BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
February 23, 2009
6:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 6:00 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Walters Young, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on February 23, 2009 in the amount of $660,054.15. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,166,801.86.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Ms. Gloff, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining, litigation, and executive session minutes. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 6:01 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:00 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ostroff announced there would be a computer and appliance recycling day on March 21 at the Natick High School. Information can be found on the web site and someone will be at the Board’s meeting of March 9.
Ms. White reported that the Interim Town Clerk, Onorina Maloney, started work today and was already implementing some new systems in the office. She was happy to have Ms. Maloney and looked forward to the 13 or so months Ms. Maloney will be here.
MORSE INSTITUTE & BACON FREE LIBRARY: NATICK READS
Karen Perkins of the Natick Reads Committee announced that the Morse Institute and Bacon Free Library were celebrating the month of March as Natick Reads Month. This year they didn’t choose one book. Instead they chose the genre of poetry. Throughout the month there will be activities at the Libraries including a special guest on March 19 of a former Poet Laureate. Selected Natick residents would be asked to share their favorite poem and anyone interested in reading their poem was asked to submit it ahead of time.
There will be poetry reading on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays plus children’s programming on March 14 and Saturday mornings. The month ends March 26 with a poetry slam at TCAN.
Ms. Perkins noted that when the committee began meeting former library director Paula Polk was participating. She was thrilled to be doing poetry so the committee has dedicated this year’s Natick Reads to Paula.
More information was available on the web site and at the library.
INTERVIEW FOR APPOINTMENT TO BACON FREE LIBRARY MAINTENANCE COMMITTEE
Steve Wilson told the Board that he was also a Trustee of the Bacon Free Library and as part of that role had a lot of oversight on things that go on. The Maintenance Committee approved invoices of expenses to be reimbursed by the Town and he thought as a Trustee it would be good to be involved in this part of it as well.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled the Bacon Free Library getting a grant to do some work about two years ago and asked if the work was done. Mr. Wilson advised that it was a $100,000 grant from the State and the work was done. It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding the Library couldn’t get a grant this year. Mr. Wilson confirmed that was correct, noting it was in the Bill but it got stuck.
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that his business partner and he have had some business dealings with Mr. Wilson in the past and he would abstain.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to appoint Steve Wilson to the Bacon Free Library Maintenance Committee. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff abstained.
REQUEST FOR WATER & SEWER BILL ABATEMENT: SYLVIA KANAL
Sylvia Kanal of Pumpkin Pine Road submitted a copy of the latest print out of her water & sewer bill. Ms. Kanal had addressed the Board previously requesting an abatement of an unusually high water bill from 10/1/08. She noted that not much had happened over the last few weeks other than the bill went down significantly although she thought it was still higher than it should be.
When Ms. Kanal last met with the Board Ms. Gloff suggested that she check the meter to see if there was any water change overnight and Ms. Gloff asked if Ms. Kanal had done that. Ms. Kanal advised that she had not.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there had been any construction during the abnormally high period and Ms. Kanal’s reply was, “no”.
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky was in the audience and Mr. Ciccariello asked if in the time since the new meters were put in if there were any problems with any of the meters failing or any kinds of issues. Mr. Sisitsky advised that he was only aware of one problem with the installation and that was discovered almost immediately and changed out. Other than that he wasn’t aware of any problems.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if when someone went out and inspected in situation like this if there was a way to see if the meter was functioning appropriately. Mr. Sisitsky noted that the meter could be tested. There was a $25 fee and every time they test it, they have always tested accurate.
Mr. Ostroff asked about outside faucets and Ms. Kanal said she had two. Both were checked by the plumber and if one was left on she would have had to turn it off because she was the only one living there and she didn’t turn anything off.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that if the Board were to take any action the only thing they could do would be to waive the sewer fee. Ms. White added that that was what the Board had historically done if it could be proved the water didn’t run into the sewer system.
Based on information Ms. Kanal provided – the information from the plumber showing there was no leak, and the history showing the average usage not even remotely close to 60 units – Mr. Connolly moved to waive the sewer aspect of the 10/1/08 bill and that Ms. Kanal pay the water fees. After some discussion Mr. Connolly amended his motion to reduce the sewer fee from $563.50 to a fee that was the equivalent of 18 units of usage. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff and unanimously voted.
In speaking to the motion, Ms. Gloff inquired if Mr. Connolly was suggesting that all of the sewer fee be waived or a potion that would be accounted by water use. It was important to look at the use column and it appeared as though it ranged from a low of 9 units to 18. Was the intent to waive the charges over 18 units?
Following the vote Ms. Kanal still thought the bill was very high and pointed out that none of her other bills had a water use of $205.80. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that she continue to watch the usage and if it gets erratic again notify the DPW.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how the reader went around and it looked like the reading was higher than 5-6 units a month, would Ms. Kanal be notified.
DPW Business Manager William Chenard responded that the meters were all read monthly and the DPW did a good job of identifying high water reads and leaving a notice at the home asking the owner to notify the department. If it appeared as though she was using significantly more than in the past by using the averaging process, Ms. Kanal would be contacted.
Ms. Gloff explained that she was concerned with including the 60 units in her average as it would look like she was using more than she normally did. Was there some way to track this one in particular. Unless someone was willing to go through all 11,000 accounts per month, Mr. Chenard thought the averaging process was the best they could do.
Ms. Kanal noted that the high bill was for July, August and September. Supposedly it was read every month, but she didn’t get a notice until the 9th of October.
NH HOTEL ASSOCIATES, INC d/b/a Hampton Inn: UPDATE
Appearing before the Board were Attorney Joseph Ayoub and the manager of NH Hotel Associates, Inc. John Mathers.
Mr. Ayoub recalled that on November 3 the Board was asked to transfer the innholder’s alcohol license from a joint ownership with Owen O’Leary’s to solely being held by NH Hotel Associates. At that time the hotel was asked to come back in 90 days to report on the efforts to get a new tenant for the restaurant. The hotel has tried to get a new tenant, but has not been able to do that. They were very motivated but in this environment it was very difficult. They have used several brokers and were about to start with a new broker on an exclusive basis. The hotel wanted this to happen more than anyone – not only for the revenue but for the convenience of the guests to have a full service restaurant. There was plenty of business motivation to get this done.
Mr. Mathers assured the Board that the hotel was still very aggressively trying to lease space, but had not been successful. Since the time they were before the Board in November, there were six inquiries and they were on the verge of signing an exclusive contract with a broker out of Boston that was connected to the restaurant business.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that an entity couldn’t hold a license if they were not using it.
Attorney David DeLuca of Town Counsel’s firm of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane responded that Mr. Ostroff’s general premise was correct. If an entity held a license and didn’t use it, they were in violation of the conditions of the license, but he didn’t think that was the case here. To maintain an innholder’s alcohol license required an innholder’s common victualer’s license and the Hampton Inn hold a CV innholder’s license. The CV innholder’s requires them to have sufficient facilities to prepare and serve food and it was his understanding the hotel had that. It may not be on the full service basis as when they had Owen O’Leary’s but they still use those facilities primarily at breakfast and that was supplemented with catering contracts for
specific functions. Whether that was entirely consistent with the license was the subject of another hearing, but they were operating and consistently using their innholder’s alcohol license.
Mr. DeLuca advised that it was within the Board’s discretion whether and to what extent to extend the hotel’s ability to continue to operate their innholder’s license. They were legal as they remain today. Everyone would like to see a restaurant get in and get operating but as they exist today and the manner in which they were operating, it did seem to be the case (operating legally).
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was satisfied the licenseholder wasn’t just holding onto a license.
Mr. Connolly inquired if anybody was waiting for a license and was told by Ms. Challis there were still a few available.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to give NH Hotel Associates another three months and if anything happened in the meantime to let the Board know. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ayoub stated the hotel would be happy to report back, but he didn’t want to make it sound like if they didn’t have a tenant in three months that they wouldn’t have one.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that Mr. Connolly was saying continue it for another three months and the Board can decide how it wants to proceed.
Mr. Ostroff pointed out that if the hotel got a new tenant, that license would need to be transferred before they could operate. Mr. DeLuca confirmed that to be correct.
ATTORNEY DAVID DELUCA: TAX TITLE PROGRESS REPORT
Attorney David DeLuca of Murphy, Hesse, Toomey & Lehane who had been appointed as special counsel for tax title provided the Board with an update. He reported that he began with 71 open Land Court cases and of those, 14 cases had been withdrawn. Two of the 14 cases resulted in redemptions and one of the redeemed resulted in a recovery of approximately $43,000. 21 cases were being worked on with 3 of those cases entering into a payment plan with the Town. 36 cases need to be identified as active or not.
With respect to Fiscal 2008 tax title properties, Mr. DeLuca advised that all instruments of taking for FY08 had been recorded. There were 142 properties in total. Demand notices have been sent to 42 properties and 6 have entered into a payment plan with the town. Eight have been paid or were in the process of being paid. The eight properties on which payment (or in the process of being collected) totaled approximately $21,665.
The total recovery for this quarter was $69,664.
Mr. DeLuca noted that concentration was on the cases in Land Court and the ones that were relatively new to tax title. Aggressive efforts have been made to reduce the cases in Court. This has been a hands on project for not only himself but also a paralegal who has been engaged almost daily with members of the Collector’s Office and Mr. Palmer. The Town staff has been terrific.
Mr. DeLuca continued that the most important aspect was communication. It was very important for the residents to understand that if they are having difficulties they must stay in touch and reach out. The Town will work with you. That was the strategy being employed and hopefully the number will diminish.
Mr. Ostroff noted the collection of close to $70,000 this quarter and inquired as to how Mr. DeLuca was defining a quarter. Mr. DeLuca responded that it was since the last time he met with the Board. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff asked about the collection to date. Mr. DeLuca thought it was $47,000-$50,000 the last time and added that the combined figures were significant as opposed to the attorney’s fees which were recoverable. He has been very satisfied with the progress and now that we were starting to get some traction, he believed there would be even more success.
Mr. Ostroff then inquired as to when these funds would be available to offset expenses and Ms. White explained they would come in as general fund receipts and fall out at the end of the year in free cash.
In the case where a property owner had their eye on an abandoned piece of property, Mr. Ostroff inquired as to when they would see it going to bid. Would it be a year or two? Mr. DeLuca noted there may be an inventory already of properties that were Town owned for tax purposes and it was the Collector’s duty to assign property for sale by way of auction. There may be a municipal use for some of those properties and that would be up to the Board of Selectmen and others to decide.
In conclusion Mr. DeLuca told the Board that he felt the greatest success was on those that were the freshest. He wanted to address those and then reach back. He would report back again in three months.
DPW: AWARD CONTRACT FOR STREETLIGHTING
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reviewed the bid process for the new street lighting contract. It was advertised in the MetroWest Daily News and the Central Register on December 17, 2008. Nine contractors received the Invitation for Bids and four contractors submitted bids on January 7, 2009. The bid included a base bid and one alternate.
The bids received were from:
Wilmington Wiring $28,800.00 $3,000 (alternate)
Republic Intelligent Transportation $30,888.00 $6,249 (alternate)
Services, Inc.
Brite-Lite Electrical Co., Inc. $34,800.00 $5,125 (alternate)
Coviello Electric & General $49,831.00 $5,625 (alternate)
After reviewing the bids the Procurement Officer and he (Mr. Chenard) determined Wilmington Wiring was the lowest responsible and eligible bidder meeting all minimum requirements in accordance with MGL. References contacted by the Town provided only favorable comments regarding the performance of Wilmington Wiring.
The recommendation was to award the street lighting contract to Wilmington Wiring for the base bid of $28,800. It was noted that the low bid this year was slightly less than the current contract.
Mr. Chenard introduced John Garrett, President of Wilmington Wiring.
Mr. Connolly commented that the whole street light thing was a pet peeve of his. Nstar billed the Town like every street light was on. Mr. Chenard explained there were a minimum number of lights on a meter, but the majority were billed like they were on.
Noting that he had conversations with Mr. Chenard and that Mr. Chenard had followed up, Mr. Connolly reported that two street lights in front of the Sons of Italy were out. He had heard different stories like when the Police activities weren’t as busy the officers would log a pole that was out and that log was given to Brite Lite to fix. He also thought Brite Lite was to come out at night and do their own inventory. Would that happen again under a new contractor?
Mr. Chenard responded that the DPW recognized what Mr. Connolly was saying in part from his due diligence and changed this contract. The old vendor was required to do it quarterly and the new one will be monthly. In talking to Mr. Garrett, Wilmington Wiring has already identified a number.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello if the Board was voting for a one year contract with no options for year 2 or 3, Mr. Chenard responded that it was specified that it would be the first year with a review for year 2 and 3. In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if years 2 and 3 were bid and Mr. Chenard’s reply was, “yes”. Mr. Ciccariello noted that the board didn’t have that part. He further noted there were a bunch of unit prices and questioned if Wilmington Wiring was the low bid for years 2 and 3 with the unit prices. Again Mr. Chenard’s reply was, “yes”. Mr. Chenard confirmed that the alternate was not being accepted.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if a person could report a street light out on the web site. Mr. Chenard advised that it could be done on the web site or people can call the DPW. About 50% were reported on the web site.
Mr. Garrett told the Board that Wilmington Wiring had been in business for 19 years and had done a lot of street lighting maintenance for Mass Highway and the Town of Winchester, Mystic, etc. Hopefully they would exceed the Town’s expectations. Right now they were in the process of going street-to-street and had already found about 40 lights out so far.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to award the contract for street light maintenance for one year to Wilmington Wiring in the amount of $28,800. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam and unanimously voted.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
- Nstar – West Natick Transmission Line Project
Melody Way resident Peter Langnan stated that he was looking for clarification. There was a revocation of the grant of location and then a cease and desist order from the Conservation Commission and he didn’t know how it was left. Was Nstar required to come back and reapply?
Mr. Ciccariello advised that for the cease & desist order Nstar would have to satisfy the Conservation Commission, and they (Nstar) would have to come back to the Board for a grant of location.
Mr. Langnan questioned if it was officially revoked. It wasn’t clear to him whether the Board expected Nstar to reapply.
Ms. White noted that it was her understanding that Nstar had resolved its issues with the Conservation Commission and she was now communicating with Counsel on what the Board’s next step should be.
Mr. Langnan inquired as to how the residents would be notified if there was any change in Nstar’s status. If the grant was revoked he wanted to make sure the grant wasn’t given back based on a technicality and people weren’t aware of it.
Ms. White suggested there be a neighborhood representative that could be used as a point of contact. Mr. Langnan offered to be the representative.
Lynn D’Agnelli was of the understanding that the Conservation Commission gave Nstar permission to go back in but there was a stipulation in the minutes of February 17, 2005 that in order for Nstar to proceed they had to come up with six items of which one was a planting or replanting plan. On February 9 and 19, 2009 Nstar was asked if there was a planting or replanting plan and they said no, but in 2005 that was one of the stipulations. She questioned if it was possible to still have Nstar in violation as they didn’t fulfill all the needs of the Conservation Commission. Was there something the Board could do or clarify?
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board could not dictate a decision made by the Conservation Commission. He didn’t know if there were any specific dates for submitting a planting plan, but it was his understanding Nstar was in the process of putting their plan together and would submit it to the Conservation Commission. Ms. D’Agnelli would need to ask the Conservation Commission.
Environmental Compliance Officer Robert Bois thought there was a great deal of confusion with the planting plan. As part of the 2005 Order of Conditions there was a planning plan to replace about 52 feet of wetlands. As the result of the cease and desist order Nstar was to submit a letter that they would complete a restoration plan and replant in the area where the violation occurred which was separate from the plan in 2005. Nstar did that. The Conservation Commission was requiring them to file a new notice of intent of the replanting plan that resulted from the violation.
To Mr. Ciccariello it sounded as though Nstar satisfied the cease & desist order. Mr. Bois indicated that was correct and explained there were two things: one was for the recording of the entire right-of-way and providing the Conservation Commission notice of such, and the second was subject to a replanting plan. At their last meeting the Conservation Commission voted to remove both.
Mr. Connolly questioned if Nstar had to come before the Selectmen. Ms. White noted that she was waiting for input from counsel and wasn’t prepared to answer tonight. Mr. Ciccariello added that Nstar’s attorney had sent a letter to Town Counsel and that was being reviewed as to whether Nstar could legally continue work.
Mr. Connolly commented that the Board didn’t know what to tell the neighbors and Ms. White’s reply was, “not at this time”.
Mr. Connolly inquired if it was possible for the Board to hold a neighborhood meeting. Mr. Ciccariello suggested that once there was some feedback from Town Counsel the Board would know in what direction it could move. Asked how that information would get to the neighbors, Mr. Ciccariello advised it would be through the contact.
Retired Nstar employee Pat Young noted that as of yet there had been no ECSD vist to the job site. The ECSD was responsible for visiting construction sites to see that standards were being adhered to. Approximately 26 metal poles had been set and the poles had to be set at certain depths and under certain standards. No ECSD had been on the site and he would ask the Board if and when the order of conditions was lifted that Nstar be required to have the proper controls in place. The ECSD was to protect the interest of the public and Nstar had a track record of not using them.
Jimmy Brown of Natick Forever announced that tomorrow night at 7:00 p.m. in the Library Natick Forever would be sponsoring the third public event for the candidates for School Committee. Members of the public were welcome.
Appearing before the Board were Charles Street resident Aaron Socrat and Grove Street resident Josh Tower.
Mr. Tower recalled that a couple of years ago a developer came that wanted to redevelop the Natick Paperboard site and proposed a 150 condo development. The Planning Board and Town Meeting approved a specific plan given by the developer. Now the developer has come back and made some important changes to the project that make it unacceptable. Originally the developer proposed condos and now that has been changed to apartments which was about $250,000-$300,000 of lost tax revenue.
Mr. Tower continued that the developer said they would completely clean up the contamination, but at this point they were proposing a partial cleanup and capping the rest. This was an aquifer protection district and the contamination was in the water table and the developer wanted to cap and build the project on top of it. There would be an AUL that would always be there and that would be a stigma for the neighborhood, the Town, and the drinking water supply.
Continuing, Mr. Tower noted that the original proposal was going to have parking under the building and now they were proposing a huge ugly parking garage instead. Originally the proposal was for a three story building and now the proposal was a four story building that was almost 60 feet above the neighbors. This would add traffic to Route 27.
Mr. Tower told the Board that the Fire Chief had testified before the Planning Board that he thought the construction of that building would require a different type of truck to fight a fire and testified that the egress would be difficult from that site. He (Mr. Tower) urged the Board to join the neighbors in urging the Planning Board to require the developer to do it as they originally said or reject it. There were a lot of good projects that could be done and this was not one of them.
Mr. Socrat distributed a letter from the Lake Cochituate Advisory Committee on the contamination, a letter from a LSP, an article on the anticipated tax revenue, and a follow-up on the reduction.
Mr. Socrat told the Board that he and Mr. Tower were part of a PIP along with a couple dozen people. The proposal of the developer to Town Meeting promised condos, but the new proposal had a projected count of over 18 school age children. Town Meeting was lied to. The developer was potentially selling to another developer that only did apartments. The Planning Board has been asked to review the approved article by Town Meeting and he (Mr. Socrat) would ask the Board of Selectmen to use its authority to request a review of this issue.
Mr. Socrat continued that this (Natick Paperboard) was a dirty site and in the aquifer protection district and affects the drinking water. Capping was a bad idea. The developer has stated it would cost $8-9 million to clean up the balance of the site and that sounds like a superfund site. The Planning Board had jurisdiction over the APD and Conservation Commission had jurisdiction over the drinking water. The water supply must be protected and both the Planning Board and the Conservation Commission have been asked to have all the contamination removed.
Again Mr. Socrat asked the Board of Selectmen to step up and help the neighbors. They were rather frustrated. He was afraid the Newark Group would walk away with about $6 million and leave the Town with a dirty site and that was unacceptable.
Mr. Connolly asked Mr. Socrat if the Planning Board was working with him. Mr. Socrat responded that he didn’t think anyone was working with them. He knew someone had asked to have Town Counsel see if the new proposal was consistent with Town Meeting’s approval, but it’s never been done.
Town Meeting member Mary Brown began by raising her concern that a trash pickup charge was taxation without representation. The Town had an override. The money was spent very poorly, and the Town couldn’t keep bleeding the people time after time without telling the people the revenues received and the amount received from recycling. The only thing that was ever heard was the expenditures. There had to be a checks and balances and don’t just keep socking it to the people.
Ms. Brown expressed her frustration with there being no budget. It should be in January and it was now going into March. She hoped all the information would be given to Town Meeting.
In addition Ms. Brown was concerned with the election. There were some concerns with the machines. She had made it a point to meet the new Town Clerk. She was very nice and said she went by the book and was very much in touch with the State. Her hope was that it would be a fair election. She also noted the presence of an elected official in the Town Clerk’s office and that should not be.
Mr. Ciccariello assured Ms. Brown the new Town Clerk was very familiar with the voting machines and had spent a lot of time researching a lot of the issues in the past. He was confident she (Town Clerk) would run a fair election for everybody. He agreed with her point of there being no election official behind the Town Clerk’s counter and it wouldn’t happen again.
Ms. Brown countered that he was there today, and Mr. Ciccariello responded that he had explained to Ms. Brown that the official was proof reading the Town Report and there were some mistakes.
As a matter of practice, if there was anything Ms. Brown felt that he had done that was inappropriate, Mr. Ostroff said he would ask that she let him know directly.
FEE DISCUSSION
Ms. White noted that the Board had discussed increasing fees at the last meeting and she thought it was incumbent to look at the fee schedule on a regular basis and see if it was appropriate to increase fees to cover a cost or keep in line with other communities.
Ms. White pointed out there was a misstatement in her memo of February 5. She had used the upcoming MathWorks project as an example. If the proposed building fees were adopted there would be a $105,000 increase.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to why the discrepancy and Ms. White explained that when she reviewed the documents with the TIF numbers, the numbers she referred to were the garage as opposed to the office building. She just looked at a fraction of the project.
Mr. Ciccariello proposed reviewing the fees individually by department beginning with the recommendations of Joseph Mulvey, the Sealer of Weights & Measures.
- Sealer of Weights & Measures
Noting that Mr. Mulvey was paid a stipend, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Town was losing money with all the inspections he did. Ms. White’s reply was, “no”. Mr. Mulvey was paid a salary and the fees covered the salary.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about other communities if they paid a salary or by inspection, and Ms. White responded that in small communities where she previously worked a consultant was employed through the state so it was a different system.
Ms. Van Amsterdam was of the understanding that the difference – the increased revenue - between fees collected for FY10 vs FY09 stayed within that department. From what was presented she couldn’t readily find the dollars coming from the proposed increases and asked if that was included.
Ms. White advised it was not because it was so hard to predict, i.e.the Building Department fees would not stay with the specific department but would go into the general fund, but per the ground rules agreed to at the Financial Planning Committee for one year it would be the intent that new fees generated by the general government would stay in the general government and fees generated by the Schools would be for the Schools with the exception of the trash bags. They do not staff with the department – that would be administratively impossible.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how much was raised last year in actual fees from the Sealer, but Ms. White didn’t have that information tonight. Asked when she expected to have it, Ms. White believed the Board was going to be asked to meet on March 2 and she thought she would have it by then or if not certainly by the March 9 meeting.
Mr. Connolly reminded the Board of the reform before revenue position. People were hurting and he thought it was a bad time to ask the citizens to pay more and indirectly that would happen. To not even know what it will do for the revenue, he didn’t see how the Board could vote on it.
Mr. Ostroff didn’t think there was sufficient revenue involved that waiting a week would do harm to the budget process.
The Board agreed not to take any action.
In addition to finding out what the revenue has been, Ms. Gloff requested an estimate of what the proposed fees would mean.
The Board was in receipt of a list of proposed Building Department fees. Ms. White pointed out that the recommendation was to increase from $13.00 to $15.00 per thousand. It was difficult to project the amount that would generate because it wasn’t known what projects and applications would be coming in.
Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that increasing
Building fees was different than others because it was specific to the individual vs all taxpayers. He noted that to have a certificate of occupancy included in the building fee was not done in most communities. He also questioned the $100 re-inspection fee, noting that might be enough when doing a house but re-inspecting a major building could take 3-4 hours.
In response to several questions from Mr. Ciccariello, Ms. White advised that the electrical and plumbing inspectors were paid per inspection. At present she didn’t believe any of the inspectors were paid benefits. There was a recent retirement in that department that she believed received benefits. The proposal was to increase the amounts available to the other inspectors, but she didn’t anticipate anybody else going on the health care system.
Noting there was no re-inspection fee for plumbing, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was a reason. Ms. White responded that Community Development Director Patrick Reffett met with the inspection staff within the department and these were the recommendations. These recommendations were consistent with the consultant’s recommendations.
Mr. Ostroff felt the Building fees may be something on which clarity would be needed as revenue estimates were developed for FY10 so it may be worthwhile to move on this and if it needs to be revisited later that could be done.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s recollection that in the past the Building Department generated enough fees to pay for the entire department’s function. Was that still the case? Ms. White advised that it was adding that they generate considerable revenue and the fees were an important source of revenue in support of all the operation. Some departments had a better capacity for creating fee revenue than do other departments.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to approve the Building Department fee schedule presented in the February 12, 2009 memo as listed below. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion was amended to have the new fees effective of March 2, 2009. The motion passed on 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
BUILDING
Residential Alteration Permit: $15/thousand of construction cost (rounded up)
Residential New Building Permit: $15/thousand of construction cost (rounded up)
Commercial Alteration Permit: $15/thousand of construction cost (rounded up)
Commercial New Building Permit: $15/thousand of construction cost (rounded up)
Fences: $25
Pools:
- Above Ground $100
- In Ground $150
Sheds: $25
Signs: $75/per sign
Demolition, Residential $120
Demolition, Interior Commercial: $15/thousand of construction cost
(rounded up)
Demolition, Exterior Commercial: +$15/thousand of construction cost
+$500 Minimum Fee (rounded up)
Certificate of Occupancy: Included in permit fee unless otherwise noted
Certificate of Occupancy
(Temporary) $150
Minimum Fee (unless otherwise noted):$50
Re-Inspection Fee: $100
Research: $30/per hour (building/planning/zoning/conservation)
$.25 per photo copy
ELECTRICAL
Residential – New $15/per thousand of cost
Residential Alteration: $15/per thousand of cost
- Including Service, Pools, Telephone, Data, Cable, Security and Fire Alarm Installation
Residential Service Grounding: $15/per thousand of cost
Residential Minimum Fee: $30
Commercial – New: $15/per thousand of cost
Commercial Alterations: $15/per thousand of cost
- Including Service, Pools, Security and Fire Alarm Installation, Signs, Traffic Signals and Parking Lot Lighting
Commercial Minimum Fee: $50
Maintenance Fee: $200/year (Commercial and Residential)
Re-Inspection Fee: $50/per Inspection (Commercial and Residential)
PLUMBING**
Residential – New: $80/5 fixtures; $6/each additional
Residential Alterations: $40/3 fixtures; $6/each additional
Commercial – New: $110/5 fixtures; $6/each additional
Commercial Alterations: $65/3 fixtures; $4/each additional
GAS**
Residential – New: $60
Residential Alterations: $33
Commercial – New: $80/5 fixtures; $5/each additional
Commercial Alterations: $60/3 fixtures; $4/each additional
**Residential Hot Water Heaters: $20 Gas and $20 Plumbing – REPLACEMENT ONLY
Speaking to the motion, Ms. White requested the Board’s consideration in making the fees effective as soon as possible, but Ms. Gloff thought that was difficult because what would that mean. Would some be implemented Friday and some next week?
Ms. White knew there was a public notice required. She didn’t know the mechanics involved but the Community Development Director would be implementing the new fees as soon as he could and the department would want to provide a notice on the counter.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that if somebody failed to get their application in by March 2, they will have to comply with the new Mass Building Code and he wouldn’t want to penalize people trying to get their plans in to comply with the past code. His preference would be an effective date of April.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if waiting for April 1 would have a negative effect on the Town. Ms. White responded that the MathWorks application was expected before then and she advised them of the intent to raise the fees.
Mr. Connolly felt it was too blanketed. In some instances there was a fee for re-inspection and in some instances there was not.
Ms. Gloff proposed March 2 as the date of implementation and amended the motion with the consent of the maker.
In a memo to the Board Town Clerk Judith Kuhn listed the following proposed fee increases for her department:
Auctioneer’s daily from $10.00 to $25.00
Auctioneer’s annual from $15 to $50
Business certificates from $40 to $50
By Law and Charter from $5 each to $10 each
Raffle and Bazaar from $10 to $25
Marriage Intention from $20 to $25
Most of these were pretty nominal, but it was anticipated that the increase in business certificates would produce an additional $3,060.
Mr. Ostroff questioned if the Board had the authority to raise these and Ms. White’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Connolly stated he would support these because they were pretty mild.
A motion was made by Mr. Connolly to adopt the Town Clerk’s recommendations. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Asked when these increases would take effect, Ms. White thought they could go into effect immediately.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam to approve the following fee increases for the Recreation & Parks Department:
An increase for out-of-town groups that reserve outdoor fields from $25/hour to $35/hour. An increase for out-of-town groups that use the Cole Center from $7/hour to $15/hour. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
The net effect of these two increases was projected to be $540 per year. Both would go into effect immediately.
Ms. White recommended that consideration be given to increasing the gasoline storage from $35 for less than 2000 gallons and $5 for each additional 1,000 gallons to $50 for both. This would require Town Meeting action.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the additional revenue projected from this increase. As Ms. White did not have it with her, Mr. Ciccariello proposed not taking it until those figures were available.
Following a five minute recess, the meeting was reconvened at 9:15 p.m.
Fire Chief James Sheridan told the Board that he was proposing to double all inspection and permit fees and even with doubling them Natick will be on the low end of the spectrum. The Jacobs study suggested that doubling the fees would increase revenue by $75,000 but he (Chief Sheridan) wouldn’t take that as gospel due to the slow down in the building trades.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to why no fee was proposed for hotels, hospitals, nursing homes and Chief Sheridan responded that he looked around and most communities do not charge for those establishments. By statute quarterly inspections had to be done on anything registered by the Department of Public Health. The inspections were done by the Fire Prevention Officer.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned why consideration wasn’t being given to charging the private schools since it was costing the Town. Chief Sheridan acknowledged that could be done and Mr. Ciccariello responded that that would be his recommendation.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the increase in fees would protect firefighters’ jobs, but Mr. Ciccariello explained the fees would go back into the general fund
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the plan review was currently done by an outside consultant. Chief Sheridan advised that it was and something the developer had to pay. He added that now that high rises were coming into Town that was something that had to be looked at.
When asked if the gun powder was for retail stores or anybody, Chief Sheridan advised that it was generally for re-enactors that store black powder. There was no certain quantity. It was for any amount.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that only two ambulance fees were being proposed to be increased. Chief Sheridan advised that ambulance fees weren’t being addressed at this time. He was working with the Town Administrator and the Finance Director.
Ms. White noted that there had also been some discussion about fees for false alarms. Historically the department hasn’t charged a fee for false alarms but the new chief was going to start enforcing the by-law. Chief Sheridan added that the reason other chiefs have not implemented the fee was the fear of somebody disconnecting the fire alarm system.
Chief Sheridan requested some leniency on implementation of the new fees. The Fire Prevention Officer was out sick and he was breaking in a new Fire Prevention Officer and would like to work with him on the implementation. Asked if he was looking to implement no sooner than April 1 or May 1, Chief Sheridan thought that would be fair.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to approve the proposed fees for the Fire Department as follows with one change – that hotels be charged $50.00 per inspection. The date of implementation of the fees to be at the discretion of the Town Administrator and Fire Chief.
Current Natick Fees Natick Average Recommended
AMBULANCE
BlS Non-Emergency $330 $530 $530
BLS Base Rate $530 $402 No Change
ALS Non-Emergency $400 $635 $500
ALS Base Rate $635 $609 No Change
ALS-2 Base Rate $910 $855 No Change
Specialty Care $1,100 No change
Mileage $15 $15 No Change
Oxygen $60 $60 No Change
Airways $140 $140 No Change
IV Therapy $140 $140 No Change
Defibrilation $140 $140 No Change
Cardiac Monitoring $176
Extra Attendant $125
EPI-Pen $50
Extrication $200
PERMITS
Ammunition Storage $50
Smoke Detector $25 $43 $45
Sprinkler Installation/Alt. $25 $34 $35
Sprinkler New Installation $100 $100
Sprinkler Alarm Renovation $25 $25
Storage of flammables $25 $50 $50
Fire Alarm Installation/Mtnce $25 $53 $50
Fire Alarm-Residential $40 $40
Fire Alarm-Commercial $25 $65 $50
Oil Burner/Tank Installation
Above Ground $25 $40 $50
Oil Tank Removal Above Ground $25 $38 $40
Oil Tank Removal Below Ground $25 $40 $100
Oil Burner/Tank Installation
Below Ground $75 $75
Removal of Basement Tanks $50 $50
Gasoline Tank Removal $120 $100
Occupancy (Residential
Plan Review) $25 $63 $50
Propane Storage $25 $36 $50
Flammable Storage $25 $35 $50
Combustible Storage
(New Oil) $25 $25 $50
Combustible Storage
(Waste Oil) $25 $35 $50
Cutting and Welding $25 $38 $50
Blasting $51 $50
Blasting (2 wks at a time) $25 $40 $50
Black & Smokeless Powder
(1 yr only) $25 $39 $50
Gasoline Storage UST (5yrs) $25 $56 $50
Tar Kettle $40 $50
Gunpowder $25 $34 $50
Fuel Storage Tank Trucks $25(2yrs) $50 $50
Fire Works $25 $48 $50
Bon/Camp Fires $43 $50
Brush burning $10 $10
Christmas Trees $35 $25
Commercial Garage/
Gas Station $50 $50
Photo Copies $50 $50
Pint Spray Booths $50 $50
UGST Removal-Up to
10,000 gallons $50 $50
INSPECTIONS
Master Alarm Annual $300 $241 No Change
Private School Quarterly
Inspection $70 $70
False Alarms $250 $100 after 3
PLAN REVIEW
Structures up to 2,400
Sq. ft $300 No Change
2,500 sq.ft. to 25,000
sq. ft $500 $50 No Change
25,001 sq. ft. up to
50,000 sq. ft. $800 $50 No Change
50,001 sq. ft. up to
100,000 sq. ft. $1,000 $50 No Change
100,001 sq. ft. up to
50,000 sq. ft. $1,500 $50 No Change
150,001 sq. ft. up to
200,000 sq. ft $1,800 $50 No Change
Over 200,001 sq. ft. $2,000 $50 No Change
g.Pay-As-You-Throw
Ms. White informed the Board that a couple of recommendations from last week had been rethought. The recommendation was for the fee for the small bags to increase from $1.00 to $1.25. Based on current sales that would produce almost $67,000 with the additional cost to residents being $13.00 per year. Also recommended was an increase in the fee for the large bag from $1.75 to $2.00 and based on current sales that would produce additional revenue of $121,000. The cost to the residents per year would be $13.00.
In addition a fee had been proposed for the disposal of yard waste at the recycling center. This would be done by a sticker program with stickers costing $20. It was estimated that that would produce about $24,000 in revenue.
Ms. White noted that the projected budget for the Sanitation Division totaled $2,063,000 and based on the current fees for FY10 about $1.2 million would be collected. The operational deficit, and Ms. White acknowledged that it was never envisioned as a break even operation, was $855,347 and the additional revenue proposed would reduce that to about $643,000.
Ms. White continued that some of the fees were re-evaluated after a discussion with the Chair of the Recycling Committee and as a result any suggestion of a fee for the use of the recycling center and a fee for curbside yard waste pickup was being withdrawn. Collection for the fee for the curbside pickup seemed impractical and you didn’t want to discourage people at the center. The Town provides excellent solid waste disposal in the community. The level of service provided at zero cost was very rare. Most Towns charge fees where Natick was charging none and she would suggest the fee increases being proposed were very modest.
Ms. White referenced a memo from the Chair of the Recycling Committee supporting the increase in the PAYT bags by $0.25, the increase in the cost of bulky waste by $5 or $10, the requirement for a sticker to be purchased to use the yard waste at the Recycling Center, and discontinue yard waste pickup or limit it to one week or charge for yard waste bags similar to PAYT.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Recycling Committee had a meeting to vote on this recommendation. Ms. White’s reply was, “no”. The memo was from the Chair of the Recycling Committee and she talked to some of the membership. To Mr. Ciccariello’s response that it was one person’s opinion, Ms. White noted that she (the Chair) talked to the membership.
Mr. Connolly questioned if Ms. White felt obligated to read into the record one person’s opinion.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wanted to make it clear that this (memo) was not a meeting of the Recycling Committee and it was based on discussion not an actual vote.
Ms. Van Amsterdam referenced the wording in the memo from Ms. Miller that said the Committee has agreed which would lead one to think it was from the Committee. Mr. Ciccariello noted that it was clear the Committee did not vote and this was a letter from the Chair.
Mr. Ostroff found the conversation disrespectful to a volunteer and since Ms. Miller was here he thought she should be given an opportunity to clarify what she said.
Ms. Van Amsterdam said she would like to hear from the Chairperson because the tone of the memo sounds like the Chairperson was talking about discussing it with the members and did the committee decide not to vote.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he would allow Ms. Miller to speak but reminded everyone that the letter was not based on the vote of the committee.
Ms. Miller advised that this was not a vote of her committee. She conducted a survey. There was a lot of discussion back and forth and this was a compilation.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Open Meeting laws had been violated and suggested that Ms. Miller hold a meeting of her committee. Ms. Miller apologized adding that she did not realize she did that.
Ms. White reiterated that she thought the increases were modest and would result in significant revenue to the community. The service was exemplary and delivered very cost effectively. The fees for the bags have not been increased since PAYT was adopted.
Based on input he received from residents last weekend, Mr. Ostroff said he made a request of the DPW Business Manager to put together an analysis to help explain the cost to the Town of disposing the small and large bags and how much was paid by the taxpayer and how much by the person buying the bags. He thanked Mr. Chenard for his help.
Mr. Ostroff noted the analysis showed the cost to the Town was about $1.75 for a small bag and $3.06 for a large. As it was now the bag payer would pay about 57% of the cost. A couple of different scenarios were looked at that included leaving it as it was now and increasing the bulky waste. The point in bringing it up was to have a full understanding of the costs. He was not supporting a particular recommendation just providing information.
Ms. Gloff asked about the cost for recycling and if the Town made any money from the curbside recycling pickup.
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky’s response was, “no”, adding that it cost the Town $464,000 a year. Asked if any money was made from the Recycling Center, Mr. Sisitsky said it varied depending on the material and the market. The price of paper has gone down to just about zero. Wellesley will continue to take the paper, but won’t give us any money. The glass went to a South Shore company. They didn’t pay for the white glass, but the Town got money for some of the colored glass. The Town had to pay to get rid of propane and plastic.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what percentage of the trash cost was generated through tax revenue. Ms. White didn’t have the Fiscal 2008 and 2009 numbers but for Fiscal 2010 it was projected that $855,000 would be supported by tax levy.
Mr. Sisitsky reminded the Board that the paid consultant recommended the increase in fees and recommended a bunch of others. The DPW provided an assessment of what that increase would generate. It had to be looked at in a much larger context that Mr. Connolly touched on when he asked the Fire Chief if it was going to save jobs and he (Mr. Sisitsky) didn’t think that was fully vetted. The next item on the agenda was the budget for the DPW, Fire and Police. Because of the shortfall, the DPW was told to cut the budget by 6-1/2% and the only way that savings could be achieved was through layoffs. To achieve the $400,000 cut for next year would mean eight jobs. The revenue that would be generated for PAYT would be in the range of $200,000 and that was the equivalent of 5-6 jobs so there was a
direct correlation between the increase in fees and saving jobs. He wanted to be sure everybody understood the big picture instead of just looking at the impact of raising the cost of a PAYT bag.
Mr. Connolly found that to be good information and referred to a memo in the books regarding the Public Schools and asked if the money (from increased bag fees) would go to the schools. Mr. Ciccariello advised that 61% would go to the schools, and Mr. Connolly responded that that contradicted a little of what Mr. Sisitsky said. Mr. Sisitsky acknowledged that the money went to the general fund and got distributed but $200,000 was $200,000 regardless of where it went and that additional revenue would allow the Town to cut less money out of the budget.
Mr. Connolly questioned why a portion was going to the schools, and Ms. White explained that this recommendation came out of the Financial Planning Committee made up of two members of the Board of Selectmen, two members of the School Committee, the Finance Committee, the Superintendent and the Town Administrator. Quite a bit of time was spent on the Town/School split. The shortfall was known to be $4-7 million and the Financial Planning Committee discussed how it got allocated and if there should be any new revenues how they got allocated. The Deputy Town Administrator developed a recommended analysis for this situation and it was agreed by the committee that the split should be at 61.6% to the Schools. That was based on the actual budgetary impact of the Schools vs general government when the shared costs
were taken away. The Schools were budgeting to take 61.6% of the cut. If the Board of Selectmen agreed to raise some of the fees, it was agreed to by the Financial Planning Committee that the trash fee was unique because it generates a fairly significant amount of revenue and was borne across the Board by all residents.
Mr. Connolly noted that the Schools didn’t put anything into the program and he didn’t understand why they were profiting.
Mr. Ciccariello responded that historically the trash fee had been split between the Schools and the general government. When an operational override was discussed a year ago an agreement was reached that there would be a 60/40 split between the two budgets. The Board of Selectmen has not voted on the split being recommended. It should be on the next agenda. The Schools implemented a bus fee which the Town subsidizes from the general government side.
Mr. Connolly was of the belief that somewhere along the line people’s property taxes should pay something. Earlier he had asked if the deficit was going to be addressed with an override and the Town Administrator said no and he was grateful, but all of these little fees add up. It was less people had to work with.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it would be helpful to have as part of the discussion what efficiencies have taken place since the trash fee was implemented.
Mr. Sisitsky responded that since the institution of PAYT in 2003 the recycling percentage has gone up dramatically. People recycle more and were throwing out less so the tonnage going to Millbury went down and that translates to a reduction in fees. The reduction was so dramatic it allowed the DPW to re-do the routes and collect trash Tuesday-Friday. Whenever there was a Monday holiday the pickup schedule didn’t have to be changed and it eliminated the need for overtime on Saturday to pick up trash.
Another benefit was switching the bulky waste pick up to Monday because Mondays were available and that allowed the pick up on straight time when they used to do it on Saturdays on overtime. Even though the pick up schedule was condensed from 5 to 4, they reduced the manpower and through a reorganization of the department combined Sanitation and Highway and cross-trained the personnel. It was an enormous amount of cost savings.
Mr. Sisitsky continued that the DPW used to do three weeks of yard waste pick up in the fall and two in the spring which would be done by the people picking up the trash. They would pick up late afternoon and into the night. Ms. White suggested that a couple of the Monday bulk pickups be cancelled and blitz the Town on Monday. By doing that overtime was minimized. It was so successful that they proposed to do that on a bigger scale in FY10. He was proposing to eliminate overtime for yard waste and do as much as possible on Monday and continue to provide that service.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if Mr. Sisitsky was proposing to increase the bulky waste fees. Mr. Sisitsky’s response was, “no”. When asked why not, Mr. Sisitsky advised that you shouldn’t charge more for a program than it cost to provide the service. That program generated more revenue than it cost this past year so no increase was being proposed. Mr. Ciccariello asked if the Town fee was comparable to private vendors. Mr. Sisitsky wasn’t sure, but noted it was a popular plan. The DPW thought it was a fair program and the fees were fair.
Mr. Connolly commented that he had a conversation with Ms. White about the yard waste and thought it was a clever idea (pick up on Mondays).
Looking at the system in place, Mr. Ostroff thought it looked pretty thrifty. It provides people to drive snow plows at 1/3 the cost of contractors and minimized overtime. Plus a lot of the yard waste was used for mulch. The cost of the bag was only about 60% of the cost and the increase proposed worked out to about 2% for the large bags. He hoped the Board made a decision and moved on.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to establish as of July 1, 2009 fees for trash bags at $1.25 for the small bags and $2.00 for the large bags. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly again questioned what homeowners get for their property tax. Ms. Gloff pointed out that property tax still covered about 32% of the trash disposal.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she was supportive of this increase but was very cognizant of the need to continue to look for additional efficiencies. The Board and administration had to look at it more broadly for how the resources in the DPW were utilized to do a variety of services. There has been a lot of cross training and she hoped the administration would continue to look at how the whole DPW was run so there were ways to bring down the fixed costs.
Ms. White noted that for folks that qualify for a water discount, free bags were offered.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to establish an annual fee of $20 for drop off of yard waste at the recycling center. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
At 10:30 p.m. a recess was called. The meeting resumed at 10:40 p.m.
FISCAL 2009 & FISCAL 2010 BUDGET
Ms. White noted that a number of items were included in the packet about the FY10 budget and a number of pending issues that could impact the approach to balancing the budget. Also included was a memo from last week which summarized the budget process to date from early January to the present submission of a balanced budget as reflected on the current Revenue/Expenditure Summary. Details as to how the individual departments would achieve these cuts were being presented on a department-by-department basis.
Ms. White listed the pending issues with a budget impact as:
- Authorization to offer an Early Retirement Incentive Program. The administration believed this program offered a unique opportunity to cost-effectively manage the necessary reductions-in-force, rather than having the collective bargaining and/or civil service process manage it for us.
- Discussions with unions regarding FY10 cost of Living Allowance. Ms. White advised that she was working to set up a meeting with the unions for next week and had initiated informal discussion with most of them already. It was her intent that, if a union agreed to forego the COLA to which they were contractually entitled, the savings would stay with the department and be used to save jobs or otherwise reduce impact on the personnel. She had advised department heads that non-union personnel would not be receiving a COLA in FY10.
- Conveyance of properties to Conservation Commission. If this idea was successful, particularly for the Natick Community organic Farm, substantial savings would result. She suggested that this savings would not result in amendments to any budgets but would essentially create a positive effect on free cash.
- Increasing department fees. Ms. White noted that she would not recommend adjusting budgets based on projected additional revenue but rather allow such revenue to create a positive effect on free cash.
Ms. White highlighted the February 13 memo that went through the recent history and detailed the budget shortfall. She noted that the Governor’s budget reduced the projected deficit to $4.5 million.
The spending freeze initiated prohibited the attendance at State conferences, etc. and in the packet was a memo from the Fire Department requesting permission for a Fire Captain to attend the National Fire Academy. Tuition was free and travel expenses would be covered. Based on the present schedule there would not be overtime to cover the shift. Ms. White explained that she just wanted to see if the Board had any objection in light of the freeze on conferences.
Mr. Cicccariello asked if the Chief was prepared to come up with a solution where there would be no overtime. Ms. White didn’t know if it could be guaranteed or predicted with certainty, but at present there was no overtime.
Chief Sheridan told the Board that the candidate had worked long and hard and intended to go whether approved or not. If it was not approved Captain Dow would use his own vacation time and he (Chief Sheridan) thought that was unfair. At this time no overtime would be incurred, but if there was he (Chief Sheridan) thought it would be well worth the value of sending him.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to when the Chief would know the potential for overtime. Ms. White noted that if it came down to someone calling in sick, it could be that date.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the program and was told by Chief Sheridan that there were only about $4,000 fire officers in the country who have graduated. It was for two weeks and was an excellent professional development opportunity for an upcoming fire officer.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support the attendance of Captain Daniel Dow at the National Fire Academy with the understanding the Fire Chief will make every effort to minimize if not eliminate overtime. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Looking at the School budget and the number cut for professional development, Ms. Van Amsterdam thought this (attendance at the Academy) was laudable. She urged the Chief to limit the overtime.
a.Early Retirement Incentive Program
Ms. White explained that the proposed early retirement incentive program being developed was somewhat modeled after a program in Brookline. The idea was to provide the Town with the unique opportunity to better manage the inevitable reductions in staff in FY10. Those opportunities would not be available if there was a reduction in personnel through layoff due to the Reductions-in-Force procedures specified in collective bargaining agreements as well as in the case of Police and Fire Departments civil service law.
Such procedures typically result in the most recently hried personnel being the first to be laid off. Regardless of who and which position was targeted for layoff, a more senior employee can bump those less senior out of their positions such that, in the end, it is the least senior person who ends up out of a job. In some cases that can negatively impact operations such as the Fire Department where recent hires have all been paramedics. Recent hires typically have lower pay and lesser benefits so the resultant savings is not as great. Also laid off personnel were eligible for unemployment benefits whereas personnel who volunteer for the Early Retirement Incentive Program would be required to stipulate they would not apply for unemployment.
Ms. White referenced a spreadsheet that looked at the circumstances of individuals that may be interested in this program; that is, the retirement benefits they were eligible for now, the reduction in retirement benefits they would be facing if they retire now instead of when they reach their maximum, and the proposed disbursement under the proposed terms of the Early Retirement Incentive Program. It was important to note that our determination of the reduction in retirement benefits was speculative as it cannot be certain what their salary would be in the intervening years or when they might actually retire absent this incentive program.
Ms. White continued that the number of personnel identified on the spreadsheet was greater than the number of staff reductions necessary in the applicable departments. That was, the estimated payout costs if all were to participate in the Early Retirement Incentive Program ($156,000 for Group 1 and $158,000 for Group 2) exceeds actual anticipated payout costs. These figures were used for the purpose of determining net cost and the Town’s ability to afford these payouts within the current (FY08) appropriations. Based on salary savings realized by the participants leaving employment effective May 1, 2009, the net cost was approximately $86,000. She noted this was believed to be a significant over-estimate of actual net cost as the number of personnel identified exceeds the necessary staff reductions.
By way of comparison, the potential unemployment expenses for DPW staff reductions alone could easily exceed $80,000, thus leading to the reasonable conclusion that the program was in fact cost effective. As importantly, however, was the benefit of allowing the Town to manage the staff reductions best to minimize impacts on operations as opposed to having the terms of the collective bargaining agreements manage the staff reductions.
Ms. White stated that the administration believed the program could be funded through available funds – likely through an amendment to the FY 2009 budget. The funds saved through the May 1 departure of program participants as well as the funds saved through the hiring freeze should be sufficient.
Ms. White reviewed the terms of the program:
1.The program was open to all general government employees who meet other stated criteria with the exception of department head level positions
2.Eligible personnel must be in a position which, if vacated, would not be filled for at least one fiscal year or would create a resulting vacancy elsewhere within the department that would remain vacant for at least one fiscal year.
3.Interested employees would need to submit their applicants to the Town Administrator by March 15 and leave employment by May 1.
4.Approved participants need not immediately officially submit for retirement, but must leave employment by the date stipulated above and must stipulate in writing that they will not pursue unemployment benefits.
5. A lump sum incentive payment will be made to approved participants in accordance with the attached chart. This payment was not pensionable.
6. Approved participants will receive all other benefits to which they are entitled upon their departure, including but not limited to sick and vacation leave.
7. The Town Administrator reserves the right to limit the number of participants and to select participants on (a) available monies to fund incentive payments (b) achieving maximum projects savings and (c) minimizing impact on departmental functions.
The payout for the lump sum incentive payment would be as follows:
Group 1
Retirement Allowance Lump Sum
80% $10,000
76-79.9% $12,000
72-75.9% $15,000
68-71.9% $18,000
64-67.9% $21,000
60-63.9% $24,000
Group 4 (Police and Fire Personnel)
Retirement Allowance Lump Sum
80% $10,000
78-79.9% $12,000
76-77.9% $15,000
74-75.9% $18,000
72-73.9% $21,000
70-71.9% $24,000
In conclusion Ms. White urged the Board’s favorable consideration of this innovative approach to accomplishing the needed staff reductions.
Ms. Gloff noticed the lump sums for Group 1 & 4 kicked in at different percentages and questioned why. Ms. White explained that the retirement charts for the two groups that determine at what age and at what point in their careers were much different between Group 1 & 4. This was consistent toward the progression toward maximum benefit.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to any projection on how many individuals may potentially take this. Ms. White thought it was possible within these departments that the program would be of interest to some of the individuals and could put a dent into the need to lay people off.
Asked by Mr. Ciccariello if she had spoken to anybody who may qualify, Ms. White’s reply was, “no”.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that part of the potential savings would be impacted by sick leave and vacation buy back. Ms. White acknowledged that would be the case, but the people would be entitled to it any way. It exists with or without the program. Mr. Ciccariello understood that to be the case but the intent was to save jobs. If a lot of individuals decide to participate the sick and vacation leave buy back wouldn’t save jobs and how would it be paid. Ms. White noted there was a line item in the budget for sick leave and vacation buy back. She was not saying it would be sufficient, but one criteria of the program was reserving the right to limit the number of participants.
Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to who would get preference. Ms. White advised it would be the one that provides the maximum savings while minimizing the impact on service. If there was a Deputy in the Fire Department vs a Lieutenant in the Police Department, Mr. Ciccariello questioned who got preference. Ms. White responded that the deciding factor would be the resulting impact of those retirements.
Responding to Ms. Van Amsterdam’s inquiry as to the expectation when the 29 individuals were identified – if their jobs would be replaced in a year, two years and at what level were the individuals, Ms. White noted that in the case of the DPW a 6.5% overall reduction would be 10+ jobs being eliminated. That number was determined by a math equation and was a quick analysis of the highest number of jobs we may have to lose to achieve that quote. The number was not defined for the February 13 memo and in the case of the DPW the number of positions was now at 7.5.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if the six positions identified in the DPW (for possible early retirement) would be replaced in 1,2,3 years or was it the expectation they will not be replaced. Ms. White responded that her instructions to the DPW were t plan for a reduction that can be sustained for some period of time. There was no expectation that Fiscal 2011 would be any better and thought was already being given to further cost cutting measures. Losing 7.5 positions would impact the DPW operation and there weren’t efficiencies that could be implemented that would be sustainable over a long period of time. She couldn’t imagine that in a department such as the DPW which in her opinion was run very efficiently, there could be useful efficiencies.
Ms. Van Amsterdan noted that she was trying to understand the skill set of those 7.5 positions vs 7 that may be eligible for early retirement. Did the Town end up having to fill more jobs because the 7 that may take the early retirement have a very different job skill then the 7.5 positions to be lost?
Ms. White thought it was pretty hard to predict until the applications came in but it would require coordination with the department head. Layoff was available but she thought it was a poor option.
Mr. Ciccariello used the scenario of the person in the DPW that maintains all the vehicles and if that person decided to leave, who would take care of the vehicles. If a person left whose skill set was so high, the job may have to be filled. That was what Ms. Van Amsterdam was getting at. Ms. White pointed out that speaks to criteria #2. If that person was in a position that had to exist and that position was going to be filled, the person wouldn’t qualify. The scenario described was not out of the question and she wasn’t saying there wouldn’t be some evaluation of people coming in and the importance of the individual and position would be weighed, but on balance she thought this would provide a much greater balance to manage the system. Following the collective bargaining
agreement would end up with the same scenario with little control.
Ms. Van Amsterdam wanted to focus on how the costs would be managed commenting that she hadn’t seen a full blown analysis of an early retirement vs lay off. Page 8 of the memo laid out unemployment estimates. She wondered if a calculation had been done in the retirement savings for the Town. The cost for retirement for that individual kicks in and they were eligible for health care benefits as opposed to a person laid off. She noted that she was trying to figure out what it meant from the use of resources within the department but also in terms of long-term impact to the Town. She would like to see a side-by-side early retirement scenario vs lay offs including retirement as she didn’t see those costs as part of the discussion of an early retirement incentive.
Ms. Van Amsterdam further noted that she had concerns with criteria #2. It was not clear whether a position would be filled after a year. She could see a scenario where there was an early retirement and that position would be filled and then because of the skill set the department needs to fill the other position. The terms say the Town Administrator had complete latitude of who could take advantage, but if there were two employees with identical job descriptions and equal job status, what was the criterion.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she had some ongoing concerns and was not prepared to vote for the early retirement this evening.
Ms. White said she didn’t necessarily expect a vote tonight, but reminded the Board that the sooner decisions were made allowed the administration to move in one direction or another and allowed them to complete the budget impacts. The sooner the better but she realized this was a significant proposal.
Mr. Ostroff commended the administration for coming forward because it was one of many ways to get through a challenging year. He was fine with waiting a couple of weeks but the results wouldn’t be known until it was implemented. Many organizations do things like this and modify it over time. He regretted that in this process the Town was potentially saying goodbye to people who have been dedicated to public service.
Chief Sheridan told the Board that from the Fire Department’s perspective they would lose some very talented senior people with valuable experience but if he were forced to lay off people at the bottom, it would be difficult to continue to provide paramedic ambulance service.
If one Deputy Chief were to take advantage of the early retirement, Mr. Ciccariello asked Chief Sheridan if he would promote anybody. Chief Sheridan’s response was, “yes”, but he wouldn’t fill the bottom. With people moving up the chain, Mr. Ciccariello questioned where the savings would be. To Chief Sheridan’s reply that he wouldn’t hire someone at the bottom, Mr. Ciccariello responded that he didn’t think that was the intent of the retirement. Ms. White pointed out that was why #2 was written as it was – either the position would remain vacant or a vacancy would be created elsewhere in the department.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked about the impact on overtime in the public safety departments (with the early retirement) and what those costs would look like. Ms. White didn’t expect any different impact on overtime than the layoffs would cause.
Noting that it was 11:30 p.m. Mr. Ciccariello asked how long the Board wished to continue or to meet on Monday ultimately setting aside most of the meeting for budgets. He was under the assumption the Board would get a final budget for tonight’s meeting showing how to get to a balanced budget. Ms. White noted the Board had that. The three budgets on the agenda tonight were the last to be developed. Mr. Walters Young added that once tonight’s budgets were in, all municipal departments have been reduced to their target levels. Ms. White believed the School’s $3million reduction would be available mid March.
Ms. Gloff was in favor of meeting on Monday, but felt the Board had to go through the three budgets tonight and give the staff their questions or request for information so the administration would be prepared for Monday’s meeting.
Mr. Ostroff suggested for the next fiscal year the concept of a voluntary day without pay and those savings would stay within the department. He would like to know what was permissible and get some reaction. He recognized it wouldn’t be huge savings but it might make an important difference. Ms. White advised that it was permissible, but didn’t produce the kind of savings they were trying to achieve with the COLA increases.
a.DPW
Ms. White advised that the DPW had been asked to reduce their budget by 6.5% which resulted in a cut of a little over $400,000. To make that large reduction personnel and service cuts would be necessary. Although originally it was forecast that the department would lose as many as 10 positions, that amount has been reduced to 7.5. Many different options were considered in completing this task, including but not limited to:
- Reduction of Engineering Staff
- Restructuring and/or elimination of Land, Facilities & Natural
Resources Division
- Elimination of curbside yard waste program
- Closure of the recycling center
None of those measures seemed completely prudent or practical. Reduction of the Engineering Department when the Town was on the cusp of having work related to the Federal Stimulus package would overwhelm the remaining staff. The LFNA Division cannot effectively be eliminated without causing great stress on all recreation and – more importantly – school athletic facilities throughout the town, and the respective budgets of the Recreation and School Departments cannot absorb the costs associated with maintenance of those fields and facilities.
After evaluation, the decision was made not to recommend elimination of the curbside yard waste program as this was eliminated as part of cost cutting measures in a previous year and subsequently reinstated due to public outcry. Further the delivery of this service was recently re-engineered and the associated overtime costs were significantly reduced.
Finally, the determination was made that the outright closure of the Recycling Center would be contrary to the efforts to encourage resident recycling and would eliminate the opportunity to encourage greater participation by the business community and would eliminate a potential revenue generating service.
The proposed reduction effectively streamlines operations wherever possible while achieving targeted reductions. The amount of $401,449 in reductions was achieved by a combination of re-engineering existing operations and reducing services, including:
-Elimination of the Administrative Assistant in the Administration
Division and replacing that position with a part-time clerical aide
-Reducing building cleaning within the government complex by using
existing employees to empty their own trash and recycling
containers. Additional savings can be achieved through limiting
nights where Town Hall was opened for board and committee meetings.
-Reduction of vehicle parts budgets & inventories. This was not
likely sustainable in future fiscal years.
- Closure of the paint shed
- Elimination of all non hazardous/non-emergency tree work
- Elimination of all traffic island flower planting
- Restructuring of curbside yard waste pickup to 4 Mondays in late
fall
- Layoff of 6 positions primarily in Highway/Sanitation and LFNR
This budget savings plan allowed the department to maintain critical operations, but would not come easily. Service delays and service reductions were inevitable as resources were stretched to the absolute maximum. The changes would be monitored, evaluated and re-evaluated as FY10 progresses to see what additional modifications need to take place.
In conclusion, Ms. White recommended that the Board authorize the Town Administrator to proceed with this plan to balance the budget for the DPW. The Board’s guidance was being awaited before finalizing the DPW budget.
DPW Director Charles Sisitsky added that the recycling center would only be open on weekends and staffed strictly on overtime which would eliminate two positions. Overtime for yard waste pickup would be eliminated and the Department would do the best it could on the Monday blitz.
The most significant cut was the reduction in force and all the retirements. Four positions have been identified that were being left open until they saw if there was an early retirement. There were 23 people at the DPW that were at least 55 and had a minimum of 10 years of service and approximately 6 or 7 with the maximum retirement percentage. Hopefully the reduction in force would come from those people but if it didn’t the department would have to look at areas for lay offs.
If early retirement was available, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if it would be sufficient to meet the total reductions needed coupled with the other things. If those 6-7 took the incentive program, would Mr. Sisitsky need to replace them.
Mr. Sisitsky advised that under the contract every division had to have a general foreman. If a general foreman took advantage of the early retirement, someone would have to be promoted but he wouldn’t replace the position where that person came from.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to how closure of the paint shop saved money and was told by Mr. Sisitsky that it saved $20,000 a year. People come in with their paint and don’t take out the equivalent and the DPW was forced to get rid of it and the end of the year. Ms. Gloff thought it was being gotten rid of through Craig’s List, but Mr. Sisitsky hadn’t heard of that.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the School fields, and Mr. Sisitsky advised there had been discussion about how much of that operation could be privatized. They were trying to figure out what savings there would be if any if it were put out to contract. It came down to a policy of what the priority should be regarding maintenance of the fields and if there had to be a cut, what level of services areas were cut first.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there were any services within the DPW that could be eliminated in their entirety. Mr. Sisitsky questioned what the priorities were. Did the Board want them not to put up signs, sweep streets. What services did the Board want to provide and what services did the Board want to cancel. That was a policy decision.
Mr. Connolly inquired if any consideration had been given to nobody taking a vehicle home and what that might save. Mr. Sisitsky noted that it was part of the Supervisor’s contract that certain supervisors had the ability to take a vehicle home because they were on call 24 hours a day and didn’t get paid to do it on their own time. He thought the savings would be negligible.
With general foreman and a working foreman in LFNR, Mr. Connolly inquired as to the difference between the general and working. Mr. Sisitsky explained that the general foreman oversees all the crews working during the day. The working foreman worked with a specific crew and supervised that crew. Asked if the two positions could be one and the same, Mr. Sisitsky responded that anything was possible. This was the way it evolved over the years with contract negotiations.
As the Town was in a financial mess and grabbing at everything possible, Mr. Connolly didn’t see why if it could be done the two positions wouldn’t be combined. Mr. Sisitsky agreed that if the department was forced to do 7 layoffs that could happen.
Mr. Connolly remarked that it seemed like the supervisor positions were double the laborers and if a supervisor were eliminated that could allow two work-a-bees to stay where they belong.
Mr. Ciccariello asked the Town Administrator about the set up of the contracts, noting that several years ago the Town Administrator opted as part of the union negotiations to add that certain people would have vehicles. It was Ms. White’s understanding the general foreman was stipulated, but she was not sure the working foreman was. Mr. Sisitsky noted it (working foreman) was not in the contract but part of the pay and compensation plan. Ms. White said she would need to look at the pay scale to assess, but to her it made sense that if there was a work crew at a job site one of those people should be in charge. The general foreman was not with the crew. She would need to look at the ability to complete the work effectively if the working foreman was eliminated.
With respect to some items the Expense Control Task Force put forward, Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there had been discussion among the School and Town with regard to any areas of overlap that segments of the DPW may perform and the Schools may be somewhat performing. Ms. White responded that there hadn’t been any discussion beyond a couple of meetings quite a while ago. Efforts and opportunities to consolidate and those opportunities didn’t seem to gel. However, one area where she felt there was some good momentum was with the Schools.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to authorize the budget concept for the DPW as proposed. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion, Mr. Ciccariello noted that all the Board could do was to support the Town Administrator’s budget. The Board makes policy that may impact the budget and he was concerned with relying on retirements that the Board hadn’t made a decision on, but something had to be given to the Finance Committee. The Board could support the budget but it didn’t mean it couldn’t be further vetted.
Mr. Ostroff thought a clear signal had to be sent that the Selectmen support this budget and the specific plan would develop through a parallel process.
Ms. Van Amsterdam stated that she would support the reduced budget presented, but just wanted to make certain it was not conveyed in any way that the Board voted on the early retirement.
Ms. White appreciated Ms. Van Amsterdam’s point and noted that she could present whatever budget she wanted to the Finance Committee but the reason these three budgets were before the Selectmen tonight was because they really represent policy changes and she wanted to make sure the Board was comfortable with some of the policy decisions.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if these budgets presumed the revenue the Board voted. Ms. White advised that they did not.
Ms. White noted that the Natick Fire Department was asked to make reductions in the order of $433,323. To make those reductions, personnel and service reductions were necessary. Although administration initially forecasted that as many as 8 positions would need to be eliminated with this reduction, the Fire Chief developed a plan, which the administration supports, that would result in 4 positions being eliminated. Many different options were considered in determining how to meet the necessary budget reduction, including but not limited to:
- Closure of one fire station permanently
- Layoffs of 8 personnel
- Elimination of all overtime
- Reduction of minimum manning
The solution proposed by the Fire Chief was to combine several of these options, but do none of them completely. Closure of one Fire Station at least part of FY10 was unavoidable, but there was value in operating 4 fire stations whenever possible. Outright layoffs of 8 personnel will come from the newest and most skilled workers of the department – the paramedics. This will reduce the number of shifts where the ambulance can be fully staffed, hindering the department’s ability to provided Advanced Life Support services to the citizens of Natick. Elimination of all overtime while laying off no employees cannot completely solve the budget reduction due to the fact that although most of the overtime was dedicated to replacing a firefighter/paramedic who was out due to vacation or sick time, a certain
amount was dedicated to training overtime and cannot be eliminated. Reduction of the minimum manning complement was essential to making the best of the limited resources available.
The reduction proposal within the Fire Department budget effectively streamlines operations wherever possible while achieving targeted reductions. The amount of $433,323 in reductions was achieved by laying off 4 personnel, reducing the minimum manning to a base of 14, and closing one fire station when manning fell below 17 (estimated by the Fire Chief to occur approximately 70% of the time)
- Layoffs of 4 fire department personnel, reducing the budgeted staffing per shift from 20 to 19. This was forecast to save $238,700.
- Reducing the overtime budget by $194,623 or 48%
A rough analysis of the effect of this would be that since we now run at the 17 man minimum 66% of the time, it could be anticipated that a station would be closed approximately 70% of the time. This plan also leaves the Fire Department with important operational flexibility. Although minimum manning would not be allowed to drop below 14, there was no prohibition to staffing at 15 or even 16 within the constraints of available overtime funds. With manning levels at 16, the second ambulance could be fully staffed and transferred to the station that would otherwise be closed.
Ms. White noted that these reductions would not come easily and would likely reduce response times to some areas of the community during times that a station was closed. The changes will be monitored, evaluated and re-evaluated as FY10 progresses to see what additional modifications to operations need to take place.
In conclusion Ms. White recommended the Board’s endorsement of this plan to balance the budget for the Fire Department.
Fire Chief James Sheridan told the Board that he was asked to prepare a level service budget. 97.5% of the budget was attributed to salaries and overtime. A 6.5% reduction was $433,323 and if all variables stayed the same, the bottom four positions would equal $239,075. In order to make up the gap he had to cut $194,623 or 48% of the overtime budget. Just laying off the four bottom would put a burden on the department to maintain the paramedic service and would result in closing a station or at least a fire company 70% of the time. He believed he could only put another ambulance out there a small percentage of time. None of this was good. The risk to the public would increase and the risk to the firefighters would increase. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances.
Mr. Connolly inquired if Chief Sheridan thought any firefighters may consider the early retirement. Chief Sheridan responded that he hadn’t had a chance to look at the package and couldn’t answer that.
If the early retirement program were established Ms. Gloff assumed the likelihood would be that it would affect employees in the department for a long time and if “x” were to decide to take it, would the newer paramedics have to be laid off. Chief Sheridan advised that he needed to take four from the top or four from the bottom and adjust the overtime accordingly.
Mr. Ostroff noted that a concern he had was if there was an ambulance staffed in station 2 or 4 if that was what the Chief was thinking of in terms of response time. Chief Sheridan responded that many people assumed that if he were to close a station it would be South Natick. It would not be. It was isolated and surrounded by communities without full-time Fire Departments. Many times Union Street was almost impassable. If he had to pick one to close it would probably be East Natick.
Mr. Ciccariello commented that the proposal was to reduce overtime by $194,623 and the Chief would get to that by reducing staffing from 17 to 14. Chief Sheridan noted that he would have to look at that and see if he could do it with 15.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about the status of overtime for this year and Chief Sheridan responded that there was a big week last week. The last time he looked it was about $4,000 ahead of last year, but he hasn’t been calling in storm coverage.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that a lot of time had been spent a few years ago on overtime and now a major change was being talked about that would rely on a significant reduction of overtime. Based on past experience that could be risky business because the Chief wouldn’t be in a position of coming back at Fall Town Meeting and asking for additional funding because there won’t be any cash reserves.
Chief Sheridan stated that he didn’t see any other alternatives.
Ms. White pointed out that the picture changes significantly with the alteration of the minimum manning – the Chief wouldn’t be calling people in. Now he called people in when it fell below 17 and with this scenario the Chief wouldn’t call people in until it reached 14. The salaries and the minimum manning drive the cost. If 12 people were laid off and the manning was kept at 17, it wouldn’t save any money.
When asked by Mr. Ciccariello what he proposed to do with the ambulance, Chief Sheridan said he would staff 1-1/2. With 17 men on duty it would stay as is. Sometimes there were 19 that showed up and all the apparatus was filled. When it drops below 17, he had to close one station and put two guys on each ambulance. He didn’t think the department could do two paramedic ambulances particularly if the layoff was from the bottom. The guys at the top have five weeks vacation. The guys at the bottom have two weeks so there was a savings there.
Chief Sheridan assured the Board that he would do the best he could to protect the public and his firefighters but it would be difficult.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked the Chief if he expected a reduction in ambulance services and ambulance fees collected as a result. Chief Sheridan didn’t know. He guessed there would be but he didn’t know to what degree.
If there were three ambulance calls now, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked what was done. Chief Sheridan advised that he would call mutual aid, noting that the Town lost the billing revenue when someone was called. Asked if AMR was called directly, Chief Sheridan’s reply was, “yes”.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the Chief had looked into the prior discussion regarding inspections of smoke detectors - instead of using a truck and three individuals, use the Fire Prevention Officer and provide him with another source of transportation.
Chief Sheridan noted that it took more than one person to do a smoke detector. He could limit it to a couple of days a week but there were two Fire Prevention Officers and they were busy every day. The guys were here getting paid and it was just the fuel in their district.
It was Mr. Ostroff’s understanding that the reason for a crew of 2-3 guys in a truck was so they could respond to an emergency. Chief Sheridan advised that was correct.
President of the Firefighters Union Daniel Hartwell told the Board that from the union’s perspective they didn’t agree with any of the cuts. Even with the minimum manning of 17 they were stretched. It was not a money issue. It was having the men in the trucks to do the work. If the manning was brought to 14, the response time would be delayed and 2-3 minutes makes a difference in life and death.
Firefighter Hartwell continued that he felt the Board was making a decision about budget cuts without looking at it town-wide. The three major departments were taking a healthy cut. He didn’t see how the Board could vote on any budget cuts without taking into consideration the essential services of the Town. Flipping through the town report he couldn’t believe the services that will keep going and the Fire, Police and DPW will get cut. They didn’t have the men now so how would they do it with cutting three. The citizens’ safety and the firefighters’ safety were being put in jeopardy.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it was important for Ms. White to tell the public what she had presented to the Board via her recommendation was a sense of priorities across the Town.
Ms. White responded that she didn’t disagree with anything Firefighter Hartwell had stated. There has been a lot of difficulty and challenge in putting forward these recommendations. There were some departments with so few people they couldn’t do the basic functions of the department if one person was lost. Some departments were held harmless. Some other niceties were being eliminated and she was trying to find a creative way not to have the organic farm be taxpayer funded. There have been a number of difficult priorities and a lot of important services have been reduced or eliminated.
Ms. White noted that she had been an advocate for the Police and Fire Departments needing more personnel. She thought the growth in the community and the type of growth at the Mall and the growth in homes demanded greater staffing, but the Town wasn’t going to balance a budget without going into the essential and critical functions.
From his perspective, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t think the Board had looked at all the priorities. The Board had looked at some budgets and talked about some areas, but hadn’t decided why that was a priority. There was $10,800 in the Selectmen’s budget under the MetroWest Growth Management and what was a priority – MetroWest Growth Management or Fire and Police. There was a position added in the Community Development Office and although he hated laying that person off, what was the priority. The Board was getting all of this stuff a little here and a little there and trying to analyze.
There were things he (Mr. Ciccariello) thought were more of a priority, but the Board of Selectmen hadn’t established that and was relying on the Town Administrator to make all these proposals. Clearly the Town Administrator and he disagreed on some of these things but what it came down to was what the priorities were. As much as MetroWest Growth Management was a great thing, but it was $10,800 that could go to other priorities.
Mr. Ostroff advised that negotiations had begun to get someone to pick up the MetroWest Growth Management costs. He thought what’s going on in a given department could always be justified; i.e. he could justify that it was important to have a housing planner but that all rings hollow when someone was putting their life on the line. The Board of Selectmen was the policy making board and had to make these brutal decisions. He (Mr. Ostroff) was supportive of this budget because it was real. Last meeting someone said they would come forward with a Plan B but there was nothing here.
Ms. Van Amsterdam wanted to be certain, from the perspective of the public, with regard to the ambulance that information was presented on the response of AMR when called so the Board could tell people that AMR was called on a regular basis and did it “x” times last year. She would like to be able to tell the public that the Board wasn’t happy with the cuts but this service would be provided to the public.
Chief Sheridan stated that someone was always going to respond. It was response times they were trying to meet and it was going to be difficult to meet the standard. When there was a call for mutual aid, Framingham had a private ambulance company and there was a delayed response.
Mr. Connolly said he thought he made his Plan B. If someone stopped funding everything in Town and stopped thanking everyone in Town maybe something could get done. It was OK to say no. He would love to hear what the union thought was essential and what they want.
Mr. Ostroff moved to reluctantly support the Town Administrator’s budget. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Speaking to his motion Mr. Ostroff stated that he didn’t like anything in this. He didn’t like closing a station on any basis or providing less support to the firefighters and paramedics but the budget had to be balanced and there wasn’t the luxury of a lot of budgets with a lot of fat. He wished the Town didn’t have to spend $5 million on retirement or have the golf course, but we do. Unfortunately, this was a situation where you had to bite the bullet and the Board had to play the hand it was dealt.
Ms. Van Amsterdam agreed that it was unpleasant sitting here and everyone had to try to work together.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he wouldn’t support the motion as he thought the budget had too much reliance on overtime reduction. A lot of time was spent on overtime a few years ago and there won’t be money left to come back to try to make up the difference. He felt there were other priorities that could be eliminated and reduce the impact on the DPW, Police, and Fire.
Ms. Gloff kept hearing people say they had other priorities and she would like to hear them. $10,800 won’t fix this. On another night she would like to sit down and talk about these priorities because she wasn’t hearing them.
Mr. Connolly believed the responsibility lay with the administration. If three votes said no, the administration would have to go back and redo it.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Ms. White was comfortable there would be no requests coming back for overtime. Ms. White responded that the key was the adjustment in the minimum manning and she believed mathematically it worked.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that this budget laid off four people and lowered the number required to have to 14 which nobody was happy about. That meant five people could be out without having to call in anyone.
Ms. White presented the budget overview for the Police Department and distributed revisions to the reduction proposal. She noted that the Police Department was asked to make reductions in the order of $358,412. To make these reductions, personnel and service reductions were necessary. Although the administration initially forecast that as many as 6.5 positions would need to be eliminated with this reduction, Police staff have reduced that amount to 1 full time employee and 7 (formerly 14) part-time positions.
To reach the target of $5,155,615, the revised reduction proposal was as follow:
- Crossing guards -$59,557 (7 positions). Originally the proposal was to eliminate 14 positions or $122,807.
- 38th patrol officer - $52,195
- Dispatch Supervisor - $55,848 to be paid from State 911 Department PSAP and RECC SUPPORT and INCENTIVE GRANT
- Planning Sergeant - $71,842. The Sergeant will be deployed in Iraq for FY2010 and will return in FY2011
- Non-Court Overtime - $109,895. This is an approximate reduction of 25% from the FY2009 appropriation
- Repairs & Maint Equipment - $6,000
- In State Travel/Meetings - $1,500
- Out-of-State Travel - $1,000
- Training & Education - $25,000
- Clothing Allowance Supervisory - $10,750
- Care of Stray Animals - $8,000
In conclusion Ms. White recommended the Board’s support of the revised reduction proposal and Police Department budget for FY10.
Police Chief Dennis Mannnix told the Board that it had been a difficult process to arrive at a 6.5% reduction and involved the layoff of half the crossing guards. There was a significant investment in the patrol officers, particularly the offices in the academy. They will be fully trained in about a month and represent about $65,000-70,000 in expenses. If they were laid off they would go back on the civil service list and probably get hired by a community that was hiring.
Chief Mannix continued that he didn’t know if the cuts were doable and the officers could be at risk. He thought the department was going to have to be real creative. The cuts were guesses but these were his best guesses with his experience in managing Police Departments.
Mr. Connolly knew this was difficult. He recalled promises being made with the override and that the crossing guards would be cut if the override wasn’t passed. That was a big deal with the citizens and he felt they were betrayed a little. He also thought it could be a School cost.
Ms. White advised that in some towns crossing guards was a School cost and in some towns it was the Police. There wasn’t any standard. With respect to Mr. Connolly’s point about the override, she thought there were a lot of services that were scheduled to be cut that were able to be restored because the override passed and now would have to be cut. A lot of things were accomplished with the override.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if there had been any discussion of creative solutions with the Schools on the issue of the crossing guards – perhaps a volunteer brigade.
Chief Mannix noted that he went through the same exercise last year and went to every post to see which were the most critical to fill. He came up with seven positions and discussed it with the School Superintendent last year. This year the plan was to have the School Resource Officer assigned for the middle and elementary schools and that officer will spend the next 3-4 months looking at solutions. Chief Mannix was confident there would be solutions. In his opinion the seven identified were needed for public safety and the others were less critical and may need some funding from another source.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that his concern was for not only Fiscal 2010 but what happens in Fiscal 2011. Chief Mannix responded that it would make sense to lay off the two officers if the thought was he would have to lay off two more next year.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about the overtime and if historically the Police Department came in under the overtime budget. Chief Mannix advised that it hadn’t been overspent. The department had been shorthanded almost the entire time he has been here, but they never had a cost overrun and he didn’t expect it would happen. Cutting $109,000 from overtime will cause some shortages in the department.
Chief Mannix was asked if the PSAP grant was one time, but he advised that he had been told it would go on in perpetuity. Chief Mannix added that it wasn’t what he wanted to do. He would like to use the grant for equipment but he had to use it for salaries.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired about the impact should the early retirement incentive be adopted. Chief Mannix responded that he didn’t see any. Perhaps there may be one, but it was doubtful.
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to support the Police Department budget as submitted by the Town Administrator and Chief Mannix. Seconded by Ms. Gloff. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
MINUTES
Ms. Gloff moved approval of the minutes of the December 22, 2008 meeting. Seconded by Mr. Ostroff. The motion passed on a 3-0-2 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Ms. Van Amsterdam and Mr. Connolly abstained.
TCAN: REQUEST FOR FOUR (4) ONE DAY BEER & WINE LICENSES
Ms. Van Amsterdam moved to grant The Center for Arts in Natick (TCAN) four one day beer & wine licenses for performances on March 6, March 7, March 28, and April 11, 2009 at 14 Summer Street. Seconded by Ms. Gloff and unanimously voted.
Prior to the vote Mr. Ostroff stated that he was a member of TCAN but had no financial interest.
Approval of these four licenses brought the total for the year to 8.
REQUEST TO USE COMMON: U.S. ARMY BAND
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve the U.S. Army Material Command Band’s use of the Common on May 4, 2009 (rain date) from 6:00-8:30 p.m. for a concert.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to waive all fees. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
BOSTON ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION: BOSTON MARATHON
The Board was in receipt of a request from the Boston Athletic Association requesting a permit to hold the Boston Marathon through Natick on April 20, 2009.
Ms. White advised that the BAA was offering a little bit more this year, but the four towns that have asked to meet with the BAA would still like the opportunity to meet with them. At Ms. White’s request the Board agreed to table discussion.
ARTHRITIS FOUNDATION: REQUEST FOR BANNER
On a motion by Ms. Van Amsterdam, seconded by Ms. Gloff, the Board unanimously voted to approve the Arthritis Foundation’s request to hang a banner across Main Street for the period of April 13-April 26, 2009 in advertisement of the MetroWest Arthritis Walk.
WALNUT HILL SCHOOL: PARADE PERMIT
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to approve Walnut Hill School’s request for a permit to process from the school down Walnut Street prior to commencement on June 11, 2009 at approximately 9:45 a.m.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- School/Municipal Budget Split
Mr. Ostroff asked about the school/municipal budget split to cover the projected Fiscal 2010 deficit and Mr. Ciccariello advised that the Financial Planning Committee was recommending the schools assume 61.6% and the municipal side 38.4%.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff to support the recommendation of the Financial Planning Committee for the allocation of the proposed Fiscal 2010 budget cuts. Seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam. The motion passed on a 4-1-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello, Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Van Amsterdam, Ms. Gloff voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Connolly was opposed.
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly questioned why the Board would do this and Mr. Ciccariello explained that every year there was pretty much a 60/40 split and to drastically change it now, it would be more appropriate for the Board to meet with the School Committee and have a major discussion.
Ms. Gloff added that it was a difficult time financially. There was a lot of discussion at the Financial Planning Committee about this split and when you look at the percentage of the $100 million plus budget, the split between the schools and non-schools ran about 61.6% when the shared expenses and costs were taken out. Schools were expensive to run and it was important to continue to provide the community’s children with a good education. She thought this was as fair as it was going to get.
Mr. Ostroff expressed his agreement with all the comments made.
Mr. Ciccariello asked Ms. White if she thought the obligations of the Charter had been met in terms of the presentation of the budget. Ms. White responded that in her opinion the obligation was met as of January 1.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
______________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
