A meeting of the Bedford Town Council was held on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 at the Bedford Meeting Room, 10 Meetinghouse Road.  Present were Councilors David Danielson, Andrew Egan, William Greiner, Michael Scanlon, and Bruce Searing.  Also present was Keith Hickey, Town Manager.  Councilor Kevin Keyes arrived at 7:25 PM.  Chairman Greiner opened the meeting at 7:10 PM.

Mr. Searing led the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

            Non-public session – June 11, 2003

Mr. Danielson made a motion to table these minutes

unil the next meeting; motion seconded by Mr. Van

Anglen; vote on motion passed 6-0.

            Public session – June 11, 2003

Mr. Van Anglen said on page 1, under approval of minutes, 5^th paragraph, it talks about $2,000 K; it should be $200,000.  On page 22, 5^th paragraph, last sentence, “Mr. Van Anglen said he is in too many things and asked to come off the committee.”

            Mr. Van Anglen made a  motion to approve the amended minutes

            of the June 11, 2003 public session; motion seconded by Mr. Searing;

            vote on motion passed 5-0-1 with Mr. Scanlon abstaining because

            he miss half the meeting.

            Mr. Scanlon made a motion to seal the minutes of tonight’s non-

            public minutes as it is going to be an on-going process.  Motion

            seconded by Mr. Van Anglen;

Mr. Scanlon said he would like them to be sealed until after the transactions are completed.

            Vote on motion passed 6-0.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jim Morgan, 39 Riddle Drive,  read a statement about the petition turned into the Council last week.  “Since it seems whenever someone speaks about an issue in town, it can be assumed that some conflict of interest exists, it should be no surprise as a member of the Parks & Rec Board people would draw that conclusion here with me speaking about Joppa Hill.  However,  nothing could be further from the truth.  My only reason for speaking here tonight is because this issues has reached a point of lunacy.  Last week a petition was presented to the Town Manager in an attempt to do nothing less than exploit this issue through the use of children’s signatures.  A sheet of paper was circulated around Memorial School allegedly by a 4^th grade student who told some kids that it was a signup for fields on Joppa Hill.  My son and daughter both signed this under that presentation.  While I find it nothing less than disgusting that adults would exploit children in this manner to further their own cause and use them in some twisted manner to gain sympathy for Joppa Hill, I can’t help but place some blame for this on the Council.  I realize that you are all elected officials, juggling public opinion and trying to do the right thing.  But you have to realize that there are circumstances in holding public office when tough decisions need to be made.  Joppa Hill is one of these decisions.  Some of  you have commented that this should go back to the voters.  I would like to remind this person that that has been done already.  Twice in fact.  The first time when Chairman Dick Como presented the plan to purchase Joppa  Hill and listed the uses for it, voters, in my opinion,  approved the purchase of this property for the uses that suited them.  I voted for it to increase fields.  Others voted for it for conservation, and others to increase mere open space.   All of us passed the warrant.  Without one the warrant  might have failed. 

The second time was in 2002 when a survey was given at the polls asking what to do with Joppa Hill.  Some 3200 residents wanted active recreation on the property, a clear majority.  So with all the records that tell this Council what the voters want, it is time to put this issue to bed.  You each have a duty to act on this and let the chips fall where they may.  It is your responsibility to help to end this ridiculous behavior by both sides on this issue.  Delaying this process longer is only going to increase the deviciveness in town and further create problems.  

In closing I would  like to caution people that I have heard rumblings from others that feel the land was sold to the voters as a multi purpose  property.  If it is not going to be used as it was presented, then perhaps a 25-signature petition could

put Joppa  Hill on the ballot in March, instructing the Town to sell the property off.  While I think this would be a tremendous loss to both sides of this issue, one has to agree that Joppa Hill was sold to the voters in part to be used for field space.  This is well documented in the minutes from past Council meetings.  The intention of buying Joppa Hill was never to leave it as is.  So perhaps if that is now the intention of some, the property should be put on the ballot and the voters should be asked if they want to leave it alone or sell it off, and use the profit from the sale to offset future facility needs in town and reduce the tax burden.  In the end no side is going to win.  Field people wanted four fields, and conservationists want none.  It would appear to me that this Council can come up with a compromise solution and be the leaders that people elected you to be.  I would urge the Council to move this issue at their earliest possible time in order to help curtail people from getting out of control.  I would also request that the Town Manager notify the AG’s office where this petition went and have my children’s names removed.   Their signature is far too valuable to be associated with this type of trash. “ 

AGENDA ITEMS

1. Shirley Barron, semi annual meeting

Shirley Barron, Librarian and Lucy Albertson, Director of Children’s Services at the Library were present.  Ms. Barron gave an overview of what the Library has achieved over the last year.   She thanked the 3 Trustees of the Library, Robert Brooks, Ed Moran and Richard Tucker, who do a fine job guiding the Library.   As the community grows, so does the need for library services.    The Library is open 57 hours a week.  They have a staff of 6 full time people, 13 part time, and 30 volunteers.  Last year they circulated 207,601 items.  Their electronic resources and data bases, etc. had 66,000 usages.  The Library owns 79,000 items including books, magazines, dvd’s, etc.  The Library is open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week via the internet.  Over the past year they upgraded their public access catalog.  That is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.   In December they did a major upgrade of their software system.  This allows them to offer many different services.   It hardly cost anything because they  belong to a consortium.  They pay dues every year, and because they operate as a cooperative, and they all work instead of hiring people to do things.  The last year brought a steadily increasing demand for children’s services.  Last summer they had 1,151 children in the summer reading program, and they read 19,591 books which was at the top of the whole state.    They are hoping this year to break that record.  10,805 children during the year were engaged in children’s activities.

 Their biggest challenge is staffing issues, securing enough funds to satisfy user demands, and keeping pace with increased user demands in materials, services and programs, and keeping abreast of rapidly changing technology.

Ms. Albertson explained the children’s programs.  This year’s theme is “Reading Rocks – The Granite State.”  Children are placed on reading teams.  They go to great length to involve the children.  They have performers come in as well as in-house programs.  The  most popular program is a skill fair.   They have a core of 100 junior librarians ages 10 to 13 that help with the summer programs.

Mr. Searing asked what they bring in on overdue fines.   Ms. Barron said around $15,000.   Mr. Searing does not think 10 cents a day is enough.  Ms. Barron said they do not want the fines to be a deterrent to use.

Mr. Danielson said given the internet and the web, where do you see library services going tomorrow.  Ms. Barron said they will be offering more and more data bases, offering more research, informational things.  They have a huge need for developing books on CD.   The library serves the community as a community center.  Mr. Danielson asked if they promote anything on BCTV.  Ms. Barron said she puts newsworthy items on their PSA system.  Mr. Danielson asked if it would be worthwhile having something a little more demonstrative, like a TV program.   Ms. Barron said they cannot film children.

Ms. Barron said they offer a Sunday Concert Series, and BCTV films that.  Mr. Danielson thinks the events on Sunday, the gala fund raiser, etc. tend not to have younger families involved.  He asked if there is a way to try to stimulate that activity to try to get that group involved.  Ms. Barron thinks there is a movement by the foundation to recruit younger foundation members.   That is the foundation, not the Library.    She can make suggestions. 

Mr.  Van Anglen asked if they are doing anything or  have any thoughts on interactive learning.  Ms. Barron said they would love to, but they can’t  handle it at this moment.  They are just running as fast as they can.  They thought of buying some materials for people to take  home, but to start a collection, they are very expensive.  They just don’t have the resources. 

Mr. Egan asked if she is familiar with the Town Common Committee’s efforts which is about to begin again.  Ms. Barron said she is.   Mr. Egan hopes they will be able to come to her and speak about any of the germane matters between the two.  Ms. Barron said she will be glad to.  Mr. Egan asked if she would consider coming to the meetings.    She said she will be glad to.

2. Update on personnel plan

Crystal Dionne, Finance Director, explained the updated personnel evaluation form.  They had a couple of comments during the Department Head meeting, so they made a few changes.  She gave an overview via a Powerpoint presentation.  The evaluations they had used for employees was a fairly simple form.  It had 10 work task performance categories and 6 work behavior performance categories.  In the new form, it is a little more comprehensive and uses a wider point system to give the department heads a little more flexibility in evaluating the employees.

They wanted to keep in mind the Council’s philosophy on the merit pay system, and the new merit pay that was approved in February that was zero to 6%.   They had to create the evaluation so they could  mathematically come to that zero or 6% merit pay with the average employee earning 4%. 

Mr. Searing said in the second paragraph on the first page, “since the Council agreed to a merit pay scale of 0 to 6% with an average  merit raise of 4%.”  Then it goes on to say “a merit pay range of 0 to 4% is below average, and 4 to 6 is above average.”  Mr. Searing said 4 can’t be below and above, and prior to that you say it is average.   Mr. Hickey said what was established by Council in February was that an average employee would get 4% raise.  Mr. Searing said so 4 should be average, not below and above average.   Mr. Hickey said anything above 4% would be calculated based on an exceeds that an employee had received during the evaluation process.   Ms. Dionne said she probably should have stated that 0 to 3.9 was below average.   Mr. Searing said 5 and 6 would be above average.   She went through an example of how the evaluation works. 

Mr. Danielson asked what the Council is expected to do with this.  Mr. Hickey said approve it.    Mr. Danielson said he is not going to approve the form.  The form is a management tool.   If this tool suffices for you to do what you want to do that’s not his issue.  His issue is what is on the front page.    Mr. Hickey said this personnel evaluation form is a portion of an attachment to the personnel plan, which has to be adopted by the Council.    That’s the reason it is here. 

Ms. Dionne went through a mock evaluation.   Mr. Hickey said they wanted to have employees who were rated below average to receive more of a penalty than that of an employee who is getting an above average grade.  For someone who received marks below average, they wanted to double the amount of the increase they would have got had they been an above average employee.  So there would be a much more adverse effect to a person who is not working up to their potential.

Mr. Van Anglen does not understand it.  He said it seems like there are 2 or 3 systems in play at any one time on evaluating a person versus how we calculate the merit.   He understands what you are trying to do is assign points and figure out how to give a raise.   Mr. Hickey said because this form is used townwide, they had to keep it somewhat generic so it is not specific for police, fire, etc. 

Mr. Searing said this is your tool, you are comfortable with it, and you understand it, and if you can take that tool and do  your evaluation, then he supports it.   He does not know that we need to chew it up and analyze it.   Mr. Egan said he is not about to sit here and second guess it when the 2 top town managers are telling us this is what they want to go with.   However, he is a little dismayed to hear that Mr. Van Anglen, who was the Council’s liaison on this effort, is confused, dissatisfied, or having a moment.   Mr.  Van Anglen  said he was not involved in this.   Mr. Egan said this is their management tool, let’s move  on.  Mr. Scanlon said his only question comes under work behavior category.   It can’t help you, it can only hurt you.   Ms. Dionne said right.  Mr. Scanlon said if a person is courteous, they look good,  they are always being safe, and are out there in the best physical shape they can be to do their job, they are not getting anything for that.    They are just not getting points against that.   Ms. Dionne said that is correct because they felt the average employee should be courteous and should have an appearance appropriate for the position.  Mr. Scanlon said the average employee should have an average quality of work and you give them credit for that.  If their work is average, acceptable, they are getting points for that.  

Mr. Van Anglen said this is a tool.   This tool is how we evaluate our employees, and it has an effect on the merit number which has an effect on the budget.   So it is important that we understand how it works.   

Mr. Danielson said on the front page if he was an employee reading this, and he is a little below average, he can still expect a zero to 4% increase.   Mr. Hickey said depending on how little below average they are.  Mr. Danielson said as a manager, if you are below average, you are probably not going to get anything in the real world, unless you have a COLA scale or something similar to what we put in place the other day that has steps.   He doesn’t understand why we should pay someone below average.   In business these guys would be on warning.  He can’t support it if that’s going to be the level of expectation. 

Mr. Hickey believes this business we run here is the real world.  Mr. Danielson said in industry, it is not.   Mr. Hickey believes we have applied what the Council adopted to an evaluation form.    If it is a below average evaluation, they can be disciplined or put on probation.  There are other factors that go into this.  Depending on how below average they are depends  on what type of action we take.   He believes what we have done here is apply the principles that we were given to a form.  This back page calculates the raise they get.  That page can be amended or adjusted to reflect any merit pay range that the Council sets on an annual basis.   This does not work just for a 0 to 6% range.  This will work from a 0 to 1% range if that’s what the range happens to be in any given year.  So, you are accepting a merit pay system with a calculation that works for any range that the Council sees fit.  Mr.  Van Anglen said it  can be adjusted for any range, but can it be adjusted for any average?  Mr. Hickey said yes.  Mr. Van Anglen thinks this does address performance in how they are doing it. 

Mr. Hickey said we had merit pay ranges of 2 to 4% for the past 3-4-5 years.  What we found was an average employee was getting about a 3%  raise which comparing the average raise that employees were receiving in Bedford to our competition, we were falling behind on an annual basis which is in large part the reason we had to make the pay adjustments to employees that we did in 2003.  Mr. Danielson said that is a COLA argument.   Mr. Hickey said no.  Mr. Van Anglen said not if it is merit pay.   COLA means you are guaranteeing a percentage, and it’s built in almost like a step system.  If it’s merit based, which means that every employee doesn’t get 4%, there are employees who will get 0.   There are employees who will be 2%, 4%, 6%.  There is no guarantee of 4%.  He is trying to equate if you have an average performer, what is the average raise they should get.   It’s all based on merit versus a guarantee of a percentage. 

Mr. Scanlon said an average employee who gets a 3%, that’s the guy who comes to work, is on time every day, that’s not a bad employee to have. You need people like that.  That person gets a 4% raise.  That’s the average employee.  He gives us what we need, doesn’t give us anything extra, doesn’t give us anything less.  If you look at the way the increase summary goes, you get a  person who gets a 2%, which is marginal,  you lose 1.5 points.  In order to gain 1.5 you’ve got to get a 5, which is exceptional.   So you are rewarding the person that does an exceptional job more than the person who just doesn’t meet it and is getting whacked even harder.    There is a real incentive to be a little bit above.   He doesn’t want all average employees in town, but we can’t expect everyone is going to smoke this thing with an exceptional on every line.    That’s just not reality.  Not every employee is going to be above average. 

Mr. Keyes asked if we are going to be given an opportunity every year to set the range on what the average person makes.  Mr. Hickey said yes.  Mr. Hickey said what we talked about during the  last budget process was that it was suggested we go through the same exercise that we went through during the past 6 months and provide documentation on what some of the other communities are doing so we have an idea of where they are and where they are going, and the Council can then make an informed decision on do they want to continue to compete with that level, do they want not to, where do they want to place themselves in the market. 

            Mr. Scanlon made a motion to accept this form as an attachment

            to the Personnel Policy to be used in the evaluation of all town

            employees in order to set their annual performance merit pay

            raise; motion seconded by Mr. Searing; 

Bob Young said it looks like that candidate is a disaster and he is getting 2%.  In industry, there is usually a step cutoff.  Terminating for cause is very difficult if you have given a raise.

            Vote on motion passed 5-2 with Mr. Danielson and  Mr. Van Anglen

            opposed.

Mr. Van Anglen said  his nay is due to not understanding the flexibility argument. 

PROCLAMATIONS FOR TENNIS PLAYERS

Mr. Greiner read proclamations for local tennis players.

Christiana Fitzgerald, a junior at Manchester High School West, is a tennis standout for the school; and

WHEREAS,              She had a singles season record of 13-0 and a doubles record of 12-0; and

WHEREAS,         She lost in the State Singles Finals and won the State Championship in doubles; and;

WHEREAS,         As State Champions in doubles, she and her partner, Kristen Franco, will play this week-end in the New England High School Doubles Tournament;

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council congratulates Christiana on her tennis accomplishments this past season, and wish she and Kristen the best of luck in tournament play this week-end:

WHEREAS,              Kristen Franco, a junior at Manchester High School West, is a tennis standout for the school; and

WHEREAS,              She had a singles season record of 11-2 and teaming up with Christiana Fitzgerald, had a doubles record of 12-0; and

WHEREAS,         She lost in the State Singles Quarter Finals and along with Christiana won the State Champion in doubles; and;

WHEREAS,         As State Champions in doubles, she and her partner, Christiana, will play this week-end in the New England High School Doubles Tournament;

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council congratulates Kristen on her tennis accomplishments this past season, and wish she and Kristen the best of luck in tournament play this week-end:

WHEREAS,              Liza Townsend, a junior at Derryfield School , is a tennis standout for the school; and

WHEREAS,              She had a singles season record of 14-1 and a doubles record of 11-1; and

WHEREAS,         She reached and lost in the  State Doubles Championship  semi finals in doubles with her partner Shenley Searing;  they lost to Christiana  Fitzgerald and Kristen Franco, who went on to win the State Doubles Championship.

