SEL20100817

APPROVED

TOWN OF PELHAM

BOARD OF SE= LECTMEN MEETING

MINUTES

August 17, 2010

APPROVED &#= 8211; September 21, 2010

CALL TO ORDER – 6:00pm

PRESENT:

Mr. Douglas Viger, Mr. = Edmund Gleason, Mr. Robert Haverty, Mr. William McDevitt, Mr. Harold Lynde, Town Administrator Tom Gaydos

ABSENT:

None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

OPEN FORUM

None.

APPOINTMENTS

Junkyard License Renewal

Jean Guy’s Used Cars and Parts, Inc. – The Selectmen were provided with the application for renewal of the Automobile Recycling Facility License. The applica= ble date of the license is as of June 1, 2010 through May 31, 2011. Mr. Vig= er said it appeared that all inspections had been done and signed off by the appropriate people with no comments that would be negative to the application.

MOTION:

(Gleason/McDev= itt) To approve the application for Junkyard or Automotive Recycling Facility Lic= ense for the period of June 1, 2010 to May 31, 2011 for Jean Guy’s Used Cars and Parts, Inc.

VOTE:

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

Coombs Used Auto and Parts – The Selectmen were provided = with the application. Mr. Gleason = wanted to know if the section of fence that had blown down had now been replaced.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Haverty suggested holding a vo= te until verification was received that the fence had been repaired. Mr. McDevitt didn’t believe = that it was an issue. He said the purpose of a fence would be to screen the operation from the road. He said it was fence in the rear o= f the operation. He then reviewed a= nd read aloud a portion of the RSA. Mr. Lynde reviewed the Code Enforcement letter by Tom Wakefield that noted the fence had blown down and he would follow up. Mr. Gaydos reviewed the Deputy Hea= lth Officer’s report that indicated the last section of fence was being erected. He suggested if the Selectmen granted approval, that it be conditioned upon the fence being completed. He said the Select= men could also hold an approval until at least one inspector verified that the fence had been done. Mr. Glea= son preferred to hold a vote until receipt of a confirmation that the fence was rectified. Mr. McDevitt state= d that the Selectmen had the ability to waive the requirement and felt they should because the reason for the fence was to substantially screen the property; = and in this case the woods screened it in the back. Mr. Lynde pointed out that the rep= orts indicate that progress continues on the property. He felt they should have some leew= ay and the issue would be taken care of.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynd= e) To approve the application for Junkyard License (for the period of June 1, 2010 t= o May 31, 2011)= for Coombs Used Auto and Parts.

VOTE:

(4-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. Gleason voted no.

Mr. Gaydos said he would = follow up and note that the Selectmen’s interest was to have the fence completed.

Discussion of Mansur Consent Decree

Mr. Gaydos stated that he= had provided the Selectmen with a letter from Town Counsel (John Ratigan). He said there was a Town employee = that was working during the time the Mansur Consent Decree was drafted and had a= sked him to attend the meeting.

Building Inspector Roland= Soucy came forward to answer questions should the Selectmen ask.

It was Mr. Gaydos’ understanding in reviewing Attorney Ratigan’s document was at the time the Consent Decree was signed there were two different licenses, a Junkyard License and an Automobile Recycling License. Since that time the state has comb= ined the two licenses into one. The purpose of the Consent Decree was to document that certain things had to be done and to document the size of the facility. Subsequently a survey done and the actual area was documented. M= r. Gaydos said since the time the state combined the licenses it was hard to s= ay that the Town had a set of documents/requirements.

Mr. Soucy stated when the= Consent Decree was put together the only thing the Town could verify was that a junk yard was located on the property; they couldn’t verify that used parts were being sold. The idea of = the Consent Decree was to try and document what was there and establish some ki= nd of allowed use. Since that ti= me Mr. Soucy spoke to the state and was told that the state didn’t have a recycler’s license; their position was if a facility had a junkyard license then they are able to dismantle cars/vehicles and sell those parts (it’s one and the same). Mr. Soucy said that Mr. Mansur had a junkyard license and was of the opinion th= at he should be able to amend the Consent Decree to sell parts as well. He said the state was of that same opinion.

