BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
January 11, 2012
Call to Order: 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Martha Sumner, Chair
Tricia Holt
Gayle Hamel
Michele Conte
Neal Morin
Joyce Ingerson
Ben Sadewicz
Anthony Riccio
John Sherman, Selectmen Ex-Officio
Excused: Kristin Lewis-Savage, Vice-Chair
Dan Hooper
Norman Bouchard, Resigned
Also Present: Sean Fitzgerald, Town Manager
Janet Gallant, Finance Director
Town of Plaistow Department Heads
Fire Chief John McArdle led the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JANUARY 3, 2012
The review and approval of the minutes was deferred until after the Public Hearing
RECOMMENDATION ON REMAINING THREE WARRANT ARTICLES
M. Sumner noted that there were three (3) Warrant Articles, previously discussed by the Committee, but needed information or clarification, the needed to be reviewed prior to the Public Hearing.
The three items were the operating budget, and the salary increases for the Town Clerk and Treasurer. Committee members asked that the default budget number be determined before voting whether or not to recommend the operating budget. Members also asked that the wording of the requests for salary increases be clarified before voting to recommend. The consensus at the previous meeting was that the language was not clear and the numbers didn’t add up properly in the wording of the Warrant Article.
J. Sherman offered that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) had approved, at the recommendation of the Town Manager, a default budget, as is required under the RSAs.
M. Sumner added that the Default Budget is last year’s budget with any previously approved contractual increases and one-time expenses.
Article P-12-02: Operating Budget
Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling ($7,597,481) SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS. Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be ($7,637,02) SEVEN MILLION SIX HUNDRED THIRTHY SEVEN TOUHSAND TWENTYONE DOLLARS which is the same as last years, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget
only.
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to recommend Article P-12-02. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-15: Raise for the Tax Collector
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $700.25 for the 9 month cost of increasing the salary of the Tax Collector. This sum represents the wages and associated roll-up costs ($601.34 for Wages and $98.92) for SS, Medicare and NHRS). The breakdown is as follows:
2011 Current Salary: $26,726
+ Proposed Increase (9 months) $ 601.34
2012 Total Wages $27,327
(* The 2013 Wages with a full 12 months will be $27,528)
B. Sadewicz thanked those who re-worked the wording. All agreed it was much clearer that the former version.
J. Sherman noted that the numbers were still off by $0.01, which was attributed to a rounding error. He offered that if necessary that could be amended at Deliberative Session.
S. Fitzgerald suggested that all pennies are gotten rid of for Deliberative Session.
M. Conte moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to recommend Article P-12-15. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-16: Raise for the Town Clerk
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $1,015.38 for the 9 month cost of increasing the salary of the Town Clerk. This sum represents the wages and associated roll-up costs ($871.94 or Wages and $143.43 for SS, Medicare and NHRS). The breakdown is as follows:
2011 Current Salary: $38,753
+ Proposed Increase (9 months) $ 871.94
2012 Total Wages $39,625
(* The 2013 Wages with a full 12 months will be $39,916)
It was noted that there was the same $0.01 rounding issue with this Warrant Article as there was with the previous.
N. Morin moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-16. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-0-0 U/A.
CITIZEN’S PETITION WARRANT ARTICLES
M. Sumner noted a Citizen’s Petition Warrant Article that was submitted to the Town Manager. She added the Petition was to increase the Elderly and Disabled Tax Exemption amounts.
Elderly Exemption:
Pursuant to RSA 72-39-b Shall we modify the net income exemptions from the single net income of $35,000 to $38,000 and the married net income from $50,000 to $53,000.
Disabled Exemption:
Pursuant to RSA 72-39-b Shall we modify the net income exemptions from the single net income of $35,000 to $38,000 and the married net income from $50,000 to $53,000.
