were there any dollar changes? I don't think so. The main changes were we fixed the color coding from the last time seems really loud. We fixed the color coding issue. Remember there were some projects that got moved out but the color changed to the next year so we flipped that back to the color for this FY20 year. And then there were some changes that were not highlighted. So we highlighted those in yellow on the left hand side. I believe it's the exact same request. It's just we've cleaned up those sort of formatting issues. Thank you. What we will, the recommendation we're looking at is to again try and have as much money into roads and sidewalks as we can this year to take care of some of the most critical roads that need to be addressed and get some significant progress in the year that is possible to do so and take care of an issue that is of critical concern to the town and to our residents and our road users. But to do that we have to make decisions on postponing other things which is what was presented at the end of the last meeting and that we'll pick up again on today. So I don't know, Paul do you have anything that you want to add about the need to make this shift to try and get as much into roads as sidewalks as possible? Sure. So this has been a clear and articulated need by the council and individually and by members of the community for quite some time we addressed it in a significant way with funding last year. We want to continue that this year and we have plugged in that number for the years going out. Our mission with this budget today is to balance the FY20 budget. The way we accomplished that was by saying, by moving a number of required desired and required things out a year especially a lot of vehicles. So that's the way we're balancing it this year. Next year will be a bigger challenge I think. So I think that it's important that the committee be able to ask questions about the things that are being postponed or anything that they are concerned about. I was wondering if the best way to do it using the format that's before us is to go through page by page each section noting the ones that are highlighted for post where there is a significant postponement to future year. I think nothing was eliminated, right? It was just a question of timing of the year that was proposed. Nothing dropped off the list. I think there was one item that did come off the list because there was an alternative funding source. I think it was the housing production plan. Okay. So that came off but that's highlighted too I believe. Yeah, so in the original request we had amounts at each school and then the change between the original department request and the version we presented last week is that we put those amounts into the school wide. I think it's interior upgrades and the rationale was that sending the amounts by school sort of locked us into spending that amount at each school as opposed to prioritizing where the greatest need was. So we moved those amounts and it got lowered. It was originally 50,000 at each school so 150,000 total. That got lowered to 100,000 and we put it in the district wide account above which when we get to that section if you want to go section by section I can point out. Okay. Yeah, again that when we get there the highlight was that it went from something to zero. Well I was that one came up. Would it be easier to go I mean looking for everybody's input here to go through it and first deal with equipment and then come back and do each section but at least to start with equipment. Yes. So the the housing production plan is removed because it has funding elsewhere but I guess just again so I can keep my head screwing straight about what because I feel like we have other items that have funding elsewhere so what goes on here and what like should it be removed or should it have shading to show different funding. Yeah, that's a good question. I can follow up with Sonia see if it should be put back on with just a different shading. Yeah. Yeah, I mean I had the same reaction is that we probably need and this is the future year discussion because we're we are where we are today so but it's so the next year discussion is that we received number of requests which are labeled is by prior priority need by the presenters is high highest priority high priority and that for the ones that are in those two categories that there be a separate listing of what happens with each one so that it's easy to track and then we can really focus on it. Yes. So I think that this is the thing you have in front of you is a working document so rather than make permanent edits the idea was to highlight the changes so you could see where the changes were when you finalize that you probably would just remove it because it's been addressed someplace else but at this point I think Sean and Sonia were trying to be transparent about what is changed instead of making the changes and have it be this is like a track edits approach to it. Equipment if there's questions that any anything we did talk a little bit about the ladder truck at the last meeting and the yes. I do have a question on the IT and this could just be me trying to merge the individual capital packets to this document where the lines don't I mean lines started going missing. You highlighted the information systems other departments and that is a large number and is that the rest of the IT capital requests because there was the IT needs which seem to be listed separately on this new capital plan. But then there was like department needs and library needs are all of those merged into this yellow highlighted line or am I missing like I can't seem to find them anywhere else. The 275 is a combination of three separate projects that sort of fall into that category. I'll have to pull out the sheet I've got it here but the change in that section was originally there was I think 40 or $50,000 in there for the LSE track software. We had a discussion on that about maybe that should come out of the operating or we need to look at that closer so that was removed and but then it was also replaced with the same amount for I think it's inventory some sort of inventory software looking into how we can better track our inventory in town vehicles and other inventory. So that's why that's highlighted so the actual amount I don't think change from the original request but one of the projects got flipped. The amount actually went up 10,000 then I think from the capital because you took 40 out and put 50 in then so I'm getting that where are the library needs that were on the departmental IT request then the 268 for infrastructure replacement. So that's on the next page. Okay thanks I'm not getting the whole transfer over to one set of files to another okay. And make note of all these things because again we're gonna look for your feedback on ways to improve the functionality of this of the spreadsheet in the process probably the next time we meet so any of these frustrating things just make note so that we can look into them. Yes Eric someone else on the committee may remember this or the town manager Sean might know this. Please use your mics. Oh what? Oh it is my mic's on. I just bring it closer okay sorry not usually accused of mumbling. For fiber optic inet I was trying to look at quickly in my notes to see if I could find out the answer to this but I'm just curious whether we know that we have a high degree of confidence not that all five hundred eighty nine thousand dollars is needed which I'm sure it is but do we have a high degree of confidence that it all will actually be spent in FY 20 or do we think it's possible that I mean just given the complexity of doing that kind of work that some significant portion of it might bleed over in FY 21 and I'm only asking the question because logically it's so much money that if it was likely that only half of it was going to get spent or something that would leave that would free up money for other needs and then still allow it to be selected into 2021. I just can't remember the answer that we got. So this comes out of the this comes out of different funding source because it comes from the Comcast money and it will be borrowed in it with the money that Comcast pays us over every year and under the terms of our contract with Comcast we have to replace the INET loop that the town uses within two years. So that's very helpful because it answered it answered the question and the reason I didn't remember it is it may actually bleed over into the following year but it doesn't matter because the funding is different. So Tammy. Does line one include the schools or is that just town IT? Just town. Okay maybe it should say town IT. Yeah again I think those type of things make note of it and we'll yeah. IT under other department. Right there's library, there's schools yeah. I'm sorry but what is the source of funds for the protective gear? It just says other sources I can't remember. Is it fire? Yeah 32. Yeah it's under other department. Is that the ambulance fund? No. It shouldn't be. I don't think it is. I always say that because ambulance funds is a different color. And that's something I'll double check with Sonya what the other source was. So I'll double check it it may have been closing out old articles for some reason I vaguely remember that but I'll confirm if that's what it was. So can I request for future years that that line 32 protective gear when the fire department came in front of us they said it would be an annual request like going forward that they aim to and it stops after three years. So can we get it on the full 10 year just for accuracy purposes. Sticking with the equipment for a moment longer to see if there's anything else. And I don't think that eventually I want to get into the discussion of the citizen request but I don't think there are any citizen requests that fall under equipment. So this isn't the time to do that. Okay. I'd like to reiterate a comment I made last week and then it really concerns me that all this is pushed. You know there's a lot in FY 21 and then we're pushing things in FY 21. So it just really concerns me because I think roads are going to remain a priority and what do we do with all these requests for equipment that we're pushing out. I mean I think that that's an action and an important point to make or include in our report but the road question and future year question is something that is a significant issue that to the extent that we want to get some of the roads done because we want to make some visible progress that our community thinks is important. We agree that it's important but at some point we're not going to be able to continue to do this and meet our other needs. So every year we have more capital needs than we have resources and our mission is always to how do we get to zero for this fiscal year which is what we've attempted to do and that automatically pushes things out and you'll see every year has more needs than resources and we can refine this more I think for at least for the first five years we get a little bit closer to what is likely to be reality but we also didn't want to lose the needs being articulated in the capital plan and on a side note Sonya just said that on the fire she's on her way to see her granddaughter her grandson in Denver so but she did say that the protective gear was from old capital. So can I ask a question about that if it's from old capital is it a pro I guess when we figure out like how much money we have does that mean in theory this year our budget can be $40,000 over what is funding this year because it won't come out of this number then. And then they can be reappropriated for other capital needs so they still be reappropriated through this process and through the approval process but it's sort of like having a little bit more than the. I mean as I look at the just in the general discussion that we've been having on the very first page the total requests line for the next two years 21 and 22 a lot has been put in there and so it seems like every year we do this we just keep pushing