Canton, Massachusetts · Saved source text

March 03, 2016, Finance Committee Meeting. Minutes

Finance Committee · Record date 2016-03-03 · Record 80325ab1ae13ca250c

Saved text from 7 source pages. Transcription and OCR may contain errors; verify figures and wording against the original. Retrieved 2026-10-15.

Town of canton Finance Committee                        Minutes voted on: 3/1 /16
                                            Mee~ing Minutes                                vote: 10-0-0
                                        Thursday, March 3, 2016


 Members Present:
 Rob Barker, Sepp Bergschneider, Jim Casamento, Gerald Dorfman, Nichola Gallagher, Dianne
 Gustafson, Stephanie Leach, Tim McKenna, Barbara Saint Andre and Jim Sims.

 Members Absent:
 All members were present at the meeting.

 Guests Present:
 Kevin Feeney, Member, Board of Selectmen, Blue Ribbon Traffic Study Committee(BRTSC)
 Steven Moore, Assistant Superintendent for Business and Personnel, BHRTS
 Aidan Maguire, Canton Representative to the Blue Hills Regional Technical School Committee
 Mark Porter, Member, Board of Selectmen, Blue Ribbon Traffic Study Committee and Reservoir Pond
 Advisory Committee
 James Quaglia, Superintendent —Director, Blue Hills Regional Technical School (BHRTS)
 Jim Murgia, Finance Director
 Ellen Jones, Finance Committee Secretary

Opening: A meeting of the Canton Finance Committee was called to order by Chair Saint Andre at
7:03 p.m. on Thursday, March 3, 2016 in the Salah Meeting Room of Town Hall.

A.      Approval of Agenda

Chair Saint Andre reviewed the items on the agenda.

~.      Announcements

There were no announcements.

C.      New Business

flue Hills Regional Technical School(~H~TS)— FY17 Budget Request — (see meeting handouts) Mr.
Quaglia and Mr. Moore presented the FY17 budget request for the Blue Hills Regional Technical School
as follows:
    • Blue Hills is seeking a 2.9% budget increase for a total of $543,840.
    • Four areas that are driving the budget increase are 1) instructional staffing increases (1.0 FTE at
        a cost of $54,082) 2) wage increases (2.2% at a cost of $227,118) 3) instructional program
        expense increase (16% at a cost of $97,884) and 4) technology improvements (27.9% at a cost
        of $48,430).
    • The total school enrollment for FY16 is 896 students. BHRTS is projecting 929 students for
        FY17. The total capacity for the school is 950 students. Canton's enrollment for F17 is predicted
        to be 66 students which is an increase of three students over FY161's enrollment of 63.
    • BHRTS has negotiated 2% salary increases for instructional staff for a total teacher salary
        increase of $278,087. This includes steps and lanes for FY17 the addition of one new Social
        Studies Teacher.
    s Employees of BHRTS are enrolled in the state's GIC insurance. BHRTS is budgeting fora 7%
        increase in insurance costs but has decreased its budgets for unemployment programs and
        worker compensation insurance.
   • MSBA (Massachusetts School Building Authority) has given approval for the School's Statement
        of Interest. BHRTS anticipates using its Excess and Deficiency Fund (E&D)as well as FY17
        capital dollars to cover a $1.1 million feasibility study. This is for a capital project to update the
        school's infrastructure. No additional assessment in FY17 will be requested from member
        communities for the project, but there could be a significant additional assessment in FY18 and
        beyond.

20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                       Page 1 of 7                                     03/06/16

•   BHRTS continues to reduce the amount of E&D that is returned to the towns and applied to the
        assessment each year. In FY17 excess E&D has been reduced to $312,883 which is a reduction
        of $270,288 from FY16. In FY18 the district anticipates not returning any E&D to the member
        communities.
    •   For FY17 Canton's portion of the district assessment will be $1,195,356 which represents a
        4.08% increase over the FY16 assessment. A $340,000 increase in Ch. 70 aid helped reduce
        the assessments.


Article 18 —Discussion with Mark Porter and Kevin Feeney, Blue Ribbon Traffic Study Committee
 (BRTSC)- Mr. Porter presented information about the Blue Ribbon Traffic Study Committee and the
funding being requested for traffic studies under Article 18 as follows:
    • The BRTSC is made up of Mark Porter, Kevin Feeney, a representative from the Town who is a
         non-voting member and one citizen representative from each of the six voting precincts.
    • The purpose of the BRTSC is to collect information, collect concerns from the residents and when
        able to take action and move things forward as well as prepare for Town Meeting with more
        substantial information items that the BRTSC regard as good uses of money.
    • Three items the BRTSC is requesting funds for are: 1) traffic study of the intersection of Randolph
        Street and Washington Street at a cost of $75,000, 2) traffic light synchronization study at a cost
        of $15,000 and 3) signage and crosswalk remediation for the streets in the vicinity of the Pleasant
        Street/Luce School corridor and a portable traffic sign for the DPW and Police at a cost of
        $15,000.
    • Mr. Casamento spoke in support of using mitigation funds, since historically items of this nature
         have often been funded out of mitigation funds.
    • Speaking individually and not on behalf of the other Board of Selectmen members, Mr. Porter
        stated that he would not be opposed to using mitigation funds but thought that free cash would be
        a preferable source of funding, given that the Town's reserves could be over the 15% target.
    • Mr. Porter stated that the Police Chief appeared before the BRTSC and stated that there was a
        need for traffic calming measures such as the portable traffic sign/trailer. The Chief stated that
        speed traps require police personnel..
    • Ms. Gustafson commented that the Town spends a great amount of money on capital projects for
        the DPW and Police Department and for terrorism and catastrophic events but often times not
        enough on items directly related to the safety of children. Since some of the safety issues could
        be handled through small amounts of money, Ms. Gustafson suggested that these safety issues
        be considered priorities and the BOS use mitigation funds to quickly remedy these safety issues.
        She also suggested that traffic enforcement might be carried out by regular police officers on
        d uty.
    • Mr. Feeney stated that the Police Department only has one part-time officer assigned to do traffic
        enforcement. Unfortunately this officer is retiring.
    • In response to Ms. Gustafson's inquiry about the $450,000 town-wide traffic study being
        requested by Mr. Braconi under Article 43. Mr. Porter stated he did not have information
        regarding this article and there was no communication made to the BOS by the sponsor of Article
        43. The sponsor of Article 43, Mr. Braconi, did not reach out the BRTSC to discuss his warrant
        article. The BOS has not taken a position on Article 43 yet.
    • Mr. Feeney stated he would be willing to bring to the BOS the suggestion of using mitigation
        funds for Article 18.


    Discussion with Mark Porter and Kevin Feeney of the Reservoir Pond Advisory Committee
     (RPAC)
    Article 28 —Regulation of Use of Reservoir Pond
    Article 29 —Approve Reservoir Pond By-Law
    Article 30 —Approve Transfer of Custody of Williams Estate to BOS as Park Comrx~issioners
    Article 31 —Approve Transfer of Custody of Williams Estate to BOS for Park, Rec. &General
    Municipal Use

    Mr. Porter stated that the Reservoir Pond articles were a result of conversations that he had with
    Town Counsel and the MAPC (Massachusetts Area Planning Council).


20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                      Page 2 of 7                                    03/06/16

• The MAPC study would most likely not be available in draft form until Annual Town Meeting. Mr.
      Porter is optimistic that the MAPC study might be available 3-4 weeks before ATM.
    • The four articles are broad-based with the understanding that the articles may be pulled at ATM.
    • There is no large financial impact for these articles this year.
    s The purpose of Article 2~ was drafted to petition the state in order to remove the Reservoir Pond
      from Great Pond Status. This article was placed on the warrant in case it was needed. If the
      recommendations of the MAPC and the will of Town were to utilize the pond for uses that are not
      allowed under the Great Pond Status, this article would be used.
      If the Town wanted to limit the uses of the pond, it would not be allowed to do this when it is
      covered under the Great Pond Status.
    • If the pond were removed from Great Pond Status, the Town would be allowed to set rules that
      are more onerous than what the state requires. The item that is being protected is access to the
      pond.
    • Mr. Sims inquired as to the importance of these articles for this year's ATM and the ramifications
      for waiting one more year until next ATM. Mr. Sims does not understand the rush to bring this to
      ATM. In all likelihood, the Finance Committee would be voting to postpone indefinitely, only to
      have the articles brought on the night of Town Meeting.


Article 29
   • Article 29 would establish the by-laws (being drafted by MAPC)such as horsepower limits, usage
        times etc.
        Currently, Mr. Porter stated that residents who live on the reservoir have unlimited access and
        unlimited type of watercraft usage of the reservoir.
   • Residents who do not live on the reservoir currently do not have legal access to trailer a boat for
        launching on the reservoir. When the pond was owned by Plymouth Rubber, there was easy
        access for residents to launch a boat. This no longer exists.
   • Mr. Porter stated that the situation with the pond has created two classes of citizens in Town.
   • Again, Mr. Porter stated that the information would not be available at the time the Finance
        Committee Recommendations go to the printer, but may be available for ATM. Mr. Porter
        promised that he would not be providing information to the Finance Committee three hours prior
        to the start of Town Meeting.
   • Mr. Bergschneider spoke in support of the reservoir being open to everyone, but the Finance
        Committee may be in a situation to vote the articles down.
   o Mr. Porter stated that the reason there is no by-law language in Article 29 is that the MAPC is
        supposed to be making a recommendation regarding the by-laws.
   • In response to Mr. Dorfman's inquiry regarding the financial impact of these articles, Mr. Porter
        responded that there would be no tangible financial negative impact.
   • Ms. Gustafson recalled for the members that the Williams Estate was purchased with override
        money with one of the selling points of the project was public access to the reservoir.

Articles 30 and 31
   • Mr. Porter stated that currently the Williams Estate is under the control of the Conservation
        Commission.
   s He further explained that Articles 30 and 31 are placeholders. It remains to be seen what the
        Conservation Commission is legally allowed to do with the property and what it decides to do with
        the property as far as passive recreation or active recreation.
   • Mr. Feeney clarified for the members that the Williams Estate transaction took place after the
        ADA Transition plan concluded, precluding the Williams Estate for handicapped accessibility.
        The Town is not in violation of handicapped accessibility because there is no public access.
   • Mr. Porter explained that the most ideal option would be Option #1 which is to withdraw both
        Article 30 and Article 31 because the Conservation Commission can and will support a plan that
        promotes good access to the reservoir. Option #2, if the Conservation Commission is unable to
        do this for legal reasons, then the property would be transferred to the BOS as Park
        Commissioners. Then the land swap to the BOS in Option #3 would not have to be done.
   • If the BOS has control as Park Commissioners there are more onerous rules and restrictions that
       could be placed on the property, not as onerous as conservation land but not general municipal
        purpose. Mr. Porter stated that he has been unable to obtain satisfactory clarification yet from
        Town Counsel as to the meaning because there is not a lot of case law in this particular case.
20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                     Pale 3 of 7                                   03/06/16

Mr. Porter stated that if land is removed from conservation status, the town must replace the land
         by transferring double the amount of land into conservation.
         Mr. Porter further stated that they are working in conjunction with the Conservation Commission
         and they are waiting to hear back from them.

Mr. Jim Rogers of 48 Pleasant Circle agreed that it was the right of the Town, because they owned
property on the reservoir, to have a boat ramp. However, he did not agree that just because the Town
owns the land it was not the right of anyone to just back a boat over the property and launch a boat. He
q uestioned if the Town wanted to spend a large amount of funds on building a boat ramp or use these
funds toward traffic studies, etc. He stated that if the vocal minority did indeed request to have access
that due diligence should be done costing out the project. Mr. Rogers is in favor of restricting use.

I n closing, Mr. Porter apologized to the Finance Committee that these articles were last minute and that it
was up to the Town Meeting voters to decide. As soon as information was available, such as a draft, Mr.
Porter would make this available to the Committee.


Discussion regardinq Revenue Forecast— Chair Saint Andre opened up the discussion regarding the
revenue forecast and the unused levy capacity.

Mr. Casamento read a prepared statement as follows:

    As one member of the Finance Committee, 1 believe that 6% increases are irresponsible. My concerns are as
    follows:
    -    Though the Revenue Committee believes that the absolute dollar value of their projections are sustainable,
     we cannot commit to sustaining asimilar %increase each year.
    -    Annually it seems that required raises as a result of negotiated COLAs, steps and lanes etc. alone are close
    to 3 to 3.5%.
    -    The recently completed compensation review will likely result in additional upward pressure on salaries
    and wages starting in the coming fiscal years.
    -    The Town seems ready to approve all-day Kindergarten. Though state aid increases will cover a significant
    portion of this going forward, there will still be a gap in future years.
    -    Though increases in health care costs have been kept under control over the last two years due to changes
    in the plan which put more of the cost on the employees, general trends in health care spending in the
    economy over the lastfew years suggest that this line item may continue to grow at a rate greater than
    revenues.
    -    Inflation has been just 1.4°a over the last 12 months. Energy costs have decreased 6.5%. Departments
    should be offsetting budget line-item increases with reductions in electricity &fuel line
    items. http://www.bls.gov/news.release%pi.nr0.htm

    For all of these reasons, it would be prudent to maintain a cushion (unused levy capacity)going forward to
    cover potentialfuture years when revenue projections are not so rosy. Otherwise layoffs maybe in the offing
    and nobody wants that.

    Further:
     -    We specifically kept the unused levy capacity at 1% of the total in FY16. If we decrease this to 0, the net
    effect is a 3.5% increase in taxes on the average taxpayer(net of any capital exclusion overrides.)
    -    Average wage growth in the US has been only 1.1%over the last 12
    months. http://www.bls.pov/news.release/realer.nr0.htm
    -    We need to demonstrate to the taxpayers that the Finance Committee is working for them and not simply
    approving spending increases to the max.

    1 would suggest that increases be kept to lust 4% in the municipal and school operating budgets, but would
    certainly be open to other suggestions. This would keep $1.104 M in taxpayers'pockets and limit their tax
    increases to lust 1.9°o while funding departments at rouAh/y 3x the rate of inflation.




20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                          Page 4 of 7                                         03/06/16

Ms. Gustafson spoke about the different positions the Finance Committee could take regarding the
 revenue. 1) Does the Finance Committee take the maximum levy increase allowed this year fora 3 %2%
 increase in taxes for the residents? Or 2) does the Finance Committee take less of a levy increase,
 thereby increasing taxes less in the first year, but running the risk of increasing taxes in later years?

 M r. Sims spoke in support of using the unused levy for funding capital projects, noting that capital
 spending is currently not at 6%. Mr. Murgia stated that there were three sources for funding capital
 projects: cash, debt service or free cash.

 Ms. Gustafson would like to hear from the School Department. Since revenue numbers are
 communicated to all parties, are departments basing their budgets on these estimates?

Ms. Saint Andre agreed that a 6%budget increase was too high, however, was not necessarily in support
of turning all the excess revenue back to unused levy capacity.

 M r. Murgia spoke in favor of the Finance Committee delaying their vote and waiting to meet with the
 Board of Selectmen and School Committee. He stated that it may be unfair if the Finance Committee
 were to take a vote now before hearing the needs of the BOS and School Committee.

A motion made by Mr. Casamento that the Finance Committee recommend a School Committee
budget of $37,710,394 which would represent a 4% budget increase and a Municipal Departments'
budget of $18,825,795 which would also represent a 4% budget increase was seconded by Jim Sims.

M r. Murgia stated his concern that the School Committee would seek $1 million to fund tuition free full
day kindergarten.

M r. Barker suggested an amendment fora 5% budget increase for the School Committee and Municipal
budget.

M r. Murgia stated that the Finance Committee's discussion should have taken place one month ago.
M r. Casamento responded that the budget numbers had been communicated to the School Committee
prior to the Finance Committee being made aware of the numbers. Mr. Murgia suggested that for the
future after the Revenue Forecast Committee meets, the Finance Committee would then meet and
decide the budget numbers.

Ms. Gustafson stated that the Revenue Forecast Committee has the technical expertise to estimate
revenue but that it should ultimately be the recommendation of the Finance Committee to recommend
to Annual Town Meeting a budget that is sustainable.

An amended motion made by Mr. Casamento that the Finance Committee recommend a School
Committee target budget number of $37,710,394 which would represent a 4% budget increase and a
M unicipal Departments' target budget number of $18,825,795 which would also represent a 4%
budget increase was seconded by Jim Sims. Vote: 8-2-0. Mr. Barker and Ms. Gallagher voted in
opposition to this motion.



AAA Bond Rating —Sale of Bonds &Notes Requests —Due to the lack of time there was no
discussion regardin~ the recent AAA Bond Rating. The topic would be added to the agenda for the next
meeting on March 8".


20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                      Page 5 of 7                                    03/06/16

D.      Other Business/Open Issues

 Liaison Reports — As the liaison to the Conservation Commission, Mr. Sims reported that it was
 confirmed the Conservation Commission places legal notices in the Patriot Ledger if the deadline for the
 Canton Citizen has already passed. He also reported that the Conservation Commission allows
 applicants to place legal ads as well but at their own expense.

         Approval of Minutes

There were no minutes approved at the meeting. The February 4t", February 18th and February 2gtn
minutes would be approved at a future meeting.

F.    Next Meeting Date: The next meeting would take place on Tuesday, March 8th in the Library
Community Room.


Adjournment: A motion made by Mr. Bergschneider to adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m. was
seconded by Mr. Dorfman. Vote: 10-0-0.

Minutes reviewed by: Tim McKenna

Res ectfully submitted,



Bar a a aintAndre
Chair, Canton Finance Committee




20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                      Page 6 of 7                                   03/06/16

Town of Canton
                          ~uU~~~Uv~~ ~~rr~mittee Meeting —Thursday, March 3, 2016

                                        fist of Meeting Handouts


Please note: ~► G~ese meeting handouts may also be four~~ ~n the Town's website under ~G~e Posted
Minutes section (Laser Fs~~e).

Agenda (1 page).

Blue Hills Regional Technical School —Proposed 2016-2017 Operating Budget dated 2/18/16 (22 pages).

Blue Hills Regional Technical School —Proposed Member Town Assessments 2016-2017 dated 2/23/16
(15 pages).

BHRTS -Municipal Assessment History Fact Sheet —Canton (1 page).

Summary of Revenues and Expenditures dated 1/29/16 (7 pages).

Email from Jim Murgia to Barbara Saint Andre regarding Bond Rating March 2016 (1 page).

Standard & Poor's Rating Services —Bond Rating Report dated March 1, 2016 (7 pages).




20160303 FINCOM MINUTES                      Pale 7 of 7                               03/06/16