Present: Jack Sapia, Paul Sullivan, Fred Childs (Selectmen) and Russell McAllister (Town Administrator).

Mr. Sapia opened the meeting with a moment of silence.

The TA reviewed a list of correspondence from the Police Department, the Town of Salem concerning perambulation, Mr. Stewart requesting instruction and use of a GPS unit from the RPC for storm water management, and correspondence from the planning board noting the absence of volunteers among their members to volunteer for RPC Commissioners.

Mr. Sullivan made the motion to approve the minutes of the April 9^th meeting. Mr. Childs seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and so moved.

Chief Consentino addressed the Board asking whether or not the Board had yet determined the composition of the Tower Committee. The Board provided the following list of appointments made through their respective boards as listed in the table below.

Some discussion ensued with respect to the highway safety committee appointee. Mr. Sapia made the motion to appoint Mr. Murad from the Highway Safety Committee to the Tower Study Committee. Mr. Childs seconded the motion. Messer’s Sapia and Childs voted to appoint. Mr. Sullivan voted not to appoint. The motion carried 2-1.

Mr. Consentino next addressed the Board relative to Tom Pignatello volunteering to be an elderly affairs officer. An appointment form was left with the TA. Mr. Consentino next provided a status update with the donations for the wheelchair van noting that he had received a 6k donation for the van and a 6k donation for elderly affairs.

Office of Energy & Planning – Jennifer Gilbert

Ms. Gilbert explained that she worked at the NH Office of Energy and Planning and administered the NFIP and worked with FEMA on its implementation by assisting local communities adopting the program. Ms. Gilbert provided a presentation about the benefits of the program explaining that the federal government underwrote as much as 25% of premium costs associated with flood insurance for homeowners. It was further explained that many lending institutions required flood insurance. Communities participating in the NFIP had lower premium costs associated with flood insurance. The Board asked about grandfathering for existing structures located within the flood plain. Ms. Gilbert explained that NFIP considered that issue for houses constructed prior to a community’s participation in the NFIP and allowances were made for it. It was necessary to adopt a flood plain ordinance and include it in the site plan review process which required new construction to have foundation sills at least a foot above the base level flood mark. More discussion ensued. It was also explained that participation in the NFIP along with an adopted hazard mitigation plan made communities eligible for federal grant money for hazard mitigation money. The Board thanked Ms. Gilbert for her presentation.

Mr. Stewart provided an update on the recent flooding by explaining that a beaver damn behind Merrill Drive had let go with the result that many of the downstream culverts were overwhelmed and that situation simply added to the level of flooding. Mr. Stewart also reported that Route 111 overtopped along with Island Pond Road. The good news was that many of last year’s improvements to road structures held. He reported that Millstream Crossing repairs were likely to be expensive. The Board noted an accident at a three-way intersection and wondered if better signage could be erected. Mr. Stewart explained that thermal lining, an application that melts a plastic like material on the road surface to mark stop lines at intersections was more visible and held-up longer than traditional line painting. Signage was also discussed. Mr. Stewart next broached the topic of the Assistant Road Agent’s position. Mr. Sullivan expressed his opinion that there was already someone in the department who should be allowed to move into the position. Mr. Childs noted that a previous assertion that the Assistant Road Agent’s position had existed since the 1970’s was incorrect. He noted that the position was voted down in 1992. He restated his view that the position was not needed. Mr. Sapia explained that he could see certain situations where an assistant was needed, but his view was that the in-house candidate needed more growth and training. He viewed the issue of filling the position as a budgetary one and suggested compensating the employee at a different pay rate when he actually filled-in for Mr. Stewart. Mr. Sullivan noted that the employee currently did that and also worked with Mr. Stewart on the computer. So, starting him at an additional $1 per hour with a review in six months was reasonable. Mr. Stewart spoke of a middle ground and suggested a working foreman position utilizing Mr. Sullivan’s suggestion of a $1 per hour raise. More discussion ensued over the issue of the position. Mr. Sullivan made the motion to authorize a $1 per hour raise and promotion to a working foreman position with a six-month review. Mr. Childs seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion. Mr. Childs expressed his view that the position wasn’t needed and that numerous people had filled that position only to quit at a later date. More discussion ensued over the topic. A vote was called. Mr. Sullivan voted yes on the motion. Messer’s Childs and Sapia voted no. The motion failed.

The Board broached the Road Agent’s letter of reprimand. Mr. Childs made the motion to sanction Mr. Stewart with a letter of reprimand for insubordination. Mr. Sapia asked whether or not Mr. Stewart wanted to discuss the issue in public or non-public session. Mr. Stewart chose to discuss the issue in public session. Mr. Childs spoke to an inaccuracy as reported in the Eagle Tribune with respect to his understanding of an employee’s right to be heard in either public or non-public session. Mr. Sullivan agreed with Mr. Childs concerning Mr. Childs understanding of an employee’s right to be heard in either public or non-public session. The written reprimand was read. Mr. Sullivan disagreed with the reprimand noting that the violation was neither clean nor obvious. Mr. Sullivan expressed his view that the non-public session of April 9^th was a policy discussion and therefore not covered under statute. Mr. Stewart was, therefore, not guilty of insubordination. Mr. Sullivan explained that the personnel code of conduct, quoted in the reprimand, was an important consideration for both sides. Mr. Childs read from the statute that defines the Board’s authority over the Road Agent (RA) noting that the RA reports to and takes lawful direction from the Board. Mr. Childs noted that directives of the Board are often ignored and that it is wrong and it was his feeling that Mr. Stewart could not just walk out of a discussion because he disagreed with the Board. Mr. Stewart replied that the Board could lawfully direct the RA, but that the Board acted unlawfully by changing issues in the non-public session and therefore he was not guilty of insubordination. Mr. Sapia explained that the non-public session was available to discuss personnel issues so that the reputations of those involved did not suffer. The April 9^th non-public session was to discuss Mr. Stewart’s recommendation of a candidate. Mr. Sapia respectfully disagreed with Mr. Stewart’s opinion concerning his opinion of the meeting. Mr. Sapia explained that employees and officials needed to comport themselves with decorum and that a chain of command existed as it does in all organizations. Mr. Sapia called the question. The TA noted that he had not heard a second. Mr. Sapia seconded the motion to sanction Mr. Stewart with a letter of reprimand to be placed in his personnel file for a period of one year. Messer’s Childs and Sapia voted yes. Mr. Sullivan voted no. The motion carried. More back and forth ensued.

Mr. Childs inquired about he purchase orders associated with the recreation fields. Mr. Stewart explained that they were for liming and lining the fields. Mr. Stewart explained that he was liming the fields prior to the first fertilizer treatment for crabgrass control. Discussion ensued over whether or not to bid out the fertilzing treatments in an effort to see whether or not costs could be reduced. It was agreed to bid out the last 7k of the fertilizing program. The Board reviewed the new gate placement at the transfer station agreeing to schedule a Thursday morning meeting at the transfer station to review the issue. The Board next reviewed Mr. Stewarts recommendation to approve the bid of L & D Safety Marking for $6,290 for street striping.

Mr. Sullivan re-addressed the reprimand issue again by suggesting that there was a pattern of abuse of employees. Mr. Sullivan held up two letters from the Town Clerk. Mr. Sullivan noted that he had heard that letters of reprimand were being prepared against two cable employees and that the TA and Mr. Sapia had spoken with the Cable Director. The TA noted that he had spoken with Ms. Jordan and asked that she prepare a set of standard operating procedures for cable employees that establish guidelines for when microphones are on and off during meetings as well as camera stills during recesses.

Mr. Sullivan asked why the TA was bringing the issue forward when a vote had been taken at the last meeting. Mr. Sullivan asked by what authority the TA was talking with Bond Counsel?

Mr. Sullivan noted that the TA was not a Town Manager and it was not his job to make decisions on his own. Mr. Sullivan suggested that he had not been informed about the issue. Mr. Childs explained that he had gone over the additional information with the TA and had found it pertinent. He noted that the TA managed daily operations in the absence of the Board and asked what Mr. Sullivan thought the Board had hired a TA for. He also asked if Mr. Sullivan had read the memo and supporting material the TA had provided. The TA refreshed Mr. Sullivan’s recollection by pointing out that the TA had telephoned Mr. Sullivan about the issue the previous week and also provided the phone number of a bond counsel for Mr. Sullivan to call to ask why it may be important to utilize the services of bond counsel. The TA also replied that he was bringing additional information relevant to the issue for the Board’s consideration. Whether or not the Board decided to use Bond Counsel was entirely up to the Board. It was not the TA’s decision. If the Board did not want to review the information, then that was entirely a Board decision. If Mr. Sullivan preferred that the TA not provide further information then the TA would comply with the Board’s wishes. The Chair asked the TA to proceed. The TA explained that Mr. Sullivan had used a bond schedule and its tax rate implications provided by the NH Municipal Bond Bank at the Town’s Deliberative Session. The TA also explained that without the opinion of bond counsel the NHMBB and other large lending institutions could not bid on the Atkinson bonds. Sellers of tax-exempt municipal bonds had to represent to the SEC and individual buyers in the market place that the entity issuing the bonds was a qualified tax-exempt organization. Without a qualified opinion from Bond Counsel such representations could not be made. This did not mean that some banks would not bid on the bonds, only that the universe of potential bidders would be far fewer. If there were fewer bidders for Town bonds then that could well translate into a higher interest rate of several basis points than what otherwise might be charged. The two salient issues before the Board were whether or not fewer bidders meant higher interest rates, and whether or not several additional basis points in interest costs over the 20 year span of the loan would be substantially more than the 2k to 3k in fees charged by bond counsel. Brief discussion ensued. Mr. Sullivan made the motion to authorize the services of Bond Counsel in the amount of 2-3,000 and to complete an application with the NHMBB. Mr. Childs seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and so moved.

The Board reviewed the veteran, disabled and elderly exemptions listed in the table below.

Mr. Sullivan asked for an extension of another week.

The TA noted that the attached the RFP was for a 20-ton system with a well of approximately 1,500 feet with a 40ft casing and 8-inch diameter with an approximate cost of 35k. There was another RFP for a 10-ton system with an approximate cost of 17k, but if the Board anticipated adding on to the building the 10-ton capacity would not be enough. The Board briefly discussed the issue. Mr. Sullivan made the motion to approve the RFP for a 20-ton system. Mr. Sapia seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and so moved. The Board agreed to run the bid in both the Eagle Tribune and Union Leader.

The TA explained that he had attached the DES response to the application as well as his memo addressing the more salient implications of the large groundwater withdrawals. Mr. Sullivan gave kudos to the TA for his background on the issue. The Board discussed the issue and the turnout at the public hearing held at the community center.

The Board briefly discussed the issue and agreed to review the applications over the weekend and pick out the most qualified for interviews.

The Board reviewed the legal opinion offered by Sumner Kalman with respect to Article 22, which proscribes the Tower Study Committee membership. The Board agreed. Mr. Sullivan explained that the opinion on the abatement was for a different property, but the TA’s subsequent conversation with Town Attorney about the abatement in question reached the same conclusion.

Mr. Sullivan noted that roof leak at the PD and observed that it was being addressed. Mr. Childs raised the RFP issue of the roof replacement on the Historical Society Building. The TA agreed to put one together.

The Board asked about the status of the Fire Station lease. The TA reported that the inclusion of the new environmental language by AMR and the associated insurance was still under review by AMR Corporate.

There being no further business to come before the Board Mr. Childs made the motion adjourn the meeting. Mr. Sullivan seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous and so moved. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:25pm.

Respectfully,

Russell McAllister

Town Administrator

_______________________

Jack Sapia, Chair

_______________________

Paul Sullivan

_______________________

Fred Childs