September 2, 2014 Minutes

TOWN OF PITTSFIELD
BOARD OF SELECTMEN
TOWN HALL, 85 MAIN STREET
PITTSFIELD, NH 03263
_____________________________________________________________

MEETING MINUTES OF TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

CALL TO ORDER

Call to order at 5:00 P.M. by Larry Konopka, Chairman

MEMBERS PRESENT

Larry Konopka (LK), Chairman, Eric Nilsson (EN), Vice-Chairman, (Arrival at 5:12 P.M.) Linda Small (LS), Gerard LeDuc (GL), Albert Douglas (AD), Michael Williams (MW), Town Administrator, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

None.

PUBLIC INPUT

None.

AGENDA REVIEW

None.

NEW BUSINESS
ACTION ITEMS

1. Approval of MS-1 and MS-4

(MW) Board does not need to formally approve of these documents, but note that Cara will be filing these as depicted on September 3, 2014. (LS) Are these figures different than the estimated revenue figures as those submitted at Town Meeting? (After review, LS noted that they are basically the same.)

2. NHMA Voting Delegation Authorization

(MW) Anyone can attend this meeting but this will be to identify the voting delegate.

(LS) Motion to approve Michael Williams, Town Administrator to attend the 2015-2016 Legislative Policy Conference on September 26, 2014 as the official voting delegate for Pittsfield. (AD) Second. Carried 4-0.

3. NH Highway Safety Grant

(MW) This grant was applied for by the previous Police Chief and Chief Cain would like to continue this Highway Safety Project Grant.

(AD) Motion to approve and accept Highway Safety Project Grant application. (GL) Second. Carried 3-1 (LS).

4. Ingalls Road Sealed Bid

(MW) We have received no sealed bids for this property which was advertised with a $5,000 minimum bid. Mr. Ed Vien has submitted a bid of $2,500. I would recommend re-advertising for sealed bids with a $2,500 minimum bid to allow other abutters the opportunity to bid for the property. This property is a landlocked property of 3.7 acres.

(LS) Motion to approve advertising for sealed bids for R38, Lot 9-1 with a minimum bid of $2,500. (GL) Second. Carried 4-0.

5. TA Recommendation for Deed Waivers

(MW) In your packet, you have a list of the proposed Deed Waivers.

(LS) Motion to approve Deed Waivers as presented by Town Clerk for Tax Maps R37, Lot 2; R18-6; R18-10; R20 Lot 12-T06; R34, Lot 30-T07, R14, Lot 37,
R42, Lot 9, R20, Lot 12-T09, R25, Lot 2-3, R34, Lot 5-2; R34, Lot 30-T04;
R15, Lot 17; U2, Lot 15, U1, Lot 73; R35, Lot 24-T18, U5, Lot 40, R50, Lot 7-8. (GL) Second. After Discussion: Carried 4-0.

Discussion:

These need to be approved by September 15th.

6. Change of Final Deed Warning Letter

(MW) I have discussed with Erica pertaining to the final Deed warning letter. In the past we have waited until the Deeds offered by the Tax Collector have been approved and then another letter is sent. I have also discussed with Town Attorney his thoughts regarding the multiple deadlines. The final Deed warning letter will now be sent on September 16th or day after approval which as I understand it is a courtesy and not statutory.

Erica Anthony: This has not been done in the past and this will cover us better.

(LS) Motion to approve and accept final Deed Warning Letter as presented.
(GL) Second. Carried 4-0.

INFORMATION ITEMS

None.

OLD BUSINESS

7. 71 Tilton Hill Road Demolition

(MW) This has been on the Agenda several times but I realized there was not a motion to approve the demolition of 71 Tilton Hill Road. The cost of tearing down the building would be about $3,000 and the total cost about $9,000.

(GL) Motion to approve demolition of 71 Tilton Hill Road at a cost of $9,000. (AD) Second. Carried 4-0.

(EN) arrived at 5:12 P.M.

8. Pittsfield Center Development Charitable Exemption Application

(MW) Linda has researched and found some information pertaining to this.

(LS) I have tried to research this as much as I can. It was initiated with a Federal grant in 1980/81 and 82. The PCDC was established in 1982 with the purpose to “further the housing, economic, social esthetic and recreational development of an area known as Pittsfield Center “……to promote and assist in: the establishment and management of day care and socially oriented facilities, expansion of housing and housing improvement facilities…..to enhance the economic stability of the area; and generally recognizing the changing community development needs of the area, moving to meet those needs.” In 1984/85, PCDC sold two properties for profit. I do not see any mention of low income housing in the Charter. There has been Welfare tenants in two of the buildings. The point of 501c is that it is beneficial to the entire community. EDC held a meeting at the Pittsfield Community Center and was charged $200 for use of the room. EDC met with the PCDC to attempt to pool interests which was not accomplished. At this point, I am convinced that it is not conducive to the Master Plan and it is not fulfilling its own purpose. To take out two income properties is counterproductive with what this Town is attempting to do and is not beneficial to the entire community.

I do not think that Avitar completely understands the history of this request for charitable exemption. At this point, I do not think I can change my perspective on this and do not think that PCDC’s purpose has been fulfilled. (LK) I do not necessarily disagree with you and perhaps, we can table this until we have an opportunity to discuss with Lauren. (MW) Lauren is looking at the technical aspect of this and they can buy and sell property. I am not sure how helpful Lauren would be in this matter. (LS) We are trying to strengthen the economic base through the Master Plan, EDC, Zoning and Planning. The question remains whether the purpose is being fulfilled and how it is benefiting the entire community.

(GL) explained that some of the history included low income housing across the street from his residence. It was deeded to accommodate eight houses. (LS) I do not see eight houses there now. (GL) The property was sold off differently and they were not put in. Originally, the Grant paid for the parking lot and was to be for the houses. (LS) A lot has happened between then and now and I question some of the vagueness of this.

(LS) Motion to deny the tax exempt status for 33 Bridge Street and 1 Cram Avenue. (EN) Second. After Discussion: Carried 3-1 (AD) (LK) Abstain.

Discussion:

(AD) What information did Avitar use to evaluate this? (LS) This year there was no information. It was denied and then a financial statement was presented and it was ultimately approved by Avitar. (AD) Has there been any errors or violations that have occurred regarding their Charter? (LS) Not that I know of. I am not sure of the validity of use. This pertains to two private buildings at the taxpayers’ expense. They would have to prove the benefit to the entire community. The taxpayers should have a say in this. (AD) Is this something that has been done with other properties? (LS) I should hope so. The purpose of non-profit organizations is to fulfill a specific purpose. (AD) Are any of the funds from the day care going to the Community Center? Bill Elkins: There is not enough income coming in. About $18,000 was spent recently to upgrade the day care facility in 2014. Profits from the day care go back into the day care. (LS) The building should be able to pay for itself. Bill Elkins: You read the Agreement. One of the purposes is to keep the building up. There is a lot of stuff going on that you are not aware of. You are looking at it from a different angle than Lauren (Avitar) would. (LS) I am not saying anything negative about what you are doing, but would rather put it in front of the taxpayers and then look at it.

9. Safe Routes to School

(MW) At this point, Board needs to decide what to do about Safe Routes to School.

I would recommend proceeding on Berry Avenue with no green space and do the sidewalk and the road at the same time. Even if Board decides on it being one-way, it would keep the 22 ft. corridor. This could be provided for in the operating budget. There would be a good chance that some/all of the trees would have to come out. (LS) Could we redo the entire road with the sidewalks and shifting it so it would involve half on each side? (LK) I do not know what legality is involved in this.

Board discussed the issue of (LS) recusing herself since she is a resident on Berry Avenue. (LS) I have nothing to gain in this. (MW) The decision to recuse yourself is solely yours. (LS) I am actually speaking for my neighbors because of the devaluation of their properties. (MW) Typically, sidewalks increase property values. (LK) It is up to you if you want to recuse yourself. I have no problem with this either way. (EN) I have no problem as long as you feel you can make a fair decision. (LS) I would vote the same way no matter where I lived. (LS) did not recuse herself.

(LS) By not using the four foot green spaces, how much will be taken out of the properties? (MW) We will not know this until after the survey. Essentially sidewalks require four feet. (LK) George now approves of Berry Avenue as the SRTS. (AD) After the survey is done, it all can be looked at again? (LK) Yes. Some areas will have the green spaces and some will not. (AD) The survey will give us a clearer view of the sidewalks. (GL) A lot of this was addressed at the Public Hearings. We can always “meander” around there if we have to. (MW) The Public Hearings that were held are those required by DOT and have occurred. (LK) The more Public Hearings we have on this the better it is. The Board can even meet up there. George said we can make it work.

(MW) Tilton Hill Road will basically be the same as Berry Road with the sidewalks. George is going to take the “rise” out of the road on Tilton Hill and will be done at the same time as the sidewalks. I would recommend that this be part of the operating budget. (LS) That is good – one way or the other it will be in the budget.

(ER) Motion to approve Berry Avenue and Tilton Hill Road as the Safe Routes to School for the sidewalks on the same side as proposed in conjunction with the roads. (LS) Second. Carried 5-0.

