SEL20081007

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

October 7, 2008

APPROVED – October 21, 2008

CALL TO ORDER – 6:46pm

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Viger, Mr. = Robert Haverty (arrived at 6:56pm), Mr. Harold Lynde, Mr. Victor Danevich, Mr. W= illiam McDevitt, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

Also present:

ABSENT:

Members of the press and general public.

None

6:46pm

MINUTES REVIEW

September = 9, 2008

MOTION:

(Danevich/McDe= vitt) To approve the Sep= tember 9, 2008 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(3-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

The motion/times for the non-public will be added.

Mr. Lynde arrived. He noted an amendment to the September 9, 2008 minutes. Page 2 motion to increase Assessor’s budget failed. The Selectmen re-approved the= minutes in the following motion.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynd= e) To approve the Sep= tember 9, 2008 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(4-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

September = 23, 2008

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynd= e) To approve the Se= ptember 23, 2008 meeting minutes as amended.

VOTE:

(3-0-1) The mo= tion carried. Mr. Danevich absta= ined.

Amendments were: page 1, = 3^rd paragraph – the sentence reading ‘He stated prior to him, Chief Evan Haglund was on board with the inter-connectivity of Stonepost Road, which he felt super= ceded the element of safety on the cul-de-sac in terms of lack of traffic.’= Was amended to read – ‘He stated prior to him, Chief Evan Haglund w= as on board with the inter-connectivity of Stonepost Road.’; page 5, 4th paragraph the words ‘and said they could be us= ed for recycling.” were added to the end of the sentence.

APPOINTMENTS

6:53pm

Article K Waiver Hearing – <= st1:Street w:st=3D"on">11 Gaston Road – Map 30 Lot 11/148 – Owners= Randy & Judith Favreau

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

Mr. Zarnowski called the Board of Health to order. He reviewed the requested waivers = to Section 295-16 as follows: 1) septic tank to an abutting well (60ft. requir= ed); 2) leach field to the abutting well (to installed 70ft. from abutting well where 75ft. is required); and 3) septic tank to property line (will be 3ft. where 10ft. is required).

Mr. Joe Maynard of Benchmark Engineering came forward to review the plan. He explained that two of the three waiver requests were effected by an abutting well. The abutting well was installed in= the year 2000 and had a well release form filed at the Registry of Deeds. The location for the field was the= only location available on the lot to fit a septic system. The property is year-round and ser= viced by an existing system (installed in the 1950’s) located off the north= west corner. The design is a Clean Solutions design to meet the setbacks as best as possible within the property.

Mr. Zarnowski asked for the distance from the dispersal area to the pond. Mr. Maynard said it would be great= er than 75ft. Mr. Zarnowski note= d that 125ft. was required by the Town and asked if a waiver would be requested. Mr. Maynard said they should be as= king for a waiver for that also. <= /p>

Mr. Haverty arrived.

Mr. Danevich questioned where the abutting well was located. Mr. Maynard said the abutting well= was across the street. He said the radius was shown on the plan as well as the book and page from the Registry. Mr. Danevich believ= ed it would be difficult for a layman to understand the plan. Mr. Maynard explained that due to = the well release form, the abutter’s rights should stop at the property l= ine; the well radius was incorporated to show the direction of the well and indi= cate that there was a well release form. Mr. Danevich didn’t feel the plan was adequate.

Mr. Lynde asked if the well release was obtained in conjunction with the septic system design. Mr. Maynard sa= id they didn’t do the septic system design for the other property it was permitted in the year 2000. M= r. Zarnowski stated that well release forms indicate that an owner acknowledges their protection only goes to their property line.

Mr. Danevich reiterated that the information submitted showed no correlation to= the plan being reviewed. Mr. Mayn= ard clarified the paperwork that had been submitted for review.

Mr. Lynde reviewed the plan and how the system was set up. Mr. Maynard said the system went t= hrough the house. He stated that the problem with the lot was the limited access to the lake side of the property. He said in order to= get a truck in to the lower side to install a septic tank would be impossible. He said they were putting injector= s in the basement of the building and injecting the sewage into tanks that would= be located off to the side of the road. Mr. Lynde confirmed that there would be a pumping system. Mr. Maynard answered yes. Mr. Lynde asked if the owner would install a new well. Mr. Mayna= rd said the owner was trying to work with the neighbors to come across their y= ard to get in and drill the well. Mr. Lynde questioned what had to happen for the plan to move forward. Mr. Zarno= wski said the existing well would have to be sealed properly per the regulations= for the well board. Mr. Lynde ask= ed if the notes covered what needed to be done.&= nbsp; Mr. Maynard said they noted on the plan that it had to be filled in accordance with the Department of Environmental Services (‘DES’) and local ordinances. The sep= tic approval will have a form that had to be filed when the existing well was capped to show it was done so using the proper method. Mr. Lynde asked Mr. Zarnowski if h= e was satisfied he had enough information associated with the plan to be able to = approve. Mr. Zarnowski said a provision cou= ld be added (to the plan) that certification was needed to show it had been capped and that the other well was in place prior to any operational new system. He suggested adding a second sheet= to the plan with additional information. Mr. Maynard said they could add additional information and pin point= the well. The Board agreed to hav= ing a second sheet on a smaller scale that would depict the other well location.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

MOTION:

(Lynde/Viger) = To approve the Waiver Request for Map 30 Lot 11-148, 11 Gaston Road to Artic= le 295-16 relative to septic tank distance to abutting well, leach field distance from abutting well, septic tank location from property line, and distance from dispersal area to the pond including the caveats: providing= a plan that shows location of abutting well and proper notation that the old well would be capped.

VOTE:

(5-0-1) The mo= tion carried. Mr. Haverty abstai= ned because he came in after the discussion commenced.

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

MOTION:

(Viger/Lynde) = To adjourn the Board of Health.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

The Board of Health adjourned. The Selectmen reconvened.

OPEN FORUM

None.

7:10pm

PUBLIC HEARING – Discuss Ren= aming and renumbering of all residents currently on Hillcrest Road (between Jericho Road and Garland Drive) and renaming and renumbering residences currently on Garland Drive and Garland Avenue

Planning Director and Highway Safety Committee member Jeff Gowan came forward to dis= cuss the renaming/renumbering of residents on Hillcrest Road, Garland Drive and Garland Avenue. He explained that the Selectmen in= 2003 made a number of road renaming and renumbering decisions. He summarized what had been discus= sed at the time of the original hearing. He stated that the Highway Safety Committee held a meeting approxima= tely one month ago to properly take care of the “Hillcrest” issue. He said the road stood out almost = by itself as one of the most troubling road naming issues in that there were t= wo roads with the same name that didn’t connect. He said he had trouble finding hou= ses and the Fire Department also had specific issues getting to where they need= ed to be. He stated if the Board supported the change, he would work with Sue Merit of E911 as well as the P= ost Master to double check all the addresses.&= nbsp; A letter would then be sent to the residents informing them of their= new address.

PUBLIC INPUT

Mr. Mike Hammar, 5 Garland Dri= ve clarified that there were three Hillcrest Lanes; one started at Jericho and went i= nto Garland Drive and turned right, this portion of the road was changed to Morgan Lane. There was still a section of Hillc= rest that dead ended at Jericho= Road. With regard to the road name, Mr. = Hammar felt it was important out of respect for the Garland family to maintain the name. He discussed the fact that the roa= d name had changed over the years and believed it should remain either Franklin Garland Drive or F.A. Garland Drive.

Mr. Gowan said with regard to the specific name recommendation, the Selectmen c= ould make that decision. He believ= ed the Selectmen had a Naming Policy that indicated if a last name was used it sho= uld have historical significance.

Ms. Donna Montuori, 13 Garland= Drive discussed the name changes that Garland Drive had gone through. He felt that the road should remai= n Garland Drive out of respect.

Mr. George Garland, 7 Garland = Lane came forward and informed that the road was named after his father. He also discussed the name changes= that had occurred and requested that it be reverted back to F.A. Garland. He didn’t see a reason for h= aving the numbers be 50ft. apart. H= e wanted the numbers to be clearly posted so they could be easily found. He didn’t feel that a lot of= the road names should have been changed based on 911 using a computer screen to identify where a call was generated. In closing, Mr. Garland reiterated that the road name should be F.A. Garland Drive because it was formerly part of his family’s name.

Mr. McDevitt believed it had always been F.A. Garland Drive and didn’t recall the Selectmen changing it. He sai= d the full name may not have fit on the street sign.

Mr. Lynde discussed the intent of the 50ft. increment. He said it was done so the Town had consistent numbering. He then discussed the road name, and said the Garland name was there, just as with other road names such as Currier and Hobbs were associa= ted with the respective families.

Mr. Henry DeLuca, 16 Garland D= rive was not aware of how the road name went from F.A. Garland to Garland. He said with respect to his neighbors, he felt the “F.A.” was confusing.

Ms. Carmen DeLuca, 16 Garland = Drive preferred to keep the name as Garland Drive. She felt having the F.A. would be confusing.

Mr. Hammar felt putting the F.A. in front of Garland would distinguish any confusion between Garland Drive and Garland Lane. He stated if the Registry of Deeds= had the road listed as F.A. Ga= rland Drive it should remain as such. He said if a mistake was made when= the signs were made, those mistakes should be corrected. He said there was current confusion between Garland Lane, Garland Drive and Garland Avenue and believed by adding the F.A. back to the name would alleviate the situation.

Ms. Montuori commented on the pride the Garland family had with the land. She= felt to take the name away would not be a good thing. She stated that the name of the ro= ad was F.A. Garland when she moved in and felt it should remain as such.

Mr. Gowan said in order to proceed, the Selectmen should decide the road name a= nd take a position on having either consecutive numbering or increment numberi= ng every 50ft. He said E911 pref= ers renumbering to be consistent and noted that the batch of renumbering done in July was done so every 50ft. = He said regardless of how the numbering was done, residents should clearly num= ber their houses.

Mr. Haverty, who grew up in the neighborhood, recalled the road name as being F= .A. Garland and would support reverting back to the original intent of the name being after an individual. He= felt F.A. Garland was suitable and would be in favor of changing the name of the road from Jericho Road to Deerhill Road as well as renumbering that length using a 50ft. grid.

Mr. Lynde understood the sentiment, but believed 90% of the residents knew the = road as Garland. He felt the family name was respec= ted if it was left as Garland. He said the Town was trying to est= ablish criteria and keep things uniform; there were criteria for naming and spacing and felt the Selectmen should stick with it. He felt if the name were to be cha= nged to F.A. Garland, everyone on the road should be notified. Mr. Haverty didn’t feel that= F.A. Garland was contrary to any criteria put forward. He said the street was named “F.A.” to remember and individual not a family.

Mr. McDevitt questioned if people had to be re-notified if there was a majority that wanted the name to be F.A. Garland because notification was that the n= ame would be Garland. Mr. Gowan said everyone from Jericho to Deerhil= l had been notified of the hearing and didn’t feel that re-notification wou= ld be needed because they were told that the meeting was for ‘renaming’.

Mr. Lynde questioned who named the road. He asked if the Town decided to dedicate the road to F.A. Garland, o= r if it was done as part of the normal process.=

Mr. Garland stated that his father did the development and submitted the road n= ames with the original plans.

Mr. McDevitt said he would like the Selectmen to keep the original name of F.A. Garland. He clarified that the reason for renumbering at 50ft. was because frontage requirements were vote= d on by the Town and at any Town Meeting the current 200ft. requirement could be changed. He said it was highly unlikely that the frontage would be voted in as less than 50ft.

Mr. Danevich stated that he had no opinion one way or another and would go along with the majority. He told the Selectmen that he found the video of former Fire Chief David Fisher discuss= ing the roads. He believed if the Selectmen had followed originally what was discussed the road would have be= en Garland from Dutton to Jericho; this included both renaming and renumbering (at the 50ft. grid). Mr. Danevich said if the Selectmen considered F.A. Garland that it should be passed by E911 for review. He wasn’t aware of any roads that contained initials in front = of it. He then discussed the imp= ortance of listing the name properly/exactly so it would be recorded onto devices s= uch as GPS correctly.

The Selectmen discussed the wording for a motion. Mr. Gowan provided the notice lang= uage to assist in making the motion. Mr. Lynde read the motion aloud. = Mr. Haverty questioned if the Selectmen could still potentially review the name= F.A. Garland with E911. Mr. Gowan = said it could be done if the Selectmen wanted.&= nbsp; Mr. Haverty asked if the residents on the street would need re-notification. Mr. Gowan sa= id if the Selectmen were concerned about notification, they could adjourn the cur= rent meeting and reconvene at a date specified time; in the interim he would che= ck with Town Counsel to see if re-notification was necessary. The motion was for the name to be = Garland; if the mo= tion failed the name F.A. Garland could be reviewed.

MOTION:

(Lynde/Danevic= h) To rename Hillcrest Road (between Jericho Road and Garland Drive) and to rename Garland Av= e (from the end of the existing Garland Drive and Deerhill Road) so when done there= would be a road running from J= ericho Road to Deerhill Road named Garland Drive; and to renumber th= at new Garland Drive in 50-foot increments.

VOTE:

(3-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McDevitt and M= r. Haverty voted no.

Mr. Gowan questioned when the ‘go live’ date would be. He explained the process the resid= ents would do when changing their addresses.&nb= sp; Mr. Lynde suggested changing the date after the holidays.

Ms. Michelle Clark, 35 Garland= Ave. suggested waiting a bit longer to change the addresses due to information t= hat was normally sent by employers in January (such as W-2’s). Mr. Gowan informed that the Post O= ffice would honor the former address for one full year.

MOTION:

(Danevich/Lynd= e) To make effective date = January 5, 2009. =

VOTE:

(3-2-0) The mot= ion carried. Mr. McDevitt and M= r. Haverty voted no.

Article K Waiver Hearing – T= enney Road – Map 21 Lot 3-101 – Owners 32-34 Tenney Road Development = LLC

The Selectmen convened as the Board of Health with Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman. The wa= ivers were to Section 295-16, setback distances – septic tanks/leach beds 7= 5ft from Group V (poorly drained) soils. =

Mr. Peter Zohdi and Mr. Shane Gendron of Herbert Associates came forward to dis= cuss the request for Article K. Mr. Zohdi reviewed the plan set and package presented. There were two lots, one being 2.058acres and a second being 5.38 acres that would be combined. Mr. Zohdi understood, when he first presented the case on May 2, 2006, was to go to the Conservation Commission and other boards= and obtain approval. He then met = with the Conservation Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment and received approvals. The Planning Board approval was also included. T= he applicant was proposing to use the Clean Solutions system. Mr. Zohdi said the reason for the = waiver was because the system and tank would be setback 50ft-55ft from poorly drai= ned soils where 75ft. was required. Approvals from other departments/boards/commissions had already been obtained. Mr. Zohdi dis= cussed how the proposed Clean Solutions system worked.

Mr. Zarnowski asked if the system components meet all the Department of Environ= mental Services requirements. Mr. Zo= hdi answered yes. He stated they = would not be requesting any waivers from the state.

Mr. Lynde confirmed that lot 3-101-10 was currently vacant and it would be comb= ined with another. Mr. Zohdi said = they would be combining two lots and creating a conservation easement; this was = part of their agreement with the Conservation Commission to not have additional building. Mr. Lynde asked whe= re the lot’s access was previously. Mr. Zohdi said it had been a land-locked parcel. Mr. Lynde said it appeared that the Conservation Commission voted 4-1 in favor of the proposal even though they were located in the Wetland Conservation District (‘WCD’); the basis for the decision was the plan had been modified to be the best soluti= on and the conservation easement provided mitigation for encroachment into the WCD. Mr. Zohdi said that was correct.

Mr. McDevitt understood that the WCD was not the wetlands but wanted to know wh= at impact there would be to the proximity of the wetland in relation to the long-term functioning of the system. Mr. Zarnowski said the separation of the wetland was approximately 53ft-60ft where the Town requirement was 75ft. (to the poorly drained soil) and t= he stated requirement was 50ft. = He discussed the proposed system and said there might be a nitrate problem, but the wetlands helped to perform de-nitrification because of their functionality. In Mr. Zarnowski’s opinion, treatment would occur before anything got close = to the wetland using the system. Mr. McDevitt asked if the area was a wet area.= Mr. Zohdi said the proposed system was not going to be located in the WCD. Mr. McDevitt asked if the house was located in the WCD. Mr. Zohdi said the house was.

Mr. Haverty asked for information regarding the reliability of the system and i= ts maintenance requirements. Mr. Zarnowski said as part of the approval process there was a requirement to h= ave a maintenance contract. He discussed the items that would need maintenance and what it would entail.

Mr. McDevitt questioned if the plan alleviated the need for an alternate place = in which to place a replacement system in the future. Mr. Zarnowski said the plan showed= an alternate replacement system.

Mr. Lynde questioned if the proposed system was the same as that approved on Gaston Drive. Mr. Zarnowski said it was the same system, but the one proposed had a triple tank.

There was further discussion regarding the proposed plan.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McDe= vitt) To approve the Article K request for Map 21-3-101 to Section 295-16 regarding setbacks, septic tanks and leach beds; 75 ft. from a Group V, poorly drai= ned soil.

VOTE:

(6-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

The Board of Health adjourned. The Selectmen reconvened.

8:18pm

Amended Version of Town Park Hours

A copy of the proposed amended Town Park hours was reviewed. Mr. McDevitt sugges= ted minor changes that would enable the information to be place on signs. Muldoon Park would be open dawn to= dusk – lit fields close 10:30pm; Raymond Park – dawn to dusk – lodge as reserved; PVMP – dawn to dusk; Lyons Park – dawn to du= sk – courts close 11pm. It= was noted that Newcomb Field had similar hours as Muldoon Park but would be noted as dawn to dusk – lit fields close 11pm.&n= bsp; There was further discussion regarding the park closure hours.

MOTION:

(Danevich/McDe= vitt) To amend the park hours as recommended by Mr. McDevitt (discussed above).

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

OTHER BUSINESS<= /p>

8:22pm

Vehicle Leasing Program – Wa= rrant Article or Operating Budget

Mr. Viger said there had been conversations after the Police leasing program had been presented. He asked Poli= ce Chief Joseph Roark to come forward and discuss a revised version of the lea= sing program. Chief Roark said the= re had been a lot of different discussions and was unsure where it had been left between the Selectmen and the Budget Committee. His main recommendation was to lea= se his front line patrol fleet of marked cruisers. There was already a lease for the = motorcycle, but the amount could be amended. The specialty vehicles have significant useful life in both of them and were valuable to the fleet. There = had been discussion to decommission those vehicles while they had a useful life= to other departments to possibly avoid difficult warrant articles. He said he would like to have the = seven cruisers included in the operating budget, move the motorcycle lease into a different lease to have a reasonable purchase price at the end of the lease (right now the line item was included in the budge). He said the question at this point= was if a warrant article should be drafted, or if the price should be in the operating budget. Mr. Viger s= aid when the idea was brought in to lease vehicles, the Selectmen had asked the Chief to look at his other vehicles. He said the issue was discussed with other boards and the question n= ow was if there was any objection to cutting back the lease option to include = only seven cruisers.

Mr. Lynde said he may want to reconsider this if another department head reques= ts purchasing a vehicle that the lease would have replaced. Chief Roark stated that the depart= ment would be able to seek out lease/financing on their own and present for reconsideration.

Mr. McDevitt understood the questions before the Selectmen were: 1) if the seve= n basic police vehicles should be leased; and 2) if the vehicles should be in the operating budget or in a warrant article.&= nbsp; Mr. Viger noted that the breakdown of the lease came in at less than= the purchase price of two cruisers; there wasn’t really a money differenc= e, it was a matter of maintaining a level of service in which the Town had alr= eady approved of. He said the ques= tion was if it should become a line item in the budget.

The Selectmen discussed the lease approach for obtaining vehicles. Chief Roark discussed the advantag= es in maintenance costs with having a leased front line fleet.

Mr. Danevich felt a warrant article should be submitted since a lease would be a fundamental change in how the cruisers were funded. Mr. Lynde discussed suggested word= ing for a warrant article indicating that since there was money in the budget t= he lease could be entered into at no added cost. Mr. Gaydos discussed the differenc= es between a lease and a loan. A suggestion was made to have a warrant article that would allow the Selectme= n to enter into a leasing program for police vehicles and to appropriate ‘$X’; if the warr= ant article is approved the operating budget would be reduced by ‘$X̵= 7; which would be equal to or more than what was contained therein. It would be a savings. Chief Roark questioned, in the eve= nt the warrant article passed, if an additional warrant article would need to be p= ut together in three years (at the end of the lease). Mr. Lynde said the intent was to a= llow going into the lease system. =

Mr. Haverty questioned what type of position the Police would be in if the warr= ant article was revoked. Chief Ro= ark said they would have a fleet that was close to the 75,000-80,000 miles, so = the Town would have another year to stretch the cars; the following year the en= tire fleet would be over $100,000. Mr. Gaydos discussed the lease process. Mr. Danevich asked if there was any way if the bank folded that the lease could be called making it so that the Town had to come up with the ca= sh immediately. He wanted to kno= w if there would be any surprise at the end of three years. Mr. Gaydos answered no, it would a= ll be in the contract. He said the process was identical to a direct finance; at any point along the way the T= own could discontinue it. He said= there were other types of leases that could be structured, but with regard to municipalities, the leases were identical to financing. Mr. Danevich wanted to know if the= Town would have to come up with the cash in the event the bank folded. Mr. Gaydos said it was not call-able. He said if the ban= k got in trouble, they would sell the lease to someone else. Chief Roark informed that some of = the surrounding towns had been leasing for many years.

Chief Roark added that if the cruiser leasing went to a warrant article, he didn’t want the impression to be that he wanted seven new cars; he no= ted in year two and three the department wouldn’t get any new cars, which= was different from the current process where they got two new cruisers per year. He noted that he was not increasing the size of the fleet and was not asking for seven cars next yea= r. The leasing would be a mechanism f= or reducing mileage. He said he = would work hard advocating the warrant article.&= nbsp; They would maintain the same size fleet that they had always had.

Mr. Haverty asked if there was a mechanism to cycle out the old cruisers. Chief Roark said the seven cruisers would either be moved into administrative roles, decommissioned into a secondary department. Some of= the cars would be traded for equipment, some had minimal value. He reiterated that the growth of t= he fleet would not occur.

Mr. McDevitt pointed out one of the problems with the form of government was th= at the boards had spent many hours discussing the topic, the pros and cons, and the position the voters would be put in is to make a decision in the voting booth. He said he would ask t= he Selectmen to consider looking at a new approach.

There was a consensus of the Selectmen to have a warrant article for seven (basic) vehicles.

8:56pm

Tax Rate Setting Guidelines

Mr. Gaydos discussed the components for setting the tax rate. He discussed different percentage scenarios. To date, the DRA h= ad not set a date for setting the rate. Mr. Gaydos said he would like to work with Mr. Lynde to work the numbers. The school had not yet submitted t= heir numbers. Mr. Lynde said he wo= uld work with Mr. Gaydos to see the ramifications of trying to hold the number. Mr. Viger liked the i= dea of holding a zero tax increase and then seeing where it would go from there. Mr. Lynde said until they look at = (project) what the tax rate might be and what it meant with revised evaluations, they wouldn’t have a good basis to say it should be one way or another. He said the fund balance helped to smooth out bumps in the tax rate and it wasn’t as good as it used to be.

9:07pm

TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S / SELECTMEN’S REPORTS

Mr. Gaydos provided the S= electmen with a summary of the possible warrant articles that would be coming in fro= nt of the Selectmen. He then upd= ated the Board and the residents that there was still a problem with EEE. He cautioned residents to continue taking precautions.

Mr. Danevich and Mr. Have= rty had no reports.

Mr. Gaydos noted that the representative from the NH Department of Transportation would be available = next Tuesday to meet at the Fire Station. There will be a meeting at 5:30pm (that will be video taped for PTV) to review the aspects of how the round-a= bout would affect the present fire station if it were to remain.

Mr. McDevitt provided an = update for the work being done at Sherburne Hall.=

Mr. Lynde provided an upd= ate for the soccer fields at Raymond Park. He said by performing on the grant by the deadline hopefully put the Town in good standing for future grants.&n= bsp;

Mr. Viger said the Budget Committee was in full swing and would be voting on the Town budget October 16, 2008.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevit= t) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II,e (Consideration or negotiation of pending claims or litigation)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Viger-Yes;= Mr. Haverty-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Danevich-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes

It was noted tha= t when the Board returned, after the non-public session, the Board would not take = any other action publicly, except to possibly seal the minutes of the non-public session and to adjourn the meeting. The Board entered into a non-public session at approximately 9:17 pm.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:52 pm.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried.

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Haverty/Lynde= ) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:52pm.

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

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

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