Town of Newbury
Finance Committee Meeting
Wednesday Aug 8, 2007— 7:00 pm, Town Hall
Meeting Summary
Present: Gene Case, Bill Cooper, Larry Guay, Pete Morse, Dave Newbert, Frank Remley, Anna Tenaglia
Economic Development Committee: Invited
1. July 11 meeting summary (attached): Approved unanimously without further
discussion
2. Police Details: Officer John Lucey summarized what has become a problem of
collecting and recording payments for police details from private organizations.
According to Officer Lucey, who has been managing this for the past year, there
are insufficient funds currently on account to pay for all the detail costs at $37/hr
logged by officers who serviced these requests. The problem has to do with
sloppy record keeping in years past, both in reconciling receipts with invoices,
and possibly in billing correctly. He stressed that since he took over managing
the billing and collection process, that all costs have been recovered. [It was
subsequently requested that Officer Lucey be asked to provide us with data on
how many officers are involved, how much is owed to each, and what
companies are involved in the details that are unpaid.]
He is also slowly reconciling some payments and has managed to recently
obtain a promise of an additional $2000 payment from Verizon. As of this
moment, there is approximately $12,000 outstanding, against which the
additional $2000 will be credited, and he continues to try to recover as much as
possible.
This billing has been the responsibility of the Police Association in the past.
Since taking over, Officer Lucy has implemented a new system, which is much
tighter in tracking invoices and receipts against them. The department also
intends to withhold services from clients who don’t pay in a timely manner. [This
should be reviewed by legal counsel, as well as the requirement that the town
guarantee uncollected accounts]. However, he advised the FinCom that the
Department might have to request an additional amount of approximately
$10,000 from reserves to cover money owed to officers. Officer Lucey was also
asked that we hear from Chief Reilly on this issue as well. In addition, Officer
Lucey discussed the idea of setting aside the normal 10% administrative fee as a
contingency to cover any arrears in detail costs.
3. Presentation by Beacon Communities and Rick Taintor Associates on The
Village at Little River Project.
a. Architectural Plan: An overview of the Architectural and Site plan was
presented by Jason Korb of Beacon Communities. After some questions
and general discussion, he was thanked and excused.
b. Economic Impact Analysis: Rick Taintor of Taintor and Associates,
Newbury’s financial consultant for the Village at Little River Project
presented the summary of their financial impact analysis on Newbury
(See Attachment A). After about 30 minutes of discussion, some
questions emerged for which Rick Taintor was asked to research further
and report back to the FinCom. They included:
i. We would like a schedule of outreach sessions and presentations
over the next two to three months
ii. What is being done to protect any unfavorable disposition of the
remaining Bashaw property, for example to a hostile 40B
developer who will see the opportunity to tap a new water and
sewer connection essentially paid for by Beacon Communities?
iii. What is the risk of the other surrounding properties, such as on
the other three corners of the intersection of Middle Road and
Route 1? Newbury is concerned that the Beacon Communities
project could spawn a cascade of other projects that are not as
friendly.
iv. Will Beacon provide some level of security for the entire site once
built out?
v. Exactly how were the number of school age children estimated
and how reliable is the estimate? (Because of the Regional
School System, the cost of addition school age children is
perhaps the biggest financial risk to Newbury). We have an issue
with the projection of only 28 school age children from 200 mostly
2-bedroom units. Also, only one child in 90 senior flats, which are
not deed restricted, seems unrealistic. We need to see the
financial impact analysis with a more convincing number of school
age children.
vi. Please explain how the cost impact on Newbury’s Fire and Police
budgets were determined. In doing this, how many additional calls
might be realized for the Fire Co. No. 2; and would the added
retail and housing volume require the addition of police officer(s)
or fire fighters?
vii. Will the 45’ foot height of at least one building require us to
acquire a new ladder truck for Fire Company No. 1 in Old Town?
Also, will it require a full time fire company?
viii. Can Taintor & Associates or Beacon provide data and contacts on
other Rail Head developments? Are they especially attracting outof-
towners, and if so has this become a problem for host
communities?
ix. Can Beacon and Taintor & Associates provide expected project
phasing, and a build-out plan? Would Taintor & Associates please
convert the financial impact to a five-year pro-forma financial
projection (e.g. spread sheet)?
x. What is Beacon’s commitment to manage this project into the
foreseeable future? How can we protect Newbury and LRV
residents against an unfavorable transfer of the asset in future
years? Has Beacon ever done this? How doe we protect the
integrity of the development?
xi. Could Beacon and Taintor & Associates prepare a PowerPoint
presentation for future outreach sessions? (It was suggested that
providing maps, architectural profiles, etc would be very helpful for
attendees in fully understanding the proposed development)
4. Administrative issues: FinCom member signatures to the Massachusetts
Open Meeting Law Guidelines from Attorney General Coakley were obtained
from everyone and returned to the Town Clerk.
Attachment A: Summary of Taintor & Associates Financial Impact Study
| 
