say next week we get our health insurance rates and they come in lower than expected um well that's not even we're talking you're talking on the you're talking increases in the revenue or if revised projections indic further surpluses unless the remaining funds are more than $350,000 so I I just want to clarify this this to me again just seems like something that I I just don't understand like when and how you would want us to come back to you I mean when we get state aid that could be more than a $350,000 Surplus in our when we get our health insurance rates Maybe by some miracle they'll come in way lower that could be more than 350 so this is something where we are constantly updating these projections so every time we come up with a number that's more than 350 we have to stop what we're doing and go back to finance committee to see how you'd like to allocate that I just want to understand what what you're saying here because this could be once this could be five times in a year Paul you wanted to weigh in on this yeah so I agree with Holly I think this is just a really onerous sort of standard to put into the financial guidelines which is you know these change all the time and we are updating it I think that it's um and it's part of the responsibility of the manager and preparing the budget to fit within the budget within the revenue guidelines um the question for the council I think what councelor hanii is trying to establish is what let's make a um failsafe line that says don't need to talk about it we're okay with equal distribution unless it's a lot of money or something like that I think that's what I'm trying to what we're trying to achieve here I think the number is not accurate um because our our our projections change up and down you know depending on the circumstances so I think uh it would just be we we would never be able to meet this for the to come to the finance committee every time there's a change and because things can change and we this doesn't even contemplate what could change in the Region's budget in terms of um their state aid so I just find this one I don't think we could meet this standard ccor hanii so it may need rewarded but but the point of it is and and I might be able to come up with a better rewarding is uh I'll again give last year's example I think we started Financial indicators at a 3% year over year across the board and the operating in the four major operating budget budgets um and then in in February was it maybe March uh Paul you came in along with our finance team with good news because the retirement assessment came in flat we can now increase that year-over-year to 4% across all four major budgets um from a 3% year over year to now we're at a 4% year-over year and I think the goal here is to say well if right now we're at a 3% year-over-year if if anything happens to the budget where you're going to want to come in or you could come in and say oh we can now go to 4% or anything above three and a half% year-over-year amongst the major functional areas you should talk to finance committee before you do that because maybe we don't want to go to 4% across all four maybe we want to distribute that slightly differently but if it's anything up to 3 and a half% proportionally year-over-year at this point you can just do that in your budget but if it goes above that 3 and a half% given The Current financial indicators of 3% year-over years um you can just do that but if it's above that talk to us first because it might not then we might change our recommendation from proportionality to something else and maybe this might need worded differently for that but I think that's the goal here well yeah so thank you for letting me respond so I think we actually do that I think we came to the before we did anything we came to to the finance committee and said hey this is an update on the information on the retirement we think we can go 4% and it wasn't just done unilaterally it was done in conjunction with the discussion of the finance committee anytime we update this this spreadsheet we refer it we review it with the finance committee um so I think um I would just say like standard practices to continuously update the finance committee on the on the budget projections which is what we we always do when we have meetings of the finance committee so I don't I don't think I guess what what I I think the real key here is proportionality is whether and you're saying I sort of do I want to do proportionality to an extent um and then but I think that um consequence of that will be sort of okay open the you know there's going to be a everybody's going to have to come into the finance committee when you say oh it's 3.75% or 4% and everybody's going to have to you're again ask us all to come in and argue why we should have higher percentages than anybody else and I just think that's a really negative way to approach this councelor walker you haven't commented much can councelor Walker sorry I had a slight internet glitch there um yeah no I I'm not I agree with even though mandyo didn't give specific wording but that explanation of what the wording could be um was something that I agree with and something that I would like to see and I don't think it's that we're going to be asking for people to be fighting for money I think what we said was that we would do A needs assessment um and whether that means we ask people to come in and present to us I don't think that that has been determined yet um and I think that this is really important again considering the uncertainty of our financial future in this town and what is going to happen with all of our capital projects and what is going to happen with our with our federal budget and our school funding and there are so many unknowns right now that I think again leaving this possible option open is going to be really important and I do understand that you all come back to the finance committee with updates and we love that and we appreciate all of the work that you do there um but I think that also this is asking for more than just an update this is ask asking for there to be a conversation with the finance committee before that decision's made and it doesn't mean that it's going to turn into a big thing like it depends on I think what the numbers are and what our circumstances are for any given year um so I just I again would encourage us not to think about this in the negative I think what we need to do is change our thinking around this and around what the possibilities could be because again we can shape what this looks like uh Kathy uh yeah it clearly needs better wording uh because we're not talking about continuously doing it so Holly's concerned you know and Paul my memory of 4% is 4% was announced and everyone proceeded to give you a 4% budget increase I don't think it ever came back and and I do agree that if it had come back for a discussion and some got three or three and a half and others got 4.2 um that there would have been an issue but I think that's the right now if just read through it first it's starting with 3% then the second is if it turns out there's more money uh for whatever reasons expenses went down or our Revenue projections are up uh go first to the Regional School to put that on the base and we know that's an increase then if they're and then keep opep at 600 which is only $50,000 less it doesn't provide a lot and then the fourth is of if in addition to all this there money so I I think maybe I'm not going to try to Wordsmith it now getting that your wording was if there in substantial amount of money that's what Mandy was trying to do substantially above 3% um that that we have a discussion um so and I went back you know yes we've always une equal but we don't have to always do unequal and equal was a con not a convenience but it was a way of addressing when two and a half came in that were going to be restricted um in years before we didn't always do equal but so maybe we can reword this in a way that doesn't have everyone wondering what we mean and and make it administratively easy you know that we're not doing a continuous update CU Holly's Point Mandy it's it's a combination Revenue projections are coming in better and or expenses are coming in lower um there there's some mix that yields we've got money that can be spent and we're not saying just divert it to Capital we're saying spend it on operating budgets um so just figuring out how to uh create that and it it is more work to do a a second round um but I think it's worth doing um and I'll stop Bernie yeah I think if um I'm I agree that we need to this need to be worded better and I also agree that uh staff have been I think very responsive in coming back to the finance committee with any kind of any kind of changes I would be very careful and I think we need to have an in-depth discussion about abandoning proportionality um even in the face of in even in the face of extra Revenue because will this then get baked into the uh the budget of that recipient for the next fiscal year so if someone gets um 4.2% or one of the four divisions gets 4.2% rather than four does 4.2% then become the base for the next fiscal year and and how that is that going to Roll Along um you know I don't have an issue with saying we need to make an exception I do have um I I do want to have a a serious discussion about that about when we make exceptions and why and what the implications going forward are you know if we're going to ask people for three years of projected budgets and then we give more money to one one of the four divisions that's could be problematic but yeah I I I agree with uh with Bernie that this is this is more complicated than it appears um I I understand the sentiment um but I think we should reword it to the you know to to say something to the effect of you know if if the you know this is to the town manager if you um project that we can increase the allocation um Beyond I mean this is for FY 26 so beyond 3 and a half% um you know let us know and we can talk about what that the implications of that are does that does that make sense we can always change it again next year if it's you know if we're coming in at 2% we could say if it's above 2 and a half% or something do you understand what I'm saying uh Council hanii so here's my rewarding and then it's similarly rewarded down in the body um starting with where the green highlighted is distribute proportionately to the four operating budgets unless the remaining funds to be distributed would result in more than an additional half a percent year-over-year increase to each major functional area at which point consult the fin committee regarding how best to distribute the funds um so so after operating budgets the sort of middle Athena the middle Clause reads unless the remaining funds to be distributed would result in more than an additional 0.5% year-over-year increase to each major functional area No 3 point oh okay well an additional 0.5 increase in each functional area each major functional area so it could be rewarded more than an additional 0.5 year-over-year increase or it could say would result in more than a 3.5% total year-over-year increase I mean there's two different ways to do it it's it's which way do you want us to do it but this is the way I did it an additional 0.5 year your increase in each major functional area which I think is clearer than what was written beforehand I'm okay with this wording uh Paul are you okay with this wording Paul still I I think um I'd want we would I think our team needs to talk about this understand what the implications are okay so I I know you have you're going to talk about this at the council meeting then come back that'll give us some time to review this okay fair enough maybe we should just flag this that this is um you know we need to discuss this or the we need to discuss it with the with the staff before finalizing this or something anybody else have any comments okay uh Kathy I have one very minor one um I can also send it in um it's on page six so I want to make sure no one else has a major one but it's on page six okay let me just oh I have the I have this off so it might be a page on what you're looking at which section it is at Kathy okay it's it's I'll just I'll just send it in um it it's a sentence that says sorry it's a sentence that says increasing the share of capital we actually are holding it at 10.5 which is an increase from our previous 10% so I I'll just send that in as an edit you know we're not we're not going going up again we're holding it at 10.5 so I'll just I I'll find it and just send it in as an edit you know going into as two or three years ago the target was 10 and we worked really hard to get to 10 and then we went to 105 because the four building projects so I'll just it's it's a very minor rewarding if you can find the exact line it's the second paragraph on the page Athena's on now the paragraph below the yellow I believe where it says we've committed to the four projects and the strategy included the last line says and increase the annual budget allocation for Capital Improvement program was that it Cathy yeah it's it's you know yes I I'll just send it I'll just it you know includes a m to so it's not a in in other we're not going Beyond 10.5 is you know we're at 10.5 we were at 10.5 last year so I just was um I I'll just say Ed in as an edit it it was not wanting to have people be alarmed that we're going to go beyond 105 so can we just add the words to 10.5% at the end of that second paragraph there y right after Capital Improvement program because this is talking about the multi-year what we've been doing so I think yep okay it it my only point is it's not an increase but that's fine good so I I that is that Kathy your hand is y that that's it um you know I'm assuming that after this Mandy will clean up the executive summary and we will get a clean copy with this green big green highlight up the top that this needs F further discussion um and then if I see anything I'll be able to do it and um I don't phys physically leave the country until Saturday so I will be fast um and I'll just do it as a track change edit if I see anything else Oly may I just suggest a friendly edit is instead of say increase the annual budget allocation say and maintain the annual budget allocation at 10.5% M that's exactly what I was trying thank you yeah that was what I was trying to get it we're not maintain at 10.5 and it's at instead of two 10.5 it's at that last blue ath it's at great thank you Holly yeah the only thing uh H your hand is still up okay the only thing I I'm not sure we we talked about um that I had suggested Bas I'm talking with Andy is um you know we want we want make specific um links to the town manager goals in um you know we support initiatives that um promote or whatever the town manager goals I'm not sure where we put that and again we want to reference the financial objectives and policies uh which weay out the principles of how we've managed Finance year to year so again we want to be consistent with that I think we are um but but I just want to I think it's important to put both of those in there just so that they've been in the previous um guidelines and I think they're important to to to mention Kathy um I I I I think removal of them got as quickly to the the subject matter rather than referring so maybe there's a quick footnote an end note that can be put in on a here to financial guidelines I'm a little worried Bob unless you have a specific place to put it we've urged caution about new initiatives we've urged caution about we're we're talking about budget stress everywhere the council has given the manager goals that in fact would if he followed them increase spending in a b a lot of different areas um um so I I I would like to see I'm not totally objecting to it but I would like to see specific wording and where it would go with that concept of incentive because we in the very first sentence talk about uh goals of climate change and a variety of other things at the very beginning it's a nice short statement so if you and Andy have something specific to put in that that's all I would urge you know that if we looked at the municipal budget there would be any number of places we would say shouldn't we be spending more here or more there um so I'm I'm cautious about asking to do more in what looks to be like an extraordinarily tight budget for not just the coming year but for several years down the road that that's all I'm saying is you know wording would be useful and Mandy may have a suggestion I know you cut out the reference to all the financial guidelines from an introductory statement she just took too long to get into the document there may be a way of inserting it into an end note May Bob yeah um two paragraphs before the the last the second to last paragraph in section four so two paragraphs before section five starts which section five is the capital budget has the wording you should consider our policy goals When developing the FY 26 budget with explicit collect the goals we urge you to make trade-offs explicit where goals conflict with available resources um it starts with we realize you will face challenges maintaining current services and achieving policy goals with these recommendations so we do actually address that directly in the document um so I'm not sure what Andy is seeking or what you're seeking Beyond That explicit recognition that you know you're you're going to be challenged Meeting those goals but there are those they are there and you should recognize when these budget decisions meet those goals um and as for the other Financial policy guidelines I'm not exactly sure I'd have to go back to a prior draft to see what they are um it sounded like from your initial discussion that Andy wanted it in there for maybe the 5 and 10% recognition so I could easily add a a line in there at the 5 and 10% for stabilization and free cash um but beyond that I wasn't sure what he wanted in there just an acknowledgement that we have them um and that they should a budget should comply with them in general terms yeah that's what Andy was was saying specifically for that um because um you know it goes back this goes back in history as to you know it it took several years to develop these policies but you know the the 5 and 10% came out of those policies um the um yeah so anyway I think it's more just an acknowledgement that that that that document exists and it was you know it's guided the town Town's uh finances year to year it's gued how we manage finances year to year so it's it's really more an acknowledgment uh of the document and that we we need to make sure that we're following the financial objectives and policies that we've had for a long time that's all does that make sense councilor hanii yes okay Bernie yeah I think think the conflict here is that uh we're we're writing instructions to Paul or the for the council to hand to the manager um the manager is aware of all those uh but there's also as Andy's pointed out an educational function to this document so there's some some need or some uh to to educate the other readers of the document be they the people CED in this or the General Public as to where this stuff comes from and so trying to trying to balance that out um I think creates some tension between having it tighter worded briefer document that's instructions to the town manager versus that um public information Set uh function that the document performs Kathy um you know later on Mandy references 5% and 10% in stabilization fund so we could bad wordings as per our financial guidelines and then drop in the end note that gives you a specific link to the financial guidelines so that people don't lose the fact that we have this other document um that that would be my quick way of Bernie's giving people an education that something exists you know a hot link down at the bottom um because if you go into those financial guidelines they still say 10% for Capital so we are already we have departed a goal of reaching 10 but but that's the way I would that's the way I would handle a reference and making sure people are aware that these exist I'm okay with that any other comments questions okay so I did want to reopen the public comment to the one person who couldn't comment um I don't see her in the attendees anymore so uh unfortunately I think we've lost that opportunity um so um yes uh we had some other business to deal with um I don't I don't think we should um be gosh I don't have it um we had the sidewalk plow on the agenda if you want to take that up um it's on the agenda for the council meeting on Monday if you uh decide not to make a recommendation today then we'll just hold it till the next council meeting up to you um and then for future for future agendas um Finance uh for those of you who haven't looked at the agenda for the council meeting on Monday finance will have uh CPA the community preservation act committee made a recommendation to for some spending on the track and Fields at the high school and there are a couple of other Appropriations outside the budget that you'll see come to the finance committee on Monday do do we also want to while we have everyone here try and set um times for the next two meetings in December just because we have stuff coming up and it's been a challenge yeah so um Alicia um she texted me that she can or she she said she can meet at 3M on the 10th um she's here so she can speak for herself too I'm sorry yeah but yes that is correct Bob Okay so so can we meet uh I I think we should meet at on the 6th at at 9:00 which is you know more or less I think we had scheduled that as a possibility um and then I think we should meet again on the 10th if necessary um to kind of whatever the the CU we're going to get comments from the council and then we're going to have to address them and we may or may not be able to get through everything on the on the on the six so let's let's have the the 10th as another option uh does that make sense to people to try for 3:00 everybody okay with that that would give you Kathy that would give you another shot at things while you're still around or here okay so why don't we try to meet down you know we TR it for 3:00 on the 10th and sorry can I ask then after that after after the next council meeting are we meeting on Fridays are we meeting on Tuesdays I just you know I really I'm very grateful that everyone could squeeze today's meeting in I had thought we were meeting Tuesdays when I set my crazy trip plans but but I will I will be back and so I just I just want to put a hold on my calendar so I don't need people to tell me now um but it um and I'm not intending on going out of the country again until April so uh councelor Walker um thank you I just wanted to respond because I was the one who requested the meeting change because of my schedule um I'm just unavailable at that time on Tuesdays and I think that were other committee members who couldn't meet later on Tuesdays or there was something so Friday ended up being the best option but also just a reminder that that is just through December because in January we will have a new finance committee um and they will look at the time so this is just temporary and then the finance committee who will be on the finance committee for the next year I hope you all will have another chance to look at the meeting schedule no and Alicia I'm fine with Friday I just want to know that it is Friday so I put it in my calendar um for the for for whatever meetings Finance has to do before January so I think we're just Bob if I may I think we're just um looking at those meetings that Bob mentioned in December and then the first meeting in January we may need to look at scheduling on a different date because at the moment it's January 7 for that first meeting date for the new committee we uh we usually ask the the current committee to set at least the initial meeting date so that the new committee can get started so we'll have to just see what members are appointed once the council reorganizes in January um and figure out if that date works or if we need to schedule something different so for December I think we're set with the dates that we have it doesn't really make sense for the committee to meet in December after that last council meeting after um December 16 no I don't think so okay all right um I'd like to um I don't think we have time to go through the the four capital projects but uh the presentation anyone has questions on that um we can certainly um revisit that I think we we basically said we need to study that a little bit more um we do have minutes I'd like to adopt um if is there a motion I'd like to see whether the uh November 8th and November 15th minutes can be approved is there a motion to approve them they'll moved okay is there a second second okay all right uh let's vote on whether to approve them I vote I Cathy yes uh Bernie agreed uh councelor haniki uh I councelor Walker yes uh is there anybody else here I I not sure I'm seeing anyone else on the committee okay so all right there then it's their Comm their uh minutes are approved um so are there any items that we did not anticipate anyone want to bring anything up um we scheduled the next committee meetings okay is there a motion to adjourn I moved to adjourn second okay moved to seconded uh I will again I'll start the vote on that I vote I Kathy yes Bernie sure uh councelor hanii hi councelor Walker yes all right well everyone thank you very much for uh taking time out of the preparation for Thanksgiving uh to meet and discuss things I think we did a good had a good discussion um councelor hanii if you can you know re if you want to redo the thing and please send it to me I'd like to take a a look at it before we send it on to the council and I will write up a report on our discussions um I'm not going to do it today but I'll try to get to it uh uh Friday or Saturday so I will send it around for those who are are there available and um just to get some comments I just want to try to capture some of the discussions that we've had all right thanks everyone have a good happy holiday take care thanks bye