Mr. McDevitt said he read= a lot of material in the file to refresh his memory as to exactly what took place. He appreciated Mr. Soucy’s comments. He discussed briefly what had occurred in the Town regarding code enforcement. He said there wa= s a lot of disagreement as to the facts regarding the Mansur operation; the Selectmen tried to find out what the facts were and to work with Town Couns= el who suggested the Town summarize the facts to establish a base line. He said signing the Consent Decree= at the time was seen as a good thing. He regretted the way the Consent Decree was administratively processed at the time; there should have been a lot more public input. Mr. McDevitt said the Consent Decr= ee wasn’t trying to do anything more than establish a baseline mutual understanding as to what the facts were.&n= bsp;

Mr. Soucy said the Consen= t Decree helped to bring finality to issues that had been going on for years. In fairness to Mr. Mansur, he said= every few years he was fighting the battle as to whether he was going to be able = to stay open, sell parts or run his junkyard.=

Mr. Gaydos recalled that = every year the junkyard licenses were done it was painful for the Town and the applicants. He said years ago= State Representative Jean Guy Bergeron went to the state and worked with them to develop/implement the Green Yards Program, which gave a common baseline (be= st practices) for operating a recycling facility. He was happy to say that two of the three operations in Town were Green Yard certified, which makes inspection = of the facilities a lot easier. = He said the third facility (Coombs) had gone a long way to obtain it.

Mr. McDevitt suggested if= Mr. Mansur wanted to make modifications to the Consent Decree, he should let the Selectmen know.

Mr. Gaydos said Mr. Mansu= r’s application was not in front of the Selectmen for consideration at this time because Mr. Mansur had approached him about amending the Consent Decree. He believed the idea for the agend= a item was to find out if the Selectmen were interested in amending the Consent De= cree so at the next meeting Mr. Mansur could bring his application in for discussion. He said the idea = that there is a designated area is part of the Consent Decree if there was an expansion it would need to go before the Zoning Board. He said it was important to mainta= in a base line; it would also memorialize the Consent Decree and that the operat= ion was grandfathered, which was important.&nb= sp;

Mr. Viger stated that Town Counsel seemed to back up the information that was discussed. Mr. Gleason felt the options outli= ned in the letter should be considered. Mr. Viger read the options to address the issues aloud: 1) amend the Consent Decree to bring it into accordance with the on-going uses of the pr= operty; and 2) to file a declaratory judgment petition in Superior Court to have the court define the extent of the legal non-conforming rights employed by Mr. Mansur under New Hampshire law and as they may exist under the terms of the Consent Decree.

Mr. Gaydos said he could = ask for clarification of the final paragraph for the Board. Mr. Viger felt that would be appropriate. Mr. McDevitt questioned what the declaratory judgment would get; it seemed like it may be expensive. Mr. Gaydos said the declaratory judgment is normally entered into/taken to the Superior Court w= hen two parties can’t come to an agreement on what rights are ‘on t= he table’; the judge would then determine each party’s rights.

Mr. McDevitt commented th= at the Board wasn’t seeking to amend the Consent Decree and if Mr. Mansur wa= nted to amend it the Board was open to it. Mr. Lynde agreed with Mr. McDevitt’s statement. He said if there were suggested ch= anges, the Board would either agree, or not agree.

Mr. Gaydos informed that = the Selectmen could be provided with a draft document for review with Mr. Mansu= r’s permit.

OTHER BUSINESS

Senior Cente= r Building Project

Mr. Viger stated that the Selectmen previously discussed the Senior Center building project. He said Mr. Dave Mermelstein of Trident was going to move forward and offer services, working with Mr. Roland Soucy and the Council on Aging to come up with a plan of ho= w to proceed. His understanding wa= s that the bid specifications they were looking for had been received after the la= st meeting.

Mr. Gaydos informed that = all the information requested had been received.&n= bsp; The conversations Mr. Mermelstein had was with a different division = of the company; however all the information was now received. Mr. Gaydos said he discussed the situation with Senior Center Director Sue Hovling and Mr. Soucy. He asked Mr. Mermelstein how he fe= lt now that the information was received. He commented that a principal of Trident, Mr. Baroni indicated that = they had some provisos of what they would be comfortable with, such as: 1) Town verifying the financial stability of the firm; 2) check references; 3) Town= and contractor enter into an appropriate detailed agreement for the scope of wo= rk; 4) obtaining lien waivers prior to any release of payments to the contracto= r; 5) give consideration to a payment/performance bond; and 6) require the Town’s Building Inspector to provide construction administration of t= he contract and daily inspections of the work in progress. He spoke with Mr. Soucy who felt strongly if the proper checks/balances were in place the project could be completed as it was bid.

Building Inspector Roland= Soucy came forward to answer questions. He commented that he was brought up to speed earlier in the afternoo= n; Mr. Mermelstein had been handling the situation.

Mr. Viger said the Board = was specific about having Mr. Mermelstein head up the project, working with Mr. Soucy and the Council on Aging. He said= now the Board was in the position to go with Trident, which would have a cost associated with to it, or if the Board felt the builders could comply with = what they were doing the project could easily be turned over to the Building Inspector. He stated the issu= e was that they didn’t have three competitive bid spec plans last week.

It came to Mr. Gleason= 217;s attention that Trident was asking for $11,500 to complete the project. He said there was $279,000 in the project plus a voluntary contribution that would total the funds to $285,000. He said $6,872 had already been spent. His dilem= ma was if the $11,000, along with a project bumper was subtracted, the project cost would be reduced to approximately $260,000, which may make it difficult to = get everything that they needed. = He said to go with Stallion may be the most economical approach and the least problematic at this point with regard to schedule and performance (with assurances).

Mr. Viger asked Mr. Soucy= if he would be willing to take the project on and hold Stallion accountable to en= sure they complied with code. Mr. = Soucy stated he planned on doing that from the beginning. In regard to keeping control of fu= nds, a schedule of values would be set up to indicate what everything was worth. No bills would be paid until inspe= ctions were done; 10% would be retained for every requisition.

Mr. Viger asked if the Co= uncil on Aging had an opinion about how to proceed.= Mr. Gleason hadn’t spoken to the Council on Aging or Ms. Hovli= ng. Mr. Gaydos said the Seniors wanted= the building built and were looking at the Board for leadership in getting it done.

Mr. Haverty reminded the = Board that the Selectmen were fairly adamant (at the last meeting) that by the (S= tallions) non-response, they wanted to throw the bid out and not invite them to participate in the next round of bidding.&= nbsp; But now that they submitted the information (after the SelectmenR= 17;s decision) the Board was going to say that everything was alright and let th= em come back and do the job. He reminded the Board that they were quite displeased and cautious about forgi= ng a relationship with them going forward.

Mr. Gaydos’ memory = was for him to write (Stallion) a pointed letter saying that they could re-bid, and= the reason the Board rejected the bid was because of non-compliance. And that non-compliance would not = be tolerated if they chose to re-bid. Mr. Haverty said that was correct, but there were members of the Boa= rd that didn’t want to allow them to re-bid. He said his point was that they co= uld be allowed to re-bid, but use the fact that they didn’t respond as part = of the criteria by which they would be judged for all future submissions. Mr. McDevitt said he spoke adamant= ly against allowing them to bid because he was upset with the way they had responded. At this point, he = felt the Board should move forward as long as they could verify what Mr. Baroni recommended. Mr. McDevitt que= stioned who would verify the financial stability of the firm and checked the references. Mr. Gaydos said he could do so, working with Mr. Soucy.

Mr. Soucy explained that = when a company is asked to do a package, such as the one Stallion was asked to do,= it is something that’s normally ‘put on the table’ at the beginning as part of the bid process. He believed Stallion may have felt that they were being loaded up wi= th paperwork to try and get them to walk away from the job so it could be give= n to a local contractor. He said t= hat was not the case. He said the= y were just trying to have the lowest qualified bidder do the job.

Mr. Lynde wanted to be cl= ear that within the bid spec there was no requirement to price in bonding. Mr. Soucy answered no; he said the= re were also a few items left behind for a design build such as electrical, pl= umbing and heating/air conditioning. Mr. Lynde confirmed the project costs. Mr. Gleason reviewed the numbers.&n= bsp; Mr. Lynde asked why the building should have dormers. Mr. Soucy said they were trying to capture as much light as they could. He said they had the option to change the design and remove the dorm= ers or add sky lights. He said it= would be a dark space without something coming in from the roof. He said they would be able to make changes on the plan whenever they wanted.

The Selectmen discussed h= ow they would proceed. Mr. Gaydos bel= ieved the question to the Board was if they would be interested in reconsidering their vote from the prior week. He felt Mr. Soucy still had to meet with Stallion. Mr. Soucy wanted to speak with Sta= llion prior to a bid being awarded. The Board agreed that Mr. Soucy should speak with Stallion prior to moving forw= ard on the project.

Mr. Lynde asked if there = was an expiration date on the bid. M= r. Gaydos stated that they did not put an expiration date. He said their recent correspondence indicated they were still interested in the job.

Encumbered Warrant Articles

Mr. Gaydos explained to t= he Selectmen that one of the tasks of the auditors, in cleaning up the books, = was to make sure that the Selectmen were aware of the different warrant articles that had been encumbered over time. He discussed the information and suggested if the warrant articles w= ere to be carried that the Selectmen monitor them on a monthly basis. He said if they aren’t going= to be carried, the auditor should be notified the funds should be returned to the General Fund.

Mr. McDevitt told the Sel= ectmen that had done research by reviewing Town Reports and had a couple questions regarding some of the warrant articles.&nb= sp; He suggested circulating the list (provided by Mr. Gaydos) to Depart= ment Heads for their comments. He = asked if copies of the warrant articles (supporting the items) could be copied and provided to the Selectmen for review.

After further discussion,= Mr. Viger said the list would be circulated and the original warrants would be reviewed. The Selectmen would discuss the topic at a later date to determine what to do with the perceived extra money.

Operating Budget Review – Possible Vote=

Mr. Viger said the plan w= as to look at the 2011 department requests, if there were no changes the number w= ould carry; if there were changes make an amendment one at a time.

Mr. Gleason put together = a spread sheet that reflected percentage increases based on budgets submitted. He reviewed the information that h= ad been provided. The departments have requested (a total of) $11,666,064 which represents (approximately) $681,894 in growth. The significant growth was related= to the Highway Department ($282,000) and Insurance ($171,000). With the priorities that the depar= tments would like to add into the Operating Budget the budget would be increased to $11,791,376 (1.1% over the requested amount).

Assessor – The requested am= ount is $184,104. Mr. Lynde made a mo= tion to amend the figure to $148,104, with $36,000 to be taken out of expenses/utility consulting fee. There was no second to the motion.= Mr. Gaydos discussed with Assessing Technician Snide how comfortable she was in taking the $36,000 out. She indicated that the current evaluation to the Tennessee Gas Pipeline would be increasing several fold; = the new assessment should be in excess of $5million. The indication Mr. Gaydos got was = that sooner or later the department would need the funds. Mr. McDevitt asked if all of the f= unds were needed this year. Mr. Ga= ydos believed once they (Tennessee Gas) received their assessment they would app= eal in 2011 and the department would need the funds during that time. Mr. Lynde withdrew his motion. There were no amendments.

Budget Committee – The requ= ested budget is $2341. There were no amendments.

Cable Television – The requested budget is $87,780. There were no amendm= ents.

Conservation Commission – T= he requested budget is $3997. There were no amendments.

Debt Service Interest – The requested budget is $191,970. Mr. McDevitt made a motion to decrease the budget to $186,970 per the Treasurer’s recommendation to reduce the TAN interest from $10,000 to $5000.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Lynd= e) To decrease the Debt Service Interest budget from $191,970 to $186,970.

VOTE:

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

Debt Service Principal – The requested budget is $536,597. There were no amendments.

Elections – The requested b= udget is $9760. There were no amendments.

Emergency Management – The requested budget is $63,481. Mr. McDevitt made a motion to redu= ce the budget to $6501, with a reduction of $56,980 for the sand bag machine. Mr. McDevitt said if the machine is approved, it should be put in a warrant article. Mr. Gleason seconded the motion. The sump pumps were level funded to $1800. Mr. Gleason recalled t= hat the Selectmen agreed to move the sand bag machine to a warrant article to be offset with FEMA money.

MOTION:

(McDevitt/Glea= son) To reduce the budget by $56,980 making the new budget $6501.

VOTE:

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

Fire Department – The requested budget is $1,727,346. Mr. Haverty made a recommendation = to add $57,491 for the purpose of purchasing a replacement Forestry vehicle ($43,9= 91) as well as a thermal imaging camera ($13,500) based on the outline provided= by the Fire Chief. The new budget would be $1,784,837. Mr. Lynd= e said there had been discussion about doing a lease and suggested they review the option further. Mr. Gaydos sa= id the lease amount would be $15,500 for a three year lease. With that, the budget would be inc= reased by $29,000 making the new number $1,756,346. Mr. Haverty made a motion to incre= ase the budget by $29,000. Mr. Gl= eason seconded the motion. Mr. McDe= vitt fully recognized the well thought out arguments and the need for the equipm= ent, but didn’t support the change because he didn’t know where else= to make cuts given the 6.2% increase in the overall Town budget. Mr. Haverty said he had run for his position as Selectmen on a platform of supporting life safety items and fel= t it was important for the department to have the right equipment to do their jo= b. It was Mr. Viger’s opinion t= hat the forestry vehicle was a level of service that had been provided for years and they weren’t looking to add new equipment, but rather were lookin= g to maintain the current fleet. H= e said the new item would be the thermal imaging camera, which he felt was essenti= al for life safety.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Gleas= on) To increase the budget by $29,000 making the amended number $1,756,346.

VOTE:

(4-1-0) The motion carried. Mr. McDevitt voted no.

Health Officer – The reques= ted budget is $43,266. There were= no amendments.

Health Services – The requested budget is $49,645. Mr. Gleason proposed flat funding = the Salvation Army at $500. The proposed reduction would change the budget to $48,145.

MOTION:

(Gleason/McDev= itt) To reduce the budget to $48,145.

VOTE:

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

Highway Department – The requested budget is $1,179,850.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. McDevitt made a motion suggest= ing a budget of $948,070 which represented reductions/increase as follow: 1) decr= ease from $6480 supplies (salt) because of the ability to use the state bid pric= e; 2) decrease $7000 equipment repairs – to reflect the 2010 number; 3) = increase $700 in Expenses – engineering services; 4) remove $219,000 paving/specials to possibly place it into a warrant article. There was no second. Mr. Lynde made a motion to amend t= he budget to $955,070 leaving the repair number as requested.

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevit= t) To decrease the budget to $955,070.

VOTE:

(3-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Viger and Mr. Gleason voted = no.

_____________________________________= ________________________________________________

Human Services – The reques= ted budget is $85,440. There were= no amendments.

Insurance – The requested b= udget is $1,878,902. There were no amendments. Mr. McDevitt comm= ented that the budget represented and increase of approximately 10% over last yea= r.

Legal – The requested budget is $9000. There were no amendments.

Park & Recreation – The requested budget is $172,360. There were no amend= ments.

Planning Department – The requested budget is $261,272. There was a brief discussion regar= ding purchasing a code enforcement vehicle.&nbs= p; Mr. McDevitt suggested possibly purchasing a used car for $6000 or $= 7000 out of surplus. Mr. Gleason s= aid there currently wasn’t a line item for a purchase in the budget. He said a $1 should be added to th= e new equipment line. Mr. McDevitt = said he was talking about acquiring the vehicle this year (2010 budget). He said the Selectmen could acquir= e a vehicle under the Selectmen’s budget and designate it for a specific department. There was further discussion regarding the suggestion. Mr. McDevitt made a motion to decre= ase the budget by $1000 (vehicle repairs) to $260,272. The reduction is predicated on get= ting a vehicle this year. Mr. Lynde seconded the motion. He comme= nted that he felt a vehicle should be leased versus purchasing a used vehicle. Mr. Viger questioned if any consideration had been given to making the position a stipend position and letting the person use their own car, similar to the other inspectors. It was suggested to have a discuss= ion with Mr. Gowan. <= /p>

MOTION:

(Lynde/McDevit= t) To decrease the budget by $1000 making the new budget number $260,272.

VOTE:

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

Police Department – The requested budget is $2,270,538. Lieutenant Gary Fisher came forwar= d to answer any questions. Mr. Hav= erty confirmed the cost of the accreditation program. He made a motion for a new figure = of $2,289,006 to add the following: 1) $1936 (in salaries) for the certificati= on process; 2) $5225 (in expenses) for the cost of the initial recognition fee, annual recognition fee, continuation fee and annual training (listed on pag= e 4 of back up information); 3) $5365 (in salaries) to fund three officers for D.A.R.E. program; and 4) $5942 (in salaries) for three additional hours per week for care of K-9 by the K-9 officer.&n= bsp; Mr. Gleason seconded the motion.&nb= sp; Mr. Lynde stated he would like to replace the D.A.R.E. Officer with a School Resource Officer (‘SRO’) ($48,486). There was further discussion regar= ding the two officers and a question which the Police Chief would prefer. Mr. Haverty suggested that the Sel= ectmen act upon his motion and possibly reconsider if the Police Chief felt an SRO= was more desirable. It was noted = that when staff is added it is typically done through a warrant article. The Selectmen voted on the budget = number of $2,328,128 as discussed by Mr. Haverty, which did not include an SRO.

MOTION:

(Haverty/Gleas= on) To increase the budget making the new budget number $2,289,006

VOTE:

(3-2-0) The motion carried. Mr. Lynde and Mr. McDevitt voted= no.

Retirement – The requested = budget is $1,044,405. Mr. McDevitt m= ade a motion to increase the budget by $50,000 making the new budget $1,094,405.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> He felt the number should sh= ow the estimated costs. His intent was to make a placeholder. Mr. Gaydos said = the actual number would probably not be in until February.

MOTION: = (McDevitt/Haverty) To increase the budget making the new budget number $1,094,405.

VOTE:= &nb= sp; (5-0-0) The motion carried.

Selectmen – The requested b= udget is $462,717. There were no amendments.

Senior Center – The requested budget is $70,953. There were no amendm= ents.

Town Buildings – The reques= ted budget is $518,975. There wer= e no amendments.

Town Celebrations – The req= uested budget is $9585. There were no amendments.

Town Clerk – The requested = budget is $199,570. There were no amendments.

Transfer Station – The requ= ested budget is $513,214. There wer= e no amendments.

Treasurer – The requested b= udget is $7851. There were no amend= ments.

Trust Funds – The requested budget is $145. There were no amendments.

Mr. Gleason informed that= the new Town budget bottom line figure was $11,474,272 which represented an increas= e of approximately 4.5% overall (2.3% growth above default, the remaining percent was salaries).

The Department Heads were= thanked for their hard work and for holding the line.

REQUEST FOR NON-PUBLIC SESSION

MOTION:

(Haverty/Lynde) Request for a non-public session per RSA 91-A:3,II, a (personnel)

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Viger-Yes;= Mr. Gleason-Yes; Mr. McDevitt-Yes; Mr. Lynde-Yes; Mr. Haverty-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 8:45 pm.

The Board returned to public session at approximately 9:55 pm.

MOTION:

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

VOTE:

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

ADJOURNMENT

MOTION:

(Haverty/McDev= itt) To adjourn the meeting.

VOTE:

(5-0-0) The motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:55 pm.

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

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

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