APPLICATIONS and WARRANTS

None.

CHECKS and MANIFESTS

(LS) Motion to approve Accounts Payable and Checks Register.
(EN) Second. Carried 4-0. (EN) Abstain.

(LS) Motion to approve Payroll and Direct Deposit. (GL) Second.
Carried 4-0. (EN) Abstain.

MINUTES

10. Public Session Minutes of August 19, 2014

(EN) Motion to approve Public Session Minutes of August 19, 2014 with Corrections. (GL) Second. Carried 5-0.

Corrections:

Page 2, Paragraph 3, Line 2 should read: …..effective immediately.

Page 10, Paragraph 3, Line 4 should read: …. Options. We need to compromise here and try and protect these people’s properties. I would ……..

11. Non-Public Minutes of August 19, 2014

(EN) Motion to approve Non-Public Minutes of August 19, 2014. (LS) Second. Carried 5-0.

PUBLIC INPUT

Dan Schroth: I would like to get an appointment with the Town Administrator to see if he can offer me some research in repealing a law regarding an electrical inspection. I am having difficulty having the electricity turned on in my “business office” because of electrician availability. (MW) Dan is having a problem in relation to acquiring a permit so his electricity can be turned on but because of availability of his Master Electrician, PSNH will not turn on the electricity without this permit.

Dan Schroth: I would not want the next individual to have to go through this. It is a brand new system and it has been a long process trying to accomplish this. I want to make this happen. I want to change this law. (MW) indicated his availability for Dan to meet with him to research this matter.

Dan Schroth left meeting at 6:00 P.M.

Fred Hast: You have already had your meeting? The Website says that the meeting starts at 6:00 P.M.

Regarding the Ingalls Road Sealed Bids, did you accept a bid? (LK) No one submitted a bid. We are going to advertise for sealed bids starting at $2,500. This is a landlocked piece of property. Fred Hast: Ed Vien has offered to purchase that property before.

Fred Hast: How many properties are going to be taken by Deed? It is noted that this is pending and Town Tax Collector and (MW) are working on this. Fred Hast: What about the Waivers? (LK) We did some Waivers tonight which you can review if you like with Town Tax Collector. (LS) In the past, we have had a lot of bad agreements. Fred Hast: There is one in particular that owes $70,000 in back taxes. (LK) About 99% of those Waived have come to Agreements. Fred Hast: Some are still paying. The previous Town Administrator agreed to unreasonable payments for taxes. (LK) Fred, why don’t you come in and talk to Mike. Fred Hast: When I was on the Board, we made arrangements with several people and it worked.

(MW) Regarding the start time for the Board meeting, the Agenda was posted as 5:00 P.M. and also the notice on the bulletin board indicates 5:00 P.M. Board noted this was also addressed in the Minutes of August 19th. Fred Hast: I do not read the Minutes. You should notice it in the paper that the meeting starts at
5:00 P.M.

Fred Hast: What about the change of final Deed warning letter? (GL) explained that the final Deed warning letter would now be sent to the taxpayer right away.

Fred Hast: A while ago, there was money for the restoration of the upstairs offices ($75,000). You have got to agree that we need the upstairs restored. The longer you put it off the more it is going to cost.

He related that he had asked about the Ethics Code in relation to the Board, at which time the Board noted that this had been voted out and I can see now why you voted it out.

Fred Hast: He questioned why the bathroom is still not useable and who is doing the work? (LK) explained it is useable though there are still some repairs that need to be accomplished and that it has taken some time to acquire the materials.
Mr. Hast argued that the materials were readily available. Why isn’t there any hot water at the Town Hall? (LK) We are putting in a new electric water heater system which will save the Town money with fuel. Fred Hast: I did that in my house and it does save money. Budget time is coming up and we should use the unfunded balance to renovate the second floor at the Town Hall.

Because they were unaware of the change in the meeting hour, Louis Houle and Chris and Jennifer Cheney appeared to hear what the Board’s decision was on the Safe Routes to School. (6:15 P.M.)

(LK) If you like, we can rescind our prior vote on the Safe Routes to School made earlier in the meeting and have another vote on the subject. Board offered to explain their decision on the Safe Routes to School, after which Mr. Cheney related that it would not be necessary.

(MW) I know that everyone is not in agreement with the decision of the Board. He explained his rationale (see above) concerning Berry Avenue and Tilton Hill Road and that Town has to move forward with the survey. The plan can change as necessary.

Chris Cheney: When using Berry Avenue, I would encourage you when the survey is in process to shift the road to the other side which would more likely save some of the trees near the school. On my side of the road the lots are small, but on the other side of the road, there are large lots. (LK) We are trying to finalize this and have another Public Hearing. Chris Cheney: Not everyone will be happy with this, but I approve of what you have done to try and compromise. (LK) Both the sidewalks and the roads will be done at the same time. Chris Cheney: This is the best recommendation you have come up with. (LS) There will be no green spaces and we can change the plans as we go along. Chris Cheney: This will save some of the trees. Jennifer Cheney indicated she was not entirely pleased with this, but “it doesn’t matter.”

(EN) We wanted to vote on this tonight to get everything started. (MW) We are not required to have any additional Public Hearings but the Board is committed to doing this.

Fred Hast: What side of the road are you putting the sidewalks on? (LK) The right side.

Chris and Jennifer Cheney left meeting at 6:27 P.M.

Louis Houle: What happened with the PCDC? (LK) It did not pass.
Louis Houle: Why?

(LS) explained that she had done some research and related her rationale concerning the purpose. (See Above). I am not convinced that it is beneficial to the entire community. In its day, it served a very good function.

Louis Houle: The PCDC is the sole owner of the Community Center and the day care and funded partially by the United Way Fund. In its Bylaws, it is noted it is to benefit the citizens of Pittsfield and there should be no taxes on the building. The dilemma is that PCDC is paying upkeep to maintain the day care – the rent of which does not cover expenses on the building. There are no profits made on this. They did have money previously from the sale of two other buildings, which I encouraged they put in a trust but was not approved. They are spending all their funds to fund the Community Center. In a few years, the Community Center will be “up for grabs.” They are having a rough time. I suggested quite a few years ago to sell the properties on Bridge Street and Cram Avenue and to put the proceeds into a trust. They are running out of funds and not making any money.
If we do not help them out somewhat, they are going to have to give up the Community Center and the day care. They are looking at saving tax funds. Give them a break. You can look at the books to see that it costs a lot to maintain and that there are no profits.

I wish you would reconsider or have another presentation about this. I am not sure that this was presented in the right manner. It is an asset to the Town. In a couple of years, if they do not receive help, the Town will own it.

(LS) When the EDC met with the PCDC a couple of years ago about combining interests, the PCDC would have nothing to do with that. Louis Houle: I do not think that the interests affecting the PCDC were the same. (LS) The taxpayers assume the burden of the Community Center and they should have some say in this. Louis Houle: Take one of the properties off. (LS) It does not fulfill the purpose of the PCDC. Louis Houle: Look at how NH Housing affects the Town tax rate. What Town has done for them they could do for the PCDC.

(GL) They only presented one year’s worth of figures. (LS) Still, how does it benefit the community?

Fred Hast: As I understand it, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts meet there, that benefits the Town. The Rotary uses it.

Louis Houle: With a little bit of help, it can continue to run on its own. The day care is a burden on them. I have encouraged them to separate that, but it has not happened.

Close Public Input

Louis Houle and Fred Hast left meeting at 6:36 P.M.

Break: 6:37 P.M. Resume: 6:43

NON-PUBLIC SESSION

(EN) Motion to go into Non-Public Session per RSA 91-A:3 II (a) – The dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee or the investigation of any charges against him unless the employee affected: (1) Has a right to a meeting, and (2) request that the meeting be open, which case the request shall be granted. (AD) Second. Carried 5-0. Individual members of the Board were polled and all agreed.

Board went into Non-Public Session at 6:44 P.M.

Board returned to Public Session at 6:59 P.M.

NOTE: RSA 91-A (III) – Minutes of proceeding in non-public session shall be kept and the record of all actions shall be promptly made available for public inspection, except as provided in this section. Minutes and decision reached in non-public session shall be publicly disclosed within seventy-two (72) hours of the meeting, unless, by recorded vote of 2/3 of the members present, it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than the members of the Board, or render the proposed action ineffective. In the event of such circumstances, information may be withheld until, in the opinion of a majority of members, the aforesaid circumstances no longer apply.

Shall the Minutes be publicly disclosed? No.

Motion made by (EN) and Seconded by (AD) o not publicly disclose the Minutes because it is determined that divulgence of the information likely would affect adversely the reputation of any person other than a member of the Board. Carried 5-0. Individual members of the Board were polled and all agreed.

ADJOURNMENT

(EN) Motion to adjourn. (AD) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 7:02 P.M.

Approved: September 16, 2014

__________________________ _________________________
Lawrence Konopka, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on September 2, 2014, transcribed and publicly posted on September 4, 2014.

_____________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

No Attachments
Olympus: 1.38.47