00:00:00,000	S1:
Got a quorum here, right? Yes. All right. Great. So, looking at the agenda. Uh, we have basically two, uh, things to discuss. Um, one of them is the Cutler School building project, and the second one is the 2020 or 2026 operating budget. Um, I am happy to talk about take any of those out of order. Uh, or in order. Um, if other folks in the committee have a preference.

00:00:34,570	S1:
Well, we can do the the school board one or the. Sorry, the, uh, the, uh, the new school projects. And that's first on the list. Um, so, uh, uh, basically the the news that I have since we met, uh, a couple of weeks ago, just before Christmas was, uh, you know, that we had agreed on, um, kind of a a particular process that had to do with, um, how we were going to render an opinion on the new school project. Um, and, you know, we were acknowledging that we were a finance committee, so we were going to be focusing on the, the, uh, financial aspects and implications of choosing to do the project or not. And, uh, the other, um, the other major decision that we had was that we were going to be doing an up or down vote on the project rather than trying to come up with a a third option. Um, you know, just within the finance committee. So, um, the actions that I had taken from that were to reach out to, uh, the Hamilton, uh, Finance Committee chair and see what he thought about the, uh, that process. And I did meet with him, um, uh, on Monday of this week and and we talked about it and I think he's he is in agreement. Um, generally, um, and, uh, you know, he's he, uh, kind of agreed to continue working with me. And then we had the, um, the all chairs, uh, meeting, uh, this afternoon. So that would have been the select, uh, board and finance chair. Uh, chairs and also the school board chair, as well as the, um, superintendent, just to get more information about, um, you know, the various school budgets and school projects. And there, um, you know, John further agreed to help work on the, uh, the the thing that's least well known. Right. So a lot of work has been done, especially by John and the Hamilton Pinkham, um, chair, to understand exactly what the project is and how much it will cost and what the cash flows will be of doing that. The thing that is not well known, and he's kind of agreed to help to to work on it, and I think it'd be probably in our best interest to, to, to, um, to have the same numbers between the two different finance committees. He's agreed to help us, uh, figure out exactly what the financial implications of choosing not to do. Um, the new school project would be to the town. Um, and, uh, you know, Eric Tracy, the superintendent, uh, said he would, uh, you know, provide information and, and guidance on, on the numbers he had. But I think, uh, it seems to me the action that we have is that, uh, John has been providing to Hamilton's, uh, citizens a seven year, um, forward looking capital expenditure, um, list. Um, And so he thinks he has a lot of the information already that would say, what would it cost to basically limp along for another 7 to 10 years with the existing buildings? What would we have to do? You know, new roofs, new this, that and the other, um, and would help, uh, kind of quantify, you know, what we would do if we, uh, what the town would most likely have to do if we did not do the new building. So, um, that's news as of, I don't know, 5:00, 6:00 today. Um, and, uh, I will open up for anybody else who's got question or news or projects they've been working on.

00:04:35,199	S2:
And I just wanted to point out that, uh, David is on now as well.

00:04:38,600	S1:
Okay. Sure. See? David?

00:04:40,699	S3:
Yeah. Sorry I'm late.

00:04:45,000	S4:
Um, it's it's Jared. I just, um. Vis a vis what you just said, which I completely agree I think is the correct decision tree. Um, in the in one of the, uh, links that was provided, um, I think it's link number three in the email that that went out this morning. Um, there's a Cutler and Winthrop options with cost estimates. And and there was a slide in there, um, which basically, you know, it is, you know, if I, if you click on it, there's a slide right in the front that says, uh, bass repair code upgrade. So I'm assuming, you know, that what we get back is going to basically dovetail off of that slide.

00:05:39,800	S1:
Um, I hope so, Jared. One of the things I worry about is and I think, you know, um, is that the school board might say, okay, fine, then then you're going to have to spend millions of dollars to renovate this building, right? These existing buildings and that that would be wasted money because we would have to trash the building in 7 or 10 years. Anyways, when we do do the the new school project. Um, so that's one of the things I want to clarify with John, who probably put a lot of that together, is because if you recall, um, they one of the options that we're not going to be considering, but there's financial information about it as they went through the decision tree was, do we go and do the project as it's conceived now, or do we renovate each one of the three elementary schools all the way up to code so they can last for another 30 years? Right. And, um, I it seems to me that if we if the the no, no new school right now option is picked, we probably don't or won't try to renovate those buildings all the way up to, Um, 30 year condition. You know, full renovation. Um, uh, before between now and then, because those, I think are not going to be eligible for any sort of Massachusetts funding. Right. We'd have to pay them entirely out of pocket. And there's something like 40 or $50 million for each one of those buildings.

00:07:07,829	S4:
So does this mean we're going to get a completely new deck, in other words, that this quote base repair code upgrade, which is in in the for Cutler, which is in what was provided is, is moot or uh.

00:07:23,199	S1:
I think I'm just not sure. And this is what I need. I think we need to clarify. Right. Because I don't want to put in there full renovation of Cutler. If we're also assuming that in 7 to 10 years we have to tear Cutler down and do a and do this project all over again, kind of consolidate it, you know, close Winthrop down in 7 to 10 years. And, you know, take Cutler you know and and double and triple Cutler size in ten years. So it'd be wasted money I think you wouldn't choose to do that right.

00:07:55,870	S4:
Yeah. Okay. I just was trying to make sure I understood what was being presented to date. That's all. I'm I agree, I completely agree with you, but it would appear and again, perhaps one could you could ask them this question since this information was provided that this bass repair code in orange C 1.0 is, is what you just said. In other words, limp along I but.

00:08:24,329	S5:
Can you can you share your screen, share.

00:08:26,129	S1:
That file.

00:08:26,730	S5:
Just so that we're all in the same place?

00:08:28,670	S4:
I don't think I'm that technically facile. It's the it's.

00:08:32,500	S5:
The number, of course.

Right. 00:08:34,200	S4:
And in the material that Jeff provided this morning or yesterday.

00:08:37,899	S3:
I think it's h w evaluations is the name of the PDF.

00:08:42,070	S4:
Yeah.

00:08:48,070	S4:
Um. Oh well, that's another one, but that's I, I was, I was going there, but that's the same Don. Yeah. Okay. That number foots to the, the slide that I'm looking at. That's correct. So I'm looking at C 1.0. And I just was trying to clarify if that's the limp along, you know the one in orange is the limp along scenario.

00:09:12,100	S1:
That's a good question. I think we need to clarify that because I would be it would be difficult to see how that could be a better situation where we have to spend that much money and then do something similar to that in Winthrop.

00:09:26,500	S4:
Which is exactly why I wanted people to focus on that, because I agree.

00:09:32,200	S1:
Is Winthrop is Winthrop the next page because it says W.

00:09:35,330	S4:
Well, that's the next thing I, I went through all the materials and I could not find a, quote, limp along, unquote scenario for Winthrop. Um. They didn't. They didn't if they didn't provide one. In other words, I think these materials were all presented under the under the, um, you know, to Hamilton, under the assumption that, you know, Winthrop was going to be scraped at some point anyway or have a massive renovation. So that was my next question, which was if if this is in fact the limp along scenario for Cutler, we have a major piece of the puzzle already in hand, but we do not have a similar slide. Or at least I could not find one for Winthrop.

00:10:19,700	S6:
Well, there's a slide. The question to find.

00:10:22,100	S4:
Where that is.

00:10:24,669	S6:
There's a slide, I think that combines those, uh, where it's defined as, uh, alternative CC10.

00:10:35,899	S6:
It's it it's back farther up in the presentation.

00:10:46,500	S4:
Well, I think you need to break out what? What Winthrop looks like by itself and Cutler by itself.

00:10:54,870	S1:
I'm with you on that, I want clarity. Right. And if see one zero is upgrading both or it's just upgrading one. Um, you know, and I'm not.

00:11:08,470	S4:
Sure it says one, and that's why I wanted to clarify. Mhm. And then on the other slide that I had which was from the other deck. Um they, they provide that same number. Um uh the 4004 826 for Cutler, you know, base repair code upgrade and then um.

00:11:34,000	S4:
And they do not provide one for Winthrop. In other words, it's an active discard. They have. They have the addition and renovation numbers and new construction numbers. But they did not provide a base code, base repair code upgrade deck for Winthrop alone.

00:11:55,070	S1:
And I have no idea whether or not a future also needs to to be considered here as some sort of project now. And frankly, I don't know. And maybe, maybe, maybe Bücker doesn't matter. Because in both scenarios you do this project or you don't do this project, Bücker continues to exist.

00:12:17,269	S4:
That was my assumption. Yeah, but I just, you know, it'd be easy to clarify who the from the for the people who prepared this what that Cutler number is. If it's the quote unquote limp along or not. And but then it begs the question why didn't they provide it in the same deck. Uh, for for Winthrop.

00:12:42,370	S1:
Jeff, you're on mute.

00:12:44,700	S6:
Jared, are you looking at. Have you looked at slide five, which is, I think where the summary is, is that the same data as you're looking at further down in the, uh.

00:12:56,269	S4:
Um, I'm, uh.

00:12:59,100	S7:
What what are we.

00:13:01,870	S2:
Um, what are you referencing, Bob?

00:13:05,700	S6:
Page five of the presentation you're looking at.

00:13:11,669	S1:
So these aren't numbered, so.

00:13:15,129	S3:
Yeah.

Yeah. 00:13:20,470	S6:
Well, you know, the pages are numbered in on you on the PDF screen.

00:13:25,269	S2:
Yeah. That's true. I can go here.

00:13:28,330	S6:
Because I think one of the things we need to do while you're looking for that is I think we need to define the cases that we're going to be looking at. What are we considering considering doing the project as proposed, doing the project as, uh, with a delay. Uh, not doing anything. Period. Or reverting to what I read was the the code upgrade was taking care of the, the, uh, the the schools, you know.

00:13:56,470	S2:
Yeah. One of the things I was going to say is, I think that the reason there's no there's no, you know, w 1.0, which would be orange. So you know, C 1.0 is for Cutler. Um, Winthrop seems to start in the TOS. Um, my understanding in a conversation I had, I can't remember with who it was last week was that, um, I don't think Hamilton would necessarily renew the lease that's needed for the Winthrop School in simply a a, um, renovation scenario. So that that's, I believe why that's missing here is that that's not an option that was on the table was, um, that, you know, they would they would entertain a new 20, 50 year lease for a completely new structure at the Winthrop site, but not necessarily for just a band aid, you know, renovation. Um, you know, sort of improvement to the existing site. So I don't think, you know, based on what I've seen and what I heard, that the sort of, you know, baseline, you know, the orange keep 1.0 for, um, Cutler is a, you know, is the the cost to bring Cutler 100% up to, you know, code to have it continue as the school of the house 285 kids. Um, you know, that's not just the bare minimum repairs that would, you know, get it fully up to code, I believe, um, within the same site. I don't believe that was an option for the Winthrop site, but we can we can get more clarification on that from, uh, you know, either Vinnie or Eric at the school, but that that was the what I took away from a conversation the other day.

00:15:30,200	S4:
Were they making an assumption or did they have input from the town?

00:15:34,429	S2:
I think that was you know, that was sort of the input from the town.

00:15:37,269	S4:
Okay.

00:15:38,500	S2:
Um, you know, because the I think the issue, you know, that we have here is that, you know, we're seeing all these, you know, colors and different things that have been proposed along the way to get to where we are now. Um, but what's in front of us now is, you know, it's this larger school on the Cutler site. That's what's been, you know, run through the MSBA process and approved and that we can move forward on. Um, so we, we, you know, we don't have the ability to say, geez, you know, what we'd like to do now is, you know, to do something different on each of the Cutler and Winthrop sites. You know, at this point, the MSBA has said, you know, you you put forward this project and we've agreed to to fund it. Um, and so now it's our chance to move forward with that project or, you know, take another crack at it, you know, down the road, which, you know, I don't know if that's sort of the same take you had from our meeting today.

00:16:33,570	S1:
Right? I think the the scenarios that I have heard that I think we all need to agree on is, is one of these assumptions we have to agree on is, is that at some point either now or in the reasonably near future? Um, the we need to have a major investment in the elementary school system and the tens of millions of dollars. Right. And, um, the scenario that they've got now is getting rid of Winthrop and, and basically completely, um, and putting it all in Cutler so we could have a scenario of, uh, that we're saying, hey, hey, citizens, if you don't vote for it, this is the most likely scenario. And, um, it might be that in 7 to 10 years. We have to do this. Do the project as conceived right now. Take the the new $142 million project and do it in 7 to 10 years instead, um, of, you know or it's going to be a similar cost, right. Or a similar similar in scope and cost that we have now, whether it's uh, and maybe, maybe you guys would argue or someone else would argue, no, we're not going to do that. We're going to renovate both schools, right, in 7 to 10 years. Right? Because it's 7 to 10 years before we can get access to the matching grant program again. Um, if we don't if we don't vote for it now, then we lose our spot in the grant program. And the earliest we could expect to to be able to to participate again is in seven years. But one of the things that they said in the meeting was some of our neighboring towns, like Ipswich, got this far in the process with their own school project and voted against it and voted it down. And so it. They lost their spot. It went in and it's been years. It's been more. I don't know, Jeff. You'd have to confirm this. But like the Massachusetts program won't let them back into the process to so they can even apply for a grant again. And it's been some some years. So, Jeff.

00:18:56,799	S2:
Yeah, I mean, I think you're always allowed to apply, but I think the issue is, is that they are not finding themselves at the top of the pile because they've, you know, proven to be, um, you know, someone that, you know, they this, that the state worked with, they got them to the finish line and then they didn't, you know, the Ipswich didn't carry it across by getting the vote. And so that, you know, essentially becomes like a black mark for you um, in the process. So you still submit your, your, your grant application to the MSBA, but you're not maybe looked upon as favorably as other people. And I think the example that they gave was that, um, in Manchester and Essex, um, while Ipswich looked to do a single large school like we're looking to do here in Hamilton, and one of them, um, Manchester and Essex, went to keep the two neighbourhood schools. So they put forth the school in Manchester first, and that elementary school project is underway and is finished in the in. The kids are now in there. And then the Essex Essex Elementary School was put into the system, uh, as a grant application, uh, less than seven years from when Manchester Memorial was approved and Essex Elementary was approved, um, in less than the seven year timeframe because Manchester, Essex was viewed essentially as a good partner that they had, you know, gotten the the grant approval for the Manchester Memorial School and they had gotten the votes and gotten it passed, and that helped Essex, the Essex Elementary project, to move forward. And what they were saying was the Ipswich program. While I don't think it's been the full seven years yet, they are experiencing the resistance to their to their applications. Um, so, you know, the implications there are that either a at some point they'll have to build it on their own with no state funding, uh, or even if they get the funding down the road, two, three, four, five years down the road, you know, with these, the inflation that exists for these school projects, um, you know, if they have to wait seven years to get another crack at it with state funding, um, you know, the cost of the project is going to be materially larger, uh, you know, than that it would be right now. Uh, and while that will be, you know, somewhat mitigated by the state aid, um, it's still going to prove costly or to the town of Ipswich in the long run. So, um, I hadn't heard that explained in that way, and I hadn't been given that sort of local example before. And so, you know, I think that definitely resonated with me today, that that was the first time I had a good example of, you know, I think we're all mindful of hearing this like, well, we have to do it now or this will happen or that will happen or we won't get this or that. Um, this was, you know, a somewhat tangible example of, you know, here your neighbor can can tell you there are ramifications to not following through with, um, you know, passing the vote for this MSBA approved project.

00:21:55,599	S4:
I don't dispute for a minute the the potentially negative implications of, of of not obtaining the funding from the MSBA now. But correct me if I'm wrong, but we've been tasked with showing what the alternative is quantitatively and so I don't. And it may be a Q.E.D., as they used to say in geometry. Meaning that if it's 44 million, you know, just to keep the Cutler going and then and then now I'm hearing well and and there's and we can't do the Winthrop because the town won't renew the lease. So now. Okay. Is that a fact that we're going to be presenting to the public? I don't quite see. I think we're going to I now no longer understand where we're going.

00:22:46,099	S1:
So let me, uh, I've just been typing some things up on my screens here, so let me see if I can share. Oh, sharing is not turned on. I think I need to send a request to you.

00:22:59,099	S1:
Jeff.

00:23:01,000	S3:
Yeah. Because, I mean, I think, like, bigger picture. We need to, like, really narrow and I think, like Sidney. Nice job of this. Like, we need to narrow the question that we're answering here because it's not necessarily like was the process or whatever. Correct. But it's like seven years in the future looking down the benefits from a finance committee perspective of just doing it now versus waiting. Maybe the funding comes, maybe a dozen, but like, what are the costs? We know it's minimum $40 million, $44 million. And then but we need the counterfactual of also Winthrop. What what that figure would look like, assuming. Yeah, I'd assume it's another 20 million at least. But it just needs to be a very narrow topic, or else we're just going to be debating whether or not the super school, like, just get bogged down in that kind of.

00:23:46,470	S4:
I mean, if for some reason the towns voted down, Hamilton is going to have to renew the lease or. Yeah, I so I don't that part. I don't get.

00:23:54,670	S3:
It. It feels like a very unfair kind of negotiating perspective that Hamilton's putting us in by not giving us that data because like they need to put their kids somewhere.

00:24:04,269	S4:
Particularly since most of the future economic benefits are accruing to Hamilton. Uh, so and so meaning that all of these decks have lots of goodies that come in because of the fact that the developable land is returned to the town for for the town's future benefit, which is wonderful, but it doesn't help us in Wenham. And so we have to be still put down the alternative cost analysis.

00:24:36,869	S1:
So I've just written down here what I what are the assumptions that I think we'd all have to agree on? Right. Uh, right. That is that a similar size project would have to happen in 7 to 10 years. It's it's questionable, but I think we'd probably want to assume that we would be allowed back into the grant program, but I think we'd have to call out that we would be kind of branded as a bad faith partner. Right? Uh, so we might lose out on on this. I don't quite know. One. I'll call it one third funding by the state. Um, I think we'd have to assume we'd have to make an assumption about the cost per square footage of this building that we would have to build in the future, probably being higher than it is now. Um, maybe.

00:25:25,329	S6:
But I think it's not just the cost being higher. Uh, it appears from the material they've provided that the cost of construction is going up faster than inflation, because if it only goes up with inflation, it doesn't make any real difference. So I think that's something that we may need to get more information on is, you know, is this trend going to continue with construction cost outpacing inflation?

00:25:50,670	S1:
Right. I think that we'll have to stack hands. I think if I recall the the presentation they made to us, um, at the five board's meeting, there was kind of a, a relatively less aggressive slope. And then all of a sudden in the past five years, it skyrocketed. So we'd have to kind of agree on is the skyrocketing going to continue? Is it going to be in the middle, or is it going to go back to the old way? Right. We'd have to come up with something that we could agree on, on the cost per square footage. And then again, it would be a bond in the future. Right. So we'd have to kind of guess at what the interest rates would be. Right. Um, and this is the thing that I think we are going to have to spend a lot more time on. And you were saying, Jared. Right. This is the thing we don't have yet that we don't understand yet. And the data that we've gotten so far in these decks doesn't specifically explain it kind of gives us bits and pieces here. And there is what is the CapEx that would have to be invested in the existing Cutler and Winthrop buildings to get us to that 7 to 10 year?

00:26:52,630	S4:
Well, I think we have it, but it's just a question of confirmation. It's this C-1 zero in orange.

00:27:01,269	S1:
So that could be.

00:27:03,430	S4:
That's that's just Cutler. That's that's what I've been trying to say. They they they did not provide a C-1 AC10 for Winthrop. Again, because I think Jeff said, well, they were just assuming that the town would never renew the lease, but I, I don't, you know, if the project doesn't get approved for whatever reason, they have to renew the lease or for some period of time.

00:27:26,900	S6:
You know, I don't think it's clear that that is just doing the minimum to get by for seven years, I think.

00:27:33,670	S4:
Well, it says bass repair code upgrade. That sounds pretty minimum to me. I I'm just reading it at its face.

00:27:40,230	S6:
Well, all I'm saying is I think we need to verify that that.

00:27:43,269	S4:
I agree, but but it's that plus where's that number for Winthrop.

Mhm. 00:27:49,869	S2:
Because I have a question to ask Eric.

00:27:53,599	S3:
Yeah. Because I'm looking at a different slide. And I see for some reason the numbers never like I never see the same 44 number in different places. But it's 48. Just Cutler. If it's just like the C1 zero for Cutler on different slides the numbers are slightly different, but I agree that looks like a couple of number.

00:28:20,400	S6:
You know, there's a thing that isn't on the list here, which maybe the implication is they're saying there are no savings. But you know, one of the things I've been looking at at their budget and, uh, you know, they've been cutting back on the maintenance. Uh, you'd expect that if you're going to get new buildings, you're going to be saving on the the maintenance costs, you're going to have savings on utilities. It may not be a mind boggling number, but if you get, you know, a reduction of $1 million, uh, that's significant against, uh, what might be, uh, $7 million annual debt service.

00:28:55,470	S1:
Actually, I asked that question.

00:28:56,900	S4:
We did have that in some of the other decks.

00:28:59,430	S1:
Did they? Okay. Because they I asked them specifically in the meeting today if they would commit to something so that we could use that to offset the increase in, in CapEx, you know, or debt service. Right. Because if it's a a $2.5 million per year increase in our in our, um, budget, but it's offset by a half million dollars of operations efficiency, I'd like to include that. And they they were not ready to put a number on that when, you know, they specifically said, can we do this without that? Um, you know, when I met, when I, when I asked them specifically for that. So if they've got that calculated somewhere else, Jared I'll, I will dangle.

00:29:38,130	S4:
That.

00:29:38,630	S1:
Just in front of them.

00:29:40,130	S4:
Um, one of these decks was incredibly, uh, I mean, it was very impressive. And I'm trying to find it now, which, um.

00:29:51,730	S8:
Uh.

00:29:58,470	S8:
Uh. Let's see.

00:30:06,769	S6:
Well you're looking. One of the things I noticed.

00:30:09,369	S4:
Timeline deck from April of 24.

00:30:17,930	S8:
Um.

00:30:20,630	S9:
I'll try and pull that up.

00:30:29,529	S4:
Again. In this deck, the savings accrue. Almost there. Really? This. Obviously, this was a Hamilton, uh, presentation, but it was. It has the the risks of the of the cost increases. It's got um, or construction costs, uh, but it's got A11 school versus two school. It shows that they've got a slide that says that the cost of delay is $27 million. If we don't do this today. Um, you know, they've got, um.

00:31:09,670	S4:
In other words, they made a good case from a cost saving standpoint in this document.

Um. 00:31:19,730	S4:
I mean, one of the reasons I, I'm trying to push them to get the standalone numbers for Winthrop is because it actually might, uh, it actually might show that that that, you know, the the costs are rather substantial combined with the risks of waiting.

So. 00:31:42,470	S1:
Okay. I think that's pretty valuable thing for us to, to get, uh, and, and perhaps talk with, uh, John McGrath over there at the Hamilton Fincham to see if he.

00:31:55,369	S4:
If that it's the dec. Um, what's it called? School building analysis John McGrath PDF.

00:32:04,069	S2:
Okay.

00:32:05,130	S4:
Extremely impressive document.

00:32:07,400	S1:
I don't know. Maybe you could throw that off on the screen. There we go.

00:32:11,900	S8:
Um.

00:32:12,970	S4:
It's and it's in very, you know, large type. You can read it easily.

00:32:21,099	S8:
You know.

00:32:24,799	S1:
So let's.

00:32:25,700	S4:
See. It shows, I mean, and it's in April of 24. It shows exactly what the, uh, school committee chose and what their second choice was. Um, you know, and and then it's got the, it's got the a lot of very good cost, uh, information. There it is. You got it up there now? Yeah. I mean, I, I mean, this this document in and of itself makes an excellent case. The only thing that's missing from the standpoint of what we need to do in Wenham, because this was built for Hamilton, is again some standalone information on Winthrop. Uh. Uh, over that seven year period, if we were, you know, if we were kicked out of the, uh.

Q. 00:33:10,769	S1:
So, uh, which page, um, was it that you said had the $27 million of.

00:33:17,730	S8:
Uh, I mean, I'm gonna I'm it's, um.

00:33:22,099	S4:
I again it's well, it's it's I, it's not paginated on my computer, but it's night. Page 19 in the deck.

00:33:29,900	S2:
Okay.

00:33:37,799	S4:
Yeah. Right there.

00:33:42,470	S1:
Cost of delay.

00:33:48,099	S3:
Okay.

00:33:50,670	S4:
Yeah. And they and they've got an inflation, you know, do it now versus do it later. You can see they've put an inflation inflator in there.

00:34:01,730	S4:
So somebody's done some very good homework here. I, I don't know who it was, but.

00:34:08,730	S1:
It's probably John McGrath.

00:34:12,070	S4:
And this if I'm not. This is the document that basically this where in April of 24 where the school committee voted thumbs up for the project.

00:34:26,199	S2:
Yeah.

00:34:29,869	S3:
But if I'm.

00:34:30,329	S6:
Looking.

00:34:30,570	S3:
At these numbers, one thing that's kind of standing out to me is they claim it's a 20 million. Well, 22 million lost revenue to Hamilton over 30 years if you don't do this. But it looks like the assumption is 20 million of that is just selling the land. Um, for Winthrop, which does us nothing.

00:34:49,769	S1:
I'd agree with you on that. Like, that's that is outside Wyndham's scope, if they're going to share with us in that windfall.

So. 00:35:00,130	S3:
I agree like the broad framework is very helpful. Um, very helpful.

00:35:07,699	S1:
So I'm just putting in my list of assumptions that we have to agree on. Is that revenue, um, from, you know, monetizing, um, Winthrop, um, is is not applicable is not.

00:35:22,900	S4:
To the extent that it doesn't accrue to Wenham.

00:35:25,070	S8:
Yeah.

00:35:27,429	S1:
Um.

00:35:37,030	S4:
You know, and they've got some comps in here from other schools, which I thought was interesting. Or other projects.

00:35:49,269	S1:
Okay. So I think what I'm hearing as an action here is that, um, really need to get, um, aligned on what this, uh, 7 to 10 years of, of CapEx might look like. Um, if we don't do the project and that, you know, they've they've got a bunch of work here done by people that have been working on this for more years than we've been on the board. Um, over there, um, in Hamilton, that are probably a good resource. So, um, that's going to be John McGrath. And, you know, I think Jeff and I will, uh, coordinate to try to collect that and be ready to present back to you guys. And maybe it'd be a good idea to have, um, John available for, you know, comment at a, at a meeting that we have, um, to come up with that. Now, I'm sure there's more discussion that we want to have on these topics. But one other thing that I want to kind of get it, get into everyone's brains. Here is the, um, the timelines that we have. Right. So, Jeff, keep me honest on this. Basically, we have till the end of this of, uh, end of February to officially provide our opinion to the select board on, um, to, you know, on the proposal to, to do the the new construction project. Right, or, you know, to say yes or no on that.

00:37:19,900	S2:
Correct.

00:37:21,030	S1:
There are going to be meetings happening the next two Wednesdays. Um, where I'm I'm feeling pressure to have straw polls at least ready to go. Um, there is a meeting, I think, on the 15th, which is the quintuple board meeting. Um, and that the members of the public are going to be there. And I think, Jeff, you also said there's another meeting on the 22nd coming up.

00:37:53,199	S2:
Yeah, that that's a forum I think, on the project is an open public forum on the Cutler Project that's, you know, a Q&A for the public. And, um, I don't know that we're necessarily required to be there. I'll probably attend. Um, in a perfect world, you know, if if we had a finance committee vote opinion on the project for that meeting, it would be great. But I think, you know, this is a big decision, and it probably will take a little longer than that to, you know, to have a fully vetted opinion from the committee on that. Um, but it might even if we don't, um, feel like we need to be there as a meeting in the same way we need to be at the quintuple board meeting. Um, it may be one extra chance for folks to hear some of the information presented and potentially have some the ability to ask some questions in the public forum to get some of the answers we're looking for, if we haven't received them up to that point.

00:38:51,469	S1:
Right. I think it might be a reasonable position for us to take. To say, look, this just to kind of read it, reiterate to the public. This is our process. This is the fin commerce process. We are not ready to render an opinion now. You will have it by the end of February. And we included in the warrant. But this is our process. We are we are doing what we just described here. Right. We're going to do up or down. And if it's down, we are coming up with a scenario with what down would cost the, uh, the taxpayers of of Wenham.

00:39:31,070	S4:
Works for me.

00:39:37,300	S1:
All right. Um, so.

00:39:39,300	S6:
Uh, it might be worth noting when you go back to the school people that when they file their application, they read through the application, they're talking about all these benefits they're going to get, which implies savings. And it's kind of difficult if you make those arguments to then go and say, well, gee, you know, we can't come up with any savings and in operating costs because the buildings are better insulated, better heating plants, uh, projects don't have to be done to repair the roof because we're starting with new construction or we've got, uh, we don't have teachers who need to go back and forth between buildings, and that doesn't, you know, so we're not. So they're saving time, but that's not reflected. You know, you got administrative reductions in terms of, uh, one school versus two schools. I mean, it's a little hypocritical of them to say, you know, everything's the same, but we need a new building, and we we claim to have savings, but we're not putting any numbers behind it.

00:40:41,800	S1:
All right. I'm just typing that down.

00:40:44,429	S3:
Okay.

00:40:58,670	S1:
Um, Jeff, could you remind us, like, um, what would be the timing of the first bond payment? Um, would that be hitting us in 2026? Is, um, budget, or would it be another year or two before it really starts?

00:41:17,670	S2:
It would unlikely be in 20 fi 26. Um, I'm assuming what they would do out of the gate is to, to take short term financing what we call, you know, bond anticipation notes to, to get the project moving. Uh, and presuming that they're not going to start prior to June 30th. Um, of of this year. Um, when they take those bonds, they would be due payable after June 30th of 26, which would push it into FY 27. And typically what happens with these is that, you know, they they take out chunks of, of funds at a time. So it's not like they borrow, you know, $100 million or $90 million. Day one, you know, they would take out a ban for probably 20 or $30 million to start. Uh, and then, you know, take incremental loan, uh, loans out against that. And then at some point, um, later, they would actually, um, you know, move away from short term debt and actually, you know, roll that into a long term note that would be payable over, you know, 20 something between 20 and 30 years, more than likely. Um, you know, and there's a lot that goes into that, um, in terms of, you know, what, you know, you're they work with a fiscal advisor, uh, just like we do in every community does in the state, who helps us sort of navigate, you know, when is it, you know, where do we think rates are heading and things like that. And when you know when to lock in long term, you know, rates, you know, versus when to continue to take short term debt in the hopes that you know, that the interest rates may, may get more favorable. But yeah, I would say it would be very unlikely that we would have a material payment due during FY 26.

00:43:00,670	S1:
Okay. Well, I'll, I'll, I will work with Jeff and, uh, John McGrath to come up with something more robust for everyone to sink their teeth in to.

Um. 00:43:11,000	S3:
So another question just on the financing side, I assume this would be, um, non-taxable bonds that would be issuing or would they be taxable? Like what? I'm not even sure what the interest rate curve would look like for kind of the.

00:43:23,570	S2:
Yeah, they will be municipal bonds. They won't be, uh, you know, they'll be straight tax exempt bonds. They won't even be, um, you know, like private activity bonds that are subject to AMT or anything like that. They'll be straight, um, straight tax exempt bonds. So that's that, that's the, you know, the, the data you'll be looking at.

00:43:39,900	S3:
Okay. Um, and we're a triple A is. You're right.

00:43:44,130	S2:
I believe we are across the board. All three all three participants are okay.

00:43:50,800	S1:
So to that end, I'm going to be working with Jeff to find some time on the calendar for next week to hopefully come back to you with a first draft of those, um, of these, uh, you know, no new school costs and what this model might look like.

00:44:12,130	S6:
Also, you want to get the, uh, what costs are going to be saved with the new school because you'd expect a couple of things to happen. One is, as you're anticipating the new building coming online, you're going to be spending less on maintenance because you figured they're going to be gone. And then you have savings kick in that are going to be fairly significant in the early years because you got a new building, and then you're going to have those maintenance costs starting to go up as you go farther out in time.

00:44:40,170	S1:
So we're basically saying, um, I think the building, if I recall the, the schedule, is that they wouldn't break ground and or they wouldn't be done with the, with the building until the school year that begins in 2028.

00:44:54,670	S6:
28, 29. Yeah.

That's. 00:44:56,969	S1:
Yeah. And so it'd be like, um, there would be, I think, two years of construction. Um, and we're basically saying that whatever CapEx they were going to invest in, Cutler and Winthrop would be saved. Right. There'd be further savings because they wouldn't, you know, replace windows or whatever in those buildings.

00:45:18,969	S6:
Yeah, that's the beginning part. As you ramp up towards the, uh, the day you open the school, new school, and then you've got the big difference. I mean, if they're talking about new heating plants and things being insulated, you know, you've got to expect some kind of, uh, savings to pop in on the operating basis as well as the maintenance.

00:45:41,300	S2:
Yeah, and I think we can create a list of sort of just at a high level. I mean, I know we touched on at that meeting today, Finn, but maybe we can just, you know, come back at the school with a list of, you know, five, 6 or 7 things where you just, you know, off the top of our head. These were some things we were thinking it might be some, some amount of savings because, I mean, I think it could come down to for some people that, that, you know, that's the final thing that moves the needle for them is that if you know, to your point earlier today, you know, the let's say our bond payment is 2.5 million a year. But, you know, we think, you know, really net of savings, it's 2.1 or something. You know, that might be, you know, compelling enough for, you know, someone to make their decision one way or the other.

00:46:23,400	S1:
Right. I did get pushback, but when I asked for it, um, but I think we'll we will we'll ask for it again.

00:46:31,530	S3:
Yeah. I mean, in my mind, that's non-negotiable. Like this thing will be voted down if we don't have that. So I think it's likely it gets voted down if we don't have that information.

00:46:44,269	S4:
There's one other wrinkle I. II just occurred to me. Um, I don't know if you guys saw the globe today, but the the Supreme Court did issue their decision on the three a um, and they basically said, um, that, uh, the attorney general in Massachusetts has has authority to basically impose, you know, whatever sanctions, penalties, penalties, fines, etc., that are required for anybody that doesn't, uh, obey the law. And uh, which means that the, the, the arguments that were thrown out, you know, earlier about the whole three, I think saying, well, we only lose $500,000, you know, in grants is, is, is it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision and that is a no. Oh. So, um, the school, the new school is in play as a sanction. You know, if if the if both both towns don't come up with a plan. And the plan that Hamilton has basically assumes, I think that they use the Winthrop site. So one of the things we may be in a negative feedback loop here, meaning that, um, uh, that Hamilton will say, well, there is no, you know, uh, fix it up for seven year plan for Winthrop because we're using that for three a, uh, so I would, uh, if you guys are having talks with the guys in Hamilton, you might ask them if, you know, point blank is the reason why you didn't provide the, you know, the the fix it up for seven years and cross your fingers. Plan for Winthrop is because you you you have this site earmarked for three a compliance.

00:48:29,500	S4:
So in other words, the options may become even more limited given that we may there may not be a fix up Winthrop and Hope plan because of the recent the three a ruling which came down the Supreme Court. According to what I said, heard has said that, um, uh, there are some additional guidelines that the state has to issue to enforce the three way legislation. And Healey was quoted as saying, fine, we'll have those out in a week. So the train is leaving the station, uh, you know, for a crude metaphor, um, on three a and that may be one of the things that that may make, unfortunately, may make this up or down decision a little easier in that Hamilton may just say point blank, we're using that land. We're not renewing the lease because we're using that land for three a compliance since the Supreme Court has spoken.

00:49:23,030	S1:
So my wife is on the, uh, the, um, Affordable Housing Committee, and she's told me that Hamilton is in a worse condition than than, uh, Wenham is in in being able to comply with the various different affordable housing or three way laws. Um, one of the things I'd worry about, um, I don't know how to quantify it in, in, in our discussion here or in this analysis, is that, um, what happens if Wenham complies with Hamilton doesn't. And does that put the grant at risk? Um.

00:50:00,230	S4:
Yes, as of today. That's why I was that was my law. The reason for my long speech as of today.

Yes. 00:50:10,469	S4:
Uh, I would go I would encourage you guys to go grab the globe and see it. It it's basically it was a unanimous decision from the court saying the attorney general may impose whatever sanctions, fines, remedies that, that, you know, she dreams up in order to enforce compliance with the law.

00:50:33,000	S10:
Mhm.

Mhm. 00:50:37,269	S1:
So I wonder if there. I, I hope, I hope somebody would be able to give us guidance on that. Like I, we're going to look if we propose something here that's that one of our assumptions is that, you know the grant can't get pulled out from underneath us, um, with this new construction scenario. Right. Because if we, uh, if we vote this up. Right, or as a town and we agree to $142 million project and then, um, the rug gets pulled out from under us. Um, I think we're still on the hook for the full $142 million.

00:51:18,269	S4:
That's why I threw out this new fact that came out today. I don't I obviously don't have an answer to your question.

00:51:26,300	S2:
And that that ruling is, you know, sort of hot off the press. And I'm sure, you know, um, when I'm in, every other community will be reaching out to council, um, Cape Laws Council for most communities in the state, it seems. But they will be weighing in on, you know, these things and you know, is is MSBA in play? Uh, you know, will there be folks who are grandfathered and is it only, you know, MSBA project, um, evaluation moving forward, all those things. So we will be you know, I'm sure, uh, Steve and his group will be working with the town council to, you know, to get those answers sooner rather than later, as will Joe and his team in Hamilton.

00:52:02,230	S4:
But but that's why I don't be surprised if you don't. If the answer is there is not a fix it up for seven years and cross your fingers. Plan for Winthrop because we need the land for three AA compliance that you could. That's probably what you're going to hear from Hamilton.

00:52:20,369	S1:
Yeah, I don't I you know, if we come to the conclusion that we recommend this, um, I think we're going to we may. I don't want. I don't want to have to stand in front of the town and wade into the three day conversation. Um, but it might it might have to be an assumption that we state that says that, you know, the, the that by, you know, our assumption here is, is that, no, you know, that we're going to comply and we won't be doing anything to to make us, you know, suddenly ineligible. Um, it's almost like a rug pull, like we would just, you know, vote for this, commit to 142 million, go for it. And then Hamilton does something to make them ineligible or the the state decides to pull their funding because of something Hamilton does. Um, I'd hate to be in that position.

00:53:10,429	S3:
I mean, we'll need some certainty from some kind of outside counsel, essentially saying this money is not, you know, no matter what happens with three. Um, because I don't think we like it as a group or I'm not sure. I'm personally very comfortable kind of weighing in on three A in either direction. It's more of our assumption is three does not matter to the scope of this project if we vote it up, if that makes sense. Like the funding is, you know, safe. So if it's not, that's very problematic. But we need some kind of like legal maybe.

00:53:40,329	S4:
I'm not making myself clear. I fully agree with what everybody's saying about that. On three, we have to make it an assumption that the the rug won't get pulled out from under. I'm just saying the decision tree may be even easier than we think, because I'm guessing as of today, there is no fix it up for seven years and hope plan for the Winthrop School.

00:54:03,599	S1:
No, I hear you, I hear you. Jared. The thing is, is that, um, we've got a whole lot of very, very, um, political decisions happening right in the in this in this next town meeting. Right. There's the operating budget. Right. Which and trying to which we haven't even talked about. We've come up to an hour here. Right. Which is always a a political thing. There's the school. Right. Um, new school, which is going to be a lot of people in a lot of emotions. Right. And then three a you know, like, we don't I don't see signs on the side of the road voting up or saying to vote down the new school. I but I do see it for voting down, you know, 3AI don't think you can vote down three a but just saying that there's a lot of, uh, resistance to it. So I was hoping that we would not have to conflate this new school with the with three a and, and suddenly kind of hook on to some negative or positive emotions. Um, with this.

00:55:06,599	S4:
I hear you and I've, I've talked too much, so I understand.

00:55:11,730	S1:
But I put it on my list, so it's on my list. Jeff, for us to figure out what we can do to get some legal opinion on it.

00:55:21,929	S2:
Yeah. You know, and the reality is, even though, I mean, you mentioned I mean, Wenham has done quite a bit of work on three a on our side. We postponed a vote on, on the three a zoning bylaw that had been, you know, essentially created here ahead of time. I mean, it does still have to go to a town vote. And even though we would be, you know, maybe ahead of Hamilton in some respects, um, you know, you still need to vote, uh, you know, affirmatively, you know, for the zoning bylaw change, uh, in if you know, and if you don't, you're really in no different position than Hamilton is, um, you know, depending on your vote. So, um, yeah, I mean, I think, like I say, we'll be talking to Cape Law because, you know, I don't know if now we'll need to call a special town meeting ahead of our April town meeting. Um, so it could be that this is, um, you know, the three a issue was addressed, uh, you know, at least in Wenham prior to the town meeting, I don't know, I think, uh, you know this. This complicates what was already a complicated, you know, sort of evaluation even more, um, you know, with the three a issue being decided, but but at the same time, it's, you know, now there's a decision. So we're not speculating, you know, how that may turn out. We've now heard that. So that is at least, you know, one, um, you know, black and white piece of information we have now. But, um, yeah, we'll obviously continue to monitor it here in Town Hall. And I'll do my best to keep you guys apprised of, of you know, how that's moving forward.

00:56:46,170	S1:
All right. Um, and I appreciate everybody's thoughts on this, but, um, any any further discussion before we move on to the second item on the agenda, which is the town operating budget.

00:56:58,800	S1:
Not hearing any. Um, Geoff, I spent a lot of time talking, introducing this stuff, so maybe it's your turn. What do you what's, uh, what's your your take on, um, the latest numbers from the school board and and where does that likely leave us?

00:57:15,070	S2:
Yeah. So, uh, give me a moment and I will. Um, and let me just share, and then I will. I will share the, um. Share. Here we go. I think this is it. All right, so, uh, I had sent around, uh, last night. This morning? I can't remember what I sent around the latest, uh, version of the budget. Um, you know, the. This is just a continuation of the budget you saw at the kickoff meeting back on, uh, I think the 14th of December. Um, what you saw in that meeting was a much higher level sort of wages and expenses for each department. Um, this, uh, Excel file I sent you folks, or actually, I sent you the PDF version, um, of it, but I could send around the spreadsheet as well. Um, it just gives you more detail on what rolls into, um, you know, the general expenses and the wages of each of each department. On the town side, nothing has changed much since December 14th. The big difference is that the school has reduced our budget. Um, here in Wenham. Um, you know about, you know, $400,000. Um, since the December 14th meeting. And so, you know, maybe it's closer to 300,000. Um, but we were about, um, you know, I think 400 or so over the levy limit back in, in, in December. Uh, now that number has dropped to about 128,000 129,000. Looking at the screen here. Uh, so we are closing in on, um, you know, not being in a position for an override, which was, you know, you know, at the outset, you know, clearly a goal of both the select board and the and the finance committee, um, in the discussions we have with the school today. We think it's likely that that school number will continue to come down and get us even closer to being, you know, under the levy limit. And we are starting to get to and I might not have said this with some of the newer members present, but, you know, usually once once we can get down to, you know, being, you know, whatever, 50, $70,000 over the levee limit, you know, we can usually find ways to, you know, work on some estimates, change a few expenses here or there and get under the the levee limit with, you know, some some ease. You know, when you're two, three, $400,000 over, it's obviously much harder. So, you know, from where I sit today, I don't have a any large concerns that we're not going to get under the levee limit for this budget. Um, so, you know that I think that's a positive for all of us. Um, but I want, you know, we've got the more of the detail into folks hands. And I would say, you know, as you go through it, anybody that wants to reach out to me directly, you know, with questions or wants to talk about, you know, certain departments or multiple departments or whatever it might be. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Our general ledger accounting system is not, um, perfect in terms of how it's sort of. Our chart of accounts is laid out. You know, as you know, probably as recently as, you know, four, maybe 4 or 5 years ago when I kept a general ledger budget that was really just wages and expenses. And so it's it's been a process of building that out. And the issue with that is, on one hand, it's nice to have a general ledger with less, less general ledger accounts in it because it's easier to maintain. The flip side of that is that when you're trying to run reporting and trying to analyze things, it's tougher to do when you know your wages are all just lumped into one way, you know, 1 or 2 wage items instead of, you know, 7 or 8, where you can really look at trends and look at data to, to evaluate, you know, where you think things are going. Or were you thinking you can make some cuts? Um, so that's sort of a work in progress. You know, quite honestly, like we use a, um, a very old, uh, accounting system here in the town called soft. Right? Uh, which is, you know, relatively inexpensive at this point because it's no longer being improved. It's just, you know, they kind of just keep it running, but you're not seeing improvements. And so one of the issues I think, you know, even prior to me getting here was that, you know, I don't know if a lot of folks wanted to spend a lot of time and effort in rejigging the general ledger chart of accounts in the old system, and maybe wanted to just wait, because normally when you purchase new software, that's a big part of the conversion cost is they help you, you know, rejigger your chart of accounts and things like that. So that's something in my office we're going to have to sort of make a decision on of, you know, do we want to just build this out one way or another and get a better, more robust chart of accounts? Um, but, you know, that being said, we can get to detail by digging in and looking at other reporting and other other sources. So if you do have questions, you know, we can always try to find you those answers. But I think, you know, here, I would just say at a high level, just, you know, take a look. You know, for a lot of you, you know, you've probably seen the budget over the years, but it's your first time on the finance committee. So, you know, go through it, you know, make some notes, you know, make some questions. And, you know, whether it's in future income meetings or, you know, if you want to just reach out and, you know, chat with me or email me with questions and things, you know, we're happy to walk you through all that. Um, and the other thing we're working on, I was talking to fin about it earlier today and showing him a little bit, but one of the things we were sort of focused on is um, looking at, you know, sort of other other comparable communities. And so, um, you know, the state of mass has a data, a data bank where we all push put our, our general ledger information into a system each year at the close of the year. And the way that we code things is made so that we can compare and contrast communities. So we all know they can look at, you know, police or fire or general government or whatever across communities. And we can get a sense of, you know, how do we compare to, you know, geographically, you know, similar communities or to population, similar communities or whatever. So I've got a model that I'm building right now that I hope to send to you guys in the next couple of days. Uh, that will also give you that context around our budget in terms of, you know, jus to, you know, how much do we spend on fire versus Manchester or how much do we spend on general government compared to Hamilton or whatever? Um, and then we also break it out into sort of a, you know, per capita cost. And one of the things that, you know, uh, certainly in my hometown of Essex or Wenham as well, being a small community in terms of population, um, a lot of times you'll see, you know, we might be on the higher end on a, on a per capita basis for some of our expenditures. Um, you know, and the way to think of it as. You know, uh, you know, whether it's Essex at 3500 people or, or when I'm at 4500 people. For a police department, you still need, you know, a police chief and, you know, two cruisers on patrol with an officer in each cruiser and whatever. And so there's a minimum cost to running a department with, you know, a chief and two people on duty at all times or whatever. You know, the typical layout is for a police department. And, you know, if that costs $1.2 million or whatever it might be. Well, in Essex, it's per capita a whole lot more than it is in Wenham, because, you know, there's a, you know, a thousand more people to to put that over. But then if you compare Wenham to another community, um, with, you know, with 5200 people, they look a little better because there's sort of a bare minimum police department that covers, let's say, up to, you know, a 5500 or 6000 person town. And so, you know, this comparison thing can be helpful for folks to look at the budget and get some context, but I think it will involve us going back to departments and saying, you know, to Rich in the DPW or, you know, or, you know, Chief Cavanaugh in the fire department or something, just, you know, we see a trend here. We're higher per capita than, you know, this, these communities. And can you just sort of lay out to us why that is? And sometimes they'll be perfectly good explanations. And sometimes I think there might be explanations that say, geez, you know, we think there's we think there's some savings that can still be achieved here. So I think that I think certainly in Finn's mind, that's a, that's a path forward that we're, we're going to be taking is sort of looking at that comparative data and just having a good understanding of it. Um, you know, to, to put out there for residents.

01:05:46,400	S6:
You know, related to that. Uh, Jeff, we had a couple of things that were brought up at the uh, 1214 meeting. Uh, one was, uh, with regard to Cola and the negotiations going on, is there an update on that one? And the second thing was that we talked about the op EB being funded at a lower level, because I think out of that meeting, I think our desire was to try to not just get under the two and a half, but to get down close to a zero increase.

01:06:16,469	S2:
Yeah. I mean, I know, um, you know, negotiations are ongoing and so there's limited amounts of what we can talk about there. Um, but, you know, we have a we have an amount built into a reserve, um, in the budget that, you know, summary that you see here before you, um, you know, that, you know, the hope would be we're not necessarily going to use that every dollar of that, that we can find some savings there. Um, you know, the OPEC thing, um, we could, um, fund less. I think I might have been the one that threw that out there as an option because we we did way over funded with some free cash, uh, in FY 25. Um, so, you know, in theory, we're ahead ahead of schedule on OPEC. Um, so if that's what we needed to, you know, bring the tax rate down, uh, the levy limit down a little bit. We certainly could do it. I think it's a bigger discussion in terms of, you know, do we still feel like we're on track to, you know, to funding this OPEC liability long term? Uh, and I think a one year change probably doesn't alter that too drastically. Um, but at the same time, you also don't want to have to, um, you know, take it to zero and then, you know, then that becomes 100, $110,000 we have to find next year. Um, so, you know, that's something I think you should all be open to doing. But you just, you know, I think as a committee and also residents, you know, we need to understand the implications of doing certain things in one year that maybe are going to come back in the following year. And so, you know, it's it goes back to something. I think Fenn and I were talking at the earlier meeting today with the school where, you know, you always want to be upfront with residents in terms of, you know, we've made this work in this year, but, you know, there are there are future ramifications. But I would agree that generally speaking, certainly there is an effort to, you know, not make just getting a dollar under the prop two and a half limit. Um, you know, the high watermark, you know, that we still want to find other areas where we can get lower, um, you know, on the expenses and try to get to something that is a, you know, a maybe, you know, maybe it won't be zero, but something, uh, you know, closer to, though I think originally our original budget guideline from the finance Committee was an increase of about 1.27%, which was essentially not using prop two and a half growth, but was using new growth and other growth and local receipts as, um, as a target. Um, you know, and I think largely, um, you know, other than some of our key drivers, uh, you know, with being pension and health insurance and those type of things. As you go through the operating budgets for the departments, I think you'll see that, you know, many of the departments probably are coming in closer to that one, 1.5% range. Um, prior to, you know, the contractual things that are still sort of in limbo. But, you know, hopefully we've got some meetings coming up in the next week or so. Hopefully we're making some progress there. I mean, I think the fact that some of the bigger teacher contracts, you know, have settled in the area now that was looming over everybody was, you know, what's going on with these these contracts and Marblehead and Beverly and and Gloucester. And now that those are settled. You know, that that gives everybody a little bit of, um, you know, clarity on on how things are moving forward. Um, so, you know, I'm hopeful I was actually going to talk to Steve tomorrow about, you know, do we think, you know, we can actually have these, you know, these contracts settled and, you know, and be part of the budget, um, you know, that we present or is it or are we still going to be carrying a reserve? You know, in the budget booklet. Um, you know, I haven't sat through budget negotiations here or the, excuse me, contract negotiations here before, so I don't have any historical perspective to fall back on. But I'm sure you know, everybody, all things being equal, would like to have all this settled and have the clarity so that, you know, the budget book is, you know, got contracts in there and we're ready to move forward. So, um, yeah, as soon as we have information to share there, we will we will be be letting you know.

01:10:21,529	S6:
Well, you know, I think it's important because if you if we recommend the, uh, Cutler project, I think it's important that that the school committee come up with savings that show what, what good that comes out of this project, in addition to the improved, uh, educational environment. And at the same time, I think it's important to be showing that, uh, we're trying to hold a line on, uh, the budget for the government in town that to keep the tax rate down. So I think that it all combines in terms of if you really want to sell the Cutler project, you've got to, you know, appear to be working hard on the government level and also on the school committee level.

01:11:03,829	S3:
Yeah. So I agree with you, Robert. The one thing I will say is like to kind of, um, the points made earlier, like the OHP just doesn't that's kind of like window dressing versus anything, because you have to cover it at some point versus like actually making cuts to service in some other capacity. I think that's where like the kind of more serious side of things would come in my perspective.

01:11:26,170	S3:
Yeah.

01:11:30,029	S1:
So the, um, one of the things that we drew out of the school, uh, committee, uh, this afternoon was that the, the 3 to $400,000 of, of reduction in their budget that we're seeing here. A lot of that is coming out of I think it was called no reserves.

Jeff. 01:11:53,829	S2:
The end excess and deficiency.

01:11:55,869	S1:
Yeah. Right. Which um, you might you might think about it as like a, um, an underspend, um, you know, leftover moneys for, like, free cash, right. Um, and so what they warned us is that by assuming that that all the, the equivalent of free cash goes in to the FY 2026 budget, it's going to put them in a they won't have that available for 20 FY 27. Um, and so you will see a, a swing, um, a major increase in their total spend from 26 to 27. And, um, if we accept this reduced spending operating budget from them and it pushes through for FY 26. That increases. Is a one of those things that I think they caught. They kept on wanting us to say that it may happen, right. It may be an increase that of like $1.3 million for their total budget, a third of which we would get right. Um, and that there are a few may happens in 27, 28 that are we need to put on a list Jeff and keeping the a post-it note or something like that on the wall. Um, as we think about the narrative to informing, um, the citizens of, you know, major events happening in the next couple of years. Right. Um, there's this one, uh, there's the, uh, PFAS, um, upgrade at the water. Right. And, uh, you know, the trash contract. There's a few things that that are rattling around in the back of my mind that, you know, we have to I don't say we have. I would say we morally have to, uh, warn the citizens about. Um, as part of our presentation to them.

01:13:49,500	S6:
Would we be putting out numbers that, uh, look at the potential tax rate over the next couple of years? Because I've been running some models here trying to look out over time, uh, what's going to happen? And maybe that's a way to communicate with people. Uh, I don't think we've done that in the past. I think, uh, at least at the town meeting. Uh, we've just given people the next year.

01:14:13,770	S2:
It's certainly something we can look at. I mean, usually we're looking at, you know, the year in question, but, you know, we do do things that show sort of five year projections and things like that. Um, you know, so I think that's something we could add. Um, you know, there's always a balance of trying to make, certainly at least the budget booklet that the town warrant, um, you know, making it not so overwhelming that it's, you know, people can't digest it, but, um, you know, this year will probably have, you know, the town warrant meeting book will be one document. And then, you know, the new budget software that we're populating that, you know, creates anywhere from a, you know, two to 3 to 400 page, um, you know, report that you could sort of take in chunks as you, as you want. You can kind of drill down, uh, multiple levels. Um, you know, we could have, uh, in there, you know, sort of a five year projection of where the tax rate is headed. Um, that, you know, it can be somewhat, you know, difficult. I mean, even when we when we do it in the budget booklet for the upcoming year, what we always put in there is sort of a caveat is, um, you know, this assumes that property values, you know, the property values will stay the same as what was, you know, certified in FY 25 or, you know, whatever the most recent year is. So the tax rate, you know, may end up being significantly different as assessments, you know, go up. Um, but, you know, that doesn't change the expenses, uh, by any stretch. Um, so it still provides some people, you know, people, uh, you know, a good barometer of where we think things are headed and certainly, um, you know, at some point, whether it's in the budget booklet or in some other fashion, we're going to ultimately have to show, depending on what you recommend, um, at for for the Cutler project. Um, there's a significant tax rate impact to that that people need to be, you know, made aware of. Um, you know, so that they can see that. And it's and it's all interrelated because, you know, it's a Finn's point about the, you know, sort of the, the $1.3 million, um, use of E and D at the school level that essentially can create, you know, may create a hole of $1.3 million in their budget to start next year. Um, you know, that has a $400,000 impact to us, let's just say, at a very high level. Um, and so, um, you know, that would be added on to what next year would look like. And then, you know, if you then say, well, you know, whatever, a $2.5 million dollar bond payment on the Cutler project would add another, you know, whatever. Um, you know, suddenly that's a very, you know, material increase to the, to the tax rate. And, um, yeah, I just think that we want to make sure we're being, you know, above board and fully transparent on, you know, letting people know all the costs that are coming down the pike and, and not just saying, oh, we told you what the Cutler school would be. But yeah, we didn't mention this was the possible impact of, you know, next year's school budget or whatever it might be. Um, so, yeah, we'll continue to work on that. And, um, you know, Bob sent me a number of things over the last couple of months that are helpful that I've been able to incorporate into some of my stuff. Um, and, you know, I hope everybody feels, you know, free to, to, to do the same. And, you know, we it's a collaborative effort to get these, you know, sort of documents out in front of the public. And we want them to be, as you know, robust and useful to the to the residents as they can be.

01:17:43,100	S1:
So one of the other things that Jeff was talking about earlier. Um, that I wanted to highlight is that the work that he's done to to do that benchmarking with our our sister towns. Um, you know, the the top row here, row five is, is the town operating budget, the $12 million number there. And, um, you know, to give us all and, and then also to give the, the taxpayers comfort that that's a reasonable amount of money for us to be spending the best, you know, bit of, uh, data I can find is contrasting us to, to, you know, more than just two other towns. But, you know, Jeff was was saying he's got ten other towns that he's, he is, you know, comparing us against. Right. And and it's and it's going to be, um, breaking it down by all the major different departments and, um, in the, in the town. Right. Um, and that we can go and say, all right, how much does it cost to run the DPW for Ipswich and Topsfield and Manchester and all these other towns? Right. And, um, you know, it sounds like he's got those numbers ready to go. Um, and the the first step, um, before they come to us, I think is going to go and send those to the department heads so that they can, um, give us some insight contrasting these towns to us. And so if, if one town is significantly less expensive than us, right. You and I might say, you know, why can't we be like them? Right? Why are we spending, um, so much more? Um, you know, let's give these department heads a chance to educate us on on how we are similar or different from these towns, specific to the police department. Specific to the fire department. Specific to, you know, um, you know, maintaining the parks and the roads and that sort of stuff and then come back to us. Um, hopefully. Um, and, Jeff, you can have to give me a reasonable expectation on timing because, um, I think that that would be a useful information for us as a fin come when we decide to approve that operating budget, you know, ahead of February 28th. Right. Um, obviously, I'd prefer to get that that insight, you know, the data and the insight from those those department heads, you know, well before that so that we can discuss it and agree or disagree and decide if we want to put further pressure on any particular department to, to, to remedy or reduce their spending.

01:20:14,270	S2:
Yeah. And I think, you know, my hope would be, you know, we should be able to get that kind of, you know, information back, you know, toward, you know, towards the end of the month. Um, you know, so that you have basically the, you know, the month of February or five weeks before, you know, the deadline to to give our recommendations, and I think that timing probably will work out okay, because, you know, you're probably going to be spending a majority of your time more focused on the on the Cutler question over the next couple of weeks. And then, you know, the thought would be that, you know, at that time, you know, we'd have this information back to department from departments to help you as you evaluate the, you know, the budgets in a context of how we, you know, stack up against other communities, you know, and then, you know, and then there's also the, you know, the, you know, the fact that each, you know, different communities, you know, when, you know, as an example, as someone who's, you know, just kind of, you know, new to the community here, um, you know, there's a very significant commitment to, you know, parks and trees and things like that. And, and, you know, in our budget is reflective of that. So if you were to look at us relative to some other communities, you know, we might spend more in those areas, whether it's conservation or, you know, park management or whatever, than a lot of other communities are size. And some of that is just a factor of, you know, the will of the the the townspeople that that's been, you know, proven time and time again to be something that the town as a whole, you know, really, really values. And so, you know, I think while that might not even come from the departments in feedback, that might be feedback that comes more almost from the Selectboard and folks that say, you know, we've we've, you know, seen historically this, you know, these particular things are things that when them just really values and has always been willing to overpay for. Um, but I don't think that precludes the town from, you know, looking into those things from time to time and saying, you know, is that, you know, now that we can, you know, put a cost to this particular commitment or that commitment, you know, is that something that as a community, we still, you know, now that we see how much more we pay than another community or something, is it something we're still committed to?

01:22:17,329	S1:
That would be interesting. Jeff, um, to decide how we could make this data perhaps simplified, available to the taxpayers, either as part of the warrant or something like that.

Um. 01:22:32,930	S2:
I think it would be part of the supplement. So the new budget software does have a whole module on, um, you know, sort of comparative, um, you know, budgets and things like that. So, um, I think it would be, you know, we could certainly allude to it, you know, there's a letter or there's a, there's a, you know, narrative that the Finance committee writes that goes along with the finances that go in the in the town warrant. Um, we could certainly allude to it to, you know, and have it online that, you know, this new clear gov. Uh, you know, budgeting, you know, budget booklet, uh, it's available, you know, where you can find, you know, even more detail on this comparative. You know, we can certainly allude to it in the narrative. But we could you know, point to the fact that it's available in this, um, this supplemental budget information.

01:23:20,130	S6:
Going back on our previous topic of the schools. Do we have available data that they're using for projecting the number of students going out over time, and particularly as the split between Hamilton and Wenham?

01:23:35,430	S2:
I believe they've got some of that in there, and it's also usually in the actual operating budget as well. Um, you know, the three years? Yeah they do. That's a big part of what the MSBA that that gives us the grants. Uh, a big part of that process is them, you know, using their, um, their metrics to determine where they think population is going and student population is going in terms of deciding what they will, um, what they will fund. So, um, you know, I know in, in Manchester, Essex, for example, I think it was back when we were doing the middle high school. Um, they, they significantly reduced the size of the project we were looking at based on their projections for, um, for a future, uh, enrollment. Um, so they, you know, there should be numbers available not only from us, but, you know, there should be some MSBA numbers that show what the MSBA thinks. Um, our enrollment numbers are going to look like, uh, so I can I can work with Eric and Vinny to see if they can point me in the right direction to get get that more projected, uh, number. Uh, and one of the things I'm trying to gather to is that I, you know, I think I mentioned in a previous meeting. Um, you know, since they built the new elementary school in Manchester, uh, we've watched the enrollment numbers there drop pretty significantly. Um, so that to the point where that school is, you know, at a much lower capacity than we would have hoped for. Uh, and so, you know, it would be interesting to see, you know, maybe compare and contrast. What are the MSBA projects their numbers are going to look like? And how do they, you know, compare to the MSBA projected projections. And, you know, how do we go about figuring how we think our numbers will stack up against the MSBA, uh, projections as well.

01:25:35,529	S1:
So I'm just taking some notes on on what we've just talked about. On both of those things.

Um. 01:25:43,670	S1:
All right. So I'm looking forward to the benchmarking discussion, perhaps starting in early February.

And. 01:25:53,829	S1:
Law school.

01:25:56,699	S10:
Okay.

01:25:58,270	S1:
All right. So do we have any other. Any other discussion points or anything to discuss about the operating budget?

01:26:08,770	S1:
Um, one thing I think, Geoff, you and I spoke about maybe a month or so ago was that in previous iterations of this board, We've established liaisons, um, with departments. Um, I'm not sure whether or not, um, it's, uh, worth it at this point in the process, but it might be something we need we might want to consider for next year, basically, that we would, uh, as members, we would all, uh, kind of split up the different departments and be a point of contact to familiarize ourselves with the operations of them and a little bit more depth and be able to speak at in more depth without having the department head here.

01:26:55,029	S2:
Yeah. And I would agree. I think given that I think the Cutler discussion, you know, takes on, you know, quite a bit of the capacity of the, of the group maybe, you know, it makes sense for this year. Everybody's knew we've got this big issue to address. Um, you know to just sort of you know, let me be the, you know, the main point of contact for the various departments as folks have questions. Um, and then, you know. Over the summer. Um, you know, work on, you know, or after post town meeting, you know, set up, set up liaisons at that point.

01:27:24,500	S3:
Yeah. And once we have the benchmarking exercise available, that's going to make it much easier for us to actually have intelligent conversations, substantive conversations, I should say, with the department. So yeah, that makes sense.

Yeah. 01:27:40,500	S10:
All right.

01:27:41,369	S1:
Let me just double check our agenda here.

01:27:47,670	S1:
All right. So, um, after the operating budget, we don't have any other specific items to be discussed. So, um, I'll just put it out on the floors or any other topics folks want to cover.

01:28:05,229	S1:
No. Okay. Well, then, um, I'll just remind folks, I'm expecting to try to put another meeting on the calendar in the next week. Um, and that we, uh, as we look at the calendar, um, we're looking at next, um, next Wednesday, you know, late afternoon evening is the quintuple board meeting. Um, hoping to see you guys there all in person. And, um, that's, uh, that's the horizon. I got a two week horizon. Hard to see past that. So, um, we'll see, uh, what we do. And, uh, I expect to come back to you guys with more information on the budget on the, uh, the the new town, uh, the new school budget, the new school construction. And, um, we'll be getting more data on the budget and benchmarking, you know, in two weeks or so.

01:29:03,430	S3:
Awesome. Thanks for all the work you've done so far. Yeah, thanks. Especially on the.

01:29:07,000	S8:
School.

01:29:07,470	S3:
That was very, very helpful.

01:29:08,829	S8:
Thanks, Jeff. Yeah, thank you.

01:29:11,029	S1:
Very much, Jeff. All right. All right, so I'm going to, uh, propose that we or I'm looking for a motion to close the. When I'm fin com at 8:31 p.m.. So I see Bob's got his hand up to make the motion. Looking for a second.

01:29:25,670	S3:
I'll second.

01:29:26,369	S8:
Second.

01:29:26,829	S1:
David's got a second. Uh. Any discussion? Not hearing any discussion. Uh, looking for a vote? I will vote.

01:29:33,670	S3:
I fin David, I.

01:29:36,029	S8:
All right. Bye bye.

01:29:36,970	S1:
Jared. It looks like we have, uh, four eyes. Uh. Any nays? Not hearing any. No. Abstentions. So, uh, we'll call this, uh, meeting closed. Um, thank you very much, everybody, for your time. Uh, appreciate, uh, sticking around for extra half hour.

Cheers. 01:29:55,529	S2:
All right. Thanks, everyone. Have a good night.

01:29:57,100	S8:
Thank you. Bye bye.