S. Fitzgerald offered that the petition duly met the signature requirements. He noted that there was not a lot of room for amending Citizen’s Petitions. S. Fitzgerald added that he had spoken with advisors at the Local Government Center (LGC) and Warrant Articles that are financial in nature need to be reviewed and either recommended or not by the Budget Committee. He added that he did not know how many additional residents would be captured by the proposed modest adjustment.
J. Ingerson asked where the money to cover the tax exemptions come from.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it would be absorbed by the balance of the tax payers. He reminded that the Town was now carrying a fund balance to help offset such things. S. Fitzgerald offered that people fall in and out of these brackets and it would be difficult to estimate how many would be affected by the change. He added that these are some of the most vulnerable residents and this increase would help support them.
M. Sumner questioned if the Committee were to just take this under advisement when would there be a vote whether or not to recommend.
M. Conte asked if it was know what the financial impact would be if this Warrant Article were approved.
M. Sumner responded that information was not yet known.
S. Fitzgerald added that he would not want to speculate.
J. Ingerson asked what the impact was at the current exemption level.
S. Fitzgerald replied that they had not have time to gather that information between the filing of the petition and this meeting.
M. Sumner suggested that the Committee could vote on a recommendation at this meeting and if the opinion of the members changed once information was received they could revote at Deliberative Session.
J. Sherman noted that last time there was an adjustment in the exemption level was in 2006. He added that even knowing the current impact was not indicative of how many there would be with the change as we don’t know who would now meet the criteria. J. Sherman offered that if the proposal was for a decrease we could know how many would no longer qualify as we would have their income information.
S. Fitzgerald offered that there were policy limits on assets to qualify as well. He added this exemption only affects those with very low assets.
B. Sadewicz asked if there was a way of knowing how many currently qualified.
Lori Sadewicz, Assessing Assistant, offered that there were currently eight (8) qualified for the Elderly Exemption.
M. Sumner offered that they were not talking about hundreds of residents.
L. Sadewicz said that she couldn’t speculate on how many were denied for missing by a small amount and would now qualify if the change were approved.
M. Sumner noted that the total would not likely exceed twenty (20).
J. Sherman offered that the Citizen’s Petition Warrant Article be labeled as P-12-17.
John Moynihan, 28 Chandler Ave, Unit 6, offered that he was the author of the Article. He offered that as he was circulating the petition he received a very positive reaction from those who were asked to sign. Mr. Moynihan added that he asked 55 people and 53 signed the petition. He explained that he initially felt selfish in starting the petition but was encouraged by the number of people who thanked him for his efforts.
Article P-12-17: Elderly Exemption:
Pursuant to RSA 72-39-b Shall we modify the net income exemptions from the single net income of $35,000 to $38,000 and the married net income from $50,000 to $53,000.
B. Sadewicz moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-17 (Elderly Exemption). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 8-0-1 (Sherman abstaining).
J. Sherman noted that his abstention was because the BOS had not yet seen the Petition.
S. Fitzgerald offered that the petition had come in as one Article. He noted that by RSA the Article needed to be kept intact.
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to rescind the vote to recommend Article P-12-17 (Elderly Exemption) The vote was 8-0-1 (Sherman abstaining).
Disabled Exemption:
Pursuant to RSA 72-39-b Shall we modify the net income exemptions from the single net income of $35,000 to $38,000 and the married net income from $50,000 to $53,000.
L. Sadewicz offered clarification on her earlier numbers. There were eight (8) new applicants in 2011 for a total of 68 elderly and 14 disabled.
J. Ingerson asked if the exemption was for the total tax owed or for a percentage.
The following was noted regarding exemptions:
Ages 65-75 $110,000 exemption
Ages 75-80 $150,000 exemption
Ages 80+ $190,000 exemption
M. Sumner offered an example that a person aged 68, owning property assessed at $220,000 could potential qualify for an $110,000 exemption and would be taxed on the remaining $110,000 valuation.
B. Sadewicz noted that with the population of Plaistow nearing 8,000 residents, this was not a large group of tax payers.
J. Ingerson added that they are still paying something.
S. Fitzgerald offered that it was approximately .86% of the population.
B. Sadewicz moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-17 (Elderly and Disabled Exemption). There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 8-0-1 (Sherman abstaining).
M. Sumner opened the floor to questions. She noted a bottom line budget number of $7,597,481.00, representing the total of the individual town budgets, would be voted on, at this evening’s meeting.
J. Gallant passed out a spread sheet of Recreation Department Revenues. She noted that they covered the years 2006 through 2010 as 2011’s revenues had not yet been audited.
J. Sherman explained that the BOS had not yet reconsidered the vote on the Water Distribution budget. He reminded that due to a computation error the number that the BOS previously voted on was slightly different from the Budget Committee’s number.
M. Sumner suggested that the Budget Committee could still vote on the numbers.
It was verified that there was an increase to the water distribution budget in the amount of $15,000.00, which was broken down to $5,000.00 stipend to the waterline superintendent and $10,000.00 for engineering to study the possibilities of bringing potable water into town.
J. Sherman noted that it was the intent of the BOS to approve the increase, there was just a slight discrepancy in the budget line number due to a computation error. He noted that he would be voting no on that budget to not be contrary to his vote with the BOS.
Executive Offices Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Executive Offices budget in the amount of $272,336.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Town Clerk Budget
T. Holt moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Town Clerk budget in the amount of $105,746.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
J. Sherman suggested that there be an explanation, for the cable-viewing audience, of why the voting on the individual budgets was moving along so quickly.
M. Sumner explained that this was the third and fourth time that the individual budgets had been seen and discussed by the Committee at public hearings. She noted that the Committee had been meeting since September 20, 2011 and most of the member’s questions had been previously asked and answered and that was why the process would most likely move right along.
Elections Budget
N. Morin moved, second by J. Ingerson, to approve the Elections budget in the amount of $20,336.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Finance Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Finance budget in the amount of $81,810.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Assessing Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Assessing budget in the amount of $173,268.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Tax Collector Budget
N. Bouchard moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Tax Collector budget in the amount of $49,805.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Treasurer Budget
M. Conte moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Treasurer, Trustees budget in the amount of $8,631.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Legal Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Legal budget in the amount of $40,001.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Personnel Administration Budget
M. Conte moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Personnel Administration budget in the amount of 1,455,792.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Planning Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Planning budget in the amount of $77,897.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Zoning Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the Zoning budget in the amount of $7,137.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
General Government Buildings Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the General Government Buildings budget in the amount of $209,424.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-1-0 (Conte dissenting).
Cemeteries Budget
T. Holt moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Cemeteries budget in the amount of $2,775.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Town Insurance Budget
T. Holt moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Town Insurance budget in the amount of $80,000.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Advertising and Regional Associations Budget
N. Morin moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Advertising and Regional Association budget in the amount of $25,569.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Cable Studio Budget
T. Holt moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Cable Studio budget in the amount of $30,963.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Conflict of Interest Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Conflict of Interest budget in the amount of $597.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Police Department Budget
N. Morin moved, second by J. Ingerson, to approve the Police Department budget in the amount of $1,872,367.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
J. Ingerson asked why the Ambulance line item was at $0.00.
M. Sumner explained it was because the Town now contracted with Trinity Ambulance Service.
J. Ingerson asked who pays Trinity.
S. Fitzgerald noted that we don’t pay anything, but the line has been in the budget for many years.
J. Ingerson asked again who pays the ambulance.
S. Fitzgerald reiterated that Trinity has an exclusive contract to provide services to the town.
J. Sherman added that individual (patient’s) insurance companies pay Trinity for services.
Fire Department Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Fire Department budget in the amount of $455,303.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Building Inspection Budget
J. Ingerson moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Building Inspection budget in the amount of $108,361.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Emergency Management Budget
T. Holt moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the Emergency Management budget in the amount of $18,044.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Public Works Administration Budget
M. Conte moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Public Works Administration budget in the amount of $279,057.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Highway Department Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Highway Department budget in the amount of $576,090.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Street Lighting Budget
T. Holt moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Street Lighting budget in the amount of $85,000.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Solid Waste Disposal Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the Solid Waste Disposal budget in the amount of $540,000.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-1-0 (Ingerson dissenting).
