DRAFT Town of Sandown Deliberative Town Meeting
Town Officials Present: Moderator Gordon Champion, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen James Devine, Selectman John Quevillon, Interim Selectman Thomas Tombarello, Town Counsel Attorney Diane Gorrow, Town Clerk/Tax Collector Michelle Short, Deputy Town Clerk/Tax Collector Lynn Trahan, Budget Committee Chairman Stephen Brown , Budget Committee Members Louis Porcelli, Anthony DiPietro, Fred Montisanti, Nelson Rheaume, Ann Cabral, Finance Director Angela Sherwood, Office Manager for the Selectmen’s Office, Lynne Blaisdell, Supervisors of the Checklist Rosemarie Bruno, Linda Meehan and Joanne Vey and Recording Secretary Paula Gulla. Moderator Gordon Champion called The 2007 Town of Sandown Deliberative Session to order at 10:09 am on Saturday, February 3, 2007 at the Sandown Town Hall, 320 Main Street, Sandown, New Hampshire. The Moderator pointed out several handouts including the Rules of Order were available to all and could be found on the table in the back of the room. He also advised those in attendance they could check-in with the Supervisors of the Checklist. The Moderator acknowledged 14 citizens from Sandown serving overseas noting half of them served or serving in Iraq. Six service members have been discharged. The Moderator invited Commander Kevin Major, Commander of Weapons of Mass Destruction and a member of the Civil Support Team to lead the body in the Pledge of Allegiance. Commander Major asked for a moment of silence for all those who could not be with us today. Announcements were made. Voting Day will take place at the Town Hall on March 13, 2007 from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm. The Sandown Lion’s Club is sending out care packages to the troops under a program called “Support Our Troops” and donations will be accepted. The Friends of the Library along with Eagle Scout Ethan Major were selling refreshments for the day. Paula Bonasoro, Cable TV Chairperson announced to all potential candidates the availability of taping a 2 minute message to be aired on the Cable TV Channel. Moderator Champion thanked reporter and resident Valerie Hershfield and the Tri-Towne Times for an article on Mr. Edward Garvey, former Town Clerk/Tax Collector who passed away on December 23, 2006 after serving the Town of Sandown for many years. Mr. Champion spoke about Mr. Garvey’s history and legacy with the Town and recapped some of the highlights of the article. A moment of silence was held in Mr. Garvey’s honor. Moderator Champion introduced himself and those Town Officials who were present.
Correction to Budget Figure in Warrant Article 2. Moderator Champion pointed out a correction to the budget figure on Warrant Article 2. The correct budget figure should be $2,879,409.81 and should replace the incorrect figure of $2,763,858.13 which reflected last year’s figure in error. Moderator Champion reminded those present to vote on the articles and pointed out any non-residents should be seated in the roped off area in the rear of the hall. Mr. Champion proceeded with the reading of the Warrant: Article 1. To choose all necessary town officers for the ensuing year MOTION by Karen Groves to place Article 2 on the floor for consideration Article 2. Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles 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 $2,879,409.81. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $2,806,223.04 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. Karen Groves asked if there was a recommendation by the Budget Committee and the Board of Selectmen. Steve Brown, Budget Committee Chair stated this was the budget proposed by the Budget Committee and therefore would be recommended by them. He could not speak for the Selectmen. The Moderator pointed out certain warrant articles would contain recommendations and others would not. Sandra Graves questioned several figures on the Profit and Loss handout. Several residents questioned various amounts and were provided with a detailed explanation by Finance Director Angela Sherwood. Moderator Champion asked for further discussion on Article 2. There was none and he instructed Article 2 be posted to the ballot as written. Mrs. Sherwood questioned why the accounts were not being discussed separately and the Moderator noted there was not a motion to do so. MOTION by Angela Sherwood to discuss Article 2 by account numbers Executive Account 4130.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $175,514.13 Angela Sherwood proposed the Town Report line item be increased to $4,108.00. She pointed out during the Budget Committee discussions the line item was reduced since there were so many town reports left over from the previous year. However, at present all 900 reports have been distributed and therefore the line item should be increased back to reflect a cost to print 900 copies of this year’s town report. Mrs. Sherwood also pointed out this year’s report will be printed by a new vendor who will provide a better report for less money. MOTION by Angela Sherwood to increase the Town Report line item from $3,000.00 to $4,108.00 Mrs. Sherwood stated she felt a request to increase the Computer Support line item would be coming from a member of the Communications and Technology Task Force. Mark Hevesh stated he thought that recommendation was made at the last Board of Selectmen meeting. Mrs. Sherwood said she was unaware of any Selectmen vote. Moderator Champion asked if there was any impact to the current line item of $2,500.00 Mr. Hevesh stated Lynne Blaisdell may be able to answer the question. Selectman Quevillon stated there would be an impact to the line item of $2,500.00 but the figure was unavailable at this time. Ted Winglass questioned the increase in the postage line item from $7,600.00 to $9,500.00. The amended Gross Expense figure for the Executive Account is $176,622.13. Cable TV Account 4130.5 with proposed Gross Expenses of $21,105.08 There was no discussion on the Cable TV Account. Town Clerk Account 4140.1 with proposed Gross Expenses of $39,148.98 There was no discussion on the Town Clerk Account Elec & Reg: Account: 4140.2 (Supervisors of the Checklist) with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,450.00 There was no discussion on the Supervisors of the Checklist Account Elec & Reg: Account: 4140.2 (Moderator) with proposed Gross Expenses of $7,600.00 There was no discussion on the Moderator Account Finance Director Account 4150.1 with proposed Gross Expenses of $44,579.20
There was no discussion on the Finance Director Account Assessing Account 4150.3 with proposed Gross Expenses of $76,623.46 Brenda Copp questioned if this figure included salary amount since there was a warrant article on the ballot to make the position full-time. Angela Sherwood stated there was an increase in the salary line in the budget from 26-34 hours which still reflected part-time hours and did not include benefits. The warrant article showed the costs of increasing this position to 35 hours and does include benefits. Ken Sherwood asked for the average number of hours currently worked by the Assessor on a weekly basis. Mrs. Sherwood stated she would need to review that information since she did not have it available. Karen Groves questioned how the increase in the budget for the Assessor would be determined and Mrs. Sherwood explained the payroll increase included hours also for a measurer and lister, not just the Assessor. She could not determine the exact figure for the Assessor without further calculations. Dean Sotirakopolous asked if the fact that since we have an Assessor eliminated the need for a firm to be hired to complete the revaluation and Mrs. Sherwood stated that was the case. Sandra Graves questioned if they could vote against the increase in the figures and go back to last year’s budget and the Moderator stated yes. MOTION by Sandra Graves to amend 2007 figure back to last year’s figure of $62,170.00 A discussion ensued regarding whether just the payroll line item should be amended or the entire budget amount and Mrs. Sherwood pointed out some of the differences in the line items that would be affected if the entire budget was reduced to last year’s figures. MOTION by Sandra Graves to amend the payroll line item from $65,323.46 to $46,044.00 POINT OF ORDER: It was pointed by Jim Bassett that a motion was already on the floor Brenda Copp withdrew her second on the first motion and again seconded the second motion. Selectman Jim Devine explained that the Assessor was to perform the required revaluation so the State would not audit the Town. If the payroll line item was reduced it would not allow enough funds to remain to complete the revaluation and if the State were to come in and finish the revaluation, it could cost between $150,000.00 and $200,000.00 Scott Bassett verified that we were just reducing the payroll line item and he then pointed out the Board of Selectmen could take the funds from somewhere else in the budget. Selectman Devine agreed that could be done. Dave Cheney questioned if the $32.17 per hour was an average figure and how was that figured determined. Selectman Devine stated it was his understanding that figure was the lower average figure of what assessor’s were paid in NH.
Sandra Graves explained her reasoning for reducing the figure. She stated many of the residents were not happy with how their taxes were being assessed and this was their way of letting the town know how they felt and she was not sure if it was the right way to express that. Matt Russell stated he was under the impression the Town was mandated to have the completed assessment by 1/1/07. Selectman Devine stated that was incorrect and explained the assessment needs to be completed in 2007 and it should be completed by mid-year. This would keep us in compliance and not initiate an audit. Selectman Quevillon stated there is about one third of the Town left to do. Dean Sotirakopolous stated he thought there was up to ten years to complete that assessment based on the last revaluation. Selectman Devine stated at that time it was supposed to be done every three years but the Town got away with doing it in 10 years and now the state has ordered the revaluation to be done every 5 years. He again stressed we are almost done and if we reduce the line item, it would be a problem. Arthur Arena asked for the amount of abatements for this year compared to previous year. Michelle Short stated this year’s abatements from Jan 1 to Dec 31st 2006 totaled $630,000.00 which occurred basically due to errors. Michelle did not have the figures for the previous years available. Mr. Arena asked if she thought the figure would be higher or lower than previous years. Michelle Short left the session to retrieve the exact figures to answer Mr. Arena’s question. Jim Bassett confirmed as stated previously there should be funds to cover the reduction in this line item and he continued to stand behind the amendment. Brenda Copp stated the salary increase of 4.1% was a high increase and she asked again for the amount of the town left to be assessed. Selectman Quevillon again stated one third remained as of 45 days ago. Ms. Copp asked why some properties had not yet been done and others were done 2 and 3 times already. Selectman Quevillon said it was his understanding that errors were made by the contracted firm who did the previous revaluation and the current Assessor had to correct those errors. There were so many mistakes which may have resulted in multiple assessments but those mistakes have now been corrected and are under control. Ms. Copp questioned the competency of the firm if there were that many mistakes. Selectman Quevillon stated it was before his time but he noted the intent was to get the information correct for the state and he acknowledged it has been a long road. Ms. Copp asked how long the current Assessor had been employed by the town and she was told 2 years. Ardis Miller stated it was her understanding the town was going to 100% assessment and that was based on half of the figures from 2005 and 2006 and she questioned why the 2006 figures were not being used. POINT OF ORDER: Steve Brown stated he felt the discussion was off the subject of the salary line item of the Assessor. The Moderator agreed and stated since the Assessor was not present to fully answer these types of questions, he directed the body to return to the discussion of the salary line item.
