|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenDecember 11, 2006
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti, Thomas Grella and Jay Dinkel. Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Mr. Bowler announced they would be taking the agenda out of order. Police Chief Peter Lyon was there with members of his department from Patrolmen to Sergeants. Chief Lyon introduced their newest Patrolman Ryan Pietrowski to the Board and briefly spoke of his credentials. Unfortunately, not everyone was able to attend, he said, Officer Pat Webster was promoted to Senior Patrolman as was Officer Chad Blake. Of those present, Officer James Crocker had a past level of experience and four years with the Department and was also promoted to Senior Patrolman. The Board had recognized Anthony Ciampoli recently upon his promotion to Sergeant, they had recognized his level of leadership and he represented the future of the Amherst Police Department. There was a brief photo op with family and friends.
MRI & Vision Revaluation Discussion
Joe Lessard, of MRI, reported that both his organization and Vision was asked to give the Board a little background on the revaluation and changes in different categories. Ken Rodgers, of Vision, gave a Power Point Presentation, what Vision looked for and how it was derived when determining the data for the revaluation. Items considered were sales, income and expense information and feedback from informal hearings. There was also the Sales Analysis consisting of a land value model, land units criteria, residential building valuation model associated with per square foot price, adjusted cost per square foot times building square foot and criteria. He commented on the Informal Hearing Process and the five criteria associated with this process. Prior to the Valuation Update the average sale price was $258,473. With the new sales ratio, the average was $383,712. The Post Valuation Update indicates that Amherst is at 98% of market value.
Mr. Infanti asked that they receive copies of the graphs. He commented on how much it went up from $258,000 to now at $383,000 or 67%. He asked how they figured the location adjustment. Mr. Rodgers indicated that a neighborhood was a geographical area – the Village would be considered a geographical area and once out of it, it would be a different marketing value and less valuable. Mr. Lessard added that there were some areas where views were considered valuable to a property and one of the things they had to consider.
Mr. Grella asked for the number of people who had filed for abatements. Mr. Lessard explained the Town had over 5,000 parcels that were taxable and to date they received 52 abatement requests or approximately 1%. The timeframe for filing abatements has not ended yet. Two out of three file after they receive their bill and file near the end of the filing period. He would be surprised if there were 100 abatements for the total amount. He spoke of the process of inspecting buildings and then submitting the recommendations to the Selectmen. He indicated that approximately 45% were value questions.
In answer to Mr. Grella’s question, Mr. Lessard explained that they did the update in 2002 which was the initial update through 2005 and that once every five years the Town gets to the 100% valuation. There are other items they took into consideration such as equity. The coefficient of dispersion also measures equity in terms of the State stepping in to require something the DRA is charged with overseeing. They don’t have the authority to order you to do something; however, the BTLA has that authority. The DRA has people going out to the various communities to do periodic surveys. In answer to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Lessard indicated that in the past revaluation, it wasn’t out of the ordinary to see 7-10% come to the hearings, if they had 52 out of 5,000, he felt this was good. Mr. Dinkel asked about location adjustment because people have heard that if they lived around the Village Green, they have an adjustment more than the other portion of the Town. Mr. Rodgers indicated this was the case because this was a higher more desirable location. Mr. Lessard added they have to break out the land and buildings and if they were in an area without land sales they can do an analysis of approved sales. Mr. Dinkel asked if there was an adjustment for seasonal properties. Mr. Lessard explained that this is not specifically done. If the lots were essentially the same, there wouldn’t be any difference in land value. Mr. Rodgers added that typically if it was seasonal there wouldn’t be any heating system.
Mr. Dinkel asked that by staying as close to market value as they can, did this penalize them when the State calculates the education taxes – was there a downside? Mr. Lessard did not believe there was a penalty by keeping current. The main thing was that by keeping current, they were being equitable for the residents in Town. Some people were paying more, some less their fair share and hopefully this would equalize everyone. The State annually checks sales ratios throughout New Hampshire. The simple process is that they take the local values derived divided by .198 for communities throughout the State. In answer to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Lessard briefly spoke about the number of parcels and abatement requests in Lebanon and Claremont in comparison to Amherst.
Relative to Mr. Panasiti’s question about neighborhoods, Mr. Rodgers explained if citizens come in and have problems with a neighborhood, they will look at it again and reanalyze the entire neighborhood, not just that person’s home.
Mr. Bowler opened the discussion to the audience. Cal Wood, Woodland Drive, asked about the mathematical model that derived the land value and the data that was based on the calculation. Mr. Lessard indicated the mathematical equation could be both on acres or square footage and unit price is based on topography or whatever. In terms of access of data, the data is all of the land sales that occurred over a three year timeframe. Mr. Rodgers added that they also consider the land residuals where they take the building off. In response to Mr. Wood’s question, he suggested that Mr. Wood look at the manual they left for the Town in the Assessing Office which shows the parameters. Mr. Lessard indicated that it also shows the various factors for the various neighborhoods. Mr. Wood commented that it should be noted that his question wasn’t answered, even after Mr. Dinkel explained that the land value was derived by sales.
Linda Kaiser, 6 Manchester Road, spoke of her taxes ten years ago compared to now and had gone to Tax Court along with six other residents. She asked if she had to do the comps again. Mr. Lessard explained that if she was requesting an abatement, the Town needed to do an inspection to see if the physical data was correct. They would be going through the same process as she was, he couldn’t tell her how much time she should spend on it and will review whatever she gives them. They will then do the work in the field and make a recommendation to the Selectmen. Mrs. Kaiser said she had received a notice near the end of the process and was told she couldn’t have a hearing. Mr. Lessard assured her that she could meet with the MRI Assessors and there wasn’t any timeframe. He asked her to call Michele to schedule an appointment. Mr. Dinkel added that the Vision software has a button she could hit to view comparable properties online.
Marilyn Peterman, 130 Amherst Street, asked about location adjustments. She compared land values and wondered if they readjusted the land factor since the last revaluation. She lives in the Historic District and looked at other comps similarly situated. Mr. Lessard mentioned that the adjustments are part of what should have been reviewed and Vision actually did this analysis for them. Mr. Rodgers indicated that they did look at location adjustments based on sales. Mrs. Peterman spoke of Amherst Street being a heavily traveled road. Mr. Rodgers said they adjusted the location if it needed to be changed. Mr. Lessard added the adjustment would be on the tax card.
David Fraser, 4 Pinewood Drive, indicated he also owned 130 acres on Brook Road. He purchased the property in November 2002 and in four years his assessment went up 120%. The home they lived in for the past 15 years has gone up 106%. He did not understand the formula and the fact it went up this amount in four years was “mind boggling” and he didn’t see the statistical information. Mr. Bowler indicated they will get information to him. Mr. Infanti mentioned that house lots in Amherst have almost doubled and tripled. Mr. Fraser remarked that his assessment went from $75,000 to $153,000. Mr. Infanti told him that $153,000 was a fair price in Amherst as well as in Milford. He purchased land for $45,000 in Milford and had been taxed for half a million dollars.
Mrs. Kaiser asked if there was something in writing that she could read and understand. Mr. Rodgers explained that the manual would give her all the analysis. Mr. Dinkel commented that what she was asking for in the manual is minutia and she could argue the adjustment. He was not sure many of them could tackle the minutia and this was the reason they had this meeting on how they got the value and the sales. Mr. Bowler asked if they could receive something electronically for the website. Mr. Lessard advised that when the Town was ordered to do the revaluation, the Board also hired another company to insure it would be done correctly - the Board takes this very seriously. Mr. Grella once again asked to review the land valuation model slide.
Robin Warren asked what was the total number of dollars that had gone up. Mr. Dinkel advised it went up just under 40%. Mr. Bowler added that the tax rate, however, had dropped.
Approve Recommendations and Sign
The Board tabled signing the BTLA Settlements for Comstock Realty and RNB Realty for their further review.
Mr. Dinkel advised the owners on 4 Locke Road qualified for current use for the 2007 tax year. Mr. Infanti moved to put 10.18 acres into current use on Map 7 Lot 58-1, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
It was advised by MRI to deny the abatement for Robert & Jean Cornett, M/L 8-21 as the information was correct. Mr. Infanti moved to deny, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel moved to approve an abatement in the amount of $531.01 for M/L 17-9, 15 Middle Street, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel advised that 20 Lyndeborough Road M/L 5-60-1 was to correct land in current use. Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement in the amount of $494.75, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $207.00 for M/L 16-24-5 Courthouse Road, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $427.44 for M/L 14-23 27 Merrimack Road, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $3,133.00 for M/L 8-77-35 17 Williamsburg Drive, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $165.70 for M/L 17-116 154 Amherst Street, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
The Board tabled approval of an abatement of $5,923.02 for M/L 1-29-6-1 1 Route 101A Unit 1 for further review.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $300.00 for the Veteran’s Tax Credit that had not been given, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $2,610.00 for M/L 12-23 10 Truell Road as the lot in question no longer exists, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
After the Board received an explanation on the abatement of $1,080.84 for a data error on an above ground pool for M/L 4-72 99 Merrimack Road from Mr. Lessard, Mr. Infanti moved approval, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel indicated he had a question about using an appraisal that was dated 10/6/06 and wondered about using a post appraisal for property that was sold on M/L 8-84 Manchester Road. Mr. Lessard indicated they visited the subject property to see if it was listed correctly and in the inspector’s opinion, the grade was too high. In comparing it, it appeared to be in line to what the appraisal was saying. They haven’t seen values dropped in the other direction. Values in October weren’t significantly different than the values in April. Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement of $2,257.72, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Jamie Ramsay, Foundry Street, asked if there was a distinction between the Historic District and the Village. Mr. Lessard advised Ken Rodgers obviously was the one to answer the question, but he couldn’t believe they would be all the same neighborhood factor. Mr. Infanti added it was more by neighborhood than District. Mr. Lessard commented that this information was available at the Assessor’s Office.
Municipal Assessment Data Sheets Survey
Mr. Lessard reported that Scott Marsh had completed the Sales Analysis information required by the State. They had to provide the assessment data for last year and this year for each of the properties sold and had done the initial sales analysis. The State reviews all the sales, but may not use them all. The coefficient of dispersion was just over 7% and the sales ratio over 98%. Mr. Dinkel moved to accept the Data Sheet Survey, the Board to sign it and send it onto the State, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: In response to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Lessard explained that Scott receives the information for the analysis from the Assessor’s Office downstairs. Vote: Unanimous.
Citizens’ Forum
Marilyn Peterman indicated she had read the Selectmen’s minutes and noticed that there were two warrant articles that were seeking LUCT funds. She told the Board that she originally brought this warrant article to Town Meeting with 50% going to Conservation and the other 50% for land purposes and rehabilitation of historic buildings. This was amended and the use was for other land purchases including Conservation. She talked to Gary and she understands that in the RSA there is some discretion for using this money for other purposes. These funds accumulate when people take their property out of current use and the purpose was to put aside the other 50% which Town Meeting deemed necessary to be used for other land purposes. She said she would be disappointed if these funds were used for any other purpose than purchasing land. If they do this for a building, the money won’t be there if land was needed to be purchased. Before they had this warrant article, the money went back to the taxpayers to reduce their tax bill.
Mr. Dinkel remarked that if she read the minutes, some of them agreed with her and they needed to define how to use these funds. Mrs. Peterman indicated that $800,000 could buy a significant piece of land with land values increasing the way they have been. She just wanted to express her opinion because she felt very strongly at the time it was appropriated.
The Woodlands at Amherst Road Names
Mr. Dinkel moved approval of Freedom Circle and Osprey Court, second by Mr. Infanti for the subdivision at 24 Brook Road. Discussion: It was mentioned that a letter had also been received from Chief Lyon approving these names. Vote: Unanimous.
PMEC Budget Presentation
Advisory Board Members Greg King and Brad Galinson met with the Board. Mr. King advised they were there to discuss the funding mechanism for Phase III. He gave a brief history of the Center as it evolved from its purchase in the mid 90’s by the Town and Conservation Commission. He spoke of the fundraising efforts by private and corporate money as well as grants. Phase II is nearing completion as an exterior structure – the inside is still not complete. Phase III is the completion of the building so that it is turnkey. He reminded everyone that PMEC has raised $260,000 and used for everything that has been done to the building to date with no tax impact. In order to complete the building in Phase III, they came up with asking for a warrant article in the amount of $225,000 from the LUCT fund
Mr. Galinson indicated it was the Board’s thought that the LUCT was an environmental fund and PMEC would be educating children in environmental sciences. This is a terrific asset to the Town and they would be appropriating the money to finish the building. They would have a Department that would no longer have a subsidy. Future building uses were for school field trips, school environmental camps, vacation camps for school children, facility rental for workshops, seminars, meetings, more programs would be offered year round, home schooling programs, scouting groups, craft and hobby programs for Seniors, additional after-care programs for working parents, expended Hartshorn camp for working parents and expanded Hartshorn camp for vacation periods. He hoped the Selectmen would support Phase III.
Mr. King knew the wording of the funds has been challenged. He reminded the Board that originally land was purchased by Conservation with probably a great deal of the LUCT funds. Mr. Bowler advised that Town Counsel said it could be used and it was not challenged. Mr. Galinson presented the Board with a detailed list of Phase III building requirements totaling $236,145.00. Mr. King spoke of the proposed PMEC 2007-2008 budget and revenue. The ’07-‘08 revenue was projected at $74,461.39 and expenses at $100,288.06. They were projecting pro-forma with the building at $133,464.00 in revenues and $128,196.40 in expenses.
The Selectmen asked questions or made comments relative to the goal of self-sufficiency, increase in program fees, maintenance of the building, and timeframe for completing the building. Mr. Bowler liked the program and thought it was great to have. Potentially he did not have a problem using the LUCT funds for this. Putting it as a warrant article the townspeople would have a say on the matter. In response to Mr. King’s question of the Board’s support, Mr. Bowler advised they would be taking a formal vote at their public hearing on January 16, 2007. Mr. Dinkel spoke of the reason he did not want to give his views at this time. He talked about how other towns have raided these funds that Amherst has carefully put aside. The one thing he agreed with was that this be the voters’ call and should be put on the ballot.
Deirdre Rogusky asked if the article isn’t approved, what were they going to do for funds they need. Mr. King indicated they would continue to fundraise and continue to write for grants. The foundation had been sitting there since 2003 and they now have a shell. They were happy with the participation of the people in Town. One thing W&M should know, he said, is this is simply moving funds from one account to another with no tax impact.
Mr. Infanti remarked they may not be buying land per se, but the majority of the kids that take these classes come back with an appreciation for the land and for nature. They were creating a whole new generation of kids that will have a much more affinity for the land with what they have here – this was an incredible teaching and learning experience. Mr. Panasiti commented on Jay’s feeling they were raiding the LUCT fund. Presently there were only two warrant articles and he understood both Jay’s and Marilyn’s positions. There was money being spent on Conservation and then there would be money going back into PMEC for what they do and this is where Town Counsel’s opinion comes in. Mr. Dinkel indicated they already have 50% set aside for Conservation and the other 50% is for non-Conservation land. Mr. King remembered that buildings were taken out of the original warrant article. This was their challenge and he would be happy to take it on in the purview of the original intent of where those funds came from. He believed, they have a pretty good case that this is within the spirit of the article and as a citizen he wouldn’t want to see that money go any other place.
Untable Overpayment of Taxes – Requested Refund
Mr. Bowler indicated the Board had received a letter from the Tax Collector. Mr. Infanti indicated he had researched the request and had changed the subject line on the Tax Collector’s memo to Corriveau Refund from Corriveau Abatement. After doing the research on this, he did not believe it was an abatement because the Town made a mistake in billing. The first bill in 2005 showed the Veterans Tax Exemption of $1400.00 – they paid what they were told to pay. The second bill did not show the Veterans Exemption and was a mistake by a billing service. The total tax was $3,774.00 of which they paid $1049.00 in the first half resulting in a net property tax of $2725.00 and they paid what the Town told them to pay. In this particular case, the Town mis-billed them. They overpaid their taxes and it was not an abatement when looking over the tax bills the Corriveau’s submitted to the Board. He felt this a totally different story than an abatement and would change the rules. They were addressing this as an abatement and it isn’t one in his mind.
Mr. Dinkel agreed to the mis-billing of the property and the right thing is to give them their money back. Mr. Infanti commented that the company admitted this when the billing was sent out and he reiterated that this was different than abating someone’s property. Mr. Panasiti also felt this was not an abatement. Mr. Infanti moved to refund the $1400.00 the Town mis-billed in 2005 based on affirmation of the Tax Collector, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Health Insurance Discussion
Mr. MacGuire passed out an updated spreadsheet of what he had proposed last week (see attached). He proposed three alternatives and spoke about them and would have on the cost to the Town. He had been waiting for some updated information from Primex that had now been added. One change would be in the co-pays form $5.00 to $10.00. The second change would be in the current prescription plan that was currently $0/$20/$30 to a change of $0/$25/$40 that was generic vs. brand named prescriptions and a savings of $12,848.00. Similar was an actual change in two of their plans from the high POS option to a medium option and also a PPO high option to a low option and the HMO high option would be a HMO medium option.
Mr. MacGuire indicated that the second sheet contained four different options: (1) Alternative 2 would be a small percentage change in employee contributions, no other changes made in the plans with a savings of $23,092.00; (2) Alternative 1 and a change in the plan co-pays: Minimal percentage changes in employee contributions, change of office visit co-pays from $5 to $10 and a change in prescription plan from $0/$20/$30 to $0/$25/40 with a savings of $24,965; (3) Alternative 2 and a change in the plan co-pays: A small percentage change in employee contributions, change office visit co-pays from $5 to $10, change in prescription plan from $0/$20/$30 to $0/$25/$40 with a savings of $35,940; (4) Alternative 3 and change in plan co-pays: A significant percentage change in employee contributions, change of office visit co-pays from $5 to $10, change prescription plan from $0/$20/$30 to $0/$25/$40 for a savings of $49,107.00.
Mr. MacGuire advised he had provided the Board last week with the projected impact this would bring on the different classification of employees based on salary ranges from $30,000 to $60,000, who would receive a step and COLA for the lower step employees and those that were topped out. Approximately 20% of their employees were at the topped out position and would just be receiving the 2.3% COLA. Within a few years this number would change between 30-40% of the employees. They could do alternatives to the plan with co-pays or a change plans. The impact to the employee appears to be significant. For several employees any salary increase they would receive would be wiped out and actually cost them money. Without a major change, there may be a savings of $12,000. This affects each employee differently.
Mr. MacGuire was looking for direction from the Selectmen on what they would like to see him pursue for budgeting purposes. They know they will see the real numbers by March or April. Anything he proposed now he was not sure where they will be when they actually enact the plan. He advised they will also shop again for other providers. Mr. Panasiti mentioned that looking across the board, the wages from the lowest to the highest, the biggest impact would be on the lowest wage earner and he didn’t know if there was any way to compensate for this. Mr. MacGuire briefly spoke about this and indicated that whichever way they go, it has an impact on someone.
Mr. Dinkel thanked Mr. MacGuire for doing such a great job in laying everything out so that they can see what their options are at this stage. He felt the alternative plan that had the least impact on health insurance was alternate one. He commented that it breaks tradition not giving all full time employees the same as the Union. On the other hand by keeping that option it “splits the pain of the increase as fairly as it can between the taxpayers and the employees”. Mr. Grella agreed with Jay. He indicated that this was a small change in what the employees have to make up, adds an additional $5.00 co-pay and a bit more for prescriptions and there would not be that much of a change. Mr. Infanti suggested they go with alternate number three. He cited the health insurance benefits he pays as an employer and indicated that all his employees pay half. He felt co-pays were a gift if people pay nothing. He had no problem going up on the co-pay. This was a tough call and at some point they needed to be equitable between the taxpayer and employees, but he needed to look at the numbers more. Mr. Bowler agreed with George. The Union will have to be dealt with next year during negotiations and will try to get everyone back on together.
Tedd Landon commented that municipal and State employees have no co-pays but everyone else has one. The spreadsheet did not show if there is an increase in co-pay for emergency room or urgent care cases. Mr. MacGuire asked that the Board point him in the right direction when they were ready to go there.
Budget & Warrant Articles Discussion
Mr. MacGuire handed out a summary sheet for expenditures and revenue. He gave them the shortened version so they could focus on the bottom line. The expenditures were showing a slight increase because of the funding for the Baboosic Lake Bond for Phase II. This got their expenditures up $28,000, but there will be no affect on the net budget. The current variance is $471,392.07 and the revenue is $233,758.37 or a net budget of 2.8%. However, he will double check this with Merri Howe. This was where he was going to leave it tonight based on the budget. On the warrant articles he planned on only going over those they had made changes to last week.
Mr. Dinkel would like to see if they can get their expense side down a little bit and felt they could. There was a brief discussion on EMS revenues based on projection of the number of calls. Mr. Infanti questioned the $17,000 being billed to Mont Vernon and thought it seemed very cheap for a base rate. Mr. Dinkel advised he will be meeting with Brian this week and will discuss this with him. Deidre Rogusky asked about Police Special Duty not being budgeted for. Mr. Bowler explained that this was changed last year and put into a revolving account.
Mr. Bowler asked if the number in the budget for cemeteries was the updated one. Mr. Infanti indicated he had a meeting last week and didn’t remember the exact number but the Cemetery Trustees requested a person for a partial year to work in the cemeteries and would pay them a bit over $15,000. The Trustees weighed the total amount and will take it totally out of the cemetery budget this year to see if it works. Mr. MacGuire advised this number was not in this budget and have not seen anything official yet. Mr. Infanti remarked that they should be receiving a letter from them.
Mr. Bowler asked the Board if they had any thoughts on the direction Gary should go in. Mr. Infanti suggested Gary go back to the Department Heads and ask them to review it one more time to see if there is any more whittling that could be done. Mr. MacGuire told him of their mission when they first sat down this year. One of his focuses was overtime which was in his budget. He also had the same discussion with the Police Chief. Cemeteries were also one that they addressed and there were also some general discussions they had that night. He would have no problem of saying “from our own personal knowledge, we think you can take out a bit more”. Mr. Bowler felt if the Board wanted him to do something, they needed to tell him. Mr. Infanti said he was not that uncomfortable on the net budget. Mr. MacGuire mentioned this was within their timeframe and he would be more than happy to go over things individually or at a work session. He trusts the Department Heads’ judgment and felt they have done the best they could. Mr. Grella suggested asking the Department Heads to look at new equipment as something that has to be replaced and ask if they could perhaps wait another year. Mr. MacGuire indicated that in most of the actual budget lines, he was not seeing much new equipment. He personally was having a problem understanding tools and equipment for both DPW and Fire which is very high.
Mr. Dinkel was encouraged where they were in the budget now. He would like to see them get down below the inflation level – if they were at 2.8, could they get down to 2.3 and it would be a budget they all could be proud of. Mr. Panasiti agreed with Jay. It was one thing asking the Department Heads to put off things this coming year, but they would only be adding them the following year. If they look at the income, why couldn’t they use this to offset the deficit? He felt that Gary had told the Department Heads not to put any fluff in their budget. The Board had gone through it line by line and there wasn’t any fluff. Mr. MacGuire told the Board that they were conservative on both the expenditure side as well as the revenue side where he was tighter than before. Mr. Bowler agreed with Jay on the 2.3% inflation level. He thought they have done real well and that it was doable – they just got back $15,000. Mr. MacGuire added they also just discussed some alternatives in health insurance. They also had a brief discussion on the Planning & Zoning fees being changed that will have some affect. Mr. Grella suggested an analysis be run on Charlie Tiedemann’s Department.
Deidre Rogusky commented that W&M was concerned about Brian putting his salary increase in a warrant article. Mr. MacGuire remarked that as of last week he was unsure of the figure. There had been some confusion and he told them of Mr. Gleason’s thoughts and the reason he wanted the $31,000 in a warrant article which was the entire increase where he wanted to get his people to in one year. He believes his people will be supported either way. The Board briefly talked about what would happen if the warrant article didn’t pass. Mr. Bowler asked that some numbers be put together on what this would look like. Mr. MacGuire indicated he would give them some options.
Warrant Articles
Baboosic Lake Community Septic System: Mr. MacGuire advised they received word last Wednesday that they did not get awarded the Watershed Restoration Grant for Phase III. DES was not prepared to fund this because Amherst received a great deal of the entire grant in the past. It still made sense for them to go forward with a warrant and the numbers had changed slightly from last week. It is too early to see where they will go if they don’t have funding next year.
DPW Loader Replacement: Mr. MacGuire reported Bruce Berry is recommending reducing the article down to $110,000 from $132,000. He was looking at a $25,400 annual payment based on 5% for a five year lease. They would not figure this in for the first year payment.
Fire Department Command Vehicle: Mr. MacGuire explained he had gone to the Fire Chief for a break down of the vehicle costs and the bottom line went down to $29,000. The current base price was $22,075. Based on a 5% increase, because the Explorer was a bit higher in price, it came to $23,400 delivered. Also included was a trailer package, warning lights removal and putting on the new vehicle, stripe lettering, sirens and other outfitting items. Mr. Bowler asked if they could hold off one more year on the command box and use the one they currently have. Mr. Grella suggested they look for a FEMA grant.
EMS Salary Adjustment Change: The Board had already discussed this change.
Replace Town Emergency Communications Tower: Robin Warren asked what the tower was doing for them and why were they changing it. Mr. MacGuire explained it was an engineering decision because the tower was near or at obsolescence – it has out-lived its life and needs to be replaced.
They discussed last week if they could wait on this. Some changes were made when they put in the Communications Center. Mr. Warren asked if there would be some advantages in this new tower. Mr. MacGuire indicated they would propose, if replaced, would be a free standing tower meaning there would be no guide wires and would add 20’ that would provide for the future. As the trees grow, eventually the signal goes down. If they needed to add frequency for some other department, they also needed a certain amount of space for the new antenna. He commented on the dismantling of the pole and reconstructing it. Mr. Panasiti asked didn’t they think this number was low. Mr. MacGuire indicated he had this conversation with Bruce about the removal and installation and he was not sure he was ready to say they were substantially low. Bob Petrella asked about the antennas. Mr. MacGuire explained that all of the antennas were replaced two years ago with the exception of the DPD frequency and will be reused.
In response to Tedd Landon’s question regarding the loader, Mr. Bowler indicated that the loader did not belong to the SRLD and was the Town’s piece of equipment. Each town in the District had to supply the labor and equipment.
Mr. Panasiti reported he attended the Amherst School Board’s meeting last week. He briefly told the Board about the discussion of building a school on the Bean property as option No. 7, the School Board tabled it and would take it up at the next meeting. Mr. Bowler passed out an email he received from Chairman Dwight Brew that the Board reviewed relative to the Bean Fields. The Board considered the issues that were raised some of which related to the options on the table for a new school as well as traffic matters. Mr. Dinkel mentioned the Board had already voted to put money towards the fields, felt they should move forward and believed the Selectmen had committed the area for recreational uses, assuming they were not building a school.
Mr. Dinkel reported that the OSAC Committee had openings because Graham Hankey resigned and Bob Lown has moved away. The opening for Graham Hankey was recommended by the Conservation Commission to be fulfilled by Jim Bowen. There was also a spot for a W&M member that has not been filled. He asked if the Board wanted to interview Jim Bowen for the opening created by Mr. Lown’s moving away from Town. They had also added another At-Large position for Bruce Beckley in order for him to stay on. After a brief discussion Mr. Infanti moved to appoint Jim Bowen to the OSAC Committee representing Conservation, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Grella reported his observation of the Tree Lighting and the number of people who made this a family event. He commented to the TV audience that if they worked as a volunteer he thanked them.
Mr. Infanti reported on the numerous developers that have been applying to build in Amherst. He also reported there would be another Master Plan session where they were looking for more volunteers. He stressed the need for more people because this is a major endeavor that would shape the Town for many years. His only other report was that the Cemetery Trustees volunteered to pay for a new maintenance person.
Mr. Bowler reported that the SRLD held their budget public hearing on Thursday night. It was approved and reduced by $35,000 and a minor change in Bruce’s budget.
Mr. Dinkel moved to approve the minutes of December 4, 2006, seconded by Mr. Infanti amended as follows: Line 15 – Change “500” to “1500”; Line 27 – Change “was” to “uses”; Line 123 – Change “daughter” to “two daughters”; Line 193 – Change “no” to “not”; Line 209 – Strike the second “and”; Line 266 – Change “Replace Town Emergency Communications Tower” with “Generator Relocation”. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:45 p.m., second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant