>> Who go is it meetings? Is that what who goes to it? >> Becca. >> Oh, yep. Yep. >> Well, it's new to me, Michael. So, thank you. >> You're welcome. Um, and thank you for uh pausing me and and slowing me down. Sometimes I take for granted the fact, hey, everybody knows what an IMA is. >> Great. >> No. >> Okay. So, I entertain a motion. >> I move that we approve uh the town manager to sign this intermunicipal agreement with Shrewsbury um to allow the regional storm water coalition to move forward. Second. >> All those in favor? I >> I >> Okay, very good. Thank you. Uh, review the annual town meeting warrant articles. See, we have 12. >> Yeah, we got an update on that, too. >> Yep. Yeah, they came up. >> They did. >> Okay. >> What's different, Kathy? >> What's What's different?
>> So, there was an update this afternoon. So, um, we spoke with Lisa about the budget articles, uh, specifically for the override. And so, um, I'll explain that as I sort of go down the list. So, you'll see article 5 is a placeholder for the override budget article. >> We'll work on that name >> we got from Diane. >> Um, so >> I think we have that in the page. Actually, >> it was sent out. >> Oh, you know what? I opened up the most recent one. That's why. >> Yeah. So, I shared it. It's up on the screen. Um, so article one, town reports.
Article two, and just stop me if you guys have any questions. Um, will be transfer from the general stabilization fund. Uh, article three, um, is transfer from sped stabilization. Article four will be the FY27 budget. Um, this is just with our regular revenues, no override included. And then article five will be the budget with the 2.75 mil built in with a contingency saying something along the lines like if if if it passes. Um article six is the transfer for the OPED trust. Seven is our consent article eight is the annual uh CPC consent. Um, article nine is the one CPC article that we have and that's for the acquisition of the 41 Lincoln Road property. Article 10 is um a bylaw amendment for the building construction bylaw. So right now that is I believe articles 1 through four. We'd be adding um article five which is a secondary suite.
So, um, basically an in-law suite, but it's called a secondary suite. Uh, not an ADU, it's it's it's an in-law suite essentially, but it's going to be called a secondary suite. Same idea. >> Um, uh, article 11 is amending chapter 282, section 9.6, the design plan review. Um, so this um, design plan review, they're having a hard time um, finding people for the terms that they set out. I believe it's a three-year term. And so what they're trying to do is have their terms for people that are appointed to those positions be per project. So they're trying to get a little bit more creative. So it's not a three-year term. This is for the design review board. The design review committee that planning board appoints. >> Yes. >> So per project. >> Yes. >> Makes sense. >> Well, >> does every project have a a design review?
>> Uh I believe most of them do have design review as part of it. >> So it must be a certain number of units or something or certain something. Do you know >> the design review trigger? >> Yeah. There's a number of different ones that would trigger design review, I think. >> Yeah. >> So, they're going to appoint do a whole appointment process per project. >> How many of these do we see like a year? like the the would be an interesting >> because I mean it sounds like you're just going to be I mean I I'm just asking because it sounds like you'll be like consistently >> or having concurrent you'll probably have concurrent um >> concurrent committees. I'm just curious. It'd be good to understand a little bit better why they think this is a better process than, you know, might it be better to do a year appointment and then reappoint if there's a project that overlaps or something rather than every time they need a design review.
I mean, I think it we should ask them. >> Yeah. And and I need to see like what kind of administrative um um >> Yeah. How much >> support that would need. >> I think and honestly I I mean this is just my opinion. Um, I think I think design review can serve a valuable purpose, but not on a per project basis. I think if anything, design review should be charged with setting design standards and and developing those uh not on a per project basis, but just something that we could use for every project. But that's my opinion. >> Yep. Okay. >> Can we get more information from them about this? >> Yeah. So, we just received a draft today. So, I can go through that and and certainly get you more. >> Can you share us the draft? Share the draft out. >> That would be helpful.
>> That way, if we know that the planning board is going to be discussing it, we can decide to show up and >> ask questions. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. Just so we understand. >> Um, one, sorry, there's one more article just article 12. Um, so this is from the sustainability committee. They'd like to establish a skip the stuff bylaw. So this is um plastic cutlery, the ketchup packets, all those things. >> Um >> so Oh, I was just going to say, do we want the sustainability committee to come >> come and present that to us and talk to us about that? >> I'd love to hear from them. >> So the final draft, I don't even I don't have a draft yet of this bylaw. Um it's actually due a final draft is due by Monday, the 23rd, and they they are aware of that.
I think tomorrow is a sustainability committee meeting. Um they're one of my committees. So I'm hoping that um I can make it to that unless I'm still here. It depends on um >> Well, you don't have to sit right where they are. They meet here. >> No, they're not meeting here. They meet online. But um I can ask them to um to come to a one of our meetings in April if Yeah. if we would like. >> Yes, >> that'd be helpful. >> Okay. >> The storm water committee is coming too. >> Are they? >> Yeah. >> In April. >> Um I I think I think we ought to look at that. Um I I'm not sure this is the right time uh for that, especially >> the storm water. >> Yeah. um we've we we uh we really we really need to focus on certain things and um I I just my opinion on that.
Um I think it'd be good to have them in after. Um but that's again that's up to you as a board >> but anyway we can talk about that later. It's late. >> It's late. Yeah, we can talk about it. >> Yeah. >> So, I have a I have a question on the warrant and how we're handling the override budget. So, is the idea that we would vote both of them at town meeting and the second one would be contingent on the ballot passing so that we don't have to have a second town meeting? Is that the plan? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. We're trying to avoid a second town meeting. >> Okay. Yeah. >> Okay. >> So, we're going to work with Lisa to make sure that the language for both of them is done in a way that whatever happens at the ballot on May 19th can become effective based on the language that is in these war articles.
>> Correct. Okay. Yeah. And and I'm sorry I stepped out for a moment, but um the stabilization fund is that also going to have sort of two components. One if it one if the override passes and one if it doesn't. >> So my suggestion would be we do the full amount with the understanding that 1.4 would only be transferred if the override failed. >> Can we make sure that that's in the language? >> We'll have to do it in the in the in the motion. I don't think we want to put it in the article, but we can put it in the >> motion. Yeah. Cuz I I I want to make sure that >> you know if if we don't need it, we don't use it. >> Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. >> But and that's considered the one point is the the one and I just I know you went through this.
I just want to verify >> the 1.4. Let me step back. The 750 or the 755 is automat is we're we're transferring that from the stabilization fund. Correct. >> So that would be part of that. And then the second part would be if the override does not pass, we're going to do an additional 1.4 to help cover the school stuff. >> Yeah. And we'll have to work that in the motion. >> It I I want it to be explicit as to what is happening. >> There's no question exactly feel like we can do >> I think we can do that. I think we can structure it that way. >> Yes. >> Okay. And just going back to your first question about um the language for the the override. So, we've been working with Lisa on that language. So, we do have that and we're >> feel pretty good about that.
>> Okay. And will um and are we planning to vote to close the warrant at our next meeting or does that depend on when we're meeting? >> So, April 15th is when >> when we're going to >> we were supposed to do it the first, but we moved it to the 15th. >> Okay. I I couldn't remember what date we were supposed to do what. So, thank you. Okay. So, we'll plan to close the warrant and and post that on the 15th. And when does the finance committee meet for their >> I believe it's April 7th. >> Okay. >> Around then um >> for the Rex start the Rex. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. I we um Katherine's done a good job I think with just taking some feedback from the last process and just uh really kind of putting some hard dates in there um targets that we can work towards and um yeah it'll be interesting to see how this process works out.
>> Okay. Thank you. One of the things I think we need to do a a better job of explaining in during this process is um you know why Why it's that it's so critical that when we use these funds from some of these accounts that are you know replenished to some extent on an annual basis sometimes not fully that why what that really what does it mean that when all of a sudden it's gone well I mean that's obvious but how we use some of it but we keep it so that we can maintain enough to support the budget this much. You know what I'm saying? >> But when we have to support it that much, then we we we run out. So, I I think that that's um something we have to do a better job of explaining. >> Yeah. And to that point, that point too, you know, the question is why can't we just use all of our stabilization funds to plug the whole thing?
>> And part of it is >> part of it is, you know, >> like well, the ultimate reason >> Yeah. the bond rating. But the ultimate reason is is if the bottom falls out of the economy or the state or federal funding gets completely cut and we see some severe um budget >> like we know we're having a budget crisis this year, but you know it it this like it could be a lot worse. So I'm not saying that that's I'm not a doomsdayer, but just saying that. Um, and that's what that's for. So, if right >> if we, you know, >> we we also see what using one-time funds has done to us, right? Correct. >> Right. For two years, we did a million dollars one year, we did $2 million another year of one-time funds. >> And now we're at a point where >> if we use onetime funds again, we're going to get in the same hole and then next year we're going to do it again.
>> And thankfully, we had those onetime funds when we needed it. Correct. >> What? >> Good. Okay. All right. Our favorite subject update on 40B projects and any discussions with respect to it. So, do we have a major updates on that? The Concom uh >> Yeah, >> I I apologize. I I just haven't really had a chance to really um update like get a thorough one, but um I did watch the conservation commission meeting and uh was very interested in in um in that process and um can can certainly appreciate the um seriousness that the conservation commission is uh taking this with and um you know it it's certainly a different process than uh what we saw with the ZBA. VA and um I expect this to go on for a while at the con don't disagree with you they're being very thorough and they need to be especially with that specific site and it was very interesting to see the change in attitude the other side respect to very apologetic it's Okay, I'm tired.
You don't want me to use my cuff voice cuz I'll scare the hell out of everybody. >> Bring the microphone closer. >> That better. Okay. >> Yeah. >> With the uh the apologetic tone that they took uh realizing that uh some things were not the town's issues but were theirs and they they were apologetic and very impish in in that in that regard. image. I like that. >> You have something that you >> Well, the other piece um right was that they uh are kind of pretty close to being done with 61 Waverly, >> right? Yeah, it did sound like they were really kind of moving forward with >> Right. So, um I think the biggest thing was was and you you should probably talk a little bit about that cover, >> the culvert and the piping. >> Yeah. They're going to do some stuff, but they're not going to I mean I ideally if they replace the culver >> Yeah.
You you had a different uh understanding from what I from what I gathered with respect to the pipe. >> Uh yeah. So there's there's a pipe a 12-in pipe that runs parallel to Route 135 for about 200 feet that heads east and then it ties into a covert a bigger one that's been here for about that's been in place who knows 50 to 100 years. And uh the Culvert both both are arguably failing. The 12-in for sure. The Culvert I don't know. So anyways, the applicant Israel um they he agreed to actually replace the 12-in pipe that runs along Route Route 135, which to the DPW is a home run. It's great. >> Yeah. the covert itself, they don't they don't want to um they don't want to be responsible for replacing it. So, that's something that >> the town, you know, eventually we need to whether it's a grant.
>> I was going to say there's currently some grants out there for culvert replacement. >> Exactly. >> Let's let's look at that. Right. >> Yeah. That's kind of been in our back pocket for a few months. We didn't want to go out and we were trying to see if they were going to jump on >> get him to do it. >> Yeah, that makes sense. >> Strategy. >> Yeah. So that's question for you. >> Yeah. >> Doug, do you know if they replace the pipe then I assume that it works better? >> Does that then put more pressure on the culvert to function well? Well, what what they what they did with this whole design with GCG and and uh the engineers is they actually they're not increasing the flow from the site. >> Yeah, they >> out into the culvert. >> It's It's pretty amazing.
>> They're not allowed to, right? >> They're not allowed to. They actually pulled it off that it's going to it's going to recharge the ground theoretically and and Yeah. So, >> but but a new pipe, right, just does whatever is allowed to go. >> Yeah. >> Go will go better in a new pipe than maybe it did in the old one or >> Yeah. I mean, the the existing pipe it could be damaged. It might not be flowing properly. This will be a brand new >> wonder plastic pipe or or I'm sorry, reinforced concrete pipe that would it could smooth a lot faster and a lot better. And yeah, >> so they're not relining the pipe. They're going to replace >> they're going to replace it and we haven't seen the design yet. >> Okay. They're going to do work with us with work work with the DPW on the design.
>> Yeah. >> Right. >> So, I thought it was good. I thought Concom I thought they've been I think they've been doing a great job with 61 Waverly Street and um GCG as well. Mike Carter, his team has been great. >> Yeah. >> Good. >> Great. Thank you for the update. Appreciate that. >> Now, if they could just take a take it down a couple of stories. >> That would Yeah, that would be nice. That would be nice. Um any anything else respect to I know there was a because of the time factor I want to move on. >> We can always bring this up at the next meeting to go over you know some of the other 40b issues that people have asked us to talk about. Yeah, I know. I had put forward a request from because it actually came from a resident too >> to have it put on this agenda and then you asked me and I said, "Yeah, you got my email right." And you said, "Yeah, we're all set." And then it wasn't on the agenda.