Lisa Sears had two points – she noted regardless of the opinions regarding this Assessor, the Town needs to pay someone and that should be considered in the salary line item; and as far as the abatement errors, maybe the Assessor is finding and correcting errors and they are not his errors. Angela Sherwood stated there had been a previous problem keeping assessors and whether there is a personality conflict or not, we need to have an assessor complete the revaluation process. Michelle Short returned to the session and stated the abatements for 2005 totaled $38,886.85 and the abatements for 2006 totaled $630,118.28. MOTION from the floor to call the question Moderator Champion called for a vote on the amendment to the payroll line item but could not make a determination and asked for a hand count by the Supervisors of the Checklist. IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT: 35 MOTION to amend the payroll line item from $65,323.46 to $46,044.00 FAILED. John Goldman asked for an explanation of the software line items. Angela Sherwood explained last year software was purchased resulting in the higher Vision Computer line item and this year’s figure represented the license fee. Mr. Goldman questioned the other $4,000.00 line item for software. Mrs. Sherwood explained the computer was included in the last year’s figure but Mr. Goldman still questioned the second line item for $4,000.00 which was not connected to the Vision line item. Lynne Blaisdell explained that $4,000.00 line item was for an additional Oracle license which would allow multiple users to use the Vision software. This way, a free-standing computer could be set up for appraisers and other staff members in the Selectmen’s Office could also have access to the Vision assessing information on their computers while assisting customers. Selectman Quevillon stated the free-standing computer would allow staff to direct their attention to other areas and allow the appraisers to find their own information. Ted Winglass asked where the computer would come from for the kiosk and Selectman Quevillon stated there was a computer which would be recycled for that purpose. There was no further discussion on the Assessing Account. Tax Collector Account 4150.4 with proposed Gross Expenses of $48,630.30 There was no discussion on the Tax Collector Account Treasurer Account 4150.5 with proposed Gross Expenses of $3,895.30 There was no discussion on the Treasurer Account Budget Committee Account 4150.9 with a proposed Gross Expenses of $2,172.10 There was no discussion on the Budget Committee Account
Benefits Account 4155.0 with a proposed Gross Expenses of $262,138.00 There was no discussion on the Benefits Account Planning Board Account 4191.1 with proposed Gross Expenses of $44,804.40 Karen Groves questioned the different amounts between those recommended by the Budget Committee and those of the Board of Selectmen. Angela Sherwood stated if Ms. Groves was referring to the difference in the legal line item, then the difference was due to a discussion that occurred during the Budget Committee public hearing where that figure was amended. The Board of Selectmen had met prior to that Budget Committee public hearing and did not have an opportunity therefore to amend their figure. Selectman Devine stated the Selectmen wanted to have all the legal expenses reflected in the Executive budget since in the past, some Boards had over expended their legal amounts. If all the expenses were in the Executive Budget the Board of Selectmen could monitor the expenditures and prevent any surprises at the end of the year. Ted Winglass responded by asking the Finance Director if she provided the Selectmen with a monthly Profit and Loss statement and if so, that would allow the Selectmen to review the expenses of other Boards on a monthly basis. Mrs. Sherwood agreed that she did provide the statements and noted Mr. Winglass was correct. Dean Sotirakopolous questioned if there were funds appropriated from other departments into the Executive budget and Mrs. Sherwood answered no there were not. Dave Cheney mentioned he knew some residents were there for the first time, but he reminded the body the only budget to be discussed was the one proposed by the Budget Committee. ZBA Account with proposed Gross Expenses of $3,840.00 There was no discussion on the ZBA Account Government Building Account 4194.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $124,969.45 Dean Sotirakopolous asked for clarification on the environmental clean up figure of $18.070.00 Fire Chief Irving Bassett questioned the line item for architectural plans and asked for an explanation of why this was in the Government Building budget. Police Chief Joe Gordon gave an explanation of the history of how he had attempted to obtain plans for a new Police Station. His previous approach had consisted of warrant articles which were defeated by the voters. Currently, Chief Gordon has approached a resident, David McCloud to assist with the planning. The $7,500.00 in the architectural line item represents the costs to develop a set of plans. These plans would help determine more exact cost figures for the new Police Station and would then be presented to the voters. Moderator Champion verified with Chief Gordon that future approval would continue to come in the form of warrant articles and the Chief agreed. The current proposed site is on land across from Deer Run; the former site on Hale True Road is no longer a viable site. Chief Gordon’s stated his intentions are to have public presentations so residents can see all the details and he noted there was a set of preliminary plans ready for public viewing. The plans were set up in the lower hall for those to see during the lunch break. Mrs. Sherwood, stated as a taxpayer, she felt there has been a need for a new Police Station for many years and it has been a problem not to have a set of definitive plans. Only with the completion of these plans can accurate bids be obtained. She pointed out the fact the Police Department was only supposed to be in the Fire Station complex for several years and she encouraged the public to view the conditions of the current Police Station. Scott Bassett questioned the status of the Recreation Building. Moderator Champion asked the body to complete the discussion on the architectural plans line item first. A resident asked if the new Police Station would be manufactured or stick built and Chief Gordon responded if he had his way, it would be manufactured by the people in this Town. Lisa Sears asked if the Town would own the plans after they are drafted and the Chief stated yes, we would retain the plans. Moderator Champion moved on to the discussion on the Recreation building. Scott Bassett questioned what happened to the appropriation from last year of $7,500.00 towards the Recreation building which the Town still does not own. Mrs. Sherwood noted the funds were not spent and remained in the Government Building account which has a surplus of $20,000.00. Scott Bassett asked for verification that $20,000.00 still remained as a surplus in the Government Building account and Mrs. Sherwood agreed. MOTION by Scott Bassett to reduce the line item for New Recreation Building Expenses to zero. Selectman Quevillon pointed out the building was in its final stages of completion and should be done within the next month. Sandra Graves questioned if there was already a surplus of $20,000.00 would there now be a surplus of $40,000.00. Mrs. Sherwood explained the surplus consisted of the Recreation Building amount along with funds that were never expended to replace the upstairs outside doors of Town Hall. The doors were not replaced since we were not able to obtain 3 quotes. She explained the surplus is all part of the checking account at the end of the year. Selectman Quevillon noted the funds would be used for overhead on the Recreation building. Jim Bassett pointed out if the maintenance costs for all the Government Buildings were set at $17,000.00, why would just the new Recreation Building need to be set at $21,876.00. He questioned what would require that much maintenance. The Moderator asked if the figure included the fields. Steve Brown asked if a member of the Recreation Commission would like to address the question. Ed Mencis, Chairman of the Recreation Commission, first apologized that the building was not yet ready for this year. He stated it was 95% complete. He suggested Mrs. Sherwood would have the breakdown of the maintenance costs but Mrs. Sherwood stated she was not at that particular Selectmen meeting when the breakdown was discussed. She did point out the figure was entered as a lump sum so costs could be tracked when individual invoices were received. Mrs. Sherwood explained the difference in the maintenance figures for the other government buildings with respect to the costs for the new Recreation Building were related to two major projects – the previous Government Building figure included doors and the handicap ramp which were now completed. Selectman Quevillon recollected a figure of $10,000.00 to mow the fields. Tina Owens spoke regarding the process of how a building is usually accepted by the voters and about the process of how the Recreation building has been handled. She voiced how upset she was that voters were not asked if they wanted this MOTION by Tina Owens to call the question and to zero out $21,876.00 for the new Recreation Building expenses. Moderator Champion called for a vote on the motion to zero out the line item for $21,876.00 but could not make a determination and asked for a hand count by the Supervisors of the Checklist. IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION: 45 MOTION to zero out $21,876.00 for the new Recreation Building line item PASSED. MOTION by Linda Meehan to reconsider discussion on this item later in the day. Moderator Champion requested the reconsideration take place prior to the end of the discussion on Warrant Article 2. Jim Bassett requested clarification on the fact the discussion could take place only on this one line item and not the entire budget and it was agreed only the single line item could be discussed. The amended Gross Expense figure for the Government Building Account is $103,093.45. Cemetery Account 4195.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $1,600.00 There was no discussion on the Cemetery Account. Insurance Account 4196.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $63,982.44 There was no discussion on the Insurance Account Trustees Account 4199.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $100.00 There was no discussion on the Trustees Account Police Account 4210.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $516,713.80 Brenda Copp questioned how many Police Officers are on the force currently. Chief Gordon stated there are currently 6 full-time Officers including an Administrative Secretary and 7 part-time Officers. Ms. Copp asked if it was true that we would be asked to eliminate 2 part-time positions for 1 full-time position. Chief Gordon stated yes there is a warrant article to that effect. Ms. Copp asked if we have 24 hour coverage and Chief Gordon confirmed that we do. A resident questioned the difference between the Budget Committee figure and the Selectmen figure for this budget. Mrs. Sherwood again recounted that was due to an amendment made the evening of the Budget Committee public hearing to correct an error. The Board of Selectmen had no opportunity to make any amendments to their budget in response since they met prior to that public hearing. Rescue Account 4215.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $31,100.00 Sandra Graves asked for an explanation of the Rescue Account. Fire Chief Bassett stated the budget is separate from the Fire Department Account and the Rescue budget is for the equipment, training, supplies, stretchers, backboards, etc. used by the members of the Rescue squad. The budget also includes a stipend for the members. Ambulance Account 4215.1 with proposed Gross Expenses of $8,000.00 Chief Bassett explained that in the past Sandown along with several neighboring towns were working with the same ambulance company and each town paid a stipend. For the past 5-6 years each town paid $32,000.00 annually. This year, the towns met and put out bids to several ambulance companies and through that process AMR drafted a new contract with the Town for 3 years with an option for an additional 3 years with no annual stipend to be paid. Chief Bassett pointed out after the remaining $8,000.00 is paid, there should be a zero amount in this line item potentially for the next 6 years. Mrs. Sherwood pointed out the $8,000.00 represents the figure for the first quarter of 2007 and after a further brief discussion it was determined the $8,000.00 represents the remaining figure on the old contract which will terminate in March 2007. Brenda Copp asked if the new contract was made with the new owner since AMR was sold just recently. Chief Bassett stated he was just in contact with Mark Jacobs who is the Town’s representative and the new contract was just delivered. Sandra Graves asked for an explanation of why the 2007 requested amount was $32,000.00 and the approved amount was $8,000.00. Chief Bassett explained at budget time, the new contract amount was not solidified and therefore the previous figure of $32,000.00 was presented to the Budget Committee. However, before the end of budget season the new contract was solidified and the figure was then reduced to the $8,000.00 at the Budget Committee public hearing. Selectman Quevillon also reiterated the remaining $8,000.00 is just to fulfill the last quarter of the old contract which will expire in March 2007. The Selectmen budget figure of $32,000.00 was also representative of the old contract figure. Fire Account 4220.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $117,605.45 There was no discussion on the Fire Account. Driveway Inspector Account 4241.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $1,000.00 There was no discussion on the Driveway Inspector Account. Building Inspector Account 4241.2 with proposed Gross Expenses of $14,780.00 There was no discussion on the Building Inspector Account. Code Enforcement Account 4241.3 with proposed Gross Expenses of $3,215.16 Plumbing Inspector Account 4241.4 with proposed Gross Expenses of $2,500.00 There was no discussion on the Plumbing Inspector Account. Electric Inspector Account 4241.5 with proposed Gross Expenses of $3,390.00 There was no discussion on the Electric Inspector Account. Gas/Oil/Chimney Inspector Account 4241.6 with proposed Gross Expenses of $2,000.00 There was no discussion on the Gas/Oil/Chimney Inspector Account. Septic Inspector Account 4242.1 with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,525.00 There was no discussion on the Septic Inspector Account. Highway Facility Account 4311.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $5,650.00 There was no discussion on the Highway Facility Account. Highway Operating Account 4312.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $365,121.97 There was no discussion on the Highway Operating Account. Street Lights Account 4316.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,500.00 There was no discussion on the Street Lights Account. Sanitation Facility Account 4321.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $7,680.00 There was no discussion on the Sanitation Facility Account. Sanitation Operating Account 4324.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $369,535.00 There was no discussion on the Sanitation Operating Account. Sanitation Site Account 4325.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,500.00 There was no discussion on the Sanitation Site Account. Recycling Account 4326.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $61,150.00 There was no discussion on the Recycling Account. Health Officer Account 4411.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,255.16 MOTION by Selectman Quevillon to increase the budget to $10,205.16 Lisa Sears questioned why and Selectman Quevillon stated the increase represented the costs of mosquito repellent wipes to be distributed to the children due to the determination of EEE virus in the area. He explained it was for the protection of the children. The mosquito control line item was to be increased to $6,000.00. Lisa Sears questioned if the amount was for both the company to spray and for the wipes and if so she wanted a breakdown of the costs. She also wanted to know why the wipes are DEET free if research shows the only effective repellent are those containing DEET. Selectman Quevillon agreed and stated the best prevention was to keep the mosquitoes away from the children. Ms. Sears asked if she was correct that the $6,000.00 was only for wipes since there is a warrant article for $40,000.00 for the mosquito control program. Selectman Quevillon stated the warrant article was not for the same costs. Ms. Sears questioned if at recess teachers would be expected to wipe all the children down. Selectman Devine stated the wipes were $.43 each and they would be bought in gross. Permission was granted from the schools and the wipes would be available to teachers, coaches etc. and permission would be obtained from parents. Richard Heinz asked if the warrant article passed, would the $6,000.00 be zeroed out. Selectman Quevillon stated the line item would be zeroed out if the warrant article passed. Steve Brown stated his recollection of the presentation to the Budget Committee. The wipes would be supplied to the coaches, teachers etc. to use on the children. The Budget Committee’s concern was the potential for liability such as allergic reaction to the wipes, parental objection and his recollection was the figure did not include any costs for spraying. Mr. Brown also pointed out the warrant article did not include any language to zero out this line item should it pass. Selectman Quevillon stated he stands corrected and retracted his statement. He did note the School Board felt it was a good idea and pamphlets would be sent home. Paula Martin stated most parents already address this issue by bringing their own repellent and she felt it was not an effective use of Town funds. John Goldman agreed and added if the School Board felt it is necessary, then the School should pay for it. He was concerned about allergic reaction and he felt the responsibility should remain with the parents. MOTION by John Goldman to zero out the line item. Moderator Champion pointed out there was already a motion on the table to increase the line item and the discussion on that motion was still in process. Brenda Copp felt the Town had no business trying to take care of other people’s children and stressed the liability to the Town. If this were to be, she felt the costs should be taken from the Recreation account. Steve Brown pointed out this matter was not appropriate to be dealt with by the Recreation Commission. MOTION by Scott Bassett to call the question Moderator Champion restated the motion made was to increase the budget to $10,205.16 but he asked for clarification. In calculating the increase to the Mosquito Control line item from $100.00 to $6,000.00, he figured the amended budget to only total $10,155.16. VOTE: MOTION to increase the Mosquito Control line item from $100.00 to $6,000.00 FAILED. Animal Control Account 4414.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $13,849.32 There was no discussion on the Animal Control Account. Health Account 4415.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $26,139.10 There was no discussion on the Health Account. Welfare Account 4445.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $11,730.00 There was no discussion on the Welfare Account. Recreation Committee Account 4520.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $124,949.53 Sandra Graves asked for an explanation of what the Recreation Commission does since she just found out they do not handle sports. Recreation Commission member Ron Dulong stated they maintain the facilities such as Miller Field, baseball fields, Town beach etc. They do not buy balls or supplies but they maintain the facilities which includes mowing of fields, concession stands and building maintenance. They do have a Summer Recreation program for 7 weeks in the summer, offer trips for Seniors, foliage trips, maintain the Town Beach, pay the lifeguards and sponsor various trips throughout the year. Selectman Quevillon asked for an explanation of the line item for the ball field/playground for $6,003.00. Mr. Dulong explained the current Recreation Director unfortunately was not able to attend today but he believed the amount reflected the costs of maintaining the fields, seeding, sand etc. Mrs. Sherwood stated it included many things such as fertilizer, spring loaming, irrigation, spreading turf, clay mixture, sand, closing up the irrigation system, grading parking lot and road etc. for Miller Field. Moderator Champion asked for clarification of whether or not the Recreation Commission will be maintaining the new fields. Mr. Dulong stated the previously mentioned figure of $22,000.00 included the costs for the new fields only. Paula Martin asked for an explanation of the Summer Recreation Program and asked if it was a self-funding program. Mr. Dulong stated it was a self-funding program and was part of the budget but the revenue did not offset the costs. Steve Brown added the fact that a warrant article which passed about 10 years ago granted a yearly $10,000.00 towards the program. Every year thus far the Recreation Commission has returned that $10,000.00 back to the Town and it has been a self-funded program. The program has expanded in the number of weeks, daily hours and the participants and it has become increasingly expensive for parents to send their children to the program. So this year, for the first time, the $10,000.00 will be utilized to lower the cost of the summer program. The revenue has been reduced by the $10,000.00. Paula Martin stated she was excited to see that happen since it has been costly for parents. Dave Cheney asked if the $10,000.00 is coming from somewhere or are the fees just being reduced. Steve Brown stated this year it is not self-funding. Dave Cheney stated he would like to see the revolving fund used to reduce the fees. Matt Russell stated the Recreation Commission has done an excellent job and he would like clarification of whether the new building will be a Recreation building or a Town building. Steve Brown stated it was previously mentioned the voters had no opportunity to vote on the building but he stated the voters actually did vote on that building by giving the Planning Board the responsibility to charge developers a Recreation fee or provide recreation in their developments in Town. The builders have agreed and now either provide recreation or pay a fee. Selectman Quevillon asked for clarification of the summer payroll and asked why the lifeguard payroll is not combined with the summer payroll. Mrs. Sherwood noted the lifeguards were kept separate since that line item was in existence prior to the summer program. Jim Bassett asked where the funds would show if the developers chose not to build a building. Steve Brown stated the donations would go back into Recreation by law. Jim Bassett questioned if a single lot would go back to Recreation too. Steve Brown stated maybe the question could be answered by a member of the Planning Board. Ed St. Pierre, Chairman of the Planning Board, stated the Planning Board doesn’t charge the developer and it is a voluntary contribution. Jim Bassett asked where the funds go. Mr. St. Pierre could not answer the question but Mrs. Sherwood noted they go to the Recreation Revolving Fund. Linda Meehan noted a handout was available that may help explain where the funds go. Jim Bassett stated it did not give a breakdown which is what he would like to see. A resident asked who decided the location of the new Recreation building. Moderator Champion noted the discussion was off the subject matter. MOTION by Linda Meehan to revisit the New Recreation Building Expense line item in the Government Building Account 4194.0. Linda Meehan stated the discussion of the maintenance fees for the new building had moved quickly . Ms. Meehan stated she had discussions with the Police Chief regarding the tax impact of a new Police Station and she was told it may cost $800,000.00 and she would like to point out the new Recreation Building would have no tax impact to the residents except for maintenance costs. The value of the building is estimated to be $860,000.00 and much effort was put into this
project. Ms. Meehan stated money has been raised by builder donations to the Planning Board, by signs at Miller Field. The breakdown of the $21,000.00 was provided and is as follows: Electricity $ 3,500.00 Dave Cheney noted under the Cable contract there may be leads for free to municipal buildings. Ms. Meehan agreed that could be a possibility and the figure could be reduced by $3,600.00. Paula Bonasoro stated she was already investigating that as well. Carroll Bassett asked if there is a septic system along with the porta-johns. Ron Dulong stated yes there was a septic system and the portable johns would be used for heavy usage. Scott Bassett stated he had no problem with maintaining the building but the problem was there was no clue when the building would be done. He suggested taking the maintenance fees from the revolving fund for 6 months or more to start with. Linda Meehan stated the building should be ready within the next month and must first be accepted by the Board of Selectmen. She stated this project was not a typical project and is a combination of the efforts of many boards and she said it has gone through public hearings. Selectman Thomas Tombarello stated he was the electrician on the project and they were about 3 weeks from turning the project over. A resident asked if there was a reserve fund here and if so, how much. Steve Brown noted there was no reserve fund. MOTION by Ken Sherwood to insert $17,494.40 which was 80% of what was asked for originally and he pointed out that amount reflected the time factor to allow acceptance of the building. Selectman Quevillon asked for the cost of the propane and was told it was $3,065.00. MOTION by Selectman Quevillon to amend the above motion. Moderator Champion noted the first motion must go to vote and then the body can deal with any amendments. VOTE: to insert $17,494.40 in the line item for New Recreation Building Expenses PASSED.
MOTION by Selectman Quevillon to amend the total to $16,000.00 since the propane will not be used for most of the winter months. Moderator Champion verified with Mr. Sherwood that he, in fact, took 80% of the total amount of the costs which would indicate the heat was already reduced to an 80% figure and Mr. Sherwood confirmed that was how he arrived at the $17,494.40 figure. Diana True questioned the custodial fee and asked if there would be a new custodian or would the current custodian assume the duties. Steve Brown stated the current custodian currently works a full-time position. The figure used for the new Recreation Building was based on an hourly rate and on the current pay rate. Ms. True then asked if in fact it would be a different position. Mr. Brown stated he did not think the Recreation Commission could answer that question at this time. Linda Meehan pointed out the cost was based on 10 hours per week and a rate of ‘up to’ $14.00 per hour. Tina Owens felt the question had not been answered. She asked if the current custodian was looking at a $7,200.00 increase in pay or were we hiring a new person. If it was a new person, that was another process. Ms. Owens also thanked the Recreation Committee for providing the breakdown and information. Angela Sherwood noted the present custodian was working 35 hours per week in the custodial position and she also was working at the Sanitation Department since there was difficulty in hiring there. Mrs. Sherwood stated she was not sure how the matter would be resolved. MOTION by Brian Butler to call the question VOTE: motion to call the question PASSED Moderator Champion noted the New Recreation Building Expenses line item would reflect a figure of $17,494.40 and the issue would not be revisited. The new Gross Expenses for the Government Building Account 4194.0 will be $120,589.85. Library Account 4555.0 with a proposed Gross Expenses of $222,664.48 Paula Martin asked what the final figure was on the Recreation Account. The Moderator agreed the Recreation Account discussion had not been completed and he instructed the body to return to that account. Paula Martin questioned the statement of revenue regarding the Revolving Account and asked for an explanation of how the revenue would be expended. Ed Mencis stated the revolving account was used to supplement the building costs. It would
they have used monies from the revolving fund to offset summer recreation numbers as the usage has decreased. Mrs. Sherwood noted an error was made in the amount of $2.00 in the Government Building gross expense figure and the correct figure should be $120,587.85. Library Account 4555.0 with a proposed Gross Expenses of $222,664.48 There was no discussion on the Library Account. Patriotic Purpose Account 4583.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $4,600.00 There was no discussion on the Patriotic Purpose Account. Conservation Commission Account 4619.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $13,103.00. There was no further discussion on the Conservation Commission Account. Tan Note Account 4723.0 with proposed Gross Expenses of $10,000.00 There was no discussion on the Tan Note Account. Moderator Champion questioned if the Budget Committee or Mrs. Sherwood had a revised figure on the budget. The new budget figure was $2,876,136.21 and that figure was confirmed by the Town Clerk/Tax Collector Michelle Short. Moderator Champion re-read Warrant Article 2 as follows: Article 2. Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles 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 $2,876,136.21. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $2,806,223.04 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. VOTE: MOTION to accept Warrant Article 2 as amended PASSED. Mrs. Sherwood noted the tax impact of the revised budget was $24.00 per $100,000.
There was no further discussion on Article 2. MOTION by Brian Butler to recess for lunch The meeting recessed at 1:08 pm for an hour lunch break. The meeting reconvened at 2:05 pm Moderator Champion announced an upcoming Valentine’s Day Dance to be held at Zorvino’s on Friday, February 9, 2007 from 7:00 pm – 11:00 pm. All proceeds would benefit the Historical Society. MOTION by Selectman Devine to reconvene the afternoon session. MOTION by Selectman Devine to put Article 3 on the floor for consideration. Article 3. Warrant Article. Shall the town vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to approve and appoint a Communications and Technology Committee to: (1) Manage the Town website; (2) Publish the Town newsletter; (3) Advise the Board of Selectmen on technical and communications issues. This would include assessing and advising the Board of Selectmen and its various departments on computer and related technology issues. Ardis Miller asked if there would be any cost associated with this committee. Selectman Quevillon stated there were none and he further explained this committee would advise the Board of Selectman. He explained in the past, the Selectman had made decisions based on information provided by sales personnel and had not necessarily possessed the expertise needed to make a more informed decision. These committee members have expertise in various technical areas and will assist the Board with information and quotes as needed. Ms. Miller asked if participation was voluntary and she was informed it was. Lisa Sears asked if the committee would follow the RSA and Right-to-Know Laws including having a Recording Secretary. Mark Hevesh stated in fact, Mrs. Marie Champion would be the Recording Secretary. Nelson Rheaume stated the committee had no budget this year and he stated next year the committee would have a budget. He felt an IT person should work on the computers and not committee members. Mr. Hevesh restated the purpose of the committee which was simply to advise the Board of Selectmen. The committee members would not work on the computer system; an IT person would be doing that in lieu of any other vendors and he/she would be a different person than any of the committee members. Selectman Quevillon elaborated and noted the committee was advisory only, there would be contracted IT vendors and there would be no budget for next year and no impact since the web page dollars from the previous year would be used. Mr. Hevesh stated the task force would perform three functions: technology assessment, manage the website which would be donated to the Town as of 5/1/07 and publish a newsletter. There would be subgroups and Mr. Hevesh identified those groups and their members. Brian Butler asked how many members were presently on the committee and Mr. Hevesh informed him there were presently 8 members. Mr. Butler questioned that the number of MOTION by Jim Bassett to call the question There was no further discussion on Article 3. MOTION from the floor to put Article 4 on the floor for consideration Article 4. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town raise and appropriate and authorize the Selectmen to accept a Highway Block Grant in the sum of $106,822.92 for the road improvements programs to be recommended by the Sandown Highway Department and approved by the Sandown Board of Selectmen, said sum to be supplied by the State of New Hampshire. (Total tax impact $0) (Recommended by Board of Selectmen) (Recommended by Budget Committee) There was no discussion on Article 4. MOTION from Chief Gordon to put Article 5 on the floor for consideration Article 5. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to replace two (2) Part-time Police Officer positions with one (1) Full-time Police Officer and raise and appropriate the sum of $23,906.00 to be used for that purpose. The increase in salary is $13,982.00 and benefits (insurance and retirement) is $9,924.00. (Total tax impact $23,906.00) Lou Porcelli mentioned the tax impact if all the warrant articles passed would be $168.00 per $100,000.00 of assessed value on your home. Sandra Graves noted that was not including the school budget. Dean Sotirakopolous asked if the salary figure included bereavement pay, tuition reimbursement, uniform allowance etc. Chief Gordon noted that was a good point and asked if Mrs. Sherwood would have more information. Mrs. Sherwood stated the part-time Officers would already have an allowance for uniforms and this may actually save money; all employees would have bereavement hours and no one has used the education reimbursement this year, so she was unsure of that impact.
Mr. Sotirakopolous noted a separate line item in the budget and asked if this salary was included in that line item. It was determined the salary quoted in the warrant article was separate and independent from the figures in the budget. Mrs. Sherwood explained her calculations. Jim Bassett asked if one individual would be let go. Chief Gordon explained that 3 part-time Officers were hired, one stayed only a short time and left; the second part-time vacancy would develop when the full-time position was filled. The practice was to move someone up from within the department to the full-time position, so no one would be let go. Jim Bassett then clarified that another part-time Officer could have been hired but it was a choice to go for a full-time position and Chief Gordon agreed. The Chief felt it was a better decision to hire a full-time Officer due to the expenses, which between training and uniforms would total approximately $4,800.00, and he felt in the long term, a full-time Officer was a better choice since it was likely that person would remain with the Department longer than a part-time Officer. Moderator Champion asked for the breakdown of full-time and part-time Officers and it was determined there were 6 full-time patrol Officers and 5 part-time. This excludes the administrative position held by Sgt. Roy. A resident questioned what would happen to the position of the officer who is currently out on administrative leave and Chief Gordon noted that position would be filled if a vacancy ultimately occurred. There was no further discussion of Article 5. MOTION by Ed Mencis to place Article 6 on the floor for consideration Article 6. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to change the position of Assessor from part-time to full-time and to raise and appropriate the sum of $20,388.00 for that purpose. The increase in salary is $11,289.00 and benefits (insurance and retirement) is $9,099.00. (Total tax impact $20,388.00) Scott Bassett asked with reference to both Articles 6 and 7, if they became full-time, would there be an application process or would the current employee automatically be moved into the full-time position. Selectman Devine stated his preference would be they go to an application process and the current employees would need to reapply for the positions. Matt Russell asked if the Assessor were full-time, would that make him more available to residents and to groups for questions and meetings since it is currently difficult at times to reach the Assessor. Selectman Devine stated yes, it was his intent to make the Assessor more available. Presently, he is spending his efforts getting the revaluation completed. After that, other questions would be addressed. Nelson Rheaume clarified that we were talking about the position and not the current Assessor. He also mentioned it seemed like a lot of money to pay to increase the hours of the Assessor from 34 to 35 hours per week and to expend $20,388.00 seemed like a great increase for one extra hour per week. Angela Sherwood explained the current budget had the Assessor at 26 hours, the proposed budget would increase his hours to 34 and this warrant article would increase his hours to 35. If the proposed budget does not pass, then there would be no money to pay him any additional hours over the current 26. Dave Cheney asked what would be the impact if both the budget and the warrant article pass since it appeared the increase may put the Assessor’s salary at over $75,000.00 per year. He felt it would be better to stay with the 34 hours per week. Mrs. Sherwood explained the appropriations were made in the budget for an additional 8 hours and the warrant article appropriated an additional 9 hours and it needed to be done that way to ensure the correct salary amount was appropriated for both cases. Dean Sotirakopolous questioned the fact the current Assessor had been employed for 2 years with the Town and the revaluation had to be done in 5 years. He noted it was previously mentioned the Assessor had spent extra time to correct the botched job by the previous company. Therefore, Mr. Sotirakopolous questioned how we could justify making the Assessor full-time when in 2 years time he had completed what the State had allowed 5 years to complete and he corrected the errors too. Once the errors were corrected his job should be easier. MOTION by Dean Sotirakopolous to zero out the figures in article 6 POINT OF ORDER – John Goldman suggested rather than zero out the costs, the warrant article could just not be placed on the ballot. Mr. Goldman was informed the body could not remove an article from the ballot. Selectman Quevillon noted the figures reflected a part-time measurer and lister and once the revaluation was completed that second person would no longer be needed. This would mean the Assessor would be performing all the job functions alone. The process of revaluation would need to begin all over again and hopefully there would be no more abatements made totaling $600,000.00. Michelle Short wanted to clarify the $600,000.00 in abatements this year were not to correct previous errors including any made by the State several years ago, but were to correct errors made by the current Assessor himself; he was fixing his own errors. Mr. Porcelli questioned if the costs were zeroed out and the article passed, would the Assessor still go to full-time status and he was told no that would not happen. Ardis Miller asked for the current salary of the Assessor as a part-time employee. Selectman Quevillon stated he would like to challenge the statement of Michelle Short as being inaccurate since he felt there were grave mistakes and inconsistencies made prior to this Assessor which the current Assessor has corrected. He cited personal experience with the assessment on his own home. Regarding the salary, Angela Sherwood initially offered several different figures but after further review noted that out of the $46,000.00 total salary for last year, $37,000.00 was for the Assessor. POINT OF ORDER – Dave Cheney wondered if the body was voting for the position or for the person and he wanted to clarify that point. The Moderator pointed out the question did relate to the salary of the position last year. Mrs. Sherwood noted the figure may be close to $60,000.00 now if he is at 34 hours but there still appeared to be some confusion over the exact figure. MOTION by Scott Bassett to call the question The Moderator noted there were several people who had hands raised prior to calling the question and he would recognize them. POINT OF ORDER – Jim Bassett questioned the Moderator as to why he would allow additional questions when a motion and second to call the question had been recognized. The Moderator again noted he would take Mr. Bassett’s suggestion but there were several residents with additional questions and the microphone was readily available and they had hands raised prior to the motion. Jim Bassett stated he would like to challenge the Moderator. A brief discussion ensued and the Moderator called for a vote to call the question. VOTE: to call the question FAILED. Richard Heinz wanted to point out the discussion seemed to be more about the person and not about the position. He stated if we need a full-time Assessor we should vote that way and disregard the fact that many people are very dissatisfied with what the current Assessor is doing. Lisa Sears asked Town Counsel to comment on the previous discussion about whether or not the position can be re-advertised if it changes from part-time to full-time. Attorney Diane Gorrow stated this would result in a change to the position and it could be re-advertised. Lisa Sears asked if the current person would then be fired. Attorney Gorrow stated that use of wording was not correct and she explained that the position as a full-time position may have different requirements and it was permissible for the Selectmen to advertise. The part-time position would basically be eliminated it was not that the person would be fired. Dawn Nicolaisen asked for clarification on articles 5, 6 & 7 with regards to the insurance benefit costs that were noted. She asked why the insurance costs were different for all 3 positions when we would have no way of knowing what insurance would be chosen by the employees. Mrs. Sherwood explained that all of this is a best-guess estimate and she used the insurance costs based on the employees who currently hold those positions. Mrs. Sherwood stated the costs could change if the employee changes but she made the best estimate based on the current employee in the positions.
Ardis Miller asked if wording in the article should be changed to show the position would be advertised. The Moderator stated the Selectmen made it clear they would advertise the positions and it did not need to be stated in the article. Dean Sotirakopolous asked if in zeroing out the costs, did that also include the costs for insurance, benefits etc. and he was informed that was the case. MOTION by Sandra Graves to call the question VOTE: MOTION to zero out the figures in Article 6 PASSED. The Moderator read the article with the amended figures. Article 6. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to change the position of Assessor from part-time to full-time and to raise and appropriate the sum of $0 for that purpose. The increase in salary is $0 and benefits (insurance and retirement) is $0. There was no further discussion on Article 6. MOTION by Dave Augusta to place Article 7 on the floor for consideration Article 7. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to change the position of Recreation Director from part-time to full-time and to raise and appropriate the sum of $14,810.00 for that purpose. The increase in salary is $2,348.00 and benefits (insurance and retirement) is $12,462.00. (Total tax impact $14,810.00) Dave Augusta noted the Recreation Commission had not approached the body since 1998 with regards to Recreation. He noted the number of hours needed to meet the demands of scheduling, training, coordinating etc. did not allow the current Recreation Director to complete the tasks. She cannot volunteer her time and he stated the impact on a $250,000.00 assessed home would be $8.00 or 3.2 cents per thousand. Jim Bassett stated for an additional $14,810.00 the increase would be from 34 – 38 hours and that would mean an increase of $14,000.00 for 4 hours per week. Steve Brown noted the benefits have to be added into the warrant article by law. Jim Bassett stated he understood that but he was pointing out that it seemed like a lot of money for only an additional 4 hours per week and if she can’t meet the demands now, 4 hours would probably not help. Mr. Bassett suggested maybe a Recreation Commission member could assist instead with the duties. Dave Augusta noted as a part-time person she was not allowed to increase her hours beyond 34 hours and with full-time position she could increase her hours to 38 hours. Paula Martin asked if as a full-time employee would she would still be hourly and not salaried. Angela Sherwood noted the only salaried position in the Town belongs to the Town Clerk/Tax Collector and everyone else is hourly. Paula Martin asked about a possible request to increase the 38 hours and Angela Sherwood noted if the Recreation Commission found additional hours were needed, then next year’s budget payroll would reflect the increase. The Moderator again reminded the body the discussion was about the position and not the person. Lisa Sears questioned if the position allowed for summer hours to be increased to about 45 hours per week and less in the winter. Mrs. Sherwood explained it is the bottom line payroll amount that counts and should the Recreation Commission find they would go over that amount, the Board of Selectmen would need to be advised and permission obtained. Karen Bassett asked if overtime would be paid for the extra summer hours. Mrs. Sherwood stated it would. Ms. Bassett asked if an additional 12-15 hours could be paid per week and Mrs. Sherwood noted the employee would be paid for the hours worked. Ken Sherwood questioned that as a municipal employee compensatory time could be taken after a specific number of hours worked and Mrs. Sherwood agreed that was the case per RSA. MOTION by Carroll Bassett to call the question There was no further discussion on Article 7. MOTION by Paul Carey to place Article 8 on the floor for consideration Article 8. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $18,380.00 for the purchase, installation and the additional support fees for new Tax Collecting software. (Total tax impact $18,380.00) John Goldman asked if the $18,000.00 included the licensing. Town Clerk/Tax Collector Michelle Short stated the current software company was BMSI and the program was a DOS program when she first started. She reminded the residents that there were problems with the company which resulted in the tax bills being mailed late last year. She did obtain 3 quotes. The Town is on-line currently with the State for motor vehicle registrations and that does not cost the Town anything. This software would be for the dog licenses and other licenses and the BMSI support fee was $3,000.00 and this fee with the new vendor, Vadar would be $4,491.00. The first year’s support fee is included in the $18,380.00. Sandra Graves asked if this software was tied into the assessing software and she was told it was not. Douglas Martin noted this figure was just for the software and did it include hardware. Michelle Short noted it was only for software and includes the support for the first year only. There was no further discussion on Article 8.
MOTION by Arthur Arena to place Article 9 on the floor for consideration Article 9. Special Warrant Article. Shall the town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $6,500.00 for the purchase and installation of a new compactor outbuilding located at the Sandown Disposal and Recycling Center. This new outbuilding is replacing the old outbuilding that houses one of the compactors as well as keeping shelter for the employees. Supervisor of the Transfer Station, Dave Cheney explained that the Transfer Station has two concrete block buildings and one has deteriorated to the point it is sinking, leaks and is supposed to house 3-4 employees from inclement weather along with the machine that controls the compactor. This new building that is proposed would not be needed in the long term if the Town implements curbside trash pickup but at that point the new compactor building could be moved to another place since it would not be permanent in its position. Lisa Sears asked if quotes were obtained. Dave Cheney stated not yet; only one quote was obtained for the purposes of the warrant article. He felt the building would be a pre-fabricated building similar to a shed. Chuck Vey asked if the facility would have heat and plumbing. Mr. Cheney stated it would have heat but no plumbing. Rest room facilities are provided by porta-johns and water is provided by water bottles. Mr. Vey wondered about accepting plumbing if need be and Mr. Cheney responded by stating the facility should never be at the point that plumbing should be needed. He felt the next step would be to implement curbside trash pickup and to do anything more to the current facility would be a waste of funds. There was no further discussion on Article 9. MOTION by Ed Mencis to place Article 10 on the floor for consideration Article 10. Special Warrant Article. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $46,519.00 to purchase and equip a New Ford F-450 four wheel drive one ton dump truck for plowing and sanding Town roads. Cost to be offset by the trade-in of one 2001 F-450 four wheel drive one ton dump truck (VIN#1FDXF47S81EC32292) and sale proceeds will be applied against appropriation. (Total tax impact $46,519.00) There was no discussion on Article 10. MOTION by Brian Butler to place Article 11 on the floor for consideration Article. 11. Special Warrant Article. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $46,519.00 to purchase and equip a second New Ford F-450 four wheel drive one ton dump truck for plowing and sanding Town roads. Cost to be offset by the trade-in of
one 2001 F-450 four wheel drive one ton dump truck (VIN#1FDXF47S51ED27957) and sale proceeds will be applied against appropriation. (Total tax impact $46,519.00) Scott Bassett asked if this article included the plower and sander. Highway Department Foreman, Shaun Brooks stated it did. Douglas Martin asked about the condition of the vehicle to be traded. Shaun Brooks noted it was 6 years old, has 40,000 -50,000 miles and they have spent a lot on repairs in the past several years and the trucks are losing value. Instead of repairing the trucks, he felt it would be better to purchase new and get another 7 years or so. Roger Barczak asked what the estimated trade in value was on the vehicles and Mr. Brooks noted it was $11,500.00 for each truck. Dean Sotirakopolous asked what happened to the trade in value with respect to the appropriation. Mrs. Sherwood stated Local Government Center advised us not to quote the trade in value in the warrant article because it would then lock us into that value. The trade in value was quoted today at $11,500.00 but that may not be the case in March. Mr. Sotirakopolous asked if the money would go into the general fund and he was advised that was correct. John Goldman felt the trucks should be driven until they were no longer usable rather than trade in now and spend another $46,000.00. Shaun Brooks noted the trucks were being repaired almost on a weekly basis and they were spending approximately $10,000.00 over the past 3 years. Mr. Goldman felt $10,000.00 over the past 3 years on 2 trucks did not seem exorbitant. He suggested maybe combining the warrant articles and buying one larger truck and Mr. Brooks agreed that could be a possibility. Mrs. Sherwood noted to date $4,275.00 had been spent in equipment repair and maintenance and other funds could have been expended under the Block Grant figures as well. Moderator Champion asked Mr. Brooks if he could estimate how much had been spent this year. Mr. Brooks noted the pump was just replaced for $1,200.00 with $600.00 in labor and when the vehicles were out of commission, no work was getting done. Chuck Vey asked if the figures for this year were for 2007 or for 2006 and Mrs. Sherwood noted the figures were for 2006. Mr. Vey asked to verify that $4,200.00 for the year 2006 was for the two trucks. Mrs. Sherwood explained the $4,200.00 was for all the repair and maintenance for all the equipment but again she advised there could be some additional costs which were in the Block Grant as well. Shaun Brooks stated they use Block Grant monies in addition to the other line items depending on the remaining balances of each. Chief Gordon stated the Profit and Loss showed $6,861.94 was expended under vehicle maintenance and another $4,275.00 was expended under equipment repair and maintenance and possibly more under the Block Grant. Doug Martin asked how many vehicles that would include. Mr. Brooks noted the Town has 3 vehicles but he felt 99% of the repair figures were for the two vehicles noted in the warrant article.
Doug Martin asked if the $6,800.00 included the maintenance on the front loader and Mr. Brooks stated it did not. Mr. Martin pointed out a new vehicle would depreciate in value at a fast rate and he felt that was not a good selling point for buying a new vehicle as opposed to maintaining the existing vehicles. Lisa Sears asked if the 3 vehicles including the two plows were the same age and if both were bought at the same time before. If so, she suggested maybe purchasing one this year and staggering the purchases so they won’t need to be replaced again at the same time. Shaun Brooks stated that’s why there were two warrant articles and not one article for both. This way there was the option for people to vote on only one vehicle as opposed to two. Ken Sherwood suggested maybe the second article should be zeroed out and next year a warrant article be submitted to purchase a larger vehicle. Lisa Sears seconded Mr. Sherwood. Lou Porcelli agreed and noted this situation would be a good argument for a capital improvement program so these expenses could be spread out evenly over a longer period of time. MOTION by Lisa Sears to zero out the figures in Article 11 VOTE: MOTION to zero out the figures PASSED Paul Carey stated there was no discussion on the motion and he questioned which vehicle was in worse condition and since the VIN numbers were included in the article, there was a possibility the body was zeroing out the vehicle that was in better condition. Shaun Brooks explained he could not tell from the VIN numbers which vehicle was which. MOTION by Jim Bassett to revisit Article 10 and eliminate the VIN number VOTE: Motion to revisit Article 10 and eliminate the VIN number PASSED MOTION by Jim Bassett to eliminate the VIN number from Article 11 VOTE: Motion to eliminate the VIN number from Article 11 PASSED The Moderator pointed out in Article 11 the VIN number would be eliminated and the figures were zeroed out. There was no further discussion on Article 10 or 11. MOTION from the floor to place Article 12 on the floor for consideration Article 12. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000.00 for the annual Old Home Day Celebration. The warrant article is sponsored by the Sandown Old Home Days Committee. (Total tax impact $5,000.00) There was no discussion on Article 12. MOTION from the floor to put Article 13 on the floor for consideration Article 13. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $400,000.00 for the purpose of reconstructing and applying the binder coat to the entire length of Fremont Road. (Total tax impact $400,000.00) Doug Martin asked if the cost included the tree work, shoulder work etc. Shaun Brooks stated it did include all of that work as well as the ripping of the road and the paving. Moderator Champion asked for verification of Mr. Brooks’s position with the Highway Department. Mr. Brooks explained he was the foreman for the department. The Moderator asked if the Road Agent was present and it was determined he was not. Roger Barczak asked if the road would be out of commission and Shaun Brooks explained the road would work just as it did for North Road. Fremont Road would be passable but there would be delays. Moderator Champion asked if this would be a Town project or would the State be involved and Mr. Brooks noted it was totally a Town project. Selectman Quevillon asked what for the condition of Fremont Road and Mr. Brooks noted the condition is horrible. The Moderator asked on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best, what was the condition of Fremont Road. Mr. Brooks noted it would be a 1, being the worst. Lou Porcelli questioned if any of the funds noted in the Block Grant amount from Article 4 could be used for the project. Angela Sherwood explained the Block Grant is usually expended for smaller projects and other road related repairs at the discretion of the Road Agent. Matt Russell noted since the article stated only a binder coat, would an article be on the warrant next year for the top coat. Mr. Brooks stated normally 3 years later would be the time frame for the top coat, but with the procedures used on North Road, they were informed no top coat would be needed and the road would be good for 20 years. That same process would be used on Fremont Road. There was no further discussion on Article 13. MOTION by Lisa Sears to place Article 14 on the floor for consideration.
Article 14. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000.00 for the purpose of reconstructing and applying the binder coat to the entire length of Hawkewood Road. (Total tax impact $100,000.00) Lisa Sears asked about the condition of Hawkewood Road. Mr. Brooks noted on the same scale of 1-10, Hawkewood Road would be about a 3. Chuck Vey brought up a point of discussion that the Town is absorbing the total cost of these roads and he thought the State would assist. Mr. Brooks explained the State does not assist with Town roads. There was no further discussion on Article 14. MOTION by Lisa Sears to place Article 15 on the floor for consideration Article 15. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $35,000.00 for the purpose of reconstructing and applying the binder coat to the entire length of Morrison Lane. (Total tax impact $35,000.00) Lisa Sears asked for the condition of Morrison Lane and Mr. Brooks noted it to be between a 2 and a 3 on the scale of 1-10. There was no further discussion on Article 15. MOTION from the floor to place Article 16 on the floor for consideration Article 16. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $18,000.00 for the purpose of reconstructing and applying a top coat to a portion of Giordani Lane beginning at Hawkewood Road for a length of 536 lineal feet. (Total tax impact $18,000.00) Richard Heinz questioned the top coat rather than the binder. Mr. Brooks noted there was already a binder on the road. Mr. Heinz then questioned if the binder was good for 20 years, why a top coat for this road. Mr. Brooks stated he did not know when the binder was put on this road but he did note the age of the road. He noted it is difficult to plow the road due to its condition. Jim Bassett noted the words reconstruct and top coat and asked if they would be skipping a step or if there would be an overlay. It was determined that reconstruction was not really exactly what would be done. The Moderator asked if Mr. Bassett wanted to amend the wording of the article and Mr. Bassett stated no, he was seeking clarification only. There was no further discussion on Article 16.
MOTION by Brian Butler to place Article 17 on the floor for consideration Article 17. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $40,000.00 for the purpose of conducting a mosquito surveillance and control program, and further to authorize the Board of Selectmen to contract with a firm licensed in NH to apply insecticides, and conduct a larviciding and adult mosquito spray program at such times and in such locations throughout the Town as needed to accomplish effective mosquito control. (Total tax impact $40,000.00) Paula Martin asked who was in charge of this program. Selectman Devine stated the Board of Selectmen was in charge of overseeing that program. Mrs. Martin asked if we were footing the Angela Sherwood stated she had the breakdown of the costs from Dragon Mosquito: Mrs. Martin asked if we raise and appropriate that money now, would we get reimbursed later from the State and/or the schools and would the spraying be on private property or just public property. Ken Sherwood explained the most effective method was personal protection. The most effective manner of mosquito control was with larviciding along with monitoring. Certain species would be just irritants but not carriers. He was not aware of long term field studies that would document the effectiveness of spraying, but he felt we should show caution. It was showing up in Southern NH. The Moderator asked if the surveillance fee included the testing. Mr. Sherwood noted it included the traps and testing for the species but he was not sure of exactly what else would be tested. Last year there was about a 25% return on the monies spent but there would be no guarantee that would be the case this year. Matt Russell stated we are bordered by 5 towns and wondered if there was any information from the other towns as far as their intentions. Mr. Russell also wondered what the effectiveness would be if all the towns did not participate. Selectman Quevillon stated other towns were taking precautions, at least he was aware of Kingston and Danville. Cedar swamps are a prime area for mosquitoes and there are more per capita in Sandown than in other areas. The company would treat the water where they are found and the Exeter River can be treated here. Mr. Russell stated only 2 towns out of 5 bordering Sandown would be treating. Selectman Quevillon stated that was the number he knew of at the present time. Regarding cedar swamps, Mr. Russell stated there was only one area in Town that had cedar trees and it was not in a swampy area. Also, the Exeter River was mentioned and Mr. Russell stated he was a member of the Exeter River local advisory committee there were no cedar swamps on the Exeter River. Selectman Quevillon stated the point is that the mosquitoes know no boundaries and it would be wise to treat here if they were treating in Danville to prevent the mosquitoes from settling here. Ken Sherwood stated it would be more effective if more of the neighboring towns would do the same process.
Paula Martin asked if the treatment would be on private land or just public. Selectman Devine stated in the past treatment has been in the school areas but chemicals could be transferred to abutting private land due to weather conditions such as wind. Selectman Quevillon stated if the public was concerned over the toxicity of the chemicals, they are not extremely toxic. The best treatment is to treat in the water. Mrs. Martin stated all she is asking is if the swampy areas on private land would be treated since she has a cedar swamp on her property. Selectman Quevillon stated if a test pit was on her property and it tested positive, the company would be asked to treat that area. Chuck Vey asked if the costs covered multiple spraying throughout the season and were the Selectmen satisfied with the amount of surveillance we would be receiving. Selectman Quevillon stated he felt it would utilize 5 times of spraying for the season and if we don’t need it, we may be reimbursed for those costs. The surveillance would be done systematically and he felt it would be adequate. Lisa Sears stated the permit would be for all possible areas, she noted spraying was the least effective way to control the mosquitoes but the larviciding was the most effective way. Spraying only kills the mosquitoes for one day but the whole process would be more effective. She also felt the town should only deal with public areas and not private land. Dean Sotirakopolous stated in the 1950’s we were told spraying was safe and now we know it had DDT in it; then MBEE came along and the wells were affected. The Town does not mandate radon testing for new homes. He felt this was an overreaction. MOTION by Dean Sotirakopolous to zero out the figures in Article 17. POINT OF ORDER: The Moderator called for a vote but Mr. Daly noted there needed to be further discussion. Chuck Vey stated he disagreed with Mr. Sotirakopolous and he felt perception meant a lot. He did not want it to appear the Town was uncooperative in considering the process. He stated leave the chemicals to be used to the experts. Paul Carey stated as a general rule articles can be amended but personally he did not appreciate the zeroing out of figures since that did not allow the voter a say on the issue, especially those who were not present or able to be present at Deliberative Session. The Moderator stated that was a drawback to an SB2 town and there were 66 towns in NH that were still SB2 towns and we were one of them. Linda Meehan stated as the owner of Playmates Learning Center she had her field sprayed at their own cost. She stated she will do her area whether or not the Town votes to spray but she asked for this to remain a vote of the people. Steve Brown stated Article 13 moved along quickly with little discussion in the amount of $400,000.00 and he felt we would be sorry if we did not consider voting on this article for $40,000.00 especially if it saves the life of a child.
Angela Sherwood stated the tax impact for someone with a $100,000.00 home would be $8.00. MOTION from the floor to call the question Dean Sotirakopolous stated that scenario could be right but what happens if a child contact an illness from an area that was not sprayed. He still felt that $40,000.00 was not enough money to do the entire town. He felt if we were to appropriate the funds, appropriate enough funds and do so wisely and not throw $40,000.00 to the wind since he felt that was not well spent money. SECOND by Brian Butler VOTE: Motion to call the question PASSED VOTE: MOTION to zero out the figure in Article 17 FAILED. Michelle Short asked for clarification if a private landowner would be able to request spraying on their land. Selectman Quevillon stated strategic areas have been targeted for the test pits. Once those have been analyzed, the test pits will be moved around. Michelle asked would a homeowner be able to come to the Board of Selectman and ask for their neighborhood to be tested. Selectman Quevillon stated they could ask and the Board most likely would refer the request to the mosquito control company for evaluation. The Moderator stated the discussion had been closed and suggested any further questions be directed to the Selectmen at another time. There was no further discussion on Article 17. MOTION from the floor to place Article 18 on the floor for consideration Article 18. Special Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $12,607.00 for the purchase of a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt Sedan for the purpose of being used by town employees to conduct town business. (Total tax impact $12,607.00) Lisa Sears asked why the Budget Committee did not recommend the article and does the cost include insurance costs. Steve Brown stated the Budget Committee asked Mrs. Sherwood for the costs of reimbursing employees for use of their own car and compared the costs to the new car. The Budget committee noted there would still be the cost of gas, maintenance costs, insurance costs and the costs seemed to far outweigh the current costs, so they felt it didn’t make sense to purchase the car. Selectman Quevillon stated the cost of $12,000.00 was spread out over three years and he noted at the end of the three years, the Town would have an asset.
Paula Martin stated she felt the depreciation to a new car was great and she felt it was an irresponsible expense. The Moderator questioned the wording on the warrant article regarding the lease/purchase versus purchasing option. Mrs. Sherwood pointed out there were two articles; one was for an outright purchase and the other was for a lease/purchase option. Dean Sotirakopolous asked where the warrant article came from and he was told it was submitted by the Board of Selectmen. Mr. Sotirakopolous also asked if there was a plan as to who would use the vehicle. Selectman Quevillon stated it could be used by any Town employee and it was the Assessor who puts on the most miles. Mr. Sotirakopolous asked if the Selectmen would use the vehicle and Selectman Quevillon stated he would have no need to use the car. MOTION by Karen Groves to zero out the figure in Article 18. VOTE: MOTION to zero out the figures in Article 18 PASSED. There was no further discussion on Article 18. MOTION by Lisa Sears to place Article 19 on the floor for consideration Article 19. Special Warrant Article. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a 3-year lease/purchase agreement at a rate of $4,620.80 per year for 3 years for a total tax impact of $13,862.40 to purchase a new 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt sedan for the purpose of being used by town employees to conduct town business and to raise and appropriate $4,620.80 for the first year’s payment for that purpose. If Article 18 passes, this Article becomes null and void. There is no escape clause in this agreement, therefore a 3/5 majority ballot vote is required for this article to pass. (Total tax impact $4,620.80 for 2007) MOTION by Sandra Graves to zero out the figures in Article 19 It was mentioned the vehicle would be owned by the Town at the end of the lease for a $1.00 buyout. Selectman Quevillon explained that $6,500.00 was spent per year with nothing to show for it. At the end of the third year there would be an asset for the Town. A 10 year, 100,000 mile bumper to bumper warranty would be in place and at the end of the third year, the $6,500.00 would become a surplus for the Town. We may need to pay out a little bit but at the end of the third year, it would be an advantage. Jim Bassett stated he didn’t know how that could be said since at the end of the three years the car would not be worth that much and still have to pay for the gas and maintenance. He also felt there would be a request to purchase another vehicle at that time, so he did not agree. Selectman Devine stated he felt this was a responsible way to reduce the budget. At 48.5 cents per mile he felt that figure would just increase and he felt 2-3 people could double up on seminars etc. as had just happened in the past. Selectman Devine cited a recent situation where he and another committee member could have used the vehicle. Dean Sotirakopolous stated he just asked that question and he was told the Selectmen would not use the car. Selectman Quevillon stated he was only speaking for himself and not the other Selectmen. Selectman Quevillon asked Mrs. Sherwood to figure the same mileage at the new rate and Mrs. Sherwood noted with the increase from 44.5 cents to 48.5 cents the increase would be $584.00. Donna Martin stated her earlier point was that if we are paying 48.5 cents per mile, it is to help cover the wear and tear on the employee’s car. She felt 48.5 cents per mile would not work out MOTION by Dean Sotirakopolous to call the question VOTE: MOTION to call the question PASSED VOTE: Motion to zero out the figures in Article 19 PASSED There was no further discussion on Article 19. MOTION by Paul Carey to place Article 20 on the floor for consideration Article 20. Petitioned Warrant Article. ELDERLY EXEMPTIONS: To see if the town will change the total allowed assets from “Cannot exceed $60,000,” excluding the value of your home, to “Cannot exceed $200,000,” excluding the value of your home. Mrs. Sherwood stated this was a petitioned warrant article and there was nothing that can be done with it. Ralph Millard stated the RSA allows the amounts to be increased and most of the towns in the area increase these amounts periodically and Sandown doesn’t. Mr. Millard stated at a recent Selectmen’s meeting he asked Selectman Devine what the number of exemptions were in Sandown and he was told the exact number was not known but it was under 10. Arlene Bassett asked for Town Counsel’s opinion as to whether or not these figures could be changed. Attorney Diane Gorrow stated the body can amend a Petitioned Warrant Article as long as the article does not require wording prescribed by law and this particular article does not have any wording that is prescribed by law. It is a misconception that Petitioned warrant articles can be amended. Chuck Crowe asked to have the intent of the article explained. Michelle Short explained there are more than 10 people and stated maybe Lynne Blaisdell could give those figures since that is the responsibility of the assessor. Office Manger Lynne Blaisdell
stated currently there were 17 people receiving a $60,000.00 exemption, 10 people receiving a $70,000.00 exemption and 14 people receiving an $85,000.00. The current asset requirement at The Moderator asked if there were figures as to what the impact would be. Lynne Blaisdell stated she could not answer that question. Sandra Graves stated she was the petitioner and she did so since neither she nor her husband have a pension. She noted they were currently living off the income they receive from their assets and their social security income. For a person with $200,000.00 in assets who would be living off those assets, the income would only be $10,000.00 per year and she said that would not even bring her up to the current income limit of $45,000.00. So she felt the ratio between the Brian Butler asked for an explanation of the exemption. Lynne Blaisdell stated the exemption amounts of $60,000.00, $70,000.00 and $80,000.00 are amounts taken off the assessed value of your property. Dean Sotirakopolous questioned if second properties would be exempt as well and Ms. Blaisdell stated the only exempt property is the primary residence. Jim Bassett asked if the second property is considered as an asset and he was told that it was. Russ Collins questioned if an analysis had been done on the tax impact of this warrant article. The Moderator stated it appeared that has not been done. Angela Sherwood noted we would have no way of knowing who would apply and what their assets would be. Chuck Vey asked at what age this exemption would begin and Lynne Blaisdell answered the exemptions begin at age 65. MOTION by Matt Russell to call the question VOTE: MOTION to call the question PASSED There was no further discussion on Article 20. Article 21. Petitioned Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to increase the elderly exemption dollar amounts as follows:
Ralph Millard stated he believed there was a mistake printed in the age categories. Paula Gulla stated the age categories do appear as they were submitted on the original warrant article. Mr. Millard stated he had some exemption amounts from some other towns: Salem $ 60,000.00 $90,000.00 $120,000.00 Ardis Miller wondered if the age limits could be lowered for example to 62 years of age. Attorney Gorrow stated there are qualifying conditions such as net income, asset limitations residency limitations and ownership limitations. The towns do not have the authority to change the age. The age categories in Article 21 do comply with the age limitations as quoted in the RSA. Therefore the town does not have any power to alter the qualifying conditions such as lowering the age to 62. MOTION by Fred Daley to call the question VOTE: MOTION to call the question PASSED There was no further discussion on Article 21. MOTION by Paul Carey to place Article 22 on the floor for consideration Article 22. Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to establish a Town Forest pursuant to RSA 31:110 on a certain Town owned parcel of land identified as Lot 16 on Tax Map 15 also known as the “Samoisette” parcel totaling 14.74 acres. This parcel is adjacent to the Fremont Road Town Forest and was purchased August 2, 2005, by the Conservation Commission for Town. This will have zero (0) Tax Impact. Jim Bassett asked why the Conservation Commission was seeking to change the classification of the property if it was true that once the Conservation Commission purchased land, there were certain restrictions on that property such as the fact nothing could be put in there such as ball fields etc. Paul Carey stated that concept was true if the property is purchased with Conservation money, but the Commission wanted to designate this property as a Town Forest since it is adjacent to the already designated Town Forest. This property would therefore also qualify for the Forestry Management Plan. There were usually some deed restrictions when properties were purchased but the Conservation Commission usually reserves the right to dedicate the property as a Town Forest.
Moderator Champion asked then why this was a warrant article and not a unilateral decision made by the Conservation Commission. Paul Carey stated there is no statutory authority to allow the Conservation Commission to do that. The Commission only reserves the right to Jim Bassett asked what the difference would be if this was designated as a Town Forest. Attorney Diane Gorrow explained the statutes require Town Meeting to approve a transfer of property to a Town Forest. The real difference is that Town Forest can be timbered and resources Sandra Graves asked if in the future this land could be used for building. Paul Carey noted both in this article and the next, it was specific that as a Town Forest no building would take place. MOTION by Selectman Quevillon to call the question VOTE: MOTION to call the question PASSED There was no further discussion on article 22 MOTION by Fred Daley to place Article 23 on the floor for consideration Article 23. Warrant Article. Shall the Town vote to establish a Town Forest pursuant to RSA 31:110 on a certain Town owned parcel of land identified as Lots 17 and 17-1 on Tax Map 15 also known as the “Quaranta” parcel(s) totaling 27.98 and 3.11 acres respectively, these parcels are adjacent to the “Samoisette” parcel and were purchased December 15, 2006, by the Conservation Commission for Town. This will have zero (0) Tax Impact. Paul Carey presented a plan drawn by his son that outlined the original Town Forest and the adjacent properties noted in the warrant articles. He noted it makes sense to combine the lots in the future. A resident asked if there would really be 3 separate Town Forests and Mr. Carey stated at the moment that would be the case, but again the intent would be to combine all the lots into one Town Forest. Jim Bassett asked who would receive the revenue from the timbering of these properties, the Town or the Conservation Commission. Mr. Carey explained the income does not go to the Conservation Commission but it goes into a Forestry Management Fund and the funds would be only for improvement of those properties. The revenue could be used to establish trails in the forest, reforestation, pruning etc. Mr. Bassett asked if that money could be used to purchase any other properties and Mr. Carey stated it could not be used. Arthur Arena confirmed there was an RSA that stated any two properties owned by the same person could be combined and the lot lines removed to combine the properties into one parcel. Ardis Miller asked if this land was donated or purchased. Moderator Champion noted the land was purchased and that is noted in the wording of the article. Mr. Carey stated the Samoisette parcel was purchased for $15,000.00 and the Quaranta parcel was purchased for $58,000.00 and those were at discounted rates. MOTION by Fred Daley to call the question VOTE: MOTION to call the question PASSED. There was no further discussion on Article 23. The Moderator called the body’s attention to the zoning articles. He noted these zoning articles cannot be amended, however, he was approached for permission to have a member of the Planning Board address one article in particular. Mr. Fred Daley called attention to the zoning article Z-5 which deals with home occupation. He explained this dealt with a resident having a home business. At times, a home business could have an impact in the neighborhood and therefore, there was a process to go through with the Planning Board for approval. Mr. Daley read the following paragraph from the zoning article Z-5: The intent of this amendment is to eliminate the need for Planning Board approval of a homeowner’s application for an in-home occupation and instead, permit the Building Department to grant such permits upon reaching a finding that an individuals proposal will conform to explicit criteria and restrictions contained in the text of the amended Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Daley explained there were several intended objectives. The first was to streamline the process with the Planning Board, the second was to streamline the process for the residents and this was done in the context that in 2006 many people can conduct their business in the homes with a telephone and a fax machine and have no impact on the neighborhood. With this in mind, the Planning Board’s intent was to streamline the policy. The present policy is as follows:
The total fee would be $45.00
The application would be considered and if approved, that would be the end of the process.
If Z-5 passes, Mr. Daley noted the new streamlined policy would go as follows:
Mr. Daley stated he did not feel this was a streamlined process at all. Mr. Daley noted he voted no on this process but it did pass by the Planning Board. He felt it does not streamline the process but adds steps and increases the fees with the annual renewal fees. He has not received an answer as to where the $20.00 would go. He felt it will create two classes of Mr. Daley stated in his opinion, this article should be rewritten to promote a better balance. He asked the body to consider voting no on Z-5. Paul Carey asked to address another matter regarding Senate Bill 1 and House Bill HR4682. Mr. Carey stated he feels this bill would restrict free speech and freedom of religion and he asked the body to contact the Senators and Congresswoman to remove or block this bill. Mr. Ralph Bruno mentioned the School Deliberative Session was to be held on Thursday, February 8, 2007 at the Timberlane Performing Arts Center at 7:00 pm. He noted most of the taxes go to the school and he noted this would be a good opportunity to get involved. MOTION by Brian Butler to adjourn the meeting Mr. Daley wanted to thank Moderator Champion for his time in running the session and he also thanked Mr. David Cheney for his efforts at the Transfer Station, the Road Agents and members of the Conservation Commission for their efforts. The meeting adjourned at 4:54 pm. Respectfully Submitted,
Paula M. Gulla |
| Voting |
Content and images copyright 2007 Town of Sandown ~ all rights reserved ~ contact Webmaster