Minutes
Town of Greenfield
Greenfield Town Offices, 7 Sawmill Road Greenfield, NH
Selectmen’s Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December January 19, 2012 – 6:30 pm
Board of Selectmen: Chairman, Aaron Kullgren; Selectwoman, Karen Day; Selectman, Robert Wimpory
Staff: Town Administrator Patt, DPW Supervisor Murray, Recycling Center Supervisor Burgess, Budget Committee Member Chair Nickerson, Budget Committee Members Paulsen, Steere, Road Commission Member Hopkins
Public: John Mathias, Donna Smith, Deb Davidson
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
Payroll Checks
Approval of Selectman’s Minutes of September 12th
Petition Pole License
6:30 PM: Document Signing and Review of Correspondence
The Board of Selectmen reviewed correspondence and signed documents.
Resident Donna Smith asked for a non-public session for a brief conversation. The Selectmen reviewed RSA 93:A and determined that the request fell under 91-A:3 II, C Reputation. On a roll call vote the Board voted 3-0 to hold a non-public session. A non-public session was opened at 6:45. At 6:52 the Board voted to close the session. A vote to seal the minutes was held and passed 3-0.
7:00 PM: DPW Supervisor Murray
At the request of the Board, Supervisor Murray reviewed the Meridian Land Services Inc. proposal for Surveying and Engineering Services as part of a site plan for a salt shed that will meet compliance with N.H. Department of Environmental Services (DES) regulations. The proposal covers utilization of the Town’s parcel of property on Forest Road adjacent to Greenvale Cemetery, to include a salt shed, new DPW building, equipment storage area, and excavation of sand and gravel resources for future town projects. The Board asked Supervisor Murray about the current DPW site and could the current site be used for the salt shed. Supervisor Murray explained that there is no room to move/build on the current site, which is part of the landfill property. The current salt shed storage facilities allow rainwater
runoff mixed with salt to run into wetlands bordering the current site. When it rains the driveway turns white with the salt runoff. It is his understanding that if a new shed is not constructed that meets DES approval the Town could face fines.
The Board asked about the gravel resources on the Forest Rd. property. In the past the suggestion was made that the Town had plenty of sand and gravel resources for its own gravel pit. The Forest Road site specifically was talked about as having enough gravel to cover future projects in Town for many years to come. The Board asked Supervisor Murray to explain whether it was feasible to rely on gravel from this property versus buying it for town road projects. Supervisor Murray said that the test pits have been dug and the report on the pits is that there is usable gravel on the site. What has not been determined is how much gravel is available, which will require a topographic survey. In general however, it was not the DPW’s intention to turn the property into a gravel pit. Supervisor Murray
explained the process of extracting gravel and stone from the site and said he thought that the best use of the DPW resources would be to clear 2 acres a year, extract & screen gravel, pile stone, and every 4-5 years crush the stone for use in town projects. If the intention is to use very large quantities of gravel for road construction then the site would have to be clear cut, equipment leased or purchased to handle the screening, crushing and sorting of the gravel and stone resources; this would take up significant amount of DPW resources and prevent other projects around town from being completed. Supervisor Murray indicated that a more efficient use of DPW manpower would be to clear two acres a year, which would have the benefit of groundcover and tree growth occurring naturally as the crew moved from one two acres section to another. Then a crusher could be rented every 4-5 years, or on an as needed basis to handle the rock pulled from the ground. This would provide a
cost effective resource over time and keep the focus on town road projects in the near term.
The conversation moved from the survey and engineering proposal to the DPW road reconstruction budget. Supervisor Murray opened the conversation by saying that he had been mistaken in his understanding of the recent conversations. He went on to say that his understanding had been that his road reconstruction line, which had been increased to $75,000, was for road projects in town and that the budget that was under discussion for Moutain Road or Old Bennington Road was a separate item. DPW has a list of projects whiteboarded for 2012 and the immediate fixes of culverts and drainage pipes will cost approximately $46,000 of the $75K. If the Board puts a hundred thousand dollars into that line item and expects to use the full $175,000 on road reconstruction then this prevents any other road maintenance work
from being accomplished. It has been Supervisor Murray’s understanding that the amount of money for Mountain Road and other projects reviewed by the Road Commission would be funded separately through warrant articles but would not absorb his maintenance budget. The Board and Supervisor Murray discussed whether the line item should be renamed Road Maintenance instead of Road Reconstruction. Selectman Chair Kullgren explained that there were pressures on the budget from outside forces. He had attended the recent Conval School Board Selectmen’s advisory meeting and learned that Conval will be putting a warrant on the ballot for approximately $2M. Because of the enrollment numbers Greenfield would have a higher percentage of that bond to cover, or approximately $185,000. This would carry a tax impact in town that would directly compete with any of the projects that the Board and the Commission wanted to complete. Supervisor Murray indicated that oil is also a factor in
price and that as oil goes up the price of gravel goes up because of the diesel fuel required to run the machines that process the resources.
Chairman Kullgren asked Ken Paulsen what he thought of the conversation. Mr. Paulsen, a budget committee member for a short time indicated that he liked the idea of a warrant article and understood the “reconstruction v.s. maintenance” designation and thought that made sense. Mr. Paulsen went on that he was amazed at the increase in the school budget despite the decrease in population. He went on to say that the economy, while stabilized, does not appear to be getting a lot better and that in his opinion the boom days were over and probably were not coming back. Chairman Kullgren questioned the Budget Committee members about the idea of having road reconstruction as a stand-alone warrant article, saying, “If the warrant is voted down where are you?”. Selectman Wimpory stated that if
you don’t keep the roads we have maintained we will have worse problems. Supervisor Murray listed a number of maintenance projects, which included a culvert on Russell Station Road and on New Boston Road. In addition to the extensive list of project that were named Supervisor Murray said that Swamp Road and County Road both turn to mud in the Spring and after heavy rains and that drainage on these roads would use up a lot of the remaining funds in that line. Selectwoman Karen Day said that the Board put in $100,000 in the Highway budget to ensure that there is something. Selectman Wimpory asked if the road project should focus on Mountain Road or would the DPW suggest another road? Supervisor Murray said that he felt that the focus should be on Mountain Road. Selectman Wimpory questioned the amount of money that was needed to do half of Mountain Road and confirmed the number reported by the Roads Commission was $191,000. This was substantially more than the $100,000 that they
had put in the budget if you took out the $75,000. Selectman Wimpory went on to say that if the tax rate is set too high it would be a hardship for those people on fixed incomes. He went on to say that the other option is to bond several projects but that a bond faces a vote at Town Meeting just the same as a warrant article. Either approach could be voted down and it was clear that these projects needed to be addressed and built into the budget as part of an ongoing plan.
Chairman Kullgren indicated that such a plan should be systematic and strategic. Knowing the project costs individually so that we know the cost of the roads over five years would be a good starting point. The financing was a different discussion, meaning that how you finance the cost of the projects could be determined once the costs over a period of time were known. Supervisor Murray indicated that he has the cost of the reconstruction on a road-by-road basis and that he could provide those costs separately from the list of priority projects that he had originally provided. This would allow the Board and DPW together to address projects and timelines once it was understood how much money was available. So, for example, once Town Meeting was over and the budget was known, DPW could look at the monies
available and determine which projects they could do even though it might not coincide with the priorities. The Board asked if there were only $100,000 available could a portion of Mountain Road be done? Supervisor Murray agreed that they could do that too.
The Selectmen took comments from the Budget Committee members. Myron Steere said that the Selectmen should let the people vote on a separate warrant article and recommended putting a two hundred thousand dollar ($200,000) article on the warrant for Town Meeting. Steere also said that bonding could work too because if you can do multiple roads in a bond the cost will come down.
The Board of Selectmen went back to discuss renaming the DPW line items and agreed that Road Maintenance was a good differentiation from Road Reconstruction. The Board recommended $75,000 for Road Maintenance and to put funding for Road Reconstruction in a warrant article for Town Meeting for $100,000.
The discussion turned again to Conval and Greenfield’s enrollment. There was a brief discussion of the impact of Conval on the tax rate. The Board then asked Supervisor Murray if there were any other warrant articles that they should consider. There was a short discussion on the Capital Improvement Plan and a provision for a pick-up truck for DPW. Rob Wimpory suggested that if a pick up were to be provided to the DPW in order to save gas on running the larger pieces of equipment then it should be a used truck. He further stated that if they had a ¾ ton truck they could put a plow on it and use it for plowing certain areas around town. There was a brief discussion around the idea of buying a used truck and a new plow, which would be the best combination as the vehicle would not have been used for
plowing previously. The Board of Selectmen had previously suggested that they were looking to put $25,000 amount into the Highway Department’s equipment capital reserve fund but that if the DPW were looking to fund a pick up truck the Town couldn’t afford to do both.
8:00 PM: Supervisor Burgess – Report
The Board reviewed a report that Supervisor Burgess prepared in response to a request by the Budget Committee members on a Recycling Center Pay-Per-Throw program. The report was originally prepared for the Town of Henniker but they had allowed Supervisor Burgess to use the wording from their report. The report was updated with Town of Greenfield information. Supervisor Burgess reported that Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) programs have been looked at by a number of communities in New Hampshire. The report indicates that there were nearly 50 towns & cities across the State that use PAYT. The programs are designed to reduce tonnage in the waste stream, increase recycling (and recycling revenues) and offset the cost of running the Recycling Center. There was a question from the Board as to why the town
didn’t just hire dumpsters and let people dump their trash, wouldn’t that be cheaper. Supervisor Burgess indicated that there are regulations now that pertain to waste disposal – such as hazardous waste regulations- that would result in dumpster loads being rejected, which could lead to fines against the municipality. All of the off-take vendors the Town uses today are licensed for handling the waste they take. This includes electronic waste. There was a discussion about the program’s impact on different types of waste including hazardous waste. Supervisor Burgess went on to say that she monitors people who come to the center and can tell when a person is bringing in non-household waste. She illustrated this point with a story about a man who came to the center with construction waste in garbage bags. He was turned away from the Center. Supervisor Burgess said she stopped the man and when he began to argue with her she opened a bag, which was filled with
construction debris and drywall pieces.
Chairman Kullgren indicated that an increase in recycling was not what he had heard and now he was very interested. He reviewed the report and noted that reduction in trash has been reported by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) report on PAYT programs as 15-28% less trash in the waste stream and that some achieve as much as 25-45% less trash on average. He asked Supervisor Burgess what she thought of bringing the program to Town Meeting this year. Supervisor Burgess said that given all of the things that have happened in the last couple of years that this would not be a good time to bring this program forward. She indicated that programs like this usually require a lead time so that residents can be educated on the positive aspects of the program, otherwise they would likely focus on the
new cost to the detriment of the rest of the program’s benefits.
Budget Committee Chairman Nickerson explained that the Budget Committee is proposing the program to offset costs to the Recycling Center and that the only downside is that there needs to be some policing of the bags thrown in the compactor. The Committee suggested the program and think it would be a really good thing. Donna Smith asked what the start-up costs would be. Mrs. Smith said it was good to understand that Supervisor Burgess is not pushing the program and that it came from the Budget Committee. Mrs. Smith went on to say that there would be a contingent of residents in town that would blame Burgess for the program if it were passed if the Budget Committee doesn’t make it clear that the program is their idea. Mrs. Smith went on to say that Concord had a shortfall in the first year that they
implemented the program and it was a significant shortfall. She remembered the shortfall was in the paper and was reportedly over a million dollars. She wasn’t sure if that was on the revenue side or if it also included the start-up costs, but clearly the programs benefit would not be felt in the first year and that there was likely to be some start up costs and that the program would need to be ramped up over time.
John Mathias was recognized and said that the important thing is to educate people in the community. He said, “the more I learn about the program, …it’s a good thing in the long run”.
Budget Committee Chair Nickerson said that the back-up plan if the program is voted down is what we have now. He went on to say that the purpose of proposing the program was to help keep costs flat and possibly offset the costs of running the center. Donna Smith said that PAYT program was started in Seattle and they had no where near the kinds of reduction in waste that was indicated, in fact the location gave rise to the term “Seattle Stomp” because so many people began compressing the waste in the bags. There was a brief discussion of using stickers instead of bags. A comparison was made of certain municipalities that use clear bags with a logo that are purchased in certain locations around town, and municipalities that standardize on the specific bag size. The standardized bags can be bought
in any supermarket and some supermarkets have signs up so that you know which are the right bags for the local transfer station. There was additional conversation among members of the Budget Committee and the Board about the fact that even if the tonnage was not reduced dramatically as indicated in the EPA report that any money that comes in as a result of selling the bags would help offset the cost of the center. Supervisor Burgess suggested that if the Town went with clear municipal bags they could be sold in the Harvester Market as a loss leader to get people to come in to the store. The cost to the market would be the retail cost and they would pass that on to the public without mark-up. The Board asked what the cumulative offset to the Recycling Center was likely to be. Supervisor Burgess indicated that the report allows for a conservative 15% increase in recycling, which leads to higher recycling revenue and lower tipping fees. That this in conjunction with current income and
the revenues from bags purchased as part of the PAYT could generate just over $50,000 in revenue that would go against the cost of the Center. There was some discussion of using conservative numbers, the fact that a program voted in March might not start until September, and that there would be a ramp-up period that might be extensive before reliable figures were available. Notwithstanding the period of time it would take to get a PAYT program up and running the potential offset could be significant enough that the Board felt it should be advanced to Town Meeting.
The Board reviewed the Recycling Center budget and asked questions about the tipping fees from Monadnock Transport. Supervisor Burgess explained that they bill one month in arrears so that 2011 included the month of December 2010 and December 2011 would start the billing for 2012. The discussion turned to a 2500.00 grant line item that was expended by 400 dollars in 2011. Supervisor Burgess found out that the additional monies in the grant were still available in 2012 through the end of June. This meant that she could apply for the same amount starting in July to carry through the end of the year. Together these two waste oil grants could go to a 500-gallon aboveground waste oil tank that DES is mandating the Town install at the Center. The grant funding is based on reimbursement. The line item for one year is a maximum
of $2500 but two grant awards in 2012 would provide up to $5000 (less the $400 spent in ’11) toward the specialized collection tanks. Budget Committee Chair Nickerson was recognized and he said he thought that these tanks were federally mandated and that eventually we would need to install something on the site. The Board of Selectmen discussed whether these grant amounts would be better included as separate warrant articles. It was decided to keep the $2500 line item and establish a warrant article to cover the second grant application. Supervisor Burgess also advised the Board that as a safety issue she is alone at the Center on occasion and does not have a cell phone.
9:00 PM: Budget Advisory Committee
The Budget Advisory Committee met with the Selectmen and outlined their recommendations to the Board for the 2012 budget. Their recommendations were:
§ To establish a warrant article for road reconstruction for the amount of $200,000
§ To increase the Police Department’s gas line item from $8500 to $10,000
§ To increase the Welfare Department budget from $27,345 to $30,000
§ To continue to fund the Police Vehicle Capital Reserve Fund for $5000
The Budget Advisory Committee also suggested looking into hiring George Sansoucy to assess utilities as other communities were using his office and the return on the assessments of utilities was significant.
Budget Review
The Selectmen reviewed a preliminary warrant and noted that there was a warrant article for generators for the 2012 Town Meeting. There was a discussion about the generators. Other discussions were brief and included the Library’s explanation of Saturday hours, Code Red costs that have not been determined yet and the lighting behind the Greenfield Corner property. The Board instructed the Administrator to contact Supervisor Murray and discuss getting quotes for a light pole behind Greenfield Properties.
There was a discussion of network and computer infrastructure needs for the Town Offices. The current server is nearly seven years old and has programs running for all the major offices including:
§ The Police Department’s CrimeStar software
§ The Town Clerk’s Motor Vehicle database software
§ The Town Tax Collectors Avitar software and record of all assessments
§ The Executive Office’s
o QuickBooks software and document storage
o Asset Management software
§ The Treasurer’s Documents
§ Building Inspector Data
It was noted by the Administrator that the server was potentially near the end of its life and if its goes down it will shut down all multi-user functions (such as assessment data and accounting) including website updates, Internet and email. So there should be some funds available to fix or replace the server if there are any issues. Otherwise the office could keep running for as long as the machine will hold up and wouldn’t spend the money unless it needed to. The Board asked if it were possible to lease a server. The Administrator was tasked with determining if it were possible to lease a server.
Adjournment
Kullgren moved to adjourn the meeting. Day seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:21 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
| 
