MUNICIPAL BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
DATE: December 11, 2007
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm
PRESENT: Jan Penta, Chair; Ron Hayes, Vice Chair; Normand Bouchard; Robert J. Gray; Dan Hooper; Brian Levasseur; Donna Luciano; Kristin Lewis Savage; John Sherman
EXCUSED: Michele Conte, Bernadine FitzGerald, T. Richard Latham,
MINUTES:
J. Penta states that on page 8 third line down, the first “will” should be removed.
Motion by R. Gray and second by R. Hayes to approve the minutes of December 4, 2007, as amended.
VOTE: 8-0-1 D. Hooper abstains.
BUDGETS:
Personnel Administration:
J. Hoch reviews the budget and states that merit and performance line is at 2% for nonunion employees. This is the pool he uses to recognize merit and performance. This is an adjustment to pay or one time bonuses.
R. Gray asks what the COLA is.
J. Hoch states that the 2008 COLA statistics is released on Friday, December 15th.
R. Gray asks why we are using the 2%.
J. Hoch states that last year he discussed this with the Board and looking at other communities, it was 1.5 – 3%.
R. Hayes asks where the 2% will go at this point.
J. Hoch states that all that is going out in 2007 has been distributed. He has not allocated the 2008 funds. He looks at Market wages in other towns. This is an inexact science but this is the best data he can get.
R. Hayes asks what the number of employees covered is.
J. Hoch states that it is approximately 25.
J. Penta asks about the taxes and benefits associated with pay being broken out last year.
J. Sherman states it was broken out last year.
J. Hoch states that the lions share is the amount paid for employees. The Town pays 90% and the employees pay 10%. This is in line with the union employees. This is a sizable increase and the nonunion staff increase is $26,621 and union is $51, 590. The thing to recognize is that this is not a giant spike in premium it is the change in demographics. There are retirees and elected officials that are buying in and they pay the entire premium. The Selectman have had an extensive conversation on this. Most communities buy their insurance through a pool. There are 2 pools, the Local Government Center and Primex. Because they are negotiating for several communities they are able to get greater coverage for lower costs. The private sector numbers are projecting a 12% increase and the
Local Government plans are coming in at a 7.8% increase.
R. Hayes asks if the employees have co-pays.
J. Hoch states that the employees have co-pays, There is a $10 co-pay per visit and a $30 co-pay for a non referral appointments.
R. Hayes asks if this is standard for other Towns and can we increase our co-pay.
J. Hoch states that this is standard. If you push one thing up or down, 6 pieces change. In the private sector you are able to up aco-pay and not change other pieces of the plan.
D. Luciano states that in the private sector we have an option of 3 plans.
J. Hoch states that we can offer this and have people buy up into a higher program.
J. Penta asks what a partial family is.
J. Hoch states that we have one employee in this situation. It is a part-time person that can opt into a plan.
J. Penta asks if this is the same for the Police Department.
J. Hoch states that this relates to a situation where you know an employees plan is going to change due to marriage or family events. When we turn-over an employee we can have a $12,000 swing.
R. Gray asks if we know the union numbers at this time.
J. Hoch states that the circumstances for 2008 changed because of employees coming in and changes in family situation.
J. Sherman states that the line is going to be overspent this year. If you look at the standard sheet showing expenditures, you will see that we are going to overspend this line by $20,000.
R. Hayes asks if there is anything in the teamster contract that states we must pay a certain percent of a number of dollars.
J. Hoch states that we are locked into the percent and the program.
R. Hayes states that we should look at a different percentage like a 60/40 and asks how long we are locked into the contract..
J. Hoch states next year will be the 3rd year of a 5 year contract.
J. Penta asks if J. Hoch has polled the nonunion employees to see if they are willing to go for a different split.
J. Hoch states that we have looked at several plans with different options. The employees suggested an 85/15 split to stay with the current plan. This would make a $20,000 difference. At this time the Selectmen stated they will stay at the 90/10.
J. Penta states that the newspaper exposed a person getting coverage in another Town that should not have been. She asks if we have a safe guard in place.
J. Hoch states that we know who is covered.
J. Penta states that her employer has asked for proof of students. She wants to make sure we are not covering ineligible people.
J. Hoch states that we are keeping track of this but we do not have a research policy. We are a small organization that we can spot these changes.
J. Hoch states that the disability, life insurance and dental have not changed. There is a change in plan coverage and does effect dental. The last number is a buffer for changes in employees.
R. Gray asks where the $20,000 over expenditure is coming from.
J. Hoch states that we had an employee leave that we saved money in staff, the legal assistance is down and welfare assistance is down, Regardless of what number we put in we can be vulnerable to large swings.
J. Penta asks if employees are able to change plan usage.
J. Hoch states that getting married or having a child will change the plan and then there is open enrollment.
J. Hoch states that we have another option that an employee may buy out. The current rate is only $520 and is not enticing. We are looking at increasing this to $3,500 and that may save the Town $19,000.
D. Hooper states that you should look into a buy in system to make sure we adequately plan.
J. Hoch states that as long as we have the position people are able to move back into.
J. Hoch states that we have a Section 125 plan and we could pay employees through this to save paying taxes on the money.
K. Lewis Savage suggests that we budget a true number for the Worker’s Compensation. She states that we have never seen this go down.
J. Hoch states that the next draft will have the revised number and the Selectmen will receive the revised budget on Monday and it will hopefully be forwarded to the Budget Committee on Tuesday.
J. Penta asks what the special detail reimbursement is.
J. Hoch states that when we pay police and fire to perform a detail we pay this out of a payroll line. We then are reimbursed by a revenue fund and we reimburse the payroll line. The numbers wash in the end.
R. Gray states that we need to look at other places in the budget to absorb increases. He is going to look at places to cut. He does not want employees to think we are picking on departments.
J. Hoch states that he asked department heads to present budgets that gave the Board of Selectmen and this board all information.
Motion by R. Gray and second by D. Luciano to take under consideration the Personal Administration Budget in the amount of $1,174,432.
VOTE: 8-0-1 K. Lewis Savage abstains.
WARRANT ARTICLES:
B. Levasseur asks when petitioned Warrant Articles are due.
J. Hoch states that the petitioned Articles are due January 8, 2008.
Discussion of upcoming vacancies on the Budget Committee.
Highway Vehicles:
J. Penta asks what the impact would be if we pushed out each vehicle 1 year.
J. Hoch states that there is an operational issue. Spreading it out would be $56,118.
J. Sherman states that this information can be found in the Town Report.
D. Hooper states that we already set aside money in the Highway Equipment Trust Fund.
J. Hoch states that this is a limited balance due to start-up.
K. Lewis Savage asks if the Budget Committee can put a recommendation on the number.
J. Hoch states that we are seeking legal counsel in order to get a firm answer.
D. Hooper states that he attended a Local Government Center Conference and they explained it that you cannot ask forgiveness without having permission. He suggests the Town Manager get the official legal position.
N. Bouchard asks what the role of the Budget Committee is in reviewing Warrant Articles is.
J. Sherman states that the wording comes from the Selectmen and they are very interested in hearing recommendations for the wording and especially the intent.
J. Hoch states that you can recommend suggestions to the Selectmen.
J. Sherman states he will bring back any suggestions; the Selectmen are very open to recommendation. What gets presented at the Town Meeting is the Budget Committee’s Recommendation, but the wording of the Warrant Articles is the Selectmen’s.
B. Levasseur states his opinion is that he would like to see it stay at the same amount as last year. Maybe in future years we can increase it.
J. Sherman states that he is concerned that if we chose to go back to the $59,000 then we should change the intent to say this is per the 2003 analysis. This then may start a conversation that we need to get a new analysis because 2003 appears to be the last study and we did complete an analysis in 2007.
R. Gray states that before he would give information to bring back to the Selectmen he would want to know what the operating budget percentage increase is and what the percentage increase would be if all of these passed.
K. Lewis Savage states that we usually have the operating budget under a pretty good grasp before we look at warrant articles. She feels we are doing this backwards. We are talking about looking at the budget and making cuts. We haven’t seen the whole budget in a format recommended by the Selectmen.
J. Penta states we are behind schedule and only have 2 meetings left before the public hearing.
D. Hooper asks when the 2003 financial analysis was done it was done for 10 years, what changed in the 2007 analysis.
J. Hoch states that it is equipment costs. The Capitol Improvement Plan holds everything at current numbers. You should expect the long term numbers updated regularly.
D. Hooper would like something in the intent that indicates the updated 2007 analysis. Some people do compare the numbers year to year.
K. Lewis Savage states that she supports a statement the last analysis was in 2003 and the 2007 update is showing we should support this amount.
R. Gray states that he can not make a recommendation based on the information that he currently has. He needs the percentages to make an informed decision and the committee is not at this point yet.
D. Hooper suggests debating the concept and not the money value.
B. Levasseur states that he sees an increase of a 3.9% increase in the budget. He would like to see an updated overall budget. He would like to see this without the roll over of Warrant Articles from last year.
J. Sherman states that everyone has a copy of a form that attempt to do that. This shows a sizeable reduction of warrant articles. He thinks this can be used as a very good approximation.
J. Hoch states that the purpose of that sheet is to not get mirrored in one aspect of the budget. The net appropriation number is at the end of the day and the number we are going to see is the number of the tax increase. Unfortunately, this year we are projecting a revenue decrease.
K. Lewis Savage states that the number is a 6.3%.
Highway Garage Office Trailer:
K. Lewis Savage asks if we are allowed to create impact fees for highway uses.
J. Hoch states that the classes in the RSAs are schools, recreation and public safety.
K. Lewis Savage states that the sales on Route 125 are incredible and it seems we should be able to get more of a benefit.
J. Sherman reads pg. 53 of the 2006 Town Report that gives the definition of an impact fee and what is allowed. He states that we can explore the issue but the definition is restrictive.
K. Lewis Savage states that the developers are coming into Town with the money to spend. We are not taking in donations and maybe some kind of impact fee would make people more comfortable with getting the funds from commercial properties.
J. Hoch states that he knows that he has asked this question verbally before but he will get something in writing regarding impact fees.
R. Gray suggests distinguishing that the $20,000 is not for use on the highway garage.
R. Hayes suggests dropping the last sentence because it is an intent for the intent.
J. Sherman will take this back to the Selectmen. His opinion is that he does not want people to think the trailer is the solution to the problem.
K. Lewis Savage states that this article should mention that it is a temporary office space.
J. Penta is concerned that the methane gas may also get into the trailer.
D. Hooper states that the trailer will not be on the concrete slab and it will not filter up.
J. Hoch states that the trailer can be located away from the plume that is causing the issue.
D. Hooper suggests methane monitoring in the trailer.
Building Capital Reserve:
K. Lewis Savage suggests that the intent be expanded to include that last year this article was approved, the fund was established and we are building the balance. She also suggests adding the current balance.
J. Penta asks if the Selectmen have given any thought to placing a total on this account.
J. Sherman states that we are not going to do this forever.
J. Hoch suggests that this is something to go to the Capital Improvement Committee. This fund is to repair things like a septic system.
D. Hooper states that this is for unanticipated expenses. He states that we should be replenishing this fund not just adding $20,000 each year. He would like to replenish what we spent.
J. Hoch states that there have been expenses that were charged to building expense lines. He is reviewing this and presenting them to the Selectmen. He gives the example of the phone system crashing and the failure of a generator at the safety complex.
B. Levasseur asks why the money was not taken from the account.
J. Hoch states that he wanted a clear picture of what each buildings repair was. If we were under budget he would not withdraw from the fund.
J. Penta asks if this is in an interest bearing account.
J. Hoch states that everything is in an interest bearing account.
Consensus of the Budget Committee is to place on each warrant article applicable that it is an interest bearing account.
Fire Vehicles:
J. Penta states this has been on the warrant for many years.
Water Suppression System:
J. Hoch states that the Selectmen discussed spreading this out from 2011 to 2015. This spreads it out over an additional 4 years.
K. Lewis Savage states that we are not looking at the increase in costs. Materials and labor is going to be more expensive in 2015.
R. Hayes agrees it is far enough out that we could cut back in later years.
R. Gray states why we wouldn’t decide in 2015 to bond a project.
J. Hoch states that it is not a project completed all at once. It is separated into 3 segments.
K. Lewis Savage states that she has seen developers come in and need to repair roads earlier because of the development. If we cut back on the funds we may be stuck short.
J. Sherman states that he was a supporter of this plan and has been involved for many years. He believes that the cash flow analysis on this project should be done similar to the vehicles. We need to look at the costs and try to develop a plan.
Conservation Fund:
R. “Hayes states no money has been removed from the current account.
Tax Collector & Town Clerk:
J. Sherman states this will not be petitioned, the consensus of the Selectmen is that they will present these articles.
Feasibility of Water System Conversion to Drinking Water, Water Tower & Water Storage System (3 articles connected):
J. Hoch states that this has been in the Capital Improvemenent Plan. A lot of “what if” scenarios have been discussed. We are looking at what can be done and what we should do to plan. We are not looking at starting a system tomorrow; we are looking at the future. We are looking at possibilities. 30 years ago the Town bought the land on Sweet Hill Road looking forward to the water. When the waterline was put up Elm Street, the feed was placed in coming from Sweet Hill Road. This is looking at the big picture.
K. Lewis savage states that she can see the pros and cons of this. She is concerned that some people may be concerned with the wording in 11C. She suggests using the same language of 11A.
J. Penta asks if enough studies have already been done about this.
J. Sherman states that this was done in the 1960s and he does not know of anything further.
J. Penta states she recalls in 1978 that this topic was raised.
J. Hoch states that there was discussion up until the 1980.
B. Levasseur states that back in 1982 or 1984 he remembers us purchasing 20 or 40 acres of land and he believes this was near the Atkinson line. This was for the purpose of a reservoir. He asks if any studies were done further. He believes this may be another option.
J. Sherman states that Larry Gil mentioned this and it requires research.
B. Levasseur states this goes back 25 years and he is not sure if it has been researched more.
D. Hooper states that the wording should include how we are going to research this. He suggests adding what type of professional we are hiring. He does not want to have the Fire Chief overwhelmed by the Water Department and wants us to look into having a contracted professional.
J. Sherman states we are looking for suggestions on presenting this.
D. Luciano states that it makes more sense to place these singular and not as a bundle.
D. Hooper states that bundling may make this more expensive.
J. Sherman thinks we should recommend 11A & 11B and his preference is to roll the Sweet Hill option into 11A.
D. Luciano agrees that this makes more sense.
K. Lewis Savage suggests a new 11C that suggests the water reservoir. Keep all options but present all the information. She suggests using the town owned land and not specifying a portion of land.
J. Sherman states that 11C is meant to be the sum of 11A and 11B.
J. Penta asks if the three issues are in 11C.
D. Hooper states that when you summed up 11A and 11B and found this was needed in 11C.
N. Bouchard asks what a potable drinking water system is and who will benefit by it.
R. Gray states the study is to convert the existing fire system. To put this in layman’s term is that the people tied in to the system are Route 125. If you drive up and down Route 125 there are major restaurants missing. The reason is that there is no water. Converting this will cause expansion. These businesses want to come to Plaistow.
J. Penta asks what will be used for fire suppression.
R. Gray states this is why he supports unbundling this.
N. Bouchard states that this is not getting water to my house.
J. Sherman states that the most valuable type of commercial property is fast food restaurants. He is not using this to promote any article. This is just information that he heard when we interviewed assessing agencies.
R. Hayes states that we should work on the term converting to something like adapting of expanding.
Meals on Wheels:
D. Hooper asks if this needs to come through a warrant to become a line item.
J. Penta states that we tend to put a first request to the residents.
J. Sherman suggests that the intent mention that this will then be a budget item.
B. Levasseur asks if this is 107 Plaistow residents.
J. Hoch states that this is 107 residents.
B. Levasseur asks who was funding this before in 2007.
J. Hoch states that he is not familiar with their financials.
J. Sherman asks that a copy of the request application be given to each committee member.
Police Officers (2 Articles):
J. Hoch presents the members of the committee with slides from the Selectmen’s meeting.
J. Penta asks who did the staffing study.
J. Sherman states that this is a local study.
K. Lewis Savage states that the start dates are not the same. One is later in the year.
J. Hoch states we have not settled on a start date. I used a time frame that is easier to calculate.
R. Gray states that he does not doubt that this is a needed. Deputy Police Chief Kathleen Jones spent a vast percent of time speaking about Route 125. The other large issue is the schools. Dealing with Route 125 he would like to know if we are getting all we can from this business. Salem has an ordinance that they charge a fee per business to assist in covering the traffic on Route 28. He would like us to look at all we can to get what we can from the business. He does not feel we are. People in this Town realize the bulk of services are going to Route 125 and schools. They are looking at the Town for some relief. He believes we need the officers and we are over stretched.
B. Levasseur agrees and states that we are over stretched. He suggests that the State Representatives could try to change the law to allow taxing commercial property differently.
J. Sherman states in Massachusetts they can charge a higher rate for commercial. Different towns have different rates. New Hampshire is not a local rule State and the State does not allow the differentiation between residential and commercial rates.
D. Hooper states that the date of this presentation is for 2001. He states that the Town Report date for 2003 shows a decrease in statistics. He would like facts on why we need more officers. He wants concrete statistical evidence. He does not want the population ratio to be the reason he bases this on. He states that we did not lose part time officers; the department did not want the part timers. He is on both sides of the debate.
R. Gray states that the report uses the complexity of the business district as the need for officers.
J. Hoch states that the intent is to talk about NH ratio X and we are Y. We are below the federal level. We need to look at the unique situation and complexity of your community. This is not a population based number. We are a border community with spill over onto Route 125. We have regional growth that is bringing people to Route 125. The vehicle trips are increasing. The impact of Route 125 is the regional retail hub.
D. Hooper states that out budget is high compared to communities like Seabrook.
J. Sherman states that we also have a Prosecutor and Victim Witness Advocate and that we do not show the revenue we get from neighboring towns. He suggests that the Police Department have the same presentation the Selectmen saw and the questions can be asked.
D. Hooper states that he wants the numbers and does feel watching the presentation would help.
J. Sherman asked the Chief if one of these officers is a school resource officer. The officers are not.
D. Hooper states that the school is budgeting for a school resource officer.
Discussion of the differences between the School and Town Budget process and use of Warrant Articles.
N. Bouchard asks if the dollar value includes the roll up costs.
J. Hoch states that it is.
J. Sherman states that the benefits are almost the same as the salary.
J. Hoch reviews the benefits. He will review the numbers that he was given.
R. Gray states that these are people that are patrol officers.
J. Hoch states that eventually they are on the street but they need to complete training.
R. Gray asks if we are going to need vehicles for these officers. He states he is convinced we need these people. He just wants to know all the costs.
J. Hoch states that the operating budget has the vehicles in it.
K. Lewis Savage states that the part time employees were cut back because it was inefficient use of money and the better use of funds were full time officers.
J. Sherman agrees.
WORK SESSION:
Discussion of upcoming meetings. An additional Budget Committee meeting is schedule for January 3, 2008.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting is adjourned at 10:23pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicole Carr
| 
