Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBoard of Selectmen Agenda 09 22 2010 Packet_201402061616517167Article 68 Work Group Report to Board of Selectmen September 22, 2010Lucinda Young, ChairPeter Boyce, Vice‐ChairLee Saperstein, Secretary What We Have Accomplished (Executive Summary)1. Revised Article 68 – line by line, first cut2. Educated ourselves on:1. Landscape/turf science2. Legal issues3. History of problem and past actions3. Added additional approaches1. Education of public /homeowners2. Licensing/certififying landscapers3. Enlisting help of fertilizer vendors4. Outlined plan for completion of our tasks Subtasks• Homeowner Education• Professional Landscaper Education• Understanding Legal Aspects• Wetlands, Waterbodies, Watersheds• Public Relations, Press• Licensing, Certification, Enforcement, Penalties• Vendor Relations• Budget Estimates Public/Homeowner Education• Point of sale information– 4 Step instructions specific to Nantucket– Sample card with instructions• Targeted mailing of informational brochures– BoH list of homes in watersheds– Irrigation community invoices• Work with HPIC drafting Blue Pages• Green Pages in phone books Professional Landscaper Education• Best Management Practices (BMP)– Specific to Nantucket• Central to all efforts– Feeds into public education efforts– Basis for Regulations– Basis for licensing landscapers• Authoritative document– Produced by local experts– Reviewed by UMASS & other outside experts Understanding Legal Aspects• BoH Regulations give quickest results– BoH has broad powers– Avoids state AG review• Local Bylaw may run afoul of state law– Must be reviewed by state AG• Home Rule Petition takes longest time– Requires act of State Legislature– Difficult procedure Wetlands, Waterbodies, Watersheds• We have met with Con Com– Discussed coordination of efforts• Considering Watershed‐based regulation– Watersheds are legally defined– Zoning already applies in Watershed areas– Watersheds cover much of Nantucket Public Relations/Press• Exchange between SHAB has been helpful– Understanding already increased– Between landscapers and scallopers• Fertilizer vendors working with us– Attended last meeting• Public education plans well developed– Funding sources being explored• One Press Release done Licensing, Certification, Enforcement• Licensing of professional landscapers– Structure and detail being worked out• Certification and testing based on BMP– License would depend on passing test– Fertilizer application – timing and amount– Understanding spreader calibration• Enforcement provision needed– Even if not used vigorously Outside Experts Attending Meeting• Dr. Scott EbdonPlant & Soil Scientist, UMASS, Amherst• Mary OwenUMASS Coop. Extension, Turf Educator• Tim MaddenNantucket’s State Representative• Rich HucksamFrom Town Counsel’s FirmAll offered important advice and continuing help Estimated Timetable• Half day meeting to pull pieces together (Oct 5)• Review and finalization at subsequent meeting• Goal:  Submit recommendations in November• Definitive BMP will require more time– Will not meet HRP timetable (can submit later)• Requesting extension through winter– Meeting once per month Council for Human ServicesCouncil for Human Services ““Back to BasicsBack to Basics”” Report and RecommendationsReport and Recommendations September 22, 2010September 22, 2010 TimelineTimeline 6/2/2010: 6/2/2010: BOS charged CHS to conduct BOS charged CHS to conduct study & make recommendations to BOSstudy & make recommendations to BOS 7/16/2010: 7/16/2010: CHS completed its Action PlanCHS completed its Action Plan 9/21/2010: 9/21/2010: CHS submitted its Report & CHS submitted its Report & RecommendationsRecommendations 9/30/2010: 9/30/2010: CHS will gain further input at CHS will gain further input at Public HearingPublic Hearing Overview of CHS Consultation Overview of CHS Consultation Process & RecommendationsProcess & Recommendations Consultation Process CoveredConsultation Process Covered TownTown’’s 2006 Community Needs s 2006 Community Needs AssessmentAssessment Agencies currently providing human Agencies currently providing human services on islandservices on island Clients of these agenciesClients of these agencies Further information on community needsFurther information on community needs Recommendations CoverRecommendations Cover Specific services to be soughtSpecific services to be sought Rationale for setting funding levelsRationale for setting funding levels Monitoring of contractsMonitoring of contracts Criteria used to evaluate proposalsCriteria used to evaluate proposals Assuring effectiveness of contracting Assuring effectiveness of contracting processprocess Ways to strengthen & improve contractsWays to strengthen & improve contracts Recommendations Based onRecommendations Based on The The ““Community Needs StatementCommunity Needs Statement”” Basic necessities to sustain life: Basic necessities to sustain life: e.g., nutrition, shelter, utilitiese.g., nutrition, shelter, utilities Other fundamental needs:Other fundamental needs:to enable to enable health, safety, selfhealth, safety, self--respectrespect Emergency/Disaster preparedness: Emergency/Disaster preparedness: To assure personal protectionTo assure personal protection Summary of RecommendationsSummary of Recommendations 1.1.Adopt our Community Needs Statement as Adopt our Community Needs Statement as the the ““Scope of ServicesScope of Services””for all Human for all Human Services ContractsServices Contracts 2.2.Retain inRetain in--house Human Services Dept. to:house Human Services Dept. to: --Assure provision of unique servicesAssure provision of unique services --Provide oversight of contracted servicesProvide oversight of contracted services 3.3.Encourage the Healthy Community Encourage the Healthy Community CollaborativeCollaborative Summary of RecommendationsSummary of Recommendations (cont.)(cont.) 4.4.Human services contract funding should:Human services contract funding should: --Be kept at current level (~$300K) if feasibleBe kept at current level (~$300K) if feasible --Focus 30% of all contract funds on Basic Focus 30% of all contract funds on Basic NecessitiesNecessities --Limit any one vendor to 25% of contract fundsLimit any one vendor to 25% of contract funds 5.5.For services <$25KFor services <$25K: Simplify procurement : Simplify procurement process per Chap. 30 Bprocess per Chap. 30 B Summary of Recommendations Summary of Recommendations (cont.)(cont.) 6.6.For services >$25K: For services >$25K: Use RFP process with Use RFP process with builtbuilt--in minimum requirements for review; in minimum requirements for review; apply objective evaluation criteria and apply objective evaluation criteria and measures to rank potential vendorsmeasures to rank potential vendors 7.7.Augment standard municipal contract Augment standard municipal contract monitoring:monitoring:Vendor to propose monitoring Vendor to propose monitoring process to assure ongoing qualityprocess to assure ongoing quality 8.8.Evaluate vendor performance using Evaluate vendor performance using customer survey feedbackcustomer survey feedback Next StepsNext Steps Public Hearing on 9/30/10 to Public Hearing on 9/30/10 to provide CHS with the necessary provide CHS with the necessary public inputpublic input CHS to incorporate public inputCHS to incorporate public input BOS then formulates its policy and BOS then formulates its policy and moves forward with implementationmoves forward with implementation FY 2012 - 2021 CAPITAL PROJECTSTown Administration RecommendationstoBoard of SelectmenSeptember 22, 2010 Capital Funding Requirement (per Town Code – Ch. 11, s. 12.1)Minimum capital funding requirement: “The Town shall spend…a minimum of 1% of total Town receipts collected in the prior fiscal year plus 1% of the total real estate and personal property taxes collected in the prior fiscal year…”For FY 2012 this would amount to around $700,000 What is a capital project? (defined by Town Code Ch. 11, s. 12-2)Non-recurring expenditure for land, buildings an/or building improvements having a useful life exceeding or equaling 10 yearsExpenditure for infrastructure and equipment having a useful life exceeding or equaling 5 yearsSuch expenditure having aggregate direct or indirect costs of $50,000 or more Summary Totals of Submitted General Fund Requests – FY 2012Total General Fund Non-School = $6,138,543Total School = $850,000Total General Fund = $6,988,543 Summary Totals of Submitted General Fund Requests by Category for FY 2012 Bike Paths & Sidewalks = $250,943 Buildings = $4,145,000 Road Improvements = $1,489,100 Vehicles & Equipment = $103,500 Technology = $150,000 Schools = $850,000 TOTAL = $6,988,543 Recommended Tier I1. Prospect St shared-use path ext = $250,9432. Jetties Beach concession bldg repairs = $120,0003. Municipal bldg repairs/improvements = $75,0004. Tom Nevers Bunker renovation = $35,0005. 20 S Water St renovation = $2,000,0006. Millie’s Bridge engineering = $50,0007. Technology needs = $150,000TOTAL TIER I = $2,680,943 Recommended Tier II1. Children’s Beach bathhouse addition = $250,0002. Surfside Beach concession deck expansion/replacement = $50,0003. 2 FG Garage space reconfiguration/improvements = $115,0004. Nobadeer Farm Rd drainage improvements = $180,0005. Nobadeer Farm Rd sidewalk design/construction = $210,0006. DPW Tractor & attachments = $41,5007. Road maintenance = $600,0008. Union St/Francis St intersection modification = $55,000TOTAL TIER II = $1,501,500 Recommended Tier III1. Sconset footbridge restoration = $70,0002. Fire Chief vehicle replacement = $35,0003. Sparks Ave round-a-bout improvements = $102,5004. Old South Rd/Fairgrounds Rd design/engineering for intersection improvement = $100,000TOTAL TIER III = $307,500 Not Recommended1. IT utility vehicle = $27,0002. Old South Rd dual bike path = $121,6003. Saltmarsh Senior Center expansion = $1,500,000TOTAL Not Recommended = $1,648,600 Summary of FY 12 Town Administration General Fund RecommendationsTier I (recommended) = $2,680,943Tier II (recommended if funding is available) = $1,501,500Tier III (recommended but can be put off for one or more years) = $307,500Not recommended = $1,648,600School = $850,000 Summary of Enterprise Fund Requests – FY 2012Wannacomet Water = $0Sconset Water = $0Airport = $10,050,000Sewer = $19,000,000Solid Waste = $2,060,230TOTAL = $31,110,230Less Airport grants of ($9,030,000)Less Solid Waste item ($660,230) = $21,420,000 FY 2013 - 21 SUMMARY BY CATEGORY/GENERAL FUNDBeaches, Parks & Ponds = $2,160,000Buildings = $750,000Non-building Assets = $8,360,000Road Improvements = $2,834,200Technology = $1,460,000Vehicles & Equipment = $811,500Schools = $9,700,000TOTAL = $26,075,700 FY 12 Outstanding ItemsSurfside Area roadsMadaket WWTF propertyWind turbineLandfill mining NEXT STEPS  September 22 – Town Manager recommendations; Board review/approval of requests (?) October, November & December – Capital Program Committee reviews requests December – CPC forwards recommendations to FinCom Jan/Feb – FinCom adopts its recommendations TBD – recommendations go to 2011 Annual Town Meeting TBD – election or special election date depending on ATM action QUESTIONS? UPDATE ON UPDATE ON MUNICIPAL DEBTMUNICIPAL DEBTTON Finance Department TON Finance Department totoBoard of SelectmenBoard of SelectmenSeptember 22, 2010September 22, 2010 Why Borrow?Why Borrow? Borrowing provides financial resources for Borrowing provides financial resources for projects that will benefit the community projects that will benefit the community over a long time period.over a long time period. Borrowing spreads the payment for such Borrowing spreads the payment for such projects over the lifetime of the project.projects over the lifetime of the project. Carefully managed borrowing provides Carefully managed borrowing provides financial flexibility for long range planning.financial flexibility for long range planning. TON Debt SummaryTON Debt Summary Outstanding at 06/30/2010 $152,737,846Outstanding at 06/30/2010 $152,737,846 General FundGeneral Fund $76,074,876$76,074,876 Enterprise FundsEnterprise Funds $76,662,970$76,662,970 MGL debt limitMGL debt limit ““inside the limitinside the limit”” –– 5% of EQV5% of EQV ““outside the limitoutside the limit”” –– with state approval, up to with state approval, up to an additional 5% of EQVan additional 5% of EQV Nantucket EQV is approximately $22 billionNantucket EQV is approximately $22 billion 5% of EQV is approximately $1.1 billion5% of EQV is approximately $1.1 billion However . . . However . . .  By MGL, voters must authorize all debt at By MGL, voters must authorize all debt at Town MeetingTown Meeting Some debt must also be authorized in a Some debt must also be authorized in a ballot electionballot election Other considerations Other considerations  How will the debt be repaid?How will the debt be repaid? Supported by specific revenueSupported by specific revenue Fees & charges Fees & charges –– enterprise fundsenterprise funds Taxes voted for the purpose Taxes voted for the purpose –– general fundgeneral fund Assessments to specific beneficiaries of projectAssessments to specific beneficiaries of project Unsupported debtUnsupported debt General revenueGeneral revenue TONTON’’ss debt is almost completely supported debtdebt is almost completely supported debt Other considerationsOther considerations How quickly will the debt be repaid?How quickly will the debt be repaid? General guideline looked at by financial professionals: General guideline looked at by financial professionals: 70% of outstanding debt is due within ten years70% of outstanding debt is due within ten years TON: 68% is due within ten yearsTON: 68% is due within ten years Rating analyst has said of this guideline: Rating analyst has said of this guideline: ““we we understand that different communities are at different understand that different communities are at different spots in their infrastructure replacement schedule.spots in their infrastructure replacement schedule.”” Declining Debt ScheduleDeclining Debt Schedule General FundGeneral FundDeclining debt schedule provides flexibility Declining debt schedule provides flexibility for future needs, future debt issuance.for future needs, future debt issuance.As previously issued debt matures, there is As previously issued debt matures, there is room in the debt schedule for new issues, room in the debt schedule for new issues, if approved by voters.if approved by voters. Declining Debt ScheduleDeclining Debt Schedule General Fund: 2011 General Fund: 2011 -- 20152015Debt serviceDebt service estimestim. tax rate. tax rate 2011 $9,317,5332011 $9,317,533 $0.50$0.50 2012 $9,055,4562012 $9,055,456 0.480.48 2013 $7,445,1732013 $7,445,173 0.390.39 2014 $7,120,1732014 $7,120,173 0.360.36 2015 $7,005,3062015 $7,005,306 0.360.36 Declining Debt ScheduleDeclining Debt Schedule General Fund General Fund –– 2016 2016 -- 20202020Debt serviceDebt service estimestim. tax rate. tax rate 2016 $6,815,5362016 $6,815,536 $0.35$0.35 2017 $6,708,5022017 $6,708,502 0.340.34 2018 $6,046,5142018 $6,046,514 0.310.31 2019 $3,974,8012019 $3,974,801 0.200.20 2020 $3,846,9642020 $3,846,964 0.200.20Debt schedule extends to 2049, detail available Debt schedule extends to 2049, detail available upon request.upon request. Enterprise FundsEnterprise Funds principal outstanding 6/30/10principal outstanding 6/30/10 Siasconset WaterSiasconset Water $ 8,835,000$ 8,835,000 Wannacomet WaterWannacomet Water 21,020,00021,020,000 AirportAirport 2,120,0002,120,000 SewerSewer 43,822,97043,822,970 LandfillLandfill 865,000865,000 Our Island HomeOur Island Home 00 Enterprise FundsEnterprise Funds Debt is structured similarly in the Debt is structured similarly in the Enterprise Funds (declining debt Enterprise Funds (declining debt schedules)schedules) Not presented in detail hereNot presented in detail here TON Authorized, not yet issuedTON Authorized, not yet issuedAuthorized but unissued:Authorized but unissued:General FundGeneral Fund $ 1,699,250$ 1,699,250Enterprise FundsEnterprise Funds $69,471,689$69,471,689 TotalTotal $71,170,939$71,170,939 Enterprise FundsEnterprise Funds Authorized but unissuedAuthorized but unissued Siasconset WaterSiasconset Water $ 2,600,000$ 2,600,000 Wannacomet WaterWannacomet Water 2,300,0002,300,000 AirportAirport 26,818,60026,818,600 SewerSewer 36,070,08936,070,089 LandfillLandfill 1,683,0001,683,000 Our Island HomeOur Island Home 00 Debt ProfessionalsDebt Professionals Financial Advisor Financial Advisor –– First SouthwestFirst Southwest Bond Counsel Bond Counsel –– Edwards Angell Palmer & Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge, LLPDodge, LLP Rating Agency Rating Agency -- MoodyMoody’’s s  TON TON -- Town TreasurerTown Treasurer QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?