Town Council - Regular Meeting

It is 7 PM. This is the Londonderry Town Council meeting from Monday, May 18th, 2026. Everyone please stand for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

First up, we have a proclamation from Councilor Faber.

Sorry. So proclamation in honor of National Public Works Week. It's rooted in service powered by community. Whereas public works professionals provide essential services that support the health, safety, resilience, and quality of life of the residents, businesses, and visitors of the town of Londonderry. And whereas the Londonderry Department of Public Works is responsible for maintaining and improving critical infrastructure, including roads, drainage systems, public facilities, solid waste, and recycling services, fleet operations, and other services vital to the daily operations of the community. and whereas these services could not be provided without the dedication and skill of the employees of the londonderry department of public works who work throughout the year to protect protect public safety preserve public assets and support the continued growth and well-being of the town And whereas it is in the public interest for the residents, civic leaders, and youth in Londonderry to recognize the importance of public works services and to understand the role public works professionals play in building and maintaining a strong and sustainable community. And whereas the year 2026 marks the 66th annual National Public Works Week sponsored by the American Public Works Association, Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by the Londonderry Town Council that May 17th through the 23rd, 2026 is National Public Works Week. We encourage all residents to join in recognizing and thanking the employees of the Londonderry Department of Public Works for their service and substantial contributions to the health, safety, and quality of life of our community.

Thank you for all you and your department does. Thank you, thank you very much. I just have some brief comments and I made notes that I would stay brief for you. So thank you, Mr. Chair, Town Council, Mr. Town Manager, for acknowledgement of National Public Works Week. This year's theme, as you just proclaimed, is rooted in service powered by the community. We are a very small department that maintains a 365-day year, 24-hour day emergency operation, although we're only open Monday through Friday for 40 hours a week. And we're a very small department, as I said, for a community of our size. We're comprised of myself and a deputy director, two engineers, two admins, and then a labor force of 13. So that's 19 hardworking, dedicated employees that you have serving for you. And I could go on and on all about the work that they do. For those of you that know me, I'm very passionate about that and proclaiming how hard that they all work and what we do and the service we provide. And if that's not enough, you can go on our Facebook feed and check it out. Keep everybody up to speed on what we're doing, if nothing else. So I just wanted to kind of personalize us a little bit with the theme itself. Just again, that we are, if we're not rooted in service, we are certainly entrenched in it. And we are powered by the community, but we're also members of the community as well. And so when you're trying to, we don't have a second shift, we don't have a third shift, additional people that are off duty, whatever that we could call in. So it's really up to all of us. And so some of the things that I'd like to just kind of personalize our staff a little bit, and this is just a short list. But our Chief Mechanic Jim Gazelski and his wife Cara just returned home from their vacation last week, celebrating their 10 year anniversary last week. My son proudly graduated Saturday from Pittsburgh State University with a bachelor's degree in criminal justice, inspiring to hopefully be a legendary police officer someday. or anywhere for that matter. Ricky Robichaux, our buildings and grounds foreman, His wife Anne, they have been building their final forever home, I am told, over the tense snowiest winter. And so he's been balancing work life with that. Difficult stuff like John Masana, one of our equipment operators, his wife Kayla, did a very telling interview on WMUR in association with the American Heart Association. to bring awareness to a rare form of heart disease called polymorphic VT, which she and their young family have been dealing with and coping with for many years now. So if you ever want to look that up, I'd like to bring awareness to things like that. One of our operators, Nate Sullivan, proudly purchased his first home with his fiance. And so during one of our many long events, taking pride in new home ownership. He actually had to call and explain to his wife one night how to start a snow blower and run it herself and what it takes to do that. And I was just kind of telling, these are the things that our families need to deal with. They're really sometimes at work while we're at work dealing with all those things. Proudly, Tom Campbell, one of our newest hires, him and his wife announced the birth of their daughter, Kaylin Campbell, last Thursday. She is a healthy 7.3 pounds and 20 inch baby, so that was a very exciting thing for our extended Lennon Dairy family. And today marks the first day of Don Boyer's career with the Lennon Dairy DPW, and now we are once again fully staffed. We are fully staffed. Let's keep it that way. So that's, again, just a small glimpse into we're all humans too. Everybody's got a lot going on in life, but we work hard to make sure that those services don't suffer. And sometimes that's at our own great personal expense. But again, thank you once again for all of your support. Other boards as well, community members, leadership, volunteers, organizations within town, we truly appreciate it. We help where we can. If we don't know how to or a way to get things done, we'll think about it, we'll resource, and we'll do the best we can with what we've got. So thank you once again. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Appreciate it.

And Mr. Chair, with that, with Mr. Wally going over the DPW department, I think it would probably be the right timing for our resolution of 202604 on recognition of Lorona Paloma for her dedicated service to the town of Lundry as she is retiring as she works for the Department of Public Works. So I thought I'd go over this really quickly. Whereas Lorna has faithfully served the town of Lundary as a department assistant in the building department for 11 years, demonstrating professionalism, dedication, and commitment in the performance of her duties. And whereas throughout her tenure with the town, Lorna contributed significantly to the delivery of quality public service and the continued success of the town's operations and programs. And whereas Lorna earned the respect and appreciation of colleagues, elected officials, and residents through her integrity, teamwork, leadership, and commitment to the community. And whereas the town of London is grateful for Lorna's years of service and the positive impact she made on the organization and the community as a whole. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Town Council and the Town of Lundary, hereby extends its sincere appreciation and gratitude to Lorna Paluma for her dedicated service to the Town and wishes her continued success, happiness, and fulfillment in her future endeavors. Thank you for your time and service to the Town. Thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Thank you to all Public Works, really appreciate it. I'll open public comment. Good evening, sir.

Hi, Dave Alex, Wilshire Drive. I wasn't going to speak, but I do have a piece of information or comment about the DPW that you might not realize. You know my background is such that mathematics is deeply embedded in it. Back when we had our snowstorm, there was either a letter in the Londonderry Times or it may have been a short article saying how much road the DPW had to clear of snow. That tweaked me and I did a little calculation. If all that snow had been placed out here in that parking lot, you would have had a tower 400 feet high. Wow. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Good evening, sir.

Dennis Martin, 182 Pillsbury Road, Londonderry, New Hampshire. You probably guys know why I'm here. I'm here about the veterans tax credit that we never got last year. I want a direct question to go to the town manager. Are we getting it before this tax bill comes out? I want a direct answer. I am not getting a direct answer from anybody if we're getting it this year.

Okay.

The disabled.

Is that a question, sir, you can answer right now?

I already did last meeting.

Okay.

What was it? What was the answer? Yes, you will get it this year. When? For this tax? Yes. This tax bill that comes out? Yes. Okay, thank you.

Good evening, sir. How are you today? My name is Bruce Marinelli. I live at 19 Pumpkin Patchway in Londonderry, and I'm new to the area about three and a half years, and I find myself in a very unhappy situation. I'm going to have to move out of Cross Farms taxes. I can't afford $12,000 a year plus for taxes. My question is, Can't council do anything to help senior citizens lower their taxes to something that's more affordable? Otherwise, I have to move from Londonderry, and I like it here since I've been here. It's convenient, it's localized for me, but I can't sustain $12,000 a year, and God knows what's going to go up in the following years. I don't know how many other seniors are in this situation, but I'll take part of the responsibility for when I moved up here and not fully investigating what the tax base was. And I knew the cost of living was a little more expensive than where I came from, but the taxes are just unsustainable for me. So if there's something that the board can do to lower taxes for senior citizens to help me stay in the area, I would greatly appreciate it.

Okay. Okay? Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Mr. Chair?

Yeah. Sir, had you looked into the, there's a senior program for taxes in town? Yes. Have you looked into that further?

My pension and everything else, they tell me it's-

It doesn't qualify? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure you're aware of the program.

I'm aware of it, but that still wouldn't help.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Richard Balinski, 89 Hall Road. I'll start with this one. I'll do the other one at the end. So I see tonight that you have under the consent items payroll change form for the town clerk. I've talked to a couple of councils, and you guys didn't put this on there. why do we have something like that that needs to be discussed under a consent item to begin with that should be an agenda item it should be something that's done by the town council because that's the way it's supposed to be done i believe this was put on by the town manager he has no authority to put it on there he can mention to you guys that it's due so why is it there why isn't it something where you have multiple items you just vote on all of them as a unit This looks like it's another power play like we had done with the tax collector. And that wasn't done right either. Does anybody know what the law says and what you're supposed to do? Because this shouldn't be this way. Excuse me.

I did not, Richard, but I will find out for you.

Okay, so as a follow up on that, in March, people voted in, Benefits for the position of town clerk, the elected position, equal to those of other full-time employees. I don't believe the Warren article was legal the way it was worded. I've talked to the state. I looked up RSA 32.5, and there's no dollar amount that was placed on there. You either need to put a dollar amount, you know, 20 grand, whatever, or so many cents per thousand. There's an appropriation to that Warren article, yet there's nothing showing the appropriation. And quite frankly, I think it was done on purpose, because if you put in, if you look at the budget for that position, it was like a $74,000 budget. for that position because it had no benefits, and now it's like $138,000. So that's roughly $55,000 worth of benefits, and that number had been put in the Warren article, it might have scared people off. Might have, might not have. So I question whether this was done correctly. I also got a call probably a month or so ago from a resident in this town asking me if I'd ask this question. I haven't had time to look into it. But they say they called the state and the state says you can't start something like this in the middle of an elected term. You can do it. You can do it if you put appropriation and you show the appropriation, but you don't know who might have run for the position had they known they were getting full benefits. So that's something I think you need to look into. get those answers for those two questions not in a month or five months or six months or never kick the can down the road you need to get the answers to those because quite frankly if you did need appropriation didn't have one so that would avoid the ballot even though it passed i for one didn't vote for it because there was no appropriation attached to it what am i voting for All right? So I'd like to see that taken care of before you do anything. As far as the position, and let me know when I'm getting close to my time, this is another one with a 15.35% increase. If you go from 71.780 to 82.804, as proposed on this pay change sheet that was part of the packet. that's something i find funny too this page change sheet which is is a public document so that's not a problem but when you 91a this town to try to get those they tell you you can't have them or they give you a hard time about it or it takes months to get it obviously it's a public document you included it in the packet for tonight which is fine because it should be there All right, and this isn't down as, you know, this is down as other. It's not down as a merit increase, a step increase, or any of that. So did you guys do this? Or was this from the town manager? Because again, if it was from the town manager, as far as I'm concerned, he's overstepping his bounds because the town clerk is not an employee. They're an elected official, and he has no jurisdiction over them.

Thank you, Richard.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to address something, Mr. Bolinski. Mr. Bolinski, just so you're aware, if you watch the budget hearings, I did bring that up that the dollar amount should be on the warrant article, but it got voted down by the council. All right. It was not by the town manager. It was by the council.

Good evening, sir.

Jason Knights, Nine Hall Road. For those of you that read my email from last week, you probably know why I'm here. Living in the north end of town is turning into just nonstop drag racing, burnouts, street takeovers, hours on end. Went on for four hours Saturday. Cops probably showed up because they stopped doing it. Fifteen minutes later, they were back. Did it for another hour, hour and a half. It's just, this is three freaking years that this has been going on. Nobody seems to do anything about it. It doesn't seem to be a priority to stop it. There doesn't seem to be any plan for it. It happens. If there's no snow on the ground, it happens. If it's above 50 degrees, it happens. I accidentally followed those motorcycles into Manchester one day because they cut off in front of me on Harvey Road, did wheelies down Harvey Road, and then turned off around McLaughlin School in Manchester. I shouldn't be the one investigating this. This is freaking crazy. It is three years of this going on. I've lived here for 21 years. 18 years was great. The last three years has been complete hell. It's the most heavily settled part of the town. And I don't know if we as a town have just decided, you know what, that's where all the development's taken place, 93's there, the airport's there, it's allowed, we'll just, you know, we'll sacrifice that part of town and focus on the rest. But it sucks. It really, really sucks. And I want to play just, in the email I sent, I attached a couple recordings, but I want to play it for everyone here so that they can know what we're talking about. For the first two and a half years, it was just motorcycles doing burnouts for hours on end. The end of last year, evidently the word got out to all the D-bags in the area that it's like a free fire zone in the north end of town. And now we get the tuners that sound like gunshots. And so... Hopefully this comes through.

This was- Just for reference for everyone, which road is this happening on?

I'm sorry, any of the roads off of Harvey that are cul-de-sacs. Any of those industrial, Delta, Aviation Park, not sure, there's two others, right? Where Echo used to be, where Burn D is now, down to the one over down by the rail trail. So this was three Saturdays ago at 10.30 at night. This went on for, I just got the last 15 seconds. It had gone on for like 30 seconds before that. That was taken from inside my house at 10.30 at night. It sounds like the freaking Battle of Fallujah is going on by the airport. I know at least two people in my neighborhood that saw combat in Iraq. They must love waking up to that. I won't do the burnouts because I'm using my phone and you can barely hear it, but I will send it to you. But this one just happened last Friday at 11.09 at night. Technology, you know how it is. And this... This was about 20 seconds of it burning out before I was able to get to the kitchen. And then three minutes later, 1130 at night. And this happens every weekend. And that goes on for another 30 seconds. This happens every weekend. And I've been up here. I've emailed you guys. I've called the police. I called the police on March 1st. And the dispatcher told me, well, there's not much we can do. And I said, what do you mean? And he goes, well, we can go up there and ask him to leave, but that's airport land, which is not true. That's airport land, so there's nothing we can do. And I said, I've lived here 20 years, and you tell him we just have to live with this? And he said, basically. I want to know tonight, I'm sick of the, we'll look into it, I'm sick of the, that's too bad, I'm sick of the, yeah, no, we realize it's an issue. I want to know what you guys are doing, right? I want to know, are you willing to dedicate resources to stopping this? And if the answer is no, and you're just going to sacrifice the north end of town, just let us know. So that we don't get aggravated about the fact that there's seemingly firefights going on at 11 o'clock at night.

You have to come up to the mic. So what I'll do is I'll ask the town manager to look into this with the police chief. And have them report back to us and see what we can do about it. I know you've been here, I know you were here last year. Yep. And I think I remember them saying that they've sent patrols up there and they had some issues and they missed them. But we'll see if we can do a better job.

They place lookouts at the beginning of the road.

Yep.

So when the cop goes down, they're all just guys reading the Bible at the end of the road. Yeah, yeah. I don't know if you put no loitering signs down at the bottom. Put temporary speed bumps, because I know we have this thing against speed bumps in the town, but do something.

See, I think we have that flashing sign that maybe could be repositioned. I also am willing to dedicate. town dollars and resources, I think we should do something for this. Because yes, you've talked to me about this time and time again, and I would be sick of getting the same answer, so I want this solved.

Thank you. I just want to go on the record here, because I responded to your email. You do, you do. Because for the last eight years, I have been going to the Traffic Safety Committee saying the same thing. They shut their lights off at the top of Hardy. And they sit there, and they drag down, go straight through the stop sign into the extension of Hardy. That's what was causing a lot of the accidents. No lights. Two lanes. You're dead. I mean, you coming up the road, taking that turn, you're dead. I brought this up, brought it up. I feel your pain. I feel it so much that... I put in a bill that didn't go anywhere up in Concord to, I know we can't stop other towns from that bop, bop, bop, and then things, right? To have a noise ordinance that would say, at least the people in the state can't have it. Because it is ridiculous. I can't open my windows in the summer. I can't sit in my yard. I have to tell people, wait a minute. Okay, now you can talk. Because you can't hear anything. And then you couple it with, you know, 93 roar all night.

I'm used to that. I mean, I moved. 93 was already there. The airport was already there. You accept that that's the loudest part of town.

They clear cut the trees, which cut a lot of the sound barriers. And then that made it even louder that... It's even worse. I just wanted to tell you, I do have compassion. No, no, and I do. I have no idea what you can do. You are one of the few who responds to my emails, so I appreciate it. Yes. And it's very frustrating.

I was having a barbecue last year, and my family, who's been coming to our house for 20 years, was like, what the hell is that? And I'm like, it's a barbecue. Street takeover that happens in the same place, at the same time, by the same people, every weekend, and nobody can seem to figure out how to stop it.

And it's louder in Londonderry. I have friends that live in Manchester. I've gone to barbecues over there. It's quieter in Manchester than it is in Londonderry.

It's clearly gotten out that this is the place to do it.

I came from Revere. It's quieter when I visit my friends in Revere than it is here.

So Jason, you have council support. We will look into it. And we will get you back.

I want to hear something back. Every time I get, we'll look into it. And it's just unacceptable.

On the next meeting on June 1st, the police department will be here to actually, there will be an agenda item to discuss this very issue. So if you can come here on that day, that would be the best thing to do. Because we're not going to... give you some lukewarm, stupid answer.

Well, that's the last thing we have.

So that's why we're going to make a presentation. So they're going to, they're going to be here. The police chief will be here with his staff to go over that. So in fairness to you, that's what you, and he had, by the way, the night you reported that I was on the rail trail and I heard it too. And it was like five, six o'clock at night, something like that. So I heard the same thing.

During the week, the bikes start at six and then on the weekends, the tuners take over around 10 o'clock at night. Yeah. Yeah.

So I had a discussion with the police chief today and his staff. They're going to be here with a presentation on June 1st. Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, if we can also have the town manager have the police chief discuss how things have gone on Old Namath Road since we've added the stop signs. I don't think we've gotten a bit of a report after the stop signs have gone in.

Sure. That's fine. Anybody else want to comment? Good evening, Christine. How are you? Good.

Christine Perez, 5 Wesley Drive. On the 4th, you told me you'd get back to me about the legality of who can take tabled items that were tabled by the council off the table.

I believe a resident answered your question right after you.

No, I asked you, and you said you would get back to me. So did you look into it? Because I don't want to do... what the veterans had do when you knew something on February 10th and you decided not to tell them until May 4th.

So a resident answered your question, so I didn't look into it because she answered a question for you.

But that was incorrect. It wasn't correct. You don't follow Rob's rules.

Okay.

You don't follow Rob's rules. Well, I looked into it. I looked into it, Ron, because I'm used to not getting answers from the town council along with many other people. And any counselor can take it off the table.

That's what she said. Thank you. Anybody else have a comment?

Yes, they did. No, we don't. Okay.

So I'm going to clarify. Janet Hudala, 5 Stony Point Drive. I did come up when you didn't have the answer. I did notice in the paper it said that London Dairy Times, that it said that the councilman said, I think they gave it to you, Sean Faber. that it was one of the three of you that had to vote. No, I clarified, just as you said, and shared my expertise, because as a parliamentarian and Robert's Rules, and it's the same whether you follow Robert's Rules or not when an item's tabled, but I know that Christine didn't hear it, because we had a discussion about that, Christine Perez, and I know evidently whoever wrote the article didn't either, but it was clear, that anyone could bring it up. It's evidence of, I guess the frustration of, I have a dream. I'd love the Londonderry Town Council, all members, to be concerned about what the citizens need and what they want and act unified on it, but not be divided against the minority, against the majority, and complain about that. For many of us who have been on councils, we've experienced this, been in the majority and I've been in the minority. I'd like to see respect across the board. As chairman, you do have order for it. You are responsible. Sean logs the questions down and to get an answer and the town managers involved in this too. He needs to speak up when he has the information and you all need to act like a team. even when you disagree respectfully. That isn't happening and some may not want that to happen. The other thing I would like to see is that we're limited to three minutes. Some of you on the town council need to be limited to three minutes as well. I would appreciate that because you get more time and you give your opinion as if it's for all of us and it's not always all of us, okay? And that's your issue as chair to make sure that that happens. And I would encourage those then not to repeat, to save their time, their three minutes, not to continually repeat a point that they made. That would be helpful to us residents. And when we ask a question publicly, it should be answered publicly. by the town manager or not. Also, another issue in my dream, because someone has authority and someone is equal, that doesn't mean they have the approval. So you need to tighten up the lines of the council. And there's no excuse for anybody on this town council not knowing what table an item means and how to open it. I know I've shared some of that information with some of you before this issue even came up. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So I'll just read from the town council rules of order, section six, part C, motion to reconsider. A councillor who voted on the prevailing side in the original vote on a motion may make a motion to reconsider that vote. A motion to reconsider may only be made during the same meeting that the vote whose consideration is sought is passed. May be made by the councilor who is on the prevailing side shall be seconded by any councilor and is debatable. The motion to reconsider requires approval of a majority of present councilors. Thank you.

Anybody else have a comment?

sure reconsidering and taking something off the table are two very very different things you know that mr dunn councillor dunn because you're at the state house we take things off the table all the time we could reconsider votes which is totally different correct correct you're saying yes it is different

Reconsider a vote? Reconsider a vote within 24 hours, yes.

Right. That's different than taking something off the table, correct?

That's two different things, yes.

Two different things. So I ask, Counselor Dunn, that you ask the other counselors to not make statements like only the people that put them on the table can take it off, and that reconsidering is the same as table, to know what they're talking about. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else have a comment?

So the rules of the house are different? They're agreed by the rules in the house? Just like the rules of the council are different, they're agreed by the rules of the council. They don't govern the same.

Anybody else have a comment?

Seeing none, I will close with a comment. Mr. Chair, I'd like to address the issue that was brought up about the veterans tax credit. Sure. So at the March 16th, 2026 council meeting, it was stated by the chair, and I quote, the council needs to be more respectful of the public's time. I want to address the veterans tax credit. At the last meeting, May 4th, we had two citizens come up and inquire about the tax credit. These individuals have come in front of the council several times. We received the legal opinion on February 10th, 2026 and the bottom line there is that there is nothing that can be done and it is unlikely that the program that was looked at would successfully withstand a challenge in court. The question at the last meeting was asked, who stopped it from being given? Nobody stopped it from being implemented.

The town manager or the town council did not stop it.

Where I see the problem is the communication from the council to the public. When it was discussed, the assessor did not explain it as he should have because nobody asked the question of him, when does it go into effect? I have always been told when I purchase property, April 1st is the tax date. When I close on a property, I'm always asked, are you going to do any improvements? What's that, Sean?

I wasn't interrupting.

No. So when I close on a property, I'm always asked, are you going to do any improvements to the property before April 1st? Because that will impact your current tax bill. If you do it after April 1st, it goes on the following tax year. The bill was passed July 13th, 2025, and the council acted on it on July 21st. 2025. the council should have come forward after receiving the legal opinion on february 10th and explain what the decision was and there was a miscommunication as one counselor i want to apologize to our veterans for the misunderstanding and when this tax credit would go into effect

So on the legal opinion that was given, I'll speak only to the general subject matter of it because it's a privileged email. The subject matter of whether the answer on the Veterans Tax Credit was not, why did we not give it out? It was, could we retroactively pay it? Which is not the same question. As far as how we give out the tax credit, we did a vote last year, we said effective August 1st. It's not because we didn't ask the assessor if our motion effective August 1st would be effective August 1st, that it wasn't paid. However or whatever happened, we took that motion twice, we voted twice, and everything as a council we could do to make this in effect was taken. Thanks.

All right, up next we have board appointments and reappointments. First up tonight is budget committee appointment.

Did we close public hearing?

I did. Is Isaac Fernandez here tonight?

Come on up, Isaac.

How are you tonight? Good. If you want to say a few words about yourself, then I'll ask that the council has any questions.

I have a statement I could read if that's okay. Please.

Sounds good.

Hello. My name is Isaac Fernandez, and I live at 10 Wallace Circle. I was first introduced to Londonderry about 20 years ago when my brother moved to town. Since then, I have been coming back regularly to visit him, help on his DIY projects, including starting his homestead bakery. And at one point, I lived with my brother here in Londonderry. Over that time, I developed a deep appreciation for Londonderry and everything the town has to offer. When my wife and I were ready to move back north from Florida, buy our first home together and start a family, we cast a wide net, but ultimately chose Londonderry as it is the community we want to build a home and a future for the long term. My mother also decided to join us in that move. She sold her house in upstate New York, and now our family has come together here in Londonderry. Three months after we moved in, our first child was born, and I am grateful that we have the opportunity to raise her in this town. I share this context because I want to make clear that my interest in serving on the Budget Committee is not temporary or casual. My family's intention is to live in Londonderry long term, and I see this position as a starting point for ongoing involvement in the town for years to come. In addition to that long-term commitment to Londonderry, I believe my education and professional experience would allow me to contribute meaningfully to the work of the Budget Committee. In regards to education, I have an undergraduate degree from the University of Maine, where I earned a bachelor's degree in finance with a concentration in economics. I also have an MBA from the University of Connecticut with a concentration in finance. In regards to experience, I bring small business, finance, and budgeting experience. On the volunteer side, I've volunteered budgeting services before as a coach through the nonprofit My Budget Coach, where I worked with low-income families to help improve their budgeting and financial decision-making skills. On the professional side, I've started three small businesses, so I'm familiar with the practical realities of budgeting, managing expenses, making payroll, making decisions with limited resources. Much of my career was spent working for a boutique private equity firm. I spent a significant amount of time underwriting investments, reviewing managers, analyzing deals, and getting into the details of financial information. I'm comfortable working through spreadsheets, asking questions, and paying close attention to the assumptions behind the numbers. I understand that one concern with the town's committees, I think Debbie brought it up a number of times, is whether someone has both the time to do the work and the willingness to stay involved. If I am asked to join the Budget Committee, I can say clearly that I will have the time to attend the required meetings and do the preparation. In advance of today, I watched the two thousand and twenty seven budget presentations and deliberations uh... every time council meeting from november in december and the strategic planning workshops run by sean kristen in april uh... i was impressed with the direction of our town and our town's professional staff especially our leadership i mention this to demonstrate that i'm going to spend the time in in this role If I'm asked to join the budget committee, I can say clear that I will, at a minimum, complete my term. I have fulfilled long term volunteer commitments in the past. In 2008, I volunteered with Big Brothers Big Sisters and was matched with an eight year old. Our match has lasted over 17 years and is still part of my life today. Reliability matters and when I'm committing to something, I take that commitment seriously. I attended the meet and greet with Sean when he first came to town, and from what I have seen since then, I think the direction he has been encouraging makes a lot of sense. One of the reasons I'm especially interested in joining the budget committee now is the town's work on the strategic plan. I believe good budgeting starts with clear goals. First you define what the town is trying to accomplish, then you set measurable goals, attach deadlines, track progress, and most importantly, circle back to see if you've accomplished what you set out to do. It is critical to circle back. Without that kind of structure, budgeting can become too reactive. In closing, I would be grateful for the opportunity to serve on the Budget Committee, and I would bring to it the same long-term commitment, preparation, and seriousness that led my family to choose Londonderry as our home.

Thank you.

Anybody have any questions?

Yeah. So you got through all the budget committee hearings? Yeah.

It was interesting. Wow. I'm impressed. I'm impressed you guys hang out here all day on Saturday. That's a test unto itself.

Anybody have any other questions?

I think you probably answered most of whatever questions we might have had.

I just want to say great job.

Yeah. Great job. I was very impressed with everything you had written up on you.

Not many people... write that good of an introduction, I will say. And I will say, it looks like we also have someone who also decided not to run for the position at the same time. So it looks like right now all we have is you, Isaac, who've applied for this position. I haven't said that yet, but yes.

Let's finish with this gentleman first. Any other questions for Isaac? I personally would like to make a motion to move him forward. Okay, great.

Let me just read into the record. A second thought. Okay. Thank you.

Just let me read in the record that Kevin Kohler did withdraw his application, just so for the record. So I have a motion from Deb and a second from Sean. Any discussion?

No.

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chose the affirmative. 5-0. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it. Tell them to go see the clerk. See the clerk.

Okay, there you go. To get sworn in.

Yep.

Up next, we have CIP appointments. And I have listed here from the town council, Councilor Paul, from the school board, we have Kevin Gray. From the budget committee, we have Kate Burbage. And from the planning department, we have Jeff Penta and Giovanni Verani.

Any further discussion on that?

Yeah. All right, I will move that the London Area Town Council hereby appoint the recommended representatives to serve on the 2028 to 2033 Capital Improvements Program Committee as presented.

Second. I have a motion from Sean and a second from Ted. Any discussion?

Just for clarity's sake, that's just because that's the span the CIP committee covers. These appointments aren't for five years, just in case anyone at home is wondering.

Correct. Any further discussion?

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes in the affirmative. Thank you for volunteering for CIP. We appreciate it. Up next, I will accept a motion to accept the resignation of Stephen Bickford from the planning board. So moved.

Second.

Motion from Sean, a second from Ted. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes in the affirmative, 5-0. Thank you for your service.

Southern New Hampshire.

All right. We have the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission as well. Thank you.

I don't have that one. Do I have anything? Okay. Okay. So we have appointments to the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. We have Deb Levens and Art Rugg. Thank you.

Motion moved that the Leonard Town Council hereby reappoints Art Rugg and Deb Levins to the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission for a four-year term beginning July 1, 2026. I have a motion from Ted.

Second. Second from Sean.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Chair votes in the affirmative, 5-0.

Thank you guys for stepping up to do that again.

Up next, we have a public hearing to discuss on the zoning amendment for the PUD ordinance. Ms. Cairn, did you want to start us out or just council discussion?

Maybe I'll just do a brief overview, if you don't mind.

No, please.

So just as a reminder as to kind of how we got here, in July of last year, the council requested that the planned unit development ordinance be amended. And so that process then took place with the planning department staff and the planning board. which included three separate work sessions, a lot of research and analysis based on planning industry standards, and then a hearing with the planning board, at which time they moved it to this council. You've had two readings on this so far, two discussions, which brings us to this evening, the formal public hearing, where you're considering whether or not to adopt the draft ordinance as it's presented to you this evening so with that I'll take any questions any further discussion seeing none do we want to move it forward we got to do it to open the public hearing motion to open the public hearing second a motion from Ted a second from Sean

All those in favor? Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Everyone's in the affirmative. Anyone from the public wish to discuss?

Come on up.

Come on up, sir.

I would recommend we repeal the PUD totally. i have one right in back of my yacht in back of the family property and it is just a total nightmare up there and looking at the woodmont commons yuck could you state your name oh sorry yeah i apologize robert t uh bob male 569 member of londonderry new hampshire

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, just looking at them just doesn't work. Thank you very much for your help. Thank you. Thank you.

Yep, come on up, sir.

Good evening. Good evening. Martha Smith, 38 Chester Drive. I just have a couple of questions about this. It's 100 acres of contiguous land, is that correct?

That is correct.

For the PUD? Kelly, if you could ask Kelly, if she could tell us, how many parcels are there left in Londonderry that qualify under this PUD? Do we know that, Ms. Karen? Do we know?

I don't have an exact number because of the contiguous factor. In other words, somebody could combine, um, multiple lots that are contiguous and make it one to hit the 100 acres. We've seen that occur. Um, so I, I don't have an exact number for you, but generally speaking, There's maybe one to three areas that would fit within that based on our current data that we have.

Okay, thank you very much. Thank you.

good evening my name is uh david armstrong 30 show road um so i'm kind of concerned about this pud area um woodmont when it was first introduced it was work live play and it seems like it's just live Basically, you've got a doctor's office there, commercial stuff like that. The only thing that's really played to it is the 603 Brewery. There's nothing else that goes on there. I mean, I look at Salem. They brought in a whole bunch of businesses. I mean, I actually go to Salem. I don't go up to London. They're obviously right. I live here. i just don't think that it's turning out the way it was designed or the way it was presented i feel uh a lot of times some of the stuff they do is kind of on the undermined right the trees that got cut down the apple trees the over 55 that they slip into now it's non-profit I just don't think they do enough to bring the businesses in here and eventually they're just going to make it all apartments and stuff and it'll be just like a city area which was not originally designed for.

Mr. Chair. So that's actually part of the revision in here is to make sure that the commercial comes first because that that has been a complaint before in the past and so that's part of redefining this ordinance is strengthening that aspect of it so that we actually don't get the you build all the live and there's no work in play yeah so I just I just wanted to I mean I've you know I've read a lot in the paper about it but I just feel like uh you know we should be pretty hard on that yeah so just to clarify for you this is not changing the Woodmont PUD at all

We can't change what's already there, because that's actually recorded with the Registry of Deeds. So this is to amend our current ordinance for future PUDs that come before the town.

So this doesn't change what's in Woodmont, so- Say that again? So what they propose in Woodmont and what they're doing doesn't matter. Yeah, it would make sure it doesn't happen again.

Let me just clarify, hopefully this simplifies it. So the Woodmont Commons PUD, the technology, Hill PUD are projects, separate projects, standalone. They're approved as they are. We're talking about the regulations that we apply to planned unit developments. So two separate things. This is the base as to how you get to a planned unit development project.

So what you're saying is when this one was put in, these guardrails weren't put in place?

Correct.

Well, that's too bad.

Yeah, and it's not in place currently. What we're discussing tonight is putting those guardrails in place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else speak on the PED? Good evening, sir.

Good evening. Mike Speltz, 18 Sugar Plum Lane. I have a very short comment, but I think crucial, and it kind of goes to what we just heard about where we wish we would have done things differently a while back. This is in regard to Section 5.2.8.D.2, which is a short section, and the thrust of it is, When you submit a PUD master plan, you are allowed to ask waivers from certain regulations, like the zoning ordinance, the site plan regulation. One of the things that in the current form in this section that I quoted, which is so important, is that Local regulations, state regulations, federal regulations are not able to be waived if they are concerned with environmental factors, environmental protections. That is very important. It could be a little bit ambiguous, but the conservation overlay district is probably the most important environmental protection that we have in this town. In order to eliminate any ambiguity, if that constitutes a local regulation about environmental protection, I would add to that little subsection to include the conservation overlay district. Very simple choice, but it makes it very clear what we're trying to accomplish here. The basis of this is that you can't Undue environmental damage. So there are things that you can waive, dimensional requirements, other things, uses, and you can figure out a way around them. You can't do that with our wetlands. They are there to have clean air and clean water. And it is unrelated to what you're building. We don't want to violate our wetlands. And that's the reason for this. It's that simple.

Mike, can you please repeat that section again that you were referencing?

Yes, it's 5.2.8. Yep. .D. .2. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Perez 5 Wesley Drive my concern with PUDs is you say that this is going to say that you have to have commercial first but that's not happening that didn't happen in Woodmont it's not happening up at Technology Hill and with the big proposal up by Auburn I don't know how you could possibly have that happened too right now woodmont apartments has 25 empty units and that's been built for quite a time and according to information that i received from the town we have 826 units in the being ready to be constructed and then if you add on to that the 1100 that you're talking about putting in the PUD that you're talking about putting in up on by Auburn You're talking almost 2,000 units, and these are not single family units. These are apartments and that type of thing. Where do you think all these people are going to come from? I mean, as it is now, Woodmont isn't filled. Where do you think they're going to come from? And Ted mentioned that the rents here are just as high as they are around the Boston area, correct?

I did not say that.

At the last town council meeting.

I don't believe I had said that, but okay.

okay where where do you think these people are gonna come nobody's gonna come from Massachusetts who works in Massachusetts and still pay the tax the income tax living here to commute and pay the same type of rent that you can play pay down there I just worry about where to almost 2,000 units of people what we're going to do you need to just stop put this on on the on the table and leave it alone and put the present pud that we have also on the table which is what members of this council asked you to do way back when you started looking at it So the people of Londonderry, this one in Auburn, we're not going to get any tax break on the Auburn line. We're not going to get a tax break because the only part of that development that is in Londonderry, the major part of that development that is in Londonderry, are the apartments and the houses. We're not going to get a tax benefit from if industry goes in there. So think about the people and not the developers, please.

So I want to correct a bit of a statement. I had said from the state housing director back from September had said that the state needs about 60,000 units by 2040 and by 2050 needs about 90,000 more units across the state. So that's what I believe I had said at the time and that rental pricing is so high right now due to the lack of units that are available on the market i thought you mentioned something about the corridor of boston and the rents in that area as well i'm not i can't recall that conversation at that time from my memory but okay thank you

Good evening, sir.

We needed a good laugh, so that was good.

My personal view is that we should eliminate the PUDs altogether. I just assume we didn't have them. But if we are looking to replace the existing one, which has been, to my opinion, a disaster, what you've got presented at the moment would be a lot better, but it completely lacks any enforceable or measurable enforceable things to ensure things like commercial goes ahead of housing and so on. I did see some changes that have been recommended by another councillor, Deb Paul, I fully agree with those. I think there are things that are lacking from this. But at least this one would be better than what you've got at the moment. Thank you, sir.

Don't start the clock yet.

There's no clock, sir. This is a public hearing. Thank you.

So I can have as long as I want? You don't want to say that to me. Within reason.

Within reason. How's that? Tony DeFrancesco, Winchester Court. So first of all, I'm going to go with the age before beauty part. Never mind what happened over there. So a couple of things. Number one, Anything that gets built in Londonderry is market-driven. You as a board are not tasked with deciding what company can make money, what company cannot make money. You are not in a position to say to somebody, you can't build that because we don't think anybody is going to occupy it. You don't have the power to do that, okay? It's not allowed. The RSAs don't allow you to do that. It's a market driven society, market driven state, whatever. If a developer wants to build something, that's up to that developer to decide whether they can make money on it. They do their own research and development to make that decision, and so it's important to understand that. And maybe I'm all wet with you don't have the decision to do that, but whatever. So just for the record, let's talk about Woodmont. The disaster that people talk about at Woodmont is a tax-positive development. In the development agreement, Every year, they need to come in and they need to present their numbers. How much money are they costing the town? How much money are they... How much revenue do they have? How does it offset? And so far, in fact, they just... Was it last month? They came before the planning board and showed that they were tax positive. Currently, there are... commercial spaces also available there and again if you think about market driven you can build the space but they might not come you can market the crap out of it still nobody comes no one has control over that what you do have control over and you have supreme control over that because there is a development agreement is if that development comes back and says, you know what, this commercial stuff's not working out, so we're going to put more houses in. That's where you all come in. That's where you put the brakes on. That's when you drag the anchor. because you all will be making the decisions on whether there's going to be changes to that development or not because you have signed documents. To that point, the most important change and the most powerful change in the document that you have in front of you is that every development, every applicant will have to sign a development agreement. In that development agreement, You're all going to decide what you're going to make the developer do or not. We had a presentation last week. Today's Monday, yes? So it was last week, so it had to be last week. We had a presentation and the developer has already said that the infrastructure of the incoming roads is going to be handled first. Anybody can say that. But remember, there are also many other steps that an applicant and a developer has to take before they can put a shovel in the ground. The development agreement that you all decide to have with the developer, and my understanding is that the planning board doesn't get involved in that, but you folks will do that and you will have the power to tell the developer what you want them to do, or more importantly, what you don't want them to do. Keep in mind that you have the power. Now, let's get to a PUD. What does a PUD do for Londonderry? Well, I'll tell you what it doesn't do. It doesn't make us hire new public works people. It doesn't make us buy new public works trucks And you can also, again, remember, in your development agreement, you can control and make a decision on if you want the next PUD, whichever one it happens to be, because there are no applications yet. There are only conceptual discussions about what a next one might be. No one's decided anything. No one's agreed to anything. No one's even applied for anything yet. It's just a discussion. Hey, I own this land. I'm thinking about doing this. What do you think? That's all that's happened so far. So let's be clear. In a PUD, the town of Londonderry does not own the roads. The town does not build the roads. The town does not build the infrastructure on those roads. So in the winter, The town doesn't have to plow, no tax dollars are used, sand, salt, maintenance, none of that. If a tree falls down over one of the roads inside that PUD, Public Works does not respond. Public Works does not cut up the tree and put it on the side of the road. because the taxpayers of Londonderry don't have that obligation because those roads are private. So to me, and understanding, and I'm sorry, I am a planning board member. I probably should have said that at the beginning. To me, as a planning board member, it's a difference between a PUD allowing me to have control me as a taxpayer through you as the town council, because you're going to do it, over no control. Something's going to be built on the land. Do you want to control what's built on the land or don't you? If it's not a PUD, probably it's going to be a public road. Probably it's going to be at the taxpayer's expense after it's built. And for me, as one person, as an only child, I want control over everything. I have to have control. And for the people who didn't know I was an only child, I'm probably connecting a lot of dots for them. So keep in mind, what's before you today is very singularly focused. Right? It's the document that you have in front of you. Deb made a great point several meetings ago that there are changes that probably needs to be made. There is no perfect document. You all also have that power as well to make those changes. But for sure, what you have in front of you is better than the one that's currently on the books. I'm going to be in the back. If anything comes up with questions, feel free to ask. I've studied this back and forth in between. Mr. Bouchard might have a question for me right now. Yes, I do.

Not a question as much as a question. Point of clarity.

Yep.

You've been in town for a long time like I have.

Since 1978, yes, sir.

So remember when Yellowstone got built?

Yes, sir.

That was all private roads, private roads.

Yes, sir.

Now town roads.

And who was it that made it a town road? Townspeople did.

Who? The town did.

And how did they do that, sir?

They went to town meeting and they asked the town take it over. Correct.

And at the ballot box, the taxpayers said, we would like to take that over, which is a decision they can make.

Right. What I point out, Tony, is that now it's really difficult for DPW, because when you say DPW doesn't take care of these roads, a lot of these roads are dead end, all right, or they're at a T. So it makes it very difficult for any big truck to go in there. So now we have to spend small trucks in there. It's just a point I want to make out that It's a nice idea that we do it like this. It doesn't mean it's going to stay like that.

Well, but that's up to the taxpayers, right, Dan? So if the taxpayers voted you in, the taxpayers voted you in to do a job. But they can also do their own job, too, at the ballot box and override something that you did.

Because I remember also by the cut through that we used to use for market basket. Remember when they came forward? And they wanted the taxpayers to take over those roads because everybody's cutting through those roads. And how'd that work out? The taxpayers said no.

And the taxpayers said no. So the taxpayers have the right to do that, right? So all you can do as a town council is have a basis. The basis is, this is how we're going to do this. And by the way, when you do your agreement, With the developer, the developer's agreement, you can decide that you want 28-foot roads. They don't have to be 22-foot roads or 24-foot roads. You can say, you know what? For this PUD, we want it to be 28-foot roads because we don't like some of the other ones. Because we have to bring our emergency vehicles in there anyway.

Correct.

Right? The ambulance is going to go in there.

Yep.

But public works isn't going in there, right? So that's part of this whole process.

Yep, I understand. But- Don't run away, Tony.

Just the roads thing? Sure. So when a PUD is contiguous and goes over a road like Woodmont, goes over Pillsbury, we are responsible for Pillsbury. So if the tree falls on, and it's from Woodmont, they didn't take care of this tree, and it falls over onto Pillsbury. Technically, Pillsbury Road is our responsibility because it was a pre-existing road. So therefore, it is our responsibility. If it's self-contained. I will say then that's a different animal, but there are those exemptions and a development agreement can only, so it's the enforcement piece of the paper. And that enforcement can only be enforced things that are mentioned and talked about within the PUD. If it is not within. The PUD stated we want something to do with, what did we just say, roads being 28 feet. If we don't say that in the PUD, we can put it in the development agreement granted, but they can turn around and say, Well, it's in there but it's not in your PUD and it doesn't specify and so therefore we don't have to do this. So it takes away the bite inside the development agreement. That's why it's so critical to be detailed. Is it ever going to be perfect? Absolutely not. But this is what the people that I spoke to over in Dover explaining to me.

How about we ask our attorney? Instead of somebody from Dover.

I just didn't want to spend taxpayer money, but I did ask the municipal association and that's an attorney.

So I'm going to totally disagree with everything that you just said.

You can and that's your privilege. Yeah, it is absolutely.

Because in my research, I found what you said is absolutely not true. A signed document is a signed document. Can you show me that? An agreement is an agreement.

Can you show me that?

We're going to agree to disagree. And we're not going to have a debate. If you want to have a debate, I'll be glad to go on Channel 9 with you anytime.

That's fine. Take me there.

Because I love a microphone.

I'm sure you do.

But at any rate, if there's anything else, I'll be in the back of the room. Anybody else have questions for Tony? But thank you very much. Tony, thank you. I totally disagree with what Councilor Paul just said. And that's fine. We'll take it from there. Thank you, Tony.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Ray, good evening. How are you, sir?

Ray Breslin, 3 Gary Drive. Now, I took a look at this agreement. I'm not sure I understand it. You folks do. That's good. But here's the thing. We agreed back in 2013 to the Woodmont PUD agreement that Even though a lot of citizens had a lot of questions about it, and at the end, when it was finally voted on, I asked the question, can you answer the citizens' questions that were put forward to you? And the response was, we don't have to. Okay? Here's the point. You folks, with all due respect, you're putting your time in. You're not even getting paid. And I appreciate that. But you are representing the people. You're also representing the children, OK? The future generations, OK? We're not talking about getting through next year. And by the way, we've kind of opened the Pandora box approving the initial POD. Now you're in a position where potentially, well, we already had the one up the hill that was approved. And potentially, there could be others coming down the road. And when these developers come through, they look at all this and they're saying, hey, you're going to tell me now I can't do this, but yet you approve these other ones? I mean, what changed? And here's the other point. This has to do with the burden on the townspeople, particularly public safety. We've heard about situations with burnouts and other issues. I could tell you some other stories, but I don't want to hold you up. But there is a burden on the taxpayers when you have a lot of development. Right now, we got, let's see, how many different roads, projects that are in process right here in this town, in this year? That's going to have a lot of impact. I hope it's not going to cause accidents. So this revised, updated PUD that's been presented to you, it sounds like there's been some improvement. And that's a good idea. But unless specific things are in there, the developer can come back, the PUD holder can come back and say, Well, we want to change this. How many revisions have been made to the PUD? I know at least two, okay? And so, even though you're putting this forward, updated version of it, and it may be an improvement, it probably is, I believe it is, unless there's specific things in there, you're leaving a lot of open area where... They can ask for variances, changes, and so forth. So, I appreciate the decisions you folks have to make. My point is, there's a lot of burden on the taxpayers. I heard about the roads they put in, their responsibility, that's true. But the traffic burden. THAT IS PUT ON THE TOWN, AND THE ROADWAYS, BY THE WAY, HAVE YOU NOTICED A LOT OF TRUCKS GOING UP AND DOWN THE ROAD, HEAVY TRUCKS, DUMB TRUCKS, HEAVY EQUIPMENT, THAT PUTS A BURDEN ON THE ROADS, BEATS THE ROADS, AND THAT'S A COST TO THE TAXPAYER. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU, RAY.

ANYBODY ELSE FOR P.U.D. DISCUSSION?

There was a disagreement. Dave Ellis, one wheelchair drive. I understand there was a disagreement or opinion between Councillor Paul and member of planning board, Tony DeFrancisco, regarding whether the developer agreement was sufficient or whether you needed it in the PUD. It seems to me that... If the developers' agreement is going to contain some restriction, it doesn't hurt to have that same restriction in the PUD, even if it wasn't necessary. And if, in fact, Councillor Paul is correct that it needed to be there, at least you have protected yourself against the challenge. Put it in both. Thank you. Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Katherine Jenis. I'm at 15 Moulton Drive. I also have concerns with the PUD. That being said, I'm not really sure why we keep developing in this town, as all these other residents have echoed, too. It's a massive traffic burden. I live in South Londonderry, just going to exit four to travel north to Manchester for my job every day. The traffic, actually, it's the longest part to get from South Londonderry. Take the back roads, go through the traffic and everything, wait at the set of lights that have been improved. And that was a great improvement to go two lanes to go north. But even that's backing up now. It's kind of crazy. But I just want to reflect on something the town council or just the town of Londonderry did a few years ago. And it was the Londonderry master plan. It was for July 2025. And it said draft vision, guiding principles, demographics, housing land, and it was brought together prepared by the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. And And I just feel like the PUD goes against what the residents of the town surveyed. And forgive me, I forgot my glasses, so I'm going to be staring at my phone reading this. But it says specific themes provided insight into a community vision statement. These themes included preservation of community character, farmland, and small town charm. I'm not sure where PUD falls into that category. And I'll read through the other bullets, too, because I personally also cannot find where that fits as well. So some of the other things say supportive, family friendly, all inclusive community. I think it was mentioned earlier tonight as well. I feel like community settings really derive from strong neighborhoods as well, not necessarily apartment complexes, condos. My husband and I have lived in an apartment complex before. There's no real sense of community there. Nor do I know of anybody that's striving to live in London area to live in an apartment complex. I'm in my 30s. We all want homes. Balanced growth and sustainable development. Again, there's that word sustainable, not let's build massive developments over 10 years. Increasing traffic burden and everything. Connection to nature and open space. I feel like we're missing that right? Some of our conservation land has been removed. Developments put on top of their not what people move to Londonderry or New Hampshire to experience community engagement and recreation events and outdoor activities. There's been some efforts, but again, that's going to be going away, losing that outdoor space people really want to go to. Quality education and excellent facilities. Londonderry graduate myself, happy to live here again and support the schools. And public transportation and accessible trail network. Again, that was on the lower part of it. I don't know if these are categorically by percentage, but that's on there. So I just feel like the PUD doesn't match those goals. And then even looking at what the town said as well. Sorry, my phone refreshed as someone said earlier tonight, technology is not on our sides. I want to get these numbers correct. They also mentioned, too, community perspectives. The survey responses indicate that residents recognize the value of a more diverse housing mix, though preferences vary by age group. Overall, there was a broad support for smaller homes on smaller lots, accessory dwelling units, ADUs, and age-friendly housing. However, they didn't Really, I feel in my opinion, look at the results because then they broke it down and more than half of the survey participants said they prefer single family homes, not anything PUD. And if anything, everything else was broken down into like the 30% range. So, to me, I'm like, wow, more than half indicates, you know, that's a lot of town support right there to say probably no PUDs or developments are really wanted in the future. Again, for all those burdens that people are mentioning. Another side, too, I know that the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission is required in order to, you know, have the funding. Exactly. Thank you. But just to keep in mind as well that when you look at the board of that Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, there's no one really from New England. I don't know if you guys have noticed that. They're all transplants from Seattle, New York City, Virginia, Ohio. So here... These people are coming in from all over the country with high volume cities that are used to these PUDs, most likely, coming in and saying how small town New Hampshire should live, should develop. When again, this survey clearly indicates that townspeople really want that small town charm, not this development. If people want a development, I guess they can go to Salem, because that's what's happening there. But, yeah, so, I mean, really, just I feel like a PUD is not the way Londonderry needs to go. If anything, it needs to be more restricted and not as free-flowing for, you know, developments to just pop in. Another interesting aspect, too, I think I caught this on Facebook, that Kelly is actually resigning her position as well. So it's interesting to me to have such a concrete plan kind of go into place only to have that person who put it together to leave the town to go work up at Concord, I believe, as a city planner, if my quick Facebook search was correct. But yeah, I just, you know, maybe it's like a great time to either just... ditch it again make it more like rigid um with the zoning and saying no look like we're maxed out right now like we just need to play catch up we just really cannot keep throwing in developments for the taxpayers and the townspeople that just really want to go around town on a saturday and not dread traffic um because that's truly what's happening um and again some of these pud situations they don't even make sense right you go through the Woodmont common area, you come down like the market basket area, and there's a random bike lane. And it's like, Okay, where's this bike lane going? So it's kind of like, I don't know, like, let's make it make sense. Let's do it the right way. Let's not just like throw up all these housing complexes and road designs that just don't make sense. So it's

yeah um so you seem like you've done a lot of your homework which i appreciate i did it in the last two hours um one thing i recommend you take a look at is our last planning board meeting because we were discussing what would be a pud and when they presented that they actually presented what the pud would look like as a pud and what would it look like with underlying zoning because i think one of the things that we forget in these discussions yeah is that If we didn't have a PUD, it goes to underlying zoning. And it's not going to be an open field. It's going to be whatever underlying zoning says. And so seeing those two comparisons side by side takes you look at what we have control of and what we don't. And in certain instances, a PUD gives us more control to put stuff in a development agreement. It just depends on what the situation is. So it's just something to take a look at, whatever opinion you form after that. But it's good information.

Yeah, no, I agree with that too. I think again, just honestly, I only found out about this meeting tonight from the London Dairy Times posting it on Facebook. So again, I wish I had more chances to like review the PUD as well. I agree. I feel like I'd have plenty of opinions on it. But yeah, I just... i just feel like this town's growing way too fast again as someone that was born raised here it's nothing like the town i grew up in it's just it's losing its identity like you look around at like the pictures on like on the wall of the farmland that's going away like you might as well update these to show like the new complexes that you have in town so i mean um i i want to totally agree with you i've been saying this

Yeah. By myself for a while. Sean, you know, alluded to the fact that there was a, and it was a conceptual design. Yeah. And it, you know, yeah, it all sounds pretty.

Yeah.

Until they start building it. Yeah. Because, again, there's really no... true mechanisms to hold things to the fire. And one of the conversation points at that planning board meeting, I was not there, but I did watch it. They mentioned, if we weren't building this, you would have had 200 and something single family homes and all these roads. Yes. And you know what? 200 and something family homes at four people in a house is still half of what the development is bringing in. Exactly. And I still question the amount that they pay in taxes actually covers the amount of services. When I looked at the Woodmont agreement, it said they had 20 new students come in. There was no dollar assigned to them. There was zero. How can there be no zero? We all know that one kid could toss up to $300 pending on its needs to a basic child. Those 20 kids that came into Woodmont have a cost. Yes. But it wasn't in their tax positive agreement. I read it. I questioned it.

Yeah. It's like you need Nick Shirley to come in and take a look around.

There's always different perspectives, and everybody's going to spin it to whatever they want or how they feel or what they want.

Yeah.

I've only been in Lennon Derry for 30 years, going on 31 years at the end of this month. And I agree with you. It has changed dramatically. I used to, I came from the city. I came here for this type of life.

Yeah.

Otherwise, I would have stayed where I was. I was five minutes to the beach, two minutes to the train station. Yeah. But I didn't want that lifestyle anymore. I wanted a better quality of life for my children. Exactly. So I came here.

Yeah.

So if you're looking for Manchester or Boston, then that's probably where you should have bought your house. Exactly. To stop trying to change a town into something else. Exactly. And you're right. We need to put a brake on everything and say, okay, let's catch up with our infrastructure.

Yeah.

Let's fix our water. Yes. A lot of money is going to be spent for this.

And I'm happy you mentioned that, too, because with all the recent calls for drought watches and whatnot, just based on the recent weather patterns over the year, where is that water going to come from for these housing units and whatnot? Windham already has a water ban in place, and it's not even drought season yet. So again, just the infrastructure is not there. And again, the resources aren't there, rather, to really support this.

The Army Corps of Engineers for the state of New Hampshire has put out a document in regards to quantity of water. We are running drastically short because of the building. Exactly. Even in our lowest states, because the water comes from up north and it comes down, everybody's pulling on the same veins. Exactly. And it really is a very big concern about quantity, not only quality, but then you pull into play light pollution. Yes. You pull into play noise pollution, which we just heard from. Exactly. Now let's put in quality of air. Because you don't have as many trees. We just got a release from the state today that is orange, the quality of air. Now that may have nothing to do with this or it may. I don't know. Right. But years ago, and I know somebody's in this audience, her husband was very passionate about this and did an environmental baseline so that we could monitor as a town. Yeah. The development that came in, how it was affecting our environment. Exactly. The world has issues, the state, the whatever. But you know what? I live here. Yeah. So I'm going to be a NIMBY and say I'm worried about my backyard.

Yeah.

And that's really all I can control and change. Exactly. And we stopped thinking about the environment. Mm-hmm.

it's important because without quality air quality water enough water we're in trouble and again it's what people want like when they come to londonderry they want to see environment they want to see farmland they want to see trails people can access for recreation that's it we totally agree with you yeah

And I believe, personally, I would like to see the PUD go away like that last year, the year before that, but it fell on deaf ears. And I really think that, as we were told, there's only a couple of pieces of land left. What's the big deal? We've already got three.

And it is a big deal because it's like, you know, again, we can't handle the traffic burden currently. And I know, again, Woodmont, like, yes, Woodmont, like, I know it's already there. But we have to bring it up because it is relevant in discussing these things going forward. Again, like, we just, yeah, yeah, we just, we can't. It does matter. Even though there is land available, we have to protect it. Again, make it for the green spaces for the trails and whatnot, but really not sure. PUD efforts is that.

And because these people are commuters, transients, I'm sorry, they're apartment dwellers, they're not going to stay there forever. When their rent goes up because taxes go up because we have to do things, they go, all right, pack my stuff, go to the next town. And they don't. necessarily not all of them i'm not going to say all of them because that would be wrong right to say but a lot of them they're just here to do what they got to do and move on they're not putting in the roots exactly and that's why for me yeah they say we don't have control over the single family homes or whatever the underlying zone that's just basically a scare thing yeah there is ordinances there there are rules that tell you what you can and cannot do with a single family home on that land

And that's what you guys are for, correct? To determine those rules and to make them stick and vote on them and go from there. Or at least bring it to the ballot box and let the taxpayers.

I guess I shouldn't talk so much because people don't want us to talk a lot. As another resident in the audience said, we should limit ourselves to three minutes.

But no, thank you so much for your time. Thank you. I appreciate it. Again, just really hope we could put a pause on things like that and just really, really, really consider what... decisions you guys are making to the 27,000 people, 28,000 people that do live here. Almost 29. I know. Thank you. Thank you.

Mr. Chair.

Just to clarify for the record. I was going to ask. So one, just by way of information that you may or may not want to know. I am born and raised from London area. Two, me coming or going has nothing to do with the integrity of this document. That's why it's before you, the decision makers. Yeah. So I just want to make that clear. I don't have personal ownership of it. So whatever the town decides to do with it is the town's business. Again, that's why you're here voting on it.

Thank you. Mr. Chair.

Is better. Excuse me. Thank you.

Kelly, can I just have a quick clarification from the presentation that was presented last week? I believe someone had stated that if they weren't doing the POD, they'd do 200 homes. on the underlining zoning.

The conceptual from last week.

Right, from the conceptual from last week. Is that what was actually stated or not?

They had an alternate plan, if you will, where they were utilizing the underlying zoning, which is AR1, and they were proposing a 200-some-odd residential subdivision. That is what they would be permitted to do per the underlying zoning.

Now, certainly they could potentially do what Lord & Commons had done, where they had quarter-acre lots and do it as a giant condo association. And at that rate, you'd be closer to 1,000 units for all the acres they have up there.

They have 240 acres. They have to follow current zoning. Hold on. Hold on. You can help the mic. Hold on.

Want me to answer?

Yeah, please. No, please. I'm just one person at a time.

So AR1 allows for conventional subdivisions. So the Lord and Commons example would not apply in this scenario.

Were they AR1 when they went ahead?

the lorden commons yeah yes but we had a different um provision in our zoning ordinance at that time that allowed for um undersized lots or smaller lots okay thank you went through their review process thank you i just said that kelly's second the one that she put in for the

this is much better than the first one. Okay. That's all.

So we're good? Come on up, sir.

How are you? I apologize. No, you're fine. Yeah, okay. One of the technical issues that I realized on the Londonderry Holdings, I'm Bob Malphite, 69 member of Londonderry, if we get that over with, is when they did the agreement with the town, They someway got the ability right now under Town Audit where you have in Dachau, though abiding residential, you have to have a 50-foot buffer. Part of that agreement, as I understand it, they can just get away with regular 15-foot buffer. And they're building an industrial building right next to a residential land zone land. And I believe that one of the things that you want to do in the future is make sure you do not make that mistake again. Make sure that any buffers on the outside of the ARR, yeah, you know, the plan, yeah, the PUD is maintained. I don't know how that ever got in there, but it did. But I'm not very unhappy about that. I want that 50-foot buffer between the industrial and residential zone land, and they did not. not meet that requirement. They go and needed it with the TAN and either the TAN, either they asked for it or the TAN gave it to them and I don't believe that that should have been done. That should be looked into to make sure, at least in the future, you do not do the outside of the plan, you know, developments, you know, give it up and that was done. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody got any idea how it might have got in there? Kelly?

Are you talking specifically Technology Hill?

Yeah.

So they had asked to waive certain buffers, including the overlays?

Yep. And they would have needed a 50-foot without a PUD, and they got it down to 15-foot.

Right. So when an industrial zone, generally speaking, abuts an AR1 zone, there's a buffer requirement.

Yeah, and they didn't some way either they asked for or the time offered to give it to them.

So through their approval process, they were not required to have that buffer that you're referring to.

Okay. Any technical changes to make sure the outside buffers are maintained in any future PUDs? That is a big mistake that was made. Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. And hopefully the changes will be made in the future to make sure that that type of thing doesn't happen again. Thank you.

I hope you're listening because the master plan spoke to you all very loudly. And I hope you're listening to the people who have come forward. And as far as you could have had 200 homes on whatever. They want to put 250 little houses on how many acres over there? On 95 acres. 250 little houses over there that they're going to rent out. So I hope you're listening. And several years ago, it's my understanding that the town decided not to build any more 55 communities. Is that correct? 55 communities who are streets are too narrow to ever ask the town to take them over. 55 communities that do not put any children into the school district. We do put a lot on the fire department, not the police, but the fire department. But the town was, in their great knowledge, decided not to do that. And it must have been for a very good reason. I don't know, but it must have been for a very good reason. I'm asking you, and I think the town people are asking you, to stop the PUD. Let the town catch up on traffic. They widened. 102 from the post office to 93 that's the miserable mile we call that because it takes literally we call that the miserable mile I live right there and it's the miserable mile people in your community the citizens don't want this they want a stop and everybody complains that there are not enough houses for young people not apartments houses and maybe if we start building more houses we can bring the price of houses down so that young people but as long as you're putting apartments up and having very transit people and they are coming and going so listen to your citizens they told you in the master plan you did two surveys and both of them said they do not want all this development and stop stop it you should have stopped it back then you've got Two more being developed, that's enough.

Christine, just so you know, the reason why we pulled the 55 pluses had to do with affordable housing. And we had to, the benefits or the tax breaks that we gave the developers for 55 pluses would have to have also have been given to builders who wanted to put in the high density affordable housings. So the town didn't want to do that, so in order to stop that, we had to stop that.

I knew you must have had a good reason, but- I'm just saying that was the reason. But I think the people are telling you there's a good reason. A good reason. They don't want this. And you're supposed to represent them, and they don't want that. Look at the people who came out. They don't want this.

You know, Tony DeFrancisco, I'm enlightened and I'm so pleased that we can come to these meetings and have fun, and we can disagree, we can agree to disagree, and yet we still talk to each other. Wasn't like that even six months ago. So it's encouraging, it's enlightening, and to me, I'm just pleased as punch to be here. So, several things. Several things. Number one, For the young lady that did all of the work in two hours, whoever she's working for is getting a bargain, because if she can do all that work in two hours. That's amazing. And by the way, there's a planning board position available also. Just saying. But to that point, you got off on a tangent, you took a left-hand turn and water came up, right? So let's be clear, for a PUD, water and sewer, public water and sewer has to be available and has to be They have to get their permits for water and sewer from wherever it comes from. Where it comes from doesn't matter, but they have to have public water and sewer in order to get approved for the PUD. Am I correct?

Yep, correct.

Thank you. And I'm glad Christine brought this up. So let's talk about the master plan. So the master plan talks about the affordable housing, right? And I've said this many, many times at the planning board level and to people who came up to talk in public comment. You have to understand, somebody who owns a piece of land that can be built on and sold is getting paid on a percentage. If you're making 10% on a piece of land, are you going to build a million dollar house, or are you going to build a $100,000 house? Just do the simple math, and if you're a business person, which one are you going to build? That's the problem that we have right now. And the other problem is a lot of people, I won't say everyone because that's not correct, a lot of people said, said, they said, no one is going to be able to afford those homes. No one is going to move into those homes. Guess what? They can't build them fast enough and people are moving into them. Okay? So, I'm sorry Councilor Paul left because she was on a thing about pocket parks not too long ago. You all will remember pocket parks, right? It's a great idea. How do you get pocket parks? Well, you either get a developer to build the pocket park as part of their development like, for example, in a PUD, or you go to the taxpayers and you put a Warren article and say, we want to buy this million dollar piece of land, half a million dollar piece of land, $300,000 piece of land, whatever, and we want to put a pocket park on it. Which one do you want? Do you want a pocket park that a developer pays for and puts in and maintains, or Do you want the taxpayers to have to do it? It's a question you all have to answer, right? I can't answer that, right? And in the back, somebody said, what's in it for me? I live here too. I didn't go to high school here like Kelly did, but I've been here since 1978. I've been here for a while. I've seen a lot. Traffic is a question of perception and tolerance. It is a miserable mile. I used to be able to go from the Hudson River Bridge all the way to Exit 4 interchange in a nanosecond. And those of you that know what kind of cars I have will know why. There was no lights. There was no traffic. Literally, it was a nanosecond. And to the young lady's point, who happens to live in South Londonderry, she's right. You're talking 15 minutes to get to the highway now from South Londonderry. That's true. It is what it is. I want to be clear. Not having a PUD does not stop development. It doesn't. Houses are still going to be built. Factories are still going to be built. Let's be clear. The RSAs in the state of New Hampshire say that the owner of a piece of land... Excuse me.

Excuse me.

Please.

I'm sorry.

The ADHD in me, I can't handle it. I'm sorry, but I can't handle it. I was talking about Parker Parks. I'm sorry you weren't here. I'll talk about it. Or you can watch the tape. Either way. And I lost my train of thought. I was at...

They're going to build factories.

They're going to build houses. All that stuff is going to be built anyway. A PUD does not stop development. People say, and I've had people call me, text me, email me, see me at the post office, whatever. You've got to stop this development. Can't. If someone owns a piece of land in New Hampshire, they have a right to build on it with the underlying zoning. at least and deb i bristle at the at when you said that's a scare tactic i'm not trying to scare anybody i wasn't talking about you i understand that but i'm on the planning board and i've said it but that and and i've said it too so indirectly you said it to me and i and i bristle at that comment because i'm not trying to do it's rhetorical i'm not trying to scare anybody There aren't a lot of people that do more research into this stuff than I do. There are some, and there are some that do more than I do. But I will tell you I'm well researched. And I will tell you that development is going to continue. You cannot stop it. It's impossible. Deb, I was talking about Parker Parks. Yes, sir. Do you want to put up, do you want to have a a warrant article so the town can buy a piece of land and put a park on it? Or do you want to have a developer? It's rhetorical, I'm not asking for your opinion. That was where I was at. That was where I was at. So to me, a PUD is a way for a developer to build this kind of a stuff. If we just look at the company that came in last week, okay? This is a cartoon drawing, but initial is 137 acres. 62% of the site will remain undisturbed and open to the public.

Because it's wet, right?

13 acres of parks, seven miles of trails, playgrounds, and dog parks. This is how you get stuff built for the town to use that the taxpayers don't have to pay for. Now, circle all the way back. What's in it for me? To me, a PUD will help keep the tax rates from rising too much. Because they're always going to rise. They're always going to go up. There's no way to stop that. But to me, a PUD can take a tract of land, make it tax positive, and help to stem the tide of the tax rate. If you just leave it raw land, underlying zoning, no control over it, no nothing, have a bunch of land, you have no parker parks, you have no dog, you have nothing. You have nothing but a bunch of roads and a bunch more people because you can't stop it. What's in it for me? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Other than, I'd like to try and control some of the tax burden. Thank you. Thank you.

I think impact fees control the tax burden.

Good evening.

Hi there.

Hey. Sandra Legue, Two Fiddlers Ridge Road. I'm going to tell a story here. I'm going to weave together a lot of the things that I've heard and how I think some things are really positive, some things less so, and probably not going to go in a direction you might anticipate I would with what I'm going to start with. It's important and has already been said for us to remember that these parcels are going to get developed whether we like it or not, right? A PUD allows potentially more creative development of land that's going to be built out one way or another. But, and it's a huge but, it hasn't gone like we thought it would, right? So this is where I'm going to weave the things together. You know, I'll go in a couple of different directions, but I loved what the gentleman said, live, work, play. Because I was there, as many of us were. Some of us were at those meetings 10 or so years ago, whatever the amount of time was. We didn't have a downtown. And we thought, oh, this could be cool. And I was there. And some of the counselors were there, and some of you didn't live here then. This could be cool. We're going to get some public gathering, some public enjoyment space. Um, it's near the highway. Let's give it a shot. Sean, I know you weren't here. The promises were unbelievable. You would feel like I feel or others feel if you were sitting there at the design charrettes and all that was promised. Okay. What do we have today? Not even a playground. Think about it. Not even a single playground has been built in Woodmont. Now we can't go back. We're not gonna change that. It is what it is. We have to live with that. Think about that. How inexpensive would it have been to put in a beautiful playground? There were ball fields. I can go get the master plan. Click the link. It's on the town website. There were ball fields drawn on some of these. Pick your ball game. Softball, baseball, soccer, lacrosse. Could be any one of them. Zero. And what are we, eight years in? Hmm. The point of the revision of this PUD is to not make the same mistakes again. That's the point of the revision. I heard it mentioned that the lack of commercial in Woodmont is supply and demand driven. It was a meeting that I wasn't here. I too listened to many of them, not as much as the gentleman who's going to be on the budget committee. Man, he rocks. That was impressive. But I get chores done. I'm in the yard doing yard work. I'm doing other things when I'm listening. A developer can't control this. A developer cannot control supply and demand as true as an economic principle. That is in fact true. But a landowner has to be willing to make and close deals. And there have been deals and opportunities offered that the landowners of current PUDs are not willing to make. So I say these things about playgrounds and ball fields, and it's not just supply and demand. I almost got up off my couch and drove here when they were saying float in that, you know, part of what I did in school. Fool us once, shame on, fool us, the town, ONCE, SHAME ON THE PERSON FOOLING US. FOOL US TWICE, SHAME ON US. US MEANING THE COLLECTIVE US. FROM BOARDS TO CITIZENS TO WHOMEVER IS IN THE DECISION MAKING. WE NEED TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT We need to have metrics. We need to have teeth in this ordinance. And anybody who says you leave it a little bit open so that you can be flexible, that is right where a developer will drive a truck through that and run right over us. do not leave room. And if you pass this ordinance tonight, which I think you should, well, split personality, I think it should be thrown out. I don't think we should have a PUD anymore. Number one. If you pass the... If you pass this ordinance, it is better. It is better. People did a lot of work. The planning board did a lot of work. They tightened it up. You guys have done a lot of work. It's a step in the right direction, but you have left gaping holes that developers who are driven by profit. I worked for a multinational corporation. For 40 years it is profit driven. There's nothing wrong with it. That's the way the world works There's absolutely nothing wrong with it. I personally benefited from profit driven business But understand it and stop acting like they're gonna be nice to us. You're gonna have to force it in the PUD and double down on it in the development agreement. And if you don't, you will have fooled us twice and that's shame on the collective us. Being pro or con development is like a continuum. Think of it like a pendulum or a continuum of some type. I am on neither extreme end. But I want us to be, because I know there's no going back to seven apple orchard family farms in town. I know there's no going back. And it has more to do with our proximity to Boston and in the 1960s when Route 93 went through. We can't change that. But there are other towns around us being smarter than us. Why wouldn't we learn? Are we so arrogant that we wouldn't learn from the towns that have tighter PUDs than us? Do we think we're so fabulous that we can't learn from neighboring towns? The only towns to me that are relevant are southern New Hampshire, right? Not Massachusetts, not way up northern New Hampshire. Our neighbors who are under the same kind of pressures that we are. Do we want to have the most lenient PUD in southern New Hampshire? So I don't know if we have the courage to say we're not going to have another one, because I know the kind of pressure that you're under. What's really interesting to watch our boards, because I really respect all that you all do, because I know you all have careers and families that are full-time jobs, and that this is a quote-unquote part-time unpaid gig. It's about as unpart-time as you can get. You put in a lot of hours, essentially unpaid. And that's how we get run over by developers. Because we are a form of government that is part-time, unpaid, people that come from other careers. And you get swayed, anybody would, I would, when they sit in here with their high-paid attorneys bowling everybody over. How you protect us in the future, not just right now, but in the future when we're gone, is by having regulations as tight as you can legally make them. So I implore you to, I guess, what would I do if I was in your shoes? I wouldn't be in your shoes because it's an unforgivable position you guys are in. I have to recognize you for that, I really do. I wouldn't do it. The least you could do was pass what's in there tonight but immediately take it back up again and tighten up the holes, immediately. And I'll come every single town council meeting and talk in a public comment asking you to do it if you don't. And it's for the future, it's not for me. It's for the people, it's for the kids behind us. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Do you want to? Come on up.

This is a new record for me. First time council meeting and already up here twice. First of all, Mrs. Lagooey did an amazing job. She echoed everything I feel like that the town has been feeling. I do want to mention, though, too, Mr. DeFrancesco in the back, he also mentioned a resource doesn't matter where it comes from. I do just want to say, so my background is infectious disease. I have a master's in public health. Public health, we really like to say, let's look at the downstream impacts, right? So we can't just say, like, it doesn't matter. Just go ahead, build the PUD. Like, go ahead, build the development without thinking of those downstream impacts. And again, you've heard tonight, traffic is a big burden. And again, Deb and I mentioned water is an issue too. But again, these decisions come from somewhere. They have impacts downstream. So I feel like, again, just with the PUD, you really have to think of what this downstream impact is to the community. It doesn't matter what it is today, tomorrow, or whatever. Really need to consider all these different avenues, all these, I'm going to say, social determinants of health, really, how it all files into this. It's more than just that policy decision. It's so much more to it than that. Again, that community decision, just again, everybody's way of life here in Londonderry. So I just, again, really hope we consider that, take that into account. And that's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening. I just want to say that what these people are saying is basically you know when i moved here 24 years ago i moved here because town rural town right single family homes not apartments down gilcrest the pud was promised and never happened still hasn't happened now they're looking at other ones and i To his point, I'd rather have 250 houses or 1,000 houses than 1,000 apartment buildings. Because people who live in houses care about the community. People in apartment buildings, they're in, they're out. They don't care. Just wanted to say that.

Thank you. Good evening, Ray.

Good evening again. Ray Breslin, 3 Gary Drive. There was a lot said here. I hope a lot of it you take into account. But we have a new master plan. The old master plan we had pretty much got put on the shelf. And some things got implemented, not a lot of really important ones that should have. So now we got a new one. And there were surveys done, and the people spoke. And that's in the new master plan. That's a vision for the planning department and the zoning. That is a vision for the town. That is a vision for the people. That's what the people want. And I hope that any decisions that are made, we open that master plan back up again and see what's in there and see what the vision is for the town. Because these impacts, we understand. The building is going to happen. More people are going to come. But we have to think about the priorities. The health and safety of the citizens and the other impacts. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else wish to speak? Good evening.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, my name is Kevin Smith. I'm a resident at 6 King Phillip Drive. Family's been here since 1986. But I'm here this evening on behalf of Pillsbury Realty Development, who are the owners and developers of Woodmont Commons, and specifically on behalf of Michael Kettenbach, who is the singular owner of the development. Mr. Kettenbach asked me to address comments that were made by Councillor Paul at the April 20 Council meeting, as well as statements that were later published in the London Dairy Times on which is also owned by Councilor Paul. At the 420 meeting, Councilor Paul suggested that the Woodmont PUD is not what was originally approved or presented to the community, stating about the PUDs in general, they've done a lot to hurt the town, specifically referencing residential density and the pace of commercial development, as well as the burden to the taxpayers. Then in the May 7 edition of the London Times newspaper, Councilor Paul was quoted as saying that Woodmont was not implemented correctly, and that the taxpayer could have benefited a lot more from Woodmont if things were done correctly from the get-go. Mr. Kettenbach asked that the record be corrected with facts instead of the fiction that has been presented in both public forums. First, with respect to the balance of commercial and residential development, it is important to remember that one of the very first major projects completed as part of the Woodmont PUD was the redevelopment and expansion of the existing Market Basket Plaza, which was a project explicitly included within the approved Woodmont Commons Master Plan. It's known as WCGL1 in the PUD. That redevelopment brought significant commercial investment to Lunanderry, including new home goods and TJ Maxx, which were previously in the Shaw's Plaza. They left there because that plaza had gone bankrupt. It also included the reconstruction and expansion of the market basket itself to one of the largest in the state at the time with the market's kitchen. It also included the expansion of the liquor and wine outlet, which if you're old enough to remember the old one, it was about the size of my basement. And it also included the additional three additional retail tenants on the property. When the first phase of Woodmont Commons was developed in WC1, it included not only 87 residential apartments, but also approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial space on the first floor, and also a 12,000 square foot brewery. Since then, Woodmont has continued to add additional commercial development, including more than 50,000 square feet of medical office space. To date, Woodmont has developed approximately 286,000 square feet of commercial space, with many additional commercial projects still planned and forthcoming, all in accordance with the master plan. At the same time, while residential development has occurred as contemplated under the approved PUD, Woodmont has not built nor even requested approval for a single residential Residential unit beyond what was authorized under the original plan approved by the town in 2013, which is not even something that Tuscan Village can say. You may recall Tuscan Village had planned this whole area of life science labs until there was no market for life science labs. And they went to the planning board in Salem and asked for it to be converted to residential units. To the contrary, the Woodmont development has proceeded within the framework and density allowances originally approved by this community. Second, with regard to taxpayer benefit, the numbers speak for themselves. As I reported in my annual presentation to the planning board this past April, since breaking ground, Woodmont has generated approximately $15.7 million in net revenue to the town. That's after expenses, police, fire, school, and those numbers come directly from those departments. They don't come from Woodmont. And including more than 2.5 million in net positive fiscal impact in 2025 alone. People may certainly have differing opinions about growth and development. That is fair and it's to be expected. But to suggest that the taxpayers of Londonderry have not substantially benefited from Woodmont is simply not supported by the facts. And beyond direct tax revenue, Woodmont has invested tens of millions of dollars into both private and public infrastructure improvements that benefit the broader community, including roadway upgrades, water infrastructure improvements involving Penachuk facilities, transmission lines, pump stations, and sewer infrastructure currently under construction along Pillsbury Road. I would simply ask that the public discourse surrounding this project remain factual, balanced, and fair. Woodmont Commons has been one of the most significant economic development projects in Londonderry's history already, and it's not even 50% complete. That's important to note. It was always called for to be a 20-year development buildout so that the town didn't get all of this development at one time. Woodmont broke ground in 2017. We're in year nine of the buildout. Exit 4A just got completed last year. Reasonable people can debate policy growth and planning philosophy, but those discussions should be grounded in accurate information and objective facts, not hyperbolic rhetoric or revisionist narratives. And the last thing I would just add, because it wasn't in my notes, but it's been said here tonight, first of all, the development agreement is a binding document. Second of all, it is part of the PUD. It's in section 4.5, volume one of the PUD master plan. It's in the table of contents. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else wish to comment on the PUD? Seeing none, I will accept the motion to close the public hearing. So moved. I have a motion from Ted. Second. Second from Sean. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Show us the affirmative, 5-0. Discussion back at the council.

I'm going to start. Okay. I think this is an improvement from what we have. I'm not a fan of it. i've listened to people in this community i'm not a politician i don't care about politics i don't think that we should have a pud ordinance i think it should be shelved that's my feeling i think that what we have is certainly much more well written than what we had in the past i was at all the pud meetings back when it was originally being concepted uh back now

14, 15 years ago now, or more now. I was at many of the meetings that went on to midnight to 1 AM. Certainly I wish that some things could have changed within the document at that time. That may not have gone into effect. But I think what we have before us is a much more well written document than what we currently have and Easier for people to understand our current document, I think, is very long and lengthy and maybe hard for people to fully understand all the concepts that are within it. And I think that what our planning board and our planning department have put together is very concise and much easier to understand.

Ron, I just want to add one thing. I know when we started this, you and I had discussions on this as well. My hopes was that we would have shelved this whole PUD thing, worked on it, listened to the public, and then if we got a good working PUD, then bring it up. This is better. I agree. This is better than the first one that we got out there. Still needs a lot of work. That's my feeling.

Okay. Go ahead. My assessment is this. The old PUD was a D, D minus as far as quality. The new one is a C, C minus. I say we could do a lot better. We owe it to the public to do a lot better. But with not much left and nobody banging down the door, I don't see any reason why we can't take the time necessary to do it. With Kelly leaving and other people in the planning board being short staffed, having such complex things like this, Puts us in a really, really awful place. And I'm not against building. There is nothing wrong with development if done smartly and correctly and impartially that both the town and the residents that are here who exist and the new ones coming in are all leaving the table a little unhappy because that means we got to a good negotiation. So I wanted to clear that up right away. I think that we're opening ourselves up to be taken advantage of not having a strong department or people in place right at this moment in time. And I think it would be smart, very, very smart of us to say, okay, we have these three, we're working with them, they're still growing. Let's see what the flavor is as they build out. Let's see if people come in. As we hire people for the planning department, then you can sit there and say, okay, we've worked on the ordinance. It's now much, much better. It's much stronger. We have a full staffed planning department. We can now reinitiate this because we have land available. We've dealt with other issues like traffic. Like water, we've got all of that under control. Now is a good time to take a look at re-bringing it back and maybe moving the town forward again. But for me, my preference is to be smart, put it away for now, put that toy in the closet until we get our ducks in a row. And then move forward, but if that's not the taste of the board, I would then strongly say going for the newer one is much better than the old one. And again, the newer one is a C at best, and the old one was a D, D-. That's my opinion.

Yeah. So I just want to thank Kelly, because you, when we went down the road with this, you came back to the first vision of the planning board on what this would look like. We took it. We took countless hours of staff time, planning board time, public input, public hearings to get to this point. The amount of money and cost and work that went into this was significant. So I'm grateful for all the work that you put in on this, and I'm also sorry to lose you. But besides that, I think, you know, just trying to keep this to what's in front of us tonight, what's in front of us tonight is this ordinance. And if this is an improvement over what we have, and I don't think anyone disagrees that it is. so I I would like us to to move forward with this and and get some improvements in here I think we we took some of the past criticisms of of some of the the gaps that we saw and we made a really tight document over the course of when did we start this last October so it's been a it's been a long time so so I would also like to thank you

Ms. Karen, for all of your help. You've gone back and forth here. You were very patient with us. Thank the planning board and also thank planning staff, anyone that helped with this document. I feel like this document is much better than what we had. i feel like a lot of the concerns that i had with the old document are addressed in this and i feel like it also gives us a little bit of flexibility if something comes in and we need to like adjust a little bit so i think it i think it is a much much more improved document and i i feel like you guys spent a lot of time on it And as Jake said when he was here, was it two meetings ago? This is much better and we want to make improvements in the future. I think that this is much, much better than what we have now.

with that mr chair i will move that the londonderry town council adopt ordinance 2026-06 amendments to the londonderry zoning ordinance section 5.2 plan unit development ordinance have a motion from sean second a second from ted any further discussion

Are you not going to add what Mr. Spaltz said about the environmental conservation part of it?

Yes, ma'am.

You're not going to add that? That's another motion. Okay, so he came up and made a suggestion that I thought was very serious. Did he leave?

No, he's right here.

Yeah, sorry. I thought it was a very important suggestion. I don't know if you're going to move it forward with his change, which would be fine. But I think that you really should think about conservation.

Okay. I'm fine with the way it's written now. I feel like it's much better than it was.

Not much. Not much. Did you not hear me? D minus to a C is not much. I heard you. It's not much.

Any other further discussion? All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye. Aye. No. Any opposed? Opposed.

Chair votes the affirmative. Deb and Dan voted no. 3-2, motion carries.

Thank you for coming.

Good night, Kelly.

Up next, we had a resident, Maura Ryan, put in a request for the town council. She sent an email saying that she wanted to withdraw it, so it was withdrawn by Maura. Up next, discuss and request from the Library Board of Trustees additional funding for repairs to the library envelope phase two, HVAC replacement.

Donna, are you taking this?

Okay. Welcome. Thanks for your patience.

Thank you. Thanks for having me. With me tonight, I have- Please sit if you want to chat or, yeah, if you- I have Beth Morocco, who's the Vice Chair of the Board of Trustees. Yeah. And I also have Kevin McGee, who is our project manager right now from Reart Construction. Excellent.

Welcome. You're being patient.

So I know tonight we're here to bring to you really the scope and the estimate for phase two of the project. But in order for you to make a decision about phase two, I also think you need information about where we are with phase one currently.

Please.

So what I did is I put together three very simple slides just today. It's all information that you have already received and that the public has, but I just reformatted it to hopefully make it more digestible. So that's what I'm going to go through with you. Yeah, please. And then Kevin will be able to, if you have any specific questions about the more technical work of the scope, will be able to speak to that better than me where I'm not a construction expert. Yeah. More than I've ever expected, I will say. You might know more than you wanted to know, right? Yeah. All right. So where we currently are with phase one. So I wanted to spell out that phase one really turned into two different projects. One I've put in the green box and one in the blue. So the green is what we kind of came to you with with the initial idea. contract from RE-ARC that looked at the building investigation where we knew there were issues happening really behind the walls or really more than what we knew at the time in terms of leaks and installation issues and that sort of thing. So those reports are attached to the agenda tonight so that you can look through what we have so far. There was also mold remediation work and these recommendations came direct, or most of them came directly from the extensive mold testing that was completed. Included duct cleaning, replacing flex ducts, which we brought to you as an additional cost at a prior meeting. And there was also a recent ask for additional remediation based on the results of the testing. And then finally, the repairs that resulted from the mold damage and that exploration work that was happening, which include replacing ceiling tiles, repairing drywall, doing some extensive painting, and also cleaning the carpet. And then on the blue side, on the right side of the screen, you'll see what was required for the pipe burst, which is more the scope of what the insurance is covering. So that was a repair to the radiator, water damage restoration with Servpro. They are recommending carpet replacement, which we've come and asked for like a carpet upgrade from you at a previous meeting. There's also moving expenses because of our large collection that needs to be moved when we replace the carpet. There's also electrical work involved, carpentry work, drywall painting, carpet cleaning. So the reason why I highlighted specifically the drywall painting and carpet cleaning is to show you that that's really the only overlap in these projects in terms of the scope. When we get to cost estimates, I did the same thing here. I laid out what the council has authorized for funds so far, a total of $404,554. committed to be received from Primex for the insurance claim at $335,871.94. What I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page about is that there isn't, because there's not a lot of overlap in the scope between the two projects, we can't really say that the insurance is completely reimbursing And we can subtract from the $400,000 that town council has authorized, if that makes sense. So really it's close to two separate projects where it's what council has authorized and then what insurance is covering. I went back. Does that make sense? Any questions?

Any questions on that? Okay. Yeah.

So, looking ahead at phase two. So, we've split it up into a part A and a part B based on the scope of work that we felt was the most essential. And honestly, part A needs to happen in the short term in order to prepare better figures for part B. So what we're looking at time-wise is that Part A could happen between this fiscal year and next fiscal year. This includes engineering and design work to raise the rooftop units, because right now they're sitting in what we're calling a bowl, which is, I think, causing a lot of issues that we've had over many years. And I think the external envelope consultant is confirming that. the preventative measures that are needed um until we can replace the rooftop units so that would include renting some cooling units that can help us control the humidity in the building because right now our rooftop units are not capable of controlling that humidity and it's created an environment where mold can grow so we want to make sure that we're not adding to that environment we're preventing that from happening again. And also through the winter months, installing glycol into the heating system so that it can help us prevent that freezing that we've been seeing for several years. So both of those are included in the estimate for Part A. As well as some essential recommendations that were brought forth through the external envelope reports and investigations, including some issues with insulation that were flagged. So over the winter months, we won't be essentially heating the outdoors through some issues that have been caught, thankfully. We want to make sure we're using taxpayer funds efficiently and letting that happen, continue to happen. So that is just one area of concern that those reports showed. Just as an example, I was bringing that forth as an essential. And then part B would be the actual work of raising the rooftop units and replacing the rooftop units, making sure that they have that humidity control function we really need.

I love that this is broken down into phases where you've got it in parts, not just a big list. So good job on that.

Thank you. Do either of you want to add anything to what I've?

You covered it all. I think one thing I'd like just to highlight with regards to the rooftop unit right now, because the indoor doctor, who is the independent mold testing agency that you hired, said the rooftop units need to maintain a humidity control of 50%. Because when we did the exterior envelope consultant from CX Associates, who did multiple reports on the investigation that we did in the building, That's the one thing, we were not able to test the rooftop units to confirm that they can maintain it, but based upon the one that you have mold, we couldn't find the mold issue. It's kind of generated from inside and constantly growing, as well as just talking to the staff that, you know, that the units are not going to be able to maintain the 50% humidity as required by Jeff Bradley and the indoor doctor. So that's hence why we have the temporary cooling units, as Donna mentioned, for two years. And eventually those have to be be done because the negligence that happened over the like the years of the rooftop units that they're long past their life expectancy so you're eventually going to have total failure you already have failure on one unit for the um on the historical room in the front um but so you have a couple of rooms that basically they're still working limping along but um you know they're at the end of their life based upon the reviews that we have and that will also be part of the design work is to have a come in and verify what you need and so forth and to make sure you have the most efficiency units in the future.

I also, sorry, while you're getting the mic, I just wanted to add to with the glycol that there was a note from the contractor, the company that we contract with that put an estimate together for us that it is very likely when they install the glycol that they could find more leaks that we're not currently aware of in the system. And that that could lead to having to make some more repairs.

So I just wanted to note that. I don't have much to add to it other than the board had reviewed the documents that REARC had provided for us. Don has really done a really thorough job, as you can see, kind of taking really complex stuff and breaking it down to make it really easy to digest. And it's really clear that this building you know, we got off lucky. There's a lot of materials in this building and it could have damaged a significant amount of things that would have to be replaced. So we just really want to make sure that we are addressing the humidity levels because if the mold returns, we've kind of all done this for nothing. So we just really want to be thoughtful about the long-term plans and just making sure we're doing right by the community and not having to do this Again.

Mr. Chair.

Absolutely.

Do you guys know the age of the rooftop units currently? I can't remember off the top of my head.

About 30 years, along that line. It's not only this, that is the, I'm sorry. They're between 25, 30 years old, but they're also the condition of them because they were neglected for so many years that when we were coming to do the filter replacements, we had a lot of the exterior components that are stainless steel were falling apart just because just the neglect of the year. So

And I've seen commercial units go bad within five to ten years. Absolutely.

I've seen it last a little bit longer, kind of well maintained and go through, but we saw the neglect when we opened up the ductwork and everything that was inside of it.

Yeah, I was quite surprised when you said 30 years, that's not good. They should have been replaced a long time ago.

I want to say between 20s or 30s, but they're well past our life cycle. The one thing I would want to do is we're not able to test them in the wintertime. They were able to produce heat, but we couldn't test the humidity control because there was no humidity we had to extract out of the moist year at the time.

Well, and they're probably also too old to be able to fully be tested properly.

That is true, too, as well.

I can add to, in terms of the history of the rooftop units, I don't have the dates in front of me. I do have the exact age and when they were installed. I know that the unit serving the lower level of the building is original to the addition, which is at its 30-year mark. That's not good. And unfortunately, the lower level is probably the area that has the worst humidity problem, just because it's the lower level. So, there's that. The units that serve the large room and the children's room have been replaced more recently, but they're still, like, they're showing signs as if they've exceeded their life expectancy at this point. And I did, in getting the quote together for the rooftop units being replaced, E&E looked at the original plans for the addition and what units should have been installed and found that the only unit that was installed with humidity control components was for the historical room so we know that the other three units did not have any humidity humidity control installed well with my many years working in property management and construction certainly those units should have been replaced a very long time ago and certainly with

The people who go in there from our employees to our townspeople and to our books and our documents that are there, we really need to have the proper equipment servicing that building. So certainly this is a great plan to move forward with.

Any other questions for us? Well, I want to thank you for putting this together like this because this, I think, helps a lot of the questions that I get and maybe others get too as far as, you know, when is this going to stop? You know, like every time you're approving my money. So I think breaking it down like this is very helpful and shows the public where we're spending the money. So I appreciate you doing that. It's very helpful.

Good. I'm glad. And I believe the plan is for an actual, I think decision to be made June 15th. Yeah. Okay.

I want to thank you for that too. Cause I made a request, you know, like getting the materials early and we've got it really early. So this is, this is great. Thank you.

Yep. Tried to get everything that we could get. Yes. Thank you.

Any other questions? Well, thank you guys. Appreciate it. Appreciate your patience until nine 30 at night. So thank you. All right. Up next, we have discuss and provide guidance to the town manager on the fiscal year 2028 budget. You starting off, sir, or are we having a problem?

Certainly, the TC-901 requires the council to give guidance to the manager in regards to what it is looking for in terms of the budget for the incoming year, that being FY28. Obviously, FY27 starts in a matter of weeks on July 1. And as soon as you provide that guidance, finance will turn around and issue the guidance document to the departments to start developing their budget. So that's the first part of that. And there's also, I need to provide you with a budget schedule, which you and I both worked on with the budget committee and the school board. So we have that as well. We can certainly talk about, but I'll let you talk about the guidance piece first. Did anyone have any questions about the budget schedule?

We'll start with that, because that was something that we discussed.

I don't have a question.

Yeah, please.

As one counselor, I'm very excited about really being busy this summer and working by department and department and maybe even zeroing out some of it to actually capture what is really going on in the departments and where the money needs to be applied. So I, as one person, am very excited to start these budget meetings we were going to have i i think they're supposed to start in june or july i can't remember but i i i'm so excited to sit with each department give them the adequate time that they need and so for us to go through every single line i really think it's a great exercise to zero it out not something you should do every year mind you but it should happen every three to five years to see You know, one line gets, you know, they're moving stuff around because it's a bottom line budget. But if you don't see where they're moving it to fix it, you can't make that department better. So I might be moving money all the time over to this area in my department because... the software's outdated, the equipment's outdated, whatever the reason, or there's a lot of overtime because of it, you're not seeing it, so you can't ever fix why that department is going over because they're just moving it around. By making them go through it as a good exercise, businesses do it all the time, just to look at, okay, let's really see what is needed in this department so that you can not only adjust but fix what's wrong So moving forward, you won't see that overage all the time because you would have fixed the problem. So it's spending that time to get that, and I don't think this has ever been done in the town of Londonderry, where we said to the departments, okay, zero out your budget, come back to us, explain your personnel, explain what you're paying them, explain what they do, explain how this works, and then why is this necessary? You say you need 20 million for this. Well, that's great, but why? And knowing that is really good because then. We, as counselors can justify. Okay, you went over because you needed to upgrade this whole system because it was. Making making Sean and Ron have to work overtime. More so that made the. payroll bill go up. Do you know what I'm trying to say? But you at least know where it came from as to why we had to pay them more was because they had to work more because of this ineffectiveness right here. So it allows you to get a true snapshot of what's going on in each department and how we, as we're supposed to, better help them do their job better and efficiently and save the taxpayers money. Are we doing that?

No, that's why I'm confused here. So the schedule, the departments have to submit their budget to finance by the end of July. And then they will work with finance to work on the details of that budget. I call it buffing out to make sure the numbers are correct. And then they'll make those presentations to me. And then I'll present a budget, the operating budget, by the end of October. Because we won't have health insurance numbers until at least mid, if not the end of October. So I want to be very clear about that, because nothing that I've provided in documentation indicates any of what was just said. So I want to be careful about that. We are going to start early on proposing with the CIP pieces, because we'll have that process- I remember distinctively talking about this, and you said that whole thing to me.

We're not- We don't do a zero out budget, sometimes do, blah, blah, blah. And that we were going to start early, meeting with the departments, talking with them to better understand what their needs are. I hate to beat a dead horse, but HR, what she needed to be more effective and more efficient at her job and why. I thought that was something we were going to do, but whatever.

So as I indicated, the CIP process will go on throughout the summer. By September and October, we should have those in the WARN articles, which is stuff when we normally do at the end. I want to do it at the beginning. So that will help to speed up the process, hopefully. That is the plan to do that. So you will have those meetings in, again, September, October, once we work through that piece. So that, again, should help out with that process. What I propose is priority-based budgeting. And we had some discussions about that. We don't think we're really ready for that yet. The first thing is to develop a strategic plan, then to go through that process. As you know, we've made changes last year in terms of the budget. If the department wants additional staffing, they have to actually fill out documentation for that and justify that. So we started that last year. Those documents are still on the website right now from the last budget process. So we'll be doing that again. But other than that, we're not reforming the budget process yet. We talked about taking this in a slower pace and doing the strategic plan first and then look at priority-based budgeting after that is done. So the council didn't dismiss that, it just wanted to take its time to be able to go through the process, which is not uncommon.

Ron, you had mentioned there's a calendar of events. I don't see a calendar. Where's the schedule?

Do we put it on the agenda or just in the- It's in my status report that I sent out to the council. Thank you.

We went over- I was just looking at the documents, I didn't see it in the documents here.

The budget schedule we went over allows a lot of flexibility. So if we find that we need more, I guess more of one department than another, we can switch, we can alter as we go if we want the community to join us. Of course.

That's why I felt like- I was just confused because I didn't see in our documents here, that's all.

Any further guidance or questions? I know that you and I talked about doing three budgets. in seeing how that worked out. I think that would help the council do that up front as opposed to kind of like trying to do it on the last week of December, you know, like we were doing last year. So if you could still do that, that would be great, you know, present that to the council so that we kind of have an idea of what the fault is and

know what the cip and you know the consumer pricing next is and i guess he's got to create them i mean it takes time to create three so i guess what i'd rather see is if you're if you're going to take time to create them one you you create something and then you do annotations of what's different rather than create three budgets but on top of that i guess you know we just got done with the library and a big big amount of money and everything else i just want to see what what default looks like and we kind of go from there by then we're going to know more what the year is going to turn out with but if he's going to develop something having that first gives us a better idea where to start and then we could go to the other ones because they just having him do three at once i think is a is a hard i see our finance directors here do we want to approach our finance director with that question absolutely even if accomplished for him to do so he's been very patient this evening so

Oh, come on up, Kate.

Come on up, yeah. We're all inclusive here. Come on up.

Thank you.

Hi, Kate Burbage, Chair of the Budget Committee. So the Budget Committee is going to be requesting what the budget is for default, what the department's requested, so library, fire, police, etc. And then what the town manager, after working with the finance director, is going to put forward to the town council, and what the differences are between all three of those different budgets. That means there is no creation of like, three separate budgets, because the department has come up with their budget, the town manager is their budget, and the default budget is what it is, right. So that doesn't put an onus on the finance department to come up with all these different budgets. And when the Budget Committee has their meetings, that's going to be our primary focus is what did you request? Why was this cut? What is default? And what is what does that all sort of look like? Right? And that's, that's what that's what I'm going to ask that we request. So

Excellent. I like that idea, Kate. It works well.

Okay. Thank you.

I like whatever saves Justin time.

Yeah. So, unfortunately, our ERP system doesn't make it easy. So, a lot of this is done through Excel and a combination of the ERP and everything else. WHAT KATE HAD MENTIONED IS IF YOU LOOK AT OUR CURRENT BUDGET ONLINE, YOU'LL ESSENTIALLY SEE EXACTLY THAT. YOU'LL SEE THE DEPARTMENT BUDGET, YOU'LL SEE THE TOWN MANAGER BUDGET AND YOU'LL SEE THE DEFAULT BUDGET. and you'll see the difference of you know one line item my dpw for example with the new hire they were looking to get a plotter down at the state at the uh dpw station that way they didn't have to constantly come up here that's one of the items that was cut out so if you look at there you'll see a ten thousand dollar decrease in that line item from the department budget to the town manager budget um and then there's also obviously the town council budget so Ideally, three budgets will take a significant amount of time, especially where you're now looking at, if you're looking at just the percentage, nothing else, have a great day. Where are we going to be cutting if we don't meet that? We're doing that early, and at that point, it becomes a, that's not a decision for me to make. I don't know if it's a decision for Sean or you guys, but at that point, if we're looking to make cuts that significant, I go back to a couple years ago when we were looking at cutting 4%. I came to you guys and said, hey, you said 4% without wages. This is what we can do. You guys have to make the decisions because you're now looking at cutting positions. So, as always, we'll do what we can. We'll do it to the best of our ability, and we'll do our best to make sure that everybody understands it. In talking with Kate, there's a couple things that we're going to be adding to the budget that I, to me, I understood. However, after talking with Kate, I understand that it may not be as clear because not everybody sees it every day like I do. Richard, are you still here? Richard, for example, if you guys remember, we had that tax rate sheet. At one point, he called me up and said, hey, what's a penny on the tax rate? And I went and told him, he's like, I can calculate it, but not everyone can. So now at the top, it says X amount is a penny on the tax rate. Little things like that is what we're trying to do to make sure that everybody understands it better and make sure everybody sees where everything is going. Sorry, I didn't mean to call you off that note. So essentially, we're looking for guidance so we can start meeting with the departments and DETAILING MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE GETTING YOU GUYS WHAT YOU NEED TO SOONER BUT AS SEAN MENTIONED YOU LOOK HEALTH INSURANCE IS ONE OF OUR BIGGEST EXPENSES THE PROPERTY LIABILITY INSURANCE IS ANOTHER BIG ONE WE'RE NOT GETTING THOSE STILL MIDDLE OF OCTOBER. And I can tell you there was one year where we had a bond fall off that it hurts me still to this day. I was excited about being able to potentially present a budget that is lower as an actual request, not just doing it, but then health insurance came in significantly higher and everything changes. So we can present the budget, but if health insurance skyrockets, we're cutting those down. so that's one of the hesitancy of starting earlier is we're kind of at the mercy of the october rates that we get for health insurance any further questions from justin anything thank you yeah thank you appreciate it all right

So what is the guidance that we're giving to the town manager? We're going to do Kate's suggestion.

okay so what i'll do is hold on a second can you just tell me what kate's suggestion is because you're required to produce a default budget by statute yep so you have to do that anyway departments are going to be directed to produce a budget they think they need to run that apartment then i'm going to have to make decisions to get down to so you're going to have three budgets right so the question is what do you want the budget that gets presented to you from me what do you want that to look like What is your guidance? What are your parameters that you want me to develop when I do that? I'd rather do that at the beginning of the process, and then instead of being here in December, we've got to cut this much out, and then we've got to run around and try to figure that out. So if you could tell me that now, which is, I think, the intent of this whole TC901, I'm guessing. I wasn't here when they created it back in 2008, but I'm guessing that's the reason why they probably did that. Again, I wasn't here then. So what is the guidance for that budget that you'd like me to present to you?

I mean we're looking at saying you know we want to know more than 2%, 3%, 4%, whatever it is increase. I don't know. Got to give them guidance. Got to know where to go here.

I guess it's hard to say without seeing what default looks like. Again, we'd like to see some of our default costs might make that budget really high this year. I mean it could be a substantial gain and then when we include the cost of insurance. I don't know what that looks like remotely. If all of a sudden default is six million more dollars than last year, well, then my guidance would be I don't want anything extra because that's a giant jump. If it's like three million, then I'm like, OK, let's let's see what our needs are. And some of them are, you know, because we've got a DPW facility coming up. We've got a lot of other things. We've got a library that's going to have some things that's going to be needed in the next year. We've got to see what the baseline is before we start adding on the frosting to the cake, and it's hard to give guidance if I don't know what the cake is. Now, what you suggested there, you did say there's a maximum, and I think that guidance is potential to give. We could give like, okay, don't go over this, but I can't say, hey, let's shoot a whole bunch more without knowing what that looks like.

Do you have any suggestions? I think I'd like to see default also. I'd like to see what that looks like.

I have my issue with default. This town has been operating below default for years. We are in the rears. Because of this. Look at our buildings. We have a huge investment in these buildings. We need to maintain them. Like it or not. All right? The library is a total disaster. We have South Fire that has a lot of issues. Okay? I would suggest that you meet with the fire chief and tour these buildings and see what needs to be done. I think it would be enlightening. I'm not a fan of, you know, let's go below default. We've been doing this for years, for years, and we are in the rears of maintaining what we should be maintaining.

So I think it's easy to talk about arbitrary numbers. So in the end of the day, we go through this budget season, and we go for months, and we're like, oh, can we shave this off? Can we shave that off? Why don't we go the other way and take a look at, okay, we see what default is. Now I know... going to need to do that now i know i need to fix the fire and maintain it and i know so we go through budget and we start there and we instead of like going what can we take back it's like what do we add on because we need x and we need that and when the departments present it this changes the conversation about how we've done budgeting in the past instead of just having people come forward and us trying to shave off stuff and get into that and go back and forth we go yeah That's a need. We all see it. That's blatantly obvious. We need to maintain our ability to do stuff. Because there's an amount of when we're trying to be too cheap, we end up spending a ton more money to try to save money. And it ends up biting us when we've got rooftop units that are 30 years old. And so... Knowing that, seeing where it's at, where that start is, and then knowing, okay, add on this, add on top of that, and seeing what the department needs are, like Kate outlined, I think helps guide that discussion. So for me, that was perfect, what she said. I'd like to see the default, I'd like to see what the department asks are, and then we take a look at that, and we can move up from there. We don't need to move back from there and start at an aspirational amount that's arbitrary at this point. Let's look at where we start and build up. And add it with real specific concrete needs that we can address and justify.

I feel like this goes back to what I just said. I feel like we're not looking at what's being, yeah, that's exactly what I just said. Yeah, that's why I asked, I was curious if that's- I mean, I don't know if that's the proper way to do it, but if you go department by department, biggest spend at the first one, this is the biggest department we have, okay. what do we have in it what can we do to make it better and how can we get there then you know that default is way under because you need to do a b c d and e to make this department better but you're never going to make that department better until you really know because they're moving money around to cover the losses so you're not seeing an actual picture i'm not explaining this right i know so no this so this goes back to me what i said earlier about um

We made changes that, to me, I thought it was clear because I'm doing this every single day. So if you look at the schedule last year and you look at it this year, you meet with specific departments on specific days, where before it was a, here's the budget, what do you want to talk about? Where nothing, like you were saying, is you're not going into detail. So at those meetings where you have finance there, They're there to answer all those questions of, well, what's taken out of the budget? Why is this line over?

Well, see, taking it a step further, Justin, you have no money. What are your top things that must have to have a finance department? You said you need a better- Now to have that better software thingy, do you need different types of people? What kind of people? Do you need different hardware? Do you know what I'm trying to say? This way, we know that you need this. It's going to cost x. How do we get the x? It then becomes how do you get the x? And you're making sure that what you're doing is making your department effective and efficient and easier for you so you don't get burnout. That's how I see it, but I don't understand how it works in the government world. I understand how it works in the regular people world. In this world, I don't understand it, but do you know what I'm saying? Justin, if you could close your eyes, and money was no object, and you could...

Why are you laughing?

It's a serious sales question, and that's what I'm telling you. I want to know what it takes to run your department, like perfect world, what you need to make your department perfect. That's where you start. And then you say, how do we change that to fit into what we have? But that's how I see it. But these guys know more about budgeting than me. So I'm just going to sit here and be quiet now.

Mr. Chair. Kate came back first. What do you think?

My question is, you know, default budget being what it is, is there a way we could say, okay, default budget, department heads, try not to go over department plus, sorry, default plus, whatever the CPI is as of July 1st, 2026. And we try to have them stay within that box. I feel like that's a reasonable limit to maybe potentially put and say, hey, here's what default is. You can go up to, I think CPI is projected to be about 3.7%. You can go 4.4% over default budget. What can you get with that if you go over default? And that's where we can start to pare back that budget without giving them that unlimited boundary. They can, here's default, here's what you can go over by. What does that look like?

So I agree with that. The one thing I know I'm going to get a question on, because I get it every year, is what CPI do we use? Just to make sure that we're consistent. And probably the more local, the better.

Yep. Yep.

So we're talking 4.5, you said?

I sent that out to you today. It's 4.4 for the Northeast region.

Okay, so why don't we go with, you know.

Do we have anything more specific than that? The Boston one comes out every couple of months. We don't have the Boston Cambridge one.

Historically, we've used the Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Mass, New Hampshire CPI.

I won't get that for another month.

Mr. Chair, what if we looked at 4% to start off?

You said it was, what was that one? 4.4, so I'm saying four. I'm saying 4%, come up with 4%.

No more than, not come up with. Yeah, from your default, go 4%.

What I'd like to see out of that also- The department needs, not in the, we need a default budget, we need department needs. The department needs should not exceed 4%. Okay.

And, you know, when you're looking at that, Justin, it's like, what do our buildings need? He's not deciding.

Keep looking at him. I'm the one who decides what budget I present to you.

I'm sorry.

We're talking about default plus 4%? Yeah. That's a lot of money. Yep, so I just want to make sure, you're issuing that guidance.

No, no, no, hold on, hold on.

Yeah, I want to make sure I clearly understand that. I did not say that.

My question is if default is what default is, there's nothing we can really do. Well, and we certainly can change some things within default and whatnot, cut things here and there if we want to. But there is- trying to figure this out like i i feel like the default budgeting and the way we do default budgeting is so limited if we didn't request something last year that kind of you shoot yourself in the foot for the following year it's like if you don't have this money and you don't spend this money you don't get it it's that you know it's a cascading effect that's in a negative direction so i'm trying to pull ourselves out of that

So that's if you look at default budgeting as a true default, which when you dive into, and John Farrell said it for years about default budgeting is so screwed up in the state, and looking through how default budgeting is calculated, I don't believe it's a true default in a way. There's some things that probably need a little more. There's some aspects of that formula that need a little less. I think that's why we look at that as here's a starting spot, but then we go, up from there and see what we need. Make sure it addresses our needs. If we see stuff in default that we don't need, we pull it out. This is need-based, but it's just a starting point because default has to be statutorily generated anyway. So it's a good starting point because we have to do it.

Mr. Chair, Justin, do you have access to what was presented to us in November for how much of a percentage that was above default?

Give me a minute. I can pull that up.

So that everyone has a better, clearer picture upon what we actually were presented with that the department's needed for financials.

So you're saying how much default?

No, I'm saying how much were we presented with a budget for above the default?

You're talking beginning or end?

Beginning.

Okay.

And the other thing is we're talking about the total budget or just that one line item in there that you pass for the operating budget. Because at the end of the day, as you know, the tax rate is on all those things that are ended up in there. So you should think about what that means as well. Well, right now I'm just asking for- What I'm talking about is before you get done tonight, I would like to actually have some guidance that I can understand, that I can translate and I can transmit to other people and say this is what we have to do. And that includes everything or not everything. So I just want to make sure I understand that, because this is one of the few places where I see we're talking about this here, but all this other stuff, well, we don't worry about that. Because I don't know if you realize what the tax rate increase is right now.

So let me ask- With all those things. What would be your suggestion for the percentage? Do you have any thought?

Yeah, I actually do. I think you should look at what would be a tax cap budget, a CPI budget, period. What does that look like? You're going to get what the departments are recommending, what they think they need to run their departments. So that's going to be at this end. And then you're going to have what would be a tax cap budget, what would be a CPI budget. That's normally how that runs, and also what you have for growth in your community.

So I guess where I'm confused then is because, like, Dan suggested four, and that's actually higher than that. You said four is a lot.

When you add it on top of default, it is.

Because remember, that's increasing your budget. To put it in perspective, it's not the same formula.

We keep fixating what the default budget is. The budget's what we make it. It may be less than what the default budget is, but it's what we determine it needs to be. And if we want to set a number of what that's going to be, you're going to get what the departments are recommending. And I've told them, you need to come out and tell us what you need. That's going to be this number. And then you have to decide what can you afford. If you're saying we're going to allow the government to grow at the rate the economy grows only, which is what a tax cap would be, not that we have one here, although for years you've acted like you've had when you've been below default or at default, So if that's the guidance, so be it. If it's just give us a budget of what you think you need, that's going to be a hiring number. And what's going to happen is you're going to come in like you did last year because you talked about the things we needed and you cut it. So why bother do that? Let's start at the beginning to say, we don't want any more than this. And then you'll know what that looks like. Maybe you don't want that. Maybe you say, that's too much of a cut. And then we know what the department has. You're going to have that number. And you'll be able to pick and choose, which is what you're supposed to do at the end of the day.

I'm happy to start with the tax cap budget and going up from there, as suggested.

Justin, can you go forward? Thank you.

So the amount that was initially presented above default was 1.84%. 1.8? 1.4. Above default, 1.84%, above default. I want to emphasize that it's above default, not above last year's.

Right. So.

That sounds good, actually. That's where we started last year.

Right, that's where we started last year, and we still kind of whittled a little bit off at the top in the end. And so certainly 4% would have been quite a bit more. Beyond that, obviously, as we're discussing, but it only would have been about 2% more beyond That. And then, so, Justin, I can't remember off the top of my head. It's getting late into the night. We passed a budget that was beyond default in March. What is that percentage beyond the default?

Including all the Warren articles? Not including.

Not just for the operating budget right now. numbers here 1.08 1.08 above the default budget and that was a total number of six or seven hundred right

514. 514, thank you.

I believe the prior year it was closer to seven. So 514, and it was basically 1%. So 4% would have been about 2 million?

Rough math? Again, it depends on what default goes to.

Right, I'm just doing rough math. If 500,000 was 1%. Probably, yeah. If 500,000 was 1%, 4% would have been 2 million.

I guess I'm okay with that. Mr. Chair, what if we- Right, and so we were asking for 1.84.

With the cap. For the departments to actually get what they needed to actually operate correctly.

Sean, go with that cap.

You guys, I'm kind of talking here, and you're all just kind of talking over me, which I thought we were trying to get over.

Sorry, Ted, sorry.

So if what the departments had presented to us was 1.84%, just about 1% above the default. And, you know, there were some items that, you know, maybe the departments might have needed to actually accomplish what they wanted. You know, if we're sticking at potentially the one to maybe 1.5%, but maybe what we're accomplishing this past year's budget might have fixed some of what were needed. So having our departments go back and realize what we need now, what do we still need going forward? Maybe it's not a 1% going forward. Maybe it might be more, but it might be less than the 1% over default. So I think going through our process of having our departments actually realizing what do we still need now, knowing it's probably not going to be a 4%, but it might be closer to our 1, maybe 1.2 at most. So it's good to have our facts going looking back and looking forward.

Sean said and I like what Sean said I'm kind of good with the two Sean's and we can talk about it further at another meeting I mean it's not like you have to you can move it forward and you can still bring it up again and this way you can all go home and digest it look it up do some research and come back with maybe a different answer but moving it forward I say do what the Sean's and Sean said there you go

I like the idea of bringing a budget together that we're not first just hacking at the beginning. So I'd rather, if we're going to go to what you were saying, Kate, is I feel like that Kate's solution was kind of right in line with what I was thinking, but is let's do that method. And then that way we've got the base, and then we can add from there as opposed to where last year we were kind of taking things away.

So what I think is, and Sean's gonna end up saying this soon, because we've all said kind of the same thing, but we haven't defined any. So I think, you know, I don't know, they, you know, the default plus one, and kind of we build up from there. And we go through the budget season, we look and we have the departments present our needs. And that's kind of what the the initial looks like.

And then what we could think about doing too, is if we limit it to 1%, you know, what, because it doesn't fit in their budget this year, what might they ask for next year in lieu of that, knowing that they have that limitation put upon them. And if we feel like it would be better to bring that forward this year, rather than next year, that's something that we could consider as well.

One of the best things I remember from two budget seasons ago is body camps coming up, and both me and you jumped on that and go, you know what? And Kim said, not this year. And we're like, no, this year. We pulled that forward because that was essential public safety equipment for our workers. Good stuff like that stuff like that exactly.

Yeah. All right. So from everything we've heard, what do we want to communicate to?

I think the default plus one. I mean, I think having some wiggle room one 1.2 potentially depending upon what our departments really need going forward.

But I liked his idea. Tom manager's idea.

Okay.

Deb? I'm indifferent about it.

Okay. I think it's just good to know, having a starting point, what we're looking at potentially for a potential increase. And if it's that 1% was, last year was 500,000-ish, it's good to know where we're at.

So does that direction seem clear? Is that decent?

Defund plus one.

Does that make sense to you?

Yes. Does that include everything or not everything?

It's the numbers, you can probably explain it better, the numbers you just gave us and we were talking about, if you want to put that in.

You're talking about the operating budget only, not all the other stuff that adds to the taxes. Yeah, not sewer, yeah. Well, I'm not talking about sewer. There was a whole bunch of other things that got passed at the last meeting that increased that tax rate. Right. Yeah. Not the addition. So that's all extra. Yeah. Okay. If that's the guidance from the council, I want you to vote on it and tell me that's what you want me to do.

Everything that got passed.

Why wouldn't you include everything that got passed?

So that's not, I don't think that's what Sean's saying. Sean is saying the next year's balance. not last year because last year for example the uh fire executive assistant was passed that's part of default this year so that's included in there he's talking about if we were to go and ask for additional personnel do you want it default plus one percent including that additional personnel or just their operating budget, if I'm understanding you correctly.

Well, there's also capital reserve funds that you increase that. So the tax rate is not what the operating budget is. It's everything in there. So I'd like to get clear guidance as to what you're looking at, because I think I calculated the tax rate that would go into effect is a 14% increase with all those warrant articles that were actually approved. So that's why I'm talking about fiscal constraint and what it is you're looking for. Because I can say, okay, I'm making this, this, the warrant article for the operating budget. Then you add all the other stuff in there, and the tax rate does that.

I think we may need to look at it both ways.

You should look at your budget as a total budget. All the cost that affects the tax rate. I would suggest to you we somehow don't do that and we kind of add those things on afterwards. That's an afterthought. This requires people to prioritize what we need to do. It will be painful. No question about it. So that's the kind of guidance I'm looking for because otherwise... There's really no control of what the numbers are going to be. Until the very end of the process, I don't think anybody realized in here that that would result in a 14% tax rate increase, even though I sent an email out to that effect.

I think you've got to include everything.

Yeah, I think you've got to include everything.

I think you've got to do what he's suggesting, never mind the 1%.

It's not being what he just talked about. Yeah. So that's why I'm saying operating plus one.

But if you put the restraint on it. That's the opposite of putting restraint on it.

That's doing another 14% tax hike.

I know, but with what Sean is saying, we would prevent that 14%. No, cause it.

Are you suggesting Mr. Town Manager would cause another 14% increase? I don't want to propose that. And I didn't propose that.

As a matter of fact, so what I'm suggesting is if you tell me I want no more than a tax rate increase of this amount, that includes everything. That means I have to make decisions about what things we're not going to be able to do so we can fit within those parameters. That's what I'm asking you to do.

So if we focus on the tax rate instead of the budget amount, that actually gets us to a different spot.

It does, because then you'll have what that number looks like. Then you can add anything that you want to on top of that, because then you're going to have the request from the departments.

I think that's something that we're going to have to probably weigh more on and think further about. I think so, too. That's something that we can't accomplish tonight. Yeah, agreed. That's a whole different subject. I think we'll come up with this next meeting.

so that means that's going to delay that we're not issuing the budget guidance on the 22nd remember the time frame to get all this done is ticking i i agree i just think it's important to get it right i don't disagree with that

I think we can. And I think, Deb, you said that. Yeah. At the very beginning. Like, digest this tonight. Think about it.

Well, because we, as a council, have never done it this way.

Right. Yeah.

So this is all new to us. And I agree with Sean Mulholland, Mr. Mulholland. And I think he's being very proactive about it. I am not strong in budget. I've said it a million times. I... I'm just not. I just see it as we need to do something, but we should make sure we know what we're doing. And y'all can sit and talk with Kate or Justin and the manager and say, how do we do this? And you could get it done all before. You could push it forward with the stipulation that you could come back with changes in the next week.

or whatever there's ways of doing it i just don't know them it makes it difficult though if we go go create a budget and then the next meeting we go well we change our mind and we're going to change it to something else i don't know it's not like that data is not going to not be used or that that that budget's not going to be would that be disruptive if we did that we said we're saying something tonight and then the next meeting we decide we're saying something else

No, actually it wouldn't because, I mean, you can just wait another week. It'll delay the process by a week. That's all. The world's not going to end.

It's got to be ready for next meeting. Right. Know exactly what you want.

Okay, so we'll decide next time. Well, it's two weeks, though. Yeah. Just want to make sure. Yeah, just want to make sure.

So you're right, it's going to delay it two weeks, not just one week. So that's going to push the budget back process, just so we're all aware, because it's on a tight timeline.

But we're still starting earlier.

The good thing is at least we're starting earlier than we did last year. So I might have anticipated this sort of thing. Yes.

I have a question. Oh, please. Given that we have to wait until mid-October for insurance, if the council instructs you to do X and then insurance costs are blown up, way more than we might have anticipated. Doesn't that mean we need to end up redoing the budget based on those parameters again anyway?

No, I have to do that.

Oh, you do?

I'd have to make those changes before I present a budget to you on All Hallows' Eve.

Okay.

Because that's when I need to get it to you. You actually have a charter provision that requires me to produce a budget by a certain period of time.

Okay.

So I would have to make those changes, which is why we wait for that.

Okay, got it.

But that's why the guidance is really helpful to get all those things ready to go so that when we get there, and I know I'm not going to be able to meet whatever mark they've set. There was no mark set last year, even though it's required. So that would help us get to where we need to be. Because then as soon as I get that, as soon as that email comes in with that number, whatever it is, then we'll react. And we'll make whatever further reductions are necessary to make that presentation on November 7th. And I don't like the idea of you walking into the 7th and going, here it is. You know I don't like that. I want it out before that.

And we're going to, because one of the other things was the warrant articles were going to be presented earlier in the year, too. Those budget, that budget process, given whatever we set out to do, will include those warrant articles. How does that affect that?

It's the same thing. So the idea is that we're going to present those, because remember there were numerous changes that were made. The idea is to try to, if we're going to make those, we make them earlier in the process so we know where we stand.

Okay.

So then once you make that decision, then that may require other cuts that are necessary to get it done, because you guys are making cuts at the very end of the process. Not the best time to be doing it. We don't want to do this. No. We want to do that beforehand. And not only that, these people get to know what's going on and what's being proposed because you're in all these meetings and they're not, most of them anyway. So being able to put that out well in advance, that's the whole idea, is pushing the budget schedule out to people, which we plan to do as soon as it's approved, which we need to do next, preferably here. So then we will send that out to folks so they know when those meetings are going to be. We've actually got the school, the budget committee, and the council all lined up. We worked together, the chairman and the chairperson of the budget committee to do that so that these folks could participate in their governmental process and understand what it is.

So are we good that if we wait until June 1st, everyone will do their due diligence? Yeah. And come back with what they think is the best thing, and then we can discuss it as a- Sounds good.

Yep. Do you need anything from us? Because that's also in TC 901, is we need to provide you with any materials you might need to help you make the decisions you need to make. Do we need anything from Mr. Mulholland or-

what i think would be helpful would be understanding what was passed this year that actually goes into and affects our default budget and what does not affect the default budget going forward that was passed there were i believe some one-time items that were passed or not passed and as well so there were items that were for the water districts that should not be affecting our operating budget either. So I think it would be better for us to actually understand what is affecting our default and not from what was passed.

You have that. You signed it last year.

I understand, but for us going forward for the next two weeks, that can be emailed back out to us so that we can have a better understanding upon what's actually being affected for our default budget going into 4 July. Instead of having to dig through all our emails or documents again.

We'll send you a link to our webpage that has that information.

That'd be great. So that everyone can actually understand what our numbers are.

Are you open for the one articles that have a default impact or the operating budget as well?

I would say both.

Again, they're on the DDT form anyway. Yeah, you're good. Because they're required to be. Yep.

I think having maybe a simpler Maybe a spreadsheet on those instead of the DDD form as that might be hard to understand for some people. Thank you, Justin.

All right, anyone else? No. Deb?

Thank you.

All right, so everyone's going to come back with. What they want to do, we'll discuss as a council and then we'll give a response.

Sounds good.

Yep, all right. We're going to give them clear direction as to what we want.

Yes, absolutely. Got it. All right. Thank you both for staying until 1020. Before they take off, schedule. Yes, I started off with that. Was everyone? Did you get to see the schedule, Ted?

I did not. Okay. So don't we just wait until we do that on the first as well?

Yeah, okay. So we'll do that. Everyone look at the schedule. The schedule that, well, I guess it was six of us in the meeting, right? That we- It went out Friday. Yeah. That we discussed. I think it's nice because it gives a little flexibility. So if you guys want to look at the dates, and I think, Kate, you agree, right? It gives flexibility. So if you guys want to look at that, too, and see if there's anything you want to change, I think it was nice because it allows us to say, hey, if we say something's changed, it goes, hey, Kate, can you invite the budget committee to come to a meeting with us, and we can make those changes right away.

Sounds good. Yeah, I went out Friday. I looked at it. Yeah, I thought it was good.

Okay, thank you. I thought it was good. I think Kate thought it was good. Well, all of us that were in the meeting thought it was good. I just wanted some input from you guys. So if you guys could come back with it. Do you like any changes on that, too? I'm good to go all right thank you both appreciate it all right late into the evening I know but any updates changes strategic plans I just want to say something about the strategic plan yep I just um

I want to note that we received a very thoughtful letter submitted for the strategic plan regarding walkability and pedestrian safety near Pillsbury Road, Gilchrist Road, Michaels Way, and Nashua Road. Do you know the email I'm talking about? Yes. I think that we should put that in there. He took the time. It seemed very well thought out. um i'm also requesting that staff take a preliminary look at feasibility and whether any of these locations are already defined in our transportation or capital planning documents and then um because this is the kind of impact that we want to get from the community so i thought it was very good very well worked out and i just thought it should be added and that's up to you guys

I certainly think they should be edited, but it'd have to be working in coordination with the state as they're crossing 102. That's the problem. That's our big problem there.

Yeah, but the other roads- This is more of a town, so my concern was too, it was more of a town document. And in order to cross 102, the state would have to authorize that.

Right, but we have to initiate that with the state, so we have to be involved. I mean, it can't just, they're not going to know that this, you know what I mean? They're not going to know that it's a problem, so it should be addressed somehow.

But just because it's not in the strategic plan doesn't mean we can't do it.

It's just we have to keep the scope of this to- Because I think this is also a one to three year document. If we put that on this on the I could be a five year potentially 10 on the 10 year plan and then the 10 year plan becomes the 15 year at least we know it didn't get lost. Yeah, I just don't think it belongs in this.

I certainly agree with adding more walkability along Pillsbury and connectability to Michael's Way. That's certainly something that we could potentially put in with the strategic plan as that was something that was uh put in with the town master plan from over 10 years ago was to add more walkability and sidewalks in town and connect the different nodes as well i think that's something that can be done i think potentially getting our executive counselor in and having discussions with him about how can we get more access with crossing 102 would be really helpful so i guess the question would be to the town manager where can we put this so we don't forget it

address it or how what's the proper way to address this citizen's concern they're saying not in the master plan i'm just looking for your advice yeah yeah uh so on the meeting on the next meeting we're going to do on the traffic management working group is going to make a presentation to you and this is actually right in there there's a route 102 corridor study and it's also pillsbury road i call pillsbury road east corridor study and those are the things that would be part of that very thing

So can you add that to that just to make sure it's in there?

Well, it is in this presentation. Oh, it is. So basically we've got to wait two weeks. Yeah, and you tell me to move forward with that, then that's what we'll do. Right now, Route 102 is number 25 on DOT's list, which means it won't happen.

Yeah. Yeah.