March 9, 2026 – Finance Committee – Video & Transcript
March 9, 2026 - Finance Committee
Good evening and welcome. This meeting is being recorded and will be made available to the public
on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting.
For chapter two of the Acts of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote access
in accordance with applicable law. One may want to participate remotely with the meeting link that
can be found at www.wayland.ma.us slash public body meeting information virtual in-person and hybrid.
All of those are hyphenated. You can find that URL by clicking on the calendar tab on the town's
homepage, clicking on today's date, and then clicking on finance committee. When required by law or allowed
by the chair, that's me, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise may participate in the
meeting, may do so at the meeting location, in person or by remote access, and public comment
should be limited to two minutes per person. So we have a quorum and I thereby call the meeting to
order. Our agenda for those visiting and maybe online is to take public comments, review the minutes of
the last meeting from March 4th, vote on a request from the town manager to transfer funds from the
reserve fund. We will continue discussion on the operating and capital budget, may take a vote on
one or both, and then we will review drafts of FinCom's report to the town to go into the annual
warrant. And finally, we'll be discussing one or more town meeting warrant articles.
That being the agenda, before we go to public comment, I do have an announcement. It may mean more to the members of the finance committee, but I heard from Phil today, and he said, and this is a direct quote. I won't read the whole email, but a direct quote. I want to thank you and have you extend to April, Bill, Iris, Pam, and Rob by deep personal and professional appreciation for all of you stepping up in my absence. That's an end quote. The only thing I can add to that is I agree. Thank you. Thank you. That's the only announcement I have. Anybody else? Is he doing some? Otherwise, great. Yeah. I have it on good authority. He went to First Parish on Sunday. My wife came a big hub. So I'm sure he was flabbergasted by that. Okay. So we have some guests. Any public comments? Jim? Welcome.
Jim VanSkyber, Holiday Road. Rob, I don't mean to bother you, but I've been sending an email. I don't think you're checking your town email and replying to me. So I just ask that you do that. I'm sorry, I did this in public. I wanted to grab you before the meeting. Yeah. No worries. No worries. I'll respond to that. I had some back and forth and I was actually going to ask tonight about how I should respond. Well, even if you say, I don't want to respond, that's fine. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you. I confess I haven't responded to every email I've gotten either. So no worries. It just happens. Anybody else? Captain Kiernan and I am here. So I'm Andrew Kiernan and he's working on his merit badge for Boy Scouts. So we are here learning about meetings in the town.
What merit badge may I ask?
We're working on citizenship in the community, which is a requirement for Eagle Scout. Great. That's fantastic. Just be careful. You might be drafted to the committee before the night is over.
That's great. Okay. Robbie, or is anybody else online who has a hand up?
Okay. So we do have people monitoring? Good. Okay. Okay. In that case, we can move on to the minutes of March 4th. And April, thank you for getting this out. Has everybody had a chance to review them?
Its file name was Rough Draft, but I thought they were in pretty good shape. Yeah. My first draft. At least on what comes up with me, the spreadsheet from Kelly, I guess, is all black. It's some very dark blue numbers. I don't know if that's intended. No, I think it should. I think it may be just here, because this shows, I can see what she presented.
You can see my computer screen.
It's funny, Bill, I can read those. Small print, but I can read them.
Thank you for putting those together. Do we need any more detail on some of that? I mean, it kind of covers high level what we did. Do we need any more detail on discussion on?
I think it's anything that looked to me like it did, but I'm on the check.
I think, I mean, I'm fine with what we have. I had one question, and then one small note. In the very first substantive paragraph, second sentence says, C. Barnes responded, the budget does not include any amendments proposed at town meeting, and I don't remember what I said, but I was having trouble figuring out what the reference amendments would have meant. Amendment to the budget. So he had inquired about any additional spending.
I think that that was, because I had to go back to that note as well in the transcript, and it said that it doesn't include any amendments proposed. So if someone was amending an article at town meeting, that funding or that budget wouldn't be part of what we're approved. You know, but we wouldn't even know. I mean, of course they couldn't include something that isn't on there, right? So I mean, I just, it does, like, if someone's reading the minutes and doesn't, isn't familiar with the process, I don't know if we can just amend it to say that, that the, but we, we bring forth a recommended budget and can't anticipate amendments that may occur on town floor, town meeting floor, just to kind of show that there are two different issues. Like, the recommended budget, many town people that want to amend or make changes, that would happen at town meeting. So we're, uh, collaborating, um, we responded that the budget approved by finance committee would not include and does not anticipate any amendments that might be made on the floor to a meeting, to a town meeting. That makes more sense to me. Thank you. Yeah. Or any articles that, that include additional spending that have not been yet been voted on. Well, that part, I just like the way that's worded. It just sounds like, I mean, there are a lot of articles that include additional spending. And at this point, they haven't been voted on because we have to wait until town meeting to vote on them. So, um, I'm not sure. So the point of that was, I think it, it doesn't include spending in included in articles, right? The budget that we present does not include other article spending. Correct. You might see other article spending. Well, I mean, we've got a number of other articles. We've got the surface water quality, we've got the sped review, like we've got all those other articles, um, that are not part of the operating budget that we present. Right. I actually did have a question about that. Yeah. I guess I'm not sure. I mean, like the MWRA and something. It's not part of our budget. Well, for instance, the, and my question's coming from, article DD says we're going to spend $200,000 on a study. On what? On, on a study of Holiday Road. Okay. One. And it does not specify where that money is coming from. And that money is not in the omnibus budget. So I think that's part of where that was coming from is there's an omnibus budget and we're talking about, oh, here's the budget. Here's what the tax rate is going to be. There are also articles that propose spending money at the, to that point. I was like, actually, when I read that article, because most of them do say we have this from tax. Because some of them do say this is where it will come from, from free cash or whatever, but some of them do not. And if we vote, we're going to spend $500,000 on that. And it's not in the budget. Yeah. I don't know how many other articles are like that. Cause I, cause that's, that was my question reading that one article because typically they do, or, or even as we go through and maybe that's something I need to support on in terms of like either, I mean, those are the other articles, you know, that the, the sped reserve, we've got the cap stabilization, but that article is a lot of them yet. Right. So, right. But typically we know where our finance comments, right. Don't we have it in like the finance comments, like the R tab. I think it kind of varies depending on the capital part, but that's actually, it's, it may be in that table, but it typically, and I, I can't say that every time it's been done that way. It may be in the capital table, but typically we're voting on the proposed budget, capital, proposed capital budget, not including the articles. That's what, that's. So our budget is likely to go up if any of the articles pass. Um, well, most of the spending is from cash, free cash. So if you can't hear, would you mind if we moved closer so we could hear you? I have no objection. Okay. Right. Thank you. If you want to, or if someone said not, if you can sit here. Yeah. Whatever the, whatever you prefer, you can sit here too at the table. Yeah. I think this whole discussion is getting a little bit far. As a guy who, who's probably said this, why don't I, um, I think I, I think we know where you want to go. How about if I propose a revision, uh, I'll go look at the, or listen to the audio and propose a revision for April. That works. But I knew, and maybe we just table this for later. One of the questions that I had tonight that I wanted to get answered actually, uh, before I responded to you was like, should I be expecting there to be a funding source in an article that proposes spending that's not in the budget or not? And we can discuss that later when we discuss articles, but like, I think it's a really good question, but I'd like to. Okay. Yep. That makes sense. So as amended, we'll, we'll make that amendment or, or, um, edit. Okay. And the only other thing I request is on right under the table, under comes, it says, uh, Kay Lapin explaining the committee's process. And I'd like to specify that it's CIPC's process. So nobody thinks it might be ours. Okay. Good point. That's, that's all I got. One. Yes. Okay. Anybody else?
Question two. Approve the March 4th minutes as amended. I second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. April? Sorry, I remembered this. Aye. It's six nothing. It's nothing. Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda. Um, I think you've seen the request from the town manager to transfer $130,000 and some change from the reserve fund to, um, to pay contract remaining tuition and transportation bills for, um, sped and, um, um, little background. There's $200,000 in that fund. It's about to be replenished in fiscal 27. And, um, as you may have seen from the request, uh, the present balance that they have to appropriate is, I think they're saying literally negative $11,800, but either way they need money. And we have the authority under, uh, under Massachusetts law to approve that transfer. Is it for how much concern? $130,144. And it's to pay bills for transportation and tuition for five whaling residents who are attending Minuteman Regional Vocational School and Keefe Vocational School. Oh, so I think it's coming out of the sped reserve. Right. You say it's coming out of the sped reserve? No, there's a, there's a, a, a reserve fund. Sorry. Can you tell which, um, when is this email? I'm just like, I'm telling Charles. In, uh, February 27th, there was a reserve fund transfer email from Brian.
It's labeled VocEd reserve transfer. So is there, the reserve fund is the finance committee reserve fund, which goes into the budget for $200,000 every year. Correct. There's $300,000 from fiscal 26th. Unanticipated and extraordinary. There are a couple. I think this falls within that. I've never seen this before. I looked at the statute and it clearly authorizes us to do this.
There will be a smaller request coming on Wednesday.
To combine, they'll be under the $200,000 we have in there. And as I said, that will, so that pretty much taps it out or close enough, but it will be replenished in the, in the budget for fiscal 27th.
Are you looking for a motion? I am. I move that we accept the request as written. I think you should say, just say the amount. I move that we were, we accept the request as written for $130,144. Are you pulling me that outfit? Remind me. Where's the money coming from again? There is a reserve fund. Yes. What's the, apologies. What's the name? It's the reserve fund. It's a reserve fund. Okay. You'll see it. We need a second for you. Look at the budget. Okay. It's somebody, if somebody wishes a second, that that will. A second. A second. Okay. Okay. So it's in the unclassified budget. You'll find it, you know, down to the bottom of the budget, but it's, it's there. Actual fiscal 26th was 200,000. And there's, that's being proposed 27 too. Same funding amount. Same funding amount. That's right. And it's, and it's a budget. Well, it's not called that, but it is specifically for unanticipated and sort of extraordinary one time. Okay. Expenses that. Okay. Understood. Thank you. So it's, it's. It's like. It's an emergency. It's typically $200,000, but it's put aside. And the finance committee has the authority to approve. And, and the genesis of this request is these were the additional students that moved into town sort of mid-year. So we did not anticipate these transportation needs. Is that right? It doesn't say that, but I think that it's talking about the request specifies that it's for transportation and tuition for five way on residents. We knew about one. So I think. Correct. You know, the math and all that's up. Okay. Yeah. Right. No, we just wanted to make sure. I don't know how we got here. Cause if it's for extraordinary circumstances, in my mind, that qualifies, right. We couldn't have predicted who moves into town. Yeah. So actually. I think Brian had talked about that. Right. Yeah. At one of the meetings that they had. When we asked about. Get some of them. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. We have a motion. We have a seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Aye. 6-0-0. Okay. We are rolling. Right on time. Now we're going to get to the meat of the meeting, which further discussion about the budget for fiscal 27. I know we had some questions. We ended the meeting last week with about the capital budget. But I'd like to turn first to the operating budget and see if anybody has further questions. If we think we're ready to vote on that. If we're not, what we need to be able to vote on that. We basically have two more meetings. Two more meetings. Or omnibus budget. Sorry. Or capital. Omnibus. Thank you. Omnibus is everything. So the operating budget. Okay. I have questions on capital. That's why I'm scared. No, you do. No, you do. No, you do. Well, I thought you covered, you know, some of the issues in your write-up, in your draft write-up as well. So I think that combined with the spreadsheet budget, you know, made me comfortable with it. Good. Okay. Thank you for that, too. I will get to the report, but I will say after spending the last week looking, you know, working on that and not alone, by the way, Pam was a big part of this. I'm comfortable with the budget as presented. The operating budget as presented. Yeah. Isabel. 4.63% increase for the operating and anticipated 4.89% increase in tax. So, and under 5% for both of those, which, and it's more than two and a half, but it's considering trends and inflationary and contracts that kind of have been agreed upon. There's not a lot of movement. So for me, I mean, given where we're at now, and, you know, I think that's, we're not going to do any better. I think if it were last summer, in hindsight, I would have, you know, put up a bigger fuss and sort of say, get it below 4 if you can. And what do we lose if you get it below 4? But that's sort of water under the bridge at this point. So I don't, I don't see that, you know, justifying it as to no vote. And there was a group that, you know, last summer should kind of manage looking at this. Yeah, that's so funny. I was not. I sense was their goal was to, was to prevent a two and a half override. I think I, in hindsight, I maybe would have been a little bit more aggressive than that. But, but again, that's, that's, you know, water under the bridge. So I think given where we are now, I think I would focus, you know, I would probably support this and then focus on getting some of my points across next year. I think, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to anyone who was here last year, but I think 4.89% is high. I also think it's not inclusive of the overall additions that people will have to pay as you look at all the articles across the board. And that is concerning to me is that we're asking for 4.89 on the omnibus budget, plus the MWRA, plus 4.89. Oh, it is a percent increase. Sorry, percent increase. Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. Make sure, let me make sure I get my math right, Pam. Plus the impact of the MWRA, right? Which fair enough isn't coming out of residential tax rates, but is still a net increase in cost. And then having now worked on KK, right? If KK goes through, that's an additional impact to residential rates. Which is the... It's... Sorry, I don't know what KK is. It's the Senior Property Assessment Credit. So that would be a reallocation to all households of, you know, a couple hundred dollars. But it adds, right? I guess my point is when I look across the board, there's a lot going on. And the 4.89 is certainly, and I can appreciate, hey, this is where we landed and it is below five. But it doesn't represent, I think, the total net burden that we're adding to households. And that makes me nervous. It does not. It doesn't. I agree that there's, at this point, just to react to you, you are correct. At this point, there isn't much else to be done. This is sort of where we've landed. You know, I am curious, certainly, as we move forward with the operational override prep and things like that. Like, I'm curious to better understand what are levers that actually exist as a channel to us. It feels a little bit like there aren't very many nuanced dilemmas. Instead, we're sort of stuck with a hammer. And I don't think that's, it's not palpable, right? Like, I don't want a future in which my options are either vote for this or lay off people. That's not the future that I want. And so the question remains, that isn't clear to me. It's like, what other nuances are there available to us? That's tough, right? I say that out loud to just say, like, I personally am conflicted, right? It's not, but I think both options seem really tough. And that isn't what I, that isn't the options that I want laid out in front of me. And so that's really tough. I see. Sorry, at this point you made about like setting the tougher goal, like going through the budget as much as we did, I get the impression that easy decisions have already been made, right? This is the first year this conversation has been had. This is the first time this year this conversation has been had. People have gone over this budget. They've trimmed the fat, right? Like, I'm not happy with where the number ends up. But I also can't point to anything specific that I think is, is an easy cut. Yeah, sorry. To add a couple of points, just historically, and I think this year's budget reflected a level service budget. So this is the town managers and finance directors, you know, level service budget that's been presented. In the past, FinCon has asked if their, you know, recommendations are, please look for any efficiencies. You know, can you find, you know, and payroll, that sort of thing for the town and schools. Are there any ways that we can save money within the budget without affecting service? You know, we've, we've heard some of those a little bit along the way, maybe here and there. So I guess, in order to arrive, if you were at the beginning of this process, or where we'll be next year, just start to say, we want to, you know, no more than an X percent budget, which is lower than five. It, my sense is from what we've heard from the town manager and finance director that it would require a cut in services. So I think that's just, you know, just kind of stating what we've been through, but just to kind of reiterate that this is sort of the best that could be. Well, I think there's some subjectivity in what level of service. Well, that's another question. Exactly. And there are some, I mean, there's a software update. This is probably not level service. I think it's something that we probably, that we need to do in terms of, you know, just technology and security and that sort of thing. But I'm not real happy where we ended up, you know, and if there were an alternative budget that was a percent lower that didn't seem to cut a whole lot, I would probably say, let's vote for the alternative, but that isn't on the table. So, so I think to me, what I've learned by going through this for a year is it's reforms and, you know, getting involved in the process earlier other than now, you know, it's taken me a year on the committee to learn that. But so 1% is a $1.2 million is right. That's not easy to cut. Well, I'm not saying it's impossible. Right. But it's not, it's going to, I think it's going to be painful. I think you're going to find out next year. We're going to have a two and a half budget. So I feel like we've spent a lot of time on town. I don't feel like we spent a lot of time on school and we haven't really dug into the school. And that's such a large portion of the budget. Like, so for me, like, I don't know that I feel comfortable at this point in time because we haven't dug into the school. And I feel like we should be looking at that a little bit deeper before we move to a vote on the, in my opinion, on the omnibus. And I don't know if anyone's done questions or anything, because I know we spent a lot of time on school. We spent quite a bit of time on capital. But I don't, I personally feel like we haven't spent a lot of time in schools. I think you're right about that. And candidly, the budget presented us to buy the school is at a very high level. There's not a lot of meat that you can dig into there. So, I mean, that's a problem, but I don't know quite how to fix it. Yeah, I agree. I don't know if we can fix that. However, I would perhaps make a suggestion that as we move into override conversations that, you know, again, I can maybe just speak for myself and my neighbors, that there will probably be an expectation of additional transparency if there's a request for an oversight. Right. Of course, you need to feel comfortable with this budget. So I'm like, I don't want to be pushed to make a decision. I guess I vote on something. Yeah. Yeah. Because we haven't gotten enough details. I mean, I will say that we got that they're a school's budget book. And we haven't, I agree, we haven't spent a lot of time, much time at all embedding that as a committee. Looking at it personally, when you look at the year over year, before you allocate, like when you divided up payroll and expenses, you look at payroll, and there's, there's barely any, it's barely any change before the allocation. And then with the allocation, you're looking at a 4% increase, and most of that is the reserve or salaries. And then the, the increase to 10%, almost a 10, 9.76% increase in the expense line, which is a million dollars. And most of that, most of that is from the special ed, the out of district and sped transportation. That's kind of how I felt. Priced to 817,000. School stuff is basically. There's not, I, having seen some school budgets before where we've seen some big changes, there's not a lot of increase in here. Yeah. I think I feel the same way, which is like, I hope that the school budget a lot. It's now again, level service and what is level service is it's providing what, and I think that perception is it's providing what we provided last year and then whatever additional requirements we've had. And I think there's, I don't know, I think they, you know, the schools talked about how they have reallocated, you know, they reallocate teachers depending upon where the student population is, which makes sense. But it, yeah, it doesn't seem like there's anything overly concerning. Yeah. That was kind of how I felt is like the, I feel like I understand the increases in the school budget and they all seem relatively, they seem like they make sense and are relatively non-negotiable to me. And I have to provide the special ed, I think, you know, unless we want to go back on the contracts and the collective bargaining with the staff. Right. I think. Yeah. Those numbers. Sorry. That's happening right now. Yeah. Yeah. But that's what's been. But at that point, aren't these steps and lanes contractual? Yeah. Yeah. There was a, I think we all received, I certainly received a, you know, today saying. Yes. Maybe this is not the year for that. Right. It's interesting. But I think, see, I didn't respond, but, but I just don't think you have a choice. Right. I think the question maybe, and this is maybe part of like my point about understanding the levers is, I agree. Right. There's no point. It's contractual. But how are those conversations had, right? How are those conversations had to like understand there must be, I'm sure, give and take on both sides. And where is the understanding in if the only give and take again is either provide X or lay off people. That's tough. Right. That is my point of life. That's a hammer as a solution, as opposed to, hey, is there more nuance here to have a more conversation? I'm not saying we have that, but I'm just saying it's a question I have, like really trying to understand. Of course, we want teachers. Of course, we want these things. And is there a way that we can get some of the percentage rate down, right? To make things more manageable for our population and our residents, while also trying to maintain as best as possible support for the people who work in the town, right? And where are the opportunities there? The part that I struggle with is I don't know, right? And obviously, we're not part of those conversations. And those are uncomfortable conversations. Well, in the presentation, he had, what, five pillars or whatever. Right. One of them was class size and one of them was programs. And he didn't reduce any of them this year. He said last year they made some bigger cuts. And so obviously, if one were to push harder for a lower budget, you know, those things would have to happen. And, you know, I don't know how significant that is on a young person's education. And, you know, I will say in the past, like there are budget guidelines that town managers put out sort of early in the process, you know, going back and before the town. And some of this is before the town manager act, but the town manager has a little bit more discretion over all the budgets. But FinCom would make a recommendation on where we thought the guidelines should be. And so I think that was in that kind of thing. And as you said, what happened last summer and through the fall with the forecasting, it's hard to do. But I think if you start with, you know, a goal in mind, you're more likely to. Or more than one scenario. Right. We'll get that a little bit next year because it's going to be with the two and a half and without. So we're going to get at least two scenarios. That should be a minimum of any budgeting exercise. It's two scenarios. Right. Right. Hold on. Honestly, I'm not sure why it didn't happen this year. But, you know, did you look at last year's warrant? Did I look at it? Yeah. I mean, obviously you did in connection with the meeting. I know the county happened recently. There was a presentation of the budget and then I think two different alternatives. Oh, that was, I think it was previous. That was a couple of years ago. I think it was last year. No, it wasn't last year. I think last year we presented once and they really talked about how we hit like right below three and a half percent. And, and Michael Monk all discussed, I think at length, all the steps we took to get there because last year, just like for your own application, when the process started, we were also presented with a five and a half percent budget and, and through all the meetings and conversations that dropped down to three and a half percent. Yeah. A lot of those healthcare insurance came in at three something instead of. Absolutely. But, but a lot of that was significant conversation and pressure from many people voicing a 12% premium increase, which is what was baked in is unacceptable. And, and they, that I think gave, you know, Brian Kennedy and others the opportunity then to go back to Metro West suburban. And I think either relay or at least like understand that that really was a big driver. And Metro West heard was my understanding, similar feedback from other towns. And then actually did something about it to bring that rate down. Yeah. Probably those buy that, right. They bought back down the rate. So, and we saw that, we saw that as a meaningful impact. And that is, I think a good example of what I'm talking about. That was a lever that I think we did not know existed, but actually was there and had a meaningful impact. And it was a lever that didn't require us to fire anyone. Didn't, you know what I mean? Like it was a lever that didn't impact services, but impacted costs. I would love to find more of those wherever they exist. So would I. Yeah. And I think that was a one-time thing. Of course. It wasn't one-time thing. It was like, it was a one-time thing, but it, but it was a lever we found nonetheless, even if it was a one-time lever. You know, it was, and yet that wasn't pressure from FinCom or from residents, from anybody. That was the time manager doing his job. And I can't believe for a second that he wouldn't want to do that wherever he can. I agree. I guess. I absolutely agree. First of all, let me say no one at all is suggesting that anyone on the town side is doing anything less than their best. I didn't mean to apply. I know, but I just want to make sure that's clear. But I do think we had many a conversation around the healthcare premiums and around their expected. And I think that gave a little more, and we had those conversations very early in the year. And so that gave them the opportunity to give that feedback of we're facing budget pressure. And I'll, and one of the biggest things that everyone's keyed in on is what is this premium going to be? And so while I don't think inherently all of FinCom, you know, we didn't make a motion or a vote to say this needs to be lower, but I think we did react to what we saw significantly earlier, which gave them the opportunity to further react. Just to see how things work. So one of the comments that I find, I feel as though in the past, we've gotten better data from the schools than we have this year. We have a report, which gives them, which gives us a lot of information. Well, we still don't have as FTEs. Like they gave us fed FTEs, but that's all they gave us in changes. Like I thought the whole budget was like minus 0.5 FTEs by the schools. I know that, but they gave a breakdown of year on year for special education, but not for actual totals. This year, no changes in the aggregate, you know, the total, total. Understood. But if there, I guess what I'm trying to say is if this is the largest part of our budget and healthcare and retirement and all that are some of the largest increases that we continue to have, understanding the breakdown of the teachers would be very interesting to end steps and lanes to understand, like, how is all that calculated to be able to forecast out the future of understanding where that's going to put us, right? I know it's not a model that we could do, but to understand in 23, 24, how many teachers did we have? How are we shifting people around from each of the dates like they did with special education? It shows that they've shifted, but we don't know if they've shifted teachers into or out of, right into or out of special education. It's there's not, to me, it's not as detailed. Are we supposed to have detailed information from the school? I mean, in the, in the past, we have, we have had more time and we have taken their budget and I think they presented, you know, things for, I thought what they presented was pretty clear this year, but we would have taken what they'd given us. And we usually have a conversation with a little back and forth and Q and A and clarifying some of the points that, so I, so I, I do hear you. We've spent, we've spent very little time on schools this year. But there is a total, there is a chart of total FTE. It's not broken down your point, but page 27 of the school budget book. As FTE is broken down by administration, teachers, clerical, et cetera. I didn't scroll that far. Yeah. It's pretty far. I was like, I thought that you said, and then I guess it was probably in such a big appendix. Yeah. It's, it's. Okay. Now I see it. Yeah. It's not the last thing before the appendix. Right. Yeah. It's your point. I think that's a little bit of insight, right. And how all the FTEs are distributed or any of that, you know, I think. Well, page 28 actually shows up a little bit more. Uh, page 28. Right. I see staff FTEs in 28. Oh. I'm sorry. Again, Chip, right. I see staff FTEs in 27. 27. Yes. So the SC vote 211, 26, FY 27 recommended. Are you having those same things? I don't know what's up with that. This is a PDF version that they sent us. Yeah. I mean, this was, oh, this is the same thing. No wonder. I wouldn't drive ourselves. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same date. I wonder, are you looking, if you're looking at the PDF page, I think there's a non-numbered title page. So like the pagination in the document, different from the pagination. Thank you. Yeah. Like if you look at the document, maybe that's exactly what's the header of the correct page. Yes. Uh, he'd say, yeah, it says staff FTEs, but footer should say page 27. Page 27 of the document. Yeah. On page 28. Okay. Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Now I get it. For the decrease of four FTEs from 26. One teacher leaving, one less teacher in the children's way. The decrease from 24 to 25 was one of the, I think that that's more of what I was trying to understand because I think I came on in 25 and we had had a lot of FTEs added that year. Right. Right. Right. So now you've got me thoroughly confused because in the backup documents, the tables, basically that Brian supplies with the budget, table five says that there is a net. Minus. Was it minus? No, actually for the school's flat, it's zero. Right. In the chart on the 27th. So for the minus three, it reflects the three TAs are being shifted to a grant. So I don't think people are being, I think that's them reflecting that they're like not. Yeah. Right. But even then, those people are still staying there, but yeah, the minus one. I think it's minus one if you're not. I don't know why there's a minus one that's not being counted for. That's not what Brian is telling us. That's not what he showed on his. Right. He's saying a total of four FTE reductions and it says it in like that last line. Right. So that's it. I'll ask about that discrepancy tomorrow. I guess. Are there any, in terms of just kind of trying to get this to be actionable? Are there specific questions we have about the school budget or specific actions we think we could take to get more comfortable with the school budget at this point? I will say, when you look at the out of district, and these are kind of mandated things, but this is trying to find the page. It's a significant increase. It's a significant increase. And some of this, some of it was on pages 17 and 18. There's discussion about the tuition increases, which the increased range of 14 to 32%. So she said nine private schools have increased their tuition for 25 to 26 year over year over the standard 5%. Increases range from 14 to 32%. Also to private school. These are out of district. These are out of district. The out of district. Special education. Special education is grouped in their three groups. Uh huh. There's private. There's collaborative. And then there's, there's another group thing. I'm sorry. I'm trying to find it because it's in the, it's in this budget. But the private out of district. Increase is it's like. I'm saying it's like. I'm saying it's like. And then it's offset by the circuit breaker. Reimbursement from last year. So if you go to that. Yes. Sorry. This is on page. Three of the. End disease. From that report. Um, it, it, this is just something to, to. I think it should be part of our report. Just to, to kind of note that the increase. So it went. The out of district private. Went from. Um, 1.2 million to 4.2. So there's out of district private out of district public. And then out of district collaborative. Are the three. How does. How do you understand? What does that actually mean? And maybe that's really a question for, I'm sure. Like someone from the schools, but like. Um. What is. So for students. With. Mm hmm. Special education needs. That Wayland. Can't. Address. Mm hmm. Um. The school system pays for those students to go. To a school that can provide those services. Those services are provided. And actually regardless of whether the school is private or public. Well, I think sometimes you'll. You'll say. You know. A student has. Specific. Issues to. To address. And. And. And. There are only. Certain schools that can address that. So sometimes it's a private school. So we have to. So. Wayland pays for that private school. So it's. We're required by law. We're required by law. To send them to a school that provides them. That addresses their needs. Essentially. Um. I may not be using like the proper. Legal vocabulary. But. Sure. You get the gist. Um. So. And this is. This is a number that. That has. Varied. From year to year. And it typically. Isn't. A reduction. But when we see. You know. Big jumps. Like that's why we have the special ed reserve. Because this. Can change from one year to the next. Significant. So. I guess if we had. Like I don't know how much more information we would get. If we were. To have had more. Discussion. With schools. But. I just know that is. I mean. It is. We already knew that special ed is a big. You know. The. It's in the. Expense line. Um. So that's most of that. 10%. 9.76% increase. Um. And most of it. You know. When you break it down. Is this. Big increase in. Out of district private. So I guess. You know. The question for. The question for. The question for. The question for. Well, we can't provide. It's not cost efficient for us to do that. Um. You know. But are there ways that we can. And I think some of it. We get a better window into. And sometimes. People move in. Um. That you can't anticipate. But try to get a better sense of. Of that number. Or. Um. And I think the schools have been. Trying to do more to address. You know. Some special education. Um. Issues early on. So that. So. We end up spending less. In our district later. Yeah. Once again. I'm just simply confused. Because there's nowhere. In the. I can find. In the budget. Presented to us. By. That. Increase. Sorry. Which increase. You know. Out of district private tuition. You know. It wouldn't be. I mean. In Brian's. Because Brian's budget. It is so rolled up. I mean. When you look at. The budget. Present. It's one line for schools. So. That's why we. We look for this. The school's. Budget. To get a little bit more detail. So Brian doesn't. Really. I mean. The schools have their own. Um. Finance director. Whatever. That person's title is. You're absolutely right. We. Well. I'll call that out. In the report. That's. Just a really huge number. And it's a huge increase. I mean. Yeah. In the abstract. And in percentage terms. I guess one. Question. Of that. Maybe I didn't. Fully appreciate. Is the circuit breaker. Something we expect. To. All these. Yeah. So the. We should. Yes. Question. Some kind of. Full amount. Right. It doesn't cover. Full amount. I have to. Look at. What it is. I think. You pay for the. The first. 50 or. 70. 50,000. And then. After that. The reimbursement. Covers. Like 75%. It's a question. I have is more like. So there's. So. You should. And you get the reimbursement. So this reimbursement. Is for the 26. Mm hmm. Fiscal year 26. Reimbursement. So it comes a year later. So the. We're spending for. Special education. This year. Fiscal year 26. We'll actually get that reimbursement. Next year. So that'll apply. Be applied to the fiscal 27 budget. That's why we see it here. Yes. That's what that number is. But it is a. It is a. Sort of. Following thing. So we should. Recurring. It's. Calculation. Based on the prior years. Right. They raise any. I'm curious. I can't remember. From their presentation. If they raise concern. Of that funding. Being pulled back. Given. I was just curious. If I can't remember. If they read. I was going back through. The budgets. To see. If there was any concern. Given. Because the states. Are pulling back funding. I thought they said. And I thought it was actually. More related to Medicaid. It may. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought there was. Some element of. Some of the funding. Depending. Comes from Medicaid. Like for nurses. And support staff. Right. Wasn't that mentioned? I know. And I thought that. Right. Is that. There's a concern. More broadly. Because of the lack. Of funding. I thought it was. Of Medicaid. Coming into the state. From the federal government. That that could impact. Potentially. Funding amounts. That's. What I recollect. I mean. That. Is. Federal funding. I mean. Do we anticipate it. You know. We might not see it. Yet. Education. You know. Federal funding. For education. That. You know. Has come to Massachusetts. We might not be getting. As much of. In coming years. Um. And I don't. Think we've heard. Anything on that. Yet. Or. I haven't done. Thing that I have. Is. I. Truly appreciate. The grant funding. For those. Moving through. FTEs. Out. Mm hmm. Of the budget. But.
