Voters voice their concerns

HUDSON – Voters at Saturday’s annual Deliberative Session overwhelmingly endorsed an amended warrant article that would give local police a 3 percent cost of living raise for each of two years beginning in 2011.

That proposal and 14 other warrant articles still require approval from voters at the March 9 town election. But selectmen and the municipal budget committee backed the measure for the police contract at special meetings immediately following the session.

The police union was also expected to support what officials called a “good compromise’’ at a meeting of the membership soon, according to union president Sgt. Mike Gosselin.

“This is where we want to be,’’ Gosselin told residents.

The 51-member Hudson Police Union Local 3657 and selectmen had been at an impasse over salary issues before the amendment to Article 9 was introduced by Selectmen vice-chairman Ken Massey, about an hour into the Deliberative Session.

A fact-finder had recommended cost of living adjustments of 3 percent to 4.5 percent for the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, but selectmen had balked at the 4.5 percent figure, saying it was unaffordable in uncertain economic times.

The original article called for a zero percent adjustment for this fiscal year ending July 1, with $41,761 budgeted for previously approved expenses. For the fiscal year 2011, $202,312 was recommended for raises, while in fiscal year 2012, $203,977 was the proposed allocation.

Under Massey’s amendment, the budgeted amount for fiscal year 2011 was $134,874 and for fiscal 2012 the figure was $135.984, reflecting the costs of the 3 percent adjustments.

Massey and others said local police are paid in the middle of the salary range for neighboring towns. The amended article would keep Hudson from falling behind other communities.

Officials said the department is one of only seven in the state to be nationally accredited and should be rewarded for that achievement.

“This is the best department I’ve ever seen,’’ Gosselin said.

The secret ballot vote in favor of the amendment was 78 to 11.

Voters at the six-hour session left proposed contracts for the highway and administrative support unions unchanged.

The three-year highway worker pact would provide cost of living raises of 2 percent in fiscal year 2011 and 3 percent in fiscal year 2012.

The two-year administrative support union agreement would provide an adjustment of 2 percent in fiscal year 2011.

Neither contract contains raises for the coming fiscal year.

One amendment was made to the roughly $27.44 million town operating budget proposal that left the bottom line unchanged. Voters approved shifting $25,000 to the senior center capital reserve fund from a $642,000 surplus account.

A proposed amendment from the floor to take $57,957 from the Rodgers Memorial Library account and place it in the police and fire department line items failed.

Voter left warrant articles for a $24,780 upgrade to the town technology system and the purchase of a $270,000 fire tanker unchanged. Both purchases would be funded with money now in reserve and would have no impact on the tax rate.

If the operating budget and all articles pass, the town’s share of the tax rate would increase by 25 cents per $1,000 of property valuation, which would mean $75 on a $300,000 home.

The town’s share of the tax rate is now $4.97 per $1,000 of valuation. If all town articles pass, the rate would climb to $5.22 per $1,000, an increase of 5.1 percent, officials said.

The proposed $27.44 million operating budget is slightly lower than the $27.56 default budget, which would likely encourage voters to pass the operating budget this year as opposed to last year when they voted it down.

Voters will also consider a petition article from residents Peter and Joanne Radziewicz, asking the town to drop litigation concerning a 10-foot fence on the couple’s property at 49 Burns Hill Road. The town says the fence is illegal because the zoning ordinance doesn’t permit fences to exceed 6 feet without a variance.

The couple says the town’s zoning board, which denied a variance for the fence, is biased, and they need the barrier to protect themselves from disruptive neighbors.