|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenJune 4, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti and Brad Galinson. Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Mr. Bowler announced there was one item on the agenda and that was to get public input in what the Selectmen called the Transfer Station loader. The voters turned this down in March and DPW Director Bruce Berry has been struggling without it. He commented briefly on the lost revenue as a result of the loader not being there. He opened the discussion up to the floor to see what the residents of the Town felt.
Roy Fairbairn, Windsor Drive, mentioned he watched Channel 20 and realized the loader was voted down, but he would be in favor of a possible purchase. They have good employees and they need the tools to do the job.
CJ Butler, Eaton Road, also watched the Channel 20 presentation and she read the minutes – what she was not seeing was the cost analysis of the repairs vs. replacement. She had thought there was some discussion before Town Meeting. During their conversation at their last meeting there was a lot that was not presented that the people should hear. What was wrong with the loader, the cost of repair, why wasn’t there a value if they were getting a trade-in? When the voters said “no”, it was a pretty strong “no” vote. Not getting the support from “your own Ways & Means Committee” concerned her. What revenue was going to be lost, what were some of the expenses that may have been avoided? The analysis wasn’t in the minutes and not shown to the camera. She asked about the liability issue that Gary had mentioned.
Mr. Berry indicated the loader was built in 1989 - 18 years ago. The Highway Department had it for 9,865 hours and it then went to the Transfer Station. The problems began with the heater and was brought back to the Highway Department and within a matter of weeks it fell apart with brakes failing, the air compressor needed to be repaired, and the brake calibration could not be repaired. The age of the unit did not give the Department the ability to purchase parts. The repairs added up to $18,378.14 - if the machine was in perfect working condition. According to Chappell, it was worth $18,000. The loader has been parked and out of service since October and because of the brakes, he could not have it being used. His decision was that he did not believe they should put 100% of the loader’s value in fixing additional repairs for this short period of time.
Relative to the liability issue, Mr. MacGuire, advised that one of the strongest liabilities was the pushing back the boxes at the Transfer Station so that there were no gaps between them and the wall. Some of the other smaller liabilities was the use of volunteers’ own vehicles and not the loader. Mr. Berry added that the open topped boxes were not tight to the retaining wall and on several occasions he had to pull the Highway Department loader from the project it was working on so that it could push back the boxes up tight to the wall.
Jan Bunker, Atherton Lane, remembered part of the discussion they had this year at the Deliberative Meeting and recalled that on the ballot there was a “laundry list” of things the Town needed, if this was critical for doing a Town function, why was this not a high priority. Why was this not part of the budget process if it was critical? The way it was presented, she said, a great majority of the voters felt if you have enough “slush” in the budget, do it. Mr. Infanti indicated that the Board would not do this, they painted a picture of $2,500 rental and “x number of dollars” of loss revenue and had not said they were buying a loader. The Town Meeting voted not to do the loader at the Transfer Station, but it was clear they couldn’t do everything with one loader even though they made it clear they needed it. At the Deliberative Session they had approximately 125 people and during his years in politics, if the W&M and Selectmen recommends something it easily passed. There were a number of things both W&M and the Selectmen agreed on, this was one they did not. They can’t have a loader in two different places at one time. In what they were loosing in compost revenue, smashing the boxes and fixing the driveway was almost a break-even situation, but they would be getting back 80% of their rental back. If everyone said “no”, they were talking about renting a loader month by month. If people thought differently, it was a misunderstanding that they were doing something from behind people’s backs.
Ms. Bunker did not get the sense that this was a priority and when the voters say “no”, you have to be careful. Mr. Infanti indicated the Board has heard this and it was not their intention to go beyond the vote, but they have received many complaints about the loader. Mr. Bowler added that if they didn’t think it a priority, it would have not been put on as a warrant article. They were meeting to see what people think.
Libby Crocker, Boston Post Road, indicated that she and Bruce worked very well together and she couldn’t support it. She felt it was not explicitly said at the Deliberative Session or at the Selectmen’s meeting last week, that it was impossible to get the road work done without two loaders and not to that severity. She felt the minutes of last week portrayed an unprofessional approach or conduct in that they did not have the courage or consideration to rent a loader. They had names and numbers in front of them which was presented in a public document and she said all of them were uncomfortable in referring to those figures and no one gave the audience figures contained in the document they were listening to. They hope it comes out in the end and “clearly you were uncomfortable with it or you weren’t sure it was legal and she did not know what the discomfort was”. They should have read what was on the document. She mentioned that they talked about abatements and the figure “next” to them and those were clearly stated to those watching.
Mrs. Crocker continued …. She felt the Board had a cavalier attitude about going against the Town and they should stand by it. In a comment she made about Selectman Panasiti, Mr. Panasiti asked if the Board was sinister, were they doing things behind the citizens’ backs and was this something she wanted to hear? In reading the minutes, what weren’t they telling her. Mrs. Crocker asked if the minutes contained what each proposal was. Mr. Infanti acknowledged that was not in them and was the reason for the meeting that night. Mr. Panasiti asked if the Board was to read verbatim everything presented. Mrs. Crocker commented that the Selectmen had items in front of them that those watching at home didn’t have. Her perception was the recommendation by Chappell and her perception was that the Board was uncomfortable and somewhat cavalier. Mr. Panasiti apologized if he offended her. Mrs. Crocker asked the Selectmen to watch themselves to see if they could understand what was being talked about. She also talked about the generator and how it was presented to the public and felt this was not a way to present an issue.
Among other things she talked about, Mrs. Crocker also mentioned that she heard something about losing money and not getting things done – nothing seemed dire to her. How did renting a loader relate to the repair of it and things not getting done at the Transfer Station? She asked that they tell her specifically how one related to the other. Mr. Bowler explained they needed two pieces of equipment to do the tasks. A loader was needed at the Transfer Station and one to do the road work. Mrs. Crocker said they talked about a conveyor. Mr. Berry indicated that what he proposed last fall and recommend again is to improve the efficiency by changing the conveyor in the loader at the barn and was the same thing they had done six years ago. What they had wanted to do was take the loader at the Highway Department put it at the Transfer Station and put the new one at the Highway Department. He talked about the uses of the loader and backhoe over the past six years and the new Zipper. In answer to Mrs. Crocker’s question, he told her that every Saturday the loader was dropped off and left at the Transfer Station. Further questions asked by Mrs. Crocker and answers given pertained to the loss of revenue, what it consisted of and how it was calculated; the liability issues and what they were; the chipper is used because they no longer burn and then the chips were hauled away;
It was Mrs. Crocker’s personal opinion that this was not heavy work that was being done, but rather light work and it was not needed to fix roads. For what the loader was doing, she would rather spend the $18,000 to repair it. Mr. Berry advised there were no guarantees after it was repaired and it didn’t make sense to repair it.
Mr. Galinson indicated he appreciated her comments, the reason for the special meeting to discuss the loader was because it didn’t pass and there was a dire need. The meeting was to start a process and they take this very seriously. He briefly talked about the uses and the fact that they would be getting 80% back. Economically it made sense, he said. The problem was political, there was a warrant article and the voters said “no” to purchasing something that was needed. They were not trying to put anything over on the voters. They were proposing a month-to-month rental of $2,500.00 per month and there was a justified need for this. He reiterated that it was politically unpopular, but it is needed for the Town and made economical sense – everyone was trying to do the right thing.
W&M Chairman Deirdre Rogusky indicated that they all knew W&M asked a lot of questions at the time and did not have a position now because it wasn’t a budget item or a warrant article. Ms. Bunker said she had heard chit chat around Town and this meeting clarified what they were trying to do. It was unfortunate that the need and economics involved was not made clear to the voters. The reasons they were doing it was fiscally sound and they were not letting people feel they were trying to hide things.
Mr. Infanti indicated he was in the public eye every day and he appreciated the public that came out to speak to them. He was in his store five to seven days a week and he had one person that came in in support of it. They all have phones and emails – he appreciated knowing, and he may not agree, but at least they said how they feel. What bothered him, if no one came to him and said you are crazy, he assumes that people do not have a problem with things? He understood what the voters feel. They wouldn’t be doing their job if they didn’t do the right thing.
Ms. Butler thanked the Selectmen for not having their regular meeting and doing this on camera. She also thanked them for consistently having their minutes on the web site that other Boards didn’t. She didn’t know if some things Bruce presented could be scanned in that would be part of the minutes. Mr. MacGuire agreed there were some important things to consider and he will research it further.
William Overholt commented that he thought coming down they would be “hoodwinked” and found that the Selectmen thought this over, however, marketing should have been done. If they gave this information at Town Meeting they could have had the type of discussion they had that night. With SB2, they have to convince Ways & Means and the people. The information they gave should be given out at the polls and he hoped they gave this information to W&M as well..
Mrs. Crocker apologized for being insulting. She encouraged the Board to see how they presented themselves when the public is watching, they have an image and they should be careful what they say. She was glad that when she was sitting on the Board, there were no cameras because she probably would have put her foot in her mouth.
Mr. Galinson left the meeting at 7:31 p.m. for an appointment. Liz Overholt suggested that every time they bring up a new topic that it be explained, such as what a loader is. The Board may know what everything is, but people listening and in the audience don’t.
Robert Petrella, Shadow Lane, would like to see some type of cost break down - revenue lost, increase in spending and opportunity loss. It would help W&M in this decision. Last year he heard there would be no opportunity of loss for road repair and now they were being told there is an opportunity loss. Mr. Bowler said it was great to be a Monday morning quarterback, and it was hard to think this far ahead. They had indicated all along that they had two machines. Mr. Petrella commented there was no mention of a lack of road repair if they didn’t buy a second loader. Tonight he heard about a conveyor. Were they saying they will not get road work done? Mr. Bowler advised no one said that. Mr. Petrella remarked that whatever their decision, this was the kind of information they need.
Ms. Bunker told them they were in a position to take “a lot of heat”, but they shouldn’t take it personally. This was a changing environment and a changing world. Mr. Infanti commented that he did not take it personally, he feels terrible when people come to him and say do something about the taxes because they can’t afford to live here any more. He values everyone’s input on the loader, but the things he takes personally is for people he has known all his life and couldn’t do anything to help them.
Mrs. Crocker mentioned that as a taxpayer tell them what the Board needs, no more and no less and then explain the details the first time around. Mr. Fairbairn indicated he was in favor of the loader and still was. Bruce had done a load of work since October on how to manage the Department without equipment. He mentioned the drive from the Highway Department to the Transfer Station cost them about an hour and he felt it justified. Mr. Berry add this was justified in their calculations – for emergency situations, they would “spring” the Highway Department from whatever it was doing and take the loader to the Transfer Station and then come back. All of their loaders travel from point A to point B.
In response to Mr. Fairbairn’s comment, Mr. Berry indicated that it was difficult to determine because the budget process starts in September and goes through to the Deliberative Session. He was asked if they could make do with a used loader at the Transfer Station and to select some sum of money. He was also asked to do some research on loaders and he went to multiple vendors, told them what the criteria was and the vendors supplied this information. The Selectmen were given those numbers without knowing about them beforehand and maybe that was why they were a bit vague. None of the vendors had been advised of this.
Chris Nowlan, who was new in Town, commented that he had spent many years in an automotive position. Heard an $18,000 figure for a brake job, heater and transmission that seemed to be very expensive for what needed to be done. He asked the breakdown specifically for the cost of the transmission work. Mr. Berry read it by parts and dollar amounts. He also indicated that it could be as simple as improvements. Mr. Nowlan gave his opinion of what the transmission issues might be.
Linda Foley, Eaton Road, asked how long did brakes last and when was the last time they were repaired and were they going to get three or five years out of them? Mr. Berry advised the last reference was in 1998 and they lasted about eight years. Mrs. Foley commented that they were talking about $18,000 to fix as opposed to the new loader at $75,000. Mr. Infanti indicated they were not looking to buy one. Mrs. Foley mentioned there would be other maintenance on a new loader and asked if he had any idea on what it was over a period of time. Mr. Berry indicated he didn’t know, but he spends an average on equipment of $36,000 for equipment and an additional $40,000 on all trucks. Newer equipment has minor repairs to start with, but more as it gets older. In response to Mrs. Foley’s question, Mr. Berry advised the newest machine is put where it is used the most and the new one has almost 6000 hours on it over six years.
Mrs. Crocker asked if he could quantify what the work time is at the Transfer Station. Mr. Berry explained that the six-year Trojan Loader racked 3,110 hours. Mr. Bowler added that the work at the Transfer Station was light rather than heavy. Mrs. Crocker asked if the 4th gear was a traveling one and could they live with it just at the Transfer Station. Mr. Berry indicated that they may, but without getting into the transmission he didn’t know what was floating on inside it.
Neal Foley, Eaton Road, asked how many hours a week does he loader run at the dump. He personally thought perhaps in the teens per hour per week and then it just sits. If they want to spend $2500 per month to rent a piece of equipment he would rather put it towards repairing the one they have, but it was a gamble. They would have a repaired loader for another 12 months. The voters didn’t vote for it and he thought they spoke pretty well at the last election. He thought it incompetent for the Board to spend $2500 and he felt it prudent to fix it.
Mr. Bowler advised the Selectmen will not vote that night and will take time to think about the input. They want to check on whether or not this was something they could legally do. With no further comments from the Board, Mr. Infanti moved to close the meeting at 7:58 p.m. Discussion: Mr. Panasiti remarked that the information needs to get out and in his formative years they used overheads and slides. In this day and age with everything on TV being instant, when someone was giving a presentation, they could just hit a button and this information could be displayed, however, the equipment the CIC Committee was looking to purchase had this capability and it was turned down by the voters. Communications is a big thing in getting the information out and he asked for suggestions. Mrs. Crocker suggested they could just state what was in front of them. She asked if it was illegal to present those numbers and it appeared to her there was some uncomfortableness. Mr. Panasiti said it could have been because of the numbers given them by Bruce. If the information was in front of them, it was easier not to talk back and forth. Mr. Overholt agreed with what Libby said earlier, that if the numbers were not with the minutes, they should be available to everybody. Mr. Panasiti seconded the motion to adjourn now at 8:02 p.m. Vote: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant