|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJanuary 16, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 5:40 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti and Thomas Grella (at 5:45 p.m.). Also present was Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
There were no questions, comments or concerns from the audience that were not posted on the agenda.
Mr. Bowler advised that the Board would take out of context agenda items until Selectman Grella arrived. Mr. MacGuire spoke of RSA 466:39 that authorizes towns or cities to regulate and increase fees for registration of dogs (no greater than $1.00) in addition to the required sum. Nancy Demers was proposing they add $1.00 more, that is authorized by Statute on top of the current license fees, under RSA 466:4. Mr. Infanti moved to increase the licensing fees of dogs as recommended by the Town Clerk, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Current Use Penalties
Mr. Bowler advised the current use penalty for M/L 4-63-4 Donald Gingras was $17,500 for the parcel assessed at $175,000. Mr. Infanti moved they assess a penalty of $17,500, second by Mr. Grella. After a question raised by Mr. Panasiti, Mr. Infanti re-read the recommendation in which it said “the only number left in current use was 9.8 acres” and he said that it didn’t qualify for current use. Mr. Infanti then withdrew his motion, second by Mr. Grella. Mr. Bowler asked that this be reviewed with Scott Marsh.
Mr. Bowler advised the current use penalty for M/L 4-63 Marc & Jill Romano’s penalty was $16,500 for a lot valued at $165,000. Mr. Infanti moved to take out of current use a parcel of 6.46 acres valued at $165,000 and issue a penalty of $16,500 for current use, second by Mr. Grella.
Mr. Panasiti read the criteria of the current use penalty for M/L 4-63-2, the LUCT was $17,000 based on an assessment of $170,000. Mr. Infanti informed the Board that after reviewing all the separate current use applications associated with these three penalties had not been connected in a memo from the Assessing Department for their consideration, all 34 acres would be taken out of current use. Mr. Panasiti moved to take M/L 4-63-2 out of current use and issue a penalty of $17,000, second by Mr. Infanti. Vote: Unanimous.
After further review of the above, Mr. Infanti moved to accept the recommendation of the current use change tax of $17,500 for M/L 4-63-4, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Finalize Warrant Articles
Article 2 Baboosic Lake Community Septic Bond – Mr. MacGuire advised there were no further updates and it had been re-written with Town Counsel several weeks ago. Article 3 Operating Budget – Mr. MacGuire indicated the budget totaled $8,927,344 and the default budget was at $8,777,606. Article 4 Transfer Station Renovation – Mr. Bowler advised the new number was $168,000.
Article 5 Town Road Repairs – LUCT Funding and Article 15 Recreation Bean Field LUCT Funding: Mr. Bowler indicated that two weeks ago, this article ended up with a 4-1 vote. He asked that they discuss the funding of this article and would like to see the article go back to the original intent. Mr. Infanti commented that people have told him what the LUCT funds were for and Town Counsel told them they could put whatever they wanted insofar as the wording, but it wouldn’t “hold much salt”. They could use the money for whatever they wanted and what he told them in 2001. He would go along to not use the LUCT money and let the townspeople decide on it. Mr. Bowler indicated they do not have enough money to cover all the warrant articles requesting use of these funds. Out of the total amount they had, they could fund “almost” the three warrant articles. Mr. Panasiti felt the road repair surfacing was a Town responsibility and should be a line item in the budget. He understood why they don’t put it in as a line item, but he would entertain using the funds if they could reduce the budget amount. He did not know where the $400,000 figure came from. If they used the funds for all three, he would go along with it as long as it did not change the intent of the article. Mr. Bowler indicated they had an eight-year plan for Town road repairs. Mr. Infanti’s thought was to do it for one year and then move it into the operating budget the next year.
