|
|
Town of AmherstBoard of SelectmenAugust 13, 2007
|
Chairman Bruce Bowler called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Selectmen present: George Infanti, Reed Panasiti, Brad Galinson and Thomas Grella (at 7:06 p.m.). Also present Town Administrator Gary MacGuire and Executive Assistant Sharon Frydlo.
Citizens’ Forum
There were no questions or concerns from members of the audience.
Verizon Wireless – Discussion of Possible Cell Tower
Attorney Tom Hildreth explained that Verizon was interested in developing a wireless facility near the Amherst / Bedford town lines with the search range being half in Amherst, half in Bedford. They zeroed in on the Bragdon Farm. It has some high topography and was desirable. He would like authority from the Selectmen to bring a crane on the site and hoist a boom to get a signal for the proposed facility. They would be testing for an eighty foot and a one hundred twenty foot structure to see if it would be worth pursuing getting Town Meeting approval. The 1997 Omnipoint plans suggested this would be a good place to locate. They would use the crane to get the boom up and no trees would be cut. The results would be share with the Board in several weeks.
Mr. Bowler advised that the land is under Conservation control, they would need their permission and he felt this should be done first. Mr. MacGuire added they had some conversation that afternoon and there was some concern on what it would take to get this equipment up the hill without impacting the land and what was there. He didn’t have that information at this time. Attorney Hildreth suggested they walk it with the Commission since this would be a good time of year to do it because it was dry.
Mr. Panasiti asked about the timeframe. In response to Mr. Bowler’s comment regarding the Commission’s next meeting, Mr. Hildreth did not believe they should have to hold a special meeting. Mr. Panasiti volunteered to talk to Chairman John Harvey. Mr. MacGuire suggested he coordinate a special walk and obtain all the information before the Commission’s next meeting on September 9th. Mr. Bowler asked that Reed proceed with this so that Conservation knows what is going to be talked about. The Selectmen meet again on the 27th and would like to meet with several members of the Commission so that the Board could give Verizon a decision. Attorney Hildreth explained that the only thing that pertains to them is the height.
Mr. Infanti had no problem with this action. Mr. Grella reserved his judgment because he had not been present for the entire discussion. Mr. Galinson would like a discussion with the Commission. Mr. Panasiti will meet with John Harvey and Mr. Bowler asked that Mr. MacGuire also be involved. The Commission meets next on September 9th and the Selectmen on September 10th. Mr. MacGuire explained they were looking at a very narrow issue over other sites - the Transfer Station had been a possible site during the past discussions. Mr. Hildreth indicated he would add this to the search. Mr. Bowler explained further that there were two lots associated with the Transfer Station – one had a great deal of implications on it that involves the Souhegan Regional Landfill District. There was also a brief discussion that involved the site of the old basket barn. Mr. Hildreth indicated they would put this on their list.
Chip, the Site Analyst, arrived at 7:15 p.m. just prior to the discussion being concluded. Attorney Hildreth will update him on the discussion.
Mr. Bowler read the memo from the Fire Chief pertaining to selling a 48” light bar that had not been in use for three years and was approximately six years old. The new value was approximately $600.00. The Chief would put it on sale for $150.00 because it requires additional equipment to make it functional. After brief comments from the Selectmen, Mr. Infanti moved to take a 48” light bar as surplus equipment and give the Chief authority to sell it, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Bowler advised the District was looking for another contribution of $5,000. Mr. Infanti commented that in a letter dated July 16, 2007 it indicates how the City of Nashua continues to negotiate the purchase of Pennichuck Water and thought this was broken off since this letter was received. Aside from this, he said he had nothing to add. He knew Amherst made this commitment and this request indicates it is in the final year. He guessed they “were in for a dime and out for a dollar” and seemed to him the request made sense for the past three years – he had no major problem with it.
Mr. Grella mentioned that in the past, Amherst had participated as well as with other towns. It seemed to him that Amherst was keeping up with their pledge, but they did not know what was the status of other towns. Mr. MacGuire commented that they had not provided Amherst with anything this time, but provided in the past with information at the request of the Selectmen. Mr. Infanti felt it would be interesting to hear about the others.
Mr. Galinson commented he knew roughly that it pertained to the purchase of Pennichuck Water Works, but nothing in detail. Mr. Bowler explained that when it was originally formed, the Nashua Aldermen said they would turn it over to a District. The District was formed to represent every town in which Pennichuck Water had some service to them. Marilyn Peterman was their representative it all may have begun in 2002. Mr. Galinson asked if this goes forward, what was the benefit. Mr. Infanti explained about the core group who were there and supported this, would be represented and make all the decisions and have the same vote as Nashua. Milford did not buy into it and would not sit on the Board. Mr. Bowler indicated it all came down to Nashua being able to take it by eminent domain and turn it over to the District. Mr. Galinson advised that at this point he would abstain without having someone come in and explain what the status is. Mr. Panasiti commented they were invited in last year to explain to the Board where they stood in negotiations. He thought it a good idea to get more information and for them to once again explain what the advantages were. Mr. Infanti moved to table until August 27 or September 8 to see if they could get someone from the Merrimack Valley Water District to explain this further, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Award Cruiser Bids
Mr. MacGuire advised the Town received eight bids for three different vehicles and three different high bidders. Mr. Infanti moved to sell the 1998 police cruiser to Brookline Motors, Brookline, NH for $595.25, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to sell the 2000 cruiser to Jersey 1 Auto Sales, Inc. Jersey City, NJ for $1288.00, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Infanti asked if they recycle cruisers to other departments. Mr. MacGuire advised as part of the process they have exchanged vehicles. They had kept one that was a bit better and got rid of another one. The taxi companies look for vehicles under 125,000 miles and these vehicles were higher than when they typically retire them. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to sell the 2004 cruiser to Police Cars Unlimited, Woodside, NY for $3862.00, second by Mr. Grella. Mr. Vote: Unanimous.
Tax Deeding Update
Mr. MacGuire advised in the past they discussed a waiver of tax deeding for two properties – a trailer and property at the lake. The last time they received information from the Tax Collector she was concerned about the Town’s liability relating to a mobile home. Town Counsel was contacted, he had the same reservations and indicated it would be in the Town’s best interest to waive it. The second property was on a payment schedule. There were some other issues involved with this one and also a good one to waive. Mr. Infanti commented that at this time he would recommend the Selectmen not deed these two properties and moved to not deed the tax properties that they discussed regarding the mobile home and the home on the lake, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Approve Recommendation & Sign
Mr. Bowler read the recommendation from Richard Dorsett, Municipal Resources Inc. Contracted Assessor regarding M/L 25-81, 9 Milford Street. Mr. Infanti moved that they abate M/L 25-81 $19,800 based on the recommendation from their Assessors, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Purchase Recreation Equipment Request
Mr. Infanti stepped down. Recreation Director Nancy McMillan, Recreation Commission Chairman Dana Redmond, Keith Trott, Parks & Recreation Foreman and Robert Heaton, Recreation Commission met with the Board. Mrs. McMillan thanked the Selectmen for their approval to purchase the lawn mower. She presented them with a packet containing an itemized list of equipment, supplies and contractual services in the amount of $22,588.75. This amount they were requesting from the Unanticipated Vehicle Registration Fund.
Mrs. McMillan briefly went through the backup description of the equipment and quotes received. The first item was a Gandy Dethatcher / Overseeder, the second was a Verti-Drain aerator which was one of two options proposed by Turf Links Environmental Service to resolve the compaction problem and the third was a Troy Built Roto-Tiller. All equipment they were recommending was based on the results of testing of the soil done in June as well as the materials that would be purchased. She spoke of the need for deep aeration the first time which would be a one time contractual procedure to loosen the soil. Mr. Trott commented and described this process further.
In response to questions raised, Mr. Trott indicated that they had used the contracted services before and do not use them anywhere else because they don’t have the same issues at other fields. He told Mr. Galinson that the deep tine aeration of the compacted dirt was not part of the contract but rather a maintenance issue not a construction issue. Mr. Heaton added that he didn’t write the specifications and it wasn’t included. If they were to do it again, they would include it and add the price to the contract. Mr. Grella explained he had a very good discussion with three of the people with them and Keith knows what he is talking about. They talked about three different options and this will be money well spent on fields they will use for many many years. Mr. Redmond added they went back and looked at the specs and the steps to be followed were silent to this. Mr. Bowler asked about the sprinkler lines. Mr. Trott advised they were approximately 12-14” down and the equipment will not hit them – he will be there supervising the deep tine aeration.
Mr. Galinson’s problem was that normally these items would be budgeted for and voted on or be part of a special project like the Bean Fields. They just spent half a million dollars and he was excited about this. Now they want another $33,000 and were at the point where they can’t let the investment “go down the tubes”. He liked the process where items such as this is on a ballot, however, on one hand they need it and on the other there is the extra capital things they need to protect their investment. Mr. Redmond remarked there was a budget for the construction and it was purely for that and not for additional equipment and maintenance after. Regarding field maintenance, when you talk about equipment they didn’t even know about it when they got approval. If they put the equipment in the budget, they didn’t even know it would pass – this is an after effect. Mr. Galinson mentioned that for the future, while he was just one person, it seemed like a better way to do it. If they want $400,000 to build this big investment, perhaps a second warrant article would be wise asking for an additional $33,000 for equipment. “It would be nice for the voters to see this”, he said. For the future, he thought it would be a better process or for them to wait until the next budget, if they needed an additional $33,000.
Mr. Redmond thought Mr. Galinson’s point was well taken, but felt budgeting for equipment would be extremely difficult in these circumstances. Mr. Galinson remarked that in the future the question from the Selectmen and voters should be – is there any more money that should be asked for. It was unfortunate that they have to do this in these steps. Mr. Redmond mentioned that they hired an engineering firm on how the fields should be built, Mr. Galinson added they should be aware in the future. Mrs. McMillan told the Board that when she prepares the ’09 budget, they will know specifically what should be included in the maintenance of the fields.
Mr. Bowler agreed with Brad, the questions were asked, but it was an entire different story. Mr. Panasiti stated that they were under a unique situation about what these funds were to be used for. They spoke about maintaining these fields and other fields and purchasing this equipment to maintain all fields, not just the Bean Fields. It was possible they could lose fields, if they don’t use this equipment. They have an opportunity because they have a one time appropriation – if they don’t use it they will lose it and he did not believe it was the intent of the benefactor. They have to rewrite the warrant article if they continue to accept unanticipated revenue. He felt Brad’s point was well taken and they could do it differently.
Mr. Galinson preferred voting on this all at one time. Mr. Bowler indicated that several of the Selectmen want to do this separately. Mr. Grella moved that the Town contract with Turf Links to Verti-Quake and Verti-Drain for $4140.00, second by Mr. Panasiti. Vote: Unanimous.
Mrs. McMillan asked to address the supplies which was the next step after the Verti-Quake and Verti-Drain process. Both she and Mr. Trott talked about the need for using gypsum pellets which raises the level of required calcium in the soil. In answer to Mr. Bowler’s question, Mr. Trott explained he received one price for the 70 bags and will price it out – if he can get it cheaper he will. The total for turf starter, gypsum pellets, dark mix blue grass, organic fertilizer, pellet lime, dormant feed and fertilizers with various nutrients was $8217.75. Mr. Infanti, from the audience, had a concern about the weight of the bags since the Town has had problems with back injuries in the past. Mr. Trott explained that everything was in fifty pound bags.
Mr. Grella moved that the supplies be purchased at a cost not to exceed $8217.75, second by Mr. Panasiti. Discussion: The Board talked about using the “not to exceed” wording. Mr. Trott told Mr. Bowler that they received quotes from Turf Links which was a manufacturer he had used. They could also get quotes from Lesco. Mr. MacGuire added that typically they shop around and they didn’t need quotes. Mr. Redmond commented that going forward it would be good to have contracts. Mrs. MacMillan told them that they had a conversation with Jim Minor through the schools and if they could do something cooperatively, they will do it. Cal Wood, Woodland Drive, remarked he believed he understood the revenue, but not sure he was correct. The money they were discussing was not general tax revenue, but rather money from a grant for this specific purpose and if so it should be made clear. What had come across to him was that they were spending $33,000 for fields that had a statement made that “there was no tax impact and not taxpayer money or general revenue that was being discussed”. Vote: Unanimous.
Mrs. MacMillan asked Mr. Trott to talk about the Gandy Dethatcher / Overseeder. He described at length what this equipment does the mechanisms and why needed. In response to Mr. Bowler’s question, Mr. Trott explained that in the spring they dethatch and slice – the one piece of equipment does two different things. Mr. Bowler remarked that the last time he couldn’t support the mower, but did and he said he was not going to support buying this piece of equipment.
Mr. Panasiti moved to purchase the Gandy Dethatcher / Overseeder for $7,571.00 unless they can find a less expensive model, second by Mr. Grella. Discussion: Mr. Infanti, from the audience, commented that he understood how the dethatcher worked, but knew the Ex-Mark had a dethatcher and the Gandy was a lot heavier than the ExMark. Mr. Trott explained that typically you don’t go and pick up the thatch and the Gandy has the ability to cut channels through the soil. They were talking about going through and dethatching and slicing at the same time and were trying to get more seed down. Mr. Redmond wanted to see this as a physically responsible way to do this – there was a lot of non-taxpayer money that is in this fund. If they do not spend this money for these types of things, it will be lost and next year they will have to increase fees to buy this equipment and it will go back to the taxpayer. Mr. Panasiti asked that after the purchases were made, what was the balance. Mr. Redmond replied $50,000.00 more or less. Mr. Panasiti asked that they were saying that as new technology is taken to the next level, Keith personally felt the Town needed to bring fields up to the caliber that the people expected in Amherst. Mr. Trott indicated this was for the health and safety of the fields in Town - there will be no turned ankles. It was a maintenance issue and they want to maintain the fields at a level expected, maybe a little bit higher - they wanted them safe and healthy. Mr. Galinson asked if this was everything on their list or will they be coming back in two weeks and ask for more money. Mr. Redmond remarked they will come back for field development. Mr. Trott commented that some of this was his fault, as he did not know what transpired in past practices. Mr. Grella looked upon this as the least expense in renovating fields they already have. This will make the grass they have on some field multiply. He asked if this was owned by the Town of Amherst and if DPW wanted to use it on the Town Common was it possible. Mrs. MacMillan replied “absolutely”. Public Works used their aerator and they share. Vote: 3-1, Mr. Bowler opposed.
Mrs. McMillan spoke about purchasing a Troy Built Roto-Tiller. She talked about the past practices of removing old infield material and replacing it with new at a cost of $1500 to $1700. They want to discontinue this practice and save money on what they had been paying. Mr. Trott spoke about the process and the need to keep the fields soft and weed free and safe for the kids to play on. Mrs. McMillan advised the original quote was $2300 – The Engine House was $1899 and Nashua Outdoor Power was $1688.
Mr. Grella suggested they rent the roto-tiller for the first year to see how it works out and see if it proves worthwhile – it rents for $70.00 per day. Mr. Galinson asked for a response. Mr. Trott had no problem with this – he was giving them the reasons why they needed to do this and will go with whatever the Board suggests. The only problem was going to pick it up and see if it was available. He thought they could do this and come back to the Board in a year. In response to Mr. Galinson’s question, Mr. Trott advised he has used this in the past and there was no question it will work. He would roto-till in the spring and put the conditioner down. He would probably have to use the machine at least two days on each field – weather permitting. There were more things it could be used for other than what he was looking to purchase it for. Mr. Panasiti had no problem purchasing it and using these funds to do so.
Mr. Panasiti moved to expend up to $2300 … A question was raised and brief discussion was held about the horse power of the two quoted machines. Mr. Panasiti moved to purchase the roto-tiller for $1688.00, second by Mr. Galinson. Discussion: Mr. Bowler remarked that they keep buying all types of machines and asked if they were going to see any increase in the budget for manpower. Mr. Trott explained this was why they were buying all the equipment because it will allow them to cut time down on all the field “x-wise and hour-wise”. Mr. Redmond indicated Keith was glad they were buying this equipment because it increases the efficiency on what was not being done in Amherst. As they go forward it may change in needed labor. As it applies to what they were doing here does not apply. Mr. Infanti mentioned that the unit being sold by Nashua Power Equipment was a $2700 model and they were selling it for $1688.00 - he agreed with the other gentlemen and strongly recommended they buy it, even if it was a misquote. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Redmond thanked the Board for their time as well as Mr. Grella’s time in meeting with them. Mr. Infanti returned to the Board.
Other Business
Mr. Infanti talked about impact fees and part of this process had to do with the CIP. It was something they talked about and he will bring it up at the Planning Board meeting. This was something they need to do and something he personally ran into on a project he was doing in Milford. His was a 28’ x 60’ warehouse and he received a $300 impact fee which was for additional Police protection. He will obtain a list on how they figured their impact fees and had briefly discussed this with Charlie Tiedemann. Mr. Galinson reported he and Gary had been discussing this within the past two weeks. It was a three step process – (1) The CIP is still looking for school information. (2) They needed an ordinance for a Town Meeting vote for it to exist. (3) Once this is approved by the voters, a consultant is hired. There is a six month plan and it has to be updated within several years. Mr. Infanti thought when they hired the Master Plan Consultants they did give them a number in order to go forward on this. Mr. Galinson added that in Bedford a four bedroom residence receives $10,000 in impact fees. Amherst’s wouldn’t be in this scale with the School being the driver in this case and the ordinance is independent of this amount.
Mr. Galinson reported that he and Gary will be attending the PMEC meeting this month to get some of the structured things ironed out. Mr. Grella had nothing to report. Mr. Bowler was on vacation and missed the SRLD meeting. Mr. Infanti reported he attended a Cemetery Trustees meeting several weeks ago and they were looking into renting a small tractor with a bucket. Their new hire will be doing a great deal of reloaming and reseeding.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of June 25, 2007 as written, second Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti moved to accept the minutes of July 9, 2007, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: 4-0-1, Mr. Galinson abstained.
Mr. Infanti moved to table the minutes of July 23, 2007 until the next meeting, second by Mr. Grella. Vote: Unanimous.
Mr. Infanti quipped that the Chairperson of the Master Plan got a hole-in-one and thought the Board should recognize this accomplishment.
Upon a roll call vote the Board entered non-public session under RSA 91-A:3 II (e) and (a) at 9:01 p.m.
The Board exited non-public session at approximately 10:00 p.m.
While in non-public session, the Board discussed a civil litigation and proposed settlement. They also discussed an upcoming employee vacancy in the Town.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon L. Frydlo
Executive Assistant