out at some point maybe important to have a discussion about can we really afford to do all of this and are we gonna have to take things off the list totally. We're leading ourselves in our community by putting more on the list than we can have on the list. Yeah I mean some of that it's sure that there's more requests but there's also some of that are the building projects and so it really inflates the number in terms of it adds the total cost as opposed to the annual debt payments. So again that's something maybe to look at in the future how we set it up it makes you know the 53 million per next year's request includes that the cost of a building essentially are part of the cost of a building not the actual debt payment that the town would make that year. So it's a little misleading looking at it that way. Yeah that's actually a good point because if you look in the first page again a couple lines up of buildings it illustrates the point you're just making. So maybe we should separate out buildings from other requests a little bit so that we can try at least we'll feel a little better about it because the buildings ultimately if we're gonna build them we're gonna have to find other sources of funding like a debt exclusion override. The sources are listed and include the numbers for the buildings for borrowing and debt exclusion so so that negative number in sort of the third grouping on the first page includes the borrowing for the buildings too and and the request you know both the revenue and the spending side so that five million is beyond the borrowing. Right I'm just talking about somebody's looking like 53 million you know above that that's it's true but that's not actually the outlay of cash from the town. I'm not even looking at the totals I mean I'm just on the equipment page and public works is 170,000 this year 733 for next year 485 conservation is no vehicles 151 Cherry Hill no vehicles 380,000 in 21 I mean I'm just it's just everything's getting pushed out I wasn't even looking at the total page I'm just looking at the you know the individual department equipment needs. I think the interesting challenge for me because I can understand that you have that we have more requests than we have money and that's always true I do actually think it makes sense to find a way to organize this differently and separate out things that are actually being invested in and expended in this year versus borrowed long-term I'd say that'd be true for equipment as well I mean anything that's being borrowed long-term there should be some way of accounting for those things separately so you understand it but also then you got to carry forward obviously what is that obligation and look like in future years because even if you're borrowing if you're choosing to borrow something really expensive this year that would actually logically crowd out borrowing you could do in future years right so you got to you got to account for that and be able to show it somehow but the hard thing is and it goes back to it's kind of funny because it goes back to my ladder truck question last week and it was the the departments come forward I know forgive me because I know this for the town manager this is what you deal with every day but but the departments come forward they make a compelling case that they have various equipment needs it's very hard for us certainly sitting here to be able to ascertain even if something's at sort of the book usable life of a piece of equipment what conditions it really and is it likely they'd be able to last two or three more years and how do you stratify the requests in a way so that you can get a better sense there's no certainty but a better sense of for the things we're pushing off to 21 and 22 how many of those things do we have a sense of can actually probably last two or three more years in a perfect world where you had all the money you needed you knew we wouldn't do it but the reality is you know you can probably figure out a way to get there and then there are other things that are more likely to break down or more likely to need replacing and I'm sure that in the budget you're putting forward as your your ideas and recommendation you already doing that essentially already making an assessment of things that are at a breaking point but but the hard part is figuring out how do you do that and look out at a couple of years because to me the extent of whatever significant challenge we have in terms of how we're looking at our bar and capacity and all our needs partially has to be filtered through that lens of of you know over the next five years what do we think is actually out there to come up in a more urgent way versus those things that look everyone's always going to have needs in the legitimate but and I'm not quite sure how to make sense of it but I but I have a strong sense that even looking right now at these FY 21 and 22 things that have been deferred that we don't have good visibility and to disaggregating that list you go first so I think that's a really good point and I think we've recognized that that that is there's a lot that's been pushed out there's a lot that's been articulated to say how do we make a judgment about that and I think one of the things that we talked about the inventory and people counselors have asked for more detailed information and assessments of the condition of vehicles and buildings and that's what we hope it's our I think it's our job to get that to you so you can make a more informed this decision next year as we sort of spend some time getting organized I think the schools have done a good job on it so for instance for their ADA requirements they had someone come in to a full assessment of all their buildings prioritize things talk about what what things cost and now there's a plan and we don't have that for a lot we have the individual departments who are really smart about what their needs are and then they sort of put that in front of from in front of you and then you're like wow that's pretty compelling but what do we do with that so it's I think what we want to do is present a more coherent plan to you based on actual data and inspections of vehicles and buildings yeah I just see in the the buildings of course a lot of people are no longer aware of this because it's been a while but there when Ron Bahano it's who's still with us and actually is back still in John was town manager we did do a building inventory and there's fairly complete analysis of report on what each building is the age of the building and the condition of the buildings and actually found it and have it on like up on my screen at home just found it a couple days ago again but we don't have we haven't updated that and we haven't done anything with the vehicles at all so I just wanted to Alex so I guess I want to expand on Eric's comment and a lot of times when the different departments come in front of us what we're hearing especially relative to vehicles is the expense to their operating budget to maintain and I guess I'm just thinking every year we're taking a half percent away from operating budget and putting it toward capital which I think is a good thing but I guess and you know we're only talking capital here but I'm trying to think big picture from department or department as we're asking them to trim their operating budgets and yet we're putting off purchases which are going to increase their operating budget needs and so I guess I just put that out there I mean that's sort of my thought process not only just pushing costs out further but it creates I feel like all our departments are fairly strained to begin with and this just puts an added strain on them on a separate note earlier you asked other changes that happened from last time to this time and one of the thing I wanted to point out which actually makes the future look worse is we did increase the roads remember I went from a million I think I went down to 300,000 going forward we changed that to a million so now that is in there and also the sidewalks are 200,000 going forward so that is reflected in that number which is one of the reasons why it got a little worse. Okay that is helpful it did so do we want to move on from yeah I'm trying to again go from the packets we got to this document and school IT requests you said telecommunications was removed but there were no actual telecommunications requests for FY20 but I see multimedia equipment requests that I don't see moved so I think it was multimedia requests that was removed is that right? Yeah sorry it should be multimedia and then the copiers are not on the IT requests they're in the regular school budget request is that right? Yeah so I do the copiers so we deal with the state contracts and the purchasing so that comes from the business office. Okay. There should be a separate packet that has just the copier in it. That was one copiers I was looking for last night too. It is. It is I found it. I gave a very brief presentation on it. So do we want to go on to buildings? Yes. I guess on the the banks community center the kitchen equipment so that was moved out to FY21 but I think Sonia said she's not sure we would even need it because we may have old capital that we try to use first so I assume that's a number that might move back in but show like that's we don't really know where that is I guess she wants to check on what's available currently before so I don't think it's gonna be part of the request for next year part of this request for next year so it's not something you would be doing during the year either the timing I'm not sure but again I think that's the one that she said there's some all additional funding outside of this for that we have to look at first so it might get highlighted in that bright blue color put back to some year or highlighted even in next year in the bright blue but highlighted in bright blue so yeah are we gonna do the on the with buildings and yeah let's we can do schools and I think that if we're gonna do schools then we should probably also get into the citizen request piece that has to do with schools and buildings and so go ahead the only reason I was doing that is because of a the memo that you that Mr. McDonough prepared and be just that there were people may recall last week we had the removing parts the lines were moved around and I thought it just worth going through that again in more you know make sure people understand what actually happened and why and all that kind of stuff so there were three main changes to the school building request so the first change was around the HVAC and in particular the Chiller system so there was 400,000 at Fort River for a complete replacement and 400,000 at Wildwood for a complete replacement we had conversations here about you know how can we preserve you know the safety of the school and students and staff but also try to do it as financially responsible as possible given there is the potential for a new building in the future and can we is our lower cost way to manage that so we went back with the facility director and superintendent and so the change was we pushed the 400,000 at each of those schools out to FY 21 which is again one of the reasons why FY 21 looks higher because we don't want to say for sure that we're not going to need those complete replacement at this point we want to try out this alternative plan and see how it works and so the alternative plan was to put a hundred and thirty thousand dollars more into where it says the highlighted yellow energy management HVAC systems upgrade it's not totally descriptive of what's in that that section but I'll go through it so that section before was eighty thousand and we added a hundred and thirty thousand to it and the hundred and thirty thousand was comprised of eighty thousand for the rental of a portable chiller system for six months or the chilling season twenty thousand dollars for site work at each school to make the buildings ready to take a portable chiller and the event that it needs it so that there wasn't a lag or amount of time that was spent doing that so we want to get the buildings ready where it could just be hooked up and then thirty thousand to buy a new compressor the compressor is the part of the chiller system that is very expensive it's thirty thousand dollars and it has significantly time to get and they're hard to get and so we wanted to get one of those on hand so if the chiller goes in the Fort River unit we could replace the compressor goes in the chiller at Fort River we could replace that compressor that's the part that went and Wildwood last year and that's been replaced at Wildwood the compressor so that was the chiller system change four hundred thousand each school pushed out a year and in its place we've added a hundred and thirty thousand for the portable chiller the site work and the compressor thirty thousand for the compressor that was changed number one the other two it was it's not necessarily against that line 208 new feasibility and line 209 new school is sort of duplicated in line 247 new school yeah we talked about that should go down feasibility into line 247 and yeah 208 and two in line so we see sort of the whole progression of that absolutely I also if we actually were when we are approved in December I thought we had to come up with that feasibility money immediately the amount of time once you get approved to get the authorization the authorization is what I understand but this puts it all away into 22 I can't imagine that was sort of built in yeah right if we get approved then there would have to be I think it's out the double check with the superintendent I believe that's six to nine months or something that you have to get the author's age of the funding so you're saying the earliest that we would need it is FY 21 not 22 by 20 to 21 yeah I'll double check the time and we should move that placeholder to the correct year that's exactly what I make that change we would I mean it's shaded to the pierce to be shaded to indicate that we would do it by borrowing that one shaded is debt exclusion which is probably not what we would do with that either the feasibility portion so we shade it to borrowing instead of debt exclusion yeah so I mean it would probably be a borrowing at first and then how that borrowing was paid back potentially could be a debt exclusion so I think that's why it might be that a weird color which wouldn't do a debt exclusion until you had a number for the project and you can't do that without the feasibility work the project we never got to the school construction piece we stopped at the feasibility so we just ended up paying it back I'm not sure if we actually kept going through the process if we will how we would pay back that feasibility piece if it would be rolled forward into a larger borrowing or not we'd have to talk with our financial advisor about that so I'm Alex and then I went yeah no no then I want to also point out that this is the perfect place to be asking the question about the citizen request that has to do with doing some initial feasibility work around Crocker and suggesting that we move that you had the more I do the final two changes real quick yeah okay so we moved the the replacements out one year at 400,000 each and just doing quick math right like assuming we've already prepped both sites I assume if needed is there a new compressor at each site or is the 30,000 just one that follows one okay so let's hypothetically say both system like we read this one for FY 20 and then if both systems go out right for 80,000 per for four years we're still less than 800 that like I guess I'm trying to fit like I assume we're just gonna revisit this again next year and see where the systems are yeah so so the number we push it out because again we don't know the if we're gonna get into the MSP process this coming year or not so we don't really know how long we're gonna need to have sort of this portable unit fix it you know if it's 10 years then we're gonna want to replace the chillers if it's four to five years then this might work but you know something could happen this summer where we're like all right we need to replace these chillers so that's why we felt comfortable pushing it back a year but not taking it off the list for now okay so basically be a placeholder once we know the timing and do the theoretical math and then we'll fill it in from there right okay Eric I was just gonna emphasize the same point that this is something where if you're looking for spongy numbers and in 21 this would be an ideal spongy number where we might not be spending actually 800,000 you might be spending 80 again or not but the point is there's there if all goes well then that'd be the case so getting back to this the feasibility in this is there any thought is would the feasibility work eventually include Crocker and if that was correct then what about the points that were made in support of the citizen request to do that work a little bit earlier so so that was one of the three questions I think was would the MSBA fund the Crocker farm facility study as part of the other process and so I checked with superintendent and he was very clear that the MSBA won't make a definitive response or give a definitive answer on that until we're in a feasibility study so I don't think we're gonna get a definitive answer on that whether they would fund anything at Crocker farm until we're in the actual in the actual pipeline with them I guess the related question is if we funded something early started working on it as we did with Fort River that's not something that they would consider reimbursement for or would it be something they would consider reimbursement for they don't give definitive answers on those things until you're in the pipeline so I don't think that you spent the money before the we're in the process I don't think they would give a reimbursement for it the question is whether anything from that study could be used to maybe make the process go faster or less expensive and that I don't know either but I don't think they would reimburse for anything prior to being accepted pretty sure they wouldn't that my understanding is your understanding and that is they won't reimburse for what we did prior the real issue is whether or not the studies themselves will be sufficient so we don't have to redo them what could I have a question about the feasibility so we won't get an answer from MSBA it sounds like on the cracker farm issue until we're in but could we plug this feasibility study into this year's capital plan it doesn't need to start say immediately but it could if we've plugged it into this year's plan potentially start slightly earlier once we hear in December before we would need another vote especially if once we're in we can get an answer fairly quickly about it that it would or would not be funded I I'm just thinking timing wise is it smart to plug it into this year's fiscal capital plan yeah that relates to one of the other questions so again we're not opposed to the schools are opposed to the facility study so if the council you know we find a way to plug that in balance everything I think that's good but in terms of how we would prioritize it we wouldn't for the school facility requests we wouldn't reduce any of those school facility requests because they're all really for sort of immediate building needs you know the roof the HVAC stuff so we wouldn't substitute it for anything that's on our proposal already especially since we reduced it quite a bit but if there's a way to add it again rework reworking I mean there's we know there's already $20,000 sort of a small surplus at this point that needs to be allocated before we close this out so there is some wiggle room but sort of needs the bigger picture discussion about where that would come from yes so I guess what I'm really struggling with is I'm not following the school is close I mean probably more than others but less than I probably should but so I I mean if if it truly speeds us along and we need to make it a priority and it gets us to building schools faster then you know sorry it's Paul we take 40 grand out of the roads like we did last year because it's our priority but if it's potentially duplicative and doesn't get us the improvement I mean I guess I know everyone wants to be like if we needed it's gonna speed up the process I say we find the money but if that's not really the case if it just sounds good but it's not the reality then that's a different situation and I don't have those answers to make that decision it'd be cool if I did because then I could make it you know then I could advocate one way or the other and we don't have those answers either again the MSP is not gonna give a definitive response on whether yes you can use that work or no you can't or or they'll include it or they won't include it they're just not gonna give us the the exact response or the definitive response I get that but I to me there is a difference between if you were starting I'll just give an example I think on the Fort River feasibility study some of the work that's being done is sort of doing concept conceptual design for a new Fort River elementary school I could imagine the MSBA saying that stuff you can throw out because we want you to go through your process and we're not interested in the you're not going to take a conceptual design and just sort of translate it into a final design move yourself forward on the other hand I would I would hope and I would think you could probably we could probably find out based on comparable I mean districts have also gone through this kind of stuff that if you've done some sort of let's say engineering analysis or site analysis and you're getting just basic engineering data back on building conditions that some some of that analysis you would hope would be able to pour it into accelerating the work you're doing so in a similar space here it what I think if I understood correctly the request around the Crocker it's looking at the previous site analysis and surveys and then starting to conceptually sketch out where you could put a couple extra classrooms and some rooms here and there without getting down to the level of any kind of actual really design proposal and I'm just I'm just trying to figure out whether we could even find the question out not about whether or not you're going to guarantee that we can use this to going forward which I get they're not going to say as a matter of protocol but more has are there other examples of districts that have been able to use sort of basic underlying analysis to inform their work because part of me would say we're I mean when you start these projects presumably they're going to take the original geotechnical surveys that were done back when Wildwood and Fort River were constructed right so that's previous survey work that's being incorporated into the work you're doing you're obviously doing you know what I'm getting at like you already have a body of work every district has a body of work that you're incorporating into the work you're doing to learn something you know you're never starting purely from scratch in a literal sense yeah again not opposed to the project and I think you've probably and maybe she left I was gonna say maybe the requester could give a little more sorry the Maria leave Maria was maybe Tony can speak to it you probably do have to get into a little bit of the designing piece of it because some of it is looking out the renovation piece of it of Crocker farm and the impact of making the gym bigger and the impact of making the library bigger and things like that which I think in order to really cost estimate you'd have to have some sort of baseline design of what that would look like is that your understanding too the main purpose of this is to first find out if the site actually can be expanded because the case it's proposal that dr. Mars proposed includes expansion of Crocker farm so that's a requirement as part of his proposal and then the second part is you know at a rough cost because we might find out it's cost prohibitive to expand a Crocker farm and if that's the case then we're narrowing down our options so once we get into the feasibility process with the MSBA we have a much clearer idea of which way we're going and I think that will definitely accelerate the process by how many months I'm not sure but it's not so much what would a design look like for an expansion I don't think this study would get anywhere near that I think it's basically can you expand and roughly what it would what would it cost and that will help us well first of all it's a requirement for the K through 6 scenario and secondly for the K through 5 it could be an option that might be preferable to the residents to have two smaller schools instead of one large school and one small school and the inequities that would be inherent in that my concern about I'm sorry I wasn't in the room last week although I did hear your presentation I heard it was quite good and but my concern is that if we actually move forward with the K5 and we put the sixth grade at the middle school then it's not clear that this study would be at the same level and I just you know again this may be my not understanding the whole picture but from what I have understood thus far is would there is a way to put the sixth grade in the middle school and there may even be a very strong academic argument for why we would want to do that so putting money into a study of how to expand Crocker farm to accommodate sixth grade to me seems premature that's my concern I mean of all of the citizen projects I think this is the one that is most compelling but and because clearly the support to move forward on the schools is unanimous but that's my concern Alex's you know I may know a little more than Alex about this but I think we need to I'm looking towards our school committee members for some sort of guidance on is this a study that number one in terms of what the residents have requested would need to be done should we get an MSBA program process at the sort of point as Lynn sort of said with those sort of ideas being looked at is that going to need to be done number one and if it is going to need to be done is it something that our school committee thinks is preferable to start now because of what may or may not the cost of say the feasibility study that we know the MSBA will chip in to help pay for because that's going to hit as the presenters last week said a maximum and so if it's going to hit that maximum no matter what why not start this early I think I'm looking for some guidance from our experts over here on what the timing you think is best for this potential since I think I'm hearing something's going to meet need to be done for feasibility at Crocker and is this resident request on point with what would need done and should we be starting at early I'll start and then let Eric and add anything more and so to answer your first question yes it should be done and it will need to be done at some point and I think that's that's a million dollar question right is what is what is the exact timing that we need I think there is it's it's complete uncertainty and I actually really like your suggestion of putting the plug in so that if we can if we do get in in December and we can get started on this that we that we actually do but it is a question mark for me really still in terms of the timing particularly when we see that we're not putting in spending for the full feasibility study until 2021 right so in my mind the two should be happening either in quick succession or at the same time so if we're saying that we're not going to be able to start realistically the feasibility the full feasibility so that four hundred thousand until 2021 in my mind that would be about the same time that we would want to be spending on any other feasibility studies that could not be included if we if we did think though that we could start early in 2021 with that big one then I would say definitely let's put it in as a placeholder and know that that is something that we we may not need in the end once we get the answers from MSBA about whether it could be included right and I think that I think that all that makes total sense and I to me and I think that the point that was made earlier also that you're going to hit the maximum of what's reimbursable is I think highly likely and so I in that sense it's likely that if it's not this it's going to be something else we're spending money on that's good that is going to be out of the town I think on the point about moving the sixth grade to the middle school and then the necessity of doing any expansion at Crocker I think the challenge for us and this is this is like a it's a it's a fascinating challenge and it's a real one is that we have a number of balls in the air that we're trying to assess whether we think it's a good idea and whether we think we should do it and I'd say two things one in terms of literally whether we want to do it and whether the ultimately the superintendent's going to recommend it and things the right thing to do we genuinely don't know yet and then also as a matter of public confidence because we recognize these conversations are dynamic so they involve parents they involve staff they involve feedback from students and so those though they're the the public conversation we have around what we're choosing to do is as you know a meaningful input into whether ultimately we're going to think a particular set of recommendations or something we want to move forward with I'm saying all that because anyone looking at where we are right now could logically say that in a couple of years time we're going to have the sixth grade in the middle school for any variety of reasons we're going to think we can get well reimbursed to do one larger K through five and that there's not a need for any expansion at Crocker but what I would say is that the conversation we were having through all the listening sessions in which the superintendent and the school committee was saying we don't actually know that and so they're there there are strong concepts on the table but that's exactly what they are their concepts argues argues for the the likelihood that in particularly because it's something we've talked about before with the MSBA the MSBA does require districts to flesh out different alternatives and kick the tires on them and so the likelihood that we would want to look at a case six expansion for Crocker is as Allison said you know the superintendent himself has said is a very high confidence that he has that we would need in fact to look at that scenario and I'll say again although I'm not I'm not conceptually I mean speaking personally I'm not conceptually opposed to the idea of looking at balancing 480 and 480 when our school committee has talked about this and when the superintendent has talked about it he actually hasn't been talking out none of us have been talking about the notion of balancing out two smaller schools as a as the part of the proposal that was being brought forward we've never we haven't ruled it out but we've never actually been talking about that we've been literally just talking about is if we keep 2k6 is how do we how do we suss out the viability of expanding our Crocker can I just yeah I'm I still need more clarification if we find out on December 12th I think is the magical date that we are in the MSBA process then it takes you we're using months it takes a certain amount of months to then engage for the feasibility I really the reason I'm asking this is because yes we've now said okay the four hundred thousand which is an approximate amount needs to be in FY 21 does it I mean is there any reason to put some in FY 20 because even losing three months of getting going is in my mind is critical at this point it's a good question I think some of it relates to our change in government so in the past primarily there were two opportunities to appropriate money or make these sort of decisions you know spring and fall town meeting now I'm looking at Paul but you can make those decisions twice a month so if we find out on December 12th we're in you know the the lead time to make a decision on approving a borrowing for example to meet with the MSBA needs it's not the same as was before but I think again given that change I probably want to go back and get you know talk with the town manager and the superintendent and see if you're right if we should put something in FY 20 or if we feel FY 21 is good I want to echo Lynn here you know we don't have to wait till like in previous when we got in you waited till spring town meeting in May and you appropriated it for the next year if we're in in December the council could act in January to appropriate feasibility so it starts immediately and if that's the case and we want to plan and plan for being in the system we probably should have that feasibility money allocated in FY 20 with planned borrowing not even 21 that's I mean yeah we'll have to look at the timeline because the significant it's quite possible to be FY 20 I'll just the last time around this process there's quite a bit of lead time in terms of doing the procurements to get the OPM and get the designer on board but it is possible that FY 20 like April or March April May or June we might have bills to pay so I think I think that we need to remember that what we're principally working on right now is what our recommendations are to go into the budget for FY 20 for capital and once we make that recommendation of course then it's up to the town manager to decide whether he wants to accept the recommendation but and furthermore even if money is put into something if it turns out unwise to spend it it doesn't get spent so there's a couple of additional trigger points along the way the question of where we put the bulk of the feasibility money which year is you know it's really where it goes on the spreadsheet but in reality you're absolutely right when we hear that we have been invited into the process whatever year that is that's the point when the council is going to immediately jump to say okay we need to put a chunk of money into it and borrow it I think that our question right now is really should we take a sum of money or recommend that a sum of money from this year's capital assuming we're not borrowing and assuming that we just don't know the answer to this be made available for initial feasibility work which would then have both of those trigger points that go beyond because the manager would have to decide whether he wants to accept that recommendation and reduce some something else probably roads by the whatever amount of course we don't know what that amount is which is another problem that I'm having in dealing with this and furthermore wouldn't make a decision to spend it unless things have been worked out with the superintendent that it is a wise thing to do I'm sorry man Joe and I were having a side conversation but we're both saying is that in FY 20 I would put a figure in $440,000 to cover what we think we need as the match for MSBA and what we think we need to do these cracker form I I'd even make sure that MSBA knows we've done that but if you put 440,000 in is it all under borrowing or is it 400 under borrowing and 40 under I leave that to the town manager to decide that was gonna be along my lines of are you taking 40,000 out of roads are you cutting something where are you getting the 40,000 from because theoretically that's part of what we've done in the past is but so I don't know if anyone I don't know if everyone's in agreement to just leave it to the town manager or there's 20,000 right now again that isn't spoken for so yeah I guess I also and maybe you had this conversation last week but I want to go back to the logic around the money for DPW in this year that's a lot of money and given that we have a feasibility study but we don't have a schematic design do we honestly believe that we would be spending as much this is also with an assumption we have land options do we honestly believe that in this year we would spend as much as five million dollars so this is one of the things we go back and forth on whether we should have the major capital projects on this JCPC list or not some people say yes we should some people say yes we know we shouldn't because it just it distorts everything that's a borrowing so it doesn't really affect the actual capital for FY 20 that's sort of where our current plan has it so we didn't we wanted to align this with the current plan even but you know once we know a little bit more information we may be able to refine this a little bit of a little more detail relatively soon I think so and the same thing goes with the the 400,000 for the school you know that's a borrowing and the question was would you make that a foreign $40,000 borrowing or take 40,000 out of capital those are the I mean it's a very rich conversation and it's very informative to me to hear the different perspectives so and then just to complicate things let me throw in fire and maybe I this is just my not completely understanding the sequencing I know obviously that the desired place for fire is where DPW is do we borrow for schematic designs do we have to borrow for schematic designs and is there any logic to doing both a fire and a DPW schematic design given that we would have locations for both at the basically going on at the same time probably separate committees but going on at the same time and the reason I'm thinking of those and the importance of that is first of all it would help inform the feasibility studies that we already have which are much more expensive than I think we realize we can spend and it would help us figure out can we build a stage DPW can we do a fire station that is you know five five million ten million less than what we have so the sooner we can get those answers through feasibility which also has to include for those two projects the zero energy because we didn't have that at the time we were doing the initial feasibilities so schematic design has to do that so it's in many ways all of that is very informative for the council and the community to be able to say this is what we can afford and this is what we can't afford so I'm more eager to kind of put it all out there Alex so again I think I always come back to these sort of process questions so in past years you know we would get a budget right and the idea would be not to deal in esoteric bonding and grants it was here's money in hand here's money to go out and so I guess I worry it's easy for us to say could you just throw another 40 grand and you know maybe we'll borrow on it and I think that's a slippery slope that concerns me so I think for me as a committee I would prefer like if we want to put 40,000 in there then we need to take it from somewhere else we shouldn't say let's borrow more and that's just me trying to sort of toe the line because we do have a lot of things out ahead of us and I think it sets a dangerous precedent so you know last year again not to pick on the roads you know last I mean 20,000 is not going to make or break Paul's million dollar in roads so you know do we just take the 20 grand 40 if we have to and just put it in this and call it a day I guess I just like a more concrete solution than that because it shows perhaps the MSBA that we are committed to moving forward to moving quickly with it it shows town people that we are committed to moving quickly to moving forward with it versus just throwing it back on Paul to maybe borrow if it makes sense yeah yeah how how certain are we on the four hundred thousand dollar figure so I believe that's based on our share a million dollars it's the same way it was structured last time with the wild blue project that the overall cost budget was a million we were our share was roughly 40% ish and so that's where we came in we came in under that budget by can't remember the exact amount around forty thousand dollars I can't remember the reason I'm saying this is that the four hundred thousand dollar figure is a placeholder anyway and so I don't I understand the point but I would take it I would take it as more of an iron law if we were saying let's give Dave Zomac his truck and you know what I mean we're gonna say let's be let's get the sixty thousand dollar conservation truck in here because boy we really need it and then we can't just start you know Christmas Tringer candy storing items and just throwing them in in this case the argument that's being made about the Crocker farm study is that it's actually integral to the feasibility study and the question is about the sequencing I would actually rather just either put in four hundred thousand dollars and then just provide but direction to the school district to say when when we're moved when we get accepted this December you know we're telling you this seems this seems really promising if it accelerates our work let's try to move it forward so maybe one of the first things that comes out of that four hundred thousand dollars is some small piece of analysis of Crocker farm school or alternately if you think the actual number really is going to be closer to four hundred twenty thousand dollars in the end then we should actually change the number from four hundred to four twenty because that's actually what the feasibility number is gonna be you know I'm getting it yeah I think it's a budget at this point I'm looking out I mean there's a lot of things that I looked at in a feasibility study so the four hundred thousand it's just an estimate if we added Crocker farm as part of the feasibility study would it increase it by forty thousand I don't know if it would if it was in the original scope of what we're asking them to look at again given we we had variants last time in our budget versus actual so I think what I heard you say is just include the Crocker farm is sort of part of that borrowing for the feasibility study particularly if you're twenty thousand if you said you had twenty thousand ADC use these words because of the bad words to use but you said you had twenty thousand extra kicking around right now right and then it's possible this could come in for twenty thousand under so here's my thought of where we might go because we do need to get this move in the line we're talking about line 208 and I think maybe it's worth breaking it into two lines so that we put in an amount move it to FY 20 but shaded so that it's based upon borrowing and we note in our recommendation that this is an amount that is not that would be subject to future counsel action to authorize the borrowing so that nothing is really happening with it other than putting it on the spreadsheet and that we separately put a sum of money into a separate line which we could call preliminary feasibility work or something like that and whether it be twenty or forty thousand dollars but just put it in this a separate amount and make that recommendation to the manager and then he has to decide whether he wants to include it in the budget and also as I noted earlier will ultimately decide whether it's appropriate as he does for any line whether it's appropriate to spend it based upon the circumstances when spending decisions actually have to be made but at least we put in a place where the where where some money is available is what we're suggesting in the in this next year that is not subject to the borrowing yes I just want to clarification the last two points that so the extra sum of money for the citizens request is the is what I'm hearing that we would wait till December when we found out if we got to the MSBA to spend that or would we spend it on July 1st start moving forward without study I think that's a that's a decision that's ultimately the town managers to make because again if we waited till December then that sort of in some ways defeats the purpose of the time-saving piece of it right if you wait to get into the feasibility study then it wouldn't really make sense at that point to go ahead and do it because where we know if we were included as part of the MSBA process I think the saving piece is to start right away with it ahead of that and again I'm just that's what I heard so I just wanted to make sure yeah I mean there's a lot that we don't know about what would be the true cost of doing this what would be the parameters of the feasibility study that would be done these are things that have to be worked out between with you and Mike and Paul and his staff and then he would make a decision that would be appropriate but at least we put a placeholder in there and put some of money in so that it can be done if it seems wise to be done and can move forward with making those decisions okay I was just gonna say I think that this is where we need to rely on our school committee and our superintendent that it seems like we want some money ready to spend and we're not the experts on when the best time to do that is if it is July August and because it'll save us six months of a feasibility when we get in the program in December that makes total sense you know but if it wouldn't save us that time then but but we're not I'm not the expert on when the best time to do that is right and I want to move this along because I'm keeping an eye on the clock and I know I wanted to bring up the North Amherst library building yeah I was gonna so we're in a conclusion than that and the only thing that's left is the amount whether it be 20 or 40 so the requesters had requested 40,000 I know and we didn't deal with that but if we put it in 40 then we have that we have the extra 20 and we can take 20 from the road. I mean real quick because I'm really I really want to move on to the next point. TSKP indicated yesterday evening that the estimate would be closer to 25 to 30 for this work. Split the difference? Yes. I just have one question for Sean. Where exactly are the drinking fountains? They're not listed as drinking fountains in your composite thing. What line are they in? Interior upgrades. 206. 206. It went from a hundred thousand to three hundred thousand. It's been really hard going through the sheets as Mandy said to figure out where things ended up so that's why we're asking all these apparently stupid questions but you know drinking fountains matter. Yeah no and maybe again maybe next time we can figure out this report how to show the changes better. I wanted to bring up the North Amherst library rehab. It was slotted in as borrowing in FY 22. I am curious the 800,000 is actually higher than any of the schematics came in with a estimated cost where the schematics came in. I think the highest schematic was like 550,000 or something scheme C. Number one but it sounds like from the presentation last week and all that there is a sum of potential money that would cover potentially half of even that largest schematic amount you know somewhere in the 200, 250,000 dollar range for doing a North Amherst library project and that that money may not be available if we slot it into FY 22 and while it's not necessarily in the scheme of the rest of our plan the most important thing to do in FY 20 if it makes sense monetarily because if we did it in FY 20 or FY 21 we would gain a contribution of 200 and some thousand which would then disappear if we slotted it into FY 22 or 23. Fiscally it might be most responsible to slot it into this year and figure it out. So I'd like to have that conversation. Do we know about how much private money might be available for this and all and how much if we went forward this year versus in two or three years would that save the town overall in doing something that I think most people agree at least partially needs done which is ADA access and bathrooms. So the true cost, the cost that you saw on that thing created by the report by Coon Riddle was just for the building. It had no site work, no other work, no way, no parking a facility. So you basically their estimate and they were very clear that these are just ballpark per square foot numbers they didn't get any more any deeper into that nor does it include some structural changes to that might need to be made to the building itself. So I think for the lowest cost is a half million the highest cost is 500 to a million dollars is what we're sort of guessing at in terms of so you sort of have to double the numbers that Coon Riddle had in terms of a potential gift. We have an anonymous donor who said they may offer funds and it may be matched. That's not enough for me to move anything forward. I'm sorry. And until someone says I've got X number of dollars and then that's a that's a legitimate conversation to have but to change the capital plan to move and ask for half the funds if that's what they're doing for a half million dollars to come out of the town's coffers to prioritize this if there's if there's if there's if there's actual money being offered I think that changes the conversation but I have not seen that I've heard offers of that but again no one has said a number the numbers you said were the first times I've heard any numbers associated with that. I raised this before and this is North Amherst Library and that is that it just it it feels to me that that and the intersection have to be looked at hand in hand. I mean I think you could do the changes within the building but if you're going to then bring in heavy equipment to reconfigure an intersection having done a lot of gardening work or frankly even parking lot work often gets disturbed in the process of those kinds of additional work in the intersection and I'm I don't live in North Amherst I do live in North Amherst I don't live there but I use that intersection all the time because of my association with the survival center and somehow or another that whole thing needs to be looked at together and we need to have a plan. I don't know where when we do that but and I understand your point Paul about the gift I think you know money on the table is the only money we can count. Yes Paul. So a plan is doable and achievable and easily we've not easily we will we have done engineering work for the intersection combined with the other work and I think you're right that we should be looked at as a whole because if not this year at some point we have to address the North Amherst library just depends on what's the priority of that compared to all the other priorities you have on the table with you for you again it's also borrowing most likely and that impacts you know our whole big thing. But the plan is is something we will you know we have an engineering study that is being analyzed right now. Hopefully we'll get that out to everybody and have it be sort of reviewed a deeper way. But then it's going to be the significant amount of funds to implement that or to do something if we're not that if that's not going to happen in the long term do something in the short term. I'd just like to say that this is a project that needs to be done. I understand all the difficulties with the intersection and I heard vaguely that there might be some money but I never heard even the amount that Mandy is saying. And I agree that we can't move forward with the possible promise of money. So I'm hoping that if someone is really interested that there will be something specific. But we are hopeful that this will get done in sooner than later. Thank you. It's useful to know. Thank you. Yeah. I mean there's question that I would have Eric is regardless of the scope in the end of the amount that we would need for this building is it likely something that we would have to put into a bond. And if so then is really just a question of where to put the placeholder because when the manager feels that there's a concrete plan that is a reasonable and responsible plan which could be accelerated because this promise of possible money turns into a promise of real money and that might change the equation with our in our current form of government. It doesn't take long to come say I'm going to move it forward and come to the council and ask to authorize the bond and move forward with it. I'm not sure that we're this is worth delving into and making a much finer decision. No I mean I was going to build on the points that have just been made that to my mind as the town manager is is a firming up or finalizing sort of the timeline of the the further sort of combined analysis or work that's being done around that intersection of the building. I think knowing or having the council knows probably not going to be JCBC knowing what that timing looks like and how it relates to FY 20 and FY 21 would be useful because honestly if it's not until it's synced up and you can move forward or concretely then it might not make sense to move up the library renovations. So just having a sense of that. But then I think that the the second thing would be that just so that there's no misunderstanding that if the town really needs a firmer plan for donations or commitment around donations I think communicating that whether it's the town manager or the the library board communicate or the town council communicating to them that you know even if even if let's safe sake of argument these improvements couldn't be made until FY 21 because of other work that needs to be done to be prepped in that area even communicating look if we're really going to be serious about prioritizing this and moving it in FY 21 on the basis of donations that are being made. We need to we need to you know we have these expectations I think would be would just be helpful right because it might actually firm up what that commitment needs to look like and then which would then further allow the council or the town manager to then say okay great now we have a road map for the next 24 28 months around what this would look like. Yes. There's a part of me that would say we'll move this up to FY 21 but we need the money in hand to keep it there. I think that goes hand in hand with what Eric just said because it's really being said is is that the interest in doing something to address at least the most major concerns about the library is something that we think is important but the timing and some numerous things and if you have more specific commitment to make that's information to convey to the manager who can make the decision to alter suggested an altered timeline yeah please but very quick come on up but please come to the microphone. I think that very quickly that it's the anonymous donor needs to have money on the table before they can make a concrete contribution so they're looking for are we are looking for the people who do the petition we are looking for money from the joint capital plan if we get it we feel quite confident that we can contribute we'll know then what your capital plan is willing to put in we'll know what we can put it yes Paul is the renovation of the North Amherst library appropriate for CPAC money I think it could be because it's it's clearly a historic building okay that's useful to know thank you and could I get a clarification would would additions to historic building because this isn't this isn't this is adding on to that building would that be allowable or not and I think it would be useful to clarify yeah and I would I would echo that actually what Paul's comment about the the the ballpark estimates are new construction costs and so doubling the estimate so there are structural issues and adding in addition so there are costs in the existing building that would have to be added on to so there is the potential for a piece of it maybe being funded by CPAC the North Amherst library has gotten those funds before so yeah yeah I may be bringing up something that starts getting more sensitive around how people talk about these things but I do that all the time so I'm used to it I'm just going to be given the comment that was just the public comment that was just made I got to put a fine point on the idea that it's a bad place to be if community members sit and say I'm waiting for you to indicate you're in before I'm going to be committed to being in and sort of show my cards on what the money is and then simultaneously the committee to sit well you haven't really committed anything so therefore I'm not going to commit anything either right so all some saying is offline probably not in this committee or in this conversation if they're if they're and sadly I think this has to come from the public before it comes from the council because I think I think here either here or even for the town council not to jump forward to what you guys do it we'd be spinning our wheels at the JCPC the town council would be spinning their wheels to sort of just make up scenarios where they think they can match dollars to public dollars which means privately and offline the community if it is in fact prepared to commit funds under certain circumstances needs to come forward with a more specific proposal probably needs in private to be able to reveal what those dollars figures would look like and there's probably a upper boundary and a lower boundary if there's a lower boundary of a private anonymous donor and that's a bottom-line figure that could be committed then privately again I would say say what that figure is because for planning purposes even if you think you can I'm making this up but even if you think you can raise six hundred thousand dollars nope nobody in the right mind and a public committee is gonna start budgeting in terms of the upper boundary figure they're gonna be looking at the lower boundary figure and then trying to say alright maybe I plus that up by 10 or 20 percent hoping that people come together for planning purposes but but my point simply is if there's a deal to be had I think both the town manager and and folks here anyways have expressed an interest in trying to find a deal but it's not gonna happen unless people come together and they start actually expressing more firmer commitments that in some future point could mean that both the public says alright I'm in for this and then there's an indication which would have to be debated publicly right so no one privately is gonna be able to say that the other JCPC or the town council is in for a certain amount and commit it because it's gonna be a matter of public debate and vote right and it's gonna have to happen publicly but there's got to be at least a basis for forming an agreement that could then be vetted discussed and voted publicly yeah I just want to clarify the numbers I was putting are not numbers I've heard it was a more of this if we've got an offer of a quarter million or something if that's like what's on the table and I don't know what's on the table if that's what's on the table then and and the whole project is only a half million so it would cost it would pay for it I think those are what we have to figure out before we just push this off two years especially if that would not be there so it sounds like we need more conversation offline about this yeah again real quick Molly I think the request has been made for private conversations and so we agree with Mr. Dr. Jima that we have to start there and we have private conversations okay thank you that's helpful I mean in the end I'm going to get back to the focus here because what we're really recommending is how we're taking budgeting the cash capital amount that we know is available for expenditure in FY 20 and what recommendations we're making about it the library request would not be a part of that money which is where we started with the question of borrowing and so it's been a useful discussion it's been help it was helpful that we had the citizen request to focus this group on the but I think that at this point it really is something that if the group that is working on trying to create a fundraising mechanism has something to provide to the manager and the manager determines that hey this is a feasible plan you can come to the council and make a proposal that but it's separate from the budget that he's presenting on May 1st do I have that right it depends on timing if it happens before May 1st you're making a recommendation based on the information you have today there's a little bit more time after you make your recommendation would be helpful if I reviewed the proposed amendments to the FY 20 plan and then you can see if there's further amendments or the group wants to vote yes and just to I think that the meant for deep that I have to double check that meant for DPW for the sidewalk surveying for North Pleasant is still in the recommendation I mean it's not specifically spelling here but you mean in the in the $200,000 that were allocated allocated already to sidewalks and I think it's what the transportation group has as a higher priority I know it's not specifically spelled out in our plan I don't believe that's the other one that we just need to touch on to make sure we know where it is I think it would be in the sidewalk budget it's a different budget it's $290.01 okay yeah so the change is okay if I go through the change okay so the changes that I've heard or I'm gonna put the housing production plan back in with whatever that funding was but shade it a different color so it's clear that it's not coming from the levy so the feasibility study we're gonna create a new line so we're gonna move the $400,000 up from FY 22 to FY 20 make it a borrowing for a new feasibility study and then we're gonna create a new line for a preliminary feasibility study which will be 40,000 maybe 30,000 based on what we heard but the request for 40 so we will figure that out 40,000 what I heard is not from borrowing we'll use the $20,000 sort of surplus right now that's built into this plan to pay for that and then the other 10,000 or 20,000 will have to come out of some other source which will be left up to the town manager yes and I think that's it I think that's the only other question I have and this is really and it's the issue of whether or not we want to move the idea of the feasibility study for the fire station earlier right I'm sorry the schematic design not feasibility yeah I mean my thoughts on that for both the DPW and the fire station and you know I looked up all in this too is how does that relate in timing to the town council's discussion on sort of what the plan is going forward it relates big time but I mean do we want to recommend and approve it before the town council decides yes go ahead and do this here's the issue the present feasibility studies for both of those are at high dollars and in order for us to ever come up with any kind of way to reduce the footprint and the dollars for either DPW and fire is to go into schematic design because we can't do it by sitting here with a citizen group that doesn't that aren't the designers etc I mean it's we've got to put the zero energy in and we've got to come up with a say a schematic design that says okay you could do this and then five years later if you have money you could do this or whatever and what we can't fill in on that wonderful tool that you're developing a realistic number at this point with without knowing harder numbers it's going to be hard for the council to make a capital plan for all the projects with dates and years and all of that right Lynn do you sense of how much that would cost the number that I've always heard for schematic design was 250 that's what we went to town meeting for but that was before we had to add in the solar issue the whole issue of net zero so I really leave that kind of guest to the manager I mean that was a number from three years ago that we took to town meeting 250 for both no for each I have a question about the station or a bridge line 287 and I know the temporary bridge is running slightly behind schedule I don't know what we've heard about our grant application for the bridge grant for a permanent bridge you've slotted the permanent bridge funding borrowing into FY 21 the original plan was to finish that permanent bridge at the very early stages of FY 21 which would mean most of the barring I think would have to happen in FY 20 so I'm curious where the thinking is on slotting it into FY 21 versus FY 20 in terms of borrowing are we looking at because we didn't get it just applying again next year and so we've moved that permanent back like a year what's the timing on that now so borrowing is just a source don't think about the timing of it you don't need to think about it because we often will borrow small small amounts of money through Statehouse notes and then when we have a sum of money that's worth it to go into the market we'll put 10 things together and then go into the market so we can we borrow through a system that the state has set up to borrow the money that we don't have to produce the cash so in terms of what you're really what we this plan should drill is what is really talking about is when will the money be spent and what is the source of the funds so that says that's a key thing so if the money if we anticipate the money is gonna be spent in FY 21 then that's the most likely scenario we don't know about a state grant coming in for that again that this is a type of thing where my philosophy is if there's state or other gifts that are coming forward that motivates a change in behavior for us but until we know that it will be on that we projected out at this point in time FY 21 yeah yeah I'm sorry that that this is the permanent not the temporary looking around at Kathy trying to handle a quick and standpoint but we're if you have something since we've let others okay I'm just staying on this point you know I have a couple comments later with which we be more general but when we discuss the permanent bridge at the finance committee two rounds and then brought to the council we always talked about it with a grant and so the number was five hundred thousand not a million and I know this is a placeholder but we don't put the entire cost of a school on as a placeholder if we expect grant and we even wrote the report back that can almost made a contingent on the grant so I just think we should be budgeting you know as accurately as possible and that if we didn't get the grant in next year it would be the next year because we were told the temporary bridge could last for four or five years you know it was now a one-year fix so I just it's a plea that goes with the earlier that I think we might not know 10 years worth of capital budget but we ought to be able to think of two years worth at a time or three years that what do we really think is going to be in the next year so we can be moving it around so that was just a comment on this piece I've got a couple others if you have time for a couple later that I won't do now thank you so back to your you have a specific recommendation when yes I guess I was just gonna ask whether you heard some summary point around schematic design for a new schematic design for her schematic design I should say for a fire station or DPW or is that something that in your view the JCPC was bringing up and sort of wanted but we're phrasing it punting over to the town manager to get further thoughts or is that where's that where did that land I personally would like to see us have the capability should the opportunity arise in this next fiscal year to move to schematic design for both public works and the fire station we've already discussed the school and we've already made that decision and I think that both of those are well they might be borrowing and they may cost 250 they may cost 300,000 I think it's going to be critical for both of those to be able to go forward as fast as possible so that the council can actually come up with a comprehensive capital plan so my question is can you do that without having an identified location for the DPW facility you cannot do any schematic design without having identified location so it's a placeholder hoping that we have it so I'm here I mean the recommendation and you guys can say if you want to do it is to move the 500,000 is either split it or move it up to 20 that's already there for the fire station and I also question whether if we don't even have a site yet for DPW and we don't have a schematic design what would we be spending a half you know five million dollars on so in some ways unless we're going to repair and so I meant I've questioned the 500 the five million for DPW in FY 20 I think it's a little further out although to be honest with you my concern in general over interest rates is that I think we're going to start seeing them go up so I'd rather start moving so do I take it at the right that the suggestion is that we move the feasibility study earlier and shaded with borrowing with sort of the same understanding that we put in with the school feasibility study doesn't need to be repeated but then just when it's appropriate when we have one is if we get into the MSBA process the other is we find a piece of land DPW that those are triggers that then would authorize proceeding immediately to come up with request to the council and move forward that's just a question of what year then could I ask I think in to go back to just the 10 year plan and how it looks on this very first page it would probably be helpful to pull out all of any major building project whether it's schools library you know that North Amherst library and the senior center or anything like that out with a projected timeline for the borrowing of that but then a line underneath that shows what the payments the debt obligation would be under that borrowing so that we can specifically see here's what because that's the debt the debt obligation is what comes out of this 10% or our capital and that's where we're having real problems sort of seen so I think would be helpful to have a line that's like here's your big major building projects and here's if we borrow in these years what the debt obligation going forward for those specifically are yeah so so that's sort of what the the tool will do and we can plug it in and I think in some ways it's also helpful maybe it's a different section to just do that with any other debt projects as well not just the building projects but other things we authorized for debt so you can see we prove 2 million for something how does that impact future amount so probably both of those would be a good idea for upgrades I just again I want to reinforce the fact that this I know place hand in hand with the tool okay that's absolutely critical but the other piece is that as we approach what we're now looking at which is a June 10th meeting on the comprehensive nature of our capital thinking part of what we take forward is this year next five years and even you know some statement at least about the status of the tool what I think we're all suggesting is communicating to the public that we're not we didn't just take take a vote on Monday night we're moving to make a commitment to figure out what we're gonna do but I actually think that we're getting back to the focus of the day in that is what are we recommending to be spent in FY 20 I think we're pretty well there and but we're these have been very helpful suggestions about how to structure either potential additional requests that are dependent upon borrowing or presentation for the document in future years and we need to work those out and like you know you can get a small group to work with either Paula Sean but I think that for the work of trying to figure out do we support the recommendation what changes would we propose to get there for the FY 20 recommendation that we're really there and we may be that there's nothing more that we can take up today so we come this comes back to us and then we make we were going to have an additional meeting to the Thursday the 11th no it's gonna be like three weeks I think three weeks 27th I didn't remember the 25th but that was right and come back at that point about sort of this cleanup questions that we're talking about but that we wanted to have the concrete recommendation we're making for FY 20 to the manager so that he can start working with that in his budget request the 27th Saturday it's the 25th I thought I was 25th but I wasn't sure and it's at our regular time yes so turn to Paula Sean and say do you feel that we've done what we need to do for this point to allow you to move forward with the FY 20 budget development that you need to do yeah well I think we'll make the changes that we've heard I've also heard take a closer look at the next five years and maybe do a little clean up there some of the things some of the questions that were raised around you know the portable radio is being every year some of the other recurring things clean that up a little bit more and and there's a couple decisions the town manager will have to make about where money where funding comes from but I think I hear mostly consensus on the recommendation so I just want to say that that public forum is you know something we've never done before we just started discussing it the other day and what would it look like and I think it's going to be a public forum that there's going to be a lot of interest in so I think the more that we can make this picture reflect current thinking the better thank you for all of your work both of you this has been amazing so all do you have any final okay so what I would suggest then is for this committee and then I'll see if Kathy has anything just give her a chance for public comment to conclude but that trying to see what we can you can do on the spreadsheet in relation to what we've talked about today and if it comes you know if you need to consult and I'm not available because I'm out of town for those 10 days then check with Alex because she's vice chair we don't you're basically out of town at the same time is this just on cleaning up the spreadsheet for the recommendations that were made and Andy yes yeah I think I've got him maybe to you to take a final look at make sure I capture everything but before he leaves before he leaves the country where are you going does this place not have technology neither are planning to participate remotely good for them so Kathy hey I'll just keep it really short you touched most of the issues I was going to raise I thought we heard you all see me I thought we heard one other idea from citizen that was interesting and it had a small price tag the golf course clubhouse idea and at the end of his presentation he was saying you know it was like in the ten or twenty thousand dollar range they could do a what could happen there and I think it's a potential moneymaker for the town so it's it's an initial investment with the increase in population in North Amherst he was right about the demise but we might have a community space that could be rented out so the golf course could supplement and be used for community so it's if there is squish room in the budget for that I think it it was a really smart idea then the other comment I had that I can share with people that cover the New Yorker has a road going in with a curve taking people back out saying no vacancy and we're about to get in North Amherst the traffic study that was done for the new development said 2,000 more trips per day added to the 5,000 that are already going through the intersection so one of the pleas I have it's not penciled in until next year the whole discussion at that intersection I went back to DPW minutes from 2015 that said a smart light would help and we'll do it next year so that was four years ago and a smart light would have a green signal so you won't be backed up forever and alternative reds and greens allowing flow so in that road budget potentially at least the light could come in so just trying to think of as we do new developments in town what infrastructure do we need before we open them up the development opens this August and then it fills up in November so we're in a real year when those 2,000 trips a day are going to happen so that that was my other just I don't think it requires a change in the budget because we went up on roads and I my understand a light could be in there but starting to think about that rather than saying maybe in the future my other comment relates to all the suggestions which I think were excellent at getting about more real about the future years if we think roads will always have to be or for the next five years have to be no lower than 500,000 I don't know what the number is put that number in because we really need it when we're thinking about the big capital projects you know we can't say we're going to do a building and but the next five years never repair a road so just trying to think of those lines going out if it's five years I don't know what the right is but Paul said we need two million dollars a year for five years I said well what if we have one and a half with between chapter 90 but that's that look out Sean on get as real as we can on those will be extremely helpful for the other things we're working with that's it okay thank you now I'm glad you brought up the golf course because we didn't talk about that one I think that we had sort of last time concluded with the thought that we really needed more input from lsse and that it wasn't that it was something that was really worth giving some serious consideration to but that we weren't really likely to get a kind a specific enough proposal to have a dollar amount to even consider putting in for this year and how to put it in for this year so I think that's where we ended up in my my recollection how that builds on that is that when it comes to the dollar amounts requested for actual improvements that there really wasn't enough of a plan put together which by the admission of the proponent does not in any way criticism and so then the question ended up being which we actually raised during the session was what is what is lsse need to be able to do some kind of a reasonable planning process so that next year they can come forward with either operational or other facility changes that could take advantage of the opportunity and I think I think literally what happened is we we were punting it to the town manager to follow up on but I think so I think the the only point I'd make on this is I actually think that the committee at least in the discussion we had agreed with the counselor that this is something worth following up on and doing something about we just weren't sure what the amount was we knew it wasn't 300,000 or something so but but if it's even five or 10,000 we didn't know what that number was to try to figure out how do we make enough progress so that we can then move into operational plans in some ways as soon as we're able to it's the amount for the study to come up with it that we're looking for and I'm gonna ask the question is that also a JC I mean a CPAC kind of project it's recreational okay and getting back to in the end I think we always are stuck with this question that the ultimate decisions about what roads to do in this kind of gets back to the crosswalk request or Ms. Usher is that we put in an amount for roads and sidewalks the decision ultimately on how that money gets spent is done administratively in consultation with Transportation Advisory Committee under the current practice that we have and so at this point we do want to move forward in that course then the other questions and don't want to get into now because we want to adjourn is the question of where we are with mass works and whether that's still a possibility or whether we need to think about plan B and I don't want to delve into that now because that'd be another chunk of discussion and I think we need to adjourn so anything else before adjournment so I just want to clarify our next meeting is the 25th the whatever the Thursday is yes yes okay thank you so much to adjourn thank you all adjourned thank you we're adjourned 1033


What's up everybody, Jason here for JazzBusyCaseBrace.com. 21, 22 tops, finance away from champions. They saw our four bucks, half case break, ran into the number 13, just sold out. And guys, this is a 20 spotter, all-card ship. And again guys, four free spots being given away. So we're gonna use a dice roll there and we'll randomize the names, top four, get free extra spots. We'll paste in the names and they'll do the randomizing for the names and teams. Let's click dice roll. It is a two and a six, eight times. Good luck. Top four, get free extra spots. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Nicholas, Nicholas, Nicholas and Allen. There you go. There you go. Sweet. Two and a six, eight times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Eight times, eight, eight. Nicholas down to James. Eight times here, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Manchester City down to Sporting Club in Portugal. All right, Nick, so you got Manchester City. Allen with Real Madrid. Athletic of Madrid for Nick Kev with the Combo, Brug and LOSC. Nicholas with Ajax. We got Simon with Wolfsburg and Sevilla. Nicholas with Chelsea Liverpool, Manchester United. Ryan with Porto and Salzburg. Winston with Adolanta. Melissa with Juventus. Greg with Leipzig. Allen with Dortmund. Nicholas with Bayern Munich and Barcelona. And with PSG. Inter Milano and AC Milan for Nick. And then James with Sporting Club in Portugal. So I'll give you guys a quick trade window. But if not, I'm gonna close it right now. We'll grab the case. Simon's team's up, but I don't know if anybody actually is still here. Not too many people are watching at this late hour. So let's just close this, Simon. Stick to what you got. Try to trade, couldn't trade mojo. We'll have at least one more break of this, guys. I'll post it up after we're done. That's it for me, folks. I'm pretty much done after this. So if anything else sells out, it'll be breaking tomorrow with Joe. All right, here we go, guys. So one, two, three for the left, four, five, six for the right. Oh, it's a two. One, two, three. All right, here we go, guys. Wrong title on there. All right, so we'll rip all four boxes and then go through them. All right, guys, here we go. Let's rip these four. Price footballers. Weston McKinney Refractor. We got Memphis Depay 2175, and that is for Barcelona. Our first autograph is DuVan Zapata. That is for Adalanta. We got a Christopher Scott for Bayer Munich. 2199, Sidney Reiberger, with a Kyle Walker for Manchester City. Going to Nicholas. We got a Lomcalo 250 for Sporting Club de Portugal, Erlen Alon Refractor, and a Centurions Paulo Maldini. It's for AC Milan. Another go-call. 2199. We got Ben Chillo for Chelsea. Good Nicholas. Graven Burch, and then Josco for Leipzig to 125. Futures Malcoco, and we got Depe. Again, it's time like a little yellow to 250. And Marco Rios for, or Rios, to 150 for Dornan. Dornan is Alan Murdoff. And we got Cole Palmer out of Manchester City, purple to 2199. Hannibal Lucas. All right, two more boxes, guys. Remember, this is a fresh case, so we gotta eventually hit something really, really nice. We got Joelle Vilege. Very nice. Autographed there for Atlético de Madrid. Going to Nicholas. Graylish Romelu. And we got Santron, Roberto Carlos. And that is for Real Madrid. Going to Alan Murdoff. We got a Daniel Mellon for Dortmund to 175. And an orange autograph of Diogo Giota for Liverpool to 25. Nice hit for Liverpool right there, Nicholas. I feel like Nicholas got all the big name teams for the most part. Might as like PSG, I guess. Gabi and Moriva to 199. All right, you guys, last boxola. Getting a Bapirre factor. We'll just leave that up to top of it. Nice Camavinga for Real Madrid for now and Murdoch. We got Hakimi for PSG. Going to Aaron to 199. We got a Jules. Kongde to 150, Gabi base. And Ben Chihwell. Number to 99 for Chelsea. Going to Nicholas with a very nice LaCro to 250. And that is Wolfsburg. Tratricotentre Modricino. I think you got two numbered cards for Wolfsburg. I think I had like a green earlier too for Wolfsburg on the David. Last one is Nicolo Borrella to 299. All right, you guys, let me top all of these autos and then do a quick little recap on the autos. But some pretty good names, I'd say. Jolta, Camavinga, Joel Files, Rios. So, pretty solid. Still have a second half though, so that's the good thing. So, you guys want to get into the next one tomorrow, guys. There was the autographs there. Nice colors there and then that Jolta was out of 25. Thank you guys. So again, everything does ship, guys. So don't worry, you get all these colors, all the base, everything. And I'll post up the next one when I get off air, guys. Appreciate it, guys. Jaspyskatespricks.com.