|
Warner Budget Committee Meeting Minutes February 8, 2007 Meeting
opened at In
attendance: Mike Cutting - Chair, John Warner, Barbara Bartlett, Harold
Whittemore, Peter Newman, David Karrick, and Selectman Richard A. Cook Absent:
Marc Violette Recorder
of the minutes is Mary Whalen Others
present: Laura
Buono,
Richard Senor,
Selectman David 1.
MEETING MINUTES Barbara
Bartlett made the motion to
approve meeting minutes dated 2.
PUBLIC HEARING PETITION ARTICLES To see if the Town will raise and
appropriate the sum of $182,000.00 (One Hundred Eighty Two Thousand
Dollars) for the purpose of assisting the Warner Village Water District
to construct 200,000 gallon water storage tank off PUBLIC COMMENTS: Martha Mical added that if a TIF district
can not generate enough to pay the bond amount the responsibility falls
on the taxpayers. Selectman Eigabroadt added that you
can’t have too many infrastructure fees for the developers, there
needs to be a happy median. Lynn Perkins added; try to imagine Warner
without a public water & sewer system; particularly under today’s
regulations. Some of the
lots within the village would be undersized to accommodate their own
systems. Lynn also added
that back in 2004 the Budget Committee recommended $998,000 for
improvements in the Water District, and now in order to complete a
portion of the project the
amount of $182,000 is needed, in regards to exaction fees and TIF’s,
that type of funding will take time.
The $182,000 resulted because of the increase in construction
costs over the last two years (40% increase).
Putting the project off another year will result in higher costs.
In order to implement exaction fees and/or a TIF district will
also take time and may not work because the Town is too restrictive
resulting in businesses not coming in.
The issue of how to improve the integrity of the water remains,
excluding exit 9, obtaining larger storage allows better fire
protection. Richard Senor asked if the Town loaned the
precinct the $182,000 could the money be paid back through exaction fees
or a TIF District. Selectman Cook does not believe that a TIF
can pay for assumed costs. Mike Cutting added that if the Precinct
assumes responsibility for the $182,000 then through exaction fees the
bond could be reduced at a faster rate.
If the Town assumes the $182,000 then there is no return from
exaction fees because the Town will pay the debt in full within one
year. An audience member asked the total amount
for the project. The project
totals $1.2 million covering the 200,000 gallon tank, 12” water lines
and the well. To reduce
costs from $395,000 to $182,000 the Precinct Commissioners decided not
to complete the third well this year.
Martha
Mical spoke in favor of the project, and believes the Town as a whole
will benefit from the project. Selectman
Cook agrees that the project is needed but does not believe the
additional costs need to come from the taxpayers. John
Warner added there are clearly scenarios where the Precinct looses a
significant amount of money and momentum on the project.
Selectman
Cook explained that to date only 10% of the approved money from 2004 has
been spent. It was told that
the grant does not have a time limit. Peg
McLaughlin explained that the grant is available as long as the Precinct
shows active pursuit of the project. Selectman
Cook added that the Precinct is willing to take the risk that there may
be a hotel at exit 9 but not willing to take the risk that costs will go
up. There is still the fact
that the taxpayers do not have to pay for the project.
Selectman Cook recommends not recommending the petition because
there are other options available. VOTE Roll call vote: Barbara Bartlett – no; John Warner – yes; Harold Whittemore – yes; David Karrick – yes; Peter Newman – yes; Selectman Richard A. Cook – no. Motion passes. 3.
PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE TRANSFER STATION To see if the Town will vote to change the
pay scale for the Manager and Attendants at the Warner Transfer Station.
Information, salaries and hourly pay were gathered from
surrounding towns with similar operations.
The Budget Committee does not vote on articles that do not have a
dollar amount. There was an
informational page attached to the petition explaining like town
comparisons. Judith Rogers commented that the pay scale
does refer to money. Selectman Cook added that the pages that
were signed do not have the informational page attached to them.
It is not clear that the people who signed the petition actually
saw and read the informational page.
Legally the informational page is not part of the warrant
article. Richard Senor disagreed that the
informational page is not part of the petition because the top of the
page is titled petition article. Laura
explained that when the documents were received in the Selectmen’s
office there were 3 or 4 informational pages on top, and then there were
several signature pages that were separate. They
informational page was not stapled to each of the signature pages.
As far as what is worded on the ballot is what is worded on the
signature page. Judith Rogers explained that when she
received the petition in the Town Clerks office the informational page
was paper clipped on the left hand side of the folder and the signatures
were on the right hand side. Judith
removed the informational page on the left hand side and signed received
Town Clerk’s office along with the date and put it all together.
Selectman Hartman recommended a ruling
from Town Counsel on what is actually the petition article.
Mike Cutting read the information page into the record.
Laura explained again that typically the complete petition
appears at the top of the page following with the signature lines on
every page. The petition was
not received in the Selectmen’s office as such.
The petition could also be changed on the Town Meeting floor to
include money. What needs to
be known is, does the Transfer Station just want the wage scale changed
or do they want to raise and appropriate a certain amount.
That type of information if it was suppose to be part of the
article should have been attached to the signature page beginning with To see if the Town will vote …..
The article submitted to the Selectmen’s office is an advisory
article. Harold Whittemore
added that he was asked to sign the petition and did not because he is
on the Budget Committee, Harold feels that it is a conflict and also
feels there is a conflict with the wage study, Harold was also on the
Wage Study Committee. Harold
asked if the informational page should be verified.
Pete Newman interjected, the discussion is irrelevant, the Budget
Committee is not recommending the article and the article will still go
before the Town. Selectman Hartman recommends moving
forward and presenting the article as received knowing that the article
can be amended at Town Meeting. 4. CAPITAL EXPENSE CHANGES The Board of Selectmen reduced the Fire
Department Equipment Capital Reserve from $100,000 to $20,000.
The amount to be raised and appropriated was reduced by $10,000;
the total amount is now $3,148,919.
The Budget Committee added their recommendation in the amount of
$182,000 bringing the total to be raised and appropriated to $3,330.919. Because the Selectmen adjusted the Fire
Department Equipment Reserve to $20,000 the Budget Committee need to
recommend/not recommend. David
Karrick made the motion to
recommend the sum of $20,000 to place in the already established Fire
Department Equipment Capital Reserve Fund.
Pete Newman seconded the motion.
All were in favor. The
motion passed. 5. GENERAL COMMENTS The Committee thanked the efforts of the
Board of Selectmen and the Town Administrator in creating the 2007
budget. 6. WARNER VILLAGE WATER DISTRICT David Karrick
made the motion to recommend the 2007 Warner Village Water District budget in the
amount of $514,441.00 for the operation, maintenance and improvement of
the District’s water and sewer systems. John Warner seconded
the motion. Vote taken: 1
opposed, motion passed. John Warner made the motion to recommend the Warner Village Water District 2007 revenues in the amount of $397,811. Pete Newman seconded the motion. All were in favor. The motion passed. Motion to adjourn
|