 Okay, let me bring the meeting of the Finance Committee to order. The first order of business is the minutes. I have a couple of questions. On the water bodies, expenses as 4K to 4.5K, is that? That should be 4K to 4.5K, and the bill should be 4K. The Finance Committee people should always know where the decimal point goes. Okay, and under our second water meters, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, down, where it says owner's request, I would just recommend owner's request and expense. Because if I remember correctly, the installation would be at the owner's expense. Yeah, and the meter. And the meter. Yeah, second water installable would be at the owner's expense. Okay, and then the only other thing is under budget, fire, third lying down, would not only administer EPS, is that right? EMS. Okay, are there any other corrections? Don't worry about that. Okay, do I have a motion? So moved. Second? Okay, moved and seconded that the minutes be accepted as corrected. Any other discussion? All those in favor, can we say aye? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Now the, okay, the town manager has requested, voted that the town expenditures in excess of appropriation for fiscal year beginning July 1, 2013 for removal of the stun ice, in the additional amount of $500,000, parentheses, $1 million total, being hereby approved in accordance with section 31D except for 44 of the general laws. So right now, the budget plus the $500,000 are gone, and they just accepted shipment of another $200,000 in salt and sand. So I'm hoping this will be it because Monday I took down my Christmas wreath and threw it away. So maybe that will symbolically end this horrible winter. That changed in two weeks ago. That's right? Yeah, changed in two weeks ago. I'm sorry, I should have, you're right. Okay, so discussion? Charlie? Yes. Would you refresh my mind, at least if not others, on how we handle these excess snow and ice budgets in the following fiscal year? Well, basically, as you know, the only budget that can legally be overextended is the snow and ice budget, and can be overextended with the approval of the finance committee. What happens then is this in effect is raised next year in fiscal 15. So on the tax recap sheet, there's a line item, snow and ice deficits, and that money goes directly there. Now, in planning the budget, the manager had included $500,000 of snow and ice deficit. So he sort of covered the first part. He hasn't covered the second, this additional $500. So once, so we give him the authority to go ahead and take care of this, once say we get into April and we know exactly what the snow and ice is, then we could let it roll to the next fiscal year, and that will have to reduce the amount we put in the fiscal stability fund to balance it out. Or what we can do is cover that out of the reserve fund in June, because by then we'll know it is, and right now we have about $650,000 or so. So it seems to me we can just cover it out of the reserve fund also. So we have a couple of options. Is there any requirement if we have a certain increase or certain size snow and ice budget? Is there any requirement to budget that amount in the future? Well, you are, in order to have the ability to deficit spend the snow and ice, you have to appropriate at least the amount that we appropriated last year. So let's say we appropriated $750 last year or in 2013, this year we decided to cut it to $500. We lose our ability to deficit spend. But since, you know, we've always appropriated at least the prior year or more. And the last few years we've tried to hedge that up, then we can do this. Any other questions? So what are you proposing? Okay, so it's the vote that I read. You basically were authorizing the manager to expend an additional $500,000 for snow and ice for a total of $1 million over that. Like I said, I think they've got about $150,000 to $200,000 committed with the salt. And from now on it just depends, you know, if we get more snow and ice, we're supposed to get some dribbles today and nothing happens. So maybe we'll walk out and maybe we won't. Dean? Well, I mean, the only more common rate one set at this point, and though we have the ability to deficit spend, it's not necessarily what you'd want to do, right? No. So I think we'll have to point out what the manager really needs to do. He's got to focus. He's eight months in. He can figure out where the budget he's going to start to commit and make his dime step or not to low-low the reserve on the other things by the end of the year. And I think that should be our objective. It should be to pull some of this out of the other set of funds that we're going to recap sheet. Yeah. No, I think that's right. And I think, I've been talking about it with Christine, that if there's any money left between, you know, the manager's budgets and the 3.5% he's allowed to get up, even if it's a small amount, we throw it into snow and ice. So we just keep trying to, you know, get that up a little bit higher. Okay, any other questions? Okay, do I have a motion? Second. Second. We've been seconded. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay, Gloria, could you deliver this to the town manager? I'm sorry? They are next. Okay, article, almost on time, article 35. So a transportation advisory committee. 35? No. No. No. Third one. Thank you. Which article is this? Okay, so it's just part of the committees and commissions. Okay, gentlemen, we haven't seen you for about 20 years. Can you please explain to us why you're here? How much do you want? What do you want it for? My name is Rich Delcato. I'm the co-general of the Media Transportation Advisory Committee. Both of you know where to start. We have made a request for $35,000. Why don't you stand there so we make sure you're heard by the audience? Sorry. We have made a request for $35,000 to cover a variety of matters that the transportation advisory committee undertakes from time to time. The original appropriation was $25,000 back in 2001 and we are almost out of those funds. Depending on the project that the Board of Selectment asked, the transportation advisory committee is really, is a case-by-case basis. So we don't really have any set specific expenditures. Sometimes we use them for traffic studies, doing traffic counts, things like that. We do have two members on the transportation advisory committee who are transportation professionals. So we've been able to leverage their expertise and handle a lot of matters through the committee and saving some money, we think, over the years. We are at the present time. Do you want any projects we have at this moment? At least a dozen more. Certainly the responsibilities of the transportation committee have expanded like most other committees in town over the years. And that's the request. That's the reason for the request for the $35,000. We are undertaking bigger projects among them. A Lake Street study like PAP, the Jason Street neighborhood, we're conducting a study now. We're soon going to be undertaking Paul LaVie Road in Appleton Street. So there are some significant projects that the Board of Selectment has charged the transportation committee to review and advise on. Again, the expenditures cannot be, can't really quantify what they're needed for. It really depends on the project and what sort of professionals we may need or other assistance we might need for the project. Are there any questions? Paul? So how long ago was it that you were allocated $25,000? I was 21. How many years ago? And say in the last three years, how much have you spent? $4,000. When it makes sense to, instead of doing the whole $35,000, we gave you some amount. And instead from year to year, we look at what you need instead of giving you 12 years or 13 years or whatever. I've talked to the controller about that. Unfortunately, our expenditures are, there's years we don't spend anything. You give us a budget, you know, and it might, you might not use it. But there's another year where it will be, you know, $6,000 or $7,000 doing the project that we're working on. So it's a very, quite variable over the last 13 years or whatever it is. What year was the biggest expenditure? How much was it? I know we spent $7,000 one year, maybe eight years ago. That's $7,000, $7,000. And then we sort of, after that, sort of squeezed down very, very, very well. So within, I think we've used the money very effectively. I mean, you get the leverage of volunteers doing it. And as Rick said, they know how to, without paying the overhead of a design consultant, they know how to go to the company direct to get accounts or to hire somebody to do the synchro study. I have no question that you spend the money very wisely and that it's a good investment. And I'm just trying to think of ways that we might have better visibility to the number. And one thing I would propose is we do $10,000 this year and see how much you spend and bring a difference up to $10,000. And essentially each year bring you up to a $10,000 rolling reserves. In terms of accountability, we have a count account and you can go at any time and look at expenditures on that account. It's very visible. It's managed by Laura Weiner in the planning department. John? I have the premises by saying that I'm on a small crusade. And my crusade is to try to have fewer of these reserves here, there, everywhere in the town. There are pots of money everywhere. People essentially creating reserves. And the alternative to that is that when you get into a bind, you come to this committee and you give you extra money from the reserve fund. Because what it's for is for unanticipated instances. So I support what Paul has said and reinforce what he said as well because we think you're a wonderful committee. I think I might speak for everybody here. I think you do a great job. So this is by no means anything but trying a white party to keep the reserves pure pots of money everywhere smaller than we have them. So I would suggest that if you think you guys can live with it, at least I would feel more comfortable with something like $10,000. And then if you get into trouble, please come here and tell us right away. In line with that 13-4 of your projects that you have on the line, do you have a sense of how much the biggest project would cost? I think we're going to be starting the Paul Revere Appleton project. I think any day now at this point and what that involves, we don't know because we really have not started an assessment of what the entire area is and what we're going to have to consider. Projects like that, Lake Street corridor, the bike path, things like that, it's very difficult for us to anticipate ahead of time what we might need until we've done an assessment. Sometimes that involves getting some design studies or traffic engineers, traffic council, things like that. So it is a little difficult for us to predict ahead of time what any one or more projects are going to cost. And part of the issue is that, as I mentioned before, every project is different. Some of them, as they indicated, really have not required an expenditure of much money at all. We're noticing that the projects that we're being charged with are a little bit more expansive than they have been in the past. So I think in that regard, we certainly anticipate more expenses, but how we get to find those at a time, I don't know if we can do that just yet. One specific example, we've been working on a steady-spending bill and mass intersection, to signal data, and I think the expenditure is there with a little $5,000 in this bill. And I think we've probably sent 6 or 7 hundred of that in 2013, and the rest of it will be in 2014. And how much money do you have? What's your balance now? Dean? I don't know if this is really a question for you, but how are you ruling the money? I guess what I'm lost by is, and maybe this is just different from the last time we voted it in now, but this article, when we put it in, at least since I've been on the finance committee, appropriates to committees to be raised by the general fund and their general tax. So if you don't spend it by the end of the year, the money goes back to the general fund. How are you guys keeping it out of this? I asked Ruth there whether she had any problem with this because then this was coming up and she apparently didn't. Because it's in a one article, and the way this is done, they can roll the money. We have a specific account that was set up in 2001 and funded to make it an automatic account because, to the point I made earlier, fluctuations are really quite huge. I'm confused as to why we don't see that at all in the planning budget. Does the planning budget have money aside from what we're seeing in their budget that we have right here in front of us? If you look at the planning budget's numbers and expenses, it doesn't look like it accounts for that type of money anywhere. But this was not part of the planning budget. This was voted by Tony for the transportation advisement in a specific way. So then, I guess my question is why don't we see it anywhere? Because we see lots of small amounts of the miscellaneous warrant articles. If you look at the 2001 assignment, you would see it, I assume. Yeah, and it just gets rolled over with the balances. It's a very low maintenance kind of thing. Okay, are there any other questions? It seems to me that the highest amount that they spent in a single year was $7,000. That was 2004. That, you know, the reindeer project's probably off somewhere just because of inflation. Since that time, that was 10 years ago. So while I agree with Paul's idea of partitioning this request over a year, I think we ought to bump it up over the $10,000. I would recommend $50,000. John, how do you guys feel about $15,000? Will it be hampering you? Do you think only making sense to you or not? I don't think we're going to spend $15,000 in 2014. $15,000? $15,000? $15,000? It's a school year. But I think the only thing it will mean is we will come to see them more often and create more of them. I'm delighted to see you. We will create more of our entities into managing the financial flow versus working on the project. And like has been said, the finance community is always available for the reserve fund of 24-7-365, if that's the case. I'll make do with that. Usually my vice chairman will handle that. This is a suggestion because this will come up in front of town, meaning this year I would suggest it would be a very good opportunity to do a short slideshow of what TAC has done since 2001. I think they will be the top 10 projects that have been done. What have they buttoned for that money? I'll be initiating it in the next quarter or in the early 2000s. We've got something that's very interesting to talk about. Don't talk about that. Okay, any other questions? Okay, gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you. I appreciate your coming. Okay. Eight o'clock, right on the button. Electronic voting, article 55. Hi. Gentlemen, please introduce yourselves. Why you're here and what you're looking for. I'm John Lyon, I'm the moderator of the week. Eric, tell me a little bit about these electronic voting settings. Last year you gave us $10,000 to rent a system for one year. We put it up in debt. We've got two competitors. We went with one system option technology, HOTI, who is going to do all the meetings we have no matter how many it is for the $10,000 this year. So we're going to have a clicker, trying to get a set of electronic voting insects. And they're going to give us a body to run the thing and all the equipment, the computer equipment, both when we need it to operate the whole system this year. We're coming back in here under the Lauren article to purchase or to rent the system again if Tom Leading decides it likes it. It's probably all I want for resolutions, but actually for a resolution on myself this year. Strictly asking Tom Leading to have a little debate to see if they like using the system. And if so, the next article is to fund it. So we're obviously here. Ask the guys for money. Whether or not we buy it for rent the system. I guess up to you folks eventually. Whether or not it gets funded in one year or we'll buy it at the capital expenditure. That's beyond Eric and I. So that's why we're here. Eric, some numbers on how much of a bus would buy that $10,000 this year. We don't know if that will be every year that we're renting anymore. Yes, so the committee in its preliminary investigation last year reported that any hotel meeting in 2013 investigated the costs as part of our whole work and determined at that time that a typical system at the higher end that we might want to purchase would cost about $29,000 and that renting it would be around $10,000. The $10,000 we're getting this year from the vendor that we chose is a discount, a demonstration discount because they would like to earn our business in future years. Our options moving forward, if town meeting decides it likes to use this kind of system for voting, our options would be to continue to rent equipment with a vendor support person each year. The town and training hand does choose to do that because that's better for them. Or the town may decide to buy the hardware and software and have a town personnel operating the system. So that's not really a decision that we're really asking for now. What's really on the table is what recommended figure to put. What figure to put into that warrant article if town meeting decides it wants to find a future use of the technology. I spoke with the town manager earlier this week. He related to me that the town manager's budget had a provisional sum of $20,000 under this warrant article and I gave him the updated figure from our research and he's very comfortable with my asking you on his behalf to increase that amount to $30,000 and he said that if you agree with that you can adjust the budget accordingly. That would be a purchase. That would allow the option of a purchase at the pricing investigation that we did last year. Whether or not we end up leasing or buying I think we'll eventually be a decision of the manager and the guide for the department and the capacity of capital planning. With buying it, we own it we have to provide our own bodies that gave good things to do. We put a body in there to run the system for about $1,500 a year and have a dedicated employee doing it so that would be an expense he would have to take. Our employee or theirs? If we buy it, it's our employee. Dave could look at this employee to run it. And that would cost about $15,000? Yeah, yeah. So that would be one of the included items to purchase. If we purchase we're obviously responsible for keeping the maintenance and the upgrades. We own the software upgrades every year and across the slum you're sure they're going to do that too. If we lease it, they come in and put everything in and take it all away. It's all on one nickel. That's not a decision that we obviously can make tonight or should make tonight. We have to put anything out there. We have to try and stick with life. I think your advice will be taken that the committee went back after this here in last year and really recommended the town meeting that let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. Let's do a supported rental to see how it works for everybody. That's what we're doing this spring. Charlie? You know what I'm saying? The lease cost was for this year. This year is $10,000 for as long as any meetings we have. This year. This year. For 2015. We don't know. Oh, we don't know. We don't know. We told them that our meetings usually run about ten, not eight to ten meetings. But last year was an odd meeting of six. This year we don't know how many will be the same 52 articles as last year. I think it's fair to say that if we decided to use the technology another year and if we decided to lease a rent rather than buy it, the cost would very likely be substantially higher than $10,000. I don't know how much higher. I guess maybe $12,000. Because they are giving us an unspecified discount that is consistent with the cost I know from other towns that do rent assistance. Not much. Not much for any families. Not much. Yes. Yes. Okay. I think that would be important. I'm talking a little bit of difficulty not seeing a cost study going out X number of years. We're going to vote on a certain amount of money and we're not really sure whether it's going to be on a lease basis or on an own basis. Is there perhaps a step in between voting on an allocation for you and actually seeing a study that shows how each appropriation would work whether it's a lease or whether it's a purchase? Because those things can change. Yes. The maintenance can change. The purchase, you know, would be a fixed cost in the whole thing last year. It hasn't been one of the years. The lease, it's variable whenever you get it in the back little moment. So to give you that, to give you that study right now without an actual high fixed lease, it's not a teaser. It's just called a teaser rate. And we also haven't put up proposals, the request for proposals for that. So I think unless we had a very operational eyes, we've got ahead of ourselves. We've got ahead of town meetings, really. Because we still don't know what the desire is for the future. So I think that, you know, we would have to fit that out and see what the real costs would be and then do that analysis. The way I think we've thought about it is if we have enough money to tell me it goes enough to cover our, to cover its options, especially of the town. You know, then we would have a lot of work to do. And I think with this body having a significant role in helping us, in helping to manage that decision about how to spend that money. I mean, I mean, I think the watchable might be to appropriate $30,000 to the town manager to be extended in consultation with the Capital Budget Committee and the IT and then let them go out to business. And then in the future, it's a capital budget item. The town meeting is not deciding whether the lease of purchase or if they should leave the work. They're sort of off or down. We don't really want to make that decision. No, I understand. I'm just having a hard time coming up with a number in my head because we have two ways that this could ultimately go. From your visit to other towns, do you have any sense of how much the annual maintenance on the foot and beyond it was due? Very small. Yeah, very small. Basically, that is one fact. It's not going by STM. It double lays and it lasts. It will be very unusual for a technical bunch of stuff. The handsets are a hundred bucks a clock, so they can lose one. I think I'm going to the town meeting and you're telling me they lose it and so I'm going to go there and pay the town a hundred dollars. So they won't lose it. Drop it. Well, drop it to my fingers. Walking out the meeting, leaving it on the box again. Throw it in the shoe. Yeah, throw it in the bag. Okay, Charlie. I think the question, if I interpret Bill Connors and the same choice running around in my mind, you really have to tell the town meeting what the fixed and ongoing cost of this thing are going to be. You can't make it a value judgment. You say, well, this is convenient. You know, I can vote faster. If it costs nothing, then people say, oh, you can't use it. But if it costs a lot of money, they're going to say, well, I've got to see the money going to school or something like that. That's the point. I think that's fair. We'll bring that up on the resolution. I don't know. What was this one? You know, for the, I think out of the environment there, whether they'd like to say, they're not going to put the dollar value on, we can't tell them the cost. $29,000 or $25,000 for a similar system to cost concrete. Yeah, whatever the, the capital cost and the operations cost cost. Yeah. We did, we did some analysis of this a year ago. Yeah. I thought that it did not bring it with me, but that was for the report, pretty report to tell me about the anticipated optimal cost. They were quite small, I think of it, in the middle of the year or less. Even after we transferred in, under a purge, as we write things in. But I think that we would bring that back to tell me that it's a pretty reasonable point that we're asking the company to, to fund something they need to know about the total cost of ownership would be what the expected lifespan of that ownership would be. And we actually did do that investigation a year ago. How long did these things last? Was the warranty on those things? I don't know what the warranty is, but it's a computer and a clicker. The handhelds are a very mature technology. They're sold to universities and colleges. They're pretty abuse-free systems. Off the top of my head, it's pretty, pretty good off the top of my head. We were expecting a lifespan of at least six to seven years and probably more. The warranty wasn't quite that long. I had to go back and load it in our report. And the rest of the system is literally a computer and a couple of routers. Yeah. It just, it runs on software that can be loaded onto any laptop computer, so PowerPoint and S2L database. So you don't need to buy a special computer. The only special hardware other than individual handsets is a transceiver unit. The radio unit that beams the both running data back and forth in the handsets. Now if you anticipate what it, this goes up on the screen, like at the State House, check it and make sure. It's going to roll through three precincts at a time, set the screens. Each screen will be there for from the second. Yeah. But you're talking $30,000. You're talking six years. That's $5,000 a year plus 1,500. So you're talking $7,000 to $15,000, depending on what method you're chosen. For the annualized purchase. Yeah. I'd be very happy to ask our committee to work out some more detailed projections along those lines, I think, before telling me. And for the script, if you want. Okay. Yeah. That's very reasonable. I think that would be very helpful. If you could work that up within the next week or so, we can have? Week before. We have a meeting on, first, March. So, if you could get that back to us by the 10th or 12th? Yeah, 12th. Yeah, just email to Gloria and she'll forward it to all of us. And just so people have a sense of it. We'll do 12 thumbs up at the time. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions come up. Feel free to email Eric or I. And we'll address those when we come back. Okay. That sounds good. Okay, thanks. Take care. Well, let's go back to 35. Okay. The transportation advisory committee. 2001. We'll pay it at 25,000. So it's taken 13 years to work their way through it. I think they said they had a balance of 5,000. Yeah. Yes. And their request is for 35. So we had some discussion on amounts. I think they said, I thought they said the balance was 500, didn't they? No, 5,000. 5,000. It's 5,000. So one person made a suggestion of 10. Another said 15. What's the will of the committee? I moved 15. I moved 15. Okay. So moved and seconded for 15,000. Any further discussion? Or any discussion? Okay. So a motion has been made and seconded for $15,000. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. $15,000. I'm going to entertain the vote today. It's to be a member of the message. Okay. $15,000. And this will be as part of article 35 appropriations of committee. Right. It'll just be a list and that will be there. That's right. I was looking for a separate article. Okay. Well, how about, you know, it's almost, I wish they didn't put the resolution in because we could do one vote of this thing instead of two. But so I'm not even sure. It's almost the resolution to just come from the town meeting. You know, somebody gets up and move a motion. And I'm not sure. We are the select one should be making a recommendation. But we'll figure that out. I'm sorry. Yeah. We're trying voting. There's two articles. 54 is simply a resolution to determine the sense of the town meeting, whether they should, we should be doing this. So obviously a 54 is defeated. Then 55 will just make a motion of no action. And I'll probably add whatever money to the 56. I'll modify that to be. So 55. It sounds like, and granted, we don't have specific numbers except for the $29,000 that they have to purchase the system and about $1,500 from IT to run it. So they'll need approximately $30,000. The details will be done after, you know, they go out to bed and determine whether they want to lease it or purchase it or all that kind of stuff. But I would think we would need to appropriate the amount of money the most they would need and then let everybody determine how they want to do it. This whole discussion has had an implied assumption here that this thing has value. And when Eric presented this to the Finance Committee and the town meeting, I don't remember whether it was last year or the year before, there were two, I just remembered two, maybe three points where he suggested that the value was residing in this system. One was something called transparency so people could know immediately how everybody was voting and that this would have some solitary effect on town meeting. The second was speed, that it would make things go faster. But that would only have an effect on a certain, you know, we don't have that many standing votes. Or votes where we spend a lot of time counting what the votes are. I forgot what the third point was, I thought I had it, but... I think one at least is to stop people from leaving it to break out a number of the issue that was. But, so, you know, the question, I don't think the Finance Committee should simply be making a recommendation now to allocate a certain amount of money for something whose value we can't make any judgment on. Because this is, it's not just, you know, it's going to be something like, depending on how you go about it, it's going to be maybe $15,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 a year or something like that. I don't know what really where these costs are going to wind up for the whole system on an ongoing basis, including maintenance and including the person to manage it. So if, you know, if there's a dramatic improvement in town meeting as a result of testing this, then we might have a recommendation in one direction. But if there's not, you know, we might, I think we might not want to make a recommendation to support any amount of money for this. I mean, certainly it's a decision that town meeting can make, but if we're being asked to recommend something, we should have valid reasons to recommend it. And right now, we don't have any knowledge about it. So I don't think we can recommend it. Lisa, come on up. Allen, oh, sorry, Bill wasn't Allen. So I'm thinking maybe the recommendation would be kind of putting the carpet for the horse but to either reset for the town meeting that's coming up in April, so that everybody can see how it works and then we'll have a basis for making a decision where we want to own this format or reset and test it out. Well, I think they have it on order. We will be using it town meeting this town meeting. But my point is the finance committee's recommendation should be made after it has been used for formats, not today. After that meeting. Allen or Peter? I agree. I sat in on the meetings last year as a long vote, I sat in on the meetings and it really did boil down to the perceived benefit of transparency and accountability. It essentially allows every vote to be a roll call and whether or not that's good or bad really isn't a decision for town meeting. Will that impact the actual votes? Will it impact the people who want to run for town meeting if they're being held accountable for not only the way they vote but how often they show up and whether they stay after the play, et cetera, et cetera. So it's about accountability and transparency but I totally agree that it's not... I don't believe that it's the role of Fincom to decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. That's the role of town meeting to do. But from mechanics, I know in the flurry of the budget at the end of the day it's easier to say we're not going to spend that and just put it in a stabilization fund than to take it out. In other words, I think it'd be better for us to appropriate some amount of money and then if 54 goes down then we just put it in a stabilization fund. As I've said, the sequence is do the resolution beside a town meeting once and if town meeting doesn't want to do it we can change the stabilization fund article. I meant that to put it back in. So it's really mechanics on the floor of town meeting. I think we should appropriate as if town meeting is going to want to do it next year and then back off at the last minute rather than the other way around. But I disagree with every one thing out. If we're going to put the money in the budget we have to make a recommendation one way or the other. So we may have... I think we can make it clear and it's very clear in the comment that it's contingent on the will of town meeting. I still disagree with you that you're implying that the finance committee doesn't have any dog in the hunt. And we do. Those issues of transparency and accountability and speed or efficiency or whatever are certainly judgmental characteristics that we should exercise with respect to whether this money should be spent or not. Well, then we can agree to disagree on that. I believe that the town meeting members among us can express their opinion as town meeting members with my feeling as well. Everybody in town that wants to spend money expresses its opinion that it's a good thing to spend the money and we have an independent opinion of it. That's our job. Peter? I was going to say that we can make it clear quite as a comment perhaps on both our... I think the comment has to explain that one's contingent on the other. Paul? To further what Charlie said is we might come away from trying it out in town meeting and think it's a good thing but we then might say it's a good thing but we don't think it's worth this much money. That's right. Half that much but not that much. So that's why I think that... But you can't do it for half that much. We don't know. Right now we don't know the money thing. I can tell you that on the homework I know pretty closely what it's going to cost. It's not going to be much. But I personally until I try it out won't have a good idea as to whether I think it's worth whatever that amount of money is. And one other note on your comment about everyone's roll call vote I believe the moderator said last year that he may very well not use it for every vote. He may very well do voice votes for lots of things and only... Yeah, I think it's pretty likely that more votes will be in effect more than half All the routine stuff will go through. There will be many more of that. I do want my vote recorded on the measure of wood and bar. John? So are you recommending no action on 55 and then a subsequent motion if you decide all the way to know or if we want to put the thing in place in... The other point is that to balance the budget and have a budget book that makes sense there needs to be a number in there and there has to be zero or something. And if it's zero it says we're recommending against it. But my concern is if it's something it implies we're recommending for it. And I don't think we have any basis to do either of those right now. In some sense the the motion that they're putting in the finance committee and town meetings is more appropriate in the last week of town meeting than now. So I would say having a budgetary number in there but unless the finance committee affirmatively votes to support this it should be stated that it's a a bookmark or something like that. What is suggested as the finance committee's recommendation on R of the 50th with no action? 55 is the money item. I think you could make a positive level of favorable action for say $30,000 and then underneath it contingent upon favorable action under 54. I mean obviously 55 is contingent on 54. And if they vote against it it's a no action. But to a certain degree I think this is town meetings decision. It would be the first time I think we've ever not done that but I think it's town meetings decision. Every vote that's taken a town meeting is town meetings decision. And we shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that budgetary vote is our decision. We're making recommendations on these things. And this article is no different than any other. It just happens that the consumers or the users of this stuff are town meeting members. But we still have the same obligation to make an informed recommendation on this that we have on every other article. Okay. When? Peter. So I think what Charlie was saying is that we can't make an informed recommendation at this point. And because of the timing issue unless we have, unless we decided that meeting before it, the meeting before that article comes up to make an informed recommendation, we really can't make a recommendation. Some people are saying we shouldn't make a recommendation. We should leave it town meetings on its own. So I think that's the two choices either we defer the recommendation until the day of the article or we put the dollars in and make it clear we're not making a recommendation. We're just putting the dollars in and this is the one instance in which because we don't have the information we're not making a recommendation. It's a mechanical solution that could work. So, Peter. I agree with what you just said. I'm a town meeting member. I don't know whether it's going to be worthwhile or not. There's no way I can make a recommendation. Well, you know, nothing's going to get spent without town meetings. So, Paul. So, going along with this, some kind of wording such as we're we're not making a recommendation at this time. After it is used in town meeting, we will meet again to decide a recommendation and and something like work. A recommendation of $30,000. I think it's a placeholder. It's a placeholder. Peter? So, I'm probably about to say that you're about to say we do have to balance the budget here. So, if we have to add $30,000 on the fly we create a sort of slight mechanical issue on the floor of town meetings. So, would it be easier if we just, like Alan said, appropriate a sum of zero initially, as was previously mentioned, put the $30,000 into the reserve fund? Because it would be easier if we just table the reserve fund when it came out because it's an article. I think the place to put it is in the next article, the fiscal stability fund. I sort of arranged it that way. So, you could do it just to have mechanically have a motion for favorable action with the comments saying this contingent put in zero and then plug in whatever the dollar figure is when we get to it. Zero after it's used. So, you have a motion for favorable action for zero? Yes. With a comment that a specific recommendation would then remain when we get to the article? Yes. Is it article 15, 55 or 54? 55. 55. 55 is just a resolution. I'd like to make a substitute motion for an amendment or something for $15,000 and my intent there is to fund I believe $15,000 would fund one year additional round a full town meeting next year and aside from the bookkeeping and I want to confirm that number but I want a number that would we confidently say next year we'll do the same for the whole year. Part of that is bookkeeping because I think it's better to show it and take it out of the last minute than to not show it and put it out of the last minute. But the other one is I'd like to have a number that's defensible that we got from the committee so that it's more transparent to town meeting that if you vote affirmative on 54 then you are essentially committing to spend whatever we put into the fund. It gives a more clear value judgment I think if the number's right there there's a hard number in front of them. When it comes down to well we like it but it's a really worth $15,000 to do it again next year that becomes a more concrete decision. So I'm not going to substitute $15,000 potentially to be adjusted to make sure it's one year and I guess I'm recommending at least in the beginning at least for another year or two before we institutionalize it with the capital before we buy it. Is there a second to that? This year was $10,000 they think that's a teaser. I believe $15,000 is what they would expect. But again I want to confirm that but I lost it but I'm using the number $15,000 what I'm really saying is giving us a number that says we're pretty sure we can rent this next year, one year but this amount of money flat out and sort of in these initial stages ask town meeting to make the decision one year at a time. Dave? To make a statement out on this we've been renting for two years. That this decision be able to not commit to a purchase yet even after a purchase. That says we're not supporting this project unless we're able to support it. We're sending a message to town meeting members that we think this is a good project and we don't know and if we send it over to a test so let's do the test and find out whether it's a good project but if we don't say explicitly that we're not supporting the variance of the project then we're sending them a message that they should vote for this and town meeting listens to what they read the comments to. I think Charlie can write on this I think it would be cleaner to go just to zero and and get more the numbers and the analysis and stuff like that and then put in a dollar figure later and like I said it's going to be balanced by fifty six on that. Dave? I was going to say and that's why I'm going with the zero because I think we're all trying to be respectful here in my own thoughts of this right? I mean I look at this and well it seems cool and fun because of technology I also look at the trends of elections in this town where the majority of town meeting elections are unopposed and some people don't even get enough people to run in their precinct so the big human cry that we're going to have accountability all of a sudden it sounds good but I don't know how it works in reality and then I also so I think we get to the point with this spending of some of the people in the room but you know I think it's one of those discussions if you went to the 40,000 people that aren't town meeting members and you said hey check this out could have given 30,000 to the police fire or school department but we gave it to this voting system I think people look like you were nuts right? And now that's my opinion so that might not reflect the opinion of town meeting but I think that's a discussion that needs to be had in article 54 before we appropriated money under 55 and that's why I think the zero works because it doesn't give an endorsement of anything it doesn't say we try it again it doesn't say we think it's a good idea it just gives everybody their opportunity to talk we get to 54 and depending on how that goes then we can move to 55 but to me and this was the last way I would close it even though I just said that if the town meeting votes for it I would absolutely support the appropriation because it's not my job my personal opinion to start creating roadblocks the entire way so I think put zero we have to discuss them 54 and we go from there now what it could be is that one of the meetings let's say we think town meeting is going to go six nights probably the fifth night I'll schedule a vote here and and that would encumber the people who are not town meeting members on this committee would follow either on TV or in the balcony because so we'd hash it out and give our opinion what Charlie says our recommendation on whether we think it's worthwhile and then it's up to town meetings to decide but that I'd expect everybody here when I schedule that so I guess I will withdraw my substantive motion and support the zero I'm conditioned that when article 54 is discussed we have a number in front of town meetings so they know what the implication of a yes vote is so they have a dollar number attached to saying yes on 54 we need to make that very clear so maybe in the comment of 55 recommend zero but if you vote 54 we're going to recommend just so they have a dollar okay I was just going to say if we go with zero that the comment section has to really be explicit and one term that I've heard not to get around so without prejudice without prejudice it's a placeholder okay so the motion has been made in section for positive appropriation article under 55 with a zero number this is explicitly contingent upon 50 I'll work out the wording and run it around people any further discussion all those in favor of a positive appropriation and zero dollars with a good comment please say aye you know if I may comment one of the most frustrating meetings town meetings that I ever had is one where there was some controversial issue I forgot what it was now like 10 years ago or something like that and a roll call vote was forced and people who had already left the meeting this is late in the evening were called back on the telephone as the vote was progressing in order to win you know it was very selective when people got called and I found that enormously frustrating and this thing would cure that problem that wouldn't happen again I don't know anybody remembers that I just think in my memory but it was a huge pain in the neck at the time very irritating okay good continuing saga here okay the next article is article 20 what did we do without article 354 we didn't vote on it in the office I mean 54 is a resolution I don't see what the select one are going to do I mean it'd be a select one's main motion but we'll have to see what that you know what they go okay article 20 is our oil products and Pam are you here for that okay could you please give your name if you could come over here just to get a little bit closer to the microphone if you could give us your name and the purpose of this article what we'll do with it go to the resident and this is shown in the one article as a bylaw but it is intended as a resolution so there is no money attached to it that I know of the resolution is to oppose tar sands derived products from coming into or through New England and specifically in Arlington okay what products do you foresee what products do you foresee this effect heating oil gasoline and how could we trace where your heating oil or the committee you mentioned it affects gasoline retail gasoline sales retail gasoline in the town hall that's correct what I heard from you is that I wonder if this could if you thought about the possible hardship this could place on a retail a tank truck goes out from the terminal with a mobile tank truck goes out from the terminal with deliveries to mobile stations in Belmont, Arlington somewhere along the way someone's going to have to pay the price of a different distiller is that not right this this is something that I proposed to be phased in in the next three years not something to take place immediately and it would have to be a regional thing to be able to really enact a prohibition so that's the reason why this is a resolution and not a law it's a suggestion that we oppose it in this town and then have that carried through to other towns in the region the moment the person driving the tank truck doesn't know what's in it either would you please tell me what Ty's saying is oil is and why you're opposed to it Tarzan's oil is a thick fishermen product that is primarily from the Alberta region of Canada and it has extremely intense production that causes greenhouse gases when it's produced and also destroys the bore in the forest in the Alberta region which is a major carbon sink so this is a way of trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the Arlington area in the region in the northeast in order to meet our climate action plan that we have in Arlington the one that is signed by the Governors of the Northeast and so on by 2020 I've heard very little of this until suddenly out of here why is it that I don't hear the environmentalists or any other people like that speaking against this and it's the first I've heard about this a lot of us are speaking against it I think you may have heard of the Keystone XL pipeline perhaps that pipeline goes from the Alberta Tarzan down to the Gulf of Mexico right now there's the Keystone pipeline that has just been opened that is delivering Tarzans to refineries in the Gulf and the XL would be an express to double the amount of Tarzans being processed in the US in the Gulf area and if that one goes through and several other pipelines come through then the possibility of having the northeast affected by increased percentage of Tarzans in the fuel oil and in the heating oil in the region then our greenhouse gas initiatives will not be able to do that John, you can't tell whether they're at Tarzan in the fuels or not how do you know the fuels can add more? We as consumers don't know they know what they're refining but we just said consumers have more impact than the New Yorkers okay the objectives are still it's gasoline won't gasoline almost but I it's one of my rush chairs is on the second list of all our haters isn't this really a presidential decision and it shouldn't be a resolution about Armington it should be a resolution for the John Lee to ask and first the president to veto the pipeline I mean that's what we're trying to get to Karen? So what I think that if I add in some things what I think you may be correct me if I'm wrong is that there are goals that certain people would like Arlington and the Northeast to reach in terms of greenhouse gas keeping our numbers lower if we are using Tarzan produced oil then the amount of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide we're putting into the system the amount of gas we're putting into the system is higher because it takes more carbon dioxide or I guess greenhouse gas is the right word to produce that oil to the point where we can use it within our heating system and so if a tracking system existed which people are suggesting or where the Tarzan oil and gasoline travels to then places like Arlington or the Northeast could determine whether or not they were using it or could vote as consumers not to use it That's correct And so what you're asking in the resolution is whether or not town meeting would vote to limit or to refuse the presence of oil and gasoline that comes through the Tarzan system in the town farm Is that what you're saying? That at the moment that we would oppose the supply and transport of it into the New England area Yes In Arlington I don't know whether we can specifically do that right now but I have spoken with representative Sean Garvey who is endorsing this resolution and working with him to try and come up with a fuel quality standard that would that allow consumers to know what percentage of Tarzan is in that product Okay Are there any other questions? Did you change the article to a resolution against the bylaw? Why are you intended to be a bylaw? It's a bylaw in the so that's the way it stands not a resolution I can probably he says there was any action that says the way it is the word Do you have any quantitative information on the relative impact of Tarzan refining versus other controlled projects? Yes There's the well to tank process and then there's the tank to wheel and I think when you're talking about you fill up the gas station and then use the car and those emissions are the tank to wheel to get it to the tank this is 17 times no excuse me it's I think it's 17% more greenhouse gas from the well to tank and station to production Do you have any quantitative the impact on the price of oil or gas that the restrictions that the closing would have? There are various studies some of them say there's absolutely no impact in the cost though others say that once the pipeline is like Keystone XL come in to use the price of gas we will actually go up because more Tarzan and other oils that are applied in the Midwest will now be exported and so our price will go up Any other questions? Thank you very much Okay, does anybody have any budgets? You're going to have to kick this back to the slide They might support it They might support it It was Wait a second Do you want to finance committee take a position or do you want to get involved? No, not a financial one Okay, how about motions been made and seconded for no action which means we're involved If that passes, that's our motion If it doesn't pass I'll take the motion whether to let the select one handle it and we'll go from there So we're very clear on that No action, that's our position If that fails then I'll take the motion to let the select one handle it on that All in favor of no action, please say aye Aye All opposed? Aye All in favor of no action, please raise your hand One, two, three, four, five, six Opposed? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine Okay Motion to let the select one handle it Second Okay, all those in favor, please say aye Aye Opposed? Select an article Hopefully you all know a little bit more Okay Budgets Peter Planning Seventy-three I think on Monday you've got last week you've got a substitute revised budget for through us from the town manager to make the small changes If you don't have that in front of you I'll explain it Is that there 402953 Seventy-three 75 Okay, Peter Going to the salary sheet Well first I should in case you didn't notice there's something like a 14% increase in this budget from last year so I presume everybody's somewhat concerned about that we certainly were and the I believe that the main thing here is that the town manager wants to make the planning department more effective for development and there's several things related to that and some that aren't related to it So there's a new person in the number two position Ted Fields and his title now based on our changes last year our pay plan both last year is economic development planner He's been on board now for I don't know six to eight months something like that and he was very well qualified they say hence he started near the top of his pay grade the one thing that we all know he's done is host a incubation seminar in this room it was a panel discussion of people that have done these kinds of shared office arrangements ways to approach that and he got people to come that were both property owners that might host such a thing and people that might like to use such a thing it was a good discussion and since then he says things are slowly moving in that direction the only change really here on this well there are two changes on this that affects the bottom line the first one is the administrative aid the person that's had that job for a long time died recently they have a new person on board and the salary is established as as a base salary for 2015 of 44.918 which is somewhat lower than the previous person was making which is what on the original spreadsheet and because that salary is lower the central school offset is also lower because that's half of the salary so that's another change to this sheet and what's that number the offset 22459 and then another change is unrelated to development I guess the conservation administrator is now 0.66 of a full time job instead of 0.4 something so she's got a higher salary here and of course it's beneficial so I have benefits now that she didn't before and I understand that was lobbied for by the chair of the conservation commission why don't she not have benefits before she would have qualified if she was at a 0.6 if she was at a 0.4 she would be yeah it's 18.7 more than half no it's only 18.74 I checked with Karen this morning oh thanks for talking what is the reason for the increased hours more work they expect to be very busy and one other change the third change is the offset from the fees fund conservation fund is reduced from $5,000 to $3,000 because they don't have because that's essentially all they have in that fund right now and the deputy town manager says we can't budget what we expect to get only what we actually have so that may be more attractive next year the other thing I want to say something about is the line 53 and the expenses actually can I do one other thing for request one of my meetings with Karen this morning I mean it's on longevity a number of the department heads their longevity is incorrect so it's one of the things I wanted to do tonight since we're on it Kowalski is one of them it should be instead of reading I thought it was a straight percent instead of 1156 it should be 1184 it should be 1184 885 1185 it's fixed on the news okay that's great sorry I didn't take that up what were they doing wrong they did something wrong on the calculation so ITHR planning and development inspectional services HHS administration and DPSW administrator are all incorrect so for department heads we'll just say that when you're done I'll just make sure everybody has them updated so do you think that's straightened out with the deputy town manager yes I guess it is because he did this this is part of his redo okay he sent out emails to all of these department heads February 6th and then he gave this to me this morning thank you so going back to the expenses the last line here is a new line $8,585 this is based on a recommendation that Mr. Fields made to the town manager department head to buy three pieces of combination software and database the first one provides details on Arlington economy the second one gives information about vacancies in Arlington properties and the third one allows him to estimate the impact of various government programs and business changes all these things he could do himself but he can save him he can save a lot of time and effort assuming these products work as an advertising I think by using the products he receives this as a one-shot I doubt it maybe to start with but I'm sure there's a rental on it the savings are in order of the $10,000 $5,000 to $10,000 in his estimates savings are what? what he would otherwise have to pay to do the work which he has been starting to do I recommend the planning total of $402,953 did you correct anything about the conservation administrator? this used to be done by a commission the part-time person who moved into the plan the person would have some budget provision but we're up to a two-thirds person about $44,000 now considering the amount of conservation you have on the channel give you an example of what the additional work would be no, I didn't get any details on I put I have some information I understand that there's increased and I don't know if you think about more hearings there's concerns also understand that to help increase that fund that helps pay there's a discussion going on right now about increasing permanent fees so there's a I think there's a plan who would set the fees probably about did you get an idea when they're going to do that? I understand that this is a they're talking about right now but perhaps Peter you can just go back to the finance committee fees are going to increase to cover some of this additional cost well to clarify that question of is the person the conservation administrator going from no benefits to benefits it's so a work week is 37 hours I thought it was 35 is how many? I thought it was 35 35 hours and how many hours? 18.74 you can start getting benefits in health insurance at 18.74 if this person was working before that's 16 hours so they were not getting benefits and now with the .66 David do you have something to add? if I could when we were in a discussion on the selected budget it was explained to Peter and myself there is such a thing as a permanent pot time position versus a pot time position I understand this if you have a permanent pot time position you are eligible for a certain benefits I don't know if that's the case if you just have a classification as a pot time position the examples I will come to the top of my head is the folks that we have we were reading I understand they are a permanent pot time position they are eligible for certain benefits I know there are people in different places within the time at the time of government that have a permanent pot time I don't know what qualifies the hours to be a permanent pot time position versus a pot time position but it's a classification I think that that was in the context of longevity then that would be one of the benefits of a permanent pot time you are it's prorated but you are eligible for longevity yeah we're going to try to put a gospel for temporary okay there were many additional questions there was a controversy recently about a study that they did about the economic benefits from the theaters I don't know if you saw that article in the advocate did you see that budget amount that they could spend whatever they want every year or do you know anything about that study or where the funds came from I didn't inquire specifically about that but they can spend the otherwise unclassified and that is what it's for for that kind of study I don't want to hold up any further but can somebody on we're loading the advice software can whoever be the IT budget just shoot an email out to the IT director and ask him he knows this so if you're asking me to ask David does he know about that I would get concerned with these things because we give him $9,000 and then they show up at his door and say hey guess what Tom you didn't want to implement this here's my money I'm ready there's a manager I know the manager I hope he told the IT I just want to make sure who has the IT budget I do I mean we've already met but I can that's the problem yeah I can just send an email I'm sure he has never heard heard really along those lines I guess one other thing I should mention the the technical plant there's a job that's yeah the other fields technical planner analyst is part-time here he's also on the IT budget and he's also in water and sewer so that person is actually a full-time person direct effect on this budget okay okay there are any other questions on the planning budget so do I have a motion second so move and second it for $402,953 all those in favor we say aye opposed favorable action any other speakers you want to do ARB while we're here next page we recommend that as as printed what are you doing the redevelopment board I was I want to see what you feel about this and this doesn't have anything directly to do with the passing of this budget but I can't remember if we talked about it last year but I was thinking that it would be nice to bring all of the rental properties in the town into one budget and call it rental properties and move the redevelopment board expenses just for the redevelopment board move that into the planning department as a line item call this rental properties and move everything into this budget including items that might be in public works you've got location you've got Tom Kouboa you've got the gallon library you've got a few other things and move them all into one budget so we can see these are all the rental properties and then we can have as a separate part this is all the revenue you brought in almost like the enterprise fund but it really isn't and I mentioned to the manager last fall it slipped to the bottom it was a new list but I want to make sure everybody else whether you think this is a good idea Caroline? I think you're going to have a hard time getting the rec department to take that revenue out of their budget and put it here but the others the rec department in terms of their rental properties okay the recreation didn't you just say you mentioned the basic public works okay there's properties in there I'm not sure where the gallon library it's here okay the gallon library is here you've got Tom Kouboa I think it's on the library well Gibbs is no longer Gibbs we sold right the department well that's right actually it is okay it's scattered in like several budgets I'd like to just bring it all and put it in one budget so we can see it so it's more transparent Charlie? I think there may be a maybe a problem with that a certain number of the town properties are managed by the town manager in other properties they're managed by the Rebuildment Board in further renewal funds I know the essential school would be in that case so they have to be they have to be segregated and having them together you know they are essentially a an enterprise a specialized enterprise and by combination of the town bylaws and the town manager act and whatever the act is that created the Rebuildment Board those things can stay in the Rebuildment Board so they don't have to stay separate it will be desirable to have it all in one place even if you didn't add it up well you couldn't have it in one place all I'm telling you is you can't put it in one budget that's all I'm saying I mean I don't see any reason why you just we don't collect the information and put it in the finance committee report as an appendix or something like that I'm not sure we can pull it off well we can put it at the top of the first section of the manager John? for example when this room gets rented for a wedding or anything like that well those are in revolving funds right now so you know I don't think you know I'm looking for for rooms within buildings but that are rented on a permanent basis it's a permanent basis you know Malko always rented out on a permanent basis I don't know about Rider Street but that used to be where the old parks were created I'm not sure who the John Library is here but maybe there's a couple others but I was going to push the manager a little bit more to pull that together next year we seem terribly excited about it I think that's great I've been pushing for something like that for years DPW has to pay the cost never sees the revenue doesn't control it like Malko or DPW doesn't but they have to carry the cost and take care of it the king is with the exception of the land of the buildings that are near renewal funds all the money from the rental of those buildings has to go into the treasure can't years ago we had segregated and going back into a little we balled around to the building but I don't think there should be some I've said we could do it but wouldn't we create an enterprise fund we've just been putting all the rental properties in one place and if you're thinking that wouldn't it be nice if there's the whole first part of the money next to that or something like that not necessarily I'm saying wouldn't it be nice for the tax hearer to know that spending X amount taking care of mountain blow off and where is the revenue coming in from the rent of that actually Michael Newton has that but where can we see it and where can the town meetings see it well that's what I'm saying we've created rental property all the expenses are there the revenue goes into the general fund but we can set aside one of the columns little boxes in our fifth time report that shows the revenues that's all bring all the revenues central schools okay great Peter so along those lines the new person of the town manager softwares he's been there about a year now I think his name is Bhutan one of his jobs is to get on top of the maybe all the buildings that the manager is responsible for and he also is helping out on the the ones that Gerald has just been talking about the urban renewal buildings the central school and naval street and which is the Jefferson cutter house anyway he has a spreadsheet that shows the revenue and expenses and a bottom line and he's gathered the the history together since 2011 so he has a five-year history he doesn't have any projections yet but this is the first time that anybody's got this all together in an organized way at least partially organized way since Allen McClendon left it shows incidentally that and as of last fall when he presented to the capital budget committee capital planning committee a pretty substantial profit so to speak excess of income over expenses the there is that includes the cost of paying on on borrowing cost of money but not the there's no estimate in here on possible future costs is it such a state that you can share that with us such as what but what they're thinking about doing is charging the tenants a little premium of two and a half percent um that would somehow go against be set aside for capital needs and I didn't have when we were discussing it I didn't get a clear idea of how that would happen but anyway they're thinking about it some good good moves in this direction okay so it's the we have the gifts total Allen you had all that together is 264,514 the redevelopment board gives Allen there is a there is a salary of course the guy that takes care of some of those bills any questions okay we have a motion for those four items second okay newton seconded so it's 10,800 for the redevelopment board 15,000 for the primary term 5,000 for the down and 233,714 for the gifts all those in favor can we say aye aye 2,64514 2,64514 2,64514 okay Peter sit your honor roll any others David we can go back to selectance page 23 page 23 the the increases on the selectance of budgets is primarily salaries that are in wages which includes an increase in longevity the expenses have stayed the same as they flashed them so they're requesting it printed 236,755 on the selectance budget you can see that this is how I do the discussion on this permanent time position and in the selectance office the principal clerk and typist receives a longevity it's prorated but because her title of her position is permanent time so does she have health insurance she does not take like now but she is offered to well I guess it would be opportunity the budget is going up 5.66 percent it shouldn't cut elsewhere I believe that's because of the last year of the contracts the salary increases and the debt increases still over a second half right Comptroller which is the other selectment budget is huge compared to this one to kind of store the difference the other I didn't do the calculation controllers budget like we can do that one I have them at once now that's going on 2.41 so I suppose so you could offset the two I'm served people actually separate just doing the first time what happened 43 does that math work out to 3 percent they always balance it with the controller 1 percent is $1400 you drop that down to $8000 that's about 3rd $3.25 so what's the local local can add over by 3 4 I think they're over by about $350 combined okay so you added the 14 budgets and both the selectment and the controller yeah I just added their 14 times it by 3.5 percent and then minused out the increases so how much $350 thank you we're half of the percentage and we take it out a lot of supplies we don't have the selectment to be embarrassed what's the other way to take that away from you Carolyn do you have the controller yes are you recommending it as credit yes the way I computed it they're under the 3.5 percent between the two between the two did you edit it did you do it did you do it with the long hand not your hand you did a combination this is higher than half I can't do this with my head now I got about 450 above the total of the two budgets is $659,283 are you counting $659 $659 the 14 budget is $636,659 times 3.5 and I subtract oh I'm sorry you're right $936 yes we could either cut the controller or the office supplies is selected by $350 not increase the offset I was going to say I don't think the offset is right yeah well the offsets are the I know that it's not water sewer or is it yeah it is probably it's not water sewer well I assume the offsets were put in there for a reason that's the controller what's big in the controllers she's got telephone expense increase and then crystal reporting it's the $2000 so those are the two big things she also has a longevity increase which is throwing which is increasing it you know they only spent $4200 in fiscal 13 in fiscal 13 just a suggestion not $350 off so even $600 at least two numbers up and it's exactly the same but you get total to both budgets is $636,659 just fiscal 14 by joseph the $637,259 I'll get $636 the $224,067 and $412,592 $635,059 I'll grant you that it's not a lot of money but $639,283 wait is the auditing and the town report under the select list budgets so they weren't counted in your total so that brings them under 3.5% I bet when you count those in no it causes a different problem because they want a 56% increase under elections but don't count because all depends on how I mean in the town report the auditing is sort of standard I don't know if we could count it in but there was no increase there and there are lots of other budgets that would sort of stand with james too so it's all good connections it's part of their budget to come to the 3.5% okay is everybody satisfied when we count those two in of course when those things jump $1,000 at some point then they're going to scream so we can't go back and forth on how we do this okay so we're doing the select budget in 236,755 correct we have a motion? second any discussion or questions all those in favor of 236,755 please say aye aye okay David we're going to hold off on the election sows tonight we've asked Marie to give us a print out breakdown on the expenses sows and expenses she hadn't done this she had been out for a period of time okay next year we have a primary in September we've got a state election I remember we had a town election a town election a town election state primary and the regular state election compared to what we had last year okay how about the print out reports okay accounting auditing at $55,000 page David that is on page 26 26 26 it's the one right after the one you're looking for $55,000 same as last year no increase okay do we have a motion on the town auditing? second any discussion or questions for those of you who are really going to beat up yourself the audit is really interesting it's a lot longer and more complex than it used to be but it used to be interesting you can download it off the web okay all in favor $55,000 for the town audit we say aye opposed unanimous okay the print out reports $3,500 motion all in favor if we say aye aye okay any other favor that's all I have okay Peter do you have any others anybody else Comptroller Comptroller page 41 carries went up significantly because both Lewis and Fields had significant longevity increases part of their contracts the telephone expenses went way up because there's a certain amount of built in reserve for the old system which seems to be breaking on a regular basis there's an RFP out for a voiceover system and those are the two main reasons for that increase and then the 2000 jump in the otherwise unclassified is for crystal reporting some expenses for WB Mason new versions of and there is a small contract for some database work that isn't in the IT budget so it ended up over here and it's database work that she'll be using she's still under budget under the 3% wow this is select one's budget it's going to be under 3.5% okay we have any questions John? I guess I've never paid a lot of attention to this budget before but what is the meanest stipend so one of the things when we get to the human resources budget you'll also see a $50,000 amount in there for training that's outside of the normal training budget that human resources has and the reason is because there are very few administrators within the town of Arlington who know how to use munis and so whenever they hire a new person or someone who's not really comfortable with the munis has a question they call Ruth Lewis and so she's sort of available at any point for that she also helps people when they need to adjust the way they're using munis she gets involved if there's a problem with maintenance she gets involved and so they have instead of adding that job description into her job they've added in this munis stipend for the last few years so that's what that $5,000 is and it does go towards her retirement you brought this up last year the amount of retirement it's involved in the salary that is determined when her retirement gets determined the $5,000 is also included but it's work she does on a regular basis it's not a one-time project here and there it's worked throughout the year that way I'm not sure but I think because they're facing out parts of munis and they're adding in training for staff in the future may reduce the amount of time she has to spend doing that and it's because she is a particular expert in munis here in munis? questions? I just had a comment to Carol for the marks and that is that if they had to hire a munis representative to come in and train these people the expense would be a lot higher than the $5,000 it just seems strange to me I mean if you have a piece of software that presumably makes the life better for everybody what it makes things etc every time I've experienced that people just did it somehow but what's going on you get a new tool you have to look about it munis is an enterprise accounting and management system it's not Excel it's probably a tool well it also works my own small comment from having looked at this in the past munis is a little different I go to my company our accounting system can be accessed by 10 people all of them are in the accounting department nobody outside the accounting can touch it that's usually standard in corporate America in the public sector when you have a public sector system munis is actually used by a lot of departments the public works has access to the fire department has access to it for billing and things like that so you're right when you have like 10 people who have access to it and they all sit next to each other it's very easy to administer and everybody can sort of learn together when one person is at the fire station in public safety and another person is at the school department and two people are here and the system is decentralized like that that's like Charlie said where you don't have the knowledge here and you don't have the people that understand it and you're going to end up in these situations where you'd have to bring someone from the outside to train you're taking the easy way out or the cheaper way out and having to hire someone to train it I think all the departments have access and actually you put their budgets in the munis correct and then the manager's office downloads into itself and then gives us this and then we put it in ours that's another issue okay there are the other questions on the controlers budget okay so moved second by the way I'm assuming you're recommending that yes I'm recommending it as is okay so motions remain seconded for 422,528 on the controlers budget all those in favor please say aye opposed unanimous other buttons I actually don't want to do IT because at the last minute David took 10,000 to change a grade of somebody which is actually a re-class if I understand it correctly and that re-class doesn't appear in the re-class I picked up today from Karen and I didn't think of that until this afternoon when I was looking over all 4 budgets so I need to talk to both David and Karen about that particular grade change we can do personnel or human resources budget without doing re-class if you want okay so human resources is page 33 33 32 no 231 231 sorry oh no that's a re-class I was right the first time 33 33 35 is the exact sheet so here the big thing you'll notice is all of a sudden there's $50,000 for training where did that come from and that is they're finding more and more administrators within the town who are being asked to use office excel or office particularly excel but some other types of computer systems don't have a skill set so their current job hasn't involved them using it and they test people when they have them apply for jobs both external and internal candidates and they're finding skill sets are missing in certain places and so they would like to set aside a training budget specifically to upgrade people's skills around software use and most of the people who would be gaining that training would be administrative and administrative technical staff so that's why there is that increase there would that be done by resources or would it be done by IT they're putting in human resources David actually asked her to put it here because he felt it was more office work than it was actually IT work and so it's a training program that will run through human resources rather than through IT now does this already include training for managers throughout the years that they already do that on personnel issues? Right so you'll see there's a $20,000 jump so in the past that amount has been anywhere from around $25,000 to $30,000 so the difference is that extra $20,000 is what will be used for this particular training this is Charlie and then John Charlie where is the offset that keeps her within 3.5% that's the whole manager the oh very each of their budgets can go up and down but all managers recommendations has to be within 3.5 I think that's what we've been talking about right there's some places where the message is going to be about John well I'll make a comment you all disagree with me but I have got I get disturbed by learning that people need money to do training for a job if I can put it that way I've used software for 50 years and I've always learned it for myself whatever the hell it was put the effort in to learn how to do it and I suspect that most everybody else here who's done software has done the same thing and I don't quite understand why it is that budgets have to include something like this for training how many of us here have administrative jobs or have held administrative jobs for more than 5 years in our lives none of us we're talking about a very different group of people and their access to education their access to other people within their very small sphere of life who know this stuff and can help them with it so that's my response okay yeah, that's it I don't have second experience all the technical plan town hall was an MIT you must have worked for a chief company job you know but if you're a carpenter okay and you're hired by the DPW there's not a line item here for training carpenters for example someone who is supposed to come and do a job for you as an administrator should come with those skills it would seem to me if you're a carpenter and you don't have the skill you go out and learn how to use the tools and the new hires do have to have those skills and when someone when an administrator applies for a job that requires them to pass a test and they don't pass the test they don't get to apply for the job you know they're told I'm sorry but we need the skill set in order to do that the problem is some of that office work then enters into their current job and you know and that has changed over time people are finding that they need to do more and more work and so those are the people the money will go towards that makes sense that makes sense there are a lot of sympathy people like that John there's also an immense amount of many of these departments there's an immense amount of regulatory compliance that they have to deal with on a regular basis and then of course training also and it's changed over time so somebody could be here for 20 years and have to do things differently and the school department and their adaptation to these common core standards and lots of things are a good example of that there are similar things on the outside any other questions I assume you're recommending this printed I'm recommending a scripted okay do I have a motion? second okay any further discussion all those in favor of 298,084 please say aye aye those the animals 226 okay any other budgets nope the motion being adjourned