|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenMay 9, 2006
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Selectmen present: Jay Dinkel, George Infanti, Reed Panasiti and Thomas Grella. Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
The Board of Selectmen recognized the 2005-2006 Boys Hockey Team Division Three Champions. A certificate of congratulations was given to Coach Coughlan. Mr. Bowler announced that Mr. Coughlan was also named “Coach of the Year”. The Coach then introduced each member of the team among handshakes and applause for each one of them.
Cal Wood, Buckridge Drive, commented that last fall the Board determined that the assessment rate for properties was 42%. He asked what assurances do property owners have that they will be fairly assessed? Mr. Dinkel advised the 42% was an estimate over 4-5 years. He explained the abatement process available to any property owner who might feel their assessment was not fair. Mr. Wood indicated he understood the abatement process, but asked again what assurances do individual homeowners have that they will be treated fairly and equitably? Mr. Dinkel explained they will use the same methodology they used for the past 5-6 years. This will be done through their Assessing Department and they have done a good job. Mr. Bowler added that the DRA is also involved in this process.
Mr. MacGuire advised that he had excused Gail Stout from attending because as of 3:00 p.m. on May 8, 2006, the final payment for the 2003 tax levy was received bringing it to 100% collection. There was no need to do any tax deeding at this time.
Abatements: The Board unanimously approved an abatement (which was an overpayment) for Anthony & Stephen Yakovakis in the amount of $21.00 upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti and seconded by Mr. Grella. The Board unanimously approved an abatement of $11,200, tax dollars of $276.08 for James & Joyce Dupell upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti and seconded by Mr. Grella. The Board unanimously approved an abatement of $39,200, tax dollars $966.28 upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti, second by Mr. Grella.
All of the above recommendations from the Assessing Department were read and explained to Board members by Mr. Dinkel prior to the vote taken.
Yield Tax: The Board unanimously approved a yield tax for Rough Diamond Development in the amount of $1,476.59 upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti and seconded by Mr. Grella.
Current Use Penalty: The Board unanimously approved a current use penalty tax in the amount of $17,000 to Marc Fisher upon a motion made by Mr. Infanti and seconded by Mr. Grella.
Block Party Request
Mr. Bowler advised that Pilgrim Hills / Standish Way residents had requested to close off the road for a Block Party on June 3 from 12:00 to 4:00 p.m. Mr. MacGuire commented that Police Chief Peter Lyon approved this request as all stipulations in the past had been adhered to. Mr. Infanti moved to approve the request for Pilgrim Hills / Standish Way to close the road on June 3 from 12:00 –4:00 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Untable Emergency Shelter Cost Reimbursement to SAU 39
Mr. Bowler advised the Selectmen have received new examples and further information on what the Schools don’t charge the Town for and vice versa. Mr. MacGuire indicated there were examples where they can go in both directions. His suggestion was that the Board direct him to go through Susan Ward or Howard Colter to see if they can negotiate a cost that he would then bring back to the Board. Mr. Grella moved that the Town Administrator negotiate with the Amherst/Souhegan School Departments to come up with a satisfactory agreement, second by Mr. Infanti. After a brief discussion, it was hoped that this would set up a process for the future. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Grella moved to accept the minutes of April 24, 2006, seconded by Mr. Infanti, amended as follows: Lines 117 & 118 – Remove “the reason why” and replace with “ that was the reason why”; Line 209 – Change “long” to “longer”; Lines 215, 216, 217 – Replace the text beginning with “Mr. Panasiti and ending with guidance” with “Mr. Panasiti indicated he understood the knowledge, but they could become complacent, but that person becomes a fixture and spokesperson for the Board. He was not sure this was the best thing for any Board that a person stays on it so long that people turn to that person for guidance.” Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Grella reported on an incident some time ago where a citizen complained about graffiti on his property. They had contacted Verizon who handled it, took care of the problem and it worked out very well for all.
Mr. Dinkel indicated he put two things in the “read file” pertaining to bug spray, EEE and the West Nile Virus as information received by Keene. Primex was putting on a land use seminar on May 18th from 9:00-12:00 and he thought it of interest. The “Amherst General” is getting ready to solicit articles and asked if the Chairman would submit a summary for the Board’s review. He suggested they post election results along with non-budget issues. There currently is not a back log of articles being submitted.
Mr. Panasiti commented on the Stormwater II seminar which Mr. MacGuire would be attending. He talked about his conversation with Donna Arias as it related to the pandemic bird flu. She had sent him an email about putting her on the May 22 Board’s agenda. The focus was they want every town to sign a Memo of Understanding by May 22. She would like to come in and talk about this funding because Amherst is part of the Nashua Area Division of Public Heath and Community Services. Mr. MacGuire advised he did not speak to Donna, but was on her email list. EMS Director Brian Gleason was attending a meeting on Thursday in Pelham and he was under the understanding that this was where the funding issues were going to be addressed. Hopefully they would know more after he attended this meeting. After Mr. Gleason’s attendance at that meeting, he would bring them information so they could sign the Memorandum of Agreement. Mr. Bowler suggested that the BOS receive a report from Mr. Gleason and then talk to Donna further if needed.
Mr. Infanti reminded everyone that the Junior Women’s Club was having their Town-wide clean up on May 20, he believed began at 9:00 a.m. The Club was open to suggestions on pick up sites because there were areas that had been picked up from people on Earth Day. Bruce Berry will confer with David Herlihy and get back to the Selectmen about roads that may have been already picked up.
Mr. Infanti also presented an autograph picture of Horace Greeley from Steve Sexton who had gotten it on the internet. The donation was given to the Town to use as they saw fit. Mr. Grella suggested contacting the Historical Society and offering it to them. Mr. Infanti moved to accept the donation from Steve Sexton to be followed up with a letter of appreciation, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
State Representatives – Updates
Senator Peter Bragdon, Representatives Cynthia Dokmo, Lee Slocum, Tim O’Connell, Peter Bergin and Steve Stepanek met with the Selectmen. Senator Bragdon told the Board that the Senate and House have finished their work and were now trying to reconcile differences. He spoke about the right-to-know bill and the reason why the Senate had tabled it. Another bill of interest involved the Pennichuck Watershed, it was presented by Nashua representatives, however, surrounding towns such as Amherst and Milford were unaware of it. He knew how critical the property was and the last thing they wanted to do was undermine it and the Senate squashed it. The town line boundary has been resolved. Some things left were the State budget with some areas “short” and others “fat”. Board members asked about the right-to-know bill, whether the Nashua and Manchester school budget issues would have any repercussions on them, and what was happening on the Senate side regarding State adequate funding.
Rep. Slocum commented on a rather intense session dealing with Police Department’s sexual offenders notification to people in neighborhoods. Both he and Rep. Dokmo put something together in a bill. Senator Bragdon indicated the only thing the Senate put back was a 25 year minimum sentence which would allow the Judge to issue a minimum sentence. To his knowledge it was the only change. They tabled one that would allow the Police to notify the schools. He thought there should be some more involvement on the School District level that would provide some immunity and expected something to pass.
Rep. Bergin spoke about his responsibility in the House with the biggest one being the retirement system. An amendment to the bill that came in late was to change the Board of Trustees of the retirement system. He talked about adding additional members along with Group I benefits. This particular amendment would be to accommodate more membership. He commented on the special account that would affect medical and COBRA. He indicated that building up the special account will affect the contribution rate by the towns for each employee. He also mentioned Amelia’s Law as it related to gas fittings and licensure.
Rep. Dokmo indicated the only bill of great interest to her Committee was the right-to-know. A Commission was formed with 15 people consisting of municipal and state agencies, lay people, legislators and a Senator. The document was presented to the Judiciary Committee a year ago. It was taken apart line by line, came up with some suggestions and wording and it was sent to the Senate. They only have 24 members and the right-to-know is very important. They wanted to maximize open government and allow some Boards and Committees to function. Decisions cannot be made unless it is in a meeting and had been noticed. This bill would make it very clear that you would have to come back to a public meeting to disclose discussion that were not in open session. The Commission will once again study the bill and come up with different wording. While she could not blame the Senate, after months of studying this, she came to a different conclusion. Relative to the sexual predator bill allowing communities to allow notification and grant specific immunity, it is not specific in the Statue but is implied. A Committee will be set up to determine classification of sexual offenders. They are optimistic that it will pass. Pertaining to distances, she told the Board that she did not believe there was anything about distances in the main bill but there was a separate bill that predators could not live or go within several feet of a school system, but there was a constitutional issue with this. Mr. Infanti thanked and acknowledged her and Rep. Slocum for supporting the Selectmen in what they went through a year ago.
Mr. Bowler reported that the Selectmen will host an in-house training session for all Boards and Commissions on Tuesday night, May 23 with the right-to-know being one of the topics.
Rep. Slocum indicated that the education funding was a bit more serious than they might realize. He spoke about the definitions received from the Lower Court Judge and that they will have to wait and see how it unfolds. He was on the Finance Technology Committee and they were working on supporting renewable energy in New Hampshire. He commented about utilities being assessed by municipalities being a difficult process. He mentioned that they were making progress to bring something back that had been deregulated in the past. Rep. Slocum was unaware about anything to do with ethanol in the State. Relative to tax credits being issued for energy, insulation, etc., he felt that one thing the State could do was to expand the scope. He commented about the small charge on electric bills that allows people to save money and was a program that had been extremely successful in New Hampshire. Rep. Slocum briefly mentioned rolling black outs that may occur in the near future and the reason for them.
Rep. O’Connell reported that June 21 & 22 there will be a two-day conference that may include bio-energy. There is some talk about providing bio-energy from some of their natural fibers. There is a great deal of interest and concern on the storm water issue. They were looking to have grants provided through such agencies as NH the Beautiful. He said he’d like to put in a plug for the NHMA, as they are truly watch dogs and follow through with unfunded mandates. He spoke about local household hazardous waste and a bill that will release towns from the responsibility for minor or significant accidents involving it – the bill indicates this would be the responsibility of DES. Relative to hazmat, there was another need for Federal funds and how to fund regional hazmat teams. Another issue on both Finance & Technology Committee and highly emotional is how best to deal with construction and demolition debris and an ongoing issue for the past two years. He has also been involved in an in-stream flow study of rivers which includes the Souhegan River. There will be a Water Management Advisory Committee that will sit down and decide how best to manage their water resources in the two towns. He thought the outlook favorable, the Souhegan River is part of the pilot program and they will see something within the next six months.
DPW Director Bruce Berry asked if there was any way he might get a copy of the report on construction / demolition as the matter of tipping fees was discussed at a recent District meeting. Regarding household hazardous waste, he wondered if anything could be done about things being dropped off after the facilities were closed. He also mentioned that he tried to bring one of the Nashua hazardous waste drop offs to Milford and because of funding it didn’t happen. Rep. O’Connell commented that New Hampshire was a frugal State and he would check it out to see if something could be brought closer.
Rep. Stepanek, Vice Chairman of the Commerce Committee explained the Committee was working on RFID tags (radio frequency identification). Technology was being developed extremely fast, tags can get down to the size of a pinhead and have the ability to track people. The technology is here and they are one of the very first States to come up with legislature for modeling of ID tags and will impact everyone’s buying habits. Another bill would reduce the insurance premium tax from 2% to 1% to any company relocating in the State. They believe this tax will bring in 2000 $60,000 per year new jobs into the State.
Another bill they reviewed is revamping the trust and private banking laws by providing private banking to wealthy individuals and is an economic development-type bill. In answer to Mr. Grella’s question, Rep. Stepanek described the process of how a bill becomes a law.
Mr. Bowler asked for questions from the floor. Cal Wood, Buckridge Drive, asked for a straight and honest answer as to when adequate education will be decided in general and for the Town of Amherst in particular, as this was the constitutional duty of the legislature. Senator Bragdon advised that part of the problem was that the Court, in the Claremont Decision, said it was up to the State to determine. The problem is how to pay for it and what is the definition of an “adequate education”. He elaborated more on the subject and indicated that the Court says who has to do it, but does not say how. There is also a lack of consensus on how to pay for it. In a forum he attended recently in Rindge, one third wanted an income tax, one third wanted a sales tax and one third a property tax. Asked what they don’t want, the same results were received. Receiving a consensus of 425 people makes it very difficult to determine of what is an “adequate education” and how to fund it. Rep. Slocum added there were several other issues than what Senator Bragdon mentioned. There were questions on the interpretation of the Constitution. It is not clear to a lot of legislators and a difference of opinion between the Court and the Legislature. Rep. Dokmo commented that this was something they have been grappling with for ten years. They may not like their decision or what the Court did in the way things are funded, especially education, but until the property taxes reach a point where it is an overall burden on many people, this is where they were. She spoke about sponsoring a sales tax and also talked about a consumption tax that was another idea. She indicated that she agreed with the Senator. Rep. O’Connell added that if they determine the level of adequacy, they were talking over a billion dollars and it was his personal opinion that there weren’t too many ways they could fund it.
The Board will schedule a meeting again with the Town’s legislators in the fall. The Selectmen thanked the Town’s representatives for bringing them up to date on current issues.
The Board recessed the meeting for five minutes.
White Cliff Communications – Wireless Communications Lease
President Stephen Stepanek and Vice President/Project Manager George Chianis of White Cliff Communications met with the Board to discuss leasing property at the Amherst Public Safety Complex. Mr. Chianis advised there was serious lack of coverage identified after conducting research on the matter. Mr. Stepanek advised they were proposing in the lease what the Selectmen were authorized to enter into in March as a partnership. They were proposing a wireless facility that will accommodate numerous carriers. The number of carriers will be determined by the Planning Board, they will also work very closely with the ZBA and Historic District Commission to make sure they meet all their requirements. They would be erecting the tower, removing the communication equipment the Town has on their current tower and relocating it on the new one. They would also be disassembling the current tower. A shelter will be built near the tower – various shelter photos were presented to the Board. They will be constructing this tower to make money and propose a 60/40 split of any net revenues. As each carrier is put on the pole, the Town will be 40% income from each one. There were six carriers in the State of New Hampshire and if they were successful in negotiating, the Town could receive between $40,000 to $60,000 per year. The size of the pole will be determined by the Planning Board.
Mr. Stepanek advised the best location would be behind the Fire Station in a clump of pine trees to disguise where the tower is located. The current tower is now over 100’ tall and most people don’t even notice it. They were open to any suggestions from either the Selectmen or Planning Board where they prefer it to be located. Mr. Infanti commented he liked the terms of this proposal as compared to the other one. Mr. Chianis explained the size of the equipment shelter was 12’x24’. Mr. Stepanek indicated his goal was to have the shelter designed to blend into what was already there, but there were different designs and they will work with the Planning Board on it. In response to questions raised, the height of the pole defines how many carriers will be on it. Mr. Chianis explained that if there were four carriers the pole would be 10’ above the trees. The other issue was this was about public safety equipment. This equipment would be at the top spot with 10’ between each carrier and 10’ above the tree line. Mr. Stepanek advised they had three potential carriers who were interested and they can have as many as six. They may be restricted to three or four carriers depending on zoning. He also advised they cannot go before the Planning Board without having an executed lease. They would negotiate the rate and Amherst carries a higher premium, they would negotiate the higher rate and the Town would received a 40% of it. Mr. Chianis added that he had 25 years of real estate experience and many years with Nextel. Nextel was offering the Town $1000 per month and spoke briefly about the lease.
Mr. Stepanek commented they will spend the money to go through the planning process. The Board’s only commitment to them is to make this land available if in fact they get the Planning and Zoning approval, along with a building permit. If White Cliff Communications doesn’t receive approval, it is not the Town’s problem. Mr. Bowler advised the only commitment for the Town was Town Counsel’s time to review the lease. The initial cost to replace the current tower was between $100-150,000.
Mr. MacGuire asked if they had resolved the issue of the three frequencies – Police, Fire/EMS and DPW and the distance on the tower. Mr. Chianis reiterated that the first licensed entity was Public Safety and everyone else has a priority underneath.
HDC Chairman Helen Rowe advised that they had to file papers with the State because they were placing the tower in a Historic District. Mr. Stepanek asked who they should see first? She advised that they come to a Commission meeting for a preliminary discussion. They would not give any decision until White Cliff goes before the other Boards first. In response to a comment made by HDC member Ricahrd Kimball, Mr. Stepanek stated no one goes for a site plan and gets all the approvals without owning the land. There are many safe guards from the various Boards that needed to be obtained. Mr. Infanti indicated he had no problem with Town Counsel looking over the lease. After a brief discussion on frequency patterns, Mr. Stepanek advised they needed to determine whether they need vertical or horizontal separation.
Meeting with Planning Board Chairman
Mr. Bowler advised that Gordon Leedy was the new Chairman and Arnie Rosenblatt was the Vice Chairman. Mr. Leedy indicated there were several issues he would like to discuss. One being the appointment of new members or alternate members and the other the issue of Cliff Harris’ membership. They thought he had been appointed as a full member after serving as an alternate. He attends all meetings and engages in the process. He did not know who had applied or was up to be alternate members and understood there were quite a few folks interested. Mr. Dinkel explained that State Statute allows for up to five alternates, but the consensus was that five would be too many. Mr. Leedy commented that alternates are full participants in the Boards deliberations even though they are not voting members and having three alternates was a good idea.
Mr. Infanti agreed with Mr. Leedy on three alternates. If Mr. Harris was elevated to a full member, it would leave them with one. He agreed that the position of alternate was a training one, moving up to full time if the need arises. Mr. Leedy suggested that the Selectmen might consider appointing an alternate ex-officio too. Mr. Dinkel told him that the reason he asked for a time out in their discussion two weeks ago, was because he thought they needed to talk about structure, before making any appointments. The Board all had received a fair amount of comments from various people in Town about the Planning Board structure and its direction. He had spent a fair amount of time in the past several weeks talking to other people about the right mix. The other issue is that some towns have a Conservation member as an official member of the Planning Board and the way they do business. He has thought about this a great deal and his inclination is not to go this route in Amherst. Their Planning Board is a group of professional people with expertise and was a valuable resource for the Town to use in the planning process. However, he was not discounting some of the comments he had heard. When he got to the actual membership of the current Planning Board and the unofficial full member that had not been appointed, he did not feel they should bump a person who served for the past 5-6 months as a full member.
Mr. Leedy indicated he and Linda Kaiser were talking about whether or not there was room for more dialog between Conservation and the Planning Board and there was. He thought it important that any appointed public board member should be careful not to have agendas. The Planning Board statutorily has to administer the rules and regulations of the zoning ordinance of the Town. He truly did not believe there was a pro-development bias on the Planning Board. He had a responsibility to his profession and to the Town to be unbiased and listen. The job of the Planning Board is not to design applications for developers, the job is to approve applications for developers consistent with the rules and regulations of the Town. They have seen controversial developments. Many towns are not willing to come to the correct decision under the law and get overturned. When the Amherst Planning Board goes to Court, they consistently win and it speaks to the process they go through and speaks for the folks who have given service to this Board. There is a long history on the Board for fairness. Do they let developments in all the time, particularly when it is in their backyard? People need to be heard and have a right to be heard in a public forum. He was pleased that the voters approved the funds for the Master Plan process they were about to embark on because this is where they can set the rules on what people want to see.
Mr. Leedy continued …. With respect to Conservation membership on the Planning Board, he did not have any basic dislike and hoped this idea did not come along with an agenda. Their responsibility is to fairly assess and appraise each development that comes before them according to the law. If the Selectmen would like to handle this, they would be open to it and suggested that they might want to have a member of the Planning Board serve on Conservation. They could appoint a member as a liaison to Conservation and carry plans with him or her to the meetings. The Conservation Commission is advisory in nature and a Planning Board “call” as to whether something got approved or not.
Mr. Dinkel advised the Board had many volunteers who came forward to serve on both the Planning Board and Conservation Commission. Mr. Panasiti remarked that he had many reservations being a new Selectman and understanding the dynamics between the Conservation Commission and Planning Board. By his vote at the Selectmen’s last meeting, he wanted to stop the process and Mr. Dinkel stopped it. After hearing what he heard that night, he had done much thinking and he believed there should be a member of the Conservation Commission on thee Planning Board – maybe there should be two. More important was the Master Plan - by getting a better mix of individuals on that Committee it would hold this Plan as the “bible” of the Town. Once this was in place, the Planning Board would not be associated as being planners or builders.
Mr. Leedy commented that Amherst was now far more of a suburban community rather than a rural one as described in the Master Plan. There are people moving into Town that have suburban desires. They need people to define “rural character” as mentioned in the current Master Plan. The Master Plan will be a much larger process than the Planning Board. It was Mr. Bowler’s belief that Conservation should be represented on the Planning Board after serving as their representative for three years. The Selectmen have been bombarded from residents in Town. After he personally sat in on last Wednesday’s Planning Board meeting, he could understand where folks got their impression. He specifically spoke about the Deerwood Drive proposed development and even though it was affordable housing, he felt the Town should have received something from the developer. He was hearing that many concerns from Department Heads were not being relayed to the Planning Board or vice versa. Mr. Leedy advised that many towns were going through a Technical Review Committee. His personal concern is that plans were not being reviewed more. There should be much more direct review by consultants being paid by developers and they need to institute an impact fee structure. Mr. Bowler suggested that both he and Charlie Tiedemann should get back to the Department Heads. He also felt that consultants should be paid for by the developers along with inspections.
Mr. Bowler also commented that in reading the minutes, there is one alternate member whose attendance is poor and they have removed an alternate in the past because he hadn’t attended meetings. Because of his attendance issue, Mr. Bowler did not believe he could be moved up into a full position. The Board has quite a list of people who are interested in serving and more than what they need. Mr. Infanti suggested Mr. Leedy give this alternate a call because they need to know his level of commitment as Mr. Bowler said, they have some very qualified candidates. The Board briefly discussed whether or not they want to go forward or stop the process at this time.
Planning Board Appointment
Cliff Harris
Mr. Infanti indicated he was uncomfortable about removing someone who has sat for six to eight months. He felt Mr. Harris should be made a full member, he has voted and made decisions as a full member in the past. Mr. Grella agreed. Mr. Dinkel commented that he has come around to this opinion as well. Mr. Panasiti mentioned this was a new Board than it was six months ago and they have an opportunity to put their best foot forward in deciding who is the best candidate for the position. Mr. Bowler informed the Board that they have received a verbal confirmation that everything Mr. Harris voted on was legal and there were no problems with his vote. Mr. Panasiti indicated he would like to see a member of the Conservation Committee on the Planning Board. Unfortunately, it may mean that Mr. Harris would be left out. Mr. Infanti moved that they appoint Cliff Harris as a full time Planning Board member, term to expire in 2007, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: 3 to 2, Mr. Panasiti and Mr. Bowler opposed.
Mr. Bowler suggested they hold off appointing other members until they receive an answer from either Mr. Leedy and/or Paul Doherty.
Mr. Dinkel asked if they were accepting any further alternates or any further volunteers? After talking to Cary Simmons, he indicated that he would not want to sit as an alternate to the Planning Board, but will help in the Master Plan process. Mr. Panasiti felt that an ad had been placed, applicants were interviewed and as far as he was concerned this was the end of the process.
Mr. Panasiti moved that the Board of Selectmen appoint a member of the Conservation Commission to sit as an alternate to the Planning Board, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Panasiti felt this was a good idea and there should be some conversation and input from the Commission. Not necessarily on every single item that comes before the Planning Board, but most of it. They know all the laws the Town has and if there were some questions, they could be answered right away. Mr. Dinkel commented that this alternate would, at some point, move up to a regular position as has been done in the past. He had a concern on how this would work on this level. He felt they should structure Conservation’s input so that it is more formalized than it had been. Once they structure a Conservation designee into the process, it is not going away and he did not think this was the time to do it. He thought the first step is to get better input through the process they have available to them. They should have in place a review process that takes information from Conservation and staff before and during the Planning process and until they do that successfully, he was not ready to leap into this structure.
Mr. Panasiti felt the planning process wasn’t working – by doing what he recommended they would make this an intricate part of the process because the alternate would be at the meetings all the time where they could have dialogs. Mr. Infanti remarked that Conservation has a representative that comes to the Planning Board meetings and both Linda Kaiser and Jim Bowen have been there. They have had an opportunity for input that he has seen since the short time he has been on the Board. Vote: 3 to 2, Mr. Dinkel and Mr. Infanti opposed.
DPW Lease/Purchase Equipment Presentation
DPW Director Bruce Berry gave a 47 Power Point slide presentation on his recommendation to lease/purchase an Asphalt Zipper as part of a “Pavement Management Plan”. The problem is that numerous roads were failing for short distances and the solution was to use reclamation to rehabilitate these stretches. There were two options: (1) break up the asphalt and truck it away, which is very time consuming or (2) do full depth reclamation. There were two avenues to go in: (1) lease/purchase the Zipper or (2) hire out equipment.
In the presentation, Mr. Berry gave an analysis of the options, approximate hours it may take to “blend” 140’ section of road as well as photos of bad sections on the following roads: Christian Hill, Horace Greeley Road, Lyndeborough Road, Boston Post Road (near the center), Boston Post Road (by canoe landing), Boston Post Road between Cross Road and the School; Thornton Ferry Road II (near the new five lot subdivision) as well as near Danbury Circle, Thornton Ferry Road I, Blueberry Hill Road, Stearns Road and Danbury Circle.
The presentation contained information on the Cat RM-350B which the Town has used during the past three years. The daily rental cost for only the grinding was $4,500. It also explained the process from unloading the machine from the transportation trailer, escorts needed, number of employees needed, as well as flagging personnel needed. Like information was given on the Asphalt Zipper AZ-480S. The cost to lease/purchase the Zipper for 60 months would be $88,000 or yearly payments of $20,661.84 – not including maintenance and upkeep costs. Comparison costs between the Cat and the Zipper were given in the presentation.
Mr. Berry indicated in the presentation that “This isn’t about a per mile comparison of how to grind a road. This is about changing an existing strategy to immediately improve many of our worst roads and over the longer term improve the base of all of our roads. This is about delivering a better service with minimal intrusion to road users / taxpayers. The previous Amherst road pictures meet the RSMS criteria for overlay even with the distresses shown, because each represents a small percentage of the overall evaluated section. Would a strict overlay be in the best interests of the road system for the town? No!”
Mr. Berry’s conclusion was if they aggressively reclaim one or two miles of road each year at $165,176 means it would take 60 plus years to get around. They need to change the strategy. Small badly damaged sections of roads need to be ground and repaired now and the Zipper was the best way to accomplish this. Economically hiring a large machine was, without question, the cheapest concept if they were doing one or two complete roads or identified RSMS sections. However, he felt it in Amherst DPW’s and the town’s best interest to properly prepare small sections and utilize their asphalt utility bid to replace the base asphalt coat. This would create an almost immediate smooth riding surface for the residents/taxpayers. Later, in the construction season, roads approved for overlay would then all be completed at once, maximizing available tax dollars. In previous years, grading and rolling by outside forces, has lagged behind reclaiming by several hours sometimes into the next day. “Imagine the chaos of many grinding sites opened by the outside contractor’s ‘grind and go method’ still open at the end of a work day (or for several work days). What type of professionalism would this project on my department and the town in general?” He indicated that the Zipper would allow them to plan their construction around traffic and deal with driveways as they go. He hoped he had proven his case and asked the Selectmen for their support to lease/purchase the Asphalt Zipper starting this construction season.
In answer to questions raised, Mr. Berry explained that if they went with a leasing company it will allow for payment one year later. In the last budget, they allocated $50,000 for outside hire and he would recommend taking the lease out of this. Mr. Infanti thought this made sense and they could at least have one lane of traffic open. He liked the ability to truck the Zipper from site to site. They could get the worst parts done and “put out some fires”. It was a good start and a way to address the problem. It was an excellent presentation and timely.
Mr. Grella also thought it good presentation and agreed it made sense. He commented that both he and Bruce talked about it several weeks ago and it was quite a machine. Mr. Dinkel asked who was using it now? Mr. Berry advised Park Construction was using it. Mr. Dinkel also felt it was a great presentation, but suggested they rent it for one season and would hate to learn something after the fact. He would like to see how it is used and how they adjust their staffing. Mr. Berry thought that when they were given the presentation this was not an option, however, he will ask the question. Mr. Panasiti added they were responsible for the maintenance, upkeep and repair. Renting it for a year sounded like a great idea. His fear was owning it and not using it. Mr. Bowler was impressed with it. After thinking about it he had some questions. He liked Mr. Dinkel’s idea. However, manpower was an issue – equipment operators were going to be using it and not the summer help.
Mr. Panasiti asked if it broke down, how fast could they get here to fix it? Mr. Berry gave a worse case scenario. Mr. Dinkel asked him to check and see what period of time they could rent it and use it for and what the fee was. Mr. Infanti asked that as soon as the information is received perhaps they could have a quick meeting and make a decision. He felt they should do this sooner rather than later. Mr. MacGuire thought Mr. Berry needed a lot of pats on the back for coming up with a good plan and deserves a lot of credit for coming up with this thought.
Mr. Wood asked what was the quality of repair using ground asphalt as part of the aggregate base rather than using crushed gravel? Mr. Berry explained that it was used on a number of roads such as Georgetown, Washington, Brimstone to name a few. It has been used and has a good track record.
Other Business
Mr. Dinkel moved to rescind the vote of accepting the donation of land from Jacqueline Rose, Trustee of the Albert A. Thibault Trust, second by Mr. Grella. The donation of land had been withdrawn by Ms. Rose. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 11:47 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant