August 6, 2002

APPROVED – August 13, 2002






Mr. Greg Farris, Mr. Hal Lynde, Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Jean-Guy Bergeron


Also present:



Mr. Tom Gaydos, Town Administrator, members of the press and general public.


Mr. Richard Derby


Chairman Farris opened the meeting at approximately 6:30 pm. 




July 30, 2002



(McDevitt/Bergeron) To approve the July 30, 2002 minutes as written.




(3 - 0 - 1) The motion carries.  Mr. Lynde abstained.


Mr. Farris reserved Mr. Derby’s right to make any amendments to the minutes, since Mr. Derby was absent at the time they were being reviewed.








Waiver of Article K relative to septic system, Mr. Paul Zarnowski, Health Officer


The Selectmen convened as the Board of Health with Mr. Paul Zarnowski as Chairman. 


Mr. Zarnowski informed that a request for a waiver of Article K had been received for ML 11-21 (39 Woekel Circle) due to an existing failed system.  He said that the owner would be installing a Clean Solution system. 


Mr. Pete Stoddard, Bedford Design Consultants presented the proposed plan.  Mr. Harold Davis, Clean Solutions also met with the Board to discuss the request.  Mr. Stoddard said the area for the new system was restricted and therefore opted to go with a Clean Solution system to reduce the size of the leach field (due to the neighbor’s well and adjacent wetland).  He felt the system was the best solution.  Mr. Davis briefly discussed the Clean Solutions system (the Board had a detailed presentation in the past).  He explained that the tank consisted of three chambers, the first being the septic, the second chamber was used for treatment and the third chamber was the sump pump and sediment that he recommended be pumped every three years. 


Mr. Stoddard said that the requested waivers were listed on the plan.  He said one of the waivers was to the water table.  He explained that the system could not be done with the slope of the property.  He said with the Clean Solutions system 95% of the pathogens would be removed and the remaining would get treatment within the 6” of sand.  Mr. Zarnowski noted that there was better than a 200’ setback to the pond.  Mr. Stoddard handed out pictures of the site for the Board to view. 


Mr. Zarnowski noted that there were a total of four waiver requests that had been listed on the plan.  Mr. Lynde asked what the waivers to the abutting properties were.  Mr. Stoddard said that the abutter to the North had signed a well release that states they understood the system would be within 75’ of their well.  He said that the abutter to the East installed a well in October 25, 2001, which should have a recorded release from that time.  Mr. Zarnowski said that any wells installed after 1989 required a well release. 


Mr. Farris asked for further clarification of the setbacks.  Mr. Zarnowski said that because of the Clean Solutions system, the setbacks could be closer to the pond because what comes out is basically water. 


Mr. McDevitt asked if Mr. Zarnowski was satisfied with the solution.  Mr. Zarnowski said he was satisfied with the solution and felt it would provide adequate treatment. 


Mr. Gaydos asked what mechanism would ensure compliance if the owners changed.  Mr. Davis said he required a sales agreement that would be transferable to any new owner that specified the maintenance to be done.  He went on to explain that the only moving part (excluding the sump pump) was the compressor that needed to be rebuilt every three years.  He also required that the system be pumped every three years. 



(McDevitt/Farris) To approve the Article K waiver request for  ML 11-21, with the requested waivers being specified on the plan.




(5 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Mr. Farris asked Mr. Zarnowski for his opinion of the septic for the Municipal Building.  Mr. Zarnowski said he reviewed the 1972 approved septic system and verified the water table and reviewed the main trench.  He said that the system appeared to be functioning properly at this time and believed the leach field should accept the existing proposed loading without adding any extensions.  He said that the plans containing the final revisions would be submitted by the end of the week for review. 


A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the Board of Health meeting.  The Selectmen reconvened. 


Request for non-public session per RSA 91-A:3 II (b) Interview for Part-time Dispatcher position, Police Chief Haglund


Mr. Farris believed that the Department Heads should handle this type of interview, including the part-time interviews for the Police Department, Fire Department, and Transfer Station.  He said the Town Administrator could oversee the process.  He said the Selectmen could proceed as normal, or he would be open to a motion to hire the applicant. 


Mr. Bergeron asked if the Department Heads would be in charge of reviewing all applications.  Mr. Farris answered yes, unless it was for the Department Head position, which would come before the Selectmen. 


Mr. McDevitt felt the suggestion was long overdue and strongly agreed with Mr. Farris.  Mr. Bergeron also agreed with Mr. Farris.  Mr. Lynde believed the only hesitancy was if the part-time employees were automatically being made a full-time employee.  Mr. Farris said a parameter could be set that if the position was being reviewed for full-time, the same advertising process should remain.  There was a brief discussion and it was decided to have Mr. Gaydos draft a policy for review at a future meeting so that a par-time person was not automatically hired as full-time.   



(McDevitt/Bergeron) To hire Mr. Robert Douglas as a part-time dispatcher for the Police Department, at the recommendation of Police Chief Haglund, to be effective August 11, 2002. 




(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 




Municipal Building


General discussion:

Mr. Farris informed that the Municipal Building Committee held a meeting, which ended up being quite lengthy.  Mr. McDevitt said that the plans Ms. Jan Becker, Bread Loaf showed the Selectmen had been reviewed and the following issues had been discussed: 1) drainage swale; 2) exterior of the library (changed from what originally presented to voters) Ms. Becker said she could revise the drawings; 3) windows across the porch were smaller than expected (which were changed due to interior design changes - Ms. Becker said she could revise); 4) parking in front of the library.  He said that the Committee would like the opportunity to review the plans more often.  He said there was a tentative Building Committee meeting scheduled for August 21, 2002 at the Senior Center.  He said that the changes would also need to be brought before the Selectmen.  Mr. Farris said there was also a discussion regarding the parking on the Mills property and the possible additional costs.  He said that one of his main concerns was the design change being different from what was presented to the voters.  He said if the library’s exterior changes were made due to interior design changes requested by the Library Committee, he respectfully requested that the Library Committee to re-review the plans and come to a compromise. 


Mr. Bergeron read through his notes from the Municipal Building Committee meeting.  He said a suggestion was made to have a Clerk of the Works oversee some of the work, which he agreed with.  He said he was aware that the Town did not yet have the deed to the property, but there had been a discussion regarding the wood along with a motion and vote to begin removal of the wood (which he took to be a recommendation for the Selectmen to begin removal).  Mr. Bergeron suggested setting up a sub-committee to the Municipal Building Committee to be comprised of people with experience in the construction field (similar to that formed when the incinerator was being implemented).  He said that the people on the sub-committee would not be bidding on the work to be done.  Mr. Bergeron noted that the road to the Police Station had not been finalized and felt it would be nice when it was placed onto a plan. 


Mr. Farris discussed the transfer of the property and believed that the reason for the delay was due to the title search of three pieces of land instead of the two pieces originally thought.  He believed the suggestion to have a Clerk of the Works was independent of whether the Town planned on moving forward with design management or a general contractor.  Mr. Bergeron said he discussed the issue with Mr. Gaydos who reviewed the contract and informed that if the Town to proceed with Bread Loaf for phase two, there was a provision for a Clerk of the Works.  Mr. Gaydos said his understanding that in phase two, Bread Loaf was ultimately responsible for implementing the design.  He believed they would have a Clerk of the Works to ensure that the design was being done properly.  Mr. Farris believed that the suggestion was made to have a Clerk of the Works that worked solely for the Town’s interest to ensure that everything was being done as it was supposed to.  Mr. Lynde asked if the Town’s inspectors should be involved.  There was a brief discussion regarding the inspectors and the fact that they reviewed work to ensure it was being done to code, but not necessarily to specifications.  Mr. Gaydos said he would meet with the inspectors to discuss how they viewed their role in connection with the Municipal Building.  


Mr. Bergeron said that when the design side of the project was complete it would be helpful if the plans were available for residents and the Building Committee to view prior to continuing the project.  Mr. Farris wanted to know how to proceed with the various suggestions that could be made.  Mr. Bergeron suggested that the Building Committee, Town inspectors and Town Administrator could report to the Selectmen to provide any additional information so information would not be missed. 


Mr. Bill Scanzani, Victoria Circle (member of the Municipal Building Committee) said that part of the discussion had been staking the common.  He said the Building Committee was concerned that the size and shape was accurate.  He noted that the Mills property deed restricted building within 200ft. of the lot line, which specifically negated the building of a Police/Fire station.  He said there was room for more development on the left and could therefore have more of a green space.  He said that members of the Municipal Building Committee and the Budget Committee felt they should be part of the oversight of the plans.  He said that members from the committees would be more than happy to create a website where people could see photos of the work as it was being done.  Mr. Scanzani highly recommended that a small group review the work being done, as suggested by Mr. Bergeron.  Mr. Farris believed that an oversight committee was essential as long as the Selectmen had the final decision (based on recommendations made), so that responsibility would be in one place. 


Mr. Philip McColgan, Municipal Building Committee said that a tremendous amount of time and thought had been given to the Municipal Building and Library.  He believed that an experienced Clerk of the Works should be hired to protect the Town.  He said he heard a cost figure at the Building Committee meeting, but could not recall what it was for changes made after the drawing phase.  Mr. McDevitt did not recall a specific number, but knew that there would be associated costs for anything above and beyond the final design. 


Mr. Bergeron discussed the importance of the final design being reviewed by the Selectmen, Building Committee and, if possible,  a sub-committee and the public. 


Mr. Lynde discussed his understanding of how the project progressed and a final design was being created.  It was Mr. Lynde’s understanding that Bread Loaf would guarantee what was on the drawings.  He suggested that Bread Loaf sign-off on the specifications.  Mr. Farris said his understanding was if Bread Loaf was implementing phase two, any error that occurred, they would be financially responsible for it.  Mr. Lynde believed that the inspectors should review the final plans.  Mr. Gaydos said that the Selectmen would sign off on the final design.  He said that there were thirty-one bid packages that Bread Loaf would hire a Clerk of the Works to ensure that the bidders were doing what they bid on.  He believed if there was additional work to be done, it should be identified and requested of the Town’s inspectors to see if they would be willing to do it.  Mr. Lynde said if there were aspects that were out of their area of expertise it could be sent out to CLD (Town’s engineer). 


Mr. Farris asked when the exterior design changes for the library would be done.  Mr. McDevitt said they would be done on August 14, 2002, but would not be shown to the Building Committee until their meeting of August 21, 2002.  There was a brief discussion when the plans would be reviewed.  Mr. Larry Hall said the requested changes of the Building Committee were superficial changes with exterior design.  Mr. Farris felt that any changes had to comply with what was presented to the voters.  He discussed the green common area and the fact that it was a large space.  Mr. Scanzani noted that the deed had no setback requirements to the houses on Sawmill.  Mr. Farris said he viewed the 200ft. setback as applicable to anything that was on the property.  He requested that Bread Loaf meet on August 14, 2002 so the Selectmen could move forward and make a decision at their meeting of August 20, 2002. 


Mr. Bergeron said he had heard that a qualified contractor may want to donate some work on the site, and there may be a group of contractors that would like to donate work on the village green.  He wanted to know if it was alright to accept donations from qualified, certified (of insurance) people, and if so, he wanted to open it up to anyone.  He wanted to know about donations for work that was not included in the thirty-one bids.  Mr. Farris suggested that people submit their offers to the Town.  There was a brief discussion regarding people wanting to make an offer and how they should proceed.  The Selectmen said they were interested in people coming forward, but they should submit a letter of interest and qualification form to Bread Loaf by August 16, 2002.  Mr. Farris noted that the forms were available at the Town Hall Annex.  Mr. Bergeron wanted to know if free work would not be accepted if the application were not sent in by the specified date.  Mr. Gaydos believed that at a date determined in the future (close to the Selectmen signing off on what would go out to bid) there would have to be a cut off (except for smaller items).  Mr. McDevitt said that there may be items held back from bids to encourage donations (such as trees for the common). 


Mr. McColgan asked it he trees on the common would be cleared.  Mr. McDevitt said that he contacted Mr. Dan Cyr, who said he would contact Bread Loaf.  Mr. Lynde said that even if the project were not to move forward, some trees would need to be cut to manage the forest (as part of the program implemented throughout the Town).  He said cutting trees would require a public hearing.  Mr. Lynde said that part of the forest would need to be cut, and part would need to be thinned out to manage the forest, but that a public hearing would need to be scheduled.  He said that Mr. Cyr needed to know where the edge of the common would be.  Mr. Farris noted that the trees did not just need to be cut, but they also needed to be stumped. 


Mr. McDevitt discussed phase two and said he was anxious to make a decision.  He said he felt strongly about continuing with Bread Loaf and noted his concerns with holding off having discussions.  He believed if the delay continued it would pose a problem for the Town with issues such as interest rates, construction costs and the winter season.  Mr. Farris agreed that time was an issue, but wanted to see how Bread Loaf worked through phase one before making any further decisions, specifically the changes of the exterior design for the library.  Mr. Bergeron had similar feelings and would like to see the final design before voting upon phase two.  Mr. McDevitt understood the concern but wanted the Selectmen to keep up the sense of urgency.  Mr. Farris said his intention was during the meeting of August 20, 2002 he wanted to award phase two.  Mr. Lynde was in favor of going with Bread Loaf for phase two as long as the design met the Town’s needs.  Mr. Gaydos discussed the competition for bonding money due to the number of projects that were delayed.  He said there was also a competition for qualified contractors.  Mr. Farris said that Bread Loaf was more than responsive to everything that was requested and wanted to ensure it would be followed to the end. 


Mr. Scanzani reminded the Selectmen of the two main reasons Bread Loaf had been hired: 1) Bread Loaf did design build work; 2) design build portion of contract was separate from phase one.  He recommended that the decision be made for phase two sooner rather than later.  Mr. Farris said in two weeks he would entertain a motion regarding phase two.


Asbestos removal bids:

Mr. Gaydos said that the Selectmen authorized some bids to go out to remove asbestos and the direction from the last meeting was to only do the necessary work.  He said that the necessary work was defined in the lump sum price, base contract work.  He said that three qualified bids had been received and noted the following bids for the base contract work: 1) Advanced Building Systems $55,000; 2) Dectam $65,450; 3) D.L.King $64,875.  Mr. Gaydos recommended that Advanced Building Systems be awarded the bid for the cost of $55,000.  Mr. Farris clarified that the work to be done was based on the area being disturbed through construction.       



(McDevitt/Bergeron) To award the bid for asbestos removal to Advanced Building Systems.




(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Duration of Bond:

Mr. Farris said that the Selectmen had received a handout at the previous meeting that showed interest rates for a bond based upon ten years at 3.3%, and twenty years at 4.3%.  He asked Mr. Lynde to update the valuation to see how it would affect the tax rate. 


Mr. Lynde provided the Selectmen with spreadsheets to review.  He said the 2001 evaluation of the Town showed growth to be 3.4% - 4% per year.  He reviewed the cost in tax dollars to a house assessed at $150,000 (fair market value of approx. $225,000-$230,000 home) and said a person would pay $1315 for a ten-year note at 3.3% and a person would pay $1397 for a twenty-year note at 4.3% (with $928 being paid in the first ten years, which was $400 less than with a ten-year note).  Mr. Lynde noted that the Municipal Bond Bank’s rate began low and increased in out years.  He asked if the rate Citizen’s Bank was offering would remain constant.  Mr. Gaydos believed the rate stayed constant, based upon recent bond sales. 


Mr. Lynde favored a longer term because he felt it benefited the taxpayer and kept a lower tax rate.  He said the break-even point of the twenty-year bond (compared to the ten-year bond) would be in the eighteenth year.  He said the tax rate impact of the 5.61million dollars for a twenty-year note would be $.85 and the ten-year note would be $1.22. 


Mr. McDevitt said that he initially supported the twenty-year term, but noted with a ten-year term 1.4 million dollar would be saved in interest.  Mr. Lynde believed that since the building was designed for at least a twenty-year period the people receiving the benefit should help pay for it.  Mr. Farris reviewed the savings of the ten-year term, but felt that the projects coming forward for the next few years should also be reviewed.  He felt that it would be unfair to burden the people in Town now versus spreading the payments out over twenty years, the life of the building.  Mr. Bergeron asked if there was a way of saving the 1.4 million dollars in interest for some of the projects possibly coming forward in the next few years.  Mr. Farris noted that with a ten-year note, the only person saving would be the person who moved to Town in year eleven.


Mr. Bill Scanzani, Victoria Circle said that the CIP would like the ten-year term based upon the other projects coming up, and the savings to the taxpayers.  He believed that if the tax rate impact for bonds items remained, the Town would be able to fund some of the projects without any additional tax rate impacts. 


There was a further discussion regarding the differences between having a ten-year bond versus a twenty-year bond.  Mr. Lynde clarified further that a 5.6 million-dollar bond, plus interest would total $6,613,308 over a ten-year period and that the amount paid for the first ten years of a twenty-year bond would total $4,664,019. 


The Selectmen continued their discussion and reiterated their opinions, which lead to the following motion:



(McDevitt/Bergeron) To fund the Municipal Building project over a ten-year period of time.




(2 - 2 - 0) The motion did not carry.  Mr. Lynde and Mr. Farris voted no.


There was no additional discussion, but the following motion was made:



(Lynde/McDevitt) To fund the Municipal Building project over a twenty-year period of time.




(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


Mr. Farris asked Mr. Gaydos to contact Citizen’s Bank and find out what the approximate time frame will be for obtaining funds.  Mr. Lynde asked if Mr. Gaydos would request an interest payment schedule per year.  There was a brief discussion regarding the forestry and the fact that a public hearing did not need to be set.  Mr. Bergeron pointed out that the deed had not yet been finalized.  Mr. Gaydos said he would address the issue later in the meeting. 




Hawker/Peddler/Itinerant Vendor’s License


Mr. Gaydos said a request had been received from a person who desired to operate a canteen truck throughout Town.  He reviewed the application and informed the applicant had the proper license and permits from the state.  He said that it was clear that the vendor would be moving from place to place and appeared to meet all the requirements of an itinerant vendor. 


Mr. Bergeron said that he reviewed the application and let it be known that he knew the applicant. 


Mr. McDevitt believed the ordinance called for a monthly renewal.  Mr. Gaydos said the ordinance did call for a monthly renewal and said that he would amend the license to indicate an expiration date.



(McDevitt/Lynde) To issue a Hawker/Peddler/Itinerant Vendor License to Mr. Jeffrey Burke, 1 Maple Place, Salem, New Hampshire, with goods sold in the interest of B & B Catering to be in effect from August 7, 2002 for thirty days.




(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


For the next application, Mr. Gaydos said that he had numerous conversations with various staff members in Town.  He said the idea of the license was that the vendor was an itinerant vendor that moved on from one spot to another and if they didn’t, it would involve the Town’s ordinance and land use.  He said that after review of Jose Hot Dogs, he saw that the business did not move and that he stayed in once place.  He felt that the application was incorrect for the licensing. 


Mr. Bergeron asked that the applicant be informed of what they needed to do to continue their business.  Mr. Farris said that the applicant would need to meet with the Planning Board for a site plan review.  Mr. Gaydos said that the issue would be discussed during the Staff meeting.  He said that the applicant would have the opportunity to have a way to come into compliance. 



(McDevitt/Bergeron) To deny the Hawkers/Peddler/Itinerant Vendor License application for Jose Hot Dogs.




(4 - 0 - 0) The motion carries. 


The license was denied on the basis that the application did not comply with the Hawkers/Peddler/Itinerant Vendor License. 




Mr. Gaydos informed he would be requesting two non-public sessions, one for legal, one for personnel.


Mr. Bergeron read a press release that noted the Fire and Police Departments were called to the scene of a two-car accident on Mammoth Road and Keyes Hill Road on August 4, 2002.  The memo informed that Fire Chief David Fisher activated Mutual Aid from Hudson, Londonderry and Salem Fire Departments with all being transported to the hospital.


Mr. Lynde informed that the Planning Board met August 5, 2002.  He said that the Master Plan had been approved and would be presented to the Selectmen.  He said that an Environmental Impact Analysis process would be added to the Subdivision Regulations as well as a section for premature development.  He said that a site walk was scheduled to review the Raytheon site on Saturday.  Mr. Lynde ended by saying that the Planning Board held a non-public session with Town Counsel to clarify some legal issues with a suit the Town was involved in. 


Mr. McDevitt said that a public hearing would be held, Wednesday August 7, 2002 pursuant to RSA 36a regarding purchasing a portion of maps 30& 36 lot 11-254 Dutton Road using funds from the Conservation funds with further hearing to be held as necessary.  Mr. McDevitt asked that further discussion be held with regard to an issue brought to the Selectmen by Mr. Montbleau.  Mr. Gaydos circulated legal’s opinion.  Mr. Farris noted that there were not very many options.  Mr. Gaydos believed if the Town could get a consensus from the abutting property owners to work out some sort of easement process would be key.  He discussed some of the issues with the situation.  Mr. Farris asked that an agenda item be added in two weeks to discuss the situation.  Mr. Lynde said that the road was class 6, subject to gates and bars.  Mr. Gaydos said that a clarification in subsequent years that a gate could be added (with the property owner having all the liabilities of erecting the gate) but would need to be able to be opened.  Mr. McDevitt suggesting asking Counsel’s advice regarding prohibiting vehicular traffic.  Mr. Gaydos said he would get a further clarification for the Selectmen. 


Mr. Lynde noted that the CIP would be ready soon and asked if the Selectmen would like a presentation.  Mr. Farris felt that the CIP was a good tool.  He said he would download and print out copies for Selectmen the Selectmen to review.  Mr. Lynde suggested inviting the Budget Committee to the presentation.


Mr. Farris informed that Adelphia had informed which road would be started up and a listing could be viewed on PTV as well as the message board. 






(Lynde/McDevitt) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a & e (personnel & legal).




Mr. Farris-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes


Mr. Farris noted that when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, except to seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting.  The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 9:45pm.  Mr. Gaydos was also present during the non-public session.   


The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:45 pm.




(Bergeron/Lynde) To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely.




(4- 0 - 0) The motion carries




MOTION:           (McDevitt/Bergeron) To adjourn the meeting.


VOTE:                 (4- 0 - 0) The motion carries.


The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:10 pm.


                                                                                          Respectfully submitted,


                                                                                          Charity A. L. Willis

                                                                                          Recording Secretary