|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJanuary 2, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti, Thomas Grella and Jay Dinkel (at 7:24 p.m.). Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
There were no items brought forth from the audience.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve the Board of Selectmen’s minutes of December 27, 2006 as written, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
The Board tabled approval of the minutes of December 18, 2006 until their next meeting.
Mr. Bowler remarked they would try to get some final votes tonight on the warrant articles, but they could also meet an hour before the public hearing on the 16th to take any final votes needed.
Article 2 Baboosic Lake Community Septic Bond (No dollars to be raised through taxation) – Mr. MacGuire reported he met with Town Counsel that day, he has another meeting scheduled for the 3rd and there were some language issues to clean up. Mr. Bowler indicated they would go through the articles until Mr. Dinkel arrived.
Article 3 Operating Budget ($8,927,344.00) – Board members had nothing further to add. Mr. MacGuire will have a default number by next week.
Article 4 Transfer Station Renovation ( $150,000) - Mr. Bowler advised that the Committee wanted to have a meeting on Thursday night prior to the regular SRLD meeting to discuss the recent questions from W&M concerning DPW doing the renovations vs. outside hire. Tom Lewis and Jane Heineke were present from the Committee. Mr. Lewis handed out a copy of what they presented to W&M last week. He also presented a scaled layout on how they wanted to proceed. Mr. Bowler commented that he did not think it fair for the Selectmen to take a vote until the Committee had met on Thursday. Mr. Lewis spoke of the current plan and what was being proposed including the access and entrance and the extra areas for waiting cars. There will be no more climbing of stairs and he expected this would increase the recycling rate. Amherst’s rate was the lowest in the District at 17.6%. Neighboring towns were at a 20-25% range. Every ton recycled was worth an average of $115.00 in savings to the Town. A 5% increase in recycling would be worth an additional $24,500 that would benefit Amherst.
Mr. Lewis talked about hauling costs in 2006. It costs $148.50 plus a $19.00-$24.00 per trip fuel surcharge would equal $172.50 per trip. The associated savings in compacted trips for recyclable mixed paper, aluminum cans and cardboard would save the Town $11,903.00. He mentioned that the SRLD has put aside $180,000.00 and will hold this amount only for another year. They were asking the Town to spend $150,000.00, receive the $180,000.00 to purchase equipment and make this change a reality. Just making the reconfiguration did not save them a great deal, but they needed the compactors.
Board members spoke of their thoughts on the matter. Mr. Panasiti asked if they received costs on how much it would be if they got outside hires to do it in one year vs. Town employees doing it by spreading it out over a longer period of time. Mr. Lewis indicated they could estimate this, but it was harder to do without a specific package. A suggestion was made to use the Town’s Engineer, however, the Town did not have the tools to generate the necessary drawings. Mr. Dinkel who had arrived at 7:24 p.m. spoke about concerns of the first design and also asked about the traffic flow that was then described by both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Bowler. Parking areas to the compactors was questioned – head in or parallel with Mr. Bowler advising that the parking situation was the same as in the surrounding District towns.
In response to Mr. Dinkel’s questions, Mr. Lewis spoke about putting in drainage and the electrical components associated with the first plan. They were doing roughly half the area for the wall (now concrete blocks rather than a concrete one) over what they proposed last year. Once the wall was built, they could pour the concrete pad and put the compactors on. He commented that since the Transfer Station was opened on Tuesdays, Thursdays, Friday mornings and Saturdays, DPW could work on Mondays and Wednesdays with the disruption to the facility being minimal.
Deidre Rogusky, W&M, asked what type of tools would the Town’s Engineer need. It was pointed out that CAD tools would be needed and they did not come inexpensive. Ms. Rogusky indicated that single user licenses were around $700-$1,000 and were not that expensive. Robert Petrella, W&M, asked what would the difference be between doing it with outside hire vs. in-house. Mr. Bowler guessed it would be $225,000. Robin Warren, W&M, asked what would be the maximum distance to “lug a trash bag”. Mr. Lewis expected that trash containers would be at either end of the drop off point with recycling being in the middle. Neal Foley, W&M, did not see why the entire plan could not be written down. They were telling the voter if they wait another year and then get the numbers, they would need engineering drawings whether they do this in-house or not and how did they have voters vote for something that they did not have actual costs on.
Article 5 Town Road Repairs ($400,000) – There were no comments from the Selectmen nor any comments from W&M. The Selectmen were in favor of supporting this article by a consensus of 5-0. In response to Mr. Foley’s suggestions, Mr. Bowler advised there was language that could be added to the article as well as a further explanation in the Voter’s Guide. Town Counsel will make the final say on the wording.
Article 6 Police Union Contract ($65,965) - By a consensus of 5-0, the Selectmen supported this article. W&M had nothing further to add.
Potential Article 23 Recreation Bean Field LUCT Funding (No Amount Determined at This Time) – Dana Redmond, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, passed out copies of the Construction Plans of Athletic Field Design on Boston Post Road prepared for the Town of Amherst by CLD Engineers. He spoke briefly of the history dating back to1999 when Amherst residents voted to purchase the Bean property by the Amherst School District with the understanding of having shared field space between the Town and School. The Commission has over 2,000 participants in their programs, some programs go to other towns for playing space and they are faced with the loss of Cemetery Fields in the near future. He was there to ask the Selectmen to use LUCT funds for the fields based on a letter the Board received from Chairman Dwight Brew of the Amherst School District. They would be meeting on Thursday night when they would need to accept or take a vote to expend money to develop the Bean facility, if the Selectmen decided those funds were available. They would vote on the project that would allow them the opportunity to develop the fields, part of the agreement they had in place and put forth to the voters for their decision.
Dwight Brew, Chairman, Amherst School Board, indicated he was present just to observe for his preparation for the School Board’s Thursday night’s meeting.
Mr. Dinkel asked what was the funding they were expecting. Mr. Redmond advised to develop the fields it was approximately $450,000 to $500,000 and approximately $200,000 had been raised. Mr. Dinkel commented that $500,000 was gross and that they needed $250,000 to put fields in now. He asked about them going through another two years and continue the way they were going. Mr. Redmond advised that if they waited until the money was totally collected, two years became four years and next year was another two years before they begin to play on the fields. Mr. Dinkel’s fear was that the way they were proceeding, it now would jeopardize the project because it was clearly between the School and the Town. He thanked Mr. Redmond for doing a great job, however, the School was still not sure of the uses for this land. Mr. Redmond commented that he believed that on Thursday, the School Board may decide that the Bean Fields will not be used for any other things other than for fields. He indicated that School Aid was not part of their proposal and the School has already spent $300,000 for the land.
Mr. Dinkel commented he was unsure of what the Selectmen were being asked to do. Mr. Brew asked if they could look at this article as “a Town piece” and a “School Department piece” and did not want to predict what the School Board would do. The majority of the members were interested in accepting those funds if the Selectmen voted that night to accept them, the School Board will have a draft warrant article and vote on it if the funds were available. Mr. Infanti spoke of his concerns, specifically if the property was big enough for a school, as well as fields. He reviewed the Consultant’s Reports on the various sites and who thought the Bean property would be feasible for a school. Mr. Redmond believed the overall parcel was over eight acres and the field space would be four acres. He remarked they were trying to make this a separate issue.
Mr. Grella questioned the State Aid reimbursement. Mr. Redmond explained that the School has asked for State Building Aid for the project and if approved, they could receive 40% for the $300,000 for land purchased and 40% based on the $500,000 for fields that would come back to the residents of Amherst. Mr. Bowler was not in favor of it as there were too many unanswered questions. He could not see the School Board voting that they don’t want to consider this land for a school. Mr. Redmond indicated they did not know how the LUCT fund was set up, but feel it was a viable use. There was another option to submit another warrant article to ask the townspeople to pay for it.
W&M members felt this article has changed a little bit every time it had been presented and that there were not that many unanswered questions. It was also suggested that because this was a collaborative effort both Boards needed to get together to discuss answers to questions raised. Mr. Dinkel explained that in order for them to fund the $450-500,000, they needed authority to take $200,000 out of their unexpended reserve surplus with the remaining amount be either a taxable increase or taken from the LUCT fund. In order to explain the article to voters, they needed to identify the sources of funds – they would be asking the Town to pay for $500,000 out of which $300,000 would be from the LUCT fund and the remaining $200,000 taken from the Town’s unexpended reserved fund. He spoke about the tax impact of 17 cents and personally would not take it out of the LUCT funds because he was under the impression that the Town would be reimbursed. Mr. Redmond indicated that the possibility of getting some State Aid was very likely because the School already bought the land.
Mr. Dinkel spoke of the private initiative under Article 11. Mr. MacGuire talked about the timing and the funds that had been created by a previous warrant article. They were looking at this warrant article not to be until 2008. He will be meeting with Town Counsel on re-writing this article better than the previous one. Mr. Dinkel felt that in re-writing Article 11, they needed to identify that they would not take out more of the surplus than was consciously put in it. Further discussion ensued on Articles 11 and 23. Mr. Brew indicated to the Selectmen that the message he was going to take to his Board was that the Selectmen were in favor of appropriating $450,000 to the Amherst School District for fields and the School District would have to look to see if this was an appropriate place to put the fields.
Mr. Grella asked who would be the Clerk of the Works. Mr. Redmond indicated that as the Recreation Department they had bid out the project and would be comfortable with the oversight along with DPW. Mr. Dinkel reminded everyone that the Town was a tenant on this land. Mr. Panasiti indicate his initial thought was they were going to put in a warrant article that did not have a number affixed to it and would be open-ended because they did not know how much they would receive. He also spoke about them coming back next year. After a brief discussion on the issues of Articles 11 and 23, the Board’s consensus was to support Article 11.
Article 7 DPW Replacement Trucks – The BOS were in favor of supporting this article by 5-0.
Article 8 DPW Loader Replacement (5 Year Municipal Lease Agreement for $110,000) - Mr. MacGuire advised he has spoken to Town Counsel about this article and one in which the wording may change. However, the impact would be the same. The Selectmen’s consensus was 5-0 in favor of supporting the article. In response to Mr. Foley’s question, Mr. Bowler advised that each subsequent Board would have to make the decision to continue with the lease.
Article 9 Replacement Generator – Emergency Operations Center ($42,000) – In answer to Mr. Panasiti’s question, Mr. MacGuire indicated that no one had come in to look at the current generator, the question was could, what was requested by W&M, be done. Mr. Panasiti remarked that if this were needed, he would be in favor of it. The remaining Board members concurred and agreed to support this article.
Article 10 Fire Department Command Vehicle (($27.000) – Mr. Dinkel commented that for one and a half cents on the tax rate this was well worth it. Board members were in favor of supporting this article 5-0.
Mr. Panasiti did not support it and suggested they have a discussion on LUCT funds. He believed they were not adhering to any of the discussion held when they created the funds. He talked to several people that were on the Board then and when discussed the word “Conservation” was up front. They talked about what it meant and the use for buildings, land, etc. was discussed. They needed a name so that the money didn’t go into the general fund to use for whatever the Town saw fit. Legal opinion is to be spent on whatever the constituents say. If they were talking “conservation”, he would agree that both PMEC and Recreation were areas where they would want to spend the money. He could support them, but not the roads because the money came from land in current use. Mr. Infanti commented that because the land was taken out of current use and being developed. It was the result of developments, that the roads were in the condition they are now. Mr. Panasiti thought they should let the voters decide if the LUCT funds were appropriate use for PMEC and Recreation. Mr. Infanti indicated that when looking to see what the average taxpayer would like to see done and the biggest complaint heard by the Selectmen were the state of the roads in the Town of Amherst. He was uncomfortable about spending it all in one year and was not one to spend these funds just because they were there.
Mr. Dinkel explained the original purpose was non-conservation land acquisitions. Then there was a big discussion about bringing in buildings and this was nixed. Reed was right, there are also non-conservation sources. The intent, when talking non-conservation, was infrastructure related. He had a hard time drawing the connection between PMEC and growth. By taking the biggest dollar amount article out of the picture, he thought PMEC would have a better chance. Mr. Bowler agreed with Jay and also remembered the different amendments that were discussed. He did not have any problem in supporting PMEC with a $225,000 article rather than $400,000 on roads.
Mr. Foley had a hard time asking taxpayers to use the LUCT money for roads which was actually deferred maintenance and did not believe they were spending enough money on their roads to begin with. Mr. Dinkel advised the entire purpose of having a $400,000 warrant article for road repairs is in recognition of the fact they have to catch up and he spoke of the various options available. When a developer pays the LUCT penalty, they do this in recognition that they haven’t been paying the full share of those taxes and he believed, its infrastructure. Mr. Warren commented they had the money to complete PMEC that does not have an impact on their taxes. If they need roads, tell the people how much it is going to cost them. They needed to get this on the table so that they can all see it. Mr. Infanti indicated that the option was to spend $400,000 five years at a time or spend $3 million dollars in the next year. Mr. Dinkel told W&M that a bond required them to do all the work within one to two years. He did not believe they were prepared to propose bringing in outside hire to do all the work at one time. He recognized they needed to “bite the bullet”.
Mr. Panasiti commented on using the money for roads and wouldn’t have to do this if they had impact fees. Mr. Bowler felt the Town wouldn’t see the impact fees, but the schools would receive those funds. Mr. Panasiti heard what the other Board members were saying about the roads and PMEC. If they disagreed, they should leave it on the ballot and let the taxpayers decide. Mr. Infanti mentioned they had before them $400,000 for the roads, $225,000 for PMEC and $300,000 for playing fields – more money than what they had. His feeling was the best for the taxpayers were the roads. He believed that the taxpayers will only spend so much money this year and the top priority he has heard are the roads. His second choice would be PMEC. Mr. Grella commented that most all people use the roads on a daily basis and some people may not even know about PMEC. He agreed with George, first choice would be the roads and second would be PMEC. Mr. Dinkel had nothing further to add.
The consensus to take $400,000 out of the LUCT funds for the roads was 4 in favor, Mr. Panasiti opposed. The consensus to take $225,000 out of the LUCT funds for PMEC was 3 in favor Mr. Dinkel and Mr. Bowler opposed.
Article 13 Town Computer System Capital Reserve Fund ($7,500) – Mr. MacGuire advised he made a slight change in the language by add “and/or emergency computer repairs for all Town Departments”. The consensus of the Board was 5-0. W&M were okay with this.
Article 14 Public Access Television Equipment Capital Reserve Fund ($25,000) – Mr. MacGuire reported this article was changed from $10,000 to $25,000. The Board’s consensus was 5-0. W&M were in favor of the article.
Article 15 Veteran’s Tax Credit ($500 per year) – The consensus was 4-0-1, Mr. Panasiti abstained. Mr. Foley indicated that W&M were split. Mr. MacGuire indicated he was waiting for the numbers from the Tax Collector.
Article 16 Disabled Exemption ($75,000 yearly exemption off the assessed value of their property) – Mr. Panasiti asked where the numbers came from and were they realistic. Mr. MacGuire advised he was waiting on those numbers to determine the tax impact. Mr. Dinkel indicated when checking the numbers, Amherst was definitely on the high side for the elderly compared to some towns. The Board’s consensus was 5-0 in favor. W&M were supportive of this article.
Article 17 Town 250th Anniversary Celebration ($5,000 Capital Reserve) – Both the Selectmen and W&M were in support of this article.
Article 18 Authority to Lease - Mr. Dinkel indicated he brought this up because their previous warrant article had lapsed. Because of RSA 41:11 statute, this authority to lease would now become non-lapsing. They had not done this on their previous article to grant a lease or license for a telecommunications tower at the Amherst Public Safety Center. The Board’s consensus was 5-0. W&M had not discussed this yet.
Article 19 Discontinue Jones Road Section - Mr. Bowler explained that Highway Safety had reviewed this and recommended it. The consensus of the Board was 5-0.
Article 20 – Discontinue Thornton Ferry Road II Section - Mr. Bowler reported money has been given to the Town by two developers to help with this cost. The Selectmen were 5-0 in favor of supporting this article. Mr. MacGuire briefly spoke about Highway Safety’s concern of accidents and near misses in this area. A T intersection was one hundred times safer than a Y configuration. Mr. Bowler mentioned that two residents had also asked the Town to do this.
Article 21 Child Advocacy Center Request ($2,000) – Both the Selectmen and W&M indicated unanimous support of this article.
Article 22 New Hampshire Association for the Blind ($1,500) – Both the Selectmen and W&M were unanimous in their support of the article.
Article 23 Recreation Bean Field LUCT Funding ($300,000) – Mr. Infanti asked that they wait to see the results of the School’s Thursday night meeting.
Article 24 Reconstruction of Main Street at Town Hall ($62,250) - The Board discussed whether or not they should begin saving for the reconstruction in a capital reserve since construction would not be until 2010. Mr. Grella proposed $25,000. Mr. MacGuire advised everything he had seen was for the Town to make a commitment and a capital reserve would indicate the Town’s commitment. Mr. Bowler advised the Heritage Commission had pursued the grant and were the same people who want to hold the 250th Anniversary Celebration. The Selectmen were in favor of a capital reserve, W&M were split on it.
Article 25 NH Climate Change Resolution (By Petition) - There was no discussion or consensus made by either the Selectmen or W&M.
Mr. Dinkel asked what was the most important warrant article they had – he believed it was the roads. Mr. Panasiti commented that if they were to prioritize he believed they should go back to discuss the operating budget. Mr. Dinkel indicate he meant non-operating budget warrant article. Mr. Infanti felt it was getting the $400,000 road repair article passed with no tax impact. He suggested they see what $400,000 could do. Mr. Panasiti supported road repair, but did not support how they are going to fund it.
The Board will meet at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 before the scheduled public hearings on the budget and bond.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:07 p.m. second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant