[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.