APPROVED
TOWN OF
BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING
MINUTES
APPROVED &#=
8211;
CALL TO ORDER –
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
|
PRESENT: |
Mr. Robert Haverty, Mr.= Douglas Viger (arrived after the meeting commenced), Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Ha= rold Lynde (arrived after the meeting commenced), Mr. Edmund Gleason, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos |
|
ABSENT: |
None. |
MINUTES REVIEW
|
MOTION: |
(Gleason/McDev=
itt) To
approve the Selectmen meeting minutes of |
|
VOTE: |
(3-0-0)
The motion carried. |
OPEN FORUM
None.
APPOINTMENTS
Article K Waiver – Paul Zarnowski, Deputy Health Officer
The Selectmen recessed th= eir meeting and convened as the Board of Health with Deputy Health Officer Paul Zarnowski as Chairman. Mr. Zarnowski called the Board of Health meeting to order.
Mr. Zarnowski reviewed the Article K Waiver requests as follows: 1) Section 295:12 – design and installation to comply with state provisions 3-1 side slope, proposed is 2-1 side slope; 2) Section 295:13 – tank capacity for three bedroom units= – state requires 60% in the first tank and 40% after that; 3) Section 295-16 – setbacks to a wetland with 50ft. required with SDR26 pipe (or bette= r), proposed is 40ft. (noting that the existing tank is at 23ft.).
Mr. Doug Stewart of New N= ature Design presented the case to the Board.&nb= sp; He stated that the reason for the waivers was due to the lot having = more wetlands than when the house was originally built. He said the existing tank was approximately 23ft. from the wetlands.&nbs= p; He would like to leave the tank in place to minimize disturbance to = the wetlands. He explained that t= he 2-1 side slopes would help to lessen the impacts to the lot.
Mr. Zarnowski noted that =
the
existing septic system was located within the wetland. The proposal was to locate the sep=
tic on
the driest portion of the lot. In
Mr. Zarnowski’s experience he had never seen a system fail more than =
one
foot outside the bed; there was not much lateral movement. He said the 2-1 slopes would have =
to be
stabilized quickly. He felt t=
he
wetlands area would be helped if the existing tank were to remain
undisturbed. He discussed the
proposed design and felt that the system was being located in the best area
given the lot restrictions. <=
/p>
Mr. Gleason reviewed the
regulation and asked what the required tank capacity was (1500 gallons or 1=
000
gallons). Mr. Zarnowski said =
it
would need to be 1250 gallons for each unit (2500 gallons total). The proposed tank would meet the
capacity requirement for three bedroom units each. Mr. Gleason questioned why a waive=
r was
requested if the requirement was met.
Mr. Zarnowski explained the waiver was requested per the state
requirement that the first tank accept 60% of the load. Mr. Gleason asked if there was an
abutting property on the portion of the lot that had the slope easement req=
uirement. Mr. Zarnowski said there was a pav=
ed
driveway; they were trying to keep the slopes to the edge of the driveway. =
Mr. Haverty asked if the =
existing
system was in failure. Mr.
Zarnowski stated the existing system was in failure. Mr. Haverty confirmed that the pro=
posed
would greatly improve the situation.
Mr. Zarnowski answered yes. <=
/span> Mr. Zarnowski noted that =
there
was a water system servicing all the lots in the area. MOTION: (Gleason/Haver=
ty) The
Board of Health approves the three waivers requested: 295-16, 295-13 and
295-12. VOTE: (4-0-0)
The motion carried. MOTION: (Gleason/McDev=
itt) To
adjourn the Board of Health. =
VOTE: (4-0-0)
The motion carried. The Board of Health
adjourned. The Selectmen
reconvened. Brian Johnson, Director of Parks & Recreation – Reques=
t to
Expend Funds This matter was cancelled=
. Mr. Haverty was given a note from =
Mr.
Gaydos that pointed out the Planning Board Chairman, Peter McNamara was in =
the
audience and could provide explanation how the funds were collected. Planning Board Chairman P=
eter
McNamara came forward and explained that the funds were a continuing proces=
s of
an attempt to address two items of the Town’s Subdivision
Regulations. The first was ta=
king
into account the obligation to provide open space in the development of
subdivision; and second, the obligation to provide adequate park and recrea=
tion
facilities. Mr. McNamara said=
the
process began approximately eight or nine years prior and there were a coup=
le
different scenarios: 1) in every subdivision, the Planning Board would requ=
ire
that the applicant donate land setting aside the parcels for the Town, or 2=
) have the members of the subdivision
(owners) form a condominium association (neighborhood group) to take owners=
hip
of the property. He said ther=
e were
practical difficulties with both scenarios. As for donations, they could have =
added
to maintenance, upkeep, potential liability and several small playgrounds
distributed throughout the Town. An
association (private ownership) caused a problem because private parks would
have been created as opposed to public facilities. After further discussions, the
development was to offer applicants a choice to either donate a developable
parcel of land or make a voluntary contribution to a fund that would seek to
improve/augment the park and recreation services in the Town. The intent of the Board was to have
enough money to either expand services or to purchase additional properties
augmenting what was already in existence.&=
nbsp;
A number of subdivision developers gave a donation ($750) on a per l=
ot
basis to the fund. Mr. McNama=
ra
said they hadn’t taken any money into the fund for several years. Mr. Haverty asked if ther=
e were
any restrictions on the money and when it had to be spent such as with impa=
ct
fees. Mr. McNamara said it wa=
s much
less specific than impact fees and didn’t believe there were any time
limits attached. He said ther=
e were
no specific restrictions, but at the time both the developers and the Plann=
ing
Board intended that the voluntary contributions be for
improvements/augmentations/or purchasing of new facilities. Planning Director Jeff Go=
wan came
forward and noted that the fees were collected at the time of the Building
Permit and said there had been additional contributions, but that there had
been no new subdivisions approved where the voluntary contributions were pa=
rt
of the equations. Mr. Gleason asked if ther=
e was
any documentation that controlled the acceptance of, or intent of the
funds. Mr. McNamara said it w=
as
done in a meeting and was not aware of any documentation. He believed it was more of a conse=
nsus
of the majority of the Planning Board that it was the direction they wanted=
to
go at that time; he couldn’t recall who the Chairman was. Mr. Gleason confirmed that the mon=
ey was
held by the Treasurer in a separate account. Mr. Gaydos said that was correct.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>
Mr. Gleason reiterated his question of if there were any restrictions in writing that the Selectmen sh= ould be aware of on the limitations of expenditure of the money. Mr. McNamara said there weren̵= 7;t and believed the limitations were implied more than expressed. He said the intent was for use specifically for the purpose discussed and offered by the developer for that fairly specific limited purpose such as improvements or purchase of land not line items.
Mr. McNamara told the Sel=
ectmen
that the reason they hadn’t continued to collect money was partly due=
to
the economy and because some of the developments that had come in had lent
themselves to other solutions of the problem. Mr. Gowan said there had also been=
a
number of Senior projects that didn’t have the same impacts on park a=
nd
recreation. Mr. McNamara note=
d that
there had been a number of projects that came in off
Mr. Gleason asked if ther=
e was a
repository for records that indicated when the collection happened or what =
the
intent was. Mr. McNamara beli=
eved
it would be in the meeting minutes.
Mr. Gowan commented that a Notice of Decision (issued for both the
Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment) is the ruling document if and
when a case ended up in court. He
said it ensconced all the approval conditions. He said the funds for the (
Mr. McDevitt asked if the= re was a request in front of the Selectmen. Mr. Haverty said that there was not. They were taking the opportunity to obtain background on how the money was collected. Mr. McDevitt asked if there was a = reason for the request being withdrawn. Mr. Haverty believed it was withdrawn for further research.
Discussion of CTAP Application for Economic Development Website
Creation
Planning Director Jeff Go= wan and Pelham Economic Development Committee Chairwoman Sharon Atwood met with the Selectmen to discuss an application to secure funding from the CTAP grant program. Mr. Gowan said the p= hase one request through the CTAP grant funding was used to develop the economic development plan; phase two would be to spend the funds to develop their website separate from the Town website.&nb= sp;
Mr. Gowan recalled the Se= lectmen previously questioning how the utility structure would fit into the plan wh= en it was initially proposed. He= said there was reference to the utilities in the plan, but noted that their short term goals were aimed at attainable (tangible) items while at the same time reviewing the long term issues. Ms. Atwood said step one would be to develop the website and get more informati= on out to the community. She sai= d they would like to provide updates to the Board and proposed that they meet quarterly to discuss such. She commented that they met twice a month and were trying to recruit new members. They were keeping communication open to residents and felt the website would help their efforts.
Mr. Haverty confirmed tha=
t the
$10,000 would not be tax payer money.
Mr. Gowan said they were not seeking tax payer funds at this time.
Mr. McDevitt was enthusia= stic about the website. He said as= the economy begins to turn around there would be increasing competition in towns for developing business and attracting new businesses. He said creating the website gives= the Town the opportunity to compete.
Mr. Gleason said he highly endorsed the website. He aske= d if any responses had been received from the message board inquiry. Ms. Atwood said all the responses = had been favorable. She said to s= tart they had over four hundred businesses on the list and there were still additions being made. Mr. Gle= ason said the information provided indicated that the Planning Director and Webmaster would contribute. He asked if= it would be on a volunteer basis or if there was Town money or Town employee t= ime involved. Mr. Gowan said he didn’t consider his involvement above the normal duties of his job; he wouldn’t seek additional compensation. Mr. Gleason asked if he would have adequate time to dedicate to the committee. Mr. Gowan believed he would. He said there was great involvemen= t and energy on the committee and saw himself as more of a facilitator. Ms. Atwood said they had a consist= ent amount of members at every meeting. Mr. Gleason said he was concerned about a Town obligation.
Mr. Viger arrived.
Mr. Gleason asked if Jim Greenwood (Webmaster) would be able to function. Mr. Gowan said he couldn’t s= peak on Mr. Greenwood’s behalf. Ms. Atwood said Mr. Greenwood had attended some meetings on a volunt= eer basis. Mr. Gowan said without understanding how compensation worked for the Webmaster, there may be a poi= nt in the future to ask for a small budget item for web maintenance. Ms. Atwood said everything was cur= rently being done on a volunteer basis and hoped as new members were recruited it would continue. Mr. Gleason a= sked if there was any money for Town employees included in the $10,000. Mr. Gowan said there was not.. Mr. Gleason heard what was said ab= out utilities and wanted to make sure it was included in the committee’s forward thinking. Mr. Gowan s= aid it was on his and the committee’s ‘radar’ as well as being mentioned in the report.
Mr. Gowan said he found a= copy of the utilities study report done in 1980 at the cost of $60,000. He said a roundtable with business= es should be put together to discuss the issues. He said it might be good to review= the previous report before more work was done.=
Mr. Gaydos asked where th= e RFQ would be sent out to. Mr. Gow= an said it would be put out to web designers.= He said it would be made clear that it would be a one-shot, one-time deal. Mr. Gaydos asked where = it would be advertised and if it would be statewide. Mr. Gowan said they would go throu= gh the state resources (i.e. Department of Economic Development) to put the RFQ out. Mr. Gaydos asked what th= e time line would be. Mr. Gowan said= after the committee met and developed the RFP they would put it out with several weeks or a month for response. Mr. Gaydos asked if it would be a RFP or RFQ.&= nbsp; Mr. Gowan said it would be an RFP; they were looking for proposals.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Gaydos said in his experience,= when a company knows the amount you’ve got, they let you know what they’ll give you for that amount.&nb= sp; Ms. Atwood said the committee would discuss the issues with Bravehea= rt Design at their next meeting. Mr. Gaydos asked if Braveheart Design did web design. Mr. Gowan said they didn’t do design work anymore, they did more of the front end work such as content, marketing, and achievement goals.
Mr. Gowan said the grant application was designed to require one signature. He said he would make the correcti= on to change ‘RFQ’ to read ‘RFP’ prior to the application being submitted.
The Selectmen had no obje= ction to the Economic Development Committee selecting a vendor. They were interested in having a quarterly update as offered by Ms. Atwood.=
|
MOTION: |
(McDevitt/Glea=
son) To
authorize the Pelham Economic Development Committee to apply for the Local
Government Funding Request for CTAP Targeted Local Government Accounts as
outlined in the memo from the committee dated |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-0)
The motion carried. |
Mr. Haverty signed the application.
Jeff Gowan, Planning Director – Presentation & Approva=
l of
E-911 Address Change Form
Planning Director Jeff Go=
wan and
Police Chief Joseph Roark came forward to discuss the E911 Address Change
Form. Mr. Gowan provided the
Selectmen with the final product of information pertaining to the project.<=
span
style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He said they had worked closely wi=
th the
E911 Bureau regarding the changes to
Mr. Lynde arrived.
Mr. Gaydos asked what was= needed from the Selectmen. Mr. Gowan= said they needed the Selectmen’s signatures on the letters provided.
Mr. Haverty asked if serv=
ice
providers had been notified. =
At the
time his road was changed, he learned that Comcast couldn’t tie his n=
ew
house number to any location and asked if the problem had been remedied.
Mr. Gowan said once the S= electmen sign the letters they would be faxed to E911 and the spread sheet of address information will be provided to the Post Master.
The Selectmen then signed= the letters and provided them to Mr. Gowan.
2010 Budget Presentations:
Finance Director Janet Ga= llant was present to answer questions regarding the proposed budgets.
Assessing Department – Assessing Assistant Sue Snide came forward to review the 2010 Assessing budget request. There was an increase in salaries (support staff union); in order to have a zero based budget, the overtime l= ine was decreased by the same amount added in salaries. Ms. Snide then reviewed the additi= onal line items in the budget. The= re was a question as to the cyclical revaluation costs. Mr. Gaydos said there were two por= tions that were owed, the cyclical portion and the maintenance. Ms. Snide said she breaks the information out and forwards a spread sheet to Mr. Gaydos every month.
Police Department – Police Chief Joseph Roark and Police Office Manager Laurette Guay came forward to review the proposed 2010 Police Department budget. Chief Roar= k said one objective was to have a list of priority cuts (critical, important and deferrable) which were included in the Selectmen’s information packet. He said their goal wa= s a zero growth budget, which was a bit of a misnomer because also included in = the budget were the contractual increases from last year’s warrant article. He said to achieve t= he same number from 2009 and bring it forward to 2010 (after factoring in contractual increases, base pay and compounded overtime) they came up with a number of $116,000 (5.43%) that would need to be trimmed. Chief Roark said their priority wh= en making cuts was to maintain the current level of employees. He noted that between 84%-86% of t= he Police budget is salaries.
Chief Roark reviewed the = line items contained in the budget beginning with salaries that showed an increase bas= ed on the warrant article that passed last year. Mr. McDevitt confirmed that there = was no additional personnel. Chief R= oark said they had the same police compliment of employees (full and part time). In an effort to presen= t a zero increase budget the following reductions/cuts were made: 1) crossing guards $15,000; 2) Ani= mal Control Officer over time (minus 140 hours); 3) Emergency K-9 Call out redu= ced from 80 hours to 20 hours; 4) Old Home Day man hours reduced from 84 hours = to 20 hours; 5) July 4th celebration man hours reduced from 48 hour= s to 12 hours; 6) Graduations (typically) 24 man hours eliminated; 7) Memorial D= ay (typically) 16 man hours reduced to zero; 8) Detective over time drug surveillance reduced from 200 hours to 100 hours; 9) testing and assessment= (to hire officers to conduct written and physical fitness tests) line item zero= ed; 10) Evidence, processing and transporting reduced from 208 hours to zero; 11) OHRV enforcement hours cut (typically 120 hours) because the department wasn’t awarded Fish and = Game Department funding grants; 12) K-9 school search cut; 13) IT Officer reduce= d to 1.5 hours per week; 14) K-9 Certification – hoping to do it this year; 15) bicycle tune-ups (had been $150) zeroed ; 16) IMC training reduced from $3000 to $1500; 17) Criminal Bureau expenses reduced by $500; 18) Communica= tions expenses reduced by $1800; 19) Police/Fire matching grants $20,000 cut; 20) Highway Safety Grant $5000 zeroed; 21) there were other items that had been decreased that were not ‘mission critical’.
Mr. Gleason reviewed the = lists of Critical and Important items that totaled approximately $70,000 which represented an additional 3.3% in the budget. The Critical items alone represent= ed $22,596 which would be a 1% increase.
Chief Roark said it was h= is intention to present a warrant article to increase the force from nineteen officers to twenty officers. = He said the need for a School Resource Officer and additional help in the summ= er hasn’t gone away. He al= so noted as the economy declines, the need for Police Officers increases. He informed that the Town had not = been approved for the School Resource Officer grant application that was submitt= ed.
Legal – Mr. Gaydos reviewed the proposed 2010 Legal budget with the Selectmen and discussed the pending cases. Mr. Gleason asked if the contract negotiations cost was included in the budget. Mr. Gaydos answered yes. Mr. Gleason asked how much of the = budget was for ‘legal’ and how much was for ‘negotiations’. M= r. Gaydos said it depended upon how the negotiations went. He would negotiate the contracts a= s he had the previous year. Mr. Mc= Devitt asked if the history was that the Town over expended the legal budget. Mr. Gaydos said historically they = were always in the same neighborhood. He said during the past six years there had been a lot of activity in Planning= and were now not seeing as much. =
Mr. Lynde confirmed that = as the end of the year approached Mr. Gaydos would have a feel for the actual legal expenditures and if there was money left over they could encumber it into 2= 010 and elect at that time to reduce the budget by an appropriate amount. Mr. Gaydos said it would be a wash either way. Mr. Gleason asked= how the funds would be encumbered. Mr. Gaydos said they were aware of a lawsuit and an attorney had been engaged he could allocate funds to a specific case.&n= bsp; Mr. Gleason asked if the DRA would approve that method. Mr. Gaydos believed he had the ele= ments to be able to do it, and could request an opinion (from DRA) regarding such.
Health Officer – Mr. Gaydos discussed the proposed 2010
Health Officer budget with the Selectmen.&=
nbsp;
He said he had worked with Fire Chief James Midgley and come up with=
a
game plan to replace the Health Officer.&n=
bsp;
They believed they had found a very highly qualified person and would
achieve the goals that they had to monitor pandemics and the ability to res=
pond
to the state. Mr. McDevitt as=
ked if
there was a salary. Mr. Gaydo=
s said
it was a stipend position.
MINUTES REVIEW Con’t…
|
MOTION: |
(Viger/Gleason=
) To
approve the Selectmen meeting minutes of |
|
VOTE: |
(4-0-1)
The motion carried. Mr. Hav=
erty
abstained. |
TOWN ADMINISTRATOR’S / SELECTMEN’S REPORTS
Mr. Gaydos noted=
that
Paul Hodes’ Office would conduct walk-in constituent services on
Mr. Gleason, Mr.= Viger and Mr. McDevitt had no reports.
Mr. Lynde report=
ed that
the next concert on the green would be held
Mr. Haverty had = no report.
REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION
|
MOTION: |
(Viger/Lynde) = Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a (personnel) |
|
ROLL CALL: |
Mr. Haverty-Ye= s; Mr. Viger-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Gleason-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
The
Board returned to public session at approximately
|
MOTION: |
(Viger/Lynde) = To seal the minutes of the non-public session indefinitely. |
|
VOTE: |
(5-0-0) The mo= tion carried. |
ADJOURNMENT
|
MOTION: |
(Lynde/Viger) =
To
adjourn the meeting. |
|
VOTE: |
(5-0-0)
The motion carried. |
The
meeting was adjourned at approximately
= &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
BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING/July 28, 2009