February 23, 2026 – Finance Committee – Video & Transcript

February 23, 2026 - Finance Committee

Autoscroll:

So it is now 737 and the finance committee is restarting on February 23rd. And we have right now myself, Pam, Bill, April, and Carl, and perhaps Rob will come back. I'm going to send him a reminder just in case. Yep. And I know Iris isn't able to join us. Pursuant to Chapter 2, this meeting is being conducted via remote access and being recorded and will be made available afterwards. Anyone wishing to make public comments or attend the meeting may do so. Please limit public comments. Rob's with us. No, it's good. Seeing no one else other than finance committee members, we can turn to our agenda, I think.
And, Robbie, if you see anyone else, let us know. But assuming no one else is there. We had somebody. By the way, we had somebody earlier. I think they didn't realize we were in this other meeting. I wonder if that was Carter because she sent something. Saw that. Yep. So we received revised minutes for last meeting. That's our first order of business. And then we'll get into the omnibus budget and then into articles. And then we hope to conclude by 9 o'clock or thereabouts. Minutes for shorter business. Yes. Thank you once again, April, for getting them out. It's very timely. It's getting better. I went through them and changed them somewhat significantly, as you probably saw, April. Yeah, and this draft, too, is your revive with your revive. I saw that. Yeah. Just trying to capture the gist of the conversations a little more fully or differently than what came out from the initial draft. Substance was unchanged. Have folks had a chance to look at them?
Very minor comment. I think it's E. Carter, not A. Carter. Where was that? Elizabeth. Oh, right at the top. Yeah, public comments. Yes. Thank you. Alyssa, I think. So I've got one really irritating comment, and it's irritating to me. It'll probably be irritating to all of you. But I think it's actually technically correct. Thank you for prefacing your comment. When a roll call vote is required, I think by definition, we have to name the people who voted. Now, in a 7-0-0 vote, that seems entirely crazy. But I actually took the time to look at how some other committees have done it, and they seem to be doing that. So I don't, I mean, it just seems like one of those open meeting law requirements that serves nobody. So I will throw it out there and see if anybody thinks it's worth making the change. With the full understanding that nobody could possibly not understand who voted for.
I'm fine with making the change, and I appreciate you pointing it out, Carl. Yeah, it's probably one of those technical things we should just do. Yeah. You okay with that, April? Yeah. It's a copy. I appreciate you calling it out now. The only other note that I had is just, you had H. Rollins, I just put in friends, WHS Athletic Director, and then C. Faye Coach, I guess it's high school, WHS Baseball Coach. To identify who they are, is that what you're saying? Yes. Yes. Okay. Maybe one other quick comment. Sorry, I should have read these earlier. About halfway down page two, when we're talking about the capital projects, we note that the financial policies calls for considering excluded debt for capital projects costing above $5 million. I think the key point there was that it did not, as Phil said on the select board, it was that it says you should consider it for above $5 million, but it does not say you should not consider it for less than $5 million, because the current wording kind of. That's a good distinction. Yeah, and maybe put parens in after the $5 million, April, and something like it does not direct for projects smaller than $5 million, or some words to that equivalent. Does not direct projects lesser than? It has no stance, maybe, on projects less than $5 million?
The main thing for me is that, like, going into the conversation, I was under the impression that it said you should only use excluded debt for $5 million or more, and what was revelatory for me in the meeting was it was pointed out that it says you should consider it for $5 million or more, and it has no stance on projects under $5 million. Understood and agreed. Yeah. Yeah. Do you want to propose specific language for- I mean, that's maybe the language I'd use, right, and takes no stance on projects under $5 million or something? That's fine.
Any other changes to note? No. Anyone want to move to approve the budget, the minutes as modified? Carl? Yep. Second. Bill, second. Carl, how do you vote? I vote yes. Phil votes yes. April, how do you vote? Yes. Rob, how do you vote? Yes. Bill, how do you vote? Aye. And Pam? Yes. All on board. Minutes done.
Ah, budget. I'm a little frustrated. I did try to get a new budget update for us to look at, and I have been trying. We do have a PDF version of the school budget. Hopefully, that's in everyone's inbox, so people can look at that. And hopefully, we'll have a new one of the whole town budget for Wednesday, but I don't know.
Any observations on the budget that the questions they want to weigh in on? The major change was the healthcare, that we know what that is now, or are there other changes we're expecting? So, we know the healthcare premiums are going to go up by 8% and not 12%, so that's a significant savings. Though, that doesn't mean that healthcare costs go down by, you know, proportional from the budget plan, because it all depends on the population, the age, and so forth, as to how it ripples through. So, it's not in Brian's calculations. He has to rely on HR, I think it is, to go through all of the staff and figure out how to apply the new healthcare rates to each of the employees or the groups of employees before he'll have a new budget number to us. And then, Voke Tech is another area, as pointed out in the minutes, or in the last meeting, where we were only budgeting, I think, for one student, and now it looks like we have five students. So, that's a significant cost, transportation, and tuition for those students. And I don't know where special ed is right now compared to what the budget numbers are, but those are some of the factors, at least. Okay. Okay.
I had a few questions, and Brian sent out responses on some of those. It's not a lot of big dollars, but I'm still trying to understand where we're adding the custodians, because I thought we had already done that in both the 25 and 26 budgets, adding custodians for COA. So, and it was a little, kind of, looking at numbers seemed a little squishy in where they moved around, but, you know, I'll wait until we have some of the other bigger numbers to, when everything's all incorporated, we can go back again, hopefully, and get a little bit more detail, or I can talk to Brian separately. Yeah, I would encourage you, Pam, to go back to Brian directly and see if he can respond, be responsive.
I think waiting until the numbers come together and for us to look at them all again is not going to be timely or satisfying. And I do remember we had a COA position last year that we were going to, for the facility. I'm not sure that that ever got staffed. But it was budgeted. I understand. And so I think now they're actually going to staff it, and so they put a new budget item in. I don't quite understand why. But that wouldn't be an increase then. I understand. Okay. Yeah. So tracking that down, it's not big money in the $110 million budget that we have to deal with, but it's just loose ends.
Yeah. I guess there were some, I thought there were some personnel increases that were, seemed bigger than what you might expect for, I thought most of the COA was in the reserve, but for steps and lanes. And maybe there's some COA for unions that aren't negotiating, but there, you know, a few line items here and there that just seemed to be. Yeah. I think there's COA for non-union employees that's still in there. So that's some of the bumps. Yeah. And do you wait for the budget to be finished before you draft your report, Phil, or is that? I'm going to start drafting it on Thursday. Okay. Okay. So no, is the short answer. Okay. Did we get a number on, because this is something that always comes up, writing the report, number of new FTEs or change in FTEs year over year for the town and the schools? That's just a question to make sure we have a clear. We definitely have that for the schools. I thought we had it for the town. I think we did have it for both. Okay. But in the schools, we now did get the PDF version, so it's easier to kind of go through the document. Yeah. Thank you. I know that it was easier. Yeah. And the, but we should definitely, that's one of the items we should, I will pull out for the report. And so we'll want to have that clear.
I have a question in regards to, and I know there's a couple of questions actually that I have in regards to capital. One of the things that I'm curious about that came out of the last meeting is there was no mention that, I don't think, out of the 2.2, actually, out of the 2.5 million that they're asking to do this field reconstruction. There's a couple savings things that they've made comments about that I feel that are not being transparent. One was the $200,000 to $250,000 that they could save. Second is, what are they doing with the money that they're saving in the septic? How's that coming out of the budget? Because that's going to be $100,000. Where's that money going towards? And is there a savings in a piece of this that should be used to fund part of that? Or should something else be coming down? And third was the $90,000 that the schools was going to be putting towards fields for the band-aids, basically, for the projects. I don't think that others, so there's like almost $500,000, that's how I feel, is if the projects relate, it's $250,000. And then there's another $100,000 and another $90,000, it's like $440,000, that could be realized and added or like given back to the budget. But I don't know that all the numbers are fleshed out well enough to be transparent with that right now. Yeah, I hear the question about transparent. I actually, I don't think they know the numbers right now. And that's what's my big takeaway, especially on the fields cost. The fact that that was a 2017 actual report that then, you know, we've had inflation over the last nine years, so it's a bigger number now. But it wasn't like I didn't get the sense at all that someone had actually gone in and confirmed that this is how we're going to execute the project. And this is how much man hours, person hours, how much dirt, how much, you know, whatever, poles for lighting and so forth. It didn't feel to me like anyone had clearly broken down. And so to get to the savings that's going to be generated, it's sort of like they don't, the substance of what the project actually is, is kind of, in my mind, is kind of a first step. Well, I guess part of it is, did we, did facilities give back the $100,000 that they're not going to be pumped in for this septic? I think with some of that, they may not, you know, it's going to take a while for the project to be completed. So you wouldn't necessarily, you don't maybe get half the savings if they get it finished. I think it's over a year project. So this would be fiscal year 28 and beyond. Is it a year project, do you think, to finish it? Yeah. Okay. I mean, I don't know for sure, but it won't surprise me that it's a full year. And it's DPW budget item now. It used to be in schools. It is in DPW. So, but the savings is, you know. He said town facilities in the last meeting that we were in. Sorry. I think it's in facilities. Yeah. Oh, okay.
Got it. So that's, I just want to make sure, like, those are some of the factors. And it's also something to note for next year is, should that 100,000 also come down for forecast of next year? And then if we do go forward with these fields, that 90,000, is that in the school's budget? Or is that, like, what they're going to do with the facilities? That's the part that I don't understand. Is that in rec? Or is it in school's budget? So, and I'm just interpreting, I thought that number was pulled out of thin air. It will cost about $90,000 to refurbish the fields, and it won't, will only be temporary, and we'll have to, you know, it won't be satisfying. But they said they budget it. I think the 90, yeah, the 90, I think, was an existing plan for, because remember, they talked some about, like, the, some of the, like, temporary band-aid refurbishment. So I think the 90 might be one of the more firm numbers. Yeah. But, I don't remember, what was 90? It was the, what they had budgeted for temporary repairs to the fields that they thought they were going to get back if they did the redo. And is that, like, the part that I could understand from that conversation, it sounded like it was in school's budget. I hear you. It sounded like, but it's odd. Well, and there was two pieces to it. There was the $10,000 a year that they're spending to get the varsity field playable. And then, I guess, there's two ancillary fields that they were throwing into the $2.5 million. And they said the $90,000 was going to go to upgrade those, which I think is the JV or the soccer fields. So there's a bunch of, there's multiple fields that were involved in the discussion. Any FinCom member want to be our fields person so that I could identify to work with Kirsteen and whoever, Abby, to sort of come back to FinCom as quick as we can with what clarity we can get?
Yeah, I don't mind working with them. I'm not sure I want to be on the hook for the timeliness because that's largely whether they're going to come back to us or to me. But if I, I will identify you as a FinCom point person, and you can just sort of remind them that March 16th is like not very many days away. Okay. Yeah, I can do that, Phil. Thank you. Appreciate it, Bill. And ask all these questions to them. Whose budgets? And yeah, give them my name. I don't have handy their contact information. I will. Okay. I will. But I have to admit, I feel like if they can't get their act together on their own, I mean, they seem to want to do this. And so if they're not being proactive, there's only so much we can do. Yeah. Exactly. I will, and Pam might be able to attest to this too, is I feel like the fields, and from being in the CIPC meetings last year in the conversations, is that REC has put forward plans, and every year they don't get budgeted. So I think REC is like being pushed to push this through, doesn't have a full plan because they've been pushed off to the side for so many years in what they have proposed. So just as I agree that they're not put together, but REC also, back to a couple years ago when EZ said, no, you, I, we, the schools own those fields. And REC is like, well, we put this budget together. So there's a tussle between the two on who actually owns maintenance and where does all the costs lie with anything related to the schools. So the schools, unfortunately, because it's, and this is where I think it's a question, a larger question, facilities in general, should that be in the school budget or should that money come out and be part of the town's budget to be able to maintain the schools because we're leaving them in disarray. And we come into this problem where we have all these issues happening with the schools and the, like the facilities. Yeah, yeah, this, I agree that, and there has been this sort of tussle with like, who are the fields, like, who do they belong to, who's supporting them, who is putting them in the budget, who's responsible for taking them out. So, and I'm trying to remember where we've landed. I think they're back with the schools or we're not sure. I don't even know because we had that whole town meeting where it's like the fields need to be addressed and it's all about the school fields more so than the REC fields. At any rate, I think there's lots of history to a lot of these issues and there's lots of ambiguity about how to solve going forward. I do know that Tom Holder has asked Abby Charest to take on the fields and especially in the context of the potential of a joint project with the high school wastewater so that it could be one integrated project management, one integrated engineer, and they then could execute it. So, Tom, subsequent to our last meeting, and I asked Tom to ask Abby to look at what are the minimalish staged work that we could do to assure that we get as much of the integrated project efficiencies, and maybe that we might delay some of the work for other years if that's even doable, depending on how the projects would actually come together. But there's like, as you heard tonight, there's actually confusion in my mind as to are these fields separate from each other, the septic field from the athletic fields? Do they touch? Do they overlap? And I've heard different things from different people on this. So, I think. I mean, we were asking at the last meeting and Abby indicated and people indicated that they were separate. The leaching fields should be up the hill and the baseball fields are down below. I know. And Michael tonight said they were going to be adjacent. Right. I had exactly the same impression, Phil. There were a couple of things that Michael said. Yeah. That's right. Yeah. I mean, the other one was that Michael was saying that, oh, well, they're having to play all their games away. I know. Which is not true. I know. And why aren't they playing at Cachituate ball fields, which I think are seemingly good fields? At any rate, I would encourage Bill from, you know, to be focused on the projects and figure out, you know, what's up and what makes sense and what we might be supportive of. I'll do the best I can. I understand. I'm not sure there's a solution, but I'll do the best I can. I do hear April's point, not to belabor this, but I think we should just have clarity. And I think it makes sense to, you know, if Abby's overseeing this one project, it makes sense to have one person seeing one large project that's sort of connected. But looking forward, we should understand who's responsible for the fields, who's maintaining the fields, and in whose budget that sits in. Agreed. Yeah. I definitely want it solved. It's more of just the immediacy. Yeah, sure. Like first steps first, but make sure we don't forget. Yeah, yeah. And I did also hear the stories that Dr. Easy had it taken out and, you know, whatever. I don't know the details of any of that, but got it. Other budget comments at this time?
You're still in the town or are you? Town, school, and capital, for that matter, all three.
Well, yeah, I looked at, I did get a chance to read the school budget. Okay. As voted by the school committee today. And it actually seems pretty lean to me. You know, there's a room, reasonable people can differ on that, but.
The report or the budget, sorry. What's lean? I just want to understand that. Oh, the budget itself. Okay. The budget itself.
It's overall, it's growing by 4.9%. I get that. But, you know, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but something like, you know, close to 90% of that is mandated. They don't have a choice. But I look at the enrollment, which has been declining. It's not severe, but it's about 100, you know, plus or minus students over the last five years. But it's been very steady. So, you know, I don't know if you can predict the trend, you know, in the future for that. But at some point, I think the only way they're going to get this budget under control, short of legislative changes, you know, in Boston, are to increase class sizes. Or, I mean, maybe even close a school. I mean, I know that's a really radical idea. I'm not even suggesting it, but I feel like that's where we are, that we either kind of support what they've got. You can, you know, carve away the edges if you want to. But it's the big things that are going to change or not. Right. And I think those are worthy to put on the table beyond fiscal year 27? Absolutely. That's not something we would suggest doing now. Yeah. But my read is similar to yours. Whatever it is, 75% of the increase or more is due to special ed, transportation, and the like. Not, you know, increasing staffing at the schools or in the admin facility. I mean, we've been looking for, they've been asked for level service budgets for the past, I don't know, five, six, like, number of years. So, it's not unusual. Like, they're not. Right. And sometimes there are kind of new things that kind of make their way in, you know, on the margin. But in general, yes, that has been the trend. And I think they're living up to that trend. I mean, it's not just lip service. They're keeping things, you know, at current levels. Yeah. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see how much, I mean, out of a 50-plus million dollar budget, it's not a lot of money. But still, you know, how much grant money has been available. Yeah. And that's been, you know, that's good, right? That's not in our budget. Or at least it's a source of revenue other than taxation, to put it another way. Right.
Hopefully those grants continue to be available. I had the same observation as you, Carl. So, I think, you know, it's not for this year. But longer term, there are some big questions that have to be answered. You know, one of the things Dr. Fleischman said at a recent meeting, you know, at FinCon meeting, was that the way, you know, classes work, you know, you can't, the way the actual class sizes are, you can't just easily, anyway, you know, say, okay, we're going to get rid of two teachers in the eighth grade. And I'm making, he didn't say that. But, you know, it's not like things just fall into place with every class as two students bigger. You know, it's much tougher than that. I was impressed listening this year and reflecting on last year, the ability of the school, you know, elementary schools, middle school, and so forth, to deal with the sort of the pig in the Python, sort of, and being flexible to move teachers from whatever, seventh grade into the eighth grade, to deal with, you know, the bumps in one specific class size. I thought it was good to see.
I don't know. The questions of long-term facilities, and, you know, there's been some talk about a new elementary school, but I don't know if, you know, we'll close two and build a new one. I'm not sure what the strategy is going to be on any of this. But that's a seven to 10-year project, if it got approved tomorrow. Right. Right. Yeah, that's not even in a five-year budget. That was part of the history of why FinCom had been recommending the Capital Improvement Committee to look at sort of the near-term five years and also look strategically out 10, 15, 20 years to get a sense of what are our needs and how do we time things and fund things. Yeah. So I think the schools had, there had always been a, do we need a, is it a middle school? Is it an elementary school? Like what, what's the envisioning process to get there? And, you know, the schools have been on the horizon. The schools have been doing some amount of meeting with the town around long-term capital visioning. And from Dr. Fleischman, you know, they've had good turnout at some of those visioning sessions to, to put ideas up, but, you know, that's not fiscal year 27 budget considerations. If I can go back to capital real quick, the CIPC and their recommendations, are we going to have them present at any upcoming meetings? Because I started to read Kelly's report, but I have not gotten, I've printed it and get through it. It's very lengthy, which is great, but it also, like, I haven't compared it to what Brian has put forth. Did they concede to what the town manager and Brian have proposed? They have not built, I'm assuming? No. What I saw was still the 8 million versus the 14 million, you know, and the ball field is, you know, a major chunk of that, but there were a couple other things as well. But no, they have not. So that'll, I mean, we almost have two capital budgets and we- We don't. We have the town's proposed budget and we can either support it or re, or reject it or come up with our own, but the CIPC's budget isn't going, doesn't go to town meeting. No, but the committee can, can recommend that one if we wanted to. And I guess that's the other part of my question is we put this CIPC in place to make sure that all things are being considered and rush jobs don't happen like they've happened in the past. So as a committee, do we support more of their recommendations to make sure that the town is doing it properly rather than having this back doorway of getting things in again and going around them? Like that's where I'm kind of, I feel like we're in the middle on this a little bit. So I think we're actually still in sort of basically what we were last year going another year forward. And what I'm looking forward to from the committee standpoint is to really give us the five plus year plan. And to me, the big question on that is the $7 million for the town building, which nothing, you know, nothing is sort of clear about what we need to do with the town building. And that's sort of the biggest capital item that feels discretionary or, you know, we have significant choices around. The choices around $800,000 for road work or $400,000 for road work, I'm not sure is one that we, that I personally, or that we can weigh in on. And for whatever reason, CIPC wanted to cut the road work in half from what was proposed. And I just did that only because of, remember Kelly answered that during the meeting. There's still a lot of stuff outstanding. It was balance, funds, funds, balance that were unused. So it was funds to only do one year of that. Yeah, I hear that. I just don't know how we go through project by project that way. I mean, they just sort of put a number in there, but I'm not sure that's helpful. Yeah. But I think in the past we have gone project by project, have we not, Pam? Yeah, we have. We all, we, in the past, we would have gone. I just, it's February 23rd and we have, you know, whatever number of days. I think I do agree with April. Like, I think if we could have, if there's, and I know we're dealing with not a lot of time. If next week, if Kelly or someone, I don't know if there's anyone else who might be doing, it's probably Kelly. Or Brian O'Hurley. Right. Yeah. Could give us, I do feel like we are still responsible for sending this five-year budget. Yes. We've got two budgets that have been thought out carefully. We should vet both of them before we make a recommendation versus just saying we don't have enough time. I got it. Yeah. My fallback was to go with, you know, a streamlined or slimmed down version of the town's budget of what we would go forward with. But I'll try to get Kelly in and go line and buy line on him. Well, don't forget, the CIPC budget or recommendation was something like $8.3 million. For FY27, yeah. Yeah. And I think it's really the ones, Bill, that they don't agree on and the why. Right. Like, I think that that's what I'm looking for is the, okay, all these other ones they vetted, they feel comfortable with it. But it's the, why is their recommendation different from, that's more what I'm looking for. Well, the two and a half million, so the town's budget as it relates to CIPC is $12 million. Is it $12.2 million? The other items are enterprise budget. Okay. So at $12.2 and we take two and a half for the ball field out of it, we're at nine point whatever, eight, compared to theirs was eight. CIPC's was eight. So it's eight versus nine and change. Right. Yeah. I agree with the discussion. I mean, the CIPC put in a ton of work. They actually did the prioritization that I had asked Michael about and he said he didn't have time to do, but he thought it was a good idea. We're talking about $800,000 or some number like that. But it could be project. It's not necessarily just about the dollar amount, right? It's about the projects itself. And what's considered high, there were some that were considered low that got pushed through by the town. And it's like, well, why did those low priority ones? Like I, when I did the notes, I was comparing them to understand. Yeah. But it was, it's still not. And I, that was before I got Kelly's revised version. So I have to go back to that, to understand that. But understanding where the differences are and why. I think she could answer a lot of questions and then have Kevini be there to explain. I think Michael needs to be there.
Got it. I'm on it.
Other items on budget for tonight?
Yes.
Big picture. I mean, it seems like there's been a lot of work that's gone into kind of the basics, but do people feel comfortable with the year over year increase as it stands right now? Or do we want to talk about that at this point? Or? I want to see the new numbers. Okay. I think that, you know, we, the numbers we looked at, we had a $700,000 levy capacity. It may now be a million and a half dollars. We were going to be going up five plus percent. We're now going up less than 5% from 26 to 27. So I feel like we're still in, we need better numbers. Yep. Okay.
Open to specific comments if someone's got, you know, particular things.
No, I mean, the one thing I've learned from being new and looking at this process is the importance of really connecting to the process early on. I know Phil was a part of this committee that was reviewing, you know, and working with Michael and others for the budget in the summer. Yeah. Because I think by the time we sort of get it, there's limited options of what we can do. But early on, you can set some of the parameters. You know, what is the target? Well, you know, what, you know, do we want 3%, 5%? Do we want to, you know, avoid a two and a half override or not? So I think really getting in on the ground floor and setting some of the expectations over the summer would be good in the future. I did participate in much, almost all of it. I found it very unproductive, just to be clear. Yeah, it's really just setting it. I mean, I don't really have an interest in being in the details, but setting the overall objective. There was just so much that's unknown at that stage. Yeah. It's a big challenge. State support, you know, health care costs. You know, right now we've got all the bargaining unit arrangements are, you know, in flux. So lots of unknowns. And Bill, last year, which is my first year on the committee, we got drafts, maybe not even, maybe draft is too strong a word. We saw a bunch of budgets and spent a lot of time asking questions and reviewing them, and then they kept changing. So I think we probably spent more time than was helpful looking at early versions. It actually was useful for somebody like me, who is brand new to the process, but it didn't really contribute so much. Yeah, and my approach wouldn't be to look at early, it's basically to put a stake in the ground and say, I don't know, 4% increase. You know, we're going to do a 4% increase next year, go to it. And then they can work around that number. And I'm oversimplifying, but it's essentially set the parameters for the bottom line. Maybe there's two, hey, give me a 3% or 4%. Well, to be clear, they said zero change in service, level service across the board. They've done a level, they've asked for a level service budget for years now, and the percent increase changes. I know, I know. You know, it can change. Because of healthcare costs and bargaining unit arrangements. Right, and contractual obligations are a huge part of it. But level service was different for the schools, though, right, Pam? Because I felt like a couple years ago, before they set that, it was like new FTEs were being added. We had a lot of things that were driving the budget up, but we were doing a lot of work late in the game to understand where. Because it was just level service, and there was no percentage increase, where I feel like in the last couple years, just this past two rounds, there's been a lot more control and discussion ahead of it. And Pam can talk to you further than that. Yep. No, exactly. That was the point that I was trying to make, is that in the past, we had said, okay, you talk about level service, and that can mean a lot of things to different people. But if, in other years, FinCom has come out in the fall and said, we recommend, you know, no more than a X percent increase in the budget. And, you know, and we've asked in the past, too, like, where can you find efficiencies or cost savings, you know, across departments' expenses? I know it's really hard to do, but I feel like, and some have been found, and we've discussed some of them, but I think you have to keep pushing for that and put a hard number out there versus just saying level service. I hear you. And I know collective bargaining always, you know, throws a wrench every three years, but it happens every three years. It's not like, oh, my God, it's the 10th year, and we haven't done this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I think that the summer thing helps, and I think in this past, in the past couple years, there's been sort of this percentage increase in their heads recognizing, like, okay, if we don't, like, override's going to happen next year. And we've kind of found a little more room and eked it out for the past two years, but part of that has been because everyone's internally agreed, and during that process in the summer, recognized, like, we really only have so much room. Yeah, and I mean, and the other surprise that happened in this budget year is, you know, we've got $900,000 of new growth without ever building anything significant. You know, there was no development project that came in. It just was lots of backlog assessor's work that finally got handled. You know, and that came up with the select board today as to, you know, we should be putting $900,000 in for new growth. So that changes the picture. Yeah. I think I got the gist of what we're all asking for. I'll go back to Brian and Michael, and we'll see what we can get, and I'll put Bill in charge of athletic fields. Bill, at the risk of belaboring this, I don't want to live in a world where before we know any facts, we tell them that they can only increase the budget by X percent. But I do like the idea, and this may be repeating what Bill has said. I do like the idea of saying, okay, show us what the world would look like if you could only increase it by 2.5% or 3%. And then because that, you know, if there really is a level services budget, and I take Pam's point that that means a lot of different things to different people, but we kind of get it, right, what level services mean. And if that's going to be 4.5%, 5%, and if the alternative is the 2.5% budget or 3%, you know, pick your number, go with inflation just to be generous. You know, what would the differences be? Where would they cut and what and how? I don't think we'd like the answer, but I think it would be useful information. So if, and like next year, we're likely, very likely going for overrides and maybe a three-year override and maybe a $10 million request or some significant number. There will be an exercise that will look at how much we could have to cut. Because we have to put two budgets in front of the town, one with the override and one if the override doesn't go through. And so what that does, of course, as you would expect, is it will make any employees that have better options more motivated to go pursue other options. And that's, you know, been seen in other towns that there's sort of an, if it's a fragile override circumstance, it will increase exodus, especially of, you know, the employees that you most want to keep is one concern around that. So, you know, we may very well be, that was like when we started the budget process, that was the question, are we going to need to be asking for an override and do we need a plan B budget? And through the course of the conversations, it became clear we actually look like we don't need to go for an override, so we don't have to go to the plan B budget. But the plan B budget exercise is, one, it's really painful. And it will also be one that will be, you know, impacting the schools pretty substantially. And so it would be very, I mean, obviously there are two-thirds of the budget or 70%. So, you know, there will be lots of to-ing and fro-ing around the town as to, you know, where to make cuts. Yeah, although I think that, maybe I'm a cynic at heart, but they will probably try to load that all into the schools because then everybody with a, you know, will say, oh, we can't do that to our children. Which is exactly what happens in other towns. Yeah, exactly right. Yeah, so that's just all parts of the reality.
I'll try and push to get Brian and Michael into our next meetings and with new numbers as best we can and see where we can go from there.
Articles tonight. Do we have a few? I think, Pam, you sent around a few that were ready for consideration. I did, and I was just checking to see if Susan Weinstein was on, but she's not. So I can, she's the CPC community. Why am I blanking? Preservation, community preservation, committee chair. So let me see if I can pull up these articles. And which articles was it? FF and GG? FF and GG. Yeah.
Do you want me to pull them up or do you want to just refer to your own? I can refer to my own. Other people have. Yeah. If you could pull them up, I don't have them. Yeah. Okay, sure. Okay. Do I have a share screen?
I don't know if I can share. Robbie, are you listening? Sorry. No, I do. I do. I'm sorry. You should be able to share. Okay. Yep. All right. It's going to just take me a second because I was not prepared to be the first one here. Sorry. So 2026.
And I know a number of articles have been taken off the list. I'm not, I don't think I have a current tally, but. Are those official? I keep hearing, reading things like, we're not inclined to put it forward. What does that mean? Well, some are official and some are, will require select board vote to take it off. And I'm not sure which falls in which category. But yes, some have been taken off.
I'm only aware of two. Do you know about more?
It doesn't matter. We don't have to answer that today, tonight. Okay.
But just while Pam's getting technology working, April, do you have any articles for us to look at tonight? I do. I have one. I just have cap stabilize. Capital stabilization. One more time. Capital stabilization. Yes. And Rob?
I do not. No. Okay. Bill, do you have any for tonight? No, I don't. Okay. Got it. And Rob, did you get the room arrangements figured out for your meeting? Oh, we're just going to do Zoom. Okay. Thank you, though. Yeah. Got it. And I mentioned having Bill Whitney involved. Is he able to be involved?
Hopefully. I think he, his experience will be helpful for those conversations in particular. Yeah. No, he said he's free tomorrow night. He has not confirmed the specific time. Got it. Okay. Good luck. And out of curiosity, which articles is Rob? I think DD. Yeah, this is DD. It's with the Orchard Lane and Holiday Road folks. Okay. Thank you. Which I was going to mention when I'm talking about schools, actually, one of the changes potentially coming to Article DD is adding a use for a school to the list of things to evaluate. So, kind of, there are, yeah, the schools are considering bigger long-term changes. Got it. Good to know. They bought it in the 1950s or something. So, go for it, Pam. So, this is Article FF, the Community Preservation Committee, Set Asides and Transfers. This is a standard article. These are funds that come from, there's a separate, when you get your tax bill, separate line item. I think it's 2.5% that goes to, that we voted years ago, would be part of our tax bill to go to Community Preservation Funds. The primary use of these funds, and the estimated cost is $831,618.
These funds are to be distributed for several specified uses. This article specifies that they go to four things. They're distributed 10% each to the funds, the three primary purpose funds, Community Housing, Historic Resources, and Open Spaces. That's $145,862 for each of those, 10%. Then we have a set-aside of $374,000 from the Uncommitted Fund for the annual debt service that's paid on the Mainstone Farm Conservation Restricted that was voted at the 2016 annual town meeting. We'll also set aside $20,000 for Community Preservation Committee administrative expenses, and then transfer the remainder, not less than $145,000, which is also 10%, from the Community Housing Fund to the Whelan Municipal Affordable Housing Trust for later spending consistent with CPA. So, again, this is sort of the standard CPA set-aside fund arguments in favor of the 10% set-asides are required by CPA and ensure that the town addresses the needs for community housing, historic resource preservation, and open space consistent with the CPA, Community Preservation Act. Funds set aside from the CPF Uncommitted Fund are used to pay the debt service obligations on Mainstone Farm. So that's one argument that this is what we've agreed to do. Also, transferring funds from the Whelan Municipal Affordable Housing Transfer Trust Fund enables the town to pursue affordable housing opportunities with greater flexibility than if tied to the ATM schedule. So, the set-asides and transfers are funded through monies already collected through the CPA property tax surcharge and revenue from the SPTF, which is, sorry, some other acronyms here. What is different this year versus prior years, if anything, Pam? Um, really, nothing. That's what I thought. Maybe just the projects, right? It just, so, yes. So the set-asides are pretty much the same. The projects that are on GG are different each year, and those are based on what the Community Preservation Committee chooses. So we'll go into those next, but. I was thinking it might be worth just including that in the, in FF here, to just say, you know, these amounts are the same, just something that kind of more quickly specifies. I don't know if the amounts are the same, but the 10% set aside, I mean, the amounts will change annually depending upon sort of the tax amount.
Yeah. Um.
I think just. Are you saying. Sorry, identifying what SCPTF, I'm not able to find it either. Yeah, I'm not either, actually, and I'm looking. It's not there, yeah. It's not. Okay, let me, let me ask, um, I'll ask Susan about that. And then the only other thing, Pam, this is so nitty, but if you're trying to create less words, you identify Wayland Municipal Affording Trust Fund in the first paragraph, but then it's listed as the acronym in the third paragraph, and then again in the arguments opposed. Okay. So I would just change that to the acronym as well. The CPC, you're saying? The W-M-A-T-F. Oh, okay. Yeah. That. Okay. M-A-H-T-A. Okay.
So arguments opposed. Yeah, it's in the arguments opposed last sentence, and then it's also listed out in the comments in the third paragraph. Okay. I'll go through and just do it. All right, please. And there, actually, there's an extra word. You defined it as trust, which I think comes out too.
I'm sorry. What was that in the parentheses in the third paragraph in comments?
Oh, okay. Oh, I think it was supposed to be referred to as the trust, but it's already been fund.
Okay.
Further questions, comments?
Sorry. Arguments opposed. These are, some might advocate adding more than 10% to the dedicated funds, which it's a minimum of 10. Some might prefer the Community Preservation Committee, the CPC, retained the community housing funds and not facilitated the town's affordable housing efforts through the, what I will shorten here. So, again, these are kind of standard pros and cons that have been presented in the past, so fairly standard article.
What happens, is there anything about what happens if we don't obey the CPA?
If we don't do the 10% of the decides are required by the CPA, yeah. Is there any sort of? Um, I don't know what the penalties might be. It's probably not a big deal, but that just, like, you know, if the answer is the town has to pay $100 million, you know, changes the calculus about how much I care about it.
How much voters may care about it. So, it's automatic, right? The CPA gets funded 10% as part of, is it state laws or town laws? Well, it's, I think the town voted on it, and I think it's 2.5% or something of your tax bill goes to CPA. So that automatically, so the monies have been collected, and it's just, you have the CPC, the committee, to determine where, how the money should be dispersed. And I do think, I'm not sure if there's a penalty for not, I do think if we do at the, whatever's the threshold, the state matches it. So that, yeah, that would just be like, yeah, I don't know, maybe just including something like that, right? Like, if we don't do the 10% set asides, then we lose out on, you know, $500,000 of free money or something. I don't think it's a big deal, but. Yeah, no, it's kind of interesting. It'd be good to note. So that, that would be good to note.
I don't think that, I don't really know the history, but I don't think this is a very controversial article because the money's already, you know, it doesn't change the taxation. The money's already there. We're just voting how to spend it.
But knowing that if, if it's true that we get some kind of a match, that's, that's probably good information for people.
Yeah, I'd assume there's either some sort of incentive or some sort of penalty. In either case, we should probably do it.
I think so. I think we should do it, but I'll, I will look into what the penalty is. And I can, I'll see if I can add that in somewhere in the notes. So I went on the Mass Community Preservation Act website and there's a spreadsheet that I'll send you, Pam, that you can look at what. Okay. What you're going to get. Great. So I'll make the suggested changes. I'm not going to do it all now because. Yep. Mess it up. And I just, I just want to do tracking, which I don't have on. Um, but I move that FinCom. Do I need to move it? Can you move your. I can. Yeah, you can do your own. Okay. Your own. That's. Um, the, the, the FinCom recommend article FF, community preservation committee, set asides and transfers.
A second. I see. All in favor. Um, Carl. You. Yes. Phil. Yes. April. Yes. Sorry. Who seconded? I did. Bill. Thank you. But the I as I'm typing doesn't help. Bill, are you in favor? Yes. I. Rob. Yes. Oh, that's seven zero zero. Six zero zero. Oh, sorry. Six zero zero. Please. Thanks. Okay. And then we'll go on to Gigi, which is, how did I bring this? So, so this is article Gigi. This is community preservation committee recommended project appropriations. So it's all the article language. And this is to make the recommendation that the town appropriate the funds, um, noted above $363,060, um, as follows and noted in the article for open space, 12,000 for, um, protecting the major field edge at Herd Farm, $8,905 for addressing areas of purple loosestrife at Cow Common, $2,000 for cultivating pine trees for various conservation properties, B to the uncommitted fund for recreation purposes to be extended by conservation, um, not more than 75,000 for construction of boardwalks and bog bridges for walking at municipal conservation properties, including, um, not limited to Hamlin woods and trout brook and for installing a kiosk at Hamlin woods. See uncommitted fund for recreation purposes to be extended by the DPW, not more than 123,000 for the assessment of sites around Dudley pond for walking paths and habitat viewing and the study of the pond to enhance recreational activities. Um, historic preservation fund for historic resource preservation to be expanded by the Wayland Historical Society, not more than 56,000, 155 for rehabilitation of the Grout Herd House and museum, including addressing drainage, drainage issues and making structural and roof repairs, um, E, the uncommitted fund for historic preservation purposes to be expended by the historical commission on 25,000 for archaeological monitoring of projects described, um, in the article as needed. So they just, I think always have someone on hand to ensure that if they're churning up the soil, that if they find anything, they're, um, recognizing any archaeological findings and uncommitted fund for community housing, um, to be expanded for planning department, not more than 60,000 for the development of a housing production plan to assist decision-making about community housing projects or priorities, um, and then finally to authorize the committee, the, uh, CPC to reclaim any unused monies after 36 months, um, having passed following the approval of the appropriations so that if you've had projects that are outstanding for more than three years, those go back into the general uncommitted fund so that if you haven't used those, use it or lose it, um, within three years. So, um, the article just describes that these are for open space, recreational use, historic uses, and community housing, all part of the CPA, CPA, CPA, um, rationale, um, and I try to keep everything in proper order where we describe them above, um, what's happening. It's a little bit of a repetition of, of the article itself. Requires the responsible, uh, entity to provide notice of the work schedule, um, and then the unspent money. So, are, and these are sort of standard type articles in favor and opposed, um, the projects help to preserve and improve Wayland's resources as intended by adopting the CPA, um, the post-article ground straights fiscal discipline and accountability. The 36-month reclamation clause prevents money from sitting or lying idle for long periods of time. Um, some may prefer to prioritize other CPA-eligible projects or invest more or less in the projects identified in some equivalents. I've heard people say, well, I don't think that should cost $56,000, but we, we sort of have to, um, these things come up, CPA, we have to, I guess, people can ask the question. CPC, um, is charged with, with finding those estimates. Some may believe that three years is too long or too short a period to require a project completion. Um, so if anyone has any other comments or arguments in favor or opposed. Do, do we have, do we know what the current backlog of, you know, more than three-year projects are? Yeah. I can ask about that. Yeah. And just so you know, purple loosestrife is a flower. Oh, it is. It's been 9,000. It's invasive weed. Okay. It looks pretty. It is pretty though. Gotcha. I didn't know what that was. I haven't, I haven't looked that up, so I... Me too. Um, yeah. Weedy type thing. Um, and this is also very similar. I think the projects are different, but very similar to prior years. I think so. They're, I mean, they're, they're the, the certain same types of projects that CPA funds go to. And I think a lot of times they're, you know, at Heard Farm or Cow Common, sort of those large recreational areas and try to expend monies that improve them. Um, so... I think that one last year there was going to be a boat ramp sort of refurbishment and a town meeting, we got into a whole discussion about will it be ADA compliant or not? Right. And it's like, wow. Sometimes you do have questions that are just kind of out of the blue and you had thought about. It doesn't seem like any of these. Well, I don't know. The boardwalks, I would, I would think that they would have to be ADA compliant. Um, Susan would have to answer that question, but I can't imagine that they would be, um, you know, designing those. And I don't think they could design them and not have them be ADA compliant. Yeah. I'm not sure what is required ADA wise for boardwalks. Yeah. Um, so if there are no other comments or suggestions, um, I'll move that the committee recommend article GG community preservation committee recommended project approach appropriations for $363,000, $362,060. Right. Second. Carl. Yes. I am. Yes. April. Yes. Pam. Yes. Bill. Yes. Rob. Yes. 6-0-0. Pam, those are your twos. Any others from you? Thank you. Okay. April. Okay. So I'm going to try to take notes and share my screen at the same time. So, um, see how this works. Which is the article? I, sorry. Got it. Okay. Capital stabilization fund. Capstab is right here. So the article's standard article, just basically putting up, sorry, it's not sharing yet. Sure. Okay. Can you see that now? Yes. Okay. So it's a standard article. Sorry. You're seeing my notes at the same time. Um, 250,000 being set aside. I did not change any of the writeup that was last year. Um, and I think I cleaned up maybe something that was redundant in the articles in favor, but the article is just standard. So there was no real changes made to this, um, as last year. It's a quick one. This is from free cash, right? Um, yes. Be funded by free cash. Yes. The only question I wondered about it is, is it enough money? But I don't, we don't need to take it up. Um, doesn't feel like it's been used. I think that's, that's the part that I believe I took out is, um, the balance. Oh, okay. I was going to ask about what the balance is. I think I asked this before. Yeah. I will ask Brian, Kevin, about that. Cause I don't think that I had that. Um, yeah, I don't think it's come up in any meetings yet. So I will ask about that. And out of curiosity, is that something that we want listed as far as in the document, um, of the body or in the comments? Yeah. I think it should be in the FinCom comment. I mean, I think it's, it sets context. I think it's helpful. Yeah. Yeah. I agree. Okay. I'll put it right here. Um, the current balances. Yeah. And then get that number. Any other comments or questions from anyone? Okay. Do you want to move to approve? I'll move to approve article I capital A capital to recommend capital stabilization fund appropriation of 250,000. Second. Anyone? Carl, second. Carl, your vote? Yes. My vote's yes. April? Yes. Pam? Yes. Bill? Yes. And Rob? Yes. Thank you all. All right. Six to zero to zero. And Rob and Bill don't have any articles ready. Carl, do you have any? Not tonight. I hope to have at least one, if not two new articles for Wednesday, and we probably will need to revote on article HH, the long-term water supply. Maybe not by Wednesday, but I got a somewhat cryptic email from Tom Holder saying that he's got new information on the terms of the loan that he's digesting. So I haven't gotten the detail yet, but it sounds like there might be some changes that we'll need to consider. Okay. For the state revolving fund, I think it was the loan. And there was an open question. I don't think it's settled in the article as to whether it's the standard, whatever, 20 year versus longer term. So it's, it wasn't settled as of the draft. I don't know whether it's settled now. That might be what he's talking about, but I, I just don't know. Yep. And you went back with the question that should we flesh out the article somewhat more? Did you get any response from proposers? I got a pretty resounding, we're not going to do that. Okay. We supported it as is, but thanks for raising it. Yep. You all look forward to the new news when you get it. That completes articles. April, you had another question. I think you raised on the capital charts. Yes. So I put together, so with the capital portion of the warrant, there's a lot of charts and grids and everything that goes as part of it. And I wanted further clarification. Sorry, I want to find what I sent you. As to what we're going to want. Yes. I just want clarity on how we proceed with this one section. When, when it comes to excluded debt, I think it's a separate article. But I don't know. It's, it's definitely a ballot vote. I think it becomes part of the capital, the overall capital budget. And if there's a column that says how funded, I think there is a table that says how funded. That's where excluded debt would go in if it gets supported. So when we, so this is what I wanted to share. And I only sent it to Phil. Um, but this is the, my, one of my many fun spreadsheets that I have for capital is I put together everything. I still have to do the notes and everything, but it's how excluded debt is characterized in here. If it's even part of this. And I don't know, Pam, if you remember, I couldn't find, I went back five years to see if anything excluded debt was listed in here and I couldn't find anything. So that's what made me think it was a separate article. Honestly, that's, that was what I was wondering as we were just having our discussion with select board for, I honestly think it was included as an article, but we don't have an article for it. I think that's what Bill Whitney was right. I think that was his question. Yes. I think that was his question. I mean, that was his question. And I don't think we have an article. So we had in 2023, there was two excluded debt, uh, proposals in both past. One was for, um, natural grass, athletic fields at Loker. And the other was for, uh, a bond for the council of aging common center. But look at the, I think those were done in an article. I know that the COAC was, was, uh, uh, an article was, do you think the athletic field that Loker was as well? I think so. I think because look at this in that are in that warrant, Phil, look at this grid that's to this side or right here, this one grid. And I don't think there's any excluded debt listed because I looked back at a couple. Oh boy. Yeah. That's, and that's why I'm like, okay, how are we going to do this? Um, thanks for flagging it. That's what I was wondering as we, uh, as we went through that discussion, I'm like, I think Bill Whitney's question was right on. And I, I, and then I thought like Brian had said that and I'm thinking, wait, I thought it was its own separate article and not part of the, the omnibus budget vote. Okay. I will raise it. So I have this chart started. I have to get, um, all the rest of the CIP worksheets to start putting those together. Cause I'm assuming based off of the other part of my question that I had sent to you was going back to 2018, the breakdown of every single capital investment is listed in the article as well. So, or in our, I don't know if it's our report or, but it's, it's stuff that we provide. Um, so start working on those is basically what I'm wondering. Yes. The, um, you know, what we are funding, I think is completely appropriate or proposing to fund. I think it's completely appropriate to have listed out in the warrant, whether it's in the report or in, you know, the budget article. Um, I think it definitely is a, we'll want to have that in there. Okay. Do you have those blurbs that, is that what you're. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Okay. It's all the CIP and I only have. Yeah. And sometimes those, those just need to get cleaned up. Yeah. If you want to, I mean, I, I can help you if you're just wanting to divvy those up or. I appreciate that because right now I just need to get them all in and figure out how to run this macro in this, if I can figure that out in this spreadsheet. Yeah. If you like, whatever you, wherever you want me to jump in, if you run the macro and you can get it to the first round and then I can go in and try to just, there's still some massaging that usually needs to be done even after the first. April, do you have the, uh, warrant, uh, last year's warrant nearby? Where is the reference? It's on page 50, like page 40, 50. It all starts all those little descriptions of each project. Yeah, I got it. And yes, we don't want to just lump it all in to, you know, schools, X million. Well, we'd have the breakdown of the list of items. We just want to, I didn't know if we were going to keep the detail. I think as we were talking about like, what do we get rid of versus what do we keep versus what do we get rid of? And like, that's a significant portion. Yeah. What do people think as the, do you, for the folks that have an article, I, uh, warrant near them page 50 to whatever it is, 57. I can also pull it up online if people want to see. Yeah. 59 actually it goes to, and it starts right at the bottom of 49. So it's 10 pages of the warrant. So what's the question? Do we need it? Yes, I think we do. Cause I think this is, I mean, the capital. See page 48, if you look at the warrant has, you know, the same line item without the descriptions. Yeah. So for people that don't have a warrant in front of them, we're talking about, so we, this is the chart that I just shared with you that we have to create. Um, this lists everything out, but the detail of what every single project is what I'm asking about is this information, like these blocks for every single thing in the capital plan. And, and April, when, will we use much of the same language as in last year's warrant? Um, most likely on some of them, it's just that what, and Pam can attest to this, what you get from the town managers or the department heads is not enough information. So you're tracking down the detail, um, on some of this. And then we have to go back and understand the history. Um, and we're putting all of this just in here. So I'm fine to do the work. It's just that I'm not, you don't get the, you don't have projects that are the same every single year. So you do have to go back and reword quite a bit. Got it. So, so cause you've done more of the upfront work on this, like what's been, um, submitted by the department heads, like you're really adding and filling out. Like I, I've looked at the final edits, like after Kelly's done it before, but I guess like the first, I'm asking on the first round, like you're actually trying to track down a lot of this information. Yes. Or you're making up, you're actually filling out additional information because it's not,
looking to see if I have the spreadsheet open. Cause I've gotten, um, the, um, compared to where we are right now, this is a huge amount of work. That's why I said nine articles. I'm going to jump the ledge because this amount, like this one spreadsheet alone is a portion. I mean, if we have to do all the additional, um, I'm going to stop sharing and share the other one. Um, if we have to do all the other graphs, that's a whole other spreadsheet that I have to put together. There's also the list of every single project that's on the capital plan for the next 10 years that you have to add. So there's just a lot of details, additional work that needs to be done for capital. Um, so Brian, Kevin, he said he would produce the charts and tables for the capital budget. Um, he also said, not be, I know.
I'm not complaining on that. He also said he was not going to do the charts for my presentation tonight and the next morning. He gave me about 20 pages for that. So I was pleased. I'd streamlined it down a bunch, but it was something to work from. Yep. So as long as I'm clear on what needs to be done, I'll start working on it. But I think Pam's council is appropriate that we should have a similar 10 pages in this year's warrant that details the specifics on all the capital projects. Do you like, do you know what you have so far? Like how robust it is, how spotty it is. It is. It is. We have one page of equivalent. We don't have, we don't have the details. You don't have? No. No. Okay. So I think that's, I think that's something we need to press Brian to get more detail. Understood. Yeah. I just can't figure out how to work my computer to show you the information, but I can send it to you, um, at some point in time or we can talk about it later, but I will push because it's usually just one line that they add replacement needed. That's like the length of the description. Okay. So it's getting more into the detail. So how, I don't know how this has been like you or Kelly have created this in the past then.
How? That's an open question. A lot of work. It's a lot. It's, um, breaking it down. Um, is the, um, I mean, last year, like I said, Kelly's helping me this year, I do not have that luxury because she's buried with CIPC. So it's all, um, she was helping me make sure this macro ran properly. And right now it, um, I can't figure it out. So I'm going to be doing a lot of the manual.
Leaving the macro side, you've gotten spreadsheets that actually show a lot of this kind of detail. I'm going to show you, show you exactly what I got. So this is one of the spreadsheets. Oh yeah. Okay. Okay. And this is the description. And here, the ambulance is being replaced and is in need of timing. Um, it's not what we end up putting in the article. We have to do a lot more massaging to it. Dive equipment. This is, remember, um, Iris was asking about this. It's just purchased dive equipment. There's no detail whatsoever about what kind of equipment, um, for how many people, nothing. Yeah. Yeah. Is that information really helpful to people to make a decision?
I mean, that's what we're listing in all of these. Right. So. I think there's some middle ground, right? Like, I think, do I need to know, do people need to know, oh, you know, it's this model of suit and that model of oxygen tank? Probably not. Would it be helpful to know like, you know, cold weather diving gear for, for Sudbury river rescues in the winter or something, right? Like if they're buying dive equipment for tropical beach vacations, right? Obviously I would, would want to know that that that was their use case and not vote for it. But to be clear, I mean, we're talking about, uh, something seven to 10 or $11 million capital budget. Yep. It's going to be hard to have that kind of detail on every $25,000 and below item, but well, let me, let me raise it with Michael and, and Brian to see what kind of detail they can get. Uh, this, this, uh, this is last year's spreadsheet. Um, the spreadsheet is last year's, the ones that I've gotten are the three fire that are unbolded. Anything in yellow is old last year. And then the, um, in card, the three computers, I couldn't figure out how to change those last night when I was doing the tab color. Um, but the three police items, the in-card computers, the traffic signal, and the replace dash are the other three that I've gotten. So I've gotten six of the, what was it? 32 items that I have to go and start 34. I, uh, wait a minute, 32 items, um, that I have to start bugging. What are your, what are the 32 items? I'm not following you. The capital line items. So in the, if you go to the FY27 summary that I had shared that, um, we need a write-up for every single one of these items. Gotcha. And there's 32 of them. I see. I see. Okay. I guess to Phil's point, can we make somebody else do that? I will make, I will ask Michael and Brian. I can ask, I'll ask Michael and Brian about, like, I don't have them all. I've only gotten six. I can, I'm happy and I'll copy you, Phil. Okay. That's right. We need more detail. Okay. That's right. This is an example. Like, we need to get the, the, the town departments to provide more detail in these, um, moving forward. Yeah. Thank you. Any other business for tonight? Hearing none. Is there a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Is there a second? Second. Pam seconds. Carl? Yes. Phil? Yes. April? Yes. Rob? Yes. Bill? Yes. Pam? Yes. See you all Wednesday night.