if we're going to be a fire protection system and if we have made the commitment to this community that we are going to provide protection at every fire hydrant throughout the system then we need a tank of the size t we are not we're going to commit to being a fire protection system and the fire trucks are then going to have to come down to the river and going to dry hydrants then we've we build a tank at one hundred fifty thousand gallons and we start bagging all of the fire hydrants and  to address will be under a permit timeline to address that deficiency one when we have and that permit and we are which is december of twenty sixteen and if we do not address that deficiency either through a larger tank or  it's not just me i don't think the public is seeing this either i don't think that the people in south agree with what we're dealing with a go be me as a question about this because there was one thing i didn't understand is the change in the in the in the rigs for fire protection history and and if i understand correctly what's that tank is built we're not going to being compliance and most of the town with the flow people that live in town buy fire insurance get to that benefit of going in the right direction when they're excited to meet fan reading at the very least tate so if we want if we said district now they're changing the rules on us and we have to make this decision about whether to upgrade the tank or not if we were to explicitly say we're not going to do that we're not going to attempt to remain in compliance then you know we would get the change in our status and everybody's insurance rates might go up but as long as we are working towards compliance of what i'm understanding we get to some extent a pathway to keep our status as  we have we have talked about asking the town to be the difference because of the water we have to take regardless period we need to this takes hold we we have issues that we need to address we need to put it at a higher location to address to address pressure issues which are there were guards whether we're fire protection system or not so we have pressure issues period whether there's a fire or not and to put a new tank  that without fire protection is going to cost eight hundred thousand dollars to put a new tank in that has fire protection at the reading that we need to is going to cost one point two million dollars so that's where we're at do we want to spend and if we're at one point two we would we're asking the town to contribute that forty percent more if we are not going to be a fire protection system then that entire cost of the tank is borne by the users of the system period because that's that's a water system problem it is not a town problem is a water system problem so that eight hundred thousand dollars alone can get the lives we have that's just i mean i'm talking basic here basic issue of do we provide fire protection at one point two million and have that and ask the town and not saying they're going to ask the town to contribute some or do we say no we're not being a fire protection system we're pulling out all the right answer just paid a lot of money to put in and we're only going to fill the tank proximate to the hybrid the other is for people who are a little bit further away of house doesn't burn down because people would actually get water there in timely fashion which does not have a direct fire insurance benefit but presumably has some and i think that they were getting when if we can't do that one in two are missing the bigger picture that we're community you know in and we're here to support each other and i honestly we have twenty minutes left in this meeting and we haven't even talked about financials and we need to talk about financials we have spent so much time talking about this fire protection system that we need to make a decision whether we're going to recommend to the town to either be a fire protection system or not that's what we need to decide and if we will smaller say we are not going to fire protection and you heard the discussion i'd like to make friendly amendment because i think it hinges on how it's paid for because you know with one of the three hundred twenty users i am a big fan of fire protection but i'm less of a fan and to be clear the users if we have forcing the classifier direction across the entire town it's the users and everybody else it's either the users alone or the users and everybody else but because we sometimes lose sight of that right the users themselves also pay the whole amount regardless well my concern is is that is that then we'd have to do another bond for them i don't later date which costs money and frankly we need to have a positive bond code by a certain date in order secure financing funding from the state program which which potentially hands out more favorable interest rates and terms that we are going to have to do in an income survey to justify the lower rates because the funding thousand and then the goal would be to be within one percent of the median household income from there and if we are substantially above it was here we come in the sixty's i don't know i think the state would have to look out they would look at what the new statewide average would be basically the service areas median household income has to be below the state line average to qualify for disability status and disadvantage status would get us to the negative three the understanding if not the specific language that we want to cross these can bridge recently so this is the way the funding programs work is they ask you to bond for the entire cost of the project or guard this of the terms of the of the rate because they understand that th are even sent until until projects lose out until it's off because there are a lot of moving parts with projects you can go in and say we think it's going to be this based on preliminary estimates but you don't know the actual final until last check to sign until the warranty period is done until on tones on i mean it doesn't change usually much between between the final you know instruction or even halfway through so  revolving funds to pay for planning and the repayment starts in august excuse me in april of twenty fifteen so that is f y fifteen that's that's the budget year that we're looking percent payback and there is a two hundred twenty thousand dollars balance on that and that repayment starts in october of twenty fifteen which is f y sixteen in the amount of twenty six thousand five hundred dollars a year and we may so there's a moving targets with that but it's pretty much going to be because we haven't actually constructed what we plan to construct and so therefore we have to pay the loan back i'm just saying for planning purposes not an effect is this year but i think we should look into doing maybe a ten year note at a small interest rate to stretch it out so that lessons that we've learned over the past two years or so immediately pegs a little bit of twenty two three where we think i looked at that this afternoon no it's forty six thousand five hundred dollars a year which is a fairly substantial sum that's why i think that we should look into have now if the tank and then part of the preliminary engineering report that would be good faith effort and we could extend it out but the tank was not part of the court so what we would have to do is we would have to show good faith effort to  that's why it was moved out it was moved out to come in sign with the repayment general road so if we for example i'm not proposing this why not doing it for example we were going to do east main street we're going to float a bond so i just want to quickly see that for the next meeting in january it's a total singing and i know i'd like to have discussed our connections policy in the works where they connect how they connect how much it pay let's get right to it so since last meeting there's been a growing grassroots movement to organize residence as well as conservation missions in the issue so i know we have a number of residents here in the audience and we really haven't heard from them yet they haven't heard from you this is the start of a dialogue to say  subsequently did not use the word most the use words like should but i think most would agree that something has to be done to the dam so the issue is what you do there after you need it removed would you try to meet somewhere for as the state was interested in doing in the sixty's and seventy's to replace the dam we've been involved with a bunch of what i would call database research is a scientist trying to find out what the facts are least with some with regard to its use in the actual resources in that  once they receive a permit from the girl scouts they do plan to schedule an information meeting right off the bat they're not going to wait for requests from the public because they recognize that this is something that the public is very interested so they are going to plan on that  occasion and they haven't received the application yet so so they don't they don't have anything to respond to or even and as far as the replacement of the day is because of the way the state regulations work and it is the dam can only be replaced it is if it still exists so if the dam is for moved by the girl scouts there would have to be an application for a new day and from what i understand is that is a lot more difficult to get a permit for than for a replacement mr michelin was confident that the girl scouts or whomever could get a permit to replace the dam if it still exists but not for a what would be considered a new day if the girl scouts were term removing mr bush meant also felt like the cost to construction equaled low cost mr grossman indicated that it was a low hazard not necessarily a low risk of breaching but the but but it was in a hazard class which identified meaning that if  that was informative for me is knowing that i think first and foremost if something can be done that something worked out of the girl scouts that they sell or use or whatever the property with the dam still intact to whatever group is that the likelihood of salvag ing the damage and as a replacement business life is higher than if there were damages to be removed by the girl scouts and then whatever group would have to go through the process of essentially building a new d and and for whatever reason mr hutchinson that that would be more challenging than a placement so but and that there will be a public process that that was something that key was very clear about this clearly there has been something that's going to decide maryland next month probably not then we've got some time to kind of figure out what the plan will be and i think as we go forward we'll have a better idea of what our role if any there is in this process it  have no role in this yet it is at the state level or at at the the local level that the girl scouts decide you know they're they're going to give it to someone to repair i don't mean that they are not profit did the conversation happen or how fundraising could happen around this project but it's still their project even though there'd be a group doing fundraising giving it to the girl scouts  something to consider that they could be a part of this fundraising project and then hand it off because somebody else is more money to take it if it's done so i think that that would be one of the more viable happenings do we discuss will be in our meeting packet but it made us send it to us directed us to it probably it might get to us quicker simply because things are consolidated boards and act two fifty five over the past decade or so all the laws are changed to allow the public service for to review cell towers  that also has allowed the legislature to streamline the process because at two forty a day because section two forty eight is when the electric generating facilities are gas facilities come in they have to get a certificate of public good here is a telecommunications facility would have to get in to forty eight and if it is a project of limited size and scope it could waive the public service court could waive certain criteria and it could go through quicker under if you were standing in this facility although it was argued by the applicant that it was of limited and scope they have subsequently concluded which is only within the last week that it is not because of certain dimensional issues which affects the application in two ways one  more of the criteria will apply it would not be the fall criteria to forty eight for electric generation facilities but it would be all of the criteria for two forty eight in the case in facilities and you would have upwards of one hundred eighty days rather than a shorter period of sixty days to view the there are also other standards in terms of timing i believe jeff and your planning commission have filed letters i believe jeff's letter was in on time too to beat the twenty one day clock to get standing to get current status we asked for more time the applicant object this last week i think they then subsequently revised their position a little bit saying that they were not of a project of limited size and scope thereby implicitly analogy that would be more time for the public service would view that i think the department and the board recognize that this is an issue and the county struggling with the infrastructure issues posed with this project in eighteen c we let it be known that this is an issue that the town wants to give the witness its concerns and the witness would take those conservative consider if the department has also indicated to me that they would consider looking at the propagation maps for th legislature has written so that if there is not a quote significant issue unquote they because i think a lot of especially the public doesn't understand the relationship between the department of public service and the public service for an and i think that's i was just trying to understand the flush out it's the form that ultimately  that it takes into account the department seconds hopefully and then the word significant to subject them and that's what the war determines if it's significant is if  of deference to the municipal plan in this case i think it's you or bywater that really are more specific that language doesn't really apply or bylaws but there's nothing the language says there's nothing that and we're not we didn't prove that any money spent beyond the letter that's been written for this friday you're welcome drinking water only storage tank under the two options and it would be between one point two and one point three million on a fire protection system searching that provide a fire protection that's roughly a forty percent increase in the overall cost value until we have the annual payment of the loan but i would expect it to be annually i expect the loan payment to be somewhere between forty and sixty thousand dollars  between because until we take out the loan until we have a final project cost and this time we have long terms we don't know the actual in payment i can give you a sliding scale between our if we get the best deal possible it's going to be forty thousand dollars a year if we get the worst demand which means bagging and removing all fire engines in town and will no longer be a fire protection system because it will be the milk of the community that only need a water supply system glides in if the line item in the budget is removed on town meeting day from here to x amount of dollars to support the new tank then we would not build that tank and we would not be a f you're saying but it feels like the water version just said words are to your public safety well and they're done you're right and i guess were expressing includes keeping it being a healthy community is exclusively borne by the users of the system and the users are frustrated in that there is a significant amount of value to one of the assets that have been supported by the users of the system that the community is benefiting from and and we as as the representatives of the users are relaying that frustration that we hear continually at meetings and so you right so not only would you be saying to the person on the water system you're only going to provide water to you and you're not going to  why has the water sewer board voted the buyer they say we're going to turn this off if this doesn't happen is it turning it up for themselves as well i think why would you decide to do that i don't get it i we're going to build a fire protection system darkness is so much to make in the budget and talk about where we were you're at in this because the idea was we're going around come to tonight and ask for department heads to figure out where they off i don't care i'm going to what what we have here we've been hearing from the people that come to work are publicly meetings is that you need to do something now to figure out how to lower our rates ok and they always said this is structure you know that's going to have a different charge for the public can't and you know i don't want to create a blank check until we know sort of what what the effects of all this is going to be a i don't have a for qualifying as a fire district got changed and the problem is is that if we go forward and say no we are going to take action that this explicitly not in keeping with those new requirements basically that's process which would include the school which would essentially reinstitute the value that for the relative value schools paid in private to the reduce the rates so you know having a different class of but that town right now has an allocation of fifty thousand dollars a quarter twenty thousand gallons here so if we charge the town fifteen dollars per thousand gallons an estimated usage that's including fire that's including all of the already in the budget and we just adjusted it from and right now it's like five hundred dollars to three thousand that would be that would be bringing it up to what the value of watergate is and the value well it looks like a big one but it would only get us if we brought it back to our budget this past year would only take it gets fifteen thousand it's not something seventy thousand that we need to cut or that we're can say that we don't want to retreat on our roads but at some point costs go up the cost to provide services that people want and the people people are asking for if it cost  much money i mean we're we're not proposing to give our sounds crazy phrases or to pave every minute in town or to do all the crazy stuff i mean this is it is what it is took a pay cut we didn't get our and we didn't get our increases or us of living increases for a couple of years during during lean times and that was we negotiated that anything if this is really level funded you know it you know increase because because that's what i think is fair to the taxpayers but is maintaining our assets fair i don't think three hundred feet of paving would decrease this increase on top of their taxes and i mean this is tough because if you look at the budget rate it's up two point three percent which is a whole lot the grand scheme of operation budget and and then you have a recommendation on thirty four thousand dollars that we could cut but then we're adding in the regional planning and the who's who's really which is six seventeen thousand roughly so now we're only cutting seventeen thousand and then if you also include there was another one that you said we had a contract read assessed here right s s t n which is sort of twenty three hundred you know now you're down to whatever the fourteen thirteen i don't know i mean we could sit here and look at this all night i think what we need is some recommendations where the departments have submitted a budget that's more than the what we  that's the departments that have to go back and look or else we have to figure it out and i don't think they want us to do that if they have recommendations to get to that point and then if not we figured out and that's moving in the right direction  if it's a very difficult situation  you know across the board that we pay out that moment and and then everybody gets it and anyone could come back and say you know they had a catastrophic situation happen in january here to help with this transition and i don't remember from the budget for next year's budget is that then down to doing a monthly review or only the expected half of what we actually spent in twenty thirteen and looks like it might be half of what we're going to currently spend of this year so currently in this budget year we spent thirteen little over thirteen thousand out of a budget of fifteen  but if we look at what we spent in welfare big difference what we spent in f y thirteen was fifty three hundred excuse me what we budgeted in affright thirteen was fifty three hundred but what we actually spent it's thirty you let us know when you want thanks sooner rather than later correct my first recommendation is that the budget he put in the system monthly so that we're now not looking at a yearly budget and actual period  because then we have to calculate constantly you know oh for example we're at one hundred percent you know one hundred nine percent and the i c c and and just that were supposed to be on revenue and and more importantly on right it says we're at forty nine percent for salaries and it's slightly high due to higher zoning and then you know we have to figure out oh because we're in period five and that is divided by twelve so my recommendation is that the budget be looked at monthly so whatever we spend in july whatever we spent in july and you know last year when we look at the next year's budget july is put in there is what we spent so when we're looking at these reports we're looking at budget where it should be in period want to or should be in period two because sometimes something spent all in one month or three seed all in one month and we're going to be at one hundred percent within the first you know two periods or it's divided equally over twelve months but we don't know that if it's not put in the system monthly that is my recommendation which will take a little bit of work but then we look at framing journals it's going to be clear that we're comparing budget period five to actual period five or whatever period is yes i kind of don't have a problem with the way it's presented because i get that it's a budget actual it's it's whatever what is your budget whatever you're spending and what percentage of it is in the amount of time that's a leftist i mean i can do the math in my head we're almost halfway through the fiscal year so if you're around fifty percent on your expenditures that's pretty good and if it's not there are no it's not all of them there are not notes on all of them difficult to figure out if we are we're supposed to be so we're depending on the notes that they're putting in here but if there's something else you know that you have a question ok we're at sixty two percent of the period and what's actual it's a much clearer picture for everyone and it will take a little bit more work but i think in the long run it's it's going to be much more  so all these are new charges stirred  line thirty two i think also need the word and then peach eight nine five but that's the survey who's doing the survey and it's richer and economic development maybe instead of western slopes