MOVED that the Town vote to raise and appropriate from water receipts or transfer from the water enterprise fund the following sums of money to operate the Water Division of the DPW during fiscal year 1999; under the provision of G.L. Chapter 44, Section 53F ½:
 

		Expended FY97	Appropriated FY98	Recommended FY99
901	Salaries	$490,542	544,560	606,743
902	Purchase of service	244,592	242,598	262,639
903	Expenses	188,691	201,255	201,255
904	Capital outlay	103,376	52,500	20,000
905	MWRA assessment	249,839	154,221	154,221
906	Emergency repairs	65,199	50,000	50,000
907	Debt service	312,013	478,011	780,000
	TOTAL	1,654,252	1,723,145	2,074,858

Article 25 Explanation: The Water Enterprise Fund budget is a self-supporting account. That is, water fees and charges cover the entire cost of operations. The increase in the salary line reflects a transfer of 1.5 staff from the Wastewater (Sewer) division to the Water Division. The increase in the Purchase of Service line is for higher energy costs and leak detection services.

Town Meeting Actions (5/11/98 9:48 pm - 9:52 pm)

Disposition

Approved as amended

Amendments

1. Cogswell: 901 salaries to 614,955; 902 to 251,991

   Aye

Discussion

Cogswell salary and energy cost reduction.

Browne: additional people; 1.5.

Dorny; debt; because of pumping station.

ARTICLE 26:

APPROPRIATE THE FY99 WASTEWATER ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET

MOVED that the Town vote to raise and appropriate from wastewater receipts or transfer from the wastewater enterprise fund the following sums of money to operate the Sewer Division of the DPW during fiscal year 1999; under the provisions of G.L. Chapter 44, Section 53F ½:
 

		Expended FY97	Appropriated FY98	Recommended FY99
908	Salaries	$319,255	425,196	385,036
909	Purchase of service	114,254	104,696	114,371
910	Expenses	66,925	59,300	72,070
911	Capital outlay	0	30,000	0
912	MWRA assessment	3,660,488	3,961,491	3,961,491
913	Emergency repairs	71,833	20,000	20,000
914	Debt service	515,000	624,540	910,000
	TOTAL	4,747,755	5,225,223	5,462,968

Article 26 Explanation: The Wastewater Enterprise Fund budget (Sewer Division) is a self-supporting account. That is, sewer use fees and charges cover the entire cost of operations. The decrease in the salary line reflects a transfer of 1.5 staff from the Sewer Division to the Water Division. The increase in the purchase of service line reflects higher energy costs. The increase in the expense line is for building related repairs and materials.

Town Meeting Actions (5/11/98 9:52 - 10:03 pm)

Disposition

Approved as amended

Amendments

1. Cogswell. 908 to 388,404; 909 to 103,888; 910 to 62,070; 911 to 38,250

   Aye

Discussion

Cogswell retained earnings and energy. Purchase of trench box.

Ryan. Debt service numbers presume affirmative votes later on capital articles.

Someone asked about getting some MWRA assessments onto taxes. Mr. Matthews answers; the problem with legislation is it's complicated. Board of Selectmen intends to present issue within a year. The other problem is that Proposition 2.5 makes no place for new expenses.

ARTICLE 27:

APPROPRIATE THE FY99 SOLID WASTE/RECYCLING ENTERPRISE FUND BUDGET

MOVED that the Town vote to raise and appropriate from solid waste/recycling receipts or transfer from the Solid Waste / Recycling Enterprise Fund the following sums of money to operate the Solid Waste and Recycling Division of the DPW during fiscal year 1999; under the provisions of G.L. Chapter 44, Section 53F ½:
 

		Expended FY97	Appropriated FY98	Recommended FY99
915	Salaries	$432,378	469,041	410,874
916	Purchase of service	891,971	1,130,200	1,226,440
917	Expenses	57,691	106,080	219,080
918	Capital outlay	0	0	0
919	Emergency repairs	0	0	0
920	Debt service	0	0	232,000
	TOTAL	1,382,040	1,705,321	2,088,394

Article 27 Explanation: The Solid Waste / Recycling Fund budget is being presented as an Enterprise Fund for the first time in FY99. The direct costs of this enterprise fund are supported both by the property tax (approximately $1,050,000) and user fees (approximately $1,035,000). The increase in the purchase of service line is the result of additional solid waste disposal costs necessitated by the closing of the Town's landfill. The increase in the expenses line is related to costs associated with the pay-per-throw program. This budget does not include expenses related to the landfill closure nor any of the required and ongoing monitoring of the landfill. These are contained within the Highway Division operating budget.

Disposition

Approved as amended

Amendments

1. 915 to 417, 229; also methods of paying.

   Aye

2. Mr. Gallelo - Amend 917 to 106,080.

   Withdrawn

3. Mr. Friedman - 917 to 76, 080.

   Aye 87-114

Discussion

Mr. Matthews discusses this new enterprise fund. An important part of this budget is the pay-per-throw program. Not entirely from user fees. The per-bag fee makes up for excess charges now that the dump is closed. Bags are only for non-recyclable materials. Hoping that sticker and bag fees will be constant for a few years. Harvey's, Aubucoin, Roche Brothers, Sudbury Farms, perhaps others. There is no room in tax levy to cover bag fees if they are not approved.

Note that landfill closing is now completely separate.

Mr. Ryan says that $38,000 already spent on bags for sale. $143,000 is correct value for cost of bags.

Gallello on his motion. Wishes to withdraw.

Mr. Friedman on his motion. The money he propses to remove from line 917 is to prevent purchase of bags. He has not met people who favor pay-per-throw. His points:

• Town does well on recycling and this is not a mandate.

• There might be enforcement problems and delays at the RTS

• May actually increase costs if people go to private haulers

• DPW has other problems they should be worrying about

Mr. Weiner. Mr. Friedman said it well; plan does not belong in Needham.

Ms. Ardine. Materials eligible for recycling have not increased. Also who will monitor. Matthews - there is a commitee working on recycling; changes will come. Don't see major enforcement problems; other places don't have problems.

Mrs. McQuillen. Don't think we've discussed enough. What will the alternative be if the amendment passes. Ryan. Shortfall of $412,000 would have to be added to sticker.

Mrs. Sockol. Current sticker should be bringing in nearly that much. $135 would be needed if no bags.

Mrs. Weiser. Agrees with Mrs. Sockol. Fee should be in taxes.

Pransky; are bags purchased? Yes, in part. Course change would be problematic.

Saul Adams. Costs for 2 bags a week is close to $135.

Mr. Sockol sees no difference in costs.

Mrs. Waldstein. Handles on bags? No.

Bullian. Do town departments recycle? Cogswell; yes some do.

F. Gallello. Why committed for 2 years? Because of state grant of $90,000 which would have to be given back if pay-per-throw is not adopted.

Romeo. Have not done enough to encourage recycling.

Mrs. Owens. Why not recycling 1-7? Matthews; goal over time, but no one is taking higher number plastics now.

Screening from road? Merson; DPW. At conclusion of construction that will happen.

Forde. Recieved lots of calls against.

Fenner. Operators aren't compliant. We have no plan for non-compliance. Is there a bylaw on littering at the dump? Could the bags be resold. Matthews: Plan exists. Existing bylaw requires recycling.

Heller speaks in favor.

Phyllis Fenger also speaks in favor.

M Grace; not self-sustaining; odd for an enterprise fund. No evidence of solid waste advisory committee.

Conturie. Pay-per-throw is a valuable plan to increase recycling.

Young. Precinct doesn't favor.

A. Fanger. Purported fee fairness doesn't make sense.

Mrs. Hale asked about changes at RTS. Matthews- will be an improvement.

Commando. Our whole waste disposal scheme is a most inconvenient and impossible to administer one.