BC20121004

APPROVED

TOWN OF PEL= HAM

BUDGET COMM= ITTEE - MEETING MINUTES

Thursday, O= ctober 4, 2012

APPROVED – = October 18, 2012

CALL TO ORDER – approximately 7:30pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Larry Hall, Mr. Dan= iel Guimond, Mr. Bob Sherman, Mr. Greg Farris (arrived at approximately 7:42p= m - Elections budget), Mr. David Cate, M= r. Greg Smith, Mr. Dave Cronin, Ms. Daryle Hillsgrove, Mr. Ken Dunne, School Board Representative Megan Larson, Selectmen Representative Doug Viger

ABSENT:

None.

Also Present: Finance Director Cindy Kelley, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

MEETING MINUTES=

September 20, 2012

MOTION:

(Guimond/Sherm= an)To approve the September 20, 2012 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(9-0-1) The motion carried. Mr. Dunne abstained.

September 24, 2012

MOTION:

(Guimond/Sherm= an)To approve the September 24, 2012 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(8-0-2) The motion carried. Mr. Farris and Ms. Larson abstained.

2013 TOWN BUDGET VOTE

Mr. Hall stated that the Selectmen’s number would be on the floor. The Board would take a motion to either approve the number, or modify such. At the end of the review/vote they will make necessary adjustments and vote on= the new number.

The Selectmen’s number on the floor : $12,797,454.

Assessor – $150,650 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Viger/Cronin)= To approve $150,650 as the 2013 Assessor budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------------

Budget Committee- $4,082 proposed= . No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Guimond/Cate)= To approve $4,082 as the 2013 Budget Committee budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------

Cable – $96,460 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Dunne/Cate)To= approve $96,460 as the 2013 Cable budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------------

Cemetery – $143,114 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Dunne/Guimond= )To approve $143,114 as the 2013 Cemetery budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------

Conservation Commission – $3,747 proposed.

Mr. Cate proposed reducing Supplies by $100 because not more than $86 had been spent.

MOTION:

(Cate/Guimond)= To approve $3,647 as the 2013 Conservation Commission budget.

VOTE:

(5-5-0) The motion failed. Mr. Hall, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Dunne Mr. Viger and Ms. Larson voted no.

MOTION:

(Dunne/Sherman= )To approve $3,747 as the 2013 Conservation Commission budget.

VOTE:

(7-3-0) The motion carried. Mr. Guimond,= Mr. Cronin and Mr. Cate voted no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

Debt Service Interest – $145,503 proposed.

Mr. Cate proposed reducing the TAN Interest by $4,999 to $1 placeholder. Mr. Dunne seconded. Mr. Cate commented that he believed it = was a contingency number and there had been times in the past that it was a placeholder. Mr. Viger explained t= hat the TAN number was in place to ensure that the Town could cover the interes= t rate if they needed to borrow money in times when tax dollars were short and the county needed to be paid. He said = in the past they were fortunate, but this year with the tight economy they were unsure. Mr. Cate questioned if the= money could be spent elsewhere if it remained in the budget. Mr. Viger answered yes, and noted if th= ey had to come up with TAN, it would need to be pulled from a different part of the budget. Mr. Gaydos said in the pas= t they had lowered the figure to $1 placeholder; however, this year they took $2.1 million dollars out of the undesignated surplus for the fire station, which left $1.4 million dollars remaining. He said there was a very good chance they would have to borrow. He noted that the $5000 would cover day= s of interest versus a month or so. Mr. Gaydos would like to leave the figure at $5000 because calculations show th= at they may have to borrow for a few days and the amount would be used up quickly. He noted they would do everything they could to make sure they wouldn’t have to borrow. Mr. Cate asked if things would get bett= er enough next year to be able to have a placeholder figure. Mr. Gaydos said they would look at the forecast next year. He told the Bo= ard that the Supreme Court ordered the Local Government Center to repay $52 mil= lion dollars to the communities that participated with them. There is still to be a discussion regar= ding how it will be paid out. He expect= ed the Town’s surplus should start to move back. He said they didn’t worry about TAN around the $2 million dollar poi= nt, but because the Town was currently at approximately $1.4 million dollars, he asked that the TAN be left in the budget.

Based on the explanation, Mr. Cate withdrew his motion. Mr. Dunne withdrew his second. The Selectmen’s figure remained.

MOTION:

To approve $14= 5,503 as the 2013 Debt Service Interest budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

Debt Service Principal – $437,366 proposed. No additional comments.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $437,366 as the 2013 Debt Service Principal budget.

VOTE:

(10-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------

Mr. Farris arrived.

Elections – $9,846 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Viger/Cate)To= approve $9,846 as the 2013 Elections budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ----------------------------

Emergency Management – $8,809 proposed. No additional comments. =

MOTION:

(Guimond/Sherm= an)To approve $8,809 as the 2013 Emergency Management budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------

Fire Department – 1,944,026 propo= sed.

Mr. Guimond proposed $1,935,474; a reduction of $8,552. Mr. Farris seconded. Mr. Guimond suggested level funding Gen= eral Maintenance Repairs to $12,000, reduction of $4,500. Reduce cost of storage trailer from $75= 6 to 504. Decrease $3,800 from the cost= of Firefighting training (Company Officer Development) from $12,800 to $9,000.= Mr. Viger commented that the Board of Selectmen tasked the Fire Chief to have a very lean budget. He said the Chief explained to the Sele= ctmen the items he wanted to increase and the items that were required to have the department function efficiently. He noted that the Selectmen had cut approximately $20,000 out of the budget pr= ior to coming to the Budget Committee.

Fire Chief James Midgley came forward to address the items the Budget Committee = was proposing to reduce. He began with General Maintenance and stated they were having issues with anything made, = or moved by petroleum. They had seen significant increases in their costs, such as tires which had increased approximately 40%-49%. It was note= d that they had dropped the pump out of Engine 3 that ended up being a $6,000 repair. Chief Midgley said next ye= ar they would have to drop the pump out of Engine 1 and with it being approximately 18 years old, they won’t be as lucky as to have a $6,000 repair. He discussed some of the t= hings that could be found when reviewing Engine 1. He said generally vehicles didn’t fail when being tested, they failed when at a call.

Chief Midgley shared an e-mail with the Board that had been forwarded to the Selectmen regarding EMT training. = He informed that the State would be abolishing the EMT Intermediate 85 program= . Anyone currently an Intermediate will h= ave to relicense at an advanced level. Th= e cost for Pelham’s fire department will be approximately $13,000. He would have to not only pay for holdi= ng a training course, but would also have to pay the employees to attend.

Mr. Farris addressed the maintenance line and saw that there was a separate line for tires that also contained an increase. He asked if the department was paying more, or if the price of the t= ires had increased. Chief Midgley said = the price of tires had increased and they were putting a lot more miles on their vehicles. Mr. Farris questioned if= the budget for tires was large enough. Chief Midgley said his maintenance officer did a very good job at tracking out and reviewing wear and tear and scheduling them for replacement.

Mr. Guimond said he would like to remove his adjustment for Maintenance Repairs= and the training. Mr. Farris, who seco= nded the motion agreed with the adjustment to the motion.

The new number reviewed was $1,943,774. The only adjustment remaining was $252 for the storage trailer.

MOTION:

(Guimond/Farri= s)To approve $1,943,774 as the 2013 Fire Department budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ---------------------------

Health Officer – $43,766 proposed= . No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Croni= n)To approve $43,766 as the 2013 Health Officer budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Health Services – $51, 175 propos= ed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $5,175 as the 2013 Health Services budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Highway – $1,358,065 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Viger/Cate)To= approve $1,358,065 as the 2013 Highway budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Human Services – $86,480 proposed= .

Mr. Cronin proposed an increase of $5,720 bringing the proposed budget to $92,200. Mr. Cate seconded the mo= tion for discussion. Based on the Board= ’s discussion with the Human Services Director Dawn Holdsworth, Mr. Cronin believed it was evident that the office had increased their work hours. He said his motion would put the number= of compensated hours at fifteen and keeping the same pay rate. The salary figure would be changed to $17,160. Mr. Guimond offered a fri= endly amendment to base the hours on the 2012 average hours worked; the total wou= ld be $89,340 (increase of $2,860).

Mr. Gaydos was happy that the Board understood and appreciated this aspect of t= he work. He said Ms. Holdsworth only = worked the hours she was needed and was paid for every hour she worked. He said she was very involved and her knowledge was worth a lot. He appreciated anything the Board did to support the position.

Mr. Cronin and Mr. Cate accepted the friendly amendment to the motion.

Mr. Farris questioned why the Selectmen didn’t raise the number of hours based = on the historic number of hours worked. Mr. Viger said the Director was tasked to draft the budget. She came in with a proposal and the Sel= ectmen weren’t in a position to micromanage the department.

Mr. Dunne asked if the Ms. Holdsworth had requested additional hours or complai= ned about a lack of hours. Mr. Hall co= mmented that Ms. Holdsworth worked when she was needed. She’s a part time employee and worked on the weekends when needed. Ms. Kelley said Ms. Holdsworth had gon= e over the hours, but had been paid for them. Mr. Dunne asked where the money came from. Ms. Kelley said the hours worked are an average; Ms. Holdsworth may work two hours during one week and then fifteen hours another week. Mr. Dunne asked if she went over the projected hours during the course of the year. Ms. Kelley answered no. Mr.= Gaydos said Ms. Holdsworth reviewed the bottom line for the department; if she felt that she would be in trouble with the Expenses line item, she would have sa= id something. He noted many times whe= n she meets with people, they simply need counseling.

Mr. Smith said he would be open to increasing the budget, but had issue with adjustment because it didn’t come from the Selectmen. Mr. Cronin pointed out that back up information had been given to the Board showing the average weekly hours as doubling in the two years she’d worked in the position.

Mr. Farris said the Selectmen had the ability to move money around within the budget. He noted at times there are surpluses that go into the General Fund. He felt in this instance the Board should move the figure the Select= men requested. Mr. Hall commented that= he was sure Ms. Holdsworth didn’t know what her average hours were in the year 2012, but she always was paid. He = said when she gets a call, she comes into work. He believed the backup documentation was a better indication of what should be in the budget.

Ms. Hillsgrove said once the hours were reviewed, they showed an increase each = year from 2010, 2011 and 2012. She felt= it was reasonable to use the information presented that showed Ms. Holdsworth worked more than ten hours. She supported the increase in hours. <= /p>

MOTION:

(Cronin/Cate)To approve $89,340 as the 2013 Human Services budget.

VOTE:

(9-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Farris a= nd Mr. Dunne voted no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Mr. Gaydos noted they would return with this budget at reconsideration because = they didn’t have the final number.

Insurance – $1,837,095 proposed.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Hills= grove)To approve $1,837,095 as the 2013 Insurance budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Legal – $85,000 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $85,000 as the 2013 Legal budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Library – $235,947 proposed.

Mr. Guimond proposed a reduction to $234,455 eliminating the salary increases.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Farris seconded the motion.

Ms. Larson asked the last time the employees had received an increase. Mr. Gaydos said they were an independent group and a lot of people had changed positions. Mr. Sherman said they had a 1% increase= in 2010. Ms. Larson asked how many employees the amount covered. Ms. Hillsgrove believed it covered four full time and five part time employees. Mr. Guimond said he was keeping the increase in hours; he was only cutting the raise.

Mr. Cate asked what the average raise would be. Ms. Hillsgrove said she received an e-mail from one of the Trustees = and noted that the increases would be $.12-$.13 and one of them possibly $.25.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

(Guimond/Farri= s)To approve $234,455 as the 2013 Library budget.

VOTE:

(2-9-0) The motion failed. Mr. Guimond and Mr. Farris voted in the affirmative to decrease the overall budget. The remainder of the Board voted no.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Cate)= To approve $235,947 as the 2013 Library budget.

VOTE:

(9-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Guimond = and Mr. Farris voted no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Parks & Recreation – $185,050 proposed. No additional comments. =

MOTION:

(Sherman/Cate)= To approve $185,050 as the 2013 Parks & Recreation budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Planning Department – $303,398 proposed.

Mr. Guimond proposed $296,094. Mr. Cro= nin seconded for discussion.

Decrease $3,000 for vacation replacement – there are three people in the office, with one on vacation two employees remain in the office; Remove engineering consulting $1,499 – Mr. Gaydos indicated the department didn’t have the expense; Remove $5,075 for new vehicle – Mr. Guimond believed the taxpayers= had never voted on a new vehicle for this department. He commented the new vehicle was on the ballot last year and the taxpayers overwhelmingly voted no. With the new vehicle being removed, the= lines for gas/oil ($1,620) and repairs ($650) would be added back.

Mr. Hall suggested that the Board take the adjustments individually.

Mr. Viger commented regarding the reduction to the salary line. He said the office had a staff of three people, each of which had complete duties on a daily basis. He said when someone took a vacation; t= wo people weren’t enough to handle the office work. He said the fill-in person was needed to answer phones, direct messages, and offer customer service. Mr. Viger said by cutting the fill in p= osition, it would impact on the taxpayers who used the department. Mr. Cate asked who filled in. Mr. Viger replied there were one or two= part time employees that were called when needed to fill in.

Mr. Sherman asked if the office was covered only when someone was on vacation.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He wanted to know what happened when so= meone was out sick. Mr. Viger believed a= sick day would be absorbed by the department; but a long-term vacation would be covered by someone that was scheduled. Mr. Gaydos said the department could handle a day or two, but with an employee absent for a week it was a little difficult. Mr. Hall asked if the Code Inspector co= uld assist. Mr. Gaydos said when that = person was in the office they came in to complete their own paperwork.

ROLL CALL:

To decrease $3= ,000 from Salaries for the office coverage.

VOTE:

(4-7-0) The motion failed. Mr. Cronin, = Mr. Farris, Mr. Guimond, and Mr. Hall voted in the affirmative to remove the = line item. The remainder of the Board= voted no.

MOTION:

To remove $1,4= 99 for Engineering Consulting Fees from Expenses, leaving $1 placeholder.

VOTE:

(9-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Viger an= d Ms. Larson voted no.

The Board then addressed the vehicle. = Mr. Guimond stated the total number would be a reduction of $2,805. This represented the addition of $1,620= for gasoline/oil, $650 for repairs, and the reduction of $5,075 for the new vehicle.

Mr. Viger appreciated Mr. Guimond position, but made the argument that by approving the budget from year to year, in essence the vehicle had been approved by the taxpayers. He said there was a good point brought up at the previous meeting regarding how economical the new vehicle would be to run versus the current vehicle. He urged the Board to kee= p the vehicle in the budget.

Mr. Sherman felt the voters should have the opportunity to vote regarding the vehicle. He said the warrant article explanation could include the economic reasons why the vehicle would be beneficial.

Mr. Cronin asked for the history of why new vehicles went to the voters by way of warrant articles. Mr. Hall said new purchases would be wa= rrant articles; replacement vehicles would be allowed to be put into the budget b= y a vote of the Budget Committee. He s= aid the question regarding the vehicle was that the existing vehicle was a drop down (former police vehicle) from the Police Department that was being prop= osed to be replaced. He said Board had = never viewed that type of situation in the past as a ‘replacement’ vehicle. Mr. Guimond further stated that the int= ent of the policy was the Board didn’t want a lot of new equipment brought in the = Town into different departments that the taxpayer didn’t have the opportunity to make a decision on.

Ms. Hillsgrove asked how many years the Planni= ng Department had used the existing vehicle. Mr. Gaydos provided the history of the vehicle. The vehicle went through the cycle of b= eing a Police cruiser, and then it went to the Fire Department for a period of four years and now the vehicle was in its second year with the Planning Department. Ms. Hillsgrove support= ed keeping the vehicle in the budget. She believed the need had been identified. The vehicle had been kept in the Town’s fleet, even when it was replaced, and it had been reallocated to the Planning Department. She said the vehicle was reaching its e= nd of life and the Town had been paying for maintenance, repairs and service. If the department didn’t get the new ve= hicle they would pay out at least $3000 for the employee to get around in their o= wn personal vehicle. Ms. Hillsgrove n= oted that Mr. Gaydos informed the Board that it wasn’t a high paying position. It would be difficult to ask someone to= put 7000 miles on their own vehicle with the IRS rate (for mileage); it wouldn’= t be an economical proposition. She bel= ieved since the vehicle had been kept in the Town’s fleet, the argument of having= the voters vote on the vehicle should have been prior to it being reallocated to another department. She stated fur= ther it would be a different situation if it were a new vehicle that the departm= ent never had the use of, but because it was kept in the fleet and it should be replaced.

Mr. Cate commented that the payback period for= the new vehicle (without assuming major repairs) would be in less than seven ye= ars given that the life of it would be 12-15 years. He said there would be a savings of over $2,000 a year for five to s= ix years. It would pay for itself over time.

Mr. Guimond didn’t refute the fact that the department needed a new vehicle. He refuted the fact that the taxpayers had never had an opportunity to put the vehicle in the fleet. He was compl= etely in support of a warrant article. H= e had a problem with the taxpayer not having a choice.

Mr. Gaydos questioned the chances that a code officer position would have of passing if it was a warrant article. He said most people don’t like code enforcement. He commented if they = kept the existing vehicle and the transmission went on it, they may as well say goodbye to the position. He said t= hey would have to pay a lot more money (in salary) for a person to use their own car. He said one of the problems w= ith code enforcement was having consistency.

Ms. Larson said when some items were placed in warrant articles part of the story isn’t told. She said voters wouldn’t see the money for gas/oil/repairs being add= ed back into a budget. She stated it = was the Board’s job to be fiscally responsible and by keeping the car in the bu= dget they would be doing the right thing.

Mr. Dunne believed at this point the vehicle in the budget was a replacement vehicle based on the fact that it had been use= d by the department and money had been spent in the previous budgets for its upkeep. He said it wasn’t really a= new piece of equipment; that was already established when the Police car was donated and all the expenses (associated with the vehicle) were incurred. Mr. Dunne didn’t see the value of putti= ng the car in a warrant article when it wasn’t really a new piece of equipment.

Mr. Smith was torn with his decision. He was very concerned with setting a precedent with new vehicles and believed the tax payers needed a chance to weigh in. He felt Mr. Gaydos made excellent points. As Ms. Larson po= inted out, he didn’t realize there were other expenses already being paid when he voted on the warrant last year regarding the car. He said it wasn’t an easy decision.

Mr. Viger pointed out with the efficiency of t= he Police Department leasing vehicles, there was no longer an option for other department to receive a handed down vehicle.

Mr. Farris said the argument on any warrant article was the responsibility of the Selectmen or the School Board to info= rm voters what the article pertains to. He said the voters approved the existing vehicle for the Police Department; the Police Department got its full use out of it and replaced it because it was already in the budget. He said a v= ehicle for the Planning Department had never been approved by the voters. He noted that the discussion last year regarding the code officer and the vehicle was somewhat last minute. He believed if a warrant article was do= ne logically, like other warrant articles, they may see support from the voters. He felt by putting the car= in the budget it set a precedent on equipment without giving the voters a chan= ce to say whether they wanted it or not.

Ms. Hillsgrove understood what was being said about setting a precedent. She sai= d it would be different if it was a brand new car coming in; however, this was a vehicle that was used and continued to be maintained in addition to the replacement cruiser. She said in t= he future, should there be an opportunity of there being a left over vehicle in the fleet, there was now awareness by the Selectmen, Budget Committee and departments how the situation would be handled.

Mr. Hall said the left over Police vehicles th= at were used in Planning, Highway and Parks & Recreation were never intend= ed to be replaced. He said the voters= had a chance to approve the (Planning) vehicle, and didn’t do so. He said in each situation a case had to= be made. He felt it was a new vehicle= that was not replacing part of the fleet.

ROLL CALL:

A vote in the affirmative will remove $2,805 from the Planning Department budget. This represents the removal of $5,075= for the vehicle, and the addition of $1,620 for gas/oil and the addition of $= 650 for repairs. <= /b>

VOTE:

(6-5-0) The motion carried.

Yes – Mr. Hall, Mr. Guimond, Mr. Cronin, Mr. Smith, Mr. Farris and Mr. Sherma= n;

No – Mr. Viger, Ms. Larson, Mr. Dunne, Mr. Cate and Ms. Hillsgrove.

= =

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $299,094 as the 2013 Planning Department budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Police – $2,472,522 proposed.

Mr. Cate proposed reducing $9,928 from Expenses for CALEA, this would level fund the line to last year’s number of $5,000. Mr. Cronin seconded the motion. Mr. Cate said based on what the Board was told it sounded as if the money would be spent on an outside service coming in and making recommendat= ions to the Police Department to tell them what they were doing well. He understood that it was for an accreditation, but he viewed it as an outside consulting service. He said it wasn’t mandatory and believe= d it could be done over time. Mr. Viger commented that this was the last year of a multi-year program, of which the dollar amount was proposed so they could seek National accreditation.

Police Lieutenant Brian McCarthy and Lieutenant Gary Fisher came forward to discuss the budget and answer questions. L= t. McCarthy began by addressing the question regarding the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (‘CALEA’). He stated CALEA wrote policies and proc= edures for police departments, correctional facilities, communication centers, etc. all within the goal of reducing liability, reducing law suits against agenc= ies and increasing efficiency. They en= sure that officers are trained to the best of their ability and the department w= as functionally efficient in the community and the manner they execute their j= obs.

Mr. Cate asked if it was mandatory that the department finish the process this year. Lt. McCarthy said it was approximately $5,500 to apply for accreditation and in doing so the departm= ent would receive many resources from the organization including computer software. The CALEA organization i= s run by legal representatives, such as judges, lawyers, police officers and othe= rs in the legal profession. Lt. McCar= thy said he started the program Chief Roark two years ago and in this third year they would conduct a mock drill as a pre-assessment to make sure the depart= ment was 100% ready for the real assessment. The cost in this year’s budget was broken down into three parts; the first being the cost for CALEA the second being the mock drill and last was= the actual cost for the assessment. It= was noted at the beginning of the three-year process the department decided to break the overall CALEA cost of $15,000 into three years, rather than pay a lump sum, and then in the third year (this year) add the assessment cost. Next year the CALEA cost would be reduc= ed back to $5000 to start the cycle over again. Mr. Cate asked if accreditation would save the Town money in the long run. Lt. McCarthy answered yes; the trends had shown that accredited agencies were less likely to be involved in litigation/law suits. When accredi= ted agencies are involved in law suits the payouts are significantly reduced. The department would have cost savings because they would have policies in place that were written by scholars and legal experts to govern and operate their agency. He stated most importantly, when the P= elham Police attained accreditation status, they will have attained a National standard of excellence. Mr. Cate questioned why accreditation was a three year process and not a five year process. Lt. McCarthy said CALEA s= et the formula for the timeframe. His best guess was in having a three year process versus a five year process CALEA w= ould be able to keep up with constantly changing laws and new case law. This would ensure agencies were staying within the standards and remaining in the window of having less liability.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

Lt. McCarthy told the Board he was tasked with reviewing the department’s polic= ies and procedures when Chief Roark became chief. In that process they learned the department had forty-four policies = that managed the agency; those policies were significantly out of date. In the last two years, Lt. McCarthy had= been re-writing policies. They now had = one hundred fifty-one policies that managed the agency. This is an indicator that there is a lot going on, laws have changed= and trends have changed.

Ms. Hillsgrove stated the CALEA process was very similar to the International Organization for Standard (‘ISO’) procedure. For ISO there’s a listing for how things are supposed to be handled, what needs to be in place to have effective policies and procedures; there = are requirements for training being done certain ways. In summary, it was basically a document= ation process for how things are done, officers are trained to the policies, and those policies are certified. Periodically these things are rechecked to make sure everything is b= eing kept up to date when policy changes are being made. This includes retraining and records up= keep so if there is a court challenge, the policy could be pulled to show documentation, justification and how the person was certified. Ms. Hillsgrove said it was a lengthy pr= ocess that couldn’t be done in pieces; assessments show baseline status so target= ed areas could be worked on. This wil= l aide in getting the department in shape to be defensible; the three year checkup will ensure that the department is keeping up with the standards put in place. She explained typically a department will receive one price/one package and they would need to work through the entire package. If certification is lost they would need to start all over again.

Mr. Farris asked for an explanation of the costs contained in the proposed budget. Lt. McCarthy replied the b= udget number covered costs for attending CALEA conferences and supplies. He explained that the department was ne= aring the end of the process. They’ve rewritten policies, the building was where they needed it; now after two ye= ars of long and dedicated work, the next logical step for the department was to begin the assessment process. The = past money budgeted was not directly related to what they were seeking within the 2013 budget request. Mr. Farris wa= nted to know what the program cost would be over the three-year period. Lt. McCarthy said the accreditation was $15,000; they had opted to break that amount into three years versus paying= the total amount up front.

Mr. Dunne questioned if attaining accreditation would help the department obtain grants. Lt. McCarthy couldn’t spea= k to whether the accreditation would give the department distinct advantage towa= rds applying for grants. He said his a= nd the Chief’s main focus in doing the project was to streamline the department, m= ake it more efficient and reduce liabilities.

Mr. Viger understood that $15,000 would bring the department up to standard and questioned how the budget would be structured going forward. Lt. McCarthy said the cost is $15,000 f= or three years. He would like to stay= on the $5,000 per year increment. Eve= ry three years there’s an additional cost (approximately $10,000) for the mock assessment. The budget would be as follows: 1^st year-$5,000; 2^nd year-$5,000; 3^{rd
year-$15,000 (approximately).}

Mr. Cronin wanted to know what would happen if the $9,000 was pulled from the proposed budget. Lt. McCarthy said= they wouldn’t be able to apply for accreditation. Mr. Cronin asked if the $10,000 from the previous years would be lost. Lt. McCarthy said this was t= he department’s first attempt at reaching accreditation. If the $10,000 was taken away, the depa= rtment wouldn’t be able to apply for the mock assessment. They could still apply for the accredit= ation, but it would be fruitless (without first having a mock drill). It was noted that the unexpended money = in the budget couldn’t be carried over. <= /p>

Mr. Farris understood that during the past two years the department was prepari= ng for the accreditation and without funding in the budget the process would be put off longer.

ROLL CALL:

A vote in the affirmative will remove $9,928 from the Police Department budget. This represents the removal of $9,928= from Expenses in the CALEA line.

VOTE:

(3-8-0) The motion failed.

Yes – Mr. Guimond, Mr. Cate and Mr. Cronin;

No – Mr. Hall, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Farris, Mr. Smith, Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Dunne, = Mr. Viger

and Ms. Larson.

MOTION:

(Guimond/Sherm= an)To approve $2,472,522 as the 2013 Police budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Retirement – $1,249,300 proposed.= No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $1,249,300 as the 2013 Retirement budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Selectmen – $481,742 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Cate)= To approve $481,742 as the 2013 Selectmen budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Senior Center – $99,734 proposed.= No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Cate)= To approve $99,734 as the 2013 Senior Center budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= --------------------------

Town Buildings – $568,742 propose= d.

Mr. Guimond proposed $559,742. Mr. Far= ris seconded for discussion. Mr. Guimond said there was a proposed increase for electricity of $18,000 because of the new fire station. Because the number seemed to be a conti= ngency figure, he recommended reducing it by $9,000. Mr. Viger told the Board that the Selectmen had already cut $12,000 = out of electricity line; they kept the remaining amount for the same reason of = not knowing what electricity costs would be for the new fire station. Mr. Gaydos commented that the actual in= crease from 2012 was $7,000, not $18,000. He said the requested amount had been $18,000, but the Selectmen cut it back t= o a $7,000 increase. It was noted that= the cover page had an incorrect figure. Mr. Guimond withdrew his motion. Mr. F= arris withdrew his second.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Croni= n)To approve $568,742 as the 2013 Town Buildings budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------------

Town Celebrations – $9,830 proposed.

Mr. Cate proposed $9,702. He suggested reducing the budget by $128 because of the lack of back up information in t= he contingency line under Expenses. M= r. Sherman seconded the motion.

Ms. Hillsgrove asked if the figures in the budget represented what had been previously paid. Ms. Kelley stated= the budget was basically level funded. Ms. Hillsgrove asked if the budget took into account inflation for supplies. Ms. Kelley answered no. Ms. Hillsgrove asked if the contingency figure might be used to pay for increases in prices so items would be eliminated from celebrations. Ms. = Kelley answered yes.

MOTION:

(Cate/Sherman)= To approve $9,702 as the 2013 Town Celebrations budget.

VOTE:

(6-5-0) The motion carried. Mr. Hall, Mr. Smith, Ms. Hillsgrove, Mr. Viger and

Ms. Larson voted no. <= /u>

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------

Town Clerk / Tax Collector – $213= ,335 proposed. No additional comments. =

MOTION:

(Sherman/Hills= grove)To approve $213,335 as the 2013 Town Clerk / Tax Collector budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------

Transfer Station – $564,269 proposed. No additional comments. =

MOTION:

(Sherman/Viger= )To approve $564,269 as the 2013 Transfer Station budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= ------------------------

Treasurer – $8,331 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd) To approve $8,331 as the 2013 Treasurer budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------

Trust Funds – $70 proposed. No additional comments.

MOTION:

(Cronin/Cate)T= o approve $70 as the 2013 Trust Funds budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------

There was a total reduction of $1,824 to the proposed 2013 Town budget.

Fire Department – reduced storage trailer $252;

Human Services – increase in salary $2,860;

Planning Department – reduced engineering consulting fees $1,499;

Planning Department – eliminated vehicle / reinstated gas/oil/repair - total reducti= on $2,805;

Town Celebrations – reduced contingency $128.

MOTION:

(Sherman/Guimo= nd)To approve $12,795,630 as the 2013 Town Budget.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Sherman/Hills= grove)To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(11-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:05 pm.

= Respectfully submitted,

= Charity A. Landry

= Recording Secretary