NOTTINGHAM BUDGET COMMITTEE MINUTES
NOVEMBER 13, 2008
PUBLIC SESSION
APPROVED BY THE COMMITTEE NOVEMBER 20, 2008
PRESENT: ABSENT:
Mr. John Decker, Chair Ms. Amy Plante, School Board Representative (Excused)
Mr. Peter Bock, BOS Representative Ms. Gail Powell (Excused)
Mr. Chet Batchelder Ms. Charlene Andersen
Mr. Kyle Barry
Mr. Scott Curry
Mr. Gene Reed
Ms. Donna Danis
Mr. Michael Koester
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mr. Charles Brown, Town Administrator
Mr. Bill Netishen, Board of Selectmen
Ms. Kelly Tivnan, Budget Committee Secretary
The Chair called the meeting to order at 7:05pm.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Mr. Curry made a motion to approve the minutes from the meeting of October 23, 2008. Mr. Barry seconded the motion.
The Budget Committee made a couple of minor changes to the minutes.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Budget Committee approve the minutes from the meeting of October 23, 2008 as amended. Ms. Danis seconded the motion. Mr. Curry, Ms. Danis, Mr. Decker, Mr. Bock, Mr. Batchelder, Mr. Barry and Mr. Reed voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Koester abstained from the motion. The motion passed 7-0 with 1 abstention.
TOWN BUDGET DRAFT #1:
SALARIES:
Mr. Brown said that he would discuss the highlights of the first draft of the town budget. He said that most of the salary increases were 1.5%. He noted that there were a couple of exceptions in the police department but that the 1.5% increase applied to most town employees.
HEALTH CARE COSTS:
Mr. Brown said that health care costs were going to be decreasing 0.8%. He said that the town was going to be keeping the Local Government Center plan. He said that he had contacted Cigna and they did not have a comparable plan. He said that he had also contacted Primex and their plans had represented an increase of 5.5%. He said that there was going to be a change in the prescription copay to $10, $20 and $45. He said that change would actually make the total decrease 3.25%. He said that the Board of Selectmen was still deliberating on what the employee contribution should be.
SUPERVISOR OF CHECKLIST/MODERATOR:
Mr. Brown said that he had not received complete budgets from the Supervisor of the Checklist or the Moderator.
LEGAL:
Mr. Brown said that the line for legal costs was remaining the same.
NON ESSENTIAL ACCOUNTS:
Mr. Brown said that the department heads had been asked to either keep the budgets for nonessential accounts such as dues and conferences flat or to lower them.
PLANNER:
Mr. Curry asked whether there had been a negative effect from the loss of the part time planning position. Mr. Brown said no. Mr. Curry noted that a lot of the things the person in that position had been supposed to do was not getting done. Mr. Brown said that the Planning Board was still using the services of the Strafford Regional Planning Commission.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS:
Mr. Brown said that the lines for General Government Buildings, numbers 203 and 205 would probably decrease because there was a warrant article addressing those buildings.
HEATING FUEL:
Mr. Brown said that the cost to the town for #2 fuel was a locked in price. Mr. Decker asked if the town could get out of that contract. Mr. Brown said no. He noted that the previous year the town had saved a lot of money by locking in a price for heating fuel so he noted that there was no way to predict in advance.
WORKERS COMPENSATION:
Mr. Brown said that workers compensation costs were down.
PROPERTY LIABILITY:
Mr. Brown said that property liability insurance costs were up.
POLICE CAR:
Mr. Brown said that he was waiting for a number that the town could get for a trade in on their old town vehicle which could be put towards a new police car.
GAS PRICES:
Mr. Reed asked whether the prices that the town paid for gas were locked in. Mr. Brown said no. He noted that the town did not have to pay taxes on gasoline. He said that they were redoing their estimates for budget numbers on gas to reflect the lower prices.
INTERNET/PHONE:
Mr. Curry said that he thought the town paid too much for their internet and telephone services. He said that he thought they should ask for some advice on lowering those costs. Mr. Netishen noted that the town was eliminating their old emergency number. He said that it was no longer used.
FIRE TRUCK:
Mr. Brown said that the Board of Selectmen supported the warrant article to get a new fire truck for the town. Mr. Curry asked for an explanation behind their reasoning. Mr. Netishen said that the current fire truck was old and needed lots of maintenance. He said that it had been out of service a lot and he noted that a truck being out of service caused many problems for the fire department. He said that the fire department had provided the Board of Selectmen with a lot of justification as to why they needed a new fire truck. He said that the fire department would also present their argument in favor of the article to the voters at Town Meeting.
AMBULANCE:
Mr. Brown said that the new account in the budget for the ambulance was a result of the warrant article from the previous year that put all the ambulance expenses into a fund. Mr. Decker asked about the phone mentioned in that account. Mr. Brown said that the phone was inside the ambulance and was used to call the hospital. He said that the cost for that phone was included in the ambulance expenses. Mr. Decker asked if the ambulance account was a wash as far as revenues equaling expenses. Mr. Brown said yes.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT:
Mr. Brown said that there would be a decrease in the budget for emergency management.
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT:
Mr. Brown said that the budget lines for equipment, parts and maintenance for the Highway Department had increased.
Mr. Brown said that the cost of salt had increased a lot. He said that the cost was up $13.27 per ton.
Mr. Brown said that the budget included the town portion of the mitigation grant for the Back Creek Bridge. He said that he suspected the town might get reimbursed for that project more quickly through the Federal Emergency Management Agency then they would through the state.
ASSESSING:
Mr. Curry noted that the line for assessing costs was almost double what it had been in 2007. Mr. Netishen said that because of a vote by the people the town had paid for one assessing firm to review the original assessing firm and they had paid to have a new assessing firm come in and do the assessing. Mr. Brown noted that this was also the first year where the Assessing Clerk's salary had been included in that assessing line. Mr. Decker asked whether that was a full time position. Mr. Brown said no. He said that it was about 35 hours per week. Mr. Curry asked whether they were expecting to see an increase in the assessing line based on the numbers from past years. Mr. Brown said that they were not expecting to see a large increase in that line.
CONSTRUCTION/RECONSTRUCTION:
Mr. Brown said that the budget lines for construction and reconstruction had decreased. He said that the footage where they expected to do work on Deerfield Road was not a full mile.
Mr. Brown said that he had managed to get the deadline for the Federal Emergency Management Agency money to fix the Mill Pond Bridge extended until October of 2009. He said that the town had experienced good luck with the Federal Emergency Management Agency over the past few years.
Mr. Brown said that he had spoken to the Road Agent and the Road Agent had felt that they were making gains in their construction and reconstruction of the roads in Nottingham. He said that according to the Road Agent, Nottingham was in good shape with its infrastructure as far as the roads were concerned.
Mr. Reed noted that the budget proposed putting $5,000 in the capital reserve fund for roads. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Brown said yes. He said that the Board of Selectmen had cut the original proposed larger number. Mr. Netishen noted that none of the numbers were final and could still be adjusted either up or down.
SANDER:
Mr. Reed asked whether the Highway Department had been able to replace their sander. Mr. Brown said yes.
PROCEDURE:
Ms. Danis asked why all the information in the budget packet was not rolled up and given a total. Mr. Netishen noted that the town used to do that and they had ended up with tons of paper. He said that this was an attempt to simplify the process since the numbers would change and the total would become outdated quickly. Mr. Koester said that he would like to know in advance percentages and he gave an example like whether the town budget would be approximately 85% of the one from the previous year or 110% of the one from the previous year. Mr. Brown said that most of the tax money collected in Nottingham was spent at the school. He said that the town budgets took the heat but that the town tax rate was down 20 cents per $1,000. Mr. Netishen said that the Board of Selectmen looked very closely at the numbers
and did a lot of work on the budget.
SHIM AND SEAL COAT:
Mr. Brown said that the budget for shim and seal coating was increased by $60,000. He said that the cost of materials needed had increased.
SOLID WASTE:
Mr. Brown said that he had gotten a letter from their solid waste vendor. He said that they now needed to pay to haul commodities and they needed to pay fuel costs. He said that they used to get paid for their commodities. He said that they were reducing their amount of solid waste tonnage but that they had not met their reduction goals for the previous year. He said that during the previous year they had received more revenue though then they would get in the upcoming year. He said that there was no longer the demand for commodities in the difficult economy. Mr. Reed asked whether it still made financial sense for the town to recycle. Mr. Brown said that he had thought about changing to single stream recycling but he said that they would need to sign a multi year contract in order to do that.
Mr. Netishen said that it still made sense for the town to recycle.
HAZARDOUS WASTE:
Mr. Brown said that the reports from Household Hazardous Waste Collection Day indicated that it had been pretty successful. He said that he was waiting to receive the invoice but he said that there had been good participation from Nottingham residents.
GENERAL ASSISTANCE:
Mr. Brown said that there had not been any changes in the budget for general assistance at this time. He noted that everyone was worried about the economy. He said that he would notify the Budget Committee if changes needed to be made to those general assistance lines.
Mr. Brown said that the previous year he had vowed not to call to remind nonprofit vendors who requested money to get it. He said that this year he had five of those vendors who had not claimed their money yet.
Mr. Brown said that the previous year the Board of Selectmen had cut 20% from all the vendor requests except for the request from Meals on Wheels.
RECREATION:
Mr. Brown said that the Budget Committee would get more information about the Recreation Department proposed budget when they spoke with the Director.
LIBRARY:
Mr. Brown said that he had not received a budget from the Library Trustees yet.
CONSERVATION COMMISSION:
Mr. Brown said that the spending for the Conservation Commission had come in under budget. He said that the Board of Selectmen had cut $200 from the proposed budget.
LINE CHANGES:
Mr. Reed asked whether the town kept a running track of line changes or when money was moved from one line to cover a shortfall in another line. He said that he would like to see transfer amounts. Mr. Brown said that he would like to keep better track of that information. He said that he would look more closely at it.
PROCESS:
Mr. Curry said that the budgeting process really seemed to be smoother than it had been in the past. He said that the committee could tell that the Board of Selectmen really did try to balance the needs of the town with those of the taxpayers.
UNPAID TAXES:
Mr. Reed asked whether there was an unusual number of unpaid taxes. Mr. Brown said that they had not seen that yet. Mr. Bock noted that when a home was foreclosed on the bank paid the taxes on it. Mr. Netishen said that the Board of Selectmen was looking at this closely as it got later into the cycle. He said that the town wanted to be sure they had enough revenue coming in to sustain their budget. Mr. Brown said that the percentage of liens had remained stable. Mr. Netishen said that the town seemed to be in good shape for the time being.
SCHOOL BUDGET UPDATE:
Mr. Decker said that the School Board would like to schedule a meeting to present the first draft of their budget to the Budget Committee on November 20, 2008 at 7:00pm. The Budget Committee members agreed to schedule the meeting.
Mr. Reed asked whether an addition to the school was a foregone conclusion. Mr. Decker said that he was hopeful the Building Committee would look at the question objectively. Ms. Danis said that the school newsletter had officially announced that they would be forming a Building Committee to look at this. Mr. Decker said that he assumed the Budget Committee would get an invitation to send a representative to that committee. Ms. Danis said that it looked like the School Board had a lengthy timeline for getting that committee in place. She said that the deadline for expressing interest was not until January.
RSA 40:14b:
Mr. Decker explained that provision b would delegate the creation of the default budget to the Budget Committee. He said that he would like to propose that the Budget Committee request this provision be on the warrant. He said that basically it would allow the voters in town to authorize the Budget Committee to prepare the default budget.
Mr. Curry made a motion that the Budget Committee request provision b of RSA 40:14b be on the ballot to allow the voters to authorize a Budget Committee takeover of the default budget. Mr. Reed seconded the motion.
Mr. Batchelder said that the Budget Committee would need to go deeper into the budget if they were going to do that. He said that they would need a lot more information and they would need to do more research. He said that the Budget Committee would need to do lots of extra work if they wanted to be responsible for the default budget. Mr. Decker said that a lot of that extra work could be done during the summer. Ms. Danis said that she would not be comfortable making a decision on this issue without representation from the School Board. Mr. Batchelder said that he was concerned about the Budget Committee taking on a role of preparer of a budget. He said that he wanted the Budget Committee to know what they would be getting into by doing that. Mr. Reed suggested that the Budget Committee table
discussion on 40:14b for one week so they could see what the School Board had to say about the issue.
Mr. Curry withdrew his motion.
RSA 32:5, V-a:
Mr. Decker reminded the Budget Committee that they had discussed this at their previous meeting. He said that it involved the Budget Committee being able to record their vote tallies on the warrant. Mr. Batchelder discussed the history of the legislation. He said that had been introduced as Senate Bill 58 in 2007. He said that it been amended but that the idea had been kept as it was intended. He said that it was a very simple bill. He said that the bill had become law and the effective date was September 11, 2007. He said that if people wanted to look up the legislation it was Chapter 0305. Mr. Curry asked if this information changed Mr. Batchelder concern about a need to do a minority and majority report for votes. Mr. Batchelder said that he felt more comfortable knowing that majority
and minority reports were not a part of the intent of the legislation. He also said though that he was concerned that close votes could split the committee. Mr. Decker said that he had emailed the Local Government Center about the concerns voiced by the Budget Committee on this question. He said that the response he had received stated that there was no specific required language that needed to be included in the question to the public. He said that in response to his question about whether they needed to put the question on both the town warrant and the school ballot the response had been that the answer was not clear. He said that the Local Government Center had recommended that the Budget Committee request the question be on both the warrant and the ballot in order to be sure they were covered. Basically the response was that the lawyer felt the question would apply to both the town and school district budgets by default but he felt that it
would be a good idea to err on the side of caution and put the question on both the ballot and the warrant. Mr. Koester noted that in that case, the question could pass on one budget and not the other. He also asked whether the Board of Selectmen and the School Board would need to include their vote tallies on the warrant and the ballot if the Budget Committee did. Then he wondered if they only needed to include the major votes or if they needed to include vote tallies for each individual line. Mr. Decker said that this only applied to the final warrant and ballot numbers. Mr. Batchelder said maybe not. Ms. Danis asked whether the Budget Committee could define the parameters of this. Mr. Curry said that there were two ways to read this law and he said the Budget Committee would need to go back to the Local Government Center and ask for more information. Mr. Batchelder suggested that they could have the attorney for the Board of
Selectmen write the wording for the warrant which would explain their intention. Mr. Koester said that the way he was reading this legislation, the Budget Committee would be obligating the School Board and the Board of Selectmen to include their vote tallies on the warrant and ballot as well. Mr. Bock said that he would need to present this discussion to the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Curry said that he would be uncomfortable voting on this issue without clarification. Mr. Decker said that he was comfortable with the interpretation given by the Local Government Center.
Mr. Koester made a motion that the Budget Committee direct the Board of Selectmen to add the provisions of RSA 32:5, V-a to the warrant, the intent being to record the tally of Budget Committee votes on both the school and town warrant articles. Mr. Curry seconded the motion. Mr. Batchelder, Mr. Barry, Mr. Curry, Mr. Reed, Ms. Danis, Mr. Decker and Mr. Koester voter in favor of the motion. Mr. Bock abstained from the motion. The motion passed 7-0 with 1 abstention.
HCPP GRANT COMMITTEE:
Mr. Batchelder gave an update on the HCPP (Housing and Conservation Planning) Committee. Mr. Batchelder said that the committee had originally heard from three vendors but one had withdrawn from consideration. He said that Strafford Regional Planning Commission and the Mettee Planning Consultants had given their presentations to the committee. He said that the committee had voted unanimously to recommend one of the two pending the reference checks. He said that the HCPP Committee Chair was in the middle of that reference check process. He said that providing there were no issues with the references the choice of the committee would be forwarded to the Board of Selectmen. He said that he did not want to state publicly at this time which company the committee had chosen.
OTHER:
Mr. Koester said that the biggest reason for the Budget Committee to do the default budget was because currently the School Board had no oversight on the default budget. He said that he felt it was a good opportunity for the Budget Committee to add their expertise to the process.
Mr. Decker asked Mr. Bock whether he had brought the letter he got from the Local Government Center regarding Google Docs. Mr. Curry said that Mr. Bock had given him the letter. He said that it emphasized the ability to access documents would be good but the possibility it could be used for making decisions was bad.
Mr. Curry made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:50pm. Mr. Koester seconded the motion. The present members of the Budget Committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion. The motion passed 8-0.
Respectfully submitted,
Kelly Tivnan
Budget Committee Secretary
| 
