October 7, 2026 – Capital Improvement Planning Committee – Video & Transcript

October 7, 2026 - Capital Improvement Planning Committee

Autoscroll:

We will call the Capitalist Program Planning Committee meeting to order October 7, 2026 at 6.30 p.m. in the Wayland Town Building. The meeting may be recorded, and if recorded, it will be made available to the public on WACAM as soon as possible after the meeting. Pursuant to Chapter 2 of the Act of 2025, this meeting will be conducted in person and or via remote access in accordance with the applicable law. Okay, when required by law or allowed by the chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting may do so at the meeting location. Public comment should be limited to two minutes per person. I'll review the agenda. 6.30, call to order. 6.35, public comment and members' response. 6.40, review and discuss any recently submitted or revised departmental requests. 6.50, review and discuss additional capital closeout responses, if any. 7.00, discuss revised draft of CIPC report to town manager. 8.15, update on succession planning. 8.25, review and vote to approve minutes of September 30. 8.25, setting time of next meetings. 8.30, adjourn. 9.25, review and discuss any recently submitted revised departmental requests. Brian, I know you were, got emails back to Tom Holder. Do you want to fill everybody in on those? The punchline is, as I mentioned at the last meeting, the Board of Public Works talked about two of the requests, the half a billion dollar water asset management plan in 2028, and the $380,000 loader for the transfer station. They seemed okay, ultimately, although not still fully understanding how it's going to get paid for. But leaving the transfer station request in fiscal 28 was okay with them. And so Tom Holder, the chair of the Board of Park Works, wrote a memo. Tom Holder sent it to Brad. Brad, I think, forwarded it to the rest of us. And that memo kind of says that. And so, again, the only issue there, my takeaway is still we're showing it as transfer station borrowing. I think that's how we move it. And there's a much bigger discussion that's got to take place with the Board of Park Works and the Blackboard as to the financial wherewithal of the transfer station. But I don't know how else we could propose to fund it at this level. As to the asset management plan, again, there was a general sentiment expressed at the meeting and in the memo that that item should be put on hold until they got somewhat along on the long-term water supply. Tom, in turn, had in his email requested that we move it from 28 to fiscal 29. So I sent him a response clarifying, is that what Tom wanted us to do? And he said, yes, I understand what the memo says, but if you would just move it one year, he'd like the opportunity to raise it again next year and doesn't want it sort of out of the plan, which is up to us. So he's the one that has submitted the recommendation or the request up to this point. So I think the question for us is, now that we've received, in effect, a revised request as to the $500,000, which, by the way, I failed to mention last week, I think, they had talked to one outside vendor just to get a sense of the cost based on the scope they had in mind. And the $500,000 turned out to be a little bit high. Now they only think they need $250,000. So the revised request is $250,000 for the asset management plan in fiscal 29, as opposed to $500,000 in fiscal 28. And the question for us is, where we are in our process, I think we said we were going to leave everything the way it was unless and until we received a revised submission, which we've now received. People want to go ahead and move that and reduce it to $250,000, which I'd be happy to reflect in a hopefully final Excel spreadsheet. I'm fine moving it. I mean, all the tables will end up needing to be repasted in one more time. Anyway, so it's not a big deal to me to move it. Anybody else? No, that makes sense. Okay. So I'll make the change to the Excel spreadsheet I keep just because to double check on what Kelly's doing. Yeah. I mean, I like having both. And I'm also, I've cleaned that up. So I'm going to send you after this meeting what I hope to be the final version of that, which if it is, I hope to then send that to Brian Keveney on the off chance that he takes it and uploads it into his Excel workbook. But at least it'll give him. Yeah. I want to send him both yours and mine. And the reason for that is mine has, so his is in the format, yours is in the format that it's similar to what he has ultimately put out. Mine has all of the individual CIP forms in it. So I'd like to make sure that those are distributed both to Brian and ultimately when they make their recommendation to FinCom. And you'll know this, like those exist, right? The backup forms exist in case they want to read them. Yeah, no, I agree. And I told the FinCom I would, when we were done, as in when we've loaded our recommendations, and we've issued our report, I told them that I would share that. You just described that file with the FinCom members. So why don't I leave you in charge of, I'll circulate what I hope to be the final version that I keep to everybody. You'll have that. And then when you know we're done, done, you could maybe send it to Brian. And if you just copy the FinCom on that and whoever else you want to copy, copy us on it too, just so we all have it. That'll give the FinCom an opportunity if they want to dig deep into the CIP forms. So I think Tom's email had a revised CIP form. I think it did. And we'll put in. That's what I did with the IT ones as well.
Yeah, so I think that's all I have on that one. And I did, before I forget, just because I don't think we're going to have you, Liz, here next week. No. And I know we're not, I don't think we're having John on the 14th. Don't know about the 13th. His email to me said he's available next week. So I'm assuming he'll be here for 13th and 14th. You know, my hope was... Yeah, I can make... Sorry, guys. Hi, guys. I can be there for both. Good to hear your voice. John, how long have you been on? For at least four minutes anyway. Okay. Thank you. Just for the minutes. Sorry. That had like a Mel Brooks. So before I forget, my hope was I was going to suggest that now that we have five of us here, and we wouldn't necessarily have five of us here next week, that at a minimum, if you think everybody's comfortable and understanding that anything's happening between now and next week, that maybe you entertain a motion to approve the recommendations that appear in the Excel workbook that you all have as revised by whatever we talk about tonight, because I think Kelly has possibly one more thing to talk about. And then we could at least feel we're done. And if something happens to pop up next week, we could talk amongst whoever's around and say, do you want to take an amended vote? Hey, Robbie, can you change the view so we can see to them if possible? Oh, or maybe, oh, maybe he's not on camera. Okay. He's on. Looks like he's trying to on camera. Okay, that's fine. So if that makes sense, I think normally I would say if we were where we hopefully will be next Tuesday after next Tuesday on the memo, we might even with five people also take a vote to approve the report and authorize you to finish it up and submit it. But it just depends on where people think we are at the end of tonight. It's always better to have all the members voting if you can do it. But if we can't, we can't. So, but definitely on the recommendations, I would hope that maybe we could do that tonight. So anyway, I think Kelly had one other possible number change. Yes, I did. So in the revised request, in the revised request from IT, we had, he had combined the cybersecurity items, right? So there was a $700,000 item and $150,000 item. We had had those under two separate sources of funding. The 700 we had as borrowing and the $150,000 we had as free cash. So when you combine those items, we can, and the town has split funding of items. However, I thought it would just be cleaner if we made that borrowing and I looked for another project that was $150,000. Lo and behold, we had a dump truck that was $150,000 that we had as borrowing. So I was going to flip it, make that free cash and keep the whole cyber project as borrowing. So no net change to funding sources, but just cleaner if everybody's okay with that. That's fine. Okay. Would you also just shrink that into one line? Yes. Yes. You lose a project then? Yes. Okay, so you have to. Yes. I had it as one line and then I'm like, oh, I have to ask everybody. I can't send it out like this. I think as the number changes, I think we're on the same wavelength I made a correction, which I think I sent a revised Excel workbook out to everybody thanks to Kelly spotting something and the DPW request on the water, that change. But I think that's, those are the only moving targets at this point. Thanks. Okay. That's good. Would you entertain a motion to approve the CIP's recommendations for fiscal 28 through 31 as shown in Brian O'Hilley's Excel workbook version?
Anybody have in front of them which version? No. Version 8. Oh, that version. I have a version 9 anticipating where Kelly was going to have it out in the water, but I will send that after the meeting. So are we approving 8 or 9? I'm approving the recommendations set forth in version 8 as revised by our discussion this evening with respect to the water asset management plan and the modification of the IT request on the dump truck. Well, I'll take that as a motion. I'll make that, yeah. So moved. Second? Second.
So I guess we need to take a roll call vote on that? You're going to ask for discussion just in case any discussion, John or anybody else has any final comments or questions?
All right. Liz? Hi. John?
We'll go back home. Brian? Yes. Kelly? Yes. Brad, yes. John, are you there?
He raised his hand. Oh, okay. Can we take that as a... Yeah. We have four. Yeah. I don't know if the raised hand is because he wants to talk or because he... Do we have to bring him over? Oh, I'll have to talk. He was under a panelist before, but... Yeah. Hi. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Sorry. I moved to the app because I was having trouble on it. I think he pushed me out of being a panelist, but yes, I'm good.
Okay. When Bobby comes back, if you can move. Okay. Approve 5-0.
So when I send it around, it would be version 9, but I'm going to mark it version of the final. That is like the biggest jinx I've ever... Yes. We get the final... You know? Yeah. Final sort of... And my... Approve 1. All right. Well, let's move on to the next item, which would be any additional information on capital closeouts. I know there was some exchange between Liz and John, Brian on that. Take the lead and... Well, I think what it kind of boils down to is it sounds like last year the... So when we discuss looking and reviewing capital, open capital projects, as a team, we discussed using just the balance column under the newness report and using that as a basis to essentially filter out any items that were $5 or less, so, quote, unquote, low value, or $0. So that was the basis for then, you know, doing the different tables off of the open cash balance or the open balance cash column in the newness report. Now, come to find out, Brian went back and looked, and apparently last year, the filtering should have been done on the open cash balance, not just the balance. And it might be easier to show this. But long and short, it does... I'm going to bring that up and I'll... Yeah, I got to... And the first mistake I made was when I got the munis report from Brian Keveney this year. In the prior few years, all he sent me was the cash balance as of whatever date it was he sent me. Unspent cash appropriation, right? This year, he sent me a file that had that as the last column, if you recall. But there's a bunch of other columns starting with the balance of the prior fiscal year, a bunch of adjustments, amongst which were encumbrances, which, again, typically, if you have an appropriation in the accounting system, you sign a contract, you immediately encumber that line item because you can't spend the money from the contract to spend, or you might have an invoice that hasn't been processed yet. So the first mistake is I should have sent all of you just the cash balance column because I recall we had a fair amount of conversation about how that whole thing worked. So going forward next year, if you're using that report, I would just use the cash balance column. So I think when we had that conversation, I went back to watch the tape just because, again, I'll attribute this issue to me. We were talking about how the math worked on that. And I had sent people prior to that meeting a comparison between cash, unspent cash balances at November 8th of last year, which is what we used for last year's report, to the June 30 balances at 26. Because I was just interested in the net change. And when I was talking about that at that meeting, I think given that we had all been focused on the math of the newer spreadsheet and we were focusing on the impact of encumbrances, everybody was referring to a column N in that spreadsheet, which was the balance and the appropriation per line item after deducting any encumbrances. And then it continued on over to column O or Q that got you back to the cash balance, basically ignores the encumbrance, just haven't used the money yet. And at that meeting, what I should have said I had distributed was cash balance last November versus cash balance June 30, but somehow I referred to column N. And so when Liz, after that conversation, went through to do her filtering, in addition to the $5 item, she did her filter for what she should cut out or leave out. She did that filtering off of the encumbered balance column. And so there are a number of items that due to the size of the encumbrance got the balances down to zero or less than $5, but they still had pretty large cash balances. Unspent, meaning from a progress standpoint or not that far in the project. And in her exhibit E that everybody has seen, she correctly is reflecting all the cash balances for the line items at June 30th. But she had already filtered out both the less than $5 items, but there was probably a dozen, Liz, maybe. Yeah, it was about, yeah. Had we simply used the cash balance for that, this purpose, they would be in that exhibit E. And that's what I picked it up. I was ticking and tying exhibit E to what I had in my file from the Munis report, which caused me to ask Liz what happened to those line items to which she said they were filtered out based on my rules, which we discussed. So I finally confirmed, yes, I suppose we did. And I said, we best ask the question. My perspective is to be kind of consistent with both last year in this committee and two years ago on the finance committee because I used the same report for the same purpose. Those dozen or so items really should still be in there because it's also inconsistent because a bunch of the cash balances that are in Exhibiti all have encumbrances on them. And so, you know, we're kind of mixing apples and oranges. So I didn't want to have Liz just on my say-so go and change the rules to have those dozen or so items reappear in all the final tables before we talked about it. So is that, that's kind of where Yeah, I was mostly listening, but for some reason if I join via the link on the website, I can't share my screen. It's sounding like people are nodding at least. I agree. We don't, yeah, I know. It still amazes me that it's that complicated, but. if I only sent the one column cash balance, we wouldn't have been having any discussion. No, yeah, we wouldn't, no. It's interesting information. But there's two, there's two ways to view it, right? There's, there's how much is not complete, which is indicated by the ending balance without reflecting encumbrances. But there's also, if you were doing a different task, which is not what we're trying to do, we're trying to communicate is sort of status, right? But if you were doing the task of turnbacks, using encumbrances, right, then says like there isn't going to be any money left on that particular project. It's already spoken of first. So it depends on what your purpose is. But I think our purpose, how we've written that section, how we wrote it last year is how much work has been, like how far are we, you know, on a condition. Using these financial balances again as a proxy for completion. And again, just to make it abundantly clear, the extreme example would be if you go back two years ago, Council on AG Building. Let's say 11 point something million dollar appropriation. Let's say they signed a contract with a developed contractor for, you know, nine and a half million dollars. As soon as they signed that contract, they would encumber that 11.3 million. And the next day, if you looked at the cash balance, it would be 11 something million. But if we use that column encumbered as a proxy for how much it's done, that wouldn't make sense because they probably wouldn't have done any work yet. Maybe two years later, as they've probably spent money as they build out the project, less clear on a fire truck where you buy the truck, once you contract to buy the truck, you're kind of done, you just haven't taken delivery. at the end of the day, I think at least consistent answer would be to use all the cash balances. So if it's easy enough for you to go back and filter those back in. Yeah, it's just changing a formula. That'll change all the tables and then some of your text might change. Yeah, you might have some tweaks because we'll have more projects that are pulling in, so the numbers, everything will move. I think the biggest one was a couple hundred thousand dollars. I mean, a lot of these were mostly just a couple thousand. Okay, so you'll do that and just like you've been doing, redo your write-up section and then you can send that to Brad and then he can just kind of paste that in. Since we're dealing with it, it'll come up in the report, but Liz did go back. You'll also get the updated Appendix 8. Yeah. The Appendix E will then show these items and all I was trying to do is tie those back into the tables in the text of the memo. It was popping out these differences. Just because we're talking about it, there's a top ten table in the memo and I just asked Liz, she has it currently, the version you all saw as town enterprise fund school. I just asked her to flip a school above enterprise and we didn't really need a grand total on that particular table just because they're separate.
Other than that, I think everything all of tables seem to be working properly. I'll double check everything. We're done with that. I want to talk about table off. You sent me a note but I already had it on my list of things. I got the action to re-update and base all of the files and the reports off have the open cache balance. We'll see some minor tweaks. Why don't you send it to me? I'll do my double checking. If everything's fine, I'll send it. You can send me the word doc and then if you want to also send your spreadsheet. You send them word. You send all the reports. The report section you send. You've been sending to Brad with your tables plugged in. If you could redo that, word doc, send it to me. Send me your Exhibit E and send me your whole Excel file. I'll forward to you once I've double-checked it. It should be pretty straightforward. I'm not worrying. Mine's still going to be version 8 next.
I think that's the only thing I'm not aware of. We'll get to the text and the closeout section that I added some text on. I think that's the only other numbers. other than what's in the demo itself. We can dispose of that agenda item. Okay. Well, in that case, we're minutes ahead of schedule.
We're zooming.
Are you sure, John, are you okay with all that? Yeah. No, I watched the meeting yesterday, so I went through it. It sounds good. Thank you. So I guess on to the report. Again, before you get going, I'm going to shut up. A lot of what I did is what you're about to talk about. I apologize for the multiple versions today. I'm trying to advance the ball and getting some of the formatting and page numbers and things. it gets pretty screwy when you have different section breaks and other things. So I think we really need to work with both version 2 that Brad sent out yesterday, came from me after Kelly sent out her version, and then the version 3 that I sent out, Brad, the extent you want to work off something in terms of what you make your edits to, I would make them to that version. I got rid of all the comments to just make it easier for you to move through. But I think we need to look at all the comments and try to dispose of them as we walk through. So again, it would be helpful if someone could connect in. I have a hard copy, but if there's any way anybody can try to connect in and put up version 2 that you want to have. I had that the link wasn't working, the Zoom link, when I tried to click on it. So that's when I tried to go through the website. And you can't share from the website, so maybe John? Yeah, we need Robby to move us to panelists and then we can share. That's the issue.
Ryan, I appreciate all the work you did getting together and putting all the appendices together, the table of contents. That was very helpful. So I appreciate all that. mechanically, I hope everything has to be updated to be the table of contents. There's a way to link that. No, that's good. It works. Thank you. Your panel wants to do the same thing, but then you can share. Well, I dropped it after I couldn't share because I was going to try to find. I can share. Which version? Two or three?
Second to last email I sent. I have both open. Let me just try to get it.
I don't know, Brad, how you keep notes as we're going through this, whether you manually keep them and then I've got the notes section where you and Kelly have comments. Yeah, some of my comments were old that we've disposed of, so we can hopefully that's the right one.
Again, in doing the version I said, as I said, I just accepted everything, not necessarily agreed with everything, but it just was unwieldy to try to review and I felt that we were not so far along and it didn't make sense for everybody to take a fresh, kind of look through it and start editing hopefully. You never know when to accept everything because otherwise, like you said, it gets unwieldy. From this point forward, if you start collecting individual after this meeting, if the instructions are to, if anybody has other edits and they feed them to you, you then have to start making judgments on what you're going to accept. I'm not sure we have enough time for you to put all the comments in there and then have us go through them. I have a hard copy version. Do we start page by page? We have the comment column and talk about whether that's still valid or not valid or any other comments we have. Is this the right version?
If you go to the cover sheet, I want to dispose of an edit that Kelly made. I believe she was concerned I had made it a final report cover. She changed it to draft without a date. She was concerned that a final version might escape the system. I was concerned that to the extent we are posting this with minutes, it appeared to be final. I understand. I'm just a little levity before we get into the discussion. I'm sure there's a way to make it even prettier and get the polka dots all lined up properly, but beyond my pay grade. If you scroll down, John, one of the comments that I have late in the document but it appears in the table of contents I'll reference it here in Appendix F. I didn't embed the comment here. That exhibit F says fiscal 20 capital requests. It was on my list of things to talk to you about and I didn't put a comment in there. Probably because of the hour at which I was doing it. I was struggling with, yes, it was requests, but somehow we put in the past the funding sources and I don't know why we did that or maybe I just didn't look closely enough. If it's requests, there's some things we didn't include and so I don't have last year's report on me, but perhaps maybe I do. Did we just say not funded on the things that weren't funded? I do have a copy of one of the versions.
That's what's strange. I'm looking at it and yet everything has a funding source on the page I'm looking at from last year. That doesn't make any sense to me.
I couldn't solve that puzzle at time when I was doing this.
We could figure that out. My sense would be if it's requests, which I think it was last year, this year, just to add back in the free items, don't put a funding source. It is still going to be in the table of contents. It still will be requests. The other approach I was going to say is make it recommendations.
We advanced to a comment I think I had on appendix F. I may not have embedded it as a comment in this document. I had a couple other questions. He's going back to appendix F, page 40.
Yeah, appendix F. Page 40. Nice to have page numbers now. You mean you didn't handwrite them on like I did?
I spent an hour figuring out how to get them on the footers and connect the footers? front page or second page?
Keep going. It's the next appendix. Sorry, I'm slow. Okay.
Liz's schedules are very long. I can bring it up to like 120%. at least you can read them. That's why they're very long. What I put in yellow here. Consistent is small. A couple of the things for the projects we already just talked about. I'm going to combine those cyber projects and flip the funding source.
I actually did it wrong there to begin with. my other comments on this are some minor ones, but I typically we spelled out like the IT department submits the request as IT, I-N-T, right? And I make it information technology. I spell out joint communication center because that's things that people don't necessarily know. FIRE put theirs in as FIRE and EMS. Typically that's always been FIRE in the tables. I know this probably isn't something you guys want to spend time on, but I don't know if we want to change it to FIRE and EMS. I think it might have been intentional that the FIRE chief and EMS is fine as long as we're consistent throughout.
Substantive group? Yeah. And then so the priority score rankings that are sixes, those are the ones that weren't filled out because the default was six. So should Can I ask you one question before I ask you? So on the last version that Brad had sent up for the last meeting, which had your prior appendix up, and this is before you pulled in the new IT requests for cybersecurity, the line item was cybersecurity compliance.
I changed it. I'm sorry, that was in there. I'm sorry. I changed it to his description. I know, that's fine, but I'm sorry, that line of 700,000 was in there, but next to it, the ranking in the last version was 25. And so I didn't know if when he submitted his revised, I know one, his original VIP has just the six, but if you could double check, because when I saw the 25, what caught my attention given his position in the chart is that he had 26 for the meeting room AV, and he had 25 for the $700,000 for cybersecurity modernization for mediation, which didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It is what he put in, but nonetheless, I just don't know how people felt about the credibility of that ranking. All right, I'll double check if he, he may have done that. Yeah, what he did when he sent the various forms. IT, I have the most versions of his form, so I'll double check that, but there are still others who didn't fill out, and yeah, there's a couple that are sixes. So I just want to make sure, like, they weren't really sixes, that was just the default. Do we footnote them, right, that that wasn't the score, like, the score wasn't completed, or erase them and say, score not provided? You could just put a dash in. Yeah. I don't want to put six on them because I don't think that was I agree. If you don't mind putting a footnote, it can go in your table, right? Yeah, I can put a footnote on the table. Then where they have sixes, just put an asterisk,
which would be the footnote, and then put an asterisk as the footnote? You know what I mean? However you did. Yeah. I think I want to take the six out because I don't. Oh, no, that's what I'm saying. Take the six out and put an asterisk in. I'm going to describe they at least made an effort. It's just that they didn't, from my perspective, they didn't fill out the ranking matrix as we anticipated they would. So I want to give them credit for putting something in there because at least they just filled up a numerical one, right? We had two rankings. We had the matrix which should have added up to numbers that look like these other numbers. Then there was that one tiebreaker. Yeah, I'll look. Some didn't fill out. If it's not filled out at all, then find just maybe incomplete information or something. this is misleading with these numbers. If you double check on that cybersecurity thing. You could type in incomplete or footnote. I'll put something on there. The sixes are misleading. Back to my ridiculous question. If on the chance that 25 is the number that goes in for cybersecurity modernization, remediation, and 26 is the number that he ranked in meeting room AV, does that bother anybody else? To me, it's a credibility issue.
I don't want to waste the time going back to Nick and saying, how do you feel about this?
If you could put a footnote on it and say, you know, CIPC clearly ranks this cybersecurity one as the highest priority. Just acknowledge that we if it's going to be footnote our priority ranking, but we're evaluating. Normally, I would say this should prompt us to go back. We can go back to Nick. We have time. If it's going to be footnoted, I'm not sure what the language is. We could say the CIPC would not necessarily agree. If we footnote the 26 for the AV, we could footnote just saying CIPC would not necessarily agree with this rank. Something like that. Or we could ask Nick to reconsider I'm okay just wiping it out for all six technology and just putting a star in. We can always make a note saying ranking, just something. Yeah, I think the problem is John, that I don't think they were sixes in his previous version. I think because he sent me so many versions, I think he may have just pasted. Some of the newer requests, he did the ranking properly. The ones that were pre-populated, he didn't enter anything, which is what makes me think that when he put in the big revised request, he did put the rankings in. He just didn't go back. I think we asked him to, but I don't think when he went back to do his final, final, final, final version that he sent us, I don't think he went back and fixed. I can look through and then just ask him to clarify. I know it's an important, it's certainly an important project for the public and for the select board and for all boards and committees. They like people to hear the audio. I don't discount that it's a high-priorated project. It just looks weird. It almost to me falls into question our ranking system. If you can have the magnitude of issue that's dealing with $1.5 million of stuff be ranked even if it was the same. That just doesn't feel right to me. I think it's first-year jitters. It's a new farm.
That one light item even though we submitted something, just put the footnote on that one. I would ideally get an update from him, which I'm sure we can, but if not, I would just say for the six, I don't think it really matters. Kelly, you were going to ask him? Yeah, I'll ask him. Does that take care of that table? It takes care of that table. Sorry, I took us to the end. Back to the front of the document, John. We'll do what Brad wanted to do. Go through comments.
Add new ones.
Can we go back to the table of contents? I have another comment. On table eight, we have recommended FY 28, general fund capital budget. We use that reference throughout the report. Brian, I'm asking you specifically, is that confusing? In other places, we call that omnibus. We can change the generals to omnibus.
General fund can include articles. I think it should be omnibus.
If you search general fund, it's the easiest way to do it. I can send it to you. I'm trying to make sure we're not.
You already added page numbers. I'm done with page one. John, any? Liz? No. Brad? Right. Substance.
Page. Well, page two has no comments. I can't. I can't. I can't.
Executive summary page was page one. Yeah. I think the comment there, this is to do, is this reflect the one I plugged in or is this your table? This is my table. I replaced all the tables. I'm going to have to replace them all again. If you plug in appendix G on the variance line. I have that on my note to do. Other than that, I check all the numbers in the table and cross reference. My only comment on that one, when I re-put it in there, can I put space, are you guys okay if I put spaces in between the CIP row, the CIPC prior row, the 9 million, starts with 9 million points. I just format consistently if you're doing all the tables. Yeah, I just want to break it up because it's not, we have it showing here as if it's an addition and 14.5 less than 9.8 is what gets you the 4.7. I'm sorry, so how do you want to present that? I want to put a blank row in between the total for the finance committee report and a blank row in between that CIPC prior and the variances just so that it stands alone. It's like okay, that top chunk is finance committee broken into pieces, CIPC is its own line and then the variance is the difference, right? Do you want to go even further and add the math? Yeah, I'll add the math. I'm going to add the math and the variances. Tap B on CIPC prior and then a variance put B minus A. Yeah, I will. A minus B minus A.
There's another table you could probably do that on. Okay. So I had a question on these tables. I can faintly see the grid lines. Does anybody care? I mean, you can take the grid lines off the Excel spreadsheet before you copy them. I actually thought about that. I can, I like, I like them because it's easier. Do you like grid lines? I don't. John, do you like grid lines? I'm not, it's not a hill I want to die on, to be honest. Yeah, I'm good either way. I think it's probably easier for people to line everything up this way. It's a tie vote, which I'm the one that questioned it, so that means grid lines come out. I don't really care. I like them because I can see how everything lines up, but that's. I don't care. If you like them, we like them. My printed version, they're so faint that, you know, they really don't do what I think. No, but I think you said, what I found more confusing was it looks like you would add the nine to the 14. Yeah, that's why I'm going to break it. I'll leave it to you. Just be consistent on grid lines or no grid lines. I don't really care. They're your tables, we can leave them in. I don't have grid lines in mine. That's why I was asking the question. I'll take them out. That's easier. I have to update mine too, so it really doesn't matter. No, it's fine.
So that's that comment is disposed of.
The next comment on page four, John, I think we can get rid of this comment because you dealt with it, Kelly, in adding a word to the text.
What's the comment? Oh, no, I'm sorry. I'm thinking of something else. On page four. On page four, John.
So you were asking Kelly, in order to actually see how close we are to these policy guidelines kind of need to Yeah. Do you have whatever the most current, I didn't want to sift through finance committee and board minutes. Fiscal 28 today. What level of detail do you need? I need operating and budget. And well, I need the breakout between general fund and enterprise. Yeah, we don't have enterprise fund budgets. Yeah, but I can just take last year's and roll it, I think.
Right? Maybe not because of water is going to be up somewhat.
I mean, are we better off on these given where we are to just think about hunting and doing the analysis and just add a sense or two saying, you know, we didn't have all the information we needed to form this analysis we highly encourage the finance director to perform this analysis prior to the town. Yeah, I think we can do that. Something like that? I think we can do that because I can't do the debt without updated debt schedules and so I'm fine with adding a sentence. And he's going to be doing a financing in early November anyway. That's the problem. I don't have that updated debt schedule. I have a forecast of debt schedule, but I just think where we are. It's now we're at the brain damage. It's important to make the point that we're supposed to be living. Whatever the end product is that goes to town meeting is supposed to try to fit into these guidelines. Autopower. Let's see if I remember what he told me to do.
You've got 36 seconds to do. Can I feel like it's an outside? I think it's inside. I failed that on Monday night. All right. Does that make sense to people? I think I'm talking about what you're going to add that language. I wasn't sure why the last bullet was in italics. I feel pretty good about the first two even without numbers. I feel pretty good just based on rolling forward that the capital numbers were big enough that it was going to end up over the 7% under enough to say that initially in a sentence and then back on the back. I would rather we just pump the whole thing. The third one was in italics because I was like there's no way I can do this without a lot more data. That'll become unitalicized. I'm just going to take the whole section out and write a generic comment about the fact that we don't have enough information to do it. We have the guidelines above. That's in there. That's important. I might not say this, but amend that section later on once that information is available, but it's a little early to be able to do that. You could offer whether you guys are able to do it or not. In that same sentence or two, you could say if the CIPC is we recommend that the finance director analyze this prior to the town manager submitting his recommended capital budget, but CIPC also would be willing and happy to look at it if the information could be provided to it in a timely manner so they could do that analysis. Some of that information won't be known until the end of
you don't want to put that sentence in.
I'll think about how to write it. The finance director has to do it
in going through our analysis we are mindful of these guidelines but we don't have sufficient information at this time of the process because other things happen in the next two or three months that we are unable to actually do the computations therefore we
like that we weren't just sloughing off next page John there's a comment could be an old comment but I'm not sure I mean I can clarify that I think I paraphrased improperly the capital planning policy which actually is appendix B says that we're supposed to look at for up to an additional 15 year period it doesn't say 15 fiscal years so I can quote the capital planning policy directly but you know just but they for up to an additional 15 year period I think it's implied that it's fiscal year so I could live with the word fiscal on there or not let me back up a little bit sorry on page I think it's page four right above the table that says all the capital funding source categories yeah right there we it says in preparing its report CIPC was governed in part were we governed by or we considered sort of the language we talked about using last week we used it as a governor governor which again set an upper limit on ourselves in this context various reports was maybe mindful of the annual capital spending guidelines by finding source last outline yeah like mindful where we have governor later on I think it was appropriate but here and I brought that up at the meeting this past Monday I asked if the call barns would put on a future agenda considering whether the finance committee wants to update these and if so include them in the warrant going forward one other thing back to on page two sorry so he's when
last paragraph where it says approximately 98% right below that it says 500k requests for 2mg drinking water million gallons okay I did not know what that was yeah and all these numbers all the tables the text that has numbers that relate to tables is all going to have to change because of the change we agreed to tonight with the $500,000 asset management project going down to $250 and moving from fiscal 28 to 29 I've highlighted my draft once we get the revised I'm going to go through and make my changes anticipating what Kelly's tables will look like and I
go go go forward sorry but let's try try to do it a page a time if we can so Brad you're saying the 15 up to 15 years or fiscal years it says for up to an additional 15 year period is what the capital planning I assume Kelly put that comment in there when it originally said 15 years no I think it just said 15 oh it said 15 FY and I just said spell either spell out FY that's what I said originally I'm comfortable with what it says now you can delete the comment it didn't get taken out after you added it I think we disposed of at the last meeting yeah I think so yeah so my I have another comment on this section do we want it's in the form which we've attached in the appendix but on the where we're listing out the criteria and maybe we have it up above because we have sort of the one to five mentioned of the paragraph above I just didn't know if we wanted to put the scoring criteria that's on the form here you mean the totals or what one means what a five means particularly given my back and forth on the enhancement category if anything it may be an appendix but I
it is referenced in the previous paragraph or the beginning of that paragraph says a copy of the form is attached as D next comment I have is on page six which I think we've disposed of that was the discussion we had with Liz sorry so what I'm just dealing with comments at the moment yeah I know I was trying to get I had a comment on this page above it so simple one it's the same as my earlier comment I want to add a space between that end of the delta table and the CIPC recommendation and I know that the two numbers add I just think it makes it stand out
gets to you to the total you're talking about adding down at the bottom yeah putting a space in between and I'll take that red off of the table too and you'll change table 14 to 13 there yes change do think people need the math here or do you think they'll figure it out and it's that change I think it's okay when you're just adding I think it's fine but I'll put a note I'll think about it I think it's okay because it's adding John you want to
yet on this page sorry so should we be more explicit given that in year one in FY28 we are over the prior recommendation right by $800,000 and I know that some of that's the receipts reserved and some of it's capital stabilization but do we want to make any comments about sort of the discretionary nature of like we applied those funding sources if you know these are not because they were not direct impact to taxpayers I can draft a sentence to address that I might say rather than exclude these from the plan we chose to propose funding funding them with sources that would not directly impact taxation yeah I just think because we we've said earlier right here's the guidelines and oh by the way we used last year's capital plan as a governor and then right out of the gate we're $800,000 over so why why are
you had discussion already on I'll put it above paragraph where we say it served as a governor just to yeah yeah I think so do you think it should be in the text proper yeah probably yeah I think so yeah if we're saying like that's what we used and then we're over it I think we need to explain the why and you guys John Liz Brad understand what
obviously look at the text in the next version yeah I mean it's an outlier for sure right I think it makes sense so okay you feel strongly about the fact that we're over by 236,000 I do not okay because we've already voted our recommendations so we can't fine with our recommendation I just think that because we're over we need to
project status Brian comment we can dispose of we've addressed that and I'm looking at an older version because this is where my comments were but have we addressed the 67 capital projects that's in the paragraph versus 68 no well we once everything was
related in yellow on the version you're looking at seemed redundant the last sentence right above table five and first sentence below table five so you can pick where you want that to appear the project backlog inclusive of FY 2015 to FY25 it appears that same sentence appears in the paragraph above and below the table right next comment was on page eight I'm leaning towards dropping the whichever highlights it the best yeah whatever like break out the next paragraph wherever it's logical just this is the one where you talked about eliminating the top 10 total yeah two things you're going to move school up so it appears as its own line with the space between total town space kind of like you have here yeah it's just another space and you have water section with total just for water but that we don't need the total 10 total 10 total yeah so just reordering town school water dropping the total town yeah yeah disposed of there's more commentary that we may all have on text proper I'm going to lead us through comments we talked about table based on our conversations tonight just backing up on page nine there are a bunch of blanks in there were those filled in in your next version the one version three I'm looking at version two but Kelly's going to have to look at that section it may come out because we don't have the numbers got it all right yeah I think that section's going to have to come out okay because we're not analyzing it there are still for me anyway they're still I focused on the drafting that I sent everybody still sections here that I actually haven't looked at with the hopes that other people are looking at them and redrafting if need be but table eight you talked about table nine will be changed before sorry I fixed Brian I don't know if you caught
let's see the beginning of the discussion of fiscal 28 capital budget recommendations I had the wrong number for the FY 28 capital budget I had 12 something and it should have been 10.7 in the top of page nine yeah I think it's page nine anyway for sure you catch me 12.7 right yeah but it shouldn't be because it should only
yeah so it should be change our general omnibus there yeah it should be 10.5 next embedded comment and we can go come back to another pass through it's on page 14 John which was a an older Kelly comment about not needing table 15 in its prior form which I think we agreed to at a prior meeting it just hasn't been deleted yet and in your comment Kelly said we could add the projects not requested I think Brad you drafted the paragraph above table 15 where I did I can't maybe I did one of us it's a mixture that I think was intended to address the fact that there were things we had last year that didn't come in this year so I don't feel strong about needing a table to I know we talked about at one point putting a table together that listed things we previously had which would therefore include dollar amounts but I'm comfortable with just the text unless others want a table I thought we also had a handful of items versus the list from last year so I
since we have the appendices listed in the table of contents since we have one this year my thought was do we just have a piece of paper that says appendices as a separator between the main report and the appendices without again regurgitating I think that's fine and
spacer page in with a bigger appendices across the middle of it I embedded any other appendix F did we on appendix A I thought we had discussed and maybe it's happened in a later version but the deleting in the background the sentence that says due to its late formation
should and also that makes it so that the bylaw fits cleaner on the page do you like the entire bylaw on just one page the entire bylaw doesn't fit but the way it was copied and pasted for or downloaded from e-code at least in the version I had it caused the first page of it to spill on the second and then there was a third page with the rest of
its entirety appear on the same page I can just make it fit it will be super small I know I think it's okay to be on two pages I just didn't want that middle page that had only a small piece of the prior section in it so right now John can you scroll down to next page 19 so right now all I'm gonna do is eliminate two sentences and probably move the background section down one space so you must from the version I printed this yeah so this is fine yeah it was the one where it was right out those two some things right there's a
page 41 I don't know how it turned out this way because it wasn't how I put it in I didn't know if Kelly you changed it but it probably had to do with something else but exhibit G which is the prior year capital plan variance analysis so in this version two it got shifted to a horizontal landscape page in version three Brad I
printed copy and I can read the numbers so I mean I'm inclined to try to keep all the pages orchard I did not touch it it must have happened with the comments when there was no I only touched the next H which then the headers got connected I fixed that half an hour tutorial section breaks so I had a comment which Kelly I sent to you late this afternoon it answered my question in the comment it looked to me like for fiscal 31 this was last year's table you just didn't get the new 31 table in here none of these numbers are tying out so you could just go back and look and
back to your other tables but some odd reason this table stayed in yeah okay I'll fix it yeah I'll fix it so anyway that I think that disposes of all the embedded comments so I know Brad you want to go back for more time and see if people have other doors there's still sections that I
I assume we can maybe between you and I Brad and Kelly getting us the tables we can once we have the tables we can then circulate another version so that people have that to ruminate over the long weekend and hopefully before Tuesday for those that won't be here Tuesday John are you around next Tuesday and Wednesday yeah okay yeah I'm available now I changed my schedules it would only be you if you could just do one of things everybody could collectively send their individual edits redline edits to Brad and he can either but you're going to be sending your some coming to me I'm saying to you but I'm saying everybody all Kelly and her Kelly got the tables so what would work best is if you're sending so you're sending the tables to Brian what I would prefer to do is I'm going to get Liz's stuff double check it I'll hold it okay I prefer if Kelly you could take version three that I distributed today and replace all the tables okay and send that
double check with Liz everything is fine I can just cut and paste that in that version and we could probably make some of the other things we've talked about tonight it's that
accept and which ones you're not and then arrive on Tuesday with yet another redline version or do you want to use Tuesday for I guess it depends on how substantive the comments are if they're fairly small comments I can just accept them but I mean if I think they're going to require some discussion I anticipate there's going to be minor little spacing formatting consistent descriptions of different people are going to find different things and version 3 I think has track changes on it so if people want to take version 3 you know what we talked about tonight you can at least re-review version 3 because it's a clean version in a sense I think there's a few red lines of
incorporate them and then before Tuesday get a hopefully near final version out so that we spend Tuesday the four of us that are here trying to get it final enough that we could vote on it and then authorize you to finish cleaning it up and then the following night Wednesday when we meet with the town manager you could provide them with either before the meeting I'm saying we get them either the version you know I mean by the time we get through Tuesday it hopefully won't take a lot to get to what we think is nearly an almost done person that you're comfortable sharing with them so they will have to look at it during the day on Wednesday right and then any final changes could
be submitted and I think last year you did it all by yourself Kelly we can have up to two people if there's any questions on your part what do you
this other minor cleanup that's fine but and I don't necessarily want to be the one to volunteer others have the time or inclination I have I've got to make the time to do the tables and so I can't very easily volunteer to do a whole lot more than that John do you you haven't had the good fortune of chiming in much on
you are almost coming at it I know you have watched our meetings and things but would it make sense for you and Brad to work together to really scrub the memo to the extent collectively we send them along to Brad and we can send it to Brad and John right but they just can't and if it's again administrative cleanup stuff I think ultimately that could be recirculated if there's an embedded comment somebody wants to put in I think that has to be held until we meet on Tuesday but again you could always at that point you're going to lose me because I can't be a third person in that process but
if I can I know what I can look at it it's better if somebody is looking at it and reading it with fresh eyes and saying because that's what the town manager and the finance director are going to do so you know hey
Brian could look at the tables I think that's what Brian is proposing I update the tables to him Liz is going to cross check all the numbers then there'll be a version that can be editorialized and all that stuff has been discussed in this meeting so that much of it if you wanted to you could circulate to everybody but if
that you and or we send you and get things consistent make sure to Kelly's point that now you're stepping back reading it as a new reader would look at it and say that raises the question or geez that doesn't make sense or maybe we remember we talked about we should emphasize this those would be more substantive edits that the two of you might make which
and then embed a comment saying need to discuss and but I think well you can't circulate yeah so before you embed any comments for any substantive stuff I think that pre-version is what you have to circulate to the five of us that basically only reflects what we've now about tonight and then from there you
have more substantive edits you want to discuss you could put them in yet another version that you then bring to the meeting or circulate right before the meeting and then we could hopefully just blast through those comments and that's the version that you would then Wednesday morning give to a finance director and town manager we right that's fine review it with them yeah makes sense that work for everybody yeah okay so so I don't know I mean do other people have other I don't have any other specific substantive comments myself but if others have other things that they wanted to raise while we walk through this tonight now would be a good time to do it this one's v3 that I have open now yeah that's what I
or I may maybe I'll just change it to a date to keep track of it I thought there was an error on the chart of members that said that Kelly Lappin was going off the committee suggesting that at least the majority of us vote to change her term she can't out vote us but she can resign may have something to say about that put him in as the other member that's an idea that may not work out for you the way you would like it to work out I just want to make sure when you write these things sometimes we just go back to page five John it's page five in a clean version keep going your footnote at the bottom of that page yeah so there's two two disclosures that I put in here because I thought they were factually accurate and relevant but I also want to be careful given what this document is so on page five as noted by my footnote number two I made basically making the point that we didn't have any initial direction funding source limitations we did ask and we began our process as you recall and then eventually we did receive and we had questions and we didn't really get this Brad will call responses to Brad's questions so it's relevant in the sense that our approach in effect may or may not line up as a result of that with whatever finance director and the town manager decide to do and so I thought it was important to document that we had given some thought we had attempted to be collaborative but I also don't want it to come across as I'm trying to impugn the finance director so I didn't know if anybody read that
did provide his initial prioritization that's exactly the kind of feedback I'm looking for others anything else on that paragraph and or footnote none the other similar type of input I was looking for is
we attach the appendices unless somebody thinks we shouldn't both the email transmittal and the memo transmittal from the town manager to the department managers and here you know and I obviously bolded the fact that the expectation that at least the finance director had that we were collecting information on potential turnbacks was somehow tied to the new form was not really accurate and so again this section was not intended to again impugn anybody but is there anything here that people words in particular that people would yeah my so I had a question on whether or not the transmittal email needed to be attached as an appendix versus the form itself and I started to ask like is it necessary to go into quite so much detail here and I know why right we're trying to get to the fact that we didn't have the information but it comes down to right a miscommunication it's as simple as that so I don't know I went back and forth Brian on whether or not it's worth the real estate to
something we collected right we'll keep it pretty simple I'm kind of indifferent on it I mean if you guys agree that it should be simplified that's fine with me I mean it's factually it is factually correct I know that's what
but I would just say we're not my I forget how we wrote it but I don't foresee it being added to the CIP form right it should be a separate form separate process to because it comes it's coming from separate data and I mean in some sense again I take and ask for the input for the reasons you're giving it to me it is an important part of the process and there appears to be a disconnect at the moment between you know whose role that is yeah and so the extra emphasis on it was intended to make that point certainly I can shrink it down yeah I think shrinking it down I think what was bothering me in the words is the paragraph it says unfortunately the new CIP form doesn't contain right does not currently contain two issues with that right I would I would probably rather than unfortunately say you know however something along those lines although I don't like starting sentences however because alert to my knuckles and I don't think it's ever going to contain right
detailed detailed information about capital requests and you know the process of checking on the status of outstanding projects requires or you know needs a separate process right I think there's separate tasks and I don't think it's ever going in there yeah so the rest of that short paragraph also indicates we might add it and I think we should strike
we're willing to collect the information in future cycles I agree with that we're not going to revise the CIP submission form we'll you know work with the you know we really need to work with the finance director if we're going to do that because that's the whole problem we can't do it alone right because we need the outstanding we
people the only reason I included the email quite candidly is because it had the reference to the finance director providing a list of open capital projects to the department managers which we didn't get I'm not sure they got and so in theory that would have been the start of the collection process because he was informing them I'm not sure what it is he
shouldn't be using the munis report for that purpose it wouldn't surprise me that the munis report is what he sent them because it has individual department managers names first names listed
subsequently we went out and requested information based on the responses again which is an important factoid that we don't think there's much there but my instructor should so deep sixth middle paragraph and tweak the fourth paragraph is that okay with people I think that's fine just so I tracking going back to my earlier comment about mentioning it in the future process improvements are we specifically talking about bullet four then establish a process with the time manager about accurate timely information concerning status of open capital projects right I'm assuming that's it which right we were supposed to do with the assistant town manager like so that I would say this what I thought the way I was reading that what I would have expected to see is that and maybe this gets back to the word unfortunately it's not
they're going to take a pair up because of the point that even if this committee is charged with responsibility initially because again at this point the last meeting just given the time of year we're going out to make that request if we're all told we need to make that request is those numbers will change by the time you get to November December when it becomes more relevant which is why it's important as a process matter to figure out is something the CIPC should be doing if ultimately it is I think Kelly's point is we really wouldn't see that as part of the CIP form itself is that answer your question it does I would just delete that middle paragraph that suggested we were going to change the CIP form yeah because there's really again there's two purposes to knowing at least to
one is does the department have the resources to take on the new capital projects they're requesting if they've got a lot outstanding right they're backlogged the other is are any of these going to be capital turnbacks that can be used to fund projects I think on that second objective that the better way for us to deal with that because it will change between now and when the town manager comes up the recommendation and further when it goes to town meeting is hey if there are any turnbacks these are the projects next on the list right that should be considered right or our opinion should be considered but you know that number is going to
so my last nit question is I bolded the fact that the request memo highlighted that they were to use the new CIPC form which again we know there was nothing in that form that allowed them to respond so they didn't are you finding me leaving that and adding a sentence just to make the point that the form didn't include that and we don't anticipate it will in the future however CIPC has asked to collect this information we will work with the town manager and the finance director and then go on to say however we did go out and ask for and then collect it and it wasn't a material I think that's good I got it can tell me if I didn't when you see the so anyway those are two sections that I wanted to get your feedback which I don't know do other people have any sort of you know not so broad concerns questions as to where this is at or anything missing or anything misleading or is it on the page it says under table 10 when there's paragraph where you say it
is we say $700,000 was requested in FY28 the $700,000 is in addition to the 5.4 that's how it was requested correct point me where you're at page the paragraph under table 10 the version I'm looking at doesn't have pages on it is worth noting yes and where was the specific so I'm saying we say it's worth noting the VASFA 5.4 and various renovations of the town building to be phased in over several fiscal years $700,000 was requested for roof repairs in FY28 in addition to the 5.4 right
$700,000 in addition $700,000 was requested and that's just a fiscal that's fiscal 28 only yeah there was 700 then there was I just want to make clear that the 700 wasn't part of the 5.4 it was a separate request right and edit that can I just ask a question on right above discussion of FY28 2032 capital plan last sentence says a complete list of requests and priority ranking score by the CIPC is included is that ranking score by the department ranking score for fiscal 28 by department agency comment by department managers and that's another one I have made it in this version but we're inconsistent some places we have department manager other places we say department head I
and that's included in appendix F not E right right five more minutes on this agenda item take your peace Brad you know I think I would say so we did so going back to the open capital reports we did change the buckets and I just wanted to make sure people saw them because it's you know there's one big jump from 150k to a million I mean it makes sense in terms of how many projects kind of reside there there's only nine and again there's two of our projects that almost eat up 50% of the total open capital but just you know looking at it it is a really big bucket because it
150k to million k bucket probably would put 1 million as opposed to 1,000 k but we'll fix that on your next version do you want me to change it to 1 million versus the yeah okay anyway what's the biggest one in
500 and over 500 yeah just make it over 500 to get rid of the million all together yeah and you could use k so which is fine I know previously yeah previously we used the 250 that's why we I think why we used the 250 yeah well and the last time we talked about it was why don't we make the buckets align with the language so if there's you know because there are two projects that drive you know the majority of the open capital trying to call them out and identify that recognizing also the majority of the project quantified anyway you know it's like a drop in the bucket there's only
it's just now that we're looking at it it's one thing to say verbally but then seeing it on a page it was just like wow that's kind of a maybe it's the way we did it
32,000 yeah I also did if you were just to say what resides like what's 25k and less so I had language as opposed to the averages as well but we do to be consistent with how we wrote it
just added new ways to slice and dice it so we can always revert back to how it was previously I don't have heartburn of what table 6 looks like now I mean I think it
just change the 1000 K to 500 K in each place on that section the only thing I don't think is here but now I'm starting to get crazy eyed is we want to indicate how and does it make sense to indicate how it changed year over year meaning like just a broad statement of
that we can't because we added another year in but that's why I did that initial spreadsheet comparing it to the November 18th open capital report because I wanted that would basically express the progress made from the last time we did this analysis so you could certainly add a sentence that just says since last year's report X millions of dollars you know we balance is reduced by X
it is other than there might be a couple items that were included that are under $5 dollar if we're looking at the report from last year that as a standalone was reduced by X amount of dollars X amount of projects tacking on the 26 projects so adding back to it so walking through that math and saying this is what changed over the prior year this is what we added to
it doesn't need a table it's just adding some language and the only reason is this has been a sensitive I know when I
said the last time we had done the tables the unexpended appropriations for fiscal 2015 to 2024 capital projects totaled approximately 13.4 million versus 8 million noted in table five below reduction of approximately 40% and then it went
continuing to make productions so I think Liz if you just pull the sentence from last year's report I can certainly add a sentence to say this is what changed the prior year in terms of dollar spend or draw down on open projects and any close out of number of
so it ties back to the overarching numbers or are we just good keeping it reflective of the changes no I think that's all the only incentive was there was strictly to say we there were a bunch of years we had built up backlog and that steadily town managers and staff have worked that off and
showing progressive reduction if there is substantial reduction in fiscal 24 if there was substantial reduction in 25 it went from 8.2 million we want to show the total of 25 through 2015 right so fiscal 25 at November 18 20 25 the oh sorry never mind looking at the appropriate column that's the wrong way that's why it didn't move but went from 4.4 million to 3.1 million so you know I mean that's progress but not necessarily as substantial as where the real backlog had been which is in that early group of 8 or 10 years but just show 25 we want to show 25 through 2015 right the collective sum of those years so the collective sum at the end of whatever we've been in last year's report recognizing it's not going to be again because we're only looking at what a couple months worth of the numbers were from November so it's really only six months worth of activity that we're showing so it's not a full year but I think we still say you know from the last days yes yeah you may say continued progress yes yeah and then add in 25 2025 and compare it to the November 18th balances you're going to be the first one that sees what I write out right I'll take a whack here please I'm five minutes over I've got no more questions John anything nope you're saving years for the final push we'll get a two page document back run it through AI yeah listen you didn't qualify how I had to do it I'm not qualifying how you have to do it might be interesting to see what it would do to make this make all the internal references consistent it tells me I'm I need to be more concise usually so that just means you can't share that version
discussion discussion and I have a nit and sort of an overarching comment I think where it says elementary schools I think it should be elementary and middle because I think the overall plan discussed that's correct middle schools as well and then I do think it's where we say it will likely exceed 100 million I don't think that's a fair representation of what those plans look like what I'm going to send you I have that same question the right number if we want to put a number I think I have a copy of the school committee minute meetings at which this presentation was made I think Aaron Gibbons did a pretty good job pretty lengthy write-up and I think embedded in it are some of the big number estimates and you might be able to pull information directly out of those minutes and the range was massive so I wasn't obviously that's for all the project but it went up to 600 million even one school was close to 300 something million without the state you got to look at it and I could see phrasing it a few different ways one would be projects for these schools ranged from X to Y which is in those minutes and it's in a table that's pretty easy to read or you could say on average X dollars per building like a range because that's what I recall from the report was it was kind of a range depending on what the reality is I don't know how they plan to go about this the reality is I think they're unlikely to go to vote for all of it at the same time it would be right no they're going for one there's multiple potential projects depending on which option in terms of number of elementary schools out there but their application next fall is for I believe a single elementary school but it's part of this
first one once they decide which option they're going with the second one going third one so the MSBA knows that the town of Weyland is looking to basically replace and or renovate all of these things and as I said I think when you look at the minutes there literally will be language you could probably just lift out and we'll probably from the report I'm just trying to save you the minutes might already have it summarized in what their plan is I think it's important to call out both the total spend range and hey this is going to come off in several hundred million chunks at a time and the time frame is important 30 to plus years and I would break that too that would be a separate paragraph altogether I think I'm the one that was suggesting IT belongs in the long-term planning I guess I still think it does because it's not going away but to me it's not necessarily in the same league as a bunch of schools and I was kind of expecting this building to be under the long-term planning but it may be dealt with in
long-term planning though just because by the time they decide what they want to do it could still be outside the five years right and it's not in our plan it's not in
yeah I don't have a problem with it being in there I just kind of comes the dollars although they're expensive it's expensive relative to dollars in building or the town building yeah what was the range in the route 20 project the road build out I mean the route 20 you mean the road build out or the landfill reuse the road build out it was 10 million or so construction that the state would pay for I think you said and I don't think the town can't repay route 20 on its own so yeah so we're we're we have to do the upfront designing planning and designing and then get on the list and then if we get on the list the state pays for the other 10 million not big enough for this though I mean it could deserve a passing reference but it's not it shouldn't be a big financial drain on the town albeit it is a long-term project because it's unlikely to be dealt with in the next five years yeah and the other things that will come along and all the things that we should do before they dig up the road stuff right yeah I mean there are plenty of other projects that we just haven't we haven't received input on that you could certainly add a catch-all you know there are other town sites like the old highway department garage site that once it figures out how to deal with environmental challenges that is likely to be developed by the town or someone else into something else the route 20 south landfill site hard to say when that's going to get done yeah and but even yeah I hear what you're saying but even say with the old garage site whether that's going to be a capital expenditure by the town or by well I'm saying it's unknown there was a proposal that was pushed to town meeting two years ago but a multifaceted sports something or other that would be a quote public-private partnership meaning the town would lease the land for a dollar but someone else would but it may not be it could be the town controls the site so the question is if you look at the school plan based on what potential configurations at the middle school right that could just as easily be a part of the reconfiguration middle school so possibly I just I think my sense of this year just because we didn't really spend a lot of time on long time was simply to identify we've collected information from some department managers we are aware of a couple of two or three large projects that likely will span outside the five years and our intention is to begin to dig into more long-term planning not much more than that just make sure I got all my other comments in the conclusion are we still looking to thank all those people who do you not want to thank I was just anybody that didn't necessarily work with us yeah I don't mind thanking everybody but again being facetious trying to move on to the minutes we'll let John edit that if he wants can we put the general submission tab in with the CIP appendix as well because we actually asked them to fill out the long-term as well as an appendix yeah it can go in the same appendix with the project submission but we did ask you want me to do it I didn't print out all the appendices so I didn't I thought I put the entire form in oh I didn't put the general tab in yes I will yeah so appendix V yeah add the general tab as the first tab yeah I'll do this back to the people you're thanking could you where it says finance and operations director I could have made it to an actual edit but can you change that to school director of finance and operations so it's consistent with our list of ex officio members school director of finance and operations director of finance and operations okay I'll put my silly edits turned into a pumpkin and then it's over I've got a couple more things ready to go on any updates on succession planning other the fact that you guys are going to stay on but nope my current plan is I will keep the minutes for tonight I will keep the minutes for Tuesday and I guess I will keep the minutes for Wednesday next week but if the final report is actually delivered on the 15th I may actually submit my resignation once I know the final report has been submitted in which case
next meeting following that will have to carry on somebody will have to keep the minutes of that next meeting somebody will have to submit the approved minutes from the Wednesday meeting and my guess is I won't have time to get next Tuesday's minutes done in time for the 15th so you might have two sets of minutes that carry over and I copied I think all three of you on my typical email submission form to the town clerk's office which I dutifully send off when I get home or the next
once assume the final report gets printed into a PDF file and submitted as a PDF correct yes once that's done and you've circulated that to all of us I'd be happy to commit to get town staff to post that report there's a tab I have them set up on the web page that contains last year's information there's a tab waiting for this year's reports I'd be happy to take care of that administrative task that's my current plan if things don't go the way I'm hoping they go and the report actually gets filed and I need to hang around just to make sure you have a quorum I'll do that but I really don't want to stay on just for the purposes of being
identify a finance committee designee Carol Martin and I exchanged emails over the weekend and something else and I said by the way we're getting close to where Kelly and I probably are dropping off which she's well aware of and I've had the same conversations with her hopefully somehow suspects will surface and
haven't given her official end point so that's what I can tell you in my situation okay thanks so I will stay through getting the report out and then I am willing to stay for just a little bit longer to clean up what I have from Excel files and to the
it you can have my cell phone number to call me but I want to at least my cell phone number no there's enough government agencies that hand out my cell phone number so just to walk through what's there how to use it what to do if you don't want to use the harder stuff and just make sure that we have a decent hand off that would be appreciated before I go anywhere and you'll have as we talked about the beginning meeting tomorrow I'll probably send to you my final Excel workbook that just has the tabs that are Brian Keveney's tabs you'll at least have that so when you know you're done with your stuff you can send both us off to Brian and what I like to do is get rid of the draft versions of everything and give you all the final versions of things that you'll need going forward or you should use going forward I think that would be the best I won't sign off quite as quickly as Brian but I'm not too far behind a little bit so we'll we get to define that right a little bit I thought we agreed to define that in the report no thank you thank you thank you very much school would love for you
move to approve approve the minutes of September 30 right second second second I think we have to that's Liz yep Liz second yeah oh no I mean yeah yeah yeah yes Kelly yes John yes Brad yes unanimous okay thank you next meeting we have one on the 13th it starts at 7 not 630 because there was no room available at 630 okay and then the Wednesday meeting on the 14th is 630 and that's the one with the town manager Brian Kevney and again well depending on where the
reminders if you weren't otherwise intended I think you should post both of those tomorrow yeah the agendas yeah yep and obviously the one for the 14th will be different just because of the meetings with those two right you know they're ex-officio members you may as well call it
and I think that's it can I have a motion to adjourn before we adjourn for I know you're waiting on stuff from me it won't be until tomorrow night it's the earliest so tomorrow night or
now can I have a motion to adjourn so moved second second Liz yes Brian yes Kelly yes John yes Brad yes unanimous at 830 I did and what time do you have 839 bye