Solid Waste Clean-Up Budget
T. Holt moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Solid Waste Clean-Up budget in the amount of $47,000.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-1-0 (Ingerson dissenting).
Water Distribution Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Water Distribution budget in the amount of $70,877.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 9-1-0 (Sherman dissenting).
J. Sherman reiterated that his reason for dissenting was the difference between the number that the BOS and the Budget Committee looked at. He reminded that it was a computation error that accounted for the difference.
Health Department Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by G. Hamel, to approve the Health Department budget in the amount of $79,299.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Animal Control Budget
T. Holt moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Animal Control budget in the amount of $15,312.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Human Services Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Human Services budget in the amount of $65,122.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Welfare Administration Budget
J. Ingerson moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Welfare Administration budget in the amount of $873.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Welfare Direct Assistance Budget
J. Ingerson moved, second by N Bouchard, to approve the Welfare Direct Assistance budget in the amount of $37,350.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Recreation Department Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Recreation Department budget in the amount of $210,920.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Library Budget
T. Holt moved, second by N. Morin, to approve the Library budget in the amount of $458,662.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Patriotic Purposes Budget
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to approve the Patriotic Purposes budget in the amount of $1,000.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Cultural Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Cultural budget in the amount of $26,619.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Conservation Commission Budget
G. Hamel moved, second by N. Bouchard, to approve the Conservation Commission budget in the amount of $8,137.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Debt Services
N. Morin moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the Debt Services budget in the amount of $1.00. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
M. Sumner noted that the bottom line total of all the individual budgets is $7,597,481.00, which was a slight increase of just over 2% over last year’s budget. She commended the Committee on their work.
2102 WARRANT ARTICLES
M. Sumner noted that there wouldn’t be any changes to the Warrant Articles as the BOS had not met since the last Budget Committee meeting.
She noted that, like the budget items, the Committee had seen these Warrant Articles a number of times and would proceed quickly through the recommendation process.
B. Sadewicz moved to recommend Warrant Article P-12-02.
Article P-12-02: Operating Budget
Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant article and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling ($7,597,481) SEVEN MILLION FIVE HUNDRED NINETY-SEVEN THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY-ONE DOLLARS. Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be ($7,000,000) SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS, which is the same as last years, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.
J. Ingerson asked if this Article could be changed at Deliberative Session.
M. Sumner replied that it could only be changed at Deliberative Session.
J. Sherman noted that the BOS had not yet set a default budget and the number shown in this version of the Warrant Article was a place holder.
B. Sadewicz withdrew his motion.
There was discussion as to whether or not to vote to recommend this Article without the actual default budget number in the wording, since that number will be a fixed number based upon last year’s budget and some contractual fluctuations. There was discussion on when it would be possible to meet to vote whether or not to recommend if it were not voted on at this meeting. It was noted that meeting earlier to the Public Hearing on January 11, 2012, was a possibility.
M. Sumner noted that what the Committee was actually voting to recommend was the 2012 proposed budget and not the number of the default budget and the default budget would be set by the BOS.
J. Sherman offered that in theory some may not want to vote to recommend the Article based upon the default budget number.
The consensus was to wait to vote whether or not to recommend Article P-12-02 until the default budget number was added to the wording.
Article P-12-03: Highway Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund Deposit
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $81,000 to be added to the existing Highway Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund?
N. Bouchard moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-03. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-04: Replacement of Highway Department’s 2004 F-550 Dump Truck
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $110,000 for a new piece of equipment for the Highway Department and to withdraw those funds from the Highway Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund for this purpose? (This article is contingent on the passage of Article P-12-03.)
Appropriations: $110,000
Withdrawal from Highway Department Capital Reserve: $110,000
Amount to be raised from 2012 taxes $0
N. Bouchard moved, second by M. Conte, to recommend Article P-12-04. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-05: Engineering Study for the Replacement of the Westville Road Bridge
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $85,000 for the engineering study phases services for the replacement of the Westville Road Bridge over Little River (NHDOT Bridge No.122/072), a Town-owned and maintained bridge. The Town will be reimbursed 90% ($68,000) of the actual engineering costs by the New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) through the NHDOT Municipal Managed Bridge Aid Program. The remaining 20% of the costs ($17,000) shall be funded by the Town through taxation? This is a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI (Majority Vote Required).
Appropriation: $85,000
NHDOT Bridge Aid Reimbursement $68,000
Amount to be raised from 2012 taxes $17,000
J. Ingerson asked for an explanation of “non-lapsing appropriation.”
J. Sherman explained that it meant the appropriation could be carried over into future years.
S. Fitzgerald added that normally an appropriation has a two year time limit; this language gives it more time.
J. Sherman noted that this would be important as the State has cut back on bridge funding and it could be a while before reimbursement is possible. He added that having the engineering ready to go would make the Town’s project more “shovel-ready” when funding was again available.
N. Morin moved, second by N. Bouchard, to recommend Article P-12-05. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the intent was to also look into whether or not it was possible to straighten out that dangerous stretch of Westville Road as well as replace the bridge.
Article P-12-06: Fire Department Capital Reserve Fund Deposit
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $105,000 to be added to the existing Fire Department Capital Reserve Fund?
G. Hamel moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to recommend Article P-12-06. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-07: Fire Department – Replace Engine 7
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $405,000 for the replacement of Engine 7 and to withdraw those funds from the Fire Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund and the Public Safety Impact Fee (Fire Apparatus Sub-Allocation) Fund for this purpose? This Article is contingent on the passage of Article P-12-06.
Appropriation: $405,000
Withdrawal from Public Safety Impact Fee - $3,211
Withdrawal from Fire Department Capital Res -$401,789
Amount to be raised from 2012 taxes: $0
N. Morin moved, second by M. Conte, to recommend Article P-12-07. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-08: Fire Department Full-Time Staff Position
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $48,500 to establish an additional fulltime Firefighter/Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) position with the Fire Department? This sum represents the cost of wages, associated roll up costs (such as taxes, insurance, retirement and uniforms). With an anticipated hire date of May, this represents eight months of funding for the new position. If approved, the position would be funded on an annual basis within the Operating Budget of the Fire Department starting in 2013.
B. Sadewicz moved, second by T. Holt, to recommend Article P-12-08. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-09: Building Systems Capital Reserve Fund Deposit
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000 to be added to the existing Building Systems Reserve Fund?
M. Sumner noted that the fund was established to emergencies with the Town’s building, such as a heating system needed to be replaced. She added that the Town tries to keep a balance of $20,000 in the fund.
J. Sherman offered that approximately $9,600 was approved for emergency repairs in 2011. He noted that that balance that appears at the bottom of the handout on the Warrant Articles is incorrect and needed to be updated to show this year’s expenditures.
N. Bouchard moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to recommend Article P-12-09. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-10: Cell Tower Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund Deposit
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $20,000 to be added to the existing Cell Tower Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund?
B. Sadewicz moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-10. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-11: Water Department – Fire Suppression, Pump, and Pump House Capital Reserve Fund
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $70,000 to be added to the existing Fire Suppression Pump and Pump House Capital Reserve Fund for the purpose of replacing the Fire Protection System Pumps and the Pump House they are contained in?
N. Morin moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-11. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-12: Conservation Fund Deposit
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000 to be deposited into the existing Conservation Fund as provided for in RSA 36-A?
J. Ingerson noted there were two separate balance accounts (Conservation Fund and Forestry Fund) noted at the bottom of this Warrant Article. She asked if the Warrant Article was for one or the other.
M. Sumner replied that it was not, just would go into the Conservation Fund account, but the question always comes up about the Forestry Balance.
S. Fitzgerald added that both fund can be used for similar purposes and it is preferable to have both balance appear on the Warrant Article.
M. Conte moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to recommend Article P-12-12. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-13: Improvements at Ingalls Terrace (Smith) Recreation Facility
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $20,000 for safety improvements at Ingalls Terrace (Smith) Recreation Field?
J. Ingerson moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to recommend Article P-12-13.
M. Conte asked if the funding for this item is in the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan).
M. Sumner replied that it was.
M. Conte asked what the balance was in the fund.
J. Sherman responded that this was not a reserve fund, but an item listed for planning purposes in the CIP.
There was no additional discussion on the motion and the vote was 10-0-0 U/A.
Article P-12-14: Pavilion at the Old County Road Recreation (PARC) Facility
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $150,000 for the engineering, materials and construction of a Pavilion at the Old County Road Recreation (PARC) Facility?
A. Riccio moved, second by J. Ingerson, to recommend Article P-12-14. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 8-2-0 (Bouchard, Conte Dissenting).
Article P-12-15: Raise for the Tax Collector
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $700.25 to increase the salary of the Tax Collector from $26,726 to $27,528, effective April 1, 2012? This is the cost of the first year’s increase which is equal to 9 months. The breakdown is $601.34 salary and an additional $98.92 to cover the Town’s payment for Social Security and Medicare.
J. Sherman said that he was noticing for the first time that the numbers didn’t add up correctly.
There was a discussion of why the numbers didn’t add up. The wording of the Warrant Article was compared to the same request of last year (which didn’t pass on the ballot).
S. Fitzgerald stated that they would take the Article back and re-word it so that the numbers added up and the intent was clear.
Article P-12-16: Raise for the Town Clerk
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $1,015.38 to increase the salary of the Town Clerk from $38,753 to $39,916, effective April 1, 2012? This is the cost of the first year’s increase which is equal to 9 months. The breakdown is $871.94 salary and an additional $143.43 to cover the Town’s payment for Social Security, Retirement and Medicare.
The Committee had similar concerns about the wording of this Article as they did for P-12-15 and requested that the verbiage be clarified before they vote whether or not to recommend the passage of the Article.
M. Sumner noted that at the next meeting the Committee would need to review and vote whether or not to recommend Warrant Articles P-12-02; P-12-15 and P-12-16.
There was a discussion on whether to meet on January 10, 2012 to go over the three Warrant Articles or to just meet a half hour earlier on January 11, 2012. It was noted that the Public Hearing was scheduled for 6:30 p.m. and had already been posted, so it could not be changed. But, the Committee could meet at 6:00 p.m. to discuss the three outstanding Articles.
It was requested that the Committee be provided with the default budget number as well as the re-wording of Warrant Articles P-12-15 and P-12-16 prior to the meeting (via email) to expedite the review.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no committee reports for this meeting.
UPDATED FROM THE FINANCE DIRECTOR/PARKING LOT ISSUES (Requested Recreation Revenue review)
It was noted that J. Gallant has provided the revenues report for the Recreation Department earlier in the meeting. That was the only outstanding item.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business presented to the Committee
NEW BUSINESS
J. Sherman offered that he wanted to make sure that the Budget Committee knew that the BOS would be asking S. Fitzgerald to update all the revenue fund balances to be “as of December 31, 2011.” He noted the date of the current report to be December 20, 2011.
M. Sumner noted that there were four (4) positions up for re-election. Those up for re-election are:
- Dan Hopper
- Gayle Hamel
- M. Conte
- Ben Sadewicz
M. Sumner noted that filing period was from January 25 to February 3, 2012. She added that she hoped to see everyone return.
J. Sherman noted there was a 1-year position listed for the ballot.
M. Sumner replied that four positions she listed were all 3-year terms.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35p.m.
Respectfully Submitted:
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
