[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.