Voters Reject Additional Officers, Support Budget and $40K for Barn

The meeting took significantly longer than the year prior, but the result – like the attendance – was virtually identical.

Though the 2012 Bedford Budgetary Meeting lasted 11 minutes, this year's session extended nearly an hour.

Town Moderator Brian Shaughnessy, elected last March, guided voters through each line item of the proposed municipal budget, and after one motion from the Bedford Town Council and three failed amendment attempts to add additional police staff, roughly 60 residents in attendance at Bedford High School Wednesday night supported a municipal budget that represents a roughly 30-cent tax increase per $1,000 assessed valuation.

Town Manager Jessie Levine provided a brief presentation, indicating that the municipal budget makes up only 21-percent of the Bedford tax pie, and noting that all 30 cents of the increase are due to mandatory state obligations, as well as principal on a previously approved infrastructure bond and collective bargaining contractual increases and anticipated retirements.

The estimated municipal tax rate is $4.65 per $1,000 assessed valuation, or $1,395 on a $300,000 home.

Levine also explained that she and councilors trimmed many requests from the budget including, but not limited to, the second of two additional full-time police officers.

Resident Kathy Benuck, a Bedford Patch blogger, stood and proposed an amendment to add $138,000 to the budget to support the hiring of three additional full-time officers.

Eight years ago, she explained, a town-paid study suggested Bedford be staffed with 40 full-time police officers. Bedford PD currently has 33 officers on staff.

Now, with a new high school and population up to roughly 22,000 – with 55,000 people commuting into and out of Bedford each day – in addition about 24,000 vehicles moving through town daily, Benuck said the time is now to staff up. 

"For a $300,000 house, my understanding is we're talking essentially the price of sandwich and Coca-Cola," said Benuck. "I'm one of those people willing to pay for three or four sandwiches and sodas."

After the first amendment failed by hand count, 39-20. Benuck proposed to two subsequent amendments with a similar lack of success, the first for two additional officers and then one additional officer. The latter failed 36-20.

In addition, per the Bedford Town Council's discussion and decision to support the recent agreement between the town and the Educational Farm at Joppa Hill, Council Chairman Bill Dermody proposed a motion to: add forty thousand dollars to the Public Works Building Maintenance budget and withdraw the same amount from the Town Council’s Land Reserve Fund.

Dermody read the following statement in support of the motion:

At last night’s Special Town Council meeting, the Council authorized the Town Manager to sign an Agreement between the Town and the Educational Farm at Joppa Hill, the “Farm”, to enable the repair of the Farm’s barn. The barn and thirty five acres of land are owned by the Town of Bedford and leased to the Farm.  As you know, we have been gravely concerned about the safety of that barn, and this agreement brings us closer to having the safety issues addressed. However, in order to do so, the agreement requires the town to remove the barn’s ceiling tiles, which contain asbestos, as a precursor to the Farm’s inspection of the building and determination of whether to continue with building repairs at the Farm’s expense.  By the agreement, the town has until the end of April to remove the contaminated tiles and some electrical equipment.  The estimated cost of the Town’s commitment is no more than forty thousand dollars.

There are a variety of funding mechanisms that the Town Council discussed and we want a sense from Town Meeting on the best choice. The four options we discussed are: 1) asking Town Meeting to appropriate an additional $40,000, which would increase the tax rate by about a penny; 2) spend the money out of the $13.2 million infrastructure bond, which we did not think followed voters’ intentions in approving that bond; 3) spend the amount from the Town Council’s land reserve fund; or 4) find the money within the proposed 2013 operating budget, and the Council does not think that the proposed budget contains that cushion, especially at the beginning of the year when we already face significant overtime and maintenance costs due to winter storms.

 We have a choice of funding mechanisms but we do have to proceed with removing the asbestos, so we are asking you the voters here tonight to consider the choices available and we believe that the one proposed in my motion is the best option before us.

The money to fund the asbestos removal is proposed to come from the Council’s Land Fund account if approved here tonight.  The forty thousand dollar addition to the 2013 Budget will not impact the tax rate determined by this meeting’s approval of the budget.  The addition of the money to both the appropriation and revenue lines merely enables the town to move the money and pay for the asbestos removal.

Mister Moderator, I encourage the residents here tonight to consider and approve the motion as the council has proposed it.  Should the motion fail the Town’s only recourse will be to divert money from within the proposed budget without the additional funds which will impact an already tight fiscal plan for the coming year.

The motion was supported by all but two voters in attendance at the Budgetary Town Meeting.

Prior to the close of the meeting, Dermody stood and recognized outgoing councilor Ken Peterson, who was appointed to the council two straight years before a successful one-year elected term.

Peterson, in turn, thanked Dermody for the last two years as council chairman.