Members Present: Robin McAfee, Carol Merrill, Jennifer Morin, William Barnett, Gabby Daneault, Robin Pelletier, Thomas Gilligan, Peter Viar, Tom Irzyk, Mona McCready, Larry Anderson and David Eaton

Excused Absent: Dan Howe

Leave of Absence: Brian Duchesne

Others Present: David Jodoin and Police Chief Jim McGonigle

Jennifer called the meeting to order 6:35 p.m.

Mona made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 23 meeting, Carol seconded.

Jennifer had some changes for page 4; need to specify Tom I., and where it says since he, it should say since she (Monica). There are a few other times where the minutes say he and it should say she, such as page 5. Also on page 5, seventh paragraph, it should probably say that we do not go out and charge them based on double what the permit should have been.

Also on page 6 not sure what the last sentence in the third paragraph means. Robin P. stated that she thought this sentence referred to moving Monica’s position to full time. Jennifer felt this sentence should be removed because she felt no one knew what it meant. Robin P. stated that she was pretty sure that it referred to making the position to full-time at this time without the spreadsheet showing us all the information that goes along with that position.

Tom G. stated that it was such a long conversation that he got lost in the minutes. He stated that there was a lot of commentary in the minutes. When you look at the minutes after the meeting, sometime it is hard to know what is meant by something. He is not faulting the transcriber, because you have to be here to get the purpose and the context of something. But as a result, he felt that some of this stuff… If you look at the Planning Board meeting minutes, they are a little more concise, they are less conversational. These are close to verbatim, we spoke last time how the minutes are not meant to be verbatim, they are supposed to capitualize the decisions that are made and maybe give reasons behind the decisions. There is a lot of verbatim in here, again he is not slamming the transcriber, he does not want anyone to think they are hiding anything, but the problem with meeting minutes, they are very easy to take out of context and as is the history in the case in this Town, someone can pick up the meeting minutes and the next thing you know, you pick up the Hooksett Banner and there is all kinds of this one said this, this one said that, etc. It is good to have the meeting minutes, but he felt that as a Board, if we are worried about people questioning what was said or why a decision was made, as long as the reasons behind the decisions are in the minutes and if we have to keep the tapes for a year or something, we can do that.

Dave stated that a couple of years ago the Board voted to keep the tapes for three years, but he is not sure if this is being done anymore. As far as he knew the Board has not rescinded that vote. Jennifer stated that they had not changed this. David stated that he thought the Board had voted to keep the tapes for one year then erase them.

Dave stated that from Jeannine’s point of view, she is not at the meetings so she feels that she needs to put as much in there as she can. Dave felt that if something is stated at a public meeting, it is public record. Even if it is commentary or something like that, it belongs there.

Tom G. stated that he agreed, but it belongs in context, and that is why we have this discussion on the meeting minutes. Tom G. stated that he felt there were three changes that needed to be made. In the transcription the meeting is lost and out of context. Anything that is a discussion, for example, there is something that he stated "that what building enforcement has other than annoying letters from attorneys and the possibility of shutting down their operations, whose tax dollar was that yours or mine." This was commentary about the fact that Tom G. was surprised that we did not have funds. It was really not relevant to voting on the bottom line of the Building Inspector.

Dave stated that if a commentary is going to be spoken, then maybe we should say that this is not meant for the minutes or it is a commentary, because anything spoken at a public meeting is public record.

Tom G. stated that the difference between public record and the contextual basis is what he is debating. Jennifer stated that we all agree that it is public record and that is why the tapes are here and why we have the comment at the bottom of the minutes, we do not go into non-public sessions.

Jennifer stated that the minutes are very conversational rather than saying that discussion took place to regard to whatever.

Robin P. stated that she had not read the minutes fully so she was not going to vote one way or the other. She felt that Dave had a good point, it is very hard if you are not here, to 1) get the names right, 2) to know if it is a she or he and maybe she wants to make sure she gets everything so that she is not leaving words out that could be used against the Committee. Robin P. stated that she did not know what Jeannine’s point of view is.

Jennifer stated that she felt that Jeannine was doing them under the direction, or thought process that this is how we want the minute to be done. If the Committee is still comfortable with that, then lets move forward. Robin P. stated that if Tom G. is concerned about things being taken out of context, then you can do the same thing by not writing enough. Tom G. agreed and stated that is why the Committee discusses the minutes. We should address any of the concerns individually and then pull them out of the meeting minutes, that is what he has now.

There is one thing that he feels should be pulled from the minutes because he feels it is conversational and that is the motion that he would like to make tonight. Page 5, sixth paragraph should be removed from the minutes. Larry asked why, he did not believe that because we want to go into the process of charging for that stuff, it should be in the minutes because if you want to start charging people we have to say somewhere that we have done this. If you brought the subject up of charging somebody, it has to be in the minutes somewhere that we should do this. Larry stated that it is not something that we are going to do behind somebody. This is something that Tom G. brought up that we should be charging for these things and Tom G. was surprised that it was not done.

