Manchester Finance Committee, Oct. 15, 2026

7:04 p.m. on Thursday, October 15th, I will call the Finance Committee meeting to order. I have with me in the room from the Finance Committee, Andy Oldeman, John Grol, Don Morris, Dean Mchale, Maureen Creighton, and myself, Sarah Mellish. We also have the Town Finance Director, Andrew May. And we have guests. Because we're in the small room. Um And Andy Uh Tony Barletta has joined us.

I have the four financial articles on the agenda tonight. Um I'm hoping that maybe we can have a financial discussion and take a vote on some of them as to whether or not we support them. We've kind of talked about things, but I don't think we've talked specifically about the financial implications. So, the first item on the agenda is the fire engine. And as you may or may not recall, come on in. Pull up a chair. >> I just want to give you this chair.

You can use the table if you want, Tony. >> Is there Is there anyone else? >> No.

As you may or may not be aware, but this is new fire engine was ordered a while ago, right Andrea? >> Yeah, say that again. >> The fire engine was ordered a while ago. >> Yes, it was. Yes. >> And it's coming >> It take a long time and we got ahead of schedule. >> Yeah, and it's coming in before we were expecting it. Um so at the annual town meeting we did not include the normal 350 for fire engine fund. Um the good news is based on Andrea's email that she sent us dated October 13th. I don't know if people had a chance to read that. But we need We have 300,000 in the fire apparatus fund. We need an additional 710,927. So this fire engine's

costing us 1,111,000 dollars. Um and we're proposing that it be taken out of free cash. Um we just had the free cash certified. And um so it's at 11.8% of the 27 operating budget. >> What is the normal amount? >> What? >> The amount of free cash. >> It is 3,425,464. Plus we have stabilization of a million 771,39. For a total of 5,195,603.

So if we pull the 710,000 out, it will leave 4. Almost 4.5 million, which is 10.2% of our operating budget and our goal is 8%. So we have an extra We have 957,000 to spend next spring on capital improvements. >> See what I mean? >> Um discussion. >> Oh. Work tonight. >> Yeah, we technically don't have to accept it. >> Borrowing against I passed your class. So, that's kind of an inevitable decision problem. >> Can we reserve the schedule match?

Intended delivery. >> Two year early. >> We originally were going to do like you put the original $300,000 in 2016. I put 2017 we were going to do another 300,000 and then April 2018. What happened is like we were like, "Okay, well, we're not going to get the engine yet, so let's push off that question to 2018. I know that we don't have to pay until March and we can figure something out and get it free, but then we found out, "Oh, wait, December is already That's why we're bringing it to December 2017. >> But yeah, yeah, it won't work. I mean I put it in. Yeah. >> It still would have needed a little bit, but >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it would work. >> Did the vendor say anything about the

fact that it was being delivered before he was supposed to produce it? >> Then that would be a question for Jake. >> We do have the fire chief on Zoom. Jake, can you contribute to this conversation? >> Sure. Um I didn't hear the question. >> Did the uh did the manufacturer of the truck explain why it was coming early? >> Um they did not explain why it was coming early and this is an anomaly. Normally they're usually two or three years late. Um so I didn't ask too many questions cuz it was actually good news considering um you know, usually they get pushed off um and they it wasn't. I didn't ask why. A lot of times depending on where they are

in production lines. Uh sometimes trucks get pulled off if they're waiting for motors or certain parts, so ours might have moved up in that production line. >> And could you speak to the cost savings from ordering it when we did compared to the new regulations? >> Yeah, so uh when we ordered it, um if we were to order the same truck today, uh it would be about 1.5 to 1.6 million uh with a 3-year wait time. And then uh the other uh advantage of ordering it early is we got the engine prior to new regulations in regards to DEF and exhaust that were

we the engine will have that those uh features, but there was a new requirement that went into uh place uh just after we ordered it, which would have added another $30,000 just for the Cummins engine. Um so, we you know, I hate to say saved money, but we didn't take as big of a hit because we ordered it ahead of all those changes. >> So, having been through a fire engine issue before where we didn't pass emissions, is this grandfathering going to last? Can we guarantee that this is going to last? Are they going to come back in 5 years and say you need to meet the standards, change out your engine? >> Uh no, so they do it they do it based upon when the engine was manufactured.

We bought an engine that was already manufactured, so we're covered. If you went and bought a new engine that, you know, was manufactured manufactured after a certain date, then you would have to have that upgraded technology, but we are we're covered. >> There's obviously more benefits to having a new engine now than just the emissions. You know, we have a better pump, better more reliable equipment, right? >> Yeah, we just had the uh every year our trucks go through an NFPA inspection. Um so Engine 1, um which is a 2011, uh they, you know, it has rusted frame rails and stuff. We're still hoping to get another uh 10 to 12 years out of it in reserve, uh but it's definitely not uh shouldn't

be running front line for too much longer. >> So, question for Andrea, I guess, or you, Tony. We put into the fire engine fund every year. Because we're advancing payment on this, can we logically financially skip a year or two or three? >> I I guess I would defer to the fleet schedule. I would I The way I looked at it was it was if we expected to purchase a new vehicle in 3 years from now, that's when we started this 3-year cycle. So, if the the next major uh fire engine expense is beyond 3 years from now, I would think we could Unless we wanted to spread it out over a

5-year, you know, the It's really just been our own approach. >> I think it's worth re-examining that that schedule before with this upcoming budget because um we've bought three very expensive pieces of fire apparatus in a very short period of time. Um so, it would seem to me >> We've got some time. >> We've got some time. Um I don't think we need another ladder truck. >> The the schedule, um and I don't have it pulled up in front of me, but basically had a reduced payment every year, basically forecasting it out 10 to 15 years based

upon the capital plan. And I want to say it was 100,000 every year, so that way there's not a big hit. Uh but we certainly could you know, we can certainly adjust that and take a couple years off. That's not problem at all. Um, I did it just based the the apparatus replacement pin. You know, you know, what's the uh, least we can do per year that way we don't have a big ticket item when it does come in uh, 10 years or so. >> Okay, sounds good. We'll be attending that January, February. >> And we have enough room to store the existing one and keep it for reserve? >> Uh, yes, the current uh, we have a current reserve that we got off Lynnfield that's uh, for $100 uh, just

so when the trucks go out for service we don't have we're not left with anything. So that will be um, disposed of. So um, we do have the room. >> But we do have some. It It's from Lynnfield so we don't get salvage value, I guess. >> Well, we bought it from Lynnfield so we'll get whatever the >> [laughter] >> Who there? I got a business. So he's a place we go to. Yeah. >> Any other questions on this item? Any member of the public have any input on this item? No. Um,

I'll take a motion to recommend um, that finance committee supports um, funding the balance due on this new fire engine um, through free cash in the amount of $710,927. Any discussion? Vote, Andy. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> Guy. >> Yes. >> Dean. >> Yes. >> Moy. >> Yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. Thank you. Next item is >> You know to vote on the $300,000 I make a motion to transfer 300,000 from the fire engine fund and appropriate

appropriate it to the purchase of this said new fire engine. Boyce seconds. Vote Andy. >> Yes. >> John. Scott. >> Yes. >> Deans. >> Yes. >> Boyce. >> Yes. >> Sarah vote yes. >> Thank you Linda Wright. >> Thank you. >> Keeping us legal. Um next item is the water meter rev. I think you sent us something. >> [clears throat] >> Sure. I have it in my bag up here if you want to see it. >> I didn't quite understand it, to be honest. >> [laughter] >> I'm very sorry. Like after I sent it and I was thinking today, I was like, I didn't explain that very well in the notes, but I figured we'd talk about it tonight.

>> Okay. >> Um so you guys will all it's So the first section I said this is kind of how I came up with um I look at how much has been committed so far for the capital assessment, so that was $490,000 um through June 30th of 2026. Um we've collected 160,000. Um so I I should have put the band pay down, so of that 460 you already paid 271,000 for the band pay down, and then that leaves about 192. It's a little little off, but um that's where I I estimated the 192 um for the second band pay down. >> So, are we through paying that water meter fee, or is it still >> No, we're still we're halfway through.

So we'll still have the it ends in um November of 2027. >> Okay. So we'll have another >> We'll have another band payment. >> 400 to 1,000? >> 108,000. >> Okay. >> So, we took out the bond for the whole thing up front. >> Yes, we did. >> We have We're using a band. >> Yes. >> So, we haven't By reducing the payment on the band, we're decreasing the amount of the long-term bond we need to purchase at I'm assuming November 27th. I'm assuming that will be after we get the final >> Right. >> payoff. >> Um and then the bottom section I just put like, you know, just so you know what the water meter project cost is. And the um Styles um is actually that's

that purchase order is for the actual water meters. And so, when we did the capital assessment, we based it off of just that water meter >> Okay. >> cost, not the whole thing. Um so, that's why it's roughly $900,000, um not not 1.1, but I wanted to show you the whole cost of it. >> And so, then the the three the four the 394, whatever. No, that's less than that, right? Cuz came in The balance is only um two two 281 for the non-metered portion. >> That we've actually spent so far is That's

>> So, were we under a contract? So, the contract was for the two 330 and we spent 219? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Cuz that the hydro is the installation of the meters. >> Okay. >> Um that's the water trucks. >> Yeah. >> Um and then right here says the um the bidding and the professional services and >> So, 2/3 of it's being paid by the fees and the balance of the 1/3 is from general is from water revenue or enterprise fund or from taxation?

We are here we basically about about another 115,000 to spend on this we are saying. >> Yes. >> And presumably we are more than 90% done. >> Are we going to start finding people who don't have their meters installed? >> Yes. There is going to be a fee on the next billing for those that haven't. >> It covers the cost of us having to be read manually and our installation contract expires. So if you come in for a new meter after that meter that like another depending on the call the agreement.

>> So that 300,000 is going to come out of taxation. It's 900,000 and we are paying a third. How much of that has already hit the tax rate? >> It it has not. >> None of it. So we can expect that because it was above the the cap it was exempt. >> Yes. >> What was the appropriation? What was the appropriation for? Bond. >> The bond was for 4.1. >> Okay. >> And we paid 271 off and then we are going to pay 192 roll that into the next December it's actually due at this December and then we are going to roll it to next December. And pay it down again and then issue long term. >> And part of that part of that appropriation was for more than the water meters correct? It was

for sewer. >> Yeah. Water. >> Water okay. So it doesn't really hit the tax until we do the long-term bond. >> Right. They might even hit be a fiscal 2021. >> Okay. Okay. Any more discussion on this? Um

from the water fee water capital fee collections to pay down the ban. >> Mhm. >> I've got a motion. >> Second. >> Vote. Technically, it's in retained earnings, right? >> From water retained earnings. Okay. >> [clears throat] >> John seconds. >> Second. >> Okay. Any discussion? Vote. Andy. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> Sarah. >> Yes. >> Dean. >> Yes. >> Moore. >> Yes. >> And Sarah votes yes. >> Did we vote at one time in the past for ban number one? >> Yeah. The 271. I think we did it at annual town meeting.

>> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Cuz that ban was due in June, and we rolled it for six months then. December. >> I would think this pay down would be kind of automatic that we wouldn't have to approve it every time. You know, these transfers back. >> I mean, unless we had an article at town meeting to specifically direct all capital funds that would be used Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> We didn't have this set up at >> It was a decision by the select board to impose the water meter fee. Not a motion at town meeting. So now town meeting has to do the appropriation. >> That's fine. >> Okay. Um

The next item on the agenda is the school. I look at the people in the room. Am I correct that people are here for the senior center? Rather than the school? Um we're listening to both but >> We had people that are here for that. >> Then are board members okay if we take the senior center next? >> Senior community center. >> Excuse me. Senior community center. >> Careful.

that the warrant article is intended to be worded such that it's looking for an appropriation of 4.5 million. >> [clears throat] >> But the contract won't be put out to bid until 3 million in donations have been committed. Is that accurate? >> It has to appropriate the full 7.5 and then >> I'm sorry, 7.5. Okay. >> reduced by whatever comes in through grants, gifts, donations and cannot be borrowed until at least 3 million. >> I thought we weren't going to go out to bid until we had the 3 million. That's a big difference. >> We are in agreement with that. I don't know if that's

how the language will be written out but we are in agreement with that. We wouldn't initiate the project until we know that at least 3 million is raised through those sources. We wouldn't go out to bid. >> Okay. >> Um but I'm not sure >> But there's a huge difference between >> [clears throat] >> bonding and going out to bid because if we go out to bid >> Not necessarily bonding yet. >> And if we're building the project, we're going to be liable on the hook to pay that bill. Even if the donations aren't raised. So I see that as a huge difference. >> So maybe the article might have been written and it's the borrowing, but we may be able to be a little bit more clear about

that in the motion. >> I mean that's going I think that's going to be a big difference in whether those fine finance committee will support it or not. So it's hard for us to do much without understanding exactly. >> Well, we're I can say we're in a great we're in agreement with that approach. It's just a matter of how you write it. Um >> I have the draft. >> We need to get the legalities. >> I can't sign off I can't sign off on it. >> What? >> I can't sign off on a contract. Like you go out to bid and they have a contract award. I'm supposed I sign off on them to like authorize that there's there's sufficient appropriation, but if I know we don't have the 3 million, I

can't sign that. >> Correct. >> So even though we have appropriated the 7.5, but the the wording of the article is saying you can't do anything until you get the 3 million. So I can't sign off on it. Okay. So this is I can't go to bond counsel to pay for this. >> Warrant. >> You have to authorize, yeah. I can't. >> They won't take your credit into

>> Yeah. >> The one question is I fully anticipate hope we will raise the 3 million, But, we go to voters, get an approval for this project for 7 million. And we are unsuccessful in >> 7.5 million. >> 7.5 million. We are unsuccessful in raising the three. So, the project, unfortunately, doesn't go forward. What happens with with that vote? Does that Do those allocated funds go back? Does it just get >> I'll apply. >> Um I think To me, it's similar to like the culvert >> Yep. >> project. You know, it's authorized, but then once we confirm that we're not moving forward with that, maybe use of

that, you could go back to town meeting and rescind the authorization. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> I think that's what we've talked about in the culvert, but the culvert hasn't gone out to bid yet, so we don't know. >> And you could probably >> What they dealt with from >> the town's perspective, we would want to give it enough time to try and raise that 3, but if you're so many years out and it doesn't seem to be happening, you have to revisit the article. >> Right. >> Um and at that point, you know, the Honestly, the current pricing, the 7 and 1/2 million >> It's probably changed if you wait too long. >> That those prices are locked in to

October of next year. So, even at that point, you kind of have to revisit. >> So, this is going to come set up the project anyway, so >> Yeah, but I would like to put it on there. I don't know if those guys do. >> I I would prefer we didn't. >> Well, I'm wondering if Why are we doing this at special town meeting? Why don't we try to raise the 3 million and with the goal of doing it by town meeting and voting on the project at town meeting? Is Is there Would that stop progress? Somehow? Is this to keep it moving or >> Let's Well, I'll ask you back when to speak to that and she's kind of >> Okay. in charge of the donations. >> So, one of one of the issues what is and

we've been speaking to as we call them the anchor donors for about 6 months to a year now. Um one of the things that's come up that was very clear, there were two topics that were very important to them. One, what is the closest we can get to the actual cost of the construction, which when we came in, I don't know, a month ago or so, and they had this sort of 30% design number, we got close to confirming what that 7.5 looks like or 7 looks like. So, that was one thing. The second piece was they wanted to make sure the town and the leadership was on board with this. And felt good about the fact that it would be supported, not necessarily to say yes going all the way or what it looks like, but will it come to town

meeting vote? Will we be able to bring it forward so the public can weigh in? So, we decided to push for November to try to get that going because if we can have a hard date on things, it gives us a window to push up against or whatever it is. >> That's true. >> The real small number. >> Thank you. >> Chicken and egg. >> Yeah. >> I'm looking for it on this spreadsheet. In this mini print.

This is declining payments on the senior center, correct, Andrea? Looks to me like in fifth fiscal year 29 we're talking 405,000 and it decreases to 234 by fiscal year 48. So, it's a 20-year bond. Is that correct? With level principal. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> What's the historical pattern? I can also quote it as, you know, level debt service. Historically most of them are level.

Okay. 3.9 bill. And we've already spent 1.5 or 1.2. What have we spent? We spent a million on the building. Then we spent other money. >> 350 maybe. >> 350. >> 250. We didn't spend 100,000. >> 100 plus 250. >> 350. >> 250 was the spring of proposal. >> Right. Before that we spent 100 on initial design or something. >> The question, Madam Chair, is this is this a level hit to the tax rate but for 20 years versus a declining >> Declining. >> Okay.

>> It's >> I could quote it as level. Historically most of our debt has been declining. >> I think it's To me it's cleaner to have level payments. >> Yeah. It is. I mean for a story to the taxpayers. >> That's right. >> Um you know, particularly because we're really tight right now on debt payments. And it just seems I don't know. I could be wrong, but it seems to me, you know, you get a mortgage with level payments and it seems to me easier to explain if we >> I'm looking for the story. >> Yeah. >> And they and They understand if it's X dollars and it's going to be X dollars for the next 15 to 20 years, all right, I understand what that is.

>> Yeah. >> But if it's going to They also would understand if it's starting at X and it's going down to some lower number in 20 years, I think people could say, "Oh, so it's declining." Uh >> Yeah. >> But that's a a lot of people can't deal with that math. >> I know. I know. And I think I I mean, you do save money doing it declining. >> Right. >> Okay. >> Well, but in like the previous years, we always had like one borrowing over another, right? So like you if you have level debt, you're just like adding on top of it for like many years and paying more over time. So like I get like, you know, yes, you know, that's like going to be your balance, but if

you know that in like 3 years, like you're talking about the school, the high school, middle school, it's dropping down, so we're going to Okay, well, it's dropping down like over a million dollars, that means we can do another project with a million dollars sooner. >> Okay. >> But then reality hit and we had to do the school early, so I mean, and then I got >> They got to figure out what our debt service is. It's okay. What do we think the total accumulated cost of the project with interest here? So we're borrowing >> [snorts] >> So it's >> Uh >> So we borrowed 4.5. >> Yeah.

>> Uh You can sum that up to 3 That's all technical. >> Yeah. >> at 1%. >> And so >> Is the 4.5% realistic? Cuz it's 4 years 5, that's what I'm just questioning. >> Yeah, it's >> I'm trying to >> Right now, we're good. This is what we're hoping cuz that was the timeline. We would ban first and ban is lower interest rate and then we're expecting like you know we'll have like two year ban and so you know the project is not going to start for a year so what's that? Three years so like three or four years from now we we expect interest to be lower.

