it's 703 on Thursday March 21st and I will call the finance committee meeting order this is Sarah melish the chair I have with me in the room Peter Twining Michael Pratt deanis Andy Oldman and Town Administrator great Tom said he couldn't make it it's gilon not yeah she's just in the MBTA task force meeting so um so the first item on the agenda is to go through some of these line items yeah we either haven't done or we have done and we need to make adjustments [Music] um so the first item is the death service March 13 we approved and this is on page 95 um on March 13th we approved 97372 and we put a hold on the 30,000 which is anticipation for the bonding in this budget well it's it's anticipation of some bands okay so it just assumed um up to two million in a band for the first year okay so it wasn't um yeah it wasn't based on the full the full um full bar so that's projected interests on 2 million of bands is issu as opposed to like underwriting fees or any other kind of like that's an interest number it's mostly the it's mostly the undering legal fees it is mostly undering leg okay exactly because we won't we again we don't incur interest at first year start the second year so we'd expect 2 million of the whatever the bigger number is seven8 n whatever rejecting seven s at this point but that's based on 2 million 2 million in FAL 25 I know we'll probably get to it but what is the final get number that you're let's wait till we get to that because this okay he's saying that he's not including the whole debt in this I understand that so where does two million come from where where it's obviously anticipation I guess of of borrowing more that's why I said a bigger number because yeah it's about a third of what we third what we're going to do the bigger number might be seven eight n but so is this 30,000 for the for the first third and then we anticipate another hit at 30,000 next year for or the year after for writing additional Bond there'll be some interest Char on top of that okay yes okay though I have a motion to approve the 30,000 in temporary loanin in the in The Debt Service budget so I have a second second Andy seconds any discussion I just and this is a later part when we talk about the other stuff but at some point we'll hear what you used for an assumed interest rate I assume not not now I'm just say later there is an assume leadership okay any other discussion I here I'll take a vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes Mor yes Sarah votes yes next is the employee benefits insurance and pension on page 98 and I believe the issue is the casualty and property insurance we have new numbers deductable so we did an analysis of the last so we got we got quotes for high deductible um uh 10,000 for property and 2000 on Auto wait 2,000 or 1,000 you the auto was already kind of at 2500 it was it was the other one that the D was like crazy low yeah so we we did um so at a 10,000 deductible for the property it would save us 17,800 I believe um and we did an analysis of what we paid what we have had for claims for the last three years the average was over that um 18,000 just under 18,000 so we would actually we would not save money at that higher deductible with the lower treat what's the deductible we had as we've gone along like this year what's the deductible we have do we have any deductible yeah it's it's um want to get up a chart that that gave me she was on there for a minute looks like she went off let me get that hold on just a second I think it's $1,000 deduc for General problem typical for us since sort of the last couple years terms of claims in the year that 18,000 or so has been typical over the last few years for claims made by but but I'm having trouble with the math if we went to a 10,000 deductible we save1 18,000 in annual premium is that right correct so even if you have a claim you're still ahead of the game by 8 Grand right so I think I think she accounted for that so I must be stating the U my math right Andrew can you help out here I don't have that chart just sent up on my screen yet yeah I'm sorry I was having technical diffic difficulties I just um got on so I'm not sure where we are in in the discussion you had your your your your threeyear average I think it was Property and Casualty deductibles okay thank you if you could just walk us through your the calculations you came up with that would be helpful I up on my screen as well so what I did is I took the number of claims um for each of the last three fiscal full fiscal years did the average and then I did the current deductible um versus the proposed deductible and so what I did under current amount paid is you know the average um number of claims times the deductible current deductible which is the $500 and then the next column in the amount estimated paid that's the average same number of average claims times the proposed deductible of a th to get the 4,300 and then I did the difference and then it's the 4,300 that's $1,000 time times the 4.33 average so if we had like say we had four claims that would cost us $1,000 in deductible we're averaging 4.3 claims a year yes okay like I I don't I know Insurance pretty well I don't know if other people do but like that's insane and like what then happens is the carrier is killing you on the premium right because you're just bang bang bang like claim after claim after claim you know what I mean so this is you know a dozen buildings um and seven 70 employees so it's not the same as your home in terms of no no I'm thinking of it in terms of a business I'm thinking about in terms of a $40 million business and if a $40 million business right which is about the revenue had a deductible at a th000 and was making 4.3 claims a year trust that insurance car would be hammering in terms of the subsequent year premiums because like yeah we haven't been actually our premiums have not increase that much I mean I don't want to go down and insurance whatever but you know insurance is there to be able to sleep at night if God forbid like major things happen it's not supposed to be there for the little nickel and dime things you know what I mean so true but if you have those nickel and dimes you have to pay for them one way or the other right but like I said before in the last meeting it it it 99 times out of 100 it comes out that if you quote unquote self-insure which again going from 1,000 to 10,000 is not exactly self-insuring it's just upping it but you know like that 177,000 a year I don't know I guess I need to look at the data because to me 177,000 a year versus a 10,000 deductible every year you are covered for a full claim and have seven grand left now yes if there's multiple CL which again 4.3 um so well we we can't control the number of claims yeah no no no I okay well no but my point is if you had a $10 a $10,000 deductible fewer claims you're not going to make a claim for two grand right obviously because that's below your deductible you're not going to make a claim for five grand you're not going to make a claim for Seven Grand right you're only going to make a claim if it's above the deduc so do we know what what the the total claims I'm sorry I stepped out of the room for a minute um we're talking about a $1,000 deductible and what's that on that's property property casual Auto the properties is that right Andrea well currently we have a deductible of a thousand on properties okay yeah and currently on the auto plant Auto um insurance policy we have a current deductible of 500 okay so that's two different deductible amounts that we have right now what what I'd need to see to run the math is like what you mentioned 4.3 claims a year but what are the dollar amounts of those claims right yeah I didn't have it I didn't have a chance to put that together yet because like if if the average CL I'll make this up if the average claim is for like 200 Grand that's one thing but if the average claim is for like three grand that's a different thing okay I'm I'm going to make a suggestion if maybe this can be studied a little more but if we're assuming that we would save 18,000 by going to a higher deductible but we think we have 18,000 of claims that we would have to pay directly why don't we leave this blind item in the budget as it is and maybe further analysis can be done to see whether they should I'm willing to look at further analysis but like you had a gun to my head right now I'd vote for the 10 grand I would too if if you had the gun to my head right now that's what I would do but I but I'm fine looking at the data more to see because I need to see the dollar amounts of the claims that's that's very relevant well I think it's for Andrea to analyze the data right not for us I just want to take a look at it yeah yeah I'll put that together if we can still switch doesn't nothing prevents us from switching to a higher claim a high deductible okay start for July okay and if you leave in the higher number and if we do switch then that higher number allows for paying off the higher deductible if needed right right that's the self- insurance pce right um and if we don't need it you know we don't spend it we don't spend it balance and you know whatever so I think um I think your suggestion to leave the number makes sense we can continue to do some deeper analysis to see if it it makes sense to go to a higher deductible but I don't think it'll CH it won't change the number for this for next year okay that makes sense to folks yeah I mean I'm not going to die on this hill for the 20,000 increase but yes I'd like a commitment that you know we're going to further study the numbers because I'm convinced that the higher deduct will make sense I think just as a matter of curiosity I'd be curious what the total claims are at some point too I mean are we at the end of the day Andre are we talking about you know $50,000 in a roof here and a car wheel there are we talking about hundreds and hundreds of thousands so right general question it's been a long time since we've had really the the biggest claim we had was theat treatment water plant yeah that was the huge claim that was a million five or something right right that's and and those those are the claims that right you're you're happy you have insurance right like but my point is you shouldn't be nickeling and diamond for like two grand here and three because that that just pisses off the insurance carrier and you know what I mean it's it's it's better to self andure you take that 10 you know you take that 18 Grand a year you put it here and then you've got the cash in hand to pay the two grand for the two grand claim or the three grand you know not a claim you know you pay it yourself understand understand um so do I have a motion to approve the casualty and liability insurance in the amount of 155,000 and uh more moves do I have a second all second and seconds um any more discussion can I put in the motion it's commitment we're going to have further discussion though or no sure okay yeah subject to further discussion of the details subject to further review of of the um benefits of going to a hired deductible second that too second or motion you accept the friendly amendment I accept a friendly sorry okay um we ready to vote Andy yes de yes Mike yes Peter no Mory yes Sarah vote Yes Animal Control page 114 11 excuse so this was we pending on the new contract think you feel we can go ahead with this yeah I'm comfortable level funding it and um if if we see us increase will be very Min [Music] okay about that we're only paying 15,000 how much you do kind of say that might go 2,000 but yeah how much okay do I have a motion to approve the animal control budget and the amount of 16315 so record that we voted this at that number on March 13th is that wrong we've already approved it we no we we hoped to do it on the 13th but then we didn't have the numbers okay yeah so Andy moves it do I have a second second Peter seconds it any discussion um take a vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes my yes and Sarah was yes okay now we get to the water department I don't have the page numbers down so we voted the clerk of the works in the DPW at 90,000 right and now there needs to be some type of an adjustment page what page I'm I didn't have it written down sorry I'm looking for5 plus the beginning I'm sorry what p 175 17777 177 so where's the 30,000 going so it would be in the transfers to the general fund that 181 number would increase by 30,000 okay correct me if I'm wrong Andrea but I think that's and that represents that's right okay and the 60 that comes from the two Enterprise we do something else to get that into the budget so we're suggesting 30 from water 30 from sewer that's 60 becomes a revenue thank you I now see where you're doing thank you so that 30,000 comes to 33311 21333 yeah sound right that's right thank you um do I have a motion to approve to to reapproved with a different number the transfers to general fund in the amount of $2,333 in the water department and do we have to also revote the total or is that not necessary we did that I see what you're saying total number just the total no you're asking if we should um you want to revote the the 293 okay so it would be 616 293 yes okay under that what I'll move that no I'm sorry never mind hold on where's the 211 333 that is right the transer this number okay plus 30 and so and the total's plus three we we voted on the total so Peter is suggesting we need to revote the total which makes sense y so I'm probably beating a dead horse the extra 30 grand is it's a third sharing the works guy that they're going to hire for um oversight of projects and so the full 90,000 was in DPW and then they transfer money from water and sewer to DPW to cover that expense that's the 60 so third goes in sewer third goes in water third goes in but we show the whole expense in DPW and then these transfers to cover um you made the motion Andy oh D made the motion I'll make the motion to approve for 616 to 93 okay do I have a second second Peter Peter seconds take a vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes more yes votes [Music] yes9 few pages further in 184 Bally the same process here it's the same line that you see transfers to general fund currently at 392 929 that would be 412 so yeah 184 tot down below would increase by 1093 is this what's in the new budget book that you sent us to link to it's already in there right yes I just had pled it up yet I've got it on my laptop I just um so I do I have a motion to appr re-approve so Department budget in the amount of a million 9377 so moves do I have a second 15 seconds okay take a vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes myy yes Sarah votes yes okay um what water do you want to do the same thing over we did water we did water we did water and sewer and and it's from DPW yeah DPW we did a while ago last week okay so the full 90s in DPW yes yes yes I and shouldn't an Enterprise fund shouldn't the 30 grand go the other way no they're using revenue from water and sewer to pay DPW for the cost of that person in the water and sewers apartment it's the only way then get the money from the entprise fund to cover the salary no I 100% get the concept and it makes sense and I'm in agreement with it I'm just saying the math like this is a total expense column right and it's like it's like I feel like we're doubling on the expense side do you know what I'm saying Andrea can you explain to us how that works in your on your books sure so it does seem like a double expense but it also is offset by Revenue in a way so you start off what you vote this expense in the Enterprise fund and so I expense it and I move it as a revenue source to the general fund and so when the general fund I'll have a revenue and then I have the expense again but it offsets it's like a net zero in the general fund can you do that again slower full the full 90 the full 90 expense is in DPW right there's step one right yes in the general fund yep right and then we want to move 30 grand right to whatever I don't water or sewer right right so we're pulling 30 grand of cash right out of water SE a water fund 30 grand out of okay so like to me conceptually that should produce like a negative see is increasing the total revenues though that go to the general fund to reduce it it's it's a true expense in the Enterprise fund which is why it's shown as an expense as an indirect cost right I agree I agree that it's an expense in the Enterprise fund but what I'm put in put in here it should be a negative shouldn't it so maybe is the difference that it's an expense in DPW but we're showing the the revenue that offsets that same expense no I I the full 90 expense in DPW I get that that's Crystal Clear what I'm saying is when it comes to Water and Sewer we're pulling 30 grand cash out of the Enterprise fund yeah into the water budget no it's an expense it's it's those dollars are flowing into the general fund for the for the DPW to expand okay is the difference that the water and sewer okay budgets are paid for by the Enterprise fund and so they don't appear on taxation cor right that's why it's aall so they're they're separate accounts so Andrea when you when you do your your budget numbers for that DPW 990,000 in effect you're saying 30 is coming from each of the Enterprise accounts correct yes so I'll have a budgeted transfer in budgeted Revenue in the general fund from for that and we have that for other things too when water and sewer correct we do yes for other employees yes yes and and different benefit FKS okay health insurance and that service uh workers comp yeah yeah B so so the 60 Grand that's coming out of the water and the sewer Enterprise fund that's just like going it's like a reimbursement almost is it going into DPW or no it's just what's going into the general fund it's going in the big pot pot going in the big pot not the Enterprise pot so it's in order to pay that DPW expense okay it couldn't be other financing in the DPW budget no we can't we can't recreate the wheel right no this is the way the accounting's been done y okay because they're paying I think they're paying payroll out of DPW and so she needs to be able to put the DP the expense into DPW and then reimburse it exactly yeah okay otherwise they have to count all their hours in each area have to have three time sheets every payroll I'm actually not going to be able to see it like as a line item I guess right because otherwise you might be able to show the 30 grand against DPW and knowing that it's going to come in from water and Su but I guess we can't do that we have to appropriate it because it's going to be paid out of DPW right so but it ends up being you know more money going to the journal plan and excluded from the calculation of the tax rate money coming over right right it's a trans we'll be doing this for the next three or four years right while yeah you can also change the ratios too if you decide that 20 million comes from water or 20 you know whatever 20 comes from water and 60 comes from sewer you can play that game too depending on the projects yeah okay I didn't say million sorry the next item I have well maybe maybe we want to go to these other stuff before I get into like the turf field and that sort of thing some of the other items on that memo other the email because all the other things I have is the the turf field the the feasibility and then Capital items according to my records we've approved everything else subject to change for yeah let's start with oped because I didn't see that on the sheet so I got confused that's right we have oped we have to revote on right okay and it's not clear to me whether we're paying taxation or reserves I don't see it on the reserves list it's not on the reserves so I I'm assuming it's coming out of taxation okay and the reason why is because all the other needs for fund balance and we we paid an AM of Taxation last year okay so I'm just following that I think it should be a budgeted item that we pay for well it has been right so it started out as as um being paid out of fund balance a year or two ago we switched over to what does it even make a difference meaning you know you have that number I think it's 1.4 million but don't shoot me if I'm off right like that's the like draw down of right reserves right and so let's say opep is what 300 y yes okay and if there was some other 300 thing in that 1.4 some Capital item let's say turfield I don't care right so both 300 Grand yeah what do do I care no does it matter whether you say opep is coming out of Taxation and the turfield is coming out of capital or like it's it doesn't really but fine because it's a it's an ongoing expense at least for the next you know eight years um my bias would be to have it come out of Taxation because it's it's a my point is mathematic mathematic it does not matter I could like be like you know the field needs to be Taxation and open and the math does not change correct okay it does you're right about that okay now I think I kind of M muddied the works on this one because early on I thought that we could make a larger contribution and take it out of stabilization but when the numbers all come together a larger contribution doesn't seem to be affordable this year that's that's exactly what happened it made sense early on and then it's the feasibility study that that for the biggest Loop but I think at least from my standpoint um that I I'll keep calling it 1.4 right like to the degree possible it should come out of stabilization right because that was our original kind of strategy right the 1.4 some of that 1.4 can come out of stabilization correct it certainly can yeah to me I I I lump the two together and I don't really make a distinction well I I I I think they're very different even if like you said there's a new state law and now it's that's that's why I feel that but anyways I I I don't need to argue that one way or the other it's not not it's neither here there there for me well they become more similar to the because of that state law correct but they're still different in the sense of what is underlying so yeah I mean stabilization is different because it has to be a positive vote to put the money into it whereas fund balance it free cash it that just is What flows into it that's not spent yeah yeah no that that's sorry let me rearticulate what I'm saying is the Investments currently underlying those two things are different right well that's true yes and so I am strongly in favor of coming out of stabilization yeah I I think to the degree we need to get some you know I think we voted on I think we voted on aiming to have stabilization come down to about 2% of the operating yeah exactly yeah so yeah so if we stick with that so the total is eight and 2% is stabilization and then the other six is yeah yeah so because when I I think also on town meeting floor it's easier to say we're pulling from stabilization for something yes that is Meaningful not that things aren't meaningful but are well packaged like a feasibility study or opep or something like that if we're pulling from stabilization for half of a police car and a third of a water pump that's a little B challenging especially for people to understand I agree 100% but I'm actually coming at it I mean we're all coming to the same place but I'm coming at it from a different angle which is the underlying investments in stabilization are right they're I don't I mean they're riskier Investments you know and I don't like I don't think I don't want that like I want to be in really shortterm high security like you know okay so so do I have a motion to to approve 3,000 total to be paid to opep in fiscal year 25 from taxation so mov Mory moves do I have a second is there a page I should be looking at no I'm looking at page 52 but there's not much detail it's just a it's a place to write your notes so seconds I have some discussions yes so like when I was questioned about the Essex Elementary School feasibility study yes and why wouldn't that come out of Taxation in a year where our school budg is only 2% increase well we're not talking about that now we're talking about it's the same logic whether it's taxation or a reserve is it's not the amount to pay it's what fund that that was the discussion so just does it I guess it doesn't matter it's at the bottom at the end of the day it's it's all gonna figure into the it it all comes I mean correct me if I'm wrong it all comes down to we're agreeing that we want Total reserves to be 8% not even getting into the two versus the six which is right right if if you if you support targeting 8% that drives most of the other math right yeah how much we can pull out of free cash to pay to well anything but Capital um right I mean that's what but I also like Greg's argument that opep is not a one-time payment it's an ongoing payment therefore that makes sense to me to commod taxation I only care given Mor's comment when right if we're going to talk about pulling cash out of stabilization it's going to make a more compelling argument that we're doing it we're pulling out long-term cash Investments to buy long-term assets right so then you know that makes sense there's a motion on the floor and seconded yes are we ready to vote Yes Yes Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes my yes and Sarah vot yes okay so do we want to go through this sheet on the summary of fund balance use Capital exclusion and bonds that time to do that on screen no I should be able to this is a spreadsheet you sent yesterday I printed it I'm see I have it on my computer too I'll get there eventually don't worry there you sent this yesterday is that correct I didn't send it great Wednesday for that was hopeful earlier yeah the zoom window top guess hit the the hash mark on the top left hash mark on the top left of the zoom window this thing right the black window what are we trying to maybe it's not important because all the data is on the left anyway I'm just trying to shrink the ribbon top yeah you could do that if you put the is that touchreen yeah yes yeah the the ribbon yeah so if it touch that maybe not because it's on my screen um all right well yeah this will this will start us um so but we have 2 2.78 in Pre cash 1.95 in in stabilization so that's a total of the 4.7 Target below here um depends if you want to include your regular Capital expenses or not no um if you don't then your target is 3.1 8% of roughly 39 I me it's six million something like that um to keep things simple sorry interrupt but should we like vote on the choice there just we voted we voted that months ago that our Target was going to be based on total operating budget 8% total operating which would be the 3144 okay excluding C regular C I'm fine with the 3144 that's what we voted on that the one above it um so in your what I'll call plain vanilla Capital your Article Five Capital items were showing $450,000 4 449 600 in addition we have that transfer out of unoun to the new opioid special count 8800 and then then assuming that the launch service is approved voters would approve 9500 for um May and June for this fiscal year current fiscal year supplemental appropriation um and then I'm showing the purchase of the the launch boats for 125,000 and then this is showing 500,000 which is a little higher than originally projected we showing 350 but we upped it by 150 um so reducing taxation by 150 um so 500,000 for the Mason building purchase it's half of the of the price and then we show the Highland turfield rounded I think it's slightly lower than for 248 500 I think it's 2483 in change 300 something in round numbers 2.85 and then showing uh $100,000 as a supplemental appropriation for legal services for this current fiscal year um that's comprised of um the 40b um appeal and a number of different other appeals that working their way through the courts as well as a lot of uh planning um zoning work that in the fall ran up um legal expenses When You Say Car fiscal year though you mean fiscal 2025 no 24 the one we're in the one we're in the one there's two months and two months to go three months to go yes in order to balance um we'll probably need more than 100,000 but I think we will have transfers that we can do you know between departments and your own Reserve fund yeah know I I'm just trying to come out of conceptually like this is all part of a fiscal 2025 budget how does the Mechanics Work where we get a 100 oh it's a warrant article on it's a separate warrant article a standalone article that'll oh it's Standalone okay it won't be part of your C it'll be a standalone article okay as a supplemental appropriate it's actually got nothing to do with fiscal 2025 correct but it it impacts the fund balance because here it's here just for cash progam talking about yeah what what I asked him to do is a Reconciliation of this because there are so many pieces coming from so many different warrant articles I found it confusing to understand where we were it's just when I look at r one it say fy2 but super technical no one I've got two exceptions um the harbor salaries of 9500 and then this this no I'm just looking at4 yeah okay so that all comes to 1.4 and that would leave then a balance of 3 3.3 rounded so you got another 150 Grand too right you could use another 150 if you want to hit that 3.1 on the Note yes can we also use what's assumed to come in from this year like there's another 500,000 she we've already gone through the revenue we're not going to go through that again okay okay we voted on the revenue we upped it by 200,000 that was for for 25 I'm saying she no we have to do the appropriation she can't juggle stuff during the year that it's it's certified when the tax rate certified right Andrea yeah no it's actually certified when I um submit the balance sheet which is usually about September um so so that we can have it for you know any special Town meetings or anything like that so the answer is no we can't no right it it's not like a business where if your revenue is higher during the year you can spend it well we know there's another 500,000 going into the water B Barrel at the end of the year so even though we have know that's coming in we're still going to take take out a loan or in a bond to spend money we're not we're not at the bond section we're we're talking about using free cash right now high level I agree with everything you're saying yeah and I'd argue we are chipping away at that yeah right because we grab the 200 and then next year we'll see it come in and if again it's we're 800 Grand over like I'm sure we will be then next year we'll ship it a little more oh yeah we just but it's it's a triip away and okay that's all I see yeah the state so the state limits what we can do so the state won't allow us to anticipate right balance we have to use the certified balance that they give us answer the question thank you so is an extra 150 Grand right rounding right let's go through the rest of this yeah yeah like to me I know I know when you scroll down see that's 660 right yes and I'm just throwing this out there don't shoot me but just mathematically if you take the 500 for the Mason at 150 that's 650 that's pretty close to 660 so you could swap them you know what I mean you see what I'm saying yes so either way it's the same number you're gonna have to raise them no but we're taking that that other $150,000 additional out of the right what I'm saying is I want to I think we all want to use an extra 150 of free cash so that we truly get down 8% and I'm just throwing out an idea it doesn't need to be the the idea the solution I'm saying it is an idea of how to you know use the extra 150 Grand let's go through the rest of the thing on the spreadsheet and then figure out where how we use that 150 because I agree with you we want to use it sure we all want to use it I think you two choices reduce the tax rate um well three choices you could reduce the tax rate you could lower the amount that you need for the feasibility study or you lower the amount that you're going to bond I think those are your three choices okay those are your three buckets that that are requiring yeah you know expenditures so um of those of those three I I I tend to favor the lowering the bond amount um yeah I I were're worried about you know those debt payments going forward and I think if I think the 660 is is a is a is a discreet one-time expense that um lends itself to a capital exclusion and if voters want to go forward with with the um project it's another two 2.2% on the tax rate percentage points yeah it's fine I just want to use the 150 yeah um so the three choices for the 150 lower the tax rate reduce the amount to borrow with bonds what was the third choice lower the feasibility Capital exclusion amount which would lower the tax rate which in effect lows the tax rate yeah yeah lowers the amount of taxes so because we're looking to one is an immediate lower if you put it towards the I'm sorry if if you put it towards the feasibility study it's an immediate lowering of of the tax rate for 25 if you lower the bond it's you're anticipating lowering The Debt Service in a in a couple of years well but let's just be clear if you were to apply the 150 to the 660 right it's not lowering the tax rate it is lowering the increase lowering increase like let's be yeah no I I AG yeah it's it's it's lowering an increase correct you're still going to have you're going to have your regular 2 and a half% increase regular and then over here you get your Capital exclusion thing and instead of being 2% it'll be 1.5 I'm obviously making this up but correct it'll be a lower lower increase on that Capital exclusion amount yes that's exactly right so do people have a preference as to I was going to say since we had a goal to use some of our excess capacity it would make more sense to use it to reduce the bond as opposed to uh lower the tax rate how will the voters perceive it for the lowering of the tax rate be perceived as more beneficial than the future cost of a higher borrowing all of you guys with all these years year but not two years from now understand but I'm asking for a perception matter um that's exactly the situation because I I saw that in Action a little bit last year um least I if I read that correctly they perceived that the lowering of the tax rate was more valuable so I might be in the minority maybe I'm Malone which I usually am but you know in my opinion taking the 150 and lowering the feasibility is like the middle of the road right like the two extremes is obviously you could just lower the regular 2 and a half% rate that's you know that's extreme this way lowering the bonded amount is Extreme the other way and just taking 150 off the top of the 660 to me is like the middle of the road that's how I view it you go for lowering the tax rate again lowering the increase of the capital exclusion I understand no I just like I know's no actual lowering of anything no but option A is a true lower like we could lower the the property tax rate from a two and a half to like two you know right like that is a choice and I'm not suggesting that I'm saying a lowering of the increase of the capital exclusion you know that's what I favor you want people's opinions what what are you favoring Peter I I favor lowering the six the 660 yes okay so is there a question out there real quick yeah so if we since the 660 is a capital exclusion that OB has to go on the ballot and then if we start taking an amount off I assume it's still going to be part of the same warrant article but then when you go to the ballot are we going to have 150 like already approved and then what if the ballot fails are we still going to have 150 sitting there for the feasibility study like how would that work well I think we' have less money available for the feasibility study right well I think you could approve so if you have a vote that says we approve six 660 for feasibility with 50 coming from fund balance and the remainder subject to a capital exclusion but both both going forward only if the capital exclosure is approved I think put that provis on there wory but that's how you do it but is so I just I just feel like that's gonna cause a lot of confusion whereas if you if you if you're gonna vote right 150,000 um to reduce the tax rate it's in it's doing the same thing as reducing the capital exclusion if it passes yeah and it's longer term I like the Simplicity you like the Simplicity of you just the just I I follow you and I support the the notion but um just given the complexity that it introduces at the ballot fails and and the 150 kind of goes back to where it came from and you know we're not doing what we want to do so you're saying go with option a option A I'm fine I can you can get me there yeah so that means that you're deleting the I think all we're doing we're just taking 150 Grand throwing it in the big pot and the net result is it's going to lower the tax rate right so if you look at the bottom so I have the general the estimated tax increase in those three buckets so your general operations at 2.5 is going to be less right it's going to go see if I can give you a rough number so 150 300 oh it's it's be around 2% it's a half a percent so it's going to be 2% instead of 2.1 what's the bond reduction tax in there's a line here that says Bond reduction tax increase 1% oh that was that was a when I was splitting in option one I was using 3 ,000 no yeah 300,000 more in taxation but I was only using I'm not following I'm not I mean frankly it's not worth explaining it it was what I was doing was using a percent for taxation for feasibility and a percent for taxation for reducing the bond amount so 300,000 each and then it occurred to me why why split it up just put the full 2% on on the feasibility instead so I'm but you're showing here 4.53% what does that equal that's the total of those three numbers so that's the total tax rate increase okay that's what I thought and and we're saying it's going to be four it's gonna be 4.03 instead of 4.53 yeah it's yeah you can call it four yes yes it's going to be four and it's going to be comprised of row 35 will be 2.0 36 stays at the 1.03 and 37 stays at 1.0 that right high level [Music] Y and and like if if you're trying to explain that 4% increase you you you'd have to say there's actually three pieces yeah you got your regular regular regular regular property tax increases 2% then you got a a a capital exclusion for one 1% no well no well again this is the decision I I think it's cleaner just to say 2% on the feasibility what's the yeah okay so what's the pros and cons versus option two and option one just so write it out for a second so you're saying General operations would become 2% this is 2% here yeah so put to there yeah put and then that St is a 2.03 yeah Z so my total is 4 point 4.02 right well can can I can I suggest something I think it's a two-step thing and to me step one is we pick option A B and C on the 150 Grand meaning do we pick lower the property tax rate applied to take it off the top of the 660 or put it towards the bot right like we decide that for because it seems like we're leaning towards option A La if we agree on that then Greg can just change cells B and c35 to 2.0 and then we can look at Option One versus option two there you see what I'm saying I'm I'm concerned with that approach okay I think we should be doing the 2.5% increase for General operations as operations I think that we have been coming in in under two and a half% for a lot of years I think we're running into money issues and I think we should do that full 2.5% but but but part of the reason we're going with option A is like we were going to say take the 150 off the top of the 660 but that presents its own kind of problem complexity what else could we do this but you could lower the bond you could put towards Capital you can put it towards Capital so this if the feasibility would have fail then you would have just a tax increase of 2% in you're so you're option I don't mean to offend anybody by saying this you're leaving some money on the table right but no that's not fair because look a tax increase is a tax increase you can call it whatever you want you can call it a regular tax tax increase you can call it a capital exclusion you can call it a debt exclusion you can call whatever you want it's a tax increase you look at your tax bill from last year and it goes up by x% no I know does someone really care was it was it this piece of the increase was due to a capital exclusion this piece was due to like was if the feasibility were to think then you're not going to have your 4% increase which is what you're anticipating if it doesn't if it does no I understand but we're talking about 150 Grand we're talking about half a percent I mean most so in my world that's cumulative so when you set the tax rate and then the next year my base is based well I I get it it's compound interest I get it it's compound interest I get I get the I understand that but getting the base up is I think your thinking right yes from a psychological standpoint I I I take exactly the opposite I I don't like getting the base up just for the S getting the base up you tax what you need to tax you pull the cash in you know but one one point I I would want to make is that our operating expenses sort of travel from year to year based on what it was the prior year and so if we are kind of using some Reserve funds to artificially lower the two and a half to two because we needed two and a half to make the budget that we all just approved then next year you're going to be at a slight deficit but i' I'd be careful about what the way you just said that I would argue that we're not actually using Reserve funds to lower the tax rate because because that excess cash that we are going to use to get down the 8% that's operating cash you know what I mean it's cash that came into the podt correct right that's operating cash that's not Capital cash that's operating cash so we're just it went in the pot and we're just taking out of the pot but it went in operating we're taking it out operating yeah right well I'm just saying that next fiscal year FY 26 we're going to be facing these numbers and having to you know if we're not in the same if we're not in the same circumstance with with reserves then we're going to have to meet it through taxation right so transitioning that way but to go down that road that would imply that this sped five or six years of Daya showing that we every year get extra cash going in that next year it's going to hit right on the penny 0.0 yeah which is yeah all and all I need is 150 Grand right roughly extra to you know what I mean so your notion is let's just call that exess tax money right that needs to get applied exactly just one of the things we've always held to is that we don't use reserves for operating and so it goes back to accuracy of budgeting budgeting revenues carefully budgeting expenses carefully and not letting it all rainfall down into reserves where we quote unquote using reserves for operational and so we are we are kind of going over the line here and relying on reserves for operational no I I 100% disagree look if you started the day with zero in our reserves zero right and we issued a bond for a million bucks okay and the million dollar Bond proceeds went into reserves and then I took that million out to pay towards anything cap sorry anything operating you would have absolute right to point the finger at me and say that's insane you took long-term capital proceed to use STS operating right but that's not what's happening here all that cash that's in our free cash reserves it's it's operating do you know what I mean it's operating cash it's it's a philosophical operating overflow it's a philosophical versus an operational discussion because we have to parse out the year year by year and it goes back to what Dean asked earlier about can we pull from this year's excess to cover something as opposed to dealing with it in fiscal 25 the reality of it is we budget safely on revenues and safely on expenses so we're always catching stuff in reserves and in our report we basically one of our tenants is we don't use reserves for operation so the solution to that is really to budget more carefully on reserves and or to budget more carefully on revenues and expenses agree I'm just saying if we get into the habit I think where Andy going of we look to reserves every year to carry us operationally we're we're creating a an issue with what we're saying to the public I'm leaning towards using the 150k to reduce the B what is what are the Dynamics of that money like that today money against the it's it's leveraging you just use that money for for as cash towards the capital expense borrow less reduce interest that we would pay against that right because we have so much additional borrowing we may need to come up with in the next few years that's what's making me nervous um and so if we're using cash to fund 150,000 more reserves to use against this Capital expense that makes that's consistent with what we've historically done and that would reduce the bond by another 15 so just to be clear and push back on what you said Mor so we all agreed to increase the revenue forecast by 200 Grand right yes so by the stroke of a pen we changed 200 Grand from what would have been reserved next year to operating this year that's different no no it's all the same stuff it's all there's a in my book there's a difference between things already in in reserves versus reducing the extent to which future monies go into reserves I just you know if imagine if our forecast of expenses and revenue had come in exactly at actuals for the past few years what would that mean would mean we would have 1.5 million less left to spend this less to spend this year no I way it would mean we'd have 800 Grand more a year to actually spend in each of those years you know but this year or lower the tax rate increase it's only $150,000 so I actually don't feel that strongly about it and and I'm not sure it's worth you know kind of a philosophical I'm gonna make a motion to take the 150 and apply towards the tax rate in what Manner to lower the two and a half down to two is there a second discussion that's the least consistent with the philosophical view right and the counter view is to apply the 150 where to keep it more consistent with the bill to be consistent with what we've to be as consistent as possible with what we've been doing in this budget is we've been trying to reduce the total amount of the bond so like spending it on Capital spending on Capital yeah so the competing point of view is to Red is take the 150 and reduce the bond yes I just I want to be clear on the where the two points are here well technically there is a third choice but it was you know to take the 150 off to 660 but like given what complexity I appreciate so on that that add add some complexity if it doesn't pass it the ballot I also think it's important that the voters look at the 660 in its entirety because this is the beginning of a big and I think people you know whittling away at two or two and a half% next year the year after that number is going to be a big one yes and so I think I think it's better to put this in front of people earlier in its total magnitude so you're saying the total 660 should be a capital exclusion keep I am saying that from one yeah One Source One Source yeah I I originally wanted to take the 150 off 660 but I backed off as soon as I heard the complexity and how it would have to get voted and like I you know yeah I understand yeah so if we if we do 660 as a capital exclusion well that's that's is that the 2.03% well there's that there other 50,000 that was coming from taxation for that reducing that 660 to 610 it's really two if it's 660 I mean I don't there's been a motion in a second I just think we vote that because then it determines what's in row 35 right number the post 660 is 2.2 okay if you if you okay are we ready to vote on the motion Andy yes D yes this is reducing the tax rate from Two and a Half to 2% three option three well I I had um excuse me I'll say no because I want it to go to ceter yes I'm sorry Mike yes Peter yes yes s votes now right so now we know that 2.0 is the number for row 35 correct so were there are other decisions relevant to this spread where did that 50,000 go I had it split between I had 150 so 100 and another 50 so it all went to taxation okay so we're reducing taxation by 200,000 no 150 I'm not following this what 50 are you talking about Sarah I'm talking about option two yeah where it said 50,000 from taxation this 50,000 that was right here um was going to reduce the feasibility study and then we said well we want the full feasibility study cost to go to the voters right and then we had the 150,000 reduction in reserves and when I add 150 and 50 I come up with 200,000 right not 150,000 so that's my question is is where did that 50,000 go I I think I could be wrong I think there's multiple 150,000 I think there's two distinct 150,000 it was the one that was already in the file and then there's the one that we kind of added when we said you need to hit that 3144 right I'm looking at this the option two number that he had for the feasibility study that reduced the 660 by 50,000 6 from taxation to bring it down to 610 and now the the the desire the discussion was made that maybe the full 660 should go before the taxpayers as a capital exclusion so now we have that 50 in taxation that we're not applying to the feasibility study I got it so and we have the 150 from reserves so technically speaking do we got to vote the 50 yeah yes I'm questioning the numbers I I it seems to me we're talking about reducing the tax rate by 200,000 if we're talking those two items we voted 150 so now we got to vote separately the 50 I guess I'm I'm just trying to get the numbers I I might I'm not mistake here I'm trying to an option can you help us Andrea but conceptually you're right in the same way that we didn't want to take 150 off the top of the 660 cuz we wanted that to be a clean number because we didn't want an ugly Warren article then the same logic should apply to the 50 right that's correct yes although technically speaking we still probably got to vote for 50 in the same way we voted the 150 right yes did Andrea hear you she may be I did I'm just a little confused about the 50 I'm not familiar with the 50 yeah it it was by back of the AV I don't think I just are you saying you don't think it was there like in the 50 is not there Andrea no no no I'm saying original so so what I did I so I had the 150 here which is from the Masons and then I said all right let's only use 50 of that right I should have freed [Music] up but I don't say well wait but but if I go so if I go to this I have more confidence in this list right in the uh in the use of fund balance so I'm now showing that 150 the 4 500 150 go from the um less money what so so Andrea if we if we go back to to the Mason in capital yeah so now it should sell 500 and 500 500 fund balance and 500 taxation do we show that in the master budget spreadsheet yes I have that updated so it does show it that way and and you're showing on that Master the budget summary basically being balanced yes I think we've accounted for it I made a mistake in my in my option two listing here but we didn't have that 50 oh I know I I I see where I know where I about it okay so so we had 200 right extra Revenue that's right yes so we had 200 and and in my mind I freed up 150 from the Mason building I put aund 100 of it towards that was an increasing calculation so where's the additional Revenue from local receipts SC if it's not in the feasibility oh that you got a 300,000 reducing the bond which was additional local receipts and the Mason building tax I put those two together I used a hundred of it plus the 200 and extra so you should use 1 15 uh 150 you still have that 50 so that so if that 50 is right then that it could be 350 instead of 300 I grab this 50 right here Y and move it down to the 300 can we do that Mike yeah just help me so so okay now I understand I'm sorry um so when we changed the funding for the Mason building we basically grabbed another 150 from fund balance so that from taxation versus taxation yeah so that freed up50 not taxation right that freed up 150 in taxation and I put 50 of it originally I put 50 of it in m in feasibility and an extra hundred in uh B uh Capital reducing the bond combined with the extra two 200 in Revenue that's how I got 300 this 200 less additional local receipts so this is no I know the 200 the 200 additional receipt a lot I don't know that that I know so this 300 number here is that 200 in additional local receipts okay plus 100 of the 150 from the Masons so I don't that's I don't understand what's the 150 from the Masons because originally we had 300 6 650 in taxation and now we've dropped it to 500 in taxation because we're using another 150 in fund balance okay so now if you want 100% of of feasibility as a capital exclusion I could take this 50 and I could add it to the 300 that's what I would like and and what is that do instead of borrowing 6.7 7.6 million I'd borrow 7.55 okay reduces borrow but we still took the 150 to lower the two and a half down to two that's toally doesn't affect that okay it's almost like where else you going to put the 50 and there's nowhere else to put it well it just makes sense to be consistent with what yeah no no no I'm fine I'm just but I'm just like there's literally I guess nowhere else to put it yeah well we we you know I I'm low goinging this up at this hour of the process but um there is that last minute request about the 15,000 for um the historic inventory historic uh building inventory they they just received word of a grant that requires a match okay okay one thing at a time so let's let's all agree that because I think we're in agreement on this to move the 50 down to the 300 right to lower the borrowing to lower the borrowing amount the B am a motion we need to vote Yes second Andy seconds okay take a vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes Mor yes Sarah yes okay so Greg that number is now 7 five five 5 okay so super high level to hit the 8% we found an extra 150 Grand we took that voted that's going to lower the tax rate from Two and a half down to two done parked in a box over here and [Music] then feasibility School feasibility School feasibility leave at the Standalone that's that's a capital exclusion item adds 2.2 percentage points to the do that's 2.2 one time and then what about roow 37 what you're calling Bond reduction tax ises not Jo anything there zero what but what what is that or what was it so at one point there is discussion of um increasing the tax rate in order to bond less so add more to Capital Cap act for cash out of Taxation in order to not to borrow so much I we're going to use some of our uh so at one point there was talk of going up to as much as 5% in tax rate yeah in in grease taxes yes at the end of the day we're going to be in column d right so property taxes are going to go up 2% and then there's going to be a capital exclusion that adds 2.2% on top of it for the total of 4.2 that's where it stands right now yes right and borrowing 7.55 and borrow and and borrowing 7.55 million you said that's where it stands right now that implies there's something oh just need to finalize how much you want to borrow we haven't voted on the 7.55 that's different fren the Article Five Capital if you go to Article Five I need to modify it a bit based on I should have done that first that other thing that you started to bring in [Music] 15,000 what is itle can probably be CPC can we do just it could be CPC funding but what's that I was thinking we do the Article Five stuff that's like is the is the 15 grand in an article or no I don't think so it sounds like it's a John reest that's why I'd rather deal it first but I don't I don't care but I don't care EXC I'd rather do I don't it doesn't matter we're going to T right well we need to move to the capital budget and we can discuss that 15,000 capital budget right I just didn't know if we need to want it to deal with it as a want to I mean if if it can come from CPC course they've got another late request or from our fund B from the fincom reserve it could be a reserve yes yeah if they get the if yeah it could be a reserve but I'd rather CPC CPC so CPC requires sound sound abatement another 20 grand everything requires well no but it's it's one more item that gets added to CPC that article that gets voted so we go go we have to go back to CPC to get them to approve it it's going to come back to you for approval go next and we're really out of time yeah that's the way I want to go or or you could you could you could do c CPC next fall that's another option time let's just put the 15,000 in to the cap capital budget and have paid taxation no I don't I I won't know I'm not agree with that well so that's where I was going with that that 50,000 you could go you go 35 and 15 what's the time frame on the Historical Society match is that does that have to be in fiscal 25 has to be fiscal 2 pi ball thing they hope to pay it out of Reserves it immediately available after now eting they haven't filed the application yet the applic oh I got an email on it maybe you're not aware did you get it I didn't get I well okay I Haven read it yet but I immediate might be a request told they don't have enough money left in their account to pay for the sound abatement CPC no parks and W of Money Original C allocation so they need more money and jackon said well you need to get the application in by I think today so that he could call a meeting next week to approve it and then it has to come back to us call a meeting of the CBC next week we're scheduled on TPC having a meeting next week why can't we but he said the application would be in today I think so I think we could work it so it's a $5,000 shortfall and oh take it from revenue take it take it take it from your reserve account or from revenue up the revenue assumption this is this is in this is in 24 thing we I I was talking historical district you're talking here ping back and forth getting real close put this thing up in the woods somewhere be cheaper to just relocate on a float out water it's a disaster old school what's a disaster pickle ball what's the what's the dollars on that just I don't know how much has been spent on it I think we appropriated 20,000 for this abatement and now it's going up we've appropriated 20 towards sound yes um and we need another five to do this oh only five yeah as long as we're comfortable taking fence expense out of regular maintenance accounts What's the total cost of the pickle total cost and the sound abatement yeah what's the total cost of it all probably 100,000 see and none of that comes through us and that just kind of right bks me what CPC sitting on roughly May used up most of their money I think we have 150 yeah about 15050 yeah I think that was what what we have as a balance but it has to be in ratios too so yeah no well I'm just it' be nice if it could happen through CPC yeah if the timing you know doesn't want to get forced but I just heard that we're talking about 5k here right for because you can pay for the so the fence that was um expanded fencing that was built they have to make it higher that could be that that can come out of General field okay hold on time I thought we started this conversation talking about like a historical commission think 15 grand and then we quickly switched over to pickle balls and no and and so I'm confused I thought I would terms of the in terms of the U theor 15,000 wait until the fall and if they if they get the grant we'll do a CPC request in the fall true put that a sign so we just there's nothing for historical district in the capital budget this year no because that request for 15,000 came through months ago actually originally it was 30,000 didn't know about the grant okay I I got confused because they already had 15,000 and I thought we were duplicating efforts so that was my mistake for not putting it in my original okay original capital budget okay so super high level the 15,000 historical thing we just we just pushed it to the fallone we did you can if you want add it I'm not worried about adding 15,000 to this year's Capital but well I had another concern with it that might influence put it to the fall and that's it shouldn't just be restricted to buildings I think we should include the harbor and parks in it well and I don't know if the grant District commission does buildings they don't do harbers and Mars wow that's part of the historic no it's not it's not historic district massacred do structures but just just to keep us in a lane let's keep we're talking about a specific $15,000 historic thing request and and I'll make a motion to defer that to the fall the way he's just said like I'll second does that need a motion well it's a motion go we're get emotions about all kinds of things are we ready to negative Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes yes and Sarah votes yes okay took the 15,000 we dealt with that right we pushed it to the fall now we ready to vote on this tle Improvement plan for 2025 we've been working on it since last October I have a question on the library um we've already voted the library well no no we haven't I'm sorry well the the question was this building expansion study yes um usually the first step of that is a is a building assessment so rather than pay 43,000 for a building assessment separately can't we put it in and only pay half of it because of the grant no the that they're applying for a grant in May and the 150,000 is the matching portion right that's required right and the building assessment study has to be done before they apply for the grant because it's required as part of the application okay just like we had to do for the schools yeah I just thought that the're they're not going to expand the building this they're just going to look at options I mean why requ in this PDF I downloaded from Clear go it's lost that breakdown in the library between the 435 and and it has just Library walkway repair replace it doesn't it's lost that the breakdown with that study so it should be so this shows yeah this shows the 6500 and the 435 right 15 we just need to change clear go okay yes sah I what I did is um I in the capital I kept the original requests in there and then there's a supplemental page after the capital that has these updated amounts oh sorry yeah so it takes out the 20 I just wanted to show you know what was originally questioned and what was changed so that's why make sure Andy knew that I pulled off the clear gov stuff I if you go down like three pages on clear gov there's I got the revised line 150 okay I pulled it off I pulled off a PD how did you get are you did you get that down onto your laptop or you're going directly in I just wanted to okay follow the link yeah okay I had gotten back into that here okay so we have a total Lord help us capital budget of 12, 76900 is that correct so no it the stuff has hasn't been changed yes the no the things haven't been change the plant upgrades it should be down to 4 million instead of 41 right right so that's so this right if you look on here so what I sent it is updated there no it's no it's not I just pulled the PDF off at but it is in great spreadsheet here oh onine which spreadsheet the one who said yesterday oh that's you see on the screen here now so we're talking a total of 10, 49900 correct okay which which spread sheet must yeah I'm just trying Capital oh it is the okay well what in what confused me and I hate to bring this up again is there's nothing on the line item for the Mason building so so I I remember I took that out because it needs to be voted separately because it's a real estate land purchase and so that's why I put it with the other articles it's a separate article right so it's not part of Article Five and okay and the 150 from the library probably have to be a standalone article too because there's some special language associated with it for the grant so you have those pulled out into column H the 150 which is the match of the grant but there's also the walkway in the building assessment are they part of that that has to go to a special boat no why the walkway and oh well no because they can just they're coming out of the 250 reation the motion for Article Five would would indicate the source for each line item so we do that anyway we say taxation fund balance and we can say um we happen and so it can be in Article Five yes okay yeah but the 150 really should not be Article 5 what 150 for building rant match so that's what I'm kind of asking is that they're all grouped together because that one has to specifically um approve applying for and accepting the State Library rant okay it's in similar bucket to the feasibility study exactly it's like a feasibility study okay very similar to msba it's a commitment to take a bigger project on if we get so if I take that 150 out so the 150 will be a separate warrant article a separate warrant okay so that means we reduce the total down below by I just so that now becomes 10 10349 100 10 three 4 n 100 so just to be clear the 500 for the Mason building not in there because it has to be okay what's the 150 you just to out Library stud because it has to be asso it has to be voted along with um permission apply for and receive the Grant I mean you could do it here but I think it makes more sense to approve the Grant application along with the funding I know that not I wouldn't you could imagine being approved with the capital then not approve it in the a separate article that the grant applications well I mean other than adding more time to an already long and uous town meeting it makes sense to have things be very specific right like I want this yes or no I want this yes or no I want as opposed to just a big bucket of stuff and Okay so do I have a motion to approve Article 5 capital budget in the amount of 10, 349,000 oh more moves one question and seconds okay go ahead with get question we can discuss it I'm just looking at the biggest numbers and obviously like they mostly make sense but the water meter 1.4 like that that's just that just is what it is yeah that's replacing everybody's MERS yeah will there be any benefit on the what we discuss one the biggest benefits is it catches leaks by the way it's real time metering and you have that on you have that on your phone on an app and you you'll know if you're if you're leaking water so of avoids those nasty abatement kind of discussions that happen or somebody sudden get theill $40,000 because they finally CAU and avoids wasting water what's it like 2,000 households I want to divide by I divide that by 2,000 I get 700 a pop well I think there was talk about um CH on if you want to ask them specific talk about adding a flat fee to the water the water bills that would pay for this right okay so if if it's paid for with the flat theves then you wouldn't eventually wouldn't need to bond it and that's so that's the cost the beer and that's all the also the install yeah who who R contractor think it's contractor like the town to get them all and that's the no no I'm not coming on it that way I'm coming on more just like it just seems like you get into liability stuff right because you get you on the private property andu well a number of years ago the town bought water meters to replace everyone's water meter and the town was installing them we never could figure out where all the water meters went and they weren't installed so we don't want a recurrence of that right yeah goes up I don't know it was certainly before Co quite a few years before Co so it was under a different you know it was when that oh to your point s is there any way that we can govern that where the thing you said about like specific I I think blah blah blah I I think that if the flat fee were imposed that they could use that that would go to the water Enterprise fund right and they they could pay repay the bond if we needed to bond it so so so of the 7.5 million more than half should be able to be paid off through the water SS but I think what SAR saying is even a little different whereas the flat fee was implemented you wouldn't even need to B in the first place for that specific amount no you still need we wouldn't have collected enough I guess by the time they installed them okay that service sure tax rate won't be as the increase won't be as much I always gave an approach that would um put that as a separate article and pay it right on the water build as opposed to this Capital so the the bond votes will be separate you have to do a separate Bond vote but I for the water meter itself that that item for people to come and do you want a new water meter or not no they're doing the whole town that'll be hard no I I don't think we want to be that messy it just yeah it would it's going to impact billing it's going to impact everything no no no not individually I mean we vote the town meeting yes so people could so we'll have an article 7.55 million and it'll it will sa for for water and sewer projects but people want to reduce that amount at the meeting at the meeting by saying we don't want to do the water meters that is an option they're not recommending that but that that is an option so I I I would do it that way where I would list it out as a separate article bond for the meters bond for the I would have separate articles bonding mean esset does a separate article for every Capital item really that's much this is something that's not really required it's just okay it's benefit well well the logic is it it makes sense we talked about it it gets presented by the selectman town manager or finance chter and then people have an option to put a hold on it and so they can say I want to put a hold on item four in capital but otherwise it's part of a package right I I just want to say in general when it comes to borrowing we need to borrow shortterm banss Andor callable bonds such that right if a cash flow comes in better than expected where you have the ability to you know pay off quicker yeah and given what we have you know on the horizon for for these I would probably do shorter ter I'm thinking that we might do a 10 year 10 year bond rather than the normal 20 obviously the pay much or higher but you're you're done with it sooner you're not paying as much but I'm saying with a call provision understand okay so we have a motion and a second could I ask you a question please Greg on number nine on article five which is the Land Management historic district at 15,000 is that state I don't see that on the list up here is that am I missing something oh right that it comes up the draft warrant yeah right that that had that 15,000 historic that will come off okay there we go that's the 15,000 that's thank you thank you just checking one again the other y so we're voting on capital budget of 10,349 are we ready to vote or is there more discussion ready to vote Andy yes Dean no Mike yes Peter yes Mor yes and Sarah vot yes okay so that was approved 321 okay so now we have other things to vote on that aren't on our stuff the yeah the this that you had in front of you and that is that supplemental legal of 100,000 that needs to be a standalone article that's that's not in here so what what is highlighted in yellow are the highlighted articles that are yellow the Govern anyway High articles are the on that I'm want to we have to vote we have to vote everything highlight and yellow so you've already done this right so article three is the that's what I was going to say I thought we already did yeah article three is the um vote yeah article four is operating we just did it yeah Article Five is capital but then all these others were not in the capital we it for question 15 so article six is the heart launch we did it we did it right done when did we vote for that 20 30 minutes ago no no was in the we didn't vote on anything we voted on this spreadsheet you voted the concept you didn't vote the dollar amount do we want to go back to that we voted the concept we didn't like these numbers I seen here I remember seeing them in the spreadsheet corre the 125 was in your 125 the 9500 yeah so those two numbers were part of what you approved for using from fund balance yeah you haven't actually approved the operating expense it's it's just under 41 I was just I was rounding up it's 40,000 um get that number but it would be super technical for article six we we did vote the 9500 and the 125 we did not no we didn't vote we did not vote for vot off three we we didn't vote for those items to be spent you identified the f I mean we did implicitly I mean I guess we got to vote it again to beat the dead horse it's fine but I definitely voted it because I saw the 9500 and the 125 up there I know exactly where it's coming from but okay I'll vote it again it's fine beat a dead horse whatever the 9500 there's 9500 in here for no wake buoys that's in the capital the 9500 we're talking about in article six is for labor labor for May and June of this current fiscal year to get the launch oper two different numbers well two different the first well so the the first spreadsheet we looked at first spreadsheet has 9500 that says beside it it has expenditure for launch service didn't fy4 that ties with this appropriate did not vote to appropriate those monies well let's do that let's do that trying to figure out right now stuff is all over the place and I'm I'm struggling with that so should we be going through the warrant articles Dev vote on these numbers because they're not like the Mason building purchase of a million isn't any place anymore used to be on so that's a warrant article so need your food right so I think that probably we should have a motion to approve the cost of the launch service in article six and it's 95 what making a recommendation wouldn't we on article six like the finance committee recommends or does not recommend the passing of AR six isn't that what's Being Framed here well we were going to hold the recommendation to the town meeting to get the survey results or the feedback from you wanted to do that but I don't think everyone wanted to do that we we weren quite there I'm just what's the 41 gr the Opera like you know operating budget for the next year this year 25 and let me ask my question different way and I do not want to like keep debating this until whatever but in my mind I already voted on the 9500 and the 125 I will vote it again that's fine thank God but at least I know exactly what those two things are because I whatever the 41 though what where is that it's the operating budget for the service during the next year's summer season I guess but my point is more recovered by new Revenue so we have Toth harb Harbor fund that for this expense that 41 in oper expense we did not vote it anywhere ever before cor have time we've seen it that is the first time we don't have to appropriate it yes that's what this is this that's what this article would do so the the money for that the people pay to use launch is going to go into the harbor fund or are we going to have a firewall on there no it's going into the harbor fund there's no you got to wait till it's been running a years so to balance the budget we would increase local receipts by 41,000 and we going increase expenditures by 31,000 just okay right so can I just just a little Clarity um forgot a lot since last year apparently um the warrant articles are often redundant to the budgets that we've already voted to go down through this particular case you have not voted the launch budget right and so normally we can't rely on future revenues to uh cover a a cost that we're going to incur we end up having to appropriate the money to cover that cost but I but to Mike's point I don't think we've seen this 41,000 right I think the issue here is normally there's 41,000 would have been in our operating budget for fiscal year 25 but but instead the town has decided that they want to have the launch servers voted on separately by the people as a warrant article but we still have to appropriate these monies yeah yeah so we have to we have to do this like we do all this other budget stuff but it's not in there it's not there yet should the 41 be reduced by what's going to be spent in this year the budget I gave you when I did the business you're gonna have next milon June in FY 25 until 12 months you'll have you'll have the same oh you'll have 12 months yes of course yes because when I gave you the business plan it had an operating budget of 4,250 250 that's I I rounded to 40 I I know yeah and I just want to let you know that's when you last saw it right so so you can go with the $40,000 250 no anything you want for the difference is in material I think okay I'm GNA make a motion terrific I'm going to make a motion that we approve 9,500 approve for the launch service $99,500 the fiscal year 24 operating expense $441,000 for the fiscal year 25 operating expense and and 125,000 as a capital expense Mory moves do I have a second yes second it yes Peter seconds so any discussion point of order that that 9500 bucks is is not technically fy2 budget right it's FY 24 right what I said it's just the article okay okay and to your point that will probably come out of like fincom reserve or something like that in the last two weeks of no we're appropriating it at this point it's coming out of your fund balance you're appropriating as a supplemental budget take a vote Andy yes Dean no U Mike no Peter yes my yes Sarah votes yes okay so okay seven we don't have to do anything on so seven is the so that'll be 7.55 million now that's right article8 is the library that 150 but we've appropriated that we've voted for that money correct okay yep article nine is the Mason building okay that we haven't voted for okay so I'll take a motion to approve a million dollars for the purchase of the Mason property so move moves second second more seconds any discussion take a vote Andy yes Dean no Mike no Peter yes Mory yes and Sarah yes okay so 10 is that opioid transfer voted on that we voted that um 11 that is the school we voted on operating budget yeah and then article 12 is the is the feasibility funding okay can we take away the um brackets around Capital SCH yeah I need to work on this language to to indicate that it's going to be a capital exclusive which will be so that's a two-step vote right that's a meeting V A okay so yeah some of this language still need to speaking the general concepts are there that turn down more it'll go through but yeah I think a real question really I think the bigger is are going to go through ESS well ESS I think'll because their finance committee and select board is is behind it because they went to school how about your doll oh really you think there's enough people in town that don't want the school I I was just talking about Manchester inter the interesting thing is if they end up building it they'll probably house everybodyy over here for a year or two and then they'll realize that you don't right exactly during construction of course don't want to go there yeah that's U that I will not argue I'm 100% agreement on that well they're talking about building it on a different site y exactly acquiring land okay 13 well well no we've got to vote on the 660 okay motion yeah that we approve article 12 at $660,000 for cap excl the feasibility stuff second take a vote Indy yes D yes Mike no Peter yes yes I think Sarah's gonna vote now 13 is the final payment that we owe for the the uh the turf field again this was anticipated come out of fund balance the number I'm a little high here um do you have that number off hand Andrea the the Highland field it's 248 3 something I think uh 348 348 yeah I think thank you have a motion what do we have invoice in hand as of yet from theol District I have a motion to approve the balance of the funding for the h field tur replacement the amount I'll make I'll make okay second V Indy yes yes mik yes Peter yes yes yes article 14 is are the CPC projects You' approv those yeah and then the last one is article 16 which is the open we already voted which you have voted for okay and then we have the 100,000 illegal expens so that's the other one that okay is need to be added where where are we high level with the fincom reserve like how much have we pulled out how much is left how much are we going to need to pull out Finance Reserve yeah um we haven't used any it's still at 190 for this fiscal year I I guess where I'm going is this 100 Grand illegal fees like we pull it out of there that's what we're anticipating closer to 200 that we need so we were going to I thought was to ask for 100 supplemental and then just either use your reserve fund or transfer from other line that have come under to cover that let me ask a question different way out of the 190 we haven't used the penny yet right you already have some other big need budgeted use you'll need a 100 of that probably for overtime and place some fire so then use the other 90 for and are there other things we need for the reserve uh what Greg was saying um o for Public Safety overtime we'll need some for zba appeals um unemployment um yeah I have a I have a little list well I I guess I guess what I'm suggesting is let's just you know run the numbers and I know it's not going to be perfect but let's just make sure we're gonna use it all do you know what I'm saying like so in other words if there is an extra 40 50 60 whatever the number is in the Pome reserve and maybe somehow that you know lowers the my problem is I I won't know that until after town meeting you won't know what I won't know all the probable expenses those needs I won't know all the need for the reserve fund until after town meeting and I and I know I'm looking at about a $200,000 overrun in legal expenses so I'm I'm banking on finding a hundred of that either through Reserves or um perhaps some other other under expensed okay line items I guess my point is I don't really care what the 190 goes to whether it goes towards fire overtime police overtime legal but as long as it gets used you know what I mean I don't want to see it have 90 grand left and then it just drops down I me as long as it gets used for something like that yeah so are we ready to make a motion to approve a supplemental legal budget in the amount of 100,000 to fiscal year 24 oh is that I'm sorry is before us there's no article we have to do that now or can we do that closer to yeah oh we do need to do for the budget yeah sorry yeah it's part of the whole budget package oh it did okay got it so yes a vote tonight is moved so moved do I have a second second P seconds I just I just want to make sure that the 190 is going to get used yeah the 190 is going to get used I can't guarantee that well that's a guessing it's close what's that let Andrea speak Andrea I was gonna say right now I estimated it to be close um which is how we came up with 100,000 for the supplemental appropriation okay so by your numbers for all the things you said and what' you say workers comp I don't know but with all those said you're you're like whatever 80 90% sure it's going to use up the bulk of it correct okay thanks Andre I have a motion and a second are we ready to vote any more discussion Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes laen yes s votes yes so the rest are bylaw changes oh I'm sorry I should have flagged 17 which is is evolving funds the annual approval so what this is the parking rep revolving fund this is money they take in these these they collect for programs and then those monies go back out to pay for those programs so this is just a recommendation this this every year article 17 it's just a recommendation of a mechanical thing else it's it's prepuncture to tell you the truth uh Greg does that also include the health um Department revolving yeah I was just thinking of that Andrea we should just do the two of them together okay so we yeah I should add to this the health revolving as well how much is that um looking it up right now yeah I want to say 50,000 but we should go a little higher than it was this current year why is the health a revolving fund is that because there's activity in this year that gets distributed to the next like why why is there a so it um it involves vaccinations like when um there's a delay in getting reimbursed okay all right so insurance reimbursements reimbursement out of a fiscal year problem okay I just at a very high level I know you think I've been on fincom long enough I'd know what this is but what I don't understand article article 7 so it by by Statute we have to annually approve U the amounts that we anticipate a revolving fund is going to be utilized so we annually approve the revolving fund for the parking wreck department so the after school program people pay a fee and we use those fees to pay the kids the older kids are are watching the younger kids um or the the summer program same thing or they go to a field trip to a water slide they pay 50 bucks to go to the water slide so we collect those fees and those fees get used to pay for that trip so the revolving fund is a specific fund it's in it's is specific for parks around yes okay yeah and then we we have a second revolving fund that we just set up last year for for the Board of Health for vaccinations and it was it in that 50,000 range Andrew did you see it it is yes it is 50 F I don't think we can po of that so yeah that'll be fine so do I have a motion to approve to recommend article 17 revolving fund for the parks and wck and for the health department so the parks amount a 400 and the health department and not a 50,000 okay second or so okay ready to vote Andy yes Dean yes Mike yes Peter yes Mor yes sah R yes so Greg just this is like crazy Theory world but the only way that this article 17 would actually come into play is if like I don't know a thousand extra kids signed up for the summer stuff and like the amount of money that went in the fund and then was to come out was greater than 400 Grand like is that no well so it just it just reaffirms that we have a revolving fund and we anticipate this amount of cash to go in and out of it but doesn't it it puts a spending limitation right correct correct no I'm just saying like crazy world you oh suddenly we had a thousand kids right like if you had a thousand kids and the amount of money that went in was great 4 grand which never happened but I'm just saying and then you actually couldn't pull more than 400 out is that what general fund to go into the general fund so if we didn't vote it it was Zero then Parks and Rec would have a hell of a time trying to figure out how to balance revenues this year and next year yeah no I'm just I know I'm in Crazy Theory world I'm just trying to see how that would ever even wi of life so we have to Old State law re to do it we do that article 22 is that always that that happens um recommendation on time meeting that's that's so if somebody stands up and says we want to pay for a new I I know what it is I didn't know we have to do something about it this well no we have to once the warrant's final we have to go through all of the nonfinancial Articles to make a recommendation and so we'll include it when we do that okay right so that's why we you have a recommendation on these other ones so we have AE always always say we take no position right but we vote on that every year for every single warrant articles right you're either you're going to want to do that at your next meeting or or report on the floor yeah okay just asking when is it's like voting on this on the second uh first April 1 yeah so we have other meetings so we're good you want to approve minutes we've had some the ones that Gil sent out they so you're moving making a motion to approve the minutes from February 7th yes have a second okay any discussion all in favor I abstain okay next meeting so we have to we have to go through the warned articles the nonin ones right um and we have the um so do when does a warrant go to press back it would be a fifth okay that's that's the latest I want if we go there by the fifth we'll make it so I'm s I'm thinking we perhaps don't need a meeting next week and that we meet on April 3 to approve the warrant articles and to approve the fincom report does that make sense to people is that okay make me a little nervous that's just be a little more comfortable if you finish up next week I can't I can't get it written and never reviewed by that there's absolutely no way that's that's um well select for doesn't voting what excuse me I mean this is the 21st and I can't even at this point figure out all these numbers that I need to get into my report because this is so over Place yeah no I would I support you um I've been writing working on it but I haven't worked on it for a couple of weeks so if I can try to get it to oh God to Andy so he can get it up on SharePoint so you have at least a week to work on it does that make sense with the expectation that it will be final in SharePoint before April 3rd so we're not rewriting things April 3D I mean it worked well last year right it works really well yeah yeah and you need it on the fifth right so that gives a day or two for Andrea to tweak up a graph or two that's right Andrea has to do stuff but that's usually pretty quick she she's gonna site that now she and she'll give you all those spreadsheets and numbers okay yeah so that'll help you yeah she can give me all the spreadsheets and numbers and if um can if we can include her on SharePoint two sure um yeah yeah then she'll have access of us can look at it yeah so give Greg and and um Andrea access too um and I'll so that that can as soon as you start at sir and send it to me and I'll send it back to you on the sh whatever you want wants to hide under cloak of Darkness as he further believe me some of us have been there before well one of the things I'm doing and I hope people won't have objection to this is my plan was to cut down on the amount under the schools the schools issue their own report and I've kind of felt that our section has been too detailed on the schools and that we might just have less in it um and because like last year the numbers were wrong anyway because they were all changed less is less is more less is more okay I believe that General I think it's just too long yeah that's what I'm I'm trying to do I I think it's really great you're doing that yeah I mean I've eliminated all that stuff on the dispatch and you know I'm trying to get rid of the and I I've eliminated the explanation on the capital exclusion um we're not using excess Levy capacity this year right so I don't need I was going to explain what excess Levy capacity is but since we're not using it I'm not going to explain it okay I keep pulling out and working on it but right now I have three CBA decisions to write too I've gotten really behind I'm sorry [Music] just for just for clarity so 7 o' on the third room to be determined yep the third is seven be room five right I don't see the need for it do you unless you'd like it what I think you're good with yeah Andre and I can certainly help okay yeah get your FAL numbers [Music] and I usually have to consult with and any way to make sure my numbers are placeholders second second all in favor thanks a lot thanks thanks and thanks thanks canit the button in the lower right hand cor say leave meeting