Tom G. agree, but his point is that it is not relevant to the budget discussion for the Building Inspector because it is not up to the Building Inspector to come up with these fees. Larry stated that Tom G. brought up the point that there should be fees, which is all that was done in that paragraph.

Jennifer stated that as the Selectmen read the minutes, maybe they are getting some ideas from reading them. Larry stated that he would rather go that way, that Tom G. brought it up that we should be charging a fee to people not standing up to what they are supposed to be doing or doing thing they are not supposed to be doing, somebody should be backing up the Building Inspector to charge for what she is doing. It should be in the minutes to make it work.

Robin P. stated that we were discussing the full-time position and in that position, it would be part of that job. It may be support to create a full time position or it is something that we would need to look at if the position became full-time.

Larry stated that it was something that was brought up during her evaluation. It should be brought up that Tom G. wanted to know why are we not charging and he was surprised that we are not charging.

Robin P. stated that it was a good point and we should follow up on that. Larry stated that we should follow up on that somehow and get a charge involved for whatever the fact is, if you build a building, you are going to be charged x number of dollars a day if you continue without a permit. If there is a zoning violation, you are going to be charged x number of dollars a day until you get the zoning violation straightened out. The only way we are going to do that is if we have somewhere to start and this is a start.

Tom G. said he could not disagree, he would ask that we add a precursor to the paragraph and say, as an aside, Tom G. stated or as commentary, Tom G. stated. He has learned a lesson from the paragraph, which is, not to go off topic because the bottom line is, regardless of what we would like to see happen from the Budget Committee, we can’t enforce it just because we bring it up in a meeting. His only fear is that conversations like this get put in here and taken out of context by the Town. This is really a conversation we had with the Selectmen and with the Planning Board, because the Planning Board is tasked with coming up with the fees and the fines. So he would ask that they add "As an aside" before Tom G. stated on that comment.

Also on page 7,Tom G. was not sure what the last sentence meant. That line did not make sense because he did not know what he stated. If it relates to the previous paragraph, then it is actually Tom I.

Jennifer stated that it looks like it was stated already that Tom I. made the comment about the 40-hour position, so it has been covered. Jennifer stated that the sentence could be taken out.

On page 8, fifth paragraph, he would like to change he to Art Houle and the next sentence should read expressed Art’s opinion. So the paragraph should read "Tom G. stated that Art Houle had not asked him to speak on his behalf. Tom just stated that he had received a call and expressed Art’s opinion."

Jennifer stated that Robin McAffee was stated as present twice. Jennifer then recapped the changes. Page 5, second paragraph should read "so if she is working on something"; page 5, paragraph 6 will begin with "As an aside"; page 5, paragraph 7 last sentence, "we do not go out and charge"; page 6, paragraph 4, Stated should be State.

Page 4, paragraph 5 should have Tom I. also, since she not he. Page 6, paragraph 3 last sentence should be removed, because we are not sure which Tom was speaking; page 7, last sentence, removed; page 8, 5^th paragraph change he to Art Houle, remove the is, and expressed Art’s opinion instead of his opinion.

Larry made a motion to accept the minutes as amended, Tom G. seconded. The motion passed with two abstaining votes (Mona and Robin).

Tom G. stated that for the record, we are all voting members and there should be a vote from everyone at the table and it should be recorded. It is only someone who voted in the affirmative that can turn around and request that the Committee revisit an item.

Tom G. than made a comment regarding the minutes in fairness to Jeannine and so that no one misunderstands him. He does not do the Planning Board meeting minutes all the time, so he understands the challenges. He gets contacted by the transcriber all the time, what did you say, what did it mean, etc. Again, the meeting minutes are not to be compared because the Planning Board meeting is a lot easier, it is a lot more technical, there is less debate, there is more yes and no and motions. He is not knocking the job that she does; he feels that the minutes are great. His only concern again is just stuff being taken out of context, it is not just trying to say that he said something and someone will take it out of context. It is literally that some sentences just don’t refer to anything else in the previous discussion when presented in a certain way.

Dave stated here is another comment, when the tape runs out and it is not turned over and we miss the discussion. The other thing that happens is when you ruffle papers next to the microphone and there are conversations going on all over the place, it is hard to know what is being said.

Jennifer stated that she transcribed the minutes the first four years she was on the Board, she did not have a machine, we are talking stop, rewind, etc. It was difficult, but she was here and even if she couldn’t hear everything, she knew what the conversation was because she had been in the meeting. It was easier for Jennifer.

Chief McGonigle stated that as always it is a pleasure to present his budget to the Committee. The budget that the Committee has before them, which has been approved by the Board of Selectmen is roughly $4,366 less than the budget that was approved last year. There are very few accounts where he would not have liked to suggest significant increases, but given the realities of life he did not bother to waste his time and the Committee’s time.

Part-time Salaries – no change - $1 because this never gets spent but left in the budget with the purpose of keeping the account open. We were thinking of perhaps next year, putting some money into this account and hire some part-timers so that we can have a pool of people to draw from, but we do not have a line of people waiting at the door when we have full-time vacancies. We have not made this decision yet; it is just for your information.

Larry asked why the Chief did not put in a little bit of money into part-time salaries each year instead of just $1. Chief McGonigle stated they are not using part-timers. Part-time officers present a real challenge. They don’t have the level of training and commitment and in some instances; they can present a significant liability issue for the Department. Larry asked what they would be used for? Chief McGonigle stated he is always has people coming in looking for part-time jobs, they think they are interested in law enforcement and want to get their feet wet. A number of full-timers that he has hired started out as part-timers and agreed to go through the Academy at no cost to the Town, on their own, which they are allowed to do if they are hired as part-timers. The Chief is not allowed to just take someone off the street and put them through the Academy at no cost. So this is a mechanism to create a pool of a few people who might be interested in becoming full-time down the road when vacancies occur, which unfortunately, always do.

Chief McGonigle stated that his only part-time officer is the Animal Control Officer.

Police Secretaries – this line has been increased. In June the daytime secretaries position was increased to a 40-hour position using money that was already in the budget. She will remain 40 hours but without benefits, she does not need the benefits and has not asked for them. She does get sick and vacation days. At the first of the year, she will be entitled to enroll in the retirement system.

The remainder of the increase is to reinstate the evening secretary for 20 hours per week not 30 hours. There is just too much work there for just one person. By comparison, Donna does all the work that Pembroke PD has three full time people doing. She is a phenomenal employee and he does not know what they would do without her. So the reason for the increase is to keep Donna at 40 hours instead of 32 and reinstating 20 of the 30 hours for the evening secretary.

Overtime – increased by $155 it was not increased by the full 2.5%. He noted that the overtime budget has never been the amount it should be. We don’t budget to pay everybody the paid holidays, or to pay people time and a half while people take vacations, we change the schedule around so we are not paying all that overtime. We almost always end up with a little surplus that is returned to the Town, although he is not sure if this will happen this year.

Prosecutor – increased by $721 – When the department had to go to the default budget, Attorney Rogers was the first one who volunteered to take a reduction in pay. This increase does not reinstate her salary back up to what it was before the default, it simply gives her a 2.5% merit increase in July with everyone else. There is also $1,000 in that budget line for her professional dues, Bar Association Dues, etc. Chief McGonigle handed out a report of the prosecutor’s activities this past year. In addition to having a trained lawyer handling our prosecutions, the second biggest reason she was hired for this position, was by having a trained prosecutor, taking nothing away from the previous police officers who have been doing the prosecutions, they did an excellent job but they were not lawyers. The added advantage to this community is that we now have supervisors doing what supervisors are supposed to be doing. That is supervision of our police officers, seven days a week from 3 p.m. to 1 a.m. Sunday through Thursday and 4 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday and Saturday and Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 3 p.m. when the Chief is here. So there is only a period of time from 2 Saturday morning until 2 Sunday morning when there is no supervisor available. Given that we continue to be a very young department, it is vital that we have this supervision. Most departments have two or more supervisors on per shift. This is the first time in the history of this agency that we have been able to have this supervision. This is largely due to the fact that the Budget Committee has agreed with having this position in the budget.

Telephone – no change – This covers the cost of cell phone and Internet access.

Computer Expense – Because of the default budget, this line was cut to $1,000 and this year the Chief is asking the line be increased back to $3,500. The Department has some significant ongoing computer issues. We have already gone over line on this account this year by $973. He has just submitted a bill for the maintenance agreement for the records maintenance system which is $800, it comes every October. We are extremely fortunate that Sergeant Huard is computer literate, because if we had to pay to have someone to come in at whatever hundred of dollars an hour these people get, It would be more.

Robin P. asked what exactly the problem was with the system. Chief McGonigle stated that they have been worn down. We need a new server, a new firewall, etc. They get a lot of use. Robin P. asked if there was any protection from viruses. Chief McGonigle stated that at the present time, no. Robin P. asked if there was any security? Just internal, Internet access is limited. Only supervisory people have Internet access. This limits the Officers abilities, Chief McGonigle does not like computers, but he is stuck with them. He cannot allow everyone to have Internet access because his computer crashed because he had e-mail access on it and the machine somehow got 819 viruses. He had to send his computer to the State Forensic Lab to recover all the files.

Jennifer asked if there was enough in this line to be able to purchase virus protection software. Yes.

Office Repairs and Equipment - $1,300 – this line was cut to $1,000 because of the default budget. Chief McGonigle is asking that the line return to $1,300 for the 2005 year. We currently have $63 left in this account for the remainder of 2004.

Training – Chief McGonigle is asking that this line be raised to the level that was previously approved plus the 2.5% merit increase. This is an area where, if we don’t stay on top of it and continually train our people we create dangerous situations. If you are going to be sued as a Police Department, there are multiple things that they attack, the first thing they attach is negligent hiring, not doing proper background checks. The second thing they attack is negligent supervision. Did they have inadequate supervision or the supervisors did not know what they were doing. The third thing they attack, especially in teen lawsuits, where they allege that you have violated someone’s civil rights is training.

We are required to provide our officers with five 8-hour training days a year, this is the minimum. There are two more training days left and this will wipe out the training account. This also is the account we use to purchase our ammunition.

Dues and Subscriptions – no change – we use this account for professional dues and we also pay for all the RSA’s, New Hampshire statutes, we keep a complete up to date set of the New Hampshire RSA’s in our offices to be used by anyone in the Town Hall, Fire Department, etc. As those get updated, we get new inserts every year and we get billed for them. The Secretary pulls the old inserts out and those are taken over to the Library.

Supplies – no change – this covers everything from paper to light bulbs.

Postage – we are requesting an additional $100. We were lucky for a couple of years that we did not have to mail discovery to defendants. Discovery is the entire case file the defendant is entitled to and it can be very thick. We had to make six copies of one file because of a gentleman charged with aggravated felonious sexual assault. This goes to the defense attorney, the county attorney, DCYS, etc. To mail a packet that size is about $4.00. A couple of years ago the court stated that the statute did not say that we had to mail the packet, we just had to make it available. We were making the lawyers come to Allenstown and get the packet. Then the Supreme Court changed the rules and a lawyer filed a motion with the District Court and the Judge was forced to overrule himself and now we have to mail the packet. There is currently $94 left in that account.

Gasoline – Chief McGonigle stated that he is requesting a significant increase in this account. We are going to go over budget in this account this year. You may not know this, but if the Police Chief goes over budget multiple years in a row, this is grounds for dismissal. Gas prices are going up, we are paying average of $1.54 per gallon. Fuel in September was $1.60, fuel in August was $1.70, the last four months alone, we have spent $4,859 in gasoline.

Chief McGonigle stated that the policy is that whenever two officers on, one of the officers is allowed to take the bike out. They are an effective tool and are good for keeping officers in shape.

He stated that the Department is at full staff for the first time since January of 2003. All of 2003 and the first three months of 2004, we were less than full staff. Most of 2003 the Department was down by 3 to 4 positions most of the year. When the Department is at full staff, we will be using more gas. Added to the fact that gas has gone up, we continue to see increased level for calls for service.

Rather than leave the line at $9,500 and say that the Department will go over this line, is the reason the line has been increased. We will probably go over this line if the Department continues as it has gone over the last four months, the overage could be as much as $3,100.

Vehicle Repairs – we currently have overspent this line by $282. We will need to spend a few hundred more by the end of the year. There are some relatively old vehicles by Police standards. Every national standard states that once a car reaches 80,000 miles it should not be used as a police car.

There has been some very high maintenance cost this year. The expenditures that will be made between now and the end of the year are routine maintenance.

We will be going to a lease purchase program, the Board of Selectmen have already approved this, we will be taking delivery of the first car with the first year’s lease being paid out of this year’ budget. That car is at Adamson Industries in Massachusetts being outfitted, equipped and marked. It should be here by tomorrow or Monday. That car will replace Equipment #2, which is the unmarked blue car. The blue car has 188,000+ miles on it and it is a mechanics dream.

Robin P. asked what the leasing terms are. Chief McGonigle stated the lease is $8,054 per year for three years. The one that we will lease at the end of this year’s budget, which we should have by the end of November or the beginning of December, will take the place of car #5 which currently has 80,000+ miles. This car will then have the markings removed and will be available for Town use. The lease on this vehicle is $8,162 for three years. This will still leave the Department with Equipment #1 (a 1999 vehicle), so in the Department’s budget for Police Cruisers there is another $8,500 to lease a third car after Town Meeting.

The cost per year to lease three cars will still be less than the money that has been spent annually to purchase one car. Everything is covered under the lease except tires and batteries. So for $25,000 the Department will get three new cars in a six-month period of time.

Robin P. asked if mileage was an issue. Chief McGonigle stated that mileage was not an issue. He also stated that at the end of the three years, we have the option to buy the car for $1. So at the end of three years, if the cars are still working fine or have had significant issues, we don’t care because they are paying to repair them. At the end of three years, if the car still has life in it, we give them $1.

Tom I. asked if the Department has to pay for regular maintenance such as oil changes, etc. Yes. Tom I. stated that this will drop the budget for what you ask for one car but will also alleviate the maintenance cost. Chief McGonigle stated he had not budgeted for vehicle repairs to go down any because there is still a 1999 vehicle that has 95,000 mile on it.

Tom I. stated that in theory if the Department has three new cars, the maintenance budget should go down because there are three new cars and the Town will not be responsible for maintenance. Chief McGonigle stated that this is possible. He does not want to say that there will be a definite decrease because the Department will still have Equipment #3 which is a 2000 by this time next year will be up over the 80,000 mark. Equipment #4 which is the newest marked car, has 35,000 miles on it and it is now being used by the Supervisors and by police officers will probably be up over 60,000 by this time next year.

Chief McGonigle stated that what he is hoping to accomplish by the lease is 1) getting newer card quicker at less money up front and 2) slowing down the rate of increase in the vehicle repair line. The Committee may not see a decrease next year, but there certainly should not be an increase.

Tom I. asked if the Selectmen’s goal is to go to a complete leased fleet. Peter stated that is possible, but until we have gone through the cycle of one car for three years and we see what kind of mileage is on it, we may very well buy the cars for $1 and get two more years out of them. So the Boards strategy would be that we know that for $25,000 to $30,000 a year, we can continue to pay to have three fairly new vehicles forever, which after every second or third year save the Town $30,000 minimum because we have been buying one to two cars constantly. It is certainly possible that we could have an all leased fleet, but he does not want to make the commitment that it is their ultimate goal until the Town lives through the process.

Chief McGonigle stated he was surprised to learn how many Town’s are leasing their entire fleet every year. It is a program that is clearly working in other places.

Uniform – The Department is requesting that this line be restored to where it was. There is approximately $3,900 in this account now. We have been putting off purchasing items because we know we will be short on other lines.

Full-time Salaries – the only increase in this line is the 2.5% merit increase in July. Chief McGonigle made a pitch to the Board of Selectmen that we need to do something. If you look at the last five years, because they only receive a 2.5% merit increase, having the health care go up, the cost of living go up, the average employee is realizing a net loss of $4,588 over the five year period. There are employees who are eligible, because of the size of their family and because of the size of their income for food stamps. The single biggest reason we lose employees in this Town is that we can’t compete.

There were comments on the Master Plan surveys that it would be nice to see police officers stay long enough so that they actually got to know them, Chief McGonigle stated he feels the same way. He would ask that whatever the Board of Selectmen submits to the Committee, whether it is more money to pay for health care or an across the board cost of living increase for Town employees in addition to the merit, please look at that favorably.

Larry asked what the average salary was. Chief McGonigle stated that Officer Clark could go to Hooksett and start tomorrow at $8,000 more, he can cross the river in Pembroke and make more. We have had officers leave here who were making $28,000 go to Londonderry where they will start at $10,500 more. We know that we can’t compete with Londonderry or Manchester but we need to do something so that we can, hopefully, slow down the rate of which people leave.

Chief McGonigle was surprised the other day when one of the supervisors told him that Officer Clark and Huard needed to take a PT test to maintain their certification. That meant they had been in Allenstown three years. The law went into effect January 1, 2001 that every three years a police officer has to take a PT test in order to maintain their certification. The surprise was that they had been here for three years.

It cost about $15,000 when we lose an officer. You are paying the money in lost productivity, people not knowing the community, people not being trained in staying here, therefore increase the possibility of us being sued. We have been fortunate, we have not had a successful lawsuit against this Department since he has been Chief. By having full-time supervision, we are finding that there are a lot of training issues.

Peter stated that from the Board’s perspective, we recognize that there is an issue with a number of Departments and salaries from the salary survey that was done. Everyone falls into the category, so when Jim came and made his pitch during his presentation, it did not fall on deaf ears. The Board knows that it needs to revisit salaries on a general term. We have on a number of times given increases outside the 2.5% box in individual departments. It would be helpful if we put a plan together and did it every year. The problem has been that we have done it with everyone at one time and it does not happen again for five more years.

The other reference point regarding the cost of $15,000 comes from the fact that the Town sends an officer out to training and it cost roughly $7,000 and while that officer is at full time academy we have to pay someone to work his shift. The equivalent to that is the additional $7,000 to $8,000. The number is not coming out of a hat. It is about a $15,000 cost every time we lose someone. We are spending upward to $45,000 and getting nothing in return. We can’t guarantee that if we take a hard look at this a make a conscientious decision to put money into this budget to get these guys a little bit of money, we can’t guarantee that they won’t leave. Jim has a great group of guys and 90% of the ones that do leave, do so because of money. Don’t rule out the Selectmen coming back to the Budget Committee with a proposal for all the Departments salary adjustments, it may not happen, but it has been discussed.

Tom I. stated that it is the same issue that the School has faced with the teachers. Everyone who works for the Town has been so far behind, then you make that initial jump and then everyone forgets about it.

Peter stated that the School has a plan where the three-year contract is 3%, 3% and 4% or whatever, but it is certainly more than 2.5%. It is all taxpayer money and everyone knows it will put a burden on the taxpayer, however, the important thing to recognize is that year after year, we have spent a lot of money to fund the people coming in and out of the Police Department. A lot of them are young, they come out of school and would love to stay, but they can’t afford to work here.

Chief McGonigle stated that every employee who has left voluntarily has left for more money. No one has gone to a non-law enforcement job, everyone who has left voluntarily has gone to another department where they have made more money and the benefits are better. We gave our officers a 2.5% merit increase one year and the employee share of health care was increased so it was a net loss.

Chief McGonigle stated that Tom I. mentioned the problem with teachers, the teacher contract is 5% this year, 4% next year and 4% the year after. The percentage increases are in addition to the step increases. The 2.5% that the Town employees get is all they get, there is no 5% cost of living increase. If there was a 5% cost of living increase then 2.5% on top of that, we would be looking good. We would still be behind the 8 ball, but it would be sending a strong message to the employees that their presence here is valued and we would like to see you stick around a while. That is the message that you are sending to the teachers when you negotiate those contract.

Larry asked if the four people making $29,401 were hired at the same time. Yes.

Maintenance Repair Radios/Radars – This line is also used to repair the cruiser video cameras. All the marked cars have video cameras. This is a great tool. When someone is being stopped, the first words out of the officers month is that this stop is being recorded. From a manager’s standpoint, it is a lifesaver. It is valuable evidence in court and when a parent calls and says, Officer so and so stopped my son last night and that officer was rude, discourteous and was swearing, Chief McGonigle can pull the tape and suggests that they come down and watch the tape. The problem is that they are $6,500 and do not come with lifetime guarantees. They were all purchased with grant money, but the grant money is one time.

Crossing Guards – only includes a 2.5% increase.

Dispatch – No change – we are still pleased with the change to Bow Dispatching. This is probably the last year that the price will be $18,000. Next year it will probably go up.

Police Details – no change – DRA insists that this be in the budget, but this $1,000 is never spent.

Tom G. asked if the $1,000 is a required minimum. David J. stated that DRA requires that everyone gross budget his or her accounts. It is what they perceive to be the actual expense. This is similar to the Zoning and Planning fees; we will not go over on those line, because they are offset by revenues.

Police Cruiser - $25,000 – this was already discussed previously.

Animal Control Officer – 2.5% merit increase in this line for a total salary of $12,719.

ACO Supplies - $1,200 – no change.

Jennifer asked if this was the same person. Yes.

Peter asked what the bottom line was for the Animal Control Officer, $14,112; and the Police Department bottom line is $544,878.

Robin P. asked why Tuesday was the busiest day; Chief McGonigle stated he did not know. Peter stated that Tuesday and Wednesday are the two slowest retail business days across the entire retail parameter; everyone is home, so there are more domestic issues going on.

Larry asked Chief McGonigle if the bottom line is workable. Chief McGonigle stated that it is a maintenance budget. It does not allow me to do anything creative, it does not allow him to send anyone to school outside of the Police Academy. Can we do the job that we are expected to do with that amount? Yes, it just does not allow us to do anything creative.

Larry asked what the schools cost, Chief McGonigle stated that with room and board and tuition, someone applied for a networking school at a cost of $995 for two days. He would have liked to be able to send one or more of the supervisory personnel to either the Southern Command Training institute or to the FBI Academy. But this is 13 weeks of salary, air fair, every department who sends people to the FBI academy, gives them an airline ticket so they can come home half way through, then paying someone to cover that person while they are gone. The Southern Command Training Institute is at Babson College and is for three weeks. We take advantage of training programs that are available at no cost.

Larry asked what the Chief would do with extra money. He stated that the first thing he would put it in would be salaries, the second thing would be in expanding our training capabilities. Those are the two area that are most important.

Larry made a motion to accept the Police Department bottom line of $544,878, Peter seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Peter made a motion to accept the Animal Control Officer bottom line of $14,112, Tom I. seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

David J. explained to the Board what had come in through the Building Inspector’s office this year.

Plumbing and Electrical permits - $3,740, Tom G. asked how this compared to last year. David stated that they were right in line, there were about 286 permits. There is not much activity on this area, especially plumbing. Many are for mobile homes and they cost $40 for a permit. So far there have been only 65 permits so far for electrical.

Robin P. asked if the Building Inspector was full time last year. David stated that Ken was here a portion of the year so it was hard to say. Tom G. stated that revenues collected should not be hard to track. David stated that they have to go through Henriette’s stuff at that point. If the revenue is not entered into the computer spreadsheet, then you have to check into a few different areas.

In total so far, the revenue has been approximately $13,000 this year. Last year it was approximately $15,000 for the whole year.

Jennifer stated that this increase was due to their fees. Tom I. made a motion to accept the Central NH Regional Planning bottom line of $5,284, Tom G. seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

David J. stated that as of September of 2004, the income is $12,242.05, as of October 2003, the income was $12,913.23. We are probably in right in target with what came in last year.

Robin P. stated there was not a full time person last year. David J. stated that he did not feel there was much of a variance between the last two years. Peter stated that the Building Inspector does significantly more for the Planning and Zoning and other people than any previous building inspector. From a usage and a time perspective, there is way more time required. Peter stated he was not looking for more revenues because she is spending on average 25 to 30% more time per case on a building issue than the previous building inspectors have done.

Peter stated that it limits the Town’s liability significantly. You need to look at it from a time perspective and he would rather there were more time spent on accuracy than driving permit fees. David J. stated there were six new houses built in Kenwood and this year, there have not been six new houses built yet.

Larry asked what types of projects were coming up. Tom G. spoke as a Planning Board member, there is a parcel of land on Ferry Street that has been before the board, that has a possibility of turning into a regional recreational campground, which would allow campers to be there from April to October. David J. stated that it was about 60 units. These would be permanently placed, they are smaller than a mobile home. Tom G. also stated that there is a recent purchase on Deerfield Road, which potentially could be three or four housing lots.

There is also McNamara Landing, which has not come before the board but has received Zoning Board approval with stipulation so there is a real possibility that the Planning Board will be looking at that development, this could be 80 to 85 units.

There is an approved subdivision that runs from the end of Chestnut Street to the end of Spring Street, a total impact of 110 acres, for a total of 36 houses. This would mean 36 applications, either all at once or one at a time, applications for building permits and eventually certificates of occupancy.

Jennifer asked where McNamara’ Landing is and where Chestnut and Spring Street were. Tom G. stated that Chestnut and Spring Street is off of Woodridge Road, this is definite, the road is nearing completion, development should begin last winter or early spring. David J. stated that they had about 10 septic approvals so far. McNamara’s Landing is at the top of Notre Dame Avenue.

Tom I. asked if the same issues would apply with single-family houses as with townhouses, such as sewer, access, etc. Tom G. reminded everyone that the Planning Board has jurisdiction over what gets approved and is allowed to be built. So far this has not come before the Planning Board, but we are aware that the Zoning Board has given approval to McNamara’s Landing. There are stipulations, but if all the stipulations are met, and the Planning Board has no reason to say not to put up 86 units, but the impact could be over a two year period.

David J. stated that there has been a lot for sale for quite a while on Route 28 that has recently sold. It is commercial property and has 13 acres.

Jennifer asked Peter if he felt the Board of Selectmen would look at the Building Inspector’s hours and raise it. Peter stated the vote would not change from what it was. The agreement was that they would look at it if they needed it over the course of the year and the reason he did not agree with that was that he did not want to behind the 8 ball.

Peter stated that he did not want the Building Inspector to do less than she is doing and he does not want to go back to a liable situation because we are shortcutting things. She may still be backed up if she is working full-time. The Town has 30 days to issue a permit.

Tom I. asked if the Selectmen’s attitude was to keep her at the 30-hour time because it could be six months before she really needs to be a full-time position? Peter stated that there is no strategy to make her full time, the strategy is to add hours if needed. We may take her from 30 to 35 hours, then from 35 to 40 hours if needed.

Jennifer stated that she felt like her hands are tied on this issue. Peter stated that the Committee could leave this budget open and he could go back to the Selectmen with a message that they would like the Selectmen to revisit the Building Inspector’s budget.

Tom G. stated that if the Budget Committee decides to increase the bottom line to $32,000 and it is approved by the Board, that’s the way it is. Tom I. stated that we can approve that dollar amount, but the Board of Selectmen still doesn’t have to make the position 40 hours. Peter stated that his job goes both ways, and then he has to go back to the Board and tell them that the Budget Committee supports a 40-hour workweek, because of the following reasons.

Tom I. stated that if the Committee approved more money for salary, if she is a full time employee, then she is due benefits, FICA and everything else would go up. It is just not that line item; we are affecting line items for everything else that goes along with it.

Peter asked David J. what the line included. David stated it was only salary. FICA, etc. comes from another section of the budget. Right now, under the Town’s Personnel policy, if you are a part-time employee you can get a single rate only and you pay the 70/30 split. If you want a two person or family plan, you only get covered under the single rate and the employee has to pick up the additional cost. If she goes full-time, what ultimately would happen would be, that she would be entitled to the NH Retirement, vacation and sick time.

Robin P. stated that as a Board, we should recommend the full-time position or not because we have to be more decisive. David J. stated that things had to be juggled this year because there were circumstances where she was only working 30 hours and the Town had to give her additional hours. Then we are putting other things on the back burner, which is increasing the workload because permits are starting to pile up.

Larry made a motion to move the Building Inspector up to 40 hours due to the fact that the information we asked for and received, he can see that she will not be able to give individual permits once the 25 or 30 houses start to be built. She will need 40 hours and more. If she is going to inspect the homes like a building inspector should she may need more hours.

Robin P. stated that the Building Inspector also needs to be able to perform all the other areas of her job.

Peter stated that the Board of Selectmen should read through what the Budget Committee is recommending. If this is approved, then it is the intent of the Committee to put her on as a full-time individual. He stated that it would be prudent for the Board to then take action to that affect. His job is to bring the consensus of the Budget Committee back to them. If the vote is still 2 to 1, then they need to explain why they feel this way.

Tom G. stated that this becomes a sticky issue because as a Committee if we recommend one way or the other and you bump it up, it creates a whole other set of administrative issues for the Selectmen and David.

Tom G. gave an example of last year when the Committee voted to include the Prosecutor’s position in the Police Department’s budget when the Board of Selectmen had removed this position.

Robin P. stated that when she votes on a dollar amount, she is expecting something. Peter stated that the Committee is sending a message to the Board saying what you want for this money for that position to be full-time, but that doesn’t mean the Board has to do it.

Dave stated that since the Committee had voted to table the Building Inspector’s budget, there should be a motion to bring up the budget again. He also stated that if the Committee approves this, and we feel that strongly about it, then we should be at the Selectmen’s meeting when they discuss it.

Tom G. made a motion to untable the Building Inspector’s Budget, Peter seconded. The motion passed with one no vote (Mona).

Tom I. asked what the exact dollar difference was in the salary line. Tom G. stated it is about $8,000. David J. stated that the Selectmen had cut the $21,000 down. She had asked for $29,000 originally at $14 per hour.

Tom I. asked what the rate of pay would be on the line that the Selectmen approved? David J. stated that it would be $12.82. Peter stated that David needed to figure the salary at the new rate. David stated that the amount would be $24,040.

Tom I. made a motion to change the Building Inspector salary line from $21,060 to $24,040. Peter stated that everyone should understand that this would fund a 40-hour week, based on her rate, starting in July 1. If she goes to full time in March because the work is there, then we will have to find the money to fund the position in March, but it would be on the old rate. Her increase would be into effect on July 1. Peter seconded Tom I.’s motion.

Tom G. stated that as a result to the increased cost to the other lines, the Executive Budget, and just based on theory, he will vote against it. It is too much of a risk, and he did not feel that a case has been made statistically and logistically to affect the Town salary accordingly.

The motion passed by a vote of 7 to 5.

Tom I. made a motion to accept the Building Inspector bottom line of $26,252, Robin M. seconded. The motion passed by a vote of 7 to 5.

Peter made a motion to accept the Concord VNA bottom line of $28,322, Tom I. seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Peter made a motion to accept the Tax Collector bottom line of $29,441, Larry seconded.

David J. stated that this budget only includes the 2.5% pay increase and little bit more for dues and subscription.

The motion passed unanimously.

Larry made a motion to accept $71,316, Peter seconded.

Tom G. asked what the increases were. David J. stated that the was a decrease on the audit, the assessing clerk’s salary is a 2.5% increase, the assessing contract is the outside assessing firm and they are going based on what we have actually spent so far.

Tom G. asked if the outside contractor had been rebid. David J. stated that they do not rebid. This is one of those things like legal. Peter stated that every time you change contractors it gets very expensive, because they want to redo thing that have already been done. Peter stated that the Board of Selectmen ride the assessing team very hard. If we get abatements they are not rubber stamped, they are sent back to the assessing and ask for an explanation.

The motion passed unanimously.

Tom G. apologized to Peter for speaking out of line at the last meeting. His intention was not to undercut Peter or to step on his toes. It was not a show of no confidence. He wasn’t trying to say that Peter was not bringing up stuff. He allowed himself to fall into a situation where he was representing other viewpoints that were not represented here. He does have every confidence in Peter to represent the Selectmen, their decisions and the rational. He hopes that Peter will accept his apology and he would like to apologize to the Committee for any grief or inconvenience that the comments or questions raised last week specifically to the Building Inspector items may have caused. Maybe it can be a learning lesson for other members, he certainly learned a lesson, that you should not speak out of line for other people who are not present. If they have a legitimate concern, they should at submit it in writing. If it is a Department, especially the Selectmen, we should let the representative from that Department speak for that department.

Peter thanked Tom G.

David J. stated that he went out after last week’s meeting to see where the illegal building things were. If anyone has any concerns or complaints and you think someone is building something illegally, call the Town Hall and speak with David. He will drive around and find it. Then it goes to the Building Inspector, she will then go out and look at and she blames it on David. He only saw two violations.

Carol asked if they were getting permits at Holiday Acres for putting in the doublewide homes. David stated that they have to get permits, they have to anchor the homes, must have licensed electricians and plumbers, etc.

Jennifer stated that the budgets for the next meeting would be Executive, Parks and Rec, Elections and Registrations (Town Clerk), Library, Supervisor of the Checklists, Planning and Zoning. The next meeting will be October 21, 2004 at 7 p.m. Dave E. stated that he would not be able to make this meeting and asked Peter to be Secretary for that meeting.

Peter informed the members that the building committee will meet again on October 13, 2004.

The Selectmen will meet again on October 18, so if anyone would like to come and speak on the Building Inspector budget, they are welcome.

Gabby made a motion to recess, Carol seconded.

NOTE: Although these minutes may contain direct quotes, they are not verbatim. Many sections contain a general description of the remarks of the participants as interpreted as both indicated and not indicated by the transcriber and should not be relied upon as the actual intent of the participant’s statement. Additionally, many statements have been omitted, condensed and generalized based on the interpretations of the transcriber as to its relevance, content, specificity, accuracy, and/or conformity to any applicable statute. The transcriber assumes no liability for the content of this document.