November 18, 2025 – Board of Public Works – Video & Transcript

November 18, 2025 - Board of Public Works

Autoscroll:

It is 6 o'clock, so I'm going to call the meeting to order. I'm going to read our required wordage. It says, and this is on the agenda, the first two paragraphs. Note, items may not be discussed in the order listed or at a specific time estimate. Times are approximate. All topics must be subject to deliberation and vote. I'm sorry, may be subject to. In addition to common abbreviations, the DPW, I'm sorry, B-O-P-W, uses DPW for Department of Public Works, MWRA for Massachusetts Water Authority, and PFAS for Poly, Flora, and Orr. One may watch or may participate remotely with the meeting link that can be found at, and the link is there at Wayland's website. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 25, 2025, this meeting will be conducted via remote participation. No in-person attendance by members of the public will be permitted. The meeting may be recorded, which will be available to the public on WACAM as soon after the meeting as practical. I'm going to do a roll call. Ed, since you've got a speaker today, let's start with you. Say aye. Yep. Okay. Judy? Here. Mike Spelman? Here. And has Wagenbauer joined us yet? Here. Okay. Good. Thank you. Okay. Opening remarks. Any opening remarks? Tom? Staff have no remarks. Okay. Any announcements?
Same.
Okay. Public comment? Anybody from the board have a public comment? I want to echo what Carl said earlier about thank you for repainting the lines on Concord Road. It is much better.
Okay. So we have, I'm looking at the attendees and I see two hands raised. Okay. Please. Bring them on. All right. It looks like, oh, four hands. All right. Let me, so Thomas Cooper is the first one. Hi. This is Tom Cooper. I live on Sherman Bridge Road. I've commented before and written to you, to the board and to others about the project of rehabbing Sherman Bridge, and I saw the revised work that had been done after the public hearing on the subject, and I'd say I was really glad to see that there had been a serious effort to address all the comments that had been made by the public, one of the things that I haven't heard addressed is the cost of the bridge, one in terms of having an actual budget for what the workers predicted to cost, and secondly, how is the town going to pay for it? I know there was an earlier, at an earlier BPW meeting, there was a suggestion that it might be paid with so-called chapter 90 funds. I will say I've made a FOIA request to the town for documents regarding the design of the bridge, of changes to the bridge. I did not get anything related to chapter 90, which I think would have been responsive to my request. So, can you, when you reach the subject of Sherman Bridge, will you please address the question of funding, and whether chapter 90 is anticipated to be used, and maybe make one other point, I made the comments about the lack of access to the sidewalk in the earlier design. I'm very glad to see that was addressed, and now there's access to the sidewalk in both ends. The one thing I still question, and would not be my first choice, is there's still a low guardrail along the edge of the sidewalk, between the sidewalk and the roadway. I know there's a comment in the revised paperwork that says that was considered, and I just still would like to question, why does there need to be any guardrail there? Or can't the safety protection that's needed to protect people from going into the river be located on the outside edge of the sidewalk? And thanks. Those are my two comments. Thank you. Thank you, Tom.
All right. I will now recognize Elisa.
Hi. Yeah, I'm interested also in what the MassDOT program is supposed to cost. I'm still wondering, did DPW get authorization during the last town meeting to spend money on a consultant? Because I'm curious why no proposal for repairing the bridge with wood has been presented or considered. And regarding the guardrails, I just want to reiterate that having a guardrail on the other side of the bridge where there is no sidewalk for us to walk on would be detrimental to our safety. Because right now, if there's a car coming and we're looking off that side of the bridge where there isn't a walkway, which we do do, you know, we can just, you know, back up against the railing, no problem. If, if, if there's a big guardrail there, we won't be able to do that so we will be further out in traffic and it does need to be recognized that these, that pedestrians use the bridge. And then the last thing I think I'll bring up at this time would be, um, the use of the GULAM, I can never pronounce, somebody knows what it's called, um, without the asphalt. Um, originally October 9th meeting, um, they said, uh, if there's, with the asphalt, you need to repair any potholes immediately. Um, and you have to do it carefully so you don't damage the GULAM, whatever. Um, but they didn't explain why that's a problem. And, um, and as for any other bridges that they knew of with GULAM as a driving surface, they could only name one, which, um, had only been around. For a few years, not 30 years or whatever, and, um, they haven't presented any, um, long-term evidence that this is a good idea. And since it's so much, it will be so much cheaper to do any repairs on the bridge, if there is damage on the surface or anywhere else, um, with all wood and the barge, you know, the, the GULAM requires a barge to go underneath to do the repairs. If there's any damage to it, um, not to mention if there's damage on the surface, I don't know what they do. You can't fill it in with wood. You would, if you had that stuff on your wall. So, um, I'm a little concerned about the long-term costs of doing any repairs. If we go with the GULAM, and again, why don't we have an estimate from someone experienced with repairing wood, um, wood bridges with a wood bridge repair?
Thanks. Thanks for listening. Can I just, um, ask for a full name and, and street? I'm not sure if you mentioned it at the beginning. We just need to take that down. Yeah. Elisa Carter. I'm on Sherman's Bridge Road, number 19. Thank you.
Hi, um, this is Henry White, 109 Lincoln Road, um, in Weyland. Um, I, uh, want to follow up on the, uh, remarks of the previous speaker. Um, first of all, to say that I really appreciate the revisions that you all made to the bridge plans. I can see that a great deal of thoughtful work went into it, and I want to recognize and, and say that the community values that effort. Um, it's, uh, clear to me that the two towns are about to make a substantial investment in the bridge. And I had two suggestions that I think will help make that investment last longer. Uh, the first has to do with the, uh, traffic data that you included. Half of all drivers, according to that data, drive above the speed limit, above 25. Higher speeds create exponentially greater impact forces, which will shorten the deck's lifespan. So, um, in my mind, I know that, uh, there's a plan to do some study, but it seems to me setting it for the, for the board to set a goal of bringing the average speed down to 20 miles per hour with traffic calming measures would significantly extend the time needed before the bridge needs another major rehabilitation. Uh, the second, um, in regard to the glulam decking and assuming that you decide to go ahead with it, I strongly urge protecting it with a layer of planks. From what I've read, glulam can have a two to three year, I mean, two to three decade service life, if it is protected from direct wear from traffic. A sacrificial timber layer of, of planks would absorb the abrasion, moisture, and winter impacts. It can be replaced every few years at relatively low cost, while avoiding the far more expensive and complicated task of replacing glulam panels themselves. So, in short, thank you for the revisions. Slowing traffic and a timber layer will both protect the structure and preserve the historic character of the bridge. Thank you.
Alrighty. I am going to recognize Jeff Stein. Thank you. We do appreciate your continued work on this project. And we get, if you're a transportation engineer, a bridge looks a lot like a road. But if you're everyone else, a bridge, especially this one, is an historic object, a place. And I guess it's been made pretty plain. We who experience it as such don't want its historic character wiped out. But we also don't want our town to go into serious debt in pursuit of bridge maintenance. So, thank you in advance for considering alternatives to glulam and asphalt. Jeff, can we get your street? Yes, I'm at 48 Sherbrins Bridge Road. Thank you.
All right. I am going to recognize Andy Nirenberg. Hi, this is Andy Nirenberg. I'm at 113 Oxbow Road. I represent about 100 cyclists who cycle over the bridge anywhere from two to four times per week. And the uneven surface really is quite dangerous. It's very difficult to ride over that section. It's very jarring. You can also have the ejection of all sorts of things that might be loose on the bike, including water bottles. So, the only thing that I ask you to consider with this whole redesign, is there any way to even have a few feet of smooth surface or something that is parallel to the road as opposed to being perpendicular in order to make it much more safe for the cycling community? Thank you.
All right. And now I'll recognize Sheila Corbett.
Ms. Corbett's on mute.
Mute. Hi. I'm at 72 Sherman Bridge Road, and so I'm very close to the bridge. The weight limit of the bridge is really important because this bridge has been up for 32 years. And there was a weight limit prior to 95. So, I'll probably take 98. And that was when there was a flood over at 117. So, the weight limit was taken off the bridge so that the cars could detour around onto Sherman Bridge Road. After that, the weight limit was never put back on the bridge, as far as I know, because this is just in memory. So, I think that it's very important there's a weight limit put on the bridge, as well as the speed limit on the bridge. There are two curves that enter the bridge, one on either side. So, if there's a speed limit sign that could be placed before they curve to reach the bridge, it would make the area a lot more slower when they actually cross over the bridge. Keeping it wood is my preference. It's very beautiful, and there's a lot of people. Kids are always fishing there. And even now, in the cold weather, there's still fishing boats over there. There's still people painting. There's still a lot going on. Sunsets, the beautiful northern lights, there was a ton of people there. So, it's a place for people to go. And if the speed limits don't get slowed down, and they actually, you know, keep that area for the boats, I think that would be, you know, a shame. So, that's my input.
That concludes public comment. You've got, Carl's got his hand up. Oh, sorry. Thank you. I am speaking as a resident, not as a member of the Finance Committee. I drive across that bridge a couple of times a month, maybe a couple of times a week. I hate it. I happened to go across the bridge that is on Pelham Island Road recently, and I thought, that was a really well-done bridge. I understand the constraints that you're working under, but I think that the historic preservation is a red herring, and we shouldn't be a slave to what might have been in effect 200 years ago, which frankly wasn't in effect 200 years ago, because that wasn't the bridge that was there. We have modified that bridge over the years, and we are pretending that it's historic, but it's not. So, I'm a cyclist. I don't want to ride my bike over that bridge. I don't want to drive my car over that bridge. I can live pretty happily, whatever you decide, but I would love to see it upgraded to a 21st century bridge. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Carl, did you give your address? 25 Marshall Terrace. Thank you. Thank you. I have one other that raised their hand. I can recognize Gretchen Schuller. Thank you. Ready? Okay. I'm Gretchen Schuller, 126 Old Connecticut Path. I am one of the persons that sent all of the historic preservation letters in 1990 and 1991 and 2, and I do think it's an important historic landscape and part of an important historic landscape. I will grant you that the actual materials are no longer historic, however the setting is, the location, the design, and I believe that it's really important for us to preserve the aspects that we have in structures. We do it for houses and buildings, but structures are an important part of our landscape as well. I am a preservation planner, so obviously that's the hat I'm wearing and the way I feel about these things, but particularly the wood sides, the wood rails, guard rails, etc. And I do recognize the fact that you are in a very difficult situation, as are several other boards dealing with these various aspects in our town, and I thank you very much for your time.
Okay. We are set. All right. Closing public comment, and we go to the Sherman Bridge update. This is Chair. Yes, I recognize Carol Martin. Thank you. Carol Martin, Lake Road member of the Select Board. And I'm laughing because I don't want to have a repeat of the last time, but all of the folks who have come in to public comment are still able to speak, so they're part of your meeting and would be able to participate in further discussions. I just want to make sure you're aware of that. Maybe Mr. Holden is how to return folks back to participants from panelists without disconnecting them like we did the last time.
Mike, do you know how to do it? So we are going to recognize people more than once? Is that what you're... No, she's saying we have to take them off so they can't participate during the meeting. They've all got the ability to speak so they can participate in any agenda item now, which is what happened last time. They started... We started having... You started having more than five participants here, which is your board, and so we went to put them back to participate. Maybe Gretchen knows how to do this. But if anybody does get cut off, go to the Whelan website, and there's a connection to open meetings that you can get back in on as a participant. Maybe Tom can keep his eye on to make sure people can get back on. I don't know what happened. Yeah, I guess I would be reluctant to try what Joe tried the last time and then cut people off. Yeah. I mean, I'm showing all of these folks. I do have one other household that has their hand raised, but I... It was Christine and Arthur. Yeah. Before you do that, you do want to specify, Mr. Chair, that if they're not able to move them because we're afraid they're going to lose them, that they may not speak, even though their microphones are on or ask them all to stay on mute or something like that. Yes. Please, everybody, stay on mute. Unfortunately, we closed public comment already, so I don't know that we can reopen it. You can. Yeah. If you want to take another comment, you can.
Go ahead. Tom, you want to recognize whoever it is? I do. I've got Chris, Gene, and I can't read the rest of the name, but they are recognized.
They are on mute. Okay, okay. There we go. I think we're hearing someone eating dinner, if you might want to hear. Oh, that's not us. We're not eating. Can you hear us now? Yes. Okay. Well, I'm Gene Fleming. I'm here with my husband, Arthur Posey, and our good neighbor, Chris Field, who lives down the road. We live at 44 Trimmer Bridge Road. We've lived here for 42 years. We may be the longest residence on the road. I'm not sure. However, I will say that that wooden bridge, if you go across that bridge so fast that you can't take the time to look to the left and the right, up and down the river, you are missing something that is truly a blessing to this area. I mean, the scenery going across that bridge is something that I don't know of other bridges around here that are like that. And the historical aspect of it being wooden, I think, is a huge component of it. Look at the covered bridges in Vermont and New Hampshire. They're not going to talk about, you know, modernizing them and having cars whipped through and just because they have to modernize them. I mean, people value history, especially in New England, in this part of the country. So I would just say that, yes, our car, we go across it and it's rickety-bing-bing, you know, bumpity-bumpity-bump. But, you know, it slows you down. You can take a look at the beauty around you, watch people on the river and their canoes are getting in and out and the kids fishing along the side and people taking photographs. And it's a wonderful thing for us to have here in Weyland. And please take all of that into consideration when you make your decision. Thank you. No, seriously. Yes. Okay. We set now, Tom? We are set. All right. We're now reclosing again the public comment and let's go on to Sherman Bridge update. Sure. So I'm happy to provide this update as has been spoken by a number of previous speakers. You know, we initially had our visionary workshop on the 9th of October. At that time, we committed to providing an update within three weeks and that was done. On October 23rd, we posted an update. It was formatted in a frequently asked question type of a format with explanatory paragraphs to go along with that. And there were some sketches to offer what the new concept looked like and how it would be featured. Some of the changes that we did make, some of the accommodations that we were able to successfully include, we removed the asphalt top from the concept. But there was a lot of talk about, concern about reducing the width of the sidewalk. It's currently at five feet. We are maintaining that five foot width. The barrier separating the driving lanes from the walkway has been lowered. One speaker had mentioned that before. I can talk a little bit about the reason for having that is that on the bridge, there needs to be crash tested features. And it's either going to be a barrier where it's presently located between the driving surface and the walkway or at the edge of the bridge at the backside of the walkway. The bridge in its current structural configuration can't accept a crash tested rail on the backside of the walkway. So it has been placed between the driving surface and the walkway. It has been dramatically lowered. I know that was a concern. We have gotten written affirmation from MassDOT that they are accepting and their words were that they concur with this proposed design. So that's how that is going to look. The approach guardrails on the walkway side of the bridge, both on the Wayland and the Sudbury side, we have gotten an allowance to have the steel, the metal-backed wooden guardrails that are very similar to what's there currently. However, on the opposite side from the walkway, because of the way that the rail is set up, that we are going to still plan to install treated metal guardrails at the approaches only. The rest of the bridge from abutment to abutment is going to be wood. MassDOT has provided written confirmation that they will fund the purchase of all the wood materials for the deck and the walkway and the rails, the barriers. And they will also utilize their contractor to perform the installation of all of this material. In understanding that there is a historic component to this project and being sensitive to that, we are planning on including the installation of a kiosk that would provide historic information. We'd like to work with both the Sudbury and the Wayland Conservation Commissions towards creating what material, what content is there, the look of the kiosk. But I think that that would be a nice added feature to the project. Currently, we are advancing the permitting process. There are a number of permits that we need to obtain. The U.S. Army Corps, Massachusetts Historic Commission, MEPA, which is the Massachusetts Environmental Planning Act, their Chapter 91 permit, and also notices of intent with both the Sudbury and the Wayland Conservation Commissions. So we will be advancing that effort. The town managers of Wayland and Sudbury co-authored a letter this week that was written to District 3 chief at MassDOT, affirming that the towns are pledging to advance the project as is proposed currently. And that is what will now allow MassDOT to align the purchase of the materials and arrange for their contractor to perform the work later in calendar year 26. There was a question earlier by a previous speaker about the funding of this. This bridge, the materials, and the installation of those materials was equated to a value that was in excess of a million dollars. Now that MassDOT is obligated to perform the work and to purchase the materials, the cost to Sudbury and Wayland has diminished dramatically. We do have the ability to use Chapter 90 funds for anything of this type. We did it with the Route 27 bridge that was repaired a number of years ago. MassDOT actually repaired the deck very similarly to what they are proposing to do now. And the town repaired the piles underneath that bridge on Route 27 over the Sudbury River. So we have the ability to use Chapter 90 funds. It meets the spirit of those funds. So that would be what our intent, the balance of the project, which in essence is just nominal work at each approach as far as, you know, the paving work and the installation of those treated metal guardrails at the approaches that will be located across from the walkway side of the bridge. There was a question about placing a timber layer over the glulam. That is being considered. We're also being mindful of the fact that that layer to provide proper drainage perhaps may have some gaps. That would be a hazard to bicyclists. So we're being mindful of that. The installation of that timber layer may actually be a second phase of the project, but just to let folks know that we are contemplating that. I think that that concludes my talking points. And I think I did as best I could to address some of the questions that were raised by folks during public comment. Okay. Judy, you have a question? Yes, I do. Thank you. Thank you for that update, Tom. So you said earlier that the bridge will be replaced by wood. When you say wood, do you actually mean glulam? Correct. Okay. So with the glulam itself, I have not, and I wish we could have some information on what it, what happens to it when it's, when it's wet and, or soaking in a flood, because obviously Sudbury River is a sensitive river and we don't want to pollute it. Um, so I don't know what we can get from the folks who actually produce glulam, but let us know what its properties are. Um, the other thing is I'm, it sounds like, uh, DOT has a million bucks for this project and that will cover the glulam purchase and the installation. And then the town also has to, uh, pony up a certain amount for, I'm not sure what, but we haven't heard any numbers. And is that something that will come in phase two? At which point can we compare those numbers to a totally wood bridge so that people would know we are doing our due diligence? Thank you. So I can answer those questions, I guess, based on the, you know, going from the last to first is that the glulam is being used. The glulam is the only wood product that is known to meet the crash tested, uh, requirements, uh, for, for the guardrail and the barrier. Uh, it is both supported by MassDOT and the transportation engineers, the bridge engineers that we're using. We have reached out to the glulam manufacturers, um, relative to the question that was posed earlier in October and by you again tonight, Judy, um, is that, that glulam, um, will be, it is a product that will withstand being submerged in water. So we have that affirmation currently. Thank you, John. That wasn't my question. My question was what, what substances, if any, would be, uh, leaking from the glulam, like the glue, um, into the Sudbury river. I don't, I don't know if there is any information on that. That was my question. Thank you. Okay. I will have to get back to you on that.
Okay. Does the board have any other questions?
Okay. That's it for, uh, Sherman Bridge. Oh, sorry. Sorry, George. I was on mute speaking. Go ahead. Just to follow up on Judy's question regarding cost. It sounds like the lion's share would be taken care of by mass DOT in terms of the materials and the contractor. What do we have an idea of what the cost would be to the town? Maybe the two towns. And I know that we're 50% responsible. So I, I don't have in front of me tonight, um, hard figures to, to offer, uh, for the the, the approach work, the steel guard rails, um, some of the support work that's going to be done below, uh, it is the smaller part of the project. I can certainly offer that, but if I had to, um, you know, offer an estimate sitting here tonight, I would imagine it would be, um, no more than $50,000. $50,000 total, or is that for combined for each town? Yeah. So 50K each town. Okay. We'll, we'll wind up utilizing, uh, we have contracts in place for paving. We have contracts in place for the installation of guardrail. So we would utilize, um, existing arrangements that we have for the performance of that type of work. And that's total cost, including what we might use from chapter 90 funds. That is, that's what I'm referring to is what we would utilize from chapter 90. Yes. Okay. Great. And, uh, one other question about the arrangement of the planks. I've heard a request for parallel to the roadway, perpendicular to the roadway, um, slanted so that no two, you know, no plank has both tires on it at the same time. Um, do you have an idea of which is being considered as the best option? Um, the best option, uh, would likely be the diagonal, um, because that would, um, really take care of our concerns about thin, tired bicycles. Um, so that, that would be the option that we would be considering. Great. Thank you. Okay. Um, Judy, go ahead. Thank you. So one other, uh, consideration for costs is of course maintenance. And so we probably have a good idea of what the wood maintenance is going since we've been doing it for 33 years, but what would the ongoing cost for maintenance for glulam be? And I think that would be a good thing to have, um, that information is total price. Yeah. So I know that the glulam, it's really a matter of being able to, um, access the fasteners for the glulam to the understructure. I will have to provide a figure, uh, at a future meeting, uh, on that. It is, it is more involved. I'll give you, it is more involved than, uh, than the work that we can currently do on the top of the deck. Because you said, I think in a past meeting that, uh, you do, you can do the work on the current, but with the new plans, you have to have an outside contractor do it. Yeah. A lot of the fasteners, uh, would need to be accessed from underneath the bridge. So that would be something that, uh, it would be a specialized group that would have to do that. Okay.
Anybody else?
Okay. Moving on to lean discussion.
All right. Let me shift gears, shift some paperwork here. Bear with me. So in the packet, you have a letter, uh, that is proposed to be sent to the board of assessors and, uh, it represents both liens in the water and the wastewater divisions, uh, water value for the liens, uh, principle and interest is about $60,513. So we are prepared to, uh, advance that through the, uh, assessors and the treasurer's office. Those, those liens would be issued during, uh, third quarter tax, uh, issuance. I just had one suggestion, uh, when you signed respectively submitted, I think, um, you intended respectfully. I can, uh, respectfully accept that suggestion. Okay. Um, definitely very, very minor. Yep. Um, but I, unless others have questions here, I would make a motion to, uh, and I'm not sure if you're looking for a motion. Mike, can you hold on for that for a minute, please? Okay. Yep. Uh, we had sent a number of suggestions, Mike sent a couple, I sent a couple about trying to track some of these people down via phone numbers or other, uh, communication methodology. Did, was there any success on that at all? And do we know how many of these people are actually drawing water? Yeah. So these, I think that there was some confusion perhaps between the lean list and the list for the non-responsive letters. Okay. Nevermind. Sorry about that.
So I'd, I'd make a motion to approve the letter as presented in our packet this evening. With one minor exception. Duly noted. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. Judy seconds. Mike, uh, Wiggenbauer made the motion. Uh, roll call vote. Mike Wiggenbauer? Aye. Ed? Aye. Mike Spelman? Aye. Judy? Aye. And I vote aye. So it's five, zero, zero. Thank you.
Okay. AMI. AMI. So the first order of business tonight in the packet is a draft proposed letter, um, that we would be issuing via certified return receipt mail. And that would be going to approximately a hundred account holders in town that have what we're considering been non-responsive. As part of the program, uh, as part of the program, uh, we have, um, made three attempts per second and third attempt, um, with mailings, with, um, door stuffers, with actually knocking on the doors, uh, when the installers were in that particular neighborhood. And these, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, regulations that stipulate that we have the right to gain access, and that we also have the right to issue a fee, a fine, if you'll have it, for the extra cost that the town has borne to deal with these non-responsive households. And so that is the way that this letter is crafted. And I'm looking for, you know, since the Board of Public Works was instrumental in crafting these regulations back in 2018-2019, I wanted to involve this board in issuing this letter.
Okay, now can we ask my question about some of the contact methods?
Yes. So your question was, I mean, I know one question was, you know, have we, in essence, cold called, we walked up to the door and knocked on the door? Yes. Have we used other town databases to affirm that these folks are, you know, occupying these dwellings, and that they are indeed consuming water, paying taxes? We were able to affirm that within the water division relative to consumption and that type of thing. And I have issued this to the treasurer to cross-reference this list with their list of taxes to make sure that these households are indeed occupied and have been communicating with the town on other issues. Okay, thank you. So do we need a motion to send this letter? Is that what you're looking for? Yes. Mr. Chair? Yes, Carol. Chair recognizes Carol Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In this letter, it tells me if I haven't done, complied already to contact mass installation. But if I have a question, like I've already put it in, or that person no longer is at this address, I don't think it indicates where, you know, how you can call the Board of Public Works, the DPW, sorry. It does have in a very beautiful letterhead down here. But I wonder if we want to put that in, Mr. Chair, if you want to consider adding that into the letter as well. You don't want people calling up mass installation saying, what are you talking about? I had this put in last week or something. My suggestion is, in essence, really the first paragraph of the letter in bold, you know, states that if, you know, you've scheduled or have an upcoming appointment to disregard, I could add a sentence right there that if they have questions relative to that topic, that they contact our office otherwise to schedule an appointment to continue to reach out to mass install. Yeah, I would say, yeah, to prevent any kind of inaction being taken, please, if you don't think it's right, contact and ignore anything that follows. Good comment, Carol. Thank you. Okay. Anybody have anything else? Okay. Can I have a motion? Motion to Spelman? Go ahead. Oh, Mike Wegerbauer, can I get a second for Mr. Spelman? Yes. Is that a yes? I'm sorry. Yes. Okay. Take a roll call vote. Mr. Wegenbauer? Aye. Mr. Spelman? Aye. Judy? Yes. Ed? Yes. And I vote yes. So it's passed 5-0-0. Thank you. Thank you. Next topic is the, okay, we still have some, we have the quarterly billing and the software implementation. Yes, yes. Let me continue on with that. I am not muted. Sorry, Tom, just one note you had made that mass installation is asking that we consider the project completed. I would think they've done this work before. They understand that this is kind of expected behavior that there's, even when we were looking at a project plan, you mentioned that it's going to be difficult to put one together because the last 10% or 5% is difficult. So I would say to them, you're well aware that this is the way these projects work. We'll consider it completed when it's completed. Yeah. They are aware, Mike, about that. They actually, you know, I ask for their input as well on this letter so they fully understand it. And we also have a number of accounts. There are a couple of hundred that have yet to be done, 100 being non-responsive and then some that have some idiosyncrasies that we still have to work through. So they are not considering themselves completed, but they're working toward completion. And this letter would be key to reaching that goal. Sounds good. Tom, is that a price contract or is it a per installation charge? It is unit price, meaning that there's a whole host of activities, tasks that have individual prices to it. So if they don't do the 100 units, that's 100 units. They don't get paid for. They don't get paid for it. And we, if we use our own people, that's the offset. Correct. Okay. Yep. Quarterly billing. We are, I think at a, at a past meeting, I had included a schedule in 2026, beginning in January, uh, takes about six months to make the conversion. Uh, so we are working, um, on implementing that the first quarter of 2026. We do have Matt Abrahams, uh, working on, you know, there's been some thought that with the increased billing frequency, there will be, um, more cashflow during the, uh, this transition. So he's working on providing that information. I would be able to provide that at, uh, at, uh, at the next meeting, or if I get it, I can send it out under separate cover. So we are moving forward with that. Uh, we are also simultaneously working on public outreach for a couple of things. We, um, we're going to craft a, an oversized postcard that will, uh, speak to a lot of these things that we're planning on doing, converting from semi-annual billing to quarterly billing. Uh, you know, people will notice that, you know, the tiers will be broken in half. The base charge will be half of what it was, uh, only because the frequency of the bills is going from twice a year to four times a year. And then also we want to advertise the benefit that, uh, has really been kind of a premier feature of this technology is the customer portal. And, um, so we are working on building that with the meter company, with census, with Xylem as the name of the firm. And, um, so we have to get the quarterly billing advanced and working before the customer portal can be offered. Uh, so although we're working on them simultaneously, one, they'll be implemented sequentially first, the quarterly billing. And then once we get through, uh, that first part of, uh, of that transition, we'll be able to then offer up the customer portal to people. And so we're, we're managing how that outreach and how we'll be advertising that. But we still like, uh, we're on, uh, schedule for the, uh, January type of timetable. It'll begin in January. Um, in that schedule, I don't have it in front of me, but, uh, I think we're doing, uh, two routes per month. And, um, you know, so that'll start obviously in January, February, March, and then in April, you'll see the second round. Some of those routes five and six are already quarterly. So there really won't be much change to the folks. A lot of those are commercial accounts. There are some residential, uh, so those folks really won't see any change, but, uh, uh, uh, the remaining routes one through four will, but, uh, it'll commence in, in January and, uh, continue through, uh, the first quarter and then into the second quarter. And then by, by the end of June, we'll be fully implemented. So in our December meeting, will we get a look at the, uh, communication program? Yeah, we'll have a, um, I would hope to be able to get you a draft, uh, you know, a proof of what that, uh, that outreach looks like. Yes. Okay. Cause I assume you'll be sending it out in December. It is going to start in January. It'll actually, um, we were actually thinking about sending it right after the holidays because I think, and I'll tell you why we're going to do the two reasons. One is that in January, February people, things will have not, will not have changed. Uh, those folks that are getting bills in January and February would have already been getting those bills. Uh, so we have some time to be able to notify people of the transition. Secondly, we know, you know, all of us, I'm sure on the screen understand that during the holidays, uh, things are hectic. People, uh, you know, uh, are focused on other things. So I think we might get more attention if it went out, you know, say the first week, second week in January, it'll still have the same positive benefit and might be more likely to be read. I get a sequence. I'll be with you in one sec. Uh, you get a sequence those in terms of when they would start the quarterly billing. Cause I assume you won't send it out to somebody that's not going to happen for two months. We're going to send these bulk. Um, so, uh, in essence, everybody will get them at the same time. Yep. All right. So that may raise some confusion. Cause it'll be the timing unless you, cause people won't know the route. So they won't know when it's going to change if you do it that way. So it'll, it'll be explained on, on the, you know, the content of that card. Our intent is to be able to explain that. Okay. Because I think most people don't know the route. I know. I don't know what route I'm on. Right. Yep. So, okay. Judy, what do you have? Yeah. So I remember, uh, way back when we were talking about the AMI that we will see a bump in water revenue. Has that been evident? You're talking about from the new meters? Not from the software. Yeah. Right. There'll be like a 7% bump. Yep. That, uh, that was spoken about. It was anticipated. So what we've seen is I've been tracking these four months, these four bill runs, uh, in this fiscal year, July, we did see a 7% increase, uh, August and September, uh, August was, uh, I call flat or even, there was not an increase, um, route three, uh, which would have been, um, September's we did see, uh, an increase of about 6%. And then this last, uh, bill issuance that went out, uh, uh, is, is almost, it's $300 difference. It was almost identical. So we're seeing, it's not consistent. We're seeing an increase. We're seeing it flat. Thankfully, we're not seeing a decrease. Yeah. Interesting. It is. Yep. I assume it also would depend on the different homes. When they had their meter changed before and how good or bad it was. Well, last year, the four months that we were comparing, um, they didn't, we, they, everybody had their old meters. We didn't start the program until late December, early January. Oh no, I understand it. But I'm saying the meters that are being replaced, are they 20 years old or five years old? Right. So we, we don't know the exact age because that could have an impact too. Yep. And Tom, we're comparing water change, right? Like the water usage versus the cost because the. Right. We're using volume, although our rates are the same state. But yeah, no, when, when, uh, when we're evaluating this, we're doing it based upon volume. Okay. Yep. And the, the water ban obviously, uh, has an impact on the amount of usage too. It does. Uh, but similarly, uh, but similarly, we were in a very similar situation last year where we had a ban in place. So it's, um, it's almost, it didn't run October and November last year. It ended, it started July 25th. It went for 52 days. I remember that. So it was, it was, you know, it was into those months. It was in, well, 52 days is too much. So that's, that ends in September. Right. So that would have an impact. On this last bill run that went out. Yep. Yep. Tom, I recall, um, Enos, you had to book years out, it seemed to get them on the radar, the contractors to help with the billing side of this. Um, so they're, they're lined up now and, and we're in good shape. Is it the answer? I forget if it's Munis. No, you're, you're right. It is, it is Munis. Um, so we did get them engaged and had them do their work. We've actually, uh, we have one particular, uh, employee, uh, that is quite adept at Munis, uh, Tyler Technologies is the name of the company. Uh, but, uh, they're part of our staff and have been instrumental in being able to implement this. So it's, we're very fortunate, but so the answer is yes, Munis is engaged and, um, you know, thus far we're, we're in a good place with that. Great. Thank you. Yep. Anyone else? Okay. Next topic is water fund. Let me, uh, shuffle more paperwork here. Sorry, George. No problem. All righty. So what we included in the packet was our water enterprise fund year to date report that, uh, uh, we've been providing over the last couple of meetings. So that, uh, that was issued. Uh, it was picked up on and I have no idea why the percentage was wrong. It should say 37. I have, I've never seen that before and I didn't pick up on it, but yeah, we, uh, as the, as of the, this report is about 37% of the year complete, you know, so, so some of the, uh, the line items that, um, that are, you know, markedly, uh, beyond the 30, 37%, um, are building repair improvements, equipment, repair and maintenance, and, um, small equipment, uh, we're far outpacing, you know, the 37%. And I have somewhere in front of me in essence, um, since the beginning of this fiscal year, we have been experiencing a high rate of equipment failure, um, primarily at the Baldwin pond treatment plants and also, um, happy hollow as well. Not so much the PFAS plant, uh, portion of it, but also, you know, the wells, uh, the, the pumps themselves. So, um, this fiscal year we have spent between those two locations and about six or seven large pieces of equipment, we've spent about $70,000. So that is, uh, the primary cause for equipment repairs, small equipment being, uh, we're outpacing our, are, you know, percent of year complete, you know, so it's, uh, you know, staff are, are working diligently. They're working long hours. They're, you know, these things are, um, are failing on us with, with no warning. We've got a number of vendors in place that support us. Um, but it is, it's just, this is the nature of things that plant is 15 years old. Um, and, uh, you know, we know that within four years or in four years, we'll be hitting the on switch with the MWRA. We just have to work steadily to, uh, to make certain that we keep those, those plants operating as they should be during that time period. Tom, your encumbrances column, what does that represent? Are those things that are spent or are those things that you know are coming? Those are things that we know are coming. And what we do is, uh, you know, there are a number of, uh, you know, electricity is one, chemicals is another. Obviously we get our energy, our electricity from one group. Our chemicals are primarily through one group. So what we do is to preserve the funding, uh, so that we know that we're going to make it through the end of the year and we don't, uh, you know, miss assign some of those funds. We encumber that right away. We just put that aside. It's actually, you know, just preserving it for that purpose. So that's why you'll see, uh, a number of these lines actually have very, uh, you know, significant encumbrances. Okay. And the, the MWA water that we've purchased, uh, we have, we have not, we have not received the invoice for that. Okay. So you don't see that in there yet. And what do we think that is? Uh, the first round, uh, that we had would be, uh, $70,000. Okay. And then we had to activate the system, um, on the evening night of November 7th, a Friday, about 10 30 at night, we activated the MW or emergency connection. We had air dryers that failed. I think I sent out a notice to the board and, uh, and I think the select board got it through town manager, Michael McCall. Um, so we're using it, what I would call intermittently. Uh, we understand the high cost of the water that, uh, uh, that we're pulling through that emergency connection. Um, you know, so as we're seeing the tank stabilizing at a proper elevation, we're able to, to at least, um, turn those pumps down to a lower pump rate, uh, or turn them off completely. So we're being mindful of, of not just turning that on and letting it run. Okay. So just one second, Judy. So if we just deal with the spending of 1,570 against 1,517 of revenue, uh, that puts us in the hole by about, what is it? 50,000, 60,000, $50,000 plus the 70. So we're 120, uh, in the red at, at, at this point, forgetting about any other encumbrances or other things that are coming. Yeah. So that, you know, I mean, obviously the contingency fund, uh, that has not been touched. So, um, you know, it's fully anticipated the 70,000 for the MWRA, uh, cost of that water will come from that. No, no, Tom, stop. It's not because we're looking at your total year to date span. Okay. So you're saying you're going to make some of that up cause it's not going to come through, but right now, you know, you're, you're got, you have 120,000 of that 200,000 that you've already absorbed because that's never going to come through on the spending line. Cause you don't charge anything to it, but that net net you're, we're short the one 20. So we're, yeah, I guess what, what the term I use is we're outpacing ourselves. Yes. We're not on pace. What I see is we're at 35.7%. Is that accurate?
Oh, uh, the total water fund percentage. That's his calendar. I think it is what he's doing. Year to date used. Yes. Yeah. I see 35.7. Is that what you're looking at? Yes. Yeah. And that's, that's year to date. That doesn't take into encumbrances, which it shouldn't. Right. Yep. So we're, and we're 37% of the way through the year. So I think it sounds to me like we're not, we're not far off. No, you are because your expenses year to date is a million five 70. Your revenue is a million five 17 on your sheet. And then there's 70,000 that, you know, you've incurred that hasn't come through yet. So I guess what I can say on the, the 1 million five 17, George, you're looking at the FY 26 actual revenue. So that does not include this week. We just, um, submitted what we call a commitment and that's, what's, uh, just went out in bills of $636,000. You know, so if we would, if we were to get 95% of that, uh, in payments, which is generally what we use, that brings us to just around 40%. So it'll, it'll help that, that 31% if that's what you're referring to. Now I'm just looking at, at this point in time, yeah, you're going to have revenue coming in. You're going to have expenses coming in, but right now net you're about $120,000 negative revenue versus expenses. Now you're not going to have some of those expenses that are in your budget ever come through like contingency. So that's an offset, but right now that's where we're at. And I understand you, you've got fluctuations in terms of your timing of your billings, et cetera. Quite a bit. Yeah. And I, I think looking at this, it's good to get a picture or a general sense of where we're at. Um, but really trying to manage it month to month is a little, it's a little too difficult. Yeah, maybe, but it's good to understand where we are because at the end of the day, we've got to be careful in terms of where we're going. Now the offset is we're going to have a nice pickup in the first half of calendar 26 from the quarterly billing. That's going to be income that was never projected in our budget. So that's going to cure a lot of evils. I'm just watching. I think we need to watch how we're going through and where we're, where we're spending the money. Yeah. And these, these reports are prepared, these reports are prepared, you know, uh, internally for staff, uh, on a biweekly basis, you know, so it's, um, I guess to your point, George, we do look at this regularly. You do an excellent job in terms of managing your expenses. As you see revenue shortfall, we see that year after year. So no, no, no disrespect meant what, what we, we need to keep an eye on. Judy, did you have a, did you have a question? Yes, I do. Thank you, George. So my question has to do with Baldwin pond. You mentioned several things have failed. Is it because they're these air pumps or whatever they are that are failing are 15 years old and therefore they're, they're getting to the end of their lifetime? Um, do we have any, um, warranties left on any of the parts? That's my question. Great question. Um, yeah, obviously we, um, we use any warranty that's obviously still in place. There are, uh, these air dryers that I've been referring to that, and those are the ones that failed on November 7th. They are under warranty. Um, you know, so, but it's, the problem remains is that, uh, you know, getting, getting the technicians, um, we're relatively frustrated with this group because what happened is this company bought up, uh, a handful of smaller companies that provided the same type of equipment and service, um, you know, so whereby we might, if we were dissatisfied with somebody, we might go to somebody else, we may not have that option for this particular piece of equipment. So it's been something we've been grappling with done, you know, uh, is dealing with it on a daily basis. But to answer your question, yes, we, we exercise any warranty that we have. Does the warranty by chance cover cost related to the failure? Well, I would like to be able to include that. And, uh, uh, unfortunately, I think it may, it may require a lawsuit, um, to actually formalize that. So I, we speak to the vendors about that because, because these air dryers are down, we're now purchasing water at a premium from the MWRA. And that should also be part of it. We talk about this during some very stern conversations on the phone. They're not offering up, um, you know, it, it may wind up requiring participation by town council and, and the chase is on at that point, but it is something we talk about with these, uh, with these vendors on the phone. Yeah. Mike may want to talk to legal and see if a letter from them might stir the pot a little bit. Yep. Yep. It would, it's, it would probably help now that you mentioned it. Yep. I mean, a lawsuit might be more expensive than the, uh, the water purchase, but a letter is not that expensive. Would I call it a saber rattling? Yeah. It's a friendly reminder. Hey, you're costing me money. Okay. Anybody else have a question?
Judy wants your 10% on whatever you recover.
You got that right.
Okay. Uh, do you know, in terms of, uh, water produced versus forecast, the actual volume? In total? So I, I read this, I mean, obviously I'm the one that creates this agenda with you. As I read that, I was, I was thinking that we were thinking of the, the water, uh, sold versus what was forecasted. That was what Judy's question was about. So the, the water produced versus forecast that I'm, do you want to remind me what that would be? Well, there was a, there was a question about how much water we're producing versus what is actually purchased. In other words, what we lose in the system. And we know that there's a problem because of the timing differences. Yes. I was just curious whether that's getting any better because with the MWRA, there's a percentage, uh, that you're allowed to lose. And I was just curious if the new meters were getting closer on that or not. Yes. So the answer is yes, we are doing better. Um, what actually happens is so our, our, our unaccounted for water, which is what you're referring to is now in the single digits, but it has an inverse impact on the consumption per capita per day. So as you lower unaccounted for water, um, it has an inverse relationship. So our volume per capita per day is actually in the high sixties where we're mandated to keep it within 65. So we're, you know, there's a good news, bad news to that story, but we are doing far better than what we were, um, 15 months ago. Okay. That's an interest. That brings up the question that was raised at the board of select men meeting yesterday. I don't know if people listened to that, but their question was, uh, what is the limit is like 65. Is that a daily limit? Yes. And 65 gallons per capita per person per day. Yes. Okay. So their question was, and, and, uh, I'm sure Carol will want you to fill her in on it, but we ought to talk about it now, how much MWA water we can actually draw as we get closer and closer to that 65 gallon limitation. And if that may be a limiting factor in terms of the MWA, MWRA water that we can draw in the summer or other times. Well, I can tell you that the agreement that we will achieve with the MWRA to purchase their water, that we're going to have to demonstrate proper controls. Um, there's a number of things that we have to demonstrate, one of which will be unaccounted for water. Another would be the gallons per capita per day. Uh, so we're going to, you know, and we, we do leak detection. We have a conservation rate. We've got, you know, the tiered system, all of those, those things all help, um, with that cause. But I mean, to answer your question, it's, it's not going to govern how much water they'll offer or allow us. It's going to be part of the agreement that we are showing that we're implementing best management practices to keep these things, uh, where they should be. So it's a practice, not a limited physical limitation, right? Okay, good. That'll, because that was one of the concerns that were raised yesterday. Carol, does that answer your, the question that was asked at the select board? Um, put you on the spot. Mostly. Okay. I'm offline. Thank you. Okay. Uh, we've talked about the, the equipment failures, et cetera, on the expense drivers. Anything else we should talk about on that that you had? Uh, no, I presented what I intended to. Okay. Any questions before we move to the next?
Okay. Transfer station. I am going to defer to, to Joe on this topic. He's taken the lead on most things, transfer station. Thank you immensely.
So what's your specifics there, George? I can try to go over this. I can tell you, um, in a nutshell, the transfer station, the, the, we'll start with the bad news. So, uh, the bad news is we're not quite doing as well as the, the Patriots are this year, but the better news is we're doing better than they were last year. How's that? Okay. Um, yeah, we're, we're about 37% through the year. Um, our revenue is down a little bit, you know, I'd rather go over specifics probably in person with you to go completely, uh, to get, you know, uh, weeds deep into it. Um, we, we are a little high in the expenses, not, not really out of control yet. If I took out the encumbrance for 37% of the year, we're only about 29%. So that's not bad. If I add the encumbrance, the percentage is not as pleasant, but, um, granted the, the encumbrance hasn't been spent yet. So, um, but going back to the same question we asked over on the water fund, this is for things that have not yet been incurred or have all these been incurred? These have not yet been incurred. Okay, good. You had made a comment before about tipping fees going up significantly. So the trend that we have to be concerned about currently, yes. Um, but like everything else, you know, it changes almost monthly. So currently it is, it is pretty high. Um, so it's something we have to keep our eye on. Uh, if you ask me right now, even at 37%, if we're going to be dipping into the revolving fund, uh, at the end of the season, I'm going to probably say yes. At this point, we just don't know at what, uh, what percentage we will be. Uh, you know, obviously in January, we'll have a lot better idea because, you know, the projection will be better due to the fact that we do sell a lot of half year stickers in January and, you know, at 50% through the year, it will give us a better idea where we need to be. Okay. Um, when we talked about the water fund and go back to the transfer station, it was comment that you cannot spend more than your warrant amount for the year in terms of expenses because the town meeting authorizes a certain level of spending that you can't go beyond. That's correct. And so the question is, do we have that same restriction for the transfer station? And if so, at what point do we start to see an issue and how do we handle that? So I guess I can take a stab at that in the, uh, in the enterprise article, I recollect that the transfer station had, um, its budget. It also established the use of retained earnings in the amount of $58,000. And I believe that that's for the evaluation that we're planning. Um, you know, so in essence with that 58 planned on being expended. And I think that, uh, the finance folks in town understand that the $50,000 general fund subsidy that was offered in FY26 was going towards that. Um, we'll have to, we'll have to monitor, um, things as it, as it progresses through the year in the water division, you know, we have a little bit more discretion, like you had referenced, uh, George, you know, come April, uh, we're taking a look at revenue, taking a look at expenses. And if, uh, we have the ability to, uh, to limit or, uh, remove any discretionary spending, we can do that. We don't have that luxury with the transfer station. This is pretty much, this is what we know it costs to operate that. Um, so we'll, we'll have a better sense if we actually have to do something on May 4th relative to freeing up additional funds. Okay. All right. Anybody have a, uh, question in terms of the year to date summary before we go to the, uh, RFQ? I see nobody or don't hear anybody. Okay. So let's talk about the RFQ, where we are in the working group. So my understanding and granted, I'm not a, uh, an MC PPO certified person here doing this. So this is kind of, um, my understanding is through our chief procurement officer and the assistant town manager, uh, we could not do an RFQ. This was like a last minute poll on that based on the fact that we were going to have a, uh, a group that, uh, that needed to work with this. They needed, it went from a chapter mass general law, 30 chapter five, six to a mass general law chapter 35. Um, so this was kind of thrown at us a few days before, uh, we were supposed to get the, the, I guess the qualifications in. So it, it is being re-advertised. It's delayed us about 30 days as an RFP. And that allows us to have a committee. If I knew more about it, I could explain it, but it's, it's, it's more in the procurement realm at this point. Yeah. So what, what actually our, our intent was to do a request for qualifications, which simply allows firms to submit, you know, uh, their background, their qualifications, the personnel that they're going to assign to this. But the value of this work actually exceeded when you can do an RFQ. And so we understand that you have to do a request for proposals. And what that is, is that since we have a selection committee, uh, working group that we advertise a request for proposals and firms submit their, um, their submittals in two packages. One is technical based. And then the second is the price proposal. And then our working group will then review the, uh, technical proposal, uh, proposal, the actual qualifications and experience and references and all of that will be considered. And we determine whether it's highly advantageous, advantageous, not advantageous. We score that, make a selection, and then we open up the price proposals. Uh, that's how that whole thing shakes out. So, uh, I, Joe, do you know when the RFP submittal, you know, the bid opening is, so to speak? I do not. I got several calls into Kelsey today and, uh, she had left early. So so once, once that, uh, once we have that bid opening, um, we will, um, engage our working group, um, which is, um, Judy's husband, Steve, Mike Wegerbauer, Carol Martin. Um, we have, uh, Pam Robin from the finance committee and Klaus Shigley, uh, from the audit committee. And that is, that is our group. So we'll engage all those folks and be on our way. Good. So does this fall under the, uh, committee members? I'm sorry. Excuse me. Three former finance committee members. Does this fall under no good deed goes unpunished in terms of this RFQ to an RFP? Uh, I suppose. So I think, yeah, we went through this with river's edge. Um, I think you have to, we have to evaluate the proposals based on their merit first and rank them, and then we can open up the bids. Um, whereas an RFQ, I think it, uh, stands for request for quote and folks simply quote, uh, but I could be wrong, uh, at, at the town level, it may be a little bit different. Um, yeah, the Q in my background, it's generally when you're, if you're looking to have something built or installed, um, you know, it's a bid, uh, invitation for bid. You're right on the mark, Mike, with the RFP. It's, they send, you know, you make a determination based on merit and then you will open up the price proposal. Uh, a number of years ago, we advertised a request for qualifications and that's how we actually built, um, um, our, the team of engineers that we, you know, tap into not only public works, but all the other departments, uh, within the town. So it's, that is, you know, the RFQ that I'm familiar with is a, the Q is for qualification. Got it. Yeah.
Okay. Anybody have any questions on where we are on this? Sounds like, uh, it's going to be, uh, December discussion likely. Okay. And if anything does arise with the working group, if you just make sure you let the board know, appreciate it. Oh yeah, certainly. Okay. All right. Uh, move on to capital budgets unless somebody has something else. Okay. Capital budgets. So what I am going to reference is what I call the blue column. Um, it's in the packet and what this spreadsheet actually indicates is the white columns are what the finance team had in their five-year capital plan. And then what I do is I create these blue columns, uh, that match up for each fiscal year. And although I fully understand that, you know, once you submit a five-year plan, you need to do the best you can to stick with it. But in our world, things change from year to year. And we're forced to make adjustments. So what I do is I create this blue columns and I put in that what our recommendations are. Um, and, and you can then compare and see how that contrasts with, with what the finance, uh, team had, you know, prior to me, to me making this recommendation. So just so that is different than what I understood. So thank you. So what you're saying is that white column is last year's fiscal 27, for example, five-year plan. It's not the current recommendation. Right. It's, it's what the fine, it's what was in last year. Correct. Okay. I got the, for some reason I thought it was the current recommendation by the finance committee for 27 versus what we had. No, it's, it's simply what was agreed upon last year. So last year would have been an FY 26 through 30. Um, and this is what FY 27 had listed. Okay. Uh, and then in terms of next steps, this goes from once it gets our holy water or whatever, uh, it goes to the finance committee for deciding on actual 27 capital. So this actually, uh, you're the second group to see this. Uh, the first group was the newly formed capital improvement planning committee. I went before them last Thursday and, uh, spoke to a large degree, um, about this capital plan, got about three quarters of the way through it, spoke for nearly two hours. Um, they're meeting again tomorrow night. Uh, I'm not going, I think the it and public safety group are going. So I presented this to them. You're seeing it now tonight. You know, my, my hope is that, uh, uh, we'll get a favorable motion to accept this it on the CIPs, you, you know, and you can see that there's actually a, um, you know, a section where we get date and quantum a vote. This then goes to, I'm scheduled to meet with, um, I guess I'll call it the finance team, uh, finance, uh, director, Brian and Michael McCall about this. And then at that point, then it goes to the finance committee. They get a look at it and somehow, somewhere a decision's made and we get a capital budget for FY 27. Okay. So what, you know, you'll see a number of, you'll see the general fund, you'll see the water division, uh, a couple of pages down, you'll see wastewater, which, um, you know, we've got some things going on at the high school, uh, relative to wastewater engineering, but, um, I mean, I'm, I'm happy to, I can go through some of the highlights of this and entertain questions. So one, one question I had, Tom is, um, certainly we, we want to avoid as many of these costs in the near term as possible. It sounds like given the current status with other capital projects, especially the water system. Um, last year, uh, we, we told the finance committee and finance director that we didn't need new vehicles this year, although they were on our capital budget plan. We didn't need them. We could move them off another year or maybe two. I forget what it was. Yep. Yep. What I don't understand is why didn't they accept that? Why, why wouldn't that be a good thing? Um, if we have, if, if we're being hit with all of these capital expenses right now, why wouldn't we extend if, if you're saying that it's safe to do so? Do you ever get an idea of why, why that wasn't accepted as a, an offering? Yeah, no, I don't. Um, I don't think I ever did. I think I can answer that partially from my days on the finance committee, what they look at in total is the number of vehicles across the town getting replaced. And they want to try to make sure that if everybody's moving things out two years or whatever in 29, as the case might be that all of a sudden they have a lot of vehicles that have to be purchased in that year. So I think they try and balance. It doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't mean that we're actually going to go through and purchase those just because they're on the CapEx. Hmm. So I think that they try and balance across the entities. And what you'll see with what I'm recommending for FY27, um, is that we've had a number of pieces of equipment that were, you know, not on our list. One of them was the, uh, the John Deere loader, uh, was not scheduled for 27 as was the, uh, H7, which is an F550 dump body. Both of those in the course of the last year, um, have shown particular wear and tear that it's not, uh, feasible, practical to, to make a repair. The loader, for example, um, it articulates in the middle, uh, of the piece of equipment, uh, meaning it turns, it bends at that location that those holes, so to speak, have actually elongated and the machine is no longer able to articulate. And it just, it worsens and worsens. It would be, I could, an analogy would be if you're, if you know, the, the drum on your dryer, uh, becomes worn, it just perpetuates until the thing just, you know, won't work at all. That's what we understand. You know, that, that, uh, that loader is a, I think it's a 2000 and, uh, it might be a 2005. So we had to, we had to advance that same thing with H7. We had to advance that, but then what we did is to balance that off. We said, okay, you know, the sweeper that we had for, for a 27, we're doing okay with that. We can defer that to a later year. I made a conscious effort to, if you, if you look at the, uh, uh, the totals for each of the columns, I made a concerted effort to try to stay close to what, you know, was actually planned to be spent on any given fiscal year. And, uh, so that's why you'll see that equipment it's changed to a large degree because of those things that we now recognize as unrepairable and needing to be replaced. Yeah. For Mike's question though, that doesn't really go to DPW because that, that that's not part of the water fund. It would only be in the water fund in terms of the things that would impact our actual, uh, water rates. The DPW gets paid by the DPW budget. It would not be impact, would not impact the water rates, correct? Yeah. I'm not talking about the water rates, George. Okay. I'm talking about the DPW budget. Yeah. Okay. George, I have a question. Yeah. So on this line, third line, Sherman bridge construction, 663,000. And right now recommendation is zero. So I'm guessing that the 663 was the original estimate for Woodbridge. Is that correct? It was a couple of years ago. Uh, we, a value was placed on that. Yes. To, to, to, it wasn't whether it was Wood, whether, uh, uh, uh, we had not yet determined what it was going to look like the materials, but at that particular time, we had placed to 663. Sudbury had a, uh, a like figure on their end. Uh, so that's where that figure came from. We now know that MassDOT is paying a brunt of it. We have some nominal, uh, which we're able to use chapter 90. So I was able to remove that completely from the capital plan. Yeah. Yeah. I was just mostly, because everybody keeps asking how much would a Woodbridge cost? I was just hoping this was the answer. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, going back that, you know, the, the wood, we can't use wood because, you know, like we can't use traditional timber because it doesn't have the crash tested, uh, barriers that are now required as a bridge standard. So that's, that's the reason we're not going with timber. We, we can't do it. Thank you. If I look at the total here, 2.576 under, on the blue column for DPW, that, that doesn't seem to add up. It doesn't remove, remove, remove the, uh, the, uh, uh, that 4,500,000 for the high school. That's, that's two separate projects. One of them is wastewater, uh, which is, um, which is what we would manage. And the, the, that's $2 million, 2.5 million of that is actually the, um, baseball field. That was the baseball field is actually a 2029 capital request, but because we're going to have to dig up a majority of that baseball field to extend that title five sewer system, it's our position that it makes sense. And it would be more cost effective to do those two projects concurrently, you know, so we're working with Catherine Brenna, um, collectively and the school department collectively to, to try to coordinate both of these projects together. But those, those should not be a DPW project. They're really a school project. Are they not? The baseball field would be, the wastewater is ours.
All right. I'm not going to argue with you, but you know, the issue is when we're looking at how much money is being spent for DPW services, you know, versus the school services, that's to my mind, a way of thinking is really a school expense and should be included in their budget, not in a DPW budget that you're going to get hit each year for the debt service cost. There's no way that that should be as part of our comparison in terms of costs and DPW. The $2 million portion of it? Any of it. How does that get resolved? Does it go to Carl or Select Board or School Board?
Yeah. So I guess what my recommendation would be that, um, when it comes time to make a motion to accept DPW's FY27 capital plan is that you make it conditional upon, or at least in the motion, make it known that you disagree with having that $2 million placed in the public works budget and that it should be in somebody else's, the school department. The school department or wastewater?
The wastewater enterprise fund is only town center. So it's a whole different entity. That wastewater district, and there's a three-member board actually, Ed sits on that as well. Uh, they, their jurisdiction is solely the town center plant and the forest main and all the things that are connected there. They, they are not involved with anything outside of that, uh, that system. Okay. I would suggest Tom and Carl, this obviously includes the FinCom, but when this comes in front of you guys, I think you need to understand, unless the board disagrees with me, that we don't think that that should really be a DPW budget charge. It should be belonging to somebody else, because it's not really a DPW service. Yep. I hear you loud and clear. Okay. And we're talking about the 4.5 million, right? It's the baseball field and wastewater. Correct. Yes. I don't think it's just the 2 million. Well, you said that the one was moved already someplace else. No, they're together. Um, they're, they're both going to be charged to DPW? No, no. Uh, the $2 million, I should have done a better job in, in separating these things out. The $2 million right now would be public works. We would be managing that and it would be loaded into our request. The two and a half million will likely come from recreation or schools. Uh, I'll let them figure that out. Not DPW. Well, uh, are we going to be the one, uh, manager to, uh, treatment plan or whatever, whatever you do for the high school, the school's wastewater? We will certainly manage it. So if we manage it, then we should have a control. Otherwise, we'll give away, just let the school community to handle. Well, the real question is whose budget does the debt service hit? And do we charge the schools for any maintenance work or is that in the DPW budget? Do you have to go in and do equipment? So we actually, what happened about seven years ago is the school department had the budget, uh, to, in essence, what we do is pump that, that, that treatment plant hasn't functioned in 10 years. And all we simply do is pump. So there's $144,000 in an operating line that's currently in the facilities department. Since we have the wherewithal, we've got the, the technical, you know, expertise or whatever to manage wastewater. We have since seven years ago has managed that facility and anything that goes on there using that account. But the cost comes out of facilities? The cost currently is in facilities. So that's probably where this should go. Okay. Enough said on that. Anybody have any questions in terms of DPW before we go to the next group? I have one. Yep. Thank you for recognizing me. It's Tom. When, um, well, that's assuming time meeting is favorable. When would the wastewater plant be up and running and we'd be able to stop, um, having the wastewater hauled away? So what we have done, Carol, is in working with the DEP, um, they are allowing us to convert a treatment system at that plant to what is commonly known as a title five. It's what you have at your house. Um, it's, it's just a much larger system that, that plant was designed for, uh, flows that are much larger than are actually experienced. So in knowing what the actual flows coming from the high school are currently the DEP and Abby Charest, our town engineer has been working directly with them. Uh, they are now allowing us to, uh, design and construct a title five system. So that plant will be, um, decommissioned. The cost of the project actually, um, has funding in it to remove the equipment. Uh, so that plant will never operate again. When will the title five system be up and running so that we can eliminate the one 40 from the operating budget is my will. Yeah, I would say funding's available design. We're currently engaged. It just began the design process. I would say likely probably calendar year 27, calendar year, 20, calendar year, 20, 28. Okay. Yeah. That was my question. Thank you. So I didn't ask it or, or the calendar year 28, it might be the tail end of fiscal 27. If it were, if it were April, May, June, or whatever, that we actually got the thing running, you know, uh, yeah. Uh, so I think the answer to Carol's question is not going to be a big savings in fiscal 27. There won't be any. Yeah. Relative to the 144. Yep. Yep. I know Abby's been working hard on solutions. So thank you. Yep. Oh, sorry. Okay. Anything else in terms of DPW? So is everybody comfortable with that? Okay. Yep. Uh, I, my next question, if somebody has something sooner is under facilities, there's a number of DPW items and transfer station item. Yep. Is that normal to have those in facilities? It is. Um, and so we generally split projects, split functionalities, uh, based upon if it's a brick and mortar, uh, conventional building issue facilities, um, handles it, they pay for it. If it's specialized equipment or specialized functionality, that's just specific to public works functions, DPW or, um, you know, water or, you know, wastewater pays for it. So what you'll see under facilities, we're talking about, um, um, you know, we were going to, in FY, you know, 28, you can see some funding for, uh, reseal and striping our parking lot. We'll likely wind up, you know, at some point in time, uh, utilizing our, our contract for that, but you'll see, um, rehabilitation and upgrades to 250,000. So in working with Mike Fea, facilities director, um, he is now engaging, uh, uh, vendors to give us some pricing that is really for the rehabilitation of the HVAC system at 66 River Road. We just, uh, we just celebrated our 10 year anniversary there in July. Uh, we regularly have issues with that system. So, uh, a number of years ago, we put a placeholder, uh, for, uh, the rehabilitation of those systems and he's currently working on getting a, a, a more firm price than, than the 250. Okay. And then while you're on that, uh, the transfer station garage replacement is listed in a couple of spaces in this. Um, it's done purposely because I didn't want it to be missed. Uh, you'll see $450,000 for garage replacement. So, I mean, staff and, uh, any, anybody that, you know, uses that site understands that those buildings are tired. Uh, they don't function the way they should be. We keep putting patches on the roof and the lighting and all of the, the plumbing amenities and all of that. It's just, uh, something needs to be done. Okay. You, you're now over on the last page, right? Yeah. It's, it's the transfer station. Uh, there's, there's a spot for it in a facility. So I just thought I would address it. Uh, it was, it's listed in a couple of spots and that's why I want to just, while we were kind of on this, what we've decided to do is in knowing that we're engaging a firm to, to perform an evaluation, um, we'll have a better sense on what kind of functionality that property will have in the future. I have a sense it'll always be functioning. Even if we were to be successful in getting a curbside program for trash and recycling, that property will likely be utilized as a recycling center, meaning organic waste, bulky, you know, all of the things, so organics, uh, you know, so there will likely be a need to replace those, those buildings with really what we're intending on as a pre-engineered, uh, metal structure or structures, but that has been now deferred to a later year. Uh, we're going to wait to see what the evaluation looks like. Okay. So it's not for 27 anymore. Um, it is not for fiscal year 27 any longer. No. Okay. So what year are you going to move it to? Uh, it, it'll wind up being a facilities thing and I think it's at least 28, perhaps 29. Okay. Yeah. Because if it was in transfer station, the challenge would be, how would we make cover the debt service? Okay. The next one I have is the, uh, is over on the water fund. Does have anybody have anything before the last page? Um, the water fund or are you talking about something before that? No, I'm talking about the water fund last page. Yeah. So Dudley road, um, which, which were you at? Which, which area? I'm on the water fund. Oh, okay. That's last page, right? Yep. Yeah. So that million dollars. Yeah. Yeah. So we're, we're presently, um, designing the water main replacement for main replacement for Dudley road. So this is the, uh, this is the construction appropriation. Okay. So the demand there, we're about to put in an $11 million worth of water main as part of the MWRA connection. Um, so I, I can speak to that as, as part of that, um, capital efficiency plan that was developed a number of years ago, uh, Dudley road was listed. In addition to that, we experience frequent and almost categorize it as catastrophic water main breaks on Dudley road. And, uh, so it, it needs to be replaced. Any chance we could wrap that in the MWRA project and funding so we don't have to pay interest on it? We would wind up delaying construction by a year or more. And I'm not sure. So to get a 0% loan to meet the straight phase test, it's supposed to be PFAS mitigation. I would be hard pressed to characterize Dudley road as PFAS mitigation. So that's a no. Yeah. I'm just wondering if we can put it off a year. So we're not spending 12 million instead of 11 million on water mains. And this, this is another one where the, the total doesn't seem to add up. We have 1.2 million. Yeah. I did not include the 30, the MWRA connection, uh, construction. Yeah. I put that in there just so people knew they didn't forget we were doing this. Um, that'll wind up being its own article, you know, so I don't think the way that capital requests go, I don't think it'll actually make the capital budget request. It'll actually be in its own article. So this isn't just the MWRA connection though. This is also the happy hollow plant construction. Yes. Yep. It's the full, the full project. So we should update the description. It's the three parts, right? The MWRA connection, the pumps, the pump station. So it's the water mains, 11 million, the pump station and the happy hollow plant construction. Sure. So if, yeah, I guess if you think that that is how people consider this, I'm happy to do that. Yeah. Well, when I, in talking, people say, what's the MWRA project costing? I say 38.6 and, but it is, it's the three components lumped together, you know, and if we're talking about, uh, having different funding sources for different components, it would make sense to start talking about it, uh, you know, portioned out. So I get that. So yeah, I'm happy to, um, I just, I included it in this spreadsheet only that it wasn't forgotten when different groups and committees are looking at this, that we've got a 38.6 million dollar project. Yeah. I would put an ask, put an asterisk on that and say, you know, to be managed in a separate article. Can do. Yep. Can do. And that's why the 1.2, the 1.2 million is, is just the Dudley Road and then the, uh, the, uh, replacement of W3. So I guess, is there any way that we can move Dudley Road out? We have enough going on, uh, or is it that urgent that we need to get this done yesterday? Yeah. It's, I guess I would sitting before you tonight, I would say it's, it's needed. Yeah. The MWRA project in total, that really won't hit until 28 in terms of you'll get the approval, but the actual borrowing will be in 28 or 27. When will we actually start construction? Construction. Construction will begin in, uh, 27, but the, you know, the, the fiscal 27 calendar year. Yeah. But second half, which is fiscal 28 or first half. I'm saying May. So first half, so fiscal 27. Okay. Right. I was just wondering when the actual debt would be taken down and then, you know, again, MWRA is very different in terms versus town debt, because they talked about just funding it as we went. So you wouldn't have the, uh, charge, et cetera, coming through in 27. So I'm just wondering if that, if the actual, uh, expense would hit in 27 or 28 start. The, the expense for the MWRA project? Yeah. So, um, I mean, we heard from the SRF representative, Greg Devine, that we don't start paying that until construction is complete and F1 and calendar year 29. So that would be November of 29, which would be fiscal 30. I think that's the way, I think that's the way the model shows it. Yeah. That, I'm just trying to relate that to Mike's concern about the, that million dollars. You with me, Mike? Yep. Are we going to get an updated spreadsheet from, um, our consultant regarding the depth and stuff like that? If we go to a 30 year instead of a 20 year, just so we can compare to price impact? Yeah. I mean, I, I'm trying to think of what's actually being asked for and who it's being given to. Uh, I mean, I know the select board just last night where we're, you know, contemplating how this is going to play out. And I know that, uh, I think on December 1st, uh, we're being asked to, to join the select board to talk more about this. So, um, yeah, it would, it would wind up being, you know, Matt Abrahams would be the one that would actually be providing, um, how this would all, he's, he's doing, Matt Abrahams has the capability of forecasting the impact to the enterprise fund rates. He's done that. We, we have that in our hand. I think that Brian Keveney did a similar effort in calculating what it would look like the impact to taxpayers. So we have two separate things. And I think those are the models that are being used to make the determination on what's the proper way to, to share the cost. Yeah. And you may not be able to make that decision until at the time you actually do the borrowings with them because you don't know what the rate is going to be because they have a current rate, but you don't know what the rate is going to be at the end. And the other concern when I listened to them is because they only take a certain percentage of the proposals and we think we're in good shape, but by going to 20 to 30, when they fund the next guy based on the cash that they collect, will that impact your, uh, their decision on whether or not you would be funded with an SRF loan or not? Thank you. So it's a good question, but I'm not sure we're going to know, but the, the basic is that the loan amount, if you go to 30 is 0.4% right now, which is not very high, but you add it to the 0.75. You're talking about, you know, one and a half percent roughly of interest or in fees below inflation. Yeah. Yep. That's why you don't know what it's going to be when the actual time comes. Okay. Any questions on this capital schedule? So are we putting forward the transfer station garage? Not an FY 27. Okay. So CIP for that too, right? Yeah. This, uh, the CIP was created when I thought that, uh, we were going to keep it in 27. Okay. Yeah. So that can be removed from the CIPs. When are you moving it to? Uh, it's going to be 28, 29. Okay. And then speaking of, speaking of the CIPs, if you've had an opportunity to look at those, um, based upon the motions that were made during the last meeting about, uh, you know, borrowing those types of things. So I did in that section under funding sources for the water, uh, you know, I, I used the language that, uh, met the spirit of, uh, of those motions. Great. Thank you. We don't, do we need to do anything with these at this point, Tom? So, I mean, I, I think it would be beneficial to have the board vote this tonight. I've heard a couple of things. One in particular was the, um, you know, the high school wastewater plant. Um, I think aside from that, it seems like everybody either understands it is supportive of it. So, um, if we could get a motion to approve this, if you want to include some conditions, because those are the, um, those are the things that will be heard by the finance team, by the finance committee. I spoke to CIPC, told them I was coming, you know, before the board of public works tonight. Uh, you know, so they'll be tuned into what your recommendations were. So, yeah, that's, that's how I would do make a motion, supporting it, conditional upon whatever you decide to say. Okay. So if, if, in terms of the motion, I think what we're talking about is the recommended column that's on the spreadsheet, except for the 4.5 million, deleting that and moving the transfer station shed from 27 to 28 or 29. Is that what we're saying? That's my understanding. Yes. Uh, wait, I don't think it's the entire 4.5. I thought the wastewater portion remains with us in the 2.5 mil of the baseball field goes to, to schools. Is that correct? Well, I don't know. I don't, I think none of it belongs with us because I don't think DPW should be carrying the debt service. Right. I, I agree with that because the wastewater facility is from high school. Right. It's not, it's like, if we replace the roof, is that, you know, I don't know. It's, that's schools related. I see. Thank you. Yeah. And they can always come back and, and talk to us about why they think it should be in there, but you'll never get the discussion if you leave it in there. Agreed. Okay. Is anybody, is everybody comfortable with that motion? Yes. Can you repeat it? Just that we're the, we're, we are agreeing with the recommendation on the schedule of the fiscal DPW fiscal 27 recommendation with the deletion of the 4.5 high school wastewater and the movement of the transfer station shed from 27 to 28 or 29. To a later year. Right. Yeah. I would say so moved. Second. All right. Uh, we'll start with Ed. Yes or no. Yes. Mike Spelman. Yes. Mike Wagner. Wegemarr. Aye. Uh, Judy. Yes. And I vote yes. So it's five zero zero. Very good. Thank you. And Tom, can I request or George, uh, that once we finalize, you know, we go through all the conversations, we come back and we vote the CIPs. Sorry. I don't understand the, the, the question. Uh, so, so we voted in general, the plan. Um, and what I'm suggesting is that once, once we kind of get this all ironed out that the board vote, the CIPs, the individual CIPs, which follow the, uh, the spreadsheet that we just went through. Awesome. Okay. I haven't even, to be honest with you, I haven't even really looked at those. Yeah, that's what I mean. They, they usually follow once we nail down, uh, what, what the true plan accepted plan is between all the, all, all the folks involved. Then we look at the CIPs and just give our blessing. All right, Tom, could you pull the subset of the CIPs that only deals with the items in 27? Yeah, I'll, uh, I'll pull in essence, just, it's just those two projects will be removed. Yep. Well, the, the CIPs, are they for everybody's projects or just yours? Just ours. Okay. Cause I didn't, to be honest, I didn't even get a chance to look at those. Yep. It just, it's just, you know, all right. Then you don't have to do it. Yeah. I mean, there's, there's, you know, there's the wastewater ones are loaded in there too. Uh, but yeah, um, that's just the way the spreadsheet is, but it's not other town departments. Okay. I just, we just need to have a subset of those CIPs. So we, everybody makes sure we know what we're looking at and then we can approve those without others being in that batch. Correct. Yep. I understand. So if you could just give us the subset that ties to what we just approved. Yep. Yep. Okay. Town meeting time. It's yours. That one's mine too. Yeah. It says board discussion. So lead it. All right. So I am going to put Carol on the spot. Is she still with us? I think last night, uh, Carol did, uh, did the select board actually, um, establish a timeline? Working on it. Okay. Because that's what, that's what that first, that's what that first bullet. So references is, uh, you know, when the opening of the warrant and, uh, all of the, all of the things that go along with, uh, Carol, I think I heard that you want the, the warrant comments in, uh, late December, but by one 15, you need to have, uh, all the information, uh, prepared to warrant drafts and any of the, uh, information. Correct. Thank you for recognizing me. Uh, so last night, the select board time, because I think you did ask me this, we did approve the annual town meeting calendar. Um, we did one change to the calendar this year. Big one is we've moved opening uptown meeting back to six 30. So I'm working on getting it to six. I've managed to go from seven 15 over these to six 30, six 30 start. I think it's a little better. Uh, a lot of people seem to leave around nine, nine 30. So that's the one big change. And the calendar should be coming out to you. The select board at the December 1st meeting will open the warrant. I'm not sure if we're going to open it December 2nd or 3rd or what day, but it closes by code. Um, no later than January 15th. And historically the board has kept it open to this, uh, January 15th, which is a Thursday this year, which means that's the deadline to submit your warrant articles to the town manager's office for consideration and inclusion in the warrant. So that's a couple of dates you've got there. Um, is that answer your first questions? Tom? Yes. Yeah. I guess, you know, the, the board and myself are, um, you know, obviously we're working through the capital budget in December. I'm going to be bringing our operating budget before the board of public works, uh, you know, so we'll hopefully on that evening, get a, uh, a favorable vote for that. So that'll be, um, you know, two things that, uh, that we'll have accomplished, but I think the, the one thing, uh, at least in my mind, crafting the article language for the MWRA project is going to be very, very important to have a thoughtful process. There's going to be a lot of review this board. I'm not sure. I know, uh, on the agenda tonight, we're talking about who's actually sponsoring co-sponsoring the MWRA article. I'm not sure where that lands, but in my mind, that is going to take some time and take considerable review until everybody's comfortable with the final product. Exactly. So the select board of course is still evaluating. They reviewed the, um, recommendation from the board of public works. And then we had a recommendation from the finance committee last night, which basically endorsed, um, and recommended, uh, or comfortable with the proposal that the board put forth. The select board is looking at it literally a number of options. I think we're making a lot of progress. Tom referenced that, um, the prior meeting, we asked Mr. Keveney to provide us, you know, if we were to, um, absorb any portion of the debt service that belongs to this $38 million project, what would that do to the tax rates? You know, what would be the impact on the taxpayers? I should rephrase that, not the tax, with it. So we looked at that last night. Um, and, uh, the George said it, or you said it, it was interesting because the numbers we have from the board is based on water usage and the other was based on, um, you know, tax, uh, bonding. So in the tax expense. So anyway, we're looking at that. We have a number of questions. We have invited Mr. Holder to come join us for the next meeting. We have some questions. And as George mentioned about the, uh, the permit and there's some other parts of the project, we need to be revisit. I was hoping we would take a vote by December 1st, but I have asked the board to really, really think about getting a vote by December 15th, which would allow you a month to put together your article, uh, write up. Does that work? Carol, we have, there's three warrants articles that we would have. One is the MWRA. The second would be your budget, uh, for the DPW and your budget for transfer station. Now, do we draft those or do you draft those? So you, you, well, first of all, I think that in my personal opinion, that the MWRA article is a board of public works articles coming from the water, uh, commissioners. So I think it's your article. You want to submit that. I think you may want to, I think you're going to look at later, consider if you would like to have the select board, you know, be a sponsor as we did when we, um, asked the town to allow us to embark on the application process to, you know, to participate in the MWRA program. I think Mike and I presented that, that town meeting that time as a co-sponsor. Um, your actual enterprise articles, the select board puts in the enterprise fund and the revolving fund articles. We have the sponsors of those. We vote on those budgets as recommendations to town meeting. And so all you do is put the budget submission through. So, um, um, Tom probably knows that's the process, right? To give it to Brian or wherever the budget goes. And then it goes into the select board as an enterprise fund. Okay. So we have, we have one that we're responsible for with, with potentially co-sponsoring. And then the other two be providing the information to you in terms of how the, what the budget is and how it's going to be funded. Right. So what's your thing, Tom? Yeah. And so if January 15th is the deadline to finalize warrant articles at that point in time, you know, we get that article to a point where we're pleased with it. And then I recollect that there's somebody in the finance committee that is assigned and they take it and they work it over. Right. You just have to get your submission in by January 15th. And then the select board looks at all the articles and determines which are going to be inserted into the warrant. And then those that are inserted go through the process. There's a finance committee liaison, there's a select board, uh, or a sponsor liaison on each article. And that workshop, article workshop that the finance committee is putting up, puts on is going to be January 28th. That's what I put on the calendar. If it's wrong, let me know. So, so then we, once the article, once we close it on the 15th, then they assemble all the articles, they send out a package of the FIMCOM to the select board, town council, everybody, I don't know. And then we have this meeting on the 28th where we, you as a sponsor, come and speak to briefly. This is not the debate. This is just this explaining. This is what this article is. For example, this is for us to do the construction so that we can join the MWRI. Um, and then we have the designees of the liaisons after which the articles work, they'll work with you to finalize the language, but you do need to submit it. So for example, you probably have it done here, Tom, let me look, you know, on this CIP, but do you have a CIP here for this? Yes, I do. I did. I just thought I saw it. I think I was looking at the other ones to wastewater improvements. What was it? This was on it. Now you've got it. I mean, you probably have most of it written here. Does that sound about right, everyone? So let me just kind of summarize. What we're saying is that for the MWRA warrant, we have to have it to you by January 15th, at which point then everybody does their thing to come up with a final. So the real problem is that we only have one meeting between now and the 15th, and that is our December meeting. So we may have to revise our January meeting date or add another meeting to get that article finalized. And we'll talk about that when we get to the meeting schedule. And I do want to clarify that you submit your submission by 430 p.m. on the 15th to the town manager's office. That's how it is to get in. Trust me, though, if I know your article's not there, I'll be calling you. I'm saying, get that in. It'll be there. Because if they're not there, they can't be considered to be inserted into the warrant. And that would be a problem. I'm trying to find this. Oh, here it is down here. Yeah. So the real challenge is going to be to get the wording that everybody's going to be comfortable with, especially with the co-sponsor. And with the decision being made, that will have to be reflected in the warrant in terms of how we're going to fund it. Right. So my suggestion would be draft up the language for the, there's a form. There is a form. Tom, do you have your form? For what, what is that, Carol? I'm sorry. Do you have an article? Do you have a form? You could get one from Jalen. Oh, yeah. Yeah. I'll be able to get that. So fill out the form. I know what it looks like. Yep. Yep. The text, the text is done by town council. The little piece at the top that'll say, I just put that book away, to determine if the town will, you know, authorize, vote a selectman to borrow, to blah, blah, blah. The town council does, you just write something on the top, is to fund the construction costs for the MWRA connection project. That would be the title. Yep. So Carol, I'm sorry, when do you think you guys are going to vote? You said December 1st, but then. I'm hoping, I'm very optimistic for the December 1st, but I'm definitely said last night, we really got to try and get a vote in by the 15th. We really, I think we had a really, really fruitful, in-depth discussion last night. We've had a couple of us, but I think we're getting there, but I can't say for sure because, but I will put and vote on the next gender item and see what happens. Yep. I would encourage people to listen to the discussion of select board yesterday. Okay. What do we feel about the select board co-sponsoring the MWRA article? And I guess one of the questions is if we disagree with what their conclusion is, we probably have no recourse. Is that right, Carol? Well, what do you mean by recourse? Well, let's, let's say that we'll just go to the extreme that you decide it's all going to be water rates. Yeah. No, no support by tax. There's really no appeal process or we can't put in our warrant that it should be X and Y, not all water rates, right? So I'm not legal counsel, but I'm looking at Tom now. I think you can put what you want into your submission. I do. I do too. That's why. Yeah. It's our article. So what I was going to say is negated because the people, that's what the article said, not the people you're disagreeing with. But no, um, I think that's, if that's what you feel the article should read, that's what you'll read. And then that's, that's what it'll say. Right. Yeah. And typically the select board would then vote and they would vote not in favor of that article. Right. Um, and then committee would vote too. Yeah. And then that would be catastrophic. We're not having catastrophic. Trust me. Um, George and I are going to be up there. We're not having heart attacks, joint heart attacks, no, there'll be no heart attacks in town meeting. Um, I think what happens is the language is always very broad. The town council will say, authorize the select board to, um, fund this. And then it gives a number of options to how it's funded. You'll, you'll notice that sometimes, and I should get one out here, but it'll say, um, you know, author funds or free cash, or, you know, it'll say a number of options for the, for the board to, to fund things, but the town meeting is authorizing the select board to make, to sign for the bond basically. So Tom, we can say Tom will be out front with the cup. Please make a donation. And I need more than a cup. Yeah. Uh, but the, in all seriousness, the, the issue is obviously the key is to get this thing approved at town meeting with everybody in row in terms of agreement, which is why, you know, the, with the select board is important. Uh, and I think we have to work with legal, uh, Tom to let, let's just use an example that the board of selectmen said should all be water rates. You know, can we put some language in there to give them some flexibility? If two years down the road, when this thing actually has to start to do debt service, they want to change something. They would, there would not be a vote for tax exempt debt at that point, but, you know, two years from now, they may decide that they want to fund some of this in a different way. And at that point, get the debt. Uh, and so I don't know how we can build that flexibility or if we can into the warrant language. I think, I think, again, you'll have to get that agreement from the select board. So let me read you this, this, this, this language is just this. Oh, this was the, um, high school turf field remediation, which we didn't end up doing, but the, the code said determine whether the town will vote to a appropriate sum of money, not to exceed X, to be expended under the direction of X. So instead of the select board, it would say, you know, uh, the board of public works or whoever to complete the, or to construct the, this was the environmental cleanup at the death. And then determine whether such appreciation will be provided by taxation, transfer from unappropriated funds by transfer of funds already appropriated for another purpose or borrowing in the master's generalized chapter 44 or other enabling authority. I think that's pretty standard bullet plate language that we have. So there's usually, um, and that's giving the authorization to the select board just to, you know, to up the bond because we're the only ones that can authorize bonding for the town, legally by the town. But realistically at the meeting, we're going to have to talk about how this is going to be funded going forward. Absolutely. And I think that if, I think the sense of the board, um, it's, we haven't taken a vote, but the sense of the board is that we are not comfortable with section N of that chapter 55, is it 55, 53. There's a section N that allows the select board to determine exit dollars are going to be a debt exclusion. And there's no vote by the residents other than at the town meeting. Um, the board is uncomfortable. That also has that governor in it, where the flexibility, if you call it, where a future board could change the percentage. I'm not so sure we're comfortable with that either because it could go pro or con to what the intent is. So if we do any borrowing, it'll be regular debt exclusion, which obviously we're going to have to, so that will be a, that will have to be on a ballot question on the ballot. And at the end of April, I think we're going to April 28. So other than that, we have not made any decisions. Does that help? Yeah. Mike. Yeah. So Carol, are you suggesting that we don't, um, specify in the article where the funding would come from? We, we could, we would say could be this, this, or this, just as you read in that sample article. Yeah. I think you should write the copy of it and, you know, what the project is and what have you and leave that blank until we have a vote. Um, you've already, you're right, Mike, you've already submitted your recommendation. You're just waiting to see what the select board, uh, is going to vote. Yeah. And I think just, just for those in the public, um, who may not be aware that it sounds to me as though the finance committee had, um, endorsed our recommendation as well. Is that fair to say? That, that, that is fair to say. Okay. We, we, we, um, as a board, as, as a committee voted to, to endorse the recommendation for the split of the two costs. We took no, no position on whether to use, uh, proceeds of litigation or sales of prop property, but, but in terms of the split, uh, yes. Oh, great. Okay. We, I sent out to everybody on the board last week, their recommendation letter. Yeah. I just wanted to bring it up. No, I understand. I just want to remind people. Yeah. Yeah. Um, yeah. And, uh, absolutely. We will, uh, from my opinion is absolutely. We want, uh, to co-sponsor this with the select board. I don't think there's another way for us to get this through to, uh, down meeting without us all being on the same page. I'm not quite sure how this works, but my personal opinion is that, that the finance committee should not co-sponsor it, even if we were able to, I, I like the idea of being these, you know, independent review, if you will, but we do support the proposal. Great. And I think the articles, the finance committee votes on each article of their recommendation. So, yeah. Um, sounds good. Okay. Um, all right. So a couple things, uh, Tom, obviously we need to, uh, start to work on that warrant, uh, so that we have it ready for our December meeting. Uh, and then we may need at that point to schedule a January meeting, depending on how much work we think we need to have done and waiting on, uh, the select board to make their decision because we don't meet between our December meeting and January 15th. So that's an issue. Uh, can I have a motion, uh, to seek select board, uh, co-sponsor of the MWRA? So moved. Judy moves second by. Second. Second by Mike. Okay. All right. We'll call vote. Judy. Aye. Mike Weckenbauer. Aye. Mike Spelman. Aye. Ed. Aye. And I vote aye. So it's five zero zero. Thank you. Uh, anything else under the town meeting article? Okay. Board concerns. Any? It's a, it's any way, uh, we could have a hard copy before the meeting plan important issue with the meeting discuss. Like, uh, you know, when I print out the agenda, uh, if I print out all the people, all the paper after that will be close to what? So 40 pages, and I only print in the first two page, but then some of the thing I, I read it through, but I could not, there's no way you're going to remember all those items, the dollar amount. So when we come to the time to vote, the important issues, then we're, we're a little bit lost. Uh, if it's impossible, have a hard copy. So what you're asking for is instead of printing it out yourself, being able to get a copy from Tom, is that what you're saying? Because I just print it off myself, but yeah, if it's a printing, uh, you know, hard copy, I can come, come, I can come in, pick it up. Yeah. Yeah. We'll, uh, we'll do that for you. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Anybody else have any other concerns by the way? And I, I agree with you. I'm tired of cutting down trees for all these papers.
Okay. Uh, moving on, uh, to, uh, minutes, but he have comments on the minutes. No, not look good to me. Okay. I've got a couple on page four where it says water budget finance. Got it. It says are a bit behind in revenue. And then I'd say rather, however, I'd say, and they've issued a commitment expense value at 400,000, not including the spreadsheet. Right. So where's that? Uh, uh, two, four or five. Is it a commitment, uh, expense or is it revenue? So yeah, they just issued a holder also indicated that they had, they are a bit behind in revenue. However, they just issued a commitment value at 400 grand, not included in this spreadsheet. Is that a commitment? Is that revenue or expense revenue? All right. So again, put the word revenue in there. Yep. Valued. Yep. So it's clear. Yep. And then I've got one more
on page 10 bear with me. Let me catch up. Okay. Uh, last item under follow-up action. You're going to coordinate to coordinate. I'm going to coordinate coordinate. I just don't. Yeah. Yeah. I'll coordinate the removal of coordinate. Okay. I had one as well. Okay. Um, page seven, uh, he meaning wake up power indicated that in recent years, the CIP forms were not received by the board. Um, I don't think I stated that. I think what, what I said was we didn't vote the CIP forms with the funding designation because we did receive CIP forms. I'm pretty sure Tom, you, you've shared those with us each year. Yeah, I do. And I, I think I was actually surprised that you had made that remark about not receiving them. But, uh, if you want to clarify, uh, what was the language again? Yeah, we received the CIP forms, but we didn't vote them and the, um, funding designation wasn't indicated. Okay. So you're saying the CIP forms are not voted on by the board and therefore members are not, uh, did not designate the appropriate funding. It's not that you weren't given an opportunity. You just, there was no vote. So we received the CIP forms, but without the funding designation, I have no idea. And where was that, uh, on, on page seven? Yep. Uh, let's see, third, fourth paragraph up from the bottom. Oh, from the bottom one. What about we're introduced? Two is the background indicated we're not received. Okay. So I'm going to substitute that with this. Got it. Yeah. So basically you, you did give us CIP forms, just the difference being that, uh, there was no funding designation identified. Got it. Yep. Okay. Anything else on minutes? Can I have a motion to approve the minutes? All right. Judy votes. Mike seconded. All right. Uh, vote. We'll call vote. Mike Spelman. Yes. Mike Wegerbauer. Yes. Judy. Yes. Ed. Yes. And George votes. Yes. Five, zero, zero vote. Okay. Approving the minutes as amended. You got one minute, George. I know. Uh, Hey, I think I'm doing well. I mean, I just looked at the, uh, I just looked at the agenda. I'm like, Oh, you got a minute. Okay. The, uh, the dates for the next meetings. Do we need to set a meeting between December 16th and January 20th, or do we need to move up the January 20th meeting by a week? I would move to January 20th. Yeah. So can everybody do that to the 13th? I actually might have a cough. What does that show? Um, I'm trying to work with the planning board to schedule the tree hearing meeting. They were talking sometime in January. So I hope to have that by next week. Can we do the six? Can we do January 6th instead of the 13th? As long as we don't have to do too much studying for that one. Yeah. And obviously the focus will be finalizing the MWRA warrant article. Yeah. It's assuming that we've got all the information to finalize it, but we can shoot for that. Okay. Can I offer a suggestion? How about if we schedule a meeting for January 6th, leave the January 20th? And if we get it all done, we can just, uh, cancel the 20th because on the 20th, we may have to meet to get the comment deal with the comments that we have coming back on the warrant article. Okay. You know, one of the things we can do is designate, um, two folks to work on the article so that we can bring it, uh, in as good a shape as possible to the board. It's a good idea. I'm happy to work on that. All right. Judy, you want to work with Mike?
Good. Thank you. And Mr. Chair. I recognize Carol. Thank you. I might want to also designate, uh, someone or two someones, or maybe I don't know who's going to do it, to speak at the finance committee, um, article workshop, which we now know is January 28th. I think that's a, is that a Tuesday? It's a Wednesday, isn't it? I don't know. What's it? It's a Wednesday. It should, I mean, it should be fairly short, you know, but it takes a while. It's about an hour and a half presentation by the time we go through all the rules. They go through all the rules of the road and then they speak with all the articles. I think Judy's raising her hand. Um, all right. How about if we decide that next meeting? We can do that. We'll see if we can understand better what's required there and where we're at with the article, Tom, will you, will you be, uh, providing a first draft or what's I can do that. Yeah, I can. And I'll, I'll probably do that within, it'll, yeah, it'll be the first week in December probably is when I would take a crack at that and get that to both you and Judy. Okay. And you can work it over, you know, and we can go back and forth. So it'll have all the technical details or whatever. Yeah. So hopefully by the 16th or whatever, we would probably have something to show the rest of the membership. Is there going to be a public outreach? Yes. Yeah. And what would that happen? February, March? Yeah. I mean, last year we timed it, um, as it got a little, I think we had April 7th was town meeting. It was very early last year. Um, and I think we did it just a couple of weeks prior, uh, three weeks prior so that it was on people's minds. It was very close, you know, to, so we could knowing that town meetings on May 4th, we could do something, you know, beginning of April or something. I'm just throwing that out there as a. Yeah, I think it depends on whether or not there's got to be a vote at that special election or the town election, uh, because of the, uh, borrowing, if that's an effect or not, because that'll impact your timing. Motion to adjourn. Do I hear a second? Second. Oh, wait, before that, uh, any topic? Hold on just a second, Mike. Any topics not reasonably anticipated? You need to just go through the agenda. I have none. Um, okay. Okay. Now, I've got a, um, meeting with the Route 20 South Landfill Visioning Committee next Monday. Uh, does anybody have any questions they'd like me to ask them? Hmm. We can email you. Okay. None that I can think of. We're just anxious to see what you guys come up with next. Dog parks and
dog parks, storage, bird watching posts, condominiums. Yeah. Who knows? Well, anything you could do to bring revenue in and bring down the tax rate would be great. Yeah. That's just scary. What's underneath that trash heap. Oh, I know. Can I possibly say one more thing? Oh, I'm sorry. Judy, is that you? No, that's somebody from, no, I'm sorry. You do, you cannot. Uh, can I have a motion to adjourn? You were given false in. Can I have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn. The guard rails are not. Can I have a second, please? Second. If you, if you have a question, please send me an email and I'll make sure it gets to Tom. Guard. All in favor. Uh, Okay. Good night everyone. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Thank you.