 I'm going to call the Finance Committee to order at 2.35 p.m. on January 28, 2020. Thank you, members of the committee who are here, which is all the one member who's coming from Holyoke and will be here in a few minutes, Ms. Pam, Councilor Pamson. So we're going to go ahead and begin the meeting. I want to thank Amherst Media for providing coverage. It's really very much appreciated. To give you, and this is directed to the committee heads up, I'm going to take the agenda a little bit out of order, which we're allowed to do. And the things that I want to take up first are two financial orders that involve two of our department heads, and I want to give them the opportunity to meet with us and answer questions and then move forward. So we're going to start with financial order 2064 and then go to financial order 2068. And for each one, we need to understand that we need to make sure that we have all of our questions down and that we feel we're ready to make a recommendation. Dorothy's here. So we are all here before we really get down to business. So Sonya, is there anything you want to say, introductory, as far as sort of an overview of what is proposed for financial order 2064? Sure. This is a repurposing capital that we appropriated in the spring, was it? We appropriated from free cash, $212,000, was it, to install a temporary bridge on Station Road. A lot of the costs came in under what we estimated, and Guilford can explain that to you more than I can. So we have $116,919 left in that capital account, and we could close that out to free cash or we could repurpose it for another purpose, and there's the need to fix an intersection in North Amherst Meadow and Pine Senate, and I keep looking at Guilford to reaffirm what I'm saying here. We know that that's probably going to come in less than the $116,000, so we made this order be more general so that the rest could be used on sidewalks and roads. That still need to be done. Just really, I don't think there's anything more I can add to that. Guilford, how about you? Good. Thank you. Guilford. My suggestion is that you tell us a little bit about what happened with the bridge and how we, the prospects of any future expenditures on Station Road, or if we're done until we, what our plan is there, and then move to North Amherst and our continuing frustration without getting the grant that we've applied for multiple times. It's a tall order. So when we were doing Station Road bridge, we were going pretty quick. We weren't really researching everything to the fullest. We went with what we had, and we were putting money in place to actually do the project. The engineer's estimate for the temporary bridge was $212,000, and they based that on buying a bridge and having a contractor install it and doing a bunch of other things with outside workers, not with town forces and with a different type of design for the bridge. Because that was the easiest thing they could put together at the time. Once the money was appropriated, that also included design money for the temporary bridge. So we actually started designing the bridge, and as we designed the bridge, we worked the bridge down to the bridge you see there now. That bridge, you can go buy one if you want to. There's a company that sells them in Pennsylvania. You can go buy the size and width you want and get the railings you want and everything. It's an off-the-shelf product. So that saved a great deal of money for us. We didn't have to have someone actually design and build something. So that brought the cost down a great deal for the bridge. And then as we were looking at the bridge, we just started taking it apart ourselves as we were waiting for all the approvals that come from Mass DOTs because we had the time, we just did it. So that was included in the $212,000. Our time is actually a little bit cheaper than our contractor's time, because we don't pay prevailing wage to our employees. Just a punch for the employees there. So we saved some money there. And then after we got it all out and we started looking at the plans and they were approved, we realized it wasn't that hard to build, and we just built it ourselves as well. So most of the savings was the fact we did not have to contract it out to an outside contractor, and the fact that we used an off the shelf product that's readily available in the market. We didn't have to have something specially made for us. It was modified, but it wasn't a complete new build. So we saved half the money that way, doing it that way. So, you wanted to ask a question? Okay, so that was all the money that we appropriated for the temporary bridge. And we're still submitting plans and getting them approved for the permanent bridge. There is no appropriation for the permanent bridge yet. It's because we don't have approved plans. We are working through the permitting process for the permanent bridge. So eventually in six months or so, we'll be talking about what to do about the permanent bridge, and there'll be another appropriation needed. And hopefully there'll be some state money to go with it. So that's Station Road Bridge. I can stop now and take questions. Yeah, my questions are Station Road. Okay, go ahead, Lynn. Have we finally gotten approval for Station Road Bridge? For the temporary bridge? Yes, inspection. That was the temporary bridge was approved by Mass DOT before we installed it. Okay. And we installed it, and then they came and did an inspection after we installed it, and they were completely passed inspection. And it was everything was okay. Okay, and the next question is, although we fail to pay prevailing wage, do we in fact take money from this money to reimburse the accounts that those employees would normally be on that worked on it? Yes. Thank you. Except for, there was three employees who weren't reimbursed, and that was basically myself and the town engineer and one of the inspectors. But the highway crews that did the work where their time came off the project. Okay, thank you. Yes. How long do you expect the temporary bridge to last? Are you allowed to plead the fifth here? I mean, so the bridge itself, the structure that we bought, it will last for years. It's capable of lasting for quite a long time. It's made to be drugged through the forest and unfolded and refolded and unfolded and used many times and to have much heavier equipment than we have on it. The sub-base and the foundation for the bridge that that temporary bridge sits on is a very, that's the delicate part of the structure. The consulting engineer who approved it and designed it, he's not very thrilled about this bridge staying in service for more than a couple years. And when we get to a couple years, he's going to be like really pushing us hard to get it taken down and replaced or to do something else. So those are basically the two answers. Yeah, Mary Lou. Can you take the bridge itself and just redo the footings in that and then put that bridge back on top of the new footings and whatever needs to be done? Make it the permanent bridge. The state will not allow that. I think Shalini would. Okay, the why question. Why won't the state allow it? So I guess my question is that are we taking all the steps to ensure that we don't reach a point where the temporary fills and then close the bridge and then do all the work that's needed for. So are we taking all the steps? Yes. The bridge gets inspected once every three months. We go out and we make sure everything is okay. There's no settlement. There's no cracking. That's unexpected and no shifting. So we do inspect it every three months now. The question. Okay, so now I'll ask my why. If it was inspected and approved to go in in the first place and we take it down and fix, re-shore up the underneath and put it back, why would the state not allow that? The state approved it as a temporary bridge. They didn't approve it to be a permanent bridge and for us to keep taking it down every few years and patching it up and putting it back up. They're going to want a structure that meets their standards for a permanent bridge. And this bridge does not meet those standards for a permanent bridge. Can I just follow up one second? Because when we first talked about this, it was a year ago, actually, you had said it could potentially last as long as five years. We knew it was temporary and that the barrier we were going to run into is all the surveying and other work expenditure would expire and we wouldn't have that and we'd have to do that again. So at that point, it seemed like temporary could be defined as five years or six years. So I'm just trying to understand if it's a sturdy bridge, why we can't keep using it and whether there's any recourse. Steve, if we keep calling it temporary, in other words, we don't ever relabel it. The state is not of the opinion that they think it should be a temporary bridge and we should replace it and go to the full standards the state has. And while yes it can, and we talked about it lasting at least five years in place, at least I think it can last five years easily, they're not going to want it to last that long and they're going to push us to change faster. Yeah. So if we apply state funding and we get it, do we need to use it within that same year or can we say can we use it three years later? You don't have to use it in the same year, but you do have to use it in a, you do have to be making progress with the project. You can't just get the funds and then sit on it for three years and then say, okay, we're doing it now. You need to have a reason why you didn't start doing the project right away, like you had to change the design element or you had to meet some special standard and that's just taken longer for you to do. One question for me and then I'll ask Lynn. The deadline for the next round of funding is at April. We've already submitted our application for the bridge program. I have not heard much back in the last few months. My understanding is that the employee who handles that program has left the state and they're trying to refill the position. But I assume, and I was told that once you submit, you're in the program. Okay, Lynn. Then that begs another question, but are you in the program for the next immediate fiscal year of funding? Are you in the program and in the queue? We're in the program. We have not been selected or placed in any type of order. Okay. And then the other question was, if you'll just help me recall, how good, how, how long do the existing studies that we had to do to place the temporary bridge, are they, how long are they good for? The biggest issue we have is, well, everything we've done, all the field data we've done is good as it's good until we actually apply for our conservation permit for the permanent bridge. Once we apply for the permanent bridge and we apply for the wetland permits there, then the time clock starts ticking once those permits are approved. So the temporary 25% plans have been submitted, the MAS DOT, they'll review them. When those come back approved, that's when we'll probably submit for our water and our wetlands permits. And once those are approved, then we have a, that permit has a five-year window it starts ticking. And that's the window for construction that we don't want to have to go back and redo in case someone makes a resurvey and re-delineate everything. So the next question really is, can you just recall for us what the cost of the permanent bridge is? Approximate. Less than two million, more than a million. More, somewhere between a million and two, that's a big jump, of which the state would only pay half a million. Depends. Would it be less or more? I'm asking because we're starting to, as we look at the capital projects, the large capital investments, the need to start stacking up what some of these other projects are, that have a price tag on it that we can nail down is very important. So you have lots of, lots of options when you start talking about the bridge too, because you have the ability to talk to your legislatures, your legislatures, legislatures, your tours, sorry, it's cold, it's really driving me crazy lately. To ask for more money beyond what is available for the bridge program, so a set-aside could be put into the budget for some extra money to help us with this. We could also get money from the small bridge program, and then you could also use some chapter 90 or any other money that is giving for road projects that might come out. So you, the window and the defined funding sources are really open right now for this bridge, the way it's set up, and it's not, you're not going to really know until you actually start getting closer to the actual construction time and getting close to approval. Because the states also said they're going to put more money into some of the programs. If they do that, they'll be more available. Thank you. Okay, I want to remind you, I keep going if there are questions, but we've got a very long agenda, and we haven't talked about the other half of the disorder, which is where we spend the money. So, you know, judge the importance of your question, but if it's important, then I want to get it. Well, I really just want to make a comment. I really remember that when we talked about the temporary bridge that you said it could last up to 20 years, and that helped me make the decision because I don't want this clashing with our capital projects. And if it's all of a sudden five years, and nor do I want to have it be our big ask from our legislators for extra money for the bridge when it's other things that there's a larger group of the public waiting to happen, which is that North Amherst intersection hasn't even been tackled. So, politically, it's a bad time to be told now we've got to within five years come up with this money for the bridge. So, in our engineering, when we were doing this, 20 years is a perfectly good lifetime span for the structure. We're being told by other people, and they're being telling us now that they're not going to stand by and let us keep it up for 20 years. So that's where the 20, that's where the change came in. Other, Mary Lou? There may be other places in town we can use a temporary bridge. I believe the conservation people is at the one of the wetlands. There's a bridge that's gone out there, and that's going to have to be replaced. If we can't use this anywhere else in town, can we sell it to somebody else? In other words, to try to recoup some of the money. Yes. The bridge can be resold and we can use it in other places. There's many people who are actually having these for sale, actually. There's a couple up in New Hampshire I was told about that were too big. Maybe they were too big for our use. They would have been cheaper. But the bridge is actually the smallest part. I think the bridge was in the $20,000 range is what we bought the bridge for. Okay. So we should talk here a little bit about then what the plan is, how far this is going to take us. And if we do this for the North Amherst traffic signals and what additional funds would be required either to ready the intersection or to complete the project. So in North Amherst what we're proposing is we have two names for it. One's called the temporary fix. The other one named for is called the dirty light or ugly light. I like ugly light better than dirty light. It's just basically going to be a span wire on telephone poles. It's not going to be very permanent. They last for a long time but it's not meant to be the permanent change for the intersection. The intersection, the lights will go up. It gives the ability to actually hang lights so we can have left turn lanes or left turns from Meadow Street and a left turn from Pine Street. So it will allow us to change the phasing but we will not be putting in turn lanes, actual turn lanes. So it will hold the Meadow Street traffic, the North Pleasant Street traffic and let the Pine Street people go straight, right and turn left. And then it will let the Meadow Street people go left, right and straight and then it will let the North Pleasant Street traffic go and then there will be a ped cycle in there as well. What we've been toying with is whether we want to break in half the North Pleasant Street cycle to have a south cycle and a north cycle of North Pleasant Street. So that would be five cycles versus four cycles. But the big thing is to let the traffic on Meadow Street be able to turn left and not to be held up by the Pine Street traffic going straight. And then vice versa. One in the morning is a bigger movement than the afternoon so that's to let those clear out. And this will let us do that. Right now we do not have the ability to hang new lights for the left turn only on the existing poles we have without, well we can't do it with those poles. So if we put up the telephone poles, we put a span wire up and we can hang the required light fixtures we need and then rewire everything to make it work. We also are going to move the light back away from the intersection so the tractor trailers don't hit it all the time. The light has a problem being hit by traffic trailers and going into flash mode for long periods of time. So that will take care of actually two issues we hope to see. Someone also asked that we install counters for pedestrians and bicyclists and we've looked into a system that's being used in the eastern part of the state. And the goal is to install that on the system as well and to actually have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week counting for pedestrians and cyclists. So that's where we are with the money for the extra money. Kathy. You know I'm taking notes so we can also write this up because I think people are going to be interested. When you first talked about this several months ago you said that potentially the light mechanism can count cars as well or at least it can download information that someone can do it. So I think we need to get a sense of the flow because one of the concerns has been is the new units open up and are populated. There will be more cars and we've only had best guesses on that. So in addition to people and bikes, can we count cars? The controllers now will be able to count cars, yes. That's pretty standard. And then my other question on what this can do, if you, those of us who live up there, as you said, the morning has one set of issues. And the afternoon has another. Can you program it so it's a longer delay at different times a day or once you set it is the green left always the same amount of time? No, it's a brand new controller. We're going to put install and the controller has this ability to actually analyze what's going on. And if it has a green cycle and it lets the cars go through the green cycle and at the end of the green cycle there's still a car, there's still cars waiting to go through. It will add time on to the green cycle the next time. And it will keep doing that until it gets to a certain set point, which is the maximum. And then that's only won't go past the maximum. And then as I start seeing cars not being left in the queue after it has a green cycle, it'll start subtracting time from the queue time or the cycle time. So this is a completely new controller. It's got all the neat little bells and whistles that come with the new ones. Lynn? Not to belabor the point, but where does this put us then with the idea of a permanent fix up at that intersection? If we actually do a permanent fix and we decide the permanent fix is traffic signals, you have all the equipment in place except for the light poles. You don't have to buy new poles. If you decide around about is the solution, we'll have an extra set of lights to go someplace else and an extra controller someplace else in town. Okay. Other questions? Is there a rough estimate of the light with all the gadgets attached to it? It may be ugly, but it's smart. But that and then the extra money for road repairs, just so we get a sense of the up to 116, how much it'll be absorbed. I know this is the best guess at this point. So the estimates we have right now is about 80 grand for the traffic light, and then the rest will go to other things. Other things being road sidewalks. Yes. Anything else? Another North Amherst person asking. When you talk about the light and how it senses if there's cars waiting, is that in every direction? And is there anything that can take into account the, let's see, the south flow up from 63 that kind of waits for all the other traffic to come by? That runs along the little shopping center. No. The light won't be able to give the, it won't be able to control the traffic where Sun 1 Road and 63 come together. They won't be able to do that, no. But it does account all four directions for assessing the vehicle flow. And it accounts for all four of the Pine, North Pleasant, Meadow, North Pleasant again. Yes. Okay. So I do think we need to move on because we have so many other things to do. So at this point I'm going to pause and see if anyone has a motion to recommend or not recommend Order 2064 to the council. Lynn. I second. So there's motion to second. Any further discussion? Any comments before we take a vote from the voting members and the resident members? Do you have anything that you'd like to advise the committee? Okay. So then I'll take a vote for from the voting members all in favor of the motion to recommend this to the council. Indicate by raising hands saying aye. Aye. So I see five. So it's five zero. And thank you very much, Guilford. Appreciate it. Thank you very much. And I hope you feel better. No, I just, thanks. So you're excused from filling potholes personally today, I guess, because of health reasons. Yeah. Sean, hi. So Sean, the other order that we're going to take up out of order is 20-68. And Sonia, do you want to do any introduction or? Sure. So this is a continuation of our capital plan recommendations. There are two borrowing authorizations on there. And one was for the INET, which was $589,000. And it's to replace the loop that we have existing right now with Comcast Election. Sean, explain all that to you. The debt service, most of the debt service on this will be paid back by the Comcast contract that we have. We have funds. We have $450,000 coming in over the next five years. And that will pay the debt service on the $450,000 of this. The other 589 is there are other sections of the INET that need to be built in order for us to sign a contract. We had to have the authorization for the full amount of the contract. So it's 589. The bulk of 450 coming back from peg funds. And more than likely the rest will be paid out of water and sewer because it's water and sewer sections we're reaching. Do you want me to explain the other one too? Let's pause for a second and stick with that since you're going to be here as you pointed out. Does everybody here in the committee know what the INET loop is? So I could explain it because I was involved, but I'm going to let Sean explain it. Okay. So we currently have fiber optic cable that was installed 20 or so years ago by Comcast originally for broadcast of, I guess, an ACTV Amherst media for broadcasting meetings that were recorded and everything. The town started using those for network connectivity. So we have about 20 sites between us and the schools. It's all our, most are major buildings. We have telephones, computers, door access, swipe cards, basically everything that's on our computer network. Those are all connected with Comcast fiber. During the 2016 Comcast franchise renegotiation, Comcast basically changed things around. And the contract doesn't allow us to use that fiber beyond October of 2020. So this October 16th Comcast is saying you can't use it anymore. So we need connectivity to all these buildings. We basically negotiated in that Comcast contract to get some money to pay for most of that. So we've gotten quotes on installing our own fiber out having a vendor come in and install town-owned fiber that will connect all these buildings. It gives us some extra redundancy in the system the way it's set up with a loop so that if we have breaks in certain points we can actually survive that and our buildings are still connected. It connects, I said, about 20 buildings. It's all our phones, our computers, everything like that. So the synopsis, I guess. So was it the town's decision to use the Comcast money or was it, how was that set up? That was part of the negotiations with Comcast for our latest contract. We knew this was happening so more capital money was negotiated so that we could cover most of the cost through that. For disclosure, I was on the negotiating team for the town as was Sean for both the contract with Comcast and then the subsequent contract with Amherst Media. It took several years to go through both processes. This is not a short enterprise at all. I could get into excruciating detail on it, but I think it's probably not the best use of our time. I think the important thing that we have to recognize is that if we don't replace the INET ourselves and have our own cabling, then that result is that we have to purchase the service on an ongoing basis, which would be an extraordinarily more costly method of getting connectivity amongst all of our buildings to replace the current loop. So, Kathy, why don't you go ahead? Okay. I think the answer is yes, but I'll ask the question. Is this already in the capital plans for the current year? We're now getting to the point of appropriating, so we've already figured it into the debt service costs that will be incurred. Sorry. It is part of the borrowing authorization. That was part of the capital plan for this year, yes, as a placeholder. This time. Yeah, this is, both of these items were, I think, in the capital plan that we're talking about today that was included as one of the packet items. Yeah, Bob. I just have a couple of questions. One is, how long will the new fiber optics last? And secondly, are there any maintenance costs? Yeah, so the fiber installed by the vendor will come with a 25-year warranty on the state contract. So the life expectancy of it is really 30-plus years. There's some possibility for maintenance that basically has trees come down. Basically over 30 years, parts of it will break. The majority of it is aerial, so the majority of it is on poles around town, and so the cost to repair it isn't outrageous. But yeah, there will be some, there will be things that will break over 30 years. Do we pay as we go or do we have a maintenance contract? We have a few different options right now. What we're looking at is just pay as we go. We're installing it as a redundant loop, so our vulnerability, if we get a break at one point in the loop, will have full connectivity, so it gets expensive to get, essentially, you're paying for an insurance plan on it. So the redundancy is what we're putting in from the beginning is not redundant with the other stuff that Comcast will no longer let us use. Correct. Okay, thank you. So what's out there for Comcast is a starter. Is it likely that the technology will last 30 years? Yeah, the 20-year-old fiber that we have up there right now, we really wouldn't be able, we wouldn't be talking about replacing that right now if we weren't going to be kicked off of it by Comcast, basically. It's the modules that go on each end of it change over time and those get upgraded, the fiber itself, the actual glass tubes, those were pretty future-proof. My recollection of the discussion with Comcast at the time was that their interest in getting us off with so that they could use it for other customers, they were intending to take the cabling down. So anything else on iNet loop? If not, then let's only go back to the other half, which is more than half actually. Right. So the other borrowing authorization was also on the capital plan. We put a placeholder in there for school design services through the elementary school. We put in $400,000 at the time. We knew that it was probably going to be more. We didn't realize it was going to be double the amount. MSBA is not going to be reimbursing us for any part of the study. So the actual cost on this, I know that the order that you have with you on the back page says $800,000. It's really $750,000. That table is linked to a spreadsheet that updates every time you open the sheet. But the amount for the total appropriation of $1.339 million, that is correct. And I will have it corrected before it goes to the council. So we're asking for $750,000 borrowing authorization for the MSBA for the study, which the MSBA will not be reimbursing us for for the school. And last time we were reimbursed. And by last time, I mean the project that was proposed and then failed to pass a town meeting with bonding authorization. And MSBA in re-admitting us would not allow the design twice so that we had to pay the we have to pay the whole thing. They allow us in the building program, but not with design reimbursement for two. Yes. Grandby had a similar situation and it was my understanding that while the MSBA would not reimburse anything initially, once the shovel was in the ground and you could show that anything was new, they were open to giving an appropriating so much money to you or reimbursing you for so much. Is that still the case? I'm not familiar with that. I'm not part of that committee. So I can find out for you. I think that would be worth checking to see if we have to come up with it now. But once you start building a building, that's when the MSBA looked at Grandby and gave them money for those parts of those earlier studies. It's still possible for us? Yeah. I've actually been part of these conversations with the school, with MSBA, and we still have that option. So for example, the Fort River study, the Wildwood study, and even the work that we're doing down in to do, look at the possible expansion for the Crocker farm, thank you, as well as the sixth grade study may all play into that and reduce the amount that we will eventually have to pay. But the best estimate right now based on what MSBA is telling us and what the superintendent has asked for is the 750. Okay. Other questions? Move it. I'm just looking around. I don't see anything else. So I guess the next, see if there's anyone who wants to make a motion to recommend to the town council that they approve order 2068? I move that we recommend to the town council that they approve town council order FY 2068 as presented to the finance committee. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Is there any additional discussion on the motion? And also is there anybody from the non-voting members who wants to make, say something before we vote in advice to the rest of the committee? I don't have anything that questions this. I just wonder whether the JCPC report that we had with, which had the best estimates at that time of debt service over time, whether as these happen, so this is higher, will we be adjusting them going into the next fiscal year? I mean, this, I realize once you debt finance another $400,000, it's not a huge amount, but I just, it changes the picture. It will be adjusted in the debt projections for future years. Because borrowing authorizations really, they go into the plan, but they come right back out as borrowing for the funding. We don't actually start paying expenses on that debt until we hit the debt service. So the debt service will be calculated in that and added to it. Anything else? If not, we have a motion on the floor. I'm going to go ahead and think about it. All in favor of the motion? Say aye. Aye. Aye. So it's again 5-0. And I think we're going to now, it's okay with the committee, go to the other people who are here and have asked, and we're scheduled at the beginning of the agenda, because we want to take care of our staff and appreciate it. And so what we want to do now is go back to the housing proposal. And so where we were last time is we had a discussion on the draft, prior draft of the housing policy report. I took comments from the discussion and comments that I received from Mr. Hornick and incorporated them into a redraft, which is draft three. The other significant expansion in draft three is that we heard a presentation from Chris Brestrup, the planning department director. And that was a placeholder in the prior draft and is no longer a placeholder. I actually included her comments and she had provided her comments in writing to us. So some of that is actually direct language that she provided for us. So with that said, I think I want to open up for discussion as to whether there's questions or comments or suggestions about draft three and see if we can get to a final end on this one so we can take a vote on it and put it on. Yeah, Kathy. I think you did a great job and I read it carefully just before the meeting and did some minor changes and edits. So I'll just, I'll focus more on those than on the overall document. But we, in a few places, like for the second paragraph, affordable housing for people with low incomes, it's not that important to add and modest income working families. We had a theme in our discussions that affordability should cut across income. So there are just a few instances where I did something to add those wordings. Just for the sake of everyone who is looking at the page and approximately. So it's the first page, second paragraph. It says affordable housing, including affordable housing for people with low income. And I'm suggesting adding and modest income working families, comma, and the effect on the town. So just to get that thought right at the beginning. Okay, thanks. And if you could send them to me later. I actually sent these all to you, but it was like five minutes before the meeting. So it's sitting there. Then, you know, the other point that came up and I, I added it on, let's see, there aren't page numbers, but in the section on previous Amherst experience, just before planning department, I added a statement that past development has at times also succeeded in pulling in state housing resources into Amherst to construct and later support rent subsidies. And that in the future it would be good to track that so that if we are using 50,000 or 500,000 of our own money, but we're bringing in $2 million, we have some sense that we've done that. So I added that wording as basically as advice to the town. So we have that information in the future. We were told right now there's no place. We capture that it would be too difficult. Then the only other, I repeated that in conclusions that I had the cost estimates. I like the conclusion. So I made a new number to the estimate should also include expected financial support from state or other housing grants. You know, so we get an estimate of the project, but what it was bringing in. And then I added, this is on the last, I think it's our almost last page, between the goal to create 100 units and Amherst priority. I said I added this thought about needs to take into consideration affordability for modest income families with incomes near but above the 100% of AMI given the price of homes and rents charged by new apartment buildings that do not have affordable units, teachers, firefighters, librarian, service workers and other working families at risk. So it's a point we made that there is this modest group. And then finally, I didn't see it mentioned above, but we had, we raised that there are strategies that are less dependent on us directly spending money. So building additional units on a property, letting the town do that. And so I just added a Amherst priority strategies that are less dependent on town expenditures. This includes accessory units and allowing current residents to subdivide their homes or something to that effect. But otherwise, I thought this was a really good draft. And my only other comment, Andy, is I just wonder if at the very bottom we got these great documents from the town and maybe we can say documents referenced and just do a list at the bottom. You know, a list in a link if we posted them so that people can see it in two places that we got the report from Nate. We got other reports so we can just have them find what we're talking about. And I don't know the best format, but just so people don't have to go search, they can just click and go and see whatever else we're referencing. If you have other documents in particular, and let's go to anyone in the committee, please let me know what you'd like to have appended or attached. I was going to actually see if we could take the two documents which are both, can be in PDF, the other one we have, the one you're referring to as PDF. I think that really needs the Nate Malloy produced report needs to be a part of our... So you would just incorporate... That one I want to incorporate. So it would just be like a part B of the report or C... I want that to be as a part of the document itself if we can arrange that just to take, because it's a town owned report. But otherwise, and some of... I'll look at where your location is, where you place those additional thoughts, because some tie to things that are in there already. In the conclusions, the generation of additional funding is covered right now by 10 and using other strategies is sort of covered by four. So we want to make sure that we're not being repetitious, but we're adding to where they go. Absolutely. Okay. Other thoughts? Maria Lane. Just a couple of questions. Did we ever survey town employees to see how many want to live in Amherst? We make that statement, but I'm not sure we've ever done a survey to know. Maybe it's here. I'm sorry, I have not had a large amount of time to review this. The other, do we address the homeless in this draft? I think as we look at some of the cities that are really running into trouble with what's happening, it would be good if Amherst addressed this before we have similar problems on a lesser scale. I think we did mention homeless, but I have to go and look and I don't have. It's hard to do that as a chair, but you can do a search on that. So one was have we surveyed employees and the other is to make sure that we've covered homeless other thoughts about the draft. Because if we submit this as a report, I think that what's going to happen is the Community Resources Committee is going to meet tomorrow. And if we vote to approve today, then they are going to reconsider their report and not for any conclusions. But I think that what they're going to be the discussion would be is whether to amend the bottom line to also recommend referral to a committee so that the two that that piece goes together. I think that's the major part that I would expect could happen. The word homeless does not appear in the document. So we'll have to, I'll work on that and see if we can get that taken, get that added. It's a point worth being shared. I just have a quick question. You sent us a link earlier today for all the documents we need in that link. There's two draft threes and one has a size of 124 and one has size of 210. I think that one might have been in Word and one might have been in PDF if I recall. They're both coming across in PDF on mine, but I'm using a Mac, so I don't know. I've been struggling to try and find if there's a difference between the two. I think that I'd have to go back and look at the packet itself to see, but I think that when I constructed it, it was that they were identical. One was, they were just format differences when I put it together. Yes, Dorothy. And just a quick review. I see that inclusionary zoning is mentioned. My question is whether it's given enough emphasis. I mean, somewhere in the report, it said staff must enforce inclusionary zoning. But in the section that Kathy was talking about, using a variety of resources, I don't know if it was mentioned there again. I'll take a look at it when I have time to look at Kathy's draft to see. I think the important thing is to make sure that it's part of the recommendations. I also wanted to give, see if Mr. Hornick has anything that he wanted to add. And so I'm going to take a break from the committee's questions now. We can come back to it because he may raise things or there may be things that you want to ask him. John, please come forward if you'd like. Thank you, Andy. And I want to acknowledge that Andy has been very open to comments from me. I've done comments about two previous drafts and also we spent a couple of hours together talking about these issues. So he's been very open and that's something I appreciated. But nonetheless, I still have comments on this draft. I still feel that while I don't think you're opposing affordable housing, there is a significant lack of enthusiasm. And obstacle after obstacle is placed in front of expanding affordable housing. Let me explain by giving a few examples based on the conclusions. And I'll jump to number four and the concern about developing a goal or choosing a goal like 240 units. First, as is said earlier in the draft, there have been 240 units developed in the past 30 years. That's eight affordable units a year. I think this would be a good place to say affirmatively that Amherst has only been developing new affordable units at the rate of eight a year and we believe that the town can do better, can do much better. Then the question becomes should the new goal be 250? You can set it a bit lower if you like. But the point is if we go as we have for the last 30 years with no goal, we'll find ourselves at eight units per year for the next five or 10 years as well. So again, you don't have to accept the Housing Trust goal of 250. You can go less. I will say that we're already, with respect to the pipeline, 40% of the way to that goal. Speaking roughly, if you include the additional units that have yet to be constructed at North Square, 132 North Hampton Road, the East Street School, and the new development at Aspen Heights, they add up to something in the neighborhood of 100 units. So you're already significantly on the way there. So I think there's an over-concern with this number of 250. On the other hand, if you think it could be a little lower, well, you're the town council or at least the finance committee. You certainly can and should recommend what you think is appropriate. But I do think we don't want to have eight units per year going into the future. And this is what I mean by saying something affirmative about your commitment to affordable housing. To say the past is not satisfactory. And we do want to go forward in the future and do much better. And we think setting a goal will help and we choose X. It doesn't have to be the X that the Housing Trust recommended. But I think there's value in choosing an X. And as I said, we're already significantly on the way to 250. Let's see. My second point, really, again, here's an opportunity to be affirmative, a little bit more affirmative. There is a significant change in number five from what there was originally. Number five is a way of addressing a number of goals that are discussed in six. It's true there is no known cost. But let's say, for example, that we take what Valley Community Development has proposed for CPA funds. And that is a little over, I can't remember, $220,000, $230,000 to develop four homeowner subsidized units. Basically what that means is each unit would get roughly $50,000 in a subsidy. The remaining money is for Valley's program costs over the two or maybe three years that they would have for this program. What they do is they go find houses, generally starter houses in the community. And then they, or they help families find them. They work closely with them. And then they give them this mortgage subsidy. In the newest program that they proposed, the $50,000 would actually come back to the town once the property is sold. So it's essentially like an interest-free loan as I understand it. And the money comes back to the town or perhaps to CPA. So that's a good thing. The only question really is what's the ceiling on the number of units that you can develop that way annually? It may only be two or three because I know the Valley staff member, Donica Banner, works pretty hard at this. But if it's higher, do we want to recommend to CPA that they invest more in this? The way it's written now, it's all pretty ambiguous about whether you really think the program is a good idea. And I think right now, the way they propose it, it's fine. Do you think there should be more? But I certainly think we should support a policy of at least two to four units of this type of year because you all want, do want, subsidy of home ownership. And this is an opportunity to do it. Then you say the housing trust policy places little or no value on home ownership. Well, I guess I just don't think that's true. But I think what would be helpful is for you to offer an alternative. Say affirmatively, we believe the town should do more to support home ownership. And here's what we think we should be being committed to. Instead of just sort of saying, well, we don't quite like the way the draft policy came to us from the housing trust. If I look at item seven, I really have to object to the language that any planning will diminish or eliminate the opportunity to consider other projects. I think that's frankly a little overwrought. Definitely there are limitations once you make commitments. No question about that. But that's as much as you should say. The language now suggests that the CPAC would be crazy to make commitments to affordable housing beyond one year. And frankly, I don't think that's true. I think that future planning would be a strength for CPA as well as for the rest of us and everything else we do. And let's see. Number eight, and this goes to the discussion we've already heard. The proposed policy does not specifically recommend approaches, et cetera, et cetera. I absolutely agree that the proposed policy did not recommend anything specific in that area. So what should you do? It's not enough to say the housing trust didn't propose something. What you should say affirmatively if you think this is an important way to go for affordable housing is we support approaches that will recommend private development, et cetera, as opposed to the housing trust report fell short in this area. Sure it did. But you're the town council or the finance committee of the town council. And if you think we didn't just fall short, but this is an important way to approach it, you should say we support this. We want to see this happen. And those are the kinds of ways to make this honestly a more affirmative report. A report that is clearly supportive of the development of more affordable housing. So those are my quick five points on five of the conclusions. I think it was five. I may have miscounted. But I appreciate your willingness to listen as Andy has. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Anybody want to ask questions of John or pick up on? Go ahead. So what we you're right. We did not set forth the housing policy of our own. And I don't think we thought that's what we were supposed to do. But we certainly have talked about other ideas. And I have talked about wanting a kind of cluster zoning privately owned with rental apartments such as sunny side gardens in Long Island City Queens where I live for a number of years. Because I strongly believe that we a mix of home ownership and rental is a strong mix. I am concerned. I think that a strong town should have more home ownership and not just move totally in the direction of rental. Although I understand a lot of this is led by finances and because we have a shortage of developable land. But I don't think the finance committee is the place to propose to put together housing policy. I don't know which place is maybe CRC. It is something you know that's an area that I would like to explore at least to explore financially if any such things is at all possible today and what kind of funding could be had. So I think some of the things that you may have thought were not as enthusiastic as you would like was that the committee just felt it was to respond to your proposal. You know, not necessarily putting their proposal out there. Let me just follow up on that really quickly. Going to the last sentence, the very last sentence, it says it should be referred to a council committee which can consider the reports of the community resources and finance committee to bring a revised draft to the council for consideration. The next generation, of course, that's draft of housing policy was what was referred to there. So I think that it's important for all of us to recognize that that is what the recommendation is when I said that it's my understanding from the chair of the CRC that she is considering asking CRC if they would make the same recommendation as the conclusion of their report and then get them back to the council through the president for her scheduling at the time that she determines appropriate. And if two reports come back with that recommendation, then the council would act in accordance if it felt appropriate. And so I think that was what our intent was in going forward. I appreciate the point you made about the fact that you were talking about the specific type of housing that didn't get into that rather broad and brief reference and aid. And we could find a way to see if we could add a teeny bit in there to capture it. And I can talk to you about it before we leave. That would address that. And one other thought that I had in this was that the numbers question actually is an interesting point that you raised. If you take the number of units that were added, say, pick 2010, it's much greater because most of those units have really been added since the point when we started working on rolling green. And the amount before then was a very small number. So we have been increasing, if you did it on a plotted curve, I think that our plotted curve would make us look like we've got an increasing trajectory. And I think we have and the question is can we create some language that sort of says that we want to continue that projection. But we need to be careful not to go over too long a period of time and then reduce the number per year because I think it is misleading if you just divide it by the total number of years since the first year of Nature Report. So I just wanted to point that out. Other thoughts? I just want to acknowledge what he just said and I agree that we need to be more affirmative. And at the same time what I'm hearing is that we can't commit to something that we can't deliver. And I just have a lot of thoughts in my head right now, which I don't know if I can articulate, but I would like to see some committee working with you to come up with solutions for affordable housing. I just spoke to people from the counselors in Greenfield and they just are doing something very innovative with their zoning. And then I met with people in the Mass Municipal Conference where they're triggering a lot of state money for affordable housing projects. And then I'm listening to small, tiny homes. So coming up with innovative ways of... So there's just a lot of ideas and I think we can do better. But this is probably not the right place where it's going to happen. It needs to be another committee that does it. Other thoughts, comments from the committee? Is there anybody else in the public who wants to speak on this point, by the way? Besides, I'm looking behind the two people sitting in the audience behind you. Yeah, John, viewers in the... Yeah, I just add one other point which I forgot about before. In conclusion, Ken, you talk about the fact that projects like Valley CDC may generate some additional funds. I mean, actually, I think it's stronger than that. If we're trying to promote economic development, the proposal that Valley CDC presented to CPAC shows a multiplier of 10 for the $500,000 that they asked CPAC to invest. They estimated that $4.8 million would be the total value of the project. So basically, the difference between 504.8 means that you get close to 10 times as many dollars invested by the state or whatever the mix of state and federal funds are that Valley hopes to attract. And that's huge. And that's pretty typical of these kinds of projects where you're developing rental housing. I also wanted to acknowledge that in the CRC report, the point that you made earlier is in there, as is the point about homelessness that Mary Lou mentioned earlier. So those aren't lost. Yeah. As far as what you just said about point number 10, I need to see what Kathy was going to recommend in language that she had referred to earlier because she was talking about trying to track generation of additional funds that come in and support a project. So, yes, Lou and then I think we need to move along because we need to get to percent for arts. I actually feel like the next conversation is the one that would the council will have. And when we put together the various reports from both CRC and the finance committee, and I just want to say that back probably within our first three months of existence, we wrote the following goal, review, and if necessary revise and adopt a comprehensive housing plan and priorities. And we have not done that. And this is a great effort getting there. But when counselors talk about this, they talk about it beyond affordable housing. They talk about it as affordability housing. And so I think that the next step is in fact the one where we all come back together with what CRC and finance have done and engage in a way that we as a council feel we can come up with something we can adopt that includes many of the words, many of the issues you've raised, but also incorporates some of these other concepts that people are very much eager to have. So it's not something that we can get into as a debate today, but I didn't want to leave it just unsaid. Because housing has been out, there's a discussion off and on with the council from day one. Yes, Mayor Lou. Are these properties all, would we get property taxes from these properties as they're built, or are they owned by non-profits? It varies, but generally ultimately a non-profit will own the property, but not all the time. Beacon communities as a for-profit corporation and other for-profit corporations have been building in Amherst, and they do include affordable units. We do tax the non-profits, they do pay taxes. Yes, if it's a non-profit, it still can be taxable. When we did the East Street School analysis before this very committee, our former assessor Dave Burgess came in and talked about that and did an estimation of the amount of taxation that we could expect if East Street School was built out as envisioned. It was built into the Valley CDC projections also, Mary Lou, where they showed what the property has now been paying versus when it's built, what it will be paying. So, I think I need to bring this to a conclusion because I want to get on to percent for art, and I'm keeping an eye on the time. The referrals that the council made when the affordable housing trust made this recommendation of the council were to two committees and the CRC referral was to think about housing policy questions. Ours was to, the referral to this committee was to look at the financial elements and the financial impact of the policy, and the two committees are trying to bring back their reports at the same time in a somewhat coordinated fashion so that the council can then move forward in a positive way to deal with this, and I think that it really is intended to be a positive way. The things that we, you know, that are in here in conclusions, and I just point this out to the committee, is that we recognize that, well, we know there's value, there's also cost, that decisions have to be made on a project by project basis. Ultimately, the council will be doing that, and we'll be referring back to the finance committee, presumably if there is a reason to do so about a specific project and what the cost and benefit of that specific project is, and that that's an element that we expect to be a part of the future, and it is referenced in the report, and that we did not come out against a goal, we didn't recommend a goal because we felt that that ought to come from the next committee process, but there is a statement in here that goals need to be flexible, that if the costs turn out to be, or the financial circumstances of the town changes, that we need to be flexible enough to revisit goals, and that that was part of it, which is actually somewhat similar to something that Kathy might talk about in a minute when we talk about percent for art, to remind us that we actually did that with percent for art too. The flexibility is an essential element to a lot of these policies because you don't know what future circumstances are, but I think that that is intended to free us up to set a goal and to do our best to achieve a goal as we intend to do with percent for art if we go down that path, which I'm hoping that we will. So with that conclusion, I think that what's here, Dorothy. I have one point that does fit here. We have a list that we've received several times of different affordable housing projects that have taken place in town with a per-unit cost, and the costs are all over the place, and I know it's because the funding and the circumstances were different, but I think that some body, not person, but some group of people, need to try to find a universal language so that, for example, it may be that certain types, you can do more units at a lower cost. We can't tell that from that information, and I think that we do need to know that. We need to know that this project actually turned out that, in terms of our money, what we put in and what we were able to trigger ended up in more affordable housing than another one, which we might like for other reasons, because right now we can't compare approaches. Okay, thank you. So I think what we need to do to bring this to a conclusion is to see if we're willing to have a motion to approve the recommendation, as stated in the report, with the understanding that there will be one round of final revisions consistent with today's conversation, which I will probably do with the vice chair, Kathy, and then allow this to get back to the council, which would mean that if we do that, I'd appreciate somebody considering a motion that would vote to submit the report that will be amended to the council. I make a motion to submit the report with edits to reflect today's discussion where appropriate, and this is the report dated today in terms of the one we're reviewing. Yeah, draft 3. Draft 3 as amended by today's discussion. Draft 4, 0, 2nd. I second it. Okay, so this motion is some of the floor that's made and seconded. Any final discussion or recommendations to the voting members from the resident members of the committee? No, no, okay. Then all in favor indicate by raising and saying aye. Aye. So it's 5-0. So, Kathy, would you like to lead the discussion or would you like me to lead the discussion on the next one, which is percent correct? I'm happy to lead. The report that you have... Thank you, John. Thank you, John. The report that you have today to review is a revised version of the report you saw a few weeks ago, and the two revisions significant in the report is at that point it was blank in terms of cost estimates and we agreed to add two types of long-term cost estimates. One would be to show the illustrative, if we were a $10 million or $20 million project financed over 20 or 30 years and what the cost per year would be if we're just pulling it out of debt service. And another would be if we had to go out for an override what the cost per household would be. So those have been added. And otherwise the report is what you saw before. You know, the actual bylaw went to CRC in addition to finance committee. And at that review there were some questions raised both for clarity that what exactly was the art jury would the jury be making a final decision about the project or would they be recommending a decision that would then go to the public art commission for the final decision. That was one issue that was raised. And then in a repeated issue that Dorothy had actually raised here is at what point would users of the building or neighbors of the building get to weigh in on preferences or decisions. So the ad hoc committee met to review and Bill who is sitting in the audience was there. We met to review and we made two changes to address this. We agreed that the language as worded was unclear and that we intended in the revision to have the public art commission be the final decider that they would be able to do hearings. And so we changed the term jury since it implies a verdict to an advisory committee. And we explicitly say that with the majority of art professionals on initial committee there would also be users of the building and neighbors. So we made that language very specific. Otherwise it's very similar to what you saw before. Those were the most significant changes to the content. And this is going back to CRC I believe tomorrow with those revisions, that revision. They reviewed it more for those aspects. So the report, our report focused more on the financial aspects as we were asked to do on what's being proposed. And the original report from the ad hoc committee will be submitted with this that said, how did we change this from the bylaw that people saw several years ago? So the draft report itself, which I think is under 2E, if you're using that methodology of looking, is the most current draft. And the numbers, the presentation of the effect is on I believe the third page. If I have it, it's on the third page and some boxes at the top. Is that the kind of information that was being suggested? Is there anybody who feels there's more to be added? And if not, are there other questions about the draft or suggestions about the draft? I just had a thought based on our conversation on the station road bridge. If we were to replace that at a cost of greater than a million dollars to the town, would that be an eligible project for these funds? And if so, how would we deal with the neighborhood or users of the facility issue? Let me try. A lot depends on where the money is coming from. If the money is coming from the town, it's eligible. If it's coming from a state grant or it's coming from a sewer fund, then it's not. It really depends. The source of the funds. Go ahead because I'm looking for the language. Just a question for Lynn. Let's say part of it, it's over a million. Part of it is paid for by state money or other monies and part by the town. Is this still eligible? If it were eligible, would it only be for the amount that the town is going to appropriate? The answer to the appropriation is the part that the town is going to appropriate. So the construction project means any capital project paid for and part by the town through its own eligible funds to construct or remodel any public building facility or space or any portion thereof. And I believe that we have talked about this and we're not viewing roads as part of that definition. I think that's right. But I also think the clause that we have written in the next page that said on any specific project the council would say in this case it doesn't apply either because of accessibility or that it's in a remote place for other reasons. So if it did rise to the cost of a million dollars of general funds, we wouldn't necessarily have to go forward with it. So it's an interesting question because Guilford on the bridge was hazy on our, you know, is it a million dollar structure where half of it's paid by the grant or is it something considerably more? I think another example is the Centennial Water Plant isn't even in Amherst and it's in the middle of the woods and I don't think we'd want to spend any money erecting some piece of art off in the woods that's not even in Amherst. So there's some, one of the reasons why I am extremely happy with what the committee has come up with is that they have allowed for a discretion of the council as they go through this. Even to the point of saying, hey, we can't afford it. I think that we covered the question of projects not located within the town. It's specific. It has to be located within the town to be covered and we did talk about public accessibility rather extensively in the committee and therefore put that provision in there that it has to be publicly accessible. Yeah, Mary Lou. Another follow-up. As we begin to look at all these projects, the four major, and there's more than that with the roads and that, is it possible or can a future council ten years down the road say we're not going to do a percent for art for a certain building? We can't afford it. Is that allowable under this policy? I just really want to make sure. Yes, I'll read you the wording in consultation with the town manager that the council made by majority vote lower or eliminate the percent for art on any qualifying construction project. So it can say we're doing something considerably less. We actually had an interesting experience. Bill called up Cambridge to find out how they administer their percent for art and they were grappling, we should be so lucky with a $250 million new elementary school and they couldn't figure out how to spend their percent for art on art. So, you know, but I mean it was, you know, this allows either reduce it or eliminate it. Other questions? Suggestions? No, then we could go and have a motion to approve the, sending the report. So I would say that the report is saying that we voted on the bylaw. So we've got, I think, Andy, we have to, are we voting to approve, recommend the bylaw and then are we also voting on the report? We've never taken a vote on the revised bylaw. We've waited. I think we need a vote on the bylaw and then the report. Can you word that as a motion to fit into one motion? I'd just do it as to, because when it ultimately comes down to it, the council's going to approve the bylaw. They're not going to approve the reports. Okay, so I move that the finance committee approve, make a positive recommendation to approve the revised bylaw to the council. Second. Okay, so it's been moved and seconded motion to recommend the bylaw to the council. Any further discussion? Any comments from any advice from our members? None. All in favor indicate by raising hands. Aye. So it's 5 to 0. And do we want a, probably go ahead. So I move that we submit the report from the committee by filling in the blanks of the committee to the full council. So Linda's moved to approve and submit to the council the report. Is there second? I second. Oh, you second? Okay. So Dorothy has seconded. Any further discussion? Any advice from resident members before we vote? All in favor indicate by raising hands. Again, it's 5. So it's 5 to 0. Okay, so thank you. We've made some significant progress on those two items. Now I need to get... Yes. Bill, thank you. I should have asked if you had any comments. I assume you would have jumped up and down if you did. Getting back to the financial orders that we had to do. We did our discussion vote on 2064, 2065. Has to do with past borrowing. And this is actually something a little new and different. Right, Mary Lou? So this is just a house cleaning order. And 2065, bond language. It's... With the Muni Mod update of November 17, 2016, we now add language to all of our borrowing authorizations, which allows us to apply any premiums that we make on borrowing to the debt... So it essentially reduces the debt that we're borrowing right up front. Where before, we can only use premiums to pay the cost of issuing bonds and then it would fall to general fund revenue. Now it just nets out what we're actually going to have debt service on. And this is in every single borrowing authorization that you have now. This is going to take care of the ones that were voted prior to the Muni Mod change. And we have a couple. I don't remember both of them, but one of them is a $3 million sewer project, which we haven't permanently bonded for. So when we do, we want to be able to apply this action to that. So that's basically all this is about. So previously, the funds that were coming from the bond premium was going... The after expenses would go to the general fund... General fund revenue, yes. This just allows us to reduce the debt. Use it to reduce the debt. So is there any comments or questions? What's the downs? There isn't. This is part of the municipal modernization act. Right. Then I move the question. It actually makes sense. Yeah. Yeah, Dorothy. It's my stupid question for the day. How do you earn a bond premium by borrowing money? Bear us to tell you that I don't really remember that from accounting class since I've been on the accounting side, on the comptroller side more than the treasurer side. That would be a question for the treasurer. I can look that up and tell you. I have it in my book. I would like to learn how to do that. We have bond counsel that figures all that out. I had a similar question then went home and tried to figure it out and was looking at some documents. So I think we might, in a report to the council, want to make sure what I'm about to say is correct. But right now a lot of bonds when they're going to market, even a new issue. So if you look at municipal bonds, it's a bond, if it was selling at par, would just raise $10,000, but it's selling at a premium above par. So when someone buys that bond, the town gets a premium and it's because the stated interest rate on the bond is higher than what the market is right now. So it particularly makes sense that we would be able to apply that premium to pay down debt service. So someone says this is a 3% bond, but right now you only really need to do 2.5%. So the bond sells for $120 rather than $100. So I think just a simple sentence would let people know what we're approving that. If that's an accurate description, which took me a lot of words. It sounds really accurate. Like I said, I haven't looked at that part of accounting in a long time, but it is in the accounting book downstairs. I agree with Kathy. We should have an answer ready for the council. Yeah, we can do our best to get, I will do my best to get that into our report. And I thought about that too, is the complexity of it and to try and make it as simple as possible. Is there... That's one other point of clarification. It's to reduce any debt, not just that debt. It's to reduce the debt that we're going out to bond for. So we're going out for $3 million. It'll be net of the $3 million less the premium. Got it. Okay. So it's specific to that debt. That's why it's in every single one of our borrowing authorizations now, so... Got it. Yeah, I have to go back and look at the Municipal Modernization Act provision itself to make sure that I have what I'm saying right, but I think that it is specific to the project. Not totally specific to the project, because what happens, we have a lot of these borrowing authorizations that are out there. When we finally move on them, a bunch of projects are done all at once, then we go out for bond for the total of all of those. So it could be a premium on... This might be $3 million, but we might have another $2 million on some other projects that we have that we're doing a bond all together with. So it's specific to the bond you're going out for at the time. Right. Because we combine a lot of these projects into one bond. So it's... And it's to bond that project then... Right. I will write that down for my... Write it up for the report. Any other questions about this? Otherwise, we should just see if there's anyone who's making a motion to recommend to order 2065 to the Council. So order FY 2065 to the Town Council as presented. Is there a second? Second. Okay. There are three seconds. Any further discussion? Comments from the non-voting members. Recommendations. All in favor indicate by raising hands. So it's five to zero. Okay. So that takes us then to order 2066, which we'll probably look for more familiar to those of us who've been on the prior finance committee. Ready? Go ahead. So this is following with our current financial policies where once we have our free cash certified, anything over 5%, we've been consistently moving into stabilization. So this year our free cash certified amount was 6.741 million, which is 8.1% of our operating revenue. We'll be moving 2.563 million into stabilization fund. And basically its bottom line is not going to change. It's going to be a total reserves of 16.48 million. It's just moving it from one bucket to the other. One earns more interest. One is more available at all times where free cash is certified every year and June 30th free cash goes away. So if there's an appropriation that you need to make, you usually make it out of stabilization because that's available at all time for any lawful purpose. Yeah. And just so that it's clear in the town financial policies which were developed some years ago by the finance committee on behalf of town meeting, we set a goal of having reserves, which is a combination of free cash and stabilization that would be between 5% and 15% of the revenue. And the second part was is that any part, anything above 5% should be considered for placement and stabilization fund for the reasons, I don't think we stated the reasons in the policy, but the reasons were what Sonia just stated. And we are at this point knowingly over the 15% high end target, but that's because we have a number of capital projects coming and it was part of the strategy with the capital projects. So that's the full context. Just one more point I'd like to make. This amount of 2.5 million is 2.5 million because with the health claims trust, we borrowed 2 million from free cash two years ago and this is paying it back from the health claims trust fund. So that falls to general fund revenue and it falls to free cash. So that's why. Otherwise, we don't typically have this much money to move over into stabilization fund. This is not the norm. Yeah. But we did take it out of the stabilization fund so we're just putting it back. I believe we voted out of free cash and we didn't put any money in stabilization that year because of the timing. Ouch. But this was having to do with the crisis we were having in the health claims trust fund, which has not been dissolved. Which we paid back in a year less than we expected. So I don't have any question about the transfer. I'm just, if I'm looking at your memo, that leaves us with 4.5 million in free cash. So did you say by the end of the year we have to spend that on something or do we just move it? What happens to that 4.5 million? It's a nice number. What happens to that 4.5 million? Don't spend it. Don't spend it. Don't spend it. It just closes back out. A year in it goes away so it becomes part of the designated fund balance. There's this huge calculation that the DOR does which involves receivables, a whole lot of balance sheet accounts and then they decide what the number is going to be. So they'll, we base, they'll probably end up with around the same number next year. It's not in addition to this, it's just the same number that's been recalculated. Didn't our friend Sandy Poole always used to say, it's not cash, it's not free. Don't spend it. So, is there a motion on recommending that pre-order that we're now on which I think is 2066? Yes. I move that we... I move that consistent with the memo from the town manager of January 27th, 2020 that we recommend to the town council that they approve order FY26T6. Second. Kathy's seconding. Okay. Kathy seconded the motion. Any further discussion? Any recommendations from resident members? Hearing none, then let's vote. All in favor indicate by raising hands. Second. Aye. So it's five to zero. So... I'm going to take this to 20. Yes. They have election worker training at 430, just so you know they're going to be waiting to get in the room. Oh. So we need the room. Okay, let's keep moving. 2067, we need to... We have a commission transfer order. And this is transfer from Free Cash to OPEB trust. Anything else? Right. This is going to be the last time we need to do this. We used to do this every year at town meeting. What would happen is we... Medicare Part D subsidy program for prescription drugs for our seniors. We would get a reimbursement from that every year. That is general fund money and it would go into revenue. We wouldn't budget it. It would fall right to Free Cash. And then the subsequent fall town meeting, we would vote it from Free Cash into the OPEB fund. They wouldn't let us put it directly into the OPEB fund. They will now after Muni Mod, but it's too late for us because we're done. But this is an accumulation of three years that we have. And over the three years, we collected about $689,000. And some of that belonged to the region in Pellum. Some of them we got the revenue that went over to them. So the elementary and town share is $382,000 and $2.00. So that is being moved over to the OPEB fund. This is an addition to the $500,000 that we appropriate every year out of the operating budgets. My question is we won't have any of this kind of money in the future. We'll only have the $500,000. Right. Thank you. Yeah. This is anybody who needs a further explanation I can provide it later so we can clear the room in time. And this is going to leave us with $7.4 million in OPEB, which is really good. Yeah. As we found and we were talking to people, just in the past couple of days. Yes. Just quickly, what's the target we're shooting for? To cover our full liability, which right now on our last actuary was about $52 million. So we have a long way to go, but we did have a plan and do have a plan. Right. And the plan is that we continue to put money in the regular basis, but knowing that we have a big chunk, we are right now putting money into the fund for the retirement system that pays pensions. Once that is fully funded, then we hope to take the money we're using for that purpose and put it into OPEB would be the recommendation. Right. The enterprise funds are all putting in their full, annual required contributions every year. The town is putting in $500. We started off with $100. We added $100 every year until we got to $500 and we had to slow down because of our projects that we're dealing with now. But our plan is once the retirement obligation is met, we would transfer, we would switch that so some of that money would go into it. And I believe that's in 2033. So, is there a motion? Kathy? I move that we recommend to the town council that we approve order 2067, which is an appropriation and transfer into the OPEB fund. And is there a second? Second. Luna's seconded. Any further discussion? Any comments from resident members? All in favor, indicate by raising hand saying aye. So that's 5, again, 5-0. And we have already voted on 2068. And I think that's it for the orders. So, that takes care of that item. The, just really quickly, well, the meeting dates, I think we had previously voted, we just needed to correct the list. But if there's problems with the meeting dates, then make sure I know about it and we'll try to deal with it at the next meeting. And the projections, what Sonia sent, I'm going to be real quick about this. We had a chart that looked a lot like what she just sent to us. But what was different was the amount of money for items that were affected by the governor's recommended budget. And there's a thing called the cherry sheet, which is received from the state, so named because it used to be printed on cherry colored paper, and which it is no longer since it's only distributed electronically, but it's still called the cherry sheet. And so Sonia took the cherry sheet numbers and substituted them into the budget recommendation and then showed the dollar change. And that plus one correction has then had the effect of reducing the projected deficit that we started thinking about when we had the initial presentation of close to a million dollars to just over 600,000. Brian, in the indicator, oops, sorry. I just have one question. Does this also include, I think we've done a 6% increase for health insurance? Does this also adjust for those that are not as much? Health insurance is in the operating budget, so where it says town, school, elementary, library, and region, everybody budgets their own health insurance appropriation within those numbers. So it doesn't change the bottom line. It doesn't change this form, and I can explain that later if we need to. That's okay. But since there are numbers that are, it effectively, I'll use one example, it gives the superintendent a little more money to use for other purposes than health insurance because it reduces the amount he has to set aside in proposing a budget for health insurance. His bottom line doesn't change in the way that we do these projections. So I wanted to make sure that we are aware of what that report was. We know about the finance committee schedule meeting. The other thing that I wanted to mention is this Saturday, this coming Saturday is the four town meeting, and I believe what is it, nine? Yeah. And it's at the middle school library, and the superintendent will present more information about the proposed budget and there will be further discussion about the assessment methodology. And we're just going to have to take it up from where it was last time. I have been in communication with some of the other towns, not all of the other towns. So I have just a couple more things that I wanted to bring up. There's going to be one more council order. We received the grant, the Volkswagen grant from the conservation department. We received that grant for a roll-off vehicle for the landfill and for 140,000. We'll need to appropriate a grant match for that. I'm waiting for some firm numbers. And once I have that, I'll throw together another appropriation order and get it to you. Yep. So we keep finding. Is there anything else that people want to bring up under other, not anticipated? If not, I think we need a motion to adjourn it for 30 so that we can clear the room for the themes request. Okay. So we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you, Amherst Media.