December 16, 2025 – Board of Public Works – Video & Transcript

December 16, 2025 - Board of Public Works

Autoscroll:

I want to call the meeting to order. It's 6-0-1. Start with the normal disclosure. Items may not be discussed in the order listed or the specific time estimates. Times are approximate. All topics may be subject to deliberation and vote. One may watch or participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at, and then the address or link is shown on the agenda. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. The meeting may be recorded, which will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon after the meeting as practicable. Start with opening remarks and roll call. Let's start with a roll call. Mr. Spellman? Here. Judy? Here. Mike Wiggenbauer? Here. I am here. And do we have Ed?
Yes, you do. Ed's there?
I see him. There he is. Ed, roll call. Say here. Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Okay. Any opening remarks by anyone? I just have one. Okay. On Friday, this coming Friday at 10 o'clock in the morning, we're going to hold our annual holiday training session. So, you understand that there might be breakfast served. So, please feel free if you're able to join us at 10 a.m. on Friday. We'd love to have you. Thank you. Thank you, Tom. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. Any other announcements?
All right. Next is public comment.
And remind people to please, when you are queued in to speak, please provide your name and address. And remember, there is a two-minute maximum for public announcement, and you only get one. So, moderator, can you see if we have anybody for public comment? Yeah, we have James Sciacca.
Hi, guys. It's actually Tom, and I don't see how to change my name here.
So, Tom Sciacca at Rolling Lane. More importantly, Wayland's rep to the River Stewardship Council. And I am officially authorized to speak for the River Council tonight on the subject of Sherman's Bridge. Of course, we haven't seen Tom's latest presentations, but the ones that I've seen most recently, I have two comments on. One is on the steel guardrails, which are still a problem for me. Speaking again for the River Council and our perspective of the scenic values of the bridge, I really don't understand why they can't just be boxed in with wood. It wouldn't even need a whole box just top and sides to leave the steel underneath. But it's the visual issue that's the problem that seems very cheap and easy to me. My other comment is about the proposals I keep hearing about a walkway along on the south side of the bridge, the upstream side. And I've heard a couple of objections from Tom to installing that, that we might have some help with. One is financial. The River Council has some money, not millions, but thousands or tens of thousands. And we could potentially help out with that. I'm not committing it here. I mean, we'd have to have a proposal and a design and so forth, but that's a definite possibility to deal with a financial objection to installing that. Okay, Tom, your two minutes are up. Can I add one more on the... No, I'm sorry. We've got to stick with the time. But I would ask you to send an email in, if you would, with that information, because I think it's very helpful.
Okay. Okay, next person. Jeff Stein. Okay.
Okay. I'm Jeff Stein. I live at 48 Sherman's Bridge Road in Weyland. Now, it's true, a couple of you have been elected, hired, because your expertise at actual bridge building. But what we really want to take advantage of from all of you here tonight is your skill at metaphorical bridge building. Your ability to lead conversations in your meetings that connect people to each other and to the landscape that is Weyland and Sudbury. The historic landscape that Sherman's Bridge represents. Over the past couple of months, dozens of ordinary citizens, neighbors, users of the bridge, have voiced concerns, provided ideas about the complex issue that is Sherman's Bridge. As a result of a really good public meeting, just the one, we understand that the bridge is not just a problem to be solved. But rather, it's an experience to be allowed. We hope you get that and move this whole project forward as if this were the case, and good luck in doing it. Thank you, Jeff.
Next one, Alyssa.
Hi, thank you. I'm Elisa Carter. I live at 19 Sherman Bridge Road. And I am still confused about why we're using the glulam and not just wood. I hope you're going to be putting the wood at least on top. But in the long run, it's going to cost us as a town more having the glulam there because of the high expense of repairing it and replacing it if there's any damage. And I'd really just like to know why doing a repair with wood was not explored at all. They even have like a wood bridge department at MassDOT, for example. And glulam is not commonly used as bridge surface. It's used in construction, but not on bridge surface. I think you guys found one place or your consultants found one bridge that had used it, but only for like seven or eight years. So we really don't know what's going to happen long term. But it's very expensive material. So if you can address any of that, I would be very grateful. I hope we can have the bridge be, you know, useful to all the people and not just the people commuting over it, but the people who live in the neighborhood, the people who come in as tourists to see the bridge or to watch the northern lights or the stars. So that's I think that's all I'm going to say for now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Henry White. Hi. Thank you, Henry White, 109 Lincoln Road in Weyland. I just wanted to, again, give my whole hard support for adding a walkway on the south side of the bridge. You know, I think when the conversation about the bridge first came up, the real focus was on its safety and on it as a thoroughfare for cars. And I think that, you know, that I think all of you have come to recognize its recreational value as a destination, not just a road to be passed over. And I think this is a unique opportunity given that you're going to have a barge in place underneath the bridge and it sounds like you have some plans to put a safe structure underneath it to support a walkway on both sides. I think that will greatly enhance its recreational value and given the offer from the Rivers Council, it sounds like there may even be funding. And I'm sure there are local foundations that would also support that. So I think it's mostly if you can, Tom, if you can come up with a safe design that will pass muster. I do know there's the right-of-way issue, but there are wires above and I think there's pipes underneath on that side of the bridge. So it's clearly we're into the right-of-way already is expanded down to the south side. So thank you very much. Thank you, Henry.
I have Sheila and Jim.
Go ahead. Hi, this is Sheila. I'm at 72 Sherman Bridge Road. And my concern is still the weight capacity. When this bridge was built, you know, in 92, I'm sure that it had the longevity longer than it has as long as the weight was, you know, two and a half tons going over it. So I think that we need to consider keep putting it back to where it was, two and a half tons, because the big trucks on this road, it's only basically three miles long, maybe three and a half miles long. And it doesn't, again, there's two highways on either side of it. So there's certainly no reason for big, giant trucks and the big dump trucks, and everybody can go around to get to either side of the bridge. So there's access everywhere. It's just a matter of being a cut through. And it's very important that the weight capacity of this bridge be kept minimal if you're going to even have this bridge that you're putting up, you know, last the 40 years plus. Because I'm sure this would, that's on it now, would have lasted the 40 years plus had all the weight not go over it. So when you think about it, you really have to consider the weight capacity of the bridge. That's what I have to say. Thank you, Sheila.
Next. I see no one else. All right. We will close the public comment, and we will move to Tom's update on the Sherman Bridge. George, should we add in, we received a number of comments, public comments via email prior to the meeting. Should we add those into our, the record?
I'm not sure. I've read them and didn't keep them all, so I don't have them. I'm not sure who does. But if we, we have not historically, at least while I've been chairman, have done that. So, but I understand. Tom, do you have that? Grouping, by chance? I mean, if they were emailed to the Board of Public Works, what I would suggest, if somebody wants to compile those for me, send them, forward them to me, and I will make them a part of the minutes of this meeting.
Mike, can you do that?
Yes. Yeah, I mentioned it because Tom had read all of the comments at the meeting in Sudbury as part of, at the beginning of that meeting, in any case. And I think we, you know, a lot of folks have provided a lot of information, and I think that's important we have in the minutes. Either information or opinions, but yes, both of which are important. Okay. So, if you get that to Tom, that would be appreciated. Okay. Sherman Bridge update? Sure. Well, thanks very much. Thank you to the public comment for those thoughtful remarks. Just briefly, there has been continued correspondence with the public relative to suggested features of the bridge proposal, several of which are being currently evaluated and considered. So, your remarks are being heard, and when they can be included, we're striving to do that. We are presently working with the National Park Service, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Group, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers relative to their participation and anticipated permit applications with those groups. We are awaiting a response from the Massachusetts Historical Commission on their position relative to the historic relevance of the current bridge and how that will impact this bridge repair. We are preparing to submit notices of intent with each of the two conservation commissions that we'll have to go before to get the permit with them. And we are also working with MassDOT in preparing what we call engineered shop drawings associated with the bridge repair, and that will be used to place the order for the glue land material and also for the specifications for the work that's to be conducted underneath the bridge. I can take a moment to respond to some of the questions, some of the remarks that were made. There was one question as to why glue land. I know we've mentioned this a number of times. The reason that we've selected glue land is that we have to include and meet current bridge standards, and those are relative to the crash testing of the materials that we're using. And the only known wood product is glue land. It is wood. It's not a wood substitute. The bridge will be made of wood from abutment to abutment. We're committed to have that all wood. So the only non-wood materials at this point in time, as Tom Siaka had referenced, is a short piece of steel guardrail on the opposite the walkway side of the bridge. So that is why we are using glue land. There was a remark relative to the weight limit, and there was, I understand, a two and a half ton weight limit on the bridge that was there prior to 92. The bridge that is currently there has no weight restriction. It was designed and built to withstand the weights of tractor-trailer trucks, dump trucks, school buses. So MassDOT, who would administer a weight limit on that bridge, has declined to do so because it is known that that bridge structure will support those weights. There's, there's been a number of remarks tonight and prior about a second walkway. As was mentioned, a second walkway would extend beyond the public right-of-way that we have to perform our work. But more importantly, the necessary crash-tested barrier that's associated with a proposed second walkway would, in essence, block access to the adjoining walkways at either end. We had that issue on the current walkway side, but we were able to resolve that, were unable to do that on the opposite side. The wing walls on the non-walkway side would need to be reconstructed to overcome the previously, you know, this barrier issue that I'm talking about earlier. Cantilevering a second walkway would be a structural challenge, and that is not within the scope of this bridge deck repair. I just want to remind folks that this is a bridge deck repair and not a reconstruction of the bridge superstructure. It's been mentioned that an analogy, you know, while the patient is open, why don't we put on this second walkway? And, you know, to continue with that analogy, we're, in essence, performing a skin graft and not open-heart surgery. So, anything that would need to be done below that bridge deck, it's just beyond the scope of the deck repair, which, in essence, is what we're doing. We're replacing the deck and doing some nominal work underneath the bridge, but nothing relative to the superstructure and the substructure of the bridge itself. There were some questions posed about the glulam material or the adhesive leaching into water should the bridge be submerged during an extreme flooding event. If we've reached out to the manufacturer, they've stated that that is not a concern. I know that there are folks that would say, okay, well, that's great. That comes from the manufacturer. Naturally, they're going to say that. There was a gentleman on the Sudbury Historic Commission that had a pretty strong background and was familiar with glulam use, and he directly pointed that there was no risk of any of the materials leaching into the water should that bridge deck be submerged. The materials I've reviewed describe situations where glulam will deteriorate only after being submerged for extended periods of time. I've found no evidence that there is a detrimental impact of the waterways from infrequent short-duration submersion in water. So, I don't believe that that is a concern that we need to have. And with that, I would conclude my remarks, my update. Tom, one question that was raised is the metal guardrail, and I understand why that has to be metal, another code. But is there something that could be put in front of it to, I don't want to say mask it, but at least reduce it and give a little crash barrier limit to the damage that would be done to a car? Yeah, I'm glad you mentioned that because I wanted to mention that as well. Well, it's a valid suggestion, and it's one that I will follow up on. I have to say that, you know, we've talked about treating it to make it blend in, you know, painting it, those types of things to make it blend in with the environment there. But I have not sought advice or an opinion as to whether or not we could box it in, and the crash-tested material would be under it. So I will pursue that. Well, it could either box it in or just put something in front of it to block the view. That might even be less expensive with, you know, the absorption material that they put in some of those things. So if there is an accident, it collapses but slows down the car before it does damage to the driver or the vehicle as much as if it just hit the guardrail. So, yep, yep, that is heard.
George, do I have a question? Sure. Thank you. So thank you, Tom, for going over some of the fundamentals again. So if I want to just summarize so I make sure I clearly understand the issues, glulam is being used and not wood because it meets current bridge construction standards, whereas wood would not. Is that correct? That's correct. Crash, right? Crash. Yeah, there's particular crash-testing standards that have to be met today that didn't have to be met. They weren't those standards in 1992. But today we have those, and that is why glulam is being used. So for the glulam to perform well, my understanding is it needs to be protected. And what we're, if I recall correctly, we talked about covering it with wood. Is that still on the table and not asphalt? Well, so the glulam itself will meet the needs of the bridge deck repair. The wood planking that was suggested to cover it would, in essence, be an aesthetic feature. It would also provide some protection, so we're open to doing that, but we're going to do that in a subsequent phase. We want to get the glulam. We want to get the glulam installed, built, see how it performs, see how it operates, and we can always add the wooden planking afterwards. We are designing the bridge such that the heights for the barriers and the rails will be able to accommodate a two-inch wearing surface, should it be placed on the bridge at a future date. Okay. Okay. So the other question I have a... Gee, just one second. When you talk about crash control or crash standards or whatever, you're talking about the rails on the side, not necessarily the deck of the bridge. Is that correct? So it's those rails, yes. Yes. Okay. The rails are what I would say are four feet high and you lean up against them. It's those barriers that are separating the walkway and the driving surface, and then on the opposite side, the driving surface and the rail, there's a barrier there you'll see in the plans. And those are rated particularly to withstand a crash, and those are required. Okay. I just want to make sure people didn't think the crash test we were referring to is the bridge surface. Okay. Sorry, Judy. Go ahead. No, that's very good. Thank you, George. So, in other words, the planks themselves are not, quote unquote, the crash test criteria. It is those railings on the side. And the planks, though, we are still talking about using glulam. Is that correct? The planks would be wood. The planks would be wood. Yeah, they'd be a two-inch wooden planking that would likely, if we pursue this, would be installed in a diagonal fashion. So, you wouldn't have the spacing that would cause problems with bicycle tires. Excellent. I think, Tom, you're still talking about the planking, the initial planking across will be glulam, correct? And then later we might add a top layer. There are, yeah, glulam beams. These are not planking. Under the bridge. These are the deck. The deck itself will be glulam beams. And the initial plank, there will be no initial planks. Correct. Wood planks. So, yeah. So, Judy, it is a, the surface will be glulam as well. So, the rails on the side are glulam. The planks that the cars drive over are also glulam is my understanding. Correct. Yeah, beams. Beams. Yeah. And I guess the question I have with that is I understand you said that when glulam is submerged, there might be some leakage of chemicals. Nothing's 100% safe. So, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not questioning that. But you said it had to be a short duration of time. And I was wondering if short duration of time was considered to be days, weeks, months. Do you have any idea? The materials that I researched, their glulam is actually used for structures that have vertical beams. And if the bottom of those vertical beams were to be submerged in water for an extended period, weeks, months, years, that glulam would deteriorate. But for a flooding event, should it happen and the river rises to the level of the deck for a day or two, that is not going to subject the glulam where it would begin to deteriorate and cause environmental problems. Great. Thank you. I saw Mike shaking his head. Mike Spelman, did you have something to add? Sorry. No, just confirming what Tom was saying, because I have a little bit of experience with it. Excellent. Because I have zero experience with it. That's still more than I have, so don't worry. So my last question has to do with repairs. Like anything, whether it's wood or glulam or steel, there's always repairs that are needed. Is there any idea of what that kind of cost is going forward? So the glulam, the beams that I'm describing, they're extensive. It's actually the platform itself, the deck, the driving surface, those are 3 feet 10 inches wide. So they are significant. They're not something that DPW staff from either town will be replacing. We know and understand that the deck itself will likely have, unprotected, will have a 20 year lifespan. When we were considering putting asphalt, we were told by MassDOT that it would likely double that. So at a minimum, we've got a 20 year wearing surface design life. So if and when we decide to install 2 inch planking, it'll just extend that itself. But to answer your question, the maintenance of those would require contract services to do it. Yeah. So that might be more than what we're currently used to. Is it considered? What we're currently used to, we can do in house, but it's a short term repair and we have to keep doing it repeatedly every year. What's the height? Is it 3 feet wide, Tom? Are the beams approximately? Yeah. I want to say 6 or 8 inches at a minimum. It might even be thicker than that. Sounds good. Okay. Any other questions in terms of Sherman Bridge from the board? Yeah, I have one. Just as we're planning to construct, assuming we get approval for the funding of construction, Happy Hollow, in a way that we can accommodate in the future, adding on the office space for staff and the vehicle space. Is it possible that we can construct the bridge or the repair in a way that would allow for the future addition of a walkway if revenue sources are identified? So to add a walkway on the opposite side, there would have to be some work on the substructure. You could also add piles, which would, you know, is certainly beyond the scope of our project, would require extensive permitting. But if the decision is made at a later date to add a walkway on the opposite side, there's nothing that we're doing right now that would preclude that from happening. It is just that it's beyond what we're prepared to do at this time. Okay. And we'll think, as we're constructing, we'll think of that potential future so that nothing would be difficult to undo, I hope. Undo is the right word, yes. Yep. Okay. Great. Okay. Next topic is the Mike Wiggebauer, the review of the select board meeting that took place yesterday. And then after the joint meeting ended, they reached a decision in terms of their participation in the funding via taxation. You may want to start with the meeting. And then I don't know if you had a chance to review the select board discussion after you left or if you were still there, but you want to add that or I can. Yeah. I mean, we met with the select board. We answered their questions about the way we go about setting rates. We've talked, they had some questions and concerns. It sounds that they are a little concerned that we may not set rates so that we can cover the debt. I did my best to reassure them. We always have in the past. I can't see why we wouldn't in the future. They did ask if we would mind if they took over the water rate setting. And I responded to that with my opinion. And we discussed a little bit about their, the reasoning why we wanted or why we suggested splitting between taxation and water rates. One, one item I didn't quite understand is I asked, will, will this be something that would be tax deductible the way we are funding this? Would it be tax deductible to a taxpayer? I can answer that very clearly. The answer is no, because it's water rates. The thing that they're talking about doing with the debt is not, there will be no expense taxes related to that, so it will not increase the real estate taxes. And the real estate taxes is what would go into your state and local tax deduction with the limitations. So this does not go into there. The real question that I've raised, and I've raised it again with Carol, is that because of the nature, doing what they want would require, as I understand it, an election, which otherwise we do not have if we're not doing a prop two and a half, which increases the complexity. And personally, I am significantly against that kind of a belt and suspenders. I've talked to Brian, and there are a lot of ways to cure their concern, not that it will ever happen. But the way they are proposing it, understand why it works, but there's a lot of risk involved in terms of use of that funding limitation, as well as the election. And the key for me is to get this approved by the voters without raising the complexity so people will say, I just don't understand it, so I'm going to vote against it. Yeah. Yeah. And it was confusing. I mean, so after Brian explained what was being proposed, Carol reiterated the portion I understood, but not the portion I didn't understand, which was the levy and what. But in the end, that levy is not something that we would need to be concerned with as a board, that in the end I understood it would be something that the select board would have to pay close attention to. And it would be subject to future select boards using it in a way that wasn't intended. Correct. Okay. Anything else from your side in the meeting? No. Okay. The, I don't know, Junior Mike, you were there, Spellman, you were there also. And Ed, anything you'd like to add? Nothing here. Oh, are we going to be, since we're going to be doing this through water rates, are we going to go forward yet, or has it been determined that we're going to move forward with Brian's idea with, if we can't make up the difference with our water rate changes, or I'm sorry, if we can't meet the loan with our water rates, does that then get picked up by the town general fund? Okay. Or is that yet to be decided? Well, there's several ways to do that. The way it works without forgetting this debt exclusion for a minute, or the Prop 2.5 debt proposal, what happens in, and I think, I've said to Carol, I think this is extremely remote, that we would not have enough revenue built into our rates to cover the debt, because that's one of the expense lines, and we'd have to miss it by the amount of free cash that we have. If you remember a couple of meetings ago, we went through an analysis of the free cash requirements, and that is an issue. So we'd have to miss it by a lot. Like right now, our free cash is $1.1 million. So we would have to miss the revenue by $1.1 million. If it's over that, then what happens is we would have a deficiency in free cash at the end of the fiscal year, at which point the DOR would require the town, as part of their budget for that next year, to put in whatever amount is required in taxation to cover that deficiency. As long as we don't have a deficiency at the end of the year, we do not have an issue. And I find it highly unlikely that any board for the Board of Public Works would miss by that much. Now, again, if we have a certain percentage, and I'm not going to argue about what that percentage should be, but as we add that water rate cost or debt service cost, both in this year for the water tower, and then two years from now when we do the MWRA, that should increase to maintain the percentage, the amount of free cash that we hold, increasing significantly the amount of cushion, per se, that exists for an error if it should occur. All right. So I think that their concern is not necessarily is being overblown by a lack of understanding. Let's put it that way. But the real key is to make sure, as we go through, that we have the appropriate amount of free cash or fund balance versus what some of our risks are, which would include it. But we do not have to have, as Brian explained to me, and again, he's the expert in this. I am not, that we don't have to have necessarily the cash at the November payment date. Because remember, we talked about the issue with the fact that it's built, the rate increase is built over the year, and we have a large cash outflow that happens in November, where we wouldn't necessarily have that much cash. So one of the things that this board will have to look at, as it sets the rates next year, is we should get some cash infusion from going to the quarterly billing. And that might be a way to increase that cash or fund balance without having the water rates increased to build that rate. So there's a lot of things that have to be discussed over the next year or two in terms of that risk. Is that right? Thank you. Well, that answers it and beyond. So thank you very much. Sorry about that. No, no, no. Happy to learn. George? Yes. I remember when the MWRA guy came, he also talked about a 30-year loan that had a very low interest rate. I can't remember what it was. 0.75, I think. No, no. Yeah. No, Mike. The 0.75 is the 20-year. The 30-year is like 2% or 3%. You'd have to pay more over the life to go to the 30-years. The 0.75 is the normal 20-year. All right. So then... The 20-year was zero. No, the 20-year is not zero. It's 0.75 admin fee each year plus a underwriting fee of 0.75 in year one. They say it's a zero interest rate loan, but they have an administration fee. Right. Right. I get it. You understand that. We're talking about the interest rate. Well, it's just... Mike, it's the same thing. You're still paying it, whether it's interest or admin fee. Come on. So my question is... George, the terminology is important, so we're on the same page. Thank you. Judy, go ahead. Is the 30-year actually cheaper? Is the 30-year actually cheaper is my question. Well, define cheaper. Are you talking about the amount of monthly cost or the annual cost? It may be cheaper, but it's more expensive because of the interest rate hike. Okay. The other thing... We've got some time to decide this, okay? Because we go through the process with the SRF and all that discussion. But the other thing that I think we need to be careful of that I picked up in that discussion is they only have a certain amount of money that they can lend in a year. And the payments that come in fund the next year. And we would need to make sure that if we go to the 30-year instead of 20, it doesn't reduce our probability of getting the loan. Gotcha. So those are the kinds of things. And we've got time in order to work that out. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Okay. Any other questions before I go to what ended up with the board meeting? Yeah. I started to ask a question and then it got deferred and I didn't ask it. Carol mentioned that the PFAS litigation, they were planning to earmark for debt. I just wanted to clarify that that was for water debt. Maybe she said that. I didn't hear that. So I wanted to clarify. Did you hear if they specified that those funds would be earmarked for water debt? Well, my understanding is that's something they are considering. I think it's something we're going to have to push on. Yeah. But the other issue that I've learned, at least what they've gotten so far, we're not talking about big bucks. Okay. We're not talking about millions. We're talking about thousands. I thought we were talking about millions. That's, well, the whole- I can tell you exactly what we've received so far if you're- Yeah, please. So as part of the DuPont settlement, we've received two payments, one for about $350,000, the other for $200,000. And then for the 3M, we just received $128,000 as the first portion. The way they have this structured is that they pay it out over the course of 10 years. The larger payments come up front early, and then they dwindle down. And it was my recollection that the payments in their entirety for both DuPont and 3M settlements would likely be in the order of magnitude. Once the attorney fees are taken out, it's probably about a million and a half. Just an- Over a 10-year period. Yeah. Over a 10-year period. So it's- But that's an order of magnitude, just to give you a sense of the kind of dollars we're talking about. And I think that that's something we need to continue to push on the Board of Selectmen to- Select Board, rather, to do, especially because their final decision is not to do our recommendation, which the FinCom agreed with to split it, but to make it all for water rates. And so that's going to be a significant jump in terms of water rates. You remember the analysis that we put together when the MWRA comes in. And one of the things that Tom and Lighten, I think, two meetings ago that I had not thought about, when we did all our analysis, we assumed that it would be just an increase in the percentage. But Tom mentioned that a lot of communities with the construction type cost, they come out with a charge per meter like we do with PFAS, charge now. So there are a lot of options that are going to have to be discussed when the rates are set for the MWRA dual-source debt and debt service in terms of how that's going to be allocated in terms of water rates. It's not a given that it would just be a percentage increase. And the other thing, again, that we'll look at it both at this rate setting time and at that point, is our cost of water versus what is included in the Tier 1 and the municipal rates that are used. And we may change it. We may not. I have no idea. But it's something that we've got to discuss in terms of how to go about that. So the issue right now is that, and for the warrant, it is all in terms of water rates. So in the warrant, any discussion about taxation, the draft that I sent out, I deleted that. Carl, am I in tune with what you are aware of? George, one of the reasons I wanted to be at this meeting tonight is to find out what had happened. I'm speaking purely personally now, not on behalf of FinCom. I'm really disappointed to hear what I'm learning tonight. So I don't have any further reaction. But I'm going to go back and listen to the last Select Board meeting tomorrow morning. Well, I told Kara I was more than disappointed. But she's a good listener and a good lady, so she understands. Okay. Any questions from the board in terms of the SRF debt? There was another issue that was raised about how that money comes in. Do we get the whole $38 million up front and just pass it out? My understanding from my recollection is that what happens is that you draw the money as payment is made, and then at the point in time it's finished, then that is rolled into the SRF loan, at which point then everything is set and payments start. So it's not like there's a $38 million cash that comes in that we hold to make the payments, or we don't have to upfront payments to, and then get reimbursed when the loan settles. So that was another question that was raised. Yeah, that was the request I was going to ask Tom to follow up and I thought there was a PowerPoint deck. There was not. I did take notes. I shared those with Carol from that meeting, and that's where I got my information. I copied down that the 30 year was a 0.4 to 0.6 add to the baseline and 0% for the, and I'm talking interest only, not the administrative charges of the, if it's a 20 year. If we can ask Greg Devine to provide any materials he has available, I'm sure they must have materials available that we can share with the select board and with our board so we can make sure we understand clearly how the SRF operates. Yeah. Now, since they have backed out of it, it's more our board than the select board, but we do have to communicate with them, but the decision has got to be, is now squarely in our court. And, and the other thing to keep in mind is like any other government agency, whatever is today, two years from now could be very different. So we need to keep that in mind also, especially in the changing environment that we're in politically. George, my understanding was they were going, the town was going to borrow the money at the town level. So it'd be at the select board level. And, and I think there's still a decision that would need to be made between the 20 year and 30 year. So I don't think it is solely our, our responsibility at this point. They were pretty clear that they were going to handle the borrowing at the town level, not within the water enterprise fund. Well, all our borrowings are as part of a town borrowing. Now that is when they're at the market. This SRF loan is a different K different case. And I think that's something is, you know, we've got to apply for the loan first. Then once we get approved, we can start to get into a lot of the details. Okay. But this SRF loan is different than the normal debts borrowing that's done by the town. Cause that is one town wide borrowing that sends split up into the pieces. This will be different. Yeah, I understand. But, but it still sounds as though they want to conduct that at the town level and keep that those funds at the town level. There will be no processing. There's no funds to keep. They'll handle the processing at the town level. And, uh, Mike, we don't, we don't know let's, let's get the loan, the pro get approved by MWRA first. Then we can get into all the details as we work through the different processes. Cause they have different options that I'm sure we haven't even discussed or know about yet. And that'll be a whole separate process. And it will include Brian and Tom and somebody from the board. But we've, we've got a few things to work through before we get to that decision process. With all due respect. Oh, none. No disrespect taken. I'm just suggesting that we're going to have to cooperate with the select board on whether we go 20 year or 30 year. And I think they're going to take the lead is my guess. What was your thought based on our meeting yesterday? Yeah. I mean, and they discussed it to great length after the board of public works adjourned. They then continue the conversation talking about funding mechanisms and borrowing mechanisms. And the one point that I made, and I wasn't being cute. I tried to keep it light, but is that I need to have Brian Keveney become proficient and state revolving fund, you know, borrowing and, and all of that. Because he's the one that's going to have to be making the recommendations and really coordinating all of this, you know, with the other town finances. And right now, he kind of looks to me for my guidance on SRF and I do a lot of things well, but municipal finance is not one of them. So I will be looking for him. And so, in addition to, I will reach out to Greg Devine to see whether or not he can provide us with materials. But I think it would also, it wouldn't be a bad idea to have him perhaps come back with Brian, with the select board, board of public works. You know, at a time when we're already going to be meeting together again, a joint meeting and have him give a 20 minute, much like he did the last time. And that way they hear it firsthand. Yeah. And I have no doubt that at the end of the day, the state is going to want to have the town on the hook just in case. So it's not that they're going to be left out. The question is who, who works with the SRF to come up with the process and the board has got the select board has got to be included. But because it's all going to be water rates, I think we have to have it be a different issue than if it was all taxation. And the other aspect that is certainly a select board involvement, just to remind everybody that the schedule. So in January or within weeks, January, the latest, the state revolving fund, the Clean Water Trust, will put out an IUP and intended use plan. And that will show Wayland as being favorable consideration for this. In March, they finalize that. In May, it's expected that we'll appropriate the funds. And then in the summer, we begin to negotiate the contract with the contract and the loan being signed in October. And that's certainly where the select board, because the select board and Michael McCall are the ones that actually execute that contract, that loan. Yep. And I think we'll need the, well, not need, but I think we would want to request that FinCom help out in determining that. And determining whether it's a 20 year or a 30 year loan. It's going to be a joint decision between select board and Board of Public Works. And I would think FinCom's input would be important. We'd be happy to help with that. Great. And I think the other piece that we have to keep an eye on is, you know, 20 to that last 10 years with everything else that's going on in the town and in the water system. Do you really want to have that overhang for an additional 10 years in terms of other projects that may come up, whether it be the lead piping or other things that may occur? So there's, it's not just the amount of debt service per year that you have to look at, but that's all what you will look at at that point in time. Yep. Can I just ask one more procedural question, which is, since it's excluded debt that they're going for, does that mean there'll be a valid question? That depends on if they go forward with saying, we want to have this as a, uh, prop two and a half, prop two and a half exemption, uh, and then charge us an indirect fee. If they do that, my understanding is that there has to be, uh, um, ballot issue on that that needs 50% plus one. My understanding is if it is not that way and is like the normal borrowings, like we did for the, uh, water tank, there is no election required. So it depends on the course of action that's decided upon. That was my comment earlier about watching how much complexity we built into this for the people. Thank you. Yep. Anybody else have anything? Okay. So remember this, this is a little different than the normal town borrowings. Uh, this is an actual loan dot loan with the, uh, SRF. All right. Next topic is the, uh, warrant article. Everybody see the, uh, first of all, thank you, Judy and Mike for your, your draft. I added a couple of things, uh, based on the meeting yesterday and some pros and cons. Uh, I don't know if people have seen that. Uh, can I get a share screen on mine, please? Uh, this is the document, uh, that, uh, we put out and I'm just, uh, curious in terms of comments, the, uh, the pros and cons. Uh, we, we were requested to drop in here that FinCom, uh, will, uh, be working with this, but we're asked to, uh, kind of give them a head start. Cause they've got more than the, uh, amount of, uh, work that, uh, can be is reasonably expected. Uh, and so this may or may not. There are any semblance to, uh, what's in the actual warrant, but it's at least a starting spot for them. Do we have any changes to this or questions? It's not up on screen. Um, George. Oh, it's not. Okay. Why is that? I am going to see if I can do that. Has it changed since we sent it out the draft? Yes. I sent out a, an update. Do you see it now? Okay. Well, I haven't had a chance to look at that yet. There it is. Yeah. There are some contract changes so you can see it. The only, uh, changes that I made, uh, I think there was, I took out the, uh, the line that talked about taxation. And then I added some comments in terms of pros and cons. So my only comment, uh, I did get a chance to read this, George. Is that in the, uh, arguments of pose, the dual source water project is the second largest capital project. High school being the largest in the town's history. So that is not neither a pro nor a con. It's a statement of facts. I wasn't sure why that would be considered opposed. Um, uh, actually I was, I didn't realize that I, that came out at the meeting yesterday. Uh, so the only reason to pose is because of the size of it, but I, there's, you know, there's no pride of authorship. If we think it should come out, we can take it out. But that's why it went in because the people will say it's a very large project. And it is, it is, it is a large project, but I didn't really think of that as being why it should be, uh, opposed. But that's just my opinion. Um, no, I agree, Judy. I think it should be moved over to the background information. Hmm. Yeah. It just seemed more like a statement of fact than anything. Right. Yeah. Yeah. It's not really in our, your agree. Okay. We can just take it out. Okay. Thank you. That, that was the only thing I, when I read, I thought about, and I, I know this is going to go through a lot of iterations and. Any semblance between this and the final draft will be purely coincidental. Exactly. Once the lawyers get hold of it, we can't. Lawyers don't deal with this. They just sit at the top. Uh, maybe, maybe we should say the debt service, uh, will significantly increase over the 20 to 30 year repayment period because we haven't defined the period yet. Why don't we just say repayment period and take out the time. I thought about that, but I think. It might be important. Uh, we can, I just, I just. Well, I don't. Again, I'm, I keep going back to Tom's comment about the objective is to get this approved. And I don't want to have people start to discuss, come up to the microphone to talk about why it should be 20 or why it should be 30. That that's where I'm coming from. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I'll take it. I have no problem with taking it out. I'm assuming we edit it once we, uh, once we have the period, but we can just take it out. Yep. I, yeah, we'll have a lot more information by the time this goes into the warrant document. I think a time period should some be said somewhere. Otherwise people are gonna might, might wonder if it's gonna be five years. Hmm. Yeah. Yeah. Maybe just put a note in there that we should add the time period once it's determined. Okay. No. I have to watch. I'm not sure that we will know that before this get has to be finalized. Because the, uh, I mean, you could, um, you could put in the last paragraph of page one, it talks to secure a 0% loan. You could throw in some language that, you know, typical, you know, the typical 20 year term, 0% loan or something. That would be a fine place to put it since we're already talking about the conditions of the loan. Um, and then if, if, as you know, once we have to submit on January 15th, but then the finance committee will have it. And, uh, you know, if there is a point where we do know whether it's 20 or 30 years, the finance committee in their workup could. Could update it with that known information. Okay. What are you looking at, Tom? Um, last paragraph on page one. Um, it taught in parentheses, including the 10% contingency required to secure a 0% loan from the state revolving loan fund. I'm thinking that might be an opportunity to talk about, you know, 20 year, 0% 20 year term or something along those lines. Including the 10% contingency required to secure a 0% loan that. That line. Yeah. I just, I, I see it and I mentioned it only because that's where we talk about a condition of the loan. It's a 0% loan. And if we wanted to include a 20 year term, 0% loan. Yeah. That might be, that might be an opportunity to pay 20 year term, 0% loan. You see that George? Yeah. Oh, Tom, you, you got the document open, right? Yeah. You want to just type that in? I can try. Let's see. I'm making notes and I can redo it rather than trying to do that. Okay. Okay. The fourth, the fourth argument opposed. Hold on. Before, before, before you go off of that paragraph. Yeah. Somewhere in here that was the reference to the administrative fee. So they don't think it's all 0%. It doesn't have to include every single detail. This is just an overview background. It does. It does say in the second paragraph, page two, last sentence. The loan is interest free, but requires an administrative fee currently under 1%. Okay. That's good. That's got it covered. Yeah. The only reason I'm careful is the things that Brian put out didn't have that fee in when he was doing the debt service. Okay. So it, it, it had a problem because that fee is in the debt service. Okay. The fourth argument opposed. The fourth argument opposed. I didn't understand. The town costs will increase for their costs of water they consume. Right. The, for example. It's just confusing. Okay. If we can clarify that, make it more understandable or just get rid of it. I'm not sure. Are you talking about the municipal rate? Is that what that means? Yeah. The municipal use. Right. So the, the municipal use for town buildings, schools, and. Fields. Will. Increase. Proportionally. But if we say, rather than that, just say the town's water usage costs will increase. With consumption. You know, I've seen arguments opposed be one line. The rates will go up. Yeah. You know, in, in the town meeting. Warrant. So I, I don't think we need to. No doubt that. The FinCom will do their due diligence on this. Yeah. All right. So. We will, I promise you that, but I appreciate that you. Have. Already started our work for us. So when this is in a shape and you guys are the experts, but when this is a shape that you willing to share with me, we can help. Yeah. We can help get a jumpstart on this. Yep. Yeah. We've already shared it with, or I've shared it with Carol. Just, just as she has the draft. But as of this meeting, this is kind of our submittal. Right, George? Yeah. Unless, unless people are not comfortable with it. Yes. That was my hope. Yeah. I think it's good. Good to go forward with it. Okay. Yeah. Do you need a motion to? I don't think we do. Do we, Tom? Because we're not actually, this is just going to FinCom and select board for their input. Okay. For that. Yeah. What we can do is we can get a motion to send, send us into the process. Yeah. So no, we've approved it. Yeah. And just before we go to that. I was just kind of waiting for an opportunity for me to remark on this is I can offer a language. First page. Second paragraph from the bottom. It talks about there's a sentence at the 2025 ATM. The town approved 3.3 million and then in parentheses 2.1 million in ARPA and 1.2 million in town appropriations. So that it's actually 1.23 in appropriations. We had 1.016 at a prior town meeting for appropriations and the million in ARPA. So I can offer language if you'd like, George, just to substitute. To clarify that. Yeah. Just to substitute for that one sentence and then that would make it, you know, completely accurate. Yeah. But that's fine. But let's do one thing, though. Let's not take it out to too many decimal points. Yeah. I mean, whether it's 2.1 or 2.12 isn't going to change the reader's opinion. Yeah. So one decimal point. Yeah. Well, it's got, it has 2.1 million in ARPA and it really, it was 1.0 million in ARPA funds. We, we, we did get ARPA funds for the emergency connection that was separate from this. Yeah. I didn't change that, Tom. I think. Yes. I just ordered. Yeah. Yep. So I, I'm not sure how I missed this, but. Okay. But I can, I can offer. An update. Go back and check the annual town 2025 warrant, because I think that was pulled from the warrant. Yeah. It was probably 1.23 million in, in 25. And I think it was the prior year, 2024, that we had 1.016 million towards the design. And then prior to that, we had a million in ARPA. So it's, with three funding sources. Okay. So you may want to say at the 24 annual town meeting X, at the end of 25 meeting, you had X and Y. Yep. Just so that they can show where the total dollar amount that we've already invested in this. Yep. Yeah. So if you're, you know, if you're voting it tonight or making a motion, just, you can just make a conditional upon me changing that one sentence. Well, there's other changes too. There'll be, there will be submission based on the changes discussed. Okay. All right. Any other changes to this? Just one, not a change. But just to, if you scroll up, I changed the name of this article. Um, because it was called the MWRA article and MWRA is really a backup. I also reordered so that we led with happy hollow construction first and then discussed MWRA. So just a simple ordering happy hollow is going to be our primary source. And so I wanted that to take the lead. And instead of calling it the MWRA article, um, called it the Whalen long-term water supply construction funding article, um. Right. That's not, that's what's in here right now, right? Yep. That's what we put in there. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure everyone's aware why we kind of reordered, uh, reordered this to put more emphasis on the happy hollow first and MWRA as the backup. Yeah. Everyone seems to be calling this the MWRA. Yeah. Project. My understanding is legal deals with the article titles. It's not just the article title. It's how we constructed the flow of the article. Okay. Yeah. When I'm, when I'm writing formally, I always call it the long-term water supply and that, but then in conversation, everybody seems to recognize this is the NWRA thing. So informally. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, but no, the Whalen long-term water supply. That's, that's the, the right way to, to, uh, to title it. Sounds good. So I would make a motion that we move this forward in the process with the changes discussed. Do I have a second? Second. Mike Wagenbauer makes the motion. Judy seconds. Roll call vote. Mr. Spellman. Yes. Okay. Uh, Mike Wagenbauer. Yes. Uh, Ed. Ed. Yes. And Judy. Yes. Okay. I'm just going across my screen here. So no, that's the order I used. Okay. And UVGIS. Yes. So it's five, zero, zero. We're all in agreement. What's going on? Okay. Uh, what do we think about the select board co-sponsoring the article? I would hope they would. Yeah. We'll need that support. Um, and Carol, Carol said that she would be our liaison for doing that. Yeah. The, uh, it was interesting because the, uh, when she tried to get the select board to, okay, that they said they wanted to see the warrant language first. So I'm not sure if there's something else that's going on there or not. Hmm. Okay. So, uh, can I have a motion to request again, the select board, uh, uh, uh, co-sponsoring the article, and we will put that request, Tom, if you would, when we send them this article. Yep. I can add that into, uh, the email narrative. Pardon me? I can, I can include that within the email that, uh, that I send the select boarder to Carol, uh, with the warrant article. Right. Yep. Okay. And please copy Carol also. And be gentle with us, Carol. Okay. Uh, can I have a motion please? Okay. We need a formal motion to request that. Yes. Okay. Motion. Uh, so moved. Okay. Second, please. Sure. Second. Okay. Mike, I just hand up first. So we have two mics, uh, roll call vote. Mr. Spellman. Yes. Mr. Wiggenbauer. Yes. Ed. Yes. Judy. Yes. Yes. And George. Yes. So that's a five zero vote. Okay. Next topic is the town meeting coordination schedule. This is off of the schedule that, uh, was sent to us. Uh, everybody got a copy of it. Uh, just to, and the reason it is here is just to have people aware of the timing and when we have to do things and working our meetings around that. Does anybody have any questions? Is there, uh, any, are there any meetings that we need to attend and present? I know we talked about one at one point and I'm not sure when it was. And there's a FinCom workshop, article workshop. All right. Okay. And it, is that something we'll, we'll want to attend and present? Yeah. That's the first bullet point on the, on the agenda. I understand that. Yeah. Yeah. So Nora, I don't know that we necessarily have to have everybody there, but it normally we have at least one or two people there. Uh, hopefully anything that's come up, we've already discussed with Carl and his people. So there should be no surprises. But if I remember right from my days on FinCom, their public has an opportunity also to weigh in on the articles. Not right, Carl. Yeah. You know, in my vast experience of exactly one cycle through this so far. Um, my, my memory tells me this is primarily for, uh, you know, petitioners, non-governmental petitioners, you know, who are trying to figure out how to, how to submit an article and how, you know, what the process is. Um, obviously you're welcome and we will certainly, uh, give you time. But I would also hope that between now and January 28th, we can get this all put to bed. So there's nothing for you to do other than to show up and take the victory lap. Or, or take care of our wounds. Okay. Well, while we're on this topic, um, I can't see Joe, but I think he's here. Joe, is there the likeliness of having a tree hearing on that same night? The 28th. I think it's a Wednesday. Yeah. Yeah. Is that the, that is the latest set. Yeah. The tree hearing is supposed to be earlier. I think 630 and this starts at seven, but we wouldn't be the first one up. So there, they are the same date. That is correct. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that we're going to have a dual, uh, dual role that night. All right. There, there was some meeting, uh, in Georgia. My understanding was you weren't going to be able to attend it. And you asked for volunteers. I volunteered Judy. She, she rejected my volunteer of her. And, and I thought I was on the hook for it. So, um, I'm not recollecting what that meeting was or the timing was. Um, but it doesn't sound like it's one of these. Cause it sounds like you could make any of these George. Yep. My, that I think was yesterday's meeting. Oh, okay. All right. Yep. At this point, I don't know of any conflict in these. Okay. All right. And I would say, as we get closer, there'll be a lot of work required for the, uh, slides and anything else we were going to want to present at the meeting. And I would assume also that there will be work done on, uh, the, uh, any handouts, uh, any handouts we want to do as we did last year. And, and the speech. Yeah. Well, the one thing that's not included as a bud, uh, bulleted item here is, you know, last year when we were asking for the design funds, the 1.23, we had a relatively well attended forum. Uh, it was, I think it was, town meeting was early last year. I think it was like April 7th or something. So I think like March 19th, we did a forum and I'm thinking that, you know, the, the importance of this topic probably would, would warrant having another forum that we can work to schedule. Maybe beginning of April, you know, a month prior to, to the town meeting and do the same thing, whether we have it, uh, you know, now we have an ICOA, we could have it over there. Um, but yeah, it's, it's not included in the bullets, but probably something we should strongly consider. Agreed. Yep. Good point. Would you make sure in the, uh, when we get to the meeting dates, uh, that you, you, even, we don't need a date, but we should have a line item for that with a date TBD. Yep. Yep. Okay. Anything else on that section? Okay. AMI. Yes. So for AMI, uh, some statistics, we are at the final stretch of the install process. Uh, those accounts that remain are the most difficult. Um, and the difficulty is really twofold. Um, it's making contact, uh, with some holdout households. Um, at the last meeting, we had, uh, voted a letter, uh, that had been sent out to about 90 accounts that we had not yet been able to, uh, make contact with. To date, um, we have made contact. We've gotten, um, return receipt cards back from about 42 of those 90 that were sent out. So we're still awaiting the cards back on those. We have scheduled 17 between mass installation and our staff. 17 of those 90 have been scheduled, uh, for an install. So we're, we're working towards doing that. We do have. Bear with me one minute here. We, we have a handful of, um, locations whereby there's. Iron service pipe that we have to treat very delicately that have been left, uh, because we're still trying to figure out, um, how we're going to have the meter change there. We're actually making appointments. There's about 14 locations, um, that were that pipe we have to treat gingerly. Um, so we're, we're wary of that. We have a couple of, uh, curb stops that we became aware that, uh, need to be replaced because we can't get the water properly shut off. Um, those there's less than 30 of those in their entirety. Uh, so we are getting very close, uh, to being completely, uh, completed with the meter install process. But these last holdouts, which is quite common. It's typical in any project, uh, like this is that you're going to have these, these, these difficult locations, whether it's communication issues or, uh, or actually logistics and pipe material. Um, we are all, we also working with, uh, census. We have a number of accounts, uh, that, uh, we're still having difficulty actually making, uh, radio contact with. There's a number of reasons for that, uh, out of the over 5,000 locations, 41 of them, uh, we had to actually install, install the transmitter in the eve of the basement or within the household. Uh, because of a finished basement or some other logistical problems. We were not able to get the transmitter outside. Um, so we're working through that. And then there's also, uh, we're working with, with census on, uh, about 75 or so locations that we're still having difficulty. And they're working on optimizing transmission signals and all of that. So we're, we have two challenges, the install process and then the communications process. But we're, we're meeting weekly with all of the, all of the vendors, uh, trying to, uh, advance and, and, and get this, get all these working as they should be. In the packet is. One, one question before you go. Yeah. Did, uh, you ever solve the problem with my area? So I'm looking at, I'm looking at a geographic map in my mind as I'm talking about this tonight. And most of the issues, if you can believe it, are on the, uh, um, you know, the near like station tune in the Cachituate area. That's. Yeah. So, uh, but I, to be honest, I'm not sure whether we got your location resolved. Okay. Cause I know that, you know, we've got all these units here in the kind of development. Yeah. I was just curious. That's fine. Yeah. Right now we had the capability of doing a drive by read. Yeah. And that's how we're handling it right now. Uh, but that drive by read doesn't enable us to, you know, use the feature of a customer portal or alarms and all of that. So obviously that's a, uh, a short term solution, but not, not a permanent solution to the situation. Okay. And then I'm trying, go ahead, Mike. Thanks. Uh, when, when do we expect to send out the first bills where we've used this as our primary read? So we are converting in January. We're going to convert to quarterly billing. There's a schedule. I don't have it here. I think I might've presented it at a prior meeting. Uh, but it actually laid out over the course of the six months in this last, you know, the second, the third and fourth quarter of fiscal 26. Uh, it actually showed the roots, but in essence, between January and June, we will have implemented the quarterly read program in its entirety. I think Mike's question was different. Mike's question. I think was you already using that data for the billings, the current cycle of billings. That's where you're getting the usage information. Yeah. Oh yeah. We're doing, you know, aside from the, you know, the, the accounts that I just described being problematic, we are getting radio reads. Uh, and the, the, the staff are really enjoying it because they'll actually receive a call from a customer and they can actually see at that moment what the read is and be able to troubleshoot people's questions. Right. As they're sitting at their desk. So for staff, for us users, it's actually working out, we're seeing the benefits already. We understand from census that the customer portals, uh, will need to wait until we actually get the quarterly billing squared away. Um, so that, that will be forthcoming, but it, it, uh, it'll be, it'd be a little bit, uh, you know, I'll, I'll take a stab at March or April that we'll be able to implement the customer portal. And so we, we do talk about this in this flyer. Uh, this will be an oversized postcard. Uh, I would welcome any remarks or comments if you have, uh, any, but what we did is, uh, our best, uh, to really provide a narrative on what, what will change? What will people have to do? What will they not have to do? Uh, it's pretty simple. And then we also, you know, make a, make a, uh, a remark about customer portal coming soon, and it gives the benefits of what that's all about. So we're intending to have this overstuffed postcard delivered to every account, uh, just after the holidays. So I think, uh, everybody's mailboxes are so jammed with Christmas cards. They wouldn't be able to pay attention to it. So we'll, uh, beginning of January, everybody will get these. So is the first bill going out in January? Or is that the beginning of that first quarterly read that will go out in, I guess, end of March or beginning of April? So what happens is that we have six routes. Yep. January, and I don't know the numbers particularly. We, we actually did it, uh, so that we have similar, similar number of bills going out each month. But just for the sake of this discussion, January, routes one and two will go out. February, two and three. March, five and six. Um, and then, uh, April, one and two. Okay. May, three, four. June, five, six. That's, that's how it'll go. Okay. Yep. So the first, the first, uh, quarterly billing begins in January. Yeah. We'll, we'll be sent out January. Got it. Cool. Yeah. Yeah. So we're. So will that quarterly billing maybe more than for just three months? If they're let, let's say their last one was November. It would be five months then. Yeah. So we, we had to pay attention to that. That's a good question in that schedule. Um, uh, Sarah Paula Chanik of our staff, uh, was able to put together the timing of it. Such that we were able to pay attention, especially for the time. And we had to pay attention to the tiers because if you remember, we're going to have to, the base charge is going to be knocked in half from 30 to 15 per billing period. And the tiers will be adjusted in half, uh, for quarterly billing. So all of that had to be taken into account. And we offered that over to Matt Abrahams, uh, because I know we're interested in, uh, any potential increase in revenue, uh, relative to improved cashflow. And, uh, he was identifying in his first pass for the, uh, the first six months increase of about $85,000, uh, but in its entirety. Um, that can't be right. What are you, what are you thinking? It should be. Well, if you're, if our annual billings, let's say are 4 million. Okay. That would be 2 million for six months. One quarter should be a million. You gotta, you should be. I think what I was trying to relay, um, sorry to interrupt George was that. It's okay. It would be the, we've been talking about. This increase, um, in revenue that we would get just by not, not aside from actually having the bills coming in, uh, I'll have to forward it to the board. So you'll have a, uh, a true understanding as a spreadsheet that he put together a particular tab that outlines all of this. It should be, but you should be picking up roughly as a minimum three months worth of revenue that would otherwise not be billed until the next, next year. Tom, I think you're referring to the 15% increase in revenue that supposedly the AMI was going to bring us, but we have not. That's the meters. Yeah. That's due to the meters, the increased fracking of the water usage. And then George and Tom, I think are talking about the cash flow. Yeah. Because we're going to be invoicing sooner than we would if we were waiting for six months. Right. Um, so we should be seeing that, uh, cash come in sooner, uh, than we had in past years. So for this one year, it should, um, increase our revenue. Right. So somebody that would normally not get billed until, uh, July might get billed in May. Yeah. And so the commits, uh, for this year should increase. Yep. That's my update. Okay. And no problem at this point with software implementation. Nope. Okay. Nope. Okay. I'm going to try again. Now I hit share and then hit the item, or do I hit the item and then hit share? Uh, hit the item and then hit the, uh, share. Well, no, you, you'll, you'll click on the share button. Yeah. And then you should, it'll, um, it should give you some options and then you can. All right. Which one do you, which one do you want to start with? Which one? I have engineering up first. Okay. Let's do engineering. Can you see that now? Did I do it right for once? Yeah. You got it up there. You got it up there. Hey. You got it up there. You got it up there. Um, so this one's relatively straightforward, uh, you know, salary increases, uh, for all of the departments, uh, we've included, um, for the enterprise funds, we're doing steps and cola, um, for the non enterprise funds. Although it says in the versions we're looking at, it doesn't include the cola. The finance department is having us remove that, but it really doesn't really have a bearing on our conversation tonight. So what you're seeing right now, it includes the steps and the cost of living adjustment, uh, that will be experienced in FY 27. So you'll see, you know, the, the expected increase in salaries. You'll see a, uh, an increase in the contracted services line. There's a number of things that are included in that. And we have two locations, uh, in town that, uh, um, we're working towards, uh, both relative to really it's, it's, you know, road stabilization and, uh, drainage situations that we're anticipating needing, uh, legal services as well as, uh, engineering support. So that you'll see, that's why there's a dramatic increase from FY 26 to FY 27 in that line. A couple of increases relative to lines that deal with professional development. We've got talented staff that belong to a number of associations. Um, so they, they need to keep their continuing education units up to, up to date so that they are able to hold their particular licenses. But aside from that, it's, it's pretty straightforward. So basically it's going from 401 to 432. Right. And, and really all of that is salaries and that one line contracted services, you know, with some nominal increases on those, but those are the primary reasons for the increase. Why does it say 0% change in salaries? Did you just go through this and I didn't understand it? Uh, I went through it, uh, but I don't know why that says 0% change. Yeah. Okay. The change column in this case is there's, there's a couple of columns. I'm going to talk and ask you to disregard some of the things that, uh, uh, there are, this is the version that we operate under. Um, Brian has, uh, the same numbers, but a different format that we go back and forth. This one's easier for everybody to understand and see the finance department format is a little bit less detailed. So in converting, going back and forth, sometimes there's a, the translation and some of the, uh, percent changes gets. Sounds good. Messed up. Do we need to vote these now or wait until they just say these look good or we don't have questions, move it ahead and we'll vote once it's final. I would not mind having the board vote, um, favorably on these as we go through them. You know, it's likely you're going to have questions or conditions. The, uh, we did meet with Brian, uh, prior to this, uh, be presenting it here tonight. So Brian has seen these and what I'm presenting. He's prepared to move forward, you know, so if. Will we get these back as final once, once it's gone through fincom and all of the iterations. Certainly, certainly. But I guess if, if I, uh, if I was able to get a vote tonight, at least it demonstrates that this board is supportive of what we're presenting. And then the town manager, Michael McCall knows that fincom knows it. Yeah. So I'll make a motion to move, uh, this budget forward. In the process. We have no questions. Right. I've added the percentage increase at 7.7%. Mm hmm. Okay. Can I have a second. I, I, I have a question about, uh, the proposal, the salary. Increase compared to what actual. The year 25. Uh, seems to me, you either lost employee or you're going to increase employee. The, the percentage seems kind of awkward in a water part. Uh, or, or increase less than 1%. How can you keep, keep people if you give less than 1% salary increase? So we have four positions funded in the engineering division. Um, they are all, uh, well, three of the four are union employees. Yeah. And through contract negotiations, their cola is negotiated. And. If there do step increases, there are eight steps within their wage schedule. So if they're at a lower step, they get a merit increase each year. All of the engineering employees are actually at their top step. Yeah. So they're just receiving the negotiated cola. So it's, I don't have a lot of room. I don't have, it's, I have no liberties to be honest with you. I have no liberties on what we offer. I mean, uh, yeah, on the engineering, I can't see it. Uh, that's, that's fine. But on the water department, the next sheet up is less than 1%. The engineering, your budget and the last, last this year's spend, uh, is an increase about less than 8%, but 7.9, which more be reasonable. But for the water part, your increase is a point less than 1%. It was 0.76%. Uh, how can water department, uh, salary increase so low? You know, you compare, I, I was looking at this, the only sheet I have, that's 799,583 compared to what budget, 8.05. So that, so what you're looking at, Ed, that 799,583 was actuals? Yeah. If, if we, if we have, and we have had a number of vacancies within that budget. Um, so what you, what you need to take a look at. Yeah. If you're looking for percentage increases, look at the FY25 budget. I just say the, uh, the 26 budget. 26 budget, you only increase to 800.05.644. So. Ed, are you looking at the engineering budget? He's looking, he's looking at the water. He's looking at the water. Yeah. Oh, well, can we stick one at a time? Yeah. We're only, we're only on engineering right now. Yeah. Engineering, I have no problem. I, I, I, I don't consume it. Okay. Let's, let's go one at a time. So the motion is just to approve this, to move forward in the process with no changes requested. Engineering. Correct. Do I have a second? Yeah. Second. Judy seconds. Uh, roll call vote. Spellman. Yes. Weyerbauer. Yep. Judy. Yep. Ed. Yes. George. Yes. 5-0. You're on a roll. Should we look at water next since it is on there? Sure. Okay. Which one do we want? Water? Yeah. Yes. My, my worry is, it's not the, the dollar amount, but my worry is, uh, if you give increase too low, you might lose good people. So it was just, uh, like a running a business, you have to keep your good people with you. Uh, so George, if you look at the budget for 20 or if you scroll over, um, I was going to try and, uh, and if you look at the budget for 25 verse 26, there's a large increase. It's just that the actuals were higher in 25. We, we can only see fiscal year 19, George. I know. I know. I'm trying to cut the, uh, put it, put a window in and I'm not sure. I, it's my, unfortunately I'm bought to do that. Okay. Okay. So the fiscal year 25 budget is 767 and the fiscal year 26 budget we're, we're voting on here is 805, 644. Um, no, no, no, no, no. We're on 27 budget, which is the 852, uh, column U. Uh, thank you. So fiscal year 26 is eight Oh five. And we're, do we have actual, we don't have actuals for. 20. Yeah. 26. No, but, uh, it's a 5.83% increase to 27. And again, that steps plus COLA. And what Ed is talking about, we're certainly sensitive to that because, you know, throughout the years, uh, we've had, you know, employees leave to other communities because of pay. And, uh, about four years ago, um, the water division got a significant, uh, change to their salary schedule. And then this last round of Teamsters negotiations, uh, there was a very healthy increase. So we are at a point right now where we are very competitive with what we pay our employees relative in comparison to other communities with similar, uh, positions. Well, if I may add something as well, if you look at their overtime budget, it's 176,000, which is more than double the 30 employees in the rest of the DPW. And so that's only divided by, you know, six, seven people. So that's certainly helping their salary as well. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Yeah. I saw that, but the things, I, I'm just worried, you know, we're going to lose good people. That's all. Yeah. I worry about that too. Yeah. So, you know, when you, it doesn't matter when you run a department and run a business, doing the same thing. Yeah. You have to keep all your good people. Yeah. But let's talk about overtime for a second. You know, the budget is a very little change between, uh, same, I'm sorry, it's the same as the budget, but overtime through October, when we went through it last meeting is, uh, running at 42% versus 29% of the year. And so I'm wondering the amount of risk in the overtime line based on the experience, which hopefully will not reoccur because of the problems, but you know, it's flat. Yeah. So an explanation for that would be that the overtime in the water division, like a number of the divisions, it is not, um, um, uh, how do I say, um, equal consistent, you know, for each month. So in the water division, as an example, we had a fair amount of overtime. Uh, we were patrolling, uh, overnight, uh, to determine irrigation systems that were operating, uh, when they shouldn't have been. We also went through four to six weeks of hydrant flushing. Uh, so we incurred a fair amount of overtime in those first several months of the quarter. And then that diminishes dramatically. Now the, the, the overtime, uh, that the water division experiences would be for off our water main breaks and then snow response, which is paid out of the snow budget. So, um, it, it isn't consistent month to month to month, but I, I do understand, you know, how you would, uh, you would notice that. Yeah. Thanks for the explanation. Uh, oh, fine. Okay. Professional services. Um, try to see where that is. Hold on. What my number is at. It's, it's, it's contracted services that there's a significant increase. Yeah. Um, you know, uh, hear about that. Yep. Um, I figured you would. Are you ready for that? Or are you? Yep. Okay. I'm just working my way down. So in contracted services, I had mentioned briefly in a prior meeting, I think it was last month, uh, we've been experiencing a significant amount of equipment failures, um, in a number of our plants. And I think Don's, I can't see him, but I believe he's online here. Um, he can provide details of that equipment and the value of, of those failures. But, and that's why you'll see, um, our, the year to date, um, out of a $510,000 budget, we're at about $460,000, um, spent down already with that. And it's for that reason, coupled with that, we need to include in this line, the resin replacement. And we've enjoyed an extended life of that resin. It was to have lasted 24 months or 90,000 vessel volumes, bed volumes. Thank you. Um, we are operating at lower capacity at happy hollow. We were expecting 900 gallons a minute where we're only pushing right now, 550 gallons a minute. So I think that that's causing the extended life of the resin, but it's, it's been performing. So each year I include $200,000 for resin replacement. I'm going to do that again in FY 27. But, uh, the, the increase we, we need to accommodate the continued replacement of equipment. And the reason it's in contracted services, a lot of that equipment needs to be, um, provided and installed by outside vendors. So that's why it's in contracted services and, and not under, you know, equipment, uh, repair and maintenance. Uh, Tom, although that's, that's gone up too, but. You mentioned that we're 400, we're at 460,000 already this year in actuals, but isn't that fiscal year 25 that has 460,000? It does. I think it's just coincidental. Uh, bear, bear with me. I do have in my stack here. I actually have the, I was doing it by memory, but I can actually bring this out. So contracted services, I'm sorry. It's we're, we're at, um, we're at year to date, 243,000. So we're, we're on pace of the 510 right now, year to date. Okay. So that 510 plus the 200, uh, yields the 710. So it's a flat budget plus the, the resin. Right. Okay. But I thought we already included resin in past budgets, 200,000 for resin. We did. Um, but because we've had this, um, frequency of failures, we're not, we're, we're not on pace with, uh, even if you remove the, um, you know, if you remove the, the, the, the 200 grand, we should be at 310. Would be the budget. Right. Would be the budget. And we're now at 243. So it's, we're, we're far outpacing the percentage of the year that we're through. And I need to accommodate for that in FY 27, that same. Yeah. It's, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's just something we have to do. We have to, we have to presume that these things are, um, you know, we've got to, we've got to get four more years out of this equipment. So we, we moved from 310 to 510. Yep. And we're on pace to be within budget. This year. Is that what you're saying? We're, we're on pace to be on budget, but in actuality, we're $200,000, um, beyond where we should be because we, that, that without replacing that resin, that budget, we should be around 310. And we're not, we're at 243. Okay. And, and we're planning to replace the resin. In FY, no, no. In FY 27, it, uh, we'll, we'll, we'll, Don's monitoring it, uh, you know, closely. We take monthly samples. Monthly samples. Yep. Yep. Monthly samples. So, you know, right now we're not experiencing a breakthrough. Yep. Yep. So set a different way. We aren't having the resin replacement that was budgeted, but we have a significant increase in repair costs because of all the problems that are going to offset that lack of resin. If we had done the resin, we'd be a significant hurt. Correct. And you're anticipating the same amount of repairs will be required another half million of repairs next year and continuing every year. Yeah. I mean, I, I, I don't, uh, I, I can't not prepare for that. Yeah. It's not something where, uh, I just had my dishwasher fixed. He replaced one part and you expect it to now be good for a while. There's too many other parts that haven't been replaced. Yeah. I mean, if I'm not sure if you've been to the Baldwin plant, uh, but, uh, there's a lot of dishwasher parts there. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Or it could be like an old car, you replace a part and everything else goes back cause they can't handle it. No, like, you know, the, the plant has a lot of redundancy built in, you know, um, you know, pump wise, motor wise, uh, VFD wise. And, you know, everything's getting to the end of its service life. We're, you know, maintaining it on a schedule, but it's, you know, uh, the stuff has a lot of hours on it. Okay. Got it. Scary. Yeah. Next line. Professional services that you have flat. When we went through last month, professional services, we're running at 69% year to date against 29%, uh, year to date time. Uh, you think that's going to come back into the same range as you had budgeted, or are we going to have a problem there also? Yeah, it's our thought, um, that it'll come back in line. I, I don't know off the top of my head what has caused that professional services. Uh, but I know when reviewing the budget with Anita and Don, when we put the FY 27 together, uh, it was not something that was, uh, we were expecting to, to have to carry through FY 27. I hope you're right. Okay. Uh, but that's a risk, uh, electricity, wherever that is. That is, uh, that's at $120,000. You've reduced electricity, but when we went through the budget, including your, uh, anticipated costs, it was going to be significantly higher than the budget, but you're taking it down. So I'm looking at our year to date actual, uh, which is, I think a report that you're referencing, you know, that I provided it last, last month. I'm looking at one that's dated December 3rd. Um, we are, you know, 43% of the year complete, and we are at 32% spent on electricity. So we're, we're not, we're not overspending. Okay. But does that, the one you showed us before included some anticipated cost? Encumbrances. Yeah. And what we do, I mean, electricity, you know, there, there's no, uh, competition. It's, uh, you know, we have the, the one vendor, whatever that provides power to us. What we'll do is we'll actually just to be able to shore up money and make sure we have it will encumber, you know, several months of expenses ahead of time. So, uh, that's why you'll see encumbrances and it's not for every cost center. It's not the same. We don't, we don't do it consistently. We don't do it consistently. It really is based upon what we actually purchase in those cost centers. So you'll see, uh, you know, dramatic variances on how we encumber funds, but that's why you'll see an encumbrance in the electricity. It's just, we're just, we're just, uh, encumbering funds where, uh, we're preserving them. Okay. But you're, you're comfortable. You're going to be able to get that number. Yes. Yep. Including all the noise that we're hearing about the cost of electricity. Yeah. And facilities provides us with the contract information. They're the ones that contract for power. Uh, so that's where we get that information from. Okay. Um, so the total and the percentage that's here. Uh, yeah, what, uh, you know, I know we're going through the cost centers, but that those, the figures for FY 26 and FY 27 and what I would call the peach. Yeah. That, that I'm looking at this number. This doesn't float. See four, three plus one is not five, six. This number is wrong. So that is, what is that? What is S? What's column S? Is that, is that, uh, is that change? Change. When you click in it, what does the cell say? It says some. Well, I'm just looking at the total. The total four, three to five, six is like a million three, which is, uh, 29%, not 22%. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. See 1,001. Yep. I see it. These two that, that, that there's, oh, you know what it is? 9, 31 and 35. Those are the subtotals. No, it's missing. Uh, it's got nine. That's salary. It doesn't have 27. Um, the service expense budget. It doesn't have line 27, one 99, two 50. Right. That's closer, but still doesn't look exactly right. When the chemicals look like you've reduced the budget. Um, that is line, I think 21 or 20. Um, but it says no change in the comments. Yeah. So I should have said disregard, um, the, the same issue that I was talking about earlier with the, the formatting. Um, okay. So disregard those, uh, where it says no change. Okay. Sorry about that, but. So your total increase is 1,296. If, if those totals are right, which is a 29% increase. And I don't know what you need just to know which one is correct. Uh, but in either case, that's a significant number. Yep. And a lot of that is drawn from the debt service. Yeah. Well, that's the, those are the two figures that I, um, I wanted to point out was what we have in 26, 4.9 million. And what we're anticipating in 27 is 6.2. So something to, you know, we'll be talking a lot about as far as, uh, raising, you know, revenue to meet FY 27. And a majority of that is, you know, there's, there's, um, a principal, one principal payment in November of next year. And then, uh, there's an interest payment in November and then another interest payment in May. So that's where we're getting the significant, uh, debt service increases between 26 and 27. Yep. So those were my questions on the line items. It sounds like it just needs a little cleanup. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You can, you can just save it, ship it back, George, and I'll, uh, I'll work with staff to, uh, to figure out what, uh, what summation is not working. Hmm. Yeah. But the, the real message is that the, uh, rate increase that we're going to be looking at in 27 is going to, and, and the 29% is not, and we had forecasted 30%. Yep. You remember? Yes. So it's in the ballpark of what we're forecasting. Yeah. So unless Judy, Ed, or Mike S have any more line item questions or any questions about this, I I'd make. Yeah, this. I can see. The three. Judy, anything? No. Spellman? No, nothing here. All right. I'll make it. Yeah. No problem. Okay. I just wanted to have a poll. Sorry. Yeah. Go ahead. Uh, move this budget through to the next step with the changes, uh, to the, to the, um, formulas and, and, uh, cleanup discussed. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. Ed seconds. Okay. We'll call vote. Judy. We'll start with you this time. Yes. Ed. Yes. Spellman. Yes. Mark Barker. Yes. Mike. Yeah. Inuvigis. Yes. Five zero zero. Okay. Either the transfer station or DPW. The, uh, parks and highway combined. Parks and highway. Okay. We'll do, we'll stick with that. And then, uh, okay. So the, some of the same remarks apply, uh, relative to salaries. That the, uh, steps and cola are included. And those are all contractual and based on salary schedules, wage schedules. So not a lot of liberties in that. And what we do is, you know, um, out of the 30 employees or so that we have, uh, paid out of this, um, we anticipate the step increases and then load in the, the negotiated cola. Okay. Does anybody have questions on this one? The total increase is, uh, so the credit about 4%. Yeah, that should be correct. And that, uh, and going over this with Brian that falls in line with what the expectation was for a, uh, we've given, we've been given instructions for a level service budget preparation. So the, the 4%, he was fine with that. Anybody have questions? It's standard to have. Go ahead, Mike. No, no, you go. Uh, so the actual, as I see. Came in, um, maybe a couple, not a couple hundred thousand dollars lower in salaries, um, than the budget, the actuals for 25. Yeah. We've, we've had a lot of, you know, uh, the main issue and joke and talk all day about this is vacancies. We've had. Yeah. Extreme difficulty, uh, attracting qualified candidates. We're actually in a very good place right now. Uh, we've had some great interviews and brought on some, some, you know, uh, qualified folks. So we're, we're in a, in a pretty good place right now. Knock on wood. Yeah. And I shouldn't, I shouldn't say, but yeah, we're, we're, we're very happy with, uh, with the group that we have right now. Yeah. Yeah. Four to five percent. Very reasonable. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Mm-hmm. I don't have any questions. Inflation almost four percent. Yeah. When, uh, Tom, when they do these contracts, do they normally give a first year bump and then lower in the second and third year? Like a lot of unions do? Some do that. Uh, I think with Wayland, it's been pretty consistent. You get, you know, uh, you know, one and a half, one and a half, two or something like that. Uh, not, not huge swings, but. So no, no front loading. No, not really. Okay, good. That was a concern. Okay. All right. Can I have a, uh, motion? Yeah, I'll make a motion to move this through to the next step with no changes. Okay. Second. Okay. Second. Okay. I got, uh, Spellman seconding. You got there first. Uh, Judy? Yes. Spellman? Yes. Ed? Yes. Mike? Yep. And George, yes. Five zero zero. Transfer station would be the, the last. I'm working on it. There we go. All right. Thank you. Oh, this is, um, ah, stink. This isn't the budget. Yeah. This is. Year to date. Yeah. Bear with me. One minute. Did I pull up the wrong file? No, no, you did not. It was the wrong one was sent. Um, bear with me one minute here. I should be able to. Okay. Let me just, uh, okay. No, yeah. The one in the packet is incorrect. It's incorrect. Um, well, yeah, the one in the packet. I think it's, it was the one that was sent. Um, the spreadsheet, but I believe I've got the right one up on the screen right now. Okay, good. Uh, let me scroll over. We lose them. I know, George, you might've had some. Questions. Relative. Yeah, I did. Tipping. Yeah, tipping. The, I had to, uh, one was on the tipping. Cause we've talked about the increase, uh, we're experiencing lately in tipping fees and that being the wild card. And I was just. Cautious. Uh, the budget that we have for tipping fees. So, yeah. So we're leaving it at one 70. So the, as far as the solid waste, although we've got contracted increases in unit prices, we're actually, um, experiencing lower weights, whether or not that's through our organic recycling program, not quite certain, but the, uh, the lower weights are being offset by the increased unit prices. So that's balancing each other off the recycling cost per ton has started to, to decrease. So when we took a look at all of this, uh, we were comfortable. And I can tell you right now with year to date, which you just had up, but I can tell you a year to date. Yeah, I think we're, I think we're actually kind of lagging. We're, we're in, in very good position relative to the tipping fees. Okay. And then we're good with the one 70. And the other question I had, it was when we went through it in October, uh, we were running higher in seasonal labor. And I assume that is just, uh, seasonal based on the timing of the year versus the percentage of the year. Okay. So all of the transfer station seasonals, uh, generally come in middle of June, late June. Um, most of, most of them, you probably run into them when you go down there. Uh, a couple of them are educators, so they don't get out of their primary job until like the third week in June. Uh, so what I'm getting at is that, uh, most of the seasonal cost is at the beginning of the fiscal year. Okay. All right. I have no other questions on the transfer station. So this is got an increase. Uh, or basically it's awful hard to read. Can you make that a little bigger? Yeah. Uh, my poor old eyes. If you, um, if you highlight all the columns starting from end to next to the, um. Well, actually all you have to do is go up and click, uh, full screen. Well, we're seeing his full screen on our screen, but if you, uh, highlight all the columns and then just shrink, shrink them, uh, we'll be able to see what these numbers, um, are related to what the column A is. Oh, I, I, we can't see what column A is. So we don't know what these numbers are. Um, sorry for my inadequacy here. What, uh, what, what am I doing right now? Um, if, if you click M and just drag, hold it down and drag to your left all the way, all the way to a. Yeah. And then hide it. And then hide it. Yeah. Do I right click and hide it? Yeah. I know it's, it's all right. It's yeah, I'm not as adept as I should be with this. Uh, you can, um, if you hover over between the D and E, there's that vertical line. If you hover there and click down and pull that to the left to shrink the column. Yeah, that's perfect. Good. And let go. Oh, there we go. All right. Perfect. Yeah. You've got, you've got the expenses going down, uh, roughly 1%. In spite of a, uh, 8% increase in wages. So you've got a significant decrease in, uh, professional services. Yeah. So that was, that was, we, uh, we had to fund a, uh, the bulky, that whole platform was replaced, which was a major undertaking and it's an expensive. So that's that canister access reconstruction. That that's no longer, that's not an FY 27. So that offsets any of your increases, that decrease there and the, uh, equipment repairs. Those two. It's 30,000. Yeah. I have a different question. You, you were going to start some kind of group that was going to look at the transfer station and you asked for volunteers. Yes. Is he still willing to do it? Yes, he is. Yeah. So we've had some delays, um, with procuring, um, that work. It had gone out as an RFQ and then it, the price, it was over 50,000. So the procurement folks, uh, realized that we had to actually do something different so that it had to be rebid. And I, Joe may know the, the actual submittal deadline. Uh, but once we have that, we'll be reaching out to that, uh, that evaluation group, uh, to convene. Joe will be reaching out to convene the group and, and evaluate all the submittals and make a selection and all of that. Great. Thank you. Yes. Yep. And would you make sure you let the board keep the board up to date on that also, please? Oh yeah. Meetings. It's due on the, uh, 19th. So a couple of days it should. Yeah. Yeah. And I think Mike Wegevauer is a member, right? Myself and Carol. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Good. Okay. So that's, uh, 542. Last year, 537. Budget to 287,500 for 27 and for, um, the, the last road 25 transfer station revenue minus supported expenses. I think it's just, I think it's just dash support revenue supported. It's a hyphen. You know, so revenue supported expenses. Okay. Okay. So that's not a minus. Yeah. Okay. So that's, uh, 542 last year, 537 this year. So actually a decrease. Okay. I don't have any further questions. Yeah. And when we get over to the warrant, um, obviously then the key becomes the revenue that we have to cover these expenses in the warrant. That's right. So that, that enterprise, um, article will need to list out any retained earnings that we anticipate using. Do we have any left? Yes, we have. I think we've got, uh, I actually have it on a sheet of paper here. $300,000. I think two. Yeah. I thought it was three, but it actually transfer a station. Two 23, three 47, 223, 347 was what was certified. Yeah. Uh, I think, uh, and again, this goes back to Carl, uh, neat because the finance committee is the one that started to push back. I don't think rather than saying retain earnings, I think we should be going back to the town and saying, okay, you know, we got 50,000 from you this year. We're doing the study. We need again, to continue that subsidy. Okay. And to cover us until we come back with a conclusion on the study. So the word on the street is we're getting nothing. I know what the word on the street is. Yeah. That wasn't, that wasn't my comment. And Tom, you, you had run, uh, not, not a report, but you'd put together, um, a report on what the town would be on the hook for if we shut down the transfer station. Yeah. That equated to like $60,000. Right. Yeah. And did that include the, um, OPEB figures and that type of thing? No, I, I don't think so. My recollection, uh, was that I took a look at the services that, uh, the town benefits from and should it shut down, what that would cost them. So I, I think that was just a straight service related cost. Yeah. Cause there was no comment in there about decommissioning or anything else. That was the services provided. Um, so I think we should add to that, the OPEB, because that's a continued cost that would need to be born by the town. And right now, or at least for the prior years until we started getting a subsidy, that was all born by the users of the landfill and then subsequently the transfer station. Well, I don't disagree with you, Mike, but there's really two different things that we're looking at. The first was we should be billing the town for these services. And if we are, that would offset the deficiency. Okay. And so, and so therefore, I'm sorry. Can somebody had a question? Okay. No. If you know, that item should be the, at least the amount of the subsidy that we get. So we don't have to start to individually billing the schools and the parks and all that jazz. Well, I think the schools get their own pickup now. We, we used to pick up there, but, um, I, I, I think a lot of the direct costs to those, um, town entities, uh, are now, um, accounted for. Aren't they, Tom? That's not what I remember on, on the other, they do their own trash pickup, but in terms of the recycling, I thought we get the school recycling. Yeah. So we, we, we do provide some, uh, recycling services because that's what that little, uh, packer truck that, uh, we, we collect all the, uh, the carts with that. So I, I do know, uh, that there are. The parks. The parks, the town, town building I know is one. Um, you know, so there are services that we provide outside of the transfer station. So as you go through. And I remember, I remember Joe doing the math on it and it, it, that particular function, that particular service wasn't all that expensive. Um, but it was, it was probably a year ago. So it's, uh, I'd, I'd have to take a fresh look at that. But you did do that study when we were setting the transfer station revenue last year. I say, so I think that should be updated. Yeah. And then talk to the town about, you know, are you want, how do you want this handled? Do you want it in a subsidy or do you want us to start to bill? Cause as Mike said, it's not fair to have the users pick up that cost. Mm. And then the second question that Mike is raising is understand. And I think it's premature to talk about this, but if. We close the transfer station. You're going to have the open. That's going to continue. Assuming that those people don't transfer somewhere else who would pick up the cost. And you'd have all the decommissioning cost. Yeah. I, I, when asked, my opinion is that if we were to go with a town curbside program, that that property would still function as a recycling center. We would still take yard waste, organic waste, bulky waste. Uh, you know, those types of things. So that's my opinion is that we would not decommission the property. I think the services would be significantly reduced. Uh, we wouldn't have all of those compactors operating and running and all of that. But, uh, I think the property itself would still function as some sort of a recycling center. Uh, and, and that's, that's fine. But the question is then how are you going to cover those costs? Yeah. In that case, you'll have salaries as well. Mm hmm. So, you know, you, you're still going to have a, the only thing you're going to really reduce probably is your tip, some of your tipping fees. And that'll all come out. I'm hoping as a result of the evaluation that we're going to do. Right. Which is why my original comment, they should continue that subsidy until we get that report and can make a decision as a town. Yeah. Yeah. And from a town perspective, being a semi-rural town, um, this station helps reduce the number of trash barrels all along our streets and reduce the number of garbage trucks that are patrolling our roads. And there's some value to that harder to quantify, but there are things that we can quantify. Okay. So can we have an agreement on this, this budget with the, uh, proviso that Tom go back, uh, and say, Hey, you know, until that report comes in, we need to continue that subsidy. Because as we saw the revenue, we, we increase rates, but you, we don't get that much in revenue because we lose customers. So you're going to, you're going to include that statement within the motion. I, I wasn't going to, I was just going to ask you to do that. I think your motion will have a lot more horsepower than my request. Okay. So I'll make a motion, uh, to, uh, approve the budget or approve moving the budget forward in the process with the provision that the subsidy be incorporated in the amount. It has been, um, incorporated the last couple of years, which I believe is 50,000. It was 75,000. I think in it last year was reduced to 50. Is that what it was? Correct. Yep. And that 50 was for the professional services consulting study. Until we, uh, concluded the consulting study. Can I have a second? Second. Judy seconds. Roll call vote. Judy. Yay. Mike. Yay. Mike. Yay. Ed. Yes. George. Yes. Five zero zero. Okay. That takes care of the budgets, right? It does. Okay. We are about a half hour behind, which isn't bad. Uh, okay. Board, uh, member concerns. I have one. Go. So we received information. And, uh, I believe it concerns Tom. That, uh, basically for the Sherman bridge, there used to be, or there was some kind of understanding from 1971 about the bridge. That was, uh, struck between the land owners and the select board. And a couple of hours before this meeting started, there was an email sent to us, the board of public works, asking why there is a. Email saying that it is now something that select board is not going to deal with, but it will be. Um, something that I expect Tom, Tom Holder to negotiate. So I just wanted to bring that up. It's. Obviously out of the blue, as far as I'm concerned. Um, but I didn't want, uh, Tom to be put in a position that, that he shouldn't be in. Um, I can speak to that. Okay, great. So it, it was inferred that there is an agreement. There was an agreement back in 1971 between town officials and the property owners associated with land takings, uh, that were needed to straighten out Sherman's bridge road. Um, upon hearing that there was an agreement somewhere, um, there was, uh, an investigation, a review of all the selectmen meeting minutes and agendas at that timeframe. As well as road commissioners agendas and minutes during that timeframe. And we can see that there was indeed a land taking, and I think it included 12 properties. And, uh, but we did not locate any evidence of an agreement. So that agreement was referenced in a 1992 letter authored by a Mr. Maurice Stauffer. And it was a letter to the select board, uh, at that time. And it references agreement and some conditions that were associated with the agreement. I had the opportunity to reach Mr. Stauffer on the phone. Uh, and I asked him, I said, you know, I'm, I'm unable to locate this agreement. Can you help me out with this? And he said, well, you won't find the agreement because one does not exist. That this was an arrangement that was made conversationally during a gathering held on the QT was his exact words. Um, so there is no agreement. What is a QT? Uh, on, on the, it's, it's a, uh, a slang for done in quiet. So it was a handshake agreement, a handshake agreement. So we have, we've received town council opinion. Uh, we asked town council about this and they said in the absence of an executed agreement, the town would have no obligation to follow. These purported conditions, uh, that were conversationally made in 1971, nearly 55 years ago. So those conditions were, uh, associated with preserving the historic, uh, nature of the bridge, uh, which we've worked hard to do. And I think we've succeeded in doing that. So I'm, I'm pleased with that. I don't need to have an executed agreement to do that. Uh, the one agreement was that we would never accept state funding for the repair. And I have a sense that that was a condition. That was a thought back in 1971 was I think perhaps they thought that the state might have interfered with the town's desires for the bridge replacement. Um, but you know, without an executed agreement, we do not need to, to follow those conditions. We're obviously we're getting financial assistance from mass department of transportation, uh, for the materials and for contract services to install it. So, um, that's our position on this agreement that there really isn't one. Uh, and we're advancing the project, uh, really honoring the desire to, to preserve the historic nature of the bridge. And I think we've done that. And so that's. And if we didn't take state funding, that would cost the town how much? Uh, it, it, it'll probably equate to about a million. The two towns together. So I have a million dollars. Yeah. Yeah. I, I guess I'm also, um, sensitive to whether or not you should be stuck in the middle or should this really be going to the select board and not taking up your time being the negotiator. So, uh, that, that is, uh, one of my concerns. Yeah. I, I did pick up the legwork, you know, and, and, and, and defending this. Yeah. Well, uh, fortunately or unfortunately, the amount of time that Tom has spent on this project and answering requests for, uh, documents and these kinds of things with a number of other very major projects that also have to be done, uh, is, is a very valid concern. That doesn't diminish the Sherman bridge questions, but I'm just saying in terms of the spiel and the select board would just give it to the town manager who gave it to Tom. So. Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, just one last thought is that should it actually be back in the town manager's lap, uh, so that the select board is more involved or we have no choice or how does that work? Well, select board is involved because Carol is copied on all these emails and you'll see her response comes where she has taken it and appreciates the comment. So it's not that they're not involved, but I don't know that the town has anybody that's anywhere near as qualified as Tom to deal with this because at the end of the day, he's got to make whatever happens happen. In coordination with Sudbury too. So it's, it's very challenging. Yep. And Sudbury falls under the DPW manager there, right? Yes. My, my counterpart, Tina Rivard has. Okay. Any other. I, yeah, I have a concern. Um, uh, I'll relate it to the water rates. Um, uh, uh, so it, it appears that the town may be pushing, uh, to retain in free cash about 25% to 40% of the annual budget operating budget, including debt, which, um, means that the town may be pushing. Um, they'll want to retain at least 25 million and right now we're at about 12 million. So there we're getting the indication that they want the water rates and the water fund to reflect that, um, as well. So it's a major concern for me because not only are we going to have to increase rates to accommodate the debt service, all of the debt service now, but we're going to be pressured. Um, to increase the rates in order to increase retained earnings to a level that supports this triple a bonding, not necessarily supports water fund operations. Um, and so that's, that's a major concern for me. Okay. One thing to keep in mind is that part of this, uh, is the fact that, especially when we get into the SRF alone. And I, we don't know the timing of when those payments are going to be, but if the town did not fund the loan that we just took out for the, uh, water towers, we might be in, not be able to service that debt when it comes due. Okay. Because again, it's a large amount of money due in November and it's more than our, uh, fund balance. So part of that is to be able to handle the timing of the payments that come in. Okay. Okay. That we have to make on debt service. So that, you know, that's part of the issue. And we remember we went through that when we were going through your motions. The, that's why, you know, one of the thoughts that we can have rather than hitting the, uh, rate holders for that is to take any of the cash that we collect in addition, because of the acceleration of the billing and use that to fund some of it. And I think if we make some movement to try and build that over time, they're not looking to have it happen day one, but if we do a little bit every year to build it up with that, I think they'd probably be satisfied. I think what they're concerned about is they get the impression from that motion that we're basically saying, well, we know what you want, because remember we had that when we went through the motion and, but you've basically told us that you're not going to do it. So I think there's gotta be some middle ground there somewhere. Well, yeah. And that is a concern for me. We're an enterprise fund. We're supposed to be run efficiently, but safely. We use an expert to guide us in what we should have in retained earnings. And we've followed their guidance and on the more conservative side. And now we're told that we're going to have to increase that retained earnings, not because we need to, or because the water fund is unsafe without that, but it's so that the town can get AAA rating. And keep the interest rates down and keep the interest rates down, but including our borrowings. Would we rather have the taxpayer with that, that 13 million that they're looking to raise the free cash to in their pockets and invested in ways that are probably much more profitable than the town can invest with it sitting in the town accounts. Yeah. Well, it's a big question. Yeah. And that's something we're going to settle with rates. And we also have to see how much we can bring in with this part. But remember at the 25% on 5 million. Okay. You're talking a million to 50, you're at a million one. So it's not talking about increasing it significantly. What it is though, is making sure that it doesn't go down. Yeah. I'm hearing differently. I'm, I'm feeling. I'm just running the numbers. Yeah. And when we get the MWRA debt, that's when it's going to take a big jump. That's why, if you remember, Matt had suggested that we increase our rates to start to build the cash funded debt, funded, funded cash. Yeah. I'm not sure if suggested was the term. We go through a lot of options when we're looking at the model. That was one option. You can call it an option. I call it a suggestion, but okay. But I understand your question, and it is something as we deal with the rates next year, we're going to have to come to a conclusion on. And hopefully we'll have some better understanding of where we are in terms of that free cash. Yep. Can I ask Carl a question? Sure. Sure. Well, I was just wondering this, this ask from, I think was Moody's or whoever rates us to go to, let's say 25% of retained earnings. And we're currently at 12 and they're looking for 25 million. Is that new? I mean, or is that just new guidelines or something? I'm not a hundred percent sure, Judy, but I don't, I don't think that it's a Moody's requirement. I think it's more directional that they want us, they do want us to move upward. But I don't believe there's any timeline on that. It's just, and it's one of many factors that go into the town's rating. Hmm. Yeah. One of the things that, one of the things that I heard. Seems like it was a sudden. One of the things I heard is that this has been talked about for a while and the town has been resisting. And, and the financial advisor finally put it in writing. And that's why they had the study that came in and came up with that book that request that went out to you. What was it? The September meeting, maybe you got a copy of came from, was that with this little summary I put together. I mean, I, I, I have no doubt that that would be the best way to run town operations is to have a, you know, a huge fund available. But is it the most fiscally advantageous for the taxpayers? And, and that's where I'm, I'm hoping that the select board puts on their taxpayer hat when they're considering this. Yeah. Is it going to save the taxpayer more money by having a triple A rating and slightly higher, slightly lower taxes or slightly higher taxes and everyone has more cash in their pocket. That's something above our pay grade. Right. And I, I just, I'm worried about how that might affect the pressure we get for our, our retained earnings balances. Oh, you, you, you're going to get a lot of pressure and that's why the whole discussion about their overview of the rate setting. Yeah. And, and who the commissioners should be in terms of setting the rates and these kinds of things, because they are serious about it. They've done a lot of work and they believe that that is the appropriate action that we may or may not agree, but that is where, where they're coming from. Yep. And they did have the state person come in and do the study and came up with those recommendations. And remember it also is to handle cashflow. It's not just a whim. And that's one of the reasons it impacts Moody is our ability to handle cashflow. And if you remember the original article, when the fund was created, the water enterprise fund that had a comment about having enough to replace equipment. The biggest piece of equipment should there be an issue. So part of that amount was determined based on the equipment replacement. Yeah. The guidance we've received has changed over time. Yep. So my, and my comment to Brian is, well, they were talking about the water tower, but we're now putting in a second one. So obviously that has already been handled in terms of a risk. Right. So we will say, but the, you know, well, I don't know. There's no good answer for that. Unfortunately. Yep. All right. Uh, any other concerns? Okay. Minutes. We have minutes of, uh, November 18th. Uh, changes. My first changes on, uh, three page three. Anybody have anything before that? Tom, on page three, the, uh, fifth line that starts reminder, remainder of the bridge. I think you should put guardrails in the insert that word. Reminder of the bridge from abutment to abutment would remain wood. Right. But I think it's, isn't it the bridge guardrails or not? No, they discussed the guardrails approach. The bridge will remain metal. However, the remainder of the bridge from abutment to abutment would remain wood. That's. Probably what I said. And that's accurate. Okay. I thought it was the, we have the metal guardrails and then the wood guardrails after that. That's why we said it was just guard should insert guardrails, but that's okay. Uh, next one I have is on page six. Anything? Anybody have anything before that? Go ahead. On the last, last paragraph on that page, Martin inquired when the, I think it's the high school wastewater plant, right? Yep. Put high school in there. Yep. I can. Uh, okay. Uh, page seven. That was the request for the, uh, CIPs. And we said that's going to be once we get farther down the road on the capital budget. So that's not a change. That's just an open item. That's the only thing that I have. Does anybody have anything else? Okay. Can I have a motion to accept the minutes as corrected? So moved. Mike. Moved. Can I have a second? Second. Judy seconds. Roll call vote. Ed. Yes. Judy. Yes. Mike. Yes. And Spelman. Yes. And if he just votes, yes. Five zero zero. Okay. Dates for upcoming meeting. Got the, uh, four meetings on the sheet. The, uh, February, the January 28th. Uh, it's a proposed tree hearing. Uh, the FinCom work. I'm sorry. FinCom warrant workshop. I don't think requires an actual meeting. Uh, if we have number of people, uh, that want to go to that, then we'll have to file an agenda. And by the way, did, uh, people see the email that came out from the town on the changing in the wording of the agendas going forward. So there's different wording that's going to have to go in the top of the agenda. Okay. What, what was that, uh, do you recall what, uh, the genesis or what, what, what was the reasoning for that? The town, I get legal counsel, uh, came up with different wording that was required, came out this week or last week. Okay. I missed it. Okay. I'll look for it. Okay. Uh, and then that's why I bought it up. Okay. Topics not reason. Any changes in questions on the minutes? Nope. Okay. Topics not reasonably anticipated. Anybody? Nope. Can I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Everybody moved. I give it, I give it to Ed or Mike. All right. Ed, Ed made the motion. Can I have a second? Mr. Spellman. Thank you. All right. Can I roll call vote? Judy. Yes. Ed. Yes. Michael one. Yes. Michael two. Yes. Yes. Approved. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you very much.