Triboard Meeting (December 10th, 2025)

001Good evening and welcome to Ashland's tri board meeting for December 10th, 2025. I call this meeting tomorrow at 6:00 with the select board and I will turn it over to the finance committee to open up their meeting and then to the school committee so they can open up theirs. >> Thank you. Good evening. Uh, we call the finance committee meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. >> Good evening. Also at 606, I call this school committee meeting to order. >> Thank you for all being here. Um so we have to have this type of discussion but as things happen throughout the year financially and the uneasiness and the uncertainty of the types of funding that's be available from the federal and the state uh agencies. We uh supposed to have these types of meetings to discuss

002potential shortcomings and shortfalls in our budget for 2027. And um I will now turn it over to uh town manager Mike Herbert. >> All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh good evening everyone. Um, Michael Herbert, town manager, and uh, pleasure being with you tonight, uh, regardless of the circumstances. Um, as Joe mentioned, uh, yes, unfortunately, tonight's meeting is a continuation of a meeting that we had in October, which continued a discussion actually that we had started several years ago um, in including during the 2026 budget cycle um, in the previous spring. and it's to talk about the serious financial uh issues that we have. Um I'm not going to go into everything that we discussed in our meeting in October. Um I'm sure that is fresh in your minds. I'm sure you've been thinking about

003it often since that time. And uh if members of the public uh want to catch up uh so to speak, uh they certainly have the ability to review that meeting on WACA where we did uh the superintendent and I did have uh an opportunity to outline essentially how we got to this point. But um yes uh essentially what we're faced with right now is a situation where revenues are not meeting expenditures uh or continuing to not meet expenditures and that gap is increasingly getting larger and it is something that we have known about and we've been able to fix sometimes creatively sometimes um in a not so uh in a not so prudent manner. if you want to talk about the use of one-time funds to fix the deficit. But um we're here today to

004talk about a larger solution about that. And make no mistake, this is a a conversation that's happening throughout the Commonwealth and many different communities. Uh many communities are talking about their revenue pictures and how they're not meeting the rising costs of expenditures. uh especially when you juxtapose things like the rising cost of health care inflation with the limitations of Proposition 2 and a half that are imposed upon municipalities in terms of how much they can raise property taxes. Um again, we could debate whether or not those make sense from a political or even a moral standpoint, but the fact is is that's what we have today. And that is essentially the math problem that we are dealing with today. Um, so I think that is enough basically of a recap at this point in time.

005Um, I'm going to turn it over to the superintendent. I'll just lay out, you know, he will go through a presentation and I think outlining some of uh what could happen if we need to make reductions uh in order to meet our revenue um estimates uh and what that would mean for not just the schools but also the community. uh then I will give a presentation and then we will ensue uh in a discussion about several options on how to move forward with the 2027 budget. Um I will say that tonight um I do I would like to have a direction in terms of an option picked out by the boards to move forward with. It doesn't have to be, you know, totally final, but I would like to have an option in mind as

006we go in and uh our departments prepare our budgets because we'll have to prepare two budgets if you go with an override option. One that factors for that override and then one that does not factor an override in. We'll have to have two prepared. So, um, yes, with that being said, I'll turn it over to Mr. Adams. And I was just saying this this kind of like >> deja vu in some ways. It's only 10 years ago. >> Let's see if I can get this shared first. [clears throat] probably should be, huh? >> Yeah, it doesn't look like it's in the meeting. Just give us a moment, folks. What's the uh just this normal? >> Yeah, >> I need to share the do share the screen. I don't have >> right. Yeah. No, it's okay.

007It's all good. Yep. >> It's all good. Firefighters. You can pull me back in over there should be okay. I should be able to share it. Yep. Great. Thank you for the patience everyone. So, uh, good evening. Jim Adams, superintendent of schools. And I what I'm going to present tonight is really just a really high level overview of where we are as a district in terms of the financial constraints we could be under uh as well as what it really takes to uh operate the Ash public schools. And what I'm sharing is a condensed version of of a presentation I gave to all of our schools and faculties um at faculty meetings. And and I think it's important to understand that we have same common language to to start with because I think when Michael

008and I have had conversations about what is level funded versus level service, uh what is a 3.75% policy? Uh what does that really mean to the Ash public schools, but what does it mean to the budget in totality? So I think we have to start with that concept first. Uh, and and I apologize if if some think it might be a little elementary for it, but I need to I need to do that so we're all talking the same language. [clears throat] So, when we began the process a couple months ago, uh we knew going into it that it would be a challenge. The the budget itself uh it still continues to present us with some significant uh challenges as it does uh the entire general government. uh this budget does not create uh any

009new positions. Uh there will be a reduction in the in personnel no matter what option we choose. Right? That that is going to be the reality of this budget cycle. Uh we have to take into account certain things. We have contractual obligations. We have inflationary items such as utilities uh out of district costs uh from schools that we send our students to. uh range from anywhere from you know 3% to 25% increases that we do not have control over. Those are things that are mandated for us to pay for. Uh types of other things uh that we're looking at as I stated are level service a 3.75% increase which is a policy we created a number of years ago um when we started the budgeting cycle uh in level funded. So, so we are clear

010and I'm clear uh about what level service means to me and to our organization. It really means we are maintaining the same level and quality of services as the current year we're in. We're not looking to add new folks. We're not look looking to reduce the current personnel and the services we are providing. Okay? That doesn't mean it's the same amount of dollars. It means we're taking into account all things that matter within our contract such as negotiated contracts, salary steps, um insurance, utilities, inflation. All of those things have to be factored into a level service budget. The goal again is preserve exist existing programs staffing service levels. So let's assume employee contracts and energy costs rise at a 6 to8%. Uh the budget may increase by that same amount just to maintain the current

011year's operations. Okay. I can tell you right now a level service budget for the Ash public schools is a 7.92% increase. That's a level service. That's not adding anything new. that's taking into account steps, lanes, cola increases, utility costs, out of district costs, transportation costs. Um those are the things that that create um such a high percentage increase year-over-year. What is a 3.75%? Why do I use that number? Well, this is a number that we agreed to many years ago going back 10 or 11 years. This is my 13th year as superintendent and where we had conversation that the Ashlin public schools would start their budget process with a 3.75% increase to the budget and then we worked from there when we started looking at revenue streams when we started looking at um you know

012the cost of out of district placements the cost of uh health insurance all of those factors. So for instance, if FY27, if Michael said to me, Jim, your budget can increase 3.75% next year, our budget for the National Public Schools would go from current budget of FY26 is 44,486,864. It would increase by 3.75%. or approximately 1.76 million up to 46,155,21. This does not guarantee, this is why why I bring this up, this does not guarantee level service. This does not guarantee all of the employees that we currently have and the services that we are currently providing to our community and to our students will exist. It can't. It's just not going to happen. So a level service, as I said, is roughly over 7%. This means a reduction in services and personnel are most likely

013required, not as significant as level funded, which is the next level I'll get to. So it could potentially lead to 20 to 25 faculty, staff, and administrative positions. We are as general government is heavily focused on personnel costs. approximately 80% of our budget our personnel costs. Okay. So in this instance if we go backwards level service okay versus level funded or excuse me 3.75% there's a delta that delta is probably about $1.8 8 million which would need need to be reduced. If Michael said you we we can fund 3.75%. Number two. Number three is scary, right? Number three is scary. Number three says level funded budget. Level funded means to us and it should to you that you're getting no more dollars than you got in the current fiscal year. nothing. So what that means

014from our perspective, right, is we're currently at 44,486. That's what we're getting next year. I just told you that to run a level service is seven over 7%. 3.75% is about 1.6 million. So we're looking at $3.4 4 million in today's do today's organization that would have to be reduced which results in I wrote 30 to 40 faculty staff and administrators probably closer to 40 because we have things that we cannot cut out of our budget. We have about $855,000 that has to be a part of our budget. Meaning increased transportation cost, utility costs, as well as out of district special education costs. Those are mandated. I can't do anything about that. So when you're looking at a total number, that 885,000 still has to be built into our budget. You just have to reduce

015your budget by 885,000 another way. So, those are the three things we're working off from. How do we mitigate some of this? More reliance on what Michael said, really not great accounting practice uh to to utilize onetime fees, school choice money. Uh, as you all know, schools, we have no way of actually increasing our revenue other than increasing school choice seats, which still comes at a very low amount of it's $5,000 per child. It's not significant. As I said to faculty and staff, I am very grateful and thankful to the Astron community. We have, as you see, over the past five years averaged about a 5% increase. Okay, that's pretty significant. So, from the 480 employees I have, thank you. That's significant. We've worked at this, but we've also as a town made some decisions

016on how we projected growth and what it would look like and what our community should look like. So, here we are. I'm going to share a couple things here. not spend a lot of time on this. Hopefully this pops up if it did. Oh, nope. Apologize. Getting old. I need my classes all the time. one. Just trying to link go back to a link. So I apologize if it's not showing here. Michael. Okay, come on. Work link. It's not letting me pull up a document. So, what I wanted to show under this this budget cycle was that it was just in actually in dollars showing that a A level service is about $3.4 million increase. A 3.75 is a $1.8 million increase. Right? So the delta, you know, would be a cut reduction of of

017our budget by 1.6 million if we are level funded. It's a delta of 3.4 million. So that's what we would need to reduce our budget by from a level service to a level funded. I apologize. It didn't work. This is hard to read. I get it. But I sort of added this in when I saw Michael's presentation a little bit. It's a little trickier with cost centers for schools than it is for um you know general government. It just is because we can have 900 students at the high school and four grade levels versus 670 kids at say the middle school with three grade levels. you're just going to have more staff and you're going to have more expenses that relate specifically to the high school than you might if you were at uh an

018elementary school. But it it's a good way to look at this and I share this with um staff all the time that it's a good way to to say hey okay what if um we had to reduce as an exercise that that Michael had his department do everything by 5%. What would that look like? And like I said, it it's really difficult because you can you can put focus in on special education here and a 5% reduction in special education is $746,000. Well, guess what? I can't reduce special education by 5%. It's mandated by law. So, so that 746 has to go to other cost centers, right? Does that make sense? That's where it has to go. it has to be distributed in the other in the school districts in the school buildings I should

019say. So that becomes a challenge. Similarly when you have you know small areas like English language learner uh so our English lang language learner population uh whether it's salaries or some curriculum it's a small number so 5% would be a small number but 2.2 2 million is what we'd have to do if we cut 5%. I shared this at the last meeting. I think it's really important that you understand that the Ashlin Public Schools, our budget isn't that 44 million. It's closer to 50. uh when we start adding in grants [snorts] and um use of revolving accounts. Right now we currently have $659,000 worth of salaries that are in our school choice account that are not reflected in the overall appropriated amount that the town gives us. They're they're already out. So if that school

020choice money goes away, those six educators are not have to be absorbed somewhere. It's sort of the conversation we had years ago about the COVID money when the when the esser money was coming through to the schools. We may have used some of it for salaries then, but over time, knowing those funds were going away, we've absorbed those salaries in our operating budget. So that 5% increase over that four or five year window is a direct relationship to has a direct relationship to us losing funding from the ESR money. We started to absorb those salaries into our operating budget. But you can see the the reliance. We go from having, you know, approximately $2.1 million in school choice funding for FY at the end of FY25 to 1.2 million in FY26. Another significant hit to

021school choice of a million dollars. And we're getting to the point where that revolving account doesn't exist anymore. it can't cover. 200 Claudia remind me was when uh we had some really drastic cuts in this district and at that time supply lines, textbook lines for the school district were cut out. They've never been put back into the budget, by the way, in almost 20 years. We fund it buying textbooks through school choice. So those are those are pieces that have never been, you know, reinstituted into the budget. That's an important concept. School bus revolving transportation costs. We charge students to ride buses, right? And then we can use that to offset some of the transportation costs. Circuit breaker. For those who are unfamiliar, this is we get a reimbursement from the state for some of

022our special education costs for students who are not in our district of the 29 kids who are out who are in different placements other than the Ashlin public schools. We can't count on a specific amount. Although Mass General law says circuit breaker will be reimbured up to 75 well up, that's the key, right? Up to 75%. Some years it's been as low as 25%. So, it's pretty significant in terms of if you start relying on these onetime funds. So, where are we and what are we going to do from the Astro public school standpoint? We have to continue to refine our budget numbers. There's no doubt about it. Do I think there's right sizing that can occur within any organization? Of course I do. You know, of course I do. Are we looking at a

023two and a half override? Are we looking at just reductions? Are we looking at continued depletion of school choice funding? How many more years are we willing to do that? Are we looking at increasing our fees for athletics and transportation? We are already the highest in the Tri Valley League for fees for athletics. We already pay the most amount of money pretty much across the entire every single sport. Could you point out a couple? >> I could if I could pull it up. That's what I was hoping to do, Claudia. I have it here linked, but um the links aren't working. >> Yeah, bus fees are those I know off the top of my head, but um I I can do athletics for instance. Football, for instance, is 350, Chris. $350 to play football, right?

024Um, and it it r the the the range of se of fees for athletics goes anywhere from 300 to almost $1,000 if you're in a hockey program that is funded in a co- um, you know, a co-dist model, if you will. So, if we're a co-op with three other towns, we basically just split the cost. So, those families pay a little bit more. It's $450, right? So at um busing is $290 per kid with a maximum of $580 if you pay at a certain time period then it increases right so the challenge becomes are we willing to pay more uh or we willing to pay less thanks Mike that's my spreadsheet so yeah anywhere from 290 to $400 is athletic fees Um and but blessing is at 290 if it goes up after a certain

025period of time but we cap it. Um we currently don't have a cap for athletics. Um I I can give a frame of reference for um you know the town of Franklin who recently went through the process of of two failed overrides and their fees went from $300 to play football to a thousand um in their town. That's that was the decision they made. So those are decisions that we're going to have to look at, right? like are we willing and I said this to someone recently to me all we're doing is providing a tax on families that have kids in schools. That's all we're doing. We're adding a tax to those families. We're not saying this is a community value. We're saying, "Oh, let the people who have kids in schools pay the additional

026cost to run their programs." And to me, that's, you know, I don't want to get into having families have to continue to fund everything for their kids to participate. That's not what a public school education should be about in my opinion. Um, so then we have to continue to look at current class sizes at all grade levels. What's appropriate? What's not appropriate? Should we have 29 kids in a kindergarten class? I'm telling you, no. Should we have 29 kids in a middle school class? Anyone? I mean remember middle school the answer is no right but does that not mean there are certain classes advanced placement classes for instance where you might have a higher number you could make that argument yeah they're they're pretty focused and terms of uh driven kids who are going to

027be um able to handle that class size I don't know so finding that right size is important um and we have to continue to review our IEP students our 504s our English language students Uh we have approximately 23% of our students are on on IEPs. Um you know Christy mentioned tonight we have 200 plus uh EL students um that and then actually over 400 that we have to monitor for a 5-year window uh including the 200 plus another 200 who have phased out of the actual instruction. So these are our next steps. Um it's ugly. There's no other way to put it. Uh, and you know, level funded would decimate decimate the Ash public schools. We're I'm being conservative. I'm a very conservative individual when it comes to finances and saying it's it's probably, you

028know, that upper echelon of the 40 to 50 folks. Um, and I don't have specifics, but I know class sizes would increase, electives would go away. um you know programs that we've built in the past 3 to 5 years would be at risk. Uh those are those are legitimate uh concerns I have. I will stop there. You can ask more than one. I'm going to hit stop share. >> Um so those are sort of concrete what would happen right away. >> Sure. What does that mean for a student who is then going into that school system? What does that mean for their college prospects? What does that mean for their I mean, I know you can't answer all of this, but those are really finite things that maybe don't seem like a big deal, but

029what does that mean down the road for that student, >> right? It's a fair question, right? What are what opportunities what opportunities do we want our children to have in the national public schools? Right? So that's part of the continued investigation is at especially at the high school level. What classes are we willing to offer and what classes can we uh re there are some class classes in electives that have small groups of kids in them. Okay. Do we need that? I certainly think when we're looking at college prospects of our students and I and I want to think um that we would absolutely do everything in our power to ensure that every child who walks through our schools has the best opportunity for success whether it's in college, military, or work when they leave

030us. That's my job is to ensure that no matter what we do here that we protect that um it just might look different, right? It's going it it's I'm fearful that it has taken me 16 years to get new programming at the high school. Lori was on my site council when I was a principal 15 years ago and we talked about we didn't have certain programming. We didn't have enough computer science classes. We didn't have business programs. We didn't have financial literacy. We didn't have all of these things that are critically important to the success of our kids when they leave. We've only added those in the past three to five years. So to think it would be a different um model it would be. But I do believe in our staff and our faculty

031that we would still provide every child an opportunity to be successful and to to achieve wherever they want to go. It's a catch 22 with the Ash public schools and the town and Michael would tell you that too for for our per pupil cost of roughly $16,000 uh which is the bottom 10% of the Commonwealth in terms of what we spend our success rate and our um uh achievement is at that top 10%. It's catch 22, right? I mean it's like we do really a lot with a little with little less than most. So questions thoughts [snorts] >> Jim I just have a question. Um the 3.75% that you start with >> you ever are we ever at that from one year to the next or >> No we start there Claudia. Um, so I

032think it's a good question. We have I I think the we have had the most the the least amount of increase I think in a 13-year window was probably 3.86. Yeah. And we've relied more heavily on the ESSER funding at that time period. But on average, so you think I I I don't have the numbers directly off the top of my head, but just a two and a half% increase in the tax base, right? In terms of the tax revenue is probably like 1.4 4 million for the town of Ashlin. That's how much tax revenue would be increased at 2 and a half%. Approximately salaries, um, steps and lanes, cola, whatever is about 1.4 or 1.2 just for the schools. We're not talking about our other departments. We're critical, right? Just that alone will not

033cover the the cost of doing level service. Yeah, >> one of the slides that you had um talked about the grants that that come into to the schools >> given sort of where we are in the um federal state >> environment. Do you see that the grants are pretty solid or do you feel like those are at risk as well? >> I think they're all at risk. I I think the decimation of the Department of Education at the federal level uh and the aortionment of of the grants and um the departments going in different directions. I don't know. Right. So, you know, whether it's the title one grant versus the title four or title six, like I don't know where the funding is going to come from. Uh, do I feel relatively comfortable thinking it's

034going to be flat? I do. I I don't think it's going to increase. Um, but we have, [sighs] you know, we have 7 $800,000 tied up in in grants in in terms of of our personnel. And again, that would all have to be absorbed. It's not part of that 44486 number, right? It's it's outside of it. That's what makes that closer to $50 million budget. Full of good news, huh? It's great. Michael gets to bring the good news. >> I'll step aside for him. >> Thanks, Jim. We y'all got to bring this down here a bit. Um that was uh y'all are pretty quiet um after that. So um I think that just underscores I think some of the severity of uh of the situation that we're facing. At least I'll take it to mean

035that way. Let's see. I'm going to see if I can >> Mike, while you're looking there, I just want to mention one more thing about uh school funding and and um you know, I know there's been remarkable changes to the positive in school funding for the town uh since Senator Spilker has been at the state house. Um, but I I would guess and I don't know off the top of my head that Franklin now and you just talked about how u the their challenges right now are getting still getting more per child um from the state in in uh chapter 70 funding than we are. Um so it's just interesting that um you know that that's that's a still an element of uh some of our problems is the the way the state funding is

036distributed to schools based on students% sure they're still getting literally they used to get thousands dollars more per student than we got. We're like third from the bottom of of any of those lists consistently since I've been here as well. Either second or third from the bottom, Jim, of a list of maybe like 30 towns local. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Um, as far as what we get per pupil, I mean, we when you look at where we show up on other lists, student performance and such, you know, we're we're not at the bottom, >> right? And that >> and that's the point that he was making. But it's because we do the core things really well moving forward has been difficult. So any any I think what he's saying is any little amount of progress

037that we've been able to make since the um gets wiped out very quickly and we're we're back to being behind. And it also means when we talk about one town or city that spends $16,000 per student and another one that spends the same $16,000, Ashland taxpayers are perhaps paying a larger likely paying a larger portion than other cities or towns of that number because they get more state funding. >> Correct. All based on super complicated formulas that we can't seem to >> Right. Exactly. >> All right. Well, if you thought I was Santa coming in with some good news down the chimney, um I hate to disappoint you. I don't have any magic formulas or magic uh magic bullets [snorts] uh to solve the problems that we've just talked about, but um I do have

038a potential couple potential solutions for you to talk about. Um at the risk of rehashing what I started out with, just to explain a little bit about why we are here. um the the rise in the fixed and mandated costs, some of which Jim talked about, but another big one is health insurance and and pension. Um they're outpacing the 2 and a.5% annual levy growth allowed under Proposition 2 and a half. Um so, as Jim mentioned, a 2 and a half% increase on our tax levy equates to about $1.5 million. um that can get eaten up just by benefit costs alone in one year. That's before you start even accounting for any departmental expendit expenditures. And as Jim mentioned, we have done an amazing job of being able to creatively uh and sometimes against our

039own best interests uh creatively find ways to provide services that the residents want um without raising taxes more than that 2 and a half%. I think at at the last meeting I I I went through all the different ways that that we have done it on the general government side. All the different grants, all the different funds, all the different strategies that we've used. Any growth that you've seen really in the general government has happened outside of the general fund budget. Um we have a number of our police and firefighters here uh tonight here in in person and online. Um, you know, we've been able to make some great strides in the fire department, but that's only because we created an ambulance revolving fund. Again, outside of the general fund, we've been able to do

040things like hire a sustainability coordinator, but that's because we were able to creatively find a way to utilize the savings that we get through the the energy aggregation program through homeowners to help fund that type of position. So again, we've we've been really creative with what we've got, but folks, you know, even alchemists need lead to spin it into gold. You know, we've got to have the resources to be able to make the magic happen. And we're just at the place where, again, there's no more rabbits to come out of the hat. So again, the challenge we face are these fixed costs rising faster than revenue growth. Um, and it's not going to get any better. even with some large projected new growth numbers. And so the goal that we have going into FY27 through

041FY29 is to first of all maintain core services, especially in our education departments, in our public safety departments. you know, start meeting the needs of what our community wants and then also start making just a little bit of progress towards what our community identified as priorities in the comprehensive plan process, which took over two years and included quite a bit of community input. Quite a bit of community input, but it is ambitious. It is ambitious. So, we know what the community says they want. We know where the community says they want to go. And so what we've tried to do is put together a plan here to talk about tonight or a series of options that would fund a plan that would start getting us towards that. Um, I think everybody here knows how Proposition

0422 and a half works, but just for people watching, since I I'm pretty sure there could be some interested people watching this at home, um, I want to explain Proposition 2 and a half. Uh, especially because it's very important to talk about how you look at um at increasing above the two and a half limit, the different options you have, especially as we talk about our own options internally. So Massachusetts Prop 2 and a half. So it was a law started in the early 80s and it really fundamentally shaped how Massachusetts municipalities raise revenue. I won't go through the whole history of it, but you got to understand this framework. So under Prop 2 and a half, the levy, the tax levy, not individual tax bills, but the levy itself can grow by only 2

043and a.5% plus new growth from construction and development. So the only way that you can go above that is through an override or a debt exclusion. And that is a vote that is taken both that that is a vote that's taken at the ballot box. You know the that's the vote that allows you to go over and above the levy limit and then you have a town meeting vote that controls the appropriation associated with that. But again, there's two ways to exceed Prop 2 and a half. an override, which is a permanent increase in the tax levy limit base. And so those increases, you make it one year, but it it stays on the levy forever and it grows at that 2 and a half% each year. Or you could do a debt exclusion, which

044is a temporary increase based on a specific capital project. temporary is a long time a long you know generally for uh for capital projects obviously you know thinking about 20 to 30 years but it is temporary um and they don't uh necessarily they don't go up by the two and a half% each year that's a very very important factor to remember because that 2 and a half% compounded each year can grow what it was Einstein I think who said like that was the eighth wonder of the world was compounding um it really can make a difference uh either on the expense or the investment side of the ledger. And so I just want to say I am putting forward to you um uh one option which is a level funded budget u which I think

045Jim has articulated how devastating that would be for the schools. Um, for us the devastation wouldn't be as dramatic, but it would still be uh significant enough where residents would see impacts to services. Um, you would probably see a lot of the the maintenance uh continue to get deferred even at a greater rate. Um, a lot of the the ongoing maintenance of our properties would fall behind. um you know, it would still be pretty significant, but I I don't necessarily see us having to lay anybody off if we needed to do a level funded budget on the general government side. Um but I just want to point out that what we have now does not meet it hasn't kept up with resident growth and resident needs. And so the I'm going to give you also

046in addition to that level funded option three different override options of around 3.5 to 3.75 million. Um, and that number was chosen based on really trying to c it's it's really subjective, but cross referencing what seems to be reasonable with what we need in terms to move forward and to also I just also want to acknowledge that this doesn't fund the schools to the level service budget that Jim talked about, but makes a significant jump towards that. But that's why that number of 3.5 to 3.75 was chosen. It was basically a a cross reference of what the community could potentially pay for looking at at certain things and what what we're up against in terms of our history versus what we need. Um, and I also want to say as we're going to go through

047this, um, it's going to be very easy for some of us who are very analytical, we know who we are, I'm one of them, to get drawn into the numbers and start making this a math problem. Folks, this is not a math problem. This is a values issue, okay? Um, it's really a question of values. I know there's been talk like, oh, we're trying to be Sbury because we have some of these comparisons. That's not true. You know, uh, what we're trying to do is protect the gains that we've made over the last 10 years. um and maybe just inch a little bit forward uh on on some of the um on some of the general government side in terms of the comprehensive plan. [snorts] You know, people don't move to Ashland because it's got

048a a fancy zip code, right? Or a cool zip code. Um they move here because they're smart. They're intelligent consumers. They know value when they see it. And so these options still maintain that value. we will still be around the same bracket in terms of the average single family tax bill and expenditures per capita. You know, we might bump one or two notches up there. I think really I think it's it's more likely one. Um but again, this is about who we are and who what our identity is and not necessarily trying to be somebody else. So, option one is a $3.75 million general operating override. um that is the highest permanent increase to the tax levy base of all the options. Um it funds the majority of the school's level service budget. It also

049includes funding for full-time uh traffic control and also the ability to handle a third medical call. Um folks, this is not a need. This is a must. Okay? Everybody knows the increased traffic issues that we have here in town just in terms of population growth. really not necessarily in Ashland, but in the region and and you know, they travel people in Hopkin travel our roads just like people in Ashlin travel Hopington's roads. It's a regional issue, but I know the select board especially gets uh plenty of emails about traffic. Um, you know, that's something that's top on people's minds. So, this would provide uh full-time traffic enforcement. Um, it also provides us the ability on the fire side to provide another we could actually service a third medical call. Uh, right now we're only able

050to do two and we are increasingly finding times where there are third calls coming in and we can't we can't service those people. They have to wait or we have to call in mutual aid. And folks, you want you want me to tell you what loneliness feels like? Talk to a firefighter who is the one firefighter on duty left in town as the rest of the crew is out on two ambulance calls and let him tell you about that lonely feeling of being, you know, you're the only one between life and death for somebody and somebody's loved one. They can tell it a heck of a lot better than I can, but it's powerful. So, like I said, this isn't this isn't a need. This is a must. Um, and as I mentioned earlier, it

051starts making some progress towards the vision in the comp plan by making some investments in things like a traffic planner for things like the upper Charles Trail um and some support personnel. Option two is a slightly smaller um override. It's 3.5 million. Um, but it's done as a menu where the schools would be one question, police would be another question, fire would be a third question, and general government/DPW would be a fourth question. Um, this will fund slightly more the school's level service budget than option one. Um, it has increased traffic, still has increased traffic protection and the ability to handle the third medical call, but you still have a large compounding basis. um as as you do in option one. Now, option three um is uh one that um I've I've struggled with and

052we'll go into into why later when we get into more detail on it. But option three is a $2.75 million override. Um so a permanent override. uh and that would fund uh a good portion of the Ashlin public schools level service budget. And then to fund the municipal expenditures, instead of doing an override question, we would shift $750,000 that's of excluded of allowed excluded debt that's currently paid within the levy up to excluded debt. So it would result in a tax increase, but it goes under debt exclusion and not permanent. So it doesn't grow at the 2 and 12% and actually results in taxpayer savings. So I'll pause here and see if there were any questions. It seems like there were a couple of hands raised. >> Yeah. Mike, can you just talk about I

053understand the difference between option one and option two as being option one is a general number and then option two as menus, but what's the difference in the 250,000? Like what are we not funding with option two that is being funded under option one? Um, so option one would have a little bit less on the school side. So it's about $100,000 less. So that would really be up to the superintendent and how he turn he would decide to structure that vote. >> But the the option one is a higher overall number 375 versus 35, >> but it's treated as a 7030 split as it's a total total big big nut of new revenue. And so that 7030 split actually means that less would go to the Ashland public schools. And it's it's about $100,000 and

054I think it's detailed on the sheet that I didn't bring with me. >> But the overall number is still $250,000. >> Correct. >> So is I I I'm just trying to understand what's not funded. I understand what you just said um in terms of 7030 split on option one, but overall from the town perspective, if we're asking for $250,000 less, I assume that means we're not funding something in that value in that range overall, whether it's on the school side or the general government side. >> Yeah, like I said, most of that would be on on the school side. I think for us, we we hadn't really decided exactly what we would need to reduce if we did that. Thank you. >> Okay, >> Michael, I just have a quick question. Um, I'm just trying

055to to conceptualize what this means when you say, you know, option one funds the majority of schools level service budget. Um, option two funds slightly more of the level service budget. I'm trying to kind of compare it with the the numbers that Jim just shared and and really understand what is how much like what does that actually mean? Are you able to >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um under um option one, the school appropriation would be 47,138,864. And Jim, that's about a million about a million less than what you need for a level service budget. Correct. >> He's pulling it up. Whereas options um two and three um it would be or excuse me options yeah uh two and three I'm sorry uh would be 47 the school appropriation would be 47,263,864. >> Okay. Thank you.

056>> All right. >> Sorry. I know this she it's really >> going to say me and spreadsheets don't get along. So >> well especially in the font size that it is. I completely understand. But um but yeah, so I believe it's about a million roughly. Um yeah, this is actually just I I won't spend that much time on this one in terms of what we are funding because I did cover that I think a lot with the other slide. But I do want to um point out that these override scenarios does not include funding to include all of APS's needs for a level service budget. Um they don't completely meet the need for resident expectations, at least what we have heard articulated in public forums. And then it also does not fund capital needs, um

057which is a a whole other outstanding issue. Folks, this town has delayed infrastructure improvements for so long and for so many decades. We will never catch up. That is a race we will never win. Um, but we can at least not get worse. Uh, but you know, but we would have to make a decision as a community to make that investment in order to do that. Um, this override discussion or these override options does not do that. Um, so all of these options, uh, even the ones that include the override, uh, carry threeear structural deficits. So I looked at a three-year period. It's really hard to project from year to year, much less, you know, three years or five years or 10 years. So I did try to look at a three-year window and come

058up with a plan for a three-year window because obviously nobody wants to go through this again. Um we want to hopefully have a solution that's going to last us for a few years. Um but all three of these have a deficit a cumulative deficit uh in 28 and 29 of approximately $2 million. So um option option one uh you have the higher recurring costs into the the base but the cumulative deficit is modestly lower than the other options override options uh because you do have a much larger permanent tax base that will compound. Whereas option three, the one that has the smallest permanent tax in base tax base actually has a slightly larger deficit over that period just again because it's not you have you don't have as much compounding each year. [snorts] So I'll

059just get into a little bit more detail about each of the options. So again tax impact of option one which is 3.75 million what we call a general operating override. Um again that is basically one question that would say you know shall the town of Ashlin you know go above the the levy by 3.75 million for the purposes of funding the operating budget for fiscal year 2027 you know it would look roughly like that um those questions pass I did an analysis over the last couple years um in Massachusetts um those pass at like a 36% rate is that in terms of you know the ones that actually go towards the ballot. Um so this has the highest impact on the average uh median residential tax bill assessed at 650,000. Um that year one increase

060is about $533 on the annual tax bill. [snorts] Um and just to show you how that compounding works. So in year two that tax impact will grow to 546 then 560. in year three, it'll just continue to grow and grow and grow permanently. [snorts] Um, option two is the $3.5 million menu approach. U, again, modestly smaller, still significant on the permanent tax base and potentially divisive. Anytime you start breaking things, uh, breaking our departments down into questions and you're giving people an opportunity to choose one or another, it can potentially send the signal that people will value some departments more than others. Um, and that is not a a great place to be in if you're in a position like myself or the superintendent, much less the employees who work for the community. Um, so,

061but this does have a smaller increase on the average tax bill for a home valued at $650,000. So, it's about $500. Um, again, I think it's it's important to note just how divisive some of these can be, but I thought it was important to put this, you know, on the table for you to discuss if you'd like. Um, and I can let you know. So, school votes, you know, again, in that same analysis, they usually pass at 68%, public safety usually at 50%, general government at 38% as well. So um so that gives you some ideas of how they've resonated with other communities here throughout the state. And then option three is um actually the one I'm recommending um and I mentioned before I really struggled with this um and I'll explain why in a

062bit but the reason I'm putting it forward is that it is creative and it also provides the lowest long-term taxpayer payer burden. I thought it was the best balance that we could come up with in terms of of taxpayer impact with with funding needed services. Um, it takes a different structural approach to this by combining the smaller permanent override of 2.75 million and then moving $750,000 of authorized excluded debt that was authorized in 2021 that we're paying actually inside the levy actually moves it up and it gets paid as um as excluded debt. Actually gets treated as excluded debt. Now, I want to be clear, this does increase uh residents taxes uh by about $104. So, it would be a tax increase, but again, because that 750 is actually going in and stays static and

063then eventually drops off. It drops off after year 21, it results in long-term savings for the taxpayer. Now the flip side of that is that the deficit as I mentioned before is is a little bit larger but it's you know not that much. It's like 50 60,000. So it was a pretty decent balance uh when you look at those two things. Um and just this show this is just a graph showing the year one tax impact. So, for some reason, even though option three is the same amount as option two, it comes out when I did the calculator um on the Division of Local Services website, it actually comes out, the total comes out to 500, excuse me, $494 a year on the uh home valued at 650,000. Why it's not 500 the same? It's

064it's basically half a penny. I think it's the way things are treated or way way the decimal point is treated. U but anyway, it's slightly smaller in year one. But in year 10, it becomes uh you know, you start looking at it that way. Year 10 that 30 uh 30 something dollar savings actually grows to like a $100 um over time. And the cumulative savings over a 20 25 year period is around $5,000 I believe. So taxpayer savings. So it's pretty s significant. But I told you, you know, I had an issue with this or I was really struggling with whether to put it forward. And the reason why is that when we were going out and uh talking about doing a debt exclusion vote for the public safety building, we made this commitment that

065we would do this $750,000 within the levy. That was part of the commitment that we made. Um and so I've been really really struggling with this and and this is how I came to the conclusion that I did. So, the original vote, like I said, the voters approved a debt exclusion for the new public safety building. And we made this commitment to fund 750 through the existing levy. And then [snorts] how we did that is we made cuts in our departments in the municipal departments and $250,000 in capital to make that happen. So, you know, we did make the commitment um and met the intent. Um and that approach was responsible and appropriate at the time. It demonstrated good faith and accountability and we were trying to balance taxpayer burden with what we needed. But

066we got to revisit that approach because again the fiscal environment has changed. You know we've talked about the department we talked about basically the squeeze from the fixed costs. Um but then also the departmental cuts used to absorb that 750. They're now constraining the this the core services. Um, and so what began as belt tightening, now it's really starting to affect service quality. Um, and ultimately, you know what really the what got me to the point of presenting it to you as an option is, you know, the commitment we made and the reasoning behind the commitment we made uh in 2021 was because we were trying to provide taxpayer relief and again balance that with with necessary costs that the town needed to encourage. her to provide services. And so with option three, we're doing

067the same thing. We are providing long-term taxpayer relief and able and able to fund necessary services. So that was really kind of when I came upon that over the weekend, um that's what made me feel comfortable enough with putting it forward as an option. And again, I I feel pretty strongly about it now. Um, plus this is a lot more transparent way of doing it. You know, moving that 750 and showing that explicit cost as opposed to, you know, kind of shoving it in through departmental reductions. So, you know, you're at a decision point. Uh, and like I said at the beginning, I I I would expect a decision from this group as to which option you would like. It doesn't have to stay just like it I presented it tonight. you know, we can

068certainly make some tweaks, some of which I'll I'll go through. Um, but, um, I do think, like I said, option three is the best one because it maintains services. It limits the permanent increase to $2.75 million. Um, and it treats the $750,000 debt explicitly and fairly uh through that temporary exclusion. >> Yeah. So, I'm just curious why all of none of the options have a service level for schools. Um, and all of them have a pretty at some point significant three-year deficit. Why start at not the best option just because he thinks all it's tenable by the voters or it feels a little bit like we're setting ourselves up to be in a really similar position in three years which if this passes I don't see that passing. >> Yeah. >> It feels like a

069missed opportunity to me but I'm assuming there's thought process there. >> Yeah. Shantel if you wouldn't if you wouldn't mind letting me go through my last couple of slides and see if that answers your questions. And if they don't, we can certainly come back to them hopefully. Okay. Um, and that next slide is the deficit reduction strategy because as I mentioned, it does uh it does leave us with the deficit. Uh, when you look at that uh when you look at 28 and 29 um and again, if you extrapolate it out into future years, there's going to be a deficit. But just looking at this three-year period, [snorts] um what I'm suggesting that we do is we temporarily amend the free cash policy where the first 500,000 of 220 two uh 2027 free cash and

0701 million of 2028 free cash goes to reduce the deficit. Now, that's going to impact what we put towards OPED and capital projects, but it at least takes care of that deficit. So this remainder will need to be addressed uh like about you know half a million will need to be addressed as more data becomes available. I don't know what the state revenue picture is going to look like. I doubt it's going to be a lot more. It could be a lot less you know looking at what they're facing. But we also could potentially have significant new growth numbers. Now I've got new growth factored in there at a higher clip than what I have recently. And it is a little bit conservative because just because something is permitted, unfortunately, we found out the hard

071way, it doesn't necessarily mean it's built, but um but I this gives us a little bit of a of a buffer while we get more fidelity into that future data uh to see what that looks like. Um [snorts] I realize this doesn't this doesn't answer your question why you know not funding it to the um Ashland Ashland service level budget. And so that's why I put together this last slide. So um this this these are options that you could tack on to any of the options. These are additional options that you could tack on to any of the override options. So, you've got three additional revenue tools that you can play with here. So, up to 300,000 from the special education stabilization account. Um, that would be reserved for special education out of district tuition.

072So, you can increase the school appropriation by that much. Um, I think we could bump up our local receipts by about $200,000. uh that would mean less in free cash at the end of the year, but I feel like we could do it without putting us in a in a further bigger deficit situation. And then, you know, it's not my first choice, but you know, if you want to use up to 500,000 uh from the stabilization fund um to increase, you know, do some of the things that are on the right side like increase the school appropriation or increase the 41c and a half exemption. you could do that as well. So, you know, potentially you could add on to the school number by, you know, another million dollars if you wanted to, if you

073wanted to use all the tools in the left column and just apply it to increase the school appropriation that's on the right column. Again, the other option you have there on the potential expenditure changes is increase the 41C and a half exemption. So, that's the exemption for elderly um low-income elderly folks who own their homes. um increase that by the largest allowable increase um up to a maximum of $500. So, you know, you got a couple options to play with. That would be about a hundred 15 I'd say $100,000 of um to to do that increase. So, um sorry I don't have a nice fancy concluding slide for you, but uh thanks for your patience and your uh attention. So yeah, let's uh let's let's go. >> I always forget. I'm so sorry. Uh so

074a question I have I know you said the difference between option one and option three there's uh 39 bucks, right? Uh that'll compound. Um but in option three, we've got the um 750 that we could take as a debt exclusion and that's not going to be added to the levy. So, just to be clear, you know, that wouldn't that would not inflate, you know, um 10 years from now that might buy half as many goods and services. So, I I'm sure you thought about this uh and I'm sure that some of that went into the consideration for other deficits, but I mean longer term, what are your thoughts there? How do we, you know, do you have any and again, I'm not going to ask you to think 15 years ahead. I don't think that's

075fair, but um just, you know, in the foreseeable future, what if any concerns do you have about that, you know, and how does that um shape the decision here? >> Yeah, I mean, I think John, that's a good question. Um it's you're absolutely right. And just to explain a little bit more what John was saying, that 750,000 since that is not compounding and that stays static, you know, what it in what it essentially buys you each year further out from today is going to be less and less. Absolutely true. Um and John, I think, you know, to completely course correct is going to be, you know, the path that Ashland has been down for decades. You know, to do a complete 180 in one year is like turning the the Titanic around. That's a really

