APPROVED
TOWN OF
BOARD OF S= ELECTMEN MEETING
MINUTES
APPROVED –
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
PRESENT: |
Mr. Victor Danevich, Mr. Edmund Gleason, Mr. Jean-G= uy Bergeron, Mr. Tom Domenico, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos |
|
Also present: ABSENT: |
Members of the press and general public. Mr. Harold Lynde |
MINUTES REVIEW
|
MOTION:=
|
(Gleason/Bergeron) To approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(3-0-0) The motion carr= ied. Mr. Danevich abstained. |
The amendments to the m=
inutes
were as follows: ending time
|
MOTION:=
|
(Gleason/Bergeron) To approve the |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-0) The motion carr= ied. |
The amendments to the minutes were as follows: page 1= , 1st paragraph – the word ‘unfunded’ was added to ‘R= 30;to offset the Town’s unfunded liability…’; 2nd paragraph – the word ‘only’ was added to ‘…t= han put in only the anticipated…’.
OPEN FORUM
None.
APPOINTMENTS
Article K Waiver Application Hearing for Map 8
The Selectmen convened as the Board of Health; the Ch= airman, Deputy Health Inspector Paul Zarnowski, called this portion of the meeting= to order. He said a waiver of A= rticle K was being requested to Section 285-16 – 1) 75ft. required for a leach field t= o a well (proposing 55ft); 2) 50ft. required from a septic tank to a well (proposing 39ft.); and 3) 50ft. required from a sewer line to a well (prop= osing 32ft.).
Mr. Bill Sheehan of The Civil Engineers presented the= plan to the Board of Health. He s= aid several test pits were dug; there were several problems on the lot, but fo= und there was a portion in the front corner that was adequate to put in a sept= ic system. He said the proposed= leach system was an improvement from the existing. He said they would replace the ex= isting tank with a new tank. The lo= cation would remain the same because of the ledge problem. Mr. Sheehan didn’t feel the= re would be a problem with the well because the existing system had been in t= hat location for some time with no problems.&= nbsp; The owner of the property Mr. Mike Turner noted that the well was original. Mr. Sheehan said t= he proposed system was Enviro-Septic. The leach field was made larger than it had to be. He believed the proposed would be adequate to service the existing house.&n= bsp; Foundation drains would be installed and would be far enough away f= rom the septic system and tank to not interfere.
Mr. Danevich requested clarification regarding the ex= isting conditions and the distances between the well, septic system and leach field. Mr. Zarnowski discuss= ed the existing conditions compared to the proposed. Mr. Danevich asked what the dista= nce was between the proposed leach field and well. Mr. Zarnowski said the proposed leach field was 55-feet from the well. Mr. Danevich reviewed = the waiver request/application which had distances that didn’t appear to be sho= wn on the plan; he was unclear what was being waived. Mr. Zarnowski said the dimensions weren’t put on the plan; the measurements were scaled and placed in = the notes section. Mr. Sheehan s= aid he would add the dimensions to the plan.&nbs= p; Mr. Danevich questioned if the request was to drop the distances be= low 50-feet to be 32ft and 39ft. respectively.
Mr. Bergeron noted that the house was being shown as four-bedrooms and questioned if it had always been so since it was built.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Sheehan said it was an existi= ng four-bedroom house and was shown as so on the Assessor’s sheet.
Mr. Domenico asked why the system couldn’t be r= eplaced in the existing location. Mr. Sheehan said it couldn’t because of the ledge. Mr. Zarnowski said it was in betw= een two ledge outcroppings; there was no receiving/treatment area. Mr. Domenico asked if there was a= backup location. Mr. Zarnowski said= there was none; the whole area was reviewed and found to be all ledge outcrops.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He discussed the findings from th= e test pits.
Mr. Bergeron asked how long the original system had w= orked and how long it had been in failure. Mr. Turner said the system was original to the house which had been built in 1964. He said he pu= rchased the property in January, 2006. He said the system was found to be in poor condition when a field test was done. Mr. Bergeron asked if = the proposal would take care of the problem.&= nbsp; In Mr. Zarnowski’s opinion, the proposed would be a large improvement over what was currently in place. He wasn’t overly concerned regarding the sewer line or tank to the well if the lines were sealed and grouted properly. Mr. Berger= on asked if the plan showed that the lines would be sealed properly. Mr. Zarnowski said that was gener= al installer procedure.
Mr. Gleason asked if the current septic system was in failure or if the applicant was trying to upgrade to a newer one because of additional bedrooms. Mr. Zar= nowski said the system was ‘on its last leg’. He said it was an existing four-b= edroom; there was no expansion requested. Mr. Gleason asked if the applicant reviewed moving the well. Mr. Zarnowski said that option was suggested, however that would get into quite an expense. He said the applicant could poten= tially put another well out toward the back if they had a problem with the existi= ng well. Mr. Gleason confirmed = that the applicant was requesting three waivers each of which were below the fo= otage normally granted. Mr. Zarnow= ski reiterated that he wasn’t overly concerned regarding the tank and se= wer lines as long as they were sealed properly. He discussed what type of pipe the applicant would be using. Mr. Sheehan felt confident that the state would approve the system and noted t= hat the state and Mr. Zarnowski would be inspecting to ensure it was done properly. He said the new sy= stem would be an improvement to the existing.&= nbsp; He noted that nothing had happened to the well over the many years = being in the current location. Mr. Zarnowski discussed the difficulties of replacing a system in the existing= area (mainly due to ledge and the drainage patterns).
Mr. Danevich questioned the significance of the 50-fo=
ot
requirement. Mr. Zarnowski
discussed the reasons that the state allowed reductions (i.e. type of pipe,
seal). Mr. Danevich asked fo=
r the
depth of the well. He was co=
ncerned
regarding dropping the system due to the ledge. It was his opinion that the Board=
needed
clarification of items before voting.&nbs=
p;
He requested that the Board defer their vote and provide the applic=
ant
the opportunity to submit more information. Mr. Danevich would like the follo=
wing
items added: 1) 50-foot well parameter; 2) linkage between the three waiver
requests on the plan and the measurements in the notes; 3) clearly note the
existing location; and 4) documentation of improvement versus existing.
Mr. Bergeron asked if the system should be reviewed s=
oon and
if the applicant was looking to replace it this winter or in the spring.
It was noted that the next meeting would be
The Board of Health adjourned.
The Selectmen reconvene= d.
Fire Chie=
f Michael
Walker on Proposed Central Fire Station Presentation Discussion and possib=
le
vote on not-to-exceed number for bond warrant article
Mr. Danevich informed that the Selectmen, the Fire Co=
mmittee
and members of the public and press had convened
Fire Chief Michael Walker explained that after a seri= es of critical reviews by the board, they were seeking a reduction in the overall plan size making the footprint of the building approximately 18,000SF. He said the only equipment propos= ed to be placed in the fire station was what the Town had in existence at this t= ime, not for any planned future use. A significant amount of storage space was planned. Chief Walker then reviewed a conc= eptual floor plan of the proposed central fire station. Mr. Danevich asked if we were ‘locked in’ to the proposed floor plan. Chief Walker said they would like= to lock in the square footage; however they would like to possibly change the orientation of the space. He= noted that the construction would be similar to that of a home; however it would= need to be quality built because it would have four times the use of office spa= ce because of being manned twenty-four hours per day. He said the building would take t= he fire department operations into the future twenty years, but would like the structure to last between fifty to one hundred years. Chief Walker said there were two potential orientations of the building; the preferred orientation was to h= ave fire station access for emergency vehicles separate from traffic on the Vi= llage Green. All the covenants on = the Mills property would be met with the proposed plan.
Mr. Danevich said one of the items required of the
architectural firm (from the $110,000 for the plans) was to do the measure=
ments
and site survey. He asked if=
these
were represented on the plan. Chief
Walker answered yes; all the covenants were followed. Another thing covered in the
architectural plans was to make sure the building was colonial in nature a=
nd
that there was a buffer to maintain the privacy of the residents along
Mr. Bergeron discussed the history of the project, wh= ich began approximately two years ago. He said the plan being proposed was important and if it was built as such, the committee felt the station would work and if anything was cut from the alr= eady reduced plan, the station may not work.&n= bsp; He noted that for the= past year he had been assigned to the fire station committee (and attended three meetings) and prior to that, Mr. Lynde had been assigned to the committee.= Mr. Bergeron said the Selectmen h= ad voted whether or not to place a warrant article on the ballot for a central fire station. He said his ‘no’ vote was in the minority. He explained that he voted not to do the plan for the March ballot = because he (and his constituents) felt it was too soon for this type of project an= d it may need more work. He said = since the project had moved forward he heard that the proposed ‘not to exceed’ number was $7.7 million dollars. He said a question was posed at t= he meeting December 23rd asking if that number could be changed to a lower number. He said the committee felt that t= he number shouldn’t be cut because everything being proposed were neede= d and if the number were reduced there would be a chance of the building being b= uilt different than it is proposed. He wanted to have everything ‘on the table’ (all the prices) for = the voters to vote on. He didn&#= 8217;t feel the number would be $7.7 million because at the December 23rd meeting it was mentioned that there may be another list of items needed for this project. He believed th= ere was time to get the numbers for those items and felt those numbers should also= be included so voters could decide whether, or not, they could afford to vote= for the project. Mr. Bergeron sa= id it had been discussed to have a construction manager and recommended that the= re also be a construction committee (consisting of members who know about construction). He said it ma= y end up when bids are returned that they come in below the proposed number. He noted that building was slowin= g down and people may be willing to put in good/fair bids. Mr. Bergeron said his job was to = bring the voters something that everyone felt good about because if it passed, everyone had to pay for it. =
Mr. Danevich said an updated copy of the backup data =
(dated
Mr. Domenico discussed his comments from the December= 23rd meeting. He said the Selectm= en had an obligation to provide the fire department with the proper facilities to= do their job serving the community. He said the Selectmen also had to provide such in the most reasonable/cost effective manner for the Town. He believed this was the most important project for the Town this year and was prepared to garner support for it to pass and be built. He said he would support the $7.3 million number with the hope that the Town would continue to work with the architect and keep the goal of keeping the lowest possible tax cost to the= Town. He said he didn’t want to sacrifice facilities. Chief = Walker said one of the construction managers expressed confidence that there coul= d be some reductions and further indicated one of the last places/least savings= was cutting square feet/facility. He said there were other more manageable ways to cut costs and looked forward= to those methods.
Mr. Gleason wanted it noted that a citizen committee =
was
appointed to prepare the recommendation and felt they should be commended =
for
their efforts. He had no dou=
bt that
the infrastructure was a problem in the Town and believed positive pro-act=
ive
action should be taken regarding such.&nb=
sp;
He felt goals should be set and didn’t feel it was unreasonab=
le to
try and drop the not to exceed price.&nbs=
p;
He felt construction management was an effective tool for saving
costs. Mr. Gleason hoped tha=
t the
tax payers realized that to put the project off would only compound the pr=
oblem
and future costs. He said he=
would
support the project and hoped that the voters supported it at the polls.
Mr. Danevich said this was the end of a long process (approximately 2.5 years) where everyone was moving in the same direction.= He said unwritten part of the pro= cess were the other items that the fire department may want. He said they held restraint and b= elieved that the current proposal demonstrated the Town’s current needs. He said the one of the true testa= ments of the committee was that the ‘wish’ and ‘want’ it= ems didn’t appear in the project. He felt the plan was a good one and hoped that the residents suppor= ted such.
Mr. Bergeron said during the December 23rd meeting he heard the architect say the number was $7.7 million and if it w= ere to change, there would be less, possibly no maintenance bay. He didn’t want to give a mi= xed message or reduce the number to sell it.&= nbsp; He said a cut wouldn’t come out of the profit; it would come = out of something (such as the building). He didn’t feel the focus should be on trying to cut but rather simply working through the bid pro= cess, and through a manager and a committee. He believed this would get the Town the most for the money. He felt if we started off by redu= cing the number it would tell everyone involved that we wanted a better number.= He said it had happened in the pa= st with a project and felt it would send a mixed message if the number was changed.
Mr. Danevich said without making any cuts, the archit= ect submitted a revised number of $7.3 million. Mr. Bergeron said he wanted to ma= ke sure that the reduced number included everything that it should (i.e. entire building and maintenance bay). Mr. Domenico said it was part of the process to ask for a lower number. He believed that it was the Selectmen’s job to try and mitigate/lower the number to the point th= at it benefited everyone.
Mr. Danevich questioned what the term of the bond wou= ld be. Mr. Gaydos said the arti= cle could be written so the Board would have the ability to make that decision= as they deliberate. He said the= re had already been one discussion. Mr. Danevich believed the Selectmen were leaning toward a 15-year bond. He said the term could be reconsi= dered at the Deliberative Session. There was no objection to proceeding with a 15-year bond.
Mr. Domenico made the following motion: To see if the=
Town
would vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $7.3 million dollars for the
construction of a new central fire station and to authorize the Board of
Selectmen to issue bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the
Municipal Budget Act, RSA:33; to authorize the Selectmen to negotiate and
determine the rate of interest thereon and the maturity and other terms
thereof, and to take any other action they deem appropriate to effectuate =
the
sale and/or issuance of said bonds or notes and additionally to raise and
appropriate the sum of $25,000 for the first year’s interest and
associated costs. Mr. Berger=
on
seconded the motion for discussion.
Mr. Gleason asked if it was anticipated to carry any principal in t=
he
first year. Mr. Gaydos answe=
red no,
there wouldn’t be any payment the first year; the first payment is
normally the second year. Mr.
Gleason asked if the number could be lower based upon using the impact
fees. Mr. Gaydos said the im=
pact
fees would be separate from the number.&n=
bsp;
Chief Walker said two scenarios were provided; one was included the
impact fees, one didn’t. Mr.
Danevich said the estimate being referred to is the alternate project budg=
et
‘A’; the not to exceed number needed to include the $400,000
(impact fees). Mr. Bergeron =
wanted
to be certain that the Selectmen were working with the correct number that
included some of the items not discussed and everything on the plan being
shown. Mr. Danevich said the=
square
foot cost had changed, not the footprint size (24,286). His assumption was it was an equa=
l bid
with the only difference being the cost for materials. Mr. Gaydos said the final bonding=
amount
was a number ‘not to exceed’ a lower number could be bonded.
Mr. Domenico suggested adding the bond term in the motion. It was noted that the agreed on term was 15-years. Mr. Gleason noted that the Budget Committee would need to be reconvened. Mr. Danevich said a public hearin= g would also need to be scheduled. M= r. Bergeron confirmed that the not to exceed number from the architect was $7= .3 million and everything being reviewed, and on the plan, was included in th= at number. Mr. Danevich answere= d yes; the revised number was provided by the architect that was in attendance at= the December 23rd meeting. <= /span>
Mr. Domenico then read the revised motion aloud; Mr. Bergeron revised his second. Mr. Danevich suggested adding verbiage that a portion had already been raised = from impact fees.
|
MOTION: |
(Domenico/Bergeron ) To see if the Town would vote = to raise and appropriate the sum of $7.3 million dollars for the constructi= on of a new central fire station and to authorize the Board of Selectmen to is= sue bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Budget= Act, RSA:33; to authorize the Selectmen to negotiate and determine the rate of interest thereon and the maturity and other terms thereof for a term of = not more than fifteen (15) years, and to take any other action they deem appropriate to effectuate the sale and/or issuance of said bonds or note= s and additionally to raise and appropriate the sum of $25,000 for the first year’s interest and associated costs. A portion to be paid for out of existing impact fees. |
|
ROLL CALL = VOTE: |
(4-0-0) Mr. Danevich-Yes; Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes; Mr. Domenico-Yes |
Mr. Danevich noted that this discussion had been the culmination of a long, lengthy list of meetings that included public dialo= g, input, e-mails, and sub-committees.
Chief Walker thanked the Selectmen for their diligenc= e in reviewing the plans and acting on behalf of the citizens. He extended the offer to the comm= unity to come by the fire station ask questions.
Mr. Gaydos was asked to schedule a bond hearing. Mr. Danevich asked Mr. Gleason to= convey the information to the Budget Committee.&= nbsp; He also asked that the proposed plans be available at the Town Hall. He said the plans woul= d also be posted on the web site for residents to download.
Jim Greenwood – Cable Station Update
Video Tape R=
etention
Policy – Mr. Jim Greenwood said the existing policies and guidel=
ines
had not been updated since 1992 and were in serious need of updating. He proposed to go through the doc=
uments
and update with new information. He
then discussed the fact that the studio had an extensive library of vhs
tapes. As of recently, meeti=
ngs are
being recorded on disc and digitally played back. Mr. Domenico said the Selectmen s=
hould
possibly address truly archiving the meetings, storing copies off-site.
Facility Pla= nning – There was a brief discussion regarding the current status of t= he Annex building, what work had been done and what should be done to make the building habitable.
Streaming Vi=
deo
– Mr. Greenwood said cable was funded by its subscribers and poi=
nted
out there may be legal issues with having it immediately available on the
internet to download. Mr. Da=
nevich
said there should be exploration as to if a delay (2-3 weeks) could be
done. Mr. Greenwood said he =
would
however like to take the MPEG format of the meetings, load them onto a hard
drive and make them available to the Town employees at the
OTHER BUSINESS
Annex Update & Code Compliance
Mr. Gaydos said a letter dated
Policy on Conduct of Town Employees on Public Relations
Mr. Danevich read aloud the proposed draft policy reg= arding the conduct of Town employees on public relations. Mr. Gaydos said the Selectmen sho= uld adopt the policy so it could be made available for the public. He said over a period of time wea= knesses could be revisited. Mr. Berg= eron was in favor of the policy and would like all employees to receive/sign a = copy for their employee file. The= re were minor amendments made.
|
MOTION:=
|
(Gleason/Bergeron) To adopt the policy (as modified=
) on
Conduct of Town Employees on Public Relations dated |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-0) The motion carr=
ied. |
Mr. Gleason will incorporate the amendments and forwa= rd the final document to Mr. Gaydos. (SEE copy attached – E= xhibit ‘A’)
Codification Project Status Update
Mr. Gaydos said the revisions had been completed and = all the documents have been scanned. The final step is to re-type the documents.&n= bsp; Mr. Gaydos said he would have the documents re-typed.
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT/SELECTMEN’S REPORTS
Mr. Gaydos said he would provide an update regarding = the three unions during non-public. He said they were also pulling all the financial work together for the end of= the year so the auditors could come in.
Mr. Domenico had no rep= ort.
Mr. Bergeron said the place making working group held=
their
second meeting last Thursday to discuss the potential problems in the
Mr. Gleason noted that the Selectmen’s next mee=
ting (
Mr. Danevich discussed the need for the Selectmen to =
do a
site walk at Raymond Park. T=
hey
tentatively set a site walk up for
REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC = SESSION
|
MOTION: |
(Bergeron/Domenico) Request for a non-public sessio= n per RSA 91-A:3,II,a (Personnel) |
|
ROLL CALL:= |
Mr. Danevich-Yes; Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. Bergeron-Yes= ; Mr. Domenico-Yes |
Mr. Danevich noted that when the Board returned, afte=
r the
non-public session, the Board would not take any other action publicly, ex=
cept
to possibly seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the
meeting. The Board entered i=
nto a
non-public session at approximately
The Board returned to p=
ublic
session at approximately
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/Bergeron) To seal the minutes of the non-p= ublic session indefinitely. |
|
VOTE:<= /p> |
(4-0-0) The motion carried. |
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION:=
|
(Gleason/Bergeron) To adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-0) The motion carr=
ied. |
The meeting was adjourn= ed at approximately9:26 pm.
&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; Respectfully submitted,
&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; Charity A. L. Willis
&nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; = ; Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT
‘A’
Issued
The purpose of this policy is to set forth the Town&#= 8217;s guidelines for its employees in dealing with the public, establish procedu= res for the filing of citizen complaints relative to the conduct of town emplo= yees in dealing with the public, the commission of complaint review committees = to investigate such complaints, document the procedures to be followed by complaint review committees, establish disciplinary policy for findings of inappropriate conduct, and set policy for the final disposition of filed complaints.
All Town employees are expected to conduct themselves= in a courteous and helpful manner when dealing with the general public. If a ci= tizen is uncertain or ill-advised as to a required course of action, every effort shall be made by town employees to ensure that the citizen is given courte= ous, clear and thorough instructions on how and when to proceed.
Similarly, it is expected that citizens will treat to= wn employees professionally and with courtesy.
In those instances where a citizen may become emotion= al or argumentative, the town employee should seek the assistance and support of their supervisor or a co-worker to ameliorate the situation and make writt= en record of the incident and its particulars. If any citizen becomes abusive= or aggressive, the town employee shall immediately request police interventio= n.
In no instance shall a town employee engage in an argumentative dialog with any citizen.
In those instances when an individual deems the condu= ct of the town employee or citizen inappropriate, a written complaint may be submitted to either the Town Administrator or Board of Selectmen for revie= w and disposition.
All complaints so filed will be reviewed and a written disposition shall be provided within thirty days in accordance with the procedure set forth in this policy.
Upon receipt of a written complaint, the Town Adminis= trator or Board of Selectmen shall assign a committee of not more than two indivi= duals to review and investigate the received complaint. The individual(s) assign= ed should have little or no affiliation with the personnel or department invo= lved, or the citizen, to the extent possible.
Complaint Review =
Procedure
The assigned committee shall complete a thorough revi= ew of the written complaint, after which, each individual involved shall be inte= rviewed to ascertain that the data as presented is accurate and advise involved individuals that a formal review is underway. When appropriate, witnesses = shall be interviewed for further clarification of the issue.
Where a violation of town, state, or federal regulati= ons are alleged, the committee must familiarize itself with the written policy/regulation covering such and ascertain the nature and severity of t= he violation.
All review findings are to be regarded as confidentia=
l and
not subject to release to other than the committee membership until the ti=
me of
final disposition of the complaint.
Findings of the R=
eview
Committee
Upon completion of its review, the complaint committe= e shall formally document it findings, as well as, its recommendations for closure= . In those instances where the comp= laint is substantiated, the committee shall specify the recommended disciplinary action.
Disciplinary Acti=
ons
Arising from Valid Complaints
When the substantiated complaint indicates that a town employee’s conduct was inappropriate or in violation of town, state, and/or federal regulations, disciplinary action shall be administered in accordance with existing town policy or applicable union contract, whichev= er takes precedence.
When the substantiated complaint indicates that a citizen’s conduct was inappropriate or in violation of town, state, and/or federal regulations, the Board of Selectmen shall take reasonable a= nd appropriate action to correct the citizen’s conduct.
Disposition of Fi=
led
Complaints
Upon completion of the committee’s review, all findings and recommendations must be documented and submitted to the Board= of Selectman for action.
Whenever possible, final disposition of the complaint= shall be conducted in an open forum. However, when the reputation of a citizen a= nd/or town employee may be affected, non-public disposition may be employed, provided, however, that aggrieved parties are allowed to participate in the non-public hearing covering such.
All records of complaints, their findings and disposi= tion will be maintained in a town file established for that specific purpose.
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING/December 26, 2006