Mr. Panasiti remarked they had asked Bruce Berry for a priority list and did not know if they should put on a warrant article without an actual plan. At this time, Mr. MacGuire handed out documentation of a portion of the plan that was subject to change on what was coming up. Mr. Panasiti indicated he knew they needed roads repaired, but was confused on how they want to finance it. Mr. Infanti remarked he would hate to put it off another year. They either fund it through LUCT funds or ask the taxpayers to fund it. He did not want to take it off the warrant because it would cost more in another year. In response to Mr. Panasiti’s suggestion regarding the wording, Mr. Bowler advised they could put this into the Voter’s Guide. He also mentioned they could not do this all in one year because they could not have oversight on the entire project. Mr. Infanti added the plan was on the web site that shows what the plan is. They had a number of options, use LUCT for $400,000, they could put up $200,000 of LUCT funds and let the taxpayers put up $200,000. He felt very strongly that they should come up with $400,000 to do the work and he was not uncomfortable using the LUCT funds to do it one way or another. Mr. Bowler’s position was that he wanted this article to go to the voters. Mr. Panasiti indicated he was comfortable to take “whatever” without a change to the other warrant articles requesting LUCT funds.
Mr. Grella asked about the ball fields and if anyone had an idea of what could wait, for example shrubbery. Robert Heaton, Recreation Commission, advised the bid was for $450,000 that included minor amounts of shrubbery that was put in at the request of the Planning Board along Boston Post Road. The plan they would like to see has this project started as soon as possible in the spring and the contractor will have it completed in four months. They expect to have $200,000 from the donations and they would need $250,000 to finish this project within their timeframe. If a contractor leaves and then comes back, the price goes up dramatically. They had looked at phasing and if the warrant articles failed, they would have no choice, but to delay this or phase it. Mr. Infanti remarked that the total job was $450,000 and they were also talking about money they think they were going to raise. He asked if the fields would be useable possibly in 2008. He had met with the Cemetery Trustees and the fields would be available until 2014 when they could construct half of the cemetery, however he spoke of what he thought the original option was. Mr. Heaton commented that they were in dire need of fields, no field got a chance to rest after seasons were over. Every field got used every minute they can. This project was not designed to take the place of Cemetery Fields.
Dana Redmond, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, talked about speaking to the neighbors along with working with engineers CLD. He indicated that much of the shrubbery in the back was to used to be for isolating the noise in the back fields. The indication from the Cemetery Trustees on Cemetery Fields was that they may need it in five years or they may need it in seven years and they were going to do a site plan and development. Mr. Infanti felt that either way this does not matter. Mr. Heaton indicated that if they built fields on that property, State Aid would qualify. Mr. Redmond added that the Department of Education has not given them any understanding that this would be available. Mr. Heaton remarked that they would only get the money for the purchase of the property as State Aid. Mr. Grella mentioned that the money would become available July 1, 2007. Mr. Heaton replied that they expected they would have $200,000 by March 1st. Mr. Redmond added that the contractor knew he may not get the full payment until after July 1st. Mr. Heaton mentioned that the most use of the fields would be in the fall of 2008.
Under Article 5, Mr. Bowler advised they needed to make a decision that night prior to the public hearing. Mr. Infanti commented that his only issue was he did not have this discussion with Town Counsel and assumed this was okay. He had some fear that this money would have to be split into two other warrant articles. His only comment was that he did not know what message they would be sending to the voters. He spoke about his feeling of spending money on the roads with Mr. Bowler agreeing. Mr. Infanti quoted from Town Counsel in the minutes of the Deliberative Session in 2001 as it pertained to not restricting the LUCT funds. He mentioned that he was not saying they didn’t need all of the warrant articles requesting use of these funds, but felt they should take the $400,000 and put it into taxation and let the voters decide. Mr. Grella wanted the article to go with LUCT funds as printed. Mr. Panasiti suggested approving $325,000 for roads out of the LUCT funds. Mr. Heaton suggested they fund $400,000 for roads, $250,000 for fields and $225,000 for PMEC. He did not think they would risk anything in approving all three warrant articles. If they don’t have the money until September, it was likely they will have all the money by the next fiscal year. Mr. Grella agreed. As time goes by the money is going to keep coming in and they could satisfy the wishes of all three groups, he said. Mr. Bowler suggested leaving in the LUCT funding to see what the voters wanted to do.
There were no changes in the Police Union Contract, Article 6, Article 7 DPW Replacement Trucks, nor in Article 8 DPW Loader Replacement. Article 9 Replacement Generator in the Emergency Operations Center – Mr. MacGuire advised that Bruce Berry was still waiting to hear back from Caterpillar on the questions asked. He also mentioned that they had some recent issues with the generator. There were also no changes made to Article 10 the Fire Department Command Vehicle.
Article 11 Recreation Fields Acquisition and Construction Capital Reserve Fund – Mr. MacGuire advised the wording on this was just finalized late Friday afternoon and the only language that Town Counsel was comfortable with what they were trying to accomplish. In answer to Mr. Infanti’s question, Mr. MacGuire advised the wording is “up to $250,000 and has to be above their expected fund balance”. The one explanation is that their revenues were a guesstimate. This does not affect the Recreation budget, but it does affect this capital reserve fund on how it is funded. The intent as they all understood is their best attempt to be solve legally so that they don’t have issues they had in the past.
There were no other changes in Articles 12 through 24. Mr. Infanti briefly talked about some of the zoning changes being proposed by the Planning Board.
Minutes
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of December 18, 2006, second by Mr. Grella amended as follows: Line 30 – Strike “the path”; Line 48 – Insert “at” after “that”. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of January 2, 2007, second by Mr. Grella amended as follows: Line 27 – Strike “go through” replace with “delay going through”; Line 276 – Replace “residents” with “abutters”; Line 299 – Change “indicate” to “indicated”. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to take a ten-minute recess, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Bond Public Hearing
Chairman Bowler called the hearing to order at 7:06 p.m. Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler advised the Selectmen had one bond article – the Baboosic Lake Community Septic System. They were proposing to raise and appropriate $650,000 with anticipated grants of $250,000 from NH DES Watershed Restoration Program and $200,000 from the State of New Hampshire Department State Aid Grant Program. The bond would have no impact on the tax rate and any cost beyond the grants would be born by the Phase III users. With no questions from the audience, Mr. Infanti moved to close the Public Bond Hearing at 7:08 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Public Hearing - Proposed Budget and Warrant Articles
Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing on the budget and warrant articles at 7:08 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Article 3 Operating Budget: Mr. Bowler advised the proposed operating budget was at $8,927,344 and the default budget was $8,777,606. Highlights on the budget were as follows: General Government was down 5.1%, Town Clerk up 8.1%, Finance up 9.1%, Tax Collector up 3.8% , Assessing was down 0.3%, Legal down 20.8% due to reduction in cable negotiations, Disability Insurances up 14.6% due to an increase in Workers Compensation; Cemeteries were up 305.9%, EMS was up 10.2% due to a part time salary adjustment, Fire up 5.9%, Communications up 6.4%, DPW Administration down 0.5%, DPW up 6.7% due to adding an employee, Souhegan Regional Landfill up 13.5% due to an increase from the District, Landfill Department up almost 7%, Parks & Grounds up 6.9%, Peabody Mill up almost 50%, Principal on Bonds down almost 14% due to paying off the bond on the Police Department addition and Interest on Bonds down almost 7% due to the same reason. The operating budget was up 5.07%.
Marilyn Peterman asked about the health insurance. Mr. MacGuire advised they had been given a rate not to exceed 18%. They worked toward lowering the cost to the Town to 10%. Mrs. Peterman commented that last year Primex gave them a rate they couldn’t refuse, but now see an 18% raise. Mr. Bowler added it may come in less than this and they will look at the market again.
Article 4 Transfer Station Renovation: Mr. Bowler explained this article was similar to what was presented last year. The Committee is proposing a smaller scale version and in-house at $168,000. Also included is the new exit they were considering last year.
Article 5 Town Road Repairs – LUCT Funding: Mr. Grella indicated they were proposing to begin road repairs at a cost of $400,000 and will not repair every road, sidewalk or bridge in the Town of Amherst. The $400,000 will be funded through Land Use Change Tax Funds which the Town has received contributions to for the last several years. Mrs. Peterman addressed the use of LUCT funds contained in Articles 5, 12 and 15. She commented that these funds could not be used according to the law adopted under an RSA. In 2000, it was voted to give 50% of these funds to Conservation and the remaining 50% into this fund. Any town that has adopted these funds under the RSA, has to vote to rescind the action. She knew the reason why the Selectmen wanted to use these funds because it off sets the tax rate and did not believe it was appropriate to use them. She felt before they go forward with these warrant articles and suggested they get an opinion from DRA. Mr. Bowler advised they have a written opinion from Town Counsel Bill Drescher. Mr. Infanti quoted from the minutes of the 2001 Deliberative Session in which Mr. Drescher indicated they could not “restrict” the use of these funds.
Mrs. Peterman talked about road repairs and knew that the CIP Committee had addressed the roads and knew the amount for repairs was around $4 million dollars. She had not seen anything in comparison such as a $1 million dollar or $2 million dollar bond. A $400,000 warrant article would cost the taxpayers approximately 34 cents. Mr. Bowler advised the Board had discussion on bonding vs. one year and they decided to do it for one year. They did not have enough staff in-house to over see what would be done by outside contractors and decided to go forward with a $400,000 warrant article.
Article 6 Police Union Contract: Mr. Infanti advised this was the second year of a three year contract negotiated with the Police Union. Jim O’Mara mentioned that last year they indicated it was a three year contract and asked if something different was happening now. Mr. Bowler advised that they don’t put this in the operating budget. Mr. MacGuire added in conversation with Town Counsel to be legal it is put into a warrant article for the Town to approve each year. Mr. O’Mara spoke about the Teachers’ Agreement and that the School Boards warned it for three years. Mr. Bowler remarked they could check with Town Counsel again. Mr. MacGuire indicated that a good part of the amount is a roll over of the warrant article approved last year. Mr. Bowler explained that next year they would again be putting an article in for $65,000.
Article 7 DPW Replacement Trucks: Mr. Grella advised this article would replace two of the older DPW trucks in their fleet. Money will be withdrawn from the Highway Capital Reserve fund and will have no tax impact.
Article 8 DPW Loader Replacement: Mr. Grella explained they were proposing a five year municipal lease for $110,000 for a loader. The first year payment was $25,400 and will be voted on again for the next four years. The loader DPW has now will be sent to the Transfer Station.
Article 9 Replacement Generator – Emergency Operations Center: Mr. Grella advised the current generation was a 1986 model and the Selectmen feel it should be replaced at a cost of $42,000.
Article 10 Fire Department Command Vehicle: Mr. Grella reported this was similar to what was placed on the warrant last year. This, however, is a smaller version for $27,000. The lights from the existing vehicle will be put on the new one as well as the command box. The new vehicle will be re-striped.
Article 11 Recreation Fields Acquisition and Construction Capital Reserve Fund: Mr. Panasiti indicated this was a rewording of an article they had several years ago that allowed the Town to accept unanticipated revenue from an outside source for recreation field usage. This article has been reworded by Town Counsel, he said. In response to Mrs. Peterman’s question, Mr. Infanti explained that the way the article had been written before was in broad terms. Town Counsel reworded it so that the State will allow them to continue receiving funds up to $250,000. Mr. Bowler added that the 2003 article said nothing about land acquisition.
Article 12 Peabody Mill Environmental Center Building Phase III LUCT Funding: Mr. Panasiti advised the article was for $225,000 to complete the building. Jan Bunker said she recalled when PMEC was originally proposed, they were to be self-funding and never come back to the Town. Mr. Bowler remarked they had done a substantial job in raising $200,000 + in private donations to be where they are today. They had come to the Selectmen with a warrant article to finish Phase III. Ms. Bunker asked what happened to that promise? Mr. Panasiti mentioned that at some point in time someone mentioned that they would be self-sufficient when they had the new building. Mr. Infanti added the organization went from a small entity that now has any where from 600-1,000 kids enrolled in programs and it has grown into a department that no one thought it would. There are schools in the surrounding towns that utilize their programs.
Greg King, PMEC Advisory Board, told them that originally it was a small off shoot of the Conservation Commission and “it took off on a life of its own”. Several years ago the Board decided to make it a Town Department. There will be no tax impact if this building is finished and Phase III will come from LUCT funds. With adequate facilities to enhance their programs, they could pretty much be self-funded and they will see the line item in the budget go away. They used the original Bacon house for about ten years and it became useless for the programs. Everything that is there has been done with no taxpayers’ money. Ms. Bunker commented that when a program and a project is proposed within certain parameters it should have voter input including becoming a Town Department. Mr. Bowler explained this has been a budget line for a long time. Mr. King added that PMEC did not ask to become a Town Department, this happen ed at the Board of Selectmen’s level when they saw the size of the programs and the Town owns the property. Mr. O’Mara mentioned the original request was to make them self-funding which is why they have an operating budget. DRA does not allow them to take money from the budget and spend it. He said he remembered this differently than what Jan was referring to.
Mrs. Peterman mentioned that PMEC went above and beyond raising funds. She thought the intent on the building was to fund it with grants and fundraising. It wasn’t really possible to raise that amount of money to complete the building. Last year the Selectmen put in a warrant article and it was defeated. The designation was changed from an ad hoc commission to a Town Department. The $800,000 seems like a lot of money, but when adding up all the requests it comes to $875,000. This amount would not buy much land any more if the Town needed to. Mr. Bowler reminder her of the $5.1 million dollars the Town had appropriated for land purchases.
Article 13 Town Computer System Capital Reserve Fund: Mr. MacGuire advised the purpose of this article was to purchase Town-wide computer systems and software and used as an emergency fund if something happens. The tax impact would be less than one cent. CJ Butler commented that she didn’t understand that something as critical as computers why weren’t they in the operating budget - both School Districts have computers in the operating budget. Mr. Bowler explained the Town does have lines in their budget. This is to help for something catastrophic – over and above what they have budgeted. Mr. MacGuire added that they have lines in various departments for PC’s etc. The $7500 Capital Reserve Fund would also be for major Town upgrades.
Article 14 Public Television Equipment Capital Reserve Fund: Mr. MacGuire indicted this was similar to Article 13, but a bit different. This article is seeking another Capital Reserve Fund for Public Access equipment to enhance the capabilities of the television network. The tax impact is one cent.
Article 15 Recreation Bean Field LUCT Funding: Mr. Panasiti explained this article was seeking $250,000 of LUCT funds to construct athletic fields on property owned by the Amherst School District and allow the Town to pay for the construction of these fields. Ms. Butler asked how did they coordinate this with the School District asking for $450,000. Mr. Panasiti told her that the $250,000 was to complete the total cost, the School put theirs in as a total cost value for the fields. Ms. Butler felt this would confuse the voters. Dana Redmond explained the School’s article authorizes the School District to accept the money from the Town. Everyone is talking about raising money in the Town and this was probably the most successful way to raise it. The School will get building aid back and money has been raised by Recreation for $200,000 and the Selectmen want to commit the LUCT funds. This is something beneficial and creative and they don’t want to confuse the voters. Mrs. Peterman asked for a clarification – when this was proposed and approved by the Planning Board the cost was in the neighborhood of $250,000. She asked where the extra $200,000 came from. Mr. Redmond indicated he did not know anything about presenting this figure to the Planning Board. The original plan was for two rectangular fields to be built. The architect thought he could do more to the property several fields were added and the plan expanded. This plan was what was presented to the Planning Board. Mr. Bowler added that once they had the bid package and it was sent out, this figure was what was quoted. Ms. Bunker asked what if Article 11 doesn’t pass and Article 15 does. Mr. Bowler explained there would be no impact. They could only do $200,000 for the initial warrant article.
Michael Graney indicated that for someone not involved, this was very confusing and it would be worthwhile to do some marketing for this. Mr. Bowler remarked that the Committee has to write Letters to the Editor, etc. to bring this matter to everyone’s attention.
Article 16 Veterans’ Tax Credit: Mr. Infanti indicated that last year the Board raised the tax credit from $150 to $300 with a commitment that they would split the increase out over two years. Mrs. Peterman hoped the Selectmen would put in the Voters’ Guide the total tax dollars needed to fund this new tax credit.
Article 17 Disabled Exemption: Mr. MacGuire reported this article was advanced by the Tax Collector. There was a similar exemption for the elderly, the amounts and criteria is set by statute and the dollar amount set by this article. There was a tax impact of less than one cent.
Article 18 Town 250th Anniversary Celebration Capital Reserve Fund: Mr. Grella explained $5000 was to be set aside in a Capital Reserve Fund for the Town’s 250th Anniversary in 2010. This would be the initial capital reserve to get started to raise money for this celebration. The expected expenditure was $15,000.
Article 19 Authority to Lease: Mr. Bowler advised this was an article presented last year to the voters. On a recommendation by Town Counsel they were presenting it again to the voters to be non-lapsing. This was for a cellular tower at the Police/Rescue Facility.
Article 20 Discontinue Jones Road Section: Mr. Infanti explained this was to discontinue a small section on Jones Road that was currently a “Y” intersection and Highway Safety felt it should be changed.
Article 21 Discontinue Thornton Ferry Road II Section: Mr. Bowler indicated this was similar to Article 20. The proposal at Thornton Ferry Road II and Boston Post Road was to discontinue the north leg of that intersection, take the southern leg and move it into a “T” intersection with Boston Post Road. The request was from Highway Safety and two abutters. There was money from developments set aside to help with engineering and redesign of this intersection.
Article 22 Child Advocacy Center Funding Request: Mr. Bowler pointed out this was the first time this agency has asked the Town for funding ($2,000). If voters approve, it will be supported. Mr. O’Mara asked if they actually dropped funding. Mr. Bowler indicated that Sharon monitors this and they were on top of the requests.
Article 23 New Hampshire Association for the Blind Funding Request: Mr. Panasiti indicated this was the same as Article 22, but with a request of $1,500.
Article 24 Reconstruction of Main Street at Town Hall Capital Reserve Fund: Mr. Grella advised the Town received a grant from the Federal Government to reconfigure the roadway and walk way in front of Town Hall. The Town needed to raise matching funds, therefore, the Selectmen were recommending a Capital Reserve Fund beginning at $25,000.
Articles 25 NH Climate Change Resolution, Article 26 Discontinuation of a Portion of North Street and Article 27 Resolution Re “The Pledge”: Mr. Bowler explained that these were petition warrant articles and no one was present to speak about them.
Relative to Cliff Ann Wales question, Mr. Infanti explained the Selectmen did not have final impact numbers because they were still deciding on the LUCT funding during their 5:30 p.m. meeting before the Public Hearings.
Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 8:15 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Other Business
Mr. Grella reported he attended a HDC meeting last Thursday night. He mentioned there will be a joint meeting between the Heritage Commission and the Historic District Commission. He spoke briefly o their proposed goals.
Mr. Infanti reported there is another Master Plan meeting the next night at 7:30 p.m. that was open to the public. It was the Planning Board’s hope that more citizens will become involved.
The Selectmen will next meet on Monday, January 22, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:19 p.m., second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant