BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
March 20, 2009
3:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairman Joshua Ostroff at 3:35 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello (arrived at 3:40 p.m.), Joshua Ostroff, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly. Absent: Kristine Van Amsterdam.
ALSO PRESENT: Michael Walters Young, Deputy Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on March 20, 2009 in the amount of $608,381.25. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $1,036,017.77.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mr. Ostroff announced that Ms. Van Amsterdam was getting well and would be back soon. Mr. Ciccariello was on his way.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET DISCUSSION
Ms. White gave a warm welcome to Interim Town Clerk Onorina Maloney, noting that Ms. Maloney had already impressed us considerably and had brought a lot of good recommendations to the office and along with that a request for an adjustment to the budget.
Ms. White advised that revised budget was quite a bit higher than originally presented and the Finance Committee had given a favorable recommendation on the revised budget. The administration supports the request.
Ms. Maloney stated that she was now in her fourth week in the office and thanked the three staff members. They were truly commendable and doing a fine job. She acknowledged that the budget before the Board had a substantial increase and hoped the Board would look upon it favorably since all the funds were necessary to execute duties mandated in the law. The majority of the money was to institute the flash card system which was required. Last year the State covered the cost. Other areas of increase were increased staffing to run the elections which was required by MGL.
Another project was to start restoring the volumes in the clerk’s office. There were some incredible volumes in the vault. The Town was mandated by law to restore and bind the volumes, but unfortunately they were not. Because of the fiscally challenging times, her proposal was to start with just a couple of books.
Mr. Ciccariello arrived.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the dollar difference between the original and present budget and was told by Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young that the budget originally submitted to the Finance Committee had a 2% reduction and totaled $265,789. This budget was $301,943. Ms. Maloney reiterated that most of that cost was driven by the auto mark to program the flash cards.
Asked if it was fair to characterize the increase being due to mandated increases from the State, Ms. Maloney advised that was correct. In follow-up Mr. Ostroff inquired if the Association of Town Clerks was looking at anything to get the State to help pick up the costs. When told they were, Mr. Ostroff asked that Ms. Maloney let them know if there was anything the Board could do.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that one concern raised at the Finance Committee meeting last night was the cost for wages relative to elections. Everyone had been under the impression that the average cost of a Town election might be $10,000-$15,000, but next year it was looking at $31,000 because of additional attendants.
Ms. Maloney advised that most of the increased cost was due to the programming – 7 machines times $2,000 plus the cost of the ballots goes up every year. There were more inspectors otherwise there would have to be a Deputy Warden, Deputy Inspector, Deputy Clerk. She thought $30,000 was a pretty accurate estimate for an election.
Mr. Connolly inquired if the Town was in violation as it now stood. Ms. Maloney’s response was, “not to my knowledge”.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to support favorable action of the Town Clerk and Board of Registrars budget as printed on hand outs provided today. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello and unanimously voted.
Mr. Ciccariello resumed the Chair.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Paul Griesmer told the Board he was here because of something that hit the newspaper this morning. If true, Natick will receive $1.7 million in stimulus funding. Even though it was earmarked for public education the size of that number was so significant that from what was being discussed he thought it made sense to re-visit the entire budget. This was the first public meeting of any board since he got confirmation of that number and he wanted to bring that number to the Board’s and Town Administrator’s attention. He thought it was enough of a game changer that it might cause a reconsideration of the budget. It might take the deficit from $4.4 million to $2.6 million.
Mr. Griesmer thought the Board should get confirmation on the number and notwithstanding the discussion that occurred on the 61/38 split, there won’t be a split until Town Meeting determines it.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he saw the article in the newspaper this morning but didn’t see the size of the number and asked Ms. White about it. Ms. White advised that it was not official but she thought it would make sense to convene the Financial Planning Committee to discuss it.
WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND
Ms. White noted the administration developed the operating and capital budget for Water & Sewer and at the request of the Board provided a projected impact on the rates based on the operating and capital budgets being put forward.
Deputy Town Administrator Michael Walters Young added that the presentation consists of three components: capital, operating, project rates. He would go through each one, take questions, and then take a moment to explain how that dovetails into a projected rate for Fiscal 2010. He stressed that this was a preliminary look at the rates and not an actual dollar amount.
Mr. Walters Young advised that capital projects for Water/Sewer for FY 2010 totalled $1,650,000. $350,000 to be funded through rates or retained earnings and $1.3 million through borrowing. The two most important projects were an upgrade to the SCADA system and sewer main relining.
Tony Comeau of the Water & Sewer Department explained that SCADA was Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition. It controls the whole water system via computer. Updating SCADA would allow for the purchase of new software that was tailored toward water & sewer and would clean up a lot of the issues.
Ms. Gloff inquired as to what was meant by issues, and Mr. Comeau responded that the existing software was geared toward large production facilities. The new was geared toward water treatment plants. He believed the new program would bring the Water/Sewer up to speed. Asked what was meant by large facilities, Mr. Comeau noted that it was larger plants like Garelick Farms. He added that the size of the plant had been doubled and since then there have been updates to the software, but this would put them back to a clean slate.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the cost was solely for the software and was told by Mr. Comeau that it was the software and the installation. As to how the price was obtained, Mr. Comeau noted that he spoke with other towns and the consulting engineer on the cost of the programming.
Mr. Ostroff asked if this had to be paid out of free cash or if borrowing was an option and if there were other ongoing costs associated with this purchase. Mr. Comeau didn’t have the life expectancy, but if there were changes in the programming that would have to be included.
Mr. Ciccariello questioned if there were any projects that were closed out and money was available to fund this. DPW Business Manager William Chenard distributed a handout out of the project lists. The first four on the list (Sewer Park Ave/Speen Street, Water Phase 3&4, Water Main-Lakeshore Road, Sewer-Clubhouse/Saddlebrook) were completed with $674,600 that was not spent and would not be spent. Asked if these had been officially closed out, DPW Director Charles Sisistsky replied that the DPW was done and the various offices notified that these projects were completed and the additional funds not needed. He (Mr. Sisistsky) didn’t know if that was reflected in the official records of the Town. He (Mr. Sisitsky) didn’t know if letters had been sent, but people had been notified –
probably more unofficially than officially.
Ms. White noted that she would have to check to see if the retained earnings reflects these closed out projects. Mr. Ciccariello believed it would be important to get the facts on these projects.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the status of the Phase 5 water relining project and was told by Water/Sewer Supervisor John Perodeau that it was about 90% done. Right now it was about $14,000 under budget but a couple of problems were found that should probably be taken care of and he was talking to the Town Administrator.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if a lot of the project contingency had been used. Mr. Perodeau advised that none of the project contingency had been touched.
Mr. Perodeau was asked for an update on the six other projects listed and he reviewed each.
The Prime Park sewer station – a new generator was installed and was up and running. A couple of new pumps were added. A lot of the work was being done inhouse. All of the work had been bid at one time and the price came in at $600,000 but only $300,000 had been appropriated so the bids were thrown out. Money would probably be left when this portion was done.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if this was Mall mitigation money. Mr. Perodeau advised that it was not. $50,000 was received from the Cloverleaf Mall for the generator.
North Main Sewer By-Pass – Mr. Perodeau reported that this wasn’t totally completed. The sewer force main had to be dug up next to the cemetery and a couple of pipes cut into it.
Sewer Main Relining – Mr. Perodeau noted this was ongoing. There was a three year contract with Insituform. There were a couple of known areas, i.e. North Main and Speen Street and $150,000 a year of unknown which means the Town could pick and chose where to go.
Water Pressure Filters – Mr. Perodeau advised that originally he was only going to do a couple and received $60,000 to do the work, but was advised by the people that make the filters they thought it was the wrong move and that all should be replaced now. Now the money was available and he would go out to contract but probably not until the Fall because he couldn’t shut the filters down during the summer.
Springvale Well #4 was an ongoing contract. The contractor wasn’t the greatest but he won’t get paid until it was 100% complete.
Sewer I&I – Mr. Perodeau noted this was an going project. The engineering was done and the next part would be construction.
With respect to the SCADA, Connolly inquired as to how bad it would be if it wasn’t done. Mr. Perodeau explained that there was a tremendous problem trying to find people to program and programmers get a lot of money per hour. Usually when the department found one they liked, he moved on. This SCADA was an off-the-shelf program. Sudbury just put it in and liked it. They found it easy to operate. In comparison to the original, this was very inexpensive. The $100,000 was to buy the software and the programming. This was the whole package.
A question arose about the I&I and Ms. White asked Mr. Perodeau to talk about the importance of continuing this program because it helped reduce the number of gallons to the MWRA. Mr. Perodeau responded that the work reduced the inflow and infiltration and strengthened the pipes. It took care of a lot of sewer backups.
Another capital item was Elm Bank Security Rehab that would replace an antiquated and aging security system. It was necessary to maintain proper protection of the water treatment plant. The cost was $100,000. Mr. Perodeau noted that this kicked in with the SCADA. There were a bunch of wells with no security but with the new SCADA, intrusion alarms can be tied in with 24 hour manning if someone was messing around with the door. He thought the wells should have something like this.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to what was there now for security and Mr. Perodeau responded there were locks, fences, and they were checked every day.
It was Mr. Connolly’s understanding that this (security rehab) would send a direct message if there was some funny business with the water. Mr. Perodeau advised that was correct. Intrusion alarms would be put on the doors and windows.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that individuals were checking constantly, but if the Town invested in SCADA and Elm Bank security would it be fair to say more efficiency would be gotten out of the labor force since they weren’t spending time on this and they could do other things. Mr. Perodeau’s reply was yes and no. He believed the staff should still go there every day. There could still be a chemical leak and they had to check the chlorine and fluoride residual every day and report to DEP.
Mr. Sisitsky added that SCADA not only ran all the operation for the treatment plant but handled all the alarms of the pump station. If the SCADA wasn’t upgraded the Town was taking a chance in not getting the alarms on the pump station.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if there were any projected cash expenditures that could be borrowed to reduce the impact on rates in the next fiscal year. Ms. White didn’t know off hand if the SCADA or security system were eligible for borrowing. Mr. Walters Young believed they could be. You could borrow for software and the security rehab would be a capital project and would count. The software could only be borrowed for 5 years. Mr. Chenard noted that the Finance Director had indicated that although it could be borrowed the borrowing costs for such a small item wouldn’t be responsible and he wouldn’t want to incur that cost. He (Finance Director) would want to pay cash.
Mr. Ciccariello thought he had heard that the cost to borrow could be $30,000. Mr. Walters Young confirmed that was correct which was why the Finance Director strived to do 1-2 issues a year to minimize the cost.
The first capital project to be borrowed was the replacement of a 1998 sewer vac/truck with a more efficient model. The cost was $250,000.
DPW Equipment Maintenance Supervisor Tom Collins noted this was a 1998 vehicle used every day in the Water & Sewer Division. It was showing some major signs of wear.
Mr. Connolly inquired if some of that work was subbed out, but Mr. Collins said no. Mr. Perodeau noted that at times a private company comes in that was a sub through Insituform.
Mr. Collins was asked about the life expectancy and confirmed that it was 10-12 years. The water pumps could be replaced but it would cost $10’s of thousands of dollars and you would still have a 1998. Mr. Gloff pointed out that there was new technology with greater improvements and a lot more economy in fuel and used less water.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about potential warranty and Mr. Collins advised that with everything the Town purchased, the extended warranty was purchased.
On the list to be borrowed was the replacement of the Springvale wells at a cost of $250,000. Mr. Perodeau explained that originally he was looking at Springvale #1 well but changed it to the Springvale wells. Springvale #1 was dug by hand and was going to be replaced. In October another well was cleaned up there and it was found that the screening in the well had deteriorated and would probably have to be replaced. DEP allowed a replacement of a well within 250 feet of another but it still took about a year. He would like to get the engineering and DEP approval and would then have an idea of the cheapest one to replace and get the most for the money.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the whole $250,000 was for engineering. When Mr. Perodeau responded that it was very little in engineering fees, Mr. Ciccariello raised the possibility of just appropriating those fees and coming back in the Fall for digging the well. Mr. Perodeau noted that the $250,000 was what it would cost by the time it went to DEP. A pump test had to be done. When it came back to put the wells in that would be the time to see what it would cost to put in one vs two.
Mr. Ciccariello asked about the potential for any grant money from DEP, but Mr. Perodeau said he hadn’t seen any.
Mr. Sisitsky advised that the pump tests to be done could be used for additional wells. A second round wouldn’t have to be done if they wanted to do a second well. He was sure the Department would get its money’s worth out of this expenditure.
The next item was Broad’s Hill Town Forest Renovations – a $500,000 project that would replace roofs and wall sections at reservoirs in the Town Forest based upon results of inspection from 2008.
Mr. Perodeau reported that he was still in the process of putting the chemical feed in. Last summer the tanks were cleaned. Once it was drained and cleaned, then it can be inspected inside. Those (tanks) weren’t in real bad shape but needed some repair. He (Mr. Perodeau) was given an estimate on the cost to repair both and each was around $250,000. On one the caulking had deteriorated and you can see right outside which meant insects can get in there which was a health hazard.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if this was related to the proposal before Town Meeting for an automated chlorination. Mr. Perodeau advised that it was not. The money for that was received and he was still in the process of doing that.
Mr. Ostroff commented on the amount of money, but Mr. Perodeau noted that if it had to be built today it would be in the $10-20 million range.
When asked about the life span for the repairs, Mr. Perodeau estimated 40 years.
The last capital item was the Sewer Pump Station Replacement and Upgrade. $300,000 was requested to replace the Crescent and Fieldstone sewer pump stations.
Mr. Perodeau advised that the Crescent station backed up to Lake Cochituate and consisted of all outdated equipment for which he couldn’t get the parts. The Fieldstone station was put in by the contractor when Fieldstone was built in the mid 1980’s. The pump station was rotting out and a new one would have to be put in.
From his perspective Mr. Ciccariello thought it sounded like these were needed projects. The question was how to fund. Would the Board be forced to raise water & sewer rates again?
Mr. Walters Young noted there was $664,440 in retained earnings. There was a five year capital plan for water & sewer and the revised impact debt analysis from FY10-FY27 and the only project on the A list was a proposed Phase VI water relining. Under what was being proposed, the debt service for FY 10 would be nominal plus there could be an extension of the useful life for borrowing for longer than 5 years.
- Water & Sewer Operating Budget
Mr. Walters Young told the Board that the operating budget for FY 10 would be going up 5.9%. That was driven by two factors – a 10% increase in the MWRA of roughly $405,000 although the hope was that the final assessment would be slightly less and an increase in debt service. From a staffing standpoint the budget was level and salaries were level with the exception of contractual obligations.
Ms. Gloff inquired if the increase in debt was mostly due to projects already approved by Town Meeting. Mr. Walters Young’s reply was, “yes”.
With respect to the MWRA assessment, Ms. White noted that the state was no longer providing rate relief which was why in part such a significant increase was being seen. It was about 9% of the total sewer budget.
Mr. Connolly commented that unlike most other departments this budget had not been cut. He inquired if there were any employees that were non union and being restricted from a COLA increase. Ms. White advised that everyone was union including the administration.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if any analysis had been done to consider a reduction in the work force. It looked like three teams with four individuals per team and a bunch of night operators.
Ms. White pointed out that this department (water & sewer) had $100 million of infrastructure and its two main functions were related to public health – delivery of water and taking away of sewage. There were a lot of personnel costs, but perhaps this department more than others had substantial costs other than personnel, i.e. chemicals. She didn’t see any option for reducing there and considered reducing personnel, but after considerable thought she wasn’t recommending it. Even though the Town was promoting water conservation which produced less revenue, it didn’t take away the need for people to make sure the operation was running smoothly.
Mr. Perodeau explained that the working foreman didn’t always have all of those people. The crews were set up differently every day depending on the size of the jobs. There was someone on the emergency calls, i.e. leaks in the house. He couldn’t take a guy off a project so he had an emergency guy. Last year the department changed 60-80 water services. The guys did a tremendous amount of work. The working foreman was the meter mechanic and he has a craftsman with him. There were probably over 1,000 back flows that have to be tested each year. At a charge of $50.00 per year last year it pulled in $75,000-80,000.
Based on his years working with the Town, Mr. Ciccariello asked if in Mr. Perodeau’s opinion it was more cost effective to do certain small scale projects than putting them out to bid. Mr. Perodeau responded that the Town would be paying 3 times the money putting them out to bid.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the new Chrysler Road would bring in a new water service and fire service line. In Framingham developers pay big connection fees for fire service and water connection fees and was that a policy in Natick. Mr. Perodeau responded that we didn’t have the high fees. The sewer fee was upped and people complained.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there was consideration being given to looking into those fees (fire service and connection) and clarified that he was talking about a developer that made a major impact on the water & sewer systems. A lot of the communities he dealt with charge some substantial fees.
Ms. White agreed that an analysis should be done.
With respect to the emergency guy, Mr. Ostroff asked if he was working when not being sent out. Mr. Perodeau advised that when not sent out on an emergency he was doing final water readings, running parts, and marking out sewer jobs.
On the I&I Mr. Ostroff wanted some assurance those funds weren’t being co-mingled with others in the account. Mr. Perodeau believed most of the money for the relining came from the I&I.
Mr. Connolly asked and Ms. White confirmed that all salaries for Water & Sewer were paid by the enterprise fund. Mr. Perodeau added that during the winter the Water & Sewer employees were plowing and if they worked overtime, they were paid out of Highway.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the Water & Sewer equipment was used for snow removal and Mr. Perodeau’s reply was, “yes”. Mr. Chenard noted that the vehicle maintenance related to Water & Sewer vehicles was paid out of snow removal as was fuel consumption. If it was overtime the labor force was paid out of snow removal. If regular time, it was at their straight rate.
Mr. Ciccariello noted the purpose of an enterprise fund was to determine the exact cost of providing a service and if individuals in the Water & Sewer Department were used to snow plow during those operations, it was an indirect cost that should be charged back to snow removal. There was no difference than charging indirect costs on the other side. The labor force should come out of the snow budget.
While she saw the point, Ms. White reminded the Board that right now there was a $750,000 overdraft and looking strictly at the dollars she couldn’t imagine what number might be put in if that was the practice. This was a common practice in other municipalities. One could argue that the streets need to be clear in the event of a water line break and it could be argued that the use of Water & Sewer personnel was perfectly legitimate.
Mr. Ciccariello acknowledged Ms. White’s opinion but believed the intent of the statute was that an enterprise fund was to tell the exact cost of the service. He had no problem with them doing the plowing, but if they were doing snow plowing they weren’t providing water & sewer service.
Ms. White countered that in doing the plowing they were providing access to the infrastructure.
Mr. Connolly noted that in the discussion it was being talked about how all these individuals were needed but when there was a snow emergency, they were doing other work. Ms. White clarified that was the case unless there was a water & sewer emergency.
Mr. Chenard explained that water & sewer individuals plow streets but their primary responsibility was to clear the wells and pump stations to make sure there was access so if there was an emergency they could get to those facilities. They also plow streets.
Mr. Connolly commented that he wasn’t trying to nickel and dime. He just wanted a clear understanding. Last year the majority of the Board voted to support a billing fee and he inquired as to the kind of revenue that new charge produced. Mr. Walters Young advised that it was north of $200,000.
Mr. Walters Young noted that whether the fee was there or not the Town had to raise a certain amount of revenues to cover those expenses. If the $5 fee was there or not, there was no overall impact on the dollars needed. The fee was an estimate of the total production costs for the bills.
It was noted that the Police Chief had to leave and the Board was asked to take him out of order.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he had been remiss in not asking for a moment of silence for the loss of a valued member of the Natick Police Department.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES 12 & 13: CAPITAL EQUIPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS
Police Chief Dennis Mannix informed the Board that he was requesting the replacement of radios, 2 cruisers, and the replacement of firearms.
Chief Mannix advised that he was seeking $10,000 for radio replacement which was an ongoing program that should have been completed by now. Originally it was to replace all 60 radios and a repeater. Since the first appropriation in 2005, 40 portable radios and 80 battery ones have been replaced. The money recommended this year would complete the purchase, but as the cruisers were replaced over the years he would ask to replace the radios. These radios were not only part of the regular replacement program, they were scanning radios and capable of receiving narrow band signals.
Chief Mannix continued that the replacement of firearms was another continuing replacement program. Those weapons (to be replaced) were purchased originally starting in 1991 and finished in 1993. The officers were carrying a double action Smith & Wesson. There was nothing set in stone on the replacement but in his experience it was normally 10 years. The weapons were showing wear and tear and weren’t made any more. There would be some trade in value.
The cruisers were around $75,000 for two which would include the cost of the cruisers and the transfer of some of the equipment.
Ms. Gloff noted that she had a citizen leave her a message stating they didn’t understand why the guns needed to be replaced. Chief Mannix advised there was some spring fatigue and this was the officers’ primary defensive weapon. Thirteen years was as long as he had gone without replacement. With the trade in value he didn’t know if it would cost $17,000.
Asked how many $17,000 would purchase, Chief Mannix responded that it was $410 per weapon and $135 for the holster. With the trade in he thought he could get 30-35 at that price with the holster.
Mr. Connolly asked if there was jeopardy to safety because of the weapon. Chief Mannix responded that that was something you didn’t know. If he thought so he would be looking for an emergency appropriation. He stressed that he would minimize the cost per weapon.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that he had experience where weapons weren’t that old that misfired and malfunctioned and you didn’t know until the trigger was pulled. For a police officer if it misfired it could be dangerous.
On the cruisers, Mr. Ciccariello inquired if it was still the practice that when cruisers were replaced they were moved into other areas. DPW Equipment Maintenance Supervisor Tom Collins advised that it was still the case. Two were just moved into Town Hall service and when these two were replaced, they would be transitioned.
Asked what was being purchased, Mr. Collins responded Crown Vics.
Mr. Collins was asked about the age of the cruisers, but Mr. Collins didn’t know which ones were being replaced.
Mr. Connolly asked a series of questions on the number of cruisers in the fleet and was told that there were 22-23 marked and unmarked cars. The marked cruisers were around 12. Generally there were 6 on the road but there could be 7.
In follow up Mr. Connolly questioned if it was really that necessary to replace these two. Mr. Collins responded that mileage wise the cars would be up there.
Mr. Connolly noted that the original request was for five and that was brought down to two. Mr. Collins explained that they were trying to hold back as much as they could and he would feel comfortable purchasing two next year barring any unforeseen accidents. He assured Mr. Connolly that the cruisers were only being replaced if absolutely necessary.
Mr. Ostroff commented that the Board was being asked to agree to a capital request to Town Meeting and the funds would not be spent until absolutely necessary. The Town Administrator would still have to approve it. All that was being said was to put the money in place because it was anticipated that it would be needed. The number had been scaled back from 5 to 2 and wouldn’t be spent unless absolutely needed.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to how long it would take to go out to bid. Mr. Collins advised that the cruisers were on a state bid. This was a stockable item so usually easy to get.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the possibility of replacing one now and waiting until Fall Town Meeting for the other when there was a better picture of free cash. Ms. White felt it was possible, but from the administration’s perspective recycling these vehicles in a timely schedule was important. Presently the number had been scaled back dramatically and she did not recommend scaling back any further but it was possible.
Mr. Collins reiterated that as long as the money was there, it wouldn’t be spent until absolutely necessary.
Chief Mannix left and the Board returned to the Water & Sewer Enterprise Fund discussion.
WATER & SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND (Continued)
b.Preliminary Rate Proposals for Fiscal 2010
Mr. Walters Young reviewed his memo of March 13, 2009 that outlined two
possible options.
Revenues were projected to be $13,611,522. Under option 1 with
all things being equal and the operating and capital budget proposals approved as they have been submitted, rates would go up approximately 4.9% in FY 2010. For the average user of water/sewer services (26.57 HCF/quarter), the annual bill would increase from $958.20 to $1,005.15 or an increase of $11.74 per quarter.
The administration was very much aware of the economic conditions and believed with Option 2 there were two ways the Board could reduce the size of the increase. The capital expenditures could be reduced or limited amounts of retained earnings could be applied to fund capital. If $250,000 of retained earnings were applied to capital, that would result in a rate increase of 2.9%. A 2.9% increase would increase the average bill from $958.20 to $985.99 or $6.95 per quarter.
Currently there was $656,440 of certified retained earnings and the administration would strongly recommend that the Board not utilize the majority of that because there was a need to retain reserves. If $250,000 was applied to capital that would leave $400,000 and with $660,000 generated this year it would be close to $1 million which would get it in line with the proper reserves.
In conclusion Mr. Walters Young noted that the goal was to allow the Board sufficient information to give a vote on the budget and bring it to Town Meeting. It was an expense driven budget and the expenses approved led to the rates. In six weeks from now staff would be back to start on looking at the rates. The adjustment for apartments, etc. was not reflected in this presentation.
Mr. Ostroff remarked on the MWRA charges being the main driver of the increase and the requirement to have a water & sewer enterprise fund in balance. The Board could not charge less than the cost of the service.
Being that the Board of Selectmen were the water & sewer commissioners, Mr. Connolly urged the administration to look at rates that didn’t involve any increase. Enough was enough and there were some things that didn’t have to be done now. People were trying to live within their means and he would recommend the Town do the same.
Ms. White inquired if there were particular items Mr. Connolly felt were less necessary and his response was that the SCADA would be nice to have but we didn’t have to have it. There were certain things DEP demands but that wasn’t one of them. The vacuum truck and the rehab for Elm Bank he believed were mandatory, but if the department had to limp along without the replacement of W30 so be it. The renovation for Broads & Town forest may be required by DEP. When there was only so much money to spend it had to be spent wisely. This would be the 3rd increase in the water/sewer rates in less than 18 months plus the $5 administration fee.
Ms. White offered to go back and look at those items, but a large part of what was driving the increase were things outside their control – the MWRA and the debt already taken on.
Mr. Connolly understood the point made but felt there were things to which we could just say no.
Mr. Ostroff stressed the need to maintain a prudent level of reserves and didn’t think the Board knew what the highest priority level was (in capital).
With $675,000 in retained earnings and the potential for another $650,000 at year’s end, Mr. Ciccariello stated that what threw him off was the $674,000 number for projects that have been closed out and not knowing how much of those dollars were available for this budget was concerning. If a substantial portion were available the rates probably wouldn’t have to be raised. The availability of the $674,000 was very important and until he got an answer he was not willing to support anything that would raise the water & sewer rates.
Mr. Walters Young advised that he would have to come back to the Board on Monday with a response.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
- Reconsideration of Fee for Yard Waste
Ms. White noted that a lot of people have suggested that it was silly to charge a fee for people to deliver yard waste to the recycling center if the plan was to continue to pick up curbside. That sounded logical and she would propose that a fee not be charged to deliver yard waste to the recycling center.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted to reconsider the fee to deliver yard waste to the recycling center.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, the Board unanimously voted not to establish a fee for delivering yard waste to the recycling center.
Mr. Ostroff expressed concern that the recycling center could be overwhelmed with commercial landscapers taking advantage and it maybe something the Board would want to look at, but Ms. Gloff pointed out that people could drop off stuff now and that wasn’t changing.
- Determination of Advance Purchase of Salt for Salt Shed
DPW Business Manager William Chenard reported that the current price of salt was $79.90 per ton while last year it was $48.00. The shed, which was empty at this point, holds approximately 2,000 tons and at the current rate would cost almost $160,000 to fill at the beginning of next year. If it wasn’t filled now, he would be before the Board in August or September for an overdraft to fill the salt shed.
Mr. Chenard told the Board that he was torn in two directions because he didn’t know the answer. The cost of fuel last summer was substantially higher than today and he had to assume the bid increase was driven by the cost of fuel. In that case maybe it would be better not to fill the salt shed and wait to see if the rates came down. However, looking at the history they have always gone up. The other argument was to fill it now to avoid an increase. Last year the Town saved $35,000 by filling it in the spring.
Mr. Chenard noted that he didn’t have a crystal ball. It could be split. There was about $65,000 left from the last overdraft and that would put a few 100 tons in the shed assuming nothing else came up. He could spend what’s authorized or wait until the fall to see what happens.
Mr. Chenard was asked about the timing for the bids and he advised that the Town was part of a consortium with bidding done in July.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired about alternative products, and Mr. Chenard noted there was liquid calcium but nothing was proven to be as effective as salt. To use an alternative would require a huge capital investment to modify the equipment.
To Ms. White the least objectionable might be to authorize the spending down of the already authorized overdraft, but hold off until the possibility of another storm had passed and then use the remaining money to buy salt. Mr. Chenard liked the idea of spending down the authorization.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES: 12, 13 (Capital Equipment & Capital Improvement)
Mr. Walters Young noted that the Board had reviewed all of the items making up the total proposal of $403,560 with the exception of two – the replacement of street lights for $25,000 and the replacement of fire hose for $25,000. He noted that these were larger requests coming into this cycle. The fire hose on most pieces was beyond its recommended life and the Fire Department had hoped to receive $50,000 to replace the fire hose, but $25,000 was being recommended with another $25,000 next year.
Having approved the bid on streetlights, Mr. Ciccariello asked how that would impact the line budget. Ms. White noted that was the operation budget, not the emergency budget. Mr. Chenard added that the maintenance contract was just maintenance. Because the Town purchased the streetlights, the Town was responsible for replacing them. This request (capital) was to start an annual request to replace so many per year. They were looking at other alternatives to save energy. Solar was being explored but it may not work.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the cost to replace one, but Mr. Chenard responded that the cost ranged depending on the type from a low of about $2,250 to $2,800. The idea was to replace the aging lights so a thousand didn’t have to be replaced at one time.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the pay back to change the lamping had been looked at. When told by Mr. Chenard that it was being worked on but hadn’t been completed, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if it would be better to wait to finish the analysis to consider what fixtures should be replaced. Ms. White advised that some of the work that needs to be done was on the light post. There were some that were deteriorating and unstable. Mr. Chenard confirmed that they were looking at the post and doing some groundwork.
Ms. White noted that both an operating and a capital budget were needed. The operating was keeping the lights functioning and the capital was keeping them standing up. This was ongoing maintenance that needs to be addressed.
With respect to the replacement of worn out hose on pumpers, DPW Equipment Maintenance Supervisor Tom Collins that this was a portion of what they wanted to replace. Asked if it would go out to bid, Mr. Collins didn’t know. If it couldn’t be purchased on a state bid, it would go out to bid.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that when the new truck was bought, new hose wasn’t put on it. Mr. Collins advised that was partially correction. Engine 4 wasn’t equipped. Mr. Ciccariello believed there should be a policy that when a new truck was purchased there should be funding to equip it.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN BUDGET
Ms. White reported that the labor legal budget had been reduced by $22,000 and that was used as a partial source to fund a Personnel Director in the Board of Selectmen budget. No other items were removed. In prior discussions some members of the Board and the Finance Committee talked about removing money for the Natick Center Associates and the MetroWest Growth Management Committee and representatives of both were asked to attend tonight’s meeting. She (Ms. White) recommended the funding of all these items. In her opinion each was important as part of the fabric of the community. She felt a good job had been done in balancing the budget looking toward the future to come out of this economic downtown much the same community as we went into it and to her both of these organizations were
important.
Mr. Ostroff disclosed that he was a member of Natick Center Associates but had no financial interest in this article. He had a statement on file in the Town Clerk’s office and intended to vote.
Margaret Sleeper of Natick Center Associates noted that in the beginning the Town had been paying $28,500 as an assessment. A few years ago that was decreased to $12,500 and last year $8,000. She understood the fiscal situation but felt Natick Center Associates worked well with the Town in a public private partnership. As examples she cited trying to get a garage built and the improvements to North Main Street which was not an accepted street and the NCA asked the Board of Selectmen to sponsor an article to have a survey done. They were told the cost would be about $20,000 and the NCA Board proposed supplying about $10,000.
Ms. Sleeper continued that Natick Center Associates hired Craig Associates to do a parking survey and learned from stakeholders they would contribute $1.2 million toward a garage. Natick Center Associates also had a great new web site and sponsored the farmer’s market.
Ms. Sleeper stated that she was now working 25 hours and they would be reduced to 20 as of May 1 and if the Town did not contribute, her hours would be decreased further.
If somebody questioned what the Town was paying $8,000 for, Mr. Connolly asked what he should say. Ms. Sleeper responded that the Board was working with the downtown businesses to continue the vitality, beautification, streetscape, get a parking garage, etc.
Natick Center Associates represents the downtown and the downtown was very important to the citizens and the whole community. The Town’s contribution helps support paying her to coordinate all of the above.
Mr. Connolly questioned if Ms. Sleeper believed all of those activities would not be done if the $8,000 was given. Ms. Sleeper’s response was that some of them would have to be scaled back.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if the anticipated cost of the survey for North Main Street was actually $20,000 and Ms. White responded that the actual cost was $12,000. Community Development Director Patrick Reffett had advised that it could be up to $20,000 and she was requesting $15,000 from Town Meeting.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked if Natick Center Associates had committed $10,000 toward the survey. Ms. Sleeper advised that Natick Center Associates voted to commit to the $10,000 once she spoke to Mr. Reffett to make sure if North Main Street was an accepted road and got improved the angular parking would not be taken away.
Mr. Ciccariello raised the issue of the projected budget deficit, but Ms. White felt that through budget cuts and the fees approved and incorporated into the overall plan and other adjustments, these two items (Natick Center Associates and MetroWest Growth Management) could be afforded. The administration has been working hard to be as accurate as possible and looking beyond Fiscal 2010 and making sure not to budget to the penny to look forward to free cash.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that he had made the suggestion of cutting the Natick Center Associates to the Finance Committee, but probably had a difference of opinion now that NCA had committed $10,000 to the survey. That creates a wash.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ostroff, and unanimously voted to support the $8,000 for funding of the Natick Center Associates.
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Gloff thought Natick Center Associates did a lot of good things for Natick and with NCA committing to $10,000 for the survey it became a wash.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he had invested a lot of time working with folks in Town government, the Natick Center Associates and other boards to resolve some parking issues and the fact NCA was willing to commit to $1.2 million (for a garage) was a big thing. The public private partnership was very real and this was an investment in the future.
Mr. Connolly questioned if the Human Resources Director position was now being added to the Selectmen’s budget. Ms. White advised that was correct and added that the department was made up almost entirely of non-union personnel and no COLA was being given which was the savings.
Mr. Connolly felt uncomfortable that the Board was requesting everyone to tighten the belt but was not doing it ourselves. Ms. White advised that that had been debated internally and initially a budget was put forward with a significant reduction. Last year the office took a hit with the clerical person going down to an occasional person. Given the reduction and four out of five members asking to put the Human Resources position back in, she decided to present the budget in that manner.
Mr. Connolly explained that he was questioning the leadership of the whole mission if you were telling everyone else to take a hit and we weren’t doing it.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that Ms. Van Amsterdam would like to participate in this discussion and she would be at Monday’s meeting.
The other issue was funding for the MetroWest Growth Management Committee. Representing the MGMC were Ken Soderholm, a Planning Board member and one of Natick’s representatives to the Committee; and MetroWest Growth Management Committee Director Donna Jacobs.
Mr. Ostroff reminded the Board that he had mentioned trying to get additional funding for the Committee. The MathWorks was agreeable but to do it now would muddy the waters at this point.
Ms. Jacobs knew how tight the financial constraints were and they (MWGM) too had sharpened their pens. Their assessment was set in the fall and they would sustain the current level which was down from FY08. They tried very hard to make sure they could provide services for their member communities and several things came immediately to mind: An inkind match for a pre-disaster mitigation plan submitted to FEMA that would enable Natick to be eligible for many things it hadn’t been previously. It helped a community mitigate likely impacts from natural disasters; she wrote grants for the RTA. The kick off for the new green line project was the result of her grant writing and was a project in which Mr. Soderholm and she had been involved in this year. The MWGM restructured their organization
and hired an assistant planner and agreed to help Natick with technical assistance in updating the open space plan and agreed to help the Planning Board look at nodes that may be more productive. Ms. Jacobs also noted that she was trying to be the match maker for regional collaborative services. Recently she had been asked to help with and was working with Community Development Director Patrick Reffett on renewal energy sources and citing them so they wouldn’t be an adverse impact on a neighborhood.
While Ms. Jacobs summarized the services, Mr. Soderholm said he wanted to touch on the philosophical. The Planning Board permitted the past few years a number of things that have a regional impact and the purpose was to be a group of nine communities to share information, to meet, and to discuss. For the kind of permitting projects being done, he felt there was an obligation to be at the table and talk with the neighbors. Otherwise the Planning Board would be permitting those projects without showing any concern for our neighbors and would be inviting lawsuits. If Natick were to withdraw from the MWGM Committee it would raise a lack of good will and the Town would lose a huge amount of credibility with the state. In his opinion it would be a mistake for Natick not to be part of the neighborhood
organization.
Mr. Ostroff noted that one resource that would be available to the Economic Development Committee would be the build out analysis. He wondered if it was practical as part of future decisions to try to secure multi-year funding.
Mr. Soderholm noted that he was asked a number of years ago to approach the Mall and he got funding (for MWGM) for one year, but it was after the fact. He thought it might be appropriate as part of the permit granting process. After the fact was more difficult. This was something the Planning Board would keep in mind.
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Mr. Ciccariello, the Board unanimously voted to support the town Administrator’s inclusion of funding for the MetroWest Growth Management Committee in the budget.
Speaking to her motion, Ms. Gloff noted that one thing being heard over the last several years was regionalization and that requires working with the surrounding communities. She knew that Ms. White talked to some of the surrounding communities and Mr. Ostroff worked on the MMA. The more opportunities to reach out the better and she thought the MetroWest Growth Management Committee provided that.
Mr. Ciccariello stated that originally his concerns were what was the Town getting for results as he never saw anything.
Mr. Soderholm advised that the MWGM executive committee had been meeting and trying to discuss how to redefine what MWGM was doing and actually seeing what the towns were getting for their money.
Mr. Ciccariello believed that was important as he had never really seen anything and was surprised to know about the $3/4 million grant for the RTA. You pay into something and expect to get something.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
__________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
