September 8, 2025 – Finance Committee – Video & Transcript
September 8, 2025 - Finance Committee
Phil Giudice: Um, Getting
Started at seven o'clock. Um,
pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 this meeting made is being conducted in person and via remote meetings. It may be made available to the public on WayCAM as soon as after the meeting is practical. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participating in the meeting may do so by attending the meeting. The meeting remotely, as noted above, we requested public comment, two minutes per person, so the agenda tonight, every call to order and the comments of members, responses, if any, it will be five items approved, reviewing and approving the minutes, following up on the discussion of the draft in the redraft of the annual report for FinCom, following up discussion on on benchmarking, and thengetting into the MWRA at Happy Hollow Wells, public works like board conversations around, what should we be doing about our fresh water supply? And the fifth item is a review of the fiscal year 2027 budget. Anybody online, Robbie Bullard: I see no one else online, Phil Guidice: just Pam okay. So we will begin with reviewing and approving the minutes taken in quarter. Leave comments on September 2 minutes there were not a 20 most recent, first
Phil Guidice: the order that they were stacked on my desk April Methot: Okay, thank you
Unknown: getting into this in a timely manner, William Huss: they look fine to me. So if you have a motion to accept, I will make that motion. Carl Barnes: Can I ask a couple of quick questions please before we make that motion? One is whether we want to, under topics not reasonably anticipated. There's a sort of mini agenda for the next meeting. It says discussions for next meeting, benchmarking 8/28 minutes, 9/2 minutes. I want to have those
moving as necessary. And then the other question is really out of, I guess, about Robert's Rules of Order, "April to move to adjourn the meeting." And then there was five of us voted, not six. So I'm wondering, can the person who makes the motion vote? Phil Guidice: Think I've heard Yes, and that has come up in prior Carl Barnes: elsewhere we have too, Phil Guidice: yeah, you know, yeah. If you can both make a motion, second it and vote on it. April Methot: sorry, I am. I'm going to take out the time. Carl Barnes: I think it was at 8:35 not April Methot: Yeah, because then I have a meeting adjourned at 8:35 Gotcha. So I'll take out that time. It was because we recessed, yeah, and I put that time in there, so I just fixed that. Phil Guidice: Yeah, Carl, if you know any thing different about voting. We can vote or not. Let us know, but I will continue the meeting. Carl Barnes: Great. Yep. And just in general, my sense of the minutes, it's been a surprise to me how minutes are done in public meetings compared to minutes, I've done lots and lots of times for other government bodies as well as private but they're working for me, but I do encourage us to not make it overly hard. And then that gets to comments Unknown: the next one. William Huss: Yeah, just one general comment I had, which I think you covered fine, but the use of acronyms. And I think every place I found an acronym, somewhere I could find it was spelled out. But that was the one thing with the assignment. Committee got called on the we got the letter from the AG, we use, like the COA, yeah. And they said, you know, do it again. Yeah, spell it out. Phil Guidice: Okay, good to know.
Phil Giudice: So, yep, did we do to vote everyone in favor? April Methot: You have to call because Pam's, sorry that's right, Carl? Unknown: I'm Pam, Hi. Can I just like the one little addendum, if I was there at seven o'clock, I don't think I was actually late, like, I think those are usually put in parentheses if you showed up later. So I don't think I was late if April Methot: I think someone called it to order I hadn't seen their one point. So I'll just take the time off because I never found. At the order, yeah. Call to order at seven. Carl Barnes: Yeah. And now turning to August, 28 minutes. Phil Giudice: And this relates to the comment I had made just a moment ago. I gave to April a suggestion to really streamline the last paragraph on Carl Barnes: the first page so that it simply states the two items Phil Giudice: capacity by reclassifying certain debts as well as using bond anticipation notes as a financing option. Period and then the last sentence, the town is nearing a budget override due to rising costs and period, and then the last three lines just scratching. There's a lot more to it, but I don't think it needs to be carried at this stage in this document. Carl Barnes: So that was my suggestion. Other comments on the minutes. I mean, I guess I feel like, I don't want to, like, belabor minutes, but Unknown: just that, the issues of the rising cost, some of the expenses that will remain, I think we're just saying some of the expenses that would remain unknown going into budget season were the health insurance, special ed, transportation, union contract renewals. I think that was that piece, right? Phil Giudice: Yeah, yeah, but there, that is the piece that I'm suggesting we take out. There's a bunch more than that. And it feels like listing some without giving the fuller context of what's unknown may give the reader a false sense of that's all that's unknown, okay, all right. And the listing of what's unknown is actually rather long, and getting in some way longer. Unknown: So that that was why I thought at this stage right I can but other comments or suggestions April Methot: I'm going to
Carl Barnes: take out those in the materials. Discussed distributed. Actually want to come back to that, but right below that is the language from the agenda, which I got wrong, and I actually had a second an amended agenda posted. So my bad. It was such a minor change, I don't think I sent it to anybody, but it's actually the fiscal 27 budget. 26 remember this? And then so that in the first line of the next paragraph, the same thing. So I gave you the bad information, people, not your fault. And then, just to make this consistent with the actual language of the agenda, back in that prior paragraph, third line, in respect of Department of Public we've had the word DEP, the Department of Public Works, the what? So sorry. Third line of the against public works that's just inserted V in front of the different. April Methot: Thank you. I thought you said V. That's what I was like. And
Carl Barnes: then the very last change on that is just again, to make it consistent with the published agenda, is to replace the word projects with facility at 66 River Road. At what was the address 66 River Road, April Methot: that's the DEP W site from general obligation to exclude that stuff. Okay?
Carl Barnes: The last question, more than comment I have, is on the on the exhibit list itself. Do we want to be listing graphs of documents. I don't, I don't know what's appropriate, but, you know, I think what we're telling the world is we, you know, they can have these drafts. They want to see them. And I think I would imagine it's only the final versions of documents that become part of the public record. I don't know the answer to that. My understanding is anything you Unknown: discuss has to be available, so I haven't Phil Giudice: discussed the draft. I actually think drafts have to be alright, that's why I asked. But if someone finds out differently, right? April Methot: I actually have a question in regards to emails that we get from Brian's been sending emails, even though we haven't discussed them. Yeah. Oh, Harley, yeah. He's sending information in. Should we be having those in an agenda item or adding that as an exhibit? Because it's kind of like public comment, and that's the part that I'm Carl Barnes: not sure. Yeah. So it's Phil Giudice: check in with me. Okay, if it becomes. An agenda item, then yes, if it's not okay. April Methot: So so far, we have not discussed any of that stuff. So I would, Unknown: I think, I thought what council said that last meeting was Select Board was that for the drafts to your point? Yes, they do, but only when someone requests them, do they actually have to be shared? Correct? Phil Giudice: Yeah. Brian Curley, he gives me about 12 emails a day. The ones that go Unknown: to all FinCom are the ones that I'm curious about so but yes, i That's why I want to ask. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I think if it becomes a, you know, FinCom agenda item, yes, but okay, otherwise, I wasn't just considered public comment. You don't think so anybody can correct me. Carl Barnes: That makes sense to me. Yeah?
Phil Giudice: Those suggestions, someone want to make a motion to approve the minutes, so good. Unknown: Second you have to call Yeah. Carl, yes. Bill, yep, I abstain. I wasn't there. Okay. April, yes. Bill, yes. Pam, yes, yes. Two orders, two minutes. April Methot: Okay, can you remind me? I as you move to the first one, the 721, minute, or sorry, nine, two minutes. And Who Unknown: seconded? Sorry, you motion for nine two. He seconded, no, I think April Methot: actually bill he motioned, I did Unknown: the motion for the first Carl Barnes: second. Let's go to Carl second
April Methot: on the first one too. He seconded. Unknown: I'd say I made the motion on the second one. I don't remember what happened on the first and Bill Second, April Methot: I think you seconded on this person. Okay, Carl Barnes: good enough. I'll go back to next order of business Phil Giudice: is the report, which I took the inputs that I've received and redrafted in Carl Barnes: central Dave on September 4 of last week, are there any further comments or suggestions on the report?
Hearing none can I have a motion to submit? I'll
April Methot: make a motion to submit the report for fiscal year. My sense second. Carl Barnes: Carl, yes, Bill, I'll stand Yes. Phil Giudice: Sam was on board. Yes. Okay. Report done, I get to submit that. Carl Barnes: Thank you for drafting. You're welcome to me. Thanks for the inputs into benchmarking.
William Huss: Take it away, though, I know you know, Phil, have done a really good job of finding some data sources, which is the state source, and what Sudbury had done. So, yes, last night, when I have nothing to do between 11 and I'm on my computer saying, Well, wait a minute, I think I can download, you know, some of these, some of this data. And so I took the the 13 comparable towns, bus Wayland, so 14 towns in total, with the school committee uses Carl Barnes: for their comparisons William Huss: and downloaded 82 different
data items, all different kinds of things, and put it into a spreadsheet. Bill was very quick to look at the spreadsheets and do a bunch of medians and means, thank you. And then I in discussions with Phil, you know, I took it one step further to look at interquartile range rather than just medians. And then some of the things that Phil sort of called out as us being a little bit different actually saw within the interquartile range. So maybe we're not as far off as it was, but I look at it as really a starting point. We can add towns, we can add data, but at least we have sort of a starting point for, you know, future answer. I don't know how you found that data source, but it was an incredible, yeah, Phil Giudice: no, it was the data source that was used in whatever it was 2019 as well. And it's an ongoing it's been I'm pretty low William Huss: tech, so the only thing I could do is, you had to download, yeah, but you can only download, like, six to eight at a time. Okay, so I had to do 10 downloads and copy 10 spreadsheets Phil Giudice: and going on Netflix at the same time. And then I William Huss: felt like a quarter of 12. I figured, well, it did it great, and then I left that Wayland. So it's like, Okay, I'm gonna get this done before I go to bed. But anyway, it's something that is hopefully useful that we can use going forward.
April Methot: So I see a lot of excellent Dave. Carl Barnes: The points did we use? April Methot: Since the list you grab was the school list right from towns we grab, school rankings Carl Barnes: did not William Huss: it was not part of what the state published, okay, but yeah, those are the kinds of things we can add Unknown: a column. Mostly it would just be interesting if you think of paying for services and right, the question is not whether we pay for services or not, it's question of, do they reflect the priorities? Do people feel like they're getting the value that they're paying for and things like that? I suspect matter. April Methot: I say I suspect, Unknown: because it's not that any of us here are looking to compare the schools, so to speak, right? That's not our job, but it's mostly just, it's an interesting data point as well, and I think from that angle, it also might help to explain, if there were elements where perhaps we are spending a little bit more, it might go to speak to are we getting what we're paying for? Right? Phil Giudice: As a town? Yeah, it's tough. I mean, obviously there's infinite, infinite data points you could go into on all of this. I mean, this is one year or one moment when we downloaded but, you know, does it very much year, year or not? Any this specific kind of outliers, school rankings, as I've seen and published, is usually us, News and World Report, which has all kinds of sort of metrics that are buried in there, like it's all about college acceptance and SAT scores or whatever, which may or may not be relevant to every family or individuals. But it's it is a point of reference point. When I would move to Wayland, I think the Wayland High School was labeled the number two in the state, and now it's like 23 I think maybe not. Okay. Unknown: They just came out with new, new rankings. I think it's a little bit higher than that. But, yes, but Phil Giudice: out of 300 and something, yeah. And 23 to me, feels like it's an upper tier, so, but, you know, some people get really worked up over waiting, but we were below number 10, and now we're, you know, Unknown: I think the goal is not fixation on a number as much as Carl Barnes: we spend Unknown: proportionally as a part of the budget, a large percentage on things right, on things like the school and the service. And I think it's reasonable if you're already including data points. It's a data point to also help paint the picture again. Of the reason why we're going through this is both to figure out how we fit compared to the other towns, and also, then there's a question on do we feel for ourselves as this town, that we are happy with what we're paying for and the services on William Huss: the value? I mean, the nice thing about a spreadsheet, you can add columns if you use them, you fine. If you don't use them, that's fine. Just paste them into the spreadsheet. Unknown: And there might even be a question, like, we could even ask the superintendent, right? Like, what do they use? I'm sure they use and they don't, maybe they don't want to share, and Phil Giudice: that's fine. No, I asked the superintendent again Wednesday, said, could you give us examples of how you were using our data, and we'll get, okay, sounds great. Yeah, that's the Unknown: only reason I bring it up, not to fixate on the ranking as much as it you know, it's just such a high proportion of our spending that I think it feels reasonable too. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I think, in my mind, and we're going to get to the conversation about overrides later, the challenge for FinCom, sort of the central challenge fiscal year 27 is helping to communicate the financial realities to the town, yeah, April Methot: and so for these towns. Then let me ask one other question. But just to go further, Carl Barnes: um, so I Phil Giudice: think that we all almost ought to design the the PowerPoint, so to speak, or the story we want to be able to tell the town, you know, and that's means people who are in fixed income, people who have kids, people who don't people might be thinking about moving here, how to kind of put it into context. Carl Barnes: And, you know, work back from that Phil Giudice: sort of presentation we want to make so that, so that it helps to provide context around all this. I agree,
Unknown: on that note, looking at the schools that were picked, do we happen to have the data on whether or not they've done overrides either within the last two years or going through an override for this year. Phil Giudice: So we do have a lot of data on I didn't circulate that. Unknown: That would be helpful. It would help. I think, as I think about to your point, crafting a narrative, I think it always helps relax people to know that they're not alone in going through this experience. And I think also then helps us to be able to explain the fact that I know a lot of towns are going through this, and I think we can all appreciate that this is not a a one year in the making situation, right? There's a lot of forces at play. And I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, and others are welcome to Speak up, but I suspect that that would help bring some comfort to be. To know that we're one of many towns going through this situation, and many towns have managed William Huss: maybe getting cart before the horse. But I think, well, I did read up on sudbury's override. What was interesting was that the way they marketed it was for a specific item, like for the schools. Yeah, it wasn't for the general. Hey, we just needed more money in general, the Unknown: 2013 I think, Carl Barnes: was the last time we leave 13 years ago, Phil Giudice: whatever the most recent override that Wayland did, there was a very strong community uprising around save our services, and dads and schools and folks kind of mobilized to make that case. I don't know what will emerge here. Exactly in my mind, there's sort of a benchmarking exercise that almost is irregardless of overrides, just to help people get grounded in the facts. You know, here's where we stand, here's how our communities compare and are different. And then there's another parallel process that will utilize this that it's all about fiscal year 27 and beyond. Kind of our financial choices April Methot: in pulling this bill, since you probably had the most time to look at it, or you felt anything surprising,
Carl Barnes: so I put some notes in Phil Giudice: the column on the our commercial industrial base is clean. Our growth is clean compared to other communities, even communities like Weston that actually have higher income levels, and but they're getting a lot more growth, and they actually have a somewhat larger commercial industrial William Huss: base. What surprised me, and I may have made a mistake, because I did my calculations quickly for those items, we were still within the quartile range. Phil Giudice: Yeah, we weren't at the bottom. No, we're not. I mean Well, we are in growth. Yeah. Other than growth, I think they're wearing kind of a slug in the middle. William Huss: I guess that was what was surprising to me, is how much in the middle we are. I mean, sort of the opposite of what you expect. It wasn't the outliers. It was the fact that we're kind of in the middle.
Carl Barnes: So that's my reaction as well. Generally, there's some, you know, I took a look at a bunch of, you know, specific line items and thought education, for example. I mean, we are right there, right there in the middle, and I was surprised at how much state aid we get compared to our to these. That was a that was a surprise. Yeah, I agree that we're getting as much as we are in kind of looking at these, it makes me feel like this probably is these courtroom towns are very likely to be, you know, I would say they are a peer group. Yeah, I don't we are in the middle of so much of it. April Methot: Sorry, which group are you looking at? So they hold the same ring that the school list. Unknown: Pam, because there's, there's several, there are several spreadsheets. I'm not sure which one Carl Barnes: you're looking at, the one I sent today. Pam, okay, it's, William Huss: I mean, just quickly, Weston, Lincoln, Wellesley, Sherburne, Lexington, Concord, Dover, Carlisle, Sudbury, Needham, Acton, Foxboro, Bedford.
Carl Barnes: We can add others if we wanted, but that's the one I started with.
Phil Giudice: Yeah, I apologize for all of the emailings and stuff April Methot: and the spends, Unknown: the spends in the different categories. Those are normalized for the population difference. Well, no, they are not okay, because our population is, like, slightly smaller, right than the average, Phil Giudice: and that's all covered here, 4% smaller than the median, 16% Carl Barnes: smaller than the average, so pretty close in the right way.
Phil Giudice: So Pam, the school committee, pier towns haven't changed. We got updated Carl Barnes: whenever it was last spring. Okay, Phil Giudice: looked and they were the same towns that were whatever the 2423 Unknown: comparison Okay, the FinCom towns, pier towns had to me, Phil Giudice: towns that were kind of well outside of our cadre, at least in my right thinking. Yeah, I agree. Unknown: So sorry. The ones you listed here, these 14 are the ones that we the FinCom Phil Giudice: has used no they are the ones the school Unknown: committee. These are the schools I'm sorry. Okay, great, yeah, and okay, so I. Just wondering why you didn't also look at the FinCom group. Phil Giudice: Just didn't have time. Okay, Unknown: okay, okay, understand, understandably, I get that. It's a lot more to Phil Giudice: Yeah, and just curiously, and I circulated it. There's a list of towns that the town is doing benchmarking on Compton compensation and rank, or, you know, steps, and they are slightly different towns as well, but I circulated that list. Unknown: But yeah, I I agree. I at least being new the idea of having towns on the North Shore and the South Shore. I mean, they were all there were several that were like, Why are this? And I think part of the criteria is obviously comparable town, but it's also sort of, what the general public would say is a comparable town. If we say, Oh, we're like, Cohasset, people would say, Huh, you know, Carl Barnes: so I think that's part of the week. Phil Giudice: Pam, were you involved in picking the towns that the FinCom picked back, you know, whatever, five plus years ago? I think Unknown: it was 2019, and honestly, I started in the STEM December, so I was kind of a little bit late on that budget season. I think they had just chosen them. So I, I think I was there when we kind of did the final vote to include them or something, but I really wasn't involved in in the going through the process, so I don't recall all the rationale. And,
Phil Giudice: yeah, I've asked folks just as to their recollection, and I haven't gotten anything particularly satisfying. It was akin to, we wanted towns that don't spend as much money as we do to be in the mix, Carl Barnes: which is a criteria, but I'm not sure that's yeah, Unknown: it does seem like we should kind of look at sort of some of the metrics and figure out what, what we think are the most relevant data points for comparison. April Methot: Aside from just that one, I William Huss: also think there's an argument for consistency. Because when you're talking to the general public, you don't want to say, No, which list, April Methot: right? Yes, that's, Unknown: that's true. I think we should also, you know, just, just to be, you know, and there's, there may be a reason why the school list is as it is also so I think we, we probably should open it up as a cast a little bit wider net, just to, you know, have done, gone through the sort of rigorous process of reviewing, kind of all the metrics Carl Barnes: and all the towns that might be relevant. Unknown: But I but thank you for putting this together. Because this is, I mean, this is a ton of data to just to starting to look at and and to start comparing, you know, well and Carl Barnes: relative to the group,
Phil Giudice: Iris was apologizing before folks came that she wanted to spend more time on this. Unknown: Yeah, it is beautiful. Um, yeah, and I will spend more time looking at this. Phil Giudice: I encourage iris and and build potentially to chat about it between now and they are October 1, Monday in October, and then we'll come back together and see even a track presentation or further kind William Huss: of, yeah. I mean, I'm happy with any of us here playing with the spreadsheet, oh yeah. Adding columns, adding rows, saying, Hey, I tried this, I tried that. Phil Giudice: Feel free. Yeah, and as I get more info from others, like, if Dr Fleischman does have stuff to share, I'll be sure to schedule April Methot: anything else on benchmarking at this time.
Thanks, yeah, thank you. Water, we needed a little bit
Phil Giudice: so we had our joint meeting. BpW Select Board came away with a little further understanding of kind of what we're up to. Unknown: And very strong sense from my my sense was that DPW was moving along the path of political, disparate access. It won't be a big tax for this comment. So that might be the easiest from DPW standpoint. I asked Tom holder afterwards and George that we looked at and see an option that actually shows a more significant monthly fee, or customer fee, twice a year Carl Barnes: fee, Unknown: plus a chunk that goes into taxes, in a chunk that goes. 1000. And at least from my thinking, I would want to put all of the MWRA connect into taxes and all the PFAS into rates Carl Barnes: and see what the implications of that are, and move the Phil Giudice: per customer fee up to a number like $250 from the $65 Unknown: that it's at now. I mean, I liked the option that was presented by town council of the opportunity for the Select Board to be able to adjust that lever up and down. I think what's missing from the opinion from DPW, to be totally frank, was actually the comment that one of the Board of Public Works members had made, and he made a very interesting comment around his concern that if left up to the Select Board, they could make any choice that they want to make, and it could be in alignment with the recommendation, could be out of alignment with the recommendation. And I think that the premise, or at least one of the premises, I think in the argument around there, they're wanting to fold it into the residential tax rate is because of the new salt cap maximums, and I'm concerned that there's not an appreciation for we have now seen, within the last decade, major changes and legislation around taxes, the introduction of the salt cap, and also then the adjustment of that, and there's no guarantee that there won't be further changes. In fact, quite the opposite, right? There's a guarantee that it's going to expire in a couple of years. So why would we ask? Why would we ask community to vote and permanent vote Carl Barnes: when the Unknown: tax strategy that that is relying on is not permanent. And so to me, that suggests that the flexibility is important here, and does give exactly what you're saying, like that option, right? It just gives us the opportunity to blend as the situation changes. Phil Giudice: So Select Board has that, yeah, what should we recommend, from our standpoint? Unknown: I think a hybrid approach that allows them to continue to have that lever. I think what we heard there, and Michael McCall said, this is the equity factor is huge. If you do it all in tax, residential rates, then if you have a non for profit in town or someone, no one else is paying for that. So I think that there needs to be a blended approach to your point where there's some of the facts, the base tax rate, or the basic water rates go up, or there's a fee associated with it, and I think what percentage I'm flexible on, right? Like it's not No one's here trying it all has to get paid for somehow, right? But I think a blended approach for sure, and I think I personally would feel a lot more comfortable with the idea that the Select Board, again could have some control over that lever in either direction as situations Carl Barnes: change. Yeah. William Huss: I mean, I'm in agreement with that as well. I took it in two parts. The first part is, you know, the issues, and it's sort of like we want, and I think Michael McCall mentioned this. We want to address equity, fairness, water conservation, climate change and public opinion. And then the ways to do that is a balance between taxes, rates and flat fee. Carl Barnes: And I don't, William Huss: as long as they take those issues into consideration, and as long as it's a blend of those three, I don't need to get caught up into is it 50% or 40% but that's my take on it anyway. That's consistent with
Carl Barnes: your views as well. I agree with I agree with my colleagues here. You and I discussed this offline, but I think that the information that Michael McCall asked for
basically, you know, I'd have to look back to see precisely what he what he asked for, but the breaking down, you know, the by quartiles, the tax bills, and then the border rates on different scenarios, I think he was talking about using that information to help sell the project to the town. I would like that information now, because I agree, first of all, it's not our job, but, you know, we don't have to come up with those percentages and but I would it would help me wrap my head around it, to have that information early. And so, you know, I was planning to write to the Select Board, to, you know, chair and ask, specifically, you know, to urge her to get that information. Copy Michael call, and if it's okay with this group, I'll do it on behalf of the committee. Please do I copied George from DEP w as well. William Huss: Yeah, okay, I forgot one thing, just on the blended approach. I think that's easier to sell, because who's going to complain? It's like, well, wait a minute, I think should all the taxes? Like, well, some of it is taxing. I think it should all be rates. Well, some of it is rates. So it's really hard for somebody to make an argument against a blended approach. I guess. You know.
Phil Giudice: The my logic of putting the PFAS and happy hollow into the rates is we're going to be using those resources every day. The 15% of consumption that's going to come from MWRA feels to me more like a capital item that we're buying for the optionality. And it's not an enterprise funds, in my mind, should be generating the revenue that they need to be able to pay for their operations, capital and so forth. This is one that we could set aside, saying this is, you know, for the town to have that optionality. So it gives me at least a logic trail as Tom, why one bucket would have the PFAS happy hollow, and we use it every day, and another and also increasing per customer fee that gets at the issues of things like nonprofits or or the town not spending any because they would be tab to Spend that. So that's kind of where my logic was coming from. I also like the idea of proposing, you know, the blended hybrid, but give them an EG, so to speak, of a specific just so that it sort of makes it more real for them. Carl Barnes: Pam, your views. You're on mute.
Unknown: Gosh, sorry. I agree with the points made. I you know, you turn that off and you forget that it's off. I agree with the points made Select Board, having the flexibility to toggle, you know, over time, if necessary, the hybrid approach, I think that, yeah, trying to sell it all one way or another, there are pros and cons of both. And I think that we should be,
as we make a recommendation, we should sort of just sort through some of those to make it very clear that there are, you know, there are on both sides. There are reasons to or not to that we have considered and but ultimately, it does seem like some some sharing between rates and tax makes the most sense. I so in just to be clear from your what you're proposing is, or your thought was, the MWRA being the the hookup, I think that was the 20 million and then the remainder, yes, yeah, I had that same thought. So that's right. I'm in agreement on that. If we decide that we want to be more specific in the breakdown, Phil Giudice: yeah, I mean, I don't need to be prescriptive, but it's illogical. Yeah, that was the thinking. William Huss: I like the idea of an example, rather than we're putting a stake in the ground. Unknown: You know, at least one member of the Board of Public Works was advocating for that very approach. Ultimately voted yes, along with the rest. But I think there, there's, there's some sentiment on the board for that. Phil Giudice: Yeah, my direct conversation, Tom holder, you thought that made a lot of sense as well, and that it would be an easy ish thing to model with Carl Barnes: abraham's group to look at the implications. Are we suggesting using that as an example? Are we suggesting these simply bifurcating it in addition to the mixed charge, or the procedure that I think you were talking about where, where it and it's a K Orient, which one, but then select board to look at this again every year. So this does both. Phil Giudice: This puts it forth, whatever the logic is that everyone gets comfortable with, but it does not diminish select board's ability Carl Barnes: to make other changes. Could, though, I mean, I think that I want to, we could simply, I'm not saying we should, yeah, could say this much, this debt is going to be excluded, debt into the tax rate. And I think if you don't, then use that procedure, that's right, that they all have that flexibility. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I would leave it in the hands of Select Board, okay, determination. So I think we're doing the same page. Yeah, yeah. Personally, I feel like our Select Board does way too much work. And the idea of revisiting this every year, and I mean, Unknown: in general, feels like we won't have to. Yeah, it seems like a tool that might be just, that's the point you're just reserving. We talk a lot about two way door decisions versus one way decisions. And I just think it April Methot: gives me. Flexibility. Yeah, that's it.
Carl Barnes: Anything else on board? So we have one. William Huss: How do we close that loop? Is there a motion that one means, or is there, you know, just authorizing Phil to make that point to Carl Barnes: select board. How do we want to get the William Huss: transfer the what our discussion from here to there?
Carl Barnes: Could you read back what a recommendation would be?
April Methot: I have from a recommendation standpoint the MRE MWRA piece into into taxes and pupils updates into rates. But the other thing that I was going to say is that I think Bill or Carl was going to ask about the breakdown of the example, and I think that that will give us some more informed decision as to like, how to make the recommendation, if we saw that before making Phil Giudice: the recommendation. So what I'm thinking right now based, and I think that is reasonable, because Carl, when you frame that note to like board and others, that you say that the sense of the FinCom thinking was this, you know, put into these three buckets the revenues necessary and maintain flexibility for Select Board, but to for select for FinCom that come with a more firm, specific recommendation. Would you like to see answers to these questions? Sounds good. I'll put that together tomorrow or Wednesday, and I'll run it by you first, okay, make sure I capture Yeah, I think that's fine. And then I think in October, when we come together, we can hopefully make a recommendation. William Huss: Okay, so we have taught we have another, I believe. So, okay, April Methot: based off of the last meeting, it sounded like they don't need to do a special for my understanding, there was a lot of talk of like, not having to do a special term election with the way they structure this recommendation, and that it could be done in April, certainly, to save That's right, Phil Giudice: there's, there's no special election needed, to my knowledge, is right for April Methot: this, regardless of what recommendation. I Carl Barnes: think that was the only April Methot: thing that was the only thing that we're worried with the timing. Unknown: I think what I understood, sorry, maybe if they choose procedurally to have it all be as part of the residential text for excluded debt, that does April Methot: require a ballot vote, but they can do it right before, Unknown: yes, you're right. Sorry, we have a November because I think we were, we were we were going after the November date I see, which is where I think the timeline was being pushed on us. Tom it like, well, make your recommendation. Phil Giudice: There was a consideration that in November to move from DPW prior spend into excluded debt. And while that was happening, should we put William Huss: so that's removed of every day. Do we have an official liaison to the Select Board? Carol Martin, okay? Because, you know, my thought is that even if we're not to a specific recommendation to keep her informed, oh, yeah, what a discussion is, they're not surprised. And if there's a misunderstanding on the dates, she could say, no, no, you can't wait to lock Phil Giudice: it. Yeah, I'll let you. Okay, I'll be with her.
Unknown: Good The only other thing, my apologies with the water. I know you were trying to move on. No, that's okay. I think I said this actually at the slide board meeting, but I guess I feel compelled to reiterate it at this point, my understanding of the many conversations we've had, and maybe, maybe I've misunderstood Select Board. It seems like in that meeting, was expecting everyone to come to the table with a lot more questions about why this recommendation was, and in my mind, we are beyond that. We've sort of, they've had that discussion. They have the documentation for why they met the recommendation. You know, I'm in full support for if any of the Select Board members don't feel confident with that. You know, I have my own personal feelings about that, but at this point, we know that we need to fix water somehow. And so I guess, in my mind, the conversation, we have to continue to push along on this front, even if they're still up for discussion, and discussions are happening somewhere else around the actual approach, because we do need water and we need it funded, right? So that's I just wanted to say that, because I feel like maybe they are still having those conversations. But for right now, I feel like our edict is like we still have to find a way to have the project that's being proposed funded complete. Phil Giudice: There was, there has been talk at select board as to whether it might make sense to hire another engineering firm to look at what this engineering firm has done. My understanding of that talk is. Hasn't progressed, and it's been, I'm not sure decided, but it doesn't look like that's going to go forward.
Carl Barnes: The next big topic is fiscal year 27 budget.
Phil Giudice: There was so the current short call, right now, looks to be $1.9 million Carl Barnes: between revenues and what expected expenses are going to there's a still a lot of Phil Giudice: variables in that. $1.9 million one chunk was is likely to be reduced due to the ability to, instead of going out for permanent debt financing for $16 million worth of capital projects that are kind of ready to be financed to go and get on anticipatory notes, which I think lowers that 1.9 by five to $750,000 because on bond, anticipatory notes, we don't actually pay principal. We just wait until we reissue them into permanent debt, which can be in a year or two or more, depending on the specifics. Unknown: And I'm sorry you said it lowers it to 750 or by 750 Phil Giudice: lowers it by 750 Carl Barnes: approximately. Okay, so that still leaves 1.22 ish. Phil Giudice: The other factor was considered to move DPW debt that was put into general levy to excluded debt, and that would lower it by another on the order of half a million dollars by Carl Barnes: moving that amount of money over, select Phil Giudice: board at this stage has decided that it has not embraced that as a strategy, Carl Barnes: which makes it much more clear that a two and a half override will probably be needed For fiscal year 27 Phil Giudice: a spreadsheet has been put together, not worth sharing yet, that looks at the next three years, and it's, I can't remember the number $15 million $20 million Carl Barnes: of its shortfall as as currently sort of penciled out. So it's gets to be scary numbers. Those numbers are rising fast. And if it's 1.9 for the what, first of the three years, yes, what's driving that? Unknown: The the projections, or because of union contracts, are like, I'm sorry, Phil Giudice: it's about $2 million per year. And so if we go out with a 3 million a three year override, it's like six to $10 million so the idea, potentially, is to go into fiscal year 27 with multi year override, so that we don't have to come back to it every year. Carl Barnes: Now, I haven't William Huss: been through the process before, but that's assuming that the budget that you're talking about is the test part of me that says, what do we lose if we cut the budget by whatever the 1.2 million? Yeah, so Phil Giudice: the reality of sort of the numbers kind of came clear, especially with the sense that there isn't necessarily support at this stage to go forward with reclassifying general levy debt in some general levy debt into excluded debt. So it will push the budget working group into a process, I think, and it's discussed that a little bit to prepare two budgets, in a budget and a B budget. In the B budget will likely have substantial cuts involved William Huss: that's where I was doing that, yeah? Because, you know, even if everybody is informed, but override and still has to go to what town meeting, it could be voted down, in which case we have to do something. Phil Giudice: Yeah, yeah. We have to make the budget work, right? So there's a full commitment to do that. No, not surprising. Okay, so one challenge is to figure out the numbers. The other challenges we've talked about for a long time is to figure out how to communicate this and how to bring them to town, up to speed on it, having not done an override in a long time, Carl Barnes: and looking at other Phil Giudice: counts. And some have failed, some have succeeded. It's I think we need to put together kind of lessons learned in perspectives. I was just given the Department of Local the division of local service, Proposition two and a half ballot questions, requirements and procedures, 30 pages decided not to circulate. I and there's a spreadsheet that I also didn't circulate that looks five years forward on the financial so I was going to wait till we have our Wednesday meeting before we start circulating that, because I'm not sure what parts of that are still flexible or not. Carl Barnes: Uh. So, in addition to Phil Giudice: having a couple of folks who want to take a lead on benchmarking thinking parallel, it'd be great to have a couple of folks from our team look at overrides and start collecting information about, you know, how do other towns communicate this? What does it look like in terms of process, Carl Barnes: and what might be helpful for us to be starting to think about for our October meeting, which will be clear as to where Phil Giudice: things stand as we've talked in the past. One of the big unknowns here is it's not big unknown, but it is an unknown is labor agreements with all of the bargaining unit folks that work for the town, all of them are coming up for renewals and will be in negotiations in the middle of what might Carl Barnes: be override season. So delicate process, April Methot: I know from talking Unknown: to co workers in various towns that have gone through this process in the last year. April Methot: One of my coworkers, I believe, is in Carl Barnes: maybe it's Braintree, maybe Unknown: it's Quincy, and they there's past, and she was happy with the process. That was actually what stuck out to me is that she, as a community member, remember not involved with it. Was happy that she felt well informed, that she understood was at stake, and it passed. And one of the things that she mentioned, it must have been Braintree, because they had a website. But yes, braintree.com and she mentioned, like, it was beautifully laid out. It was incredibly clear, like, if you vote yes, here's what you get to DEP, if you vote no, right? A, budget, B, budget, here's what gets cut. And we've obviously got the Wayland post in town and things like that that we can lean on. So even if people are not maybe the most electronically astute. William Huss: Well, yeah, I just did some googling of towns, and you know, the one that was, you know, impressive to me, was Sudbury. And like I said, what they did was frame it around schools. They just said, if we want to keep up our school reading, you have to vote for the override. Now, whether you know that was true, or whether they, you know, manipulated the budget so that all the shortfall was in schools. I didn't look beyond that, but I thought it was an interesting I mean, if you want to get Wayland people to vote for Carl Barnes: something tie into the schools.
Yeah, I don't think we need to sort of pick positioning at this stage, but Unknown: I think it's certainly good to start collecting, no, not in terms of specifics, but the idea is to make it issue related, rather than general. You know, what are some things that we will or won't get, you know, with Carl Barnes: the override one not Phil Giudice: proposal, eliminate some of the elementary school grades and just have them William Huss: double up. Yeah, right, yeah, any it's all hypothetical, but that's the kind of thing that would get Carl Barnes: people's attention. Yeah. Phil Giudice: You know, we're have slightly less students this year than last year. Carl Barnes: Who knows what the projections will be going forward. So, but it's hard to get savings. But for William Huss: specific strategies, you know, we really have to wait for the budget a and budget B that you just laid out, and then we can sort of crap. But making an issue related, I think, is important. Unknown: Can I ask a question related to the budget? So something that Brian had mentioned, is it on Brian kempning on, is it opine? April Methot: So Can someone explain how that works? So we put money in, and at some point, the Select Board has to vote to take the money out. Carl Barnes: I don't know specifics. Phil Giudice: Okay, we're at about 50% of our requirements to have our patients fully funded, which is not bad, compared to sometimes not. You know where we need to be, and we are putting a chunk of money into that. And I think the number is 2037, if we continue along this path, we'll be at the fully funded level. So and then at that point, there's actually a step down, because the amount that we're putting in, just my recollection, not actual, but it's on the order of $5 million a year. So that would go away at that point. I mean, we got annual but we wouldn't be catching up anymore at that. And there is ways that have been considered, or other communities have considered issuing a bond to pay for the oped liability, which I gotta understand it better. It feels like we're borrowing money to pay something that is actually not a current demand, but we're the bond, you know, we're paying interest on So, but it is, from an accounting standpoint, a way of and there's also the possibility of taking a vacation from paying the deficit. Carl Barnes: Yeah, we're. Not necessarily Phil Giudice: wreaking havoc, but I'm not sure proposing it or do I fully Unknown: No, no, I, I would love to understand more of it, because I know that well. I think you mentioned last year when we were going through the budget, right? I think we spend more, certainly for retired and catch up than we do on active payroll. I mean, we spent a lot, right? Phil Giudice: Yeah, I don't think it's that much, but, yeah, Unknown: it was a lot. And I thought Brian can be mentioned at some point that, like, there is money there, and maybe it was a different fund that at some point, Select Board has to vote to, like, start taking out to actually use. I think that is OPEB. I think we're putting some away. You know, we were funding it every year. Just to do. To note also, that is one thing when, when you look at the Moody's reports that they perceive as being one of the positives, and one of the strengths of Wayland is that we're actually funding for our future liabilities. So, and I think that the piece that you're alluding to is there has to be a mechanism ultimately, when, when we start, you know, the retirees are taking, using that money to release it from so I think that's, it's kind of, we should have something down the line, but in the meantime, at least we're doing the right thing and funding it. But that will be something that needs to be addressed. You know, as we look ahead, I appreciate that, yeah, just trying to understand more about about that part of the budget, because it's, it's not a small part of the budget, to be sure, yeah, and we do. I mean, every year, it's, it's a piece that, you know, is sort of the regular budget numbers, and then it's an addition,
and that accounts, I'm sorry we visited questions for Brian cafe, but like you know to your point about its future funding, we're over funding it because that accounts for the idea that we can fund over funding it. We're we're funding Phil Giudice: it, catching up to the underfunding situation that we've been it's not over funding. Oh, okay, Unknown: now we're trying to fund to get it up to the size one. Okay, alright, thank you. But the numbers that are calculated like you need you have this pension obligation is for future retirees, right? Like, so we know that we're on track to fund all of our that's the intention. Phil Giudice: Okay, yeah, the actuarial tables. Okay, you know, where's Kelly? Was it Kelly? Unknown: Yeah, exactly. Kelly was the expert on this so, and she was the one who made the point that we hadn't actually devised a mechanism on the other end that, you know, at some point is something that we will need to address. But I guess sort of the short term focus is, is that, you know it is, it is a notable expense, but it is something that we should be doing
here in 12 short years. Some of us may still be here. All of us, no all Phil Giudice: of us. Has any public pension fund ever actually caught up? I think there has not a lot, but I think there has,
so get back to me later as to who wants to take a lead on
Carl Barnes: I'll get back to you now, when I was looking at the spreadsheet, very first question I had in mind to actually raise yourself as I think it was, you bill, which of these towns have had overrides and how much And when were they? That's easy to find. Yeah, it's online. And at the same time, if I we can, maybe we don't need to actually collect, you know, the the information, the the sales information, for lack of a better word, right now, but I mean, I'll plug that stuff and add it to a spread, add it to the spreadsheet and recirculate it.
I will send around to everyone a spreadsheet that was, Phil Giudice: yeah, results of statewide override votes for 26 and 25 but I do think that's trying to collect. Carl Barnes: Like, wherever was it? Yeah. Brain Drake, brain trade, Phil Giudice: yeah. But any towns, even just anecdotally, you know, trying to start, like Sudbury and others that we can all sort of look at it right at another meeting, not that any we're going to adopt it, necessarily. William Huss: But, and I think all of this can help a little I can forward, if you the repository of information, if I find somebody on something like Sudbury I was forwarded Carl Barnes: to you, that'd be great. The website still up, yeah. I mean, one Phil Giudice: thing, it just earlier, I was thinking about the Sudbury report, and if we wanted to create that. Report, not under 70 pages, but the 30 page version. But I wonder if we could ask someone in Sudbury if we could have kind of their data, data, well, they're even their, their slides, the templates, so that we Carl Barnes: could just, you know, repopulate it Unknown: so with, like, highlighting Wayland, as opposed to Sudbury. Phil Giudice: It's helped us to make it easier. Yeah, William Huss: I forget, I looked through how many of their towns matched up with ours, and it was a lot, yeah, not, you know, like 60 or 70% not 90 Yeah. Phil Giudice: I don't know if folks in Sudbury town government, but to the degree that somebody could reach out and ask,
Carl Barnes: we might also be able to stretch.
Unknown: So in your inboxes, this spreadsheet, yeah, I've seen that. I don't have big fingers on the a lot of towns have a lot of losses in their overrides, and Wayland hasn't had, my recollection, many losses, if any, that Wayland has put the case together, and they've gone forward
Carl Barnes: again. My collection.
Good to hear Bell, this is it's daunting. It's daunting, and this is a tough Unknown: moment. I think a lot of people are feeling it from the last couple of years, I think this is a tough moment to go up and ask for override, truly like
April Methot: things are turning things feel. Unknown: I think a lot of people feel the turmoil and uncertainty, and I we will have a lot of work ahead of us to to make this ask noi Carl Barnes: fully on board, and the things that Phil Giudice: we might have relied on in the past and police in the back of our minds is the state might help bail us out. Doesn't feel so solid here, or that the federal government get some money from this, that state would get money from the federal government. That certainly doesn't feel very solid now, just William Huss: speaking for myself for being the new person. I mean, I'm not yet on board. I mean, it sort of sounds like that. We're, you know, we're gonna, how are we going to sell this? And it's like, Well, prove to me it's needed, you know, not quite there yet. Once I see the A and the B and so forth, I may get there. Yeah, I'm not assuming that Phil Giudice: that's fine. Everybody should come wherever they're coming from. Carl Barnes: Ask hard questions Phil Giudice: the times, and I have been asking the questions about, where couldn't we find efficiencies? The answers that come back are not Carl Barnes: exciting, right? You know, yes, Phil Giudice: and we are pursuing a joint dispatch for, you know, emergency crews, which is great, and maybe in three years, we'll save, you know, some chunk of money. Okay, it doesn't like moving right? And, of course, William Huss: the hard part of it is the contractual stuff, because, you know, the union contracts are kind of stuck into retirement, and there's a lot of fixed costs that Carl Barnes: you don't have flexibility on. Yeah, the Unknown: win loss, I was just going to say, looking at the wind loss, on, on what you just sent is, I mean, it's, it's 5050, so it's, it's not an easy task. And, yeah, we have, we have reason. We have services that people will want. But as Iris just noted, I mean, it's, it's a tough environment, so Carl Barnes: we'll have our work cut out.
Phil Giudice: In fact, my mind was why boy would have been nice to get through 27 without needing an override, and then sort of having lived this a little more in the Yeah.
Remember, you know the high school, 100 million dollars, which is going to be paid for largely by the state. You know, the water stuff, $40 million a library. And when folks do we lose a new library behind I'm not, I'm not going in feeling confident that whatever Unknown: outcome is going to come from this. I right? So that's by way of topics to cover tonight. Anything else from anybody? April Methot: No, I think we look forward to Unknown: once some variation of those budgets become available. Wouldn't that swing in either direction? I think we look forward to seeing that. Yeah, I think for bills identification. I think last year there was a tremendous amount of work done at these meetings, at the meetings that Phil's going to to find efficiencies. And I think we saw that in the fact that the rate increase went from, I think what was originally projected in May over 5% down to 3% which ended up being a three and a half. Increase. And Iris Hoxha: Michael McCall said that was the lowest increase we have seen in the last five years. And it was because they, I think, have probably tapped out those efficiencies, maybe not, but I suspect if they were easy, low hanging fruit, they'd probably take it advantage of them. And so now the decisions are going to become more painful. That is just the truth, right? William Huss: One other thing for Carl and your discussion, I think when we're looking at overrides, it's not just looking at historically, what did they do, but essentially to be a fly on the wall of these meetings at these other towns, to see, are they planning one for this year, maybe next year? How soon might one come? I think that would be really useful, because you want to know what other you know there may be some towns that are doing exactly the same year we are, that they have some implications Phil Giudice: that I don't have it open anymore, but the spreadsheet had 30 towns, 40 towns on it, and maybe you have it open. Unknown: So it's not just three or four, right? Something like dozens, right? So just FYI, I Phil Giudice: know that that person has expressed interest in FinCom to come up to the committee, and Pam and I tasked with potentially getting with the person. Carl Barnes: So fantastic. April Methot: That's exciting. You could use some more hands. Yeah, and there are actually two open Phil Giudice: positions. There are two open positions, so I don't want to lose
pain. So to recap, Bill and IRIS will be coming back with benchmark stuff. Carl's going to come back with override stuff for the next meeting, and whatever other topics to surface between now and then Unknown: we confirm the date, please. Is that alright Carl Barnes: for the next Phil Giudice: meeting? It's Carl. What's the date for the next Unknown: meeting? The sixth of October? Would that be correct? First Monday? Yeah. There.
Carl Barnes: It would be correct. Okay, thank you. It is correct. William Huss: Yeah, I guess, you know, and Iris and I can talk about it, but I, you know, I'm not sure what, in addition to what's already been done, you might be looking for Phil Giudice: presentation that could go to the town to, you know, draft, something to sort of think about. So in terms of the data, whatever data is used for what we not, not so much the spreadsheet. Just how do we compare it to other towns? Unknown: Yeah, and I would argue some per capita normalization. I think that helps paint the picture, right, of like, whatever she Carl Barnes: used, yeah. I mean, yeah, that's another thing. William Huss: Because certainly, you know, there's 82 items, so I guess Phil Giudice: I don't have, I bet there's a dozen that are certainly most relevant, 15. William Huss: That's, that's where I can use, you know, our judgment, but yeah, necessarily know what the most, having been new to this, whatever. That's okay, Unknown: yeah, I think even better, what are you curious about? To know, what were the questions that you would want to be able to feel confident William Huss: about in the obvious room sneer. But you know, police fire, you know, how are we spending our money schools? Police fire, right? You know, some of the other debt stuff is a Carl Barnes: little bit of, okay, cool. Any other topics for tonight?
Phil Giudice: Hearing none. Do we have a motion to April Methot: motion to adjourn? Seconded
Carl Barnes: Bill hires. Hi. Pam, yes, I'm on board in April, yes, we are adjourned. Thank you. Robbie, recording stopped.
pursuant to chapter two of the acts of 2025 this meeting made is being conducted in person and via remote meetings. It may be made available to the public on WayCAM as soon as after the meeting is practical. Persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participating in the meeting may do so by attending the meeting. The meeting remotely, as noted above, we requested public comment, two minutes per person, so the agenda tonight, every call to order and the comments of members, responses, if any, it will be five items approved, reviewing and approving the minutes, following up on the discussion of the draft in the redraft of the annual report for FinCom, following up discussion on on benchmarking, and thengetting into the MWRA at Happy Hollow Wells, public works like board conversations around, what should we be doing about our fresh water supply? And the fifth item is a review of the fiscal year 2027 budget. Anybody online, Robbie Bullard: I see no one else online, Phil Guidice: just Pam okay. So we will begin with reviewing and approving the minutes taken in quarter. Leave comments on September 2 minutes there were not a 20 most recent, first
Phil Guidice: the order that they were stacked on my desk April Methot: Okay, thank you
Unknown: getting into this in a timely manner, William Huss: they look fine to me. So if you have a motion to accept, I will make that motion. Carl Barnes: Can I ask a couple of quick questions please before we make that motion? One is whether we want to, under topics not reasonably anticipated. There's a sort of mini agenda for the next meeting. It says discussions for next meeting, benchmarking 8/28 minutes, 9/2 minutes. I want to have those
moving as necessary. And then the other question is really out of, I guess, about Robert's Rules of Order, "April to move to adjourn the meeting." And then there was five of us voted, not six. So I'm wondering, can the person who makes the motion vote? Phil Guidice: Think I've heard Yes, and that has come up in prior Carl Barnes: elsewhere we have too, Phil Guidice: yeah, you know, yeah. If you can both make a motion, second it and vote on it. April Methot: sorry, I am. I'm going to take out the time. Carl Barnes: I think it was at 8:35 not April Methot: Yeah, because then I have a meeting adjourned at 8:35 Gotcha. So I'll take out that time. It was because we recessed, yeah, and I put that time in there, so I just fixed that. Phil Guidice: Yeah, Carl, if you know any thing different about voting. We can vote or not. Let us know, but I will continue the meeting. Carl Barnes: Great. Yep. And just in general, my sense of the minutes, it's been a surprise to me how minutes are done in public meetings compared to minutes, I've done lots and lots of times for other government bodies as well as private but they're working for me, but I do encourage us to not make it overly hard. And then that gets to comments Unknown: the next one. William Huss: Yeah, just one general comment I had, which I think you covered fine, but the use of acronyms. And I think every place I found an acronym, somewhere I could find it was spelled out. But that was the one thing with the assignment. Committee got called on the we got the letter from the AG, we use, like the COA, yeah. And they said, you know, do it again. Yeah, spell it out. Phil Guidice: Okay, good to know.
Phil Giudice: So, yep, did we do to vote everyone in favor? April Methot: You have to call because Pam's, sorry that's right, Carl? Unknown: I'm Pam, Hi. Can I just like the one little addendum, if I was there at seven o'clock, I don't think I was actually late, like, I think those are usually put in parentheses if you showed up later. So I don't think I was late if April Methot: I think someone called it to order I hadn't seen their one point. So I'll just take the time off because I never found. At the order, yeah. Call to order at seven. Carl Barnes: Yeah. And now turning to August, 28 minutes. Phil Giudice: And this relates to the comment I had made just a moment ago. I gave to April a suggestion to really streamline the last paragraph on Carl Barnes: the first page so that it simply states the two items Phil Giudice: capacity by reclassifying certain debts as well as using bond anticipation notes as a financing option. Period and then the last sentence, the town is nearing a budget override due to rising costs and period, and then the last three lines just scratching. There's a lot more to it, but I don't think it needs to be carried at this stage in this document. Carl Barnes: So that was my suggestion. Other comments on the minutes. I mean, I guess I feel like, I don't want to, like, belabor minutes, but Unknown: just that, the issues of the rising cost, some of the expenses that will remain, I think we're just saying some of the expenses that would remain unknown going into budget season were the health insurance, special ed, transportation, union contract renewals. I think that was that piece, right? Phil Giudice: Yeah, yeah, but there, that is the piece that I'm suggesting we take out. There's a bunch more than that. And it feels like listing some without giving the fuller context of what's unknown may give the reader a false sense of that's all that's unknown, okay, all right. And the listing of what's unknown is actually rather long, and getting in some way longer. Unknown: So that that was why I thought at this stage right I can but other comments or suggestions April Methot: I'm going to
Carl Barnes: take out those in the materials. Discussed distributed. Actually want to come back to that, but right below that is the language from the agenda, which I got wrong, and I actually had a second an amended agenda posted. So my bad. It was such a minor change, I don't think I sent it to anybody, but it's actually the fiscal 27 budget. 26 remember this? And then so that in the first line of the next paragraph, the same thing. So I gave you the bad information, people, not your fault. And then, just to make this consistent with the actual language of the agenda, back in that prior paragraph, third line, in respect of Department of Public we've had the word DEP, the Department of Public Works, the what? So sorry. Third line of the against public works that's just inserted V in front of the different. April Methot: Thank you. I thought you said V. That's what I was like. And
Carl Barnes: then the very last change on that is just again, to make it consistent with the published agenda, is to replace the word projects with facility at 66 River Road. At what was the address 66 River Road, April Methot: that's the DEP W site from general obligation to exclude that stuff. Okay?
Carl Barnes: The last question, more than comment I have, is on the on the exhibit list itself. Do we want to be listing graphs of documents. I don't, I don't know what's appropriate, but, you know, I think what we're telling the world is we, you know, they can have these drafts. They want to see them. And I think I would imagine it's only the final versions of documents that become part of the public record. I don't know the answer to that. My understanding is anything you Unknown: discuss has to be available, so I haven't Phil Giudice: discussed the draft. I actually think drafts have to be alright, that's why I asked. But if someone finds out differently, right? April Methot: I actually have a question in regards to emails that we get from Brian's been sending emails, even though we haven't discussed them. Yeah. Oh, Harley, yeah. He's sending information in. Should we be having those in an agenda item or adding that as an exhibit? Because it's kind of like public comment, and that's the part that I'm Carl Barnes: not sure. Yeah. So it's Phil Giudice: check in with me. Okay, if it becomes. An agenda item, then yes, if it's not okay. April Methot: So so far, we have not discussed any of that stuff. So I would, Unknown: I think, I thought what council said that last meeting was Select Board was that for the drafts to your point? Yes, they do, but only when someone requests them, do they actually have to be shared? Correct? Phil Giudice: Yeah. Brian Curley, he gives me about 12 emails a day. The ones that go Unknown: to all FinCom are the ones that I'm curious about so but yes, i That's why I want to ask. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I think if it becomes a, you know, FinCom agenda item, yes, but okay, otherwise, I wasn't just considered public comment. You don't think so anybody can correct me. Carl Barnes: That makes sense to me. Yeah?
Phil Giudice: Those suggestions, someone want to make a motion to approve the minutes, so good. Unknown: Second you have to call Yeah. Carl, yes. Bill, yep, I abstain. I wasn't there. Okay. April, yes. Bill, yes. Pam, yes, yes. Two orders, two minutes. April Methot: Okay, can you remind me? I as you move to the first one, the 721, minute, or sorry, nine, two minutes. And Who Unknown: seconded? Sorry, you motion for nine two. He seconded, no, I think April Methot: actually bill he motioned, I did Unknown: the motion for the first Carl Barnes: second. Let's go to Carl second
April Methot: on the first one too. He seconded. Unknown: I'd say I made the motion on the second one. I don't remember what happened on the first and Bill Second, April Methot: I think you seconded on this person. Okay, Carl Barnes: good enough. I'll go back to next order of business Phil Giudice: is the report, which I took the inputs that I've received and redrafted in Carl Barnes: central Dave on September 4 of last week, are there any further comments or suggestions on the report?
Hearing none can I have a motion to submit? I'll
April Methot: make a motion to submit the report for fiscal year. My sense second. Carl Barnes: Carl, yes, Bill, I'll stand Yes. Phil Giudice: Sam was on board. Yes. Okay. Report done, I get to submit that. Carl Barnes: Thank you for drafting. You're welcome to me. Thanks for the inputs into benchmarking.
William Huss: Take it away, though, I know you know, Phil, have done a really good job of finding some data sources, which is the state source, and what Sudbury had done. So, yes, last night, when I have nothing to do between 11 and I'm on my computer saying, Well, wait a minute, I think I can download, you know, some of these, some of this data. And so I took the the 13 comparable towns, bus Wayland, so 14 towns in total, with the school committee uses Carl Barnes: for their comparisons William Huss: and downloaded 82 different
data items, all different kinds of things, and put it into a spreadsheet. Bill was very quick to look at the spreadsheets and do a bunch of medians and means, thank you. And then I in discussions with Phil, you know, I took it one step further to look at interquartile range rather than just medians. And then some of the things that Phil sort of called out as us being a little bit different actually saw within the interquartile range. So maybe we're not as far off as it was, but I look at it as really a starting point. We can add towns, we can add data, but at least we have sort of a starting point for, you know, future answer. I don't know how you found that data source, but it was an incredible, yeah, Phil Giudice: no, it was the data source that was used in whatever it was 2019 as well. And it's an ongoing it's been I'm pretty low William Huss: tech, so the only thing I could do is, you had to download, yeah, but you can only download, like, six to eight at a time. Okay, so I had to do 10 downloads and copy 10 spreadsheets Phil Giudice: and going on Netflix at the same time. And then I William Huss: felt like a quarter of 12. I figured, well, it did it great, and then I left that Wayland. So it's like, Okay, I'm gonna get this done before I go to bed. But anyway, it's something that is hopefully useful that we can use going forward.
April Methot: So I see a lot of excellent Dave. Carl Barnes: The points did we use? April Methot: Since the list you grab was the school list right from towns we grab, school rankings Carl Barnes: did not William Huss: it was not part of what the state published, okay, but yeah, those are the kinds of things we can add Unknown: a column. Mostly it would just be interesting if you think of paying for services and right, the question is not whether we pay for services or not, it's question of, do they reflect the priorities? Do people feel like they're getting the value that they're paying for and things like that? I suspect matter. April Methot: I say I suspect, Unknown: because it's not that any of us here are looking to compare the schools, so to speak, right? That's not our job, but it's mostly just, it's an interesting data point as well, and I think from that angle, it also might help to explain, if there were elements where perhaps we are spending a little bit more, it might go to speak to are we getting what we're paying for? Right? Phil Giudice: As a town? Yeah, it's tough. I mean, obviously there's infinite, infinite data points you could go into on all of this. I mean, this is one year or one moment when we downloaded but, you know, does it very much year, year or not? Any this specific kind of outliers, school rankings, as I've seen and published, is usually us, News and World Report, which has all kinds of sort of metrics that are buried in there, like it's all about college acceptance and SAT scores or whatever, which may or may not be relevant to every family or individuals. But it's it is a point of reference point. When I would move to Wayland, I think the Wayland High School was labeled the number two in the state, and now it's like 23 I think maybe not. Okay. Unknown: They just came out with new, new rankings. I think it's a little bit higher than that. But, yes, but Phil Giudice: out of 300 and something, yeah. And 23 to me, feels like it's an upper tier, so, but, you know, some people get really worked up over waiting, but we were below number 10, and now we're, you know, Unknown: I think the goal is not fixation on a number as much as Carl Barnes: we spend Unknown: proportionally as a part of the budget, a large percentage on things right, on things like the school and the service. And I think it's reasonable if you're already including data points. It's a data point to also help paint the picture again. Of the reason why we're going through this is both to figure out how we fit compared to the other towns, and also, then there's a question on do we feel for ourselves as this town, that we are happy with what we're paying for and the services on William Huss: the value? I mean, the nice thing about a spreadsheet, you can add columns if you use them, you fine. If you don't use them, that's fine. Just paste them into the spreadsheet. Unknown: And there might even be a question, like, we could even ask the superintendent, right? Like, what do they use? I'm sure they use and they don't, maybe they don't want to share, and Phil Giudice: that's fine. No, I asked the superintendent again Wednesday, said, could you give us examples of how you were using our data, and we'll get, okay, sounds great. Yeah, that's the Unknown: only reason I bring it up, not to fixate on the ranking as much as it you know, it's just such a high proportion of our spending that I think it feels reasonable too. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I think, in my mind, and we're going to get to the conversation about overrides later, the challenge for FinCom, sort of the central challenge fiscal year 27 is helping to communicate the financial realities to the town, yeah, April Methot: and so for these towns. Then let me ask one other question. But just to go further, Carl Barnes: um, so I Phil Giudice: think that we all almost ought to design the the PowerPoint, so to speak, or the story we want to be able to tell the town, you know, and that's means people who are in fixed income, people who have kids, people who don't people might be thinking about moving here, how to kind of put it into context. Carl Barnes: And, you know, work back from that Phil Giudice: sort of presentation we want to make so that, so that it helps to provide context around all this. I agree,
Unknown: on that note, looking at the schools that were picked, do we happen to have the data on whether or not they've done overrides either within the last two years or going through an override for this year. Phil Giudice: So we do have a lot of data on I didn't circulate that. Unknown: That would be helpful. It would help. I think, as I think about to your point, crafting a narrative, I think it always helps relax people to know that they're not alone in going through this experience. And I think also then helps us to be able to explain the fact that I know a lot of towns are going through this, and I think we can all appreciate that this is not a a one year in the making situation, right? There's a lot of forces at play. And I mean, maybe I'm wrong here, and others are welcome to Speak up, but I suspect that that would help bring some comfort to be. To know that we're one of many towns going through this situation, and many towns have managed William Huss: maybe getting cart before the horse. But I think, well, I did read up on sudbury's override. What was interesting was that the way they marketed it was for a specific item, like for the schools. Yeah, it wasn't for the general. Hey, we just needed more money in general, the Unknown: 2013 I think, Carl Barnes: was the last time we leave 13 years ago, Phil Giudice: whatever the most recent override that Wayland did, there was a very strong community uprising around save our services, and dads and schools and folks kind of mobilized to make that case. I don't know what will emerge here. Exactly in my mind, there's sort of a benchmarking exercise that almost is irregardless of overrides, just to help people get grounded in the facts. You know, here's where we stand, here's how our communities compare and are different. And then there's another parallel process that will utilize this that it's all about fiscal year 27 and beyond. Kind of our financial choices April Methot: in pulling this bill, since you probably had the most time to look at it, or you felt anything surprising,
Carl Barnes: so I put some notes in Phil Giudice: the column on the our commercial industrial base is clean. Our growth is clean compared to other communities, even communities like Weston that actually have higher income levels, and but they're getting a lot more growth, and they actually have a somewhat larger commercial industrial William Huss: base. What surprised me, and I may have made a mistake, because I did my calculations quickly for those items, we were still within the quartile range. Phil Giudice: Yeah, we weren't at the bottom. No, we're not. I mean Well, we are in growth. Yeah. Other than growth, I think they're wearing kind of a slug in the middle. William Huss: I guess that was what was surprising to me, is how much in the middle we are. I mean, sort of the opposite of what you expect. It wasn't the outliers. It was the fact that we're kind of in the middle.
Carl Barnes: So that's my reaction as well. Generally, there's some, you know, I took a look at a bunch of, you know, specific line items and thought education, for example. I mean, we are right there, right there in the middle, and I was surprised at how much state aid we get compared to our to these. That was a that was a surprise. Yeah, I agree that we're getting as much as we are in kind of looking at these, it makes me feel like this probably is these courtroom towns are very likely to be, you know, I would say they are a peer group. Yeah, I don't we are in the middle of so much of it. April Methot: Sorry, which group are you looking at? So they hold the same ring that the school list. Unknown: Pam, because there's, there's several, there are several spreadsheets. I'm not sure which one Carl Barnes: you're looking at, the one I sent today. Pam, okay, it's, William Huss: I mean, just quickly, Weston, Lincoln, Wellesley, Sherburne, Lexington, Concord, Dover, Carlisle, Sudbury, Needham, Acton, Foxboro, Bedford.
Carl Barnes: We can add others if we wanted, but that's the one I started with.
Phil Giudice: Yeah, I apologize for all of the emailings and stuff April Methot: and the spends, Unknown: the spends in the different categories. Those are normalized for the population difference. Well, no, they are not okay, because our population is, like, slightly smaller, right than the average, Phil Giudice: and that's all covered here, 4% smaller than the median, 16% Carl Barnes: smaller than the average, so pretty close in the right way.
Phil Giudice: So Pam, the school committee, pier towns haven't changed. We got updated Carl Barnes: whenever it was last spring. Okay, Phil Giudice: looked and they were the same towns that were whatever the 2423 Unknown: comparison Okay, the FinCom towns, pier towns had to me, Phil Giudice: towns that were kind of well outside of our cadre, at least in my right thinking. Yeah, I agree. Unknown: So sorry. The ones you listed here, these 14 are the ones that we the FinCom Phil Giudice: has used no they are the ones the school Unknown: committee. These are the schools I'm sorry. Okay, great, yeah, and okay, so I. Just wondering why you didn't also look at the FinCom group. Phil Giudice: Just didn't have time. Okay, Unknown: okay, okay, understand, understandably, I get that. It's a lot more to Phil Giudice: Yeah, and just curiously, and I circulated it. There's a list of towns that the town is doing benchmarking on Compton compensation and rank, or, you know, steps, and they are slightly different towns as well, but I circulated that list. Unknown: But yeah, I I agree. I at least being new the idea of having towns on the North Shore and the South Shore. I mean, they were all there were several that were like, Why are this? And I think part of the criteria is obviously comparable town, but it's also sort of, what the general public would say is a comparable town. If we say, Oh, we're like, Cohasset, people would say, Huh, you know, Carl Barnes: so I think that's part of the week. Phil Giudice: Pam, were you involved in picking the towns that the FinCom picked back, you know, whatever, five plus years ago? I think Unknown: it was 2019, and honestly, I started in the STEM December, so I was kind of a little bit late on that budget season. I think they had just chosen them. So I, I think I was there when we kind of did the final vote to include them or something, but I really wasn't involved in in the going through the process, so I don't recall all the rationale. And,
Phil Giudice: yeah, I've asked folks just as to their recollection, and I haven't gotten anything particularly satisfying. It was akin to, we wanted towns that don't spend as much money as we do to be in the mix, Carl Barnes: which is a criteria, but I'm not sure that's yeah, Unknown: it does seem like we should kind of look at sort of some of the metrics and figure out what, what we think are the most relevant data points for comparison. April Methot: Aside from just that one, I William Huss: also think there's an argument for consistency. Because when you're talking to the general public, you don't want to say, No, which list, April Methot: right? Yes, that's, Unknown: that's true. I think we should also, you know, just, just to be, you know, and there's, there may be a reason why the school list is as it is also so I think we, we probably should open it up as a cast a little bit wider net, just to, you know, have done, gone through the sort of rigorous process of reviewing, kind of all the metrics Carl Barnes: and all the towns that might be relevant. Unknown: But I but thank you for putting this together. Because this is, I mean, this is a ton of data to just to starting to look at and and to start comparing, you know, well and Carl Barnes: relative to the group,
Phil Giudice: Iris was apologizing before folks came that she wanted to spend more time on this. Unknown: Yeah, it is beautiful. Um, yeah, and I will spend more time looking at this. Phil Giudice: I encourage iris and and build potentially to chat about it between now and they are October 1, Monday in October, and then we'll come back together and see even a track presentation or further kind William Huss: of, yeah. I mean, I'm happy with any of us here playing with the spreadsheet, oh yeah. Adding columns, adding rows, saying, Hey, I tried this, I tried that. Phil Giudice: Feel free. Yeah, and as I get more info from others, like, if Dr Fleischman does have stuff to share, I'll be sure to schedule April Methot: anything else on benchmarking at this time.
Thanks, yeah, thank you. Water, we needed a little bit
Phil Giudice: so we had our joint meeting. BpW Select Board came away with a little further understanding of kind of what we're up to. Unknown: And very strong sense from my my sense was that DPW was moving along the path of political, disparate access. It won't be a big tax for this comment. So that might be the easiest from DPW standpoint. I asked Tom holder afterwards and George that we looked at and see an option that actually shows a more significant monthly fee, or customer fee, twice a year Carl Barnes: fee, Unknown: plus a chunk that goes into taxes, in a chunk that goes. 1000. And at least from my thinking, I would want to put all of the MWRA connect into taxes and all the PFAS into rates Carl Barnes: and see what the implications of that are, and move the Phil Giudice: per customer fee up to a number like $250 from the $65 Unknown: that it's at now. I mean, I liked the option that was presented by town council of the opportunity for the Select Board to be able to adjust that lever up and down. I think what's missing from the opinion from DPW, to be totally frank, was actually the comment that one of the Board of Public Works members had made, and he made a very interesting comment around his concern that if left up to the Select Board, they could make any choice that they want to make, and it could be in alignment with the recommendation, could be out of alignment with the recommendation. And I think that the premise, or at least one of the premises, I think in the argument around there, they're wanting to fold it into the residential tax rate is because of the new salt cap maximums, and I'm concerned that there's not an appreciation for we have now seen, within the last decade, major changes and legislation around taxes, the introduction of the salt cap, and also then the adjustment of that, and there's no guarantee that there won't be further changes. In fact, quite the opposite, right? There's a guarantee that it's going to expire in a couple of years. So why would we ask? Why would we ask community to vote and permanent vote Carl Barnes: when the Unknown: tax strategy that that is relying on is not permanent. And so to me, that suggests that the flexibility is important here, and does give exactly what you're saying, like that option, right? It just gives us the opportunity to blend as the situation changes. Phil Giudice: So Select Board has that, yeah, what should we recommend, from our standpoint? Unknown: I think a hybrid approach that allows them to continue to have that lever. I think what we heard there, and Michael McCall said, this is the equity factor is huge. If you do it all in tax, residential rates, then if you have a non for profit in town or someone, no one else is paying for that. So I think that there needs to be a blended approach to your point where there's some of the facts, the base tax rate, or the basic water rates go up, or there's a fee associated with it, and I think what percentage I'm flexible on, right? Like it's not No one's here trying it all has to get paid for somehow, right? But I think a blended approach for sure, and I think I personally would feel a lot more comfortable with the idea that the Select Board, again could have some control over that lever in either direction as situations Carl Barnes: change. Yeah. William Huss: I mean, I'm in agreement with that as well. I took it in two parts. The first part is, you know, the issues, and it's sort of like we want, and I think Michael McCall mentioned this. We want to address equity, fairness, water conservation, climate change and public opinion. And then the ways to do that is a balance between taxes, rates and flat fee. Carl Barnes: And I don't, William Huss: as long as they take those issues into consideration, and as long as it's a blend of those three, I don't need to get caught up into is it 50% or 40% but that's my take on it anyway. That's consistent with
Carl Barnes: your views as well. I agree with I agree with my colleagues here. You and I discussed this offline, but I think that the information that Michael McCall asked for
basically, you know, I'd have to look back to see precisely what he what he asked for, but the breaking down, you know, the by quartiles, the tax bills, and then the border rates on different scenarios, I think he was talking about using that information to help sell the project to the town. I would like that information now, because I agree, first of all, it's not our job, but, you know, we don't have to come up with those percentages and but I would it would help me wrap my head around it, to have that information early. And so, you know, I was planning to write to the Select Board, to, you know, chair and ask, specifically, you know, to urge her to get that information. Copy Michael call, and if it's okay with this group, I'll do it on behalf of the committee. Please do I copied George from DEP w as well. William Huss: Yeah, okay, I forgot one thing, just on the blended approach. I think that's easier to sell, because who's going to complain? It's like, well, wait a minute, I think should all the taxes? Like, well, some of it is taxing. I think it should all be rates. Well, some of it is rates. So it's really hard for somebody to make an argument against a blended approach. I guess. You know.
Phil Giudice: The my logic of putting the PFAS and happy hollow into the rates is we're going to be using those resources every day. The 15% of consumption that's going to come from MWRA feels to me more like a capital item that we're buying for the optionality. And it's not an enterprise funds, in my mind, should be generating the revenue that they need to be able to pay for their operations, capital and so forth. This is one that we could set aside, saying this is, you know, for the town to have that optionality. So it gives me at least a logic trail as Tom, why one bucket would have the PFAS happy hollow, and we use it every day, and another and also increasing per customer fee that gets at the issues of things like nonprofits or or the town not spending any because they would be tab to Spend that. So that's kind of where my logic was coming from. I also like the idea of proposing, you know, the blended hybrid, but give them an EG, so to speak, of a specific just so that it sort of makes it more real for them. Carl Barnes: Pam, your views. You're on mute.
Unknown: Gosh, sorry. I agree with the points made. I you know, you turn that off and you forget that it's off. I agree with the points made Select Board, having the flexibility to toggle, you know, over time, if necessary, the hybrid approach, I think that, yeah, trying to sell it all one way or another, there are pros and cons of both. And I think that we should be,
as we make a recommendation, we should sort of just sort through some of those to make it very clear that there are, you know, there are on both sides. There are reasons to or not to that we have considered and but ultimately, it does seem like some some sharing between rates and tax makes the most sense. I so in just to be clear from your what you're proposing is, or your thought was, the MWRA being the the hookup, I think that was the 20 million and then the remainder, yes, yeah, I had that same thought. So that's right. I'm in agreement on that. If we decide that we want to be more specific in the breakdown, Phil Giudice: yeah, I mean, I don't need to be prescriptive, but it's illogical. Yeah, that was the thinking. William Huss: I like the idea of an example, rather than we're putting a stake in the ground. Unknown: You know, at least one member of the Board of Public Works was advocating for that very approach. Ultimately voted yes, along with the rest. But I think there, there's, there's some sentiment on the board for that. Phil Giudice: Yeah, my direct conversation, Tom holder, you thought that made a lot of sense as well, and that it would be an easy ish thing to model with Carl Barnes: abraham's group to look at the implications. Are we suggesting using that as an example? Are we suggesting these simply bifurcating it in addition to the mixed charge, or the procedure that I think you were talking about where, where it and it's a K Orient, which one, but then select board to look at this again every year. So this does both. Phil Giudice: This puts it forth, whatever the logic is that everyone gets comfortable with, but it does not diminish select board's ability Carl Barnes: to make other changes. Could, though, I mean, I think that I want to, we could simply, I'm not saying we should, yeah, could say this much, this debt is going to be excluded, debt into the tax rate. And I think if you don't, then use that procedure, that's right, that they all have that flexibility. Phil Giudice: Yeah, I would leave it in the hands of Select Board, okay, determination. So I think we're doing the same page. Yeah, yeah. Personally, I feel like our Select Board does way too much work. And the idea of revisiting this every year, and I mean, Unknown: in general, feels like we won't have to. Yeah, it seems like a tool that might be just, that's the point you're just reserving. We talk a lot about two way door decisions versus one way decisions. And I just think it April Methot: gives me. Flexibility. Yeah, that's it.
Carl Barnes: Anything else on board? So we have one. William Huss: How do we close that loop? Is there a motion that one means, or is there, you know, just authorizing Phil to make that point to Carl Barnes: select board. How do we want to get the William Huss: transfer the what our discussion from here to there?
Carl Barnes: Could you read back what a recommendation would be?
April Methot: I have from a recommendation standpoint the MRE MWRA piece into into taxes and pupils updates into rates. But the other thing that I was going to say is that I think Bill or Carl was going to ask about the breakdown of the example, and I think that that will give us some more informed decision as to like, how to make the recommendation, if we saw that before making Phil Giudice: the recommendation. So what I'm thinking right now based, and I think that is reasonable, because Carl, when you frame that note to like board and others, that you say that the sense of the FinCom thinking was this, you know, put into these three buckets the revenues necessary and maintain flexibility for Select Board, but to for select for FinCom that come with a more firm, specific recommendation. Would you like to see answers to these questions? Sounds good. I'll put that together tomorrow or Wednesday, and I'll run it by you first, okay, make sure I capture Yeah, I think that's fine. And then I think in October, when we come together, we can hopefully make a recommendation. William Huss: Okay, so we have taught we have another, I believe. So, okay, April Methot: based off of the last meeting, it sounded like they don't need to do a special for my understanding, there was a lot of talk of like, not having to do a special term election with the way they structure this recommendation, and that it could be done in April, certainly, to save That's right, Phil Giudice: there's, there's no special election needed, to my knowledge, is right for April Methot: this, regardless of what recommendation. I Carl Barnes: think that was the only April Methot: thing that was the only thing that we're worried with the timing. Unknown: I think what I understood, sorry, maybe if they choose procedurally to have it all be as part of the residential text for excluded debt, that does April Methot: require a ballot vote, but they can do it right before, Unknown: yes, you're right. Sorry, we have a November because I think we were, we were we were going after the November date I see, which is where I think the timeline was being pushed on us. Tom it like, well, make your recommendation. Phil Giudice: There was a consideration that in November to move from DPW prior spend into excluded debt. And while that was happening, should we put William Huss: so that's removed of every day. Do we have an official liaison to the Select Board? Carol Martin, okay? Because, you know, my thought is that even if we're not to a specific recommendation to keep her informed, oh, yeah, what a discussion is, they're not surprised. And if there's a misunderstanding on the dates, she could say, no, no, you can't wait to lock Phil Giudice: it. Yeah, I'll let you. Okay, I'll be with her.
Unknown: Good The only other thing, my apologies with the water. I know you were trying to move on. No, that's okay. I think I said this actually at the slide board meeting, but I guess I feel compelled to reiterate it at this point, my understanding of the many conversations we've had, and maybe, maybe I've misunderstood Select Board. It seems like in that meeting, was expecting everyone to come to the table with a lot more questions about why this recommendation was, and in my mind, we are beyond that. We've sort of, they've had that discussion. They have the documentation for why they met the recommendation. You know, I'm in full support for if any of the Select Board members don't feel confident with that. You know, I have my own personal feelings about that, but at this point, we know that we need to fix water somehow. And so I guess, in my mind, the conversation, we have to continue to push along on this front, even if they're still up for discussion, and discussions are happening somewhere else around the actual approach, because we do need water and we need it funded, right? So that's I just wanted to say that, because I feel like maybe they are still having those conversations. But for right now, I feel like our edict is like we still have to find a way to have the project that's being proposed funded complete. Phil Giudice: There was, there has been talk at select board as to whether it might make sense to hire another engineering firm to look at what this engineering firm has done. My understanding of that talk is. Hasn't progressed, and it's been, I'm not sure decided, but it doesn't look like that's going to go forward.
Carl Barnes: The next big topic is fiscal year 27 budget.
Phil Giudice: There was so the current short call, right now, looks to be $1.9 million Carl Barnes: between revenues and what expected expenses are going to there's a still a lot of Phil Giudice: variables in that. $1.9 million one chunk was is likely to be reduced due to the ability to, instead of going out for permanent debt financing for $16 million worth of capital projects that are kind of ready to be financed to go and get on anticipatory notes, which I think lowers that 1.9 by five to $750,000 because on bond, anticipatory notes, we don't actually pay principal. We just wait until we reissue them into permanent debt, which can be in a year or two or more, depending on the specifics. Unknown: And I'm sorry you said it lowers it to 750 or by 750 Phil Giudice: lowers it by 750 Carl Barnes: approximately. Okay, so that still leaves 1.22 ish. Phil Giudice: The other factor was considered to move DPW debt that was put into general levy to excluded debt, and that would lower it by another on the order of half a million dollars by Carl Barnes: moving that amount of money over, select Phil Giudice: board at this stage has decided that it has not embraced that as a strategy, Carl Barnes: which makes it much more clear that a two and a half override will probably be needed For fiscal year 27 Phil Giudice: a spreadsheet has been put together, not worth sharing yet, that looks at the next three years, and it's, I can't remember the number $15 million $20 million Carl Barnes: of its shortfall as as currently sort of penciled out. So it's gets to be scary numbers. Those numbers are rising fast. And if it's 1.9 for the what, first of the three years, yes, what's driving that? Unknown: The the projections, or because of union contracts, are like, I'm sorry, Phil Giudice: it's about $2 million per year. And so if we go out with a 3 million a three year override, it's like six to $10 million so the idea, potentially, is to go into fiscal year 27 with multi year override, so that we don't have to come back to it every year. Carl Barnes: Now, I haven't William Huss: been through the process before, but that's assuming that the budget that you're talking about is the test part of me that says, what do we lose if we cut the budget by whatever the 1.2 million? Yeah, so Phil Giudice: the reality of sort of the numbers kind of came clear, especially with the sense that there isn't necessarily support at this stage to go forward with reclassifying general levy debt in some general levy debt into excluded debt. So it will push the budget working group into a process, I think, and it's discussed that a little bit to prepare two budgets, in a budget and a B budget. In the B budget will likely have substantial cuts involved William Huss: that's where I was doing that, yeah? Because, you know, even if everybody is informed, but override and still has to go to what town meeting, it could be voted down, in which case we have to do something. Phil Giudice: Yeah, yeah. We have to make the budget work, right? So there's a full commitment to do that. No, not surprising. Okay, so one challenge is to figure out the numbers. The other challenges we've talked about for a long time is to figure out how to communicate this and how to bring them to town, up to speed on it, having not done an override in a long time, Carl Barnes: and looking at other Phil Giudice: counts. And some have failed, some have succeeded. It's I think we need to put together kind of lessons learned in perspectives. I was just given the Department of Local the division of local service, Proposition two and a half ballot questions, requirements and procedures, 30 pages decided not to circulate. I and there's a spreadsheet that I also didn't circulate that looks five years forward on the financial so I was going to wait till we have our Wednesday meeting before we start circulating that, because I'm not sure what parts of that are still flexible or not. Carl Barnes: Uh. So, in addition to Phil Giudice: having a couple of folks who want to take a lead on benchmarking thinking parallel, it'd be great to have a couple of folks from our team look at overrides and start collecting information about, you know, how do other towns communicate this? What does it look like in terms of process, Carl Barnes: and what might be helpful for us to be starting to think about for our October meeting, which will be clear as to where Phil Giudice: things stand as we've talked in the past. One of the big unknowns here is it's not big unknown, but it is an unknown is labor agreements with all of the bargaining unit folks that work for the town, all of them are coming up for renewals and will be in negotiations in the middle of what might Carl Barnes: be override season. So delicate process, April Methot: I know from talking Unknown: to co workers in various towns that have gone through this process in the last year. April Methot: One of my coworkers, I believe, is in Carl Barnes: maybe it's Braintree, maybe Unknown: it's Quincy, and they there's past, and she was happy with the process. That was actually what stuck out to me is that she, as a community member, remember not involved with it. Was happy that she felt well informed, that she understood was at stake, and it passed. And one of the things that she mentioned, it must have been Braintree, because they had a website. But yes, braintree.com and she mentioned, like, it was beautifully laid out. It was incredibly clear, like, if you vote yes, here's what you get to DEP, if you vote no, right? A, budget, B, budget, here's what gets cut. And we've obviously got the Wayland post in town and things like that that we can lean on. So even if people are not maybe the most electronically astute. William Huss: Well, yeah, I just did some googling of towns, and you know, the one that was, you know, impressive to me, was Sudbury. And like I said, what they did was frame it around schools. They just said, if we want to keep up our school reading, you have to vote for the override. Now, whether you know that was true, or whether they, you know, manipulated the budget so that all the shortfall was in schools. I didn't look beyond that, but I thought it was an interesting I mean, if you want to get Wayland people to vote for Carl Barnes: something tie into the schools.
Yeah, I don't think we need to sort of pick positioning at this stage, but Unknown: I think it's certainly good to start collecting, no, not in terms of specifics, but the idea is to make it issue related, rather than general. You know, what are some things that we will or won't get, you know, with Carl Barnes: the override one not Phil Giudice: proposal, eliminate some of the elementary school grades and just have them William Huss: double up. Yeah, right, yeah, any it's all hypothetical, but that's the kind of thing that would get Carl Barnes: people's attention. Yeah. Phil Giudice: You know, we're have slightly less students this year than last year. Carl Barnes: Who knows what the projections will be going forward. So, but it's hard to get savings. But for William Huss: specific strategies, you know, we really have to wait for the budget a and budget B that you just laid out, and then we can sort of crap. But making an issue related, I think, is important. Unknown: Can I ask a question related to the budget? So something that Brian had mentioned, is it on Brian kempning on, is it opine? April Methot: So Can someone explain how that works? So we put money in, and at some point, the Select Board has to vote to take the money out. Carl Barnes: I don't know specifics. Phil Giudice: Okay, we're at about 50% of our requirements to have our patients fully funded, which is not bad, compared to sometimes not. You know where we need to be, and we are putting a chunk of money into that. And I think the number is 2037, if we continue along this path, we'll be at the fully funded level. So and then at that point, there's actually a step down, because the amount that we're putting in, just my recollection, not actual, but it's on the order of $5 million a year. So that would go away at that point. I mean, we got annual but we wouldn't be catching up anymore at that. And there is ways that have been considered, or other communities have considered issuing a bond to pay for the oped liability, which I gotta understand it better. It feels like we're borrowing money to pay something that is actually not a current demand, but we're the bond, you know, we're paying interest on So, but it is, from an accounting standpoint, a way of and there's also the possibility of taking a vacation from paying the deficit. Carl Barnes: Yeah, we're. Not necessarily Phil Giudice: wreaking havoc, but I'm not sure proposing it or do I fully Unknown: No, no, I, I would love to understand more of it, because I know that well. I think you mentioned last year when we were going through the budget, right? I think we spend more, certainly for retired and catch up than we do on active payroll. I mean, we spent a lot, right? Phil Giudice: Yeah, I don't think it's that much, but, yeah, Unknown: it was a lot. And I thought Brian can be mentioned at some point that, like, there is money there, and maybe it was a different fund that at some point, Select Board has to vote to, like, start taking out to actually use. I think that is OPEB. I think we're putting some away. You know, we were funding it every year. Just to do. To note also, that is one thing when, when you look at the Moody's reports that they perceive as being one of the positives, and one of the strengths of Wayland is that we're actually funding for our future liabilities. So, and I think that the piece that you're alluding to is there has to be a mechanism ultimately, when, when we start, you know, the retirees are taking, using that money to release it from so I think that's, it's kind of, we should have something down the line, but in the meantime, at least we're doing the right thing and funding it. But that will be something that needs to be addressed. You know, as we look ahead, I appreciate that, yeah, just trying to understand more about about that part of the budget, because it's, it's not a small part of the budget, to be sure, yeah, and we do. I mean, every year, it's, it's a piece that, you know, is sort of the regular budget numbers, and then it's an addition,
and that accounts, I'm sorry we visited questions for Brian cafe, but like you know to your point about its future funding, we're over funding it because that accounts for the idea that we can fund over funding it. We're we're funding Phil Giudice: it, catching up to the underfunding situation that we've been it's not over funding. Oh, okay, Unknown: now we're trying to fund to get it up to the size one. Okay, alright, thank you. But the numbers that are calculated like you need you have this pension obligation is for future retirees, right? Like, so we know that we're on track to fund all of our that's the intention. Phil Giudice: Okay, yeah, the actuarial tables. Okay, you know, where's Kelly? Was it Kelly? Unknown: Yeah, exactly. Kelly was the expert on this so, and she was the one who made the point that we hadn't actually devised a mechanism on the other end that, you know, at some point is something that we will need to address. But I guess sort of the short term focus is, is that, you know it is, it is a notable expense, but it is something that we should be doing
here in 12 short years. Some of us may still be here. All of us, no all Phil Giudice: of us. Has any public pension fund ever actually caught up? I think there has not a lot, but I think there has,
so get back to me later as to who wants to take a lead on
Carl Barnes: I'll get back to you now, when I was looking at the spreadsheet, very first question I had in mind to actually raise yourself as I think it was, you bill, which of these towns have had overrides and how much And when were they? That's easy to find. Yeah, it's online. And at the same time, if I we can, maybe we don't need to actually collect, you know, the the information, the the sales information, for lack of a better word, right now, but I mean, I'll plug that stuff and add it to a spread, add it to the spreadsheet and recirculate it.
I will send around to everyone a spreadsheet that was, Phil Giudice: yeah, results of statewide override votes for 26 and 25 but I do think that's trying to collect. Carl Barnes: Like, wherever was it? Yeah. Brain Drake, brain trade, Phil Giudice: yeah. But any towns, even just anecdotally, you know, trying to start, like Sudbury and others that we can all sort of look at it right at another meeting, not that any we're going to adopt it, necessarily. William Huss: But, and I think all of this can help a little I can forward, if you the repository of information, if I find somebody on something like Sudbury I was forwarded Carl Barnes: to you, that'd be great. The website still up, yeah. I mean, one Phil Giudice: thing, it just earlier, I was thinking about the Sudbury report, and if we wanted to create that. Report, not under 70 pages, but the 30 page version. But I wonder if we could ask someone in Sudbury if we could have kind of their data, data, well, they're even their, their slides, the templates, so that we Carl Barnes: could just, you know, repopulate it Unknown: so with, like, highlighting Wayland, as opposed to Sudbury. Phil Giudice: It's helped us to make it easier. Yeah, William Huss: I forget, I looked through how many of their towns matched up with ours, and it was a lot, yeah, not, you know, like 60 or 70% not 90 Yeah. Phil Giudice: I don't know if folks in Sudbury town government, but to the degree that somebody could reach out and ask,
Carl Barnes: we might also be able to stretch.
Unknown: So in your inboxes, this spreadsheet, yeah, I've seen that. I don't have big fingers on the a lot of towns have a lot of losses in their overrides, and Wayland hasn't had, my recollection, many losses, if any, that Wayland has put the case together, and they've gone forward
Carl Barnes: again. My collection.
Good to hear Bell, this is it's daunting. It's daunting, and this is a tough Unknown: moment. I think a lot of people are feeling it from the last couple of years, I think this is a tough moment to go up and ask for override, truly like
April Methot: things are turning things feel. Unknown: I think a lot of people feel the turmoil and uncertainty, and I we will have a lot of work ahead of us to to make this ask noi Carl Barnes: fully on board, and the things that Phil Giudice: we might have relied on in the past and police in the back of our minds is the state might help bail us out. Doesn't feel so solid here, or that the federal government get some money from this, that state would get money from the federal government. That certainly doesn't feel very solid now, just William Huss: speaking for myself for being the new person. I mean, I'm not yet on board. I mean, it sort of sounds like that. We're, you know, we're gonna, how are we going to sell this? And it's like, Well, prove to me it's needed, you know, not quite there yet. Once I see the A and the B and so forth, I may get there. Yeah, I'm not assuming that Phil Giudice: that's fine. Everybody should come wherever they're coming from. Carl Barnes: Ask hard questions Phil Giudice: the times, and I have been asking the questions about, where couldn't we find efficiencies? The answers that come back are not Carl Barnes: exciting, right? You know, yes, Phil Giudice: and we are pursuing a joint dispatch for, you know, emergency crews, which is great, and maybe in three years, we'll save, you know, some chunk of money. Okay, it doesn't like moving right? And, of course, William Huss: the hard part of it is the contractual stuff, because, you know, the union contracts are kind of stuck into retirement, and there's a lot of fixed costs that Carl Barnes: you don't have flexibility on. Yeah, the Unknown: win loss, I was just going to say, looking at the wind loss, on, on what you just sent is, I mean, it's, it's 5050, so it's, it's not an easy task. And, yeah, we have, we have reason. We have services that people will want. But as Iris just noted, I mean, it's, it's a tough environment, so Carl Barnes: we'll have our work cut out.
Phil Giudice: In fact, my mind was why boy would have been nice to get through 27 without needing an override, and then sort of having lived this a little more in the Yeah.
Remember, you know the high school, 100 million dollars, which is going to be paid for largely by the state. You know, the water stuff, $40 million a library. And when folks do we lose a new library behind I'm not, I'm not going in feeling confident that whatever Unknown: outcome is going to come from this. I right? So that's by way of topics to cover tonight. Anything else from anybody? April Methot: No, I think we look forward to Unknown: once some variation of those budgets become available. Wouldn't that swing in either direction? I think we look forward to seeing that. Yeah, I think for bills identification. I think last year there was a tremendous amount of work done at these meetings, at the meetings that Phil's going to to find efficiencies. And I think we saw that in the fact that the rate increase went from, I think what was originally projected in May over 5% down to 3% which ended up being a three and a half. Increase. And Iris Hoxha: Michael McCall said that was the lowest increase we have seen in the last five years. And it was because they, I think, have probably tapped out those efficiencies, maybe not, but I suspect if they were easy, low hanging fruit, they'd probably take it advantage of them. And so now the decisions are going to become more painful. That is just the truth, right? William Huss: One other thing for Carl and your discussion, I think when we're looking at overrides, it's not just looking at historically, what did they do, but essentially to be a fly on the wall of these meetings at these other towns, to see, are they planning one for this year, maybe next year? How soon might one come? I think that would be really useful, because you want to know what other you know there may be some towns that are doing exactly the same year we are, that they have some implications Phil Giudice: that I don't have it open anymore, but the spreadsheet had 30 towns, 40 towns on it, and maybe you have it open. Unknown: So it's not just three or four, right? Something like dozens, right? So just FYI, I Phil Giudice: know that that person has expressed interest in FinCom to come up to the committee, and Pam and I tasked with potentially getting with the person. Carl Barnes: So fantastic. April Methot: That's exciting. You could use some more hands. Yeah, and there are actually two open Phil Giudice: positions. There are two open positions, so I don't want to lose
pain. So to recap, Bill and IRIS will be coming back with benchmark stuff. Carl's going to come back with override stuff for the next meeting, and whatever other topics to surface between now and then Unknown: we confirm the date, please. Is that alright Carl Barnes: for the next Phil Giudice: meeting? It's Carl. What's the date for the next Unknown: meeting? The sixth of October? Would that be correct? First Monday? Yeah. There.
Carl Barnes: It would be correct. Okay, thank you. It is correct. William Huss: Yeah, I guess, you know, and Iris and I can talk about it, but I, you know, I'm not sure what, in addition to what's already been done, you might be looking for Phil Giudice: presentation that could go to the town to, you know, draft, something to sort of think about. So in terms of the data, whatever data is used for what we not, not so much the spreadsheet. Just how do we compare it to other towns? Unknown: Yeah, and I would argue some per capita normalization. I think that helps paint the picture, right, of like, whatever she Carl Barnes: used, yeah. I mean, yeah, that's another thing. William Huss: Because certainly, you know, there's 82 items, so I guess Phil Giudice: I don't have, I bet there's a dozen that are certainly most relevant, 15. William Huss: That's, that's where I can use, you know, our judgment, but yeah, necessarily know what the most, having been new to this, whatever. That's okay, Unknown: yeah, I think even better, what are you curious about? To know, what were the questions that you would want to be able to feel confident William Huss: about in the obvious room sneer. But you know, police fire, you know, how are we spending our money schools? Police fire, right? You know, some of the other debt stuff is a Carl Barnes: little bit of, okay, cool. Any other topics for tonight?
Phil Giudice: Hearing none. Do we have a motion to April Methot: motion to adjourn? Seconded
Carl Barnes: Bill hires. Hi. Pam, yes, I'm on board in April, yes, we are adjourned. Thank you. Robbie, recording stopped.