Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08.24.22 FinCom Packet Town of Brewster Finance Committee 2198 Main St., Brewster, MA 02631 fincommeeting@brewster-ma.gov (508) 896-3701 MEETING AGENDA Brewster Town Hall 2198 Main Street August 24, 2022 at 6:00 PM Pursuant to Chapter 107 of the Acts of 2022, this meeting will be conducted in person and via remote means, in accordance with applicable law. This means that members of the public body may access this meeting in person, or via virtual means. In person attendance will be at the meeting location listed above, and it is possible that any or all members of the public body may attend remotely. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing conducted during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so in the following manner: Phone: Call (929) 436-2866 or (301) 715-8592. Webinar ID: 862 2956 9696 Passcode: 565167 To request to speak: Press *9 and wait to be recognized. Zoom Webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86229569696?pwd=MUhJNGpoU3VocTZ0cTU0VGpYcWdVQT09 Passcode: 565167 To request to speak: Tap Zoom “Raise Hand”, then wait to be recognized. When required by law or allowed by the Chair, persons wishing to provide public comment or otherwise participate in the meeting, may do so by accessing the meeting remotely, as noted above. Additionally, the meeting will be broadcast live, in real time, via Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brewster-ma.gov), or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov). Finance Committee Harvey (Pete) Dahl Chair Frank Bridges Vice Chair William Meehan Clerk Andrew Evans William Henchy Alex Hopper Honey Pivirotto Robert Tobias Robert Young Town Administrator Peter Lombardi Finance Director Mimi Bernardo 1. Call to Order 2. Declaration of a Quorum 3. Meeting Participation Statement 4. Recording Statement 5. Public Announcements and Comment: Members of the public may address the Finance Committee on matters not on the meeting’s agenda for a maximum 3-5 minutes at the Chair’s discretion. Under the Open Meeting Law, the Finance Committee is unable to reply but may add items presented to a future agenda. 6. Finance Committee Reorganization 7. Town Administrator/Finance Director Report 8. Report and Discussion – Brewster Ladies Library 9. Report and Discussion – Cape & Island Water Protection Fund 10. Report and Discussion – Cannabis Shop Update 11. Report and Discussion - Select Board Strategic Plan 12. Update – Nauset Regional HS Building Project 13. Update on Nauset SBC 14. Liaison Reports and Assignments 15. Town Meeting Schedule 16. Approval of Minutes – 3/30/22 & 4/20/22 17. Request for agenda items for future meetings. 18. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair 19. Next Finance Committee Meeting 20. Adjournment Date Posted: Date Revised: Received by Town Clerk: ` li 1 7 it . ti pI I 'x hoto by Judith Gard Brewster Ladies’ Library Founded in 1852 Original Building Constructed in 1868 Historic Features Original Building Preserved Many Historic Features and Artifacts The Brewster Ladies’ Library is a life-long learning center that provides free access to a range of resources, activities, meeting spaces and professional services to enhance the quality of life of the residents and visitors to the town of Brewster. Mission Libraries as vital to community Trustworthy and reliable information Free access: knowledge, creativity, technology Needs of Building Renovation & Benefits to Community 1. Renovation of 5,000 sq ft of space in lower level and basement Provides for improved handicap accessibility with new ground-level entrance Increases circulation areas and provides for innovative, expanded children’s space 2. Overall plan will result in flexible spaces to adjust to changing environmental needs Spaces that can switch from meeting space to individual work spaces Creative book shelving designs that increase accessibility and storage Historic collections become more accessible and digitized 3. Building infrastructure – upgrade HVAC systems, replace elevator, and increase electrical capacity 4. Enhanced IT infrastructure and increased access to meet ongoing digital technology needs (--"N' BREWSTER LADIES' LIBRARY Building Project Upper Level Floor Plan Lower Level Floor Plan Book. Bolo'', Room staff Room NAMING $100,000 Level $25,000 Level OPPORTUNITIES $50,000 Level $10,000 Level �..,a.r.,...�a.._ - /MAIN ENTRY I Children's Room $5,000 Level � Zg The Result A Building Plan designed to enhance the Library’s ability to operate efficiently and better serve the evolving needs of the community. BOND REQUIREMENTS In July 2017, Brewster was #23 of 24 projects awarded MBLC funding In June 2022, Brewster is #6 on the MBLC wait list State award is anticipated in July 2023 (notified by Jan 2023) or July 2024 All local funding must be fully secured within 6 months of award Project History PROJECT HISTORY Original Total Project Cost Estimate $10,247,956 MBLC grant awarded July 2017 $4,655,737* Updated Total Project Cost Estimate $16,411,387 (projected to FY25) * MBLC grant award will not cover cost escalations over intervening 8 years Project Costs Design $300k Free Cash $300k CPC $600k Estimated Total Construction $4.6M MBLC grant $1M Capital Stabilization $1.5M CPA $2M BLLA $7.3M Debt $16.4M Estimated Total* *detailed update underway Updated Funding Plan •Two-step approach •December 2022 - Apply for CPC funds for design •May 2023 - Seek Town Meeting approval for design funding •November 2023* - If design funding is approved and state grant is awarded in July 2023, seek resident approval of construction funding (will require Town Meeting votes & debt exclusion ballot question) * Defer local funding votes for construction by one year if state grant is awarded in July 2024 Funding Timeline Brewster Ladies’ Library “Designing Our Future Preserving Our Past” Johnson Roberts Associates Brewster Ladies Library Brewster, Massachusetts Conceptual Project Budget Update to MBLC Constructin Grant Application ##### Escalation Construction Estimate Project Budget Const Est $6,498,916 Contingency $796,249 Grant $7,295,165 *$10,247,956 ** 2020 9%$656,565 $922,316 $7,155,481 $11,170,272 2021 9%$643,993 $1,005,324 $7,799,474 $12,175,597 2022 8%$623,958 $974,048 $8,423,432 $13,149,644 2023 8%$673,875 $1,051,972 $9,097,307 $14,201,616 2024 8%$727,785 $1,136,129 $9,825,091 $15,337,745 2025 7%$687,756 $1,073,642 $10,512,848 $16,411,387 *2016 Estimate with 7% Contingency Escalated @ 4% per year to 2019/2020 ** Total Project Budget Escalated @ 4% per year to 2019/2020 Library Construction Cap Increased - MBLC https://mblc.state.ma.us/news/news-releases/2022/nr220509.php Library Construction Cap Increased FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 09, 2022 Celeste Bruno Communications Director 1-800-952-7403 x208 Celeste.Bruno@mass.gov Included in the recently released Baker -Polito Administration's FY2023 Capital Investment Plan is an increase in the annual cap for the Massachusetts Board of library Commissioner's (MBLC) Massachusetts Public Library Construction Program (MPLCP). In the plan the program's annual cap, which is the amount of funding the MPLCP can spend each year, is increased from $20 million to $24 million. MPLCP grants provide crucial funding to assist libraries in the renovation and expansion of existing buildings or the construction of new facilities so that they can meet growing demand for services. "This is great news, especially for libraries that are waitlisted for funding," said James Lonergan, Director of the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners. We thank the library community for working with us, legislators and representatives from the Executive Office of Administration and Finance to secure this increase for a program that improves access and benefits all residents. The Baker -Polito administration and the legislature's continued support of the MPLCP is greatly appreciated. The program is a national model and has had a positive impact on our local communities for over 30 years." The effect of the annual cap increase will be felt immediately in the reduction of the number of libraries that have been on a waitlist for funding since the MPLCP's last grant round in July 2017. In July 2022, half of the 14 waitlisted libraries will be awarded provisional grant awards. The ability for the MBLC to move through the rest of the waitlist is dependent on several factors: the size of the provisional awards offered in a given year, whether waitlisted libraries that are awarded a provisional grant award are able to appropriate the required local funding, and the number of underway projects that receive their final payments. The MPLCP was first funded by a state bond authorization in 1987. Since then, it has helped more than 250 communities plan, build, renovate and expand their public libraries. MPLCP projects are currently underway in the following 1 of 2 5/10/2022, 8:14 AM Library Construction Cap Increased - MBLC https://mblc.state.ma.us/news/news-releases/2022/nr220509.php communities: Amherst, Greenfield, Marlborough, Melrose, Sharon, and Sherborn. Projects in Erving, Grafton, Hadley, Littleton, Medford, Norwell, and Roxbury were recently completed. Learn more about the program on the MBLC website and the Building Literacy_podcast. About MBLC The Board of Library Commissioners (mass.gov/mblc) is the agency of state government with the statutory authority and responsibility to organize, develop, coordinate and improve library services throughout the Commonwealth. The Board advises municipalities and library trustees on the operation and maintenance of public libraries, including construction and renovation. It administers state and federal grant programs for libraries and promotes cooperation among all types of libraries through regional library systems and automated resource sharing. It also works to ensure that all residents of the Commonwealth, regardless of their geographic location, social or economic status, age, level of physical or intellectual ability or cultural background, have access to essential new electronic information technologies and significant electronic databases. 2 of 2 5/10/2022, 8:14 AM Three Libraries Given Partial Construction Awards - MBLC https://mblc.state.ma.us/news/news-releases/2022/nr220506.php Three Libraries Given Partial Construction Awards FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 06, 2022 Matthew Perry Communications Specialist 1-800-952-7403 x240 matthew.s.perry_@state.ma.us Boston Public Library, Cambridge Public Library, and Grafton Public Library were awarded partial Massachusetts Public Library Construction Program (MPLCP) payments at the May 5, 2022 meeting of the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC). To meet spending targets established in the state's five-year capital plan, the Board may offer partial awards to projects on the waiting list if that project already has local funding in place or if that project is already under construction. Each library has completed the building project they were awarded grants for during the FY2017 MPLCP grant round but remain on the waiting list for full funding. Boston Public library was awarded a partial payment of $2,444,882 for the Roxbury Branch project which opened in October 2020 and was celebrated with a grand opening on October 23, 2021. The project is funded in part by a $5.6 million MPLCP grant. Cambridge Public Library was awarded a partial payment of $1,738,370 for the Valente Branch project. The completed branch opened to the public with a grand opening on October 26, 2019. The project is funded in part by a $3.9 million MLPCP grant. Grafton Public Library was awarded a partial payment of $2,444,882 for their library construction and renovation project. The library had its grand opening on December 17, 2021. The project is funded in part by a $7.4 million MPLCP grant. The MPLCP was first funded by a state bond authorization in 1987. Since then, it has helped more than 250 communities plan, build, renovate and/or expand their public libraries. MPLCP projects are currently underway in the following communities: Amherst, Greenfield, Marlborough, Melrose, Sharon, and Sherborn. Projects in Erving, Grafton, Hadley, Littleton, Medford, Norwell, and Roxbury were recently completed. Learn more about the program on the MBLC website and the Building Literac\_podcast. 1 of 2 5/10/2022, 8:15 AM Three Libraries Given Partial Construction Awards - MBLC https://mblc.state.ma.us/news/news-releases/2022/nr220506.php About MBLC The Board of Library Commissioners (mass.gov/mblc) is the agency of state government with the statutory authority and responsibility to organize, develop, coordinate and improve library services throughout the Commonwealth. The Board advises municipalities and library trustees on the operation and maintenance of public libraries, including construction and renovation. It administers state and federal grant programs for libraries and promotes cooperation among all types of libraries through regional library systems and automated resource sharing. It also works to ensure that all residents of the Commonwealth, regardless of their geographic location, social or economic status, age, level of physical or intellectual ability or cultural background, have access to essential new electronic information technologies and significant electronic databases. 2 of 2 5/10/2022, 8:15 AM Archive d: Friday, July 22, 2022 2:26:19 PM From: Cynthia St. Amour Se nt: Tue, 12 Jul 2022 13:31:34 To: Joan Pernice; Peter Lombardi; Mimi Bernardo; David Whitney; Donna Kalinick Subje ct: MBLC Construction Wait List #6 Se ns itivity: Normal Hi https://mblc.state.ma.us/programs-and-support/construction/2017-grants.php#waiting Wa iting Lis t Awards are listed in rank order. The rankings were adjusted in July 2022 to reflect the provisional funding of seven projects. Rank M uncipality Library Grant Award 1 Fitchburg Fitchburg Public Library $12,449,949 2 Lynnfield Lynnfield Public Library $8,193,792 3 Boston Boston Public Library - Dudley Branch $5,597,374 4 Dighton Dighton Public Library $4,099,212 5 Cambridge Cambridge Public Library - Valente Branch $3,879,407 6 Brewster Brewster Ladies' Library $4,655,737 7 Swansea Swansea Free Public Library $6,875,84 Cind y St. Amo ur Lib rary Dire cto r Bre wste r Lad ie s Library cstamo ur@b re wste rladie slibrary.org 508-896-3913 x4015 Built in 1868, renovated in 1877, 1977, and 1997, the Brewster Ladies’ Library is one of the oldest in the Commonwealth and serves the town of Brewster. Currently the building does not have individual quiet study rooms, has insufficient meeting rooms for public demand, and no separate story time or craft room in the children’s area. This has caused overcrowding and meeting rooms unconducive to the needs of the groups using them. There is also 5200 sq ft of unfinished space that was built as part of the 1997 renovation that’s only current use is for the Friends of the Library book sale. This area is not staffed but remains accessible because of an emergency exit. The construction project directly addresses these issues and builds a 21st century library for the people of Brewster and Cape Cod. The Brewster Ladies’ Library builds off a heavily used library facility by smartly utilizing both levels, consolidating several entry ways into one convenient entrance, enlarging and enhancing spaces for Brewster’s youth and creating additional public meeting room spaces. Municipality Brewster Library Brewster Ladies’ Library Project Type Addition / Renovation Population 2016 9,754 2035 7,888 Total Square Feet Existing Gross 23,418 Projected Gross 24,437 Estimated Total Project Cost $10,247,956 Estimated Eligible Project Costs $9,195,328 MPLCP Recommended Grant Award To be placed #23 of 24 on the waiting list at $4,655,737 Current Facility Planned New Facility Population 9,754 7,888 (2035) Year constructed 1868 Year(s) expanded/renovated 1877, 1977, 1997 Square footage 23,418 sf 24,437 sf Print & nonprint holdings 66,231 68,046 Public seating 76 164 Fixed public computers 14 21 Conference rooms / seating 2 / 13 seats 3 / 40 seats Maker space/meeting room None 1 / 30 seats Quiet/collaborative study spaces None 2 / 8 seats Children’s programming room None 475 sf Self-service holds / checkout None 600 capacity/ 2 self-check LEED Certification None Certified level planned MPLCP Green Library Incentive: $100,000 – 162,951 upon completion of project and receipt of LEED (Leadership in Energy & Environment Design) certification and level of certification mass.gov/mblc Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631-1898 Phone: (508) 896-3701 Fax: (508) 896-8089 MEMORANDUM TO: Select Board FROM: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator RE: Update on Financing Options for Integrated Water Resource Capital Planning DATE: June 10, 2022 Following up on our discussion last month, here are the latest updates on water quality planning: The CCIWPF Board approved use of CCIWPF funds to provide technical assistance from Cape Cod Commission staff to Brewster (and other towns as appropriate) to determine State Revolving Fund eligibility of various innovation/alternative septic and other non-traditional wastewater projects – see attached scope of services. This project is expected to take up to six months to complete and should clarify the feasibility of various financing solutions for Brewster’s planned projects, including whether they will be eligible for CCIWPF subsidies. Earlier this spring, the EPA announced a major new grant program ($1+M per project) for the Southeast New England Program (SNEP) to pilot the creation of Responsible Management Entities (financing and administrative mechanism) for I/A systems. The Mass Septic System Test Center plans to apply. We have met with County officials about their proposal and plan to submit a letter of support with their application. Barnstable County officials are considering numerous changes to the existing Septic Loan program, including potentially reducing or eliminating interest charges and/or providing loan forgiveness for certain income-eligible homeowners – see attached for details. As currently constituted, residents seeking to upgrade to I/A technology must have a failed system to be eligible for this program. However, the newly proposed DEP Title V regulations, perhaps in concert with amended local regulations, may expand eligibility for these septic upgrades. We are meeting with County and Commission staff next month to Office of: Select Board Town Administrator discuss how these three projects (CCIWPF TA, County RME grant, and County Septic Loan Program changes) may interact. The CCIWPF Board voted to appropriate $27M in CCIWPF subsides to a total of eight SRF eligible projects included in the 2022 Intended Use Plan. Actual subsidies in the first two years of the fund have well exceeded actuarial projections. Absent the proposed major infusion of state funding outlined below, the current model (25% subsidy over 4 years) would need to be revisited by next year. A presentation to this effect was made to the CCIWPF earlier this spring. This merits continued attention if state funds do not materialize for whatever reason. As I relayed last week, DEP announced that it plans to propose changes to Title V regs that would apply to nitrogen sensitive watersheds on Cape, requiring either septic systems to be upgraded to I/A technology in 5 years or the Town to enter into shared 20-year wastewater permits similar to Pleasant Bay. There is no clear direction yet on how this would impact our Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit, which is viewed as a model by DEP. As I mentioned, the proposed new requirements would impact Brewster’s contributions to the Herring River watershed, including properties on Long Pond, Sheep Pond, and Seymour Pond. Governor Baker has included $200M in state funding in his proposed FY22 supplemental budget, pending legislative approval, to help cover some implementation costs. We have been told that these funds, if approved, would be directed to a combination of the CCIWPF & Barnstable County Septic Loan Program. We are working with DEP to schedule a meeting with them next month to provide initial feedback before they draft these updated regulations. They will be meeting with Town officials across the Cape over the summer seeking their input. I expect that the previously planned meeting with relevant state officials and our legislative delegation will occur after the Commission completes its technical assistance work and DEP develops draft updated Title V regulations. On a related note, the Town will be co-hosting the Brewster Ponds Coalition’s annual ponds summit on Friday June 17 from 9AM to noon at the Brewster Baptist Church. The summit will include a panel discussion of subject-matter experts who will address septic system impacts on pond water quality, potential solutions, and financing considerations. Based on these latest developments, I recommend that the Board vote to postpone decisions on the Town’s continued participation in the CCIWPF until further notice. Cape Cod & Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF) – Technical Assistance Non-Traditional Technologies and Clean Water State Revolving Fund Eligibility Draft Scope of Work May 2022 Introduction Cape Cod’s Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update (208 Plan Update) is a framework to restore embayment water quality on Cape Cod, with a focus on resolving nitrogen impacts on coastal water quality. It recommends strategies, regulatory reforms, and a process for communities to reduce or eliminate excess nitrogen through the use of nutrient mitigation technologies, including green infrastructure and non-traditional technologies. Many towns on Cape Cod and Martha’s Vineyard are interested in pursuing non-traditional approaches to wastewater management (such as the use of innovative/alternative (I/A) septic systems located on private property). However, non-traditional methods to remediate water quality may face hurdles in accessing funding through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program, which is a requirement of obtaining subsidies from the CCIWPF. At their meeting on March 17, 2022, the CCIWPF Executive Committee directed Cape Cod Commission (Commission) staff to provide technical assistance to the Town of Brewster and other Cape Cod communities considering innovative/alternative septic systems and other non-traditional technologies to maximize State Revolving Fund eligibility. The following outlines a scope of work for such technical assistance, which is anticipated to take 3-6 months to complete. The technical assistance will consider I/A septic systems and non-traditional technologies that target coastal, estuarine, and freshwater, including surface and groundwater, all of which impact transport of nutrients through watersheds. Scope of Work Task 1: Intended Use Plan (IUP) Research Commission staff will analyze prior Massachusetts CWSRF funding of non-traditional technologies and projects located on private property (including on Cape Cod, the Islands, and other locations within the state) and SRF programs in other states that grant SRF fund eligibility for non-traditional technologies and those located on private property. Commission staff will assess funding between common types of traditional technology projects, green infrastructure projects, and other non- traditional projects. Deliverable: Memorandum to include: • List of non-traditional projects funded through the IUP, by project type, water resource impacted, funding amount, and IUP score, including projects on private property. • Breakdown of funding percentages to common types of traditional technology projects versus green infrastructure and non-traditional projects. • Compilation of relevant information on other state SRF programs. Task 2: Interviews and Information Gathering Commission staff will meet with select CCIWPF member towns to understand the types of non- traditional projects communities are interested in pursuing and gather information those towns have received to date from DEP on those projects, as applicable. Commission staff will also talk to CCIWPF member communities that may have already pursued non-traditional technologies and been listed on an IUP. Commission staff may speak with non-CCIWPF communities that have received funding for non-traditional technologies projects and projects on private property that have been listed on an IUP to learn about those project components. Deliverable: Memorandum to include a list of the types of projects CCIWPF member towns would like to pursue and a description of specific non-sewer related projects and projects on private property that have received funding through the CWSRF, on-Cape and off-Cape. Task 3: Research on CWSRF Eligibility and Criteria and DEP IUP Ranking Commission staff will research the eligibility of and criteria for projects to receive funding through the CWSRF that use non-traditional technologies and green infrastructure, including clarification on EPA green infrastructure monetary set asides within the CWSRF through DEP. Commission staff will meet with Clean Water Trust (CWT) and DEP staff for information on how projects are ranked on the IUP and funding priorities. The analysis will evaluate eligibility differences based on water resource impacted. Deliverable: Memorandum to include information on EPA and DEP monetary set asides within the CWT for green infrastructure and non-traditional projects, IUP ranking, and DEP funding priorities. Task 4: Identify Opportunities for and Barriers to Increased Access to CWSRF Funding Using the information gathered in Tasks 1-3, Commission staff will identify opportunities for and barriers to increased access to funding. Commission staff will evaluate paths forward for opportunities and identify possible solutions for barriers. Commission staff will explore the role of pilot and planning projects in increasing access to funding and how EPA-defined “qualifying green projects” may be used for non-traditional projects. Commission staff will examine options under the 208 Plan to prioritize support and funding for non- traditional technologies. Deliverable: Memorandum to include opportunities for and barriers to increasing IUP eligibility and ranking for projects related to specific water resources, and options under the 208 Plan to prioritize support and funding for non-traditional technologies. Task 5: Solutions Using the information gathered in Tasks 1-4, Commission staff will create guidance for CCIWPF member towns on how to structure projects to achieve high SRF ranking. In addition, Commission staff will develop a conceptual project for review and discussion with DEP and CWT staff to create a strategy for how that project could be included on the IUP. Deliverable: Guidance on how to structure project applications to achieve high SRF ranking and development of a conceptual project to create a strategy for inclusion on the IUP. COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW Draft - February 2022 February 2022 Page 1 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW Lead Author: Brian Baumgaertel, Senior Environmental Specialist, Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment, bbaumgaertel@barnstablecounty.org Contributors: Elizabeth Albert, Barnstable County Administrator Vaira Harik, Assistant Barnstable County Administrator Robert Lawton, Interim Barnstable County Finance Director Sean O’Brien, Director, Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment Matthew Schnackenberg, PFM Financial Advisors, LLC February 2022 Page 2 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of this Report .................................................................................................................. 5 1.2 About the Community Septic Management Loan Program .......................................................... 5 1.3 Current Financial Status ................................................................................................................ 5 1.4 Assessment Approach ................................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Scenarios ....................................................................................................................................... 6 1.6 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 7 2 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 9 3 About the Community Septic Management Loan Program ................................................................ 10 3.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Loan Eligibility ............................................................................................................................. 10 3.3 Betterment Loans to Homeowners ............................................................................................ 10 3.4 Incoming Loans from the State Revolving Fund ......................................................................... 10 4 Current Program Financial Status ....................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Loans from the State Revolving Fund ......................................................................................... 11 4.2 Repayment to the State Revolving Fund .................................................................................... 11 4.3 Betterment Loans to Homeowners ............................................................................................ 11 4.4 Homeowner Loan Repayment .................................................................................................... 11 4.5 Default Rate ................................................................................................................................ 12 4.6 Administrative Expenses ............................................................................................................. 12 4.6.1 Personnel ............................................................................................................................ 12 4.6.2 Legal Services ...................................................................................................................... 12 4.6.3 Contractual .......................................................................................................................... 12 4.6.4 Other expenses ................................................................................................................... 12 4.6.5 Professional/Technical Services .......................................................................................... 12 4.6.6 Summary of Expenses ......................................................................................................... 13 4.7 Program Reserves ....................................................................................................................... 13 4.8 Program Financial Coverage Factor ............................................................................................ 13 5 Factors Impacting Program Sustainability .......................................................................................... 14 5.1 Interest Rates from the State Revolving Fund ............................................................................ 14 5.2 Interest Rates to Loan Applicants ............................................................................................... 14 February 2022 Page 3 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 5.3 Internal Cash Investment from Barnstable County .................................................................... 14 5.4 Homeowner Demand for Loans .................................................................................................. 15 5.4.1 Historical Perspective .......................................................................................................... 15 5.5 Program Administration.............................................................................................................. 16 6 Assessment Approach ......................................................................................................................... 17 6.1 Homeowner Betterment Demand Model ................................................................................... 17 6.1.1 Sewer Connections ............................................................................................................. 17 6.1.2 Innovative/Alternative Septic Systems ............................................................................... 18 6.1.3 Existing Title 5 Replacement Demand ................................................................................ 18 6.1.4 Total Expected Demand ...................................................................................................... 19 6.2 Financial Pro Forma Model ......................................................................................................... 19 6.2.1 Model Inputs ....................................................................................................................... 19 6.2.2 Model Outputs .................................................................................................................... 19 7 Pro Forma Scenarios ........................................................................................................................... 20 7.1 How to Interpret the Scenarios................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................... 21 7.2.1 Scenario 1a .......................................................................................................................... 21 7.2.2 Scenario 1b .......................................................................................................................... 21 7.3 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................... 22 7.3.1 Scenario 2a .......................................................................................................................... 22 7.3.2 Scenario 2b .......................................................................................................................... 22 7.4 Scenario 3 .................................................................................................................................... 23 7.4.1 Scenario 3a .......................................................................................................................... 23 7.4.2 Scenario 3b .......................................................................................................................... 23 7.5 Scenario 4 .................................................................................................................................... 24 7.5.1 Scenario 4a .......................................................................................................................... 24 7.5.2 Scenario 4b .......................................................................................................................... 24 7.6 Summary of Scenarios ................................................................................................................ 25 8 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................. 26 8.1 Scenarios 1a and 1b – NOT RECOMMENDED ............................................................................. 26 8.2 Scenario 2a – NOT RECOMMENDED ........................................................................................... 26 8.3 Scenario 2b – NOT RECOMMENDED ........................................................................................... 26 8.4 Scenario 3a and 3b ...................................................................................................................... 26 February 2022 Page 4 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 8.5 Scenarios 4a and 4b .................................................................................................................... 26 8.6 Ongoing Review .......................................................................................................................... 27 9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 28 February 2022 Page 5 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 1 Executive Summary 1.1 Purpose of this Report In early 2021 the Barnstable County Commissioners initiated a review of the Community Septic Management Loan Program (CSMLP), directing staff to investigate lowering the interest rate charged by the program from 5% to 0% for betterment loans for homeowners to pay sewer connection costs. This report is intended to provide a review of the scenarios under which a reduced interest rate would be possible while still maintaining financial sustainability to ensure that the program is available to Barnstable County residents for the foreseeable future. 1.2 About the Community Septic Management Loan Program The Barnstable County Community Septic Management Loan Program (CSMLP) is widely lauded as an example of a highly successful public health program, with 4560 loans worth $54.2 million being made to homeowners on Cape Cod as of the date of this report. Loan funds have been used by homeowners to replace failed septic systems and cesspools with “Title 5” – compliant systems (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2016) which are designed to better protect the environment and public health by improved removal of potentially harmful pathogenic organisms. Loan applicants can also utilize the funds to pay for the cost of a connection to sewer where available. Loans from the CSMLP are currently available to Barnstable County homeowners at a 5% per annum interest rate, with a 20-year loan term. In the event of default, loans are subject to a 14% per annum interest rate. CSMLP loans are “first position” liens, meaning that in the event of foreclosure, the septic betterment gets repaid first. 1.3 Current Financial Status The CSMLP finds itself on good financial footing at the present time. New loans from the SRF have not been needed since 2010, as the program has been able to reloan its incoming principal and interest repayments. At present however, demand for new loans is quickly depleting the available funds, such that additional borrowing from the SRF will be needed in the next 2-3 years to maintain the current pace. 1.4 Assessment Approach Financial assessments should always be approached by using as much data as possible along with good tools to process the data into something usable. This assessment uses two main components to account for the four major factors affecting program sustainability as outlined in Section 5. The first is a Homeowner Betterment Demand Model to predict year-to-year demand for loan funds, and a Pro Forma Financial Model to digest the data and inform the best course of action with respect to major program changes. Future homeowner demand for loans to pay for sewer connections is addressed via review of town wastewater plans. We estimate that there will be 17,000 or more new sewer connections installed over the next 10 years, with a total value of close to $200 million, accounting for inflation. It is unlikely that a large percentage of new sewer connections will result in requests for loans, so this assessment assumes that 35% of homeowners will utilize the program. The chart below shows loan demand 10 years into the past, and 10 years into the future. February 2022 Page 6 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 1.5 Scenarios The approach described above gives a great deal of flexibility and allows for the review of different interest rate and investment scenarios with a few keystrokes. This report looks at four scenarios that were designed to illuminate a wide range of options. Scenario 1 considers a 0% homeowner interest rate with a 2% interest rate on borrowing from the SRF. Scenario 2 considers a 0% homeowner interest rate with a 0% interest rate on borrowing from the SRF. Scenario 3 utilizes a sliding interest rate based on an economic means test. Homeowners at or below a percentage of the Area Median Income (AMI) would be eligible for the 0% rate, a middle bracket at 2% interest, and an upper bracket at 4% interest. Scenario 4 is the “change nothing” scenario, wherein the interest rate to all homeowners is kept at 5%. Each of these scenarios are presented in the table below, along with: 1. 20-year Average Coverage – See section 4.8 for detail on what “coverage” represents. PFM Financial Services recommends that a healthy loan program maintains a 1.20 coverage and above. 2. Minimum Coverage – the minimum coverage during the period of SRF loan repayment. 3. Program “Underwater” – The year in which the yearly coverage drops below one and stays there, indicating that the program is paying out more funds in SRF repayments than it is bringing in in principal and interest payments. This column does not apply to scenarios that never drop below 1.0 coverage. 4. $ Remaining at End – The amount of funds left over after all SRF funds have been repaid. 5. Admin Reserve Depletion – The year in which the $1.5 million Admin Reserve Fund is fully depleted. $- $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 $16.0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Lo a n D e m a n d i n M i l l i o n s Total Loan Demand per Year Standard I/A Sewer February 2022 Page 7 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW Note 1 – Coverage is defined as the amount of funds coming into the program in the form of principal and interest repayments from homeowners, divided by the debt service paid by Barnstable County to the SRF. A coverage factor of 1.20 is indicated as being a “healthy” number. 1.6 Recommendations Based on the results of the assessment, we are recommending selection of either scenario 3a or 3b. Given the current information, either scenario would result in a sustainable program that is able to meet a significant amount of demand for a long time to come. Investment of Barnstable County funds, while not necessary for the program to function, would serve to provide a reserve fund to help CSMLP weather any unexpected surges in loan demand for which SRF loans could not be secured in time. Scen ario Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Cash 20-year Average Coverage1 Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1a 0% 2% $0 0.96 0.82 Year 7 $m Year 9 1b 0% 2% $5m 1.04 0.82 Year 9 $m Year 11 2a 0% 0% $0 1.13 0.99 - $2m Year 22 2b 0% 0% $5m 1.22 1.02 - $5m Year 22 3a Sliding 0% & 2% $0 1.23 1.10 - $7m - 3b Sliding 0% & 2% $5m 1.33 1.17 - $12m - 4a 5% 2% $0m 1.59 1.40 - $34m - 4b 5% 2% $5m 1.75 1.44 - $40m - February 2022 Page 8 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW Scenario Ranking2 Notes 1a 3 Rapid depletion of funds – Program will have to close up shop. 1b 3 Same as 1a except BC put in $5m. 2a 3 Leave program in a precarious position, and no funds left at the “end”. 2b 2 Not recommended – not a healthy financial situation. 3a 1 Strong, sustainable program. 3b 1 Strong, sustainable program with good reserves. 4a 2 Doesn’t meet the goal of lower interest rate. 4b 2 Doesn’t meet the goal of lower interest rate. Note 2 - 1 = Highest ranking, 3 = Lowest ranking February 2022 Page 9 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 2 Introduction In early 2021 the Barnstable County Commissioners initiated a review of the Community Septic Management Loan Program (CSMLP), directing staff to investigate lowering the interest rate charged by the program from 5% to 0% for betterment loans for homeowners to pay sewer connection costs. This report is intended to provide a review of the scenarios under which a reduced interest rate would be possible while still maintaining financial sustainability to ensure that the program is available to Barnstable County residents for the foreseeable future. February 2022 Page 10 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 3 About the Community Septic Management Loan Program 3.1 Overview The Barnstable County Community Septic Management Loan Program (CSMLP) is a division of the Department of Health and Environment. Begun in 2005, CSMLP was enabled under special legislation (Massachusetts Legislature, 2004) crafted to allow Barnstable County to borrow from the Massachusetts State Revolving Fund (SRF) for the purpose of making low-interest betterment loans to homeowners to pay for the cost of replacing failed septic systems under Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s Community Septic Management Program (CSMP). Prior to 2005, the CSMP funds were available only to individual municipalities. The new region-wide program would relieve the administrative burden faced by town staff and allow for greater efficiency with dedicated staff. 3.2 Loan Eligibility First and foremost, the CSMP program is intended to address onsite septic system financing needs in environmentally sensitive or threatened areas (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2005). Secondly, all things being equal, loans should be preferentially distributed based on the homeowner’s economic need (Massachusetts Legislature, 1994). To be eligible for a loan, the homeowner must demonstrate: • That their septic system is certified as failed by a properly licensed Massachusetts Septic System Inspector, either per the failure criteria in Title 5, or by town Board of Health regulation • That their yearly income does not exceed $150,000 (unless additionally approved by DEP) • That their property is not subject to excessive municipal liens 3.3 Betterment Loans to Homeowners CSMLP has been widely lauded as a successful Barnstable County public health program, with 4560 loans worth $54.2 million being made as of the date of this report. Loan funds have been used by homeowners to replace failed septic systems and cesspools with “Title 5” – compliant systems (Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2016) which are designed to better protect the environment and public health by improved removal of potentially harmful pathogenic organisms. Loan applicants can also utilize the funds to pay for the cost of a connection to sewer where available. Loans from the CSMLP are currently available at a 5% per annum interest rate, with a 20-year loan term. CSMLP loans are “first position” liens, meaning that in the event of foreclosure, the septic betterment gets repaid first. 3.4 Incoming Loans from the State Revolving Fund Funding for the CSMLP is in the form of loans from the State Revolving Fund, which are managed by the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust (CWT). February 2022 Page 11 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 4 Current Program Financial Status 4.1 Loans from the State Revolving Fund Between 2006 and 2020, CSMLP has been in receipt of six SRF loans totaling $29m (see detail at right). At the time that these existing SRF loans were originated, the interest rate from the SRF was 0%. In about 2010, MassDEP increased the interest rate to 2%. Due to this, it was decided to cease requesting new SRF loans and instead sustain the program on the 5% per annum interest coming into the program. 4.2 Repayment to the State Revolving Fund At present, Barnstable County is responsible for a yearly debt service payment to the SRF of $1,464,211, with a current outstanding debt of $17,722,101. Debt service payments are made from the proceeds of loan principal payments received. 4.3 Betterment Loans to Homeowners CSMLP originates approximately 200 - 230 new loans each year, with a 3-year rolling average of $3.58 million. In total, the program has originated $54.2 million from 4560 loans since its inception. Of that $54.2 million, $29 million has been funded from the State Revolving Fund, while the remaining $25.2 million has been funded by “re-loaning” money that has been received from principal and interest payments. 4.4 Homeowner Loan Repayment At present there are 1,440 loans in repayment, with a total principal repayment value of approximately $13.4 million and a total interest repayment value of $5.3 million. Yearly principal and interest repayments for existing loans are shown in the figure below. $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Am o u n t o f L o a n s F i n a l i z e d i n M i l l i o n s Year Loans Finalized per Year Loan # Year Loan Amount Interest Rate 1 2006 $10.0m 0% 2 & 3 $9.0m 0% 4 2008 $3.0m 0% 5 2009 $4.0m 0% 6 2010 $3.0m 0% February 2022 Page 12 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 4.5 Default Rate CSMLP has maintained a default rate of approximately 5%. 4.6 Administrative Expenses 4.6.1 Personnel At present, CSMLP employs 1.5 FTE staff, with a total estimated yearly administrative cost of $160,000. 4.6.2 Legal Services CSMLP utilizes the debt collection services of Diane Mulligan, Esquire 4.6.3 Contractual CSMLP has minimal contractual expenses. 4.6.4 Other expenses Other expenses include computer equipment, printing, and postage, with postage representing the largest share at $9,500 mailing invoices to clients. CSMLP is working toward implementing a new billing system that will allow for electronic (email) invoicing. 4.6.5 Professional/Technical Services As arranged by the previous County Administrator, $250,000 in funds from CSMLP were used to pay the Center for Coastal Studies in Provincetown for monitoring near-shore waters for nitrogen contamination due to wastewater. $- $0.20 $0.40 $0.60 $0.80 $1.00 $1.20 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 Do l l a r A m m o u n t i n M i l l i o n s Principal and Interest Collection by Year Principal Interest February 2022 Page 13 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 4.6.6 Summary of Expenses The following table is a summary of administrative expenses for the past five fiscal years. Type 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 Personnel $ 145,789.16 $ 242,623.52 $ 242,570.95 $ 405,876.74 $ 359,492.13 Legal $ 8,381.74 $ 3,698.25 $ 6,743.33 $ 19,756.19 $ 19,469.35 Contractual $ - $ - $ 5,485.80 $ 3,105.60 $ 4,510.00 Other $ 5,456.03 $ 11,072.92 $ 14,773.69 $ 11,069.61 $ 14,447.03 Prof/Tech Services $ 219,123.69 $ - $ - $ - $ - Total $ 378,750.62 $ 257,394.69 $ 269,573.77 $ 439,808.14 $ 397,918.51 4.7 Program Reserves End of Year reserves for fiscal year 2021 totaled $8,447,743. 4.8 Program Financial Coverage Factor The “coverage factor” is a metric used as a measure of program health that is obtained by dividing the incoming funds by the outgoing funds. In this case, incoming funds are the sum of the homeowner principal repayments plus interest. Outgoing funds are represented by debt service payments back to the SRF. At present, CSMLP receives $1,686,427 in yearly principal repayments and interest, and pays $1,464,210 in yearly debt service. The resulting coverage factor of 1.15 indicates that CSMLP receives more funds in homeowner payments that it pays out in debt service. February 2022 Page 14 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 5 Factors Impacting Program Sustainability There are several factors which impact the long-term financial sustainability of the CSMLP, some of which are controllable, while others are not. This program review looked at four major factors: interest rates from the State Revolving Fund (not controllable), interest rates to homeowners (controllable), internal cash investment (controllable), homeowner loan demand (not controllable), and program administration costs (semi-controllable). 5.1 Interest Rates from the State Revolving Fund Interest rates from the State Revolving Fund are defined in 310 CMR 44.00: DEP Selection, Approval and Regulation of Water Pollution Abatement Projects Receiving Financial Assistance from the State Revolving Fund. The introductory paragraph (310 CMR 44.01) states that “The current standard subsidy is provided via a 2% interest, 20-year loan, but there are opportunities for some projects to receive 30- year loans, or lower interest rates” [Emphasis added]. Section 44.07 outlines a scenario under which a 0% interest may be available for projects that are “Nutrient Removal Projects in communities that have established Flow Neutral Land Use Controls”. Barnstable County staff have inquired with the Clean Water Trust whether the 0% interest rate may be available to the CSMLP. While a formal answer is pending submittal of a formal proposal from Barnstable County, CWT staff have indicated that the 0% interest rate is potentially applicable. 5.2 Interest Rates to Loan Applicants M.G.L. Chapter 80 Section 13, Betterment Apportionment and Reapportionment (Massachusetts Legislature, n.d.) defines the amount of latitude that is available in terms of loan/betterment interest rates: …assessments made under this chapter shall bear interest at 1 rate of 5 per cent per annum or, at the election of the city, town, or district at a rate up to 2 per cent above the rate of interest chargeable to the city, town, or district for the betterment… In relation to loans available from the SRF, which are presently at 2% (per 310 CMR 44.01), the following interest rates would be applicable to loans made to homeowners from the CSMLP: 5% OR 2%-4% If Barnstable County can secure a 0% interest rate from the SRF, the following interest rates would be applicable: 5% OR 0%-2% Per discussions with DEP and CWT staff, Barnstable County has latitude to determine the interest rate without prior approval. 5.3 Internal Cash Investment from Barnstable County If available, Barnstable County may consider making a cash investment in the CSMLP that could have an impact on the long-term financial stability of the program. February 2022 Page 15 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 5.4 Homeowner Demand for Loans CSMLP has seen fluctuations in demand for loans over the years, and it is anticipated that that with significant town resources being expended to install and expand wastewater treatment that the demand will increase significantly. 5.4.1 Historical Perspective The number of loans made each month fluctuates with both market demand and the season, but on average has consistently remained around 15-18 new loan applications each month (see figure below). On average, loans have increased in size over the past decade, with an average of $11,000 per loan in 2012 rising to an average of $13,000 in 2021 (see figure below). 2012 2017 2022 February 2022 Page 16 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 5.5 Program Administration Current staffing levels at the CSMLP have varied, peaking at 3.5 FTE and currently 1.5 FTE. The current staffing levels are adequate to maintain the current level of loan demand, however, as loan demand is expected to increase significantly, additional staffing will be needed to maintain an efficient and viable program. February 2022 Page 17 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 6 Assessment Approach Financial assessments should always be approached by using as much data as possible along with good tools to process the data into something usable. This assessment uses two main components to account for the four major factors affecting program sustainability as outlined in Section 5. The first is a Homeowner Betterment Demand Model to predict year-to-year demand for loan funds, and a Pro Forma Financial Model to digest the data and inform the best course of action with respect to major program changes. In this case the primary proposed change is an adjustment of the outgoing homeowner interest rate. 6.1 Homeowner Betterment Demand Model Year-on-year homeowner demand for loans can be difficult to assess and is highly variable depending on several factors. To develop a reasonably accurate pro forma, we reviewed each town’s wastewater plans to assess how many sewer connections or I/A systems would be installed each year over the next ten years. This was no small task, as each town is at a different stage of planning, and no two wastewater plans provide the same amount of information. In cases where the needed information was either missing or not obvious, we contacted town officials and board members who could supply it. 6.1.1 Sewer Connections Based on the information collected, we anticipate approximately 17,000 new sewer connections over the next 10 years. Data on sewer connection costs were collected via survey by the town of Chatham in 2020. For 64 single family home connections installed between 2013 and 2020, the average total cost when adjusted for inflation was $11,331, with a minimum of $3,459 and a maximum of $27,092. Using this cost, we anticipate approximately $194 million in new sewer connection installations over the next ten years. It is difficult to determine what percentage of homeowners will apply for CSMLP loans. For this report, we assumed 35%, resulting in a demand of $62.9 million over 10 years. 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32Nu m b e r o f N e w S e w e r C o n n e c t i o n s Year Sewer Connections by Year February 2022 Page 18 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 6.1.2 Innovative/Alternative Septic Systems Some towns are considering utilizing Innovative/Alternative(I/A) Septic System technologies to meet TMDL’s in areas where sewers are cost prohibitive. As of the date of this report, I/A’s are not being widely considered, but we expect that to change in the near term as a batch of very promising technologies work their way through the approval pipeline. As such, I/A’s are not considered in this portion of the model but will likely be included in subsequent updates. 6.1.3 Existing Title 5 Replacement Demand At present, the 3-year rolling average is $3.58 million, which is about $0.5 million above the average during the mid-2010’s. The model considers a flat $3.0 million for each year from 2022-2032, plus 3% inflation. $- $1.0 $2.0 $3.0 $4.0 $5.0 $6.0 $7.0 $8.0 $9.0 $10.0 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32To t a l I n s t a l l a t i o n C o s t i n M i l l i o n s Year Cost of Sewer Connections by Year $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 $3.5 $4.0 $4.5 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Am o u n t o f L o a n s F i n a l i z e d i n M i l l i o n s Year Loans Finalized per Year February 2022 Page 19 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 6.1.4 Total Expected Demand 6.2 Financial Pro Forma Model Barnstable County contracted with PFM Financial Advisors, LCC to develop a financial model to generate a pro forma financial report on which to base decisions about the future of the CSMLP program. The model has several inputs and outputs as described below. 6.2.1 Model Inputs • Currently Available Funds • Admin Reserve Amount • Amount to be loaned out over the next 10 years • Amount to be prepaid over the next 10 years • Admin cost per year and growth rate factor • Borrower financing terms for outgoing homeowner loans and incoming SRF loans • Year-by-year homeowner repayment information (principal and interest) for existing loans • Year-by-year SRF debt service 6.2.2 Model Outputs • Average coverage over 20 years • Minimum coverage over loan repayment period • Ending fund balance • Required borrowing to sustain program $- $2.0 $4.0 $6.0 $8.0 $10.0 $12.0 $14.0 $16.0 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Lo a n D e m a n d i n M i l l i o n s Total Loan Demand per Year Standard I/A Sewer February 2022 Page 20 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7 Pro Forma Scenarios The approach described above gives a great deal of flexibility and allows for the review of different interest rate and investment scenarios with a few keystrokes. This report looks at four scenarios that were designed to illuminate a wide range of options. “Tweaks” to these four scenarios can easily yield different and perhaps more favorable results and do bear some consideration. 7.1 How to Interpret the Scenarios Each scenario is simplified down to three inputs, which are shown in the first table of each section. Two of the inputs are controllable by Barnstable County: The outgoing interest rate, and the amount of cash investment. Loans from the SRF are entirely dependent on a decision made by MassDEP and the CWT. The second table in each section represents the model output and includes five elements: 6. 20-year Average Coverage – See section 4.8 for detail on what “coverage” represents. PFM Financial Services recommends that a healthy loan program maintains a 1.20 coverage and above. 7. Minimum Coverage – the minimum coverage during the period of SRF loan repayment. 8. Program “Underwater” – The year in which the yearly coverage drops below one and stays there, indicating that the program is paying out more funds in SRF repayments than it is bringing in in principal and interest payments. This column does not apply to scenarios that never drop below 1.0 coverage. 9. $ Remaining at End – The amount of funds left over after all SRF funds have been repaid. 10. Admin Reserve Depletion – The year in which the $1.5 million Admin Reserve Fund is fully depleted. February 2022 Page 21 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7.2 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 is the “just move ahead” scenario, wherein the outgoing interest rate is dropped to zero percent, but Barnstable County is unable to secure zero percent loan funding from the Clean Water Trust. Scenario 1 is further broken into two sub-scenarios, a and b, with Barnstable County investing either $0 or $5.0m in County funds respectively. It is important to note that per our reading of Massachusetts “Betterment Law” (M.G.L. Chapter 80 Section 13), that this scenario would be impossible – Barnstable County could not borrow at 2% and loan out at 0%. Additionally, CSMLP does not have adequate funds on hand to handle an increased load without going back to the SRF for additional funds. 7.2.1 Scenario 1a Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 0% 2% $0 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 0.96 0.82 Year 7 $m Year 9 7.2.2 Scenario 1b Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 0% 2% $5m 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.04 0.82 Year 9 $m Year 11 February 2022 Page 22 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7.3 Scenario 2 Scenario 2 mirrors scenario 1 above but reflects Barnstable County being successful in securing a 0% interest rate from the SRF. 7.3.1 Scenario 2a Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 0% 0% $0 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.13 0.99 - $2m Year 22 7.3.2 Scenario 2b Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 0% 0% $5m 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.22 1.02 - $5m Year 22 February 2022 Page 23 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7.4 Scenario 3 Scenario 3 uses a sliding scale interest rate that is income-based for a more equitable distribution of available funds. The following table is an example of a possible sliding scale scenario based on certain breakpoints in Area Median Income (AMI): Interest Rate Example Income Threshold % Of Loan Portfolio 0% 120% of Area Median Income (AMI) and below 50% 2% 120% of AMI and up to 180% AMI 35% 4% 180% AMI and above 15% Scenario 3 also uses a blended SRF interest rate, where 75% of the amount borrowed would be at 0%, while 25% would be borrowed at 2%. 7.4.1 Scenario 3a Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment Sliding 0% & 2% $0 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.23 1.10 - $7m - 7.4.2 Scenario 3b Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment Sliding 0% & 2% $5m 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.33 1.17 - $12m - February 2022 Page 24 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7.5 Scenario 4 Scenario 4 is the opposite of Scenario 1 and represents the closest to the “do nothing” null hypothesis. This scenario maintains the outgoing interest rate at 5% and an SRF interest rate of 2%. 7.5.1 Scenario 4a Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 5% 2% $0m 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.59 1.40 - $34m - 7.5.2 Scenario 4b Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Investment 5% 2% $5m 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1.75 1.44 - $40m - February 2022 Page 25 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 7.6 Summary of Scenarios Scenario Loans to Clients Loans from CWT BC Cash 20-year Average Coverage Minimum Coverage Program "Underwater" $ Remaining at End Admin Reserve Depletion 1a 0% 2% $0 0.96 0.82 Year 7 $m Year 9 1b 0% 2% $5m 1.04 0.82 Year 9 $m Year 11 2a 0% 0% $0 1.13 0.99 - $2m Year 22 2b 0% 0% $5m 1.22 1.02 - $5m Year 22 3a Sliding 0% & 2% $0 1.23 1.10 - $7m - 3b Sliding 0% & 2% $5m 1.33 1.17 - $12m - 4a 5% 2% $0m 1.59 1.40 - $34m - 4b 5% 2% $5m 1.75 1.44 - $40m - February 2022 Page 26 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 8 Recommendations 8.1 Scenarios 1a and 1b – NOT RECOMMENDED As noted above, Scenarios 1a and 1b is financially impossible. They are also legally impossible as the legislation enabling betterments would not allow Barnstable County to loan at 0% interest on a 2% interest SRF loan. 8.2 Scenario 2a – NOT RECOMMENDED This scenario leaves the CSMLP in a very bad financial position 8.3 Scenario 2b – NOT RECOMMENDED While marginally better than Scenario 2a, this scenario would require an investment of $5 million of county funds that would do little to stabilize the program over the long term and could likely be better used elsewhere. 8.4 Scenario 3a and 3b - RECOMMENDED Generally speaking, Scenarios 3a and 3b represent a compromise between the desire to reduce the interest rate significantly, while maintaining program sustainability into the foreseeable future. There are additional decisions to be made if this scenario were selected, namely the income cutoff points for each of the interest rates, and the interest rates themselves. 8.5 Scenarios 4a and 4b – NOT RECOMMENDED If the goal of this exercise is to lower the interest rate to make a program that is more accessible and equitable, then this scenario is not recommended. 8.6 Summary of Recommendations Scenario Ranking2 Notes 1a 3 Rapid depletion of funds – Program will have to close up shop. 1b 3 Same as 1a except BC put in $5m. 2a 3 Leave program in a precarious position, and no funds left at the “end”. 2b 2 Not recommended – not a healthy financial situation. 3a 1 Strong, sustainable program. 3b 1 Strong, sustainable program with good reserves. 4a 2 Doesn’t meet the goal of lower interest rate. 4b 2 Doesn’t meet the goal of lower interest rate. February 2022 Page 27 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 8.7 Ongoing Review Regardless of what scenario is selected, the analysis completed in this report should be renewed each year to account for the unforeseen and to ensure that the program doesn’t “drive off a cliff” unexpectedly. February 2022 Page 28 of 28 COMMUNITY SEPTIC MANAGEMENT LOAN PROGRAM REVIEW 9 References Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2005. Community Septic Management Program. [Online] Available at: https://www.mass.gov/doc/community-septic-management-program-manual/download Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2016. 310 CMR 15.00. [Online] Available at: https://www.mass.gov/doc/310-cmr-15000-title-5-of-the-state-environmental- code/download Massachusetts Legislature, 1994. Chapter 85 of the Acts of 1994. [Online] Available at: https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/25732/1994acts0085.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2022]. Massachusetts Legislature, 1996. Chapter 15 of the Acts of 1996. [Online] Available at: https://archives.lib.state.ma.us/bitstream/handle/2452/30131/1996acts0015.pdf [Accessed 27 January 2022]. Massachusetts Legislature, 2004. Chapter 381 of the Acts of 2004. [Online] Available at: https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2004/Chapter381 Massachusetts Legislature, n.d. M.G.L. ch.80 s.13 - Apportionment and Reapportionment. [Online] Available at: https://malegislature.gov/laws/generallaws/parti/titlexiii/chapter80/section13 Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board Projects Qualified for Subsidy – June 2022 2021 Clean Water Intended Use Plan (IUP) Projects As of May 31, 2022, the following 2021 IUP projects have executed a Project Regulatory Agreement (PRA) and are eligible for a final commitment of subsidy from the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board. Town Project Project Cost in IUP Project Cost in PRA Contingent Subsidy Commitment (voted April 2021) Updated Subsidy Per CCIWPF Regulations Barnstable Wastewater Pump Station Improvements $2,000,000 $2,761,225 $500,000 $690,306 2022 Clean Water Intended Use Plan (IUP) Projects On May 9, 2022, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection released the final 2022 Clean Water IUP. The following projects are qualified and eligible for a contingent commitment of subsidy from the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board. 2022 Clean Water Intended Use Plan Town Project Project Cost in IUP Contingent Subsidy per CCIWPF Regulations Barnstable Wastewater Pump Station Replacement Project $5,540,000 $1,385,000 Chatham Taylors Pond/Mill Creek (1D-2B) Sewer Extension $14,696,000 $3,674,000 Chatham Chatham Stage Harbor (1C-5/1E-2) Sewer Extension $11,010,500 $2,752,625 Chatham Chatham Mill Pond Pumping Station Upgrade 2022 $2,268,000 $567,000 Chatham WPCF Sludge Processing Upgrades $4,750,000 $1,187,500 Falmouth Falmouth WWTF TASA Improvements $20,000,000 $5,000,000 Orleans Meetinghouse Pond Area Collection System and PS $32,906,000 $8,226,500 Orleans Permeable Reactive Barrier Implementation $17,094,000 $4,273,500 Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Bethany A. Card Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Contact Glynis Bugg at 617-348-4040. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper June 1, 2022 Dear Municipal Official: I am writing to inform you of regulatory revisions the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is developing to ensure that timely actions are taken to restore and protect coastal estuaries that have been impacted by excessive nitrogen pollution. The two regulatory approaches we developed and plan to publish for public comment this fall provide communities with choices on how to address the growing pollution problem affecting our waters. MassDEP will be requesting a meeting with you as we seek input on these proposals prior to publication. As you are well aware, nutrient contamination is one of the most pressing environmental challenges facing Cape Cod. Increased population and development in those areas surrounding Cape Cod's estuaries have resulted in excessive amounts of nutrients being discharged into these sensitive resources, causing eutrophication and prompting the accelerated growth of nuisance plants, weeds and algae, using up much of the oxygen in the water. This forces out finfish, shellfish, and indigenous plant species. The result-water bodies that violate state water quality standards, are visually displeasing, smell bad, and cannot support the natural uses that the estuaries have historically offered. This is not only an environmental problem- if not addressed in a timely way, it is likely to harm the Cape's economy through a decline in fishing, shellfishing, tourism, and property values. The primary water quality problem on Cape Cod stems from nitrogen contamination. Nitrogen from septic systems, wastewater treatment plants, lawns and stormwater leaches into groundwater and flows underground and is discharged to surface water bodies. While nitrogen comes from a variety of sources, on Cape Cod the predominant sources are on-site septic systems. Approximately 85 percent of the wastewater flow into Cape Cod's embayments comes from on-site septic systems. MassDEP has been working closely with Cape Cod communities to assess and address this problem. First, MassDEP collaborated with Cape Cod communities and the University of Massachusetts, through the Massachusetts Estuaries Project, to provide communities with the scientific studies they need to effectively address the specific water quality issues impacting each estuary. These studies, which clearly demonstrate the need to take action, were also used to form the underlying basis for Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs are U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or EPA-approved calculations of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant. A TMDL determines a pollutant reduction target and allocates load reductions necessary to the source(s) of the pollutant. There are currently 30 TMDLs for nitrogen across Cape Cod, generally requiring significant reductions in nitrogen loads. To further facilitate development of solutions to this problem, in 2013 MassDEP directed the Cape Cod Commission to prepare an update to the 1978 Water Quality Management (WQM) Plan for Cape Cod in accordance with §208 of the Federal Clean Water Act ("CWA" or the "Act"). The Plan was certified by Governor Baker and approved by EPA in 2015, after an extensive public participation process that included numerous public meetings across the Cape and input from hundreds of residents, community officials and stakeholders. The Plan examines the causes of water quality issues on Cape Cod and provides options for communities to consider, including new planning tools to use in making local decisions about potential solutions. The Plan Update also offers greater flexibility and discusses financing and funding options to help implement those solutions. Since adoption of the Updated Plan there have been important steps taken to further assist such efforts, including a new source of ongoing funding, proposed by Cape legislators and signed into law by the Governor, to help towns pay for necessary wastewater infrastructure and water quality remediation projects. This fund, known as the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund, is already providing substantial financial assistance to wastewater efforts on Cape Cod . MassDEP has also continued to work with communities to develop and implement wastewater plans, and we have been pleased to see a range of progress across with the Cape, including planning, funding, evaluating pilot approaches, and, in some cases, the actual implementation of solutions. At the same time, such progress has been inconsistent and unpredictable across the Cape communities. We have clearly heard this concern from citizens and advocates who have urged additional action. MassDEP ultimately has the responsibility to ensure that concrete actions are taken in a timely way to address the ongoing nitrogen contamination and ensure these critical water resources meet water quality standards. MassDEP, therefore, is planning to propose two regulatory changes to meet this responsibility. First, the primary source of the nitrogen contamination is septic systems, and our regulatory authority for such systems is the Title 5 regulation- and MassDEP must ensure these requirements are protective of water quality. Therefore, we are proposing to revise Title 5 regulations to establish “Nitrogen Sensitive Areas” (NSAs) for watersheds draining into an estuaries where there is an EPA-approved “Total Maximum Daily Load,” which finds that the estuary is impaired by nitrogen. The revised regulations would require - unless Towns take advantage of an alternative watershed approach - that within 5 years of the effective of the NSA designation, new on-site systems include, and existing on-site systems upgrade to, enhanced nitrogen treatment systems demonstrating the lowest nitrogen levels in their effluent. For Cape Cod communities subject to the Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan, the designation and new requirements would become effective upon the final promulgation of the regulations. MassDEP has prioritized our efforts for years to work with communities to develop more tailored and effective wastewater solutions and remains committed to such efforts. Therefore, we are also proposing a second regulatory revision to formally establish the “watershed permit.” These permits are 20-year permits that are based on long-term wastewater plans that will achieve water quality goals and provide communities the opportunity to utilize a range of approaches, including centralized sewer treatment and innovative approaches. Importantly, if communities take advantage of this approach, and obtain a watershed permit that covers an area that would be subject to new NSA regulations, the system-by-system approach can be avoided. To help provide some of the immediate funding needs that Towns moving forward will face, Governor Baker has proposed $200 million in additional funding for communities moving forward to addressing this environmental challenge. These funds will help support the needed actions over the next several years to improve water quality, and demonstrate our ongoing commitment to working with communities. The Baker-Polito Administration will be working to secure passage of this important funding in the coming weeks. MassDEP recognizes that Cape communities have been working to develop and implement plans to address these water quality challenges. As we seek input and comment on these regulatory approaches over the next few months, we would like to meet with appropriate officials in your community to discuss the status of these efforts and how they may comport with the proposed changes. I have attached a fact sheet that provides more details on the proposed regulatory framework. Please contact Millie Garcia-Serrano, Director of MassDEP’s Southeast Regional Office at millie.garcia-serrano@mass.gov to schedule a time where we can meet to discuss these regulatory approaches in person. Sincerely, Martin J. Suuberg Commissioner Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Bethany A. Card Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Contact Glynis Bugg at 617-348-4040. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper Fact Sheet MassDEP Regulatory Strategy for Estuaries Impaired by Nitrogen June 1, 2022 1. Nitrogen Sensitive Area Designations: A primary source of nitrogen contamination of coastal estuaries in Southeastern Massachusetts and Cape Cod and the Islands are on-site septic systems. MassDEP, in conjunction with local Boards of Health, regulates these systems through “Title 5” regulations, 310 CMR 15.00. To ensure the Title 5 regulations are protective of the environment, particularly in relation to the impact of nitrogen discharges on surface water quality, MassDEP is proposing the following revisions to Title 5: Establish New Nitrogen Sensitive Areas (NSAs) To more effectively address nitrogen impacting estuaries, MassDEP is proposing to establish new “Natural Resource Area” NSAs for: • any watershed to an embayment or sub-embayment that is the subject of a Nitrogen Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) approved by the EPA pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and an Area-Wide Water Quality Management Plan pursuant to Section 208 of the Clean Water Act addressing nitrogen pollution: o A “TMDL” is an EPA-approved calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that particular pollutant. A TMDL determines a pollutant reduction target and allocates load reductions necessary to the sources of the pollutant. o All Cape Cod communities are subject to the “208 Plan” approved by EPA in 2015. o There are currently 30 watersheds across Cape Cod with EPA-approved nitrogen TMDLs. 2 o For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective on the effective date of the final regulations. • any watershed to an embayment or sub-embayment that is the subject to an EPA-approved TMDL or determined to be nitrogen sensitive by the Department based on scientific evaluation and adopted through a public process involving public notice, including the scientific and regulatory rational for the designation, and a 60-day public comment period. o For these watersheds, the NSA designation is effective upon completion of the public process and MassDEP’s issuance of the final designation. New Requirements for Natural Resource Area NSAs MassDEP is proposing new requirements for these new NSAs to more effectively address the specific problems related to septic systems contaminating coastal estuaries. • Unless a community is the subject of a Watershed Permit described below, any system serving a new construction, or an existing facility must incorporate Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology within five years of the effective date of the NSA designation of the watershed in which they are located. • Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology is an alternative system certified by MassDEP for general use pursuant to Title 5 which has the lowest effluent Total Nitrogen performance value. An alternative system granted provisional or pilot approval by MassDEP may also be utilized as long as such system has a Total Nitrogen performance value less than or equal to the lowest alternative system certified by the Department for general use. Exemption from Enhanced Treatment Requirements in Watersheds with Watershed Permits While the enhanced treatment requirements for septic systems will result in significant reductions in nitrogen pollution, they may not be the most effective and efficient way to restore the impacted estuaries and achieve established water quality goals. Therefore, MassDEP is also proposing a second, concurrent regulatory revision to formally establish a “watershed permit process.” If communities take advantage of this approach, and obtain a watershed permit that covers an area that would be subject to new “Nitrogen Sensitive Area” regulations, the above Title 5 NSA requirements would not become effective for that area. However, if a Watershed Permit is terminated by the permittee or revoked by MassDEP, new systems installed after the date of termination/revocation would have to install Best Available Nitrogen Reducing Technology and existing systems would have to install such technology within five years from the effective date of the new NSA regulations or two years of the date of termination/revocation, whichever is longer. 2. Watershed Permit Regulations: The Watershed Permitting regulations are a new, innovative approach to provide communities the opportunity to develop and implement the most effective 3 and efficient solutions to addressing water quality challenges. This approach provides the opportunity for communities to employ a greater range of solutions to address their water quality needs, including alternative or innovative approaches. The Watershed Permit is a 20- year permit instead of the traditional five-year permit which utilizes an adaptive management approach, requiring permittees to monitor, evaluate and report results, and adjust and modify the strategies and practices as needed to address conditions that are causing the water quality impairments. Watershed Management Plan The Watershed Permit is based on a “Watershed Management Plan” a long-term plan to address an existing water quality impairment to restore and protect water quality. The Watershed Management Plan must be approved by town meetings of each respective watershed permit applicant, and is based on a Comprehensive or Targeted Watershed Management Plan. The Plan provides a schedule and description of actions to restore the waterbody to applicable Water Quality Standards in accordance with any applicable TMDL and/or any other applicable scientific evaluation, such as the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) report. For watersheds where a TMDL has been established, the Watershed Management Plan must achieve compliance with the Water Quality Standards required by the TMDL and demonstrate that at a minimum, 75% of the necessary pollutant reduction levels will be achieved within 20 years, unless MassDEP determines an alternative schedule is appropriate based on watershed-specific issues. Watershed Permit Application • Any Local Government Unit or Regional Local Government Unit can file for a watershed permit. Multiple local government units that share a watershed or sub-watershed may apply jointly for a Watershed Permit, provided they have entered into an enforceable agreement (e.g., Intermunicipal Agreement) that confirms each permittee’s percentage share of the aggregate pollutant removal responsibility and provides a framework to coordinate resource management decision-making and arrangements relating to the receipt and expenditure of funds for implementation. • The Watershed Permit authorizes work needed to implement the Permittee’s mitigation strategy for the watershed or sub-watershed, therefore the Application must include the Watershed Management Plan for the watershed or sub-watershed including: o maps depicting the regulated area (watershed boundary) and a narrative describing the area proposed to be covered under a Watershed Permit; o a description of the current and historic water quality conditions, including short- (daily/seasonal) and long- (annual) term variability, proposed sentinel sampling locations within the watershed/stations, sampling frequency, parameters and sampling technique (e.g., grab/observation); 4 o the earlier planning approaches taken prior to filing the application, including any related findings and recommendations; o the types, locations, and timing of any on-going and proposed TMDL or alternative TMDL implementation activities within the watershed or sub-watershed proposed for coverage; o a table identifying the nitrogen load that the area proposed for coverage under the watershed permit contributes to the surface waters of the watershed for the past 10 years and projected loads for the following 10 and depicting the necessary load reductions (removal requirements) within the watershed to meet the TMDL or TMDLs and a concise description of the means of achieving those specified reductions during the term of the permit; o the Conventional Control Technologies and Alternative Control Approaches or Technologies selected for pollutant load reductions, the area covered by these approaches, and identification of the permittee who will be responsible for implementing each activity; o the estimated load reductions needed to meet the threshold concentration(s) at the sentinel station(s) for each of the selected Conventional Control Technologies and Alternative Control Approaches or Technologies; o the implementation schedule for each Alternative Control Approach or Technology proposed, including a timeframe for demonstration, testing, and acceptance or abandonment of such approaches or technologies; o the Core Sewer Area and the service areas prioritized for wastewater collection and treatment after accounting for implementation of the selected Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies; o if Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies are proposed, a contingency plan for a back-up Conventional Control Technology in the event that the Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies selected do not function as predicted; o the proposed approach to control 100% of all future pollutant loads to ensure that loads will always stay below the applicable threshold levels cost estimates for the infrastructure and programs associated with the proposed actions, if available; o an implementation schedule, not to exceed 20 years, currently envisioned by the applicant(s), including a designated set of activities that will occur in the first 5-year block of time, and the results of which will enable the permittee to revise the implementation plans for the next 5-year period as necessary to meet load reduction requirements as specified. Standard Watershed Permit Provisions • The Department shall not issue a Watershed Permit if the Watershed Management Plan does not provide for achievement of the Surface Water Quality standards applicable to the 5 water bodies covered by the permit or if the permit does not provide for reasonable progress in achievement of the TMDL load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards. • Consistent with the Watershed Management Plan, the permit shall require that 75% of the necessary pollutant reduction levels will be achieved within 20 years, unless MassDEP determines an alternative schedule is appropriate based on watershed-specific issues. • The proposed activities, implementation schedule for such activities, and facilities set forth in the applicant’s Watershed Management Plan shall be enforceable requirements, incorporated in a Watershed Permit. • Subject to Department approval, a permittee is granted pollutant reduction credit for Alternative Control Approaches and Technologies only if the permittee implements and maintains such approaches and/or technologies in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Watershed Permit. • The permittee shall provide a Contingency Plan in its Watershed Management Plan that relies on Conventional Control Technologies to achieve the target threshold concentrations identified in the Watershed Management Plan. • The permittee shall monitor water quality in accordance with the permittee’s monitoring plan and report the results in the Annual Reports required by the Watershed Permit. • The Permit requires annual reporting, with 5-Year Reports evaluating results of program and proposed adjustments through adaptive management. • Any prospective changes to the Watershed Management Plan or the approved implementation schedule shall be identified in the Annual Reports required by the Watershed Permit. Any such proposed changes to the Watershed Management Plan shall be subject to the Department’s review and approval. • For a permittee(s) to terminate permit coverage, they must provide public notice and hold a public meeting. • Any permits issued by the Department that comprise a component of the implementation activities or are applicable to the pollutant discharges in the watershed shall be incorporated by reference into the Watershed Permit. Watershed Permit Process • The applicant shall publish public notice of the Watershed Permit proceeding in the MEPA Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area that will be affected by the Watershed Permit. The Department will post the notice on the Department’s webpage. • Public notice will afford a comment period of at least 60 days. • A public hearing will be held if requested by the applicant, or if the Department determines a public hearing to be in the public interest. 6 • After the conclusion of the 60-day public comment period, the Department may issue or deny a final Watershed Permit. o If no comments objecting to the issuance or terms of the Watershed Permit were received by the Department during the public comment period, then the Watershed Permit shall take effect upon issuance. o If comments objecting to the issuance or the terms and conditions of the Watershed Permit were received by the Department during the public comment period, then the final Watershed Permit shall become effective 21 days after issuance, unless a request for an adjudicatory hearing is timely filed. o During the 21-day period following issuance of the Watershed Permit or determination to deny, any person aggrieved by the decision may file a request for an adjudicatory hearing with the Department. Watershed Permit Modification/Suspension/Revocation • The Department may propose and determine to modify, suspend or revoke any Watershed Permit, in whole or in part, for cause including, but not limited to, violation of any permit, obtaining a permit by misrepresentation, or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts or any change in or discovery of conditions that calls for reduction or discontinuance of the authorized discharge or activity. • The Department shall process a Watershed Permit modification, suspension or revocation in the same manner as an application for a Watershed Permit; provided, however, that the Department may revise a schedule in a Watershed Permit at the request of a permittee if the Department determines that good and valid cause, for which the permittee is not at fault, exists for such revision, and in such cases the provision for public notice and hearing shall not apply. • Any one or more of the permittees may terminate coverage under this Permit by providing written notice to the Department at least 60 days in advance of the date such termination is to take effect. Such notice will include public notice of a public hearing to be held at least 30 days prior to the termination date. Such notice will be published in the MEPA Environmental Monitor and in a newspaper circulated within the area affected by the Watershed Permit at least 30 days prior to the hearing. 1 Erika Mawn From:Association to Preserve Cape Cod <kandres@apcc.org> Sent:Wednesday, June 1, 2022 1:02 PM To:Peter Lombardi Subject:APCC News & Information Association to Preserve Cape Cod - this week... Mayflower, Mianthemum canadensis. Photo by Sue Machie What I'm Thinking... 2 How did that happen? by Andrew Gottlieb, Executive Director In the world of advocacy, the establishment of priorities and the allocation of resources, nothing good happens by accident. This adage is especially true when the issue requiring attention has a serious “yuck factor” associated with it. No issue is inherently yuckier than wastewater and yet it requires, and is getting, serious attention at the state level. This is great news, and it is no accident. The big steps forward we are seeing are the result of years of our persistent, steady, and relentless advocacy—supported by members with vision and loyalty—to ensure that state officials from the governor on down understand and prioritize water quality on Cape Cod. Our efforts continue to pay dividends. In just the month of May alone, the Baker administration announced three major initiatives that have enormous significance to Cape Cod’s future. The most transformative proposal is the inclusion of $200 million in the governor’s supplemental FY22 budget to additionally capitalize the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund and to provide principal forgiveness for loans issued through the revised Community Septic Management Program. Loan forgiveness would be on a sliding scale with 50 percent forgiven to borrowers at or below 120 percent Area Median Income (AMI), 25 percent for those between 120 percent and 180 percent AMI and none for borrowers above 180 percent. This plugs a major hole in the funding support to homeowners and will make sewer connections much more affordable for the year-round population. The governor’s proposal for homeowner assistance builds directly on the APCC proposal, recently adopted by the Barnstable County Commissioners, to eliminate the interest charges for some borrowers on loans to upgrade septic systems and to connect homes to sewer systems. The other important proposals are less likely to catch the eye of the public but have no less long-term significance. Through the Department of Environmental Protection’s State Revolving Fund (SRF) program guidelines, the administration is proposing to ensure that funding goes to the highest priority projects statewide. After significant APCC input, DEP recently released guidelines for public comment that clearly establish Cape nutrient management projects in the highest tier of projects. These guidelines will ensure that Cape towns will continue to have access to zero percent SRF loans to finance municipal projects and keep the costs to property taxpayers as low as possible. Changes are also coming to the rules that govern the installation of septic systems to finally establish standards for septic systems to reduce their impact on water quality. The proposal requires higher levels of nutrient reduction and creates incentives for towns to invest in wastewater treatment where septic technology limitations prevent achievement of water quality goals. The rules governing septic system installation have not been revised since 1994. Changes to these rules are hard because there are so many competing forces pushing against one another, but kudos to DEP for putting together a working group, of which APCC is a part, that has hammered out a proposal tuned to the unique needs of Cape Cod. Taken individually, each of these proposals is important and very helpful. Seen together, they reflect a thoughtful and comprehensive approach to strategic improvements to rules, regulations, and funding priorities from an engaged leadership throughout state government that has listened and responded to our concerns. It is not just Governor Baker and Lt. Governor Polito who have prioritized Cape water quality, but also Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Beth Card, DEP Commissioner Martin Suuberg and DEP Deputy Commissioner Gary Moran. These career environmental professionals, along with the elected leadership, have heard us and continue to provide the tools we need to improve our own waters. Again, none of this has happened by accident. APCC staff have doggedly been making the case about water quality and offering a comprehensive response strategy, day in and day out, and the effort has paid 3 off. We have a coalition of leadership from the governor and his team, our outstanding legislative delegation, county officials, municipal leaders, and other advocacy partners. Our dedicated APCC members have again provided the resources that enable our staff to do what it does, not just on wastewater but on habitat protection, resource restoration, native plantings, cyano-monitoring, herring counting, and so much more. We can’t do it without you! Advocacy works. Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program for 2022 Begins! Meet this year's APCC summer interns! 4 Brooke Withers. I grew up on Cape Cod in Yarmouth. I am entering my senior year at the University of Rhode Island as a double major in marine biology and environmental science and management. As of right now I don’t know what I want to do after I graduate, but I am hoping this internship will get me a little bit closer in figuring that out. I am really excited for this summer to be able to see the whole process of monitoring programs (from sampling, to the lab, to the data entry, etc.). I am also excited to be able to give back to the community and have a part in helping the Cape's environment to become healthier. Meribeth Ratzel. I’m happy to be working with the cyanobacteria monitoring program this season where I’m able to return to work I love on the microscope. I am originally from New Hampshire and my initial interest in natural resources began when I worked as a crew person for a land surveyor. I enjoyed working in the field and look for work that deepens my understanding of nature and ecological functions. Since coming to Cape Cod ten years ago, I have participated in several projects focusing primarily on marine harmful algae blooms with Woods Hole and the National Estuarine Research Reserve in Wells, Maine. I plan to return to school full-time focusing on hydrology. I am grateful to APCC for giving me the opportunity further my interests in fieldwork and the outdoor learning lab. Taylor Lanxon. Hello! I am a rising sophomore at Boston University with a double major in environmental science and Latin American studies. I love hiking, reading, performing music, and almost anything outdoors! I am ecstatic to work with APCC, as I feel that the cyanobacteria monitoring internship is a great way to get lab experience to help direct our professional goals, as well as give us the opportunity to participate in crucial public services in and for Cape Cod. Chiara Nava. Hi, I'm Chiara! I'm an environmental science major with a minor in GIS. I attend Oakland University in Rochester Hills, Michigan. This summer I am looking forward to gain experience in field/lab work in a real-life application with APCC. 5 Leah Stucke. Leah is from Buffalo, NY and attends SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, NY. She is majoring in conservation biology and minoring in marine science. She is also on ESF's cross country and track teams! Over the summer she is hoping to gain experience working in the field and be in an environment that's different than New York. 6 7 If you'd like to attend the boat ramp meeting, email Jordan for the meeting link. jmora@apcc.org Pollinator Spotlight Above photo © Gerald Beetham Eastern Tiger Swallowtail Papilio glaucus Have you seen them? Eastern tiger swallowtails, hopefully they are flying in your neighborhood right now and throughout the summer. They have spent the winter as a chrysalis and are now emerging in May and June as a large winged butterfly. Adult swallowtails only have two things on their task list. That is to mate and lay eggs. The mated female will be looking for these host plants on which to lay her eggs so that her caterpillars have something they can eat: wild cherry (Prunus), sweetbay (Magnolia), basswood (Tilia), tulip tree (Liriodendron), birch (Betula), ash (Fraxinus), cottonwood (Populus), mountain ash (Sorbus), and willow (Salix). In late July and August, the second brood of swallowtails will take flight as adults. The male is yellow with dark tiger stripes. The female has two forms: one yellow like the male and the other black with shadows of dark stripes. After laying up to 250 eggs on the leaves of woody plants, the female butterfly will live for less than two weeks. The larvae (also called caterpillars) will emerge from the eggs in about four to ten days. There are large 8 markings that appear to be eyes on the thorax of the caterpillar, but they are fake. Caterpillars have twelve simple eyes, six on each side of their heads. These eyes basically can only tell dark from light. By TheAlphaWolf - Own work, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=675979 During the next three to four weeks, the larvae will go through five instars (stages separated by molts). After the 5th instar, the larvae pupate (form a chrysalis). Come fall, triggered by shortening daylight, the larvae that hatched in late summer enter diapause as a chrysalis. The brown chrysalis resembles, and can easily be mistaken for, a broken twig. As this chrysalis, it overwinters and waits for spring to emerge as a butterfly. If you want to see these butterflies, please avoid pesticides, plant more native host plants, and leave the leaves! It's Working! That's what Alison in Falmouth shared with us this week. She's been reducing lawn area and planting more native plants on her property between the lawn and a freshwater pond. The results? Her efforts are attracting birds--and it looks beautiful! I was sitting on our deck eating breakfast on Sunday and admiring our native plant garden, which is really starting to come into its own this year. I spotted a hummingbird flitting around the blueberry flowers. And then two pairs of goldfinches landing on top of the golden groundsel stalks, pecking at the seeds, then riding the stalk down as it bent under their weight. While taking a closer look, spotted this song sparrow nest amongst a yarrow patch, very cozily lined with the fur of our white golden retriever! “It’s working!” I thought to myself! Very satisfying. Thank you again for your inspiration, information, and native plants! -Alison 9 Tell us YOUR native plant story! Email to kandres@apcc.org. Upcoming webinar hosted by APCC Thursday, June 16th with Anna Fialkoff - Diversify Your Lawn ~Transforming your lawn into a rich tapestry of native plants. Who says lawns need to be monocultures or made only of grasses? We can do better than the default landscape material that covers most of the suburban landscape. Discover how to diversify your lawn, transition it to meadow or convert it to layers of native plants to create a rich, wildlife-friendly tapestry. If you want to register or view past webinars that we've recorded, go to APCC's events page.Scroll down the page. A Special Cape Cod Spring Ephemeral -the Pink Lady's Slipper 10 Photo by Gerald Beetham. Cypripedium acaule is pollinated by bumblebees that enter the flower through a slit in the labellum, pass under the stigma that removes any pollinium (pollen sac) that may be present on the bee, and then under one of two anthers that attach a pollinium onto the bee. Finally, the bee exits through a small opening in the back of the flower. Contact with the floral bract is known to cause skin irritation in some people; other parts of the plant may also have this effect. (Source) In order to survive and reproduce, pink lady's slipper interacts with a fungus in the soil. Generally, orchid seeds do not have food supplies inside them like most other kinds of seeds. Pink lady’s slipper seeds require threads of the fungus to break open the seed and attach them to it. The fungus will pass on food and nutrients to the pink lady's slipper seed. When the lady’s slipper plant is older and producing most of its own nutrients, the fungus will extract nutrients from the orchid roots. This mutually beneficial relationship between the orchid and the fungus is known as “symbiosis” and is typical of almost all orchid species. Pink lady’s slipper takes many years to go from seed to mature plants. Seed-bearing harvest of wild lady's slipper root is not considered sustainable. Pink lady's slippers can live to be twenty years old or more. (Source) Freshwater Ponds ~ The Jewels of Cape Cod 11 Photo by Susan Baur Perch Philosophy Through The Eyes of Socrates by Susan Baur At the beginning of May, I took an unusually early swim using a new 5 mm wetsuit with a hood. The pond stretched out before me like a piece of wide wale corduroy with line after parallel line of little waves running before a northwest wind. I knew that on the pond floor bars of sunlight would travel so evenly across the bottom that I could steer by them. Pulling on the thick, foamy wet suit and managing to zip it up, I fell forward into the water. Up came the familiar pond floor, all glistening tans and browns. Up came the familiar wave of curiosity. But nothing else, except for a tiny area around my mouth, I didn’t feel the water. For a moment I lay on the pond like a block of wood waiting to feel cold, but even as I felt water seeping into my gloves and booties, I realized, with a happy shock that at this minimal rate of cooling, I could stay in the water as long as I wanted. A new season opened, and I was not surprised to hear myself singing. Moving like a little kid in a snow suit, I paddled clumsily toward a large pitch pine that had fallen into the pond over the winter. As I approached, I could see its needles were still green, its cones closed tight, and its branches covered by sagging yellow cobwebs of algae. Among these shrouded branches danced hundreds of baby perch each the size of my finger. Waves of them flickered out from the pine tree then darted back into the dark center of the tree. They swam in tight groups and they swam singly. No matter where I looked, every nook and cranny of the fallen pine quivered with flashing stripes of yellow and gray. As I hung motionless in three feet of water watching the happy commotion, I was joined by two and then four large bass their downturned mouths giving them an air of disapproval. They swam within two or three 12 feet of me until the five of us hung in a straight line staring at the exuberant perch. “You’re wasting energy,” said the bass. “Go perch,” I whispered. Continuing to watch, I noticed that roughly half the little fish had a dot of something the size of a peppercorn on its back. It looked like mucus or gelatin. I tried to picture a perch egg. Could this blob be a remnant? Not likely. The fish had hatched a month ago, and the mucus-like blob wasn’t the same size or in the same location on each perch. Excited to have a reason to return, I planned another swim. Over the years, I had developed a real fondness for perch. Jaunty, competitive, and, of all the pond fish I knew, the most joyful. They embodied the power of the natural world. Returning three days later, I barely registered the two dead fish washed up on the beach until I pushed off and found myself swimming over a graveyard of dead perch. Belly up on the bottom, I counted several dozen of the slim silver fish as I swam toward the pine. Although I passed over two or three dead fish that had been bitten in half, the vast majority lay undisturbed, some seemingly encased in the mucus I’d seen on their backs. What had happened? Read more... Pond Stories are a collection of writings and other media from Cape Codders and visitors who love the almost 1,000 local ponds that dot the Cape. We hope this collection of stories awakens your inner environmentalist to think deeper about our human impacts to these unique bodies of water. Send us your favorite pond photo, story, poem, video, artwork--we want to share with everyone why the Cape's ponds and lakes are so special! Email your pond connection to kandres@apcc.org Water Use Restrictions Already Posted in Your Town? Get Your Rain Barrels to Catch Spring Rains! APCC Rain Barrel Program $99 includes delivery to your door via FedEx. Upcycle Products repurposes food barrels, otherwise destined for the landfill, to make these rain barrels. Choose your color - gray, black, blue, or terracotta. For more information and to order online, CLICK HERE. 13 John Murphy's rain barrel is "looking good!"For a how-to-use video, check this out from Brewster Conservation Trust! A Cape Cod Native Plant-finder ~ to help you choose the perfect native plant for your garden location. Mountain Mint,Pycnanthemum muticum Email us at Outreach@apcc.org, 482 Main St, Dennis, MA 02638 and we'll send you a CapeCodNativePlants.org decal. 14 Get Ready! Get Set! Mark Your Calendar! Set Your Alarm Clock! APCC's 2nd Annual Native Perennial Plant Sale Online Ordering Goes Live Monday, June 6th Over two dozen species offered this year. All sales benefit APCC. Check the list of plants offered here. Sponsored by BlueFlax Design, LLC As last year, the process will be online ordering and pickup only. Orders will be taken online beginning first week of June (TBD) and you'll be contacted to confirm your order and to arrange a day and time for pickup. While our order page is not live, you can see the list of perennials plants we are hoping to have available. This will give you time to do your homework, learn about these plants, and plan your spring purchasing. Check our the list here. Note that each plant has a link to CapeCodNativePlants.org for more information about it. Looking for a speaker? Check out APCC's Speakers Bureau. APCC staff speak on a variety of topics and are available by Zoom. If interested, please contact the staff person directly to make arrangements. Are you thinking of going solar? We hope so! In partnership with SUNPOWER BY E2 SOLAR in Dennis, APCC receives $500 for every solar installation when APCC is named as referral. 15 Thank you to the homeowners who just contracted to install solar panels through E2 Solar. May the sun always shine for you! Every cup of coffee you drink could be supporting APCC's work and a local Cape Cod business. But ONLY if it's Coastal Cape Blend from Cape Cod Coffee! Order online. A portion of the proceeds for every bag of Coastal Cape Blend sold is donated to APCC. It's important to know that Cape Cod Coffee sources beans are Fair Trade & Rainforest Alliance certified, and grown without the use of pesticides. Expressions Gallery 578 Main Street, Chatham CLICK HERE Cape Cod Businesses ~ Cape Cod photography to enrich the workplace Ocean to Office. APCC has partnered with EXPRESSIONS, a fine art photography gallery located in Chatham center, to provide Cape businesses the opportunity to beautify their offices with coastal photography while directly supporting protection of our cherished environment. This special offering gives back to APCC. CLICK HERE to learn more. 16 Thank you to our business sponsors 17 Our Contact Information Association to Preserve Cape Cod 482 Main St. Dennis, MA 02638 (508) 619-3185 https://apcc.org/ Unsubscribe |Manage email preferences Donate 1 Erika Mawn From:Brewster Ponds Coalition <info@brewsterponds.org> Sent:Wednesday, June 8, 2022 6:14 AM To:Peter Lombardi Subject:Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 Update And More June 8 Update Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 — June 17th The Brewster Ponds Coalition and the Town of Brewster present Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 on Friday, June 17th from 9AM to 12 Noon at the Brewster Baptist 2 Church, 1848 Main Street, Brewster, MA. Seating is limited to 150 in person attendees. Coffee and doughnuts will be available starting at 8:30 AM. Arrive early. The summit will begin promptly at 9AM. The summit will also be livestreamed. Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 will focus on the impact of septic systems on Brewster’s groundwater and freshwater ponds, as well as potential solutions and funding mechanisms. Town officials will participate. The summit is an open forum and residents are encouraged to attend and ask questions. The Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 will consist of presentations by a panel of experts in many fields including environmental engineering, sewers, alternative septic systems and the available funding mechanisms for remediating this problem. “Septic systems are the greatest contributor to groundwater and freshwater pond degradation,” said Susan Bridges, Brewster Ponds Coalition President. The town of Brewster has been very forward thinking about protecting the watershed around our town wells, resulting in numerous awards for the quality of our drinking water. However, the portions of our town not protected by land purchases, including most of the ponds, bay water, and private wells, are experiencing increasing water quality degradation with septic systems being the number one cause. We need to address this problem, investigate our options and plan for the future.” “The Town of Brewster has always been a leader in seeking to preserve and protect our vital natural resources,” said Peter Lombardi, Brewster Town Administrator. “Maintaining and improving our water quality is a consensus priority for the community. Looking ahead, we are facing complex policy decisions with significant financial and environmental impacts on our residents. As we reflect on our progress to date and explore various potential upcoming water quality initiatives, the Town appreciates the continued partnership and support of the Brewster Ponds Coalition and looks forward to co-sponsoring this event with them.” EXPERT PANELISTS INCLUDE 3 John Keith is an environmental engineer with over 45 years of experience. He has traveled throughout the world studying and working on environmental problems. John currently works with Pure Earth, an NGO, assessing and developing cleanup plans for mercury and lead contamination sites in developing countries. Previously, John was VP of Environment and Safety for Pfizer and Assistant Commissioner of the NJ DEP. In his career he has designed and operated several wastewater treatment plants and assessed water pollution problems in numerous locations. He is a founding member and currently Vice- President of the Brewster Ponds Coalition. Mark Nelson — Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Sandwich, MA. Mark is a Principal and Senior Hydrogeologist with over 30 years of experience in water resource planning focusing on wastewater management and its impacts to drinking water, freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. He has been working for the Town of Brewster since 2011 on the development and implementation of the Town’s Integrated Water Resource Management Plan, including plans to protect and restore Brewster’s freshwater ponds. Brian Dudley — Worked for MassDEP for 32 years,retiring in December 2021 as the Wastewater Management Section Chief for the Cape and Islands. His responsibilities included permitting, compliance and enforcement and administering groundwater and Title 5 regulations. Additionally, he served as the Project Manager for the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and helped develop the 4 first of its kind watershed permit for the Pleasant Bay watershed. Prior to arriving at MassDEP, he worked for a private consulting firm in Falmouth. Brian Baumgaertel — Director of the Massachusetts Alternative Septic System Test Center, Sandwich, MA.Brian is a Senior Environmental Specialist at the Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment. He is a Registered Sanitarian, Environmental Health Specialist, Title 5 Soil Evaluator and Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator. Originally from Upstate New York, Brian has lived on Cape Cod for 15 years and currently resides in Mashpee, where he serves as Chair of the local Board of Health. Nathaniel Keenan, Massachusetts Clean Water Trust — Nate Keenan is Deputy Director of the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust where he has worked since 2011. During that time, he has worked to execute over $1 billion in bond issuances, drafted the Trust’s first Green Bond and Sustainability Bond disclosure language, and developed a lead and copper pipe testing and remediation program for schools in Massachusetts. Nate graduated with a Bachelor’s Degree from Saint Michael’s College and a Master’s Degree from Suffolk University. Click Image Below To Watch Lower Cape TV Video About Upcoming Brewster Ponds Summit 2022 5 Weed Watchers Workshop Back by popular demand, learn how to identify invasive aquatic plants, understand how they spread, and what to do if you find them. Join Jim Straub and Tim Flannery from the MA Department of Conservation & Recreation Lakes & Ponds Program for this free program to help us maintain the health of Brewster’s ponds! Participation is limited. Participants are encouraged to bring plants (rooted or floating) from their own ponds. Register Today 6 BPC Cycling Group — Free & Fun Bike Rides This Summer 2021 Cycling Tour Group Photo courtesy of Pomeroy Photography Join us this summer for four (4) FREE Cycling Tours as we explore the backroads and kettle ponds of Brewster and beyond. CYCLING TOUR #1 Thursday June 30, 2022 Time: 9:15AM PARTICIPATION COSTS FREE!! Ride the Cape Cod Rail Trail past four kettle ponds and into Harwich. Perhaps a rest stop in Harwich center for a drink and a stop at one of Brewster's kettle ponds on the return and perhaps a dip in the pond? Meet-up instructions will be provided prior to the event. 7 Read the BPC Cycling group “Rules of the Road” before signing up! Sign Up and Reserve a Spot Now! Each participant must register individually. Each ride is limited to 12 participants. Free to BPC Members. Save these dates! Location and directions to be announced. All rides start at 9:30 AM. Future cycle tours: Thursday July 28, Thursday August 25, Thursday September 22, 2022 SUBSCRIBE Call 508-258-9801 for more information Copyright © 2022 Brewster Ponds Coalition, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you are a member or expressed interest in the Brewster Ponds Coalition. Our mailing address is: Brewster Ponds Coalition P.O. Box 459 Brewster, MA 02631 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? 8 You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list This email was sent to plombardi@brewster-ma.gov why did I get this?unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Brewster Ponds Coalition · P.O. Box 459 · Brewster, MA 02631 · USA Select Board FY23-24 Strategic Plan UPDATED DRAFT 08.22.22 Vision Building Block Goal #Goal Description Timeline Degree of Complexity Vision Plan / Local Comprehensive Plan FY22-23 SB Plan Primary Responsible Party Other Key Stakeholders Former Sea Camps Properties SC-1 Complete discovery phase, including building inventories/ assessments, and continue to implement interim property management plan FY23 Medium X Town Administration and Bay & Pond Property Planning Committees Town Staff SC-2 Continue to develop/refine and implement interim public access/use plans FY23-24 Higher X X Town Administration and Bay & Pond Property Planning Committees Select Board; BPPC & PPPC Liaisons, Representatives, and Town Staff SC-3 Launch community planning process, engage residents and stakeholders, determine support for constructing new community center on bay property, and develop long-term comprehensive plans for both properties FY23-24 Higher X X Town Administration and Bay & Pond Property Planning Committees Select Board; BPPC & PPPC Liaisons, Representatives, and Town Staff SC-4 Continue to explore potential short- and long-term partnerships that may mitigate acquisition costs or operating expenses and may provide enhanced services, programs, or amenities for residents FY23-24 Medium X X Town Administration and Bay & Pond Property Planning Committees Select Board; BPPC & PPPC Liaisons and Representatives, and Town Staff Community Character CC-1 Adopt and implement 5-year Community Preservation Plan and seek adoption of proposed bylaw amendments to support maximum flexibility to fund projects to meet community needs FY23 Lower X Community Preservation Committee Town Administration; Select Board; Finance Committee; Open Space Committee; Affordable Housing Trust; Historical Commission; Recreation Commission CC-2 Identify and evaluate benefits of introducing/ expanding targeted local tax relief options FY23 Medium X X Finance Team Select Board; Finance Committee; Board of Assessors; Brewster Association of Part-Time Residents CC-3 Complete sociodemographic study to inform next steps in crafting and advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives FY23 Lower X X Town Administration Select Board; Human Resources Dept; Town Staff Open Space OS-1 Complete design and implement updated Drummer Boy Park Master Plan Phase I improvements in coordination with Wing Island Boardwalk project FY23-24 Medium X X Town Administration Select Board; Natural Resources Commission & Dept; Department of Public Works; Brewster Conservation Trust; Brewster Historical Society OS-2 Identify and resolve private party encroachments on Town land FY23-24 Lower Town Administration & Natural Resources Dept Select Board; Conservation Commission; Water Commission & Dept; Brewster Conservation Trust Housing H-1 Develop five-year financial plan for Affordable Housing Trust and determine whether additional funding streams should be explored to support housing initiatives at a range of income levels FY23 Medium X X Affordable Housing Trust & Finance Team Select Board; Finance Committee; Housing Coordinator H-2 Begin implementing updated Housing Production Plan priority strategies FY23 Medium X X Affordable Housing Trust & Housing Coordinator Select Board; Planning Board; Housing Partnership; Town Administration; Planner H-3 Continue to provide support services to residents, including CDBG housing rehabilitation and childcare vouchers FY23-24 Medium X Housing Coordinator Select Board; Town Administration; Affordable Housing Trust; Human Services Committee; Council on Aging H-4 Advance Millstone Road Community Housing project FY23-24 Higher X X Town Administration & Housing Coordinator Select Board; Affordable Housing Trust; Community Preservation Committee; Planning Dept & Zoning Board of Appeals 1 Select Board FY23-24 Strategic Plan UPDATED DRAFT 08.22.22 Vision Building Block Goal #Goal Description Timeline Degree of Complexity Vision Plan / Local Comprehensive Plan FY22-23 SB Plan Primary Responsible Party Other Key Stakeholders Local Economy LE-1 Define and provide necessary supports to effectively implement electronic permitting and invest in phased digitization of Town records FY23 Medium X X Town Administration Select Board; IT Director; Building Dept; Health Dept; Planning Dept LE-2 Continue to host semi-annual roundtable with Town officials, Chamber of Commerce, and local business community to build on increased outreach and communication developed during pandemic FY23-24 Lower X X Town Administration Select Board; Town Staff; Chamber of Commerce LE-3 Develop Guide to Doing Business in Brewster FY24 Medium X Town Administration Building Dept; Health Dept; Planning Dept; Natural Resources Dept; Town Clerk; Chamber of Commerce Coastal Management CM-1 Complete design and permitting of Wing Island boardwalk FY23 Higher X X Town Administration Select Board; Conservation Commission; Natural Resources Commission & Dept; Department of Public Works; Brewster Conservation Trust; Cape Cod Museum of Natural History CM-2 Consider merits of Cape Cod Commission's model coastal resiliency bylaws/regulations and potential implementation FY23-24 Medium X Planning Dept Planning Board; Town Administration; Board of Health & Health Dept; Conservation Commission & Natural Resources Dept; Building Dept Water Resources WR-1 Convene a new Water Resources Task Force and develop updated plan and timeline for advancing integrated water quality initiatives, to include addressing DEP’s proposed changes to Title V regulations and continuing collaboration with external stakeholders FY23-24 Higher X X Water Resources Task Force Town Administration; Select Board; Natural Resources Commission & Dept; Water Commission & Dept; Board of Health & Health Dept; Planning Board & Dept; Finance Committee; Brewster Ponds Coalition WR-2 Continue to educate public about new stormwater bylaw/regulations and consider refinements as needed FY23 Lower X X Planning Dept Planning Board; Town Administration; Conservation Commission & Natural Resources Dept; Building Dept Community Infrastructure CI-1 Determine support for advancing proposed Brewster Ladies Library renovation project FY23 Lower Select Board Town Administration; Brewster Ladies Library Association & Library Dept CI-2 Conduct a needs assessment and develop FY24-28 COA (Age Friendly) Community Action Plan FY23 Medium X Council on Aging Board & Dept Select Board; Town Administration; Bay Property Planning Committee CI-3 Work with Nauset School officials to clarify process and timeline of next steps regarding results of Elementary School Consolidation Feasibility Study, especially in relation to other potential Town & School capital investments FY23 Medium X X Select Board & Town Administration Brewster School Committee & Nauset Administration; Finance Committee CI-4 Complete Millstone Road project final design/ permitting and create Road Capital Prioritization Plan FY22-23 Higher X X DPW Director & Town Administration Select Board; Finance Committee CI-5 Develop policy to clarify provision of Town services on private roads and consider potential amendments to private road betterment bylaw FY23-24 Medium DPW Director & Town Administration Select Board; Public Safety Team; Planning Dept & Planning Board; Finance Team 2 Select Board FY23-24 Strategic Plan UPDATED DRAFT 08.22.22 Vision Building Block Goal #Goal Description Timeline Degree of Complexity Vision Plan / Local Comprehensive Plan FY22-23 SB Plan Primary Responsible Party Other Key Stakeholders Governance G-1 Establish and communicate budget capacity to Nauset School officials based on the Town’s current and long- term fiscal sustainability FY23 Medium X Select Board & Town Administration Finance Committee & Finance Team; Nauset Regional School Committee; Brewster School Committee; Nauset School Administration; Nauset region Town officials G-2 Launch new Town website and identify preferred enhancements to current communications model FY23 Medium X X Town Administration Select Board; IT Dept; BGTV G-3 Establish process to revise Brewster Town seal & draft related use policy FY23-24 Medium Select Board Town Administration & Town Staff G-4 Evaluate potential amendments to noise bylaw and/or develop entertainment license regulations FY23 Lower Select Board & Town Administration Town Staff G-5 Finalize, adopt, and implement Local Comprehensive Plan and monitor progress FY23-24 Medium X X Vision Planning Committee, Select Board, and Planning Board Planning Dept; Town Administration; Town Staff G-6 Develop and launch capital budget and other transparency features of new online platform to continue to improve accessibility of Town finances FY23 Medium X X Finance Team Select Board; Finance Committee G-7 Support Human Resource Department by: 1. Continuing to implement findings from HR audit, including development of employee handbook 2. Continuing to monitor and support employee wellness 3. Creating programs to recognize Town staff/volunteers for their community service FY23-24 Medium X X Town Administration Select Board; Human Resources G-8 Identify priority areas to increase organizational capacity to meet enhanced service needs and expanded project demands and develop long-term financing plan to fund necessary personnel FY23-24 Medium X X Town Administration & Finance Team Select Board; Finance Committee; Town Staff G-9 Consider need for and structure of new Parks & Recreation Department responsible for management of Drummer Boy Park, former Sea Camps, Dog Park, and other existing recreational amenities/programs FY23-24 Higher X X Town Administration Select Board; Finance Team; Human Resources; Recreation Dept & Commission; Natural Resources Dept; Department of Public Works G-10 Develop standard criteria and process to evaluate potential land acquisitions and consider establishing municipal land acquisition committee FY23 Medium X Select Board Town Administration; Open Space Committee; Affordable Housing Trust; Water Commission Climate Mitigation & Adaptation CA-1 Develop and implement updated staffing and committee model that reflects the Town’s commitment to comprehensively advancing energy, climate change, and resiliency initiatives FY23 Medium X Town Administration Select Board; Energy Committee & Manager CA-2 Develop net zero energy roadmap FY24 Higher X X Town Administration Energy Committee & Manager; Select Board; Facilities Manager Solid Waste Management SW-1 Complete site assessment and determine next steps to improve Department of Public Works and Recycling Center property and facilities FY23 Lower X DPW Director Town Administration; Select Board; Recycling Commission SW-2 Continue hydration station installation project FY23-24 Lower X Water Superintendent Town Administration; Select Board; Recycling Committee; Water Commission; Facilities Manager 3 From: Arlynn L. Consiglio <consiglioal@nausetschools.org> Sent: Thursday, August 4, 2022 3:04 PM To: John Kelly <jkelly@town.orleans.ma.us>; Jacqui Beebe <jacquiwildes@comcast.net>; Peter Lombardi <plombardi@brewster-ma.gov>; Richard Waldo <richard.waldo@wellfleet-ma.gov> Cc: Giovanna Venditti <vendittig@nausetschools.org>; Brooke Clenchy <clenchyb@nausetschools.org> Subject: Nauset High School Building Project Update - From Superintendent Clenchy & Director Venditti Good afternoon everyone, We wanted to provide you all with an update on the High School building project. Tomorrow afternoon at 1:00 p.m. the Building Committee will convene to discuss whether to reissue the RFQ for General Contractors pursuant to M.G.L. c.149, §44D 1/2(i), with potential modifications to language and whether to reject all filed sub-bids and issue a new invitation to bid, with potential modifications to language. This meeting is being scheduled to consider these issues at the recommendation of the OPM and Designer, after consultation with NRSD counsel, to address certain technical issues that arose during the prequalification and bidding process as well as issues related to delays from ongoing bid protests. Without going into specifics at this time, we wanted to let you know that this now affects the timeline of the project with respect to the project overall. You are welcome to join the meeting tomorrow to participate in the meeting presentation and discussions. If after the meeting there are any questions that you may have we can schedule a telephone conference call or a Zoom meeting later. Linked here is the agenda and meeting link. Looking forward to seeing everyone at the meeting tomorrow. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to either Superintendent Clenchy or Director Venditti via telephone or email if you have any questions. Thank you. Superintendent Brooke Clenchy Director Giovanna Venditti Arlynn L. Consiglio (she/her) Executive Assistant to the Superintendent Notary Public Recording Secretary Nauset Public Schools 78 Eldredge Park Way Orleans, MA 02653 (508) 255-8800 ext. 7002 consiglioal@nausetschools.org Follow us on Twitter:@NausetSupt NAUSET REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL – Revised schedule PREQUALIFICATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS : AUGUST 10,2022 THRU AUGUST 31,2022 Advertisement appears in the central register 8/10/2022 Prequalification documents due 8/17/2022 Prequalification committee review 8/18/2022 thru 8/30/2022 School building committee approval 8/31/2022 NRHS REBID: AUGUST 9,2022 THRU OCTOBER 19 ,2022 Amendment to reject all bids 8/9/2022 Advertisement appears in the central register for rebid 8/17/2022 Filed Sub-Bids due 9/7/2022 General Bids due 10/12/2022 School building committee approval 10/19/2022 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1: AWARD NOVEMBER 1, 2022 THRU AUGUST 30, 2024 The contract milestones are as follows: Owner’s Move-out of F, G, E & N: 12/1/2022 through 1/1/2023 Mobilize site: 11/1/2022 Temporary Parking & Bus Drop-off Milestone Completion: 11/1/22 through 1/1/2023 Mobilize to F, G, E, & N: 1/2/2023 Completion of F, G, E, & N: 7/1/2024 Owner’s Move-in of F, G, E, & N: 7/2/2024 thru 8/30/2024 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PHASE 2: AUGUST 1, 2024 THRU AUGUST 30, 2025 The contract milestones are as follows: Mobilize site: 8/1/2024 Completion: 7/1/2025 Owner’s Move-in: 7/2/2025 thru 8/30/2025 BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PHASE 3: JULY 2, 2025 THRU NOVEMBER 2, 2025 The contract milestones are as follows: Mobilize site: 7/2/2025 Completion: 11/2/2025 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FY2021 & FY2022 BUDGET WORKSHEET RESERVE FOR NEGOTIATION ALLOCATION Nauss S hoot Original Final Expenditures Original I Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020.2021 2020-2021 2021.2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 ..0 Salaries Principals 8301 $391,267 $9,782 $401,049 $398,223 $391,267 $12,880 $404,147 Salaries Admin. Asst. 8302 $145,921 $5,735 $151,656 $151,656 $145,921 $9,272 $155,193 Substitutes Admin. Asst. 8303 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Svcs Office Equipment 8304 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Su Iles General Office 8305 $5,000 $5,000 $5,791 $4,000 $4,000 Other Office Expenses 8306 $17,700 $17,700 $7,080 $15,700 $15,700 Salaries Department Heads 8307 $56,661 $56,661 $52,800 $56,661 $56,661 Contracted Svcs Non-Instr Technology 8308 $59,857 $59,857 $74,643 $74,850 $74,850 Supplies Non-Instr Technology 8309 $5,000 $5,000 $2,812 $3,000 $3,000 Hardware Non-lnstr Technology 8310 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $681,406 $15,517 $696,923 $693,005 $691,399 522.152 $713,551 Salaries Teachers 8311 $6,416,662 $218,441 $6,635,103 $6,764,558 $6,240,774 $658,469 $6,899,243 Salaries Librarian 8404 $100,476 $2,512 $102,988 $103,488 $0 $0 Stipends Teachers 8312 $93,759 $93,759 $1,591 $3,142 $3,142 Stipends Mentors 8313 $10,110 $10,110 $4,399 $8,813 $8,813 Salaries Tutors 8401 $7,400 $7,400 $1,279 $4,000 _ $4,000 Salaries Coord & Team Leaders 8314 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Substitutes Teachers 8315 $37,500 $37,500 $51,335 $49,495 $49,495 Substitutes Long Term _ 8316 $35,000 $35,000 $138,330 $60,785 $60,785 Salaries Ed Assistants 8317 $27,236 $2,671 $29,907 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Svcs Prof Development 8320 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Professional Development 8321 $8,000 $8,000 $3,108 $8,000 $8,000 Salaries Teacher/lnstr Prof Days 8318 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Substitutes Prof Development _ 8319 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $6,736,143 $223,624 $6,959,767 $7,068,088 $6,375,009 $658,469 $7,033,478 1 Nauset High School Original Final Expenditures Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Textbooks/Software & Media 8322 $41,900 $41,900 $6,508 $39,621 $39,621 Contracted Svcs Intructional Mater 8324 $3,225 $3.225 $4,462 $3,331 $3,331 Other Instructional Materials 8323 $68,917 $68,917 $25,624 $71,336 $71,336 Instructional Equipment 8325 $43,500 $43,500 $27,888 $39.870 $39,870 Supplies General 8326 $10,771 $10,771 $9,672 $8,715 $8.715 _ Contracted Svcs Other Instr Service 8327 $14,589 $14,589 $18,410 $28,465 $28,465 Other Instructional Services 8328 $9,000 $9,000 $5,910 $13,329 $13,329 Contracted Svcs Instructional Tech 8329 $41,976 $41,976 $108,382 $66,263 $66,263 Supplies Instructional Technology 8330 $4,812 $4,812 $584 $3,267 $3.267 Library/Media Instr Hardware 8331 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Classroom Instructional Hardware 8332 $113,740 $113,740 $50,861 $84,676 $84,676 Instructional Software 8333 $3,800 $3,800 $915 $19,051 $19,051 Supplies -Other Instructional Services 8406 $800 $800 $422 $1,857 $1,857 $357,030 $0 $357,030 $259,638 $379,781 $0 $379,781 8334 Salaries Guidance Counselors $545.849 $36,629 $582,478 $563,826 $606,081 $34,578 $640,659 Salaries Admin. Asst. Guidance 8335 $38,869 $2.142 $41,011 $39,334 $38,869 $3,952 $42,821 Supplies Guidance 8336 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other Guidance 8337 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Services Testing 8338 $2,500 $2,500 $3,174 $2,997 $2,997 $587,218 $38,771 $625,989 $606,334 $647,947 $38,530 $686,477 Salaries Nurse 8339 $108,304 $5,223 $113,527 $90,199 $108,304 $4,877 $113,181 Substitute Nurse 8340 $0 $0 $9,957 $0 $0 Contracted Svcs Medical/Health 8341 $1,500 $1,500 $1,269 $1,530 $1,530 Supplies Medical/Health 8342 $2,000 $2,000 $331 $2,000 $2,000 Other Medical/Health 8343 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $111,804 $5,223 $117,027 $101,756 $111,834 $4,877 $116,711 Salaries Athletics 8348 $432,171 $10,771 $442,942 $441,646 $432,171 $24,754 $456,925 Transportation Contracted Svcs Ath 8349 $55,000 $55,000 $33,213 $62,809 $62,809 Contracted Services Officials 8350 $35,000 $35,000 $22,669 $36,031 $36,031 Contracted Services Athletics 8400 $48,000 $48.000 $48,913 $57,826 $57,826 Supplies Athletics 8351 $10,000 $10,000 $21,485 $28,384 $28,384 . Other Athletics 8352 $17,000 $17,000 $13,033 $20,025 $20,025 $597,171 $10,771 $607,942 $580,959 $637,246 $24,754 $662,000 2 Original Final Expenditures Original Niuset High School Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Final Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Cafeteria Salaries 8 8409 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cafe Other 8 8410 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Salaries Student Activities 8353 $41,300 $41,300 $33,655 $38,165 $38,165 Other Activities Expense 8383 $12,000 $12,000 $10,495 $14,957 $14,957 $53,300 $0 $53,300 $44,150 $53,122 $0 $53,122 Salaries Custodians 8354 $385,678 $10,753 $396,431 $408,878 $385,678 Substitutes Custodians 8355 $0 $0 $0 $0 $22,646 $408,324 Overtime Custodians 8356 $2,000 $2,000 $2,459 $2.000 $0 $2.000 Contracted Services Custodial 8357 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies Custodial 8358 $40,250 $40,250 $31,028 $41,256 Other Custodial Expense 8359 $0 $0 $6,298 $0 $41,256 $0 Fuel Oil/Gas 8364 $112,963 $112,963 $106,170 $112,963 $112,963 Propane 8365 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Electric Service 8366 $102,389 $102,389 $102,872 $102,389 Telephone 8367 $15,200 $15,200 $10,048 $15,200 $102,389 Water 8368 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,200 $658,480 $10,753 $669,233 $667,753 $659,486 $22,646 $0 $682,132 Contracted Services Grounds 8360 $18,500 $18,500 $35,261 $18,500 Contracted Services Buildings 8361 $16,000 $16,000 $60,944 $16,000 $18,500 Contracted Services Security 8363 $55,000 $55,000 $55,344 $56,100 $16,000 Contracted Services Equipment 8362 $50,247 $50,247 $44,635 $51,503 $56,100 $51,503 $139,747 $0 $139,747 $196,184 $142,103 $0 $142,103 Contracted Svcs Extraordinary Main 8369 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies Extraordinary Maintenance 8370 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Acquisition of Equipment 8371 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 3 Nauset High School Original Final Expenditures Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020.2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 SE Salaries Department Heads 8399 $0 $0 $5,280 $0 $0 SE Salaries Teachers 8372 $599,542 $40,803 $640,345 $643,100 $599,542 $39,139 $638,681 SE Salaries Summer School 8373 $10,000 $10,000 $10,328 $17,000 $17,000 SE Salaries Tutors 8374 $21,500 $21,500 $0 $21,500 $21,500 SE Contracted Services Tutors 8375 $10,000 $10,000 $8,464 $10,000 $10,000 SE Salaries Speech Therapeutic 8376 $142,635 $3,536 $146,171 $145,145 $142,635 $6,914 $149,549 SE Contracted Svcs OT/PT 8377 $0 $0 $1,130 $0 $0 SE Substitutes 8378 $0 $0 $2,856 $0 $0 SE Substitutes Long Term 8379 $0 $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 SE Salaries Ed Assistants 8380 $479,333 $22,223 $501,556 $501,197 $479,333 $31,081 $510,414 Special Education Coordinator 8415 $0 $0 $46,000 $46,000 $2,093 $48,093 $1,263,010 $66,562 $1,329,572 $1,363,500 $1,331,010 $79,227 $1,410,237 SE Textbooks/Software/Media 8381 $1,200 $1,200 $690 $965 $965 SE Other Instructional Materials 8382 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Supplies General 8384 $10,500 $10,500 $155 $0 $0 SE Contracted Svcs Other Instruction 8385 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 SE Other Expense SE Supplies Instructional Technology 8386 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8387 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Instructional Hardware 8388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Instructional Software 8389 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,700 $0 $11,700 $845 $5,965 $0 $5,965 SE Salaries Psychologist 8390 $71,018 $7,480 $78,498 $80,832 $71,018 $12,081 $83,099 SE Salaries Secretaries 8391 $47,013 $1,137 $48,150 $48,247 $47,013 $2,073 $49,086 SE Supplies Guidance 8392 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Other Guidance 8393 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Supplies Testing & Assessment 8394 $0 $0 $1,483 $0 $0 SE Contracted Services Psychological 8395 $26,500 $26,500 $11,444 $26,985 $26,985 $144,531 $8,617 $153,148 $142,006 $145,016 $14,154 $159,170 4 Original Final Expenditures Original Final Nauset High School Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 ACCESS PROGRAM 13105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Collaborative Assessment 8398 $919 $919 $855 $877 $877 $919 $0 $919 $855 $877 $0 $877 Salary Technology Support 8412 $133,473 $3,336 $136,809 $135,925 $109,980 $109,980 $133,473 $3,336 $136,809 $135,925 $109,980 $0 $109,980 RESERVED FOR NEGOTIATION $383,174 $0 $864,809 FY23 BUDGET GRAND TOTAL $11,859,106 $11,859,106 $11,860,998 $12,155,584 $12,155,584 NOTE: Final Budget reflects Reserve for Negotiation allocation upon the completion of the Collective Bargaining Units' contracts. NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT _ FY2021 & FY2022 BUDGET WORKSHEET RESERVE FOR NEGOTIATION ALLOCATION Nauset Middle School Salaries Principals Salaries Admin. Asst. Substitutes Admin. Asst. Contracted Services Original Budget 2020-2021 RESERVE NEGOTIATION ALLOCATION Final Budget 2020-2021 Expenditures Actual 2020-2021 Original Budget 2021-2022 RESERVE NEGOTIATION ALLOCATION Final Budget 2021-2022 Supplies and Equipment Other Office Expenses Salaries Department Head 8001 $245,000 8002 $97,960 $6,125 $2,145 $251,125 $100,105 $261,418 $112,422 $245,000 $110,109 $12,397 $4,135 $257,397 $114,244 8003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8004 $5,123 $5,123 $4,613 $5,251 $5.2.51 8005 $13,117 $13,117 $7,361 $13,445 $13,445 8006 $5,028 $5,028 $4,426 $5.155 $5,155 8007 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Svcs Non-Inst Technology_ 8008 $48,770 Supplies & Equipment Non-Instr Tech 8009 $4,324 Hardware Non-Instr Technology $48,770 $4,324 $32,759 $0 $56,251 $4,432 $56,251 $4,432 8010 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $419,322 $8,270 $427,592 $422,999 $439,643 $16,532 $456,175 Salaries Teachers Salaries Librarian Stipends Teachers 8011 $3,689,243 $146,590 $3,835,833 $3,909,087 $3,639,366 $376,933 $4,016,299 8104 8012 $94,634 $2,366 $97,000 $97,000 $94,634 $4,306 $98,940 $9,512 $9,512 $750 $9,512 $9,512 Stipends Mentors 8013 Salary ELL Teacher 8108 Tutor Salaries ELL Contracted Service Salaries Coord & Team Leaders Substitutes Teachers Substitutes Long Term Salaries Ed Assistants $1,688 $1,688 $2,469 $3,033 $3,033 $55,812 $4,648 $60,460 $50,511 $55,812 $9,209 $65,021 8100 8101 8014 Substitute Ed Assistants Contracted Svcs Prof Development Other Professional Development Salaries Teacher/Instr Prof Days Substitutes Prof Development 8015 8016 8017 8103 8020 8021 8018 8019 $22,391 $0 $36,367 $0 $22,391 $0 $36,367 $991 $0 $34,872 $22,261 $0 $37,973 $0 $22,261 $0 $37,973 $35,685 $35,685 $16,712 $36,577 $36,577 $0 $0 $32,889 $30,000 $30,000 $66,452 $3,788 $70,240 $72,240 $66,452 $11,464 $77,916 $2,664 $2,664 $3,150 $2,730 $2,730 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 $5,000 $5,228 $5,228 $1,049 $5,360 $5,360 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,019,676 $157,392 $4,177,068 $4,221,720 $4,008,710 $401,912 $4,410,622 1 - -I Nauset Middle School Original Final Expenditures Original Final 8022 Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2021-2022 2021-2022 Textbooks/Software & Media $5,819 $5,819 $44,162 $52,787 $52,787 Other Instructional Materials _ _ Contracted Svcs Instructional Matls 8023 $30,774 $30,774 $16,833 $24,347 $24,347 8024 8025 $968 $968 $10,303 $968 $968 Instructional Equipment $11,428 $11,428 $174,854 $7,869 $7,869 Supplies General 8026 8027 8106 $19,359 $19,359 $15,636 $19,843 $19,843 Contracted Svcs Other Instr Services _ Supplies -Other Instructional Svcs. $6,010 $6,010 $637 $6,160 $6,160 $1,045 $1,045 $66 $1,071 $1,071 Contracted Svs Instr Equipment Other Instructional Services 8111 $19,127 $19,127 $6,812 $19,605 $19,605 8028 $836 $836 $0 $857 $857 Contracted Svcs Instructional Tech _ Supplies Instructional Technology _. Library/Media Instr Hardware 8029 8030 8031 8032 8033 $13,866 $13,866 $17,176 $29,620 $29,620 $3,654 $3,654 $1,651 $3,745 $3,745 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Classroom Instructional Hardware $76,040 $76,040 -$3,680 $82,415 $82,415 Instructional Software $470 $470 $0 $482 $482 $189,396 $0 $189,396 $284,450 $249,769 $0 $249,769 Salaries Guidance Counselors 8034 $376,973 $12,236 $389,209 $389,209 $376,973 $24,018 $400,991 Salaries Guidance Secretary 8035 8036 $52,557 $2,942 $55,499 $55,791 $52,557 $5,448 $58,005 Supplies Guidance $1,045 $1,045 $0 $1,071 $1,071 Other Guidance 8037 $523 $523 $0 $0 $0 Contracted Services Testing 8038 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $431,098 $15,178 $446,276 $445,000 $430,601 $29,466 $460,067 Salaries Nurse 8039 $115,153 $5,944 $121,097 $105,620 $115,153 $5,813 $120,966 Substitute Nurse 8040 $0 $0 $799 $400 $400 Contracted Svcs Medical/Health 8041 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies Medical/Health 8042 $1,802 $1,802 $2,210 $1,847 $1,847 Other Medical/Health 8043 $824 $824 $276 $845 $845 $117,779 $5,944 $123,723 $108,905 $118,245 $5,813 $124,058 2 Nauset Middle School Original Final Expenditures Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2021-2022 Budget 2021-2022 Salaries Athletics 8048 $52,041 $52,041 $36,771 $52,041 $1,308 $53,349 Transportation Athletics 8049 $15,648 $15,648 $2,756 $16,039 Officials 8050 $7,356 $7,356 $1,175 $7,356 $16,039 $7,356 Supplies Athletics 8051 $4,955 $4,955 $1,881 $5,079 $5,079 Other Athletics 8052 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $80,000 $42,583 $80,515 $1,308 $81,823 Other Student Activity Expense 8107 8053 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Salaries Student Activities $41,070 $41,070 $4,770 $41,686 541.686 $41,070 $0 $41,070 $4,770 $41,686 $0 $41,686 Cafe Salaries 8109 8110 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Cafe Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Salaries Custodians 8054 $414,636 $14,331 $428,967 $424,216 $414,636 $4,925 $419,561 Substitutes Custodians 8055 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Overtime Custodians 8056 $4,223 $4,223 $0 $4,223 $4.223 Contracted Services Custodial 8057 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Supplies Custodial 8058 8059 8064 8065 8066 8067 $51,445 $51,445 $42,109 $52,731 $52,731 Other Custodial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Fuel Oil $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Natural Gas $103,240 $103,240 $88,610 $103,240 $103,240 Electric Service $70,724 $70,724 $96,229 $70,724 $70,724 Telephone $6,200 $6,200 $7,816 $6,200 $6,200 Water 8068 $8,000 $8,000 $5,000 $8,000 $8.000 $658,468 514,331 $672,799 $663,980 $659,754 $4,925 $664,679 3 Nauset Middle School Original Final Expenditures Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Contracted Services Grounds 8060 $4,139 $4,139 $5,584 $4,243 $4,243 Contracted Services Buildings 8061 $35,533 $35,533 $40,488 $38,143 $38,143 Contracted Services Security 8063 $68,948 $68,948 $78,374 $69,990 $69,990 Contracted Services Equipment 8062 $13,162 $13,162 $1,211 $13,491 $13,491 $121,782 $0 $121,782 $125,657 $125,867 $0 $125,867 Contracted Svcs Extraordinary Maint Supplies Extraordinary Maintenance 8069 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 8070 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Acquisition of Equipment 8071 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Acquisition of Buses & Vans 8105 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Salaries Teachers 8072 8073 $780,709 $41,987 $822,696 $766,200 $740,059 $16,915 $756,974 SE Salaries Summer School $22,550 $22,550 $23,291 $24,354 $24,354 _ SE Tutor Salaries 8074 $0 $0 $0 $2,000 $2,000 SE Contracted Services Tutors 8075 $0 $0 $2,948 $2,000 $2,000 SE Salaries Therapeutic 8076 $166,916 -$281 $166,635 $166,358 $159,518 $159,518 SE Contr Svcs OT/PT 8077 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Substitutes 8078 $9,411 $9,411 $1,653 $9,646 $9,646 SE Substitutes Long Term 8079 $0 $0 $1,881 $0 $0 SE Ed Assistants Salaries 8080 $831,175 $36,564 $867,739 $693,652 $780,121 $0 $780,121 SE Substitutes Ed Assistants 8113 $10,456 $10,456 $7,234 $10,717 $10,717 _ Special Education Coordinator 8115 $0 $0 $46,000 $46,000 $2,093 $48,093 SE Stipend Prof Dev. 8099 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $738 $738 $1,822,217 $78,270 $1,900,487 $1,709,217 $1,775,153 $19,008 $1,794,161 4 Nauset Middle School Or'Original Final Ex enditures Or'Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 SE Textbooks/Software/Media 8081 $784 $784 $157 $804 $804 SE Other Instructional Materials 8082 $2,316 $2,316 $0 $2,374 $2,374 SE Instructional Equipment 8083 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Supplies General 8084 $0 $0 $1,671 $0 $0 SE Contr Svcs Other Instr 8085 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Other Expense 8086 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Supplies Instructional Tech 8087 $2,791 $2,791 $0 $2,861 $2,861 SE Instructional Hardware 8088 $5,855 $5,855 $139 $6,001 $6,001 SE Instructional Software 8089 $2,616 $2,616 $0 $2,681 $2 681 $14,362 $0 $14,362 $1,967 $14,721 $0 $14,721 SE Salaries Guidance 8090 $93,192 -$39,729 $53,463 $62,222 $60,704 $7,941 $68.645 SE Salaries Secretaries 8091 $45,736 $0 $45,736 $48,359 $45,736 $500 $46,236 SE Supplies Guidance 8092 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Other Guidance 8093 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SE Supplies Testing & Assess 8094 $1,646 $1,646 $334 $1,688 $1,688 $140,574 -$39,729 $100,845 $110,915 $108,128 $8,441 $116,569 SE Contracted Services Psychological 8095 $25,435 $25,435 $15,713 $0 $0 SE Collaborative Assessment 8098 $591 $591 $569 $583 $583 $26,026 $0 $26,026 $16,282 $583 $0 $583 Salary Technology Support 8112 $58,059 $826 $58,885 $78,960 $51,200 $0 $51,200 $58,059 $826 $58,885 $78,960 $51,200 $0 $51,200 Technology Leadership Integration Dir. 8114 $74,676 -$2,926 $71,750 $67,308 $74,676 -$2,926 $71,750 $67,308 $71,400 $71,400 $71,400 $0 $71,400 5 J Nauset Middle School Original Final Expenditures Original Final Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 2021-2022 2021-2022 RESERVED FOR NEGOTIATION $237,556 $0 $0 $0 $487,405 $0 $0 1 FY23 BUDGET GRAND TOTAL $8,452,061 $8,452,061 $8,304,713 $8,663,380 $8,663,380 6 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 2023 BUDGET WORKSHEET RESERVE NEGOTIATION Original Final Expenditures Original Final Region Shared - CentralOffice Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Salary Superintendent 8803 $203,199 $5,081 $208,280 $273,155 $213,481 $213,481 Salary Administrative Asst. to Superintendent 8805 $89,038 $1,219 $90,257 $108,553 $80,600 $80,600 Contracted Svcs Consulting Superintendent 8807 $0 $0 $15,700 $0 $0 Meet/Dues/Subscriptions Superintendent 8808 $3,150 $3,150 $3,094 $3,150 $3,150 Travel Superintendent 8809 $2,500 $2,500 $20 $1,811 $1,811 Professional Development Superintendent 8810 $3,400 $3,400 $0 $3,400 $3,400 $301,287 $6,300 $307,587 $400,522 $302,442 $0 $302,442 Salary Director of Curriculum, Instr. & Ass. 8811 $143,080 $4,504 $147,584 $60,765 $151,473 $151,473 Salary Elementary Director of Curriculum, Inst. Ass. 8812 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Salary Administrative Assistant Superintendent 8813 $51,015 $1,504 $52,519 $21,540 $0 $0 Professional Develop Dir Curr. Inst. & Ass. 8816 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $195,095 $6,008 $201,103 $82,305 $152,473 $0 $152,473 Salary Administrator of Prof Development 8847 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $o $0 Page 1 of 4 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 2023 BUDGET WORKSHEET Original Final Expenditures Original Final Region Shared - Central Office Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Salaries Custodians 8869 $10,946 $809 $11,755 $10,658 $12,150 $12,150 $10,946 $809 $11,755 $10,658 $12,150 $0 $12,150 Salary Nurse Leader 8874 $5,151 $5,151 $5,360 $5,385 $5,385 Substitute Nurse Training 8884 $0 $0 $375 $0 $0 $5,151 $0 $5,151 $5,735 $5,385 $0 $5,385 Salary Dir of Fin & Optns 8817 $147,794 $3,694 $151,488 $155,183 $151,488 $151,488 Salary Business Office Staff 8819 $306,867 $12,558 $319,425 $341,017 $347,166 $347,166 Substitute Staffing Business Office 8821 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 General Contracted Svcs Business 8822 $15,525 $15,525 $2,542 $15,525 $15,525 Postage 8823 $5,000 $5,000 $7,160 $5,000 $5,000 Office Supplies Business 8824 $12,842 $12,842 $13,902 $12,842 $12,842 Office Equipment Business 8825 $5,600 $5,600 $5,956 $7,100 $7,100 Travel Business Manager 8826 $1,200 $1,200 $82 $462 $462 Meet/Dues/Subscriptions Business 8827 $3,550 $3,550 $4,135 $3,700 _ $3,700 Professional Development Business 8828 $1,700 $1,700 $400 $1,700 $1,700 Professional Dvlp Business Office 8829 $0 $o $o $o so $500,078 $16,252 $516,330 $530,377 $544,983 $0 $544,983 Salary Director of Student Services 8858 $150,215 $4,506 $154,721 $140,000 $142,800 $142,800 Salary Admin. Assistant to Director Student Services 8860 $71,101 $1,771 $72,872 $53,784 $56,591 $56,591 Office Supplies Dir of Student Services 8862 $500 $500 $500 $500 $500 Meet/Dues/Pub Dir Student Services 8864 $1,050 $1,050 $1,200 $1,050 $1,050 $222,866 $6,277 $229,143 $195,484 $200,941 $0 $200,941 Page 2 of 4 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 2023 BUDGET WORKSHEET Expenditures Final Original Original T Final Region Shared - Central Office Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 2021-2022 ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Salary Dir & Admin. Assistant to Human Resources 8830 $122,846 $3,716 $126,562 $130,532 $135,959 $135,959 Consulting Human Resources 8832 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Meet/Dues/Subscriptions Human Resources 8833 $350 $350 $90 $450 $450 Contracted Services Legal 8834 $9,000 $9,000 $6,392 $9,000 $9,000 Professional Dev Human Resources 8873 $0 $0 $0 $100 $100 Advertising Human Resources 8875 $2,700 $2,700 $3,150 $3,000 $3,000 $134,896 $3,716 $138,612 $140,164 $148,509 $0 $148,509 Salary Technology Coordinator 8836 $107,047 $2,676 $109,723 $125,426 $134,640 $134,640 Salary Technicians 8867 $64,636 $1,598 $66,234 $87,203 $113,118 5113,118 Contracted Svcs Technology 8838 $45,154 $45,154 $42,773 $49,745 $49,745 Computer Supplies 8840 $1,500 $1,500 $422 $1,500 51,500 Computer Software 8841 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $1,500 $1,500 Computer Hardware 8842 $2,500 $2,500 $6,688 $2,500 _ $2,500 Other Technology Expense 8843 $2,000 $2,000 $440 $2,000 $2,000 Professional Development Technology 8845 $1,000 $1,000 $0 $1,000 $1,000 $225,337 $4,274 $229,611 $262,952 $306,003 $0 $306,003 ELL Coordinator 8866 $0 $0 $5,551 $5,386 $5,386 $0 $0 $0 $5,551 $5,386 $0 $5,386 Salary Food Services Director 8879 $82,460 $2,061 $84,521 $84,934 $86,633 $86,633 Salary Food Services Bookkeeper 8882 $49,054 $2,522 $51,576 $50,880 $53,625 $53,625 Travel Food Services Director 8880 $200 $200 $0 $200 $200 $131,714 $4,583 $136,297 $135,814 $140,458 $0 $140,458 Page 3 of 4 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT FY 2023 BUDGET WORKSHEET Original Final Expenditures Original Final Region Shared - Central Office Budget RESERVE NEGOTIATION Budget Actual Budget Bud • et 2020-2021 ALLOCATION 2020-2021 2020-2021 i ALLOCATION 2021-2022 Supplies Maintenance 8850 $1,500 $1,500 Natural Gas 8851 $2,800 $2,800 8" Electricity 8852 $11,287 $11,287 $7,700 $11,287 $11,287 Telephone 8853 $4,800 $4,800 $3,192 $4,800 $4,800 Water 8854 $1,056 $1,056 $600 $1,056 $1,056 _ Contracted Svcs General Maintenance $2,500 $2,500 $14,894 $2,473 Contracted Svcs Security Contracted Svcs Extraordinary Maint. $0 Joint Comte Secretary Salary 8801 $700 $700 $700 " Membership and Consultants 8802 $14,398 $15,098 $0 $15,098 $12,481 $15,098 $0 $15,098 $48,219 RESERVED FOR NEGOTIATION $1,817,455 I $1,817,455 I $1,815,855 $1,862,854 $0 I $1,862,854 FY23 TOTAL REGION SHARED - CENTRAL OFFICE Page 4 of 4 NAUSEA' REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL COMMITTEE FINANCIAL DASHBOARD REPORTS For the Year to Date Period Ending: 6/30/2022 �--v� 8L S, 3\4atir tt tA3 1- \o t iN PAffew- ‘;,rNL Data Complete Through: Provided To School Committee: Visc A aa �y2Z rYL3 61 % �. Io'� -�u C%.W. SC O\ Sc,\No6 C\d\cQ Q ,k$?rV& 121Z5Y60 61 4 htkr log nmni►ti 6/30/2022 8/8/2022 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL COMMITTEE FINANCIAL DASHBOARD REPORTS INDEX OF REPORTS 1 Financial. Position Summary - All Funds (Monthly) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page snapshot view of the District's overall current financial status. To include projected impact on E&D based on current year budget projections; balances of other available funds and trend history of long-term obligations. Also provides indications of further commentary on each of the key financial indicators monitored by the School Committee. 2 General Fund Accounts Summary (Monthly) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page summary of the status of the District's General Fund and operating budget results. 3 Special Revenue Fund Accounts Summary (Monthly) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page summary of the status of the various District gift, grants and revolving funds. 4 Capital Project Fund Accounts Summary (Monthly) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page summary of the status of the various District capital article funds and capital project funds. 5 Variance Reporting, Commentary and Projections (Monthly for criteria determined) Intended to provide the School Committee with a summary of comments regarding the pre -determined reporting criteria for each of the dashboard reports_ 6 Comparison All Funds Summary With Prior Year (Monthly) Intended to provide the School Committee with a comparison with prior year's E & D projection with the current year. 7 Fiduciary Fund Accounts Summary (Quarterly - 9/30, 12/31, 3/31, 6/30) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page summary of the status of the various District fiduciary accounts. 8 Cash Balances (Quarterly - 9/30, ]2/31, 3/31, 6/30) Intended to provide the School Committee with a complete view of the District's cash holdings (Unreconciled Balances) 9 Cash Flow Projection (Quarterly - 9/30, 12/31, 3/31, 6/30) Intended to provide the School Committee with a one page summary of the District's cash flow for one fiscal year. 10 General Ledger Reports (Quarterly - 9/30, 12/31, 3/31, 6/30) Financial system generated reports intended to provide the School Committee with full detail of the District's financial accounts. These include: Trial Balance, by Fund Report: General Fund Revenue Ledger Report; General Fund Appropriation Ledger Report; Revolving Fund Report; Grant Fund Report NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL COMMITTEE MONTHLY FINANCIAL DASHBOARD MONTH OF: 6/30/2022 1. Financial Position Summary - All Funds Projected Excess & Deficiency Balance for 6/30/2022 FY22 budgeted revenues 33,181,968 % of FY21 budget ( 3.87% GF Unreserved Fund Balance - beg. of year ($1,050,218 certified by DOR) r 1080,528 Appropriation Savings (Deficit) 280,196 Funding Source Savings (Deficit) 923,179 Other GF Accounts Savings (Deficit) (613) Amounts voted for use= (1,000 ,000), ,000) 000) , ,... r DOR Bond Premium Reduction aAT."- "' ( + F Subtotal Projected E&D per books 6/30/22 1,283,290 Other Fund Charges (list): RF Projected Deficits GF Projected Deficits CPF Projected Deficits Fiduciary Fund Deficits Supplemental Homeless Transportation Aid Receivable Projected Certified E&D Balance 6/30/2022 1,283,290 3 Long-term Obligations & Funding (updated annually on 6/30 Dashboard) Compensated Absences OPEB Net Pension Liability Bond Anticipation Notes Long -Term Bonds 6/30/2016 6/30/2017 6/30/2018 6/30/2019 ( 6/30/2020 6/30/2021 181,624 179,104 197,537 236,791 230,381 224,295 31,280,546 28,147,561 35,408,896 39,433,573 49,245,672 36,949,151 9,413,963 10,044,929 9,865,791 11,006,024 10,189,516 9,706,479 806,650 806,650 6,806,650 3,506,060 3,325,000 3,150,000 2,975,000 2,800,000 2,625,000 6/30/2022 176,382 TBD TBD 12,806,650 2,450,000 Comments GF CF Exp. Appropriation GF Revenue Other Budget Comments Comments SRF Comments Comments a -r a -b /( Reduce FY23 Operating Assessments 151M- k., 0 ck04,4 uo conk_ 1,000,000 r/ (\ Zo23 Rkooti tt& 144-(*Al*hctOoil) - iarv.kk& Vv.xt � GNJ : CYea �c L Tyr,.t At4-446- Tockw ,5-e42 44,•Q 4-Ve. 3s.* ? Fijz� Page 3 of 18 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Monthly Financial bashboard YTD through Month of: 6/30/2022 2. General Fund Accounts Summary Net Budget (Should Be Zero 1. Appropriation Budget Status Appropriation Surplus (Deficit) 280,196 Prior FY 2022 Year YTD Current Current Budget % Budget Actual Budget Expended Encumbered Balance YE Balance Committed Debt Service 256,449 364,659 (364,659) - - 100.00% Region Only 9,973,865 10,287,050 (10,082,202) (73,171) 131,677 131,677 98.72% Region Shared 1,815,855 1,862,854 (1,857,194) (3,963) 1,697 ' 1,697 99.91% Middle School 8,304,713 8,663,380 (7,718,536) (916,603) 28,241 28,241 99.67% High School 11,860,998 12,155,584 (10,826,581) (1,210,422) 118,581 118,581 99.02% Total Budget 32,211,880 33,333,527 (30,849,172) (2,204,159) 280,196 280,196 99.16% 2. Funding Source Budget Status Funding Source Surplus (Deficit) 923,179 Prior FY 2022 Year Final YTD Prolected Projected % Budget Actual Budget Received Receivable YE Balance Projected Town Assessments 24444,549 24,746,381 24,746,381 - - 100.00% Other Assessments 875,309 971,777 1,034,294 62,517 106.43% State Base Aid 3,362,128 3,562,549 3,562,549 - 100.00% Charter School Aid 412,718 299,244 772,825 ,,� , • 'Uy\rVb�V-►`-'4) \QNNK111 061),(.\- 473,581 250.26% Transportation Aid 1,007,422 819,851 939,242 119,391 114.56% Truro & P -town Tuition 1,756,811 1,880,965 1,981,428 y� (7(v.i�4Y\,,6.k. 11\04gVv.�t\1 ,tI 100,463 105.34% District Receipts 105,919 106,000 273,227 167,227 257,76% Subtotal receipts 31,664,856 32,386,767 33,309,946 - 923,179 102.85% Applied E&D 947,914 946,760 946,760 - - 100.00% SubtotolOFS 947,914 946,760 946,760 `�Th - 100.00% Total budget 32,612,770 33,333,527 34,256,706 ( - 923,179 102.!7% 3. Other GF Account Status Other Account Surplus (Deficit) ;513) List Account Issue Financial Effect Other Fund Balance Charges: Close Community Ed Revolving deficit Savings from ph encumb. Close old grant balances Total Other GF Accounts Sch. Co AWM.$mia (25,681) 26,707 (1,639) (613) Foy 8/8/20221:36 PM 50 66 2 ✓ z\ •k0 u6,, 2a Page 4 of 18 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Monthly Financial Dashboard YTD Through Month of: 6/30)2022 3. Revolving and Grant Funds Summary Revolving Funds (RF's) (All w/negative bal. & Minimum 80% of Rev. & Exp.) Projected Gross Deficits Beginning Account Balance Receipts Expended Ending Balance Wlt $OMB, Ciiiistr HS Cafeteria 24,040 349,075 (233,875) MS Cafeteria 146,639 343,987 (267,292) Circuit Breaker 345,561 883,361 (1,051,194) School Choice 126,049 1,347,169 (1,436,339) Preschool* 97,368 1,065,941 (587,768) Cl: V.PARPtkap Fl&( 4 -.74-'Syc, et S Pht co s (cp ) All (85) other RF's 456,896 671,070 (688,363) - �, 139,240 223,334 177,728 36,879 575,541 439,603 Total RF's 1,196,553 4,660,603 (4,264,831) - 1,592,325 % of individually reported RF's (Min. 80%) 85.60% 83.86% Grant Award Funds (GAF's) (Minimum 80% of total Expended) Projected Gross Deficits Total Grant Budget Account Award Expended Encumbered Other Balance IDEA Grant *240 681,227 (560,313) (79,603) 41,311 Title I *305 - 1 424,044 (328,977) (29,611) 65,456 ESSER II 1,186,908 (751,463) (11,997) 423,448 ESSER III 2,584,119 (130,945) (254,133) 2,199,041 !Il i6)66 L2V'Q iil hro All other Region GAF's 705,229 (402,933) (79,267) - 223,029 Total Region GAF's 5,581,527 (2,174,631) (454,611) 2,952,285 % of individually reported GAF's 81.47% * NRSD is the fiscal agent for these funds that benefit the 5 Districts in Union 54. To- TAkx \v1/44 14116 t* 0 -Lb 8/8/2022 Page 5 of 18 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Monthly Financial Dashboard YTD Through Month of: 6/3012022 4. Capital Projects Fund Account Summary All District Capital Project Accounts - Authorization & Budget Account Date Debt Amt. Authorized Authorized Debt Issued Project Budget Notes HS Renovation/Addition 3/30/2021 131,825,665 12,806,650 131,825,665 (BAN) HS Green Repair & MS Roof 2/9/2016 3,506,060 3,506,060 Balance at YE $2,450,000 20 year term Total District CPF's 135,331,725 16, 312,710 131, 825, 665 Debt issued are (2) Bond Anticipation Notes All District Capital Article Fund - Financial Activity Projected CAF PTD Deficits Beginning Ending Account Balance Budget Receipts Expended Encumbered Receivable Balance Fiscal Year 2018 506,703 506,703 (506,703) - - - Fiscal Year 2019 519,371 519,000 (519,371) - 371 - Fiscal Year 2020 532,355 533,116 (532,355) (761) - Fiscal Year 2021 545,664 463,702 (486,536) (42,148) 22,834 16,980 Fiscal Year 2022 559,306 174,982 (204,477) (129,217) 29,495 225,612 Total District YTD CPF's - 2,663,399 2,197,503 (2,249,442) (171,365) 51,939 242,592 All District Capital Project Fund - Appropriation Budget Status Projected CPF PTD Deficits Account Current Budget Expended Encumbered Balance HS Renovation/Addition 131,825,665 (8,445,732) (7,318,861) 116,061,072 All District Capital Project Fund - Funding Source Status Projected Projected Budget Received Receivable Premium Used Balance Beginning Balance Bond Anticipation Note Premium on Bonds or Notes MSBA Grant* Total District YTD CPF's 57,000 57,000 95,092,189 12,806,650 82,285,539 120,600 - (29,214) (91,386) 36,676,476 2,754,145 33,922,331 131, 825, 665 15,738,395 116,207,870 * Maximum amount of grant on eligible expendutures f\ (29,214) (91,386) Page 6 of 18 8/8/20221.38 PM NAUSET RE GIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Financial Dashboard Reports Month of: 6/30/2022 5. Variance Reporting, C ommentary & Pr ojections 1 Region Only Projected Appropriation Deficit An alysis Sch ool Committee Actio n No Deficit 2 Regio n Shared Projected Appropriation Deficit Analysis School Committee Action No Deficit _ 3 Middle School Pro jected Appropriation Deficit Analysis School Committee Action No Deficit 4 High School Projected Appropriation Deficit Analysis School Committee Action Na Deficit 5 Projected Appropriation Summary Savings in Exce ss of 1% inalysis School Committee Action 6 Appropriation Line Item Analysis (Repo rts Budget Line Items with a variance of 20 % or $100,000 whichever is lower) and .5% of the Department's total budget Accounted Accou nt Name /Analysis Budget YTD Expenditure Encumbered Variance Sch ool Committee Acti on a, MS 8011 Salaries Teachers 4,016,299 (3,336,293) (546,266) 133,740 Variance represents savings due to staff changes as a result of retirement and new hires at a lower step (5); an additional teacher was replaced for a teacher resignation In October; and lane changes not attained as budgeted. b MS 8072 SE Salaries Teachers 756,974 (856,721) (138,714) (238,461) Variance represents changes In staffing due to retirement and new hires at a higher step; and lane chan ges attained no t previou sly budgeted. Also, an additional teacher was hired In lieu of three Ed Assistants. Savings in line Item 418080 SE Ed Assistant Salaries to cover some of the negative v ariance, c, MS 8080 SE Ed Assistant Salaries 780,121 (590,984) (72,973) 116,164 Variance represents savings due to staff changes as a result of retirement and new hires at a lower step (4); and resignatio n (2) that has been filled at this time; previously cov erage was thro ugh lo ng-term substitute line item. Replacements w ill begin in Jan uary. Savings used to hire a new SE Teacher in line item#8072 SE Salaries Teachers, 8(8/20221:44 PM Page 7 of 18 I'4AUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Financial Dashboard R eports Month of: 6/30/2022 5. Variance Rep orting, Commentary & Projections d. MS 8022 Textb ooks/Software & Media 52,787 (1,904) - 50,883 Line item has not been spent or encumbered to date; textbooks were purchased at the end of the fiscal year, June 30, 2021. e. HS 8332 Classroom Instructional Hardware 84,676 (209) - 84,467 Technolo gy expenses (including 'pad lease) were moved to Rural Scho ol Ald Grant. '. RO 8741 Transportation MS RD 558,285 (420,356) 137,929 Portion of transportation was paid through ESSER II, III & Foundation Reserve Grant . 8 RO 8744 Transpo rtalton HS RD 558,285 (420,356) 137,929 Po rtio n of transportation was paid through ESSER II, III & Foundati on Reserve Grant . h. 80 8733 SE Contr Svcs Trans ODD 283,713 (197,304) 86,409 Savings due to limited bus drivers and parent's arrangingtransportalton or driving their children themselves. 1, RO 8734 SE Cont SVC Trans Paren t Reimb OOD 3,000 (146,628) (1 .43,628) Variance represents the cost to transport students out of district due to a lack of drivers; the parents are transp orting the chlld(ren) or utilizing a private vendor (1). The District is reimbursing the parents. ). RO 8768 Tech Technician Salary 94,830 - - 94,830 Technician's full salary was reclassified to ESSER II & Title I Grants. k RO 8720 Employer's Share Health Insurance 2,197,765 (1,856,552) 341,213 Variance represents savings based on the number of single plans versus family plans; em ployees waiving this benefit; employees opting fo r high deductible plans, RO 8729 Charter School Tuition 1,580,895 (2,150,381) (569,486) Variance represents an increase in the number of Nauset students attending the Charter Schools this year. DESE reporting of 92 students (final enrollment numbers posted in January), This increase is reflective of an additional $162,099 In Charter Schoo l Tu ition based on DESE updated numbers. m RO 8735 SE Tuition Non Public Schools 483,980 (575,724) (91.744) Variance based on student need per IEP. Page 8 of 18 818/20221:44 PM MAUSET REGION AL SCHOOL DISTRICT School C ommittee Financial Dashboard Reports Month of: 6/30/2022 5, Variance Reporting, Commentary & Projections n RS8807 C ontr acted Services Asst Supt - (10,000) - (10,000) This represents the ercumbrance forthe Superintendent Search contract, o RS 8822 General Cant Svc Business 15,525 (3,572) - 11,953 Variance due to expenses not encumbered or Incurred to date, p RS 8830 Salary Clerical Huma n Resources 135,959 (172,400) (36,441) Variance represents changes in staffing in the Human Res ources Office and payout of vacation and sick time per contract language due to staff leaving. Q RS 8812 Salary Elementary Curriculum Direct or (17,730) (17,?30) Variance based on contract language; additional funds are paid through Title I Grant (S12,270). r RS 8879 Salary Food Service Coordinato r 86,633 (62,040) 24,593 Varian ce due to reclassification of salary to the Summer Feeding Program and Cape Cod Tech Revolving Funds In order to co ver the deficit in Central Office Budget 7 Revenue Budget Line Item Analysis (Re port Budget Line Items with a variance of 1.0% a. Accoun t ft Account Name /Analysis 4 Charter School Aid Prolected Budget WI) Receipts Receipts Variance Sch ool Committee Acti on 299,244 772,825 473,581 Variance represents additional revenue for Charter School Aid based on changes in the calculation formula by DESE. Increase in aid is reflectiv e of an increase In the number of students attending Charter Schools. Year 1 the District receives 100% (FY22 Tuition Change) of the Increase in the tuition; year 2 will be 60% of the FY21 tuition; and year 3 will be 40% of the FY20 tuiti on . This reflects an increase in the number of Nauset students leaving the District to attend Charter Schools. This represents 92 studen ts per DESE as of January reporting and an additional increase of $571,076 of Charter Scho ol A id in March, Please n ote, there was an error by the DOR and the amount of Charter Aid was reduced by $187,087 in FY22. The error In Charter Aid re venue will be paid In P/23 over the next ten mo nths $15,591 monthly. b. 20, 21, 22 District Receipts 106,000 273,227 167,227 The increase in District Receipts it based on the actual amount received to date and increases in the Medicaid/Coe:id funds received and projected for the remainder of the fiscal year. Also reflected in this line Item Is unclaimed property funds received in the amount of $2,571 fro m the State Treasurer's Office and funds receiv ed fro m COVID related absences of $39,915, and an Increase In Interest received. Page 9 of 18 R/R/7C)721 !44 PM NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Financial Dashboard Reports Month of: 6/30/2022 5. Variance Reporting, Commentary & Projections c. 6 Transportation Aid 819,851 939,242 119,391 Variance represents an Incre ase In the am ou nt of reimbursement from DESE, d. e. f. Page 10 of 18 8/8/20221:44 PM NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Financial Dashboard Rep orts Month of: 6/30/2022 S. Variance Reporting, Commentary & Projections 8 Revolving Fund Balances (Rep orts all negative balances) Account Pt Fund Name /Analysis Revenues YTD Exp./ Transfer Projected Variance Scho ol Committee Action Exp/Transfer a. b. c. d e f. _ E Page 11 of 18 8/8/20221:44 PM NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Financial Dashboard Reports Month of: 6/30/2022 S. Variance Reporting, Commentary& Projections 9 Other Comments (at the Director of Finance & Operations discretion) Analysis: Scho ol Committee Acti on Analysis: School Committee Action Analysis School Committee Action Analysis School Committee Action Page 12 of 18 8/8/20221:44 PM NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL COMMITTEE MONTHLY FINANCIAL DASHBOARD 6. Comparison All Funds Summary With Prior Year M ONTH OF: 6/30/2022 Projected Escess & Deficiency Comparison for 6/30/2021 Sep -20 Sep -21 Oct -20 Oct -21 Nov -20 Nov -21 Dec -20 Dec -21 Jan -21 Jan -22 Feb -21 Feb -22 GF Unreserved Fund Balance - beg. of year Appro priation Savings (Deficit) Funding So urce Savings (Deficit) Other GFAccounts Savings (Deficit) Amo un ts voted For use' DOR Bond Premium Reduction Subtotal Projected E&D per books 6/30/2022 Other Fund Charges (115th SF Projecte d Deficits OF Projected Deficits CPF Projected Deficits Fiduciary Fund Deficits Supplemental Cha rter School Aid Receiv able L1,394,416 915,807 1,394,416 1,080,528 r 25.6,493 282,397 265,066 336,412 1,394,416 1,080,528 1, 394, 416 1,080,528 1,394,416 1,080,528 1, 394, 416 1, 08 0,528 200,000 200,000 235,012 336,4111_r 274,992 686,291 121,478 727,543 _._ .. 109,604 _1,080,528 717,150 1 ,648,909 (99,816) Projected Certified E&D Balance 6/30/2022 1,s49,093 1,198,204 163,513) 1,659,482 (36,443) 1,134,691 I 1,623,039 1,i16,940 (62,809) 1 .354,131 1,629,429 (51,957) 1,416,939 (61.677) 1,669,408 (62,3851 1,766,819 (28,314) 1,715,894 (69,545) 1,808,071 (25,682) 1,704,020 (34,101) 1,797,678 (25,682) 1,646,349 1,782,389 1,669,919 1,771,996 Page 13 of 18 NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL COMMITTEE MONTHLY FINANCIAL DASHBOARD G. Comparison All Funds Summary With Prior Year MONTH OF: 6130/2022 Projected Excess & Deficiency Comperlf on for 6/30/2021 Mar -21 Mar -22 Apr -21 Apr -22 May -21 May -22 Jun -21 Jun -22 GF Unreserved Fund Balance - beg, of year Appropriation Sa vings (Deficit) Fu nding Source Savings (Deficit) Other GF Accounts Savings (Deficit) Amounts voted for use" DOR Bond Premium Reduction Subtotal Projected E&D per books 6/30/7027 Other Fund Cher -e nlist; PF Projected Deficits GF Pro jected Deficits CPF Projected Deficits Fiduciary Fund Deficits Supplemental Chatter School Aid Receiva ble Projected Certified MD Balance 6/30/2022 1,394,416 250,000 255,970 1,080,528 776,906 26,707 (946,760) (1,000,000) (2,129) 953,626 (29,924) 923,702 882,012 (25,682) 1,394,416 . 1,080,528 250,000 276,997 764,157 26,707 (946,760) (1,000,000) (2,129) 974,653 869,263 (77,480) 856,330 I 947,173 (25,652) 843,581 1,394,416 1,080,528 _-1,394,416 1,080,528 325,000 102,757 554,316 280,196 278,187 764,157 (153,426) 923,179 67,203 26,707 67,203 (613) (946,760) (1,000,000) (945,760) (1,000,000) (2,129) - - 1,118,046 972,020 915,749 1,283,290 (26,088) 1,091,958 (25,682) 946,338 (20,438) 887,311 1,283,290 Fy z`- 8t4 LOek Page 14 of 18 TRURO & P'TOWN TUITION ENROLLMENT FY2022 30 -Jun -22 BUDGET SEPT . OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB . MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE VARIANCE TRURO 76.00 74,00 74.00 74.00 74.00 74.00 74.00 74.00 71.00 71,00 71.00 (5.00) PROV INCETOWN 21.00 20,00 20,00 20 .00 19.00 19.00 18 .00 18.00 19.00 19,00 19,00 (2.00) TOTAL 97.00 94.00 94.00 94.00 93.00 93.00 92.00 92.00 90.00 90.00 90 .00 (7.00) Page 15 of 18 C,\Users\vendittig\Desktop\DASHBOARD\Tuitions-Truro & Ptown pro jections NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Monthly Financial Dashboard •YTD Through Month of: 06/30/2022 7. Fiduciary Fund Accounts Summary Fiduciary Funds (FF) Fund Deficits Manuel input if read to be raised Beginning Ending Account Balance Receipts Expended Encumbered Other Balance (34) Scholarships 223,355 44,082 (35,581) - 231,856 OPEB Trust Fund 1,253,899 349,353 (7,321) 1,595,931 HS Student Activity 44,693 39,805 (44,421) - 40,077 MS Student Activity 36,659 1,554 (1,909) - 36,304 Total FF's 1,558,606 434,795 (89,232) 1,904,169 8/8/20221:50 PM Page 16 of 18 7. Fiduciary Funds Unfortunately, because of the past turbulent quarter, we experienced a decline in our funds. The scholarships stayed relatively the same for the year, but our OPEB has decreased. We started the year with $1,253,899, and with our $450,000 contribution, we would be at $1,703,899. However, we finished at $1,595,931, which is a little over $100,000 less. June was especially rough and contributed to a severe decrease in our market change, about $75,000. The market took a plunge for the first half of the year, and experts believe the market volatility will continue in the upcoming months. Even though there has been talk of recession for a couple of months, July's performance actually ended well. I think the optimism may continue only because job hiring hasn't slowed yet and the Federal Reserve are not meeting again until September. If the Federal Reserve raises the rates again, that will be a good indication that they continue to believe we are in a recession. If rates go up, there is less spending and debt. That usually will slow a recession. As for our Scholarships, we awarded $34,195 in Scholarships this year, and we received $37,000 in funds to be awarded later. 8. Cash Balances Our accounts have received an increase in interest due to the economic environment. MMDT continue to raise their rates and have been very aggressive over the past couple of months. Leader Bank is trying to stay competitive and offer the same amount of interest as MMDT. Cape Cod Coop, since the end of the quarter, has increased their rate to 1.00%. I do want to keep one brick and mortar bank on Cape Cod for an investment type relationship. There is not a high balance in there due to the other banks offering a higher interest rate. This past quarter, the rate of return for the Scholarship funds was -1.87%, while OPEB was at -7.67%. This contributed to a one-year rate of return for Scholarships at 3.31% and OPEB at -5.53%. Our five-year rate of return still looks encouraging with the Scholarships at 6.75% and OPEB at 6.03%. Since inception, Scholarships has had a return of 7.09% and OPEB's return is at 5.85%. NAUSET REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT School Committee Monthly Financial Dashboard YTD Through Month of: 6/30/2022 A. Cash and checks in office B. Non - Interest Bearing Checking Accounts 8. Cash Balances Summary 50.00 C. Interest Bearing Checking Accounts Financial Purpose Interest Rate Balance Sub - Total Institution Cape Cod -5 Vendor 0.05% 656,466.00 Cape Cod -5 Petty Cash 0.05% 1,003.00 $657,469.00 1D. Liquid investments Financial Purpose Interest Rate Balance Sub - Total Institution MMDT 1.23% 12,466,391.00 Leader Bank 1.15% 1,000,762.00 Cape Cod Coop 0.35% 151,698.00 $13,618,851.00 E. Trust Funds Financial Purpose Interest Rate Balance Sub - Total Institution Rockland Trust (34) Scholarships 231,857.00 Cape Cod -5 HS Student Activity 0.05% 43,058.00 Cape Cod -5 MS Student Activity_ 0.05% 36,303.00 Rockland Trust OPEB Fund 1,595,932.00 $1,907.150.00 Total: All Cash and Investments 8/8/20221:51 PM $ 16,183,520.00 Page 17 of 18 9. Cash Flow We started our beginning cash at $6,358,838 and ended at $14,276,370. If we remove the additional BAN of $6M that we transacted on June 2"d, we increased our cash flow by close to $2M. This quarter we received all of our scheduled assessments, chapter 70, and our tuition. The finance team made sure the tuition payments were received and posted before the end of the fiscal year in order to not repeat last year's issue. Some highlights in the cash flow include a $1,051,154 payment from MSBA in April, higher receipts for our cafeteria in May and June, and our capital article payments that were billed and received in May and June. We also received our Transportation Aid money in June in the amount of $515,880 and our Circuit Breaker money in April and June in the amount of $220,840. Our grant money in June also was at $923,802, and most of that was from our ESSER II grant in the amount of $294,631 and our IDEA grant of $331,811 Our warrants were higher in June due to it being the end of the fiscal year. That is common during this time of the year. As a mentioned earlier, the school had a BAN sale on June 2"d. Piper Sandler and Co outbid Fidelity and Oppenheimer at a Net Interest Cost of 1.399%. Even though the actual coupon rate is 2.75%, the net interest cost is the rate that is awarded because the premium that was offered at $45,480 is taken into effect. For example, the premium can be used to offset construction and other bills associated with the BAN, but it cannot' be put towards interest. However, when financial advisors award the bid, they base it on the NIC due to the premium being able to offset other costs. The cash flow ended on a positive note this year, and for next year, I'm hopeful we will see much of the same. 9. Cash Fl ow School Committee Monthly Financial Dashboard Actual YTD Through Month of: June 2021 1 2022 2022 CASH RECEIPTS JULY AUGUST SEPT, OCT, NOV. DEC , JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE TOTAL BUD GET Asses sments 6,166,595 6,186,595 2,407,621 3,778,954 3,208,721 2 ,979,675 24,746,381 24,746,381 Chapter 70 aid 296,879 593,758 296,879 296,679 296,879 296,879 298,879 296,879 298,879 593,759 3,562,549 3,582,549 Other As sessments 118,472 44,391 132,261 73,160 99,837 94,135 35,804 113,393 64,308 69,265 78,803 110,487 1,034,294 971,777 62,517 Tuition .ln 392,007 40,392 181,261 277,171 196,709 167,138 26,928 341,027 154,282 202,495 1,981,429 1,880,965 100,464 Charter -In 40,547 81,094 40,547 40,547 92,535 92,535 92,535 97,495 97,495 97,495 772,825 299,244 473,581 Transportation aid 12,849 410,513 515,880 939,242 819,851 119,391 lnterestlMlsclMed 18;740 24,215 858 732 422 88,778 822 3,161 70,755 2,250 62,466 273,227 106,000 167,227 Capital Articles (276,204) 160,471 108,518 241,874 104,791 339,451 559,307 Health Ins reimb 1713,403 68,206 71,098 75,162 72,130 58,098 74,579 70,195 71,470 90,953 56,696 132,099 1,019,108 Cafe teria 108,934 (61,656) 99,752 4,769 56,910 116,912 2,838 125,247 17,460 91,945 150,255 172,307 665,483 Circuit Breaker 220,840 220,840 220,840 220,841 863,361 Choice -In 137,834 274,758 195,269 137,379 89,274 B9,274 89,274 89,274 89,274 213,449 1,405,059 Preschool 170,964 720 43,204 (29,062) 14,368 86,138 63,308 210,790 3,140 271,258 3,450 227,574 1,065,941 Other Revolving 6,605 2,000 37,878 81,754 35,348 25,529 31,303 21,600 46,222 28,004 22,379 75,562 414,984 Grants 22,105 146,464 67,444 56,072 73,893 685,750 45,431 407,855 42,506 207,114 41,285 923,802 2,619,722 MSBA Reimb, 17,105 820,023 414,285 1,051,154 45,480 2,348,047 BAN'S 6, 000,000 6,000,000 12,000,000 TOTAL RECEIPTS 6,721,286 684,351 7,591,079 1,252,734 1,288.033 8,319,841 1,236,278 4,413,862 4,534,843 2,926,792 4,441,642 12,678,342 56.291,084 32948,074 CASH DISBURS. Net Payroll #1 471,757 544,280 484,882 541,891 543,873 785,229 543,040 555,307 707,651 560,826 659,233 830,405 7,128,183 Net Payroll #2 573,172 541,141 585,914 552,392 552,042 602,349 559,180 560,076 563,983 541,404 560,784 775,244 6,970,681 Net Payroll }f3 630,852 638,531 1,269,383 Payroll wh warran t 478,924 480,779 749,084 535,380 540,381 828,411 547,442 527,649 843,593 534,548 543,049 711,992 7,121,233 Debt service Region warrants 1,810,173 1,2.60,834 1,803,622 1,464,869 1,195,575 548,326 1,180,032 1,218,645 1,660,650 1,120,714 1,019,899 1,867,585 16,150,924 Shared warrants 63,333 12,979 13,858 19.278 7,590 6,743 3,703 12,998 13,765 8,785 6,814 5,895 174,041 Charter -Out 160,799 321,598 160,799 160,799 183,956 183,956 183,956 187,431 187,431 419,656 2,150,381 Choice -Out 25,801 51,602 25,801 25,801 33,217 33,217 33,217 33,217 33,217 53,155 348,245 Capital Pro ject war. 1,267,110 450,280 460,300 494,795 479,137 494,877 906,374 568,552 545,647 799,316 594,094 7,060,481 TOTAL DISBURS. 4,667,709 3,476, 902 4,728,311 3,981,806 3,505. 190 2,757659 3,545,447 3, 099,223 5,213,609 3,530,571 3,709.742 5,258,028 46,373,552 Net cash floW 2,053,517 (2,592,551) 2,862,768 (2,729,072) (2,217,165) 5,562,183 (2,307,169) 415,639 (679,054) (603,779) 731,900 7,420, 314 Beginning cash 6,358,838 8,412,355 5,819. 805 9,682,573 5.953,501 3,736.336 9,298,520 6,991,351 7.406.959 6.727,935 6,124 ,156 6 .856,059 En ding c ash 8,412,355 5,819,805 8,692,573 5,953, 501 3,736,336 9,298.520 6,991,351 7403,989 6 ,72 .7,935 6,124,156 6,856,056 14,276,370 8,412.355 5,819,805 8, 682,573 5,953,501 3. 736,336 9,298.520 6,991,351 7.405,989 6.727,935 6,124,156 6.956,056 14,276,370 Page 18 of 18 8/8/20221:51 PM Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 1 of 7 TOWN OF BREWSTER FINANCE COMMITTEE Date: March 30, 2022 Time: 6:00 PM VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES Present: Chair Pete Dahl, Vice Chair Frank Bridges, Robert Tobias, Alex Hopper, William Henchy, Honey Pivirotto, Bob Young, Andy Evans Also present: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator; Mimi Bernardo, Finance Director; Donna Kalinick, Assistant Town Administrator Absent: Clerk Bill Meehan The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm and announced a quorum. This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting, a record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible. The meeting may be viewed by: Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brerwster-ma.gov), or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov). 1.Public Announcements and Comment- none 2.Town Administrator/Finance Director Report Peter Lombardi didn’t have anything additional to report tonight. 3.Town Meeting Warrant Articles – Discussion and Vote a. ATM Article 2 Elementary Operating Budget b. ATM Article 3 Brewster Elementary School Spec. Ed Stabilization Fund c. ATM Article 4 Nauset Regional Schools Operating Budget d. ATM Article 16 Lease of Town Property – Antenna e. ATM Article 6 Water Enterprise Fund Operating Budget – Revote f. ATM Article 8 Golf Enterprise Fund Operating Budget – Revote g. ATM Article 10 Capital and Special Projects Expenditures – Revote a.ATM Article 2 - Elementary Operating Budget $10,491,562 Bob Young wanted to say he needed to be clear that he fully supports providing our children with an excellent outstanding education. As both a Finance Committee member and a taxpayer, he needs to scrutinize how the taxpayer funds are being used. Here is where he is very concerned. We have all see the graph that shows increasing school budgets in the face of decreasing school enrollment. Something has to be done to recognize Approved: VOTE: Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 2 of 7 these trends and to bring these diverging lines back together. He was hopeful that as up to 30% of the town voted no on the Nauset District Budget at last May’s Town Meeting, that the district and regional school committee would understand the taxpayers want clear and transparent answers to their questions about their budgets. The Select Board and FinCom took this very seriously. We submitted a series of questions to the district two months ago to get transparency around our single largest budget items. Particularly to understand how the administration will respond to the continued decline in enrollment that is structural and it’s unforgiving. The Nauset enrollment is down 5% and the budget is up 6%. There was no weigh in from the Select Board or FinCom. We didn’t have a chance to discuss it. It was 180 pages of data that didn’t answer our questions, effectively asking us to go figure it out ourselves. We probed hard on the Reserve for Negotiation Line Item from FY22 because we have a strong reason to believe this item was over budgeted by $150,000 at Brewster Elementary Schools and nearly $500,000 at the Nauset District. This lack of respect for the Select Board and Finance Committee and the process we take so seriously to represent and protect taxpayers, can lead him to no action other than voting no on both budget requests. {Bob Young’s full statement attached to these Minutes below.} Pete felt that was exactly his thoughts about these budgets and hopes others will listen to/read these comments as we move forward. Robert Tobias said if this committee and Select Board and Town Meeting were to reject the budget, what happens next? Pete said that at the local level, they would have to go back and look at that budget because that is a direct Town Budget. Honey said she also agrees with Bob’s statement but believes that once the school committee acts on these budgets, we are obligated to pay the bill, whether we like the budget or don’t like the budget. Legally, what is in our rights? Her evaluation is that the school committee has all the authority, the taxpayers have none. Peter Lombardi said he would have to consult with Town Counsel and get back to the committee. Andy agrees with everything but is wondering about the 2.5% vs. 6%. Is the 2.5% customary or is it legislated? Pete Dahl said it has been somewhat customary because it is tied to taxes being raised by 2.5%. It doesn’t address the issue as to whether it’s necessary. Peter Lombardi said they kicked off their budget process and provided some budget guidance and directed, in terms of what we anticipated for levy capacity. At that time, it was an increase up to 2.5%. They came in right at the 2.5% for their Operating Budget. A lot of the way they have been able to come in at that number is by decreasing special education costs. Bill Henchy asked that what this Board is doing is to make a recommendation to Town Meeting. Peter Lombardi said he was just going to say that, and he thinks it’s important for the committee to remember that you are recommending or not recommending the budget, what happens on the floor of Town Meeting relative to the main motion, will all play out, be prepared to answer the scenarios that were put on the table tonight. Bill Henchy asked what the consequence is to the Elementary School Budget if the Nauset Budget is defeated or amended? Peter Lombardi said there are pass through overhead costs from the central office that are conveyed into the elementary school budget and ultimately their budget is a bottom-line budget. What happens at the district level in some ways doesn’t correlate to what number gets approved. Peter Lombardi said if the district budget were to fail, he doesn’t think it would impact the elementary budget. Bill Henchy said if the Town Meeting were to take a position on the regional budget to diminish or said no to any funding, the elementary school budget would not be affected. Peter Lombardi answered yes, that is his understanding. Pete said if there were an amendment to the regional budget, you would need one other town to vote against it to trigger a review of the school committee of the budget. Frank Bridges said he thinks they have done a good job on their operating budget. The idea of year-to-year enrollment changes is something you can’t anticipate. The elementary school board deserved to know how the Select Board and Finance Committee feel about their budget. If we don’t like where this is going, we are certainly in our rights to vote no and see where it goes at Town Meeting. He is voting yes. Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 3 of 7 Frank Bridges MOVED to approve ATM Article 2, Elementary Operating Budget, as printed in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – no, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 7-yes 1-no b.ATM Article 3 - Brewster Elementary School Spec. Ed Stabilization Fund Bob Young asked how restricted the school board is in the use of these funds? Peter Lombardi answered the statute allows uses of the funds for out of district tuition, transportation associated with that, or in district special education costs, and approval of expenditure of funds is joint with the Select Board as well. This is available for expenditure without action by Town Meeting to deal with unexpected and unanticipated expenses. One time, you spend it, and it is gone so you can’t really deal with any structural issues relative to special education. It is meant to bridge when something unexpected comes online and doesn’t require Town Meeting vote. The balance carries over from year to year. r Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 3, establishment of a Special Education Stabilization Fund as printed in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no c.ATM Article 4 – Nauset Regional Schools Operating Budget Bill Henchy asked if it would be appropriate to recommend approval for a different amount. Pete said yes, you could make an amendment to insert a new amount in there. He said we could look at this one of two ways. One is to vote on the amount they requested, and the other is to discuss and possibly move a motion to Town Meeting that would amend this. Peter Lombardi said one of the key elements of the Warrant are the Select Board and Finance Committee recommendations on each of the Warrant Articles as presented. He would recommend that they hold a vote as presented so those at Town Meeting can understand where they stand on that Article. Bill Henchy said he agrees it’s important for the recommendations to go out, however, if the committee were inclined to recommend some other amount, it might be useful for the Warrant to reflect that as well. Peter Lombardi said this is the last time for the Finance Committee to weigh in before the Warrant Book is printed. Robert Tobias said he understands the committee’s frustration, but thinks he is supporting the budget. A new Superintendent has been hired, she has agreed to work with us to make this process more transparent and provide better information to us and the town on the budget. As she said, it isn’t easy to cut teachers tomorrow. Managing the budget is a bit like turning the battleship rather than flipping the small craft. He recognizes the budget is representative of the population and all cost for kids leaving for school choice and charter schools. On page 27, the middle school is up 1.67%, the High School’s up 1.59%. The biggest driver in the budget is the region only, up $1.4M. Between school choice and charter schools, tuition out is approximately $600,000. Population is up for the year overall. The district budget has to pay for all those kids. He is willing to work with the new school administration to get a better handle on what’s involved with overall costs, learning more about budgeting challenges, and work that through before he’s ready to vote against the budget. Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 4 of 7 Peter Lombardi doesn’t want to get too far ahead of things. Ultimately, the Finance Committee is recommending the budget. Town Meeting will decide whether that budget is approved or not. We will be prepared to deal with those scenarios when and if they occur at Town Meeting. Frank said he fully supports Robert Tobias’ opinion and view on this article. He thinks he has good reasons for voting for this budget. He believes that 60% of the towns voted to build the new school. That decision has a lot to do with the predicament on the Operating Budget. The administration has longer term challenges and all we can do is hope they will do that in good faith and we need to send the appropriate messages to them about how we feel as a Finance Committee. Having said all that, he will vote no. Pete said, in previous years, we would meet with the superintendent in advance and give them feedback on where we felt the budget should go. Last year, it was way past any deadline to have any input or discussion. This year we had dates set to have a joint meeting with the Select Board, and they declined. They came only after their budget was certified by their school committee. To him that seems to mean they weren’t looking for real feedback. There was nothing to prevent any one of us attending their meetings. We also developed a series of questions to try to get to the heart of the issues between the Finance Committee and the budget prep in Nauset Regional. Mr. Young summarized the response to that quite well. Peter Lombardi said we developed our budget calendar this year as we do each year in coordination with the district. We looked at their calendar and scheduled the joint meeting at the end of February as we have historically done. He does not know whether the school committees voted on their budget yet or not last year. This year we had a meeting on the books and conveyed that in December. In the middle of February, we were told they needed to reschedule. Then we were told they would not be meeting with any of the towns until they had voted on their budgets. At this point, we were able to arrive at a new meeting date. Robert Tobias said we might want to consider a liaison to the Nauset School Committee Budget Committee. In the Article itself, he would like to see some kind of comment regarding drivers for the increase. Talk about the Town Operating Budget and then identify a couple of key drivers behind the 5.9% increase. Pete said the response they received to a very serious request to reconcile $1.8M - it was pretty much flat out refused. He thinks the issue is this doesn’t draw a bright line; it just draws a line of what we need to look at. There needs to be good faith by listening back and forth. If you go a year looking for an opportunity to give input and a year looking for an analysis of $1.8M and how it was spent. He thinks the committee and the taxpayers of Brewster deserved a response to that. Because of that, he will vote against this budget. Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 4, as written in the Warrant, Nauset Regional Schools Operating Budget, in the amount of $12,361,847 to be raised and appropriated. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – no, Honey Pivirotto – no, Bob Young – no, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – no, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – no, Chair Pete Dahl– no The Committee voted: 2-yes 6-no d.ATM Article 16 – Lease of Town Property - Antenna Peter Lombardi said the Town has for several decades now had communications towers located in a few locations on town property. This brings revenue to the town to allow them to install their equipment on the tower. We have to go through a formal solicitation process for that where Town Meeting approval is required because of the extended term for these agreements. We are looking for a term in total, not to exceed 20 years, for the tower behind the Fire Department. Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 16 as written in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 5 of 7 Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no e.ATM Article 6 – Water Enterprise Fund Operating Budget – Revote Mimi Bernardo apologized for this – this happened last year too, and she will make sure we don’t need to re- vote this next year. Peter Lombardi said this is counterintuitive, the way the Town has to submit the Town budget information to the state. We can’t include the appropriation for the indirect costs that we charge to Water and Golf in their budgeted amounts because they are used as a revenue source for the general fund. Essentially DOR would be counting them twice. We have adjusted both budgets accordingly. Mimi Bernardo said we are only amending the appropriation that gets voted on at Town Meeting. This is the verbiage that the DOR says. This is a funding source for the general fund rather than an expense of Golf or Water because the costs this revenue is covering is already being budgeted in the general fund. Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 6, Water Enterprise Fund Operating Budget as printed in the Warrant of $2,768,632 to be appropriated from the Water Department receipts. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no f.ATM Article 8 – Golf Enterprise Fund Operating Budget - Revote Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 8, Golf Enterprise Fund Operating Budget, in the amount of $4,048,778 from golf receipts as printed in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no g.ATM Article 10 – Capital and Special Projects Expenditures - Revote 1C – Peter Lombardi said the town hired a consultant to support that Vision Planning Committee’s efforts. With the pandemic, the project has taken longer than anticipated. We are hopeful that the process will be completed in the next several months and a plan will be adopted for next fall. As some of you know, the town planner left for another job over 6 months ago. Since then, the consultant has done more work than they would have otherwise. Generally speaking, they typically cost from $100-$175K for consulting services. They do include updates to Master Plans or Comprehensive Plans. We feel the additional $30,000 appropriation is in line with the product. Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 10, Section 1C Local Comprehensive Plan, the amount of $30,000 which leaves us an amended total of $180,000 under Article 10, 1C to be covered with Free Cash, as printed in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no Frank Bridges MOVED to approve Article 10, Section 9B, the amount of $210,000 to be raised from Golf Reserves as stated in the Warrant. Robert Tobias second. Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 6 of 7 Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no 4.Nauset Regional Public Schools Budget Amendment – Discussion and Vote Pete said this is to amend Article 4 by reducing the budget line item $374,909.07 and to change the requested Nauset Assessment down to $11,847,709. This effectively moves the budget increase down to 2.5% which is reasonable considering all the current variables. Andy said he does want to see this move forward and had one typo to mention for correction. Pete said that at some point there has to be a stand taken, and we need to start talking about programs that are not making sense, declining enrollments, and the need to work closer together with the towns that are part of the district. This amendment would be done at Town Meeting as part of the discussion that a motion to amend would be made. An amended budget would force the review by the Regional School Committee. Honey asked if this was something that the residents supported, would it force the school committee to reassess the budget? Pete answered it would not unless there were another town making a similar rejection or amendment to the budget. If the town accepts the amendment, it is a rejection, but if no other town were to offer a rejection or amendment, we would still be required to pay the total assessment. Peter Lombardi said in the scenario where Brewster Town Meeting were to either vote down the proposed budget or to approve an amended amount and none of the other member towns were to follow suit with a similar vote, and the school committee didn’t on their own go back and revote the budget, then the town would have to call a special town meeting to raise and appropriate those funds. It’s important to understand that the statute allows the regional school committee to go back and amend their adopted budget even after Town Meeting, they could vote to reduce their budgeted amount if they are so inclined. That reduction wouldn’t require any subsequent Town Meeting votes in any of the member towns. Pete said if this were to pass at Town Meeting and they were to reduce, then that’s the end of the line. If we vote to reduce it and no other towns act in that regard, that creates a situation where we would not have appropriated enough funds to meet the assessment that is legally binding on us to meet. Peter Lombardi said he believes we would then need to call a Special Town Meeting. Pete asked for a sense of the Committee’s thoughts on this. He said we would pull this back and discuss further at the next meeting. 5.Budget Calendar Updates - none 6.Liaison Reports - defer 7. Review and Approval of Minutes – 3/2/22 & 3/16/22 Frank Bridges MOVED to approve the Minutes of 3/2/22 as presented. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – abstain, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – abstain, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 6-yes 0-no 2-abstain Frank Bridges MOVED to approve the Minutes of 3/16/22 as presented. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – abstain, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes Finance Committee Minutes March 30, 2022 Page 7 of 7 The Committee voted: 7-yes 0-no 1-abstain 8. Request for agenda items for future meetings – please email Pete 9. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair Pete said there is a Report of the Finance Committee in the Warrant, and he needs to prepare something. He asked the committee for authorization to prepare the report and submit it, so it is in the final Warrant. The consensus was for him to prepare it and the Vice Chair to review. 10. Next Finance Committee Meetings- April 20, 2022 Next meeting will be remote. Pete will forward Erika’s email from 3/16 for the Committee to review. Peter Lombardi said April and May will be different than what we have been doing historically. We can be fully remote, in person, or hybrid. Public participation will continue to be remote for those two months. We have to wait to see if the State will extend the remote participation as it has been for the past couple of years. There are operational considerations to plan for having multiple meetings at the same time. All that being said, all options are on the table at this point. Pete asked if the committee would be agreeable to staying remote for the next meeting, and they were. 11. Adjournment Frank Bridges MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 8:11PM. Robert Tobias second. Roll Call Vote: Frank Bridges – yes, Bob Young – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Honey Pivirotto - yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes. The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no Respectfully submitted, Beth Devine Packet of supporting materials on website for public review. Finance Committee Minutes April 20, 2022 Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF BREWSTER FINANCE COMMITTEE Date: April 20, 2022 Time: 6:00 PM VIRTUAL MEETING MINUTES Present: Chair Pete Dahl, Clerk Bill Meehan, Robert Tobias, Alex Hopper, William Henchy, Honey Pivirotto, Bob Young, Andy Evans Also present: Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator Absent: Vice Chair Frank Bridges; Mimi Bernardo, Finance Director The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:01 pm and announced a quorum. This meeting will be conducted by remote participation pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021. No in-person meeting attendance will be permitted. If the Town is unable to live broadcast this meeting, a record of the proceedings will be provided on the Town website as soon as possible. The meeting may be viewed by: Live broadcast (Brewster Government TV Channel 18), Livestream (livestream.brerwster-ma.gov), or Video recording (tv.brewster-ma.gov). 1.Public Announcements and Comment- none 2.Town Administrator/Finance Director Report Peter Lombardi said at the last Select Board meeting the Affordable Housing Trust brought their recommendations for the town to work with the Preservation for Affordable Housing and Housing Assistance Corp. on the affordable housing project on the town owned parcel off Mill Stone Road. The Select Board voted to move forward. We are expecting to sit down and negotiate the terms of the development and lease agreement within the next month or two. This has been a project long in the making and this is an important milestone moving forward. 3.Report from the Audit Committee on FY21 Audit Honey said she has a few comments she is drafting for the Select Board meeting on May 9th. The Audit Committee met April 11th to hear the presentation of the audit and the management letter for the period ending June 30, 2021. Robert Brown did the presentation. After review, the Committee recommended acceptance and approval of the audit statements. Any questions or requests for additional information should be addressed to the Finance Director. Highlights - first and foremost, the auditors provided the clean opinion indicating the financial statements presented fairly in all material respects the financial position of all Brewster’s governmental activities. No issues of concern at all were identified with the management letter. The water receivables issue has been thoroughly resolved by both water and financial management personnel. Pete said he will circulate the report to the Committee. The Audit Report does demonstrate a picture of a Town with a healthy position. Go through the notes of the Audit Report, it is really a good read. Peter Lombardi said once the report is delivered and formally voted by the Select Board to be accepted, it will then go on the website. Approved: VOTE: Finance Committee Minutes April 20, 2022 Page 2 of 3 4.Town Meeting Warrant Articles – Discuss any reports and presenters Pete said there are no articles needed to be discussed or voted on tonight. 5.Nauset Regional Public Schools Budget Amendment – Discussion and Vote Peter Lombardi said he has spoken with Town Counsel, and one potential scenario if the committee may support the budget amendment, and at the same time, recognize if the other towns voted to support the budget, that would mean the budget would pass and Brewster would be obligated to pay the assessment. Town Counsel has opined that if the Finance Committee were to propose the amendment under Article 4 to reduce the amount raised and appropriated down to 2.5%, and that were to pass as amended, subsequent to that under Article 5, the difference between the increases, there would be a motion on the floor to amend the town budget to include an appropriation of that difference to General Stabilization, that would be proper as to form. Ultimately, it would be to the Moderator’s discretion as to whether that motion would be in the scope of the Article. Those funds would be then available for expenditure if needed. If Town Meeting appropriated the 2.5% increase, we would have funds to cover the first two quarters. If the other towns voted to support the budget and Brewster had to fund our share of that, we could then at Special Town Meeting in November seek to appropriate that difference from General Stabilization to the School Assessment. Thus, negating the need to hold a Special Town Meeting this summer. Peter Lombardi said it would be two separate amendments under two separate articles. The first would be to reduce the School Budget. Depending on what happened there, there could be a second vote on the Town budget. Andy asked if Peter Lombardi had any sense of what other towns might plan to do? Peter Lombardi answered he hasn’t had recent conversations with the other towns but does know the Orleans Warrant Article for the Operating override is structured as a separate vote from the town budget. So, if the operating override were to fail, the balance of the town budget would survive that process. He also said he doesn’t expect any further information from the school administration leading up to Town Meeting. Pete said since this is complex, he would like to know where the committee stands or let it be done by Town Meeting by a Town Meeting member? Robert Tobias said he has no problem with the amendment; however, he will vote against it. He believes constructive engagement better serves the town. Pete said since the Finance Committee has voted against supporting the budget, he feels they have already sent a strong message. He doesn’t feel it needs to be pushed at this time. Andy said he agrees with Pete. He doesn’t feel there is a possible positive outcome because there are so many actions that need to happen over which they have no control. He doesn’t want this to be unsuccessful. Bill Meehan said he feels strongly that the committee should take this action at Town Meeting. This is because the erosion of transparency in the budgeting process has only worsened despite multiple efforts to address it. He can see no reason to believe that if they don’t do this, the situation will not continue to worsen. It is time to yell stop. Bob Young said he agrees with what Bill Meehan said. Let’s presume someone gets up as a private citizen and makes the motion for an amendment, regardless of how the Committee votes, it won’t be any influence on the Town Meeting members vs. if the Committee supports an amendment prior to the vote, it will hold more power. He feels the Nauset Administration has shown their cards already by sending MA General Law that basically says we don’t need to meet with you before we have approved our budgets. That doesn’t say to him that there will be improvement moving forward. In fact, quite the opposite. Pete said that for this amendment to be worthwhile, the Committee would need to show strong support behind it. Without taking a formal vote, he would like to take a poll of the Committee. Robert will not support; Bill Finance Committee Minutes April 20, 2022 Page 3 of 3 Meehan and Bob Young support; Andy supports; Bill Henchy will not support because there isn’t enough information, and he needs more understanding on how to handle it at Town Meeting with appropriate explanations; Honey supports; Alex will not support the amendment. Pete said he would table the discussion for now and have a conversation with the Moderator first. Once we get through Town Meeting, we will need to strategize on how to connect better with the Nauset School Committee and Nauset Administration. 6.Liaison Reports Bill Meehan said he attended the Bay Property Planning Committee meeting yesterday. It was taken up with a discussion of the progress of the acquisition, a description of the properties, and how the properties were seen to address many of the long-term goals for the Town. He will continue to keep FinCom up to date. Bill Henchy attended the Sea Camps Pond Committee. The next meeting is May 18th. There will be a site visit then, and he will keep all of us in the loop. Andy asked if there were established rules for liaisons? Pete answered that there was a policy adopted by the Select Board that we have also unofficially followed. He will send that to the Committee. 7. Review and Approval of Minutes – 3/23/22 Joint with Select Board Bill Meehan MOVED to approve the Minutes of 3/23/22 as presented. Bob Young second. Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Honey Pivirotto – yes, Bob Young – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no 8. Request for agenda items for future meetings – please email Pete 9. Matters Not Reasonably Anticipated by the Chair- none 10. Next Finance Committee Meeting – May 14, 2022 Town Meeting 11. Adjournment Bill Meehan MOVED to adjourn the meeting at 7:04PM. Bob Young second. Roll Call Vote: Bill Meehan – yes, Bob Young – yes, Andy Evans – yes, Robert Tobias – yes, Honey Pivirotto - yes, Alex Hopper – yes, Bill Henchy – yes, Chair Pete Dahl– yes. The Committee voted: 8-yes 0-no Respectfully submitted, Beth Devine Packet of supporting materials on website for public review.