Select Board Regular Meeting Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM
Select Board Regular Meeting
Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM
Remote Meeting
AGENDA
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public are being made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law.
ORDER SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW 3-12-2020.PDF
Join Zoom Meeting
Participate in the meeting remotely via Zoom HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/93672896630?PWD=OXP5YWTWYWFZZWPSS3N1Z2PBAXB1ZZ09 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278 Or call 1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278
Open Meeting, Announce Remote Participation Method and Meeting Conduct Update on COVID-19 Announcements
August 17 2020 Announcements
Documents:
ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR 8-17-2020 (1).PDF
Longmeadow Public Schools Reopening Plan Resident Comments Interview for Conservation Commission
Documents:
APPLICATION-BERMAN.PDF
Select Board Comments Town Manager's Report
Town Managers 8 17 20 Report
Documents:
TOWN MANAGER REPORT AUGUST 17, 2020.PDF
July Reports from Departments
Documents:
ADULT CENTER JULY REPORT.PDF BOH REPORT JULY 2020.PDF BUILDING MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2020.PDF DPW JULY 2020.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 20.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 21.PDF FINANCE MONTHLY REPORT - 2020 JULY.PDF FINANCE NET METERING CREDITS - CUMULATIVE.PDF FINANCE-EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER PRIMARY.PDF FIRE DEPT JULY 2020 RPT.PDF LIBRARY JULY 2020.PDF PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2020.PDF POLICE REPORT JULY 2020.PDF VETERANS JULY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT.PDF
Old Business
1 Approve Minutes
Documents:
08 03 2020 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES.PDF 08 07 2020 DRAFT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
2 Review Updated Liaison Assignments
Documents:
LIAISONS FY21 TO BDS AND COMM.PDF
3 Charter Discussion
Documents:
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.PDF STRUCTURAL CHANGES LOCAL GOVT IN MA.PDF
4 Racism as a Public Health Crisis Working Group Update
Documents:
LONGMEADOW COALITION FOR RACIAL JUSTICE.PDF
5 Policy on Overhead Wires Discussion
Documents:
LEGAL OPINION ON OVERHEAD WIRES.PDF
New Business
1 Review Colvest Agreement for Longmeadow Street
Documents:
COLVEST LONGMEADOW LLC-AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE.PDF
2 Approve Residents' Requests for Change of Address
Documents:
ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH PICTURES.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH-WELLESLEY.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-TWINBROOK CIRCLE.PDF
3 Quarterly Investment Report Review
Documents:
SB IP QTR REPORT COVER JUNE 2020.PDF INVESTMENT POLICY QRTLY REPORTS JUNE 2020.PDF
4 Audit Correction Report
Documents:
AUDIT CORRECTION REPORT FY 2019.PDF
5 Baystate Gas/Columbia Gas Sale to Eversource Letter from Select Board
Documents:
EVERSOURCE-COLUMBIA GAS SALE.PDF
6 Water Supply Discussion
Documents:
WATER SUPPLY DISCUSSION.PDF
Correspondence
Letters from Comcast, D Martel, A Miller
Documents:
COMCAST LETTER 7 31 20.PDF LETTER FROM D MARTEL.PDF EMAIL FROM A MILLER.PDF
Executive Session
Vote to enter into Executive Session in accordance with MGL Chapter 30A, Section 21(a) (3) to discuss strategy with regard to anticipated litigation relative to the new DPW facility, Pride Limited Partnership, and Gas related matters, discussion of which in open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town and the Chair so declares, not to reconvene in open session. Also, approval and vote on minutes from June 24, 2020 and July 6, 2020
Adjourn
~ The listing of matters are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. ~ Select Board Regular Meeting
Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM
Remote Meeting
AGENDA
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public are being made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law.
ORDER SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW 3-12-2020.PDF
Join Zoom Meeting
Participate in the meeting remotely via Zoom HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/93672896630?PWD=OXP5YWTWYWFZZWPSS3N1Z2PBAXB1ZZ09 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278 Or call 1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278
Open Meeting, Announce Remote Participation Method and Meeting Conduct Update on COVID-19 Announcements
August 17 2020 Announcements
Documents:
ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR 8-17-2020 (1).PDF
Longmeadow Public Schools Reopening Plan Resident Comments Interview for Conservation Commission
Documents:
APPLICATION-BERMAN.PDF
Select Board Comments Town Manager's Report
Town Managers 8 17 20 Report
Documents:
TOWN MANAGER REPORT AUGUST 17, 2020.PDF
July Reports from Departments
Documents:
ADULT CENTER JULY REPORT.PDF BOH REPORT JULY 2020.PDF BUILDING MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2020.PDF DPW JULY 2020.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 20.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 21.PDF FINANCE MONTHLY REPORT - 2020 JULY.PDF FINANCE NET METERING CREDITS - CUMULATIVE.PDF FINANCE-EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER PRIMARY.PDF FIRE DEPT JULY 2020 RPT.PDF LIBRARY JULY 2020.PDF PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2020.PDF POLICE REPORT JULY 2020.PDF VETERANS JULY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT.PDF
Old Business
1 Approve Minutes
Documents:
08 03 2020 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES.PDF 08 07 2020 DRAFT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
2 Review Updated Liaison Assignments
Documents:
LIAISONS FY21 TO BDS AND COMM.PDF
3 Charter Discussion
Documents:
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.PDF STRUCTURAL CHANGES LOCAL GOVT IN MA.PDF
4 Racism as a Public Health Crisis Working Group Update
Documents:
LONGMEADOW COALITION FOR RACIAL JUSTICE.PDF
5 Policy on Overhead Wires Discussion
Documents:
LEGAL OPINION ON OVERHEAD WIRES.PDF
New Business
1 Review Colvest Agreement for Longmeadow Street
Documents:
COLVEST LONGMEADOW LLC-AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE.PDF
2 Approve Residents' Requests for Change of Address
Documents:
ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH PICTURES.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH-WELLESLEY.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-TWINBROOK CIRCLE.PDF
3 Quarterly Investment Report Review
Documents:
SB IP QTR REPORT COVER JUNE 2020.PDF INVESTMENT POLICY QRTLY REPORTS JUNE 2020.PDF
4 Audit Correction Report
Documents:
AUDIT CORRECTION REPORT FY 2019.PDF
5 Baystate Gas/Columbia Gas Sale to Eversource Letter from Select Board
Documents:
EVERSOURCE-COLUMBIA GAS SALE.PDF
6 Water Supply Discussion
Documents:
WATER SUPPLY DISCUSSION.PDF
Correspondence
Letters from Comcast, D Martel, A Miller
Documents:
COMCAST LETTER 7 31 20.PDF LETTER FROM D MARTEL.PDF EMAIL FROM A MILLER.PDF
Executive Session
Vote to enter into Executive Session in accordance with MGL Chapter 30A, Section 21(a) (3) to discuss strategy with regard to anticipated litigation relative to the new DPW facility, Pride Limited Partnership, and Gas related matters, discussion of which in open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town and the Chair so declares, not to reconvene in open session. Also, approval and vote on minutes from June 24, 2020 and July 6, 2020
Adjourn
~ The listing of matters are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. ~ Select Board Regular Meeting
Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM
Remote Meeting
AGENDA
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public are being made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law.
ORDER SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW 3-12-2020.PDF
Join Zoom Meeting
Participate in the meeting remotely via Zoom HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/93672896630?PWD=OXP5YWTWYWFZZWPSS3N1Z2PBAXB1ZZ09 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278 Or call 1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278
Open Meeting, Announce Remote Participation Method and Meeting Conduct Update on COVID-19 Announcements
August 17 2020 Announcements
Documents:
ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR 8-17-2020 (1).PDF
Longmeadow Public Schools Reopening Plan Resident Comments Interview for Conservation Commission
Documents:
APPLICATION-BERMAN.PDF
Select Board Comments Town Manager's Report
Town Managers 8 17 20 Report
Documents:
TOWN MANAGER REPORT AUGUST 17, 2020.PDF
July Reports from Departments
Documents:
ADULT CENTER JULY REPORT.PDF BOH REPORT JULY 2020.PDF BUILDING MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2020.PDF DPW JULY 2020.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 20.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 21.PDF FINANCE MONTHLY REPORT - 2020 JULY.PDF FINANCE NET METERING CREDITS - CUMULATIVE.PDF FINANCE-EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER PRIMARY.PDF FIRE DEPT JULY 2020 RPT.PDF LIBRARY JULY 2020.PDF PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2020.PDF POLICE REPORT JULY 2020.PDF VETERANS JULY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT.PDF
Old Business
1 Approve Minutes
Documents:
08 03 2020 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES.PDF 08 07 2020 DRAFT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
2 Review Updated Liaison Assignments
Documents:
LIAISONS FY21 TO BDS AND COMM.PDF
3 Charter Discussion
Documents:
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.PDF STRUCTURAL CHANGES LOCAL GOVT IN MA.PDF
4 Racism as a Public Health Crisis Working Group Update
Documents:
LONGMEADOW COALITION FOR RACIAL JUSTICE.PDF
5 Policy on Overhead Wires Discussion
Documents:
LEGAL OPINION ON OVERHEAD WIRES.PDF
New Business
1 Review Colvest Agreement for Longmeadow Street
Documents:
COLVEST LONGMEADOW LLC-AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE.PDF
2 Approve Residents' Requests for Change of Address
Documents:
ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH PICTURES.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH-WELLESLEY.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-TWINBROOK CIRCLE.PDF
3 Quarterly Investment Report Review
Documents:
SB IP QTR REPORT COVER JUNE 2020.PDF INVESTMENT POLICY QRTLY REPORTS JUNE 2020.PDF
4 Audit Correction Report
Documents:
AUDIT CORRECTION REPORT FY 2019.PDF
5 Baystate Gas/Columbia Gas Sale to Eversource Letter from Select Board
Documents:
EVERSOURCE-COLUMBIA GAS SALE.PDF
6 Water Supply Discussion
Documents:
WATER SUPPLY DISCUSSION.PDF
Correspondence
Letters from Comcast, D Martel, A Miller
Documents:
COMCAST LETTER 7 31 20.PDF LETTER FROM D MARTEL.PDF EMAIL FROM A MILLER.PDF
Executive Session
Vote to enter into Executive Session in accordance with MGL Chapter 30A, Section 21(a) (3) to discuss strategy with regard to anticipated litigation relative to the new DPW facility, Pride Limited Partnership, and Gas related matters, discussion of which in open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town and the Chair so declares, not to reconvene in open session. Also, approval and vote on minutes from June 24, 2020 and July 6, 2020
Adjourn
~ The listing of matters are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. ~ Select Board Regular Meeting
Monday, August 17, 2020 7:00 PM
Remote Meeting
AGENDA
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public are being made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law.
ORDER SUSPENDING CERTAIN PROVISION OF THE OPEN MEETING LAW 3-12-2020.PDF
Join Zoom Meeting
Participate in the meeting remotely via Zoom HTTPS://ZOOM.US/J/93672896630?PWD=OXP5YWTWYWFZZWPSS3N1Z2PBAXB1ZZ09 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278 Or call 1 646 558 8656 Meeting ID: 936 7289 6630 Passcode: 242278
Open Meeting, Announce Remote Participation Method and Meeting Conduct Update on COVID-19 Announcements
August 17 2020 Announcements
Documents:
ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR 8-17-2020 (1).PDF
Longmeadow Public Schools Reopening Plan Resident Comments Interview for Conservation Commission
Documents:
APPLICATION-BERMAN.PDF
Select Board Comments Town Manager's Report
Town Managers 8 17 20 Report
Documents:
TOWN MANAGER REPORT AUGUST 17, 2020.PDF
July Reports from Departments
Documents:
ADULT CENTER JULY REPORT.PDF BOH REPORT JULY 2020.PDF BUILDING MONTHLY REPORT JULY 2020.PDF DPW JULY 2020.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 20.PDF FINANCE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FY 21.PDF FINANCE MONTHLY REPORT - 2020 JULY.PDF FINANCE NET METERING CREDITS - CUMULATIVE.PDF FINANCE-EARLY VOTING SCHEDULE SEPTEMBER PRIMARY.PDF FIRE DEPT JULY 2020 RPT.PDF LIBRARY JULY 2020.PDF PARKS AND RECREATION JULY 2020.PDF POLICE REPORT JULY 2020.PDF VETERANS JULY 2020 MONTHLY REPORT.PDF
Old Business
1 Approve Minutes
Documents:
08 03 2020 DRAFT MEETING MINUTES.PDF 08 07 2020 DRAFT SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES.PDF
2 Review Updated Liaison Assignments
Documents:
LIAISONS FY21 TO BDS AND COMM.PDF
3 Charter Discussion
Documents:
FORMS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.PDF STRUCTURAL CHANGES LOCAL GOVT IN MA.PDF
4 Racism as a Public Health Crisis Working Group Update
Documents:
LONGMEADOW COALITION FOR RACIAL JUSTICE.PDF
5 Policy on Overhead Wires Discussion
Documents:
LEGAL OPINION ON OVERHEAD WIRES.PDF
New Business
1 Review Colvest Agreement for Longmeadow Street
Documents:
COLVEST LONGMEADOW LLC-AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS MAINTENANCE.PDF
2 Approve Residents' Requests for Change of Address
Documents:
ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH PICTURES.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-FRANK SMITH-WELLESLEY.PDF ADDRESS CHANGE REQUEST-TWINBROOK CIRCLE.PDF
3 Quarterly Investment Report Review
Documents:
SB IP QTR REPORT COVER JUNE 2020.PDF INVESTMENT POLICY QRTLY REPORTS JUNE 2020.PDF
4 Audit Correction Report
Documents:
AUDIT CORRECTION REPORT FY 2019.PDF
5 Baystate Gas/Columbia Gas Sale to Eversource Letter from Select Board
Documents:
EVERSOURCE-COLUMBIA GAS SALE.PDF
6 Water Supply Discussion
Documents:
WATER SUPPLY DISCUSSION.PDF
Correspondence
Letters from Comcast, D Martel, A Miller
Documents:
COMCAST LETTER 7 31 20.PDF LETTER FROM D MARTEL.PDF EMAIL FROM A MILLER.PDF
Executive Session
Vote to enter into Executive Session in accordance with MGL Chapter 30A, Section 21(a) (3) to discuss strategy with regard to anticipated litigation relative to the new DPW facility, Pride Limited Partnership, and Gas related matters, discussion of which in open meeting may have a detrimental effect on the litigating position of the Town and the Chair so declares, not to reconvene in open session. Also, approval and vote on minutes from June 24, 2020 and July 6, 2020
Adjourn
~ The listing of matters are those reasonably anticipated by the Chair which may be discussed at the meeting. Not all items listed may in fact be discussed and other items not listed may also be brought up for discussion to the extent permitted by law. ~ Announcements for August 17, 2020 Select Board meeting Vote by Mail Update The ballots for the September 1st State Primary Election began to be mailed out on Thursday, August 6th. Currently there are many ballots to be mailed out and it will take time to process all of the requests. Starting on Monday a team of town employees will be mobilized to help with the packaging of ballots to be mailed out and it is anticipated that all of the completed applications received so far will be in the mail by August 14th. It is very likely that not all ballots for the same household will be delivered by the post office on the same day. If that happens, please give the mail a couple of days to catch up before calling the Town Clerk. The deadline to apply for a vote by mail ballot is August 27th and the deadline to return the ballot is by 8:00 pm on Election Day, Tuesday, September 1, 2020. Ballots can be returned by mail in the postage paid, pre- addressed envelope provided in the packet being mailed out. Alternatively, ballots can be dropped off at the Town Hall in the drop box to the right of the front door. Voting Location Change Greenwood Center is the polling location for both the September 1, 2020 and November 3, 2020 Elections. A town-wide call will be done to notify all residents.
Town of Longmeadow State Primary – September 1, 2020
Early Voting will take place from: August 22, 2020 – August 28, 2020 Location: Over 60 Room, Adult Center 231 Maple Road, Longmeadow, MA 01106 Hours: Saturday, August 22, 2020 8:00 am - noon Sunday, August 23, 2020 9:00 am – 1:00 pm Monday, August 24, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Tuesday, August 25, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:00 am – 7:00 pm Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Friday, August 28, 2020 8:00 am – 1:00 pm
Town of Longmeadow, Massachusetts 20 Williams Street, Longmeadow, MA 01106
Tel. (413) 565-4110 l Fax (413) 565-4112
TO: Chairman Lachiusa and Members of the Select Board
FROM: Lyn N. Simmons, Town Manager
DATE: August 17, 2020
SUBJECT: Town Manager Report
COVID-19 Coronavirus – Updates will continue to be available on the Town’s dedicated COVID-19 coronavirus website www.longmeadow.org/coronavirus
Tropical Storm Isaias Update A town-wide cleanup has been discussed but no decision has been made yet. The ability to provide a town wide cleanup is complicated right now because we have limited crews available (partially due to vacations and illness). We have a contract with Northern Tree to provide tree cleanup and after working in the town for 6 days they had to move on to Connecticut to assist with storm cleanup. The wood chipper used by the DPW broke and was out of service for several days while we had parts overnighted to fix it. In the interim we had a rent equipment from Northern Tree to continue with cleanup work. If a cleanup is scheduled it will only include tree branches with a diameter of 6” or greater. All smaller debris or small piles of yard waste will need to be disposed of by the homeowner. With the increase in severe weather events over the past year, a clear plan/policy needs to be developed on the expectation of residents and the Town related to storm debris cleanup.
Building Permit Software The Building Department’s new permitting software program “PermitLink” has launched. Residents can now go online to apply for permits including fence, accessory structure, building, plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits. The online payment option will be launched in a few weeks.
Knollwood Sidewalk Project The sidewalk project is substantially complete. Wolf Swamp Fields The Wolf Swamp Fields renovation project has gone out to bid. Responses are due by August 20, 2020.
LED Streetlights The second phase of the streetlight conversion project is substantially complete. If an issue is noticed please email the DPW at [email protected]. Street light failures or other issues should be reported to the Longmeadow DPW (through their web page at http://www.longmeadow.org/1176/Streetlights) or by phone at 413-567-3400.
WestCOMM State 911 has awarded WestCOMM a $2.6 million development grant and a $2.3 support and incentive grant. The development grant award contains the community assessments and money for renovation of a new facility.
Morningside Drive Culvert Replacement Project DPW had a pre-construction meeting on July 31 with the contractor (Aqua Line Utility Inc.) and DPC Consulting for the project. Work is likely to start the first week of September. Installation of erosion and sedimentation controls may begin sooner.
META Grant With the help of Select Board member Gold, Town Engineer Keane, and members of the Energy & Sustainability Committee I will be submitting a Municipal Energy Technical Assistance Grant to the Green Communities division of Mass Department of Energy Resources this week. We are applying for grant funding for a feasibility analysis, conceptual level clean energy plan and high-level business case for a contemplated community shared solar project at the soon-to-be former DPW location.
Eagle Scout Project The decommissioned WWII memorial at Town Hall was removed. The area will be restored with plantings and the flagpole will remain.
The BOARD OF HEALTH reports the following activities for the month of July, 2020:
ITEMS OF NOTE 1. Regionalization/Shared Services: ● Awaiting vote of East Longmeadow Town Council to approve Intermunicipal Agreement for Shared Services ● No forward progress on the Community Health Assessment or other grant deliverables due to the COVID response 2. Loss of revenue due to cancelled inspections and services that generate fees, insurance payments (i.e. reimbursement for vaccinations); and loss of permit revenue (e.g. camp permits) due to Covid-19.
ITEMIZATION OF MONTHLY ACTIVITIES
COVID -19 RESPONSE: Case interviewing and monitoring; contact identification and monitoring; written orders imposing and releasing isolation and quarantine. COVID tagging of addresses to prevent unprotected exposures of Longmeadow first responders. Continued need to change protocols as CDC and MDPH issued updated guidance. Technical assistance provided to several businesses, houses of worship, Longmeadow Schools and other sectors on protocols to conform with Governor’s Orders Enforcement actions (warnings) regarding violations of Governor’s Orders Assistance to Town HR, Town Departments, in regard to employee health issues Technical assistance to residents on Covid questions Permitting packets mailed to all annual permittees Other Business
Immunization Program: reconciling payments with last year’s outstanding Accts. Receivables; review plans for clinics to conform to COVID guidance On-boarding new surge nurse: Longmeadow specifications Planning purchase with IT of security software for communication of HIPPA –protected info and appointment-scheduling software for future immunization clinics
Public Health Nursing Services: Surge Public Health Nurse (contractor) worked remotely solely on case and contact identification and monitoring.
Blood Pressure/Blood Glucose Adult Screenings (0), TB tests (0), Home visits (0), Immunizations (0), Extended Private Office Counseling Sessions (0)
Health Director’s Inspections: Food inspections (2), school inspections (0), nuisance (0), housing (0), septic (2), pools (0), camps (0), tobacco (), elder/child abuse (0), Compliance with COVID Orders (2 complaints) Monthly Receipts of JULY, 2020 Monthly Receipts: Board of Health
FEES S
Immunizations/ Handicapped Other Fines Food Septic Health POOL Tobacco Trash Methyl TB Tests Nursing Club Hauler Alcohol ```````` TB tests: Screening Food $ Service: S Illegal Permit Sale of Septic Fees IMMUNIZATION: Retail Sharps Tobacco Inspec- Retail Food: Take- tion Tobacco back:/ 0.00 Prior to $0.00 Sale of sale of Sharps Milk: resid- Disposal 0.00 ence: Kits: Res. Kitchen: $0.00 Installer: Mobile Food 330.00
Temp Food Hauler (Farmers Market
Outdoor: No Service:
With Service:
Bakery: $0.00 The Planning and Community Development/Building Department reports its activities for the month of July 2020 as follows:
Project Updates:
Work Activities: Problem properties were as follows: 1607 Longmeadow Street, over grown, trash. 125 bushes encroaching on sidewalk. 1280 Williams, bushes encroaching sidewalk. 733 Laurel, bushes encroaching sidewalk. 875 Williams, bushes encroaching sidewalk. 15 White Oaks, bushes encroaching sidewalk. 769 Williams, bushed encroaching sidewalk. 8 Williamsburg, bushes encroaching sidewalk. 27 Nevins, fence too high. 107 Wenonah. Vacant abandoned property. 927 Converse, vacant abandoned property. 133 Tedford, rental property, long grass, neglected. 1198 Longmeadow Street, wood chipper parked in driveway. 454 Maple Road, boat in driveway. 392 Bliss road, commercial vehicle parked overnight. 455 Laurel Street, cars parked all over the lawn. This month this department issued the following permits: 58 Building Permits 25 Electrical Permits 8 Plumbing Permits 13 Gas Permits 12 Fence Permits 2 Sheet Metal Permits
No new special permit applications this month,
Other Items of Note: I had two Housing court dates via Zoom this month. The first one got continued. This was for 194 Bliss Road. We came to an agreement for the town to forgive the fines issued in return for compliance with the bylaws moving forward, in particular the parking of a commercial vehicle on the property overnight. The defendant agreed to park his truck in a fully enclosed garage overnight and to keep the property clear of any other construction equipment.
The new permitting software is going well. We are finding little issue every now and again but are able to get them taken care of quickly. I filled in in East Longmeadow while their Commissioner was on vacation. He came back for two days in the middle so the work load was light. Performance Measures:
LOG OF DEPARTMENTAL PAYMENTS
MONTH OF: JULY 2020
1-Jul-20 6-Jul-20 13-Jul-20 20-Jul-20 27-Jul-20 Monthly
W/E Date: 3-Jul-20 10-Jul-20 17-Jul-20 24-Jul-20 31-Jul-20 Total Building permits 610.00 1175.00 1195.00 2657.00 1755.00 7392.00 Electric permits 110.00 440.00 660.00 1100.00 2310.00 Plumbing permits 385.00 257.50 642.50 Gas permits 55.00 110.00 275.00 110.00 257.50 807.50
Fence permits 200.00 100.00 300.00
Tent permits 0.00 State inspections 180.00 120.00 60.00 360.00 Building permit fines 0.00 Electric billed 0.00 Plumbing billed 0.00 Gas billed 55.00 55.00 55.00 165.00 Sheet Metal Permits 110.00 110.00 Foreclosed Prop. Reg 100.00 100.00 Rental Property Registration 300.00 100.00 100.00 400.00 900.00 Vacant/Abandon Prop. Reg 100.00 100.00 Zoning By-Law Books 0.00 Weights & Measures 560.00 560.00 Planning board filing fees 0.00 Planning board notice of intent 0.00 Planning board subdivision plan 0.00 Planning board site plan review 0.00 Misc. revenue 0.00
Monthly 775.00 2260.00 3295.00 3432.00 3985.00 13,747.00
Next Month: I was out on vacation from August 3 through August 7. We hope to launch the public side of our permitting software sometime in August. We are waiting for the company that will receive payments by credit card to get us set up. I have had inquiries about putting a brewery in one of the spaces at 945 Shaker Road. Looks like a small time operation with only sales on the premises. We will be sending out certificate of inspections forms to all the establishments that serve alcohol on the premises. We send out the forms requesting payment usually one month before they are due. I will monitor the properties at 191 Pinewood Drive, 68 Pinewood Hills and 194 Bliss Road for compliance with signed agreements from Housing Court. The first two addresses were from a previous Housing Court case for the same violation, (parking a commercial vehicle in the driveway overnight). DPW Monthly Report July 2020
Converse Street Pavement Preservation Project: The Engineering Department has resubmitted the 75% design plan to MassDOT for review and approval in April. The redesign was completed to meet the new Health and Safety Directive and the Bike/Pedestrian requirements.
The scope of work includes: Road widening to meet bike/pedestrian safety requirement Milling and paving 2.0 miles of road from Laurel Street to Dwight Road New sidewalk construction Improving wheelchair ramps to meet ADA requirements Replacing CB and MH frames and covers New line striping MPO and MassDOT have advanced the project to FY2016. In November, the Town Manager, DPW staff and Select Board Chair met with MassDOT officials to discuss the project and schedule. The Town officials were told how MassDOT will be completing their survey of Converse Street in December. The MassDOT officials explained that a number of easement will (likely) be needed for sidewalk work as the project progress. In December the DPW developed a preliminary list of residents who will be affected by the easements. DPW has received the States survey and is verifying the list of residents needing easements. DPW secured VHB Engineering to assist with this project. VHB has put together a project schedule (required by MassDOT) and is working on the Right of Way plan. DPW has put together a bid to solicit vendors to do appraisal and review appraisal work for the properties that will be affected by the construction of the new sidewalks. The bid opened in March and was awarded to Joseph Flanagan to conduct appraisal work, and Mario Leslie to conduct the review appraisal work. The appraisal estimates are due by the end of April. Concurrently DPW continued to work with VHB to submit plans for the Design Public Hearing (DPH). MassDOT has approved those plans. The DPH was held at the Community House on April 27 at 7pm. Three residents attended the meeting. Temporary easement valuations were also received in April. DPW drafted a special warrant article for Annual Town Meeting on May 10th asking the Town to grant the temporary easements with a value of approximately $22,000. The Town approved the warrant article. DPW, in conjunction with the Town Manager and Town Counsel, drafted and mailed the affected Converse Street residents notice of the project, a Just Compensation report for the easements, and a copy of the appraisal report. DPW expects to receive signed permission from the affected property owners in June. DPW has continued to work with VHB to formalize our 100% plans for MassDOT. Those plans were submitted to MassDOT on June 21st. MassDOT notified us that the easement documents mentioned above needed to be notarized. Since that didn’t happen, the only logical thing to do is to hold a Special Town Meeting in July to get town permission to take the easements. The Select Board approved the Special Town Meeting and it was scheduled for July 26, 2016. At the Special Town Meeting, the 100+ residents that showed up, voted overwhelmingly to approve the Order of Taking for the easements needed for the project. The project went out to bid on the week of August 21st. Bids were opened on November 9th. Baltazar Contractors Inc, of Ludlow, Ma. was the low bidder at $3,767,622. The project is scheduled to start in the spring of 2017. A preconstruction meeting with MassDOT and Baltazar Contractors was held at the District II office in Northampton on February 17th. All stakeholders were present. At that time, Baltazar communicated that they wanted to start the project on April 3rd. In March the DPW confirmed the project will start on April 3rd. The project started on time. Baltazar began the project by replacing the storm drainage structures, road widening (in a few locations) and sidewalk installations. DPW meets with MassDOT and Baltazar every week to discuss: the progression of the project, the schedule, and any issues that come up. Through May, the project is ahead of schedule and no major cost overruns have been noted. In June, the project remains ahead of schedule and on budget. With the approval of the new DPW facility at Grande Meadow’s tennis facility, we’ve been working with Baltazar to install a water line from Converse Street into the site before paving begins. (The existing building receives its water from Springfield via Dwight Road. In July the new water main was installed and the base course of asphalt was laid. *In August, Baltazar completed the berm installation, backfill the treebelts with loam and planted seeds. DPW began the oversight of residential irrigation repairs that were broken during construction. *In September, Baltazar began the installation of the Rapid Flashing Beacons and the new traffic signal at the Dickinson Road intersection. In October we are expecting the signal and the rapid Flashing Beacons to be completed as well as the final course of pavement. *In October, the new signal at Dickinson Road was completed and activated for a 30 day trial. In addition to the new signal, the final course of pavement was installed. In November, Baltazar is expected to complete: line striping, install signage, and pave the side streets as well as the driveways. A final project “walk through” is expected at the end of November or early December. *In November, Baltazar completed the side street and driveway paving as well as the majority of the line striping. On November 30th, VHB inspected the traffic signal at Converse and Dickinson. Two of the traffic detectors were found to be out of alignment. The cameras we adjusted and the intersection worked as designed. Sign installation is expected on December 18th and the final walk through is scheduled for December 21st. *In signs we not installed in December. Therefore, the final walk through has been postponed until that is completed. In talking with MassDOT, it is likely that the sign installation may be delayed until spring. *No update in January *In February, the final walk through was (again) postponed due to a snow storm. *On March 28th the final walk through took place with MassDOT, VHB and the DPW. A handful of smaller items (signage, lawn restorations, etc.) were discovered and put on a “punch list” for Baltazar to follow up on. Two larger items were also discussed; crumbling sidewalks and tracked pavement marking. DPW is going to write a letter to MassDOT asking them to remove and replace the crumbling sidewalks and to sandblast the tracked pavement markings. *On April 6th a letter was drafted and send to Richard Masse, Acting District 2 Director, asking the State to replace the crumbling sidewalks and to fix the tracked pavement. No response has been received (yet). *No update in May. *In June we were told that MassDOT is going to replace all the crumbing sidewalks. The replacement work is expected in last July or early August. *Despite reaching out to MassDOT multiple times in July, we have not been told when the sidewalk slab replacements will be installed. *In August, we are still waiting on MassDOT for confirmation on the new sidewalk construction. We have reached out to MassDOT several times. Each time we get a similar response; “Currently we are waiting on the results from the main DOT lab in Hopkinton. We don't want to replace 1400 SY of sidewalk to have the same issue happen again. I'll update you as I receive the information.” *No update in September *No update in October *No update in November *In December, MassDOT reports that they plan to meet with Baltazar in January to resolve the sidewalk issues. Once agreed upon, MassDOT will relay the plan. *No update in January *No update in February *In March DPW was told by MassDOT the crumbling sidewalks would be replaced “soon”. *No update in April *No update in May *In June, Garrett Postema, MassDOT Project Manager, provided this update; “On June 17th MassDOT sent Baltazar an official letter requesting a repair/replacement procedure and schedule for the sidewalks. I have yet to hear what their response was.” *No update in July *In August, DPW reached out to MassDOT for an update. No response was received by the report deadline. *No update in September *No update in October *No update in November *In December, DPW reached out to MassDOT asking for an update on the sidewalk repairs. No response was received by the due date of the report. *In January, MassDOT replied stating that there is no new information. *In February, DPW reached out to higher level manager at MassDOT, James Hoey, for an update. Mr. Hoey indicated that Baltazar will be back this construction season to replace the affected sidewalks. *No update in April *In May, I reached out to MassDOT for an update. No response was received by the report due date. *In June, James Hoey told me that they still expect the repair work to occur this construction season. Mr. Hoey didn’t have a definitive timeline on when it would happen. *No update in July
Longmeadow Street Pavement Preservation Project The DPW Engineering Division submitted a project to Mass DOT to upgrade Longmeadow Street from Converse Street to the Enfield town line. The 25% design plan was submitted in March 2014 and the Engineering Department is responding to and redesigning aspects based on comments received. The project estimate is $2.5M and involves paving 2.8 miles of road, sidewalk construction to close the gaps so the walks run continuously from project start to end, installation of ADA compliant wheelchair ramps replacement of catch basin tops and manhole frames and covers and placement of new pavement markings. The town will pay engineering and design expense and the state will fund construction. MassDOT has this programmed as part of the 2020 TIP. In December, DPW initiated a discussion with MassDOT regarding the possibility of including the traffic signal improvements listed below (numbers 1, 2 and 4) as part of this TIP project. In January, the DPW completed the Project Notification Form (PNF) to formally request that these intersections be added to the project. In February, the DPW and Town Manager met with Jeff Hoynoski, P.E. and Michael Bolduc of MassDOT District II to discuss the PNF. Mr. Hoynoski indicated that the project will likely be received well and advised us to move forward with advancement. At this time, engineering staff plans to work with VHB Engineers to complete a more thorough cost estimate and more detailed concept plans for MassDOT review in July. VHB has also been asked to prepare a complete proposal for design and coordination efforts. DPW has reached out to two other engineering firms to provide a design proposal for Longmeadow Street. Those proposals are due back in early summer. In June, two of the proposals were received. In July, the last one was received. Now that we have them, we will begin to evaluate them. *In August – DPW began to evaluate the proposals. *In September – DPW awarded the work to VHB. Correction – the work was awarded to Fuss and O’Neill (FO) *In October, DPW worked with the town procurement office to finalize a contract with FO. In November, FO is scheduled to survey of the project (weather permitting). *No update in December *In February, the DPW completed and submitted the Transportation Evaluation Criteria scoring for the PVPC meeting on February 20th. At the meeting, the scored was discussed with MassDOT and PVPC. The projects scoring was viewed favorably relative to other projects reviewed at that meeting. The favorable outlook helps the project advance on MassDOT’s Transportation Improvement Program list. *In March, the DPW learned that the project was assigned to the 2023 TIP. Fuss and O’Neill continue the design work with a 25% plan expected this summer. *No update in April *No update in May *In June, Fuss and O’Neill requested to delay the 25% design plan until fall with the Public Design Hearing in early 2019. DPW agreed. *No update in August *In August, we setup a meeting with a Land Attorney to help us determine who (in Springfield, DPW vs Park Dept.) owns the section of road between Interstate 91 and the Longmeadow Town line. This information is needed to get approval on the new signal, traffic pattern and sidewalks. The meeting is setup for September 11th. *On September 11th, the Town met with a land attorney to describe the portion of land in question. Later in the month the land attorney called to say the early research looks like the land is park land therefore has Article 97 protections. Further research is needed. Once completed, the land attorney will write an option. The design work is on hold until this is completed. *In October, FO reworked the intersection so the land taking at Forest Park is not needed. The design work is progressing with a tentative 25% design public meeting in the summer 2019. *In November a pre-25% meeting was setup with MassDOT and town officials to discuss the 25% submission. That meeting is scheduled for December 13th. *In December, the pre-25% meeting was held at the District 2 office. At the meeting, Town Officials, FO and MassDOT officials discussed concepts related to the 3 traffic intersections including traffic signals and sidewalks with the goal of having a Design Public Hearing sometime in the summer of 2019. *No update in January *In February, FO delivered the 25% design submittal to the DPW. DPW has begun its review of the submittal. The Design Public Meeting is expected to take place in during the summer 2019. *The 25% design submittal was sent to MassDOT for their review. *No update in April *No update in May *No update in June *No update in July *No update in August *In September, the 25% designs comments were send back to FO to respond to/update plans. *In October, FO continued to work on the design comments and plan updates. *In November, FO finished updating the design and plans. Next step is for MassDOT to schedule a 25% public meeting. *On December 15th, MassDOT District 2 approval memo was sent to Boston for the Chief Engineer’s approval. Once approved, the 25% public meeting can be scheduled. *On January 9th, the Mass DOT Chief Engineer approved the 25% design plans. We expect the Design Public Meeting to be scheduled in late winter or early spring. *No update in February *No update in April *A meeting with FO is scheduled on June 5th to discuss next steps. *In June, FO said MassDOT has delayed the Design Public Hearing due to Covid-19. We’re awaiting direction from MassDOT on schedule. *No update in July
Converse Street and Route 5 Signal Upgrades and Corridor Improvements: VHB has been retained as a consultant to prepare a conceptual plan and recommendations (25% design) for intersection improvements and corridor improvements on Converse-Longmeadow Street corridor from Laurel street to the Springfield Town Line. Design will include intersection layout improvement, traffic signal upgrades, pedestrian accommodation, and pavement preservation. The four study area intersections are: 1. Route 5 (Longmeadow Street/Columbus Ave) at Forest Glen Road/Western Drive; 2. Route 5 (Longmeadow Street) at Converse Street/Englewood Road; 3. Converse Street at Laurel Street; 4. Route 5 (Longmeadow Street) at Bliss Road; Initial scope of work for this phase includes: Traffic data collection/ Traffic assessment memorandum Conceptual design/ Selection of preferred alternative: Preliminary engineering, prepare typical sections, details, signal plans, striping plan, general plan, prepare a preliminary estimate for Town budgeting purposes Meetings and coordination, meet with DPW at up to two meetings to discuss improvements or field walk the project limits, meet with Board of Selectman or other Town Officials to discuss improvement options; up to two meetings.
VHB completed traffic data collection/assessment and conceptual design/preferred alternatives. VHB presented the concept designs to the Select Board in early January. VHB is working to update the design based on the comments obtained from the Select Board. (See above – Longmeadow Street Pavement Preservation Project)
New DPW Facility at Grand Meadow Tennis Site At the May 9, 2017 Town Meeting, residents approved $21,025,000 to take (by eminent domain) the Grand Meadow’s Tennis Facility on Dwight Road and erect a new DPW. On July 13th, the Town Manager and DPW Director met with representatives from Weston and Sampson (Engineers/Designers) and Colliers International (Owners Project Manager) to discuss schedule and next steps. The schedule that was agreed upon is: Weston and Sampson will finish the design this fall, in fall or early winter the tennis facility will be demolished, bid the project in late winter, and break ground in early spring. The build is expected to take 15 months. *In August, DPW met with Weston and Sampson to design the Fleet Maintenance section of the new facility as well as the HVAC system. DPW also worked with Weston and Sampson’s contractors to obtain boring samples and test pits at the Grand Meadow’s site. *In September, Weston and Sampson (WS), the Town Manager and the DPW met with the Building Committee to discuss the project and the schedule. Also in September, WS held a meeting with Longmeadow’s Information Technology Department and DPW to discuss the new facility’s IT infrastructure and security needs. *In October, DPW met with a furniture vendor to estimate the cost to furnish the new facility. In addition to furniture vendor, DPW and WS met to review the equipment selected to outfit the vehicle maintenance and the shops maintenance area. On the 27th, WS, DPW and Longmeadow IT met with the Town’s security vendor to discuss the security needs of the new DPW. *In November, DPW and WS met with LPD, LFD, and Code Enforcement for a security and site plan review. The meeting was productive. All parties we able to discuss their concerns and WS was able to adjust the site plan where necessary. Also in November, the DPW, Longmeadow IT, and WS met with the town’s camera and security vendor to introduce the project and ask for their advice on building security and camera placement best practices. *In December, DPW met with WS to review the fleet maintenance area as well as the wash bay. In both cases, the town is looking to value engineer portions of those work areas to meet budget. Also in December, the subcontractor pre-qualifications proposals were due on the 6th. *In January, the 10th, DPW attended the Conservation Commission meeting where the Commission approved the project and gave the DPW permission to remove the trees that had fallen into the dingle behind the existing building. On the 29th, a Prequalification meeting was held to evaluate the sub bidders. *In February, project when out to bid. The anticipated bid closing date for the prequalified sub-bidders is March 22nd and the general contractor bidders is April 12th. *In March, the sub-bidders bid opened. The total value of the contracts come in about 5% under budget. The general contractor’s bid is scheduled to open April 12th. *On April 12th the General Contractor’s bid opened and the low bidder was W. J. Mountford Co. Colliers International is reviewing the bid to make sure all items are covered and that Mountford is capable of handling a project of this size. If approved, the project could begin in May or early June. *In May, the contact was awarded to Mountford. On May 16th, a preconstruction meeting was held. It was decided that the Ground Breaking would be on June 1st. On May 29th the Permanent Building Committee set up a sub-committee to review change orders. It’s expected that Mountford will get their asbestos plan approved in June and begin remediation. *In June, additional asbestos was found on the outside of the building. The asphalt playing surface from the section of building that was part of fire was removed and stacked along the back of the building. Mountford has modified their abatement plan to include this additional work. The new plan has been submitted to the state for approval. Much of the clearing and grubbing on the south side of the property has been completed. *In July, even more asbestos was found underneath the existing paved parking lot. The Town is working with Mountford and DEP to explore options for site cleanup. *In August the Town explored the option of bring the asbestos to the old (uncapped) landfill on Bernie Road. DPW has hired Tighe and Bond to help us work with DEP and Conservation Commission on this option. The early indicators seem to suggest this will be a viable option. The only requirement discovered thus far (if approved) is that the Town will need to cap the landfill ASAP. *In September, the cost estimate associated with disposing the asbestos material at the Bernie Road Landfill was received; approximately 2 million dollars. This amount is more than anticipated. The Town is exploring the cost to bury the material onsite. *No update in October. *No update in November *In December, the Select Board approved a change order to truck the hazardous material from the current site to the old municipal waste dump on Tina Lane/Bernie Road. The transporting of the contaminated soil is expected to begin in January and last into March (weather depending). *In January, the hauling of hazardous material to the Tina Lane/Bernie Road Landfill has commenced. In the first couple of weeks, the hauler has been able to exceed the estimated number of trips per day. If the weather continues to stay mild, the project should be completed ahead of schedule. *In February, the hauling continued on a regular basis. DPW believes this work should be completed in early March. *In March, the hauling was completed. As the ground thaws, Mountford will begin the site work. *In April, site work has begun. The stream bank on the north side of the property has begun to erode. Many trees have fallen into the stream causing an obstruction and creating more erosion. DPW was asked to get a quote from Northern Tree Service to remove the fallen trees. *In May, the trees that have fallen into the stream have been removed. Site work continues – the detention pond, water, sewer, and drainage pipes are being installed. *In June, site work continues – the detention pond, water, sewer and drainage pipes are nearing completion. It’s expected the building foundation will be framed in July. *In July, the building foundation began. That work is expected to be completed in August. *In August, the foundation work continued. Additionally, the Town worked with Verizon to relocate a utility pole anchor, and the fuel island subcontractor began their work. *In September, the foundation work continued. The fuel island subcontractor also continued their work. That work should be completed in October. The building is ready to be shipped and will likely be delivered in October. *In October, the foundation work neared completion. The fuel island work was completed and the building’s steel skeleton has arrived on site. Once the foundation work is completed, the building will be erected. *In November, all but a few of the foundation piers are completed. Once completed, the building will start to be erected. *In December, all the foundation piers were completed. They were given time to cure before the building erection was started. *In January, the buildings steel structure was erected. The building’s walls and roof are next. The installation of these are expected to take a few months. *In February, the walls and roof installation continued. *In April, the wall and roof installation continued. The retaining wall and the salt shed foundations were started. *In May, the wall and roof construction continued. The retaining wall and salt shed were completed. The administrative area is being framed and utility lines are being installed. *In June, the wall and roof construction continued. The interior walls are being sheet rocked and a portion of the front parking lot received the binder layer of pavement. In July, the roof and wall construction as well as the sheetrock continued. Many of the building windows were installed. Also in July, Tighe and Bond inspected the slope erosion on the north side of the property. On July 16th a meeting was held with the Town Manager and the Conservation Commission’s Chair to discuss options. The meeting resulting in two options to be further investigated and cost estimates developed.
Morningside Drive Culvert Replacement At the annual Town Meeting on May 8th 2018, the town approved $520,000 for the replacement of the 36 inch culvert as well as the related infrastructure under Morningside Drive. DPW has contracted with David Prickett Consulting to design the project. The project design should be completed in March 2019 and released for bid shortly afterward. It’s expected this project will begin this spring. *No update in March *In April, DPW sent the abutting property owners notice of the project and asked for permission to access the work site via their property. The project is expected to be bid in May and constructed over the summer. *In May, many of the “right of entry” agreements have been returned. A second notice will be sent to the ones that have not responded. *In June, we’re still waiting on a couple of “right of entry” agreement to be returned. The project is scheduled to be bid in July as is the Notice of Intent (Conservation Commission). *In July the bid documents were finalized. It looks like the project will go out to bid on August 8th and open on August 22nd. *In August, the bid opening was delayed due to an addendum related to Conservation Commission requirement. The new bid opening is expected in September. *In September, the Conservation Commission determined that the property owners abutting the culvert need to request the Notice of Intent (NOI). The bid was withdrawn until such time as each home owners are contacted and agree to sign the NOI. *No update in October *No update in November *No update in December *In January, DPW sent out a second letter to the abutters explaining the project and asking them to sign a construction easement and NOI for the Conservation Commission filing. Two of the five abutters have returned the paperwork. The project can’t move forward until all five have signed off. *In February, DPW engineering staff knocked on the door of the three abutters that didn’t respond to the second letter. The three residents did not answer the door on first attempt. The engineers will continue this practice into March. *In April, we were able to contact each homeowner. The signed paperwork is expected soon. It is our hope this project will receive Conservation Commission approval at their May meeting. *In May, all paperwork was received. We attended the Conservation Commission meeting and are updating the bid documents with their requirements. The project will be bid in June and likely to start in July. *In June, the project was bid and awarded to Aqua Line Utility and work is expected to begin in July. *On July 31 a preconstruction meeting was held. The project will not start until early September.
Safe Routes to School Grant The DPW applied for and was awarded a $140,000 Safe Routes to School Grant. The project involves the installation of a concrete sidewalk on the south side of Bliss Road from Grassy Gutter to Blueberry Hill Road. In addition to the sidewalk, the application specified a raised crosswalk and flashing beacons across Bliss Road. The next step is to discuss the project with the Town Manager and Select Board to decide if the raised crosswalk should be installed. *No update in May *In June, DPW, Police and School officials met Safe Routes to School (SRTS) project team to discuss the project. The SRTS project team suggested making the sidewalks wider to accommodate duel uses. DPW will adjust the plans and specifications to include their suggestion. The project is slated as a SRTS 2022 project. *No update in July *No update in August *No update in September *No update in October *No update in November *No update in December *No update in January *No update in February *No update in April *No update in May *In June, the Town Engineer reached out the SRTS administrator for an update. No update was received by the time this report was due. *In July, survey began by Sherman and Frydryk.
Knollwood Drive Sidewalk At the Special Town Meeting on November 5th 2019, the town approved $110,000 to install sidewalks from Wolf Swamp School to Knollwood Circle. A bid was issued on June 24th and will open on July 14th. *On July 14th the bids we’re opened. The low bid at $83,335 was awarded to Gomes Construction. Gomes began work on July 20th. Ninety present of the sidewalks have been poured by the end of July. The remaining work should be completed within the first week of August.
Monthly Road/Trench Permits: Permit Street Start Date No Company-Name # Street / Intersection Reason for Permit
01-Jul-20 3352 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) 56 Lawrence Drive Replace Poor Pipe 01-Jul-20 3353 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) 21 Inverness Lane Replace Poor Pipe 13-Jul-20 3354 Baltazar Contractors, Inc. Western Drive Install new sewer main and services 10-Jul-20 3355 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) 524 Longmeadow Street Compliance/Grade 2+ Leak/21 Day 10-Jul-20 3356 Witch Enterprises, Inc. 5 Meadowbrook Road Repairing existing comcast line in easement 15-Jul-20 3357 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P55/E53 15-Jul-20 3358 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P56/E54 15-Jul-20 3359 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P56 1/2/E54M 15-Jul-20 3360 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P53/E51 15-Jul-20 3361 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P53 1/2 /E51M 15-Jul-20 3362 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P54/E52 15-Jul-20 3363 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P52 1/2 /E50M 15-Jul-20 3364 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P49 3/4 /E46M 15-Jul-20 3365 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P49/E47 15-Jul-20 3366 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P48/E45 15-Jul-20 3367 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P49/E46 16-Jul-20 3368 Verizon Communications Williams Street Install new Pole P50 1/2/E48M 17-Jul-20 3369 Gomes Construction Knollwood Drive Install new sidewalk, Drain improvements, Tree Removal 17-Jul-20 3370 Marion Excavating Co., Inc. Town Wide Drain Layer License 17-Jul-20 3371 Marion Excavating Co., Inc. 43 Converse Street Repair Sewer line. New tap in main to avoid tree. 17-Jul-20 3372 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) 779 Frank Smith Road Rerun gas service line 17-Jul-20 3373 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) 125 Deepwoods Drive Compliance/Grade 2+ Leak/21 Day 20-Jul-20 3374 Always Reliable Excavating, Inc, Town Wide Drain Layers License 20-Jul-20 3375 Always Reliable Excavating, Inc, 153 Yarmouth Street Replace Water Service S.O. to Main 29-Jul-20 3376 Charter Oak Utility Constructors Inc. West Chestnut Street Manhole & Duct Bank Installation 29-Jul-20 3377 Skinner Excavation LLC. 12 Churchhill Road Install new water and sewer services Intersection of Homestead 29-Jul-20 3378 Columbia Gas of Mass (Brockton) Blvd & Longmeadow St Compliance / Grade 2 Leak / Repair Gas Leak Columbia Gas of Massachusetts Intersection of Meadow Rd 29-Jul-20 3379 (Brockton) and Pinelawn Rd. Compliance / Grade 2 Leak / Repair Gas Leak Columbia Gas of Massachusetts 30-Jul-20 3380 (Brockton) 153 Western Drive 153-163 Maintenance to Main 31-Jul-20 3381 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P55 1/2 / E53M 31-Jul-20 3382 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P51/E49 31-Jul-20 3383 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P52/E50 31-Jul-20 3384 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P50/E48 31-Jul-20 3385 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P48 1/2 / E43 31-Jul-20 3386 Verizon Communications Williams Street Replace Pole P48s/E45s 31-Jul-20 3387 Verizon Communications Williams Street 49s/E46s 31-Jul-20 3388 Mary E David 194 Bliss Rd Driveway apron
Highway Operations: Pavement repairs 7/1 – 7/31 (all pavement repairs entered in Cartegraph) Street sign maintenance preformed throughout Town (location logged into Cartegraph) Provided town wide branch pickup due to high winds Catch basin repairs various locations (locations logged into Cartegraph) Stump grinding and lawn repairs various locations (logged into Cartegraph) Jet-Vac with designated crew continued the sewer and storm drain cleaning Worked at the old stump dump managing cover material Continued spring street sweeping Numerous catch basins repaired buy contractor. Roadside mowing completed Repaired 2 water main breaks Cartegraph Work Orders 0 Berm Repair 3 Cleaning 5 Dead Animal Removal 0 Digging 2 Grading 8 Stump Grinding 0 Loam/Seed 23 Miscellaneous 1 Mowing 0 Mailbox Repairs 0 Pothole Patching 0 Lawn Repairs 0 Field Relining 0 Salting 0 Sidewalk Repair 0 Signs 0 Trees Removed 0 Traffic Signal Repair 8 Downed Tree Branch 9 Tree Pruning 59 Total Work Orders Completed Grounds Regular and ongoing equipment maintenance Cleaned up limbs brought down by wind storm Emptied trash barrels twice a week Continued to mow athletic fields Monitored, adjusted, repaired irrigation systems throughout town Cleaned up and added mulch at the High School planting beds Mowed Wolf Swamp Field Prepared grounds at High School for outdoor graduation Removed the storm damaged tree overhanging the driveway at Turner Park Wolf Swamp Field Well At the Annual Town Meeting on May 9th, 2017, $80,000 was approved to install a well so the field may be irrigated in the future. In March, the bid specification were completed and submitted to Procurement for release. It’s expected the bid will be released in April. *The bid is scheduled to be released in early May. Bid opening is expected to be May 25th. *The bid was released on May 10th. A pre-bid conference was held on May 18th. Questions were submitted from potential bidders and addenda were released. The new bid opening is June 13th. *On June 13th the bids were opened and Connecticut Valley Artesian Well Co was the only bidder at $49,790. The project is scheduled to begin in July. *In July, Ct. Valley Artesian Well began to drilled for the new well. The target depth of the drilling was 500 +/- feet. At 500 feet, the well would only produce 65 gallons per minute (gpm). For the irrigation to work correctly, the well needs to produce at least 120 gpm. Ct Valley was authorized to continue to drill in 100 foot increments. At 710 feet, we found that the well could produce approximately 200 gpm. The next step is to buy and install a motor and controller. *In August, DPW learned that the new well pump requires upgrading of the existing electric supply to the Field House from a single phase to three phase service and has an approximate three month lead time with Eversource. We are working with our On-call Electrician to proceed with the electric service upgrade prior to proceeding with the installation of the well pump. *In September, the on-call electrician had a death in the family which has caused the project to be put on hold. *In October, the on-call electrician quoted the three phase electrical service installation at $25,000 plus in-kind service of DPW doing the excavation work. This would leave only $5,000 in the account and the project would be short by approximately $35,000. DPW met with the Park and Reg Director, Town Manager, and Assistant Town Manager to discuss option. It appears Park and Rec will be able to fund the overage. The work is approved and we are working with Eversource to supply the power to the field house. *In November, Eversource confirmed the work is scheduled for the beginning of January. *No update in December *In January, the electrical equipment was delivered to the site. The electrical contractor is expected to complete their work in February. *In February, the electrical contractor began the installation of the new three phase electric service and switch gear. *No update in March *No update in April *In May, we continue to work with Eversource to bring 3 phase power into the field house. *No update in June *No update in July *In August, Eversource has placed a new pole for the electric service connection. *No update in September *No update in October *In November, we were told that Eversource will connect the power in December. *In December, the three phase power has been connected to the concession stand. The meter installation is pending the Electrical Inspector’s inspection and approval. *In January, the meter was installed. *In February, met Milone and Macbroom (M&M) on site to discuss the irrigation system and the connection to the well. M&M is going to include the remaining well work into the irrigation bid. *In April, we met with M&M to finalize the irrigation specifications. The bid is expected to be released this spring. *No update in May *No update in June *The field renovation bid is expected to be released in early August. Water 35 Final meter reads were done for real estate transactions 1 Meter Installations 36 Service calls 7 Meter Profiles 5 Curbstop/Checks 0 Backflow device inspections 0 Hydrants flushed 5 Hydrants out of service 0 Hydrants pumped out 0 Hydrant replaced 0 Hydrants rebuilt/repaired 0 Hydrants Painted 38 Hydrant Flags Installed 0 Water Service Renewals 48 Munis Work Orders Completed (Final Reads, Pressure Checks, Meter Installs, and Profiles) Sewer The Jet Truck was out 15 days (18,217 feet and hot spots) Activities: Coliform/HPC sampling 7/6 & 7/20 Monthly meter reading Monthly water tower inspection Bay Path Pump inspection UCMR4 testing (7/8 & 7/22) Reamed corporation for low pressure complaint at 72 Wilkins (7/1) Water main breaks @ 22 Warwick (7/13) & Llewellyn (7/8) Water service renewal inspection @ 153 Yarmouth (7/21 *Always Reliable*) Sewer service renewal inspection @ 143 Converse (7/17 *Marion Construction*) Started to tear down Fluoride saturators for clean-up and inspections (7/15) Started Hydrant clearing (overgrowth) list Site meeting at Morningside for drainage project with contractor (Aqua Line) and DPC Engineering (7/31) LCR (Lead & Copper) DEP zoom training (7/15) Set-up hydrant equipment at COA and Twin Hills for TTHM/HAA5 sampling Hydraulic Water Model and Tracer Study Mott and McDonald was hired to conduct a hydraulic model study and tracer study as a way to better understand the increases in TTHM and HAA5 levels in our water system. We are working with DEP and Springfield Water and Sewer Commission to discuss possible ways to lower the levels. *In January, the first phase of the study was completed by conducting the hydrant flow testing. *In February, Mott and McDonald completed the hydraulic model and ran some demand scenarios showing initial water age. They have set up test locations for the tracer study and it’s our plan to start the study on March 16th. In April, the Tracer Study was cancelled due to COVID-19. The study will be rescheduled once it’s safe to do so. *No update in May. *DPW reached out to DEP to let them know that the tracer study needs to be delayed due to COVID-19. DEP agreed. The study is likely to happen in the fall. *No update in July North Interceptor Project DPC is working on design plans for phase one of the sewer section on Severn Street. DPW Engineering contacted Tighe & Bond for the survey plans they performed years earlier. Plans were received and forwarded to DPC. *In February, DPC told us they will not have the permanent easement work done for the Town Warrant deadline. *No update in April *In May, DPC and DPW and its new Town Engineer met to discuss the project. DPW is working on getting “Rights of Entry” to each property so DPC can survey for easements. *In June, DPW received 2 signed “Right of Entry” agreements. 3 more needed before DPC’s work can begin. *In July, the three remaining “right of entry” agreements were received. DPC can now access the properties to complete the survey work needed for easements. Western Drive Sewer Replacement At the annual Town Meeting on May 8th, 2018, the Town approved $202,000 to replace the 8” clay sewer pipe with 8” PVC pipe. The project was bid and awarded to Baltazar Construction in the spring of 2020. The project never started due to COVID-19. Project is due to start in July. *On July 27 the project started. A few sections of new sewer main have been installed. In the Month of July the Facilities Department, in preparation for the coming school year, took measures to ensure HVAC functionality and proper ventilation of school buildings. An audit of equipment has been undertaken to be sure all systems are functioning to full capacity and match the data shown in the building management system software. The Facilities Department is also tackling the issue of aging/malfunctioning windows in some of the schools. Parts are being replaced and screens added to windows that have none. We expect this HVAC audit and window repair regiment to take us through the end of August as there are many pieces of equipment to address. A Facilities Crew also assisted in the set-up and breakdown of the graduation ceremony for LHS class of 2020 High School During a building walk-through with the new Facilities Director, the High School’s Vice Principal mentioned that the platform for the stage no longer moved up and down. DPW did some research and decided to reach out to Serapid (the manufacturer of the stage equipment) for a quote. Serapid’s quote was a minimum of $5,000 to come to Longmeadow (from Missouri) and “try” to fix the stage. Looking for a better option, DPW worked with Procurement Manager to find a local vendor capable of servicing the stage equipment. United Elevator was referred to us. United Elevator came out to do an inspection of the stage equipment and determined that the encoder is defective. A new encoder was ordered and is expected in May. *In May, the new encoder for the platform was replaced and the stage is now function properly. Also in May, we met with Procurement to develop specifications for the High School pool refinishing. The pool refinishing bids will go out to bid the 1st week of June and the anticipated work to begin on July 1st. Hill Engineers will be overseeing the project. *In June, the pool bid was published and a pre-bid conference was held on June 14th. Bids opened on June 26th and the Low bidder was Scholar Painting. We are reviewing Scholar’s bid and references. Scholar didn’t illustrate the successful completion of similar projects and their qualifications don’t match well with the project. *Scholar Painting’s bid was rejected due to lack of experience. We plan on re-bidding the project in the spring (2019). In addition to the pool, we addressed a complaint regarding the lobby fire doors. It appears the doors sag due to the weight of the door. We met with a contractor on repair options and we are awaiting cost proposals. *In August, we pushed to get a number of items done before the students returned. The items completed include: refinishing the gym floor and the Auditorium stage, repainting the Auditorium stage platform, replacing the ceiling lights in the Auditorium, changed fifty faucet lines in the science classrooms due to blue water, installed Homosote sound proofing in band rooms, and installed three AEDs. *In September, we continued our dialog with Gilbane on the deficiencies with the HVAC. Gilbane is expected to report their findings in October. *In October, we received the estimate for the HVAC deficiencies at the High School. DPW began working on the capital projects request for this work. *In November, the capital request was completed and submitted for consideration. *In December, DPW attended a capital projects meeting to advocate for the project. *No update in January *No update in February *In March, the Capital Planning Committee presented its FY 2020 plan to the Select Board. The Board approved this project and it will be included on the Town Warrant for the Annual Town Meeting. *No update in April *In May, Town Meeting approved the project. This project cannot begin unit the heating season begins. Also in May, a supply line to a sink in room 206 broke and flooded rooms 206, 106, 106a, 107, 109. DPW contacted MIIA and contracted with Complete Restoration Solutions for the cleanup and repair. The damaged material has been removed and the rooms have been dried. Working to find the original cabinet maker in an effort to replace the damaged cabinetry. *In June, CRS completed the cleanup. The repair work started in June but will continue into July. We were unable to find the original cabinet maker so we contacted a local cabinet maker to give us a quote to replace what was lost in the flood. *In July, the cabinet maker measured for the new cabinets and the likely install over Christmas break. This room will remain out of service until the cabinets are installed. Also in July, the High School pool was refinished and the fire doors to the academic wing were replaced. *In August, DPW worked with Hill Engineers to investigate HVAC issues throughout the building. This work is expected to continue into the winter and spring months to see how the seasons affect the system. *In September, the HVAC work continued. *In October, the HVAC investigative work continues. Also in October, there was a major sewer back-up in the administrative wing. Fletcher was called to clear the line. Fletcher found the clog was created by vape pen cartridges and paper towels. *In November, the HVAC work continued. *In December, the HVAC work continued as well as the installation (over holiday break) of new cabinetry in the classrooms that were flooded. *In January, The HVAC work continued. In addition to that there were a few other heating issues – Roof Top Unit 6 went down. The on-call HVAC company came out and changed the firing sequence for fresh air dampers to avoid future freeze ups, boiler 2 went down – burnt terminal on ignition wire replaced with wire in heat resistant sleeve, heat in Natatorium bathrooms repaired – valves were reversed (no heat since construction). *In February, HVAC work continued. In addition, there were a few water leaks in the roof. The issues were repaired by our roofing contractor. The main sewer pipe backed in the academic wing again. Fletcher jetted and camera the pipe. The pipe is in decent condition. We’ll continue to monitor the situation. *In April, the cafeteria walk-in evaporator motors and controllers were upgraded. Also, we began the construction of a microwave link between the data room and the auditorium. *In May, a mock up Town Meeting was setup in the parking lot. This exercise helped decision makers decide to move Town Meeting to the practice field. *In June, we setup the football practice field for Town Meeting on June 23rd. *In July, we setup the football practice field for the High School Graduation. Storrs Library - Plexiglass install for main service desk, children’s room service desk, computer lab service desk - Elevator inspection completed - Back door repaired and weather stripping install - Provided 40 recycle bins for book return quarantines Fire Department - Signage made for COVID town policies in parks (per FD) - AC repair – clogged condenser coil PD - Leak in boiler sealed. To be tested first week of AUG - New roll-call room created. Moving of furniture, painting of walls, electrical modifications for install of TV Town Hall Daily disinfection routine continued. Facilities Division Work Orders (SchoolDude) 22 Preventative Maintenance Work Orders Completed 91 Work Orders Completed
Water Purchased (Million Gallons)
Yearly Year July August September October November December January February March April May June Total FY09 83.34 79.62 74.84 51.20 39.09 39.07 38.43 32.79 36.90 42.41 57.92 60.30 635.91 FY10 62.36 77.05 73.80 45.60 37.57 37.61 37.68 31.83 35.45 41.44 73.33 85.31 639.03 FY11 126.70 109.96 99.77 49.90 38.30 36.80 36.90 32.80 35.55 34.40 48.20 71.24 720.52 FY12 110.50 85.08 63.30 41.81 28.97 35.14 34.81 30.27 33.58 54.66 69.76 85.93 673.81 FY13 126.43 102.45 77.78 45.58 34.69 36.20 37.45 30.50 34.35 40.22 68.68 72.20 706.53 FY14 101.95 94.06 75.60 51.53 34.41 36.93 36.72 32.00 35.57 36.27 53.77 82.41 671.22 FY15 86.40 85.84 81.04 44.45 34.90 36.29 37.32 32.00 35.48 37.20 94.72 78.61 684.25 FY16 94.28 102.04 90.14 50.22 33.40 34.10 33.99 32.62 33.24 40.20 61.62 103.66 709.51 FY17 128.48 116.04 89.32 55.41 33.64 34.46 33.70 29.76 32.62 38.99 54.33 77.86 724.61 FY18 85.74 91.03 75.82 57.50 43.58 36.93 36.06 30.60 33.43 33.87 60.10 90.12 674.78 FY19 105.17 82.60 68.55 44.57 31.90 33.35 33.12 28.49 31.23 32.60 43.50 71.56 606.64 FY20 111.62 97.28 80.05 48.11 32.23 34.69 33.52 30.10 33.79 36.21 62.68 124.7 724.93 FY21 135.74 Vs. Last Year 1.21%
Refuse and Recycling
(measured in tons) July August September October November December January February March April May June To Date
Curbside Trash FY20 363.23 306.667 282.9816 315.62 266.31 317.12 290.76 221.94 270.83 294.11 300.87 335.59 3566.0286
Curbside Trash FY 21 322.57
difference -40.66 -306.67 -282.98 -315.62 -266.31 -317.12 -290.76 -221.94 -270.83 -294.11 -300.87 -335.59 -3,566.03 - - - - % change -11.19% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00%
(measured in tons) July August September October November December January February March April May June To Date Paper/Cardboard FY20 78.46 74.8 84.36 92.17 85.45 104.37 81.83 72.42 91.35 97.48 99.72 93.58 1055.99 Paper/Cardboard FY 21 NA
difference -78.46 -74.80 -84.36 -92.17 -85.45 -104.37 -81.83 -72.42 -91.35 -97.48 -99.72 -93.58 -1,055.99 - - - - - % change 100.00% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00%
(measured in tons) July August September October November December January February March April May June To Date Glass/Metal/Plastic FY20 58.79 57.05 46.66 47.99 48.62 61.16 64.69 43.52 46.12 58.9 57.41 54.17 645.08 Glass/Metal/Plastic FY21 NA
difference -58.79 -57.05 -46.66 -47.99 -48.62 -61.16 -64.69 -43.52 -46.12 -58.90 -57.41 -54.17 -645.08 - - - - - % change 100.00% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% 100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00%
(measured in tons) July August September October November December January February March April May June To Date
Rigids FY20 1.55 1.22 1.9 4.86 0 0 0 0 0.95 0 10.48
Rigids FY21 NA difference 1.55 0.00 1.22 0.00 1.90 4.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 10.48
%change 100.00% #DIV/0! -100.00% #DIV/0! -100.00% -100.00% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -100.00% #DIV/0! -100.00% ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2010 DRAFT DRAFT REV ACTUAL FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 ACTUAL FY 10 FY 10 TOTAL FY 10 PERCENT CATEGORY ID thru 05/31/09 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) June 30, 2010 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,024,806.60 2,057,586.30 2,000,000.00 1,947,767.18 (52,232.82) 97.39%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 89,834.35 100,176.18 100,000.00 108,754.44 8,754.44 108.75%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 6,539.85 6,539.85 6,000.00 6,857.58 857.58 114.29%
FEES 04 5,290.04 5,948.27 5,000.00 7,706.72 2,706.72 154.13%
RENTALS 05 106,481.84 125,018.44 125,000.00 133,936.26 8,936.26 107.15%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 34,670.69 76,236.09 76,000.00 95,529.49 19,529.49 125.70%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 105,254.76 * 111,039.66* 110,000.00 103,608.61 (6,391.39) 94.19%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 228,463.67 * 241,016.42* 211,800.00 232,370.25 20,570.25 109.71%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 6,058.21 4,896.78 3,638.00 5,643.03 2,005.03 155.11%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 58,784.50 63,127.00 63,000.00 50,755.00 (12,245.00) 80.56%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 208,452.27 223,204.64 223,000.00 159,353.76 (63,646.24) 71.46%
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 7,169.43 87,222.55 90,000.00 107,777.97 17,777.97 119.75%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 159,913.47 343,777.93 343,000.00 351,981.03 8,981.03 102.62%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 5,284.04 10,450.04 0.00 80,783.77 80,783.77 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 3,047,003.72 3,456,240.15 3,356,438.00 3,392,825.09 36,387.09 101.08%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,702,826.77 5,698,563.77 5,635,668.00# 5,613,807.00 (21,861.00) 99.61%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 402,433.59 406,349.85 379,757.38 556,881.48 177,124.10 146.64% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 36,390,390.75 36,592,272.68 37,595,962.00 37,632,926.20 36,964.20 100.10% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 36,792,824.34 36,998,622.53 37,975,719.38 38,189,807.68 214,088.30 100.56%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 44,542,654.83 46,153,426.45 46,967,825.38 47,196,439.77 228,614.39 100.49%
STATE RECEIPTS - CH 90 19 375,485.36 792,076.16 367,180.00 386,285.47 19,105.47 105.20%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 1,313,072.22 1,476,659.23 1,768,198.00 1,542,117.49 (226,080.51) 87.21%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 1,760,463.00 1,842,004.57 1,905,400.00 1,701,562.60 (203,837.40) 89.30%
AMBULANCE 23 426,140.20 501,416.83 467,657.00 534,101.92 66,444.92 114.21%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 288,096.90 * 299,079.24* 285,398.00 294,121.96 8,723.96 103.06%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 48,705,912.51 51,064,662.48 51,761,658.38 51,654,629.21 (107,029.17) 99.79%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated * Adjusted for Enterprise accounting beginning FY 09 # anticipated Quinn reduction $10,952 Est Rec FY 10a Rev 8/4/2010
Notes General Fund Budget to actual: Excess revenue of $228K coupled with $42K closeout of Overlay Surplus and Appropriation turn backs of $1.15 million puts our FY 11 Free Cash at $1.42 million +/-
Water Revenue shortfall of $226K is offset by Appropriation turn backs of $316K for an operating gain of $90K. FY 11 Water Retained Earnings will be $526K
Sewer Revenue shortfall of $204K is offset by Appropriation turn backs of $65K for an operating loss of $139K. FY 11 Sewer Retained Earnings will be $531K
Solid Waste / Recycling Enterprise Revenue excess of $8K added to Appropriation turn backs of $103K for an operating gain of $111K. FY 11 Solid Waste / Recycling Retained Earnings will be $111K
ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2011
Munis ACTUAL FY 2010 FY 2011 ACTUAL FY 11 FY 11 TOTAL FY 11 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID June 30, 2010 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2011 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 108,610.38 1,947,767.18 1,947,000.00 2,001,277.18 54,277.18 102.79%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 11,574.89 108,754.44 120,000.00 105,530.99 (14,469.01) 87.94%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 0.00 6,857.58 6,500.00 5,098.63 (1,401.37) 78.44%
FEES 04 365.52 7,706.72 7,500.00 16,339.84 8,839.84 217.86%
RENTALS 05 17,448.34 133,936.26 133,500.00 150,171.77 16,671.77 112.49%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 59,696.82 95,529.49 95,000.00 104,851.74 9,851.74 110.37%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 5,800.21 103,608.61 103,500.00 138,295.15 34,795.15 133.62%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 17,957.45 232,370.25 232,000.00 284,533.32 52,533.32 122.64%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 (1,113.67) 4,481.60 4,400.00 8,865.42 4,465.42 201.49%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 4,650.00 50,755.00 50,500.00 49,115.00 (1,385.00) 97.26%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 15,366.81 159,353.76 150,000.00 145,753.20 (4,246.80) 97.17% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 11a 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,751.19 67,751.19 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 62,777.97 107,777.97 107,500.00 42,262.74 (65,237.26) 39.31%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 188,733.89 351,981.03 351,736.00 159,514.75 (192,221.25) 45.35%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 9,181.07 89,964.24 0.00 42,762.59 42,762.59 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 501,049.68 3,400,844.13 3,309,136.00 3,322,123.51 12,987.51 100.39%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 1,399,289.00 5,613,807.00 5,322,037.00 5,382,367.21 60,330.21 101.13%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 (711.93) 556,881.48 391,295.00 323,007.79 (68,287.21) 82.55% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 277,532.86 37,632,926.20 38,738,198.94 38,826,679.06 88,480.12 100.23% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 276,820.93 38,189,807.68 39,129,493.94 39,149,686.85 20,192.91 100.05%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 2,177,159.61 47,204,458.81 47,760,666.94 47,854,177.57 93,510.63 100.20%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 112,264.76 1,542,117.49 1,883,481.00 1,984,067.54 100,586.54 105.34%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 123,746.52 1,701,562.60 1,908,422.00 2,085,043.30 176,621.30 109.25%
AMBULANCE 23 71,635.78 534,101.92 485,000.00 528,480.82 43,480.82 108.97%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 17,007.10 294,121.96 285,398.00 318,039.68 32,641.68 111.44%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 2,501,813.77 51,276,362.78 52,322,967.94 52,769,808.91 446,840.97 100.85%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated Est Rec fy11 Rev 7/22/2011 Notes General Fund Need to do allocation for Parks and Rec Reimbursement and Administrative Fees
G:\Estimated Receipts
G:\Estimated Receipts ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2012 DRAFT DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 11 FY 2011 FY 2012 ACTUAL FY 12 FY 12 TOTAL FY 12 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2011 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE* thru June 3\0, 2012 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,001,277.18 2,001,277.18 1,980,000.00 2,021,849.16 41,849.16 102.11%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 105,530.99 105,530.99 100,000.00 115,520.06 15,520.06 115.52%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 5,098.63 5,098.63 5,000.00 46,405.11 41,405.11 928.10%
FEES 04 16,339.84 16,339.84 15,000.00 20,008.33 5,008.33 133.39%
RENTALS 05 150,171.77 150,171.77 145,000.00 150,031.41 5,031.41 103.47%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 104,851.74 104,851.74 100,000.00 109,978.09 9,978.09 109.98%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 138,295.15 138,295.15 125,000.00 113,184.00 (11,816.00) 90.55%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 284,533.32 284,533.32 275,000.00 276,780.77 1,780.77 100.65%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 8,865.42 8,865.42 4,400.00 3,542.29 (857.71) 80.51%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 49,115.00 49,115.00 49,000.00 42,914.08 (6,085.92) 87.58%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 133,781.24 133,781.24 120,000.00 108,603.26 (11,396.74) 90.50% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 11a 67,751.19 67,751.19 0.00 229,214.65 229,214.65 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 115,154.30 115,154.30 111,500.00 67,808.78 (43,691.22) 60.82%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 327,571.23 327,571.23 342,931.00 324,196.67 (18,734.33) 94.54%
STATE REC - non recurring 17a 0.00 0.00 85,443.00 85,443.00 0.00 100.00%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 42,812.59 42,812.59 0.00 158,944.02 158,944.02 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 3,551,149.59 3,551,149.59 3,458,274.00 3,874,423.68 416,149.68 112.03%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,382,367.21 5,382,367.21 5,282,196.00 5,286,721.00 4,525.00 100.09%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 319,707.79 319,707.79 320,000.00 292,038.13 (27,961.87) 91.26% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 38,826,679.08 38,826,679.06 40,890,825.73**** 40,729,287.11 (161,538.62) 99.60% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 39,146,386.87 39,146,386.85 41,210,825.73 41,021,325.24 (189,500.49) 99.54% TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 48,079,903.67 48,079,903.65 49,951,295.73 50,182,469.92 231,174.19 100.46%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 1,991,349.35 1,991,349.35 1,966,549.00 1,806,024.16 (160,524.84) 91.84%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 2,089,705.43 2,089,705.43 1,883,339.00 1,899,499.03 16,160.03 100.86%
AMBULANCE 23 528,480.82 528,480.82 530,000.00 564,137.26 34,137.26 106.44%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 318,039.68 318,039.68 300,000.00 353,372.79 53,372.79 117.79% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 53,007,478.95 53,007,478.93 54,631,183.73 54,805,503.16 174,319.43 100.32%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated
Notes General Fund Motor Vehicle Excise Strong commitments. In Lieu of Taxes Bay Path PILOT $41K Fees FY 12 passport fees nearly tripled. Investment Income Low interest rates and transfer to Stabilization and other Reserve Funds hamper General Fund investment income Investment Income - Bond Proceeds $229K on investment of bond proceeds Administration Fees Are not complete at this point Parks/rec Reimb Day Care Salary reimbursement to be short, will be offset by appropriation year end turn back (FYE shortfall $20K). Accounting not yet complete Miscellaneous Includes $26K State reimbursement for 2011 winter storm cost. $58K in bond premium on $10 million storm BAN, Cable Fee $30K, MIIA dividends $5K. Property Taxes June demand notice did not reap in as much in delinquencies as anticipated. (FYE shortfall $190K) Overall FY12 will be at least $395K greater than budget (MVET, Investment Inc on Bond Proceeds and Miscellaneous main contributing categories) As of June 1, FY 13 Estimated Local Receipts can be raised to FY 12 level or slightly more. A $35K reduction had been used in the FY 13 budget process)
Water FY 12 shortfall is seasonal precipitation issue, (FYE shortfall $160K will be offset by lower Spfld charges)
Sewer Should be near breakeven
Ambulance
Solid Waste / Recycling FY 12 MRF $91K, up $16K from FY 11. Scrap metal revenue up $11K, Sale of waste bags up $6K . *** correction 6/19/12 G:\Estimated Receipts Est Rec fy12 7/30/2012 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 12 FY 2012 FY 2013 ACTUAL FY 13 FY 13 TOTAL FY 13 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2012 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2013 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,021,849.16 2,021,849.16 2,020,000.00 2,085,846.24 65,846.24 103.26%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 115,520.06 115,520.06 110,000.00 128,285.43 18,285.43 116.62%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 46,405.11 46,405.11 45,000.00 47,495.91 2,495.91 105.55%
FEES 04 20,008.33 20,008.33 20,000.00 23,141.86 3,141.86 115.71%
RENTALS 05 150,031.41 150,031.41 150,000.00 168,645.70 18,645.70 112.43%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 109,978.09 109,978.09 100,000.00 97,269.66 (2,730.34) 97.27%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 113,184.00 113,184.00 105,000.00 154,295.72 49,295.72 146.95%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 276,780.77 276,780.77 275,000.00 311,398.64 36,398.64 113.24%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 2,380.86 2,380.86 2,000.00 2,105.86 105.86 105.29%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 42,914.08 42,914.08 40,000.00 49,997.50 9,997.50 124.99%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 86,037.94 86,037.94 85,000.00 72,069.82 (12,930.18) 84.79% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 229,214.65 229,214.65 0.00 111,501.05 111,501.05 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 122,450.31 122,450.31 111,500.00 111,500.00est 0.00 100.00%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 324,646.67 324,646.67 324,000.00 334,000.00est 10,000.00 103.09%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 158,944.02 158,944.02 0.00 108,308.10 108,308.10 #DIV/0!
STATE REC - non recurring 17a 85,443.00 85,443.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,409.84 32,409.84 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,905,788.46 3,905,788.46 3,387,500.00 3,838,271.33 450,771.33 113.31%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,286,721.00 5,286,721.00 5,459,382.00 5,442,967.00 (16,415.00) 99.70%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 291,494.39 291,494.39 436,967.20 242,937.36 (194,029.84) 55.60% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 40,729,287.11 40,729,287.11 43,259,752.95 43,287,921.87 28,168.92 100.07% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 41,020,781.50 41,020,781.50 43,696,720.15 43,530,859.23 (165,860.92) 99.62%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 50,213,290.96 50,213,290.96 52,543,602.15 52,812,097.56 268,495.41 100.51%
AMBULANCE 2302 564,137.26 564,137.26 530,000.00 558,740.50 28,740.50 105.42%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,913,203.27 1,913,203.27 1,867,671.00* 2,077,704.25 210,033.25 111.25%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,814,683.82 1,814,683.82 1,980,439.00* 2,041,049.77 60,610.77 103.06%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 353,372.79 353,372.79 318,000.00 295,014.65 (22,985.35) 92.77% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 54,858,688.10 54,858,688.10 57,239,712.15 57,784,606.73 544,894.58 100.95%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - exceeded FY 13 budget by $65K and FY 14 final revised budget by $15K $65 02 P & I - $18 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments - BP College FY 13 payments = $42,494.48 or 2.5% greater than FY 13 $2 04 Fees - passport revenue + $16,556 $3 05 Rentals - Mainly from cell tower where escalation clauses and co locations enhance annual amounts $18 07 Other Dept'l - sale of surplus property $34,853 or about 2x the norm. $49 08 Licenses & Permits - did not meet FY 14 final revised but $14K variance will be met with other exceeded categories $36 10 Fines & Forfeits - $10 11 Investment Income - budget shortfall will be met with other exceeded categories ($13) 11a Investment Income Bond Proceeds - nice addition to Free cash but will drop drastically in FY 14 $111 14 Administration Fees - expected to meet or exceed budget Estimates inserted / data not complete / amounts TBD $0 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Estimates inserted / data not complete / amounts TBD $10 17 Misc - includes $57K from Bond Premiums, $8K settlement on Police injuries @ Franconia CC, $5,167 in MIIA Dividends $108 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - shortfall in Veteran/Blind exemption reimbursement from State - under review ($16) 20 Property Taxes - Shortfall attributable to $200K+/- prior year refunds that were paid in FY 13 (Verizon and Twin Hills CC) ($166) 26 Meals Tax - reflect January through April collections (caused by administrative time lag). FY 14 estimate of $75K should easily be met $32 Subtotal $267
Ambulance 2302 Ambulance - exceeded FY 13 budget by $28K and FY 14 final revised budget by $10K $28
Sewer 6000 $53K from Bond Premiums $210
Water 6100 $41K from Bond Premiums $60
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 Solid Waste / Recycling - revenue shortfall, subsidy from General Fund will increase to cover ($23)
Est Rec FY13 7/8/2013 FY 2014 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2014 DRAFT Town Meeting DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 13 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2014 ACTUAL FY 14 FY 14 TOTAL FY 14 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2014 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2014 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,007,823.97 2,082,658.89 2,070,000.00 2,070,000.00 2,365,826.83 295,826.83 114.29%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 115,489.03 128,285.43 110,000.00 120,000.00 136,627.90 16,627.90 113.86%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 26,248.68 47,495.91 45,000.00 45,000.00 49,163.47 4,163.47 109.25%
FEES 04 21,195.75 23,141.86 20,000.00 20,000.00 25,851.37 5,851.37 129.26%
RENTALS 05 147,992.79 168,645.70 150,000.00 165,000.00 161,973.34 (3,026.66) 98.17%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 49,267.93 97,269.66 100,000.00 95,000.00 107,855.08 12,855.08 113.53%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 130,919.51 153,744.72 105,000.00 125,000.00 129,101.58 4,101.58 103.28%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 294,833.64 310,331.14 325,000.00 300,000.00 297,915.20 (2,084.80) 99.31%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,092.30 2,105.86 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,189.80 189.80 109.49%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 45,092.50 49,997.50 40,000.00 45,000.00 54,545.18 9,545.18 121.21%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 61,521.37 65,965.80 85,000.00 70,000.00 46,988.28 (23,011.72) 67.13% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 107,284.73 111,501.05 0.00 0.00 4,769.15 4,769.15 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 51,205.88 85,918.63 111,500.00 111,500.00 104,016.67est (7,483.33) 93.29%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 179,920.04 333,890.50 345,500.00 345,500.00 318,027.45est (27,472.55) 92.05%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 107,959.75 88,376.69 0.00 0.00 252,395.46 252,395.46 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 5,282.64 32,409.84 75,000.00 80,000.00 122,930.30 42,930.30 153.66%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,355,130.51 3,781,739.18 3,584,000.00 3,594,000.00 4,180,177.06 586,177.06 116.31%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,082,568.00 5,442,967.00 5,562,675.00 5,575,182.00 5,588,860.00 13,678.00 100.25%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 212,273.14 242,937.36 450,583.00 451,800.00 409,555.23 (42,244.77) 90.65% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 43,128,063.26 43,287,921.87 44,607,771.00 44,728,249.00 44,592,634.21 (135,614.79) 99.70% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 43,340,336.40 43,530,859.23 45,058,354.00 45,180,049.00 45,002,189.44 (177,859.56) 99.61%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 50,778,034.91 52,755,565.41 54,205,029.00 54,349,231.00 54,771,226.50 421,995.50 100.78%
AMBULANCE 2302 505,778.97 558,740.50 548,550.00 548,550.00 547,443.08 (1,106.92) 99.80%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,064,677.87 2,080,980.47 1,863,333.00 1,898,703.00* 1,913,041.50 14,338.50 100.76%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,024,304.85 2,042,999.80 2,015,644.00 2,075,904.00* 1,955,423.34 (120,480.66) 94.20%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 279,654.65 295,014.65 318,000.00 316,500.00 282,105.76 (34,394.24) 89.13% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 55,652,451.25 57,733,300.83 58,950,556.00 59,188,888.00 59,469,240.18 280,352.18 100.47%
(1) Per Tax Recap Nov, 2013 (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - some FY 13 carryover into FY 14 but year end results mainly attributable greater commitment amounts $296 02 P & I - $16 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments -BPC Pilot increased 2.5% $4 04 Fees - $6 05 Rentals - Crown Castle contract still not signed., Comm House rentals $8K over projection ($3) 06 School - Medicare $13 07 Other Dept'l - variety of small variances, positive and negative $4 08 Licenses & Permits - liquor license increase help offset a 10% / $9K drop in building permits ($2) 09 Special assessments $0 10 Fines & Forfeits - $9 11 Investment Income - Internal funding of storm damage and LHS showied its impact (if no internal financing then interest expense would be up) ($23) 11a Investment Income Bond Proceeds - will drop to near $0 on FY 14 $4 14 Administration Fees - ($7) 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Day Care and after School revenues (and expenses) down ($27) 17 Misc. - $38K Baystate Gas $ $100K WMECO LHS Incentives, $23,4534 MIIA FY 13 Participation Credits. $15,601 reimb for US Senate election $252 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - $13 20 Property Taxes - would have liked better but shortfall due to annual abatements / exemptions ($178) 26 Meals Tax - first full FY of collections $42 Subtotal $419
Ambulance 2302 Ambulance - 1st FY ever short, revenue shortfall will be offset with Expense budget turnbacks for year end positive results ($1)
Sewer 6000 $14
Water 6100 shortfall was on the radar screen for quite a while - may result in year end loss ($120)
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 shortfall was on the radar screen for quite a while - will result in year end loss ($35)
Est. Rec FY14 8/25/2014 FY 2015 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2015 DRAFT Town Meeting DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 14 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 ACTUAL FY 15 FY 15 TOTAL FY 15 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2014 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Tax Recap (1) thru June 30, 2015 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,232,439.37 2,365,826.83 2,270,000 2,280,000 2,348,234.52 68,234.52 102.99%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 122,795.91 136,627.90 120,000 130,000 140,188.81 10,188.81 107.84%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 49,163.47 49,163.47 45,000 49,000 56,124.08 7,124.08 114.54%
FEES 04 20,140.91 25,851.37 25,000 25,000 30,140.67 5,140.67 120.56%
RENTALS 05 137,834.60 161,973.34 190,000 160,000 180,186.84 20,186.84 112.62%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 65,210.85 107,855.08 95,000 100,000 108,922.89 8,922.89 108.92%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 125,375.58 129,101.58 145,000 120,000 125,188.38 5,188.38 104.32%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 275,841.35 297,915.20 310,000 295,000 321,743.65 26,743.65 109.07%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,351.23 2,189.80 2,000 2,000 2,628.01 628.01 131.40%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 50,647.68 58,822.18 50,000 54,000 54,167.50 167.50 100.31%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 42,015.09 46,988.28 70,000 45,000 78,227.48 33,227.48 173.84% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 4,769.15 4,769.15 0 0 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 50,455.22 104,016.67 111,500 100,000 82,852.54 (17,147.46) 82.85%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 150,643.42 318,027.45 312,500 312,500 262,353.96 (50,146.04) 83.95% . MISCELLANEOUS 17 256,084.20 266,251.10 0 0 196,623.34 196,623.34 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 94,231.90 122,930.30 95,000 120,000 134,117.50 14,117.50 111.76%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,680,999.93 4,198,309.70 3,841,000.00 3,792,500.00 4,121,700.17 329,200.17 108.68%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,115,714.00 5,584,583.00 5,715,120.00 5,715,120.00 5,702,044.00 (13,076.00) 99.77%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 394,526.97 409,555.23 463,308.00 465,235.00 426,067.69 (39,167.31) 91.58% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 44,372,124.84 44,592,634.21 45,845,527.00 46,039,364.51 45,844,797.44 (194,567.07) 99.58% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 44,766,651.81 45,002,189.44 46,308,835.00 46,504,599.51 46,270,865.13 (233,734.38) 99.50%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 53,563,365.74 54,785,082.14 55,864,955.00 56,012,219.51 56,094,609.30 82,389.79 100.15%
AMBULANCE 2302 497,444.39 547,443.08 $555,000.00 555,000.00 534,944.73 (20,055.27) 96.39%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,893,474.58 1,913,041.50 $1,818,924.00 1,916,824.00 1,820,380.80 (96,443.20) 94.97%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,935,271.41 1,955,423.34 $2,341,249.00 2,433,649.00 1,942,938.01 (490,710.99) 79.84%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 255,667.41 282,105.76 $270,000.00 270,000.00 270,459.43 459.43 100.17% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 58,145,223.53 59,483,095.82 60,850,128.00 61,187,692.51 60,663,332.27 (524,360.24) 99.14%
(1) Per Tax Recap Nov, 2014 (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - 1st 2015 commitment is $1.79 million, $50K plus over last year's. 2nd Commitment plus $45K over prior Years $68 02 P & I - $10 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments - Bay Path Pilot due mid May.- should meet budget projection $7 04 Fees - Passport Fees up $2,000 $5 05 Rentals - Crown Castle contract finally signed and increased fees starting to flow. Plus $25K over last year $20 06 School Medicare - $9 07 Other Dept'l - Police Cruiser usage plus $5,300 $6 08 Licenses & Permits - $27 09 Special assessments $0 10 Fines & Forfeits - $0 11 Investment Income - up as a result of better cash flow (we are using BANs to finance projects as opposed to internal financing done in FY 14) $33 14 Administration Fees - stricter policy compliance , lower budget costs from Spfld's lower estimates ($20) 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Reimb much less that prior year / lower expenses will offset ($50) 17 Misc. - Crown Castle $125K lump sum plus FY 14 retro, net Bond premium $6K $197 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - ($13) 20 Property Taxes - ($233) 26 Meals Tax - $10K+ increase from previous FY $14 Subtotal $80
Ambulance 2302 $0
Sewer 6000 ($97)
Water 6100 ($491)
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 $0
Est. Rec FY15 9/29/2015 FY 2016 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2016 Town Meeting Munis ACTUAL FY 15 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 ACTUAL FY 16 FY 16 TOTAL FY 16 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2016 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Tax Recap (1) thru June 30, 2016 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,212,228.69 2,348,234.52 2,334,000.00 2,334,000.00 2,444,495.45 110,495.45 104.73%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 124,700.91 140,188.81 120,000.00 125,000.00 151,855.08 26,855.08 121.48%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 2,643.84 56,124.08 50,000.00 55,000.00 58,850.59 3,850.59 107.00%
FEES 04 26,986.65 30,140.67 25,000.00 25,000.00 26,387.92 1,387.92 105.55%
RENTALS 05 169,637.64 180,186.84 180,000.00 180,000.00 202,498.98 22,498.98 112.50%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 67,227.97 108,922.89 100,000.00 100,000.00 143,652.78 43,652.78 143.65%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 112,010.28 125,188.38 130,000.00 120,000.00 157,616.86 37,616.86 131.35%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 275,851.45 321,743.65 295,000.00 310,000.00 308,821.47 (1,178.53) 99.62%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,789.44 2,628.01 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,866.59 (133.41) 93.33%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 51,282.50 54,167.50 57,000.00 50,000.00 52,067.50 2,067.50 104.14%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 70,855.15 78,227.48 70,000.00 75,000.00 64,389.91 (10,610.09) 85.85% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.92 193.92 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 51,156.31 82,852.54 105,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 100.00%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 112,685.15 262,353.96 287,735.00 299,735.00 283,747.60 (15,987.40) 94.67% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 182,675.34 196,623.34 0.00 0.00 32,702.16 32,702.16 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 104,270.54 134,117.50 130,000.00 130,000.00 134,027.82 4,027.82 103.10%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,568,001.86 4,121,700.17 3,885,735.00 3,885,735.00 4,143,174.63 257,439.63 106.63%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,779,321.00 5,702,044.00 5,715,120.00 5,840,039.00 5,842,251.00 2,212.00 100.04%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 404,025.06 426,067.69 477,000.00 478,000.00 669,803.05 191,803.05 140.13% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 45,613,049.43 45,844,797.44 47,273,249.00 47,347,249.00 47,170,880.18 (176,368.82) 99.63% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 46,017,074.49 46,270,865.13 47,750,249.00 47,825,249.00 47,840,683.23 15,434.23 100.03%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 54,364,397.35 56,094,609.30 57,351,104.00 57,551,023.00 57,826,108.86 275,085.86 100.48%
AMBULANCE 2302 488,257.52 534,944.73 555,000.00 555,000.00 568,996.83 13,996.83 102.52%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,797,527.95 1,820,380.80 1,845,790.00 1,845,790.00 2,098,305.22 252,515.22 113.68%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,917,299.96 1,942,938.01 2,163,758.00 2,163,758.00 2,450,402.14 286,644.14 113.25%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 252,024.43 270,459.43 270,000.00 270,000.00 252,430.15 (17,569.85) 93.49% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 58,819,507.21 60,663,332.27 62,185,652.00 62,385,571.00 63,196,243.20 810,672.20 101.30%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 $110 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 $26 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 $4 FEES 04 $1 RENTALS 05 $22 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 $44 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 $38 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 ($2) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 $2 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 ($11) ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 ($16) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $33 MEALS TAX 26 $4 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 $2 SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 $15
Subtotal $272
Ambulance 2302 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be met $14
Sewer 6000 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be exceed budget $252
Water 6100 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be exceed budget $286
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 Small shortfall projected ($18)
Est. Rec FY16 7/29/2016 FY 2017 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June, 2017 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 16 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2017 ACTUAL FY 17 FY 17 TOTAL FY 17 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2016 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Final thru June 30 2017 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,313,904.92 2,444,495.45 2,510,000.00 2,430,000.00 2,518,028.75 88,028.75 103.62%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 137,731.83 151,855.08 145,000.00 145,000.00 166,868.88 21,868.88 115.08%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 58,850.59 58,850.59 58,000.00 58,000.00 58,217.65 217.65 100.38%
FEES 04 23,986.93 26,387.92 25,000.00 24,000.00 42,823.78 18,823.78 178.43%
RENTALS 05 192,933.44 202,498.98 200,000.00 200,000.00 201,191.53 1,191.53 100.60%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 76,893.73 143,652.78 102,000.00 135,000.00 143,883.64 8,883.64 106.58%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 140,294.54 157,616.86 120,000.00 145,000.00 157,731.49 12,731.49 108.78%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 290,495.44 308,821.47 310,000.00 300,000.00 332,066.84 32,066.84 110.69%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,866.59 1,866.59 2,000.00 1,837.00 1,631.26 (205.74) 88.80%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 47,652.50 52,067.50 50,000.00 47,000.00 48,217.50 1,217.50 102.59%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 58,197.97 64,362.19 70,000.00 60,000.00 79,950.19 19,950.19 133.25% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 193.92 193.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 0.00 85,800.26 80,000.00 80,000.00 704.34 (79,295.66) 0.88%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 124,783.28 283,747.60 331,617.00 283,000.00 129,862.66 (153,137.34) 45.89% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 32,410.13 32,702.16 0.00 0.00 61,240.23 61,240.23 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 106,015.22 134,027.82 131,000.00 130,000.00 128,356.46 (1,643.54) 98.74%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,606,211.03 4,148,947.17 4,134,617.00 4,038,837.00 4,070,775.20 31,938.20 100.79%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,898,457.00 5,842,251.00 5,939,236.00 6,062,611.00 6,032,605.10 (30,005.90) 99.51%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 646,951.09 669,803.05 490,940.00 492,733.00 419,934.70 (72,798.30) 85.23% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 47,015,028.91 47,170,880.18 48,603,097.00 48,780,602.00 48,675,688.11 (104,913.89) 99.78% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 47,661,980.00 47,840,683.23 49,094,037.00 49,273,335.00 49,095,622.81 (177,712.19) 99.64%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 56,166,648.03 57,831,881.40 59,167,890.00 59,374,783.00 59,199,003.11 (175,779.89) 99.70%
AMBULANCE 2302 509,331.40 568,996.83 555,000.00 555,000.00 689,899.03 134,899.03 124.31%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,085,477.43 2,098,305.22 1,915,961.00 1,915,961.00 2,199,858.84 283,897.84 114.82%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,436,505.68 2,450,402.14 2,356,075.00 2,356,075.00 2,874,414.77 518,339.77 122.00%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 233,986.15 252,430.15 270,000.00 270,000.00 249,607.69 (20,392.31) 92.45% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 61,431,948.69 63,202,015.74 64,264,926.00 64,471,819.00 65,212,783.44 740,964.44 101.15%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund MVET 01 2017 MVET # 1 =- $1.937 million. -$5.0K from FY16, 2nd up $3K, 3rd up $88K $88 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $21 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 FEES 04 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $18 RENTALS 05 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $1 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $8 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Revenue trend indicates a small deficit $12 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $32 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $1 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $18 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $17 MISCELLANEOUS 17 $0 budget, surplus indicates revenues to date $61 MEALS TAX 26 Revenue trend indicates a small deficit ($2) STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise ($178)
Subtotal $97
Ambulance 2302 Increased FY 2017 rates and increased utilization of 2nd Ambulance $134
Sewer 6000 2nd half billing up slightly from prior year's, due early April $283
Water 6100 2nd half billing up slightly from prior year's, due early April $518
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 $20K drop in MRF revenue sharing. From FY 16 amount, sale of recycleables down ($21)
Est. Rec FY17 7/3/2017 FY 2018 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT ThroughJune, 2018 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 17 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 ACTUAL FY 18 FY 18 TOTAL FY 18 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2017 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Final thru June 30, 2018 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,342,822.61 2,518,028.75 2,440,000.00 2,440,000.00 2,535,039.59 95,039.59 103.90%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 135,197.36 166,868.88 150,000.00 150,000.00 164,010.92 14,010.92 109.34%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 58,217.65 58,217.65 58,000.00 58,000.00 56,858.48 (1,141.52) 98.03%
FEES 04 38,780.06 42,823.78 30,000.00 30,000.00 50,848.63 20,848.63 169.50%
RENTALS 05 186,572.09 201,081.53 205,000.00 200,000.00 216,536.12 16,536.12 108.27%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 73,547.38 143,883.64 135,000.00 135,000.00 116,250.61 (18,749.39) 86.11%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 131,620.88 155,898.49 140,000.00 145,000.00* 156,494.10 11,494.10 107.93%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 312,286.02 331,994.14 310,000.00 320,000.00* 393,470.90 73,470.90 122.96%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,631.26 1,631.26 1,837.00 837.00 1,167.43 330.43 139.48%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 48,167.50 48,217.50 47,000.00 48,000.00 45,381.13 (2,618.87) 94.54%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 68,360.50 77,812.33 70,000.00 75,000.00 126,702.34 51,702.34 168.94% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 582.90 68,482.77 80,000.00 70,000.00* 67,585.24 (2,414.76) 96.55%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 129,862.66 316,420.58 310,000.00 310,000.00 337,665.39 27,665.39 108.92% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 61,771.10 60,929.85 0.00 0.00 48,819.59 48,819.59 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 99,835.20 128,356.46 130,000.00 125,000.00 126,896.32 1,896.32 101.52%
AMBULANCE 2302 620,630.03 689,899.03 645,000.00 645,000.00 802,228.78 157,228.78 124.38%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 4,309,885.20 5,010,546.64 4,751,837.00 4,751,837.00 5,245,955.57 494,118.57 110.40%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,537,437.10 6,032,605.10 6,189,953.00 6,231,795.00 6,234,347.00 2,552.00 100.04%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 351,950.91 419,934.70 506,159.00 507,391.15 409,236.22 (98,154.93) 80.65% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 48,475,171.24 48,675,688.11 50,109,748.00 50,231,724.20 50,202,293.76 (29,430.44) 99.94% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 48,827,122.15 49,095,622.81 50,615,907.00 50,739,115.35 50,611,529.98 (127,585.37) 99.75% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 58,674,444.45 60,138,774.55 61,557,697.00 61,722,747.35 62,091,832.55 369,085.20 100.60%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,190,518.80 2,199,858.84 1,925,144.00 1,925,144.00 1,963,965.07 38,821.07 102.02%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,858,759.49 2,874,414.77 2,327,273.00 2,447,373.00 2,508,343.52 60,970.52 102.49%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 229,737.50 249,607.69 260,000.00 260,000.00 291,611.54 31,611.54 112.16%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 63,953,460.24 65,462,655.85 66,070,114.00 66,355,264.35 66,855,752.68 500,488.33 100.75%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 $95 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 $14 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 ($1) FEES 04 $21 RENTALS 05 Cell tower $ slightly ahead of prior year due to annual escalation clauses, lost one co-locator but new cell tower may be on line in FY 2019 $16 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 ($19) OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Current year enhanced by $20K by-law violation charges $11 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Current year enhanced by Dwight Rd medical facility permits $76 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 ($3) INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Up from prior year due to higher rates and improved monitoring of balances, $58 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 $15 MISCELLANEOUS 17 $0 projected $48 MEALS TAX 26 $0 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 $2 PROPERTY TAXES 20 Most always with 1% of projection ($128)
Subtotal General Fund $205
AMBULANCE 2302 Contributing factiors: FY 18 rate increase, add'l usage of second ambulance with FY 18 add'l FF, $65K will be paid back to the GF net $92
SEWER 6000 $34
WATER 6100 $58
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 Slightly ahead of prior year $, increase in Recycling fees should create FY'18 excess $31 Est. Rec FY18 7/12/2018 FY 2019 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 2019 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 18 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 ACTUAL FY 19 FY 19 TOTAL FY 19 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2018 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE 12/01/2018 thru June 30, 2019 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,393,599.86 2,535,039.59 2,488,800.00 2,489,287.00 2,536,011.90 46,724.90 101.88%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 142,932.03 164,010.92 153,000.00 145,000.00 145,558.90 558.90 100.39%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 56,858.48 56,858.48 59,160.00 55,900.00 57,446.00 1,546.00 102.77%
FEES 04 40,457.94 50,848.63 30,600.00 40,000.00 47,108.66 7,108.66 117.77%
RENTALS 05 197,838.71 216,536.12 204,100.00 200,000.00 211,333.52 11,333.52 105.67%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 63,573.78 116,250.61 137,700.00 110,000.00 125,070.16 15,070.16 113.70%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 137,137.13 156,494.10 142,800.00 155,000.00 171,353.28 16,353.28 110.55%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 368,780.34 393,470.90 325,000.00 320,000.00 367,250.61 47,250.61 114.77%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,167.43 1,167.43 1,000.00 815.00 815.91 0.91 100.11%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 42,840.78 45,381.13 48,000.00 25,000.00 30,785.86 5,785.86 123.14%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 110,747.38 126,702.34 106,555.00 125,000.00 269,139.15 144,139.15 215.31% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196,168.12 196,168.12 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 452.02 67,585.24 75,000.00 65,000.00 79,163.57 14,163.57 121.79%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 151,988.34 337,665.39 325,000.00 335,000.00 328,734.07 (6,265.93) 98.13% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 38,546.11 59,361.76 0.00 0.00 66,934.79 66,934.79 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 99,387.92 126,896.32 125,000.00 125,000.00 133,733.49 8,733.49 106.99%
MGM 27 0.00 0.00 275,000.00 275,000.00 275,000.00 0.00 100.00%
Allocated Bond Premiums XX 0.00 3,993.00 2,340.00 3,053.00 0.00 (3,053.00) 0.00%
AMBULANCE 2302 678,955.94 802,228.78 657,900.00 657,900.00 950,928.95 293,028.95 144.54%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 4,525,264.19 5,260,490.74 5,156,955.00 5,126,955.00 5,992,536.94 865,581.94 116.88%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,727,851.00 6,234,347.00 6,747,130.00 6,851,076.00 6,905,839.00 54,763.00 100.80%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 360,663.79 409,236.22 520,192.00 525,665.00 464,848.04 (60,816.96) 88.43% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 49,957,134.52 50,133,953.79 51,499,050.00 52,040,871.18 51,945,398.89 (95,472.29) 99.82% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 50,317,798.31 50,543,190.01 52,019,242.00 52,566,536.18 52,410,246.93 (156,289.25) 99.70% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 60,570,913.50 62,038,027.75 63,923,327.00 64,544,567.18 65,308,622.87 764,055.69 101.18%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,943,824.09 1,963,965.07 1,910,332.00 1,910,332.00 1,982,527.56 72,195.56 103.78%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,480,867.38 2,508,343.52 2,523,830.00 2,523,830.00 2,540,598.16 16,768.16 100.66%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 265,948.19 291,611.54 275,000.00 275,000.00 308,260.10 33,260.10 112.09%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 190,704.66 (9,295.34) 95.35%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 65,261,553.16 66,801,947.88 68,832,489.00 69,453,729.18 70,330,713.35 876,984.17 101.26%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 2019 Commitment #1 $20K graeter than prior FY, on track to esceed projection $46 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 Lags prior FY , FY 19 estimate lowerred, likely to be short at fiscal year end $0 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 Bay Path payment, $52K arrives in May $1 FEES 04 On track to excedd projection $7 RENTALS 05 On track to excedd projection $11 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 Preceipts erratic. Cannot predict with confidence $15 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Proceeds from surpus property auction greater in FY 19 $16 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 YTD lags prior FY but FY 18 actual much lower than FY 19 estimate $44 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 Revenue from the court system. Will have to monitor slow FY 19 receipts. $6 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 2X+ prior FY. $144 INVESTMENT INC. Bond Preoceeds 12 $196 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 Year end assessments $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Semi annual assessments ($6) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $67 MEALS TAX 26 trending slightly higher than prior FY $8 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Minor accounts will see actual > budget, major accounts (Ch 70 & Unrestricted local aid) actual = budget $55
PROPERTY TAXES 20 ($156)
Subtotal General Fund $454 AMBULANCE 2302 Slightly higher amount continues trend of increasing revenue. FY 19 add'l FF's running second ambulance more often $293 SEWER 6000 Second commitment taken into considferation $72 WATER 6100 Second commitment taken into considferation $17 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 $33 STORMWATER 6300 Projected to be short of budget in first year of operations ($9) Est. Rec FY19 8/28/2019 FY 2020 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 2020 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 19 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 ACTUAL FY 20 FY 20 TOTAL FY 20 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2019 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE TBD thru June 30, 2020 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,536,011.90 2,536,011.90 2,500,000.00 2,475,000.00 2,404,806.73 (70,193.27) 97.16%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 145,558.90 145,558.90 142,000.00 130,000.00 120,084.35 (9,915.65) 92.37%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 57,446.00 57,446.00 57,000.00 50,000.00 77,224.29 27,224.29 154.45%
FEES 04 47,108.66 47,108.66 44,660.00 40,000.00 47,787.43 7,787.43 119.47%
RENTALS 05 211,333.52 211,333.52 205,000.00 200,000.00 183,260.75 (16,739.25) 91.63%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 125,070.16 125,070.16 107,300.00 90,000.00 80,882.88 (9,117.12) 89.87%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 171,353.28 171,353.28 160,000.00 145,000.00 132,329.99 (12,670.01) 91.26%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 367,250.61 367,250.61 331,500.00 335,000.00 322,027.56 (12,972.44) 96.13%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 815.91 815.91 1,020.00 1,020.00 854.63 (165.37) 83.79%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 30,785.86 30,785.86 30,000.00 25,000.00 29,560.00 4,560.00 118.24%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 269,139.15 269,139.15 180,500.00 175,000.00 249,166.45 74,166.45 142.38% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 196,168.12 196,168.12 0.00 0.00 240,243.93 240,243.93 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 79,163.57 79,163.57 65,000.00 65,000.00 96,054.18 31,054.18 147.78%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 328,734.07 328,734.07 350,000.00 328,125.00 254,831.60 (73,293.40) 77.66% . . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 66,934.79 66,934.79 0.00 0.00 99,412.10 99,412.10 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 133,733.49 133,733.49 127,500.00 115,000.00 132,234.10 17,234.10 114.99%
MGM 27 275,000.00 275,000.00 281,875.00 281,875.00 281,875.00 0.00 100.00%
Allocated Bond Premiums XX 0.00 0.00 3,114.00 3,114.00 0.00 (3,114.00) 0.00%
AMBULANCE 2302 950,928.95 950,928.95 800,000.00 845,000.00 935,218.17 90,218.17 110.68%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 5,992,536.94 5,992,536.94 5,386,469.00 5,304,134.00 5,687,854.14 383,720.14 107.23%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 6,905,839.00 6,905,839.00 7,282,637.00 7,314,320.00 7,276,450.00 (37,870.00) 99.48%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 464,848.04 464,848.04 540,000.00 545,043.00 253,141.40 (291,901.60) 46.44% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 51,945,398.89 51,945,398.89 53,460,149.00 53,959,248.78 53,613,893.88 (345,354.90) 99.36% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 52,410,246.93 52,410,246.93 54,000,149.00 54,504,291.78 53,867,035.28 (637,256.50) 98.83% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 65,308,622.87 65,308,622.87 66,669,255.00 67,122,745.78 66,831,339.42 (291,406.36) 99.57%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,982,527.56 1,982,527.56 1,910,332.00 1,991,772.00 2,019,030.88 27,258.88 101.37%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,540,598.16 2,540,598.16 2,523,830.00 2,701,607.00 2,656,350.28 (45,256.72) 98.32%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 308,260.10 308,260.10 275,000.00 285,000.00 293,945.52 8,945.52 103.14%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 190,704.66 190,704.66 200,000.00 292,000.00 290,826.18 (1,173.82) 99.60% 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 1-24 70,330,713.35 70,330,713.35 71,578,417.00 72,393,124.78 72,091,492.28 (301,632.50) 99.58%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 1st two 2020 MVET Commitments -$11K from FY 19 however budget set low, 3rd Commitment $100K less than FY 2019 ($70) PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 SB vote to waive interest and penalties through June 29th ($10) IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 BPU payment $52K due in May, East Longmeadow DIF payment $20K $27 FEES 04 $7 RENTALS 05 Vendor merger(s) or removal from cell tower at DPW site ($17) DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 ($10) OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Drop in sale of surplus property ($16) LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Stalled building permits ($17) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 $4 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Favorable cash flow and aggressive rate monitoring $75 INVESTMENT INC. Bond Proceeds 12 Favorable cash flow and aggressive rate monitoring $240 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Day Care and After School programs shut down, appropriation will return $1325K to the GF ($85) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $55 MEALS TAX 26 $17 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Have not received State's reimbursement for Veteran / Blind / Surving Spouse abatements ($46)
PROPERTY TAXES 20 Covid related. - FY 20 Demand Notices sent 7/10 (appox 60 days later than usual) , ??? Of financial impact to Town residents ($637) Subtotal General Fund ($483)
AMBULANCE 2302 Ambulance runs have subsided during Coved 19 matter - will impact FY 2021 estimated revenue $90 SEWER 6000 $26 WATER 6100 Concerned that Water revenue may fall short, Rainy fall season ($46) SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 $9 STORMWATER 6300 ($1) Est. Rec FY20 8/6/2020 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2010 DRAFT DRAFT REV ACTUAL FY 2009 FY 2009 FY 2010 ACTUAL FY 10 FY 10 TOTAL FY 10 PERCENT CATEGORY ID thru 05/31/09 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) June 30, 2010 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,024,806.60 2,057,586.30 2,000,000.00 1,947,767.18 (52,232.82) 97.39%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 89,834.35 100,176.18 100,000.00 108,754.44 8,754.44 108.75%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 6,539.85 6,539.85 6,000.00 6,857.58 857.58 114.29%
FEES 04 5,290.04 5,948.27 5,000.00 7,706.72 2,706.72 154.13%
RENTALS 05 106,481.84 125,018.44 125,000.00 133,936.26 8,936.26 107.15%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 34,670.69 76,236.09 76,000.00 95,529.49 19,529.49 125.70%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 105,254.76 * 111,039.66* 110,000.00 103,608.61 (6,391.39) 94.19%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 228,463.67 * 241,016.42* 211,800.00 232,370.25 20,570.25 109.71%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 6,058.21 4,896.78 3,638.00 5,643.03 2,005.03 155.11%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 58,784.50 63,127.00 63,000.00 50,755.00 (12,245.00) 80.56%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 208,452.27 223,204.64 223,000.00 159,353.76 (63,646.24) 71.46%
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 7,169.43 87,222.55 90,000.00 107,777.97 17,777.97 119.75%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 159,913.47 343,777.93 343,000.00 351,981.03 8,981.03 102.62%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 5,284.04 10,450.04 0.00 80,783.77 80,783.77 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 3,047,003.72 3,456,240.15 3,356,438.00 3,392,825.09 36,387.09 101.08%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,702,826.77 5,698,563.77 5,635,668.00# 5,613,807.00 (21,861.00) 99.61%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 402,433.59 406,349.85 379,757.38 556,881.48 177,124.10 146.64% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 36,390,390.75 36,592,272.68 37,595,962.00 37,632,926.20 36,964.20 100.10% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 36,792,824.34 36,998,622.53 37,975,719.38 38,189,807.68 214,088.30 100.56%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 44,542,654.83 46,153,426.45 46,967,825.38 47,196,439.77 228,614.39 100.49%
STATE RECEIPTS - CH 90 19 375,485.36 792,076.16 367,180.00 386,285.47 19,105.47 105.20%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 1,313,072.22 1,476,659.23 1,768,198.00 1,542,117.49 (226,080.51) 87.21%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 1,760,463.00 1,842,004.57 1,905,400.00 1,701,562.60 (203,837.40) 89.30%
AMBULANCE 23 426,140.20 501,416.83 467,657.00 534,101.92 66,444.92 114.21%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 288,096.90 * 299,079.24* 285,398.00 294,121.96 8,723.96 103.06%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 48,705,912.51 51,064,662.48 51,761,658.38 51,654,629.21 (107,029.17) 99.79%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated * Adjusted for Enterprise accounting beginning FY 09 # anticipated Quinn reduction $10,952 Est Rec FY 10a Rev 8/4/2010
Notes General Fund Budget to actual: Excess revenue of $228K coupled with $42K closeout of Overlay Surplus and Appropriation turn backs of $1.15 million puts our FY 11 Free Cash at $1.42 million +/-
Water Revenue shortfall of $226K is offset by Appropriation turn backs of $316K for an operating gain of $90K. FY 11 Water Retained Earnings will be $526K
Sewer Revenue shortfall of $204K is offset by Appropriation turn backs of $65K for an operating loss of $139K. FY 11 Sewer Retained Earnings will be $531K
Solid Waste / Recycling Enterprise Revenue excess of $8K added to Appropriation turn backs of $103K for an operating gain of $111K. FY 11 Solid Waste / Recycling Retained Earnings will be $111K
ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2011
Munis ACTUAL FY 2010 FY 2011 ACTUAL FY 11 FY 11 TOTAL FY 11 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID June 30, 2010 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2011 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 108,610.38 1,947,767.18 1,947,000.00 2,001,277.18 54,277.18 102.79%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 11,574.89 108,754.44 120,000.00 105,530.99 (14,469.01) 87.94%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 0.00 6,857.58 6,500.00 5,098.63 (1,401.37) 78.44%
FEES 04 365.52 7,706.72 7,500.00 16,339.84 8,839.84 217.86%
RENTALS 05 17,448.34 133,936.26 133,500.00 150,171.77 16,671.77 112.49%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 59,696.82 95,529.49 95,000.00 104,851.74 9,851.74 110.37%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 5,800.21 103,608.61 103,500.00 138,295.15 34,795.15 133.62%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 17,957.45 232,370.25 232,000.00 284,533.32 52,533.32 122.64%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 (1,113.67) 4,481.60 4,400.00 8,865.42 4,465.42 201.49%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 4,650.00 50,755.00 50,500.00 49,115.00 (1,385.00) 97.26%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 15,366.81 159,353.76 150,000.00 145,753.20 (4,246.80) 97.17% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 11a 0.00 0.00 0.00 67,751.19 67,751.19 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 62,777.97 107,777.97 107,500.00 42,262.74 (65,237.26) 39.31%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 188,733.89 351,981.03 351,736.00 159,514.75 (192,221.25) 45.35%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 9,181.07 89,964.24 0.00 42,762.59 42,762.59 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 501,049.68 3,400,844.13 3,309,136.00 3,322,123.51 12,987.51 100.39%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 1,399,289.00 5,613,807.00 5,322,037.00 5,382,367.21 60,330.21 101.13%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 (711.93) 556,881.48 391,295.00 323,007.79 (68,287.21) 82.55% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 277,532.86 37,632,926.20 38,738,198.94 38,826,679.06 88,480.12 100.23% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 276,820.93 38,189,807.68 39,129,493.94 39,149,686.85 20,192.91 100.05%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 2,177,159.61 47,204,458.81 47,760,666.94 47,854,177.57 93,510.63 100.20%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 112,264.76 1,542,117.49 1,883,481.00 1,984,067.54 100,586.54 105.34%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 123,746.52 1,701,562.60 1,908,422.00 2,085,043.30 176,621.30 109.25%
AMBULANCE 23 71,635.78 534,101.92 485,000.00 528,480.82 43,480.82 108.97%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 17,007.10 294,121.96 285,398.00 318,039.68 32,641.68 111.44%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 2,501,813.77 51,276,362.78 52,322,967.94 52,769,808.91 446,840.97 100.85%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated Est Rec fy11 Rev 7/22/2011 Notes General Fund Need to do allocation for Parks and Rec Reimbursement and Administrative Fees
G:\Estimated Receipts
G:\Estimated Receipts ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2012 DRAFT DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 11 FY 2011 FY 2012 ACTUAL FY 12 FY 12 TOTAL FY 12 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2011 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE* thru June 3\0, 2012 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,001,277.18 2,001,277.18 1,980,000.00 2,021,849.16 41,849.16 102.11%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 105,530.99 105,530.99 100,000.00 115,520.06 15,520.06 115.52%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 5,098.63 5,098.63 5,000.00 46,405.11 41,405.11 928.10%
FEES 04 16,339.84 16,339.84 15,000.00 20,008.33 5,008.33 133.39%
RENTALS 05 150,171.77 150,171.77 145,000.00 150,031.41 5,031.41 103.47%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 104,851.74 104,851.74 100,000.00 109,978.09 9,978.09 109.98%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 138,295.15 138,295.15 125,000.00 113,184.00 (11,816.00) 90.55%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 284,533.32 284,533.32 275,000.00 276,780.77 1,780.77 100.65%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 8,865.42 8,865.42 4,400.00 3,542.29 (857.71) 80.51%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 49,115.00 49,115.00 49,000.00 42,914.08 (6,085.92) 87.58%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 133,781.24 133,781.24 120,000.00 108,603.26 (11,396.74) 90.50% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 11a 67,751.19 67,751.19 0.00 229,214.65 229,214.65 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 115,154.30 115,154.30 111,500.00 67,808.78 (43,691.22) 60.82%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 327,571.23 327,571.23 342,931.00 324,196.67 (18,734.33) 94.54%
STATE REC - non recurring 17a 0.00 0.00 85,443.00 85,443.00 0.00 100.00%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 42,812.59 42,812.59 0.00 158,944.02 158,944.02 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17 3,551,149.59 3,551,149.59 3,458,274.00 3,874,423.68 416,149.68 112.03%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,382,367.21 5,382,367.21 5,282,196.00 5,286,721.00 4,525.00 100.09%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens 20 319,707.79 319,707.79 320,000.00 292,038.13 (27,961.87) 91.26% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 38,826,679.08 38,826,679.06 40,890,825.73**** 40,729,287.11 (161,538.62) 99.60% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 39,146,386.87 39,146,386.85 41,210,825.73 41,021,325.24 (189,500.49) 99.54% TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 48,079,903.67 48,079,903.65 49,951,295.73 50,182,469.92 231,174.19 100.46%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 21 1,991,349.35 1,991,349.35 1,966,549.00 1,806,024.16 (160,524.84) 91.84%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 22 2,089,705.43 2,089,705.43 1,883,339.00 1,899,499.03 16,160.03 100.86%
AMBULANCE 23 528,480.82 528,480.82 530,000.00 564,137.26 34,137.26 106.44%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 24 318,039.68 318,039.68 300,000.00 353,372.79 53,372.79 117.79% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 53,007,478.95 53,007,478.93 54,631,183.73 54,805,503.16 174,319.43 100.32%
(1) Tax Recap Estimate (2) Medicare Reimbursement * Estimated
Notes General Fund Motor Vehicle Excise Strong commitments. In Lieu of Taxes Bay Path PILOT $41K Fees FY 12 passport fees nearly tripled. Investment Income Low interest rates and transfer to Stabilization and other Reserve Funds hamper General Fund investment income Investment Income - Bond Proceeds $229K on investment of bond proceeds Administration Fees Are not complete at this point Parks/rec Reimb Day Care Salary reimbursement to be short, will be offset by appropriation year end turn back (FYE shortfall $20K). Accounting not yet complete Miscellaneous Includes $26K State reimbursement for 2011 winter storm cost. $58K in bond premium on $10 million storm BAN, Cable Fee $30K, MIIA dividends $5K. Property Taxes June demand notice did not reap in as much in delinquencies as anticipated. (FYE shortfall $190K) Overall FY12 will be at least $395K greater than budget (MVET, Investment Inc on Bond Proceeds and Miscellaneous main contributing categories) As of June 1, FY 13 Estimated Local Receipts can be raised to FY 12 level or slightly more. A $35K reduction had been used in the FY 13 budget process)
Water FY 12 shortfall is seasonal precipitation issue, (FYE shortfall $160K will be offset by lower Spfld charges)
Sewer Should be near breakeven
Ambulance
Solid Waste / Recycling FY 12 MRF $91K, up $16K from FY 11. Scrap metal revenue up $11K, Sale of waste bags up $6K . *** correction 6/19/12 G:\Estimated Receipts Est Rec fy12 7/30/2012 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2013 DRAFT DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 12 FY 2012 FY 2013 ACTUAL FY 13 FY 13 TOTAL FY 13 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2012 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2013 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,021,849.16 2,021,849.16 2,020,000.00 2,085,846.24 65,846.24 103.26%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 115,520.06 115,520.06 110,000.00 128,285.43 18,285.43 116.62%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 46,405.11 46,405.11 45,000.00 47,495.91 2,495.91 105.55%
FEES 04 20,008.33 20,008.33 20,000.00 23,141.86 3,141.86 115.71%
RENTALS 05 150,031.41 150,031.41 150,000.00 168,645.70 18,645.70 112.43%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 109,978.09 109,978.09 100,000.00 97,269.66 (2,730.34) 97.27%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 113,184.00 113,184.00 105,000.00 154,295.72 49,295.72 146.95%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 276,780.77 276,780.77 275,000.00 311,398.64 36,398.64 113.24%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 2,380.86 2,380.86 2,000.00 2,105.86 105.86 105.29%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 42,914.08 42,914.08 40,000.00 49,997.50 9,997.50 124.99%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 86,037.94 86,037.94 85,000.00 72,069.82 (12,930.18) 84.79% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 229,214.65 229,214.65 0.00 111,501.05 111,501.05 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 122,450.31 122,450.31 111,500.00 111,500.00est 0.00 100.00%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 324,646.67 324,646.67 324,000.00 334,000.00est 10,000.00 103.09%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 158,944.02 158,944.02 0.00 108,308.10 108,308.10 #DIV/0!
STATE REC - non recurring 17a 85,443.00 85,443.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 0.00 0.00 0.00 32,409.84 32,409.84 #DIV/0!
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,905,788.46 3,905,788.46 3,387,500.00 3,838,271.33 450,771.33 113.31%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,286,721.00 5,286,721.00 5,459,382.00 5,442,967.00 (16,415.00) 99.70%
PROPERTY TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 291,494.39 291,494.39 436,967.20 242,937.36 (194,029.84) 55.60% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 40,729,287.11 40,729,287.11 43,259,752.95 43,287,921.87 28,168.92 100.07% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 41,020,781.50 41,020,781.50 43,696,720.15 43,530,859.23 (165,860.92) 99.62%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 50,213,290.96 50,213,290.96 52,543,602.15 52,812,097.56 268,495.41 100.51%
AMBULANCE 2302 564,137.26 564,137.26 530,000.00 558,740.50 28,740.50 105.42%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,913,203.27 1,913,203.27 1,867,671.00* 2,077,704.25 210,033.25 111.25%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,814,683.82 1,814,683.82 1,980,439.00* 2,041,049.77 60,610.77 103.06%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 353,372.79 353,372.79 318,000.00 295,014.65 (22,985.35) 92.77% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 54,858,688.10 54,858,688.10 57,239,712.15 57,784,606.73 544,894.58 100.95%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - exceeded FY 13 budget by $65K and FY 14 final revised budget by $15K $65 02 P & I - $18 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments - BP College FY 13 payments = $42,494.48 or 2.5% greater than FY 13 $2 04 Fees - passport revenue + $16,556 $3 05 Rentals - Mainly from cell tower where escalation clauses and co locations enhance annual amounts $18 07 Other Dept'l - sale of surplus property $34,853 or about 2x the norm. $49 08 Licenses & Permits - did not meet FY 14 final revised but $14K variance will be met with other exceeded categories $36 10 Fines & Forfeits - $10 11 Investment Income - budget shortfall will be met with other exceeded categories ($13) 11a Investment Income Bond Proceeds - nice addition to Free cash but will drop drastically in FY 14 $111 14 Administration Fees - expected to meet or exceed budget Estimates inserted / data not complete / amounts TBD $0 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Estimates inserted / data not complete / amounts TBD $10 17 Misc - includes $57K from Bond Premiums, $8K settlement on Police injuries @ Franconia CC, $5,167 in MIIA Dividends $108 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - shortfall in Veteran/Blind exemption reimbursement from State - under review ($16) 20 Property Taxes - Shortfall attributable to $200K+/- prior year refunds that were paid in FY 13 (Verizon and Twin Hills CC) ($166) 26 Meals Tax - reflect January through April collections (caused by administrative time lag). FY 14 estimate of $75K should easily be met $32 Subtotal $267
Ambulance 2302 Ambulance - exceeded FY 13 budget by $28K and FY 14 final revised budget by $10K $28
Sewer 6000 $53K from Bond Premiums $210
Water 6100 $41K from Bond Premiums $60
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 Solid Waste / Recycling - revenue shortfall, subsidy from General Fund will increase to cover ($23)
Est Rec FY13 7/8/2013 FY 2014 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2014 DRAFT Town Meeting DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 13 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2014 ACTUAL FY 14 FY 14 TOTAL FY 14 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2014 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE ESTIMATE (1) thru June 30, 2014 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,007,823.97 2,082,658.89 2,070,000.00 2,070,000.00 2,365,826.83 295,826.83 114.29%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 115,489.03 128,285.43 110,000.00 120,000.00 136,627.90 16,627.90 113.86%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 26,248.68 47,495.91 45,000.00 45,000.00 49,163.47 4,163.47 109.25%
FEES 04 21,195.75 23,141.86 20,000.00 20,000.00 25,851.37 5,851.37 129.26%
RENTALS 05 147,992.79 168,645.70 150,000.00 165,000.00 161,973.34 (3,026.66) 98.17%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 49,267.93 97,269.66 100,000.00 95,000.00 107,855.08 12,855.08 113.53%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 130,919.51 153,744.72 105,000.00 125,000.00 129,101.58 4,101.58 103.28%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 294,833.64 310,331.14 325,000.00 300,000.00 297,915.20 (2,084.80) 99.31%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,092.30 2,105.86 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,189.80 189.80 109.49%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 45,092.50 49,997.50 40,000.00 45,000.00 54,545.18 9,545.18 121.21%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 61,521.37 65,965.80 85,000.00 70,000.00 46,988.28 (23,011.72) 67.13% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 107,284.73 111,501.05 0.00 0.00 4,769.15 4,769.15 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 51,205.88 85,918.63 111,500.00 111,500.00 104,016.67est (7,483.33) 93.29%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 179,920.04 333,890.50 345,500.00 345,500.00 318,027.45est (27,472.55) 92.05%
MISCELLANEOUS 17 107,959.75 88,376.69 0.00 0.00 252,395.46 252,395.46 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 5,282.64 32,409.84 75,000.00 80,000.00 122,930.30 42,930.30 153.66%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,355,130.51 3,781,739.18 3,584,000.00 3,594,000.00 4,180,177.06 586,177.06 116.31%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,082,568.00 5,442,967.00 5,562,675.00 5,575,182.00 5,588,860.00 13,678.00 100.25%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 212,273.14 242,937.36 450,583.00 451,800.00 409,555.23 (42,244.77) 90.65% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 43,128,063.26 43,287,921.87 44,607,771.00 44,728,249.00 44,592,634.21 (135,614.79) 99.70% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 43,340,336.40 43,530,859.23 45,058,354.00 45,180,049.00 45,002,189.44 (177,859.56) 99.61%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 50,778,034.91 52,755,565.41 54,205,029.00 54,349,231.00 54,771,226.50 421,995.50 100.78%
AMBULANCE 2302 505,778.97 558,740.50 548,550.00 548,550.00 547,443.08 (1,106.92) 99.80%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,064,677.87 2,080,980.47 1,863,333.00 1,898,703.00* 1,913,041.50 14,338.50 100.76%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,024,304.85 2,042,999.80 2,015,644.00 2,075,904.00* 1,955,423.34 (120,480.66) 94.20%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 279,654.65 295,014.65 318,000.00 316,500.00 282,105.76 (34,394.24) 89.13% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 55,652,451.25 57,733,300.83 58,950,556.00 59,188,888.00 59,469,240.18 280,352.18 100.47%
(1) Per Tax Recap Nov, 2013 (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - some FY 13 carryover into FY 14 but year end results mainly attributable greater commitment amounts $296 02 P & I - $16 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments -BPC Pilot increased 2.5% $4 04 Fees - $6 05 Rentals - Crown Castle contract still not signed., Comm House rentals $8K over projection ($3) 06 School - Medicare $13 07 Other Dept'l - variety of small variances, positive and negative $4 08 Licenses & Permits - liquor license increase help offset a 10% / $9K drop in building permits ($2) 09 Special assessments $0 10 Fines & Forfeits - $9 11 Investment Income - Internal funding of storm damage and LHS showied its impact (if no internal financing then interest expense would be up) ($23) 11a Investment Income Bond Proceeds - will drop to near $0 on FY 14 $4 14 Administration Fees - ($7) 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Day Care and after School revenues (and expenses) down ($27) 17 Misc. - $38K Baystate Gas $ $100K WMECO LHS Incentives, $23,4534 MIIA FY 13 Participation Credits. $15,601 reimb for US Senate election $252 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - $13 20 Property Taxes - would have liked better but shortfall due to annual abatements / exemptions ($178) 26 Meals Tax - first full FY of collections $42 Subtotal $419
Ambulance 2302 Ambulance - 1st FY ever short, revenue shortfall will be offset with Expense budget turnbacks for year end positive results ($1)
Sewer 6000 $14
Water 6100 shortfall was on the radar screen for quite a while - may result in year end loss ($120)
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 shortfall was on the radar screen for quite a while - will result in year end loss ($35)
Est. Rec FY14 8/25/2014 FY 2015 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2015 DRAFT Town Meeting DRAFT Munis ACTUAL FY 14 FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2015 ACTUAL FY 15 FY 15 TOTAL FY 15 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2014 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Tax Recap (1) thru June 30, 2015 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,232,439.37 2,365,826.83 2,270,000 2,280,000 2,348,234.52 68,234.52 102.99%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 122,795.91 136,627.90 120,000 130,000 140,188.81 10,188.81 107.84%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 49,163.47 49,163.47 45,000 49,000 56,124.08 7,124.08 114.54%
FEES 04 20,140.91 25,851.37 25,000 25,000 30,140.67 5,140.67 120.56%
RENTALS 05 137,834.60 161,973.34 190,000 160,000 180,186.84 20,186.84 112.62%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 65,210.85 107,855.08 95,000 100,000 108,922.89 8,922.89 108.92%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 125,375.58 129,101.58 145,000 120,000 125,188.38 5,188.38 104.32%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 275,841.35 297,915.20 310,000 295,000 321,743.65 26,743.65 109.07%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,351.23 2,189.80 2,000 2,000 2,628.01 628.01 131.40%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 50,647.68 58,822.18 50,000 54,000 54,167.50 167.50 100.31%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 42,015.09 46,988.28 70,000 45,000 78,227.48 33,227.48 173.84% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 4,769.15 4,769.15 0 0 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 50,455.22 104,016.67 111,500 100,000 82,852.54 (17,147.46) 82.85%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 150,643.42 318,027.45 312,500 312,500 262,353.96 (50,146.04) 83.95% . MISCELLANEOUS 17 256,084.20 266,251.10 0 0 196,623.34 196,623.34 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 94,231.90 122,930.30 95,000 120,000 134,117.50 14,117.50 111.76%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,680,999.93 4,198,309.70 3,841,000.00 3,792,500.00 4,121,700.17 329,200.17 108.68%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,115,714.00 5,584,583.00 5,715,120.00 5,715,120.00 5,702,044.00 (13,076.00) 99.77%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 394,526.97 409,555.23 463,308.00 465,235.00 426,067.69 (39,167.31) 91.58% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 44,372,124.84 44,592,634.21 45,845,527.00 46,039,364.51 45,844,797.44 (194,567.07) 99.58% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 44,766,651.81 45,002,189.44 46,308,835.00 46,504,599.51 46,270,865.13 (233,734.38) 99.50%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 53,563,365.74 54,785,082.14 55,864,955.00 56,012,219.51 56,094,609.30 82,389.79 100.15%
AMBULANCE 2302 497,444.39 547,443.08 $555,000.00 555,000.00 534,944.73 (20,055.27) 96.39%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,893,474.58 1,913,041.50 $1,818,924.00 1,916,824.00 1,820,380.80 (96,443.20) 94.97%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,935,271.41 1,955,423.34 $2,341,249.00 2,433,649.00 1,942,938.01 (490,710.99) 79.84%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 255,667.41 282,105.76 $270,000.00 270,000.00 270,459.43 459.43 100.17% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 58,145,223.53 59,483,095.82 60,850,128.00 61,187,692.51 60,663,332.27 (524,360.24) 99.14%
(1) Per Tax Recap Nov, 2014 (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund 01 MVET - 1st 2015 commitment is $1.79 million, $50K plus over last year's. 2nd Commitment plus $45K over prior Years $68 02 P & I - $10 03 In Lieu of Tax Payments - Bay Path Pilot due mid May.- should meet budget projection $7 04 Fees - Passport Fees up $2,000 $5 05 Rentals - Crown Castle contract finally signed and increased fees starting to flow. Plus $25K over last year $20 06 School Medicare - $9 07 Other Dept'l - Police Cruiser usage plus $5,300 $6 08 Licenses & Permits - $27 09 Special assessments $0 10 Fines & Forfeits - $0 11 Investment Income - up as a result of better cash flow (we are using BANs to finance projects as opposed to internal financing done in FY 14) $33 14 Administration Fees - stricter policy compliance , lower budget costs from Spfld's lower estimates ($20) 15 Park/Rec Reimbursement - Reimb much less that prior year / lower expenses will offset ($50) 17 Misc. - Crown Castle $125K lump sum plus FY 14 retro, net Bond premium $6K $197 18 State Aid / Cherry Sheet - ($13) 20 Property Taxes - ($233) 26 Meals Tax - $10K+ increase from previous FY $14 Subtotal $80
Ambulance 2302 $0
Sewer 6000 ($97)
Water 6100 ($491)
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 $0
Est. Rec FY15 9/29/2015 FY 2016 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 30, 2016 Town Meeting Munis ACTUAL FY 15 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2016 ACTUAL FY 16 FY 16 TOTAL FY 16 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2016 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Tax Recap (1) thru June 30, 2016 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,212,228.69 2,348,234.52 2,334,000.00 2,334,000.00 2,444,495.45 110,495.45 104.73%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 124,700.91 140,188.81 120,000.00 125,000.00 151,855.08 26,855.08 121.48%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 2,643.84 56,124.08 50,000.00 55,000.00 58,850.59 3,850.59 107.00%
FEES 04 26,986.65 30,140.67 25,000.00 25,000.00 26,387.92 1,387.92 105.55%
RENTALS 05 169,637.64 180,186.84 180,000.00 180,000.00 202,498.98 22,498.98 112.50%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 67,227.97 108,922.89 100,000.00 100,000.00 143,652.78 43,652.78 143.65%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 112,010.28 125,188.38 130,000.00 120,000.00 157,616.86 37,616.86 131.35%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 275,851.45 321,743.65 295,000.00 310,000.00 308,821.47 (1,178.53) 99.62%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 3,789.44 2,628.01 2,000.00 2,000.00 1,866.59 (133.41) 93.33%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 51,282.50 54,167.50 57,000.00 50,000.00 52,067.50 2,067.50 104.14%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 70,855.15 78,227.48 70,000.00 75,000.00 64,389.91 (10,610.09) 85.85% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 193.92 193.92 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 51,156.31 82,852.54 105,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 100.00%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 112,685.15 262,353.96 287,735.00 299,735.00 283,747.60 (15,987.40) 94.67% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 182,675.34 196,623.34 0.00 0.00 32,702.16 32,702.16 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 104,270.54 134,117.50 130,000.00 130,000.00 134,027.82 4,027.82 103.10%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,568,001.86 4,121,700.17 3,885,735.00 3,885,735.00 4,143,174.63 257,439.63 106.63%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,779,321.00 5,702,044.00 5,715,120.00 5,840,039.00 5,842,251.00 2,212.00 100.04%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 404,025.06 426,067.69 477,000.00 478,000.00 669,803.05 191,803.05 140.13% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 45,613,049.43 45,844,797.44 47,273,249.00 47,347,249.00 47,170,880.18 (176,368.82) 99.63% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 46,017,074.49 46,270,865.13 47,750,249.00 47,825,249.00 47,840,683.23 15,434.23 100.03%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 54,364,397.35 56,094,609.30 57,351,104.00 57,551,023.00 57,826,108.86 275,085.86 100.48%
AMBULANCE 2302 488,257.52 534,944.73 555,000.00 555,000.00 568,996.83 13,996.83 102.52%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,797,527.95 1,820,380.80 1,845,790.00 1,845,790.00 2,098,305.22 252,515.22 113.68%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 1,917,299.96 1,942,938.01 2,163,758.00 2,163,758.00 2,450,402.14 286,644.14 113.25%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 252,024.43 270,459.43 270,000.00 270,000.00 252,430.15 (17,569.85) 93.49% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 58,819,507.21 60,663,332.27 62,185,652.00 62,385,571.00 63,196,243.20 810,672.20 101.30%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 $110 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 $26 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 $4 FEES 04 $1 RENTALS 05 $22 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 $44 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 $38 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 ($2) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 $2 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 ($11) ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 ($16) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $33 MEALS TAX 26 $4 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 $2 SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 $15
Subtotal $272
Ambulance 2302 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be met $14
Sewer 6000 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be exceed budget $252
Water 6100 YTD revenues exceed Pr Yr revenues. Revenue budget expected to be exceed budget $286
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 Small shortfall projected ($18)
Est. Rec FY16 7/29/2016 FY 2017 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June, 2017 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 16 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2017 ACTUAL FY 17 FY 17 TOTAL FY 17 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2016 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Final thru June 30 2017 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,313,904.92 2,444,495.45 2,510,000.00 2,430,000.00 2,518,028.75 88,028.75 103.62%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 137,731.83 151,855.08 145,000.00 145,000.00 166,868.88 21,868.88 115.08%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 58,850.59 58,850.59 58,000.00 58,000.00 58,217.65 217.65 100.38%
FEES 04 23,986.93 26,387.92 25,000.00 24,000.00 42,823.78 18,823.78 178.43%
RENTALS 05 192,933.44 202,498.98 200,000.00 200,000.00 201,191.53 1,191.53 100.60%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 76,893.73 143,652.78 102,000.00 135,000.00 143,883.64 8,883.64 106.58%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 140,294.54 157,616.86 120,000.00 145,000.00 157,731.49 12,731.49 108.78%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 290,495.44 308,821.47 310,000.00 300,000.00 332,066.84 32,066.84 110.69%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,866.59 1,866.59 2,000.00 1,837.00 1,631.26 (205.74) 88.80%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 47,652.50 52,067.50 50,000.00 47,000.00 48,217.50 1,217.50 102.59%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 58,197.97 64,362.19 70,000.00 60,000.00 79,950.19 19,950.19 133.25% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 193.92 193.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 0.00 85,800.26 80,000.00 80,000.00 704.34 (79,295.66) 0.88%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 124,783.28 283,747.60 331,617.00 283,000.00 129,862.66 (153,137.34) 45.89% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 32,410.13 32,702.16 0.00 0.00 61,240.23 61,240.23 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 106,015.22 134,027.82 131,000.00 130,000.00 128,356.46 (1,643.54) 98.74%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 3,606,211.03 4,148,947.17 4,134,617.00 4,038,837.00 4,070,775.20 31,938.20 100.79%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 4,898,457.00 5,842,251.00 5,939,236.00 6,062,611.00 6,032,605.10 (30,005.90) 99.51%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 646,951.09 669,803.05 490,940.00 492,733.00 419,934.70 (72,798.30) 85.23% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 47,015,028.91 47,170,880.18 48,603,097.00 48,780,602.00 48,675,688.11 (104,913.89) 99.78% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 47,661,980.00 47,840,683.23 49,094,037.00 49,273,335.00 49,095,622.81 (177,712.19) 99.64%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 56,166,648.03 57,831,881.40 59,167,890.00 59,374,783.00 59,199,003.11 (175,779.89) 99.70%
AMBULANCE 2302 509,331.40 568,996.83 555,000.00 555,000.00 689,899.03 134,899.03 124.31%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,085,477.43 2,098,305.22 1,915,961.00 1,915,961.00 2,199,858.84 283,897.84 114.82%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,436,505.68 2,450,402.14 2,356,075.00 2,356,075.00 2,874,414.77 518,339.77 122.00%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 233,986.15 252,430.15 270,000.00 270,000.00 249,607.69 (20,392.31) 92.45% + GRAND TOTAL 1-24 61,431,948.69 63,202,015.74 64,264,926.00 64,471,819.00 65,212,783.44 740,964.44 101.15%
(1) Per Tax Recap (2) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's General Fund MVET 01 2017 MVET # 1 =- $1.937 million. -$5.0K from FY16, 2nd up $3K, 3rd up $88K $88 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $21 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 FEES 04 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $18 RENTALS 05 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $1 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (2) 06 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $8 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Revenue trend indicates a small deficit $12 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $32 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $1 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $18 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Revenue trend indicates a small surplus $17 MISCELLANEOUS 17 $0 budget, surplus indicates revenues to date $61 MEALS TAX 26 Revenue trend indicates a small deficit ($2) STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise $0 SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 Projected to meet budget, no indication otherwise ($178)
Subtotal $97
Ambulance 2302 Increased FY 2017 rates and increased utilization of 2nd Ambulance $134
Sewer 6000 2nd half billing up slightly from prior year's, due early April $283
Water 6100 2nd half billing up slightly from prior year's, due early April $518
Solid Waste / Recycling 6200 $20K drop in MRF revenue sharing. From FY 16 amount, sale of recycleables down ($21)
Est. Rec FY17 7/3/2017 FY 2018 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT ThroughJune, 2018 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 17 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2018 ACTUAL FY 18 FY 18 TOTAL FY 18 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2017 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE Final thru June 30, 2018 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,342,822.61 2,518,028.75 2,440,000.00 2,440,000.00 2,535,039.59 95,039.59 103.90%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 135,197.36 166,868.88 150,000.00 150,000.00 164,010.92 14,010.92 109.34%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 58,217.65 58,217.65 58,000.00 58,000.00 56,858.48 (1,141.52) 98.03%
FEES 04 38,780.06 42,823.78 30,000.00 30,000.00 50,848.63 20,848.63 169.50%
RENTALS 05 186,572.09 201,081.53 205,000.00 200,000.00 216,536.12 16,536.12 108.27%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 73,547.38 143,883.64 135,000.00 135,000.00 116,250.61 (18,749.39) 86.11%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 131,620.88 155,898.49 140,000.00 145,000.00* 156,494.10 11,494.10 107.93%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 312,286.02 331,994.14 310,000.00 320,000.00* 393,470.90 73,470.90 122.96%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,631.26 1,631.26 1,837.00 837.00 1,167.43 330.43 139.48%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 48,167.50 48,217.50 47,000.00 48,000.00 45,381.13 (2,618.87) 94.54%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 68,360.50 77,812.33 70,000.00 75,000.00 126,702.34 51,702.34 168.94% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 582.90 68,482.77 80,000.00 70,000.00* 67,585.24 (2,414.76) 96.55%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 129,862.66 316,420.58 310,000.00 310,000.00 337,665.39 27,665.39 108.92% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 61,771.10 60,929.85 0.00 0.00 48,819.59 48,819.59 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 99,835.20 128,356.46 130,000.00 125,000.00 126,896.32 1,896.32 101.52%
AMBULANCE 2302 620,630.03 689,899.03 645,000.00 645,000.00 802,228.78 157,228.78 124.38%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 4,309,885.20 5,010,546.64 4,751,837.00 4,751,837.00 5,245,955.57 494,118.57 110.40%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,537,437.10 6,032,605.10 6,189,953.00 6,231,795.00 6,234,347.00 2,552.00 100.04%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 351,950.91 419,934.70 506,159.00 507,391.15 409,236.22 (98,154.93) 80.65% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 20 48,475,171.24 48,675,688.11 50,109,748.00 50,231,724.20 50,202,293.76 (29,430.44) 99.94% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 48,827,122.15 49,095,622.81 50,615,907.00 50,739,115.35 50,611,529.98 (127,585.37) 99.75% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 58,674,444.45 60,138,774.55 61,557,697.00 61,722,747.35 62,091,832.55 369,085.20 100.60%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 2,190,518.80 2,199,858.84 1,925,144.00 1,925,144.00 1,963,965.07 38,821.07 102.02%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,858,759.49 2,874,414.77 2,327,273.00 2,447,373.00 2,508,343.52 60,970.52 102.49%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 229,737.50 249,607.69 260,000.00 260,000.00 291,611.54 31,611.54 112.16%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 63,953,460.24 65,462,655.85 66,070,114.00 66,355,264.35 66,855,752.68 500,488.33 100.75%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 $95 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 $14 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 ($1) FEES 04 $21 RENTALS 05 Cell tower $ slightly ahead of prior year due to annual escalation clauses, lost one co-locator but new cell tower may be on line in FY 2019 $16 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 ($19) OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Current year enhanced by $20K by-law violation charges $11 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Current year enhanced by Dwight Rd medical facility permits $76 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 ($3) INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Up from prior year due to higher rates and improved monitoring of balances, $58 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 $15 MISCELLANEOUS 17 $0 projected $48 MEALS TAX 26 $0 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 $2 PROPERTY TAXES 20 Most always with 1% of projection ($128)
Subtotal General Fund $205
AMBULANCE 2302 Contributing factiors: FY 18 rate increase, add'l usage of second ambulance with FY 18 add'l FF, $65K will be paid back to the GF net $92
SEWER 6000 $34
WATER 6100 $58
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 Slightly ahead of prior year $, increase in Recycling fees should create FY'18 excess $31 Est. Rec FY18 7/12/2018 FY 2019 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 2019 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 18 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2019 ACTUAL FY 19 FY 19 TOTAL FY 19 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru May, 2018 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE 12/01/2018 thru June 30, 2019 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,393,599.86 2,535,039.59 2,488,800.00 2,489,287.00 2,536,011.90 46,724.90 101.88%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 142,932.03 164,010.92 153,000.00 145,000.00 145,558.90 558.90 100.39%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 56,858.48 56,858.48 59,160.00 55,900.00 57,446.00 1,546.00 102.77%
FEES 04 40,457.94 50,848.63 30,600.00 40,000.00 47,108.66 7,108.66 117.77%
RENTALS 05 197,838.71 216,536.12 204,100.00 200,000.00 211,333.52 11,333.52 105.67%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 63,573.78 116,250.61 137,700.00 110,000.00 125,070.16 15,070.16 113.70%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 137,137.13 156,494.10 142,800.00 155,000.00 171,353.28 16,353.28 110.55%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 368,780.34 393,470.90 325,000.00 320,000.00 367,250.61 47,250.61 114.77%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 1,167.43 1,167.43 1,000.00 815.00 815.91 0.91 100.11%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 42,840.78 45,381.13 48,000.00 25,000.00 30,785.86 5,785.86 123.14%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 110,747.38 126,702.34 106,555.00 125,000.00 269,139.15 144,139.15 215.31% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 196,168.12 196,168.12 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 452.02 67,585.24 75,000.00 65,000.00 79,163.57 14,163.57 121.79%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 151,988.34 337,665.39 325,000.00 335,000.00 328,734.07 (6,265.93) 98.13% . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 38,546.11 59,361.76 0.00 0.00 66,934.79 66,934.79 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 99,387.92 126,896.32 125,000.00 125,000.00 133,733.49 8,733.49 106.99%
MGM 27 0.00 0.00 275,000.00 275,000.00 275,000.00 0.00 100.00%
Allocated Bond Premiums XX 0.00 3,993.00 2,340.00 3,053.00 0.00 (3,053.00) 0.00%
AMBULANCE 2302 678,955.94 802,228.78 657,900.00 657,900.00 950,928.95 293,028.95 144.54%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 4,525,264.19 5,260,490.74 5,156,955.00 5,126,955.00 5,992,536.94 865,581.94 116.88%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 5,727,851.00 6,234,347.00 6,747,130.00 6,851,076.00 6,905,839.00 54,763.00 100.80%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 360,663.79 409,236.22 520,192.00 525,665.00 464,848.04 (60,816.96) 88.43% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 49,957,134.52 50,133,953.79 51,499,050.00 52,040,871.18 51,945,398.89 (95,472.29) 99.82% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 50,317,798.31 50,543,190.01 52,019,242.00 52,566,536.18 52,410,246.93 (156,289.25) 99.70% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 60,570,913.50 62,038,027.75 63,923,327.00 64,544,567.18 65,308,622.87 764,055.69 101.18%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,943,824.09 1,963,965.07 1,910,332.00 1,910,332.00 1,982,527.56 72,195.56 103.78%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,480,867.38 2,508,343.52 2,523,830.00 2,523,830.00 2,540,598.16 16,768.16 100.66%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 265,948.19 291,611.54 275,000.00 275,000.00 308,260.10 33,260.10 112.09%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 0.00 0.00 200,000.00 200,000.00 190,704.66 (9,295.34) 95.35%
GRAND TOTAL 1-24 65,261,553.16 66,801,947.88 68,832,489.00 69,453,729.18 70,330,713.35 876,984.17 101.26%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / - Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 2019 Commitment #1 $20K graeter than prior FY, on track to esceed projection $46 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 Lags prior FY , FY 19 estimate lowerred, likely to be short at fiscal year end $0 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 Bay Path payment, $52K arrives in May $1 FEES 04 On track to excedd projection $7 RENTALS 05 On track to excedd projection $11 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 Preceipts erratic. Cannot predict with confidence $15 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Proceeds from surpus property auction greater in FY 19 $16 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 YTD lags prior FY but FY 18 actual much lower than FY 19 estimate $44 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 Revenue from the court system. Will have to monitor slow FY 19 receipts. $6 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 2X+ prior FY. $144 INVESTMENT INC. Bond Preoceeds 12 $196 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 Year end assessments $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Semi annual assessments ($6) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $67 MEALS TAX 26 trending slightly higher than prior FY $8 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Minor accounts will see actual > budget, major accounts (Ch 70 & Unrestricted local aid) actual = budget $55
PROPERTY TAXES 20 ($156)
Subtotal General Fund $454 AMBULANCE 2302 Slightly higher amount continues trend of increasing revenue. FY 19 add'l FF's running second ambulance more often $293 SEWER 6000 Second commitment taken into considferation $72 WATER 6100 Second commitment taken into considferation $17 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 $33 STORMWATER 6300 Projected to be short of budget in first year of operations ($9) Est. Rec FY19 8/28/2019 FY 2020 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through June 2020 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 19 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2020 ACTUAL FY 20 FY 20 TOTAL FY 20 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru June, 2019 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE TBD thru June 30, 2020 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 2,536,011.90 2,536,011.90 2,500,000.00 2,475,000.00 2,404,806.73 (70,193.27) 97.16%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 145,558.90 145,558.90 142,000.00 130,000.00 120,084.35 (9,915.65) 92.37%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 57,446.00 57,446.00 57,000.00 50,000.00 77,224.29 27,224.29 154.45%
FEES 04 47,108.66 47,108.66 44,660.00 40,000.00 47,787.43 7,787.43 119.47%
RENTALS 05 211,333.52 211,333.52 205,000.00 200,000.00 183,260.75 (16,739.25) 91.63%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 125,070.16 125,070.16 107,300.00 90,000.00 80,882.88 (9,117.12) 89.87%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 171,353.28 171,353.28 160,000.00 145,000.00 132,329.99 (12,670.01) 91.26%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 367,250.61 367,250.61 331,500.00 335,000.00 322,027.56 (12,972.44) 96.13%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 815.91 815.91 1,020.00 1,020.00 854.63 (165.37) 83.79%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 30,785.86 30,785.86 30,000.00 25,000.00 29,560.00 4,560.00 118.24%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 269,139.15 269,139.15 180,500.00 175,000.00 249,166.45 74,166.45 142.38% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 196,168.12 196,168.12 0.00 0.00 240,243.93 240,243.93 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 79,163.57 79,163.57 65,000.00 65,000.00 96,054.18 31,054.18 147.78%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 328,734.07 328,734.07 350,000.00 328,125.00 254,831.60 (73,293.40) 77.66% . . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 66,934.79 66,934.79 0.00 0.00 99,412.10 99,412.10 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 133,733.49 133,733.49 127,500.00 115,000.00 132,234.10 17,234.10 114.99%
MGM 27 275,000.00 275,000.00 281,875.00 281,875.00 281,875.00 0.00 100.00%
Allocated Bond Premiums XX 0.00 0.00 3,114.00 3,114.00 0.00 (3,114.00) 0.00%
AMBULANCE 2302 950,928.95 950,928.95 800,000.00 845,000.00 935,218.17 90,218.17 110.68%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 5,992,536.94 5,992,536.94 5,386,469.00 5,304,134.00 5,687,854.14 383,720.14 107.23%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 6,905,839.00 6,905,839.00 7,282,637.00 7,314,320.00 7,276,450.00 (37,870.00) 99.48%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 464,848.04 464,848.04 540,000.00 545,043.00 253,141.40 (291,901.60) 46.44% PROPERTY TAXES - Current 51,945,398.89 51,945,398.89 53,460,149.00 53,959,248.78 53,613,893.88 (345,354.90) 99.36% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 52,410,246.93 52,410,246.93 54,000,149.00 54,504,291.78 53,867,035.28 (637,256.50) 98.83% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 65,308,622.87 65,308,622.87 66,669,255.00 67,122,745.78 66,831,339.42 (291,406.36) 99.57%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 1,982,527.56 1,982,527.56 1,910,332.00 1,991,772.00 2,019,030.88 27,258.88 101.37%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 2,540,598.16 2,540,598.16 2,523,830.00 2,701,607.00 2,656,350.28 (45,256.72) 98.32%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 308,260.10 308,260.10 275,000.00 285,000.00 293,945.52 8,945.52 103.14%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 190,704.66 190,704.66 200,000.00 292,000.00 290,826.18 (1,173.82) 99.60% 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 1-24 70,330,713.35 70,330,713.35 71,578,417.00 72,393,124.78 72,091,492.28 (301,632.50) 99.58%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 1st two 2020 MVET Commitments -$11K from FY 19 however budget set low, 3rd Commitment $100K less than FY 2019 ($70) PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 SB vote to waive interest and penalties through June 29th ($10) IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 BPU payment $52K due in May, East Longmeadow DIF payment $20K $27 FEES 04 $7 RENTALS 05 Vendor merger(s) or removal from cell tower at DPW site ($17) DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 ($10) OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 Drop in sale of surplus property ($16) LICENSES & PERMITS 08 Stalled building permits ($17) SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 $4 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 Favorable cash flow and aggressive rate monitoring $75 INVESTMENT INC. Bond Proceeds 12 Favorable cash flow and aggressive rate monitoring $240 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 Day Care and After School programs shut down, appropriation will return $1325K to the GF ($85) MISCELLANEOUS 17 $55 MEALS TAX 26 $17 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 Have not received State's reimbursement for Veteran / Blind / Surving Spouse abatements ($46)
PROPERTY TAXES 20 Covid related. - FY 20 Demand Notices sent 7/10 (appox 60 days later than usual) , ??? Of financial impact to Town residents ($637) Subtotal General Fund ($483)
AMBULANCE 2302 Ambulance runs have subsided during Coved 19 matter - will impact FY 2021 estimated revenue $90 SEWER 6000 $26 WATER 6100 Concerned that Water revenue may fall short, Rainy fall season ($46) SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 $9 STORMWATER 6300 ($1) Est. Rec FY20 7/9/2020 FY 2021 ESTIMATED RECEIPTS REPORT Through July 2020 Town Meeting Tax Recap Munis ACTUAL FY 20 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2021 ACTUAL FY 21 FY 21 TOTAL FY 21 PERCENT CATEGORY Rev ID thru July, 2020 ACTUAL RECEIPTS ESTIMATE TBD thru July 31, 2020 YTD UNCOLLECTED COLLECTED ______
MOTOR VEHICLE EXCISE 01 41,375.72 2,404,806.73 2,372,625.00 2,400,000.00 48,384.88 (2,351,615.12) 2.02%
PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 19,471.48 120,084.35 160,000.00 120,000.00 30,783.38 (89,216.62) 25.65%
IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 1,321.92 77,224.29 77,222.00 77,000.00 0.00 (77,000.00) 0.00%
FEES 04 3,485.85 47,787.43 36,000.00 45,000.00 3,462.86 (41,537.14) 7.70%
RENTALS 05 10,045.61 183,260.75 200,000.00 183,000.00 9,404.74 (173,595.26) 5.14%
DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 0.00 80,882.88 120,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 (80,000.00) 0.00%
OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 21,181.09 132,329.99 160,000.00 129,000.00 16,578.87 (112,421.13) 12.85%
LICENSES & PERMITS 08 16,775.63 322,027.56 333,000.00 320,000.00 13,047.34 (306,952.66) 4.08%
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 0.00 854.63 513.00 513.00 0.00 (513.00) 0.00%
FINES & FORFEITS 10 3,997.50 29,560.00 30,600.00 29,500.00 1,390.56 (28,109.44) 4.71%
INVESTMENT INCOME 11 27,599.01 249,166.45 230,000.00 125,000.00 6,420.37 (118,579.63) 5.14% INVEST INCOME - Bond Proceeds 12 17,449.58 240,243.93 0.00 0.00 17,663.77 17,663.77 #DIV/0!
ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 0.00 96,054.18 75,000.00 75,000.00 0.00 (75,000.00) 0.00%
PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 0.00 254,831.60 240,000.00 20,000.00 0.00 (20,000.00) 0.00% . . . MISCELLANEOUS 17 662.03 99,412.10 0.00 0.00 2,073.76 2,073.76 #DIV/0!
MEALS TAX 26 0.00 132,234.10 72,500.00 72,500.00 0.00 (72,500.00) 0.00%
MGM 27 0.00 281,875.00 288,922.00 288,922.00 0.00 (288,922.00) 0.00%
Allocated Bond Premiums XX 0.00 0.00 1,837.00 1,837.00 0.00 (1,837.00) 0.00%
AMBULANCE 2302 64,592.07 935,218.17 900,000.00 900,000.00 66,438.70 (833,561.30) 7.38%
SUBTOTAL LOCAL RECEIPTS 1-17+26 227,957.49 5,687,854.14 5,298,219.00 4,867,272.00 215,649.23 (4,651,622.77) 4.43%
STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 43,121.00 7,276,450.00 6,910,636.00 7,034,102.00 575,772.00 (6,458,330.00) 8.19%
PROP TAXES - Pr Yr & Liens (1%) 20 (26,898.47) 253,141.40 0.00 0.00 165,365.04 165,365.04 #DIV/0! PROPERTY TAXES - Current 10,881,396.96 53,613,893.88 56,451,182.00 56,451,182.00 10,129,835.82 (46,321,346.18) 17.94% SUBTOTAL PROPERTY TAXES 20 10,854,498.49 53,867,035.28 56,451,182.00 56,451,182.00 10,295,200.86 (46,155,981.14) 18.24% 25.00 TOTAL GENERAL FUND RECEIPTS 1-20 11,125,576.98 66,831,339.42 68,660,037.00 68,352,556.00 11,086,622.09 (57,265,933.91) 16.22%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-SEWER 6000 23,739.77 2,019,030.88 2,165,663.00 2,165,663.00 20,077.06 (2,145,585.94) 0.93%
CHARGES FOR SERVICES-WATER 6100 31,338.09 2,656,350.28 2,952,778.00 2,952,778.00 22,881.10 (2,929,896.90) 0.77%
SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 22,802.50 293,945.52 320,000.00 320,000.00 22,307.80 (297,692.20) 6.97%
STORMWATER FEE 6200 1,187.19 290,826.18 378,120.00 378,120.00 2,121.79 (375,998.21) 0.56% 0.00 GRAND TOTAL 1-24 11,204,644.53 72,091,492.28 74,476,598.00 74,169,117.00 11,154,009.84 (63,015,107.16) 15.04%
(1) Medicare Reimbursement Year End + / -
Notes in 000's GENERAL FUND MVET 01 $0 PENALTIES & INTEREST 02 $0 IN LIEU OF TAXES 03 $0 FEES 04 $0 RENTALS 05 $0 DEPT'L REVENUE SCHOOLS (1) 06 $0 OTHER DEPT'L REVENUE 07 $0 LICENSES & PERMITS 08 $0 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 09 $0 FINES & FORFEITS 10 $0 INVESTMENT INCOME 11 $0 INVESTMENT INC. Bond Proceeds 12 $0 ADMINISTRATION FEES 14 $0 PARK/REC REIMBURSEMENT 15 $0 MISCELLANEOUS 17 $0 MEALS TAX 26 $0 STATE REC - CHERRY SHEET (net) 18 $0
PROPERTY TAXES 20 $0 Subtotal General Fund $0
AMBULANCE 2302 $0 SEWER 6000 $0 WATER 6100 $0 SOLID WASTE / RECYCLING 6200 $0 STORMWATER 6300 $0 Est. Rec FY20 7/9/2020 The Finance Department reports its activities for the month of July 2020 as follows:
PROJECT UPDATES Finance Director Streetlight Conversion – began working with Mark Gold and Marc Strange on fitting all the info previously gathered into next steps on the streetlight conversion. Had a teleconference with Tanko regarding having them take over next steps as outlined in the MAPC proposals. Sent letter to Eversource indicating the Town’s desire to purchase streetlights Town purchased streetlights in December 2019. Cobra heads installed Put spring of 2020 bond issue on Financial Advisors radar. Issue to include $700,000 for Phase II of Tina Lane / Birnie Rd Landfill closure, $1.345 million and $1.30 million for DPW, $1.54 million for Wolf Swamp Fields, North Interceptor Sewer $800,000, Willow Brook Rd. Drainage $425,000 and advanced refunding of second LHS bond issue. Option effective Feb 2020. May 13 bond sale results: LHS #2 savings $2,240,499.50, Water Bonds savings $16,940.72. true Interest Rate on the $17,120,000 borrowing 1.69% Accounting Assessors Human Resources Purchasing Town Clerk The Police Department is working with the Town Clerk and Treasurer / Collector on the installation of security cameras for their offices and lobby. Installation date yet to be determined. This project will become part of a larger scale town-wide proposal being developed for the next round of capital projects. Spoke to new Facilities Director, Nick Georgantas, about the purchase of the security system with MIIA Grant Funds. Wiring for the cameras was just completed. Camera installed Treasurer / Collector Reviewing small parcels with outstanding taxes to see if feasible to foreclose on the properties. Working with IT to improve online payment process to be more user friendly
WORK ACTIVITIES Finance Director Calculated FY 21 wage allocation for distribution to Salary line items impacted Calculated indirect costs foe Ambulance, Day care and Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds. Indirect costs include Salary. Employee / Retiree benefits, and Liability insurance reimbursements along with an OPEB assessments and administrative cost assessments MIIA Insurance inventories forwarded to departments for review and updates along with certain other insurance applications. Completed the Public Officials Liability Insurance application. Monitoring FY 2020 revenues to estimate impact on the FY 2021 Revenue budget as modified in May Accounting FY 21 GFOA budget book is being prepared for consideration of the GFOA Budget Presentation Award. It would be the 6th consecutive year if successful in achieving the award. Submitted required annual fiscal year vendor report along with calendar year second quarter payroll withholding tax information. Also submitted were the Q2 unemployment earnings report and the property tax survey report. Prepping for closing of FY 20 financial records. Submitted requested info to independent auditors who have started some remote work on the FY 20 audit Assessors KRT Data Collector began building permit inspections. 90% of inspections are complete and KRT is working on the data entry, Final 10% to be completed in mid-August Measure & List revaluation for precinct C originally scheduled to be done in the spring is now pushed back to late summer 31 MVET Abatements totaling $3,489 Processed MVET Commitment #4 = $101,552,59 1 Prepping for August 12th ATB Hearing Human Resources New Hires: 2 Firefighters, 1 HR Sr. Payroll Specialist, promotion of 1Police sergeant Day Care staff from furloughed to laid off, some staff called back to work in small trickles (Treasurer Collector PT Clerk, some) Library personnel Monitoring unemployment claims for reduction of frivolous claims. Actual reimbursement assessment from March to the present are anticipated to arrive soon. Salary agreements for School Year staff completed and reviewed by School Administration Web posting of Coronavirus employment issues, employee rights and employers responsibilities Purchasing Bids on Hold: Bids in Development: Sale of Land (various small unbuildable parcel), Bids out not due: WS Fields Renovations (due 8/26), Willow Brook Rd. Storm drain Rehab (due 8/27) Bids Awarded: Knollwood Sidewalk (Gomes Construction), HVAC Preventive Maintenance (Rene Cote), Community House Roof & Balustrade (Silktown Roofing), Automated Logic Construction – Williams & Glenbrook (both to Automated Logic) Rejected Bids: Town Clerk Letters sent 500 owners of dogs whom have not paid their dog license fees to date. The original deadline was March 31st. A $30 late fee went into effect if licenses were not paid by May 1st. If not paid by Sept1, info will be turned over the Dog Officer for collection and /or possible warrant issuance Bylaw amendments from the June 23 ATM were submitted to the AGs office and are expected back from the AGs office by Oct 20th General and Zoning by laws have been update to reflect approved changes since May 2019 To date thee are $2,695 “vote by mail” applications to be mailed out. Those that were complete were entered into the States Voting System and those that were incomplete will be followed upon with the requester. IN general, mail in applications are labor intense to process. Treasurer / Collectors. Lock box collections for the month of July were $1,354,165. This was the first month of operating. Note that printing service utilized by the Town forgot to insert special envelopes within the mailing that contained FY 21 Q1 property tax bills. A better barometer of usage will be with the FY 21 Q2 billing. Water and Sewer billing will go prior and do utilize escrow services so that billing will also be a good indicator of the amount of internal data entry will be omitted. Funds collected and processed by the providing bank are regularly moved to higher interest bearing accounts. The 1.0 FTE clerical staff in the Treasurer / Collectors office has been temporarily assigned to the Clerk’s office. We will be operating down one full time FTE for savings of both wages and benefits, A part time. Non benefitted, lower wage earning was called back from being furloughed back in April. Satellite office customer counts were low with the exception of dates around the due date for the Q2 property taxes. Customer counts were July 22th = 3, 24th = 1, 27th = 13, 31st = 15, Aug 3rd = 33 (actual property tax due date), 5th = 5
NOTABLE MATTERS / GRANTS The Town’s FY 2020 Estimated Receipts Report is near final. Only minor, if any, tweaking needs to be done. The news is not good, but also not devastating. After looking at the Interest Revenue for the month of July ($6,420) it became apparent that the interest revenue estimate for FY 21 had to be dropped drastically from May’s estimate of $230K down to $125K. Low interest rates and a lessened cash flow being the rational. Additionally, with the closing of the Day Care program the Park / Rec reimbursement had to be reduced from $240K to $20K. This reduction will be mainly absorbed through the recension of the FY 21 Day Care Salary appropriation. In total, I anticipate dropping the local receipts by $431K, half of which is the Day Care matter that will be offset by an appropriation reduction and the majority of the remainder being the Interest Revenue.
2 The current overall outlook for FY 21 still remains favorable. If the State maintains its commitment (a slight increase in Ch. 70 and level funding of General Governmental Aid) we now are estimated to be about $400K under the levy limit. This is $100K more than the $311,608 target for excess capacity sought by the Select Board.
I am currently estimating about $1.90 million in unexpended FY 21 appropriations. This amount will be offset by the revenue shortfall and certain other account deficits. Our FY 21 Free Cash to be certified should be in the vicinity of $1.50 million. With that higher than normal amount I want to make the Select Board is aware that the FY 21 Free Cash amount is predicated on certain reimbursements related to COVID 19. I cannot guarantee that all requested amounts will be deemed eligible and small gaps may develop and need to be filled at some point in the future,
Ambulance revenues for FY 20 exceeded projections by $90K, $27K of this was from the Federal Government to cover estimated loss revenues in the early stages of the pandemic The year-end balance in the Ambulance Fund will be $145K+/-
Sewer receipts have exceeded year end projections by $27K. Water receipts appear will be short at year end by $45K. Solid Waste Recycling revenues exceeded budget by $9K while the Stormwater revenues fell short by $1K. Unexpended appropriations in the Sewer fund will be approximately $100K and the year end fund balance should be around $850K. Unexpended appropriations in the Water fund will be approximately $150K+ and the year end fund balance should be around $330K. Unexpended appropriations in the Solid Waste / Recycling fund will be approximately $10K+ and the year end fund balance should be around $70K Unexpended appropriations in the Stormwater fund will be approximately $100K+ and the year end fund balance should be around $95K.
Finance Director Accounting Assessors – Human Resource Purchasing Town Clerk Treasurer / Collector
PERFORMANCE MEASURE / HIGHLIGHTS Tolland Solar / NuGen Capital - Total Net Metering Credits (NMCs) since November 2014 are $254,471.68 Fiscal Year 2019 credits were $48,143 Fiscal Year 2020 credits were $47,561, FY 2021 credits are $4,816.34- see most recent report attached. LSPD 11 LLC / Lakeshore Development – Total Net Metering Credits since January 2018 are $74,475.01 per billing information. Fiscal Year 2019 credits were $30,191. Fiscal Year 2020 credits are $29,699; FY 21 credits are $3,017.33
The Town has received $328,946.69 in net metering credits since participation began in November 2014
NEXT MONTH Finance Director FY 2021 Free Cash estimation Update FY 21 revenue assumptions to assist planning of writing Fall Town Meeting warrant articles. Maintain SB’s FY 2020 budget goals Finalize FY 2021 GFOA budget document Update FY 21 budget and tax rate projection Begin to write warrant articles for October Special Town Meeting 3 Accounting Continue work on FY 21 GFOA budget document Continue with FY 20 closeout process Independent auditors will be on site Aug 10th Assessor Preparation for ATB case – Aug 12th MMA Supervisor Leadership Development Program started in the spring to finish via Zoom in July and August State’s Assessors Association to conduct its summer educational program virtually the week of August 17th Complete inspection of FY 20 Building Permits Human Resources Transition one 457 plan provider to an existing plan – still in process Pay Equity Law review by Sullivan, Hayes & Quinn with unused FY 2018 retainer hours Never ending maze of coronavirus employment issues – employee / employer Purchasing See “Work Activities” section above Town Clerk State Primary Election September1st Early voting starts Aug 22nd Treasurer / Collector Postponing sending FY 2019 Property Tax delinquencies into Tax Title – approximately 26 accounts totaling $118.095
Attachments: Estimated Receipts Report June & July Most Recent Net Metering Credit Report Early Voting Schedule attached Monthly Report Finance Dept. July 2020
4 Net Metering Credits / Savings 6/9/2016
Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Total Credits Street Provider 85% - Tolland Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland Grand Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland Lights Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC School Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC FY 2015 November $6,720.17 $1,008.03 $5,712.14 $6,492.92 $973.94 $5,518.98 $13,213.09 $1,981.96 $11,231.13 December 5,027.03 754.05 4,272.98 4,857.03 728.55 4,128.48 9,884.06 1,482.61 8,401.45 January 5,750.49 862.57 4,887.92 5,556.03 833.40 4,722.63 11,306.52 1,695.98 9,610.54 February 7,062.49 1,059.37 6,003.12 6,823.67 1,023.55 5,800.12 13,886.16 2,082.92 11,803.24 March 5,567.07 835.06 4,732.01 5,378.81 806.82 4,571.99 10,945.88 1,641.88 9,304.00 April 17,161.86 2,574.28 14,587.58 16,581.52 2,487.23 14,094.29 33,743.38 5,061.51 28,681.87 May 20,948.78 3,142.32 17,806.46 20,240.36 3,036.05 17,204.31 41,189.14 6,178.37 35,010.77 June 21,574.48 3,236.17 18,338.31 20,844.91 3,126.74 17,718.17 42,419.39 6,362.91 36,056.48
FY'15 TOTAL $89,812.37 $13,471.86 $76,340.51 $86,775.25 $13,016.29 $73,758.96 $176,587.62 $26,488.14 $150,099.48
Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Total Credits Street Provider 85% - Tolland Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland Grand Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland Lights Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC School Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC FY 2016 July $16,830.15 $2,524.52 $14,305.63 $16,261.02 $2,439.15 $13,821.87 33,091.17 $4,963.68 $28,127.49 August 16,620.86 $2,493.13 $14,127.73 16,058.81 2,408.82 13,649.99 32,679.67 4,901.95 27,777.72 September 15,234.92 $2,285.24 $12,949.68 14,719.73 2,207.96 12,511.77 29,954.65 4,493.20 25,461.45 October 13,911.96 $2,086.79 $11,825.17 13,441.51 2,016.23 11,425.28 27,353.47 4,103.02 23,250.45 November 10,939.40 $1,640.91 $9,298.49 10,569.47 1,585.42 8,984.05 21,508.87 3,226.33 18,282.54 December 9,561.47 $1,434.22 $8,127.25 9,238.14 1,385.72 7,852.42 18,799.61 2,819.94 15,979.67 January 6,350.26 $952.54 $5,397.72 6,135.52 920.33 5,215.19 12,485.78 1,872.87 10,612.91 February 7,942.25 $1,191.34 $6,750.91 7,673.68 1,151.05 6,522.63 15,615.93 2,342.39 13,273.54 March 7,682.26 $1,152.34 $6,529.92 7,422.47 1,113.37 6,309.10 15,104.73 2,265.71 12,839.02 April 15,461.00 $2,319.15 $13,141.85 14,938.15 2,240.72 12,697.43 30,399.15 4,559.87 25,839.28 May 15,491.30 $2,323.70 $13,167.61 14,967.44 2,245.12 12,722.32 30,458.74 4,568.81 25,889.93 June 16,844.83 $2,526.72 $14,318.11 16,275.21 2,441.28 13,833.93 33,120.04 4,968.01 28,152.03
FY'16 TOTAL $152,870.66 $22,930.60 $129,940.06 $147,701.15 $22,155.17 $125,545.98 $300,571.81 $45,085.77 $255,486.04
GRAND TOTAL $242,683.03 $36,402.45 $206,280.58#VALUE! $234,476.40 $35,171.46 $199,304.94#VALUE!$477,159.43 $71,573.91 $405,585.52
Net Metering Credits - Cumulative NET METERING CREDITS 23-Jun-17 ` Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS Total Credits Street Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Payment back to NMC Lights (25.875% * Town Savings Provider 85% - Tolland Total Credits School Town Savings Provider 85% - Tolland Grand Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland credit) 15% Solar NG, LLC (25.000% * credit) 15% Solar NG, LLC (50.875% * credit) Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC FY 2017 July $15,982.13 $2,397.32 $13,584.81 $15,441.68 $2,316.25 $13,125.43 31,423.81 $4,713.57 $26,710.24 August 12,384.43 $1,857.66 $10,526.77 11,965.64 1,794.85 10,170.79 24,350.07 3,652.51 20,697.56 September 13,805.11 $2,070.77 $11,734.34 13,338.27 2,000.74 11,337.53 27,143.38 4,071.51 23,071.87 October 11,798.77 $1,769.82 $10,028.95 11,399.78 1,709.97 9,689.81 23,198.55 3,479.78 19,718.77 November 9,456.08 $1,418.41 $8,037.67 9,136.31 1,370.45 7,765.86 18,592.39 2,788.86 15,803.53 December 6,778.73 $1,016.81 $5,761.92 6,549.50 982.43 5,567.08 13,328.23 1,999.23 11,329.00 January (revised) 5,518.20 $827.73 $4,690.47 5,331.59 799.74 4,531.85 10,849.79 1,627.47 9,222.32
February (revised) 3,971.78 $595.77 $3,376.01 3,837.47 575.62 3,261.85 7,809.25 1,171.39 6,637.86 March 9,028.77 $1,354.32 $7,674.45 8,723.45 1,308.52 7,414.93 17,752.22 2,662.83 15,089.39 April 12,304.20 $1,845.63 $10,458.57 11,888.12 1,783.22 10,104.90 24,192.32 3,628.85 20,563.47 May (revised) 13,095.78 $1,964.37 $11,131.41 12,652.93 1,897.94 10,754.99 25,748.71 3,862.31 21,886.40 June 13,490.58 $2,023.59 $11,466.99 13,034.38 1,955.16 11,079.22 26,524.96 3,978.74 22,546.22 FY'17 TOTAL $127,614.56 $19,142.18 $108,472.38 $123,299.12 $18,494.87 $104,804.25 $250,913.68 $37,637.05 $213,276.63
FY 2016 July $16,830.15 $2,524.52 $14,305.63 $16,261.02 $2,439.15 $13,821.87 33,091.17 $4,963.68 $28,127.49 August 16,620.86 $2,493.13 $14,127.73 16,058.81 2,408.82 13,649.99 32,679.67 4,901.95 27,777.72 September 15,234.92 $2,285.24 $12,949.68 14,719.73 2,207.96 12,511.77 29,954.65 4,493.20 25,461.45 October 13,911.96 $2,086.79 $11,825.17 13,441.51 2,016.23 11,425.28 27,353.47 4,103.02 23,250.45 November 10,939.40 $1,640.91 $9,298.49 10,569.47 1,585.42 8,984.05 21,508.87 3,226.33 18,282.54 December 9,561.47 $1,434.22 $8,127.25 9,238.14 1,385.72 7,852.42 18,799.61 2,819.94 15,979.67 January 6,350.26 $952.54 $5,397.72 6,135.52 920.33 5,215.19 12,485.78 1,872.87 10,612.91 February 7,942.25 $1,191.34 $6,750.91 7,673.68 1,151.05 6,522.63 15,615.93 2,342.39 13,273.54 March 7,682.26 $1,152.34 $6,529.92 7,422.47 1,113.37 6,309.10 15,104.73 2,265.71 12,839.02 April 15,461.00 $2,319.15 $13,141.85 14,938.15 2,240.72 12,697.43 30,399.15 4,559.87 25,839.28 May 15,491.30 $2,323.70 $13,167.61 14,967.44 2,245.12 12,722.32 30,458.74 4,568.81 25,889.93 June 16,844.83 $2,526.72 $14,318.11 16,275.21 2,441.28 13,833.93 33,120.04 4,968.01 28,152.03 FY'16 TOTAL $152,870.66 $22,930.60 $129,940.06 $147,701.15 $22,155.17 $125,545.98 $300,571.81 $45,085.77 $255,486.04
FY'15 TOTAL (8 mo) $89,812.37 $13,471.86 $76,340.51 $86,775.25 $13,016.29 $73,758.96 $176,587.62 $26,488.14 $150,099.48
Grand Total to Date $370,297.59 $55,544.64 $314,752.95 $357,775.52 $53,666.33 $304,109.19 $728,073.11 $109,210.97 $618,862.14
Net Metering Credits - Cumulative NET METERING CREDITS 19-Jul-18 ` Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS Payment back to Payment back to Payment back to Total Credits NMC Provider 85% NMC Provider 85% - NMC Provider 85% Street Lights Town Savings - Tolland Solar NG, Total Credits School Tolland Solar NG, Grand Total Credits - Tolland Solar NG, (25.875% * credit) 15% LLC (25.000% * credit) Town Savings 15% LLC (50.875% * credit) Town Savings 15% LLC FY 2019 July $18,635.44 $2,795.32 $15,840.12 $18,005.25 $2,700.79 $15,304.46 36,640.69 $5,496.10 $31,144.59 August 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 September 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 October 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 January (revised) 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 June 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 FY'19 TOTAL $18,635.44 $2,795.32 $15,840.12 $18,005.25 $2,700.79 $15,304.46 $36,640.69 $5,496.10 $31,144.59
FY 2018 July $16,533.40 $2,480.01 $14,053.39 $15,974.30 $2,396.14 $13,578.16 32,507.70 $4,876.16 $27,631.55 August 16,038.44 $2,405.77 $13,632.67 15,496.08 2,324.41 13,171.67 31,534.52 4,730.18 26,804.34 September 15,147.53 $2,272.13 $12,875.40 14,635.29 2,195.29 12,440.00 29,782.82 4,467.42 25,315.40 October 14,452.61 $2,167.89 $12,284.72 13,963.88 2,094.58 11,869.30 28,416.49 4,262.47 24,154.02 November 10,297.00 $1,544.55 $8,752.45 9,948.79 1,492.32 8,456.47 20,245.79 3,036.87 17,208.92 December 8,022.19 $1,203.33 $6,818.86 7,750.91 1,162.64 6,588.27 15,773.10 2,365.97 13,407.14 January 5,013.32 $752.00 $4,261.32 4,843.79 726.57 4,117.22 9,857.11 1,478.57 8,378.54 February 7,372.20 $1,105.83 $6,266.37 7,122.90 1,068.44 6,054.47 14,495.10 2,174.27 12,320.84 March 8,769.42 $1,315.41 $7,454.01 8,472.87 1,270.93 7,201.94 17,242.29 2,586.34 14,655.95 April 13,593.61 $2,039.04 $11,554.57 13,133.93 1,970.09 11,163.84 26,727.54 4,009.13 22,718.41 May 16,261.02 $2,439.15 $13,821.87 15,711.13 2,356.67 13,354.46 31,972.15 4,795.82 27,176.33 June 20,198.62 $3,029.79 $17,168.83 19,515.57 2,927.34 16,588.23 39,714.19 5,957.13 33,757.06
FY'18 TOTAL $151,699.36 $22,754.90 $128,944.46 $146,569.44 $21,985.42 $124,584.02 $298,268.80 $44,740.32 $253,528.48
FY'17 TOTAL $127,614.56 $19,142.18 $108,472.38 $123,299.12 $18,494.87 $104,804.24 $250,913.68 $37,637.05 $213,276.63 FY'16 TOTAL $152,870.66 $22,930.60 $129,940.06 $147,701.15 $22,155.17 $125,545.98 $300,571.81 $45,085.77 $255,486.04 FY'15 TOTAL (8 mo) $89,812.37 $13,471.86 $76,340.51 $86,775.25 $13,016.29 $73,758.96 $176,587.62 $26,488.14 $150,099.48 Grand Total to Date $413,017.83 $61,952.67 $351,065.16 $399,051.09 $59,857.66 $339,193.43 $812,068.92 $121,810.34 $690,258.58
Net Metering Credits - Cumulative NET METERING CREDITS - Tolland Solar Nu Gen Capital ( one of two NMC arrangements with the Town) 8-Jul-20 ` Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS
Payment back to Payment back to Total Credits NMC Provider 85% - Total Credits NMC Provider 85% - Payment back to NMC Street Lights Tolland Solar NG, School (25.000% * Tolland Solar NG, Grand Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland (25.875% * credit) Town Savings 15% LLC credit) Town Savings 15% LLC (50.875% * credit) Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC FY 2020 July $17,198.66 $2,579.80 $14,618.86 $16,617.07 $2,492.56 $14,124.51 33,815.73 $5,072.36 $28,743.37 August 21,497.78 $3,224.67 $18,273.11 20,770.80 3,115.62 17,655.18 42,268.58 6,340.29 35,928.29 September 17,757.33 $2,663.60 $15,093.73 17,156.84 2,573.53 14,583.31 34,914.17 5,237.13 29,677.04 October 13,343.91 $2,001.59 $11,342.32 12,892.67 1,933.90 10,958.77 26,236.58 3,935.49 22,301.09 November 9,157.67 $1,373.65 $7,784.02 8,848.00 1,327.20 7,520.80 18,005.67 2,700.85 15,304.82 December 9,296.04 $1,394.41 $7,901.63 8,981.68 1,347.25 7,634.43 18,277.72 2,741.66 15,536.06 January 3,433.90 $515.09 $2,918.82 3,317.78 497.67 2,820.11 6,751.68 1,012.75 5,738.93 February 7,475.22 $1,121.28 $6,353.94 7,222.44 1,083.37 6,139.07 14,697.66 2,204.65 12,493.01 March 10,291.90 $1,543.79 $8,748.12 9,943.87 1,491.58 8,452.29 20,235.77 3,035.37 17,200.40 April 14,208.31 $2,131.25 $12,077.06 13,727.84 2,059.18 11,668.66 27,936.15 4,190.42 23,745.73 May 16,535.13 $2,480.27 $14,054.86 15,975.97 2,396.40 13,579.57 32,511.10 4,876.67 27,634.44 June 21,066.31 $3,159.95 $17,906.36 20,353.92 3,053.09 17,300.83 41,420.23 6,213.03 35,207.20
FY'20 TOTAL $161,262.16 $24,189.32 $137,072.84 $155,808.88 $23,371.33 $132,437.55 $317,071.04 $47,560.66 $269,510.38
FY 2018 July $18,635.44 $2,795.32 $15,840.12 $18,005.25 $2,700.79 $15,304.46 36,640.69 $5,496.10 $31,144.59 August 20,581.55 $3,087.23 $17,494.32 19,885.56 2,982.83 16,902.73 40,467.11 6,070.07 34,397.04 September 18,757.22 $2,813.58 $15,943.64 18,122.92 2,718.44 15,404.48 36,880.14 5,532.02 31,348.12 October 10,963.02 $1,644.45 $9,318.57 10,592.29 1,588.84 9,003.45 21,555.31 3,233.30 18,322.01 November 9,745.18 $1,461.78 $8,283.40 9,415.64 1,412.35 8,003.29 19,160.82 2,874.12 16,286.70 December 7,433.71 $1,115.06 $6,318.65 7,182.33 1,077.35 6,104.98 14,616.04 2,192.41 12,423.63 January 8,846.49 $1,326.97 $7,519.51 8,547.32 1,282.10 7,265.22 17,393.81 2,609.07 14,784.74 February 7,153.63 $1,073.04 $6,080.59 6,911.72 1,036.76 5,874.96 14,065.35 2,109.80 11,955.55 March 10,146.66 $1,522.00 $8,624.66 9,803.54 1,470.53 8,333.01 19,950.20 2,992.53 16,957.67 April 14,954.76 $2,243.21 $12,711.55 14,449.04 2,167.36 12,281.68 29,403.80 4,410.57 24,993.23 May 15,994.91 $2,399.24 $13,595.67 15,454.02 2,318.10 13,135.92 31,448.93 4,717.34 26,731.59 June 20,025.49 $3,003.82 $17,021.67 19,348.30 2,902.25 16,446.06 39,373.79 5,906.07 33,467.72 FY'19 TOTAL $163,238.06 $24,485.71 $138,752.35 $157,717.93 $23,657.69 $134,060.24 $320,955.99 $48,143.40 $272,812.59
FY '18 Total $151,699.36 $22,754.90 $128,944.46 $146,569.44 $21,985.42 $124,584.02 $298,268.80 $44,740.32 $253,528.48 FY'17 TOTAL $127,614.56 $19,142.18 $108,472.38 $123,299.12 $18,494.87 $104,804.24 $250,913.68 $37,637.05 $213,276.63
FY'16 TOTAL $152,870.66 $22,930.60 $129,940.06 $147,701.15 $22,155.17 $125,545.98 $300,571.81 $45,085.77 $255,486.04
FY'15 TOTAL (8 mo) $89,812.37 $13,471.86 $76,340.51 $86,775.25 $13,016.29 $73,758.96 $176,587.62 $26,488.14 $150,099.48 Grand Total to Date $846,497.17 $126,974.57 $719,522.60 $817,871.77 $122,680.77 $695,190.99 $1,664,368.94 $249,655.34 $1,414,713.60
Net Metering Credits - Cumulative NET METERING CREDITS - Tolland Solar Nu Gen Capital ( one of two NMC arrangements with the Town) 3-Aug-20 ` Street Lights Savings School Savings TOTAL SAVINGS Payment back to Payment back to Total Credits Street NMC Provider 85% NMC Provider 85% Payment back to NMC Lights (25.875% * - Tolland Solar NG, Total Credits School - Tolland Solar NG, Grand Total Credits Provider 85% - Tolland credit) Town Savings 15% LLC (25.000% * credit) Town Savings 15% LLC (50.875% * credit) Town Savings 15% Solar NG, LLC FY 2021 July $16,330.59 $2,449.59 $13,881.00 $15,778.35 $2,366.75 $13,411.60 32,108.94 $4,816.34 $27,292.60 August 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 September 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 October 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 November 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 December 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 January 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 February 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 March 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 April 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 May 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 June 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FY'21 TOTAL $16,330.59 $2,449.59 $13,881.00 $15,778.35 $2,366.75 $13,411.60 $32,108.94 $4,816.34 $27,292.60
FY 2020 July $17,198.66 $2,579.80 $14,618.86 $16,617.07 $2,492.56 $14,124.51 33,815.73 $5,072.36 $28,743.37 August 21,497.78 $3,224.67 $18,273.11 20,770.80 3,115.62 17,655.18 42,268.58 6,340.29 35,928.29 September 17,757.33 $2,663.60 $15,093.73 17,156.84 2,573.53 14,583.31 34,914.17 5,237.13 29,677.04 October 13,343.91 $2,001.59 $11,342.32 12,892.67 1,933.90 10,958.77 26,236.58 3,935.49 22,301.09 November 9,157.67 $1,373.65 $7,784.02 8,848.00 1,327.20 7,520.80 18,005.67 2,700.85 15,304.82 December 9,296.04 $1,394.41 $7,901.63 8,981.68 1,347.25 7,634.43 18,277.72 2,741.66 15,536.06 January 3,433.90 $515.09 $2,918.82 3,317.78 497.67 2,820.11 6,751.68 1,012.75 5,738.93 February 7,475.22 $1,121.28 $6,353.94 7,222.44 1,083.37 6,139.07 14,697.66 2,204.65 12,493.01 March 10,291.90 $1,543.79 $8,748.12 9,943.87 1,491.58 8,452.29 20,235.77 3,035.37 17,200.40 April 14,208.31 $2,131.25 $12,077.06 13,727.84 2,059.18 11,668.66 27,936.15 4,190.42 23,745.73 May 16,535.13 $2,480.27 $14,054.86 15,975.97 2,396.40 13,579.57 32,511.10 4,876.67 27,634.44 June 21,066.31 $3,159.95 $17,906.36 20,353.92 3,053.09 17,300.83 41,420.23 6,213.03 35,207.20
FY'20 TOTAL $161,262.16 $24,189.32 $137,072.84 $155,808.88 $23,371.33 $132,437.55 $317,071.04 $47,560.66 $269,510.38
FY '19 Total $163,238.06 $24,485.71 $138,752.35 $157,717.93 $23,657.69 $134,060.24 $320,955.99 $48,143.40 $272,812.59 FY '18 Total $151,699.36 $22,754.90 $128,944.46 $146,569.44 $21,985.42 $124,584.02 $298,268.80 $44,740.32 $253,528.48 FY'17 TOTAL $127,614.56 $19,142.18 $108,472.38 $123,299.12 $18,494.87 $104,804.24 $250,913.68 $37,637.05 $213,276.63 FY'16 TOTAL $152,870.66 $22,930.60 $129,940.06 $147,701.15 $22,155.17 $125,545.98 $300,571.81 $45,085.77 $255,486.04
FY'15 TOTAL (8 mo) $89,812.37 $13,471.86 $76,340.51 $86,775.25 $13,016.29 $73,758.96 $176,587.62 $26,488.14 $150,099.48 Grand Total to Date $862,827.76 $129,424.16 $733,403.60 $833,650.12 $125,047.52 $708,602.59 $1,696,477.88 $254,471.68 $1,442,006.20
Net Metering Credits - Cumulative Town of Longmeadow State Primary – September 1, 2020
Early Voting will take place from: August 22, 2020 – August 28, 2020 Location: Over 60 Room, Adult Center 231 Maple Road, Longmeadow, MA 01106 Hours: Saturday, August 22, 2020 8:00 am - noon Sunday, August 23, 2020 9:00 am – 1:00 pm Monday, August 24, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Tuesday, August 25, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Wednesday, August 26, 2020 8:00 am – 7:00 pm Thursday, August 27, 2020 8:00 am – 5:00 pm Friday, August 28, 2020 8:00 am – 1:00 pm Longmeadow Fire Department Monthly Report July 2020
Run Volume: As I had reported we expected some decrease in run volume as a result of COVID. Our EMS calls fell off due to several factors. In July our run volume has returned to normal
EMS Revenue: With impact of the COVID-19 our EMS revenue could be under what we had projected for FY 21. However, our July revenue did exceed our revenue for the same period in FY 20. We are optimistic that our revenue will recover.
COVID-19 Operations: Due to the ever increasing demand to provide the many aspects of COVID compliance and guidance interpretation, we made the decision to employ a part time COVID Compliance officer. Retired Fire Captain, Andrew Fraser has been selected to fill this role. Andy is a skilled researcher and has an extensive knowledge of our town operations. This has provided us with a valuable resource. Andy is currently supporting all Town Departments in meeting the complicated COVID guidance and compliance requirements. He is also working with the Town’s facility director on many of the physical modification to Town buildings and facilities. Over the last few weeks he has been very involved with the school reopening assisting in many areas. This position is working under Emergency Management and is funded through a MADPH grant and some emergency management funds.
PPE: During the COVID-19 pandemic the Fire Department used a tremendous amount of personal protective equipment. We were fortunate that we had maintained a relatively good supply prior to the outbreak and did some early ordering. We did consume all of our supplies during the first month of the outbreak. We were able to get a robust supply from the state and had several deliveries from the National Guard. We have continued to stock pile PPE from various sources. We applied for a supply from the state and this was received this month. Our current inventory exceeds 30,000 mask and many other items of PPE. At this point we feel very comfortable that if we see a significant resurgence in COVID, we will be adequately supplied and able to support Town operations.
Boat Project: As I had reported, the Fire Department Rescue Boat Refurbishment project hit a hard stop at 50% completion due to the COVID pandemic. I am happy to report the project is now complete and this unit is back in service to our community. We completed sea trails last week. The improvements have exceeded our expectations. We look forward to getting another twenty years of service from this equipment.
Page 1 of 2 Month of May: Comparisons Performance Measures: July 2019 July 2020 Emergency Medical Calls 168 (61.31%) 144 (71.29) False or Unintentional 43 34 Fires / Estimated Dollar Loss 1 ($12,000.00) 2 ($12,000.00) All Other:(Rescue, Distress, Hazard) 62 (7/7 Microburst) 25 Mutual Aid: Given / Received 21/19 16/16 Total Responses 274 202 Note (July 20 Microburst) Training Hours (Dept. Total) 140 210
Respectively Submitted: John P. Dearborn, Fire Chief, August 12, 2020
Page 2 of 2 Storrs Library
July 2020 Report
Shining Moment
● A patron sent the following message in a notecard: “Dear Friends at Storrs Library, I know the summer is a magical time at the Library – everyone catching up on reading, finishing their book lists and such. But we just wanted to say thank you for being the bright shining beam of fun in this most unusual summer. Thanks for your hard work and extra creativity. The programs have been fun and so important in making summer a special time! You guys are the Best! The Mitchell Family”
Administrative ● Set up Budget for FY2021 and submitted invoices for July expenditures.
● Closed out budget for FY2020 with submission of final FY2020 invoices, POs and line item transfers.
● Director began working on compiling FY2020 statistics for the Annual Statistical report to the State Board of Library Commissioners due October 2. The deadline has been extended this year due to COVID.
● Two full-time and one part-time staff members returned from furlough on July 1.
● Coordinated building projects related to COVID procedures – desk shields, removal of excess chairs, curbside signage and procedures, quarantine methods, etc. ● Met with the Town of Longmeadow Facilities Director and Town Manager to discuss more thorough cleaning of the Library.
● Coordinated materials management and prepared for Interlibrary Loans to begin. 4,705 circulated items, 7,014 items on our pull lists, 106 bins of materials received in delivery, 66 bins of materials shipped out.
● Met with Town of Longmeadow COVID coordinator to establish staffing protocols, work space requirements, self-certification documentation, and requirements for the next phase of allowing patrons into the building.
● Attended “Reopening Virtual Chat” with other Massachusetts Library Directors.
● Interviewed to fill vacant Adult Services Director position. ● Attended the Longmeadow Historical District Commission meeting to provide information on the Hadzekyriakides bench. Installation of the bench was approved.
● Conducted a staff meeting to brainstorm procedures for our next phase of service – opening to the public.
Adult Library Services
● Adult and Youth Services Directors, collaborated on the job posting for the vacant Professional Librarian position. ● New Adult Services Director, Heather Marchetta began this position on July 21.
● Summer reading program participation is 100 registered adults (651 in 2019).
● Some popular July programs (followed by attendance numbers): Animals of the Night (22), Real ID with AAA (16), DIY Ginger Ale (15), John Muir: Father of our National Parks (28), Cookbook Club (12), Hidden Gems of New England (33), Widening the Circle (30).
● Conducted some long overdue purchasing of new materials. Because some staff have returned from furlough, we were able to process new materials for circulation.
● Building and furniture arranging continues as we prepare for the next phase of opening. Youth Library Services
● Summer reading program participation: 214 children (895 in 2019) and 67 teens (109 in 2019) have registered for the summer reading program to date.
● Youth Services Director, Katie McGonigle, is working with The Zoo at Forest Park to provide space for the Zoo to film virtual programming. In exchange, Zoo on the Go will offer free monthly programs for Storrs Library.
● Y S Director, Katie, is also partnering with Pathways for Parents and the Sustainable Master Plan for Bliss and Laurel Parks group to launch a StoryWalk at Storrs Library. ● Some popular July virtual programs (followed by attendance numbers): Pet Pals (31), Walking Meditation for Teens (21), Yoga with Lisa Katz (39), Food Explorers, How to Make Scones (15), Zoom Poke Master with Mastermind Adventures (14)
● Building and furniture arranging continues as we prepare for the next phase of opening.
● Staff are planning for Fall virtual programming. It is anticipated COVID will prevent us from offering face- to-face programs. Circulation of Physical books Electronic Database Usage materials- and resources resources Total all formats
July 2020 10,556 4,705 2,568 3,283
July 2019 22,168 18,385 1,299 2,484 July 2018 19,821 16,074 1,788 1,959
Number of Attendance Number of Attendance Hours Computer People Adult at Adult Child at Child usage Programs Programs Programs programs
Open Counter
July 2020 7 virtual 136 35 virtual 223 214 email and 0 36 hr. curbside phone 1327 patrons July 2019 20 294 50 1462 225/22 days 229 10,172
July 2018 17 232 45 1245 193/21 days 220 8,706
Curbside line Lego Challenge Book return area
Relocated computers waiting Nick at curbside delivery quarantined materials
for patrons
The Parks and Recreation Department report its activities for the month of July 2020 as follows:
Project Updates
1. Wolf Swamp field plan: Specifications are out to bid and due 8/23/2020. 2. 2020 Open Space Plan: The public meeting was July 29 at 7:00pm via Zoom. The committee met early August for final review before commencement of public review.
3. DPW upgrade to Bliss baseball fields is substantially complete and included leveling and addition of infield mix.
4. The skate park interest resident group has begun organized meetings. They are currently looking at possible locations and park amenities.
5. Building preparation for highly limited, in-person fall programs has been initiated and include signage, attendance logs, increased cleaning plans and written protocols that are consistent with current guidelines. Possible in-person offerings are very limited and may include: soccer, field hockey, drumming, before/after school and tennis lessons.
Work Activities:
1. Continue to respond to public calls and emails concerns and questions. 2. (2) additional FTE’s were furloughed. Both were management positions within the department. 3. Modified summer programming has been created and includes: Adult Zumba, Co-ed Volleyball, Virtual Circuit Lab, Food Explorer’s, Art-Ventures, Skyhawks and Mad Science.
Other Items of Note:
(13) FTE’s were moved from furlough to terminated beginning 8/22/2020. We currently have 2 active employees and 3 furloughed FY employees remaining.
Our 8/21 community concert will be virtual and broadcast at 1:45pm on this day by LCTV and on LPRD Facebook page. “This Land is Your Land” by Roger Tincknell is co-presented with the Longmeadow Cultural Council.
Performance Measures:
1. Passports: For the month of July, we accepted 0 applications @ $35 each.
1. An average of 27 calls were received each day at Community House and an average of 8 calls are received at Greenwood daily with foot traffic being 0 daily at CH and 0 at Greenwood daily.
2. YTD Revenues for June FY20 were 941,625.64 compared to FY19 at $1,428,635.64. YTD Expenses for June FY 20 were $1,247,552.07 compared to FY19 at $1,352,927.12 July FY21 Revenues were $13,938.66 compared to FY20 at $ 163,521.05. July FY21 Expenses were $37 compared to FY 20 at $112,440.33.
Day Care and Extended Day enrollment for the month of July were as follows:
Monthly Monthly Monthly Extended Day Last Extended Day Enrollment This Year Day Care Total Year Day Care Total July 2020 0 0 0 2019 0 29 29 August 20120 0 0 0 2019 0 29 29 September 2020 2019 176 38 214 October 2020 2019 138 51 222 November 2020 2019 185 380 223 December 2020 2019 181 40 221 January 2021 2020 183 42 225 February 2021 2020 183 45 228 March 2021 2020 183 45 228 April 2021 2020 0 0 0 May 2021 2020 0 0 0 June 2021 2020 0 0 0
FY21 Enrollment FY20 Enrollment Infants 0 ( 0 FTE) Infant 0 (0 FTE) Toddlers 0 (0 FTE) Toddler 8 ( 7.2 FTE) Pre K 0 (0 FTE) Pre K 21 (16.2 FTE) After School 0 (0 FTE) After School 0 (0 FTE) Early Risers 0 (0 FTE) Early Risers 0 ( 0 FTE)
Next Months: August-September
1. Benchmark best practices for phase 3 programs and activities 2. Continue to develop reopening plan 3. Park Board meeting August 4 at 7:00pm via Zoom. 4. Finalize OSRP
LONGMEADOW POLICE DEPARTMENT 34 Williams Street – Longmeadow, Massachusetts (413) 567-3311 www.LongmeadowPolice.com
LONGMEADOW POLICE DEPARTMENT’S MONTHLY REPORT
JULY 2020
NOTABLE EVENTS:
Officer Robert Lombardi was promoted to Sergeant on July 16, 2020, filling the vacancy of retired Sgt. Fullerton. Sgt. Lombardi has been with the department for eight years and he has held the roles of Crisis Intervention Team leader, regional drug task force member, civilian police academy instructor, Taser instructor, honor guard and he is expected to complete his Master’s degree in Public Administration in the spring of ‘21. Sgt. Lombardi will be assigned to the midnight shift as a first line supervisor.
On July 7/29 at approximately 7:00am, a group of protesters gathered in front of State Senator Eric Lesser's house on Dover Road. The peaceful gathering of 25-30 people from Pioneer Valley Workers' Center and Western Mass Jobs with Justice erected tents and signs on the tree belt of Senator Lesser's house to demonstrate for the equal rights of immigrant workers. The group dispersed at approx. 8:00 am without incident.
Periodically, small groups of Black Lives Matter supporters have gathered at the intersection of Forest Glen Road and Longmeadow Street. The events have been peaceful and have caused no disruption and/or incidents requiring police action.
TRAFFIC AND SAFETY JULY 2020
Throughout the month of July, Sgt. Mazzaferro assigned Officers on all three shifts to approximately forty-five traffic assignments around the Longmeadow community. The areas of town were chosen based on frequent traffic complaints. Below is a list of areas:
1. Laurel Street and Farmington Road. 2. Laurel Street and Roseland Terrace 3. Converse Street and Llewellyn Street 4. Williams Street and Turner Park 5. Maple Road and Greenwood Park 6. Burbank Road and Oakwood Drive
The traffic trailer was placed in the area of Converse Street and Llewellyn Street with a message educating trucks about the town’s new “Jake Brake” by-law. Additionally, on Thursday, July 23rd from 5:30 AM to 6:30 AM, Sergeant John Bates of the Massachusetts State Police Commercial Motor Vehicle Unit conducted enforcement in the above area. Sgt. Bates reported nineteen commercial motor vehicles. He found no weight or Jake Brake issues, and the highest speed was 34 MPH. Sgt. Bates stated his unit will periodically conduct enforcement in this area.
The traffic trailer will be placed on Lincoln Park and Burbank Road for speed education.
DETECTIVE BUREAU/DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY JULY 2020: Arrests: One arrest for Forging RMV Documents, Uttering, Attempted Larceny >$1200, and ID theft after a suspect attempted to withdraw several thousand dollars from a victim’s account using a forged driver’s license. One arrest for two counts of Domestic Assault & Battery after a disturbance on Ellington Street. One arrest for two warrants, Unlicensed Operation of a Motor Vehicle, Attaching Wrong MV Plates, and Operating and Uninsured and Unregistered Vehicle after a motor vehicle crash on West Road. One arrest for OUI Liquor, Speeding, Marked Lanes Violations, and Failure to Stop for Police after a vehicle nearly struck a cruiser on Maple Road. One arrest for OUI Liquor +.08, Speeding, and Possessing an Open Container of Alcohol after a traffic stop on Wolf Swamp Road. One arrest for a Warrant from another jurisdiction after a traffic stop on Shaker Road.
Criminal Applications: One criminal complaint sought for Speeding and Operating an Uninsured and Unregistered Motor Vehicle after a traffic stop on Shaker Road. One criminal complaint sought for Operating a Motor Vehicle after Suspension after a traffic stop on Ellington Street. One criminal complaint sought for one charge for Possession of Illegal Fireworks after a disturbance on Pleasantview Avenue. One criminal complaint sought for Attempted Larceny after a shoplifting was interrupted by staff at a business on Bliss Road. One criminal complaint sought for Larceny after a shoplifting at a business on Bliss Road. One criminal complaint sought for Domestic Assault and Battery after a disturbance on Lawnwood Avenue. One criminal complaint sought for Speeding and Negligent Operation of a MV after a crash on Woodside Road. One criminal complaint sought for Unlicensed Operation of a MV, attaching MV plates, Operating an Uninsured MV, Failure to Stop for a Red Lens, and failure to report an address change to the RMV after a traffic stop on Longmeadow Street. One criminal complaint sought for a violation of a restraining order. One criminal complaint sought for Operating a MV after Suspension, Speeding, and Operating an unregistered MV after a traffic stop on Longmeadow Street. One criminal complaint sought for a past Breaking and Entering with a domestic element on Brooks Road. Show cause requested. One criminal complaint sought for Suspended Operation of a MV after a traffic stop on Longmeadow Street. One criminal complaint sought for a Red Lens violation and Operating without a License after a traffic stop on Longmeadow Street.
Criminal Activity: Drugs confiscated after a non-lethal overdose at a commercial establishment on Longmeadow Street. No charges to file due to Good Samaritan Law. Residents continue to have unemployment claims made in their name. State agencies have developed a reporting system as the crime is so widespread. A resident of Captain Road reports political signs stolen from his lawn. No leads at this time. A resident of Viscount Road reports his license plate either missing or stolen. It is unknown where the plate was either taken from the car or fell off. No leads at this time. A business on Bliss Road reports receiving three $50 counterfeit notes. A car was linked to the suspects and rental information obtained. Due to the facemasks worn in the video surveillance, it is unknown if the suspect is in fact the person who rented the car. Investigation ongoing. Cars were entered and a car was stolen from Fenwood Road and later recovered in Northampton, where there were several other car breaks. Leads are being followed. Investigation ongoing. Staff at a business on Bliss Road interrupted another shoplifting. Although no merchandise was stolen, threats to harm the employee were made. Posts were made on social media and video reviewed. Awaiting identification. A resident of Homestead Boulevard reports a package stolen from her front steps. No video of the incident exists. A resident of Longmeadow Street reports a lost/stolen license plate. Unlocked cars were entered Rugby Road and Hopkins Place. Some untraceable items taken. Unlocked vehicles on Englewood Drive were entered and a laptop stolen. Awaiting make/model/serial number of the laptop to complete report. Vehicles were entered and one stolen from Churchill Drive. Two vehicles (1 stolen and another “getaway”) were encountered by patrol; a brief pursuit ensued before being terminated by officers due to safety concerns. Vehicles failed to stop and were last seen heading into CT. The stolen vehicle was eventually recovered in Hartford several days later with nothing of evidentiary value inside. A resident reported unwanted communication from her ex-husband. Incidents documented for possible future harassment charge. Officers disbanded an underage drinking party on Wildwood Glen. Parents were contacted. A resident of Sunset Lane reports damage to his vehicle (malicious vandalism). No cameras in the area, no more leads. A resident of Deerfield Ave. reports her pool and patio vandalized. No cameras are located in the area; no suspects at this time. Unlocked vehicles were entered on Converse Street. Political flags and signs were taken from Viscount Road and later located on Pondside Avenue. Available cameras show someone taking them, but the quality is not sufficient for identification. No further leads at this time. Political flags were stolen from a vehicle while it was parked on Wendover Road. Victim has since stopped contributing to the investigation. No further leads.
(JULY CALLS FOR SERVICE - NEXT PAGE)
July June July 2020 2020 2019 209A Service 7 5 5 Arrests 7 5 3 Accidents 11 22 35 Alarm 86 60 108 Animal 26 43 17 Assist Other Agency 86 17 27 Assist Schools 0 1 0 Assist 70 32 63 Article Found 14 12 7 Articles Lost 1 0 2 Assault 0 2 0 Bank Check 0 0 96 Building Checks 428 335 140 B & E Auto 8 8 8 B & E Residence 0 2 1 By-Law Violation 26 19 30 Crossing Guard 0 0 0 Check Security 111 75 155 Disturbances 18 25 13 Disabled M/ V 9 2 11 Domestic Disturbance 6 3 3 Medical Emergency 71 77 118 Assist Fire 2 5 20 Fraud 16 45 4 General Info 50 103 11 Harassment 4 3 4 Larceny 11 3 5 Missing Persons 2 1 0 Motor Vehicle Operation 30 24 12 Motor Vehicle Stops 116 63 86 Annoying Phone Calls 0 0 0 Parking Violations 2 2 12 Park & Walks 104 88 277 Robbery 0 0 0 Safety Hazards 23 31 105 Stolen Vehicle 4 2 3 Suspicious Person 3 28 9 Suspicious Activity 67 11 0 Suspicious Vehicles 1 2 18 Threat 0 0 0 Traffic Control 313 315 188 Trespass 0 0 3 Vandalism 4 3 6 TOTAL 1904 1697 1946 Veterans’ Services Monthly Report – July – 2020
- Weekly wellness phone calls to veterans - Wednesdays afternoon Agawam Empowerment Center – nonperishable food box distribution for veterans and their families o Delivering food and essential items to the door of veterans and their families who are in need - MVSOA (Massachusetts Veterans Service Officers Association) weekly zoom call - Providing Chapter 115 recipients with assistance to meet requirements to continue benefits - Following up with veterans regarding VA claims - DVS (Department of Veteran Services) weekly phone call - Providing support needed to veterans and their families in this critical time thru phone calls and conferences - Submitting regular monthly 115 benefits 08/03/2020 Regular Meeting DRAFT Select Board Regular Meeting Monday, August 3, 2020 - 7:00 p.m. REMOTE
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public were made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law. Participation in this meeting was done remotely via Zoom.
Select Board Present via Zoom: Chair Thomas Lachiusa, Marc Strange, Steven Marantz, Mark Gold, Richard Foster Also Present via Zoom: Town Manager Lyn Simmons, CFO Paul Pasterczyk, Debbie House, Fire Chief John Dearborn, Moderator Rebecca Townsend, Resident Andrew Fox
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chair Thomas Lachiusa. Due to COVID-19 concerns, and the Governor’s executive order, and changes to Open Meeting Law remote participation, this meeting was held remotely with residents having the option of calling in or sending in their comments. All votes were taken by roll call. LCTV was also utilized to broadcast and record the meeting. Chair Lachiusa confirmed that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda were present and could hear and be heard throughout the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting allowed for public comment.
COVID-19 Update Chief Dearborn gave the update. There are currently 7 active cases in the community. Cases are now travel related. The state website is showing an increase in cases. The Town is doing better than the state average. There are concerns of a fall resurgence. The Governor’s travel restrictions will help. We have been stockpiling our PPEs and are in good shape right now. The schools are still waiting for some of their supplies. School fire drills and lockdown drills have to be re-planned. September 30 is the cutoff for FEMA reimbursements.
Announcements 1. Chief Dearborn reported that we are expecting a tropical storm coming up from the south on Tuesday. This is the remnants of Hurricane Isaias. Right now it has a westerly track with 3” of rain expected, flooding in low areas, winds 40-50 mph gusts, tree damage, and power outages. People are asked to stay off of the roads so that emergency services can do their jobs. Make sure cell phones are charged, flashlights have batteries, and loose lawn furniture is put away. Do not use gas grills in garages and make sure generators are wired properly and are outside. In the event of a tornado, move to the lowest level of your home (basement) or an interior room. This is a regional event so if power is lost it could be for a while, be patient. 2. Mr. Strange reported that the non-profit, environmental watchdog group, Food and Water Watch (FWW), filed a Petition for Review with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals claiming FERC did not comply and submit their Environmental Assessment of Tennessee Gas’s 261 Project and Metering Station. FWW is asking the DC Circuit Court to compel FERC to complete the assessment.
Residents Comments 1. Rebecca Townsend, 160 Ely Road thanked the Select Board for the effort they are making in addressing anti-racism in our town. Ms. Townsend spoke about the formation of the Town Charter and the resident support of it. She also spoke about the Charter Review Committees’ work in supplying the Select Board with recommendations which are being reviewed a few at a time. Ms. Townsend stated that voters approved a Charter that improves management of town functions, improves processes, and improves 08/03/2020 Regular Meeting town decision making while enhancing opportunity for citizen voice unfettered by partisanship or lobbying 2. Andrew Fox, 29 Lorenz Street wanted to responded to what he felt were slanderous insinuations made against him at the July 21 Select Board meeting by his neighbor Jonathan David during Resident Comments. The comments pertained to bylaw violations by Mr. David and bylaw enforcement requests by Mr. Fox. Mr. Fox stated that using proper town protocol to report actual and continuous bylaw violations is not harassment. The sole reasons for Mr. Fox’s complaints to the town regarding bylaw violations are to maintain his family’s quality of life, and maintain the value of his property. Bylaw violations should be enforced equally, swiftly and decisively and not be allowed to fester for years. There should be rules for speakers at Select Board meetings, they should be announced at the beginning of each meeting, and they should be enforced by the Chair.
Select Board Comments 1. Mark Gold – follow up from last meeting, 35 pictures (23 homes) were submitted by a resident as having bylaw violations. Mr. Gold could not see obvious violations in the photos, 12 ended up having a bylaw violation. Mr. Gold wanted to express that this is not going on all over town. Mr. Gold asked that the Resident Comment section of the Select Board meetings be maintained for residents only, it is not a public forum. Mr. Gold is concerned with the economic impacts of COVID-19 on town residents. He would like to engage Select Board members at a future meeting to talk about what the Select Board has in its authority to help residents address financial situations. Mr. Gold would like to see what we can do in our general capabilities to help out. 2. Richard Foster – agrees with Mr. Fox’s comments. The Select Board needs to be aware of what is being put on air, and what we are sitting in agreement with. He also agreed with Mr. Gold’s concerns with the economic impacts on residents and feels this is a good issue to take up. 3. Steven Marantz – nonresidents should not speak during the Resident Comment section of the Select Board meetings. The Select Board should look into anything we can do to help lessen the economic impact on residents. 4. Thomas Lachiusa – people have a constitutional right to tell their story; Select Board has no authority to limit that freedom of speech unless the speech is unlawful. Conflict belongs in the public forum and we can handle the conflict and grow from it.
Town Manager’s Report 1. The Open Space and Recreation Plan public forum was held remotely on July 29. The draft will be available at the end of August. 2. The Building Commissioner and Town Counsel reached an agreement with a resident regarding commercial vehicles/equipment parked on the property, in exchange for the fine being waived. 3. Juneteenth (June 19th) is now a state holiday. Personnel Policies and Collective Bargaining Agreements will be modified. 4. Fire Captain Karl Zinnack retired on July 30th. He was a firefighter for 33 years and served as the department’s mechanic. He was an Explorer and a call member of the department for 5 years before becoming a career firefighter. 5. The town can apply for MIIA grants to assist and support risk management initiatives. Applications are due in November. 6. State aid estimates for FY21 were sent out. The amounts were a positive $123K from the May revisions, local receipt estimates have to be amended downward to absorb declines beyond May. The two should offset each other leaving us back where we planned in May with a surplus of $200K above the $311K target excess levy capacity set in the FY21 budget goals. 7. Town Hall was closed to all employees at 2pm on Friday, July 31 for exterminator spraying. 8. A sweep of signs on town tree belts started today. Residents are asked to remove any signs on tree belts. 08/03/2020 Regular Meeting Old Business 1. Approved Minutes – Mr. Gold made the motion to approve the meeting minutes from July 20, 2020 as presented. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES 2. Polling Location Change Report – A Select Board report and survey are required to change a polling location. A CodeRed call and signage will notify residents of the location change. This is for the primary and presidential elections in September and November of 2020. Mr. Strange made the motion to approve the Polling Place Relocation Report as presented. Mr. Gold seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES
New Business 1. State Primary Election Warrant – Mr. Gold made the motion to approve the Warrant for the 2020 State Primary as presented. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES 2. Open Meeting Law Discussion – Mr. Lachiusa reminded the Select Board that state guidelines put limitations on private deliberations of Select Board members in state statute. Business can only be conducted through public meetings unless there is an exception for executive session. Deliberations cannot occur between more than 1 other Select Board member, as a quorum would exist. Mr. Lachiusa became aware of an email that was sent to him, and had also been sent separately to another Select Board member. He contacted the AGO for guidance, it was suggested to discuss this in open session, remind Select Board members of their obligations under the Open Meeting Law, and make the emails in question public. Mr. Lachiusa asked that going forward all Select Board members keep all deliberations public. Mr. Gold believes the issue of open meeting law violations is important, specific, and critical. He takes this very seriously. He polices himself and feels we all need to watch what we do. He will let people know what is an open meeting law violation. It is a slippery slope to police others. Lining up votes in advance is an open meeting law violation. Mr. Foster pointed out that he believes another open meeting law violation occurred regarding the same emails and suggested Mr. Lachiusa be careful. Mr. Marantz noted that when people are speaking others need to pay attention to what is being said. Mr. Strange is still learning the Open Meeting Law and appreciates it being brought up. One email comment from Mr. Foster states that, resident comments is what is still spreading thoughts of racism in our community which is not a positive message – implication is we should not be talking about racism because it is not a positive message. This is exactly why we are talking about racism. The message misses the point. Mr. Lachiusa stated that he did talk to Mr. Strange about voting for him for chair. When he spoke to Mr. Marantz, he was not yet a Select Board member. Mr. Strange stated that now that we all know the deliberation rules; we should not do it. Mr. Lachiusa noted that the Town Manager could be included in emails amongst Select Board members so she would know if a violation occurred. Mr. Gold stated that this would not protect from Open Meeting Law. You cannot deliberate, have to police yourselves. This applies to all boards and committees, there are fine lines. We need to educate ourselves.
Mr. Gold asked to discuss on a future agenda, the financial impact of COVID-19 on residents and possible ways the town could assist them. He suggested Paul Pasterczyk and Lyn Simmons come up with some ideas for a future discussion.
Mr. Gold made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Mr. Marantz seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES 08/03/2020 Regular Meeting
Respectfully submitted, Debbie House
Documents: Agenda Draft Minutes July 20, 2020 Report on Longmeadow Polling Place Relocation Warrant for 2020 State Primary Emails (2) from Richard Foster to Tom Lachiusa dtd 7/21/2020 Correspondence: Email from Tom Dignazio dtd 7/23/2020 08/07/2020 Special Meeting DRAFT Select Board Special Meeting Friday, August 7, 2020 - 12:00 p.m. REMOTE
Arrangements for remote participation by Select Board members and members of the public were made in accordance with Governor Baker's Emergency Order Modifying the State's Open Meeting Law. Participation in this meeting was done remotely via Zoom.
Select Board Present via Zoom: Chair Thomas Lachiusa, Marc Strange (12:05), Steven Marantz, Mark Gold, Richard Foster Also Present via Zoom: Town Manager Lyn Simmons, CFO Paul Pasterczyk, Debbie House, Chief Dearborn
The meeting was called to order at 12:00 p.m. by Chair Thomas Lachiusa. Due to COVID-19 concerns, and the Governor’s executive order, and changes to Open Meeting Law remote participation, this meeting was held remotely with residents having the option of calling in or sending in their comments. All votes were taken by roll call. LCTV was also utilized to broadcast and record the meeting. Chair Lachiusa confirmed that all members and persons anticipated on the agenda were present and could hear and be heard throughout the meeting. Ensuring public access does not ensure public participation unless such participation is required by law. This meeting did not allow for public comment.
Approve Emergency Declaration to assist the town with managing the costs of recovery from tropical storm Isaias. The Declaration would allow for cleanup costs deficit spending. This is done for Department of Revenue purposes. The Declaration will expire on September 30, 2020. Some tree assessment is still being done. Originally 35 roads were blocked, as of today they are all open. Two homes have been condemned. Originally 3,000 homes were without power, the number is currently down to 297. Chief Dearborn has been building his own priority list. Eversource gave him a utility crew. The Chief and Deputy Chief are dispatching them. Mr. Marantz noted that it is hard to get information when the power, phones, and internet are out. Chief Dearborn noted that car phone chargers are a good thing to have. Regular storm preparations include charging all electrical devices before storms hits. A cell phone charging station was set up at the Fire Department. Cell service was disrupted briefly due to a problem with an Enfield, CT tower. Ms. Simmons stated that she is still evaluating curbside cleanup of trees and debris. The Recycling Center has extended hours and days for yard waste drop off. Cleanup is not expected to go beyond September 30.
Mr. Gold made the motion to approve the Emergency Declaration for Tropical Storm Isaias that impacted the Town on August 4, 2020, ending September 30, 2020. Mr. Marantz seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES
Mr. Gold made the motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. Mr. Foster seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Mr. Lachiusa-YES, Mr. Strange-YES, Mr. Marantz-YES, Mr. Gold-YES, Mr. Foster-YES
Respectfully submitted, Debbie House
Documents: Agenda Emergency Declaration FY 2021 Board/Committee Chair Name Cell # Home # Email Description Liaison Assessors, Board of Chair Lawrence Rubin 250-5001 [email protected] The Assessors determine the valuation for all real and personal property in the Town, approve real estate and motor vehicle abatements and calculate the tax rate based upon action by Town meeting Audit Committee Chair Peter Landon 348-0161 567-0725 [email protected] The Audit Committee shall review annual financial statements of the Town financial MG offices, review the independent auditor’s management recommendations and provide advice and counsel to the Select Board, Town Manager, Town Accountant and Treasurer. Board of Health Chair Robert Rappaport 567-8180 567-7096 [email protected] The Board has administrative, planning and policy responsibility for the health TL [email protected] functions of the Board of Health office which maintains records of health complaints, nuisances, unusual diseases or illnesses and deaths and issues permits and licenses and coordinates health inspections. Building Committee Chair Marybeth Bergeron 262-7661 567-6701 [email protected] The function and duties of the Building Committee shall be to a d v i s e t h e T o w n TL M a n a g e r a n d S e l e c t B o a r d o n the future needs for Town buildings and to review and comment on capital projects related to Town buildings including schools. In addition, the committee shall serve a s a n advisory d esign r e v i e w committee and review new construction and/or r e n o v a t i o n s o f T o w n buildings, evaluate use of buildings- advise on current use of space and ways to improve it, monitor l a r g e maintenance projects and advise on progress, periodically review and maintain the inventory of buildings, advise on the long term building n e e d s list for the town, and review the work of prior town building committees. Building Demolition Chair Michelle Steger 512-762-7042 798-0268 [email protected] This committee was formed to limit demolition of buildings built prior to 1901 for a Committee period of nine months from the date of the demolition permit application, to ensure that all alternatives to demolition will be explored before a historical or architecturally important landmark is destroyed. Cable Advisory Chair Steven Wolman 221-9832 567-6011 [email protected] The Committee is charged with the authority to provide advice and assistance to the MG Committee Select Board in monitoring negotiations and compliance with the cable television license agreement and aspects of cable television service. The authority and approval for action is vested in the Select Board as set forth in M.G.L. Chapter 166A, and other applicable regulations. Capital Planning Chair Stephen Metz 330-7248 567-8697 [email protected] The purpose of the Committee is to establish, review and monitor the capital MS Committee improvements plan and annually report and make recommendations to the Board of Selectmen for annual expenditures at the Annual Town Meeting. Community Chair Steve Weiss 737-1131 567-9189 [email protected] The purpose of the Committee is to study the needs, possibilities and resources of the MS Preservation Town regarding community preservation by consulting with existing municipal boards; Committee to hold public information hearings on the possibilities and make recommendations to Town Meeting for community preservation. Conservation Chair Albert Laakso 575-9350 567-9016 [email protected] The purpose of the committee is to promote and develop the natural resources of the MS Commission Town, protect the wetlands and watershed areas of the Town and to permit and regulate development within wetland areas. Council on Aging Chair George Shea 244-9905 567-4512 [email protected] The Council on Aging recommends policies and oversees programs for the aging and TL Board of Directors identifies service needs of the elderly. Cultural Council Chair Margaret Landon 348-1683 567-0725 [email protected] The purpose of the council is to promote cultural activities in the community and to TL facilitate and coordinate the distribution of state arts lottery funds. Energy & Chair Andrea Chasen 754-3091 [email protected] The Energy and Sustainability Committee was established to provide advice to the SM Sustainability Select Board on policies, programs and issues promoting practices to reduce the town’s Committee ‘carbon footprint’ and preserve and enhance Longmeadow’s environment, natural resources and quality of life for its residents and businesses; and provide leadership, education and outreach to members of the public, including residents, businesses and town agencies. Finance Committee Chair Maury Garrett, Jr. [email protected] The Finance Committee holds a hearing on the proposed Town budget and makes MG recommendations on the Town budget and all articles for Town meeting involving appropriations and reviews all transfers of money from the reserve fund. Hampden County MG Retirement Board (HCRB) FY 2021 Board/Committee Chair Name Cell # Home # Email Description Liaison Historic District Chair Timothy Casey 847-1540 [email protected] The Commission is responsible for the preservation and protection of buildings, places Commission and districts of historic or literary significance in the Town and application of the Historic District commission bylaw and to review applications to alter buildings and sites within the Historic District. Historical Chair Margaret Cohn 565-2424 [email protected] The purpose of the Commission is to preserve and protect the Town’s historical Commission artifacts and assets. Housing Authority Chair Edward Kline 646-483-0068 567-7598 [email protected] Elected Mass Municipal MS Assoc. Mass Selectmen TL Assoc. Parks and Chair Margaret Rakas 244-6979 567-9526 [email protected] The Commission provides guidance to the Park and Recreation Director regarding the MS Recreation programs, long range planning, use of parks, fields and facilities and reviews the Commission Recreation Department’s budget. Planning Board Chair Donald Holland [email protected] Elected MS Pioneer Valley MG Transit Authority Recycling Chair Irwin Pers 209-6173 [email protected] The purpose of the Commission is to establish and administer the Town’s recycling MG Commission plan and develop programs to meet the recycling needs of the community. Registrars of Voters Chair Sandra Metz 567-8697 [email protected] Their function and purpose is to serve as Registrars of Voters. School Committee Chair Ryan Kelly 567-1728 [email protected] Elected SM Senior Housing The Task Force will help to identify the short-term and long-term services and needs of MS Task Force the senior community, including housing and transportation, and draft a report of its findings to be presented to the Select Board SVHCT Arlene Miller [email protected] TL (Scantic Valley Health Care Trust ) Tax Ceiling Task The mission of the Taskforce is to identify and recommend a plan that addresses the MG Force issue of Longmeadow reaching the proposition 2 ½ tax cap including identifying efficiencies, reviewing potential decreases in services (and costs), increases in revenues, and legislative relief. Tree Committee Chair David Marinelli 519-4701 567-2164 [email protected] The Committee will help the Tree Warden in setting tree management priorities and in its role of seeking community forestry grants, would coordinate its efforts with the guidance of the Town Manager. Zoning Board of Chair David Lavenburg 530-4666 [email protected] The Board hears and decides applications for special permits and petitions for zoning MS Appeals variances and hears and decides appeals in accordance with state and Town zoning regulations.
Massachusetts Municipal Managers Association Form of Government Committee
A Study on Structural Changes in Local Government in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Clark University Master‟s of Public Administration Capstone Project May 7, 2010
By
Michael C. Smith & Arianna Z. A. Schudrich
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all the members of the Form of Government Committee from the Massachusetts Municipal Managers Association. In addition we would like to thank Brian DuPont, GIS Manager of Wellesley as well as all the individuals from the case study communities that we have had interaction with.
Marilyn Contreas, Senior Program and Policy Analyst at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development, has provided invaluable insight and information in the construction of this project.
Most importantly we would like to thank our advisor Dan Morgado, Town Manager of Shrewsbury and instructor at Clark University‟s Masters of Public Administration Program, for his consistent guidance and feedback over the course of the construction of this project.
ii
Executive Summary
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long history of civic engagement dating back to the Mayflower Compact in 1620. This rich history has allowed the Commonwealth‟s local government participation to flourish over the proceeding centuries. It was not until the mid twentieth century that communities began to question their local government structure and truly attempt to find the perfect structure. There is still no consensus to what form of government is best. This document looks at nine communities who have experienced either successful or failed attempted changes within the last decade as case studies.
The document begins with a brief history of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts local government structure. It discusses pertinent literature that has been written on the different forms of local government that are available to communities.
The case study communities are: Amherst, Braintree, Needham, North Attleborough,
Palmer, Pembroke, Plymouth, Randolph and Winthrop. GIS maps were also constructed in an effort to better understand factors that relate to the change of local government process.
After analyzing these components, the identification of common themes found throughout the case studies and the GIS maps are presented. These factors and their relationship to the overall process of local government change in Massachusetts were then analyzed. The document concludes with the final thoughts and findings relative to the subject of local government change in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
iii
Table of Contents
Page
Acknowledgements ……….……………………………………………………………….. .i
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………………………ii
List of Appendices …………...……………………………………………………………..v
List of GIS Maps …………………………………………………………………………. vii
Section 1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………..1
Section 2. Literature Review………………………………………………………………..2
Section 3. Case Studies………………….. ………………………………………...………20
Amherst …………………………………………………………...…..20
Braintree …………………………………..…………………………..24
Needham ………………………………………………………………29
North Attleborough…………………………………………………….32
Palmer…………………………………………………………………..35
Pembroke ………………………………………………………………38
Plymouth ………………………………………………………………42
Randolph ………………………………………………………………49
Winthrop ………………………………………………………………52
Section 4. GIS Map Analysis………… …………………………………………………….56
iv
Section 5. Analysis …………………………………………………………………………59
Section 6: Rejected Change Analysis ……………………………………………………….65
Section 7: Final Thoughts……………………………………………………………………67
v
Appendix A: Mayor/Council Organizational Structure
Appendix B: Council-Manager Organizational Structure
Appendix C: Most Prevalent Form of Local Government in Specific Population Ranges
Appendix D: The Most Prevalent Form of U.S. Local Government Structure
Appendix E: Open Town Meeting- Board of Selectmen- Town Manager or Administrator Organizational Structure
Appendix F: Representative Town Meeting-Board of Selectmen- Town Manager or Administrator Organizational Structure
Appendix G: Randolph Government Change Proposals
Appendix H: Home Rule Charter Action Municipalities
Appendix I: Special Action Charter Municipalities
vi
List of GIS Maps
Map 1: MA Population
Map 2: MA Population Change 1980-1990
Map 3: MA Population Change 1990-2000
Map 4: Population Percent Change 1980-2000
Map 5: Voter Registration Democrat
Map 6: Voter Registration Republican
Map 7: Voter Registration Democrat over Republican
Map 8: Voter Registration Republican over Democrat
Map 9: Local Legislative Form
Map 10: Chief Municipal Officer
Map 11: Chief Municipal Officer Groupings
Map 12: CMO over Leg Form
Map 13: Special Action Charter
Map 14: Home Rule Charter Action Pre-1990
Map 15: Home Rule Charter Actions 1990-2000
Map 16: Home Rule Charter 2000-2010
Map 17: Home Rule Charter Action All
Map 18: Special Action Charter over Home Rule Charter Action
Map 19: Home Rule Charter Action over Special Action Charter
Map 20: Case Study Communities
Map 21: Case Study Communities - Populations Change
vii
Section 1: Introduction
New England, Massachusetts in particular, is in a unique situation relative to local government; since often the structure of local government pre-dates the United States
Constitution. Since the first settlement hundreds of years ago in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts many communities have changed the structure of their local government. This document examines recent changes in nine communities in the Commonwealth while also providing 21 Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps, in an attempt to identify specific factors that lead to a change in local governmental structure. The case study communities are:
Amherst, Braintree, Needham, North Attleborough, Palmer, Pembroke, Plymouth, Randolph and
Winthrop. The combination of the nine case studies and the GIS maps, produce a clear picture of the process of change in local government structure within the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.
-1- Section 2: Literature Review
History of Local Government in Massachusetts
The history of governmental structures in the United States dictates that the first time
Massachusetts became nationally prominent was during colonial period when revolution was stirring. Massachusetts is known as the, “hotbed of sedition” due to the activity of the Whigs leadership in the area. The Whigs earliest stronghold was in Massachusetts where they implanted the idea of self-rule and breaking away from the United Kingdom. Town Meetings and other early local governmental structures are sighted as the first democratic structure seen in what would become the United States (Hoerder, pg.7-8). The activity of the Whigs and the strong government structure in Massachusetts seen during this time still affect Massachusetts today.
This long line of history can be said to create strong ties to tradition throughout the state. This can be seen in present time through the construction of town offices.
Remnants of positions held in 1760 can still be seen in today‟s local government structure throughout Massachusetts. It is documented that from the year 1760 to 1780 the selectmen in a given town would call for the annual Town Meeting in March for the purpose of publicly electing the town officers. The first official to be elected was the town clerk. He was seen to be the most important since he was the town‟s general manager.
A town‟s main officials were the Selectmen. At times they would also hold other offices in a town. The selectmen were the main decision making body of the town deciding on such things as location of the market place and roads and ensuring the health of a town during a time period when disease especially small pox was rampart. The finances of the town were overseen by the assessors, town treasurer, town auditors and collectors of taxes. There was also a position
- 2 - to oversee the poor. Those who supervised the upkeep of the town were surveyors of highways and firewards. It was the warden whose job it was to uphold the moral principles of the towns.
This position was of importance during this time period due to the prevalence of the Puritans and their beliefs. There were also tithingmen and constables that worked in the same field. There were officers that were concerned with particular trades and those who oversaw the treatment of domestic animals. In summary there are four groups that historians use to categorize all officers during this time period. Group 1: are the most powerful i.e. the policy makers, Group 2: are those who have high power but less than Group 1 and those who have high social prestige. Group 3 oversees specific laws and Group 4: are the minor town officials (Hoerder, pg.15-21). Although some of these positions have faded out due to lack of necessity, the responsibilities associated with it and at times the title have remained intact throughout that years.
The basic way that a resident could participate in the town governance and political system was the Town Meeting. Within that there were two ways that people could invoke their political rights: first by voting and the second by running in the election. Voters had to be white males over the age of twenty-one and be a freeholder. According to Charters at this point a freeholder was one who had, “[an] estate or freehold…to the value of forty shillings per annu at the least or other estate to the value of Forty pounds Sterl‟,” Town Meetings according to law were called by selectmen very similar to today‟s system (Hoerder, pg.67-70).
The notion of employing a professional manager is also common in the 17th century. In
1815, a committee in the town of Boston suggested that a person be hired to oversee daily issues of the public office. However, it was not till 1914 that the first professional administrator position was written into statue in Massachusetts. In this year Norwood became the first municipality in Massachusetts to have a professional administrator (Morse, pg. 12).
- 3 -
Emergence of Professional Administrative
In the 1940‟s and 1950‟s towns in Massachusetts began to adopt Town Managers through special laws. The earliest Town Manager plan was seen in Norwood, MA in 1915. This began a trend of towns experimenting with Council-Manager forms. From 1918 to 1959 there were twelve municipalities that adopted a form of Council-Manager government. In the recent past the largest trend that has been documented is the rapid growth of professional administrative positions in towns throughout Massachusetts. There was an eleven percent increase of towns with a professional position in 1965, whereas in 2005, 259 towns, which is eighty-six percent of
Massachusetts municipalities, have an employed a professional administrator. Within this time period the largest growth was from 1965 to 1975 when the amount nearly tripled. In 1975, thirty percent of towns had a Town Manager, town administrator, an executive secretary, or a manager with a different title. Within the forty years from 1965 to 2005 professional positions have grown by 662% (Morse, pg. 12-14).
The commonwealth created two initiatives, “circuit riders” and “Incentive Aid Program,” in the 1970s and 1980s in order to promote professional management. The first was in the 1970s when the Commonwealth funded “circuit riders,” the practice of having a single professional manager working for two, three of four towns at once. Many of these circuit riders now hold upper level positions in single towns. From 1984 to 1989 the Executive Office of Communities and Development created a program helping with funds for local government improvements in management; this was called The Incentive Aid Program. The main goal of the program was to fund the creation of multiple management positions over a three year period. Initially the position was paid by the State with a portion paid by the municipality. During the three year
- 4 - period funding for the position would incrementally transfer from the State over to the municipality (Morse, pg.14).
Forms of Local Government in Massachusetts
There are four basic forms of government that municipalities in Massachusetts can implement according to state legislation. Massachusetts as a part of New England has an aspect of local government, the Town Meeting that is not seen in other parts of the United States. This is due to the history these states have with the creation of the United States and the separation from the United Kingdom. The four forms are: Mayor-Council, Council-Manager, Open Town
Meeting/Board of Selectmen/Town Manager or Administrator, and Representative Town
Meeting/Board of Selectmen/Town Manager or Administrator.
Mayor-Council Form:
The Mayor-Council form of government is seen mostly in cities in Massachusetts, however being a city is not a prerequisite for the Mayor-Council form. The Mayor-Council form of local government parallels the federal American government almost exactly. Both have an elected legislature and executive branches that are elected separately (ICMA Forms of Local
Govt). Appendix A shows chart that outlines the flow of power in this form of government.
Voters elect a Mayor and a Council through open election. As the chief executive the
Mayor appoints key officials and boards, however the Council may also have the power to appoint certain boards. In this system very few boards and/or commissions can be elected by the public. In most cases there is only one board that the Mayor has a vote on that being the School
Committee; however this is not the case in all communities. The Mayor is also the creator of the
- 5 - budget and oversees unions, contracts, and the complete town administration. Depending on the
Charter the Mayor may have the power to veto particular actions of the Council (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.3). Mayors will on average have a term of two-years although some communities have terms that last four-years. Although the Mayor as chief executive is also responsible for day to day dealings, certain municipalities will appoint an administrator to take care of these issues leaving the larger policy issues to the Mayor.
The legislative duties belong to the Council which ranges in size from seven to fifteen people while ensuring that it is an odd number of people. As legislative branch they adopt all budgets, laws, etc and may have the power to approve or veto appointments made by the Mayor.
The Council is also charged with the responsibility of assessing the overall performance of the government‟s work and functionality. The Council is permanently in session meaning that
Council meetings do not need to be called through a warrant. The members of the Council hold two year terms (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.3).
There are multiple benefits that have been outlined by scholars for this form of government. The chief executive is elected directly by the people of the municipality giving the voters more power. The legislative body becomes smaller and meets more frequently allowing more issues to be dealt with. One negative aspect of this system is the possibility that political appointed officer would have to take over administrative duties which they may not have the knowledge base to fulfill. There is a smaller percentage of citizen participation in decision making process since there is no forum for their voices to be heard officially (MMMA, Forms of
Local Gov‟t. pg.3).
- 6 -
Council-Manager Form:
The one-hundredth year anniversary of the beginning of the Council-Manager form of government in the United States was celebrated in 2008. In 1908, Staunton, Virginia was the first city to create a manager position that eventually led to the Council-Manager form of government that is in use today (Svara, pg. 6). Appendix B shows an organization chart that outlines the flow of power in this form of government.
The governing legislative body in this system is the Council whom are elected by the voters of the municipality. Their main responsibility is to provide legislative direction for the
Manager. The Council also adopts budgets, laws, and may be able to approve or veto certain appointments made by the Manager. In this system the Council is comprised of five to nine members that involve a Council president or Mayor as head. The Council President or Mayor are either appointed by the Council or elected by the residents as it is outlined in the Charter. The
Mayor/Council president tends to be the political head of the municipality while being a member of the legislative body however he or she cannot veto decisions made by the legislative body as a whole (Svara, pg. 6).
The Manager acts as the chief executive and is appointed by the Council. His or her responsibilities include the day to day administrative operations such as appointment of key officials, budgets, contracts, and unions. The Manager is the liaison between the staff, the Mayor, and the Council and by being so must attend all meetings of the Council. During such meetings it is the job of the Manager to brief the Council on agenda matters and other importance issues that are occurring in the municipality. The Manager also serves as a representative for the Council and Mayor/ Council President at particular events, (Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.4).
- 7 -
Perhaps the Manager‟s most important role is that of advisor to the Council and his or her relationship with the Council on a whole. This relationship is what determines how effective the
Manager is at carrying out his or her job and how well the Council is doing in guiding the community and making its decisions. It is imperative for the Manager to have solid interaction with his or her Council. Ninety-five percent of managers have reported through the ICMA that the interaction that takes places with their Council is on a formal basis when all members are present. The next type of interaction is informing the Council of information through periodically written reports, this is reported to occur 91% of the time. Not only did these two forms score highest in practice but is also the desired practice by managers that were interviewed. There are a number of managers that also maintain a less formal relationship with Council members in order to be adaptable to the personalities of Council members (DeSantis, pg.11).
Communications between the Manager and Council is an additional aspect that is relevant to their relationship. The key to a successful relationship is that the communication occurs on a regular basis and to what extent is the future planned for. A divided Council can become less useful and can diminish the relationship with the Manager. In order to keep the interest of all Council members during a meeting the Manager may decided to discuss certain topics with members informally before the meeting in order to have a better understanding of the information that must be presented by the Manager during the Council meeting. The development of goals and objectives are very important in order to have an effective administration. The Council should create a list of goals yearly that citizens can use to hold the
Council accountable. A similar list should be created by department heads so that the Manager can hold them accountable in their positions. By having these lists there is a shared aspiration for
- 8 - reaching and fulfilling these goals for the Council and manager/department heads which creates a strong bond between the Council and Manager (DeSantis, pg.12-13).
There are particular advantages to the Council-Manager form of governance. Firstly, there is a smaller legislative body making decision which meets regularly keeping them involved. The Council has the ability to create guidelines and qualifications that the chief executive must meet in order to be appointed. When necessary, the Council can remove the chief executive at any point. One negative that stands out in this form is that there is a small amount of citizen participation in the decision-making process (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg. 4).
Differentiating Mayor-Council and Council-Manager Form of Government
Academics debate over which is the more efficient form of local government, Mayor-
Council or Council-Manager. The Council-Manager form is still growing and has been adopted more and more by municipalities in Massachusetts. The Council-Manager form can be combined with multiple different structural features to create a governing body whereas the
Mayor-Council cannot. Council-Manager also has a more balanced relationship between politics and professionalism because of the administrative manager that is appointed and not elected.
There are three main points that clearly define the difference between the Mayor-Council and Council-Manager forms of government. The first has been named “allocation of authority” which parallel‟s a presidential-parliamentary system. In the Council-Manager form all authority is given to the Council with particular aspects under the Manager as written into the law. The authority for the municipality is collected under the Council which enables the Council to be very powerful. However, when power is separated as in the Mayor-Council form, the Mayor can limit the amount of information and advice that is given to the Council which could have
- 9 - negative reactions. In this form the Mayor who has the responsibilities of a manager is a separate executive entity from the Council without any oversight (Svara, pg.7-8).
There are some other differentiating characteristics that have been identified within this category. A positive factor of the Council-Manager form is the open communication between the government and the citizens of the municipality since every member of the governing body is a part of the policy making process. Whereas with Mayor he or she has the sole power to create policy without any input from the other elected members however before it becomes law it must be approved by the legislative body to ensure a system of checks and balances, the same way that government is structured at the state and federal levels. Furthermore by involving the whole
Council in decision making processes a more balanced decision can be made (ICMA: Council-
Manager or “Strong Mayor).
The second difference is the assignment of executive responsibilities to an elected versus an appointed administrator. With a Council-Manager system the executive duties are given to the appointed administrator by the Council making the administrator the chief executive but still reporting to the legislative or Council. In the Mayor-Council form the duties are under the authority of the Mayor who can chose to have a central coordinating administrator officer
(CAO). This position would be assigned tasks by the Mayor and is not empowered to work on their own authority (Svara, pg. 8). By choosing to have executive responsibilities in a Mayoral form it is more likely that the decisions will be based on partisan politics and not merit-based.
When an appointed professional manager is chosen by the Council there is a degree of accountability created. The Manager will then tend to run the day to day operations similar to a business chief executive that allows him or her to ensure that all policies from the elected body are upheld. With a strong Mayor form of government the Mayor oversees the day to day which
- 10 - could be problematic since he or she may not have the proper training or experience to do so.
There is also the possibility that the Mayor will choose department head positions based on political favoritism and not qualifications (IMCA, Council-Manager or “Strong Mayor”).
The last differentiating feature is to who the top administrator (when not a Town
Manager) reports: the entire Council or solely to the Mayor. Being accountable to the entire
Council is the basic characteristic of the Council-Manager form creating transparency and putting public interest at the forefront. When a CAO is present under a Mayor in the Mayor-
Council form there is still a lack of professional advice to the legislative Council. This situation can also push the manager to work exclusively for the Mayor‟s agenda because that is the only one the manager is accountable too (Svara, pg.8).
There are multiple studies that show how Councils handle governance of a municipality and oversee the administrative performance better than a Mayor position. Council-Manager municipalities have shown to have better efficiency, finances, and management performance.
Appendix C shows how the Council-Manager form has been chosen more than the Mayor-
Council type in the year 2009. This chart‟s groupings are based on population size. Appendix D shows that the most prevalent form of local government in the United States is Council-Manager.
This trend began in 2000 and experiences a continual increase.
The debate between Mayor-Council and Council-Manager has been a long and detailed one. However, recently a different school of thought has emerged which thinks the issue between
Mayor-Council and Council-Manager is of non-importance and should not be an „either/or‟ choice. Rather what should be the focus of government is implementing a:
- 11 -
“Strong political leadership, strong policy development, a relentless focus on execution and results, a commitment to transparent and ethical government, and a strategy for representing and engaging every segment of the community.” (O‟Neill, pg. 1) By looking at what seems to be the most important issues of a community, such as population and job growth and financial stability, those having strong political leadership and effective management capacity are the ones whom succeed in these area the most throughout the United
States. The reason for having this hybrid is in order to create vision and have it executed. The political side of the spectrum is there to develop and articulate future goals and vision for a community. The professional than makes the vision a reality by overseeing the policy implementation in the community. With this hybrid of strong political and professional leadership there is a fear that the voices of the elected officials besides the Mayor and the voices of the residents would not be heard. According to Robert O‟Neill, Jr., Executive Director of the
ICMA, having a single person in charge may seem like a more accountable method but it is not since the elected representatives have the potential to be left out of the process (O‟Neill, pg. 1-2).
It is the belief of this school of thought, that recent economic and political challenges have pushed communities into strong political leadership however this will not help them. In order to create an efficient local government a balance between a strong political and strong professional style of leadership must be struck.
Open Town Meeting (OTM)-Board of Selectmen-Town Manager or Administrator
This form of government has three different aspects to it: Town Meeting, Board of
Selectmen, and Town Manager or Administrator. Since the legislative body is made up of all citizens of the municipality there are many different opinions taken into account. Appendix E shows chart that outlines the flow of power in this form of government.
- 12 -
The Open Town Meeting acts as the legislative body of the town. All citizens that are registered voters in the town meet on a given day and place in order to elect the Board of
Selectmen and make other policy decisions. The voters are given the opportunity to debate and then vote on budgets, by-laws, and all issues that are brought forth during the meeting. The executive branch is created by the Board of Selectmen and Manager. The Board of Selectmen is generally three to five members who are elected during the Town Meeting. The Selectmen appoint the Manager, boards, committees, set policy according to the voice of the Town
Meetings, and approve union contracts. Depending on the Charter, the Selectmen may also have the ability to veto some of the Manager‟s appointments (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.5).
The Town Manager or Administrator is part of the executive body of the town as well as the chief administrator officer (CAO) which allows him or her to appoint department heads, creates budgets, gives contracts, negotiates with unions and run the administration. The Manager is a voting member of the school committee in relation to union contracts (MMMA, Forms of
Local Gov‟t. pg.5). Certain Charters will divide the power in order to give the Town Manager the title and responsibilities of chief executive authority. The amount of power that a Town
Manager or Administrator has depends on the wording of the Charter adopted by a municipality.
Town Managers tend to have more central authority than an administrator. As CAO the person has many different obligations that range from supervising the administration to ensure its efficiency to coordinating activities of town departments (MMA, Charter Basics).
The benefits to this form of government are direct and extensive citizen participation. The
Board of Selectmen has the ability to appoint a well qualified chief executive and to remove the chief executive when the Selectmen see fit. The downside to this form is the lengthy decision making process by the legislative branch as well as the legislative branch may not be as
- 13 - knowledgeable on issues as it should be. Lastly, the shared executive branch responsibilities between the Board of Selectmen and the Town Manager may cause confusion as to what responsibilities belong to whom (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.5). The large size of the legislative body increases the chances that members are not well versed on issues prior to voting.
Representative Town Meeting (RTM)-Board of Selectmen-Town Manager or Administrator:
Like the pervious form of government this too has three aspects to it: Representative
Town Meeting (RTM), Board of Selectmen and Town Manger or Administrator. Appendix F contains a chart that outlines the flow of power in this form of government.
In order to create the Representative Town Meeting a limited number of community members are elected, usually by district, who then represent all citizens in the Town Meeting.
The size of the RTM varies but can range from smaller than one hundred to more than three hundred. The RTM is the legislative body for the municipality meaning that it debates and passes budgets, by-laws, and all other issues that arise during the Town Meetings.
The executive branch is the same as in the Open Town Meeting for of government. The
Board of Selectmen and Town Manager share the responsibilities of the executive branch.
Additionally, the individual roles of the Board of Selectmen and Town Manager are the same as the Open Town Meeting (MMMA, Forms of Local Gov‟t. pg.6).
The Representative Town Meeting allows for a more representative legislative body to be involved in the government in comparison to a Council form. Since the Town Meeting members are elected they are more likely to be well versed in issues than those who participate in an Open
Town Meeting. Once again the ability to have guidelines while appointing the Town Manager and removing the Town Manager is available for the Board of Selectmen. However, certain
- 14 - issues arise with this form as well. Creating a diverse representative community can be complicated. It can be difficult for the RTM‟s to reach the required quorum and to ensure that all members are current with pertinent issues. The large size of the legislative body increases the chances that members are not well versed on issues prior to voting (MMMA, Forms of Local
Gov‟t. pg.6).
Charter Change Procedures
All 351 municipalities in Massachusetts must conform to state statutes when forming a city or town charters. Charters are required to outline all details of how the city or town will be run. The Charter must include the form of government chosen and then must detail who has what powers. A Charter is the basic framework of the government form in a community. It outlines officials that are elected and those that are appointed. For the legislative branch it details the size, term, composition and what authority it encompasses. If a community operates under a Charter in order to change the form of government that a municipality uses the city or town Charter must be amended.
There are three ways for a Charter to be amended: by-laws and “permissive” legislation,
Home Rule Charter, and Special Municipal Legislation/ Special Act Charter. These three paths are not all the same. All three can be used for a variety of changes such as: changing an elected office to appointed and/or consolidating departments into one better functioning department. A change done through by-law and permissive legislation is limited by the types of changes it can make. Home Rule Charter and Special Municipal Legislation/ Special Act Charter have the power to change other aspects that by-laws do not (Contreas, pg. 23).
- 15 -
By-laws and Permissive Legislation:
By-law and permissive legislation allows for basic structural, administrative and organizational changes in a municipal‟s governance. Chapter 41, Section 1B of 1997, gives annual Town Meeting/election the right to change certain positions from elected to appointed status. First there must be a vote of Town Meeting then a ballot vote at the annual Town
Meeting. Chapter 41 Section 21, allows crossover between Selectmen and other positions: Water and Sewer Board, Water Commission, Water and Municipal Light Commissioners, Municipal
Light Board, Sewer Commissioners, Park Commissioners, Board of Public Works, Board of
Health, Board of Assessors, and Commission on Public Safety. It is stipulated that in order for these changes to be made questions must be placed on the ballot that would give the Selectmen the proper authority. These questions must be put onto the election ballot sixty days before the town election. Permissive legislation can also be used to appoint assessors by Selectmen (Ch.41,
Sect. 25), combing the positions of Treasurer and Collector (Ch.41, Sect.1), and appointing
Town Clerk as Town Accountant if the individual holds another office (Ch.41, Sect. 55). Finally this path can be used to create the position of Town Administrator (Ch.41, Sect.23A) which was the favored means of changes for many years. The statue gives the Board of Selectmen the authority to transfer responsibilities of the Board of Selectmen to the Town Administrator
(Contreas, pg.23-24).
Towns that still utilize this are those that have not centralized their government in a major restructuring as well as those that have more elected positions. Towns may utilize by-laws and permissive legislation when individuals whom hold the position that are in question are retiring.
- 16 -
At times when such openings occur people are more willing to serve if appointed than elected which is where by-law change is beneficial (Contreas, pg. 23-24).
Home Rule Charter:
In 1966, the Home Rule Amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts was adopted. Although Massachusetts does not legislate what type of government a community must use according to population, tax base or other category there are loose guidelines that are generally followed. A population of 12,000 or higher may adopt a city form,
6,000 or above may adopt a Representative Town Meeting form of government and towns with a population below 6,000 must have an Open Town Meeting form (Contreas, pg.24-25).
Before 1966 and the implementation of the Home Rule Charter Amendment, the Charter change process, first adopted in 1915 (Massachusetts General Law Chapter 43), was very different. If communities wanted to change their form of local government they had these options to choose from: Plan A (Strong Mayor), Plan B (Weak Mayor), Plan C (Commission), and Plan D (Council-Manager). In 1938, Plan E, Council-Manager with proportional representation was added to the original 1915 statue. In 1959, Plan F, was added to the 1915 statue that allowed the election of Mayor and Council whom had party affiliations. However after 1966 and the Home Rule Amendment Chapter 43 was seen as inefficient and no longer used (Contreas, pg. 25).
In order to implement the Home Rule Charter a Charter Commission must be created. A petition of fifteen percent of voters must be presented and then a nine-person Charter
Commission can be elected. The Charter Commission has a maximum of eighteen months (but may choose to use ten months) to create a proposal for a new Charter. Most times when such a
- 17 - commission is created it is to change large aspects of the Charter. Some examples are creating a management position or change of elected boards to appointed status. After elected the commission debates all changes that can be made to the government structure while ensuring that public opinion is heard through multiple venues. Key points that are discussed are: legislative body (if not choosing an Open Town Meeting), chief executive, other elected offices, chief administrative officer, administrative organization, operating and capital budget preparation, citizen participation /safeguard mechanisms and other features (DHCD, Charter Commission
Procedures). After the committee proposes changes the majority of voters must vote yes at a municipal election. If this whole process occurs then a new Charter is adopted and the changes are put into place (MMA, Changing Mass. Local Gov't Structure).
Special Municipal Legislation/ Special Act Charter:
Before the Home Rule Amendment the most pervasive changes to charters were made through special municipal legislation (better known as Special Act Charter). Towns have used this path in order to create Selectmen-Town Manager governments and this method is still used today to change government structure. There is a four step procedure for this type of Charter change. Step one: passage by majority vote, warrant article or resolution proposing the Special
Act. Step two: petition to the General Court to enact the proposal. Step three: approval of the petition by the State House of Representatives and Senate. Step four: signing by the Governor.
Although it may sound tedious this can take as little as a year. The petition may stipulate that the act only becomes effective during the next municipal election when voted on by the majority or it may have a particular date written in. This form of change can also be used to implement
- 18 - smaller changes such as combining of appointed collector and treasurer (MMA, Changing Mass.
Local Gov't Structure).
- 19 -
Section 3: Case Studies
Amherst
The community of Amherst is situated in Hampshire County in the Connecticut River
Valley, the population as of the 2000 census was 34,874. From 1980-1990 there was an increase in population of 2,424 and 1990-2000 there was a decrease of 354 people. There have been a positive six percent (6%) population growth. The voter registration within Amherst is 49% registered Democrat and 6% registered Republican. The averages for the commonwealth are
36.95% Democrat, 11.62% Republican, 50.7% unaffiliated, and 0.73% minority parties.
Recent Charter Activity
The town of Amherst has had the same basic structure of government since the 1950‟s when it first adopted using a Town Manager. There have been multiple commissions that have been elected to change the structure of the Charter but none have been successful since 2001
(DHCD, Summary). On April 3, 2001 a Charter Commission was elected through the annual ballot process after the Board of Selectmen decided on October 30, 2000 to put the creation of a commission to a vote. The creation of the Charter Commission was under the Home Rule amendment provisions.
The commission published a report in the fiscal year 2002 on the Charter Commission process. This document outlines the basic steps taken by the committee in order to review the current system and produce suggestions for change. Under the Home Rule law the commission had eighteen months to fulfill this process. The commission chair was Bryan C. Harvey, vice- chair was James D. Pitts III and the clerk was Joan R. Golowich. The particular areas that they
- 20 - reviewed were the Town Meeting, the select board, and the Town Manager. In order to have a fuller understanding of local governance in the area the committee members researched other communities and how their governments ran (Harvey).
During this process many committee members saw a widening gap between the promises made by Town Meetings and what was being implemented. Worries on participation, representation, accountability, contention and consensus, and effectiveness and efficiency also arose. There was a majority opinion that these concerns were pointing towards a needed change to Council form of government instead of Town Meeting. However in the end the committee decided to recommend a redistribution of powers and duties while retaining the current government structure. This suggestion was voted on and passed by the residents of Amherst
(Harvey).
By looking at the current Charter that was changed in 2001 one can fully understand the distribution of power in the Representative Town Meeting- Select Board- Town Manager government form utilized in Amherst. The Representative Town Meeting acts as the legislative body for the town thus having the responsibilities outlined above in the description of a
Representative Town Meeting form. The town‟s people can act through the Town Meeting but are also bound by what the representatives‟ vote on. Basically all that occurs in the
Representative Town Meeting is as though an Open Town Meeting occurred since the residents elect their representatives. The Select Board is comprised of five members that are elected to be the town‟s chief elected officials. They are instilled with the powers given to a Board of
Selectmen as written in the General Laws that are associated with the Home Rule Charter Act.
Other powers that are given to them include: policy making, appointing certain positions, giving recommendations to the Town Meeting, regulatory items, by-law enforcement and certain
- 21 - financial items as well as others that are not specified. Lastly, the Town Manager holds the power to appoint officers and employees, supervises committees, and is the chief administrative and fiscal officer of Amherst. The appointment of the Town Manager is done by the Select
Board under the guidelines outlined in the Charter. Such as the Town Manager does not need to be a native to Amherst but most move there, he or she must have experience in the field and the town cannot enter a contract with the manager for more than five years at a time.
As mentioned before Amherst tried to change their government structure again in 2003 and 2005. Amherst has an active community relative to their participation in local government.
This is a very important point to understand while examining why the Charter changes in 2003 and 2005 failed to pass. There is a sense of tradition especially since they were one of the first towns to adopt a Town Manager in the 1950s. The Representative Town Meeting is also seen as the purest form of democracy. The way that John Musante, Assistant Town Manager, describes the 2003 push for change is that it became a, “pitched political battle.” In 2003 there was a group of people that thought the Town Meeting was inefficient and unrepresentative. The governance model had all its power concentrated, the elections for the representatives were barley contested if there was even enough people to run furthermore the people wanted a distinct political leader.
They proposed a Mayor (chief executive) - Council (legislative) - Town Manager (chief administrative officer) form of government. The argument was that this form would have more accountability and a full time Council more focused. This side also saw the Representative Town
Meetings as long and tedious sighting one meeting that lasted fourteen nights.
The anti-change position is to remain with the current form and that data shows how the
Town Meeting still works. In 2006 there was letter to the Editor of the Amherst Bulletin that outlined how attendance at meetings had increased. There were five sessions in the year where
- 22 - only eight seats were vacant out of 240 seats. 80 members attended all sessions, one hundred and thirty six missed one session meaning that over 70% attendance was had for these sessions
(Brooks). Another editorial writes of how great the Town Meeting structure is, “[where] discussion can be driven from below, and cannot be censored by authority from above except in a public forum. Any citizen with an issue of personal importance can ask that his or her fellow citizens engage that concern with discussion and a vote,” (Acherman). These are just some example of how strong feelings there were on both sides of the debate. The division between pro and anti Charter change mirrored opposing political parties during a state or national election.
In 2003, the vote to replace the Representative Town Meeting with a Town Council form and distinct political leader was defeated by 14 votes. There was a petition by citizens to revote on the issue and a second vote for a Mayor-Council government form took place in 2005.
Although both sides held vigorous campaigns it was once again defeated: 2,953 votes for the current structure and 2,701 votes for change. “The government structure is not seen as broken by people in Amherst,” leading to the unlikely chance of having the structure changed to a Mayor-
Council form in the near future according to Mr. Musante. The idea that is circulating in the majority right now is why fix something that is not broken? This along with the strong sense of tradition and pure form of democracy in a Town Meeting will make a Charter change almost impossible in the current climate.
Observation
According to Mr. Musante, “The government structure is not seen as broken by people in
Amherst,” leading to the unlikely chance of having the structure changed to a Mayor-Council form. With the thought of „why fix something that is not broken,‟ circulating within the
- 23 - population of Amherst a change of government will not occur. The close margins in the 2003 and 2005 votes further proves that Amherst will not adopt a Mayoral form of government till a significant number of residents believe that the government is no longer working for them.
Another reason that the 2003 and 2005 votes failed can be faulted too the strong sense of tradition and history in the town of Amherst. The residents seem to have strong ties to the Town
Meeting and do not want to dismantle it permanently. There is a popular and wide spread belief that the Town Meeting is the purest form of democracy that can be used by local government.
This idea can explain why a change to Mayor form of government did not occur in 2003 or 2005.
It is the belief of Mr. Musante that if there was a proposal to adopt a Mayor form of government again it would fail once again because the community has not changed drastically since 2005.
Braintree
The community of Braintree is situated on the south shore in Norfolk County, the population as of the 2000 census was 33,828. The community itself has experienced a decrease in population over the preceding two decades. From 1980-1990 there was a decrease in population of 1,615 and 1990-2000 there was a decrease of 8 in the population level. There have been a negative five percent (-5%) population growth from 1980-2000. The voter registration within Braintree is 39% registered Democrat, 12% registered Republican. The averages for the commonwealth are 36.95% Democrat, 11.62% Republican, 50.7% unaffiliated, and 0.73% minority parties. This shows that Braintree is slightly above the Commonwealth‟s average with registered Democrats but on par with the Republican average.
- 24 -
Recent Charter Action
In 2006 the community of Braintree realized their desire for a change in their governmental structure. The desire for change can be traced back to 1998-1999 when a disagreement between the Town Meeting and the Board of Selectmen became so intense legal suits were filed (Powers). From 2002-2004 an Elected Charter Committee operated in Braintree but they were unsuccessful in producing a document which was approved by the people. There were two factions that emerged as the process to determine the new form of government progressed, those in favor of a Town Manager form of government and those in favor of a Mayor form of government. The most outspoken proponents of the Town Manager form of government were the members of the Government Study Committee, which was a semi-autonomous body operating under within the Town Meeting.
In the Town election of 2005, there were two non-binding questions placed on the ballot:
Question #2 asking if residents would be in favor of or opposed to a Mayor-Council form of government and Question #3 asking if residents would be in favor of or opposed to a Town
Manager form of government. The results from the election stated that the community of
Braintree wanted a Mayor-Council form of government. Question #2, the Mayor-Council option had 1,104 more votes in favor than against, while Question #3 the Town Manager option had 405 votes against it. On May 2, 2005 the Town Meeting approved the Town Manager form of government as proposed by the Government Study Committee. At the same meeting, May 2,
2005 a Mayor/Town Council Study Committee was established with the charge of creating a document which would change the government of Braintree to a Mayor/Town Council, they were given the statutory 18 months to produce such a document. Only five months later the
Mayor/Town Council Study Committee presented their proposal at the October 25, 2005, Town
- 25 -
Meeting. The Town Meeting subsequently accepted the proposal and passed it on to the General
Court for enactment. Both forms which had been approved by the Town Meeting were enacted by the General Court, Chapter 189 of the Acts of 2005 established the Mayor-Town Council form of government and Chapter 113 of the Acts of 2005 established the Town Manager form of government.
The Government Study Committee strongly advised the Town Meeting as well as the public that the Mayor/Town Council was the wrong form of government to adopt and they favored the Town Manager form of government. At the October 24, 2005 Special Town Meeting the Government Study Committee stated they did not “believe that this proposal [Mayor/Town
Council], because of the conflict within the document and lack of appropriate checks and balances, is sufficiently refined to the point that it should be brought to the voters.”
George Kokoros, a citizen of Braintree, advocated for the gradual progression of government, for Braintree to adopt the Town Manager form. Kokoros wrote an editorial which he stated,
“It is difficult to expect that these part-time, dedicated individuals can continue to lead us into the future without more seasoned assistance. A Town Manager will give that knowledge and day-to- day commitment to our current government structure. It's a small change that needs to be brought forward before abandoning our grassroots system.” (Kokoros) Kokoros also cautioned that the fundamental founding principal of democracy, to have everyone‟s voice heard, would be lost if the town adopted the politicized Mayor-Council form of government and did away with the Town Meeting.
It is interesting to note that in the time between the October 2005 Town Meeting and the
April 2006 election the Town Manager form of government proponents established a Political
Action Committee (PAC) which advocated for the Town Manager form. Those in favor of a
- 26 -
Mayor/Town Council form of government did not respond and simply trusted the vote of 2005 would repeat itself in 2006 with Mayor/Town Council form winning out (Powers).
While there were multiple outspoken proponents of the Town Manager form of government it turned out that they were only a very vocal minority with the silent majority of
Braintree residents favoring the Mayor/Town Council form of government. The Mayor form of government won the day in the Town election of April 2006. The Town election of 2006 clearly displayed the people of Braintree‟s desire for local government structure. With almost a 2-1 margin the Mayor Council won the day. Binding Question #1, Town Manager, received 2,225
YES votes, 3,389 NO votes; while Binding Question #2 received 3,935 YES votes and 2,005 NO votes. These results clearly show the public‟s desire for a Mayor/Town Council form of government and their desire not to have a Town Manager form of government. The Mayor and
Town Council were elected in November 2007.
This change was the first change in the government of Braintree since 1920 when they moved from an Open Town Meeting to a Representative Town Meeting. The Town Meeting of
Braintree was the third oldest in the state before it was abolished. The new Mayor-Council form established a nine member Council with six members being elected by district, the town‟s districts were shrunk from 12 to 6 by the town clerk and the board of registrars, and three
Councilors elected at large. The Mayor was granted the authority to appoint former elected department heads such as the Town Clerk, Treasurer, Collector, and Planning Board.
In 2009 a Braintree resident, Angela Geso wrote an editorial which she expressed her mixed feelings about the change in Braintree‟s government two years after the change. The biggest theme in her editorial was that the change was bitter sweet. It was easier to hold someone accountable for the direction of the town, the Mayor, while at the same time she missed
- 27 - the openness and inclusiveness of the Town Meeting where residents were kept better informed of happenings in the town. Another salient point was her dissatisfaction with the change from the election of to the appointment of such crucial positions, such as the Planning Board, that shape the future of the town.
Observations
While the Town Meeting form of government is without a doubt a Democracy, whether as pure a form of direct democracy as the Open Town Meeting is or a more representative form as with the Representative Town Meeting, the Mayor-Council system certainly is better classified as a Republic than a Democracy. Perhaps the adoption of more Republic style government of Mayor-Council over the Town Manager by a 2-1 margin is an expression of the increased desire to see individuals who will represent the will of the people and be held accountable to the people to run government.
The Mayor-Council form of government was pitched as a drastic change which mimics the government seen in Washington and in Boston and presented residents with a more accountable to the people form of government. It offered citizens the most drastic option for change and sometimes when people are as disheartened with a system they opt for the most drastic change in hopes that the severe change will bring about the best result.
The resounding call for change of government in Braintree may only be present in that community one of the resounding factors which can without a doubt be applied to all communities is that with the increase in availability of information, increased coverage of government on all levels by the media, and increased voter participation and registration in the
- 28 - last few years certainly has increased the value placed on accountability in government, regardless of the form of that government.
Needham
The community of Needham is a suburb located in Norfolk County, just west of Boston with a population of 28,924 according to the 2000 census. Needham has experienced a population increase in the last two decades of six percent (+6%) with the influx of 1,367 people from 1990-2000. The voter registration in the suburb of 35% Democrat and 14% Republican registered voters. Both of are two percentage points different from the state average which suggests the makeup of the community is identify themselves as more conservative than the state average.
Recent Charter Action
Needham is has a very strong affinity to cultural heritage, which they have tried to balance with their desire to have an effective and efficient government. By the beginning of the decade Needham‟s population felt they needed a change in their municipal government to become more efficient but they did not want to lose the small town community feel. In 2003, the
Board of Selectmen began the process of assessing the current government and starting to determine the best course of action for the future.
The town of Needham officially changed their Charter in 2005 they switched over to a
Town Manager type of government. In 2004 Needham in created the Town Manager position by voting in support of the change in the November 2004 general election; subsequently the action was approved by the State Legislature and Governor. The second phase of the Town Manager
- 29 - reform occurred in 2005; the “Proposed By-Law Revision” gave the responsibility of crafting a budget to the Town Manager. The third phase revision affected the Municipal Building
Maintenance Board which was changed to Public Facilities Department which has to report to the Town Manager, which previously was an independent agency.
While the idea of change may be something Needham has historically shied away from changes in tradition at the May 2005 Annual Town Meeting the Town voted to establish a special committee under Article 64 to “authorized and directed to make a study and investigation of ways and means of (a) strengthening the Representative Town Meeting as the legislative branch of the Town government, and (b) of reducing absenteeism among Town Meeting
Members, said special committee to report its findings and recommendation to the next Annual
Town Meeting or sooner.” (Needhamma.gov) The committee was sustained by the Annual
Town Meetings of 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively. A report was generated for the 2009
Annual Town Meeting detailing their findings regarding increased participation and decreased absenteeism at Needham‟s RTMs.
The study found that there was a need to keep the RTM in Needham and change was not welcome in the structure of the legislative branch of government, only internal reforms regarding the level of participation were needed. The study stated: “We reject the notion that Town
Meeting is an obsolete institution in a complex and rapidly changing world” (Needham TMSC
2/2/09). The committee was initiative was spearheaded by longtime Needham resident and
Representative to the Town Meeting, James Hugh Powers (Ryan). Powers is very active in the
RTM his name has surfaced many times, writing editorials and also publishing formal reports, regarding local government in Needham, however, due to his failing health, his future involvement remains unclear. The 2009 Annual Town Meeting voted down the proposed
- 30 -
Warrant Article submitted by the Town Meeting Study Committee suggesting that imposing a cutoff date for items to be placed on the Agenda for the Annual Town Meeting of early February would hinder free speech.
Observations
While collecting research materials I asked a woman working at the Town Clerk‟s office about information regarding recent Charter changes she commented that “we have not had a
Charter change in decades” but once I inquired further about their change to a Town Manager in
2005 she was helpful in locating language regarding that change. The tone of the woman working at the Town Clerk‟s office sounded as if she was rather insulted I had suggested their
Charter had changed recently reinforcing the observation of a high value placed on tradition and importance of heritage Needham possesses.
While the mood of Needham may have been welcoming for the change to a weak Town
Manager the general culture has not changed. The town of Needham still appears to pride itself on preserving its heritage and tradition by maintaining the RTM as it currently is established.
The culture also seems to desire to stay as efficient and effective, illustrated by the change over to a Town Manager form of government. Needham seemed more concerned with changing their chief official‟s title to Town Manager than actually changing the powers and duties, as evidence of their weak Town Manager (Contreas). The future of Needham‟s government is stable for the foreseeable future. The culture of historic preservation is one which coupled with a homogeneous socioeconomic status of the population produces a culture higher civic involvement than the more heterogeneous populations of the Commonwealth. The only changes which may result in the future would likely be alterations to the RTM structure as was attempted
- 31 - in 2009, resulting from clashing ideologies, reformers v. preservationists, of what the RTM should represent.
North Attleborough
Located in Bristol County Massachusetts a border town to Rhode Island, North
Attleborough has a population of 27,143 at the time of the 2000 census. The population in this community has increased by twenty five (+25%) from 1980-2000. The voter breakdown for
North Attleborough is 23% Democratic and 18% Republican which are significantly different from the state averages. The Democratic registration is down fourteen points from the state average and the Republican registration is up six points from the state average.
Recent Charter Action
In April 2002 the community of North Attleborough voted to form a Charter Commission consisting of: Sherry N. Rhyno, Chairman, Bart Steele, Vice-Chairman, John Kraskouskas,
Clerk, Donald Baker, Garry Billingford, Louise Cote, David Manogian, James McKenna, and
James C. Wood. The Charter Commission crafted a mission statement for themselves: “to review and critique the present structure of our town government and to recommend to the voters a structure of local government in the form of a Home Rule Charter which ensures open citizen participation in the decision-making processes, enhances the delivery of service to the community, and preserves the quality of life we enjoy here.”
The commission laid out a timeline which adhered to the state statues of 18 month with a
Preliminary Charter scheduled for August 1, 2003 with the Final Charter Repost due on October
1, 2003. In order to produce a document which represented the will of the people the
- 32 -
Commission held sixty public meetings which were broadcast on the local public access channel which the Commission provided time for public comments and questions regarding the current government and where the public would like to see the government of North Attleborough evolve into. During these meetings the Commission not only sought help and assistance from the community but also from individuals experienced in the Charter change process. After the public hearings the Commission was able to distill all the information gathered and identify two main recurring themes: “the Town of North Attleborough does need some restructuring of its government and there is a need for „someone to be in charge‟ in order for there to be increased efficiency and day-to-day accountability in government.”
The final Charter which was accepted by the Charter Commission with a vote of 5-3 on
September 23, 2003 set forth these two changes to the government of North Attleborough: the
Charter created Town Manager position to replace the Town Administrator, and the size of the
Representative Town Meeting (RTM) was decreased in size by 2/3, from 162 to 54. The Board of Selectmen was left untouched by the proposed Charter at 5 Selectmen. The town election to decide the fate of the proposed Home Rule Charter was set for April 5, 2004.
The way the Town Administrator position is structured the Town Administrator only responsible for overseeing the departments whose heads are appointed by the Board of
Selectmen. In an effort to help streamline the government of North Attleborough the Charter established the Town Manager who would be in charger or overseeing all department heads save for the school board. The RTM regulations were changed so that elected or appointed members of town board, commissions and committees, members of the finance committee, and town and school employees were not allowed to serve simultaneously as voting members of the RTM but they still had speaking privileges.
- 33 -
The proposed Charter also replaced the Election Commission with a Board of Registrars, appointed by the Board of Selectmen, which combined the Town Clerk and Election Offices with the Town Clerk, appointed by the Town Manager, to serve as the department head. The elected Electric Commissioners would still continue to set the rates but the department would report to the Town Manager.
The four members of the Charter Commission who disagreed, Baker, Cote, Manoogian,
McKenna, with the final version of the Charter wrote dissenting opinions included in the Final
Report of the Charter Commission, Town of North Attleborough. The main issues which the dissenting members of the Charter Commission identified in the proposed Charter were: the
North Attleborough Electric Company reporting to the Town Manager/Board of Selectmen, the
2/3 decrease in the size of the RTM, the lack of any restructuring of the School Department, some members felt the voters wished a Mayor form of government, the creation of the Election
Commission combined with the Town Clerk moved back to a form which was abandoned in the
1970s because of “opportunities for fraud at the ballot box.”
Observations
The fractioned Charter Commission was certainly a major factor in the failed adoption of the proposed Home Rule Charter in 2004. Often is the case with change even if there is a movement for change unless the voters can be convinced and shown that the current option is the best course of action the majority of the time the proposed Charter action will fail (Contreas). If the Charter Commission, the people who crafted the vision of the new government, cannot agree that it is the best option for the community it is hard to convince the community at large they should vote to adopt the proposed change.
- 34 -
Palmer
Palmer is located in Hampden County in Western Massachusetts. The 2000 Census documented the population of Palmer as 12,497. Over a twenty year span from 1980 to 2000 the population change grew six percent with a population increase of 298 from 1980-1990 and an increase of 443 from 1990-2000. Of these 12,497 residents thirty-one percent identified themselves as Democrats and twelve percent as Republican. The number of registered
Democrats is six percentage points lower than the state average however the Republican registration rate matches the average.
Recent Charter Activity
The most recent Charter activity that Palmer has experienced was in the year 2004. 1,500 voters in Palmer signed a petition to have the Town elect a Charter Commission; this need was fulfilled on April 16, 2002 when the residents of Palmer elected a Charter Commission through the Home Rule Charter Act. The chairman was Paul Wisnewski and the vice-chairman was Keith
Parent. The then current form of governance was an Open Town Meeting- three member Board of Selectmen- Town Administrator however the commission found after its initial review of the
Charter that legislative and executive authority needed to be reconsidered. The commission used multiple different paths of research in order to reach its proposal. Firstly the commission analyzed current Charter structures of comparable municipalities to Palmer. In order to have citizen opinions the commission held public hearings and open meetings, surveyed random citizens, and met with elected and appointed boards and committees within Palmer. Finally they had discussions with the Massachusetts Department of Community Development (Wisnewski, ii).
- 35 -
It was the decision of the commission to suggest a new form of government be implemented in Palmer using a nine member Town Council- Town Manager structure with newly structured departments. The town departments would become department of public works, department of municipal finance, department of public safely, and department of public service.
Although this would be a dramatic and sever change for Palmer the commission, “strongly feel…is by far the best way for the town of Palmer to meet the challenges of the 21st century,”
(Wisnewski, ii).
The new division of powers, as outlined in the Charter that was voted into effect, is the
Town Council being the legislative branch and executive branch lead by the Town Manager whom would also oversee all fiscal, business and municipal affairs. More specifically the legislative branch or the Town Council would be comprised of nine elected members with
Council president, vice president, and clerk that the Council would elect from among themselves.
The Town Council is vested with all powers of the Town besides those that are outlined to go elsewhere by the Charter or general law. The Council‟s basic powers are appointments of certain officers, ordinances, etc. The Town Manager is appointed by the Town Council whom must follow the qualification outline in the Charter. All executive powers are the responsibility of the
Town Manager however they can be exercised through town agencies as supervised by the Town
Manager. The Charter goes on to outline the powers and duties of the manager some of which are: be responsible for an effective administration, attend all Town Council meetings, to keep the
Town Council informed of the needs of the town, and prepare and submit an annual budget. This new structure of government was passed in the annual elections of 2004.
In the 2004 annual report of the town of Palmer the Selectmen report spoke on how the town voted in the new system. “This enormous change is a historical event in Palmer history that
- 36 - will streamline operations, eliminate bureaucracy and provide a more accountable framework for town operations,” (annual report 2004). From this sentence once can gather the environment that
Palmer was in during the time of the Charter Commission change. It seems there was a feeling among the residents of inadequacy in the Town‟s governance. The lack of accountability can occur with a Town Meeting form since there is a lack of responsibility. An editorial that was written during this time expresses how the part-time Board of Selectmen was not a beneficial form for Palmer pinpointed that since it was part-time nothing could get done.
Observations
Palmer system of changing the Charter in 2004 seems to be the perfect way to change a
Charter. Palmer was a municipality that decided it was ready for change, chose a good process and implemented its change in a simple and proficient matter. By having the review process begin through petition straight from the residents the whole process was predestined to succeed because the change purely came from the citizens. It can be extrapolated that since the Charter commission came from a resident petition there was little to no opposition to a change in government. Even though the change was a drastic one for Palmer it seems as though the time was ripe for such a leap to be made.
A point that jumps out about this case is that of geography and the domino theory. It is strongly believed by Ms. Contreas and other local government scholars that areas that experience significant Charter changes will be surrounded by other municipalities that have had similar experiences. However, Palmer breaks this mold having been the first in its area to make such a drastic change. This could be accredited to the flawless method that the town‟s people followed in order to achieve this change.
- 37 -
Pembroke
Located in Plymouth County the community of Pembroke has seen a population expansion of 22% from 1980 to 2000 with the majority of that expansion occurring in the last decade of the 20th century. The population at the time of the 2000 census was 16,927 which was
2,383 more than in 1990. The current voter registration, according to the most recent data available from the Secretary of State is 14% of registered voters are registered Republican and
26% registered Democrat. This is a significant difference, ten percentage points, between the state average of 36.95% registered Democrat. While there is a ten point spread between the
Democratic state average and the number of registered Democrats in Pembroke the number of registered Republicans is only two and a half points above the average, leaving eight percent of the voter unaffiliated above the state average.
Current Charter Actions
The community of Pembroke established a Town Government Study Committee (TGSC) in June of 2009. It is important to note that this is a Town Government Study Committee and not a Charter Commission, this commission is tasked only to investigate and determine what the best executive official for the town is to be enacted by special action of the legislature, not to draft an official Charter. Pembroke does not currently have a Charter and operates under Town By-laws and the laws of the Commonwealth (Tobin).
The chairman of the Town Government Study Committee and member of the board of selectman, Lew Stone, stated in a Public Hearing on April 13, 2010,
- 38 -
“When I got to be on the board of selectmen we had some issues and to my surprise we had to take a vote to ask the town administrator to take over the day-to-day operations of the board of health. When you read through the job description, although charged with many things, most must be approved by the board of Selectmen. After asking some question about what other towns did, I found out many had managers and they outlined what their responsibilities were. There was goal-setting and certain types of authority outlined and I presented to the board of selectmen to set up a committee to look into it. Following that, the town government study committee was formed and when we got involved in that it quickly became apparent that this (the Town Manager) would be the first item of business and this would be a priority” (Annear). Stone is a new member of the Board of Selectman, elected in April of 2009, and the chair of the
Town Government Study Committee, formed June 2009. It seems reasonable to conclude that
Stone was a catalyst for change, or at least a driving force behind the creation of the TGSC.
Stone has expressed a desire to streamline government and increase efficiency by providing a more businesslike approach with a central office head centralizing the now loosely connected departments. Stone stresses that the change from Town Administrator to Town Manager will also free up the Selectmen to focus more on executive duties, such as setting policies/enacting legislation rather than the daily administrative duties.
Another member of the TGSC, Anthony Marino, stated that the course the TGSC charted is “similar to what Hanover did” (Manning). The Brain Krause, member of the TGSC, at the
April 13, 2010 public hearing stated that, “What we did was look at what other towns did and we are in a good position to be late to the party, because we get a chance to see what works and what doesn‟t and see where we can improve on certain pieces. We‟ve taken the best of what we can find and sharpened what they have done and we feel strongly ours is better than theirs because we had the chance to hit at the bottom of the inning.” This statement gives some credence to the theory that geographical proximity to change is another factor in changing the local form of government.
- 39 -
In Plymouth County consists of 27 communities 5 of which employ a Town Manager.
The neighboring community of Hanover recently changed over to the Town Manager form of government. The Executive Assistant for the Selectman‟s Office of Pembroke provided this group with the Town Manager Article which will be placed on the agenda at the annual town held at the end of April 2010, included the line: “Recently, two other surrounding towns that still operate with the Open Town Meeting form of government also changed from Town
Administrator or Executive Secretary to a Town Manager.” This once again gives some insight into the degree to which Pembroke culture is influenced by the actions of surrounding towns.
However, while there is evidence that Pembroke has been experiencing social pressures to examine their form of government because of changes in surrounding towns evidence is also present that not all members of the TGSC were locked in on changing the form of government.
Peter Isham, TGSC member and civics teacher said he “wasn‟t getting on the committee saying we need a change; I just wanted to look and see how it was operating” (Manning).
The proposed document leaves the government structure of the Board of Selectmen intact and establishes a Town Manager position to replace the Town Administrator. The town manger will serve a term of 3 years and may be appointed for successive terms of office. The town manger will act as the chief administrative officer for the town of Pembroke. The Town
Manager will have the power to appoint and remove all non-elected department heads excluding those employees or the school and fire departments. The Town Manager will also be responsible for assembling a budget.
Pembroke will hold its annual Town Meeting on the 27th of April. Article 30, the article which will amend the town by-laws and change the form of government to a Town Manager will
- 40 - be voted on at this meeting. The Board of Selectmen have urged favorable action from the town on Article 30.
Despite the urging from the Board of Selectmen for favorable action by the Town
Meeting the Town Meeting rejected the Town Manager warrant article on April 27, 2010 at the annual Town Meeting. Current Assessor and member for the first government study committee in 1997, Libby Bates, was one of several people who spoke against the proposal at the meeting.
The others who spoke out opposing the action were the Fire Chief Jim Neenan, Department of
Public Works Commissioners Jim Kilcommons and Hank Dagget. Bates challenged the proposal by saying, “Has the Government Study Committee offered any real evidence of how this is going to save the town money and time beyond the tools we already have at our disposal?”
(Manning) Bates followed up by suggesting that a Charter Commission be formed in order to change the government instead of attempting to alter the structure by changing the by-laws.
Jeanne Gigliotti, who works in the assessor‟s office, spoke publicly as well, “I find it very hard to believe that one person is going to be able to take care of the entire Town Hall. I think department heads right now have a lot better understanding of what goes on in their departments.” (Manning)
On the losing side Lew Stone, selectman and chair of the Town Government Study
Committee, expressed his sadness that Pembroke was not ready for the change they suggested but still maintained that it was time for change in the community. Interestingly only one person spoke in favor of the plan who was not on the Town Government Study Committee, Gerry
Dempsey a former member of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
- 41 -
Observations
It appears that the Pembroke movement for a change in government has been a very top down approach which little grass roots support. While the role of leaders obviously is important in spearheading change, it is possible for the leaders to push for change without grass root support as appears to be the case in Pembroke. Lew Stone, selectmen and community leader, was certainly a driving force for change in Pembroke however he was not on the same page as the people which resulted in the failure of the proposal.
Plymouth
Plymouth is located is southern Massachusetts, in Plymouth County and is known as
“America‟s Home Town” a title that they take great pride in. The population was recorded as
51,701 people in the 2000 Census. The population increased 7,224 from 1980-1990 and 6,093 from 1990-2000. This increase of 13,317 people over the last two decades of the 20th century translates into a thirty-five percent increase in population change from the year 1980 to 2000.
Only 25% of the registered voters in Plymouth are registered as Democrats, twelve points below the state average. Interestingly, the number of registered Republicans, 14%, is only two percentage points above the state average meaning that Plymouth has ten percent more unaffiliated voters than the state average.
Recent Charter Activity
For the first 350 years of its existence it ran under an Open Town Meeting with Board of
Selectmen form of governance changing to a Representative Town Meeting in 1952. It is
- 42 - interesting to note that for a town that would eventually have more Charter votes than elsewhere it was not till 1974 that Plymouth had a Charter in writing (Meserve).
There is great division in the community of Plymouth when it comes to forms of government, which leads to difficulties in passing a proposed Charter by an elected Charter
Commission. When the Charter was first written down in 1974 the Charter that was adopted was one that established a Representative Town Meeting- Board of Selectmen- Executive Secretary
(Contreas). In 1988, the next commission was established in part due to the population growth that Plymouth experienced putting the population over 40,000 residents. This Charter
Commission was charged with trying to modernize the government so that it could address issues that stemmed from the population growth such as property tax. After careful research the
Commission offered two options, one that retained Representative Town Meeting but added a
Town Manager while the other created a Town Council with Manager position. John Chaffee, a member of the 1988 Commission, recalls how the Commission wanted, “a Town Manager and
Town Council and eliminate Town Meeting (Meserve).” These suggestions came to fruition during a vote in 1991. The option that retained Representative Town Meeting was adopted. The choice of retaining the Representative Town Meeting can be attributed to an editorial written which made a simple equation. A Town Council-Town Manager government is really a city form turning Plymouth into a city which in turn would raise the crime rates (Contreas Interview). The editorial had a negative impact on the passing of this proposal because it played to stereotypical beliefs held by residents that a “city” naturally has higher crime rates than a town.
The 1988 Charter revised the 1973 Charter through Special Acts. Essentially it established and defined the powers and duties of a Town Manager, consolidated the Department of Public Works, created a Finance Department and Director of the Finance Department and a
- 43 -
Department of Planning and Development, and changed Town Clerk, Treasurer, and Collector to appointed positions (Contreas Interview). Although this was not the ideal outcome for the commission it did ensure that the position they changed were no longer political which was a goal for the committee.
A third commission was elected in 1997 because there were those who believed the Town
Meeting had become confusing and the Finance Committee was overly vocal. The
Representative that attended Town Meetings were not always informed about topics to be discussed at the meeting which made it cumbersome and unproductive. Mr. Lawrence Pizer,
Plymouth‟s Town Clerk, recalls how the substance of the meetings had become superficial and did not center on the core of the issues that were brought before Town Meeting (Meserve). The major change that the Charter proposed was having precinct caucuses before Town Meetings ensuring that Representatives were more informed and knowledgeable on issues and topics. This was done through Home Rule Charter—the Representative Town Meeting-Board of Selectmen-
Town Manager form was modified by the adoption of the Home Rule Charter vote in 1999.
Only two years passed before a fourth commission was elected in 2001with William
Nolan heading the Commission as chair, a commission which sought drastic and swift changes that had not yet occurred in Plymouth. According to Nolan, “the Commission was elected because people were tired of slow changed and the slow reaction of government to their needs.”
In reaction to a center group of residents that wanted a Town Council the commission voted to write a whole new Charter at its very first meeting. The Commission decided to look at
Weymouth as a guide in this process since they changed to the Mayor form of government in
2000. Weymouth is a town that shares many characteristics with Plymouth, they are both located on the South Shore, have similar population size and town age. Although they are similarities the
- 44 -
Commission made certain to shape the Charter for Plymouth taking into account changing or omitting sections that Weymouth had written which did not fit with Plymouth. The process of writing the new Charter took eight months and was added to the 2002 election. An important point to note about this Commission was that not all members supported the change to Mayor form, four of whom wrote a minority report. The report outlined their feelings of the proposed
Charter being flawed and placing power in the hands of too few, in particular the quality of
Plymouth‟s schools and rise of taxes without residential input was at stake. The proposed
Charter received forty-eight percent of the vote failing to pass however since it received more than one-third of the vote the exact same proposal was placed on the 2003 ballot only gaining forty-five percent of the voters in favor so failing once again (Meserve).
When asked in retrospect why the Charter failed Nolan responded by saying that the proposal was wrong that a Mayor-Town Council- Town Manager form would be best--
“the Mayor should be a figurehead, a Town Manger would deal with [day to day operations]”
(Meserve). This lead to the creation of a Charter Review Committee who were appointed by the
Town Moderator and charged with offering improvements on the Charter. Mikki Chaffe was appointed chair of the Review Committee. Her Committee used a Special Act Charter that retained Representative Town Meeting-Board of Selectmen- Town Manager structure while simplifying and reorganizing the Charter from 1999. The major change suggested by the
Commission was the establishment of a committee of precinct chairs and a decrease in the Town
Meeting membership from 126 representatives to 98, translating to seven members per district instead of nine. The smaller changes that the Review Committee recommended were approved by the Town Meeting in 2005; however, the reduction of the size of Town Meeting was not accepted (Meserve).
- 45 -
The most recent Charter activity began in May 2006 a mere six months after the previous
Charter Review Committee. In 2006, The Mayor for Plymouth Committee was created and spearheaded by Michael Jones. This was a group of residents that strongly believed Plymouth would benefit from a Mayoral form of government and pushed for a proposal similar to that of
2003. With the birth of Mayor for Plymouth Committee came the opposition committee called,
OPEN who claimed to be unbiased on the form of town governance even though many of the members had been part of the government for many years. The 2006 Charter Commission was comprised of nine OPEN members and one Mayor member. The Commission was given until
November 2008 to present its proposal (Meserve). The Commission published a report on the proposed Charter changes which included both majority (5 members) and minority (3 members) opinions with one member resigning from the Commission.
The majority report outlines the goals that were set by the Commission previous to the start of the revisions. Their goals for the new Charter were: accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, transparency, communication and cooperation between branches of Town government, long-term planning, and professional Management. During the sixteen months of review the commission studied past Charter of Plymouth, and listened to testimony from: people whom were involved in past Charter studies, experts of local governance, representatives of the
Massachusetts Municipal Association and the Massachusetts Municipal Management
Association, people whom held elected office at some time period, members of multiple
Plymouth boards, Town Meeting representative, and Town Managers and Administrators from neighboring municipalities. After this careful and detailed oriented review process the commission proposed the following substantial changes to the current Charter. Mr. Withinton, the Chairman, described the new Charter proposal as a hybrid between city and town
- 46 - government. The proposed Charter recommended the creation of a noticeable difference between operational and strategic aspects of government. A popular elected position of Mayor would be created, who would be responsible for the operational issues of the Town. With the elected Mayor would come a five person executive board which the Mayor would be a member of. In order to retain the idea of Town Meeting a Representative Assembly would be created with three members from every precinct and meet at minimum four times a year. Within the
Representative Assembly a President would be elected through popular vote and hold significant power such as appointments. There would be standing committees within the assembly such as finance and by-laws and administration. In order to help the Representative Assembly create strategic goals, long-range plans and policies there would be a Strategic Planning Board. There would also be an elected Planning Board outside of the scope of the Strategic Planning Board.
This Charter would still include a Town Manager that all Town departments would be accountable too. The majority of the Committee (5 members) as written in the 2007 Charter
Report felt that this mixture government, “recognized the unique nature of the Town of
Plymouth,” and obliges, “the ongoing growth and evolution of the Town [by] increasing the accountability of Town government and enhancing the ability to serve the citizens.”
However, within that same 2007 report the minority (3 members) opinion was given which can be summarized in one statement, “complex and confusing in scope, direction and accountability, the proposed Charter does not assign to anyone the ability to lead.” The executive branch is a part-time Mayor who is mostly ceremonial with a part-time Executive board which is essentially a Board of Selectmen. The Executive Board is able to execute its own policies which essentially eliminate the Mayor‟s legitimacy. The Town Manager who is a full time position would have to go through a part-time bodying leaving no one fully in charge.
- 47 -
Lastly within the Executive board there would be a lack of structure leading to more confusion.
Within the Legislative branch there are issues too such as the branch being only part time. The
Representative Assembly would be the Town Meeting once again simply smaller in size. The powers given to the Assembly President further reduce the role of Mayor. The minority report concludes that the citizens wanted a “streamlined form of government with a clear line of authority,” which was not produced by the majority and thus should not gain support of
Plymouth‟s citizens. The Home Rule Charter proposal was voted on in 2008 was defeated once again.
Observations
This new form of government that was presented in 2008 was confusing and decentralized. The vice-chair of the 2006 commission, Anthony Schena, said that the accountability issue is solved by having multiple executives (Knox). However this seems to be creating less accountability and more confusion by creating an environment to where officials can be played off one another. For example if issue x is asked to one department head and their decision is not communicated to other department heads the person with the issue can raise it to another department head and possibly receive an answer he or she is content with. It is like a small child going to the other parent and looking for a „yes‟ after the first one said „no‟.
Plymouth‟s population growth has negatively affected the usefulness of the Town
Meeting. This negative affect has driven the creation of many of the Charter Commissions as outlined above. However, time and again people rally to save the Town Meeting, whether there is a better option or not. This action can be explained by the ties to tradition of Town Meeting that many municipalities in Massachusetts have, Plymouth being one of them.
- 48 -
“Sell the product to the voters, making them know the importance of the issue. Only then will the „yeas‟ come out to vote, and either end or continue Plymouth‟s long history of Charter review,” said Nolan before the 2008 Charter vote. This statement has been proven correct over and over in Plymouth‟s history. There are a strong voiced group of constituents that want a
Mayoral government because they believe it will be more effective and beneficial to Plymouth however they have yet to gain enough votes to fuel this change. Until enough people decided that
Plymouth is in need of change and go out to vote for it this change to a Mayor Government structure that is continuously pushed for will not occur.
Randolph
Randolph is located on the South Shore of Massachusetts and is included in the Norfolk
County. From 1980 to 2000 there was a nine percent population growth the population of
Randolph was 30,936 as of the 2000 Census. Within the community of Randolph 49% of registered voters are registered as Democrats which is a staggering number and twelve points above the state average. Only seven percent of registered voters have registered as Republicans which is five percentage points below the state average.
Recent Charter Activity
Randolph‟s Charter change restructured its whole town governance. Ever since its first
Town Meeting in 1793 Randolph had utilized some form of Town Meeting. However in early
2009 a government reform commission was elected to review the Open Town Meeting- five member Board of Selectmen- Executive Secretary form of government. One particular point in that form was that the chief administrative officer was not the executive secretary but the
- 49 -
Chairman of the Board of Selectmen. Through detailed research the commission recommended that Randolph move to a Town Council-Town Manager form of government. Appendix G is the chart that outlined what the commission had gathered and was proposing to the town. The Town
Council is to meet weekly and be comprised of nine members that are elected by the residents.
The school commission grew from five members to seven including a town Council representative.
The Charter allocated all legislative powers to the Town Council. There will be a Council
President and Vice-President. The Council President presides over all Council Meetings making sure that they run smoothly. He or she will also have the power to appoint all members of town
Council committees, vote on any issue that is brought to the Council and will be the official leader of the town in any and all ceremonies. All powers of the Town are vested in the Council and the policy making power as well.
The Town Manager is the chief administrative officer and is elected by the Town Council to serve in the office for up to five years. The Manager must meet certain criteria that are outlined in the Charter for the Council to follow. The Manager will be accountable to the
Council and charged with ensuring the proper administration of all town business. The Manager will also appoint all department heads and employees as outlined in the Charter. Submission of a town operating budget must be given to the Town Council by the Manager no later than February
1st. Overall the responsibility of the Town Manager would be the day to day operations.
This new Charter was voted into law by the residents in April 2009 and put into effect in
January 2010. In order to produce and implement the new Charter the town used the Special Acts
Charter path. Part of this process was to approve the appointment of the then Executive Secretary
David Murphy as the first Town Manager.
- 50 -
There is one constant theme in the environment of Randolph that led to the Charter commission creation, transparency. There are multiple editorials and articles where town‟s people are quoted as saying the government needed to be more transparent in its actions and policy making. A need for an open government operations for the residents was also present. As the new Town Manger took office he promised, “to make our government more serviceable to the public,” (Hanson).
Another perhaps smaller reason to have more day to day oversight through a Town
Manager was the public school system. Two years prior to the Charter Commission creation the state of Massachusetts had threatened to take over the school system. There had been some progress made since that time however more is needed a task that a Town Manager could do quite well.
Observations
On December 12, 2009 an anonymous article was posted on the Patriot Ledger entitled,
“Final Town Meeting will mark end of era in Randolph.” It summarized the history of the Town
Meeting in Randolph, occurring since 1793, and how the history would be commemorated. This article made a very strong point that seemed to be left out in coverage of the change, the history that Randolph was giving up. Although the reasoning behind the change is valid and proved time and time again tradition and history generally has a stronghold in Massachusetts. It is surprising that in this case the history of the Town Meeting did not have such a presences at least it was not reported on as much as the benefits of the change.
- 51 -
Winthrop
Winthrop is located in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. The 2000 Census stated that the population of Winthrop was 18,202 residents. Since 1980 the population has a net change of negative three percent. From 1980-1990 the population dropped by 769 inhabitants but from
1990-2000 the population increased by 176 residents. Forty-three percent of registered voters registered as Democrats and nine percent of registered voters registered Republican. It is important to note the high Democratic registration rate of 43%, though high is not as high as some of Winthrop‟s neighboring communities which have even higher Democratic registration percentages, Boston is 55% Democrat, and Cambridge is 58% Democrat.
Recent Charter Activity
The elected chair of the Winthrop Charter commission was Joe Ferrino. The commission was elected on November 7th, 2005 and given the task of implementing a new Charter. The commission was created in response to a report that discussed the benefits of having a Charter with a manger form. After reviewing the Charter the committee decided to suggest a Town
Council- Town Manager form of government instead of the current form of Executive Secretary-
Board of Selectmen and Town Meeting.
The new Charter proposed separation of powers between the Town Council and Town
Manager as follows. The Town Council is comprised of nine members whom are elected by the community of Winthrop including the Town Council President. The Town Council as a whole will act as the sole legislative body for the town. The Council President under the new Charter is the town‟s executive and responsible for making appointments, overseeing the calendar of the
Town Council and representing the Town‟s interest at intergovernmental affairs as well as in the
- 52 - community. The Council President will be a voting member of both the Council and the school committee. As the executive power the Council President must uphold the Charter, the laws, the ordinances and all other orders of government in the town as well as all other normal executive powers. The Town Manager is charged with all administrative duties for Winthrop thus being entitled chief administrative officer. The Manager will also help the Council President with the formation of policy and implementation. He or she will also provide any information to the
Council President or as a whole when requested. The Town Manager is appointed by the whole
Town Council while ensuring the guidelines as written in the Charter under article 4. In order to help explain the proposal that was being made the Charter Commission created a question and answer sheet to be distributed to voters. The Charter Commission voted on this proposal 7-3 and the proposal was passed by 2789 to 2434 residents and took effect on January 1st, 2006.
Lastly it is important to take note of the delay in appointment of Town Manager that occurred after the new Charter was passed. It was not until April of 2006 that a Town Manager was appointed into office. Finally Winthrop hired Richard White as their first Town Manager whom had seventeen years of experience as Town Manager in Lexington, MA and twenty five years of experience sitting on other governmental committees (Domelowicz).
While talking to Mr. Ferrino about the Charter Commission process in Winthrop he identified a series of events that lead to the Charter Commission being elected. He recalls how there was a small interest group whom believed that the executive secretary and board of selectmen had become ineffective and inefficient. The Board of Selectmen was a part time position that was running a fulltime government. The division of power between the board and the executive secretary was not well done. In order to make any decision the executive secretary had to process it through the Board of Selectmen whom only worked part time. This lead to a lot
- 53 - of frustration within the government and for the town‟s people as well. This small interest group strongly felt that Winthrop would greatly benefit from a Town Council-Town Manager form of governess. This group followed state legislature process and collected enough signatures of voting residents in order to put the creation of a Charter Commission on the upcoming ballot
(Ferrino).
There are two distinct needs of town‟s people during this time as described in the Town
Council President‟s annual report in 2006. The first is to have a Town Council as the new legislative body. This was wanted in order to have more accountable legislation. Secondly, a strong Town Manager whom could handle the day to day operations of the town was needed.
The residents also wanted more transparency and sound financial policies. Overall it has been stated that the main reason for this Charter change was that the multiple government entities were working as completely spate entities with no communication. In order to be more efficient greater communication had to occur.
Observations
A year after Winthrop‟s first Town Manager was appointed an article ran in the newspaper reviewing Mr. White‟s performance. The article explains how there was hesitation of how an outsider, “[could] understand and work with the unique and dynamic political and community groups in town,” (Domelowicz). However the article quotes multiple different town leaders that have been very happy with Mr. White‟s success. One of the hardest balancing acts a
Manager must do is that between the large and small issue and a manager that can do this is seen as successful and efficient. Chamber of Commerce President Trudy Macero is quoted as saying,
- 54 -
Although he has a number of large issues that he is taking care of with the Council, he’s always ready to listen to the smallest of issues and having someone paying attention to those details is something that the town has needed for a long time. (Domelowicz) This proves that the town of Winthrop has succeeded in the change of government that the residents wanted. Furthermore it would seem that the issues citizens had with the older government system have diminished with the implementation and operation of a Town
Council-Town Manager system of government.
- 55 -
Section 4: GIS Maps
The 21 GIS maps produced for this document may be found after the Appendixes. A picture is worth 1,000 words; however, this section is specifically dedicated to analyze some key things these maps show. The maps were constructed using: MassGIS data, voter registration files located on the Massachusetts Secretary of State site, data obtained from the Massachusetts
Municipal Association (MMA), the archives of the General Court of Massachusetts and information gathered from the Department of Housing & Community Development relating to
Home Rule Charter (HRC) action and Special Act Charter (SAC) action. The maps can be divided into four main sections with multiple maps in each section.
The first set is a grouping of maps which display census data and provides background data on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The map titled „MA Population Percent Change
1980-2000‟ shows which communities in the Commonwealth have had negative change or different degrees of positive change in the population size. This map illustrates that although some communities have changed forms of government, these communities have not necessarily experienced large population changes as one may have anticipated. However, it is important to note that the simple change in population only measures numbers, not the fluctuation in the makeup of the population. It is possible that older members of the community who placed a higher value on the “old” form of government may have moved away or passed away and been replaced with new community members who may not have as strong an affinity to a specific government type. This could be a useful map to produce in order to gain a better understanding of local government change relative to individual turnover within a community.
- 56 -
The second grouping of maps, displays the voter registration data for communities using the current data available from the Secretary of State‟s website. The maps which display voter registration of Democrat over Republican and Republican over Democrat offer an interesting insight into the makeup of certain communities. The lowest percentage grouping of both
Republican and Democrats is empty on the map and so those communities appear white. The maps, „Voter Registration Democrat over Republican‟ and „Voter Registration Republican over
Democrat‟, show that while often when a community has a low registration rate of a party it does not always translate into a high registration rate for the opposite party.
The third grouping of maps displays current data regarding the current form of government. The „Local Legislative Forms‟ map shows that while we are focusing on changes in local government there are still many communities which function under Open Town
Meetings (OTM). Another interesting thing to note is the fact that Councils are clustered in and around Boston and around Springfield but not around Worcester. One would suspect that around the three largest cities in the Commonwealth a Council would be present because of the geographical proximity of the communities to a city that tends to have a Council. The „Chief
Municipal Officer‟ map displays the job titles as documented by the MMA. The Chief
Municipal Officer Groupings were provided by Hans Larsen, Chairman of the Form of
Government Committee, which attempted to better classify and display the forms of government within a community by generally accepted terms relative to the function of the job rather than the official job title. Some communities did not list a Chief Municipal Officer and so the „CMO over
Leg Form‟ map was created to show that those communities which do not have a CMO do in fact operate with an OTM.
- 57 -
The analysis of the maps displaying Home Rule Charter actions (HRC) and Special Act
Charter (SAC) show most of the changes in government have been located in the eastern half of the state. A high concentration of communities on the Cape have also undergone Charter changes or attempted changes. These maps only display the most recent action within the decade for HRC communities and display only the most recent SAC action a community has taken. For a full list of the communities which have taken HRC or SAC action please refer to the
Appendixes H and I. The regional, neighbor, or domino theory are supported by the maps as shown by the maps „HRC over SAC‟ and „SAC over HRC.‟ There are a few outliers but the vast majority of communities which have attempted change share a boarder with a community which has also attempted change.
- 58 -
Section 5: Analysis
Introduction
After concluding the nine case studies and creating the GIS maps, common themes and factors have been identified which contribute to a community‟s desire for change. One term that emerged through all nine case studies was the stress placed on efficiency of local government.
Inefficiency which would seem to be the most logical variable for a government to be experiencing that would initiate a need for Charter change. Efficiency has many definitions; whether it is the amount of legislation passed or how quickly a request is processed through the bureaucracy. Unfortunately, „efficiency‟ has turned into a rallying cry/ buzz word which is echoed on both sides of the equation with those in favor of change touting their new and improved structure as more efficient while those who do not want change claiming that the current form is more efficient. This complexity has lead to the decision not to use efficiency as one of the common trends found. It may though have been mentioned in the individual cases in order to portray the feelings and thoughts of the residents.
Population and Geography
The map titled „MA Population Percent Change 1980-2000‟ shows which communities in the Commonwealth have had negative change or different degrees of positive change in the population size. This map illustrates that although some communities have changed forms of government, these communities have not necessarily experienced large population changes as one may have anticipated. However, it is important to note that the simple change in population only measures numbers, not the fluctuation in the makeup of the population. It is possible that
- 59 - older members of the community who placed a higher value on the “old” form of government may have moved away or passed away and been replaced with new community members who may not have as strong an affinity to a specific government type.
The „Local Legislative Forms‟ map shows that while we are focusing on changes in local government there are still many communities which function under Open Town Meetings
(OTM). Another interesting thing to note is the fact that Councils are clustered in and around
Boston and around Springfield but not around Worcester. One would suspect that around the three largest cities in the Commonwealth a Council would be present because of the geographical proximity of the communities to a city that tends to have a Council. The government of
Worcester may have served as a deterrent for adoption of Council form of government due to the complexities of the Worcester government structure.
History
Massachusetts has a long history of Town Meetings that is unique feature of New
England. The history of the Town Meeting that dates back to the early 1700s, as discussed in the
Literature Review, plays a large role as to why certain communities that have undergone Charter
Commissions. There is a feeling that democracy is operating in the best possible way since all citizens have the right to be heard at a Town Meeting. Not only is the Town Meeting historically important to communities but the ability to have high levels of civic engagement is a priority as well.
History and tradition has been seen to either hold a community back from change or to be acknowledged and memorialized while still implementing the change. This is seen in the case studies done of Amherst, Braintree, Needham, North Attleborough, Pembroke, and Randolph. In
- 60 -
Amherst, Needham, and Pembroke the history stops the town from voting for change. For
Amherst and Pembroke traditionally roots of Town Meeting are cited as reasons for not removing Town Meeting altogether. Needham‟s stress on tradition comes into play through the pride they hold in their consistency of retaining their form of government. Whereas the communities of Braintree and Randolph, had long histories and traditions of Town Meetings changed to a Town Council form without problems. This was done by embracing their pasts and realizing that the change in government was best for their respective communities. North
Attleborough falls between these other cases. Change was did not occur in North Attleborough in part due to their fear of the past and learning from their history. Within this factor population size can be a trigger to how strong history and tradition will affect the residents. In a place that is larger where people are more separated from the community‟s history perhaps it will not affect their decision to change the form of government as much.
Transparency and Accountability
Local government just like state and federal government can experience the issue where the constituents feel as though they are not well aware of government decision making processes.
Citizens want the knowledge of how their government decides policies, since policies affect them as residents. The call for increased transparency can arise from concerns with financial matters. Residents who call for more transparency tend to be responding to fears that decisions are being made which do not value the input of the people and are occurring „behind closed doors‟. Civic engagement and the traditional ideals that it holds can account for this need of the people.
- 61 -
Throughout the case studies the idea of having a single person to vest power in and hold accountable is seen. A spilt occurs when deciding if a single person will be politically elected or professionally appointed. Amherst had a proposal beginning in 2003 to change to a Mayor form while already having a Town Manager. This is a case of changing from professional to political leadership citing that a distinct political leader would give the people the accountability they wanted. Although this change maintains a single person position that was wanted by residents of
Amherst it did not pass due to the political aspect and fear of partisan politics.
Randolph and Braintree are neighboring communities with similar demographics.
Randolph utilized Braintree as an example during Charter change due to their shared similarities.
In both cases the need for a governmental structure that was more accountable to the residents was listed as a factor for change. Even though the two communities had this need in common they chose different paths to fulfill their desire for change. Braintree voted for a Mayor while
Randolph chose a Town Manager position. In seeing the mirroring cases and the different outcomes it can be concluded that a single powerful position is desired by communities where the difference occurs is in the realization of the position placed into the power.
Preconceived notions with regard to change
A desire for change in government among residents of a municipality can stem from either the positive or negative preconceived notions relative to a specific title. In addition the notion that a change in governmental structure will be a panacea to issues a municipality is having.
“Words are everything in this game, a title means nothing [in and of itself]… the job description is what counts,” according to Marilyn Contreas, Senior Program and Policy Analyst
- 62 - at the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development.
This simple sentence summarizes the underlying ideal found throughout research of Charter
Commissions. Residents push for a Town Manager position within their home towns simply to have a “Town Manager,” often they will not know the full extent of this position or the effect it will have on their lives. The community culture of municipalities in the Commonwealth has evolved away from the Executive Secretary and Town Administrator to a Town Manager form of government. This can be seen in Winthrop where they had an Executive Secretary which did not have the authority to make decisions even though the title‟s implications were so. This lack of authority led to the establishment of a Charter Commission. However, when they moved to a
Town Manager form they ensured specific responsibilities were written into the Charter in order to place power behind the title.
“Whenever an organization is not working people look for leadership to make it better,”
(Bolman and Deal), as seen in local government changes in Massachusetts. Many communities want to change their form of government in order to elect a Mayor or appoint a Town Manager; all the while believing that this will solve all their issues especially when it comes to financial matters rather than addressing the source of the issue. During Braintree‟s Charter change process there was an outcry for a Mayor position, citizens said that such a title would be able to solve the inefficiency that they were experiencing at the time. This same opinion was portrayed in Plymouth where people tried to move to a Mayor government as well. On the other side of the spectrum of preconceived notions is the dismissal of a Mayor position due to the negative connotations that are associated with having a political leader.
While the North Attleborough Charter Commission offered a Town Manager proposal one of the dissenting opinions expressed feelings that community members desired a Mayoral
- 63 - form of government instead. In part due to the choice of the Commission to propose a Town
Manager form instead of a Mayor form of government the proposal was defeated at the ballot box. Even though the Town Manager could have provided the change the community sought, the residents wanted a Mayor. As proven here preconceived notions can push a community in one way or another when it comes to implementing a governmental change.
- 64 -
Section 6: Rejected Change Analysis
Of the nine cases that were studied, four failed to pass their most recent attempts at a
Charter change. To reiterate these were the towns of Amherst, North Attleborough, Pembroke and Plymouth. It is imperative to recognize if any of the attempted changes failed due to factors that were discussed above or for any other specific reasons.
Amherst did not vote yes at the ballot box when the question of adopting a Mayor form of government was proposed in either 2003 or 2005. Throughout discussions with those who are knowledgeable on the topic the theme of civic engagement is citied as a reason for the failed change. Amherst‟s population is a very civically engaged community who believe that public participation in government is of high importance. Their sense of civic duty can be traced to the importance of citizen participation in government which has been engrained in the Amherst culture since the first Amherst Town Meeting.
Along with all the reasons mentioned above it is believed that the main reason North
Attleborough‟s Charter proposal was defeated was due to a division in the Charter Commission.
The Commission was spilt 5-4 for and against the proposed change. Within the report that outlined the proposed changed the minority‟s anti-change views were published as well. In situations like this when the minority opinion is against the proposed change they are most likely to win because a society needs to be fully convinced that the change is for the best. If members of the community, who are held in high esteem and are elected to the Charter Commission, do not believe in the change than the community will follow suit. In order to overcome a divided committee those in favor of the proposal must be able to articulate the rationale behind the change and how it will better the daily life of the average citizen. This a key point that was
- 65 - missing in North Attleborough which is also seen in Plymouth‟s most recent Charter
Commission.
Pembroke‟s July 2009 creation of the Town Government Study Committee can be directly attributed to one man, Lew Stone, who was elected to the Board of Selectmen in April of
2009. While the Town Government Study Committee consisted of individuals dedicated to changing the form of government, once their proposal was brought before Town Meeting, it was met with overwhelming opposition. Multiple key members of the community spoke out against the change while only one member of the community favored it. Stone appears to have been before his time calling for change in a community which is still happy to function under its current structure.
Plymouth has a vocal minority of residents that wanted a Mayor in their town government. The most recent Commission strongly believed that a Mayor should be put into place however when the final Charter was produced there was five votes for, three votes against and one resignation. This spilt in the Commission portrays the want for a Mayor form but in a different format than suggested. When residents read the dissenting opinion they voted to defeat the proposed Charter once again proving that the group wanting Mayor was in the minority.
- 66 -
Section 7: Final Thoughts
Multiple themes have emerged as discussed in the previous sections, but after examining the case studies and the GIS maps, one theme seems to be more prevalent than all the rest: each community is just that, an individual community. While individual factors and themes have been identified and discussed in an attempt to explain why a proposed governmental structural change passed or failed, no single factor has emerged that when examined will explain the desires of the communities relative to change. There is no particular precipitating cause which if identified in a community will surely be a sign of coming change. Rather, multiple factors have been identified which help explain what direction a community is headed in; if they are content with the status quo or are hungry for change. It is only through careful, intelligent, and rigorous investigation into the inner workings of the community that a hypothesis about a community‟s future be made. There are similarities between communities but no wide spread generalizations can be made relative to all 351 communities because of the intricacies of each individual community in the Commonwealth.
Unfortunately due to the time limitations this study was not able to address all aspects that arose during research. It is the authors hope that future studies will research these aspects.
In order to further this hope some of the missing facets are offered here. Firstly, a statistical analysis of population, voter registration rates, socioeconomic status, etc should be conducted in order to gain a better understanding of correlation versus causation. There is a need for measurement of local government efficiency as this was cited during multiple Charter change processes. Lastly, while not noted in this study it would be interesting to examine if the change from a Mayor form to a Town Manager form has ever occurred and if so what were the causes.
- 67 -
Bibliography
Achermann, Bob. "Town Meeting's Script and Kusner's Shirt." Amherst Bulletin, 8 December 2006. http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/20280/.
Annear, Steve. "Public hearing for Pembroke Town Manager proposal set for Tuesday." Wicked Local Pembroke, n.d. http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/topstories/x1173966537/Public-hearing-for- Pembroke-town-manager-proposal-set-for-Tuesday (5 May 2010).
Annear, Steve. "Study committee proposed Town Manager position in Pembroke." Wicked Local Pembroke, 4 February 2010. http://www.wickedlocal.com/pembroke/features/x1878081591/Study-committee- proposes-Town-Manager-position-in-Pembroke (5 May 2010).
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. Reframing the Path to School Leadership. California: Corwin Press Inc, 2002.
Brooks, Oldham H. "Town Meeting: Attendance Up, Candidates Down." Amherst Bulletin, 2 March 2006. http://www.amherstbulletin.com/story/id/30300172006/.
Braintree Town Election Results 2005. Provided by Town Clerk. Braintree, MA. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
Braintree Town Election Results 2006. Provided by Town Clerk. Braintree, MA. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
Board of Selectmen, Needham, MA. 2005. Proposed By-Law Revision – Article 55- 2005 Annual Town Meeting. Provided by Town Clerk‟s Office. Needham, MA. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
California City Management Foundation. "Council-Manager or "Strong Mayor" The Choice is Clear. Learn the Facts About Council-Manager Government ." ICMA. http://www.icma.org/main/topic.asp?hsid=1&tpid=20.
Contreas, Marilyn. "Several Options Exist for Changing Local Government Structure." Municipal Advocate 22, no. 2 (2009): 22-26. http://mma.org/resources- mainmenu-182/cat_view/146-municipal-government/166-forms-of-municipal- governmentcharters.
Contreas, Marilyn., Senior Program and Policy Analyst, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development., Interview by authors. Tape recording. Boston, MA. 24 March 2010.
Collins, Rick. "Coming Changes in Braintree." Patriot Ledger, 17 April 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8043/is_20060417/ai_n47777782/ (5 May 2010).
DeSantis, Victor. "Council-Manager Relations At the Crossroads." Public Management, July 1998, 10-15. http://icma.org/main/ld.asp?from=search&ldid=14438&hsid=1.
Domelowicz, Joseph. "Town Manager Rick White is Moving Winthrop Forward." Winthrop Transcript, 13 April 2007. http://www.winthroptranscript.com/2007/04/13/town-manager-rick-white-is-moving- winthrop-forward/. Ferrion, Joe. Chair of 2005 Charter Commission, Winthrop. Interview by author. Phone interview. Worcester, MA. 22 April 2010.
Government Study Committee, Braintree. 2005. Report of the Government Study Committee to the October 24th 2005 Special Town Meeting. Provided by Town Clerk. Braintree, MA. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
Government Study Committee, Braintree. 2005. Annual Report of the Government Study Committee May 2, 2005. Provided by Town Clerk. Braintree, MA. Retrieved 3 May 2010.
Hanson, Fred. "Manager, Council President Outline Goals for Randolph." The Patriot Ledger, 11 January 2010. http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1530317378/Manager-Council-president-outline- goals-for-Randolph.
Hanson, Fred. "Final Town Meeting Will Mark End of Era in Randolph." The Patriot Ledger, 11 December 2009. http://www.patriotledger.com/homepage/x962895172/Final-town- meeting-will-mark-end-of-era-in-Randolph .
Harvey, Bryan C. Amherst Charter Commission: Fiscal Year 2002
Hoerder, Dirk. Society and Government in 1760-1780: The Power Structure in Massachusetts Townships. Berlin: John F. Kennedy Institution, 1972.
ICMA . "Forms of Local Government ." http://icma.org/main/ld.asp?ldid=11226&hsid=10&tpid=20.
Knox, Robert. "With the Clock Ticking, Plymouth Fine-Tunes New Government Plan." The Boston Globe, 22 July 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/22/with_the_clock_ticking_plymout h_fine_tunes_new_government_plan/
Kokoros, George C. "Braintree needs a Town Manager, not a Mayor." Patriot Ledger, 31 March 2006. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_8043/is_20060331/ai_n47769196/ (5 May 2010).
Manning, Becca. "2010 annual/special Town Meeting results." Pembroke Express, 29 April 2010. http://www.pembrokexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=250 1:2010-annualspecial-town-meeting-results&catid=1:pembroke-news&Itemid=29 (5 May 2010).
Manning, Becca. "ATM '10: Voters reject Town Manager proposal." Pembroke Express, 29 April 2010. http://www.pembrokexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=249 8:atm-10-voters-reject-manager-plan&catid=1:pembroke-news&Itemid=29 (5 May 2010).
Manning, Becca. "Study committee supports big changes at Town Hall." Pembroke Express, 4 February 2010. http://pembrokexpress.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2138&Itemi d=29 (5 May 2010).
Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). "Charter Commission Procedures (M.G.L., Chapter 43B)
Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). "Summary: Home Rule Charter Activity, 1968-2009."
Massachusetts Municipal Association. "Changing Massachusetts Local Government Structure" http://mma.org/resources-mainmenu-182/cat_view/146-municipal-government/166- forms-of-municipal-governmentcharters.
Massachusetts Municipal Association. "Charter Basics: Town Manager/Town Administrator Form ." http://mma.org/images/stories/AnnualMtg/2010workshop_handouts/friday1/open_twn_m tg_to_Mayor3_fri1.pdf.
Massachusetts Municipal Managers Association. "Forms of Local Government: Commonwealth of Massachusetts." Massachusetts Municipal Association . http://mma.org/component/search/forms%2Bof%2Blocal%2Bgovernment/%252F?orderi ng=&searchphrase=all.
Meserva, Casey. "Under review: Others Have Been Down This Road Before." Wicked Local, 27 September 2006. http://www.wickedlocal.com/plymouth/news/x902786573
Morse, Mark. "Data Show Strong Growth of Management and Administrative Positions." Municipal Advocate 22, no. 2 (2008): 11-15. http://mma.org/resources- mainmenu-182/cat_view/146-municipal-government/168-municipal-management.
Musante, John. Assistant Town Manager of Amherst. Interview by author. Phone interview. Worcester, MA., 27 April 2010.
Needham Town Meeting Study Committee. http://www.needhamma.gov/index.aspx?nid=1300 (5 May 2010).
O'Neill, Robert J. "The Mayor-Manager Conundrum That Wasn't." , 2005. http://www.icma.org/main/topic.asp?hsid=1&tpid=20.
Powers, James H. "Perspective: In support of Representative Town Meeting." Wicked Local Needham, 19 August 2009. http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/town_info/government/x640869008/Perspective- In-support-of-Representative-Town-Meeting (5 May 2010).
Powers, Joseph F. Town Clerk for the Town of Braintree., Interview by author. Office visit., Braintree, MA., 3 May 2010.
Ryan, Steve. "Stucy Committee examines attendance, protocol." GateHouse News Service, 17 September 2008. http://www.wickedlocal.com/needham/town_info/government/x1374604558/Study- Committee-examines-attendance-protocol (5 May 2010).
Svara, James H., and Kimberly L. Nelson. "Taking Stock of the Council-Manager Form at 100." Public Management, August 2008, 6-15. http://www.icma.org/main/topic.asp?hsid=1&tpid=20
Town Government Study Committee. Town of Pembroke. http://www.townofpembrokemass.org/townstudycomm.html (5 May 2010).
Town of North Attleborough Charter Commission. 2003. Final Report of the Charter Commission Town of North Attleborough. Provided by Town Administrator. North Attleborough, MA. Retrieved 22 April 2010.
Town of Needham. 2005. Clerk’s Records – 2005 Annual Town Meeting. Provided by Town Clerk‟s Office. Needham, MA. Retrieved 21 April 2010.
Wisnewski, Paul S. Final Report of the Palmer Charter Commission. Palmer, MA: Palmer Charter Commission: Feb.10,2003
Appendix A: Mayor/Council Organizational Structure
Source: http://www.mma.org
Appendix B: Council-Manager Organizational Structure
Source: http://www.mma.org
Appendix C: Most Prevalent Form of Local Government in Specific Population Ranges
Appendix D: The Most Prevalent Form of U.S. Local Government Structure
Appendix E: Open Town Meeting- Board of Selectmen- Town Manager or Administrator Organizational Structure
Source: http://www.mma.org
Appendix F: Representative Town Meeting Board of Selectmen – Town Manager or Administrator Organizational Structure
Source: http://www.mma.org
Appendix G: Randolph Government Change Proposals
TOWN TOWN CURRENT MANAGER/TOWN MANAGER/COUNCIL MEETING
Legislative Body Town Meeting Town Meeting Town Council
Size of 240 120 9 Legislative Body
Attendance No (pending) Yes N/A Policy
Ability to call State Law: 14 days State Law: 14 days 48 hours (emergency Special or to mail warrant, to mail warrant, meetings can be called Emergency plus30 days plus 30 days immediately Meetings preparation preparation
Regular Meeting Annual/Fall Annual/Fall Weekly Meetings Schedule
Moderator Moderator 9 Town Council Town Clerk 5 Selectmen (5 At Large/4 District) Treasurer/Collector 6 School Committee 6 School Committee 3 Board of 3 Stetson Hall 3 Stetson Hall Trustees Assessors Trustees 3 Board of Health Town Meeting 5 Selectmen Elected Bodies 5 School Committee 5 Planning Board 5 DPW 3 Stetson Hall
Trustees 5 Housing Authority Town Meeting
Conflict of Interest (A) cannot No Yes Yes serve on two elected boards at once (B) No compensated position until one No Yes Yes year from date of resignation from elected board
Selectmen Town Manager Town Manager Appoints all Appoints all positions Treasurer/Collector positions except: except: Appointment of Town Clerk Town Counsel Town Accountant Department DPW Town Accountant Clerk of Council Heads and Employees Board of Health Registrar of Voters Registrar of Voters School Department School Department Assessor Employees Employees Housing Authority
Chief Chairman of the Town Manager Administrative Town Manager Board of Selectmen /Board Selectmen Officer
Board of Selectmen Town Manager Town Manager Negotiation of Union and Non- School Committee School Committee School Committee Union Contracts negotiates school negotiates school negotiates school contracts per M.G.L. contracts per M.G.L. contracts per M.G. L.
Board of Town Town Personnel Selectmen/Personnel Manager/Personnel Manager/Personnel Administration Board Board Board
Submit Town Operating Board of Selectmen Town Manager Town Manager Budget
Civil Defense Chairman of the Town Manager Town Manager and Emergency Board of Selectmen
Management
Town Manager and Executive No Yes Yes Secretary Yearly Evaluation
Superintendent of Town Council and Budgets submitted Schools and Town School Committee shall by individual Manager develop meet no later than departments to Town budget based November 30th to Finance Committee on Budget Policies of develop budgetary goals and Board of Board of Selectmen and initiatives to be Selectmen and School considered in the Town Committee Manager's Budget
Town Manager shall prepare and submit to Board of Selectmen Town Council no later and Finance Town Manager must than February 1st, a Committee create file Budget by synopsis of proposed separate Town February 1st Budget for preliminary budgets review and any requests for additional funding Budget Process Finance Committee makes budget recommendations to School Committee By the first Council Town Meeting, submits Budget to meeting in April, Town Selectmen often Town Manager 14 Manager shall submit the present competitive days prior to Town Final proposed Fiscal budget to Town Manager's Budget Budget for the ensuing Meeting (often the Proposal Fiscal Year night of Town Meeting)
Town Council must hold Budget must be Finance Committee public hearing and it adopted by June reviews Budget must be published in the 30th local newspaper
Town Manager's Budget presented to Town Meeting with accompanying Public Hearing held recommendations from the Finance Committee
Town Council must Budget must be adopt Budget within 60 adopted by June 30th days
Town Council may decrease programs or
amounts, but may not increase them
Financial/Capital Outlay Program No Yes Yes Requirement
Recall Provision Yes Yes Yes
Remain in effect; Remain in effect; only Only legislative Town By-laws only legislative body legislative body body can change can change can change
Source: Randolph Town Clerk
Appendix H: Home Rule Charter Action List of Municipalities
Action Town Year HRC HRC Amesbury 1996 Adopted Amherst 1996 Defeated Amherst 2003 Defeated Ashland 1988 Adopted Athol 2000 Adopted Athol 2000 Adopted Barnstable 2001 Defeated Barnstable 1989 Adopted Bellingham 1993 Adopted Beverly 1993 Adopted Blackstone 1997 Defeated Bourne 2001 Adopted Bourne 1994 Defeated Bourne 2001 Adopted Braintree 2004 Defeated Chatham 1995 Adopted Chelmsford 1989 Adopted Clinton 2005 Defeated Dalton 1984 Defeated Dartmouth 2000 Adopted Dartmouth 2000 Adopted Dedham 1994 Defeated Dracut 1984 Adopted Dudley 1989 Defeated East Longmeadow 2005 Defeated Eastham 1991 Adopted Easthampton 1996 Adopted Falmouth 1990 Adopted FRAMINGHAM 1992 Defeated Franklin 1995 Adopted Franklin 1983 Defeated Grafton 1987 Adopted Greenfield 2002 Adopted Greensfield 1997 Defeated Harwich 1987 Adopted Holliston 1997 Defeated Hopkinton 2006 Adopted
Longmeadow 2004 Adopted Ludlow 2008 Defeated Lunenburg 1999 Adopted Lunenburg 1986 Defeated Lynn 1997 Defeated Mansfield 1999 Defeated Mansfield 1999 Defeated Mashpee 2004 Adopted Maynard 1991 Adopted Merrimac 1984 Defeated Millbury 2000 Adopted Millbury 1989 Defeated Millbury 2000 Adopted Nantucket 1996 Adopted North Androver 1985 Adopted North Attleborough 1995 Defeated North Attleborough 1994 Defeated North Attleborough 2004 Defeated Northbridge 1991 Adopted Northbridge 1988 Defeated Northbridge 1991 Adopted Norton 1989 Adopted Orleans 1985 Adopted Orleans 1987 Adopted Palmer 2003 Defeated Plymouth 1999 Adopted Plymouth 1988 Defeated Plymouth 1988 Defeated Plymouth 2002 Defeated Plymouth 2003 Defeated Plymouth 2008 Defeated Provincetown 1990 Adopted Reading 1985 Adopted Salem 2003 Defeated Salisbury 1989 Adopted Sciruate 2003 Adopted Seekonk 1995 Adopted South Hadley 2000 Defeated South Hadley 1988 Defeated South Hadley 2000 Defeated South Hadley 2009 Defeated
Southbridge 2003 Adopted Spencer 1987 Defeated Stow 1991 Adopted Strubridge 1991 Defeated Sturbridge 1985 Adopted Swansea 2006 Defeated Tisbury 1985 Defeated Townsend 1999 Adopted Truro 1992 Adopted Uxbridge 2002 Adopted Wakefield 1998 Adopted Wakefield 1998 Adopted Ware 2007 Adopted Warren 1987 Defeated Wayland 1989 Defeated Wayland 1989 Defeated Webster 1986 Adopted Wellfleet 1983 Adopted West Springfield 2000 Adopted West Springfield 2000 Adopted Westborough 1988 Defeated Westborough 1988 Defeated Weymouth 1999 Adopted Weymouth 1999 Adopted Winthrop 2005 Adopted Worcester 1983 Adopted
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development
Appendix I: Special Act Charter List of Municipalities
Citation Town Year SAC SAC Abington 2004 Chap 259 Adams 1983 Chap 31 Amherst 2001 Chap 216 Andover 1956 Chap 571 Arlington 1952 Chap 503 Ashburnham 1986 Chap 428 Becket 1989 Chap 662 Braintree 2005 Chap 189 Brookline 1985 Chap 270 Burlington 1978 Chap 549 Carver 1995 Chap 177 Cohasset 1997 Chap 34 Concord 1952 Chap 280 Dalton 1995 Chap 137 Danvers 1997 Chap 222 Douglas 2009 Chap 145 Duxbury 1987 Chap 353 Foxborough 2004 Chap 5 Framingham 1996 Chap 27 Great Barrington 1992 Chap 184 Groton 2008 Chap 81 Hamilton 2009 Chap 114 Hanover 2009 Chap 67 Hanson 2006 Chap 41 Holden 1951 Chap 406 Holliston 1994 Chap 94 Hull 1989 Chap 8 Ipswich 1966 Chap 620 Lakeville 1998 Chap 416 Lee 1991 Chap 471 Lenox 1991 Chap 155 Lexington 1968 Chap 753 Lunenburg 2009 Chap 113 Manchester-by-the-sea 1999 Chap 85 Medway 1991 Chap 303 Middleborough 1920 Chap 592 Nahant 1992 Chap 13
Needham 2004 Chap 176 Newbury 2008 Chap 460 Norfolk 1994 Chap 217 Norwood 1914 Chap 197 Plymouth 2004 Chap 358 Randolp 2009 Chap 2 Sandwich 2009 Chap 106 Saugus 1947 Chap 17 Sheffield 1989 Chap 15 Shrewsbury 1953 Chap 559 Somerset 1984 Chap 7 Spencer 1998 Chap 186 Stoneham 1981 Chap 26 Sudbury 1994 Chap 131 Swampscott 2002 Chap 7 Tewksbury 1986 Chap 275 Upton 2008 Chap 391 Wayland 2004 Chap 320 West Boylston 1995 Chap 23 Westford 2001 Chap 80 Williamstown 1956 Chap 55 Wilminton 1950 Chap 592 Yarmouth 1997 Chap 133
Source: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing & Community Development
Map 1:
Map 2:
Map 3:
Map 4:
Map 5:
Map 6
Map 7:
Map 8
Map 9
Map 10
Map 11
Map 12
Map 13
Map 14
Map 15
Map 16
Map 17
Map 18
Map 19
Map 20
Map 21
Town of Longmeadow, Massachusetts 20 Williams Street, Longmeadow, MA 01106
Tel. (413) 565-4110 l Fax (413) 565-4112 l E-mail [email protected]
Town Manager Lyn N. Simmons Select Board
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION AT AUGUST 17, 2020 SELECT BOARD MEETING
Longmeadow Coalition for Racial Justice
On July 6, 2020 The Longmeadow Select Board adopted a resolution declaring racism a public health crisis. To read the full text of the resolution visit here (eventual hyperlink to web page).
A key component of this resolution is the creation of a community task force to address racial injustices. Upon the adoption of the resolution the Select Board directed the Town Manager to assemble a task force. The task force will be made up of 9 Longmeadow residents with demonstrated interest, experience, or expertise in the issues under review, especially Black, Indigenous, People of Color, or people from other historically marginalized communities.
The task force will discuss, research, gather data, and report to the Select Board on steps the Town can take to reshape the discourse and actively engage all citizens in the dedicated work necessary to address the scourge of systematic racism, recommend alliances with organizations that are confronting racism and how those alliances can benefit the community, identify methods or areas to promote racially equitable hiring and promotion of all employees, including Town employees, and advocate for and draft relevant policies that recognize and seek to mitigate the adverse impacts of racism. Interested residents can submit a letter or email to the Town Manager by September 1, 2020. The group is anticipated to convene virtually in September with the goal of issuing a report to the Select Board by March 31, 2021. Overhead Wires
From: Jesse Belcher-Timme
Lyn:
I know you are on vacation but did not want this to slip through the cracks on my end – so I’m sending my thoughts now.
I think a Select Board policy like this makes perfect sense from a policy perspective. There may be issues that arise in the implementation that frustrate its purpose (as I read it).
Specifically, the two most glaring potential issues that strike me at this point are, first, that many of these crossings may already be governed by easements or other legal arrangements between private parties. These easements may, in some cases, be centuries old and may either not provide for underground access or may provide an independent legal basis for a party seeking to proceed with overhead on the basis of the existing easement. How and if the Select Board will choose to handle those potential disputes remains unanswered by the policy as written (and that may be unavoidable). The second I see is that there may be issues with utility companies or other public utility providers that have statutory superiority over local boards based on state and federal law. As we have seen with the gas company efforts in Longmeadow, while the town may put policies in place to regulate such industries, there is an avenue for state- granted exemption or for federal preemption (through the Courts) to get around any regulation that may prove to be a hindrance to these industries. The Select Board should be aware of that as a potential future dispute.
Notwithstanding these potential issues with implementation, I do not see any reason why the Select Board could not adopt this policy and then address implementation if and when any resistance form parties arises.
Please let me know if you (or the Select Board) have any further questions or would like me to look at any specific other aspects of the proposed policy.
Thanks, Jesse
JWR DRAFT 7/2/2020 LNS Edits 7/15/2020 AGREEMENT FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND MAINTENANCE
This agreement (“Agreement”) is made effective this ___ day of ______, 2020, by and between the TOWN OF LONGMEADOW, of Longmeadow, Hampden County, Massachusetts (the “Town”) and COLVEST/LONGMEADOW, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company (the “Adjacent Property Owner” or “APO”) (each a “Party” and together the “Parties”).
WHEREAS, the APO owns the property at 471-475 Longmeadow Street in the Town as more particularly described in a deed recorded in the Hampden County Registry of Deeds in Book 20813, Page 0166 (the “APO Property”) upon which is situated a multi-tenant commercial retail building, the western frontage of which abuts property of the Town presently consisting of a roadway with sidewalk approximately 80 feet in width (the “Town Property”) as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, the sidewalk and all parking adjacent to the building on the APO Property is located on the Town Property; and
WHEREAS, the present layout of the sidewalk, parking areas and roadway on the Town Property is antiquated and ill-suited for their intended purposes; and
WHEREAS, the APO has historically performed needed maintenance and snow removal on the Town Property sidewalks and roadway at no cost to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the APO and the Town wish to reach an agreement for the APO to make and maintain improvements to the roadway and sidewalk on the Town Property, together with sidewalk improvements on the APO Property, at the APO’s expense, in order to upgrade the current condition of the roadway and site in general and improve the current traffic flow and availability of parking adjacent to the APO Property, and to supervise parking so as to provide access to the APO Property without restricting passage on the roadway.
NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual commitments described herein, the mutual benefit of which is hereby acknowledged, the Town and the APO agree as follows:
1. Purpose for this Agreement. The Parties acknowledge that the Agreement is fair and beneficial to them because it provides for improvement and ongoing maintenance of the Town Property as well as improved vehicular access and parking in a location historically served by the APO Property at no expense to the Town.
2. Improvements. Prior to ______, 2020, the APO agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to construct the improvements on the Town Property and the APO Property in accordance with the Plans attached hereto as Exhibits B-1 through B-6 (the “Improvements”). All Improvements shall be coordinated with the Town Manager, its Department of Public Works, and other departments in accordance with Town procedures for work comparable to the Improvements. Any modifications to the Improvements as described in the Plans attached hereto shall be subject to the approval of the Town Manager, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed.
634084v7 All obligations for payment for the Improvements shall be the responsibility of the APO, no funds will be paid by the Town, and no funds will be transferred through the Town. APO will directly engage all contractors working on the Improvements and be responsible for payment directly to such contractors.
APO shall make the construction of the Improvements in a good and workmanlike manner. APO shall obtain all approvals, permits, and other consents required to commence, perform, and complete the Improvements, and shall at all times cause the Improvements to comply with all laws, regulations or rules of the Town and any other governmental authority which are applicable thereto. APO will be responsible for the costs of any necessary police details during the period of construction of the Improvements.
Throughout the entire process of completing the Improvements, each Party shall cooperate with the other to provide promptly any additional information and details and to respond promptly to any requests reasonably requested by such Party regarding the Improvements. Each Party shall consider reasonable alternatives and solutions to any disputed elements in the Improvements and will act in a timely manner with reasonable cooperation to provide maximum flexibility in completing the Improvements.
During the construction the Town will cooperate with the APO to redirect pedestrian and vehicular traffic away from the construction area.
3. Maintenance of the Improvements. The APO agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to maintain the Improvements (the “Maintenance”) to a standard at least comparable to other parking areas in the Town, and in accordance with Town regulations consistent with this Agreement. The APO shall, at its sole cost and expense, be responsible for clearance of snow and ice, trash removal, maintenance of stormwater drainage system including catch basins and grates, as well as the stormwater laterals connecting from the parking lot to the Town’s systems, and maintenance of landscaping on the Town Property.
4. Transportation Improvement Program. The APO agrees that this Agreement shall not preclude modifications to the Town Property that may be part of a redesign on the Route 5/Bliss Road intersection as part of a State transportation improvement program; however, the Town agrees to use its best efforts to preserve the modifications to access and parking on the Town Property that are developed under this Agreement. Notwithstanding these efforts, the Parties explicitly agree and understand that improvements or modifications made under a State transportation plan could eliminate or otherwise negatively impact some or all of the improvements contemplated by this Agreement. The APO accepts this risk and agrees that the Town shall not be liable to the APO in any way for any damages resulting to the subject improvements made on the Property as a result of such State transportation plan.
5. Signage and Parking. In consideration of the obligation of the APO for Improvements and Maintenance, so long as this Agreement is in effect, the APO shall be entitled to post signage limiting parking on the Town Property to a time period
634084v7 2 which is reasonable for customer access to the APO Property, but not less than thirty (30) minutes per visit.
6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated or amended only by mutual consent of the APO and the Town; provided, however, no termination shall relieve the APO of its responsibility to complete construction of the Improvements following commencement of construction. Any and all Improvements which may be made or installed by the APO shall remain upon the Town Property at the termination of this Agreement and shall be surrendered with the Town Property as a part thereof.
7. Indemnity and Public Liability Insurance. Effective with the commencement of the Improvements, the APO agrees to indemnify and save harmless the Town from and against all claims of whatever nature arising from the use of the Town Property including, but not limited to, any act, omission or negligence of the APO, or the APO's contractors, licensees, agents, servants, or employees, arising from any accident, injury, or damage whatsoever caused to any person, or to the property of any person occurring during the term hereof in or about the Town Property, or arising from any accident, injury or damage occurring within or without the Town Property where such accident, damage or injury results or is claimed to have resulted from an act or omission on the part of the APO or the APO's contractors, licensees, agents, servants or employees. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement shall include indemnity against all reasonable costs, expenses and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any such claim or proceeding brought thereon, and the defense thereof.
The APO agrees to maintain in full force during the term hereof at its expense a policy of public liability insurance. Under such policy the Town shall be named as additional insured. Each such policy shall be non-cancellable with respect to the Town without prior written notice to the Town, and a duplicate original or certificate thereof shall be delivered to the Town. The minimum limits of liability of such insurance shall be $2,000,000 per claim and $2,000,000 aggregate. The APO will provide a certificate of such insurance to the Town prior to the commencement of the Improvements and upon request thereafter.
In the event the APO fails to provide such insurance, the Town may purchase such insurance and the APO agrees that within seven (7) days following demand of the Town it will pay to the Town the cost thereof.
Except to the extent of injury, loss or damage, caused by the acts or negligence of the Town, its agents, contractors or employees, the APO agrees to use the Town Property at its own risk.
8. Performance Bond
A Performance Bond shall be obtained by the APO in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the proposed project amount and shall be in a form satisfactory to the Town of Longmeadow. This bond shall be furnished by a surety company incorporated pursuant to Chapter 175, Section 105 of the General Laws of
634084v7 3 Massachusetts or authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Massachusettsunder Chapter 175, Section 106 of said General Laws, and which is satisfactory to the Town of Longmeadow. Otherwise, this bond may be provided in the form of United States currency; or a certified, treasurer’s or cashier’s check made payable to the Town of Longmeadow and drawn on a responsible and reputable bank or trust company which is satisfactory to the Town of Longmeadow.
9. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications required under this Agreement shall be in writing, and have been deemed received when (i) delivered personally, (ii) delivered by facsimile transmission with written confirmation of receipt at the time indicated in such confirmation, (iii) on the day of transmission if sent by electronic mail (“email”) to the email address given below, and written confirmation of receipt is obtained promptly after completion of transmission, (iv) one day after deposit with an overnight delivery service with a reputable national overnight delivery service, or (v) three days after being mailed by first class mail, certified mail or registered mail, return receipt requested, and postage prepaid. If notice is given to a Party, it shall be given at the address for such Party set forth below. It shall be the responsibility of the Parties to notify the other Party in writing pursuant to the terms of this Section of any name or address changes:
(i) If to Adjacent Property Owner:
Colvest/Longmeadow, LLC Attn: Frank Colaccino, Manager 1259 East Columbus Avenue, Suite 201 Springfield, MA 01103
(ii) If to Town:
Town of Longmeadow Attn: Town Manager 20 Williams Street Longmeadow, MA 01106
10. Warranty. The APO warrants that the Improvements will be of first quality and constructed in a good and workmanlike manner and free of all material faults and defects, that all materials incorporated in the Improvements shall be of first quality, and that all construction shall be performed in accordance with applicable legal requirements.
11. Entire Agreement; Compliances. This Agreement shall not be construed to substitute for, or supersede any requirement of, the APO from full compliance with all rules, regulations, and requirements governing the development and construction, or Maintenance of the Improvements described herein, including but not limited to all municipal, state, and federal laws and regulations.
12. Massachusetts Law. This Agreement shall be made and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The APO and the Town each
634084v7 4 consent to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts courts or applicable agencies of the Commonwealth regarding any and all matters, including interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement or any of its provisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed under seal by the undersigned as of the day and year first above written, each of whom represents that it is fully and duly authorized to act on behalf of and bind the APO and Town, respectively.
TOWN OF LONGMEADOW
By: Name: Title:
COLVEST/LONGMEADOW, LLC
By: Name: Frank Colaccino Title: Manager
634084v7 5 EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B-1 634084v7 6 EXHIBIT B-2
634084v7 7 EXHIBIT B-3
634084v7 8 EXHIBIT B-4
634084v7 9 EXHIBIT B-5
634084v7 10 EXHIBIT B-6
634084v7 11 634084v7 12 Wellsley Road entrance
Wall on Frank Smith Road Mailbox on Wellsley next to property access
To: Longmeadow Select Board Members Lyn Simmons, Town Manager Paul J. Pasterczyk, Finance Director Audit Committee, Peter Landon Finance Committee, Maury Garrett Debbie House, Administrative Assistant
August 3, 2020
Treasurer’s Investment Report for April through June 2020 Respectfully submitted by Town Treasurer, Cheryl M. Cudnik
I am submitting my quarterly report on the status of the Town’s cash and investments for the period ending June 30, 2020.
As per the Investment Policy:
The Town held no long term investments that exceeded the five-year limit. The individual bank balances were under the five-million-dollar balance provision except for Country Bank and Adams Savings that hold the bond proceeds which allows for an eight-million-dollar balance provision according to the Investment Policy All banks again received the highest safety rating of green from Veribanc. All accounts are fully insured / secured.
We did a borrowing at the end of May for $20,124,706.72; $11,453,000 for Refund 2011 School Bonds, $112,000 for Refund 2011 Bonds Water, $2,410,000 for DPW, $1,343,000 for Wolf Swamp Fields, $700,000 for Landfill Phase II, $722,000 for Sewer Interceptor, and $380,000 for Willow Brook Road Drainage. With these bond proceeds and the associated bond premiums ($3,004,706.72), I dispersed the Bond Proceeds while adhering to the investment policy to the following banks; $3,300,000 to Adams Savings Bank at a rate of 1.35%, $3,900,000 to Country Bank at a rate of .75%, $2,500,000 to Monson Savings Bank at a rate of .50%. The remaining $7,750,000 was transferred to Peoples United Bank and $2,474,706 to East Boston Savings to be used to pay the $13,852,477.92 for the refunding of the 2011 Bond for the School and Water Mains.
The rates have continued to decline during this Covid-19 pandemic. The highest decreases this quarter are Peoples United Bank decreased total weighted rate from 2.24% to 0.21%; MMDT rates decreased from 1.88% to 0.52%; and Monson Savings Bank total weighted rate decreased from 1.65% to .50%. Adams Savings Bank has reduced their rates the least among all the banks. Adams Savings Banks rate last quarter was 1.70% and is now paying 1.35% with only a .35% decrease. With these changes in July I transferred $2,300,000.00 from Peoples United Bond Proceeds Account paying .20% to Monson Savings Bank Bond Proceeds paying 0.50% to maximize interest earned. In April we sent out request for information on the use of lock box for Real Estate, Personal Property, Motor Vehicle Excise and Water/Sewer Bills. We inquired with Peoples Bank, Easthampton Savings Bank and Century Bank. Century Bank came back to us with the most cost effective use of lock box We started using this service with the FY 2021 1st quarter Real Estate and Personal Property Tax bills.
The interest accumulating on the bond proceeds will be allocated into the Town’s General Fund, Water Fund and Sewer Fund. For the quarter ending June 30th; interest earned on all bond proceeds was $54,750.16. The investment income we earned this quarter on the OPEB Pension Reserves Investment Fund was $218,589.88. Overall, the Town had three deposits to the State Retiree Benefits Trust Fund (SRBTF) totaling $3,086,500.72; the June 30, 2020 balance in the SRBTF is $3,259,272.22 a gain of $172,771.50 in earnings since inception December 2019.
The net decrease of $2,565,405.24 in cash and investments for the quarter was a result warrants payable and the teachers balloon payroll. There were commitments issued to collect for motor vehicle excise, real estate, personal property and Bond Proceeds received, however DPW Facility, COA Facility expenditures and debt payments alone totaled just over twenty million dollars.
As Treasurer, I will continue to seek the best possible interest rates; fund our accounts payable and payroll accounts timely with funds from bank accounts earning the lowest interest rates when possible. The Treasurer’s office will continue to monitor all funds in accounts and move funds to achieve the highest yield available and will continue to practice safety, liquidity and yield when investing and paying the bills on the warrant. JUNE TOWN OF LONGMEADOW DEPOSITORY AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS Accounts CD Beginning Balance Net Ending Balance Quarterly Interest Veribanc Comments Maturity Date 4/1/2020 Difference 6/30/2020 Income Earned Rate Rating PEOPLES UNITED Investments/Bond Proceeds 959,284.39 1,388,740.58 2,348,024.97 1,619.55 0.20% GREEN Bond Proceeds school lunch 130,500.03 (29,553.64) 100,946.39 206.35 0.23% GREEN receipts/funding gate receipts 5,367.08 9.45 5,376.53 9.45 0.23% GREEN receipts/funding ambulance 9,300.78 (2,521.20) 6,779.58 206.42 0.23% GREEN receipts/funding Municipal Bond Proceeds 58,742.82 103.50 58,846.32 103.50 0.23% GREEN Bond Proceeds Investment/Funding 1,813,989.58 (1,656,737.25) 157,252.33 128.83 0.20% GREEN FDIC Collateralized Municipal Local Aid 3,190.53 69,822.89 73,013.42 76.39 0.50% GREEN FDIC/Collateralized Local Aid/funding total Peoples United 2,980,375.21 -230,135.67 2,750,239.54 2,350.49
PEOPLES Premium MM 3,784,737.82 (2,465,025.18) 1,319,712.64 4,473.97 0.16% GREEN FDIC/DIF daily depository account/funding Investment/General Funds 93,719.18 75,514.49 169,233.67 220.85 0.80% GREEN investment/funding/waste zero student activities(6 accts) 244,898.33 (66,890.08) 178,008.25 461.74 0.80% GREEN receipts/disbursements Longmeadow Recovery Acc 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00% GREEN Disaster Donation Account total Peoples Bank 4,123,355.34 -2,456,400.77 1,666,954.57 5,156.56
CENTURY Investment 1,047,036.34 2,706,241.89 3,753,278.23 6,241.89 0.85% GREEN investment/funding
UNIBANK Payroll/Vendor and General 19,652.42 4,743.23 24,395.65 595.56 0.15% GREEN funding for payroll/vendor and Comm Pmnts
COUNTRY General Fund/Bond 5,509,511.25 2,396,856.52 7,906,367.77 16,332.79 0.75% GREEN FDIC/DIF
TD BANK Investments/General Funds 940,332.02 1,494,620.09 2,434,952.11 1,162.07 0.25% GREEN receipts/warrants payable Claims Trust 1,198,856.09 (340,812.27) 858,043.82 853.91 0.35% GREEN FDIC Collateralized 2,139,188.11 1,153,807.82 3,292,995.93 2,015.98
EAST BOSTON Stabilization 2,910,695.31 6,451.69 2,917,147.00 6,451.69 0.70% GREEN FDIC/DIF Stabilization Funds Trust Funds 175,829.47 (125.46) 175,704.01 324.54 0.70% GREEN FDIC/DIF Trust Funds Investment/General Funds 1,602,079.75 (304,876.17) 1,297,203.58 3,674.95 0.70% GREEN FDIC/DIF total East Boston Savings Bank 4,688,604.53 -298,549.94 4,390,054.59 10,451.18
MMDT Investments 4,466,112.08 (2,333,925.33) 2,132,186.75 7,223.70 0.52% GREEN relationship account Stabilization 526,747.02 858.21 527,605.23 858.21 0.52% GREEN Stablization total MMDT 4,992,859.10 -2,333,067.12 2,659,791.98 8,081.91
MONSON CPA 1,816,877.58 20,151.78 1,837,029.36 2,265.80 0.50% GREEN FDIC/DIF CPA Municipal Bond Proceeds/GF 6,350,571.73 (5,054,710.10) 1,295,861.63 16,126.73 0.50% GREEN FDIC/DIF/General Fund/Bond Proceeds total Monson Savings Bank 8,167,449.31 -5,034,558.32 3,132,890.99 18,392.53
ADAMS Investment/General Funds/Bond 5,785,197.84 1,303,998.99 7,089,196.83 20,567.59 1.35% GREEN FDIC/DIF/General Fund/Bond Proceeds Stabilization 803,735.11 2,699.19 806,434.30 2,699.19 1.35% GREEN FDIC/DIF/General Fund/Bond Proceeds total Adams Savings Bank 6,588,932.95 1,306,698.18 7,895,631.13 23,266.78
NEWBURYPORT Municipal Bond Proceeds/GF 350,270.64 369.06 350,639.70 369.06 0.45% GREEN FDIC/DIF Bond Proceeds/General Fund
State OPEB Fund Pension Reserve Investment Brd 3,040,682.34 218,589.88 3,259,272.22 218,589.88 varies OPEB GREENequity exceeds 5%of its assets YELLOWequity is between 3% and 5%of its assets Grand Totals 43,647,917.54 (2,565,405.24) 41,082,512.30 311,844.61 REDequity is less than 3% of its assets JUNE 2020 TOTAL BANK BALANCES Bank Totals Beginning Balance Net Ending Balance Quarterly Weighted Percent Comments 4/1/2020 Difference 6/30/2020 Income Earned Int Rate of Investment Peoples United Bank 2,980,375.21 (230,135.67) 2,750,239.54 2,350.49 0.21% 6.69% FDIC up to $250,000/collateralized remaining Investments/Bond Proceeds Peoples Bank 4,123,355.34 (2,456,400.77) 1,666,954.57 5,156.56 0.29% 4.06% FDIC/DIF
UniBank 19,652.42 4,743.23 24,395.65 595.56 0.15% 0.06% State Qrt cash deposit monthly Unibank outstanding checks (999,048.54)
Monson Savings Bank 8,167,449.31 (5,034,558.32) 3,132,890.99 18,392.53 0.50% 7.63% FDIC/DIF
MMDT Investment 4,992,859.10 (2,333,067.12) 2,659,791.98 8,081.91 0.52% 6.47% moved to FDIC/DIF for safety kept account for relationship Century Bank 1,047,036.34 2,706,241.89 3,753,278.23 6,241.89 0.85% 9.14% FDIC up to $250,000/Collateralized
Newburyport Savings Bank 350,270.64 369.06 350,639.70 369.06 0.45% 0.85% FDIC/DIF Bond Proceeds
TDBank 2,139,188.11 1,153,807.82 3,292,995.93 2,015.98 0.28% 8.02% FDIC up to $250,000 approved letter of credit on remaining balances Country Bank for Savings 5,509,511.25 2,396,856.52 7,906,367.77 16,332.79 0.75% 19.25% FDIC/DIF
East Boston Savings 4,688,604.53 (298,549.94) 4,390,054.59 10,451.18 0.70% 10.69% FDIC/DIF Investments/Bond Proceeds
Adams Community Savings 6,588,932.95 1,306,698.18 7,895,631.13 23,266.78 1.35% 19.22% FDIC/DIF
Pension Reserves Investment 3,040,682.34 218,589.88 3,259,272.22 218,589.88 varies 7.93% State OPEB Fund
Total 40,083,463.76 less outstanding cks 999,048.54 Grand Totals 43,647,917.54 (2,565,405.24) 41,082,512.30 311,844.61 100.00% JUNE 2020 SHORT TERM INVESTMENT REPORT
Accounts Beginning Balance Net Ending Balance Quarterly Interest Percent Comments 4/1/2020 Difference 6/30/2020 Income Earned Rate of Investment Peoples United Municipal Bond Prcs 58,742.82 103.50 58,846.32 103.50 0.23% 0.19% General Obligation Bond Proceeds Peoples United Bank School Lunch 130,500.03 (29,553.64) 100,946.39 206.35 0.23% 0.33% receipts/funding Peoples United Bank Gate Receipt 5,367.08 9.45 5,376.53 9.45 0.23% 0.02% receipts/funding Peoples United Bank Ambulance 9,300.78 (2,521.20) 6,779.58 206.42 0.23% 0.02% receipts/funding Peoples United Municipal Bond Prcs 959,284.39 1,388,740.58 2,348,024.97 1,619.55 0.20% 7.69% General Obligation Bond Proceeds Peoples United Bank 1,813,989.58 (1,656,737.25) 157,252.33 128.83 0.20% 0.52% FDIC/DIF general fund Peoples United Municipal Local Aid 3,190.53 69,822.89 73,013.42 76.39 0.50% 0.24% FDIC/DIF general fund/Local Aid Accounts Collateralized
Peoples Bank 93,719.18 75,514.49 169,233.67 220.85 0.80% 0.55% FDIC/DIF insured Waste Zero receipts Peoples Bank Premeium MM 3,784,737.82 (2,465,025.18) 1,319,712.64 4,473.97 0.16% 4.32% FDIC/DIF daily depository account/funding
Century 1,047,036.34 2,706,241.89 3,753,278.23 6,241.89 0.85% 12.30% investment account
Unibank 19,652.42 4,743.23 24,395.65 595.56 0.15% 0.08% received state aid monthly
Country Bank 5,509,511.25 2,396,856.52 7,906,367.77 16,332.79 0.75% 25.90% FDIC/DIF general fund
TD Bank 940,332.02 1,494,620.09 2,434,952.11 1,162.07 0.25% 7.98% general fund/investment
MMDT Investment 4,466,112.08 (2,333,925.33) 2,132,186.75 7,223.70 0.52% 6.99% relationship account
Adams Community Savings 5,785,197.84 1,303,998.99 7,089,196.83 20,567.59 1.35% 23.23% FDIC/DIF General Fund/Bond Proceeds
East Boston 1,602,079.75 (304,876.17) 1,297,203.58 3,674.95 0.70% 4.25% FDIC/DIF general fund
Newburyport Savings Bank 350,270.64 369.06 350,639.70 369.06 0.45% 1.15% FDIC/DIF General Fund/Bond Proceeds
Monson Savings Bank 6,350,571.73 (5,054,710.10) 1,295,861.63 16,126.73 0.50% 4.25% FDIC/DIF Bond Proceeds
Grand Totals 32,929,596.28 (2,406,328.18) 30,523,268.10 79,339.65 100.00% JUNE 2020 BOND PROCEEDS
Accounts Beginning Balance Net Ending Balance Quarterly Interest Percent Comments 4/1/2020 Difference 6/30/2020 Income Earned Rate of Investment Peoples United Municipal Bond Prc 58,742.82 103.50 58,846.32 103.50 0.23% 0.31% FDIC up to $250,000/Collateralized
Peoples United Municipal Bond Prc 959,284.39 1,388,740.58 2,348,024.97 1,619.55 0.20% 12.56% FDIC up to $250,000/Collateralized
Adams Savings Bank 5,785,197.84 1,303,998.99 7,089,196.83 20,567.59 1.35% 37.91% FDIC/DIF
Monson Savings Bank 6,350,571.73 (5,054,710.10) 1,295,861.63 16,126.73 0.50% 6.93% FDIC/DIF
Country Bank for Savings 5,509,511.25 2,396,856.52 7,906,367.77 16,332.79 0.75% 42.28% FDIC/DIF
GRAND TOTALS 18,663,308.03 34,989.49 18,698,297.52 54,750.16 100.00% Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2018 Management Letter) July, 201330-Jun-20 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
CURRENT YEAR Low #1 To determine If required, reclassification By March 31, Finance Director FY 21 proposed Finance Director 1-10-20 - During the FY 2021 budget process the proper accounting of fund at the start of FY 2020 explains the issue at budget will reflect Finance Director will explain the theory of why classification (General 2021 hand with the Town the decisions enterprise funds are used in municipal accounting. Fund vs Enterprise Manager and Select made He will also explain the reporting of the Town's Fund) of the current Board during the FY 21 enterprise funds within the audited financial records. Solid Waste / budget process and a The Finance Director will also make Recycling Enterprise conclusion is rendered recommendations regarding the future use of Fund and the on each of the two enterprise funds for the Town's Solid Waste / Stormwater Enterprise funds in question Recycling and Stormwater funds. lastly, the Finance Fund Director will propose a policy outlining the Town's commitment to fully fund the Stormwater Enterprise Fund through stormwater revenues. These matters will be resolved by 3/31/20
6-30-20 - Solid Waste / Recycling Enterprise Fund - On March 16, 2020 the Select Board voted to abandon the Solid Waste / Recycling Enterprise Fund for FY 2022. This will need to be voted at upcoming Town Meeting. Stormwater Enterprise - On January 20, 2020 the Select Board voted a policy to fully fund the Stormwater Enterpriser Fund through user fees. The user fees would be increased in equal increments through FY 2036 from the FY 2021 current level (42.50%) of covering costs. Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2018 Management Letter) July, 201330-Jun-20 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status PRIOR YEAR Mid #2 Review IT a) review the feasibility of a) a) decisions are made a) minutes a) Select Board & 4-1-19 The Select Board met with the IT Director on Controls - a) no having an IT oversight b) on the continuation of reflecting School March 4, 2019. Much of the discussion centered formal committee / committee and if feasible c) an IT oversight discussion and Committee around security related to cyber attacks and 'back group is responsible review former mission committee, and if conclusions on b) IT Director up" procedures. The IT Director mentioned that one for IT oversight statement of committee and decided to continue the subject matter c) Department of the ways he keeps up to date on the latest IT b) no written backup / thereafter appoint (Select appoint members and b) accepted Heads in matters is through quarterly meeting with data retention Board & School Committee) update mission b)documents consultation with neighboring IT personnel. 1-10-20 - a) an schedule c) no if found feasible b) to codification of existing addressing IT IT Dept. IT advisory group had been established through the formal process in codify existing practices practices is backup and MOU that unified the School and Town IT place to review, test & regarding backup documented and hard retention matters departments. It has proven to be a challenge to fill train software systems schedules, data retention copies are available c) departmental the group with volunteers who are able to meet periods and backup storage c) with all various satisfaction regularly. b) town & school servers, along with the locations c) training departmental systems regarding networks are backed up to a commercial appliance for certain systems is in place it will be up to software located in a different room than the servers being provided by the systems the Department Head, acceptance and backup up. The IT Dept. is in the process of vendor, IT assists in in consultation with IT, training on various relocating that backup location to Eat Longmeadow training it supports and to determine software systems through a partnership between the communities. A others on a limited basis. acceptance and training written backup schedule will be created in order to Where IT support is limited, document existing practices. the IT Dept. will also individual users may need be implementing, at a minimum, quarterly backup to seek additional training testing practice c) through collaboration between from the systems vendor the IT Dept. and individual departmental software users, unique training requirements are developed for each software installation or upgrade taking into account the extent of the change, # of staff impacted, Vendor assistance and funding. Where the IT Director maintains control the matters will be resolved by 8/31/20
*Through a grant award the It Department has initiated Phishing awareness / training. Staff participate via on-line training. And staff readiness is tested thereafter. Staff who respond to fraudulent emails are notified and assigned additional training. *A MIIA Grant was awarded for the purpose of network vulnerability detection. Equipment has been installed and operational onsite. The vendor is conducting network analysis with a final report due late in the summer. * Muinis backups are performed daily to a remote device. Logs are automatically emailed to IT staff for daily review and action if required. Backups are tested regularly. *A new password policy, requiring greater complexity for access into the Town's network has been implemented / enforced. *Summer installation of new network equipment is planned. This equipment will allow for segmentation to limit the spread of potential malware infection July 1st email from NJ Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2018 Management Letter) July, 201330-Jun-20 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status High #3 Perform Student all student activity funds Spring 2019 student activity funds student activity Assistant School 4-1-19 Asst. School Supt of Schools for Finance & Activity Fund Audits in audited satisfactorily under are audited and fund audit reports Superintendent Operations has engaged Scanlon & Associates to Accordance with all required guidelines accepted by the School available and vote for Finance & perform the audits. School Dept. is waiting to hear DESE Guidelines Committee with a plan of the School Operations from auditors regarding a start date. 1-10-20 of corrective actions in Committee (ASSF&O) - the School Dept. has engaged Scanlon & place. acceptance Associates to perform audits of all the Student recorded. Activity Funds. LHS was audited in the fall and remaining audits were done in December 2019. Final reports have not yet been issued. The ASSF&O has proposed annual audits of the accounts.
6-30-20 I believe the audit has been completed and the report issued although I have not seen / received a copy. I will have to follow up on the matter. Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2018 Management Letter) July, 201330-Jun-20 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status Mid #4 Other Issues a) Budgetary entries are its a) the Town a) all budgetary entries Review of a trial a) Town The review of bank balances to the Treasurer's a) use of budgetary own separate balanced will begin in each fund properly balance in each Accountant b) Reports were made retro to January 2018 through accounts b) monitor block of accounts within using all recorder as evident by budgetary fund b) Town Manager July. The inclusion of the further testing will begin fundraising activities each budgetary fund. Use budgetary a $0 balance in the evidence of an and Finance with the FY 2019 FY and be brought up to date. c) Perform oversight of budgetary accounting entries in FY Budgetary Control accepted written Director 4-1-19 No further action on the bank statements and review of bank reduces the likelihood of 2020 b) account b) a policy is policy c) c) Town have taken place as a result of the vacancy in the reconciliations errors b) the town will by 6/30/20 written / accepted documented Accountant and Asst. Town Accountant's position. The matter will develop a policy regarding c) immediate regarding the reviews and Asst. Town be addressed again upon the filling of the vacancy. fundraising activities of fundraising activities of testing data Accountant With regard to the fund raising matter, the Town is non-school departments c) the non-school working with FOLOCA and through consultation oversight and review of departments c) the with the independent auditor will address that bank reconciliations have continuation of the bank matter through the statutes and "sound business been done to a limited reconciliations included practices" for instances that do meet the threshold degree since Sept 2018 the testing of the of governing statutes. A written policy has not yet outstanding checks and been developed. 1-10-20 - a) other discrepancy Beginning in FY 2020 all budgetary entries will be matters recorded in the General Ledger b) the Town received legal counsel regarding the Anti Aid Amendment in July 2019 addressing the 3 areas of concern: Senior Center gift Shop, Longmeadow Days and the Veterans' Road Race. In all three cases the Town passed the three part test and was guilty of misuse. The matter is a complicated one which the Finance Director will discuss with the new Town manager and propose a policy by fiscal year end c) The Asst. Town Accountant's position was filled in May 2019 and the process of reviewing the Treasurer's bank reconciliations will resume and go retro to July 2019
6-30-20 Review of the Treasurer's bank reconciliations are done through March 2020 and the remaining quarters review will be completed in late July. Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
CURRENT YEAR #1 Enhance Review of Chapter 90 Submissions Low Not all Ch. 90 expenditure When submitting immediate A $0 variance Reconciliation of Finance Director, 1-5-17 - Corrective measure will take submissions for reimbursement submissions to the reconciliation of the accounts will be Town Accountantplace upon submission of next CH 90 had been charged to the Ch. 90 State for Ch. 90 Ch. 90 A/R and made at & Asst. Town rreimbursement appropriation account thereby reimbursements, an appropriation account Accountant 5-31-17 - A Ch. 90 expenditure creating a potential to expend expanded review of the can be made at any submission for reimbursement was greater amounts on CH 90 type documentation will be time. recently filed and all charges were projects without the benefit of done by the Accounting verified as being charged to the Ch. being reimbursed from the State Officer signing such 90 appropriation for such expenditures. documents. The 8-21-17 Practice remains as expanded review will previously reported include all the accounts the Ch. 90 expenditures were originally charged from and the CH 90 A/R. All affected accounts will be reconciled accordingly.
Page 5 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
#2 Enhanced Review of Fees Medium A) Certain fees were being A) The Business Office Review of fees School Committee School CommitteeAssistant 1-5-17 A) The Business Office collected by Teachers without any will review all fees beingand notificationvote authorizing the vote authorizing Superintendent emailed all principals on December School Committee procedural charged by teachers, of the cash fees and timely the fees and of School - 30th requesting that they provide a list documentation related to the besides field trips, and procedure will submission of monitoring of Administration of all fees, besides field trips, being establishment of the fees request that the School begin deposits deposits made to and Finance charged by teachers. available. Committee authorize immediately the Town. B) The Business Office emailed a B) Checks were held for as long those fees. copy of the Town's Cash Procedure to as 2 months without being B) The appropriate staff principals on Dec 30th requesting that deposited in the Town Treasury at all schools will be they distribute the cash procedure to reminded and provided the staff at their school that handle a copy of the Town's receipts. 5- Cash Procedure to 31-17 - Inquiry was made to the ensure timely deposits Treasurer Collector's Office regarding of receipts. the processing of checks in a timely manner. The Asst. Treasurer / Collector stated that she has not seen any checks processed by the School Dept. that would be considered untimely. 8-21-17 Practice remains as previously reported. Little to no action regarding turnover of school checks since the last report.
Page 6 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
#3 Immaterial Variance Noted and Abandoned Property Medium A) Immaterial variances were A) The Town A) by 6/30/17 A) Immaterial A) review of A) Town 1-5-17 Corrective measures to begin noted by the auditors during the Accountant will review B) by 2/28/17 variances no longer records by Accountant in February 2017 audit field work. B) the accounts identified exist. B) auditors during FYB) Finance 5-31-17 - Town management the Town carries, as abandoned with immaterial The Town accepts the 17 audit B) Director accepted the independent auditor's property, approximately $19,000 variances and, after provisions of MGL Ch. Evaluation of recommendation in handling of outstanding checks on its consultation with the 200A Sec 9A or Town records to abandoned property / "stale" checks books. A reconcilable list of independent auditor, provides alternative ensure through the acceptance of MGL CH recipients of these checks was not make adjustments to measures for the abandoned 200A section 9A. Town Meeting available. the accounts if unable handling of property is approved acceptance of such at the to reconcile. B) abandoned property. properly being recently held Annual Town Meeting. The Town Finance handled The Accounting office will work with Director will examine the Treasurer's office to reconcile the the provisions of MA General Ledger, providing all the General Laws Chapter detail necessary to carry out the 200A Section 9A and, if procedural steps required by the law found feasible, request before the Town takes full possession that the Town accept of the abandoned property. this such provisions of the reconciliation will take place by June laws at the May 2017 30, 2017. Annual Town Meeting
8-21-17 The reconciliation of the "stale" checks was completed. The Treasurer's Office notified the payees of the "stale" checks that the checks had not been cashed. Those responding were re-issued new checks. The process has a multi-year cycle that will be continued to be followed and renewed with the inclusion of new "stale" dated checks
Page 7 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
PRIOR YEAR #1 Capital Asset Accounting low The Town had previously used Reconciliation of the immediate Former and current Review of records Town AccountantReconciliation will take place when excel spreadsheets to maintain its fixed asset accounting fixed asset records & Asst. Town time allows but will happen no later fixed asset inventory. records reconcile at June 30, Accountant than June 30, 2015 2014 The town switched its fixed asset 06/25/15 - Reconciliation was inventory accounting to its MUNIS completed by the Accountant. Both Software. Currently the two are excel and Munis reports had items the not in agreement. other did not. The Munis software was updated to include the missing excel fixed assets.
3/30/2016 While told of a completed reconciliation, the new Town Accountant (the former resigned in June 2015) could not locate one in the Office files. Attempts to communicate with the former Town Accountant have been unsuccessful. A complete / documented reconciliation will be done by 06/30/16 and forwarded to the Finance Director and independent auditor.
Page 8 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status Prior Year #1 The accounting staff is currently in the continued process of reconciling the Munis Fixed Asset System. The goal is have completed by the time the FY 16 statements are prepared. In the meantime, the excel spreadsheet of fixed assets will be maintained as used as the master. 11-02-16 - the reconciliation between the Excel spreadsheet and the Munis software is still on going. the excel spreadsheet has been kept up to date and will be used in the preparation of the FY 2016 financial statements 1-5-17 Project still ongoing with a new target date of 9/30/17. Another review will take place as to whether the Munis System will be accurately implemented or the spreadsheet accounting will be the main source of Fixed Asset Accounting. 5-31-17 - The reconciliation process is still ongoing and at this point we are leaning towards going back to the excel spreadsheet to maintain lists of capital and inventorial assets. A final decision will be made around June 30, 2017
8-21-17 The Accounting Office will revert back to the spreadsheets to maintain the fixed asset inventory
Page 9 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
#2 Approval of School Department Payroll and Bills (Accounts Payable) medium Lack of appropriate School School Committee, or 31-Aug-16School Payroll and Review of Assistant The School Committee will review signatures on School Payroll and where allowed, Accounts Payable documents Superintendent their procedures regarding Accounts Payable documents appropriate School documents have of School - authorization of payroll and accounts which authorize the Town to make signatures on School appropriate School Administration payable documents and make any payments for such Payroll and Accounts signatures on them and Finance and necessary changes to comply with the Payable documents Town Accountantlaw. 7-28-16 - Appropriate school signatures are now being obtained and are available / maintained in the Town Accountant's Office. 1-5-17 The School Committee, through a formal vote, has authorized one member to review and sign School Department payroll authorization documents and one member and one alternate to review and sign School Department accounts payable authorization documents. 5-31-17 - The Town Accountant reports that proper signatures are being submitted and are available for review in the Town Accountant's Office
8-21-17 The practice remains as previously reported
Page 10 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
Page 11 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
# 3 Evaluate Additional Approvals / Authorizations medium Institute additional policies / 1) Procedures on blank immediate 1) NA Review of 1) NA 2) Dept. 7-28-16 - (1) Munis allows the procedures to: 1) further check stock will not 2) attestations are documents and Heads and Town Treasurer to verify all check prints and safeguard blank check stock 2) change. Treasurer has documented 3) only Audit check Accountant 3) traces utilization to user names. add attestations on financial ability to monitor check Accounting staff post Town AccountantRegular monitoring is now in place. documents 3) eliminate direct GL prints and Munis ID's to GL 4) an over / 4) Assistant Monthly reconciliations would be the posting by non-Accounting those issuing checks under line is added to Superintendent latest time unauthorized check prints personnel and 4) enhance 2) attestations will be the gate receipt of School - would be identified.. No other reporting of school athletic gate built into procedures 3) reconciliation form. Administration changes are recommended. (2) receipts direct posting to GL by and Finance Currently the Fire Chief is signing off non-Accounting on ambulance documents before personnel will be journal postings are made. Similar eliminated 4) an over / procedures will be implemented over under line will be added the next few months for the other to the gate receipt documents in question.(3) Munis reconciliation form rights will have to be modified and / or Department Heads retrained so that direct postings are made only by the accounting office Another 60 to 90 days will be needed. (4) The Athletic Gate Receipt Reconciliation form was modified in December 2015 as suggested in the corrective measure note. 11-02-16 - #3 IT recently has confirmed that Munis rights can be modified. PJP is setting 12/31/16 are target date to finish.
Page 12 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status #3 continued 1-5-17 Town IT personnel have been working with Munis personnel to modify access rights and have all General Ledger postings be done by Accounting personnel. Some of the changes are in place but additional time is needed to complete the task. Additionally certain Munis applications will not allow such changes and alternative solutions are being explored.
5-31-17 - Alternatives for Utility Billing and General Billing procedures are still being worked on with software provider. Completion of these two areas is expected by FY end. It is believed that any remaining area of direct posting thereafter will have source documents with authorized signatures as backup. The system will be reviewed to assure compliance
8-21-17 A Utility Billing alternative was implemented. While not the direct control of the posting a notification to Accounting will automatically be send if and when a posting is made. With regard to General Billing, Accounting now has approval rights for the postings.
Page 13 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
Page 14 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
#4 Information Technology Inventory and Disaster Recovery Plan medium A) More formally document the Review current 31-Aug-16Inventorying Inventorying Technology 7-28-16 - Existing inventory and periodic inventory of IT equipment.inventorying procedures procedures are documentation Director directory management has been and implement documented and review and cleaned of old and outdated records automated inventorying manual inventorying validation of using automated software. Planning system for compatible processes are automatically and preparation is in-progress devices. Develop automated where collected (advanced stages) for the rollout of an documentation for appropriate. inventory data additional program that will inventorying automatically inventory Windows and procedures. Audit Mac machines in a single location existing inventory data, (previously, these were maintained separately in a combination of automated and manual processes. IT staff has been updating inventory for other assets (projectors, etc.) over the summer. 11-02-16 - System for automated inventorying of Windows devices is in place for most departments. Technical challenges preventing rollout at some locations is being addressed. Departmental review of inventorying procedure is underway to determine what areas for improvement remain. 1-5-17 A written inventory procedure has been created and will be communicated to all stakeholders by January 6, 2017
Page 15 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status # 4 continued B) Development of a more formal Review current disaster 31-Oct-16Disaster recovery planReview of Technology 7-28-16 - Longmeadow was not disaster recovery plan. recovery plan review determines documents Director awarded the community compact documentation and that the plan meets grant. Development of a formal develop a more formal Town's needs. disaster recovery plan has begun in and complete plan. early formative stages. Develop alongside 11-02-16 - Identified technology Compact Communities infrastructure needed to better support grant award to ongoing operations and rapid disaster purchase additional recovery. Disaster recovery plan in equipment and enter development. 1-5-17 A into a partnership with capital request has been made to East Longmeadow for provide some of the necessary offsite replication. equipment to support a disaster recovery plan. Opportunities for off-site backup and hosting services are being considered as service renewal dates are reached.
5-31-17 - The capital request for the server upgrade and power backup was approved at the May 2017 ATM. Installation to take place in the summer 2017. A 2017 Community Compact Grant was awarded and will be used to purchase necessary hardware to connect Longmeadow's and East Longmeadow's networks to allow for future offsite storage and other regional benefits. Disaster recovery plan will be guided by & dependent on the installation and configuration of equipment this summer
Page 16 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status 8-21-17 Equipment has been purchased and the network administrators from Longmeadow and East Longmeadow have a September meeting scheduled to begin the process of connecting the two communities' networks to enable off-site storage and other regionalization benefits. A Disaster Recovery Plan will be developed upon completion of the network interconnections in order to make use of the available resources.
Page 17 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status
#5 Student Activity Funds
Page 18 Town of Longmeadow Audit Correction Report (related to issues identified in the FY 2016 Management Letter) 1/5/2017 5-31-17 Action Deemed Means of Responsible Priority Order Issue Description Corrective Measure Timing Successful When Evaluation Person(s) Status medium A) Review of newly issued "agreedA) Review and modify immediate A) School student A) Acceptance of Assistant Finance Director suggested to the upon procedures and audit school student activity activity fund policies updated policy by Superintendent School Committee's Finance sub guidelines in conjunction with fund policies to comply comply with all the Asst. of School - committee that an audit be performed other Town policies to ensure with latest authoritative Superintendent of Administration of the student activity funds back in compliance. B) Perform required requirements. B) requirements and B)School - and Finance and February, 2016. Scanlon and Assoc. triennial audit of student activity Perform audit of student independent audit of Administration Town's Finance is to performed an audit sometime in funds activity funds. student activity funds and Finance and Director. late May or early June. Parties is complete and Town's Finance involved will confer with the auditor findings of the audit Director. after the audit regarding future are rectified B) Independent required modifications. auditor's report of 7-28-16 - Field work for the audit of student activity the Student Activity Funds was funds with completed by Scanlon and Assoc. in auditor's findings mid-June. A final report has not been addressed received and the conference with accordingly involved parties has not yet taken place. 11-2-16 - The final report was issued in late summer. In mid September the Town Accountant, Finance Director, Asst, Sc Business Mgr., Asst Supt - Admin & Finance and Auditor - Tom Scanlon Jr. to discuss the findings and other issues the Accounting Office was having with the Student Activity Funds. Agreeable solutions were found on all matters.
1-5-17 Agreed upon solutions will continue to be practiced and enforced
5-31-17 - Agreed upon solutions are being followed 8-21-17 The practice remains as previously reported
Page 19 From: Lyn Simmons
Great, that gives an even bigger window of time, letters are due by August 28. Tom, if you wanted we could add this to the next SB agenda for August 17 to have the board vote to submit a letter.
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:36 PM Marc Strange
I think we should submit a letter from the Select Board under "public comments" requesting any new facilities by Eversource be delayed until all existing leaks and other safety concerns are addressed in Longmeadow. And maybe ask Rep. Ashe and Sen. Lesser to do the same.
Marc A. Strange, Vice Chair Longmeadow Select Board
On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 6:27 PM Lyn Simmons
Thanks, Lyn
------Forwarded message ------From: Rebecca Zachas
Lyn,
FYI, attached is the notice of filing related to the request by BayState/Columbia Gas for approval of its sale to Eversource in DPU 20-59. The Companies, along with the Attorney General, the Department of Energy Resources (“DOER”), and the Low-Income Weatherization and Fuel Assistance Program Network (“Network”) also filed a proposed settlement agreement and joint motion for approval of the settlement that would resolve both the proposed sale and the Department’s pending investigations of Bay State/Columbia in DPU 19-140 and 19-141.
We would like to think that this proceeding may take up a good amount of staff/resources such that the EFSB proceeding on the Longmeadow facility will not be filed in the 3rd Quarter as anticipated.
I know you have been reticent to take any other actions until the EFSB case, but just an FYI that the Town could offer comments and ask that Eversource defer any filing of new facilities (including the related TGP meter station) for some substantial time based on safety and other concerns. This is a measure to take if you are looking for all available options and we expect you may have your hands full with COVID, etc. But we did want to note it. This is an adjudicatory proceeding (with petitions to intervene due 8/18) or public comments are due 8/28.
Rebecca Rebecca F. Zachas, Esq.
BCK Law, P.C. Attorneys at Law | www.bck.com (617) 244-9500 | (802) 419-8283 (Fax)
This e-mail transmission contains confidential and privileged information from the law firm of BCK Law, P.C. and is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) named above. Any other use is strictly prohibited.
From: Arlene Miller
Members of the Select Board,
It has been brought to my attention that your Board is considering calling for the formation of a Charter Commission. I am writing to you today to voice my opposition to that action.
First and foremost, as a member of both the Charter Commission and the charter review committee, it is embarrassing to me that the Select Board has not yet--after over a year--acted on the recommendations of the charter review committee. That being said, Mark Gold did recently inform me that a chunk of those issues were slated to be voted on at the May/June 2020 Town meeting but were delayed because of the length of the warrant. It is my hope that those issues will be put forward for a vote of your board as soon as possible so that the improvements offered to our charter can be implemented. I should also note that the members of the charter review committee took their charge very seriously. We interviewed many boards and committees during our 18 months or so of work, discussed administrative issues with the Town Manager and ultimately included compromise in our decision making process which is reflected in our final recommendations. All of the recommendation deserve your consideration.
Secondly, Longmeadow is by any standard, a well run community. For a medium sized community, it has a small town feel. Part of that is the result of our form of government--the open town meeting. I am not trying to say this would work for all towns--but it has and is working for Longmeadow. In 2002 when the Charter Commission was formed, it was felt that our town needed reform. There were many elected boards operating independently and not enough coordination. Too many silos and not enough accountability. I say that as a former Selectman--who worked for 15 years under that structure. The Charter worked to address those issues, reducing the number of elected boards, creating accountability and centralized management. Our Longmeadow government is not perfect but--no government is. Our government is working well.
It is also important in my mind to look at the players in our town government at this time, We have a new Town Manager-who by all accounts -is doing a wonderful job, creating a very positive and productive working atmosphere that has been received well by elected and appointed officials as well as residents. We have a Select Board of five individuals, each with diverse opinions but who are working together quite well. Combine that with a "star" Moderator who has found new and innovative ways to inspire us and control the flow of town meeting. It seems that right now--even in the middle of a pandemic--we are at our best.
I could but will not. bore you with numerous examples of past town meetings that have guided the development of our town. Votes did not always go the way I had hoped they would but, for the most part, history has shown that good decisions were made. But you are deliberating the formation of a Charter Commission. To that point, I am attaching here FYI a document that delineates the process required in order to form a charter commission. You probably already have this information. It is clear that the Select Board does not have the authority to call for the formation of the Commission but it must come by petition.
We are in the middle of a pandemic, we have a well functioning government and have so many urgent issues to address, it seems like putting energy into the formation of a charter commission would be an inappropriate use of the towns resources at this time. But this could be a perfect time for the Select Board to complete its review and consideration of the proposed recommendations of the charter review committee. Approve them or disapprove them but at least move them on to a Town Meeting vote, giving them a chance to be implemented and ultimately make a difference. Thanks for all you are doing for the town and for listening.
Be well.
Arlene Miller 68 East Greenwich Road