|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenMay 29, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Selectmen present George Infanti, Brad Galinson and Reed Panasiti. Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire.
Non-Public Session
Upon a motion made and duly seconded, the Board entered non-public session under RSA 91A:3 II (d) Land Acquisition. The Board exited non-public session at 6:35 p.m. While in non-public session they heard an explanation of a conservation easement and held a brief discussion. The Board also had a discussion of a potential lease of Town-owned land to a local organization. No further action was taken.
Approve Recommendations & Sign
Mr. Bowler announced that MRI representatives Joe Lessard and Scott Marsh were present to answer any questions the Board may have regarding the abatements they were being asked to approve. Mr. Lessard commented that it was his understanding there were some general concerns about the processing and terminology. The first step was to make an appointment with the homeowner to correct any major or minor items. There were approximately 160 requests (about 3%) and not out of the ordinary when there is a revaluation. Typically the number that is over-assessed is the same as those under-assessed and is addressed as well. In an abatement, it is not up to the Town to prove an assessment is wrong. They do not recommend lowering assessments that they think are correct. They would recommend denying and then look at the ones that were too low the following year.
Mr. Lessard spoke of their terminology regarding “topography”. Another primary concern is the total value. They address both building value and land value and briefly talked about the real focus being market value. Mr. Panasiti commented that “topography” was one of the biggest issues they had. Mr. Infanti added that the other thing was antique and Joe had explained it to his satisfaction.
Abatement
Mr. Bowler stepped down and Mr. Infanti chaired. M/L 25-22 11 Washer Cove. The Board discussed various factors, adjustment rates, base values and land curves with Mr. Marsh as they pertained to the Vision software program. He told them that the St. Index pertains to a neighborhood adjustment and there are approximately 30 different neighborhoods. The site index is also tied into this and all of numbers are based on sales. Mr. Galinson summarized that MRI felt the value of the applicant’s case was correct, the other lots that were abated were actually too low and because it is past the tax season, they will be doing something about them next year and they will be corrected by the next season. Mr. Lessard replied “yes”. Mr. Marsh added that because they have many in this area, they will be looking at them to remain consistent. Mr. Galinson moved to deny the abatement as recommended, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: Mr. Panasiti was unsure of the factors. Mr. Infanti indicated he had researched the issue and it appeared that eight or ten of the lots were all within $3,000 to $10,000 of each other within the entire neighborhood. Those near the water were way too low and will be reviewed and corrected for the next tax year. Mr. Panasiti asked how they determined the cost per unit. Mr. Lessard advised it was a base price passed by the revaluation company, he briefly described and it was all done mathematically. Vote: 3-0. Mr. Bowler returned to the Board and resumed the chairmanship.
Benjamin & Rosemary Brewster M/L 4-65-1
Mr. Lessard advised nothing new was sent to the Board on this, and it had been withdrawn. There was a gravel road going into this parcel, had been reported, discussed and determined by MRI that the property was being used for agricultural uses and did not have to come out of current use.
It should be noted that in each of the following abatements either approved or denied by the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Lessard gave a brief synopsis of MRI’s recommendations.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve an abatement on M/L 5-155 of $47,000 in the amount of $885.01, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction in value to M/L 24-58 of $15,300, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction in value to M/L 6-91-1 of $24,100, seconded by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction in value to M/L 25-32 of $11,600, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: 3-0-1, Mr. Bowler abstained.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 24-30 be denied, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 24-36 be denied, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 25-58 be denied, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve M/L 8-93 for a reduction of value of $45,900, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 12-2 be denied, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 17-23 there be a reduction in value of $159,300, second by Mr. Galinson. Discussion: Mr. Panasiti indicated that MRI mentioned aluminum siding, worn carpets, etc. which was not considered antique and asked how was this decided? Mr. Lessard explained that typically in a property that retains their antiqueness there is no change to the original feature of covering hardwood. Mr. Marsh added that in an antique you would find wide pine floors and talked about finding inlaid and some softwoods that were not real antique features. Mr. Lessard mentioned that age was a prime consideration, but needed to have more features. Mr. Galinson indicated that between the land value and the 3,000 s.f. house and the abatement of $159,300 seemed low compared with another house with the same attributes. After an explanation from Mr. Marsh, the Vote was unanimous.
Appointment
Primex Presentation – Gary Stenhouse
Chairman Bowler advised the Board would table further discussion on abatements in order to meet with Gary Stenhouse of Primex who had an appointment with the Board. Mr. Stenhouse thanked the Board for allowing him to take a few minutes to discuss with them “awareness, action and accountability”. Primex has been in existence since 1979 and was a self-funded municipal pool consisting of Counties, School Districts and Towns. He briefly spoke about what a pool is and that the Town of Amherst along with 300 other towns own the pool and performance was important. Primex has spent a great deal of time with the staff and they have a menu of services, among which is management training. The responsibility of membership is to: (1) Try and implement those things they ask the Town to do, (2) Report claims promptly. He also indicated that another benefit in being in a pool is a monetary benefit which was done for every member he meets with.
Mr. Stenhouse reported that the Town of Amherst has been a charter member since 1979 and since that time has spent $1,750,000 with claims of $657,000 – this was good performance. The Town also was returned an amount of $915,000 in the form of credits or a check. The net cost to the Workers’ Comp Pool was $180,000 which was another benefit for being in a “pool” and important. He indicated that the last page of his presentation contained a summary report through 2004 through 2006 of the amount the Town paid into the pool and the losses. He indicated that 2005 was not a particularly good year in New Hampshire and that medical costs were “forever”. He commented that in a three-year period Amherst has not performed as well as other towns within the pool. However, over a 28-year history, the Town has had an excellent reputation, and in 2005, had the highest payoff.
Mr. Stenhouse talked about meeting with the Town Administrator and Department Heads regarding training in safety and at the same time the number of claims has been less. The numbers have been shared with the staff and they have been working with Primex for improvement.
Mr. Stenhouse also advised that the Town has been a member of the Property/Liability pool since 2000 and in 2004 the contribution was roughly $54,000 with $44,815 incurred. In 2005, the contribution was approximately $59,000 with a fairly large Property-Liability expenditure of $81,551. In 2006, the Town was back down to eight claims. However, there is an open claim for bodily injury; some of the funds have been paid out and the claim is still open and an injury to a resident wasn’t going to be closed fast. He briefly commented about the loss ratio regarding liability being a debit for this period of time.
Mr. Stenhouse indicated that the Town was doing some of the recommended items and he had worked with the staff putting a program together. He spoke about the Prime Program in which the company recognizes the Town for its efforts and that Amherst was no different than the other members. Relative to the Accountability, Awareness and Action Program, the Town was already doing this. Accountability risk management starts at the top and their role is to support the staff. He suggested that once or twice a year risk management be put on the Selectmen’s agenda. Primex follows up constantly on this as it is a partnership.
Mr. Infanti mentioned that a year ago they talked about this and got the Department Heads back up to strength and on safety and were moving on this. This was a day-to-day awareness and they needed to keep people reminded which was important. Mr. Galinson asked if the Town’s insurance rate changed by its modifier. Mr. Stenhouse explained that everyone pays the same, but if a town’s modifier was .93 they basically pay 93 cents for every dollar of coverage. In response to Mr. Galinson’s question, Mr. Stenhouse advised that the actual money is affected by the Town’s performance. In answer to Mr. Panasiti’s question, Mr. Stenhouse explained they do some onsite programs, do them on weekends depending upon availability and had done recently a flagging program day at Primex where approximately 50 people attended.
Mr. Stenhouse answered several questions raised by the Chairman of Way & Means Deirdre Rogusky. Mr. MacGuire commented that the Town’s Joint Loss Management Committee is more active and Primex has sent people down on several occasions. Mr. Bowler asked if the Committee could come before the Board on June 24. Mr. MacGuire advised they were prioritizing a list and they may want to go a bit further before meeting with the Selectmen and Sharon was on the Committee. Mrs. Frydlo agreed that it wise to postpone the meeting to a later date. Mr. Stenhouse indicated that every community has to have a JLMC and is required by law. Relative to a question raised by Mr. Bowler, Mr. Stenhouse advised that by statute the Committee has to be made up of both labor and management. Mr. Bowler thanked Mr. Stenhouse for meeting with them.
Abatements
It should again be noted that in each of the following abatements either approved or denied by the Board of Selectmen, Mr. Lessard gave a brief synopsis of MRI’s recommendations.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 24-42 of $25,800, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 2-166-43 of $15,600, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 14-24-1 of $39,500, second by Mr. Panasiti. After a brief discussion the Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 6-68-12 of $46,800, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 5-1-7 of $$27,300, second by Mr. Panasiti. Discussion: In response to Mr. Panasiti’s general question, Mr. Lessard explained that in terms of abatements in a revaluation was about 3% and he could not give him the comparison of Amherst with other towns. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 1-2 of $56,300, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 25-79 of $8,500, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 25-80 be denied, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved M/L 21-18-39 be denied, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 18-36 of $18,600, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 25-49-2 of $6,100, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 7-58-2 of $41,100, seconded by Mr. Panasiti. After a brief discussion about acreage in the zone, Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 2-146-19 of $21,400, seconded by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 6-23 of $22,900, seconded by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 2-2-4 of $6,400, seconded by Mr. Galinson. Discussion: Mr. Galinson asked about a scenario if nothing was out of order, but the applicant paid less. Mr. Lessard advised they would review all what was presented, would look to see if it was an anomaly, they would review it further. If it wasn’t an anomaly, they would look at the neighborhood. Mr. Panasiti questioned the square footage in the condominiums and was it basically the same. Mr. Marsh indicated there may be variances as they related to fireplaces and upgrades. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved a reduction of value to M/L 25-8 of $16,200, second by M. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Yield Taxes
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the yield tax for M/L 2-43-3 in the amount of $17.22, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the yield tax for M/L 4-47-1 in the amount of $326.80, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Veterans Tax Credit
Mr. Infanti moved to grant a Veterans Tax Credit to Bryan Archambault M/L 14-9-1, 18 Merrimack Road, second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Public Hearing
Recognize Unanticipated Revenue
Mr. Infanti moved to open the public hearing at 8:05 p.m., second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. MacGuire read the list of unanticipated revenue accumulated by the Town Departments consisting of Fire, Administration, EMS, Police, PMEC and DPW (see the list) totaling $70,748.85.
Mr. Infanti moved to close the public hearing at 8:10 p.m., second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Discussion: In response to Mr. Panasiti’s question regarding the DPW’s waste oil program, Mr. Berry advised the amount of revenue was a reimbursement for a grant and the oil heats the DPW garage. Mr. Bowler suggested the reimbursement for the Civic Media Billboard Lease be changed to the Transfer Station next time. Mr. Infanti moved to accept unanticipated revenue in the sum of $70,748.85, second by Mr. Galinson. There was a brief discussion on how difficult it was to budget unanticipated revenue and Mr. Bowler advised Ms. Rogusky, in response to her question, that the money was allocated to specific line items. Mr. MacGuire added the funds can be transferred at the request of the Department Heads. Vote: Unanimous.
Discussion of Transfer Station Loader
DPW Director Bruce Berry told the Board that if he was purchasing a piece of equipment he would put out a bid package. In this case, he made phone calls to loader vendors in the area and asked for information on a new machine or a low hour used one that included two and three quarters to three yard bucket, ride control, Michelin tires and a quick couple bucket. He also asked the four companies: Milton Cat, R.C. Hazelton, Chappell and Knoxland to give him a variety of funding options. He also searched the Internet for used equipment not only in New Hampshire, but Massachusetts, Ohio, New York and Boston.
Mr. Infanti indicated it appears that they need a second loader and felt so all along, however, citizens voting didn’t want it. The Town Meeting approved $400,000 to start road repair as well as work at the Transfer Station. Mr. Berry had given them monthly rental prices and they have the opportunity to rent the equipment either short term or long term. If the voters don’t want the Selectmen to purchase it, it would cost them only 20%. It would also appear that the four pieces of equipment in the document would do the job. Mr. Berry had done his homework and it gives the Board food for thought on how to deal with it in the future.
Mr. Berry appreciated the fact that the Board felt they were in a difficult situation. Mr. Infanti advised he has received several complaints from folks who had gone to the Transfer Station and couldn’t get what they wanted because there was no loader. They had a tight budget this year and anything the voters didn’t feel absolutely necessary was voted down. They were now seeing the ramifications because of the flooding and did not have the equipment to do some of the work.
Mr. Galinson thought the recommendation and diligence was commendable and his recommendation was “right on”. He asked about the trade-in and if there was a warrant article next March to pay 80% and it didn’t pass, would it be terminated or continue as a rental. Mr. Berry advised that the company had a buyer for the trade-in and this was a month-to-month rental. Mr. Galinson thought the Selectmen unanimously supported a loader. His concern was the process because the warrant article didn’t pass and the way they should handle this should be done openly, such as “Letters to the Editor” and that the townspeople know what they want to do and get the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Panasiti said his question to Chappell would be why is the price for the Hyundai so low? If they need a loader, they need a loader. The Board’s job is to make these decisions. He would ask if Ways & Means have revisited this and had a change of heart. They were loosing money and needed to come to a decision very quickly.
Mr. Bowler appreciated the time Bruce had put into this and heard what both Brad and Reed were saying. They have the numbers spread out over a 12 month period on what they do with compost and the machine and cost. He questioned the ability to put on Michelin tires on the one he was recommending.
Mr. MacGuire indicated that they understand the issues at the Transfer Station and at DPW. What they were doing was costing them money and was also a liability. Bruce had put together a great deal of information for them in trying to actually determine the cost of having a loader and it was very difficult putting numbers to. They spent a fair amount of time last week and completed the report that day and felt these were conservative numbers. In an average month, they are spending an additional $1900 in cost of some things that were getting done in a different way and using additional manpower. Additionally, they were losing $425.00 in revenue per month. They will be spending an average of $2325.00 per month over a 12 month period and their proposal for renting this piece of equipment is in this area. They propose putting the money they were spending and loosing into renting. He would defer to Bruce to tell them about the things not getting done, some of which were mentioned during the budget cycle.
Mr. Bowler asked Bruce to list a few of those items. Mr. Berry indicated that a loader was used to com pact the demolition dumpsters; the brush pile cannot be pushed up and the brush has to be hauled away; there is no vehicle that can be used to push up the steel pile; compost cannot be loaded for the residents; trash and demolition is not being cleaned up routinely; a loader is used to back blade the holes in the driveway; a vehicle had to be assigned to the Transfer Station to clear the areas of snow as the loader was usually used and an additional plow truck had to be hired for town roads; the loader was used to clean out items in the Swap Shop. They are utilizing the existing loader from DPW at the Transfer Station. However, they have made a large commitment to begin repairing the roads and were using two employees to transfer the loader from DPW to the Transfer Station. He briefly talked about foam filled tires that were not easily punctured that were not on the existing loader.
Ms. Rogusky thanked Mr. Berry for doing the analysis. She appreciated it and indicated this was the type of homework that should be done when departments present warrant articles so that W&M has all the numbers. Mr. Berry advised that when he gave the estimate for repairs it was based on the worst case scenario. It was hard to determine what was actually involved in a problem with the transmission.
Mr. Infanti indicated he looked at the information given on the Internet search and felt those numbers were way over, but the Chappell deal was excellent and a lot less money. Ms. Rogusky stated the Committee will rethink their decision and the more information gathered will be brought back to them. Mr. Bowler mentioned that this was something that needed to be done and to get these numbers they need to act quickly. They can go out and rent something because they can’t have the zipper and loader in two different places. Robert Petrella of W&M indicated that they were just looking at the analysis and have heard some good things that night. Mr. Bowler indicated they will draft a letter for the newspaper and meet next week to discuss the loader, utilize Channel 20 and hoped the piece of equipment was still available.
Appointment of Perry Day to the Tree Committee
Mr. Berry reported that Perry Day was appointed as a Tree Warden through the State. Mary Reynolds from the State came down and interviewed Perry and made this recommendation. Mr. Infanti moved to appoint Perry Day as a member of the Tree Committee, second by Mr. Panasiti. Discussion: Mr. Berry told Mr. Galinson that a Tree Warden works under a State RSA and is instrumental in making decisions on trees. Vote: Unanimous.
Disposal Fees at the Transfer Station
Mr. Berry talked to the Board about discontinuing the clean wood / pallet pile and consolidating it to one category of demolition. Mr. Infanti mentioned that basically the clean wood or pallets seem to come from mostly businesses rather than homeowners. Mr. Panasiti commented that he has heard from contractors that they have to pay for a lot more in disposal fees because of what the Town charges and he would not be in favor of this. He suggested inviting in contractors to discuss this problem with them. Mr. Berry spoke of five years ago when it was five cents a pound and the Town was receiving other people’s stuff because the Town was cheaper. Mr. Infanti did not think they should be loosing money and needed to look at other towns to see what they were charging.
After further discussion Mr. Galinson moved to support the clean wood proposal as Director Berry proposed effective July 1, 2007, second by Mr. Infanti. Discussion: In response to Mr. Petrella’s question, Mr. Infanti indicated he was ready to vote, but then thought about a homeowner coming in with some small cuts of wood and tying up the scale with them. Mr. Bowler asked for some numbers for a potential meeting next week. The motion was withdrawn.
Mr. Panasiti thanked Mr. Berry for making the Common look great with the cut grass and flags for the Memorial Day Sunset Parade.
2004 Tax Deeds
Mr. MacGuire reported that the Tax Collector has brought to them three properties that met the tax deeding criteria. She had made arrangements for tax payments for these three properties and was recommending that the Board refuse the tax deeds based on these payment plans. If the repayment plan fails to work, they can deed the properties at a later time.
Mr. Infanti mentioned that a number of years ago there was a Selectman that pushed for this. These were 2004 taxes and he needed more information. What was the tax bill on the first piece of property? One hundred dollars monthly was $1200.00 per year and he was not sure there are many properties that have $1200.00 in taxes. There was one willing to pay $200.00 per week and not sure they were supporting them to dig themselves more in a hole. Mr. MacGuire indicated that going the way they do, they inherit potential liabilities. Two of the units were at the trailer park and the other one down at the lake.
Mr. Panasiti commented that the payments were just for 2004 and they let them go in arrears for two years. Mr. Bowler asked if the ones making payments on the 18th and 20th have they made them. Mr. Infanti felt the payment plan was useless and they had to pay 18% on top of this. It was nice to help the citizens, but he did not think it would work. Mr. Infanti moved to table until they have more information for the next meeting., second by Mr. Galinson. Vote: Unanimous.
Approve Private Road Name
Mr. Infanti moved to approve the private road name of Peacock Brook Lane, second by Mr. Panasiti. Discussion: Mr. MacGuire advised that Police Chief Peter Lyon has weighed in on the issue and even under the existing E911 system it would not cause any concern. Vote: Unanimous.
Ways & Means Chairman
Mr. Bowler reported that Gary and he have been meeting with Ways & Means Chairman and she would like to get on their agenda to give a Committee report. Deirdre Rogusky indicated she wanted to keep everyone updated on W&M progress. She thanked the Department Heads and Gary for inviting her to a staff meeting. “Living in the Day of the Life …” Program was underway. She mentioned members of the Committee who have met with several Departments. She personally shadowed Bruce Berry for a full day and John DeSilva for a half a day. She told the Board that one thing they didn’t talk about was finding a volunteer to take the minutes as she found it hard taking the minutes and running the meeting at the same time. She indicated that the focus was on building a relationship with the Department Heads and a relationship with each Board member. They were not focusing on any expense and dealing with warrant articles that may come up or those that have just passed. She invited the Board to come to their meetings and felt it was essential to continue building communications. Ms. Rogusky added they were looking at past practices and maintenance. They also were challenging the Departments to “think outside the box”. The Committee’s next meeting was June 18 and also looking to meet Monday nights downstairs at Town Hall. All meeting were open to the public.
Mr. Panasiti thought she was doing an admirable job, but in reading the minutes regarding preventative maintenance he asked if they were a consulting firm or a W&M Committee. He thought they were diving into areas where he did not think they should be. He said he was not too happy about what he was reading in getting together with Department Heads on a monthly basis to see what they are doing. He thought their intention was wonderful and great, but felt they better be careful where they were heading. This was his concern, he said. Ms. Rogusky explained Bob sent out an email along with what were their bounds and what could they discuss. When they talked about preventative maintenance, it all came down to dollars. They were trying to keep an eye on crossing over to the management side vs. expense side. Mr. Panasiti did not think this was a W&M’s job to see whether Bruce Berry is doing his job correctly and getting into something way outside their purview. Ms. Rogusky advised this was part of their discussions with Gary and Bruce.
Mr. Bowler indicated he read the minutes that day and they would part of their discussion at their next meeting and he agreed with Reed. He thanked her for having such good minutes to let the Board know what is going on. He felt the Committee was micromanaging the Town. They were supposed to be reviewing and not getting into management style.
Mr. Panasiti remarked that the minutes relative to the Fire Department made mention that they may need to move toward full time. This was what the Selectmen were here for, he said and was not sure he would like to see W&M go there. He thought they may be wasting their time in looking at issues they shouldn’t look into. Ms. Rogusky responded that she was not sure this was a waste of time, but they were looking at areas where there is a financial impact.
Mr. Galinson indicated that when he read the minutes he was concerned as well. They were volunteers and quite diligent spending time and effort on all these question and he respects this. The other side weighs a bit more and were they focusing on things that aren’t in their purview. What concerned him the most was if this was going to have an affect on the employees. He was concerned for the Town Administrator and the Department Heads. This affects Town morale and employees and it is this which he is concerned about. Ms. Rogusky remarked that W&M was dealing with finances because this was their place. The Town’s finances are 20% and the School District 80%. They were trying to re-evaluate what decisions were made. Mr. Galinson mentioned that the concern was the Board’s consequence. These were all people working for the Town and have supervisors working for the Board of Selectmen. He said to be blunt, they were driving these people crazy because they were just another person they have to report to as well as the Town Administrator and the Committee was keeping them from their work.
Ms. Rogusky explained they were trying to make the Committee more informed. The intention is to be supportive and is what she hoped will come out of this. They were not intending to micromanage. If there were some questions or things not understood, she asked that they call her. Mr. Bowler remarked that everybody reads something differently. Brad brought up a good point and they have seen in other communities in what they might call micromanaging and it is not good for morale.
Mr. Petrella wanted to make sure to relate his meeting with Nancy McMillan and Recreation. He wanted to make it clear that they can’t get between Gary and his Department Heads. The minutes are not micromanaging, but help them in making a determination at the end of the year. Last year they were asking question on warrant articles without data and they weren’t informed. Recreation will need a new mower and he also learned that they have to rest fields.
Mr. MacGuire advised they will be talking and keeping contacts open. His concern is that every single thing that gets done in Town relates to money, but the delivery and the way it is said stirs up a little concern. Communications and understanding, that yes it relates to money, but it doesn’t relate to whether they buy one paper clip or two paper clips. Ms. Rogusky commented that they are all so busy on the Committee and the time she spent with Bruce in his Department she thought an awesome day and it was very beneficial. She would like to spend time with Peter and Brian. She spoke about getting involved earlier because it becomes stressful during the holidays. She thought it would be good to have the two groups sit down together. Mr. Bowler thought it may be beneficial for several of them to sit down and talk.
Other Business
Mr. Panasiti reported the Recreation fields were coming along and they had begun the irrigation system and dug a new well.
Mr. Galinson reported the CIC is having ongoing discussions with Comcast on the franchise agreement. Regarding PMEC, Gary and he have not touched base on finalizing the structure. The Library Trustees meet when the Selectmen do and he is looking forward to meeting with them.
Mr. Infanti reported that the Cemetery Trustees met last week.
Mr. Bowler had nothing to report. However, he announced that in two weeks they would be starting their meeting in Milford with their Board at 6:00 p.m. Mr. Infanti suggested they talk about the Master Plan and the 101A corridor and what they see happening. Mr. Galinson suggested they talk about Milford’s growth ordinance. Mr. Infanti thought this should be a good discussion and they should have some points beforehand.
Minutes
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of April 30, 2007, second by Mr. Panasiti amended as follows: Line 17 – Strike “the Senate has not seen them” and replace with “had not yet been seen by the Senate”; Line 174 – Strike the first “on”; Line 198 – Insert “the” after “to”. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to approve the minutes of May 14, 2007 with the changes recommended and after checking the numbers for two LUCT’s, second by Mr. Galinson amended as follows: Line 260 – Change “an” to “as”. Vote: Unanimous. NOTE: The question of the two LUCT’s bills being $17,500 was correct.
Other Business
Mr. Panasiti reported he had a call concerning hydro seeding trucks taking water out of a pond. There was no restriction except to get permission from the landowner to take water out. There is no particular ordinance or regulation about this. Conservation Commission has all the information pertaining to this. There would be a problem if they were taking out hundreds of thousands of gallons. He also heard a conversation about a dam in Merrimack being disassembled. They found that it would not lower the level on the Souhegan River and wouldn’t impact it.
Mr. Infanti moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:22 p.m., second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant