TranscriptSelect Board Meeting ~ February 11, 2025

like freeze it it's there click and no I I like it in front of just like to sign up no it's good but it jumps around and then it covers things you're looking for I could feel her pain she just the software guy charges you $2,000 to remove it you will change your mind what's what's is this working or do I have to have the I have the red light or do I need these we're live okay okay we're going to call them order the select board meeting February 11th 2025 here in the fire station at 6:30 p.m. we have a quorum and we will start off with the pledge of [Music]

America to the Republic for which it stands one nation God indivisible liberty and justice for all all right uh do we have any uh amendments to the agenda I don't have any that I'm proposing for tonight so does anyone else have any Amendment to the agenda can we just have a like a conversation really quick about the agenda sure so I feel like I need to understand the order of priority because this I I get that we need to get through all of it but this feels like way more than one needing worth of material and so is the budget the priority tonight or is are the amend are the ordinance the because I feel like the priority has to go first because I don't realistically think we're getting through all this so the unfortunately it's all priority um we are scheduled to we need to have the

draft ordinance language ready on uh after our February 25th meeting because the warrant language has to be available uh 14 days prior to the town uh the uh the public hearing hosted by the uh planning board and they have to not put that notification in print and so they're planning to do that March 12th and so they need to have that language the language has to be available they can put out the article that said in the newspaper saying the public hearing on warrant article language but the language doesn't need to be included in the newspaper but it needs to be available the day that goes out so that has to be done we're scheduled to do these three tonight and then the historic district commission or the historic uh District commission language changes at our February 25th meeting so whatever we don't finish tonight for ordinances would have to be added to that meeting that night and we also will have the

lawyer there and the historic district commission there and so the budget or should we start now I said it out loud I think that start starting with the budget first and then doing as much ordinance stuff as we can till we uh call it for the night would probably be better so we can move D up to above a so the budget

first so do we have a motion to move that so moved all right any discussion all in favor any opposition seeing none we'll put that here public comment there's no one from the public here so we'll move past that um and I haven't received any submitted public comment um either so let's move into the budget Jerry yeah so you all have an updated budget with the updated Revenue increases and decreases that you got last week yes all right the only other things that are reflected in this budget if you look at your supplemental sheet prior to this budget the um grants matching fund I had 6,000 in there but since we've closed the books and if you look at your fund balances we really only need 3,152 to bring the grant matching funds up to an even 30,000 which is where we like that to be all right so that's also reflected in this budget with transfers out so if you go to the

budget the transfers out are now 595 out of the reserves yes because that's where that comes from yeah right so it just basically went down by um 6,000 minus that number yeah to reflect it and it didn't really change the overall um tax levy by reducing the

fund balance down to 470 so that's that's where that's at now so yeah I have some highlighted notes and I'm just going to pull up everything that we have in front of us I just already highlighted it that I wanted to go over um so most of us uh were at the budget

committee meeting last night but I just wanted to uh highlight again if folks hadn't um who are watching hadn't seen it we talked a little bit about some recommendations uh pertaining to estimated revenues that came in from our um uh accountant and sorry I had to highlight it sheet of where those changes were do you have can you just go over Jerry the change the which it was the increasing of um can I did you did you highlight it in here no I didn't highlight it in I had

can you pull up that email and you might have it too job your computer that the email yeah that I sent last week with the changes want to be Cooper right here adjusted the state revenue sharing to 925 yep and then the cable franchise fee to 51,000 I think that's updated even more in this sheet all right so we'll just go through let's go to 13 line 13

updated to $925,000 and that was reflective of the state Economist projections that were released after we made our first estimate there and now we're going to go to line 14 6460 which is on page seven so that went up yeah it went up yep while we're right here though didn't he adjust Homestead um down I think that's the 260 yeah sorry homestead exemption was brought down to 260 uh based off of uh looking at some getting feedback from the uh budget committee and looking at estimating the fact that some of that um percentage that we can claim is going to decrease and there was new construction last year but only 11 new buildings and so that he felt like that was a more conservative a better estimate and and then we're going to go to line 14646 the cable franchise fees and he changed those to 51,000 and um all he did was he looked at the first he looked at what the quarterly um estimates or quarterly statements

were last year and adopted those uh uh figured out what it was on a on average quarter and then then multiplied that by 6 qu to get that 18 uh 2018 estimate uh the 18-month estimate sorry um some feedback we got from the budget committee was they wanted to know if we knew how many people were no longer using cable so if we could lower that or adjust that uh I don't have that information I'm I'm comfortable with that estimate let me just add that the actual for 24 that 37462

divide that by four it actually comes to 9,365 so he's reduced it to 8500 time 6 which gives us so he is taking into 9365 * 6 would be 5690 so we're now estimating 51,000 so so we are reducing 5,000 in change less yes just wanted to ambulance fees line 14- 64 70 that is going up to

um 175,000 that's based off of the 1.5 times the 11778 brings us to 160 176,177 which page are here it's on seven seven sorry he's on in page so line page 7 line 16690 should be 19 oh n sorry I said that wrong 1969 uh10 that's interest income which we are estimating now at 200,000 he's seeing an interest income of in 2024 of 112,000 and that was for about 6 months at the higher interest rate and he's also seeing that interest rates will probably drop some but probably not like a huge amount over the next 18 months probably not below 3% so he think move thinks moving this up to 200,000 would be fine that was some feedback that the budget committee uh gave him our first night of presentation so moving that from 100,000 to 200,000 those were all the increase estimates now the decrease estimates we're going to go back earlier in the presentation here uh other excise tax which is 11-

lowered to $6,000 so actual was $4,000 this is just one and a half times the actual from from uh 2024 code enforcement 12 6215 um we are just bringing it at to 65,000 which is just one and a half times the 2024 actuals um and then homestead exemption line

already talked about that one made that adjustment and then interest on property tax we just is which is line 19- here seven seven seven $52,000 which is just the 2024 actuals multiplied by 1.5 all total this means a overall increase of

if we wanted to maintain a 3.5% tax increase it would mean a budgeted use of fund balance um of roughly 400 of $471,500 and so so we've got a little bit of adjustment here but we're on our front sheet here it says use of fund balance at $47,000 even um you know I wanted to provide some in some thoughts on this and I know some of this might be a little bit of of repeating for our cute listeners but uh someone from the public reached out today and just um had suggested that that we vocalize again very clearly our our thought process on the fund balance use personally I see the fund balance is something that we can use to uh mitigate tax increases you know when we look at our budget our Municipal budget is really um let me pull it up not including the school is somewhere in the neighborhood of a little over $4 million uh what page are we on here let me find it and the vast majority of our budget

is the school budget and County tax which we don't have control over um to the same extent that we have control over our Municipal budget here and so the challenge is if there's big increases in those we can't absorb a million doll increase in a $4 million budget we'd have to drop expenses 25% to break even right and so I think that the fund balance use is good because it helps us stabilize the um cost increase

to taxpayers every year and I would rather see us try to do a flatline uh uh rate of increase in that 3.5% range as opposed to using additional fund balance this year to bring that down to a 2% change and then not having in in using that fund balance at a faster rate because right now based off of my calculations at the rate that the select board is proposing using the fund balance will be about 5 years of this usage rate before we bring that Reserve down to a level that is the bottom where we would need to maintain all of it for cash flow purposes so that gives us five years of this um steady uh flatlined Target of that 3 and

1/2% range I think that's a really good way to do it in those years we're also going to see that our we're going to have debt Services come off and so that can be something that we can take into consideration for fund balance use or or putting money towards capital and we also potentially has the opportunities to figure out more Revenue generating opportunities which I know is important to this board and so I think that having that fiveyear cushion of a pretty evenly use of it is a better way to use it than to fluctuate during these relatively economically stable times which is the point that Mark had made like if it's stable maybe don't use a lot of it if you're having a a recession or a depression that's when you say okay maybe we do use a lot of it and so that's why I'm more comfortable even with these adjustments just decreasing the amount of fund balance we use rather than um increasing uh increasing the

fund balance use to offset um any proposed tax change that's my pitch but I just want to hear your all's thoughts as we uh take into consideration the comments from the budget committee and stuff like that is is that five years based on the use of the 470 or is that on the higher amount that was initially used that was on the annualized amount of the initial um $599 which put us for that 18 month which put us in the 380 range annually so so using 470 you're getting an extra year or so a little bit more liquidity yeah and cuz I I heard last night that was a big thing of what are we going to do when this fund balance runs out and so I think it's important for us to consider that use and I like the idea of giving us five years of of fund balance use as opposed to a two or three years to get a short-term um lower tax rate

I I you know before these changes were made we were all comfortable with the bigger number coming out and you know the proposal on the table at the budget committee was keep the bigger number even with these changes and the tax rate would move lower than 3.5 I don't know exactly what it would be um and I think economic times are hard for people right now and going into the the unknowns that people may feel about the 18month budget you know the change and looking at these numbers I don't think it's unreasonable to say take the bigger number out of the funding and lower the rate from 3.5 to

something lower I don't know what it would be and I don't know if it would hit the mark of what the budget committee said but I don't think it's unreasonable to do that if we were prepared to take that much out two weeks ago yeah I for me I was prepared to take that much out because I was I I like the idea of keeping that tax change in line with inflation across the the Consumer Price Index for the Northeast whereas now if we take that larger number out we're actually decreasing taxes below the percentage that inflation would be n that natural increase because we did find we did bring our Municipal budget down to minus 55% the other thing though about using that number that we might need to get back up to that number because new numbers have come out of the school and so this constitutes a this budget includes a 6.8% increase in education um

and after our first budget committee meeting two days later I looked at the the school budget and they were proposing a 7.62% increase so we're going to have to adjust that number here and when you're going from a 6.8 to a 7.62 um% increase on the school budget

which is $6 million uh dollars here that works out to like another $655,000 total on that budget times one and a half that's that's getting up closer to a million dollar increase for the the 18-month budget and so I'd be look looking personally to say let's take that school budget increase and see how that looks and then look at our our fund balance use do you follow what I'm saying so what what is this half of the table

to me it's a pay me now pay me later type type thing so I don't disagree I mean uh I mean the year was I'll say pretty good in the market I'd say almost leave it at 3 and a half% now and save that money for later when things aren't so Rosy um I think everybody did well the last number of years and um I don't know I I know there's a few that you know it hurts no matter what um you know so just

you know I'd rather burn slower and and use that for you know save it off a little bit longer not everybody's in the market right what's that not everyone's in the market oh I get that but you know I mean I'm not sure it's going to get much better um So for anybody moving forward here so it it it's going to be hard and I get it for the next 18 months this is going to show up um I could be sued either way but I'd say leave it at three and a half and leave the fund balance where it is what would be the amount we'd have to take out of the fund balance uh we' have to make a slight adjustment if we want to bump that school number up um but did I didn't calculate this 470 right now what would it be come if we went to 2 and a half% uh I they didn't calculate it either um last night they just they just I know they did I I could probably figure it out here um but to your point Joe and to your point Deb I think that this could

be the opportunity to give the taxpayers kind of that decision too because if we say we want to go with a 3.5% Target and then the budget committee goes with a a 2.5% Target then you can just have a very healthy and and and kind debate amongst the legislative body at the town hall meeting and then they can decide I'd rather do the Slow Burn versus I'd rather get a little bit more savings now and that g that that so gives people that option because if we come in with the same number we have slightly different ideologies it's kind of putting everyone is this is your only option and I think that it's while we want to be close with our budget committee um we don't have to be exactly that we can give people that option cuz some maybe everyone in Durham feels like they had a really good year and they they're comfortable maybe folks don't and we can just let them make that choice um because we're

ultimately pretty dang close to each other personally is what I'm thinking so mean to get to two and a half% you're talking about another over 18 months 300 350,000 something like that which I think is yeah right well if you've got a $12 million budget there what's 1% of that 120 yeah yeah so yeah another you're going to throw another 120 put it's 600 basically right yeah 600 sorry I said you're right I said it wrong I yes it's a total of 600 is what I meant yeah uh which is right about where we were two weeks ago right right so um so

so I mean that's not a bad number either but into a 2.5 it was what did we have two weeks ago and what if we left that number as is with these adjustments and then if it's 2.8 okay it's 2.8 but it's a good point was if we used what we had originally suggested it gave us about 5 years years of liquidity with that fund balance in my mind if we're upping revenues we could buy a little bit more liquidity if we if we just say we're because you're saying and I'm this is just a thought notice like we said that we're fine with 3.5% and we're fine with a $600,000 fund balance use well now we don't need to use $600,000 to get to 3.5% or we can use the $600,000 to get below 3.5% and I'm just of the policy mindset that I'd rather Target at 3.5% it's totally fair if the board decides we want to vote to Target the $600,000 fund balance use I'm just vocalizing where I stand on it you know and I think you know the future is higher revenues

for us with things that we have on the plate that we want to do we have so much going on here now that you know we haven't been able to to attack those things but we started dealing with back taxes and all that other business I I do subscribe a little bit more to the burd in the hands better than T in the bush though and like the the I'd rather be in a situation where our revenues got a lot better and then we're making the adjustment then next year cuz I still want to see us get burned and say well these interest rates could go higher and maybe we could get even more and then all of a sudden we have a shortcoming and so that's just where I sit hea I saw your hand um the education line I think is a huge variable and so it's hard to have this conversation not knowing what we're doing or where the education number is going to be if we're going to use 7.6 for a number on the education estimate that I think changes the fund

balance use for me um if we're going to if we're going to stick you know what I'm saying like that that's a huge variable so I don't feel like I can have a conversation about making a fund balance number until I know what number we're using for the education estimate so the superintendent ex except we can't wait that long right yeah we got to make that decision we have to this is refle of the 6.8 right and so I I agree with you and I think uh we should be using something closer to what's being recommended by the school board and this is again why we're going doing this 18mon budget so when we do this again in 2026 we'll have a better idea of what's Happening yes um but I agree and I would use I I I would use the higher amount now taking that into consideration because uh you know it's it's coming and that's you know a 7.8 increase for 12 months and there's going to be a six-month increase

that's probably going to be more um and so uh I I think putting that money aside in the budget now for that uh having that extra money um to address that concern which should be raised at the town meeting uh is better than uh we'll deal with it when when it comes up um and we'll we'll address how we're going to raise that extra money um because then we're talking about uh having a special town meeting having doing something um when we can plan for it now so I I would agree using that you know the round 600,000 or whatever we want to use what we used two weeks ago which I can't remember with top my head I think I think to me although I agree with you about I I but for this school budget i i would support

what you're saying 100% but I think the school budget is a variable for me uh that would make me go the other way so what I got this superintendent's proposed budget pulled up right here and so we have budgeted um we have the FY

2024 actual at um 6, 88,2 192 is what our our actual is at and so let me do some quick math here um actually do I have the notes on where how we get that 9.7 number I believe he added 6.8% to the 6, 88,000 and then multiplied by 1.5 so you have you have 6 months of the current year M which we know and then the estimated for the for the full year is that number and the Schoolboard chair was in my office two weeks ago and she asked what we were using and I told her 6.8 she thought that was going to be pretty close yeah and if hold on and then if you if you use a 6.8 and the school budget goes up you can use fund balance to offset it if you go up higher and then the school budget is down it's that's a different story and I think Mack explains it in his yeah in his a good point that's a good point um the number I'm seeing right here in their proposed budget for Durham I see

635,000 $7 7398 for the Durham contribution in the Free Port yeah um sorry that's the difference it's a six that's a difference between um the SS and proposed but I'm seeing a proposed of 6,993 155 for one year for one year so let me put that 6 Milli

talking about about $100,000 $7,000 $65,000 difference if I'm doing the math in my head but what isn't it 900,000 didn't you say 6.9 million so when I when I do the ma08 and that's for the whole 18 month it's 9.84 million yeah so y um and so

we're talking about less than 100,000 extra but that's that's best case scenario and with the county estimate $76,000 difference well when I put the their proposed budget of 6,993 135 and then you multiply that one by 1.5 to come up with a rough estimate for 18 months that puts us at 10,489 72 we're budgeting more than the 7.6% we're budgeting 9 well that's the seven that's the that's if we just built wi off of they're proposed right now 418 and then multipli that by 1.5 proposed budget versus our because ours is 6 Milli 88,000 and there's yes that was the fy2 24 actuals our proposed budget for the 18 months is

their proposed budget right now sits at 6 million that would the impact for us would be 6, 99300 135 if you multiply that by 1.5 that brings you to 10,4 do that right I'm not 688 is the what we're paying for the next we're paying half of that for the next six months is that what you said yeah we're paying that's so okay so we owe half of that right in the fixed education cost on page two yeah and then that recommended budget right which will get us less than the 10 million oh cuz what you're saying if we take that recommended budget and do a about so you take that no no you take that number that you just said and add

3,44 mhm got it 46 yeah I'm going to put that in 699 3155 and then give me that other number 3 million 44,000 look one of the judges just told me I went to law school because I couldn't do math cuz I was so off so if I'm wrong so that brings us what you doing with that number estimating this is estimating forecast we're doing the best we can but based off of Josh's math right which is half of that 6 million and then the proposed budget that puts it at a 10, 37,1 155 expense for the uh 18mon needs and

we're currently budgeting 300,000 20us 9 9, 750,000 from that and tell me what the difference in the number is it's about 76 I think 66 yeah should be 76 76 7 so I mean that's really close right no it's 276 yeah minus 9 this one yeah okay yeah it's

$287,000 roughly that it could increase on top which is really close to our 470 plus that difference is that brings us up to that 600 so it sounds like what I'm hearing from the board is no it would still leave us it's about half of it half the increase well no cuz that number plus 470 right the 47 we have to absorb that that's 470 plus the 2 287 which puts us close to what we were at two weeks ago for the fund balance use what puts us at no $757,000 for fun Fon use was it $157,000 it was 600 and something last week right I can't remember what I don't remember what the I didn't bring my piece Pap from last I have the email I can't remember I in my car I it puts an annualized use of around $54,000 for fund balance use versus 470

what we're at right now I'm doing my math right but I guess what I'm hearing here is that folks are suggesting that we increase the um we increase education to 7.6% and then accept that difference via use of fund balance say keep that 3.5% Target you

can read the bottom paragraph of what Mark says might help you I don't know if you got the second part of yeah I do right here so bottom yeah so Mark said the only big item that would significantly affect the budget would be the RSU comes in for their budget if it's close to 6.8% we have estimated then we're fine but if it's significantly less than 6 .8% it could affect what the target tax increase would be you know so if it came in $300,000 less than what we budgeted for um he said he would not suggest compensating by simply adjusting the budgeted use of funds uh just to keep the tax levy at 3.5% that's if the school budget came in less uh it sounds like he says

result of the actual use of fund balance is normally lower than budgeted use of fund Bal balance it gives that ex so if the school budget's too low I'm wait trying to find where he said if the school budget goes 26 using somewhere between $400 and $600,000 of the but of the of the fund balance is a fair Target so I think what he's saying is if you use more fund balance now mhm

and that school budget goes up you're going to use even more fund balance to make it up got it so what he's saying is so you could be depleting it much quicker so I think what Mark is saying is leave this would recommend leave this as is and once those actuals come in then use the fund balance to come up with that difference right which goes up which which if it goes up which I'm inclined to but when is that determined do we is that that's after T meeting it gets pretty close to town meeting right it's June is the vote right yeah second week so it's it's difficult to to so that I don't know I don't know the his trend has a process question about that so we have town meeting in April we're going to choose we're going to do this in April but if the school budget thing doesn't happen until June how can we then go back and use fund balance to cover that difference if it's if it's two months after town meeting well you

have to use something to cover it you just don't have that number so you use the fund balance to to cover it or we'd have to increase the tax levy and we have authority to do that yeah you'll have to adjust it using fund balance otherwise tax or the other on the other on the flip side of that though is we budget for the use of fund balance now and then if we don't need it it just gets rolled over at the end of next year into because it's unused that's correct back into the fun balance like this year we use less of the fund balance than we had budgeted for and that gets rolled back into the fund balance yeah if you certainly don't use it it roll back in or you gain more revenues or we gain more revenues or whatever and so we can create a budget here and then say use $600,000 of the fund balance um but then if exp if we don't end up using it all because revenues are increased and the school budget doesn't

actually come in at that that money gets rolled back into undesignated funds at the end of the year or into the fund balance at the end of the year correct if you don't use it if we don't use it okay so I think what you're saying is increase the fund balance usage to cover the increased potential for the school budget and not not increase it in a way to reduce the tax from 3.5 and then keep it at 3.5 taxes yeah so right now if we were to adopt I think if that makes sense I think that makes sense if we're adjusting for the school budget so unknown that's the that's the toughest part about this cycle is that it's unknown know because to Mark's Point like if we were able to make an adjustment before the school budget came in like you said Heather but we can't the only way we could do it is if we came this as a budget and then the school budget came over we would actually just have to increase the the

we'd have to pick a big number on the tax levy that we set to come up with that that difference correct so when we look at the three numbers we'd have like the three proposed um Mill rates we'd have to go with the bigger one just to come up with a difference oh she does the commitment you mean yeah yeah and so right now if we budget for more fund balance use and then we are covered we

can then just not use that fund balance in the next all that fun balance in the next year is what I'm what I'm thinking but we also don't know if that's exactly going to be at 7.6% because that I don't know if that proposal is going to get adjusted or what I don't know how steady that number is the school budget number yeah right

yeah and this is just the Perpetual issue of trying to predict your biggest expense a month and commit to it a month before it's set you know it's like throwing a dart at it yeah you're throwing a dart at a little scale my thing is that when we use the fund balance last year we put that out the voters voted to approve that fund balance our revenues were increased from what we thought right so there wasn't this situation where the voters didn't know that that's not the amount of money that we were potentially going to use that was upfront ahead of time right and then there was some that was left over because we had increased revenues and all of that just goes back into the fund balance I think doing it in the opposite direction for me I don't love that approach I mean

I'll have a conversation and listen to people's arguments on it but I want voters to know not worst case scenario but sort of right I would rather have people know this is the amount of money that you're voting that you're that you're willing to use out of the fund balance in the worst case scenario based on the school budget right and then if we don't have to use it it goes back in the way that it did this last year versus not allocating enough out of the fund balance in front of the voters to vote on and then us having to do that after the fact I don't I just don't love that approach so what I would like to do if this to that approach is just increase our estimate for the school budget to 7.6% that was what I said like 20 minutes I'm saying increase that and then um use the necessary fund balance

to get back to 3.5% increase so you'd have to have Mark make those adjustments for us but that's what I would like to see um because if it's going up more what's that if you wrote I won't write anything down I want to how do how do other people feel about that is that do is that I mean I think we're all saying the same thing because what we're getting at right now is this budget if we adopt this right now and the school budget goes up then we have to increase the amount of taxes that we raise because this is the budget and then we have to set the um the mill rate and we set the mill rate after we know the the the the school budget has been approved and we're setting the mill rate with the with all the assessed value and everything like that if we're if we're going to be short that's where we have to increase that right there to to to accommodate for it I would rather be in a situation where we're budgeting closer

to that um actual that we might get and so I'd rather see us just increase this school education cost to seven whatever this you use the same equation to come up with the year and a half but use but input 7.6% increase rather than 6.8% increase figure out what that does to the rest of the budget and then use fund balance to get back to 3.5% our Target percentage um and then that and then go

with that that's what I think does everyone follow what I'm saying I want I want to hear what Jerry has to say isn't that contrary to what he's saying in his email though so because if you go up to 7.6 and they come down 6.8 and you've used 600 in fund balance you're gonna you're gonna deplete your

fund balance big not we not using the fund balance in that situation yeah you wouldn't use it you wouldn't take it out we would we wouldn't be using them well it's part of your budget so it's going to affect the the but but if but if

the what he's saying here is that if we over budget the use of fund balance and then the school budget comes in much lower and so we say okay well we're not going to use the fund balance and we're just going to continue to to shoot for that lower uh a lower tax rate then we're using very little of the fund balance and that we're right now we're deliberately trying to slowly spend down that fund balance so what my understanding from what Mark is saying here is if we pick our percentage at 3 point somewhere between 3 and 5% and we're saying 3.5 if we pick that we then use the fund balance to get us to that 3.5% because we're deliberately trying to spend the fund balance down slowly as opposed go to if it comes in under saying oh well it came in under we just won't use use fund balance you follow what I'm saying the other option would be to phrase an article about using the fund balance once we have the final figures

using the fund balance to equal a 3.5% increase in the mill rate right and that way we're sticking with that and we're using the appropriate amount of the fund balance um can you do that can it does it have to not be a like a concrete number it could be a percentage in the in the warrant I think that we just need to create a budget with a a listed use of fund balance and then and go from there as opposed to trying to say let's change it after the fact personally and so if our goal his recommendation here is that we try to we spend at least over 300,000 of the fund balance if our goal is to do that we should budget somewhere between a $300,000 and $600,000 use of the fund balance with the understanding that our revenues have been outpacing our expectations and we're not fully using it all because if we just budget to use 300,000 of the fund balance and then our revenues are up $50,000 we end up only

using $250,000 the fund balance because our revenues were up so if our Target is to actually get 300,000 to uh 600,000 of that fund balance out then we need to uh budget for a higher number that's what he's saying Josh what are you going to say uh I I do think we could do that I

don't think I agree with Joe it's not the right way to do it but I think we budget the 7.6% increase and uh we go back to the $600,000 in the fund balance do you want or 650 and that way we're hedging our bets do you want to Target a fund balance number or spend the fund balance to get us back down to 3.5% after budgeting for the higher but schooled number except except if they come I mean the problem is right now we don't know and so come April 5th I think it is the

town meeting M right uh there will be a better idea what the proposed budget's going to be although it won't be the final budget right so at town meeting we might have a better idea but I think for now uh we we go up to the

7.6% and increase pum used to 650 and that way uh if they come down we're we're in good shape if they stay at the 7.6% we're our Mill rates going up a little more than we wanted uh or at that point in April we could readjust the numbers at the town meeting uh I think that takes us takes into account what we're trying to do and um it's the example of why we're doing this 18-month budget I mean in a nutshell this I I was talking to somebody the other day who has like three businesses and they were thought we were crazy for not already being there and I said my head's going crazy with the math so I I agree um but this is this is the example I mean save this meeting and replay it for why why it's so important to do this but I I think I think you know or maybe not a 7.6% increase maybe do like a 7.3% increase or 7.2 which is in the middle uh and then go up a little bit on the six or go up to 600,000 uh I I'm okay with either one I

think but I I think it needs to be in there the increase because I think the school budget's going up I don't think they're coming down almost a full perc in their budget I hear what you're saying and I just did the math and I think I've got the solution here so I wrote them down right now this number over your should yeah right now this number and I'll read it out loud it we're budgeting 9,750 9,750 th000 we know that the FY

2024 actual was 6, 88,2 192 and we know we have half of that bill to pay as part of this eight-month budget because that's already we we know that that's fixed that is reflective of that if you divide that number by two it's 3, 44,1 46 the new proposed budget that I just saw with a 7.62 2% increase is$

6,993 155 everyone follow and so if we add that number to the 6 months that we're already paying that gives us a total estimated budget cost which is 10, 750,000 the difference between this new number of 10 10, 37,000 301 minus

9,750 th000 is 287,213 increase we would need to use an extra $287,100 balance or or a total of 18month budget to stay at the three and a half percent to to stay at three and a half we're trying to do right now is we're trying to absorb two Mass we're trying to absorb two massive increases in the budget in our small Municipal budget it's just it's and I I I Dev and I sat in the GP Cog meting the other day this is the same frustration that all the select boards in our community have is that they say we're getting hounded to to to decrease taxes when we only control onethird of the expenses and how do we I mean how do we absorb that huge

increase with our small budget especially when we know that 88% of our costs are already fixed so 54,8 67,000 of budget use 500 and 4,867 th000 that's annualized so that seems this number seems big but I think that that seems reasonable but I I want to make that proposal but I want Mark to double check those he's available if we run that buy

I I like that math and when you annualize it I think we're at the 500,000 which is where we want to be it's in the middle of the range gave us but I also challenge you since you're the chair that before the town meeting in April you're going to have a better a full conversation with the uh Schoolboard chair and and get a better idea of what the numbers are looking like at that point so that we can come in with that and uh and change it because or decrease it yeah um and because I I think you know agree I agree this is completely out of our control we can Lobby all we want and um you know

they're not going to listen to us right um they have what they need to do so uh I and so I agree with you and we need this is where I think that we're budgeting for that worst case scenario knowing that if the if we get we can reduce that number as we get closer if necessary um real I I'll call you in a second Heather real quick I'm just Rie and what Mark is saying and he said a budgeted use of fund balance for FY 26 of over 300,000 and somewhere between 400 600,000 so if we're saying FY 26

we're if we're annualizing this and it works out to um that annualized number of 54,000 and his recommendation for FY 26 is to shoot to use between 300 and 600,000 we're right in the middle there and so I I do want him to check my numbers yeah let me yeah let me just see if he's on that Heather I was just when Jerry said that he was available I didn't know if he was available right now so that we wrap this up can can we move on to another topic come back to this he's yeah he's going to watch our video and say whoa what were you guys just talking about I he's lucky for us he's smart enough to figure out what's going on were there other budget stuff that needed to talk about so the only thing I was going to say is that you know the budget committee did not make recommendations last night they said that they wanted to um uh they wanted us to hear what they were saying um but they didn't make us any

recommendations and but and they were uncomfortable they said making recommendations because the um we adjusted the expected revenues to be in line with what they had recommended but that uh they had prepared for budget recommendations that didn't include their expected uh those revenues to be the increased numbers and so they're going to they want a clean copy of what we have here at the end of our meeting for their review at their next meeting and then they're going to make um recommendations off of that budget and then they're going to wait until the warrant language comes out at the end of the month and then they're going to meet to make recommendations on the warrant language after so one thing can I just add something to that one thing that I was trying to get a clear understanding of it asked for clarity about was because they were making reductions to certain items and but then by the end of

the conversation it didn't appear as though they were talking about trying to they wanted to use the fund balance to make up for those reductions not raise the not raise those amounts and I I did asked the question but they didn't they didn't make a it was really one strong voice that was making that argument and not a collective board as a whole that came back with that and I don't know and so my thought process is the way it works is we create our budget and then they make a recommendation for or against each warrant article and they if they're against our warrant article they come up with their number it's up for them to figure that out because we don't I don't we don't need to be going back and forth of checking their number and deciding if we agree with it and coming back like we put a lot of work into this these are the numbers we're comfortable with if they're saying that they want to cut

$36,000 out of the general fund General government fund that's their prerogative and like their board like their chair said last night it will be their job to present that to community against whatever recommendation we have and so we can we'll just handle that as it is but I think that we need to just we're confident in this budget and them wanting to cut let's say the HR person doesn't change my opinion about our budget no not for me either what I was trying to get clarity on was if they were actually trying to reduce the budget by that amount or they were trying to make up the difference have all the services and everything stay the same but use the fund balance to make up the cost that's their prerogative I understand that I'm saying that that was what I didn't have a clear understanding of coming out of that meeting is where they were with that that's what and I know some of them vocal alized having a Target tax

increase of 2.5% and they vocalized that as maybe doing some cuts and then maybe using some more fund balance um so I don't know what they're that's again that's for them to decid to make the recommendation on you know I saw that they were making the some people were making the recommendation of specific like line items in here but this obviously doesn't show up to be voted on line by line it's going to be just like it was last year you know know the general government and so if they go in there and they say they want to make a cut it's up for them if they want to say why and if they make the cut then it's up for the the town staff uh for Jerry to figure out where to if that's what gets voted on it's up for Jerry to figure out where it comes out of that budget and so their intent might be to take the training budget away at $5,000 but if the if that's out of the Town um

out of the general government budget line maybe the town manager takes that out of something else that it still meets their their line so so this is Mark you ready calling can you hear me yep I can hear you okay uh the board has some questions I'm not sure who's going to lead it but uh here we go all right just be aware just be aware I'm driving I might go through some dead zon so I back

we were just looking at here is that we saw that the school came out with a new um estimate for Durham's contribution to the school budget uh being up 7.62% and we're trying to figure out how to incorporate that into this budget and then use the amount of fund balance to try to get back down to that 3.5% um increase in taxes yep and kind

of our oh and I'll just real quick explain what we did is kind of our back of the napkin math is we took their new number of 6.99 million and then we added that to half of the 2024 actual of 3.04 million to come up with uh a total

estimate of 10 million uh3 7,31 and then we subtracted the current estimate of 9,750 th000 to come up with a difference of 287,213 th000 correct it would still be it would still be a reduction compared to uh fy2 FY 24's budget because on a 12 to 12 month 12 month basis okay yeah and because when we looked at your email it mentioned a target of between 300,000 and 600,000 for FY 26 and so if we're looking at 54,000 for FY 26 and then another 300 or 200,000 in change at for

the first 6 months of uh the uh the fy2 uh or the yeah FY 26 we'd be we'd be sitting good so that number doesn't seem off to you no and uh you know it it may seem like ohg that's a lot but really over 18 months you're probably not first of all you're probably not going to use all that budgeted use of fun balance yeah and secondly it is over 18 months so I I wouldn't be particularly worried about it no okay perfect do we have any other questions for Mark while we got him on the phone no cuz we haven't made him obsessed with yeah all right well Mark we really appreciate you taking this call um unexpectedly and uh let me know if you have any other questions I watched the budget committee meeting from last night and so I provided responses perfect awesome all right have a good rest of your night mark thank you all right you too M by so

one thing I would just like to say about what he was saying about how it's less so in 2020 4 the budgeted amount that we were budgeting to use was $668,000 and what we're annualized budgeting would be what we had originally budgeted in 2024 we budgeted 6 I feel really comfortable with this okay do you want as long as long as one one of us and by that I'm pointing to the two you I'm going to make a motion you know we we we don't drop the ball and and reach out yeah um closer closer to the town meeting I would I would make a motion that we increase the uh school budget uh to a uh 18mon total of 10, 37,3 and we increase the uh use of fund balance by $287,100

do we have any additional discussion so that works out to being an annualized use of fund balance at $ 54,8 6733 which absorbs the increased cost of the school budget while still maintaining a 3.5% um projected impact on your tax

too yeah um any any uh other questions or comments all right do I have a vote um all in favor any opposition all right seeing none and I'm comfortable with all the rest of our numbers and I'm not inclined to um change anything in here what we just did yeah as far as I'm concerned the select board budget is complete and we will try to take a look at it again at the end of the month to see if there's more in or after the next school board meeting to see if we can tighten that number up just my expectation is that they're probably not going down and so I'd rather budget for it so can I just see your work hands my

scratching up back here uh and Jerry thank you and Mark and everybody I think you know people are going to complain that it's an increase but I I don't know what to cut because we have I think I think you know it's almost minimal Services uh I think you need more help in the office I think there's more things that can be done um and uh I

think cutting anything from this budget is only going to harm the community and and the people who are paying the taxes so I commend you for this I think I think you guys did a great job and I think to your point Josh you know we hear what everyone's saying but when people vote on services that they wen't provided last year we're budgeting to provide the same services and sometimes you need to make changes to make sure you meet that service level if we go any lower anywhere on this budget we are now proposing to offer less Services than we did last year and while we have people who come give us comments at our budget uh through our budget process we have to take those voters action of voting by a very large margin to approve into um into cons consideration and so if the budget committee wants to come up with a different number and present a smaller number it then goes in the hands of the voters to to decide their fate on that

and like Joe said they can choose the pay me now or pay me later approach and it's a fair option whatever they want it is we we can give them those options this is a lot of work for switching over to fiscal year and every single headache I've had during this budget process I've thought to myself this is one that's going away next year cuz we'll have a known number you know I sharing that frustration that the budget committee said it seems like something changes every day and it's like things are coming in every day you know I also just want to raise a point that not only are we providing the same level of service but we're filling gaps in areas of risk with the new HR consultant you know Jerry that you've arranged Legal Services the legal service call when you need her thing I mean we're doing things that are long overdue right and it prot

and right and the right security protection with our it and our recordkeeping of our residents uh private information that is a major thing and and it you know some people are raising the point like oh the town manager should have all those skills you know we heard that kind of that undertone of that message the leader is required I mean and you did just that you need to bring to the table areas of major risk and we need to handle it and not everybody knows everything you know so you did a great job bringing the issue up about the HR piece which I completely understand and not only that the security of the recordkeeping and the you know the tools that we use all of that so I really commend you for all of that work and I want that to be on record Absolut that the residents are clear that we're becoming a better business right for the town with what we're doing here appreciate that thank you an the thing that I just want speak

about is like the the whole text thing the text messaging text text my go whatever it is whatever it's called right that all really stemmed from when we had the major flooding and we had so many roads that were closed and we were and a resident Right started a Facebook post to try to keep it all in one spot of what roads were closed what roads were open right that's not an official form of communication from the town residents don't always have internet when we're in a natural disaster type situation and the the texting thing while it's a very small minimal part of the budget right that's a service that is I feel an essential service in terms of those types of natural disasters or those types of things so while that's just one small piece of all the things that Debbie just spoke about right that that embedded cost I get the like embedded cost conversation however that arose out of complaints that you

received at the town office about not being able to effectively communicate with residents in those emergency type situations so every time that we're voting as a board on things that you're bringing to us in the budget cycle there's justification behind that and if there wasn't we wouldn't vote to approve it and we do because you're justifying those cost to us and what those benefits are to the residents yes and I just think that that gets overlooked when we're just nitpicking at the numbers which that's part of what the budget is right but we lose those justifications of where those numbers come from when we're just reviewing the number right appreciate that often time manages it's not what you know it's who you know that's right and who you can bring to the taable to I mean this phone call was a perfect example of it MH you know yeah so I appreciate that I'll continue to do it as long as you're going to continue

to have me yes the good work yeah and text Derm alerts to 91 896 and and if everyone signs up we can take the the the button off the website and get out of everyone's eyes that's once we get to, 1500 people signed up we'll remove that how's that sound and just one more thing what makes my job easier staff yes I mean we have great staff yeah so

we're going to draft amendments on uh we finished D here so we're going to move the draft amendments on resource protection the only thing I got to say about that is Jerry once you get those uh numbers adjusted the chair of the budget committee did request that we send him uh send the budget committee a clean version of everything I know that four or so people requested a print um print version but if we I I told him I think it's in the budget to print nine copies to have them ready at the office for whoever wants it on top of the the email so all righty let's move into draft amendments um so we are scheduled to talk tonight about the draft resource protection uh uh changes the revised draft for the bees standard or best and

contract zoning with the historic district being on our next meeting so um I hope we can get through at least two of these because anything like Joe said about pay me now versus pay me later take my time now or take my time later so let's see how we can proceed but I think that we'll start off here with draft amendments for resource protection which should be the um shorter of our uh proposed drafts

here tonight to the review um so if we recall uh since the resource Protection District was uh redrawn and adopted uh new information came to light a citizen had requested additional surveys to be done on their property by staff from the main Department inland fisheries and wildlife and based off of the result of that survey they determined that um An Occurrence of a rare species that was impacting the Durham uh resource Protection District could be removed due to a lack of continued uh presence and a lack of continued observations and the H the condition of the habitat and how it's changed over the last 20 years so I think that this shows a really good strength of this process working and and updating to the benefit of of residents as as new data comes forward and this is um a reflection of that change here which is removing the uh co-occurrence map from the uh the resource Protection

District so if we recall there's several criteria that were used to determine whether or something met the resource Protection District and a co-occurrence map which had a weighted value for different natural resources uh was put into there and if the weighted value for each area in was over six then it was considered resource protection and this is removing that um from resource protection and it's also just making sure that we're uh making proper adjustments on on some uh impacted lots

that were made non-compliant and you know the what we got from information from people is if the select board is making a lot uh usually you would make come up with those exemptions before you make something non-compliant and so this is uh us making those corrections to bring uh those lots into compliance by giving them some buffered area that is uh not subject to Resource protection do we have any questions as you guys can or as you all sorry can can imagine I was intimately familiar with all of these discussions along the whole way and I have to say I think the Conservation Commission and the planning board did an excellent job with a lot of public input a lot of feedback from professionals um and a lot of consideration for the land owners in this town to come up with a really great solution to uh some some issues that were brought up so I can give I know we all reviewed this in advance but I can

give folks a little bit of time here to take a look at it if we want and then we can uh discuss further my only thing is that I have the comp plan pulled up right now the removing of the language that says currence six plus right I feel like the

complain says and I could be wrong I that part of it I just if we're making ordinance changes that have to align with the comp plan I feel like the comp plan specifically says co-occurrence of six plus that's my that's my only concern can you read that section when when you find it I

are we getting rid of it or updating the map the co-occurrence the only area in town that the co-occurrence model provided resource protection of that wasn't overlapped by another reason for resource protection was in the part of town where there was a large buffer placed around An Occurrence a known occurrence of a rare Turtle once that turtle was determined not to be there and that the habitat condition isn't actually provided and they think that it was just uh an observation that might have been update and so the advisement that the the um uh uh Town planner gut from Main Department inland fisheries and wildlife was to remove the co-occurrence model from this resource protection mapping because it was only relevant in one spot and now no longer relevant that's isn't that paragraph out we just updated the DAT of the map yeah right so we didn't get rid of it from there it says designated have

multiple reading wrong one are you reading paragraph f the co the the rating of six or more it's still there mhm it's just it doesn't it doesn't app it doesn't apply because there's nothing in the 2024 maap so we're not getting rid of it we're updating the MTH which then means that there's no urrent of it in town so it doesn't show up on the I miss we're getting rid of the 2018 map right model and now it's the 2024 model

that's that's what was recommended to remove thank you for catching that so the six because it does say six in the read paragraph the words are going to stay there so that in the future if there was a co-occurrence of six or more and the map would change because the language is still there but the town would then have to go have a separate vote to adopt the new map so what it's saying here the only thing being changed is in um section 2.3 subsection B

2f it says lands designated of having multiple resources as determined by supplemental map natural resource cooccurrence Durham January 2018 the 2018 has been um stricken and replaced with 2024 with a rating with a rating of six or more attributes valued and designated on the zoning map got it and since that 20241 is removing that uh rare Turtle occurrence the recommendation was to remove the 2018 map and use 2024 got it I'm okay with this one and the other part here is just making sure um that there was a really comprehensive system used to figure out how to remove buffered areas around houses that were made non-compliant and they took a because there were so few they took a a house lot by house lot approach and for example if something was in the riparian zone They rather they they said the buffer you could extend your building further away from the resource but not further into the resource and so they

gave people some freedom of movement and this came to light because the the you know rule was that you could expand by 30% of your existing structure but for some of the smaller structures in in town that was not a a very big size and this was a good way to really make sure that people's best entrance and property rights were being respected while using updated data so I'm really happy with how it came out do I have a motion to accept this as amended so move I'll second and we have a motion by Josh and second by Joe do we have any further discussion just I think I I agree with you I think they did a good job I think they took into the uh into consideration the concerns we heard uh and so I I'm I think this is addresses what we heard and I think it shows the process working y you know I agree the process of a resident who came with comment and then quickly I think it was the next meeting we had that on the agenda and got that

moving and the big discussion about this was using the best scientifically available data and so someone was able to get some new updated information and we were able to use it and I think this is great all right all in favor of the motion any opposition seeing none that

your throat CU you have something to say or do you have a I have a I I just was opening this my mouth to say something I was like oh boy did I say something wrong no don't worry I'll let you oh I know I know all righty um here we have the draft uh I battery energy storage system standards uh the this is really comprehensive it's been developed by our uh legal council it's been uh commented on by our town planner it has also uh gone through public or gone through review by the planning board and and public feedback has been received both written and um expressed at their public hearing which was held last week one thing that I think is really cool about this is it turns out we actually have um some subject matter expertise here in Durham we have residents who uh have either worked on permitting or approval or not approval of these projects but also residents who are have installed projects like these so they could just

provide some feedback um as to what they're seeing as business standards and construction standards so I think that this was a really um good well-laid out uh ordinance that's been developed that's included a lot of great public comment uh you know some of the big concerns I heard from the P from the planning board were uh visuals not making sure that any sort of a project like this that was being considered was not uh visible to people's from a residential standpoint I think that this addresses that and there's also um the sound concern and I'm trying to find out what find the noise uh i5 and 15b I think is and that I think aligns with our and I think that already allows with our normal Sound Ordinance in town y um so the point of these is to just say while the we're going to recommend mend adopting um contract zoning which we're about to talk about in a minute this is a baseline set of standards that

you would expect things to be met at from a technical standpoint so uh that would be a minimum so talking about your your size classification tier one tier 2 or tier three this is set up so it's saying that um tier one small scale residential and Commercial storage systems that have an aggregate energy capacity of less than 1/ half of a megawatt and if a room enclosed area consisting of only single storage technology those classifies uh as tier one the intent here is to break out so people who have individual storage capacity at their home um just for themselves and not for a grid scale or utility scale would not be subject to the same level of Permitting as larger ones and then tier 2 is greater than 1 half megawatt but less than 1 megawatt and comprised of uh more than one storage Battery Technology in a rumor enclosed area again breaking that out because some of the feedback we receive

from people in the community is I produce electricity on my own property I would I would need more than um half a megawatt to be cl to to maintain that and they shouldn't have to go through as an honorous process and then tier three is anything over that one megawatt hour um and that's where you're getting into multiple more than one storage Battery Technology in RoR Clos are so it's getting larger these General requirements are really technical um I know that these were pulled from another municipality that has a really comprehensive uh plan here uh highlighted here tier one battery under 5.74 tier one battery energy storage systems are allowed by All rights in all zoning districts subject to applicable provisions of the main uniform building energy code that's those small PE small

uh users tier two located are projects that are located outside a building are subject to a applicable provisions of the main uniform energy code and other applicable codes in the site plan review requirements of article 8 so that saying tier tier two is the site plan review a

lower threshold of Permitting than tier three and then tier three the recommendation here is that tier three battery energy storage systems are subject to this ordinance and require approval through a contract zoning agreement in the zoning District identified in table of land uses in section 3.1 in addition tier three best must undergo site plan review perer to article 8 and contract zoning approval shall apply only to tier three best tier one and tier 2 battery energy storage systems are not subject to contract zoning requirements and shall be permitted and regulated in accordance with the application provision in this ordinance tier three best shall meet the following minimum requirements which shall not be reduced or made less restricted by the terms of contract zoning this is the only place where I have a little bit of concern so tier one in tier two do not have to go through contract zoning they are allowed because

they're for self-c consumption tier three does have to go through contract zoning I'm going to try to avoid getting too much into the details of contract zoning because we're talking about that next but contract zoning as a mechanism that allows a um the board in in the

town to negotiate a contract for a project that meets that falls uh outside of normal standards or normal zoning requirements for the uh town to then receive a a specific benefit for that so if someone wants to put a project someplace and they go through contract Zoning for best you may have to say we need things like water supply or Economic Development if it's going to be a large um impact on our on our tax uh Doge reduction on our tax and if that's going to have reduction on our federal and state aid for schools and stuff like that that the line which shall not be reduced or made less restrictive I think provides a little um where are you uh the top of page two the highlighted section the top of page two yeah where does it say that under tier three best it says shall meet the following minimum requirements which shall not be reduced or made less restrictive by the terms of contract zoning agreement yeah and so I

find that line to be a little problematic because in order to um best represent the town interest I think we need to be able to have the every negotiating tool available and that all being said ultimately the decision is made by a town vote of town citizens so the town then has the opportunity if a negotiation takes place to accept or reject the terms of that negotiation and the reason I bring that up is I I think specifically of the noise issue um noise is a problem if it's right next to the school it might not be a problem if if it's a half mile from the nearest paved Road and it's slightly higher than we allow but no one can hear it because you can't hear the noise near any residents and that might be the opportunity to um have a discussion where we could potentially propose a contract zoning agreement that allows for someone to be a little louder knowing that we're getting a very large benefit some of the

comments I saw out of the um [Music] planning board were well if that's an instance have them erect large sound dampening walls to prevent the sound from escaping I see that as potentially a larger impact to the the resources than allowing a little bit louder noise in some remote area I also just think that we want to give flexibility to um the community when there's this uh agreement being developed in the the only reason I'm comfortable in making the suggestion we take out that shall not be reduced or made less restrictive is because it is the town citizens who

vote for final approval not the select board not the planning board not the town manager the town can decide do we think it's valuable to adjust this criteria to this degree for this project at this location and so that's why I just want to a conversation to see what you all think because some of the budget the the the planning board was kind of split on this and they didn't take a vote they said to me well you hear what we're saying go talk about it you

know I just want there's two different SE draft sections in front of us one's 5.7 right and the other's 5.8 and some differences but which are we what's going on here so there are some differences between the two one that I so one went to the planning board and then George updated it from the planning board so this is the updated version right which doesn't have that language in it but I'm just I'm just um acknowledging that the planning board kept that in yeah no I I I'm just trying to figure out which one is so the Joe we

were both at that meeting I feel like the the newer draft that the planning board was looking at did not include that language and they reverted back to their original draft which did include that language to send to us to have a conversation about it is that what you recall my understanding from what I saw at that meeting was that they were looking at a recommendation that did include the language and they were saying they were Wishy wasi on it and wanted us to make a a decision when I say did include the language I say I'm saying their their new draft that they were looking at did not include the shall not reduce whatever right did not

include that they chose to go back to the draft that does include the shall not reduce and send that draft to us to look at they they right is that you're saying okay that's that's my understanding that's my understanding also which is why you're bringing which is why I'm bringing for discussion because I would rather see us go with this 5.8 um version over 5.7 for the re

reasons I previously stated does that help Josh is that yeah no I I but that's a good I was just trying to make sure I was clear in my head where each of these was coming from because they're they're slightly different uh and

um and I will say I agree with you uh because we're voting on it uh as a town we're having the recommendations um uh I I I think if the town if it's something that's important to the town that Town's people if it's in that area uh so yeah I I'm okay not having that language in yeah me too Joe yeah I'm I'd

rather see the language stay in there and keep to our noise uh ordinances as they are um you know noise ordinances are created to you know ensure people's you know hearing long-term hearing and and other interference to normal activities are are met for you know for both health and and safety reasons um you know when you then say you're going to plot one of these somewhere that's near some houses forget the school for a second um you know that that's important to make sure you know levels are within the limits that the towns I'll say lived with forever uh for as long as you know I was on the planning board um been 20 years at least I know we haven't touched those those those uh DV levels um so I

mean if they have to put up a noise limiting fence as part of the project then yeah they should be doing that um you know the tree buffer may not stop all of it um so whether it be containment around the the units themselves or or some other mitigating Factor but um you know uh my hearing is

gone because of noise like that that hum of electronic gear I we're hearing aids because of that hum because in the early days of my industry we didn't wear noise protection so shame on us right but um it's it's those limits are there for a very proven reasoning and I'd be kind of

against taking it out of the base requirement for anyone to meet anywhere down around residences schools wherever um you know based on all the what industry has come up with as what safe levels of noise are for people um and and if it's above those levels then you need to wear hearing protection so that to me is unfair for anyone and having that I'll say that one resident or two residents come and and vote their you know and voice their concern at a at a townwide meeting when um you know the town could be set to receive I'll say a lot of money for one of these facilities in town then you know that their voices wouldn't be heard no pun intended um so I'd rather have the Safeguard in there and if we want to ask the town to reduce the noise limitations on a project that wouldn't go through as a result well then maybe we go ask that question at that point in time do we um you know do

we allow them to go above for that project not the other way around so with the proposed one version there we would not be allowed to ask the town to allow them to go above that you can ask the town anything no under under this proposed version contract zoning says you would not be allowed to ask to go above whereas the other version you would be allowed to ask and so I used the noise example just cuz it's one that came off the top of my head but like another example could be if there's a buffering requirement um and it says well you need a 50ft buffer they're like well we're proposing putting this right against the edge of the transmission line and if we want us to put a 50-ft buffer we now need to move it 50 ft closer to the road so we can put that plant a buffer between here and the transmission line that's something that we might the town might say well I I we don't mind if it's up against the transmission line or if

someone says well we don't have a 50-ft buffer option but we're going to put it in the bottom of a defunct 25 acre Gravel Pit do we really need to go in and plant trees around there and so I'm just saying for for all these reasons just to to go with the one that does allow some flexibility if the town ultimately gives permission I'm not saying acts the the the the noise recommendation I'm saying get rid of this line that says uh minimum requirements shall not be reduced or made less restriced by terms of contract zoning I'm saying give the town that option to potentially make an exception if the project is the right fit for the area and those sorts of things that's that's my suggestion but I hear what you're hear what you're saying about health concerns you

to add and so I I agree with both of you big surprise um you know the thing about a buffer up against the power line or the thing about a gravel pit you know I think that those are perfect examples of why this this um sentence should not live here when it comes to the noise situation I I do agree with Joe but

something Joe uh Tom but something that I would like to add is that my daycare when my kids are out on the playground cannot meet those noise requirements where for my they can't but one of the ways that they um address that at the planning board because you know my neighbors were very concerned about that was that they implemented um

the noise had to be at whatever distance from the property line they they put those parameters around it and I had to meet those conditions and so I respect that right but even a daycare can't meet those requirements and so maybe what happens is that when it's reviewed and you know we do a thing where the noise from that property line has to be mitigated somehow to make that happen but the 4555 that I mean that's I we talking about best right but again a 12 child daycare

can't those this still requires a even with the version that doesn't that allows you to negotiate different minimum this still it requires an acoustic study um to be provided to determine the noise and the impact because like to your point if it's A4 mile from the near from

from the property boundary and at that property boundary the noise is zero but at the center of the project the noise is 10 DB higher than supposed to be I I have a mitigated concern about that about that as opposed to oh where this I mean because you could say if this project meets the maximum but it sits 2 feet from my neighbor's house that not necessarily a good project either even though it meets the standard and so I don't I'm not saying anything against the noise standard I'm I'm just saying I think that we should have as a community the most tools available for um our uh

negotiation and that does include you could say this needs to be twice as quiet because of where it is too so that's just that's where I'm thinking on it but I hear your point because like you said if you got kids running around that's too too loud for that standard I me if this is not negating the noise requirements by removing the sentence

okay what if you just what if you kept that that sentence but something like that's the one thing that bothers me about this the no noise has been my thing from the beginning is that these are noisy and it's a different type of frequency than the kids in the playground or kids at the daycare it's it's a yeah I know me I used to work on their transmission lines and it's that low hum all day long no it's that going

you change if you added which shall not be reduced or made less restrictive by the terms of a contract zoning agreement absent could cause and that way if there's a good reason why to make that change I think that's a good point because then that's yeah that would cover yeah yeah kind of addresses your that would address it's pretty

the bases would that also deal with like the buffer that all that that would cover think that we're vocalizing that I think that we're vocalizing we would anticipate that that good Clause provision would be implied but by spelling that out I think it's important so what we would need to do here is adopt version 5.8 but amend it to include the line wait we didn't go through the rest of it I'm saying if we wanted to add it in here we would have to adopt version 5.8 and amend it to include the line of the tier three best shall meet the following and shall not be reduced less restricted by terms of contracts owning absent good cause so I've I've marked that as first to come back to that in case we don't have but we got to go through our other edits first um other than

a uh uh it's dynamite it has a approval from the planning planner the planning board um and the the legal council and so I'm I'm cool with it are you stretching or no I'm trying to get your attention so my thing is that my my brain might just not be working but it refers to contract zoning in this ordinance y if contract zoning doesn't pass this directly references contract zoning then then you can't have then you can't have a tier tier three best got it okay they the planning board brought that up because it's like what it's saying here is you need to go through contract zoning if you do tier three well our town doesn't allow contract zoning at this time and you don't get a tier three best but this allows people who like have a business and want to put their own battery storage there to be able to do it for themselves it does that eliminate that though that they can't just make an application and go through

site plan review yeah because you have to go through through it we don't allow it so you can't do it yeah that's it's like a ban on the tier three but it's it's set up so then if a community ever decideed to say we do want to accept contract zoning here um and we could get feedback

from sure about that right so let's put it this way Kristen will be here at our next meeting if we are airtight on everything else for this we can table that and just ask her that simple legal question next meeting does that work for folks but I want to make sure we're airtight on everything else so we can I know we don't do anything in 5 minutes and I'm mostly to blame for that but if we could do this one in five minutes next meeting so we can get the heavy lifted out of the way here but I think that's a good point Heather I just wanted Rec confirm the tier one and two um criteria number meets the needs of the public comment we had like At first the number was too low for people yeah cuz the the current um just it is good yeah good you don't have to explain it okay what's this other highlight the tier 2 battery energy storage I think I'm on page two I am and it's highlighted that

tier 2 battery energy storage systems all that anyway you know what I'm trying to say located outside the building are subject to applicable provisions of the main why is that there and highlighted because it it adds the site plan review and the other standards and section 5.76

or 5.86 depending on which one we adopt yeah um so it's just it's just a different riew from the tier one if you do a side by side comparison in 5.84 it says battery energy storage system tier 2 located outside a building or subject to the applic applicable provisions of the uniform tax code and other applicable codes and site plan review requirements of article 8 5.86 this says applicable verions and other applicable codes review article 8 and standard section 5.76 not 5.8 that's the only difference

that's the only difference I'm reading between these two but again we can have George come on the 25th as well to specify that's the difference yeah okay okay okay just I think I think it's highlighted just to show that there's a different review from tier one got it okay so I think that highlight was FYI not hey this is different okay so if we can just have Kristen chime in on I I

don't want to end up in a situation where that we've been trying to avoid yes um and as long as that is what you're saying it is then then I'm good so I move that we table uh revision to draft best standards until February 25th 2025 where at our next meeting when we can get feedback from our legal attorney or town attorney sorry do I have a second to that motion second all right so the motion on the table is just table this until motion on the table is the table uh this until next meeting okay all in favor any opposition seeing none can I ask a process question sure so if this doesn't pass at town meeting if the best

standards don't pass and contract whatever in our moratorium runs out then what if we if it doesn't pass we could try to extend a moratorium for 6 months um but my understanding is after that moratorium would be extended 6 months and then it just goes away and you are saying site plan review okay we need to make sure that people understand that and that that's really really clear y okay yeah back to Deb's point of us trying to eliminate risk in town not passing something exposes us to a lot of risk because someone could put it right in their front yard right on the side on the side of patriot AB right on stack Road may think it's really important for people to understand that okay yeah moving on moving

zoning let's um I think that this has been really well covered by the planning board the town planner and this is a reflection of everything we've already discussed there's no changes to this from what we approved and originally sent to the town um to the town uh planning board and so I don't feel the need to rehash that entire discussion that we had the last time because we did that hard work before we're now incorporating the public comment there was no public comment submitted about this either online or um

to the planning board or in person we received a couple public comment uh a while ago before this was even proposed someone said you should consider contract zoning um that was some public comment we had received so unless anyone has any other questions about this I'm fine with this as written I I just agree with one statement that you made I do feel like the planning board receed public comment that we need

to do a better job of making sure that this information is like right out in front of everybody um because the person that made the public comment felt like um this was difficult to to find na you know trying to pay attention and have and having a hard time to do that now whether that's I mean I know that link is in our agenda we're having the meetings but I'm all that I heard it as well and so I think that if we now are saying this is what's locked in we're ready to have this live very publicly and so I think that if we vote on to accept this as written tonight that this this needs to be on the website like this week you know person and I think that there should right now just be a tab on the website that says uh you know draft ordinances or whatever and so it's right there front and center because we're about to have a public Hearing in March I want everyone not have to search not have to look hard

just get on the website and have it all right there very easy to find and I don't think that the comment was made because they were I think they were they were saying that as when people show up at town meeting and they don't have have the information it's more like look how long it took us to get resource protection through because people didn't feel educated about it right I just think we have if we want these things to pass we have an obligation to make sure that residents are educated before and that's what I heard from a comment too and like the person said once after they reached out they were directed they were able to go find the information but they said you know I had to sit through sip through a three-hour meeting and then I had to do all these sorts of things to get to that information and so I had some thoughts on that like we can also just start using our our YouTube channel

and we can you can put in like time stamps so someone knows you just click um best conversation and it automatically brings you to the beginning of that so I think that that's something we can do a little bit better job of but I what I'm hearing is us just saying hey go watch the two three-hour meetings we did two weeks two months ago isn't really the the the answer cuz he said well we're just not going to do that and then if you show up and I don't understand it I'm going to vote no well h elected topics we can include like you did sometime a few months ago in the Friday news blast have one slide by the chair of the select board just explain them what on unselected topics you know explain something and even prior to a town meeting I mean I don't know if that's something we'd want to use the text scub for say Hey you know just a a

blurb subject matter this link and there you go to some information we can put a link right to this I think that it would be great if we just do every single like everything shy of sending out pigeons to notify for this because we know that that public hearing on this is going to be March 12th by the planning board generally the planning board does make space for us to be there to answer questions like not about policy but about about questions that people might have if that's going to be in the newspapers that's going to be on the website that should be in every news blast between now and then and it should I think that we should be texting it out two weeks in advance one week in advance and the day of I'm not trying to make this last longer do you have something you want to say first go ahead there was a lot I'm just reading this this says large battery storage or solar energy system there was a lot of discussion

around the solar sizing what is that included in this we didn't talk about that um it's listed here uh conditional um conditional Zoning for solar on large scale required for projects with a surface area of greater than 175,000 Square fet my feet and we I since we're going to revisit this on February 25th I just need to do some math because I think that we I I personally am comfortable of that being reflective of a 20 acre project whereas the proposal was just for anything 10 acres or larger and that's that's small and so I I got do some have a i you feel like that was something we did not discuss last time I had to do some math on that because there was a lot of confusion about the square footage of panels versus the megawatts because we go by square footage of panels not megawatts and so the conversation that they had I guess we're still technically in the table in motion so we can have

this discussion a little bit but the conversation that they had was um the original proposal was it had to go to contract zoning as a solar project if it was going to be 10 acres of ground impact or more and a lot of public feedback and input from the Conservation Commission and input from some members of the budget of the planning board was that that 10 acre threshold should raise to 20 acre threshold uh and that was because when the original solar ordinance went through they said this is fairly restrictive on small projects in Durham but not nearly restrictive enough on big projects and so the intent by I

think by including this as a the solar was to avoid like what green is running into where there's a 600 acre project going in so this is saying if it's over 20 acres 20 acres are larger we should go through contract zoning because that has big impacts so we can pick that up but it's just I got to do the math to figure out we just just bring it up because we talked about best but this does also have solar implications so I didn't I don't want to overlook that hard uh the one thing I noticed and it's because like every time I flipped to it when I was looking at it um yeah on my screen and flipping through here there was a comment we were discussing with the town attorney about Board of Selectmen versus select board and it's still in her as Board of Selectmen yeah so because she said she wanted to keep it consistent with our existing ordinance yeah until we do codification until we do codification thank you for

pointing that out good thing to point out I'm [Laughter] okay so the motion is to table this until the 25th but we've got most of our conversation out of the way now so it should be quick do I have a vote on the motion of tabling it all in favor any opposition cool okay that's all build me now or Bill Me Later right don't put it on the website yet until no we need to we need to fix fix that um second uh Joe second is a

josh Joe motion second 25th okay okay 25th is going to be a busy meeting because we're going to go over historic district um uh updates I last week I extended an invite to the historic district commission to have a representative um present I was told that they were going to discuss it and see if anyone was available to come and meet with us I haven't heard back I received um a um

notice of uh resignation from the chair of that committee today or that the historic District commission today effective uh the 14th and so I don't know who they're intending on sending if I don't hear anything after the 14th I will reach out again to see who they're sending but the intent there is to have them present to ask questions of the legal councel as we finish wrapping up that ordinance and then if we have the lawyer here we ask her all other lawyerly questions so that's it for old business we can move into new business unless anyone had any other old business that I missed okay um I wanted to bring this up

I know I flagged it for you all online already moving our March 11th meeting to March 4th the uh the print if we didn't March 11th if we wrapped up everything we needed for the town Plan gave the approval gave the thumbs up on ordinance language and all those sorts of stuff the feedback I received is that would be too quick of a turnaround to get it printed in time and so if we move the March 11th meeting to March 4th all things that need to be done to be align the town annual the awardwinning town report would be done on March 4th as opposed to March uh 11th so I'm going to make a motion to reschedule the March 11th move meeting to March 4th second do we have any additional discussion on that I will not be here

something I can't yeah no you don't have to explain why we totally hear you are you are you comfortable with us I'm comfortable with you just moving forward moving that forward those okay I'm comfortable just letting you know that I've already got well not perfect that you're missing but you're totally you keep catching me off guard know I'm

all the time so um no really yeah you hard to believe but I was a talkative student um so the motion is to move the meeting from March 11th to March 4th all in favor of the motion any opposition seeing none all right Jerry uh can you give us a little update here on this personal property abatement what yeah so we started looking um in our system for taxes that will never be collected um these are personal property tax that you have and the reason why these won't be collected is because they're no longer in business MH so it's just a formality really I mean you're under title 36 section 841 you're allow to Abate these and if you give a if you sign off on these we'll get them out of the system and we'll look like we won't ever collect which we won't yeah um do I

have a motion to accept the uh personal property tax abatement as presented so moveed I'll second all right do we have any additional discussion uh it looks like one of them is for the total of $332.92 and the other is for

$17.68 um some of these are both in both cases there um one case is going as far back as uh 2008 and then the other as far back as discussion do I have uh I just I'm sorry I when to ask did you say these businesses no longer in business in business in Durham but are the people not in Durham they so write them off no other choice but to write them off can't make them pay no matter where they live right okay wow

that no okay no this it just gives the the tax to go in there and just write it off and yeah this is just saying that this amount will no one's going to pursue that um amount when we start addressing any back unpaid taxes and stuff like that yeah it gets it right off the bux yeah so it's not like we're losing there's not a dollar amount that's coming out of our budget anywhere we're just no longer going to attempt to pursue this these dollars and had we do

you do we know had we attempted to collect these taxes all these years or this account just like sat dormant the person never paid never paid years go by and that's I I can't answer to what right last year but in talking to the assessor and going through as we're starting to look at these back taxes yeah this this stuck out so we just said well we take care of this one right away yeah there are others in there but it's there's a little bit more investigation that needs to happen and phone calls this one is very straightforward to to me it looks like there is a principal amount that wasn't collected in interest accumulated um do we need to be in do we need to be need to be in Board of assesses for this no no no for the abatements well I don't believe so cuz as elected officials you can write this this this is they just writing this good

question all right any other additional discussion all in favor of the motion any opposition seeing [Music] none and is there a copy in the so there's a cop official copy good that next order of businesses fee schedule uh disposition burial fee adjustment Jerry you want to yeah so the state came out on February 1st of 2025 that they've raised their cost of dispositions by $5 so we have to adjust our fee schedule by $5 what was it to bury people no what

was the fee originally 20 $20 it was 20 and yeah it's more expensive than that no no I'm saying like to do it oh yeah all right well so do I this comes Tock up do everything you want to add no yeah this is just a burial permit fee Oh I thought you said to bury I was like no the fee okay I like it's a disposition permit okay so we just have to update our fee schedule to reflect it so y f okay uh do I have a motion to update the fee so moved I'll second Josh Joe combo

com good combo today um any additional discussion all right all in favor any opposition seeing none we have something to sign here for that no for for that no okay perfect when we're done with the budget can we put the fee schedule back on the agenda absolutely I think you requested that couple months ago I didn't forget all right uh we're going to move into manager report unless there's any other new business does anyone have any new business to bring

um I may have mentioned this last meeting but it was really kind of hectic and towards the end but the um R doors are now installed uh they they work great can I interject really quick yeah because two of the members who were doing the installation at the Eureka Center or on the fire department there was a uh chimney fire while they were installing and it was the record-breaking uh response time especially by someone on foot because they they were literally working on the doors the call came in they ran across and the house is saved but they just I just thought it was a funny little thing cuz like boom 30 second response time so I think we got to remind Chief when he tells us how quick the response time is there's an outlier in there um we also have the J rightor at the Town Office that's been installed big winds yeah waiting for a good storm to test it out well this weekend might be well you know since we installed it

we won't lose power for another two years now right um we are we are doing a 24 audit right now as we speak the audit has been in the town office the last couple of days and uh we're going through that process so seems going pretty good yep very going real good um the only other thing that I want to really uh talk about kind of dedicate my whole manager report is to town staff I mean Town staff does an an amazing job and we'll start with public works I mean the storms that they have had to go through is unbelievable I mean just picture yourself Thursday if it snows getting in your car storman drive to Boston see how stressful that might be and I mean they're doing this day in day out now jump in a truck that's 2,000 $200,000 with knobs down

here that you get to control your material levers you got to push get the wing I mean it's a it's a lot of it's a lot of work and they've done a fantastic job and uh the fire department you know I don't know if it was the holidays or if things just e and flow with Emergency Medical Services but he's had to go to a few calls that are somewhat disturbing and he he just does a really nice job

and the folks in the town office they're just where I sit I can kind of hear what goes on their customer service skills are just topnotch I mean the the the joyful talk between the residents and the town staff is is really really good they they do an awesome job so I'm really proud of them I mean I know some folks may not value them as much as some others but I value them tremendously and they're just a joy to work with and you know hats off to them I I really I feel like I'm part of their team you know they're just a really we just have a really good bunch of people and you know I I get out and about talk to other Town managers in other towns and we're doing we're doing really well so I'm proud to people on there team they do a great job and I know I can speak on behalf of the board here that we value you and we value them a lot we get a lot of good feedback so yeah why do you think I always come over

early I want to hang out with the town staff you know they they're just really good they've been through a lot in the last couple of years you know the town office became unstable a little bit and they stock it out they got to deal with me I'm not always that easy but um they're just tremendous that's awesome so thanks for taking time to acknowledge them

off like I said invited the uh term historic district commission to our next meeting uh just want to flag next meeting will be a big one um so just mentally let's all prepare ourselves for that because it's a kind of one of the last big lifts before town uh town meeting um but I'm really proud of everything we've accomplished so far and I think we're going to be able to culminate that at the next meeting and show that I also like I said received that uh notification of the the chair of the Durham historic district commission resigning as of February 14th and so um check in with that committee after to see uh what their status is is on chair um position and provide any assistance that we might need to provide if they need guidance or anything like that uh other than that I don't have any oh as you can see I've been at the budget committee the last couple couple weeks I appreciate folks being able to make it

my intent is to be at their every one of their meetings and uh to speak as much as they they want and so if I just want to let you all know I do my best to just make sure that I'm giving facts and figures and I don't want anyone to think I'm trying to speak for the board in its entirety without without checking with you all so I just want you to all to know that you're free to check me if if it ever comes across that you feel like I'm I'm speaking out of line or erroneously or anything like that like I got thick skin I can take it so all right Josh do you have anything no no Joe Tom no I'm all set

thank you heather fee schedule after budget no I just want to say a couple of things number one um you know we have had a lot of meetings planning board um the all the ordinance work work the budget committee and I feel like the vibe among the boards and the Committees is so much more collaborative than it has been in past years um and I just I think that's important to speak about and I really appreciate that because you know I come from this position of like team Durham and I really appreciate like

everybody town the staff the boards the Committees the commissions really trying to work together as a team for the best interest of the residents so I I feel like that you know that we're moving towards that and it's it's better than it's ever been I think um and that

the when there are disagreements or there are um differences of opinion it's all been very respectful for the most part and so I just think that that's worth calling out um there was one other thing that I was going to say shoot maybe you have to go to Debbie and we can come back to you um de I'm going to jump in front back in front of you real quick um speaking of Team Durham it made me think uh Deb and oh do you want to go now no it's my Deb and I attended that um circle of chairs with GP Cog a couple weeks ago and the discussion of that meeting was really property tax and they kind of went around all the communities and asked us how we were feeling about taxes and uh provided us with a lot of data about the regional tax rates and stuff like that a lot of really good conversation I think that when we're there there's a lot of towns that are similar to us in size but sometimes in the past I think we've said well that's

for the big city folks or I think the Scarboro Town manager referred to themselves as we think of them as the fat cats who have all the money and I said that's not what we're saying that's what you're saying but either way sometimes I feel like we don't always think that we can discern as much information from them but it was I felt it was a really helpful meeting and I'll I'll make sure we uh this gets on the website I already gave a copy of the budget committee and to those of you who are at the planning uh the budget committee meeting last week um it gave us a really good set of uh data on our median Property Tax Bill and uh you know showing here in durm that uh as of 2022 the median property tax bill was $3,049 which is um very low a low compared to the region of GP Cog and compared to some of the large ler um uh even the smaller municipalities in in parts of anagen County and then they also went through

for each one of these towns and determined the percentage of the uh median property tax bill for a median income household and so we have one of the lowest in the region at the median property tax bill for the median income household is 2.93% of their wages which is very low compared to when we look at like Falmouth where it's like 5% um you know Cumberland where it's 5% and uh Freeport where it's 42% and so the reason I brought it up is because we also start talking this time of year about Mill rates and sometimes I hear people say well look at this town the mill ratees much lower well valuations are much higher so in Durham we have a median as of 2022 median tax bill of $3,049 in uh the the hometown of our town uh planner Falmouth their bill median median tax ta bill is $7,500 in Freeport the median tax bill is almost $5,200 so while they might have a different mill rate the cost of a two-bedroom 2,000t house is much higher

there and so this is not to say that this gives us an excuse to just increase taxes or anything like that but I think it was really good information and the other thing I think and let Debbie jump in after to if there's anything you heard but there's a lot of really good effort going forward from organizations like MMA and GP Cog to work with the state Le address taxes at the state legislature and push for um hoping to increase the amount of percentage that we can get back from homestead exemptions increase the homestead exemption uh amount for people and address uh tax implications for seniors and make sure we're maintaining good um Revenue sharing from the state so we were able to really have a good brainstorming session to go help in try to do action items in August so that will have implications here in durm so I just wanted to share that that was a really good meeting and I will now give

the board member report over to Debbie and feel free to add anything if I miss anything what you from what we saw together that was a good summary it was a good good session um just want to mention that the solid waste committee meeting was cancelled last night because of the conflict with the budget committee meeting but they've agreed to I saw the notes back and forth Jerry to the second Monday of every every month okay and then there'll be a new chair selected as the chair resigned but is staying on the on the committee so that's good we need to pick up the momentum in that group um and there's a lot of opportunity to improve in that area um I also wanted to commment take a moment to commend Joe and his

his um budget committee the budget committee I don't want to say performance but he did good I mean I that was my first time sitting through anything like that and I was thinking man I'm glad I'm not Joe um but he did good and he was recognized uh by the chair of the committee as well of you know knowing the numbers being able to explain it well it's not an easy thing and I think you did a good job in represented uh the work that was done on the budget good and and Jerry you as well as Mark too U contributing to the discussion I thought was good and Heather's good comments um but I do want to make a comment from the budget committee um one of the concerns was about being able to have more visibility of the 10-year Capital plan so I'd like to propose that we actually wherever that is get it posted on the website so people can actually look at it and then make a commitment you know as we do go

by these whatever it is we're buying that we include it some communication of that of course not only in our select board data which we'll be voting or doing whatever there but in our um Friday news blast we can say hey the new truck is going to be purchased in a month or whatever it is um but I think that was a valid concern that uh was discussed and that's it thank you I think that was a really good point Deb because I think that those things that we think are the most important getting them to the front of that page even with the capital Improvement plan being something that we're going to talk about every single year if it has its own tab or own heading or whatever on the on the website and just right there I think that would be a really good way to just make it nice and easy to find and people can see see what's there um cuz a lot of work went into that and I want to also make sure we're showing off that really

good work and then we can do a better job of if we know that there is a request for a capital expenditure coming before us of making sure maybe we maybe we do a text for that me a text notification so people can give comments or something like that just to make sure people know that there's no um illus of trying to do anything behind a curtain here it's all public facing so I I think if we don't have the capital Improvement team uh committee now then we should take all that off the website yeah does that not even exist anymore with the new 10year plan so we can remove all of that kind of clean that up a little bit I agree but I think those are good comments that came out at the budget committee can I say that one thing that I forgot but now I remember so there was a situation this past weekend where um speaking was

accidentally plowed into the access at runaround pond and a resident posted on that that was very upset and I suggested reaching out to the road commissioner because I felt like it was probably just a misunderstanding that could have very easily have been cleared up by a simple conversation and there was a lot of a lot happening on that post and so I took it upon myself to reach out to the road commissioner um and made it very clear I'm not directing your work I'm simply asking the question to understand what what's the deal is there no place to put the snow was that an accident you know whatever um and come to find out exactly as I thought it was completely unintentional we had a new on call driver that plowed the snow into that area not realizing the access needed to remain um a res had gone out and tried to fix it Calvin immediately addressed or the Public Works director immediately addressed it said that if their access

wasn't good enough he would go down there with the loader that day to clear that up and I just I wanted to reiterate and one and another Resident actually said on that post the town staff is always so willing to problem solve and to address resident concerns if they know about them and so it's very easy you know to draw attention to a situation on that Facebook page and you know that type of stuff but it was immediately addressed by that very easy conversation asking what happened and you know what can we do about it um and so I I think that that you know just goes to speak to the fact that the town staff is working for the residents and it and reaching out directly to them is a way that things can just be done efficiently instead of all of this you know drama well I was trying not to say that word but yeah and that was what I just wanted to say so anyway I appreciate I appreciate that back on a weekend didn't need to do

that so and I just want to say I think it's really important and I'm really happy that you both went to the chairs in the circle GB car cuz I mean they do a lot of good stuff and it's good to kind of get a an overview of what's really going on cuz prop taxes are an issue not just in Durham but Statewide and there's all kinds of talk I I had a zoom meeting with all the southern uh main city managers and uh they're struggling yeah everybody some of them want some of them actually are like well the schools should send their own tax bill the county should send their own tax bill here here just because just because the municipality gets Hamed with we're the one responsible for collecting property taxes so it's it's it's an issue um we felt leaving I know when we left we felt like we were better off than about 2third of the other people who are expressing their challenges um cuz I don't envy some of them and I

think you know you know threee straight A 9% tax increase that some of the local communities are absorbing and breaking that out in our budget like we did this year I think is will help show where where the taxes are really going the for people absolutely important thing that you did there absolutely we do have to have executive session I know um so any other board member reports okay no um we

need to uh approve the consent agenda but there is a uh I want to go into an executive session to discuss uh uh line uh item a appointment for the ad committee to discuss the app discuss the person who has um uh filled out the application so how does that do we want

to make it easier do we want to just approve everything else so Jessica can go home shut it down and then we will just finish the notes on Executive session yep okay yeah that'd be fine so I'm going to make a motion to approve the minutes from January 28 2025 as written do I have a second have second all right all in favor any opposition seeing none um and then I'll make a motion to assign and approve the AP warrant for of for February 11th 2025 do I have a second second uh any discussion all in favor all oppos seeing

have to remember to write down three motions and then our next upcoming meetings in town news uh historic district commission meeting is February 13th 2025 at the eure center at 6 budget committee meeting is February 24th 2025 at the fire station at 6:30 and select word meaning is 202 J February 25th 2025 at the fire station at 6:30 um and we

will now I now will take a motion to go into executive session um I can't remember the number pursuant to I think it's 605a 605 A personel matter personel matter 605a do I have a second on that motion second second any discussion all right all in favor can we sorry it won't take 12

off there we're going to we're going to wait till we're off there