|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJanuary 5, 2006
|
Chairman Marilyn Peterman called the meeting to order at 6:12 p.m. Selectmen present: Jay Dinkel, George Infanti (due to a previous appointment Mr. Infanti left during a portion of the meeting and returned at a later time) and Bruce Bowler. Also present Acting Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
There were no questions or concerns from the audience.
Mrs. Peterman announced they left off on Tuesday by reviewing all of the budget accounts including revenues.
Mrs. Peterman advised she had asked Planning Board members to come in again and they had asked that they be first on the agenda. She had passed out a sheet containing a Monthly Zoning Report and FY 2006 Planning and Zoning Income. The value year to date was 25 ½ million dollars and income of approximately $200,000 (what was shown was only six months of the fiscal year). They had also talked in the past about raising fees.
Sally Wilkins, Planning Board Chairman, added there was also $50,000 in funds designated for open space out of a $150,000 pledge. Mrs. Peterman explained that this was not included for operating the department, but was going into open space. Mrs. Wilkins commented that it was income garnered from their department. The Master Plan was a critical document – a defining instrument in long term planning for the Town. The Master Plan is now thirty years old and prepared in the mid 1970’s. The demographics had been updated, but the statistical data had not been updated. She felt passionately that it is not appropriate for seven people to make those decisions for the Town. She believes and the Board believes they need to do a complete revision of the Master Plan. Updating the numbers would cost $25,000. They do not have the manpower or resources, need to contract it out and have experts analyze the data. This is the primary reason they have requested this level of funding that will allow for a professional job and take them through many years. She mentioned that there was a suggestion of putting money in the budget as well as on the warrant to set up a capital reserve fund, this seemed to them a good approach and they left the last meeting thinking this was what was decided.
Gordon Leedy, Planning Board Vice Chairman, remarked that from his perspective he would echo what Mrs. Wilkins said. They have a statutory obligation to perform this work. Things have changed in Amherst over the thirty years and have changed since he has lived in Town. There needed to be a consensus built in the community a vision of where they were going. There is new technology, new directions that Planning and Zoning are going in and without this fundamental document they can’t move forward in this direction. He understood this was not a good year. He thought they have to deal with this and there was a suggestion that this should go onto the warrant as a stand alone article. They have to “bite the bullet” and do it sometime. He thought the solution of a capital reserve along with putting some of it in the budget was a very reasonable compromise and allowed them to go forward with the process. If they only had a warrant article for the entire number and it did not pass, they were “dead in the water” for another year. He respected the Board’s decision and he did not envy them the decisions they had to make for the Town.
Mike Dell Orfano, Planning Board member, did not know what he could add, but asked to hear the Selectmen’s questions. Mr. Infanti indicated that Mr. Bowler suggested $25,000 on the warrant and $25,000 in the budget. After thinking much about this, he thought this was probably something they should do - $25,000 on the over all budget is minimal. He was comfortable with this scenario at this point. Mr. Bowler asked when was this discussed before. Mrs. Wilkins explained it was discussed by the Planning Board last year and submitted as a CIP request. She was unsure if it was an over sight or misunderstanding if the Master Plan got dropped. There was a discussion last year with CIP and smaller phases were in but the first phase was dropped. Mr. Bowler supported the $25,000/$25,000.
Mr. Dinkel agreed with everything they said about the importance of the plan and the need to do it and felt the Planning Board should not decide. This was not an operational issue and he did not agree splitting it to try and get it through – it was still $50,000. He would prefer establishing a modest amount for the CIP, bring in the dialog and the mechanism with $50,000 for one year and is where he would draw the line. Mrs. Wilkins indicated that they can’t get the amount until they get a scope and they cannot bring them a hard number until they get some estimates. There was a difference between simply updating the statistics and updating the numbers that would require some data collection.
Mr. Leedy clarified his understanding of the $50,000 scope – there was the demographics and statistical update, baseline and simple mapping along with including studies, all have to be established to bring forward a baseline. What the NRPC was going to do for $50,000 was to develop a scope. Even updating of the Master Plan by the NRPC would be above $50,000. With $25,000 they would probably get some updates, some data out of NRPC and the demographics compiled. For $25,000 they could take a stab at getting this up and running. The end point is that someone needs to spend 1500 hours to do this plan. $100,000-120,000 is what they were thinking. $50,000 they were thinking about accomplishing in the first year and then the following year they would do the remainder. Mr. Dinkel said his point is that he agreed with doing it the right way, but thought their approach of funding was wrong.
Mrs. Peterman mentioned that the budget for Planning/Zoning was about $200,000. The Department brought in close to $200,000, they could raise the fees and bring in another $6000. This was the vision for the Town. Each year they put it off sets them back a year or two in the planning process. She spoke about a recent application where someone wanted to turn industrial land into residential. W&M Chairman Linda Kaiser commented she was at the meeting when that came up to rezone industrial land into residential land. She believed they had to get started and getting start was a critical issue. She did not think $25,000 in the budget or $25,000 in the warrant was too much. A consultant may be needed because there are just so many hours that volunteers can put in. She was not saying they won’t help volunteer, but when the Planning Board sets up the process they should set it up so that the whole Town gets heard. She added that she may not be speaking for W&M.
Liz Overholt asked how the last update was handled. It was Mrs. Peterman’s recollection that it was done by the Planning Board. Mr. Dell Orfano added that George Bower and Doug Kirkwood were also instrumental in it. Mrs. Overholt thought that looking at the update as an update function, putting $25,000 aside made sense - they should start putting money into the capital reserves. Mrs. Peterman stated that the consensus was to put $25,000 back into the budget and $25,000 in as a warrant article. Mr. Dinkel advised he was against it.
Mrs. Peterman explained that everyone should have a copy of the new budget along with an estimated tax rate of $2.97 (see attached breakdown). The numbers included in the document included the additional DPW person which they haven’t finished discussing. The net budget without the $25,000 was 5.01% . Mrs. Howe added that with the $25,000 added the net budget would be 5.40%.
Mrs. Peterman reported she had asked to add the DPW person back into the budget. She recalled back in 2001, the Selectmen hired a consultant to transition them from one DPW Director to another. The consultant made recommendations over a 3-5 year period. She had received a chart and she had also asked Mr. Berry to give them a review of some of the responsibilities that the DPW Department is in charged of and what were the changes and workloads that happened over the last four years including Stormwater II, the Community Septic System, responsibility for the Town commons, complete management of all Town buildings, etc. She had an entire list and she will make copies. She felt the projects and amount of labor they request from DPW will not change and will continue to increase – they take away one project and just add another one. Mr. Bowler remarked that they could hire a general contractor and the Department be in charge of the operation. Mrs. Peterman said they have asked DPW to do things relating to construction, maintenance and development. The other thing was the Transfer Station which they are in charge of. When they had the problem with the New Boston Road Bridge they asked DPW to take care of it. Last year Mr. Berry had asked for $25,000 for bridge repairs and they told him no.
Mr. Bowler indicated that he had watched the other night the Selectmen’s meeting on television, the DPW, which is the Department he represents, was doing a great job, but he would not support an additional employee now. What he would support is putting additional funds into outside hire. Since Mr. Berry has been with the Town, they have given him three and a half positions – he thought they should do a review and adding another body was not going to solve the problems. Mr. Bowler reiterated that he would support increasing the outside hire line. Mr. Dinkel said he spoke to it last time he still believes his position. In ’07, they have reduced some of the scope and as managers need not add to it. This was 40 cents on the tax rate on the operating budget alone and a “big bite” in one year. Mrs. Peterman did not disagree with him, but it seemed that every year they avoid putting things in the budget. The operating portion of the budget mostly includes employees and was an important part it. She personally would like to see it brought up where the services that are being provided are what the Town expects. Each year there seems to be more and more pressure by the community to increase Town services or make them better. She would rather see the operating budget go up as opposed to the warrants. Some Departments were stretched and this was one of them.
Mr. Bowler would support putting money into outside hire to help support their Department – in some cases you can do more with an additional contractor rather than one additional employee. The Director has in his budget two additional summer employees and they just gave him another person. Mrs. Peterman indicated that this was at the recommendation of the consultant whom they gave a lot of credibility. Mrs. Kaiser explained that she had talked with Mr. Berry and asked him one more time “do you need one more person”. He said that if he didn’t need this person he wouldn’t have asked. Mr. Bowler commented that most of the new roads in Town are private roads with the only potential Town road is off Walnut Hill Road. Mrs. Kaiser stated she was going to listen to Mr. Berry and to Mr. Mayhew. She felt they should give him one person and see what happens. Mr. Bowler asked Mrs. Kaiser if she would be supportive of outside hire to see how it went. One thing about going through outside hire, is they go away after the work is completed, but an employee doesn’t go away. Mrs. Kaiser mentioned the Committee doesn’t want to see any more permanent employees than what they have in Town. Mr. Berry is still saying they need this person.
Mr. Bowler advised that Mr. Mayhew told him to put two people in his budget. A new person started a week before Thanksgiving and he was scheduled to start at the beginning of this year. Mrs. Kaiser asked what was Mr. Berry not promising to do, if he didn’t get this position? Mrs. Peterman did not think that in the four years Mr. Berry had said “no” to things he was requested to do and has taken on every project he has been asked to do. The Baboosic Lake Septic System is another project he has taken on. Mr. Bowler commented that no one has any idea about this and he did not think it was going to take up much time. Mr. Dinkel said it was like any business and until you know you just don’t go out and hire people. He liked Mr. Bowler’s suggestion of increasing outside hire – there are big changes, DPW has a new person, Town Hall renovations are going away, he suggested they see what additional items are being presented. Mr. Bowler personally felt that outside hire should be increased by $50,000 and indicated they could utilize people who already do work for the Town. He has also increased the summer help by two men to further help out at $10.00 per hour.
Mrs. Peterman summarized that the outside hire was now at $125,648 – Mr. Bowler felt that for now they should put in an additional $50,000.
Ms. Rogusky asked were they subtly changing the face of the Department by doing so many different things, but not officially changing their expectations so that they were still undercutting them? Mr. Dinked commented they have broadened it. Mr. Bowler added he worked for the Department from 1976 thru 1982. They took care of roads, didn’t take care of the Transfer Station and there were only six of them. The miles of roads have increased. He also mentioned that he felt that the $70,000 budget to take care of their existing Town buildings was rather poor. It should be increased and they should bring in outside hire to do some of this work. One additional employee was not going to make a huge difference overall.
The Board deferred making a final decision on this issue until Monday night when they will have a full Board and Mr. Berry was present. Mr. Foley asked if they were unhappy with Mr. Berry’s performance – he personally does his job in the private sector and Mr. Berry is doing 105%. Mr. Bowler indicated he was a facilities manager, he brings subcontractors in and then sends them home. The DPW crew does a great job, they can’t ask any more of what they are doing. They need to look where they are going. The Town Hall project has taken more man hours than what he thought would happen. After further debate the Board moved on to other items.
Mr. Dinkel mentioned that when they went from five cents to ten cents a pound on demolition, the revenues did not go up. He felt they should budget whatever they are able to achieve. His comfortable level is what they budgeted this year and he didn’t want to mislead anyone. Demolition and computer disposal will be dollar for dollar and he would have no problem meeting that increase. He quoted the landfill income as follows: FY ’05 received $82,350 budgeted $86,300; current year they are at $31,800 and will probably meet the $86,000 budgeted. He was uncomfortable jumping the income to $141,500 in the FY ’07 budget. He was also not sure they should increase demolition fees
Mr. Bowler asked if there was any further discussion about increasing the hours for the Town Clerk’s office? Mr. MacGuire advised he talked to her on Tuesday, but hadn’t talked to her since. He was in favor of the 16 hours – could she use 20, possibly, he said. There is a person there already and if that person wanted the hours then they would be at 40. Mrs. Peterman remarked that according to Nancy Demers the revenue would be approximately $4000. Mr. Bowler felt that if they needed an additional four hours, they could take the money out of contingency. Mrs. Peterman advised they normally do not fund employees out of contingency.
Mr. Bowler commented on the televising of the Selectmen’s meetings. He felt that if people wanted to talk they should go to a mike, they also needed to identify themselves. Mrs. Peterman thought there was a request for additional microphones. She briefly mentioned how other towns conduct their televised meetings. Mr. Bowler mentioned that they have this system and they need to utilize it correctly and professionally. He had watched the meeting on Monday night and thought it definitely interesting to watch. Mr. Dinkel advised that the CIC Committee was a group of ten volunteers who were tackling not only the community access channel but also helping with cable negotiations and other issues. In their last night’s meeting they were discussing new mikes and equalizers. They have a list that includes items amounting to $3179. Currently they were proposing setting up a capital reserve. Mrs. Peterman asked if this was a budget item to improve communications. Mr. Bowler explained this was in the DPW’s budget under general government buildings at $3860. Mr. Dinkel indicated that the capital reserve funds would be used to replace equipment or other items. Another big issue pertains to PEG which allows other people to utilize this network. He thought the $10,000 was to be set up for additional items that would be needed.
CIC member Jim Lenahan gave them a brief history on the subject. There were some additional work that was suppose to be coming out of the Town budget that included addition of speakers and some other equipment that the Town Administrator wanted. The $10,000 was their list of things that they should be prepared to add for equipment that would allow them to add more pre-recorded broadcast capabilities. The problem they now have is as people give them tapes, the only way to broadcast them is to physically come in Town Hall and put the tape in. As they see growth in the use of the system, they would go out and buy another DVD, they would need to add more players, however, they already have bought the mixer. The $10,000 would allow them to grow as people make more use of the system. Mrs. Peterman suggested that they discuss further this on Monday night. Mr. Lenahan will make sure the information is given to the Selectmen. They already had a quotation for all the equipment – the only issue was which part of the budget it went into.
Ms. Rogusky thought that under Library new equipment for computer supplies and software was still unusually high – she should be getting some firm numbers for a quote, had received a list from Director Amy Lapointe and had directed it to people in her office for a response. Mr. Landon questioned the COLA. Mr. Dinkel explained it was a blend of two different months –September and November. They do an average of both NE and Boston Urban CPI. The actual for NE is 3.7% and was approximately 4.80% in September, but then came down dramatically. Relative to Mr. Foley’s question, Mr. Dinkel explained the COLA was determined partly by timing before they submitted a budget and other contracts with the Union. Mr. MacGuire explained this process has been used for approximately eight years. Mr. Bowler added they used to have a DPW contract and used it in that as well.
Mrs. Kaiser mentioned that at some point after the budget was completed, W&M believed the Selectmen may want to consider appointing a Committee to look at the step and COLA increases. Moderator Bob Schaumann suggested this and came from some human resource folks. Mrs. Peterman explained the Town did a wage study several years ago and was a suggestion the Board may consider doing. Mr. Dinkel added it was a great idea to use volunteers from Amherst.
Relative to longevity, Mr. Bowler indicated he recently found out that someone receiving $1000 for the number of years of service to the Town was now receiving longevity based on the employee’s gross pay including overtime and they may receive more. Mrs. Howe explained this went back to the Federal Labor Standards Act that went into effect 8/23/04 and what was driving up the longevity. It is a form of compensation such as overtime and overtime has to be calculated into this. Mr. Bowler said he had somewhat of a problem with this and something to look at in the future. They try to be as fair with their employees as possible and he had a problem with this.
Mrs. Peterman advised the Board would be meeting Monday night and hoped that W&M would have a vote so that they could finalize the budget. Mr. Dinkel added that recommendations were still welcome.
Relative to Article 2 Baboosic Lake Bond – Mr. Dinkel asked about the design of Phase III and wondered if there was a way to protect that money for one year in order to have one year “under their belt” – before proceeding to Phase II and find out from the State if they would hold the money for one year. This was a significant project and new to the Town and he would rather walk slowly through it, to make sure they knew all the implications of Phase I. The project had only been up and running for several months. In response to Mr. Foley’s question, Mr. Dinkel mentioned this was not only new to them it was new to the State – they were almost a beta site. In response to Mr. Foley’s follow up question, Mr. Bowler advised he didn’t know how to answer his question, there was no work for the Town in building the system other than oversight. He would do something different on the next phase and that was to have someone on site (like a Clerk of the Works) – they have an Engineer working downstairs at Town Hall – could she look over the project, he didn’t know. The Board briefly spoke about future obligations and possible outcomes.
