[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.