BC20110113 a

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE /= MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, January 13, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Gregory Farris, Mr. Robert Sherman, Ms. <= span style=3D'color:black'>Angèle Diack, Mr. Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representative Andy Ducharme<= /p>

Town Administrator Tom = Gaydos, School Business Administrator Adam Steel

ABSENT:

Mr. Dennis Viger

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

2011 TOWN WARRANT ARTICLE VOTE

Town Administrator Tom Ga= ydos came forward to answer any questions regarding the proposed warrant articles. There were no questions. The Board voted as follows:

Fire Station – = Mr. Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article for a new Fire Station building ($3,700,000).

ROLL CALL:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To approve the new Fire Station building Warrant Article

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

Support Contract (Local 1801 – American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees) – Mr. Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article ($62,254).

ROLL CALL:

(Guimond/Farri= s) To approve the Warrant Article: collective bargaining agreement – Support staff (Local 1801). =

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

Fire Contract (Local 4546 International Association of Fire Fighter= s) – Mr. Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article ($86,331).

ROLL CALL:

(Guimond/Sherm= an) To approve the Warrant Article: collective bargaining agreement – International Association of Fire Fighters (Local 4546).

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE VOTE

School Business Administr= ator Adam Steel came forward to review the proposed warrant articles.

Ms. Diack said she had re= quested a copy of the whole contract but had not received a copy. Mr. Steel said they did not have a chance to type it out yet. Mr. Guimond noted that the current contract was on the website.

Mr. Farris requested clarification of the final default budget number. Mr. Steel informed that the final default budget number was $24,569,216.&nbs= p; Mr. Farris said there was $14,000 that was offset by revenues and questioned if that number should come out of the default. Mr. Steel said they had to show the gross budget and the projected revenues.&n= bsp;

The Board then reviewed t= he warrant articles as follows:

Article 3 – collective Bargaining agreement – Pelham Education Association (2011-20= 12: $66,247 // 2012-2013: $256,55= 5) – Mr. Hall read aloud the proposed warrant article.

ROLL CALL:

(Ducharme/Dunn= e) To approve Warrant Article 3 - collective Bargaining agreement – Pelham Education Association (2011-2012: $66,247 // 2012-2013: $256,555).=

VOTE:

(6-2-1) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Hall and Mr. G= uimond voted no. Ms. Diack abstain= ed (she hadn’t received the full contract to review)

Article 4 – Default Budget $24,569,216 – Mr. Hall r= ead aloud the proposed warrant article.

Mr. Steel said in thinkin= g about the recommendation of the operating budget by the Budget Committee, he thought through what would happen based on the 10% limitation rule. He explained there was a law that = states a Legislative Body (voters) cannot approve more than 10% more of what the Budget Committee had approved. He had requested legal interpretation if the Budget Committee were not to recommend an operating budget article.&nbs= p; The legal opinion was according to RSA 325:VII – the operating warrant article budget shall contain the amount as recommended by the budget committee, if there is one. T= hus, once the budget committee recommends the operating budget it has recommended that article. Further, the no= tation ‘recommended’ or ‘not recommended’ on the budget article pertains to the operating budget and not the default budget, which = is set by the Governing Body (School Board).&= nbsp; Mr. Steel believed the interpretation was against past practice in Pelham. He said they would be double checking with another law firm, but wanted the Board to be aware that the interpretation would be going to the School Board for their consideration.

ROLL CALL:

(Farris/Guimon= d) To approve Warrant Article 4 – default budget $24,569,216.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

Article 7c – District Psychologist - $1 – Mr. Hall reviewed the warrant article.

ROLL CALL:

(Sherman/Ducha= rme) To approve Warrant Article 7c – District Psychologist $1

VOTE:

(6-2-1) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Lavallee and Mr. Farris voted no. Mr. Gleason abstained.

Article 7d – District Speech Pathologist - $1 – Mr. Hall reviewed the warrant article

ROLL CALL:

(Gleason/Sherm= an) To approve Warrant Article 7d – District Speech Pathologist- $1

VOTE:

(6-3-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Guimond, Mr. Farris and Mr. Lavallee voted no.

Mr. Lavallee commented th= at his ‘no’ votes were based on the fact that he felt there was ‘= ;a dance around’ the warrant article system put forth by the Town. He felt it was improper.

Mr. Farris confirmed that= a new proposal would be brought forth for the kindergarten. Mr. Steel answered yes. The information will be finalized = in the next few days and would be forwarded to the Board. Mr. Farris wanted the opportunity to review the information prior to voting.&nb= sp;

Petition Warrant Articles

Mr. Hall told the Board that he contacted Ms. Linda Mahoney to come before the Board and provide an explanation of petition warrant articles that had been submitted.

Ms. Linda Mahoney came forward to discuss three petition warrant articles that = had been submitted to give the Board an opportunity to ask questions. 1) Sprinkler System at Pelham High School- $390,000 2) Replacement of HVAC $385,000; and 3) expansion of parki= ng lot on School District property across f= rom the High School. These articl= es were discussed at the School Board level and had not been approved, therefo= re they were coming forward as citizen’s petitions.

Sprinkler System (High School)–= Ms. Mahoney read the proposed warrant article aloud and discussed the back up information in connection with the quotes for the work.

Mr. Farris questioned where the water source would come from. Ms. Mahoney said there were two op= tions, the preferable would be to tie into the main that services the Elementary School and Memorial School. Mr. Farris asked if the cost for r= unning the line down the road was factored into the proposed number. Ms. Mahoney answered yes. Mr. Farris was concerned about Pennichuck’s flow rate during peak service. Recently there had been outages th= rough the Pennichuck System in the Mt. Vernon area which f= eeds the mains down Marsh Road<= /st1:address>. Mr. Farris said he would like to s= ee a report from Pennichuck that their system could support both a system at the middle school and high school as well as their costs to run the line. Ms. Mahoney said it would be addre= ssed when it went out for work. Sh= e said in 2008 Marinace Architects made reference to the sprinkler system at the h= igh school and had been in contact with the Manager of Engineering at Pennichuc= k, who believed there was sufficient water, in both capacity and pressure, to serve the high school. Ms. Ma= honey said there was also an option to have a holding tank and a fire pump installed. Mr. Farris questio= ned if the proposed amount included the option of having a tank. Ms. Mahoney answered yes. She said= the costs were similar, it would just have to be decided which would be the bet= ter option.

Mr. Guimond said the price at Memorial School was $125,000= . He questioned why the high school = cost more than three times the amount. Ms. Mahoney replied that the high school was 84,000SF. Mr. Hall believed only a portion o= f Memorial School was being done. Mr. Steel said everything that didn’t have a sprinkler system would be done (at Memorial School). Ms. Mahoney commented that the pro= posed figure included the cost to hook up to the water line; Memorial School is already hooked into Pennichuck. Mr. Guimond asked if the Fire Chief had reviewed, and if he had comments.

Fire Chief James Midgley came forward and commented that there wouldn’t be= a fire chief in the country that would ever say sprinklers were a bad thing.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He believed that the hydrant syste= m could most likely sustain the sprinklers. He agreed obtaining something from Pennichuck would be good. He noted that sprinkler heads only flowed between fifteen and twenty gallons per minute, so pressure would be = the biggest problem. He stated at= this time the High School was up to fire code in the State. Chief Midgley said he was in favor= of a sprinkler system any time someone wanted to put one into a building.

Mr. Ducharme questioned if the warrant article wording would be okay through legal. Mr. Steel stated he wo= uld send it to legal counsel and then the DRA to review. He said there was one small issue = with the wording ‘…raise and appropriate up to..’ because there had been case law es= tablished that there had to be sum certain attached to each warrant article. Ms. Mahoney said the DRA offered leniency to petition articles because they realize that its citizens that a= re putting them together.

Ms. Lorraine Dube came forward and told the Board she had contacted the DRA and spoke to one of the supervisors. She said in the case of a petition warrant article, the DRA allows leeway. The supervisor told h= er when he read the petition article he would review the figure that was liste= d. They don’t like to see the w= ording ‘up to’, but considering the articles are made by regular citiz= ens it would be allowed.

Ms. Diack asked for further information as to why the NEASC accreditation report was important if the high school was up to fire codes. Ms. Mahoney said the NEASC report referred, in several different areas, about the undersized windows and the = lack of egress through windows; Marinace Architects made reference that a sprink= ler system would negate it. She s= aid the building was safe a sprinkler system would make it safer, however conce= rns about egress and undersized windows were contained in the accreditation report. She commented that th= e two year progress report, dated October 21, 2010 (provided by Dr. Mohr) asked that an update be provide= d to show the steps that had been taken to address the lack of egress through building windows. She said Dr. Mohr’s response was the School Board was aware that the windows at the high school are undersized and do not meet the code requirements for egress; the School Board has not addressed this issue. Ms. Mahoney said a sprinkler system would address the issue.

Mr. Farris commented that there were two things being said, one was that the ac= creditation report indicated the school wasn’t up to code because of the windows,= and two, the Fire Chief indicated the building was up to code. Fire Chief Midgley stated th= at the high school was up to code and explained how the rooms were adjoined, but t= here were separate exits (atmospheres) leading into the corridor and outside. He said the reason ‘rescue&#= 8217; windows were needed was because people could exit into two separate areas.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Ducharme questioned if there was a letter from Mr. Michael Jonas that recommended not doing anything until they had a full idea of what would be happening with the high school. Ms. Mahoney found it interesting that a fire engineer would make a recommendati= on as to whether to do something now or wait for a project to come along becau= se it would be cheaper. She foun= d out that even in the event the high school was reconfigured changes to the spri= nkler system would be minor (i.e. change sprinkler heads, add a new zone). She said installing a sprinkler no= w and making changes later wouldn’t be a waste of money.

Mr. Dunne noted that the three petition articles represented over a million dol= lars in spending. He asked if the = School Board had a design, or idea of what they were going to do with the high school. Ms. Mahoney stated th= at the school would remain a school no matter what happened in the future. She said the issues were known for= the past ten years. She said no m= atter what happened in the future, the building should be sprinkled and the HVAC should be updated/replaced and parking should be provided. The sprinkler system would make the building safe.

Mr. Lavallee questioned if the accreditation committee wanted to wait until they decided what they would do with the school. Mr. Ducharme said Mr. Jonas from t= he State said to hold off. He be= lieved he stated not to do anything until speaking with a structural engineer to f= ind out whether or not the building would support it. Mr. Lavallee was concerned because= the high school issue had been going on for years and felt the accreditation committee should make a move one way or another. Mr. Hall wanted to be clear that t= he letter being referred to by Ms. Mahoney from Mr. Jonas was a letter from a = fire protection engineer and had nothing to do with the NEASC accreditation. The School Board had asked him to = review the building. There was furth= er discussion regarding fire protection; Mr. Hall asked that the correspondenc= e be forwarded to the Board. Chief Midgley stated he had been through the high school with the Town Fire Inspe= ctor and Mr. Jonas inspecting every inch above and below. He said if Mr. Jonas had any conce= rns that it did not meet State Fire Code, he had never voiced them to the Chief. He noted, at the Schoo= l Board’s request, the buildin= g had been inspected by the State Fire Marshall’s office. He reiterated that the building met State Fire Code.

Mr. Sherman asked if the cost breakout of the proposal and a letter from Pennic= huck could be provided to the Board by Monday.&= nbsp; Ms. Mahoney didn’t think she’s be able to get all the information by Monday. She sa= id she had to believe that the work could be done based on the fact that three quo= tes had been received. She said i= f the article passed and it ended up being cost prohibitive, the work wouldn̵= 7;t get done. She commented that = the problem made it into the accreditation report and it needed to be addressed; the voters need to be given the opportunity to address it.

Replacement of HVAC (High School) - $385,000 – Ms. Mahoney said the quote was acquired from the School Board from Constant Temperature Systems Inc. The quote actually came in at $355= ,895, but did not include electrical and roofing; Mr. Steel provided (the School Board) an estimate of $30,000 for those items. Ms. Mahoney spoke with Alan Miller= who provided information regarding the current system which was inadequate for = the building and didn’t have the proper returns or air flow. She read aloud a portion of the NE= ASC report and Dr. Mohr’s response which was that the high school’s HVAC did not provide adequate heating, cooling and air exchange. The temperatures fluctuate greatly between very hot to very cold depending upon the location within the buildi= ng and the outside temperature. = The HVAC system is also quite noisy when the fans are engaged, causing further disruptions and limiting the ability to communicate effectively. Much of the HVAC system is origina= l; there currently no plan or funding to address these problems. Ms. Mahoney stated they would by swapping out six units with six new ones.&= nbsp; Mr. Miller indicated there would be cost savings by switching from an old system to a new one. The = school would also qualify for rebates through Granite State Electric.

Mr. Lavallee asked how many zones were in the high school. Mr. Steel said there were six. Mr. Lavallee questioned if the contractor gave any indication of how the air would be moved. Ms. Mahoney didn’t know the = HVAC details. She said Mr. Miller indicated that the air flow within the building and quality would be improved. New duct work would= be installed. Mr. Lavallee confi= rmed it would be a complete HVAC system. Ms. Mahoney answered yes.

Mr. Farris questioned if the HVAC system would have adaptability in the event t= he school changed the classrooms and if a ballpark number could be obtained to= do so. Ms. Mahoney asked Mr. Mil= ler about reconfiguring the building and was told there would be no problem it would be minor because duct work was flexible and easily moved. Mr. Ducharme commented that the HV= AC was not part of a plan, which was the problem.= He said because the status of the school was unknown, therefore they wouldn’t know how many units were actually needed.

Mr. Hall said the building had always had uneven air and questioned if any part= of it was addressed when the egress was put onto the back of the school. Ms. Mahoney answered no.

High School parking lot (across from = high school building) $330,000 – Mr. Hall read the warrant article aloud. Ms. Mahoney said the S= chool Board had directed Marinace Architects to lay out the site. There would be approximately 140 new parking spaces with a storm water infiltration system below. Ms. Mahoney commented = that this was another issue cited in the accreditation report. She said the current parking didn’t meet state standards guideline. She understood that the Budget Com= mittee reviewed the costs, but wanted to point out that the students took the initiative and had a petition signed for submission. She said additional parking at the school would not be wasted even if the school changed.

Ms. Diack questioned how the cost was figured.= Ms. Mahoney said the number was quoted from Marinace Architect. Ms. Diack asked what was done rega= rding storm water. Ms. Mahoney said= the parking was designed with storm water drainage underneath the parking lot.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Guimond felt the cost was extremely expensive. He questioned what would happen to= the parking in the event the high school was moved to another location. Ms. Mahoney stated additional park= ing would never be a waste. She s= aid there were events that occurred at the school that could utilize the parking. Ms. Diack questioned= if the area could be used for something like a basketball court if the school relocated. Ms. Mahoney believ= ed it could be used for such.

Mr. Ducharme believed part of the problem was the location of the proposed park= ing in conjunction with the intersection of Marsh Road and Burns Road, two widely used roads.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said there would be serious situations where electrical, lights etc. would need to be installed. He asked if any information was gi= ven to any of the abutters because they were not going to be happy about seeing 144 cars sitting in the lot next to their homes. Ms. Mahoney noted that one of the petitioners was Police Chief Joseph Roark, who was very much in favor of a parking lot as long as it was done correctly.

Mr. Dunne questioned if there were any legal ramifications with high school students crossing the busy road during the day. He wanted to know the lot’s size. Ms. Mahoney was unsure = of the lot’s acreage. She said= it would contain 140 parking spaces. Mr. Dunne asked if it was the School Board’s original intent, = when they purchased the land, to have a parking lot. Ms. Mahoney said there was discuss= ion regarding the property and its covenants (regarding building). Legal opinion was received t= hat indicated a parking lot would be allowable on the property. Mr. Lavallee questioned the deed restrictions of the property. Ms. Mahoney said there was a restriction regarding building; there were no restrictions to a parking lot in the deed.=

Mr. Sherman asked for the number of staff currently in the high school. Ms. Mahoney believed there were approximately forty teachers. Mr. Sherman asked how many parking spaces were used by staff, and taken from students. Ms. Mahoney stated = there were two hundred parking spaces (in total), which wasn’t enough for a= ll the Seniors. Mr. Steel stated= there were ninety four staff personnel at the high school. Mr. Sherman noted half the parking= was used by staff, the other half used by students. He asked if there was any data on = the recommended number of parking spaces for a middle school of that size. Ms. Mahoney said she could get information. Mr. Sherman unde= rstood that the school bought a piece of property that they couldn’t put a building on. He questioned wh= at the property was supposed to be used for. Ms. Mahoney replied a parking lot.&= nbsp;

Mr. Gleason said there was some indication that the property was abutted wetlands. He questioned if an= yone had spoken to the Planning Department or the Department of Environmental Se= rvices to determine if a parking lot would be allowed with the restrictions. Ms. Mahoney stated that the archit= ect that laid it out had no concerns. In looking at the plan, she said the parking lot didn’t come near the wetlands. There was also allo= wance for a storm water infiltration system below the parking area. Mr. Gleason wanted to know if anyo= ne had checked with Planning to see if the activity was appropriate. Ms. Mahoney didn’t believe t= hat it had been a concern because quite a bit of time was spent reviewing the prop= erty to possibly have a kindergarten there; there were no questions/concerns rai= sed about the wetland.

Mr. Sherman commented that a majority of the School Board voted to purchase the property. He wanted to know f= or what purpose it was purchased. Mr. Ducharme said he wasn’t on the School Board at that time. Ms. Mahoney said she, Ms. Dube and= Ms. Ryan voted in favor of the purchase; Ms. Burton and Ms. Kyzer voted against it. The intent was for parking. Ms. Mahoney said in = hind sight it would have been better to come before the Budget Committee for a discussion. She explained tha= t the School Board was being assured by the Administration that it was a piece of land that they should be obtaining and it would change everything regarding= the high school site in regard to acreage and the ability to expand parking. She said they had to act quickly o= r they would have lost the sale. Bet= ween the Administration telling the School Board it was the right thing to do, t= he attorney providing opinion and the architect designing out a parking lot, t= he School Board approved the purchase.

Mr. Sherman questioned if there was a piece of property for sale adjacent to the current parking lot that would be better for the petitioners to acquire. Mr. Steel informed there had been property for sale (83 Mars= h Road) but it was currently not for sale. <= /span>

Mr. Hall asked for clarification that the school could not build a building on = the property across from the high school based on the covenants. Mr. Steel didn’t know. He stated he had not reviewed the covenants or seen the deed or asked legal to review the covenants.

Mr. Ducharme said during the last couple School Board meetings they had discuss= ed possibly having a practice/ball field on the property to make it more aesthetically pleasing for the neighbors.&= nbsp; Ms. Mahoney stated that had never come before the School Board for discussion. Mr. Ducharme said= it was mentioned at the last meeting. Ms. Mahoney disagreed. She said there may be discussions but they weren’t during the School Boar= d meeting. She questioned where parking would= be located (for the ball field).

Mr. Farris asked if the Police Chief was consulted with having a parking lot on= the property. Ms. Mahoney stated = that the Police Chief was consulted. She said Lieutenant Gary Fisher came in front of the School Board and didn̵= 7;t indicate there would be a problem; the Police wanted to make sure a parking= lot was done correctly taking safety into consideration. Mr. Farris, who was looking at the proposed plan, questioned if the parking lot sat on top of the wetlands. Ms. Mahoney said there was a finge= r that went underneath it; it was not wetlands/marshland, it was a little stream.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Mr. Gleason noted that the plan would need to be reviewed by the Highway Safety Committee (Planning Director, Fire Chief, Police Chief, Highway Agent) who would weigh in on the difficulties.

Mr. Hall asked that copies of the NEASC report, fire engineer’s report et= c be provided to the Board for review prior to the next meeting. He thanked Ms. Mahoney for meeting= with the Board on short notice.

Ms. Mahoney hoped to get the Board’s recommendation. She said the issues/deficiencies h= ad been known for a long time and no matter what happened with the high school= the proposed improvements would not be a waste. She appreciated the opportunity to= speak with the Board.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(9-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:55 pm.

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Respectfully submitted,

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Charity A. Landry Willis

= &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = Recording Secretary

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 TOWN WARRANT ARTICLE<= /b>

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: _______NEW FIRE STATION        =          _______________________= _____

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: ___Lavallee      /    Guimond               (9-0-= 0)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 TOWN WARRANT ARTICLE<= /b>

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: ______ Support Contract (Local 1801 – American Federation of State, County a= nd Municipal Employees) _______________________________________=

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion:   Guimond   /   Farris     (9-0-0)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 TOWN WARRANT ARTICLE<= /b>

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: _ Fire Contract (Local 4546 International Association of Fire Fighters) ___________________________________________________________________________= _

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _G= uimond   / Sherman              (9-0-= 0)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE:      - Collec= tive Bargaining Agreement – Pelham Education Association

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

NO

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

ABSTAIN

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: __= Ducharme   /   Dunne ____      (6-2-1)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE:    Default Budget $24,5= 69,216_____________________________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

YES

Greg Farris

YES

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: __= Farris   /   Guimond        =    (9-0-0)

MOTION CARRIE= D TO APPROVE DEFAULT BUDGET

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: ____ District Psychologist - $1_____________________________<= /p>

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

YES

Dennis Viger

---

---

ABSENT

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

ABSTAIN

Motion: _S= herman   / Ducharme___         (6-2-1)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED

PELHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE

2011 SCHOOL WARRANT ARTICLE

WARRANT ARTIC= LE: ___ District Speech Pathologist - $1 _ ______________________

BOARD MEMBER=

YES

NO

ABSTAIN

Larry Hall

YES

Dan Guimond

NO

Dennis Viger

ABSENT

John Lavallee

NO

Greg Farris

NO

Bob Sherman

YES

Angèle Diack

YES

Ken Dunne

YES

Andy Ducharme (School Boa= rd Rep)

YES

Ed Gleason (Selectmen Re= p)

YES

Motion: _ = Gleason    / Sherman ___         (6-3-0)

WARRANT ARTIC= LE APPROVED