October 20,
2005
1:00 p.m.
FINAL VERSION
Members Absent: Virginia
Ross
Other: Attorney Chris Snow (arrived at 3:00
p.m.)
The meeting was called to order promptly at 1:00 p.m.
Ruth Gilbert, the Chair, announced that she will be turning over the meeting to Sue Buerkel. Ruth is leaving for vacation and will return on November 7th for the town meeting.
Agenda
It
was decided by a consensus to postpone the September 15th minutes
until the end of the meeting.
Review of November 7, 2005 Special Town Meeting articles with financial implications
Keith
Bergman (KAB), Town Manager, referred to a memo dated October 18th
that had been e-mailed to the group on Tuesday, the 18th.
Article 1. Wastewater Optimization and Expansion – Borrowing Authorization.
KAB
presented this article by saying that he would be clarifying the whole
thing. There is substantial unused
capacity at the treatment plant that we can access by making additional connections. KAB said that we’ve made tremendous inroads
and now we’ve satisfied DEP that we won’t have to expand leaching beds. Without expanding the effluent disposal beds
we still need $1.5M that would allow us to finish the work in the street, i.e.
adding extra piping, etc. which would allow us to hook up the red dot delays.
Also we’d like to do modest road repaving.
We want the red dots hooked-up as soon as possible. KAB said that they’re also looking at doing
further planning and engineering to extend the system even farther; only 6
months to 1 year are needed for expansion.
He thought we’d have to do another whole new facilities plan. “Not so,” the DEP said. As for a change in terminology, the increase
in the sewer capacity is no longer called “Phase 2” but is now called sewer
extension (expansion). The Town is
specifically looking at expansion along Shankpainter Road and a laundromat has
been proposed on the 2nd floor of Pennie’s Liquors.
Keith
continued, “We’d like to set money aside for contractual issues with Metcalf
& Eddy. It’s confidential and those
issues are currently under mediation.
DEP is requiring a 3rd operator at the plant, etc. and issues
such as this are currently under mediation.
If a mediator sides with Metcalf & Eddy then we need financial
resources set aside to deal with this.
The biggest problem is that there is massive underutilized capacity in
the treatment plant. We can increase by
about 50% immediately.
The
Town has been trying to figure out a way to cover costs. In the last 2 weeks we’ve seen some
excellent progress with red-dot properties.
We had one property that would prefer waiting but if they can get the 0%
rate on the loan they will hook-up. The
biggest incentive to sign up now is that the amount of years left changes
annually, i.e. if hook-up happened today, the sewer betterment would have to be
paid over a period of only 17 years and not the 20 years that original hook-ups
had. The Board of Selectmen (BoS) took
the suggestion of the FinCom and offered – if property owners pay up full
balance of betterment – they could recognize 5% of that as a credit of user
fees. Bubalas took advantage of the
offer. Some properties are grabbing the
opportunity. The Water and Sewer Board
(W&S) will be adopting a revised base charge of $150 for commercial
properties and $30 for residential properties. The first couple of years, some of the properties who had no
water usage during the off-season, paid nothing – now there is a base rate for
non-usage. KAB continued by saying that
he is delighted with the progress that has been made to date. Referring to the projected legal costs, he
said, “If we don’t need it we won’t spend it.”
Mark
Leach asked if the $1.5M is being paid through betterments? Also, Mark asked, “Will there be more detail
provided on the town meeting floor to substantiate the $500k for legal and
consulting?” He feels the vagueness on
that amount of money will not sit well with the voters. KAB answered, “We have about $300K in claims
from Metcalf and these claims are now in dispute. We will craft something more substantial to say to the public.”
Matthew
Clark (MAC) asked, “Will the impact of further sewer extension on treatment
plant capacity have to be calculated based on the Title V design flows as we
did in Phase I? That’s what got us into
this trouble, since actual water usage is so much lower than design flow. Extensions will only improve sewer economics
if DEP will consider a metric other than design flow.” KAB replied that DEP was
now willing to consider other metrics.
MAC
continued by saying, “Those of us who are phase 1 connectors then find
ourselves having paid for a much larger treatment plant than was needed. I know that some portion of the treatment
plant capital costs were held back for Phase II connections, but it strikes me
that Phase I connectors may still have paid more than their fair share. Perhaps we should get a refund or a
betterment reduction?” David Guertin
said that we’ve already looked at that and we need a refinement of our
costs. MAC then asked if there is a
mechanism for a refund?
KAB
said that we’re not going to give refunds.
The financial benefit is that ultimately we will have more flow and
consequently sewer usage charges will go down.
We do hope the rates will go down.
MAC, remaining resolute, said “this is a matter of fairness. The new connections could simply pay a
betterment that included an amount that would go toward right-sizing the Phase
I betterments.”
Dr.
Robert Vetrick (RV) asked, “What do you anticipate taking in from red
dots?” Answer: $154K.
Then RV asked, “What is the Town’s stance for people who refuse or can’t
afford to hook-up?” KAB replied that
the Town has refused to establish the date for the final hook-ups. The date of hook-ups by July 2008 seemed to
be the “must be hooked up” date. They
are no longer required to hook-up prior to failure.
RV
continued by saying - but basically the Board of Health (BoH) has the authority
to order a red dot delay property to hook up to the sewer. KAB replied that at the same time we’re
getting voluntary compliance. RV then
asked - what about people who can’t – elderly people. Answer is they will be hooked up but not have to pay anything
until they sold or transferred their property.
Ed
Gage and Tom Thurston had no comments.
Ruth
Gilbert (RG) said that she was still concerned with the legal fee. Now we’re up to $500K for legal but she
would like to see that figure reduced.
She feels it’s rather expensive for mediation. RG said that she was also happy to hear that if we take phase 2
out of the language then we might want to educate the public about this. She personally doesn’t anticipate a lot of
opposition to this.
Walt
Winnowski (WW) asked about the $75K additional sewer fees that we’re projecting
for this year. The scenario cited
was: It could be if a restaurant was
hooked up in August of last year; this year we would see a full season’s worth
of sewage.
RG
said she was involved with sale of 4 Dyer Street and found it was a pleasure working with Dana Faris in the hook-up and
also with the W&S Board.
Gary
Delius suggested that perhaps we could have this boiled down to a simpler
format. David Guertin said that it may
not be ready for Town meeting. It’s
really not a global extension but in pieces.
Alice
Foley had no comments.
Sue
Buerkel gave accolades for the establishment of a minimum user fee. She is also concerned about $500K for legal
and wondered if that might be tightened up?
Motion: Recommend Article 1 to voters.
Motion by R. Vetrick Seconded by G. Delius Voted 10-0-0.
Article 2. Conveyance of Property Adjacent to PHS Annex to Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies.
KAB explained that CCS needs additional land for a possible title 5 - we’re adding lots B,C, and D for this possibility. We signed the P&S agreement and we’re ready to close. They will lease the property for 2 years and then will buy it outright. We’ll get 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3. It allows them to go in and make improvements. Town meeting approval is needed for the additional lots.
Gary
asked about the drainage ditch shown on the plan? KAB said that we probably should have taken this off. It’s basically a sump pond like we have on
Court Street. (an engineered wetland)
WW
asked if there were no plans for sewer connection? KAB said that maybe there could be. We want the BoH to O.K. an ACO for the CCS. We’ll be going to the BoH with them. If this property can get an eventual sewer
hook-up it would make sense environmentally to hook up this whole area.
Mark
Leach questioned whether the $850K was a fair price for the combined real
estate and properties. Others felt it
was a good or fair price.
Sue
Buerkel had a thought! There were 10
members voting on the 1st motion and the FinCom is only allowed to
have 9 votes at a time. There are 8
regular members and 2 alternates thus the 1st motion will have to be
negated and cast again.
Motion: Move to reconsider article 1.
Motion by RV Seconded by GD Voted 9-0-0.
Motion: Move to recommend approval of article 1 as
written.
Motion by RV Seconded by GD Voted 9-0-0.
Motion: Move to recommend approval of Article 2.
Motion by MAC Seconded by TT Voted 9-0-0.
Article 6. FY 2006 Budget for Economic Development Council.
KAB explained that the
$5K requested was from the planning board’s budget. The Local Community Planning Implementation Committee (LCPIC)
originally had a budget of $10K and when it was disbanded the money was put in
the Planning Budget. The Planning Board
agreed to give up $5K of this sum to the EDC.
RG
then said, “So this means that they will have $5K budget in the future?”
Ruth
said that perhaps we should look at the Planning budget and see if it can be
reduced in the future. The FinCom
wants information about the Economic Development Committee’s make-up. MAC asked specifically, “What does $5K
fund?” KAB responded, “basic things –
and basic studies. We need base line
data.” The FinCom was of one mind that
the “Visioning survey was a waste of time.”
Gary asked if this is just a grant study?” RV concluded the discussion by saying, “We’ve spent money on more
foolish things in the past.”
Motion: Move to recommend approval of Article 6.
Motion by RV Seconded by GD Vote 7-in favor 2
opposed (MAC & EG)
Article 7. Rescind Unused Borrowing authority.
This was described as merely a housekeeping article.
Motion: Recommend approval of Article 7.
Motion by TT Seconded by AF Voted 9-0-0 unanimously.
Article 8. Funding Article Amendments.
Article 9. FY 2006 Budget Adjustments.
It was decided to take both these articles under discussion since they were related.
Questions
were raised about Truro paying $8K tuition per high school student. After the
tuition discussion, the main subject addressed was Sandy Turner’s need for a
new chipper.
KAB
explained that Article 8 takes the two articles and finds different funding
mechanisms for them, i.e., $23K in insurance budget that we no longer need and also the money that had been
allocated for an Assistant Town Manager and remains unused.
Back
to the chipper: Sandy is currently
renting a chipper for $2100/month. The
full purchase price of the chipper is $27,900 but a deal has been struck
whereby the rental charges are being applied to the cost. Sandy would like $24K - $3K trade. This still leaves a balance. (The chipper that died had been given to
Provincetown by FEMA for clean-up after Hurricane Bob in 1991.) Ms. Turner said that the chipper is used
approximately 10 months of the year and it’s a very important necessity in
maintaining the compost pile. Also, on
her wish list, the sweeper burned out their brooms on the sand on the streets. She also told the FinCom that we’re totaling
wasting our salt and sand because we don’t have flow monitors. Explanation: flow monitors control the amount of sand and salt being spread,
i.e., more of both in dangerous intersections, etc. Sandy also cautioned that the deal of applying the rental of the
chipper toward the purchase is a deal for right now but may not be valid if we
delay too long.
MAC
asked about the CEM deficit. KAB does
not have figures but he will get them.
Dennis is monitoring it. We are
in the process of doing a review of what our actual expenses are going to
be. MAC said that we need to be
thinking now about additional cuts
and savings. KAB said, regarding NEDA,
that he has his eye on the ball!
ML
asked about parking revenues. Keith
said that it was down about $70K this year.
Alex has done a projection – and we’ve increased fees that didn’t need
approval. Bottom line – we do expect to
make up some of that with other things, i.e. an increase in fees. The BoS is planning more ways to increase
the parking income by limiting residential parking. Residential parking is now allowed (free) in the MPL for 48 hours
at a time. That limit will be further
reduced. The BoS is also looking into other possibilities to have parking
spaces turn over.
GD
asked KAB if he were still comfortable with the parking staffing plan that we
put into place last spring? KAB replied
that it’s an important revenue center.
The loss is not because we didn’t have a full time parking manager.
Motion: Move to support approval of Article 8.
Motion by Alice Foley Seconded by Gary Delius Voted 9-0-0
Motion: Move to support approval of Article 9.
Motion by T. Thurston Seconded by R. Vetrick Voted 9-0-0.
Mark
Leach felt we should stop nickel and diming with all the fees, bite the bullet
and present a 2˝ ballot question to the town for them to vote yea or nay. If they vote nay, then the town needs to
determine where to start cutting some services.
KAB
said that we’re looking at 2 proposals – debt exclusions (exempt the debt
service) and he fully expects that it will be a discussion. He also quoted Orleans planning level
funding for schools - based on limited enrollment.
Chris
Snow arrived at 3:00 p.m.
Article 10. Massachusetts Highway Department Chapter 90 Funds for Road and Sidewalk Construction and Repairs.
RG asked, “Why now? The asphalt plants are closed – so why now?” Sandy replied, “To make it available early.” Sandy said that paving can start earlier than the April town meeting; she has a large list of needy streets. Chapter 90 funds fix many problems in our roads and the money is available now. We do need a town meeting vote to access the funds.
Motion: Move to support Article 10.
Motion by R. Vetrick Seconded by G. Delius Voted 9-0-0.
Article 12. Local Regulation of Dogs.
Very little discussion…………..
Motion: Move to support Article 12 as written.
Motion by R. Gilbert Seconded by A. Foley Voted 9-0-0.
Chris Snow now announced why he had attended the FinCom meeting in the hopes he might be able to talk to them about the problem with 48B Bradford Street. The entire scenario was based on 3/100s of a foot that was needed in order to mortgage the property so that an elderly man could pay his own way in a nursing home. He was told he needed a petition along with notices to abutters. Chris has spent an exorbitant amount of time trying to solve this problem. Now he’s been advised to go to the planning board. His client is just seeking permission to get this piece of property in shape to be mortgaged. Chris feels it’s an unnecessary event. Chris doesn’t think that all of this is necessary. It is not a surrender….. not a land taking….. it would just enable the town person to access a mortgage to be used for his care.
Chris
is looking for individual support.
There is expense involved and he would advise the BoS to consent and
there is no reason for them to ‘not consent’ to this petition. Gary D. said that – coincidentally 3/100th of a foot is only
slightly greater than the margin of error on the Town’s GIS system.
Motion: Move to approve the petition for Article 11.
Motion by R. Vetrick Seconded by G. Delius Voted 9-0-0.
(RV said to state the reasons for approval for this article…..“in order to prevent more money being expended for legal fees”)
Assignments for Town Meeting Articles:
Article 1. Tom
Thurston
Article 2. Ed
Gage
Article 6. Mark
Leary
Article 7. Robert
Vetrick
Articles 8. and 9. Gary Delius
Article 10. Sue Buerkel
Article 11. Ruth Gilbert (her understudy! R.
Vetrick)
Article 12. Matthew Clark
MAC will prepare a draft
message to the voters and will send it to the FinCom within the next couple of
days for comments.
The
next meeting will be held one hour before the November 7th town
meeting.
Please post a meeting for a 5:00 p.m. meeting on November
7th.
Minutes for
September 15th.
After a brief discussion, the following motion was made.
Motion: Approve the minutes of the September 15th
meeting as amended.
Motion by Gary
Delius Seconded by Alice Foley
6 in favor – 3 abstentions (TT, RV, MAC)
Mark Leach said that at a recent BoS meeting, the BoS voted not to address the 80 to 20 payment split on health insurance in discussions with the unions. This will not be a goal for the BoS for this year. The vote was 2 in favor and 3 opposed (C. Andrews, M. Couture, and R. Olson). Most Cape towns have 50/50 health benefits. Reality is that no one pays 80/20 any more. This should perhaps become an agenda item with KAB.
The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
Respectfully
submitted,
Evelyn Rogers Gaudiano
Approved by ____________________________on
______________, 2005
Ruth Gilbert, Chair