|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJune 26, 2006
|
Prior to the meeting, Police Chief Peter Lyon presented former Police Chief Gary MacGuire with his service revolver that he had used for 18 years. Selectmen Bruce Bowler, Jay Dinkel, George Infanti and Reed Panasiti were present along with Mr. MacGuire’s wife Gail, son Doug and daughter Ashley. Police Chief’s wife, Lisa Lyon was also present during this informal presentation. Chief Lyon commented that at the time of Mr. MacGuire’s retirement, plans were made to give him something that was memorable, but they couldn’t get it to happen at the same time. The revolver had been reconditioned and engraved, and was presented by Chief Lyon and the Selectmen to him.
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. with all Selectmen present, as well as Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Susan Childress, Reporter from the Cabinet, asked for information on plans to move towards construction and/or renovation on 101 for safety purposes. Mr. Bowler explained that after the Board’s last meeting correspondence was sent to Senator Peter Bragdon and the State Representatives. The Senator got back to them and was working with the DOT. They will be doing traffic counts from Old Manchester Road on 101. A letter from a Saddle Hill resident was received for Senator Bragdon and he got back to them the same day. Ms. Childress asked if she could obtain copies of the correspondence.
Heritage Commission
Will Ludt and Bill Veillette were present from the Heritage Commission. Mr. Ludt indicated this plan was in two phases and wanted to let the Selectmen know what has transpired over the past two years. He briefly spoke about the past approvals with the Selectmen nine months ago and in the meantime they had been working with the HDC, Heritage Commission, Bruce Berry, Gary MacGuire and Cemetery Trustees to beautify the exterior portion of Town Hall. He briefly spoke of spending $10,000 as it related to curbing along the burial grounds, doing some landscaping work as well as berm work as Phase I. They were ready to go and hoped the Selectmen would give them approval to begin sometime in July or August. The Commission received money from the Crocker Foundation, Questers and Dick Kimball’s company to fund the curbing required and they should have some money to start the initial plan.
Mr. Ludt advised that Phase II consisted of $195,000 grant in which they received and included a $65,000 match from the Town.
Mr. Ludt spoke briefly about the plan and the parking spaces in front of the Old Cemetery as well as work in front of the transformers. There was a need for another meeting with Mr. MacGuire and Mr. Berry regarding the berm and curbing. In response to Mr. Dinkel’s question, Mr. Ludt indicated that in Phase I Jean Crocker raised issues about trying to protect the crypts in front of the wall. The transformer then went in and got a few people in the village upset. This plan was approved and they were ready to back down when someone thought they should do something powerful, they proceeded and got the grant. They have also received some private money from the Questers for approximately $10,000 and what they do first will not be undone when they do the next Phase.
In response to a question raised by Mr. Panasiti, he was told that DPW would be doing the work. Mr. Dinkel added that this project had been discussed in the past and was in Mr. Berry’s budget. Mr. Veillette spoke about moving the existing granite in front of Town Hall to another location and reused. He talked about the distance of the parking areas, where additional curbing will be placed near the wall in front of the crypts. The lot itself would not be asphalt.
Relative to the DPW workload, Mr. Bowler mentioned that two weeks ago the Board voted to rent an Asphalt Zipper which was going to cost them money and the Department would repair roads that were in great need to be fixed. Mr. Ludt indicated they would be happy to get in line for the fall. Mr. Bowler asked if they had anything in writing from the Cemetery Trustees? Mr. Ludt indicated that everyone at that meeting thought it was a good plan and the minutes of the meeting would reflect that approval.
Cal Wood, Buckridge Drive, asked to revisit Mr. Panasiti’s question in that is the work being done by DPW specifically in the budget? Mr. Bowler explained it would be in his labor line and the project discussed for two years. Mr. Wood commented that there were specific funds that were appropriated for DPW last fall for specific purposes and he did not remember this specific purpose. DPW is being used again as a slush fund for a big event, he said. Mr. Bowler reiterated that this was agreed upon two or three years ago, specific organizations raised funds and the Board authorized the funds. Mr. Wood asked how could DPW commit to these funds that were not in the budget? Mr. Dinkel indicated this was just one project, there were many not committed to during the budget process and come up when they are needed. Mr. Wood’s concern was that this project was of such importance and magnitude. Mr. Dinkel indicated that this is what Public Works does – they work on public properties. Mr. Wood then asked what was the mission and function of DPW for the Town and where was it stated? Mr. Dinkel explained that their function was the maintenance of the Town’s infrastructure. Mr. Wood then asked where was it stated or wasn’t it? They were funding a department in which they have no clue what it is supposed to do. Mr. Dinkel disagreed and said he considered their Town Hall an important mission. Liz Overholt, Boston Post Road, commented that to use Cal’s word “mission”, wasn’t that in Bruce Berry’s job description? Mr. Bowler mentioned that Mr. Berry has been working on a very detailed program for his department and it spells out what he envisions for his department.
Mr. Veillette advised this required a vote - $195,000 grant from the DOT was received with the Town to match $65,000. Mr. Bowler indicated this was not budgeted. Mr. Veillette explained they were not asking for the construction dollars and they may not be available until 2010. They were seeking the engineering dollars around 2007 for approximately $15,000 and those fees will not be released until there are matching ones. They had plenty of time to talk about this. They would like to prepare for the Selectmen how they are going to raise the match and then be prepared to actually hire an engineering firm. They were asking for quotes and Charlie Tiedemann has recommended four firms. He personally offered to prepare them for Mr. Tiedemann and all he had to do was sign them. He was asking the Selectmen to go out for RFP as the next step. After Board members gave their opinions – Mr. Dinkel moved to authorize the Heritage Commission to send out RFP’s for engineering of the Phase II exterior plan, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel mentioned that for the Phase II timing, they needed to commit by fiscal year end of June 30, 2007. Mr. Bowler summarized that the earliest they can get the money is 2007 and they have until 2010 to do it all. The earliest the better to get plans done and to do their homework would make their case a lot easier.
Representing the District was Marilyn Peterman, Amherst’s representative; Karen White, Interim Treasurer of the District and Planning Director from Bedford and Brian McCarthy, Alderman at Large in Nashua and Vice Chairman of the District.
Mrs. White, at Mr. Bowler’s request, gave the Board a brief history on how and why the District was formed beginning in 2002 with the proposed selling of Pennichuck Water Works to Philadelphia Suburban, filings with the PUC as interveners, the number of communities involved that came together to sign a Memo of Understanding in order to form a regional water district with the goal of acquiring the assets of PWW, the involvement by the City of Nashua putting on the ballot a referendum to acquire these assets by a vote of 78% in favor, the need for legislation on why regional water districts made sense, the writing of a Charter for the District that had been accomplished after meeting every week for three years, the Charter being adopted by the Attorney General and PUC, of 16 communities that had been originally part of the Charter eight had joined with the others deciding not to, and the need to support Nashua in its eminent domain issue.
In response to Mr. Panasiti’s questions, Mr. Dinkel advised that the Town had a warrant article authorizing them to move ahead. Mrs. Peterman added there were other towns doing the same. Mrs. White commented that some town attorneys didn’t feel the same way. Relative to revenues, Mrs. White explained that Nashua had paid over one million dollars in their process of eminent domain and the District did not feel they should ask them for money. Litchfield was working on a default budget and Londonderry was on a calendar year, however, they recently sent them $5000 and will send them another $5000 at the end of June and will be caught up. Raymond was having more difficulties with Pennichuck East. Pennichuck owes smaller companies associated with different communities and many are a bit reluctant because they are still deciding where their place will be. Pittsfield is preparing an eminent domain case and will need their funds for it. Mrs. Peterman added that Bedford was not only contributing financially, was contributing to Mrs. White’s salary and allowing them to use their rooms and paying for a stenographer. She spoke historically of how Pennichuck came into Amherst replacing Southern NH Water who had some of the most exorbitant rates in the State. She suspected that the number of water users in Town had increased. Her opinion was that they needed to look at the big picture – they needed to protect the water users, future water users and the supply to their wells.
Mr. Panasiti asked about the commitment from funds to the same people and wondered when did they stop asking for them? Mrs. White indicated she would be back asking Amherst for $5000 in 2007 and had already asked for them in 2006. In response to Mr. Infanti’s questions, she explained that after the Charter was written, Milford decided not to join. She explained the benefits in becoming a Charter member i.e. becoming a member of the Board of Directors, have a say in the operating budget, receiving credits that they would be able to use for water improvements above and beyond for the Town, for example and were there to benefit those who joined during the “window of opportunity”.
Mr. Bowler questioned the letter from Mike Scanlon dated April 7, 2006 in which there was an outstanding balance of $96,000 for legal services. Mrs. White explained this was a contingency and would be paid to them if Nashua were successful in obtaining Pennichuck and turning it over to the District. The bills are postponed and are for expenses on a day-to-day basis and legal briefs – they also saved the District a great deal of money.
Mr. Bowler asked Mr. McCarthy if the vote was to be taken again in Nashua, would they get the same majority and also asked about Pennichuck acquiring smaller companies since this had started? He replied he thought so. He also spoke at length about Pennichuck costs, RFP’s to lower previous contracts proposed vs. Pennichuck charges as well as their purchasing smaller operations and their rates being forward onto the water user.
Mr. MacGuire, after researching the Town’s contribution, reported that the Town had paid $5000 in July 2004 and another $5000 in August of 2005. Mr. Dinkel summarized that the latest payment was for fiscal year 05-06 and for July 2006 they needed to determine if they should make another payment of $5000. Mrs. Peterman believed they made this part of their legal budget. Mr. Dinkel indicated he supported the Regional Water District and as such was an insurance policy that went well beyond the 15% of actual users. If they let this go away, it doesn’t come back. He thought Nashua would ultimately decide on how this played out. He supported cutting Amherst back until he saw another budget. He felt the $5000 was arbitrary and he would like to know what their projected expenses were. Understanding the $96,000, he expected to see them again next year. Amherst was one of the few, so far, willing to be part of this and he was still willing, but needed to know the details of the numbers.
Mr. Grella asked if they had any idea of when this would end? Mr. McCarthy explained they had a hearing in January and would probably hear of a decision in March of 2007. Sometime after that would see if they prevailed and they would then talk to the region again and the PUC would rule on the assets of Pennichuck Water. He speculated it would take another year or so. By the time they “hold the keys”, it may be two or three years.
In response to Mr. Grella’s question on why it took so long, Mrs. Peterman explained it took two years to write the Charter and three years was not a long time for this type of process. $5000 was a very small price to pay for their water and they needed to consider this. Mr. McCarthy added that understanding the process to date was that they wanted it to be an efficient process – Pennichuck has spent more money in New Hampshire on advertising compared to what the President of the United States spends in advertising. He briefly spoke about the Nashua process relative to eminent domain. Mrs. White commented that it was two years writing the Charter and one year before the PUC.
Mr. Bowler asked if it was still the intent if the District gets going that Amherst will get the money back? Mrs. Peterman remarked there was a chance this might not happen. Mr. Dinkel commented that this was why this is considered “insurance”. Mrs. Peterman reminded everyone that the Pennichuck wells were within the Town of Amherst. Mrs. White will get the Board a proposed budget and thanked them for their time.
Mr. Bowler advised this hearing was to accept unanticipated revenues that they had not accepted at the last public hearing. Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing at 8:24 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. MacGuire reported the following unanticipated revenues: $50,000 from Lowe’s as their second payment in support of their parking waiver, $5000 for special duty, $800 P/Z Engineering Review, $463.56 P/Z Engineering Review for Island Pond, $14,594.16 Donation from Amherst Rescue Squad and $30,000 for Surplus EMS billing revenue – total of $100,857.72. Merri Howe, Finance Director told the Board about her discussion with the auditors relative to this subject. Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 8:29 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Grella moved to accept the unanticipated revenue in the amount of $100,857.72, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
Real Estate Signs
Mr. Bowler summarized the issue of the sign ordinance that was brought to their attention in particular real estate signs – if there was one on a property a second “open house” sign was illegal along with off premises signs. Mr. MacGuire briefly explained what prompted this discussion. The ordinance was passed by Town Meeting and can only be altered by that venue. He spoke about enforcement and from complaints received, he said some felt it was unfair. He did not see an option until there was a change in the ordinance that would not take place until next spring. One Realtor was most interested in putting up “open house” signs on Sundays, but they do not have people to enforce the ordinance on that day.
Charlie Tiedemann commented that if someone wanted to have an “open house” sign they could go the ZBA for a variance. The majority of complaints are what happens to the signs after being collected. His instructions from the Selectmen were to collect the signs and put them elsewhere and it was a case of enforcement. Mr. MacGuire spoke about the issue of disposing signs after they were collected and people failed to retrieve them. The legal advice is that they should be storing them for some reasonable time. Mr. Tiedemann’s position was for the Board to impose a storage fee. He commented he lived in Town and did not like to see them everywhere. “The Real Estate people don’t care and to me they are trash.”
Mr. Panasiti asked when was the sign ordinance written? Mr. Tiedemann advised it was rewritten in 1991 – there had been another ordinance before this one. Mr. Bowler commented that this was a Town vote that set these guidelines. Mr. Dinkel did not see this as anti Realtor because any retailer could do the same with a sale. They instructed Mr. Tiedemann to send a letter to all Real Estate companies in the area to let them know they would start enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Tiedemann talked about the off premises signs put up by the Golf Guy on 101 from the Merrimack line to the Milford line only on Saturdays and Sundays. One Sunday he went down there and took pictures – it took six months to get any action.
Mr. Dinkel did not consider the signs trash as they have a purpose in the owner’s mind. Mr. Tiedemann mentioned that most were cardboard with wire. Mr. Grella asked if the Town actually has a fine? Mr. Tiedemann explained that if they go after someone under the Land Use Citation, it is $275 and $275 every day thereafter. Mr. Panasiti thought they needed to come up with who was going to police this, especially on the weekends. Mr. Infanti wanted to bring this back to the Planning Board. He had no problem with putting up an “open house” sign and taking it down the same day. He quoted from the ordinance about off premises signs. Mr. Tiedemann indicated he could pick up the signs or the Police could. There was nothing they could do that night. He mentioned the Farmers’ Market off premises signs and asked about yard sale signs that are up a week in advance. Mr. Infanti remarked that Mr. Tiedemann did his job. They could have someone driving around Town for a week picking up signs and he couldn’t get even half of them. If they drove around, he thought they would find 50-60 illegal signs. This was up to the Planning Board to review and bring it back to the Town. Mr. Tiedemann said he did not discriminate when picking up signs – he picks them up when he goes from point A to point B.
Mr. Bowler commented that this was a tough job and not solved that night. This was going to be a Planning Board issue to bring back to the voters to change the sign ordinance. The Selectmen can’t do it. Relative to storage fees, Mr. MacGuire said he would question whether they had the authority to charge them, but was a concept to bring up, however, it would create a nightmare in administrative costs. Mr. Bowler mentioned that the chances of winning in Court were slim. Mr. Tiedemann agreed, they would be tying up money as well as Town Counsel to prosecute.
The Board debated the issue further as it related to fines and who pays for the signs. Mr. Dinkel encouraged enforcement to the extent where they were able to pick them up and store them. He asked Mr. Tiedemann about a ZBA variance and wondered if Caldwell Banker could get a variance for Tuesdays. Mr. Tiedemann believed it would have to be for a specific location. Mr. Dinkel suggested allowing them to get a permit on an open-ended basis but in the meantime enforce what they can. Realtors were not the only ones that abuse this. Mr. Infanti asked who are the enforcing powers and who are the public safety officers named in the ordinance? Mr. Tiedemann explained he was the agent to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. MacGuire added this was outside the typical duties of Police Officers and not the proper use of law enforcement officers.
Mr. Panasiti thought they should have a fine of $15, $20 or $30 rather than going to Court. Mr. Tiedemann suggested that if they were looking at another fine, he thought Town Counsel should look into it. Mr. Bowler also believed they needed to continue to enforce this as well as signs down 101A. They should find a location to store them such as at DPW, but they should not be destroyed. He too thought they should check with Counsel because he did not think they could impose a fine. Mr. MacGuire commented they had the ability to impose fines as it related to parking, for example. The RSA does give the Town the ability to impose fines for geese and other areas, but he did not know if the land use citation precludes that.
Mr. Panasiti reiterated that they needed to find out how to impose this on weekends. Mr. Bowler suggested that since they had sent a letter before, perhaps they needed to send one more. Mr. Tiedemann indicated they had sent out a dozen and a half before along with putting a notice in the Cabinet. Mr. Bowler recommended he send out another letter – Board members concurred.
Liz Overholt remarked this all came about because of her open house. She described where the signs were located and gave her thoughts on the matter. Mr. Bowler advised Mr. Tiedemann to continue to pick them up.
Planning Zoning Fees
Mr. Tiedemann reported that two to two and a half years ago they revised all the P/Z fees and at that time he asked for COLA increases and nothing happened. He is asking again to establish new fees for the fiscal year July 1. Mr. Bowler indicated he had only given one example and that was Milford that was higher than Amherst. Mr. Tiedemann advised he had not spent a lot of time comparing fees. This was an attempt to keep even every year or not far behind. The Board discussed the comparison of Bedford charging Lowe’s $52,000 and the Town’s charge of $37,000. Mr. Tiedemann indicated that Bedford charged a 15% surcharge for inspections. If this were taken out, it would be approximately the same. This was an interesting concept and one he hadn’t seen anywhere else.
Mr. Infanti spoke about his personal experience in Milford and their cost structure – he did not feel the fees were fair in Milford. COLA made sense to him. They need to look at the rates and see if they are being realistic. Mr. Grella asked about additional fees being charged for sprinklers due to the size of buildings. Mr. Tiedemann explained the Town doesn’t charge but the Fire Department may. Mr. Grella thought the COLA justifiable and they should look at the fees between now and the budget process and compare with other towns. Mr. Dinkel would like to review all the fees similar to what they did several years ago. He had a problem with a COLA and would like to see other fees before going across the board. He would like to see where they are now and then make some changes.
In response to Mr. Panasiti’s question, Mr. Tiedemann described the fees and formulas associated with various permits. Mr. Dinkel indicated he had a philosophical view about this. The fees are not structured to reimburse the Town for expenses. Mr. Tiedemann always thought a fee should be justified by the amount of work that goes into an application by the departments. Mr. Dinkel said if he saw the list he may go along, but he couldn’t vote going across the board that night. On huge projects they should hirer an outside contractor to do inspections. Mr. Bowler had no problem with doing a COLA or a percentage increase, but also would like to see the fee structure.
Mr. Infanti moved to increase the fees to justify the increase in the staff’s time and review of plans by 4%, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Tiedemann explained he suggested July 1 because of the new fiscal year. Mr. Bowler asked how long would it take to get numbers from surrounding towns? Mr. Tiedemann thought 3-4 months. Different towns do different things and they can’t compare apples to apples. What he did the last time was to take a generic example and compared the various towns. Mr. Dinkel would like to see this process done. Mr. Bowler asked if it was unrealistic to ask for something for the middle of September so that they can shoot for October 1. Mr. Infanti indicated he would leave the motion on the table – his concern is to review the fees by fall. Mr. Tiedemann thought that every year they should have an inflation factor. Vote: 3-2, Mr. Dinkel and Mr. Panasiti opposed.
FY 06 Encumbrances into FY 07
Mr. MacGuire advised they were requesting the following 2006 year end encumbrances: $300,000 under Warrant Article 4 for the tanker that had not yet been received; $61,200 under Warrant Article 12 for tanks and apron because the work was still in process and $186,250.55 for the Baboosic Lake Septic System since the project was ongoing. The total warrant article carryovers were $547,450.55.
They were also requesting to encumber $65,964.78 which was unanticipated FEMA funds to be used for DPW tank repairs that also includes $15,000 from contingency, $100,000 unanticipated Lowe’s fee to be utilized for the purpose outlined in the agreement, $675.74 unanticipated from Granite Thunder, $360.97 unanticipated from disposal of found property, $375.00 unanticipated from Landfill billboard lease, $4,094 unanticipated balance of Voter for the Communications Center to be used for radio upgrades, and $25,671.89 unanticipated excess Cable Franchise Fee. The total unanticipated carryovers were $197,142.38.
FY 06 had a 5 year non-lapsing warrant article of $5,5000,000 and would like to carryover these funds since no purchases had been made in FY 06.
Mrs. Howe answered Mr. Dinkel’s question about the $15,000 contingency as it related to the DPW tank repairs. Mr. Dinkel moved to encumber the funds as listed, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. MacGuire advised they were requesting the following working budget transfers: $15,000 from contingency to unanticipated account for pumps/apron per FY 05 approved carryover, $2,000 transfer from unanticipated Adelphia Cable to Legal for cable negotiations, a transfer from Recreation wages of $10,500 to Town Hall, DPW and Police Department’s IT accounts, $3,894 from Primex as their refund to the liability account, $1,525 for a FY 05 carryover from the sale of a Fire Department vehicle used for pump repair, $30,000 to transfer unanticipated EMS overage to the EMS part time wage line, $6,309 to transfer to FY 05 carryover of unanticipated revenue to police vehicle repair from the sale of cruisers, $1,000 to transfer reimbursement of insurance deductible to police vehicle repair since the Town absorbed the cost, and $19,867.48 to transfer excess cable franchise fee to buildings to fund Town Hall unexpected cabling, electrical and repairs. In answer to Mr. Dinkel’s question relative to Engine 5, Mrs. Howe advised they would issue a purchase order. Mr. Dinkel moved to accept the working budget transfers requested as outlined, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Selectman Dinkel stepped down. Mr. MacGuire advised he had contacted eight financial institutions, all were banks and seven responded with proposals for a five year note for the Baboosic Lake Septic System as well as a ten year note for Baboosic Lake Septic System plus the Fire Department Tanker. The first five years were the same with no fees involved. Sovereign Bank capped at $5000 for a five-year note with a ten-year Bond Counsel required that was subject to quite a bit of money that was the same as TD Banknorth. He spoke about the rates per the five and ten year notes. First Colebrook Bank had the lowest rates, he said with $27,096 for five years and $423,832 for a ten-year note. Broken down the note for $27,096 would be for five years and $291,567 would be for the tanker at a ten year note as well as $132,265 was for the Baboosic Lake Septic System which would equal the $423,832 ten year note.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the bid of First Colebrook Bank for a five-year note of $27,096 at 4.35% for the Baboosic Lake Septic System, seconded by Mr. Grella. Vote: 3-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the bid of First Colebrook Bank for a ten-year note of $132,265 for the Baboosic Lake Septic System, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: 3-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Mr. Dinkel returned to the Board.
Mr. MacGuire advised the Board of the bid results of the Utility Paving per ton in place. Mr. Grella moved to accept Shattuck Seal Coating LLC’s bid for $86.00 per ton in place, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. MacGuire also advised the Board of the bid results of the Propane bids. Mr. Grella moved that the contract be awarded to Bot-L-Gas at $1.46 per gallon, second by Mr. Dinkel. Discussion: In response to the Board’s question, Norman Wrenn, owner of Bot-L-Gas told them he services the Fire Stations, Middle School, Clark School, the Police Department and the Communications Center backup generator. Vote: 4-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Mr. MacGuire told the Board that the bid results for diesel fuel, home heating oil and gasoline were State bid contracts. Mr. Grella moved to award the State contract to Burke JOC (Journal of Commerce) plus $0.0582 transport per gallon, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Dinkel moved to accept the State bid contract to Fred Fuller at $2.395, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to give the contract to CW Fuels (Pepperell) JOC plus $0.050 transport, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
The Board tabled their decision until their next meeting since both Mr. Infanti and Mr. Dinkel had nothing further to report on one of the candidates.
Mr. Dinkel stepped down. Mr. MacGuire indicated that the Treasurer had brought to his attention that the above account had approximately $270,000 and there were some other types of accounts, out there, earning more interest. It was the Board’s desire to get further information from other financial institutions. He researched the list on money market accounts with all being controlled by Federal guidelines and stipulations that would allow for minimal amount of transfers. This account is not one where they were looking for multiple activity and they all would serve their needs.
Treasurer Overholt told the Board that these interest rates were the current ones and changed from month to month. If the rates were not a “whole lot different, it would be easier to keep it at Citizens”, she said. When she first looked at the interest rate it was 1.59%. Mr. Dinkel explained that Ocean National Bank is actually a savings account that allows four withdrawals per month with the minimum being $100,000. There was a brief discussion about moving funds without Selectmen’s approval. It was Mr. MacGuire’s belief that this could not be done. Mr. Dinkel commented that based on what he heard he could not imagine the bank would enforce a minimal balance. He would love to have the Town’s business, but perhaps this would not be appropriate and what Mrs. Overholt said was good. Down the road it may be good to go out to bid again because a lot of things have changed over five years. Mrs. Overholt asked that they stay with Citizens.
Mr. Infanti moved to go with Citizens Bank and put the funds into a new account, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: 4 in favor.
Mr. Dinkel returned to the Board.
Mr. Bowler advised this was a piece of property the Board voted to accept, but it was then withdrawn. The Trustee now wants to donate it back to the Board. He commented on the assessment amount and questioned it. Mr. MacGuire did not know the motivation around this donation. Mr. Infanti moved to accept the 2+ acre meadow lot as a gift from Jacqueline Rose as the Trustee of the Albert A. Thibault Family Trust again subject to Town Counsel’s approval, second by Mr. Dinkel. Discussion: Mr. Dinkel commented it should be run by Bill Drescher. Vote: Unanimous.
After reviewing the memo of further explanation, Mr. Dinkel moved to grant a new assessment for M/L 1-10-5 Anita M. Morris Revocable Trust of $445,800, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Grella moved to accept the minutes of June 12, 2006, second by Mr. Panasiti amended as follows by Liz Overholt: Line 173 – Strike “from” replace with “other than”. Vote: 4-0-1, Mr. Infanti abstained.
Mr. Infanti reported there was a public Planning Board meeting scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday and it was his assumption that it pertained to the Walnut Hill development. Mr. MacGuire advised it was his understanding that they would then go into non-public session.
Mr. Grella spoke about the HDC’s ruling on replacing trees on Town property after removal of mature trees. The HDC has requested that these trees be replaced at the tennis courts since the white birch trees had been removed and never replaced a year or two ago. Mr. Dinkel indicated the Commission knew his opinion on this – those trees were in the middle of a parking lot. Jim Emmons felt differently about it than he did. Mr. Bowler agreed with Mr. Dinkel and would have a hard time spending money to put these trees back. Mr. Infanti couldn’t imagine how they lived in that area to begin with
Mr. Dinkel reported the CIP Committee will be meeting shortly and was scheduled tentatively for Monday, July 24. They will need an appointment from Ways & Means and he had spoken to Neal Foley who will follow up on this. He had asked Mr. MacGuire to have Department Heads review what they had submitted - to have everything in place in advance of the beginning of the budget process.
Mr. Dinkel also reported he was told that the Recreation Commission was to recommend Bob Heaton to OSAC. Mr. Panasiti advised they had made a recommendation that the Selectmen appoint him as a member of this Committee. The Board discussed briefly whether or not they should continue this particular practice of personal interviews or not interview folks who had no one vying for the same seat they were occupying. After considering Board members’ opinions, the majority felt they would like to interview Mr. Heaton at their next meeting relative to this position.
Mr. Panasiti reported he had sent everyone copies of the email that had been requested from Conservation.
Mr. Bowler reported that Bruce Berry was continuing to do an outstanding job on Conifer Lane. The water level was down and homeowners have been very happy with what the Town has done for them. They were working with the Golf Course and would like a letter to be sent from the Town thanking them for allowing the Town to place a hose across their fairway for two weeks.
Mr. Infanti advised at the Planning Board the previous week, they had a number of prospects that were interested in doing the Master Plan. They will look into them with more review work to be done and the Planning Board will make a decision on a firm. He indicated this was going to be an incredible large job. Mr. Infanti also spoke about getting many more volunteers and that the Planning Board was positive about getting this done.
Upon a roll call vote the Board of Selectmen under RSA 91-A:3 II (c) voted unanimously to go into non-public session at 10:45 p.m.
The Board exited non-public session at 11:08 p.m. after discussion with the Welfare Officer, Mr. Infanti moved to leave the lien of $1371.54 and waive the interest as requested of $1313.25, seconded by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Upon motion made by Mr. Infanti, second by Mr. Panasiti, the Board adjourned the meeting at 11.09 p.m. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant