February 4, 2026 – Capital Improvement Planning Committee – Video & Transcript
February 4, 2026 - Capital Improvement Planning Committee
All right, I'm going to call the meeting of the Capital Improvement Planning Committee to order.
It's February 4th at 6 p.m., and we are in the town building with a large hearing room, and we are also on Zoom.
This meeting, as I just said, is hybrid, so I'm going to read.
We've got the meeting to be reported, and if recorded, it will be made available to the public on WACM as soon as possible after the meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in-person and via remote access in regards to people law.
If the census has remote access, one may watch or participate remotely. The meeting link can be found on the town's website.
When required by law or allowed by the peer, a person is willing to, wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do set up the peer meeting location, or via remote access. Telecom, it should be limited to two minutes per person. Okay, so in person, we have Liz, Brian, Kelly, and on Zoom, we have John, and I don't remember. Brad said he couldn't make this one. Travel. Yeah, he said he was traveling. Somebody had an iPhone there. I'm not sure who that was.
Oh, you think it was Michael? I guess. Okay. All right. I'll start reviewing the agenda. All right. 6 p.m., call the order. We'll be the agenda for public. 10 announcements. 6.05 is public comment and members' response. 6.10, review of the FY27 requests that were not recommended for inclusion in the FY27 capital budget, as well as FY28 through FY31 requests to determine where to include in the FY28 to FY31 capital plan, including funding sources. It's a continuation of our discussion in the last couple of weeks. 7.40, discuss and vote addendums, if any, to the committee's report to the town manager. 8 o'clock, review any articles submitted for town meeting to assess impact on capital plan, if any. 8.15, debrief on CIPC report process and file suggestions for future reports. 8.45, review and vote to approve minutes of January 26th. 8.55, topics not reasonably anticipated by the chair, 40-hour spread of hosting and many and set times at next meetings. 9 o'clock, hopefully we'll adjourn, and as with last week, we're going to spend, our main priority is on the rest of the capital plan, to the extent we have time. We'll progress on to the other agenda items, to make sure if there's anything we're ready to discuss there. With that, was it, it wasn't. Can you just confirm, got him confirmed, so we didn't bring somebody up, but we don't know who it is. We just want to check and make sure, Michael McCall, is that you? Is that Michael's iPhone? I am on here, Madam Chair, so I'm just more listening this evening to the discussion, but I'm happy to answer any questions as they may arise. All right, thanks. I just want to make sure it was you, because we brought you over as a panelist, just want to make sure it wasn't a member of the public. Yeah, and I don't see anybody else in the room or on Zoom for public comment, so I think with that, oh. Did I miss it, just let people know John's on Zoom? I did say that. Did you do that already? Yeah, I did that already. And we have a couple of guests with us tonight, too. Our first agenda item, after public comment, is to talk about the request that didn't make it in the FY27 plan in the remaining out years. So, we have Michael Fea from Facilities, and we have Tom Holder from DPW. And I know, Tom, you asked me to send you the questions ahead of time, and I didn't, because it wasn't specific questions. It was, we really wanted both of you here to walk, just as we look at the plan for the rest of the years, right? As you can imagine, we're struggling with a lot of projects and not enough resources. And so, to the extent we need to reorder them, we want to make sure that it's in alignment with your reordering of them, rather than, you know, us deciding completely, you know, in a vacuum. Yeah, that's fine. And I took some information from the meeting minutes of your last meeting. I know you had some notes of things that you were looking for. So, I kind of used that to guide me, you know, in preparation for tonight. Okay, perfect. All right, with that, I don't know if, John Cleen, I know you went off camera. Is it possible for you to pull up Brian's spreadsheet on the Zoom? That way I don't have to log in to Zoom? Yes, I just need to download it. Okay. All right. So, while we're doing that, I think the first thing I want to let the committee know is we did get a response back from Catherine Brenna at Recreation, and I'm going to make sure both Tom and Mike agree with this, that she believes to the extent we did have project in for Phase 3 of the building high school field project, which was the baseball diamonds, some rectangles being rearranged, that that is redundant with the second project that was in FY29 that said rectangles. So, we want to make sure, because that was, you know, close to $4.5 million between the two, and I think it's the same project. So, everybody is in agreement that that's not, I've got Catherine, Mike's nodding yes. Nope. Okay. It makes sense. Good. All right. That's helpful. So, we can take that out of the second one out.
How are you doing, John? Good. Let's just turn about it. Sorry. Okay.
All right. So, once we get that up, was there anything before John gets that up that we want to start with, question-wise, that was...
It worked from the last item on the list, which is the transfer station garage. Yeah, that's probably a good answer. That's going to be a quick one. Tom, you want to take this? Or I'm going to... Yeah, I can start it out. So, we understand, you know, having operated at that facility for, you know, many decades, that those buildings are extremely tired. We've made, you know, small repairs to the roof, the heating system, lighting, and all of that. But at this point in time, it's pretty apparent that something more permanent needs to happen. But having said that, the Department of Public Works just began an evaluation of the town's solid waste, you know, trash and recycling protocols. We've engaged a vendor that's going to spend the next several months with us evaluating the transfer station. And part of the deliverable will be a recommendation, at least providing data as to what type of operation is feasible to continue, what the town can afford. There's an option of implementing a municipal curbside collection program for both trash and recycling. So, it seemed a little premature to both myself and Mike to begin thinking about and planning for building rehabilitation and replacement until we actually know what the future of that property holds. So, I think at a minimum, we've deferred it to at least, you know, 28 and perhaps even further out. It was our thought that a pre-engineered building, you know, with a foundation would be adequate to replace the garage space and some of the office space that's currently there. We put in a placeholder of, you know, $450,000. But I'm sure we will be refining that value and then also thinking about, depending upon what the evaluation calls for, to see what that property will be utilized for in the future. And that'll better help us design something that's appropriate for whatever future functionality is there.
And so, on that, Ken, I want to start to see right across all projects where we've got the design and construction staggered so that the design is done before we're going to the town to ask for construction. So, are you thinking design, and I understand in prefab, but even prefab, you've got to pick out what you, you know, you've got to spec out what you want, right, that meets your needs. So, is that a design 28 and build in 20? I'm trying to get a sense, Tom, of when, like, is this building, right, is there an expiration where, you know, we can't function anymore, we don't make a decision what to do, we've got to, you know, we're going to have a drop. I know it's not as simple as that. It's not like, yeah, no, it's, yeah, it's not an immediate need. You know, I think by putting it in 28, perhaps 29, I think would be fine. I've built a couple of these types of buildings in the past, and, you know, the actual terminology, it's, you know, pre-engineered. When you, and Mike can talk probably a lot more to this than I can, but it's pretty common when you do one of these buildings that you actually, you know, when you select the company that's going to do it for you, they actually design it and fabricate it for you. So, they're, in this particular instance, if it is pre-engineered, you wouldn't have that design and then separate construction, like, like we're most accustomed to. So, that's why it's not all, it's not split between. There wouldn't be a design cost. We would hire a firm to, that we're going to get the building from. They would design it, and then we'd have a price to buy it. Is that, I'm trying to understand, like. They have, they call them canned buildings. So, basically, the drawings that you'd see, you know, if you remember from the old magazines, you know, you could build a kit helps type of thing. Yeah. Same, same idea. They have all the drawings that are engineered. You know, you put a slab down, they come in, they throw this thing on top of it, and it's, it's all been pre-engineered. And it's, it's that simple. It's like turnkey. So, other than the electrical and things like that. But that's. Okay. So, it's not, so there's no design stage, design costs. It's just. Not, not for pre-faceted. Buying it on Sears catalog. Pretty much. No, pretty much. Yeah. Now you do it online. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we're just clear, Michael, you had in your request, similarly, $450,000 in fiscal 27. Right. And then I think you said that was for partly repairing what's there, partly. That was the thought, right, is to do some repairs to keep it up and running and maybe start a design, but. And then you had $1,800,000 in 2031 as a placeholder. Right. So, for our purposes, it sounds like if it ended up that we put it in our plan fiscal 29, I guess the question is, is $450,000 the right placeholder? Is something closer to your $1,800,000? Well, that's up to Tom and the size building we want. So, it's, once they're done with their study, we'll know a little better. I would say the $450,000 is probably a good placeholder. The $1,800,000 was, we're building a whole new building. So, that's why that number was out there. I'm sorry. That's okay. Very distracted.
That's why that's out there. I put that there just because I needed to have some money somewhere just in case. So, we were ready. So, if Tom's comfortable, I know I'm comfortable, we can stick with the $450,000 and get rid of the $1,000,000 out of $30,000,000, I think it is, right? Right. And, Tom, $450,000 was your guesstimate fiscal 27. If you had to make a guesstimate for two years from now, would it still be $450,000 or would it be $500,000? Yeah. It would certainly be increased. And, I don't know, Mike, if you have a sense of what, you know, inflationary cost per year for construction is. Is it 10% per year? Should we be adding 20% to that figure? I'm not sure what you're seeing. They've been using 9%. Okay. So, $550,000 round numbers? Yep. If it's in fiscal 29? Yeah.
Okay.
I think that resolves that. Now, as to whether we decide that's where it's going to go, it's a different story. But that's helpful. And as Kelly, you said at the beginning, we prefer to obviously have you guys weighing in if things have to get pushed out to let us know, you know, against, we'll talk about other priorities. Sure. Which items could slip more than others. But for now, for our next cut of this, why don't we assume that that's a fiscal 29 basket by 50? Yep. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hey, John, can you... Enlarge. Yeah, you don't necessarily have to have the spreadsheet take over the whole screen, but can you just enlarge the text?
Is that better? It's hard because we're in the large hearing room, so the screen's pretty far away. Let me just try to see if I reshare it just to see if it fixes it because I'm surprised. Yeah, I have a hard copy, so I think it's helpful for the public mostly. The rest of you can look at the online version. I'm just looking at version 13, right? That was in Silva later. Yeah. That's version 13, right, John? This is version 13, yep. Is that better? Yeah, and just because my eyesight isn't that great at this distance, what tab are you on at the moment? 28. Okay. Thanks.
All right.
I'm happy to move. Sorry. Can we... Well, we'll do that. We... It's a big nut as well. Can we talk about the salt shed, rehab? Yes, the million dollars that I've got listed there. Yes. Give us a little bit of color on that, Tom. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. What the urgency is. Yeah, I mean, it... Now, this is an FYI. I'm looking in my paper copy. Where... You requested in 28 a million dollars? Yeah. Let me just see if I can find it. I know I had it. Here we go. Yep, I got it. Yeah, a million dollars in 28. So that salt shed, I'm not sure if you've ever seen it, that is at a minimum of 15 years old. And it was actually there prior to the DPW facility being built in 2015. And the environment, you know, with all the salt that's in it, around it, it is a pretty, you know, destructive environment. So we're witnessing, we're observing a lot of deterioration, a lot of failing, it's got a concrete foundation with a steel and wooden kind of conical cover over the top of it. The electrical components are requiring frequent repairs, so it does not need to be rebuilt. It would be far more than a million dollars to rebuild that. But for us to hire somebody to make the repairs, you know, during the off-season months, you know, spring, summer, fall, we've included a figure for a million dollars to do that. Now, it would be nice to be able to do that in FY28, but a matter of immediacy, you know, if, you know, as you shuffle and you try to find funding for all of the town's needs, you know, I think if that were to be placed in 29, that would be okay, if that gives you any help as to a sense of immediacy on that. Is there any reason to piecemeal it over two years, 28, 29, or is it, would be just more expensive to do that? Yeah, I don't think so, because, you know, when you touch one thing, you might as well touch the rest of it, that kind of a thing. So I don't think splitting it over a couple of years would be practical.
And we're talking about the salt jet that's adjacent to the now formerly new building, not the one that used to be used by the old landfill. No, no, this is the new conical one that's a 66 River Road. The dome structure that's out front? Yes. Yep. And if that got pushed from your request in FY28 to FY29, would a million dollars be sufficient, or would it, again, go up by some inflationary amount? I mean, I think keeping it in a million, I think, would be adequate. There's enough of a contingency in that figure that I would be comfortable carrying that to 29 if the committee decided to do that. Just as an aside, as we look to this process a year from now and going forward, I, for one, would find it helpful to get, particularly on some of these larger ticket items, get more analysis or detail as to where the estimate was derived from. Could be quotations, could be first square foot costs, including contingencies, just so that, you know, we have a better sense that it's just, I'm not suggesting that they're just numbers pull out of the air. I'm sure you've given thought to these, particularly the bigger ones. But we'll be talking about that more in our upcoming meetings about just the process and how much and what type of information to ask for that maybe hasn't been asked for. Would either of you find that a burden or an imposition? Yeah, no, what you're describing is totally understandable and it should be expected. I mean, obviously, for anything in the coming fiscal year, we've got, you know, we're working off of quotes and all of that. And then as the years progress, you know, the numbers become a little bit less hardened. But what you're asking for, especially for 28, 29 and, you know, these large ticket items, what you're asking for is totally understandable. Yeah, so we'll look to, as a part of improving the process, right? We've talked before, we want to have a better CIP input form that's more pertaining to what you guys actually, like there's a lot of stuff on there that you don't need to give us. And there's a lot of stuff in this segment that I think you all think through and go through in putting together your plan, but we're not asking for it. And then we're bothering you, right? You know, one off in question. So I think we'll modify that for both the coming year, as you said, Tom, would be expected in a little more detail with a little more support. And in the out years, not as much, but still, if it's a cost per square foot, it's so many square feet. Like whatever that rough, you know, how to, how do we get to the estimate, I think it's really helpful. And then I think the other thing we want to make sure on that is we do understand escalation that's built in or escalation needed to the extent things are moved on a broader scale. So that's, that's very, yep. Okay. So from here, Brian, you want to keep, there's two other DBW items that we have labeled maybe one is the route 20 south landfill cap restoration. And primarily we were interested in whether that was being required of us by the state. Were we not to be doing anything with that? That's like, I think we understand that there's a visioning group that's looking at all sorts of alternative uses. And it wasn't clear, Tom, whether you knew that this half million dollars would be needed, but for the potential use of that property for these other possible uses. Yeah. So there is a visionary committee that was formed. It's actually relatively active right now. We have a forum scheduled for two weeks, February 17th, whereby our engineering firms, the committee and staff will be presenting what we've been working on over the course of the last 15 or so months. Some of the repurposed functionality of, of, of, of, of the capped landfill. This $450,000 was derived before some of the decisions that were made and are going to be made as a result of February 17th. Uh, so that figure is going to likely change because the options, I won't belabor it, but, you know, we're talking about a, uh, 11 verse 11, uh, multipurpose rectangular field, natural turf field, uh, with perhaps lighting. We're talking about having an area for, uh, we're talking about materials management, uh, facilities for, for DPW, passive recreation, uh, walking paths, birding, uh, you know, uh, observation platforms. All of those things are being considered and will be presented on the 17th. So I think there's going to be a need for funding in FY 28, because I think the committee and the town will be really poised to do something with that property. It's just, I think it'll probably be north, unfortunately, of 450 grand. So I think there's 500 in the, in, for this one. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. I'm looking at the one below it. 500. But I want to pull the thread a little bit on that because this is still at the, it's at the visioning stage. You're, you're about to get ready to present options. We're really going to be ready to spend money for FY 28. That's a year from now. Effectively, right? A year and a few months. I'm just thinking about like, if it's, I'm going to use a field, right? If we decide we're going to build a new field, just based on history, how many years before we're ready to build a new field? Yeah, it's, well, if, you know, the things that I were describing, there is going to be a design effort. Um, and the design will be done separate. And so the design funding will be requested separate from the, the construction of it. Um, so what would be included? I would, I would imagine for annual town meeting 27. So a year from this May, uh, the committee would likely have identified, you know, the, the options that they were, the town was going to go forward with and be making a pitch, you know, to at least design some of it. So, um, that's, that's, that's my take. That'd be design, that'd be design in FY28. Right. Right. If it's earliest, you're looking at design in FY28. That's correct. FY29 at the earliest, right? That presumes. That's right. Put together, ready to go at, at next, not this ATM, but next ATM. Correct. Yep. Okay. Is there, and I don't want to jump the gun on this so you can tell me we don't know yet. Is there a range of costs of these options that are being discussed or is it, if this is all pure visionary ideas of what can go there and we're not anywhere near relative cost? Yeah. I mean, I, I think I would say it's more at the vision stage. I mean, I, I think you could certainly take a look at the cost of local field, uh, that was just built, uh, um, you know, at the complex off of, uh, route 30. Uh, and so the, the field that's being proposed is very similar to that. So if that would be, that would give you a sense of design and construction costs for that. And then. That was over, that was over $4 million, wasn't it? Three. Three change. Three change. Yeah. So that's, that would give you a sense of what that would cost. Um, you know, and then. Back to my question. Um, but for potential. But for the support potentially coming forward to town meeting, uh, proposing project X, Y, and Z, uh, but for that, would, would this, would the town be required to be spending any money on capping what's there at the moment?
So right now we, we, we've spent a great deal of, uh, effort in working with the DEP to ensure that we're beating, um, you know, their, their expected, expected regulations. And so if you've, if you're familiar with the property, um, all of the, uh, their, their, their big concern was that the cap was being damaged with all the, the tree growth, the root systems were damaging the cap. So that, that property has been completely cleared at this point in time. Um, so, uh, there's no risk for additional or continued damage to the cap. Um, uh, the DEP has asked for us to do some test pits and some additional borings. We're looking for, um, uh, the submittal. They're looking for the submittal, uh, of a, of a long range plan for that property. So those are the next types of things. But, um, right now we're in a very good place, um, regulatorily, if that's even a word to, um, to DEP relative to, you know, property maintenance and the condition of it. All right, so just ask again, with that additional information, it sounds like you've remediated the issue with roots. You think you might have to spend some amount of money doing some additional testing to, uh, have the DEP feel comfortable that whatever cap is there and the town has only spent money on. Um, at some point in the past, uh, is sufficient for how long would what's there be sufficient for forever? Yeah. I mean, we're all at this point in time, we're only required to do, um, gas monitoring, uh, groundwater monitoring and to keep the property mode. And, um, you know, it's all operating costs. Yeah. So you'll, in our operating line, you see there's three or four lines for landfill. It's, it's the landfill at the transfer station, as well as the landfill that we're talking about right now. All right. So I'm going to go where I think Brian is headed, which is this item, which says route 20 South landfill cap restoration at 500,000. Isn't really the cap restoration. It is. And maybe we thought we might need it because we needed to do things. And maybe we still could, if the DEP looks at our proposal and says there's, there's something we need, but was the 500 intended to do some sort of capital work to restore the cap? Or was that 500 for alternative use? Yeah. So when. Those are two separate things. And I think there weren't, they should be described accordingly. Yeah. No, I, um, I agree. When this title route 20 South landfill cap restoration, I probably created that title three years ago. Um, and at that point in time, um, I was thinking that it would, it would, that 500 grand, uh, or whatever we put in there would be used to continue the cap restoration over the course of the last 15, 18 months. We now know that, you know, cap restoration is nearly complete, uh, and that anything additional is, uh, towards the repurposement of those two parcels. So if I would be, I would be supportive if you wanted to change the title of that, um, to something other than, than what it is right now. Again, it's relative to the cap. From what do you understand with talking to DP, is there any, assuming what's there is stable and fine and you do your testing and nothing changes, but now you come along and say, okay, we want to put a field and we want to do these other three or four things. Do any or all of those things have any impact on the cap such that you would have to spend more money doing something to the cap to allow those uses to occur? Yes. Um, so any of the things that I just described are going to require excavating the cap, um, the field it's going to have, you know, drainage underneath it. Uh, there's going to be, uh, drainage under any bus parking materials management, all of that. So in working with the DEP, we understand these things, you know, can be accomplished, but there will be, uh, what I would call cap stabilization functions that would be associated with any future work that's done there. But those, those types of, um, things that needed to be done to stabilize the cap during and after those things are constructed would be within the request, the value of the request, whatever that happens to be in 28, 29, 30. Yeah. That would, that would, that would be loaded. If, if we're doing capital requests for what we have today, right. Trying to keep things up to, to standard. What I'm hearing is we don't think that there's cost to maintain the cap as is. If one of these alternative uses is what the town wants to proceed with. Part of the cost of that alternative use is going to be dealing with the cap, just like at any other building site. When we decide to do something, the cost of remediating what's there to change it has to go into that cost. So I want to make sure we're, we're separating. Cause I think like you said, Tom, this has changed from when it originally came about. We weren't sure what we were going to have to do to get the cap right in line with what the DEP was to what we needed to do initially, just to be okay. Like a thoroughly sounds like we're close to being there. Right. Without additional cost. If we decide as a town that we want to do something else there, that's part of the cost of that project. Yeah, I think ultimately that's the point I was driving to since we don't have a clarity on what the select board may or may not choose to put forth or be when they might choose to put it forth. And obviously, most importantly, whether the town actually were to vote in favor of moving forward, given the financial situation of the town over the next decade. Um, it's all fine to be visioning this stuff, but, you know, building a, when you have other priorities in the capital plan, building something in as if we're saying, you know, this is a green light to potentially spend this. I'm uncomfortable with given what Thomas now kind of described the current affairs. Yeah, I agree. Um, I would prefer, and this is, we can do this right as a committee is that something like that, we're like that there's a visioning committee with a potential use. It's, you know, we've got a plan through FY 31. I, I like the, there's an FY 32 right now and FY 32 plus, and we've listed, right, the potential or narrative of the potential projects that are out there swimming around. But I'm uncomfortable putting it in because I have no idea if that's, you know, walking trails at, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars or a field at $4 million, right? And I'm making, so I don't, I don't feel comfortable putting that in our five-year plan. The actual plan. Yeah. And, you know, we, we had Tom and Michael, we had, we had at least one item that Pin-Pom addressed over the past three years was the high school wastewater facility renovation. Um, which a couple of years ago was in the five-year plan that Pin-Pom approved. And then last year, uh, Brian Keveney took it out of the plan and we addressed it, uh, by adding a sentence to the narrative, uh, just saying that five and a half million had been in there, but the town's working on alternatives that hopefully will result. As it appears, it hopefully will, in a much lower cost. So this is kind of feeling to me like an item that we need to flag in any report we do for two reasons. One, we're not sure it's going to have to be spent. We're not sure exactly which year it's going to have to be spent. And, and most importantly, we're not sure what the ultimate total cost is for whatever vision use, uh, is brought forward for a town vote. So that, you know, that becomes one of those items that gets relegated beneath the plan, uh, kind of like an elementary school, new elementary school right now. So it's likely not going to be in our five-year plan, but it's quite possible that that hits sometime in the next five years. We, we, so what, uh, what, what you're describing, uh, Brian is precisely what I did with this and, and actually the project that's just below this from time to time. I become, you know, to understand that there's going to be a need. There's a project on the horizon. And nobody's really taken ownership of it at that point, uh, you know, so two or three years ago, the South landfill, it really, you know, uh, it was a vision. There was some concepts that were thrown around, but I felt it necessary to at least put a figure in a year, just so that people were paying attention to it. Um, and that's, that's pretty much how this, uh, the genesis of this particular project. We now have a committee that committee is going to have this forum. I know the intent is that this committee is going to present to the select board. This will wind up being a project that'll be advanced and championed, you know, by either the vision committee or the select board. Public works may indeed manage it because we have the wherewithal to do that. But so what you were describing, uh, Brian, you know, um, is, is the approach that I was taking. And that's why you see this on the capital plan and, and a figure that, you know, mayor, uh, indeed will be altered. I think that's helpful, Tom. I think at the end of the day, right. That's the right thing for you to do. Right. So that we know about it and then we can talk about it. But I think the committee has to make a decision based on priorities and yeah. And they're prepared to do that. They'll, you know, they, they have that, uh, on their, on their radio screen. This committee needs to make a decision about priorities and where, where, where something could fit. And I'm with, I'm with Brian, um, until it's clearer what the, what the path forward is that people are looking for and what that cost is, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be able to put it in a plan, uh, just yet, but that's helpful context. And I think, uh, that leads us right into, uh, but both the two items we've now talked about, Tom, uh, I believe, uh, they were both in the five-year capital plan that the FinCom approved last year. Is that your recollection? Yes. Okay. So, you know, we've, we've been, you know, we, we appreciate that both the town manager presented to the FinCom his view of a five-year plan last year and FinCom approved a five-year plan and included in their report to town meeting in spring. Uh, I think generally we've been taking the approach that, um, we're looking at everything kind of fresh. Um, and that, that, this is an example of that. Um, I, I think there's some sense, perhaps there could be some sense by some that, Hey, this was in the approved five-year plan from the FinCom. Why is it you're proposing that you want to move it to someone else in your, the recommended plan, but, uh, I, it doesn't sound like you or Michael or, or, or those of us here tonight, uh, are, are really at odds on that. It's just, you know, we're, we're going through this in spite of the fact that it was in the plan. Does that make sense to you? Yes, it does. And I, and I think the, uh, the visionary committee membership, you know, would, uh, would understand and would, would it agree on what we're, you know, what we're talking about tonight. Yeah. And, and certainly if, if any project, the next one, you might as well hit two, because, you know, I'm very familiar with this from what occurred over the last couple of years with this particular item, but the other may not be. Um, but, um, you know, on any of these items, it's just a plan, right? And so if the select board decides ultimately that they want to champion a project and bring it forward, uh, and can get the town manager and the fincom to include it in a budget that gets approved by town meeting or alternatively puts forth an article, which I suspect this one probably would be, uh, for anything, you know, large projects at, uh, 20 landfill, uh, suck work and do that. Despite it not necessarily showing up in a particular year of plan, same for the schools. If they finish their visioning and they decide that they can get MSBA funding and fiscal 30 to build a new elementary school and they bring it forward as an article, even though that might not be in the five-year plan, right? They could do that. So, uh, we just want to make that point that, that what we're doing here is really just to provide guidance and advice to the town manager, uh, based on our research and our discussions. So anyway, why don't you, uh, give the rest the benefit of your knowledge on group 24 to our study. And in particular, uh, as of November 18th, none of the 250,000 that was approved in, in the spring has been spent. Uh, so we were curious if, if you're, you can inform us, uh, if anything has been spent. Yeah. So none of that, uh, those funds have been spent to date. Uh, there is, uh, when you said 250,000, I think is what was appropriated the last town meeting for, uh, preliminary design. And, um, um, so that is a good start. And the reason that that project really hasn't gotten off the ground yet, uh, to be quite honest is, um, we at public works, it just have not had the bandwidth, uh, to, to take this on in the fall of, of last year. We've got some sizable projects between the MWRA, uh, the high school wastewater, um, the project, um, as well as, uh, there's a, a small bridge project that's taken on a life of its own. And it's been a much larger effort that was initially anticipated, but some of these, uh, projects are, uh, being completed. So I think we are ready to, to take on beginning the conceptual design of the route 20 rehab. We'll be able to spend some of that 250,000. And the components of that is that it's, this is another one that, you know, three years ago, I, I, I created the, this title and put some money towards it because I knew that the work needed to be done. I wasn't sure who was going to champion the project, but I wanted to at least get something on a spreadsheet. So that was the genesis of this project. What will happen is that there'll be a working group created, um, with, uh, DPW planning people, economic development people, uh, perhaps even, um, some members at large, uh, of the public that, uh, might have property along the commercial corridor. We'll actually go out for a request for quotations to hire a design firm. And then that design firm will assist us in getting on the state's transportation improvement program, the tip and a tip, um, the tip program is really how this will be, uh, advanced. The tip program requires that the town provide design funds to complete the design. And then that design gets handed over to the state and they pay for and perform the construction. So, um, the, um, the 250 that we have appropriated would be used to start that process. And this is, um, this $450,000 that's listed in 28 would be, uh, a continuation of that effort. So let me just make sure that Tom, the town pays for the planning, or did you say the design they pay for the design? And then if it's, if it's picked up on the state, the state does. Correct. Yep. I've, I've done a couple of these projects, uh, very similar, uh, a state numbered highway, um, whereby the town performed the design. And, uh, there was, you know, stakeholder groups, uh, that I had described, uh, that were all part of it. And then, um, it, it meets the spirit of the tip program. It involves, um, you know, economic development. It actually, it, uh, it bridges two, um, portions of a state highway that are reconstructed. And this is a gap in that, uh, in that effort. So it, it meets the spirit of a tip program perfectly. So I, I have no doubt that once we present to the, uh, it's the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Boston MPO, uh, once we present to them, we will very likely be accepted into that tip program. How far out Tom is, uh, were you to, were you to have a completed design to be able to share with them today? Rough idea. How, how far out into the future would we be able to get on the list for funding? So we, uh, we'll actually, we'll get on the list prior, um, with a conceptual design with that $250,000 will get us to a point whereby we're actually going before the Boston MPO, uh, and get accepted on the tip. And then, you know, the, the formal and final design would then, you know, be performed. And then, um, you know, so I could probably answer right now, if things go as planned, we would have a project completed in seven years. That's how long it takes.
And what's the risk? Um, so, so it sounds like to be sure that you get on the list, the first $250,000 that you're planning to get around the spending is pretty important. Um, on the off chance that you present and they tell you our rules change, those type of projects don't qualify anymore. Then we say, okay, fine. We're not going to likely spend the cost to do what we're conceptually thinking of doing. I think you said, or someone said last year, the VidCon was $8 million, roughly. So, you know, if the state's not paying for that, that means that you'd have to present to the town, uh, here's what we want to do. Are you willing to spend $8 million? So I guess you have to spend the $250,000 to see if you can get on the list. Then once you're on the list, I think you're sort of at the will of the state as to when they work in. And you're saying that could be a seven year process between waiting on the list, uh, behind other projects, uh, and then ultimately getting through the construction. Yep. That's, those are the steps, uh, um, that you described and that's, that's how I foresee this coming across. I, like I said, I don't see any reason and that this tip program has been. It's been around for a long time. Uh, so it's, it's a well-accepted and acknowledged program, uh, the, the approach to it, the, the way that it, uh, the protocols, the way that it functions, you know, there's, there's no reason to think that this project, you know, would not be successful in being a, you know, a town state collaboration. So Tom, the, the $250,000 that you've apparently gets you enough to get into the conceptual stage? What's the stage and then the $450,000 is because you have to finish, if you make it through that stage, you have to finish the design. Yeah. So it's, you know, we talk about an $8 million project. Um, you know, generally speaking, design is usually around 10% for horizontal construction, you know, so it's, you know, about, you know, you're talking about 800 grand or whatever. So if you add these up, uh, you know, uh, the, the, the fourth, we were, we're a little bit low, um, on that, but it, it, it, we're close. We're close. And if this got nudged to fiscal 29, does that put the whole process at risk?
Nope. No, it does not. Nope. It just, it's really the town's appetite to get this underway and get it completed. It was, I think it's, it's, it's a recognized need, but, uh, there's really, you're not missing a particular opportunity by delaying it a year. Uh, it's just that it delays the, the completion of it by a year. You wouldn't spend the fourth. I just want to make sure I understand though. If you, you'd spend the two 50 to get to the conceptual design, you get in front of them. They give you a sort of a, a yay, nay of you're on the right track. If for some reason you weren't on the right track, you, you'd have to, well, I guess then you'd have to reconvene and figure out what you need to do. But if they say, yes, you're on the right track, then you move forward and spend the four 50 or whatever, right. It's a little bit different to finish the design and then get, and then you go back again for, for formal approval. No, they'll, they'll, they'll approve it, you know, uh, well before the design is, is complete because what they're, they're, they're improving, they're approving a concept. They're, they're approving, um, you know, what you present is, you know, the need, um, and if you take a look at the planning board's master plan, you know, they've done a lot of work in demonstrating the need and, uh, you know, and some thoughts on what this could look like and how it would enhance economic development and, and, and enhance, uh, a lot of, um, you know, uh, recreational amenities that are included in it as well, safety, public safety, uh, and limiting, you know, uh, starting to reduce curb cuts and all of that. So that, that, that initial effort, uh, gets us a conceptual design gets us before the MPO and they'll, you know, we would be accepted on the list. And what they'll do is they'll say, just say, for instance, you know, we go before them, um, February of, of, of 27, you know, so a year from now we make our presentation, they put us on the list of, you know, construction in FY, you know, 30. So, so then you've, you've got those couple of years or whatever to finalize the design and procure, uh, you know, solicit the construction and all of that. So that's the way the schedule kind of will be laid out. And going back to Brian, your question as to whether or not there would be any harm if we would have delayed the 450 for a fiscal year, you would lose momentum, you know, so you'd have a, an engineering firm in place, you'd have a working group in place, you'd have, you know, kind of established a little bit of a, a groove. And if you were to the 250 were to be spent and there was a gap between when that 450, the next amount of money was available, you'd lose a little momentum. And, uh, you know, so would you, would you rent in light of that, would you rank putting this in fiscal 28 higher than putting the soft set in fiscal 28? Although you said, do you think you can get by with the soft set in fiscal 29? Yep. I would, uh, I would say I would want to keep this momentum going for route 20. And I think that there's a, there's a town-wide, uh, a strong desire to, to get this underway.
I'm speaking on, I'm speaking on behalf of, you know, probably four or five other committees, boards, and entities that, uh, that, you know, uh, are stakeholders in this. So I'm, I'm speaking only as one, one person. You have two other, one big item and one small item that are in your, uh, back of the woods. Can you just, as it's route 20, can you just, um, I think we were inclined to, uh, include the $2 million for the low pressure sewer replacement in the fiscal 28 plan. Uh, but can you just, for the benefit of everybody here, let everybody know what, what's, what's the current state of the pipe and, um, are you doing it simply to get ahead of the project we were just talking about in there? If so, could that be pushed for a year or is it really something that needs to get done because the pipe's going to fail?
Yeah. So, you know, a story that I tell regularly is that, uh, you know, if you're going to pave a road, improve a road, you want to most certainly want to invest in the infrastructure that's below that road. You don't want to do it the opposite way that we all know that that's not a practical way to do things. So four years ago, uh, we replaced the water line on route 20. So that's brand new. The drainage is, um, uh, kind of, uh, nominal drainage. It's all owned by the state. Uh, so that would be on them to include in the construction of the, of the project of the road that we're talking about. So the remaining infrastructure is that wastewater system. So we've got, um, 12 to 15 year old plastic pipe, uh, that lies only about three to four feet below grade. And, uh, it would make no sense to spend $8 million putting together this gorgeous project, uh, and then have to dig it up to make these repairs to the, uh, the wastewater system. So we have funding right now, uh, to perform an evaluation of, you know, conditional assessment of what's there. I'm pretty certain that that evaluation is going to result in an understanding that, yeah, this, this plastic pipe needs to come out of the ground and be replaced. So the $2 million that you were talking about is to replace that, uh, such that once the tip gives us the green light, everything under the roadway is brand new. So if you, so you're requesting it, waste monitors requesting it in fiscal 28, assume that gets approved that you do the work in fiscal 28, right? Um, and you're saying the construction of route 20, if all goes well on that probably wouldn't occur until 20 32, 20 33. I think it would be before. I think it would be before that. So it would start in 30, just a long time. Uh, so you started in 30 or maybe finished in 31, but they just repaid route 20 after waiting a long time for them to do so. Yep. Uh, if you were to dig it up to put this, it's probably not digging up here, trenching a new pipe, right? Uh, but the, the pipe is in the roadway somewhere. So you'd have to patch that all the way along route 20. Uh, and then you, you, presumably you wouldn't have the state agreeing to repave route 20 again until you do your tip work. Is that reasonable? So, yeah, yeah. So the, the paving that you saw a year or two ago, we kind of, you know, that was simply an overlay and, um, it, it doesn't have a long life to it. It's, uh, it's a very, uh, kind of cost efficient, uh, repair, uh, but the state, you know, they understand that that isn't, you know, precisely what it was, you know, that might be a four or five year repair, uh, that would need to be, you know, something more permanently done to it at that point in time. So if, if the question is, is that by doing this to this $2 million, uh, wastewater replacement, is that a problem because we just paved the road? Uh, no, it, it, it was, it was, we were always approaching it that way. Yeah. I was more interested if, if, if, if, if you push that out instead of fiscal 28, you push and I'll say the fiscal 29 as an example, it just, it, it lessens the amount of time that the road has a trench that's been patched before it gets fully repaved. I can't disagree with that. It would, it would, uh, you know, by a year or whatever, you'd have less of a, uh, uh, you know, a trench repair, but, you know, there's, there's two, two repairs that go on with infrastructure replacement. It's that temporary trench repair. Uh, what you do is you, you patch it, you let it sit over a winter so that it can, uh, properly settle. And then you come in that, that springtime afterwards, you cut it out nicely and you put in a permanent trench repair. Um, and that actually kind of turns out quite nice. So it, it wouldn't be, you wouldn't be going back to the way the road was, you know, two years ago where it was in really awful condition. And, you know, so by delaying it, you'd have one less year of having that permanent trench repair to deal with. But, you know, I, I think just, you know, in managing projects and being able to sleep at night, you know, I think thing, getting things done, getting them out of the way, checking it off the list, you know, the, the MPO is going to be looking for commitments from the town that, you know, okay, you got the water replaced. Okay. You got the wastewater replaced. It, it, it, it helps them, um, assure that all the things are being done, that the town is committed to doing this subsurface work before they actually, you know, fulfill their obligation to, to construct the surface work. Who does, who does the actual work, a third party? Um, for the state? Uh, when you put the new pipe in, you know, the trench and the pipe, et cetera, is that done by third party that the town hires, the wastewater enterprise fund hires? It's a contract service. Yes. Yep. Okay. So it's not, you're not putting extra strain on the DPW, which is going to be focused on water project. Nope. It'll, it'll be, uh, it'll be contracted out. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then there was one minor, relatively minor, uh, request for $250,000, Michael, which you put in, uh, for DPW facilities, rehab and upgrades. And I think there's similar requests, maybe a couple of years after that. And my recollection is you maybe described these kinds of things as there's always, even though it's a relatively new building, there's always, well, there's, all their equipment's 15 years old. Um, so how old was the building? Um, it's 10, it just, we just had our 10 year anniversary in July. Yeah. It's 10 years old. It's coming up. It's going to start to need some rehab, um, not replacements right away, but you know, motors could be replaced. Um, certainly fans, the actual squirrel gauges themselves, uh, just to bring them up to back up to where they need to be. I don't know how they've been maintained. They've only been here for a year and a half catching up on the school. HVAC, um, in the town buildings and he's, he's next on the list. So that money would be to go through the building, just make sure that every, if all the HVAC systems are still where they need to be.
So mere perspective, without something specific, your, your sense is that's, that would be somewhat important to find his way into the fiscal 28 plan, given the age of the building? Oh, absolutely. Yes. Okay.
How do you want to do this? Do you want to, um, just want to look out for Michael's been patient? Yeah. I want to, I want to make sure though we've, Michael's been very patient. I want to make sure we've covered if there's anything else for Tom, so we can let Tom go rather. I don't want to go back. And then if there's anything, both of them, I think we've covered a couple of them that
I just want to make sure I was flipping through too, to make sure there wasn't any problem. Yeah. We've been talking about fiscal 28. We, we obviously need to also talk about 29, 30 and 31. So, um, just trying to see if there are any big items that we haven't otherwise covered.
The extent you guys look at our spreadsheets, you'll see that to the extent we didn't include certain things in fiscal 27, we pushed them in at 28. And then based on our conversation so far in 28, we pushed a bunch of stuff in the 29 and we're trying to figure out, are there things that we've been pushing that need to kind of stay where, where you've asked for them. Right. Um, yeah. So everything that didn't get approved, you know, I, I haven't finished with Tom because I have a couple of questions. Okay. Okay. Through 29. Uh, Liz and John, uh, feel free to chime in if they're, um, PW. Do you, yeah, and I guess just, uh, you know, a general overall statement, uh, you know, I, I do see what, uh, uh, what was not included in the FY 27, um, you know, and I understand that, um, you know, there's other, you've got so many projects that are being, um, advocated for, and, you know, you've got to make some choices and some selections. I think the ones that you have deferred, you know, until FY 28, um, you know, the, the, the, the swap loader, the stormwater system, the radio system upgrades. Yeah. Will we survive? We'll be able to, you know, we're going to have to, but there are consequences, uh, you know, to us not either having that piece of equipment, uh, replaced or, you know, say for instance, stormwater that $250,000, you know, we were requesting that every other fiscal year, um, to be able to, um, address some of the failings of our drainage system, you know, throughout town, we've got a couple of locations that we've been able to make improvements on over the course of the last couple of years. And those, you know, we're in the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when, when those types of things have deferred, you know, the department of public works is faced with, you know, having to respond to repetitive flooding locations, you know, roads are flooding, people's homes are impacted by it. Uh, so the rationale for getting those, uh, every other year, the 250 grand of the stormwater system, um, is, is to, to try to get some of these things designed, constructed, improved, and, um, you know, so that people aren't, you know, struggling with this stuff. The same with the sidewalk money. I think the sidewalk is probably maybe lower on the screen. Um, I know with the reduction in roadway and the, the elimination of sidewalk monies, you know, we're, uh, regularly, uh, approached to either repair or construct new sidewalks. And there's always a great reason for it, but, uh, you know, financial constraints are, you know, one component of, uh, of some of the decisions that are made. Um, it's also the, um, you know, prioritization of where these sidewalks should be repaired, which ones should be added, those types of things. So that's really just a very high altitude remark that I understand that these things have to be deferred. The department then is kind of faced with trying to, uh, make do without having the funding, you know, in the particular year that was requested. We, we understand that Tom, we don't, we don't like it either. I would say I can't make any promises. Michael's on the phone, but one of the things we didn't have right in coming up with this plan was any idea of how much surplus capital, um, there might be available from closing out projects, right? So hope I, my hope as a resident is that there's things being closed out and that there's some money available there to be able to add other things into the plan. Um, that's not a given, right? And then the other is on, on free cash, right? There's another thing there, another possibility there, which is on use of free cash, right? If free cash has gotten to a higher level, is there a potential for higher use of free cash, but as a committee without guidance there, I didn't feel, and I don't think other members of the committee felt comfortable, um, putting more in. And so it's good to hear though, from you, right? And hopefully next year we're going to have, we have more time, right? We're not trying to cram this all into, um, such a short period, right? Trying to understand the priority. I guess my question for you would be, is there anything that we left out of FY27 that you think is a higher priority than what we put in FY27? Because that's important for, for Mike, Michael McCall to know, right? In terms of the swap. Yeah. Other than the, uh, extra 117,000 for, uh, the Dudley Road water main that you sent an email about. Oh, yes. Yeah. You did get it. That was on my notes. I'm glad you brought that up. So you did receive that. So yeah, I, I needed to, uh, increase the value of that. So for the water, um, no, I, I think that what you've, uh, relative to prioritization, what you've included in the FY27 budget is a priority is needed. Um, and you, you know, the ones that you deferred to, to 28, I would agree with, uh, the way that that was laid out. I think, uh, the other thing you might do time, if you have time is, uh, again, look through this spreadsheet. If, if you can, you can find the, uh, the various tabs, uh, that show your various vehicle requests. And, um, you know, we have deferred some of those and, or kind of labeled some of them maybes. And, you know, I know you, when you met with us initially, you deferred a vehicle, you brought up some vehicles. If you just go back through your list of vehicles and just make a note or highlight that, you know, if, if you've included it in a spot, it really needs to be there because you're not going to have a truck that's workable. Or if you actually think you could make it for another year on any of the vehicles, somehow just annotate that. So we're not making sort of a random decision without really knowing what the condition of the vehicles are. Yep. I understand that request. I'm, I'm happy to do that. And we, we did something, you know, similar when this capital request came out, I don't know, October or November, you probably recall that I brought some things that were several years out, brought them forward and then tried to balance it out and shifted those back. So we, we did take a crack at, you know, something similar to what you're asking, but yeah, we can, we can, we can do that continually.
Is there anything else specifically for you? I didn't either. I didn't see any other. Yeah. The other, just on a transversation, we have at the moment, we, maybe with one exception, like one of the compactors that you asked for funding, which we thought you kind of needed. Not that you don't need everything you've asked for, but we kind of, we kind of, we kind of put into purgatory everything else pending the study to really understand whether what's there is going to continue or not. So, we're just not sure where we're going to end up depositing those other numbers that are in purgatory. They keep rolling. I think we're rolling into 30 at this point. Yeah. I think our concern on the transversation is not only the future of the transversation, but also the fact that there's just not enough money, right? Historically, we would have said transversation or transversation borrowing, but my concern is if these projects, that that might be difficult and it's all going to have to come from, you know, free cash or general fund borrowing. So, trying to figure out if, you know, like, I think we included the compactor, but the roll-off we put in purgatory. So, is that going to, I think, but, I like that term. Yeah. So, Tom, that's, when you take a look at it, I think if you're like, no, we're going to, we're not going to be able to function, right, without the roll-off and we're not going to have, even if there's study finished, like the transversation's future, that's going to take a while to implement one way or the other. So, you could just take a look. Yep, I can. And where, where did, where in purgatory did that roll-off wind up? I forget. I don't know if it's. We haven't settled yet. It hasn't settled yet. That's the problem. Okay. Yeah. Was that, you know, that's, that's a vehicle. Again, it'll depend upon, you know, what actually occurs at the transfer station. But, you know, my sense is, even if we were to go with a municipal curbside collection, we will likely have a recycling center on that property. Bass DEP is extremely, extremely reluctant to allow communities to not have a recycling center. There are things that a curbside company just won't pick up. And it's worth, you know, environmentally and financially, it's worth having a place for people to bring yard waste, organic waste, white goods, those types of things. So, it's, it's likely that that property will function at a minimum as a recycling center, that vehicle, that roll-off, what that does is that actually takes those 30 and 40 yard containers that the compactors deposit, you know, a material into. We, we haul that ourselves to other facilities, you know, in the area that, that dispose of that. So, without that vehicle, we would be, we'd be hiring, you know, somebody to do it. So, it, it would, it would be an operational cost. But, I'm just trying to offer a perspective on, on the purpose and the value of having that vehicle. That's, that's helpful, Tom. Okay. My only other question that I have for Tom has to do, and it's everybody, is, are we any further along on the high school septic field, what that looks like, how much of the field we're disrupting, what that's going to cost? Um, it's, it's already in the plant, right? The septic is in the plan that we submitted to the town manager for 27. The field is not, um, but we were still, we felt like we were in purgatory a little bit of understanding the scope of the, of the septic's disruption of the field. We understand that the field is not in a condition to have host games, but we're still trying to prioritize based on. Yeah. And I, I think what you're asking for, I don't know if I have an answer tonight, unfortunately, is, um, is what, you know, the, uh, what kind of a cost savings would be, you know, experienced should we perform the two projects together? So, we're going to disrupt a bunch of property on the high school to put in the, uh, uh, you know, the wastewater, the septic system, and the field project is going to disrupt a lot of property there too. What is the overlap and what is the efficiencies of combining the two of them? I mean, I think we're all pretty certain that there is significant cost savings in combining the two of them rather than separating them. Um, I just don't know if I have, well, I know I don't have an answer for you tonight as to the value and the, and there's also like the logistical, um, you know, we're going to disturb that, that property, you know, we may cause, uh, you know, nobody, nobody to be able to use those fields for a particular season. Um, and then if the recreation, you know, effort and the high school effort to do those fields in three years, again, that'll be a disruption. People are going to be off those, off those fields while things, while the work is being performed. So, there's also not only the financial, it's the logistical, uh, you know, components of it as well. But I, I wish I had something for you more definitive, but I, I don't. Yeah. And that's okay, Tom. I think it's, it's at this point, it's with the town manager and, and going to FinCon, but obviously to go into town meeting with, right, a 2 million plus two and a half million dollar expenditure, those are the questions that are going to have to get, um, going to have to get answered, right, to, to be able to do that. So. Where does the, um, if the projects weren't done, if they weren't coupled together, where does the field project lie right now? What, what year? That one, it was included in the five-year plan twice in fiscal 29. Yeah, it was in there twice in fiscal. Um, but in the current requests, uh, I think through recreation, Michael, which I think you submitted on Catherine's behalf, there's a two and a half million dollar request in fiscal 30 at the moment, which is the same as two and a half that Tom initially put in 27. So, so we didn't include the two and a half and 27. That's kind of clumping along. Might eventually find its way to 29, which is when it was in the five-year plan that the FinCom approved, absent enough information coming forth such that this group and, or the town manager or the FinCom, you know, could advocate toward coming early. So I'd say the earliest, the way we're going, the earliest, I suspect you'll see it in the plan is in 29, which would be one year earlier than the fiscal 30 request. But that just aligns it with where a Brian Keveney had slotted it the last year. Got it. That was I, the reason I asked too, is that I recollect seeing an email maybe four or five weeks ago. And I think it may have been written by Heath Rollins, the athletic director. And I, I, I remember hearing, reading the word implore that they were imploring the town, you know, to, to, uh, repair these fields as soon as practically possible. And then they gave a whole host of reasons why that is, but, uh, yeah, I understand that Tom. And I think the committee understands that. I don't think that's new news, right? I think the new news here was the septic. And the question is really, does that change enough, right? To get it in and how do you fit it in? I mean, the dollars, when, when you put it on top of the, to add it together. Yep. Yep. And then you have the MWA project, which is going to affect everybody in town, right? It's, it adds up, um, pretty fast. So it's, it's not that we're, yeah, this is the tough jobs that you guys have. Yes. We're not listening to the request. It's just, it's, it's, we've got to justify why it moves forward. And I think efficiency is the answer, right? But we can't, if we've got to be able to quantify why it makes sense not to put good money after bad, right? If you go tear it up and you could have saved money by doing it at the same time. We've got to be able to quantify that. I think Brian, Brian Keveney, um, the way he presented it through the town manager's capital budget and in the five-year plan was that both, well, the septic was not in there at all. He had four and a half million dollars in there in fiscal 29. As, as, as an, as an article funded with excluded debt. And again, we pretty well now determined that four and a half was, it was two and a half million that we're talking about here, but he picked up 2 million from somewhere else for the same project. So he had overestimated, but any of it, his view was that was a four and a half million. That was a large enough project, even though it was below the current $5 million threshold for excluded borrowing for the town of the town's recently approved financial policies, it doesn't mean exceptions can't be made. And I think, um, I suspect he would assume, he, Brian Keveney would assume, wrong quote words in his mouth, that that, that the field portion of that anyway would, uh, probably be better to come through an article, which it was too late, too late to put an article now unless the select board call special town meeting within the town meeting. And if it's going to go on as excluded debt, perhaps in combination with the septic, which we're recommending to be done with levy debt, all the FinCon is questioning why we would do that with levy debt. Um, the select board would have to take a vote in the next two, three weeks to get it on the ballot. Um, so time is growing infinitely short for anything to happen at this spring's town meeting. Other than we've got, we recommended 2 million for the septic. So that would at least allow the septic project. Yeah. Assuming the town manager picks that up and, and then the FinCon proves that. So getting the field in for this town meeting is becoming very dicey. Got it. Got it. And I, I, you know, I do want to say it's greatly appreciated that, uh, we're getting the support for the 2 million for the wastewater it's it's needed. And so I, I understand these are a lot of difficult decisions you guys are, are forced to make, and we do appreciate our ability to move forward with that, uh, with that project to this whole thing, you know, Michael's been listening in. So, you know, to the extent you want to double back with him and Brian Keveney and just this particular item out to just fill or kill it for fiscal 27. Uh, cause right now it's moseying along and likely going to end up because if, if you get into fiscal 28, now you're, now you're calling the question whether the timing would be such that you could achieve the savings that, cause the septic should, I assume the septic would be a summer project. Uh, not necessarily, I guess it doesn't have to be because you got the existing pumping to keep going, but, but anyway, if you got the money for fiscal 27, I assume you would get on with that project and it doesn't take that long to build a septic system. Right. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's, it's not your typical residential, um, you know, there's a lot, a lot of components to it, but yeah, we will be jumping right on that because the DEP has been on us to do something different. Uh, they're, they're running out of patience too. Yeah. So all I'm saying is that being the case for me, anyway, it seems if it doesn't make it in and 27th, there's just one member speaking, I'm, I'm back to thinking about it in fiscal 29 and just realizing we might've had savings, but I don't see how you can achieve those if you stagger between two fiscal years, you're kind of having to remobilize and et cetera, et cetera. So anyway, uh, if, if the town manager is you and the finance director can figure out how to get it in 27th, that's what you'll do, right? And if I may, Madam Chair, the reason I'm listening in is we, we've already met with Michael Fea earlier this week for the reasons that Mr. O'Hara, he just mentioned, and we're trying to get some time with Tom, as you know, um, everything's coming together at once. We, we have your recommendations. We're still trying to figure out the balance of the, the five year plan. Uh, we, we're aware of the dates for ballot questions, you know, what to do about a special within a special, everything that Mr. O'Hara, he talked about. Those are all things that we're, you know, realizing the, the, the deadlines and things for those are coming up very quickly. So how do we make decisions? What do we, where do we slot certain things in, you know, what, what goes best with what, you know, for terms of efficiency, where we get to some of these projects. So, um, that, that's why I'm listening in this evening and I believe Tom and Mr. Kevin and I, we're going to try and touch up tomorrow. As I said, Brian, I mean, and Michael earlier this week. So, um, we're, we're factoring all this in, uh, before we make a recommendation to the PINCOM next week. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Okay. Are we, I'm good with Tom? The release, Tom? All right. Very good. Well, thank you all for the consideration and, uh, reach out, uh, with anything additional that you might like. All right. Thank you, Tom. All right. Good night. Thank you. All right. Town building. Town building. Good. That's, so I'm sure as well, that's, um, the request that I did ask for, I believe you guys are putting forward, uh, which is the roof and the elevator upgrade? Yeah. Piece of the roof. The gym roof, the elevator upgrade, um, uh, and the small one, but the town building, the gymnasium wall pads. Right. Um, okay. Um, we're really trying to understand right now. We just pushed everything else, uh, fiscal 28. I would push it in maybe another year. Um, cause once again, it's, it's a bigger, it's becoming a bigger, um, study. Yeah. Just so slide in, slide in, which we did the items that you slotted in for fiscal 28. Just some additional roof work. Well, the addition, the roof work, I would like to continue. I mean, the roofs, we've got it slotted, staggered. For the next four years. Right. So it's, it's, it's a section of the building each year. So next year it'll be the big long town building itself. The first year is the gym because that's the worst. And then the third year will be this building and the fourth year will be the flat roof. Yeah. So leaving the roof staggered the way that you proposed it. Yep. But pushing the bulk of the other things that you, that you had pulled out, pushing them out to when? Um, I would push them out to 29, 30. Well, the dollar numbers that you have, uh, fiscal 27 for those items. So it's the envelope repairs, bathrooms, horsemaid tie-in. I, I wouldn't hold any of those, Brian. The reason I say that is you requested that you have get it all in number. Yeah. Um, Um, so that's what we're working towards with some other options. So like I said, it's, it's turned into a different type of study and this is not of it. So, um,
if those wanted to go into purgatory, so we know for sure about which way we're going, that's fine. I don't want to fill up the purgatory vial, but, uh, right now the understanding is that we're going to we're going to try to do something a little bit more, um, robust, right to see where we're, what we actually need to do this or other options. So excellent. I want, I kind of, I want an FY32 purgatory that is like, here's all the big, big projects. Yeah. Or a separate table. Yeah. Or a separate table. Yeah. I like the idea of table versus narrative of like, Hey, these are all the things that aren't in there because we don't know how much and we don't know where, but this is what the last number we had. Yeah. Yeah. Sounds good. Yeah. Because picking a year is difficult, but yeah, I always, I just put like 32 plus. It's somewhere out there. But, but it could be, you know, it could be 29, but once again, right. But if we can at least say it's not 27 or 28, that allows us to then assure ourselves that there's room for other priority items that can get in there. Yeah. As long as, and I think you already did this, like the things that you know have to, aren't going to be able to wait, right. That's what we're doing right in there. You already have them in the plan. We're leaving those where they are. The rest of the stuff. It's, it's the stuff that we're pushing off.
Yeah. I know it's going to change.
We've been catching up with a lot of the equipments, you know, especially in this building. So, you know, we have the elevators slated the roofs, that'll buy us some time, which is what we're looking to do. And then, you know, the rest of it will become out of that bigger study. So. Okay. But a good news front, you were there, Kelly. I have to watch your presentation to the select board on TVN. I thought I heard Tom Fay advocating for a visioning committee. EJ, I forgot to mention that. He asked me if, if our committee would be supportive of the vision committee. I said, well, I don't feel comfortable saying it without asking you, but my personal opinion is yes, there needs to be similar to what there was with high school with, with what they're doing at the landfill site, right? People need to start consciously thinking about what future is for the services in this building and how they're going to do that before we just start spending. And, and Madam Chair, again, the town manager, this is something when, around the time your initial report came out, Mr. Keveney, Mr. Fayah, Mr. Holder and I were having a meeting. And I know the fire chief was involved at one point as well, talking about the future of the building and, and the idea came up amongst staff to, to have a visioning committee of sorts. And so the other day when I was meeting with Mr. Fay, we were talking about this. So it's something that wasn't lost on us when we were looking now that we have done the assessments of the building and you, you folks were questioning how much of this we do now, how much could we do later? What's the grand plan that, you know, this is what we really need is that, uh, the next step, putting together a committee that actually looks at what we feel are is really at least four options, whether we rehab this building, lease some space, we partner with somebody to build something, but we try and find some town land, build our own building. So, uh, this, I think we're at that juncture where we have to, we have to commit to coming up with a plan and then rolling these various capital projects in as needed until we make that decision. Yeah. I don't think you'll any, get any disagreement from this committee. So thank you. Okay. Yeah. I have a few items that we labeled Michael and fiscal 20. I have a question if you don't mind. Um, public safety HVAC. Yeah. That's one of the ones we wanted you to give us a little bit more color on. Okay. All right. That one made me nervous. Um, they actually have a chiller that's running on three out of four compressors. Um, that one compressor was the only thing keeping that building cool and that can't happen. It's, I can't get the gas for that anymore. It's an older gas. Um, I can't get compressors for either. So the replacement of that, um, we have some monies from older, uh, public safety that I am utilizing to help purchase the equipment, but the 250 was to continue, um, with the install and the, uh, what I will say is there's a, there's a mistake in here. We can get rid of that 150,000 in FY29 because part of the 250 will do the, do the controls as well. I had that in FY29. It's an old number. It should just go away. So there was 150,000 slated for controls. PSB, PSB, BMS tie-in. Yep. BMS tie-in. Yep. Oh, okay. So that can go away. The 250, I would like to have stay in 27 for just that reason. And then the 500 to a couple of years out would be for the boiler replacement. So that's the 500 in FY29. Is that 29? 29, yes. And we, we did not include, as you know, the 250 of FY27. But we put it on the list that it was it and an item at the schools or an HVAC unit. We said, if there are sufficient funds, the town manager hopefully would consider those two items first. But also, public safety is a 24-7 operation because they have, they live there. They need the cooling. So if it's something that has to, that really has to. Yeah. I think that, that the town manager obviously is listening and, you know, he obviously can include that in his budget. The question is, you know, for our purposes, we haven't seen that budget yet. So we don't know if it needs to be carried over to fiscal 28. So if that weren't playing its way in the town manager's fiscal 27 budget, your view is absolutely it would have to get into fiscal 28. But you don't think it, it can go that far. I don't, I don't know if I can keep the building cool for another summer. And again, the town manager just popping in when, when Michael has met with us, you know, before and after we received your recommendations, he's emphasized that this is a critical importance. And I do know that we had some issues over in the public safety when we had some of those extreme weather events. So I, with that, given the current state where he's indicated, we just have this one compressor and it's going to be hard to maintain. I would be concerned about a critical or catastrophic failure of that system. So I personally feel that this is going to be something that we're trying to push into this FY 27. And we would expect that, Michael, just at this point, right, that we've handed FY 27 to you. So you can decide. So right now, take it out, you put it in, swap it with something, find extra funds. The only question for us is right now we're showing it as a high priority fiscal 28 item. I think for our purposes, do we leave it there? I think we put it for our purposes, because we're working in parallel. We put it in FY 28. And if Tom Andrew puts it in the 27 budget, he can pull it out of fiscal 28. Yeah, that's all we can do, right? Exactly. So that's the initial 250. And then in 27, I don't think you had any other, other than that tie-in item, which you're saying you don't need. Yeah, that was 28. I don't think you can add anything else yourself in fiscal 28 for public safety HVAC. Do you have? No. Yeah, there's 500,029. Right. Okay. So you're saying that? That's football. At that point in time, you're expecting that to be the same? It's coming to us, yeah. The other issues of life. Okay.
About the building generator of the library, and just jumping around here, fiscal 29. Yep.
What was there a question on that? Is that something the library requires? Yeah. Our question was, is that generator to run library operations? Is that because it's used for? Shelter. Shelter. Shelter. So it becomes a shelter. And we had a follow-up, though, now with the new Council on Aging building. Is that still the primary shelter or something, right? Didn't we want to follow through, if that still made sense? So funny, funny story. The Council of Aging is also a shelter in place, but they don't have a generator on site. They have the ability to pull a generator up to a plug, basically, and run the generator to run the building. But there isn't one physically on site right now. Is that a... Okay, hold on. If there's not one physically on site, meaning we'd have to rent one in an event that was needed when everyone would need one? Yeah. One designed and pulled because you weren't sure of budget, or...? I was part of that. If they wanted to pull somewhere they could do that, right? I know you'd have to go back to the planning board process. Yeah. Planning board, because it's kind of close to the wet months there. So... Yeah, that might be... We could come up with something, yes. It might be worth... Well, I think... So my question would be, is, does it make sense to still put in the library or put a permanent one at the council on the agent? I think that would be the question I'd ask. I think they use both places. I could be wrong, but... But you wouldn't be able to. Shelter in place, you could use both. Well, but if the power went out and you're using the generator for power, you don't have one in the council on the agent. Say they would drive a truck in or something, or... Yeah, so they're trailing. So like DPW has a few of them in their lives. So we own, the town owns some that we could use? I can't speak for Tom. I don't know what he does with his when the power goes up, but I know they have generators, but yes. The thought was that if there was enough money in the budget left over, they would purchase
a generator that they could roll in when they needed it. Um, but that doesn't look like that sort of the case. So I think there's only, as of November 18th, there's only like 250,000 funds spent in the council on agent budget. So I'm sure it's spent.
But in the event, right? So let's just think about this. In the event this was needed, it's very possible. It's more that you need more than one site. You have the middle school too, right? The middle school as well. Yep. Middle school is at least one of the bigger ones. So, but the only one that has built in is the middle school at this point. They, they have one there already. Yes. There's a, there's a sizable generator there. Um, there's also, we're looking into, uh, utilizing the solar piece, um, with a battery, battery array, uh, to supplement. So the generator could last longer. Um, and that, because don't forget they have the big kitchens and everything there. So they could physically cook and they could, that could actually be a, a very good shelter. So does the library have a generator now? It just needs to be, okay. So this would be, this would be a new install. They don't have the capability to roll one in like that. No. Yeah.
High school doesn't have, high school doesn't have a generator. They have a couple of them. They do.
And it makes sense. Obviously it's important to have it, but it makes sense to have the library have one versus like, for the same reason you said the middle school makes sense, right? Because it's big, it's got kitchens, it's got a lot of space. Same thing at the high school. So that's not true at the library. Back to John's question. Yeah. Is this request better to not put it at the library, to put it at council and agency? I'm, I, that's... Is this a library request or a... Nope. Nope. It was, I was told that it was a point of, um, refuge. So that, and they don't have a generator, so I thought it would be the right thing to throw a generator in the building if they were going to use it for that. But this was in the five-year plan, I believe. Yeah. I added it last year. That's where I started doing it. Yeah. I mean, I guess my only question is, is right, just knowing the state of certain things and what you can fit where, I absolutely agree. And if we have a refuge, we should absolutely have backup power. I think my question would be, you know, based on our structure, where should they really be? Is it the library? Is it the Council on Aging? Is it... I mean, if we need something north of town, is it Clayton? I have no idea, right? But I'm just kind of a more of where, where really should this be that makes the most sense for the actual, an actual emergency? And you don't have to answer right now. It's kind of a general question that we probably should answer. I mean, it's far enough out, but... Yeah. I would say for our purposes, right, let's, because we're not going to get to the bottom of this tonight. We treat this, we treat this as a generator and, and understand its importance, and Mike can figure out, right, with more time, where the best place to put the next generator is. And it's in fiscal 29, just because that's where it was in the five-year plan. Are you still comfortable with it being a... Obviously, you get... No, I'm fine. You want it as soon as you get it. Yeah, yeah, but it's, it's, I need some time to plan for that. That's going to be a little... Whatever... They're already going through quite a bit right now. We've had a lot of cold weather in the last six weeks. Have our, and some power outages, have our, have our places people go, have they been adequate enough for those that needed to use them? I haven't, I don't know that anybody has. There was some... It's close. Yeah, I'm sure it was close. North on Wood, we didn't have many outages this past storm. Uh, we didn't have much wind, so if the snow was light enough, uh, if it was heavier snow, and some wind, it would be a different situation. But, uh, middle school would be the only place right now that we could readily jump in and house people. Correct. Why not? The high school has two generators, right? It's never been used and it's never been mentioned. I don't know. I, I don't make these policies. I don't, I just follow what they tell me, so... Yeah, that's what I'm told, so I don't know about that. Last time I saw it, which was about it. So, you wouldn't object to us removing the word library in this building generator facilities, 400,000, fiscal 29. My opinion is every building that's in this town needs an emergency generator for one reason or another. Library not only just for that, but it also has two very large septic pumps in the basement. If that building doesn't have power for any amount of time, will become a very messy place as it is. Um, so... We're leaving it at the library, guys. Yeah, well... Different buildings have different... Like, this building here, we have a small generator for the, um, vaccines alone. Yeah. Other than that, this building goes dark. HVAC shuts off because, you know, there's no weed. But if you, we're deferring it, but if you tie it into the septic system, then this building would need a generator to operate... The pump outside. The pump to force it out the main, right? Right. So, it would be gravity from the building to out back, and then from there, there'd be a couple of probably pumps that would pump it. That's right. Now you don't need it for that purpose, but if we connect this building, you'll be proposing, likely, a generator here for the same reason? It doesn't have to run the entire building, but it would have to at least run that piece of the septic, yes. All right. If the building's not going to be used, then, you know, it's an easier get, so... So, we, we, I think, I think for now, we were just trying to assess whether it was a priority item for fiscal 29. Right. It's a, to me, it's a priority just in case, because I don't, I don't want to have to clean that basement up. Nope. Nope. It was bad enough when it was water basement. It was bad enough when it was water basement. Brand new elevator shaft, you know, we don't want it. No. All you had to say. We had, we had a number of the school-related HVAC. Improvement requests going back to fiscal 28. So, we, yeah, we, we, we didn't recommend the elementary installation of HVAC in 27, but said if town manager had financial capacity, perhaps some surplus capital, but that would be one of the two items to bring in, including the public safety building HVAC. Okay. But there were, you know, there's a line item, high school building improvements, 87,000. Yep. Wayland high school, middle school ceiling and longer repairs, 250. Yep. That's a four-year project. District 5 flooring, 215. And I think we, we remember you telling us that there's always stuff to do. Well, the middle school, the 250,000, if you work together, it's for four years straight. That's three, to basically replace all the ceiling tiles in the middle school.
So, that's really the middle school, not the. Correct. It says Wayland High School and Wayland Middle School. Yes. It's really the middle school and it's really, it's not ceiling repairs. It's replacing the ceiling. That's right. We're replacing all the ceiling tiles. Okay. We have to remediate what's there again. Okay.
So that, you know, and that's been ongoing, you said? It's, it's a four-year project. I have 250,000 already available. I'm putting out the file sub bits. So this summer, the idea was to do $500,000 worth of work. But if I only have the 250, that's, that can push out to 29. It's not up. So that, that then would also be the 250 add in fiscal 29. Right. That's another piece of it. It's got 250 a year for four years, you know, that's great. So to the extent we push. If you have them at 26, just push it out a year. Which is fine. I, I, I get it. But you're not doing that whole project at once. We're doing a piece of the time. Right. I have, well, I have to be honest. Right. That's, I'm asking. This is not a matter of splitting up funding. This is a matter of you can't do the whole thing at once. Right. So I don't have enough time with some stuff. Right. Yeah. Middle school roadways. I mean, did you push that since 28? Yeah, a lot of roadway and sidewalk things we've been bumping out. Oh, no. Okay. Again, are those, are these things this, you anticipate there's going to be normal wear and tear that's going to require attention? Or are you aware that there are specific. What school specifically has some issues. Loker, their drive is, it was dug up quite a bit with a septic issue. The middle schools is fine to be pushed out. I'm, I'm okay with that. That's in decent shape. That just needs some restriping that we're working on for traffic patterns.
And just sidewalk repair in general. I've been noticing that the sidewalks with all the rock salts over the years are starting to pop a little bit. So, you know, you get the corner that's, so we've been repairing them. But you know, it'd be nice to, yeah. And the town's, town building sewer engineering, does that get bumped as well? Yeah, we bumped both the design and the construction. Okay. Just because I assume the septic's working. Okay. Well, it was septic's fine. It's just the nature of what you're going to do with the building. Yep. That's fine. As long as it's working, we're trying anything that's, I would say anything that's town building, like safety and, right, and is what we should schedule in until there's a plan. No worries, that's fine. Right, so if it's not functioning or you're afraid of something not functioning and causing a landfill safety issue, it should stay in, but otherwise. Okay, that's fair. And assuming the wastewater enterprise fund is holding the town's capacity, which they believe have for all these years. Yep, they are. The library is hooked up now, right? Yes. Yes, that's why we need this. That's why we need to generate it. Yes. Yeah, two reasons. The big pumps in the basement and on the pump outside. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The big pumps in the empty out, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So the custodial equipment replacement, 100,000? Yep. Do you know what that is and how important it is? Um, that would, so between vacuums, copper extractors, just wear and tear on the equipment that they have now, the guys are very good at repairing what they have. Credit's going to come to a point very shortly where they need to be to buy some newer things. So we've been trying to cycle in when we have some extra money at the end of the year in our operating. But at some point in time, I'm going to have to wholesale, you know, snow blowers and things like that. They can only be fixed for so long before they start to go bad. Well, engineering is under your purview. There's $50,000 for vehicle replacement. There's at Tonehall. Engineering is under Tom. Yeah, no. We missed asking his next question. Yeah, that's okay. All right. Drop a little comment. Let's be sure. Thanks. You can advocate for it. I do. Yeah, no, no. So I'm just very good at resolve. I do have some electric vehicles we're purchasing and there's some charges. Yeah, you have the motor vehicle. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm going to talk about. Yeah, that's what I'm going to talk about. Charter station. Yeah. So the motor pool is just replacing vehicles used by staff. That's it. Right? That's like the electric cars and hyper cars that we have. Yep. So the charging station. So there's one at the high school, right? No. There's four at Council of Aging. No, in the plan. Oh, in the plan. Yeah, sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. In the plan, there was one at, I thought, one was the high school and one was. They put two at the high school and one at public safety. Public safety is what you have in the plan. Yeah. So is that to charge that for general public use or is that for town staff using? Public safety, no. That'll be specifically for public safety. I had a conversation with the chief and he's come home about purchasing some electric cruisers. So there'll be charging stations. So that's the reason why they're there. So. Okay. In the high school would be public use. Yes. I would need to keep the public safety ones as off the bridge, so to speak, just so they could be primarily for cruisers. Or whatever vehicles they choose. Yeah, it would be exclusive use of. Correct. Yeah. So I know, I think, Michael, you can weigh in. I thought there was some discussion about charging the public at the Council on Aging for charging their vehicles. Yep. That's what happens. I don't know what happened. Is there other chargers here too? Yes. Does the public have to pay? They do, yes. I think about six months ago, while Abby, the other Abby is still here, we made a decision and brought it to the board that we're going to charge an anomaly at least to recoup our cost. Right. So it recoups our, the electrical costs, but it doesn't recoup, right, whatever we pay to put these in, right, we're putting through the budget. It's really just recouping the utility costs. It's, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's a, it takes a little while to get a pig back on.
And you had, I know you, you talked to us about this before. There, there's, there's a big one in fiscal 31. So it's way out there. Millionate purchase of townwide roof projects. You don't have any particular roof in mind. I, well, I have, I have, I have, I have a couple. Um, I just don't know which one it would be first. Uh, so Clay Pit Hill needs a new roof. Uh, public safety's coming up. They'll need a new roof for the next four or five years. DPW's in good shape. Um, well, this building we have covered. So it would be either one of the elementary schools. Um, not local, but either Clay Pit. Yeah. Either Clay Pit or, uh, Happy. Middle school's in decent shape. High school's in decent shape. We've got another 10 years. Anyway, it's out of those two. But public safety's starting to fail. And, uh, the two elementary schools.
So you had 400,000 in fiscal 30. Yep. Sorry, fiscal 29.
That design for roofs. Is that, you know, I'm starting a little bit with costs. Um, just knowing what the local roof cost. Right. Um, so is that just to replace part of a roof? Yeah, that's right. So. Okay.
They had 350 and 30. 400 and 350. And a million eight. A million eight when? Yeah, and, um, district-wide roof place was in fiscal 31.
So those were all district-wide? Well, yeah, the district-wide I assumed was school. It is school. That was put in 31. The other two, even 400 and 350 and 29 and 30. They said town-wide.
For that- That would be public safety more than anything. Spikes is school there. Okay.
Let's see if there's anything else.
Trying not to do wholesale replacements on the elementary schools, because they're in slacks as well. So they're doing a study on those. Yeah, and part of- No part of CLEEP has been redone, right? Part of CLEEP has, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Not part of it had been done. Yep.
Um, high school- High school building improvements, 476,000 and FY29. It says design, building, circulation, fitness, wrestling floor, HVAC, FY27 and FY28. I don't know why it says that, maybe because it's just in the old text description. Um, so is that really all of those things? What did it say? It says, it says high school building improvements, 476,000 and in parentheses, it says design, building, circulation, fitness, wrestling floor, HVAC, FY27 and FY28. I don't know if there's notes, those are on the- Yeah. Yeah, that was actually a 28 item that we're bumping at the 29. No, they wanted to look at the circulation on the field hubs, but that was- Yeah, I think all these were in the five-year plan. Yeah. Kind of inherited. Right. Yeah.
Yeah, I guess my question is, if we know what that is, like, is it similar to what you told us on the elementary, or sorry, on the public safety building and HVAC, right? We're trying to get a sense of the things that just can't, that can't be pushed, they can't wait, right? And make sure that those are front and center. Right, and the high school equipment is in decent shape. We've been preparing it as we go along, so. Yeah, I assume we'll have, before an addenda gets sent to the town manager, we'll probably have a draft for us to consider. So, I don't know that we shared the report with the ex-officio members, but maybe- It did. Did you? I know you sent it to them, the final report. I don't know that you were sharing the draft of it along the way, but maybe you did. Uh, it was not sharing the draft along the way, but I sent them the final report. So, I'm just saying to you, before we finalize our addenda, both, or at least Tom and Michael, they have, um, once we jumble these numbers and get our five-year plan together, you know, we probably could benefit from both you and he looking at it to say, hey, really need, just like you did with the public safety building, HVC, you really need to, yeah. Yeah, you gotta, you gotta change that. Bring this item back, go to where you had it. Okay. And then, if you happen to see another item that, which you did, you know, with your revisions, at the end of the year, you obviously move things around. Yep. It was very helpful. But again, I think we prefer to have the two of you. Sure. I'm happy to do it. I suspecting that. Yep. Yeah, I think so. That's, that, hopefully, we'll be in the next week. I hope so. I hope so, I hope so. I hope so. My husband's like, are we done yet? I'm like, no, we're not done yet.
All right. Any other questions for Mike? I think we covered the big stuff. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Nice job, by the way. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. It happens when you're an ex-officio member. Yeah.
You're coming. Yo, have a great night. All right. Cool.
Okay. Okay.
Yeah.
That's a good question. So, I'm trying to decide if it's, you guys are way in on this. Do we go back and revise a few things or do we finish? We have like one more year that we didn't do, right? Yeah, I think we got all the way to the end. We just, we couldn't, we stopped carrying things over because we needed to have these conversations. Right, right. If one approach, again, you know, time is of the essence here. One approach would be take what we heard and I can certainly go ahead and slot in things that I think the rest of us hopefully will coalesce around and we can go back through them now. I think it's probably more productive to take what we heard, slot it in, and then everybody review it before our next meeting so that we can hopefully vote on an agreement. Like, so I really need everybody to review that closely and make sure that you come prepared with questions or things that you think need to move based on what we heard because we really need to get wrapped up on this. So you're proposing that I do what I just said? I, I would, I would appreciate if you would and then I'm going to do a similar to what we did on some of the other ones. You're going to do it. I've got my notes and then I'm going to check to make sure that we're aligned right
what we heard tonight. So looking forward then to the addendum. As you know, the others don't. On the town website is a list. It's on the FinCom webpage at the moment. It was on our webpage too, but I had it deleted since our report's there now. Okay. On the FinCom website, there's a listing by project of the five-year plan. And so all the details there, which projects got sort of included in the FinCom plan. So I could envision grading fiscal 27th, fiscal, I guess we have 27th, fiscal 27 and 31, the same sort of detailed listing. So you don't need to, if, if you do. That produces from your. Yeah. If you do the, the re, rejigger this a little bit in your spreadsheet, I'm going to take, that's what I'm saying. I'm going to take yours. I've got mine with everything in it and it produces that listing. Right. Um, so the output would be that listing. Then your Excel spreadsheet would also then produce the summary table. Correct. Tables. Correct. That show a five-year plan of recommended requests. Correct. Along with the recommended funding sources. Yes. Those are the two pieces of information with some, hopefully not a lot of text. Yes. Um, and then maybe this new table, uh, called purgatory. Purgatory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm still looking for the, thesaurus for words of purgatory that mean purgatory. And in it right now, we're thinking we would include town building, related stuff. Town building. The. Room 20. Room 20, whatever. The landfill. The landfill. The landfill. The landfill. Every school. Madam Chair, I would just use the word held, held in abeyance. How's that? How's that? Held in abeyance? Yeah. Rather than purgatory, if you look at this. Transfer station. I've been facetious, but anyway. Yeah. Transfer station building. Transfer station. So that's not part of your spreadsheet. So if you'd like, I think. It is, it is because what I would, what I'm going to do, I'm just going to create a table, right, that holds those. Okay. So if you want to do that. I'm going to label purgatory and then pull a table there. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, so those are the three kind of data things we'd have in the report with some text around it. Right? Yeah. And when do you think, so I can get, I can get the updated. I actually have a version 14 that I chose not to send to you guys in which I, because we're on spreadsheets. Uh, I heard both at the select board meeting and the FinCom that there was some, uh, work needed or underway where the town staff is trying to figure out what was in the five-year plan. Yeah. And what's on it is way in our plan. So I produced the reconciliation in the spreadsheet, which is a new tab. And it basically just a walk from the five-year plan for fiscal 27 only. Yeah. I already had, I served. They mentioned it last night. I had it because I, that's how I created table nine, uh, but it's fine. I'll send them something. So anyway, that, that, that's, that's in version 14. So in addition to 14, I will do these updates and I will label some of these items that will end up in this new table and I'll try to get that out, um, you know, tomorrow. So you have plenty of time for everybody else to look at it. You have the time. Yeah. I'm going to have to put it this weekend. Yeah. And then, uh, I guess the question is for the next meeting. Do you think you would be far enough along to actually have that put in a draft agenda that we, that we can actually review at the next meeting? I'm going to try. I'm going to try. That's, no, that's, uh, because if we had something draft, we could do what we did last time. Just approve it and let you make changes. Yeah. I would put in, I don't know how many words I'll have around it, but I would put the same way we have, you know, the tables in here. I would pop those tables in from there so that you can see, and then we can agree on one content, the numbers, right? It's the numbers, what we agreed on. And then format, like, is this what we want to show in terms of format? Yeah. And we're, other than those four or five larger projects that end up in this new table, held in a band slash purgatory, um, as I finalize what we're doing with these carryover items, right? And we keep bumping things, uh, do I'm going to create a fiscal 32 gets the final bump? Yeah. Yeah. You know, it won't be in the five-year. Uh, yeah, I think I'm going to show, I think we should show six years. I know we're committed. So the, the bylaw says at least five years. So I think we add a sixth year and, and even a seventh, if we can't get right, uh, not, not advocating, trying to split it up, but I think we have to show that. I mean, what happens when, I think I told the select word this, you've got 50% more requests than you have resource, financial resources to handle based on policy, right? In any given year, you're looking at like 12 ish million versus 8 million, right? On average. So what's that mean? That means you got to add two ish, two to three more years to the plan, or if you want to get to everything that's there and you want to do it within the guidelines, it takes a couple extra years, right? That's the only way you can do it. So I would advocate for now, just having one year, just because we, we don't have any high priorities for that year, just point time. Right. Uh, but yeah, once you can do it as one year or we could even label it as future pro deferred projects, right?
Since Michael's here, I actually had a question. So, so far I'm, I'm, I'm semi comfortable with all the bumping we're doing, but I also feel like there's a fair amount of what we're bumping that probably needs to get done. And my question, Michael, for you is, uh, we're largely going at this and using as a governor, uh, the financial limitations set forth in the town's financial policies. Um, but we had Carol Martin acknowledge that those are not set in stone and there could be cases where you exceed those policy limits. Um, and so one question or thought I have is, so you don't get into this constant, you know, pushing four to $5 million worth of projects forever. Do you, do you pick a year and do an excluded debt offering that covers 10 or so town or school related projects that together add up to more than the $5 million threshold for doing excluded debt? And with the understanding that the town's going to give that whole bundle of projects an up or down vote. Um, and I'm throwing that out as just food for thought because I would not personally be opposed to something like that. You know, not doing it every year, but maybe every two or three years where you get in this situation where you have a backlog. And you want to try to get the town to agree to finance getting out from under that backlog. And it also assumes that the town staff has the capacity, you know, to do the work, right? Which is, was more of a limiting factor for fiscal 27. Um, you know, the town has done excluded debt offerings that have been multi-projects. But they're not always just been used for single projects that were, you know, four or five or more million dollars. And again, the risk of that is that some people might have no issue with some school related projects, but don't want to prove money for the town. So the whole question could be down. Uh, but I guess my, my point would be if this committee and the town manager were fincomer inclined otherwise to keep kicking the can down the road, um, isn't it better to give the town a voice at some point? Oh, sorry. Anyway, I don't, the reason I'm raising it tonight is because at the fincom meeting, the chair of the committee questioned why we'd recommended that $2 million septic not be financed with excluded debt, given that town just went through a special election to move levy debt from the DPW facility from levy debt to excluded debt. By the way, it was over $5 million. The answer is because it's not, it's not, it's not within policy. Policy says it exceeded the levy debt rate. Well, this is turning into the longest question in the world. So I'm just kidding. Um, but you know, you, you've raised several good points. Ones that staff and I are going over, you know, we're, we're doing a lot of things at once. We have your committee, which is new. We have these finance, uh, financial policies that the board finally adopted, which some of them were, you know, um, past practice. Some were ones recommended by DLS. So we have a lot of new things rolling out at the same time. Um, and you have to factor in the appetite. As I said, for the electorate, you know, we have so many large projects that are coming down. We have the MWRA, the schools have their own thoughts about, um, their facilities. Um, you know, we have, we have to make a decision about this building, but you still have other maintenance that you have to do. So, you know, the idea of bundling some of these on an off year, um, putting forth some of the necessary items that, you know, you have to pull out and do, um, might be an option. Um, I think that we continually have to demonstrate to the electorate that we are being good stewards of their money and not just, you know, as this committee has been looking at, not just pushing too many projects down the pipeline without proper vetting and, um, making sure that what we put in bundle is palatable to the broader electorate, not just say all school items one year or whatever. I think it should be needs based and, um, it should be things that we can't put out for too long. But we also struggled, as you mentioned, with the fact that we were trying to find some levy and just converted levy debt to excluded debt and we can't do everything just, um, in the levy and through borrowing there may be times we have to do this. So all things to consider, it's new and it's a lot to, you know, we're collectively taking a lot on at in this year and it's created some timing issues because you obviously got off to a late start. Um, we're, we're a work in progress. You gave us a recommendation, but you're still working on the five year plan. We're trying to, um, incorporate some of your recommendations into what we have and still trying to get it into a date or timeline that works for the finance committee. And I forgot to send Madam Chair an updated email, but, um, the FinCom has asked, uh, Mr. Kevin and I to come in next Wednesday to talk about the capital plan and the five-year plan. Um, and that invite was going to be re-extended to you. I know in a previous email you said you weren't sure if you, um, or you were reluctant to go on the 11th because you had your own set of meetings. Like that. Um, in short to answer Mr. O'Hurlihy, yes, we, we are considering all those options and we're still trying to get this plan to the, the FinCom this year, but I think we'll have to consider options such as, um, a bundled excluded debt in future years to try and get all of the projects needed if they can't fit in to the, the policy view of the year. Realizing that you, you might be able to make some slight deviations, but I don't think you want to get in the habit of always breaking from policy. Otherwise what's the point of the policy? So would you, again, I'll end with this. Would you find it appropriate for this committee to consider that as potentially a future recommendation? Well, I, I, yeah, I, I think you're free to recommend, you know, this is, um, you know, you're inaugural of the year and I do think if we, you know, we're trying to work within policy, but it comes to a point where we have some really pressing needs, you know, how do we address it, you know, without violating policy? Maybe the answer is, okay, we do, uh, an excluded debt question and bundle up some of these that satisfies that $5 million threshold so that we are working within the spirit of the policy, but addressing the pressing needs. So, yeah, I, I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't find fault in you saying, look, we have all these things to do, but by policy, we're, we're giving you a recommendation within the monetary policy that limits, but we think these need to be done. You should consider perhaps, um, asking the board and the FinCom for an excluded debt question on needs. And then it's up to needs to then approach the select board and the finance committee about having an excluded debt question placed on the ballot. Okay. Well, as I said, it's not a, it's not a this year, uh, situation, but I wanted to bet that a little bit tonight, uh, just because looking at these spreadsheets, the number just gets bigger and bigger and bigger as you're rolling forward. And, um, and I think Kelly, you've made this point in the past, a lot of this stuff, the more you defer it, the more expensive it's going to be, um, potentially down the road. Yeah. And I, I understand that. I, I think, at least the way I view the committee until somebody tells me otherwise, though, is our charge was to establish a capital recommendation based on a set of policies that were adopted by the select board. The decision to deviate from policy is a decision for the town manager, the FinCom and the select board. But as Michael said, we can recommend like, hey, this is outside of policy. You might want to consider it, but I, I don't, I don't think that we should,
I don't think we're fulfilling our charge if the, if what we're doing is, is, is outside of policy. I think we have to call out the fact that it's, that it's outside of policy. I, I don't have a problem personally with bundling things to get over the 5 million. I just remind everybody, right, that you can do that and you can make it excluded debt doesn't change the fact that you're going to charge the taxpayer for it. And if you do that, right, you're still, it's still an increased cost, right? So, um, the excluded debt is, is, you know, just getting around prop two and a half. It's, it's not changing the cost of the town. So I just, yeah, I, trust me on them. I know. I know you're well aware. I just, uh, at some point when I look at Yeah. They have a lot of things that have to be done, right? And as we went through with them, with Michael, with Mike and Tom tonight, right? There's not a lot here that's, you know, we use the word visionary quite a few times. There's not that many things about many dollars that are truly visionary that aren't just like, Hey, keep the heat on, keep the roof from leaking. Um, and you know, let's not have a trip hazard on all our sidewalks. So get it. Um, I wanted to just touch because I didn't get a chance to do this yet, but, um, and we will talk about meetings, but as Michael said, um, he and that then Tom, um, chair had asked if we would do a joint meeting with them on the, originally it was on the 11th. I think we moved around and my reluctance was we have a meeting on the 10th and really we have work to finish here. And I didn't want to disrupt that. And we couldn't get a room on the 11th. So I had offered if everybody in the committee is comfortable that I would go to the FIMCON meeting whenever that was. Now, Michael, it was the 11th. Then I think you said the 9th. Is it back to the 11th? No, it's back to the 11th. Um, we went from the 11th to the 9th. So is everybody okay with that? Or would you prefer that we move our meeting so I'm not comfortable. We have to get, we have to have our meeting to get done what you need to hopefully be in a position to present or say this was posted on. Yeah. I mean, I, I plan to only talk on Wednesday about FY 27 and I'm not going to talk too much about the out years because we won't be done yet completely, but it depends. If Tuesday we're in good shape, I'll talk about it. But yeah, you have my support. Yeah. If you need any support, I'm happy to talk, but I, you know, what you're doing and did a fine job at the select board and you do a fine job. Just be prepared that they're anxious. As am I. As was I on the FIMCON. Yeah. So Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention one last thing. Um, you know, I, I, um, when we were talking about deferring things in, uh, uh, in, in, in our finances, you know, we're not, I won't say every town is in a similar situation, but a lot of towns in the Commonwealth are in this situation. Especially a lot of the towns, I think, uh, inside 495, a lot of these towns have built out. Post-World War II, a lot of our infrastructure happened at the same time, schools, some of the, the other, um, municipal buildings and a lot of the roads, uh, drainage systems. And so, unfortunately for a lot of communities, a lot of the stuff comes due right at the same time. And that's been, and compounded with the problem with PFAS and a few other issues. So, um, um, no doubt we're in for a few years where a lot of these things are going to come up. And, and as you well know, and you all had just mentioned, you know, the longer we defer, the more expensive they get. And, and I'm very mindful of the constraints of proposition two and a half and not putting on people. So for that end, you know, I was on the phone with one of our legislators today, again, lobbying for more state aid as we didn't get exactly what we were predicting last week in our, the first set of attorney sheet estimates from the governor. So, um, I, I would also encourage people to, you know, ping our legislators and tell them that we need more chapter 70, more chapter 90, and more unrestricted general government aid. Because otherwise, we're just going back to our residents and because of our tax make up, you know, well over 95 percent, if not more, of residents that we're not, it's not as if we could shift anything anywhere either. So, um, again, I'm trying to balance all that. And I know you are when, when you're looking at that. So, I just want anybody who's interested to know that we, we do take all these things into consideration. I know you do. I know my staff does. Um, so, I just wanted to point that out. Okay. Yep. Thank you. I understand. Um, we all, we all understand the challenge, right? We just don't have a whole lot of magical solutions for it. Um, okay. So, we have our walking, our marching orders. Brian, you're comfortable with what you need to do. I'm comfortable with what I need to do. Um, we just ask that Liz and John be ready to really give a, a thorough read and scrub and come prepared with, um, any questions or edits so that we can nail this down, like, on Tuesday. Okay. Um, all right. So, let me see. All right. So, we're not voting anything. Addendums to the report tonight. Um, articles submitted for annual time meeting. So, at the select board meeting, um, that I attended on, whatever, nine different things that was. That's the report Monday. Um, there, there was a discussion of the article, um, that we had previously discussed about the study, um, at Orchard Holiday Road. Uh, Carol conveyed what our opinion on that was that that was not a capital project in its current state. That seems consistent with what other people were thinking and beliefs. So,
Cheryl mentioned something. I think she might have misspoke a little bit to what our intent was. So, I'll follow up with her. I think it's the same, but I had said we didn't vote on it officially. What I wanted when we talked about it last was to see the actual article written, right, to be able to come back and make sure that it hadn't changed, right? Because it was, wasn't entirely clear when we originally talked about it, where it was going to land. But I still believe that. I don't think there's anything to talk about today. So, I'll just follow up with Carol. Like, I'd like to see the draft of the article to the extent, um, there's any changes in the next couple of weeks here. Yeah, it was a little mixed. Um, I think the driver sounds like coming up with a project that could create some new growth. It seems to be what's driving them. But at the same time, I heard other members talk about, in terms of what's going to be evaluated, the playing fields and conservation. And that's why I want to see the actual article written. And the schools may weigh in, their meeting, and then the night schools may weigh in, and assuming they're open to discussion, they say, well, we better evaluate it for schools, too. Yeah. Then it becomes possibly a little different than what we talked about, right? I agree. And that's why I want to, I'll just, I'll move back with Carol. Give the draft. Yeah, I think we need to see the draft to make the final decision. Our opinion was based on that this was a private developer. Private, yeah. This was a sale of land, right? Figuring out what, what was buildable there so that you could sell it, which is different than, well, we're going to do a broader study to figure out what we might do there, build there, right? Which becomes something different. So I don't know that it necessarily changes our opinion, but I think it changes what we originally talked about and want to discuss it again. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, it's 824. Uh, and I had on the agenda to debrief on the CIPC report process and compile suggestions for future reports. I'm happy to defer that until we're done with the plan. Um, is everybody okay with that or do you have things you want to get out that are bugging you now you want to get out so that we get them down on paper? Um, I'm fine deferring. I, I was prepared to say something two weeks ago and couldn't because it wasn't on the agenda, but just in the interest of memorializing it in the, uh, minutes. Um, I think two weeks ago before we cut our discussion off, uh, I mentioned that I would anticipate future reports would include a long-term planning section beyond five years. For purgatory? Just reiterating that. Yeah. It was true. Yeah. You know, years six through 15 or whatever. I'm just repeating that, but the other item that I stopped short of talking about is, um, until we see what the town manager presents to FinCom and the FinCom, see what the FinCom presents to, uh, you know, meeting, uh, if they perfectly align, which I doubt with what we recommended, then you wouldn't need this. But to the extent they are different, I would think future reports each year might contain a section that does a little bit of reconciliation between, uh, you know, a table or something, reconciling between what, uh, this committee, uh, So you mean issuing an addenda after they issue theirs? No, on future reports just say, you know, last year we recommended a fiscal 27 budget. Oh, for the next year, then reconcile the prior year. Yeah. Just, just on an ongoing basis, just to be able to present to the, to the town, um,
you know, whether our recommendations are worth anything. It would be blunt. Um, yeah, I think that that's, I think that could fit pretty well because we, the way we started the report this year was this is what was approved prior. So I think we'd start with, this is what we approved. This is where it landed. And then we move to next. So those are the two, um, two sections. I just wanted to get that out while I was thinking of it. Oh, as I forget. Yeah. There may be other things when we have a more thorough discussion about it. Anybody else have something they want to get out? I don't have any urgency. I'm good. John, you good? Yeah, definitely. All right. Uh, all right. So we need to review and approve, um, the minutes of January 26th. Does anybody have any comments on those minutes? No. Other than thank you, Brian, for doing the minutes. No, thank you, Brian, for doing the minutes. All right. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of January 26th? So motioned. Okay. Seconds, Liz. You're the second. All right. We're going to have to do a roll call because we are, um, hybrid. So Brian? Yes. Liz? Yes. And John? Yes. Kelly? Yes. So that is, our minutes are approved. True. For your, for your, um, okay. I don't think I have any more topics that I hadn't already talked about. Uh, so let's do meeting dates and times. So I have next week, we have the 10th reserved for Tuesday, the 10th, and then did a lot of back and forth here. Um, so the 18th is vacation week. And I know that was probably going to be difficult. February vacation. Difficult to me. I have a room. Well, the, for the 18th. Um,
so I'm going to hold that for now. I don't, hopefully we're not going to need it. We're going to get wrapped up. I'll be around if we needed it. If we needed it to clean up things and we have three of us, I can, I can. I will be on travel. That's okay. Hey John, you're traveling. I mean, depending on what I put a join, but I can, from traveling. So I have internet where I'm going. Yeah. If it, it might just be, and we can ask Brad, um, but it might be like, we just needed three of us to get together and clean up things. Um, Yeah. Hopefully if we were far enough at one, we could do one of those conditional votes. Yeah. That's what I, what I'd like to do is next week, do a conditional vote where you give myself and one other person the ability to, to finish. If we feel like we're in good enough shape, um, then I would cancel that entirely. Um, I don't have, I think beyond that. 25th. They did not have room for the 25th. Yeah. Uh, so it's getting harder because it was, it was, it's a little easy when we were coming through the holidays, I was able to get rooms, but I really think we need to, at this point, if we can pick a day that I can just go ahead and book out. And if we have to move, we'll try to move, but it would be better if I can just book a room out consistently. That would be great. Yeah. So Wednesday had tended to work the best for us on a consistent basis. Yeah. Cause then kind of, I was going to have the room tied up through the middle of March. Yep. Yeah. So I was going to try and get Wednesday, even if it's beyond that, like if I can just get some, and once we get this addendum out at six o'clock, six or we could move to, we could, we could potentially even move if we're like seven. That's not, I'm just going to not be four, six. Now, but I can't, I, I can't. Oh yeah. It's just, uh, it's two parts. Yeah. Oh yeah. Wednesday works. Okay. So Wednesday, and then with what frequency, once we get through with this, um, this addendum, don't think we need to be weekly. The 25th is out. 25th is out. Starting the fourth. Notionally.
So right now you're taking probably first week of March.
And then.
Yes. We're trying to do every couple of weeks to try to get. I was going to say every other week. You can start that. And then see if we can see if it fits or if we can. At some point we might go down. Like there might be a low. I think the extent that the goal is to create an updated CIP form. And the goal is to start this process three months earlier than it started traditionally. Just like just after July one. We need to kind of be in a position to be there. Yeah. To be ready to go. Yeah. I'm hoping this is where I'm going to ask this committee. Um, I've got, you know, Liz and John and Brad have had their training wheels on for a little bit. We're going to start to ask everybody to take, um, right. A piece of those future improvements and work on it. So I'm hoping it can be more of a, you know, work on it outside the meeting. And we don't have to, you know, gather it. Right. We don't have to, we don't have to work through the spreadsheet. Right. Um, in detail in the meeting, like we have that. That's my, my goal. Sounds good. What's the first Wednesday of March then? March. We're at the 4th. So we'll say tentatively, we've agreed to March 4th at six or seven. Um, I prefer six just because I get tired. Yeah. No, I can do six. Do you want to school for the difference? It says 630.
You can do that. Okay. 630. Okay. With you. Yeah. Going forward. And tentatively, I'll put in the minutes, tentatively every other week, every other Wednesday thereafter. Yeah. Well, we all go to 930. Well, I'm hoping we can get a little shorter on these meetings once we're not slogging through spreadsheets. Just put something in minutes to suggest. For now, we've tentatively agreed to meet every couple of weeks with March 4th being that. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Everybody good? Anything Michael has to say to us? Michael, anything else you want to say to us before we adjourn? No, really just thank you for the work you've been doing.
You're welcome. First year doing this, and we're all doing this together, and we'll get through it. And then next year, you'll have more time, and we'll all work on this, and it won't feel so rushed.
I think that's what we're all looking for. I'm sure we can improve it. Yeah, no, but I think it's a good thing in the long run that we have all these extra eyes looking at this, and also taking the perspective from the citizenry and the electorate, and we're not just having 100% staff input. So it's good. So thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Great. All right. All right. Thank you.
Roll call vote. Brian? Yes. John? Yes. Liz? Yes. Kelly? Yes. 8.35 PM. We are adjourned at 8.35 PM. Thank you, John.
This meeting, as I just said, is hybrid, so I'm going to read.
We've got the meeting to be reported, and if recorded, it will be made available to the public on WACM as soon as possible after the meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in-person and via remote access in regards to people law.
If the census has remote access, one may watch or participate remotely. The meeting link can be found on the town's website.
When required by law or allowed by the peer, a person is willing to, wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do set up the peer meeting location, or via remote access. Telecom, it should be limited to two minutes per person. Okay, so in person, we have Liz, Brian, Kelly, and on Zoom, we have John, and I don't remember. Brad said he couldn't make this one. Travel. Yeah, he said he was traveling. Somebody had an iPhone there. I'm not sure who that was.
Oh, you think it was Michael? I guess. Okay. All right. I'll start reviewing the agenda. All right. 6 p.m., call the order. We'll be the agenda for public. 10 announcements. 6.05 is public comment and members' response. 6.10, review of the FY27 requests that were not recommended for inclusion in the FY27 capital budget, as well as FY28 through FY31 requests to determine where to include in the FY28 to FY31 capital plan, including funding sources. It's a continuation of our discussion in the last couple of weeks. 7.40, discuss and vote addendums, if any, to the committee's report to the town manager. 8 o'clock, review any articles submitted for town meeting to assess impact on capital plan, if any. 8.15, debrief on CIPC report process and file suggestions for future reports. 8.45, review and vote to approve minutes of January 26th. 8.55, topics not reasonably anticipated by the chair, 40-hour spread of hosting and many and set times at next meetings. 9 o'clock, hopefully we'll adjourn, and as with last week, we're going to spend, our main priority is on the rest of the capital plan, to the extent we have time. We'll progress on to the other agenda items, to make sure if there's anything we're ready to discuss there. With that, was it, it wasn't. Can you just confirm, got him confirmed, so we didn't bring somebody up, but we don't know who it is. We just want to check and make sure, Michael McCall, is that you? Is that Michael's iPhone? I am on here, Madam Chair, so I'm just more listening this evening to the discussion, but I'm happy to answer any questions as they may arise. All right, thanks. I just want to make sure it was you, because we brought you over as a panelist, just want to make sure it wasn't a member of the public. Yeah, and I don't see anybody else in the room or on Zoom for public comment, so I think with that, oh. Did I miss it, just let people know John's on Zoom? I did say that. Did you do that already? Yeah, I did that already. And we have a couple of guests with us tonight, too. Our first agenda item, after public comment, is to talk about the request that didn't make it in the FY27 plan in the remaining out years. So, we have Michael Fea from Facilities, and we have Tom Holder from DPW. And I know, Tom, you asked me to send you the questions ahead of time, and I didn't, because it wasn't specific questions. It was, we really wanted both of you here to walk, just as we look at the plan for the rest of the years, right? As you can imagine, we're struggling with a lot of projects and not enough resources. And so, to the extent we need to reorder them, we want to make sure that it's in alignment with your reordering of them, rather than, you know, us deciding completely, you know, in a vacuum. Yeah, that's fine. And I took some information from the meeting minutes of your last meeting. I know you had some notes of things that you were looking for. So, I kind of used that to guide me, you know, in preparation for tonight. Okay, perfect. All right, with that, I don't know if, John Cleen, I know you went off camera. Is it possible for you to pull up Brian's spreadsheet on the Zoom? That way I don't have to log in to Zoom? Yes, I just need to download it. Okay. All right. So, while we're doing that, I think the first thing I want to let the committee know is we did get a response back from Catherine Brenna at Recreation, and I'm going to make sure both Tom and Mike agree with this, that she believes to the extent we did have project in for Phase 3 of the building high school field project, which was the baseball diamonds, some rectangles being rearranged, that that is redundant with the second project that was in FY29 that said rectangles. So, we want to make sure, because that was, you know, close to $4.5 million between the two, and I think it's the same project. So, everybody is in agreement that that's not, I've got Catherine, Mike's nodding yes. Nope. Okay. It makes sense. Good. All right. That's helpful. So, we can take that out of the second one out.
How are you doing, John? Good. Let's just turn about it. Sorry. Okay.
All right. So, once we get that up, was there anything before John gets that up that we want to start with, question-wise, that was...
It worked from the last item on the list, which is the transfer station garage. Yeah, that's probably a good answer. That's going to be a quick one. Tom, you want to take this? Or I'm going to... Yeah, I can start it out. So, we understand, you know, having operated at that facility for, you know, many decades, that those buildings are extremely tired. We've made, you know, small repairs to the roof, the heating system, lighting, and all of that. But at this point in time, it's pretty apparent that something more permanent needs to happen. But having said that, the Department of Public Works just began an evaluation of the town's solid waste, you know, trash and recycling protocols. We've engaged a vendor that's going to spend the next several months with us evaluating the transfer station. And part of the deliverable will be a recommendation, at least providing data as to what type of operation is feasible to continue, what the town can afford. There's an option of implementing a municipal curbside collection program for both trash and recycling. So, it seemed a little premature to both myself and Mike to begin thinking about and planning for building rehabilitation and replacement until we actually know what the future of that property holds. So, I think at a minimum, we've deferred it to at least, you know, 28 and perhaps even further out. It was our thought that a pre-engineered building, you know, with a foundation would be adequate to replace the garage space and some of the office space that's currently there. We put in a placeholder of, you know, $450,000. But I'm sure we will be refining that value and then also thinking about, depending upon what the evaluation calls for, to see what that property will be utilized for in the future. And that'll better help us design something that's appropriate for whatever future functionality is there.
And so, on that, Ken, I want to start to see right across all projects where we've got the design and construction staggered so that the design is done before we're going to the town to ask for construction. So, are you thinking design, and I understand in prefab, but even prefab, you've got to pick out what you, you know, you've got to spec out what you want, right, that meets your needs. So, is that a design 28 and build in 20? I'm trying to get a sense, Tom, of when, like, is this building, right, is there an expiration where, you know, we can't function anymore, we don't make a decision what to do, we've got to, you know, we're going to have a drop. I know it's not as simple as that. It's not like, yeah, no, it's, yeah, it's not an immediate need. You know, I think by putting it in 28, perhaps 29, I think would be fine. I've built a couple of these types of buildings in the past, and, you know, the actual terminology, it's, you know, pre-engineered. When you, and Mike can talk probably a lot more to this than I can, but it's pretty common when you do one of these buildings that you actually, you know, when you select the company that's going to do it for you, they actually design it and fabricate it for you. So, they're, in this particular instance, if it is pre-engineered, you wouldn't have that design and then separate construction, like, like we're most accustomed to. So, that's why it's not all, it's not split between. There wouldn't be a design cost. We would hire a firm to, that we're going to get the building from. They would design it, and then we'd have a price to buy it. Is that, I'm trying to understand, like. They have, they call them canned buildings. So, basically, the drawings that you'd see, you know, if you remember from the old magazines, you know, you could build a kit helps type of thing. Yeah. Same, same idea. They have all the drawings that are engineered. You know, you put a slab down, they come in, they throw this thing on top of it, and it's, it's all been pre-engineered. And it's, it's that simple. It's like turnkey. So, other than the electrical and things like that. But that's. Okay. So, it's not, so there's no design stage, design costs. It's just. Not, not for pre-faceted. Buying it on Sears catalog. Pretty much. No, pretty much. Yeah. Now you do it online. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, we're just clear, Michael, you had in your request, similarly, $450,000 in fiscal 27. Right. And then I think you said that was for partly repairing what's there, partly. That was the thought, right, is to do some repairs to keep it up and running and maybe start a design, but. And then you had $1,800,000 in 2031 as a placeholder. Right. So, for our purposes, it sounds like if it ended up that we put it in our plan fiscal 29, I guess the question is, is $450,000 the right placeholder? Is something closer to your $1,800,000? Well, that's up to Tom and the size building we want. So, it's, once they're done with their study, we'll know a little better. I would say the $450,000 is probably a good placeholder. The $1,800,000 was, we're building a whole new building. So, that's why that number was out there. I'm sorry. That's okay. Very distracted.
That's why that's out there. I put that there just because I needed to have some money somewhere just in case. So, we were ready. So, if Tom's comfortable, I know I'm comfortable, we can stick with the $450,000 and get rid of the $1,000,000 out of $30,000,000, I think it is, right? Right. And, Tom, $450,000 was your guesstimate fiscal 27. If you had to make a guesstimate for two years from now, would it still be $450,000 or would it be $500,000? Yeah. It would certainly be increased. And, I don't know, Mike, if you have a sense of what, you know, inflationary cost per year for construction is. Is it 10% per year? Should we be adding 20% to that figure? I'm not sure what you're seeing. They've been using 9%. Okay. So, $550,000 round numbers? Yep. If it's in fiscal 29? Yeah.
Okay.
I think that resolves that. Now, as to whether we decide that's where it's going to go, it's a different story. But that's helpful. And as Kelly, you said at the beginning, we prefer to obviously have you guys weighing in if things have to get pushed out to let us know, you know, against, we'll talk about other priorities. Sure. Which items could slip more than others. But for now, for our next cut of this, why don't we assume that that's a fiscal 29 basket by 50? Yep. Okay. Okay. Okay. Hey, John, can you... Enlarge. Yeah, you don't necessarily have to have the spreadsheet take over the whole screen, but can you just enlarge the text?
Is that better? It's hard because we're in the large hearing room, so the screen's pretty far away. Let me just try to see if I reshare it just to see if it fixes it because I'm surprised. Yeah, I have a hard copy, so I think it's helpful for the public mostly. The rest of you can look at the online version. I'm just looking at version 13, right? That was in Silva later. Yeah. That's version 13, right, John? This is version 13, yep. Is that better? Yeah, and just because my eyesight isn't that great at this distance, what tab are you on at the moment? 28. Okay. Thanks.
All right.
I'm happy to move. Sorry. Can we... Well, we'll do that. We... It's a big nut as well. Can we talk about the salt shed, rehab? Yes, the million dollars that I've got listed there. Yes. Give us a little bit of color on that, Tom. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. What the urgency is. Yeah, I mean, it... Now, this is an FYI. I'm looking in my paper copy. Where... You requested in 28 a million dollars? Yeah. Let me just see if I can find it. I know I had it. Here we go. Yep, I got it. Yeah, a million dollars in 28. So that salt shed, I'm not sure if you've ever seen it, that is at a minimum of 15 years old. And it was actually there prior to the DPW facility being built in 2015. And the environment, you know, with all the salt that's in it, around it, it is a pretty, you know, destructive environment. So we're witnessing, we're observing a lot of deterioration, a lot of failing, it's got a concrete foundation with a steel and wooden kind of conical cover over the top of it. The electrical components are requiring frequent repairs, so it does not need to be rebuilt. It would be far more than a million dollars to rebuild that. But for us to hire somebody to make the repairs, you know, during the off-season months, you know, spring, summer, fall, we've included a figure for a million dollars to do that. Now, it would be nice to be able to do that in FY28, but a matter of immediacy, you know, if, you know, as you shuffle and you try to find funding for all of the town's needs, you know, I think if that were to be placed in 29, that would be okay, if that gives you any help as to a sense of immediacy on that. Is there any reason to piecemeal it over two years, 28, 29, or is it, would be just more expensive to do that? Yeah, I don't think so, because, you know, when you touch one thing, you might as well touch the rest of it, that kind of a thing. So I don't think splitting it over a couple of years would be practical.
And we're talking about the salt jet that's adjacent to the now formerly new building, not the one that used to be used by the old landfill. No, no, this is the new conical one that's a 66 River Road. The dome structure that's out front? Yes. Yep. And if that got pushed from your request in FY28 to FY29, would a million dollars be sufficient, or would it, again, go up by some inflationary amount? I mean, I think keeping it in a million, I think, would be adequate. There's enough of a contingency in that figure that I would be comfortable carrying that to 29 if the committee decided to do that. Just as an aside, as we look to this process a year from now and going forward, I, for one, would find it helpful to get, particularly on some of these larger ticket items, get more analysis or detail as to where the estimate was derived from. Could be quotations, could be first square foot costs, including contingencies, just so that, you know, we have a better sense that it's just, I'm not suggesting that they're just numbers pull out of the air. I'm sure you've given thought to these, particularly the bigger ones. But we'll be talking about that more in our upcoming meetings about just the process and how much and what type of information to ask for that maybe hasn't been asked for. Would either of you find that a burden or an imposition? Yeah, no, what you're describing is totally understandable and it should be expected. I mean, obviously, for anything in the coming fiscal year, we've got, you know, we're working off of quotes and all of that. And then as the years progress, you know, the numbers become a little bit less hardened. But what you're asking for, especially for 28, 29 and, you know, these large ticket items, what you're asking for is totally understandable. Yeah, so we'll look to, as a part of improving the process, right? We've talked before, we want to have a better CIP input form that's more pertaining to what you guys actually, like there's a lot of stuff on there that you don't need to give us. And there's a lot of stuff in this segment that I think you all think through and go through in putting together your plan, but we're not asking for it. And then we're bothering you, right? You know, one off in question. So I think we'll modify that for both the coming year, as you said, Tom, would be expected in a little more detail with a little more support. And in the out years, not as much, but still, if it's a cost per square foot, it's so many square feet. Like whatever that rough, you know, how to, how do we get to the estimate, I think it's really helpful. And then I think the other thing we want to make sure on that is we do understand escalation that's built in or escalation needed to the extent things are moved on a broader scale. So that's, that's very, yep. Okay. So from here, Brian, you want to keep, there's two other DBW items that we have labeled maybe one is the route 20 south landfill cap restoration. And primarily we were interested in whether that was being required of us by the state. Were we not to be doing anything with that? That's like, I think we understand that there's a visioning group that's looking at all sorts of alternative uses. And it wasn't clear, Tom, whether you knew that this half million dollars would be needed, but for the potential use of that property for these other possible uses. Yeah. So there is a visionary committee that was formed. It's actually relatively active right now. We have a forum scheduled for two weeks, February 17th, whereby our engineering firms, the committee and staff will be presenting what we've been working on over the course of the last 15 or so months. Some of the repurposed functionality of, of, of, of, of the capped landfill. This $450,000 was derived before some of the decisions that were made and are going to be made as a result of February 17th. Uh, so that figure is going to likely change because the options, I won't belabor it, but, you know, we're talking about a, uh, 11 verse 11, uh, multipurpose rectangular field, natural turf field, uh, with perhaps lighting. We're talking about having an area for, uh, we're talking about materials management, uh, facilities for, for DPW, passive recreation, uh, walking paths, birding, uh, you know, uh, observation platforms. All of those things are being considered and will be presented on the 17th. So I think there's going to be a need for funding in FY 28, because I think the committee and the town will be really poised to do something with that property. It's just, I think it'll probably be north, unfortunately, of 450 grand. So I think there's 500 in the, in, for this one. Oh, I'm sorry. Yep. I'm looking at the one below it. 500. But I want to pull the thread a little bit on that because this is still at the, it's at the visioning stage. You're, you're about to get ready to present options. We're really going to be ready to spend money for FY 28. That's a year from now. Effectively, right? A year and a few months. I'm just thinking about like, if it's, I'm going to use a field, right? If we decide we're going to build a new field, just based on history, how many years before we're ready to build a new field? Yeah, it's, well, if, you know, the things that I were describing, there is going to be a design effort. Um, and the design will be done separate. And so the design funding will be requested separate from the, the construction of it. Um, so what would be included? I would, I would imagine for annual town meeting 27. So a year from this May, uh, the committee would likely have identified, you know, the, the options that they were, the town was going to go forward with and be making a pitch, you know, to at least design some of it. So, um, that's, that's, that's my take. That'd be design, that'd be design in FY28. Right. Right. If it's earliest, you're looking at design in FY28. That's correct. FY29 at the earliest, right? That presumes. That's right. Put together, ready to go at, at next, not this ATM, but next ATM. Correct. Yep. Okay. Is there, and I don't want to jump the gun on this so you can tell me we don't know yet. Is there a range of costs of these options that are being discussed or is it, if this is all pure visionary ideas of what can go there and we're not anywhere near relative cost? Yeah. I mean, I, I think I would say it's more at the vision stage. I mean, I, I think you could certainly take a look at the cost of local field, uh, that was just built, uh, um, you know, at the complex off of, uh, route 30. Uh, and so the, the field that's being proposed is very similar to that. So if that would be, that would give you a sense of design and construction costs for that. And then. That was over, that was over $4 million, wasn't it? Three. Three change. Three change. Yeah. So that's, that would give you a sense of what that would cost. Um, you know, and then. Back to my question. Um, but for potential. But for the support potentially coming forward to town meeting, uh, proposing project X, Y, and Z, uh, but for that, would, would this, would the town be required to be spending any money on capping what's there at the moment?
So right now we, we, we've spent a great deal of, uh, effort in working with the DEP to ensure that we're beating, um, you know, their, their expected, expected regulations. And so if you've, if you're familiar with the property, um, all of the, uh, their, their, their big concern was that the cap was being damaged with all the, the tree growth, the root systems were damaging the cap. So that, that property has been completely cleared at this point in time. Um, so, uh, there's no risk for additional or continued damage to the cap. Um, uh, the DEP has asked for us to do some test pits and some additional borings. We're looking for, um, uh, the submittal. They're looking for the submittal, uh, of a, of a long range plan for that property. So those are the next types of things. But, um, right now we're in a very good place, um, regulatorily, if that's even a word to, um, to DEP relative to, you know, property maintenance and the condition of it. All right, so just ask again, with that additional information, it sounds like you've remediated the issue with roots. You think you might have to spend some amount of money doing some additional testing to, uh, have the DEP feel comfortable that whatever cap is there and the town has only spent money on. Um, at some point in the past, uh, is sufficient for how long would what's there be sufficient for forever? Yeah. I mean, we're all at this point in time, we're only required to do, um, gas monitoring, uh, groundwater monitoring and to keep the property mode. And, um, you know, it's all operating costs. Yeah. So you'll, in our operating line, you see there's three or four lines for landfill. It's, it's the landfill at the transfer station, as well as the landfill that we're talking about right now. All right. So I'm going to go where I think Brian is headed, which is this item, which says route 20 South landfill cap restoration at 500,000. Isn't really the cap restoration. It is. And maybe we thought we might need it because we needed to do things. And maybe we still could, if the DEP looks at our proposal and says there's, there's something we need, but was the 500 intended to do some sort of capital work to restore the cap? Or was that 500 for alternative use? Yeah. So when. Those are two separate things. And I think there weren't, they should be described accordingly. Yeah. No, I, um, I agree. When this title route 20 South landfill cap restoration, I probably created that title three years ago. Um, and at that point in time, um, I was thinking that it would, it would, that 500 grand, uh, or whatever we put in there would be used to continue the cap restoration over the course of the last 15, 18 months. We now know that, you know, cap restoration is nearly complete, uh, and that anything additional is, uh, towards the repurposement of those two parcels. So if I would be, I would be supportive if you wanted to change the title of that, um, to something other than, than what it is right now. Again, it's relative to the cap. From what do you understand with talking to DP, is there any, assuming what's there is stable and fine and you do your testing and nothing changes, but now you come along and say, okay, we want to put a field and we want to do these other three or four things. Do any or all of those things have any impact on the cap such that you would have to spend more money doing something to the cap to allow those uses to occur? Yes. Um, so any of the things that I just described are going to require excavating the cap, um, the field it's going to have, you know, drainage underneath it. Uh, there's going to be, uh, drainage under any bus parking materials management, all of that. So in working with the DEP, we understand these things, you know, can be accomplished, but there will be, uh, what I would call cap stabilization functions that would be associated with any future work that's done there. But those, those types of, um, things that needed to be done to stabilize the cap during and after those things are constructed would be within the request, the value of the request, whatever that happens to be in 28, 29, 30. Yeah. That would, that would, that would be loaded. If, if we're doing capital requests for what we have today, right. Trying to keep things up to, to standard. What I'm hearing is we don't think that there's cost to maintain the cap as is. If one of these alternative uses is what the town wants to proceed with. Part of the cost of that alternative use is going to be dealing with the cap, just like at any other building site. When we decide to do something, the cost of remediating what's there to change it has to go into that cost. So I want to make sure we're, we're separating. Cause I think like you said, Tom, this has changed from when it originally came about. We weren't sure what we were going to have to do to get the cap right in line with what the DEP was to what we needed to do initially, just to be okay. Like a thoroughly sounds like we're close to being there. Right. Without additional cost. If we decide as a town that we want to do something else there, that's part of the cost of that project. Yeah, I think ultimately that's the point I was driving to since we don't have a clarity on what the select board may or may not choose to put forth or be when they might choose to put it forth. And obviously, most importantly, whether the town actually were to vote in favor of moving forward, given the financial situation of the town over the next decade. Um, it's all fine to be visioning this stuff, but, you know, building a, when you have other priorities in the capital plan, building something in as if we're saying, you know, this is a green light to potentially spend this. I'm uncomfortable with given what Thomas now kind of described the current affairs. Yeah, I agree. Um, I would prefer, and this is, we can do this right as a committee is that something like that, we're like that there's a visioning committee with a potential use. It's, you know, we've got a plan through FY 31. I, I like the, there's an FY 32 right now and FY 32 plus, and we've listed, right, the potential or narrative of the potential projects that are out there swimming around. But I'm uncomfortable putting it in because I have no idea if that's, you know, walking trails at, you know, a couple hundred thousand dollars or a field at $4 million, right? And I'm making, so I don't, I don't feel comfortable putting that in our five-year plan. The actual plan. Yeah. And, you know, we, we had Tom and Michael, we had, we had at least one item that Pin-Pom addressed over the past three years was the high school wastewater facility renovation. Um, which a couple of years ago was in the five-year plan that Pin-Pom approved. And then last year, uh, Brian Keveney took it out of the plan and we addressed it, uh, by adding a sentence to the narrative, uh, just saying that five and a half million had been in there, but the town's working on alternatives that hopefully will result. As it appears, it hopefully will, in a much lower cost. So this is kind of feeling to me like an item that we need to flag in any report we do for two reasons. One, we're not sure it's going to have to be spent. We're not sure exactly which year it's going to have to be spent. And, and most importantly, we're not sure what the ultimate total cost is for whatever vision use, uh, is brought forward for a town vote. So that, you know, that becomes one of those items that gets relegated beneath the plan, uh, kind of like an elementary school, new elementary school right now. So it's likely not going to be in our five-year plan, but it's quite possible that that hits sometime in the next five years. We, we, so what, uh, what, what you're describing, uh, Brian is precisely what I did with this and, and actually the project that's just below this from time to time. I become, you know, to understand that there's going to be a need. There's a project on the horizon. And nobody's really taken ownership of it at that point, uh, you know, so two or three years ago, the South landfill, it really, you know, uh, it was a vision. There was some concepts that were thrown around, but I felt it necessary to at least put a figure in a year, just so that people were paying attention to it. Um, and that's, that's pretty much how this, uh, the genesis of this particular project. We now have a committee that committee is going to have this forum. I know the intent is that this committee is going to present to the select board. This will wind up being a project that'll be advanced and championed, you know, by either the vision committee or the select board. Public works may indeed manage it because we have the wherewithal to do that. But so what you were describing, uh, Brian, you know, um, is, is the approach that I was taking. And that's why you see this on the capital plan and, and a figure that, you know, mayor, uh, indeed will be altered. I think that's helpful, Tom. I think at the end of the day, right. That's the right thing for you to do. Right. So that we know about it and then we can talk about it. But I think the committee has to make a decision based on priorities and yeah. And they're prepared to do that. They'll, you know, they, they have that, uh, on their, on their radio screen. This committee needs to make a decision about priorities and where, where, where something could fit. And I'm with, I'm with Brian, um, until it's clearer what the, what the path forward is that people are looking for and what that cost is, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be able to put it in a plan, uh, just yet, but that's helpful context. And I think, uh, that leads us right into, uh, but both the two items we've now talked about, Tom, uh, I believe, uh, they were both in the five-year capital plan that the FinCom approved last year. Is that your recollection? Yes. Okay. So, you know, we've, we've been, you know, we, we appreciate that both the town manager presented to the FinCom his view of a five-year plan last year and FinCom approved a five-year plan and included in their report to town meeting in spring. Uh, I think generally we've been taking the approach that, um, we're looking at everything kind of fresh. Um, and that, that, this is an example of that. Um, I, I think there's some sense, perhaps there could be some sense by some that, Hey, this was in the approved five-year plan from the FinCom. Why is it you're proposing that you want to move it to someone else in your, the recommended plan, but, uh, I, it doesn't sound like you or Michael or, or, or those of us here tonight, uh, are, are really at odds on that. It's just, you know, we're, we're going through this in spite of the fact that it was in the plan. Does that make sense to you? Yes, it does. And I, and I think the, uh, the visionary committee membership, you know, would, uh, would understand and would, would it agree on what we're, you know, what we're talking about tonight. Yeah. And, and certainly if, if any project, the next one, you might as well hit two, because, you know, I'm very familiar with this from what occurred over the last couple of years with this particular item, but the other may not be. Um, but, um, you know, on any of these items, it's just a plan, right? And so if the select board decides ultimately that they want to champion a project and bring it forward, uh, and can get the town manager and the fincom to include it in a budget that gets approved by town meeting or alternatively puts forth an article, which I suspect this one probably would be, uh, for anything, you know, large projects at, uh, 20 landfill, uh, suck work and do that. Despite it not necessarily showing up in a particular year of plan, same for the schools. If they finish their visioning and they decide that they can get MSBA funding and fiscal 30 to build a new elementary school and they bring it forward as an article, even though that might not be in the five-year plan, right? They could do that. So, uh, we just want to make that point that, that what we're doing here is really just to provide guidance and advice to the town manager, uh, based on our research and our discussions. So anyway, why don't you, uh, give the rest the benefit of your knowledge on group 24 to our study. And in particular, uh, as of November 18th, none of the 250,000 that was approved in, in the spring has been spent. Uh, so we were curious if, if you're, you can inform us, uh, if anything has been spent. Yeah. So none of that, uh, those funds have been spent to date. Uh, there is, uh, when you said 250,000, I think is what was appropriated the last town meeting for, uh, preliminary design. And, um, um, so that is a good start. And the reason that that project really hasn't gotten off the ground yet, uh, to be quite honest is, um, we at public works, it just have not had the bandwidth, uh, to, to take this on in the fall of, of last year. We've got some sizable projects between the MWRA, uh, the high school wastewater, um, the project, um, as well as, uh, there's a, a small bridge project that's taken on a life of its own. And it's been a much larger effort that was initially anticipated, but some of these, uh, projects are, uh, being completed. So I think we are ready to, to take on beginning the conceptual design of the route 20 rehab. We'll be able to spend some of that 250,000. And the components of that is that it's, this is another one that, you know, three years ago, I, I, I created the, this title and put some money towards it because I knew that the work needed to be done. I wasn't sure who was going to champion the project, but I wanted to at least get something on a spreadsheet. So that was the genesis of this project. What will happen is that there'll be a working group created, um, with, uh, DPW planning people, economic development people, uh, perhaps even, um, some members at large, uh, of the public that, uh, might have property along the commercial corridor. We'll actually go out for a request for quotations to hire a design firm. And then that design firm will assist us in getting on the state's transportation improvement program, the tip and a tip, um, the tip program is really how this will be, uh, advanced. The tip program requires that the town provide design funds to complete the design. And then that design gets handed over to the state and they pay for and perform the construction. So, um, the, um, the 250 that we have appropriated would be used to start that process. And this is, um, this $450,000 that's listed in 28 would be, uh, a continuation of that effort. So let me just make sure that Tom, the town pays for the planning, or did you say the design they pay for the design? And then if it's, if it's picked up on the state, the state does. Correct. Yep. I've, I've done a couple of these projects, uh, very similar, uh, a state numbered highway, um, whereby the town performed the design. And, uh, there was, you know, stakeholder groups, uh, that I had described, uh, that were all part of it. And then, um, it, it meets the spirit of the tip program. It involves, um, you know, economic development. It actually, it, uh, it bridges two, um, portions of a state highway that are reconstructed. And this is a gap in that, uh, in that effort. So it, it meets the spirit of a tip program perfectly. So I, I have no doubt that once we present to the, uh, it's the Boston Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Boston MPO, uh, once we present to them, we will very likely be accepted into that tip program. How far out Tom is, uh, were you to, were you to have a completed design to be able to share with them today? Rough idea. How, how far out into the future would we be able to get on the list for funding? So we, uh, we'll actually, we'll get on the list prior, um, with a conceptual design with that $250,000 will get us to a point whereby we're actually going before the Boston MPO, uh, and get accepted on the tip. And then, you know, the, the formal and final design would then, you know, be performed. And then, um, you know, so I could probably answer right now, if things go as planned, we would have a project completed in seven years. That's how long it takes.
And what's the risk? Um, so, so it sounds like to be sure that you get on the list, the first $250,000 that you're planning to get around the spending is pretty important. Um, on the off chance that you present and they tell you our rules change, those type of projects don't qualify anymore. Then we say, okay, fine. We're not going to likely spend the cost to do what we're conceptually thinking of doing. I think you said, or someone said last year, the VidCon was $8 million, roughly. So, you know, if the state's not paying for that, that means that you'd have to present to the town, uh, here's what we want to do. Are you willing to spend $8 million? So I guess you have to spend the $250,000 to see if you can get on the list. Then once you're on the list, I think you're sort of at the will of the state as to when they work in. And you're saying that could be a seven year process between waiting on the list, uh, behind other projects, uh, and then ultimately getting through the construction. Yep. That's, those are the steps, uh, um, that you described and that's, that's how I foresee this coming across. I, like I said, I don't see any reason and that this tip program has been. It's been around for a long time. Uh, so it's, it's a well-accepted and acknowledged program, uh, the, the approach to it, the, the way that it, uh, the protocols, the way that it functions, you know, there's, there's no reason to think that this project, you know, would not be successful in being a, you know, a town state collaboration. So Tom, the, the $250,000 that you've apparently gets you enough to get into the conceptual stage? What's the stage and then the $450,000 is because you have to finish, if you make it through that stage, you have to finish the design. Yeah. So it's, you know, we talk about an $8 million project. Um, you know, generally speaking, design is usually around 10% for horizontal construction, you know, so it's, you know, about, you know, you're talking about 800 grand or whatever. So if you add these up, uh, you know, uh, the, the, the fourth, we were, we're a little bit low, um, on that, but it, it, it, we're close. We're close. And if this got nudged to fiscal 29, does that put the whole process at risk?
Nope. No, it does not. Nope. It just, it's really the town's appetite to get this underway and get it completed. It was, I think it's, it's, it's a recognized need, but, uh, there's really, you're not missing a particular opportunity by delaying it a year. Uh, it's just that it delays the, the completion of it by a year. You wouldn't spend the fourth. I just want to make sure I understand though. If you, you'd spend the two 50 to get to the conceptual design, you get in front of them. They give you a sort of a, a yay, nay of you're on the right track. If for some reason you weren't on the right track, you, you'd have to, well, I guess then you'd have to reconvene and figure out what you need to do. But if they say, yes, you're on the right track, then you move forward and spend the four 50 or whatever, right. It's a little bit different to finish the design and then get, and then you go back again for, for formal approval. No, they'll, they'll, they'll approve it, you know, uh, well before the design is, is complete because what they're, they're, they're improving, they're approving a concept. They're, they're approving, um, you know, what you present is, you know, the need, um, and if you take a look at the planning board's master plan, you know, they've done a lot of work in demonstrating the need and, uh, you know, and some thoughts on what this could look like and how it would enhance economic development and, and, and enhance, uh, a lot of, um, you know, uh, recreational amenities that are included in it as well, safety, public safety, uh, and limiting, you know, uh, starting to reduce curb cuts and all of that. So that, that, that initial effort, uh, gets us a conceptual design gets us before the MPO and they'll, you know, we would be accepted on the list. And what they'll do is they'll say, just say, for instance, you know, we go before them, um, February of, of, of 27, you know, so a year from now we make our presentation, they put us on the list of, you know, construction in FY, you know, 30. So, so then you've, you've got those couple of years or whatever to finalize the design and procure, uh, you know, solicit the construction and all of that. So that's the way the schedule kind of will be laid out. And going back to Brian, your question as to whether or not there would be any harm if we would have delayed the 450 for a fiscal year, you would lose momentum, you know, so you'd have a, an engineering firm in place, you'd have a working group in place, you'd have, you know, kind of established a little bit of a, a groove. And if you were to the 250 were to be spent and there was a gap between when that 450, the next amount of money was available, you'd lose a little momentum. And, uh, you know, so would you, would you rent in light of that, would you rank putting this in fiscal 28 higher than putting the soft set in fiscal 28? Although you said, do you think you can get by with the soft set in fiscal 29? Yep. I would, uh, I would say I would want to keep this momentum going for route 20. And I think that there's a, there's a town-wide, uh, a strong desire to, to get this underway.
I'm speaking on, I'm speaking on behalf of, you know, probably four or five other committees, boards, and entities that, uh, that, you know, uh, are stakeholders in this. So I'm, I'm speaking only as one, one person. You have two other, one big item and one small item that are in your, uh, back of the woods. Can you just, as it's route 20, can you just, um, I think we were inclined to, uh, include the $2 million for the low pressure sewer replacement in the fiscal 28 plan. Uh, but can you just, for the benefit of everybody here, let everybody know what, what's, what's the current state of the pipe and, um, are you doing it simply to get ahead of the project we were just talking about in there? If so, could that be pushed for a year or is it really something that needs to get done because the pipe's going to fail?
Yeah. So, you know, a story that I tell regularly is that, uh, you know, if you're going to pave a road, improve a road, you want to most certainly want to invest in the infrastructure that's below that road. You don't want to do it the opposite way that we all know that that's not a practical way to do things. So four years ago, uh, we replaced the water line on route 20. So that's brand new. The drainage is, um, uh, kind of, uh, nominal drainage. It's all owned by the state. Uh, so that would be on them to include in the construction of the, of the project of the road that we're talking about. So the remaining infrastructure is that wastewater system. So we've got, um, 12 to 15 year old plastic pipe, uh, that lies only about three to four feet below grade. And, uh, it would make no sense to spend $8 million putting together this gorgeous project, uh, and then have to dig it up to make these repairs to the, uh, the wastewater system. So we have funding right now, uh, to perform an evaluation of, you know, conditional assessment of what's there. I'm pretty certain that that evaluation is going to result in an understanding that, yeah, this, this plastic pipe needs to come out of the ground and be replaced. So the $2 million that you were talking about is to replace that, uh, such that once the tip gives us the green light, everything under the roadway is brand new. So if you, so you're requesting it, waste monitors requesting it in fiscal 28, assume that gets approved that you do the work in fiscal 28, right? Um, and you're saying the construction of route 20, if all goes well on that probably wouldn't occur until 20 32, 20 33. I think it would be before. I think it would be before that. So it would start in 30, just a long time. Uh, so you started in 30 or maybe finished in 31, but they just repaid route 20 after waiting a long time for them to do so. Yep. Uh, if you were to dig it up to put this, it's probably not digging up here, trenching a new pipe, right? Uh, but the, the pipe is in the roadway somewhere. So you'd have to patch that all the way along route 20. Uh, and then you, you, presumably you wouldn't have the state agreeing to repave route 20 again until you do your tip work. Is that reasonable? So, yeah, yeah. So the, the paving that you saw a year or two ago, we kind of, you know, that was simply an overlay and, um, it, it doesn't have a long life to it. It's, uh, it's a very, uh, kind of cost efficient, uh, repair, uh, but the state, you know, they understand that that isn't, you know, precisely what it was, you know, that might be a four or five year repair, uh, that would need to be, you know, something more permanently done to it at that point in time. So if, if the question is, is that by doing this to this $2 million, uh, wastewater replacement, is that a problem because we just paved the road? Uh, no, it, it, it was, it was, we were always approaching it that way. Yeah. I was more interested if, if, if, if, if you push that out instead of fiscal 28, you push and I'll say the fiscal 29 as an example, it just, it, it lessens the amount of time that the road has a trench that's been patched before it gets fully repaved. I can't disagree with that. It would, it would, uh, you know, by a year or whatever, you'd have less of a, uh, uh, you know, a trench repair, but, you know, there's, there's two, two repairs that go on with infrastructure replacement. It's that temporary trench repair. Uh, what you do is you, you patch it, you let it sit over a winter so that it can, uh, properly settle. And then you come in that, that springtime afterwards, you cut it out nicely and you put in a permanent trench repair. Um, and that actually kind of turns out quite nice. So it, it wouldn't be, you wouldn't be going back to the way the road was, you know, two years ago where it was in really awful condition. And, you know, so by delaying it, you'd have one less year of having that permanent trench repair to deal with. But, you know, I, I think just, you know, in managing projects and being able to sleep at night, you know, I think thing, getting things done, getting them out of the way, checking it off the list, you know, the, the MPO is going to be looking for commitments from the town that, you know, okay, you got the water replaced. Okay. You got the wastewater replaced. It, it, it, it helps them, um, assure that all the things are being done, that the town is committed to doing this subsurface work before they actually, you know, fulfill their obligation to, to construct the surface work. Who does, who does the actual work, a third party? Um, for the state? Uh, when you put the new pipe in, you know, the trench and the pipe, et cetera, is that done by third party that the town hires, the wastewater enterprise fund hires? It's a contract service. Yes. Yep. Okay. So it's not, you're not putting extra strain on the DPW, which is going to be focused on water project. Nope. It'll, it'll be, uh, it'll be contracted out. Okay. All right. Thank you. And then there was one minor, relatively minor, uh, request for $250,000, Michael, which you put in, uh, for DPW facilities, rehab and upgrades. And I think there's similar requests, maybe a couple of years after that. And my recollection is you maybe described these kinds of things as there's always, even though it's a relatively new building, there's always, well, there's, all their equipment's 15 years old. Um, so how old was the building? Um, it's 10, it just, we just had our 10 year anniversary in July. Yeah. It's 10 years old. It's coming up. It's going to start to need some rehab, um, not replacements right away, but you know, motors could be replaced. Um, certainly fans, the actual squirrel gauges themselves, uh, just to bring them up to back up to where they need to be. I don't know how they've been maintained. They've only been here for a year and a half catching up on the school. HVAC, um, in the town buildings and he's, he's next on the list. So that money would be to go through the building, just make sure that every, if all the HVAC systems are still where they need to be.
So mere perspective, without something specific, your, your sense is that's, that would be somewhat important to find his way into the fiscal 28 plan, given the age of the building? Oh, absolutely. Yes. Okay.
How do you want to do this? Do you want to, um, just want to look out for Michael's been patient? Yeah. I want to, I want to make sure though we've, Michael's been very patient. I want to make sure we've covered if there's anything else for Tom, so we can let Tom go rather. I don't want to go back. And then if there's anything, both of them, I think we've covered a couple of them that
I just want to make sure I was flipping through too, to make sure there wasn't any problem. Yeah. We've been talking about fiscal 28. We, we obviously need to also talk about 29, 30 and 31. So, um, just trying to see if there are any big items that we haven't otherwise covered.
The extent you guys look at our spreadsheets, you'll see that to the extent we didn't include certain things in fiscal 27, we pushed them in at 28. And then based on our conversation so far in 28, we pushed a bunch of stuff in the 29 and we're trying to figure out, are there things that we've been pushing that need to kind of stay where, where you've asked for them. Right. Um, yeah. So everything that didn't get approved, you know, I, I haven't finished with Tom because I have a couple of questions. Okay. Okay. Through 29. Uh, Liz and John, uh, feel free to chime in if they're, um, PW. Do you, yeah, and I guess just, uh, you know, a general overall statement, uh, you know, I, I do see what, uh, uh, what was not included in the FY 27, um, you know, and I understand that, um, you know, there's other, you've got so many projects that are being, um, advocated for, and, you know, you've got to make some choices and some selections. I think the ones that you have deferred, you know, until FY 28, um, you know, the, the, the, the swap loader, the stormwater system, the radio system upgrades. Yeah. Will we survive? We'll be able to, you know, we're going to have to, but there are consequences, uh, you know, to us not either having that piece of equipment, uh, replaced or, you know, say for instance, stormwater that $250,000, you know, we were requesting that every other fiscal year, um, to be able to, um, address some of the failings of our drainage system, you know, throughout town, we've got a couple of locations that we've been able to make improvements on over the course of the last couple of years. And those, you know, we're in the magnitude of hundreds of thousands of dollars. So when, when those types of things have deferred, you know, the department of public works is faced with, you know, having to respond to repetitive flooding locations, you know, roads are flooding, people's homes are impacted by it. Uh, so the rationale for getting those, uh, every other year, the 250 grand of the stormwater system, um, is, is to, to try to get some of these things designed, constructed, improved, and, um, you know, so that people aren't, you know, struggling with this stuff. The same with the sidewalk money. I think the sidewalk is probably maybe lower on the screen. Um, I know with the reduction in roadway and the, the elimination of sidewalk monies, you know, we're, uh, regularly, uh, approached to either repair or construct new sidewalks. And there's always a great reason for it, but, uh, you know, financial constraints are, you know, one component of, uh, of some of the decisions that are made. Um, it's also the, um, you know, prioritization of where these sidewalks should be repaired, which ones should be added, those types of things. So that's really just a very high altitude remark that I understand that these things have to be deferred. The department then is kind of faced with trying to, uh, make do without having the funding, you know, in the particular year that was requested. We, we understand that Tom, we don't, we don't like it either. I would say I can't make any promises. Michael's on the phone, but one of the things we didn't have right in coming up with this plan was any idea of how much surplus capital, um, there might be available from closing out projects, right? So hope I, my hope as a resident is that there's things being closed out and that there's some money available there to be able to add other things into the plan. Um, that's not a given, right? And then the other is on, on free cash, right? There's another thing there, another possibility there, which is on use of free cash, right? If free cash has gotten to a higher level, is there a potential for higher use of free cash, but as a committee without guidance there, I didn't feel, and I don't think other members of the committee felt comfortable, um, putting more in. And so it's good to hear though, from you, right? And hopefully next year we're going to have, we have more time, right? We're not trying to cram this all into, um, such a short period, right? Trying to understand the priority. I guess my question for you would be, is there anything that we left out of FY27 that you think is a higher priority than what we put in FY27? Because that's important for, for Mike, Michael McCall to know, right? In terms of the swap. Yeah. Other than the, uh, extra 117,000 for, uh, the Dudley Road water main that you sent an email about. Oh, yes. Yeah. You did get it. That was on my notes. I'm glad you brought that up. So you did receive that. So yeah, I, I needed to, uh, increase the value of that. So for the water, um, no, I, I think that what you've, uh, relative to prioritization, what you've included in the FY27 budget is a priority is needed. Um, and you, you know, the ones that you deferred to, to 28, I would agree with, uh, the way that that was laid out. I think, uh, the other thing you might do time, if you have time is, uh, again, look through this spreadsheet. If, if you can, you can find the, uh, the various tabs, uh, that show your various vehicle requests. And, um, you know, we have deferred some of those and, or kind of labeled some of them maybes. And, you know, I know you, when you met with us initially, you deferred a vehicle, you brought up some vehicles. If you just go back through your list of vehicles and just make a note or highlight that, you know, if, if you've included it in a spot, it really needs to be there because you're not going to have a truck that's workable. Or if you actually think you could make it for another year on any of the vehicles, somehow just annotate that. So we're not making sort of a random decision without really knowing what the condition of the vehicles are. Yep. I understand that request. I'm, I'm happy to do that. And we, we did something, you know, similar when this capital request came out, I don't know, October or November, you probably recall that I brought some things that were several years out, brought them forward and then tried to balance it out and shifted those back. So we, we did take a crack at, you know, something similar to what you're asking, but yeah, we can, we can, we can do that continually.
Is there anything else specifically for you? I didn't either. I didn't see any other. Yeah. The other, just on a transversation, we have at the moment, we, maybe with one exception, like one of the compactors that you asked for funding, which we thought you kind of needed. Not that you don't need everything you've asked for, but we kind of, we kind of, we kind of put into purgatory everything else pending the study to really understand whether what's there is going to continue or not. So, we're just not sure where we're going to end up depositing those other numbers that are in purgatory. They keep rolling. I think we're rolling into 30 at this point. Yeah. I think our concern on the transversation is not only the future of the transversation, but also the fact that there's just not enough money, right? Historically, we would have said transversation or transversation borrowing, but my concern is if these projects, that that might be difficult and it's all going to have to come from, you know, free cash or general fund borrowing. So, trying to figure out if, you know, like, I think we included the compactor, but the roll-off we put in purgatory. So, is that going to, I think, but, I like that term. Yeah. So, Tom, that's, when you take a look at it, I think if you're like, no, we're going to, we're not going to be able to function, right, without the roll-off and we're not going to have, even if there's study finished, like the transversation's future, that's going to take a while to implement one way or the other. So, you could just take a look. Yep, I can. And where, where did, where in purgatory did that roll-off wind up? I forget. I don't know if it's. We haven't settled yet. It hasn't settled yet. That's the problem. Okay. Yeah. Was that, you know, that's, that's a vehicle. Again, it'll depend upon, you know, what actually occurs at the transfer station. But, you know, my sense is, even if we were to go with a municipal curbside collection, we will likely have a recycling center on that property. Bass DEP is extremely, extremely reluctant to allow communities to not have a recycling center. There are things that a curbside company just won't pick up. And it's worth, you know, environmentally and financially, it's worth having a place for people to bring yard waste, organic waste, white goods, those types of things. So, it's, it's likely that that property will function at a minimum as a recycling center, that vehicle, that roll-off, what that does is that actually takes those 30 and 40 yard containers that the compactors deposit, you know, a material into. We, we haul that ourselves to other facilities, you know, in the area that, that dispose of that. So, without that vehicle, we would be, we'd be hiring, you know, somebody to do it. So, it, it would, it would be an operational cost. But, I'm just trying to offer a perspective on, on the purpose and the value of having that vehicle. That's, that's helpful, Tom. Okay. My only other question that I have for Tom has to do, and it's everybody, is, are we any further along on the high school septic field, what that looks like, how much of the field we're disrupting, what that's going to cost? Um, it's, it's already in the plant, right? The septic is in the plan that we submitted to the town manager for 27. The field is not, um, but we were still, we felt like we were in purgatory a little bit of understanding the scope of the, of the septic's disruption of the field. We understand that the field is not in a condition to have host games, but we're still trying to prioritize based on. Yeah. And I, I think what you're asking for, I don't know if I have an answer tonight, unfortunately, is, um, is what, you know, the, uh, what kind of a cost savings would be, you know, experienced should we perform the two projects together? So, we're going to disrupt a bunch of property on the high school to put in the, uh, uh, you know, the wastewater, the septic system, and the field project is going to disrupt a lot of property there too. What is the overlap and what is the efficiencies of combining the two of them? I mean, I think we're all pretty certain that there is significant cost savings in combining the two of them rather than separating them. Um, I just don't know if I have, well, I know I don't have an answer for you tonight as to the value and the, and there's also like the logistical, um, you know, we're going to disturb that, that property, you know, we may cause, uh, you know, nobody, nobody to be able to use those fields for a particular season. Um, and then if the recreation, you know, effort and the high school effort to do those fields in three years, again, that'll be a disruption. People are going to be off those, off those fields while things, while the work is being performed. So, there's also not only the financial, it's the logistical, uh, you know, components of it as well. But I, I wish I had something for you more definitive, but I, I don't. Yeah. And that's okay, Tom. I think it's, it's at this point, it's with the town manager and, and going to FinCon, but obviously to go into town meeting with, right, a 2 million plus two and a half million dollar expenditure, those are the questions that are going to have to get, um, going to have to get answered, right, to, to be able to do that. So. Where does the, um, if the projects weren't done, if they weren't coupled together, where does the field project lie right now? What, what year? That one, it was included in the five-year plan twice in fiscal 29. Yeah, it was in there twice in fiscal. Um, but in the current requests, uh, I think through recreation, Michael, which I think you submitted on Catherine's behalf, there's a two and a half million dollar request in fiscal 30 at the moment, which is the same as two and a half that Tom initially put in 27. So, so we didn't include the two and a half and 27. That's kind of clumping along. Might eventually find its way to 29, which is when it was in the five-year plan that the FinCom approved, absent enough information coming forth such that this group and, or the town manager or the FinCom, you know, could advocate toward coming early. So I'd say the earliest, the way we're going, the earliest, I suspect you'll see it in the plan is in 29, which would be one year earlier than the fiscal 30 request. But that just aligns it with where a Brian Keveney had slotted it the last year. Got it. That was I, the reason I asked too, is that I recollect seeing an email maybe four or five weeks ago. And I think it may have been written by Heath Rollins, the athletic director. And I, I, I remember hearing, reading the word implore that they were imploring the town, you know, to, to, uh, repair these fields as soon as practically possible. And then they gave a whole host of reasons why that is, but, uh, yeah, I understand that Tom. And I think the committee understands that. I don't think that's new news, right? I think the new news here was the septic. And the question is really, does that change enough, right? To get it in and how do you fit it in? I mean, the dollars, when, when you put it on top of the, to add it together. Yep. Yep. And then you have the MWA project, which is going to affect everybody in town, right? It's, it adds up, um, pretty fast. So it's, it's not that we're, yeah, this is the tough jobs that you guys have. Yes. We're not listening to the request. It's just, it's, it's, we've got to justify why it moves forward. And I think efficiency is the answer, right? But we can't, if we've got to be able to quantify why it makes sense not to put good money after bad, right? If you go tear it up and you could have saved money by doing it at the same time. We've got to be able to quantify that. I think Brian, Brian Keveney, um, the way he presented it through the town manager's capital budget and in the five-year plan was that both, well, the septic was not in there at all. He had four and a half million dollars in there in fiscal 29. As, as, as an, as an article funded with excluded debt. And again, we pretty well now determined that four and a half was, it was two and a half million that we're talking about here, but he picked up 2 million from somewhere else for the same project. So he had overestimated, but any of it, his view was that was a four and a half million. That was a large enough project, even though it was below the current $5 million threshold for excluded borrowing for the town of the town's recently approved financial policies, it doesn't mean exceptions can't be made. And I think, um, I suspect he would assume, he, Brian Keveney would assume, wrong quote words in his mouth, that that, that the field portion of that anyway would, uh, probably be better to come through an article, which it was too late, too late to put an article now unless the select board call special town meeting within the town meeting. And if it's going to go on as excluded debt, perhaps in combination with the septic, which we're recommending to be done with levy debt, all the FinCon is questioning why we would do that with levy debt. Um, the select board would have to take a vote in the next two, three weeks to get it on the ballot. Um, so time is growing infinitely short for anything to happen at this spring's town meeting. Other than we've got, we recommended 2 million for the septic. So that would at least allow the septic project. Yeah. Assuming the town manager picks that up and, and then the FinCon proves that. So getting the field in for this town meeting is becoming very dicey. Got it. Got it. And I, I, you know, I do want to say it's greatly appreciated that, uh, we're getting the support for the 2 million for the wastewater it's it's needed. And so I, I understand these are a lot of difficult decisions you guys are, are forced to make, and we do appreciate our ability to move forward with that, uh, with that project to this whole thing, you know, Michael's been listening in. So, you know, to the extent you want to double back with him and Brian Keveney and just this particular item out to just fill or kill it for fiscal 27. Uh, cause right now it's moseying along and likely going to end up because if, if you get into fiscal 28, now you're, now you're calling the question whether the timing would be such that you could achieve the savings that, cause the septic should, I assume the septic would be a summer project. Uh, not necessarily, I guess it doesn't have to be because you got the existing pumping to keep going, but, but anyway, if you got the money for fiscal 27, I assume you would get on with that project and it doesn't take that long to build a septic system. Right. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, you know, it's, it's not your typical residential, um, you know, there's a lot, a lot of components to it, but yeah, we will be jumping right on that because the DEP has been on us to do something different. Uh, they're, they're running out of patience too. Yeah. So all I'm saying is that being the case for me, anyway, it seems if it doesn't make it in and 27th, there's just one member speaking, I'm, I'm back to thinking about it in fiscal 29 and just realizing we might've had savings, but I don't see how you can achieve those if you stagger between two fiscal years, you're kind of having to remobilize and et cetera, et cetera. So anyway, uh, if, if the town manager is you and the finance director can figure out how to get it in 27th, that's what you'll do, right? And if I may, Madam Chair, the reason I'm listening in is we, we've already met with Michael Fea earlier this week for the reasons that Mr. O'Hara, he just mentioned, and we're trying to get some time with Tom, as you know, um, everything's coming together at once. We, we have your recommendations. We're still trying to figure out the balance of the, the five year plan. Uh, we, we're aware of the dates for ballot questions, you know, what to do about a special within a special, everything that Mr. O'Hara, he talked about. Those are all things that we're, you know, realizing the, the, the deadlines and things for those are coming up very quickly. So how do we make decisions? What do we, where do we slot certain things in, you know, what, what goes best with what, you know, for terms of efficiency, where we get to some of these projects. So, um, that, that's why I'm listening in this evening and I believe Tom and Mr. Kevin and I, we're going to try and touch up tomorrow. As I said, Brian, I mean, and Michael earlier this week. So, um, we're, we're factoring all this in, uh, before we make a recommendation to the PINCOM next week. Thank you, Michael. Thank you. Okay. Are we, I'm good with Tom? The release, Tom? All right. Very good. Well, thank you all for the consideration and, uh, reach out, uh, with anything additional that you might like. All right. Thank you, Tom. All right. Good night. Thank you. All right. Town building. Town building. Good. That's, so I'm sure as well, that's, um, the request that I did ask for, I believe you guys are putting forward, uh, which is the roof and the elevator upgrade? Yeah. Piece of the roof. The gym roof, the elevator upgrade, um, uh, and the small one, but the town building, the gymnasium wall pads. Right. Um, okay. Um, we're really trying to understand right now. We just pushed everything else, uh, fiscal 28. I would push it in maybe another year. Um, cause once again, it's, it's a bigger, it's becoming a bigger, um, study. Yeah. Just so slide in, slide in, which we did the items that you slotted in for fiscal 28. Just some additional roof work. Well, the addition, the roof work, I would like to continue. I mean, the roofs, we've got it slotted, staggered. For the next four years. Right. So it's, it's, it's a section of the building each year. So next year it'll be the big long town building itself. The first year is the gym because that's the worst. And then the third year will be this building and the fourth year will be the flat roof. Yeah. So leaving the roof staggered the way that you proposed it. Yep. But pushing the bulk of the other things that you, that you had pulled out, pushing them out to when? Um, I would push them out to 29, 30. Well, the dollar numbers that you have, uh, fiscal 27 for those items. So it's the envelope repairs, bathrooms, horsemaid tie-in. I, I wouldn't hold any of those, Brian. The reason I say that is you requested that you have get it all in number. Yeah. Um, Um, so that's what we're working towards with some other options. So like I said, it's, it's turned into a different type of study and this is not of it. So, um,
if those wanted to go into purgatory, so we know for sure about which way we're going, that's fine. I don't want to fill up the purgatory vial, but, uh, right now the understanding is that we're going to we're going to try to do something a little bit more, um, robust, right to see where we're, what we actually need to do this or other options. So excellent. I want, I kind of, I want an FY32 purgatory that is like, here's all the big, big projects. Yeah. Or a separate table. Yeah. Or a separate table. Yeah. I like the idea of table versus narrative of like, Hey, these are all the things that aren't in there because we don't know how much and we don't know where, but this is what the last number we had. Yeah. Yeah. Sounds good. Yeah. Because picking a year is difficult, but yeah, I always, I just put like 32 plus. It's somewhere out there. But, but it could be, you know, it could be 29, but once again, right. But if we can at least say it's not 27 or 28, that allows us to then assure ourselves that there's room for other priority items that can get in there. Yeah. As long as, and I think you already did this, like the things that you know have to, aren't going to be able to wait, right. That's what we're doing right in there. You already have them in the plan. We're leaving those where they are. The rest of the stuff. It's, it's the stuff that we're pushing off.
Yeah. I know it's going to change.
We've been catching up with a lot of the equipments, you know, especially in this building. So, you know, we have the elevators slated the roofs, that'll buy us some time, which is what we're looking to do. And then, you know, the rest of it will become out of that bigger study. So. Okay. But a good news front, you were there, Kelly. I have to watch your presentation to the select board on TVN. I thought I heard Tom Fay advocating for a visioning committee. EJ, I forgot to mention that. He asked me if, if our committee would be supportive of the vision committee. I said, well, I don't feel comfortable saying it without asking you, but my personal opinion is yes, there needs to be similar to what there was with high school with, with what they're doing at the landfill site, right? People need to start consciously thinking about what future is for the services in this building and how they're going to do that before we just start spending. And, and Madam Chair, again, the town manager, this is something when, around the time your initial report came out, Mr. Keveney, Mr. Fayah, Mr. Holder and I were having a meeting. And I know the fire chief was involved at one point as well, talking about the future of the building and, and the idea came up amongst staff to, to have a visioning committee of sorts. And so the other day when I was meeting with Mr. Fay, we were talking about this. So it's something that wasn't lost on us when we were looking now that we have done the assessments of the building and you, you folks were questioning how much of this we do now, how much could we do later? What's the grand plan that, you know, this is what we really need is that, uh, the next step, putting together a committee that actually looks at what we feel are is really at least four options, whether we rehab this building, lease some space, we partner with somebody to build something, but we try and find some town land, build our own building. So, uh, this, I think we're at that juncture where we have to, we have to commit to coming up with a plan and then rolling these various capital projects in as needed until we make that decision. Yeah. I don't think you'll any, get any disagreement from this committee. So thank you. Okay. Yeah. I have a few items that we labeled Michael and fiscal 20. I have a question if you don't mind. Um, public safety HVAC. Yeah. That's one of the ones we wanted you to give us a little bit more color on. Okay. All right. That one made me nervous. Um, they actually have a chiller that's running on three out of four compressors. Um, that one compressor was the only thing keeping that building cool and that can't happen. It's, I can't get the gas for that anymore. It's an older gas. Um, I can't get compressors for either. So the replacement of that, um, we have some monies from older, uh, public safety that I am utilizing to help purchase the equipment, but the 250 was to continue, um, with the install and the, uh, what I will say is there's a, there's a mistake in here. We can get rid of that 150,000 in FY29 because part of the 250 will do the, do the controls as well. I had that in FY29. It's an old number. It should just go away. So there was 150,000 slated for controls. PSB, PSB, BMS tie-in. Yep. BMS tie-in. Yep. Oh, okay. So that can go away. The 250, I would like to have stay in 27 for just that reason. And then the 500 to a couple of years out would be for the boiler replacement. So that's the 500 in FY29. Is that 29? 29, yes. And we, we did not include, as you know, the 250 of FY27. But we put it on the list that it was it and an item at the schools or an HVAC unit. We said, if there are sufficient funds, the town manager hopefully would consider those two items first. But also, public safety is a 24-7 operation because they have, they live there. They need the cooling. So if it's something that has to, that really has to. Yeah. I think that, that the town manager obviously is listening and, you know, he obviously can include that in his budget. The question is, you know, for our purposes, we haven't seen that budget yet. So we don't know if it needs to be carried over to fiscal 28. So if that weren't playing its way in the town manager's fiscal 27 budget, your view is absolutely it would have to get into fiscal 28. But you don't think it, it can go that far. I don't, I don't know if I can keep the building cool for another summer. And again, the town manager just popping in when, when Michael has met with us, you know, before and after we received your recommendations, he's emphasized that this is a critical importance. And I do know that we had some issues over in the public safety when we had some of those extreme weather events. So I, with that, given the current state where he's indicated, we just have this one compressor and it's going to be hard to maintain. I would be concerned about a critical or catastrophic failure of that system. So I personally feel that this is going to be something that we're trying to push into this FY 27. And we would expect that, Michael, just at this point, right, that we've handed FY 27 to you. So you can decide. So right now, take it out, you put it in, swap it with something, find extra funds. The only question for us is right now we're showing it as a high priority fiscal 28 item. I think for our purposes, do we leave it there? I think we put it for our purposes, because we're working in parallel. We put it in FY 28. And if Tom Andrew puts it in the 27 budget, he can pull it out of fiscal 28. Yeah, that's all we can do, right? Exactly. So that's the initial 250. And then in 27, I don't think you had any other, other than that tie-in item, which you're saying you don't need. Yeah, that was 28. I don't think you can add anything else yourself in fiscal 28 for public safety HVAC. Do you have? No. Yeah, there's 500,029. Right. Okay. So you're saying that? That's football. At that point in time, you're expecting that to be the same? It's coming to us, yeah. The other issues of life. Okay.
About the building generator of the library, and just jumping around here, fiscal 29. Yep.
What was there a question on that? Is that something the library requires? Yeah. Our question was, is that generator to run library operations? Is that because it's used for? Shelter. Shelter. Shelter. So it becomes a shelter. And we had a follow-up, though, now with the new Council on Aging building. Is that still the primary shelter or something, right? Didn't we want to follow through, if that still made sense? So funny, funny story. The Council of Aging is also a shelter in place, but they don't have a generator on site. They have the ability to pull a generator up to a plug, basically, and run the generator to run the building. But there isn't one physically on site right now. Is that a... Okay, hold on. If there's not one physically on site, meaning we'd have to rent one in an event that was needed when everyone would need one? Yeah. One designed and pulled because you weren't sure of budget, or...? I was part of that. If they wanted to pull somewhere they could do that, right? I know you'd have to go back to the planning board process. Yeah. Planning board, because it's kind of close to the wet months there. So... Yeah, that might be... We could come up with something, yes. It might be worth... Well, I think... So my question would be, is, does it make sense to still put in the library or put a permanent one at the council on the agent? I think that would be the question I'd ask. I think they use both places. I could be wrong, but... But you wouldn't be able to. Shelter in place, you could use both. Well, but if the power went out and you're using the generator for power, you don't have one in the council on the agent. Say they would drive a truck in or something, or... Yeah, so they're trailing. So like DPW has a few of them in their lives. So we own, the town owns some that we could use? I can't speak for Tom. I don't know what he does with his when the power goes up, but I know they have generators, but yes. The thought was that if there was enough money in the budget left over, they would purchase
a generator that they could roll in when they needed it. Um, but that doesn't look like that sort of the case. So I think there's only, as of November 18th, there's only like 250,000 funds spent in the council on agent budget. So I'm sure it's spent.
But in the event, right? So let's just think about this. In the event this was needed, it's very possible. It's more that you need more than one site. You have the middle school too, right? The middle school as well. Yep. Middle school is at least one of the bigger ones. So, but the only one that has built in is the middle school at this point. They, they have one there already. Yes. There's a, there's a sizable generator there. Um, there's also, we're looking into, uh, utilizing the solar piece, um, with a battery, battery array, uh, to supplement. So the generator could last longer. Um, and that, because don't forget they have the big kitchens and everything there. So they could physically cook and they could, that could actually be a, a very good shelter. So does the library have a generator now? It just needs to be, okay. So this would be, this would be a new install. They don't have the capability to roll one in like that. No. Yeah.
High school doesn't have, high school doesn't have a generator. They have a couple of them. They do.
And it makes sense. Obviously it's important to have it, but it makes sense to have the library have one versus like, for the same reason you said the middle school makes sense, right? Because it's big, it's got kitchens, it's got a lot of space. Same thing at the high school. So that's not true at the library. Back to John's question. Yeah. Is this request better to not put it at the library, to put it at council and agency? I'm, I, that's... Is this a library request or a... Nope. Nope. It was, I was told that it was a point of, um, refuge. So that, and they don't have a generator, so I thought it would be the right thing to throw a generator in the building if they were going to use it for that. But this was in the five-year plan, I believe. Yeah. I added it last year. That's where I started doing it. Yeah. I mean, I guess my only question is, is right, just knowing the state of certain things and what you can fit where, I absolutely agree. And if we have a refuge, we should absolutely have backup power. I think my question would be, you know, based on our structure, where should they really be? Is it the library? Is it the Council on Aging? Is it... I mean, if we need something north of town, is it Clayton? I have no idea, right? But I'm just kind of a more of where, where really should this be that makes the most sense for the actual, an actual emergency? And you don't have to answer right now. It's kind of a general question that we probably should answer. I mean, it's far enough out, but... Yeah. I would say for our purposes, right, let's, because we're not going to get to the bottom of this tonight. We treat this, we treat this as a generator and, and understand its importance, and Mike can figure out, right, with more time, where the best place to put the next generator is. And it's in fiscal 29, just because that's where it was in the five-year plan. Are you still comfortable with it being a... Obviously, you get... No, I'm fine. You want it as soon as you get it. Yeah, yeah, but it's, it's, I need some time to plan for that. That's going to be a little... Whatever... They're already going through quite a bit right now. We've had a lot of cold weather in the last six weeks. Have our, and some power outages, have our, have our places people go, have they been adequate enough for those that needed to use them? I haven't, I don't know that anybody has. There was some... It's close. Yeah, I'm sure it was close. North on Wood, we didn't have many outages this past storm. Uh, we didn't have much wind, so if the snow was light enough, uh, if it was heavier snow, and some wind, it would be a different situation. But, uh, middle school would be the only place right now that we could readily jump in and house people. Correct. Why not? The high school has two generators, right? It's never been used and it's never been mentioned. I don't know. I, I don't make these policies. I don't, I just follow what they tell me, so... Yeah, that's what I'm told, so I don't know about that. Last time I saw it, which was about it. So, you wouldn't object to us removing the word library in this building generator facilities, 400,000, fiscal 29. My opinion is every building that's in this town needs an emergency generator for one reason or another. Library not only just for that, but it also has two very large septic pumps in the basement. If that building doesn't have power for any amount of time, will become a very messy place as it is. Um, so... We're leaving it at the library, guys. Yeah, well... Different buildings have different... Like, this building here, we have a small generator for the, um, vaccines alone. Yeah. Other than that, this building goes dark. HVAC shuts off because, you know, there's no weed. But if you, we're deferring it, but if you tie it into the septic system, then this building would need a generator to operate... The pump outside. The pump to force it out the main, right? Right. So, it would be gravity from the building to out back, and then from there, there'd be a couple of probably pumps that would pump it. That's right. Now you don't need it for that purpose, but if we connect this building, you'll be proposing, likely, a generator here for the same reason? It doesn't have to run the entire building, but it would have to at least run that piece of the septic, yes. All right. If the building's not going to be used, then, you know, it's an easier get, so... So, we, we, I think, I think for now, we were just trying to assess whether it was a priority item for fiscal 29. Right. It's a, to me, it's a priority just in case, because I don't, I don't want to have to clean that basement up. Nope. Nope. It was bad enough when it was water basement. It was bad enough when it was water basement. Brand new elevator shaft, you know, we don't want it. No. All you had to say. We had, we had a number of the school-related HVAC. Improvement requests going back to fiscal 28. So, we, yeah, we, we, we didn't recommend the elementary installation of HVAC in 27, but said if town manager had financial capacity, perhaps some surplus capital, but that would be one of the two items to bring in, including the public safety building HVAC. Okay. But there were, you know, there's a line item, high school building improvements, 87,000. Yep. Wayland high school, middle school ceiling and longer repairs, 250. Yep. That's a four-year project. District 5 flooring, 215. And I think we, we remember you telling us that there's always stuff to do. Well, the middle school, the 250,000, if you work together, it's for four years straight. That's three, to basically replace all the ceiling tiles in the middle school.
So, that's really the middle school, not the. Correct. It says Wayland High School and Wayland Middle School. Yes. It's really the middle school and it's really, it's not ceiling repairs. It's replacing the ceiling. That's right. We're replacing all the ceiling tiles. Okay. We have to remediate what's there again. Okay.
So that, you know, and that's been ongoing, you said? It's, it's a four-year project. I have 250,000 already available. I'm putting out the file sub bits. So this summer, the idea was to do $500,000 worth of work. But if I only have the 250, that's, that can push out to 29. It's not up. So that, that then would also be the 250 add in fiscal 29. Right. That's another piece of it. It's got 250 a year for four years, you know, that's great. So to the extent we push. If you have them at 26, just push it out a year. Which is fine. I, I, I get it. But you're not doing that whole project at once. We're doing a piece of the time. Right. I have, well, I have to be honest. Right. That's, I'm asking. This is not a matter of splitting up funding. This is a matter of you can't do the whole thing at once. Right. So I don't have enough time with some stuff. Right. Yeah. Middle school roadways. I mean, did you push that since 28? Yeah, a lot of roadway and sidewalk things we've been bumping out. Oh, no. Okay. Again, are those, are these things this, you anticipate there's going to be normal wear and tear that's going to require attention? Or are you aware that there are specific. What school specifically has some issues. Loker, their drive is, it was dug up quite a bit with a septic issue. The middle schools is fine to be pushed out. I'm, I'm okay with that. That's in decent shape. That just needs some restriping that we're working on for traffic patterns.
And just sidewalk repair in general. I've been noticing that the sidewalks with all the rock salts over the years are starting to pop a little bit. So, you know, you get the corner that's, so we've been repairing them. But you know, it'd be nice to, yeah. And the town's, town building sewer engineering, does that get bumped as well? Yeah, we bumped both the design and the construction. Okay. Just because I assume the septic's working. Okay. Well, it was septic's fine. It's just the nature of what you're going to do with the building. Yep. That's fine. As long as it's working, we're trying anything that's, I would say anything that's town building, like safety and, right, and is what we should schedule in until there's a plan. No worries, that's fine. Right, so if it's not functioning or you're afraid of something not functioning and causing a landfill safety issue, it should stay in, but otherwise. Okay, that's fair. And assuming the wastewater enterprise fund is holding the town's capacity, which they believe have for all these years. Yep, they are. The library is hooked up now, right? Yes. Yes, that's why we need this. That's why we need to generate it. Yes. Yeah, two reasons. The big pumps in the basement and on the pump outside. Yeah, yeah, yeah. The big pumps in the empty out, so. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah. So the custodial equipment replacement, 100,000? Yep. Do you know what that is and how important it is? Um, that would, so between vacuums, copper extractors, just wear and tear on the equipment that they have now, the guys are very good at repairing what they have. Credit's going to come to a point very shortly where they need to be to buy some newer things. So we've been trying to cycle in when we have some extra money at the end of the year in our operating. But at some point in time, I'm going to have to wholesale, you know, snow blowers and things like that. They can only be fixed for so long before they start to go bad. Well, engineering is under your purview. There's $50,000 for vehicle replacement. There's at Tonehall. Engineering is under Tom. Yeah, no. We missed asking his next question. Yeah, that's okay. All right. Drop a little comment. Let's be sure. Thanks. You can advocate for it. I do. Yeah, no, no. So I'm just very good at resolve. I do have some electric vehicles we're purchasing and there's some charges. Yeah, you have the motor vehicle. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I'm going to talk about. Yeah, that's what I'm going to talk about. Charter station. Yeah. So the motor pool is just replacing vehicles used by staff. That's it. Right? That's like the electric cars and hyper cars that we have. Yep. So the charging station. So there's one at the high school, right? No. There's four at Council of Aging. No, in the plan. Oh, in the plan. Yeah, sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. In the plan, there was one at, I thought, one was the high school and one was. They put two at the high school and one at public safety. Public safety is what you have in the plan. Yeah. So is that to charge that for general public use or is that for town staff using? Public safety, no. That'll be specifically for public safety. I had a conversation with the chief and he's come home about purchasing some electric cruisers. So there'll be charging stations. So that's the reason why they're there. So. Okay. In the high school would be public use. Yes. I would need to keep the public safety ones as off the bridge, so to speak, just so they could be primarily for cruisers. Or whatever vehicles they choose. Yeah, it would be exclusive use of. Correct. Yeah. So I know, I think, Michael, you can weigh in. I thought there was some discussion about charging the public at the Council on Aging for charging their vehicles. Yep. That's what happens. I don't know what happened. Is there other chargers here too? Yes. Does the public have to pay? They do, yes. I think about six months ago, while Abby, the other Abby is still here, we made a decision and brought it to the board that we're going to charge an anomaly at least to recoup our cost. Right. So it recoups our, the electrical costs, but it doesn't recoup, right, whatever we pay to put these in, right, we're putting through the budget. It's really just recouping the utility costs. It's, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's a, it takes a little while to get a pig back on.
And you had, I know you, you talked to us about this before. There, there's, there's a big one in fiscal 31. So it's way out there. Millionate purchase of townwide roof projects. You don't have any particular roof in mind. I, well, I have, I have, I have, I have a couple. Um, I just don't know which one it would be first. Uh, so Clay Pit Hill needs a new roof. Uh, public safety's coming up. They'll need a new roof for the next four or five years. DPW's in good shape. Um, well, this building we have covered. So it would be either one of the elementary schools. Um, not local, but either Clay Pit. Yeah. Either Clay Pit or, uh, Happy. Middle school's in decent shape. High school's in decent shape. We've got another 10 years. Anyway, it's out of those two. But public safety's starting to fail. And, uh, the two elementary schools.
So you had 400,000 in fiscal 30. Yep. Sorry, fiscal 29.
That design for roofs. Is that, you know, I'm starting a little bit with costs. Um, just knowing what the local roof cost. Right. Um, so is that just to replace part of a roof? Yeah, that's right. So. Okay.
They had 350 and 30. 400 and 350. And a million eight. A million eight when? Yeah, and, um, district-wide roof place was in fiscal 31.
So those were all district-wide? Well, yeah, the district-wide I assumed was school. It is school. That was put in 31. The other two, even 400 and 350 and 29 and 30. They said town-wide.
For that- That would be public safety more than anything. Spikes is school there. Okay.
Let's see if there's anything else.
Trying not to do wholesale replacements on the elementary schools, because they're in slacks as well. So they're doing a study on those. Yeah, and part of- No part of CLEEP has been redone, right? Part of CLEEP has, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Not part of it had been done. Yep.
Um, high school- High school building improvements, 476,000 and FY29. It says design, building, circulation, fitness, wrestling floor, HVAC, FY27 and FY28. I don't know why it says that, maybe because it's just in the old text description. Um, so is that really all of those things? What did it say? It says, it says high school building improvements, 476,000 and in parentheses, it says design, building, circulation, fitness, wrestling floor, HVAC, FY27 and FY28. I don't know if there's notes, those are on the- Yeah. Yeah, that was actually a 28 item that we're bumping at the 29. No, they wanted to look at the circulation on the field hubs, but that was- Yeah, I think all these were in the five-year plan. Yeah. Kind of inherited. Right. Yeah.
Yeah, I guess my question is, if we know what that is, like, is it similar to what you told us on the elementary, or sorry, on the public safety building and HVAC, right? We're trying to get a sense of the things that just can't, that can't be pushed, they can't wait, right? And make sure that those are front and center. Right, and the high school equipment is in decent shape. We've been preparing it as we go along, so. Yeah, I assume we'll have, before an addenda gets sent to the town manager, we'll probably have a draft for us to consider. So, I don't know that we shared the report with the ex-officio members, but maybe- It did. Did you? I know you sent it to them, the final report. I don't know that you were sharing the draft of it along the way, but maybe you did. Uh, it was not sharing the draft along the way, but I sent them the final report. So, I'm just saying to you, before we finalize our addenda, both, or at least Tom and Michael, they have, um, once we jumble these numbers and get our five-year plan together, you know, we probably could benefit from both you and he looking at it to say, hey, really need, just like you did with the public safety building, HVC, you really need to, yeah. Yeah, you gotta, you gotta change that. Bring this item back, go to where you had it. Okay. And then, if you happen to see another item that, which you did, you know, with your revisions, at the end of the year, you obviously move things around. Yep. It was very helpful. But again, I think we prefer to have the two of you. Sure. I'm happy to do it. I suspecting that. Yep. Yeah, I think so. That's, that, hopefully, we'll be in the next week. I hope so. I hope so, I hope so. I hope so. My husband's like, are we done yet? I'm like, no, we're not done yet.
All right. Any other questions for Mike? I think we covered the big stuff. Okay. Good. Thank you. Thank you. You're welcome. Nice job, by the way. Thank you. Yeah. I appreciate it. Thanks for having me. It happens when you're an ex-officio member. Yeah.
You're coming. Yo, have a great night. All right. Cool.
Okay. Okay.
Yeah.
That's a good question. So, I'm trying to decide if it's, you guys are way in on this. Do we go back and revise a few things or do we finish? We have like one more year that we didn't do, right? Yeah, I think we got all the way to the end. We just, we couldn't, we stopped carrying things over because we needed to have these conversations. Right, right. If one approach, again, you know, time is of the essence here. One approach would be take what we heard and I can certainly go ahead and slot in things that I think the rest of us hopefully will coalesce around and we can go back through them now. I think it's probably more productive to take what we heard, slot it in, and then everybody review it before our next meeting so that we can hopefully vote on an agreement. Like, so I really need everybody to review that closely and make sure that you come prepared with questions or things that you think need to move based on what we heard because we really need to get wrapped up on this. So you're proposing that I do what I just said? I, I would, I would appreciate if you would and then I'm going to do a similar to what we did on some of the other ones. You're going to do it. I've got my notes and then I'm going to check to make sure that we're aligned right
what we heard tonight. So looking forward then to the addendum. As you know, the others don't. On the town website is a list. It's on the FinCom webpage at the moment. It was on our webpage too, but I had it deleted since our report's there now. Okay. On the FinCom website, there's a listing by project of the five-year plan. And so all the details there, which projects got sort of included in the FinCom plan. So I could envision grading fiscal 27th, fiscal, I guess we have 27th, fiscal 27 and 31, the same sort of detailed listing. So you don't need to, if, if you do. That produces from your. Yeah. If you do the, the re, rejigger this a little bit in your spreadsheet, I'm going to take, that's what I'm saying. I'm going to take yours. I've got mine with everything in it and it produces that listing. Right. Um, so the output would be that listing. Then your Excel spreadsheet would also then produce the summary table. Correct. Tables. Correct. That show a five-year plan of recommended requests. Correct. Along with the recommended funding sources. Yes. Those are the two pieces of information with some, hopefully not a lot of text. Yes. Um, and then maybe this new table, uh, called purgatory. Purgatory. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm still looking for the, thesaurus for words of purgatory that mean purgatory. And in it right now, we're thinking we would include town building, related stuff. Town building. The. Room 20. Room 20, whatever. The landfill. The landfill. The landfill. The landfill. Every school. Madam Chair, I would just use the word held, held in abeyance. How's that? How's that? Held in abeyance? Yeah. Rather than purgatory, if you look at this. Transfer station. I've been facetious, but anyway. Yeah. Transfer station building. Transfer station. So that's not part of your spreadsheet. So if you'd like, I think. It is, it is because what I would, what I'm going to do, I'm just going to create a table, right, that holds those. Okay. So if you want to do that. I'm going to label purgatory and then pull a table there. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, so those are the three kind of data things we'd have in the report with some text around it. Right? Yeah. And when do you think, so I can get, I can get the updated. I actually have a version 14 that I chose not to send to you guys in which I, because we're on spreadsheets. Uh, I heard both at the select board meeting and the FinCom that there was some, uh, work needed or underway where the town staff is trying to figure out what was in the five-year plan. Yeah. And what's on it is way in our plan. So I produced the reconciliation in the spreadsheet, which is a new tab. And it basically just a walk from the five-year plan for fiscal 27 only. Yeah. I already had, I served. They mentioned it last night. I had it because I, that's how I created table nine, uh, but it's fine. I'll send them something. So anyway, that, that, that's, that's in version 14. So in addition to 14, I will do these updates and I will label some of these items that will end up in this new table and I'll try to get that out, um, you know, tomorrow. So you have plenty of time for everybody else to look at it. You have the time. Yeah. I'm going to have to put it this weekend. Yeah. And then, uh, I guess the question is for the next meeting. Do you think you would be far enough along to actually have that put in a draft agenda that we, that we can actually review at the next meeting? I'm going to try. I'm going to try. That's, no, that's, uh, because if we had something draft, we could do what we did last time. Just approve it and let you make changes. Yeah. I would put in, I don't know how many words I'll have around it, but I would put the same way we have, you know, the tables in here. I would pop those tables in from there so that you can see, and then we can agree on one content, the numbers, right? It's the numbers, what we agreed on. And then format, like, is this what we want to show in terms of format? Yeah. And we're, other than those four or five larger projects that end up in this new table, held in a band slash purgatory, um, as I finalize what we're doing with these carryover items, right? And we keep bumping things, uh, do I'm going to create a fiscal 32 gets the final bump? Yeah. Yeah. You know, it won't be in the five-year. Uh, yeah, I think I'm going to show, I think we should show six years. I know we're committed. So the, the bylaw says at least five years. So I think we add a sixth year and, and even a seventh, if we can't get right, uh, not, not advocating, trying to split it up, but I think we have to show that. I mean, what happens when, I think I told the select word this, you've got 50% more requests than you have resource, financial resources to handle based on policy, right? In any given year, you're looking at like 12 ish million versus 8 million, right? On average. So what's that mean? That means you got to add two ish, two to three more years to the plan, or if you want to get to everything that's there and you want to do it within the guidelines, it takes a couple extra years, right? That's the only way you can do it. So I would advocate for now, just having one year, just because we, we don't have any high priorities for that year, just point time. Right. Uh, but yeah, once you can do it as one year or we could even label it as future pro deferred projects, right?
Since Michael's here, I actually had a question. So, so far I'm, I'm, I'm semi comfortable with all the bumping we're doing, but I also feel like there's a fair amount of what we're bumping that probably needs to get done. And my question, Michael, for you is, uh, we're largely going at this and using as a governor, uh, the financial limitations set forth in the town's financial policies. Um, but we had Carol Martin acknowledge that those are not set in stone and there could be cases where you exceed those policy limits. Um, and so one question or thought I have is, so you don't get into this constant, you know, pushing four to $5 million worth of projects forever. Do you, do you pick a year and do an excluded debt offering that covers 10 or so town or school related projects that together add up to more than the $5 million threshold for doing excluded debt? And with the understanding that the town's going to give that whole bundle of projects an up or down vote. Um, and I'm throwing that out as just food for thought because I would not personally be opposed to something like that. You know, not doing it every year, but maybe every two or three years where you get in this situation where you have a backlog. And you want to try to get the town to agree to finance getting out from under that backlog. And it also assumes that the town staff has the capacity, you know, to do the work, right? Which is, was more of a limiting factor for fiscal 27. Um, you know, the town has done excluded debt offerings that have been multi-projects. But they're not always just been used for single projects that were, you know, four or five or more million dollars. And again, the risk of that is that some people might have no issue with some school related projects, but don't want to prove money for the town. So the whole question could be down. Uh, but I guess my, my point would be if this committee and the town manager were fincomer inclined otherwise to keep kicking the can down the road, um, isn't it better to give the town a voice at some point? Oh, sorry. Anyway, I don't, the reason I'm raising it tonight is because at the fincom meeting, the chair of the committee questioned why we'd recommended that $2 million septic not be financed with excluded debt, given that town just went through a special election to move levy debt from the DPW facility from levy debt to excluded debt. By the way, it was over $5 million. The answer is because it's not, it's not, it's not within policy. Policy says it exceeded the levy debt rate. Well, this is turning into the longest question in the world. So I'm just kidding. Um, but you know, you, you've raised several good points. Ones that staff and I are going over, you know, we're, we're doing a lot of things at once. We have your committee, which is new. We have these finance, uh, financial policies that the board finally adopted, which some of them were, you know, um, past practice. Some were ones recommended by DLS. So we have a lot of new things rolling out at the same time. Um, and you have to factor in the appetite. As I said, for the electorate, you know, we have so many large projects that are coming down. We have the MWRA, the schools have their own thoughts about, um, their facilities. Um, you know, we have, we have to make a decision about this building, but you still have other maintenance that you have to do. So, you know, the idea of bundling some of these on an off year, um, putting forth some of the necessary items that, you know, you have to pull out and do, um, might be an option. Um, I think that we continually have to demonstrate to the electorate that we are being good stewards of their money and not just, you know, as this committee has been looking at, not just pushing too many projects down the pipeline without proper vetting and, um, making sure that what we put in bundle is palatable to the broader electorate, not just say all school items one year or whatever. I think it should be needs based and, um, it should be things that we can't put out for too long. But we also struggled, as you mentioned, with the fact that we were trying to find some levy and just converted levy debt to excluded debt and we can't do everything just, um, in the levy and through borrowing there may be times we have to do this. So all things to consider, it's new and it's a lot to, you know, we're collectively taking a lot on at in this year and it's created some timing issues because you obviously got off to a late start. Um, we're, we're a work in progress. You gave us a recommendation, but you're still working on the five year plan. We're trying to, um, incorporate some of your recommendations into what we have and still trying to get it into a date or timeline that works for the finance committee. And I forgot to send Madam Chair an updated email, but, um, the FinCom has asked, uh, Mr. Kevin and I to come in next Wednesday to talk about the capital plan and the five-year plan. Um, and that invite was going to be re-extended to you. I know in a previous email you said you weren't sure if you, um, or you were reluctant to go on the 11th because you had your own set of meetings. Like that. Um, in short to answer Mr. O'Hurlihy, yes, we, we are considering all those options and we're still trying to get this plan to the, the FinCom this year, but I think we'll have to consider options such as, um, a bundled excluded debt in future years to try and get all of the projects needed if they can't fit in to the, the policy view of the year. Realizing that you, you might be able to make some slight deviations, but I don't think you want to get in the habit of always breaking from policy. Otherwise what's the point of the policy? So would you, again, I'll end with this. Would you find it appropriate for this committee to consider that as potentially a future recommendation? Well, I, I, yeah, I, I think you're free to recommend, you know, this is, um, you know, you're inaugural of the year and I do think if we, you know, we're trying to work within policy, but it comes to a point where we have some really pressing needs, you know, how do we address it, you know, without violating policy? Maybe the answer is, okay, we do, uh, an excluded debt question and bundle up some of these that satisfies that $5 million threshold so that we are working within the spirit of the policy, but addressing the pressing needs. So, yeah, I, I, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't, I wouldn't find fault in you saying, look, we have all these things to do, but by policy, we're, we're giving you a recommendation within the monetary policy that limits, but we think these need to be done. You should consider perhaps, um, asking the board and the FinCom for an excluded debt question on needs. And then it's up to needs to then approach the select board and the finance committee about having an excluded debt question placed on the ballot. Okay. Well, as I said, it's not a, it's not a this year, uh, situation, but I wanted to bet that a little bit tonight, uh, just because looking at these spreadsheets, the number just gets bigger and bigger and bigger as you're rolling forward. And, um, and I think Kelly, you've made this point in the past, a lot of this stuff, the more you defer it, the more expensive it's going to be, um, potentially down the road. Yeah. And I, I understand that. I, I think, at least the way I view the committee until somebody tells me otherwise, though, is our charge was to establish a capital recommendation based on a set of policies that were adopted by the select board. The decision to deviate from policy is a decision for the town manager, the FinCom and the select board. But as Michael said, we can recommend like, hey, this is outside of policy. You might want to consider it, but I, I don't, I don't think that we should,
I don't think we're fulfilling our charge if the, if what we're doing is, is, is outside of policy. I think we have to call out the fact that it's, that it's outside of policy. I, I don't have a problem personally with bundling things to get over the 5 million. I just remind everybody, right, that you can do that and you can make it excluded debt doesn't change the fact that you're going to charge the taxpayer for it. And if you do that, right, you're still, it's still an increased cost, right? So, um, the excluded debt is, is, you know, just getting around prop two and a half. It's, it's not changing the cost of the town. So I just, yeah, I, trust me on them. I know. I know you're well aware. I just, uh, at some point when I look at Yeah. They have a lot of things that have to be done, right? And as we went through with them, with Michael, with Mike and Tom tonight, right? There's not a lot here that's, you know, we use the word visionary quite a few times. There's not that many things about many dollars that are truly visionary that aren't just like, Hey, keep the heat on, keep the roof from leaking. Um, and you know, let's not have a trip hazard on all our sidewalks. So get it. Um, I wanted to just touch because I didn't get a chance to do this yet, but, um, and we will talk about meetings, but as Michael said, um, he and that then Tom, um, chair had asked if we would do a joint meeting with them on the, originally it was on the 11th. I think we moved around and my reluctance was we have a meeting on the 10th and really we have work to finish here. And I didn't want to disrupt that. And we couldn't get a room on the 11th. So I had offered if everybody in the committee is comfortable that I would go to the FIMCON meeting whenever that was. Now, Michael, it was the 11th. Then I think you said the 9th. Is it back to the 11th? No, it's back to the 11th. Um, we went from the 11th to the 9th. So is everybody okay with that? Or would you prefer that we move our meeting so I'm not comfortable. We have to get, we have to have our meeting to get done what you need to hopefully be in a position to present or say this was posted on. Yeah. I mean, I, I plan to only talk on Wednesday about FY 27 and I'm not going to talk too much about the out years because we won't be done yet completely, but it depends. If Tuesday we're in good shape, I'll talk about it. But yeah, you have my support. Yeah. If you need any support, I'm happy to talk, but I, you know, what you're doing and did a fine job at the select board and you do a fine job. Just be prepared that they're anxious. As am I. As was I on the FIMCON. Yeah. So Madam Chair, I just wanted to mention one last thing. Um, you know, I, I, um, when we were talking about deferring things in, uh, uh, in, in, in our finances, you know, we're not, I won't say every town is in a similar situation, but a lot of towns in the Commonwealth are in this situation. Especially a lot of the towns, I think, uh, inside 495, a lot of these towns have built out. Post-World War II, a lot of our infrastructure happened at the same time, schools, some of the, the other, um, municipal buildings and a lot of the roads, uh, drainage systems. And so, unfortunately for a lot of communities, a lot of the stuff comes due right at the same time. And that's been, and compounded with the problem with PFAS and a few other issues. So, um, um, no doubt we're in for a few years where a lot of these things are going to come up. And, and as you well know, and you all had just mentioned, you know, the longer we defer, the more expensive they get. And, and I'm very mindful of the constraints of proposition two and a half and not putting on people. So for that end, you know, I was on the phone with one of our legislators today, again, lobbying for more state aid as we didn't get exactly what we were predicting last week in our, the first set of attorney sheet estimates from the governor. So, um, I, I would also encourage people to, you know, ping our legislators and tell them that we need more chapter 70, more chapter 90, and more unrestricted general government aid. Because otherwise, we're just going back to our residents and because of our tax make up, you know, well over 95 percent, if not more, of residents that we're not, it's not as if we could shift anything anywhere either. So, um, again, I'm trying to balance all that. And I know you are when, when you're looking at that. So, I just want anybody who's interested to know that we, we do take all these things into consideration. I know you do. I know my staff does. Um, so, I just wanted to point that out. Okay. Yep. Thank you. I understand. Um, we all, we all understand the challenge, right? We just don't have a whole lot of magical solutions for it. Um, okay. So, we have our walking, our marching orders. Brian, you're comfortable with what you need to do. I'm comfortable with what I need to do. Um, we just ask that Liz and John be ready to really give a, a thorough read and scrub and come prepared with, um, any questions or edits so that we can nail this down, like, on Tuesday. Okay. Um, all right. So, let me see. All right. So, we're not voting anything. Addendums to the report tonight. Um, articles submitted for annual time meeting. So, at the select board meeting, um, that I attended on, whatever, nine different things that was. That's the report Monday. Um, there, there was a discussion of the article, um, that we had previously discussed about the study, um, at Orchard Holiday Road. Uh, Carol conveyed what our opinion on that was that that was not a capital project in its current state. That seems consistent with what other people were thinking and beliefs. So,
Cheryl mentioned something. I think she might have misspoke a little bit to what our intent was. So, I'll follow up with her. I think it's the same, but I had said we didn't vote on it officially. What I wanted when we talked about it last was to see the actual article written, right, to be able to come back and make sure that it hadn't changed, right? Because it was, wasn't entirely clear when we originally talked about it, where it was going to land. But I still believe that. I don't think there's anything to talk about today. So, I'll just follow up with Carol. Like, I'd like to see the draft of the article to the extent, um, there's any changes in the next couple of weeks here. Yeah, it was a little mixed. Um, I think the driver sounds like coming up with a project that could create some new growth. It seems to be what's driving them. But at the same time, I heard other members talk about, in terms of what's going to be evaluated, the playing fields and conservation. And that's why I want to see the actual article written. And the schools may weigh in, their meeting, and then the night schools may weigh in, and assuming they're open to discussion, they say, well, we better evaluate it for schools, too. Yeah. Then it becomes possibly a little different than what we talked about, right? I agree. And that's why I want to, I'll just, I'll move back with Carol. Give the draft. Yeah, I think we need to see the draft to make the final decision. Our opinion was based on that this was a private developer. Private, yeah. This was a sale of land, right? Figuring out what, what was buildable there so that you could sell it, which is different than, well, we're going to do a broader study to figure out what we might do there, build there, right? Which becomes something different. So I don't know that it necessarily changes our opinion, but I think it changes what we originally talked about and want to discuss it again. Yeah. Okay. All right. Um, it's 824. Uh, and I had on the agenda to debrief on the CIPC report process and compile suggestions for future reports. I'm happy to defer that until we're done with the plan. Um, is everybody okay with that or do you have things you want to get out that are bugging you now you want to get out so that we get them down on paper? Um, I'm fine deferring. I, I was prepared to say something two weeks ago and couldn't because it wasn't on the agenda, but just in the interest of memorializing it in the, uh, minutes. Um, I think two weeks ago before we cut our discussion off, uh, I mentioned that I would anticipate future reports would include a long-term planning section beyond five years. For purgatory? Just reiterating that. Yeah. It was true. Yeah. You know, years six through 15 or whatever. I'm just repeating that, but the other item that I stopped short of talking about is, um, until we see what the town manager presents to FinCom and the FinCom, see what the FinCom presents to, uh, you know, meeting, uh, if they perfectly align, which I doubt with what we recommended, then you wouldn't need this. But to the extent they are different, I would think future reports each year might contain a section that does a little bit of reconciliation between, uh, you know, a table or something, reconciling between what, uh, this committee, uh, So you mean issuing an addenda after they issue theirs? No, on future reports just say, you know, last year we recommended a fiscal 27 budget. Oh, for the next year, then reconcile the prior year. Yeah. Just, just on an ongoing basis, just to be able to present to the, to the town, um,
you know, whether our recommendations are worth anything. It would be blunt. Um, yeah, I think that that's, I think that could fit pretty well because we, the way we started the report this year was this is what was approved prior. So I think we'd start with, this is what we approved. This is where it landed. And then we move to next. So those are the two, um, two sections. I just wanted to get that out while I was thinking of it. Oh, as I forget. Yeah. There may be other things when we have a more thorough discussion about it. Anybody else have something they want to get out? I don't have any urgency. I'm good. John, you good? Yeah, definitely. All right. Uh, all right. So we need to review and approve, um, the minutes of January 26th. Does anybody have any comments on those minutes? No. Other than thank you, Brian, for doing the minutes. No, thank you, Brian, for doing the minutes. All right. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of January 26th? So motioned. Okay. Seconds, Liz. You're the second. All right. We're going to have to do a roll call because we are, um, hybrid. So Brian? Yes. Liz? Yes. And John? Yes. Kelly? Yes. So that is, our minutes are approved. True. For your, for your, um, okay. I don't think I have any more topics that I hadn't already talked about. Uh, so let's do meeting dates and times. So I have next week, we have the 10th reserved for Tuesday, the 10th, and then did a lot of back and forth here. Um, so the 18th is vacation week. And I know that was probably going to be difficult. February vacation. Difficult to me. I have a room. Well, the, for the 18th. Um,
so I'm going to hold that for now. I don't, hopefully we're not going to need it. We're going to get wrapped up. I'll be around if we needed it. If we needed it to clean up things and we have three of us, I can, I can. I will be on travel. That's okay. Hey John, you're traveling. I mean, depending on what I put a join, but I can, from traveling. So I have internet where I'm going. Yeah. If it, it might just be, and we can ask Brad, um, but it might be like, we just needed three of us to get together and clean up things. Um, Yeah. Hopefully if we were far enough at one, we could do one of those conditional votes. Yeah. That's what I, what I'd like to do is next week, do a conditional vote where you give myself and one other person the ability to, to finish. If we feel like we're in good enough shape, um, then I would cancel that entirely. Um, I don't have, I think beyond that. 25th. They did not have room for the 25th. Yeah. Uh, so it's getting harder because it was, it was, it's a little easy when we were coming through the holidays, I was able to get rooms, but I really think we need to, at this point, if we can pick a day that I can just go ahead and book out. And if we have to move, we'll try to move, but it would be better if I can just book a room out consistently. That would be great. Yeah. So Wednesday had tended to work the best for us on a consistent basis. Yeah. Cause then kind of, I was going to have the room tied up through the middle of March. Yep. Yeah. So I was going to try and get Wednesday, even if it's beyond that, like if I can just get some, and once we get this addendum out at six o'clock, six or we could move to, we could, we could potentially even move if we're like seven. That's not, I'm just going to not be four, six. Now, but I can't, I, I can't. Oh yeah. It's just, uh, it's two parts. Yeah. Oh yeah. Wednesday works. Okay. So Wednesday, and then with what frequency, once we get through with this, um, this addendum, don't think we need to be weekly. The 25th is out. 25th is out. Starting the fourth. Notionally.
So right now you're taking probably first week of March.
And then.
Yes. We're trying to do every couple of weeks to try to get. I was going to say every other week. You can start that. And then see if we can see if it fits or if we can. At some point we might go down. Like there might be a low. I think the extent that the goal is to create an updated CIP form. And the goal is to start this process three months earlier than it started traditionally. Just like just after July one. We need to kind of be in a position to be there. Yeah. To be ready to go. Yeah. I'm hoping this is where I'm going to ask this committee. Um, I've got, you know, Liz and John and Brad have had their training wheels on for a little bit. We're going to start to ask everybody to take, um, right. A piece of those future improvements and work on it. So I'm hoping it can be more of a, you know, work on it outside the meeting. And we don't have to, you know, gather it. Right. We don't have to, we don't have to work through the spreadsheet. Right. Um, in detail in the meeting, like we have that. That's my, my goal. Sounds good. What's the first Wednesday of March then? March. We're at the 4th. So we'll say tentatively, we've agreed to March 4th at six or seven. Um, I prefer six just because I get tired. Yeah. No, I can do six. Do you want to school for the difference? It says 630.
You can do that. Okay. 630. Okay. With you. Yeah. Going forward. And tentatively, I'll put in the minutes, tentatively every other week, every other Wednesday thereafter. Yeah. Well, we all go to 930. Well, I'm hoping we can get a little shorter on these meetings once we're not slogging through spreadsheets. Just put something in minutes to suggest. For now, we've tentatively agreed to meet every couple of weeks with March 4th being that. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Everybody good? Anything Michael has to say to us? Michael, anything else you want to say to us before we adjourn? No, really just thank you for the work you've been doing.
You're welcome. First year doing this, and we're all doing this together, and we'll get through it. And then next year, you'll have more time, and we'll all work on this, and it won't feel so rushed.
I think that's what we're all looking for. I'm sure we can improve it. Yeah, no, but I think it's a good thing in the long run that we have all these extra eyes looking at this, and also taking the perspective from the citizenry and the electorate, and we're not just having 100% staff input. So it's good. So thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Can I get a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. Great. All right. All right. Thank you.
Roll call vote. Brian? Yes. John? Yes. Liz? Yes. Kelly? Yes. 8.35 PM. We are adjourned at 8.35 PM. Thank you, John.