Minutes
Town of Greenfield
Greenfield Town Offices, 7 Sawmill Road Greenfield, NH
Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 29, 2011 – 6:30 pm
Board of Selectmen: Chairman, Aaron Kullgren; Selectwoman, Karen Day; Selectman, Robert Wimpory
Staff: Town Administrator Patt, Code Enforcement Officer Hopkins, Planning Board Chairman Marshall, Road Commission members Nickerson & Merzi
Public: Kyle Fontaine
The meeting was called to order at 6:30 PM by Chairman Aaron Kullgren.
Documents for Approval/Review/Signature
The Selectmen reviewed and signed the following items:
A/P Invoices
A/P Check Manifest / Checks
Approval of Selectman’s Minutes of December 15 & 22nd
Resident Complaint
Vincent Letter
North Pack Electrical Services Agreement
Driveway Permit Application R9-43-1: (1) Alteration, (1) Construction
Intent to Cut R4-23-1
R3-40 Abatement finalized
Hazardous Waste Collection Project 2012 Commitment
Employee wage adjustment spreadsheet - final
6:30 PM: Document Signing and Review of Correspondence
The Board of Selectmen reviewed correspondence and signed documents.
At 6:40 PM the Board reviewed the North Pack Electrical quote and contract for work at the Greenfield Recycling Center. Mr. Fontaine of North Pack Electrical indicated that he planned to start the work on Saturday December 31st. There are several items in the quote and the work may not be completed on Saturday. Mr. Fontaine provided a contract and an insurance binder so that the Board could vote on the work if that were necessary. On review of the quote a motion was made by Selectmen Wimpory to contract for the services outlined and to encumber the funds from the Recycling Center funds in the amount of $1,500 to be paid from the 2011 budget. Selectwoman Day seconded and the vote passed 3-0.
6:45 PM: Public Hearing – Police Cruiser
Selectman Kullgren opened the Public Hearing at 6:45 PM. The Town received two sealed bids for the 2003 Crown Victoria cruiser. One bid was from a resident of Francestown for $101 and the other was from Chicago Motors for $450. The Selectmen elected not to entertain either of the bids. The Public Hearing was closed at 6:48 PM.
7:00 PM Planning Board Chair Bob Marshall
Mr. Marshall came before the Board of Selectmen with a contract from Southwest Regional Planning Services, as previously discussed on December 8th, for the update of the Town of Greenfield Master Plan. The contract included a budget for a new Vision section, which will bring the Town’s Master Plan into compliance, and an update to the Land Use section of the plan. The amount of the contract, to cover both sections, is $5750.00. This is to be paid with monies remaining in the 2011 Planning Board budget. The Selectmen reviewed the contract. A motion by Selectman Wimpory was made for Chairman Marshall to enter into a contract with SWRPC for the amount stated in the contract and to complete the two sections of the Master Plan, and further, to encumber the funds from the 2011 Planning Board budget. The
motion was seconded by Selectwoman Day. On a roll call the vote passed 3-0.
Mr. Marshall requested to speak to the issue of the lighting behind the Greenfield Meeting Place. Mr. Marshall described a visit to the site with DPW Supervisor Murray. They were able to find a conduit with a pull string in the area where a streetlight was located on the original plan. However there was no wiring in place and no indication that the lighting was included at the panel. A conversation with the general contractor of the renovation indicated that they felt that the light was the responsibility of the Town. The G.C. did not have any additional information. Mr. Marshall went on to report that he was very pleased with the responsiveness of Mr. Murray and his crew as he felt that they have been very diligent in their response to the request for help with the lighting. A conversation with the Board
took place with questions about the cost of the light. Mr. Murray indicated that the Town was not obligated to put an equivalent light such as the ones around the Town offices; a simpler light pole and fixture could be cost effectively installed so that the people using the parking lot would have lighting.
Peter Hopkins Code Enforcement Officer:
Mr. Hopkins the Code Enforcement Officer came before the Board of Selectmen to discuss a letter received from Ken Vincent with respect to the court order to fill the excavation on the Vincent property. Mr. Vincent’s letter indicated that he had not received notice of the court’s decision and that he would set in motion an appeal to the decision. Mr. Hopkins explained to the Board that while the Town has sent a number of registered letters to Vincent the court sends their communication by the regular U.S. mail system as a result they are not tracked on delivery. In order to ensure that Mr. Vincent is treated as fairly as possible by the Town, Mr. Hopkins reported that he spoke to the Town’s counsel about the letter. He and counsel agreed that they would extend themselves again and Mr.
Hopkins made copies of every letter and court order that he has in his binder. He then had the police department hand deliver the copies to Mr. Vincent who signed a statement saying that he had received all of the court orders and Town letters, including the court order that stipulates that Mr. Vincent pay the Town’s attorney fees. The date to fill the excavation was moved to Friday, January 13th 2012. The Selectmen thanked Mr. Hopkins for his presentation and keeping them up to date.
7:15 PM Tim Murray, DPW Supervisor and 7:30 PM Greenfield Roads Commission
The meeting started early with Tim Murray, DPW Supervisor and Peter Hopkins of the Roads Commission beginning the conversation with the Board. Two other members of the commission arrived shortly before 7:30. Bob Marshall was present during the conversation as well. Mr. Murray had been requested to attend the meeting and speak to the Board about his conversations with the Roads Commission and how he arrived at the budgetary numbers that begin a three year road reconstruction program, as previously outlined by the Roads Commission. The Selectmen said that they would like the Roads Commission to help provide a long-term plan for all of the roads. Tim Murray indicated that his plan included $300,000 per year for the reconstruction of roads, and that he was generally not in agreement with the presentation by
UNH outlining Greenfield’s road-project needs. In subsequent discussions with the Administrator, and looking at the impact on the tax rate, Mr. Murray thought that the three hundred thousand dollar amount might be difficult for residents to handle. The Board asked the Administrator to provide some background to the conversations. A short agenda was provided to the Board and Mr. Murray outlining several items for discussion including: the need for a long term plan, the need for consensus driven budgetary numbers, the concept of ‘handling’ as it pertains to the cost of creating road grade product from local materials or gravel pit sites, and whether the DPW should be deployed solely on production of road fill and supervision of paving or whether they are maintaining the roads, performing tasks throughout town, and ensuring that contractors meet certain guarantees and obligations when road projects are contracted. The Administrator said that he had talked with Mr.
Murray and outlined the impact of large dollar projects on the tax rate. The Board asked Mr. Murray if there were alternatives to paving every road in town; with the high cost of asphalt products, does it make sense to try and plan on paving every road in a 10 or 15-year program? They asked the question: are we reaching a point where certain roads should revert to, or be maintained as dirt roads rather than expect to pave them at some point? Mr. Murray said that there are alternatives to paving a road in the short term and that sometimes it depends on different factors such as amount of traffic, amount of water, drainage, and the road base in place for each road. As an example Mr. Murray sited Mountain Road where he said that the plan is to put down a vapor barrier on top of the existing asphalt road, then build up the crown with gravel and pave over the new base, on top of the existing road. He had spoken to two separate contractors and generally they were agreed on the approach.
This approach is favored because Mountain Road is a hilly road with a lot of incline, however, Old Bennington Road is a flat road and that road’s asphalt could be ground up and graded as road base. Once it is ground up, it can be left as an unpaved road. The Board asked for clarification on whether the DPW should be putting the road base down or whether the contractor should put the base down and then complete the paving? Mr. Murray said that in the case of Mountain Road, where it has steep inclines, the Town would want a contract that guarantees that the contractor be paving a certain amount of road a day so that any inclement weather does not work against the reconstruction. If the Town DPW were to lay out the base on Mountain Road and then waited on a contractor to start paving, a storm could undo all the work accomplished by the department. So in this instance a contractor who can guarantee certain performance goals as the work progresses is in a better position to
do the work cost effectively. The DPW could then concentrate on other projects around town. The Board asked Mr. Murray if he could explain and compare the cost of maintaining dirt roads vs. paved vs. ground up asphalt base roads. Mr. Murray replied that in general, on flat surfaces, the ground up asphalt becomes very compact and makes a good unpaved road, as it will hold up longer than a dirt road before requiring maintenance. The equipment to maintain a road of this kind is a little different than for a normal dirt road. The grader would require an attachment with teeth so that you could scarify the road before you grade it. The reason for this is because the ground up asphalt surface is extremely hard and would need to be “softened” with the attachment. The Board asked what an attachment of this type would cost and Mr. Murray replied he thought it would be in the neighborhood of $25,000. Select Board Chair Kullgren said that it appeared that there are some options for
handling road conditions; this includes grinding, paving, and maintenance of dirt roads. As a result of the explanation of using grinding as an alternative to paving, it sounded as if there were more options for the DPW rather than just looking at paving costs vs. maintaining dirt roads. If road longevity or use could be extended through the use of grinding, and if this was more economical, then it could be beneficial to the residents in terms of the cost for road maintenance.
The Administrator outlined that when comparing the 2011 budget to the 2010 budget, it was clear that while the budget went up $41,000 the amount needed from tax appropriation increased in the neighborhood of $138,000 because of decreasing revenues year over year. In 2010 this was offset by a real estate sale, which was a one-time event. The difficulty in 2012 is that while the Board and Department heads are doing everything they can to deliver cost effective services in as flat a budget as possible, over the last five years revenues have trended down, which is causing an increase in tax appropriations even before funding is added to the budget for road reconstruction. This makes it more difficult to add high dollar projects to the budget because as embedded costs and utilities increase revenues are likely
to continue to remain depressed. As a result the impact of added tax dollars for the roads is likely to be felt to a higher degree by taxpayers.
The conversation moved to a discussion of the question of whether to implement a road bond instead of paying for road reconstruction out of taxes. It was agreed that this should be looked at for 2013 and that in 2012 the research could be accomplished to put the bond versus use-of-taxes into perspective. Mr. Nickerson said that one advantage of bonding the projects would be that the cost would be fixed and the fee every year would be part of the budget. If you rely on Town Meeting to vote the tax dollars on a plan that calls for $100-$200 thousand dollars every year over a certain period, it could be derailed at Town Meeting or by a different Select Board. At least with a bond you have a fixed cost that you have to budget for. To get closer to a number that could be used in 2012, the discussion turned to
how much money could you realistically add into the local tax rate for roads before increases cause a vote against the budget? There was a short conversation in which it was agreed that the amount was likely to be in the neighborhood of $175,000 – $200,000 over a period of time, probably ten years. Mr. Hopkins said that he could be very happy with $200,000 every year over ten years. While it didn’t address completely the full run up needed to fix a number of roads in the near term, it was enough money over a longer term to get quite a lot done. The consensus appeared to be that adding a $100,000 to the road reconstruction line item and bringing that line to $175,000 was likely to be close to the limit on what could be added to the budget in this economy.
Skid Steer Review and Discussion
Mr. Nickerson inquired as to what was going to be reviewed by the Board with respect to the S130 Skid Steer. The Board replied it had gathered information from a number of resources including the manufacturer, the Town’s counsel, the Town’s insurance carrier, and the manufacturer’s information included hand-outs on the fork’s specifications and weight limits, which had not been included in the due diligence materials at the time of the original purchase. Mr. Nickerson said that he had been one of the people originally involved in helping the Town choose the piece of equipment currently at the Recycling Center. He asked if there were specific issues with respect to the skid steer. Selectmen Wimpory replied that on looking into some concerns voiced by the Recycling Center Supervisor
the Board realized that there is a liability issue that the municipality has to deal with. Specifically, after reviewing the pallet fork load rating tables provided by the manufacturer it is apparent that the weight of the bales is greater than the rated carrying capacity of the equipment. While the machine can handle many of the tasks that are required at the center, there are certain tasks that the equipment is not rated to handle. The pallet fork load tables were explained and it showed that the current machine is capable of handling up to 770 pounds of load on its forks, which is several hundred pounds less than what is required. The liability issue is exacerbated because of the fact that the S130 skid steer model is meant for maneuverability; it has a shorter wheelbase and a radius-lifting arc. Altogether these design features contribute to tipping issues when attempting to lift the 1100-1200 pound cardboard bales and stack them three high in the transport truck (which is
necessary to ensure a full load from the off-take purchaser, who might otherwise charge the Town for removal). Selectman Wimpory indicated that from a risk management standpoint the difference between the rated capacity and the required capability was so great as to need immediate attention. He further stated that while a person who has use of this machine privately might be able to accomplish certain tasks at home or on the jobsite, the fact remains that the Town has a fiduciary responsibility to mitigate risk and potential liability. There is an enormous difference between a municipality and a private person or company when it comes to managing liability. Further, this is such a clear-cut case that the Board was in process of reaching the inescapable conclusion that they had to act on the issue directly. Mr. Nickerson asked if the Town had looked into making smaller bales. The Administrator provided a letter from NRRA, the recycling off-take company, indicating that the regular
bales were sold by the Town at $165 a ton and that if they make the bales 35-40% smaller to accommodate the weight restriction the Town would be penalized $40 dollars a ton, and, there was a real risk that there may not be a buyer because of the increased handling costs the smaller bales would require at the other end. In fact smaller bales might be considered “loose” material also for which there may not be buyers available. In addition, there might also be an extra charge for the increase in handling costs.
There was general conversation among the Board members and Mr. Nickerson about the frustration that this situation provoked. The conversation turned to examine how angry certain residents in town might feel given that this situation has been a hot topic in the past. Notwithstanding people’s frustrations and anger at how the machine was represented (as being up to tasks) by the seller, Town counsel had been very clear, now that the deficiency was known the Board should not delay in correcting the situation. Mr. Wimpory and Mr. Kullgren stated to Mr. Nickerson that they were very aware of the need to provide a safe workplace for staff and residents alike. They have examined the issue from a number of angles and reached the conclusion that the current machine was not represented adequately. Mr.
Nickerson remembers the conversation he had with Neal. Neal called and said that he had found this unit, which would meet all the requirements and fit into the Town’s budget at the time. Did Mr. Nickerson want to look at the unit? He said he didn’t because it was such a “no-brainer” at the time. Now the deal does not look appealing at all. Mr. Nickerson suggested that the Board consider the possibility of trading the machine in for a used piece of equipment. This led to some discussion about the value of trading for used. At this point Mr. Nickerson left the meeting to go home and wished the Board luck in resolving the issue.
After review of the letter from counsel and the letter from the Town’s insurance carrier, which outlined several pertinent questions to ask of the manufacturer, and a review of the weight limit restrictions on the forks, it was agreed that the S185 Skid Steer was the appropriate machine because, after the forks were attached, the pallet fork load rating was greater than the weight of the bales. Also the S185 has a longer wheelbase and a vertical lift radius, which combines to make the machine stable when lifting heavy objects. Together these issues would remove the risk of liability while increasing usefulness at the Recycling Center. Selectwoman Day provided a quote for an S185 from Bobcat and outlined a conversation that she had had with the seller’s father who owns the business. She also
reminded the Board members that Bobcat of NH has very attractive municipal discount rates. This had been one of the reasons to use this firm in the beginning. As a result of her conversation, she reported that the firm was willing to take the S130 in trade towards a new S185 with full warranty. The cost of the trade-in had increased since the issue was originally broached with the company in July. The increase in cost was due to two things, a rate increase that happened in October and the number of hours on the S130.
The Board deliberated for some time about the situation, their inescapable conclusion that the S130 was too small for the workload, and the effects the upgrade would have on the Recycling Center budget. The Administrator indicated that the Y-T-D report on the recycling budget indicated that there was approximately $17,000 dollars available from the 2011 budget. After deducting the electrical work and allowing for some expenses still outstanding prior to the end of the year there was still funds available for an upgrade to an S185 Skid Steer with the likelihood of funds left unexpended in the budget at the close of the year.
After review of the letter from counsel and Primex and further review of risk management methodologies it was decided to upgrade from the S130 to the S185. Selectman Wimpory made the motion to upgrade from the S130 to the S185, which has a longer wheelbase and vertical lift sufficient to handle the bale sizes required for offtake by NRRA at the Greenfield Recycling Center, for the upgrade cost of $5,714.00 and further, to encumber the funds from the 2011 Recycling Center funds. Selectwoman Day seconded. On a roll call vote the motion passed 3-0.
Personnel Policy Review and Adoption
The revised personnel policy was reviewed and a motion was made by Selectwoman Day to adopt the newest version of the policy, which has been reviewed by Town counsel and Local Government Center. The motion was seconded by Selectman Wimpory. On a roll call vote the motion passed 3-0 in favor. It was suggested the policy be provided to department heads to review and then a meeting with the department heads scheduled in January. Any edits, corrections, or changes provided by department heads could be discussed and adopted by the Board at the meeting.
Adjournment
Kullgren moved to adjourn the meeting. Day seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:27 PM
Respectfully Submitted:
Aaron Patt
Town Administrator
The minutes are final when approved and signed by the Board of Selectmen. A signed copy is on file in the Selectmen’s minutes.
_______________________ ________________________ ______________________
Aaron Kullgren, Chairman Robert Wimpory, Selectman Karen Day, Selectwoman
| 
