|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenSeptember 25, 2006
|
Upon a unanimous roll call vote, four members of the Board entered non-public session at 6:45 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3 II (d). The Board exited non-public session at 7:10 p.m. While in non-public session, OSAC Chairman Peter Rotch and Fred Pierce updated the Selectmen and Town Administrator on a possible land purchase.
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. Selectmen present: Thomas Grella, Jay Dinkel and Reed Panasiti. Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Douglas Keith, 142 Amherst Street spoke about the re-assessment and the possibility of taxes going up. He and his wife were retired, have been living in the Village for seven years and their taxes have gone up 30% during that time. The newest re-assessment went up almost 70%; he spoke about living on a fixed income and commented he did not want to sell their home. He met with Vision and understood that there may not be a lot they can do about the taxes going up, but he wanted to at least talk to the Board about them.
Mr. Bowler advised they do not know what the new tax rate will be. Craig Nichols from the Department of Revenue, a representative from Vision and representatives from MRI were present. Mr. Keith mentioned living in California, that Prop 13 worked there and may be something that could work in New Hampshire. Mr. Nichols introduced himself to the Selectmen and explained he had been the Town’s Assessment Representative for the last year. He thought this night would be a good one to hear some possible concerns from the taxpayers. He had listened in on some of the hearings, reviewed data on the assessment cards that looked good and he was comfortable with what he has observed. He advised that Mr. Keith may meet the elderly exemption criteria, but did not know what his income limits were.
Mr. Dinkel commented that the average valuation for the entire Town went up about 40%. The revaluation was based on April 1st when the real estate market was high and things have changed since then. If the revaluation was done properly, everyone is at the same high point and it is fair. This did not mean that individual cases don’t need further review. Mr. Keith indicated he looked into the elderly exemption and it only amounted to several hundred dollars when they were talking thousands – this did not amount to a great deal.
Scott Marsh, MRI, added they were reviewing the process and hopefully they will have some figures within the next several weeks. The Vision Representative advised that approximately 11% have had hearings that will be re-reviewed and second notices will be sent out once this happens. If there seems to be questions such as an entire street, they will look at the entire street, not just individual properties. Mr. Dinkel commented that he knew of a delay in people receiving the mailing. Mr. MacGuire added that there had been a Post Office related problem with people receiving their letters at the last minute and there was a difficulty in scheduling. Vision extended the hearings to two more days – September 25 and 26 and he did not know of anyone who did not get noticed.
Present from the Committee were: Heather Seitz, Tom Sommers, Bruce Berry, Chairman Anne Krantz and Bill Wichman. Mrs. Seitz hoped the Selectmen had a chance to review the Stormwater Regulations proposed and the Committee sought their input. Mr. Panasiti, the Selectmen’s Liaison, had some legal questions on how they can institute this in Town. In response to Mr. Bowler’s comment, Mr. MacGuire advised that Town Counsel met with the Committee, gave ideas, suggestions and made comments. Mrs. Seitz elaborated on the regulation process brought forth by Attorney William Drescher as it related to various Boards – Planning Board, Board of Health and Town Meeting and how best to approach this. The intent is to invite Mr. Drescher to the Board of Health and/or the Planning Board or both. The Committee would like to receive comments back to them and within the next several weeks, they will be sending the regulations to the Planning Board to discuss at perhaps their November meeting. Then come back to the Board of Health in December or January and have a finished document at that point in time.
In response to Mr. Panasiti’s questions, Mrs. Seitz spoke abut the availability of monitoring subdivisions and large home lots when they came before the Planning Board. There were a number of different approaches to take under the Board of Health by utilizing Charlie Tiedemann as both the Zoning Director and Deputy Health Officer. This regulation process also takes place during and after construction. In response to Mr. Dinkel’s concern about venturing into enforcement and an area where they couldn’t cover, Mrs. Seitz advised this was discussed and language addressed. If this was something that should be done they could go to the developers during construction. Mr. Dinkel thanked the many “volunteer experts” who have learned about this complex subject.
Mr. Dinkel then asked how the Town compared to other towns. Mr. Sommers spoke about his role as Chairman of Hudson’s Stormwater Committee. Amherst was doing well and about a year and a half away from mandated completion. He briefly talked about the Stormwater outfalls that need to be done so that this Ordinance can be enforced. He commented on the Town’s summer interns at the Department of Public Works with many towns doing the same thing as well as the NRPC group that met for several months. Regarding enforcement, this was a big learning experiment for them. Both Lowe’s and Wal-Mart know they have to comply. Much was common sense and came down to the single family lot. “The EPA is saying, clean up your act” – as erosion is important. Going through the Planning Board process was probably the best way.
Mr. Grella asked about scheduled fees and wondered if they were going to be built into the building application? Mr. Sommers advised this had not been thought of and had not been built into anything in his experience. Mrs. Seitz commented that this would be on a case by case basis because each one was very different. She saw the final draft within the next several weeks going out for comments to the Planning Board and open for further comments until then.
Mr. Bowler asked if Conservation would weigh in on this. Mr. Wichman commented that he did not believe they were involved. Mrs. Krantz advised that Conservation was involved as an educator. Relative to W&M member Robin Warren’s question, Mr. Sommers indicated there should not be any tax impact starting out because there would be fees. Eventually if the Town found the need to add staff, there would be an impact. Mrs. Seitz added they were a “long long way from the point of having to add staff”.
PMEC – Discussion of Phase II Bids
Present from the PMEC Building Committee: Greg King, Jim Bowen, Len Gerzon and Gerry Wilkins. Mr. King advised that they had raised $160,000 from private donations and grants for Phase II which was to construct a weather-tight shell and roofing. Mr. Bowen spoke of the bid process the Committee derived. He mentioned the part of the building already built cost approximately $110,000. He volunteered to be the General Contractor on the project and briefly spoke about the only complication being the spray insulation.
Mr. Bowen advised Iron Horse Standing Seam Roofing Company bid $27,650 to install the metal roof. John Fiery Construction bid $40,380 and will renovate the existing structure, frame, install trusses, install windows and doors and put siding on the new addition. P.J. Currier bid $25,898.95 to supply the framing lumber, sub-siding, roof trusses, pre-painted fiber cement clapboard siding, soffits and trims per the plans. Johnson Spray Foam Insulators bid $34,435 to upgrade the insulation in the existing building and spray the new addition with high density spray. Pella Windows bid $6,500 to supply the windows on the first floor. The total cost is approximately $135,000 and they were within the budget.
In answer to the Board’s questions, Committee members spoke about when the work will begin and the timeframe they anticipate it being completed; guarantee of the pricing; type of siding chosen; the spray foam as it related to geothermal heating and cooling. Mr. Dinkel commented that what they had presented “left him in a vacuum” because he had nothing to compare. Discussion ensued on the re-bid process for the windows, who bid and the type of windows involved. Mr. Dinkel indicated they had convinced him on the windows and asked if anyone else had bid the same as P.J. Currier? Mr. Wilkins advised he went and talked to Milford Lumber who did not respond with a bid. Mr. Bowen added that five people were contacted and Fiery Construction was the only one who responded. There was only one bid on the roof.
Mr. Wilkins mentioned that it was the Committee’s goal to make the building as maintenance free as possible. Mr. Bowler asked if the Committee had talked to Bruce Berry about any of this. Mr. MacGuire explained there had been a conversation with him, but more on the issue of bid specifications. Jim had done a great majority of the work to get the project to this stage. He also gave his views on having a General Contractor indicating that when it came to the plumbing and electricity, Bruce would be a need to have someone oversee this. Mr. Bowler remarked this was a Town building and Mr. Berry was in charge of them. He asked if he thought Fred Salisbury would be part of this operation. Mr. Berry felt that early on it would be a review process and it was easier to be involved earlier on then after the fact.
Mr. MacGuire clarified some issues: The roofing was a specialty item, he rejected the one window bid and they did a re-bid, for the insulation they got two bids, and the framing was a bit unusual and an effort was made to include other people. In the Town’s interest, he wanted to make sure this was advertised and Jay was right, they did not get the number of bids they hoped for. Mr. Panasiti advised there were a number of concerns voiced and he had gone to Gary several times to make sure they were following the correct process.
In answer to Robin Warren’s question, Mr. King advised the Board had no plans to ask for Phase III in the coming budget cycle and will continue to raise funds. Mr. Gerzon commented that the Committee felt they had no choice, but to seal and protect what was already there. Mr. Bowler remarked that Anne Krantz, who was in the audience, who was another member and a huge driving force on the Advisory Board. He indicated that what they had done was helpful and he thanked them all.
Mr. Grella moved the bids be awarded to the companies listed: Iron Horse Standing Seam Roofing Company for $27,650, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous. John Fiery Construction $40,380 for installing trusses, windows, doors, framing and siding per plans, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous. P.J. Currier for $25,898.95 for supplying framing lumber, sub-siding, roof trusses, pre-painted fiber cement clapboard siding, soffits & trim, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous. Johnson Spray Foam Insulators for $34,435 for upgrading insulation in the existing building and spraying the new addition with high density spray, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous. Pella Windows for $6,500 for first floor windows, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
CAFÉ Report
Marilyn Peterman thanked the Board for allowing her to come in and talk to them about this report. Mr. Bowler also thanked her for continuing to work with this group for the Town. She presented the Board with a memo given to the group from William Chapman, an Attorney who pleaded the case before the Court for the New Hampshire Coalition for Adequate Funding Education. The intention of this group, which the Town and both Schools participated in bringing this suit, was to see if HB 616 met the test for an adequate education. The case was called “Londonderry School District SAU #12 et al v. State of New Hampshire and Amherst was part of the “et al”. The Court determined that HB 616 failed to cost out an adequate education and fund it with constitutional taxes and the State has failed to provide an accountability system. The Court urged the Legislature and Governor to do more than define an adequate education. The Court required of the State that “Any definition of constitutional adequacy by the political branches must be sufficiently clear to permit common understanding and allow for an objective determination of cost whatever the State identifies as comprising constitutional adequacy, it must pay for. None of that financial obligation can be shifted to local school districts, regardless of their relative wealth or need. Mrs. Peterman advised this was germane to the Town of Amherst because under HB 616 at the end of the five to six year period, Amherst’s share of the grant money would be zero. The Court was looking at a fair way to solve this.
A question she said she asked Attorney Chapman, was targeted aid to be deemed constitutional? It was his opinion that it would not be constitutional. Mrs. Peterman advised NHCAFE was non-partisan and did not take a position, but wanted to make sure that whatever each town wants to do, that they meet with their State Representative or potential Representatives and that they be handed out a set of eight questions which she read. The Courts are the last bulwark of all our constitutional protections. Once again, the Court said this was not constitutional and the Legislature and Governor have to go back and figure it out. She hoped the Board of Selectmen have this discussion with their State Representatives and candidates.
Mrs. Peterman told the Board that in October the students at the High School will be holding a two-hour forum, however, she felt this issue should have more time devoted to it. She suggested the Board send out the questions ahead of time to the candidates and hold their own forum to get their opinions. This has an effect on taxpayers for Amherst and other towns. When they set the tax rate in October, they might see the meeting room filled with a lot of people seeking to find a solution. It was not just retired people, but young people and single people. She did not have a solution, but has seen some solutions, some may work and some may not.
Mr. Panasiti felt this should go before the School Board and use Souhegan High School as the forum and let them be the people “to carry the torch”. Mr. Dinkel thought Marilyn summed it up perfectly and he reached a different conclusion that was why he didn’t support it originally. The eight questions were great, but there was one question that wasn’t there – “where is the money coming from?” Long term, this was going to hurt them financially. Mrs. Peterman advised there were two legislative bills one was to fund adequate education along with a separate mechanism for funding. There were many creative ways to fund this, not including a State income tax or sales tax. The Board debated the issue further.
Cal Wood, Woodland Drive, mentioned that when the Representatives met with the Selectmen several months ago and the question was asked, “When are you going to perform your constitutional duty to define adequate education in the State of New Hampshire?”, the answer by most of them was that they were not going to do anything because the taxpayers of this State have not told them they had to do something about it. The Board debated whether or not they should host this forum or have a group of volunteers host it at the Town Hall because the meeting room is hooked up for live TV broadcasts. They also discussed when they might hold this forum, who would moderate it and who they would invite. Mrs. Peterman indicated she was available to start the ball rolling and to let her know how they wanted to proceed.
Souhegan School Board member Jeannie Ludt came down to talk to the Board after watching this segment on Access TV. She advised that the Community Council were in the early stages of planning their forum. Questions being asked were many that Marilyn was suggesting. It will not be live, but probably a tape would be run on Public Access TV. Being a school, the education funding issue was extremely important to them and many questions are centered around this issue. The date they were considering was October 25 and she knew the candidates were also being invited to Milford High School.
Mr. Bowler asked if Mrs. Ludt would have a problem with the Selectmen trying to arrange a forum two days prior to theirs. She indicated they want to have a large audience on that night and build their event as well and have students getting involved in this political effort. Mr. Bowler advised the Town Hall was limited in its capacity to 84 people. Mrs. Ludt mentioned that one of things she had called Bruce about were there any questions the Selectmen wanted asked.
Other Business
Mrs. Peterman indicated that at her request, she had asked the NRPC to send a letter to the State Representatives and DOT regarding a left hand turning lane on Old Manchester Road. Mr. Bowler advised that there will be a special meeting next Tuesday night with Carol Murray and Senator Bragdon to talk about Route 101 and Old Manchester Road and she could notify the NRPC about this meeting, she should.
Award Paving Bid
Mr. Berry advised he sent out bids to Brox, Pike and Continental for Hot Mix Asphalt 600 Tons, Cape Cod Berm 334’ and Pavement Key Cuts 280’. He was recommending the paving bid be awarded to Brox. Mr. Dinkel moved to accept the low bid from Brox at $40,648 for paving, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Tractor Bid Results
Mr. Berry advised the tractor he put out to bid will replace the one that was approximately 20 years old. All pieces of equipment which they were currently using was written into the bid package. Four bid packages were sent out with two bids received. He had asked for a bucket assembly option separately. He was recommending Knoxland Equipment at $49,790.30. Mr. Panasiti asked about the Glide Ride and what was its cost. Mr. Berry reported it was $1,400. Mr. Dinkel asked how much was budgeted for the tractor. Mr. Berry had put into his lease line $21,000 and his intent was to lease it for three years. The old tractor they may put out to bid or give it to the White Farm for auction. Mr. MacGuire asked for guidelines on what to ask for a quote. Mr. Dinkel suggested getting several quotes for three and five years. Mr. Grella moved to accept the 5435 4X4 Massey Ferguson Tractor from Knoxland at a cost of $49,790.30, second by Mr. Dinkel. Vote: Unanimous.
Minutes
Mr. Dinkel moved to approve the minutes of September 11, 2006, second by Mr. Grella amended as follows: Line 162 – Correct typo to “That”; Line 291 – Change “$46.00 in the truck in place” to “$46.00 just in the truck not in place”; Line 369 – Strike “bring” and insert “use the same approach to bring the”; Line 370 – Strike “which works now and will in the future”. Vote: Unanimous.
Other Business
Mr. Dinkel reported on an email received from someone who had not lived in Amherst a long time regarding the confusion between Thornton’s Ferry Roads I and II. He wondered if this was something they should address. Mr. MacGuire indicated this was a concern from E911; however, the difference between the original 911 to the Enhanced 911 is that addresses are physically enhanced on a computer screen. E911 still advocates that road names that are similar be changed. Mr. Dinkel thought a simple solution might be to extend the name County Road all the way into Town. Mr. MacGuire remarked that years ago, when there was an initial discussion, it became a political matter. Mr. Bowler briefly spoke about the history and commented that if someone wanted to bring them a petition, signed by all the residents, it may be considered.
Mr. Grella reported on the vacuum technique over the Town Hall parking lot near the wall of the Old Cemetery. Some steps had been exposed leading down to the vault. The graves being 13’ out from the wall, as first thought, appears to be more like 5-6 1/2’. He commented that the accuracy of sonar was somewhat limited. The second time they had gone over it they were able to pinpoint the location closer to the wall. Two Cemetery Trustees will talk to the third one before proceeding. He also reported that he was moving forward with the State to get approval for one person to be a Tree Warden.
Mr. Bowler mentioned zoning fees and the report they were to receive in September on numbers from surrounding towns had not been presented. He also commented that coming up next week for further discussion, was how they wanted Gary to proceed with the budget. Mr. MacGuire remarked that during the past several years of this process, they received a percentage from the Board and the Department Heads and as a team, did not find this particularly productive. He told the Board his concept of starting out where they were in the ’07 budget, plus the things that were out of their control and then look to justify any increase beyond that. That being the same general concept as zero based budgeting, but a better way for them to construct a budget at their individual level.
Mr. Grella said he thought this through a bit more from last year and came up with use the figure you had last year, if you have the same figure now, would your department still be able to deliver the same quality of service. Mr. Dinkel suggested having essentially no additional services and just add any obvious inflation factors and nothing else. They needed to have something everyone can strive for and spoke about the difference between public and private sectors. Mr. MacGuire commented that the best budget they could bring in would be flat or a decrease. He thought the message was very clear and that is to maintain the level of service and justify it by growth or whatever it may be. “We are not going to argue the dollars, we are going to argue the need”, he said. Mr. Dinkel wanted to start somewhere where they all have a goal or target of some kind. Mr. Panasiti mentioned he would like to see what they had before and go down 25%. Mr. Dinkel briefly spoke about happened last year. Mr. Panasiti then asked what percentage of the budget increased in the last 5-6 years. Mr. Dinkel advised 3-4%. He would like to start lean and then add, rather than start higher and then remove. Mr. Bowler thought they should not talk about last year’s budget. He did not believe there would be a department coming in with a 12-15% budget increase. He suggested giving the Department Heads a “shot” to see what they come up with.
Mr. Dinkel asked what he thought the first pass would be. Mr. MacGuire said he was anticipating the COLA will drop and he will know within a month or so. He did not know where their steps will take them through the various departments nor did he know how many of the employees topped out. There was the issue of the roads along with the same issue of DPW staffing in light of what we do and don’t do. There is also Brian Gleason’s warrant article about making a salary adjustment for his people. Mr. Dinkel did not want to leave it open ended, but would leave it up to Gary. Mr. MacGuire advised they would have a target when they get to the bottom line. Mr. Bowler suggested finalizing the matter at their October 3rd meeting.
Mr. Bowler commented that he had no idea how Parkhurst Place transpired in the budget and believed this was not something they would have eliminated. It was an absolutely wonderful thing that happened during the past 2-3 years when a plan was put together to fund it. Mr. MacGuire indicated he had wanted to poll the Board and briefly told them what he suspected might have happened.
Non-Public Session
Upon a roll call vote, the Board unanimously entered non-public session at 10:15 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3 II (a) Personnel.
The Board existed non-public session at 10:35 p.m. While in non-public session the Selectmen reviewed two employees’ promotional status. It was determined that the promotional status of one employee would end effective October 1, 2006.
Upon a motion made and duly seconded, the Board adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant