|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenDecember 10, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti, Thomas Grella and Brad Galinson. Also present: Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
There were no questions or comments from members of the audience.
Seth Zeigler told the Selectmen that he was interested in the appointment to the PMEC Advisory Board. He and his wife moved to Amherst in 2004. They have assisted in trail maintenance and have gotten to know Vicki Laforet and Bill Wichman. PMEC has become an integral and important part of their lives. He had talked to Vicki about giving back and she approached him wanting to know if he would be interested in serving on the Advisory Board. He spoke about his love of being outdoors and thought this would serve a multi-use purpose. After Board members gave positive thoughts on this appointment, Mr. Infanti moved to appoint Seth Zeigler to the PMEC Advisory Board for a three-year term, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Ruth Heden, President of GSOP and Ellen Groh, Souhegan Valley Chapter Representative met with the Selectmen. Mrs. Heden told the Board that they were there to present a proposal for non-emergency medical transportation. They were a group of about 30 organizations from churches, unions and community groups and were active in South / Central New Hampshire. They were trying to resolve problems in the local communities - one being non-emergency access for health care. Folks they talked to were from SNHMC, FISH, NRPC, Share, Easter Seals, Senator Bragdon and other groups. She talked about the number of volunteers dwindling as they got older in the FISH organization. Twenty one percent of Share’s ’07 budget went for transportation including gas and vehicle repairs. Fourteen roundtable meetings were held and in all of them, transportation was determined to be a need. A survey had been done and 50% knew of someone or they needed transportation on occasion. Wheelchair transportation was a special difficult need. Relative to statistics, in 2006 SNHMC provided 742 rides with 162 being from Amherst. In September, FISH offered 59 rides, 6 from Amherst and were glad for the support of 20 Amherst FISH drivers. The cost of a taxi is $50.00 and $200.00 or more for one trip with wheelchair access.
Mrs. Groh explained their proposal would be a one-year pilot project in Amherst and Milford with people being taken into Nashua – the service would begin July 1, run Mondays thru Fridays and have wheelchair accessibility. For the first year there would not be any fee to the rider. GSOP researched different providers in the area to do the job and the one they decided on was Nashua Transit. Unfortunately, Mark Sousa was not present due to a recent death. They would also like to have an Advisory Board including users and/or riders. The cost is approximately $45.00 per driving hour to run such a service. They know clearly there is a need but difficult now to determine if there is a peak level. With Nashua Transit for the first pilot year they would suggest 80 hours per week, Nashua Transit would keep the data on a weekly basis and give quarterly reports to both towns. After three to six months, they would have good data. The cost would be $43,200.00 for the first pilot year. Mrs. Groh explained there was a State RSA that allows local municipalities to add a transportation fee up to $5.00. The funding would be reached at $47,000 if Milford and Amherst added $1.50 per vehicle registration. The group would apply for future Federal funds. She reiterated that the primary purpose would be for non-emergency medical needs although there were other needs such as grocery shopping or hair appointments that would be taken into consideration. In the future, this service would be expanded to Wilton, Lyndeborough, Brookline, Hollis, Merrimack, Milford, Mont Vernon and Mason as well as Amherst. Their current focus was on Milford and Amherst.
Paul Spiess was asked by Chairman Bowler to speak on the proposal. Mr. Spiess advised he has been a Amherst resident for 27 years and briefly named the various organizations he has been involved in and the role he played on them. He told the Board he had not been involved with GSOP directly, was not there necessarily to support or not support the program, but talk about the need. He was President of Souhegan Valley Interfaith Housing that runs Parkhurst Place. Citizens have transportation needs on a regular basis. They had attempted to work with other organizations and found them not dependable. It was difficult to schedule advanced medical needs that was a significant issue for the elderly and these needs will be growing. He talked about keeping people in their own homes and bringing services to them in their own homes. This was a unique opportunity to try something on a pilot basis to see how it works. For a number of years, Nashua Transit has tried to get something in place. He thought it prudent for Amherst and Milford to find out how much demand there was. They can’t ask for Federal support without having a system in place. He thought there would be a time to charge fees and help with reimbursing the system. He thought they should put forth to the voters a recommendation for part funding of this project and felt they could make a strong case.
Mr. Infanti spoke about the numbers presented – out of 742 rides from SNHMC, 162 were Amherst patients which averaged to approximately 13 a month plus FISH’s six per month was a total of 240 rides. In talking to Milford Taxi he would contract 450 round trips – 300 to Nashua 150 local trips not to exceed $22,000 and it would also include handicapped accessibility with on demand service without an appointment. He believed this a worthwhile service and owed to their residents, but was not sure of the basis between the two towns. Mrs. Groh commented the group was unaware of this, believed working with the two towns would be more efficient and felt either town could do this by themselves. Mr. Infanti commented on his experience seeing a bus waiting for passengers for two years with only two people on board, however, was a totally different program and it bothered him seeing it empty every morning. Mrs. Heden remarked that Nashua Transit was committed to doing this. They have the capacity to work with the handicapped and have people trained to do this.
Mr. Grella asked what type of vehicle would they use. Mrs. Groh explained they were 22 passenger vans with a wheelchair lift. It was her understanding they would be meshing pick ups with other things to make the most efficient use of the vehicle. In response to further questions from Mr. Grella, Mrs. Groh explained that Nashua Transit would keep track of all of the charges of the fixed fee. Under their proposal, they would have 80 hours per week and as the Board of Selectmen they would have to ask for more funds if needed. Mrs. Heden added that with the pilot year they would need to shape this and meet the needs. Mrs. Groh added they were not trying to turn anyone down and would like the program to be a success from the beginning.
Mr. Galinson commented this was a concern and problem and it will only get worse. Citizens, towns, private charities should all look at this. He personally was not comfortable in having any type of tax to fund a pilot program. Once the pilot program was done along with the free rides from Monday through Friday and they begin charging it will change their data dramatically. To do a test, they would need to do it for a full year and he suggested a three-month one perhaps on Tuesdays and Thursdays. They will not solve the problem but will get the data part of the test. They could get private money and get the data rather than asking for $40,000 to see if it is successful or not. If they did it in smaller steps and then come back to the Board after doing their homework with the numbers.
Mr. Panasiti felt without a doubt the services were needed. He thought they would need five days to get a good picture. He asked about the fairness of the costs and whether or not it would be shared equally, whether one town had more patients than the other and whether they should take on additional costs. He remarked that a pilot program shouldn’t be a tax burden and perhaps would agree to a warrant article. He questioned whether some of the costs be shared by the patients’ insurance companies and thought more research needed to be done. He would support the aspect that it is a needed program, but would not support a car registration fee.
Mr. Bowler agreed with Brad and suggested they not start a pilot program with one or two people riding back and forth per day in a 22 passenger vehicle. Their numbers may be lower if people were going to be charged and he felt they needed to be charged up front in order to come up with the numbers of how many trips per day per week. Mrs. Groh explained this would be an on demand response and it was very efficient. Mr. Bowler commented that people may be sitting at their doctor’s office for a significant amount of time. He asked Paul that in his workings with the Governor was there any type of funding available. Mr. Spiess advised a lot of it was being spent in the Department of Health & Human Services. “Is it available now, no”, he said. With a well-crafted plan they probably could draft a grant request to see if some funding was available. There may be some private foundation money particularly if the Town gave its support. It would be much easier to go to the Bean Foundation.
Mrs. Heden mentioned that Milford’s Finance person, Town Administrator and a Selectperson were appointed to meet and they said they would be willing to meet with Amherst. Transportation is difficult for the two towns because everyone is spread out. This was an opportunity for them to move ahead to see if they can address this need. Mr. Bowler asked why was Milford asked rather than Merrimack who is a neighbor to Nashua. Mrs. Heden explained many of the people who used FISH and SNHMC came from Milford and Amherst. There is also a transportation issue with Merrimack and they are one of the nine towns identified. Mrs. Groh added that Merrimack has more disabled people rather than elderly.
After further discussion, Mr. Bowler advised that no decision would be made that evening because they needed to think about how to go about this. He contacted Noreen O’Connell and they may be meeting with Milford Selectmen. Mrs. Heden indicated she would be very happy to meet with Milford Taxi and get them involved. Bill Belvin spoke briefly of his six years driving for FISH and did not believe the bulk of the driving was to Nashua. Mrs. Heden advised that it had been shown that most people go to Nashua. Mr. Bowler thanked everyone for coming in.
Jay Dinkel, Addie Hutchison and Steve Coughlan met with the Board. Mr. Dinkel highlighted the background of the CIP Committee that documents significant capital project impacts for both the Town and Schools. The Committee consisted of Sally Wilkins, Planning Board; Chris Nowlan, W&M; Addie Hutchison, Chair for several years; Steve Coughlan, Souhegan High School Board Representative; Nancy Head, Amherst School Board Representative and Brad Galinson, Selectman. Projects were solicited from the various Department Heads with the threshold recently being updated to $100,000 over a ten-year period.
Mr. Dinkel spoke about a large spreadsheet that had been prepared that contained all types of capital improvements. Under Administration, for example, was listed the Baboosic Lake Community Septic System Phase III and had no impact on the tax rate. The spreadsheet showed the cash flow and method of funding and he indicated it was offset by a bond to be paid for by the users. Another example contained in the spreadsheet was the Amherst School District who had a recent meeting where they went through their capital plan. The District will be seeking a bond and presented to the voters at the March election for several million dollars to renovate Wilkins, Clark and Middle Schools. It also contained the estimated payments to the 20-year bond as well as the cost to the taxpayer.
Included in the analysis, was a potential antenna for the Communications Center, Conservation Land purchase for the full $5.5 million bond and EMS was projected out to 2011 for the acquisition of two emergency vehicles with inflation costs built in. Mr. Dinkel explained that they have been putting aside $22,000 per year for them and believed they would be coming up short in the cash flow by the time they are purchased. He had talked to Brian about this and had a discussion about trade-ins. Fire has not been updated this year because of having a new Chief. Relative to a Capital Reserve for Fire, Mr. Bowler advised they did not have one, Mr. Dinkel indicated it will be taken out of the analysis. Landfill was a one-time expense of $168,000 that was approved last year as was PMEC. Public Works has the most projects in buildings and construction and the list were all proposed CIP projects that Bruce had given them – some were purely estimates. Another project was the Library renovation to be done sometime after 2012. Under Town Hall, there are some exterior envelope renovations that may still want to be done.
Mr. Dinkel continued … The largest item for DPW are the roads. He reminded the Board that everyone was aware of Bruce’s 2006 Road Repair document on what was needed at that time. The estimated cost was $3.4 million dollars. What is in the analysis is the estimated cost at 5% inflation each year. This was just the expense on what it will cost based on Bruce’s plan inflated in the future to get caught up without bonding on a “pay as you go” plan. He spoke briefly about bonding v. “pay as you go”. As a CIP Committee, they can’t judge the argument as contained in a letter from the Overholt’s. The Committee is recommending a “pay as you go” plan. Mrs. Hutchison added if they bond the $3.4 million dollars they capture the cost of doing the repair work. In reading the Report, on top of the bond payment you are going to have to keep putting money into the budget to keep the roads up. Mr. Dinkel noted that roughly the same dollars would be somewhat how they would allocate it and this would be up to the Selectmen.
Another DPW listing was for equipment with the Capital Reserves paying for some in future years, but not all, explained Mr. Dinkel. The loader was put back into the analysis this fiscal year for a five-year program. Field development was a one year payment, but with an offset.
Mr. Dinkel noted the Souhegan Cooperative School District had two projects accepted for the future: (1) A Wellness Center and (2) Track replacement in 2011. The track was a one-time expense and the Wellness Center is a bondable item. Mrs. Hutchison remarked that one advantage of using the spreadsheet was being able to see that in 2012 the initial bond on the High School is finished and the next year they would be finished paying the bond on the addition. In 2014, the Town will be clear of debt at the High School and a good time for Amherst School District to move into a school transition.
Mr. Dinkel explained that the CIP has two very important functions – one is overall Town planning so that everything doesn’t happen in the same year and the second is impact fees and the affect on the taxpayers. The spreadsheet had three variations that he spoke briefly about. Another important function of the Committee, other than trying to keep track of the cost of items, is impact fees and being able to properly initiate them to offset those costs. Brad has done a lot of work on this, he said. Keeping the analysis updated will help assess the impact fees.
Deirdre Rogusky asked what was the impact on the document relative to the capital reserve funds getting converted to warrant articles rather than being in the operating budget. Mr. Bowler remarked that all of their capital reserves have to be voted on and not put into the budget. Mr. Galinson added that whether they were in a warrant article or the budget the number would remain the same. Mr. Dinkel mentioned that how the Town continues to use capital reserves in financing items, it is less prevalent than it had been. Under DPW much of the equipment assumes a five-year lease. Mr. Dinkel told Ms. Rogusky that this document should always be tweaked and used as a road map on a yearly basis. Ms. Rogusky mentioned there weren’t any minutes being posted so that people knew what the Committee was doing and not much information was being given out. Mr. Bowler asked that Mr. Dinkel get them copies of their minutes. Mr. Dinkel noted that other than the recommendations, the Committee wasn’t saying this was the way to fund projects. The other thing they did on the analysis was put every recommended project it whether or not it was going to happen or was an unknown.
Mr. Panasiti thought it was a wonderful tool and a great deal of effort had gone into it. All Board members sang the praises of the Committee and the analysis they produced. It was hoped that the Committee would continue and the spreadsheet updated on an annual basis when projects were submitted. Mrs. Hutchison explained this was the Committee’s third time meeting with the Selectmen in giving a report. It was their intention to keep doing it on an annual basis. What was evident was that the Department Heads were becoming more familiar with the process. The biggest impact that was made in the process was the total cooperation by the School Districts and the only thing that made it work.
Mr. Dinkel noted that even with this analysis, the Town will need a consultant to assist in assessing impact fees. Mr. Bowler thanked the Committee on behalf of the Board. He, too, would like to see this updated on an annual basis, perhaps in October or when the Department Heads were presenting their State of the Department reports. He also thanked the Schools, Steve Coughlan and Nancy Head for their contribution. He mentioned that Brad had been in touch with a consultant and they also have a warrant article for this. He asked that the spreadsheet be emailed out to them and perhaps it could be put on the website as well.
Old Business
Budget Discussion
Under General Government, Mr. MacGuire reported he had originally reduced contingency by $2,000 and has reduced it by another $2,000 as requested. Typically if there was a catastrophe, this is where the funds came from. Mr. Infanti would go along with it if he felt Gary was comfortable with the change. Mr. Galinson thought being insured was one thing, but thought they were highly over insured and supported lessening it $2,000. Mr. Bowler was against cutting it because it could be used for any department’s budget if a major issue came up. Under Cable Access, Mr. MacGuire reported on a discussion with the Chairman of CIC and they proposed a reduction of $5,000 to a line item of $5,000. Mr. Bowler reported on his discussion with Doug and he agreed to the reduction of $5,000. When the franchise fee comes in, the Committee will request $10,000 from it for equipment they need. Under Tax Collection there is a $200 reduction in education and under Zoning a $500 reduction in meetings.
Mr. MacGuire reported under Cemetery, there is a $10,000 reduction in wages and outside hire as agreed to by the Trustees. Mr. Infanti told Mr. Panasiti that the Cemetery Trustees will pay for it out of their own funding. Under SRLD, the subsidy has been reduced by $9412 by the District on December 6. Under Health Agencies, Mr. MacGuire mentioned he had already discussed with the Selectmen in trying to move some of the agencies to a warrant article based on how long they have been requesting funds and payments. Milford Counseling has not requested funding for two years and he advised placing their request as a warrant article. There were three agencies (Nashua Health, Souhegan Resources and St. Joseph Meals) requesting varying degrees of increases and he was looking to level fund them. The Board agreed to fund Milford Counseling as a warrant article for the requested amount.
Mr. MacGuire reported their Welfare budget has been at $21,000 for several years with the typical hard work from Sharon who oversees this program. He had a discussion with her and while there may be a bit of self-insurance in it, they were somewhat reluctant about the $2,000 reduction in the medical line. They can go back to contingency if need be, but their track record said we probably will be okay with putting a $2,000 reduction on the table. Mr. Infanti was amazed with the job their Welfare Officer does with other towns’ budgets coming in at ten times this amount. He was not confident that this isn’t going to be a tough year unlike the past five to ten years and he was a bit nervous about the reduction. Mr. Galinson said they looked at history and again this was insurance and was comfortable with the recommendation. They have too much insurance and too much allocated to it. Mr. Bowler was fine with this, but it brought him back to his thoughts on contingency.
Mr. MacGuire noted that under PMEC there was a reduction of $5,064 in the subsidy. This came as a result of a meeting with W&M, Department Head, Mr. Galinson, Selectmen’s Rep and himself. Mr. Galinson reported everyone was trying to reach an agreement, this was the end result and thought it a reasonable compromise. Mr. MacGuire added the proposed subsidy for next year was a percent lower. This year was questionable because of the new building. There was an hour and half meeting was spent to come up with this proposal. Mr. Galinson remarked there was no right or wrong answer for this. Vicki cut a lot of the cleaning expenses for the new building. He commended her for volunteering this amount and the subsidy was going in the right direction.
Mr. MacGuire told the Board he was going to let the Department Heads discuss some of their individual lines – the Library had seven lines that had reductions in them. Director Amy Lapointe, Trustee Chairman Don Holden and Trustee Robin Julian met with the Selectmen. Mr. Holden told them they had gone through the budget process, reviewed it with W&M and the Town and this was the lowest increase that he could remember. 72% was wage related, they were not adding to that line and it was driven by COLA. He spoke of the small increase some of which was offset by Trustee funds being added to the Town side. He said they looked at programs and audio visual and did not think they could do less unless everybody else in Town had some reasonable decreases. They could consider this at their January 8 meeting. They could look at the sick leave to see if it can come in lower. Mr. Bowler advised they went to all the Departments to see what they could cut across the board. In the past they had not looked to talk to the Library Trustees to see if there was anything they could do. Both Gary and Brad worked on the reductions. Mr. Galinson felt all the Departments came in with a tight budget. Sick leave is what it is, but he could be convinced that audio visual was easy to keep and quite reasonable. The others were past three years expenditures or over budgeted. He talked about the $5000 for new equipment and his support for shelving. This was going to be standard comments for all Departments, he said.
After further discussion, Mrs. Lapointe indicated they level funded the budget and anticipated a decrease on the Trustees’ side with the Town portion going up a little bit. Books and Audio Visuals were “their bread and butter”. Mr. Holden said he would support Amy. They looked at the inflation index and will say they will go to level funding, not consider inflation, and will look to decrease the number of books purchased. There are other areas that are a little more discretionary. Mr. MacGuire knew of this discussion and that programs committed was a large increase over three to four fiscal years. Mrs. Lapointe advised that the adult programs exploded for a number of years and they were trying to keep up with the demands. Mr. Bowler remarked that the owner/operator of Grella Landscaping was willing to take care of their irrigation system for nothing and save them $350. Mr. Grella indicated there were some nervous folks and they were seeing a lot of “homes for sale” and time to give up some services. Upon the recommendation of their Administrator he would go along with it. In Mr. Infanti’s experience, the Library always ran a very tight budget and if there was anything they could do as a Board, he would appreciate it, however, if it was tight there may not be much they could do. Mr. Bowler asked if there was any chance they could raise revenues. Mrs. Lapointe explained they raised fines two years ago and can look at revenue. Mr. Bowler added they wanted to work with them and hoped the Trustees wanted to work with the Selectmen as well.
W&M members commented on the reductions thinking that $3200 was not that much. That in meeting with Amy, found normal expenses had gone up and the biggest increase was, as stated, in wages and several items not in their control. Mr. Bowler asked that Amy pass on any changes the day after the Trustees meeting.
Mr. MacGuire announced he had updated the column and it was now at $42,301 from the original $53,326 and were looking at an approximate $11,000 difference.
Recreation Director Nancy McMillan told the Board the major use for Meetings was for professional development, workshops and conferences. She was hoping they would level fund the line because she has recently hired two new people – Park Foreman and Program Assistant and she would like to offer them the professional development and believed they would get it back two fold – interest in the department and interest in the community. She gave Mr. Infanti the reason why they had only spend $841 in FY 07 budget. Mr. Panasiti felt they should revisit this line. W&M agreed. Under Vandalism, Mrs. McMillan explained this was difficult to plan for. She believed what any manager can do is to expect it and one way is to prevent it so that it doesn’t encourage more. They were fortunate they have low vandalism because they protect both the Recreation Office and Baboosic Lake and it was a credit to the community and Police Department. Mr. Galinson assumed she would not have put it in the budget unless she needed it. It was not so much a justification, but comes back to asking a little bit from each Department. Perhaps it can’t come out of Meetings because of her new people, but something has to be reduced, but which one, he asked. Mrs. McMillan said she would look over the budget again if it had to be tweaked. Mr. Galinson suggested she look at the pattern and past spending. Mr. Bowler reiterated they were proposing some cuts and it did not necessarily have to come from that line, however, he would like to get a $1500 reduction in the bottom line. Mr. Galinson remarked that on the other side he did not want to jeopardize her success and if she can’t find $1500 it was probably okay and the point has been made. Mrs. McMillan understood what he was trying to do and that $1500 was not going to hurt the budget.
Mr. Bowler asked about the $4000 for putting in and taking out the docks. She brought pictures she took the first year she was with the Town because she had never seen it being done. Mr. Panasiti mentioned vandalism and insurance deductibles. Mr. MacGuire advised Reed was correct – there is a $1000 deductible and every one of their buildings could suffer vandalism that isn’t insured. This was one way of tracking it and were back on the subject of how much insurance is enough. Recreation has already paid out $400 this year, but in the past three years hasn’t paid anything. The money has to come from somewhere and he was not sure DPW should cover all vandalism for all buildings in his budget, he told Ms. Rogusky. She asked about Recreation’s fee structures and revenue streams and if it was possible to get these numbers soon. Mr. Bowler would like to see this information by the end of the week including the non-resident fees and fee structure for all sports along with the ins and outs on what is being spent. By next Monday night they will need to see those numbers. Mrs. McMillan advised they will see the expense side and revenue side. How much revenue was collected for each program and what was the expense. She hoped they understood that the revolving budget is all revenue fees. Mr. Panasiti reported they had an Executive Committee Meeting and the Baseball Commissioner will try and come up with the formula for the fee as it related to the Cal Ripkin Program. Mr. Galinson spoke of the amazing job Nancy had done with the revolving account and he had seen this for the first time recently. There was a RSA on how it can be managed and how it can be spent.
EMS Director Brian Gleason met with the Board. Mr. MacGuire explained that out of the EMS line $400 was to be reduced - $200 each from the Office Supplies and Computer Supplies. Out of the Communications line $675 was the reduction number - $375 from Uniforms and $300 from Office Supplies. Mr. Gleason fully understood the position Brad was taking and understood as taxpayers themselves. There were always ways to modify the budget to meet their goals. His budget was in the final of a three-year change based on 500 calls to now 725 calls – the revenue doesn’t reflect the expenditures when you look at the actuals. In EMS, there were things in April he has to freeze and budget in July. He said he would be more than willing to take the numbers and see where he could take them from. In ’09, he will have more money that will reflect on the revenues. Mr. MacGuire asked if the Board wanted to spend time with the rest of the Department Heads and asked if they were considering 100% or considering less than that. The Board discussed the matter and it was decided to let the remaining Department Heads come up with the reductions to meet the Board’s goals. Mr. MacGuire summarized that they send the rest of the Department Heads home to make specific changes and to come back in next Monday. He was not proposing what Brian had suggested and was uncomfortable pitting their Department Heads against each other because they are at bare bones as it now stands.
There was a brief discussion on what the Transfer Station Outside Hire consisted of by W&M. Also questions and answers about the consolidation of Charlie Tiedemann’s budget as it pertained to duties that were shared with DPW. Mr. MacGuire did not think there was an issue of how to go forward and could see how they could get there and the need to stay within DRA rules – it needs some cleaning up. W&M will not see some of the lines zeroed out.
Proposed Warrant Articles Discussion
Fire Department Vehicle
Fire Chief Rick Todd explained that in working on the warrant article for a Fire Department Utility Vehicle ($29,000) he had some thought on a SUV vs. a pickup truck and wanted something multifaceted. He felt they would get better use out of a pickup because it could be used to haul hose back from a scene or equipment back from South Station. It would serve as an Administrative / Utility Vehicle. Since he doesn’t take a vehicle home, his thought was to also equip it with an 8’ Fischer Snow Plow. In his other town, something like this was used to plow out the Public Safety area and utilize it on emergency calls to make a passable road and to make it into a private roadway.
Mr. Grella advised he spoke to the Chief yesterday and he had no objection to a pickup truck, but had strong reservations about a snow plow. Over the past 30 years, he didn’t remember any problems or issues when the Fire Department had to use one and it would not be money well spent. Mr. Infanti hadn’t thought about a snow plow, but liked the idea of a pickup since it was a more useable vehicle. The 1996 was on its last legs a year ago and he would support this. He did not have a real strong thought about the plow at this time. Mr. Galinson thought it seemed they needed this, but in general he thought this was going to be a tough year at the polls. In answer to Mr. Panasiti’s question, the Chief told him they put in a new transmission in the 1996 vehicle, it has 131,000 miles on it and was bought used with almost 100,000 miles on it at that time. Mr. Bowler added it would replace a 1993 vehicle from DPW. He liked the pickup, like the idea of the plow and didn’t totally agree with Tom as it could be used as a cleanup vehicle. He was not against the plow as it stood now, he would support it as a way to cooperate with other Departments and if it was heavy enough for plowing.
The Chief told Ms. Rogusky that the $29,000 price included the plow and the plow would not inhibit the speed of the vehicle. Mr. MacGuire advised he and Rick discussed this today. He did not support the plow and it added about 10% to the cost. The vehicle is long overdue, Rick had come up with a better plan, but he was not sure the plow was a good addition at almost $4000. It might paint a different picture if the Department was staffed around the clock where someone could get the vehicle and plow the lot.
Mr. Todd told Ms. Rogusky that when he was working in the other community, there were 4 to 5 fire calls where a plow was needed as well as added EMS calls. Mr. Bowler noted that Amherst’s ambulances were four-wheel drive vehicles. Most times you can get in but it is harder getting out. He publicly thanked the Chief and his Department for getting things up and ready for this past weekend’s festivities.
DPW Warrant Articles
Director Bruce Berry gave a Power Point Presentation on his proposed warrant articles. Included in the presentation were draft versions of the articles as well as photographs and in some cases further explanations. The first was a $450,000 article for the Baboosic Lake Community Septic System Phase III. Accompanying this were photos of a flooded area that will be Phase III, laid piping, work in progress and the completed landscaped project. His second proposed warrant article was for $110,000 to replace the front-end loader. A slide indicated the reason for his request that included the cost of repairs, the cost of rebuilding leaking cylinders, difficulty in finding parts, the use of solid tires vs. inflated tires, the lost revenue in composting purchases and the history of moving the older loader to the Transfer Station and assigning the new one to the Highway Department. Six photos accompanied this warrant article associated with the Transfer Station.
The third proposal was for the Salt / Sand Shed in the amount of $89,000. Director Berry spoke about best management practices of mixing sodium and chloride with sand and how it had been done in the past vs. how it should be done with materials purchased early in the season when inventory is at its greatest. Seven photos included the Department’s current salt shed inside and out, photos of the Town of West Rutland, Vt. salt shed and one of Gilmanton, NH’s salt shed. Slides depicting 23 individual items and their costs that made up the requested $89,000 was also included in the presentation. Director Berry’s fourth proposed warrant article was for Diesel Exhaust Systems in Four Municipal Buildings in the amount of $145,010. A slide showing the total number of systems and the breakdown is as follows: 1 at the DPW Garage at $7660; 2 at the EMS Bay at $18,700; 6 at Central Fire Station at $93,150 and 3 at South Fire Station at $25,500. A slide indicating the benefits of exhausting diesel fumes from closed garages was included. They were optimal personal health and safety, energy efficiency and environmental efficiency. Three photos were presented that showed the different types of systems.
The fifth proposed warrant article was for a DPW Replacement Vehicle in the amount of $81,500. Mr. Berry spoke of replacing a 1993 Ford Explorer with a fully equipped one-ton dump truck for future plowing and to reassign the 1998 pickup with 116,070 miles to the Building & Grounds Foreman as well as adding a utility style body on it. Four photos accompanied this presentation depicting the various vehicles. His sixth proposed warrant article was for a DPW Land Purchase in the amount of $100,000. The slides showed a survey of the land under discussion with the Heaton’s. Director Berry described various buildings on Town land in proximity to the Heaton’s property line and the potential lot line change if purchased since the current lot could be sold as a house lot. The plan and three photos accompanied this presentation.
Mr. Berry said he was lobbying for the 1994 Blazer with 187,880 miles on it and shared between DPW and Zoning who uses it on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. It was purchased for $5000 and major investments were made to keep it on the road for the past several years.
Mr. MacGuire did not see the need for any discussion on the Baboosic Lake Community Septic System Phase III. The only explanation was that this was a repeat from last year when they didn’t get State funding - hopefully they will get funding this year.
Relative to the Loader – Mr. Infanti asked how was the one the Town put all the money into holding up. Mr. Berry advised it needed an estimated $4500 in piston repair that should be done this summer. Mr. Infanti commented there was no doubt in his mind that it should be replaced – they spent $10,000 on it last year, it was a “money pit” and while it was going to be tight this year, it was time to get rid of it. $10,000 was spent on this as well as $10,000 on the backhoe. After a brief question and answer by Mr. Grella and Mr. Berry on tires, Mr. Grella indicated he was in favor of the loader. Mr. Galinson said he would also support it, but W&M needed to unanimously support it as well. Mr. Panasiti agreed and said he would like to see this go away. He knew the Town needed it and he believed everybody knew that it was needed. Mr. Bowler remarked that initially he would have said “no”, but he and Bruce had a discussion. The present loader is eight years old and if they didn’t do something now, they potentially would be replacing two loaders in one year. He said he was willing to support a $110,000 and a warrant article for three year lease payments with the impact being the same. W&M member John Siemienowicz asked if there were any implements associated with the new loader that needed to be added on and was there another factor that they needed to get on the table as a real need. Mr. Berry advised the loader he was recommending was very much identical to the one they have with a “quick exchange bucket” and will handle the Zipper. Mr. Siemienowicz indicated that they need to know if this would handle the Zipper because it was an important piece of equipment they have been hearing about. He mentioned that the current loader’s leaking situation was becoming quite serious. Mr. Berry advised the one in question was at the Transfer Station and there were three other towns that were involved in Amherst’s Transfer Station.
Relative to the Salt / Shed Warrant Article – Mr. Infanti commented that it was obvious that their present shed was not big enough and Bruce spoke about what was originally proposed, looked at quotations for having his crew working on it for six months and the site work was far below what his Department could do. Mr. Galinson asked if Mr. Berry could rate this as a dire need – was a salt shed more dire than land or diesel exhaust. Mr. Berry indicated the land was a one time deal and if it didn’t fly in March, it wouldn’t fly at all. With Diesel he was looking at three Departments with his being the least expensive and the most needed. Relative to the salt shed, Mr. Berry advise underneath it would be asphalt and next fall all the salt / sand would be dry allowing them to purchase the salt at the beginning of the year at the State bid price.
Relative to the Diesel Exhaust Systems – Mr. Infanti could support this at the DPW Garage this year because the employee was working on vehicles year round and his next support would be the ambulance bay with the remainder being too much for one year. Mr. Grella felt the same way and thought the number one priority was DPW. Mr. Galinson and Mr. Panasiti agreed. Questions raised by W&M Dick Martini and answers by Mr. Berry indicated that this warrant article would contain six figures that would involve different concepts and different from the dollar amount in the DPW concept. Mr. Bowler specifically spoke about the DPW Garage and the Ambulance Bay circumstances with regard to exhaust being contained within these areas and felt the Fire Station could wait.
Relative to a question raised by Ms. Rogusky, Mr. Berry advised he had contacted a company who advised an alternative company to contact for this information. In response to a W&M question, Mr. Berry explained that there were a number of five fire bays with six vehicles. Mr. Bowler added that adding to the cost was the height of the Fire Department bays. Mr. Berry noted the company had taken measurements and made calculations. Mr. Panasiti wondered if they could receive information to justify the costs. Chris Nowlan, W&M commented that Bruce was presenting many warrant articles and it seemed to him that the Selectmen should pick their battles because of the number in one year. Relative to the Diesel Exhaustive System, Mr. MacGuire suggested if the Board was considering doing only the DPW Garage it should be removed from the warrant article and put into the budget. Mr. Infanti agreed that they this was a budget item.
Relative to the DPW Vehicle – The Board discussed priorities on which DPW warrant articles to support seeing that the taxpayers were also facing a $4 million dollar school article. Mr. Berry also explained the costs associated with the $81,000 vehicle warrant article. Also noted by the Town Administrator was the fact that $85,000 was the normal amount funded each year in the Capital Reserves for the Highway Vehicle Fund. Mr. Bowler was inclined to bring down the requested number and still utilize the Capital Reserves. Mr. Berry advised the DPW truck would be around for 12 years, but if they spent less than the standard, he would be back before them in six years.
Land Purchase – Mr. Infanti felt this would be a one time deal and if they didn’t buy it now, it would become a house lot next year and supported it. Mr. Grella was in favor of it too. Mr. Bowler thought this was a basic example of a warrant article they should consider using LUCT funds vs. going straight to the taxpayer. Mr. Panasiti thought this a perfect opportunity and would welcome it. Mr. Galinson also agreed.
Minutes
The minutes of December 3, 2007 were tabled to the next meeting.
Non-Public Session
Upon a roll call vote the Board voted unanimously to enter non-public session at 11:16 p.m. under RSA 91-A:3 II (d) land acquisition. The Board exited non-public session at 11:30 p.m.
While in non-public session, the Board discussed a legal issue on a possible land acquisition purchase. Selectman Galinson was directed to deliver a mission to the OSAC Committee.
Upon a motion made and duly second, the Board adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant