August 19, 2026 – Capital Improvement Planning Committee – Video & Transcript

August 19, 2026 - Capital Improvement Planning Committee

Autoscroll:

We're going to call the meeting to order the Path Improvement Planning Committee on August 19, 2026 at 630. We are in the Wayland Town Building and in-person and remote. In-person, I have myself, Brad Carver, Kelly Lappin, Liz, and Brian O'Herlihy, and John Kliem is on Zoom. We also have Tom Holder on Zoom. And this meeting may be recorded, and if it's recorded, it will be available to the public on WICAM as soon as possible after the meeting. Public will be excluded from executive sessions. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of Acts 2025, this meeting will be conducted in-person and or via remote access in accordance with the applicable law. If this meeting has only remote access, no in-person attendance by members or the public will be permitted. If this meeting has remote access, one may watch or participate remotely with a meeting link that can be found on the website. With that, I will review the revised agenda. At 630, call to order review agenda for public announcements. 635, public comment and members' response. 640, discuss the status of any capital projects. I'm sorry. Yes. At 7 o'clock, review and discuss department capital requests submitted this year with department heads as available and local townholder available and possibly the police chief today. 8 o'clock, we'll discuss the proposed town building working and visioning group, including CIPC involvement, if any. 810, discuss preparation of the annual report. 815, discuss use of transcription tools to produce future minutes. 820, discuss succession planning. 825, review and vote on approved minutes of August 5 available. 825, set time for next meetings and 830 adjourn. 825, set time for next Mangisterep. 826, With that, 026,加gobots. 127, tabalkaninucci, Orn ёgbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbndbbblbbbbbbngbbbbbbbb. So the next item, I guess maybe I'll open it up for the group that we have Tom here. Do we want to skip over the capital projects and go right to Tom? Yes, except to an extent if there's anything particular to DPW on the outstanding list that we want to talk to Tom's request and then circle back to our capital, outstanding capital to the extent there's anything, anybody has a question.
So Tom, we appreciate you being available to discuss your capital request for this year and future years.
And I guess I don't know if anybody has any suggestions on how best to do it. Tom, you want to walk through each of your particular requests?
Yeah, that sounds, I would be fine doing that. I mean, I think you've got the spreadsheets that I sent over. And I probably would start with the general fund, the DPW, you know, division. And, you know, as time allows, or I could come back another time to talk about the three enterprise funds that we have, water, wastewater, and transfer station. I'm going to just bring up some notes that I have. Bear with me one minute here. I would note that the police chief has joined us via Zoom at 6.35.
You want to offer him the ability to rejoin us in some period of time? I think that makes sense. It's 6.30 now.
I think 7.15 would be appropriate. Yeah, I would say 7. 7. I hope we don't hang up. Chief, can you hear us? Yeah, I can hear you. I was labeled as Kelly at the beginning. I don't know why it did that. And my video doesn't seem to be working either. So maybe by 7, I can have that all figured out. But you guys want me to come back at 7 o'clock? Yeah, if you can rejoin us at 7, that'd be fine. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Yeah, so what I can do is I can talk about the DPW worksheets that I had put together. Right now, I'm speaking to the summary sheet. And it lists fiscal year 28 to 32. So you'll notice what I did is, and I know it's not really received too well. But from time to time, I need to make alterations to what was submitted in previous years. And so what I do, though, is at least I highlight them in blue. So you'll see four projects, two in FY28 and two in FY29, that are highlighted in blue. And so I'll just run down FY28 if that's okay with the committee, and you can decide how you want me to proceed. So each year, we've got road improvements. And what we do generally is that we increase that by about 9% to 10% each year. And that's really based upon contractual inflation. What we do is we take the monies that we have available, couple that with what's granted in Chapter 90 funding that we get on an annual basis. And that's generally just under $500,000. And we do as many roads as possible that we can afford and that we can manage in a particular year using those two funds combined. And each road is different. Some of them, you know, the condition of them allows for us to do a simple what we call mill and overlay. It's just grinding down two inches of pavement, removing that, and placing a two-inch overlay over the top of it. Many roads are just beyond, their condition is beyond being able to do that. And what we call that is a full-depth reclamation where we actually, you know, remove all of the pavement down to the gravel sub-base and then build that back up again. It's a much more labor-intensive process and more expensive. But it really all depends upon the condition of the roadway. So we've got an FY28, we've got, you see, $915,000 and change there. And then what we've been doing in recent years is we alternate between putting funds requested for sidewalk improvements and stormwater. So you'll see that alternating an equal amount, $250,000. So you'll see for FY28, we've got sidewalk improvements. What we have slated for FY28 is to do Main Street, and that would be, the limits would be from Pequot Road, where that intersects with Main Street, southerly down to Route 30. So that's, those sidewalks, that's what we have slated, you know, for that work. Oh, I apologize, down to West Plain is the intersection, not to Route 30, to West Plain. So that's a $250,000 endeavor. The next one for FY28 is engineering vehicle replacement. That's highlighted in blue because that was initially valued at $70,000. We've learned that the vehicle that we'll replace that with is $60,000. And that's, it would likely wind up being a Ford Explorer hybrid. Currently, that vehicle is a Chevy Tahoe, which was actually used by my predecessor, and it was considered old when I used it. I got a replacement vehicle about seven years ago, and the engineering division is now using that, the town surveyor uses that vehicle. And so that is in need of replacement. It's just, it's well beyond its useful life. So that's why that is on the list for 28. And feel free, as I'm going through these, if you feel a question is better now than when I wrap up, I'm more than happy to take a break and answer a question. I have a question on that item. I think you just said that you thought it went from 70 to 60, but last year's five-year plan had it at 50. So it looks like it went up to 60. Okay. My, I thought there must have been another vehicle.
It may be a water vehicle or something. Yeah, it might have been. So that was, so then I take that back. And that was adjusted because when I, when I bought mine seven years ago, it was like $46,000 and change. And these figures that we have right now are what we're hearing from our vendors. We're working on getting, you know, formal quotes that I know those are required to have available. So we're working on getting those. So, yeah, then, then I stand corrected that that was less than is now, now 60. The Route 20 rehabilitation design. So $250,000 was appropriated prior, in a prior town meeting appropriation. And that was, in essence, what was considered seed money. And the project that that describes is Route 20, what I call the commercial corridor. And that's from Route 27 westerly to really with the transfer station access road where Alta Oxpo, the residential complex. It's that corridor there. And what we're planning to do is to participate in the state's transportation improvement program. It's called the TIP program. And what that does is if you can provide evidence that your project as a municipality improves regional transportation corridors, provides for non-vehicular use, you know, pedestrian, bike, those types of things, you are, you can be successful in getting into the TIP program. The benefit of that is that the town would perform and pay for a design. And once that design is complete, that's handed over to the state, Massachusetts Department of Transportation, and they actually perform the construction. So it's likely the value of that project. I would not be surprised if that's between eight and ten million dollars. And that construction would be funded by the state. So we have recently put out a request for qualifications. There is a working group that has been formed to oversee this process. The RFQs are due actually tomorrow. So what we'll do is we'll spend the time between now and next July using those prior appropriated funds and really develop a concept, get a, um, probably a 25% design completed. We'll be working with MassDOT, uh, begin a relationship with them, uh, toward, you know, participating in the TIP program. They've got a lot of, uh, requirements and jurisdictional things that they require. So, uh, right now, uh, I've got $500,000 for the 2028, and, and that would, that would then, the intent would be to, uh, to get us to, uh, a complete design whereby we would then hand it over to the state. So that's the, the back. Now, now, just so I understand, so the $500,000, that's basically a design cost, is that? Yes, that would be design. Yes. Yep. And it would be, uh, you know, supplemental to the current $250,000 that we have. Yeah. We have $450,000 in last year's five-year plan, so that's slightly higher at $500,000. Should be color-coded, uh, blue then. Okay. Yeah. And, um, I assume we would have heard about it. There's no other town of Wayland projects in the TIP queue at the moment. Are there? No. No. And are there any other, uh, projects that you foresee in the next five to 10 years that would benefit and possibly benefit more than, uh, this Group 20 project, uh, if we could get them in the TIP queue? Or do you get, you get kind of one shot at it for every decade or so? Uh, you, you, if you ever take a look at the, uh, uh, it's the, uh, the MPO, Metropolitan Planning Organization, um, and they have a list of their, um, the projects that are included on the TIP, and it's probably a 20-year schedule. And you, you will see some towns actually have multiple projects on there. The only area that I know that has been evaluated and there's an interest in making some improvements at the Wayland Western line on Route 20, uh, where, uh, Old Connecticut Path comes in by the Coach Grill. So, um, that's a very challenged area, uh, side roads coming in eastward and westward bound on Route 20, you know, commercial traffic. Um, so it's a, that, that would be probably be another TIP contender, uh, but I'm not aware a side of people have periodically looked at it. Um, it is, it, it, it, uh, has not really, so to speak, grown legs and, and advanced, uh, to a TIP project. The one thing. So nothing in your, I didn't see anything in your five-year plan suggesting that you're looking for design money for, for that area. No, no. Um, but you might, if you're then looking out 10 to 15 years, that might be something that you're suggesting, uh, we might want to think about putting in that longer term point. Yes. Yeah. I was, I, I think it, it has, you know, it's understood that it's a challenging area. Um, and I, I think it would probably meet the spirit of the TIP program. You know, they would, uh, you know, regionalization, it's right, you know, on two town lines. And, um, so I'm thinking if both communities advocated for it, uh, I would, I would imagine that that would be successful in getting on a TIP. I think there was talk, there was talk at developing in, well, on the western side, an apartment project of some sort right near Plain Road, where that stands. There was also a data. In addition to the one, you know, further up the Mill Creek is building. Yeah. Well, the one, the one project that we were involved to a great degree about, God, probably four years ago is there is a, um, I don't know if it's a school or a, uh, uh, like a daycare, um, yeah, and it, yeah. And they were talking about having significant, you know, um, student enrollment there. And I want to say it was, it was, you know, like 160 cars that were anticipated to be trying to get access to that driveway. And, you know, in that access would be right during the hours, uh, that, that, that area is the most challenged. And, and we had actually worked with MassDOT, worked with the, uh, the developer, uh, really pushed back significantly, uh, it was, it was our understanding that that was going to cause a lot of turmoil, uh, toward, um, the, the traffic situation that's currently there. And, um, but, um, MassDOT allowed it, they, they did issue the permit, but I have to say there really hasn't been a lot of activity, uh, in, um, in, in recent years. Can you, I just want to bear with you one minute here.
So if that were to happen, I would just further support the concept of a, on a longer term basis of possibly trying to get on the tip for something there. So I know we, we're not focused on long-term stuff tonight, but, um, I mean, I was interested in whether there'd be a risk of focusing, you know, the Route 20 project when we might have some bigger priority, but it sounds like the answer to that. Yeah. I, I think, I think the corridor that I'm referencing, um, is probably of, um, more interest. I think it would be safe to say, uh, there are, there are a handful of folks, uh, you know, the economic development, uh, um, you know, committee has been, uh, you know, actively engaged in, in advancing this project. And, uh, so I, I, I think it's been, it's been well-received and it's, it's, you know, uh, it has the support of, uh, decision makers in town. More, more being driven by economic development as opposed to the other intersection you referenced was probably more safety driven. Yeah. I mean, it, it, it certainly is more safety driven and I think it's just, um, yeah, economic development. And I think it's, it's pretty well understood. And, you know, you, when you drive it, it's, uh, it, it, it needs some attention. There's no doubt that that, that, that corridor is in need of, uh, need of improvements. And that's, you know, precisely what a tip project, uh, will do. I, I've worked on a number of these and when they're complete, they're gorgeous. And, uh, everybody is very pleased that, uh, that they went through that effort. But you'll see in the, uh, the last one we did, I think was route 30, uh, that intersection. Route 27 30. Yeah. Yes, indeed. Yeah. That was wrapping up just as I arrived here. Um, but do you foresee any, what happens if we spend the 250, which already has been appropriated in the port 500 that you're asking for, which was in the plan more or less, uh, and, um, the state, besides they're not going to include us in the tip, uh, do you foresee a world in which, you know, you or someone will be back, you know, looking for dollars to then actually do the construction? It's a fair. Or is this all contingent on state money? It's a, it's a fair question. Um, I guess in my experience, um, this project is able to check off many or all of the boxes for, you know, that make it qualified for, for the tip program. And that said, there's no guarantees and, um, yeah, you might, you might, uh, uh, you know, endeavor in a design and then find out that you're, you know, the only viable option is then to appropriate funds for the construction. But, you know, that tip program has been around a long time and there are a lot of communities that are, that participate and that are granted funds. So it's, um, I guess there's no crystal ball, but I'm thinking we'll, we'll be, uh, it'll be well-received, uh, by the decision makers, uh, at the NPO. And I guess my question was one of timing, I guess it's requesting 500,000 for fiscal year 2028. Do you need to get the tip approval before you spend that 500,000 or what? How's that timing work? No, so, you know, much of the 250,000, uh, that we have currently will be used, you know, so that we're able to begin, you know, get on the, get, what you do is you go into the transportation building at Park Plaza in Boston. And that's where the NPO meets, uh, meets on a monthly basis. And you make your, you know, uh, your presentation, you work with your local legislators. Um, there's, um, there's actually, um, MPO members that are assigned to our region. You work with them and it's, it's really a collaborative effort. And, um, so I, I would say over the course of the, this, this next nine, you know, 10 months, 12 months that we're spending a lot of time with the MPO staff and MassDOT staff. And then that 500,000 that we would have, you would advance the design from the 25% then onward, you know, through the 90% and then a hundred percent. It's, it's likely to be probably a three year endeavor to design, you know, from, from the nightward from tonight, as we're speaking about this, uh, it's several years is there's a lot involved with, um, you know, with route 20. There's a lot of, uh, coordination and effort made to work with the abutters with the property owners, uh, because, you know, you will likely be making changes or alterations to their current curb cuts, you know, so, uh, the process includes meeting with them a number of times, each one of them, you know, individually to learn of their, their needs, desires, try to incorporate that into the design, you know, so doing all of that takes a bit of time and it's, it's, you know, it's necessary, it's worth it. And it's important that the, uh, you know, the current business owners are served, you know, by this improvement process. So, um, it's a, it's a several year process and then the construction is another several years. So, you know, what we're talking about is probably, uh, a ribbon cutting seven years from now, having the project complete, it takes a bit of time, but, uh, it goes by, I know it's, it's, it goes by, you know, relatively quickly before you know it, uh, you've got this, this terrific project. Well, I guess, I guess that's part of my question. So the 500,000 allocated for fiscal year, 2028, um, is it something that maybe should be, uh, partly in 2028, partly in 2029, or do you need it all at the same time? I, I guess what, you know, I, I would, I would recommend getting the 500, um, because what, you know, you'll, you'll want to engage a designer and you'll, you know, for, for us to sign a contract, you need to have the full appropriation to sign that contract. So, um, my preference would be to, uh, um, to have that 500,000. They have to spend maybe over multiple years, but they have to have the appropriation in order to, in order to sign the contract. And the only other way, the only way to break that up is that you would have to break up the contracted services, which isn't always advisable, right? Can you just bear with me 30 seconds? I just need to mute myself for a second.
I think we should try to focus on the changes in a couple of items. That had a change in it. But, but. That had a change in it. Yeah, yeah. No, I'm just saying that we go forward. I know that's it. So I, I won't ask about the next one then. No, the next one, the big change.
I'm looking at the landfill camp restoration. Yeah. So the, uh. Big change where we recommend it, but not typically five-year plan. Can you guys hear me okay? Did I, uh. On your. Oh, I went. I skipped through a hand. No, we can see you. Sorry. All right. And you can hear me okay? Yep. Yep. Great. Great. Yeah. So the next one down is the Route 20 South landfill cap restoration. And that's really, um, I should title that. It's really should be landfill redevelopment, uh, or repurposing. So you're probably aware that there was a, um, you know, a South 20 landfill vision committee that was formed and met for probably 18 months or so. We engaged a planner and an engineering firm. Um, we had 17 different options. It was called 17 options and 17 acres. And through the 18-month process, that committee vetted, uh, a number of uses that, uh, that we could, uh, uh, have placed on that, those two parcels. It's a seven-acre and then a 10-acre parcel that the town, town owns. So some of the uses that, uh, made the short list, uh, is a, um, multi-purpose rectangular athletic playing field. Uh, there was talk about, uh, school bus parking. There was talking, talk about, uh, having, uh, some DPW, uh, materials management area there, uh, some passive recreation, a set of trails. It'll connect, you know, to the rail trail. So right now, um, the funding, you know, we, we used all of the available funding to perform that, uh, function. There was a, a, a report that was, uh, developed and I think they have their own website. You can actually see that report on the, um, on the visionary committee's web, webpage. And so now I've, I've placed 500 grand, um, in, uh, FY28 and as I probably described in the CIP, I think one of the questions is, you know, does this have to be in the fiscal year recommended? And the answer for this is no. Um, and I, I've actually reached out to the chair of that committee, uh, to see, you know, and told them that, you know, I've got this included on the FY28 request and, uh, was interested to see, was it really, I have it here as a placeholder. It's probably, it, it will likely need more than me to advocate and champion for this. Um, but I, I, you know, I just thought it was incumbent on me to at least put it there, uh, so people can start to consider it and talk about it. But this is, this is one that, um, you know, if decided could be deferred to a future year. And then no change there, but I think our issue last year, Tom, was that we, we pulled it out and put it in a, held it in abeyance just because we were suggesting we needed to know more about the anticipated total cost of whatever project was going to go there. So the extent that you talk to Tom Fay or whoever you're talking to, uh, if, if, if there were any, you know, future projections, uh, again, I had no idea if they were looking at third parties developing it and kind of doesn't have to put up any more money or whatever. But I think that, that was our primary issue because we got a good explanation last year from the, what it originally was just big use. But the only other thing I'll say is I drive by that area all the time. And I think last time you told us that you thought you were going to need that to do something to the landfill cap, but because you've mowed down all the, uh, the overgrowth that you thought that was going to kill the root system, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And it looked to me like a lot of that growth is coming back. So I didn't know if you were planning to mow it all down again. That's precisely. So that gets mowed on an annual basis, just like the one on the other side of the road, uh, the, uh, the old landfill, uh, near the transfer station. So we have, uh, we have a contractor that comes in each fall. So that will be, uh, that will be mowed very shortly. Okay. Yep.
And then the, the last one that I, I show for FY28 is one that I advanced forward several years. It's this, uh, H6, this dump truck, um, that, uh, when we initially had it in the, uh, on the capital five-year plan, we thought we could stretch it out. But in, in recent, uh, in the recent year, this, this truck has really declined, um, rapidly. And, uh, so it's for that reason that we've advanced it forward, uh, and that's why it's highlighted in, in blue. So you're pulling that forward, Tom, for, for years? From 31. Yeah. Yeah. So I, you know, I, I guess maybe we were maybe a little bit, maybe guilty of being too hopeful that we could have stretched it out. Um, but, um, yeah, a closer look is that this vehicle is, uh, um, the, the, the undercarriage is rusting, you know, very quickly. Um, and, you know, we, there's a whole system on these vehicles, uh, you may know about it. It has to do with, uh, the actual emissions where the, uh, it has to like regenerate and this system on this truck is so, it's so old that, uh, it doesn't regenerate properly. And so you wind up having to like stop what you're doing for, for 45 minutes. And there's no real way to, uh, to replace that. It's, it's kind of built into the, into the vehicle at the time. So it's another reason that we've recently become aware that we, we just can't, we, we could not keep that where it was. We had to move it forward.
Let's see. So that, that's the, um, that's the FY28 DPW list. I don't know if you wanted me to, to, to go out, you know, further years and, and talk about some of these, uh, there's, you know, a handful of other pieces of equipment that we've got in, in, uh, in further years. We, you know, we have the roadway, we have the sidewalk, we have the, um, um, the storm water every other year. The salt shed was a favorable variance of a half a million dollars. I think if we can just, on the out years, Tom, cause I don't want to keep you here all night and I want to get to Mark. I think if we could just talk about a couple of the big changes in the out years. So as, as Brian just noted, the salt shed came down basically in half, which is, we like to see that. Um, and then I think the sweeper, you're pulling in a year as well from, from 20 or 30 to 29. Um, and I'm assuming that you don't have to go deep in detail if that's the same, like, hey, the condition is deteriorating quickly. We don't have to spend a lot of time, but I think the salt shed. Is that only half the salt? Is that only half the salt shed? Yeah, is it only half the salt shed or is it less, uh, less work than you thought? Yeah. So when I, when I introduced this a year or two ago, um, it was my understanding that that, that salt shed really needed to have really a complete, um, kind of reconstruction of it. Uh, but since last year, uh, we've had, uh, in working with facilities, uh, was it, you know, this is a project that they'll be assisting with us on, uh, it's really become more apparent that it's really the roof, some structural and electrical. Uh, so it's for, it's, it, it's not going to need to have a complete, you know, kind of rehabilitation of that, that conical, uh, structure that we have there. And, and it's for that reason that we actually have it, uh, reduced, uh, significantly. So we all, we are working with the facilities department. They, they have a better understanding of, um, you know, uh, brick and mortar types of things than we do. And, um, you know, so it was working with, uh, Mike Fay's team and you'll probably be seeing him at, at a future meeting, but, uh, um, so that, that is the, the reason why we've got this favorable reduction in, uh, in costs. And the only, I would say, obviously, as Kelly said, we're all for favorable variances. Um, and appreciate there's a lot of moving parts and a lot of things you deal with that Michael deals with. This, this is an example where, although it's cutting favorably, it used up space in our planning last year. And so to, to, to extend on some of these out years, and I know we're, we're putting more pressure on the department managers to give us more detail information on the out years, as well as the upcoming fiscal year. And, and maybe that in turn will, you know, sort of cause you to do, you know, a little bit more diligence plus or minus on, on the, on the pricing. I mean, again, we appreciate the prices move around, but, um, We'd rather they come down and go up. Yeah, but you're, you're, uh, your message, your message is received. I know precisely what you're talking about, Brian. And I, I, we, we are, you know, sensitive to that. And I, I fully understand that, uh, we just don't want to throw a huge figure out there just as a placeholder. And then a year or two later, just say, oh yeah, we really didn't need that much. I totally understand. And we'll, we'll work, we'll work towards minimizing that. Yeah. You don't want to come up short a year before and then come in with a big surprise. Yeah. So it's, it's, it's not, it's not, it's not exact science, but my only other comment on that one, and it doesn't have to be resolved tonight and I don't, I don't really care which way it goes, but is when, when things belong in the facilities, um, requests and when they belong in other departmental requests and, and I'm, it is not picking on you, Tom, this is a mixed bag all over the town. In some places we've got facilities and other places we've got it in the department. And so that's a Michael McCall question. I'm sorry, we had the, uh, transfer station rebuilt in two places. Yeah. Yeah. We had it in two places. Right. I think it's a broader question for Michael of how to make sure we're managing, yeah, because when it comes to ultimately resources to, to do these things, right. Is it is, and I know it's a combo, right. It'll end up being a combination of DPW and facilities, but we've gotta, we gotta be looking at both. So that's, I'll, I'll raise that again with Michael next time, Michael McCall next time we see him, but I think that's just something I want to get consistent across all the departments. Yeah. Yeah. And I don't think I've got a great answer for that either, because I, I don't see, you know, a standard pattern, um, you know, it's, it's, especially, you know, even in the enterprise funds, whereby it's an enterprise facility. Um, sometimes it's listed in the enterprise, which you'll see sometimes it's listed in the facilities budget and, um, you know, so yeah, it, it, it doesn't seem to be a consistent approach. So I, I, I hear you a lot and clear. Yeah. And I don't, I'm not particular on which way it goes, just that I'd like it to be consistent, um, from department to the next. So I'll, I'll take that up with that. All right. Another question I had is, um, in, in fiscal 2032, other than the roads and the, um, I guess there's a skid steer, whatever that is. But there's nothing, no, no visibility in anything else that looks major at the moment for you. Yeah. So what we do is we actually, you know, and you don't have a copy of it. I can provide it to you. Uh, we actually have a 20 or a 25 year, you know, um, vehicle replacement schedule. And, uh, you know, it, it, it is, it does kind of, it is evolving. It does move around a little bit, but, um, we do the best we can in trying to plan, you know, the year that we're actually going to seek funds to replace something. And for, for 2032, uh, this is, there, there is not a lot. Okay. That'd be probably good if you could share that with us. Yeah, if you could share that, that'd be great. I sure can. I sure can. That will help from all, as we're working towards trying to get a better long-term. Right? We know that's not perfect in the out years, but it's still a better, it's a better understanding of, of the cadence of vehicles. Right? Mm-hmm. Yes, indeed. Just taking some notes here. Yeah. And then the other that, uh, that you were talking about is project eight equipment to the H-17 sweeper. Um, so yeah, we, we actually increased the value of that, moved it forward. And I, I've been talking a little bit about this. So I, I apologize if you already know this. Um, so as part of our 20 year stormwater permit, we have to perform particular maintenance, uh, functions. And one of which is that we have to, um, sweep the streets and clean cash basins. And there are portions of town that are within the Charles river watershed. And each watershed has its own particular criteria that you have to meet. The Charles river watershed has a higher standard that we have to meet. And we have to have a, um, it's, it's called a vacuum excavators. It, it actually vacuums the sand rather than just, you know, brushing it up off the street. And it's for that reason that we're asking for that type of a unit. And it's for that reason that there's the increase in the price. Trying to see. So Tom, we currently don't have one of those. Is that it? We don't, we, we have a, we have a standards. We actually have two, uh, two sweepers. One is extremely old and is, it's almost barely functional. And then the newer one is an Elgin newer. Um, I don't have it up on my screen, but, uh, that's the one that we're proposing to replace in FY29. And that's just a conventional, um, it's just as brushes, uh, that brush the, uh, the debris into a hopper and then is dumped out. And, uh, part of our stormwater permit requires that we, um, no longer use that type of an approach, but actually vacuum, uh, the material up and into the hopper. And it's for that reason that the, uh, those, those units are more expensive. Can we move to transfer station? Does anybody else have any on PCW?
Is there a question? No. So on transfer station, Tom, the only change I see is just the roll off. It's, yeah, that, yeah, it's, I'm trying to find it on my screen here. Bear with me. I, I can probably talk to it without having it on my screen, but, uh, here we go. Bear with me. Transfer station.
So, so that, yeah, it's, it's the only thing, but it's also the only, it's very expensive. And, um, so that, that, that's a 26 year old vehicle. And I have some photographs. I'm not sure if I can actually, are you interested in seeing it? If I can figure it out. No, no, I don't think we, it's already okay. If you don't, I think it was more just, is that the 80,000 is because you got a real increase? Cause it was 300 in last year's plan of 380. Now, is that just, you got an actual quote on? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. And we're working on, you know, getting a hard copy of that quote, but that, yeah, that's, it's, it's, this is a sizable vehicle. Um, and it's kind of a, a, a specific, the functions of it are very specific. And, um, yeah, so that, that is the reason for the increase from 300 K that was initially on there. And that, that is, this is a purchase, you know, that, you know, ourselves and you and your committee and finance committee need to decide or, uh, be thinking about that, you know, right now that there's a transfer station evaluation study underway. And, um, so the board of public works participates. So we've got staff, there's a working group. There's about five or six folks, uh, that we actually just met this afternoon at two o'clock. And what we're doing is we're evaluating the current operation of the transfer station, um, you know, considering whether we should transition to a curbside, uh, you know, a contracted curbside program. There's dozens of different variables that are included in that. But the reason I mentioned it is that, you know, the future of the transfer station, uh, is unknown. And, uh, you know, it is quite possible that in three years that that is just a, a recycling center, uh, and that we actually have one contracted vendor performing curbside trash and recycling collection. This roll-off, uh, would have a purpose in either of the options, um, whether it's a transfer station continues to operate that way, or whether it's actually converted to a recycling center, this vehicle would, would have a purpose in either one of those options. So it's, it's for that reason that we've, we've got it slated for next year. And, um, and you can, you can, you can see in the CIP what, uh, there's a little bit, you know, the, the, the project description and justification kind of explains it a little bit more detail with my fincom hat on now, uh, off the top of your head, you know, what the personnel budget is for the transfer station rough numbers. I want to say 130 grand. And I think, I think maybe I asked it last year. Um, is there no way to team up with Sudbury to, uh, yeah, what we're doing separately? Well, it's, it's been suggested, you know, regularly suggested, and, uh, it was actually tried, uh, prior to, I think it was just prior to my arrival. And, uh, there was, I guess I'll be very kind and say there was significant logistical challenges. I think it operated for about five hours, um, as a joint venture. And the way it played out is that Wayland was the more attractive or offered the more attractive services, so then was completely overwhelmed. Um, so we've, we've actually researched this a number of times with staff and the board of public works are continuously trying to figure out how we could make the transfer station, you know, uh, program more viable. And it, it just, uh, in, in talking with Sudbury and it, it just, it's, it's not a practical, uh, direction to go. Yeah, I mean, the reason I ask is I, I watched one of your meetings where I thought there was some discussion ongoing in addition to the study referred to of possibly recommending to the select board that the enterprise fund for the transfer station be dissolved effectively and have transfer station put back in under the general fund, which unfortunately takes the spotlight off of its P and L. And, um, anyway, I just, uh, we're, you know, we're going to be looking at all sorts of ways to try to find or at least prevent, uh, budget creep. And that would be one example where you could get some budget creep, um, within the general fund. Um, and so, uh, again, doing something with Sudbury, I mean, it just, I get what you just said, but it just seems ridiculous that. Yeah. Brian, I think I hear you. And I know that that would affect capital, but it's, since that's a finance committee operational, I think we shouldn't, I think I'll ask that question in a different meeting. Although we did say we'd be concerned about operating costs. Yes. Yes, I am. I just, I think that that's a bigger, bigger than we've got time for tonight. I got it. Um, all right. I tried. All right. Any, any reason. So my only other question on, on transfer station, Tom, is any reason to believe that that difference between the 300 estimate and the 380 that you've gotten a quote for affects your other items for the transfer station? Is there, is there a level of inflation we're not incorporating into our estimates for those other two items in the out years? Uh, no, the compactor, um, we are, we just replaced when it's literally this week. Um, so we know what the pricing is and, and have, um, included, uh, inflationary costs there. And the, the, the same thing with the pack around in 2031. Uh, so I, I'm not expecting any, you know, surprises there. One more question. Go ahead. Um, I don't see anything here being asked for, um, rebuilding or renovating the building at the transfer station. Last year, we had your request of 450. We had the facilities director's request for million eight after doing some design in the early years. Um, is that completely off the table? However, how are you addressing the needs that you had with that building? So I, I guess I'm thinking, I'm hoping that it's in the facilities budget request. Okay. That there's still a need. And I, I think that was one that I think was decided, even though this is a, an enterprise fund, I thought it was decided that it was going to be placed in the facilities budget. I haven't looked at theirs. I'm sure you probably have. If it isn't there, then it's a conversation I've got to have with my fair. It's not in there. It's not in there. It's just the rehabilitation upgrades. All right. Because that regardless, that's kind of the same story, whether that, whether it remains a transfer station or becomes a recycling center, that facility, that, that building, uh, needs to be replaced. So yeah, it is not in his request that the items that are in for DPW and facilities requests are the reseal and stripe of the parking areas. Um, the building management system tie into the town building and the facility DPW facilities rehab and upgrades. So I know that was like some of the, you know, within the main building, not at DPW, not the transfer station. Okay. All right. I'm writing this down. I'll, I'll work with Mike and find out where that is. Going zero, but I assumed that wasn't the case. Yeah. Yeah. No, that, uh, that it still remains the need. We're attending the discussion of the future of the transfer station. Yeah. But this is, this goes back to my earlier point of like, we've got, we've got inconsistency. And so, you know, Tom, we just want to make sure we're not missing stuff, right? That we're not everything covered. So you can talk to Michael on that and, and have, you know, one of them get back to us. Good. I will. And thank you for that catch. We move on to enterprise water and wastewater. Yeah. So let me, uh, uh, with me here. So water, let's do water. All right. So I'll, I'll, I'll run down the FY28, um, vehicle W1 Ford Explorer. So that's the superintendent's, uh, current vehicle. Uh, so that is needing to be replaced. Same vehicle that we have for the engineering. Uh, so that, that $60,000 price tag, uh, remains for that. And then we have, uh, W8 utility body, um, $150,000. It's, that's a pretty common, a commonly used type of vehicle in the water division. Um, so I don't have the CIP up currently on my screen, but, uh, uh, that is in, uh, really very, you know, tough condition. It, we spent a few amount of money making repairs to it. And, uh, it, it just, uh, it needs to be replaced. Yeah. It's the same amount. You just moved it from fiscal 29 in last year's plan. Right. I think that the big new one in fiscal 28 is that half a million. So the half a million is water infrastructure asset management plan. And that was introduced, uh, recently. It wasn't in past. And once we're done with the MWRA project, the end of 2029, uh, it's been over 10 years, probably 12, 15 years since we've had a, it was called the capital asset management plan, uh, for the water division. Uh, we haven't performed one since then. And really what that is, is it takes an inventory of everything that we own at that particular time and puts together, um, the asset replacement, uh, improvement schedule and what is needed when it's needed. And, uh, so we will have a, um, uh, we've got an engineer's quote, uh, for this project. And therefore the reason that we put in the $500,000, it is probably in the CIP, uh, the form under that heading, does this have to, does this have to happen, you know, in, in that stated fiscal year, I probably put a three on that because it does not have to, um, but we're trying to, it takes a number of years to do it, uh, such that it would be usable by say fiscal year, you know, 29 or 30, because that the, the project number one, um, which is, um, West Plain and old Connecticut path. That's the last project that we have actually included in that initial, um, uh, efficiency plan that I was speaking about. How about in fiscal 30, the, uh, two MG drinking water storage tank looks like that's a new item. It is. Um, so you probably know there were three appropriations for the, uh, the tank that's currently being, uh, constructed and that in, in essence, it's a, it's a brand new tank. 15, 20 years ago, there was a tank there, uh, that was supplemental that was, was dismantled, taken down were extremely vulnerable. So we were, we're building that tank. That's a 750,000 gallon tank. Uh, that'll be done probably about this time next year when that's complete. And we can actually utilize that, um, the tank that's currently used, the only tank that we have, uh, I think it was built in 1956. It's 2 million gallons. It's a kind of a squat, uh, uh, you know, sizable tank. We have the ability at that point in time to take that offline and, um, and completely refurbish that. And we do have a, we do have an engineer's quote for that as well. But the only question I would have on that is, uh, why is that, why is that appearing this year fiscal 30 and not, uh, you didn't have that included last year? And is there something that happened in the intermediary time or you just didn't include it last year? Yeah. I, I think, I guess I'll have to suck it up and say, yeah, we just, we didn't contemplate doing it. There's, there's been a need, there's been a known need in my office. Um, I've got a piece of concrete, uh, that actually, uh, we replaced the ceiling, the roof on that 2 million gallon tank, probably, I don't know, maybe, maybe a decade ago, but the old one was never removed and it is now starting to fall and drop into the, um, the, the tank floor. So there's always been a need to refurbish it. I think it's, I don't think we actually like thought about refurbishing it until we actually were successful in getting appropriation to build a new one. Uh, we didn't really, we didn't know how we would do it. You can't do it when you've only got one tank because you, you've got to have a tank functioning so you can take another one offline. So I, sorry, when's the new one going to be online? Probably, um, fall of 2016.
Yep. They're, they're working there now. They're, they're, you know, uh, site clearing, uh, they're going to be pouring the foundation, uh, with the contractor that won the, that was awarded the contract. Uh, we had to right next to that tank is a booster station, the Reeves Hill booster station. So we had upwards of $800,000 appropriated, uh, to replace that pump station. And that was just completed. So that was the priority project. We couldn't have two contractors on the site at the same time. So this, this summer that, uh, booster station was, um, was replaced and has just became operable, uh, about three weeks ago. And, uh, so now once they demobilize the contractors is out of the area, we then now have the ability to bring in the, uh, the tank company. They're actually going to utilize the property at South 20 landfill. They're actually going to form the pieces right on site, uh, at the South 20 landfill and then, uh, truck them over to Reeves Hill and then, uh, you know, piece it, erect the, the tank on site. So that was the, that's the, the schedule for all of this. You have no request on 31 and 32. Yeah. So that as a result of this infrastructure asset management plan, we would then be placing things so that there will be items there, uh, but we're just not yet sure what they happen to be. Discussion for the group here. How it makes sense to obviously plan and figure out what you need and when you need it. And how do you address that in a five-year plan where you kind of know there'll be something that I would rather than a footnote. I don't know if it's a footnote or if it's a placeholder, some dollar amount, some dollar amount for anticipated projects in those years, because what I don't want to have happen is we've got nothing there and we get another year out or two years out before you've got the plan right executed written up. And then we're surprising, right. We'll put money in again. Like, I just don't know how we don't. Yeah. We know it's going to be a number. Let's, let's pick. Yeah. I mean, there's a little less pressure inside an enterprise fund because it's going to be, I mean, it's a surprise to the rate payers, but it's not like it's, it's bumping out another general fund or crowding out another general fund project, but I don't disagree. Yeah. It's, it's, it's just that it's still coming out of all of our same wallets that our tax bill comes out of. Yeah. I mean, is this something like the, um, you know, as the Board of Public Works evaluates what they'll continue to be evaluating is that how to push through the rate increases related to the long-term water project, obviously balancing that, uh, while also dealing with other infrastructure, also pushing the rates, uh, is that something you might want to get some input from, um, you know, do they have a view on their own planning from a, uh, budget rate budget standpoint of, you know, we don't want to spend any more than X millions of dollars a year for some number of years if we can help it. So maybe you could check with their Board of Public Works. And then, uh, as Kelly said, maybe come back with a placeholder of some sort? Yeah. Yeah. I, um, I understand what you're saying, both, uh, both Kelly and Brian. And, you know, you probably watched our meetings. We have, uh, Matt Abrahams, the Abrahams group, does our financial modeling. And, uh, there's, there's, there's quite an effort, uh, made to, to keep track of this and be able to forecast properly. Um, you know, obviously the, the focus has been on the $38 million MWRA and happy hollow projects. And, and then also including the 2 million for the, uh, the West plane project, but no, you're right there. We are looking, you know, continuously at what these outlying years and, and, and the gauge, the threshold is, you know, it's been, it's recommended you have a particular level of retained earnings in a water enterprise fund. Generally speaking, it's 20% of your operating expense line. And, um, you know, so that's the, the threshold, that's what you try to maintain. So depending upon your expenses, your debt service, and that, you know, it's a, it's a constant effort trying to set rates such that you're achieving enough revenue to maintain that, uh, that proper retained earnings level. So that's, that's, you know, in, in 28 seconds, that's, that's the approach that, uh, that the public works, uh, board takes toward, uh, forecasting and, and financial modeling. Thanks. Um, so on waste and move on to wastewater. Um, you know, the, the 2 million low pressure sewer replacement was already in plan for, for this year. Um, but I noticed we've got, we've got some new items, right? Yeah. So wastewater concrete rehab rehab is 300,000 in three different years. Um, and the wastewater HVAC, which we had in plan last year for 400 in FY, uh, what is that? 20, 23, 31 is now 1.2 million. Um, and then we've got an $8 million project in, in FY 32, which I know we've talked about maybe in FinCom before about the need for a solution at Dudley Pond, but I don't know that everybody in the room is, is up on that. Um, so maybe just a quick hit on, on each of those three things. Yep. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you know, we've made some investments in that plant over the course of a number of years. We had the membranes replaced. Uh, we had a $526,000 investment two years ago to, uh, install, uh, improved and better screens, um, as a pre-treatment process, as we've been draining, you know, the, uh, there's, there's two trains of, uh, treatment processes there, uh, and each one of those trains, those paths have these huge, uh, tanks, concrete tanks. So with draining those, pulling out the membranes, installing new pipe work, all of the things that we've been doing in there, we've come to learn that, um, the, the concrete itself is deteriorating. And it's not surprising, you know, it's the sulfates, uh, tend to eat away at, at, at concrete. So Abby Charest, who's our town engineer, has got a, you know, tremendous background in wastewater, you know, who, uh, who's been looking at this over the course of the last two years, you know, has put together this, um, this budget request to be able to, over the course of three years, and, and she's working with our operations manager, Jared Cotton, and trying to spread this out, um, logistically, you need to spread it out because you can't do it all at the same time. But that is the genesis of, you know, these, uh, new $300,000, um, requests starting in 29 and spreading out to 32, uh, for the, the concrete tank rehabilitation. Is that, was that, is that something that folks weren't aware of until sometime in the last 12 months, since we talked to you the last time, last year on this? Yeah, it, it was, it was noticed probably in the, in the, in the last year or two. I don't think we were prepared to, to put in a request, uh, last year for it. Uh, we've got a, uh, you know, our, our confidence level has increased to a point that, um, we have a, we, and we talk about this internally, regularly, and we've got, you know, engineering support, uh, that, that, uh, that helps us with all of these things. And, uh, so we've got, we have a much better understanding of what needs to happen there. And that's, that's why you see it now and not in prior years. And the HVAC went up. So the HVAC, so we had. I'm assuming there's more in scope than what there was in the 400,000 requests from last year. Yeah, that's exactly it. So the facilities department had, for the lack of a better term, a comprehensive conditional assessment performed on many of the town facilities and assets and the wastewater treatment plant was included in that. And so this is something that we actually picked up from reviewing that report. And that report identifies far more than the initial 400 and something thousand dollars that we thought, you know, it's just, we thought, yeah, you know, just, uh, the heating and a little bit of ventilation work. And, you know, we, we get reports of what's working and what's not working, but this conditional assessment for better or for worse identified in a more detailed manner, what truly needs to, to happen there. And that's where we got this figure. How good are those reports in your experience? Or maybe it's more of Michael Paya question, I guess. Yeah, I'm thinking it's, you know, more of a question for him. But I, I, I think that, you know, there was a conscious effort to have this done. I think, you know, a lot of the school facilities were included in it as well. And, um, you know, so I. Um, this was the on-site insight report that, is that what you're referring to? I think, I think it is. I think it's the, the one in the same, but it was, yeah, it was, it was certainly a very, a comprehensive conditional assessment. And I've, I've heard that, that on-site, uh, title used as well. So I, I think that was the, that is the case.
So that's where that figure was, uh, derived. And then the, so we can ask. Is that a typo on the 8 million? So the, the 8 million. I'm not a rate payer, so it doesn't bother me, but the town will pay something for the middle school, but. So, yeah, I mean, I guess I would categorize this as a placeholder. And I guess the good news is the, that $8 million may not be paid for by the town, or at least not in its entirety. We, uh, understand that there's a fair amount of interest in increased capacity at that plant. And, um, you know, we, the commission meets, meets monthly. And we've got, you know, we have small entities that are regularly coming before us that they'd like to make a connection or whatever, but we have some, some sizable developments, uh, that are actually, you know, come to us town center being, being one of them. And, um, we're actually undergoing right now an evaluation. That'll, that'll tell us a little bit more on, uh, you know, we're permitted for about 89,000 gallons a day. And I think we're in the ballpark of maybe like 58,000 gallons, but that's, we have to monitor, although we're permitted for a far greater amount, the capability of the equipment and the reliability of the equipment kind of keeps us in check. And, um, you know, so it's, we're, we're, we're constantly monitoring that and, and trying to operate in the proper, you know, uh, you know, kind of, uh, flow, uh, capacity, uh, level. But what we may find in coming years is that, um, the footprint of that building actually expands. Um, and so myself and Abby, uh, thought it was prudent to at least, uh, put that on. And then also this, you know, the Dudley Pond, uh, and middle school, um, you know, there's an active evaluation of what's going on there. And, you know, would we bring it to town center, um, or would the, another option is to bring it into Natick, uh, and then the MWRA would then, uh, treat it, uh, transport and treat it. So there's, there's two trains of thought on, on how we might be able to, uh, transport and treat, uh, Dudley Pond, you know, um, household sewage. So it's, you know, putting that in 32 is really a placeholder, let people know we've got a fair amount of moving parts, uh, all kind of going on simultaneously. And as, as we progress through the years, we'll have a much better understanding, but that $8 million may be paid by others or portions of it may be paid by others through mitigation. You wouldn't foresee it being any earlier than 2032? I don't think so. I, I think that the, um, um, the plant, it has design capacity that we're actually able to kind of grow into right now. Uh, and that's our, you know, our effort right now is to affirm that. And, um, I think, so we have room to grow in its, in its current configuration. I, I think it's, um, it's probably a very, uh, safe schedule to have it sitting in 32.
Permitting alone, permitting alone takes, you know, a long time. Yeah. I was just thinking, relative to how we present this, whether we put it in a, slide it in the last year of the plan versus putting it into a long-term bucket. One year out. Yeah. Yeah. It might, it might, it might need to go on, go out a little bit, shut down. Right. I'll probably be shut down on this question too, Tom, but since we're talking about it, um, have you been asked or ever looked at, or do you have any sense? I know you've got 2 million in fiscal 28 for redoing a low pressure, uh, shoreline, I presume all the way out to the Oxbow apartments. Um, has anybody ever asked you about what the cost would be to run, run a line up route 20 the other way to the old Mahoney's property? Yes, indeed. I mean, they were, uh, they asked us a year ago, um, whether or not that would be allowable, uh, whether, you know, uh, Wayland would be accepting of it. And we said, we're, our ears are open. Uh, let's hear what you have, uh, to say what your, what your concept is. And for whatever reason, they didn't advance it. They, uh, you know, they actually, you know, are maintaining their position that they're going to treat wastewater on site. Um, so there really, there really was not a, a price, but it was, it was spoken about, and that was one of the, you know, that would have been one of the significant, uh, increases to, um, operational capacity that we would have had to have accommodated. But right now it does not appear to be, uh, an active pursuit. I'm looking for a new road. I understand. Um, okay. Um, appreciate that. Does anybody have, Mark's been waiting for a while. Do we have any other questions on any of Tom's capital? Yeah. I would just say, uh, if anything, at least we're going to be working toward a October 15th report. If anything on your end, Tom changes, obviously you're going to talk to Michael Fay about the, uh, transfer station building. Um, but if anything else changes on your end, if you'd let us know as soon as you could. Yes. I've, you know, I've got, uh, I've been writing down my assignments here, uh, so I will work towards these several that I have. And, um, you know, um, I know that you've got a pretty active, uh, you know, meeting schedule and, you know, so perhaps, you know, maybe the latter part of September or middle of September, I come back and we discuss some of these, you know, outlying things. I'm, I'm glad to do that as well. I appreciate that. Before we let Tom go, was there anything in particular on the outstanding projects list that anybody had questions? Um, that was, I just have one question. Um, what did you think of the new form? I mean, was it easy? Did, is it helpful? Like, I mean, you know, a little feedback, you know? Yeah. No, I'm happy. You were swearing at us the whole time. You were filling it out. No, actually I have to say I was telling my staff, you know, was, we got this just a couple of weeks ago and I mean, it's quite apparent a lot of work went into building this and, uh, it's, it's pretty impressive. And, you know, I completed, you know, probably 60 or 70% of this stuff that you're seeing that you're reading. I, I put in myself and then I, I had staff, uh, you know, help me out with some of their particular project, uh, language, but yeah, I, I think it was pretty intuitive. Um, I was able to click away and, um, and once I, you, once you do one or two of them, it's just, okay, now, you know how it works or whatever it is, uh, I found it and it really has nothing to do with the forms, but there's, there's a, you know, for us in particular, there's a lot of information and, um, you know, I would take a first pass and, you know, get some things populated and then I would, you know, come back to it. And then we were working, you know, we have a set of master sheets that we have in a shared drive. And I would say to my project managers, make certain that you use that master figures. I'm putting stuff into it, you're putting stuff into it and then, you know, reviewing it, but then making sure that, uh, uh, that, that I covered everything. And that was what, you know, I made that August 7th, uh, deadline, but then I knew that there were some things that were incomplete and I know I wrote that. And so I was able to, you know, spend the additional week, uh, you know, doing a better job and completing it. Uh, but you know, you're looking for some feedback on the forms. I, I think there's a lot of information there. I thought it was incredible that, you know, they were all tied together, that summary sheet. Um, so yeah, I, uh, you know, and it is, if it's working for you guys and it gives you the ability to evaluate these, these things better, um, I'm, I'm, I'm good with it. I appreciate it, Tom. I do want to say, you know, you always do a great job filling out, um, your forms. And so this was no exception. Um, not everybody on the committee knows, right. Cause I kept them out of the loop. So they weren't getting a thousand emails. Um, Tom did meet the deadline and then said, you know, there's a few things I'd like to tweak. He did that, but because we had them, I had the macros in there. It was no big deal when he sent me the new ones. So press the button again, and it, it summarized. So, um, I appreciate that. Tom, if there's anything though, as you're, as we go forward in this process, right, where you're like, this question is stupid. I don't know why you're asking. And I mean this, like this never, this isn't going to apply. Like, I don't know why you're asking it. Right. Please do share that because you know, this was our attempt, but I wouldn't say any of us are seasoned experts at collecting information on, on capital. So if you're like, yeah, this, this really isn't valuable. It takes a lot of time to get, or, you know, Hey, there's something I think you're missing, right. That you need to know, but all in all, thank you. You, you did a great job, um, providing that detail. And I think it helped at least from my perspective, being able to read your narratives prevents us keeping you here all night, um, and asking a thousand questions. So I agree. And Tom, I saw the email traffic with you and Kelly. I appreciate the, uh, hard work you put in. I could do is obviously put a lot of work into it. So thank you. And one, uh, one, to John's point about feedback, one question, Tom, um, if, if ideally, if we could have gotten those forms out July 1st and ask for them back, you know, mid July, I have a feeling that's for this committee's effort to get its work done and report by October 15, maybe even earlier. Um, do you foresee going forward, uh, if that were the cycle for collecting information, uh, and you having to respond in June, July timeframe with, is that problematic? I don't think so. I mean, everybody, you know, it's like a huge effort getting to town meeting. Everybody wants to take a breath after that and, you know, kind of decompress a little bit, but, um, you know, I don't, I don't think, um, it would be really a hardship for us to, to beginning a little sooner, you know, trying to predict even, even for the next fiscal year, uh, you know, you're talking about, uh, you know, 12, 15 months out, you're trying to make a forecast and, uh, you know, so the further you back it up, you know, maybe a little bit less confident in some of the, uh, some of the information, but, um, in the grand scheme of things, I don't, I don't think it would have a tremendous impact, um, you know, if you were to, I mean, it was, it was, it was, it was a pretty aggressive. Yeah, it was a pretty aggressive schedule. I mean, I think, uh, probably next to the schools, we have the largest, most complex, uh, capital and operating budget. And, uh, we, you know, we had, I think 11 days we were given to, to put this together. So we apologize and appreciate it. We very much tried for that to come out earlier, come out earlier, but I hope going forward, right. You filled everything out and it should just be tweaks, right? Yeah. Not, not starting from scratch. So thank you. And I appreciate your time. Yeah. One question while I have you just, it was something I wasn't certain of. You'll see that in the rating, I think it says project rating. What I did is I rated things by fiscal year. So you'll see, it says 28 dash one, two, three, four, 29, one dash, you know, were you interested in that? Or were you interested in having, you know, if there's, you know, you're an overachiever, you're an overachiever, Tom, because the notes actually say they only have to do it for the initial fiscal year. So just for the first year of the plan. So you went above and beyond and we appreciate that. All right. But yeah. But now that you provided it, we're going to hold you.
All right. Well, now he's done ahead. He's already done for next year. Yep. That's right. That's right. All right. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. Thanks for the consideration. Good night. All right. Chief has been waiting. I know patiently. Chief, I'm sure you've got much more important things that we can see going on in town than this, but appreciate you joining us. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. So chief, if you can just walk through the way we kind of did this with Tom is walk through in particular, a little more detail, your first year items, your FY 28 items. And then beyond that, we're really just focusing more on any changes from the prior plan. Okay. Detail around that. Yep. Let me just, I have the spreadsheet up here. Let me just, I'm working off the complete town's spreadsheet that you sent to us. So I just let me navigate to my pages here. And I'll start with the police department and then go on to JCC from there. So I think the initial FY 28, I have the 50,000 for the updating traffic safety and school route safety. I think that stayed the same as the request that was previously in. And I just asked to continue with that amount. We're making some good progress. I'm putting up more signalized crosswalks, getting away from the static crosswalks or the static flashing crosswalks. They do cost us significant amount more. The ones that, you know, are look nice, have the metal poles to them and are three by three foot footings are $25,000 kind of shifted towards the ones that are $8,700 each. Um, they go on the, the samples, um, that are a little more affordable. Um, so that was one of my first fiscal year, 2020, um, asks, uh, any questions about that or anything? So chief that's, that's really enhancing kind of what we already have in town, right? And a lot of places where we needed some more, is there, is there a point where, um, that, you know, kind of, you've done what you need to do in, it looks like it stops in the five-year plan, you know, at FY 2031, is that sort of where you anticipate you, you've done the things you need to do? And then is it really more of a maintenance, like what? Yeah. Um, so I, yeah, I have $30,000 a year in our operating budget for maintenance of these devices. Um, so by then I hope to, you know, I'll probably have to increase that operating budget over the next, uh, five years as you put more devices in, there's gonna be more maintenance for those devices. Um, but the, uh, the installation, I don't see us going much above that total amount we've requested over the next four years, including this last year where we just got some capital funds for this type of project in July 1st of this year. Um, so no, I, I don't see me coming back unless there's some major project and rebuilding, uh, you know, an intersection, but I don't see that, um, happening. Uh, I think that's going to be more as Tom discussed in his plan, using grant money from the state, um, than coming out of our capital budget. Jake, do they have a usable line? Um, about 10 years, uh, for these devices, there's some that are six going on six years now. So that last year, we'll kind of be updating some of those devices. I have one that I have to go up on a ladder and work on. Um, it's not hooked up to the, you know, smart hub through the internet. So as those devices kind of get phased out, it'll be more convenient, um, to be able to manage them remotely. So they do have a, you know, generally 10-ish years. Um, the one that's six years is still going strong. It just needs a different type of programming than the ones that we just installed. And when people hit them and they need to be replaced, I hope we were able to recover that from insurance if we know. Yep. Yeah. So, um, in the past I've put those claims through to the assistant town manager to go, uh, make claims on them. We've had a couple signal lights and the company that were contracted, but comes out and understands that and fixes them and goes through the process of billing insurance. Instead of, we don't have to upfront any money. They'll go, as long as we give them the information of whoever hit it, we'll pursue that money. Thank you. So then your other item for FY 28 was public safety admin furniture refresh. And that was, yeah, that's a new request. Yeah. Yeah. It's one that we didn't plan. Um, the, uh, chief Berman, uh, who retired in the middle of last year, he put in for the refresh and we were given, uh, money for that. However, the amount requested didn't cover the actual total project cost. Um, so in order to finish the project, I'm going to need, uh, some more money right now, the admin area, which is our most public facing area, which can use updated, secure files. And right now, our co-response clinician sits in that area and it's not very, uh, private or secure. So I'd like to be able to get her at least a little more of a cubicle where she can discuss things with clients without being overheard by either other admin or the public coming in to do fire permits or, you know, police business with my police admin. Um, so I find it somewhat critical, um, in order for her to have a workspace that, uh, you know, manages her workload and confidentiality requirements. And then you're out your requests. Just looking to do the compare. I think they're just a portal radio. It's one up by 50 and a fiscal 30. Yeah. I'm just trying to see here. Um, did I increase the tasers out? No. Okay. Um, or, or did I shift that up a year maybe? I'm just trying to look at JCC. Yeah. No, I think, I think you're, you're correct that I also increased the portable radio ask. That was just doing the math on the initial request. Um, the cost of the radios that are digital capable, where we could be shifting, uh, lease world is shifting towards digital radios, which I won't give you bore you with the details. Um, but right now we operate on analog, uh, radio technology on our portables. Uh, there's a big shift in the police world, the fire, not so much. So that's why I don't know what chief McPherson is going to do. Um, but on the police side, there's a push towards digital, uh, radios and there's a cost associated with turning on the antennas and the licensure within the portable radios. Um, that I wanted to take into account because some of our mutual aid partners are already making the shift. And if we are forced to, to be able to still participate in some of our mutual aid, um, groups, I would like the capability to order the digital radios versus analog radios. You know, um, last year, the, um, schools had requested money for portable radios, uh, because they had hand-me-downs and we actually, uh, encouraged them to, they had proposed to base it over a couple of years and we viewed it as a safety priority. And so we encourage them to give us their estimate for what, whatever the equipment was, radios and repeaters or whatever's involved. Um, given, given what you just said about switching from analog to digital on your radios, uh, might you, uh, check in with the schools and see if that is something that they considered or should be considering, um, and therefore maybe they'll need more money for you guys to go off on a path and then they, you know, we should have got digitals, you know, now we got to jump what we have. Yeah. I don't, I don't see the, an increase from what was in planning. Yeah. If fiscal 30 was 150,000 last year, according to my list.
Oh, no, I didn't pull it right. That's fine. All right. No, it's, it's right in both files. We found a macro issue. It's no, it's no, both macros are fine. I copied and pasted it just now. Yeah, it was up 50. Yeah, you're right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Yeah. So you just, um, um, I don't, we talked to Kirsteen, but maybe you could, you were, you were saying the same question, I suppose, for the fire. I think they had some radio request money last year, maybe. Yeah. Yep. Um, so we have, I've been contact Kirsteen and, uh, Jen Jenkins from, uh, the school department. So we are working closely together on the project. Um, I don't see, I don't see the same push for them to go to digital going forwards and our radio system broadcasts on both analog and digital. So, uh, we have taken into consideration that the system, as you know, we've made significant investments over the last several years in the system and has taken that all into consideration. I think that's the important question. I mean, I think you just answered it is part of the justification of replacing the school school radios was that to make sure that all of the relevant town agencies could talk to each other seamlessly. So as long as you moving to digital doesn't then put them behind, right? That's what we're, we want to make sure of as long as that's still going to work. I think we're, we're in okay shape. Yeah. Sounds like that's the case. I don't think anything else changed. And then, uh, I just had a question of, uh, 2032, did you just not have visibility and capital related needs for 2032 or 2032, right? 2032. Um, yeah, they're really looking out, there's not many requests that I see necessary for that year, which is great for people budget wise. Um, you know, I could pad it with 50,000 more dollars, but as we discussed, I feel like we'll be coming near the end of that upgrade project at that point. Uh, I did look at, you know, our firearms procurement, um, other equipment procurement, uh, and those are on 10 year schedules and just nothing really lands in that year. Um, as far as a need for, uh, financials. If you have chief, if you have schedules for all the equipment, right, that you're, so we have the same discussion with Tom, right? You've got a schedule of all your equipment replacements. You can share that, that would be helpful as we work towards a longer term plan. Um, anticipating, right? Sure. There's going to be things that come up that change, but anticipating the things we know have to be replaced, um, and the schedule that they need to be replaced on, I think is, is where we want to head, right? From a capital. Yeah. I think I put some of those, I think there was a block to, you know, the 2032, 2047, you know, block you guys asked about. I did put some notes about that in there. Um, if you want a specific schedule, I can definitely get you some of those long-term things. Um, the, one of the blocks in there is for the first responder, uh, active shooter gear. And that's another one that's, you know, more than a five-year, uh, renewal schedule. So once we do it once, it'll not be hit again for a little while after that. So I'll try to get you all the expirations and the gear, um, that can go on kind of scheduled years out. Yeah, that would be helpful. Okay. And, uh, is there anything in your request that you foresee the possibility of getting grant funding for? Or do you generally pursue grants and then spend the grants on other things that weren't in your capital? Um, some of the street upgrades I could possibly pursue some grants on. I have been keeping my eye out for, you know, shared streets and spaces. They're usually bigger projects, uh, than the kind of one-offs of upgrading these crossings and, you know, speed feedback signs and the other requests we have in town for safety. Um, but I'd say that one, the, uh, you know, the traffic safety upgrades are probably going to be the most eligible for some sort of grant funding, um, if we can pursue it. A lot of those grants are competitive so that, you know, it's hard to tell when we're going to be awarded them. Yep. Understandable. Um, on JCC, gotta scroll back. Um, were there any changes?
I can't, I'm just trying to get back to the sheet where I did the compare.
Year over year. Okay, I think they were all the same. Yeah, they were the same, right? Yeah. Thankful for that. We like that. Yes. Yeah. And, um, you know, as you, um, people on committee may know, you know, we're in the middle of, uh, trying to get a regional dispatch center up and running. Um, so that's why I don't see a lot of these figures changing. We do have to continue to maintain our own system, which is why we still do need to make these investments into our own radio infrastructure. Um, but I'm hoping maybe there's really some funding available through that project. Um, and why I don't see an increase needed on our end. A lot of that resiliency will be built into the regional dispatch project. Um, so that's why I didn't play up the numbers too much for those ones.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Any, any other questions from the committee? No. No. Great job on the police work in town. Um, thank you. I appreciate it. You guys have been working hard. Yes. And I, and there are some, yeah, you're great. Yeah. My first time, uh, doing the capital, uh, project and planning. So spent my vacation logging in and out of, uh, you know, spreadsheets, trying to get the stuff to you. So hopefully, hopefully it worked for you guys. It did. And we appreciate that. We know it's not your, your highest priority of what you need to be doing and what you are, have been, um, doing. So we appreciate you putting the time into it. Maybe ask the same question, John, that you asked of Tom Holder. Was there anything, uh, you saw in the forms you were asked to fill out that was at all difficult or confusing or? Um, the only part because it was, it's my first time doing it and kind of doing, uh, capital planning was the project readiness and schedule. I, I'll be honest, some of those numbers in there, I just kind of, uh, threw in there. I wasn't sure what you were exactly looking for, um, for that block of the, uh, spreadsheets. Um, cause some things are planned. Sometimes our, you know, quotes are gotten, you know, before the funding comes in. So I don't know what exactly timelines you're looking for in that block there. We're not, so I'll, I'll try to clarify. We're not looking for like, we're not, we don't like, Oh, we want your projects to be 18 months. It's really, um, understanding sort of setting expectations from you of if you're going to go buy a new radio system and there's, you know, work you've got to do to spec out that, you know, you need six months to do it. So you're going to design, right. Then you're going to go order them. It's going to take a year for them to come in. Right. And not so much with the smaller equipment, but that section was really more about some of these projects that drag on right for a while, setting the expectation up front of how long it's going to take so that we can then keep track of, okay, we appropriated that money, but it wasn't going to be spent right. Finished and spent for two years. So we're not going to ask a ton of questions about why it's not spent because we knew going in, it was going to take that long, right. To spend it. It becomes more of an issue for Michael Fea, right. And Tom, where they're doing projects that take years and years. I would say in your case, a lot of times they're, they're a little bit faster, right. Of yeah. I've got the operation. I put the order in, we get the equipment. Right. So if that's what we're looking for, we're looking for an expectation of right from start to finish. Where are you at in the project right now? Have you already picked out what you want? You just got to press the order, right? You already got it up on your computer and you're going to press the order and it'll be here, you know, on Amazon prime, or is it, it? No, I've got to spec out what it is and then order it. And, you know, like Chief McPherson, if it's a firetruck, we'll see it, you know, 18 months from now. That's the, that's the idea. So maybe we could add next year, maybe the form could just add a little more description. People don't worry that they didn't complete it when maybe they don't really need to. Yeah. That's helpful. Thank you. Yeah. But otherwise I thought the form was good and pretty easy to understand. Um, so yeah, thank you. All right. Thank you. Yep. No problem. Have the rest of the evening, everybody. Okay. Only five minutes over despite my income question.
So at this point, we, you know, obviously talked to the two people who are available tonight. We have other people scheduled for the 24th. I assume that we're not interested in necessarily going over the other departments submissions at this point. So I don't think so. I think I would just point out a couple of, of things, right. For, for overall, like if you haven't had a chance to review it and then I would ask great folks to review it. I tried to get to doing a comparison item by item. I didn't get that far. I will try to do that this week so that you have side by side compare. Um, and it's built in here so that it does it automatically for detail by, by project just takes a little more thinking because the projects don't necessarily line up. Um, in some cases, uh, projects were removed. So I would just ask that you review it. Um, making note of the fact that, you know, there was 28 million of additional requests, roughly 20 million of that was adding on a year. Right. But that means there was eight ish million of across the first four years of the plan increases. Right. We've talked about a few of them tonight. Um, but that's, you know, part of what we're going to have to juggle with is how do we get this, you know, prioritized and back in, in what's, and what's, I don't want to say reasonable, but what's, what's doable. Um, so just paying particular attention to that as you're reviewing and making sure that you've got your questions lined up for, for where the big changes are, for when those people are, are in, um, in the next couple weeks. Yeah. And so what I have is for, I guess we can talk about, it has to do with next meeting and that sort of thing, but I have, uh, the 24th, if we can get a quorum, Mike Bay facilities, you know, McPherson fire, and Nicola Marty it on the 24th. Yeah. So they, they've said they could be available. And so let me just preface it by saying I offered dates for them to give me availability. And I was trying to be mindful of the fact that, um, the department managers stay on Monday nights for what Michael McCall told us. So I offered next Monday, not knowing we were going to be available. I did tell them that I didn't know that. So they have, those three have said that they could be available. They didn't necessarily say they weren't available for the other dates. Um, but I think the first question is, are we, do we have a quorum? And I know Brian, you've expressed, you have, um,
and the meetings start at five 30, which we, this is the one where if we do it Monday, we try to start early because they're here until I think six 30. So if we can make it work, right, Monday is, is more accommodating to staff. I know that's not necessarily workable for all of us. So that's the first question. So I do have a conflict on the down before I want to be able to support. Okay. I can make it work. Yeah. I'm available. Okay. I'm available. Um, and Brian, you're available for until seven. And then Fred said you might be able to accommodate me by having Michael Fay go first and have the other two show up a little bit later. And then it sounds like you'll still have three members, even if I have to leave before you're done with that. And then you can have other things on the agenda. Yeah. I think we should, I think with Michael here, it's probably going to eat a lot of, right. Eat a lot of the time from other agenda items, which is fine. Um, and we can think about whether or not we want to like break it up more and ask, right. Cause Michael's going to have a lot. Yeah. I mean, you can push one or two of the other people. We can push the others. The other meeting. Yeah. And I'm not sure you need, and a lot of these would have become somewhat standard agenda items. Yeah. We can take those off. It's more, I want to, I want to make sure we do facility. I hear my dilemma is I want to do facilities while you're here and I don't want to make the others sit here right during that. Cause it's going to take a while to go through. Um, it is the biggest right numbers on the page are out of facilities. So Liz, if you're okay, we can get, if we have a forum. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. We're not going to look at the process. Yeah. Well, and you can go back and watch the tape. Um, right. To get that same information. If you have any questions on their, on those items, send them over and we'll ask them on your behalf. Yep. Um, and so I think it's really just a question of, is it, you know, do we try to do Michael and it and what was the third? Well, how long do we spend on DPW? That was that, that was, it was like 50, 50. That was an hour. Yeah. So Mike may be a little bit more than that. So if he's, if we start at five 30, pretty promptly with Mike and you have to leave at seven, that would be six 30 quarters, seven. I think I can finish with Mike. Yeah. And then we could have, I can communicate with, uh, the time achievement person and, uh, and Nick Lombardi and say the available six 45. I know, but that's putting them past, right? Aren't they here until six 30? Yeah. Something like that. I mean, you could ask them if they were comfortable, um, because they might leave and come in by zoom, but, uh, we can speed it up if I don't ask a lot of questions. So yeah. Um, and I think on facilities, I mean, we, um, I think you were correct. And I, in some sense, since we, we maybe not public, but we've heard, um, on things that are, are the same projects and same dollars, more or less as we're asked that we talked to him about last year. I don't really think we need them to repeat that. No, I think your point about maybe if we focus Michael in on those things that have changed. Yeah. If we had, you know, you tried, but if we'd done that with Tom, we probably could have finished him in 20 minutes. Yeah. I think we can, I think we can speed it up if we focus on the changes, um, and really focus on less, less of them needing to present. They've given us a lot of information, right? For the most part. And more on the question, like what the changes are, what are our key questions, um, around specific projects. Yeah. And the whole town building discussion, um, I think is probably not worth getting into great detail because it's sounding like, which we'll get to the vision committee. It sounded like the report back to the working group isn't due until April. So whatever's left in that bucket of 5.4 million after pulling out his phased roof replacement and whatever the other thing is, um, I just don't think we need to get into the, you know, that, that discussion. That's 5.4 million is in the chart at the moment. Um, the first thing I was like, no, that's going to happen. And again, it just depends on how we're going to present it, whether we put it in the purgatory again, or, uh, you know, where the finance director didn't have it in his table, but he, uh, alluded to it, or the finance committee alluded to it below the table. So, so I, I think it'll be, um, I think it'd be manageable. And at your point, Kelly, I guess you just asked the other one or two department heads, if, you know, I would, A, say you don't need to show up at 5.30 because we probably will spend it at the end of the day an hour with Michael. Yeah. Um, uh, and if that's problematic for them, then you could say we could have you come on the 31st. Yeah. Assuming, again, I'm available on the 31st. I don't have a fake comment on either the 31st or the 2nd of September. Is that a conflict for you, Alyssa, the 31st? Uh, it's not great. Um, yeah, that's also Monday. Yeah, it's also Monday. It's, it's the balance between trying to get them in here when they're, right. When they're, yeah, we just, we hate denying you the opportunity. And again, you'll, if you want to get exactly what they said, you can watch the video, but we're still on to that Wednesday though. So the second presumably, or would we just stick to the 31st? I think we could do, I think we could probably do both given what we're trying to get done. Yeah. Um, so that would be my own thing. We still have school though. Oh, second is the Wednesday, right? Yeah, I think we're going to need both. Yeah. Yeah. So the second would be like our standing meeting. I think we need the 31st and the second. Yeah, I agree. But we might have, I just meant probably I don't think the video is available. Oh, so probably wouldn't be able to catch up on the 31st. Yeah. Yeah. I think we're going to do both just because we have to, we still have to get schools in here. Yep. Um, I think that makes sense. Even how much I would like us to be done with that so that we can be moving on. I will try. I have, um, some coworkers coming in from out of country that we will need your attention. Yeah. So, um, but that might shift to Tuesday. If it shifts to Tuesday and not Monday, then I won't be here. Um, but John, are you available on the 31st and the second? Uh, yeah, I think so. Yep. It looks like it's okay. Okay. And I think on schools, um, um, I think, um, everything is facilities except for the MSBA, um, request and the baseball field. Um, whereas last year they had, you know, ample of additional requests. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I saw. So, and Kirsteen, I was going to be up to her eyeballs with the school opening from operational standpoint. And she's also, uh, up to her eyeballs with doing a three year operating budget forecast. So, um, if she can make it great, but I would plan for her it's most of those facilities and I can advocate for the MSBA part of it. I obviously shared her communications that I had with her with the rest of you. So I think I can talk to it. It's, it's feasible. Can I ask a stupid question? Cause this is again, goes to the consistency issue is the feasibility of school project, not a facility. Like ultimately that turns into a facilities project. Is it? And Michael may be able to speak to it. I don't know how involved he's been in the, uh, their long-term visioning group, uh, process, but we can ask him and, um, same thing with the high school field renovation, right? That was everywhere last year. Um, yeah. And like, who really owned it? No one, no one owned it at the end. The board of work said they did not want to be the owner of it, even though Tom had initially included it, but I think Michael included it on behalf of the schools as well. Um, so just unclear. So when we're meeting with Mike, is he, is the expectation that we're going to go through the school? Yes. We have that opportunity. Okay. So we have to, we should, we have to be prepared for both the facilities line items and all the school line items. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Cause they're, they're really facilities projects. They just happen to be in school buildings, which is a good back to my whole consistency. Are we going to do them both on the 24th together? I think we need to do them both, but yes. And I think we're going to do it if we stick again to changes. And, uh, again, that may, if that's not, I was thinking we're going to do that, but if that suggests that it could be even a little bit more time with Michael, then maybe it's better to, um, have those other folks show up on the 31st if they can do it. Um, I just, I just think it's so, there's so much there, even discussing changes whenever we, and Michael's great. Remember we talked to him in the past. It's, it's taken a lot of time to get through it. Well, I'll, I'll, I can communicate with, uh, with Anna now for the 31st or the second. Does that make sense? Offer, offer the second, because we're going to do the 31st with Michael. Oh, we're doing the 24th. Sorry, yeah, yeah. Sorry. Offer the 31st or second. Fire IT. Okay. You know, Linda Hanson said she could do the 31st. Yeah. Yeah. And then I, I would operate at the moment on the likelihood that Kirsten won't be able to, uh, join us to meet our timeframe, but I think that's okay. I keep the invite out there and I'll, again, I'll speak to the MSBA and let Michael address the other things. Yeah. I think that's okay given, like you said, these are, these are all facilities based in nature, right? Um, and if we have questions that Michael can answer, we can always follow up with an email, um, walk through you. Yeah. And, and I don't believe at this stage, for example, board of public works, I know the school committee, I haven't seen any agendas that they have, um, you know, been asked to review or weigh in on any capital requests. So one thing we might through you, Fred might want to, um, communicate with the department managers, just ask, I think we put that question on the form, uh, whether this departmental as a board or is there a board committee approval required or something, uh, I'd be interested to find out if they're going to seek that before we have to finalize our report. Um, as a formality, I think it'd be a good thing, but.
So I know, kind of skipping ahead on the agenda, but just sticking with your 24th, I need to get the agenda in for that for tomorrow. Tomorrow, yeah. Um, so. Brian, you said tomorrow at noon, has to be in tomorrow at noon? Okay, it's Wednesday, right. They're closed Friday, and they, they leave early on. Oh, because they leave early on Thursday? Yeah, they just leave early on Friday. I mean, I got, I got stuck on that with the last agenda. I sent it in and I realized they were gone. I can't remember if this was the last week or maybe next week. It could be the last week. I think it's through the end of August. I think it's through the 31st. Right. Yeah, I would say, I mean, I'm, maybe I'll get the minutes out, um, in time, so I'll complete it if any. Do we need to, though, or can we just say, focus the time just on Michael and do the minutes on our second meeting? Yeah. No, no, I said, we can, you'll put them on there just in case. I'll just say, yeah, I have them. Yeah, you just put it on, and then we, it will push it off if we did. But if there's anything else, but all the other stuff, I will, I won't include. I'll, I'll include the, you know, usual beginning stuff. Uh, yeah, you know, these two. Yeah. And then, and then, uh, I would say then do, yeah, so then just do this the exact same way, because that way it leaves you open in case, um, in case if anything changes. Um, and then, I would say most of these, I mean, you can leave them, but we can just take them off. Um, right. All the rest of them. The only, I would maybe just put this one here just in case, which is the discussion of outstanding capital. Um, actually you won't be here. So people will just leave. Yeah. And circle. I might just put, so on, on the item where we talk to department managers, I would just say departmental requests submitted this year and outstanding capital. That way we're covered. Okay. In case we want to ask questions of department managers. Yeah. Then you can get rid of that. And then I think we'll be able to get rid of these unless we have anything left on the email. Yeah. And we can always go back between now and two or three weeks from now and create a list of written questions of whatever department head we, we want, um, on specific open capital of substance. Yeah. And so to circle back on that, so I understand Kelsey's gone, which explains why I couldn't coordinate time with her. Um, and then I know what we talked about during this process, we were talking about, you know, current budgets. We didn't want to ask capital questions. So what I can do is for some things that I think are interesting. We talked about your negative balances. I can put together some recommendation by department of questions we like, want to ask, or do we want to really just put a pin in that? Yes. No, that would be helpful because then while they're here, we can do that. It seems to say, Hey, I've got a couple things here. Yeah. Much easier to do it. Then to go back and hopefully get a response. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. And on the negative balances, we did push out a request to Brian Keveney and he did respond on a number of them that they needed to be corrected. Yeah. Okay. Internally. Um, the one question I've had to ask Tom Holder, uh, if we have the opportunity, and again, it may be more of Brian Keveney, but I'm still, I know last year I focused on chapter 90 and the town's process and whether the town actually, because it appears to me, the town has to spend the money and then seek reimbursement, but the town never asked how meeting for appropriation to spend the money and other communities. I've seen them asking for the appropriation. So I meant to ask Tom that question. So if I forget, um, maybe somewhere in the next three or four weeks, we could invite Brian Keveney. And as again, as we're going toward a report, it'd be better to have him, you know, at least talk to him about what we heard and where we think we're headed and just try to head off any significant variation. Cause then there's a number of things that, you know, I don't know how he would react if people came in with some of the new requests and knowing how he views the capital plan, um, and knowing pressure on the operating budget, which, you know, uh, site board is now focused on the interaction between the capital plan and the operating budget. Um, I'd rather find out from him if he's going to really say, you know, you guys really better be convinced and then be able to convince the town manager that any new asks in, in these years are, are well justified. And there are a number of them that are not inconsequential. Um, uh, and there's some that they moved to try to help compensate in fiscal 28. Uh, I'm just not in the schools anyway. There was one that we'll talk about that I, you know, on the fire alarms that I thought we last year said, Hey, once you determine that you think you have a need, I don't think you want to be in that place where you you're pushing it off and then something happens. So, uh, yeah, I just, I think having Brian's input and how much pushback we're going to get, it would be helpful. Um, so, um, I don't know when that is, but again, the second, there's some of the second, second is that's a Wednesday. That's a Wednesday. Yeah. So that's back to Wednesday. So I mean, he'll join us, but probably zoom. Okay. So I'll leave it to you if you think that's a good idea. I don't, I don't know about you guys, but I don't care if it's zoom. I find zoom and that works fine. It's fine. I, I am, I'll agree Brian. I know we have, you know, work to do here, but I, I think feel better, feel a lot better than I did a year ago about where we are. I appreciate people generally speaking to see, you know, there's probably 80% compliance with the, it's gotta be kind of what was in last year's plan for those four years. It's definitely clear when they submit it. I mean, we look at the forms are pretty, I mean, for the most part, pretty clear what they're suggesting and like, which ones are overlapping and it's great. Yeah. I think, I think we're in much better data collection shape than we were a year ago at least. Sounds like at least from Tom that, you know, there may be places where, you know, there could be flexibility that he's, would find acceptable and rational. Oh, I think so. Based on what you're saying in terms of some of his requests. Yeah. Yeah. So that we have that documented. I think he articulated it well too. This is why, why, why sometimes. Why should we have the report done? What do we need to get the report done? All right. So we're meeting on next Monday, following Monday and the following Wednesday. Yeah. Yeah. It's two weeks. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Who's bringing the snacks? I'm just kidding. We all bring snacks. What do you guys want? You want sweet or savory? So I guess at this point, uh, it's 824. Uh, you know, we have a number of, uh, items here. Do we want to, uh, discuss these, defer them, uh, for a later? Well, I know, I know capital projects, something that Liz is working on. Yeah. I think we, I think we just covered outstanding capital projects. I like that plan that Liz laid out, like giving us the questions to ask and we can ask. One quick question. Did anybody look at the file I sent out? I looked at it, Brian. Yeah. I mean. Yeah. The only thing I, I think we talked about possibly adding in fiscal 27 projects that were just approved, they weren't on, on Brian's munis list because he cut that off at June 30. Uh, so the, you know, I, you know, I did ask him, can you send me an update munis list thinking they might be on there. He didn't send it. So I can ask again, which would save you the time of having to. Yeah. I don't input. I wouldn't trust my. Yeah. I mean, yeah, the preference. Well, we have, we actually have an Excel. Yeah. Those are in Excel, right? Yeah. Well, we, we don't have, we have the town manager's Excel. Yes, we will. Yeah, we probably have it with our comparison that we did for variances. Yeah. I had to compare it. Uh, yeah. So why don't I, why don't I find that and send it to you as, and you just cut and paste fiscal 27 into your dataset and then make a row for it in your tables. Yes. Um, and then we excluded last year in the analysis, we basically said, I think you included, you excluded, you excluded only fiscal 26. We included fiscal 25 in the, sort of the grouping of projects that were still open. And last year we, we bungled up 25 and 26 saying we understand why those aren't that far along. So I think this year we'd have a table that have 26 and 27 sort of bungled together and really focused on 25 back. Um, which is kind of what you have. Does that make sense? Yeah, it does. I don't think the point, I'll go back and check, but if memory serves, I didn't think 26 was in there at all. Like when I was looking back at your calculations, I think it was just 25 that it was sorted on and collecting, but I'll go back to it. I mean, the thing is, the way that I said it to the table, like whatever fiscal years we want to include, we just have to add them to it and it's going to automatically pull in that data. So, I mean, you know, it's just like, you know, five seconds. Okay. I'll find the Excel file that has what got approved at 10 meeting for fiscal 27. Send that to you, then you can just... Yeah, I mean, I think the, the only thing I would say is for the, the data that we have from that report, it has certain, like it'll have the, the total approved amount for that to go and what I'm calling it to go, but... Well, these projects... Balances and all of that... Yeah, these projects will be approved, will be exactly the same as... Yeah, so there's going to be none of that additional information... Just because they haven't spent anything. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I think that's the easiest way to deal with it. And I think that's largely what 26 represented last year, although we were, we were into November last year, so they might have actually... Yeah, they were still... Spent a couple dollars out of the 26 amount. So, I'll send that to you, but that, other than the tables look like they're all kind of working appropriately, and we can certainly continue to review and scrub them until it's time to import them into the report. Yeah. And then, you just kind of... I can't remember, Kelly, did I, did I draft the words for the Open Capital section of the report, or did I just give you the tables and you drafted that? I think I, we put the tables in, but I think we can take last year's Word Docket. It shouldn't, it shouldn't be a heavy lift to update the words. To tweak it for most reasons. Yeah, to tweak it for new numbers. Yeah. Yeah, I can't remember. No, maybe you did write that one, Brian. Yeah, I mean, you, I think you read, you, you edited it in a couple of... Good, I'm, I'm picturing it now. So, that just might be something that, if you have the time to get advanced start on, Kelly's point, take last year's Word Dock. Yeah. See how much of it is relevant. If you think there's other things that should be stressed, but then, once we figure out who's going to kick the crack at grafting the rest of the report, then that can just be imported. Yeah. Yeah. So, right, we can blast through some of these other things. There's literally 20 seconds on some of them. You know, I'm inclined to probably use the same agenda for the 24th, just, just in case any issues come up, or, can you see any reason after? Yeah, it's, it's fine, you know, I, I think some of them we probably don't need to keep talking about, like, it's fine, you want to keep on the visioning group, just in case something comes up. Well, yeah, something did come up on there. No, I was just going to say, it's probably not worth talking about. The annual report depends on, if we're going to table it for tonight, then leave that one on. Yep. And just so you know, I received a call from Carol Martin, reminding me that, um, the annual report is due September 30. I told her, we already have a draft report, and she was happy with that, so. So, one question on that, since it's on the agenda. So, I had some comments, Brian, do you want me to send the comments to the team, just so we can review them before the meeting? That were mostly, I mean, adjustments. I don't think any structural, but. Yeah, I mean, now that we're in open session, talking about it, you, unless, John, you objected. It all looked good to me, so, yeah. Yeah, you can, you can just forward my email to you, at this point, to the rest of the members. Okay, perfect. And then we can talk about it one time. Yeah, that's fine. I, I gave it one read through, I want to give it another, I'll give it another read after, um, but I thought it was really good. Okay, so. Yeah, no, I, I generally did, and I just, you'll see, I was generally trying to just condense a couple things. I'll sign the red line, just so you can see what he changed, and then, yeah. What does it have to be down to? It has to be down to what? It's a thousand words, right? Yeah, I mean, they're not hard and fast on that. It's 817 right now. Yeah, so it's, we're good on words. I thought it was great. Did you, did you have to do a lot on it, John, or was it, did you, did you use AI? I mean, I gave it a kick, right? A little kick, I gave it the, the template, I gave it the example, and then I uploaded all of the meetings, and that's what it got, I mean, for the most part, that's what it gave me. Yeah, frankly, I mostly, I set it and forget it. I set it and walked away and came back and got what I got and sent it out, so. That's, that's great. I, I, I figured as much, but I, yeah, great. Until, until it takes over the world. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. I won't know what took over because I'll be so convinced it's great, so it won't matter.
I think we, uh, review and vote to approve the minutes from August 5. Do we have any comments, changes to the minutes from August 5? Brian? I have one, uh, one minor edit on page one, first line, uh, under the discussed capital planning process, the first paragraph under that, uh, should say fiscal 27 through 31 instead of 26 331. Yeah. Any, any other? I didn't catch that if I made that mistake right now, so. Yeah. I don't know if it was in the organic side of it. 10 to 20. Okay. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of August 5 as revised by Brian? So moved. Second. Okay. This has to be a roll call vote, and I assume I can't vote because I wasn't here. You can vote. You can always vote, um, that's your choice, but, um, or you can abstain. Or you can abstain, um, but you should go last, maybe do roll call. Okay. I'll do a roll call. Kelly? Uh, yep. Liz? Yes. Brian? Yes. John? Yes. Uh, I'll abstain. So, passed. Sorry. And we have, uh, 4-0-1. 4-0-1, I'm sorry. Uh, and we have the, let me just review the meeting. We have a meeting on the 24th at 5-30. Uh, meeting on the 31st, which is also 5-30, and then on the 2nd at 6-30. Yeah, and you can, Brad, just because I know you haven't done a lot. You can absolutely email us if things change or schedule, like, something happens in the schedule, that's, that's okay. As long as no one replies, you can let people know. Okay. And you can also ask if, if, if you had to change a date and then you need to ask if it works for people, you can do that for the email as long as you're not talking about, you know, subject matter. And we're going to need a room for the 24th, so I need to... You need to check, yeah. Yeah, you need to get a room and it's in for the 24th, I'm hoping. What do I check with you on that? Um, I, I, the email I never sent you, that I sent you, I sent it to you tonight and said, it's, it's, it's, it's Abigail. Okay. Um, I sent Brad an email last night, except I never sent it. I wrote it. I wrote it and sent a bunch of other emails. And you didn't get it? I sent it out here and I was like, ah, um, okay. And then I just, I think the only one we can probably take off the list going forward, you can take off, does everybody agree that we're, are we good on use of transcription tools to produce future meeting minutes? Do we need, we need any further discussion on that? Like when, when Brian's no longer on this committee, does anybody have any objections to using? Oh, you might, John, you might practice at the 24th meeting in case I have to leave early. Okay. Well, I'm running it now as well, so. Okay. Yeah. I don't, I don't, I don't need any more discussion on it. I'm perfectly. Okay. You just want to be ready to go, um, sometime in late September, early October. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Good. I just don't think we need to discuss it. No, I agree. Okay. Good. Uh, we can leave the succession planning on there just in case we get a, someone tells us there's somebody that's available. All right. Okay. That, uh, 835, can I have a, um, motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Second. Kelly? Yes. Liz? Yes. Brian? Yes. John? Yes. Fred? Yes. We're adjourned. 835. Awesome.