[0:00] Hi, this is the board of selectments

[0:03] meeting of September 28th.

[0:06] Um, calling the meeting to order at 6

[0:08] o'clock and this meeting is being

[0:10] broadcast and recorded.

[0:13] Um, we're going to go right to um your

[0:18] report if we could.

[0:19] >> Yeah, just just quick, we have somebody

[0:21] here from the Tobacco Lake and Watershed

[0:24] Association and there were two items on

[0:25] your agenda I didn't think he's here

[0:27] for. One of them is the um license with

[0:30] the Tobacco Lake and Wershed Association

[0:32] like we did with the Legion.

[0:34] >> Yep.

[0:34] >> They don't have a signed copy tonight,

[0:37] but the board meets again on the 5th.

[0:39] >> Okay.

[0:40] >> It is on your agenda.

[0:42] >> Yep.

[0:42] >> And and uh Allan, I don't believe

[0:45] there's any issue. The board was already

[0:47] in agreement so long as the lake

[0:49] association signed it in a form that we prescribed.

[0:54] And then the other thing was the do we

[0:56] want to talk about the other thing the

[0:58] um application

[0:59] >> the 604B water quality grant.

[1:02] >> Um

[1:03] the lake association would like to do a

[1:07] project that takes advantage of a lot of

[1:09] data they've collected recently about

[1:12] all of the septic systems that surround

[1:14] Chebacco Lake in an effort to eventually

[1:18] reduce the amount of phosphorus going

[1:20] into the lake. In a freshwater

[1:22] environment, phosphorus is the limiting

[1:24] nutrient. And if you can cut that down,

[1:26] then you're going to cut down on uh

[1:28] blooms, including toxic blooms like

[1:30] cyanobacteria.

[1:32] And um I do have a um letter of support

[1:35] for consideration by the board.

[1:38] >> So we got that um by email.

[1:42] >> Yes.

[1:42] >> And um

[1:44] I thought that the PowerPoint was very

[1:48] well written and very clear. I I don't

[1:51] know if you guys had a chance to look at

[1:52] it. I thought it was great. Um, one

[1:54] thing I would love next time we have

[1:57] something like that is context. So, what

[2:00] is the current condition of the lake in

[2:02] terms of that? Because I don't I don't

[2:04] know that stuff.

[2:05] >> It's it's suffering from phosphor excess

[2:09] phosphorus.

[2:10] >> A lot of invasive plants. There was no

[2:12] uh cyanobacteria bloom this year, but

[2:15] there has been the previous three or

[2:17] four years. And that closes it down. um

[2:20] at least for several weeks.

[2:22] >> Yeah.

[2:23] >> Um but yeah, it's had a lot of uh

[2:28] invasive plants in there that have been

[2:30] growing like wildfire for decades.

[2:33] Really?

[2:34] >> Yeah.

[2:34] >> Because of the excess phosphorus.

[2:38] >> Yeah. Um can I have a motion to approve

[2:41] >> letter of support for the 604B grant

[2:45] application?

[2:46] Um

[2:48] the town is actually the applicant but

[2:51] this is the select then throwing its own

[2:53] letter of support into it that which

[2:55] will become part of the application.

[2:57] >> Right.

[2:58] >> The lake association is going to do all

[3:00] the heavy lifting. We're just the

[3:01] conduit because a municipality has to be

[3:04] the applicant.

[3:05] >> So moved.

[3:06] >> Second.

[3:07] >> All those in favor? I I

[3:10] >> Great.

[3:11] >> All right. So we'll get that to you

[3:12] Alan. I think those are all the things

[3:14] right.

[3:15] >> Yep.

[3:22] >> No, no, it's okay.

[3:23] >> We're good.

[3:24] >> So, moving into my report. Um, first

[3:28] item on there is continued discussion

[3:30] with respect to the government study

[3:32] committee. I did speak to

[3:36] the town moderator. He is willing to

[3:40] actually be the um appointing authority

[3:43] once the selectman or people who see our

[3:46] announcement just generally uh provide a

[3:50] complete list of potential nom

[3:53] applicants.

[3:55] So far, people have I've had five people

[3:58] approach us directly and I know that um

[4:02] Chairman Cameron, you had a list of

[4:04] potential people that you would like to

[4:06] perhaps put forward and I don't know

[4:08] whether um any of the other board

[4:10] members have ideas for names and if you

[4:13] don't have them now, we're accepting

[4:15] them through October 13th.

[4:17] >> Any are yours people that want to do it

[4:20] or just a list of

[4:21] >> This is my list of like who I'd like to

[4:22] ask. So, I'm kind of making my way

[4:24] through the list, but I I I'm going to

[4:27] show you what it's kind of like. I have

[4:29] the name, contact information,

[4:31] >> profession, and then skill set.

[4:33] >> And I thought that would help Jeff if he

[4:35] was vetting these people. Sure. So, I'm

[4:37] in the midst of asking people if they

[4:39] want to do it. And

[4:42] so, I'm just going to show you the

[4:44] format of my list and then you can do

[4:46] your own thing and but just so you know

[4:47] who I'm talking to.

[4:49] >> Okay. Thank you. Um,

[4:50] >> they're just looking

[4:51] >> and this is I I've not talked to Jeff

[4:53] about any of these people because I want

[4:54] it to be clean, you know.

[4:59] >> Um,

[5:00] >> that's something you're going to get to

[5:01] him.

[5:01] >> Uh-uh. I'm telling these people if you

[5:03] want to do this.

[5:04] >> Oh, they should.

[5:05] >> You should send the letter.

[5:06] >> Okay.

[5:08] There you go.

[5:11] [clears throat]

[5:11] >> Anything else on that one?

[5:13] >> Anyone? Okay.

[5:17] [snorts]

[5:18] >> Okay.

[5:18] >> All right. The next item,

[5:22] >> is this my copy or you want it?

[5:24] >> If you want to keep it, you can keep it.

[5:25] I have it electronically.

[5:26] >> Okay. Uh, is the public safety building

[5:29] siding project update and change order?

[5:32] Um, before the rain came, they were

[5:35] expecting to be completely done by the

[5:37] end of this week. I suspect that'll slip

[5:40] a little bit. Uh but the change order

[5:43] that I have talked about at a previous

[5:44] meeting. Uh the original contract scope

[5:50] included the replacement of a bunch of

[5:53] the uh PVC trim on the building because

[5:56] it was thought that if they're going to

[5:57] remove it to do the siding, they were

[6:00] going to wreck it. Fortunately, they

[6:02] were able to get a lot of the trim off

[6:05] without damaging it so they could reuse

[6:07] it. We're going to get a credit for that

[6:10] against now what has to happen which is

[6:14] um painting of any trim that they did

[6:18] have to replace. The contract did not

[6:20] carry painting of the new trim. And you

[6:23] really do need to paint it or it's going

[6:25] to look bright white against an

[6:27] off-white rest of the trim.

[6:29] >> Why didn't we have a contract for

[6:30] painting it?

[6:31] >> I I guess the engineer didn't think of

[6:33] that. They didn't they didn't look at

[6:35] the fact that the other

[6:37] >> So, this is a change order for a not to

[6:40] exceed value of $3,000 and that includes

[6:43] backing out the credit we're getting for

[6:46] trim that wasn't u had to be purchased.

[6:53] » So, they'll be done soon. And um

[6:57] >> last thing to do is paint it. Oh, yes.

[6:58] Beyond the painting. Yes.

[7:00] >> Yep. Great. So, if you want to do a

[7:02] motion on that.

[7:03] >> Oh, what do we have?

[7:04] >> It's to not to exceed $3,000.

[7:06] >> And do you have a name a number for this

[7:08] one?

[7:09] >> Well, not to exceed it will it will be

[7:11] less. It would be $3,000 or less.

[7:13] They're still waiting for a couple of

[7:15] other quotes and they'll go with the

[7:16] lowest paint quote that they get.

[7:18] >> Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the

[7:19] change order amount of uh not to exceed

[7:22] $3,000 for

[7:25] um revived property solutions to um

[7:30] uh for to address the painting of the

[7:33] trim?

[7:34] >> Yeah. Moved. Second.

[7:35] >> All those in favor?

[7:36] >> I.

[7:37] >> Do I sign this?

[7:39] >> Yes.

[7:39] >> Here.

[7:39] >> Right there. Yep.

[7:43] » Thanks, Brandon.

[7:44] >> Thank you.

[7:47] Next we have

[7:49] uh a summary of the

[7:52] school district and municipal

[7:53] collaboration group that was held last

[7:55] week.

[7:57] Uh generally we talked about

[8:00] opportunities to share services where

[8:02] we're always kind of talking about that

[8:05] and if situations change with one

[8:08] organization or the other and there's

[8:10] something that has extra capacity

[8:13] then there's always a chance to

[8:14] cooperate, collaborate. We also

[8:17] discussed of course the um plans for the

[8:22] school vote that's coming up. We did

[8:25] hear expressed from the Manchester

[8:27] finance committee that they felt like

[8:30] since we're only getting the school

[8:33] figures

[8:34] now that they feel that it's a short

[8:37] turnaround to get those that information

[8:40] out to the public. We, you know,

[8:42] reminded everyone that um we were told

[8:45] that we wouldn't have figures until

[8:47] September. It's still September and if

[8:49] anything, it's going to be about a

[8:51] week's delay. Um, so it was the original

[8:55] plan and we did discuss everything

[8:57] including financing options way back in

[8:59] March. So, we left that meeting uh with,

[9:04] you know, a plan from the school

[9:05] district to get numbers out and then

[9:08] translate those numbers into what it

[9:10] looks like per year financing because in

[9:12] the first few years it could be that

[9:15] only a small amount of money is

[9:17] borrowed. and we're looking at all the

[9:18] options, but I I feel that we left it

[9:22] with the fact that they're going to

[9:23] stick with those dates, which would be

[9:26] >> two town meetings on November 16th and

[9:28] two special elections on December 10th.

[9:31] >> Yeah.

[9:32] >> Did you want to add to that?

[9:34] So, [clears throat] we got a number last

[9:35] week that was

[9:37] high and um the value engineering group

[9:42] or value management group met LA la last

[9:44] week um brought it down um and tomorrow

[9:49] night we'll be finalizing those numbers

[9:50] and whatever the value engineering um

[9:53] decisions are. So, we'll have a solid

[9:56] number tomorrow night that will be

[9:59] submitted to the MSBA and then um it's

[10:04] going to be a very quick campaign to um

[10:08] answer people's questions and get the

[10:09] information out. But, um remember the

[10:13] vote is the 16th of November

[10:16] um at town meetings and then we've got

[10:18] >> Manchester is the 16th as well.

[10:20] >> Yeah. Everything every both dates are

[10:21] the same.

[10:21] >> Yeah. And I think when we look at the

[10:23] fall the town meeting warrant, we're

[10:25] going to have to be a little strategic

[10:26] about our timing of the article

[10:28] [clears throat] to make sure that folks

[10:30] are here to answer questions same night.

[10:33] I think Manchester starts at 6, we start

[10:35] at 6:45.

[10:37] And then um

[10:39] the vote is the 10th of December, so

[10:41] that gives us a nice chunk of time,

[10:44] although it is over the holiday. So um

[10:48] that's that's what's happening there.

[10:50] But um please please please if anyone is

[10:54] tuning in go to the um information

[10:57] sessions that the school district is

[10:59] holding

[11:02] >> um this month on the 5th, right?

[11:06] >> Yes, I think that's what they said.

[11:07] >> The 5th and the 13th.

[11:10] >> Oh, I thought it was the fifth.

[11:11] >> For the eth and the

[11:12] >> fifth and the eth.

[11:13] >> And I think there's one in Essex for the

[11:15] 13th.

[11:15] >> Okay.

[11:16] >> They're all posted on social media

[11:18] >> in the evening. Yep. And it's not a I'll

[11:22] just ask you to consider going to the

[11:23] Manchester one as well or just so that

[11:26] they can see

[11:28] Essex visibility,

[11:31] you know, and support.

[11:32] >> Do we have those dates?

[11:34] >> Yeah, I'll I'll I'll give them all to

[11:36] you. I think they're the eight the 8th

[11:38] the 13th are the two community forums.

[11:40] One in Essex, one in Manchester.

[11:42] >> Okay. The fifth was was another meeting,

[11:45] I Oh, that's the the fifth is the

[11:47] finance committee and board of selectman

[11:49] with the school building committee, but

[11:51] we're also meeting here, but they have

[11:54] their own meeting and we can ask for one

[11:55] if we'd like one.

[11:56] >> Okay.

[11:58] >> All right. So, speaking of the town

[11:59] meeting warrant, uh that's the next item

[12:03] for discussion.

[12:05] Uh the planning board articles are

[12:07] articles 1 through six

[12:10] and you have seen drafts of those.

[12:13] They're currently looking at town

[12:14] council's comments and compiling a final

[12:18] draft of each one and those will be

[12:20] inserted there. Article seven is the

[12:24] vote to um consider

[12:29] uh borrowing money for the school, the

[12:32] school replacement project.

[12:35] And uh I think you've seen that town

[12:37] council made some comments on not only

[12:40] this but the rest of the warrant. Uh

[12:42] that was over the weekend and I've

[12:43] provided that to you. So this is a

[12:45] slightly outdated but I've put all those

[12:47] in and I sent the school language off to

[12:51] the district because they have to have

[12:53] the re the revised version reviewed by

[12:56] the MSBA.

[12:59] » Article eight is the adoption of the

[13:00] fire chief statute. Article nine is the

[13:04] elderly and disabled taxation fund. 10

[13:07] is the water plant carbon media

[13:10] replacement. 11 water and sewer rate

[13:12] studies. 12. Now I've already crossed

[13:15] out the winch on the DPW truck. Uh also

[13:19] cross out the next one, the generator at

[13:21] the DPW barn. The reason the generator

[13:24] radiator. Okay.

[13:27] Uh wait, it's it's not the next one. It

[13:30] is the third one down replacement of

[13:32] radiator in the water filtration plant

[13:35] uh generator. The reason for that is

[13:38] they don't think they can wait for town

[13:41] meeting to get the money. they're going

[13:43] to have to buy it out of their budget

[13:45] and then in another article which is

[13:46] article 18 elsewhere in this warrant

[13:49] there'll be money raised money uh

[13:52] transferred out of the water uh

[13:55] enterprise okay

[13:56] >> retained earnings to refund their

[13:59] operating line and uh they found that

[14:01] out when the generator was needed during

[14:03] the storm and they thought that it was

[14:07] you know going to make it but it's not

[14:09] going to make it and they don't want

[14:11] another storm prior to the fall town

[14:14] meeting to cause a problem because that

[14:16] powers the water supply for the town

[14:19] during a uh an emergency.

[14:22] >> Can I ask a question? And I don't know

[14:24] if this is an appropriate time to ask

[14:25] the question, but

[14:27] >> um the difference between can you

[14:29] clarify the difference between article

[14:31] 18 and article 19? So

[14:34] >> y

[14:34] >> they're spending out of their budget. We

[14:36] would you're putting it on article 18

[14:38] which is

[14:38] >> y

[14:39] >> revising a budget,

[14:40] >> right? And then article 19 is paying a

[14:44] bill

[14:45] >> that was not submitted to the town by

[14:48] the deadline for the preceding fiscal

[14:51] year.

[14:51] >> Okay.

[14:51] >> So it's a completely different

[14:52] >> Sorry. Okay. That's what I wanted to

[14:54] check on. Okay.

[14:55] >> So this list is getting shorter, but one

[14:58] of them's going to show up down below.

[15:00] >> Uh 13 police cruiser, 14 the community

[15:03] preservation projects. Now, one of the

[15:06] things that you were going to discuss

[15:08] with the Board of Public Works, although

[15:11] that's now been delayed,

[15:13] uh, was the ability of the DPW

[15:17] to potentially

[15:20] undertake projects at the Centennial

[15:23] Grove that would reduce erosion off of

[15:26] two hillsides, one going down to the

[15:28] beach and one coming down from the

[15:29] cottage. We're not going to get a timely

[15:32] answer on that, but I did ask the acting

[15:34] superintendent of public works and she

[15:36] said that she is working internally to

[15:38] determine whether they have that

[15:40] ability. And it's important because

[15:44] that's the project that the selectmen

[15:47] would ask for from CPA. I don't know

[15:50] whether there are other departments

[15:52] asking for anything this fall, but as

[15:55] long as the selectmen are okay with me

[15:59] putting it forward because it's either

[16:02] going to be we find out that they think

[16:04] they can handle the work with their

[16:06] equipment and their personnel that would

[16:08] just break down to a materials only

[16:10] project or they can't and that means we

[16:13] have to get a quote on on you know

[16:15] design construction

[16:17] >> materials. They're looking to see if

[16:19] they can do the design and then

[16:21] >> the design is pretty much there from

[16:24] >> from from the report. But if you're

[16:27] going to do if you they're not going to

[16:29] be able to do it, then you're going to

[16:30] have to do a design because you have to

[16:31] bid that design out and get someone else

[16:33] to do it.

[16:35] >> So, you know, the article always just is

[16:38] generic like this and the actual project

[16:41] doesn't get handed out until town

[16:42] meeting. So as long as the board is okay

[16:45] with pursuing it, whether it's materials

[16:47] only or or the other, you want to move

[16:49] forward, we can move it forward.

[16:51] >> I think we should just because the CPC

[16:53] has to meet

[16:55] prior to talk about it.

[16:56] >> They do. Yeah.

[16:57] >> And the other challenge is remember a

[16:59] few years ago they had had a meeting

[17:01] just moments before a town meeting to

[17:05] approve something and it was there was

[17:07] so much uncertainty in the room that

[17:09] night when it came up that it was like

[17:11] this isn't a good practice. So, um I

[17:14] think Michelle wants to have

[17:16] >> okay

[17:16] >> the meeting in time to bring it and have

[17:18] kind of a little more certainty about

[17:21] that.

[17:21] >> We did mention to her that this project

[17:23] might be coming, but we didn't know the

[17:25] scope yet. We still don't know it.

[17:26] >> Can you just get the numbers from the

[17:28] DPW just um just in case

[17:35] >> um

[17:35] >> like estimates or not?

[17:37] >> Well, they would have to tell us. So, if

[17:39] they can do it, then the labor is

[17:41] included in their operating budget. They

[17:43] would just have to go through what they

[17:45] think they need for materials. Either

[17:46] way, I'm either going to get that or I'm

[17:48] going to get

[17:50] >> maybe Horley Whitten to at least give me

[17:52] an order of magnitude cost estimate if

[17:54] we were going to hire the whole thing

[17:55] out and they'll round it up and we'll

[17:57] say we need this much money.

[17:59] >> Okay. Right.

[18:00] >> Some you know what it's going to cost as

[18:02] well

[18:02] >> or rough cost.

[18:06] Then we have um the special purpose

[18:08] stabilization funds. There are 12 of

[18:10] those. I think we'll find out from the

[18:13] finance committee later in this meeting

[18:15] what they plan to propose for that. The

[18:18] reserve fund is usually replenished at

[18:20] the fall town meeting depending on what

[18:22] the finance committee has used it for

[18:26] between uh June uh July 1 and and fall

[18:29] town meeting. OPED. Again, we'll get a

[18:32] recommendation from the finance

[18:34] committee on a figure there.

[18:36] The budget adjustments,

[18:39] um, we have some minor adjustments to

[18:42] wage lines, some harbor, uh, master

[18:44] budget changes, and that's all coming

[18:46] from the, uh, waterways fund. Anyway,

[18:50] um, we don't at this point think we're

[18:53] going to need more funding for a fire

[18:54] chief. And I just mentioned we'll

[18:57] probably be refunding a line for the

[19:00] water department for that radiator

[19:02] replacement. And article 19 is for

[19:04] unpaid bills. And we do have one major

[19:08] bill and it um is from the fact that one

[19:12] of the snow removal vendors did not

[19:14] build a town until just now, believe it

[19:17] or not. And of course, that's way past

[19:19] the end of the fiscal year. And so the

[19:21] town needs to consider that. and it

[19:23] takes a 9/10 vote to fund that and it's

[19:25] a substantial bill of about $26,000

[19:29] and that's it. Um there will also be a

[19:33] um special election warrant for the

[19:36] board to sign also on the 19th, but you

[19:38] do have one more meeting to talk about

[19:40] the draft warrant

[19:43] which will be on the 5th next week. And

[19:46] >> I see the recommendations are going to

[19:47] be a handout along with the um funding

[19:51] as well.

[19:52] Uh yeah, the explanations are in the

[19:54] warrant, but the recommend the the

[19:57] handout that shows the uh monetary

[19:59] amounts will have the recommendedations

[20:01] from the different boards and

[20:03] committees. That's correct.

[20:05] >> Anything else on that right now?

[20:07] >> I have some questions. So the fin is

[20:10] coming to this meeting to talk about the

[20:12] monetary articles which we'll talk about

[20:14] later.

[20:14] >> Yes. Um, I was just thinking about,

[20:18] okay, what articles need to have more

[20:22] meat or some more uh FAQs and I was

[20:26] thinking inclusary inclusionary zoning.

[20:30] Number seven, which is um the school

[20:33] building project where we could provide

[20:35] a link to whatever the school has.

[20:38] Number eight for the fire chief kind of

[20:40] just contextually what's why how this

[20:42] came about. Number nine is the tax fund.

[20:45] Just some clarification as to like how

[20:47] does this set up? What what's the what's

[20:48] the deal here?

[20:49] >> Number 11, the water sewer rate. I

[20:52] >> Nick gave us a really good explanation

[20:54] in an email probably in the fall. I

[20:56] could that was a good thing to just

[20:59] provide information. The OPB um I think

[21:02] it's important for people to kind of

[21:04] understand how that's working

[21:06] >> and how close we are to it being self-

[21:08] sustaining.

[21:09] >> Yeah. But then there was that

[21:10] >> we got close and then

[21:11] >> Yeah. Then the case has changed

[21:13] >> yank the rug. Um but

[21:15] >> that'll probably always happen to a

[21:18] point. Yes. Yeah.

[21:19] >> Um and then um the budget adjustments

[21:21] and the unpaid bills.

[21:23] >> Um just kind of like what are the what's

[21:25] the difference there?

[21:26] >> So how do you propose to get that out

[21:27] there? Something on the website or

[21:29] >> Yeah, we could put it on the website. Um

[21:31] >> I can take a stab at those if you want.

[21:32] >> Great. And then I'll help you and we'll

[21:34] get some as long as is the board okay

[21:36] with that to have that

[21:37] >> provided. Okay. Um, and then we said

[21:40] that we were going to have a portion of

[21:41] our meeting open um, for questions. Um,

[21:45] and I think that was after the 19th when

[21:48] we

[21:49] >> Yep.

[21:49] >> Is that correct?

[21:50] >> Yep. So, there's a second it would be

[21:53] the first meeting in November, I

[21:56] believe.

[21:58] Pam, do you have the schedule that first

[22:00] meeting in November?

[22:02] >> So, October 19th is

[22:05] >> November second.

[22:06] >> I think it is November.

[22:08] Yep.

[22:09] >> Yeah.

[22:10] >> Okay. So, just for people to know that

[22:12] there will be a section of our meeting

[22:14] >> where we'll have open

[22:16] >> questions for people who want to ask

[22:18] about the town meeting warrant.

[22:21] >> Okay. Thanks, Brandon.

[22:24] >> Yep. And then um

[22:27] application for federal grant for Essex

[22:29] Causeway flooding solutions. So, this is

[22:31] the protect grant. The board is aware

[22:34] that we did u prepare for a protect

[22:36] grant application in 2025 and then a few

[22:40] days before everybody was going to be

[22:42] submitting the federal government said

[22:44] that the grant that grant program was

[22:46] paused. The grant program came back

[22:49] without a lot of notice. Fortunately,

[22:52] uh, Mass DOT is, um, allowing their paid

[22:56] consultant, VHB, to help us develop a

[23:01] modified grant application. A lot of the

[23:04] stuff is the same. The problem is, not

[23:06] only did it come back, but they

[23:08] completely changed how you had to submit

[23:10] it, and there are tables and things that

[23:12] are different. So, everything has to be

[23:13] put into the right places, and VHP is

[23:16] doing that. um Mass DOT would be the um

[23:19] primary applicant and um

[23:23] the town of Essics would be what they

[23:25] call a co-licant. Um, of course, it's uh

[23:32] much to our advantage to um have this

[23:35] and process this. We're looking at

[23:37] something that could be in excess of $2

[23:39] million. And it's going to take what the

[23:42] Metropolitan Planning Organization has

[23:44] already done. It's going to take the um

[23:48] results of the LEAP grant study that is

[23:51] that are coming out right now, build on

[23:54] those and hopefully move toward a

[23:56] preferred alternative including a lot of

[23:58] design work. After that, you'd be able

[24:01] to actually take that once you're

[24:03] through permitting and try to get

[24:05] federal or other state funding for the

[24:07] actual solution, the implementation of

[24:10] keeping the causeway from flooding.

[24:11] >> Yeah.

[24:12] >> However that works out. So, um, at this

[24:15] time,

[24:17] um, just making sure that the board is

[24:20] okay with that. Uh, because the you

[24:23] don't meet again, uh, by the time that

[24:26] they have to have everything wrapped up

[24:28] and submitted.

[24:30] Um,

[24:32] I think

[24:38] it I at this point I think if the board

[24:41] could voice uh support saying that they

[24:45] do um

[24:47] allow this to be applied for, that the

[24:50] chairman could sign a grant application

[24:53] outside of a meeting when it's

[24:54] available, and that the chairman could

[24:57] sign uh a letter of report.

[25:00] So moved.

[25:02] >> Second. I I do have a question. Um in

[25:05] your report, it says that uh at this

[25:07] [clears throat] point in the process,

[25:08] the town is being asked for numerous

[25:10] letters of support and around $21,000 in

[25:12] local funding. Where does that 21,000?

[25:15] >> So that would come from we have a um

[25:18] coastal resilience. One of those 12

[25:20] funds has money in it for that purpose.

[25:23] And as we get closer, if they tell us,

[25:26] hey, we're, you know, we're going to

[25:27] fund this, it will take a long time. And

[25:30] then the next town meeting after that,

[25:31] the town will just vote. Okay.

[25:33] >> To come out of that. All right. Thank

[25:34] you. So Brendan um just uh curious to

[25:39] know how the cho the recommend

[25:43] recommended option will be chosen in the

[25:48] you know five years from now or whenever

[25:51] it is they come out with it. Um is that

[25:53] something that the board decides, the

[25:56] town decides? It will be something it

[25:59] will be something that we're going to

[26:01] get input from from all those players

[26:04] >> ultimately the selectman as the

[26:06] executive branch will say yes okay we've

[26:10] seen all the alternatives we've seen

[26:11] what you're recommending

[26:13] >> and okay yeah we like that but if you

[26:15] don't then there'll be you know

[26:17] >> yeah back and forth

[26:18] >> but ultimately it will be a um a vote of

[26:22] the board of selectment to accept the

[26:24] preferred alternative and then you would

[26:26] go with that as your ticket to shop for

[26:29] um

[26:30] >> contractor

[26:30] >> implementation money.

[26:32] >> Yeah.

[26:32] >> Grant money. Yeah.

[26:34] >> So all those in favor

[26:36] >> I

[26:38] >> thank you Brenda.

[26:39] >> That's it.

[26:40] >> Um I think the True Family is here

[26:43] and they are here about 120. Oh wait,

[26:48] no. They're here for this 111 Koma Point

[26:51] Road and 109.

[26:54] Great. Can you tell us a little bit

[26:56] about that?

[26:58] >> Yes. So, the um each of the leases for

[27:03] leased property on Kennomal Point um

[27:06] allow the selectmen

[27:10] to vote to make administrative changes

[27:12] to lot lines because

[27:15] they're just leaseold lines. They are

[27:17] not property lines. They are not

[27:20] recorded at the registry of deeds.

[27:23] At one point in time, Kenomo Point was

[27:25] one large property all the way back

[27:27] through Sumac Drive.

[27:29] >> Twothirds of it was sold off and at that

[27:31] time there was subdivisions were done. A

[27:34] couple subdivisions were done under

[27:36] special subdivision um zoning bylaws

[27:40] that actually made legal lots and they

[27:43] were sold to individual owners. But the

[27:46] one-third of it that's pretty much north

[27:48] of Clammer's Beach

[27:50] um is still existing as one large parcel

[27:53] divided into administrative leased

[27:56] parcels. And so that's why the selectmen

[27:59] can agree to change uh lease lines.

[28:05] And so now we've had a request from

[28:09] the uh from the LEI to make that change.

[28:14] And [clears throat] you can see in the graphic that they have and the

[28:19] leie is the lei of both of the

[28:22] properties in question. So this is a

[28:23] line in between two lease holds for the

[28:27] same lease holder. We've done this

[28:29] before where there were two different

[28:30] leaseolders too as long as everyone

[28:32] agreed.

[28:33] And so if you look at the picture that's

[28:35] in there,

[28:36] >> you'll see what it looks like today and

[28:38] then you'll see what they would like to

[28:40] have it look like.

[28:47] Okay, wait a minute.

[28:49] >> I can pull up my copy, too.

[28:54] >> 76 and 77A.

[29:03] » So,

[29:07] » I don't mean to be rude. I'm gonna ask

[29:08] some questions. Okay. Um

[29:13] what does this mean in terms of any

[29:17] dollars that we

[29:19] generate from this? You know, does it

[29:22] change anything?

[29:22] >> It doesn't because the change is really

[29:25] dimminimous. It's, you know, the value

[29:27] of the property is the value to occupy

[29:29] and habit, you know,

[29:31] >> uh inhabit the property. Mhm.

[29:34] >> Um, you could even put in your vote that

[29:37] as long as you get the ascent from the

[29:39] lease holder that it will not change the

[29:42] basis for the lease on either property.

[29:44] >> If you feel that you want to do that,

[29:46] then that's appropriate as well.

[29:49] >> Um,

[29:51] and I guess what happens if so there's

[29:54] still two dwellings,

[29:57] it's still two lots.

[29:59] >> Yeah.

[30:00] >> So if um the family decides They want to

[30:04] >> transfer one

[30:05] >> transfer lease. It goes to the new lot

[30:07] line. The new lot line is in place.

[30:10] >> Yes. And whoever is assuming that

[30:13] >> you you tell them, "Yeah, that's the lot

[30:14] line and the the price hasn't changed.

[30:17] The lease the lease amount has not

[30:19] changed."

[30:20] >> If you were to look at this, tell me

[30:21] what the difference is.

[30:24] Like what's the

[30:26] >> It's certain certain number of square

[30:28] feet. I haven't done the actual math on

[30:31] it, but

[30:32] >> So, it looks like the line goes closer

[30:33] to 76's

[30:36] um back. Do you want to Is it okay if we

[30:39] >> Yeah, come up to the microphone.

[30:44] » I'm sorry to ask stupid questions.

[30:46] >> It's not a stupid question if you're not

[30:48] familiar with the lots. So,

[30:51] originally when we first purchased,

[30:54] there was a straight line, let's say,

[30:55] from the ocean to the street.

[30:58] >> And then during the whole bridge lease

[31:00] into the 20-year leases,

[31:03] um, I don't remember who the appraiser

[31:06] or the person that came out and drew all

[31:07] the lot lines. They gave both of the

[31:10] lots an angle. So, that's when it was

[31:13] changed. It was historically straight

[31:16] from the ocean to the street for like 80

[31:19] years or so and then it got changed I

[31:21] think in 2015. So we're we're not

[31:24] looking for a new line. We're just

[31:26] looking for the old line.

[31:28] >> Okay.

[31:28] >> Oh, it was changed in 2015.

[31:30] >> 15, right? But I'm saying we're this

[31:33] isn't we don't want something new. We

[31:35] want to go back to what was prior to

[31:36] 2015.

[31:38] >> Why? because it's it's a non right now

[31:42] we have irregular lots that have an

[31:45] angle. So the house at 109 has a 9 foot

[31:50] um

[31:51] frontage on the street only 9 ft versus

[31:54] the other house has like 93.

[31:57] >> Yeah.

[31:58] >> And if like you're saying down the road

[32:00] if somebody were if we were to sell both

[32:03] one or one of them it's just it's just

[32:06] strange if we put it back to where it

[32:08] is. We both have like a normal frontage

[32:11] and for

[32:12] >> what would the frontages be with the

[32:13] change?

[32:14] >> I beg you.

[32:14] >> What would the two frontages be with the

[32:16] change?

[32:16] >> I don't know because like like Brendan

[32:19] had mentioned there's like no definitive

[32:21] lot lines, but I think it would bring

[32:23] them both to about 50 ft each.

[32:25] >> Yeah. Okay.

[32:26] >> Which would be normal.

[32:27] >> Yeah. and what if the board moves

[32:30] forward with it, we would use our GIS to

[32:33] approximate the line that they're

[32:35] talking about and then we would have to

[32:37] have the assessor's maps changed and

[32:39] eventually it would be reflected that

[32:42] way because the um

[32:45] the lease actually speaks of as laid out

[32:48] on the assessor's maps even though

[32:50] they're not um legal lots on their own.

[32:54] >> I don't think so.

[32:56] these are these look like the two

[32:59] existing lots and then the change.

[33:03] I don't see the change on here.

[33:05] >> Would it go basically from this to like

[33:07] that?

[33:08] >> There were two things there. Hold on.

[33:10] >> Yeah, there's this and this. But this

[33:12] looks like this, right? That doesn't

[33:15] >> But there were Can you Can you approach

[33:16] So or do you have

[33:18] >> Yeah, because I thought we had one that

[33:21] showed go from that to that. That's what

[33:24] you Yeah, that's what they're

[33:24] describing. Yeah.

[33:32] » So, we have this and it looks

[33:34] >> the same.

[33:36] >> This is the old

[33:38] >> Yeah.

[33:40] >> So, 93 is 77 A and B and 92 is 76. So,

[33:46] the line is

[33:47] >> okay. And the copies you have, you can

[33:51] see like there's like

[33:52] >> an angle. I see what you're saying.

[33:54] >> This is used to go straight out here.

[33:56] >> Yep.

[33:58] >> Yeah.

[33:58] The only thing I would propose is

[34:00] the first thing that we that you

[34:02] mentioned about like the cost that no

[34:06] changes,

[34:06] >> right? Is that something you'll ascent

[34:08] to on the record that you understand

[34:09] that the leases will not change because

[34:12] of the land change?

[34:13] >> Exactly.

[34:13] >> So that Pam, let that be reflected in

[34:15] the record.

[34:16] >> We're good. Thank you very much. They've

[34:17] acknowledged that if a lot line changes,

[34:20] they are acknowledging that there will

[34:22] be no change in the basis of the uh

[34:24] lease amount.

[34:25] >> Good.

[34:26] >> Thank you.

[34:27] >> Uh so let me just ask you this so that

[34:30] when this actually happens, if they vote

[34:32] for it, how far off of the upper house

[34:36] do you want to be with that line?

[34:37] Because that's how we're going to draw

[34:38] it.

[34:39] >> Yeah. Could we go out there and show

[34:41] someone exactly know where

[34:44] >> we because we we're going to need to

[34:46] have a well we would we could we could

[34:48] measure it in the field

[34:49] >> because we're going to need to have a

[34:50] dimension in order to have the map

[34:52] actually changed

[34:54] >> now

[35:02] will it be from this point no matter

[35:04] what is that the swing point?

[35:06] >> Yes.

[35:07] >> So that's the hinge.

[35:08] >> Yeah. Mhm.

[35:10] >> Right.

[35:11] >> Yep. So, we'll have to do some um

[35:16] >> work in the field.

[35:19] >> It's a little off this line. Maybe about

[35:21] like

[35:21] >> Well, that's what's important.

[35:23] >> Yeah. But if I could point it out, it's

[35:25] easier when you're there to see it.

[35:29] >> Okay.

[35:30] >> Yep.

[35:32] So, I think the board has the gist of it

[35:33] and I think is you could you could vote

[35:36] um to be um

[35:38] >> verified in the field by the town

[35:40] administrator.

[35:42] >> Is there a cost to drawing redraw? I

[35:45] mean like to having a surveyor or

[35:46] anything? We're not

[35:47] >> No, it's not a surveyor at all. No,

[35:49] we're going to tell the people who

[35:51] handle our assessor's maps.

[35:53] That's why I need some numbers like

[35:56] start here and keep it keep it this many

[35:58] feet off of this corner of the house or

[36:00] whatever and then they'll redraw the

[36:02] line.

[36:03] >> Okay, great. So, can I have a motion to

[36:05] approve the um request from John TR

[36:11] and

[36:13] >> Christine?

[36:15] >> Okay.

[36:18] John TR to alter the property line

[36:20] between two Koma Point properties that

[36:22] he leases. 111 Komao Point Road and 109

[36:25] KO Komao Point Road. Map 108, lots 77A

[36:29] and 776. Wait, and 76

[36:34] according to um specifics that you that

[36:39] >> the town administrator will obtain via

[36:41] field evaluation.

[36:43] >> So moved.

[36:44] >> Second.

[36:44] >> All those in favor? I

[36:46] >> I thank you.

[36:48] >> Thank you.

[36:48] >> Sure. And then quickly, can we vote to

[36:51] ratify the town administrator's approval

[36:52] of a building permit for 120 Koma Point

[36:55] Road, map 108, lot 69?

[36:57] >> Need to read this.

[36:59] >> It's a special vote.

[37:00] >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[37:03] >> Okay. Can I have a motion to Oh, I and

[37:07] Cameron.

[37:08] >> That is you. Yeah.

[37:10] [laughter]

[37:11] Move to ratify the town administrator's

[37:13] approval of building permit application

[37:16] to replace existing wooden support

[37:18] columns with new steel support columns

[37:20] under new sections of the support beam

[37:22] at 120 Koma Point Road, map 108, lot 69,

[37:26] subject to all terms and conditions of

[37:29] the land lease for said premises,

[37:31] including but not limited to articles

[37:33] five and nine.

[37:36] >> So moved.

[37:37] >> Second.

[37:37] >> All in favor? Hi.

[37:39] >> Hi.

[37:42] >> So, can I have that back from John Drew

[37:44] and from the I gave it to Brenda?

[37:47] >> I have it. I'll give I'll give it to

[37:49] you.

[37:49] >> All right. She's going to hold you to

[37:52] it.

[37:52] >> Yep. You'll have it.

[37:53] >> Okay. Um

[37:55] >> here actually.

[37:56] >> Uh I would love to hear public comment

[38:00] if there is any

[38:04] » online. Anyone want to speak?

[38:09] Okay.

[38:11] All right. Um on to um other business.

[38:15] You are here. Um Natasha, do you are you

[38:19] here for all of the permits that we

[38:20] have?

[38:21] >> Can we get through those? Do you guys

[38:23] mind if we do that right now?

[38:24] >> Sure.

[38:26] >> Okay. Hey, can I have a motion to

[38:27] approve a one-day wine and malt license

[38:29] for the Essex Historical Society and

[38:32] Ship Building Museum, Katie Mum

[38:33] Montgomery, Essex Ship Building Museum

[38:35] Shipyard, 66 Main Street for use. Um,

[38:39] and the following three dates, Octo

[38:42] Saturday, October 17th, 2026, between

[38:44] the hours of 5 and 8:00 p.m. Saturday,

[38:48] December 12th, 2026, between the hours

[38:50] of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 pm.

[38:53] >> So moved. Second. All those in favor?

[38:56] >> I

[38:56] >> can I have a motion to approve the town

[38:58] administrator's approval to change the

[39:00] date from 9:26 to 10:10 due to rain for

[39:03] the Essex Historical Society Ship

[39:05] Building Museum with all the same

[39:07] information as before uh between the

[39:09] hours of 11:00 a.m. and 6 p.m. at the

[39:11] Ship Building Museum Outdoors 66 Maine

[39:14] and wave the fee.

[39:15] >> So moved. Second.

[39:16] >> All those in favor?

[39:17] >> I.

[39:18] >> Thank you everybody. Then we're going to

[39:20] talk about a one-day entertainment

[39:22] license. We're going to ratify the town

[39:24] administrator's approval to change the

[39:25] date from 9:26 to 10:10 due to rain.

[39:29] Essex Historical Society Ship Building

[39:31] Museum. All of the same information

[39:33] between the hours of 11 and 6 at the

[39:35] Ship Building Museum outdoors 66 Maine

[39:38] with amplified music, local bands,

[39:40] poetry readings, and wave the fee.

[39:43] >> So move second.

[39:44] >> All those in favor?

[39:45] >> I.

[39:46] >> Great. And then there's three dates for

[39:49] one day entertainment licenses.

[39:52] Saturday, October, this is all for the

[39:54] historical society. October 17th, 2026,

[39:58] between the hours of 5 and 8. On October

[40:01] 27th, between the hours of 3 and 5, and

[40:05] the Saturdays, December 5th, between the

[40:08] hours of 4 and 8 for Santa countdown.

[40:11] >> So moved.

[40:12] >> Second.

[40:13] >> All those in favor? They're

[40:17] so easy. So easy. Didn't even need me.

[40:20] >> Thank you. Well,

[40:21] >> thank you.

[40:22] >> It's always a pleasure to see you.

[40:23] >> Appreciate it.

[40:24] >> Thank you.

[40:26] Okay. So, can I have a motion to approve

[40:28] the weekly warrant in the amount of

[40:30] $215,121.33?

[40:33] » So moved.

[40:34] >> Second.

[40:35] >> All those in favor?

[40:36] >> I

[40:36] >> approve the minutes for the selectman

[40:38] September 14th, 2026th open meeting and

[40:41] executive session. So moved. Second.

[40:44] >> All those in favor?

[40:45] >> I

[40:46] >> sign the warrant for the November 3rd,

[40:48] 2026 state election.

[40:51] >> No, sorry. Sign the warrant for the

[40:52] November 3rd, 2026 state election.

[40:56] >> So moved.

[40:58] >> We're voting on that or

[40:59] >> I guess so.

[41:00] >> You have to vote on the actual warrant

[41:02] so that when the ballots come out, they

[41:04] reflect your vote. Second.

[41:05] >> And you signed it already.

[41:07] >> Okay.

[41:08] >> All those in favor? I

[41:10] >> I

[41:11] >> thank you. Uh consider counter signature

[41:14] of a license for the jabbac.

[41:16] >> So that's we're going to bring that to

[41:18] the next meeting.

[41:21] >> Oh,

[41:22] >> okay.

[41:23] >> Because they didn't provide it.

[41:25] >> They were they still have people on

[41:26] their board looking over it. Okay.

[41:28] >> And so it'll be October 5th.

[41:30] >> Uh consider the approval of a memorandum

[41:32] of agreement with the Essex Police

[41:34] Association with respect to the use of

[41:36] compensatory time off.

[41:39] So that is something that was um

[41:41] discussed in executive session and

[41:44] eventually a um an agreement was reached

[41:49] and so now since the union is willing to

[41:52] accept the terms it would needs to be

[41:55] voted in regular session. I believe it

[41:58] was in the signature package.

[42:00] >> Yes, I saw it. And so this would be your

[42:03] chance to vote on uh that MOA.

[42:08] >> So moved.

[42:09] >> Second.

[42:09] >> All those in favor? I.

[42:11] >> Thank you. Uh can I have a motion to

[42:14] continue discuss? Oh, wait. Stop. You

[42:17] don't have to motion any.

[42:18] >> No. So the town social media posting and

[42:22] management policy, there was discussion

[42:25] over the last couple of meetings. I

[42:28] provided information from other

[42:30] communities that seemed to have um a

[42:33] good uh policy in place and I didn't

[42:36] know whether anyone had made any headway

[42:38] on recommending perhaps one over the

[42:41] other or certain parts of one certain

[42:43] parts of the other.

[42:44] >> I apologize for not being prepared for

[42:46] this discussion.

[42:48] >> Can bring it up again next time.

[42:50] >> Sorry.

[42:50] >> That's sorry.

[42:52] >> We'll bring it next time.

[42:53] >> I think Jonathan's still going to reach

[42:54] out to you this week.

[42:55] >> Great. So,

[42:59] there may be more.

[43:00] >> Great. Uh oh, how about if we keep going

[43:05] on this stuff and then we'll talk about

[43:07] the employee and volunteer of the year.

[43:09] >> Um let's do we have to Oh, yeah. Uh can

[43:12] we um talk about the Weston and Samson

[43:16] study and design work for the three town

[43:17] owned bridges?

[43:18] >> Yes. Um, so even though the board of

[43:22] public works has not arrived at a scope

[43:24] of work that will cost $60,000, which is

[43:27] what our Eater Mark is,

[43:28] >> they did arrive at so far one thing that

[43:32] needs to be done, which is an actual

[43:34] engineered load rating for the bridge at

[43:37] Landing Road. It's 30 something

[43:40] thousand. I think that was in the

[43:42] package. And um I would recommend that

[43:46] the board approve that scope so they can

[43:48] get going on it. And then

[43:50] the when when Mandy and the Board of

[43:52] Public Works looks at the original study

[43:55] that was done and picks the next

[43:58] important thing that gets added into the scope so that they can start

[44:03] right away and then by the time we get

[44:05] to June they'll be done with all of it.

[44:07] they'll choose that and it will have to

[44:09] be an item that's both important but

[44:11] also um worth about what 30 20 $222,000

[44:17] or something like that.

[44:18] >> You remember Nick said there was no

[44:20] reason going forward unless we had a

[44:22] loading study for that project. So I

[44:25] think it's pretty important

[44:25] >> and so just realize that a uh second

[44:30] um topic will also be included for the

[44:32] $60,000 and when I have that I'll bring

[44:35] it back to the board.

[44:36] >> Yeah. And this load bearing on that

[44:39] bridge is important because you have

[44:41] every piece of equipment that we have in

[44:43] town getting gas at

[44:45] >> and the big semis that haul the

[44:48] recycling and trash in and out.

[44:49] >> Yep.

[44:50] >> Yeah.

[44:50] So that's important. Um so can I

[44:53] have a motion to approve the contract

[44:56] with Weston and Samson for the further

[44:57] study and design work concerning the

[44:59] loadbearing proposal?

[45:02] >> So moved.

[45:02] >> Second.

[45:03] >> All those in favor? I

[45:05] >> thank you.

[45:07] Um the legislative alert that you sent

[45:10] us was about the econ economic

[45:13] development bond bill, the environmental

[45:14] bond bill, and the energy affordab

[45:16] affordability bill.

[45:19] >> So in the past, the board said whenever

[45:22] these come out, they'd like them brought

[45:23] to

[45:24] >> meetings of the board, which one of them

[45:27] came out in the past, and you did arrive

[45:28] at some comments you wanted me to uh

[45:31] convey to our legislators, our state

[45:34] legislators.

[45:36] um do you have anything in this

[45:38] particular case that you want me to

[45:39] convey?

[45:41] This is recommending that you know you reach out and

[45:47] um cover certain points with with the

[45:50] legislators and they're on the second

[45:53] page starting on the second page

[45:55] >> and this is from the MMA.

[45:57] >> Yes, it is.

[45:57] >> Yeah. Um

[46:00] I mean I think the local control came up

[46:02] the last time which we all were in um

[46:05] support of. So that's the protect local

[46:07] decision- making.

[46:09] >> Um the keeping state funding available

[46:11] to all communities. I'm assuming that is um

[46:15] uh kind of reflective of folks who are

[46:18] being um penalized for not adopting Yes.

[46:22] >> Um the 3A.

[46:23] >> Yes. Um,

[46:25] I think in in this state of the world

[46:31] that um if a community qualifies for a

[46:36] grant, they should get it. I don't think

[46:38] we should be

[46:39] >> I agree.

[46:40] >> Smacking people around.

[46:41] >> Same

[46:42] >> with their with their tax dollars.

[46:44] >> It's very um

[46:46] >> Yeah, it's blackmail.

[46:48] >> Yeah.

[46:49] >> Which is done a lot by the state, but

[46:53] and then always oppose it. Yeah, there's

[46:55] two other points.

[46:55] >> Yep. Support municipal flexibility. I

[46:58] think that that's a good thing. Um that

[47:01] lets you continue to do hybrid meeting

[47:03] options, expand local authority over

[47:05] liquor licensing in a double pole

[47:08] removal pilot. I don't know what the

[47:10] hell that is.

[47:11] >> Okay. So when a utility comes in because

[47:14] someone crashed through a utility pole,

[47:17] what they do right away is they put a

[47:19] new pole and they cut the old one off

[47:20] and fasten it because the wires on the

[47:22] old pole all have to be transferred over

[47:24] to the new one.

[47:26] >> And

[47:27] it's not such a problem in Essex, but in

[47:30] many places it is. And those things just

[47:32] stay like that for years. And that what

[47:35] they're trying to do is to provide some

[47:38] requirement that things move along a lot

[47:40] faster than they have in the past.

[47:43] >> Makes sense. Yeah, I've seen lots of

[47:45] them like that.

[47:46] >> Yeah.

[47:47] >> Do we know what authority would be

[47:49] expanded over liquor licensing in that

[47:53] >> uh on the invested cities and towns?

[47:56] >> Yeah. Uh no. In the

[47:57] >> it's under support mean

[48:00] >> expanded local authority over liquor

[48:02] licensing.

[48:04] Is that being able to to um expand your

[48:08] number?

[48:09] >> No, I don't think to have around

[48:12] licenses.

[48:13] >> I think I think it has to do with

[48:15] probably less interaction from the ABCC

[48:18] on certain aspects. I don't think it has

[48:21] anything to do with you setting the

[48:23] number of licenses,

[48:25] >> right? The number of licenses is set on

[48:28] population.

[48:30] >> What about seasonal? Is that also set on

[48:33] population?

[48:33] >> The what?

[48:34] >> Some some communities have a seasonal

[48:36] license, liquor license. Is that also

[48:39] set on population or

[48:40] >> they don't have any seasonal licenses?

[48:42] So, I'm not sure what

[48:44] >> if they do, they might have special

[48:45] legislation or something because it's

[48:47] not a it's not a um standard category of

[48:50] license.

[48:51] >> Are they trying to um terminate uh the

[48:55] legal component of remote and hybrid

[48:58] meeting?

[49:00] >> No, they're trying to make so that it

[49:01] stays.

[49:02] >> I think it expires after a certain

[49:04] period and this would expand that or

[49:06] extend it.

[49:07] >> I think that the um area that is not

[49:10] clear is that local authority over

[49:11] liquor licenses.

[49:12] >> I can find that out.

[49:13] >> I mean other than that I'm in support of

[49:16] that.

[49:18] >> Everyone else agree?

[49:20] >> And then the final one is invest in

[49:21] cities and towns, support strong funding

[49:24] and authorizations for municipal

[49:25] infrastructure, environmental

[49:26] protection. All those things are good.

[49:29] Mhm.

[49:30] >> So, I'll get um some It sounds like the

[49:32] board is in support

[49:34] >> and I'll get something off to our

[49:35] legislators about your thoughts on that.

[49:38] >> Thank you.

[49:42] >> No, I think we just Yeah. Um ratify the

[49:45] community preservation committee chair's

[49:46] signature of a contract between the

[49:48] community preservation committee and art

[49:51] fluence for promotion of community

[49:53] preservation projects on the town

[49:55] website and on social media.

[49:58] >> So moved. Second.

[49:59] >> All those in favor?

[50:00] >> I

[50:02] >> um one thing we did learn from Michelle

[50:03] is that they have a component that

[50:06] they're allowed to spend on

[50:07] administrative costs. Oh, you're on that

[50:09] committee.

[50:10] >> Yeah. Right.

[50:12] >> Let me tell you some more about

[50:13] something you already know.

[50:15] >> Um

[50:17] >> it's always good to be reminded.

[50:18] [laughter]

[50:18] >> Sorry.

[50:20] ratify the town administrator's

[50:21] signature of an intermunicipal

[50:23] memorandum of understanding between

[50:24] Essex and Manchester for Manchester's

[50:27] provision of senior transportation

[50:29] services.

[50:31] >> So moved.

[50:31] >> Second.

[50:32] >> All those in favor?

[50:33] >> I.

[50:34] >> Thank you for working on that. That was

[50:35] >> great. I'm glad we have it.

[50:37] >> That simple.

[50:38] >> It wasn't that simple, but it's

[50:40] definitely more more cost effective than

[50:42] hiring a private company.

[50:45] >> Consider sponsoring the tobacco lake.

[50:48] Oh, we already did that.

[50:49] >> You did that. Tabled that.

[50:51] >> Um

[50:52] >> Oh, no. That you tabled the license.

[50:54] Yeah, you you were in support of this.

[50:56] >> Yeah.

[50:57] >> Okay. So, agenda. Any agenda items for

[50:59] the next meeting? And I'm just trying to

[51:01] make us think a little bit about this.

[51:03] is um

[51:05] uh we're getting ready for the October

[51:07] 19th finalization of the town meeting

[51:09] warrant. Um, we do I think we do want to

[51:12] meet with the school building committee

[51:14] to just get a review of the um with the

[51:17] finance committee and the board of

[51:18] selectment. I don't know when we can do

[51:19] that because

[51:20] >> that's not happening on the 5th.

[51:21] >> No, we're having our meeting.

[51:23] >> They're meeting with Manchester

[51:24] officials, the school building

[51:26] committee.

[51:26] >> We have our own on the 5th. But you'll

[51:28] be here at your own meeting.

[51:29] >> Yeah.

[51:30] >> But uh the uh board of public works is

[51:34] not meeting with us on the 5th.

[51:36] >> They are not. They can't do the fifth

[51:38] now. They're looking at potentially the

[51:39] 8th, the 13th, or the 14th.

[51:42] >> Okay.

[51:43] I'm wondering if um

[51:47] one of the days that we have for the

[51:50] Manchester or for the Essex um

[51:58] school building forum if we want to see

[52:00] if we can if you know would would you

[52:02] have any interest in having you know a

[52:05] 530 conversation with just

[52:09] us at FINCOM and the

[52:11] >> just in advance of that? Yeah, I mean

[52:12] that just seems to be because the

[52:14] calendar is filling up quickly. I just

[52:17] am trying to find the dates of all that

[52:19] stuff

[52:20] and unfortunately there's so much crap

[52:22] on this Facebook page it's hard to find

[52:26] the dates.

[52:30] Come on.

[52:34] Does anyone else know what the dates

[52:36] are?

[52:39] » I can find them.

[52:41] >> I'll just I just sorry it's me.

[52:43] >> So what you're saying is prior to one of

[52:45] those community meetings.

[52:46] >> Yeah. I'm just wondering if that's

[52:49] okay. There's a community meeting in

[52:50] Essex on October 8th. Do we want to ask

[52:54] if they can if we can do 5:30? That's

[52:56] just kind of a Is a half an hour enough

[52:58] or do you want an hour?

[53:00] >> You'll get more details in the meeting.

[53:02] But um

[53:05] that's just an idea.

[53:08] The 8th is a Thursday, right? Five, six,

[53:12] seven, eight.

[53:14] >> I have a couple things that evening

[53:16] already.

[53:17] >> Okay.

[53:18] >> And that's one of the dates the board of

[53:21] public works might want to meet you with

[53:23] you separately.

[53:25] >> Okay.

[53:26] >> But it conflicts. Um,

[53:30] it's not the 7th. The community meeting

[53:32] is the 8th.

[53:33] >> Yep.

[53:34] >> Okay. I'll make sure that I have that

[53:35] straight with them with the dates we're

[53:37] looking at.

[53:38] >> What community meeting?

[53:40] Uh the

[53:41] >> DPW, remember we're having that. We're

[53:43] trying to find a new date.

[53:44] >> Right. Right. So

[53:45] >> we're trying to not have it conflict

[53:47] with the school community meeting.

[53:48] >> Oh, the school meeting. Okay.

[53:55] » We can go back to the drawing board on

[53:58] dates. See if we can find something.

[54:00] >> All right.

[54:01] >> Okay. Um

[54:03] >> did you want to go back to the employee

[54:05] and volunteer of the year?

[54:06] >> Oh, that's right. But any other agenda

[54:07] items that we want to make sure we we

[54:10] need to meet with the DPW before 13th or

[54:13] 14th is what you said in that email,

[54:15] right?

[54:15] >> Yes. Otherwise, you're not going to have

[54:17] anything.

[54:18] >> Yeah.

[54:19] Okay. So, we have let's talk about the

[54:22] employee and volunteer of the year. We

[54:24] do not talk about names. We talk about

[54:26] >> right. So, you have volunteer of the

[54:28] year. There was just one nomination and

[54:32] employee of the year. There were two

[54:34] nominations. So we'll speak of the

[54:37] single nominee for volunteer of the year

[54:39] and you could either say uh nominee one

[54:42] or nominee two for employee of the year.

[54:46] Do you want to start with volunteer of

[54:48] the year since there's only one and

[54:51] indicate that you are with

[54:53] >> nominee number one?

[54:54] >> Does anyone want to nominate

[54:57] >> volunteer number one?

[54:59] >> After reading that nomination, I feel

[55:01] like that would be kind of mean.

[55:02] >> Yeah.

[55:04] >> So with one.

[55:05] >> Can I uh do we have to make a motion?

[55:09] >> Yes.

[55:10] >> Okay. So, can I have a motion to award

[55:13] the volunteer of the year to um

[55:16] >> nominee one?

[55:17] >> Candidate number one.

[55:18] >> Yep.

[55:19] >> So, moved.

[55:19] >> Second.

[55:20] >> All in favor?

[55:21] >> I.

[55:21] >> A worthy candidate.

[55:23] >> Yes.

[55:23] >> Nice letter.

[55:25] >> And then there were two um and I need to

[55:27] make sure that I know

[55:30] which is which.

[55:32] >> Yep. There were two for employee of the

[55:34] year.

[55:35] >> Y

[55:38] » um

[55:39] >> both longstanding um employees, but one

[55:43] a lot longer than the other.

[55:48] » Um

[55:50] I'm leaning towards employee number one.

[55:54] >> Nominate number one.

[55:56] >> My preference is nominee number one.

[55:59] >> Okay.

[56:00] Uh, can I have a motion to approve

[56:04] nominee number one for the employee of

[56:07] the year?

[56:08] >> So moved.

[56:08] >> Second.

[56:09] >> All in favor?

[56:10] >> I.

[56:11] >> And that was again a

[56:14] um both very worthy.

[56:16] >> Yes.

[56:17] >> Y

[56:18] >> thank you.

[56:20] Um and we are waiting for the board of

[56:23] engineers to come to talk to us.

[56:25] >> You have some appointments.

[56:27] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Can I have a motion to

[56:29] approve the fire department partial

[56:32] one-year term ending 630 2027

[56:35] appointments of Craig Cole for pro

[56:38] probationary firefighter EMT, Todd

[56:40] Rogers for probationary firefighter EMT

[56:43] and Joseph McGillicuy, probationary

[56:45] firefighter EMT.

[56:48] >> Second.

[56:48] >> All those in favor?

[56:49] >> I thank you very much to these gentlemen

[56:52] for coming forward.

[56:54] And then um if it's okay, can I just

[56:57] mention the reminders even though it's

[56:59] not the end of the meeting?

[57:02] >> Yes. Yeah.

[57:03] >> Okay. So um tomorrow night, the 29th is

[57:07] the visioning um meeting here in this

[57:11] room at 6:30. Um there's also a remote

[57:15] meeting option that is offered by 1623

[57:18] and we can uh those have been posted on

[57:20] social media. Thank you for promoting

[57:21] those. Um, but this is an important

[57:24] meeting for both businesses and um

[57:26] residents to come in and talk about what

[57:28] they'd like to see downtown. And do you

[57:30] want to say anything to it?

[57:31] >> Uh, the survey was extended till 10 p.m.

[57:33] tonight. It originally closed at 2, but

[57:36] Colleen opened at till 10 p.m. tonight.

[57:39] So there's still time if

[57:41] >> all of you out there who are watching

[57:43] >> in the viewing public, all two of you,

[57:46] >> one of which is 1623

[57:48] [laughter]

[57:50] um

[57:50] >> sent a bunch of texts today, too. So

[57:53] >> thank you. The the library is having its

[57:56] new patio and garden ribbon cutting on

[57:58] Saturday, October 3rd at 9:30 from 9:30

[58:01] to 10:30. It's beautiful. We should try

[58:03] to get out there and see it. Our next

[58:05] meeting is Monday, October 5th at 6 PM

[58:08] here back.

[58:10] >> And then um the fall 2026 Greater KPN

[58:13] caucus will be held on Friday, October

[58:15] 23rd

[58:17] from 12:30 to 2 at the Rockport

[58:19] Community House at 58 Broadway in

[58:21] Rockport. And I will reiterate the um

[58:26] the 8th and the 13th for um building

[58:30] committee updates and community

[58:32] meetings. and it's a good time to go and

[58:34] learn about the project which is coming

[58:37] up for a vote in October.

[58:40] >> Okay. Thank you.

[58:41] >> And then I have an update for the board.

[58:43] There was an announcement from the board

[58:45] of assessors remember at your last

[58:47] meeting about how they're going around

[58:49] and reassessing property values. The

[58:51] board had a number of questions which

[58:53] will also be instructive to the public.

[58:56] Um the question was does this process

[58:58] happen every three years? The answer,

[59:00] the cyclical property inspection program

[59:02] is based on a 10-year cycle. The

[59:05] assessors may inspect properties more

[59:06] frequently when necessary or appropriate based on factors

[59:12] including but not limited to building

[59:13] permits, changes to a property, unique

[59:15] structures or layouts, mixeduse

[59:17] commercial properties or requests from

[59:20] uh property owners. Question, does this

[59:23] involve all properties in the town? The

[59:25] cyclical property inspection program is

[59:28] intended to provide for the inspection

[59:29] of all properties in the town over the

[59:31] 10-year cycle. However, not every

[59:34] property will be inspected during this

[59:35] particular round of inspections. The

[59:38] assessors prioritize properties based on

[59:40] where they fall within the 10-year

[59:42] cycle, as well as other factors.

[59:45] Question, when will the inspections

[59:46] begin? Computer work and property

[59:48] research are scheduled to begin at the

[59:50] end of September with field inspections

[59:53] beginning on October 2nd. Data collector

[59:56] Nate Kramer will have proper

[59:57] identification with him while conducting

[59:59] inspections. The Essex Police Department

[1:00:02] and other town departments have been

[1:00:03] notified of the inspection program. Two

[1:00:06] members of the board of assessors will

[1:00:08] also accompany Mr. Kramer on some of the

[1:00:10] inspections. Question: Will there be any

[1:00:12] prior notice to property owners? Yes,

[1:00:15] the assessors have provided advanced

[1:00:17] public notice of the inspection program.

[1:00:18] Information has been shared at

[1:00:20] selectment meetings, posted on the town

[1:00:22] website under town news, and made

[1:00:24] available on the assessor's web page.

[1:00:26] Information has also been posted on the

[1:00:28] town clerk's bulletin board and shared

[1:00:30] with the police department. So, those

[1:00:33] are some follow-ups to what you had

[1:00:34] asked at the last meeting.

[1:00:36] >> Thank you.

[1:00:38] >> I think the issue was just like

[1:00:41] having your home ready for public

[1:00:44] viewing, you know, like there's some

[1:00:46] rough days in our house. I don't know

[1:00:47] about you guys, but [snorts]

[1:00:50] um Okay. And um

[1:00:54] we're waiting for folks from the board

[1:00:57] of engineers and the finance committee.

[1:00:59] >> Yes.

[1:01:30] I'll ask you a question because it's

[1:01:32] relevant but we had um

[1:01:36] you had given us two copies of the

[1:01:38] descript job description

[1:01:41] and I think this is the this this is the

[1:01:46] um markedup draft

[1:01:48] And this but it ends up being this.

[1:01:51] >> It's this is like the track changes one.

[1:01:54] >> This is track changes. But not

[1:01:55] everything on the original one I did was stripped out. So the only way to

[1:02:01] really look at it is the track changes

[1:02:03] one. So you can see what was there and

[1:02:05] what came out. And as we go through it,

[1:02:08] I have a number of places where I want

[1:02:10] to call people's attention to and some

[1:02:12] questions to ask. That's in addition to

[1:02:16] how much of the condensed version is

[1:02:18] being kept versus

[1:02:21] >> Yes. It's uh very structured the first

[1:02:24] version than I did, but it is also much

[1:02:27] more detailed.

[1:02:28] >> Yeah.

[1:02:29] >> And you don't lose anything in

[1:02:30] translation.

[1:02:31] >> That's kind of Yeah. Okay.

[1:02:33] >> Hi.

[1:02:34] >> Hello.

[1:02:34] >> Hi.

[1:02:36] >> It's okay. I'll grab some chair.

[1:02:37] >> We finished the rest of our meeting.

[1:02:45] How are you?

[1:02:50] » Well, we were you were in charge. It was

[1:02:51] a busy meeting. We got through them. So,

[1:02:56] » sorry. I'll do better next time.

[1:03:11] camera or something.

[1:03:12] >> Yeah, don't worry about it. We're just

[1:03:13] talking.

[1:03:20] » Change gears.

[1:03:23] >> Is Christian here not tonight or No,

[1:03:25] >> he was he was downstairs.

[1:03:32] » All right.

[1:03:34] So, the first discussion item for this

[1:03:37] group when everyone arrives, come on up.

[1:03:39] Um,

[1:03:43] » has to do with um

[1:03:47] current and future operating budget and

[1:03:49] the draft position description.

[1:03:51] >> Bernie,

[1:03:56] » we're also going to discuss um public

[1:03:58] funding for town events or events that

[1:04:01] are held within the town.

[1:04:06] Okay. So, we want to wait for Christian

[1:04:08] to talk about the job description, don't

[1:04:10] we?

[1:04:11] >> Yeah. You're going to want him probably

[1:04:12] for everything that we're going to talk

[1:04:14] about.

[1:04:23] I think I'm going to ask you one

[1:04:24] question that I don't necessarily need

[1:04:27] him for, but there's a difference in

[1:04:30] language um of call force and all call.

[1:04:33] What is the term that we want to use

[1:04:35] throughout?

[1:04:36] Well, an all call department is a

[1:04:40] department where people get paid

[1:04:44] when they get summoned for a for

[1:04:46] emergency,

[1:04:48] for training, for any reason that the

[1:04:51] department needs them.

[1:04:54] >> If you talk about paid on call,

[1:04:58] you could be talking about a situation

[1:05:00] where somebody is paid even if they're

[1:05:03] not there. Now, we already have some of

[1:05:04] that

[1:05:05] >> because our night coverage is paid on

[1:05:08] call. We're talking about the difference

[1:05:10] between

[1:05:11] >> generally calling the fire department

[1:05:13] and all call department versus a paid on

[1:05:15] call department. I don't think it's a

[1:05:17] paid on call department. You have paid

[1:05:19] on call features built in.

[1:05:23] Um, but generally it's a call fire

[1:05:25] department. Is that correct? Yeah, paid

[1:05:27] on call I think would uh denote someone

[1:05:30] being there like full-time and then kind

[1:05:32] of that hybrid model like Hamilton or

[1:05:35] Wenom where they have call and um

[1:05:37] full-time.

[1:05:39] >> You do have people at night who agree to

[1:05:42] take a stipend so that they're at the

[1:05:45] ready, but that's really not even the

[1:05:47] same thing. So I think as we start to

[1:05:49] discuss it, we just keep that in mind.

[1:05:51] >> Yeah.

[1:05:51] >> So do you want to talk about the

[1:05:53] position description first or the budget

[1:05:55] part? Let's talk about the the job

[1:05:57] description first. Um because there's

[1:06:00] it's complicated and um I thought we

[1:06:02] could go chunk by chunk if that's okay.

[1:06:05] >> Do you want to lead this conversation?

[1:06:07] >> So I did um as the board of fire

[1:06:10] engineers is aware a um detailed job

[1:06:14] description that's based on three other

[1:06:17] communities job descriptions that have

[1:06:19] all called fire departments.

[1:06:22] The board of fire engineers was asked to

[1:06:24] take a look at that. They came up with

[1:06:26] what they called their condensed

[1:06:28] position description.

[1:06:30] Since it was not necessarily easy to

[1:06:33] compare between the two, I then went and

[1:06:35] put them both on one document. So, it's

[1:06:38] a redlinined document. And before we get

[1:06:42] into other details, I had some questions

[1:06:45] for the group. Um

[1:06:49] on the second page of the

[1:06:52] uh redline document toward the bottom it

[1:06:56] talks about um fire chief's authority

[1:06:59] and it says town bylaws personnel

[1:07:01] policies. Then it says and collective

[1:07:03] bargaining agreements

[1:07:05] um as they may apply in the future.

[1:07:08] Um there is no collective bargaining

[1:07:11] agreement right now.

[1:07:13] I'm not sure that this is something that

[1:07:15] we should put in the position

[1:07:17] description because as it comes along,

[1:07:19] if it ever came along, it would it would

[1:07:21] automatically be part of the person's

[1:07:25] position. Um, so think think about that.

[1:07:29] Also, there is a chain of command on the

[1:07:33] next page that says chief to deputy

[1:07:35] chief, captains, lieutenants,

[1:07:37] firefighters, and EMTs.

[1:07:39] I think that the new chief

[1:07:43] is going needs to have a chance to look

[1:07:45] at the entire lay of the land and

[1:07:47] determine what that will look like. We

[1:07:49] generally don't put chain of command in

[1:07:51] a position description.

[1:07:54] Um

[1:07:55] >> can we stop one second to look at um

[1:07:58] some other things that are different?

[1:08:00] >> Yeah. So under the chief's authorities

[1:08:02] derived from there's um a number of

[1:08:06] things but there seems to be more

[1:08:10] in this document

[1:08:14] >> right so OEMS EMS regulations that

[1:08:17] wasn't in there and I think that's

[1:08:18] appropriate

[1:08:20] >> mass DLS um safety standards so there's

[1:08:24] OSHA but then there's also the the state

[1:08:27] um agency that that now actually can

[1:08:31] enforce standard those OSHA standards on

[1:08:34] a community.

[1:08:36] Um, and then they added NFPA standards

[1:08:40] alignment and they list certain

[1:08:42] standards and I think that's also

[1:08:43] appropriate.

[1:08:44] >> And I guess my question is

[1:08:48] right before it was very explicit,

[1:08:50] right? It was really detailed and there

[1:08:51] was like a wall of text with all of

[1:08:54] these kind of laid out. Is that would

[1:08:56] that be an an accurate

[1:08:59] like description of that. Now they're

[1:09:01] kind of condensed.

[1:09:02] >> If you see it in um

[1:09:05] >> pink, it was in there.

[1:09:08] >> If you see it in pink, it was in there.

[1:09:10] Exactly. Uh but if you also see it in

[1:09:13] non-bolded regular text, it was already

[1:09:16] in there, too.

[1:09:17] >> And I just wonder, is it okay

[1:09:18] >> that's taking out? The pink is taking

[1:09:20] out.

[1:09:20] >> The white

[1:09:21] >> text that looks like that is something

[1:09:24] that was already in there, but it wasn't

[1:09:26] >> proposed for taking out. I guess I'm

[1:09:28] asking somebody like Nick, when you look

[1:09:32] at a job description that just refers to

[1:09:35] the Mass General law instead of breaking

[1:09:38] it out into detail, does that matter? I

[1:09:41] mean, and it it doesn't. So,

[1:09:44] >> I think it's getting getting into the

[1:09:47] >> Yeah.

[1:09:47] >> Okay. So, you you got and you think from

[1:09:49] a municipal standpoint, it's okay to

[1:09:51] just refer to the to the different

[1:09:54] >> that they'll get it that they know.

[1:09:56] >> Yeah. if they don't know the NFPA

[1:09:58] standards, we got bigger problems. But

[1:10:00] we did talk about it as a board, right?

[1:10:03] So, it basically allows us to and and we

[1:10:06] did some research into the standards

[1:10:07] that were cited and it covers a lot of

[1:10:10] the safety stuff. It covers a lot of the

[1:10:12] um you know, hazards that they may be

[1:10:14] going into and expectations and all that

[1:10:18] stuff. So it's also helpful because if

[1:10:21] we get finite or granular

[1:10:24] [snorts]

[1:10:25] uh we could kind of outdate ourselves a

[1:10:28] little bit whereas if we're citing the

[1:10:29] standards the standards are

[1:10:30] automatically going to be updated and

[1:10:32] they're still held accountable to X.

[1:10:33] >> Oh that's a very good point. Okay

[1:10:35] thanks.

[1:10:36] >> So with that what are we looking for?

[1:10:39] They have a bulleted list. Is that what

[1:10:41] you're looking to retain in the final

[1:10:44] position description?

[1:10:47] I would say yes.

[1:10:50] >> I I would say yes. I would leave out

[1:10:52] collective bargaining agreements. That's

[1:10:54] my sticking point.

[1:10:55] >> We don't have I mean I don't have a

[1:10:57] problem with that. I think like you

[1:10:58] said, if it's if it's going to be if

[1:11:01] it's something that comes down the road,

[1:11:02] then it gets added down the road.

[1:11:04] >> Statutory relationship. So

[1:11:07] >> I don't want to speak for I mean there's

[1:11:08] three people here. So

[1:11:12] » Okay. Next is supervision.

[1:11:17] Yep. Um,

[1:11:20] this was condensed down to under the

[1:11:24] direction of the board of selecting

[1:11:25] consults with town administrator on

[1:11:27] administrative procedures, whereas it

[1:11:30] was more detailed prior to that. And I

[1:11:34] would actually want to get in there, no

[1:11:36] matter how we work this out, I want to

[1:11:37] get in there that the fire chief reports

[1:11:40] to the board of selectment,

[1:11:43] which the statute that could be adopted

[1:11:47] >> explicitly says.

[1:11:48] >> Can you say reports to and serves at the

[1:11:50] direction?

[1:11:51] >> Yeah, you could say reports to and

[1:11:54] serves at the pleasure or at the

[1:11:55] direction.

[1:11:57] Um, you know, the original was more

[1:11:59] wordy. what is being proposed is is more

[1:12:05] brief and it almost it's it's like

[1:12:09] um focusing on administrative procedures

[1:12:12] whereas

[1:12:14] the section was intended to be

[1:12:16] supervision in its entirety

[1:12:18] >> and there's more than administrative

[1:12:19] procedures involved with that.

[1:12:23] Should there be?

[1:12:26] >> Probably not.

[1:12:29] >> You want to bring back some of that

[1:12:30] text?

[1:12:31] >> I do.

[1:12:32] >> Okay.

[1:12:35] My understanding is that you guys got

[1:12:36] feedback from the company yesterday. Has

[1:12:39] that been incorporated in this? So, I'm

[1:12:40] assuming that we're still in a draft

[1:12:42] phase.

[1:12:43] >> Yeah, we are still in the draft. We have

[1:12:44] not incorporated

[1:12:47] uh one person's advice. I don't think

[1:12:50] we've had a chance to get the other one

[1:12:52] incorporated. So,

[1:12:53] >> so we have some room to

[1:12:54] >> So, and we're, you know, just to set the

[1:12:56] stage,

[1:12:58] >> we sent back the abbreviated version

[1:13:00] with the understanding of it still needs

[1:13:03] massaging, right? We're not I don't

[1:13:04] think there's too much in there that

[1:13:05] we're

[1:13:06] >> very like, oh my gosh.

[1:13:08] >> We think we need a process to move

[1:13:09] forward. I think we need probably one

[1:13:12] person from the board of fire engineers

[1:13:14] and me to sit down after we have this

[1:13:17] general discussion and come up with okay

[1:13:19] this is it so that everyone can feel

[1:13:21] confident and you could potentially even

[1:13:23] adopt this at your next meeting which is

[1:13:24] a week from today. Okay, I think that'd

[1:13:27] be great.

[1:13:28] >> U but just some other highlights. Um

[1:13:37] it talks about scheduling of scheduling

[1:13:40] and assignments.

[1:13:42] There you're speaking of assigning work

[1:13:45] tasks, right? Not like you are the sole

[1:13:50] firefighter in charge of this, right?

[1:13:52] >> Is that right? Okay.

[1:13:54] Um

[1:13:57] there's a disciplinary thing in here

[1:14:00] um that talks about the chief retaining

[1:14:02] authority to impose discipline except

[1:14:04] termination. Um since

[1:14:08] not only the chief but the firefighters

[1:14:11] are and will still be appointed by the

[1:14:13] board of selectmen, any discipline

[1:14:16] actually has to be meed out by the board

[1:14:18] of selectmen. So that can't be a thing.

[1:14:22] um because they're the appointing

[1:14:24] authority and there's

[1:14:26] >> so that can is there an ability for them

[1:14:28] to have any level of discipline at all

[1:14:32] and it's just a question.

[1:14:34] >> No,

[1:14:35] beyond beyond perhaps

[1:14:38] these are in our this is in our policies

[1:14:40] and procedures. we're giving you a

[1:14:42] warning. But if you're actually going to

[1:14:44] impose discipline, doesn't matter who it

[1:14:47] is in the town, their appointing

[1:14:49] authority is the only entity that can

[1:14:52] impose discipline. And in fact, okay, so

[1:14:55] let's talk about the police department.

[1:14:56] We've had police officers that have been

[1:14:58] disciplined in the past. That arrives

[1:15:00] back at the board of selectmen sometimes

[1:15:02] in executive session. It's just the way

[1:15:04] it is. Okay. Um, I think that's

[1:15:08] different if it was a strong chief, but

[1:15:10] that's not what we're looking at here.

[1:15:12] >> So, do you need to break that out and be

[1:15:14] a little bit more explicit about that?

[1:15:15] >> Thanks.

[1:15:16] >> Um, and then, uh,

[1:15:20] >> I mean, I think maybe that's something

[1:15:22] we can at least try to

[1:15:24] >> I'd just like to kind of circle back to

[1:15:27] that at some, you know, smaller group.

[1:15:28] >> We'll have a talk. I mean, is it going

[1:15:29] to be you and I that sit? Is it going to

[1:15:31] be you?

[1:15:32] >> Is it going to be me and one of the

[1:15:33] other guys? I What do you want to do?

[1:15:35] I'm happy to do it, but I would defer to

[1:15:37] again the group to make sure that we're

[1:15:39] I'm not just saying, "Oh, I'll do it."

[1:15:41] And someone else wants to do it. So,

[1:15:47] » sure. Uh, Wednesday.

[1:15:48] >> It's tomorrow.

[1:15:50] >> That's unfortunate.

[1:15:51] >> Okay. So, you'll let me know tomorrow.

[1:15:52] >> Tomorrow's Tuesday.

[1:15:57] [laughter]

[1:15:57] >> So, you'll let me know. You'll let me

[1:15:59] know. All right. We talked about on call

[1:16:01] versus paid on call. Um

[1:16:07] I I think we should add in here

[1:16:09] participation in the KAN regional

[1:16:11] emergency planning committee. It wasn't

[1:16:13] I I don't think it was specifically in

[1:16:15] here, but it's become a very important

[1:16:17] thing.

[1:16:18] >> That's on number seven.

[1:16:20] >> Also, is the mutual aid is not is that

[1:16:22] something that needs to be noted

[1:16:23] anywhere?

[1:16:28] » You're saying that it came out? I just

[1:16:30] didn't see it in I'm I was I was focused

[1:16:32] on this one.

[1:16:33] >> Right.

[1:16:34] >> So I don't know if that needs to be

[1:16:36] teased out or not.

[1:16:37] >> Mutually from what perspective?

[1:16:39] >> Um I think it's about the coordination

[1:16:41] and

[1:16:42] >> sections have an inter agency

[1:16:43] coordination and public engagement. Well

[1:16:45] certainly inter agency coordination

[1:16:47] mutual aid. I think we find a way to

[1:16:49] cover it.

[1:16:49] >> Yeah. And there

[1:16:51] >> and that I mean that's done organically

[1:16:53] at the the Essex County Chief's meetings

[1:16:55] anyways. That's where it takes place as

[1:16:57] long.

[1:16:58] >> And then in that same section, is it

[1:17:00] really essential to have this person

[1:17:03] signing up for and going to

[1:17:04] International Association of Fire Chiefs

[1:17:07] and New England Fire Chiefs Association?

[1:17:09] I can see Essex County and I can see

[1:17:11] Mass Association of Fire Chiefs, but the

[1:17:14] other two, isn't that just taking the

[1:17:17] person away for more things when perhaps

[1:17:20] the first two would be sufficient? I

[1:17:22] don't know. But that's what came to my

[1:17:24] mind.

[1:17:25] >> Yeah. You know, Nick, feel free to weigh

[1:17:27] in. I mean, I've gone to IFAC and and um

[1:17:32] you know, I've gone to a few of them uh

[1:17:34] more on my other employers dime. Uh and

[1:17:37] I have found them, you know, from a a

[1:17:38] development standpoint of leadership.

[1:17:40] You know, I would certainly be selective

[1:17:42] with them because not all are created

[1:17:44] equal, but uh I do feel it's the fire

[1:17:47] service is actually changing, which is a

[1:17:50] change. Um but it's important to kind of

[1:17:54] stay current. The issue though is we do

[1:17:56] not we do not have a budget to send

[1:17:58] people to wherever they're going to have

[1:18:00] this thing, get a plane fair. It's it's

[1:18:03] not really a thing. Uh so there is one

[1:18:08] in Connecticut which is you know and we

[1:18:10] can discuss it further. Um you know kind

[1:18:13] of offline

[1:18:14] um I think that's um

[1:18:18] >> yeah Mohein Sun has a pretty lowc cost

[1:18:20] one but again maybe it was the first two

[1:18:24] description.

[1:18:25] >> Yeah, we could say the first two and

[1:18:26] then others as as as selected by the

[1:18:29] board of selectman from time to time or

[1:18:31] something like that.

[1:18:34] >> Obviously, you want your fire to stay

[1:18:35] current with everything and they do that

[1:18:37] through conferences to find new

[1:18:39] technology.

[1:18:43] » They network, they do all that stuff. I

[1:18:45] mean,

[1:18:47] >> when they're in Hawaii, does everyone

[1:18:49] everybody want to go? Yeah, sure. When

[1:18:51] they're in North Dakota, does everybody

[1:18:52] want to go? No. No. So, I think a I

[1:18:55] think a happy medium there is we'll come

[1:18:57] up with wording there. Um,

[1:19:01] >> do they zoom?

[1:19:02] >> No. No.

[1:19:04] >> Then there's a list of things that were

[1:19:05] added. Um, new section job performance

[1:19:08] requirements.

[1:19:10] Number five will live within Essex or in

[1:19:12] a budding community or within a

[1:19:14] reasonable response time as determined

[1:19:16] by the board of selectment. This one's

[1:19:18] very important because you're going to

[1:19:19] get applicants from far and wide and it

[1:19:22] is an important consideration, but you

[1:19:24] really need to nail this one down

[1:19:26] because we need to know as people apply

[1:19:28] whether they're really eligible,

[1:19:30] >> right?

[1:19:30] >> Do you have thoughts about this?

[1:19:31] >> I have very strong thoughts on this.

[1:19:33] [laughter]

[1:19:33] >> I couldn't tell.

[1:19:35] >> The median home value in this town is

[1:19:37] upwards of a million dollars. I know the

[1:19:40] salary being discussed is $120,000.

[1:19:43] I wasn't very good at math, but that's

[1:19:46] not it's not If you make him live in

[1:19:48] this town, there's no way. It's not

[1:19:50] happening.

[1:19:51] >> Okay. But it's So, let's talk about the

[1:19:53] language. We live We'll live within

[1:19:54] Essis or in a budding community.

[1:19:56] >> Okay.

[1:19:57] >> Are you going to give him a vehicle to

[1:19:59] travel to and from work with to respond

[1:20:01] to emergency um incidents because he's

[1:20:03] on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

[1:20:06] 365 days a year?

[1:20:07] >> Yeah.

[1:20:08] >> There's there's tra there's trade-offs,

[1:20:10] >> right?

[1:20:13] >> Um you could you say we'll live within a

[1:20:16] reasonable response time.

[1:20:17] >> What's reasonable?

[1:20:19] >> You specifics? Um, I don't know. I mean,

[1:20:23] I'm This is your I mean, you tell us

[1:20:26] what

[1:20:26] >> reasonable for chief

[1:20:28] >> chief. I mean, it it it depends. I mean,

[1:20:31] my full-time job, my chief lives in he

[1:20:33] lives in town. I live here. Um, the

[1:20:36] chief in Ipsswitch lives in Salem, New

[1:20:38] Hampshire. Is that reasonable?

[1:20:41] >> No. might have it in his contract that

[1:20:44] he can live so far away as long as his

[1:20:46] deputy chief lives in town. I mean,

[1:20:49] these are things,

[1:20:50] >> right?

[1:20:51] >> I guess the expectation for me is like

[1:20:53] what what are you expecting this person

[1:20:55] to respond to when it's not office

[1:20:58] hours? Do you know what I mean? Like,

[1:20:59] are you expecting this person to drive

[1:21:01] from Salem down or are they just saying

[1:21:04] you got this?

[1:21:06] Do you know what I'm saying? Could you

[1:21:07] put in per within 30 minutes and then

[1:21:11] you know if you got a superstar and you

[1:21:13] had to adjust that to 40 minutes it is

[1:21:16] like Nick just gave an example

[1:21:20] chief is an hour away.

[1:21:22] >> Yeah.

[1:21:29] » Technically chief is just supposed to

[1:21:32] show up and sign everybody's paycheck

[1:21:33] right.

[1:21:37] Which is funny because you guys have

[1:21:38] just delineated that you want a working

[1:21:40] fire chief.

[1:21:42] >> Want a working fire chief or do you want

[1:21:44] a guy that does office work Monday

[1:21:45] through Friday and then goes home and

[1:21:46] clocks out for the

[1:21:47] >> Want a working chief?

[1:21:49] >> Okay.

[1:21:50] >> So, this should be

[1:21:52] >> I like the preference idea. Can we do

[1:21:54] that with a pre Well,

[1:21:56] >> preference for all three of these. No,

[1:21:59] >> with response with with where they live

[1:22:02] >> where they live in response. You have

[1:22:03] to, if you're going to do that, you'd

[1:22:04] have to say they need to live in this

[1:22:06] box.

[1:22:06] >> Okay?

[1:22:06] >> You can't cuz they're going to come in

[1:22:08] and they're going to say, "I'm as

[1:22:10] qualified or more qualified than this

[1:22:12] other person." And you can't be

[1:22:14] wishy-washy that you threw them out

[1:22:16] because of something that was not

[1:22:19] >> nailed down. It's going to be based on

[1:22:21] who's the most qualified.

[1:22:22] >> Yeah.

[1:22:23] >> And to Nick's point, what about is the

[1:22:25] vehicle going to come into question if

[1:22:27] >> Well, that's the thing. I mean, you

[1:22:29] know, our police chief has has a

[1:22:31] vehicle. Is that is that different? Um,

[1:22:36] our police chief has always had a

[1:22:37] vehicle. The fire department has not had

[1:22:39] that because we haven't had a full-time

[1:22:41] chief. But it is an expensive

[1:22:43] proposition.

[1:22:45] >> It's usually a larger SUV that I see

[1:22:49] used. And I think you probably want to

[1:22:51] hear from the finance committee about that because

[1:22:56] uh let's go back to the to the uh

[1:22:58] superintendent of public works. We had

[1:23:00] some people who probably would have

[1:23:02] taken the job if if you were going to

[1:23:04] give them a vehicle, but they wanted to

[1:23:06] be like live in like Wilmington or

[1:23:08] Tukbury

[1:23:09] >> and commute back and forth on the town's

[1:23:11] dime. And the board was like no I mean

[1:23:14] no

[1:23:15] u this is different. I mean, all three

[1:23:17] of those positions have a role in an

[1:23:19] emergency, but at what level does the

[1:23:22] town of Essex want to put up for

[1:23:27] those response capabilities?

[1:23:28] >> I think we said when we were talking

[1:23:30] about this that we did not want to talk

[1:23:32] about the truck or some sort of vehicle.

[1:23:36] Now,

[1:23:36] >> that's what we did say.

[1:23:40] >> Is there any current vehicle in the

[1:23:42] fleet that could serve as that?

[1:23:47] Yeah, you could get away with squad two,

[1:23:49] which is the pickup truck.

[1:23:51] >> It's a be

[1:23:51] >> She's a be Clark. But yes, as a start,

[1:23:55] yeah, I know a lot of fire departments

[1:23:58] to get started. Some take donated

[1:24:00] vehicles down as the police department

[1:24:02] starts to rotate their cars down.

[1:24:04] Manchester did that to start.

[1:24:08] But again, that's

[1:24:09] >> So you could consider that, but you

[1:24:10] could also consider that the police

[1:24:12] department at one point in the early

[1:24:14] days did not did not have a chief's

[1:24:16] vehicle either. And so maybe you start

[1:24:18] with nothing. Maybe you start with some

[1:24:19] donated thing. There's still going to be

[1:24:21] maintenance and gas. And depending on

[1:24:23] how far away the person lives, you may

[1:24:25] or may not want to live with that.

[1:24:26] >> Could you use that as a negotiation

[1:24:29] um factor if you found somebody and we

[1:24:31] needed to come up with something?

[1:24:34] >> Well, clearly it became a factor in the

[1:24:36] superintendent thing. This is a little

[1:24:38] different.

[1:24:39] >> Yeah.

[1:24:39] >> Um, yeah, you could. You could, but the

[1:24:43] finance committee is going to want

[1:24:44] >> But could we?

[1:24:46] >> I don't know where the money come from.

[1:24:48] >> I'm talking about if we had a a vehicle

[1:24:50] that was already here

[1:24:52] >> currently.

[1:24:52] >> Yeah.

[1:24:55] » Mean the vehicle

[1:24:56] >> something to consider. Yeah. Certainly

[1:24:58] the position description is not going to

[1:25:00] say you get a vehicle. Okay.

[1:25:02] >> And you get a vehicle. Yeah. that's

[1:25:04] going to be worked out when the person

[1:25:05] wants to negotiate a contract because

[1:25:07] that's normally where it gets named if

[1:25:09] it gets in at all.

[1:25:11] >> So, do we want to remove the where

[1:25:13] you'll live?

[1:25:15] >> Well, right now it says we we'll live

[1:25:16] within Essex or an abuing community or

[1:25:18] within a reasonable response time as

[1:25:20] determined by the board of selectmen.

[1:25:22] I'm bringing that up now so that you're

[1:25:24] not surprised later to say, "Well, wait

[1:25:26] a minute. We have to determine this."

[1:25:28] >> You could try to nail it down now. You

[1:25:30] could just say, "Well, okay, we realize

[1:25:32] that and we'd rather have more

[1:25:33] applicants than less."

[1:25:35] >> Okay.

[1:25:38] >> You could model it after the civil

[1:25:40] service language as well that says

[1:25:41] within 15 miles as the crow flies. That

[1:25:43] actually gets you into parts of

[1:25:45] >> New Hampshire,

[1:25:46] >> southern New Hampshire. Seabbrook, New

[1:25:48] Hampshire is 15 miles directly across

[1:25:51] >> and that's going to get you places like

[1:25:52] Beverly, I would imagine, certainly

[1:25:54] Gloucester. And so now you're in you've

[1:25:56] got a mix of places where somebody could

[1:25:58] live and there's a mix of affordability.

[1:26:00] >> Okay,

[1:26:03] >> it's not a bad idea.

[1:26:05] We'll put some um we'll put some

[1:26:08] optional language in when when we come

[1:26:10] back next time so that you can choose

[1:26:14] um

[1:26:24] in the place where it talks about

[1:26:27] required education training experience

[1:26:29] versus preferred.

[1:26:33] It says in preferred experience,

[1:26:35] supervising, call or combination

[1:26:36] departments. I understand that certainly

[1:26:39] would would be preferred. Do you want

[1:26:41] all of your applicants to have that

[1:26:44] experience because they're going to be

[1:26:46] managing a call department or are you

[1:26:49] willing to deal with someone who has

[1:26:51] never been in that culture? I'm not so

[1:26:55] sure that's a great idea.

[1:26:56] >> It's preferred.

[1:26:57] >> Yes, but you want to make it minimal.

[1:26:59] You you'd rather hear from that person

[1:27:01] is what you're saying. Okay.

[1:27:03] >> Yeah. And I think the the language in

[1:27:06] there is management of, right? So you

[1:27:08] could be on a call department and not

[1:27:10] necessarily managed a call department

[1:27:12] and still have the culture. So

[1:27:14] >> okay.

[1:27:16] Uh let's see.

[1:27:18] I think under where it talks about um

[1:27:24] there are places where it says paid on

[1:27:26] call throughout and we we're going to

[1:27:27] clarify that. Um there was under skills

[1:27:32] there were you know there was discussion

[1:27:34] of certain software and if this comes

[1:27:37] back in I want to add Northshore 911

[1:27:39] software anything that they deal with.

[1:27:42] Um

[1:27:46] those are the specific things that I

[1:27:48] had. I would say generally we went from

[1:27:50] something that was super detailed to

[1:27:53] something that I think is super

[1:27:54] condensed and I think we have to hit a

[1:27:56] happy medium but I think it's needs to

[1:27:58] be a collaborative process.

[1:28:01] >> Yeah, I agree and I think you know our intent was more to get it into a

[1:28:05] manageable state and and certainly your

[1:28:08] work on actually marrying them together

[1:28:10] properly. Uh

[1:28:11] >> at least we can see what it was and you

[1:28:12] know and we can make changes there. I

[1:28:14] think this will be productive

[1:28:16] >> and I don't know if the finance

[1:28:17] committee had any thing to say about

[1:28:20] what you've seen or what you've heard so

[1:28:21] far in case there are budgetary

[1:28:23] implications.

[1:28:25] I I think the only thing that um Josh

[1:28:28] and I had uh looked at the job

[1:28:30] description was really the call versus

[1:28:33] on call just because we do have on call

[1:28:36] um stipens. We wanted the language to be

[1:28:39] clear um and the deputy the chain of

[1:28:42] command where we don't have that deputy

[1:28:45] chief position.

[1:28:46] >> Right. I just wanted I think that

[1:28:49] clarity there is going to be important

[1:28:51] because I don't think at this moment our

[1:28:53] intent is to be looking to to find a

[1:28:56] deputy.

[1:28:56] >> Well, you don't want a job description

[1:28:58] to essentially lock you into something

[1:29:00] that you may or may not or it might

[1:29:02] evolve over time. That type of thing.

[1:29:04] All right. So, I've noted those anyway.

[1:29:05] So, we'll make sure that we discuss

[1:29:07] that.

[1:29:08] >> Just a quick question on we do have

[1:29:09] deputy chiefs currently, right?

[1:29:11] >> I mean, and I'm not asking. I'm just

[1:29:13] making sure.

[1:29:13] >> You absolutely do. You absolutely do.

[1:29:16] That was just misunderstanding.

[1:29:17] >> But you won't.

[1:29:18] >> In the strong chief statute, it talks

[1:29:20] about the fact that you will have a

[1:29:23] deputy chief and it's more about I think

[1:29:26] a paid deputy chief like another

[1:29:28] full-time person.

[1:29:30] >> Okay.

[1:29:30] >> And we're trying to differentiate

[1:29:31] between the two.

[1:29:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, and we're not looking

[1:29:34] for that. We just want to make sure that

[1:29:36] the structure uh from a leadership

[1:29:38] standpoint still has adequate

[1:29:40] leadership.

[1:29:41] >> Right. Right. And I think that that will

[1:29:44] be borne out by the chief that is hired

[1:29:46] and it certainly can be asked about

[1:29:48] during the interview process.

[1:29:49] >> Yeah. And you may want to uh you may

[1:29:53] want to dictate that a little bit or at

[1:29:55] least think about dictating that a

[1:29:56] little bit so that you have uh the

[1:29:59] ability for call folks to be in a

[1:30:02] position um so that there's kind of that

[1:30:04] checks and balances organically through

[1:30:06] that.

[1:30:06] >> Yes. And I think that when the chief

[1:30:08] comes on since the chief serves at the

[1:30:11] pleasure of the board of selectmen, they

[1:30:13] come with a proposal XYZ and then the

[1:30:16] selectman say yes or no or whatever comes. All right. So I think

[1:30:20] that there's going to be a process for

[1:30:22] talking about chain of command anyway

[1:30:24] but not necessarily in the position

[1:30:26] description.

[1:30:28] Okay.

[1:30:31] >> Um I have a question or request. Can you

[1:30:34] give us um just uh clarification as to

[1:30:38] what is a call force just definitions so

[1:30:41] that when we go back to this we are all

[1:30:43] we all know what we're talking about on

[1:30:45] call and then whatever the third term is

[1:30:49] which was

[1:30:51] just definition

[1:30:52] >> well there's there's obviously full

[1:30:53] there's full-time paid staff.

[1:30:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. But there's

[1:30:56] >> is call firefighters and then we use the

[1:31:00] term on call for just people who who

[1:31:02] agree to work at night if called upon

[1:31:05] and they're getting some money to put

[1:31:07] their time aside, their availability

[1:31:09] aside. But I guess on call could also be

[1:31:13] a term for paid full-time staff. That's

[1:31:15] what I'm hearing.

[1:31:16] >> Yeah.

[1:31:16] >> I don't Yeah. So, I mean, the three

[1:31:20] definitions that I'm familiar with are

[1:31:22] call, volunteer, and full-time

[1:31:25] professional type deal. So, the on call

[1:31:28] versus call is probably just the same

[1:31:31] thing by and large.

[1:31:33] >> Um, and

[1:31:36] what was the other one in there?

[1:31:38] >> On call, call force, and then I think

[1:31:42] just plain call.

[1:31:43] >> Yeah. So, the call force would be the group as in its totality.

[1:31:46] >> Yeah. And then um the on call versus

[1:31:49] call is is really just a status thereof,

[1:31:53] right? They're they're an on call force

[1:31:56] versus

[1:31:58] >> you know call is probably a a slang of

[1:32:01] some sort.

[1:32:02] >> Um but they're all pretty much the same

[1:32:04] thing from

[1:32:05] >> we'll make it clear. I think we can

[1:32:07] define, you know, what we're talking

[1:32:08] about and make it clear so people don't

[1:32:10] have an idea that, oh, well, these are,

[1:32:14] for whatever reason, I interpret that to

[1:32:16] be uh

[1:32:16] >> two different department,

[1:32:18] >> right, workforce.

[1:32:19] >> Yeah. So, we'll we'll work that out. Um,

[1:32:22] anything else on the position

[1:32:23] description?

[1:32:25] Because I think there now needs to be

[1:32:28] discussion about

[1:32:30] the operating budget and how

[1:32:33] the what we think is around $50,000

[1:32:36] deficit in FY28

[1:32:39] uh is going to be handled if the fire

[1:32:42] department wants two people on for each

[1:32:45] of the weekday shifts.

[1:32:48] So, um, we had a pretty robust

[1:32:50] discussion about this downstairs, um,

[1:32:52] with board of engineers and, um, the the

[1:32:57] real crux of the matter is, you know,

[1:32:59] where are you going to carve out $50,000

[1:33:01] in a $641,000

[1:33:03] fire budget, add the $172 for your

[1:33:07] ambulance, even though they're two

[1:33:09] separate budgets, you know, I think we

[1:33:11] need to look at them as a whole. Um,

[1:33:15] I think that it's Uh it's a tough ask

[1:33:19] because the training budget was just

[1:33:22] increased substantially this year with

[1:33:24] this budget along with the $120,000

[1:33:28] position.

[1:33:30] However, I think the charge

[1:33:33] still is to find $50,000 out of those

[1:33:36] budgets. And I think it's in if you want

[1:33:40] two day shifts 5 days a week then you

[1:33:45] have to find 50 else you don't have two

[1:33:48] day shifts. Um, so we've said to the

[1:33:52] board of engineers, you know, where

[1:33:55] would you like to where would you like

[1:33:57] to cut? And understandably,

[1:34:00] you know, they're hesitant on where to

[1:34:02] cut. And we don't have enough hard data

[1:34:06] to say, well, the salary line item is

[1:34:10] heavy this year because, you know, the

[1:34:13] model is the model and we don't have

[1:34:15] data to support the model. We just have

[1:34:18] estimates or we look at the training

[1:34:21] budget and it's budgeted for an example

[1:34:25] you know 12 monthly trainings four hours

[1:34:27] every training for 22 or 25 people. Do

[1:34:31] 22 or 25 people really show up? Can you

[1:34:35] manage that as a you know sign up 15 you

[1:34:38] know first 15 people sign up and and how

[1:34:40] does that affect your your force? You

[1:34:42] know how does it affect morale? How does

[1:34:44] it affect your preparedness? Jump in any

[1:34:48] time, Christian, if I'm going off the

[1:34:50] rails here. Um,

[1:34:53] >> did I miss anything? So, we don't have a

[1:34:56] proposal. Um, I suggested a couple of

[1:34:59] things. We s we talked about um our

[1:35:02] ambulance billing rate. We talked about

[1:35:05] this earlier in the year and Christian's

[1:35:07] going to have a look at that to see if

[1:35:09] we're billing at a competitive rate or

[1:35:11] we're below market. Um that's just

[1:35:14] what's build out to insurance um you

[1:35:16] know versus Medicare, Medicaid. Um

[1:35:20] additionally some fees that we had

[1:35:23] talked about earlier in the year moving

[1:35:26] um fees to the actual users as opposed

[1:35:29] to on the taxpayers much like Harbor. Um

[1:35:32] so you know we again don't have numbers

[1:35:35] in a system so we don't know exactly how

[1:35:38] many say dumpsters you know would have

[1:35:42] required a fee but um Christian is going

[1:35:46] to look at that as well.

[1:35:49] Um other than that you know

[1:35:53] >> so I and I think the purpose of the

[1:35:54] discussion obviously finding the $50,000

[1:35:57] will be a process that is undertaken

[1:36:00] throughout the budget preparation season

[1:36:03] but the selectman want to know do we

[1:36:05] move forward with the chief knowing uh

[1:36:09] that there needs to be some idea that

[1:36:13] cuts can be made to accommodate both the

[1:36:16] chief and the two people on the weekday

[1:36:18] shift which is what is desired. So maybe

[1:36:21] the selectman have questions about that

[1:36:23] because uh after next meeting if we come

[1:36:26] out with a position description, we're

[1:36:27] talking about starting to advertise and

[1:36:30] we're not going to advertise unless

[1:36:31] you're comfortable with how it shakes

[1:36:33] out now and then from February 1st to

[1:36:37] June 30th and then next fiscal year.

[1:36:40] >> Right? And we actually have to be ready

[1:36:42] for town meeting to answer that

[1:36:43] question. So

[1:36:44] >> and the question is not just for this

[1:36:46] year but for next year and the year

[1:36:48] after. Right.

[1:36:49] >> Correct.

[1:36:49] >> So um so we can make as a finance

[1:36:52] committee we can make suggestions but

[1:36:54] you know we we do defer to uh the the

[1:36:58] chief and the board of engineers to

[1:37:01] guide uh where where would be the most

[1:37:05] or least painful areas. Um

[1:37:09] >> well I guess my question to the board of

[1:37:11] engineers is um my understanding is that

[1:37:14] from the company the two shifts were

[1:37:19] part of the package of the the chief

[1:37:22] right that that's kind of a

[1:37:25] all or not all or nothing because it

[1:37:27] wasn't presented like that but this is

[1:37:29] what we think is best. So,

[1:37:33] it sounds like there's been significant

[1:37:36] um a significant rise year-over-year for

[1:37:38] the fire department to accommodate their

[1:37:41] [clears throat] needs. And so,

[1:37:44] can we move see it as moving money to to

[1:37:50] make sure that that happens? It sounds

[1:37:53] like there should be.

[1:37:56] Is that a fair thing to look at it? you got to give up something to and I

[1:38:02] guess my other question is and I think I

[1:38:04] asked this this data came through for us

[1:38:07] um about

[1:38:09] um

[1:38:10] training because I had a question about

[1:38:12] you know we keep saying hey yeah let's add that person but what's our

[1:38:16] obligation to pay for training um and is

[1:38:20] there some sort of a moment when you're

[1:38:23] like okay I've got so many people but

[1:38:25] only so many training dollars how do I

[1:38:29] balance not accepting more but giving

[1:38:32] them the training that I'm required to

[1:38:34] provide. I guess I I don't understand

[1:38:36] the um obligation that you have to pay

[1:38:39] for training or if it's train the

[1:38:42] trainer kind of stuff. So you're not

[1:38:43] paying for someone to come in and do

[1:38:44] training that the cost is really about

[1:38:46] who shows up.

[1:38:48] Does that makes do those questions make

[1:38:50] sense?

[1:38:51] >> Yes. And I'll do my best to answer them

[1:38:53] and then you let me know if I'm not

[1:38:54] answering your actual question. So from

[1:38:57] a requirement standpoint, we want uh people to be fire academy

[1:39:04] trained if they're going to be a

[1:39:05] firefighter. So fire one two I'm going

[1:39:08] to approximate the number of hours about

[1:39:11] 240 I believe is the number. Um

[1:39:15] and we put those folks through. There's

[1:39:17] no cost for the class itself because

[1:39:20] it's a state-run academy. Uh but there

[1:39:23] is the costs of uh outfitting someone

[1:39:25] with new uh turnout gear or PPE because

[1:39:29] it's required by them. If they haven't

[1:39:32] been hired within the last year, then

[1:39:34] there's the cost of putting them through

[1:39:36] an NFPA um medical exam and then we pay

[1:39:40] them uh hourly uh as they are going

[1:39:44] through the academy or technically pay

[1:39:46] them at the end. Um so that's the fire

[1:39:50] academy side on the EMS side. Uh we have

[1:39:54] typically sent them to McNeely or they

[1:39:58] have gone to Northshore Community

[1:40:00] College or whatever the case may be and

[1:40:02] we pay them for their hourly time there

[1:40:05] which is I want to say

[1:40:09] 120 150 and then we pay for the EMT

[1:40:11] class as well.

[1:40:13] U

[1:40:16] as far as those are the two big

[1:40:19] trainings, unless I'm missing anything

[1:40:22] that we pay for outside of the monthly

[1:40:25] meetings uh or monthly trainings

[1:40:27] quarterlies. Um

[1:40:30] cuz

[1:40:32] you know even though it's 240 hours,

[1:40:34] you're still kind of there's still a lot

[1:40:36] to learn on the job. There's still a lot

[1:40:38] of equipment to learn. there's uh the

[1:40:40] driver training requirements uh to get

[1:40:42] signed off on a vehicle so that we're

[1:40:44] not just sending uh Joemo out without

[1:40:47] any training in a you know anywhere from

[1:40:50] 3/4 of a million to $1.4 million

[1:40:51] vehicle.

[1:40:56] » Have some follow-ups. Do we know what a

[1:41:00] cost per

[1:41:02] person is in in a year?

[1:41:07] » Do we know what train was spent last

[1:41:10] year and maybe the year before and the

[1:41:11] year before that on training you have

[1:41:13] that

[1:41:15] >> I don't know what kind

[1:41:16] >> 24 393

[1:41:19] 25 246

[1:41:21] uh the actual budget adopted in 26 was

[1:41:24] 32 this year's budget

[1:41:27] >> 32,000 and 86,07

[1:41:30] is approved for this year

[1:41:32] >> 86

[1:41:34] >> from 32

[1:41:35] >> okay so

[1:41:37] >> I think one thing to be asked is okay so

[1:41:39] there's firefighter one and two there's

[1:41:41] EMT training there are also other

[1:41:43] trainings that you do and we we heard

[1:41:45] from the fire company that they feel

[1:41:46] that that's very important because now

[1:41:50] you're learning about other things

[1:41:51] specialty things hazard materials all

[1:41:54] that are there certain things though

[1:41:56] like that is that 86 it must include

[1:41:59] some of those things that are over and

[1:42:01] above one and two in EMT

[1:42:03] >> yes so part of what uh and I think we

[1:42:07] talked about You talked about hazmat. So

[1:42:09] there's a requirement. Uh they get 24

[1:42:11] hours. They get a hazmat responder level

[1:42:15] uh operations level in the fire academy

[1:42:17] which is 24 hours. There is a

[1:42:20] requirement by NFPA that they take an 8

[1:42:23] hour refresher on an annual basis. U

[1:42:26] compliance with that has been

[1:42:28] challenging. So part of that money

[1:42:30] coming in is training every one of those

[1:42:33] certified firefighters to maintain that

[1:42:35] certification. Uh the cost of the class

[1:42:38] itself. So,

[1:42:40] >> but is that mandatory? It's an NFPA

[1:42:42] standard, but is it different somehow

[1:42:45] than the one and two? I'm not saying not

[1:42:48] do it, but we're going to have to find a

[1:42:49] way to modulate it because we got to

[1:42:51] come up with $50,000. So,

[1:42:52] >> right. So, it's it's an NFPA standard,

[1:42:55] but also backed up by OSHA. So, um both

[1:42:58] are

[1:42:58] >> that's Yep.

[1:42:59] >> Y

[1:43:01] >> um Sorry. Go ahead.

[1:43:03] I I just wondered um maybe there are

[1:43:05] efficiencies with training um such as u

[1:43:10] making sure there's a senior member on

[1:43:12] shift with a junior member who requires

[1:43:15] driver training and they can get driver

[1:43:17] training while they are being paid on a

[1:43:19] shift maybe. Do we um want every

[1:43:24] firefighter to be an EMT or if we

[1:43:27] already have 30 EMTs, do we really need

[1:43:30] 45?

[1:43:32] You know, I don't know what the answer.

[1:43:34] >> And you already raised the point of

[1:43:36] okay, well, does the budget of $86,000

[1:43:39] include well, okay, 35 people are going

[1:43:42] to show up every time. That's why the

[1:43:43] budget is so big, but 35 people don't

[1:43:45] show up. This is what you pointed out.

[1:43:48] How many people do show up on your

[1:43:49] average training? What's a high number?

[1:43:53] >> Probably 25. We had 25 at tanker

[1:43:55] training the other night. Um, so

[1:43:58] >> we happen to know if the budget was

[1:43:59] developed for a number larger than that.

[1:44:02] >> No, it was developed

[1:44:05] >> 22. Okay. So, it doesn't seem like

[1:44:07] there's a lot there.

[1:44:09] >> That was a 4-hour training. I mean, and

[1:44:11] that was not too far off from, you know,

[1:44:13] what happens normally, but there

[1:44:18] It is difficult because there's a lot of

[1:44:20] requirements that come down at us.

[1:44:22] There's an there's the OEMS requirement

[1:44:25] uh for reertification as well as the

[1:44:27] fire requirements. So

[1:44:30] um I I do think that there's absolutely

[1:44:33] opportunity to kind of go through and

[1:44:35] work collaboratively with uh rep and you

[1:44:39] know boss whoever to kind of identify

[1:44:42] through either increase in the ambulance

[1:44:45] revenue and kind of try to efficiencies

[1:44:47] in the existing budget as well. But um

[1:44:51] you know we part of why we

[1:44:55] increased the budget so dramatically in

[1:44:56] some areas is after we did the proforma

[1:44:59] with fin to identify where were the gaps

[1:45:01] that left us short last year and make

[1:45:03] sure that moving forward we didn't have

[1:45:06] that same gap. So it's, you know, we can

[1:45:11] step backwards or or kind of like look

[1:45:13] to try to make it more manageable, but

[1:45:16] we just I'd like to keep that in mind

[1:45:17] because I definitely don't want to be,

[1:45:19] you know, faced with a shortfall moving

[1:45:21] forward.

[1:45:22] >> I mean, you you mentioned three

[1:45:24] different places. Limiting training, can

[1:45:27] some money be shaved, maybe fees to the

[1:45:30] user? So, we're going to talk about that

[1:45:31] next, like how much is carried for town

[1:45:34] events on the public dime and the

[1:45:36] ambulance offset. How much do you think

[1:45:39] we'll gain there?

[1:45:40] >> Well, we were we were talking about it

[1:45:41] and I think um I think we have an

[1:45:45] average of 285 calls a year. I don't

[1:45:47] know what the percentage is of, you

[1:45:49] know, is that how many what the

[1:45:51] percentage is of the full boat? We don't

[1:45:53] have those numbers. So, full boat, you

[1:45:55] know, $1,100 or whatever the $1,500

[1:45:59] per

[1:46:00] um ride. But if you can increase that

[1:46:03] 75% of those calls by $200,

[1:46:06] you but again, you know, we'll really

[1:46:09] need to juggle those two budgets because

[1:46:11] they're budgeted separately. And I think

[1:46:14] you and I talked about this last year,

[1:46:15] Brendan, why we can't cobble together

[1:46:17] the budgets, which would be easier to

[1:46:20] manage when you need to shift things.

[1:46:23] But um

[1:46:24] >> certainly EMT training could come out of

[1:46:26] that,

[1:46:27] >> right? But at the end of the day, you

[1:46:29] still have, you know, x number of

[1:46:32] trainings. And I'm also wondering, I

[1:46:36] guess the other piece is, is there a

[1:46:38] hierarchy of, you know, training, what

[1:46:42] people need, what people must have, you

[1:46:45] know, so that you make sure that you're

[1:46:47] filling your training with the people

[1:46:49] who absolutely need that training now as

[1:46:52] opposed to don't need it.

[1:46:53] >> And that's the type of thing they're

[1:46:54] going to need to figure out. And another

[1:46:56] way to look at it, if it's $50,000 and

[1:46:59] we're looking at major categories of

[1:47:00] limiting training somehow,

[1:47:03] switching switching some things that are

[1:47:05] covered by the budget to users and some

[1:47:09] kind of ambulance offset, that's about

[1:47:11] 16,700

[1:47:13] for each category will get you to the

[1:47:15] $50,000.

[1:47:16] >> Do you really think you're going to

[1:47:17] generate $16,000 in fees? depends on how

[1:47:21] much is currently covered uh for people

[1:47:24] um that are covering events.

[1:47:26] >> Yeah. I mean I'm just I don't I don't

[1:47:28] think fees ever like

[1:47:31] >> the answer there's zero. Now Brendan

[1:47:34] >> you're not going to get anything.

[1:47:35] >> We're not getting nothing in community.

[1:47:36] >> Yeah. So you're not going to get

[1:47:38] anything out of that.

[1:47:38] >> But I do want to ask a question relevant

[1:47:41] to Jod's about um so you you you know

[1:47:44] you get a new hire, right? And you've

[1:47:46] got a probationary period. Like I don't

[1:47:50] and you want to get somebody on the uh

[1:47:52] you know moving but you don't but you

[1:47:53] want to test to see is this person

[1:47:54] really worth investing in. What's the

[1:47:57] kind of what is the kind of what are the

[1:48:00] gates they have to go through to get to

[1:48:02] be training worthy? Does that makes does

[1:48:05] my question make sense? Because some

[1:48:06] people may be just on a lark deciding to

[1:48:08] do this but don't really commit.

[1:48:12] >> Yeah. So most recently we've had uh this

[1:48:16] last go round of interviews people have

[1:48:18] either come to us with EMT

[1:48:20] certifications. Um and then if that's

[1:48:22] the case then we're going to get them up

[1:48:24] to speed on our ambulance so that they

[1:48:26] are uh ready to go on that side. Make

[1:48:28] sure that they if they don't have

[1:48:30] experience that they've kind of gone

[1:48:31] through the process that we have set

[1:48:33] forth on that. Um if they don't have EMT

[1:48:38] then that's where we're going to start

[1:48:39] them. And then fire is secondary. So we

[1:48:43] do have a kind of progressive path on um

[1:48:46] training and then as far as you know the

[1:48:50] EMS training is the less expensive of

[1:48:52] the two. So we will start with that and

[1:48:55] then kind of if it doesn't look like

[1:48:57] it's going to be a good fit, there's not

[1:48:58] a comprehension, whatever the case may

[1:49:00] be, then we would throttle back and kind

[1:49:01] of figure out maybe you just live here

[1:49:04] or you you move forward.

[1:49:06] And we do uh you know Jody talked about

[1:49:10] kind of training on you know having that

[1:49:12] senior person. We have this year really

[1:49:14] shifted a lot of our training to on duty

[1:49:17] um which has been successful. So you

[1:49:19] know it's a good point. It's just we are

[1:49:23] already adopting that to the best of our

[1:49:24] ability uh and kind of minimizing the

[1:49:27] training outside of ours. Um we we limit

[1:49:31] that to people who just can't train

[1:49:32] because they have full-time jobs.

[1:49:37] I guess the other piece that we don't

[1:49:38] know is um how many people are coming

[1:49:42] out for training at the $32 an hour when

[1:49:45] they were being paid 2462 before and is

[1:49:48] that generating a larger response to

[1:49:50] come to training because of the wage

[1:49:51] change. So we don't have that data but

[1:49:54] that you know could be a a driver for

[1:49:58] additional people showing up for

[1:49:59] training. So you mentioned that you had

[1:50:01] a robust disc discussion about this

[1:50:04] whole matter and that there was

[1:50:06] agreement that 50,000 has to be trimmed.

[1:50:09] >> It's an if they want the then else

[1:50:11] scenario. Absolutely. Not trimmed moved.

[1:50:14] >> Moved.

[1:50:15] >> So the finance committee has that

[1:50:17] opinion. Board board of engineers.

[1:50:22] » Do you agree? Is there a way to find

[1:50:24] 50,000? Because the selectman need to

[1:50:25] know uh whether that's plausible.

[1:50:30] We can discuss it on one

[1:50:32] >> we can discuss it on uh a meeting

[1:50:34] Wednesday morning. Um there is a couple

[1:50:36] of ideas but you know takes some work

[1:50:39] >> because right now we're going to try to

[1:50:41] get a position description out at the

[1:50:43] next meeting which is October 5th and

[1:50:46] then start a hiring process. And so

[1:50:48] we're kind of at the end here and we

[1:50:50] need to know from the board of engineers

[1:50:52] whether you think when you develop FY28

[1:50:55] you can develop it uh with it's going to

[1:50:59] be basically this year's number minus

[1:51:02] 50,000

[1:51:03] 2% tacked onto that.

[1:51:11] » You already said you're not good at

[1:51:12] math.

[1:51:14] the 2% for for

[1:51:15] >> cola.

[1:51:17] >> Yeah.

[1:51:22] » I think

[1:51:24] 12

[1:51:28] » I don't want anybody to hear me doing

[1:51:29] this.

[1:51:34] » The net Yeah. The net difference will be

[1:51:37] um if you add if you take the two what's

[1:51:39] the total budget number right now? It's

[1:51:43] the came up with

[1:51:45] >> is 12,000. So it's 50,000 minus 12 is

[1:51:47] the is the amount less.

[1:51:50] >> So it's well I think we went the other

[1:51:52] way.

[1:51:53] >> Okay.

[1:51:54] >> 12,000 or 62.

[1:52:02] » Sorry.

[1:52:04] >> Uh 62 was the front end number and then

[1:52:08] backed off the 2% got us to 50.

[1:52:12] is is my understanding. But

[1:52:14] >> yeah, what I'm saying is you're you'll

[1:52:16] be expecting some level of an increase

[1:52:19] because of COLA and increase to expense

[1:52:22] lines. Um,

[1:52:25] and the T, you know, town departments

[1:52:26] generally, even though we have 2 and a

[1:52:28] half% under Proposition 2 and a half,

[1:52:30] town departments generally come in at 2%

[1:52:33] for wages and actually less than 2% for

[1:52:37] expenses. But you're getting the

[1:52:39] whopping deal of 2% on the whole thing.

[1:52:42] How about that?

[1:52:44] >> Better shake on that one quick.

[1:52:47] >> Is that the number?

[1:52:49] >> So that's that's just conceptual. So

[1:52:52] we're going to need the board of

[1:52:54] engineers to say whether you Yep. We're

[1:52:57] going to we're going to turn out a

[1:52:58] budget this year that is going to meet

[1:53:00] that criteria when you meet. So that if

[1:53:04] we get a position description off the

[1:53:06] ground at the next selectman's meeting,

[1:53:08] we are launching into a hiring process.

[1:53:11] >> So the we meet on Wednesday, the fire

[1:53:14] company meets on Thursday. I mean,

[1:53:16] >> okay.

[1:53:17] >> We would like to get obviously fire

[1:53:18] company

[1:53:19] >> y

[1:53:20] >> weigh in on this.

[1:53:21] >> So by the next selectman's meeting,

[1:53:22] you'll have everything you need to say

[1:53:24] whether you think you can do it because

[1:53:26] that's what selectman I don't know if

[1:53:28] you have any other questions, but you're

[1:53:30] I believe looking to make sure

[1:53:33] that if it's going to go that way, the

[1:53:35] two people on plus the chief, there's a

[1:53:37] way to actually get to that number

[1:53:40] >> without a without an increase over the

[1:53:42] 2%.

[1:53:44] All right.

[1:53:47] So, then the last thing that

[1:53:49] was on there has to do with events that

[1:53:51] are held in the town. And the events,

[1:53:54] uh, I listed some and then Christian

[1:53:56] gave me some more. They include things

[1:53:58] like, "Okay, we have an Easter egg hunt

[1:54:01] sometimes, but I don't think that

[1:54:03] >> No,

[1:54:03] >> that's that's like maybe the police on

[1:54:06] the shift would come watch that." Um,

[1:54:10] >> yeah, maybe.

[1:54:12] >> Uh, we have River Day, The Car Show,

[1:54:14] Happy as a Clam, Clamfest, Halloween,

[1:54:16] Turkey Trot, Santa's Arrival, other ship

[1:54:19] building events, ALS for ALS, the Ukan

[1:54:22] race, the bike road races, and the polar

[1:54:25] plunge. That's as exhaustive a list as we've had in a long time. And the

[1:54:30] question is which events that take place

[1:54:34] in the town should have the benefit of

[1:54:36] public funding.

[1:54:38] >> Do you know how much you're spending on

[1:54:40] all those now?

[1:54:45] I don't off the top of my head but I

[1:54:48] think uh if you go through the list um

[1:54:51] we can tell you that Yukon run uh ALS

[1:54:54] for ALS

[1:54:57] » polar plunge was a duty group situation

[1:55:02] typically I think right Ernie

[1:55:05] [snorts]

[1:55:05] >> a few extra

[1:55:07] >> yeah um the the Yukon race and the A's

[1:55:11] for ALS for ALS have in uh detail at the

[1:55:17] event coordinators uh cost. Um I think

[1:55:22] clamfest is probably one of the you know

[1:55:24] bigger ones.

[1:55:26] >> So if it's all right so let's take a

[1:55:28] step back. If it's duty group you're

[1:55:30] talking about two people that are happen

[1:55:31] to be on for that time. Right.

[1:55:33] >> Correct.

[1:55:34] >> So uh is everybody okay with an event

[1:55:36] where it's only deemed that the duty

[1:55:38] group is necessary whether that's police

[1:55:40] or fire? That is public funding to kind

[1:55:44] of watch over an event, but those people

[1:55:45] were being paid anyway because they were

[1:55:47] there anyway.

[1:55:49] >> Is everybody okay with that?

[1:55:50] >> Yeah.

[1:55:50] Okay. So, then we're talking about

[1:55:53] uh an event where extra people need to

[1:55:56] be put on. Are there specific events

[1:55:59] where you say we absolutely need to put

[1:56:04] those people on at the town's expense

[1:56:06] and then everything else that you don't

[1:56:09] think is important enough would have to

[1:56:10] be built back for extra people other

[1:56:13] specific events.

[1:56:15] >> Can I ask a question about um staffing

[1:56:18] of these things? So could you say

[1:56:21] minimum charge for um but if but if

[1:56:25] these factors then it's additional um

[1:56:30] you know

[1:56:31] >> staffing.

[1:56:32] >> Yeah. Do you know what I mean? Like some

[1:56:34] things are more like the polar plunge is

[1:56:36] more

[1:56:38] >> risky I think than Halloween, right?

[1:56:42] >> Yeah. I think uh it depends, but

[1:56:46] certainly um I think you know kind of

[1:56:49] what we talked about a little bit last

[1:56:51] time and and uh firefighter Ducet

[1:56:54] brought up was a permitting process. And

[1:56:57] I think if we look at that um and kind

[1:56:59] of have public safety, police, fire

[1:57:01] involved in that permitting process,

[1:57:03] that'll give us the opportunity to kind

[1:57:04] of go through and say, okay, you know,

[1:57:07] baseball game at the baseball field that

[1:57:09] you know someone's trying to do. Great.

[1:57:11] No problem. Check. goodbye. Uh but then

[1:57:14] you kind of get into more of the polar

[1:57:16] plunge situation and the forecast is

[1:57:19] negative -30 because it's you know

[1:57:21] whatever that's going to be a deciding

[1:57:23] factor on you know ambulance and or you

[1:57:26] know whatever.

[1:57:28] >> So having that permit process kind of

[1:57:30] works allows us to work through that. Um

[1:57:32] >> that allows you to give the applicant a

[1:57:34] sense of what they might need to pay.

[1:57:37] Yeah. But my point is, if the selectman

[1:57:41] determine that there are only x number

[1:57:43] of events, you name them,

[1:57:45] >> that public money should be put into,

[1:57:48] yes, we're going to have a permitting

[1:57:49] process, but we already know that if

[1:57:51] it's not one of those, they're paying

[1:57:54] >> and and then that would allow you to

[1:57:55] build your budgets for FY28 as well.

[1:57:58] >> They're paying or it goes away. And

[1:58:01] >> Right.

[1:58:01] >> Well, sure. If you want to do this, it's

[1:58:03] going to cost you,

[1:58:04] >> right? Right. But I think that the

[1:58:05] permit I think that what um they were

[1:58:08] talking about was what would actually

[1:58:10] require a fire detail as opposed to a

[1:58:14] you know a mandatory versus not

[1:58:16] mandatory fire detail. So if they have

[1:58:19] something with an open flame they

[1:58:21] absolutely need you know if they're

[1:58:23] going to have fire pits they need a fire

[1:58:25] detail versus not I think was part of

[1:58:28] that permitting process which I do think

[1:58:31] it you know it's a determining factor.

[1:58:33] sort of like way back when when we

[1:58:34] talked about the um one day permits back

[1:58:37] when we were in the temporary town hall,

[1:58:39] you know, it was one day for alcohol,

[1:58:42] one day for food, but they were they

[1:58:44] were not mutually exclusive and they

[1:58:46] didn't ever cross over. Instead, we

[1:58:48] said, are you applying for one day

[1:58:50] alcohol as well as a one-day food? So

[1:58:52] that it's an all-inclusive

[1:58:53] >> and I agree we need that and that can be

[1:58:55] put together for really next season. Y,

[1:58:57] >> but it still remains which events

[1:59:00] do we want to pay for with public money?

[1:59:02] >> Can I propose

[1:59:04] River Day, the car show?

[1:59:09] » I can be

[1:59:10] >> Sounds great.

[1:59:10] >> convinced otherwise, but Happy as a Clam

[1:59:13] is a school event with people running

[1:59:15] through town. So,

[1:59:16] >> Halloween.

[1:59:18] >> Yep. Halloween. And then Santa. That

[1:59:20] leaves off the turkey trot, which is

[1:59:24] also um a lion's event. They don't have

[1:59:26] a have a lot of money and their money

[1:59:28] goes to scholarships. So, I mean, I did

[1:59:30] put them on the list, but

[1:59:33] that would be kind of like the same

[1:59:34] problem we had with um the car show.

[1:59:37] You're eating into my profits by having

[1:59:41] um

[1:59:41] >> Do you make part of the permanent do you

[1:59:43] make part of the permanating process

[1:59:45] that decision the board of selectments

[1:59:47] making that decision real time based on

[1:59:48] the event? I don't think you can because

[1:59:52] >> if there's going to be any provision by

[1:59:54] the town with public funds, it has to be

[1:59:56] budgeted in advance.

[1:59:58] >> And the problem is if there's zero

[2:00:00] dollars in there right now in FY27 for

[2:00:03] public support of events,

[2:00:05] >> now you're fighting against that 50

[2:00:07] grand because the more events you pick,

[2:00:09] the more that you you should be

[2:00:11] budgeting to cover those events.

[2:00:13] >> So that's presents a problem.

[2:00:15] >> Yeah.

[2:00:17] Are you honestly

[2:00:18] >> problem?

[2:00:20] >> Well, it's it's a problem with getting

[2:00:22] 50,000 shaved off of FY28 if you're

[2:00:25] going to add because FY27 is largely

[2:00:27] gone and we're going to manage what with

[2:00:29] what we have, but

[2:00:31] >> FY28 is going to be a permitting process

[2:00:35] and anything that's not chosen as a town

[2:00:37] event will be paid for by the applicant.

[2:00:40] We need to know how much to budget for

[2:00:42] those things that you're going to

[2:00:43] select. And right now, the budget is

[2:00:45] zero. So,

[2:00:48] I would select less.

[2:00:51] >> So, what would you I mean, the ones that

[2:00:52] I just said, the five that I said, you do choose fewer than that.

[2:00:58] >> Yeah, because each one of these events

[2:00:59] is going to cost several thousand

[2:01:00] dollars, right? No.

[2:01:02] >> Well, the the car shows off the table

[2:01:04] because that's you've got that budgeted,

[2:01:05] right?

[2:01:06] >> That's next year. We're talking next

[2:01:07] year.

[2:01:08] >> That's police. The fire department

[2:01:09] doesn't know. I know.

[2:01:10] >> Okay. But so, let's think about things

[2:01:12] like Riverdale. You could have sponsors,

[2:01:15] which we have never done before. Um, and

[2:01:18] sponsors could pay for things like that.

[2:01:20] Do you know what I mean? You could,

[2:01:22] >> um,

[2:01:23] happy as a clam, you could you could ask

[2:01:26] them to pay for that. But the thing is,

[2:01:29] if we're going to ask for fire, they

[2:01:32] also have police coverage, too. I mean,

[2:01:33] I know you have it in your budget, but

[2:01:34] is is that fair to assume that

[2:01:39] the town will cover that, but not cover

[2:01:42] you? So for example, happy as a claim,

[2:01:44] they request traffic control by the CBA.

[2:01:47] That has to be a detail. So that's

[2:01:49] automatically paid for the requester. So

[2:01:52] a lot of our instances are pretty cookie

[2:01:55] cutter. If there's a liquor license,

[2:01:56] board of selectman will say you need to

[2:01:58] have a police detail for the license. Uh

[2:02:00] if it's anything to do with any roadway,

[2:02:02] directing traffic, road race, bike,

[2:02:04] anything on the roads require a police

[2:02:06] detail. And I know that's kind of apples

[2:02:09] and oranges because fire sends four

[2:02:11] members per apparatus or you know

[2:02:14] depending on what the needs were at the

[2:02:15] time. So it it looks more efficient on

[2:02:17] the police side, but it's really not the

[2:02:19] same coverage.

[2:02:21] >> Do you have a public sa Don't you have a

[2:02:22] public safety committee?

[2:02:24] >> We had one, but it doesn't meet anymore.

[2:02:26] It's it's

[2:02:27] >> What did you have the other day?

[2:02:29] >> The safety committee that's just keeping

[2:02:32] everybody safe in the work environment.

[2:02:35] >> Oh,

[2:02:35] >> it's not a Yeah. private

[2:02:37] >> public safety has a seat at that table,

[2:02:39] but it's not to discuss that.

[2:02:41] >> Um, so just looking at our own

[2:02:44] historical data very lightly, the police

[2:02:46] budget was uh the car show, turkey trot,

[2:02:50] which I believe is the lions and

[2:02:52] Halloween are paid out of our budget,

[2:02:55] community policing money. Everything

[2:02:57] else for us is a detail. So I don't

[2:02:59] think it's as big as people might think.

[2:03:02] Well, I think Christian, you were about

[2:03:04] to say how much each one of these events

[2:03:06] is roughly. If we look at Riverdale car

[2:03:09] show, Happy as a Clam, Halloween, and

[2:03:11] Santa,

[2:03:14] >> yeah. So, [clears throat] figure 32

[2:03:18] bucks an hour times, you know, a couple

[2:03:20] hours depending on the length of the

[2:03:22] event, right? Santa is uh pretty quick.

[2:03:27] um

[2:03:28] some of the other ones.

[2:03:30] >> So if it's and and in keeping with your

[2:03:32] policy, if it's considered a town event,

[2:03:34] it will be at the regular firefighter

[2:03:36] rate. Correct.

[2:03:37] >> Anything else will be paid at the detail

[2:03:40] rate, which is back build to the user

[2:03:43] anyway,

[2:03:43] >> right?

[2:03:44] >> Okay. So each one of these events, the

[2:03:47] car shows a little bit longer. I mean,

[2:03:50] if it's 32 bucks times four people times

[2:03:54] 4 hours, that's 512.

[2:03:57] >> Yep. So 512 would be, you know, that,

[2:04:00] right? So if it's an event that just

[2:04:02] needs the ambulance standing by, like a

[2:04:04] polar plunge, cut that in half and you

[2:04:07] know, your your hourly rate is going to

[2:04:08] be 60.

[2:04:09] >> Halloween is

[2:04:11] >> two people.

[2:04:12] Okay. Happy as a clam, two

[2:04:15] people.

[2:04:16] Uh that race requires

[2:04:20] three to four typically because traffic

[2:04:22] control

[2:04:23] >> 1,024 for the car show. Happy as a clam.

[2:04:27] Halloween is you said

[2:04:30] >> two So that's that's another 250.

[2:04:35] >> So that's like 1,300 bucks. Santa is

[2:04:39] two.

[2:04:41] So, uh, that's another 250 like 1500.

[2:04:45] And then River Day is how many?

[2:04:47] >> That was six, right?

[2:04:49] >> Because that's a big bonfire and

[2:04:50] everything.

[2:04:51] >> Yeah, River Day we did have, uh, one,

[2:04:54] two, three, four, probably four there

[2:04:56] anyways. Uh, but four to five would be

[2:04:59] fine.

[2:05:00] >> So, 2500 bucks is what we're talking

[2:05:02] about for those events.

[2:05:04] >> So, it's eating into the 25 to the

[2:05:05] 50,000, but not by a whole bunch. I the

[2:05:09] finest seen less than 16,000.

[2:05:12] >> Do you

[2:05:13] >> could we have a spreadsheet that's like

[2:05:15] lists all this stuff and with the police

[2:05:17] and the fire and how it's being paid

[2:05:19] for? I would that would make help me

[2:05:22] understand this.

[2:05:23] >> But it's not going to be a lot of money.

[2:05:24] >> Do you want how it's being paid for?

[2:05:28] >> Sure.

[2:05:29] >> How it's being paid for or how much?

[2:05:32] >> Both.

[2:05:32] >> All of it.

[2:05:33] >> That's unfortunate.

[2:05:35] >> Okay. No, it's fine. And I think um how

[2:05:38] it's being paid for is

[2:05:41] you know last year everything was being

[2:05:44] paid for out of our budget aside from

[2:05:46] the few like ALS for ALS and stuff like

[2:05:48] that. pretty easy,

[2:05:50] >> right? We'll work that out so that when

[2:05:53] you decide whether to go forward with

[2:05:55] the chief's position description and the

[2:05:57] chief's hiring, maybe at the next

[2:06:00] meeting, you'll have this information as

[2:06:02] well. And you will also have the

[2:06:03] information on whether they think it's

[2:06:06] plausible to shave off or reallocate

[2:06:09] 50,000 bucks.

[2:06:11] >> Do you have something to say?

[2:06:13] >> I did, but I lost it.

[2:06:14] >> Okay, you'll remember in a minute. Um

[2:06:17] and um

[2:06:21] » it's contagious.

[2:06:22] >> That happened to me.

[2:06:24] >> Probably a good thing. Um

[2:06:26] >> we don't h currently have a permitting

[2:06:28] process, right? Nothing like that.

[2:06:30] >> Oh, that was

[2:06:31] >> do we charge an admin administrative

[2:06:33] fee? That might be something you guys

[2:06:35] might want to look at going forward when

[2:06:36] you develop it. Is

[2:06:40] the community right next door charges a

[2:06:43] 10% administrative fee. Um, so they're

[2:06:47] going to do a blasting detail. They tell

[2:06:50] the blaster it's going to be the

[2:06:52] overtime rate, minimum of four, so he

[2:06:54] can have a general budget when he pulls

[2:06:56] the permit. There's a 10% fee on top of

[2:06:59] that for them to do the paper.

[2:07:00] >> And the police do that already with

[2:07:02] police details. So

[2:07:03] >> I believe this bill for fire.

[2:07:05] >> Yeah, we've been doing it for fire from

[2:07:07] a blasting standpoint, etc.

[2:07:09] >> So in terms of the the permitting and

[2:07:12] the fees, I mean, I hate fees because I

[2:07:14] feel like you're

[2:07:15] Some people see it as gouging. So, I'd

[2:07:17] like to know justification for why

[2:07:19] you're charging the fee. Like, there's a

[2:07:20] reason, right? Um I would like to help

[2:07:24] with that process. I don't know who owns

[2:07:27] this that permitting process, but um I

[2:07:33] was thinking that for next season,

[2:07:35] >> yes,

[2:07:36] >> I'm going to start now working on a form

[2:07:38] and a and a flow of of work on that

[2:07:41] >> that will involve all the departments

[2:07:43] that are necessary.

[2:07:47] Thank you. We good with that? We good?

[2:07:51] >> So that's it for fire engineers and then the finance is going to talk about

[2:07:56] the town meeting.

[2:07:57] >> Yep. Okay. Thanks everybody. Thank you

[2:08:00] very much. I know it's been a brutal

[2:08:02] night.

[2:08:18] Oh, do you guys I don't think they I

[2:08:20] don't think they adjourned whatever you

[2:08:22] do.

[2:08:24] >> What was their own?

[2:08:25] >> Once they leave, they're

[2:08:26] >> adjourned.

[2:08:29] » Okay. So, how do you want to handle

[2:08:31] this? How do you want to go through

[2:08:32] this?

[2:08:32] >> All right. So, do you want to go through

[2:08:34] article by article?

[2:08:35] >> Yeah, let's do that.

[2:08:38] >> All right. [clears throat]

[2:08:43] So, as the finance committee has

[2:08:44] probably seen, we're looking at a new um

[2:08:48] format for the warrant. There's a cover

[2:08:51] page, there's an index, and then there's

[2:08:53] a explanation of an explanation of each

[2:08:55] article. There will be on the monetary

[2:08:59] summary, a new column that says which

[2:09:01] boards and committees have supported a given article. Now, the

[2:09:06] first six articles are planning board. I

[2:09:08] doubt you have any um their zoning

[2:09:10] bylaws. I doubt you have any comment on

[2:09:12] that. The seventh is the is a very big

[2:09:16] spending article for the replacement of

[2:09:18] the Essex Elementary School. Presently,

[2:09:21] our understanding is that we're going to

[2:09:24] they're going to come up up with a final

[2:09:25] number. You said tomorrow night.

[2:09:27] >> Yeah. So, we were at 98.9 last week and

[2:09:31] they did value engineering on Thursday

[2:09:33] and got it to I think close to 95

[2:09:37] and then there's a few more things.

[2:09:41] One of which may be splitting the baby.

[2:09:43] Um, it's like 800,000. There may be some

[2:09:47] compromise on that. So, I think we're at

[2:09:50] 95 right now, but we'll know solid

[2:09:52] tomorrow night at the end of the night.

[2:09:54] Then whatever the number is, you take

[2:09:55] off 20% for the MSBA contribution and

[2:10:00] then onethird of that remainder is

[2:10:03] funded by the town of Essex.

[2:10:06] >> And then the other thing is to just when

[2:10:09] you guys met as a finance

[2:10:12] um as a committee with the finance

[2:10:14] financing company, you how how you were

[2:10:17] borrowing had been decided

[2:10:18] >> back in March. We talked about it. Yes.

[2:10:20] >> But that was banned. Correct. it was

[2:10:26] we didn't think the environment was

[2:10:27] going to get any better and so I think

[2:10:30] they wanted to do some limited bands

[2:10:32] during construction and then get that

[2:10:36] whole amount of money as soon as

[2:10:38] possible.

[2:10:38] >> There's you're right there's an amount

[2:10:40] of time that you can hold on to

[2:10:43] [clears throat] and if it's going to be

[2:10:45] a a rate game um as far as rolling into

[2:10:50] long-term debt. You're right. And we

[2:10:52] were told by the um school district

[2:10:56] administration that as soon as we get a

[2:10:58] final number, they will rerun

[2:11:03] uh the financing that we talked about

[2:11:05] back in March against that number so

[2:11:08] that we'll actually be able to project

[2:11:10] out in each fiscal year approximately

[2:11:13] how much the average taxpayer would have

[2:11:15] to pay. And it's got obviously going to

[2:11:17] ramp up until we're at full build and

[2:11:20] then go from there. But we'll be able to

[2:11:23] have that because people are going to

[2:11:24] say, "Well, what's my what's this going

[2:11:26] to do to my taxes?" Well, in the first

[2:11:28] few years, it's going to be more benign

[2:11:30] than it is in the out years when we get

[2:11:33] to full full repayment. And didn't um

[2:11:38] did Michelle say that you guys were

[2:11:40] going to have a meeting at the end of

[2:11:41] this week again with with um Cinder or

[2:11:45] was that something that was

[2:11:47] >> She said that they were going to feed it

[2:11:49] right to Cinder so we could get the

[2:11:50] information. Um but yeah, if it takes a

[2:11:53] meeting

[2:11:54] >> we were going to meet. She said we were

[2:11:55] going to meet with Cinder. And then

[2:11:58] Mike, do you have any opinion though on

[2:12:00] any other firm that we may want to um

[2:12:04] use? Because she Michelle did bring that

[2:12:06] up. And and Pam, if there was another

[2:12:09] firm because I think when you and I

[2:12:11] spoke about this, you said that was our one opportunity to perhaps save some

[2:12:16] money by using a different firm.

[2:12:19] >> Um sometimes you can save some money.

[2:12:22] The market from municipal bonds is the

[2:12:25] market. um you would assume that all two

[2:12:28] firms, three firms have equal execution

[2:12:31] abilities, but sometimes if if a firm

[2:12:34] who's bidding for this business knows

[2:12:35] that there's competition, you can save a

[2:12:38] hundred,000,

[2:12:40] which I do think is is material. So, if

[2:12:43] possible, I think it should be shopped

[2:12:46] to the two or you know, two or three

[2:12:48] firms. Right.

[2:12:49] >> That being said, um what's going on with

[2:12:52] the that sector is that the number of

[2:12:55] firms that do this has contracted over

[2:12:57] the last 20.

[2:12:58] >> My concern though would be we're going

[2:13:00] to get delivered a number and we need

[2:13:02] somebody who can handle providing the

[2:13:05] projections and on our team right away.

[2:13:07] If you have to go through a process to

[2:13:09] maybe look at another couple of firms,

[2:13:15] you know, are we going to get the

[2:13:16] service we need from the firm that we

[2:13:18] have now? if they know that they're out

[2:13:20] the could be out the door, you we're

[2:13:23] going to need a fluid set of projections

[2:13:25] from these people and right now they're

[2:13:27] retained.

[2:13:29] >> So, we've engaged this uh municipal bond

[2:13:31] firm. Correct.

[2:13:33] >> Oh, yes. They're engaged, right? So,

[2:13:35] we're we're not going to we're not going

[2:13:36] to bid this out then.

[2:13:37] >> I don't I don't think we have the time.

[2:13:39] >> Well, if you're engaged, you you'd have

[2:13:41] to break the engagement letter, which is

[2:13:44] >> barely done. Can you um reach out to

[2:13:47] Michelle Questa tomorrow and copy Mike

[2:13:49] and Jody on that?

[2:13:51] >> If we're engaged then I there's very

[2:13:53] little of little chance of shopping this

[2:13:56] >> right but I think Jod's not

[2:13:58] >> I'm not I'm not convinced that that um

[2:14:01] they are engaged. I because Michelle and

[2:14:04] Pam said at the meeting if you want to

[2:14:06] use someone else let us know.

[2:14:08] >> All right. I will I will get the

[2:14:10] information on that. But if they say,

[2:14:13] "Oh, yeah, we could do that, but it's

[2:14:14] going to take four weeks."

[2:14:16] >> Then guess what? We can't do it.

[2:14:18] >> So,

[2:14:18] >> we're out of time.

[2:14:19] >> What's our Essex number right now?

[2:14:22] >> I thought we said

[2:14:22] >> it's 95 minus 20% times

[2:14:27] >> a third. So, it's 25 million to Essex.

[2:14:30] >> How does that compare to Manchester

[2:14:31] Memorial Post? That gross number.

[2:14:34] >> Oh, it was a lot less.

[2:14:36] >> A lot less, but and we only had to pay

[2:14:38] onethird of a lot less.

[2:14:41] It was either 50

[2:14:44] >> I think it was 50 or 48.

[2:14:46] >> 48 I believe it was.

[2:14:47] >> Let me check with Sarah.

[2:14:49] >> Construction inflation has been crazy in

[2:14:51] that time.

[2:14:51] >> Yeah.

[2:14:53] >> Crazy.

[2:14:54] >> And actually when we were at a

[2:14:55] collaboration meeting I ran some quick

[2:14:57] math just using I think it was a 10%

[2:14:59] factor for for escalation

[2:15:03] and uh it came out roughly to where they

[2:15:07] ended up.

[2:15:09] I would just point out

[2:15:10] >> that was 2021.

[2:15:12] >> Time is not our ally here just with what

[2:15:16] rates have been doing. If you go back

[2:15:17] since 2022,

[2:15:20] >> we had a secular downturn in rates and

[2:15:22] now we are on a secular uptick. I don't

[2:15:26] think it's worth bidding this out to

[2:15:29] save a1 or $200,000

[2:15:33] when the big picture financing we need

[2:15:36] to get that in place. And bans basically

[2:15:38] just bridge you to the bond issue,

[2:15:42] whatever that date is actually going to

[2:15:43] be. We just don't want that to be too

[2:15:46] far out.

[2:15:47] >> Far out.

[2:15:48] >> Yeah.

[2:15:49] >> And I would agree with Ben. And I I

[2:15:50] think rates are if the Treasury

[2:15:52] pressures in our debt, I think

[2:15:55] treasuries are going to drive higher

[2:15:56] municipal rates.

[2:15:58] >> Yeah. All right. So, I will get that

[2:16:00] information about the engagement and

[2:16:02] what it would take even if they can

[2:16:04] break it just for everybody to see. Are

[2:16:07] there any other questions on that

[2:16:08] article?

[2:16:09] >> I have one question and that is that

[2:16:12] um we both communities have smart

[2:16:15] incomes. Do we want to have a a joint

[2:16:18] meeting with them before

[2:16:20] um November 16th.

[2:16:23] Do you guys feel like you want to do

[2:16:25] that with the Manchester fin or you

[2:16:27] don't have to? I'm just wondering.

[2:16:30] >> Um I'm not sure of what the advantage of

[2:16:33] that would be at this point. I think

[2:16:35] they're so worried about marketing. Um

[2:16:38] we're we're really

[2:16:40] numbers organization over here and

[2:16:42] they're really worried about the

[2:16:44] marketing piece of this that I don't

[2:16:45] want to derail them but and I we tried

[2:16:48] to do the joint meeting with the

[2:16:49] question and answers

[2:16:51] >> and they didn't

[2:16:53] >> they weren't excited. Annie, what year

[2:16:54] was the vote for memorial?

[2:16:57] >> I don't know. Was it

[2:16:59] >> 2019 maybe?

[2:17:01] >> I'm asking Let me ask Sarah.

[2:17:02] >> No, I'm I I have the um I have it right

[2:17:05] here.

[2:17:06] I travel with stuff like this. Who was

[2:17:09] on that committee? Well, you were you're just as responsible for your

[2:17:14] memory.

[2:17:17] » Um

[2:17:19] public safety

[2:17:24] » 2015.

[2:17:27] >> No, that's too early.

[2:17:28] >> That's too early. I can look it up but

[2:17:31] not

[2:17:31] >> my mind is

[2:17:32] >> I think they were sequentially

[2:17:36] » all right so there's that one article 8

[2:17:39] adoption of the fire chief statute I

[2:17:41] think you've heard what what the

[2:17:42] challenge is there and we're going to

[2:17:44] get some more information from the board

[2:17:46] of fire engineers the elderly and

[2:17:49] disabled taxation fund is article 9 um

[2:17:52] this is a fund that is contributed to by

[2:17:55] private donations and then there has to

[2:17:58] be a group a committee, some of which

[2:18:00] are prescribed in the law as to who they

[2:18:02] are, uh, would figure out how to dole

[2:18:06] out whatever comes in. Any questions on

[2:18:08] that?

[2:18:10] It would be donated money, not coming

[2:18:12] from the tax.

[2:18:14] >> How often does the money have to go out

[2:18:17] that's delivered in, donated in?

[2:18:20] >> You can, if there's not any money, you

[2:18:22] can't do anything out. So it it's I

[2:18:24] think it's at the discretion of that

[2:18:26] committee and they actually determine

[2:18:28] all of those factors. Okay.

[2:18:30] >> Once you seat them that you're just

[2:18:31] voting to like pass this then that

[2:18:34] committee um

[2:18:35] >> right but the committee is certain u

[2:18:38] members are prescribed by yeah law. So

[2:18:41] >> I just didn't know whether they made you

[2:18:43] do something with it

[2:18:45] >> you know fre on some schedule.

[2:18:48] >> This is the one where had this and

[2:18:51] they've disbanded it. Is that right?

[2:18:53] Well,

[2:18:54] >> is there going to be like a threshold

[2:18:56] before they actually, you know,

[2:18:58] >> I think they have to determine all that.

[2:19:00] >> They would determine that. That's what

[2:19:01] that

[2:19:01] >> if you only have 200 bucks in there, no

[2:19:03] one's going to start giving that out.

[2:19:05] >> It's not going to be an in town

[2:19:07] committee.

[2:19:07] >> Yes, it is. It has to be. That's what

[2:19:09] the law says.

[2:19:10] >> Yeah. One person, the the chair of the

[2:19:12] board of assessors,

[2:19:14] um I think the treasurer, so that's

[2:19:16] Brooke, and then three folks. And we

[2:19:19] talked a little bit about what would

[2:19:20] those Oh, sorry, Mike. You were there.

[2:19:22] three of the folks that would be

[2:19:24] appropriate like what were the

[2:19:25] qualifications but that is really not

[2:19:27] the job of this working group. It's just

[2:19:30] yeah it's the people that they

[2:19:32] >> I just wanted to be clear on what it

[2:19:33] was.

[2:19:34] >> Um just so that you know go back

[2:19:36] Manchester Memorial was voted in October

[2:19:38] of 2018. It was 13.2 million to Essex.

[2:19:43] >> Wow.

[2:19:44] >> Big difference.

[2:19:45] >> Sure is.

[2:19:47] >> Um okay. Article 10. the water plant

[2:19:50] carbon media replacement

[2:19:52] that comes out of a special fund which

[2:19:56] we are receiving money like many

[2:19:58] communities across the country for PAS

[2:20:01] damages.

[2:20:03] Um we have had PAS detects but um

[2:20:07] nothing in finished water. So our our

[2:20:10] PAS levels are low enough

[2:20:13] where they're in the raw water, but our

[2:20:15] carbon filtration system, which is

[2:20:17] primarily how you deal with PAS, is

[2:20:19] taking it out.

[2:20:21] So this this system is going to be

[2:20:24] replaced, but not on the general fund

[2:20:28] then. And I don't have a figure on it

[2:20:29] yet. I'm waiting for that from from

[2:20:32] Mandy. Water and sewer rate studies. My

[2:20:35] understanding is that it could cost $50

[2:20:37] or $60,000 to do a pair of studies total

[2:20:41] for water and sewer. Um, and this would

[2:20:44] come from partially from water retained

[2:20:47] earnings and partially from sewer

[2:20:49] retained earnings.

[2:20:51] >> And do you want to explain the value of

[2:20:54] doing this? So it as it was explained to

[2:20:57] us by the chairman of the board of

[2:20:59] public works, the idea is to factor in

[2:21:03] to the rates on an ongoing basis an

[2:21:06] amount of money that will over time

[2:21:08] amass enough so that when you have a

[2:21:10] capital need, the money is there. If

[2:21:13] you're just computing rates based on

[2:21:15] what it takes to get through the

[2:21:16] operations year, then eventually you're

[2:21:19] going to run out of money to deal with

[2:21:22] what we have in Essex, which is

[2:21:23] basically a replacement of every inch of

[2:21:26] water mane that we currently have.

[2:21:29] And so he wants to plan proactively.

[2:21:32] That's water sewer. You're talking about

[2:21:35] replacing big pumps, not as much pipes

[2:21:38] because they're modern plastic pipes.

[2:21:40] Whereas the water pipes are the um

[2:21:43] asbestos concrete transite pipes which

[2:21:46] have a very long service life but in

[2:21:49] 2019 I think they said there was about

[2:21:51] 37 years left and so times tick. So they

[2:21:56] would like to study that so that they

[2:21:58] can bring in with each year's rates an

[2:22:01] appropriate amount of money so that when

[2:22:03] they need to do each one of these

[2:22:04] replacement projects the rate payers are

[2:22:07] helping to fund that.

[2:22:09] um article 12 public works equipment. We

[2:22:12] did have listed a winch on a DPW truck

[2:22:15] that has since come off because they

[2:22:17] think they can handle that within the

[2:22:18] budget. They weren't sure how much it

[2:22:20] was going to be, but they can handle

[2:22:21] that. Um then the replacement of a

[2:22:24] generator at the DPW barn and the

[2:22:27] installation of an automatic transfer

[2:22:28] switch. Right now, we have a portable

[2:22:32] generator, a wheeled unit that was

[2:22:35] provided to the town in like 2004 as

[2:22:38] part of the sewer project that they're

[2:22:41] using to power the barn when there's a

[2:22:43] power outage. But there's no automatic

[2:22:45] transfer switch, which requires somebody

[2:22:47] from the union to come in and flip it

[2:22:49] on, even if they're not actually doing

[2:22:52] anything but powering up the barn.

[2:22:57] uh so that

[2:22:59] people can continue to come get salt and

[2:23:01] sand or uh in the in now uh the fuel

[2:23:05] depot is powered off the barn as well.

[2:23:07] So it would make sense for them to just

[2:23:11] get a new generator and an automatic

[2:23:12] transfer switch. Mandy said looking at

[2:23:15] it would be more economical instead of

[2:23:19] one giant generator because they also

[2:23:21] want to power the transfer station and

[2:23:22] not have to close the transfer station

[2:23:24] when the power's out.

[2:23:27] Talking to people in the industry, it's

[2:23:29] going to be less money to buy three

[2:23:31] generators and three switches. One for

[2:23:33] the barn that powers the barn and the

[2:23:36] fuel depot, one for the compactor pad

[2:23:40] that does the recycling, and one for the

[2:23:42] transfer station as opposed to one giant

[2:23:45] generator because once you put one giant

[2:23:47] generator down, you have to run

[2:23:49] electrical conduits and that's going to

[2:23:51] cost a lot more money than short

[2:23:53] conduits from small generators. So you

[2:23:56] might see a proposal and this is this is

[2:23:59] all in the general fund because it's not

[2:24:01] water or sewer per se. It's the DPW

[2:24:03] barn, the fuel depot, the the uh

[2:24:08] recycling center and the transfer

[2:24:10] station. I guess you could come up with

[2:24:12] some money from water or sewer but not a

[2:24:14] lot. But you're going to see figures on

[2:24:16] that.

[2:24:17] >> But you could prioritize too.

[2:24:19] >> You could. Yes. But this says

[2:24:21] >> in addition to is that in that 111

[2:24:26] is the 1262 or is that is are the

[2:24:29] generators in addition to that?

[2:24:31] >> Let me look at my sheet.

[2:24:32] >> Well, the question there's no breakdown.

[2:24:34] >> This says replacement of generator that

[2:24:36] single. So is are there multiple? You

[2:24:38] just

[2:24:38] >> there's only one but what they're saying

[2:24:40] is this is recent thinking

[2:24:42] >> that I just heard about last week.

[2:24:44] >> Oh. They started by saying they started

[2:24:47] by saying we want to take this portable

[2:24:49] generator that powers the barn and by

[2:24:52] extension the fuel depot and replace it

[2:24:54] and have a new automatic transfer

[2:24:56] switch. But now they're on to, well, we

[2:24:59] ought to really be able to run the whole

[2:25:01] deal when there's no power. And if we're

[2:25:03] going to go for it, let's go for it. But

[2:25:04] as Peter just said, we may or may not

[2:25:06] have enough money to do that.

[2:25:08] >> And even Mandy agreed if we have to

[2:25:10] start with the barn and fuel depot, then

[2:25:11] that's where we would start.

[2:25:12] >> Okay. And um so Jody, I'll go ahead.

[2:25:15] >> Also be aware of,

[2:25:16] >> you know, all those generators that

[2:25:19] require maintenance going forward.

[2:25:20] >> Yep. And a contract.

[2:25:21] >> Also go into that with eyes wide open

[2:25:23] saying it's 10,000 a year for the

[2:25:26] maintenance contract,

[2:25:27] >> right? And so you got to look at the t

[2:25:29] total cost. And so Jody, you're talking

[2:25:31] about uh the 112

[2:25:34] 111200 in public works equipment. That

[2:25:38] is just reflective of some of the things

[2:25:41] that I knew about. And it's not the

[2:25:43] total. I don't even have the generator

[2:25:44] cost right now. For instance, the new

[2:25:47] sidewalk plow. So, by the way, the next

[2:25:49] thing is the radiator on the water

[2:25:51] filtration plant generator. They're

[2:25:53] going to go ahead and do that even

[2:25:54] before town meeting because they found

[2:25:56] out over this last storm that it isn't

[2:25:59] safe. That runs the entire water plant

[2:26:02] when there's a power outage and it

[2:26:03] wasn't working very well. So there

[2:26:06] that's going to be converted to them

[2:26:09] looking for money in article 18 to

[2:26:11] refund one of their lines, but that's

[2:26:12] going to come out of water retained

[2:26:14] earnings.

[2:26:16] >> So what so what's the cost of the repair

[2:26:18] for the radiator?

[2:26:19] >> I don't have a number yet on any of

[2:26:21] these things. I only have a lift.

[2:26:22] >> Then replace that generator. I mean,

[2:26:24] what size generator are we talking

[2:26:25] about? I

[2:26:26] >> I don't know.

[2:26:27] >> Okay. Because I know I mean I run an 18k

[2:26:29] generator and a transfer switch and at

[2:26:32] cost that's $5,500 for a single

[2:26:35] generator. The transfer switch is

[2:26:37] another like $2500. The electrical on

[2:26:39] that's another $200 or $3,000. So we're

[2:26:42] talking minimum here of 10 or 12,000.

[2:26:46] And I think they're going to have a

[2:26:47] bigger switch than that. So

[2:26:50] radiator

[2:26:51] >> this is not an 18k. This is for the

[2:26:54] water plant. Yeah.

[2:26:54] >> It's probably 80 or 100. Well, that's

[2:26:57] what I mean. I mean, we're not talking

[2:26:59] short money here,

[2:27:00] >> okay?

[2:27:00] >> But they're saying that they want to fix

[2:27:02] the radiator because the unit has enough

[2:27:04] service life

[2:27:06] >> that they're not going to touch the

[2:27:07] water department. They're going to

[2:27:09] service.

[2:27:10] >> They're going to replace the radiator.

[2:27:11] >> Just the radiator. And I think she said

[2:27:13] something about 15,000. I'd have to look

[2:27:15] back at my notes.

[2:27:16] >> If we're going to chuck all this in one

[2:27:18] article, can we have this as a table

[2:27:20] with the cost per item so that

[2:27:23] >> 100%. But we don't even have no details.

[2:27:25] Yes, you'll have a you'll have a table.

[2:27:27] >> Yeah, sorry.

[2:27:28] >> Which is the monetary summary, but it

[2:27:29] won't be in the warrant. We won't even

[2:27:31] have the numbers.

[2:27:32] >> No, but the Fincom would like to have

[2:27:33] the table now.

[2:27:35] >> Absolutely. But I don't have the

[2:27:36] >> thing. Also, I want it on this sheet.

[2:27:38] Yeah.

[2:27:38] >> Yes. But I don't have all the

[2:27:40] information.

[2:27:43] >> It doesn't come from me. Okay.

[2:27:44] >> Um the sidewalk plow 75,000.

[2:27:48] >> The dump body I think was 15,000. And

[2:27:51] then the new removable

[2:27:54] plastic sanders for some of the dump

[2:27:55] trucks. There was a figure on that as

[2:27:57] well. Um, but I can put it I can try to

[2:28:00] get the rest of the info and put it in a

[2:28:02] table.

[2:28:03] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[2:28:04] >> All right.

[2:28:05] >> And and are and are there tradeins on

[2:28:08] some of this equipment? So, the sidewalk

[2:28:09] plow, we have two um

[2:28:13] what are those pieces of

[2:28:15] >> whackers? Whackers. I hate them. The the

[2:28:17] two whackers. So, we bought we just

[2:28:19] bought a brand new whacker for exactly

[2:28:20] that purpose, right?

[2:28:22] >> So, what are we what are we doing here

[2:28:24] for

[2:28:25] >> number one? Number two,

[2:28:29] >> I feel like we've got the cart before

[2:28:30] the horse here. We don't have a

[2:28:32] professional superintendent yet to say

[2:28:34] to weigh in on, you know, is this the

[2:28:37] right equipment? We spent a ton of money

[2:28:40] last year on subcontractors for snow

[2:28:42] removal. And I think that I'd really

[2:28:45] like to slow this role a little bit so

[2:28:47] that we, you know, this sort of like the

[2:28:51] >> and we had hoped to talk to the board of

[2:28:54] public works about each one of these

[2:28:56] things, but that got delayed.

[2:28:58] >> It still has to happen like

[2:28:59] >> Yeah. So, I'm going to go to Manny and

[2:29:01] say, "Look, I need the numbers and I'll

[2:29:02] tabulate it and send that out to

[2:29:04] everybody." Um, the next one is article

[2:29:07] 13, the police cruiser. That's going to

[2:29:09] be at least 70 70 75,000.

[2:29:13] >> They just got a bill in the warrant for

[2:29:14] 63, right?

[2:29:17] >> A bill. I'm sorry.

[2:29:19] >> In the warrant was the police car last,

[2:29:22] >> but that had already been appropriated.

[2:29:25] >> So, you're saying 75?

[2:29:26] >> Depends on what they want to buy.

[2:29:28] >> Okay.

[2:29:28] But we could use the vehicle fund

[2:29:30] for that.

[2:29:31] >> Yes. Yes.

[2:29:35] Uh then we have community preservation

[2:29:38] projects. The only thing we're aware of

[2:29:39] right now is whether or not we the

[2:29:43] selectman [clears throat] want to apply

[2:29:45] for erosion control projects at the

[2:29:47] Centennial Grove, the slope coming down

[2:29:50] to the beach and the slope coming down

[2:29:52] from the cottage. They were identified

[2:29:54] as um detrimental to the lake in a

[2:29:58] recent study. And it's either going to

[2:30:00] be the DPW tells us that they have the

[2:30:03] equipment and personnel to do it and we

[2:30:06] just need to do materials versus do we

[2:30:09] need to get a price to shop the whole

[2:30:11] thing out?

[2:30:13] And that will come from from the

[2:30:15] community preservation fund.

[2:30:18] Um

[2:30:21] the special purpose stabilization funds,

[2:30:24] we have 12 of them. Have you come to any

[2:30:26] recommendations on that?

[2:30:27] >> No, we haven't even talked about it. We

[2:30:28] did 143 last year. I know we cut back on

[2:30:31] certain.

[2:30:32] >> You chose to do some and not others.

[2:30:34] >> Chose to do some and not others. And we

[2:30:36] didn't get to that part of the

[2:30:37] discussion tonight.

[2:30:38] >> Okay.

[2:30:38] >> Hey, can I just put a plug in here for

[2:30:41] the fact that we're not going to really

[2:30:43] if we're going to be passing a building

[2:30:45] project that's that significant?

[2:30:49] There's no appetite, I think, for an

[2:30:51] override for a few years. I don't think

[2:30:54] so. So, is there any I would like to you

[2:30:57] consider, you know, if you want to put

[2:30:58] some money in that school aortionment

[2:31:00] fund. Are there other funds that could

[2:31:04] that we could park some money in

[2:31:07] get us through? So, we won't be using

[2:31:10] the school aortionment fund again. What we found is that setting aside

[2:31:16] money and then using that money years

[2:31:19] down the road created a funding cliff

[2:31:21] the next year. So it it's not

[2:31:24] advantageous for that. Um I think we

[2:31:27] could park additional money in things

[2:31:30] like um

[2:31:34] uh vehicle

[2:31:36] so that it doesn't hit you know the

[2:31:38] taxpayer directly. Uh the technology

[2:31:42] fund we we fund I mean we were very

[2:31:45] careful last year because we knew we're

[2:31:48] going into another override situation at

[2:31:51] any rate. Yeah, you you definitely want

[2:31:54] to stick with one-time things, one-time

[2:31:57] purchases because it's onetime money

[2:31:59] that you're getting it from,

[2:32:00] >> not funding operating budgets.

[2:32:02] Basically,

[2:32:04] >> um the reserve fund is generally just

[2:32:07] brought up back to full, right? I don't

[2:32:09] know what you spent out of it yet this

[2:32:11] year. I don't think a lot.

[2:32:13] >> Uh no, we just did 2,200.

[2:32:15] >> Yeah. So, what that's usually a small

[2:32:17] number. The retirey health insurance.

[2:32:20] So, this is OPED. We thought we were

[2:32:21] right near the end. I know Brian, you've

[2:32:23] been looking at it and Jody, you've been

[2:32:25] looking at it. We got an explanation

[2:32:28] from the actuarial company and it's kind

[2:32:32] of like chasing this thing

[2:32:36] until you get way over the goal because

[2:32:39] the basis changes every year.

[2:32:42] >> Yeah. And I think the you know the what

[2:32:44] the actuary had said was a 100% funding

[2:32:47] goal initially but it I think the you

[2:32:49] know there's there's clear risk in that

[2:32:51] there's always risk because of market

[2:32:53] volatility of falling back beneath 100%

[2:32:55] down to whatever right but yeah

[2:32:56] >> but

[2:32:57] >> at 100 that risk gets substantially

[2:32:59] higher than say 105 or 110.

[2:33:02] Can I just make a point though about

[2:33:04] because [clears throat] I was looking at

[2:33:05] the OPED 2. Um

[2:33:08] June 30th of 2025

[2:33:11] our OPED liability was 1.9 million. Uh

[2:33:16] by June 30th of 26 it was 500,000.

[2:33:20] >> We put a million bucks in.

[2:33:21] >> I know we put in a million bucks. Right.

[2:33:23] But my point is we've gone,

[2:33:25] >> you know, we there has been a lot of

[2:33:27] market appreciation. So, we've gone from

[2:33:29] 62% to 90% funded. We're in striking

[2:33:34] zone. I realize you can't just get to 100 and then

[2:33:38] >> you're done because you're

[2:33:39] >> It'll always change. And do you really

[2:33:41] want to Yeah.

[2:33:42] >> You may have to overfund it or at least

[2:33:44] just refund it as you go. You know, top

[2:33:48] it off

[2:33:48] >> and not count on as much of a draw in

[2:33:51] that year, which means you're back

[2:33:53] relying on the general fund again.

[2:33:55] purposes to get off of the general fund,

[2:33:57] but until you get to a much higher

[2:33:59] level, it's going to be this back and

[2:34:01] forth.

[2:34:02] >> Yeah. I mean, there and there's not a

[2:34:03] massive cash advantage to, you know, to early funding. I mean, over 10 years

[2:34:07] if you put a bunch in, you know,

[2:34:09] different scenarios, but it but what you are hedging against is the risk

[2:34:13] of that one bad year prior to being

[2:34:15] fully funded, right? So, there's there's

[2:34:17] a reason to do it, but it's hedging

[2:34:19] against a risk, you know, a 2% return

[2:34:21] year that actually puts you back, right?

[2:34:23] Even when you're even Right. So Mike,

[2:34:26] >> did they quantify where the comfort

[2:34:28] level stops? I know actually those are

[2:34:30] horrible about

[2:34:31] >> Did you have a chance to share that

[2:34:32] breakdown that

[2:34:33] >> that's what I brought with me to think

[2:34:34] we hadn't gotten to our

[2:34:35] >> Do you do you have it to read?

[2:34:37] >> Oh, I know.

[2:34:37] >> Because it's not that long.

[2:34:40] >> This is from that guy.

[2:34:41] >> This is from the actuarial guy.

[2:34:45] » Um

[2:34:47] >> I think I forwarded it.

[2:34:48] >> No, no, this is his comments via email

[2:34:52] crystallizing OPED

[2:34:55] >> the what the report really means and

[2:34:57] that's what I thought was really

[2:34:58] telling. I can find it if

[2:35:01] >> uh from Parker, right?

[2:35:02] >> Yes.

[2:35:03] >> Um he said this was the roll forward

[2:35:06] year. So the higher than expect expected

[2:35:09] healthcare renewal for 2026 does not

[2:35:11] impact the liability results. Had those

[2:35:14] been reflected, I anticipate that would

[2:35:16] add about $750,000 to the OPED

[2:35:19] liabilities while would reduce plan

[2:35:22] funding to about 79% and increase the

[2:35:25] unfunded to about 1.25 million. Falltown

[2:35:28] meeting appropriation. Obviously, we

[2:35:30] encourage an appropriation if you can

[2:35:32] afford it. There's no magic uh to it to

[2:35:34] the $55,000

[2:35:36] as I'd expect the target to be somewhere

[2:35:38] higher absent of a favorable renewal of

[2:35:41] the 2027 Medicare supplement plans.

[2:35:45] OPB investment policy, you're we're not

[2:35:48] your investment manager, but your

[2:35:49] portfolio is on the more aggressive

[2:35:51] side. That's been great in this market.

[2:35:53] However, as you approach full funding,

[2:35:55] you may wish to move to a more balanced

[2:35:56] investment policy model to limit

[2:35:59] volatility. It's ultimately your call,

[2:36:02] but given the long road you've been

[2:36:04] taken to full funding, we don't want to

[2:36:06] see a reversal. Acurals versus

[2:36:08] distributions, you have a relatively

[2:36:10] mature population such that the annual

[2:36:13] benefits curls service cost about

[2:36:15] $115,000 while the pay as you go costs

[2:36:19] uh is about $340,000.

[2:36:21] So absent any preunding, you are paying

[2:36:23] down the unfunded by 225,000 per year

[2:36:27] simply via paying the current retirey

[2:36:30] health care versus the annual budget

[2:36:33] preunding to withdrawals. Once you

[2:36:35] achieve full funding in the next few

[2:36:36] years, I expect recent health care cost

[2:36:39] increases to pu to push it back one or

[2:36:41] two years. You will then be in a

[2:36:43] position to seek reimbursement for the

[2:36:45] pay as you go costs from the OPED trust

[2:36:47] each year. And the technical mechanics

[2:36:49] are that you would fund the service cost

[2:36:51] and withdraw the pay as you go. Taking

[2:36:53] out the net does the same thing. When to

[2:36:55] start withdrawals, there's no magic

[2:36:57] date, but it will probably be

[2:36:58] recommended that you would get to 105 to

[2:37:01] 110% before you begin the annual

[2:37:04] withdrawal process to allow some margin.

[2:37:06] >> And that's going to take several year

[2:37:08] several fiscal years in his estimation.

[2:37:10] >> So you're not going to hit it this year.

[2:37:12] >> So we're not going to hit it this year.

[2:37:13] I think you know that there's there's

[2:37:16] all kinds of numbers being thrown around

[2:37:18] here, right? But at the end of the day,

[2:37:20] what does this mean to the average

[2:37:22] taxpayer? Because these guys are

[2:37:24] brainiacs and I'm the 1 plus 1 equals 2

[2:37:27] person, right? So, I'm going to boil it

[2:37:29] down to what this means to taxpayers.

[2:37:32] And what it really means is that we're

[2:37:35] going to free up levy capacity when we

[2:37:38] start to draw.

[2:37:40] That's right. So, you know, I think that

[2:37:43] the finance committee long before I was

[2:37:46] on was their number one priority to fund

[2:37:50] OPED and be aggressive about it. Um, I

[2:37:54] came on and didn't know what OPED was.

[2:37:56] So, so what's your estimate today for

[2:38:00] what you want to do?

[2:38:01] >> I thought we were in striking distance,

[2:38:02] but after hearing that, it seems to me

[2:38:05] >> I did too. And then I asked him to break

[2:38:06] >> two or three more years of putting in,

[2:38:10] you know, 500. You know,

[2:38:12] >> we've put in anywhere between 250 and a

[2:38:14] million.

[2:38:15] >> Um

[2:38:15] >> I think you're going to need a 500 cash

[2:38:18] number. Then we'll know what we put in.

[2:38:20] >> But

[2:38:21] >> what would you

[2:38:23] where where are you thinking? Because

[2:38:24] last I don't want to walk into this year

[2:38:26] thinking 250 and you're going to come

[2:38:28] again at mill a million. Remember that.

[2:38:29] >> No, I'm thinking I'm thinking more well

[2:38:31] in my head I've got like 500,000 as a

[2:38:34] number

[2:38:34] >> for several years.

[2:38:36] >> What do you think?

[2:38:36] >> So I I mean I think it's run. I mean I I

[2:38:38] built a model where you where we where

[2:38:40] and that I was going to share in our own

[2:38:42] where you can change the um the amount

[2:38:45] per year and it'll it'll it'll it'll

[2:38:47] project out based on simulations of the

[2:38:49] market what year we think that it will

[2:38:51] >> Did you change the asset allocation to

[2:38:53] defease the liability?

[2:38:55] >> Uh yeah a little better conservative

[2:38:57] >> not not yet um because it was until it's

[2:39:00] fully funded. So for the I I did about a

[2:39:02] 10 and a half% volatility which is based

[2:39:04] on

[2:39:06] their recent performance their their mix

[2:39:08] of of stuff and then just kind of other

[2:39:10] things that size in the market. But I

[2:39:12] can that's a slide it's a variable we

[2:39:14] can change too. So I can do this. Did

[2:39:16] you come up with a number though?

[2:39:18] >> Uh I mean depends on I I came up with

[2:39:19] you know with charts like this and say

[2:39:21] depending on how much we put in and what

[2:39:22] the return is you can here's a year that

[2:39:24] I project.

[2:39:25] >> So Brian we put in 50 here.

[2:39:27] >> Yep.

[2:39:29] Let's just boil this down to average.

[2:39:31] >> Then I bet you're six years old. So the

[2:39:34] question is, we put in 250 a year. Is it

[2:39:36] five years? Is it three years? If we put

[2:39:39] in 500 a year, maybe two years.

[2:39:41] >> I think it's 500 for two to three years.

[2:39:43] >> I think that's right, too. Yeah.

[2:39:45] >> Just back to the million.

[2:39:47] >> We were there.

[2:39:48] >> Yeah. Then he went

[2:39:50] >> just back to the the million. Remember

[2:39:52] that was that was an accounting error.

[2:39:55] So that was a that was a journal entry

[2:39:58] that wasn't reversed. So we had more

[2:40:00] free cash than we than we were accounted

[2:40:04] for. And the state doesn't care if you

[2:40:07] underestimate your free cash. They only

[2:40:10] care if you overestimate that. So it was

[2:40:13] our one opportunity to get us really

[2:40:15] close to that finish line and then

[2:40:17] healthcare bit us int.

[2:40:19] You know, I I think that um you know,

[2:40:23] >> but it's worked well for us.

[2:40:24] >> It has Well, it has to It's done. But

[2:40:27] there's not going to be like a windfall

[2:40:29] of money. All I'm saying is don't think

[2:40:31] we're going to walk into town meeting

[2:40:32] with $2 million of free cash.

[2:40:35] >> Oh, I I don't expect

[2:40:36] >> Well, but but just given what you're

[2:40:38] looking at,

[2:40:39] >> I'm hoping it's it's north of one.

[2:40:41] >> I hope it's north of one, too. And then

[2:40:43] if we

[2:40:44] >> And then you have half you do half a

[2:40:46] million for OP, right? We do that for a

[2:40:49] couple years and then we're

[2:40:50] >> So I we all know kind of where you're at right now kind of sort

[2:40:54] of. So that's

[2:40:55] >> to answer the question 250 a year will

[2:40:58] get you to 98% likelihood of 100%

[2:41:01] funding by end of 2031 fiscal year

[2:41:04] >> but we can shorten that by

[2:41:05] >> den that by by that we can shorten that

[2:41:07] by different assumptions about what what

[2:41:09] we also know is that we have a we have a

[2:41:12] drop off well notwithstanding the new

[2:41:15] funding for the for the elementary

[2:41:17] school we know that

[2:41:18] >> we would want that levy capacity to free

[2:41:21] up around 2029 2030

[2:41:24] do it, which is why we want to put in

[2:41:26] 500 versus

[2:41:27] >> more than less. Yes,

[2:41:28] >> that's right.

[2:41:28] >> I agree.

[2:41:29] >> Can I just say something? We're going to

[2:41:31] put together some FAQs to put on the

[2:41:33] website for town meeting. If you could

[2:41:36] write that up, it helps people to

[2:41:37] understand, oh, what is this thing that

[2:41:40] we're doing and why is it

[2:41:41] >> why are we doing it?

[2:41:42] But that but the

[2:41:44] but that

[2:41:46] >> 2028 or 29 is good to just articulate.

[2:41:50] >> We can talk to [clears throat]

[2:41:53] You know, they say we're fully funded,

[2:41:55] but what's fully funded? Well, that's

[2:41:57] the definition.

[2:41:58] >> And would I rather be would I rather be

[2:42:01] two feet from the finish line or at 10%,

[2:42:04] you know, starting this process. So,

[2:42:06] >> right, the big picture here.

[2:42:07] >> It's a moving target is the answer to

[2:42:08] the question.

[2:42:09] >> But we are within the zone.

[2:42:11] >> I'd rather be 50 feet after the finish

[2:42:13] line because you're going to lose

[2:42:14] ground. That's what I think.

[2:42:15] >> Yeah.

[2:42:18] >> Um, so then, okay. So, article 18 is

[2:42:22] budget adjustments. Currently, we have

[2:42:23] slight wage line adjustments for minor

[2:42:26] oversights.

[2:42:28] We have some harbor master budget

[2:42:30] changes, but that's all coming out of

[2:42:31] the waterways fund. And I don't think we

[2:42:34] need more funding for the fire chief

[2:42:37] um because we're going to have the lap

[2:42:39] salary. And as long as

[2:42:42] um they don't cut into what we need,

[2:42:46] which is five months of a salary, we

[2:42:49] should be fine. And then add to that,

[2:42:51] which I just found out about the

[2:42:53] radiator replenishment.

[2:42:55] And then after that, we have a final

[2:42:58] article of unpaid bills.

[2:43:00] We have found out that we do have a

[2:43:02] substantial unpaid bill and it is for

[2:43:05] around $26,000 for snow removal bill

[2:43:10] that didn't come in until like a week

[2:43:11] ago.

[2:43:13] >> What?

[2:43:14] >> Yeah.

[2:43:14] For a subcontract.

[2:43:16] Now, um,

[2:43:19] this year the Board of Public Works

[2:43:21] decided that they were going to clear

[2:43:23] snow completely off the sidewalk using

[2:43:26] third party contractors for a much

[2:43:28] longer distance out from the downtown

[2:43:30] that they've than they have done in the

[2:43:32] past.

[2:43:34] And so there were more bills involved

[2:43:36] and this is one of them. It's for snow

[2:43:38] clearing down by

[2:43:41] Farnum's I think

[2:43:43] >> Harllo. All the way to Harlo.

[2:43:44] >> Yeah.

[2:43:45] >> It's not surprising. I think a lot of

[2:43:46] those guys ignore it for the whole

[2:43:48] summer and then they come back and try

[2:43:49] to redo their business before the end of

[2:43:51] the start of the next season. So,

[2:43:53] >> no, that's that's incumbent upon the

[2:43:55] people that you hire, you know, before

[2:43:57] when you're in municipal government, you

[2:43:59] know that you start.

[2:44:01] >> Yep. You are hammering away at that and we do it with everyone else. So, um

[2:44:07] but this is, you know, for a discussion

[2:44:08] with DPW about use of sub,

[2:44:10] >> but it will take a nine10 vote at a at a

[2:44:12] uh fall time at a special town meeting,

[2:44:14] right?

[2:44:16] You'll probably get it because it's the

[2:44:17] last last one. Everybody wants to leave.

[2:44:20] >> Yeah. But that still um needs to be

[2:44:24] explained. Yes. And people will be

[2:44:26] pissed about it.

[2:44:26] >> Yes. And when you do sit with the board

[2:44:28] of public works, that's one of the

[2:44:30] things we plan to talk about and that

[2:44:32] will be with the finance committee as

[2:44:33] well.

[2:44:34] >> Yeah.

[2:44:35] >> That's it.

[2:44:36] >> Can we can Sorry, just because I don't

[2:44:39] know if you know and I always like

[2:44:41] appreciate the reminder about snow

[2:44:43] removal and how that budgeting is a

[2:44:46] little bit more.

[2:44:47] >> Yeah. So

[2:44:48] >> fuzzy

[2:44:49] >> with snow budget. As long as you budget

[2:44:53] at least what you had budgeted the

[2:44:55] previous fiscal year, you are allowed to

[2:44:58] overspend that number.

[2:45:01] How you deal with that deficit can be

[2:45:03] done in one of two ways. One, before the

[2:45:06] fiscal year ends, usually at the annual

[2:45:08] town meeting, you can use free cash to

[2:45:12] fund that deficit. If you don't do that,

[2:45:15] then it actually takes away from your

[2:45:17] levy capacity the next fiscal year

[2:45:19] because that's how you make it up.

[2:45:21] >> But you would have had to know that

[2:45:23] number before the end of the fiscal

[2:45:25] year.

[2:45:25] >> You will

[2:45:25] >> to be able to address either.

[2:45:27] >> We've never had a snow snow bill come in the middle of August or September.

[2:45:31] Yeah.

[2:45:31] >> Never had that happen, especially a

[2:45:33] substantial one.

[2:45:35] >> Normally by May, you do know exactly

[2:45:37] what your deficit is. And we normally

[2:45:40] use a practice of using free cash to

[2:45:41] wipe it out. Otherwise, now the levy

[2:45:44] that you're planning on for FY28 is

[2:45:46] thrown off

[2:45:47] >> because you got to fund that out of the levy.

[2:45:50] >> Can we have a number? I'm sure you're

[2:45:52] putting it together of like what it was

[2:45:54] last year.

[2:45:54] >> I have I have it for 10 years. I have it

[2:45:57] for 13 years actually.

[2:45:58] >> So what what was last year and then what

[2:46:00] was this year

[2:46:03] plus the 26? So 2025 it was 169842.

[2:46:09] Before the 265 for 2026 it was $281,266.

[2:46:16] It has never exceeded uh before that.

[2:46:20] The highest um snow removal budget since

[2:46:24] 2013 was in 2014 for $128,000.

[2:46:28] And

[2:46:28] >> so

[2:46:28] >> it's up over 300.

[2:46:30] >> Over 300

[2:46:31] >> with the extra bill.

[2:46:32] >> Yep. So is that the result? Uh I mean

[2:46:36] you can talk to the DPW about it. Is it

[2:46:38] like all things everything is so much

[2:46:40] more expensive or is it

[2:46:42] >> I think they chose to do things that

[2:46:44] they have never done before. They went

[2:46:46] >> Was there a basis behind that decision?

[2:46:48] >> It it has but they went out they did

[2:46:51] >> wholesale clearing

[2:46:53] >> along stretches of road that they never

[2:46:55] did that at. It was always the immediate

[2:46:57] >> down subcontractors at night. So you can

[2:47:01] take all of those factors plus, you

[2:47:04] know, it does cost more, but they never

[2:47:06] used subcontractors to do this before.

[2:47:08] They would do because I because I talked

[2:47:11] to several people about this. They would

[2:47:13] clear the roads. Then they would clear

[2:47:16] the streets, the sidewalks for walkers

[2:47:18] to school. Then they would clear the

[2:47:20] downtown district. And then anything

[2:47:22] else after that would be done during the

[2:47:24] day, Monday through Friday, as they

[2:47:26] could pick away. they would use their

[2:47:28] own truck with somebody on overtime at

[2:47:30] night, which is a lot cheaper than a

[2:47:32] private contractor doing the same thing.

[2:47:34] >> So, they decided to do

[2:47:37] >> they they rely more on private

[2:47:39] contractor and they moved to a larger

[2:47:41] clearing zone. So, there's your

[2:47:43] >> price double your diesel price now.

[2:47:46] >> Yeah. So,

[2:47:50] » okay. So, we have a meeting with the DPW

[2:47:52] in the next couple weeks.

[2:47:54] >> Yes.

[2:47:54] >> Um Okay. Okay. Anything else?

[2:47:57] >> Is there a policy on that? because

[2:47:58] that's from a financial standpoint

[2:48:00] that's a huge overage

[2:48:02] >> again snowstorms are snowtorms but the

[2:48:05] policy of budgeting for that which falls

[2:48:09] in

[2:48:09] >> I don't believe there is the board of

[2:48:11] public works is an independent authority

[2:48:13] once they get appointed and they manage

[2:48:15] their own affairs but it's certainly

[2:48:18] something that when when the selectman

[2:48:20] and the finance committee do sit with

[2:48:22] the with the board of public works which

[2:48:24] is coming up we haven't gotten the date

[2:48:26] yet that's something that needs to be

[2:48:28] discussed cost. I agree

[2:48:30] >> because that comes out of free cash and it does. This isn't the first time

[2:48:34] this year. This happened after annual

[2:48:36] town meeting, too. So, these are bills

[2:48:39] after we went outside of uh town meeting

[2:48:43] appropriation. So, I think we could

[2:48:45] recommend that maybe when we meet with

[2:48:47] them to have some type of a policy.

[2:48:50] >> I I have it in my notes for that meeting

[2:48:52] because I was pretty surprised. I just

[2:48:55] happened to know one of the

[2:48:56] subcontractors because he was doing work

[2:48:58] for me and

[2:48:59] >> right and the policy

[2:49:00] >> he told me he plowed and I said you

[2:49:03] better have that bill in he goes well I bill it at the end I said you better

[2:49:06] start billing that monthly don't wait

[2:49:08] till the end you

[2:49:09] >> and the policy will start with the

[2:49:11] physical right

[2:49:12] >> what is your zone you know don't go

[2:49:14] don't bump beyond the zone that's first

[2:49:16] thing and then how are you going to deal

[2:49:18] with it is it overtime at night with

[2:49:21] your own truck or is it private

[2:49:22] contractor at night so Those things can

[2:49:25] be built into I agree with you Mike.

[2:49:27] >> Yeah, absolutely.

[2:49:29] >> Okay. Motion to adjurnn.

[2:49:31] >> So move.

[2:49:34] >> We're we're convening still.

Essex Board of Selectmen Meeting - September 28, 2026

Transcript