076tight ship. Uh tight tight turn to make with a big ship. Um, I I feel like this part is what we need right now and gives us some time to again get some more information in terms of what things look like at the state and federal level. It starts also to let us see what happens here in terms of new growth. Lets that picture blossom a little bit. Um, and then we'll have to make some more decisions in the future depending on what that data reveals. I mean, if I if we wanted to, like I said, do do a 180. I mean, we're talking huge numbers, >> I think. And no, I hear you. I'm I I know 180 would be much bigger numbers and I and I'm not looking to understand that but I

077I guess also just between option >> say a little bit more about option one versus three and why you're that's your recommendation I guess like what what is the most kind of compelling reason from your perspective knowing everything you know about the day-to-day operations what we're facing what else could you share about that >> very simply John I can just say option three I feel balances provides the best balance of taxpayer impact limiting taxpayer impact with getting us the necessary getting us closer to the revenue necessary revenue we need to move the community forward or at least maintain the gains that we've made over the last 10 years. Um without getting into or sort of focusing necessarily on the the numbers um with this question, I'm curious about the ability or the flexibility we have

078in terms of constructing options for voters and and again I realize you get really complicated with this and that may not be good but you know is there is there a way to frame questions to the community that might be take option one take option two or take option three even understanding that within option two there are venues that are sort of sub votes. Um, and again, I'm not I'm just trying to understand what what choices there are as we look for a solution if we're going to propose anything an override. You know, could somebody say, well, you could have option one, which is 3.75, or some number, or option two, where you can choose and or or do we have to kind of frame it one way or the other and then go from

079there? >> You follow you follow what I'm looking at, Mike? Yeah, you could do I mean I think you could do a you could option two would have to stand alone even as four separate questions, right? Option two would have to stand alone like that. You could put option one and option three together on the ballot, but that becomes a tiered approach. So one would be at 2.75 million, one would be at 3.75 million. that becomes very very confusing uh for voters because in fact I still have trouble trying to remember like do you have to pass the the lower one first before the the the one that's more expensive gets activated if you will or becomes eligible. I I'll have to check into that. Marcy. >> Um, so more an observation, but maybe to

080help with uh the the argument for increasing revenue to match expense. You know, I think there's a two risks that we would be limiting if we do match our revenue with our expense from a recurring basis. One is that it concerns me that we don't have a plan for capital and deferred maintenance. And looking at the school schools alone, there's $12 million. And it's not 12 million of like I want a beautiful new like stadium somewhere. It's like I need a roof on the pitaway school and a roof on the high school. And so if we are able to match our recurring revenue and expense to have a level service that helps us have one-time potential funding to use toward that deferred maintenance that we'd need. The other reason that I think it's important to

081have, you know, these one-time funds is because we don't know, like we have $5 million of the school budget that's covered in grants. And that's like a real reality that we're all facing. We've all faced historically. And I know I sleep better at night knowing there's a savings account set aside. And we're we're not talking about increasing. We're talking about, you know, the service level. So those are two, I think, compelling risks that we're faced with as a community. And that's just the school side. I'm sure there are many on the general government side as well. So I just wanted to point that out. >> Yeah, Marcy, I I can't underscore that point more either. You know, it's this this does not solve all of Ashland's problems. Ashland has taken decades to get into a

082hole. It's going to take more than one vote in one year to to get it out. Um but we we can start we can start that process today. we can start the process of turning things around actually not just for this this us but actually you know as I'm thinking about it like you know this could be an opportunity to really course correct for future generations as well I mean what we're here not because of a math issue we're here because of a culture issue. Folks, let's be honest, and I'm I'm, you know, I don't say that derogatorily. I I don't mean it that way again because I think I think Ashlin residents are smart. They're consumers savvy. Ken and I had this conversation a little bit. You know, they they they understand value. They

083they they looked at the scores. They looked at the school scores and they looked at at at what we pay in taxes here and what the values are of the homes. They did that they did that analysis and this, you know, this continues that savviness, but at the same time recognizes, hey, again, we we can't keep doing what we've been doing. We can't just keep duct tape and spit and just hobling along. It's just not working. Quick question. We haven't really talked about option two too much, but how does that work? If it's a menu, you either vote yes for two and then all of those things happen or you voting individually for the things >> individual ones. >> So something within that people could vote for the school but not for the general government.

084>> Okay. >> And that's what makes it divisive. >> Yeah. Just the thought that I had about that is, you know, I'm wondering if the option that makes the most financial sense is not necessarily the option that's most likely to pass with the voters in this town and we're talking about values. And I think and and I'll be honest, I've been sitting here for 15 years, so I'm not like that stupid, but I have a hard time understanding what some of that stuff even means. You know, I understand the final amount that it's going to cost me and I'm happy to pay it, but I don't necessarily understand that's this is me being part of this process, understanding the difference between these things. an option two, which we all have maybe some level of discomfort

085with because we're all here and we're all in it together and we've been working so great together and we want to continue that. But I think a person just hypothetically a person coming to vote might want the opportunity to exercise, you know, what they value at at the voting booth and pick I want this but I don't want that. And it's also something easier to understand. And having something pass is better than having nothing pass. So I just wanted to, you know, what when I'm thinking of the people that I know they're that are going to be voting, including myself, you know, being able to walk in and understand what I'm voting for and why and and having an opportunity to say this is the thing that's the most important to me. And I I

086think like we have to p well obviously we're going to decide tonight what direction we're taking but whatever direction we do take the next huge hurdle is you know getting it to pass you >> I you know it's a it's a it's a perspective um and it's certainly a valid one I think um I think I think everybody at this table would have to could could look at it that way. And then I think knowing most of you the way I do, I I think you would need to feel comfortable that the person the voter making those decisions had all the accurate information before going in and making those choices and that it actually was based on values and real decision and not not maybe, you know, something else, you know. So, but it's a

087completely valid perspective. Absolutely. >> And it comes in part just from the history too of like being in the homes back in the day like you know trying to offer the education and the explanations for why we're asking and it it didn't work and and and and again it's different times maybe even more challenging times um with what's going on in the world and and economically but it's it's also we're we're at a crisis point. So, if we can communicate that effectively and effectively communicate why we're recommending what we're recommending, then I think that takes some of that away. >> But, um, that's the only thing I wanted to say about option two. If we're talking about values, that's really the only one that gives people a chance to comment with their vote. >> Yeah.

088Um along those same lines just with regard to the choices. So um uh you know for any citizens listening and for people here in the room I I want I think it should be clear clearly said here and it's been kind of hinted at but you know overrides are are not a sign of mismanagement. Okay. We're we're dealing with a structural issue. Inflation's gone up way more than our levy. That's it. You know and we've done our best. We're recognizing an issue and we're we're dealing with it. Um, overrides are are an inherent requirement of Proposition 2 and a half when the time comes. That's what this is. So, one of my concerns about option two is that, you know, somebody goes in there and they have a menu. Oh, schools, of course. Schools, the

089kids, oh, you know, police and fire, of course. Public safety. Oh, the town mismanagement. No, you know, where that's not the case here. and and I I don't want anything to um with regard to funding our needs be punitive because you know certain people think that you know what's gone on here recently is is mismanagement when it's actually a miracle um that we've made it this far on what we we've had. So um just just a thought there. It's not you know an override is an inherent part of what it means to have the Proposition 2 and a half law. Thank you. And and actually I was just thinking of something a little bit um that that came to mind. I actually thought of earlier but I didn't think of it right Lori when you

090were talking about but so one thing is that a lot of people don't understand um and I think even a lot of people at the table maybe even some people in the audience here. So you need to have the support functions here in town hall to be able to accomplish what you need to do at the department level. Um, and so if we're not able to do that, it doesn't matter how much more we increase the appropriations in other departments. We're not really going to be able to, you know, keep up, I guess you could say. Um, we already have challenges with that right now. Um, so, you know, I think that's that's that's another thing that you you have to, you know, keep in mind when you're thinking about these things. >> Yeah. And

091I'd just like to echo some of your sentiments around this is I I think Proposition 2 and a half forces the conversation with the community and choice within the community. It's it's needed and I agree and I' I've said it to Michael, texted it to Jim, I think as early as today. Um the fact that we've made the progress uh we have uh without passing an override is a miracle. It it is something to be proud of. Right. Um the fact a lot of people complain about the development that's going on in the buildings. They don't build buildings just because there's an empty lot somewhere. You build buildings, you build these developments and these apartments in areas that people want to live. You can that's profitable. Uh there's plenty of other communities that have open

092spaces, but we're we've been able to be someplace that people want to be, right? Um and so we should be proud of that. Um, as it relates to the options, um, I'm very proud of what we did with our two debt exclusions, right? We did that together. We passed them. I think they were within five votes of each other, >> right? Um, we did it at 88%. I mean, that's just unheard of, right? And so option two, I the thing that I that I I that scares me is we lose that we're together. It's it's us. Um and to me, I'd rather sink or swim together than like you you you've done the research. Schools pass at 60 some odd percent and general government passes at 38%. I don't want that, right? Um, I want

093to be able to communicate something of value to the community, right? And I think we can, uh, you know, if you look at the investment, um, you look at it, it was very ironic that after our last meeting, there was a Metro West news article about, uh, the increase in in in single family home values in the region, and we were nearly double the second town, right? um that's not an investment in an override of $500 or whatever it is on the particular is an investment in that, right? Uh so it but I'm really just about the options. My concern and I I totally hear the the options and you're giving people a voice, right? Um, but I'm I'm scared of the the divisiveness because I'm I'm very proud of what we did with those

094other things, right? We did it together and and I want to do this together. So, I wouldn't be in favor of that, but that's but that's the reason. I understand the value of of of wanting to give that, but that's my apprehension there. I don't want the schools to pass and the other ones don't. I I agree with I agree with Paul. Like I I think that I think it's going to be a challenge to articulate what we're trying to do in general. But if we have if if if it becomes a a menudriven, you know, us versus them, I think it's going to cause some issues. um we're already going to be challenged to to get this over the the goal line. Um I did want to ask I know that you were looking

095at like when we were talking about option three specifically and the um you know at the that there's still going to be um a gap that we're going to have to manage at some point >> and you know I know we'll probably get some some new figures with the growth and and things like that but what from a confidence level what how do you feel from a probability perspective that we are because I because you know I think the last time we met I you know I said you know like let's look we have to look at this from a three-year perspective like we can't we can't be back here in another year saying oh well we we we sorry we just you know we we lowballed it and tried to be good but now

096we're going to go through it all again. Um, so like you know my concern is is are we are we planning appropriately for the next three years in a way that is best for the community to to handle some of the the maintenance and the capital issues that we have. And you know, because because it it is we're going to have to we're going to have to, you know, I when we when we sat for that first tri board meeting and we were talking about the $12 million in in in deferred maintenance and things just on the school side, not to mention like all the people that have come out for this comprehensive plan that want sidewalks >> and like, you know, this is the thing. It's like, you know, we're not going to have

097that that money to be able to invest in our community. So, I guess two questions. One, what's the probability that we're going to be good for the next three years? And the second, are we are we lowballing it to the detriment of of the community? >> Yeah. Um, so Brandy, to answer your first one, I would not be doing this job if I could answer that first question. I would be in the financial markets and making billions. Uh but I feel again I you know it right now it's about it's about balance I think and um you know not I I don't want to say we're we're hitting singles here as opposed to home runs. You know I think it's a little bit more than that. But again this doesn't fix all of Ashley's woes.

098My advice would be to think of the capital issues as separate from your operating issues because capital you know just like we've experienced if you have the right support on the operational side meaning you have the people to support it you can get the grants you can get the funding and everything to do a lot of the capital work you know I do think there'll have to be some you know taxpayer supported issues but you know if they're rather large issues we could do those as is a dead exclusion. And we know the history of those in Ashland. Again, Ashland smart consumers. They like things they can touch and feel. They they they have demonstrated they don't necessarily have a problem voting for that as long as it's tangible. Um so my suggestion would be

099let's get the operating things done first because quite frankly, unless we get that in place, we're not going to be able to do any more capital. I mean, we've got a ton of a ton of um well, I shouldn't say a ton anymore, but you know, we've got a significant amount of funding of one-time funding for capital projects that we can't execute because we don't have the people. So, let's get let's rightsize the organization first or or keep keep our gains um and then and then start addressing some of the capital issues. Um just one other thing just to clarify for anybody that might be watching where we talk about growth and new growth numbers. Um yet it's a line item on our budget. It's not the town is is looking for growth. It's a

100very different thing. It it's when um when people put additions onto their home, it's new growth. when um a subdevelopment goes online, it's new growth. Um and then of course when when larger apartment complexes start paying taxes, that's new growth. So um and we've relied on new growth for many years, you know, as part of because that does get added to the tax levy. So that goes on top of the 2 and a half%. So um you know we can anticipate certain amounts and I was looking at your numbers and your the the new growth numbers and it is pretty conservative I think because um but what the the lag what what's the time lag between say like the Asher that was just um has occupancy um to when it hits our new growth numbers

101like what's that lag time look like? >> Yeah. And I'm gonna I'm gonna look at Don to to make sure that I'm getting this correct. But Don, I think before we had to wait until the end of the year before we could add on new growth from the previous year, but with the recent vote taken at town meeting, we can kind of add it as it goes on more more in line in in true timeline fashion. >> June 30. June 30. >> Okay. So, yeah. So now we can add it all the way up to June 30th. >> So So Michael, you're probably going to roll your eyes at me. Um, >> never, Paul. But never, >> but and and I'm curious to to listen to other people's thoughts on it, but what I'm hearing

102is something that would probably need to combine all these options together, right? and say, "Let's go for a little bit bigger number that meets our needs, but tell them how we're going to spend it, like the menu, right?" Um, that would meet the needs. So, it's not just because we we went to uh, you know, a single number with the 7030 split. And then we went to a menu, and then we went to, okay, we're going to pull all our levers, right? One of our one of our things is a 750. And perhaps another option is to do a, you know, the 3.75 or a 35, but say we're splitting it up this way. We're going to meet the needs here, here, and here. Assure that we're going to do that. And then potent potentially

103keep the the 750 lever in our back pocket because part of my concern is the unknowns of those things. And when you play all your cards and you reach back and you're like, I I got nothing else to play. Right? That's if if that's another thing we can keep and say, now we go to the voters at town meeting as as a way to uh ask for shifting of that 750 should we need it in year four or year seven or or whatever the case is. And so perhaps and and like I said, I' I'd defer to after we hear more people, but I'm hearing more that that might be a direction is to try to try to merge some of these things and and come up with a the right one number and then

104say how we're going to allocate that so we can have explicit messaging. Um and then you know my recommendation would be to have something hold hold something back, right? if we if we put if we if we move all our levers, we we don't have anything for years, whatever in the future. Um, and it and it lets you keep keep your promise on the 750 for a little while longer. >> Yeah. I think I think what you're talking about though, Paul, and where where I get would get concerned is that at the end of the day, it's still going to be a general operating budget override question. And this is how all communities put forward their general operating budget overrides. you know, they break it down in the material, but on the ballot question, it's

105that one question. And just, you know, seeing how those usually fare, um, you know, uh, I get concerned. I get concerned. So, yeah. So, I'll just put my two cents on the table, sort of how I'm thinking about this. Um, I'm not sure I'm a big fan of option three. Um, for two reasons. one, it feels complicated um for people to understand what what we're doing and why it has value. Um actually probably three reasons. Second, I think if I understand it right, one of the net impacts of that is you are basically taking $750,000 out of our levy and putting it into excluded debt. And then the long term where we're going to be is 750 less on our our tax base um when that rolls off, right? it it works in the short

106term, but whenever that debt is done, you don't have access to that in your operating budget anymore. And so that feels like it's going to set us backwards. Um, and as I'm saying that out loud, I forgot my third point. Um, as to the other two options, you know, I I do feel like I'm a little bit between where Brandy Paul and Lori have articulated their views. I want to make sure that we're not asking more than we need to ask for. Um, I want to make sure we're not asking less than that. Um, I struggle with the the menu approach versus the broad one for exactly the reasons my colleagues have shared. As I'm sitting next to Lori, I'm thinking we've sat next to each other for 11 years and we start a share

107brain because there's a part of me that feels strongly that we all can have opinions in this room that are influencing ultimately what I think the board would put as a question before um before the voters, but we're a small group of people in this community, right? and it's up to the community to decide what's important to them. I will say on camera or whatever we're on now that I'll support whatever we vote for as a group um and whatever is put before and and I agree with Paul's concerns about as yours as well as yours, Michael, about divisiveness. I certainly felt that when we first moved into town the year we were trying to override that have failed and um you know it was divisive. It felt like the community was was shortened. My

108kids, they weren't even born yet, you know. Um, and that was a hard feeling to overcome um just as a one individual. So, I'm very much wary of that. That's why I say, you know, this is not me sitting here as a school committee member say I want to support the schools and be able to vote for that to the exclusion of police, fire. I'm going to support all of them if we go that approach. But I do think it's fair to say to the community, it's your community. um and it's your values and this is one opportunity that that the people who um participate in the process do get to say what's important to them um and sometimes we all as elected and appointed leaders have to hear that um and adapt to that.

109So right now I'm I'm you know certainly between options one and two personally um but I think there's some things that we really have to think about number two in terms of the choices we're giving our community members to to voice their opinion. Yeah. Could I could I ask just a clarifying question? What makes you think option three is complicated? Because it's literally you're now talking like one override question for 2.75 million. >> Well, I think if if if all you're putting before the community is is that >> Yeah, >> that's fine. It's the fact that if you're moving something to the excluded data, I'm assuming there's a vote that would have to be like any other exclusion. you just do it >> there because it was part part of the the >> and [clears

110throat] then I'll retract that concern. Yeah, I mean I'm still concerned about the fact that I think we have the long-term impact of reducing our operational budget and that that concerns me. >> I do realize that's a 20 to 45 concern. Yeah, >> you know, I think if there's going to be an even if we don't need a vote, but there's going to be an explanation about it, >> then that's kind of confuses the matter a little bit. It really does. I mean, I >> I think you try to keep things as simple as possible. You talk about inflation and and that's something everybody understands what's gone on with inflation, right? and and why 2 and a half%, you know, was never intended to be enough to run a a community year after year after

111year without overrides. So, um I I do think you need to keep it simple, even if you don't need to have a vote. And and I'm not sure that it buys you enough to to to complicate things. >> Um you know, it's either 33 or $39, I think, um on that >> in the first year. >> Yeah. So, so that that's just my feeling in terms of um you know whether we do a menu or we do it, you know, we are a community and there are people in our community and they're at all different places. Um and we can certainly make an argument for how expensive it is for a family to live in this community if they have kids in school and they're paying for the bus and they're paying the the fees

112for the um sports and they have more trash than I have in my house. So um and then you know we have people who are on fixed incomes and who um aren't getting any raise every single year or getting very a minimal one. Um you know we we're this country was built on you know taking care of each other. Um so I I do think that that is the more responsible way and and certainly in keeping with with my values. Um, you know, so I just think we we would need to to do it as a one I one vote for the entire amount. Um, >> even even knowing kind of the odds. >> Yeah. You know, sometimes, you know, Mike, you've seen me now. Sometimes I do things because I think it's the right

113thing to do um no matter what. So, you know, that's just what what I I think. Um, >> okay. that sometimes you got to do it because it's right. Um, and then this is kind of, you know, and sometimes I ask kind of crazy questions too. Uh, but but before I do ask my crazy question, people come less become less interested in what I might say. You know, I want I was talking to Chief Roby briefly at the beginning or before the meeting and uh, you know, one of the things he pointed out to me and these are the stories that we sometimes don't think about. It's not as simple as well 2 and a half% doesn't keep up with inflation. But here's a story about um you know med medical needs and people don't

114want to go to Framingham anymore. If you call the ambulance you you're asking can you take me to Welsie? Can you take me to Milford? Great. We can do that but this ambulance is going to be out of service now for a lot longer than if we were going down to Framingham. So these are all pieces of it sometimes that that are a little bit more subtle that we don't realize. And that was just an interesting conversation that we had. Now for my crazy question, I is there ever such a thing where you would have a vote this year that would have, you know, an override amount and that would kick in this year and then without another vote, another one would kick in next year that maybe something increase on top of that. >>

115Um, yeah, that gets really complicated. What you do is you'd have to do an override vote for a higher amount with the understanding that you would only increase the levy like the first year by, you know, a certain percentage. >> All right. Well, that sounds like a terrible idea. Thank you. >> And I know I noticed Yolanda has >> Yeah. Is there is there a way to let her speak? Okay. >> Yeah. And my Thank you all. Uh, I apologize for not being there, but um, as you can tell, I'm I'm not 100% and I didn't want to share. Um, so a couple things. Um, and I tried turning my camera back on after I lost my internet, but that's okay. Um, a couple things I would go, uh, you know, I appreciate what Paul

116said about we're all in this together, and I would say the same. You know, we've worked very hard to make sure that the three boards work as closely as possible. We've had lots of conversations, some of them difficult. Um, so for me, option two is not really an option. I think um, you know, we're all in this together or not. And a couple other things, you know, we made decisions years ago that sort of brought us to this point, right? Over the couple over the last five years, we've made decisions on how to use one-time funds and how to fill our budget gap and and that's what's brought us here. The other thing I just want people to remember is that the state and different people are looking at what else we can do potentially

117to get something from the state. Right? So we know that if we go for this override, if it passes, we know we might still have some deficits moving years out. There's conversation that is also happening at the state level as to what else we can get from the state because in reality the state has not been giving towns and cities their fair share of the revenue that the town has received. If you look at what was being done 10 years ago and the percentage of their revenues that they gave to cities and towns, it's a lot less these days. So other work that needs to be done, whatever we decide here tonight is we need to make sure that the state start g starts giving us more of the money we deserve. And I'm not

118just talking about chapter 90, I mean chapter 70 for school cho for schools. It's circuit breaker and the fact that their funds don't kick into us until we've spent $40,000 per student and then it's questionable if we get 35% or 75% of those funds after the 40,000 that we spend. Um, the other thing I would like to say is we have a lot of people sitting here on this meeting and I don't know if it's been planned, but is there are we expecting to allow the community to give us their thoughts tonight? And that's all I have. Thank you. Yeah, I mean I I I think that would be obviously up to the chairs, Yolanda, but I think I think tonight was really more to present information and let the boards have a discussion and

119then um you know, obviously I I think this will generate a lot of conversation and there'll be plenty of opportunities, but uh it's not my my decision. >> I'm wondering if I can just kind of people have said what they're interested in. I really think we should listen to what has the highest chance of passing having said which I think I'm hearing is schools under number two. >> Option three. Okay. Sorry. Definitely was paying attention. Um but I think it actually has the perception of being confusing. Even if it's actually not confusing, the fact that you have to explain it at all. I think this is a tough topic anyway to kind of get people to latch on to. And I personally think um I would vote for one and I think you can probably

120hear that I think even one I'm concerned that's not high enough and I know I come from a different perspective than maybe a lot of other people but um can you tell me again then what's the difference of three likelihood of three versus two? Well, um, and it I'd like to reserve a little time to ask a question of you all after this, but um, so option one, so any anytime you do like a general government or general operating budget override vote, which is what option one is, uh, 36% pass. Um whereas option three essentially um essentially it becomes a a vote for a school an operating override for the school actually. Um I'm wondering if that's maybe some of the concern that I'm hearing, you know, it becomes a vote for for the schools

121and so that actually has the highest chance of passing at 68. But I and this leads to my question. So because it does it it actually option three would mean that you know on the municipal side those things get funded without necessarily having a vote and then you have a vote for the schools. Now on one hand that makes it incredibly simple. On the other hand I'm wondering if some of you feel like that's fair and if that might be kind of creeping into some of your thoughts. What do you mean by fair? >> Well, because I mean essentially you're having a vote the the there's one vote and it's essent like the the public safety gets funded. >> Um, you know, general government gets funded without a vote and then, you know, we do

122we would need to have an override vote for the school increase. >> Yeah. I mean, maybe I'll try to say it more. You're trying to be politically correct. I I think it's saying the school is the problem, right? Is is is that kind of the thing is like, hey, it's it's the school. It's pointing at the school. >> Oh gosh. >> And and is that it or is that >> that I really hope that that's how that came across? Um >> saying the money is going to be for the school, but in actuality it's going towards the the whole levy. Maybe none of us understand is going to >> Yeah, but there's only one there's only one vote that happens for But you're saying it's advertised as for the schools, but really it's going to

123the base and it can be used for whatever >> the tax there's going to be a tax increase that >> tax. So it's a little murky. >> It's not as straightforward and transparent, which is what you think number three is doing. >> Well, I I think I'm really trying to explain some of the minutia. >> Yeah. >> I I So obviously I I mean I would think you would think that I would probably pressure test this with residents out in the community. Um, and it was pretty interesting when I first tried to explain it. Um, it was it was Huh. Um, a as as those conversations involved and that message got refined. I felt like it, you know, when I would try a refined message with with newer people, it seemed to resonate pretty they

124seem to understand it pretty clearly. I thought I had done a pretty good job here, but apparently um I did not. >> It's not you. It's just there's a lot of information and so >> I think I think we were confused about your concern question, not not trying to understand what you were trying to get at with that. >> Yeah. Yeah. I I don't I Yeah, just I just want to >> and I'd just like to really quickly just echo to be clear. I want to say just exactly what Mark said. Whatever we decide, I'm going to be a staunch advocate for. So, if we choose and I I completely see the value of because we have a lot of residents, say, I want a choice, right? And if we choose a menu, I'm going

125to take it as a challenge to make sure every I'm going to say let's let's, you know, the same way I'm proud we did 88%. That's like unheard of, right? I want to be unheard of and say, hey, we passed all four of these, right? So to to echo what he said, whatever we choose as a group, I'm going to I'm going to support. As much as I concerned about the the divisiveness, I also understand your thing saying, "Hey, um you're concerned about a general override passing." >> Yeah. >> And I hear you. >> Let's give the residents choice. And if we combine those, that's I guess that's option two. And I would support it. Um, but I I think we take the same approach we took with our building projects is that's the it's

126a message together, right? >> Yeah. I I was so proud of that. Joe will tell you I I was a little emotional afterwards. not for a number of reasons, but um the fact that we did it together uh in a community that has historically had such a divide was a real proud moment for me and and I I think for everybody. It should have been a proud moment for everybody. I will and I just want to echo what everybody else says. Obviously, whatever you decide, we'll support it 100% and we'll work just as hard um for anything. So, So just kind of in terms of the confusion of option number three. So this is kind of what's going through my head is is and and it's been already stated that the long-term impact of of

127how this rolls out in in the long-term impact on the budget. So you know my understanding is that the you know that the the school the goal would be for the school to keep the revenue from that increase when it's implemented. Right? What I don't understand is in future years, how how does that does that increase? Is there a way to to keep it for the schools? Does it just go to the general budget and then it's kind of split the 7030 the way that we always do? So that's one question. The second question is that 750 goes to, you know, the town's general operating, but then it's gone pretty quickly. So then then what happens? like I I worry that it's once that 750 is is spent to kind of bridge the gap a

128little bit. Uh that we don't have the same levy to work with to continue to to keep that. And and we're only going to get so many bites at this apple. We can't come back in two years and say, "Okay, now we need more. Now we need more." So, I I I just want to make sure that we're looking kind of comprehensively enough um at what's going to give us um yes, the increase that we need, but also the stability even if it's just for three to five years, right? To know that we're moving in the right direction um versus having to continue because I I feel like the option three will put us in a position where we're continuing to patch things together the way that we have been and it's not going to

129change as much. >> But I don't understand the numbers. Numbers is not my thing. So that's why I'm throwing that out there. >> And Michael, if I may, just to be clear, the 750 is isn't going away. So the it'll it'll fall off the taxes, but right now they're paying $750 of debt within the levy. All they're doing is shifting that outside the levy. now taking that 750 and it's so right now if you think about it since we did it that 2.5% increase has been continued to go towards the departmental budgets. Now you're just bringing back the 750 and it'll be always be there forever in the department budget. The debt exclusion falls off but the but that 750 stays. We don't lose that 750 ever, >> right? But it changes the revenue moving

130forward longer, right? Because the levy won't have the same 20 years. That's the biggest concern because we I mean we're not a money-m organization, right? Like we make that's how we and so if we're we're changing the base of of how we generate revenue at some point it's it's it's I feel like it's going to break sooner if that makes sense. >> Yeah. It's it's not consequential enough for that Tina. It's not substantive enough for that. Um so it'll fall off but it falls off in like 21 years. So yeah, it's temporary, but it's it it it is long term. If we have not figured out a better solution than this in 20 years, um we've got bigger issues, right? And so it's not enough to where it's going to be significantly consequential. I think

131the the two-year deficit, if you look at 28 and 29 between um so the two-year deficit is $100,000 higher with option three than with option one. So, it's not I mean, we can address that pretty pretty easily. I mean, if it was 500,000 or something like that, that would be that would I I would certainly be like, "Oh, okay. I probably wouldn't have put it forward at that point in time." >> Michael, I want to come back to the the question you posed to us. Um, and I hadn't I really hadn't processed that at all. So, I appreciate you asking the question, but I will say that I think >> um >> there may be a missed opportunity um if other departments within the town other than school department aren't a part of it. And

132I what I have recognized, you know, I do a lot of work with municipalities and school districts around the Commonwealth and and just have the opportunity to talk to people as they go through these things on their own. And one of the practicalities is we have a lot of folks who work for the town that live in the town. And I think the more departments that sort of have a little bit of skin in the game, the more people are going to get activated in support. So if I we had a group of firefighters here earlier, have a few people from the police department and or chiefs and others and and in order to get enough support for this, sometimes you need the folks that that are sitting there who have friends in town who

133are talking about these things. You need more vocal advocates and if if their departments are not potentially impacted, um there's no no motivation to do that. They might individually feel strongly one way or the other and be involved. But um I think from a strategic perspective, there may be value in in recognizing that. I certainly wouldn't to be clear, I would certainly would not suggest this approach if it were not necessary, right? >> Um that's not the point. But when you're thinking about these different options, >> um this is an all hands on deck, right? I mean, everybody in this room, I think, knows that we need to be able to get that out to the community so people are showing up to vote. >> And and actually, you know what? I could answer that,

134but you know what? I really do feel like I think our chiefs could come up here and say, talk about the importance of our relationship with the schools and how committed they would be towards that. Would would you mind? I hate to put you two on the spot, but you hear that groan from Keith, but I think they can speak a lot more heartfelt, I think, than I can about their commitment. >> Personally, I think listening to tonight, I think, too, is very concerning to us. I see it easily pushing the departments apart. I mean, alone, the police and fire could push each other apart. I mean, how many people? No, but Oh, how many people you getting? Well, I'm not getting that many people. I'm not going to support it. Why should you get

135that amount of people and things like that? So, I see a big concern, especially within our own, not even talking about the schools, just against each other. Having come from another municipality for the majority of my career, almost three decades, I can say that in this town, the way that all departments work together cohesively is not the norm. I don't want to see that affected at all. Um, I know that with Jim and Mike saying, you know, we need a little more support for SRO's. I know you don't have the personnel. We figured out a way to get a part-time with a um transfer lateral transfer officer who was already certified. He works a split shift. So, his two days that he's days, he's going to be spending as much time as possible in the

136schools. That type of working together. Um I I just I fear the number two with um even my personnel. you know, if they see schools are being funded then and we're not, that it might create bad feelings and I don't want to see that. >> Just want to say, you know, thank you to both of you. I know and we hear from Jim all the time what a great partnership that is. Um, and to be clear, my, you know, my point is really about engaging everybody in both your departments as well as ours and and every department in the town in this effort, right? And that's what it is. But I I really do appreciate your input. Thank you. you'll have 100% of our support if if it is option three. Um, one the the

137basis of our good relationship which you hear people talk about and I tell you as much as it's talked about here, it's talked about a lot more in other communities. The basis of that is an understanding that for the town to be successful, the schools need to be successful. And the schools understand that for the school department to be successful, the town needs to be successful. That's been the basis of everything that we've built here. Um it it's powerful. It's what's one of the things that's kept me here in this community is um the team. >> Yeah. And I I'll say, Michael, I think I don't want to speak for everybody, but I'm going to take the risk of doing it, >> which is it's something we talk about too a lot. And when we're

138down at the MASC conference, um which was just, you know, a few weeks ago, but we've all been for years and years and years, we have conversations with school committee members from all over. And we know that what we have here is unique. >> Yeah. >> Um, you know, it is it feels a little bit like >> like, oh no, we actually work well with our town manager and with their our board of select and finance committee and we're all going the same direction. They're like they're looking at us like we're crazy. >> Um, and we try to tell them it's actually you guys. Um, so it's it is not lost, I think, on anybody here. And >> if you guys want to raise your hand and say you disagree, go ahead. But I'm pretty

139sure I'm speaking for the team on this one. >> [laughter] >> Um and so it is and and it's I think a primary importance you know to maintain that um however we move forward you know it's a balance between [clears throat] that and again the people in the room who are responsible making it all happen and then what is [clears throat] our community going to look at and what how they're going to feel about it. So I and I don't know the right answer. Just >> I Mark I don't know if there is a right answer to be very honest with you because there are so many different uh scenarios that could be brought up by every and all individual that resides in town uh for the love that they have for the schools or

140for for town government or police or fire whatever it is 12 years ago we wouldn't be in this room sitting around this table having this discussion. Lori knows we we it was us versus them and it was, you know, David versus Goliath and we weren't getting along. But over these past 12 years, I have seen a cohesiveness that undoubtedly has made this town a better place to live, grow, and work. And I hate like heck to see that get just tossed away because we're, you know, we're not pinching pennies here. We're trying to we're trying to stay afloat. Jeff, Paul's comments, all your comments were were spot on with respect to maintaining a level of service. Mike and I had that conversation about option three. And I have [clears throat] to be very honest with

141you, I was a little skeptic at first, but the more I thought about it, I said, "Okay, it's it's a bit of pill to swallow, but it's a pill that can be swallowed without without gagging on it. I think option number one, it's it's one vote. You know what's going to happen to that? We've had a history of non-compliance with voting an override in this town. And I see that happening with all the work that we're going to put into this. If you take option one, I I I just fear that it's going to fail because of the history of this town. And it's not has nothing to do with the fact that we didn't do our work or try to damn this, but there are people out there that just override. No, not going

142to happen. Um, the menu would destroy this town. I That's my That's my thought. Um I I've lived through it and it's it's not an easy it's not easy. It really isn't an easy thing to follow through. Uh Yolanda's been on the board quite a long time, too. She's seen a lot of things that have gone on. Um, I just I just worry about the fact that I don't want to see us lose this closeness that we have and because it makes it a lot easier to work work with people. You know, there's there's one department that we haven't talked about at all and that's the DPW. I see Doug Small's name up here, but you know, the DPW, right? And it's it's a forgotten department only when you need them this season, the winter

143season. Oh, we need you our roads plowed this and that and everything else. But in the summertime, everything is fine except for potholes or whatever, you know. Um, a water mane breaks, right? uh you know but again the cause of that happening right now with all the extra work that's going on right now is the fact that we have delayed work over the years to maintain a balance. Now we're trying to play catchup and like Michael said we're never going to catch up. We're never going to catch up to this. So it it's not an easy task. We understand that. Jim, I greatly appreciate all all the work that you folks have done to get to get this you know this thought across. You know, I I appreciate all the the the two chiefs that

144are here. It's we're all in this collectively together. No one no one is going to escape this. You know, death in taxes. Well, overriding taxes. It's going to happen. We have to But what we're trying what I would like to see is that we we pass something that or we we agree upon something that everybody we're not going to like it. Nobody likes our taxes going up. I mean, if you do, then you must have hit power ball or something, but no, we we that's not us. But at the same time, we want to make sure that those that are going to be affected greatly by this, and there are many out there, um you you mentioned them briefly, uh the seniors, those that are on fixed incomes, um and even even the younger families

145that are trying to survive, like you said, with kids in school. It's it's it's costing a ton of money for everybody to do what needs to be done. So, you see the option one, which you know is going to fail. And and I'm just trying to think out loud uh you know collectively that to me if if I was to to take an option it would be option three. Now can we can we tweak that option three a little bit? >> Yeah. I mean I gave you some >> you know some some options on that >> so that way that extended 21 years can and I know you were worried about you know that falling off but like Michael said in 21 years if we don't fix this problem we don't deserve to be sitting

146here. Well I won't be here. I'll be in the wall every time, you know. Uh seriously, >> but but but Joe to to to just talk about whether you know I think several people have expressed option one can't pass, right? That was 11 years ago. What you and you just articulated everything that's changed in the last 12 years, right? Um and you know, Michael mentioned, oh, that the town is willing to fund these capital projects. Are they Claudia? How how how' the vote with the school go? Oh, that's right. It failed. And then we cut off the wing of the So, but guess what we did um back in 2021, four years ago, we passed two >> debt exclusions at 88%. >> Yeah. So, I'm fine with whatever the group is comfortable doing, but we've

147we've made a lot of progress. Um, we haven't always funded capital projects that were very needed and we've caught we've and we've done some things that paid the price, right? The initial uh high school that went up for a vote isn't what we ended up getting, right? And there was repercussions of that with Pitway still online, all all these other things that have happened, right? Um, but we've changed. We we've we've we've done a lot of work together. We've we've gotten a lot more credibility with the town and and the residents and they and there's been times in the past that they had reason to to to have their doubts, right? But we've worked really diligently over the last 12 years, like you said. So, I think we can we can accomplish either of them.

148Um, and like I said, any of the ones we choose, I I will I will be a strong advocate for, but um, but I don't think it's a one is one is a no-go just because of that. I think a lot has changed and I think we um, we can we can I think we can do either. Um, and like I said, I'm happy with whatever the group wants to do. And just one other thing, um, that 38% that you quoted for like a general override, >> that doesn't give any context to those towns. Like some towns have gone for overrides, multiple overrides in the last five years. Like I feel that I think I think one could pass. Like I think we can make we have to make it as simple as possible. Um

149I I I came in here thinking, okay, option three is the less the least expensive for for our residents. And as we were talking about option three, it's confusing enough that that's what I worry about. Like I worry about it getting complicated. I would rather take option one and maybe I know that that it with the 7030 split the schools aren't going to get quite as much as they would from option two but maybe we amend our 7030 policy for this override to make sure that the schools get what they need from that 3.75 million and the town gets what they need from from that. Like maybe we figure that out. But I I feel like that's >> I I think I think we're going to get bogged down in trying to explain how that

150750 works and how much money is going to how much that's going to cost in the debt exclusion and people are going to get confused and I you know we were at this point I was not sitting here 11 years ago when we went through that process but I was involved in that campaign to to try to get that override pass. And I think a lot of this is really going to to take it's it's how we message this like it's really about us doing the groundwork in talking to people about the needs and have people understand what it is because I do feel like we are a different town than we were 10 years ago and people are engaged and nobody wants to see their taxes go up but I think like it's It's

151um I think we need to make it as simple as possible because otherwise otherwise we're not going to give ourselves the the best shot at passing this. I think personally >> Yeah. And I just want to be careful about confusing the discussion we have here with the discussion that most taxpayers are going to want to have. Okay. And I can you know I can tell you just by having some of those discussions. They're going to ask one question. How much is it going to cost me? Excuse me. They'll ask two questions. How much is it going to cost me and what am I going to get? That's we, you know, the details and everything that you start going into that and and unless they ask the question, it's going to be very it can get

152very very complicated. But there that's the one question they're going to ask. You know, I did look into a lot of the context. you know, not not scientifically, but you know, it's all Yes, there's some communities that um you know, have have done this over and over again, and what they've done is they have gone for general operating overrides. it's failed and so they've narrowed it down and gone to like for one for like the schools or something where they've passed or something you know like for public safety you know you know and I know it's getting late so you know I want to make sure you guys have time to ask your questions and have the discussion um I uh you know I want to make sure that I I convey my respect for

153you in terms of what you have to do this this the decisions you have to make and and the jobs you have as the elected representatives. Um, I just want you to know I this is what I I do for a living. Uh, study this stuff and I talk to a lot of residents. Um, I feel when a voter when a voter in Ashland goes into the voting booth and sees a $3.75 million number, um, they're going to think one way. if they go in and they think a two they see a $2.75 number, $2.75 million number, they're going to have a different opinion. Um, I think these are some well thoughtout proposals, some of them. And I do think option three is the best one. That's my professional opinion. Um, based on all the

154research I've done, all the experience I've got, and my conversations with a lot of voters. So, so Michael, just um to that point, you know, while I do think we're a totally different community now and that 3.75 might be might be doable, um I I think that my my only concern and I believe me, if we go option three, I say you you don't try to explain that at all pretty much. I mean, if somebody has some questions or something, you want to sit down, fine. But I don't think that's really part of the campaign. I I think that's something that we figured out and this is how we did it. But I don't think that it even needs to be necessarily explained. But I think my biggest concern is, and this is where I'm

155not sure that $39 or whatever it is, um, is, you know, what does the 2.75 versus the 3.75 mean to people who are struggling in our community? Right. So there is an element of people who are struggling. I mean many people because um the way inflation and energy costs have hit hit us. Um >> so that's that's more how I kind of am thinking about this a little bit is does does that you know help people who are really struggling in these times? And I honestly don't have a good sense of that. Um I I know people everybody I talk to who's complaining about the costs of food, the cost of their energy. Everybody's talking about it, you know, is it to the point where they're worried about it? I don't know. But that that's

156my biggest concern, my biggest reason in trying to decide um between those two options, I think. >> Yeah. Michael, can I just I wanted to try to um maybe state as succinctly as I can sort of how I see the difference between one and two and just trying to make sure I'm right on this. It seems that the diff one difference clearly is the amount that we're putting on it. Right. One is >> correct >> framed it. >> Yeah. Right. Between options one and three, one of them is a number we're talking about 3.75, another one's 2.75. I would agree with you that the smaller the number the better the chances. Right. The other difference is that under option one is a general government override which we're talking about in this conversation loosely as being

157allocated according to existing town policy versus option three which is really a school only approach right which historically you'd have a better chance of passing at least statistically not Ashland obviously because they all fail here. Um, so I mean, is that really what this comes down to is whether we're looking at a general override or a school-based override and then what the dollar figure is associated with it. I, you know, I I didn't think about it framing it like that, but yeah, you could you could think about it that way. Um, yeah. I mean, it it's I mean it it is it is really simple. One and three give you pretty much the same things, almost exactly the same things. um just one at uh lesser long-term cost to the taxpayer but um a it

158does have a revenue impact a negative revenue impact as well compared to option one. So um >> well be to be clear if options two and three give you the same thing if passed >> proportionally. >> Right. Right. Um and just to clarify >> I'm not necessarily supportive of an option one with the 7030 split. Right. So the 7030 split just I think you use it for a frame of reference because that's what we do. But that's a policy for surplus and deficit, not for override. Right. So it's ar it would be arbitrary >> for budget though. >> No, it it it's it's what we do for surplus and deficits. Unexpected. So that's that's what the 7030 split is is. It's not, hey, we know we're going to get this. It has to be done

159that way, right? Um and so I wouldn't support that because it's then it's then it's arbitrary. It's not based on need, right? Um because if if two and three meet the need of G general government then one overfunds that and if two and three don't give the schools the the the funding this one gives it less. So it would be to me arbitrary to apply a policy not designated for this reason to to that. I I would I would if I were if we were doing that, I would still go with let's figure out how that's allocated. It wouldn't be a menu on a on a ballot, obviously, but I wouldn't support just arbitrarily taking a that policy and applying it to an override. That's not the purpose of the policy. >> I I would

160have some concerns with that. Um I I think on a couple of different levels. I think first of all I think the way the policy is written u and the way it's done I mean over years you know we have chosen to fund the municipal government at 2 and a.5% in the schools at 3.75% so 50% more you know without concerns without issues um and we've made different choices I think over the years in how we spend our allocation and and I would almost feel like municipal government would It would it would be it would be punitive. I'm not saying that that's the intent here. I think it would be inadvertently punitive. That was probably the best way to say >> what I'm saying is >> yeah, >> it should be needs based, right? It

161should be okay looking at what the, you know, uh, the needs are and saying just the same way you you didn't just pull the numbers out of the hat for option two, right? Correct. you said, "Okay, here's here here's here's proportional needs." I would say do the same thing, right? Not arbitrarily just pick 7030 because that's that's that's in a policy somewhere, right? That that doesn't that doesn't make make sense, right? Um uh whereas >> so I I would just say it would be needs based. Hey, here here's a figure and we'd allocate it this way. Um because it's it's not all just about the choices that were made, right? um you know there there's there's different budgeting there there's different things that impact budgets on on both sides that we don't have control over

162right and and they impact differently so um if we if we go with a general operating I would still want us to do a needsbased needsbased number and allocate it based on need not because an application of a policy at that point would be arbitrary >> right >> yeah I think And I think that's even more of a reason not to do option one actually. >> It's great. It's great for the kids. There's things that I need. I think I need that. >> Yeah, this is exactly why option one is not a good option in going down this road. Um, we will spend months hashing this out and we will run out the clock. We We will be the clockers without any time left. >> I appreciate that. [laughter] >> One of the concerns that

163I have with, you know, going with option one is that if it doesn't pass, even though the the town has changed, well, I don't disagree with you. Um, people will say what they want to say to their friends, but when they go into a ballot box, they vote their wallet. >> Yeah. >> They vote their wallet, guys. If you don't think they don't Well, I don't know. I I've seen that happen. >> It'll be decimated. >> So, and if we And if that override doesn't pass, then what do we do, Jim? Yeah, I mean the votes in May, June, July, July 1st, a month and a half, close to two months. Schools be getting out. You're going to have to make some serious decisions as to, you know, staff. You folks are going to have

164to make some, you know, we're going to have to make Mike's going to have to make decisions with with it with his with his staff and his >> But it won't be nearly as hard. >> Oh, no. I I get that. But we're all we're all in that. We're all >> It would be very devastating. It will be. >> So I I I have a real problem with, you know, putting all our eggs in one basket and people they'll smile. They say, "Oh, yeah. Yeah, not a problem. We when they get into >> no vote at town meeting." >> Yeah. So one one thing that I've seen elsewhere with these and and I kind of want to say out loud, but it feels like I have to is there are times when people go for

165option one or whatever their option one is and it fails and then their community goes, "Oh, wait. They were serious about that. you have to come back with some other choice. You know, that's you start at 375 and say the committee doesn't pass it. Okay, what do we really need to avoid cuts and then you're doing a second separate question, right? I know a lot of headaches, right? Um [snorts] >> yeah, se you probably have special town meeting, get it voted and then you go to the ballot box and all that. I get that >> but I think we all should just acknowledge that that >> if it comes to that that is can be a fallback need. I don't want to count on it. I don't want you know. >> Yeah. >> But um

166>> but that's why I was think that's why you know if we if you tweaked option three and made that figure a little higher the 750 that's that's stand but if you you raise that a little higher maybe 325 instead of the 275 or something of that nature. So that way that adds it gives you an additional bridge to to work with. Um and we're not you know pulling strings about that. I mean I think I think you know Yeah. I mean >> Yeah. What do you think about that? Option three instead of at 2.75 something more. >> Well, I think we keep saying option three compared to option one, but once it's out to the town, they're not comparing two options. They're not like, "Oh, I like this. It's a million dollars less." They

167don't know of the original option. So I think it should be what is needed and what can pass. And so in general, while I would vote for option one at a higher amount, I think we should do what will pass, which seems to be option three. And then maybe there's some tweaking of the number. Um >> yeah, if we can make that number bigger within our policies, especially given the importance and um you know substantial disruption that cuts to the school department of course would would cause to say nothing of the other departments. Um you know maybe we we consider that. I I'm of the opinion here that we need to you know I I I'm an option one guy definitely that's what I want. I I realize though, you know, that that that putting

168all of our eggs in one basket is not uh if you're doing a I'm a financial planner by trade. It's what I do my day job. That if I'm advising somebody on a financial plan where it's mission critical that they have income, I can't have there be any risk to that income. Um and I kind of feel the same way here with regard to this. Um we need to make the high probability play. Um and I hope you know I hope the the people of the town see it that way as well. But at the same token, you know, I do have concerns about this 750 is going to diminish quick. Um and um you know, so I'd want to potentially look at maybe we could make that option three number a bit larger to

169help mitigate some of that. >> Okay. >> And and then maybe we don't have to come back to this sooner than we thought. >> The challenge though is sorry is the option three if we're choosing option three as that. the override is for operating override for the schools. So, we couldn't say, "Oh, we're going to do this and then shift the money somewhere else." You know, uh that that would that would actually erode everything all the trust we've tried to >> um now that doesn't mean that we it allows it might allow us to make different budgeting choices in year two and three with >> the the the new revenue bases, right? But but that year one I mean it's >> but in terms of >> it's targeted right >> since it is getting really

170late. Could we leave here saying A we want to go for an override and B option three exact numbers to be determined? >> We could do that. But before you close the book I have an idea. Um >> should uh so I'm trying to think. So, so okay, if we're at 2.75 now, if we bumped it up to 2.95, so you know, 200,000 more, so that keeps it under 3 million, we could bump up the the local receipt revenue by a couple hundred,000, right? So, we could put we could put both of those towards the school. So, that's 400,000 there. And then the special education stabilization fund. Again, that's a it's a one time, but is somewhat recurring because we do refill it with free cash each year at 300. So that get you, you

171know, $700,000 more on the school appropriation side. So you get a bigger, you'd have to get a bigger override number. So you would be doing that, but you'd still keep it under three and still get the schools, I think, closer to what they need. and and those other things you're talking about are are levers we still have in subsequent years even if we said hey we we don't want to do that in year one. So if we change if we just change the number to you know I I think I agree with you that >> the palletability of one of the things about palletability of the other options is it's three plus right um and you know as much as I don't I always laugh at the 299 and it's like it's real it's real

172right it's real it's real >> it's real right so um so that and you know and to your point it it's it it and then we still have those levers to and they don't need to go to the schools, right? If if the needs are general receipts and we need whatever it is, right? Um we can increase those gen those uh local receipts to um to to to whatever we need, right? Um >> yeah. Yeah. I mean, do you would you feel comfortable moving forward with that modified number? Can I ask sort of you know it's [clears throat] kids late and all the all the brilliant ideas come out right um we'll find out this is somewhere between we we've been talking about option one and option three sort of as approaches right and the

173benefit that we've talked about along the way and option one is you know that we're all in it together more more clearly but I think we've been talking about it without definition I think somewhere along the way we've talked like well you still have to specify what It's for because you're selling it, right? >> But if you if you take something that's in between the two, which is for example um 2.95 for you know 2.75 schools, 100 to the fire department, 100 to the police department, what whatever like specificity, but keep it more narrow so it it's defined. Do you also have the ability to shift less of the 750 into debt exclusion which allows some of the growth which I think is kind of the think the point where you're going John is you're

174allowing some of that to grow. I don't know what that does to the numbers. I know it's complicated for our conversation. It's certainly not going to be what would be discussed with the community right because it would they would just see 2.95 for three purposes. Um, but I think that has the potential to have more members of the community say that's important to me. Supporting public safety is important to me. Supporting schools as safety is important to me. Or quite frankly, as I think Joe, you're the one who said it, don't think about the DPW until they need them, right? And it's not to diminish the view I think anybody in this room has for the importance of that department or any other. But in terms of what the community is supporting, there there may

175be some value in in doing that as long as it's true to our needs. But but Mark, are you talking about doing option because the on the ballot on the ballot and and what they're doing you don't have there's no hey we're going to spend it on this it's either >> it's option one defined in a certain way truthfully it's it's option one but it's not saying general it's it's saying the things that we'd be talking about option one are for these dedicated purpose in a certain amount I understand legally it's it's binding the first time people vote on then it's not right I mean true for most I'm just thinking about it from the perspective of what do we need to support? I agree with the general concept that going over three is going

176to feel like a bigger thing. You know, if it's 3.1 versus 2.9, I get that. Um I'm just looking for a way to get all the needs really addressed in a way that puts best positions us for as long a period as we can foresee. That's all. I mean, we we I mean, we could we can use as much as as we can get, but I mean, we can do what we need to do with the with the 750, so we wouldn't need the extra 200. I I would personally I'd rather see that go to the school department. Um, you know, because I think we would be able to do what we needed to do. Um, you know, uh, I just think hearing kind of the school the school situation, I think it it would

177be better served in that in that direction. Personally, >> could you tell me like so then if it's three and we're basically saying it's for the school but 750 for other things. How is like what's the elevator pitch or what does it say in the ballot? How does it get presented as it's for the school but there are still funds and how is that not >> so it wouldn't be so that wouldn't be the ballot question. So the ballot question would be you know will the town of Ashlin you know raise the levy by 2 if we're talking about 95 million now you know for the Ashlin public schools um >> the 750 doesn't get >> yeah it wouldn't it wouldn't be part of that >> it was it was voted on in 20 21

178correct and and so Yeah. And our messaging, this is where it gets complicated >> because we'll still want to be transparent that their tax bill is going to increase because of that choice >> that we are doing by that $104 for the median home. Right. So, it's where it gets muddied, but but it's not muddied at the ballot. It's very clear at the ballot because that's that's already voted on basically, right? >> Um so, >> yeah. And you folks know, I mean, we've most of us have been through this rodeo. Um, most people are not going to pay attention until a couple weeks out. And uh it's uh a lot of times they they they're just going to know that there's an override vote and they're going to go in and see that ballot. So,

179can >> I ask Mr. Adams who's sitting back there looking exhausted if if he has an opinion on what we're talking about um in terms of the numbers because you have a much better grip on what 2.9 2.75 you know you've talked about it at the beginning but that was three hours ago >> I think uh I want to go all the way back and and agree with the majority of folks here um in their comments when Michael and I first had a conversation I said number two was not even on the table for me. Um it wasn't even a consideration. It's uh we've worked too darn hard um to to build relationships with all of our departments and across the entire town. And I would never want to put um uh any of that

180in jeopardy with a you know divisive uh concern like a menu option. That being said, I almost feel to a certain extent option three is a is a one-way street as well um in terms of putting the schools out there as being the the holder of the override um torch. Um but I I certainly understand the complexity that where Michael's headed with this in terms of the the funding of of the general government as well as uh the schools. Do I think that the 275 um has a significant impact? Of course it does, right? I mean, we're looking at three that's still an $800,000 um delta uh between level service and what is um you know, the the override amount. Um but that being said, um whether we're having conversations about the continued use of

181special education stabilization fund, um I think there needs to be some tweaking uh to option three uh with right sizing as well as looking at um what that exact number is, right? So so maybe the 275 becomes a a very accurate uh picture. Um, but that requires some some more work on our part to con to continually um navigate through uh the special education waters um enrollment numbers um and and go from there. But uh I certainly think it's it's a significant investment in the schools which is needed. Uh the concern always becomes what happens in year two three four five uh and in growth of that amount at 2 and a half% or 3.75% are we what conversation are we having in three years down the road. Um but that's where we are right

182now. It's um significant. I I don't want to see a community become divisive over this. Um but it it does go back to the fact that this is not a um this is not a mismanagement of of funds from the town and and the schools. And uh we are working with a very minimal amount of funding uh and do a extremely incredible job across the entire community. I'm proud of that. I'm proud of Michael and I have had this conversation been here 16 years because of that, right? Um it matters, but there's a crossroads and we just have to figure that out and and how to navigate through that. Um, so don't know if I really answered your question other than yeah, it would make a significant impact on us. Um, and we will continue

183to to look at our numbers and try to figure out what that true number looks like, right? Coming up with I I think coming up with let's say it's 275. It's great to start there. I I don't disagree with each of you. we should probably start there and but really refine that and continue to refine that to make sure that that ask is the appropriate ask. >> And I think that's really what I know you're I know what you're doing to try to sort through all these things and all the pieces involved because we've talked about it. But that to me is the huge part of this, right? is figuring out what that right number is >> um to be able to figure out whether it makes sense and are we does that number get

184to be one that it's over the $3 million threshold and you know then difference between 3.1 3.9 you know I'm not suggesting that I just you know it's the re the reality right is that that that going over that number is going to be a psych psychological thing for some people >> and I and to that point Mark I I do think again at what level do we consider using our school choice funds? Right? Like those are conversations I I think I have to have with Chris and Mike and and make sure that that we're on the same page in terms of longevity of of those one-time funds and how they can support the system, right? Uh long term. I I don't disagree with you. There needs to be a lot of work at the

185state level to, you know, send funds back to districts. I don't think it's going to happen in FY27. Um, but it's still a conversation that has to continually occur. You know, Senator Spoker's done a great job advocating and changing of Chapter 70 through the Student Opportunity Act. That's not s enough, you know, but we'll figure it out. I I think um hopefully the state will take a deeper look as to how much should be going back to the communities that are paying into this. And um but I think that's a year away. I don't think it's going to happen for FY27. So trying to get us to something we can >> would the group be comfortable saying okay option three and a number under three that Michael and Jim will work together on and come

186back to our boards and committees individually with their decision right on what the right number is because I and and I think you pulled the note because so I want to hear what you know kid I think you were going to say something so But I think three sounds like a number we want to stay under for just palpability, but it would be comfortable giving them parameters to to hone that number for us or >> I I I think that makes sense. Um but I I just wanted to actually struggle circle back and talking about something Yolanda said earlier. You know, I'm I'm just looking at um and if that's something that this group will agree to is presented if we have a few minutes just to hear from the people who are already engaged

187if they have questions because that I think might help us shape our communication to the broader community. I think it'd be a missed opportunity not to hear at least take you know take five minutes and just take any questions that people have out here in the audience as we go forward. That's the only thing I know to add to that. Can can I I just want to echo what what you had just said. U I I I'm it's no secret to my my own committee. I made very clear I'm very supportive as far as the options wherever we go what what you gentlemen were saying whatever we decide I will be there a thousand%. I I I um what I have struggled with isn't like what we say in these committee meetings where this is

188really going to come down to if we are truly supportive of what we are doing. It's the messaging and it's not the statements made here on camera. It's actually speaking to people. And you mentioned at the last meeting uh you had like people your home and like three people showed up. So that didn't work. You are so right that >> it was actually but that's >> okay. [laughter] And you are so right that people talk a big game and when you go and speak to them and they're like, "Oh, of course tell me who to make the check out to." Like but when they're behind they're in secret in the behind the ballots, they're they're not doing that. What I am struggling with is the work is not here. It's out speaking with people. >>

189That discussion, you know, you get the people that tell you what you want to hear and that's fine and then you you talk about your kids or whatever, you know, whatever ridiculous things they're doing. What if it doesn't go the way that you What if it's like, oh, well, this there's some weird attitude that is like deep state Ashland where they're hiding money, which doesn't exist. But that's which I don't know how to have those discussions. I I I so I've str and this is probably not a I I we're here too late already and I I'm I'm hangry like most of you probably are but um I'd love to have >> angry [laughter] >> I I want to have those discussions with people. I've already I mean after our last meeting I started having

190the discussions and the overwhelming majority were positive but taking your point where you ruined it and I'm completely agree with they'll tell me what I want to hear so they can go off on their own but I want to have those discussions and understand how to combat the kind of okay so I'm not in agreement or this hurts um and also being fully rec fully recognizing that for some of these people this is really going to hit their wallets like and So just I I think that that's where the effort needs to go is to figure out how to almost not building scripts but having the discussion. So I I I what you just said just really resonated with me about here and I know we have some of the committee members here but like

191having an idea of what the broader base really feels about this and where we go and how you have these discussions because I think everyone here is kind of the same like belief on where we do need to go. Um, but obviously we're not we're not the whole town and and we're not we're not completely representative of where everybody's coming from, particularly when they get into the ballot box. >> I want to just voice support for Paul Paul's sort of approach. I think the only thing the caveat I put on it is I while I think you're right that staying under three is important. Um I want to know what number folks think is really necessary and to [clears throat] be able to have the conversation if that number is north of three. So I

192just don't want to I don't want to cap it without having people get a little more comfortable with what they think the real needs are. But I think your your approach is otherwise solid. So what I'm hearing is um you want to look at option three with adjusting that that number uh potentially and looking at it from a needsbased standpoint. you know, just looking at it holistically, I guess, >> right sizing it to use Jim's Jim's terms, you know, honing it, doing, you know, because there's still work that needs to be done that that says, hey, what's the impact of that number versus another number, right? >> Okay. and and and I would echo uh what Makita said of we do have people who've stayed on listened to us and while I I I wouldn't

193say ask questions because it would be a dialogue but at least provide their their having the people that are on there >> be able to you know voice voice what they you know comments on what they've heard I think that's if nothing else that's valuable to us as far as hearing what is going to be meaningful to people that want to be engaged I think it's Joe's call, right? I think it's your call, Joe. >> Well, I know it's my call. I just I just was conferring without >> Sorry, Joe. >> Yeah, go ahead. Yolanda. >> Sorry, just I unmuted myself. I had my hand raised. Didn't get acknowledged. >> Um, I just want to say that Paul was Paul, you know, said, "Let's go back and have Jim and and Michael look at it

194and then come back to the individual boards." I don't think I mean if we if we want to send them back to look at it maybe not over three three million but I think we should come back as three boards again because I think the group dialogue is important and if it's first at the schools and then at the select board and then at the finance committee um let's let's do it all at once when they're ready they come back to the three boards together to discuss what that number's going to be I >> I don't disagree with you Yolanda that's was going to be the recommendation that they come back all together >> absolutely We're together now. We're going to >> Guys, real quick, I came here tonight with the expectation that we're going

195to make a decision. I just want to say that like I'm a little concerned about too much time passing. I I I just for the record, okay? You know, yes, it's it's not a math issue, but it is a math issue and time is ticking. Um I I came here with an expectation that that the decision was going to be made so we can start adopting what's going to happen. So, I'm I'm against us going back to the drawing board. The drawing board has been drawn. >> So, are you looking at a specific ceiling number? >> Yeah. I mean, >> it's going to be between 2.75 and 2.95 and that's a $200,000 difference. So, you know, at this point, like agreed that 2.75 is a good base. 2.95 is the ceiling. Like maybe because it's

196got to be under three. 2.99's the ceiling, right? So, there's really in my mind like we've made a good hopefully decision on option three and it's just fine-tuning that. >> Yes. >> Right. And they can fine-tune the number. Anytime we get together again is for the process and how are we going to message this and how not for decisions on whether we're moving forward or not. >> We're going to decide that now. >> I will uh I will entertain a motion then as to where this triboard wants to go. Do we want to do option three with a specific ceiling number >> and that and then we can tweak that? So I um Okay, there was a motion and it was seconded. >> So all those are >> Well, I'll second. I don't think anybody

197has to be seconded. Thank you, Paul. Paul seconded that. Okay. So, you made my move. >> Joe, is the procedural are we are we taking a vote as three boards or individually? Like, do we have to have the same motion on the table before each of the three boards technically because we're not really one board as >> we can we can do it as one group, right? We've done that. We we can do it as one group. We do that with nominations. We do that with many things. So one person makes a nomination you know the motion in the second >> and then the boards can decide yes you know for notes it might have to be separate but we can vote as one group >> so I think then I'm taking this you lot

198I don't understand your point is sort of a consensus of the group because really the board of selection I think is the one that actually takes the the binding vote on it so I'm just asking the question >> right but we are doing this as consensus right we everyone sitting at the table has to decide if this is how we want to move forward So, are we looking is that the way this this group would like to venture? >> Can we clarify what the motion is? I'm just confused. Is it that we're voting? Do we want to support number three? And as Marcy basically just laid out and that the final amount is going to be between 2.75 and 2.99 max. Jim and Mike will figure out what that number is. >> That's the motion.

199Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> And and we're taking a vote for consensus. It's it's symbolic. It's not binding. It's it's directional, right? >> Y >> and then the select board will take a final vote when we get the actual >> when we get the actual number. >> Correct. >> Uh our next meeting is January 7th. >> Yeah. I I think Jim and I will need to get together and kind of figure out when we >> That's That's our next meeting. So January 7th is that >> if we have to we'll we'll schedule a special meeting, but if we that okay with you? >> Everybody's good with it? >> Okay. All right. So we have the consensus. >> We taking a vote. All those in favor? >> I >> looks unanimous. All those not in

200favor. >> Okay, that is unanimous. Thank you Yolanda. Thank you everybody. Well, so so uh to go back to what Makita had mentioned around do we want to let the the the citizens that that have >> 10 minutes to nine and um I'll give them 10 minutes. I I would assume that if someone's really hungry angry I I guess you know I don't want any angrier than because he's bigger than I >> don't make him imagine >> distracting. >> Can you give people like one minute? [laughter] >> Yeah. Well, we'll we'll give them three minutes because I mean look at it. >> So, if there's anybody that is listening in on WACA, please raise your hand. >> I see Julie. Is that is that Julie? Julie, I will acknowledge you. Uh unmute yourself and identify

201yourself, please. >> Okay. Julie Nardone, 86 Elliot Street. Thank you for letting me speak. Um, if I'm understanding number three, the one you just voted on correctly, the entire cost of the public safety building is being offloaded to the people with the rest [laughter] of the exclusion. Is that correct? >> No. She's asking about the 750 which sounds like >> what I I I didn't understand >> is the cost is the her she said is the total cost of uh the public safety building being offloaded onto the taxpayers and she's referring to the 750 >> as part of the debt exclusion. >> Tell me if I'm wrong, Julie. >> Yes, it'll be it it all of it will be part of the excluded debt. Yes. >> Okay. Um, so maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I believe

202that people should keep their word. And this public safety building project started out in 2018 as $3.5 million only with a $25 million capital bond from the state, but we didn't really have it, but people didn't know that. Um, that disappeared. So then the manager put together and they went out to bid or whatever and then [clears throat] it was I think 27 million plus the 3.5 million but to sweeten the pot or however it was explained back then. the town was going to contribute 750,000 to help people and people voted for that knowing that it that the the town was going to pay 750. But honestly since I have been hearing nothing but this weird drum beat for an override. So, I just think it's I think it's terrible to be honest to promise

203people something. And people asked, they said, "Well, can you put it in writing?" And as I recall, the statement was, "As long as I'm the manager and I'm here, that's 750,000 will come out of town." So, I don't know how any of you people operate or if you care about integrity, but I don't I don't say things unless I mean them, and I hope other people would do the same. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. You know, Julie, can I just ask you, would you rather that we just go to the community for the 3.5 million or 3.75, sorry, and not try to make it a little bit easier on folks based on, you know, this option three? >> Um, thanks, Claudia. Um, honestly, I think no matter if it's option one or option three, it

204sounds to me like the 750,000 is still going to be offloaded to the people because we're just going to pay more taxes. So either way, we the people are paying for that entire public safety building either through an increase through one or three. So I know people are encouraged in this town to not remember anything said at any meeting and I I am engaged. I have a very good memory and I forget almost nothing. And this has been bothering me since this drum beat started in 2022. And I mean, it's up to you if you want to offload this whole thing that was originally only supposed to cost 3.5 million plus. And I almost forgot the land was supposed to be the 12 acres was supposed to be included. Stay on point. >> It is.

205It's all on point because the 12 acres. >> Okay. >> And then we just bought that 1.5. >> Julie, I'm going to interrupt you, Julie, because you're off off base a little bit with respect to the points and what you're trying to make. >> You had you asked the question about the 750. Um, town manager answered it. So if there's no additional, we're not going to belabor this this any any further with respect to the public safety building which was uh by the way uh under cost. Okay. So >> it was cost. >> Any other questions out there for the audience that I see a hand raised? >> Yeah. >> Thank you. We all motion. We all favor. [laughter] >> Seconded. >> Yeah. >> Select board. Is the motion to adjurnn? Is there a second?

206>> I second. >> Second. >> All those in favor? >> I >> Thank you. Thank you everybody.