BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
December 11, 2012
Call to Order: 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Martha Sumner, Chair
Kristin Lewis-Savage, Vice-Chair (arrived 6:44 p.m.)
Tricia Holt
Ben Sadewicz
David Gerns
Gayle Hamel
Neal Morin
Barry Weymouth (arrived 6:55 p.m.)
Darrell Britton
Anthony Riccio (arrived 6:38 p.m.)
John Sherman, Selectmen Ex-Officio
Excused: Dan Bush
Also Present: Sean Fitzgerald, Town Manager
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Gayle Hamel.
MINUTES OF November 27, 2012
T. Holt moved, second by B. Sadewicz, to approve the minutes of the November 27, 2012 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion and the vote was 8-0-0 U/A.
The minutes of the December 4, 2012 meeting were deferred to the next meeting.
REVIEW OF WARRANT ARTICLES
S. Fitzgerald presented each of the proposed Warrant Articles, noting the intent of each of them. The Committee reviewed and discussed the warrant articles that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) is proposing for the March 2013 Warrant.
Article P-13-02: 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 () . Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be () which is the same as last year, 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.”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the numbers for the proposed and default operating budget would be added once the proposed budget was finalized.
Article P-13-03: 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?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the intent of this Article is to set aside monies for future purchase of replacement Highway Department vehicles.
A. Riccio arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Article P-13-04: REPLACEMENT OF THE 2006 F-350 FORD PICK-UP TRUCK
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $50,000 to replace the 2006 F-350 Ford Pick-Up Truck for the Highway Department and to withdraw $50,000 from the Highway Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the Highway Department’s 2006 F-350 pick-up truck was in need of replacement. Monies had gone into keeping it operational for the 2012 year, but to continue to repair instead of replace the truck was seen as throwing good money after bad. The money to replace this vehicle will be drawn from the Highway Department Capital Reserve Fund, with no monies raised by taxes.
Article P-13-05: 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?”
DISCUSSION: This Fund is much like the Highway Department Equipment Fund in that monies are set aside for the rotational replacement of Fire Department equipment.
B. Sadewicz asked if the same amount was set aside each year.
S. Fitzgerald noted that all departments are consulted as to their capital equipment needs each year. All the information is put into a spreadsheet with the replacement costs over a twenty (20) year cycle.
There was a discussion about the process to determine how much should be set aside each year. It was noted that this amount is the same as last years, but higher than in years past.
J. Sherman noted that in 2009 no monies were set aside because it was a lean year, but now that had to be compensated for.
K. Lewis-Savage arrived at 6:43 p.m.
J. Sherman added that all the calculations were also available in the Town Report.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the Fire Department would be getting a new fire truck in January.
Article P-13-07: REPLACE POLICE DEPARTMENT MOBILE RADIOS
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $52,000 for the purpose of replacing the Mobile Radios for the Police Department?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that this Article referred to the replacement of the radios that the officers carry on their person as well as the ones in the cruisers. It was also noted that there were a number of reasons to replace the units including upgrading for the change in the band that the Town will be using as well as meeting with some Federal law enforcement standards. The BOS are seeking additional information and have not yet voted to recommend this Article.
M. Sumner asked if the Police Chief was pursuing grants to replace these radios.
S. Fitzgerald replied that with the discussions in Congress about the “fiscal cliff” the availability of grant monies was in doubt. He added that if that matter is resolved and grant money becomes available that funding these types of projects is usually close to the top of the priority list.
J. Sherman noted that there was no Article P-13-06 because the BOS had removed it. He added that it could possibly come up for reconsideration at which time it would be added back in. J. Sherman offered that once all the Warrant Articles were finalized they would be appropriately re-numbered.
Article P-13-08: PUBLIC SAFETY COMPLEX ARCHITECTURAL/COST STUDY
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $25,000 for a Public Safety Complex Architectural/Cost Study?”
DISCUSSION: It was explained that this would be the next step in the due diligence process to address the space needs challenges with the current Police Station. The study would also provide more information for the public as to what the current deficiencies are and how best to address them moving forward. It was noted that the Town is currently looking at the possibility of a new facility in back of the exiting one.
S. Fitzgerald noted that HKT Architects had done a space needs analysis some time ago and this information would be incorporated into this new study to help define the costs. He added that the HKT study was limited in scope and this new study would lend credible numbers to the project.
D. Britton asked if the $80,000.00 requested in the Warrant was a cost figure or a bid target figure.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the study project had not gone out to bid.
J. Sherman suggested that the words “space needs” in the intent section of the proposed Article should be capitalized as it is a real document.
S. Fitzgerald offered that he could provide the study and other research to the Committee.
M. Sumner noted that a similar Article on the 2012 Warrant did not pass.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it was defeated by approximately fifty (50) votes. He added that Police Chief Savage has been meeting with groups in Town to spread the word about the Department needs. S. Fitzgerald reminded that that current building was never intended to house the Police Department.
Article P-13-09: Replacement of Roof on the Public Safety Complex
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $80,000 for the replacement of the Public Safety Complex roof (Flat roof and shingled portions)?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the current roof on the safety complex is about twenty-seven (27) years old and well passed its life expectancy. It was noted that the roof has been patched and repaired but still has significant leaks.
B. Weymouth arrived at 6:55 p.m.
It was noted that the underlying structure of the roof is sound and that $80,000.00 was the middle of the road estimate for the replacement of the roof.
K. Lewis-Savage noted that the BOS vote was 3-2-0 and she asked what their reservations were with recommending the proposed Article.
S. Fitzgerald replied that some of the BOS thought it would be best to do the replacement of the roof immediately out of the (operating) budget. There was some thought that since this wasn’t really a one-time expense and the roof will periodically have to be replaced that considerations should be made to include replacements costs it in the budget over time and minimize the impact to the tax payer.
K. Lewis-Savage asked if this was something that should be paid out of the emergency building repairs line.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it could not as there wasn’t enough money in the line. He added another concern the BOS had was if this Article goes to a Town Meeting vote and is defeated then the town is deal with a leaky building for another year. S. Fitzgerald offered that he has been speaking with an LGC (Local Government Center) attorney to explore the possibility of using money in the Unexpended Fund Balance (UFB) to cover the replacement.
K. Lewis-Savage suggested that monies from the emergency repair funds be used and supplemented from the (UFB) to cover.
J. Sherman noted that he was speaking for himself and not the BOS but that he did have concerns about putting the question to a Town vote only because if it were defeated it would be another year before it could be brought up again under the “no means no” restriction.
S. Fitzgerald offered that we needed to be judicious about spending monies from the UFB but the tax payers do expect that we exercise reasonable care for town buildings.
There was a discussion as to how much was in the UFB. It was noted that a full audit is still being done but as of 2012 there was $3.9M in the UFB and $300,000.00 was used to offset taxes. It was anticipated that the audit of 2011 would show that an additional $200-$300,000.00 would be added to the UFB from under-expended budgets and increased revenues.
J. Sherman noted that the BOS had directed the Town Manager to again use funds from the UFB to defray taxes, but there were certainly enough funds in the account to replace the roof on the safety complex. He added the rule of thumb for how much to maintain in the UFB is anywhere from 5% to 17% of the total budget.
D. Britton offered that he would have preferred these items be in an annual maintenance budget but in this case there really isn’t a choice but to replace the roof. He added not doing so will increase the costs exponentially with damages caused by a leaking roof.
S. Fitzgerald added that the CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) has focused on many of these kinds of expenses over a twenty (20) year cycle. He noted that this was an oversight but since this has happened, a harder look has been given to the maintenance needs of all town-owned buildings. S. Fitzgerald suggested that it not be put into the operating budget as it would then appear as an $80,000.00 blip in funding.
D. Britton reiterated that this was a no choice situation and to put it to a possible Town vote and had it defeated would mean the roof could only be repaired.
M. Sumner agreed, adding that she thought the roof should be replaced by using monies from the UFB.
S. Fitzgerald suggested that J. Sherman take the consensus of the Committee back to the BOS.
T. Holt asked if the $80,000.00 was an actual bid for the roof replacement project.
S. Fitzgerald responded that reputable roofing companies were consulted for quotes to establish the amount to request in the Article. He added that if the job is to be done then it would be posted for competitive bid.
D. Gerns asked if the roof was considered in previous year’s CIPs.
J. Sherman replied that it had not and just came up this year.
S. Fitzgerald noted that there were repairs done to the roof four (4) years ago but they didn’t hold. He noted that roof system to be complex and with new HVAC systems added to complicate the situation.
Article P-13-10: ENGINEERING, CONSTRUCTION & ESTIMATION FOR CONCRETE APRON AT FIRE DEPARTMENT AND REPAIR OF PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SALLY PORT
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $30,000 for the engineering for the concrete reinforcement and repaving of the apron in front of the Fire Department garage doors and the repair of a portion of the parking lot by the Police Department Sally Port?
DISCUSSION: It was explained that the intent of this proposed Article was to replace a section of driveway located in from of the garage doors where the fire trucks are located. The pavement has significant rotting, pot holes and alligator cracking that are being exacerbated by the weight of the fire trucks. It was noted that two different ways of repairing the driveway where being explored.
K. Lewis-Savage offered that the language of the Article and the intent were difficult for most residents to understand. She added that if people can’t understand the wording they are not likely to vote in favor of it.
There was discussion regarding how to change some of the wording. It was suggested that the intents of each Article be worded to specifically call out what approving each Article will a mean from an action standpoint. It was suggested that some of the language, particularly in the intent section was over-detailed and hyper-technical and may not be easily understood by the voters.
J. Sherman suggested that each intent section should start with “To” in describing what actions voting in favor of an Article would mean. He noted that he would take the suggestions and concerns of the committee back to the BOS.
Article P-13-12: REPLACE SALT SHED
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Town has been attempting to relocate both the Salt Shed and the Highway Garage for a number of years. This project is currently being evaluated by Town Staff and the Plaistow First Committee and the possibility of it being combined with the new Highway Garage. However, further investigation is needed.
DISCUSSION: It was noted that this was a place holder for a potential warrant article related to replacing the slat shed, but the BOS was requesting more information before recommending it for the Warrant.
S. Fitzgerald noted that Normandeau Associates, who have been assisting the Town in monitoring the Landfill cap has been looking at the methane gases that leach and collect in the Highway Garage. He added that salt from the existing shed leaches into the ground and could possibly impact a sensitive water shed area.
D. Britton remarked that they had been trying to get a new salt shed since 1986 when the costs were estimated at about $8,000.00 and now the number is estimated at $186.000.00
J. Sherman noted that P-13-12 and P-13-13 were not yet officially Warrant Articles.
S. Fitzgerald added there was some discussion as to whether or not they should be presented together because if a new Highway Garage was defeated and they were in the same Article then that would negate the ability to independently replace the Salt Shed. He noted that this may at some point become a regulatory issue because of the contamination.
N. Morin asked if a site had been chosen yet.
J. Sherman explained the process that was being used to determine the best location for a new Highway Garage. He noted that town-owned properties were being looked at first, but they were also looking at some land that would have to be purchased. J. Sherman offered there wasn’t yet one parcel that meets every priority of the project.
N. Morin questioned if land needed to be purchased was the BOS looking to do that this year. He suggested that voters liked to see the entire plan when making decisions.
T. Holt asked if the town kennel was located at the current Highway Garage.
S. Fitzgerald confirmed that it was, adding that current highway garage could be used for storage if a new one was built and the kennel would remain there.
S. Fitzgerald offered that the current salt shed was only able to store one to one-and-a-half storms worth of product. He noted this places an enormous burden on the budget in the middle of the winter when the price of sand and salt rises. S. Fitzgerald added there is also the risk that the product won’t be available.
Article P-13-14: REPLACE WINDOWS AT COURT HOUSE
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $10,000 for the replacement of the windows at the Plaistow District Court House?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that $25,000.00 was spent this year to replace the HVAC system at the Plaistow Circuit Court (fka Plaistow District Court). S. Fitzgerald noted that it was important that the State continue to locate the Court in Plaistow and there was significant costs savings to the Town and allowed the Police to maintain a presence increasing the safety of the community.
D. Britton asked when the current lease with the Court expired.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it expired next year (2013) and he would be meeting with Sarah Lineberry of the State Court systems to begin negotiating a new lease. He added that he was hoping to get a three-year lease instead of the current two-year one. S. Fitzgerald recalled the efforts that the BOS and other legislators made to get the Court to remain in Plaistow. He noted that lease fee had been waived for two-years but that the Court was now paying $42,000.00 annually to locate in Plaistow.
K. Lewis-Savage suggested the last line of the Article’s intent explanation be removed as unnecessary.
B. Sadewicz asked what the difference was between a “District Court” and a “Circuit Court.”
K. Lewis-Savage replied that there was no difference and that the new name was a result of the State restructuring their whole court system.
There was discussion of the advantage to Plaistow and the surrounding communities to maintain the Court in town.
K. Lewis-Savage reiterated concerns over certain building maintenance items being presented in Warrant Articles. She reminded that in a Town vote no means no and if a Warrant Article is defeated the work cannot be done under other funding. K. Lewis-Savage suggested that the amount of money requesting for emergency building repairs (Warrant Article P-13-17) be increased to be able to take care of these kinds of issues.
J. Sherman reminded that the Warrant Article if for “unexpected” building maintenance issues, and new roofs and windows for buildings did not fit that criteria as they can be foreseen as needing replacement.
S. Fitzgerald suggested that some maintenance items be consolidated into a single Warrant Article but not those that are must-do items, such as the Safety Complex roof.
M. Sumner asked if there was money available in this year’s budget to replace the roof.
S. Fitzgerald replied that he could probably find it but that gets back to why do budgets if they aren’t spent as approved.
M. Sumner suggested that tax payers would rather see money already raised and appropriated in 2012 spent than to have more money raised and appropriate for the expense.
S. Fitzgerald noted that he believed there would be some money turned over to the UFB but that number wasn’t know yet what would need to be encumbered from this year’s budget.
D. Britton suggested that there were limits to being a nice guy and replacing the windows in the Court house after just replacing the HVAC system seemed like just being a nice guy.
S. Fitzgerald reiterated they it was important to keep the Court in Plaistow.
D. Britton asked if the windows had come up in (lease) negotiations. It was confirmed that it had not yet.
Article P-13-15: REPLACE REMAINING GUTTERS & DOWNSPOUTS AT THE TOWN HALL
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $14,000 for the replacement of the gutters and downspouts on the sides and back of the Town Hall?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that the work is needed to complete upgrades to the gutters and downspouts on the Town Hall that are currently inadequately functioning. The front gutters and downspouts have already been replaced and the rest need replacing in order to adequate redirect water away from the building.
B. Sadewicz asked what the gutters and downspouts would be replaced with.
S. Fitzgerald noted they were currently copper and would be replaced with copper to keep within the historic character of the building.
B. Sadewicz questioned what would be done with the old gutters. It was noted that they would most likely be sold as scrap.
S. Fitzgerald explained that the leaking gutter and downspouts allowed water to run down the building and mortar was being affected. Having to have the brick re-pointed for water damage can be very costly.
K. Lewis-Savage noted that this was another item that was cause for concern if it were voted down and then could not be funded by other means. She suggested that the BOS find other ways to fund the Safety Complex roof, the Courthouse windows and the Town Hall gutters and downspouts.
J. Sherman offered that they had not had an accurate balance accounting of the UFB and therefore they weren’t able to decide what to do for any tax offset.
K. Lewis-Savage reiterated that she felt it would be best to find a more creative way to fund the building maintenance items.
J. Sherman noted the BOS had not finalized anything and they can talk about the issue.
Article P-13-16: CELL TOWER MAINTENANCE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND DEPOSIT
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $125,000 to be added to the existing Cell Tower Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund established in 2010?”
DISCUSSION: It was noted that there was a generalized assessment done of the cell tower and there are rust and structural issues that have been caused by the rubbing of the arrays. The estimate for repairs is a little more than $406,000.00 and money is being set aside annually in order to fund these repairs. It is estimated that there will be enough money in the fund to do the work by 2015.
D. Britton asked what income was generated was generated by the cell tower leases.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it was approximately $140,000.00 and some leases were going to be renegotiated shortly.
B. Sadewicz asked if the tank itself was being used for anything.
S. Fitzgerald replied that there was no water being kept in the tank and for it to hold water again it would have to be completely cleaned and reconditioned.
B. Sadewicz asked if there was any consideration of removing the tank and just using the structure.
D. Britton noted that the tank was an integral part of the structure itself and couldn’t be removed.
K. Lewis-Savage reiterated her concern about the language in the intent statement.
J. Sherman offered that the intent start out by stating that it was “to continue to set aside money for the maintenance of the cell tower.”
S. Fitzgerald noted that in the last negotiations the carrier was asked to contribute a one-time $27,000.00 payment for restoration. He added that other carriers may be asked the same in the future.
M. Sumner asked if that money went into the Capital Reserve Fund for the cell tower.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it was deposited to the General Fund. He noted that monies that went into special funds couldn’t be spent for other purposes if necessary.
M. Sumner offered that if money was collected from carriers it should go into repairs of the cell tower.
J. Sherman suggested that it was “6 of one, half dozen of the other” as the money could either be spent from the General Fund or used to offset taxes.
There was a brief discussion about the problem with getting the tax bills sent out.
Article P-13-17: 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?”
DISCUSSION: The intent of the Article is to replace funds spent in 2012 for emergency maintenance or repairs to town-owned buildings and to continue to set aside money for future repairs of building systems and in Town-owned properties.
M. Sumner asked how much had been spent in 2012.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it was approximately $11,000.00.
It was noted that all Capital Reserve Fund balances would be updated for the final copy of all applicable Warrant Articles.
J. Sherman offered that he didn’t like the way the intent was written and he suggested using last year’s version.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the $11,000.00 was a very round number and the $10,000.00 proposed with this Article would bring the balance to the $20,000.00 that is the target for this fund balance.
B. Sadewicz questioned why things such as replacement roofs are not considered as capital improvements.
S. Fitzgerald added that they generally look at life spans and life cycles for larger ticket items and look to equalize payments over years to lessen the taxpayer impact.
J. Sherman offered that he has thought that we do a great job planning for replacement vehicles, but not such a great job with general building repairs. He added that it’s not as easy to do the calculations for building replacement as it is vehicle replacement.
B. Sadewicz noted that he wasn’t referring to replacement buildings but the higher ticket items like replacing a roof.
K. Lewis-Savage asked what the approximate cost would be to replace the septic system at the Safety Complex.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it would probably be somewhere between $30,000.00 and $40,000.00.
K. Lewis-Savage questioned whether or not maintaining a balance of $20,000.00 in the unanticipated Building Systems Reserve Fund is enough. She expressed concern over what could happen if more than one big ticket item would need to be replaced and suggested that raising the amount to be maintained in the account to $50,000.00.
There was additional discussion regarding whether or not to raise the amount appropriated for the building systems account. It was noted that smaller items can be absorbed within the budget but larger items like septic systems and roofs would wipe out the balance and then some. There was agreement that this needs further review and some building maintenance items, such as replacement roofs, with known life cycles need to be considered in the CIP.
Article P-13-18: INSTALLATION OF FIRE SUPPRESSION WATERLINE ON ROUTE 125 FROM EAST ROAD TO OLD ROAD ASSOCIATED WITH THE NHDOT RT 125 WIDENING PROJECT
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $400,000 for the cost of installing Fire Suppression Waterline along Route 125 from East Road to Old Road?”
Appropriation: $400,000
Withdrawal from Waterline Impact Fee Account: -$ 11,192
Withdrawal from Fire Suppression System Capital Reserve Account: -$ 58,827
Withdrawal from Fire Suppression System Water User Fee Account: -$329,981
Amount to be raised by taxation: $ 0
DISCUSSION: This project extends the coverage of the Fire Suppression Line along Route 125 from East Road to Old Road. This is favored by the business community as it lowers their insurance premiums and increases their property values. The intent it that this work shall coincide with the work that will be done by NHDOT (New Hampshire Department of Transportation) to widen route 125 from East Road to Old Road.
D. Britton noted that this also generates money for the Town.
S. Fitzgerald offered that the fire suppression line generates values and approximately $110,000.00 in user fees annually.
K. Lewis-Savage asked if this would complete the fire suppression system.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it completed a loop in that system.
There was additional discussion on how maintenance and breaks are handled as well as where the user fees are deposited. It was noted that grants are being explored to support maintenance and repair of the system.
J. Sherman asked for an updated map of the area covered by the fire suppression system.
S. Fitzgerald noted that they will be able to provide that with the updated mapping software.
Article P-13-19: WATER DEPARTMENT – FIRE SUPPRESSION PUMP AND PUMP HOUSE CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $70,000 to be added to the Fire Suppression System Pump/Pump House Replacement Capital Reserve Fund?”
DISCUSSION: Based upon an independent assessment of the overall system completed in 2007, the current pump and pump house that support the fire suppression system are both in need of replacement by 2015. The current replacement costs are estimated at $350,000.00 ($200,000.00 to replace the pump - $150,000.00 to replace the pump house)
J. Sherman suggested that the intent wording be changed and that it begin with “to continue to put away money to… and then insert the language from last year’s intent.
Article P-13-21: FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM CONVERSION FEASIBILITY STUDY
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate $30,000 to conduct a feasibility study that evaluates the conversion of the Town’s fire protection system into a potable water system capable of both domestic drinking water supply and fire protection flow?”
DISCUSSION: The intent of this Article is to conduct an initial investigation and evaluate the possibility of converting the Town’s fire suppression system into a potable water system. The hope is that the system would then be able to provide both domestic drinking water as well as fire protection flow.
It was noted that the BOS was removing this from the Warrant package pending further information.
S. Fitzgerald noted that Plaistow was one of only two communities in the State that did not have a public body of water such as a pond, lake or reservoir.
M. Sumner offered that she recalled that to have a potable water system would cost millions and the water in the fire suppression line could never be made fit for consumption.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the pipes are old and may not be fit for public water. He noted that he had discussions with Pennichuck (Water Systems) engineers as to how they treat water to exceed Federal Ground Water Standards. S. Fitzgerald added that this money would allow for the questions to be asked and answered.
Article P-13-22: CONSERVATION FUND DEPOSIT
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $10,000 to be deposited into the existing Conservation Fund as provided for in RSA 36-A?”
DISCUSSION: The intent of this Article is to provide funding to the Conservation Commission (ConCom) to allow them to purchase land, easements and/or other land rights to preserve the natural and cultural features and other valuable open areas as included in the Town’s MasterPlan.
K. Lewis-Savage noted the increase in the amount of the request from $5,000.00 to $10,000.00.
S. Fitzgerald replied that it gives the ConCom the opportunity to support special resources.
K. Lewis-Savage noted that improvements were being made to the property at 148 Main Street (once under consideration for purchase by the Town). She asked if the changes were in keeping with the specific deed restrictions of the property.
S. Fitzgerald replied that he had spoken with the new owner and he is working with the Southeast Land Trust regarding his plans for the property. He added that while the owner does own the property the Town is afforded some privileges.
J. Sherman added that there are things he (the property owner) does control and that it’s a very complicated easement.
S. Fitzgerald noted that the owner is exploring some grants related to the property.
K. Lewis-Savage offered that it was good that the lines of communication were open.
Article P-13-23: SHELTER AT THE OLD COUNTY ROAD RECREATION (PARC) FACILITY
“Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $80,000 for the engineering, materials and construction of a Shelter at the Old County Road Recreation (PARC) Facility?”
DISCUSSION: The intent of this Article is to fund the construction of a 40’ X 60’ shelter, including electrical, footings and roof at the Town’s PARC. The shelter is needed for weather protection for the summer recreation program and will save the Town $5,000.00 annually. The shelter will also allow for the year-round use for a variety of events and functions such as Old Home Day, youth sports, concerts and other Town-sponsored events.
J. Sherman suggested that the language be changed to start with “To construct” and add “cement slab” to the description.
K. Lewis-Savage also suggested that the word “annually” be moved next to $5,000.00.
J. Sherman suggested the words “currently being spent” could be removed for the same result.
K. Lewis-Savage noted that there was really only one place that the shelter could be placed because of the high water table.
PARKING LOT ITEMS
The Parking Lot Items that are still pending are:
- Recycling Chart
- RSMS
- Updated Organizational Chart
- Information Related to the Highway Department Equipment Leases/Rentals
- Fire Suppression Map (added this meeting)
S. Fitzgerald noted that he has been in contact with Tony Garrow regarding the RSMS and it is coming along.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
There were no committee reports for this meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
M. Sumner requested an updated expenditures report.
NEW BUSINESS
There was discussion on as to whether or not the BOS would have the information necessary to make their decisions regarding some of the Warrant Articles. There was discussion regarding the need to meet on December 18, 2012 if that information was not available.
The decision was made to meet on December 18, 2012 and review whatever information was available at that time. It was suggested that everything be ready for approval on January 8, 2013. The Public Hearing for the 2013 Budget is scheduled for January 9, 2013.
There was no additional business before the Committee and the meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dee Voss
Recording Secretary
| 
