|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJanuary 10, 2005
|
At 6:45 p.m. Selectmen met at the above Center to tour the new facility. PSCC Supervisor Shawn Brewer explained the day-to-day workings of the Center. Dispatcher Wendy Savoie demonstrated how the custom made consoles move up and down allowing the dispatchers more comfort in stressful situations. Mr. Brewer described how the lighting system can be altered allowing for less glare that was also easier on the dispatchers’ eyes. He also briefly talked about the equipment and their functions as well as some of the ideas he would like to add to the Center to assist folks entering the lobby. Board members commented that outside identification might be in order because in an emergency, someone might not know where to go due to the two entrances. The Board thanked Mr. Brewer for his time and the tour.
Regular Meeting
Chairman Robert Heaton called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Bruce Bower, Marilyn Peterman and Jay Dinkel (at 8:55 p.m.). Also present Town Administrator Carl Weber and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Mr. Heaton announced the Board had a tour of the new Communications Center, it was very impressive and they were pleased on how it looked as well as the dedication of the employees.
Citizens’ Forum
Susan Durling, Cross St. and Dotsie Bohan, Foundry St. talked to the Board about the removal of the trash cans around the Common. They were told by the Highway Department that they did not have people to service them. Mrs. Durling advised this was the first time they have been removed. Mrs. Bohan said she saw employees on Monday and asked why the cans were being removed and was told “they had orders”. Now people are putting their trash where the cans were. She indicated that she has cleaned up Davis Lane after the kids have left. Mr. Heaton said they would ask Bruce Berry if this was reasonable and let them know the results. They will give him the opportunity to tell them why the trash cans were removed as they also needed to hear his side of the story.
Finalize the Budget
Liz Overholt thought they would talk about the Treasurer’s request before finalizing the budget and would like Mr. Dinkel present. Mr. Heaton did not think the issue of that amount of money was going to be a significant issue in it and will keep it in mind.
Mr. Weber handed out a revenue report (green shaded) and an expenditure report (blue shaded). These reports include all the changes the Board talked about last week. $37,000 was cut from the budget, money was added in for the SRO and they increased the revenue projections. The budget agreed to last week netted out to 3.62%. The revenue amount is budgeted at $4,098,638.31and $7,677,762.67 in the operating budget. Changes were made to the budget and revenue and the “wish list” was gone and had been incorporated into the budget.
Mr. Weber reported they also added into the report a column for the default budget so they can compare the regular budget and the default one side by side. The default budget is $7,420,915.28 or $256,847 less than the proposed ’06 budget. A new law went into effect and they have to post the default budget along with the regular one. Board members were comfortable with the way the budget was presented. W&M Chairman John Maynard indicated the majority of the committee was also comfortable with it. Mr. Heaton thanked the Ways & Means Committee for helping the Board of Selectmen get to this point.
Warrant Articles Update
Mr. Weber reported there were several small changes made to the warrant articles after talking to DRA that day. They needed to vote a recommendation on each article as well.
Article 2 Open Space Land Bond: After a brief discussion on language relating to recreation and its need to be in the article, Mr. Maynard indicated that Ways & Means supported the article by a 7-0 vote. The vote was same as last year and a positive thing for the town to do. Selectmen’s Vote in Favor 4-0.
Article 3 Baboosic Lake Bond: Mr. Weber explained several things had been deleted. They received money from the State for the first phase and this will allow the town to bond what is remaining for ten years. The ten years will allow the users to pick this up and pay out over the time period rather than for five years. Language for it being a non-lapsing appropriation was taken out. There will be no tax increase as it will be borne by the users on the system. Mr. Bowler asked what happened if the article failed? Mr. Weber indicated every individual will be responsible to put in their share and it may mean getting a home equity loan for approximately $8900. He further commented that it was important to get the word out that this will help protect the lake and be a benefit to the town to make sure it stays healthy. W&M’s Vote: 6-0 in favor, Selectmen’s Vote 3-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Article 4 Tanker Replacement Bond: In response to a question asked, Mr. Weber reported the amount requested last year for the tanker was $250,000 and this year it is $300,000. Article 5 Fire Department Capital Reserve: Mr. Weber advised this was placed on the warrant in the event Article 4 fails. If both pass, they would do the bond and not place $100,000 into the existing Fire Apparatus Fund Capital Reserve Account. If this were to pass rather than Article 4, they would pay for it in four years. He noted that an Engine carried four minutes of water and a Tanker carried 12 minutes of water. W&M vote 6-0 in favor of replacement. Selectmen’s Vote on Article 4 in Favor 4-0. Selectmen’s Vote on Article 5 in Favor 4-0. W&M’s initial vote 4-0 (an official vote will be given after a poll is taken).
Article 6 Operating Budget: The proposed operating budget totaled $7,677,763, default budget $7,420,915.28. W&M’s 6-0 in favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 7 DPW Union: Mr. Weber indicated the amount changed was from $42,035.45 to $50,775 due to overtime and was more in line with the original warrant article. W&M’s vote 6-0 in favor. Selectmen’s Vote in Favor 3-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained. Mr. Heaton noted that Mr. Bowler abstained because his son was an employee of the department.
Article 8 Police Union: W&M’s Vote 6-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 9 Town Hall First Floor Renovation: Mr. Weber indicated the change was from $125,000 to $160,000. After Architect Rolf Biggers’ presentation last week, it was felt additional funds should be set aside for structural work, materials, etc. and the estimate was $160,000. The Board also suggested that the word “and” be inserted after the word “structural”. W&M’s Vote 6-0 in Favor. Mrs. Overholt commented that there was approximately $9500 in the Concentration Account for Town Hall Renovations and thought the money should be used for this. Mr. Weber explained this was brought up when talking to Mr. Biggers and the thought was to use this money for something visual such as light fixtures. Mrs. Overholt suggested that the money be used to fix the fireplace. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 10 Establish a Capital Reserve for Communications: Mr. Heaton thought the CIP would come back next year with recommendations on how to handle items like this much differently. This was a small piece of a “huge pie” and was another capital reserve fund - it would not bother him if it wasn’t on the warrant. Mrs. Peterman remarked this was a new department, the townspeople should know that it was going to take ongoing funding and had no problem with funding capital reserves. Mr. Heaton wondered if having this article would jeopardize other articles. Mr. Maynard indicated that W&M’s felt the article premature and voted 0-7 to oppose it. Mrs. Overholt mentioned they just spent a lot of money there and thought they should wait and take the article out. Mr. Heaton commented that one advantage, in his opinion, of having it in the warrant was that they could use it “as agents to expend”, but they also have a contingency fund. He reiterated that the CIP would make a recommendation next year. He also knew they will have a need for some type of funding mechanism. Mr. Weber added that it was about trying to put things in place until the CIP Committee got things together for this one as well as a bridge capital reserve. This was about how did they get there if the other doesn’t happen. Mr. Infanti did not see this as a “money” issue. If something went wrong, they can always come up with the money and the article may work against them. Mrs. Peterman felt the article would allow the town to know that this was something they will need to fund, but would go along with the Board’s decision. Mr. Bowler moved to remove Article 10 from the warrant, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: Mr. Maynard commented that if these funds were set up this year, it may jeopardize the CIP’s recommendation next year. Vote: 4-0 in Favor.
Article 11 Establish Capital Reserve for Bridge Repair: Mr. Bowler moved to remove Article 11 from the warrant, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: Mr. Infanti thought it good to have a capital reserve for bridges, but would rather wait for the CIP’s recommendation. W&M’s voted 7-0 to oppose the original article. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor of the motion.
Article 12 Capital Reserve Fire/Brush Truck Purchase: Mr. Heaton reminded the Board that this article was increased by $5000 in order that diesel fuel could be used. W&M’s Vote 7-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 13 Capital Reserve DPW Truck Purchase: W&M’s Vote 7-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 14 Repair and Replace DPW tank apron and pumps: Mr. Heaton explained the CIP felt this was one of the more urgent issues because of the potential environmental impact. W&M’s Vote 7-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 15 Landfill Improvements: Mr. Weber handed out a proposed plan for the landfill with the proposed four phases highlighted in color. The sections in green and blue were the two phases being considered in this article in the amount of $245,000. SRLD was committed to $100,000 this year for the town and another $100,000 next year. The net taxable amount was $145,000. In response to a question raised, Mr. Bowler advised that in the past the SRLD has either had new equipment billed to them directly or to the various towns and the towns then had been reimbursed. In answer to Mrs. Peterman’s question, Mr. Weber explained that the landowners will approve everything prior to the town doing anything on the site. Mr. Heaton commented on the past Saturday’s traffic. Mr. Bowler remarked that he had been there three and a half hours helping the employees with the trash. The hope is that they get at least another trailer for trash – that Saturday was the worst he has seen it. Mr. Maynard asked if the town would get $100,000 if this article didn’t pass? Mr. Bowler indicated that the town would not get the funds. The SRLD would reduce the bottom line of their budget. W&M’s Vote 6-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 16 Baboosic Dock Replacement: Mr. Maynard said Ways and Means recognized that new docks would be a good thing for the lake. He asked where did the Recreation Commission stand on this and what was the overall strategy on it since their vote was 3-3. Mr. Heaton remarked that the new Recreation Commission would probably not be addressing this in the immediate future. Baboosic Lake is a great asset to the town but it looses money. Mrs. Peterman mentioned that because the lake was an asset they should not let it deteriorate, this was a safety issue and they should continue to maintain the facility in some way. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Article 17 Home Health & Hospice Care Request: W&M’s Vote 7-0 in Favor. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0 in Favor.
Mr. Heaton thanked the Ways and Means Committee members that were present and indicated that the Board appreciated all their efforts.
Article 18 Highland Drive Downgrade: Mr. Weber told the Board the answer to the question - did they have an option to downgrade the road - the answer was no. Once the vote was taken, there was nothing they could do to turn it back into a Class V road except by petition and/or petition by the Public Works Director. They will be making some evaluations of what is happening on the road this winter. If this passes, it wouldn’t take effect until July. If they choose to do the turnaround, they can leave it the way it is now. Mr. Heaton reminded the Board that if they did not put this in the warrant, the Dennis’ will require the town to remove all the fill they are storing. Mr. Dinkel thought the neighbors should be notified of this. Mrs. Peterman thought they should be sent a letter. Mr. Heaton will work with Mr. Weber in issuing a letter indicating that they were leaving their options open. Selectmen’s Vote 4-1, Mr. Bowler opposed.
Article 19 Discontinue Washer Cove Road Section: Mr. Weber reported this article was essential to facilitate the Baboosic Lake Community Septic System and have to notify abutters 14 days prior to the vote. The town is two of the four abutters. Selectmen’s Vote 4-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Mr. Dinkel voted on the following articles as follows: (2) in favor; (3) in favor; (4) in favor; (5) in favor; (6) in favor; (7) in favor; (8) in favor; (9) in favor; (10 & 11) removed from warrant; (12) opposed; (13) in favor; (14) in favor; (15) in favor, but would like an overlay on how this looks in 12 months; (16) in favor; (17) in favor.
Treasurer’s Requested Discussion
Mrs. Overholt presented the Board with a breakdown of what she does, as the Treasurer, along with the minutes it takes her for one year – totaling 24,770 minutes or 412.8 hours per year. She summarized that in 1991, the former Treasurer Marion Sortevik was paid $12,000 and was investing town funds. The position was advertised for $3000 when Mrs. Overholt took office. According to her scenario, prior to the increase in hours in August 2003 the stipend was $3300 per year. Her average hours were 12 hours per month or 144 hours per year. Her weekly hours were 2.8 or an average of $23.93 per hour. Taking the average hourly rate of $23.93 times the 412.8 hours per year equated to $9,465.50.
Currently Mrs. Overholt works 412.8 hours per year, an average of 7.9 hours per week at a stipend of $7,400.04 which equates to $17.93 per hour according to this scenario. In the next scenario, the current FY 2006 budget draft the stipend is $5546.17 or $13.43 per hour using the same 412.8 hours per year. She suggested that she was being underpaid from when she first got the job that was $3000. She also told the Board that 412 hours per year represented 1/5of a regular job or $27,000 per year. They have nearly tripled her work and she felt she should be paid $8200. The information presented indicated that she proposed for FY 2006 at 412.8 hours per year, a stipend of $8256 or $20.00 per hour.
In answer to Board questions, Mrs. Overholt indication there was no reduction in her work because it now takes her longer at the bank. She also told them that there was a period from August 2003 to January 2004 where she could not show them the change in hours. She told them what was statutorily required for the Treasurer’s position, but indicated there were additional duties they were asking her to do. She also advised that she had not factored in the 412 yearly hours vacation time.
Comments from Board members indicated that: $20.00 per hour was not unreasonable for the work being done; the position was considered a stipend and was never considered an hourly position and it was believed it should remain a stipend; it was felt that the hours could be reduced without jeopardizing the control or policy; the reduction in time didn’t happen and it should have as originally discussed. Mr. Weber added that they have asked more from the Treasurer than take deposits to the bank and would have to pay someone else to do it. He talked about the extra layer of activities being done. They have a more active Treasurer and to pay for the extra layer of responsibility was fairly inexpensive. Relative to the NHMA pay comparisons to towns the size of Amherst, he thought we were in the higher category. The auditors were in favor of this and the two person accountability was something they did not want to change.
Further comments from the Board indicated that: There was a need to come up with a comparable and fair number; they have asked the Treasurer to do significantly more than was statutorily required; what she is doing the auditors think is a good idea; the School District was only paying their Treasurer $3300, but felt they could not compare apples to apples; if they choose to pay the Treasurer for additional duties, it should be based somewhat on market value of the job; and the Treasurer should have some fair compensation, not necessarily based on an hourly rate. Mr. Weber mentioned that the Treasurer was not required to be present every day. Sharon used to do a lot of those duties and suggested they look at the pay scale to see what might make sense. Mr. Dinkel commented that the reduction in hours did not happen, they did not want to look at ways to cut and they should go back to the original figure of $7400 plus the COLA they pay themselves. Mrs. Overholt indicated that in fairness, the $7400 was decided on without understanding the scope of the job. She suggested another option - that they pay her a stipend for work done statutorily, then the hourly rate for additional work not part of the original discussion and that expected to be paid for them.
Relative to what might be the market price for the job, Mr. Weber felt they were more in line of what Exeter and Hooksett were doing and were probably in the $7000-8000 range. He did not know how many Treasurers went to the bank daily, but would guess the position would be in the high $7000 range without having a more detailed analysis. He would look at the responsibility for the Treasurer’s position being more than the part time Finance Department assistant. Different figures were discussed with Mr. Heaton commenting that they were just agreeing on what the job was worth. Mrs. Overholt thought she said the $7400 was based on the hours as she guessed them. She said she made it clear that this was not enough money based on the number of hours. She was asking for $20.00 because of the checks and balance nature of it and believed she should be paid more than the $7400 she was being paid.
Mr. Heaton saw the market value as being $18.50 and more than what they pay the assistant. Mr. Weber reviewed the pay scale and mentioned several different positions and steps that would fall under this figure. Mr. Heaton suggested they go with the $18.50 because they have in the budget money to do another municipal wage study this year and this position should be included in it.
Mr. Infanti moved that they pay $20.00 per hour based on 400 hours a year for a total of $8000. The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mrs. Peterman moved that the current stipend be $7400, that the stipend would be increased similar to everyone else’s as it relates to COLA’s, the motion was duly second. Discussion: Mrs. Overholt explained she opted to use this number because she had no other concept of the job. She guessed what she was asking for was $8000 per year because they are not talking about anything else, but how much time it takes her. Mr. Dinkel understood how she valued her time and would be more than happy to make her time fit her threshold because he knew it could be done. In reading through what she does and the time he thought he could help her reduce the time. After a further discussion the vote was 3-2, Mr. Bowler and Mr. Infanti opposed. Mr. Heaton summarized the stipend was set at $7400. Mr. Weber advised he will find a way for the bottom line of the budget not to be changed - total being $2246.00 that included FICA and Medicare.
New Business
Mr. Infanti commented on a recent accident he read about in the read file.
Mrs. Peterman asked about the recent CIP presentation and indicated her concern was the $10,000 threshold. She thought Sally Wilkins said Mr. Weber thought it should be different and equated it to GASB 34. Mr. Weber explained his recommendation was $20,000 and told her why. Mr. Heaton added there had been a great deal of discussion on this matter and did not want the CIP to become unmanageable. So far this has not become an issue and has not bogged down the process. Mrs. Peterman believed the Selectmen should have this discussion because she did not agree with it. Any capital item costing $10,000 is a budget item. Mr. Heaton said he agreed with her but in the end conceded to where it went. Mr. Weber added that the key is five to ten years length of life and thought she would see this as being a non-issue.
Mrs. Peterman reported she had talked to Jeannie Ludt regarding educational funding and actual costs and thought the Board might want to hear a discussion from a group who wants to “fund the gap”. She will make arrangements for someone to make the presentation on January 31, 2005. A meeting between the School Board, Selectmen and Legislators will be scheduled for January 24, 2005.
Mr. Bowler wondered when they will be hearing about a new Recreation Commission. Mr. Heaton indicated they have to go out and solicit members.
Mr. Bowler also asked about the PMEC Advisory Committee and explained they want to get going. He’d like to see seven regular members and three alternates. Mrs. Frydlo advised to date she has only received two requests for appointments after advertising in the paper along with it being on the web. Emails will be sent to the current committee asking for a response.
Mr. Heaton briefly spoke about having a recreation member on the Open Space Committee and hopefully by next week he will have a recommendation to make.
Mr. Heaton also updated the Board on Enterprise as it related to the town and lease agreement with Kinney Towing.
Non-Public Session
Upon a roll call vote, the Board voted unanimously to enter non-public session at 10:32 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3 II (a) personnel.
The Board exited non-public session at 10:52 p.m. and voted unanimously to seal the minutes.
Minutes
The minutes were tabled until the Board’s next meeting.
A motion was made and duly seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:53 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant