BC20111013-Town Vote

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE /= MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, October 13, 2011

APPROVED &#= 8211; November 7, 2011

CALL TO ORDER – 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Also Present:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. John Lavallee, Mr. Dennis Viger, Mr. Robert Sherman, Mr. Joe Puddister, Mr. David Cate, Mr. Ken Dunne, Selectmen Representative Edmund Gleason, School Board Representative Meghan Larson

Police Chief Joseph Roa= rk, Fire Chief James Midgley, Planning Director Jeff Gowan, Town Finance Director Cindy Kelley

ABSENT:

Mr. Gregory Farris

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

BY-LAW CHANGE – MOTION

The Board opened their me= eting by addressing a motion (and second) made during the October 3, 2011 meeting to amend the B= udget Committee By-Laws as follows:

A replacement capital expenditure may be inserted in= to an operational budget by vote of the Budget Committee.

An e-mail was sent to the= Board by Mr. Farris containing the proposed amendment as follows:

A onetime replacement capital expenditure whose t= otal annual dollar amount exceeds the lowest current state bid price of a police cruiser by no more than twice, may be inserted into an operatio= nal budget by vote of the Budget Committee.
A replacement capital expenditure whose total lease/purchase agreement (years and dollars) exceeds the lowest current state bid price of a police cruiser by more than twice may be inserted into an operational budget by a two thirds positive vote of a full Bud= get Committee.

Mr. Sherman suggested ame= nding the motion (of O= ctober 3, 2011) to replace the words “exceeds the lowest current state bid price of a state cruiser by no more than twice”. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> It was agreed that in order to amen= d the motion, the people who made and seconded the motion would have to accept the amendment. Mr. Gleason made t= he original motion and asked that it remain.

Mr. Viger asked if it was= Mr. Gleason’s understanding that a capital expenditure included surplus vehicles that were given to a different department (i.e. surplus police veh= icle given to another department for use). He wanted to know if that type of vehicle would now become a capital expenditure that could be replaced. Mr. Gleason answered no; his interpretation was the replacement of vehicles that were currently in the inventory that were failing and would h= ave to be replaced for useful operation. Mr. Viger confirmed that the vehicles would be those already voted o= n by the taxpayers. Mr. Gleason an= swered yes; they were ‘replacement’ vehicles. He noted that the police cruisers = would not be distributed to anyone because the Police Chief’s proposal was = to lease the cruisers so they would have a value for trade-in when cruisers we= re replaced; cruisers weren’t going to be distributed to anyone else. It was not the intention to put the cruisers out into the inventory. Mr. Lavallee asked if the Town had any vehicles that wouldn’t = go back to the dealership that would be given to a department that had no vehicle. Mr. Gleason said the= only thing he was aware of was if the back hoe was put into the budget, the Tran= sfer Station would be interested in having the existing back hoe to assist in compacting trash. He said the intent was to try and replace the inventory and give the Budget Committee t= he discretion to review and vote on those items. Mr. Lavallee was in favor of the amendment, but wanted to ensure that vehicles (that were expected to end) w= ere passed onto another department without having a value assigned to it. Mr. Gleason stated the intention w= as to try to replace capital equipment that had outlived its useful life. A replacement schedule will be pro= vided to the Board and reviewed each budget cycle.

The wording of the motion= was discussed. Mr. Gleason said it should reference ‘capital equipment’; he modified his motion. It was noted that the original mot= ion was seconded by Mr. Guimond. = The wording was further discussed.

Mr. Viger referred to a “Town Equipment Schedules” and asked if that was the capital equipment the Selectmen were looking to replace. Mr. Gleason answered yes. Mr. Viger asked if the title of the document could be changed so it could be referenced. Mr. Gleason answered yes. Mr. Viger noted under there were s= urplus Police cruisers listed under the Planning Department and Highway Department that had been given to those departments. He commented that now, based on the By-Law amendment, when those vehicles became obsolete they would be replace= d in the operating budget. Mr. Gle= ason believed those vehicles wouldn’t qualify under the Board’s guidelines for replacement vehicles because they were never approved by the voters in the first case. He = said they wouldn’t satisfy the ‘replacement’ requirement. He said the intent of the By-Law amendment was to allow the Selectmen to replace equipment that had already = been approved by the voters. Mr. V= iger felt those vehicles specified should be in a warrant article because they h= ad never been voted on by the voters. Mr. Gleason said the intent of the list was to notify the Board of w= hat would be coming forward; the Board would still have the prerogative to say something didn’t qualify and not put it in the budget. Mr. Viger said everyone understood= the intent today, however the wording should be specific for future Boards. Mr. Gaydos suggesting adding an as= terisk next to those vehicles on the ‘Town Equipment Schedule’ that we= re not considered replacement vehicles. Mr. Viger accepted the suggestion, but felt the Board should have a vote.

The Town Equipment Schedu= le will be amended to note which vehicles were considered replacement vehicles.

Mr. Gleason offered the f= ollowing amended wording for the proposed motion; Mr. Guimond seconded the amended motion as follows:

‘A replacement capital expenditure, limited to vehicles previously approved by the voters, may be inser= ted into an operational budget by a vote of the Budget Committee.’

MOTION:

(Gleason/Guimo= nd) To amend the Budget Committee By-Laws (Section VII,B,1,a) to read as follows: “A replacement capital expenditure, limited to vehicles previously appro= ved by the voters, may be inserted into an operational budget by a vote of the Budget Committee”.<= o:p>

VOTE:

(9-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Puddister voted no

Mr. Gaydos will provide t= he Board with a dated/updated Town Equipment Schedule.

2012 TOWN BUDGET V= OTE

Mr. Hall stated that the = current Selectmen’s budget number was $12,523,244.

Mr. Guimond provided an e= xcel spreadsheet with a breakdown of each department’s 2012 budget request with a comparison to the voted 2011 amount and the 2011 eight months expend= ed amount. SEE ATTACHMENT

The following budgets were reviewed – Voting slips/records attached.

Assessor – $150,115 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Budget Committee - $4,166 proposed. Mr. Guimond made a motion to decre= ase the budget to $4,082; removing $84 for budget books. Unanimous vote to approve the amen= ded figure.

Cable – $95,209 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimo= us vote to approve the requested figure.

Cemetery – $143,742 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the number $143,= 062; removing $680 for flowers. He= said they could get money from the earnings from the perpetual care trust availa= ble to them. Mr. Gleason said the Perpetual Care Trust allowed them to withdraw the interest. Unanimous vote to approve the amen= ded figure of $143,062.

Conservation Commission – $3,747 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous = vote to approve the requested figure.

Debt Service Interest/Principal – $707,657 proposed. Debt Service Principal-$541,310 /<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Debt Service Interest-$161,365. No additional comments. Unanimou= s vote to approve the requested figure.

Elections – $18,785 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure. If the primary is mov= ed to December, 2011; the number would be brought back during reconsideration.

Emergency Management - $8,809 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the number $7,05= 9; reducing cistern maintenance 50%. Fire Chief James Midgley said the department had spent approximately $3400 on cistern maintenance this year (that was absorbed in the budget; the proposed number was based in fact. There was no second to Mr. Guimond’s motion. The originally proposed figure of = $8,809 was moved by vote of (8-2-0) with Mr. Guimond and Mr. Viger voting no.&= nbsp;

Fire Department– $1,832,642 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the number $1,81= 8,602 with a second by Mr. Puddister; Supplies - level funding toner by reducing $540, Repairs - reducing general maintenance $1,500 fire apparatus, level f= und SCBA repairs by reducing $1,000, New Equipment – remove trailer conversion $11,000. Fire Chief James Midgley explained that the trailer was= a 1962 forestry hand-me-down trailer that contained $10,000-$12,000 of equipm= ent in the vehicle. Photographs w= ere provided for review. The vehi= cle was not safe in the manner in which it was being operated. The tanks weren’t secured. There was an inadequate fill station. The department would= like to take their high-end equipment out of the weather and mount it inside the trailer. Once mounted, the tr= ailer would work as a haz mat operation station.=

Mr. Cate questioned what = the lost equipment cost would be in the event the trailer (conversion) was not appro= ved. Chief Midgley said they had on-goi= ng issues. He believed they would spend a couple thousand to upkeep and refit the trailer in the next couple years. Mr. Cate commented tha= t the proposed trailer would pay for itself in the next five years.

Mr. Dunne wanted to know = if there would be a need for the trailer if the Town were to build a new fire station. Chief Midgley said t= he equipment could be inside (the building), but it equipment would still have safety issues to correct. Mr.= Dunne asked if there had been any research for a lease option versus purchasing t= he trailer. Chief Midgley replie= d that they already owned the trailer, they were looking to take equipment that th= ey currently owned and mount it inside the trailer that they currently owned.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The only item to purchase would be= a two-person fill station. The = fill station would cost approximately $7000 and would not need to be replaced.

Chief Midgley spoke to the maintenance issue. He said in= the last fourteen days he had spent out approximately $7000 in repairs. He showed photographs of equipment= prior to repairs. He said as the fl= eet aged, the maintenance bill would increase.= He noted that the SCBA’s were approximately 7-8 years old; thr= ee of which went in for repair in the last thirty days. He couldn’t speak to the ton= er; the budget is based upon the need. <= /span>Mr. Guimond said he may have found a place to purchase toner and would forward = the information to Mr. Gaydos.

Mr. Guimond modified his = motion to $1,829,602 adding the $11,000 back in for the trailer. Mr. Puddister accepted the modific= ation to the motion.

There was a voice vote to determine who was in favor of level funding toner by removing $540. Mr. Guimond and Mr. Lavallee voted= in favor; the other Board members voted in opposition.

There was a voice vote to determine who was in favor of reducing the repair budget by $1500. Mr. Guimond voted in favor; the ot= her Board members voted in opposition. <= /span>

There was a voice vote to determine who was in favor of reducing the SCBA repair by $1000. Mr. Guimond voted in favor; the ot= her Board members voted in opposition. <= /span>

The Board voted on the or= iginal figure of $1,832,642. Mr. Gui= mond was the sole opposing vote. <= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Health Officer – $43,766 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Health Services – $46,235 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Highway Department – $1,296,445 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the figure $1,28= 6,445; level funding repairs by removing $10,000.= This was the proposed figure for repairs of vehicles that would be replaced within the budget. M= r. Gleason concurred with the comments. = He said the Highway Road Agent told the Board if the vehicle was in the budget= the $10,000 (for repairs) would not be needed.= It was noted there was still a balance of equipment that would need repairs, and there was $32,000 contained in the repairs budget for those vehicles.

Mr. Puddister asked if es= cape clauses were built into the lease agreements for the proposed vehicles. Mr. Gaydos stated any lease signed within the State of New Hamps= hire required an escape clause (non-appropriation) and also contained a non-replacement clause (can’t replace the vehicle for the remainder of the lease term).

The Board voted on the pr= oposed figure of $1,286,445. Unanimo= us vote to approve the amended figure.

Human Services – $86,480 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to a= pprove the requested figure.

Insurance – $1,880,883 proposed. The figure was a placeholder subje= ct to change. Unanimous vote to app= rove the requested figure.

Legal – $85,000 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Library - $230,256 proposed. No additional comme= nts. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Park & Recreation – $183,531 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Planning Department – $286,080 proposed. Mr. Viger offered a motion for an amended figure of $254,131. M= r. Lavallee seconded the motion. Mr. Viger stated that the amendment would cut the salary of the Code Enforcement Officer ($25,708) and the leased car.

Mr. Gaydos noted the Sele= ctmen have already removed the ($1258) increase for the Code Enforcement. The figure in the motion was amend= ed to $255,389; Mr. Viger and Mr. Lavallee agreed.

Mr. Gleason addressed code enforcement, which has always been a problem in Town. He was reluctant to give up the ab= ility to conduct effective code enforcement.&nbs= p; He believed cutting the money would hamper the Town so it couldnR= 17;t do the job of code enforcement effectively and cause degradation in the Tow= n.

Mr. Viger said he didn= 217;t like the results of what the Code Officer was producing in doing the job. He tried to cut it back last year = but didn’t receive support. He said he had been particularly watchful of what went on with the position for the money that the position was making.&nb= sp; He said he hadn’t seen results from what was actually being do= ne; if results were produced of what had been accomplished during the year he w= ould be happy to support the position at reconsideration, but couldn’t do = so at this time. Mr. Gleason rep= lied that the Planning Director had a lot of statistical information that could = be provided showing the results of efforts by code enforcement.

Planning Director Jeff Go= wan came forward. He said he didn̵= 7;t have the statistics with him, but felt there was a misconception that the c= ode enforcement officer just drove around Town. He stated that the results could be found in the files. Mr. Gowan= said the code officer was sent out to do specific projects and there were folks that were in compliance and fell back out of compliance. There was a need to maintain scrut= iny. Mr. Viger said the Board hadn̵= 7;t seen the results. He asked th= at those results be produced of what was being done and questioned why a three-day/full time person was needed for the position.

Mr. Lavallee commented th= at there were a couple of Zoning violations that were glaring errors which should ha= ve been corrected. He was concer= ned about this fact.

Mr. Gleason stated that t= he Selectmen received bi-weekly reports. He had seen past reports where letters were sent out for non-complia= nce. He said when there were issues the= code officer had to determine a course of action and reported back to Mr. Gowan = for such. He felt code enforcemen= t was a job that needed a dedicated person. The Selectmen felt code enforcement was a problem in Town that had t= o be monitored so it didn’t get back to the level it was at in 2005 when t= here were rampant enforcement issues that weren’t being addressed.

Mr. Dunne asked how much = time was spent performing investigations and completing paperwork. He also wanted to know how much ti= me it took to build a case against someone versus the cost of being sued. Mr. Gowan outlined the typical schedule. He said he wanted t= he person in the position to be out of the office. He stated it was an ongoing battle= to keep people in compliance and review complaints. He said it was not something he co= uld do on his own. He wouldn’t= be able to keep the level going that the Selectmen wanted. Mr. Dunne asked if Mr. Gowan felt = the person in the position deserved an increase. Mr. Gowan said there was no increa= se in the budget.

Mr. Cate questioned procedure. He wanted to know = if the Board was to vote the position down, and later received statistics, if they would come back and review the position at reconsideration. Or, if the Board needed to zero out the position in order to discuss further at reconsiderat= ion. Mr. Viger’s point was the Bo= ard had requested the information and had not received it. He felt by cutting the position it= would put pressure on to provide ba= ck up. Mr. Gowan replied that he had prov= ided the Board with everything that had been requested. Mr. Viger hadn’t seen anythi= ng submitted that supported the position.&nbs= p;

Mr. Sherman noted that the vehicle would also be eliminated and questioned if there were other individ= uals that the vehicle would be useful for. He wanted to know if the vehicle should be separated from the position. Mr. Gowan said the vehicle would primarily be used by the Code Enforcement individual, but wou= ld certainly be used by others, including himself for going to meetings. He requested that the Board put the gasoline and maintenance back into the budget if they decided to cut the vehicle. He would need those amounts for the vehicle currently being used.

Mr. Viger pointed out tha= t the proposed lease vehicle had never been voted on by the people; it didn’= ;t belong in the budget and should be removed and placed into a warrant articl= e.

The Board voted on the pr= oposed amended figure of $255,389. The motion failed (5-5-0) Mr. Sherman, Mr. Cate, Mr. Dunne, Ms. Larson, Mr. Gleason voted no.

Mr. Sherman made a motion= to move the figure $260,057 taking out the code enforcement officer position but leaving the vehicle. Mr. Guim= ond seconded the motion. Mr. Glea= son asked that the Board not remove the position. He reiterated that the Town needed= code enforcement. He assured the B= oard that they would receive a spreadsheet of the code enforcement incidents/violations. He didn’t want the ongoing process that was in place to be jeopardized.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Viger said if the information = was produced, they could put the position back in at reconsideration.

Mr. Viger commented that = the Board had amended its By-Laws (at the beginning of the meeting), therefore = the proposed vehicle shouldn’t be in the budget and should be a warrant article. Mr. Gleason noted th= at the cost didn’t exceed the price of the police cruisers. Mr. Hall didn’t believe the = Board intended (by amending the By-= Laws) to purchase a vehicle to replace a drop down car. Mr. Gleason requested if the Board decided to move the car into a warrant article, that they restore the money= for gasoline and repairs in the operating budget. He further requested that the warr= ant article contain the stipulation (if it were to pass) that the money would b= e moved from the budget. If this Board proceeded with the suggestion, $850 (gasoline) and $700 (repairs) would be = put back into the budget.

Mr. Sherman withdrew his motion. Mr. Guimond withdrew = his second.

Mr. Guimond moved the fig= ure $256,939. Mr. Puddister secon= ded the motion. Mr. Guimond expla= ined that the gasoline and repairs figure of $1,550 would be restored; these fig= ures had been previously reduced by the Selectmen when the new vehicle was put i= nto the budget. The breakdown was as follows: propo= sed figure $286,080, remove $315 increase for inspectors, remove salary $25,708= for code enforcement/zoning admin, and remove $4,668 for the Ford Focus. The new figure was then $255,389.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Add back in $1550 for gasoline and repairs.

The Board voted on the pr= oposed amended figure of $256,939. T= he code enforcement/zoning administrator position and vehicle were removed. The gasoline and repairs were put = back into the budget.

There would be no increas= e for inspectors. The motion carrie= d (8-2-0) Mr. Gleas= on and Ms. Larson voted no.

Police Department – $2,399,417 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Retirement – $1,149,113 proposed. The number was not a pl= ace holder, it was accurate; if there was a change it would be in the upcoming union agreements. Unanimous v= ote to approve the requested figure.

Selectmen – $477,738 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the figure $472,738. Mr. Puddister secon= ded the motion. The non-union wage increase was decreased 50% ($5,000). Mr. Guimond stated in this day and age with most people not getting raises, he felt $10,000 was hefty for the budget. Mr. Hall asked how many employees = were included. Mr. Gaydos said all= of the department heads (Town Clerk/Tax Collector, Planning Director, Park &am= p; Recreation Director, Town Administrator, Finance Director, Executive Secret= ary, Welfare Administrator, Transfer Station, Highway Road Agent, etc.) Mr. Guimond withdrew his motion. Mr. Puddister withdrew his second.=

The Board voted on the or= iginal proposed figure of $477,738. Unanimous vote to approve the requested figure.

Senior Center – $94,081 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the figure $93,5= 61. Mr. Puddister seconded the motion = for discussion. Mr. Guimond sugge= sted level funding office supplies reducing $320 and remove $200 from copier rep= air since there was a new printer/copier in the budget. Mr. Gleason asked that the budget = remain in tact. The Director was new= in the position and had put the budget together to the best of their ability b= ased upon what they foresee. He fe= lt they put together a reasonable budget and didn’t want them to be limited. Mr. Guimond withdrew= his motion. Mr. Puddister withdre= w his second.

The Board voted on the or= iginal proposed figure of $94,081. U= nanimous vote to approve the requested figure.

Town Buildings – $527,102 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Town Celebrations – $9,055 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Town Clerk/Tax Collector – $208,297 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to a= pprove the requested figure.

Transfer Station – $546,399 proposed. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requ= ested figure.

Treasurer – $8,331 proposed. Mr. Guimond moved the figure $7,85= 1. Mr. Viger seconded the motion. Mr. Guimond didn’t feel the increase being sought was warranted. He said seven years ago the responsibilities were decreased; there w= as no decrease in pay at that time and he felt the position had been overpaid during that time. Mr. Viger withdrew his second. Mr. Gleason commented that the treasurer hadn’t received an increase in some amount of time. He said they were doing an excepti= onal job in the position and felt the increase was warranted. No other second was offered to Mr. Guimond’s motion.

The Board voted on the or= iginal proposed figure of $8,331. The motion carried with a (8-1-0) vote. Mr. Guimond voted no. <= /p>

Trust Funds – $145. No additional comments. Unanimous vote to approve the requested figure.

Mr. Guimond stated that t= he new bottom line figure was $12,483,339.

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To approve the new 2012 Town Budget bottom line figure of $12,483,339.

VOTE:

(9-1-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. Gleason voted = no.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Lavallee/Guim= ond) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:50 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