New presidential >> Thanks so much I'll do that. >> If you know about this stuff please let me know. I like to have it. >> This is inviting for all of us. >> So basically six and a half and and three and three in donations hopefully means we're about nine and a half million dollar project total by the time we get The state does have a revolving loan account. For lower interest rates for projects that they like. They can Yeah I'm sure you guys have too. >> The one person on the Sarah others on the

I'm on the part three pretty thoroughly in the facilities planning. Okay. You know just kind of going through the proposals the design thinking about options and alternatives and you know pressing on some bioengineering ideas. And and the cost estimate that was that's before us and I think it was pretty good level of satisfaction amongst amongst the community that um is agreeing with the on our brain design approach. It's um

>> I mean one of the things I struggle with and I'm fully in support of the senior community center one of the things I struggle with you know is a lot of towns use houses as senior centers And it seems to me you could buy a house for 2 million, 3 million, which would be 1/3 of this cost. And I'm just wondering if if a lot of the cost is due to the structure that was re-acquired or if it's just reality if you bought a house for 2 or 3 million that you'd have to put 2 or 3 million into it. I don't know. >> I mean, we're kind of already kind of committed. In other words, we can't go back. Uh we're we're stuck. We have to go forward. >> It's already spent, though. We've already spent a million.

>> All right. I agree with that. The question is do did that obligate us to go through the whole thing? No. >> Not not with this specific design panel. Because there could have been options there, but uh certainly this one is a long shot. >> Well, the the current design is noted in the closing documents, right? So, if you did do an alternative design, you would require the the holders and trustees. >> [clears throat] >> What if we don't don't go ahead? What happens? >> So, there's there's language in the agreement that if the town doesn't initiate construction by I'd have to look at the

date. It's a few years out. It gives the Masons the right to request uh purchasing the property back from the town. Um but that you know, we we couldn't agree that it would automatically revert back to them because we can't bind the hands of a future town meeting. So, it would then trigger a process where the select board would have to agree, put it on the warrant, and the town meeting would have to approve it. >> Decide whether or not to re- to >> sell the property. >> sell it back. And [clears throat] if they don't then we're We own We own 2/3 of the current structure which we can develop and use as it is. Yeah. Yeah. It's a It's a little

getting to the weeds a little. It's a little awkward right now because technically, you know, the space that we can use today is their unit their future unit by the condo docks and this blue room that they use today is our future condo unit. So we'd have to figure out some of the details of that. >> So it's a mess. >> Yes. But just just to be financially absolutely clear here, when we finish this project, we're going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 and 1/2 million dollars for that facility. >> Including interest. >> Including interest, including the purchase, donations, all in 10 and 1/2 million dollars for that space. >> What are the monthly payments today?

>> Um We did have that in the in the slideshow that we presented before. I want to say it was >> Nate, do you know what >> operating cost was around 60? Nate, does that sound right? >> Yeah, I think I had it at 72, but I think the insurance quote that we finally got came in a bit lower than that and that included like you know, additional, you know, cleaning, janitorial. Um so I think, you know, true operating cost here are probably closer to 60. >> I'm messing around. Go on. >> Chuck, you're on You're off mute. >> And those seniors you had there, Chuck?

>> Um One thing I did want to flag is that, you know, back in February time frame when we were reviewing the kind of the additional cost for design, you know, it came in at 350,000 and we had taken it back to the 250,000, which brought us through detailed design. So, we do have a kind of a gap right now to get from kind of the detailed design level to construction documents, which was that remaining hundred thousand dollars. So, I guess just wanted to flag that because I think it would, you know, from my perspective, you know, if we are pushing forward, it would be prudent to have the design completed and ready so that when

fundraising does come through, we can hit the street as soon as possible rather than getting that funding and then having to take however long it takes to get, you know, through the remainder of the design out to bid, you know, we're we're just losing time and, you know, I think we've you know, all see with inflation and escalations, you know, time is money. >> You're not asking for another hundred thousand, are you? >> It's not another hundred, it's the hundred that was I guess we had previously deferred on. It's always been in that overall >> Oh, okay. >> carried in my cost. >> No, the the hundred thousand you're referring to is within the seven and a half. >> Yes, yes, yes, exactly. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. >> thing is that based on the contingency we baked in, we can't expend that until the money is raised, which means there'll be a delay in getting it out on the street because of the way we have the contingency. >> The way I remember it is that we held back the hundred thousand because we wanted to see the next level of detail estimate to get a warm and fuzzy. And if we do get that, then we can release the other hundred. >> No, we did not appropriate the 100,000. >> We did not appropriate but it's all coming from >> I'm I'm not going to approve 100,000 in addition to 7.5 million. It's not happening. Now, if you want to use 100,000 from the 7.5 million to do

design, that's fine. >> Yeah. So yeah, that's >> You're nickel and diming me. >> So, here's a suggestion. What if we ask Susan and her donation team to come up with 100,000? You know, it's I mean 100,000 on 3 million is probably the first pennies that are going to roll into the penny bank and let's put them on this and get the thing moving and that may give you more acceleration for the rest of the fundraising effort.

>> There there's some other you know, we we got a we got an earmark from the state budget for 75,000 that we're hoping to use in the short term to contribute towards like getting the place ADA compliant but we've come up with some alternative approaches there so that could be used for this final 100 and then we'll have to we can get as close to three quarters of the way there. We'll we'll figure it out. >> And and so in that warrant article number number article four there >> Yes. >> it does say um as part of the two the two contingencies is one as the ballot has

passed and two um >> You will receive written commitments. >> No amount shall be borrowed or expended. So, that should cover >> Yep. [clears throat] >> right? >> I we do have commitments in there because >> And Susan, maybe you're better off to answer that question. >> Well, the the the um piece of turning commitments into dollars has to do with opening our fund up with Essex County Foundation. And in order for them to go ahead and open up a field of interest fund, which they will manage the money and take all the donations in because as a municipality we can't. Um that needs to happen based on a town meeting vote

that the um 7.5 million has been approved or will even if it's contingent, the fact is that there's been a vote by the town to say that we will go ahead with this. That happens, that turns the lever to open the field of interest fund where we can actually turn the commitment letters we have into dollars. And people can just donate money directly. >> And then I'll just again add that we we do have a pending federal grant application for uh 1 to 3 million dollars for this project that we're still awaiting. It It It's It's hasn't been denied. There have been grant applications in that same program that have been denied.

So, we take that as a good sign, but it's possible that that would also reduce the amount that we actually have to borrow. >> But the way this is worded is the grant would come out of the 3 million. I don't like that. >> Well, it basically it would add to that. >> It's not way that's not the way the warrant article is written. >> This is and or. How about these 3 million? >> Yeah, what >> Yeah, but it says a grant. If we got a 2 million dollar grant from the state, that would go towards the 3 million, so they'd only have to come up with a million in donations. That's different than coming up with 3 million donations and adding 2 million on top of that to reduce the amount of

the bond. >> I I yeah, I I mean I think that the again, better for Susan to speak to the timeline and the aggressiveness of they're going to be pursuing the fundraising, but it likely is to move faster than any response we get, if any, from the federal government on that grant application. >> You're saying the grants that Susan's raising will move faster than the a federal grant would move. >> I think the money >> that you have >> the fundraising money that we're getting, we have a target of next April um is our target um to get to where we need to be. So, we're waiting you know, it's a lot of fits and starts here, but the hope is with town meeting voting in November and then in December, we're

already talking to people. We've got a whole ground ground campaign planned. So, things are coming along. You know, where people will go, what they will do, you know, it's it's an interesting thing, who knows, but we have a a clear goal and a plan to get to that number as soon as possible because we want to execute on this and get this program going, so. >> Mostly, we want to protect the town from borrowing more than four and a half million dollars. So, if anything, it'll be less than hopefully. >> And we might raise more than 3 million. >> Yeah. >> We're counting on it. >> [laughter]

>> Um it was it it's basically a standard letter that, you know, I I passed it by ECCF. It basically says that um you're committing to a certain level funding once it opens, you have an opportunity with time frame to decide how it is. It's all been vetted with ECCF and helps. >> What is like, I'm definitely going to pay this, but I have a little flexibility with the timing, is that >> Well, it had it basically says I'm committing to pay $10,000 toward this project once it's approved and we can move forward and open the field of interest fund. I mean, it's not it's not binding. >> Right. So, it's not binding. >> Well, no, it can't be. >> [laughter] >> So, it's just a

>> It's a letter of commitment. >> Well, >> It's a It's a moral bind. It's what colleges do. >> Yeah, it's a letter. >> You sign a letter of commitment for like a 5-year period and you pay a certain amount a year. >> So, just again, I think that's why we get paid the big bucks to sit up here and ask these questions. If we raise a million dollars, or let's say you raise the full 3 million in commitment letters, we go ahead and start plowing forward on this project and that money doesn't come through. >> No, the project doesn't go into the money that's in the bank. >> In the bank. Okay. >> So, the commitment letters are until we can open the field of interest fund.

Once that is in, as I understand it, the money has to be in before anything goes through. >> Okay. That makes sense. Right. Yeah, that makes sense. >> [clears throat] >> I mean, it's counted, but you don't do anything with the borrowing until you got the money in the in the bank. >> So, you can't work with folks that might say, "All right, I want to donate X number of dollars over a 3-year period." >> That could happen, but it might, you know, you have to see how you play it through and see what happens. >> It does say such amounts paid to the town prior to the issuance of bond or notes. In the in an aggregate amount of at least 3 million, such amounts paid to

the town prior to the issuance. >> It's It's It's It's unclear matter, though. >> the way I read this, and I don't like it, but the way I read it is it can't move forward with the project until you have 3 million in commitments of grants, gifts, or donations, which would include the federal grant. But you can't bond it until you have the money in hand. So, it looks to me like you can start the project based on commitment letters, not having the cash in hand, the way this is written. Which I find a little problematic. >> Maybe worth noting, counsel. >> We don't determine the end. >> They I did it. They wrote it. >> They did They wrote it. >> No, they >> Yeah, but do they understand what we

really mean? I mean, I think it's important that it be I mean, we're already having to go before town meeting. And so, you know, I'm going to have to get up there and say, "Well, I know you approved the million. I told you you wouldn't have to pay any more. Oops. Now, we need more." I don't want to go before town meeting and say, "Okay, now we need to approve 7.5 million. You won't have to pay more than 4.5." And then all of a sudden have all this other money. >> I mean, we'll we'll be standing up there right next to you saying the same thing. And this this contingency is something that we came up with because we feel the same way. We want to make sure that the fundraising is

legitimate. And we we're making that promise that we're not going to move forward until it's realized. >> I would like the grants taken out of this. The word grants removed. Because I think the commitment's been made that the 3 million's going to be in donations. Any grants we receive will be over and above that to reduce what the town has to pay. I mean, that's what we're being told. That's not what's written here. >> Well, the approach here was to protect the town from borrowing more than 4 and 1/2 million dollars. How we get there was could be a mix of a number of things. The bottom line is it's not coming from the taxpayer.

>> That's not what we've agreed to, Tony. >> This is the contingency that we came up with to bring in front of you. >> That's not what the finance committee has been told. We've been told that there will be 3 million in donations from residents and interested parties. That's not including any separate grants that we might be lucky enough to get from the state or the federal government. And this is I think this is diluting that promise. >> Well, I mean it the 3 million is the goal. You know, it is it is the goal of the fundraising effort. >> No, I just see for the you know, I I think the challenge here, as we all know

living through these experiences, particularly saying it's only going to cost a million and now we're back and saying oops, no. There's so many movable pieces in this that I think we have to get to the clearest point that we can. And the clearest point that we've come from from the fundraising side is to say we're going to get get 3 million dollars of donations, private donations, forward to us. >> Right. >> If we're lucky enough to get some other money and have things come in and we fall short by $500,000. I'm just making we you know, we can extrapolate this a lot. There'll have to be another discussion anyway, right? About whether or not this program will go forward. So, I think at

the end of the day, being as clear as we can. Now, obviously, it's a it's a cushion back end to have it be grants money in conjunction with donations. I understand if you don't want to do that, but if we're really trying to move this thing forward and get it going, I think it's important to consider it. So. >> I I think the toughest audience is not here. You haven't even seen a tough audience. >> Yeah. >> I know you you know what you're doing. There's no question about it, so when you get on the floor of town meeting and somebody stands up and says you told us we put up a million and it's done.

So, what about that? And I know Brian has said, "Oh, I'll take the blame." Frankly, that's useless. It's useless. Somebody who stands up and says, "I screwed up." It's not You know, it doesn't help. You got to have hard and fast agreements to move ahead. The hard and fast agreement is the shovel will not be turned. Nothing will happen until there's $3 million in the bank. In the bank. To be drawn as part of the total cost. That would be my

suggestion, humbly. >> So, >> are the first time you've ever been humble in your life. But, um uh uh anyway, that's my my suggestion because I don't think I don't think this is the toughest audience you're going to you're going to see. >> Frankly. >> You know. There's I'm not a >> explain why it's problematic to remove the word grant or to get a grant. >> Right. And then you have to continue. >> Right. >> You probably have something like that. >> I guess I would The only concern I have is like timing. So, like if we apply for a grant and we get awarded the grant, the grants usually have a time timeline. Um but we don't meet the $3 million by

that timeline, then we lose that grant and then we're going to be borrowing more money to cover the what was the grant we lost. But then they got She's saying their goal is to raise the donations by April. The grant won't be up by then. I mean, I I I just don't I don't like that all of a sudden now we're saying, "Okay, if we get a grant, then we don't need to get the 3 million in donations." That's That's what's bothering me. I particularly because we've applied one to the tune of 1 to 2 million, which is a lot of money. Um >> Now, I was looking at it as 3 million donations and then the big grants, and then we reduce the bond by >> Right. By the amount of the grants, but that's not the way this is worded.

That's my concern. >> I I I I would have to think a little bit more about how to change that. I mean, just so you know, the approach here was on the assumption that the concern was about how much would impact the tax rate, not where the additional money came from. You know, that 4 and 1/2 million is the limit. So, if it was through grants or fundraising or whatever source, it didn't really matter as long as tax rate wasn't being impacted by more than 4 and 1/2. >> And I think we're coming from a different viewpoint. We're coming from the [clears throat] viewpoint that we told the town that if they bought bought the building for a million,

everything else would be raised by donations. Time has passed. Numbers have increased. It's no longer realistic to have the full amount paid by donations, but there's a commitment that they feel they can raise 3 million in donations. So, a grant should be outside of that money to further reduce the tax rate, further reduce the amount of bond we need to incur, not to subsidize donations that fall short. >> I would second that? I mean, again, adding the whole thing up, we're looking at 10 and 1/2 million here. Take three off for donations. Town's on the hook for 7 and 1/2. Any grants, things that we would see it should be

going against the 7 and 1/2 from the taxpayers. I mean, it's it should be a vote of support that the community wants to do this to raise through money. That's the bar. And if people out there really want this, that should be achieved. And I say that in context with DPW and every other thing that's on the list, happens free. They just keep adding up. That's the game we're playing here. It's something. >> So, do we want to table this vote till next week to see if there can be an adjustment in the wording? >> We can This is just a draft This is

draft language. If you're supportive of the article without the word grants in the contingency, you can take that vote and I can I can move that to the select board. You know, they haven't voted on this warrant article till they'll vote on it Monday, so >> Right. And we would have the opportunity next Thursday to vote to vote on the article as drafted. Which seems to make more sense. I mean, is there a general consensus? >> I I don't feel comfortable in the situation as it stands. >> What do you mean? >> You don't want to hear from me. >> No, you don't want to support the project. >> I think one of the most valuable

commodities we have in our town is land. Ask the affordable housing trust why they haven't produced any affordable units in our town and why we're so far behind the 10% SHI. Land. We got some land here we're underutilizing. I'm not against the Masons and I'm sure not against the seniors. It seems to me that what is being done here is taking our most valuable commodity and misusing it. Misusing it. Because we could be doing a lot more with this valuable commodity than we're doing.

I I offered not to talk. Okay? Um but that's my my feeling. If it can be made reasonable I'll done it I'll I'll get out my checkbook, Susan. >> Okay. >> I'm not against the thing. But I but I also think we have as stewards or fiduciaries or whatever the hell you know, whatever we are we ought to use our scarce resources very, very carefully. And I don't see that happening. >> So the terms of the sale agreement limit us to this approach. Uh that was that was part of the >> a That was a screw-up. >> Well, with >> I agree with you. >> You know how land deals go, right? So it's two

parties and they were adamant that you know, this if we were going to do this deal and for the for this purpose at that sale price, it was for this venture. Uh so we really couldn't go to an alternative or utilize the property in a different way without the Masons being in agreement and changing >> are supposed to be by their mission a fellow philanthropic organization. I don't see any evidence in their behavior. So that's a repartee there. Sarah, let me ask this. >> Yeah. >> What if the Finance Committee said, "Look, town wants to borrow $4 million, up to $4 million on a

senior on a senior center. Here's what it looks like. You've seen the plans and all that kind of stuff. Here's the effect on the tax rate. We can afford it as a town. $4 million is not $4 million. But it's really what the town wants to do, right? So, by voting yes or no, I'm not sure what we're saying. Like, we can spend $4 million, no problem. Here's the effect on the tax rate. effect on our financial situation, really. >> Well, I I think it does have an effect on our financial situation. >> but we can say this is what it would be. >> I think we we have not yet looked at the impact on the overall debt service. >> I mean, margin. >> That I mean, right. But, you know, so and it's it's

the Finance Committee's responsibility to ensure that recommendations we make are using town finances in a reasonable manner. I feel the residents rely on us to have done the work. So, I don't think it's as simple as us just throwing it out there and saying, "You decide." Like, I think we have to take a stand on it. Um one way or the other, is this a good utilization of our tax dollars? >> And this is kind of like >> It's reasonable. >> the judge McOley. I want housing, I want open space. We all want different things. We're probably going to have to compromise, I mean, is it is it reasonable to spend that on a senior center? I guess I don't

know. >> I think that's the question we're being asked. >> But I know support implies to me like we really think we should do this. As opposed to like, "You guys want to do this? It's not going to have a big impact on your finances." Those are two different things. Or we could just say >> We recommend or do not recommend. We cannot be wishy-washy. >> I I feel like we've walked down a kind of the bridge in hindsight is not a great path. >> Right. >> But it is the path that we've committed to. And you know, we're arguing at this point over this one argument is whether to remove the word grant or try to remove the word grant out of that equation. Um and then otherwise, I think it's it's

so far this has been the culmination of the will the town and by those that surrounded and support this project and so on. I'm not interested in standing in the way of that, personally. Um I would love for it to be something different. And and a little bit more thoughtful, but that that you know, the die has been cast. The the concrete is dry. >> The train has left the station. >> Yeah. >> Tony, if the grant word is taken out, how does this whole article change in terms of what the select board is going to look at on Monday? >> It's not It's not It's not an issue legally to take the word grant out of the article. It's perfectly doable.

It could present a risk if the 3 million is erased, but that's a risk that we're willing to take. >> We're on that risk anyway. >> Right. >> So, I don't think >> And if the grant shows up, fine. And if it doesn't show up, fine. >> If it If it does, it's it's it's less of an impact to the tax rate. So, that's all good news. Um I I was just saying that the way that I wrote it was to protect the 4 and 1/2, but if we can take it out, um it's not going to be an issue legally. >> I mean, I see that as the the primary issue there. So, the the grant, if it comes through, and I know the odds on this sort of stuff are not very low

anyways. So, maybe 4 and 1/2 becomes 4, or maybe it stays 4 and 1/2. I don't 4 and 1/2 to be honest. So, so I'm fine with if the if that makes the finance committee comfortable, I don't think the select board would have uncomf- with that's comfortable. >> No, I don't I don't think >> It would make us more comfortable. >> I don't I don't know if it'd be comfortable. I mean I know I was holding back on that 4 3 50 cuz I wanted to see some changes. I I have trouble telling constituents that this is no time to be spending $3 million on three office spaces. And

the fact that the offices are out front in the new addition, and the seniors are going in the back, that makes it a that's a deal killer. I don't understand why we're doing that. I know we have to have office space for the manager of the place and all that, but I was thinking it would make sense to have them use the Chapel Street side building. They come in that way. I mean the front is a senior side, and not three big office I mean that >> And I know we don't normally go through design elements. >> Right. I know. >> I'm speeding, but but we did look at that stuff. >> Okay. >> And we did. We did look at that stuff, and we spoke with the church about access on Chapel, or connecting to that area, and

they weren't in favor of that. And then the design really was a cost savings analysis of where the utilities come in, and where you're moving them to, where the existing kitchen is, and that sort of stuff. So, uh moving the kitchen and everything to the front of the building would cost more. >> Kitchen stays where it >> Well, it has to be on the kitchen for the correct program. The kitchen's got to be adjacent to the community space where you're eating. >> So, if you move all that stuff forward, it adds cost to the project because where the existing utilities are and it's slab on grade. It's not That was We did look at it. Just >> Yeah, I know. It just becomes a hard sell to the board.

>> Well, I think >> Building three offices for $3 million. >> Unfortunately, everybody in town might have a different >> Yeah. >> opinion on the design. Uh we've had the facilities review committee review design. We've had community input on the design. I don't really think it's a matter for the finance committee at this point to give input on design. Uh >> [clears throat] >> I have just a question on the mechanics of construction. >> Which >> There's another topic. >> I think >> No, no. This is a high-level question.

When this is all running and we're starting to dig around, are the Masons standing there saying, "This is what we want done in our section in the town?" And seniors are in their section or who's standing at the table saying, "We approve the punch list or we don't for occupancy at the end of the day?" >> The The The The The scope of work is agreed upon ahead of time. It's already been agreed upon and the town is just ensuring that the contractors >> Okay. So, if the Masons decide they want to put in hot tubs that are too close to the ocean, I mean it It's not It's not going to trip up on all that stuff. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And we're And we're only, you know, we're only responsible for as far as

when it comes to the Mason's unit, it's the outer shell. >> Okay. >> They're responsible for studs in. So, we're basically >> That was my >> stepping out of their unit once the the insulation is put in in the walls. They have sheetrock, flooring, you know, all their stuff on the interior is all on them. So, our punch list is long. Theirs is very short. >> [laughter] >> They own all their own mechanicals. >> here. Does anybody wish to say anything on this matter? >> We're not talking about design then. >> [laughter] >> I don't need to rebut anything. >> [clears throat]

>> Is there anybody on Zoom who wishes to make a comment regarding this project?

So, are we going to defer >> Yes. >> until the 22nd expecting the board grant to be reviewed. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> That's it on the community senior center. Thank you all for coming. You're welcome to stay, but >> And now now it's the real money. >> Yeah, what's 100 million here? >> Yeah. >> But, I don't understand the context. >> Next item on the agenda is the Manchester Essex Regional School

District Essex Elementary School. Um which is on the warrant. Um I believe I sent you the information from Hilltop on the level debt payments. Which according to their calculations, total school is 95 million. We expect reimbursement from the state of about 21.4%

which would be 20 million 800,000. Leaving 74,600 to be funded. The proportion of the funding between the two towns is determined when the appropriation is approved. Um so if it's approved in November and December, it would be based on the 2026 assessed valuations. And based on that, Manchester would be paying 66.

>> After reimbursement, you have this being reimbursed before reimbursement. I mean, this has it all written. What page? They have 49 the total. >> Yeah, after >> After reimbursement. Yeah. >> Percent reimbursement, our portion would be 49,947,931.

And the schedule they've presented to us is basically the intention to issue BANs, short-term bonds paying only interest until a portion of long-term debt would be issued in fiscal year 2030. The full amount would be issued in 2032, at which point on a level debt schedule, the payments for Manchester would equal $84 per $100,000. Or $840 per million of assessed value. Now, Andy. >> Yes.

>> So, Andy was on the school building committee. And I thought it would be helpful if Andy kind of explained why they picked this expensive option versus a less expensive expensive option, which was in the 50 minutes or something. The code code option. >> So, just to um go an overview of uh of any um any town um project that gets funding from MSBA. The MSBA has a pretty tightly controlled uh design process. That's the image of the that they manage uh directly. And uh

everybody must follow all of them. Architects, engineers, owners, project managers that participate in that, the school districts that are involved in that. They require as um if you're adopted into the program, they require that you assess a uh at least three options. One is um uh code upgrades. So, no additions to the school, just making such modifications to the school to to update it, make it code compliant, and uh um you know, power proof, you know, do certain projects like that. So, that's kind of the new school uh without any modifications to the existing the classroom sizes, the configuration,

anything. The other that they want to the study is renovation addition option. Um a lot of times this takes the form of a school maybe keeping the existing gym, you know, some other kind of core spaces like that, and then and then replacing classroom wings and that kind of thing. And that ends up being sort of, you know, kind of a messy phase of construction, but it's it's fine. And then the last option is uh is is new. And so, as part of the process of the design team, uh they did look at those three options. They also looked at an option of doing a project at Memorial that would expand Memorial to be able to take

uh Essex kids here. Um that ended up being uh quite a lot more expensive than anyone anticipated cuz you're you're essentially adding, you know, a classroom wing uh to the existing school. Um it's worth noting that the Memorial School uh site is uh much more constrained than Essex site Essex site is larger. Um there were several um new school options that were studied, different configurations. Um the uh the site is, you know, and and Essex is particular in terms of its being bounded by Story and and Western Ave. Um it's a it's a sloping site. It's got

uh ledge on the side. And so, all those things kind of came into play to look at the various options. Um and you know, so it was studied whether or not it could be moved onto the existing field, which is close to some wetland areas, and that's those form a constraint to what's what's permissible. Um in the end, for all those various options, uh and I forget how many there were, certainly think um there was a process of evaluating according to the different criteria amongst all of them on the building uh and sort of giving them sort of a um red, yellow, green kind of a rating and to you know, given options going through all those criteria.

And so, then we'll add up that process, um you know, the the um uh we we kind of struck out various options, um and uh and one of the one of the projects that we wanted to aspects of the renovation addition and possibly keeping the gym, the location of the gym became kind of a uh an impediment to to to the different building options, uh including I mean, part of what informs what you might build that's new is is how it how it um how it gets constructed relative to what's already there. Um you know, cuz it it kind of guides uh and your phase implementation. [clears throat] Um

in an added in an extreme, if you were going to build something in a way that totally disrupted the existing school, then you're buying all sorts of laundry mats, which are very expensive on the front. Um the code option, which you know, took a question, uh scenario, which was the least expensive, I think we should continue with. There's there's a there's a lot of things working against that. The most is um because you're not modifying any of the existing partitions and the existing classrooms stay as they are. It immediately does not satisfy the current MSBA program and so the chances of getting the MSBA to contribute to the project start to go

away. And so that means that the 53 million is going to be money out of which you do. Um and out of that you get something that's okay. >> [laughter] >> Not quite what we had originally hoped. Um It's also it's not a it's any project that you're doing in that regard and you're not going to end up with something that's probably a 20 year project you know versus construction that's probably going to be so heavily looked at in two years. So those are those are amongst the things that kind of led to the decision to kind of pick the current plan. The current plan wasn't the most expensive

option but it was it was probably second in order. It's also worth noting that if we did the projects in reverse if we had done the Essex after we did Memorial we would be doing Memorial we would have to do Essex but I can say the process and the thought process that we need to kind of go through the options and evaluating options and the program that we're hosting is very aligned with what we're doing in Memorial. The Memorial project if we did that today would be in the United States of America.

>> You remind us what person at our last meeting talking about the 31st bill. How narrow that range is? >> What do you mean how narrow? >> Well, she only has formulas that >> Oh. >> get plus that for this and minus for that. >> Oh, so the >> At the end of the day we don't know but how >> The 21 >> Yeah. >> So there's um How much of that could quickly. Um So I think the the MSBA contribution is uh something around the range of 36% of eligible project costs. So that's the list. Okay, and the [clears throat] finance committee from the >> That's right. That I would say if that start that 31 and then we got additional points. >> That's 31.

>> Because of the design and >> the responsibility for for having a good business record with our current school, all these sort of things like that. All of that to get to the 36%. So the what what defines eligible costs? So um there's a limit to how much of the site cost they're taking. It's just a pure cap. Um the average cost the cost of construction that um the state will pay up to and it's something around the >> 603 >> 603. And that's not because they think that the average cost of a school should be $603 or $605. That's because they have a finite amount of money and they want to stretch it across various communities. Um

there are some spaces um some spaces that they don't pay for purely. Um although there's not a lot of I think there was like 2,000 square feet in total. >> No, I I remember that. My question is just like how narrow is the >> Oh, okay. Range they could pay. So, it's like town meeting like we're going to pay 21% or less. Go, or is there still some kind of like we're going to pay somewhere in this range. >> Oh, I I think when the regulatory agreement is signed in December, December 9th, that locks it in. >> Yeah, but we go to town meeting. >> Right. >> I want to we're going to say we think it'll be this much, but it could be >> It's my understanding that the design

people have been back to the MSBA seeking additional information on that percentage. So, I think they felt pretty good. >> Yeah, she said within 10% >> Yeah. >> That just >> Okay. Okay. >> That's from that's all I >> Okay. >> That's worth noting, but this happens all the time. It happens all the time. So, it's just it's just how the club works. >> So, when you go to town meeting, say yeah, within double chance purchase. >> Yeah. >> This is what they choose. >> I I think that the intention at town meeting is what we ask the school to do is to give the dollar amount per student. Rather than mess with percentages. >> So, you find out the town meeting is

this much dollars plus or minus. >> Yeah. >> Not too many more dollars. >> Right. And of course, you know, your actual cost to what it actually cost to build that. So, but you they can't exceed what we appropriate. >> Yeah, exactly. This This cost uh this is similar to the argument that we've had for other projects in town, you know, like we're going to be establishing project costs. So, and it's really defined that happens at the end of the schematic. So, the project cannot exceed this amount. And so, through the subsequent design to detail design, there's going to be I don't know what you want to call it, but it's in the cost.

Wait, >> [clears throat] >> this this Hold on, Scott. >> It's right. >> If you look at >> five here, this has gone through the bond council, which is the end. Multiple times and they said this unlikely to change. >> We can't pull a word out. >> I grant but I grant you that. This is where, like you commented before about it not being super clear. You know, this you have to approve the total project cost. >> Yeah. >> But the 38% that's listed in this is referring to the MSBA eligible elements of the project. >> Yes. >> So naturally someone's going to read this and say, "Oh, okay. So it's 36.8%

of 95." That's not what it is. >> Right. >> It's 21.4% of the 95 because there's additional costs um that aren't MSBA eligible. >> Am I correct in saying I'm getting this wrong or anything? >> So and then our apportionment is uh based off of >> Yeah. >> off of that, which is I think what's going to be I think what would be helpful is uh some sort of >> explanation >> explanation in the book right under this article. >> It's what this page >> that helps explain >> Yeah. Agreed.

>> what the likely >> Yeah. >> ought to Manchester is going to be, which is around that $50 million range. >> Yeah. >> Um but you can't actually put that in the article or in the motion. >> Right. >> We we have a couple >> But it's my understanding that the school is sending a mailing to all the houses. With more detail. Yeah. I'm pretty sure that's what Pam said. >> This is a >> We give the breakdown by town of the amounts and use the the $200,000 reimbursement instead of this 36. 28.4%

So hopefully they'll do a good job of explaining. Yeah, I think they were going to do it per 100,000. That's what you're saying. >> There was a comment that somebody made from the audience that they thought that you know, it would be helpful to phrase it that way as well. >> We didn't want the meeting in there. We think that's very misleading. We asked for 100,000 because it's easy to >> Yeah. >> to multiply and and Yeah. >> I I remember.

That's where your our tax our tax calculator that we that we got last year will put the rate in there and then you can go on there and pull your assessed value from the assessor's page right into that calculator and it'll tell you your particular impact. So let me kind of put you in this again. I love If we look at this over 30 years, Manchester's cost is 50 million. And we're using say 5% interest rate here. >> Yep. >> The cost of interest is going to be about 75. 20 years, five 5% 20 years, you basically double the cost and then we have another 10 beyond that.

So if you take 50 million, which is Manchester's share, 75 million in interest, this project over 30 years is going to cost the town of Manchester 125 million. >> 128445 >> Basically, yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, we have time on our side divided by 30 years. But, [clears throat] I think it's important to understand these numbers. That's why I ran through this with the community center, you know. At the end of the day, that finished product uh will will be that much. To put it in perspective, I mean, I think high school we're looking at a 50-year, 40-year lifespan. By the time we pay this thing off, we'll have about another 10 or 15 years, and then we'll be back

into thinking about how do we replace S6 Elementary? And we will already be into this discussion about high school. So, you know, um we'll leave too much problem for our future. But, this this is where we are. Um >> I'm missing our technology future dollars. [clears throat] I should be good. >> Right. >> I just want to make it clear that I think that the 128445 includes our current debt service. It's actually 96. >> Oh, thank you. >> Okay. Cool. >> Thank you. Under 100 million. >> It's essentially double the amount. >> It's the cost of the project. >> It's actually interesting to think about

the to think about um the lesson that we which is learning right now. >> Yeah. >> They they turned down the plan on the high school at the time of the project around the time that we did our middle school. And now they're kids back. Kids back in town. They they got to accept the new program 7 years in the middle of the period. Yeah, so they're looking at a >> a little bit gross. Yeah. >> So, it's you know >> Well, who would have predicted that construction costs would increase >> Right. >> so much so rapidly. I mean, you kind of expected them to come down and they haven't. >> Well, who would have predicted that even then in the same district? >> Right, exactly.

>> [laughter] >> Edelblut So, I guess again, I kind of went through this and I'm I am troubled by this and I've thinking about this a lot. It's >> [clears throat] >> beats So, when we built the high school, uh it was about 48 million, I think. That was 18, 20 years ago, 20 plus years ago. Sexton Elementary was built within the last 10 years, [clears throat] 7 years. It's about 50 million. >> Manchester Memorial, I'm sorry, Memorial. Excuse me. So, we're about 98 million with those two projects together, which coincidentally is about the cost of what this current project is. And And I just kind of ran a bunch of

numbers different ways with this, but again, the 2005 high school, 50 million dollars, 500 students. We're looking at roughly $100,000 in building cost per student. Sexton or Manchester, uh as Manchester Memorial was about 50 million with 300 students. So, we're about 170,000 per student. Um Sexton Elementary slated at being about 98 million for 200 students. >> 250. >> Okay. We're about $450,000. That's about a three times increase in cost per student in six years. And And again, I

I'm I keep rolling around in my head scale, size versus need and all that, but I go back to the MSBA, you know, saying it could be a 36% I asked Pam about this. I think her answer was good, but it I think it also I had questions about it, but 36% reimbursement is 21%. Kind of say, all right, if you were a pure educational institution with no extras, you know, that's about a 2/3 wonderful. You take 98 million, it would say a pure educational institution should be about 60 million. >> But, that's not that's not what the MSBA is because the big difference is they're not covering the actual cost construction or the actual cost of site

work. That's where the big delta is. >> Right. >> There's only 1,400 extra square feet in the building that is deemed extra and that's to make a gym like the Memorial School that's larger than an elementary size gym. So, it's it's the difference is strictly because they're not covering >> the full cost. >> The full cost of construction or the site. It's not in There's only two classrooms per grade. >> You think that's educational space? >> It's covered. It's part of the entry. They look at square footage. And the only square footage and they removed half the bleachers to cut down on the size of the elementary gym.

>> with Pam. I I said, Pam, you took out all this stuff. You could have been reimbursed. She said, like 2 million bucks. >> Yeah. No, it's it's The difference is that stupid square foot It's over a thousand dollars per square foot to build it. And they're covering 600. And the site work, they don't look at the actual site. They have a generic site where they're assuming probably the city of Boston where you don't have any ledge work, you don't have any conservation issues, and they're coming up with $73 a square foot. That's not very much for saying one. >> No, I mean >> So, that's what the delta is. >> So, I'm my concern is the overall cost number. That's That's where my issue is is that

we are We looked at Memorial and we're talking about building a smaller school 6 years later at twice the cost. And I I just think we need to make sure we clearly understand that because that is a I It's the As I said the other meeting, this is the largest investment the town of Manchester has ever made. >> But the asbestos elementary school is only two classrooms per grade. How can you have less than that? I mean, in reality, Mancha the Memorial School was three classrooms. >> Right. >> Mhm. >> Um so, I don't see how you can downsize it to be any less expensive.

It's not a lot of frills in that school. And >> But, you know, on the other side construction costs have not gone up that much. >> They sure as have F. >> They have. They've gone up. I build things all the time. But But, since Memorial like the last the last So, I think since like maybe the first few years after Memorial, they were going up 3% a year and it has come down to down. And then I think it was up to 4 and a 5%. And then I think in the last two or three years, the annual escalation has been like 9% and 9%. So, overall, it's been escalated 50% escalation since Memorial.

There was There was actually a real good bar chart that the at the contractor provided that that explained uh explained it and put it in context of the Memorial project breaking it down into its elements. And any other projects in the state. >> What is the average memorial? What square footage wise is that? That hasn't changed like >> They update it every year. They update it every year. >> Yeah, that's like 50%. >> No, they don't. It's Like I said, it doesn't it's it's not meant to reflect the actual cost of construction. It's just what they are willing to pay. >> How much they can contribute to the whole project? >> Well, and I think the other thing people

have to remember on gateway cities, they're covering 80%. >> Right. Right. >> Um so it's not fair across the board. Small wealthy towns, they're not going to cover very much. >> Well, they yeah, they we they do penalize us because we're >> Right. >> So, that's the the question I had with somebody who came and talked to me about this um >> [clears throat] >> was that have we asked for any waivers of the standards that this agency requires? And he said, "You can't ask for waivers." And I said,

"No." He said, I said, "You can ask. You can get Bruce Tarr and Lou Tarr and go and meet with these people and say, "We're trying to help a couple hundred school kids. We're not going to spend $100 million. We'll spend $500,000 per child. This is absurd. You've got to help us out here." And ask them to look at their standards and say, "Where can we adjust?" Now, it's kind of late in the game. I would realize we're about to have our meeting. So, this is sort of conversational. >> But, it is we again I say the worst audience that we're going to see is not us.

It's It's the Essex voters. Okay. >> I'm not sure about that. >> Any Manchester >> I think some Manchester voters that are the bigger question [clears throat] mark on this one. >> Could be. >> Cuz that's cuz it's cuz it's being built in Essex and what I hear from the Essex finance committee is Essex likes capital projects. They don't like operating expenses. >> Right. Right. I agree with that. I just look at their performance. Right. >> Look at their new >> Yes, it's not a fair analysis, but if you look at the dollars and dollars spent on construction >> Yeah. >> we're spending more money in Essex on one school than we're spending in

Manchester on two schools. And again, there's a lot of years in between. That's not a fair argument, but that's potential talking. Somebody's going to have to respond. Yes. This deal was made 20 years ago. We're going to locate a school here and then we're we're going to build a elementary in each town. Now the clock is ticking on Essex, you know, as far as the existing building. I'm so really important of a school. I just think this one is too big. That's That's my concern. >> I just >> I and I know that a lot of experts and people who are a lot smarter on construction than I am working on this. I just wonder if along

the way somebody said, "You've got to build a school and the absolute cap is 70 million or 65 million or 72 million." And I'm not sure that happened. And we got going going [clears throat] going and then we kind of heard the numbers from the school committee pretty late in the game. And I'm >> Well, I the Yeah, there's there's a lot of ground [clears throat] covered at the community meetings, you know. I'll get some of those questions answered, but I don't know if I can. >> But I you know, I think that if you look at I mean, I think it's an enormous amount of money. But then I when I look at the layout of the school, it makes sense to me. You've got the

pre-K segregated. And then you've got K1 and 2 on another level. So, you've got two rooms per grade, which limits your flexibility. And then you've got three, four, and five on the top level, which again two per grade, which limits your flexibility, but you don't want kinder you don't want kindergarteners with fifth graders. I mean, in reality. Um and you I don't see how you can build a school with less than two classrooms per grade. I mean, >> What happens if they don't approve it? >> Uh they have 120 days to come back and and revisit the question.

Uh and then if that were to fail, they essentially go back to square one on redesigning an MSBA process and in the meantime, probably seek capital improvement dollars to the existing school. >> How long does that process take? >> Well, they have to go back and they have to go back in line to be accepted again. >> So, yeah, there's there's a window to have it reconsidered for say spring town meeting. >> Yeah. >> And but then after that, then then they you're out of luck. >> Yeah, you start all over again. >> There's also the fact that we there's two choices here. We say yes or we say no. We say yes and they're now or spring. You know what we get. We say no, then

you get going like, okay, you say no, this is that means." >> So, the the What you see in the What you see in the spring is not going to change dramatically. >> It won't change a lot. >> Exactly, because in order to change uh the program, you have to go back to the beginning. You have to go back to the feasibility study. And so, and you got to go out to town. >> we're going to know what that is before you really voted. You ask, "We do this?" >> And what's the timeline in Ipswich after they said no? What's their timeline of getting back in? >> I think it's So, we I don't know. I got to double-check the the the math on the calendar. But, it it may require a special town

meeting in the spring. Now, you got to have enough time to notify all people. I think it's up in the air between 20 and 30 days. >> From the date of the ballot vote? Should be in March 29th. >> I think I mean, I think you know, we're at a point I think we're at a point where we're at a point where you got to say like, "Do we want to do this?" And we don't. Then we're going to do this. That's kind of the choices. No. We'll see. >> All right. So, what's the feeling of the board? Are we ready to take a vote on whether we support it or do we want to wait till next week?

>> I think we vote first. >> Okay. >> [clears throat] >> So, I make a motion that we recommend article five. Vote, Andy. >> Yes. >> John. >> Yes. >> Scott. >> No. >> Dean. >> Yes. >> Lori. >> Yes. >> Samuels, yes. Five >> I think the analysis and the discussion we've had on this has been good and I think it is a template we should be using on everything. And when we start talking about DPW buildings and we start talking about other things, we need to we need to look

at the beginning what do we think this is going to cost us in the long run? Because we get to these places the two discussions we've had tonight are about things that Do you know what I'm saying? We get we get squeezed into a place where ultimately No, it's good marketing, good selling on the projects, but it's expensive for the town. Well, I don't understand that. >> I think that perhaps we need more information on town projects cuz those we can control better at various points in the design process. You know, then I think that >> Well, let's also to that point if you

look at the this year's planning committee and the top of the process where if there's you know, if the senior center or senior center project we're coming in tomorrow they would be they would need to provide a presentation to the boards that represents all of the kind of the the critical elements of the project, what the goal is, what the size is, what the anticipated cost is, you know, all these parameters that are coming. And then and then following a design path that you know, frankly, I I like the MSBA design process, you know, outside of the push for the program requirements. I think, you know, the the the rigorous through schematic design process of coming up with a cost

that you can really work with. >> Cost was great. And the first step would be great like we're thinking about this. This is one of my cost. What do you guys think? For me, a no go or kind of half and half? >> We want to give input on design. >> Yeah, exactly. >> [laughter] >> And you don't get to vote then. >> And these are three days. >> I think it's cool.

We don't really have the We We had this I I think that next week I mean, Andrea prepared this debt schedule for us. I think one of the things I would like to re-examine because it keeps coming up and I don't really know the answer is where do we stand on our um policy of debt service not exceeding 10% of the operating budget. And I'm assuming that's just town's projects, not the school. Um and

and that would be nice to know with all these projects, you know, where we stand on that. >> It might affect our bond rating. >> I don't think so. >> Um 10% The other thing I'd love to see on this schedule is the total amount of debt outstanding. >> Okay. >> That would be a That's always interesting to me if somebody says, "Garth, how much do you owe?" And I go >> You say, "Well, let me add it up." >> I'm here. >> Yeah. >> Sounds >> I'd like the head cross talker. There's a good 40% of our future costs that are in this budget. I don't know. What we don't know, the sea level rise,

the the East Manchester water loop, the you know, there there's a lot of stuff um that we don't really need to plan for, but it comes up as we go. So, I just have to be mindful that when you do this, this isn't everything. >> Well, and I think the fact that the school Actually, the school's not coming in as much earlier than we expected. I mean, it's not It's It's getting to the point where it's not super bad because of the bands, but um I I do think we need to look at the overall thing and kind of re-examine some of the future projects and what the timing of that should be because I think it's clear that the PFAS has really thrown us over the edge.

Um and we have a second phase to that and I think that that's going to by design force us to delay some of the other DPW garage, public safety, you know, those big projects that we may have to delay a few years. >> The The other thing, and I've said this at some other meetings that I've been on, is accounting. And I I'm I'm not an accountant, but I do believe conceptually in funded depreciation or at least keeping track of depreciation. So, if you have a building like this, and when did we build this, 1971 or something like I don't know something like 1971. You know, and and they should have figured, "Well, this is 1971 by 2030,

we'll probably have to tear that sucker down and rebuild something. And they and then they and then they basically have an operating expense. And I'm not saying it needs to be funded. In my dreams, yes. But you know, to have to have a depreciation account where whether it's a fire station or a fire truck or or school or anything like that, you you basically save every year out of your operating cost. So you really know what it cost to run the town. That's the That's the idea. You really figure it out. And I That sounds I know it's so absurd and unrealistic, but in a way it's it's a it's a way to grab hold of what's going on

at least for comparative purposes. So >> Because Essex has a full number of funds for this and their town meeting is a nightmare. I'm not sure we want to go there. But have a lot of a >> I'm going to agree with you slightly, Sarah. >> You know, we talked about Essex Elementary being in 2032 or 2034. And we were talking about that 10 years ago. And when the debt for the high school dropped off, so we would not be paying three school debts at the same time, presumably. And and we've kind of jumped the gun on that a little bit and maybe with construction costs that's a smart decision. But we did we have done like a 20-year capital plan, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 to 240

million dollars. >> And climbing. >> And climbing. PFAST jumped that number up. Essex Elementary absolutely jumped that number up. And so we're we're kind of ahead of the program here on capital. So where I'm going with this is you know, we I I think we've spent more money in the last year or two or three than we have in a long time. And at this rate we are this is not sustainable. >> Right. >> You know, this is a big big spending year, but this is not sustainable. >> have to look at it. We have to revisit. It's the same place. >> I think if you look at it you have to look at the end of the year so that you don't run into this spike

Go to 25 years. Now you're in high school rebuild model time. And that that 200 number to the taxpayer starts to look really positive. What I was I was thinking, you know, because we have the the fire engine fund because we the public is not going figure it out. You got lots of bigger moving parts. Well, I I think it's interesting to me to choose to save. >> Maybe we need to look again. Do we need a fire engine fund? I mean, what we need to decide we don't. The problem was is we had all of our equipment was old. >> [clears throat] >> Uh >> It makes sense.

>> But now we kind of got everything's new. >> All the more reason to save. I'm sorry. What I'm saying. >> No, I'm I'm just I just don't believe I should be paying today for a future expense when I may or may not live here. >> You're not. You're paying depreciation. >> But you know, I I do not believe in what what Essex does. Where they've got 9 million in reserves, all squirreled away in these little reserve funds that the taxpayers don't know anything about. Yeah. >> There's a There's a

approach that some towns take that's somewhere in between there where they split their stabilization into you know, a stabilization account for operations and a stabilization [clears throat] account for capital. And it's a little bit more secure or publicized than the way Essex does there. Uh approach and it requires, you know, town meeting two-thirds vote to pull money out of there, but that is kind of more in line with what you were saying. It's And it just kind of separates the two out that your stabilization account is for economy crisis and we got to keep the lights on. >> Right. >> And your capital stabilization is for that 20-year plan to reduce the impact

down the road. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> It's not as flexible as the way Essex does there. It does require supermajority vote at town meeting to take money out. >> Do the town administrator or finance director have any other updates? >> Um Well, we As far as the previous capital projects go, >> Yeah. >> um we have We're expecting that the culvert project will go out to bid next month. Um

we won't go to construction until next fall. >> Yeah. >> Um Tappen Street uh is likely to start construction in the next month or so. Uh that total project costs uh is at the 3.645 uh million. We're we had went to >> 4.4, yeah. >> 4.4. So, we got a little savings there. >> It's great. >> Half a million here, half a million there. >> And what about the savings on the PFOS? >> PFOS total project cost was 15.5, and we went for 16.5.

Um and then I have to I need to look at the harbor details here and add all together. I guess Rotunda uh came in at 3.4. I want to say we went for It was kind of a mix, but when you add in all the different DBC environment, I think we're at 3.69, so we've got a small amount of savings on Rotunda. Uh dredging was 1.9 was what we approved, but we had grant of 1.9 for a total of 3.8, and that came in at 3.6, so a little bit more savings there.

Um Reepark was between grants and approved budget, it was 1.4 total budget and it came in at 1.3. Uh so, little bits of savings here and there. The most savings was on the PFAS at that almost a million dollars. Yes. So, we'll know after I mean, we'll we'll have a better culverts to bid. Uh obviously, we had $5 million approved for borrowing, but we got the 4. I think That grant was got extended. >> Yeah. And then we got some other grants, didn't we? >> We do have other grants that cover the Salmon Brook restoration.

>> to open some of it. >> Yep. So, we'll go hopefully we have Army Corps has been dragging their feet. >> [clears throat] >> Us because of that, we missed our construction window on the culvert for this fall. Uh but we'll go out to bid and we could potentially do some of the Salmon Brook restoration um over the summer, you know, depending on what our ability is to get into the water there and those limitations, but we will wait until the fall uh up to impact traffic. Um [clears throat] and then

Bennett Street's in design. Likely going for funding in the spring. Um you know, it's it's possible that uh some of that work overlaps with the culvert work as well. So, kind of time up. Continue to be a war zone. worse situation. >> If you think Bennett will be like happen >> worse >> and like 3.4 or 4. >> Well, it's all ledge. >> It is ledge, but it doesn't have as much storm water utility in it. It's a little bit bigger of a project. I think it's I

>> [clears throat] >> I think it's going to be close. >> And we don't really care about the residents. >> Well, wait a minute. So, isn't the water and the sewer staying where it is? >> Yeah, so we won't >> So, they shouldn't have to do the ledge like the gas had to do. >> Right. >> Cuz the gas had to move the line. >> We'll run temporary through the whole project. >> Oh, but the ledge is sticking through the tar. >> Yeah, welcome to Manchester. >> We've had this for years. >> We can run temporary service above ground while putting the new lines in the existing trenches. Gas can't So, they had to they had to go to a new trench.

>> Well, they had to go to a new trench cuz they were on top of the water line. DPW told them they had to move it. >> There was a discussion a while back about um Forester Road and the size of the water main and sample was all >> Um so, there's a few residents there that really need new service line. I mean, they have to schedule their showers with each other. >> That's how bad the that's how bad the water >> Um There's a there is a public benefit to looping the water system down Forester. Uh so, we're including the design of that in the current Bennett Street design. And then potentially include it as an an add-on

to the construction bid. Um and then we would have to figure out through a betterment approach how to >> I'm going to private road. >> It's a private road. >> Somebody needs to do research on the history of that service line. >> We have. >> Because I think if you're forcing those residents to pay for a new water main, you're doing an enormous disservice to them. Because I don't believe they're on a public water meter. If I was buying a house with a public water meter, a town water meter, I would

expect that it was a town pipe. And I think you're doing a disservice to them if you're now saying to them, "Sorry, this is not a town pipe. You have to pay for a new pipe." >> Well, >> That's not realistic. >> Yeah, I mean it it is it's not a town service. The service ends at Bennett Street. Um >> But you're charging them for water with town water meters. >> They're getting town water. >> Right. It's no different from your service line in your front yard happening, you know, that ends at the valve. >> It is different because that's a private driveway. This is the road with multiple houses on it. I would expect >> road. >> But the rest of Forrester is not private

water. The rest of Forrester is public water. It's just that the town didn't go across the culvert. >> No, the it's only like the first four or five six houses. >> Then you hit the culvert. And they didn't go past there. But the towns on the other side are on public water. They It's not a private service main, and it's still a private road. >> No, I think it I think it's where the split is later on. >> It's at Jake's house. They're on public water. >> Right, but they're >> They're on the other side of the culvert to that pond. >> Yeah, it's being serviced from the from the road that they're on the corner of there. >> Running Ridge? >> Yeah.

>> California Ridge Road. >> Uh I just you know, I'm sorry. I I just think it's it's really unfair of this town to expect those people to know that they were on a private service line. >> Well, I think we should make sure that the Finance and Water Rights Committee considers this. >> Gary Eric >> Anyways, we're >> That's why we're >> There's there's >> Yeah. >> That being That being said, then there is an argument for public benefit to looping >> Right. >> down Forester. >> Yeah. >> And I think that that may accomplish what you're what you're getting. >> Um >> Yeah. >> But we do you know, we have to

>> Those are old houses in there. Those aren't new houses. >> No, they're not new houses. The previous The previous owner of that property decided to subdivide and not improve the water service line. And and divide off of off and off and off and off. And that's not really the town's fault. But there there's there's a public benefit to adding a fire hydrant. Which we would have to service. >> Yeah. >> Uh and there's also a public benefit to looping. So, we're we're looking into >> They have to be at least 75 years old. >> Uh but they but they >> They're not new houses. >> Um but they do they the all residents on the private way

uh chip in they want to repave. >> Don't they chip in to pave? >> They do. >> They do. And so >> But that's different from water. >> But if we do if we do a loop >> water public? >> I think our water is public. >> And you're on a private way. >> We pay a water bill at the end of the private way. >> If we do if we >> I don't think we should go into this This this could get ugly in the whole town here. More bonds. >> Okay, sorry. I don't think I didn't get any minutes to review. >> I have a question on the Sawmill project. So that's been delayed a year. And we've got a budget number here, but given what the construction cost

discussions have been this evening. Is are we still pretty confident about the number that actually it's a number we've been working with for over a year, I think. >> But we we got the brick grant so we've appropriated way too much. >> Uh maybe. So in other words So in other words the reduction will be there, but it may not be as much as we expect because when this goes out to bid, I don't expect those numbers to be what we get if we went out to bid last month. >> Except the ocean ones have been coming in low. >> There was that that the culvert here last culvert number came in real low. >> Yeah. >> Yes. >> And and Chuck just jumped on that. I don't know

>> Score him up at the water plant or something. >> Yeah, the Sawmill Brook restoration element of it shouldn't have the same inflation impact of construction cost that we're seeing with these >> vertical construction projects. >> Uh but we'll we'll see. I'm curious. >> Okay, thanks. >> The cost of fuel has a way of >> Yes. >> going through the excavation. >> Next meeting is next Thursday. Um I'll >> Take a look I would just say take a look at this draft uh prepare for it. I on the I know it's not on the it's not a finance article for tonight, but on the um special act we we were able to put put

that into one article, article six. >> Okay, okay. >> Which increases you know, amends the general bylaw, increasing the million of 5 million. >> Okay. Good. >> And then it also authorizes a home rule petition to amend the special act that basically says the special act is triggered if a prop two and a half question is triggered. So, you can have a double question. >> Oh, good. Okay. Okay. We'll look at this. Except for that. >> Did you lose your power last night? >> No. Well, I have get I have solar. I don't lose power. >> I I have a generator, but the power did go out in West Manchester. I briefly.

>> Mine all >> Um Monday night the power outage I think maybe >> It also happened to me directly. >> Happened to me then? >> Around 8:00 to 9:00 last night. >> I put the motion to adjourn. >> So moved. >> Thank you. I second. All in favor? >> Aye. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thanks. >> I think I think it's over, Andy. >> Did you get that? >> I'm with you, Andrew. You're fine. >> Thank you. >> You're fine. >> Yeah. >> Um >> Thank you very much. >> We're also working We're working on the draft of the book. >> Yeah. You need to look at that next two or three sections.

I can tell you. >> You asked the total beginning of the year like that. You can go to >> Great looks. >> Great busy. >> Yeah, I want to look back on >> Yeah, you can have that. >> what we approved at the town meeting in April. >> I asked that question. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Is You can ask that >> Yes, I did ask that. >> updated They updated that. This thing is all sharked up. >> Yeah. >> Send that to you and you can probably some of the known figures. >> Yeah. >> That I just don't >> Yeah, let's do let's just do a general total >> That is percentage of the >> And the culvert will be coming on the

taxes a year later. Right? >> They necessarily >> Right. Yeah. >> Yeah, that does make sense. >> But I got to look at that whole debt schedule again. That 25 year one. May have to work with Andrew and Ruth. I don't know. I got to look. >> We didn't include in the 30 year but we didn't include in the five year plan. >> Right. >> Is that something you would want to include in this budget? Save it for the spring? >> Save it for the spring. >> Okay. >> I don't want to make this any more complicated than it is. >> It's complicated right now. >> It's going to be a challenge. Big dollars. >> Yeah, talking about >> No, we're talking about