 |
HOLDEN BOARD OF SELECTMEN
MEETING MINUTES
MARCH 31, 2014
6:30PM Starbard Building
Present:
Chairman: Robert Lavigne, Anthony Renzoni,
Mark Ferguson, Jeremy Kurtz
Others Present:
Jacquie Kelly, Town Manager
Peter Lukes, Assistant Town Manager
Sue Lucia, Recording Secretary
Chairman Lavigne opened the meeting at 6:30PM. The Board participated in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Town Manager’s Evaluation
The Town Manager reviewed her self-evaluation & goals from 2013. Other accomplishments were also noted. Chairman Lavigne and the Board discussed their ratings of the Town Manager’s Performance Evaluation. The individual ratings will be compiled and a final rating in each category will be announced at a future meeting.
The Manager was reviewed in the categories of Board Established Goals, Financial Management, Board Relations, Overall Leadership, Personal and Professional Development, Community and Governmental Relations, General Government, Public Works, Public Safety, and Growth Management.
Board Established Goals
The Board reviewed the Town Manager’s performance relative to established goals. With regard to Establishing a FY 2013 Budget that stays under a 2 ¼ overall increase, the Board had applied high marks to this goal. Mr. Lavigne commented that the increase in the town’s bond rating with a stable outlook was exceptional. Mr. Kurtz also rated high on this goal but thought the Town Manager could do better. Mr. Ferguson was happy with relief to the taxpayers but had a problem with the legal budget. Mr. Lipka was not present but his ratings were read by Mr. Lavigne and he rated the Town Manager as ‘meets expectations’. Mr. Renzoni commended the Town Manager for no huge budget increases.
Water-Sewer Rate Study – Mr. Lavigne and Mr. Renzoni rated ‘exceptional’ for this goal. Mr. Kurtz rated this as ‘meets expectations’ because it’s too early to tell results and there needs to be more communication between the Board and Town Manager. Mr. Lipka rated this as ‘needs improvement’. Mr. Ferguson gave a ‘poor’ rating because he thinks the rates are too high and the Town Manager is not doing enough about them.
Unaccounted for Water – Mr. Lavigne and Renzoni gave ‘exceptional’ ratings on this goal, while Mr. Kurtz gave a ‘meets expectations’ due to need for more consistent reporting. Mr. Lipka and Mr. Ferguson gave a ‘needs improvement’ rating because results were not happening fast enough.
Natural Gas – Four Selectmen gave ‘exceeds expectations’ ratings to this goal. Mr. Lipka gave a ‘meets expectations’ rating. The project was accomplished quickly and efficiently.
Re-zone the Old Police Station – Mr. Lavigne and Mr. Renzoni gave an ‘exceptional’ rating to this goal. The Town Manager had successfully worked with the neighbors to get consensus. Mr. Kurtz rated this goal as ‘meets expectations’ because the goal was only half done; now we need to sell it. Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Lipka rated this goal as ‘exceeds expectations.’
Recreation Department Offices – Mr. Ferguson said it might be more advantageous to keep the old Police Station and gave the Town Manager credit for putting a plan together. Mr. Lipka rated this goal as ‘exceeds expectations’ and Mr. Kurtz rated it as ‘needs improvement.’ A lot of work still needs to be done before town meeting. He also said there needed to be better communication. Mr. Lavigne gave an ‘exceeds expectation’. Mr. Renzoni also rated this goal as ‘exceeds expectations’ and said the Town Manager hit a home run.
DCR Land at Pool -- Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Lipka, and Mr. Ferguson rated this as ‘meets expectations.’ The Town Manager explained the lack of progress on this issue and said this will continue to be a goal. Mr. Renzoni and Mr. Kurtz also rated this as ‘meets expectations’ after further discussion.
ECC – Mr. Renzoni rated this goal between ‘exceeds expectations’ and ‘meets expectations.’ Mr. Lavigne rated it as ‘exceeds expectations’. Mr. Kurtz rated this between ‘needs improvement’ and ‘poor’ because the Town Manager didn’t do enough to find funding to clean up the site. He wants to move forward with this project and take a fresh look at it. Mr. Ferguson rated this as ‘needs improvement’ because he wants the site cleaned up and doing ‘nothing’ was not an option. Mr. Kurtz said the Town Manager only rehashed old reports. Mr. Renzoni said the Board did not want further staff resources spent on a project that has been studied many times in the past. Mr. Lipka rated this goal as
‘meets expectations’ because there are unknown costs associated with this clean up making it an unattainable goal. Mr. Lavigne commented that ‘doing nothing’ was a Board choice.
WRSD Budget – Mr. Lavigne and Mr. Renzoni rated this goal as ‘meets expectations’ although the final amount the Town paid was a result of two other towns’ inability to pay, thus reducing the final assessments for all District towns.
Library Extra Hours – Mr. Renzoni, Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Kurtz, and Mr. Ferguson rated this as ‘exceptional’ as adding the hours was a success. Mr. Lipka rated it as ‘meets expectations.’
EDC Funding – Mr. Renzoni rated this as exceptional. Mr. Lavigne, Mr. Ferguson and Mr. Kurtz rated it as ‘exceeds expectations.’ Mr. Lipka rated the goal as ‘meets expectations.’ Assistant Town Manager Lukes was recognized for the work he is doing with the Committee.
The following categories had several items which received various ratings by each of the Selectmen.
Financial Management: Item 1 -- coordinating the annual budget process received three ‘exceptional’ ratings and two ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 2 -- sound fiscal management, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘meets’ rating, one ‘needs improvement’ rating, and one ‘poor’ rating. Mr. Ferguson’s ‘poor’ rating was due to the Town Manager not refinancing existing debt. Items 3 and 4 -- monitoring and financial information, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘meets’ rating and two ‘needs improvement’ ratings. Item 5 -- managing resources, was rated by four Selectmen as ‘exceeds expectations.’ Number 6 -- working with the Finance Committee received
three ‘meets expectations’ and one ‘needs improvement’. Number 7 -- responds to crises, received an ‘exceeds’ from Mr. Lavigne, ‘meets’ from Mr. Renzoni and Mr. Ferguson, and a ‘not observed’ from Mr. Kurtz. Items 8 -- reports and forecasts, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘exceeds’ rating, and one ‘meets expectations’ rating. Number 9 -- presents budget information in clear format, received two ‘exceeds’ ratings and two ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 10 -- managing the town debt program received three ‘exceptional’ ratings and one ‘exceeds’ rating. The last item -- develops long-term financial plans, received three ‘exceeds’ ratings and one ‘meets expectations’ rating.
Board Relations: Item 1 -- professional working relationship, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, two ‘meets expectations’ ratings, and one ‘poor’ rating. Regarding his ratings for board relations, Mr. Ferguson referred to the Town Manager’s memo dated March 13, 2014 which Mr. Ferguson called baseless and childish. Item 2 -- listens and understands concerns received one ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds’, two ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘poor’ rating. Mr. Ferguson stated that the Town Manager ignores him on water problems. Mr. Kurtz thinks there needs to be more communication with the Board. Mr. Lavigne said that the Town Manager does a fantastic job communicating, and tries to address the minority point of view. Mr.
Renzoni said he never has to track information down. Number 3 -- policy, goals, initiatives, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘exceeds’, and two ‘meets expectations’. Mr. Lipka said that although the Manager has a professional attitude, there needs to be a more aggressive response to some issues. Number 4 -- assists in policy making received two ‘exceeds’, two ‘meets expectations’ and a ‘poor’ rating. Item 5 -- requests from the majority of the Board, was rated as one ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds’, two ‘meets expectations,’ and one ‘poor’ rating. Item 6 -- keeps board members informed, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, one ‘exceeds,’ two’ meets’, and one ‘needs improvement’ rating. On the final item in this category -- works effectively with the Chair, the Chair and one other
rated this as ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds expectations’ rating was received, one ‘meets’, and one ‘not observed.’
Overall Leadership: The Board agreed that some of the items under this category were between the Manager and employees and therefore difficult for the Board to rate. Under item 1 – employee motivation, the Manager received two ‘meets expectations’ ratings with one ‘not observed.’ Number 2 – anticipates problems, there were two ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Item 3 -- maps solutions, received two ‘exceeds expectations’ ratings and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Two ‘meets expectations’ ratings were given to number 4 – organizational skills, with three ratings of ‘not observed.’ Number 5 -- motivation, received one ‘exceeds,’ three ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘not
observed.’ Item 6 -- delegates work, received three ‘meets expectations’ and two ‘not observed.’ Mr. Renzoni commented that the Manager does not micro manage. Number 7 -- recognizes excellence, received one ‘exceeds,’ three ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘not observed.’ Number 9 -- recruits the best individuals, received two ‘exceeds’, and three ‘meets expectations’. Mr. Ferguson commented that the police chief search should have gone state-wide. Number 10 -- short and long range planning, received two ‘exceeds,’ one ‘meets’, one ‘needs improvement’ and one ‘not observed.’ Item 11 -- creativity, was rated by two Selectmen as ‘exceeds,’ one as ‘meets,’ and one as ‘needs improvement.’ Item 12 -- manages conflict, was rated by two Selectmen as ‘exceeds,’
one as ‘meets expectations,’ and one as ‘needs improvement.’ Item 13 -- infrastructure, received one ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds’, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 14 -- provides staff development, received one ‘exceeds’, one ‘meets’ and three ‘not observed’ ratings. Item 15 -- appoints qualified candidates to boards, received five ‘exceeds expectations.’ Mr. Lavigne commented that there was a low vacancy rate on boards. Item 16 -- stays informed, received three ‘exceeds expectations,’ one ‘poor,’ and one ‘not observed’. Mr. Renzoni commented that the Manager always has the town’s best interest at heart. The final item 17 -- holds employees responsible, received three’ meets expectations’ and two ‘not observed.’
Personal & Professional Development: It was agreed that some of the items were not observable by Selectmen and should be removed from future evaluations. Item 1 -- searches for inventive solutions, received one ‘exceeds’, two ‘meets’, and two ‘not observed’ ratings. Item 2 -- demonstrates resiliency, received two ‘exceeds’, one ‘meets’, and one ‘needs improvement’ as well as one ‘not observed’. Item 3 -- demonstrates skills in negotiating, received one ‘exceeds’, three ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘needs improvement’. Number 4 -- employee growth, received one ‘meets expectations’, and four ‘not observed’. Item 5 -- current in knowledge, received two
‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘exceeds expectations’ and one ‘meets expectations’. Item 6 -- participates in professional organizations, received one ‘exceptional’, two ‘meets expectations’, one’ needs improvement’ and one ‘not observed’.
Community & Government Relations: Number 1 -- responding to the community, received one ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds,’ and two ‘meets expectations’. Item 2 -- presentations to the public, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, and two ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 3 -- visibility, was rated as ‘exceptional’ by one Selectman, ‘exceeds expectations’ by another, and ‘meets expectations’ by two raters. Item 4 -- communications with businesses, received one ‘exceeds expectations’ rating, and four ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 5 -- open communication with Boards, received two ‘exceeds expectations’, and three ‘meets expectations.’ Number 6 -- community
development, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, one ‘exceeds expectations’, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. The final item 7 -- service by employees, received two ‘exceeds expectations’, and two ‘meets expectations’ ratings.
The following ratings involved the Town Manager’s performance in town departments.
General Government: The first item 1 -- managing collaboratively, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, and four ‘meets expectations’ ratings. The next item, knowledge of current issues, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, three ‘meets expectations’ ratings, and one ‘not observed’. Number 3 -- holds employees accountable, received two ‘meets expectations’ ratings, and two ‘not observed’. Item 4 -- meets with members of the community, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 5 -- town policies, received three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. The final item 6 -- supervision, received two ‘meets expectations’ ratings and three ‘not
observed’.
Public Works: Item 1 -- training opportunities, received two ‘meets expectations’ and three ‘not observed’. Item 2 -- maintains knowledge, received two ‘exceeds’ and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 3 -- accountability, received one ‘needs improvement’ and four ‘not observed.’ Item 4 -- listens to the community, received one ‘exceptional’ rating, two ‘exceeds’ and one ‘meets expectations’ rating. Number 5 -- policies, received three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 6 -- reserves in the Water-Sewer Fund, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 7 -- snow and ice, received one ‘exceptional’
rating and three ‘exceeds expectations’ ratings. Item 8 -- capital plan, received one ‘exceptional,’ one ‘exceeds’, and two ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Number 9 -- supervision, was rated by one Selectman as ‘meets expectations’, and by three as ‘not observed’. Finally, item 10 -- updates on DPW activities, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘exceeds’, and one ‘meets expectations’ ratings.
Public Safety: Item 1 -- training and growth, received three ‘meets expectations’ ratings and one ‘not observed’. Number 2 -- knowledge, received one ‘exceeds expectations’, one ‘meets expectations’, one ‘needs improvement’ and one ‘not observed’. Item 3 -- accountability, received two ‘meets expectations’ and two ‘not observed’. Number 4 -- meets with the community, received one ‘exceeds’, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings. Item 5 -- policies, received two ‘meets expectations’ ratings and two ‘not observed’. Item 6 – supervision, received two ‘not observed’ ratings. Number 7 -- stays informed, received one ‘exceeds’, and
one ‘meets expectations’, one ‘poor’ rating and one ‘not observed’. Mr. Ferguson questioned police presence at Selectmen meetings. The last item 8 -- setting high standards, received two ‘exceptional’ ratings, one ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘needs improvement’.
Growth Management: Item 1 -- solid waste and recycling budget, received four ‘exceptional’ and one ‘meets expectations’ rating. Number 2 -- ensures communication to residents, received one ‘exceptional,’ three ‘exceeds expectations’, and one ‘meets expectations’ rating. Mr. Renzoni thought the trash service in Holden was exceptional. Item 3 -- accountability, received one ‘meets expectations’ rating and four ‘not observed’. Item 4 -- listens to public concerns, received one ‘exceeds expectations’, three ‘meets expectations’, and one ‘not observed’. Number 5 -- policies, was rated by two Selectmen as ‘meets expectations’, and by three as ‘not observed’.
Item 7 -- communications with boards, received three ‘meets expectations’, and two ‘not observed’. The last item number 8 -- economic development, received two ‘exceeds expectations’, and three ‘meets expectations’ ratings.
In summary, Mr. Kurtz will combine these ratings along with the comments into one document. The combined document will be used at a future meeting to discuss an overall performance rating and salary. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Adjournment: 9:18 PM
Approved: __May 5, 2014___________
| |
