[0:05] Good evening everyone. Uh today is March 10th. It's uh 7:04

[0:11] and we have a quorum present. So I'm going to call the warrant committee

[0:15] meeting to order and we'll start with a roll call. Uh

[0:21] » present. >> Elizabeth Kelly present.

[0:23] » Johan present. >> Calahan present.

[0:25] » Ashley Duke present. >> Brent Nelson present. Peter

[0:29] Michaelelsson FEMA. >> Okay. Um we have a busy agenda tonight.

[0:35] Um and um you know, first we'll approve some minutes and then um talk about uh

[0:41] our calendar. We have a number of articles and the order that I thought we

[0:46] would we' take them in is the order they appear in the agenda. So we'll do the

[0:50] citizens petition first and then Castle Hill uh sewer system. Um we have a

[0:58] number of people here uh on that article and then um then we'll do appropriation

[1:05] to the conservation trust fund additional appropriation to Danielson

[1:09] Pond Dam the reappropriation of the remaining borrowing for the water

[1:13] treatment plantfill closure attorney and engineering

[1:19] appropriation of sledding hill engineering

[1:22] and a community CPR training revolving fund the town meeting core formed by law

[1:28] exchange in a local election date and the two special legislation articles to

[1:34] allow one to allow digital access and the other is for mandatory retirement

[1:37] age for fire department members. Now I I you know we went very long our

[1:43] last meeting but I think so my plan is to let's go to like 8:30ish not a hard

[1:49] stop but I want to save time to talk about the override modeling scenarios

[1:55] and the stuff that I sent around on the deliberation plan for that article.

[2:01] Um so that's that's our agenda. Okay. Okay. So, the first item,

[2:06] everybody have a chance to review the um record setting minutes that Ed sent out.

[2:13] I think it has to be a record for number of pages. Ed

[2:20] » any >> I was super impressed. Got a lot in

[2:24] there. >> Initials is AI.

[2:31] » They got done very quickly by AI. I couldn't believe said that within 24

[2:37] hours I saw the moment expression in my head. Let's go.

[2:40] » Yeah. >> Any comments or questions on that?

[2:44] » There was one I mean I can't pull it up right now of course but there was one

[2:50] note about somebody mentioned the 131 people on the wait list for Medfield

[2:56] preschool was attributed to me. I did not know that. So it was somebody else.

[3:02] Jeff Marson said that I

[3:06] » think that's right. >> Okay, so we can fix that.

[3:09] » Who said it? >> Jeff Marston.

[3:12] » Oh, >> I think the minutes the minutes reflect

[3:14] that Joe said it. So it was probably Jeff Jeff Marsman who said it. So just

[3:20] make that. So I would entertain a motion then with that edit uh to approve the

[3:27] March 2nd for committee minutes. >> So move.

[3:31] » Okay. Is there a second? >> Second.

[3:33] » Okay. Uh All right. I guess we can We don't have anyone. Oh, wait. Hold on.

[3:38] » There's no one. Okay. I guess we can uh do a uh voice voice vote. All in favor

[3:46] say I. >> I. I.

[3:48] » Opposed? No. Motion passes. Okay. Um, so the calendar, um, I think

[3:55] everybody should plan on having a meeting on that. That one date we were

[3:59] holding in April or maybe >> is that April 6?

[4:04] » April 6. It's a Monday. I think you, you know, based on the way things are lining

[4:09] up, we're going to need that meeting though. So, everybody should hold that

[4:14] date >> because we want people want to discuss

[4:17] opening day.

[4:21] Yeah, you can give us an update on how things went, right?

[4:23] » Yeah. Okay. >> The game will be over by then.

[4:27] » All right. Um All right. So, um

[4:34] Mr. Saladino, good evening. Come on up. Sit down and

[4:39] and join us. Um we have the uh

[4:45] citizens petition that was submitted by Pete. Um and uh that is

[4:55] just a second. Let me get my Everybody should have had a copy of that

[5:01] sent around. Um thank you for doing submitting the the questionnaire. Yeah,

[5:07] » we like it when petitioners do that. Uh it saves us a lot of headache and time.

[5:13] Uh so thank you for doing that. Um, I think you know, one thing before we we

[5:19] get into this, I think we will have um the park and wreck people in on the

[5:26] 24th. So, we'll have a chance to listen uh from them uh because they have an

[5:33] article for the module for the uh pre-fabricated building at Hinckley.

[5:39] Um and uh you know, they can talk to us about that. Um, one thing that we just

[5:46] found out today >> that you should know,

[5:48] » breaking news, >> there was a survey done now that was

[5:51] released. Okay. So, that that's right. >> Contain the results. Yeah.

[5:54] » But there's a copy right there if you want one.

[5:56] » Yeah. >> Right there.

[5:58] » Um, and um, so >> um, anyway, with that, I will turn it

[6:04] over to you and then, you know, talk uh, give us an overview maybe of the

[6:10] article. I'm assume everybody's read it. Okay. It's fairly long, but um you know

[6:16] and then I would open it up to questions.

[6:18] » That sounds good. >> Yeah. Well, I think it's great to be

[6:20] back. I happy to be back uh here at the war committee, but this time on the

[6:24] other side of of the uh aisle here. Um and for those that don't know,

[6:30] Elizabeth, I haven't had a chance to meet you. I was a war committed

[6:34] down in December. Thought there's some other ways I could contribute. One of

[6:37] the ways was through this citizen petition. Um, I think that we have a

[6:42] very narrow window uh with the timeline that's going on with the school and with

[6:47] other items in the town to put together a plan for the FAFSA center, which to my

[6:54] surprise remains without a plan this many months since it was closed and many

[7:01] more months and years since it was identified as a problem. First in 2017

[7:06] and then again uh in 2025. Uh that's not a great look and I was

[7:12] really surprised honestly that it fell to a citizen's petition for someone to

[7:17] come up with a plan. That's also not a great uh look. But to that end, I just

[7:23] jumped at it and tried to put together the best I could. Uh it may not be

[7:27] perfect, but it's what I thought would be the closest to what people were

[7:31] trying to do and and would like. And I I'll just base off of how I arrived at

[7:36] that. I went back and did a bunch of research and in 2017 was when that, you

[7:42] know, that architectural firm said, "Hey, there's a problem with the FAFS

[7:47] center." Uh, and in 2018, there was a a warrant at the 2018 annual town meeting

[7:54] which referenced $60,000 that had been previously allocated for a feasibility

[7:59] study for a new building for the to replace or for the parks and wreck and a

[8:05] motion passed in 2018 for $100,000 for an OPM study, feasibility study for a

[8:10] new building for the community for the parks and recreation. uh uh commission

[8:19] in 2019 and 2020 there was a townwide master plan and one of the top

[8:25] recommendations there were 12 recommendations and about a 400page

[8:28] document. So that these are really the distillation uh one of them said we

[8:33] should you know build an intergenerational commun community

[8:36] center and a new building for parks and wreck. So this was like what everyone

[8:40] wanted to do. It was well very clear. In 2021, $15,000 was established on the

[8:47] long range capital plan. So the town's been planning for this. In 2025,

[8:53] another uh there was a park and recreation last year. $165,000

[8:58] was allocated for a temporary uh use that did not actually come to pass with

[9:03] the one-year plan. As I recall, it was presented as a one-year plan for

[9:08] $165,000 for module buildings at Hinckley. And one of the reasons why

[9:13] Hinckley was not an as good of a solution is because then, as they've the

[9:18] parks and w has said is that there are um environmental problems that will

[9:24] prevent them from building a sufficiently large building at Hankley.

[9:28] So, there are two things going on at Hinckley. One is they're coming back

[9:31] again this year with a a second proposal for modulars which are temporary

[9:36] buildings. So they don't maybe necessarily have to go under the

[9:39] permanent planning and building committee which is a little bit sketchy.

[9:43] Uh but they're trying to have those be long-term solution. Uh so it's sort of a

[9:49] long-term band-aid. uh wasn't somehow it was not sufficient at $165,000 last

[9:55] year, but we're meant to believe that it will be uh somehow sufficient uh for the

[10:00] long term, but with less uh money um this time. I haven't really read their

[10:06] their uh their proposal. It doesn't really matter. The the key elements of

[10:11] what I'm trying to propose uh as a citizen's petitions here relate to

[10:15] FAFSA. It does not really have frankly has nothing to do with it. Uh the land

[10:19] is a beautifully located central asset for the community. Parks and recreation

[10:24] happens to be the uh the command and control of of the uh of the um asset. So

[10:31] they have a decision that they should be making uh as the stewards of that land,

[10:36] but that hasn't happened. Instead, they're proposing to build temporary

[10:40] buildings on a different part of their land. But the community has a vested

[10:44] interest in doing something with that land because it's centrally located. The

[10:48] kids can walk straight from Dale School. And uh that's why at last uh month when

[10:55] the parks and recck person came and presented to you, they talked about how

[10:59] they're having to do more with middle schoolers because the uh the older kids

[11:03] are able to make it to the UCCC, but the younger kids can't. The schedule doesn't

[11:06] work out. people aren't able to drop off the kids all the way over at UCCC

[11:10] because and by the way, they're only at UCCC on a one-year rolling lease. So,

[11:15] the town doesn't have a solution. And even the uh proposal for the the the

[11:20] buildings that are prefab buildings, which is another problem with their

[11:24] proposal, is prefab buildings really, but at Hinckley is a those are for

[11:28] administrative facilities. They're not designed to be used for curriculum and

[11:32] planning. So there's like a number of stacked problems, but the biggest one in

[11:36] my mind is that the community has already allocated 100 by what I can read

[11:41] is $60,000 in 2018 was a prior reference. $100,000 in 2018 for a

[11:47] feasibility study that never happened or if it did happen, it stopped. And one of

[11:51] the reasons it stopped was because there was all sorts of problems with park and

[11:53] wreck as we know. So we never got our feasibility study. We never got a plan.

[12:00] That's not my fault. That's not anyone in this in this room's fault, but it

[12:03] happened. And so now we're in a situation where the school building

[12:06] committee has done an amazing job and under difficult circumstances, but they

[12:10] are going forward with an OPM plan on that land next to it. So are we really

[12:16] going to build a school with a decrepit building on next to it? No, we're not.

[12:19] What they're have talked about and Peter, you can talk about it. They've

[12:23] talked about what should we do with the FAP land? Well, we'll plan to

[12:27] incorporate it in some scenarios. So their OPM is going to come to you guys

[12:31] in 10 months from now and say we do have some scenarios that incorporate the FAF

[12:35] center land and everyone's going to say well that's great because it could

[12:39] really be a better experience. It could be better better all these different

[12:43] reasons why it's more expansive all these pluses and positives and that's

[12:47] wonderful. It probably will be better. But the point is when you're faced with

[12:52] the comparison of better versus nothing, you're going to choose the better

[12:56] probably. But that being said, at next year's town meeting, whatever is

[12:59] proposed by the school building committee will require a twothirds vote

[13:03] by everyone there to incorporate any changes to approve the moving of the FAF

[13:08] land into the school because it's not the school's land. It is the uh parks

[13:14] and reccks land. And so if that's what everyone wants to do, especially if the

[13:18] school building, which is going to be with us for so many years, it's a

[13:21] wonderful idea. It could be a great idea, but it should have a chance to be

[13:25] compared against a proper plan that is not that that is not the school that is

[13:30] for the community that is envisioned in 2018 was funded in the long reach

[13:35] capital plan in 20 uh 2021 was highly featured in the 2019 and 2020 uh top

[13:41] recommendations in the uh annual what is the purpose of a uh annual plan if we

[13:47] don't ever do the things we recommend or even do the things that were studied

[13:51] that that were funded to do there's one last important point which is In 2020

[13:57] uh two after the sort of Dale failed vote, the town passed a bylaw update

[14:04] that said the permanent planning and building committee should be involved

[14:07] and should be in charge of all buildings that are not schools. I didn't I thought

[14:12] it was a good idea at the time and I I probably voted for it. Doesn't really

[14:15] matter. It's in the code that says the permanent planning building committee is

[14:19] in charge of all non-schools. So, this while a nice thing and actually I

[14:24] thought it was well written. I didn't see the results, this is not $165,000 of

[14:29] a feasibility study of what should we do for the the the beautifully central plot

[14:35] and it's not what we paid for. By the way, last year, last month, you guys

[14:40] listened to the parks and recreation committee talk about their revolving

[14:45] fund, which according to the annual uh budget shows that that money from those

[14:51] feasibility studies was in that budget was in that revolving fund. So, one of

[14:56] the reasons why I think you noted over five years the number kept going up.

[15:00] Well, one of the reasons is the budget, the money in that um in that account

[15:06] probably was not enough to fund a feasibility study. Well, I don't know

[15:09] exactly why they didn't make do these things over the last five years, but

[15:12] they didn't. And so, we don't have a feasibility study. And so, we're about

[15:16] to roll into next year's vote next year with no plan other than the school

[15:21] building committee's plan, which is kind of a bummer, especially since we spent

[15:25] all the money. Where did I think we may have spent the money? Maybe it's still

[15:27] sitting there. I don't know. They made a comment online of social saying that

[15:31] they still have the money. They can do a feasibility study, but they're not

[15:34] supposed to do a feasibility study. The town bylaw says that the permanent

[15:39] planning and building committee, for just this reason, should be in charge of

[15:43] doing a a um a uh as feasibility study because it incorporates things beyond

[15:49] parks and recreation committee. It should also incorporate the views of the

[15:52] council on aging on whoever else, right? because it's supposed to be for the the

[15:57] town beyond just the so the town right now is not following its own bylaws

[16:03] quite honestly and we are that would be like kind of a bummer and no big deal.

[16:08] We'll do a vote next year but when we do the time for the vote where there's a

[16:11] two-thirds override vote that makes it all go away and it's no problem because

[16:15] the town will have voted to be fine with that. We will only have had one solution

[16:20] which is the solution for the school on that land. And when you have a choice of

[16:25] either voting for the beautiful uh school uh uh uh proposal versus not,

[16:33] it's sort of a no-brainer that you're going to say, well, let's just make the

[16:35] best use of it. There's no other options that have been presented. But it's not

[16:39] fair that there's no other options that have been presented. We've allocated the

[16:42] money. We planned for it in the long range planning committee. The town's

[16:46] people said they wanted it and just nobody did it. And so that's why I did

[16:50] this citizens article because I just don't think it's right. I don't run a

[16:55] business that does construction. I don't even go to I didn't even go to the

[16:58] previous parks or recreation building. I been to the FAB center just a few times

[17:03] in my my life. My kids loved it. But my point is I think the town deserves a

[17:09] vote on what to do with that beautifully central located plot without just

[17:13] tossing it over to the school and saying we don't have a better plan or we can't

[17:17] afford it. Because theoretically we could afford it in five years from now

[17:20] or 10 years from now. It doesn't matter. We could do a plan and say we don't have

[17:23] the money now. We'll do it in 10 years. But the second we give it over to the

[17:26] school, it's gone forever. And then people are talking about trying to drive

[17:29] their kids up to the to the uh um uh you know all over all over town for other

[17:35] places to get their kids or uh whatever programming. And when it should be

[17:40] centrally located, it's right there. The kids can walk to it. All the kids love.

[17:43] That's one of the things that the kids love is the ability to go up town and

[17:47] and and do the things that they do after school. So I really think it reflects

[17:52] not great on I don't know not this organization here but in general the

[17:57] fact that we got to this point where we sort of are just okay with the fact that

[18:02] we're going to a not follow the bylaws b not follow the feasibility study that

[18:05] was passed in 2018 c not follow the long range planning committee and then

[18:09] totally ignore the uh the uh aspirations allocated that came out of the um annual

[18:17] planning uh the uh long range planning just seems

[18:21] you know suboptimal honestly and I think there's an opportunity

[18:26] according to the which you should ask them according to the parks and

[18:29] recreation committee they either spent the money or they have the money for the

[18:33] feasibility study so it actually could be net neutral there may need to be no

[18:37] but I don't think that we'll we'll be ask and then we'll ask this is we have a

[18:42] lot I have a lot of questions for you >> but anyway it should go to the permanent

[18:45] planning and building committee to do it not the what They said that they were

[18:49] doing in social posts. They said they were authorized in 2018 to do this. So,

[18:54] they're still going to do it. And this is what we got.

[18:57] » I don't think the feasibility. >> Nobody's saying that's a feasibility.

[19:00] » That's not a feasibility. >> That's a survey.

[19:03] » Well, why are they doing a survey at this point in 2026 when we have a 2020

[19:07] 2018 article that said, "Please do a feasibility study."

[19:12] We're they're jamming it in. >> We'll get into that. We'll get into

[19:15] that. Um so I mean I I have a lot of questions but I I want everybody else to

[19:21] get a chance to ask questions. Um you ask that just quick question beginning

[19:26] you said the timing is tight. Mhm. >> So

[19:31] » if let's say in May this petition is approved

[19:35] » that's when >> maybe

[19:37] » and is there I mean how does that can it get done correctly within that period of

[19:43] time between then and the following probably less than a year or maybe a

[19:48] year later you'll be you'll be looking at another article for the school. Is

[19:52] that correct Peter? So the school,

[19:57] » it's not a part of town meeting in 2027. There will be a special town meeting

[20:03] » and my guess is it'll be my prayer is that it would be in fall of 2027.

[20:09] » That would be good time. >> 15 16 months.

[20:14] » I would just answer your question. It's totally different to do OPM planning for

[20:19] something that has to align with the state and MSBA jumping through all the

[20:23] MSBA hoops for a school versus not doing that. This is just a straight up

[20:28] feasibility. Can we build a building? What should it look like? Architect

[20:30] bangs it out and you have, you know, but but when the school does their design,

[20:35] we're not going to build two parking lots next to each other. It'll be an

[20:39] integrated the timelines are integrated enough that each can take into account

[20:43] the others. uh design uh and and electric hookups and plumbing hookups.

[20:48] All of those synergies are important to do now, not let the school build their

[20:54] thing and then we'll get to it in 10 years or something. We're going to it's

[20:57] nothing's going to work together and you're going to wind up having to go

[20:59] more vertical. It's going to be a very it's going to be way more expensive,

[21:02] too. >> Yeah, presumably. I guess you could wait

[21:06] if you knew that the school had no interest today on that property. Then

[21:11] there wouldn't be as much of a rush on this. Well, I just think

[21:15] » it's not honestly I have maybe I want to build a house on that property. It

[21:20] doesn't matter who wants who has interest in what. It's not theirs. It is

[21:25] not the school's property. It is the parks and recreation property and they

[21:30] should have a plan or they should have what according to the town bylaw they're

[21:34] supposed to ask the select board to ask the permanent planning and building

[21:38] committee to do a feasibility study. >> Okay. Let's let's talk about that

[21:42] because I think just of misunderstanding that that point. Okay.

[21:46] » I think >> my understanding is that in 2018 the

[21:51] select board directed the perming plan and building committee uh to begin a

[21:56] feasibility stud. >> Okay. For a future park and wreck

[22:00] facility. Great. >> And they initi the per plantability

[22:05] initiated the process in 2018. They hired abacus.

[22:08] » Okay. >> And they held public meetings. Right.

[22:11] » The study was paused >> for a number of reasons which you

[22:15] haven't talked about but I will. >> Okay.

[22:18] » Well, it it was paused because of uh the Dale Street Elementary School project.

[22:23] » Okay. >> Um the people who

[22:27] the the chair of that committee was also the chair of the school building

[22:31] committee. >> Okay.

[22:33] » Mike Quinn. And uh once we got accepted into the uh

[22:40] the MSBA program, >> he had a lot on his plate, right? He had

[22:44] he had to be the chair of the school building committee and all of a sudden

[22:49] » priorities, you know, he had he had had to deal with priorities, right? So the

[22:52] school building >> more volunteers here

[22:54] » school building was more important than the park and rec to

[22:58] » so uh so that was you know that was uh one thing the other was co and then

[23:04] » the other is um if you remember that whole process of

[23:09] what the option that went to town meeting to get voted on 2021

[23:16] » was a option that had park and wreck using the Dale Street building as their

[23:21] permanent home. Okay. So, if you're park and wreck and you

[23:26] start a feasibility study, then you pause it for these reasons,

[23:31] it makes sense that why nothing got done with it because they thought they had a

[23:35] place. Why build a building if I can use the Dale Street, right? So, they waited

[23:39] for the the vote. The vote failed, >> right? That was five years ago, though.

[23:43] And it's been two years since it was structurally condemned.

[23:46] And then they had a couple years where they had a director of the department

[23:51] » that uh resigned was indicted. I mean it was uh not a good situation.

[23:57] » So all those reasons >> uh we are where we are today. Okay. I'm

[24:02] not I'm not making excuses but I'm trying to balance out the story. Okay.

[24:06] No, I mean I think that was a good story actually honestly last annual meeting

[24:11] when we said ah this is a tough situation you know um the structural

[24:17] engineer said uh the report came in report came in in November and it came

[24:22] time for the the warrants to be written and by the warrants closed and there was

[24:26] a temporary solution that was proposed that was voted on at last year's town

[24:30] meeting so that was I think a reasonable like there's nothing anyone can do right

[24:35] it was a tough situation But this is this year's timeline. It was

[24:38] a year later and there's no new thing. >> So let let me ask you a question. Have

[24:45] you met with Park and Recreck to find out what they've done?

[24:48] » Emmailed Park and Recre twice and they said to come to their regular meetings

[24:54] which were scheduled after the deadline for this warrant submission. But but

[25:00] this isn't evolving. >> I know it was evolving. I did meet I did

[25:03] I did meet with the SBC. Uh I did a nice zoom with them and they had really great

[25:08] feedback and I think they're doing a great job.

[25:10] » But I do think the park and wreck is is uh not supposed to be doing this in the

[25:15] first place. This is not their it is supposed to be done by the PB.

[25:19] » So let me let's talk about that because park and wreck is an elected board.

[25:25] commission isn't elected, >> right?

[25:27] » Just like the select board, they sort of equal, right, in terms of they they're

[25:31] both elected officials. >> Um the uh the PB, you know, the PBGC is

[25:39] appointed by the select board, >> right? Uh they they have um you know,

[25:47] met with park and wreck over the last two years. They've gone through a

[25:52] process with them where each step along the way they met with the sele. They met

[25:57] with park and wreck. They've talked about the fact that they needed a

[26:01] temporary solution. They looked at modulars. All that was discussed with

[26:05] the planning the permanent plan building committee like Quinn did. Uh and they

[26:11] have been, you know, working with them. It's not like it's not like they've

[26:15] they've ignored them. They've been working together. They know they know

[26:20] there's a shortterm and a long-term problem, right? And they're trying to

[26:24] figure out a they've said it in front of the select board. They said there's

[26:28] there's a short-term need here and then there's a longer term need which has

[26:32] been around for a long time. It's it's sort of the the fifth wheel of the of

[26:37] the town. Nobody, you know, we we've got we've got um a long history of ignoring

[26:42] park and wreck uh building, right? That's that's a fact. Uh but the fact

[26:47] that in the last year and a half that they've done nothing I don't think is

[26:51] appropriate characterization. >> Yeah, I disagree with that. I think that

[26:56] they have I mean they've they've they've uh

[27:01] they've they've focused on this short-term solution, you know, in the

[27:06] meantime they're they're living out of like a temporary structure.

[27:09] » Do you think that the town believes that there's a plan for the FAFSA center?

[27:14] » No. I know because there isn't. >> That doesn't mean they've done nothing.

[27:18] » Okay, fine. They've done something. There is still no plan for the FAFSA

[27:21] center years after it it's been structurally condemned.

[27:24] » Okay. Well, let's let's get it right, though. Let's not say they've done

[27:27] nothing. >> Well, they they should be in charge. The

[27:30] the the the town bylaw says explicitly the permanent planning and building

[27:35] committee shall be in charge of all buildings that are not schools. They are

[27:39] not in charge. >> And they were they were they were uh

[27:42] working with park and rack. They don't they don't in

[27:44] » 2019. >> They don't just go and run out run

[27:48] around doing stuff without other departments cooperation. It has

[27:52] » that's what the bylaw says. No, that's what the bylaw says. I'm going to pull

[27:55] it out. I have it. It says the permanent plan. It

[27:57] » doesn't say they will ignore other department. They haven't been empowered

[28:01] in the first place. >> They have been empowered. The select

[28:04] board appointed them to >> 2018.

[28:06] » Yeah. >> And so here we are in 2026.

[28:09] » Yeah. >> And so now we're about to give the the

[28:11] land away to the Where's our plan? So things move. Let's let's agree that

[28:16] things move painfully slowly in this town.

[28:21] » That's not an excuse. >> Well, it's may not be an excuse, but

[28:25] it's true. It's I'm sitting on the school building committee and God, I

[28:29] wish we passed that vote in 2021, but here I am. Um, and we're going to keep

[28:35] sgging through this. I also just want to say nobody knows what form the new spoo

[28:41] is going to take or where it's going to be placed on the land. We know it's

[28:46] going to be in that location at Dale because the voters made it super clear

[28:51] they didn't want it up at Weock but um but I don't know if we're going to

[28:56] use that space for building or not. No one knows. We're gonna get a range of

[29:01] options from first we have to pick an architect. That's going to be a skull

[29:05] process. Then the architect's going to give us a range of options which we'll

[29:10] have to mull over and then have a series of community meetings where people come

[29:15] in and give their input very slow. You're nodding your head like oh god

[29:19] Michaelelsson talking about how slow it is. But it really is a slow deliberate

[29:24] process and it's just got to play out. No, no, but you we you've already had

[29:29] meetings where you said you're going to design on top of that land. So, of

[29:34] course, those are going to be the options.

[29:36] I've watched >> we're going to consider that among a

[29:40] range of options. >> So, of course, those are going to be the

[29:42] best options because it's going to look much better when it uses twice as much

[29:45] land. >> I don't neither. Let me let me ask you

[29:50] let me ask I have a long list of questions here but in your petition you

[29:54] talked about that voters have clearly communicated a desire for bathbased

[29:59] community center and I'm just curious how do you reconcile I know you probably

[30:03] haven't seen it but in the survey >> I did have not seen the survey

[30:06] » the survey they just did they >> I don't like it

[30:09] » they asked the question and 25% said they prefer FAF

[30:14] » okay >> 45% prefer other sites

[30:18] » okay great >> and 30% unsure. So, how do you how are

[30:22] you so sure? >> I'm not so sure. Well,

[30:28] the >> you say it's clearly communicated.

[30:30] What's your evidence? >> I just ran through like a decade of

[30:34] please go do >> from the 700 person survey.

[30:39] » The 700 person survey says that we should go.

[30:43] » It's not clear where the where the location should be based on that survey.

[30:47] In previous meetings this year, the town has said, "We don't even know where we

[30:52] can build up in uh um by the hospital hill." The town came up and protested

[31:00] line out the door saying, "We don't want to."

[31:02] » When you say the town, it wasn't 700 people.

[31:05] » Okay? >> It might have been 20 or 25. This is a

[31:08] opinion of 700 people. that you can listen if you're gonna this is clearly

[31:14] delivered minutes before I show up. You have written notes about all the steps

[31:18] that have been taken on how many how this has not been delayed. But in real

[31:23] life, this FAP center has sat there for 18 months after being structurally

[31:28] condemned. We have our kids out of UCCC on a rolling lease and we're going to

[31:33] put trailers at Hinkley. And you're telling me I haven't done the research?

[31:37] » No, no, no. I'm not saying that. I'm asking you how did you reach your

[31:41] conclusions? >> I reached my conclusions based on the

[31:44] decade of people saying please build and fine if if you want to amend it and we

[31:48] can amend it on the floor and say let's put $200,000 to figure out where we

[31:54] should do a community center. But I do think the voters should have more than

[31:58] one option which is a school that they're going to have to review by the

[32:02] time they get to choose what school uh plan they want to go after. Why why

[32:07] would why does the uh why should the town meeting override a survey

[32:13] » a survey >> that uses data to evaluate options?

[32:18] » Because we have a beautiful piece of land in the center of our town that the

[32:26] the body in charge of taking care of it has not done that.

[32:31] » Okay. I mean, and then they they show up with a piece of paper survey saying they

[32:37] don't even have they don't even have to do it. This gets is a get out of jail.

[32:40] Wait, we don't even have to do it. They don't have to do what?

[32:44] » I ever come up with a plan for now. >> That's not That's not what they said.

[32:48] That's not what the survey >> I haven't read it. That's because it was

[32:51] delivered. >> It's a factual survey. That's that's the

[32:55] results of the survey. Okay. I don't know if you saw the select board meeting

[32:58] in January, but they talk about >> the money select board meeting in

[33:02] January. >> They talked about the survey then they

[33:04] also talked about that the money they have they can allocate towards

[33:08] feasibility study which I think you mentioned in your petition.

[33:10] » Yeah. >> So

[33:11] » So why haven't they they're they're working on it.

[33:15] » No, they're not. They're working on it. >> You haven't met with them.

[33:18] » I believe all right. I mean the the you know the other thing is I think um the

[33:26] school building committee just put in their newsletter

[33:30] um that the FAF center will only be considered if park and wreck declines

[33:36] the use of it. >> They're proposing to use

[33:40] » survey shows I'm just telling you this is what the school building committee

[33:45] put on their newsletter. They're they're looking at it as if we're only going to

[33:50] do something with that land and park a wreck.

[33:52] » They want to stay as far away from this train wreck as possible.

[33:55] » Okay. Well, I'm just telling you that's that's what

[33:57] » that's a very smart that's a very smart thing for them to do.

[33:59] » That's what the committee put out. >> Love

[34:04] um >> the the body in charge of coming up with

[34:08] a plan for FAB is proposing something completely across town at Hinckley. Does

[34:13] that give you any indication as to the likelihood that there's going to be a

[34:16] plan? >> They haven't proposed anything.

[34:18] » That there is a warrant for them to do something at Hankley. What are you

[34:21] talking about? >> It's temporary.

[34:22] » That's not That's not the That's not the community center.

[34:25] » I know. There's not going to be a community center. That's the point. It's

[34:28] going to get put as part It's going to be the parking lot of the Dale Street

[34:31] School. >> Okay, let's talk about that. They they

[34:34] have money to complete the feasibility stuff

[34:37] » since 2018. >> Yes.

[34:40] » I know. I agree. They're they're I mean, we talked about

[34:43] » they're not in charge of that feasibility study anymore based on the

[34:45] updated bylaws in 2022. They're not supposed to be doing feasibility

[34:49] studies. The town passed the bylaw saying don't do that.

[34:53] » They're going to be working with the permanent plan and building committee.

[34:56] » Doesn't matter. >> They've already been authorized to work

[34:58] with the >> a decade ago and they haven't done it.

[35:01] » So, they haven't spent the money. It hasn't been completed. It hasn't even

[35:04] » it's been paused >> for the last five years

[35:05] » and they're going to finish it is is what they

[35:08] » And the reason why the way this is even done is because I've been pushing on

[35:11] this. There was no plan for this until I started pushing on this until my warrant

[35:15] was done. This was never going to happen. And also none of this

[35:19] » I don't know that. I don't know. We'll ask them when they come in.

[35:23] » You should ask them why >> you're making an accusation. I don't

[35:26] know if it's true. >> It just so happens to be delivered the

[35:29] day I >> So So I'm presenting here. Just to be

[35:32] totally fair, I I got an email. >> You think I'm being unfair?

[35:36] » I Yeah, I do. Really do. Yeah, because I got an email on February 20. Hear me

[35:40] out. Two seconds. I got an email on February 23rd saying the survey is

[35:44] active. Please take it. Take five, seven minutes. I took it then. I got an email

[35:48] last Friday saying, "Today is the last day for the survey." I saw that.

[35:52] » We got it today. They probably didn't pull it together over the weekend. Okay.

[35:56] They've had 36 hours to finalize this. And you're upset that you just got it. I

[36:00] just got it too. >> I know

[36:03] we're not like hiding the ball here. >> I think that's an accusation that's

[36:09] » that it's not accusation that is accurate. This is dated uh yesterday.

[36:15] » Okay. And if you had come in two weeks from now, that would have been a lot

[36:20] better. >> Let's call it happen stance. It just so

[36:22] happens. >> Just so happens.

[36:24] » Yeah, it just so happens. Well, it doesn't seem like you guys are in favor

[36:29] of this type of thing. I think that's really disappointing. You know, very

[36:33] combative. >> No, we're not going to vote on it.

[36:36] » This has not really been a very great idea, Pete. Glad you came up with all

[36:40] the ideas on how to push this forward. Uh it doesn't seem that way, honestly.

[36:46] » I think that if you want my personal finding, I think that your proposal is

[36:51] not aligned with stakeholders um their readiness. Okay. I I think that

[36:58] um it it sort of conflicts with ongoing ongoing park and wreck planning. I agree

[37:02] with you. It's not line with park and wreck, but they're not the stakeholder.

[37:06] » Well, they're elected officials. >> No, but the permanent planning and the

[37:08] bylaw says that the other body is supposed to do it and we're ignoring

[37:11] that. >> They're not not in isolation. Okay. They

[37:14] don't do anything in isolation. Uh they work they work with the pound

[37:19] department. Um and then um and I think you left out some reasons for the delays

[37:26] that you know for the last five or six years that that's I just wanted to make

[37:29] » put in more reasons why there was five or six years of delay.

[37:32] » I think it would have could have been more balanced. Yeah. Yeah. Um

[37:37] so I think um I think your request for funding maybe we could talk about that.

[37:41] I think that's unnecessary. >> Okay, good. Yeah, the money probably

[37:44] exists. >> I think the money is there already.

[37:46] » I agree with you. >> It's not in the revolving fund. It's

[37:49] actually held it's it's separate outside the revolving fund. This is money that

[37:53] was never spent that the town put in an account. Okay.

[37:56] » Good. >> Um

[37:58] so you know and we just got the survey so we have to consider that. Okay. Um

[38:04] but >> you know nobody's we're not going to

[38:08] vote on this today but I just wanted to you know get answers to my questions.

[38:15] Yeah. Answer many of them. Um, so, um,

[38:21] the Council on Aging, did you reach out to them?

[38:25] » Uh, I didn't reach out to the Council on Aging. No.

[38:28] » Okay. So, they they as far as I know, they haven't requested to relocate.

[38:32] » No, they No, they're not going to relocate. That's not the intent is for

[38:34] them to relocate. The intent is for them to have additional space.

[38:39] » Uh, so it, you know, >> and and have they said they need it?

[38:44] Uh I listen if they don't want the space then we can have more space for the kids

[38:48] at the craft center which is designed for parks and w uh if they don't want to

[38:53] be involved then they can choose not to be involved. The design I mean that's

[38:56] what the design will decide. That's the feasibility part. What should we do with

[39:01] the space that has been sitting decrepit in our town for the last two years?

[39:06] That's what the that's been budgeted for seven years. Yeah. That's what the

[39:09] feasibility study is about. And when it comes down to the PB PBC,

[39:15] » um, you know, you you seem to mention that

[39:19] they've been excluded from the process, right?

[39:22] » They were supposed to be the the lead ring leader

[39:24] » and they and they have been engaged. >> Not I'm not talking about engaged.

[39:27] » Yeah. And and so what's what's preventing them uh from

[39:34] participating in the process? What's preventing them

[39:37] » in your opinion >> is the way the bylaw is written is the

[39:41] park and recreation after 2022 passed the town passed it the parks and

[39:46] recreation is supposed to request help from the select board for a feasibility

[39:52] study for their needs. They did not do that. What they incented was they said

[39:58] we already received approval from the voters in 201 18 to do a feasibility

[40:04] study. we don't need to ask requests. We have prior authorization in 2018.

[40:10] » So, just a just a point of clarification, which I think will will

[40:12] settle some of this. Um, the update to the bylaw in 2022 was just adding in the

[40:18] new school committee bylaw. The actual bylaw asking the permanent planning and

[40:22] building committee to do this was in 2018. And that's when parks and

[40:25] recreation and the select board had permanent planning and building

[40:29] committee take this project over in 2018. That's how you ended up with 2022

[40:34] change was just adding in school. >> That was just at the school. Yeah, the

[40:38] school building committ. >> Yeah.

[40:39] » Um, have you had any discussions with the

[40:43] select board? >> Yeah, I emailed them. All three of them

[40:48] » like an in-person discussion back and they provided two

[40:53] » two of them provided feedback. >> Two select members provided feedback.

[40:57] Okay. >> Uh, and what was their direction? Uh,

[41:01] one was like, "This is awesome." And one said, "Uh, you know, I'm think you

[41:06] should talk to the parks and recreational committee."

[41:09] » Okay. Which you haven't done yet. >> Which I've not done now.

[41:12] » Okay. >> Instead, I have their their input right

[41:15] here. It's not my job.

[41:18] » It's not my job to talk to the parks and recreation. I'm a citizen, right?

[41:22] They're the ones with eight years of no plan, not me. Uh it's not my job to go

[41:28] running around collaborating with the different organizations.

[41:32] » I I don't want to debate what your job is. You've submitted a citizen.

[41:35] » I try very hard to move this forward. Yes.

[41:38] » Okay. And we're we have to make an evaluation and recommendation meeting.

[41:43] So you haven't talked to all these parties that factors into our decision.

[41:47] » I've talked to the select board. I've talked to the town council on Christmas

[41:51] Eve. I talked to everybody but park and recreation because they did not want to

[41:54] meet with me and said join our regular meeting which happened to be after all

[41:59] this stuff was due. I'm sorry. And then they canceled the meeting and then they

[42:03] finally had one a month ago that I was able to attend which I didn't go to.

[42:09] » Um but my my what my contribution is not supposed to be to go to a meeting sit in

[42:17] the audience and say hey you guys really should consider it. It's not.

[42:21] » No, but if you bring a proposal forward to spend money and direct uh you know

[42:28] committees, >> then we have a that's a fair question to

[42:32] ask. How how have you considered the input of other other committees?

[42:36] » I I it seems self-evident that a plan to do something with the FAP center does

[42:43] not need me to propose it. uh that should not require me to go to their

[42:48] meeting to say, "Hey, you guys really ought to uh consider a plan to come up

[42:53] with the replacement for the FAFS center."

[42:55] » Yeah. >> Uh

[42:57] » so the absence of that does not somehow make this illtimed or uh somehow off

[43:04] agenda. We have a building that's sitting there decrepit that we're

[43:08] storing uh we're storing material in,

[43:13] » right? I mean it seems to me that the core issue here is not lack of

[43:17] alignment. >> It's I mean the core issue is lack of

[43:22] alignment. Excuse me. It's not lack of study. We we don't have all the parties

[43:27] or stakeholders aligned. Okay. It's not that we haven't studied it. We've done

[43:31] multiple studies. We don't have multiple we don't have time. Um, and uh, so any

[43:38] rate, um, >> I don't even I don't even have to be

[43:42] involved in a plan, >> but I would hope that there is a plan.

[43:46] » They don't have to include me. I don't need to be aligned in anything. The

[43:48] parks and recreation committee and or the permanent planning and building

[43:52] committee should come up with a plan to go do what they're supposed to do.

[43:57] » Yeah. >> And it doesn't need a survey to say we

[43:59] should come up with a plan to fix the FAB center. I don't think we should do a

[44:04] feasibility study which has been budgeted, allocated, and hasn't been

[44:07] done in 8 years. >> I mean, we have a process. If you don't

[44:11] like what elected officials are doing, like the park and wreck people, if you

[44:15] don't like the way they're managing the department or making decisions or moving

[44:20] things forward, >> you can do a citizens petition, which is

[44:22] what I did, >> or you can run for park.

[44:24] » I don't want to run for park and recreation committee.

[44:26] » I want the town. You want to run for select board?

[44:29] » No, I I want the town. This has nothing to do with select board. I want the town

[44:33] to vote to say, "Please go do this plan in time for the uh ability to have a

[44:40] synergy with the Dell Street School." It's really a very simple proposal.

[44:43] » I mean, what I heard that they're going to do with the school building committee

[44:46] is work in tandem with >> No, they're not.

[44:49] » You just said, you put it. They want nothing to do with this project.

[44:52] » I didn't say that. >> The school committee The school building

[44:55] » put words in my mouth. I didn't >> You read out the thing. that says we

[44:58] will wait to see what happens and recommend recommended by park and

[45:01] recreation. >> Park and Recre is moving forward with

[45:04] their feasibility study. They're doing a fiscal they just hired somebody uh who

[45:08] did they hire in in February. >> Uh they saw a proposal from Hunden

[45:13] Associates Associates based on the cost. they're going to go out.

[45:16] » And so they're they're they're they're they're starting with programming and

[45:19] revenue associated with that programming before they jump into a feasibility

[45:24] study because they want to know what can they afford, how big of a building can

[45:28] they support. All right? Then they're going to do a feasibility study. That's

[45:31] their plan. That's what we'll hear from them. Uh I assume, but u they're going

[45:36] to do that in combination with the school building committee over the next

[45:40] year. And as they make then they're doing they're going to look at sites.

[45:45] They're going to do all that stuff. And as they make decisions, they'll let the

[45:49] school building committee know. Yeah. Either we want the FAF land or no,

[45:54] we don't want it. And then the school building committee will either they'll

[45:59] they'll they'll either delete a scenario or they'll they'll consider a scenario.

[46:04] » Yeah, I disagree with you. It's not really up to the parks and recreation

[46:08] committee to come up with a plan for Babson. It's not that's not their job.

[46:15] » It is. >> Now, you think it's the permanent plan

[46:16] in building >> as per the town bylaws.

[46:19] » What does it say in the >> Let's read it.

[46:21] » I don't know. Let's Let's Do we have the bylaws? What?

[46:23] » It says it very very clearly. >> Yeah, let's read it.

[46:26] » I'm not losing my mind. >> It says that they don't have to talk to

[46:30] any other department or get input from any other department.

[46:33] » They should do their job. >> It says that in the bylaw. No, the

[46:35] primary planning ability committee could do it however they want. That's I don't

[46:38] have a point. They don't have a >> Is that the best way to move forward?

[46:41] Not collaborating with anyone. >> I'm not talking. It has nothing to do

[46:44] with I'm not telling the them how to do their job. They are empowered to do it

[46:49] the way that they're supposed to do it. It has nothing to do with it.

[46:54] All right. Well, >> that's what's going through my mind is

[46:57] this board seems perfectly capable of asserting itself to assert its

[47:05] jurisdiction over things if it wants to, >> right?

[47:07] » And if it wanted to say no, damn it, I completely agree.

[47:13] Building a not park and wreck, they would say so. It says it in the

[47:20] » they our current select board would stamp stamp found on the table and stamp

[47:26] their feet and say so and and and they're not they are cons

[47:31] they seem to be going along with the project as

[47:36] » any user department seeking to construct reconstruct alter enlarge a building

[47:41] under its jurisdiction shall file a project application with the select they

[47:46] did not do time Go ahead. >> Okay. They they have met with the

[47:51] select. >> They didn't say me.

[47:53] » Huh? >> They're supposed to file a project

[47:56] application for the replacement of the FAF center which they did not do.

[48:00] » They did something in 2018. >> No, that's not that. That's not this.

[48:03] » That's it's a replacement for the FAFSA center. What they did in 2018. They did

[48:07] it. >> Okay.

[48:08] » Yes. They did. It shall refer to the applica it the select board shall refer

[48:13] the application to the select board committee or in the case of a school

[48:16] they should do it to the school building committee. So it should be referred to

[48:20] this permanent planning and building committee where they can do all the

[48:23] stakeholder alignment. It's not my job to align with everybody's stakeholders.

[48:27] The town bylaw says they should. >> Does it say that they shouldn't

[48:31] collaborate with the department? >> Of course they should. I'm not saying

[48:34] they should. >> Okay. You agree with that? Okay. Good.

[48:36] Why don't we Why don't we end on that then? Uh, and unless there's other

[48:41] questions, we've taken up a lot of time on this one article. So, um, all right.

[48:47] Um, we may have more questions. Uh,

[48:50] » I'll do my best to answer to you. Uh, but, um, thank you. Appreciate the time.

[48:55] » Thank you for your time. >> Okay.

[49:01] » All right. Um, is it Tom Harrington?

[49:06] » Yes. Um Bob Reer and Tom Harrington. Why

[49:12] don't you guys come on up and um so

[49:17] you can just introduce yourself to the committee and then uh we'll start get

[49:22] you know this is the Castle Hill sewer system that we're going to talk about.

[49:28] » Huh? And you're and this is our our resident expert on this talk.

[49:33] » Let's not go that far. I don't need another

[49:36] uh Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Myers Tom Harrington. I'm an

[49:40] attorney with Harrington Heat with offices in Welsley, Massachusetts, and

[49:44] I'm here representing the Castleville Sewer Association.

[49:49] And I'm Bob Reer. I live at 275 North Street. I was incorrect. You asked me

[49:54] how long I'd been in town or I was telling you how long I've been in town

[49:58] earlier in the elevator. I told you 40 years. I think it's more like 50.

[50:02] » Wow. >> So, it beat this guy over here.

[50:06] Uh but uh in any case uh I've run uh the physical plant along with the assistance

[50:12] of other people in our neighborhood. Um uh that is located at Farm Street and

[50:19] West Street serves 24 homes uh many along Deer all the homes along Deerfield

[50:25] Drive and then along North Street heading down towards Farm Street uh uh

[50:32] on the easterly side of North Street. And uh so I've had the privilege of

[50:39] knowing what's there for since 1986. >> Great. Excellent.

[50:47] » Okay. So, uh how do you want to introduce this article? Do you want them

[50:51] to talk about it and the overview and then

[50:54] » Yeah, I mean I mean I could also just give you the quick quick down and dirty

[50:59] and you all can correct me where I got it wrong

[51:02] because I have done a lot of reading on this.

[51:06] So you know sewer infrastructure generally lags suburban development many

[51:11] Massachusetts towns. So, private sewer associations were very common in the

[51:15] 1950s through about the 1980s. And developers or neighborhood associations

[51:20] would install pump stations and force manes, connect to a municipal sour uh

[51:25] sewer line or treatment facility, and then they would maintain the system

[51:28] privately. And it allowed subdivisions to be built even when the town was

[51:32] either unwilling or unable to extend public sewer service. And Castle Hill is

[51:37] one of these legacy private systems owned by this association. in this

[51:42] group, you know, they've got a force man, a pump station. There's some

[51:45] easements. And for those that don't know, a force man, it's a pressurized

[51:49] pipe that carries waste water from a pump station, typically uphill or over a

[51:54] long distance till it reaches a gravity sewer system and goes out. So, it

[51:58] literally is forced pumping it all all out. Um, maintenance. Uh, homeowners

[52:05] typically fund electricity, pump maintenance, repairs, replacement

[52:08] reserves. Um but as the infrastructure ages, replacement costs can be extremely

[52:13] high. Um and municipal takeovers typically arise for a number of reasons.

[52:18] One of them is that force mains typically have a 30 to 50 year life. Um

[52:23] when they approach failure, repairs can become expensive. Uh environmental risk

[52:27] increases. Um you know, a failing force main can

[52:32] cause sewage spills, groundwater contamination.

[52:35] Uh there's also governance issues and it's also once you get to the point

[52:40] where a municipality has a sewer system it you know system integration

[52:45] integrating a private system can improve reliability standardized maintenance

[52:49] allow capital planning through sewer enterprise funds. Um

[52:54] basically here then went back through a series of you know years here there was

[53:01] some minutes from the board of water and sewage. Um, back in 2018, uh, the town

[53:07] lawyer gave an opinion that it would be appropriate for Medfield to accept

[53:11] ownership of the pumping station and the force main system contingent upon an

[53:16] inspection of the equipment, provision for correction of functional

[53:20] deficiencies with the idea that costs for any required remediation would be

[53:24] paid by the the Castle Hill folks. um you know they would get a engineering

[53:30] inspection done, identify the issues, fix them and then after the upgrades are

[53:36] completed the transfer is then made to the town to avoid the town inheriting a

[53:41] large deferred maintenance liability. And

[53:45] basically what I understand here is that as of now more or less all of the

[53:51] homeowners um have agreed to um fund what is

[53:57] necessary to bring it up to code in order for the town to take over the

[54:05] private system. With this being almost like in legal

[54:09] parlament a sign and close. We're willing to sign on it, but we're not

[54:14] actually willing to spend the money until the town votes to agree to take

[54:20] it, but assuming the town agrees to take it, town meeting, then these folks would

[54:27] go out, spend the money, bring it up to code exactly what needs to happen, and

[54:33] then it would be transferred over to the town of Medfield.

[54:38] The the only other kind of like real issue that I think I saw was there was

[54:44] one that was um if sewer infrastructure in Massachusetts if sewer infrastructure

[54:50] is located within a public rideway municipalities have responsibility for

[54:57] excavating roadway damage, public safety and emergency response even if a pipe is

[55:02] privately owned. So right now the town is in a bit of a a hybrid um situation,

[55:09] an awkward sit situation where ownership and operational responsibility

[55:14] diverges, but if there was ever any sort of emergency issue, it's on the town to

[55:20] respond. And so um you know the town may have to close the road, excavate,

[55:26] coordinate, repair even if the association technically wants the pipe

[55:29] and it risks uh creates risk for the town without control of the asset.

[55:34] makes a whole lot of sense to just transfer the private sewage system to

[55:38] the town. At the same time, here in 2026, we've got financial budgetary

[55:43] issues. The town doesn't want to take this on. Um doesn't want to assume

[55:48] ownership without upgrades because then those costs will shift to all sewer

[55:52] rateayers and not just the association. But as far as I understand association's

[55:58] willing and standing ready to take care of that,

[56:03] we just have to have the town vote of town meeting that assuming that happens,

[56:08] they'll take it into the system. You better have the Yeah, those

[56:15] association can't afford all of the repair back and it's a $200,000

[56:22] number and does the association have the wheel to to make those repairs or it's

[56:27] just that it's just null and void can you don't do anything. So I think I

[56:31] think that's what it comes back to when I was reviewing old minutes. You know,

[56:35] there was one thing from the 2018 meeting that mentioned the cost of

[56:40] upgrades, you know, between pump station rehabilitation could easily run on $

[56:45] 2018, $500,000 plus homeowner disagreement

[56:50] between splitting the capital costs between the homeowners, you know, and

[56:55] then uncertainty about the infrastructure.

[56:58] Not saying this is what happened here, but one thing in my research

[57:01] associations sometimes delay inspections to avoid discovering additional

[57:06] expensive problems. But it you know so the past minutes

[57:12] suggest you know there may have been a combination of all of that but at the

[57:16] same time when I was talking with Britney and Christine earlier about this

[57:20] it sounds like the inspection the engineering inspection has already been

[57:25] done. punch list has already been pulled together. They've already gotten quotes

[57:31] for exactly what it's going to cost. The 24 homeowners within the association

[57:36] have said, "Yes, we are prepared to fund this right now." With the one caveat

[57:42] being, "We want the town to take it. We'll fix it before we give it to you.

[57:47] We want the town to take." I think that's we're just about there. So, you

[57:52] you did a great job. Like I said, better than I could have

[57:56] done. >> Yeah.

[57:58] » The uh where we are is uh you're correct. We're looking for the town to

[58:04] support this and be willing to take it over at which point we would have the

[58:09] responsibility to uh replace the pumps. We just replaced the generator. We had a

[58:15] fire >> uh and uh that's already been done. Uh

[58:19] we've scoped the pipes along Deerfield Drive. Um and uh they look incredibly

[58:27] cleanly. We have not scoped all the all the pipes. We're willing to do what we

[58:34] need to do to pay to put this into condition for the town to take it and be

[58:39] satisfied with that. Um >> what's the estimate of that? Our our

[58:45] estimate now is I think we're looking at closer to

[58:50] probably $250,000 or so if we do it if

[58:55] » split split between all the >> Oh yeah. We would divide this amongst

[58:58] all the homeowners which would be less than anybody putting in a septic system

[59:02] or replacing. >> Yeah. We do not have total agreement on

[59:06] that because we're waiting to find out if the town will accept it in that

[59:11] condition and we have already informed all of our members that this is the

[59:16] direction that we are headed in and that we are looking forward to town meeting

[59:22] being successful for this and uh that we will be start to look for the funding

[59:27] from them. So the order of uh the order of events is that the article at town

[59:34] meeting will be to accept this >> it be it'll be to authorize the board of

[59:39] water and sewage to take this on and actually we have the board of water and

[59:43] » to take it on is any conditions >> yes condition contingent upon it being

[59:48] brought up to uh the standards of the board of water and sewer.

[59:51] » So that then they have to spend the money.

[59:54] » Oh yeah. >> Yes. We won't take it over.

[59:55] » Okay. Can I just walk you through two seconds walk you through the because so

[1:00:00] » I did the first draft of the warrant article sent it to Mark Surell and he

[1:00:04] did a lot of tuneups to it >> which I think build in a lot of nice

[1:00:07] protections for the town but so just so you understand the order of operations.

[1:00:12] So, the article authorizes the um Medfield Board of Water and Sewage to

[1:00:17] acquire by gift or eminent domain. And we think it'll likely be eminent domain,

[1:00:23] but the requirement is that all damages are waved because, you know, when the

[1:00:27] town acquires something by eminent domain, it's required to pay damages. We

[1:00:31] must wave all damages. So, you're going to need something signed by all our

[1:00:35] members saying you get damages. So, it's a zeroing cost. Um what they're

[1:00:39] acquiring is the gravity main force main pump station any lift stations and allo

[1:00:44] pertinance there too necessary to transmit sanitary sewage from Deerfield

[1:00:49] along North Street and Farm Street to Black Smith's Drive where where the

[1:00:52] sewer line connects to the town's municipal sewer system together with any

[1:00:57] and all rights and that was the the any and all rights piece is what Mr. Hunt

[1:01:02] authority too. We're going under public. You know, it's our pipe, but it's under

[1:01:06] your road. So, we want to make sure that we give you clean title there. So, we're

[1:01:10] we're we're guaranteeing you get everything you need.

[1:01:14] And I think the end part is is the the real protection.

[1:01:19] um provided that the pump station mains and

[1:01:23] other infrastructure have been repaired and or replaced and or are otherwise in

[1:01:27] good working order and will not require town or board to incur substantial

[1:01:32] expense for upgrade as determined by said water and sewage.

[1:01:36] » Okay. >> Or do anything else there too. So, I

[1:01:38] think >> we're comfortable with this, but I think

[1:01:41] they've put us in a nice box so that they don't need to they don't need to do

[1:01:46] anything until they're satisfied that we've met all of them.

[1:01:49] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. >> And I would add, I think this offers a

[1:01:53] protection to the town, a proper one. I believe we're the only

[1:01:59] run force man now in the town. >> You don't really want me running this.

[1:02:09] thinking of Bob running is what keeps me up at night.

[1:02:15] » So, um we we hope you will look on our petition favorably

[1:02:21] » and water and sew supports. >> Board of Water and Sewage has agreed to

[1:02:25] sponsor the article, not a citizens petition. Um and they have been working

[1:02:29] closely with them for a very long time to get this to

[1:02:33] » Okay. When the generator was replaced, Mo signed off on it.

[1:02:38] » He we asked him kind of what kind of pump you want up there.

[1:02:42] » You had a question. >> What's the incremental cost of the town

[1:02:45] after this is all done? I know it's going to be divided among all the rate

[1:02:48] payers of town, but what would be the there's going to be some cost of

[1:02:51] absorbing this. >> Uh I'm not saying there isn't, but I I

[1:02:57] don't know that I would tell you what that

[1:02:59] » be operational expenses of what electricity

[1:03:03] propane in case we lose power. Uh, and maintenance. By the way, just speaking

[1:03:08] of maintenance, because you talked about that a little bit, the the uh generator

[1:03:14] and the twin redundant pumps that are that operate the system have been uh

[1:03:19] under service contracts with the original people that started in 1986

[1:03:26] since day one and they have been maintained and are visited during the

[1:03:31] year. So you may have experiences where people don't. Wind River comes in and

[1:03:35] pumps out. We have a holding tank. They come in and they do it every year and uh

[1:03:41] APC is in there making sure the mice keep

[1:03:45] my the broader public safety issue here. If

[1:03:49] there is a failure, >> right?

[1:03:51] » That's the big there's a failure the town's got to deal with it anyway.

[1:03:56] » Yeah. the private sewer >> because you can't you can't have you

[1:03:59] know it feeds into the main system. >> Right. Right. The private sewer located

[1:04:03] in the public way. The town is responsible for failures of accidents.

[1:04:08] There's a risk to the town. Yeah. Right. Now anyways,

[1:04:11] » right. >> Exactly.

[1:04:13] » This seems like a reasonable >> Yeah.

[1:04:17] » How many how many years you working on this solution?

[1:04:22] » Um >> with me since 2019.

[1:04:26] I I think we started in in the the 1900s.

[1:04:32] » That's fair. >> And we don't let developers do this

[1:04:35] anymore, right? >> We would not let anybody.

[1:04:38] » Good. Any other questions for these fine

[1:04:42] gentlemen? >> Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you.

[1:04:53] » Thanks, guys. I'm sorry.

[1:04:58] Thank you guys. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:05:00] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:05:07] » I I'm ready. I'm ready to talk about filtration and inflow later too.

[1:05:14] Mo will be proud next year.

[1:05:20] I think everybody well maybe the new members don't know this is Jeff Dearrow

[1:05:27] » Woodall Woodall um >> from uh the conservation

[1:05:34] » a hardworking group >> based upon the materials you gave us.

[1:05:38] Yes, you're a hardworking group. Well, I'm I'm really sorry about that, but we

[1:05:42] we have received a lot of income just the last minute and and I want I just

[1:05:46] want to thank you so much for taking your time and just really thank you for

[1:05:50] all the work that you're doing as we start out and I want to, you know, so

[1:05:54] John's here to answer if you have technical engineering type questions and

[1:05:58] I'm here to give you >> I'm just here to sit here. She said,

[1:06:00] » you know, I'm gonna give you the overview and we'll see how we kind of

[1:06:04] give you information best. But I also want to thank Ashley who's been really

[1:06:07] helpful for guiding us and Pete thank you too because we met with them today

[1:06:11] and I want to say that that the conversation was really important and

[1:06:14] helpful because what it did is inform us in a way with detail about the financial

[1:06:19] challenges that you're all facing and trying to make a you know a budget

[1:06:22] that's going to work for everybody's best interests. And in light of that

[1:06:26] conversation, I know that um you know, our our thought was to take some of the

[1:06:31] information. We'd like to work tonight collaboratively and have a conversation

[1:06:35] and try to figure out what works best with for our two warrant articles. And

[1:06:39] one is the $50,000 request for dam safety tree removal work. And the other

[1:06:44] is a $5,000 request for the conservation trust fund, which is intended actually

[1:06:48] for dam safety inspection work. Um but given the new information or just the

[1:06:54] detail the illumination of the situation and information we've received recently

[1:06:58] from power engineering we think a conversation the collaboration would be

[1:07:02] really helpful and to the extent that that might lead to you know a suggestion

[1:07:07] that we would withdraw the article for this year um that would require a vote

[1:07:12] by the full commission which would be on March 19th

[1:07:16] » March 19th >> which would be next Thursday. Okay. So I

[1:07:21] I just want to preface our conversation and your questions with that. I did

[1:07:25] submit something. I don't know if you had a chance to read it. Not all 345

[1:07:29] pages of exhibits, but there were about six pages that just gave you a brief

[1:07:33] sort of chronology, identified what we've done, the information that was

[1:07:37] recently received and sort of um brought to our attention again really within the

[1:07:43] last month or so of some of the in, you know, the pieces that make this more

[1:07:48] complicated than we had anticipated. And that would be we thought originally when

[1:07:52] we started this that there were about 10 trees 10 or 12 trees and they were all

[1:07:56] located on town property and it turns out that after we had the preliminary

[1:08:00] engineering information back that there are 36 trees out of about 15 of those

[1:08:05] are located on a butter's properties. Um so it necessitates involvement of people

[1:08:11] outside of the town. Additionally the access route was anticipated to be over

[1:08:16] just town owned property at the dam for the Daniels and Pond Dam issue. Um and

[1:08:21] it turns out actually that the more coste effective, safer and more

[1:08:25] efficient route would be through a butters properties.

[1:08:29] » You could say vastly more >> right vastly more um and uh we have

[1:08:34] reached out >> what kind of approvals do you have to

[1:08:36] get from Butters to do that. >> So I talked to Mark Sorell about that as

[1:08:40] a preliminary matter and we would need a number of different approvals. Um we

[1:08:45] there was you know sort of informal feedback that the abutters had you know

[1:08:50] were open to this and we confirmed that with a letter that was sent I don't I

[1:08:54] send you a copy of that but it was a letter that was sent with a lot of det I

[1:08:57] think it's 70 or 345 pages but it was sent with a lot of detail um identifying

[1:09:02] all of these issues the fact that they have trees on their property that those

[1:09:07] trees are what we call like the removal zone which is identified by the dam

[1:09:11] safety you know licensed engineers and according according to state regulations

[1:09:15] um and that they would have to be removed for the tree removal work that

[1:09:20] the better access routes through their their property. Um so there's a lot of

[1:09:24] detail in terms of how this these issues are complicated and interrelated and we

[1:09:29] had two preliminary emails back feedback back saying that they um didn't that

[1:09:34] they they were open to having equipment, you know, go through their property, be

[1:09:39] staged on their property or accessed on it and having their trees removed. But

[1:09:43] that again is without any legal documentation which would require a

[1:09:47] right of entry just to go on their property to do further site

[1:09:50] investigation to see if there's additional permitting that would be

[1:09:54] required. Um it would you know then it would be more development of plans which

[1:09:58] would indicate what type of equipment would it would traverse their property

[1:10:02] or be stationed on their property. We have an idea that the work would take

[1:10:05] about a week to complete with some costs associated with that with the increased

[1:10:09] number of trees. Um, >> just just to back up a little bit

[1:10:13] because we do have a couple new members on the committee that that didn't hear

[1:10:18] some of the history. Okay. That you came >> forward with last year.

[1:10:23] » So, if you can maybe just summarize that a little bit

[1:10:26] » even I'm I'm happy to do that. Deb and I have been working and John over the past

[1:10:30] year to figure out what to what to do about the damn dam. Um in 2018 we

[1:10:37] received a consent decree um that said that there what level of kind of issues

[1:10:44] it had and we had a kind of higher level of issues that have to be taken care of.

[1:10:49] is classified as a significant hazard dam which then triggers a number of in

[1:10:54] sort of consequences which include those regular periodic and inspections at

[1:10:59] least two inspections a year and then a recommended list of actions including

[1:11:03] removal. >> It's really more accurate to say we were

[1:11:05] supposed to have made the repairs >> under consent and that having not made

[1:11:10] the repairs we then have to continue to do inspections until we do make the

[1:11:14] repairs. So conservation commission since 2018 has been evaluating

[1:11:20] uh how to move forward on this. One of the ideas is to take those trees down.

[1:11:27] But there's many other options that are worth exploring. Um which that's why

[1:11:31] conservation commission is kind of potentially going back to explore those

[1:11:35] other options including you know taking care of the dam itself

[1:11:40] that it would no longer exist or draining the water from the pond. um to

[1:11:46] get a better direction of like what's the ultimate goal and how can we save

[1:11:50] the town money long term, you know, because we can't keep investing money on

[1:11:56] a band-aid. Um so that's kind of where we are today. I'd like to just add to

[1:12:00] that that I think what precipitated the the recent activity was the tree fell

[1:12:06] like a very like 100 foot tall like broad-based pine tree did um fall

[1:12:10] epidemary 2024 and when those and then it fell not

[1:12:17] it didn't split from you know like halfway but it it just um you know fell

[1:12:22] and the root ball came out which was like 8 to 10 feet in diameter and that

[1:12:27] of course seriously compromises is the earth and burm pointed and then there

[1:12:31] are just those number of trees all along that earth and burm and some of them are

[1:12:36] dead but they're still standing but they're all very sustainably old pines

[1:12:40] and the danger was you know what happens and in order to address that tree fall

[1:12:46] any work that was done which work was required required reporting again to the

[1:12:50] office of dam safety in Massachusetts so in 2024 they knew that we had an

[1:12:55] emergency repair and a significant issue that required permitted work at the

[1:13:00] site. >> And it's actually worse than just the

[1:13:02] trees falling over. If the trees don't fall over, their root systems tend to

[1:13:06] create channels that then you can start a leakage.

[1:13:11] » So, so we we've kind of uh last year we authorized money.

[1:13:18] » Yes. >> And you found out that wasn't enough.

[1:13:20] That's what it and so you come back again and in this process

[1:13:26] through discussions with Pete and Ashley maybe I don't want to put words in your

[1:13:31] mouth but you maybe discovered that there's there's a lot of other there's

[1:13:36] there's some unanswered questions or potential solutions that

[1:13:40] maybe you might need more time to explore. Yeah, the original

[1:13:46] car engineering provided us with three options in each of in each of those

[1:13:51] options you would need to remove the all the trees. Yeah.

[1:13:54] » The question is are there other options where you would not need to? Yeah. And

[1:13:58] so does it make sense to remove the trees if you end up not needing to?

[1:14:01] » If you if you don't need to >> um

[1:14:05] » spend the money um is there another option I guess. And so that's that's

[1:14:10] what's causing some pause. I guess >> that's piece of it. I mean, we suspect

[1:14:15] that the trees would need to be removed. It's very Jonathan's very likely. He's

[1:14:20] the engineer, but there is a possibility,

[1:14:24] but that question would have to go back to par. So there would have to be money

[1:14:29] spent to go back to the cons the consultants that we've been using to

[1:14:34] investigate these you know sort of open sort of pieces that really have come up

[1:14:40] in the last >> few weeks. Um there is money left from

[1:14:46] the $50,000 that so when we started I think I put a breakdown in the the

[1:14:51] paperwork I gave you but we requested $50,000 last year and we committed by

[1:14:57] contract um to do the data collection work that was completed this fall and

[1:15:02] early December that gave us a lot of this information and that was 24,900.

[1:15:09] Now of that we have data collection and drawings which we received and the

[1:15:14] balance of that which I think is 13,000 of the 24,09

[1:15:19] um was allocated for permitting. We have not started the permitting yet. So we

[1:15:25] don't know what PAR would do in case we ask for you know change order type of

[1:15:30] amendment to the contract. Um on the other hand, if we have to go forward

[1:15:34] with the permitting, the permitting typically is good for three years

[1:15:39] to do the trees within three years. >> Is there a cost to going through and

[1:15:44] getting all these approved property owners rules?

[1:15:48] » We think that that would be done really with with town council because town

[1:15:51] council will be drafting on behalf of the town and the property owners would

[1:15:55] then >> How many are there?

[1:15:57] » Oh, there's only two. >> Okay.

[1:16:00] » Right. Um, and they would consult with their own attorneys. And

[1:16:04] » when you said there's only two, you mean there's only two trees.

[1:16:07] » Correct. If there were only six or seven.

[1:16:10] » Yes. Yes. >> Yeah. There are two trees. And it's

[1:16:14] really one of the two that the access would be required for us.

[1:16:18] » And have you had preliminary conversations with them?

[1:16:20] » Yes. >> And they're on board.

[1:16:22] » We're on board. Yeah. >> They're they're very

[1:16:26] » they've been notified. We're going to say they've been notified with a lot of

[1:16:30] detail that would give them reason to know um that they should consult with

[1:16:35] family members and with attorneys who's not certain of everybody's family

[1:16:40] situation and it was a there was a lot of detail um

[1:16:45] » and they should consult just and the town would want them to

[1:16:50] consult with someone and not >> the preliminary reaction was positive

[1:16:55] » and that's all we're going to say. We also discussed that should the state

[1:16:59] show up tomorrow and say what's going on here you can show that you've been doing

[1:17:05] work in good faith right and that we are also evaluating all options on the table

[1:17:10] to figure the ultimate best path forward um which requires

[1:17:15] » right and con has only been actively involved in managing this property since

[1:17:20] 2024 when the tree fell so anything that went on before that I'm not exactly sure

[1:17:26] who decision makers were or how that the decisions to fund that were made, but

[1:17:31] Kongcom's active involvement has been since 2024 when the treat. So yes, we

[1:17:36] feel very confident that the documents we've worked hard to document everything

[1:17:40] that we've done and to be consistent in efforts so that at least if the state

[1:17:44] were to come in, >> but you you're kind of just managing it

[1:17:47] at this point. You there's no real >> long-term solution here that's been

[1:17:52] decided >> that's been identified or decided no.

[1:17:55] You mentioned like three scenarios. All the woods require trees the trees coming

[1:17:59] down. Yeah. Give us a quick what are those three?

[1:18:02] » Basically it's you know repairing the dam so that what changing the design of

[1:18:06] the dam as well as repairing it so that it's structurally stable but also so

[1:18:11] that it's totally passive that it just overflows automatically.

[1:18:16] Whereas now it re it really you it the dam as it is now there's stop logs that

[1:18:21] you can remove and it requires active management in case of a large storm or

[1:18:26] flood in order for it to be safe. There's the the the options that all the

[1:18:33] options actually that were looked at would be totally passive in that case

[1:18:37] not requiring any active management. So there's one option that there's

[1:18:41] basically two types of make the dam taller and passive and then there's a

[1:18:48] third which is remove the dam >> together the state

[1:18:53] » but the first step in removing is removing the trees and then bring

[1:18:57] » but the state the state will not finance the um they're not giving out money

[1:19:02] grants >> they give out far more grants for

[1:19:06] removal than they do for repair >> for repair.

[1:19:09] » It's not that they give out none, but it's far more it's far easier to get

[1:19:13] money for. >> So the cost of those first two options

[1:19:15] or is that a repair? Is that considered a repair?

[1:19:18] » It's considered repair. Yes. >> And removal cost you estimate to be

[1:19:23] » the removal costs the way they were estimated by the engineer the same as

[1:19:28] the repair costs. That was the keep >> the removal cost drains it. So there is

[1:19:32] no more pond. >> Yes. It it's more it's it's actually

[1:19:35] more complicated than just draining it because there's a lot of permitting that

[1:19:39] goes on. It's restoring it to certain riverine functions.

[1:19:44] » Riverine function. There's there's a lot that has to happen.

[1:19:47] » The other thing that ends up being important is that you've accumulated a

[1:19:51] lot of sediment behind the dam and there's a good chance that that sediment

[1:19:54] is going to be contaminated and that they're not going to want to just have

[1:19:57] that get swept down the river into the Charles. And so if we then have to

[1:20:02] remove that sediment and do something with it, then that's a lot of cost.

[1:20:06] » It's complicated. >> I can imagine. Yeah.

[1:20:10] » And you know, and the debate here and we talked last year is that,

[1:20:14] you know, we have a group of homeowners, was it five or seven that live around

[1:20:19] the pond that like to have a pond view. Um, and the cost of doing these options

[1:20:26] is pretty significant. So who who bears that cost is kind of the that's why this

[1:20:31] has dragged on so long because there's a disagreement

[1:20:34] » and we should pay for it >> and and and there was the hope that the

[1:20:38] state would fund it. Yeah. And it was applied for each year but each each year

[1:20:43] it's been rejected. So >> was applied for for a couple of years

[1:20:46] but the cost the estimates are are dating back to 2021. So the estimates

[1:20:52] for the work did not include um using DPW to do any of the work and so the

[1:20:58] estimates aren't really good estimates. The data is not really available to use

[1:21:03] at this point in time. >> And again that's that's a little bit

[1:21:05] weird because you know when you use DPW to do work it means they're not doing

[1:21:09] something else. So it's it's not you know

[1:21:12] » Yeah. >> So how do you want to you p you know

[1:21:17] move forward on this? you want to talk to your committee then let us know.

[1:21:23] » We can What are your concerns for us so that we can bring those back?

[1:21:27] » I mean my my personal I'll let other people talk but my personal concern is

[1:21:31] that um that that we keep spending money on it

[1:21:37] right and that we don't make hard decision.

[1:21:40] » Yes. Um, and I don't know how we forced that hard

[1:21:44] decision, but um, I don't know if that's your role either,

[1:21:49] but you you're you charge of care, custody, control of the of the property.

[1:21:54] » So, I don't know if that's a role you think you can play to sort of get people

[1:22:01] to to agree on a solution here. They think

[1:22:06] we've looked at it this ultimately is that whatever the long-term solution is,

[1:22:10] it's going to end up going to town meeting through ultimately through your

[1:22:13] committee because it's going to be a sum of money that the town the people in

[1:22:16] vote >> and that to be fair to everybody

[1:22:19] involved in the process where you have maybe six really, really, really

[1:22:23] invested people around the pond and then other people who appreciate it aesthetic

[1:22:27] value and its historic value. >> There are people who fish in it,

[1:22:30] » right? um that it's a conversation that we should try to invite the community in

[1:22:35] to have so that everybody has all of the information um and understands

[1:22:41] everything they can about the pond. We did our pond assessments which you gave

[1:22:44] us money for and that was really helpful in giving us more definition of the

[1:22:48] nature and type of this pond and the lifespan of this pond because it will

[1:22:52] become increasingly shallow over time and we're not talking hundreds of years

[1:22:56] and the vegetation has already started to move in and so it

[1:23:01] » the rate of filling in is likely to actually increase with time if anything

[1:23:05] because the vegetation starting to that's without doing anything

[1:23:08] » unless we do something to reverse that which it would again would engineer from

[1:23:13] an engineering perspective as possible as well. You can excavate the dam. It's

[1:23:17] just that that's very expensive very >> and you have the settlement issue if

[1:23:21] there are any contaminants in it. >> I mean I mean we I don't I don't think

[1:23:25] it's a secret. We have very large capital needs as a town.

[1:23:29] » I'm not sure where this on a priority would fall, but clearly it's not going

[1:23:33] to be ahead of some of the the big >> I think there's no question at all.

[1:23:38] » Yeah. So, do you have other items that we can

[1:23:42] put on our list to bring to the commission for

[1:23:46] » Peter? So, so what we spoke about this morning,

[1:23:53] which is sort of the blunt approach that I proposed

[1:23:58] is uh let's drain the pot. Um, I think the Office of Dam Safety

[1:24:08] is proposing that ponds be eliminated. Uh, and I think they would be

[1:24:15] » You mean they're proposing dams be not ponds?

[1:24:18] » Yes. Well, >> yes,

[1:24:20] » the ponds will go if the dams go. But yes. Um, uh, and and I think they be

[1:24:28] fine with it. Now, can I say that to an absolute certainty? No. I obviously

[1:24:33] can't say that with an absolute certainty, but but that that's the

[1:24:37] approach I would favor taking. And so I think the idea of taking this uh item

[1:24:44] off the warrant for this year, going back asking part, look at that seriously

[1:24:51] as an option. What are the what do you what are the steps you have to take to

[1:24:56] just talk about just draining the pond? Um then if something remains to be done

[1:25:02] with the trees, it doesn't. You can just have Mo go down with a chainsaw and take

[1:25:09] down the trees and leave the roots in the embankment. And there's no longer a

[1:25:15] body of water behind it to filter through, which is John's concern

[1:25:20] » and and and legitimate concern. Not be dismissive of it at all. Um and and then

[1:25:27] the problem just sort of goes away. I'm not saying that's going to be a Z

[1:25:32] solution, but hope >> I think it'll be actually it'll be much

[1:25:36] more than zero dollars if you ask part of their opinion on what was required to

[1:25:41] do this. Not not because of the engineering cost, but because

[1:25:44] » the permitting and everything else, >> all of the associated permitting and the

[1:25:48] fact that you still are going to have an issue with the um sediment behind the

[1:25:53] dam and what happens to that when you do this.

[1:25:56] » And then the other issue is going to be that it it there's a slle with retaining

[1:26:01] walls. And if that stays in place, if you have a large rain, it you still

[1:26:08] accumulate water behind the dam. actually a lot of water because it can't

[1:26:11] come out through the hole fast enough and and so again the dam still functions

[1:26:15] as a dam in that case. So there's still potentially a safety issue. I think that

[1:26:20] that's what we'll hear but it's certainly worth asking somebody who's an

[1:26:24] actual real damage. >> Yeah. Does that cost money to have them

[1:26:28] do that study? Yes, it does. To have them think about things cost

[1:26:35] » write things down cost. >> This estimate you have here of 50,000

[1:26:40] that was to take care of trees. >> That's the trees. Yeah.

[1:26:44] » Um >> but you could use some of that 50.

[1:26:48] We we have funds from you know that we already allocated to farm that could be

[1:26:55] redirected. So I'm wondering if rewarding this article is to to say that

[1:26:59] it's be used for either or

[1:27:04] or or both. You know, in other words, don't restrict it to just read. Allow

[1:27:08] yourself to >> to do the to use some of this money for

[1:27:11] the study that you that we need to get to the information to make this hard

[1:27:17] decision. You know what I'm saying? >> It isn't it is not clear to me whole

[1:27:22] statement whether we have enough left over from fiscal 25.

[1:27:27] » Okay. Okay. >> To do this and I have to look to you

[1:27:30] guys to tell me that if you got enough, we don't have to appropriate more.

[1:27:35] That's wonderful. If we don't, obviously, we listen to that. So right

[1:27:40] now we thought we had we had the $50,000 that you gave us from the town gave us

[1:27:45] from 2025 and then there was an the funds from 2019 that were about at the

[1:27:52] time left over like 26,887 but I think we've had some inspection

[1:27:56] costs apply to those. So my figures are they're down to 22,000 give or take. So,

[1:28:02] we probably have if if we have to pay par the full amount of money that is

[1:28:10] owed on the $24,900 contract, which they might be willing to

[1:28:14] amend, particularly if they're getting another contract to do different sub

[1:28:19] nature of work, which would mean that they're not doing the permitting. We

[1:28:22] take the permitting costs out, which would save us about $13,000. if they

[1:28:26] were willing to do that, we would probably have to end up 41,000 and but

[1:28:32] then we're less like the 4,000. So 37 35 um

[1:28:39] I had so I had available 41,000 but that's going to be less the 4,000 it's

[1:28:46] going to be less 26 - 22 it's going to be less 4,000 so it's going to be like

[1:28:51] around 37,000 but it could be done plus so it's going

[1:28:57] to be lowest around 30,000 and at the most it might be another

[1:29:01] » it's likely going to be we just do like an engineering study,

[1:29:06] it's likely going to be enough >> to do that

[1:29:10] » because I we already have the data >> without

[1:29:14] asking for the addition. Yeah, if if that's the direction

[1:29:17] » that sounds like that's a better direction at least that or you know the

[1:29:21] way to go through the process that gives you information before you spend the 50.

[1:29:25] But but keeping in mind just so that we're all on the same page is that

[1:29:29] that's using the money that's in that 2019 account which has also been talked

[1:29:33] about using that for funding the inspections that are required as we go

[1:29:38] forward. So, we would still need money for inspections, which is actually why

[1:29:43] when we did this as a preliminary matter, we thought maybe the way to set

[1:29:47] aside money for the inspections and know that we have it would be to have a dep,

[1:29:52] you know, money funded in the conservation trust fund. Um, I don't

[1:29:56] know if that would be an more, you know, >> before we talk about before we talk

[1:30:01] about that though, let me just ask a question. the original 26 or whatever

[1:30:05] the number is that was that article that that where that original uh allocation

[1:30:12] came from did that have what was the the wording of that article and the use

[1:30:16] » well that's a pro that's that's complication so that's on your 345 pages

[1:30:20] but um that

[1:30:26] original wording was it granted the select board the authority and

[1:30:30] consultation with the conservation commission to um use it for I think it

[1:30:38] was for the the for essentially engineering consulting services for I

[1:30:42] think the alternatives analysis that they did in 2020. So that's it. Yeah.

[1:30:47] Yeah. >> So it is really $26,888.

[1:30:52] So >> and this this really what we're really

[1:30:54] talking about is expanding the alternatives.

[1:30:56] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That makes sense.

[1:31:00] » You do that first before you start cutting down trees.

[1:31:04] » Yeah. I'm >> sorry I missed that part.

[1:31:07] » Figure out what this is going to involve. Mhm.

[1:31:09] » You get a good hopefully plan going forward and then maybe this time next

[1:31:15] year we take our look at this. >> I I think it's unlikely we get out of

[1:31:20] cutting down the trees but >> Okay. Okay.

[1:31:22] » There there is a logic still. >> Do you have did the timing of that have

[1:31:26] to be like do you need do you need the 50 to do that? Does it have to be done

[1:31:30] this year with trees? >> Yeah.

[1:31:32] » No. >> No.

[1:31:33] » I mean it had to be done 2018. Okay. >> Okay. So it's not urgent

[1:31:45] » I mean it really needs to be a shared risk because if another tree falls like

[1:31:49] there could be anything that could happen that we can't predict right which

[1:31:53] is why it really needs to be a conversation and a and a shared you know

[1:31:57] sort of understanding in a shared way >> you think we're gonna have to cut some

[1:32:00] trees question is how many right and how much

[1:32:04] » that's actually true it could well be that cut down fewer for one research.

[1:32:08] » Yeah. Okay. >> And forgive my ignorance on the topic.

[1:32:12] If the dam fails, what happens? Other than water gets released,

[1:32:15] » it would likely flood Route 27 plus one house downstream.

[1:32:21] » That's on 27, right? When the water goes >> Well, no. I was looking on the map. I

[1:32:29] was trying to figure out which way. >> Yeah, there there are

[1:32:32] » there is a house downstream that would see some water. Um it it wouldn't be

[1:32:37] swept away exactly, but yeah, it would it would be soft. Yeah.

[1:32:41] » How deep is that? >> Three feet. Yeah.

[1:32:46] » Yeah. >> Couple of acres.

[1:32:50] » Yes. >> Does that qualify as a pond or a big

[1:32:54] puddle? >> Well,

[1:32:57] it's like the main body of Google Earth.

[1:33:04] » Yeah. In total, as you've said, it's it's more than that. It's a lot of it is

[1:33:08] kind of swampy, but I think in total, it's like a year.

[1:33:11] » So, I think we've sort of come to our plan.

[1:33:14] » Yeah. >> We withdraw this article.

[1:33:16] » We have a conservation >> say if the compound folks to do so,

[1:33:20] » right? >> If uh you spend the it's probably less

[1:33:25] than 76,000 we know precisely how much you've got to spend. We spent a chunk of

[1:33:30] that on a study with PAR or somebody else if you want.

[1:33:36] » So we're on the same page. It's we don't have 76 at this point. We've spent some

[1:33:40] of the 50 already and we have inspections. So we have we have probably

[1:33:45] maybe between 40 about 40 40 to 50 depending and if we can negotiate the

[1:33:51] contract with them and get >> already done some of the groundwork that

[1:33:55] can be applied to it evaluating other scenarios. Right. So I think yeah

[1:34:02] » right you have another article that we haven't

[1:34:05] got to yet. Well, it's a conservation trust fund and and and the reason that

[1:34:09] we put that in and and the ask was for the $5,000 because we thought it would

[1:34:14] cover the goal was to if we were going to go forward with the tree work to use

[1:34:17] all available money today to do the tree get the tree work done because doing the

[1:34:22] tree work might change the safety rating on the dam and might obiate the need for

[1:34:28] the the periodic inspections. So we might not need that money that's sitting

[1:34:34] in that 2019, you know, from that 2019 allocation. It needs to be used for

[1:34:39] Danielson pond related stuff. So the thought was, let's pour the money into

[1:34:44] get the trees stuff done if that was going forward and then ask for money in

[1:34:48] the conservation trust fund for the we know we're going to have two more

[1:34:51] inspections. We're going to have one this fall um in fall of 2026 and spring

[1:34:56] of 2027. So, we're asking for an amount of money that would cover those

[1:35:00] inspections. And then, you know, maybe it should be in an operating budget, but

[1:35:03] we don't know for how long those inspections will go on. And if it's a

[1:35:07] capital budget item, you're budgeting out like two years more. So, there's no

[1:35:10] money in anybody's budget right now specifically for those inspections. So,

[1:35:14] that's what that asks for. >> Okay. So, that and we did that last

[1:35:17] year, right? Yeah. That seems unless they have any problems with that one.

[1:35:22] That one seems >> Okay.

[1:35:26] I like it because it gives them a little bit of flexibility this year

[1:35:29] » if they need it for inspections or whatever.

[1:35:32] » Okay. >> Okay. Good.

[1:35:35] » All right. >> Any other questions for us?

[1:35:36] » No. >> No. No.

[1:35:38] » Well, if I get to page 300 and I might call you.

[1:35:43] » Just take that pile and you can delete it.

[1:35:47] » All right. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate you

[1:35:50] coming in. Thank us posted on what's going on. Thanks.

[1:35:55] » Thank you guys. Thank you for You're doing a ton of work for the Thank you

[1:36:00] very much. >> You're welcome.

[1:36:05] » All right. Going past our 8:30 time. We've only got through three articles.

[1:36:12] » Uh four articles, I guess. >> You can present at the next meeting for

[1:36:16] the article. So, you want to move on. >> These are pretty easy to get through.

[1:36:20] They don't require a lot of discussion. the rest of the articles there.

[1:36:23] » Whatever you want to do, we're fine. >> Fast forward.

[1:36:29] » Did we switch gears then? >> Whatever you want to do.

[1:36:32] » What do you >> I have a question. Did

[1:36:35] she presenting tonight? >> She on here.

[1:36:40] » No, she's on. >> Okay. The zoning.

[1:36:45] » She's just here for entertainment. >> Zoning is next week. You don't we don't

[1:36:49] close. Okay. All right. If we're not keeping

[1:36:53] PS5 >> No, no, no, no. Everybody who's open

[1:36:57] » Okay. >> By the way, I forgot to hand this out.

[1:36:59] This is just the current list of articles

[1:37:03] and um >> you copy the survey.

[1:37:07] » Oh, yeah. No,

[1:37:11] » responses. >> Great. Thank you.

[1:37:17] box.

[1:37:20] » Which one? Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. Yeah. Okay, here we go.

[1:37:26] » Um, so these are the we we did I did add there's a new article that I added the

[1:37:32] dog walking licensing fee that wasn't on the list. I signed this

[1:37:37] to Emily. She Sorry, she's not here.

[1:37:42] I'm hoping that one gets Do you think that one's going to move forward or

[1:37:46] » I don't think it's going to move forward. We don't have a draft of the

[1:37:48] language yet and so I don't think we'll have a draft of the language before we

[1:37:51] finalize the warrant, but court will be discussing that.

[1:37:55] » Okay. All right. >> Yeah. And the dog bylaw committee is

[1:37:58] just getting started as well. >> Yeah.

[1:38:01] » In certain places. So, yeah, >> I'm sure Mike Pastori would love to have

[1:38:04] one less article. He would love to buy plus

[1:38:08] » especially one less dog.

[1:38:14] » These are this list is the somewhat controversial articles not any

[1:38:20] other generic articles.

[1:38:25] » Controversial, >> right? Well, the operating

[1:38:28] » No, that should that should match up with with the warrant that

[1:38:33] » Yeah, that Yeah, you're talking about that list. Yeah, that I mean these are

[1:38:38] what I call the non-rine art. >> So, yeah, they're not articles we get

[1:38:43] every year. >> Okay.

[1:38:44] » So, they could be controversial and not

[1:38:48] » I was thinking some of these might well be controversial suggesting

[1:38:53] » those not listed here might not be. I thought, "Wait a minute. It's the whole

[1:38:57] operating >> the operating budget that is listed.

[1:39:00] It's not listed actually, but um so um do you have the

[1:39:07] » Yes. that? Yeah. >> Yeah. I'm going to switch gears to uh

[1:39:11] talk about um our budget uh scenarios and uh I put together some a slide deck

[1:39:20] here um just in case anybody watches this later on I think um it might be

[1:39:27] helpful um you can go to the next slide. So

[1:39:32] really we just want I just want to talk about what potential decision making is

[1:39:36] and our our a plan maybe uh for us to talk about how we would go forward

[1:39:41] deliberating on this override. So um you know I said last meeting that

[1:39:48] would be a credential decision. It's a it's a judgmentbased decision. There's

[1:39:52] no formulaic approach to this. It's going to require our judgment. um we

[1:39:59] have to balance uh competing good outcomes and there's no single correct

[1:40:06] answer. All the gross the budget growth

[1:40:10] scenarios are legitimate choices. Uh so uh next slide and you know in terms of

[1:40:18] the the principles you know I think it's was it Scott McDermott uh told me when I

[1:40:23] first got on the war committee like you you know you have to wear a different

[1:40:26] hat like your job is to is to weave the fabric of the pound. Uh so we all might

[1:40:33] have personal personal uh opinions on things, but we we have to put on our

[1:40:39] warrant committee hat when we talk about this stuff and consider broader broader

[1:40:44] uh townwide implications. And so stewardship of public resources

[1:40:49] is important. maintaining essential services

[1:40:52] and um long-term financial sustainability

[1:40:58] um and transparency and making sure we can defend what we what we ultimately

[1:41:04] decide. So next slide. Um

[1:41:10] so why this is a difficult decision? Uh I think you know this but the service

[1:41:14] levels compared against the tax burden right

[1:41:19] that's the that's the ultimate you know uh

[1:41:23] tough tradeoff um the scenarios affect different groups in town differently

[1:41:31] um and they all have different impacts in terms of long-term uh impacts. So

[1:41:37] um so reasonable people can reach different conclusions. So that's that's

[1:41:42] why it's so so hard. Next slide. Um these are we all know this these are the

[1:41:49] scenarios that we are looking at. Uh the the the six there are the override

[1:41:55] scenarios and then we also have a scenario where there's no override. Um

[1:42:01] and uh we just limit uh we don't we don't approve an override. We just limit

[1:42:06] the prop two and a half. It's limited to the prop 2 and a half budget 1.8%.

[1:42:11] Next slide.

[1:42:17] » I may have just missed it, but do did we discuss possibly going beyond the 4.59%

[1:42:25] for the school school? That's that's isn't that what they would like?

[1:42:31] » So So here we you're correct. We haven't discussed that as a committee. uh but

[1:42:39] um we've I've I've made a judgment uh so we can talk about it uh but that um you

[1:42:49] know the the uh the school uh our first ask was both school and the

[1:42:57] town to give us a level service budget >> and that's what the 5% represents

[1:43:03] » correct >> it's level service

[1:43:06] So, it's on there because it's it's a it's what we asked for. That's that

[1:43:11] tells us what's same people, same programs, what's the cost? Okay.

[1:43:16] » And I thought the 4.59% was level services after they move

[1:43:22] certain things into revolvers or other things.

[1:43:25] » Yeah. So, what we're doing is you'll see it later on that's called a cut or

[1:43:30] change savings or whatever. So, so we're starting. We're not going to continuous

[1:43:34] every time they come up with a new idea. We're not going to change the definition

[1:43:38] of level service. Level service is level service. Okay?

[1:43:43] They they they they came up with some retirements and they changed the the

[1:43:49] pricing of the kindergarten program. That's how they got down to the 459,

[1:43:53] » right? >> You that you'll see that as as

[1:43:55] identified later on as a cut. Okay? So that that's a scenario 459 and the 33

[1:44:01] but the the level service is five and a 36

[1:44:04] » 5% that's what Jeff didn't present it in December first budget was 5% in January

[1:44:12] he brought it down to the 39 the school brought it back to back up to five right

[1:44:17] it only came down to 4.59 so this is the fourth iteration

[1:44:22] » I think it's a it's a in our deliberations it's a legitimate

[1:44:27] scenario. It's what we ask >> questioning legitimacy.

[1:44:31] » Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Next slide. Uh so the um

[1:44:38] so these are the these are the dollar this is just a graphical depiction of

[1:44:43] the dollar amount of cuts by school and town. You could see it's overwhelmingly

[1:44:48] associated with schools but town simply because it has a smaller budget has

[1:44:53] smaller cuts. Um, and it's shown by by the the different scenarios. Obviously,

[1:44:59] the the level service has no cuts and then if we don't pass an override, we

[1:45:06] have significant cuts on the other end. Uh, 1.67 almost $1.7 million.

[1:45:13] » Yeah. All right. I just I I just want to highlight I think um because it's

[1:45:17] there's so much we've had a lot with schools and there legitimately and I

[1:45:20] like the principles we have laid out here that this is all hard for good

[1:45:24] reason. Just it's been striking to me hearing the town's departments and how

[1:45:29] much how razor thin they've gotten their expenses down to. So while it looks like

[1:45:36] smaller, you know, the little the pink versus the blue, you know, looks

[1:45:39] smaller, I just I want to just highlight again.

[1:45:41] » Yeah. >> The impact of a lot of those.

[1:45:45] » Yeah. >> I think it tends to get pushed aside

[1:45:47] because the schools is so so huge and >> it's something I think we want to keep

[1:45:52] putting it back on the table because it it is so striking how many departments

[1:45:56] are or how many areas are are down to really there's nothing left to cut,

[1:46:01] » right? No, that's a good point. I think I think um

[1:46:06] you know good point. Um so next slide.

[1:46:12] Um these are the again you know going through our spreadsheet right we

[1:46:18] calculated what the override would be including a a contribution to the

[1:46:24] stabilization fun. This is the uh graphical depiction of that. Right. So

[1:46:30] it's it's the override for um the level service is you know over $3 million

[1:46:40] and you know the scenario on the far right is no override so there's zero

[1:46:44] dollars associated with that. So this is kind of just you know I think you know

[1:46:50] this but these this is right from the spreadsheet that I sent everybody.

[1:46:54] » Next slide. Um so this is the um the impact to the

[1:47:01] average single family home uh the million28 a million28,000

[1:47:07] average assessed value um under the different scenarios. So, it

[1:47:12] ranges from, you know, uh, for a level service

[1:47:17] budget, it's almost $1,200 and then, uh, for no override, it's

[1:47:24] $400. Okay, that's that's all this shows. Now,

[1:47:30] I couldn't come up with a way to graphically depict all three of these on

[1:47:34] the same slide. So, I the next slide is just shows you the dollars, okay?

[1:47:40] because you know they're all different you know they're all different uh x and

[1:47:45] y axises right so uh so you can see these are the do these are

[1:47:51] dollars we're talking about school cuts and town cuts under the different

[1:47:56] scenarios so you know for so for example if

[1:48:00] there's no there's no override it's a million4 of cuts for the school and

[1:48:06] 254,000 for the town Okay. Um and then obviously

[1:48:12] the different the other scenarios for growing um you know the cuts go down in

[1:48:18] size. The override is the opposite, right? So if there's um the amount of

[1:48:25] the override is 3.3 or a level service budget and then if there's no override

[1:48:32] it's zero, right? And you can see the the average single family home. This is

[1:48:37] the impact. this uh so you can see this includes the normal prop two and a

[1:48:45] half piece plus the override. So so the bottom right you'll see no override it

[1:48:51] it's $400. So if we if we don't do any override the taxes will go up $400. The

[1:48:56] impact of the override is about $165 between the override and the 2 and a.5%

[1:49:03] scenario. Right? The 566 and the 401. That's how that works. Um,

[1:49:10] any questions on that slide? I think this is going to be our slide that we

[1:49:14] keep coming back to. >> Yeah,

[1:49:16] » because it has all the it has it all in one one slide. Okay. At least the way I

[1:49:21] think about it, this is I think how we're going to have to, you know, think

[1:49:25] about things. Um, the next slide is uh we got this information from uh Ivon.

[1:49:35] Uh this is the uh profile of single family homes their assessed values.

[1:49:42] So uh I thought this might be interesting

[1:49:46] piece of information for us to have. Um you can see the big uh the biggest break

[1:49:54] point or biggest grouping of of homes is the 650 to 850 category. Probably

[1:50:00] like,00 homes in that category. Um, and this is

[1:50:05] a tab on the spreadsheet I sent you. So, if you want the actual numbers, you can

[1:50:09] look at the spreadsheet. But >> she she took assessed values and just

[1:50:13] broke it down into different um groupings so you can see where you know

[1:50:18] there's very few assessed values at the high end, right? Uh, and the the the

[1:50:26] groups that seems to have I would say it's between

[1:50:30] 650 and the 1.2 two million. You know that is over half of the assessed

[1:50:35] properties in town. >> It's 56% I think on the first three

[1:50:38] bars. Yeah. Going up to a million was like 56%. Then when I did this the third

[1:50:44] one the fourth bar they brought it to like 70 something. Yeah. Of tax will go

[1:50:50] back. >> Yeah.

[1:50:51] » Yeah. Yeah. >> So yeah between 650 and 1.25

[1:50:55] 71. That's not to say that homeowners in

[1:51:00] these other categories are not important, you know, but that's this is

[1:51:04] how the data falls out. All right. Um, next slide.

[1:51:12] So, this this takes the school department's

[1:51:16] priority of cut and it segments them into the different

[1:51:23] uh scenarios. So the way this works is Peter, this is

[1:51:27] getting to your question. So we have the the 40 the level service budget is

[1:51:32] 46,828.

[1:51:37] The uh savings from the retirement of the two teachers and the tuition

[1:51:43] increase for the kindergarten reduces that by 182,000.

[1:51:47] That gets you to your 4.59 school budget.

[1:51:53] Okay, that scenario. And then um then the next grouping of

[1:51:58] cuts gets you down to the 3.9 budget, the one that Jeff recommended. And you

[1:52:06] can see on the school side there's moving of the custodian to a revolver, a

[1:52:12] professional development program for teachers in the summer, a district

[1:52:17] initiative committee work, some technology expenses that got moved to

[1:52:23] the the town side. Uh, and then there's some FTEEs. Then you get into FTEES.

[1:52:29] There's like a half of a central office FTE. there's uh an admin and then

[1:52:36] there's one high school teacher uh in that grouping. So all those cuts above

[1:52:41] that are get you down to the 3.9 budget and then you it just goes on from there,

[1:52:48] you know, to go from 39 to 35, there's two teachers at Dale Street. Um and then

[1:52:54] um if we go further uh it impacts 1.4 four at Welock and one

[1:53:00] more teacher at the high school. And if we think it's a it's a 3% budget,

[1:53:05] there's two teachers at the Blake Middle School.

[1:53:09] And then uh the the last category are these are the these are the the things

[1:53:15] they thought were the most important. The high school Dale and Welock and Dale

[1:53:20] these these positions they thought were most important. So there it goes from

[1:53:25] what they're what's least important to most important and it just breaks

[1:53:32] them down into the different uh growth categories scenarios that we're

[1:53:36] studying. Everybody understand that?

[1:53:39] » In terms of restoration that's worth >> Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Everybody understand

[1:53:45] that? >> In terms of restoration that we're

[1:53:49] brought about, right? Yeah.

[1:53:54] Yeah.

[1:53:57] Now we have a similar slide for the town.

[1:54:03] Now to your point was if the town's cuts are so small, there's a lot of little

[1:54:08] ones on here, right? And um because every little thousand dollars matters to

[1:54:14] the town. Um and a lot of their cuts, you know, don't involve PE. They went

[1:54:20] through a lot of effort to not involve people. So these are, you know, these

[1:54:26] are have different impacts. Um the first one is the uh they went from a

[1:54:32] full-time to a halftime HR person. Um and then um that that gets you their

[1:54:41] their number their their growth percentages are different than the town.

[1:54:45] So they start out at 3.6 level budget of $15 million and these these uh these

[1:54:54] cuts to the to get down to the 33 is the uh halftime HR position. And then you

[1:55:02] get into the library, the GFOA budget book, overtime budget, parking rack,

[1:55:09] DPW, grounds maintenance, town administrator,

[1:55:13] uh DPW services, dog waste pickup, $20,000.

[1:55:19] Uh that's in that that's in that. So that one is in this this category of

[1:55:24] between when you move between 33 and 2.8. Um and then the facilities is a is

[1:55:30] a big one in there too is building maintenance.

[1:55:34] So and these are this is what the select board voted in terms of priorities. So

[1:55:40] you can see the animal control officer is the most important one. They

[1:55:45] protected that. It's at the very bottom.

[1:55:50] Okay. >> So in other words, that cut is made only

[1:55:54] if there's no >> Right. Right.

[1:55:57] Yep. Good way to put it. Yep. Yeah. That last

[1:56:03] category only gets made if there's no override.

[1:56:09] Everybody understand that? >> Okay.

[1:56:14] » Next slide. >> Okay. So, try to sort of sketch out what

[1:56:21] a good plan might be and we'll get your feedback on this. my first three steps.

[1:56:26] I think we've completed we've done the analysis. Unless people think we need

[1:56:31] more information, I think we've got it all in front of us. Um and um we've got

[1:56:38] the we've got the baseline for fiscal uh for the budgets. We know what the

[1:56:43] service impacts are. We know what the tax impacts are. Um you know, and we've

[1:56:48] looked at the profiling of uh the assessed values. So, so the next slide

[1:56:55] um I think we should talk about this one.

[1:56:58] This is uh the question of multi-year sustainability.

[1:57:04] This is looking at what you look what happens after 2027

[1:57:09] and I just kind of threw three questions out here. Um but I think we need to talk

[1:57:14] about this. Does the scenario avoid structural deficits?

[1:57:19] Does it reduce the likelihood of another override soon?

[1:57:24] Uh or does it maintain reserves or bond stability? I think when we look at

[1:57:29] sustainability, the question of that second one I think is important. I think

[1:57:34] that the you know it's hard to operate a what $75 million budget not knowing not

[1:57:43] thinking beyond 12 months. uh you have to hire people, you have to manage

[1:57:48] people, programs, departments. Not having certainty to that that group

[1:57:54] of personnel uh for more than a 12-month period,

[1:57:58] having uncertainty, I think uh is not a best practice.

[1:58:04] So if we can eliminate that for like the school departments, think about how they

[1:58:10] have to, you know, they might have to cut people or, you know, they don't cut

[1:58:14] people this year, but they have to cut them next year. You know, all that

[1:58:17] factors into, I think, some of our thinking. Uh, and the town, you know,

[1:58:24] the same thing. It's it's more important, I think, on the school side.

[1:58:28] » So, um, I'm just going to go through these and

[1:58:32] then we can talk. The next slide uh is uh just community values. I think just

[1:58:38] aligning with residents priorities. What do residents prioritize?

[1:58:42] What trade-offs are acceptable? And uh what level of service reduction

[1:58:48] is tolerable? These are not easy questions. Like I said, we have to make

[1:58:52] a credential decision here, but use your best judgment. When I was reading this

[1:58:57] over, this was the slide that sort of struck me me I guess I can say the most

[1:59:02] because we don't have polling. I I don't know what residents are thinking about

[1:59:09] this. >> Yeah.

[1:59:10] » You know, we here in the war committee, we're steeped in this. We think about

[1:59:14] this stuff a lot. >> Yeah.

[1:59:16] » The average homeowner taxpayer in town, I don't have a clue. I mean, are they

[1:59:23] like, "Hell no, I don't want to see my taxes raised at all." Or are they, "Oh,

[1:59:30] no. I I'm totally okay with raising taxes to maintain a reasonable level of

[1:59:34] services." I just don't know. And there's a continuum and there

[1:59:40] where they fall, where people fall. I I don't know. I don't know how one gave

[1:59:45] that. >> Yeah. I don't think we'll know for

[1:59:47] certainty that the answer to that question, right? You're gonna have to

[1:59:52] use all your your mental capacity judgment.

[1:59:56] » Well, they weren't real.

[2:00:00] » The topic that generated the most email replies so far is part-time animal

[2:00:04] control. So, >> but the the select board has they

[2:00:10] they've considered that >> that priority in their in their list.

[2:00:15] So, >> yeah.

[2:00:17] So that I mean the the fact that uh that we do have prioritized list of cuts I

[2:00:23] think helps with some of this. So >> next slide. Um

[2:00:29] so I thought the next uh step should be narrowing down these options.

[2:00:36] My suggestion is that we we try to get to

[2:00:42] preferably two but we can't three. Uh, I'd like to you maybe get to two viable

[2:00:48] scenarios. Um, and that, you know, I think it would

[2:00:54] be great if we at our next meeting we could um,

[2:01:01] uh, make a decision on one of them, you know, narrow it down to one. Uh, but we

[2:01:08] could talk about this. Uh, but I think it would ideally my we have a working

[2:01:13] group meeting next Tuesday, St. Patrick's Day. Um, and

[2:01:22] if I could go to them and say the warrant committee thinks these two

[2:01:25] scenarios are viable, that would be helpful because then we

[2:01:30] could, you know, we could sort of do a sort of a, you know, smell test. Does it

[2:01:36] what do they think of those of that and knowing that we will have to make

[2:01:41] that final decision? Uh I'd like to do that on the 24th if we can. Ideally,

[2:01:48] that's that's kind of how I was thinking this could play out. Uh because we're

[2:01:52] just running out of time. We have to we have to move um

[2:01:57] uh we have to move this budget number forward and get to the next slide.

[2:02:04] Actually, we'll talk about that. Um, so we get a recommendation, right? And then

[2:02:10] the next slide, it's really just commun we have to we have this communication

[2:02:14] problem as you know educating the public on what what we're doing there. The

[2:02:20] sooner we can get to a consensus, the the more time we have to communicate

[2:02:25] with the public. So um and then uh the next slide is just you know again

[2:02:34] reiterating things we already said basically it's a credential decision

[2:02:37] that every you know these these variables are are contradicting and they

[2:02:44] vary um amongst all the scenarios. So that one table with the numbers is the

[2:02:51] one that I think is the the key. Um, so do you have any more slides or is that

[2:02:56] it? I think that's it. >> Yeah. Um, so I don't know. Do people is

[2:03:02] there more to ask this question? Do people need more information or do they

[2:03:06] we think we have enough?

[2:03:14] » Think we have enough? >> Yeah.

[2:03:17] Slicewood through bunch of ways.

[2:03:21] » Yeah. um to analysis for references.

[2:03:26] » Yeah. Yeah. >> I think we have plenty of information.

[2:03:31] » Yeah. >> I do have a question about how the

[2:03:34] » you know when we move this forward, how we determine what is allocated towards

[2:03:40] the override stabilization reserve fund. How does that Yeah.

[2:03:46] » factor into all this? >> Good question. So,

[2:03:50] actually, why don't we take out that spreadsheet?

[2:04:10] » I just asked them to print out one scenario. Doesn't mean this is the

[2:04:15] scenario that we should pick. I'm just saying I asked them to pick out one. So,

[2:04:21] um if you go back to go back to um that table that's the

[2:04:29] » Yeah, the budget this budget scenario table. This one here.

[2:04:34] Okay. So, um

[2:04:38] see the column says total override including stabilization.

[2:04:46] Everybody got that? >> Y.

[2:04:47] » If you look at the 3.5 the 2.6 scenario, it's got a million606

[2:04:53] 511 for the total override including stabilization.

[2:04:59] So this long sheet was called the million this million6

[2:05:04] right here. >> That's this tells you how it's

[2:05:07] calculated. >> Mhm.

[2:05:08] » Okay. So it basically it takes

[2:05:14] » you need one of these Brent one. Yeah. Okay. Um

[2:05:19] it takes uh basically takes the the 26 budget and then it it escalates it by

[2:05:29] » 3 and a half% for schools 2.8 2.6 for the town. Okay. And it compares that to

[2:05:37] our prop. remember the the worksheets we were working on before all fall that

[2:05:42] Christine would give us that calculated what the what the prop 2 and a half

[2:05:46] number was. >> That's the that's the the 1.8 that's

[2:05:51] this number here. So it's uh 1.8 is the prop 2 and a half,

[2:05:55] » right? >> So the difference between growing at 3

[2:05:58] and a half% and the prop 2 and a half is the override. So the 761

[2:06:06] for the schools and the 110 for the town adds up to 871.

[2:06:12] That's the that's the piece of the 1.6 million that we need to cover 27.

[2:06:18] Okay. And then we'll do the same thing for 28.

[2:06:23] And we this is 735 is the amount we put in a budget mean to put it in the

[2:06:29] stabilization fund. So, we know that the override of 1.6 871 will cover 27 and

[2:06:39] 735 will be in a stabilization fund to cover the 28 budget. So, we don't need a

[2:06:46] second over. That's how that works. And then we do

[2:06:51] this for each scenario. Does everybody understand that? Did you

[2:06:55] follow that, Elizabeth?

[2:06:59] That's still >> that's still less than what we need for

[2:07:05] 27. So there's still going to be issues, right?

[2:07:08] » Well, it's less because the um because the prop 2 and a half is bigger,

[2:07:13] » right? >> Right. So remember, we had a little more

[2:07:15] growth at 28. So this 2.1 is the is the prop 2 and a half versus the 1.8. So it

[2:07:22] it is you're right. It is a little bit less,

[2:07:24] » but that's because our forecast for 28 was more.

[2:07:28] » Okay. So I see um so to go through this again we start with the 26

[2:07:35] um the 26 the 59 million082

[2:07:42] the remaining available for departments we escalate that by 3.5

[2:07:48] for the schools and 2.6 for the town comes up with an average of 3.28 28

[2:07:55] and we get a forecasted budget of 61,20,457.

[2:08:02] And then we compare that to the Prop 2 and a half column, the second column

[2:08:09] that says if we're only limited to Prop 2 and a half increase, the budget would

[2:08:15] be 60,149. But we want to grow, we want to

[2:08:19] override, so we want to grow it more than that. So we need an extra

[2:08:24] 871

[2:08:27] for 27. And then for 28, you just take that 27 forecast column, the 6120,000,

[2:08:36] and you grow that by 3.5% for the schools, one point 2.6 for

[2:08:43] the town. And you go through the same math, compare it to what the Prop 2 and

[2:08:48] a half budget is for 28, which is 61,415,

[2:08:53] and you need an override of 735 for 28. So you add the two together. You

[2:08:59] add the 27 piece and the 28 piece to come up with an override of a million6

[2:09:06] that we're going to ask voters to approve and add to the 27 tax limit.

[2:09:14] at town meeting with a promise. Now, here's the thing I I haven't mentioned

[2:09:19] to you. I should talk to you about I thought it was a good Some towns that

[2:09:24] have been successful with overrides have gotten their school committee, select

[2:09:29] board, and warrant committee to make a commitment statement.

[2:09:36] So, I've started to draft a statement uh that

[2:09:42] I haven't shown it to to uh any of those committees yet. Um and so

[2:09:50] I think what we'll do is at our working group meeting on the 17th, I'll share it

[2:09:56] with them and uh then at our next meeting, I'll

[2:10:00] give it a copy to all of you for your feedback. But my thought is it would be

[2:10:06] a it would be a commitment letter that would basically say look

[2:10:11] we these three committees agreed to we're supportive of an override.

[2:10:17] We we will limit 28 we will limit the the 28 budget increases to whatever

[2:10:24] percentage we decide. Uh we will we will abide by some fiscal

[2:10:30] discipline. you know there'll be some discussion of that in there and that um

[2:10:37] you know we will look for revenue opportunities

[2:10:42] like we'll support the state hospital we'll look for fees where we can get

[2:10:45] them we'll do all the things that we've talked about as a committee I don't

[2:10:50] think people on this committee should have an issue with the statement hopeful

[2:10:55] that the school committee and the select board will support it but I think having

[2:10:59] that like in the warrant so that people can read it. The link will be helpful,

[2:11:06] you know. So, so I just want to mention that that's um Did that does this answer

[2:11:12] your question about how we get to the 2018?

[2:11:15] » Yes. >> All right. So, what do people think

[2:11:19] about um

[2:11:23] is are people let's put it this way. If you have any thoughts on we were to

[2:11:28] eliminate one or two scenario, we don't have to get down to two or

[2:11:33] three, but let's start with you know this this slide up here this

[2:11:39] you know this um you know if you want to talk about

[2:11:45] certain scenarios maybe we talk about the extremes right first what people

[2:11:49] think about those >> it seems like the 2525 doesn't get us

[2:11:53] very far so it's it doesn't solve either problem. So it seems like that would be

[2:11:58] an easy We're going to start somewhere. >> As me said, you took the word out.

[2:12:10] » Oh, you're going Oh, so you're getting it right down there. Okay.

[2:12:15] » But top two mean the 4.59.

[2:12:22] That's just me. So I I like uh I like having five and I

[2:12:28] like having 39 like having the level service and I like

[2:12:33] having what the superintendent recommended. Mhm.

[2:12:37] » I'm okay eliminating the rest of the sentiment that I've gotten a lot of

[2:12:43] feedback on Peter talking to people is the the underlying

[2:12:49] comment that I get a lot of and I completely agree is

[2:12:55] you're telling me in every scenario except one

[2:13:00] two every scenario except one you're going

[2:13:04] to raise my taxes and you're still That's I don't like that.

[2:13:09] I've heard that two dozen times in the last month.

[2:13:17] Now, I've heard a lot of people also heard two dozen comments

[2:13:23] pay enough as it is in taxes. I'm not going to vote.

[2:13:28] So, as far as the people I've talked to, >> the tax

[2:13:32] » as far as I've talked to, I'm getting about a pretty close to 5050 split

[2:13:37] between people who say I'm okay if my taxes go up to fund what we got and pay

[2:13:44] enough as it goes and I don't want

[2:13:48] a lot of whatever. >> Is there any way to take some sort of

[2:13:52] pulse survey of the community to like

[2:13:58] So my thinking is a little different from yours which doesn't mean of course

[2:14:03] I'm doing if if the school committee could live with 4.59

[2:14:09] with the retigering the retirements and the

[2:14:15] taking the putting some people into revolving accounts.

[2:14:22] I think that should my feeling is that should be the top pick here and not have

[2:14:27] the 5.0 anymore. So I would drop that and if you're going to require cuts

[2:14:35] this purely seat of the pants who cares what Peter Michaelelsson thinks. Uh I

[2:14:42] just sort of think the 3.5 3.6 six.

[2:14:49] » You're trying to balance the impact impacts with,

[2:14:52] » right? >> Yeah, that's what I That's what we got

[2:14:55] to do. That's that uh >> Yeah, I mean Yeah, that's the seessaw.

[2:15:00] You know, I mean, I'll I'll just weigh in here. I think that,

[2:15:04] » you know, there's a there's a school of thought

[2:15:08] here that says you're going to you're going to go with

[2:15:12] level service. you're going to you're going to increase my taxes by $1,200

[2:15:16] every year. And that may not be sustainable for some

[2:15:22] people, but some people some people >> particularly where there's a school

[2:15:28] a school uh project that's going to that's going to you know

[2:15:34] » going to be uh on top of that. though I mean there's a there's a core question

[2:15:40] of can we afford a level service budget of 5%

[2:15:45] every year. That's that's I think a core question.

[2:15:50] Uh I I don't know the answer to that. People will have different views on

[2:15:54] that. Um, but I look at I look at this list of cuts and how it impacts

[2:16:01] um how it I mean how it impacts um the

[2:16:06] school. I don't see a lot of pain in the in the

[2:16:11] first you know getting down to the 3.9. I see some retirements. I see

[2:16:19] I see a custodian moving from revol from into a revolver. I see some professional

[2:16:24] development work, some committee work being

[2:16:27] eliminated, central office position. I mean, there's only one teacher being

[2:16:34] cut there at a high school. I don't know what that

[2:16:38] position is, but um and it's probably important to note too

[2:16:44] that this doesn't include what Dr. Marsen talked about our last meeting.

[2:16:50] school committee was going to look at uh bus fees

[2:16:55] » as well. And you know, if you even use a you

[2:17:00] know, conservative estimate, 100 students, 800 students take the bus all

[2:17:06] the time. You know, you impose 100 bucks a student per year. I'm just pulling

[2:17:09] numbers out of thin air. More than enough revenue to offset, you know,

[2:17:14] right? >> The teacher thing. So, at least that one

[2:17:18] position. The problem I have with the the level service budget is that it it

[2:17:23] kind of sends a message that, you know, we've we want you to pay more taxes,

[2:17:29] been, you know, we're not going to we don't think there's any cuts that can be

[2:17:33] made. >> That's kind of what it's saying.

[2:17:38] » I also >> and we know that's not true looking at

[2:17:40] this. I mean, um, so I'm I'm struggling with, you know, with that level service

[2:17:48] budget. >> Well, the level service of 5%. Is the

[2:17:52] highest that they've come in with in >> ever

[2:17:54] » the years that I've the reason it's so high this year is because you have the

[2:17:57] specialed transportation, the connelly thing, and the impact. But remember, we

[2:18:01] had we had three line items that cost us overion dollars, right? So the you know

[2:18:06] the typical school budget is going to go up between four and four four somewhere

[2:18:12] in that range every year. That's that's your average.

[2:18:15] » Yeah. >> Uh across the years. Yeah. So that's why

[2:18:18] I kind of throw out the 5% that's an anomaly.

[2:18:22] » Yeah. I agree. >> Yeah. I got to say I I'm not disagreeing

[2:18:27] strongly with any of this, but I'm sort of back with what Elizabeth said

[2:18:31] earlier. I'm thinking also about the town budgets which are and the

[2:18:37] presentation by the fire chiefs that was sort of dire sounding to me and

[2:18:43] I didn't realize that till he made that presentation.

[2:18:47] So,

[2:18:51] and we've got a bigger problem with fire department coming down the pipe next

[2:18:55] year. I'm aware uh with those four positions, but um uh

[2:19:02] so part of me feels like we can give a little flexibility

[2:19:07] this year and next for the non-school department. I sort of favor that.

[2:19:16] That's not a that's not a diet drive against the school department. I

[2:19:20] » that's the biggest budget in town for lots of good reasons.

[2:19:23] » Yeah. Yeah. >> The important service the town provides.

[2:19:31] » You know, I think I think that >> um

[2:19:36] let me ask you this. Elizabeth made a suggestion that the 2.5

[2:19:41] scenario doesn't really get us a lot. People

[2:19:46] agree with that. >> Yes.

[2:19:48] » Is that two or two? >> It doesn't get us a lot, but it's

[2:19:52] inherently justifiable. And I just want to make that point again, right? because

[2:19:56] you know 2 and a half% is the I mean it's different for us because we choose

[2:20:02] to separate out our fixed costs but operating costs growing at two and a

[2:20:06] half% at least the spirit of prop two and a half so in time and it's very very

[2:20:11] rarely since I've been on this committee in fact it's never happened that we've

[2:20:14] been unable to grow that side of those budgets at two and a half% on that so

[2:20:19] that's at least inherently justifiable everything else is an arbitrary decision

[2:20:23] based on um somebody else's suggestion of what

[2:20:28] they thought level service, something they thought they could get fine with.

[2:20:31] That's the only number that's inherently justifiable. Now, I I'm not necessarily

[2:20:36] going to say that's the only one I can support,

[2:20:38] » but I but I don't want us to necessarily

[2:20:42] discount it simply because we don't like what it implies.

[2:20:48] » Yeah. So >> I mean I I I would gravitate I would

[2:20:50] just say by the way just I mean three and a half to six is about the highest I

[2:20:54] feel comfortable myself >> and I mean I I say that on the basis of

[2:20:58] previous budget increases that we've seen in the last two or three years

[2:21:01] that's in line that sometimes we were able to get to four.

[2:21:03] » Yeah. >> Sometimes we had to settle for 35 34.

[2:21:06] » Yeah. >> But I you know at least to me it implies

[2:21:10] a continuity previous year. Uh the other ones feel like we haven't

[2:21:16] like we haven't fully got our head around the fact that unfortunately

[2:21:20] uh you know we have a structural problem.

[2:21:24] That's just me. So your your point is that uh

[2:21:31] that the two I think I think I said every scenario on here you could make a

[2:21:35] case that it's defensible and your point is the two and a half is is is aligned

[2:21:40] with the pro other other >> I'm not dismissing

[2:21:45] » well so at some point of course we have to defend whatever choice we choices but

[2:21:48] I assume we're going to have a singular choice

[2:21:51] » we'll have to defend it but other choices require you to go now to the

[2:21:55] next page and look at individual cuts. And so you're making a decision on the

[2:21:58] basis of somebody's prioritized decisions,

[2:22:01] » right? >> And that to me is a is um one in which

[2:22:05] every single one of the 13,000 residents might be a different viewpoint, right?

[2:22:09] So fair enough. >> So I'm trying to think of what's

[2:22:11] » but they they elect representatives that made the decision.

[2:22:14] » I totally agree. Thank goodness for that.

[2:22:19] » Yeah. Um but that I mean I understand that's that's uh that's how we that

[2:22:24] you're right. That's that's I feel I feel better because they as committees,

[2:22:31] you know, made those decisions. They're closest to I guess as elected officials

[2:22:36] what the priorities of the town should be. So, um, which is why I thought it

[2:22:41] was important they they weighed in on that. So,

[2:22:45] but, um, I look at it from the perspective of

[2:22:51] what do we think the citizens will vote for

[2:22:58] pass versus how much the schools have to cut.

[2:23:01] » Yeah. Because the alternative the alternative is is not everybody agrees

[2:23:04] the alternative, right? Yeah.

[2:23:08] So I think the me the most important thing to look at is go was the impact on

[2:23:13] the taxpayer. >> Well, how about how about just so we can

[2:23:18] get some consensus here?

[2:23:22] I'll throw this out. Can we can we can we rule out I don't want to go as far as

[2:23:27] Ed suggested, but can we rule out the top and the bottom one, the two and a

[2:23:32] half and the 5%? you know, just, you know, and then we'll

[2:23:37] we'll get some feedback from this working group next week and see um of

[2:23:43] the one, two, three, four of the four scenarios that are left

[2:23:48] um we can get unless you think we can get to two. I know it's it's 9:30. So,

[2:23:54] » I mean, I said this last week that tuition for kindergarten $3,500 is a

[2:24:00] check that I'll write right now. That's already in here. There's two full-time

[2:24:05] teachers retiring in here. And that those two moves right there be four or

[2:24:10] five. Yeah. To me, that's that's good on the, you know, on the school side. If I

[2:24:18] know school committee and another superintendent have their own desire to

[2:24:22] move full-time kindergarten to free incoming kindergarteners.

[2:24:29] » Yeah. that it's not free and that it's going to cost seven grand is not a

[2:24:34] problem in my head.

[2:24:38] I'm cool with that. Yeah. I mean, I I look at I mean, okay.

[2:24:45] So, so maybe we can maybe we can eliminate those two, the five and the

[2:24:50] two and a half, but I think um my guess is that

[2:24:57] um that uh we may have you know what do

[2:25:03] people we haven't talked about. What do people think about the average tax

[2:25:06] impact? Is it is uh you know

[2:25:13] is there any magic to being below 800 or above a thousand that impact people's

[2:25:19] decision?

[2:25:23] Uh I think the average taxpayer looking at a $1,000 increase is gonna

[2:25:29] say no. >> Absolutely. That's a thou a thousand

[2:25:33] dollar. >> Yeah,

[2:25:34] » it's a Wow. That's a big number. That's why I kind of look at okay 8.84 782

[2:25:41] that's well below the thousand. >> Yeah.

[2:25:44] » And it still requires significant still requires cuts. Um

[2:25:51] in between >> Yeah. It's it's you know

[2:25:58] » so you'd say >> as you say you don't get anything for

[2:26:01] the two and a half 50 you're only going up $166 right

[2:26:05] » from the base 401 >> right

[2:26:07] » this is the incremental you got look at the incremental here the 668 is sorry

[2:26:11] it's up so it's up 268 and the other one is 382

[2:26:16] » is the incremental cost for the of the overrides

[2:26:22] » and I don't I think those two numbers if presented that way

[2:26:28] is a showstopper. >> So that so that's why that's I guess how

[2:26:33] you got to the 39. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah.

[2:26:43] I mean, when you look at the impact on this prioritized list, say the schools,

[2:26:49] I don't think the town has a giant problem.

[2:26:54] Uh I say a giant problem. every every pro every amount money matters for the

[2:26:59] town side but um

[2:27:03] the cuts are not people right that's that's the difference on the school side

[2:27:08] we're talking about people so um the uh

[2:27:15] yeah I >> there there are people cut

[2:27:17] » are there people cut >> there are several cuts that they've been

[2:27:21] vacated in the last six weeks eight weeks so I intentionally didn't fill

[2:27:25] them knowing we were going to have this issue, but they are

[2:27:28] » um they are positions that we are losing.

[2:27:31] » Can you can you put up the town slide again? I don't have a copy of it. So,

[2:27:45] » the I'm getting confused. So the equivalent to the 39 budget is the two

[2:27:52] 28 >> 39. So the 2.8.

[2:27:57] So it's this first group of cuts. >> Yeah. So we have a land use department

[2:28:04] in there. The assessors we move to a halftime admin.

[2:28:11] » Oh, is that the >> So the land use department is the part

[2:28:14] time administrator that we didn't build. So that's a that's a

[2:28:18] » Which one is that? What's the amount of that one?

[2:28:21] » 23 2251. >> What do you I don't see that on my

[2:28:25] schedule. Where's that? >> Oh, that's

[2:28:27] » towards the the bottom. Right above the on call animal. Yep.

[2:28:31] » Okay. Maybe I'm not understanding me. So I'm I'm looking at this first bucket.

[2:28:37] » Yeah. Yeah. >> Not down the bottom from the top down.

[2:28:41] But if if it's going to be restored up to 28,

[2:28:44] you would restore from the bottom up.

[2:28:50] » No, that's different than the way the school's done it. So do I ask you that

[2:28:53] question? So >> Oh, then ours might be flipped. Our our

[2:28:56] ours goes from priority. >> The priority.

[2:28:59] » That's not how I was. >> Yeah, that's not how I was. Well, that's

[2:29:02] why I said so if there's the only way to talk to on call control animal control

[2:29:11] » the school is at the bottom as well because if you look the the custodians

[2:29:15] are >> well the priority to to keep the cut is

[2:29:19] at the bottom. >> The priority to first cut is at the top

[2:29:23] of the school list. Yes. >> Yeah. and so

[2:29:29] » okay so that so we're saying the same thing now

[2:29:32] » I think we are >> so the library is the library reduction

[2:29:36] of 21,000 I'm sorry your HR halftime person is the

[2:29:40] the number one cut that >> yes because we cut it in half

[2:29:44] » so that's that's your first cut to happen

[2:29:47] » then we go to the library >> next so to get down to the 2.8 8 budget.

[2:29:54] » It's everything above that. >> It's everything above that.

[2:29:57] » It doesn't include the the thing you were talking about, the land use,

[2:30:00] » the people. Sorry, I thought I thought you were making a general statement that

[2:30:03] we didn't >> Yeah. No, I'm talking I'm trying to talk

[2:30:07] about getting >> Yeah, sorry. I I thought you were

[2:30:09] talking about in >> How hard are these cuts to get down to a

[2:30:12] three 39 2.8 budget? 3 3.9 schools, 2.8 for

[2:30:18] the Y. >> And this is that list. So it's, you

[2:30:23] know, I'm doing the same thing I did for the school. I looked at their what

[2:30:26] they're, you know,

[2:30:29] » this is the question. So when I see a $1,000 increase,

[2:30:34] look, nobody likes paying real estate taxes. It arrives in the mail like I

[2:30:39] would take. Uh, but they you see a thousand buck increase and you go,

[2:30:45] "Well, 20 bucks a week. 50 50 weeks a year. Thousand bucks, 20 bucks a week.

[2:30:51] I'm not thrilled. I'm not happy. But what the hell? You don't you I take it

[2:30:56] your face right now. In addition to what you said earlier, you don't think

[2:31:00] anybody thinks about it that way. >> No. If you're getting filled in your

[2:31:03] Mastercard or Visa 20 bucks a week, you wouldn't pay attention to what you have

[2:31:07] to bill every quarter and it's four or $500 whatever it is more divided by

[2:31:13] four. Then it is noticeable. And when they think about it, oh my taxes right

[2:31:17] now, uh 10,000. It's going to go to He likes tax.

[2:31:21] » I don't know who they know like I think they're thinking about it the aggregate

[2:31:24] when they're sitting in the audience. >> Yeah. Broken down by

[2:31:28] » I mean I I get it. You know the school committee who was it Will Horn said oh

[2:31:33] it's a couple meals out you know kind of thing. And I get that but people people

[2:31:38] don't think that way. I agree with that. People spoke to us. You know what's

[2:31:42] what's the impact? >> I guess you know we talked about the

[2:31:45] commitment statement a little bit ago. We also raised the issue on a safer

[2:31:49] grant and some of I mean there's some risk here in

[2:31:54] where is the number that is is going to let us deal with some of

[2:31:59] those I mean there are contractual labor issues especially on the town side I

[2:32:03] mean going back to what Pete raised is some of these things that are baked in

[2:32:08] for next year and we're going to make a commitment that we're going to you know

[2:32:11] try to stay away from another override. Have we built in enough to make sure we

[2:32:18] can get close to that? I mean, like safer just is right off the the top,

[2:32:23] right? That's a pretty significant percentage basis for the the town.

[2:32:28] That's not small. >> Well, I turn to Christine to kind of I

[2:32:31] thought we >> So, that's going to be in in fiscal year

[2:32:34] 28 and we're going to work we're raising the fees for ALS to help offset that and

[2:32:39] we're going to draw more from the ALS revolving fund to try and keep those in.

[2:32:43] So they they think it can be worked. >> Yeah.

[2:32:47] » We're trying to be as creative is what she's saying.

[2:32:50] » Trying to be as creative as possible. >> So we feel like I guess that we feel

[2:32:56] like these scenarios are to the best of our knowledge kind of

[2:33:03] where we think they're they're representative of what we think is going

[2:33:07] forward to the best of our knowledge given current information.

[2:33:10] » Yeah, I think so. I hate to say and I said this before. I think that let's say

[2:33:15] we went with the 39 or the 35 one of those two. Uh when the schools do

[2:33:21] their budget 28, they're going to command it at higher than the number

[2:33:26] that we have on the spreadsheet. But what they're going to have to do is

[2:33:29] commit to do additional cuts to get back to the number that's on the that's on

[2:33:36] the piece of paper. That's, you know, that's why in this in this commitment

[2:33:40] statement, >> right,

[2:33:42] » we've got in here that the annual regs annual operating budget

[2:33:49] uh growth of 28 will not exceed x% whenever we decide.

[2:33:56] So, and the town will make a similar commitment.

[2:33:59] I did a quick calculation this afternoon and I just said, "Okay, if the school

[2:34:03] goes up 4% 73, I forget which I

[2:34:10] have to cut another 200,000 next year to get to the get to the goal." That's why

[2:34:15] you need to put that in there.

[2:34:22] » Yeah. >> D in blood.

[2:34:25] » Cut your fingers. >> Don't have any left.

[2:34:30] You're going to use your fingers, Peter.

[2:34:34] But I think I think you know um well

[2:34:40] so I mean people comfortable with I guess Ed's recommendation of the the uh

[2:34:49] 39 and the 35. I know that it has one option that you said you

[2:34:57] » unless you go five or 49 or 46. I'm going to support getting the override

[2:35:01] because we need the override. >> Yeah.

[2:35:03] » So if this body says it's going to be 39, I'm going to support 39. I'm not

[2:35:06] going to be the one saying no, don't vote for it.

[2:35:08] » Okay. >> But I mean, so yeah, those two are in

[2:35:11] the ballpark, you know. I mean 884 is twice

[2:35:17] tax increase you would otherwise have. That's a to me that's a key number.

[2:35:21] » Yeah. >> It isn't the absolute dollar amount

[2:35:23] because remember it's going to go up by another 400 next year and 400 over that

[2:35:26] 400 over that because it goes up every year by two and a half%. So it's not

[2:35:30] just what this year, right? And then this is a permanent increase in the tax

[2:35:33] levy. So I I just feel like we run a risk if we only talk about from

[2:35:40] a static perspective as instead of saying we're really trying to think

[2:35:43] about, you know, the the trajectory of your taxes through time, longitudinal uh

[2:35:50] trajectory as long-term residents of Medfield, right? So I think that so

[2:35:55] yeah, I kind of b at it when it gets over a thousand just because it's two

[2:35:59] and a half times what the average home would be increasing anyway.

[2:36:03] Yeah,

[2:36:06] none of this really solves the structural deficit. This is a good

[2:36:11] bandaid for two years. And then as you said, we had this conversation last time

[2:36:15] into 29. >> Um

[2:36:19] that instead of having that, you know, 18 or 21, it might be three or three a

[2:36:24] little over three because when I go back hospitality

[2:36:30] kick in. >> Yeah. I think I think

[2:36:32] » it's just a band-aid. >> I think of it as a uh I call it a bridge

[2:36:37] » bridge. >> It's a bridge to a bridge to 29 when the

[2:36:42] hospital >> uh hope

[2:36:46] the hospital comes. You know, if I take I think that's that's kind of how we

[2:36:51] have to talk about it. It's right

[2:36:57] » two years it'll be Joe and Ashley's. Yes.

[2:37:05] » If I get reappointed, >> the 39 seems like

[2:37:11] » 39 seems like sweet spot. >> No question.

[2:37:14] » Is that what we're saying? Well, I think what I think I think the suggestion was

[2:37:18] that we we narrow it down to 35 or 3 and 39 and take that to the working group

[2:37:26] » then take their feedback and next time we meet we'll share the

[2:37:32] feedback and and u and then we'll make a decision. So you

[2:37:38] » at least between the between the two. I do like the 39 superintendent

[2:37:45] » put a lot of thought into that. That's where he came to.

[2:37:48] » Okay. We're not we're not we're not forcing that decision yet.

[2:37:52] » No, but no, but but also like whichever one of these speaking my wife and

[2:37:58] myself, whichever one the highest one on here, we're we're both going to support.

[2:38:02] Okay. >> A lot of my neighbors feel the same way.

[2:38:04] » Okay. I know that's not the same everywhere in town. That's what I'm

[2:38:09] gonna do personally. Okay. >> Ask me a question. Yeah.

[2:38:15] » Um, is there any advantage to going into that working group? So, not endorsing

[2:38:20] right now as a vote, but kind of saying for your working group conversation

[2:38:25] to go in with one to kind of like versus two that are close together. Does that

[2:38:30] help you in any way in your conversation? Well, it doesn't give them

[2:38:35] that. It's then you're not asking for their input. You're just telling them

[2:38:39] what you think. >> I I think that's probably not the right

[2:38:44] way to go about it. >> I mean, I we could I I'll share the

[2:38:48] honest opinions of like we have, you know, we came down to these two. There's

[2:38:54] some people who would support the highest amount that as a committee we we

[2:38:58] approve. Um nobody has. The other problem is we have

[2:39:03] two people on the committee that aren't here tonight. So,

[2:39:06] » right. >> Um

[2:39:08] » I can assure you everybody on the working group is gonna watch this

[2:39:10] meeting before our working group meeting.

[2:39:13] » Yeah. They're going to hear what you just said.

[2:39:22] » Yeah. >> Yeah. All right. Everybody comfortable

[2:39:26] with that approach? >> Yeah.

[2:39:27] » Okay. All right. Okay. So, um I think we will just uh

[2:39:36] uh the the war articles this updated

[2:39:41] schedule I handed out to everybody. That's what we'll do next. Well, we'll

[2:39:45] actually all the ones we were supposed to do tonight, we'll have to cover next

[2:39:49] meeting, which is quite a few of them, but

[2:39:51] » um >> Okay. And we'll send out I have uh two

[2:39:54] updated articles that town council finished today, but I will send out a

[2:39:58] mini draft. Yeah. uh which I included. >> Okay. And then um the uh

[2:40:05] the any updates, Pete, on the school building committee?

[2:40:09] » Uh yeah, I'm a little distant from it, but they did have uh interviews with the

[2:40:14] three finalists for the LPM position. They were going to get together to meet

[2:40:20] and score uh the three finalists based on their impressions of the in-person

[2:40:29] uh interviews. >> Yeah.

[2:40:31] » Uh and I assume uh that's happened by now, but I don't

[2:40:36] know the outcome of it. I don't know which of the three finalists they've uh

[2:40:40] selected this now once they

[2:40:46] have a choice it gets submitted to the MSBA.

[2:40:51] Um and the MSBA has reserves itself the right to turn down. uh they say they

[2:41:00] don't do the the what we've heard anecdotally is that they do that not as

[2:41:06] frequently with the architect they do it less with the OPF

[2:41:10] uh but there was one instance that Bob Worth knew about where I think it

[2:41:17] was Bob but somebody else but where the someone picked an OPM and the MSBA said

[2:41:23] no they just got a big project in Brockton we don't think they can handle

[2:41:27] yours and Brockton go pick somebody else. So, so we're not there yet, but

[2:41:35] the goal is mid midappril to have an OPM and then

[2:41:42] we'll start down the road towards picking an architect which is

[2:41:45] » okay more involved. >> Okay, good. Anything on the capital

[2:41:50] budget committee? >> That's good.

[2:41:55] All right, unless there's anything else to entertain a motion to adjourn.

[2:41:59] » You should know on April 6th will be as an MSA meeting

[2:42:05] » on April 6. >> I'm aware of that. I'm going to

[2:42:10] » motion to second. >> All in favor?

[2:42:20] with these.

Warrant Committee Meeting (03-10-2026)

Transcript