There is a function given to local governments which entails making sure that devices used to dispense goods based on weights or measurements are accurate. (Examples would include gas pumps or scales used to weigh products in grocery stores). In Methuen that function has been contracted out to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under an arrangement entered into by my predecessor. That contract cost the City about $6500, and was offset by the fees derived from the businesses that are inspected. I have ended that contract with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and moved the function to a local inspector in the Building Commissioners office. The staffer has been trained, and will perform the function within the scope of his existing duties and salary. I have also proposed the first update to the fee schedule since 1989, which the City Council has passed. It will mean a net savings and gain to the City of over $10,000. My thanks to Economic Development Director Karen Sawyer, who spearheaded the effort. My thanks to Building Commissioner Gerald Deschene and local inspector John Gibney, our new Sealer of Weights and Measures.
-
Recently Written
- A Look at “King of Kings” by Scott Anderson
- The Lessons of Munich
- A Look at “Stuck” by Yoni Appelbaum
- Town of Seabrook 2024 Water Sewer Financial Reports
- A Look at Apple in China by Patrick McGee
- A Look at Presidential Command by Peter Rodman
- Seabrook Announces Tax Agreement With NextEra
- Seabrook Memorial Day 2025
- Tony Blair On Leadership
- A Look at “Why Nothing Works” by Marc Dunkelman
Archive
Categories
- Appeasement
- Books
- Brexit
- Capital Improvement Plan
- Casino Gaming
- Education
- Education Reform
- Electoral Map
- Fifth Congressional
- Greece
- Health Care Reform
- History
- International
- Ireland
- Manzi in the Morning
- Media
- Merrimack Valley Politics
- Methuen
- Methuen City Council
- Methuen Mayor's Race
- Munich Conference
- Municipal Finance
- Music
- National News
- NextEra
- Resiliency
- Seabrook
- Song of the Week
- Sports
- State News
- Surveys
- Technology Beat
- Transportation Finance
- U.S. Senate Race
- Uncategorized
- WCAP Podcast
Bill Manzi.com 
What? I love seeing the name “McHardy” on all the gas pumps and cash registers! Only Florida has a cooler name on their stuff: Charles Bronson.
In all seriousness, this makes sense and seems an easy and sensible way to save a few bucks. Nice job all around.
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor:
Is this position also responsible for product testing, say, the octane of fuel being sold?
Just wondering, and nice job of saving, every little bit helps.
-FM
LikeLike
No Fred I do not believe they check that. Just the accuracy of the gallonage being pumped and charged.
LikeLike
Your Honor,
(From Pomona California) Congrats. In one simple act you nearly equalled the savings from the police construction deal.
Jules
LikeLike
All the way from California and I am still laughing at that one.
LikeLike
what a following you have
LikeLike
When I do something that people disagree with they let me know it. Did you disagree with this reform that will save Methuen taxpayers over $10,000 dollars?
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor,
I think there is more information that you are not sharing here. If “That contract cost the City about $6500, and was offset by the fees derived from the businesses that are inspected. ” Doesn’t that imply that the city cost was much less than the $6500? What were the levels of fees derived?
Secondly, who’s job function already had “sealer of weights and measures” built into it (will perform the function within the scope of his existing duties.)?
Thirdly, how much work is involved in this position? Doesn’t it imply that the individual was under utilized if (s)he had the time to train for this position and will now have the added time to perform this function as well as the functions we already pay the individual for? What did this person do before with those hours that we paid for?
I only ask for the information that would have made this decision an obvious choice.
Clearly so far it is not that obvious to all.
LikeLike
Jack,
Good questions. Let me answer them as fully as I can. On the first question as to whether the contract cost of $6500 was offset by the fees raised, that is true. While the State was performing the duty we naturally offset the contract price with those fees, meaning the true cost of the contract was $6500 less the fees earned. (I do not have that fee number, but will post it under this thread on Monday.) It is possible that it was a net positive if the fees earned exceeded the contract price. However under the new scenario the City of Methuen sheds the contract price of $6500 and now keeps all of the fees, leading to a turnaround of $6500 plus the fees, which in my posting I estimated at $4000, leading us to the $10,000 savings figure. Do you have a problem with that math, and if so please explain.
The second part of your question as I understand it deals with who is doing the job under the new scenario. Let me give you the short history of the position. Before Mayor Pollard contracted with the State for the services the job function was performed by an individual who performed no other municipal function. He simply did the job of the sealer, and was paid a wage by the City. In effect it was the same situation as having the State do it under contract, since we had to pay the individual for the service. The fees derived offset the employee wages. (I believe that the State contract was cheaper for the City than the wage paid to the individual, but I am not 100% on that fact.)What we have done now is simply add the duties of the sealer to the job of local building inspector John Gibney. Before we did this there was no “job description” for sealer built in anywhere, as Mayor Pollard had abolished the City position.
Third point you make is about slack capacity in the existing position of local inspector. The position is “local building inspector”, and the work load is somewhat dependent on the amount of building permits being pulled. We have implemented an online permitting system that we hope will create the ability to do more field work for our inspectors. I do not have in front of me what would be considered the norm for man hours devoted to the sealer position, but will post that on Monday as well. With building permits likely down from a year ago and with our more efficient permitting process I believe that he will have the time, and that he did not have slack capacity in the past.
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor,
I will withhold further comment on this until after your updated post on Monday.
I thank you for the explanation thus far.
May you and your family have a blessed easter.
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor,
Did you locate the (… fee number, but will post it under this thread on Monday.)?
Can I get a copy of the old Sealer… job description and the new local building inspector job description with and without the newly built in Sealer job.
Also, looking for norm for man hours devoted to the sealer position. Would be interesting to see the man hour norm for building inspector pre and post more efficient permitting process.
Thank you.
LikeLike
Jack,
I am sorry about the delay. I will post that info today. I am not sure that a personnel ordinance with job description existed under the old system, but if it did I will send it over to you. The statutory description may be what is used, and if that is the case I will send that in its place. Thank you for your patience, and I hope you had a good Easter holiday.
Bill
LikeLike
Jack,
Here are the revenues starting in 2005 and working backwards. Revenues from the point forward after the state contract was signed go to the State. We will now begin to see these revenues again. I will post more on your other questions shortly.
2005 $6,242.00
2004 $7,155.00
2003 $6,411.00
2002 $6,642.00
2001 $6,523.00
2000 $6,908.00
1999 $6,087.00
LikeLike
Mr. Mayor,
Let’s assume that you plan to generate a revenue stream of $10,000 from these actions.
I looked at the numbers that you present above and arrived at the following conclusions.
In order to generate the required income, you need to increase the current fee structure by an average of 153%.
The data above is fairly stable, holding a standard deviation of only about $372,year to year.
Your proposal raises the fee structure by an average of 296%. I noted that not all fees were raised by the same ratio.
Someone could conclude that there is a list showing how many items exist within Methuen that require this service and the fees were raised to maximize the revenue stream to the General Fund and not to just cover the cost of the service. That would be a back door tax.
LikeLike
Maybe a helpful figure would include what our revenue estimate would be for the next fiscal year. I understand your point, but the figures in the aggregate are so small that even if we are “over” as you cite the potential for, it would not be significant. The fees had not been upgraded for twenty years.
LikeLike