Down this road. Before. Right. Um. So. What. The long term outlook. Is that. Is there a grant funding. In perpetuity. Is like. How are we looking at. Those roles. I think it's another one. That I. Like to understand. A little bit more. Because it's the grant. And it's. Yeah. I mean. Is that coming back. Is that a one year thing. And then it comes back. Into the budget. Just. Yeah. That. Expectation. And then. That's for. Like. Operational. But for capital budget. Should we expect. A revised capital budget. After the last conversation. We had. And. I mean. More so. Like. Is. Brian Kevney. And. Michael McCall. Taking another look. At what they're. Recommending. Or no. To my knowledge. I thought that. I thought that. That's what. Yeah. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. I agree. I think. We. Ask the questions. And then. You can always meet on. Friday night. Yeah. That's. Not. I'm not going to change your report. That much. Right. It's like a few numbers. It's. Every table. Every. Reference to it. I'm talking. There we go. Um. I. I guess I don't. I haven't heard anything in here. That makes me think that those numbers. Are going to change. On the capital. On the capital. No. We're not talking capital. Thank you. Thank you. On this one. I agree. I think it's just understanding. Does not mean we need to vote on it. Right now. I'm fine with. I think it's just for the clarification to understand. I think understanding the reduction in four FTEs. Reporting versus Brian's report killing one. Whatever. Sorry. The report showed zero. Zero. Yeah. So did we. Oh, it showed zero FTEs. Okay. Of the schools. Okay. So I think that's. I thought that was for entirely. It was showing, I think, 0.46. But FTE reduction. All at the town. So it could be a larger reduction. I mean, that just shows, I think that's better to taxpayers, right? If it shows more of an impact in reduction in rules, considering the budget is.
Yeah, but the question is, is it really reduction rules or is it they've got grant funding for some amount of time? I want to understand that. I think that's, and it's great. It's a one year that it's being covered by the grant for fiscal 27. What's, what do we anticipate after that? Is it, will the grant cover those positions or will they come back to the budget, back to the operating budget? I'm just curious on this. And I don't know that this is a question I need to know the answer to, but if they're grant funded, then are, do they also have benefits? Like, are there, are there benefits still paid for by the schools? And like, are, are we paying for health? Are we paying for pensions? Like, I think has actually addressed something similar to that before, right? Like I believe, and I think he's mentioned this, like on grants, some of the grants will include like all of the payroll taxes and Medicare tax and things like that. And for some, we still are obligated actually to pay. So even though it seems like it's free money, it's not, right? It still comes at a cost. The cost is not full salary, but the cost is still payroll tax, right? You're still seven and a half percent FICA, whatever, Medicare, et cetera. So there's still an actual cost. And I actually understood that that was part of, well, not for operational, but certainly part of like CIPC, right? Like wanting to really understand, even if someone gives you a gift for a capital project, there could still be associated costs and you need a project manager all of a sudden to manage that project, right? Like there's, so I believe, I think that's a good question to just get clarification, but I believe it is depending on the grant is what I recollect. Or I can recap these two afterwards because I'm putting them on my notes.
So elsewhere, we have said, we meaning I, in the draft report that transportation for special ed went up about $340,000 and out of district tuition went up about almost $500,000. Yeah. Looking at this table, that's a net of the, that's really, that's a circuit breaker. Right. So reimbursement, because I, I mean, I take, I still take your point. The circuit, you know, the circuit breaker obviously helps a lot, but I think it might be interesting for people to know what the actual cost increase was. Yeah. 2.87. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, like it says. If you add the three up. Yeah. Oh, I see what you've done. Okay. Yeah. The increase for the three. Yeah. Okay. I understand that point. So if I used to do that recap these questions, is that what you, okay. When I send you my notes on those other minutes in the morning, I will include what I think they are too. And then we can just agree and send one email. That's okay. Whether it comes from you or from me, it's fine.
Jumping ahead for a minute. Yeah. Jumping ahead for a minute. Um, it seems all of us, don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but seem to think we want more detail on the school budget going forward. Not in the next week. I mean, just, okay. Yes. No, absolutely. I just, that's been my frustration. And, you know, I think I've voiced this before is getting our operating budget and a capital budget. And there are reasons and all the articles just starting that whole process in early February and having six weeks forward to complete everything. It's not enough time. In the past, you know, we've, we've had, and there are reasons capital. We had SIPC this year. So I appreciate this was, you know, sort of a one year thing. They're up and running and that took longer. But even with the operating budget, we weren't presented the final operating budget till the end of January. Your final, final or the final one? No, we didn't, we didn't get, we didn't get, well, no, I'm saying final, final, but even an operating budget to discuss until the end of January. And typically we spend the full month of January, discussing it, vetting it, asking questions. There's in the past, we've had a lot of back and forth. I've heard the last year, as in years past, we had a Q&A, sort of an ongoing Q&A with the school's finance person, just back and forth. More questions, sometimes questions, we get more questions, but you, at the end of that process, you have a better sense of what's changing and why. Now, I think there really, there aren't a lot of changes this year, but we should still have had more time, you know, to kind of go through all of this. I appreciate that a lot was done upfront on the budget, as I said, on, you know, working groups over the summer, and then Brian presented, you know, kind of a high level in the fall. But in terms of us getting into the meat and potatoes and really delving into the details of a budget, we haven't, we haven't had the time. We typically have had in the past. And then we had a big article scheduled this year, too, so that really kind of threw, you know, a little bit more laughs into them.
To your point, this whole budget, you know, you got, what, end of February? Document the role? Yeah. So. I tried to get those facts into the report, not characterizing them, not saying, and this really sucks, according to my language. Right. But I wanted the talent to see that, and I want to be able to point to it. Maybe there needs to be a section, a paragraph, or a sentence toward the end. We talk about progress. This isn't progress. But something in the end, we really want more information and sooner. And maybe that's part of our recommendation. I mean, two years ago, we made the recommendation that the town do some, get some working groups together and do some forecasting. And in the past, we have asked for, you know, three to five year forecasts for the operating budget. I mean, now we're kind of, it's just one year, then we're going to drop to the next. And I know a lot of things are hard to forecast and we've got, you know, collective bargaining and whatnot. But I feel like, you know, sometimes you, that was a recommendation and then it was followed through. I think last year's budget was a little bit better because we started earlier. This year's budget is probably better too, because they started that process in the summer of last year. But the part that we saw was late. So I think that that's our next recommendation. The point being, I think sometimes when you ask for these things and you press on them, it helps. You end up getting more of what you want. Okay. So are we done for now with the schools and the operating budget? Are there any other operating budget questions that, you know, final questions that we might have before we vote? So just to answer, address those, do you want to answer those, those schools questions? Let me get the answer.
I want to force you to go one way or the other right now, if you're, you're not ready. We would vote operating separate from capital, correct? Okay. Yeah. But I, I'd be fine with operating. Capital's the one that I have. That's the concerns. I can go either way. I do think we should get answers. Right. Well, if we want answers, let's not vote. Because once we vote. We can always vote again. We vote again. Yeah. I mean, we could do that. And we pose the questions, get some answers. And then if, if we have answers that, you know.
Well, we made it done the better. So I have a big agenda on Wednesday. I'm sure it's not a big agenda tonight. Okay, fine. Anybody want to make a motion?
There's a way you have to make the solution. So you have to do it the way that Brian presents it in the. Oh, okay. I can come vote section of the model. I'm going to use that last time. And I'm not seeing it. You sent it by email, but I'm not sure I can pull it up here. I think. So I think it's in the, I'm looking at the version 4 of 3.0.4. Yeah, I have that one too. Okay. It is there. I apologize. No, he sent the text to the article. That's what I'm thinking about.
A GIF article. Doesn't it just have to be. Like, I remember Brian, overall, you wrote up like. Exactly. You hit the wording of all of this. No, it's in here. So if you go over to, like, column P, omnibus motion, one detail. White column, I'm sorry. Okay. So on the omnibus vote tab, column P, it's about row 35 or so. I see it. So I'll make a motion. Sure. So I make a motion that the finance committee recommend the omnibus budget as follows. By tax, $111,405,149 from the ambulance fund, $434,427 from other funds. That's $1,124,677 for a total omnibus budget of $112,964,253.
Second. Second. Sorry.
I don't know if this is a formal amendment or not, but I think this is not the omnibus budget. It's the operating budget. This is the op. Operating. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, this is for the operating budget, though, because we don't have any. There's nothing about capital here. Okay. But, okay. Yeah. You said, and he wrote omnibus, so, okay, I'm good with that. But he also omnibus operating budget.
Everybody wins. Yes. I hear you. Okay.
Is that the full motion? That's the full motion. I second it. I don't know. I second it. Three of a second. I think. I didn't hear it. Okay. And then. Right. Should we vote? I vote yes. I vote yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah.
I see. It's explicit. I explained earlier sort of my concern. Thank you for having the courage to do that. I have some little message. Do you want to say my vote does not at all diminish my gratitude for the people who put in significant effort to put this together, including the working group in the summer and the fall and everyone on the town side. Do you like to add that people? I think that's lovely.
Green budget? No. Capital budget. Thank you. Capital budget. You don't have to vote the school budget separately, right? Omnibus and capital. Yes. Hopefully not. We voted all the school's money already. And it is. I mean, when you look at that first tab, that state of 27 budget tab, I mean, you've got all those line items with everything. And schools is, I mean, schools is wonderful. So it's in there. It's just one line. Yep. So yes, everybody's favorite topic. I recollect from our last conversation, obviously, we had the opportunity to better understand based on SIPC's rate up and the delta between what the town manager was recommending, at least from my perspective. And I thought there was some support for perhaps going back to them and letting them know that the delta was quite large. And there were a couple of things. And delta was large, both in the monetary value and the number of things that were added, right? And just the net number of things that sort of got added and totally appreciate some of that caught them blindsided versus things that they felt necessary to pull forward. I'm still concerned about the total number, how large it is. And part of what I think was pointed out as well is a lot of things were moved forward, but they're still on the plan. And so in my mind, there's an opportunity to reduce that number, come a little bit closer to what SIPC's sort of recommendation had been to the town manager, acknowledging that the things that were moved up could get moved back. That doesn't mean that they won't happen. And they just won't necessarily happen next year.
And I had maybe come out of that meeting perhaps a bit hopeful that the town manager might actually present and might adjust that capital plan in that way. But maybe I misunderstood. And maybe if that's up to us, then maybe we can talk about whether there's the appetite to do that. I didn't want to go back to my family, to the town manager and say, we're kind of thinking sort of maybe, I want you to have a vote. Fair enough. So what I'm happy to do that tonight and tomorrow. I guess are people, I think I've shared my perspective, right? And I guess obviously that is, given that perspective, I don't think at this point, I personally am inclined to vote for the capital budget as it stands because of all that, because of the amount of change, because of the total dollar amount. And that isn't to say that I am not necessarily in support of all the budgets or all the projects, excuse me, I'm just not in support of them all right now. And so I would be in support of just a number and a plan that is more aligned with what we saw coming out of SIPC. Yeah, I echo that in a lot of ways. I think the two things for me are the Kelly Lappin, the CIPC, they did a lot of work. I don't think the discrepancies were adequately addressed or explained. And again, the question when she was here, would she support it? And she was going to be getting up at the con microphone. And then the second thing is, I really don't think we've gotten all the questions answered over the baseball field. And it sounds like it's not that Virgin has to be done by the way. There are additional costs that they haven't been able to get a handle on. So I would probably be in no vote as well at this point, unless there are some provisions. I'm with you both on that one item right now. I'm not ready to vote for that. I would like to see it out of this year's budget and back in, I think it was in 229. What do other people think? I agree with just the Delta and the projects that the CIPC reviewed. And, you know, I believe that committee spent a lot of time focused on needs, talking to each department head, addressing the timing of when things should be done and how things should be done from a funding perspective, funding sources. And to have that much of a Delta, I agree. I feel like we just, I'm not comfortable supporting the time manager budget, just relative to what CIPC had that in for, I'll double check, Kelly told us 20, 29, it's easy to verify. Right. But you'd be comfortable putting it back into 29, which is what CIPC. Yes. I would. Right. For which item? The school field. I think it was 28. I'm just looking at Kelly's, your wonderful notes. Kelly's chart, let's just say that it was a 2028 to 2027 for the school fields. In her note about the. I thought that was. I'm just, I'm just looking at that sheet. Yeah. CIPC's looking for their. I believe the work in a report is the more update, authoritative version, but. Fair enough. I was just looking at that most recent sheet.
Either way. Right. We'll add it in the future. I'm also of the mindset, in addition to the baseball fields project, I would like to see more focus on building maintenance or on things that need to be done within the school rather than the exterior. So the sidewalk spending about the amount that we're spending on all of town roadways for just sidewalks to me is a huge concern. And I'd rather see the HVAC systems being updated before failure to create additional costs in those. So that's one of the other areas that I think that we need to have that reviewed. The sidewalks, I mean, as you said, find it out. That's, I mean, it is a high precedent. We've gone to wide sidewalks and then we've got middle school sidewalks and the total is almost 900,000, which is about what we're spending on roads for the town. And it's a feasible fee debt in one year. Should that be pushed out over a couple of years, I feel. But those are a couple of the other things that I'd like to have them reconsider. Can you click on that continue watching button, please?
Probably the enter button.
Oh, that's the... Sorry. Wow. TV. It's a remote. Thank you. All right. Don't tell my husband.
And the last comment, since we're just talking about capital items, the other large delta that I think we could adjust if we're talking about recommendations for adjustment with hopefully more minimal impact, but still nets are supposed to half a million. I would like to see SIPC's recommendation for the road amount be adopted. I would like to see us try that for one year and just see what the net outcome of that is. The delta was like, well, it was like 400 grand as a delta, right? It was a huge delta between what they suggested versus what the town suggested. I appreciated their perspective of, let's try something a little different, just see what happens. And if it turns out next year, nope, we need 800, we need 800, but at least we tried, right? And we got that account down to zero. And for one year, again, just pulling on a lever that exists, even if it's a one-time lever. Well, I don't disagree. In fact, I support that. But didn't she say that there is, I mean, the reason they want to bring it down for this year is that there's already money in that account that had not been spent? Correct. It was about 10%. I mean, it wasn't a significant loss, but, you know. Yeah, you're right. I thought they were saying year over year, there's a 12% overage, basically. And they were seeing that year over year and that, therefore, there was some that had built up in the account. Oh, okay. So it wasn't just 12% remaining from last year. So I understood. I understood. They said they looked at how much was remaining from last year, but that was sort of what they suspected was rolling, and that's how I interpreted her comment anyway. And again, like I said, to me, this seems like an opportunity to try something a little different and see what comes of it. And if it turns out it didn't work, we fund more, and we know, and we know that we tried and it didn't quite work. Same thing, I'll, you know, say, look at the SPED reserve, right? We had to try a number of years before we figured out the correct funding for that.
But in the meantime, that saves us, you know, with the ball field. Which were two and a half, right? Plus another 400 grand from the roads.
Plus potentially some adjustment on sidewalks and things. Like, you're looking at close to three million. I think it's about three million dollars in use for adjustment. Right. You're looking at, like, yeah, like three million, bringing that down from 13 to 10. And that's a lot more palpable. And certainly closer to the eight recommended by ICPC. To give them an opportunity to make adjustments, which I'm not sure what they will do. But we suggest that we should take a vote. And that sends a message that, hey, as it stands now, we're not going to support it. But we've got until Monday. Effectively, yes. Yeah. I think that's what we should do. Yeah. No, I think that's what we do. And I think we can be more, yes, as you said, a little bit more specific in which line items we have. And I want to go back to April's questions about the HVAC system and all. And that was in there for a future year. So that was in there for FY28. There were two. Yeah, there are two HVAC lines. There's one for the elementary school and one for the middle school. And I think the budget, the CIPSE budget, had middle school in and elementary school out. And the town, the budget proposed to us, has elementary school in and middle school out. Which I think the feedback from Brian is basically like, they talked to the schools. So I talked to Michael Fea and he said that that prioritization was wrong. I mean, if he got one into that project, he wanted to be elementary school and out of middle school. I'd like clarification from Michael Fea on that.
So what we're doing is substituting one opinion with a guy who he works for for his opinion? No, I think that the way CIPSE had it was high priority for the middle school HVAC. And I think the high priority for HVAC is, in my opinion, more imminent than a roadway. And so if we need to improve those, I'd rather see things being done so they're not emergencies. That end up hitting the budget next year or that becomes an emergency and you have to find funds for it. Because middle school roadways and sidewalks were 430 in 27 to be funded by a levy borrowing. And then next year in 28, we have HVAC, middle school HVAC for 470 by a levy. So it's only, I thought CIPSE had it at 540. It's 540. Oh, sorry. I'm like, my levy is 470 and the 30,000. So now there's 30,000. It's 540 for the elementary HVAC and 540. Okay. So to be clear, my understanding is that it was not that roadways came in for the middle school instead of the HVAC for the middle school. That's how I do it. Okay. My understanding is that the elementary school HVAC came in and the middle school HVAC moved out. So it was not a roadways versus an HVAC trade. It was like an HVAC. But right now, if you're looking at, I thought someone had said something about the need for HVAC at middle school. I think there's a need for HVAC at the middle school and the elementary school. I think CIPSE had elementary in 28 and middle school in 27, and the town has those flipped. So the town has middle school, 28, elementary, 27. Right. But I'm just saying, like, to April's point, like, you might, I mean, 470 versus 440, like, 30 or 440, you might just flip those so that you address middle school HVAC ahead of middle school sidewalks. I mean, they're not just similar amounts. I think my impression, again, we can ask for verification, was that, like, basically, we're going to do one HVAC project this year, and this is the priority of those. And there was kind of a logistical thing of, like, not that the middle school got pushed out. It's like, they logistically couldn't do the two HVAC projects. But we certainly ask for verification. So I didn't think it was two HVAC. I thought it was, Michael, say, I just, like, to know the people to do multiple projects. And I didn't understand it as two HVAC as much as I understood it as, like, you could do the sidewalks or you could do the HVAC and make it sidewalks. But that is an interesting point of clarification. I know that one HVAC project, the CIPSE had a 27 and 28 HVAC project. Those same projects have just been flipped. So, again, my impression was that was the trade-off, right, that they felt that the elementary HVAC was more pressing than the middle school. And we both in one year. Question, aside from this, has school committee voted for their capital budget, for the school's capital budget? I don't know. And I wonder, I know they sent us the memorandum on the fields project saying school budget, the school committee voted for that. Because, oh, Harley, he sent, yes, a CIPC opinion. So, I think we've got two different things going on, one of which is the possibility of switching the two HVAC systems and then pushing out the little school. Not necessarily switching. I don't think we should switch. Personally, I feel as though HVAC systems should take precedence over roadways. Both of them. Okay, fine. So, if they are feasible to be done in the same year how CIPC had them, move up the public, the PBS, I think it was public school building, PBS HVAC. And then it's, sorry, no, it's elementary HVAC. And I'm going from tabs in my head on the CIPs and the middle school HVAC. And then we could fit in portions of the sidewalk if that's a feasible project. I think it's good to do split that over two years and then combine them to, personally, I feel as though they should be almost combined to district-wide so that it can be a rolling fund like we do roads, et cetera. That's how I think that one should be set up. But I'd like further clarification on why, like written from Michael Fayette, if he's pushing it out, the justification, because I did get CIPs on both of those. So, I don't want to have justification on. On what? I'm sorry. On the HVACs, both systems. He had submitted HVAC CIPs for both systems and the sidewalks had been pushed out by CIPs, I believe. CIPs had pushed out those sidewalks. They weren't in the original budget. So, in addition to the two HVAC systems, you've got CIPs on, right? You've got, that's in the article? Or is it not? They're not. So, CIPC recommended middle school HVAC. Town manager recommended, I think, the elementary school HVAC. So, both of those HVACs. CIPC had pushed out the sidewalks. Town manager put the sidewalks in. So, that's the part that I think that further clarification on the need for sidewalks improvements to be almost $900,000 in one year. Over the need for an HVAC replacement and why that project, if it was rated as side priority, why it would be pushed out further. So, I can write this up. I'm happy to do that and send you my notes on. Okay. I appreciate it.
You want to take a vote? So, if the vote, and this is probably not the way you've expressed the motion, but if the vote is to approve the plan or, well, subject to taking out the fields, taking out or. I was thinking, I think we would vote as is, and we would recommend how we feel, we would recommend not only. I agree with you. Is that the way it's done? That's the way it's done. I think we've been presented with this budget. With this capital budget. I think we should vote on that. And then. I agree. Tell them what they could do to win our approval. Right. Right. I agree. Okay. No. Yeah. I truly didn't know what the protocol was. Is there a particular language for the motion, Pam? You're all right. I'm sorry. I don't know if there is, because it's like the funding sources, too. It's in the thing that I have. If you have my breakdown, the CIP write-up. Oh, no, because I have the. I think you can just do it by just looking at the five-year funding.
But I also have it in that write-up that I'm giving you, too. The CIP write-up. Okay. Big spreadsheet. Oh, oh, oh. No. No. It shows this one.
You don't have to do it by. Oh, yes. But you don't have to do it by project. I think we can do it by total. But you have to do it by funding source, which the funding is on. If that's on that. Do the separate. And then. No. I think that's going to be an event of that article. Okay. So, I'm looking at the capital project budget workbook dated.
You received it on 2-27. 3. Let me get to the end of this title. See this.
Oh, version 6.
There's a five-year funding. Yep. Okay. So, I move that income, recommend the fiscal year 27 capital budget for a total of $13,774,942. Being funded by levy taxation, $4,692,899. Excluded debt, $4.5 million. Cash. Free cash, $2,189,766. Ambulance fund, $105,000. Capital closeout, $692,277. Capital stabilization, $100,000.
Oh, shoot. Because this does include the other two. So, we just have to subtract out. We just have to subtract out the fund.
The price funds you have to take out.
Surplus capital. And what was the last one? It's like, um, just a minute. You have to do this. Wait.
So, it's 12 million?
Does this shine? So, water from wastewater are out of there. It's still 27. Or is it? I think it's not burning. Yeah. Okay.
27 million. All right. Okay. Sorry. So, all that holds. The total will be for $12,279,942.
I'll second. I don't understand what you just did. So, I looked at the five-year funding tab.
And that's where I am now. So, that $13 million total includes water fund and wastewater fund. Correct. So, I had to subtract those out. So, I subtracted out $1.495 million from $13.7 million. But that means that we would be voting on a $12.2 million. Yes, we are. But that's not to be now requesting. So, I'm sure. Because the water fund and the wastewater fund are being addressed in the Enterprise Fund article. The Enterprise Fund article funds the water, wastewater, and transfer station operating budget and capital budget. So, these capital items for water fund and wastewater are taken care of in the article. So, what we're voting now is just for the rest of the town. The amount doesn't change, right? The amount is the total amount. It's just that there's a separate article to split that money out and we vote on that money in that article. Because those enterprise funds operate on their own. Like, water fund funds itself. Water fund will fund the water debt, the capital that's being addressed here. So, the town is spending a total of, or anticipates spending, $13.7 million. But we're going to vote for what's done in the Enterprise Funds, in the Enterprise Fund article, and everything else we're voting for here as part of the regular omnibus. Is that what we did last year? It isn't, because this is the new rank, because Capital, the Enterprise Fund Capital, hadn't been moved over to the article. Last year, we just did Enterprise Fund operating. Now, we're doing Enterprise Fund operating and Capital in their own Enterprise Fund article. And you described the F-1 of 27. We're only voting on the five-year capital plan. We're only right now voting on the 27. So, we're not voting on the rest of it. But we do have to vote on the five-year as well. But we'll do 27 first, and then we can do the five-years.
But, yeah, I guess we should do that. Because they should go together.
They're kind of connected, but okay. Okay. So, first of all, I think that the new way we do it is more confusing than ever. But as long as people understand it. Does that make sense to everyone? Well, honestly, it doesn't to me. But I know what you're saying, and I think it works. If you go to the next tab, by department, fiscal year 27, the total for the departments, before you get to the... Yeah, there you go. There's that 12 million, 279. And if you look at that CIP write-up, that spreadsheet that I had done, that one FY27 summary tab, it breaks it out as the top portion is operating. And the second part of it is enterprise fund capital budgets. So, we're all doing the omnibus capital budget. I know we're getting to the right place. I just don't like the process. So, I'm happy to... It's changed last year. It is different than it was last year. And I think it does make sense. I mean, if you have enterprise funds that are supporting themselves, they should be supporting their debt, too. So, it should be all together in the same article. We just, in order to, as we've pulled those out of the... They used to be part of the regular budget overall, and we've slowly peeled them off. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the explanation.
Motion is... We have the motion. No, I'm sorry.
Okay. All in favor?
Aye. Anybody else? Okay. All opposed? Any opposed? Okay.
One, five, zero.
Okay. Then, did you want to do the five-year now? I wonder if we need to do that since we voted, we didn't approve the... 27 piece of it? Eventually, we wouldn't. I mean, so we could... I would... You'd have to assume that... Well, we have a message. You would have at least the same vote? I would assume, yeah.
Okay. Just to be clear, what we would be voting on with respect to five-year is our recommendation. I suppose that's all we're doing here. Yes. You know, we're not... That seems to be different from... Yeah. I don't know that... I mean, I think to the point, we probably shouldn't vote on it eventually, but voting on it now when there's a good chance it will change, it doesn't seem like... I don't see how we can because we don't... You know, we don't know where we moved into those other years, if anything. Right? We can... Again, we're voting on what exists. So, I mean... Yeah.
Yeah. So, don't... I'll delete a link. I assume if we vote no in the first year, we're basically voting no for all five, but we didn't say that. Yeah, so... If we can hold off on the five-year, to me, that makes sense. We already didn't vote for the one year, so it seems like... Then we'll change the five-year if we... Right, exactly. So, I mean, if we aren't in... If we aren't sort of amiss or running afoul of any rules, I would say we can hold off on the five-year. Yeah. I mean, I think that makes sense. I think we're going to have to come back and address the 27th, so we're going to have to vote again anyway, so... And if we don't, right? Or are we... If there's no changes and we choose not to re-vote it, we can just vote the five-year. Right. We've been told there will be no changes. All right. Well, so, April, you and I can commune tomorrow and figure out exactly what we're going to ask them to... Or tell them is our problem. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
All right. That was capital. So, I appreciate the comments I've gotten to date on the FinCom report. I think the biggest polls in it are, no surprise, capital. So, I can't do much about that between tonight and tomorrow unless, you know, we report in and they say, okay, we'll do those things. In which case, I'll give you an updated draft. Oh, just to understand, we also can put forth a budget that excludes appropriations for those things if we think they're appropriate. Is that correct? Or is it incumbent on... Like, my understanding is that it's not incumbent on the town manager and Brian County to do that. However, in an ideal world, we would like their buy-in to make those changes, which is why we're giving them the opportunity to make those changes and incorporate them. But my understanding at the end of the day is that the budget, both operational and capital that's presented to town meeting, comes from FinCom. And so, therefore, the finance committee has the authority to remove them from a capital budget that we propose and then vote on a capital budget that we can all align on. Yeah, that is my understanding. That's why I'm clarifying. It's still town manager's budget. We can... So, we went through the wording on that bylaw very carefully. And I understood that it was still incumbent on finance committee to present a budget and a capital budget. And we could, if we so choose, have Michael McCall speak on behalf of us. But at the end of the day, it is our budget that is presented to town meeting. That's what I recommend... That's what I recollect from the bylaw. So, I look back at the bylaw as I drafted that first paragraph. So, I'm reading from my paraphrase, not the actual bylaw, but it's completely consistent of what you just said, that we recommend a budget to town meeting. Yeah, that's what I recollect. So, we have the authority. Now, again, I'm not saying we exercise that authority because I would much prefer that they be in alignment with us. And I think we give them the opportunity to hopefully present a capital budget that I think we can align on. But in the absence of that, we, I think, have that opportunity as well. So, I guess I share that, Bill, to share, like, it's not do you vote yes or no for this. There's also the opportunity if we have a majority to say we're going to start taking stuff up and then present a budget that we can all get on board with.
Is that budget presented as the only budget? I think if you did it, I think if you were to present it, because we started going through this a few years ago and we were big parents from, I think you would present what the town manager presented and what the FinCon recommendation is so that people can see both.
We call it. We end up in discrete changes. They're large, but there's a small number of them. I think it would be, and not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, but if the, if we are still in disagreement, let's say by Wednesday or certainly by Monday, I think rather than present an entirely separate budget, which is largely debilitative, if we say we don't recommend this budget, we would recommend this budget with these following changes, that's what I would do. You know, it's, you know, that's only an idea. But then I think we're also then relying for someone to make a motion on the floor to then remove those things. In my mind, the easiest thing for the public to do would be to see the budget that we propose, plus what was not proposed to them. And then either approve the budget we propose with the amendments, right? Or say, actually, we prefer that other budget. We would prefer to go back to that budget. Like essentially the two, the two budget approach that Pam's suggesting. Because if we just put forth, here's what we disagree with, and here are the changes we want, we're relying on someone on the floor to go up and say, make a motion for men, which I think is messy. Like, I'm just thinking about the easiest thing for the public, right? Like, not everyone's going to have heard this conversation, right? I think a lot of people are really relying on FinCom to put forth a budget that passes and I would feel confident in. And then I would like to, I would, I would personally feel more inclined to do that for them, to say, here's what we want to do. Yeah. So we'll have to figure it out. The wording is, because I'm looking, I brought up the article or the bylaw. Yeah. The finance committee shall review the operating capital budgets, the five-year capital plan in supporting documents prepared by the town manager pursuant to sections 6B and 6C, chapter 33, the Acts of 2022, Managraph. In fact, following such review, the finance committee shall present at annual town meeting a recommended operating and capital budget. FinCom shall also, shall include its recommendations for the five-year capital plan in its report to ATM. The five-year capital plan shall include blah, blah, blah. But we present a recommended operating and capital budget. So if we have a recommendation that differs from the town managers, we, I would read from that, infer from that, that we would be presenting a different, our own recommending budget. We're pretty far ahead of ourselves. I'm just, just, if we're going down that path to say, what if, and we've got another week, okay, yeah, we should know what the options are and know what it would look like. Yeah. I guess my assumption would be that at that point, we should probably ask downtown Seoul how that works. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. I think, yeah, we can check in with them, but I think we should also be prepared to produce our own recommended budget for budget.
So producing the... I would hope we don't have to do that. Yeah. Right. Okay. Have you covered capital for tonight? Okay.
I'm happy to take additional feedback on the draft. It feels like that might be, at this point, a little premature, but I'm happy to... Iris, I've not had a chance to look at your value yet. Okay. All right. Don't be too concerned. I think I primarily just...
Maybe I don't write a lot of legal documents, so I did a lot of trying to condense it a little bit. The conversation was good. And there were a couple tables. Sorry, which one was it? His report. I just sent him my own personal edits. I got a couple pages in, maybe like to page seven, and then had to unfortunately pause. But I sent him like the track changes on all of my recommended... A lot of it is just trying to condense it down a little bit. And then some of the tables, I think, was my biggest thing. Some of the tables... And I know you did not do the tables, so I'm not confusing you, but some of the tables, I felt, would benefit from some labeled columns. I particularly found, which even for us, I think, was the first time we looked at it, a bit tough to understand what we were looking at. The table about the rate of change and the top drivers of increase in the overall budget, that table, I think, needs a little bit. The columns aren't labeled except for the last column. Like ones... And they aren't... There's like the first column, which has the actual items, and then there's a number next to a couple of them, but not all of them. It's just a little inconsistent. So I think that one would benefit a little bit from just some more clear labeling. And all of that's in my... Well, I'll look at that. I'm a little confused about what you're saying, because if you're talking about table four that has the budget drivers, they're all labeled.
I think we could include in that one. And I put this one... You started it, and I kind of add into it. I think they don't... Not every line item is going to add to the net change, which was... On the percentage, it adds to 4.63. It doesn't quite add. I think we have a total there. And then... So you add a total? Sorry? I would add a line at the bottom just so that you know. And it's not... Normally, you put the line under these to say, as if it's the sum of. I would just include total 4.6. So you're not going to quite get to 4.63% from adding these up. But these are most of the components.
Right? I don't understand.
4.63 does appear in the sort of two... So... It's above it. I just said, I'm always leery of including totals that don't add up. Because inevitably, I thought that confuses people more. No, I... But that's not... I mean, the point of this is... I mean, you're not going to get to every detail. Every detail isn't a driver. Yeah. Right. But you want to say these... Like, just so that people can... In one of my... It gives the context of, okay, this is 1.74. It's 1.74% of 4.63. Right? And in my... One of the comments I think I added to you, Carl, was to call these the top eight budget drivers specifically for that, right? Because essentially, these are just a subset of, like, the total increases. So here's what I found a little confusing when I looked at this table. So there's FY27 versus FY26. What he really means is, like, the dollar column, right, is the change in dollars between FY26 and 27, and then the rate of percentage change, right? And then next to it, then he's got contribution to total year-over-year change. What he really means is, how is that all adding up to the four-point? Well, that is the contribution to the total year-over-year change. Yeah. So you... I think the labels are a little tough to understand, just personally. I hear you. Yeah. You're not wrong. So that's an easy fix. Yeah. What I'd suggest, and tell me if you think this is great, is I think at least on that right-hand column, you could add a total line, because that's a real total. It's a subtotal. So let's say that adds to the 4%, and then either a footnote there or a separate line that says that 4%, that's 4% of the 4.63, whatever that line, right? Like that. Put that in context. Yeah. And then the other thing that's kind of interesting here is, like, reserve for salary adjustments is, like, the number one thing. But he starts numerating at healthcare insurance premiums directly below it as one, even though it's actually less of a total percentage. I understand why that's done, because the reserve for salary adjustments presumably is just that reserve that then moves into payroll. But I actually think I added a note in my edits to you, Carl, of, like, we should say that, right? Like, or else he starts with one, which isn't the top budget driver, which is a little odd. See the one? No. Oh, that's the footnote. That's not... That's the footnote. Oh, it's the footnote? No. Footnotes just didn't work. Ooh. Oh, my gosh. I did... Okay. Thank you. I didn't realize that. I was like, this is an odd way of doing it. Oh, absolutely. Carl. You're saying he? No, Brian Kennedy, right? No. No, this is... This is... Carl and I. This is my table, which Pam, then, and Pete. And then I... Well, I... It's very kind to be a table. Yes. It's a wonderful table. It is a wonderful table. All right. I mean, the idea is to try to point to what are the budget drivers and quantify them. I think it's a worthy table. Do not get me wrong. It is a worthy table. I gave you some feedback on it, both in, like, what I wrote about it and how I, like, just trying to maybe clarify the explanation. And then, again, my only other feedback, which I added a comment for you to say, I think maybe the problems could be solidified. Yes. And I think you got some of my comments just clarifying what some of the terms are. You're talking about unclassified was one, obviously. But then I'm looking at table one. It's like OPEB contribution. Even I don't know what that is. And then there's other SP period, assume state, other state assessments, overlay offsets. You know, I don't know what that would be. So I think for a layperson, they probably want to just go through and make sure the terms are defined somewhere. This, I'm thinking about the, first of all, we could define everything. You're not wrong, right? But, you know, where do you stop? I got to think about where this fits in the context of a warrant. Because if OPEB has been defined somewhere, maybe we don't have to do that. But, I mean, we do have OPEB. If you kind of do a control F for OPEB, first one is. We had at one point talk about trying to be kind of like a glossary or something. Actually not until, actually it's not until page nine.
You know, our report comes very early in the warrant. So whether it's a footnote or whether it's a glossary or maybe just, you know, people have to Google it. Yeah.
Well, they can ask the neighbors. I mean, I guess, I hear you, but then we're saying we want to condense this and that just adds so much more detail. And then I would. Especially for, I mean, it's its own art. I would probably take it out. I would just do other. Because if people don't know what it means. I think OPEB should stay in there. And maybe we can say other post-employment. I don't want to mess with these tables. I really don't. Because if you start, then. You can, we can write out state assessments. Yeah. I mean, we, but I think. Anyway, I didn't mean to pick on that particular one. But just in general, the more we can clarify, the better.
When you, just as a quick thing, when you do like, from the, there's, you can take unchecked grid lines from the view. So when you, um, paste it as a picture, you don't have the grid lines there. Um, I'm not positive about this, but I think, did you print it? Anybody tried printing this? It does. It'll show up. You have to take out. You have to take out. Okay. The lines.
We're getting, we're. So I just have a couple points on, if you're okay, going forward to the next one. So on the recommendations, I was curious. I feel as though I agree with bullet one, continue strategic planning and financial forecasting for FY28 through 36. But should that be a separate bullet from the education? Cause I think the education piece, if an override is there, is that a separate bullet or is it one bullet?
Cause I think that could be too. The continued education of the public through forums and et cetera. I feel as though that's your strongest statement that that could be a separate bullet. I thought that that was a key point to drive out that I do think strategic planning and financial forecasting along with capital planning outlook expanded, which you already have, like the expanded capital. I think that those are very important. And then the one thing I just, and forgive me if I'm ignorant on this, your point about aggressively pursued pilot agreements with not-for-profit entities in town. I'm wondering how does that help? So if someone could just explain that to me, cause I didn't understand that one bullet one. So not-for-profits don't pay taxes. And there is a mechanism in place with the state that authorizes towns and cities to go to, you know, not-for-profits and say, hey, you're getting all these services and you're not paying it. So why don't you contribute to the, that's what we call it. Taxes. Taxes. Okay. Loo of taxes, right? And I think I've raised this one-on-one with Michael McCall. I know that he says they're doing it. And I just think we just got to keep on doing it. I was just curious. I didn't know what it meant. And if it meant like we were pursuing more not-for-profits to come into town. And that was the part that I wanted to make sure. I hope it doesn't say that. But that's what I just didn't understand what the pilot part was. It's a kind of interesting concept because you can't say you must contribute tax because that's a tax. But, you know. They can give freely. They can give very freely. And maybe it's like the not-for-profit entities that currently reside in town. Or I don't know if it's like that already, like already established. I'm not sure. Like, you could clarify that. As opposed to pursuing new, I guess, is more of mine.
I think I would change hearing that. I would change, pursue pilot agreements with not-for-profits. I don't want to limit it to current not-for-profits. You don't. I guess it was more of like the pursue part of it. I agree with what your statement was once I understood it. But it was like, are we asking for more not-for-profits? Or are we asking for more pilot programs? And so, like, I guess that was more of where I wanted to just make sure we differentiate.
Okay. I would certainly give some thought.
I think that is-have we had that bullet? I'm sorry? Have we had that before? Have we had that before? Have we included that bullet before? I don't believe so. It is a good one. But, yeah, in a world where- We've brought it up before that it's- Yeah.
And then one of the bullets that I think that you could potentially combine are the expand the capital planning period, considered by CIP and self-manager, and then the one that's underneath it, require. Because I do think that for all capital expenditures, it's like that should be part of the planning process, is requiring, like, further detail to put them together. I put those two bullets together, or maybe even a sub-bullet or something that would- I think I'd keep them separate just to make it. They're kind of two different. They're both on longer-term capital, but one is saying, like, let's take a longer view, and the other is saying, for the projects that you have, outstanding, or that you take on, require the bit of my last time, so you can measure- Separate concepts. Yeah. So you can see progress.
Hearing this, though, and I'm not trying to cut off conversation, I think even if we can't do much about the capital section, I will try to get a revised cap out tomorrow to take a look at it, so we can talk on Wednesday.
Otherwise, all my other ones are, like, edits. I'm happy to take them. So there's one in that last period that says FY2YT, budget preparation. It's your second-to-last line. So I think your Y meant to be a 7.
Oh, I see it now.
It works.
Yeah, thank you.
It's funny, spell checker didn't catch that. Which means I've used it before. Because it's like an acronym. I thought it was an acronym.
And you did have stuff on new growth, right? Is recommendations about, I think you did. I remember reading about it. But the city revenue resources. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah.
Yeah, it's probably the second bullet point here.
And then that comes up again with the challenges above, where it says the town has achieved only a 7-0 growth.
If I were one main in committee, I'd be much harsher on that.
Because it's not because we haven't achieved it. Like, people don't want it.
I don't want to preach. I'm not talking about preaching to you. No. Although I don't want to do that either. I mean, I don't want to be preaching to the town. You know, how to live.
If you have other edits, if you've made them, if you can send them to me, that would be better. Because we've got a bunch of articles to think about. I guess just one question on the report. Continued budget pressures are overrides for 28 through 36. And then as you go through healthcare premiums for current employees, for retirees. I mean, do we need to include what they were, the fiscal 27? It just. Sorry, what? Near the end of the report. Yeah, I find it sexy. Okay. So we say health insurance premiums for current. So we're talking about the pressures. First of all, it is health insurance premium for current employees and for retirees. Budgeted to increase 8.5% and 18% respectively in fiscal 27. I don't know if we need the, what it's going to do in 27. I mean, looking, looking ahead is the challenge. I mean, that issue is the challenge for 28 through 36. I guess you're putting it in context by saying what it, the increase for 27. Yeah, I'm trying to say it. But it's all just real. It's been, it's, we've just been through. Well, actually, I don't know if you see, you don't see all the detail in the report, you know, in the other tables. So maybe that is new information too. The 2.5% world when things are rising this fast, I feel like you can't say it enough, especially since we don't have any control over it. I think that. Or perhaps a little control over it. No, that's true. I think you're, you're highlighting just your proof points.
You get the agenda in the times. Are you going to do some articles tonight? I will love to do some articles tonight. Welcome to financial aid, Bill. I'm a very time-oriented person, you can tell. So we're running out of time. So we've got to do what we've got to do.
Okay. Can we move on?
Okay.
On those articles.
It's A, O, O, N, N, and L.
That I want to. And then I think. This off. But I didn't know if it was final. I think S and T are sufficiently final. And then if we have time, I'd love people's feedback on DD. But DD is going to need some work stuff.
All right. Well, so you want to present those two then? S and P? Sure. So I sent those out earlier. These are the loosier of the articles in the warrant, I think. So they both revolve around increasing the. They both revolve around offering additional liquor licenses or alcohol licenses. Which is maybe you can start with S.
The typo. Yeah. I'm sure you have a typo. The alcohol. And what that was doing there. You're probably moving stuff around. Right? Yeah. Yeah.
In the first paragraph. I don't think you need to say ultimately this person's article is to enable. The reason, so the reason I did that is just because, and I think in both of these, it's because it's like kind of circuitous, right? Like the article is not about doing that. It's about technically about accepting the provision that then allows people to do that. So I didn't know if. I think you can say something like passage of this article. Well, the purpose is to ultimately. Passages of this article would enable. Right. Yeah. Rather than purpose. Yeah. Start up. But what it may be. And then something else that Carol Martin told me is there's no formatting once we get to our finance committee comments. So you're in the needs to be all the way next to the colon. Right? You're in the. Right. So it needs to be all the way after the colon. The first paragraph starts at finance committee comments. Finance committee comments. And then it starts immediately. They're saving all the space they can. I'm the same, same with arguments and in favor and opposed. Yeah. Just start the first argument right at the article and just FYI. That's like a small nit, but it's just. Good to know. And then the other just quick sort of general thing like that. When you refer, when you're referring to the town being Weyland, it's a capital T. Just capital.
And then. So if we're changing it to pass through this article, we'll enable. At the beginning, I'd probably delete the next. I think you can, the article would accomplish it. Yeah. I can practice that out. Okay. Works for me.
I think.
Yeah. And then the next paragraph, I guess I would say acceptance of the change in bylaw rather than this, because it just, it refers back to everything. It's just, just clarifies that it's a change in bylaw. And then your first argument in favor, or sorry, the second argument in favor, proponents argue that flexibility and licensing, I'd say could support potential new business rather than will support some kind of a, it should, but we don't know, we don't know that it will. Both arguments too. Yeah. We can make it. The other one says we'll support potential new businesses. We'll support potential new and potential growth for existing. Yeah. I mean, either, I guess I, I'm fine with whatever we think of the standard, right? The proponents will tell you that it will. Of course they will, but writing kind of more moderately, I mean, and then the first argument opposed, I'd say opponents may feel that you have increasing the number of licenses, but I think he'd want to say expanding the licensing of alcoholic beverages to new businesses, maybe two new businesses on fair to existing holders of such licenses that also have to go back and apply for it. Is that the point?
Yeah. I mean, the, the point is that this was a restrained good to a certain, certain set of businesses and now it would be easier for us, other businesses to. Relaisons out of the market share. Yeah. Right. But if, if you went through the existing hoops to getting all alcohol licenses. So I think that's, I mean, I might just say it that way because it's not an increasing, but expanding licensing on all alcohol beverages to new businesses is unfair to existing holders of such licenses that must go back and reapply for the same.
And then you're missing a period at the end of the second. And so, I mean, it should generally be in there. I would just put in there. I would just say, yeah, you don't, I don't think we need this qualifier.
Cost in there, meaning there's no financial impact? Uh, I mean, well, I think there is a financial impact, which is that presumably if this can cause new growth, that's a positive, but there's no cost to this in terms of dollar cost to the town. Right. So there's no avoiding the no financial impact language, but yeah.
I will move that. We recommend, um, passengers, this article. As amended. As amended. Thank you.
Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Okay. It's one down.
Article T. Um, this is to petition the town for, uh, sorry, petition the town, petition the general court for an additional liquor licenses for the sale of alcohol, all alcohol beverages to be drunk on the premises.
Fairly similar. We'll make the same formatting changes. Yeah. Yeah. I think the passage of this article enables the town would be, do people feel it should be will enable or would enable? I'm assuming the second paragraph there should say in order to accomplish this. I will probably just delete that some more to the last one. Yeah. I think it's the passage of this article. I think if you make similar changes to this one, you'll be, uh, yeah. And if you feel the passage of this article will enable the town or would enable the town? Will enable the town. And I would say will enable the town to petition the Massachusetts general court to grant additional licenses licenses and subsequently authorize, you know, or, and authorize the select board. I don't even think you need to say to authorize the select board to send such a petition, right? It's your passage allows for the select board to petition the Massachusetts general court for additional liquor licenses, right? And then you can say, when it's current limit is 14, all of which are being currently issued, this means the town is unable to issue licenses to business existing. Um, if, if granted by the Massachusetts general court, you know, the select board, uh, or the town would have potentially up to 10 more licenses for sale, right?
As you're proposing to would be, what's the 10 more licenses beginning and the end? I would take that whole beginning part out first, like, because the article itself does not enable the town to issue up to 10 more licenses. The article itself only enables the town to petition the Massachusetts general court. Yeah. And that's, yeah. So I would, and then underneath that, I would explain here's what they plan to do if so granted. Right. But the article passage of the article is only about the petitioning of the court. That's, and that's like, so that's actually exactly why I did originally word how I did, which is like, I was trying to kind of get up front, but like, what are we actually talking about? What are we talking about trying to get the town to issue 10 more? Absolutely. Has this been discussed before? My apologies. I don't know. No, it's okay. This one, I think is ultimately to enable the town to issue. The other one actually is the article to change the bylaw. This is, this allows the, right? Select board. That was, yeah, that was kind of where I came with this. General court. I was trying to kind of get the front, like, ultimately what we're trying to accomplish is X. And I think this is the article that's using the Y. But I think they're between S and T, right? Like S, S is you pass and we're done. This one, we're just saying that the selectors, you go to the general court and petition, and then we've got to go on. And ultimately, the goal is to have more licenses. Yeah, and that was kind of why I worded this one the way I did was because, again, I want to put up from, like, what are we actually talking about here? We're talking about trying to get 10 more licenses. You know, there are hoops. You know, it is not that straightforward. If people feel otherwise, we can, we can reverse it. I guess I feel like the petitioning of the general court just is a little. Have I misunderstood? Is that not what we're granting here? That is what we're granting. I just feel like it, that would be, I feel like what people are really voting on in my mind is do they want 10 more licenses? Agreed. But this is, this article, we don't have 10 licenses to give around. So at the end of the day, it's, do you want them to ask for 10 more or do not? And maybe that's a better way to catch it, however you do that. But I think the first one makes it seem like we're voting for town to issue 10 more. That's not what we're voting on. We're voting on whether they're going to go ask for 10 more or not. You're looking at the arguments? Or just the comments? Okay. So to me, that is a distinction, right? Like I hear you on like, well, asking then leads potentially to receiving. And then really, is that not the same thing? But I think that there is a little bit of a difference between this is an ask versus we have this in hand. And now are we going to use it? I mean, I think you just, I think you could use what you have. Right. I think I just, yeah, the purpose of this article is ultimately to enable the town to issue 10 more. Whalen's current limit is 14. And just like at the end of that, say this article, you know, would, would, whatever, would, would authorize select board to petition general court for, to grant 10 additional. Sorry. I feel like there are three pieces of this and you have three different opinions about the order in which they should all go. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I don't know. I defer to Rob. It's probably, as long as the three pieces are in there. Fair enough. Whichever order you want to sell them in. If you have opinions on the arguments in favor and against.
I am curious why you didn't have increased revenue for the town in the previous one. You have it in this one, which I agree with. I'm just wondering why you didn't have it in the previous one. That is a good question.
I think, no, I, I did. Yeah. I think I actually more or less copy-pasted. So yeah. The first argument in favor said, which can increase revenue for the other one as well. Yeah. If I didn't, that's a very good comment.
So happy to either think another fast at the wording of comments. If people feel that are too confusing.
You know what you're going to do with that? Right. You know what you're going to do with that?
Good answer.
Any other comments?
Anybody want to move the question? I'll move to, um, recommend article T, home rule, allow additional liquor licenses for, I can in.
In favor? In favor. As amended, sorry. Yes. As amended. Thank you. Two for two, Rob. Do you want to, like I said, EV is likely to change. So maybe we go through all the ones that are ready for active. Is DD the one that came in, like, today? Like, late today? No, in that, we could vote on that one if we want. DD is the Holiday Road one. Oh, sorry. Select board and school committee, I guess, we're talking about it still tonight. So, um, no, today was the, it's B, I think, which is pay unpaid debts. You're absolutely right. Is, for the record, I think, exactly the same. Brian replied to the DD one with that. That's why we're confused. Um, I think it is basically a copy-paste of, of last year's, just.
Are they saying article what? Which article? I mean, it is actually a whole copy-paste. It's article. It just says article. Yeah, I, I need to edit this, because also it says 24 paid with 26, and 25 paid with 26, and I assume these are all supposed to be.
Paid previous fiscal, this is the one we're talking about? Yeah. So I'll, I just got this from Brian. Okay. Today, so I'll, maybe we should just vote it on Wednesday if that works. Okay. I think you send this to us. I have no, like. Okay, Aaron. I'd send him a separate email asking for this. Okay. Okay. No worries. Yeah. I've got two to talk about. I guess, actually, so are we going to vote for B? Why would we not? Yes. Well, I, I'm not convinced, I guess, are the years even right, um, that talks about using 2026 appropriations? No, I think that's, that is, no, I shouldn't, I think that is. It's, it's paying the 25 and the 24 bills with 26 appropriations. Okay. So these are prior years on new bills that we've. Oh, I see. And my question on looking at this is why is the key to tech? We've got another $10,000 from last year. Yeah, I guess that's $10,000 from each.
All right. I think we should ask.
Because isn't this what we just voted all the emergency funding for? So, like, why is there another 10 grand in unpaid bills? Well, we voted the emergency funding for 2026. For this year, for this year's bills, but I'm wondering because, but then like, should this be here? But I think this is the 2026. I don't know why it's here, but I also think, I remember in last year's budget when, when we had voc ad as whatever number and then the number went down. And so why did it ultimately end up that we owe $10,000? That the budgeted number actually would be for 26. Right, wouldn't this be 26 that we're going to pay for 27? This is for 25. So why is this fiscal year 25 stuff that was not paid? Maybe they're just giving us an example without the real numbers and the real thing? No, I think this is the real number. I think I just, I just want to hear, it's a bigger amount too. I mean, that's $10,000. I just want to understand. Yeah, I think that's fair. That was for fiscal 25. Are we on track? I mean, we just heard of numbers and maybe it was in doing the 26, yeah, you know, request for the finance committee fund that they found the previous month. But I just, I'd like to hear a little more about the college plan. Subject to learning that, would you be willing to approve the article? Yeah. I can, I think we can vote on it, but I think what we should also understand. I don't agree. Although I, you know, because it seems to have a $120 million budget, I'm not going to worry about too much personally, but I'm not saying. Well, I think it's also a process question.
Yeah, I'll ask. I mean, yeah.
It'll take us two minutes to vote on Wednesday. Yeah. So I say vote Wednesday.
Wednesday. Yeah. Okay. Good. Wednesday it is. What do we got next? Okay. Senior Property Assessment Credit.
Yeah.
So let me explain what's going on. Article KK, which I dropped at 730. Yeah. I dropped an updated version at 730.
730? You did. Yeah. I did another version. Yep. I did another version. I was thinking a little bit more about arguments in favor to oppose. This is probably my ninth draft of this, having gone back and forth with the Senior Tax Relief Committee in Carroll. So the gist of it, as presented to me, and I think in the back and forth, some of the justifications have sort of adjusted, but the gist of it is really that the article suggests or recommends a $500 a year tax credit for particular residents. So you must be over the age of 65, have lived in Weyland for at least 20 years, and currently not have any children in the public schools. And essentially, it's a redistribution of existing levy tax, right? So they're essentially saying, we think that that means about a million dollars gets redistributed across all the households, and then we apply a $500 credit to those who apply for this credit and meet these criteria as claimed by them, and that results in a net $300 a year tax credit. The Senior Tax Relief Committee feels that it is reasonable to offer a thank you to this population for their support to the town and its schools.
And I asked about your question about sort of the math, of course, and just like how the program is expected to work. You can see in my updated version, the math that was presented to me is the math that I shared. So essentially, they took a look at the tax payers, right, the residential homeowners, and the number of those residential homeowners who are over the age of 65. That's getting close to our 40% of Wayland homeowners. And essentially, they're saying, if you were to give these people a $30,000 essentially rebate off of their value, like assessed value on the home by the current rate, you get a million dollars basically generally of the total budget that then becomes about $469 per senior household. And they're rounding that up to $500. So that's essentially how they're doing it. Obviously, I asked, do you have any data to support that of these 40% of Wayland seniors that they actually meet this criteria? They don't have any of that. Obviously, this will be on the honor system, right? You opt in, you say that you meet the criteria, you get this credit. The 40% is the seniors, not the seniors who have been here 20 years. Correct. Correct.
And then the arguments in favor came primarily directly from the senior tax relief committee. I think they felt it important to recognize that they don't necessarily reflect these arguments in favor, but these would-be arguments in favor. And they certainly, I think I understood the genesis of this request to come from sort of a three-pronged approach. The first being that there is a significant portion of, again, the tax base that falls within this potential population, that they've been here a long time and have given and paid their taxes, that they seem to recognize that a large amount of the spending does not directly benefit them, though they don't have any concerns with that. And therefore, I think the general thought here is this would be a nice approach to, in their own words, thank them.
I'm open to any feedback here. Like I said, this is my ninth draft of this. Anything I can do to help distill what any information you all think is relevant, this is a, I have found, I guess, I feel like this one's a little bit tricky, both in the fact that we don't really know who's going to use this program, we don't really know what the eligibility is, and therefore the numbers only represent just the age population, not who's actually eligible. So their $200 number will be high because not all 40% have been here 20 years. I think we just don't know how that's really going to shake out. Um, I, so yeah, I think there's that, um, I, I also think, you know, there's, it's tough for me to sort of, um, because I think the justifications have adjusted so much in my conversations back and forth, both with sort of Carol and the senior tax relief committee. I think that there's a general sense of, they want, particularly really what I understand is they just want acknowledgement that this population is there and feel like this meets that. Um, but I guess from my perspective, I think that there's also potentially either in those who support this or maybe an undercurrent that's maybe less explicit, um, perhaps a need for like larger conversations of like, what does having this population really well represented in their resource allocation and in town look like. And, um, I don't know that a $300 tax credit is really making people feel a lot better if there are like really larger concerns. I guess that's my point. Um, um, it's potentially not about the dollar amount as much as it is about if people are feeling like they're not being acknowledged for being here and being part of the community, that's a concern. And I'm not sure if this article helps reduce that. Um, yeah. What else? I think those arguments don't belong here, but I mean, isn't that equally true of the budget as a whole, right? I mean, we need to drive larger conversations, but this is about whether I get to save 300 bucks on my taxes and you get to pay $200 more. So you think about, so you think the argument in favor of the, the last one, the proponents may feel a large percent of the overall town budget is spent on public schools. Do you think that one should get removed? That one I think is maybe sorry. More on the first one. So I'm still looking at your old drafts. I don't know. Oh, okay. I sent a more recent one. Won't be able. I can't. Okay. No worries. No worries. I think the answer is 60% too. I'm sorry. Okay. So, but yeah, that, so Brian Kevin always says 60. So if it's higher, as long as he's on board with that, I'll adjust it to whatever number. It's good. I mean, if you were to allocate kind of ranked retirement in healthcare, right. You know, even the FTE percentage base rate reporters, you know, look at the numbers that we have for totals. Anyway, not, I don't want to. No, it's okay. I just like, just careful of that number because it's just. Then I can just take it out and I'll just say a large percent and leave it there and leave it there. I'll, I'll take that out. It is tough. It's tough because I don't feel like we have a formal number. Right. That would be consistently used. Yeah. So it's really tough.
Maybe majority.
I don't see it. I wrote a large percent, but I can say a significant. Last bullet. And I don't know. It's on the most recent version. Yeah. For fun to say a large percent of the, or large portion or a significant portion of the budget. We may have changed this already, Iris, and it's so I apologize, but it says here in our comments that there are 4,868 residential homes in Weyland. Mm-hmm. I've seen a dozen different numbers. Yeah. You need to cite the source for. This is, so that, that entire paragraph is basically, with the exception of in the amended version I sent to everyone, I sent an additional line item that said actual tax and credit amounts may vary as there is estimation on the number of qualified, as there's no estimation on the number of qualified senior residents based on the criteria listed above. That whole paragraph came directly from the comments provided by the senior tax relief committee. So I'm happy to couch that, but it, it's tough, right? Then their whole mass starts to break apart if we don't bar the senior tax relief committee. You don't actually mention. Is that a town entity or is that just? Yeah. I do. I do. I say. We have no way of knowing whether that's anywhere close to being accurate. I mean, that's the assumption of the 300 is that 40% of the town is going to apply and be accepted. And I think that's. Right. It should be like estimated. Should you just put estimated in front of all? Sure. Yep. Sure. Yeah. And then I might just, I mean, like 2081. I mean, if it's an estimate. Okay. 20 or 200 or something. So I'll say out of an estimated 4,868 residential homes, I'll, I'll just say estimate for all of it. Yeah. I'd somehow, I'd like to, if this, if these figures came from the committee, I think you should say that. Okay. For the, yeah. Sure. That's great. Otherwise it looks like we came up with those numbers. You're totally right. Yep. Yep. Okay. And I think you may have done it, but I mean, the 40% are what you're saying is, is how many people over 65? That's just the over 65. It's not people who have been here 20 years. Correct. So it could be substantially less than that. It is their opinion that that number is holistically representative of a good estimate for who's qualifies for this. Like, I don't know how they came to that conclusion, but that's their perspective, I believe. So I am curious, um, and Pam and I were having this argument or this discussion, not argument earlier today, should that portion, if it came from them, be in like petitioners' comments or proposers' comments? So I understood. But they haven't, it's just proposers. Like if they'd submitted their, if they, if they, they only provided background, those comments, yeah, then they could. But if they just gave it as background, I don't think it's, that's what we're having because all of my articles are in background. Right. And so there's something, in my opinion, in some of the stuff, how factual is their background is part of the issue that I have, that do you put it, just like Iris has, I'm assuming, validated. I have not validated. I have not validated any of these numbers. Should it be part of the petitioner's comments so that the onus isn't on you if someone comes back and asks about those numbers, if they're going to be included? Sorry, and I'm kind of going back on this, but I think if they're petitioners' comments, like, and I'm maybe misunderstood, or, or I thought someone had put them back in because they thought the petitioner said it was perfect. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. I think if, unless the petitioner wrote, you know, this is what I want to have included as a paragraph for, these are my comments versus just, this is general background information. If it's just background information, I think it can go in our comments, but we need to kind of vet it now somehow.
Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to just say, yes. I'll say for the, for the senior tax relief committee, and then I'll say, you know. Do you really need the math here? First of all, I found it confusing. Okay. Now again, I'm looking, I'm a iteration behind, but wouldn't it be easy enough to say, you know, according to the senior tax relief committee, if all eligible homeowners, or if all, I don't know what the words are, but if all eligible senior, all people who meet those four requirements, whatever they are, participate, the average tax bill will go up to $100. Yeah. That's not true. No. It is. If everyone does, yes, that is true. Because if every senior has been, if every senior meets all of the criteria, then I would argue every senior doesn't meet all of the criteria. Yeah. You could phrase it that way. You could say, if every, if every one of the, if every senior person in town meets the other criteria, that would be correct. Right. That's what I'm going to say. But I think it's just easier than the parenthetical. I know all of them all. Okay. I guess. Yeah. Just to make sure I'm clear, the proposal is for a flat $500 credit. That's right. But then I feel like. Yeah. It's really in the net. No, that's not really what they're suggesting. Actually, that's why I included the math. Yeah. Because what they're really suggesting is. You're suggesting this $30,000? Yeah. That's actually what they're doing. So, so the way that they're actually doing it is they're adjusting, they're adjusting people's property values by the 30 grand to give them essentially the equivalent of a $500 credit. The article, the article says a tax credit of $500. Yeah. Yeah. But the way that they got to that math was by looking for essentially the equivalent of a $30,000. But that's all the matter. Proposal is $500. Okay. And I feel like that, that exists, that was confusing for me, right? And I wonder, I agree. The article seems like it's saying they mentioned the $30,000 as being equivalent, but basically like the article, I think says a flat $500. And I think in the comments, yeah, I just scrapped. Yeah. That just makes it a lot simpler. Fair enough. One other note. I did think that the committee comments you had about all of the existing programs were relevant and interesting. I think it feels like working back into an argument that posed the existing programs available for seniors are sufficient. We don't need another one. It seems like a reasonable argument to pose. I pulled that from an article that Steve wrote for the Wayland Post, actually, in October, because I think they've been trying to do a lot more, helping explain what's available. That paragraph is still in the FinCom comments. I don't think it really belongs there, but I agree with you, Rob. I think that would be an argument to pose, although I would trim that list and just say there are, you know, others, there are other existing benefits for seniors, such as David Puppel. Okay. I wouldn't say that it doesn't belong in the FinCom comments. Yeah. I mean, I think it's... I mean, it's useful background. ...relevant background information. So, and I've already had this discussion with Iris by phone today, so I'll say it out loud. I thought this was something she might've put in there as a way of saying, hey, come on, guys, we already got a lot of benefits. And so she didn't. I didn't. No, I didn't. I didn't. That's how I read it. Yeah, I did it for exactly the same reason you all interpreted, which is if someone came and asked me for something, okay, my child comes and says, mom, I want a muffin. I said, what else did you just eat? I'm trying to, I'm trying to catch it. And, you know, you can't have a suite until you've had some protein, right? And so I'm just trying to help maybe share the broader ecosystem. I did add, per Carol, a couple notes in my most recent version, which is to clarify that many of the programs are income-based. Yeah. And again, that this existing ask does not impact anyone's ability to get into those existing programs and eligibility. If others feel differently, I'm happy to... So in my mind, a little bit... I already have one here, I think. That's okay. In my mind, you've asked that tonight. Again, I have gone back and forth with this article a lot. Like, I hear you on the arguments posed. I'm doing my best, I think, here to present a, like, meter view. And so in my mind, it's relevant background. But whether or not people then take it to a step of you've got enough or you don't, I feel like is perhaps not... I mean, I hear you. It is an argument opposed. But I think, unless other people feel differently, I think we have three arguments of favor that came from the background information and the given justification reasons from the Senior Tax Relief Committee, and then essentially the arguments opposed to those. And I think the existing ecosystem, I hear you on that, but, like, in my mind, it's more just interesting to note that it's there as opposed to whether or not that alone is a reason for why you might oppose something. I don't know that I would take any of the three arguments opposed, though. So that's fair. I think I should just change the last one to the last line to, I don't know, asking to reduce their contribution to current Wayland children. I call it current, okay. Wayland students. Yeah, Wayland students. Okay.
You need me to the case. Are you not comfortable to be representing what you want and not worried about, you know, all the differences, all the different iterations you've gotten from the committee?
I think this latest version, I think, is my best attempt at being as impartial in presenting a sort of reasonable appreciation for what the article does, why it was brought forth for, like, what is important to the Senior Tax Relief Committee, which is, again, after many conversations with them and Carol, while there may be some in town who have concerns about the budget or resource allocation or any other reasons, that is not their reason for bringing this forward. So that, they were very firm in that, that is not their perspective. So I think we've landed on, again, like I said, the most balanced approach that I can think to present this. Obviously, if you put an article together and you want something to pass more feedback on, it is going to sort of encourage that. And so I'm not sure to what extent we'll be as comfortable with how we've written this. I'm comfortable with it. And I appreciate everyone's feedback. If there's more feedback, I will take it because I am looking to make sure that it's clear in what the ask was, why the ask has come to the forefront, any relevant information around, again, what currently exists, and then why you might support it.
So I move to recommend article, I move to recommend article KK as amended. Second.
All in favor? Any opposed? So that was one, two, is that correct? One to five. Thank you.
So who said yes? Those four. Thank you. I just need that so I can do the local part. Thank you. I will send out a final version for everyone to look at with all the amendments. Taking turns being the odd one here. I thought that was going to be all yeses. I was surprised. We probably all have our own reasons, but I feel like we're all in this together. And I don't like the idea of taking $300 off my tax bill and putting it on irises.
Four years robs here. I mean, it's a small amount. So yeah, not a big deal. On to article OO next. That's one line. So this is multifamily housing route 20 west subdistrict amend maximum dimensions. So I worked with Annette Lewis on this and also listened to Select Board and some of the concerns Select Board had raised as well. And so I have the petitioner's comment or proposer's comments in here. Annette had drafted those. What I found the most interesting piece of this, because there was two concerns raised by the Select Board. One of them was, well, if we do this now, will every development have additional height required or requests? Like, are we setting a precedent for additional requests to change to bylaws? What I found was that based off of Annette, the ALTA-OXPO is actually 58 feet and not what, or sorry, where was it? Yeah, ALTA-OXPO, I think it said in her comment, is actually 58 feet. So this is not, this is just adjusting the bylaw to what the current development, the latest development, has been at the height. And the other consideration or the other thing that Select Board was concerned about was, do we have the fire equipment to be able to support that, to support a building at this height? And she had, planning committee did check with the fire chief prior to that, and he said that he has ladders, and she has a memo from him, that he has ladders to be able to manage a building should there be an emergency in this case. So we have the equipment, there's no issues in that department. Well, since ALTA-OXPO already exists, I'm really glad to hear that. Exactly. So what was actually constructed, and then I asked the question too, and I said, well, based off of the zoning board appeals of ALTA-OXPO, what was originally approved versus what was actually, they had to go through the zoning board appeals to be able to add the height that was needed. And she said, and she said, and she said, that's a very arduous process, and it went through, so it's already been, she is not concerned that there would be any additional request to increase as the project got underway. So I did ask that question.
Well, it was all made sense to me. Nice job. One formatting question, on the arguments in favor and oppose. I put them all together. Yeah. I don't break them out because it's all condensed, condensed, condensed is what I've heard. I think I can do a couple bullets. I mean, it just looks.
But I think I'd break it up into a couple. I'm fine with that. I just all read paragraphs. Condense, condense, condense. I can go either way. I think it reads easier if they're separated, and that's what I think most of us are doing. But most of it is be consistent. So if you were going to do it this way, I'd change my outfit like this.
We've done a pretty good job on condensing already, I think. So I have three in favor and three opposed, so I tried to balance them as well.
Move two.
Moving to accept or moving to approve? Second.
Favor? Aye. Okay. Perfect.
And then you just have to say article OO. Sorry. That was the other thing. But article OO. Yeah.
And we have a unanimous. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Housing rate 20. What have we got left here? I had one. And I have Al. Yes. Okay, those, I believe, are the last two, though, for tonight. Right, yes. Right. I had NN.
So this is also Article NN, Accessory Dwelling Unit, zoning amendments brought by the, proposed by the Planning Board. This, I think you did the article last year that reconciles with the mass general law that requires that we allow accessory dwelling units and affordable accessory dwelling units. This article expands some of the provisions of what was approved in last year's town meeting to allow for larger accessory dwelling units that are greater than 900 square feet or for multiple ADUs on one property. There are also a few other smaller provisions.
There are additional provisions, I should say. This had always been part of the Planning Board's intention to work with interest in property owners in town who wanted larger primary access dwelling, or who wanted larger ADUs as well as multiple units on one property. They must go through a special permit process once the requirements of the new, so that was always in the process. This bylaw provides that now people who want those will have the tools to make those, or to build these properties. This should potentially increase the properties, this should potentially increase the properties, stock in town. And the AADUs, the affordable ADUs also count for 40B housing, so that adds to the 40B housing stock. This might modestly increase tax revenue, having more units on your property, and any larger or multiple units must still comply with all the setbacks and other zoning bylaws. And multiple units are only permitted under limited specific circumstances. The provision or this new addition to the bylaw also creates legalization for ADUs billed before February 2nd, 2025. They can be recognized by right if they meet the standards, and they're certified by the building commissioner and approved by the Board of Health. It also expands the Planning Board's discretion on parking for special permit ADUs, and it adds a two-year expiration lapse. So if you have an ADU special permit, it elapses after two years, which did not previously exist as a lapse. So arguments in favor, so you can read these, it allows for multiple ADUs or AADUs on a single lot by special permit for greater flexibility, so that people have greater flexibility with their properties. Broadening the bylaw could increase housing stock and the number of affordable 40B units, as well as potentially contribute to tax revenue. And it creates some aspects, it clarifies some aspects of the existing law and provides additional provisions, the grandfathering and the two-year lapse, if they're not completed. And arguments opposed. Some may believe that broadening provisions and potentially encouraging construction will increase traffic, strain on town services. Some may believe that 900 square feet in a single unit is reasonable and that we don't need to have provisions expanded. And some may believe that two years is long enough to, is not long enough to build and receive a certificate of occupancy.
And this was recommended by the select board and the planning board, both 520. Two tiny little things, but you might want to do a search for bylaw and bylaws, plural, because we're using both. And in the second, sorry, the end of the first bullet point, I won't point out that they're bullet points, but... First paragraph? Well, some other changes to the bylaw include the following. Bullet points make perfect sense there, but... Oh, yes, they are. But anyway, the real thrust of the comment is, it's building commissioner and approved by the board of health are underlined. Well, I don't know why that is. Yeah, so that's all I got. Well, that's easy to fix. They are underlined.
Thank you.
If you would make those changes, I will move the question.
The question being, do we support this? So, yeah, I'll make the motion. Okay, go ahead. I move that FinCom recommend or approve accessory to balling units zoning amendments as amended.
Second. Thank you. All in favor? All right.
Last one for the night. Summer trade vehicles. There's one for each of us. If you play your cards right. All right. Article L. I got the article, but I did not. Last year, I actually reached out to each of the heads of the different departments to understand, like, for each vehicle, what was wrong with it. I did not do that this time. I wrote a more generic.
Did I send that to you guys? What did I send you guys? I don't know. You did. You sent it 2026. I did send it, but I'm just looking at it. 21 p.m. I added a, so I added a very generic. Generally, vehicles are shoulder traded in when they no longer function, are scheduled to be replaced, or have high mileage slash require repairs, no longer making the vehicle a viable option. Those were the reasons provided last year. The difference is last year, I actually sort of cross-referenced each vehicle with the head of the department. My apologies this year. We've been running out of time, and I have not had the opportunity to do that due diligence. I do feel that that due diligence is good to do, but in this case, just with the lack of those details, I provided a more general.
This authorizes them to do it, doesn't require them to do it, right? Correct. But generally, I believe they do. I mostly bring it up. I think some of these items are also on the capital budget. Right, for replacement. But that's what I mean, right? If we are not approving the capital budget, there might be a capital budget that doesn't include the replacements. I just want to make sure, in that case, they could just keep it. Correct. Correct. Fix it or whatever, right? Yeah. This is still minor. After dump truck, close front. See? That's the only thing you need. We can't touch that, right? That's the top part. Like last year, I had put together a nice little table where I was like, reason for selling. And I was told, you know, very clear terms, we cannot touch anything. So you're correct. Someone needs to address that. It is. Is this supposed to be the select board? I think it's the proposer. Yeah, it's the article. And I think the proposer. The change that you told me I should make to the article. Sorry. Never mind. Sorry. All right. Any questions about article, Al? All right. I make a motion to approve article, Al. Second. Thank you. All in favor. All right. It's easy.
I think we have done it. So people, if you've just reviewed your article tonight, please, if there are any final changes, edits, make those capital T's for town, you know, condense your move up so there's not one line after FinCon comments. And then send a final version to me and I will do a final check and submit those to the office. I have a quick question in terms of, obviously, some of these articles have had a bit of cleanup. Do I send a version of the cleaned up draft without FinSCOM votes to the proposer as opposed to just so they get a chance to see it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. I was going to do that. I just wanted to make sure that that's okay. That's a good point. Thank you. If there are any substantive, like, real terms aside from, like, self-taughts. I've moved things around and things like that. I would like to share what we reviewed. Here was the feedback that we incorporated from FinCon. This is where we landed. And then. But why would you send it without the vote? Do you want me to send it? No, I would send it with the vote. It can have the vote. Yeah. We have everything. And then before you send it as a final, make sure it's been reviewed by that party. Yes. But reviewed, but they aren't required to sign off on it. So I guess this gets to the point that Carl and I were having earlier. Like, I'm not required to have my petitioner for my article sign off on my FinCon report and say they're in agreement with what I wrote. Correct? Right. Okay. I mean. I would send it to them and make sure if they're, if they're, like, they're still logging about something or like, okay, we've done through this and this is what it is. But just confirm that for sure. Seeing the final version. Agreed. I have some related questions. I guess one, as far as sharing with third parties, there are obviously a lot of interested parties in Article DD. Do we have any rules or guidelines about sharing drafts or saying, hey, does this represent your argument well? Not with the proposer? Not with the people? Not with, frankly, opposers. We've sent many comments saying, this is how we feel about this. And I, in my mind, a lot of what I did was try to summarize their arguments into the arguments opposed. And I kind of like to send them those and say, hey, this is, this is how I summarize your feelings. Right? Like, do you think I missed key points? And obviously, if they feel, yes, I may or may not incorporate those changes, but. I don't know if they're sick and official. These are public documents. We've discussed them at a. Yeah, we've. That's kind of, I mean, like, that part of it, I feel like we can talk about it. I think that's. Okay. Imagine if there's a problem doing that other than you'll get feedback. Oh, but. Yeah. We got feedback. We need to manage that. Yeah. Yep. I would feel free to share. It's okay to share. I just wanted to check that I had heard conflicting things. On a related conflicting things note, again, I have two articles from a proposer, both of which we voted had no financial impact. What? You still have to write them up. I know you're VV and W. Okay. So we are still writing them up. Carol wants these written up. We keep going back and forth on VV and WW. It's the. I have a. It's Sherman's Bridge. It's Sherman's Bridge. So I've written up every single one because there's somewhat of an impact still, right? Like if we make safety changes, then it's a cost to the town, right? So if we, if we build sidewalks, there's a cost. Well, it depends, right? So one of them just like reduce the speed limit. Right. I have that as well. So I want to send you my notes on what I have done on that because I don't know if select boards meeting tonight, they were going to get them to try to combine those articles because they're kind of opposing and they're the same exact request, but not at the same time. Right. There are a couple. And at the end of the day, this is a bridge that shared. This is not only Wayland. Yep. So that's part of the other part of it. So I did do some write-ups that I can flip you if you want to read that one specifically. And I got Tom Holder's input on part of that. So there should be write-ups. And I guess I, to the point about proposer's comments versus background information, I have a suspicion that the proposer intended for the background information to be proposer's comments. This is the part that I'm having a hard time with. And I'm going to, once I listen to select boards meeting tonight, let me get back to you because my select board liaison put all the background information as proposer's comments in a couple of the articles, but not all of the articles. So I want clarification on that as well, because I think some of the backup information is somewhat hearsay and it's not, it's not like, and that's the part that I'm having a problem with is like, if I put this in here, it's technically, I'm not validating what they're saying is true, especially if it's going to cost them by your precedents. So I want to get clarification on that. But I think listening to the select board meeting tonight, I'll do that tomorrow. I think that we'll hear from Carol and other select board members of that opinion.
So who's moving? I think Bill's going to move. It's literally moving. It's just all in favor. All in favor. Any opposed?
He's got a lot of one out. Thank you all. Thank you.
That being the agenda, before we go to public comment, I do have an announcement. It may mean more to the members of the finance committee, but I heard from Phil today, and he said, and this is a direct quote. I won't read the whole email, but a direct quote. I want to thank you and have you extend to April, Bill, Iris, Pam, and Rob by deep personal and professional appreciation for all of you stepping up in my absence. That's an end quote. The only thing I can add to that is I agree. Thank you. Thank you. That's the only announcement I have. Anybody else? Is he doing some? Otherwise, great. Yeah. I have it on good authority. He went to First Parish on Sunday. My wife came a big hub. So I'm sure he was flabbergasted by that. Okay. So we have some guests. Any public comments? Jim? Welcome.
Jim VanSkyber, Holiday Road. Rob, I don't mean to bother you, but I've been sending an email. I don't think you're checking your town email and replying to me. So I just ask that you do that. I'm sorry, I did this in public. I wanted to grab you before the meeting. Yeah. No worries. No worries. I'll respond to that. I had some back and forth and I was actually going to ask tonight about how I should respond. Well, even if you say, I don't want to respond, that's fine. Fair enough. Okay. Thank you. I confess I haven't responded to every email I've gotten either. So no worries. It just happens. Anybody else? Captain Kiernan and I am here. So I'm Andrew Kiernan and he's working on his merit badge for Boy Scouts. So we are here learning about meetings in the town.
What merit badge may I ask?
We're working on citizenship in the community, which is a requirement for Eagle Scout. Great. That's fantastic. Just be careful. You might be drafted to the committee before the night is over.
That's great. Okay. Robbie, or is anybody else online who has a hand up?
Okay. So we do have people monitoring? Good. Okay. Okay. In that case, we can move on to the minutes of March 4th. And April, thank you for getting this out. Has everybody had a chance to review them?
Its file name was Rough Draft, but I thought they were in pretty good shape. Yeah. My first draft. At least on what comes up with me, the spreadsheet from Kelly, I guess, is all black. It's some very dark blue numbers. I don't know if that's intended. No, I think it should. I think it may be just here, because this shows, I can see what she presented.
You can see my computer screen.
It's funny, Bill, I can read those. Small print, but I can read them.
Thank you for putting those together. Do we need any more detail on some of that? I mean, it kind of covers high level what we did. Do we need any more detail on discussion on?
I think it's anything that looked to me like it did, but I'm on the check.
I think, I mean, I'm fine with what we have. I had one question, and then one small note. In the very first substantive paragraph, second sentence says, C. Barnes responded, the budget does not include any amendments proposed at town meeting, and I don't remember what I said, but I was having trouble figuring out what the reference amendments would have meant. Amendment to the budget. So he had inquired about any additional spending.
I think that that was, because I had to go back to that note as well in the transcript, and it said that it doesn't include any amendments proposed. So if someone was amending an article at town meeting, that funding or that budget wouldn't be part of what we're approved. You know, but we wouldn't even know. I mean, of course they couldn't include something that isn't on there, right? So I mean, I just, it does, like, if someone's reading the minutes and doesn't, isn't familiar with the process, I don't know if we can just amend it to say that, that the, but we, we bring forth a recommended budget and can't anticipate amendments that may occur on town floor, town meeting floor, just to kind of show that there are two different issues. Like, the recommended budget, many town people that want to amend or make changes, that would happen at town meeting. So we're, uh, collaborating, um, we responded that the budget approved by finance committee would not include and does not anticipate any amendments that might be made on the floor to a meeting, to a town meeting. That makes more sense to me. Thank you. Yeah. Or any articles that, that include additional spending that have not been yet been voted on. Well, that part, I just like the way that's worded. It just sounds like, I mean, there are a lot of articles that include additional spending. And at this point, they haven't been voted on because we have to wait until town meeting to vote on them. So, um, I'm not sure. So the point of that was, I think it, it doesn't include spending in included in articles, right? The budget that we present does not include other article spending. Correct. You might see other article spending. Well, I mean, we've got a number of other articles. We've got the surface water quality, we've got the sped review, like we've got all those other articles, um, that are not part of the operating budget that we present. Right. I actually did have a question about that. Yeah. I guess I'm not sure. I mean, like the MWRA and something. It's not part of our budget. Well, for instance, the, and my question's coming from, article DD says we're going to spend $200,000 on a study. On what? On, on a study of Holiday Road. Okay. One. And it does not specify where that money is coming from. And that money is not in the omnibus budget. So I think that's part of where that was coming from is there's an omnibus budget and we're talking about, oh, here's the budget. Here's what the tax rate is going to be. There are also articles that propose spending money at the, to that point. I was like, actually, when I read that article, because most of them do say we have this from tax. Because some of them do say this is where it will come from, from free cash or whatever, but some of them do not. And if we vote, we're going to spend $500,000 on that. And it's not in the budget. Yeah. I don't know how many other articles are like that. Cause I, cause that's, that was my question reading that one article because typically they do, or, or even as we go through and maybe that's something I need to support on in terms of like either, I mean, those are the other articles, you know, that the, the sped reserve, we've got the cap stabilization, but that article is a lot of them yet. Right. So, right. But typically we know where our finance comments, right. Don't we have it in like the finance comments, like the R tab. I think it kind of varies depending on the capital part, but that's actually, it's, it may be in that table, but it typically, and I, I can't say that every time it's been done that way. It may be in the capital table, but typically we're voting on the proposed budget, capital, proposed capital budget, not including the articles. That's what, that's. So our budget is likely to go up if any of the articles pass. Um, well, most of the spending is from cash, free cash. So if you can't hear, would you mind if we moved closer so we could hear you? I have no objection. Okay. Right. Thank you. If you want to, or if someone said not, if you can sit here. Yeah. Whatever the, whatever you prefer, you can sit here too at the table. Yeah. I think this whole discussion is getting a little bit far. As a guy who, who's probably said this, why don't I, um, I think I, I think we know where you want to go. How about if I propose a revision, uh, I'll go look at the, or listen to the audio and propose a revision for April. That works. But I knew, and maybe we just table this for later. One of the questions that I had tonight that I wanted to get answered actually, uh, before I responded to you was like, should I be expecting there to be a funding source in an article that proposes spending that's not in the budget or not? And we can discuss that later when we discuss articles, but like, I think it's a really good question, but I'd like to. Okay. Yep. That makes sense. So as amended, we'll, we'll make that amendment or, or, um, edit. Okay. And the only other thing I request is on right under the table, under comes, it says, uh, Kay Lapin explaining the committee's process. And I'd like to specify that it's CIPC's process. So nobody thinks it might be ours. Okay. Good point. That's, that's all I got. One. Yes. Okay. Anybody else?
Question two. Approve the March 4th minutes as amended. I second that. All in favor? Aye. Aye. April? Sorry, I remembered this. Aye. It's six nothing. It's nothing. Thank you. Um, next item on the agenda. Um, I think you've seen the request from the town manager to transfer $130,000 and some change from the reserve fund to, um, to pay contract remaining tuition and transportation bills for, um, sped and, um, um, little background. There's $200,000 in that fund. It's about to be replenished in fiscal 27. And, um, as you may have seen from the request, uh, the present balance that they have to appropriate is, I think they're saying literally negative $11,800, but either way they need money. And we have the authority under, uh, under Massachusetts law to approve that transfer. Is it for how much concern? $130,144. And it's to pay bills for transportation and tuition for five whaling residents who are attending Minuteman Regional Vocational School and Keefe Vocational School. Oh, so I think it's coming out of the sped reserve. Right. You say it's coming out of the sped reserve? No, there's a, there's a, a, a reserve fund. Sorry. Can you tell which, um, when is this email? I'm just like, I'm telling Charles. In, uh, February 27th, there was a reserve fund transfer email from Brian.
It's labeled VocEd reserve transfer. So is there, the reserve fund is the finance committee reserve fund, which goes into the budget for $200,000 every year. Correct. There's $300,000 from fiscal 26th. Unanticipated and extraordinary. There are a couple. I think this falls within that. I've never seen this before. I looked at the statute and it clearly authorizes us to do this.
There will be a smaller request coming on Wednesday.
To combine, they'll be under the $200,000 we have in there. And as I said, that will, so that pretty much taps it out or close enough, but it will be replenished in the, in the budget for fiscal 27th.
Are you looking for a motion? I am. I move that we accept the request as written. I think you should say, just say the amount. I move that we were, we accept the request as written for $130,144. Are you pulling me that outfit? Remind me. Where's the money coming from again? There is a reserve fund. Yes. What's the, apologies. What's the name? It's the reserve fund. It's a reserve fund. Okay. You'll see it. We need a second for you. Look at the budget. Okay. It's somebody, if somebody wishes a second, that that will. A second. A second. Okay. Okay. So it's in the unclassified budget. You'll find it, you know, down to the bottom of the budget, but it's, it's there. Actual fiscal 26th was 200,000. And there's, that's being proposed 27 too. Same funding amount. Same funding amount. That's right. And it's, and it's a budget. Well, it's not called that, but it is specifically for unanticipated and sort of extraordinary one time. Okay. Expenses that. Okay. Understood. Thank you. So it's, it's. It's like. It's an emergency. It's typically $200,000, but it's put aside. And the finance committee has the authority to approve. And, and the genesis of this request is these were the additional students that moved into town sort of mid-year. So we did not anticipate these transportation needs. Is that right? It doesn't say that, but I think that it's talking about the request specifies that it's for transportation and tuition for five way on residents. We knew about one. So I think. Correct. You know, the math and all that's up. Okay. Yeah. Right. No, we just wanted to make sure. I don't know how we got here. Cause if it's for extraordinary circumstances, in my mind, that qualifies, right. We couldn't have predicted who moves into town. Yeah. So actually. I think Brian had talked about that. Right. Yeah. At one of the meetings that they had. When we asked about. Get some of them. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay. All right. We have a motion. We have a seconded. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Thank you. Aye. 6-0-0. Okay. We are rolling. Right on time. Now we're going to get to the meat of the meeting, which further discussion about the budget for fiscal 27. I know we had some questions. We ended the meeting last week with about the capital budget. But I'd like to turn first to the operating budget and see if anybody has further questions. If we think we're ready to vote on that. If we're not, what we need to be able to vote on that. We basically have two more meetings. Two more meetings. Or omnibus budget. Sorry. Or capital. Omnibus. Thank you. Omnibus is everything. So the operating budget. Okay. I have questions on capital. That's why I'm scared. No, you do. No, you do. No, you do. Well, I thought you covered, you know, some of the issues in your write-up, in your draft write-up as well. So I think that combined with the spreadsheet budget, you know, made me comfortable with it. Good. Okay. Thank you for that, too. I will get to the report, but I will say after spending the last week looking, you know, working on that and not alone, by the way, Pam was a big part of this. I'm comfortable with the budget as presented. The operating budget as presented. Yeah. Isabel. 4.63% increase for the operating and anticipated 4.89% increase in tax. So, and under 5% for both of those, which, and it's more than two and a half, but it's considering trends and inflationary and contracts that kind of have been agreed upon. There's not a lot of movement. So for me, I mean, given where we're at now, and, you know, I think that's, we're not going to do any better. I think if it were last summer, in hindsight, I would have, you know, put up a bigger fuss and sort of say, get it below 4 if you can. And what do we lose if you get it below 4? But that's sort of water under the bridge at this point. So I don't, I don't see that, you know, justifying it as to no vote. And there was a group that, you know, last summer should kind of manage looking at this. Yeah, that's so funny. I was not. I sense was their goal was to, was to prevent a two and a half override. I think I, in hindsight, I maybe would have been a little bit more aggressive than that. But, but again, that's, that's, you know, water under the bridge. So I think given where we are now, I think I would focus, you know, I would probably support this and then focus on getting some of my points across next year. I think, I'm sure this will come as a surprise to anyone who was here last year, but I think 4.89% is high. I also think it's not inclusive of the overall additions that people will have to pay as you look at all the articles across the board. And that is concerning to me is that we're asking for 4.89 on the omnibus budget, plus the MWRA, plus 4.89. Oh, it is a percent increase. Sorry, percent increase. Yeah. Right. Okay. Okay. Make sure, let me make sure I get my math right, Pam. Plus the impact of the MWRA, right? Which fair enough isn't coming out of residential tax rates, but is still a net increase in cost. And then having now worked on KK, right? If KK goes through, that's an additional impact to residential rates. Which is the... It's... Sorry, I don't know what KK is. It's the Senior Property Assessment Credit. So that would be a reallocation to all households of, you know, a couple hundred dollars. But it adds, right? I guess my point is when I look across the board, there's a lot going on. And the 4.89 is certainly, and I can appreciate, hey, this is where we landed and it is below five. But it doesn't represent, I think, the total net burden that we're adding to households. And that makes me nervous. It does not. It doesn't. I agree that there's, at this point, just to react to you, you are correct. At this point, there isn't much else to be done. This is sort of where we've landed. You know, I am curious, certainly, as we move forward with the operational override prep and things like that. Like, I'm curious to better understand what are levers that actually exist as a channel to us. It feels a little bit like there aren't very many nuanced dilemmas. Instead, we're sort of stuck with a hammer. And I don't think that's, it's not palpable, right? Like, I don't want a future in which my options are either vote for this or lay off people. That's not the future that I want. And so the question remains, that isn't clear to me. It's like, what other nuances are there available to us? That's tough, right? I say that out loud to just say, like, I personally am conflicted, right? It's not, but I think both options seem really tough. And that isn't what I, that isn't the options that I want laid out in front of me. And so that's really tough. I see. Sorry, at this point you made about like setting the tougher goal, like going through the budget as much as we did, I get the impression that easy decisions have already been made, right? This is the first year this conversation has been had. This is the first time this year this conversation has been had. People have gone over this budget. They've trimmed the fat, right? Like, I'm not happy with where the number ends up. But I also can't point to anything specific that I think is, is an easy cut. Yeah, sorry. To add a couple of points, just historically, and I think this year's budget reflected a level service budget. So this is the town managers and finance directors, you know, level service budget that's been presented. In the past, FinCon has asked if their, you know, recommendations are, please look for any efficiencies. You know, can you find, you know, and payroll, that sort of thing for the town and schools. Are there any ways that we can save money within the budget without affecting service? You know, we've, we've heard some of those a little bit along the way, maybe here and there. So I guess, in order to arrive, if you were at the beginning of this process, or where we'll be next year, just start to say, we want to, you know, no more than an X percent budget, which is lower than five. It, my sense is from what we've heard from the town manager and finance director that it would require a cut in services. So I think that's just, you know, just kind of stating what we've been through, but just to kind of reiterate that this is sort of the best that could be. Well, I think there's some subjectivity in what level of service. Well, that's another question. Exactly. And there are some, I mean, there's a software update. This is probably not level service. I think it's something that we probably, that we need to do in terms of, you know, just technology and security and that sort of thing. But I'm not real happy where we ended up, you know, and if there were an alternative budget that was a percent lower that didn't seem to cut a whole lot, I would probably say, let's vote for the alternative, but that isn't on the table. So, so I think to me, what I've learned by going through this for a year is it's reforms and, you know, getting involved in the process earlier other than now, you know, it's taken me a year on the committee to learn that. But so 1% is a $1.2 million is right. That's not easy to cut. Well, I'm not saying it's impossible. Right. But it's not, it's going to, I think it's going to be painful. I think you're going to find out next year. We're going to have a two and a half budget. So I feel like we've spent a lot of time on town. I don't feel like we spent a lot of time on school and we haven't really dug into the school. And that's such a large portion of the budget. Like, so for me, like, I don't know that I feel comfortable at this point in time because we haven't dug into the school. And I feel like we should be looking at that a little bit deeper before we move to a vote on the, in my opinion, on the omnibus. And I don't know if anyone's done questions or anything, because I know we spent a lot of time on school. We spent quite a bit of time on capital. But I don't, I personally feel like we haven't spent a lot of time in schools. I think you're right about that. And candidly, the budget presented us to buy the school is at a very high level. There's not a lot of meat that you can dig into there. So, I mean, that's a problem, but I don't know quite how to fix it. Yeah, I agree. I don't know if we can fix that. However, I would perhaps make a suggestion that as we move into override conversations that, you know, again, I can maybe just speak for myself and my neighbors, that there will probably be an expectation of additional transparency if there's a request for an oversight. Right. Of course, you need to feel comfortable with this budget. So I'm like, I don't want to be pushed to make a decision. I guess I vote on something. Yeah. Yeah. Because we haven't gotten enough details. I mean, I will say that we got that they're a school's budget book. And we haven't, I agree, we haven't spent a lot of time, much time at all embedding that as a committee. Looking at it personally, when you look at the year over year, before you allocate, like when you divided up payroll and expenses, you look at payroll, and there's, there's barely any, it's barely any change before the allocation. And then with the allocation, you're looking at a 4% increase, and most of that is the reserve or salaries. And then the, the increase to 10%, almost a 10, 9.76% increase in the expense line, which is a million dollars. And most of that, most of that is from the special ed, the out of district and sped transportation. That's kind of how I felt. Priced to 817,000. School stuff is basically. There's not, I, having seen some school budgets before where we've seen some big changes, there's not a lot of increase in here. Yeah. I think I feel the same way, which is like, I hope that the school budget a lot. It's now again, level service and what is level service is it's providing what, and I think that perception is it's providing what we provided last year and then whatever additional requirements we've had. And I think there's, I don't know, I think they, you know, the schools talked about how they have reallocated, you know, they reallocate teachers depending upon where the student population is, which makes sense. But it, yeah, it doesn't seem like there's anything overly concerning. Yeah. That was kind of how I felt is like the, I feel like I understand the increases in the school budget and they all seem relatively, they seem like they make sense and are relatively non-negotiable to me. And I have to provide the special ed, I think, you know, unless we want to go back on the contracts and the collective bargaining with the staff. Right. I think. Yeah. Those numbers. Sorry. That's happening right now. Yeah. Yeah. But that's what's been. But at that point, aren't these steps and lanes contractual? Yeah. Yeah. There was a, I think we all received, I certainly received a, you know, today saying. Yes. Maybe this is not the year for that. Right. It's interesting. But I think, see, I didn't respond, but, but I just don't think you have a choice. Right. I think the question maybe, and this is maybe part of like my point about understanding the levers is, I agree. Right. There's no point. It's contractual. But how are those conversations had, right? How are those conversations had to like understand there must be, I'm sure, give and take on both sides. And where is the understanding in if the only give and take again is either provide X or lay off people. That's tough. Right. That is my point of life. That's a hammer as a solution, as opposed to, hey, is there more nuance here to have a more conversation? I'm not saying we have that, but I'm just saying it's a question I have, like really trying to understand. Of course, we want teachers. Of course, we want these things. And is there a way that we can get some of the percentage rate down, right? To make things more manageable for our population and our residents, while also trying to maintain as best as possible support for the people who work in the town, right? And where are the opportunities there? The part that I struggle with is I don't know, right? And obviously, we're not part of those conversations. And those are uncomfortable conversations. Well, in the presentation, he had, what, five pillars or whatever. Right. One of them was class size and one of them was programs. And he didn't reduce any of them this year. He said last year they made some bigger cuts. And so obviously, if one were to push harder for a lower budget, you know, those things would have to happen. And, you know, I don't know how significant that is on a young person's education. And, you know, I will say in the past, like there are budget guidelines that town managers put out sort of early in the process, you know, going back and before the town. And some of this is before the town manager act, but the town manager has a little bit more discretion over all the budgets. But FinCom would make a recommendation on where we thought the guidelines should be. And so I think that was in that kind of thing. And as you said, what happened last summer and through the fall with the forecasting, it's hard to do. But I think if you start with, you know, a goal in mind, you're more likely to. Or more than one scenario. Right. We'll get that a little bit next year because it's going to be with the two and a half and without. So we're going to get at least two scenarios. That should be a minimum of any budgeting exercise. It's two scenarios. Right. Right. Hold on. Honestly, I'm not sure why it didn't happen this year. But, you know, did you look at last year's warrant? Did I look at it? Yeah. I mean, obviously you did in connection with the meeting. I know the county happened recently. There was a presentation of the budget and then I think two different alternatives. Oh, that was, I think it was previous. That was a couple of years ago. I think it was last year. No, it wasn't last year. I think last year we presented once and they really talked about how we hit like right below three and a half percent. And, and Michael Monk all discussed, I think at length, all the steps we took to get there because last year, just like for your own application, when the process started, we were also presented with a five and a half percent budget and, and through all the meetings and conversations that dropped down to three and a half percent. Yeah. A lot of those healthcare insurance came in at three something instead of. Absolutely. But, but a lot of that was significant conversation and pressure from many people voicing a 12% premium increase, which is what was baked in is unacceptable. And, and they, that I think gave, you know, Brian Kennedy and others the opportunity then to go back to Metro West suburban. And I think either relay or at least like understand that that really was a big driver. And Metro West heard was my understanding, similar feedback from other towns. And then actually did something about it to bring that rate down. Yeah. Probably those buy that, right. They bought back down the rate. So, and we saw that, we saw that as a meaningful impact. And that is, I think a good example of what I'm talking about. That was a lever that I think we did not know existed, but actually was there and had a meaningful impact. And it was a lever that didn't require us to fire anyone. Didn't, you know what I mean? Like it was a lever that didn't impact services, but impacted costs. I would love to find more of those wherever they exist. So would I. Yeah. And I think that was a one-time thing. Of course. It wasn't one-time thing. It was like, it was a one-time thing, but it, but it was a lever we found nonetheless, even if it was a one-time lever. You know, it was, and yet that wasn't pressure from FinCom or from residents, from anybody. That was the time manager doing his job. And I can't believe for a second that he wouldn't want to do that wherever he can. I agree. I guess. I absolutely agree. First of all, let me say no one at all is suggesting that anyone on the town side is doing anything less than their best. I didn't mean to apply. I know, but I just want to make sure that's clear. But I do think we had many a conversation around the healthcare premiums and around their expected. And I think that gave a little more, and we had those conversations very early in the year. And so that gave them the opportunity to give that feedback of we're facing budget pressure. And I'll, and one of the biggest things that everyone's keyed in on is what is this premium going to be? And so while I don't think inherently all of FinCom, you know, we didn't make a motion or a vote to say this needs to be lower, but I think we did react to what we saw significantly earlier, which gave them the opportunity to further react. Just to see how things work. So one of the comments that I find, I feel as though in the past, we've gotten better data from the schools than we have this year. We have a report, which gives them, which gives us a lot of information. Well, we still don't have as FTEs. Like they gave us fed FTEs, but that's all they gave us in changes. Like I thought the whole budget was like minus 0.5 FTEs by the schools. I know that, but they gave a breakdown of year on year for special education, but not for actual totals. This year, no changes in the aggregate, you know, the total, total. Understood. But if there, I guess what I'm trying to say is if this is the largest part of our budget and healthcare and retirement and all that are some of the largest increases that we continue to have, understanding the breakdown of the teachers would be very interesting to end steps and lanes to understand, like, how is all that calculated to be able to forecast out the future of understanding where that's going to put us, right? I know it's not a model that we could do, but to understand in 23, 24, how many teachers did we have? How are we shifting people around from each of the dates like they did with special education? It shows that they've shifted, but we don't know if they've shifted teachers into or out of, right into or out of special education. It's there's not, to me, it's not as detailed. Are we supposed to have detailed information from the school? I mean, in the, in the past, we have, we have had more time and we have taken their budget and I think they presented, you know, things for, I thought what they presented was pretty clear this year, but we would have taken what they'd given us. And we usually have a conversation with a little back and forth and Q and A and clarifying some of the points that, so I, so I, I do hear you. We've spent, we've spent very little time on schools this year. But there is a total, there is a chart of total FTE. It's not broken down your point, but page 27 of the school budget book. As FTE is broken down by administration, teachers, clerical, et cetera. I didn't scroll that far. Yeah. It's pretty far. I was like, I thought that you said, and then I guess it was probably in such a big appendix. Yeah. It's, it's. Okay. Now I see it. Yeah. It's not the last thing before the appendix. Right. Yeah. It's your point. I think that's a little bit of insight, right. And how all the FTEs are distributed or any of that, you know, I think. Well, page 28 actually shows up a little bit more. Uh, page 28. Right. I see staff FTEs in 28. Oh. I'm sorry. Again, Chip, right. I see staff FTEs in 27. 27. Yes. So the SC vote 211, 26, FY 27 recommended. Are you having those same things? I don't know what's up with that. This is a PDF version that they sent us. Yeah. I mean, this was, oh, this is the same thing. No wonder. I wouldn't drive ourselves. Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same date. I wonder, are you looking, if you're looking at the PDF page, I think there's a non-numbered title page. So like the pagination in the document, different from the pagination. Thank you. Yeah. Like if you look at the document, maybe that's exactly what's the header of the correct page. Yes. Uh, he'd say, yeah, it says staff FTEs, but footer should say page 27. Page 27 of the document. Yeah. On page 28. Okay. Okay. Yep. Yep. Yep. Now I get it. For the decrease of four FTEs from 26. One teacher leaving, one less teacher in the children's way. The decrease from 24 to 25 was one of the, I think that that's more of what I was trying to understand because I think I came on in 25 and we had had a lot of FTEs added that year. Right. Right. Right. So now you've got me thoroughly confused because in the backup documents, the tables, basically that Brian supplies with the budget, table five says that there is a net. Minus. Was it minus? No, actually for the school's flat, it's zero. Right. In the chart on the 27th. So for the minus three, it reflects the three TAs are being shifted to a grant. So I don't think people are being, I think that's them reflecting that they're like not. Yeah. Right. But even then, those people are still staying there, but yeah, the minus one. I think it's minus one if you're not. I don't know why there's a minus one that's not being counted for. That's not what Brian is telling us. That's not what he showed on his. Right. He's saying a total of four FTE reductions and it says it in like that last line. Right. So that's it. I'll ask about that discrepancy tomorrow. I guess. Are there any, in terms of just kind of trying to get this to be actionable? Are there specific questions we have about the school budget or specific actions we think we could take to get more comfortable with the school budget at this point? I will say, when you look at the out of district, and these are kind of mandated things, but this is trying to find the page. It's a significant increase. It's a significant increase. And some of this, some of it was on pages 17 and 18. There's discussion about the tuition increases, which the increased range of 14 to 32%. So she said nine private schools have increased their tuition for 25 to 26 year over year over the standard 5%. Increases range from 14 to 32%. Also to private school. These are out of district. These are out of district. The out of district. Special education. Special education is grouped in their three groups. Uh huh. There's private. There's collaborative. And then there's, there's another group thing. I'm sorry. I'm trying to find it because it's in the, it's in this budget. But the private out of district. Increase is it's like. I'm saying it's like. I'm saying it's like. And then it's offset by the circuit breaker. Reimbursement from last year. So if you go to that. Yes. Sorry. This is on page. Three of the. End disease. From that report. Um, it, it, this is just something to, to. I think it should be part of our report. Just to, to kind of note that the increase. So it went. The out of district private. Went from. Um, 1.2 million to 4.2. So there's out of district private out of district public. And then out of district collaborative. Are the three. How does. How do you understand? What does that actually mean? And maybe that's really a question for, I'm sure. Like someone from the schools, but like. Um. What is. So for students. With. Mm hmm. Special education needs. That Wayland. Can't. Address. Mm hmm. Um. The school system pays for those students to go. To a school that can provide those services. Those services are provided. And actually regardless of whether the school is private or public. Well, I think sometimes you'll. You'll say. You know. A student has. Specific. Issues to. To address. And. And. And. There are only. Certain schools that can address that. So sometimes it's a private school. So we have to. So. Wayland pays for that private school. So it's. We're required by law. We're required by law. To send them to a school that provides them. That addresses their needs. Essentially. Um. I may not be using like the proper. Legal vocabulary. But. Sure. You get the gist. Um. So. And this is. This is a number that. That has. Varied. From year to year. And it typically. Isn't. A reduction. But when we see. You know. Big jumps. Like that's why we have the special ed reserve. Because this. Can change from one year to the next. Significant. So. I guess if we had. Like I don't know how much more information we would get. If we were. To have had more. Discussion. With schools. But. I just know that is. I mean. It is. We already knew that special ed is a big. You know. The. It's in the. Expense line. Um. So that's most of that. 10%. 9.76% increase. Um. And most of it. You know. When you break it down. Is this. Big increase in. Out of district private. So I guess. You know. The question for. The question for. The question for. The question for. Well, we can't provide. It's not cost efficient for us to do that. Um. You know. But are there ways that we can. And I think some of it. We get a better window into. And sometimes. People move in. Um. That you can't anticipate. But try to get a better sense of. Of that number. Or. Um. And I think the schools have been. Trying to do more to address. You know. Some special education. Um. Issues early on. So that. So. We end up spending less. In our district later. Yeah. Once again. I'm just simply confused. Because there's nowhere. In the. I can find. In the budget. Presented to us. By. That. Increase. Sorry. Which increase. You know. Out of district private tuition. You know. It wouldn't be. I mean. In Brian's. Because Brian's budget. It is so rolled up. I mean. When you look at. The budget. Present. It's one line for schools. So. That's why we. We look for this. The school's. Budget. To get a little bit more detail. So Brian doesn't. Really. I mean. The schools have their own. Um. Finance director. Whatever. That person's title is. You're absolutely right. We. Well. I'll call that out. In the report. That's. Just a really huge number. And it's a huge increase. I mean. Yeah. In the abstract. And in percentage terms. I guess one. Question. Of that. Maybe I didn't. Fully appreciate. Is the circuit breaker. Something we expect. To. All these. Yeah. So the. We should. Yes. Question. Some kind of. Full amount. Right. It doesn't cover. Full amount. I have to. Look at. What it is. I think. You pay for the. The first. 50 or. 70. 50,000. And then. After that. The reimbursement. Covers. Like 75%. It's a question. I have is more like. So there's. So. You should. And you get the reimbursement. So this reimbursement. Is for the 26. Mm hmm. Fiscal year 26. Reimbursement. So it comes a year later. So the. We're spending for. Special education. This year. Fiscal year 26. We'll actually get that reimbursement. Next year. So that'll apply. Be applied to the fiscal 27 budget. That's why we see it here. Yes. That's what that number is. But it is a. It is a. Sort of. Following thing. So we should. Recurring. It's. Calculation. Based on the prior years. Right. They raise any. I'm curious. I can't remember. From their presentation. If they raise concern. Of that funding. Being pulled back. Given. I was just curious. If I can't remember. If they read. I was going back through. The budgets. To see. If there was any concern. Given. Because the states. Are pulling back funding. I thought they said. And I thought it was actually. More related to Medicaid. It may. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought there was. Some element of. Some of the funding. Depending. Comes from Medicaid. Like for nurses. And support staff. Right. Wasn't that mentioned? I know. And I thought that. Right. Is that. There's a concern. More broadly. Because of the lack. Of funding. I thought it was. Of Medicaid. Coming into the state. From the federal government. That that could impact. Potentially. Funding amounts. That's. What I recollect. I mean. That. Is. Federal funding. I mean. Do we anticipate it. You know. We might not see it. Yet. Education. You know. Federal funding. For education. That. You know. Has come to Massachusetts. We might not be getting. As much of. In coming years. Um. And I don't. Think we've heard. Anything on that. Yet. Or. I haven't done. Thing that I have. Is. I. Truly appreciate. The grant funding. For those. Moving through. FTEs. Out. Mm hmm. Of the budget. But.
Down this road. Before. Right. Um. So. What. The long term outlook. Is that. Is there a grant funding. In perpetuity. Is like. How are we looking at. Those roles. I think it's another one. That I. Like to understand. A little bit more. Because it's the grant. And it's. Yeah. I mean. Is that coming back. Is that a one year thing. And then it comes back. Into the budget. Just. Yeah. That. Expectation. And then. That's for. Like. Operational. But for capital budget. Should we expect. A revised capital budget. After the last conversation. We had. And. I mean. More so. Like. Is. Brian Kevney. And. Michael McCall. Taking another look. At what they're. Recommending. Or no. To my knowledge. I thought that. I thought that. That's what. Yeah. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. Let's. I agree. I think. We. Ask the questions. And then. You can always meet on. Friday night. Yeah. That's. Not. I'm not going to change your report. That much. Right. It's like a few numbers. It's. Every table. Every. Reference to it. I'm talking. There we go. Um. I. I guess I don't. I haven't heard anything in here. That makes me think that those numbers. Are going to change. On the capital. On the capital. No. We're not talking capital. Thank you. Thank you. On this one. I agree. I think it's just understanding. Does not mean we need to vote on it. Right now. I'm fine with. I think it's just for the clarification to understand. I think understanding the reduction in four FTEs. Reporting versus Brian's report killing one. Whatever. Sorry. The report showed zero. Zero. Yeah. So did we. Oh, it showed zero FTEs. Okay. Of the schools. Okay. So I think that's. I thought that was for entirely. It was showing, I think, 0.46. But FTE reduction. All at the town. So it could be a larger reduction. I mean, that just shows, I think that's better to taxpayers, right? If it shows more of an impact in reduction in rules, considering the budget is.
Yeah, but the question is, is it really reduction rules or is it they've got grant funding for some amount of time? I want to understand that. I think that's, and it's great. It's a one year that it's being covered by the grant for fiscal 27. What's, what do we anticipate after that? Is it, will the grant cover those positions or will they come back to the budget, back to the operating budget? I'm just curious on this. And I don't know that this is a question I need to know the answer to, but if they're grant funded, then are, do they also have benefits? Like, are there, are there benefits still paid for by the schools? And like, are, are we paying for health? Are we paying for pensions? Like, I think has actually addressed something similar to that before, right? Like I believe, and I think he's mentioned this, like on grants, some of the grants will include like all of the payroll taxes and Medicare tax and things like that. And for some, we still are obligated actually to pay. So even though it seems like it's free money, it's not, right? It still comes at a cost. The cost is not full salary, but the cost is still payroll tax, right? You're still seven and a half percent FICA, whatever, Medicare, et cetera. So there's still an actual cost. And I actually understood that that was part of, well, not for operational, but certainly part of like CIPC, right? Like wanting to really understand, even if someone gives you a gift for a capital project, there could still be associated costs and you need a project manager all of a sudden to manage that project, right? Like there's, so I believe, I think that's a good question to just get clarification, but I believe it is depending on the grant is what I recollect. Or I can recap these two afterwards because I'm putting them on my notes.
So elsewhere, we have said, we meaning I, in the draft report that transportation for special ed went up about $340,000 and out of district tuition went up about almost $500,000. Yeah. Looking at this table, that's a net of the, that's really, that's a circuit breaker. Right. So reimbursement, because I, I mean, I take, I still take your point. The circuit, you know, the circuit breaker obviously helps a lot, but I think it might be interesting for people to know what the actual cost increase was. Yeah. 2.87. Yeah.
Yeah. Well, like it says. If you add the three up. Yeah. Oh, I see what you've done. Okay. Yeah. The increase for the three. Yeah. Okay. I understand that point. So if I used to do that recap these questions, is that what you, okay. When I send you my notes on those other minutes in the morning, I will include what I think they are too. And then we can just agree and send one email. That's okay. Whether it comes from you or from me, it's fine.
Jumping ahead for a minute. Yeah. Jumping ahead for a minute. Um, it seems all of us, don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but seem to think we want more detail on the school budget going forward. Not in the next week. I mean, just, okay. Yes. No, absolutely. I just, that's been my frustration. And, you know, I think I've voiced this before is getting our operating budget and a capital budget. And there are reasons and all the articles just starting that whole process in early February and having six weeks forward to complete everything. It's not enough time. In the past, you know, we've, we've had, and there are reasons capital. We had SIPC this year. So I appreciate this was, you know, sort of a one year thing. They're up and running and that took longer. But even with the operating budget, we weren't presented the final operating budget till the end of January. Your final, final or the final one? No, we didn't, we didn't get, we didn't get, well, no, I'm saying final, final, but even an operating budget to discuss until the end of January. And typically we spend the full month of January, discussing it, vetting it, asking questions. There's in the past, we've had a lot of back and forth. I've heard the last year, as in years past, we had a Q&A, sort of an ongoing Q&A with the school's finance person, just back and forth. More questions, sometimes questions, we get more questions, but you, at the end of that process, you have a better sense of what's changing and why. Now, I think there really, there aren't a lot of changes this year, but we should still have had more time, you know, to kind of go through all of this. I appreciate that a lot was done upfront on the budget, as I said, on, you know, working groups over the summer, and then Brian presented, you know, kind of a high level in the fall. But in terms of us getting into the meat and potatoes and really delving into the details of a budget, we haven't, we haven't had the time. We typically have had in the past. And then we had a big article scheduled this year, too, so that really kind of threw, you know, a little bit more laughs into them.
To your point, this whole budget, you know, you got, what, end of February? Document the role? Yeah. So. I tried to get those facts into the report, not characterizing them, not saying, and this really sucks, according to my language. Right. But I wanted the talent to see that, and I want to be able to point to it. Maybe there needs to be a section, a paragraph, or a sentence toward the end. We talk about progress. This isn't progress. But something in the end, we really want more information and sooner. And maybe that's part of our recommendation. I mean, two years ago, we made the recommendation that the town do some, get some working groups together and do some forecasting. And in the past, we have asked for, you know, three to five year forecasts for the operating budget. I mean, now we're kind of, it's just one year, then we're going to drop to the next. And I know a lot of things are hard to forecast and we've got, you know, collective bargaining and whatnot. But I feel like, you know, sometimes you, that was a recommendation and then it was followed through. I think last year's budget was a little bit better because we started earlier. This year's budget is probably better too, because they started that process in the summer of last year. But the part that we saw was late. So I think that that's our next recommendation. The point being, I think sometimes when you ask for these things and you press on them, it helps. You end up getting more of what you want. Okay. So are we done for now with the schools and the operating budget? Are there any other operating budget questions that, you know, final questions that we might have before we vote? So just to answer, address those, do you want to answer those, those schools questions? Let me get the answer.
I want to force you to go one way or the other right now, if you're, you're not ready. We would vote operating separate from capital, correct? Okay. Yeah. But I, I'd be fine with operating. Capital's the one that I have. That's the concerns. I can go either way. I do think we should get answers. Right. Well, if we want answers, let's not vote. Because once we vote. We can always vote again. We vote again. Yeah. I mean, we could do that. And we pose the questions, get some answers. And then if, if we have answers that, you know.
Well, we made it done the better. So I have a big agenda on Wednesday. I'm sure it's not a big agenda tonight. Okay, fine. Anybody want to make a motion?
There's a way you have to make the solution. So you have to do it the way that Brian presents it in the. Oh, okay. I can come vote section of the model. I'm going to use that last time. And I'm not seeing it. You sent it by email, but I'm not sure I can pull it up here. I think. So I think it's in the, I'm looking at the version 4 of 3.0.4. Yeah, I have that one too. Okay. It is there. I apologize. No, he sent the text to the article. That's what I'm thinking about.
A GIF article. Doesn't it just have to be. Like, I remember Brian, overall, you wrote up like. Exactly. You hit the wording of all of this. No, it's in here. So if you go over to, like, column P, omnibus motion, one detail. White column, I'm sorry. Okay. So on the omnibus vote tab, column P, it's about row 35 or so. I see it. So I'll make a motion. Sure. So I make a motion that the finance committee recommend the omnibus budget as follows. By tax, $111,405,149 from the ambulance fund, $434,427 from other funds. That's $1,124,677 for a total omnibus budget of $112,964,253.
Second. Second. Sorry.
I don't know if this is a formal amendment or not, but I think this is not the omnibus budget. It's the operating budget. This is the op. Operating. Yes. Okay. Yeah. I mean, this is for the operating budget, though, because we don't have any. There's nothing about capital here. Okay. But, okay. Yeah. You said, and he wrote omnibus, so, okay, I'm good with that. But he also omnibus operating budget.
Everybody wins. Yes. I hear you. Okay.
Is that the full motion? That's the full motion. I second it. I don't know. I second it. Three of a second. I think. I didn't hear it. Okay. And then. Right. Should we vote? I vote yes. I vote yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah.
I see. It's explicit. I explained earlier sort of my concern. Thank you for having the courage to do that. I have some little message. Do you want to say my vote does not at all diminish my gratitude for the people who put in significant effort to put this together, including the working group in the summer and the fall and everyone on the town side. Do you like to add that people? I think that's lovely.
Green budget? No. Capital budget. Thank you. Capital budget. You don't have to vote the school budget separately, right? Omnibus and capital. Yes. Hopefully not. We voted all the school's money already. And it is. I mean, when you look at that first tab, that state of 27 budget tab, I mean, you've got all those line items with everything. And schools is, I mean, schools is wonderful. So it's in there. It's just one line. Yep. So yes, everybody's favorite topic. I recollect from our last conversation, obviously, we had the opportunity to better understand based on SIPC's rate up and the delta between what the town manager was recommending, at least from my perspective. And I thought there was some support for perhaps going back to them and letting them know that the delta was quite large. And there were a couple of things. And delta was large, both in the monetary value and the number of things that were added, right? And just the net number of things that sort of got added and totally appreciate some of that caught them blindsided versus things that they felt necessary to pull forward. I'm still concerned about the total number, how large it is. And part of what I think was pointed out as well is a lot of things were moved forward, but they're still on the plan. And so in my mind, there's an opportunity to reduce that number, come a little bit closer to what SIPC's sort of recommendation had been to the town manager, acknowledging that the things that were moved up could get moved back. That doesn't mean that they won't happen. And they just won't necessarily happen next year.
And I had maybe come out of that meeting perhaps a bit hopeful that the town manager might actually present and might adjust that capital plan in that way. But maybe I misunderstood. And maybe if that's up to us, then maybe we can talk about whether there's the appetite to do that. I didn't want to go back to my family, to the town manager and say, we're kind of thinking sort of maybe, I want you to have a vote. Fair enough. So what I'm happy to do that tonight and tomorrow. I guess are people, I think I've shared my perspective, right? And I guess obviously that is, given that perspective, I don't think at this point, I personally am inclined to vote for the capital budget as it stands because of all that, because of the amount of change, because of the total dollar amount. And that isn't to say that I am not necessarily in support of all the budgets or all the projects, excuse me, I'm just not in support of them all right now. And so I would be in support of just a number and a plan that is more aligned with what we saw coming out of SIPC. Yeah, I echo that in a lot of ways. I think the two things for me are the Kelly Lappin, the CIPC, they did a lot of work. I don't think the discrepancies were adequately addressed or explained. And again, the question when she was here, would she support it? And she was going to be getting up at the con microphone. And then the second thing is, I really don't think we've gotten all the questions answered over the baseball field. And it sounds like it's not that Virgin has to be done by the way. There are additional costs that they haven't been able to get a handle on. So I would probably be in no vote as well at this point, unless there are some provisions. I'm with you both on that one item right now. I'm not ready to vote for that. I would like to see it out of this year's budget and back in, I think it was in 229. What do other people think? I agree with just the Delta and the projects that the CIPC reviewed. And, you know, I believe that committee spent a lot of time focused on needs, talking to each department head, addressing the timing of when things should be done and how things should be done from a funding perspective, funding sources. And to have that much of a Delta, I agree. I feel like we just, I'm not comfortable supporting the time manager budget, just relative to what CIPC had that in for, I'll double check, Kelly told us 20, 29, it's easy to verify. Right. But you'd be comfortable putting it back into 29, which is what CIPC. Yes. I would. Right. For which item? The school field. I think it was 28. I'm just looking at Kelly's, your wonderful notes. Kelly's chart, let's just say that it was a 2028 to 2027 for the school fields. In her note about the. I thought that was. I'm just, I'm just looking at that sheet. Yeah. CIPC's looking for their. I believe the work in a report is the more update, authoritative version, but. Fair enough. I was just looking at that most recent sheet.
Either way. Right. We'll add it in the future. I'm also of the mindset, in addition to the baseball fields project, I would like to see more focus on building maintenance or on things that need to be done within the school rather than the exterior. So the sidewalk spending about the amount that we're spending on all of town roadways for just sidewalks to me is a huge concern. And I'd rather see the HVAC systems being updated before failure to create additional costs in those. So that's one of the other areas that I think that we need to have that reviewed. The sidewalks, I mean, as you said, find it out. That's, I mean, it is a high precedent. We've gone to wide sidewalks and then we've got middle school sidewalks and the total is almost 900,000, which is about what we're spending on roads for the town. And it's a feasible fee debt in one year. Should that be pushed out over a couple of years, I feel. But those are a couple of the other things that I'd like to have them reconsider. Can you click on that continue watching button, please?
Probably the enter button.
Oh, that's the... Sorry. Wow. TV. It's a remote. Thank you. All right. Don't tell my husband.
And the last comment, since we're just talking about capital items, the other large delta that I think we could adjust if we're talking about recommendations for adjustment with hopefully more minimal impact, but still nets are supposed to half a million. I would like to see SIPC's recommendation for the road amount be adopted. I would like to see us try that for one year and just see what the net outcome of that is. The delta was like, well, it was like 400 grand as a delta, right? It was a huge delta between what they suggested versus what the town suggested. I appreciated their perspective of, let's try something a little different, just see what happens. And if it turns out next year, nope, we need 800, we need 800, but at least we tried, right? And we got that account down to zero. And for one year, again, just pulling on a lever that exists, even if it's a one-time lever. Well, I don't disagree. In fact, I support that. But didn't she say that there is, I mean, the reason they want to bring it down for this year is that there's already money in that account that had not been spent? Correct. It was about 10%. I mean, it wasn't a significant loss, but, you know. Yeah, you're right. I thought they were saying year over year, there's a 12% overage, basically. And they were seeing that year over year and that, therefore, there was some that had built up in the account. Oh, okay. So it wasn't just 12% remaining from last year. So I understood. I understood. They said they looked at how much was remaining from last year, but that was sort of what they suspected was rolling, and that's how I interpreted her comment anyway. And again, like I said, to me, this seems like an opportunity to try something a little different and see what comes of it. And if it turns out it didn't work, we fund more, and we know, and we know that we tried and it didn't quite work. Same thing, I'll, you know, say, look at the SPED reserve, right? We had to try a number of years before we figured out the correct funding for that.
But in the meantime, that saves us, you know, with the ball field. Which were two and a half, right? Plus another 400 grand from the roads.
Plus potentially some adjustment on sidewalks and things. Like, you're looking at close to three million. I think it's about three million dollars in use for adjustment. Right. You're looking at, like, yeah, like three million, bringing that down from 13 to 10. And that's a lot more palpable. And certainly closer to the eight recommended by ICPC. To give them an opportunity to make adjustments, which I'm not sure what they will do. But we suggest that we should take a vote. And that sends a message that, hey, as it stands now, we're not going to support it. But we've got until Monday. Effectively, yes. Yeah. I think that's what we should do. Yeah. No, I think that's what we do. And I think we can be more, yes, as you said, a little bit more specific in which line items we have. And I want to go back to April's questions about the HVAC system and all. And that was in there for a future year. So that was in there for FY28. There were two. Yeah, there are two HVAC lines. There's one for the elementary school and one for the middle school. And I think the budget, the CIPSE budget, had middle school in and elementary school out. And the town, the budget proposed to us, has elementary school in and middle school out. Which I think the feedback from Brian is basically like, they talked to the schools. So I talked to Michael Fea and he said that that prioritization was wrong. I mean, if he got one into that project, he wanted to be elementary school and out of middle school. I'd like clarification from Michael Fea on that.
So what we're doing is substituting one opinion with a guy who he works for for his opinion? No, I think that the way CIPSE had it was high priority for the middle school HVAC. And I think the high priority for HVAC is, in my opinion, more imminent than a roadway. And so if we need to improve those, I'd rather see things being done so they're not emergencies. That end up hitting the budget next year or that becomes an emergency and you have to find funds for it. Because middle school roadways and sidewalks were 430 in 27 to be funded by a levy borrowing. And then next year in 28, we have HVAC, middle school HVAC for 470 by a levy. So it's only, I thought CIPSE had it at 540. It's 540. Oh, sorry. I'm like, my levy is 470 and the 30,000. So now there's 30,000. It's 540 for the elementary HVAC and 540. Okay. So to be clear, my understanding is that it was not that roadways came in for the middle school instead of the HVAC for the middle school. That's how I do it. Okay. My understanding is that the elementary school HVAC came in and the middle school HVAC moved out. So it was not a roadways versus an HVAC trade. It was like an HVAC. But right now, if you're looking at, I thought someone had said something about the need for HVAC at middle school. I think there's a need for HVAC at the middle school and the elementary school. I think CIPSE had elementary in 28 and middle school in 27, and the town has those flipped. So the town has middle school, 28, elementary, 27. Right. But I'm just saying, like, to April's point, like, you might, I mean, 470 versus 440, like, 30 or 440, you might just flip those so that you address middle school HVAC ahead of middle school sidewalks. I mean, they're not just similar amounts. I think my impression, again, we can ask for verification, was that, like, basically, we're going to do one HVAC project this year, and this is the priority of those. And there was kind of a logistical thing of, like, not that the middle school got pushed out. It's like, they logistically couldn't do the two HVAC projects. But we certainly ask for verification. So I didn't think it was two HVAC. I thought it was, Michael, say, I just, like, to know the people to do multiple projects. And I didn't understand it as two HVAC as much as I understood it as, like, you could do the sidewalks or you could do the HVAC and make it sidewalks. But that is an interesting point of clarification. I know that one HVAC project, the CIPSE had a 27 and 28 HVAC project. Those same projects have just been flipped. So, again, my impression was that was the trade-off, right, that they felt that the elementary HVAC was more pressing than the middle school. And we both in one year. Question, aside from this, has school committee voted for their capital budget, for the school's capital budget? I don't know. And I wonder, I know they sent us the memorandum on the fields project saying school budget, the school committee voted for that. Because, oh, Harley, he sent, yes, a CIPC opinion. So, I think we've got two different things going on, one of which is the possibility of switching the two HVAC systems and then pushing out the little school. Not necessarily switching. I don't think we should switch. Personally, I feel as though HVAC systems should take precedence over roadways. Both of them. Okay, fine. So, if they are feasible to be done in the same year how CIPC had them, move up the public, the PBS, I think it was public school building, PBS HVAC. And then it's, sorry, no, it's elementary HVAC. And I'm going from tabs in my head on the CIPs and the middle school HVAC. And then we could fit in portions of the sidewalk if that's a feasible project. I think it's good to do split that over two years and then combine them to, personally, I feel as though they should be almost combined to district-wide so that it can be a rolling fund like we do roads, et cetera. That's how I think that one should be set up. But I'd like further clarification on why, like written from Michael Fayette, if he's pushing it out, the justification, because I did get CIPs on both of those. So, I don't want to have justification on. On what? I'm sorry. On the HVACs, both systems. He had submitted HVAC CIPs for both systems and the sidewalks had been pushed out by CIPs, I believe. CIPs had pushed out those sidewalks. They weren't in the original budget. So, in addition to the two HVAC systems, you've got CIPs on, right? You've got, that's in the article? Or is it not? They're not. So, CIPC recommended middle school HVAC. Town manager recommended, I think, the elementary school HVAC. So, both of those HVACs. CIPC had pushed out the sidewalks. Town manager put the sidewalks in. So, that's the part that I think that further clarification on the need for sidewalks improvements to be almost $900,000 in one year. Over the need for an HVAC replacement and why that project, if it was rated as side priority, why it would be pushed out further. So, I can write this up. I'm happy to do that and send you my notes on. Okay. I appreciate it.
You want to take a vote? So, if the vote, and this is probably not the way you've expressed the motion, but if the vote is to approve the plan or, well, subject to taking out the fields, taking out or. I was thinking, I think we would vote as is, and we would recommend how we feel, we would recommend not only. I agree with you. Is that the way it's done? That's the way it's done. I think we've been presented with this budget. With this capital budget. I think we should vote on that. And then. I agree. Tell them what they could do to win our approval. Right. Right. I agree. Okay. No. Yeah. I truly didn't know what the protocol was. Is there a particular language for the motion, Pam? You're all right. I'm sorry. I don't know if there is, because it's like the funding sources, too. It's in the thing that I have. If you have my breakdown, the CIP write-up. Oh, no, because I have the. I think you can just do it by just looking at the five-year funding.
But I also have it in that write-up that I'm giving you, too. The CIP write-up. Okay. Big spreadsheet. Oh, oh, oh. No. No. It shows this one.
You don't have to do it by. Oh, yes. But you don't have to do it by project. I think we can do it by total. But you have to do it by funding source, which the funding is on. If that's on that. Do the separate. And then. No. I think that's going to be an event of that article. Okay. So, I'm looking at the capital project budget workbook dated.
You received it on 2-27. 3. Let me get to the end of this title. See this.
Oh, version 6.
There's a five-year funding. Yep. Okay. So, I move that income, recommend the fiscal year 27 capital budget for a total of $13,774,942. Being funded by levy taxation, $4,692,899. Excluded debt, $4.5 million. Cash. Free cash, $2,189,766. Ambulance fund, $105,000. Capital closeout, $692,277. Capital stabilization, $100,000.
Oh, shoot. Because this does include the other two. So, we just have to subtract out. We just have to subtract out the fund.
The price funds you have to take out.
Surplus capital. And what was the last one? It's like, um, just a minute. You have to do this. Wait.
So, it's 12 million?
Does this shine? So, water from wastewater are out of there. It's still 27. Or is it? I think it's not burning. Yeah. Okay.
27 million. All right. Okay. Sorry. So, all that holds. The total will be for $12,279,942.
I'll second. I don't understand what you just did. So, I looked at the five-year funding tab.
And that's where I am now. So, that $13 million total includes water fund and wastewater fund. Correct. So, I had to subtract those out. So, I subtracted out $1.495 million from $13.7 million. But that means that we would be voting on a $12.2 million. Yes, we are. But that's not to be now requesting. So, I'm sure. Because the water fund and the wastewater fund are being addressed in the Enterprise Fund article. The Enterprise Fund article funds the water, wastewater, and transfer station operating budget and capital budget. So, these capital items for water fund and wastewater are taken care of in the article. So, what we're voting now is just for the rest of the town. The amount doesn't change, right? The amount is the total amount. It's just that there's a separate article to split that money out and we vote on that money in that article. Because those enterprise funds operate on their own. Like, water fund funds itself. Water fund will fund the water debt, the capital that's being addressed here. So, the town is spending a total of, or anticipates spending, $13.7 million. But we're going to vote for what's done in the Enterprise Funds, in the Enterprise Fund article, and everything else we're voting for here as part of the regular omnibus. Is that what we did last year? It isn't, because this is the new rank, because Capital, the Enterprise Fund Capital, hadn't been moved over to the article. Last year, we just did Enterprise Fund operating. Now, we're doing Enterprise Fund operating and Capital in their own Enterprise Fund article. And you described the F-1 of 27. We're only voting on the five-year capital plan. We're only right now voting on the 27. So, we're not voting on the rest of it. But we do have to vote on the five-year as well. But we'll do 27 first, and then we can do the five-years.
But, yeah, I guess we should do that. Because they should go together.
They're kind of connected, but okay. Okay. So, first of all, I think that the new way we do it is more confusing than ever. But as long as people understand it. Does that make sense to everyone? Well, honestly, it doesn't to me. But I know what you're saying, and I think it works. If you go to the next tab, by department, fiscal year 27, the total for the departments, before you get to the... Yeah, there you go. There's that 12 million, 279. And if you look at that CIP write-up, that spreadsheet that I had done, that one FY27 summary tab, it breaks it out as the top portion is operating. And the second part of it is enterprise fund capital budgets. So, we're all doing the omnibus capital budget. I know we're getting to the right place. I just don't like the process. So, I'm happy to... It's changed last year. It is different than it was last year. And I think it does make sense. I mean, if you have enterprise funds that are supporting themselves, they should be supporting their debt, too. So, it should be all together in the same article. We just, in order to, as we've pulled those out of the... They used to be part of the regular budget overall, and we've slowly peeled them off. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for the explanation.
Motion is... We have the motion. No, I'm sorry.
Okay. All in favor?
Aye. Anybody else? Okay. All opposed? Any opposed? Okay.
One, five, zero.
Okay. Then, did you want to do the five-year now? I wonder if we need to do that since we voted, we didn't approve the... 27 piece of it? Eventually, we wouldn't. I mean, so we could... I would... You'd have to assume that... Well, we have a message. You would have at least the same vote? I would assume, yeah.
Okay. Just to be clear, what we would be voting on with respect to five-year is our recommendation. I suppose that's all we're doing here. Yes. You know, we're not... That seems to be different from... Yeah. I don't know that... I mean, I think to the point, we probably shouldn't vote on it eventually, but voting on it now when there's a good chance it will change, it doesn't seem like... I don't see how we can because we don't... You know, we don't know where we moved into those other years, if anything. Right? We can... Again, we're voting on what exists. So, I mean... Yeah.
Yeah. So, don't... I'll delete a link. I assume if we vote no in the first year, we're basically voting no for all five, but we didn't say that. Yeah, so... If we can hold off on the five-year, to me, that makes sense. We already didn't vote for the one year, so it seems like... Then we'll change the five-year if we... Right, exactly. So, I mean, if we aren't in... If we aren't sort of amiss or running afoul of any rules, I would say we can hold off on the five-year. Yeah. I mean, I think that makes sense. I think we're going to have to come back and address the 27th, so we're going to have to vote again anyway, so... And if we don't, right? Or are we... If there's no changes and we choose not to re-vote it, we can just vote the five-year. Right. We've been told there will be no changes. All right. Well, so, April, you and I can commune tomorrow and figure out exactly what we're going to ask them to... Or tell them is our problem. Yeah. Great. Thank you.
All right. That was capital. So, I appreciate the comments I've gotten to date on the FinCom report. I think the biggest polls in it are, no surprise, capital. So, I can't do much about that between tonight and tomorrow unless, you know, we report in and they say, okay, we'll do those things. In which case, I'll give you an updated draft. Oh, just to understand, we also can put forth a budget that excludes appropriations for those things if we think they're appropriate. Is that correct? Or is it incumbent on... Like, my understanding is that it's not incumbent on the town manager and Brian County to do that. However, in an ideal world, we would like their buy-in to make those changes, which is why we're giving them the opportunity to make those changes and incorporate them. But my understanding at the end of the day is that the budget, both operational and capital that's presented to town meeting, comes from FinCom. And so, therefore, the finance committee has the authority to remove them from a capital budget that we propose and then vote on a capital budget that we can all align on. Yeah, that is my understanding. That's why I'm clarifying. It's still town manager's budget. We can... So, we went through the wording on that bylaw very carefully. And I understood that it was still incumbent on finance committee to present a budget and a capital budget. And we could, if we so choose, have Michael McCall speak on behalf of us. But at the end of the day, it is our budget that is presented to town meeting. That's what I recommend... That's what I recollect from the bylaw. So, I look back at the bylaw as I drafted that first paragraph. So, I'm reading from my paraphrase, not the actual bylaw, but it's completely consistent of what you just said, that we recommend a budget to town meeting. Yeah, that's what I recollect. So, we have the authority. Now, again, I'm not saying we exercise that authority because I would much prefer that they be in alignment with us. And I think we give them the opportunity to hopefully present a capital budget that I think we can align on. But in the absence of that, we, I think, have that opportunity as well. So, I guess I share that, Bill, to share, like, it's not do you vote yes or no for this. There's also the opportunity if we have a majority to say we're going to start taking stuff up and then present a budget that we can all get on board with.
Is that budget presented as the only budget? I think if you did it, I think if you were to present it, because we started going through this a few years ago and we were big parents from, I think you would present what the town manager presented and what the FinCon recommendation is so that people can see both.
We call it. We end up in discrete changes. They're large, but there's a small number of them. I think it would be, and not to get too far ahead of ourselves here, but if the, if we are still in disagreement, let's say by Wednesday or certainly by Monday, I think rather than present an entirely separate budget, which is largely debilitative, if we say we don't recommend this budget, we would recommend this budget with these following changes, that's what I would do. You know, it's, you know, that's only an idea. But then I think we're also then relying for someone to make a motion on the floor to then remove those things. In my mind, the easiest thing for the public to do would be to see the budget that we propose, plus what was not proposed to them. And then either approve the budget we propose with the amendments, right? Or say, actually, we prefer that other budget. We would prefer to go back to that budget. Like essentially the two, the two budget approach that Pam's suggesting. Because if we just put forth, here's what we disagree with, and here are the changes we want, we're relying on someone on the floor to go up and say, make a motion for men, which I think is messy. Like, I'm just thinking about the easiest thing for the public, right? Like, not everyone's going to have heard this conversation, right? I think a lot of people are really relying on FinCom to put forth a budget that passes and I would feel confident in. And then I would like to, I would, I would personally feel more inclined to do that for them, to say, here's what we want to do. Yeah. So we'll have to figure it out. The wording is, because I'm looking, I brought up the article or the bylaw. Yeah. The finance committee shall review the operating capital budgets, the five-year capital plan in supporting documents prepared by the town manager pursuant to sections 6B and 6C, chapter 33, the Acts of 2022, Managraph. In fact, following such review, the finance committee shall present at annual town meeting a recommended operating and capital budget. FinCom shall also, shall include its recommendations for the five-year capital plan in its report to ATM. The five-year capital plan shall include blah, blah, blah. But we present a recommended operating and capital budget. So if we have a recommendation that differs from the town managers, we, I would read from that, infer from that, that we would be presenting a different, our own recommending budget. We're pretty far ahead of ourselves. I'm just, just, if we're going down that path to say, what if, and we've got another week, okay, yeah, we should know what the options are and know what it would look like. Yeah. I guess my assumption would be that at that point, we should probably ask downtown Seoul how that works. I mean, maybe I'm wrong. I think, yeah, we can check in with them, but I think we should also be prepared to produce our own recommended budget for budget.
So producing the... I would hope we don't have to do that. Yeah. Right. Okay. Have you covered capital for tonight? Okay.
I'm happy to take additional feedback on the draft. It feels like that might be, at this point, a little premature, but I'm happy to... Iris, I've not had a chance to look at your value yet. Okay. All right. Don't be too concerned. I think I primarily just...
Maybe I don't write a lot of legal documents, so I did a lot of trying to condense it a little bit. The conversation was good. And there were a couple tables. Sorry, which one was it? His report. I just sent him my own personal edits. I got a couple pages in, maybe like to page seven, and then had to unfortunately pause. But I sent him like the track changes on all of my recommended... A lot of it is just trying to condense it down a little bit. And then some of the tables, I think, was my biggest thing. Some of the tables... And I know you did not do the tables, so I'm not confusing you, but some of the tables, I felt, would benefit from some labeled columns. I particularly found, which even for us, I think, was the first time we looked at it, a bit tough to understand what we were looking at. The table about the rate of change and the top drivers of increase in the overall budget, that table, I think, needs a little bit. The columns aren't labeled except for the last column. Like ones... And they aren't... There's like the first column, which has the actual items, and then there's a number next to a couple of them, but not all of them. It's just a little inconsistent. So I think that one would benefit a little bit from just some more clear labeling. And all of that's in my... Well, I'll look at that. I'm a little confused about what you're saying, because if you're talking about table four that has the budget drivers, they're all labeled.
I think we could include in that one. And I put this one... You started it, and I kind of add into it. I think they don't... Not every line item is going to add to the net change, which was... On the percentage, it adds to 4.63. It doesn't quite add. I think we have a total there. And then... So you add a total? Sorry? I would add a line at the bottom just so that you know. And it's not... Normally, you put the line under these to say, as if it's the sum of. I would just include total 4.6. So you're not going to quite get to 4.63% from adding these up. But these are most of the components.
Right? I don't understand.
4.63 does appear in the sort of two... So... It's above it. I just said, I'm always leery of including totals that don't add up. Because inevitably, I thought that confuses people more. No, I... But that's not... I mean, the point of this is... I mean, you're not going to get to every detail. Every detail isn't a driver. Yeah. Right. But you want to say these... Like, just so that people can... In one of my... It gives the context of, okay, this is 1.74. It's 1.74% of 4.63. Right? And in my... One of the comments I think I added to you, Carl, was to call these the top eight budget drivers specifically for that, right? Because essentially, these are just a subset of, like, the total increases. So here's what I found a little confusing when I looked at this table. So there's FY27 versus FY26. What he really means is, like, the dollar column, right, is the change in dollars between FY26 and 27, and then the rate of percentage change, right? And then next to it, then he's got contribution to total year-over-year change. What he really means is, how is that all adding up to the four-point? Well, that is the contribution to the total year-over-year change. Yeah. So you... I think the labels are a little tough to understand, just personally. I hear you. Yeah. You're not wrong. So that's an easy fix. Yeah. What I'd suggest, and tell me if you think this is great, is I think at least on that right-hand column, you could add a total line, because that's a real total. It's a subtotal. So let's say that adds to the 4%, and then either a footnote there or a separate line that says that 4%, that's 4% of the 4.63, whatever that line, right? Like that. Put that in context. Yeah. And then the other thing that's kind of interesting here is, like, reserve for salary adjustments is, like, the number one thing. But he starts numerating at healthcare insurance premiums directly below it as one, even though it's actually less of a total percentage. I understand why that's done, because the reserve for salary adjustments presumably is just that reserve that then moves into payroll. But I actually think I added a note in my edits to you, Carl, of, like, we should say that, right? Like, or else he starts with one, which isn't the top budget driver, which is a little odd. See the one? No. Oh, that's the footnote. That's not... That's the footnote. Oh, it's the footnote? No. Footnotes just didn't work. Ooh. Oh, my gosh. I did... Okay. Thank you. I didn't realize that. I was like, this is an odd way of doing it. Oh, absolutely. Carl. You're saying he? No, Brian Kennedy, right? No. No, this is... This is... Carl and I. This is my table, which Pam, then, and Pete. And then I... Well, I... It's very kind to be a table. Yes. It's a wonderful table. It is a wonderful table. All right. I mean, the idea is to try to point to what are the budget drivers and quantify them. I think it's a worthy table. Do not get me wrong. It is a worthy table. I gave you some feedback on it, both in, like, what I wrote about it and how I, like, just trying to maybe clarify the explanation. And then, again, my only other feedback, which I added a comment for you to say, I think maybe the problems could be solidified. Yes. And I think you got some of my comments just clarifying what some of the terms are. You're talking about unclassified was one, obviously. But then I'm looking at table one. It's like OPEB contribution. Even I don't know what that is. And then there's other SP period, assume state, other state assessments, overlay offsets. You know, I don't know what that would be. So I think for a layperson, they probably want to just go through and make sure the terms are defined somewhere. This, I'm thinking about the, first of all, we could define everything. You're not wrong, right? But, you know, where do you stop? I got to think about where this fits in the context of a warrant. Because if OPEB has been defined somewhere, maybe we don't have to do that. But, I mean, we do have OPEB. If you kind of do a control F for OPEB, first one is. We had at one point talk about trying to be kind of like a glossary or something. Actually not until, actually it's not until page nine.
You know, our report comes very early in the warrant. So whether it's a footnote or whether it's a glossary or maybe just, you know, people have to Google it. Yeah.
Well, they can ask the neighbors. I mean, I guess, I hear you, but then we're saying we want to condense this and that just adds so much more detail. And then I would. Especially for, I mean, it's its own art. I would probably take it out. I would just do other. Because if people don't know what it means. I think OPEB should stay in there. And maybe we can say other post-employment. I don't want to mess with these tables. I really don't. Because if you start, then. You can, we can write out state assessments. Yeah. I mean, we, but I think. Anyway, I didn't mean to pick on that particular one. But just in general, the more we can clarify, the better.
When you, just as a quick thing, when you do like, from the, there's, you can take unchecked grid lines from the view. So when you, um, paste it as a picture, you don't have the grid lines there. Um, I'm not positive about this, but I think, did you print it? Anybody tried printing this? It does. It'll show up. You have to take out. You have to take out. Okay. The lines.
We're getting, we're. So I just have a couple points on, if you're okay, going forward to the next one. So on the recommendations, I was curious. I feel as though I agree with bullet one, continue strategic planning and financial forecasting for FY28 through 36. But should that be a separate bullet from the education? Cause I think the education piece, if an override is there, is that a separate bullet or is it one bullet?
Cause I think that could be too. The continued education of the public through forums and et cetera. I feel as though that's your strongest statement that that could be a separate bullet. I thought that that was a key point to drive out that I do think strategic planning and financial forecasting along with capital planning outlook expanded, which you already have, like the expanded capital. I think that those are very important. And then the one thing I just, and forgive me if I'm ignorant on this, your point about aggressively pursued pilot agreements with not-for-profit entities in town. I'm wondering how does that help? So if someone could just explain that to me, cause I didn't understand that one bullet one. So not-for-profits don't pay taxes. And there is a mechanism in place with the state that authorizes towns and cities to go to, you know, not-for-profits and say, hey, you're getting all these services and you're not paying it. So why don't you contribute to the, that's what we call it. Taxes. Taxes. Okay. Loo of taxes, right? And I think I've raised this one-on-one with Michael McCall. I know that he says they're doing it. And I just think we just got to keep on doing it. I was just curious. I didn't know what it meant. And if it meant like we were pursuing more not-for-profits to come into town. And that was the part that I wanted to make sure. I hope it doesn't say that. But that's what I just didn't understand what the pilot part was. It's a kind of interesting concept because you can't say you must contribute tax because that's a tax. But, you know. They can give freely. They can give very freely. And maybe it's like the not-for-profit entities that currently reside in town. Or I don't know if it's like that already, like already established. I'm not sure. Like, you could clarify that. As opposed to pursuing new, I guess, is more of mine.
I think I would change hearing that. I would change, pursue pilot agreements with not-for-profits. I don't want to limit it to current not-for-profits. You don't. I guess it was more of like the pursue part of it. I agree with what your statement was once I understood it. But it was like, are we asking for more not-for-profits? Or are we asking for more pilot programs? And so, like, I guess that was more of where I wanted to just make sure we differentiate.
Okay. I would certainly give some thought.
I think that is-have we had that bullet? I'm sorry? Have we had that before? Have we had that before? Have we included that bullet before? I don't believe so. It is a good one. But, yeah, in a world where- We've brought it up before that it's- Yeah.
And then one of the bullets that I think that you could potentially combine are the expand the capital planning period, considered by CIP and self-manager, and then the one that's underneath it, require. Because I do think that for all capital expenditures, it's like that should be part of the planning process, is requiring, like, further detail to put them together. I put those two bullets together, or maybe even a sub-bullet or something that would- I think I'd keep them separate just to make it. They're kind of two different. They're both on longer-term capital, but one is saying, like, let's take a longer view, and the other is saying, for the projects that you have, outstanding, or that you take on, require the bit of my last time, so you can measure- Separate concepts. Yeah. So you can see progress.
Hearing this, though, and I'm not trying to cut off conversation, I think even if we can't do much about the capital section, I will try to get a revised cap out tomorrow to take a look at it, so we can talk on Wednesday.
Otherwise, all my other ones are, like, edits. I'm happy to take them. So there's one in that last period that says FY2YT, budget preparation. It's your second-to-last line. So I think your Y meant to be a 7.
Oh, I see it now.
It works.
Yeah, thank you.
It's funny, spell checker didn't catch that. Which means I've used it before. Because it's like an acronym. I thought it was an acronym.
And you did have stuff on new growth, right? Is recommendations about, I think you did. I remember reading about it. But the city revenue resources. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah.
Yeah, it's probably the second bullet point here.
And then that comes up again with the challenges above, where it says the town has achieved only a 7-0 growth.
If I were one main in committee, I'd be much harsher on that.
Because it's not because we haven't achieved it. Like, people don't want it.
I don't want to preach. I'm not talking about preaching to you. No. Although I don't want to do that either. I mean, I don't want to be preaching to the town. You know, how to live.
If you have other edits, if you've made them, if you can send them to me, that would be better. Because we've got a bunch of articles to think about. I guess just one question on the report. Continued budget pressures are overrides for 28 through 36. And then as you go through healthcare premiums for current employees, for retirees. I mean, do we need to include what they were, the fiscal 27? It just. Sorry, what? Near the end of the report. Yeah, I find it sexy. Okay. So we say health insurance premiums for current. So we're talking about the pressures. First of all, it is health insurance premium for current employees and for retirees. Budgeted to increase 8.5% and 18% respectively in fiscal 27. I don't know if we need the, what it's going to do in 27. I mean, looking, looking ahead is the challenge. I mean, that issue is the challenge for 28 through 36. I guess you're putting it in context by saying what it, the increase for 27. Yeah, I'm trying to say it. But it's all just real. It's been, it's, we've just been through. Well, actually, I don't know if you see, you don't see all the detail in the report, you know, in the other tables. So maybe that is new information too. The 2.5% world when things are rising this fast, I feel like you can't say it enough, especially since we don't have any control over it. I think that. Or perhaps a little control over it. No, that's true. I think you're, you're highlighting just your proof points.
You get the agenda in the times. Are you going to do some articles tonight? I will love to do some articles tonight. Welcome to financial aid, Bill. I'm a very time-oriented person, you can tell. So we're running out of time. So we've got to do what we've got to do.
Okay. Can we move on?
Okay.
On those articles.
It's A, O, O, N, N, and L.
That I want to. And then I think. This off. But I didn't know if it was final. I think S and T are sufficiently final. And then if we have time, I'd love people's feedback on DD. But DD is going to need some work stuff.
All right. Well, so you want to present those two then? S and P? Sure. So I sent those out earlier. These are the loosier of the articles in the warrant, I think. So they both revolve around increasing the. They both revolve around offering additional liquor licenses or alcohol licenses. Which is maybe you can start with S.
The typo. Yeah. I'm sure you have a typo. The alcohol. And what that was doing there. You're probably moving stuff around. Right? Yeah. Yeah.
In the first paragraph. I don't think you need to say ultimately this person's article is to enable. The reason, so the reason I did that is just because, and I think in both of these, it's because it's like kind of circuitous, right? Like the article is not about doing that. It's about technically about accepting the provision that then allows people to do that. So I didn't know if. I think you can say something like passage of this article. Well, the purpose is to ultimately. Passages of this article would enable. Right. Yeah. Rather than purpose. Yeah. Start up. But what it may be. And then something else that Carol Martin told me is there's no formatting once we get to our finance committee comments. So you're in the needs to be all the way next to the colon. Right? You're in the. Right. So it needs to be all the way after the colon. The first paragraph starts at finance committee comments. Finance committee comments. And then it starts immediately. They're saving all the space they can. I'm the same, same with arguments and in favor and opposed. Yeah. Just start the first argument right at the article and just FYI. That's like a small nit, but it's just. Good to know. And then the other just quick sort of general thing like that. When you refer, when you're referring to the town being Weyland, it's a capital T. Just capital.
And then. So if we're changing it to pass through this article, we'll enable. At the beginning, I'd probably delete the next. I think you can, the article would accomplish it. Yeah. I can practice that out. Okay. Works for me.
I think.
Yeah. And then the next paragraph, I guess I would say acceptance of the change in bylaw rather than this, because it just, it refers back to everything. It's just, just clarifies that it's a change in bylaw. And then your first argument in favor, or sorry, the second argument in favor, proponents argue that flexibility and licensing, I'd say could support potential new business rather than will support some kind of a, it should, but we don't know, we don't know that it will. Both arguments too. Yeah. We can make it. The other one says we'll support potential new businesses. We'll support potential new and potential growth for existing. Yeah. I mean, either, I guess I, I'm fine with whatever we think of the standard, right? The proponents will tell you that it will. Of course they will, but writing kind of more moderately, I mean, and then the first argument opposed, I'd say opponents may feel that you have increasing the number of licenses, but I think he'd want to say expanding the licensing of alcoholic beverages to new businesses, maybe two new businesses on fair to existing holders of such licenses that also have to go back and apply for it. Is that the point?
Yeah. I mean, the, the point is that this was a restrained good to a certain, certain set of businesses and now it would be easier for us, other businesses to. Relaisons out of the market share. Yeah. Right. But if, if you went through the existing hoops to getting all alcohol licenses. So I think that's, I mean, I might just say it that way because it's not an increasing, but expanding licensing on all alcohol beverages to new businesses is unfair to existing holders of such licenses that must go back and reapply for the same.
And then you're missing a period at the end of the second. And so, I mean, it should generally be in there. I would just put in there. I would just say, yeah, you don't, I don't think we need this qualifier.
Cost in there, meaning there's no financial impact? Uh, I mean, well, I think there is a financial impact, which is that presumably if this can cause new growth, that's a positive, but there's no cost to this in terms of dollar cost to the town. Right. So there's no avoiding the no financial impact language, but yeah.
I will move that. We recommend, um, passengers, this article. As amended. As amended. Thank you.
Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Okay. It's one down.
Article T. Um, this is to petition the town for, uh, sorry, petition the town, petition the general court for an additional liquor licenses for the sale of alcohol, all alcohol beverages to be drunk on the premises.
Fairly similar. We'll make the same formatting changes. Yeah. Yeah. I think the passage of this article enables the town would be, do people feel it should be will enable or would enable? I'm assuming the second paragraph there should say in order to accomplish this. I will probably just delete that some more to the last one. Yeah. I think it's the passage of this article. I think if you make similar changes to this one, you'll be, uh, yeah. And if you feel the passage of this article will enable the town or would enable the town? Will enable the town. And I would say will enable the town to petition the Massachusetts general court to grant additional licenses licenses and subsequently authorize, you know, or, and authorize the select board. I don't even think you need to say to authorize the select board to send such a petition, right? It's your passage allows for the select board to petition the Massachusetts general court for additional liquor licenses, right? And then you can say, when it's current limit is 14, all of which are being currently issued, this means the town is unable to issue licenses to business existing. Um, if, if granted by the Massachusetts general court, you know, the select board, uh, or the town would have potentially up to 10 more licenses for sale, right?
As you're proposing to would be, what's the 10 more licenses beginning and the end? I would take that whole beginning part out first, like, because the article itself does not enable the town to issue up to 10 more licenses. The article itself only enables the town to petition the Massachusetts general court. Yeah. And that's, yeah. So I would, and then underneath that, I would explain here's what they plan to do if so granted. Right. But the article passage of the article is only about the petitioning of the court. That's, and that's like, so that's actually exactly why I did originally word how I did, which is like, I was trying to kind of get up front, but like, what are we actually talking about? What are we talking about trying to get the town to issue 10 more? Absolutely. Has this been discussed before? My apologies. I don't know. No, it's okay. This one, I think is ultimately to enable the town to issue. The other one actually is the article to change the bylaw. This is, this allows the, right? Select board. That was, yeah, that was kind of where I came with this. General court. I was trying to kind of get the front, like, ultimately what we're trying to accomplish is X. And I think this is the article that's using the Y. But I think they're between S and T, right? Like S, S is you pass and we're done. This one, we're just saying that the selectors, you go to the general court and petition, and then we've got to go on. And ultimately, the goal is to have more licenses. Yeah, and that was kind of why I worded this one the way I did was because, again, I want to put up from, like, what are we actually talking about here? We're talking about trying to get 10 more licenses. You know, there are hoops. You know, it is not that straightforward. If people feel otherwise, we can, we can reverse it. I guess I feel like the petitioning of the general court just is a little. Have I misunderstood? Is that not what we're granting here? That is what we're granting. I just feel like it, that would be, I feel like what people are really voting on in my mind is do they want 10 more licenses? Agreed. But this is, this article, we don't have 10 licenses to give around. So at the end of the day, it's, do you want them to ask for 10 more or do not? And maybe that's a better way to catch it, however you do that. But I think the first one makes it seem like we're voting for town to issue 10 more. That's not what we're voting on. We're voting on whether they're going to go ask for 10 more or not. You're looking at the arguments? Or just the comments? Okay. So to me, that is a distinction, right? Like I hear you on like, well, asking then leads potentially to receiving. And then really, is that not the same thing? But I think that there is a little bit of a difference between this is an ask versus we have this in hand. And now are we going to use it? I mean, I think you just, I think you could use what you have. Right. I think I just, yeah, the purpose of this article is ultimately to enable the town to issue 10 more. Whalen's current limit is 14. And just like at the end of that, say this article, you know, would, would, whatever, would, would authorize select board to petition general court for, to grant 10 additional. Sorry. I feel like there are three pieces of this and you have three different opinions about the order in which they should all go. I'm sure you'll figure it out. I don't know. I defer to Rob. It's probably, as long as the three pieces are in there. Fair enough. Whichever order you want to sell them in. If you have opinions on the arguments in favor and against.
I am curious why you didn't have increased revenue for the town in the previous one. You have it in this one, which I agree with. I'm just wondering why you didn't have it in the previous one. That is a good question.
I think, no, I, I did. Yeah. I think I actually more or less copy-pasted. So yeah. The first argument in favor said, which can increase revenue for the other one as well. Yeah. If I didn't, that's a very good comment.
So happy to either think another fast at the wording of comments. If people feel that are too confusing.
You know what you're going to do with that? Right. You know what you're going to do with that?
Good answer.
Any other comments?
Anybody want to move the question? I'll move to, um, recommend article T, home rule, allow additional liquor licenses for, I can in.
In favor? In favor. As amended, sorry. Yes. As amended. Thank you. Two for two, Rob. Do you want to, like I said, EV is likely to change. So maybe we go through all the ones that are ready for active. Is DD the one that came in, like, today? Like, late today? No, in that, we could vote on that one if we want. DD is the Holiday Road one. Oh, sorry. Select board and school committee, I guess, we're talking about it still tonight. So, um, no, today was the, it's B, I think, which is pay unpaid debts. You're absolutely right. Is, for the record, I think, exactly the same. Brian replied to the DD one with that. That's why we're confused. Um, I think it is basically a copy-paste of, of last year's, just.
Are they saying article what? Which article? I mean, it is actually a whole copy-paste. It's article. It just says article. Yeah, I, I need to edit this, because also it says 24 paid with 26, and 25 paid with 26, and I assume these are all supposed to be.
Paid previous fiscal, this is the one we're talking about? Yeah. So I'll, I just got this from Brian. Okay. Today, so I'll, maybe we should just vote it on Wednesday if that works. Okay. I think you send this to us. I have no, like. Okay, Aaron. I'd send him a separate email asking for this. Okay. Okay. No worries. Yeah. I've got two to talk about. I guess, actually, so are we going to vote for B? Why would we not? Yes. Well, I, I'm not convinced, I guess, are the years even right, um, that talks about using 2026 appropriations? No, I think that's, that is, no, I shouldn't, I think that is. It's, it's paying the 25 and the 24 bills with 26 appropriations. Okay. So these are prior years on new bills that we've. Oh, I see. And my question on looking at this is why is the key to tech? We've got another $10,000 from last year. Yeah, I guess that's $10,000 from each.
All right. I think we should ask.
Because isn't this what we just voted all the emergency funding for? So, like, why is there another 10 grand in unpaid bills? Well, we voted the emergency funding for 2026. For this year, for this year's bills, but I'm wondering because, but then like, should this be here? But I think this is the 2026. I don't know why it's here, but I also think, I remember in last year's budget when, when we had voc ad as whatever number and then the number went down. And so why did it ultimately end up that we owe $10,000? That the budgeted number actually would be for 26. Right, wouldn't this be 26 that we're going to pay for 27? This is for 25. So why is this fiscal year 25 stuff that was not paid? Maybe they're just giving us an example without the real numbers and the real thing? No, I think this is the real number. I think I just, I just want to hear, it's a bigger amount too. I mean, that's $10,000. I just want to understand. Yeah, I think that's fair. That was for fiscal 25. Are we on track? I mean, we just heard of numbers and maybe it was in doing the 26, yeah, you know, request for the finance committee fund that they found the previous month. But I just, I'd like to hear a little more about the college plan. Subject to learning that, would you be willing to approve the article? Yeah. I can, I think we can vote on it, but I think what we should also understand. I don't agree. Although I, you know, because it seems to have a $120 million budget, I'm not going to worry about too much personally, but I'm not saying. Well, I think it's also a process question.
Yeah, I'll ask. I mean, yeah.
It'll take us two minutes to vote on Wednesday. Yeah. So I say vote Wednesday.
Wednesday. Yeah. Okay. Good. Wednesday it is. What do we got next? Okay. Senior Property Assessment Credit.
Yeah.
So let me explain what's going on. Article KK, which I dropped at 730. Yeah. I dropped an updated version at 730.
730? You did. Yeah. I did another version. Yep. I did another version. I was thinking a little bit more about arguments in favor to oppose. This is probably my ninth draft of this, having gone back and forth with the Senior Tax Relief Committee in Carroll. So the gist of it, as presented to me, and I think in the back and forth, some of the justifications have sort of adjusted, but the gist of it is really that the article suggests or recommends a $500 a year tax credit for particular residents. So you must be over the age of 65, have lived in Weyland for at least 20 years, and currently not have any children in the public schools. And essentially, it's a redistribution of existing levy tax, right? So they're essentially saying, we think that that means about a million dollars gets redistributed across all the households, and then we apply a $500 credit to those who apply for this credit and meet these criteria as claimed by them, and that results in a net $300 a year tax credit. The Senior Tax Relief Committee feels that it is reasonable to offer a thank you to this population for their support to the town and its schools.
And I asked about your question about sort of the math, of course, and just like how the program is expected to work. You can see in my updated version, the math that was presented to me is the math that I shared. So essentially, they took a look at the tax payers, right, the residential homeowners, and the number of those residential homeowners who are over the age of 65. That's getting close to our 40% of Wayland homeowners. And essentially, they're saying, if you were to give these people a $30,000 essentially rebate off of their value, like assessed value on the home by the current rate, you get a million dollars basically generally of the total budget that then becomes about $469 per senior household. And they're rounding that up to $500. So that's essentially how they're doing it. Obviously, I asked, do you have any data to support that of these 40% of Wayland seniors that they actually meet this criteria? They don't have any of that. Obviously, this will be on the honor system, right? You opt in, you say that you meet the criteria, you get this credit. The 40% is the seniors, not the seniors who have been here 20 years. Correct. Correct.
And then the arguments in favor came primarily directly from the senior tax relief committee. I think they felt it important to recognize that they don't necessarily reflect these arguments in favor, but these would-be arguments in favor. And they certainly, I think I understood the genesis of this request to come from sort of a three-pronged approach. The first being that there is a significant portion of, again, the tax base that falls within this potential population, that they've been here a long time and have given and paid their taxes, that they seem to recognize that a large amount of the spending does not directly benefit them, though they don't have any concerns with that. And therefore, I think the general thought here is this would be a nice approach to, in their own words, thank them.
I'm open to any feedback here. Like I said, this is my ninth draft of this. Anything I can do to help distill what any information you all think is relevant, this is a, I have found, I guess, I feel like this one's a little bit tricky, both in the fact that we don't really know who's going to use this program, we don't really know what the eligibility is, and therefore the numbers only represent just the age population, not who's actually eligible. So their $200 number will be high because not all 40% have been here 20 years. I think we just don't know how that's really going to shake out. Um, I, so yeah, I think there's that, um, I, I also think, you know, there's, it's tough for me to sort of, um, because I think the justifications have adjusted so much in my conversations back and forth, both with sort of Carol and the senior tax relief committee. I think that there's a general sense of, they want, particularly really what I understand is they just want acknowledgement that this population is there and feel like this meets that. Um, but I guess from my perspective, I think that there's also potentially either in those who support this or maybe an undercurrent that's maybe less explicit, um, perhaps a need for like larger conversations of like, what does having this population really well represented in their resource allocation and in town look like. And, um, I don't know that a $300 tax credit is really making people feel a lot better if there are like really larger concerns. I guess that's my point. Um, um, it's potentially not about the dollar amount as much as it is about if people are feeling like they're not being acknowledged for being here and being part of the community, that's a concern. And I'm not sure if this article helps reduce that. Um, yeah. What else? I think those arguments don't belong here, but I mean, isn't that equally true of the budget as a whole, right? I mean, we need to drive larger conversations, but this is about whether I get to save 300 bucks on my taxes and you get to pay $200 more. So you think about, so you think the argument in favor of the, the last one, the proponents may feel a large percent of the overall town budget is spent on public schools. Do you think that one should get removed? That one I think is maybe sorry. More on the first one. So I'm still looking at your old drafts. I don't know. Oh, okay. I sent a more recent one. Won't be able. I can't. Okay. No worries. No worries. I think the answer is 60% too. I'm sorry. Okay. So, but yeah, that, so Brian Kevin always says 60. So if it's higher, as long as he's on board with that, I'll adjust it to whatever number. It's good. I mean, if you were to allocate kind of ranked retirement in healthcare, right. You know, even the FTE percentage base rate reporters, you know, look at the numbers that we have for totals. Anyway, not, I don't want to. No, it's okay. I just like, just careful of that number because it's just. Then I can just take it out and I'll just say a large percent and leave it there and leave it there. I'll, I'll take that out. It is tough. It's tough because I don't feel like we have a formal number. Right. That would be consistently used. Yeah. So it's really tough.
Maybe majority.
I don't see it. I wrote a large percent, but I can say a significant. Last bullet. And I don't know. It's on the most recent version. Yeah. For fun to say a large percent of the, or large portion or a significant portion of the budget. We may have changed this already, Iris, and it's so I apologize, but it says here in our comments that there are 4,868 residential homes in Weyland. Mm-hmm. I've seen a dozen different numbers. Yeah. You need to cite the source for. This is, so that, that entire paragraph is basically, with the exception of in the amended version I sent to everyone, I sent an additional line item that said actual tax and credit amounts may vary as there is estimation on the number of qualified, as there's no estimation on the number of qualified senior residents based on the criteria listed above. That whole paragraph came directly from the comments provided by the senior tax relief committee. So I'm happy to couch that, but it, it's tough, right? Then their whole mass starts to break apart if we don't bar the senior tax relief committee. You don't actually mention. Is that a town entity or is that just? Yeah. I do. I do. I say. We have no way of knowing whether that's anywhere close to being accurate. I mean, that's the assumption of the 300 is that 40% of the town is going to apply and be accepted. And I think that's. Right. It should be like estimated. Should you just put estimated in front of all? Sure. Yep. Sure. Yeah. And then I might just, I mean, like 2081. I mean, if it's an estimate. Okay. 20 or 200 or something. So I'll say out of an estimated 4,868 residential homes, I'll, I'll just say estimate for all of it. Yeah. I'd somehow, I'd like to, if this, if these figures came from the committee, I think you should say that. Okay. For the, yeah. Sure. That's great. Otherwise it looks like we came up with those numbers. You're totally right. Yep. Yep. Okay. And I think you may have done it, but I mean, the 40% are what you're saying is, is how many people over 65? That's just the over 65. It's not people who have been here 20 years. Correct. So it could be substantially less than that. It is their opinion that that number is holistically representative of a good estimate for who's qualifies for this. Like, I don't know how they came to that conclusion, but that's their perspective, I believe. So I am curious, um, and Pam and I were having this argument or this discussion, not argument earlier today, should that portion, if it came from them, be in like petitioners' comments or proposers' comments? So I understood. But they haven't, it's just proposers. Like if they'd submitted their, if they, if they, they only provided background, those comments, yeah, then they could. But if they just gave it as background, I don't think it's, that's what we're having because all of my articles are in background. Right. And so there's something, in my opinion, in some of the stuff, how factual is their background is part of the issue that I have, that do you put it, just like Iris has, I'm assuming, validated. I have not validated. I have not validated any of these numbers. Should it be part of the petitioner's comments so that the onus isn't on you if someone comes back and asks about those numbers, if they're going to be included? Sorry, and I'm kind of going back on this, but I think if they're petitioners' comments, like, and I'm maybe misunderstood, or, or I thought someone had put them back in because they thought the petitioner said it was perfect. Yeah. Yep. Yep. Okay. I think if, unless the petitioner wrote, you know, this is what I want to have included as a paragraph for, these are my comments versus just, this is general background information. If it's just background information, I think it can go in our comments, but we need to kind of vet it now somehow.
Yeah. I mean, I'm happy to just say, yes. I'll say for the, for the senior tax relief committee, and then I'll say, you know. Do you really need the math here? First of all, I found it confusing. Okay. Now again, I'm looking, I'm a iteration behind, but wouldn't it be easy enough to say, you know, according to the senior tax relief committee, if all eligible homeowners, or if all, I don't know what the words are, but if all eligible senior, all people who meet those four requirements, whatever they are, participate, the average tax bill will go up to $100. Yeah. That's not true. No. It is. If everyone does, yes, that is true. Because if every senior has been, if every senior meets all of the criteria, then I would argue every senior doesn't meet all of the criteria. Yeah. You could phrase it that way. You could say, if every, if every one of the, if every senior person in town meets the other criteria, that would be correct. Right. That's what I'm going to say. But I think it's just easier than the parenthetical. I know all of them all. Okay. I guess. Yeah. Just to make sure I'm clear, the proposal is for a flat $500 credit. That's right. But then I feel like. Yeah. It's really in the net. No, that's not really what they're suggesting. Actually, that's why I included the math. Yeah. Because what they're really suggesting is. You're suggesting this $30,000? Yeah. That's actually what they're doing. So, so the way that they're actually doing it is they're adjusting, they're adjusting people's property values by the 30 grand to give them essentially the equivalent of a $500 credit. The article, the article says a tax credit of $500. Yeah. Yeah. But the way that they got to that math was by looking for essentially the equivalent of a $30,000. But that's all the matter. Proposal is $500. Okay. And I feel like that, that exists, that was confusing for me, right? And I wonder, I agree. The article seems like it's saying they mentioned the $30,000 as being equivalent, but basically like the article, I think says a flat $500. And I think in the comments, yeah, I just scrapped. Yeah. That just makes it a lot simpler. Fair enough. One other note. I did think that the committee comments you had about all of the existing programs were relevant and interesting. I think it feels like working back into an argument that posed the existing programs available for seniors are sufficient. We don't need another one. It seems like a reasonable argument to pose. I pulled that from an article that Steve wrote for the Wayland Post, actually, in October, because I think they've been trying to do a lot more, helping explain what's available. That paragraph is still in the FinCom comments. I don't think it really belongs there, but I agree with you, Rob. I think that would be an argument to pose, although I would trim that list and just say there are, you know, others, there are other existing benefits for seniors, such as David Puppel. Okay. I wouldn't say that it doesn't belong in the FinCom comments. Yeah. I mean, I think it's... I mean, it's useful background. ...relevant background information. So, and I've already had this discussion with Iris by phone today, so I'll say it out loud. I thought this was something she might've put in there as a way of saying, hey, come on, guys, we already got a lot of benefits. And so she didn't. I didn't. No, I didn't. I didn't. That's how I read it. Yeah, I did it for exactly the same reason you all interpreted, which is if someone came and asked me for something, okay, my child comes and says, mom, I want a muffin. I said, what else did you just eat? I'm trying to, I'm trying to catch it. And, you know, you can't have a suite until you've had some protein, right? And so I'm just trying to help maybe share the broader ecosystem. I did add, per Carol, a couple notes in my most recent version, which is to clarify that many of the programs are income-based. Yeah. And again, that this existing ask does not impact anyone's ability to get into those existing programs and eligibility. If others feel differently, I'm happy to... So in my mind, a little bit... I already have one here, I think. That's okay. In my mind, you've asked that tonight. Again, I have gone back and forth with this article a lot. Like, I hear you on the arguments posed. I'm doing my best, I think, here to present a, like, meter view. And so in my mind, it's relevant background. But whether or not people then take it to a step of you've got enough or you don't, I feel like is perhaps not... I mean, I hear you. It is an argument opposed. But I think, unless other people feel differently, I think we have three arguments of favor that came from the background information and the given justification reasons from the Senior Tax Relief Committee, and then essentially the arguments opposed to those. And I think the existing ecosystem, I hear you on that, but, like, in my mind, it's more just interesting to note that it's there as opposed to whether or not that alone is a reason for why you might oppose something. I don't know that I would take any of the three arguments opposed, though. So that's fair. I think I should just change the last one to the last line to, I don't know, asking to reduce their contribution to current Wayland children. I call it current, okay. Wayland students. Yeah, Wayland students. Okay.
You need me to the case. Are you not comfortable to be representing what you want and not worried about, you know, all the differences, all the different iterations you've gotten from the committee?
I think this latest version, I think, is my best attempt at being as impartial in presenting a sort of reasonable appreciation for what the article does, why it was brought forth for, like, what is important to the Senior Tax Relief Committee, which is, again, after many conversations with them and Carol, while there may be some in town who have concerns about the budget or resource allocation or any other reasons, that is not their reason for bringing this forward. So that, they were very firm in that, that is not their perspective. So I think we've landed on, again, like I said, the most balanced approach that I can think to present this. Obviously, if you put an article together and you want something to pass more feedback on, it is going to sort of encourage that. And so I'm not sure to what extent we'll be as comfortable with how we've written this. I'm comfortable with it. And I appreciate everyone's feedback. If there's more feedback, I will take it because I am looking to make sure that it's clear in what the ask was, why the ask has come to the forefront, any relevant information around, again, what currently exists, and then why you might support it.
So I move to recommend article, I move to recommend article KK as amended. Second.
All in favor? Any opposed? So that was one, two, is that correct? One to five. Thank you.
So who said yes? Those four. Thank you. I just need that so I can do the local part. Thank you. I will send out a final version for everyone to look at with all the amendments. Taking turns being the odd one here. I thought that was going to be all yeses. I was surprised. We probably all have our own reasons, but I feel like we're all in this together. And I don't like the idea of taking $300 off my tax bill and putting it on irises.
Four years robs here. I mean, it's a small amount. So yeah, not a big deal. On to article OO next. That's one line. So this is multifamily housing route 20 west subdistrict amend maximum dimensions. So I worked with Annette Lewis on this and also listened to Select Board and some of the concerns Select Board had raised as well. And so I have the petitioner's comment or proposer's comments in here. Annette had drafted those. What I found the most interesting piece of this, because there was two concerns raised by the Select Board. One of them was, well, if we do this now, will every development have additional height required or requests? Like, are we setting a precedent for additional requests to change to bylaws? What I found was that based off of Annette, the ALTA-OXPO is actually 58 feet and not what, or sorry, where was it? Yeah, ALTA-OXPO, I think it said in her comment, is actually 58 feet. So this is not, this is just adjusting the bylaw to what the current development, the latest development, has been at the height. And the other consideration or the other thing that Select Board was concerned about was, do we have the fire equipment to be able to support that, to support a building at this height? And she had, planning committee did check with the fire chief prior to that, and he said that he has ladders, and she has a memo from him, that he has ladders to be able to manage a building should there be an emergency in this case. So we have the equipment, there's no issues in that department. Well, since ALTA-OXPO already exists, I'm really glad to hear that. Exactly. So what was actually constructed, and then I asked the question too, and I said, well, based off of the zoning board appeals of ALTA-OXPO, what was originally approved versus what was actually, they had to go through the zoning board appeals to be able to add the height that was needed. And she said, and she said, and she said, that's a very arduous process, and it went through, so it's already been, she is not concerned that there would be any additional request to increase as the project got underway. So I did ask that question.
Well, it was all made sense to me. Nice job. One formatting question, on the arguments in favor and oppose. I put them all together. Yeah. I don't break them out because it's all condensed, condensed, condensed is what I've heard. I think I can do a couple bullets. I mean, it just looks.
But I think I'd break it up into a couple. I'm fine with that. I just all read paragraphs. Condense, condense, condense. I can go either way. I think it reads easier if they're separated, and that's what I think most of us are doing. But most of it is be consistent. So if you were going to do it this way, I'd change my outfit like this.
We've done a pretty good job on condensing already, I think. So I have three in favor and three opposed, so I tried to balance them as well.
Move two.
Moving to accept or moving to approve? Second.
Favor? Aye. Okay. Perfect.
And then you just have to say article OO. Sorry. That was the other thing. But article OO. Yeah.
And we have a unanimous. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Housing rate 20. What have we got left here? I had one. And I have Al. Yes. Okay, those, I believe, are the last two, though, for tonight. Right, yes. Right. I had NN.
So this is also Article NN, Accessory Dwelling Unit, zoning amendments brought by the, proposed by the Planning Board. This, I think you did the article last year that reconciles with the mass general law that requires that we allow accessory dwelling units and affordable accessory dwelling units. This article expands some of the provisions of what was approved in last year's town meeting to allow for larger accessory dwelling units that are greater than 900 square feet or for multiple ADUs on one property. There are also a few other smaller provisions.
There are additional provisions, I should say. This had always been part of the Planning Board's intention to work with interest in property owners in town who wanted larger primary access dwelling, or who wanted larger ADUs as well as multiple units on one property. They must go through a special permit process once the requirements of the new, so that was always in the process. This bylaw provides that now people who want those will have the tools to make those, or to build these properties. This should potentially increase the properties, this should potentially increase the properties, stock in town. And the AADUs, the affordable ADUs also count for 40B housing, so that adds to the 40B housing stock. This might modestly increase tax revenue, having more units on your property, and any larger or multiple units must still comply with all the setbacks and other zoning bylaws. And multiple units are only permitted under limited specific circumstances. The provision or this new addition to the bylaw also creates legalization for ADUs billed before February 2nd, 2025. They can be recognized by right if they meet the standards, and they're certified by the building commissioner and approved by the Board of Health. It also expands the Planning Board's discretion on parking for special permit ADUs, and it adds a two-year expiration lapse. So if you have an ADU special permit, it elapses after two years, which did not previously exist as a lapse. So arguments in favor, so you can read these, it allows for multiple ADUs or AADUs on a single lot by special permit for greater flexibility, so that people have greater flexibility with their properties. Broadening the bylaw could increase housing stock and the number of affordable 40B units, as well as potentially contribute to tax revenue. And it creates some aspects, it clarifies some aspects of the existing law and provides additional provisions, the grandfathering and the two-year lapse, if they're not completed. And arguments opposed. Some may believe that broadening provisions and potentially encouraging construction will increase traffic, strain on town services. Some may believe that 900 square feet in a single unit is reasonable and that we don't need to have provisions expanded. And some may believe that two years is long enough to, is not long enough to build and receive a certificate of occupancy.
And this was recommended by the select board and the planning board, both 520. Two tiny little things, but you might want to do a search for bylaw and bylaws, plural, because we're using both. And in the second, sorry, the end of the first bullet point, I won't point out that they're bullet points, but... First paragraph? Well, some other changes to the bylaw include the following. Bullet points make perfect sense there, but... Oh, yes, they are. But anyway, the real thrust of the comment is, it's building commissioner and approved by the board of health are underlined. Well, I don't know why that is. Yeah, so that's all I got. Well, that's easy to fix. They are underlined.
Thank you.
If you would make those changes, I will move the question.
The question being, do we support this? So, yeah, I'll make the motion. Okay, go ahead. I move that FinCom recommend or approve accessory to balling units zoning amendments as amended.
Second. Thank you. All in favor? All right.
Last one for the night. Summer trade vehicles. There's one for each of us. If you play your cards right. All right. Article L. I got the article, but I did not. Last year, I actually reached out to each of the heads of the different departments to understand, like, for each vehicle, what was wrong with it. I did not do that this time. I wrote a more generic.
Did I send that to you guys? What did I send you guys? I don't know. You did. You sent it 2026. I did send it, but I'm just looking at it. 21 p.m. I added a, so I added a very generic. Generally, vehicles are shoulder traded in when they no longer function, are scheduled to be replaced, or have high mileage slash require repairs, no longer making the vehicle a viable option. Those were the reasons provided last year. The difference is last year, I actually sort of cross-referenced each vehicle with the head of the department. My apologies this year. We've been running out of time, and I have not had the opportunity to do that due diligence. I do feel that that due diligence is good to do, but in this case, just with the lack of those details, I provided a more general.
This authorizes them to do it, doesn't require them to do it, right? Correct. But generally, I believe they do. I mostly bring it up. I think some of these items are also on the capital budget. Right, for replacement. But that's what I mean, right? If we are not approving the capital budget, there might be a capital budget that doesn't include the replacements. I just want to make sure, in that case, they could just keep it. Correct. Correct. Fix it or whatever, right? Yeah. This is still minor. After dump truck, close front. See? That's the only thing you need. We can't touch that, right? That's the top part. Like last year, I had put together a nice little table where I was like, reason for selling. And I was told, you know, very clear terms, we cannot touch anything. So you're correct. Someone needs to address that. It is. Is this supposed to be the select board? I think it's the proposer. Yeah, it's the article. And I think the proposer. The change that you told me I should make to the article. Sorry. Never mind. Sorry. All right. Any questions about article, Al? All right. I make a motion to approve article, Al. Second. Thank you. All in favor. All right. It's easy.
I think we have done it. So people, if you've just reviewed your article tonight, please, if there are any final changes, edits, make those capital T's for town, you know, condense your move up so there's not one line after FinCon comments. And then send a final version to me and I will do a final check and submit those to the office. I have a quick question in terms of, obviously, some of these articles have had a bit of cleanup. Do I send a version of the cleaned up draft without FinSCOM votes to the proposer as opposed to just so they get a chance to see it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. I was going to do that. I just wanted to make sure that that's okay. That's a good point. Thank you. If there are any substantive, like, real terms aside from, like, self-taughts. I've moved things around and things like that. I would like to share what we reviewed. Here was the feedback that we incorporated from FinCon. This is where we landed. And then. But why would you send it without the vote? Do you want me to send it? No, I would send it with the vote. It can have the vote. Yeah. We have everything. And then before you send it as a final, make sure it's been reviewed by that party. Yes. But reviewed, but they aren't required to sign off on it. So I guess this gets to the point that Carl and I were having earlier. Like, I'm not required to have my petitioner for my article sign off on my FinCon report and say they're in agreement with what I wrote. Correct? Right. Okay. I mean. I would send it to them and make sure if they're, if they're, like, they're still logging about something or like, okay, we've done through this and this is what it is. But just confirm that for sure. Seeing the final version. Agreed. I have some related questions. I guess one, as far as sharing with third parties, there are obviously a lot of interested parties in Article DD. Do we have any rules or guidelines about sharing drafts or saying, hey, does this represent your argument well? Not with the proposer? Not with the people? Not with, frankly, opposers. We've sent many comments saying, this is how we feel about this. And I, in my mind, a lot of what I did was try to summarize their arguments into the arguments opposed. And I kind of like to send them those and say, hey, this is, this is how I summarize your feelings. Right? Like, do you think I missed key points? And obviously, if they feel, yes, I may or may not incorporate those changes, but. I don't know if they're sick and official. These are public documents. We've discussed them at a. Yeah, we've. That's kind of, I mean, like, that part of it, I feel like we can talk about it. I think that's. Okay. Imagine if there's a problem doing that other than you'll get feedback. Oh, but. Yeah. We got feedback. We need to manage that. Yeah. Yep. I would feel free to share. It's okay to share. I just wanted to check that I had heard conflicting things. On a related conflicting things note, again, I have two articles from a proposer, both of which we voted had no financial impact. What? You still have to write them up. I know you're VV and W. Okay. So we are still writing them up. Carol wants these written up. We keep going back and forth on VV and WW. It's the. I have a. It's Sherman's Bridge. It's Sherman's Bridge. So I've written up every single one because there's somewhat of an impact still, right? Like if we make safety changes, then it's a cost to the town, right? So if we, if we build sidewalks, there's a cost. Well, it depends, right? So one of them just like reduce the speed limit. Right. I have that as well. So I want to send you my notes on what I have done on that because I don't know if select boards meeting tonight, they were going to get them to try to combine those articles because they're kind of opposing and they're the same exact request, but not at the same time. Right. There are a couple. And at the end of the day, this is a bridge that shared. This is not only Wayland. Yep. So that's part of the other part of it. So I did do some write-ups that I can flip you if you want to read that one specifically. And I got Tom Holder's input on part of that. So there should be write-ups. And I guess I, to the point about proposer's comments versus background information, I have a suspicion that the proposer intended for the background information to be proposer's comments. This is the part that I'm having a hard time with. And I'm going to, once I listen to select boards meeting tonight, let me get back to you because my select board liaison put all the background information as proposer's comments in a couple of the articles, but not all of the articles. So I want clarification on that as well, because I think some of the backup information is somewhat hearsay and it's not, it's not like, and that's the part that I'm having a problem with is like, if I put this in here, it's technically, I'm not validating what they're saying is true, especially if it's going to cost them by your precedents. So I want to get clarification on that. But I think listening to the select board meeting tonight, I'll do that tomorrow. I think that we'll hear from Carol and other select board members of that opinion.
So who's moving? I think Bill's going to move. It's literally moving. It's just all in favor. All in favor. Any opposed?
He's got a lot of one out. Thank you all. Thank you.