The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2023-10-25 Finance Committee - Financial Forum Packet Town of Reading Meeting Posting with Agenda 2018-07-16LAG Board -Committee -Commission -Council: Finance Committee Date: 2023-10-25Time: 7:00PM Building: Reading Public LibraryLocation: Community Room Address: 16 Lowell StreetAgenda: Purpose:Financial Forum Meeting Called By:Jacquelyn LaVerde onbehalf of Chair Ed Ross Notices and agendas are to be posted 48 hours in advance of the meetings excluding Saturdays, Sundays and Legal Holid operation and make necessary arrangements to be sure your posting is made in an adequate amount of time. A listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting must be on the agenda. All Meeting Postings must be submitted in typed format; handwritten notices will notbe accepted. Topics of Discussion: This meeting will be held in-person in the Reading Public Library Community Room and remotely via Zoom: Join Zoom Meeting https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81253317728 Meeting ID: 812 5331 7728 One tap mobile +16465189805,,81253317728# US (New York) +16465588656,,81253317728# US (New York) Dial by your location New York) Find your local number: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kqYS5Ux4D AGENDA: 7:00 PMWelcome/Overviewof Meeting from Ed Ross, Finance Committee Chair 7:10 PMRemarks from Senator Jason Lewis 7:15 PMRemarks from Town Manager, Fidel Maltez MBTA Communities Presentation with Community Development 7:25 PM Director Andrew MacNichol and Senior Planner MaryBenedetto 8:00 PMQ&A Session on MBTA Communities 8:30 PMDiscussion on Community Preservation Act 9:00 PMFuture Agenda Items 9:15 PMApprove previous meeting minutes This Agenda has beenprepared in advance and represents a listing of topics that the chair reasonably anticipates will be discussed at the meeting. However the agenda does not necessarily include all matters which may be taken up at this meeting. Page | 1 In Scope Regional Context Definitions of the Law What is multi-family housing What are the zoning districts in Reading For attendees to understand the By-right development new law History of zoning changes in Reading Zoning Capacity To understand why our zones in Price & Permitting Data Survey Results & Interpretation What that means for the changes Concerns and Areas of Interest we will need to make What staff sees as the best direction based on our survey Out of Scope results Arguing against zoning changes without first vetting any proposals Debating if we should comply with the law When supply of housing does not keep pace with growing demand it drives down vacancy rates and drives up prices as there is increased competition for units. --Family Housing in Greater Boston Report The region needs a range of housing types to meet demand as young people continue to move to the region for educational and work opportunities, and Baby Boomers downsize, often hoping to stay in their communities. Multi-family housing can provide environmental benefits such as reduced heating and cooling loads, requires less land per unit, can reduce auto-dependency if located near transit, and is the chief mechanism for expanding our Affordable housing stock. --Family Housing in Greater Boston Report The MBTA Communities law (3A), was passed in 2021 at the state level. It requires the 177 municipalities in the Boston metro to confirm that they have a district of reasonable size where multifamily housing (3+ units) is zoned for by-right at a specified density, determined by each municipalities' characteristics. Reading is classified as a commuter rail community which means at least half of our zoning district must be within a 1/2-mile of the Reading train depot downtown. By December 2024, Reading must confirm to the State that we have a district with by-right zoned capacity for 1,493 units of multi-family housing at a density of 15 units per acre across a district of a minimum of 43 total acres.* We do not currently have a zoning district that meets the requirements. *For the specific details on how these numbers were calculated by the State please see our project webpage. Source: Reading Historical Commission Zoning is the rulebook for future development. The Zoning Bylaw is a living document. Topics covered in the bylaw: Zoning Districts Administration by CPDC & ZBA Use & Intensity Regulations Nonconforming Uses & Structures Sign Regulations Parking Overlay Districts Owner submits Site Plan Review Application Staff reviews & schedules with the CPDC CPDC holds a public hearing and after the revision process, they approve the application. Project is built. Staff approves plans & homeowner builds Buildings Commissioner Homeowner submits plans for reviews plans & rejects an ADU over a new garage Grant special permit The ZBA hears the case and Homeowner appeals to the decides whether to grant a Zoning Board of Appeals special permit Do not grant special permit -project ends Planning staff would reject for Developer proposes project min lot size Do not grant variance - project ends The Zoning Board hears the Developer appeals to the Grant variance case and decides whether to Zoning Board of Appeals grant a variance CPDC reviews in public Staff reviews & schedules Developer submits site plan hearing process and with CPDC review application approves or rejects PTTTF approves or rejects Developer seeks driveway waiver request waivers Zoning Bylaw originally passed Mid-size single-family district (A-2) minimum lot size changed from 15,000 sq ft to 20,000 Creation of new larger apartment zone (B-1) Residence B district minimum lot size changed from 10,000 sqft to 40,000 Rename zones to modern names and begin using modern map Smallest single-family district minimum lot size changed from 10,000 sq ft to 15,000 A group of residents living in the South Main & Minot St area, upset by apartments being proposed near them, advocated to have the zoning bylaw changed and the minimum lot size increased in a special town meeting. In 1995 the Town changed the minimum lot size for single-family homes from 10,000 to 15,000 sq ft. The discussion at the time focused on slowing growth and slowing the building of new homes in Reading. In 2019 it was summarized that for the 100 communities within the Boston metro area in the 3 years prior only 14% of multi-family units were permitted by-right. The state is requiring municipalities to remove barriers to development within their zoning in order to make future development of dense housing close to transit to be possible. They had to choose a way to confirm that municipalities are complying, so they came up with zoning capacity requirements. Source: Reading Historical Commission Zoning capacity considers each parcel as empty and asks what could be built on it today under current zoning. built on every existing parcel in a district, based on what the zoning allows, regardless of what exists on each parcel. Reading Village (The Metropolitan) has 68 units.The lot it sits on is zoned S-15. This building is a 40B development. Under current zoning capacity this counts as 1. This house is a single-family house in the A-40 zone. If we revise the zoning in this district, this lot could count as 4 units or more. The single-family house can remain as long as the owner wants; zoning does not change what already exists. Reasons why existing zones don't comply: Acreage is too small Unit density is too low Large number of non-conforming parcels due to smaller lot sizes than the required Maximum lot coverage restrictions Parking ratios require lots of space Waivers required Source: Reading Historical Commission Reading will provide a variety of housing types for a diverse population. Such housing will integrate well with existing neighborhoods. Elderly, renters, first-time homebuyers, empty nesters, and others, will be able to find housing to match their needs. Providing these housing types, including affordable housing, will be easily allow certain types of housing, such as townhouses, multi- families and accessory apartments. -family production has seen temporary increases with periodic real estate booms, based on zoning and the historically low production of other-than single-family production will be single family houses on average half-acre lots. The likely result will be a continuation of high housing costs and fewer opportunities for low to moderate income households, empty nesters, and elderly." MBTA Communities gives us an opportunity to reconsider if, as a Town, we have met our goals. Have we provided a variety of housing types for a diverse population? Can a first-time homebuyers or elderly residents find housing to match their needs? Have we considered our place within the region and what type of community we want to be known as? In choosing to protect small town character by making development harder, we forfeit our ability to meet other goals. Source: Reading Historical Commission The goal of the survey was to receive actionable direction from residents as to the preferred types of multi-family housing for Reading. The survey was open from June 6 until September 5, 2023 and was publicized on the Town website, Town social media, in the Town Manager Minute, by the Recreation Department, the Library, the Economic Development Director, the Senior Center Staff, to Boards and Committees both via email and at in person presentations, and in person at community events. We received a total of 758 responses. Respondents prefer: Multi-family buildings with fewer units like triplexes and fourplexes Smaller buildings with fewer stories - New multi-family units should be near public transit, commercial corridors, and walking distance to pedestrian amenities Respondents highlighted traffic, open space, and changes to neighborhood character as their top concerns with new multi-family housing Survey results were clear that multi-family should be near transit / commercial / pedestrian-friendly areas. This directs us to focus the full acreage we are required to zone for to be within or near the 1/2 mile radius. Mid-rise buildings came in last in our survey which removes the DSGD, Bus-A and Industrial Zones from first consideration as a commercial base is desirable in these areas. The priority is for smaller scale multi-family developments that aesthetically fit into existing neighborhoods. A-40 is a natural fit given the existing zoning and existing multi-family uses in the district. It does not have enough acreage alone (17 acres). We propose combining A-40 with portions of S-15 to create a new district. The new district would allow multi-family units up to a maximum number and/or density per lot. Equal distribution across the 1/2 mile area is important for equal distribution of future school enrollment to come from possible construction. For each zoning District that the Town submits to Non-Conforming Parcels Units within Half-Mile of Transit the State, staff has to answer 51 questions. Total Excluded Land Open Space Removed/Set Aside Total Parking Area Units Forgone due to Unit Cap in Zoning Minimum Lot Size Parking Spaces per Unit Building Volume / Building Height Maximum Lot Coverage % Open Space % As we adjust each variable in the blue box, Setbacks lots will shift in or out of compliance, Lot Area per Unit changing our ultimate unit density/acre. Maximum Units per Acre Minimum Lot Sizes Frontage Parking Lot sizes must go down to make 90%+ of lots conforming Contact Reading's Planning Staff Andrew MacNichol Community Development Director amacnichol@ci.reading.ma.us 781-942-6670 Mary Benedetto Senior Planner mbenedetto@ci.reading.ma.us 781-942-6648 Source: Reading Historical Commission An Overview: The Community Preservation Act October 2023 Benjamin Cares & Andrew MacNichol Public Services Department Town of Reading What is the Community Preservation Act (CPA)? The CPA allows communities to adopt a Ranges from 0.5% to 3% local property tax surcharge to fund: Open Space & Recreation Exemptions may include: -First $100,00 of residential property value Historic Preservation -First $100,000 of commercial & industrial property value Affordable Housing -Low income families; low/moderate income seniors -Full commercial and industrial exemption (with split tax rate only) -Existing property tax emptions apply to the CPA surcharge What is the Community Preservation Act? The State will provide a matching distribution from the Community Preservation Trust Fund which is administered by the Department of Revenue 10% Only communities that have adopted CPA are eligible for the distribution Housing 10% Funds can be leveraged through bonding and Open Space & leveraging Recreation 10% Communities are required to evenly allocate at least Historic 30% of funds raised each year across 3 categories: Optional Open Space & Recreation (10%) 65%5% Administrative Historic Preservation (10%) Flexible Affordable Housing (10%) The remaining 70% may be allocated across each categories, to budget reserves, and to optional administrative needs Example: What would this cost the average taxpayer in Reading with a 1% CPA Surcharge? Average Value of Single-Family Home: With $100,000 exemption (previous slide) -$100,000 Net House Value Surcharged: = $666,834 Municipal Tax Rate (per $1000) is %12.59$666,834 x 12.59% Amount Subject to Surcharge=$ 8,394 CPA Surcharge Rate at 1% $8,394 x _1% Amount Paid Towards CPA Fund (annually)=$84 Who Has Adopted the CPA? 195 Cities and Towns 55% of municipalities 70% of Massachusetts residents 0 communities have revoked What Could We Accomplish in Reading? CPA Eligible What Can We Accomplish? Open SpaceHistoric ResourcesRecreational LandCommunity Housing Actions Acquisition Creation Preservation Yes, funding for Support community affordable housing trust If Acquired or Rehabilitation and If Acquired or Created Created with CPA Restoration with CPA funds. funds. Open Space Walkers Brook Stream Bank (Preservation) Funding for preservation (erosion control) of the Walkers Brook stream Bank Lobs Pound (Create) Create a new Lobs Pound greenspace along the Ipswich River Acquisition of 1310 Main Street, 0 Timber Neck, Lot 5 Grove Street (Acquire) For transition to conservation land and open space Trail and Boardwalk Improvements Signage, bridges, kiosks Invasive Species Management Recreation Playground, Park and Field Improvements Designs and Plan support New turf, play structures, repaving, lining Fencing, irrigation, seeding, drainage Facility Upgrades Sheds, dug outs, snack shacks, restrooms, etc. Safety and Health Tree removal, tree planting/shade, benches/rest, lighting ADA or Utility improvements Community Garden Improvements MatteraCabin, New? Historic Resources Pleasant Street Center (Rehabilitation, Restoration) ADA Accessibility Utility Upgrades Façade Maintenance Station One (Rehabilitation, Restoration) ADA Accessibility Utility Upgrades Façade Maintenance Venue for Arts & Culture 186 Summer Avenue (Acquisition, Restoration) National historic structure Housing Additions to the local AHTF Support services for RHA and/or Affordable units (closing costs, mortgage payments, first-time homebuyers, other) Capital Improvements Emergency Subsidy and Short-term aid Services/Programs Job loss, health, etc. Pre-development, Construction and Consulting Services Oakland Road MNRHSO Maintain or Purchase expiring SHI units Acquisitions and Partnerships Right of first refusals, other How Do We Adopt CPA? Learn and Build Consensus This group will be tasked with fact finding and information regarding: Community needs Possible surcharge amounts Outreach strategy to public (residents, Town Meeting, broader community) The goal is to achieve consensus around: The necessity for adopting the CPA The composition and role of a Community Preservation Committee The types of projects that may be funded We Vote! A municipality adopts CPA through passage of a ballot question at the voting booth How can it be placed on the ballot? Option 1: Vote during Town Meeting Option 2: Have 5% of registered voters sign a petition How Do We Oversee and Spend CPA Funds? Establish a Community Preservation Committee Via a Community Preservation Committee Bylaw/Ordinance Consists of 5 Statutory Members Conservation Commission Community Planning & Development Commission Reading Housing Authority Parks and Recreation Historical Commission Optional At Large Members May contain additional 4 At-Large Members (appointed or elected) for a maximum committee size of 9 individuals Roles of the Community Preservation Committee Accept and review Get input from the Recommend CPA CPA needs on a regular project proposalspublic and projects to Town basisboards/committeesMeeting/Selectboard Questions? Town of Reading Meeting Minutes 2016-09-22 LAG Board -Committee -Commission -Council: Finance Committee Date: 2023-10-11Time: 7:00PM Building: Reading Town Hall Location: Select Board Meeting Room Address: 16 Lowell StreetSession: Open Session Purpose: General BusinessVersion: Draft Attendees:Members -Present: Chair Ed Ross, Vice Chair Joe Carnahan, Geoffrey Coram, Endri Kume, Joe McDonagh(remote), Marianne McLaughlin-Downing, Emily Sisson, John Sullivan, Mark Zarrow Members -Not Present: Others Present: Chief Financial Officer Sharon Angstrom (remote), Town Manager Fidel Maltez, Angela Binda, Karen Gately Herrick, Rebecca Bailey (remote) Minutes Respectfully Submitted By:Jacquelyn LaVerde Topics of Discussion: Thismeeting was held in-person in the Town Hall Select Board Meeting Room and remotely via Zoom. Chair Ed Ross called the meeting to order at 7:02 pm. Liaison Reports Marianne Downing stated that the Charter Review Committee held its first meeting and elected Chris HaleyChair and Phil Pacino Vice Chair. The Select Board met last night and approveda liquorlicense,assigned Mark Dockserto the ReCALC feasibility study committee, discussed the search committee for a new Town Manager, and will approve 2024 tax rates at their next meeting. Joe Carnahan noted that the State Delegation visitedthe Select Board last month and talked about a lot of money due to come to Reading. They also discussed the roadway pavement plan, remaining ARPA funds, Pickleball and the Warrant, and heard a presentation on the Community Preservation Act (CPA). John Sullivan sharedupdates including CPDC approving waivers for a subdivision on Beacon Street, and ReCALC issued aRequest for Proposals (RFQ) for a design study on a new senior center. Emily Sisson noted that the Symonds Way Exploratory Committee was scheduled to meet, but did not have a quorum. She also stated that she spoke with Community Services Director Jenna Fiorente about pickleball and other Recreation needs, and concerns that some tennis courts are in disrepair. Page | 1 Geoffrey Coram stated that he signed up for the Citizens Police Academy. The School Committee received an update from the Killam School Building Committee, which is currently looking for designers. The School Committee plans to transfer tennis courts from the custody of the School Committee to the Select Board to make them eligible for a particular grant. The School Committee also heard a report on MCAS results, which showed some good signs and some things in need of review, such as the disparity between the scores of the two middle schools. Mr. Coram also noted that a resident proposed a dog park next to Birch Meadow, but it did not have traction. Ed Ross noted that the Killam School Building Committee is awaiting the Request for th Services (RFS) for a designer, and is scheduled to meet next on October 30. Town Manager Fidel Maltez noted that the deadline was today. Four proposals were received which will be uploaded to the Killam School Building Committee webpage. Mr. Ross expressed his pleasure with the Select Boards vote to reallocate some unused ARPA funds to the Reading Food Pantry. He also commented on the presentation on the Community Preservation Act, which demystified the commitment by individual households, and stated that the return on the CPA for the Town is significant and worth pursuing. Marianne Downing shared updates from the Council on Aging. She noted that the Finance Committee does not have a liaison to the COA, but the Council has a lot of financial implications. They are spending their awarded ARPA funds, but might not be able to spend the entire $600,000 before the deadline. She suggested that there may be a capital project for the senior center in the interim, and the Finance Committee may want to designate a liaison for that. Vote on Recommendations/Guidance for FY25 Budget The Finance Committee continued their discussion on Free Cash amounts and use. Discussion points included inflation, lower than projected new growth, higher interest returns along with higher interest rates, past amounts of free cash used and regenerated, and ongoing Collective Bargaining negotiations. Chief Financial Officer Sharon Angstrom noted that free cash is still not certified, but she projects it to be $19.3 million. Members of the Committee agreed that 4% of the operating budget was an acceptable amount of free cash to use for FY24, with future projections and financial impacts in mind. On a motion by Joe Carnahan, seconded by John Sullivan, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the use of free cash to support the FY25 operating budget in the amount of $3.6 million, with $700,000 for extra capital, which amounts to 4% support of the budget. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Vote on Warrant Articles for November Town Meeting Town Manager Fidel Maltez reviewed the warrant articles for the upcoming Subsequent Town Meeting. Article 1 Reports No Finance Committee report required. Article 2 - Instructions No Finance Committee report required. Article 3 Amendments to the Capital Plan The Committee reviewed and discussed several proposed changes to the Capital Plan. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Marianne Downing, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 3 to Town Meeting as presented. Page | 2 Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes,Mark Zarrow Yes,Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Geoffrey Coram. Article 4 Amendments to the FY24 Operating Budget The Committee reviewed and discussed several proposed changes to the FY24 budget. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Joe Carnahan, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 4 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Mark Zarrow. Article 5 Prior Years Bills The Town recently received some bills from 2019, but is working to resolve them with the insurance company. If the Finance Committee needs to vote on this article, they will do it the night of, just ahead of Town Meeting. Article 6 Birch Meadow Phase II The Committee reviewed and discussed an additional $500,000 applied for under the PARC grant for Phase II of the Birch Meadow Master Plan. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Marianne Downing, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 6 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Emily Sisson. Article 7 Trash Carts The Committee reviewed and discussed the two-part article. The first part establishes a solid waste revolving fund. The second part requests $900,000 from free cash for automated trash barrels. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Mark Zarrow, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 7 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Ed Ross. Article 8 Ladder Truck The Committee reviewed and discussed the article that requests $130,000 for unforeseen additional material costs for the ladder truck. The vendor was unable to provide the truck for the original quote. The Town negotiated an additional year of warranty, $25,000 in parts vouchers, and a $100 per day penalty for every day the truck is not delivered after May 31, 2024. The funds will come from unspent funds borrowed for the Parker Middle School roof. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Joe Carnahan, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 8 to Town Meeting as presented. Page | 3 Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes,Mark Zarrow Yes,Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to John Sullivan. Article 9 Grove Street Lot 5 The Committee reviewed and briefly discussed the request for $170,000 to pave the Grove Street Lot 5 parking lot. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by John Sullivan, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 9 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Joe Carnahan. Article 10 - Paving The Committee reviewed and discussed the request to increase the annual local funding of road paving by $300,000 to maintain a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) score of 79 on local roads. The current funding does not go as far as it has in the past due to inflation, and increased labor and material costs. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Marianne Downing, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to recommend the content of Article 10 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Joe McDonagh. Article 11 Town Clerk Award Request to adopt State Law to allow for additional compensation for the Town Clerk. No Finance Committee report required. Article 12 - Pickleball This is a Citizens Petition article, which the Finance Committee is not required to vote on, but because it is a request for funding, Committee members agreed they should vote on their recommendation for it. Ed Ross stated that he had an issue with the process, and given the size of the pickleball community, could have done more in terms of funding outside of nets and fencing. While he understands their position, there is more of a process for capital projects that should have been followed. Emily Sisson stated that while she sees the need in the community, the pickleball community has been encouraged to organize and raise funds. They are close on the process, but they should be able to get more organized for Annual Town Meeting in the spring. While this article is short money, someone could come to the next Town Meeting with a more substantial request for an idea that has not been fully vetted. Angela Binda, member of the Symonds Way Exploratory Committee, stated that she felt this article circumvents the work of SWEC. While Pickleball has been discussed for years, there are other needs the Recreation Department has. Mark Zarrow noted that the citizens petition is legal and the Pickleball community has the right to do it. Page | 4 On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Marianne Downing, the Finance Committee voted 3 in favor and 6 opposed to recommending the content of Article 12 to Town Meeting as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan No, John Sullivan No, Emily Sisson No, Endri Kume No, Geoffrey Coram No, Ed Ross No. Finance Committee report to Town Meeting assigned to Marianne Downing. Financial Forum II and Future Meeting Agendas th The next meeting of the Finance Committee will be the Financial Forum on October 25, which will include an Economic Development discussion with Senator Lewis, an update and listening session on MBTA Communities, and a presentation on the Community Preservation Act. Other future meeting topic suggestions include status updates on Capital projects, a summary of revolving funds and dedicated accounts, update on ARPA funds, an update from RMLD, and selection of a liaison to the Council on Aging. Approve Prior Meeting Minutes On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Endri Kume, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to approve the meeting minutes of September 20, 2023 as presented. Roll call vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. On a motion by Emily Sisson, seconded by Geoffrey Coram, the Finance Committee voted 9-0-0 to adjourn at 10:19 pm. Roll Call Vote: Joe McDonagh Yes, Mark Zarrow Yes, Marianne Downing Yes, Joe Carnahan Yes, John Sullivan Yes, Emily Sisson Yes, Endri Kume Yes, Geoffrey Coram Yes, Ed Ross Yes. Page | 5