Article 3 – Transfer Station. Mrs. Peterman remarked that the money that the SRLD had set aside for Amherst was for equipment. Her question was if the article should fail, would the District continue to fund what the Town wants funded in the future? Mr. Berry advised the District pays for the equipment and he was one of seven members to vote on it and he couldn’t speak for the other Towns. If it doesn’t pass, could they use a fair amount of that money - there was a possibility it would happen. They could try and persuade them to go this route. Mrs. Peterman indicated they were asking for a $350,000 bond for ten years. Mr. Dinkel commented that the Solid Waste Committee had done and excellent job. Mr. Foley informed the Board that the Committee gave W&M a great presentation and he had been appointed to the Committee. What had been pointed out was that much of their information was projected revenue estimates – he asked if this could be put into the warrant article? Mrs. Peterman explained that it could be put into the voters’ guide.
After a brief discussion the Board moved onto Article 4 – PMEC. Mr. Bowler advised that Ann Logan called him and indicated she was trying to do a quick poll from the Advisory Board and at this time it looked as if they would be seeking $250,000 for one time and it seemed the majority wanted to stay at the $250,000 figure. The Board and W&M discussed the issue of the construction, it being augmented by private fundraising, the original cost and what had been spent to date for the foundation and decking. Mr. Bowler advised that Mrs. Logan would be with them at Monday night’s meeting to clarify costs and intent. Mrs. Peterman mentioned that they needed the building to increase their course work and classes that will eventually pay for this and one more reason it should be put in as a bond. Mr. Foley commented that the revenues that PMEC generates go to their revolving account and will not necessarily pay for the bond. He, as a citizen, thought PMEC a great thing only if it was a net zero impact. Mr. Bowler indicated that Jim Bowen and Gerry Wilkins were co-chairs of this portion of the project. He thought they were planning on additional revenues to offset a bond.
Article 5 Operating budget – the numbers were incomplete at this time.
Article 7 of the draft warrant – Collective Bargaining Agreement Special Meeting, was removed by the Board.
Article 8 – In response to Mrs. Kaiser’s question, Mr. Dinkel advised that the vehicle was to be a command vehicle, was proposed at this level and it had been taken out of the warrant two years ago. They had been able to find a used four wheel drive vehicle and it was his recollection at a cost of $8000 which was taken out of the operational budget and was an interim fix after the Selectmen took it out of the warrant two years ago. Mr. Bowler described what the back up Explorer contained and commented that this could not be used in the new pick up for both a skid tank and a command truck. Mrs. Kaiser indicated that her notes that the vehicle would cost $38,000, the current 1996 Explorer had 115,000 miles on it and they drove approximately 12,000 miles per year – she asked who drove this vehicle now and who would drive the new SUV and what for? Mr. Bowler said he would not want to put words in the Fire Department’s mouth, the command vehicle is utilized by the Chief. There are also Duty Officers and they utilize the vehicle, same as the Paramedics that have one vehicle for the Duty Officer. This allows the Duty Officer to initially go out without calling out the other engines. In the past, the Town purchased some used vehicles for the Paramedics, much money was put into them, but they were not as safe – the EMS Association donated $15,000 for these vehicles. Mr. Dinkel asked if the primary function would be for a command vehicle? Mr. Bowler indicated that 90% of the time the vehicle would be house at the station.
Article 9 (Refurbish Fire Department Engine 5) – Mrs. Peterman thought they may want to begin putting money back into the Capital Reserves. Mr. Dinkel spoke about the philosophy of shifting more bonding and lease payments as well as the CIP recommendation on how this got funded.
Article 10 (DPW Truck Replacement) - The Board and W&M discussed whether two older trucks that should have been replaced last year or whether they should buy one ten wheeler or lease two six wheeler to replace those trucks. After debating the issue, Mr. Berry will be asked to answer their questions on Monday, January 9.
Article 11 (DPW Salt and Sand Storage Facility) – Mr. Bowler supported the article for $71,000 and briefly described his support based on the amount of material that was needed to be stored and cost savings by everything being delivered at the same time.
Article 12 (DPW Interdepartmental Operability of Two-Way Radios) – Mr. MacGuire reported that Police, Fire and EMS received a grant, but he had not heard anything about DPW which was a final step in obtaining a frequency. The frequency that DPW obtained was a narrow ban that could not be utilized. DPW is an integral part of Homeland Security. He had not seen any indications that this has been recognized nationally with DPW as it pertained to Emergency Preparedness, however, they will continue to look at grants as they become available.
Article 13 (Baboosic Lake Dock Replacement) – Mr. Dinkel commented this was a safety issue. Mrs. Kaiser indicated that this should be in the budget. Mr. Bowler added that last year this was not fully supported by W&M and would be in favor if W&M said okay to this. W&M members present agreed it should be put into the budget.
Article 14 (Selectmen’s Authority) – No discussion.
Article 15 (Summer Street Town Boundary Relocation) – Mr. Dinkel advised he was at the hearing on the State House level along with several State Representatives Cynthia Dokmo and Lee Slocum, their sponsors as well as Peter Bragdon their State Senator. After this meeting he spoke to the Town’s counterparts in Milford – both Towns will not have results of this hearing until mid February.
Article 16 – (Information Technology Equipment Replacement Fund) – CIC member Jim Lenahan indicated that Doug McAllister was the new Chairman replacing Steve Coughlan. He briefly described the numbers they were looking for at a cost of $10,000.
Article 17 – (Master Plan) - It was recommended that $25,000 be put into this warrant article.
Article 18 – (Cemetery Fields Design/Layout) – It was recommended that this article be re-worded to reflect that the design/layout be for Forestview Cemetery (formerly known as Cemetery Fields). The Board asked that Chairman Peter Bergin of the Cemetery Trustees meet with them to explain why they can not pay for the design out of their funds. Mr. Bowler advised this would be to establish a Capital Reserve and they may want to start with a lower number.
Article 19 – (New Police Officer) – Very little discussion was held about this article.
Article 20 – (Establishment of Revolving Fund for Public Safety Services)- In response to Mrs. Kaiser’s question, Mr. MacGuire advised the funds go in and out and they received approximately $71,000. Any time private firms hire a Police Officer, who is an Off Duty Officer, the Town bills for that Officer along with all costs associated with it. Currently they budget it as an expense to pay for the person and they then charge the vendor. All they were looking to do was take it out of the budget and not raise tax dollars. Mr. Dinkel advised this was passed legislation that allowed the Town to do this. In response to several comments, Mr. MacGuire advised this has been written legally and the only way of further explanation would be in the voters’ guide.
Article 21 – (Authority to Lease) – Mr. Dinkel advised that at some point they will need to replace their tower and this article will give them an ability to work with a private entity to absorb the costs and not have to pay for it. Mr. MacGuire remarked they have been in a preliminary discussion with one cell tower vendor and might be something that could happen. The existing tower could disappear and a less obtrusive tower might be in its place. Originally, in preliminary discussions, they thought that the Board of Selectmen had the authority to enter this type of lease, but found it was not true. They can sell property, but the Selectmen cannot lease property without having this authority. This may happen in ’07, but without the language and approve by the voters and without the contract – this could not be executed. The advantage replaces their existing tower which they will probably have to do in the next five year at their own cost. Mrs. Peterman commented that in the voters’ guide they needed an explanation of the need for coverage and determine the amount of revenue.
Article 22 – (Veterans’ Exemption – Board of Selectmen’s Proposal) – Mrs. Peterman announced that it was a 3-2 vote. Mr. Bowler indicated he had voted both in support of this article as well as the petition Veterans’ Exemption Article 23 on the ballot.
Article 24 – (Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony – By Petition) - Mrs. Peterman felt this petition issue was “blown out of proportion and found it offensive.
Article 25 – (Road Closure at the Triangle of Jones Road and Mack Hill Roads) – Board members discussed safety issues of the road at this intersection.. He advised there was also the discussion of a similar closure at Thornton’s Ferry II and Boston Post Road to make it a “T” intersection.
Minutes
The minutes were tabled until the Board’s nest meeting
Non-Public Session
Upon a unanimous roll call vote, the Board entered non-public session at 9:45 p.m. under RSA 91:A-3 II (e) legal and (a) personnel. The Board exited non-public session at 9:55 p.m.
The Board directed Acting Town Administrator to contact Counsel to determine what the ramifications would be if they held off placing the recommendations on the plaintiff’s property for several months. The Town Administrator also briefed the Board on several personnel issues of concern.
Upon a motion made and seconded, the Board adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant