[0:22] Okay, good evening everyone. Um, welcome to the

[0:27] uh September 9th meeting of the New London Budget Committee and uh welcome

[0:33] to everyone who is here and Kim especially gets the prize for hardship

[0:39] duty due to the fact that she's crippled >> but in recovery.

[0:42] » For picking me up. >> All right, so prizes are awarded. Um,

[0:47] tonight's agenda just I'd like to review it very quickly with everyone here. Um,

[0:53] we have two sets of minutes to review and adopt July 8th, July 29th. Uh, one

[1:01] of those will be a little bit more cumbersome than the other, I think. Uh,

[1:05] was hoping Rich was going to be here for a little selectman report. um want to

[1:11] talk about the status of the appropriation request process and format

[1:16] that we developed and was submitted to the select board for their consideration

[1:21] which Chris did. He can comment a little bit about that as well. Um we were going

[1:27] to do a high level review of FY2026 but after convening with Lynn um we need

[1:33] to take a little longer to get some um accuracy to those. We'll let her comment

[1:38] on that when we come to the in the agenda. I have put forward to you a

[1:43] draft one more time with passion uh for a

[1:48] committee meeting schedule and I've taken the notes that Ashley shared with

[1:52] this committee relative to key dates and put them in this schedule so we can see

[1:57] the entirety and the timeline. Um Karen, uh John and John Ziggler will give us an

[2:04] update on the government's document. uh we'll ask for public input uh on any

[2:09] matters on the agenda and any other matter that may be desired to be

[2:13] presented to us and then other business if there is any. So without further ado,

[2:19] I'd like us to turn to the meeting minutes of July 8th

[2:26] and I want to propose a method of doing this. Um just to step back generally to

[2:34] say to you all um we're working really hard to get our minutes posted. Hi Rich.

[2:41] Uh get our minutes posted in a timely fashion which we are required to do so

[2:47] within five working days of the meeting. So we have a little bit of time in

[2:52] between the actual meeting and that 5day period to review and make sure they

[2:58] reflect accurately the the meeting and then those are posted for uh public view

[3:05] and access access and view viewing. Um, additionally, our minutes are gonna

[3:13] we're going to work hard to get them salient, succinct, make sure the content

[3:19] is accurate, and all votes are accurately recorded. Um, and we're going

[3:24] to try to avoid peripheral information that has really no bearing on um either

[3:31] a motion, a decision, or discussion. um trying to get them as I said earlier

[3:37] succinct but make sure they're accurate. So we will work towards that in that

[3:42] effort. The meeting minutes of July 8th are going to require us to review them

[3:49] together now and as we go through them I would ask you to provide your input for

[3:58] correction modification. I will record those on my copy. We'll have them

[4:03] recorded on the audio, of course, and then we'll vote to adopt after we've

[4:09] gotten everybody's input. We okay with that?

[4:16] » Oh, I do need a motion to >> and I need a second to

[4:21] » I'll second. >> All right. Thank you, Lou. So,

[4:30] if you will, uh, thank you for the correction. Um, if

[4:34] you will go to the the minutes and let's just start at the top. Um, and we'll

[4:41] work through the entire two and a half pages together.

[4:47] » We are on July 8th. So

[4:50] » quick note on July 8th at the top of the pages of two and three which I really is

[4:55] is the date July 28th. So noted >> yes got it

[5:05] » microphone. >> Thanks

[5:09] page what? >> Uh I'm taking a uh page two bullet point

[5:13] 4 should be past p sed versus past.

[5:19] I don't have it numbered. One, two, three, four. Help me, tell me where it

[5:24] is. >> Uh, top of the first scheduling under

[5:27] scheduling, fourth bullet down. >> Budget expected.

[5:30] » Budget expected to be passed. >> Yes.

[5:35] » Noted

[5:39] on page one. Uh, I'm suggesting we add not present

[5:45] Charles Kelsey, Cynthia Rousus.

[5:53] And then correct in spelling is Tilly. Is that correct spelling?

[5:59] » That is that is correct. >> Sure. and correcting the spelling of

[6:04] Cynthia Rousus to R USIs.

[6:13] Uh proposed budget committee meeting schedule and topics.

[6:19] Um

[6:23] is there anything in there that is needing to be edited or changed or

[6:29] added?

[6:41] Um,

[6:54] so I have a copy of John Ziggler. your input that came in a

[7:01] separate mailing um and I can

[7:06] reference it if you if you don't have it.

[7:10] » I don't. >> All right. So,

[7:12] under proposed budget committee meeting schedule and topics

[7:17] under the title new meeting idea focus, um the the the suggested edit by John is

[7:27] that we add language that says um

[7:35] the committee discussed compressing the schedule to nine

[7:40] meetings compared to 14 last year with a focus on large budget items that extend

[7:48] across all departments but are outside the direct control of department heads

[7:53] eg insurance computers and software and retirement.

[7:58] While all members seem to be in favor, it was decided to table it was decided

[8:03] to table the discussion to a time when Sher Kelsey would be present.

[8:10] Is everybody in agreement with that language modification?

[8:16] » Yep. >> Yeah.

[8:17] » Yeah. >> Okay. I'll add that. The next line is

[8:23] new software budget pro formerly Questica reads allows for horizontal

[8:28] analysis of costs across fiscal years complementing traditional department by

[8:34] department views. recommended added language from John.

[8:39] Your note was a random sample was presented by Karen Epstein who was

[8:45] encouraged to cons continue researching the capabilities of budget pro.

[8:56] And the other recommendation was then to delete

[9:00] all of the text following that down through to the next subject on page two.

[9:08] Scheduling.

[9:15] » Sorry, Charlie. I want >> I wasn't here for the meeting, so I'm

[9:19] » working blind. >> Question on why we would um delete all

[9:23] of that. I'm just curious. That was John's recommendation, but

[9:27] » if it was discussed, it should be in the meeting minutes.

[9:30] » Yeah. >> If you're going to speak, John, use the

[9:34] mic, please. >> Microphone, John.

[9:38] Thank you. The reason for deleting that and a lot of other things is when I

[9:44] went online and I looked at meeting minutes for stuff. Um the what I found

[9:50] out is that the essential elements require basic logistics, attendance,

[9:55] participants, discussion, a brief objective suffer summary of the subject

[10:00] matter discussed, not word for word conversation and decision on votes. What

[10:06] should be left out are verbatim transcripts or long conversational

[10:10] tangents, personal opinions or emotional remarks made by attendees, detailed back

[10:15] background reports, these can be attached or filed separately rather than

[10:18] written into the text. >> That is I I that is true, John. I will

[10:23] say though because a large percentage of every single committee changes over

[10:29] every 12 months. I cannot tell you how frequently we as staff refer back to

[10:36] meeting minutes. I pulled meeting minutes from 2018 on a committee that no

[10:40] longer exists and was we were able to highlight specific things. So I think we

[10:46] need to I understand um what you were saying but I think we

[10:50] need to find a happy medium here because we do rely on meeting minutes decades

[10:57] beyond. Um we were looking at planning board meetings from the 40s last week.

[11:04] Um, so we do rely on these pretty extensively as as a staff.

[11:16] Okay. So with that, I would suggest what we do is leave the language as it's

[11:21] presented here. Um but what earlier we accepted the addition under the proposed

[11:28] budget committee meeting schedule and topics change

[11:32] and that we unless there's an objection please that

[11:37] we move to page two

[11:41] and under nonprofit agency funding application.

[11:48] Excuse me again.

[11:56] John, you recommended language directly uh preeding

[12:03] purpose with the following statement. The following proposed edits and

[12:09] modifications were discussed by the committee. Period. No decisions were

[12:13] made, nor was there a vote on this.

[12:21] Is everybody okay with that? I'll add it if that is accurate.

[12:29] » Okay, I will add that. Uh second, uh an additional adjustment

[12:36] um under proposed edits

[12:42] and modifications to read

[12:47] standardized format, excuse me, and content for outside agencies funding

[12:54] requests modeled after Lebanon and Handover applications. ations

[13:02] that would be inserted under proposed edits and modifications.

[13:07] John, that was your recommendation as well. Is there any

[13:12] is everybody amendable to that? >> I like that actually.

[13:16] » Okay, we'll add that. Those are the only edits that John referred and uh I have

[13:23] to offer.

[13:26] Any other changes or your edits? >> Yes.

[13:33] » Chris, the microphone for Karen.

[13:37] » I'm going to jump ahead to the page three of three. Is that okay?

[13:42] » Sure. >> And at the very bottom

[13:47] where it speaks of historical contest context.

[13:52] » Yes. >> Where it says prior deep dives. Um I

[13:56] went back to the tape because um in the lose language was the concept of deep

[14:03] dives. >> I think that's an important distinction.

[14:08] » How should it read? >> Should read the concept of deep dives by

[14:12] the budget committee led to blah blah blah.

[14:17] So it would read the concept of deep dives by the budget committee prior deep

[14:23] dives by the budget committee led to acrimony and lack of trust without

[14:27] significant value. I >> mean that correct that's what Lou had to

[14:30] say and that was an was that an opinion I mean

[14:34] » well is that was what was said >> would that happen? Yeah.

[14:38] » Okay. >> So I think that's an important

[14:42] distinction. Okay, everybody okay with that

[14:45] adjustment? >> All right.

[14:49] All right. With those adjustments, um I'll make those and then we'll post

[14:54] them. Uh I need uh a vote by the committee to accept the minutes of July

[15:00] 8th. All >> as amended.

[15:03] » As amended. Sorry. Thank you. All in favor?

[15:07] » I >> I

[15:08] » opposed. Abstensions.

[15:12] Motion passes. Thank you. Uh, pardon me. We'll move on to the

[15:19] minutes of July 29. And I'd ask for any a motion first and a

[15:26] second. >> Second.

[15:29] » Thank you. Discussion, any changes, any edits, any

[15:35] modifications?

[15:40] I got a couple things up at the top. It says New London Budget Committee. It

[15:44] says meetings minutes, but other minutes say meeting minutes.

[15:48] » So noted.

[15:54] » It says July.

[16:01] » Yeah, that was the other thing I had. >> Okay.

[16:11] The only other comment I have gets back to the same comment I made earlier about

[16:15] the length. This was a meeting that lasted an hour and 16 minutes. We only

[16:20] had a quorum for half that time and yet we've got four pages of minutes.

[16:29] The public is interested in what's going on here. They can one they can come for

[16:33] it and listen to it. They can listen to the video. They can watch the video.

[16:38] They can listen to the recording. I don't know why we have to put on pages

[16:44] and pages. >> I send the draft minutes as I get them

[16:48] and then it is up to the committee to go through and edit

[16:53] » as you see fit. >> So I am giving the minutes as they are

[16:59] created. John is a time thing I guess

[17:05] » microphone Chris please. Is it a is the concern just it's a is it

[17:12] a time thing for the minutes to go through because I would think that in in

[17:15] this situation more is le I mean more is better to have more information versus

[17:21] again I think we can see the public's and I've been on the board for 13 years

[17:26] you know like we have video now we're not going to get a lot of people come in

[17:30] so I think the minutes if people do want to have an overview of what was

[17:34] discussed having more there is better than having less that's all I don't know

[17:38] what the right amount is. But I'm just curious.

[17:40] » My only concern is that is the things that are really important get buried in

[17:44] in this. Um, plus with all of this writing, there's bound to be something

[17:49] that maybe might wasn't exactly but happened and twists somebody the wrong

[17:54] way and they raise a stink about it. And um you know, I've been on other boards

[18:01] that are are chaired by attorneys and and they harp over and over and over

[18:05] again, succinct, succinct, succinct. Get your motions absolutely correct, word

[18:11] for word, what the vote was, brief statements about the summary of

[18:16] other things that were discussed, but don't just write down every word that

[18:21] took place. And again, I mean, this is four pages and this was a particularly

[18:25] short meeting with only 33 minutes of a quorum.

[18:30] » Um, so I was not at that particular meeting.

[18:34] Uh, but I was the corporate secretary for Lake Suny Bank for several years and

[18:40] took all of the minutes for every committee meeting and every board of

[18:43] directors meeting. And it was to us it was important that we maintain that we

[18:50] did document the conversation was had on particular subjects. Um so you know it

[18:59] did not have to be verbatim what someone was stating but I literally hand wrote

[19:05] like through all of these meetings uh what was most valuable and then those

[19:10] became legal documents. um once they were

[19:15] approved by the board, but it always included the conversations. And so I

[19:20] understand that this is not quite as imperative as a bank. Um, but I could

[19:28] just I could see where there is a value to having, you know, I understand that

[19:33] it was only an hour, but you know, four pages doesn't seem that

[19:39] access just in my previous expert like experience.

[19:44] » No, I'm I'm just giving my opinion and brief and I promise it's this is the

[19:47] last time I will bring it up. >> I think it's I think it's an interesting

[19:51] topic. >> Yeah, conver Con conversation is great.

[19:53] I'm not. >> Yeah. Well, no, that's a conversation,

[19:55] but I'm not going to harp on it. >> I I would like to opine on this just for

[19:59] a second. >> Um,

[20:02] » so I believe that governmental minutes are

[20:07] substantially different from corporation minutes. And the purpose of governmental

[20:13] minutes is to provide transparency in the actions that are made in committees

[20:19] where corporation minutes are actually made to simply provide a detailed

[20:25] outline for shareholders and owners. And so the liability in in um corporation

[20:34] minutes is to generally the liability concern does generally shorten those

[20:39] minutes down. with that in mind, but does the exact opposite with

[20:42] governmental minutes, which is actually providing more clarity with more voice

[20:49] because I I I don't think I think we're talking about apples and oranges here

[20:54] while we're still talking about minutes and um I'm out in thin ice. I'm

[21:00] admittedly like this is not >> but I like I I do think there's a

[21:05] difference between governmental minutes and corporation minutes.

[21:08] » I can see both sides. And I think this was a particularly unique meeting in

[21:13] which we started without a quorum, continued to meet and just chat, then

[21:18] had a quorum for a very short amount of time and then lost the quorum while it

[21:24] was recorded because you guys continued to meet even without a quorum. It was

[21:29] incredibly important that we did document what was discussed and that no

[21:34] or that any voting decisions were made were made when you did have a quorum. I

[21:39] just I think we also need to take into account and yes indeed um the difference

[21:44] between an advisory committee where a nar a mere narration of what went on can

[21:51] be sufficient and a legal committee estab established by law

[21:59] such as ours where you know the the verbatim

[22:05] um you know the the verb freedom conversations that have taken place like

[22:11] Kim says to make a difference and that's like John said to provide transparency

[22:17] but it's also to make sure that we have a documentation because we're we're

[22:21] dealing with money and that is about the most important part of of of the um the

[22:28] town process the town budgetary process and it certainly is is a resandra

[22:34] we are here to we're here to deal with money and the more the more

[22:38] documentation the more exact we can be in that the better. So and what Ashley

[22:43] says is particularly true. It was a it was a meeting that we didn't have a

[22:48] quorum for much of it but on the other hand it was frankly it was about the

[22:52] most effective it was a very effective meeting and a lot of a lot went on.

[23:00] So, I'm I'm happy with the wording. >> Um, contextually, um,

[23:07] I'd like to just talk again about our process because I think that's

[23:12] important.

[23:15] We hold a meeting, it is recorded, that trans recording is transposed into

[23:23] YouTube. Is that the correct lineage? which then

[23:29] is translated out into a document.

[23:35] So that document then gets a quick review by Ashley. She sends it to me.

[23:42] I look at it and I make modifications that I see that are obvious or if

[23:49] there's something that I felt strongly was misrepresented, I would go back to

[23:53] the tape to verify and make the adjustment.

[23:58] The key being that we're not protracting the editing process of the minutes

[24:05] to miss the obligation of public access and posting within five business days.

[24:15] So my previous experience with it um had had changed the color of my hair

[24:24] because it was very challenging. Um yeah, I used to be gray, now it's sort

[24:29] of brown. But um Karen, >> salt and pepper.

[24:33] » Salt and pepper. Karen and I did a lot of back and forth on these minutes and

[24:38] she was extremely judicious and timely but there there were it was too

[24:45] protracted and frankly timeconuming beyond what's

[24:49] reasonable. As a committee, I have been really

[24:54] intent to minimize the use of town resources on what I think is nonvalue

[25:00] added work to their already busy work schedules. We don't technically Ashley's

[25:07] the recording secretary, but I removed her from having to do the minutes and do

[25:15] all the edits. And I just don't think as a town administrator that's a good use

[25:19] of that individual's time. And as a committee chair, I think

[25:25] knowing the subject matters and being diligent, it's a reasonable thing for me

[25:29] to do. But going forward, having said that, going forward, I suggest that we

[25:38] distribute the minutes. I distribute them upon receipt and my first review

[25:45] back out to you, but blind carbon copy you. So, we're not creating a forum, a

[25:51] quorum. And if you review it and you have an

[25:55] editorial comment, you send it back to me. I'd incorporate it into that and I

[26:00] ask you to do it within four days of a meeting. So I have a day in which I can

[26:06] make the adjustments to make sure we meet the minimum minimum posting

[26:10] requirement for the public. Is that amendable to the committee and is that

[26:15] amendable to you? >> Somewhat. I think any any meeting edits

[26:21] should be discussed in a public forum. So what should happen is you and I can

[26:29] work on the draft minutes. You can certainly send them out to the committee

[26:32] and say, "Bring your edits to the next meeting." But those edits,

[26:37] any edits that you all have should be discussed at a public meeting. Um,

[26:44] » I think what I I hear you and I understand and agree. I would say that

[26:49] um we're looking in the first blush to make sure that it's accurate.

[26:54] » Yep. And there are some nu there may be some

[26:58] nuances and a nuance may be your perception individually

[27:03] that the tenor of a particular subject is not accurately reflected in the

[27:07] minutes that should be brought to the meeting subsequent meeting so that we

[27:13] can discuss it and adopted as appropriate. Is that fair from your

[27:19] » Yeah, I think is you know I we are being recorded right now so I have to say that

[27:26] any edits to the minutes should be done in a public meeting.

[27:35] » All right. So with that,

[27:40] we have a a motion to accept the minutes of July 29th as amended.

[27:48] Um what's the pleasure of the committee?

[27:51] All in favor of adopting them. >> I

[27:56] » I opposed

[27:59] abstension >> I was not I was not present.

[28:03] » Okay. Extensions,

[28:10] John and Kim. Okay,

[28:15] motion passes. Um,

[28:19] let's go back to the beginning. Rich, we were um

[28:23] started without your presence. So our hope was if you had any information to

[28:27] report uh to the committee that would be of

[28:31] value to know from the board of selectmen.

[28:35] » I I think the uh the only major things to to mention that I think you folks

[28:39] would find of interest is and feel free to coach me on this. Um

[28:46] essentially, um we we have voted to accept a proposal that is in round

[28:52] numbers approximately $10 million for the construction of the new Department

[28:55] of Public Works building and um it was con it was referred to as the preferred

[29:01] alternative um of a a variety of different designs that were submitted to

[29:06] the board of selectmen. Um, essentially it's it's just a design that we really

[29:11] feel will um bring the Department of Public Works into the 21st century. Um,

[29:17] it will have things like a wash bay, for example, for just washing the trucks in

[29:21] an indoor environment. Um, and enabling us to do things like wash police

[29:25] cruisers. Um, and will provide the ability to do certain maintenance work

[29:29] on on both DPW um vehicles as well as police and department and fire

[29:35] department um vehicles. Um, and so it's just it's appealing because it just it

[29:40] will give us a lot more ability to do things inhouse and frankly just provide

[29:45] a work environment that I think is going to be a whole lot more appealing for our

[29:48] staff. Um, so that's the one thing. Um, the uh we're sort of still looking at

[29:54] what the overall construction dates will be and and what kind of a we're probably

[29:59] looking at a significant period of time for the overall construction of this

[30:03] project. But it's even addressing things like, for example, a new salt shed

[30:08] because we've been having a problem with um salt runoff into Lion Brook and uh

[30:14] the potential that that causes pollution problems downstream. And so, you know,

[30:19] even that you it's sort of a lot we're trying to take care of a whole lot of

[30:23] issues sort of in one fell swoop, if you will. Um, in addition,

[30:30] um, one of the things, just so you're aware, that was asked of the design firm

[30:34] was that they look at the possibility of putting the police department down

[30:37] there. And they did come back with some proposals as to how that could be done,

[30:42] but it really had a vibe of trying to shoehorn in the police department into

[30:47] the the area. Um there is some additional land that's available, but we

[30:52] have things like we have the utility, as you know, right there on the property

[30:56] and the easements associated with it. In order to put a police department there,

[31:01] um it would really be, as I said, for lack of a better phrase, shoehorning it

[31:04] in and then allowing very little available land after that for any

[31:09] additional expansion of a police department down the road or any

[31:12] expansion of the Department of Public Works down the road. And so we just

[31:17] didn't like that feeling that we were kind of stuffing both of them onto a

[31:21] single property, which originally sounded very appealing, but in the end

[31:24] it just didn't seem realistic. Um, so that's that. In addition, we're also

[31:30] working on beginning the study having to do with dispatch. Um, as you folks are

[31:34] aware, there are many folks who believe that um that we are somehow losing a ton

[31:40] of money by having our own dispatch here in New London. And so we've tasked this

[31:46] group that we've hired for $30,000 approximately to do a study and to look

[31:51] at it and to try and give us really what our options are and and essentially it

[31:56] comes down to do we keep dispatch or do we outsource it and so that's sort of in

[32:02] progress right now. I'm sorry. What was the actually what was the the timeline

[32:06] for them to come back for the report? uh

[32:11] 3 to six months uh was what they had said. We kicked off the project with

[32:17] ADCOM about two weeks ago. Now they will be here on site September 21st and 22nd.

[32:26] Um they'll be conducting interviews and sitting in the dispatch center um both

[32:32] morning, noon, and night um to understand their operations. They will

[32:38] be meeting with key stakeholders individually with each board of

[32:42] selectmen member. They'll be meeting with the New London Hospital Ambulance

[32:46] Service who we do dispatch for. Um and then for the towns that we

[32:52] provide dispatching services for, those will likely be Zoom or phone calls at a

[32:57] later date. Um New London is the only town in our region with full-time fire.

[33:03] Um the fire chiefs in those other towns are all volunteer. Um so trying to get

[33:08] them all corral them all in a very short amount of per short amount of time um to

[33:14] meet in person didn't seem feasible. So she will um the consultant will meet

[33:20] with them individually on the phone over the next month or so. Um and then we

[33:25] will be having a public input session on the night of Monday September 21st

[33:31] um from 5:30 to 6:30 or 5 to 6. Let me just check. Um, and this is an

[33:38] opportunity for members of the public. Uh,

[33:45] shoot. Uh, believe it is 5:30 to 6:30. Um,

[33:51] look at the calendar here.

[33:56] One second. And so that's an opportunity for folks to come and uh share

[34:03] uh 5:30 to 6:30 here in Whipple on Monday the 21st um to share their

[34:11] thoughts to I know there there are folks within our community that have done a

[34:16] fair amount of research of their own. They can share that research. Um, I

[34:20] imagine that there will be members from other towns that we provide dispatching

[34:25] services to that will also attend. Um, so we'll figure out how to structure

[34:30] that hour. Um, you know, she will we've only had one meeting with her and this

[34:36] will be the first day that she's on site. So, um, I don't think people can

[34:40] certainly ask questions, but uh, she's not going to have much information to

[34:45] share. This is really an opportunity for her to hear. um from members of the

[34:50] public. So >> yeah, so that that's gonna be

[34:54] interesting to try and the whole purpose of this is to try and have an unbiased

[34:58] report that's just going to give us the information and examine the

[35:03] possibilities and then try and make a recommendation as to, you know, what

[35:08] makes sense keeping it or getting rid of it. Um and um any other major things

[35:14] that I'm missing? Those are the the two really big things that are sort of, you

[35:18] know, jumping out at us at the moment. >> Um, one other thing, if if I may, with

[35:22] the chair's permission, it is not from the board of selectmen, but as you know,

[35:27] I do serve on the NBC for the Ker School District. And if I could just give you a

[35:34] quick mention of that because as we think about burdens on taxpayers, etc.,

[35:38] and what's coming down the pike. You know, for them to a large extent, these

[35:41] things meld together, whether it's the school district or the town. Um the big

[35:46] issue that the school district is facing right now is um simply a a plan to

[35:51] potentially consolidate to go from four elementary schools down to two. And the

[35:56] two that would continue would be New London and Bradford. and we would be

[36:00] looking to close Simon school down in Warner as well as um uh Sutton

[36:07] Elementary and um just briefly just for two

[36:11] different reasons and and you know I really don't want to bore you folks with

[36:14] all the the nuances of it all but essentially

[36:18] for good reasons I would suggest um in both cases but different reasons in the

[36:22] case of Simon school it's more than 160 years old it doesn't owe us anything at

[36:26] this point and in the 19 years that I've been on the NBC for the school district.

[36:29] We've just hurled money at that building for a long time. And um the the

[36:36] difficulty is is that and understandably for the folks of Warner, they love

[36:39] having a local school that their kids can walk to and a significant number of

[36:43] kids do walk to Simons in Warner. Um but again, because of its age, um the

[36:50] problem in Sutton is simply one of size. We have about 70 students currently

[36:53] going there and to be running a building with a principal, etc., etc., and all

[36:57] the the costs that are intrinsic to a freestanding building. Um it just

[37:02] doesn't make much sense um from an efficiency standpoint. Uh again, the

[37:08] concern on the part of the Sutton folks, you know, if I might be so bold as to

[37:14] sum up, again, has to simply do with the the appeal that they find of having a

[37:19] small local community school that has a long history in the town. Um, just so

[37:24] you're aware, in the case of Sutton, for example, there's no room for us to

[37:27] expand it. We can't really add on to it easily. There's just not space in the

[37:32] footprint of it. Um, and frankly, similar for Simons in Warner, just no

[37:36] easy ability to do that. The important thing also that you need to know is

[37:41] essentially we can take all of the children from those two schools, move

[37:44] them over to Bradford and New London pretty much immediately if we want to.

[37:49] we have enough capacity and we would do that partly by

[37:54] having additional capacity by virtue of we would move fifth graders up to the

[37:59] middle school. We have very significant capacity at the middle school level. So

[38:04] fifth graders would now actually go to the middle school and that enables us

[38:09] then to have capacity both at New London and at Bradford to to take on the kids

[38:15] from Warner and from Sutton. Um, also as part of this overall vision, we would be

[38:23] doing things like, yeah, we would be building, for example, a gym for the

[38:26] Bradford School. And the idea would be to have two elementary schools that were

[38:31] more modern and that were really, we were taking it up a notch in terms of

[38:35] the education that we could offer for all of the kids, whatever town they're

[38:38] coming from. The problem is is that, you know, right now Sutton is so small. You

[38:44] know, we do things like art on a cart, for example. There's no art room.

[38:48] there's no room for it. There's no gymnasium. The kids use a single small

[38:51] room for everything. I mean, cafeteria, auditorium, gym, etc. Um, and in

[38:57] addition, the the practical realities are that when we have staff for special

[39:02] education issues, for example, we have them splitting their time up amongst the

[39:07] different schools and they're running between the different elementary

[39:10] schools. And just from a travel standpoint and the logistics of that and

[39:14] people trying to schedule when they need to get to a kid who's over in Bradford

[39:18] and then they also have to deal deal with a kid who's in Sutton, you know,

[39:21] just overall by by narrowing it down to just two elementary schools. Um the

[39:27] school board voted last week 7 to2 in favor of this plan. Um

[39:34] and the NBC is I I we had a meeting last night for the NBC. Tomorrow night we

[39:39] have a joint meeting of the school board and the NBC and I will be looking to at

[39:44] our next meeting for the NBC we will be taking a vote to indicate the the the

[39:49] sense of the municipal budget committee in terms of this

[39:53] » but Rich ultimately it is the vote of the taxpayers to close the schools not

[39:59] on the school board or the >> that's what I was getting at is is that

[40:04] I was heading towards this is all done because of some new legislation that was

[40:09] passed by our friends down in conquered which um enables 20 members of a school

[40:15] district to bring forward a written petition asking for a hearing to be held

[40:19] to close schools. And so we can have 20 people force a meeting within 60 days

[40:25] where then um it is discussed and then voted upon whether or not to close

[40:30] schools. And we are absolutely that that has been signed into law at this point.

[40:36] We're fairly confident that somebody's going to come up with 20 signatures to

[40:41] force this issue. Right now, our current charter for the seven schools that make

[40:47] up the school district requires that any vote to close a school would have to be

[40:53] of the members of that particular town would have to vote to close the school.

[40:58] So, I know that Sutton would have to vote to close Sutton school. Warner

[41:02] would have to close would have to vote to close Warner's school. this law will

[41:07] trump that and quite possibly may bring forward a lawsuit by somebody's going to

[41:12] challenge this potentially, but it it probably trumps our charter. And so now,

[41:19] in other words, it would be all seven towns would be voting potentially on

[41:23] whether or not to close a school. So, um,

[41:28] lots of, as you can imagine, lots of emotion involved with this topic, etc.

[41:33] Um the purpose of the school boards vote and I won't speak for the school board

[41:36] but I will say my sense is that they wanted to get ahead of the curve when

[41:41] someone brings forward a petition they wanted it clear just just to be very

[41:45] clear with folks they have we've been studying this sort of officially if you

[41:49] will for two years I can tell you for 19 years on the NBC we've been kicking this

[41:53] around off and on and it's always been up there as a source of conversation

[41:58] specifically though the school board created um what was what is referred to

[42:03] is facilities committee B which was specifically tasked with looking at the

[42:07] schools and what their critical needs are. How much will it cost to repair

[42:11] them to bring them up to where we need them to be and whether or not it makes

[42:15] sense to potentially close some of the schools and that's where this sort of

[42:19] that was really the genesis. In fact, the facilities B committee has spent a

[42:24] year doing outreach with people, offering tours of each school

[42:29] individually to to review what the issues are with every particular school

[42:32] where people could come to and offer their opinions and their thoughts. And

[42:36] now as the result of that um and the enrollment realities that we're looking

[42:42] at, that's why this has all come about. And uh as I said, you know, it is it's a

[42:47] very challenging situation because it is um fraught with emotion for the folks of

[42:52] Warner and Sutton and understandably so. You know, for folks who moved into

[42:56] Sutton and they've got a six-year-old and a four-year-old and they're quarter

[42:59] of a mile away from the school and they had visions of their child walking to

[43:02] school. Understandable. But um that's kind of where we're at in not so much of

[43:07] a nutshell. Rich, where can you comment on where the um committee is relative to

[43:16] capital for the what I understood to be pretty extensive roof repair etc to the

[43:24] regional school building itself and numbers were pretty large that were

[43:29] being >> yeah I you know the the choice if you

[43:32] will is spending a large sum of money north of $7 million to do critical

[43:40] repairs. Um or narrow is having a smaller amount

[43:45] for critical repairs because we aren't going to be doing that for two of the

[43:49] buildings. So in other words, you you knock off Warner and um Sutton and then

[43:55] instead devote a lot of that money instead towards bringing Bradford up.

[44:01] Right now, for example, in New London, we have a gymnasium.

[44:06] um Bradford, you know, again is is dealing with a, you know, what they call

[44:11] a cafeterium where it's serving multiple purposes, etc. And the problem is, you

[44:16] know, especially if we increase the enrollment at Bradford substantially.

[44:22] Well, now we have to have more slots for lunchtime for all the kids to get in

[44:25] there to have their lunch. And that means we have less time

[44:29] available for gym class. And so if we were to do this, a lot of the kids would

[44:34] miss out on any significant time in fizzed each week. And that's why, for

[44:38] example, part of this plan would be if we were to close two schools would be to

[44:42] look to do significant renovations to Bradford.

[44:49] So, not to get into the weeds, but um I would imagine the cost savings would

[44:55] allow for uh for greater um busing uh availability. Um,

[45:04] » you know, it's interesting actually, Kim, the the the transportation

[45:08] situation we don't picture changing significantly in so far as

[45:14] some kids would now potentially be closer to where they're going to school,

[45:17] some kids would be further away. We don't see, you know, the the problem is

[45:21] the reality for our school district. It is it is geographically the largest in

[45:26] the state >> and there's simply never an easy way to

[45:30] get all the kids to and to do it at a reasonable cost. It's just um it's it's

[45:36] always going to be a challenge for us. Um I will say that for Warner the number

[45:41] of kids who could walk to Warner school is significantly larger than the number

[45:44] of kids that walked to Sutton's school. Um, you know, we the the superintendent

[45:50] did a study looking at how many kids were within walking distance in Sutton

[45:54] and it's actually surprisingly small. Um, and so the real issue though is to

[45:59] to my mind a lot of folks are getting hung up on looking at the money that

[46:03] would be spent on this these renovations. And I keep saying but those

[46:06] renovations would essentially, for lack of a better phrase, amount to a band-aid

[46:10] and the same band-aid routine that we've been doing for a long time. And instead,

[46:14] this would be saying, "No, no, no. We're getting rid of two of the schools, and

[46:17] instead we're going to significantly upgrade Bradford as well as doing work

[46:22] at New London, as well as doing work at the high school and at uh the middle

[46:25] school." >> Okay. I I mean, I I think it's a

[46:28] fantastic idea. My my thought was just you know as far as the parents who were

[46:33] involved that that would be a selling point if you know you guys were to say

[46:39] but we are going to increase um the availability of you know because I know

[46:44] it's been a challenge in the last few years because we just don't have a whole

[46:47] lot of drivers um that we're going to you know throw a little bit more money

[46:51] towards you know getting um you know a little bit a little bit more as far as

[46:56] that transportation. >> Yeah. you know, for whatever. It just

[46:58] seems like that that's just always going to be a problem and it's just never

[47:01] going to work cleanly and we're kind of but the the good thing about and and

[47:06] what I said at the select at the schoolboard meeting last week the I

[47:11] didn't want to get into all the details and I certainly didn't get into this

[47:15] much detail. >> Yeah. No, no, no.

[47:19] But I did say last week I said if in my role I said if I for a moment did not

[47:24] believe that this would provide a better education for all of our kids including

[47:27] Sutton including Warner I wouldn't be supporting it. I am convinced that it

[47:32] will do a great deal to give all of the kids especially Sutton and Warner a

[47:38] better education because they will be going to a better facility and yes now

[47:41] they may be getting on a bus but you know we had one gentleman who lives in

[47:45] Newbury stand up and he spoke quite eloquently I think he where he said you

[47:49] know we don't have a school in Newbury and he said we have tremendous community

[47:52] spirit even though we don't have a school and we're quite happy with the

[47:56] school we have where our kids go meaning the cure school district and physically

[48:00] those buildings are not in the town of Newbury. He goes, "That's okay." He

[48:03] goes, "We've got a great school district. It's a terrific environment."

[48:06] And keep in mind, for example, Sutton does have the middle school and the high

[48:10] school, whereas Wilmet, Springfield, Newbury don't have any schools at all.

[48:15] So, >> uh, Richard, I wonder if the board has

[48:19] tried to build up the conscious of the community to the fact that we're in the

[48:22] midst of a demographic cliff. And um I didn't I'm you know I serve as adviser

[48:29] in in my alma mater which is also in in raw financial shape because of that

[48:35] demographic cliff and it's not going to be any getting any better till uh

[48:40] nationwide till 2040. Um and in New England it's going to be

[48:44] even worse. We're looking at a 20 to 25% decrease in the eligible school age

[48:51] population. It's Yeah. It's not gonna get It's not gonna get better.

[48:57] » Can we Sorry. I don't I don't want to We're gonna keep getting into the weeds

[49:01] here. It's okay. It's okay. There's a There's a meeting tomorrow night that

[49:06] everybody >> I apologize for that. I just No, I think

[49:09] it was a good information

[49:14] » in the conference room. They'll be meeting in the conference room. Sure. I

[49:18] guess to what I heard, if this is accurate, there is still a significant

[49:24] capital investment required to accommodate the plan that you have just

[49:30] articulated if adopted and that number that I had heard was somewhere in the 20

[49:35] to $30 million. I I think overall when you talk about the new construction and

[49:41] the critical needs we would be probably and this is again just a round number

[49:45] that we're just kicking around >> looking understand magnitude

[49:48] » we're looking at probably a $30 million bond

[49:51] » so >> and that bond would be let next year or

[49:55] the >> it would

[49:56] » it would go on the warrant >> it would probably we would probably be

[49:59] hoping to bring that forward potentially at this this um meeting coming up in the

[50:04] spring. >> Okay.

[50:07] All right. Any if not uh any other salient questions, we're going to move

[50:11] on. Okay. Um subject I'd like to discuss now is the in front of you you have a

[50:18] draft copy of what's titled the request from initial appropriations from outside

[50:24] organizations and towns, town commissions, committees,

[50:28] and boards. Just to step back a bit, this committee agreed that this was

[50:34] something we should pursue. um would be helpful for both the organizations that

[50:39] were um asking for appropriation and be helpful to the committee in its

[50:46] deliberations and we were hopeful that it would be also that for the uh board

[50:52] of selectmen. Um I was absent and unable to make the presentation to the board of

[50:58] selectmen. Chris Laurio stepped in on my behalf and our behalf as a committee and

[51:04] presented what is in front of you, which is a draft um uh document. Um I I'd

[51:11] leave it to Chris and and Rich to just reflect the tenor of that um uh the

[51:18] receipt of that by the board of selectmen. Um I understood from the um

[51:24] uh download of the meeting that it was not supported by the board of selectmen

[51:29] and there were reasons for them uh not doing so. Um and the hope and intent was

[51:35] that if the two organizations, the budget committee and board of selectmen

[51:40] were in agreement, we would go forward with this to the outside agencies uh

[51:44] organizations uh asking for appropriations this fiscal year. since

[51:49] it was not adopted by the or supported by the board of selectmen. Uh that puts

[51:55] us in a time crunch and would be unrealistic to present to an outside

[52:00] organization to allow them timely uh submission of

[52:05] their requests which will be due along with all the budgets from department

[52:09] heads um in uh October. So, with that said, maybe Chris or Rich, you could

[52:17] represent why the board of selectmen elected not to support it.

[52:23] » Sure. Um, >> microphone needs to be on.

[52:26] » Y, >> absolutely.

[52:30] Uh, there were a couple of, uh, pieces of feedback from the select board. Um, I

[52:35] think they were, you know, happy that we were taking a look at the the the way

[52:40] the feedback is provided. Uh I think some of the questions and concerns were

[52:45] that some of the questions to the select men seemed unnecessary. Um maybe even

[52:52] and don't take this maybe the wording is not appropriate but inappropriate. There

[52:57] was some discussion around digging a little too far into other other

[53:00] organizationals other organizations internal affairs um process risk being a

[53:06] little bit overly detailed and creating extra work for both the applicants and

[53:10] the town staff. Uh there was thoughts around some of the questions being

[53:14] redundant or asking for the same information in different ways. Um and

[53:19] the board overall wanted more emphasis on justifying the requested amount

[53:23] rather than collecting general organizational background that the town

[53:27] already has. Um also two process points were brought up uh for the record.

[53:33] Organizations present to the selectmen for approvals of amounts which then go

[53:37] to the budget committee. Uh no organization is legally required to fill

[53:41] out any form. So it functions as a tool to help the town understand requests

[53:45] rather than a mandate. Um, so I think I think but also you've already sent out

[53:53] uh according to the selectman minutes, you've already sent out the letter for

[53:56] this coming bud. >> I did uh the the following week I sent

[54:00] out the email to all organizations and then the um town committees that receive

[54:07] an appropriation with their request. What I did ask them for is um an

[54:14] explanation of whether that amount increased or decreased and why um if

[54:21] they serve uh other communities other than New London.

[54:27] Are they asking them for appropriations as well? Um you know, I think we've

[54:32] talked about this a bit. We are certainly feeling the pressure of um and

[54:36] this isn't just regarding money. It is really across the board of New London uh

[54:42] carrying a lot of the weight for other communities and it sort of hides itself

[54:48] in different pockets here and there but it is something that certainly the board

[54:52] of selectmen and um the department heads and I discuss quite frequently um when

[54:58] we think about what I'll call mutual aid which comes in many different forms and

[55:04] what that looks like is that there's um I think there's always been a view of

[55:09] New London will take care of it. Um but as frankly as conquered continues to

[55:14] push things down on municipalities um we need to be more responsible here

[55:21] and and um provide mutual aid in whatever form that is um when

[55:27] appropriate, but it can't be a given. Um and I think that there are communities

[55:31] and and organizations that have just sort of said New London's got it. Um, so

[55:36] being a little bit more thoughtful and having organizations be a bit more

[55:40] thoughtful about that as well. >> You want to add anything, Rich?

[55:44] » No. >> Okay. Um, thank you and Chris, thank you

[55:50] for um, representing it. Um it was the sentiment of this committee that this

[55:57] was a good idea uh both now and for the future as appropriation requests begin

[56:04] to change and um and will um but it was not adopted

[56:11] and our timeline is too tight to um this committee does have the authority to

[56:18] issue this to an outside organization but given the timeline

[56:23] Uh my personal opinion is I think it would be premature for us to do that at

[56:27] this time. I do think my opinion and ask for yours that when these organizations

[56:34] present to the budget committee there are some questions in here that may be

[56:41] you may want to ask and you have every right to ask them. Um but we have not

[56:47] given this to those outside organizations. So they may not in that

[56:51] moment be prepared to be able to answer that question but we have certainly the

[56:57] right and the obligation uh to ask in a very thorough and complete way without

[57:02] being overburdensome. So I I'm my recommendation to us as a

[57:07] committee is that we use it as a basis to support those discussions when they

[57:13] take place um in our budget review uh schedule.

[57:18] Um, I guess the only I I have a question,

[57:22] Rich, for you. Um, which is not to call you out, but I I I

[57:28] think I heard on the tape that you were not in favor of it, um, being utilized

[57:35] and your reasoning and then supported by the other two select board members.

[57:42] Why why if you were in opposition didn't you bring that to our attention during

[57:47] our deliberations? And and I'm asking because there was a

[57:54] lot of time spent to put this together by a couple of people in in in

[58:01] particular and it was very thoughtfully done. two- town handover and Lebanon

[58:06] were used as representative models that we then modified based on sort of the

[58:14] same feeling that was too much, too formal, too not not necessary. And then

[58:21] there was a a sentiment to try to make sure uh we segregated out what a

[58:26] commissioner committee or board was asked versus an outside organization

[58:31] understanding the nuances and differences uh of those entities. So I

[58:37] just why help me understand why why you didn't bring your objections

[58:43] forward earlier that might have influenced this committee

[58:47] » you know >> in the work.

[58:49] » Yeah. You know Candidly, first of all, I don't always remember all the details of

[58:54] some of these meetings. Sometimes it gets a little blurry. Um, I will say

[58:58] this, um, sometimes it's also a matter of, um, sometimes after reviewing

[59:03] something and reflecting upon it for a while, I sort of, you know, over time my

[59:08] viewpoints, uh, sort of solidify and become more formalized. Um,

[59:14] I also I guess one of the key things is is that I, you know, I try to be mindful

[59:19] of the fact that I'm not the same as you folks here. You folks were elected to

[59:23] the NBC here and you patiently allow me to, you know, attend these things, but,

[59:28] you know, I wasn't elected to the NBC for the town. And so I also, you know, I

[59:32] I I want to try and be mindful of the fact that it's not my place to hold

[59:36] forth too much, if you will, in these meetings.

[59:40] And uh you know as I said beyond I I will say that that the one issue that I

[59:45] did have with it that does stand out was just when I feel like it just becomes a

[59:49] bit burdensome at times in terms of the amount of information we expect people

[59:54] to give us especially when for example if we're talking about lake

[1:00:00] coasts I think we all know what the lake coasts do and what their role is you

[1:00:04] know and to ask for them to provide enormous data etc to show what they do

[1:00:09] and to explain you know, it just sometimes, you know, to my mind, you

[1:00:13] know, we we all know what the lake hosts do. I think you know um

[1:00:18] but you know as I said you know beyond that Charlie I really I can't tell you

[1:00:21] that I have a clear recollection of when >> I would just my personal um request is

[1:00:28] if you you your opinion matters just as every member of this committee's opinion

[1:00:34] matters and and voicing it is is helpful to our process because I think there are

[1:00:43] it helps inform form decisions and direction and process and certainly uh

[1:00:50] the dual role you you you play um is is helpful to us can be helpful to us and I

[1:00:59] I certainly do view it that way. Um, I just I was sort of I looked at this as

[1:01:06] something that would be worthwhile not just this year but subsequent years

[1:01:11] because the world's going to change on us and keep changing and it's going to

[1:01:14] get more complex and putting some structure to something of this nature to

[1:01:20] me makes good sense. um brevity, form, delivery, timing,

[1:01:27] preparation required, that's all in the minutia of how it happens. But I do

[1:01:32] think there's some value there. And um uh I think this committee wants and is

[1:01:40] working in a collaborative fashion with all parties, including the board of

[1:01:44] selectmen. um and the delay in going forward with it put us into a crunch

[1:01:53] where we couldn't use it if this committee deemed it as something that

[1:01:56] would be valuable in this budget year. So I just leave it there and just say I

[1:02:01] think it's a really important your voice is heard, your objections are heard and

[1:02:05] your support as well and going forward uh I hope that be the spirit we continue

[1:02:11] in. >> Yeah. and and so you certainly you know

[1:02:14] sort of noted um your thoughts on that and I will keep that in mind. Um I I

[1:02:20] will say this just you for the record I think the overall idea is a good one. I

[1:02:25] do think to have a more formal sort of you document on file with with

[1:02:30] the town is is a useful thing. Um just you know again you know I I would lean

[1:02:36] towards more brevity. Um, but the overall concept of a of a form a

[1:02:42] formalized method for people to apply and ask for financial assistance from

[1:02:47] the town, I think that does make sense. And so,

[1:02:50] » yeah. >> Yeah. I was just going to say my my

[1:02:52] recommendation is when the budget season is over next spring is that this is

[1:02:57] something that you guys could work through in partnership with the board of

[1:03:02] selectmen leading up to the next fiscal year, the next budget cycle that we

[1:03:08] start next fall. Um but allowing a good amount of time for both parties to work

[1:03:14] through together um what it looks like. >> Yeah. So, my apologies, Charlie, if you

[1:03:19] felt that I wasn't, you know, >> no apology necessary. I just wanted to

[1:03:23] understand your thinking and and uh and hear it firsthand. Um, any other

[1:03:29] questions on this subject by any other member? K.

[1:03:37] The only thing I would like to add is in terms of when the organizations would

[1:03:41] come before us, I'd hate to have them be caught off guard if there were some

[1:03:45] questions that um you know, I'm h I'm thinking back to last year's um

[1:03:51] presentations and it was a a wide range of um content that was put forward, some

[1:03:57] very brief, some much more detailed and um so just trying to think think out

[1:04:03] loud here. Are there is there is there a way that um we could kind of give a

[1:04:07] heads up to some of these organizations who may not be used to providing

[1:04:12] information if we were to use you know bring forward a question from here that

[1:04:17] they weren't prepared for that could be an awkward um awkward thing for them is

[1:04:23] um there another way in which we could post this or let them know please be

[1:04:29] prepared some you know their choice or not if they'd like to just get a heads

[1:04:34] up on questions that may come their way. That's just my thought.

[1:04:40] » I I'm not I don't know. I don't think any of us want to be putting an

[1:04:46] organization um into a uncomfortable position. Um but

[1:04:53] I I don't think we would for example in a discussion with an outside

[1:05:00] organization say to them uh could you provide me your 990 please before we um

[1:05:07] you know in the next three days or something of that nature. I think the

[1:05:12] questions that I'd leave it to each individual to use their judgment at this

[1:05:18] time. I like Ashley's recommendation of table it till next year. We'll refine it

[1:05:24] and get some of all of the input of the select board as well as all members

[1:05:29] um to condense and refine it. Um but I think that

[1:05:35] we should be diligent about asking what's a legitimate question and one of

[1:05:41] them is I I agree with your analogy on LOS. We all know what Lakos do. we know

[1:05:47] what the value of that is. So that may not be something in that presentation by

[1:05:51] the lake hosts uh or the protective associations we would be asking

[1:05:56] necessarily. I think naturally they provide that information. However, there

[1:06:00] may be an entity, I don't want to name one right now, but that we really don't

[1:06:06] understand. For example, how do they determine the amount they ask New London

[1:06:12] for versus another town that they support? And I think that's a very

[1:06:17] legitimate question to ask and I don't think that's an I gota. I think they

[1:06:21] should be prepared and able to present that kind of information.

[1:06:26] » Thank you. That was kind of where my thought was going was, you know, not to

[1:06:30] get in the detail of a 990 per se, but these other broader questions back to

[1:06:35] the point that we hear um in terms of these organizations that support are

[1:06:40] involved in servicing multiple towns. Is New London bearing a proportional amount

[1:06:45] of their cost? >> Agreed.

[1:06:47] » Along those lines. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you. Any other comments?

[1:06:52] Okay, let's move on. Um, Lynn, do you want to just just address quickly um FY

[1:06:59] 2026 financials and Sure. >> where we're at, where where we're going,

[1:07:04] and by when. Maybe. >> Um, the auditors are diligently working

[1:07:07] to to um finalize everything. There was an unexpected delay. Um, they I think

[1:07:15] they've got that resolved. Um, so something should come down, you know,

[1:07:19] fairly quickly. they'll in the next couple weeks they'll give me the um the

[1:07:24] journal entries to make the changes and but at this point they could not even

[1:07:29] ballpark me. Um and I don't want to ballpark you know where we landed or you

[1:07:34] know what what our um how much of the operating budget we used and and what

[1:07:39] can go to unassigned funds. They were not they were not close to that yet

[1:07:43] because of a missing piece. Um and it's it's not I'm not going to fingerpoint or

[1:07:49] anything. It's not anybody's real fault other than we have some newbies. Um so

[1:07:54] that that got resolved today and that'll um soon as I have it I will be putting

[1:08:00] that out. >> Okay.

[1:08:03] Thank you. Um let's move to our committee meeting schedule before you.

[1:08:09] You have a draft uh dated September 9th. Um, I took the liberty of going back to

[1:08:18] our previous discussions about schedule, how we were thinking about topics, uh,

[1:08:24] timing, other key events. I took Ashley's memorandum to us reflecting the

[1:08:30] key dates really starting in January on through to

[1:08:36] um the, uh, submission of the information for the production of the

[1:08:41] town report. And I've included those key dates and activities in this schedule so

[1:08:47] we have context. And I do not mean to represent this in any way to you as

[1:08:51] perfect. I did this today just hoping we could um at least see if this seems to

[1:08:57] make good sense. I tried also to reflect the spirit of our previous meeting in

[1:09:03] which we talked about how much of the apple do we want to bite off in a given

[1:09:08] meeting to ensure substantive conversation and deliberation

[1:09:13] um and do it as expeditiously as well. So I that I've put the proposed draft

[1:09:22] schedule here before you together with that in mind. Um, and if I can just try

[1:09:28] to walk down through the document with you and also Ashley make sure I got it

[1:09:33] right in relation to some of these other dates. But on September 23rd, um, I'm

[1:09:40] proposing a meeting of the budget committee. Does everybody have a copy? I

[1:09:44] put one in front of all of you. Do you have one, Lou?

[1:09:49] You have an extra one right here.

[1:10:04] Okay. I'm proposing a next meeting of this committee on the 23rd of September

[1:10:11] to review the governance and operations guide. We'll hear from Karen later on

[1:10:15] that. Um and if timing is right, Lynn, that we could review 2026.

[1:10:20] » Fingers crossed. >> Fingers crossed. The only thing that I

[1:10:23] will say is I will not be able to attend. That is the week that the

[1:10:27] company that we have um engaged for the dispatch study will be on site.

[1:10:33] » Um and so I it is unlikely that I would be available that night.

[1:10:39] » Okay. So probably not a good meeting date.

[1:10:42] We'd need to do another date if that were and not before then.

[1:10:51] I don't think but

[1:10:55] you could tell me what flexibility you might or might not have.

[1:10:58] » Looking at the calendar that's just two weeks out from now. So I don't know how

[1:11:02] much more of an update I will have. So if you wanted to push it out a week or

[1:11:06] or two maybe >> why don't we say two weeks and then we

[1:11:12] can look into October somewhere in there.

[1:11:15] » Um let me move forward on that. So we have a jump ball there. October 2nd is

[1:11:21] the target date for department heads to submit their budgets. Is that correct?

[1:11:25] » That is correct. Friday, uh October 2nd for all department heads and outside

[1:11:30] organizations, committees, commissions, and boards that receive an

[1:11:33] appropriation. And then that following week, October 5th, we will be heads down

[1:11:40] preparing the budget binders for both the board of selectman and the budget

[1:11:44] committee. Um

[1:11:48] 21st of October was capital improvement um program public hearing. Uh John Tilly

[1:11:55] and I attended the session with the planning board uh on the CIP uh last

[1:12:02] week and had a really great meeting. So the document uh itself

[1:12:10] uh will be finalized and presented for public review by then and will include a

[1:12:15] narrative supporting it. So that information will be available to this

[1:12:20] committee and certainly feel free to come to the public hearing if you wish.

[1:12:24] The October 23rd is the board of selectman's uh dayong uh budget reviews.

[1:12:31] Um and all members of this committee are invited encouraged if you can. It's very

[1:12:38] helpful. It is a dayong meeting. Um so from here out I have lumped what I saw

[1:12:46] as reasonable topics and volume of topics suggesting November 4th we do

[1:12:53] capital improvement capital reserves police and dispatch and town audit

[1:12:58] report if it's available for just overview if there are any major issues

[1:13:02] or notes would we have the audit by that time?

[1:13:06] » November when's the audit done? January.

[1:13:11] » Okay. So, that's not going to happen then. All right.

[1:13:15] My error. November 18th, I'm suggesting public works and fire.

[1:13:21] December 2nd, administration, tax collector, town clerk, planning,

[1:13:26] finance, emergency management, Tracy, library, and rec recreation.

[1:13:32] That's a that's a a big apple on that day. But

[1:13:36] » could I just ask maybe Ashley a little? Are there any

[1:13:41] anything this this budget season that we think any topics that you think will be

[1:13:46] from departments that will be more talked about than others? Any like

[1:13:52] » No, I think the DPW facility, the building, the bond for 10 million. Um

[1:13:58] that's certainly the biggest ticket item that we've got. Um

[1:14:04] but I can't think of anything as of right now. they're they're all still in

[1:14:08] the process of putting together their budgets. So, there's nothing that comes

[1:14:11] out in my mind. Um the folks that have um mentioned things to me as they are

[1:14:17] working through it have said it's it's relatively flat. Um but I'll certainly

[1:14:23] know by October okay second. >> And the only reason I asked that is just

[1:14:28] because that date of the 18th with public works and fire. I just know that

[1:14:33] those that police just tend to get more discussion.

[1:14:37] » So either be prepared for a longer meeting

[1:14:40] or >> Yep. And I will say just as I feel like

[1:14:44] I say this every time we meet, this room is booked starting at 8:15 every

[1:14:50] Wednesday night by New London Police for a training series that they have. So, we

[1:14:55] do need to be somewhat succinct here and try to get

[1:15:00] out by 8.

[1:15:09] I mean, again, my only suggestion would be to either

[1:15:14] » maybe keep public works on that date >> since that seems to be where there's

[1:15:18] going to be a lot of discussion >> and you can either put in like the

[1:15:23] outside organizations or maybe put in some of the December 2nd

[1:15:28] » departments so that we're not faced with like running over by talking about fire.

[1:15:34] Um, unless we don't think that fire department's going to have any

[1:15:40] big budget requests. >> I think that they all signs point to

[1:15:44] them requesting their fourth full time. >> Yeah. Which will I just think Yeah,

[1:15:49] that's all. Yep. >> Those two just seem to be like the two

[1:15:52] bigger ones on one date and if we want to focus on one area. I don't know. Just

[1:15:56] a thought. >> Well, I I I

[1:16:02] hear you. Um I think what we were trying to

[1:16:07] accomplish was getting police dispatch, Department of Public Works, and fire.

[1:16:11] Those being the big three. >> Um,

[1:16:17] sort of combine I I we could go for

[1:16:22] » I mean, we can try to do this, but I I guess what I don't want to do is I don't

[1:16:27] want to short shift a discussion just to get through it. Um but at the same time

[1:16:34] um you know things that I think are are are probably easy to talk about

[1:16:41] administration, tax collector, town clerk, planning and finance

[1:16:45] are easy because they're not big >> and pretty they're pretty

[1:16:50] straightforward. Those go pretty quickly and there's nothing that no surprises or

[1:16:56] big things coming obviously. Uh Lou, I don't know about emergency management.

[1:17:00] you made comments that you thought we should spend a little more time on it um

[1:17:04] with some of your feedback. >> When I'm looking at the the

[1:17:09] you know the breath and the time >> microphone

[1:17:14] » Thank you. >> You're welcome.

[1:17:15] » Yeah. when I'm looking at the at the breadth and the timeline that we have.

[1:17:20] Um I mean I doesn't doesn't necessarily have to be you know we're going to make

[1:17:25] we're going to make you know some cuts in emergency management just to to

[1:17:30] ensure that we can we can maintain while while being a little bit more efficient.

[1:17:35] But but um yeah it's I I don't need a particularly long time for emergency

[1:17:41] management. >> Okay. So, that's going to go that those

[1:17:44] four five areas go fairly quickly. That leaves Tracy Library and Recreation.

[1:17:50] » Why don't we just leave it the way it is? And I was just talking out loud.

[1:17:54] » No, I I'm I'm with you. I I'm I'm interested in fire because it's a new

[1:17:59] chief um new ideas and and possible new direction. Even though we know there' be

[1:18:05] a continuing request for another FTE, >> I don't think recreation's going to be

[1:18:10] anything. I mean, obviously I haven't been I wasn't at the most recent

[1:18:13] meeting, but I don't think it's going to be anything crazy.

[1:18:17] » No, it'll just be 15 minutes on how we pay for

[1:18:25] » one one question, please. I just when it comes to the fire department, I want to

[1:18:29] make sure you know, are we're going to be al having the board of fireworks

[1:18:34] here, too? >> Yes. Typically, typically Steve Ensign

[1:18:38] joins with the chief >> because you know you do have a chief but

[1:18:41] the overarching strategy for a fire department is not

[1:18:46] » the operation the operational guy the chief. It's the board of fireworks. So,

[1:18:50] uh they're the ones who designed the strategy for the fire department.

[1:18:55] » Agreed. >> And this fourth position is the fourth

[1:18:58] and and final as the in this plan that they developed several years ago. Um,

[1:19:05] » and that has not changed. That is that has not changed

[1:19:07] » going forward. >> Correct.

[1:19:09] » To be clear though, we would wind up with six full-time

[1:19:14] staff for the fire department.

[1:19:18] » Four, five, >> chief,

[1:19:22] the four shift commands, >> and this would be the sixth.

[1:19:27] » No, we currently have three shift officers.

[1:19:32] the we didn't backfill when we promoted Mike to um

[1:19:38] chief. We did not backfill his position. So we've got Mike, Andrew, Steve Dubbie,

[1:19:46] Brandon,

[1:19:49] » and and I'm sorry. So who was the who's the new employee then filling the the

[1:19:53] slot that was voted in at the last town meeting?

[1:19:57] » Andrew Cernovitz, >> right? So, I thought that brought us up

[1:20:01] to five total slots, and I thought in the proposed budget that would be a

[1:20:05] sixth. >> Well, we can go back to them, but they

[1:20:09] currently have five. When I talked to Mike earlier today, I asked if they were

[1:20:14] hire recruiting, and he said no, they are not. They would be looking for the

[1:20:20] next position at the next town meeting. >> And that would be the sixth, correct?

[1:20:24] » That would be five. That would be five. >> Okay. three shift officers and

[1:20:31] » that's not my recollection but >> okay I'll yeah I'll I'll clarify with

[1:20:36] him but as of this morning he said they are actively not they would be looking

[1:20:41] for the additional headcount at the next town meeting

[1:20:48] » okay um I think everybody can read December 9th and December 16th of what

[1:20:53] the topics are that are suggested this is leading up to January 13th being the

[1:21:00] meeting where we review and adopt our budget

[1:21:05] which is earlier than we have done in the past.

[1:21:09] » Yeah. And just sorry one as I'm looking at this line I'm says patriotic purposes

[1:21:14] we don't typically talk much about. However, we likely will this year. Uh

[1:21:18] New London is celebrating our 200th or 250th 250th in 2029. So, we are looking

[1:21:26] to form a committee uh in the next year or so and we will likely be looking for

[1:21:34] uh some budgetary um line items here starting in the FY28 budget. So, no idea

[1:21:41] what that looks like just yet, but that will be more than the $500 that's in

[1:21:46] there. >> Say $600 and

[1:21:47] » Yeah, I I think it's going to be a little bit more.

[1:21:51] Um but I I do think we will see that increase.

[1:21:55] um certainly more than what it has been in the past.

[1:22:00] » So if if if we are successful in adopting a a budget on the 13th or if we

[1:22:08] are not I left the 20th as a wiggle room week. If we can't accomplish it by the

[1:22:14] 13th, we'd accomplish it by the 20th and then our public hearing be scheduled

[1:22:21] for February 3rd. for the proposed budget

[1:22:29] and then subsequently the um submission uh to the of the budget to the board of

[1:22:34] selectmen and that's just a formal submission. It's not a meeting.

[1:22:39] » Charlie, what what if there's reconciliation that

[1:22:44] needs to happen? >> Uh that would have to happen on the

[1:22:48] 20th. >> Okay.

[1:22:50] and that that I didn't put reconciliation in there. Um I received

[1:22:55] uh feedback at the polls yesterday. Was it yesterday? Um

[1:23:02] something to the effect by a person who will remain anonymous

[1:23:08] have you finally got that budget committee under control so we're not

[1:23:11] going to have a re uh uh a debate about whose budget we're going to accept or

[1:23:18] not? and I said, "I do not have the committee under control." So, I left it

[1:23:23] at that. So, I I didn't put it in here with that in mind that we would have

[1:23:28] that, but in the event the two budgets didn't match and we needed to reconcile,

[1:23:32] I thought that could be done on the 20th.

[1:23:35] » Great. >> I would only ask that if we vote on the

[1:23:39] 13th, there may be a chance that I'm out of town. um that if that I could make

[1:23:45] the meeting but it would have to be virtual. Um so as long I would want to

[1:23:52] know that before I gave my opinion >> and I have the same situation. I am

[1:23:57] going to be out of town >> on the third January

[1:24:03] » for January just to be clear January. >> Yeah. I mean, if there's one meeting,

[1:24:07] not that I'm not going to plan to attend all of them, but if there's one meeting

[1:24:10] to be at, it's the one where we vote. I just want to make sure if I'm not here

[1:24:14] in person, I'll still be able to do that virtually.

[1:24:18] » Same here. I >> We do not have a policy yet. The board

[1:24:23] of selectmen need to make that decision. But it is very important to keep in mind

[1:24:28] that even if we do allow remote participation, there still needs to be a

[1:24:33] quorum in the room. >> Yeah.

[1:24:36] Can you make the 20th? >> I can make the 20th. I mean, yes. As far

[1:24:40] as I know, I can make the 20th. The 15th is

[1:24:42] » Can you make the 20th? >> 13th is in question.

[1:24:44] » Can you make the 20th of January? >> I will be gone from the 10th to the

[1:24:48] 24th. >> Uh, okay.

[1:24:50] » January and most of it is going to be out out of

[1:24:54] the country. >> Okay.

[1:24:56] » Could we do it before the 13th? >> Does it have to be on a Wednesday?

[1:25:00] » It I just picked Wednesdays because it's our traditional meeting. Uh, we could

[1:25:05] meet on the 6th if people were available.

[1:25:10] » What day? >> It's a Wednesday.

[1:25:12] » Sorry. Of what month? >> January.

[1:25:14] » Thank you. >> January 6th.

[1:25:20] » For all of these days, there's a personal My daughter's pregnant and when

[1:25:26] my daughter's baby is born, I might be gone. And so,

[1:25:31] six sounds good. I think I can be here. It's a little bit early, but it's also

[1:25:35] getting a little tight. So, but so is the 13th. So,

[1:25:40] yeah, >> just that.

[1:25:42] » Assuming gravity doesn't mess with me anymore, I'll be here.

[1:25:47] » It would be nice to hear a baby crying from the background, wouldn't it?

[1:25:51] » Understanding life events will get in the way.

[1:25:54] » Um, and respected accordingly. Um, we will on this schedule change the meeting

[1:26:01] on the 13th to January 6th. >> I'll be hearing January 6th.

[1:26:07] » Okay. >> Now, you're still going to have the

[1:26:08] meeting on January 8th? >> No, we have no meeting January 8th.

[1:26:12] That's a public hearing public hearing that we require. That's just a important

[1:26:17] date of an event and that would leave us still wiggle

[1:26:22] room certainly if >> uh there is a need for reconciliation

[1:26:28] and timely budget uh public hearing and that

[1:26:32] would bring all of the necessary information

[1:26:38] to Ashley and the team relative to warrant annual report timing

[1:26:46] Yes. So it is it safe for me to share these dates with my department heads

[1:26:54] » for when they will be up? >> Let me let me do this. Let me edit this

[1:27:00] document and I will send it to the committee and to you.

[1:27:03] » Great. >> With uh these this is a plan.

[1:27:07] » All right. Everybody okay with it? >> All right. we will move forward.

[1:27:11] » And then voting is March 10th. That's when we'll be at the polls. And then

[1:27:17] town meeting is likely to be that following Wednesday, which is I believe

[1:27:20] the 17th. >> March 17th.

[1:27:24] » March 10th is the uh >> voting here in Whipple. So that's the

[1:27:27] day that >> March 10th.

[1:27:30] » March 9th. >> Tuesday. March 9th.

[1:27:33] » Okay. is the day that we vote across the state. And then New London will

[1:27:40] continue. Town meeting, it opens that Tuesday morning. Um the business portion

[1:27:46] of the meeting, which is town meeting, will take place likely that Wednesday

[1:27:51] after. I've got to get with Colobby Sawyer to figure out their um

[1:27:55] » schedule. >> Yeah.

[1:27:56] » Yeah. Vacation schedule. >> So much better.

[1:27:58] » It's really fantastic. We were able to get folks in with mobility issues

[1:28:04] significantly easier. So it >> So that would be on the hon or around

[1:28:09] the 16th >> 17th

[1:28:11] » 17th. >> Yeah.

[1:28:12] » Yeah. Okay. Maybe. >> Okay.

[1:28:15] » Oh my god. >> All right.

[1:28:17] » Uh governance document update. Karen, the floor is yours.

[1:28:21] » We have some good news. Um, we have a draft ready and touched on this briefly

[1:28:28] when we last met and so here's the plan. So rather than having to make all these

[1:28:36] waste all this paper, all these copies, we'll send I will send to members of the

[1:28:41] committee bccing a copy of the document

[1:28:46] and it's all it's all labeled as draft for you to review it.

[1:28:53] Um, first I want to thank Charlie for his reiterations and his

[1:28:59] going through um what we had um as a product of last time we met John as well

[1:29:06] John Ziggler and Cynthia Rousus for their participation in pulling this all

[1:29:11] together. So

[1:29:14] then I think we can then address this at our next meeting as a committee after

[1:29:23] you've all had the chance to go through and react to it. The template that was

[1:29:29] used to set the framework was what was presented way back in June June 3rd I

[1:29:36] think is when we met and we we came to an agreement with regard to using that

[1:29:41] framework. So, we've tried to stay with the framework and pulling in other um

[1:29:48] resources being chapter 32 91A um other example that other towns have

[1:29:56] for their bylaws what they call it their governance document.

[1:30:01] So that would be would be the the plan I think any and Charlie I don't know

[1:30:06] whether you have any any additional thoughts on that but um definitely want

[1:30:11] to get your feedback on what it is that we have at this point.

[1:30:18] So if the document's distributed, you read it, review it, we come to a

[1:30:25] meeting with your comments, your edits, your suggestions. That meeting

[1:30:33] we will to be determined. I had proposed September 23rd, but if

[1:30:41] our fiscal 2026 actual numbers aren't going to be ready, maybe we look at a

[1:30:48] October meeting date to do the governance

[1:30:53] document and the budget review for actuals for 2026.

[1:31:01] Secondly, so we're going to need to look at calendars again. Um, I'll come back

[1:31:05] to that. Um, Karen and I discussed um the possibility of having

[1:31:13] um somebody from the New Hampshire Municipal Association review the

[1:31:17] document. um putting their eyes to it to see if we're accurate in all the

[1:31:24] references to the various terminology um RSAs, municipal budget law, um

[1:31:32] references to protocol procedures just to be sure we've dotted the eyes and

[1:31:36] crossed the tees. We don't know. I I I think that's a good idea. Um, and if the

[1:31:42] committee supports it, then we would approach the municipal association and

[1:31:47] see if they're willing to do that. And if if there's a cost associated with it,

[1:31:52] then we could consider that if in fact there is. But I think it's a pretty easy

[1:31:58] document to review. Um, and they've been incredibly receptive to requests. I I've

[1:32:05] made just queries on questions of various subjects and very responsive and

[1:32:10] very thorough. So, I'd like to suggest we do that as well if there's an

[1:32:14] agreement. Um, so if that makes sense to everyone, is there a date in October we

[1:32:21] could meet to cover the governance and operations guide, get everyone's input

[1:32:26] so it can be finalized and adopted, and we'd be uh able to hopefully review

[1:32:34] our fiscal 2026 financial results. Um,

[1:32:46] yeah, I'm in the wrong year, so that's why I'm pausing.

[1:32:51] What would you feel about the possibility of a meeting on the 14th or

[1:32:55] the 20 the 14th?

[1:33:01] » 14. >> Yeah,

[1:33:02] » I won't be here, but >> I would I would like the 14th.

[1:33:07] » 14th. You would would >> I would I would

[1:33:09] » would Kim's not we may not have 100% attendance. So

[1:33:13] » yeah, I was gonna say I mean we're not not gonna

[1:33:15] » Chris 14 okay with you for right now. >> Okay.

[1:33:21] » Yeah. I'm like if you get the majority so far

[1:33:26] » 14th. Yes. I I'll update this Lou and send it out to you.

[1:33:31] » Okay. >> And so you have all the dates. All

[1:33:33] right. So we're changing the to the next meeting of this committee October 14

[1:33:39] that's a Wednesday topics governance and operations guide

[1:33:44] feedback edits uh adoption if uh if if possible

[1:33:49] and also review the FY 2026 actual the budget

[1:33:54] » if we do have more than a couple folks that can't make it. Should we think

[1:33:59] about pushing the adoption to >> Yes.

[1:34:03] » meeting? >> Yes.

[1:34:04] » That's all. >> Yes. Agree. Adoption may be a little

[1:34:07] aggressive, but I kind of like to get things done. So, agree. If we'll get

[1:34:11] through the edits and input and then the adjustments made and then we can have a

[1:34:17] final document for adoption. And understanding that what we agreed to

[1:34:22] was also this is going to be a living document meaning it'll reside online.

[1:34:26] It'll be available to all members. It'll be available to the public with the

[1:34:31] intention that we would then have the responsibility to update and modify it

[1:34:35] as laws change, procedures change, protocols change so we keep it current.

[1:34:42] » Those changes will those changes have to be voted on?

[1:34:45] » I don't know. >> I'm not sure.

[1:34:49] » Say that. Sorry. Say that again. changes need to be voted

[1:34:52] » because it's a live document and that we'd be making changes to it to keep it

[1:34:56] current, but would they have to be voted on

[1:34:57] » of the governance document? >> Yeah,

[1:35:00] » it hasn't been approved yet. >> Yeah, it hasn't even been approved, but

[1:35:03] any changes would need to go back through some sort of review. Um,

[1:35:09] » yes, but I think that this is a question for this committee with us editing a non

[1:35:19] approved the document. So, I don't think there's any reason for us to vote on

[1:35:22] changes that we would make to the document. We would

[1:35:25] » I think John was >> No, I'm just asking I'm just asking the

[1:35:28] question. It's at some point we're going to vote to either accept this document

[1:35:31] or reject >> adopt it. Yep. You just adopted it.

[1:35:34] » But then going forward, it's supposed to be a live document and there'll be

[1:35:38] changes. My question is, were we going to have to vote every time or can we put

[1:35:40] something in there that states that from time to time the budget committee will

[1:35:47] make changes? Those changes can be spelled out in the minutes or someplace

[1:35:52] else, but it would not have to be specifically voted on

[1:35:56] as part of the whole document. again. >> Um

[1:35:59] » I don't >> I Yeah, I don't I I guess it because

[1:36:02] then I would say, well, that really just depends on what changed.

[1:36:05] » It could be something very important or very minor.

[1:36:09] » And that's that's someone's opinion. >> Yeah. And I I would say any sort of

[1:36:15] change regardless of whether it's small or not needs to then go through another

[1:36:19] review outside of this committee just to ensure that everything is copacetic

[1:36:26] » because in two years you could have a >> sure

[1:36:28] » new friend budget. >> Yeah. So I and I would think that most

[1:36:32] if of those adjustments and changes would come from the New Hampshire

[1:36:36] municipal um assoc uh association

[1:36:43] um unless we as a committee made some substantial adjustment to a procedural

[1:36:47] issue. >> One other question that you were talking

[1:36:51] about the review of this document which was on this sheet for September 23rd and

[1:36:55] you talked about moving it to a date. Are you talking about moving everything

[1:36:58] that's on the 23rd to some other date which

[1:37:00] » October 14th? >> October 14th and take out the 23rd

[1:37:05] altogether. >> Yes.

[1:37:06] » Okay.

[1:37:10] » Okay. Good to move forward. Thank you Karen for spearheading it.

[1:37:16] Um public input. Do we have some?

[1:37:23] » Poor guys. >> Larry's been here. Larry, we need to

[1:37:26] give you a microphone. Karen, could you extend that to Larry, please?

[1:37:32] » You're welcome. >> And Larry, just announce yourself. Yes,

[1:37:35] » please. >> Oh, there. Yeah, Larry Cloth, New

[1:37:40] London. Um, first of all, you can see by today listening live how complicated a

[1:37:47] business running a town is, right? I mean, you like to think it's going to be

[1:37:51] simple and easy, but it there are all kinds of things that change. And

[1:37:55] Richard, one of the things you talked about was HP, I think 7 HP1374,

[1:38:00] that any town in a district in in New Hampshire with 20 people can give a

[1:38:06] 60-day notice to pull out of a region. And that's a big deal for your budget.

[1:38:12] And if I listen carefully, I wasn't at the seventh September 4th meeting, but

[1:38:17] listening, one of the towns talked about it.

[1:38:21] » So get that with your $10 million I think borrowing you were talking about,

[1:38:27] which is what 2 million a year in interest, something like that in

[1:38:30] principle and interest. I just thought you all should know. I mean, it's about

[1:38:35] money, but everybody's got what they want and you got all kinds of things we

[1:38:38] want to do. But I just give you a heads up as you're going into that. If the T

[1:38:43] I'm sorry, not for your 10 million, for the 30 million. Sorry, I apologize. 30

[1:38:47] million the school's talking about, how much do we have to pay,

[1:38:52] right? And we already pay the school 12.5 million. And we had two years ago

[1:38:58] roughly 243 New London students at Currage. And that's $50,000 a student.

[1:39:08] » It's just, you know, so I just thought I'd bring that up and I if this is the

[1:39:11] wrong place to bring it up, I apologize. I know there's

[1:39:13] » perfectly fine to bring it up here and part of that conversation was um

[1:39:19] enemating if not directly saying that there's significant capital investment

[1:39:24] that has to be made regardless of the plan and it will be reflected in our tax

[1:39:30] rate and we also have significant debt that potentially we will incur in a

[1:39:36] similar very short time frame. And I think that will become very clear when

[1:39:41] the uh committee sees the uh capital improvement program um that we've got

[1:39:48] some pretty hefty years coming upon us and in conjunction I think Larry you're

[1:39:54] making the point that the school is also sort of in line at the same time and so

[1:40:00] the impact is going to be um significant >> and I should say but you have no control

[1:40:06] over the school >> right we have No, no, no control

[1:40:09] whatsoever over it. Thank you, Larry, very much. Thank you

[1:40:14] for your patience in listening to this. Well, um

[1:40:22] » I I am going to >> No, I said before

[1:40:24] » go to other business. >> Okay.

[1:40:27] » Okay. So, is there other business for the committee to review or discuss?

[1:40:33] Karen, >> not so much to discuss right now, but uh

[1:40:38] as we were reviewing the minutes early on that uh what was the date? July 8th

[1:40:43] minutes. And um as you can recall, there was a schedule distributed at that

[1:40:48] meeting that showed a trend in budget appropriations for selected accounts.

[1:40:54] And I remember Kim's rightly so asked a very good question in terms of context

[1:41:00] and terms of context of those numbers and what we had was just budget. So what

[1:41:06] I've done is to try and fl to flush that out a bit more and provide context for

[1:41:12] it. So this is a a schedule here just for distribution um discussion at some

[1:41:18] other time but it's just to really respond to that context question. and

[1:41:23] went back a little further, went back to 2021

[1:41:26] and we have on those counts that were presented at the time, we have budget

[1:41:31] and actual and it goes forward from 2021 to budget for 2027. And again, this is

[1:41:38] using the um budget pro system to create this. As we know, there are some hiccups

[1:41:46] that are still being worked out, as is true with any new system. But just to

[1:41:51] kind of keep that ball rolling, I thought it would be helpful to to to

[1:41:56] have this with all the caveats that still stand that we do have some some um

[1:42:03] updating that has that needs to happen as we just heard from Lynn and there's

[1:42:08] still there's one particular year that has a variance. it is footnoted on this

[1:42:13] here but broadly speaking it is a way to provide some context for that

[1:42:19] information that was shared back in July. So with that said, I'll distribute

[1:42:24] that, you know, I'll pass this >> before you do that. Um, as point of

[1:42:27] clarification, Karen, I would it make sense to ensure that the financial

[1:42:36] representation is as accurate as it can be, which would be in line, Lynn, with

[1:42:45] the FY 2026 adjustments that still need to be made.

[1:42:52] rather than and here's why I'm suggesting that is that once a document

[1:42:58] becomes a public document and there are known variances or

[1:43:03] discrepancies yet to be uh corrected, it would make sense to me that we get it

[1:43:11] corrected so that we're reasonably accurate in what's represented.

[1:43:17] » I don't disagree. Although I would I'd like to add to that

[1:43:22] then FY2026 that the FY 2024

[1:43:28] needs to be addressed at that time as well because within this you know it's

[1:43:33] it's a it's a year where there is an a significant variance between what we was

[1:43:41] in the budget pro system visav what was in the the mun if I get that right Lynn

[1:43:48] but Yeah. In that system here. So I I think

[1:43:53] that being said that that we we and we and we have some time now. We have until

[1:43:57] what October what is it the 14th when we meet again.

[1:44:02] » Yeah. >> That we could try and address that

[1:44:04] because that anomaly that's still there that variance. So I'm not sure where

[1:44:09] that stands in terms of the queue of um sorting out but

[1:44:15] » so okay as so noted. So, what I uh recommend is we um let Lynn sort of

[1:44:22] direct that process so that you're comfortable that whatever is represented

[1:44:26] is as accurate as we can get it to be before we make a document public because

[1:44:34] then for for the very reasons that I don't I I want to discourage that people

[1:44:41] make incorrect conclusions from incorrect data and rather push the

[1:44:47] timeline to get it as accurate as it can be.

[1:44:51] » I totally agree. I just I think it's important that the committee knows that

[1:44:55] we continue to to work this to work this so that we can really take advantage of

[1:45:04] that budget pro particularly as it looks at certain costs in an aggregated level.

[1:45:10] So that is great to have that this attention focused on that particular

[1:45:16] uh work in process. >> Well, as I recall, you were looking at

[1:45:22] um large ticket items that we did not have department heads don't have any

[1:45:28] control over. >> Right. and rep by the capability of

[1:45:34] reporting within budget pro, we can look at a five-year trend and that trending

[1:45:39] can tell us potentially some things that we otherwise might not have considered.

[1:45:45] And the good news about even the schedule as it stands right now when you

[1:45:49] look at 2021 that ties out from both the Muna system and budget pro and you look

[1:45:55] at 2027 budgeted those tie out as well. So it's just kind

[1:46:01] of these one or two intervening years that needs some call it you know

[1:46:07] » normalizing. >> Okay.

[1:46:09] » So that's where that stands. So rest assured, we've been very busy since

[1:46:14] June, >> right?

[1:46:15] » Getting excuse me, July getting on that. >> Is the uh is there context behind

[1:46:24] the numbers? Because as numbers, I get it, but as we all know, there's

[1:46:29] sometimes context as to why numbers might have changed or why there might be

[1:46:33] a larger gap one year versus another year. I I don't know if you've done that

[1:46:38] sort of research to here's what the budget was, here's what the actual was.

[1:46:42] And if we're trying or if we're looking to reduce that um difference, but it

[1:46:49] would be helpful to say, oh, 21 COVID year um you know, budget was affected by

[1:46:56] this or something happened in 24. I'm just throwing something out. Something

[1:47:01] happened in 24 which caused this >> number of employees each year.

[1:47:04] » Yeah. just so that there's some context to that number and why the gap might be

[1:47:09] larger one year or smaller one year than the other.

[1:47:12] » I think that's a great point and I agree.

[1:47:15] » I think that's the the value of laying something like this out. You actually

[1:47:20] can identify those years or identify those questions where some further

[1:47:25] further looking into it is appropriate and can draw a lesson from that. So,

[1:47:33] I'll let the let that speak for itself when we get to that stage. But as of

[1:47:38] right now, I just wanted to >> Karen, are these accurate? Are these

[1:47:42] actual numbers or are they budget numbers like the last sheet that came

[1:47:46] out? >> Well, what they're both includes

[1:47:52] the the budget and actual, >> right? Thank you.

[1:47:55] » For those particular accounts. Yeah. Yeah.

[1:47:57] » Okay. Uh any other business? Okay.

[1:48:04] » Um, so I did actually have to write this down. So I just I'm just going to read

[1:48:09] this. Um, so before we disperse tonight, uh, I just want to acknowledge that this

[1:48:14] Friday is the 25th anniversary of September 11th. Um, and I ask that we

[1:48:21] remember the thousands of lives that were lost.

[1:48:25] um and the incredible bravery of the first responders who ran towards that.

[1:48:32] Um as a committee, one of our missions is to ensure that our local first

[1:48:36] responders have the resources, equipment, and

[1:48:42] backing that they need to keep us safe every day. Um so I just want to ask that

[1:48:48] we hold a moment of silence um to honor all those who were lost. um and to show

[1:48:55] our gratitude for the men and women who serve our community now.

[1:49:07] Thank you.

[1:49:13] And I would invite everyone to join us down at New London Fire Department this

[1:49:17] Friday, 11:00 a.m. for a Patriot Day. The word celebration is very strange to

[1:49:24] say commemoration. Um but you know when we started this 25 years ago or 24 years

[1:49:32] ago we had said you know we'll go to year 25. Um I know that New London Fire

[1:49:37] is talking internally about whether they continue it. Um but it is a very special

[1:49:45] absolutely is a very special event and we hope that you all can join us.

[1:49:52] Thank you and thank you Kim. Um any other new business?

[1:49:58] I have only one other comment. Um the subject of department data documents. Um

[1:50:05] those have been shared with Ashley. Ashley shared them with the department

[1:50:09] leads and heads and they will be returned in a couple of weeks or so.

[1:50:16] They're working to update those. So once we we receive those they will be

[1:50:21] distributed to the committee and if there's need for clarification and or um

[1:50:28] modification um we can do that at at at a later time.

[1:50:34] I Charlie uh one of the requests in addition to that so I did send those out

[1:50:38] to the department heads um and also uh put together some draft uh

[1:50:46] organizational charts for those departments that have teams underneath

[1:50:50] them. Um so I put together the first pass and just asked them to uh make sure

[1:50:56] that I got it right. Um it doesn't have names on it. it merely has positions and

[1:51:01] if there is a role if there's a position that has multiple people um then that

[1:51:06] headcount number is reflected on there so those will also be included as well.

[1:51:11] » Thank you very much for doing that. >> Sure.

[1:51:13] » Much appreciated. >> Any other business

[1:51:18] hearing? None. I uh accept a motion to adjourn.

[1:51:22] » So move. >> All in favor?

[1:51:26] » I thank you all for your time. Lou wants to stay.

Budget Committee Meeting September 9, 2026

Transcript