|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenDecember 18, 2006
|
Board of Health
In the absence of Chairman Dr. James Starke, Board of Selectmen Chairman Bruce Bowler called the hearing to order at 6:07 p.m. Selectmen present: Thomas Grella, Reed Panasiti, George Infanti and Jay Dinkel. Also present Deputy Health Officer Charlie Tiedemann and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Lots 5-40, 5-46-1, 5-60-1 Lyndeborough Road
Patch Hill Realty Trust, Barbara Enright, Tim Farris Request of Waivers
Tom Carr, Meridian Land Services, representing Tim Farris on the project presented. He advised this was a different plan than what he had presented to them several months ago. It was a proposed subdivision located between Amherst Street on the east, Lyndeborough Road on the north and North & Summer Streets on the southwest corner of Milford. The new plan has access onto Amherst Street (in the vicinity of Miles Road) rather than Lyndeborough Road. Mr. Carr described the three color coded areas: The green areas meet all the current natural soils; the blue show lots needing a minimum of 36” of natural soil and the yellow areas need a minimum of 2’ of natural soil which will be their request and discussed further. There were 45 proposed lots with a total of 35 acres of open space. The open space has been designed around protecting three quarries and four vernal pools. The open space was to preserve the characteristics of the quarries and habitat of the vernal pools.
Mr. Carr indicated they were requesting that the minimum amount of naturally occurring soil under the septic system leach field be no less than 24”. Any lot with less than 48” of naturally occurring soil under the septic system leach field will be required to have a Pre-Treatment Septic System designed and installed. He briefly described the path the water system Mr. Farris has committed to put in. Mr. Farris commented that the system hasn’t been confirmed, but it seems it will come from Milford. Mr. Carr advised that there was one lot on Lyndeborough Road which is questionable. If it doesn’t pan out, they will try and find another spot for the house and put in an easement to pump the system in order to save the lot.
Mr. Carr indicated they were tailoring their request after the State rule Env-ws 1014.01 which requires that the receiving layer maintain and/or construct 48” of soil within 35’ down gradient of the proposed leach field. They were asking for 24” within the 35’ and for this specific request they would build the soil up to 48” so that it would conform to Amherst’s regulations. Mr. Tiedemann advised that over the past 4-5 months, they have looked at many test pits and he had sat down with Tom to determine the best way to use the existing conditions. He spoke about pre-treatment systems and commented that there will not be any wells because they will be dealing with Pennichuck Water. In January, when Septitech comes in, they can talk about the reduction on their end. He advised he had no problem with this plan. He thought the lot on Lyndeborough Road would be okay if they could combine a system for several lots.
In response to Mr. Grella’s question, Mr. Tiedemann mentioned that it was his understanding that the last Board of Health they approved the FAST system and the Town has now approved three different types that they could use. Mr. Carr added that they would probably have a mix of the various pretreatment processes in the subdivision. He spoke briefly about the two systems he was familiar with.
Mr. Infanti had nothing specific to ask, he read the report and suggestions, it appeared the homework had been done by Mr. Tiedemann and Meridian and it looks like the systems will work. Mr. Dinkel commented this was a totally different plan from what they saw several months ago and on a different part of the property. Mr. Carr explained this was a much better layout. The access to Amherst Street was the key in designing it. Mr. Dinkel wanted to exclude the lot on Lyndeborough Road from the discussion. Mr. Carr indicated they have to find a way to make the lot work without the waiver. Mr. Panasiti asked if there were any ordinances associated with vernal pools or quarries. Mr. Carr mentioned there was a document on vernal pools in Yarmouth, Maine’s web site. There is technically no State ordinance or rule yet, but the Wetlands Bureau is working on it and probably by July 2007 there will be something in place that would document that study. He spoke about the setback being 100 feet off from the pools. Mr. Panasiti asked if there would be signage or fencing near the quarries. Mr. Carr explained there were two small quarries on land which will become the Town’s. They had been before the Conservation Commission and they were interested in holding an easement. Insofar as signage, he had no answer.
Mr. Bowler asked how many may have pump systems. Mr. Carr’s guess was not more than 10% or five lots out of the 45. Mr. Bowler asked about the soil removal. Mr. Tiedemann recommended that the top and subsoil be removed and put new soil in and then put back the top and subsoil. After a brief discussion, Mr. Bowler agreed with Jay in that he would take out the lot on Lyndeborough Road. Mr. Tiedemann remarked he believed they were going to dig more test pits with the next step being a shared system. Mr. Grella asked if they could bring in Town water there. Mr. Carr explained he and Charlie discussed this last Friday – it was possible to run a line out to the house, but it was quite a long way. This is another option for the Planning Board and Conservation Commission to do further testing on and then decide what to do with it. They could apply the waivers for all the lots except for the three on Lyndeborough Road because they were not part of the water system.
Mr. Infanti moved that they grant the waivers to the depth regulations based on Mr. Tiedemann’ recommendations of test pits on the lots based on: (1) When the test pits on the lots indicate that the depth to ledge is less than four (4) feet but greater than two (2) feet then a waiver to the rules of the Amherst Board of Selectmen (Sec. G, Subsec. 12, Para. A) shall be granted provided based on: (a) The soil under the system shall be raised by adding fill to have the bottom of the bed a minimum of four (4) feet above the ledge or ESHWT. (b) The down gradient soil layer shall also be filled to a minimum depth of four (4) feet for a distance of 35 feet. (c) A pretreatment processor shall be installed with the leaching system on the lot. (d) The pretreatment system shall be inspected by the manufacturer once per year with a report of the inspection sent to the Amherst Zoning Office for the lots on the main section on or off Pennicook Way which is to be serviced by Town water, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Upon a unanimous vote, the Board of Health adjourned at 6:38 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Chairman Bruce Bowler called with meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. with all Selectmen present as well as Town Administrator Gary MacGuire.
Citizens’ Forum
There were no concerns or questions from members of the audience.
Award Tractor Lease
Mr. MacGuire advised this lease had been discussed in September when there was an issue of a delayed delivery in February. The tractor has arrived and he had contacted four financial institutions and asked for payment terms between three to five years. The rates received were as follows: Ocean National – 3 Years Annual Payment $18,033.91, 5 Years Annual Payment $11,339.72; Baystone Financial – 3 Years Annual Payment $18,208.49, 5 Years Annual Payment $11,450.95; First Colebrook Bank – 3 Years Semi-Annual Payment $18,202.60, 2 Years Annual Payment $17,993.86, 5 Years Semi-Annual Payment $11,427.60, 5 Years Annual Payment $11,288.17; Government Leasing Company – 3 Years Annual Payment $18,560.00, 5 Years Annual Payment $11,975.00. After a brief discussion Mr. Dinkel moved to accept First Colebrook Bank’s lease proposal of 4.5% for three years, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Lions Club Recognition for EMS Donation
Mr. Bowler called upon EMS Director Brian Gleason and his guests. Mr. Gleason invited Lions Club President Charles Pyle and Charlie Vars to the front of the room. He thanked the Lions Club for a $2,000 donation which was used to offset the purchase of high visibility jackets for the Department. He had taken the opportunity to have the Lions Club emblem embroidered onto the sleeve of the jackets. Mr. Vars spoke of the Lions Club being in Amherst for 32 years and their helping the community in many ways. They were glad to be of aid to have Amherst EMS better seen on the highways. Mr. Pyle added they receive things from the community and give back to it in many ways. There was a photo op with the Mr. Vars, Mr. Pyle, Mr. Gleason and several members of the Department, who were wearing their new jackets.
Abatements
After reading the explanation, Mr. Dinkel advised there was a recommendation to reduce the assessment from $624,600 to $570,700 – tax dollars $1,014.94 on M/L 5-47-22, 9 Nathan Lord. Mr. Infanti so moved, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
After reading the explanation, Mr. Dinkel advised there was a recommendation to remove the tax dollar amount of $1,356.00 from M/L 6-122-1, Walnut Hill Road which was now an exempt property owned by the Town of Amherst. Mr. Infanti so moved, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
After reading the explanation, Mr. Dinkel advised there was a recommendation to reduce the assessment from $723,800 to $669,000 – tax dollars $1,014.94 from M/L 5-108-2, 7 O’Neil Way. Mr. Infanti so moved, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel, after reading the explanation, advised there were no changes made by MRI on M/L 1-13-3, Hollis Road Mr. Infanti moved to deny, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel read the explanation on the recommendation to deny the request for M/L 12-2, 7 Craftsmen Lane. The owner says the lot was unbuildable, but there was no record that it was unbuildable. Mr. Infanti moved to deny the request, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Bowler remarked this parcel abutted Stump Pond. Mr. Infanti commented that if the Building Department felt it was a buildable lot, then he would agree with the recommendation. Mr. Panasiti advised that one acre was assessed at $68,000 and 2.4 at the lower rate. Mr. Infanti withdrew his motion, it was seconded by Mr. Grella. Mr. Infanti indicated he withdrew his motion until they find out if the parcel was buildable or unbuildable. If it isn’t a buildable lot, it still has value to whoever abuts the property. Mr. Infanti moved to table until they had further discussion with the Building Department, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel, after reading the explanation, advised the recommendation was made to reduce the assessment on M/L 6-82, 69 Walnut Hill from $385,100 to $374,700 – tax dollars $195.83. Mr. Infanti moved to grant the abatement, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
After reading the explanation, Mr. Dinkel advised the recommendation was to reduce the assessment from $631,700 to $604,600 – tax dollars $510.20. Mr. Infanti so moved, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
At 7:30 p.m. Mr. Bowler left the meeting and Mr. Dinkel chaired.
Hazard Mitigation Plan Presentation
Kerrie Diers, Assistant Director of NRPC met with the Board. She briefly spoke of the plan she left copies of for the Selectmen last week. Mr. MacGuire explained the Committee consisting of Fire Chief John DeSilva, EMS Director Brian Gleason, Police Chief Peter Lyon, DPW Director Bruce Berry, Emergency Management Operations Deputy Director Don Holden and himself had been meeting since the end of August.
Ms. Diers mentioned that Danielle Fillis from the NRPC who had been working with them, commented that this was the best Committee she has worked with. She spoke of the process and the steps they had gone through. They also had citizen representatives, public notices and articles in the newspaper. There were a lot of mapping exercises, natural hazards identified and things that could happen in the future to the critical facilities. They looked at plans and procedures as well as at policies they could have in the future. They then created the plan, came up with some recommendations and strategies. The Town will now be available for Mitigation Funding. They have included many culvert programs. She hoped that the Department Heads that were present could talk about the recommendations and strategies that are in the plan that includes communications, emergency response, public education and safety.
She asked if they had any questions about the process and plan itself. Mr. Infanti said he was surprised and impressed, it was a very precise document and a great deal of work should be acknowledged for what they did. Ms. Diers believed they had five meetings since August and it was a very comprehensive document. Mr. Grella hoped that some of the recommendations have taken place or will take place. Mr. Panasiti was interested in the history of following the weather patterns. One thing he did not see or not sure it was in there was the chain of command. Ms. Diers explained this was found in the Emergency Operations Plan. This was a pre-plan document. There should be a natural hazardous piece in the EO Plan.
Chief Lyon thanked the NRPC and indicated that Danielle was very helpful. They identified the plans they had in place already. Then they spent time developing strategies on future issues. Many were identified by Gary, Brian, John and himself and was a group effort. Mr. Dinkel asked that based on the document, how do they make sure they are following up on items and maintaining those that are in place. The Chief believed this should be reviewed at least on an annual basis, if not more often.
Mr. MacGuire commented on Chapter VIII Recommendations B. 1 – Culverts and Bridge Capacity Improvements. They looked at the area near the south Boston Post Road bridge, as an area where they may want to seek some funding. If they bring the road up, they may not have to close it on an annual basis. B. 18 refers to the issue of having to pump out a flooded area in Town this past spring and one they hadn’t thought of before this year. The NRPC did a great job pulling this all together as part of their plan – it was a working document for them to use.
Don Holden explained this was the first step in development of an Emergency Management Plan. There were different plans that needed to be completely updated such as how they expend funds in an emergency, and who is responsible for putting it all together. Working with the NRPC allows them to use the same format and terminology as other communities on how to plan for an incident. Mr. Dinkel thanked the NRPC who coordinated this plan, the Department Heads and Emergency Management folks and also the volunteer community citizens for participating. Ms. Diers indicated the next step was to invite the public to comment. Once this was done, they will send the plan to FEMA for any comments or revisions. Michael Campbell mentioned that most towns have it on their website. Ms. Diers said they will put it on their web site along with a link to the Town’s.
Untable BTLA Settlement
Mr. Infanti indicated this settlement for the 2005 tax year was for M/L 2-34-3, 5 Howe Drive. The previous assessment was $1,318,300 and the new one at $1,050,000 – tax dollars $6,613.60. The recommendation from MRI was to abate $268,300 based on the property values in the area. MRI felt this had merit and was an equitable settlement for the Town. If this is granted, they will withdraw their appeal. Mr. Infanti commented that that since they have professionals that have reviewed this he moved to take their recommendation and abate $6,613.60, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Dinkel commented that the assessment looks quite low, but he reminded them that this was for 2005 and at a 74% equalize rate. The 100% for this year is ending up closer to where they were now. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti indicated this settlement was basically the same as the previous one discussed. It was for M/L 2-34-6, 12 Howe Drive. The assessment went from $1,640,600 to $1,050,000 and he felt this was a reasonable amount and not out of line with the property’s value. They were recommending $11,477.04 be granted for the 2005 tax year. If this was granted, they would drop the BTLA appeal. Mr. Infanti moved that they go along with MRI’s recommendation and abate a total of $11,477.04 for the 2005 tax year, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Untable DREK, LLC Abatement Recommendation
Mr. Infanti advised the property is located on Route 101A M/L 1-29-6-1 known as The Ledges. The unit they were discussing was called The Guitar Gallery. The previous assessment was $537,600 and the new one was $223,000, the recommendation was in line with the assessments of the other condominium buildings in the project. Mr. Dinkel indicated that there is no land and it is assumed the Association pays the taxes for it. Mr. Infanti’s personal feeling was that all of the buildings should be looked at. They had talked about reviewing a neighborhood if one person had a concern and they may have to look at the entire “neighborhood” again. The Board reviewed the tax cards for properties in this complex and felt that this building should be assessed more than the $223,000 which also had a prime location. Mr. Infanti wanted to have one more discussion with MRI before they approve or deny it. Mr. Infanti moved to table this recommendation for further discussion with MRI, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous. The Board would like Scott Marsh to meet with them at some point in time.
Mr. Bowler returned at 8:00 p.m. and Mr. Dinkel stepped down as Chairman.
Budget & Warrant Articles Discussion
Since Brian Gleason was present, Mr. MacGuire asked that they discuss his proposed warrant article. Mr. Gleason told the Board that he came in with the $31,000 one time salary increase and one of the reasons he put it as a warrant article was because the Union contracts were presented as warrant articles. It would also give him exposure of his needs to the townspeople. Now that they have a good handle on the budget, he could go either way. He felt the Town would support this based on the cost effective measures his folks do. He did not want other Departments to have to come in and reduce their budget to make up for his budget. Board members and W&M spoke of their opinions on the matter.
Mr. MacGuire handed out two spreadsheets titled “08 Gross Budget Analysis Version #2” and “08 Net Budget Analysis Version #2”. The columns were titled “Small Health Increase w/ Budget Cut”, “Minimum Health Increase w/ Budget Cut”, “No Health Increase w/ Budget Cut”, “Small Health/No Budget Cut”, “Minimum Health/No Budget Cut”. The figures in each column were based on: Current Net Budget Increase, Health Care Options, Resulting Net and/or Gross Budget, Maximum Potential Budget Cuts, Resulting Net and/or Gross Budget Increase, Add Total EMS Salary, Resulting Net and/or Gross Budget Increase and Gross and/or Net Budget with Half EMS Salary. He advised the number to get them to the net increase in the budget of 2.3% would be $195,000.
Mr. MacGuire passed out the short summary sheets on both revenues and expenditures. He did not want to give them the detailed sheets until some decisions have been made. The Board reviewed the figures, made several comments and asked a few questions. Mr. MacGuire indicated that if the Selectmen wanted them to come back with different numbers, he would be happy to do this. He looked at areas that didn’t have long term impacts, did not reduce services or manpower. Mr. Dinkel indicated he would be more than happy to come up with some proposals for the next meeting to come close to the number they were seeking. He suggested that all the Selectmen do this. Mr. Infanti agreed with Jay – that they should spend some time to see what they could do.
Mr. Bowler advised he had gone over the budget last week line by line and had sent Department Heads several emails to get their thoughts. He, too, agreed that much should come back to them. On Bruce Berry’s, he suggested his new hire should start in September rather than July. On the Communication Center’s side, he suggested reducing the overtime line here as well as in the Police budget. On the Fire Department budgeted position, he would like it to wait until January. He was trying to get a little bit from all Departments. He suggested reducing the tools & equipment lines by $500. He also mentioned reducing outside hire. He felt they could get the number down and put Brian’s salary line into the budget and was looking potentially at $26,000. Bruce’s new hire has a potential of $9,000 going with a three-month reduction. He mentioned that the overtime line in the Communications Center could be replaced by part time hours and would be cheaper than full time overtime wages.
Mr. MacGuire wanted to make it clear that this wasn’t easy money to find. As he looked through the budget, he wasn’t finding any fluff – it was “a nickel here and a dime there”. They were delaying things, it affects them and they were trying hard to avoid having the dramatic impacts. The Department Heads put a lot of effort into this and they don’t have places where they could “just grab and pull from”. He mentioned the extra dumpster and recycling as an example. He did not think there was anything they could do that doesn’t affect, to some degree, the way they do things. If they shaved $500.00 off the overtime list, in most cases they could survive.
Mr. Bowler remarked that it wasn’t easy when going through the proposed budget. On Peter’s budget, which was his first time doing it, he agreed that there wasn’t any fluff. On the outside hire, he felt there was a plus. Mr. Panasiti’s comment was philosophical – they were looking at adopting a budget at around $8,900,000 and were looking at a potential cut of $42,000. They were “at bare bones now”. They were talking about millions of dollars for a budget and were now talking about reducing it by $20-40,000 so that they could keep within their inflationary number of 2.1 or 2.2%. He thought they had done a “pretty good job”. If they cut any more, he felt they may do something they shouldn’t really do. Compared to others, they were working at a low budget. He indicated last week that they should look for it on the revenue side. He felt looking for $41,000 in an eight million dollar budget was trying to “beat up the Department Heads too much”.
Neal Foley, W&M, commented that the Board did a good job at stripping down the budget, there wasn’t a single item line in the budget that is bad and every line item is for something the Town can do. He would like to see where they stood with the budget that the Selectmen supported that included the thousand dollars of warrant articles that they were all going to have an opinion on. He was going to look at the budget increase that he was going to recommend including everything. There were things the Town needed to do, such as road repairs and the need for a loader. They should think about warrant articles as part of the budget because the Town needed these things.
Mr. Dinkel disagreed, the reason for the warrant articles were for capital investment, not the day-to-day operating budget that goes into their tax bill equally and he felt they should be reviewed separately. Mr. Infanti agreed that both should go hand in hand, but the operating budget is the operating budget and he was very pleased with where they were. This was a very fair and doable budget, he said. W&M member Tedd Landon commented the Board was talking about both coming out of the same checkbook and that every item in the budget was needed. There were things budgeted in the warrant articles that should be an operating expense. He thought the trucks should be in the operating budget since they needed to be replaced. Mr. Landon suggested that the Capital Reserves be put into the budget. Mr. Dinkel remarked that by putting capital reserve items separate, the voters knew what the consequences were and was a decision the voters made. Mr. Landon argued that this would be far in excess of the 2.2% or 2.3% discussed. Mr. Dinkel reiterated that what they were discussing was the operating budget and not the long term investments associated with the capital reserves. After further discussion, Mr. Landon proposed a net net budget warrant article.
Mr. Dinkel indicated they could pare down the budget by $42,000. He would rather look at cutting a program or part of a program than deferring hiring a part time person and he would put his suggestions on paper.
The Board next discussed health insurance. Mr. Infanti suggested they offer alternative 2 for a total savings of $35,940 – which would be a small percentage of changes in employee contributions, change office visit co-pays from $5 to $10, change in prescription plan from $0/$20/$30 to $0/$25/$40. Mr. Grella was leaning to alternative 1 for a total savings of $24,965 which would result in a minimal percentage in changes in employee contributions. Mr. Dinkel agreed with George and felt it fair. Mr. Panasiti agreed with the change in co-pays. Mr. Bowler indicated this was what Primex offered and they will go out and look at other carriers. Mr. Dinkel talked about the history of plans offered a few years ago in order to save the Town money. Mr. MacGuire added that the PPO option has four employees on it. The HMO and POS was almost equally divided. Mr. Foley gave his views on the matter. He did not think it fair to take away options in one step, however, he felt they were moving in the right direction and the Board had made great strides in making these lower cost options.
Mr. MacGuire asked if he should remove the option on the spreadsheets of showing a net and gross budget with half EMS salary. The Board concurred with Mr. Bowler to remove it from consideration and include the total EMS salary increase. Mr. Bowler added the Board should review this from now until next week. Mr. Infanti suggested they have a work session and go through the warrant articles. The Board scheduled their next meeting for Wednesday at 6:30 p.m. when they will further discuss the budget and warrant articles, appoint a Library Trustee and make a decision on the Corriveau’s request based on Town Counsel’s opinion.
Mr. Dinkel commented that the one article that would be the most difficult to support was the Bean Fields. Mr. Bowler had a request from Dwight Brew. He would like the Selectmen to come up with questions on their concerns so that he can get them out to his Board. Both Mr. Infanti and Mr. Dinkel were not sure they had any questions because they were not sure if the School Board was planning on using the property for a new school. Mr. Panasiti suggested they put out a warrant article for the fields contingent upon what the school plans. He had talked to Dwight and discussed this again at the Recreation Commission meeting. The Board debated this issue further with no definite decision made.
Mr. MacGuire asked that they go over the simpler warrant articles in order for him to get the initial wording to the DRA and Town Counsel. The number for PMEC funding was $225,000. The tower has been changed from the original $97,000 to $102,000 and would include the purchase, installation and removal of the old one. He had received the questions from Deidre Rogusky for the warrant article on the computer system capital reserve. The Board supported placing the DPW Replacement Trucks on the warrant.
Town Road Repairs for $400,000 – The Board discussed bonding vs. placing an article for $400,000 each year over many years. Mr. Berry advised that typically they haven’t been able to start any of their projects until July 1st. In the spring the money isn’t there to work on roads. This would turn the tide to allow them to begin working in the spring and summer. Mr. Bowler felt this year they should go forward with a warrant article and not a bond. In response to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Berry explained that outside hire for the roads consists of crack sealing, hot top and an excavator that is used for drainage work. Mr. Infanti would like to see some numbers to bond it and get it done within the next two years. Mr. Bowler asked about manpower to do this. Mr. Berry advised that the report that was put together was doing the roads in-house. If the project was sub-contracted out, they would have to add $35,000 for writing the specifications, overseeing the work by an engineering firm and cost of overruns if they hit ledge. This would take on a life similar to the Baboosic Lake Septic System with change orders. When he met with the CIP, the thought was to put this as a warrant article and then take a year working on a bond. Mr. MacGuire felt the scope and nature of the work should be taken under consideration on how it was funded as opposed to rebuilding Boston Post Road that would take a bond to do. If they were doing small scale work, he could do it with his people in-house vs. a major redoing of a road. The actual funding of it would seem critical but the nature of the work seems to be a factor in the decision.
Baboosic Lake Community Septic – Mr. MacGuire advised the question was should they fund this next year. If the bond passes, they could be doing engineering work this time next year on Phase III. They will still solicit funding. This opens up the window should they get the Watershed Grants next year and would give them a six month jump. Mr. Bowler felt it prudent to continue. In answer to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. MacGuire advised CLD, the Town’s engineer, is taking costs based on payments made by the number of people associated with the system. Mr. Berry added they have to prove to the State how diligent they are. All the users have been billed for hook up costs. When the ordinance was put together it was figured at four quarterly payments over a ten year period and they had taken their time to make sure they had calculated this correctly. Mr. MacGuire mentioned that the transition on this project slowed them down a little. Mr. Dinkel asked if the payment for the users was based primarily on the bond. Mr. Berry explained that once the bond was paid off, they will probably do some type of maintenance rate looking to the future of its life span. The warrant article is for Phase III and the final phase. Phase I is completed and Phase II is in the engineering stage. In response to Mr. Foley’s question, Mr. Dinkel explained that the users are paying for the bond and are obligated to do so as the Town has deed restrictions. Based on this, he felt they should go ahead with the proper wording of the article.
Transfer Station Renovation – Mr. Panasiti commented they should decide whether or not they should pay for this out of tax dollars or use the LUCT funds. Mr. Dinkel supported the concept. He would like to see more detail and get comfortable with DPW’s role. Mr. Grella supported this 100%. He talked about cutting the budget and this would work if everyone begins to recycle. Mr. Infanti also supported it. Mr. Bowler did too, but not with LUCT funds. He spoke about the glass being taken out of the co-mingles and with the outstanding cooperation by Carl Wetherbee and volunteers, the company is now taking the recyclables for nothing. Mr. Berry advised that Bill Wichman had put together a 3-D schematic of the proposed renovations. It will be presented first to the Committee and then the Board of Selectmen. In answer to Mr. Landon’s question, he indicated he had supplied figures to Rick Crocker last week.
Police Union Contract – There were no comments. EMS Part Time Salary Adjustment Article was removed from the warrant. DPW Loader Replacement – Board members supported this article as did Mr. Foley of W&M. Replacement Generator – Emergency Operations Center – Board members supported this article. Mr. Foley asked who had told them that the quality of the power was degrading and wanted to see a report as he had been through this with PSNH in the past. Mr. MacGuire advised it was through the Town’s electrician and PSNH was involved. Replace Town Emergency Communications Tower – The Board agreed to defer this article for one more year.
Fire Department Command Vehicle – Mr. Panasiti, Mr. Dinkel and Mr. Grella were in favor. Mr. Infanti thought they had talked about buying the vehicle this year and retrofitting it with what they had and upgrading the box next year. He indicated he was not against the Command Vehicle. Mr. Landon mentioned the Committee was still talking about this. The current vehicle was bought with little or no money, the Department was now coming back within five years saying it needs to be replaced. He suggested replacing it where they bought it the first time which was out of the operating budget. Mr. Bowler commented they could give the current vehicle to the Zoning Department.
Recreation Vehicle Registration Funding – Mr. MacGuire indicated this needed further rewording. Recreation Bean Field LUCT Funding – Mr. Panasiti suggested inviting in the Amherst School Board instead of using emails. Mr. Dinkel felt for now they should leave it in. PMEC Building Phase III LUCT Funding – Mr. Infanti, Mr. Grella and Mr. Panasiti supported it. Mr. Dinkel supported it, but not necessarily the funding. Mr. Bowler agreed with Mr. Dinkel’s position. Town Computer System Capital Reserve – Mr. Bowler indicated they were still waiting for more answers, but he was fine with this. Public Access Television Equipment Fund – The Board was in favor of putting this on the warrant. It was also mentioned that these folks had a request to increase the operation budget portion. Mr. Foley asked about the discussions with the provider. Mr. Dinkel advised the requests made by the CIC Committee were still under the negotiations grant. Some of the equipment that is in their current project is going to be needed with or without the grant. Steve Ellis of the Committee indicated that the perceived money is very much in question and was not a guarantee. He spoke briefly about the type of programming they were looking to do. They had a major breakdown last week and still continue to look to what Comcast provides them. Mr. MacGuire advised they did not increase or adjust this number in the operating budget.
Veteran’s Tax Credit – All Board members supported this article at $500 per year. Robin Warren suggested implementing the tax credits in increments of $50.00 per year until they reach the $500.00 from the current $300.00 and didn’t know if they needed to make jumps this high. Disabled Exemption – Mr. MacGuire advised he had received the language from Gail. Board members were conceptually in favor of this. Town 250th Anniversary Celebration – Board members were in support of this article. Discontinue Jones Road Section – Vote to place this on the warrant was 4 to 1, Mr. Panasiti opposed. Discontinue Thornton Ferry Road II Section – All members were in favor of putting this on the warrant. Reconstruction of Main Street at Town Hall – The sum of $65,250 was needed to be raised to be used as a match for a Federal grant previously received. Relative to the timeframe for the funds to be raised, Mr. MacGuire indicated he had been trading emails with Will Ludt. His sense was they weren’t going forward with it this year. Mr. Bowler thought they were to get clarification. Mr. Dinkel mentioned it made sense to put this into a Capital Reserve and to run this by the Heritage Commission. Mr. Foley mentioned W&M were waiting to see the plans.
Child Advocacy Center Request and New Hampshire Association for the Blind – Mr. Bowler mentioned that the first time they receive requests from Grant Agencies they put them on as a warrant article and have the Town vote. Conceptually Board members were in favor of this. In answer to Mr. Foley’s question, Sharon told him that the request and information submitted was in their budget books.
Mr. Bowler suggested that the Board consider taking 50% of the current use received on the Town side and put the other half into a road reserve which would help offset that expense.
Other Business
Mr. Infanti reported they had another Master Plan meeting on Wednesday night. They had approximately 40 people who attended and they were heading down the right road. John Harvey was doing an entire computer program for their use. This was a major project and they needed more support from more people.
Mr. Grella reported there was a meeting of the Heritage Commission. Names had been given to the folks doing the Master Plan on people to contact on the history of the Town.
Mr. Panasiti followed up his request for a meeting with the Amherst School Board. Mr. Bowler indicated he would contact Dwight Brew. Mr. Panasiti asked if the Town had a leash law and could an owner be fined. Mr. MacGuire explained what the Town has is a requirement that dogs need to be under voice control. What had recently occurred was a violation. The question is should the Town consider banning dogs on playgrounds even if on a leash. This particular person had an issue and he had referred him to Nancy McMillan.
The Board briefly discussed inviting in the Amherst School Board in on January 2, 2007.
Minutes
Mr. Grella moved to approve the minutes of December 11, 2007, second by Mr. Infanti amended as follows: Lines 42-43 – Strike the sentence “Two out of three….of the filing period.” Replace with “Two of the most common times to file are at the time they receive their bills and at the end of the filing period.”; Line 57 – Strike “higher”; Line 78 – Change “and” replace with “for”, place a period after “price”; Line 79 – Strike “based on ….or whatever”; Line 265 – Insert “that include LUCT” after “articles” Lines 266-267 Strike the sentence “There was money ….. opinion comes in”; Line 272 – Insert “to” after “go”; Line 292 – Insert “after checking with Town Counsel” after “Collector”. Vote: Unanimous.
Other Business
Korey Sheldon, 28 New Boston Road, spoke to the Board about getting a building permit. He spoke of seeking a variance from the ZBA and his interpretation of the ordinance which was different from Charlie Tiedemann’s. The Board advised that Mr. Tiedemann made a ruling and they had no authority to change it. Mr. Bowler explained that Gary was working with Charlie on the matter.
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