BOARD OF SELECTMEN
Natick Town Hall
March 2, 2009
5:30 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by the Chairman John Ciccariello at 5:30 p.m.
PRESENT: John Ciccariello, Joshua Ostroff, Kristine Van Amsterdam, Carol A. Gloff, John Connolly.
ALSO PRESENT: Martha L. White, Town Administrator; Donna Challis, Secretary
WARRANTS: Payroll warrants were signed by the Board of Selectmen on March 2, 2009 in the amount of $1,759,229.29. This figure was included in total warrants signed by the Board of Selectmen of $2,274,113.21.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, moved to enter into executive session to discuss matters pertaining to collective bargaining, litigation. By roll call vote the motion passed on a 5-0-0 vote. At 5:35 p.m. the Board entered into executive session after announcing that the meeting would return to open session.
The open session was reconvened at 7:10 p.m.
CITIZENS CONCERNS
Town Meeting member John Magee told the Board he was following up on an e-mail sent last week. He heard the Fire Department was faced with a staff reduction of four personnel and if forced to lay off from the bottom it would mean a reduction of paramedics and the department would, therefore, have a difficult time continuing to provide paramedic service. He heard about a potential early retirement that could allow some reduction of the cuts. No one was happy about the reduction in the Fire Department and it was disturbing that paramedic service would be disproportionately affected and he would ask the Board to do something.
Mr. Magee continued that it was especially true in light of the override and he felt any options should be explored to allow the town to continue to operate at the current level. He contacted the State representatives to see if there were any other options and was told there would need to be an official request from the Board of Selectmen to get involved. He was here to request that the Board request a change at the state level. The civil service laws were not meant to force towns to reduce a skill set. The law was broken and needs to be fixed. Changes can happen quickly when there was a will for it.
Mr. Magee reiterated that he was asking the Board to request our State representatives to get involved to exempt paramedics from being the lowest seniority level.
Mr. Ciccariello asked if Mr. Magee was looking for the Board to request a reconsideration of the civil service law, but Mr. Magee said he didn’t have a specific request. In essence, ‘yes’, but he didn’t know specifically how that should be formed.
Ms. White noted that the Board had done that by endorsing the changes put forward by the MMA Managers Association.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
- West Natick Parking Garage
Ms. White referenced a letter in correspondence from the MBTA informing the Town that the proposed West Natick parking facility had been selected to receive state funding to initiate design. This was not a commitment to proceed to final design and construction but it has passed the first hurdle. The MBTA has allocated $33,000 for funding and have a firm selected to do that design work.
Mr. Ostroff commented that this was spurred by action the Board of Selectmen took.
- Economic and Transportation Package
Mr. Ostroff advised there would be a meeting at the library on March 4, 6:00 p.m. on the Governor’s economic and transportation package.
NSTAR: TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced the documents in the briefing books: correspondence from Town Counsel; a letter from Nstar; a letter from Keegan Werlin, LLP, Nstar’s attorney; memos from the Conservation Commission.
David Rosenzweig of Keegan Werlin LLP, representing Nstar, noted their letter of February 27, 2009 requested that the Board of Selectmen reconsider and withdraw its revocation of the grant of location Nstar previously received in 2005 for crossing six public ways. This was a transmission relocation project that already received approval from the State and locally. The project construction has been underway. There was an issue with the Conservation Commission which he believed had been addressed. He belived the Board of Selectmen’s vote to revoke was not in compliance with Mass General Laws. Nstar didn’t want to make a legal issue. They just wanted to proceed with construction.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to Nstar’s status with the Conservation Commission. Mr. Rosenzweig responded that about a month ago a cease and desist order was issued that required Nstar to record the conditions and that has occurred. The second stipulation required Nstar to provide a vegetation program and management plan and that has been presented. In addition there were some issues associated with work that occurred around poles 18 & 19 in the amount of cutting and there was a requirement to develop a plan to address those issues. That has been submitted to the Conservation Commission and the cease and desist order has been lifted. From the perspective of any order of conditions and wetlands Nstar can proceed.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would like to get someone from the DPU to come address the Board.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that the grant of location originally given by the Board of Selectmen only applied to six locations specified in the order:
West Central Street approximately 425 feet west of Mill Street
Burning Tree road at a point approximately 355 feet west of Mill Street
Ranger Road at a point approximately 305 feet west of Stonebridge Circle
Mill Street at a point approximately 1,115 feet southeast of Hartford Street
Hartford Street at a point approximately 205 feet east of the junction with
Mill Street
Worcester Road at the Natick/Framingham town Line
No action was taken regarding the right-of-way and the Selectmen’s grant had nothing to do with the overall right-of-way. He understood from the Conservation Commission their issues were around vegetation, specifically restoration of wetlands which he understood has been resolved. The Commission’s order of conditions applied to the area of the wetlands and not all of the right-of-way and he (Mr. Ciccariello) understood that Nstar had met all of the obligations of the Conservation Commission and the cease and desist order had been lifted. According to the Environmental Compliance Officer when the final plan was implemented it would be the Conservation Commission’s responsibility to inspect the premises and ensure the plan agreed to was being followed.
Representing the neighborhood Peter Langan of Meloday Way stated that he knew what Mr. Ciccariello was about to say and disagreed with it and wanted to make sure every avenue was looked at. He had three kids and the EMF levels were going way up. He (Mr. Langan) found tons of research saying it (EMF level) was no good and Nstar had research saying it was OK. The EMF levels were coming outside Nstar’s easement and into his kids’ bedroom. He questioned why he had to have those EMF levels forced into his kids’ bedroom and there was nothing the Town could do about it.
Mr. Langan noted there was an old statute that said the Selectmen had the right to control if it affected the health, safety or the property. It affects the property because everybody knew the property was junk. Would anybody buy his house or let the kids sleep in it. Right now the levels were fine, but why did he have to take the EMF’s in his house when he didn’t want them. Out of 12 houses there were 8 cancer cases within 50 yards of his house. They may not all be because of that (EMF) but how could he let his kids stay in that situation. What were they supposed to do as taxpayers? Where were they supposed to go to help? The DPU says the only thing the residents can do was to go to Superior Court. The utility was being allowed to come in and ruin a dozen houses and the
residents were supposed to accept it because Nstar got a permit three years ago. At the local level the Selectmen were it. The residents had property value issues and health issues.
Mr. Langan continued that he wanted to make sure Town Counsel looked into every avenue. It appears as though everything Town Counsel answered was specific to the health and safety but how about the effect on the property. The EMF’s will affect the sales value.
In response to Mr. Langan’s comment that the DPU advised that the only way for the residents to be involved was to take court action, Mr. Ciccariello asked if a complaint had been filed with the DPU in writing. Mr. Langan advised that was. There has been no response. DPU said they could take the complaint but couldn’t do anything about it. An appeal would have to be filed.
Mr. Ostroff was glad the residents reached out to the DPU and reiterated that he (Mr. Ostroff) would be interested in getting them before the Board. He asked if there was any sense of what it costs to litigate. Mr. Langan guessed it would be $100,000 if lucky. He couldn’t imagine it being cheap. Their (residents) plea was at the local level. He understood the health issues and the DPU regulations but this was something that would affect everybody’s property. It seemed inconceivable the Board of Selectmen would have no authority to stop this.
Ms. Van Amsterdam wanted to hear from Town Counsel and Mr. Ciccariello requested Mr. Flynn to provide a summary. Mr. Flynn responded that this was the first time this particular situation had come up in his experience before the Board and like it or not the law was pretty specific. The legislature and Mass Supreme Judicial Court confers authority on the DPU. The issues he was asked to look at was what authority the Board of Selectmen in this matter and the jurisdiction of the Board of Selectmen for the grant of location for public ways in, over, and under public ways. The jurisdiction was limited to the six crossing points requested by Nstar. To the extent the Board was talking about an issue other than those six crossing points, the Board was not a vehicle to address. The Conservation Commission had
jurisdiction which was limited to areas that affected interest of the wetlands acts or by-law. At least two of those areas were here. The order of conditions from the Conservation Commission in 2005 addressed the order. The jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission didn’t extend to the whole project just those areas in their jurisdiction.
Mr. Flynn continued that the summary of the Conservation Commission’s action was accurate. There were two cease and desist order issues: 1) failure to record the order of conditions and because it was subsequently recorded, the cease and desist was lifted. The second involved the area they felt fell under their jurisdiction and the plan satisfied the Conservation Commission and they lifted the cease and desist order. The Commission requested and received a plan restoring the vegetation and Nstar will be required to implement the plan after the project was completed. The Commission no longer prohibits work on the project.
If there was a health issue with the EMF or any type of radiation Mr. Flynn advised that was something that should be taken up by the Board of Health. It wasn’t clear that it presents health issues, but it was within the jurisdiction of the Board of Health and any neighbor with a health concern the first stop should be the Board of Health.
Mr. Flynn noted the reduction of property values should be addressed with the Board of Assessors and property owners could seek an abatement of their taxes.
Like it or not the case law was that the DPU was given authority to oversee the installation and operation of utility lines with the exception of the Selectmen’s crossing permit. The speaker quoted a statute which was on the books as Chapter 164 section 75 and read, “The aldermen or selectmen may regulate, restrict and control all acts and doings of a corporation subject to this chapter which may in any manner affect the health, safety, convenience or property of the inhabitants of their towns.” It read very succinctly but he (Mr. Flynn) was unable to find any statutes where a court had allowed a town to exercise its authority under that statute. The only case law found was on Chapter 166 and the Supreme Judicial Court has stated that once the Board of Selectmen grants a street crossing permit, there
wasn’t the power to revoke it. Once a utility spends money on reliance of that grant, the Board couldn’t stop it.
Listening to the comments, Mr. Flynn recognized there was a real concern out there and what the neighbors could do would be to go to the Board of Health on health issues and to the Assessors if there were property value concerns, but the statutes and the case law clearly confers authority on the DPU and if there was a violation of any order, the DPU had jurisdiction over the entire project. That was the place to go and he would urge whoever had an issue with that to push it. A written complaint should be filed with the DPU and it should be pushed. The same energy demonstrated here should be shown there (DPU).
To Ms. Van Amsterdam it appeared as though the DPU had authority over everything. Mr. Flynn responded that not everything – the street crossing and the wetlands – but with those exceptions, “yes”.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Chapter 164 only helped municipalities if the grant of location had never been issued. Mr. Flynn indicated that Chapter 164 was superseded by Chapter 166. Was it at a point where there was nothing the Board could do even though things have changed like the EM? When the hearing was held the health issues did not come up.
Ms. White advised that she spoke with the Board of Health and was told that given there were no regulations regarding EMF limits, they had nothing to enforce. The Board of Health was provided with a diagram of the cancer incidents and were asked to forward it to the state to see if they noticed any pattern the state would want to look at, but the local Board of Health didn’t feel they had any hand there.
If the documents presented at the original hearing did not advise the EMF levels would rise to the levels they may in the next month or so, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned if that were an issue and if there was anything the Board could do with it. DPU would have read documents that a certain level of EMFs would be present and if conditions have changed, was there anything the Board could do to talk to DPU to see if another hearing was necessary?
Mr. Flynn responded that in his opinion the answer was no because circumstances can change. It wasn’t clear there was a problem with the EMF levels. For a complaint to be made to the Mass Health Department for them to get involved there had to be some objective standard and nothing he read said that. Chapter 164 section 75 was not limited to just before a permit was granted, but the problem he had was that he couldn’t find any case law that said just the opposite and the courts have invested the DPU with the ultimate authority. If someone felt any of the circumstances was in violation of the permit issued by the DPU, the issue should be presented to them (DPU). It shouldn’t be necessary to file with a court. It wasn’t clear to him the concern about health translates into a
violation of anything because there was no objective standard available. The Board of Selectmen was the chief executive officers of the Town and could contact whoever it wished.
Mr. Connolly noted that the EMF’s were going outside the easement area where they don’t belong. 30-40 years ago the dangers of asbestos were not realized. This was one of the Board’s constitutes and they were reaching out asking for help. Maybe the Board could stand along with them and still hold this up somehow. There was a speaker that came before the Board regarding inspectors that were to be on the premises and the proper installation of poles. Did anyone look into any of those comments?
Mr. Ciccariello responded that the Board received some information but the only way to explore would be to ask Nstar if they were providing that service. No building permit was required and there was no requirement for the Building Department to inspect. Mr. Connolly questioned if somebody should inspect, but Mr. Ciccariello advised that it would be left up to Nstar.
Mr. Connolly asked Nstar if the inspectors were on site and if they had information that the poles were done properly. Mr. Rosenzweig responded that Nstar had an engineering diagram and people that inspect to see that it was done in accordance with the plan. Asked if there were inspectors on site making sure it was done appropriately, Mr. Rosenzweig’s reply was, “yes”. He was then asked if there was documentation to that effect and Mr. Rosenzweig explained that the documentation would come if they were not installed correctly. A non-conformance report would be filled out and the situation corrected.
In follow-up Mr. Connolly asked if the inspectors were on the job site the entire time and Mr. Rosenzweig advised that the inspectors had more than one job site to inspect.
Mr. Connolly commented that he believed there was more the Board could do under 164 §75, even if it was only to hold them off until they got in front of the DPU.
Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that an opinion had been received from Town Counsel, but Mr. Connolly questioned if Town Counsel could explain how the convenience of the citizens had not been compromised. Mr. Ciccariello responded that it was not Town Counsel’s decision whether somebody had been inconvenienced. Town Counsel gave the Board an opinion regarding Chapter 164 §75 which said the Board didn’t have much to stand on relative to that law and that the Supreme Judicial Court had limited the Selectmen’s authority and gave it to the DPU. As far as the Board’s ability
to help neighbors move forward, it was made clear that if the neighbors filed a complaint with the DPU, the Board would support them and if the neighbors wanted to go to the legislators, the Board would support them in that cause, but everything presented, as discouraging as it was, was pretty clear. If the Board didn’t take any action he wasn’t sure Nstar couldn’t just go back on the site. They (Nstar) were working on the right-a-way and the Conservation Commission issues were resolved. If Nstar went back on the site tomorrow, the Board couldn’t stop them.
Mr. Connolly believed if the Board took no action tonight (on the revocation of the grant of location permit), the vote of the Board would stand. If Nstar started working, they would be in violation of a vote.
Mr. Ciccariello explained that when the Board took the vote to revoke the grant, based on the information available, the thought was that the Board could take that action. The Board felt comfortable taking that vote, but was now hearing additional information that suggests the Board had no authority to revoke the grant of location.
Ms. Gloff added that there was a legal opinion from Town Counsel that the Board had no right to revoke the grant of location. It may not be what everyone would like to hear but that was why we have Town Counsel to tell the Board what it needed to hear.
If the Board did not un-revoke the grant, Mr. Ostroff asked if it was possible for Nstar to petition the DPU or could Nstar act like they already have it. He hoped Nstar would request a grant of location from the DPU who would then hold a hearing in Natick and provide the abutters with an opportunity for a hearing process.
Mr. Flynn said he couldn’t comment on whether Nstar would go to the DPU, but if the Board left the order to revoke standing and Nstar challenged it, it would probably end up in court.
Mr. Ostroff inquired if Nstar would consider working through the DPU to provide the neighbors with an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Rosenzweig responded that when Nstar got its approval in 2004 there was a public hearing and the citizens had an opportunity to raise concerns. It was their (Keegan Werlin) opinion that the Board’s action of February 9 to revoke it was not effective and there was no reason to apply to the DPU. Their (Nstar) position was that they obtained a grant of location in 2005 and it was still in place and they can proceed with construction in areas in that location. Nstar had proper permits for the entire project and there was no reason to reapply.
Asked if he lived adjacent to a power line if he would be satisfied, Mr. Rosenzweig said he thought the neighbors had every right to be concerned and those were issues the DPU routinely looked at. It was common place for transmission lines to be along rights of way and homes along there. It was not unique.
If neighbors failed to receive notice of the hearing, Mr. Ostroff questioned if that would compromise the validity of the hearing. Mr. Rosenzweig stated that he would leave that to their (neighbors) attorney, but he was aware there were strict notification requirements.
Mr. Ostroff commented that it was not the utility’s intent to proceed to the DPU that the utility considered that process to have been satisfied and regardless of Board of Selectmen action on the grant of location it was Nstar’s intent to go back to the project at their timetable.
Mr. Rosenzweig replied that he would tell Nstar they had the right to do so that they held the valid permits. Nstar held off construction as a matter of respect to the Town. In terms of process he believed legally the revocation to be invalid. All the other permits were in place and valid and Nstar had the right to proceed. The line was needed to serve customer requirements and the quicker it was in place the better off customers were.
Mr. Ostroff asked if there was anyone from Nstar that could commit to not proceeding for 30-45 days to allow the neighbors to present their case to the DPU.
William Hobart, Project Engineer advised that it was his intent to continue construction on the line. It would take a couple of weeks to get the contractor re-mobilized and started again. Nstar was incurring costs every day because of the delay. The purpose of the project was to increase reliability of the system and that was what they needed to do.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when Nstar anticipated physically pulling the wires and was told that if they got started in the next couple of weeks, there was about three weeks of work before the wires were pulled. It would probably be 5-6 weeks.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there was any way at all that Nstar would bury those lines. Mr. Hobart advised that the project as designed was about 85% complete. Looking at all the costs incurred he didn’t know if it would be possible to put it underground. It would be a significant cost – in the millions. For projects like this Nstar was obligated to do it in the most cost effective manner.
In response to Mr. Connolly’s comment that he had heard that sometimes the lines could be shielded, Mr. Hobart stated that to the best of his knowledge there was no way to shield those lines.
Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Nstar had worked with any municipality where as part of the original restrictions put into place there were efforts made to contain the EMF levels and what they were. Mr. Hobart hadn’t had any experience of that type and Mr. Rosenzweig added that the DPU looked at ways to meet the guidelines. They looked at measures to reduce the EMF’s but also looked to balance it. Before approving a particular design a thorough analysis was done.
Based on his knowledge of the containment options, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if Mr. Rosenzweig was familiar with any municipalities whereby those towns fought for more effective containment of the EMF’s and DPU agreed. She thought it was incumbent upon the Board to understand the options for any future projects.
Mr. Rosenzweig responded that 30-40 years ago there were a lot of construction projects in this part of the state and where appropriate some lines were put underground. There was a Stoughton line that went into Boston that was underground. It was looked at and thought to be appropriate. There were some examples of that.
In follow up Ms. Van Amsterdam inquired if Mr. Rosenzweig had been involved in any situations where original restrictions were put in place and the DPU reconsidered with different options. Mr. Rosenzweig was not aware of any or any process where after the fact the regulatory body demanded the utility to remove or alter the lines. Ms. Van Amsterdam clarified that she was talking about projects in progress, not complete. Mr. Rosenzweig was not aware of any.
Mr. Ciccariello referenced the DPU conditions that set a maximum level of 85 milogule as established by the Mass Energy Facility Sighting Board and Mr. Rosenzweig explained that the Mass Energy Facility Sighting Board was separate from the DPU. They had jurisdiction over larger transmission lines and had their own guidelines on maximum allowable milogule. This project comfortably complied with that standard.
A motion was made by Mr. Ostroff, seconded by Mr. Connolly to authorize Town Counsel to prepare a letter on behalf of the Board of Selectmen with a copy to the Board of Health and Board of Assessors to request in strong language they reconsider their permit based on information made in the original application that may not be correct, in particular reference to notification to abutters. After some discussion Mr. Ostroff presented a revised motion and no vote was taken on his initial motion.
In making the motion Mr. Ostroff stated that he wouldn’t support the revocation of the grant of location, but he wanted to encourage the DPU to listen to what the neighbors had to say. It was impossible to say they were or weren’t properly notified but their concerns merit consideration. He appreciated Nstar’s concerns to serve a wider customer base but he thought the neighbors deserved an opportunity to be heard before the Board that could grant them some relief.
It was Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that if the Board of Selectmen took no action tonight Nstar could go back on the right-of-way and wetlands under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission. Mr. Flynn advised that was correct. Continuing, Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Board’s grant of location was only dealing with 6 locations on public ways and only dealt with pulling of the wires across the public way. Mr. Flynn confirmed that was correct unless there was some ancillary work in the street. Mr. Ciccariello continued that if the Board took no action tonight Nstar could go back on the site and six weeks from today could pull their wires across public ways and there was no way the Board could stop them. Within the confines of tonight’s discussion, Mr. Flynn advised that was correct.
It was also Mr. Ciccariello’s understanding that by not taking any action tonight Nstar could petition the DPU or take the Town to court asking for an injunction. Mr. Flynn advised that was correct. Mr. Ciccariello then asked if the Board did not take any action tonight if it would put the Town at risk for a lawsuit. Mr. Flynn’s response was, “possibly” if the company felt it was faced with what it purported to be an order. If Nstar felt notwithstanding the opinion of their counsel and the opinion he (Mr. Flynn) gave the Board, concern that there was an order out there, the Town could be sued.
Ms. Gloff noted that the Board was told this evening that revocation of the grant of location was invalid. There was no legal standing.
If what the Board did had no legal standing, Ms. Van Amsterdam questioned on what legal grounds Nstar would be suing the Town. Mr. Flynn stated that he couldn’t answer that but there was a possibility. Nstar might want to be sure of that and have a judge tell them that rather than two lawyers.
From Mr. Ciccariello’s perspective if someone was going to put some heat on the DPU it wasn’t going to be the Board of Selectmen but the State legislature and he would suggest those individuals be copied on any letter sent.
Mr. Ostroff moved to authorize Town Counsel to submit a letter to DPU with copies to the Board of Health, Assessors, our delegation, and the chairs of relevant committees requesting a hearing process and reconsideration of the permit based on concerns of representations made in its initial application and in support of the neighbors’ complaint – specifically referencing the complaint on file at the DPU. Seconded by Mr. Connolly and unanimously voted.
With respect to the inappropriate action in revoking the grant of location, felt that the Board’s standing with the DPU in sending a strong letter would be compromised if there was a failure to act on the inappropriate revocation. He would support rescinding the revocation.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff to withdraw the revocation of the grant of location based on the advice of Town Counsel that the Board had no legal right to revoke it. 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.
Mr. Ostroff told the neighbors that the Board was doing this for legal protection and out of respect for the law.
A five minute recess was called at 8:45 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:50 p.m.
NSTAR: REQUEST FOR RELOCATION OF UTILITIES
Ms. White was asked about a letter dated 2/19/09 on the request of Ann Karnofsky to remove and relocate utilities in the vicinity of Middlesex Path. According to Nstar the cost to Natick would be $18,554.
Ms. White advised that she was going to follow up with Nstar, but had not done so. This was an issue of aesthetics the resident has been working to remedy. In terms of priorities she (Ms. White) would not recommend spending $18,000 for this project, but she hadn’t finished making sure she understood all the pros and cons.
FEE DISCUSSION
- Sealer of Weights & Measures
- Gasoline Storage
Ms. White noted that the Board had approved some fee adjustments but was looking for some additional revenue information. An additional $1,500 was projected if the Sealer of Weights & Measures’ recommendations were authorized. With respect to the gasoline storage she would expect to see an additional $815. Neither was particularly consequential but neither had been updated in years and she would recommend both.
Ms. White noted that in the packet was a summary of the fees approved to date with a projection of more than $1/2 million in new revenue.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how revenues were projected, and Ms. White responded that it was difficult to project. In the case of the Sealer of Weights & Measures there were 30 different types of fees he imposed and they were not tracked individually. They were tracked as a whole. The estimate used was an increase of 25% but it was a guess. For all the other fees, it was based on past experience.
With a potential of generating $525,361 in additional revenue for fee increases approved so far, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to the game plan for the fees. Were steps going to be taken to ensure they weren’t spent in order to increase free cash for the following year?
Ms. White explained that in the case of trash bag fees, the increase of $187,938 was pretty reliable because the number of bags sold was pretty consistent over the past several years. There was a specific method of disbursement for the trash bag fees as agreed to with the Financial Planning Committee. As to the others, she would suggest this be among the many issues to be resolved. Cuts have been imposed on the departments and there was a need to work toward generating free cash for the subsequent fiscal year.
Mr. Ciccariello noted that at the last meeting the Board heard the Fiscal 2009 budget was in deficit. Ms. White believed the last information presented had it in balance. To Mr. Ciccariello’s comment that it was done by spending down free cash, Ms. White responded that it was no more than she had proposed. She has not proposed any additional use of free cash and free cash went into next year.
Mr. Ciccariello clarified that he was talking about the $3/4 million deficit that Ms. White had said she was comfortable that by the end of the year it would not be a deficit but probably meant there wouldn’t be as much free cash back. He assumed that was still the case or was FY09 in balance. Ms. White advised that it was both. Fiscal 2009 was in balance but the money that would close to free cash for Fiscal 2010 at the end of the fiscal year was probably less.
In follow-up Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was any way to guarantee these fees would not be spent down.
Ms. Gloff pointed out that the pay-as-you-throw bags did not take effect until July 1 so there would be no additional revenue until Fiscal 2010. Ms. White added that all of the projected new revenue was projected for a full year. Asked if there was a way to project the fees for FY09, Ms. White advised there wasn’t, but when sizeable projects came in she would inform the Board. If additional fees were collected, Mr. Ciccariello asked if there was any way not to spend them down before Fiscal 2010. Ms. White assured him she had no intent to build up any Fiscal 2009 budget.
Ms. Gloff didn’t think balancing the Fiscal 2009 budget was dependent on any of these fees. Ms. White responded that she presented the Fiscal 2009 budget prior to these fee increases.
Mr. Connolly commented that he had his office hours at the Senior Center and everywhere he went people had a bag story. Everybody at the Senior Center was not happy about it.
Ms. White reminded folks that free bags were available for people eligible for the water discount.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to establish the fees for the Sealer of Weights & Measures as follows. 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.
Scales and Balances
Over 10,000 lbs 100.00
1,000 to 10,000 lbs 50.00
100 to 1,000 lb 25.00
More Than 10 lbs and less Than 100 lbs 20.00
10 lbs or Less 10.00
Weights
Avoirdupois (Each) 1.00
Metric (Each) 1.00
Apothecary (Each) 1.00
Troy (Each) 1.00
Capacity Measures
Vehicle Tank – Each Indicator 10.00
Vehicle Tank – Each 100 Gallon 10.00
Liquid 1 Gallon or Less 10.00
Liquid More Than 1 Gallon 10.00
Liquid Measuring Meters
Inlet ½” or less, Oil, Grease 15.00
Inlet More Than ½” to 1”, Gasoline 15.00
Inlet More Than 1” Vehicle Tank Pump 25.00
Inlet More Than 1” Vehicle Tank Gravity 25.00
Inlet More Than 1” Bulk Storage 50.00
Company Supplies Prover 25.00
Pumps
Each Stop on Pump 15.00
Other Devices
Automated Retail Checkout Systems
1-3 Registers 100.00
4-11 Registers 200.00
12 or More Registers 300.00
Taxi Meters 15.00
Odometer – Hubodometer 10.00
Fabric Measuring 10.00
Wire, Rope, Cordage 10.00
Leather Measuring 10.00
Linear Measures
Yardsticks 10.00
Tapes 10.00
Miscellaneous Devices
Milk Jars (per gross) 15.00
Dry Measures 1.00
Reverse Vending 15.00
Coin Counters 15.00
Additional
Adjustments 15.00
All Other Devices 15.00
Speaking to the motion Mr. Connolly stated that he didn’t think it was a good idea to do fees. It was just a tax and he would vote against it.
Mr. Ostroff believed this was consistent with what was recommended in the Jacobs Study and it looked like all the fees were substantially below the average of other communities.
Ms. Gloff moved that the effective date of the new fees be July 1, 2009. 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.
b. Gasoline Storage
Ms. White advised that these fees were primarily for gas stations. Presently the fee for less than 2,000 gallons was $35.00 and $5.00 for each additional 1,000 gallons. The proposal was to increase both to $50.00. She noted that this was an article. The fees could not be increased without Town Meeting action. If the Board supported the increase, the action would be to recommend favorable action of Article 35.
A motion was made by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, to recommend favorable action on Article 35. 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.
FISCAL 2009 BUDGET
Ms. White informed the Board that she had no new update for Fiscal 2009.
FISCAL 2010 BUDGET
Ms. White prefaced a power point presentation on the FY10 budget by noting that it would cover a lot of ground covered previously but she thought it was important to present the balanced budget that was on the web site and would be published in the newspaper later this week.
The power point presentation covered five areas: 1) from January to March; 2) balanced FY10 budget; 3) outstanding issues to finalize the FY2010 budget; 4)next steps; 5)ongoing efforts for cost efficiencies.
When the Town Administrator’s recommended Fiscal 2010 budget was presented in early January, it was presented as a level services budget. It was a comprehensive proposal, but it was also $4,722,744 out of balance. The budget submitted on January 5, 2009 showed revenues of $102,114,529 and expenses of $106,837,263 leaving a deficit of $4,722,744.
The first major revision to the budget as proposed occurred on January 28, 2009 when the Governor introduced his Fiscal 2010 omnibus budget for the Commonwealth also known as House 1. Natick received good news – the State Aid reduction proposed by the Governor in House 1 was less than originally projected by staff by about $200,000. This impacted the budget by reducing the gap to $4,560,667.
From January 1 to March 2, 2009 a second round of revisions occurred in tandem with the formal recommendations of the Financial Planning Committee:
- Increase in the School Budget for one full-time employee transferred from the municipal side: $68,578 has been added to the School Department budget for one employee being transferred from the municipal side.
- Decrease in health costs: The recommended rates of increase for health plans for FY 2010 from the West Suburban Health Group are going to be less than staff had forecast – an average increase of 6.9% instead of the 10% forecast
- Increase in snow removal supplement: To date the Board of Selectmen and the Finance Committee have approved two overdrafts totaling $650,000. That amount has replaced the $325,000 amount in the original recommended budget.
- Decrease in golf course deficit. Although a final amount has yet to be recommended by the Board of Selectmen, a recommended amount of $355,000 is forecast for FY 2010.
These changes have made the gap lower, resulting in a gap of $4,467,305.
This amount was then split according to the split methodology recommended by staff and the Financial Planning Committee – 38.4% to be absorbed by the municipal side and 61.6% by the Schools. Using that methodology the municipal deficit would be $1,395,966 and the School deficit $3,071,340. The municipal deficit was subsequently increased by $171,914 to account for fully funding municipal unemployment costs bringing the total municipal deficit to $1,567,880.
Today the budget was balanced but not final. A series of reductions and revenue enhancements/expense offsets need to be balanced against one another to create the final complete plan for spending presented to Town Meeting in April.
Section 2: Balancing the FY 2010 Budget
The budget gap as of February 11 was split between the schools and the municipal sides according to a methodology based upon the distribution of expenses between the municipal and school sides – roughly 61.6% to the Schools and 38.4% to municipal.
Municipal departments were given targeted amounts for reduction – 2% for smaller departments and 6.5% for larger departments. These targets were derived in an attempt to provide a sustainable level of services going forward while maintaining services for all citizens; administration is in the process of examining each department budget for reductions. As a general rule, smaller departments (Selectmen, Health, Community Development, Council on Aging, Town Clerk, Finance, Recreation, IT) will be forced to reduce their budgets by at least 2% while larger departments (Public Works, Public Safety, Libraries) will be forced to reduce their budgets by at least 6.5%. In addition, many smaller (and larger) departments that have existing vacancies in positions will lose these positions through attrition. Ms. White
noted that this wasn’t consistent across-the-board. Some departments have vacancies where there was agreement to leave the position(s) vacant so they would have a larger percentage reduction.
The municipal reductions by department were as follows:
Morse Institute Library: A difference of $120,797 between the FY10 request of $1,858,422 and the revised FY10 of $1,737,625. A 6.5% reduction; eliminate Young Adult Librarian position – staff reduction of 1.
Bacon Free Library: Request $125,147 for FY10. The revised FY10 budget was $116,976 or a difference of $8,171. A 6.5% reduction and need to reorg for Sunday hours. Staff reduction to be determined.
Emergency Management requested $4,100 for FY10 and has been level funded.
Police: Requested $5,514,027 for FY 2010. The revised Fiscal 2010 budget was $5,155,615 or a reduction of $358,412. A 6.5% overall reduction; reduction in force of 1 patrol officer & 7 crossing guards (part-time), reduced OT by 25%, shift of personnel to grants, misc. other reductions. Staff reduction of 1.57
Fire: A Fiscal 2010 request of $6,666,511 and a revised FY 2010 budget of $6,233,188 for a $433,323 reduction. A 6.5% overall reduction, reduction in force of 4 firefighters, reduced OT by 50% and closure of one station at least 70% of time. Staff reduction – 4.
Public Works: A revised Fiscal 2010 budget of $7,362,909 which represents a decrease of $405,660. A 6.5% overall reduction excluding level funding of Municipal Energy Budget. It includes service level reductions (building maintenance, paint shed, flower island maint, reduction in force of laborers & clerical, restructuring of Recycling Center and curbside yard waste pick-up. Staff reduction – 7.5.
Council on Aging: A Fiscal 2010 request of $304,133 and a revised budget of $295,581 or a difference of $8,552. A reduction of hours for Volunteer Coordinator and miscellaneous program reductions. Staff reduction – 0.18.
Human Services: A reduction of $350 from the Fiscal 2010 request of $97,746. This is accomplished by a reduction of directory support. Staff reduction – none.
Veterans Services: A budget request of $182,801 for Fiscal 2010. A revised budget with an addition of $50,000 to cover the disbursements. Ms. White pointed out that a reduction would have been a false economy since the budget was consistently underfunded and would have to go to the Finance Committee for a transfer.
Board of Health: A budget request of $439,790 and a revised Fiscal 2010 budget of $378,198 or a difference of $61,592. Eliminate Sanitarian (open position). Staff reduction – 1.
Parks & Recreation: A budget request of $588,697 and a revised Fiscal 2010 budget of $576,923 or an $11,774 difference. At least 2% including reduced hours for positions; additional cuts/shifts to be determined. Staff reduction – 0.25.
Selectmen: A Fiscal 2010 request of $678,914 and a revised budget of $596,382 or a difference of $82,532. Eliminate HR Director (open position). Staff reduction – 1.
The legal budget has been level funded at $293,500.
Comptroller: A Fiscal 2010 request of $307,112 and a revised Fiscal 2010 budget of $300,680 or a difference of $6,432. A 2% reduction; including actual Comptroller salary & less bookbinding. Staff reduction – none.
Assessors: A Fiscal 2010 request of $449,388 and a revised Fiscal 2010 budget of $405,135 for a reduction of $44,253. Reduce Administrative Assistant to Part-time, reduce tax mapping supplies. Staff reduction – 0.5.
Collector: A budget request of $326,861 and a revised budget of $320,361 for a difference of $6,500. A 2% reduction, reduce travel, training & collection activities. Staff reduction – none.
Treasurer: A budget request of $210,447 for FY10 and a revised budget of $206,247 or a difference of $4,200. A 2% reduction; reduce travel, training, repair & supply budgets. Staff reduction – none.
Information Technology: A Fiscal 2010 request of $873,946 and a revised FY10 budget OF $829,895 for a reduction of $44,061. Eliminate date-entry clerk. Staff reduction – one.
Sealer of Weights & Measures: A Fiscal 2010 request of $15,753 and a reduction of $350. A 2% reduction; eliminate training, reduce dues & repair budgets. Staff reduction – none.
Town Clerk: A budget request of $271,289 and a revised FY 10 budget of $265,789 for a reduction of $5,500. A 2% reduction, the specifics still in progress. Staff reduction – none.
Parking Clerk: A budget request of $126,407 with a reduction of $1,425. Reduced collection contract, clothing allowance and repair budgets. Staff reduction – none.
Community Development: A Fiscal 2010 budget request of $700,271 and a revised FY2010 budget of $686,266 or a difference of $14,005. A 2% reduction. Staff reduction – to be determined.
Committees: Level funded at $18,150
The total requested for 2010 was $27,824,342. The total revised budget for Fiscal 2010 was $26,256,462 representing cuts of $1,567,880 and a staff reduction of 18.
The presentation continued with a breakdown of the $1,567,880 by personnel services vs expenses. The breakdown was as follows:
Expense reductions $ 162,116
Personnel reductions
-Open positions/vacancy elimination$ 304,847
-Layoffs/Reduction in Hours $ 666,133
-Overtime Reductions $ 307,094
-Utilization of Furlough/Grants $ 127,690
Section 3: Outstanding Issues to Finalize FY 2010 Budget
The presentation defined some of the issues to be resolved in finalizing the FY 2010 budget. The first was the:
Impact of increased fees:
After approval by the Board of Selectmen on February 23, a series of
fee increases will allow revenue estimates to be increased. The
Finance Director has calculated the revenue increases to total $526,361
Municipal Benefit $410,591
School Benefit $115,770
Negotiations with Unions & Associations for Concessions
Although the Board of Selectmen has instructed all Personnel Board
employees not to receive cost-of-living increases for 2010, union
and association COLA’s must be negotiated. This savings was
estimated as follows:
Personnel Board COLA reductions: $119,938
Union/Association COLA reductions: $352,283
Early Retirement Initiative
Dependent upon the Board of Selectmen, the Early Retirement proposal
could save money in FY2010
Potential FY 2010 savings $ 63,633
Keefe Tech
Although a final assessment for Keefe Tech will not be approved until
after Town Meeting, the budgeted assessment as of March 2, 2009 for
FY 2010 was $1,317,550. This was more than currently budgeted.
($142,225)
Debt Service Design Monies
The placement of articles on the Spring Town Meeting Warrant for the
Natick High School and Senior/Community Center projects require
Design money. This is an added cost to the Town’s debt service
For FY 2010. Deficit created by design service requests for
Capital projects ($???,???)
Capital Recommendations
The current recommendation for capital projects does not use the budget amount of $350,000 set aside for FY 2010. This money is available for other purposes. Excess Capital Funding for redistribution $196,440
Police Superior Officers’ Union Contract
This contract remains unsettled, but will likely need to be funded in FY 2010. $???,???
Additional supplement for this winter’s snow removal
More money may be necessary to close this year’s snow/ice deficit. Additional supplement cost for snow/ice removal $???,???
Reduced Golf Course subsidy
The current tax levy subsidy ($355,000) should be reduced through use of retained earnings. Benefit of reduced golf course subsidy. $???,???.
Section 4. Next Steps
March - Publication of FY 2010 updated budget summary in local newspaper
- Hearings on budgets and warrant articles at Finance Committee
- Budget & warrant reviews @ Board of Selectmen & School Committee
- Continual updates on web site
April - Town Administrator’s budget mailed to Town Meeting Members
- Finance Committee Recommendation books mailed to Town Meeting Members
- Town Meeting commences on April 14, 2009
Section 5. Ongoing efforts for cost efficiencies
- Ambulance Study (current model vs privatization)
- Golf course (current model vs closure vs re-use)
- OPEB (liability & funding strategies)
- Recommendations of the Revenue Enhancement & Expense Control
Task Forces (review for implementation strategies)
- Regionalization of Services (pursuit w/neighboring communities)
- Reducing health care costs (primary focus of FY 2011)
- Return on retirement investments (collaboration w/Retirement Board
to maximize returns on investments)
- Ongoing evaluation of opportunities to re-engineer municipal services
Ms. White noted that the packet also included a summary of expense reductions and personnel reductions. The general government was expecting to lose the equivalent of 18 full-time positions.
Mr. Ostroff inquired as to where the incremental fee revenue was being plugged in and was told by Ms. White that it wasn’t in there as of yet.
Mr. Ostroff then asked if the Finance Committee would be making a recommendation for those fees or if Ms. White would be bringing forth recommendations. Ms. White advised that it had been talked about internally and she was not inclined to budget out down to the last dollar of projected revenue. The objective was to reflect a zero balance so it would be reflected somewhere but not spent throughout the departments. There was a need to look at the years going forward.
Mr. Ostroff commented that he understood the fiscal picture didn’t get any better over the next couple of years and the Town would be well served to be as conservative as it could. Ms. White noted that the administration was trying to be conservative but prudent and was looking forward more than one fiscal year. In moving forward they were trying to utilize the financial management fiscal principles. They (principles) hadn’t been adopted by any Board, but she was using them nonetheless.
Mr. Ostroff added that typically the Governor’s budget was never passed the way it was proposed and it was hard to see how it could get any better but the time for finalizing will be after Town Meeting. He assumed the administration would stay with the Governor’s budget. Ms. White advised that she would keep up with the budget developments but for now that was the best information available.
Mr. Connolly noted that last week a presentation was made on the DPW and he was bothered that as the department liaison the Board didn’t take his suggestion more seriously. 7.5 laborers and clerical were losing positions and if they were being cut, he felt a supervisor’s position should go as well and the savings could go to save some other positions.
Ms. White explained that the budget presented to Town Meeting was the Town Administrator’s budget but she always considered what the majority of the Board wanted. The challenge being faced was that under civil service or collective bargaining, an individual couldn’t be targeted. The collective bargaining agreement laid out how to handle a reduction-in-force.
Mr. Connolly questioned why a supervisor’s position couldn’t be eliminated and who would say where the money would go. Ms. White advised that it would be her who would decide where the money would go, but she would always work with the Board. Mr. Ciccariello pointed out that it would also go to the Finance Committee and then Town Meeting.
Mr. Connolly felt that he was hearing a lot of conversations of what the Town needs or wants but nobody was saying anything. He believed that with the reduction of 7 people, a supervisor’s position could be surrendered and save a firefighter.
Rather than naming names Ms. White asked if it would be acceptable if the DPW, Mr. Connolly, and she sat down and discussed his idea. Mr. Connolly indicated that he had a list and Mr. Ciccariello added that he too created a list that he was going to present to the Board tonight.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if the decrease in health insurance costs mentioned in the presentation was in new the budget. Ms. White advised that it was reflected on the revenue expenditure forecast. Asked the amount, Mr. Walters Young responded that as of 1/5/09 the line item was $12,525,648 and as of today that number was $11,813,512 or a difference of $712,136 of which $300,000 was in rate reduction.
Mr. Ciccariello then asked about legal fees and if they were being increased or kept the same as last year. Ms. White noted that the legal fees had been kept the same as last year, but next year there would be bargaining of every union contract on the general government side and there was a proposed increase in labor counsel of $42,000.
Mr. Walters Young pointed out that there were a lot of things outstanding and there were opportunities to balance; i.e. $191,000 was freed up on capital and $142,000 could be used from that for Keefe Tech if needed.
Under the ongoing efforts section, Mr. Ciccariello noted the indication that the Deputy Town Administrator was doing an ambulance study and asked if the Deputy was doing it by himself. Ms. White responded that the Fire Chief provided data and information but it was being done in the Town Administrator’s office.
With regard to the recommendation of the Expense Control Task Force and the Revenue Enhancement Task Force, Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to when there would be an effort to implement some of the recommendations.
Mr. Ostroff noted that on March 16 the Revenue Enhancement Task Force was meeting with the School Committee to go over a new advertising/sponsorship policy. They were looking at a comprehensive policy to explore advertising opportunities for Town assets on the School sites. There wasn’t a firm number of what that would produce and whatever funds were there wouldn’t be appropriate to budget at this point. He couldn’t see it being available for Town Meeting. There were also looking at the economic development for the long-term.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that with the Expense Control Task Force most recommendations did not have dollar amounts. Many items were discussed with the department heads. They talked to the Town Administrator and Superintendent of Schools and the School Committee. The Expense Control Task Force would be happy to meet again with this Board and go over some of the items contained in their top formal recommendations and 20-25 additional items. Members of the ECTF, with the exclusion of School Committee member Dirk Coburn, have been looking through every contract on both the School and Municipal side and was putting together some recommendations. That may be as forthcoming as the Board’s next meeting. The ECTF hasn’t run any numbers but would be willing to work with departments and help prioritize
items on that list.
Mr. Ciccariello stressed the need to stay on top of these things and the need to implement some of the items.
Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if the Board would like, through her, to go over some of those items or come forward with an official request to have some resource time with someone from the Town Administrator’s office to crunch some numbers. Mr. Ciccariello preferred to leave it up to Ms. Van Amsterdam and Mr. Ostroff, but thought there should be an update on this. If it was ready for next Monday, he would put it on the agenda.
Mr. Ostroff stated that he would prefer to wait until after the RETF met with the School Committee on the 16th.
With regard to the increase in snow removal, Ms. Van Amsterdam thought it would be helpful to have someone look at hourly rates of all employees who participate in snow removal vs the hourly rates of contracting out. Ms. White noted that that was information provided with each supplement request, but Ms. Van Amsterdam was looking to include the overtime amounts and rates for the contractors.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the presentation did not include the Community Organic Farm. Ms. White explained that that was very much a moving target and she was real hopeful it would work out but if the final conclusion was the Conservation Commission would fund the salaries the likelihood was that the salaries would still be budgeted and receive a reimbursement. It would impact the budget overall but she wasn’t sure how.
In the event the four paramedics were lost, Ms. Van Amsterdam asked if it was possible to do a hybrid where there was enough staffing to run one ambulance ALS a large percentage of the time and another BLS a large percentage and use mutual aid and contract with AMR as needed. Ms. White felt that by the time the analysis was done, there would be a better handle on where the FY10 budget stood.
b.Early Retirement
Ms. White reported that in looking at the financial analysis it was pretty revealing that the early retirement was not as cost saving in the short, medium, and long-term as she had hoped it would be but she still thought it warranted consideration because of the management opportunities it might give. Because of who may opt for early retirement, the Fire Department may be able to keep paramedics. It gave better control over where the reductions may take place subject to the folks who chose to take it.
Mr. Walters Young distributed three revised sheets that resulted from a conversation he had earlier with a member of the Board. He analyzed the costs and savings of implementing an early retirement program. In his analysis he took 12 likely participants that range from just over 60% to 80% in benefits. The people in the 80% category could retire at maximum benefit at any time. For the 12 people he costed out their pensions, saved salaries and benefit costs over a five year period. He then took 12 employees likely to be released through layoffs/reductions-in-force and performed the same analysis for a total of five fiscal years, FY09-13. Finally, in both scenarios, he calculated the likely retirement costs incurred in those years regardless of the early retirement incentive program and assumed the
replacement of 3 positions annually starting in Fiscal 2012.
Findings:
In the short-term the early retirement incentive was a costly proposition for the Town of Natick to entertain, but in the long-term saved the Town money. An initial investment of nearly $190,000 in FY2009 was more than offset by over $710,000 in savings in FY2010. This savings starts to be reduced significantly in subsequent years when the pensions for early retirees were added to the Town’s assessments beginning in FY2011. Assuming employees were added back to the ranks as early as FY2011, the savings disappears in FY12.
Outright layoffs were more economical for the Town in the first four years of the program. It was cheaper in FY09 ($50,000 outlay), but provides less savings in FY2010 ($650,000) than offering the early retirement incentive. Medium-term savings, in FY 2011 and FY 2012 was the main component of the analysis which seems to indicate that layoffs were more affordable in the short-to-medium-term. Savings of over $250,000/year can be achieved if the same numbers of new employees were added in FY 2011 and FY 2012 if layoffs were chosen.
For the long-term, however, the program made fiscal sense. By getting retirees to give up between 1-20% of their pension allocations, the town’s long-term liability was decreased. This amounts to over $30,000 in FY 2013 and grew annually from there, especially when all targeted participants reached their 80% threshold. This savings in pensions was estimated to be $35,000-$50,000 annually once all targeted participants retired. The payback cycle for the early retirement plan was likely 10-12 years. The key to savings in either plan was the degree to which positions which were eliminated in FY 2010 were restored in subsequent fiscal years. The fewer positions restored, the greater the savings achieved in the long-run.
Finally, the non-financial aspects of the program must be considered in any final analysis, implementing an Early Retirement Initiative program costs money, but it buys flexibility in departmental restructuring. This was restructuring that would not be possible given contractual obligations regarding reductions-in-force in place in nearly all bargaining unit agreements with the Town of Natick.
Mr. Walters Young distributed a new information sheet which showed a dramatic change in the numbers and an analysis showing the savings if nobody was replaced. He pointed out there were savings in FY09 and FY10 due to the fact that higher positions salaries were being cut. By 20112 and beyond it was greatly impacted by how many people were brought back if funds were available.
It seemed to Mr. Ostroff that there were benefits from a management perspective that didn’t necessarily translate to dollars and cents and he was interested in knowing if it could be made available and implemented on a case-by-case basis entirely at the Town’s discretion within Town departments with particular skill sets. Ms. White responded that that was the idea but care had to be taken that the determination of who would participate was objective. She had been cautioned to steer clear of the picking and choosing methodology. There had to be clear program parameters, but picking and choosing beyond the parameters could be problematic.
Mr. Ostroff felt that it had been made clear in a previous meeting of the effect on the ability to deliver appropriate paramedic service if the more junior people had to be laid off and that seemed to be a perfect test case. If it were approved he inquired as to how quickly it would be made available and when did Ms. White see being able to evaluate the first wave of success and what did she envision it would mean on the budget and service.
If approved Ms. White stated that she would get it out the door immediately upon Town Counsel’s green light. She didn’t want to give folks an inadequate amount of time to evaluate their options. The intent was for those who would participate to retire or leave effective May 1. We were up against the clock if it was going to be implemented.
Ms. Van Amsterdam thanked the administration for all the data put together in response to the questions she raised. There were some memos that said there might be significant savings, but those savings wouldn’t be seen until years out. She noted that she has always been talking about the need to look long-term but at this time she was looking at 5-6 years and given the state of the economy she didn’t want to see savings 10-12 years out. She had heard the argument in favor of the Town’s ability to manage its reduction but the cost of the early retirement outweighed the benefits and the data spoke loud and clear.
Ms. Van Amsterdam continued that in other meetings the Board talked about issues of priority and she viewed the early retirement program as one way in which the administration has come forward, but as a way to close the budget deficit the costs did not bear it out. She felt there was a need to look at COLA reductions and creative ways coming forward from the RETC and ECTF and many other items mentioned this evening as better alternatives. Using the Schools as an example, she hadn’t heard the Superintendent of Schools say they can’t educate the children. Rather he says they will because the taxpayers pay the educators to see how to educate. For the Fire Department she didn’t think the message should be that we won’t be able to deliver ambulance service, but rather the Fire Chief working with
the Town Administrator should be saying this is how we will be able to deliver it. She would like to see some of those discussions coming forward. The early retirement proposal as presented was not a net benefit to the Town. The cost of this program outweighed the management of reductions.
Given where the Town was in Fiscal 2010, Mr. Ciccariello questioned if the belief was that positions could be added back in in Fiscal 2011 and 2012. It was unrealistic. The Town may be facing more cuts next year. He didn’t see why someone would want to give up benefits to retire now.
Mr. Walters Young noted it was up to the individual. It may be the lump sum of $10,000-20,000. The first rule was just to ask. Mr. Ciccariello didn’t see it happening. He couldn’t imagine anybody giving up a hunk of their retirement.
If somebody high up took advantage of the plan, particularly in Police or Fire, Mr. Ciccariello noted that the Chief had the discretion of promoting and when that happened it meant if there were layoffs somebody else at the bottom got whacked or he filled the position he removed. What happened if a very skilled person decided to leave and the Town couldn’t go without that skilled person and somebody had to be brought back on board?
Ms. White pointed out that it wasn’t known who would apply. The administration looked at the individuals that would be eligible and was comfortable with rolling the program out if authorized by the Board.
Asked where the $190,000 for this year would come from, Ms. White advised that it would reduce the year end free cash for Fiscal 2011.
Responding to Ms. Van Amsterdam’s comments, Fire Chief James Sheridan said he told the Board how the department would provide the service to the citizens. He had stated that it would be done to the best of their ability but had also stated that he wouldn’t sugar coat that the level of service would change. There was already a hybrid system. One ALS was provided and the other was an Intermediate and supplemented by AMR response. That was already being done.
When the figures were done for early retirement, Chief Sheridan asked if it was figured in that most of these people would be in the retirement system in three years anyway. Senior members get 5 weeks vacation and the new members none. There were four individuals at their maximum (pension) and if this was the nudge they need to save four jobs, he was in favor. He thought 4-6 members of the Fire Department may take advantage of an early retirement program.
If some individuals at the Fire Department were to retire who were at a higher rank, Ms. Gloff asked if it was Chief Sheridan’s intent to promote. Chief Sheridan’s response was, “yes”, noting that the structure of the department required that he would. The savings would be from not hiring at the bottom and leaving a position open.
Regarding the discussion about outsourcing and looking at AMR, Mr. Ostroff noted that he was the liaison to public safety and wanted to be sure the system that had worked pretty well wasn’t compromised. He wanted to make sure he was included in the discussions and didn’t want to hear about them at the Board’s meeting.
Mr. Ostroff commented that he didn’t know why the Board wouldn’t want to explore this tool (early retirement) to best manage the workforce. If it enable the Town to continue to provide the best quality of service he was not sure why it shouldn’t be explored. He felt it would behoove the Board to explore since it was sort of a risk free trial and he thought people were satisfied with the quality of analysis. He was supportive of moving forward with this and evaluating it as the weeks go by.
Ms. Gloff expressed appreciation for the analysis that had been done and recognized it wouldn’t save a lot of money and wouldn’t fix the financial shortfall. At this point she thought it was worth giving it a try. She had no idea of who the people in the DPW would be who would qualify but she would guess those people had worked for the Town for a long time. She shared some of Mr. Connolly’s concerns with only laying off all the laborers and hoped this might be a way a couple of people would choose to take this program and enable the Town to keep some of the more junior people. As to why somebody would take this if they were going to give up some percentage of their pension, people have looked at their pensions over the years and decided they may wish to take less and leave earlier. The
worst thing that happens would be nobody applies for it. She would vote to support the Town Administrator in offering it to the employees.
A motion was made by Ms. Van Amsterdam not to implement the proposed early retirement incentive program. Seconded by Mr. Ciccariello. The motion failed on a 2-3-0 vote. Mr. Ciccariello and Ms. Van Amsterdam voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, and Mr. Connolly were opposed.
Ms. Gloff moved to authorize the Town Administrator to proceed with implementing the early retirement incentive program. The motion passed on a 3-2-0 vote. Mr. Ostroff, Ms. Gloff, Mr. Connolly voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Ciccariello and Ms. Van Amsterdam were opposed.
Mr. Ostroff assumed the Board would be getting regular updates and Ms. White responded that that message was made clear.
Board of Selectmen Budget
Ms. White advised that a letter had been received from the Natick Center Associates that she hadn’t prepared for distribution tonight and she would ask that the Board not take up the Selectmen’s budget until the letter was distributed. The Finance Committee approved the budget but recommended not to fund the $8,000 for the Natick Center Associates.
Ms. Van Amsterdam noted that the Town Administrator’s recommendation eliminated the Human Resources Director position and she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) knew why the Town Administrator did so, but she (Ms. Van Amsterdam) would like to ask for reconsideration to not eliminate the HR position for the general government side. In front of the Board was a document from the former HR Director presented on September 3, 2008 describing the Personnel Director position for the town and the essential functions. The HR Director was involved in bargaining contracts, benefits administration, and the types of benefits available, etc.
Considering the magnitude of the job and the fact the Town was going to be negotiating contracts on the Town side come June, Ms. Van Amsterdam stated she was concerned that eliminating this position was being very short sighted. She wasn’t quite certain where the dollars would come from but she thought the Board would regret eliminating this position. Looking at the role of the HR person on the school side and the amount of time that person spends working with the personnel on setting goals, union negotiations, there was a comparable set of things on the town side. She wasn’t sure even with the skill set of the Town Administrator and the Deputy Town Administrator the personnel issues would be adequately addressed. To her it was putting an undue burden on those individuals and it would be regretted.
Ms. Gloff appreciated Ms. Van Amsterdam bringing it up because it was something on her mind. A wide variety of people some who work for the Town and some involved in Town government had brought up to her that they were very concerned with not filling this position and felt it was very important. With negotiations of all the union contracts coming up having someone who focuses on this was only to the Town’s advantage and she would support it (filling the HR position)
Mr. Ostroff stated that he was totally on board with filling the position. This was a people business and the Town stood to lose more than it stood to gain. It was more a question of funding and he didn’t see where the money would come from to do it, but he would love to find even a part-time position.
Mr. Connolly didn’t think the prior HR Director was here more than 1-1/2 years and with the Benefits Coordinator there was a lot of duplication. The document given was wonderful if all of this was being done. He thought the Town needed to control the spending. Sometimes we had to make do with what we have and he would be against filling that position.
From his perspective, Mr. Ciccariello believed this particular job, setting aside whoever was in there, was very critical. The administration didn’t have the expertise and he thought this position was more important than other positions trying to be saved. It came down to priorities and sometimes making those priorities was very difficult. He felt this was a position that should be filled. To him Natick Center Associates and MetroWest Growth Management were not critical to keep the Town moving ahead in providing service and he wasn’t sure about the oil tank remediation. It had been going since before 2000.
Ms. White was encouraged with the input from the Board noting that it has been a significant burden on the administration to continue to do the best they could with the personnel functions. It was very specialized and fraught with missteps. She didn’t have the expertise and it truly has been very challenging and would only get more so as the year went on. She would take another look at the budget.
Ms. Gloff proposed doing something similar to the Finance Committee and keep a list of things the Town Administrator has proposed to either cut or not fill that the majority of the Board felt should not be cut or filled and a list of things the majority of the Board felt maybe should be looked at to cut.
Mr. Ciccariello presented the Board with a list of 13 budget considerations he would like to see considered: 1) close the Bacon Free Library or reduce subsidy; 2) eliminate curbside yard waste program vs restructuring to 4 Mondays; 3) eliminate 1 executive assistant at the DPW or administrative assistant (done replaced with a part-time clerical aide); 4) painter was eliminated in DPW whereas the position was added in 2009 to save money; 5) street lighting budget – any savings now that bid has been awarded; 6) look at additional compensation, education & other; 7) Highway Division 22 or 25 employees – budget shows 22; 8) veterans services $50,000 added to budget vs reimbursement from state – leave reserve fund transfer; 9) Board of Selectmen reconsideration of Human Resources Director; 10) delete MetroWest
Growth Management $10,357; 11) legal budget – any potential for reductions - $42,000 increase; 12) Comptroller Office consider reorganization – Procurement Officer $63,000; 13) Community Development consider deleting Inspector to bring in a part-time consultant and deleting the Housing Coordinator.
Ms. White thanked Mr. Ciccariello for his ideas and noted that she would discuss them with the department heads and see to what extent they can be incorporated into the proposals.
Mr. Ostroff advised that he was pursuing a company to pick up the cost of the MetroWest Growth Management Committee. He didn’t have a problem cutting that budget even though he thought the Town had benefitted because he was confident he would be able to find funding.
Ms. Gloff liked Mr. Ciccariello’s list. Some things she agreed with and some she didn’t. She suggested that the rest of the Board come up with a list as well for discussion.
Ms. White advised that the Charter and By-Laws required that a capital plan update be provided at this time. In the packet was the previous version and she pointed out that most of the projects for FY2010 shifted into Fiscal 2011. It was very discouraging. The Town had started to make some nice progress toward catching up on the capital funding and now it was again going backwards. She felt capital was an area that was critical to the prudent financial management, but the funds just weren’t there.
Mr. Ostroff noted that Dennis Giombetti of the Framingham Board of Selectmen said that if the legislation were passed to allow additional meals tax and accepted by the Town of Framingham, he would propose that it be earmarked to pay debt service on capital.
Mr. Ciccariello recalled that last year there were Tier 1 and Tier 1a projects and asked if the projects being proposed for this year were Tier 1 or Tier 1a projects that didn’t get done last year or if they were new projects. Ms. White wanted to check last year’s list and would get back to the Board. Mr. Ciccariello was of the opinion that if there were Tier 1 and 1a projects left, they would be done this year. He assumed a presentation would be made on the water & sewer enterprise fund capital at some point. Ms. White advised that was scheduled and would include the projected impact on the fees.
Ms. Van Amsterdam requested an update on the golf course irrigation plan for an upcoming meeting.
LEGAL EXPENSES: QUARTERLY REPORT
Ms. White distributed a handout comparing the expenditures to the budget amount and pointed out that the totals did not include payments to special counsel for 40B projects, Lisa Mead, because those costs were funded by developers. The handout also did not include worker’s comp because that was paid out of a separate worker’s comp budget. She noted that expenditures were ahead of schedule. Half way through the fiscal year 63% of the budget had been expended.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to an RFP for Town Counsel and Mr. Ciccariello asked if Ms. White would be seeking proposals for Town Counsel services. Ms. White responded that it was not her intent to do so this year. Based on a survey of other communities, Town Counsel’s hourly rate was very competitive.
Mr. Connolly inquired as to the last time a request for proposals was sent out for Town Counsel services. In the eight years he had been on the Board, Mr. Ciccariello didn’t recall ever seeking proposals. He didn’t think it would hurt to do so, but Ms. White replied that she could think of few things more disruptive than changing counsel but if the Board wanted the administration to do that they would do that.
Mr. Ostroff wondered if it would be too late to seek proposals. Mr. Connolly responded that last year when he requested this he was told it was too late. Mr. Ciccariello noted that last year Town Counsel was asked to reorganize his structure from within to minimize the cost. Ms. White added that the efforts to improve the turnaround time on contracts remains a work in progress.
TOWN MEETING WARRANT ARTICLES
Article 4 – Authorization to Reorganize Certain Town Departments
Ms. White informed the Board that this was put on the warrant as a placeholder.
Article 6 – Stabilization Fund
Ms. White advised there was no money to be put in the Stabilization Fund
Article 14 – Lease and/or Repair
Ms. White reported that this was just a placeholder.
Article 18 – Unpaid Bills
Ms. White advised that no unpaid bills were anticipated.
Article 21 – Establish Revolving Fund – Composting and Recycling Bins
Ms. White advised that it was decided that there was no need to change the method presently being used.
Article 17 – Increase Fees – Collector’s Demand Fee
Ms. White explained that at present the fee was $5.00. This was the fee charged for late notices and the proposal was to increase it to $25.
In a memo to the Board, Collector/Treasurer Robert Palmer noted that the current late charge was established many decades ago and had not kept pace with industry standard late fees that were now typically $35 or more. The demand charges were currently imposed on delinquent real estate, personal property, and auto excise tax bills. Although many communities charge a demand charge for delinquent water & sewer bills, the Town of Natick does not currently assess a demand charge for delinquent water & sewer bills. The Board of Selectmen, may wish to consider charging a demand fee on delinquent utility bills in the future.
If this fee were increased to $25, the anticipated revenue increase was $75,000 for real estate, personal property and auto excise only.
Mr. Ciccariello inquired as to how this would impact the ability of individuals to come in and talk with the Finance Director or Tax Officer. Ms. White advised that it wouldn’t impact at all. It just added more to the fee. Previously it was $5 and now it would be $25.
Mr. Connolly inquired if there was a cost to the Town if someone was late. Ms. White noted the need to send out late notices. Mr. Connolly then commented that he thought it was a bad idea to jump that high in one year. Usually people in that circumstance were in difficult circumstances to begin with.
If someone requested to work out a payment plan, Mr. Ostroff asked if their proactively getting in touch would waive the demand notice. Mr. Walters Young responded that the initial demand fees were within the Town’s discretion and the real estate personal property stayed within our discretion. The excise gets moved over to the Deputy Collector and it was up to the Deputy Collector to decide whether to waive those fees. He added that late fees were designed to be a disciplinary measure.
Mr. Ciccariello felt there were people that just won’t pay and there were those that can’t. If someone were in need he would hate to charge them a demand fee. This was a substantial jump, and wanted to wait for feedback before making a decision.
CONFIRMATION OF TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S APPOINTMENT TO TOWN REPORT COMMITTEE
On a motion by Ms. Gloff, seconded by Ms. Van Amsterdam, the Board unanimously voted to endorse the Town Administrator’s appointment of Joshua Ostroff to the Town Report Committee.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR NOTES
Ms. White called attention to a notice in the Council on Aging newsletter that both the food pantry and the Council had made a plea for additional supplies. The Senior Center was in need of gift cards to grocery stores, office supplies, etc.
SELECTMEN’S CONCERNS
- Newton Wellesley Hospital Expansion
Mr. Ciccariello inquired if there had been any feedback on what was going on with the Newton Wellesley Hospital expansion and how it might impact Leonard Morse.
Ms. White advised that she spoke with Framingham and they provided the letter in the packet. The Framingham Board of Selectmen was really working to execute change.
Mr. Ciccariello asked to have somebody look at what was going on and how it might impact the Leonard Morse Hospital. Ms. Van Amsterdam urged that the Board have the hospital CEO in as soon as possible.
- Bus Stop – Natick Outdoor Store
Mr. Connolly asked if there was any update on the bus stop near the Natick Outdoor Store. Ms. White advised there was not.
Mr. Connolly referenced a request for an opinion regarding the performance of Goldenaires at functions. Ms. White advised that she had worked with counsel a bit on this. It was complicated and she had removed herself from it and asked Town Counsel and the Senior Center Director to come up with a conclusion.
- Tax Work Off Program Complaint
The Board was in receipt of a letter from a senior participating in the tax work off program complaining that she had been charged a fee because of the amount paid. Mr. Connolly asked that the complaint be looked into.
Mr. Connolly extended an apology to Terry Miller, Chair of the Recycling Committee, for any uncomfortable feelings he may have caused her or anyone else.
Mr. Ciccariello also offered his apologies, noting that he did not intend to take anything out on Ms. Miller. There was no intent to attack her personally.
- McDonald’s Lighting Issue
Mr. Ostroff reported that he had had a positive meeting last week on the McDonald’s Mass Turnpike lighting issue.
- Water & Sewer Subcommittee
Mr. Ostroff requested an update at an upcoming meeting of the Water & Sewer subcommittee established by the Board.
Mr. Ostroff sought the Board’s consent to send a message to Verizon about the wires that were coiled around poles/trees. He would like to Verizon schedule a time to come before the Board with a progress report. The Board members expressed their support.
Mr. Ostroff announced that Mr. Ciccariello would be holding office hours tomorrow night in Town Hall from 6:30-7:30 p.m.
- Finance Committee Meetings
Mr. Ostroff suggested that the Board post their attendance at the upcoming Finance Committee meetings.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
__________________________________
Kristine Van Amsterdam, Clerk
| 