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council congratulates Liza on her tennis accomplishments this past season, and wish her the best of luck in the future:

WHEREAS,              Shenley Searing, a freshman at Derryfield School , is a tennis standout for the school; and

WHEREAS,              She had a singles season record of 15-0 and a doubles record of 11-1; when teamed up with Liza Townsend; and

WHEREAS,         She reached the State Semi-Finals in Singles  and lost to Dani Phillis, who went on to win the State Singles Championship and;

WHEREAS,         She and Liza reached the State Semi-Finals in doubles and lost to Christiana Fitzgerald and Kristen Franco, who went on to win the State Doubles Championship; and

WHEREAS, Shenley was named the Player of the Year for Class S schools, and also was selected to the Class S All Star Team;

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council congratulate Shenley on her tennis accomplishments this past season, and wish her the best of luck in the future.

WHEREAS,              Richard Paradise, a junior at Manchester High School West, is a tennis standout for the school; and

WHEREAS,              He had a singles season record of 10-3 and a doubles record of 9-2; and

WHEREAS,         He lost in the State Singles Quarters Finals and won the State Championship in doubles; and;

WHEREAS,         He was named the Most Valuable Player for his team by the West High School coach;

THEREFORE  Be it resolved that we, the Bedford Town Council congratulate Richard on his tennis accomplishments this past season, and wish him the best of luck in the future.

Joint Meeting With Planning Board

Present were Planning Board members Paul Drahnak, Bob Young, Hal Newberry,  Karen White (Town Planner), Jon Levenstein, Deb Sklar and Lori Radke.

Mr. Scanlon suggested we bring in all boards and commissions to the Council.

Mr. Danielson said he appreciates everything the Planning Board does.  It is probably the toughest board in town.    He mentioned a year ago about the Route 93 corridor study, and the fact that construction process is going to come along.   Ms. Sklar asked him his suggestions, and the biggest thing he could think of was roads and the traffic.  It is becoming obvious that it will be traffic through as

opposed to traffic to the town.  His question is  have you thought about a road plan in town that’s going to facilitate the movement of traffic within town and through town, other than the obvious 101 and 114?   Mr. Drahnak said they  have spent time talking about the parallel service road concept on Rt. 3.  When the Board sees anything come in down there, that is in everyone’s mind on how to continue to move that long range plan forward.  The goal there is to keep as much traffic as possible off the main thoroughfare, and bringing people out to a signalized intersection. 

Mr. Danielson said  based on the projections from the regional side, the growth will be out in the Weare, Francestown, Goffstown area.  The traffic is going to be coming from that direction.   He guesses Wallace Road will start to get  more traffic as Goffstown and 114 starts to back up.  

Ms. White said the Office of State Planning is offering a series of growth strategies and some planning techniques, and they have  about $3 million with which to do it.  We are keeping up with those.   That funding is coming from the federal government in relationship to the I-93 growth pattern.    We did pay a consultant to work out some methodologies for a roads impact fee, so that as growth occurs and development occurs on town roads, we might be able to pick up some funds to help with the improvement of those roads.  Probably most of the growth at this point in Bedford is going to be in the northwest side of town, so  as soon as the Director of Public Works gets his road program and bids out for what he is working on  now, we will look at this and hopefully bring that to the Planning Board for adoption this fall or winter.

Ms. White said the 101 Study is extremely important.  They had the consultants factor in all of the growth models for excess traffic that would be coming from the widened 93 and heading west.  That is built into the design figures for the improvements that have been recommended in the 101 study for Bedford, Amherst, Milford and Wilton.   What we need now is funding.  The 4 towns have to present a unified front to the Dept. of Transportation.  There was a meeting to that end a few weeks ago, and Amherst, Milford and Wilton brought their State Senators, their legislators, their Selectmen, and Bedford had 1 person there, Mike Burns (Planning Board member).   Ms. White said we’ve got to work together and present a unified front, convince our legislators and the DOT that this is a priority project.   Only in the last 3 days there have been 3 six-hour pile ups on Route 101.  We have got to work together and push some of these things forward.   The DOT has announced their priority for money is going to be widening 93 .   We  have to convince them through a unified effort that we need some of the improvements on 101 in place by the time I-93 is widened.

Mr. Danielson said one of the things that is impacting DOT’s ability to get money is also the antecedent to ISTEA, the problem is if the funding isn’t for the northeast states, if we don’t get the funding, the bigger states are demanding they get more money.  We have to convince them, the Senators and Congressmen, that we should continue to get the funding levels that we have been getting in order for us to get the money.  If we don’t get that money, it is going to be difficult for us to get any kind of funding. 

Mr. Danielson asked what the Planning Board is thinking on brownfield, renewed development, particularly on Rt. 3 north of the interchange.   If commercial development were to go west of Rt. 3, have you thought how far that would go?  Ms. White said no.   Right now we are seeing one of the busiest commercial booms that we have seen in quite some time.    The office market is soft.  We are seeing lots of new retail, new industrial and warehousing, even as residential is kind of tapering off.    She said the Board hasn’t had much time to think about redevelopment.  Mr. Hickey said we have some things north of the interstate that is redevelopment.  We have had Caldor, and a potential Mexican restaurant which combines 4 small residential sites.  Mr. Drahnak thinks as we get closer to the construction of the new Kilton Road off ramp, we’ll be seeing activity in that corridor.   He suspects we will continue to see those small lots be combined and redeveloped into something larger.    Mr. Hickey said we may see more along that line on the southern part of Rt. 3 once the airport access road has been installed.  There are still a number of houses down there that you will potentially see lots consolidated and used in different ways. 

Mr. Scanlon said we are going to work on the Rt. 101 overlay district this summer.   He asked if we are moving forward to seeing that on this year’s ballot?  Ms. White said we are moving, but very slowly.   She thinks one of the things we need to deal with philosophically is whether that zone is just from Meetinghouse to Wallace or whether it encompasses from the Amherst town line to 114.  She has written some guiding principles, but we have not had the Planning Board meetings on it that we had hoped to have.    Mr. Drahnak said clearly that is probably the only topic for our summer workshop.   Mr. Scanlon said it is basically looking at the 101 Corridor Study and adopting a lot of the suggestions and recommendations in order to stop 20,000 sq. ft. or smaller buildings so we don’t see the big megastores and eliminating certain types of uses so you wouldn’t get car dealerships and things like that.  Mr. Newberry said to potentially eliminate that from the  Historic District Commission.    Mr. Hickey said we need  to try to bring the Historic District Commission in now in the infancy stage and get them on board, understand what the role of this new overlay district would be, and have them have some input so they would be willing to relinquish some of their historic district area.

Mr. Keyes was in a class a few weeks ago put on by the head designer for the state, and he was talking about some of the aspects of the airport access road, and he said he wanted to come in and talk to the town.  Have we set that up?  Mr. Hickey has talked to him and they are going to set that up.  Mr. Keyes said the one thing he said that surprised him was if he is coming  north on the turnpike, and he wants to get off at the airport access road, he is not going to be able to get off on South River Road.  There is going to be a fly over.    Ms. White received a call from Bob Barry yesterday asking how the state should convey some roadways in that area to the town as Class VI or private driveways, etc.    She told him she didn’t know what he was talking about.    He faxed her a map that she has never seen before.    Mr. Keyes said he was a little sheepish about it.  He said we need to come in and talk to the town about some things.  Ms. White said this map showed the whole design of the interchange was different.    She couldn’t see how one could get on and off to Rt. 3.  Mr. Keyes said one doesn’t.    Ms. White said it was her understanding that that was the condition that this Town Council placed on working with the DOT on locating it in Bedford in the first place.   Mr. Keyes said they don’t want to make that a toll road. It’s not going to be a  toll road until you get over to the airport, and they feel if someone wants to get into that lower section, they can get off in Merrimack and travel up.  Ms. White said that is not what this Council had  understood.    Mr. Keyes said we need to get on record with them on that.  He wants someone to send them a letter that when this whole thing is said and done, if we can somehow manage to salvage the use of the fields that exist now at Faith Christian, we would like to.  He said he had no idea if they are going to need that for drainage or slope easements, etc.   Mr. Drahnak said that is a major change.

Tom Riley said he and Councilor Stonner and Councilor Danielson were involved with this whole interchange, and it always was a full access.  The reason the Town worked so hard with the State was because it was always understood it was a full access, unrestricted on and off to Rt. 3 because that was a very important part to our economic condition.  If it is changed, he thinks we need to get in touch with Carol Murray immediately and say she needs new public hearings.  Mr. Keyes asked if we have that in writing.  Mr. Drahnak said there has to be a written record of it somewhere.  Richard Stonner said it’s on record.  It involved mitigation of the wetlands and everything always centered on a full interchange at Rt. 3.  Mr. Stonner said all of the public hearings had a surface interchange.   Mr. Riley said when they came to the Town Council to get support, and the reason we supported it was exactly for that reason.  We saw the

economic impact down the road.  Ms. White said that’s why we rewrote the Rt. 3 Performance Zone and raised the building heights and setbacks.  Mr. Danielson has a meeting with Southern NH Planning Commission tomorrow morning, and he will report back right after that.  Mr. Riley said that’s very important for the retailers or anyone else who wants to go to that corridor.  With a fly over, they won’t be interested.  Mr. Stonner said that’s the economic base for Bedford for the next 20 to 30 years.

Mr. Egan complimented the Planning Board, but more so to the people at home.  He has moved around a great deal, and rarely is it that you go into a community where the Planning Board doesn’t come under some criticism at one point or another.   He joined the Planning Board as a resident alternate, and is now the Council’s alternate.  Every bit of exchange between Ms. White and her staff has been most professional.  He is incredibly impressed by the work they produce biweekly.   He thinks Paul (chairman) runs a mean meeting, and he thinks for the folks at home, if you don’t watch a Planning Board issue from conceptual to final approval and do it 3 and 4 times running, if you don’t come to the Planning Office and ask your questions about that which you do not understand, you are doing yourself a disservice.  These people serve the needs of Bedford very well, and he found it a pleasure to work with them.

Mr. Greiner asked if there are any warrant items the Board is looking at this year.  Mr. Drahnak said a modified performance zone on the 101corridor.  There are the usual housekeeping items.  Ms. White said a roads impact fee.   Mr. Greiner asked if they need anything from the Council with respect to the overlay.  Ms. White said philosophically there could be some ramifications as to tax revenue depending on what the final composition of it is.  Right now we are trying to focus on smaller buildings but multiple buildings on a lot to keep a village feel while still trying to keep the tax base stable.  She thinks once we get to a point where we like the way it looks, we are going to have to crunch some numbers and figure out the impact.  Mr. Drahnak thinks sometime this fall we will need to make some kind of presentation and get Council input on it.

Mr. Greiner said his understanding is we have changed the housing restriction.  We have a 62 and older housing.  There are a lot of folks who are getting to the point where they don’t need the home they’ve got and are maybe a little younger than that.  62 and older has a stipulation that both folks have to be 62.  Real

estate seems to be fairly strong right now on the residential side.   What people are seeing now is some folks want to cash out on their homes because prices have reached a fairly high level.  They don’t need the home any more;  the kids have moved on.  So it becomes an offering that is complementary to keeping a segment of the population here, but what are they going to go into?  If there is nothing here, maybe we lose them.  He suggested looking at something that would be an offering for 55 and over, so we could fill that need.  Ms. White said the amendments that the Planning Board made last year clearly state that 55 and older is allowed in the residential-agricultural district, either as a condominium or a cluster or single family home.  2 years ago the Board had made some amendments that allow attached four-plexes for 55 and older in the residential-

Agricultural zone.  We just haven’t had anyone take advantage of it.

Mr. Greiner asked in her opinion how likely is it that we will see something like that in the next 5 years.  Mr. Drahnak said at $175,000 to $200,000 per building lot probably very unlikely.   He thinks the land is too valuable.  Mr. Greiner said if you extended it out of that district and put something in the Performance Zone is there any likelihood of it there?  Mr. Drahnak thinks the phenomenon we were trying to address with the amendment in the Performance Zone is what we were seeing in the Performance Zone were multi-family, condominium and apartment complexes that were thinly disguised as elderly housing to take advantage of a

significantly higher density.  Mr. Hickey said one of the other things we wanted to address was putting housing like that in the PZ zone with the highest and best use for the land that is left.   That was one of the considerations we discussed.  Mr. Greiner was looking at it from a tax revenue aspect.  Ms. White said one of the high generating properties is the Alzheimer’s facility.  We designed the ordinances to try and encourage more of that type use.  What we are trying to discourage is high density apartment and condo complexes that would push our projected buildout population over the top.   Mr. Greiner asked how do we address the issue of folks who have one spouse who is 55 to 65, and the other spouse is not.  Can we do anything to keep them here?  Mr. Drahnak said if you set aside the issue of specific elderly housing, there is the Village Green with 155 units, Ridgewood with 174 units, River Glen with 134, Rose Hill with 104, and Windstone with 86.  Those are all housing options that while they are not specifically designed and marketed towards empty nesters or elderly people, they are certainly set up and very favorable to be used as that type of housing.  Then you add in the apartment complexes.   If you look at it in the larger picture of the town, there are a number of housing opportunities for people who might not want to stay in a 4-bedroom colonial. What we are trying to encourage are the facilities that provide some level of service to older residents.

Mr. Danielson asked if that is market driven.  He has heard of a trend that is to try to bring family members back home as opposed to going to those facilities.  The government is looking at how do they compensate families who will be offloading some of the expenses of a nursing home and taking care of their parents at home.  Mr. Drahnak said we are not specifically promoting nursing homes.  What we are looking at is we want a continuum of housing opportunities.

Mr. Danielson said we talked about trying to put more of the over 55 housing on Rt. 3 in the PZ Zone.  Ms. White said over 62 with services.  Mr. Drahnak said the changes to the ordinance are designed to strongly encourage the service component of that housing.   Mr. Danielson said we are going to have to consider emergency services in that area.  Mr. Hickey said that is going to have to be a consideration.  One of the things we could look at is the feasibility of them having to provide their own ambulance transportation, especially the non-emergency type calls like if an elderly person falls and can’t get up.  Occasionally with some of the facilities in town we get calls for service to help a person get up, something

that really doesn’t need  any skills that a paramedic may have, but more or less people who have the ability to do it.

Mr. Drahnak said when you look out and do some long-range planning, what do you see that we need to be aware of?  Mr. Van Anglen said what he has been more and more concerned about is what he sees in other communities when they hit buildout and start tearing down homes to rebuild bigger and better homes.  He doesn’t have a comfort level in whether our ordinances are in line to regulate that.  He asked the Planning Board to take a look at that.  Mr. Drahnak said if you drive through the Pines , you’re actually starting to see it.

Mr.  Greiner said there is a lot of stuff coming down the pike in terms of school issues and town issues, and it is important that we get that revenue continuing to flow as it has for years.  Mr. Drahnak said to the extent that we have had to discourage bad development, it is amazing that a lot of it is location, location, location.  We always tend to see something shortly thereafter if we have discouraged something, and it’s usually bigger and better and that usually translates into more tax dollars.

Ms. Sklar said we have had a couple of instances recently where on somewhat prime pieces of land maybe it hasn’t been the highest and best use for the property, and she has wondered if the Planning Board can do anything about it.  Is there anything the Council can do to encourage a certain type of business and development in the PZ Zone.  Mr. Danielson said the Economic Development committee had always felt that when the region started to do something, we would step down and become part of whatever effort the region was doing.  When economic times are very good, economic development just gets forgotten.

Ms. White said one of the things she thinks would help would be some architectural review standards.  She has put together a first draft.   The board has been reviewing architecture in the Rt. 3 corridor, but there was never really a set of guidelines.   By encouraging high quality of materials along Rt. 3 frontages and along 101, it tends to encourage more industrial types of uses to seek out the side streets.  It tends to keep your high signature buildings along Rt. 3 and direct the industrial uses towards the side streets.   Mr. Drahnak said another reason why it is important that we look at that now is certainly in the boom we are experiencing, what we are seeing is large national companies, and they tend to do very generic anytown USA buildings.  We are trying very hard to discourage that.

Mr. Van Anglen asked about the architectural review standards.  Who would review a plan to see if they met those – the Planning Board or the planning office?  Mr. Drahnak said the first line of defense is going to be the planning stff when they look at the plans.  Mr. Van Anglen asked if they would be able to say someone doesn’t meet the standards so they can’t go to the Planning Board?  Ms. White said no.  Disputed items still come to the Planning Board.

Mr. Danielson asked what is the ratio of commercial to residential.  Mr. Hickey doesn’t know but certainly the commercial is gaining on the percentage of residential.

Mr. Greiner asked the board to be cognizant of the need for revenue.  Mr. Danielson said as you look at the senior citizens and are talking about service, you might want to look at mixed use for services those folks need.  Small shops, mini villages, etc.  Mr. Drahnak said there is some flexibility in the ordinance to allow those things.

Mr. Scanlon said the dog fouling prohibition ordinance was posted for 8 o’clock, and he thinks we should take that next.

PUBLIC HEARING

To discuss the adoption of a dog fouling prohibition ordinance

            Mr. Scanlon made a motion to open the public hearing

            on the dog fouling prohibition ordinance; motion seconded

            by Mr. Van Anglen; vote on motion passed 7-0.

Mr. Scanlon commented on Mr. Hickey’s memo, he still has a problem with (B) under enforcement.   If this happens in the presence of a police officer, he certainly has the right to enforce it.    It just doesn’t seem that should be the only way we can enforce this ordinance.    If someone were to film it, there are certainly credible ways to document that someone is doing something like that.  He asked to remove (B) and leave it at the discretion of the Police Chief and prosecutor. 

Mr. Searing said in the discussion at the last meeting, we discussed the possibility of Mr. Hickey approaching the accused in some letter format to try to prevent us from having to get too ridiculous here.  The reason we couldn’t go down that road was because no one is willing to give names.    If that is the case, he is a little bit concerned.  That to him seems the more reasonable approach to trying to resolve this one complaint issue.  He has not heard of any other issues that have been brought before us.  He is concerned that we can’t pursue that in some quiet manner as opposed to passing an ordinance.

            Mr. Danielson made a motion to close the public hearing;

            Motion seconded by Mr. Searing; vote on motion passed 7-0.

            Mr. Scanlon made a motion to adopt the dog fouling

            prohibition ordinance as presented in front of us with

            the exception of removal of section (B) and relabeling

            section (C) and (D) accordingly;  motion seconded by

            Mr. Egan;

Mr.  Van Anglen understands why you want to take the enforcement out.   You also said something about at the discretion of the prosecutor and Police Chief.  Mr. Scanlon said we would always have the discretion whether or not  to prosecute.   Mr. Keyes asked if he feels we should replace (B) with something else.    Mr. Scanlon thinks we can take it out.   If someone brings forward credible evidence that the Police Chief and prosecutor feel is enough to bring charges, then let it go.   Mr. Hickey said after the meeting last week, and there was a concern with the rigidness of the enforcement, he was asked to go back and see what  flexibility we had and bring some other type of evidence forward as a video tape, or something along those lines that would be credible in a court.    He asked the prosecutor why the proposal she put together for us was so restrictive as far as enforcement.    If a person brings in a video, the officer has to see  the offense because he is acting on behalf of the state.  If they brought a video forward, the officer would have to go to court and ask the judge for a warrant because he did not see it.  Mr. Scanlon said if it happens in front of the officer,he does not need it in the ordinance to enforce it.

Mr. Danielson said he will vote against it because he thinks it is a neighbor issue, and he thinks it is unenforceable.    Mr. Van Anglen asked if this came out of 1 situation.    Mr. Scanlon said 1 person approached him, and it is an ongoing problem they have had with this neighbor for several years.   

Mr. Egan said with the ordinance the way it is written, at some point are people going to have to name names ?  Mr. Hickey said if an officer gets a phone call that a neighbor’s dog is fouling on your property, they are going to have to tell who the person is.    Mr. Egan said if they bring forward a video tape, the officer is not going to take any action until they tell him who the individual is. 

Mr. Searing said he will vote against it because we are passing an ordinance over one complaint that one Councilor heard.  He thinks we should try to go down the road of a more civil or neighborly way of resolving the issue as opposed to having to pass an ordinance that is going to require the presence of a law enforcement officer to enforce it.

Mr.  Egan said going forward with this neighbor to neighbor approach,  is there some point at which a formal complaint could be registered with the Town Manager, and he sends a letter.   Mr. Hickey would like to think if somebody had an ongoing problem, they could get some assistance from either himself or the Police Dept. just to stop by and say we have had complaints.

            Mr. Egan withdrew his second.  Mr. Danielson moved the question.

Ryk Bullock, Meetinghouse Road, asked if it would not be a health issue which is already addressed under the zoning and addressed by the Health Officer?  Within the zoning ordinance we have a prohibition against smell, odor and certainly excrement comes under that.  It would seem to him it is already covered.

            Motion seconded by Mr. Keyes; vote on motion failed

            2-5 with Mr. Keyes and Mr. Scanlon voting yes.

            Discussion of proposed conflict of interest ordinance

Mr. Greiner said this is for discussion only, no action.  It will be on the July 16 meeting for a public hearing and possible adoption.    He said he brought this forward after consultation with several people.  He is looking at something in line with what is expected of Planning Board members and Zoning Board members.  It is not just for the Council, but for all boards and commissions.  He said the Council represents the voters, and we have to hold ourselves to the highest of standards on all that we do, and the board and commission members take a lead from us as hopefully do the residents. 

Mr. Keyes said regarding the proposal from the Town Attorney, he talks about the disposition, use or management of property of the town when that official employee owns property abutting that property.  Mr. Keyes feels we need to figure out a way to put in an exception for roads because we all abut roads.    The other thing he would like to see is he believes this should extend to the immediate family, maybe limit it to the spouse.  He wants to make it clear that if you are an abutter and you decide to recuse or step down that you still can sit in the audience and comment as a citizen.  Mr. Danielson doesn’t think anything should ever restrict a resident’s right to speak.

Mr. Van Anglen said there needs to be an effective date.  He feels it should be a number of months out.    He feels if we do open up the Charter, we should put this on for a vote by the Town on whether it’s a Charter issue or an ordinance.    He believes it should be a Charter issue.    Mr. Egan believes in the case of an elected representative, recusal should be a last resort, not a first resort.  There is no legal requirement for him to recuse, and he has a clear conscience on this matter.   He has sought legal advice and has gleaned a bunch of talking points from discussion with him.  He said Planning Board members and Zoning Board members come under both judicial and legislative constraints.  This is an administrative matter.    He believes this is not a wise thing to legislate, particularly where it has all started with 1 individual versus a rash of actions. 

Mr.  Scanlon said he is very much opposed to this ordinance.  He thinks it is a single issue.  He has a problem with the term abutter.  What about a person who  is 100 feet away from the property?   The Town Attorney said “if your benefit or gain is no greater than that of anybody else in the community” , then  you don’t need to recuse yourself.   The members of our boards are intelligent individuals.  He thinks they can make intelligent decisions, and he thinks they have made good decisions in the past.  They have stepped down when they felt it was appropriate.    Simply being an abutter to a property should not necessarily stop someone.   He thinks our elected officials have to take stands, and if your benefit is no greater than that of the general public, then he doesn’t believe we should pass an ordinance that requires you to step down on these issues.

Mr.  Danielson does not agree with Town Counsel.   He feels 172 and 173 out of the Town Charter is very specific.  He doesn’t think it needs a tremendous amount of interpretation.   He takes issue with the suggestion on the June 2 memo from the Town Counsel when he speaks about abutters.  It’s not just about being an abutter.  Abutter is only one interest, financial interest that you could have.    He has a liberal interpretation that if you do (personal interpretation) sit on a board of any organization that could benefit financially from a decision that the Council would make where the Town would be contributing to that organization in any form or manner,  that it is a conflict of interest.     The other thing that troubles him is he thinks it is so straight forward that it is a matter of principle when a person looks at that ordinance and makes a determination whether or not they want to participate in the decision as an elected or appointed representative.    It is better, in his opinion,  to err on a conservative note than it is to go forward and say well maybe someone will question me later on.    You do not lose your ability as a resident to speak, you just lose your ability to vote.

Mr. Greiner said to him it is clear,whether it is a Councilor, a Parks & Rec member, or whoever it might be,  if an issue comes up when someone is an abutter that requires recusal.   He agrees with Mr. Danielson on everything he said in terms of the Charter.   This Council decided that we were not going to put abutters on the Town Common Committee because despite what the abutters may or may not be representing, there was always the possibility that they would be representing their interests.   One of the criteria we supported when we looked at Parks & Rec members was affiliations.   To be consistent, what he is looking for here is no different. 

Mr. Van Anglen said let’s take a step back.   It’s 5 years from now.   Some of us are here and some aren’t.   The wording of this ordinance is going to need to be interpreted then too, so we really need to think about that too.    He thinks we need some clarification on what we are trying to do here.  Is it that it is just abutters or should it include some other issues?  The Charter talks about financial concerns.    There is a legal opinion that says in this particular case there is a right of an elected official to do that.    He wants to spend some time on this to really think through what we are doing and the effect is has. 

Mr. Egan asked for clarification.  We asked the Town Attorney for an opinion on this.   He understands we asked him to prepare an ordinance.   At what time did we ask him about the advisability of doing this?   Mr. Greiner said he asked him to look at giving us a possible ordinance to put into place from the  Council.   Mr. Egan said that’s different from asking a lawyer who is our legal counsel to give an opinion on whether we should do it or not.     Mr. Egan said the reason he asks that is because Bill Drescher and Bart Mayer happen to be co-lecturers, and he is getting confused.   Mr. Danielson is objecting to what Town Counsel said.  Mr. Greiner said he does too.  Mr. Egan said we have all widely discounted what the NH Municipal Association says.   We evidently now have very little interest in what a leading legal scholar has to say on this matter.   When he hears Mr. Greiner and Mr. Danielson voice their objections, never does he hear mentioned the principle of an elected official representing the people that put him in office.  All he hears about are Parks & Recreation members, the Town Common Committee.  He is an elected representative of the people of this town.  That is what he is standing on.  Mr. Searing said he still does not know where he stands on this ordinance.    He is still trying to think it through, but the comment Mr. Egan made as an elected official, and you get elected to the Council for 3 years, and over the course of that 3 years there are going to be probably several hundred things that we vote on.  If there are 2 or 3 things or 4 or 5 over the course of that 3-year period where you end up being an abutter on a decision, if you have had to recuse yourself 3 or 4 or 5 times out of 100 or 200, you have still served the people substantially.

Tracy Tullis, 10  Holbrook Road, is totally against this ordinance.  You can put just so many rules, and after a while you are painting yourselves into a corner.    Unless an abutter is going to have a financial gain, she can’t see why any elected official can’t speak out about how they feel about certain issues.   She thinks this is getting too narrow – too many rules –nitpicking.

Paul Drahnak, 6 Rumford Lane, said from the standpoint of the Planning Board,  looking at where we are on the Planning Board, he is generally in favor of the concept.   The reason he is in favor is what is becoming an increasing trend we are seeing on the Planning Board is if we make a decision that somebody doesn’t like, they go out, form a group, and file a suit. 

What they do in that suit is they find every possible thing in our deliberations, in our decision to cast any kind of doubt on the decision, and he views an ordinance such as this as a way to basically close off one of those avenues to nitpick at us.

Bob Young, North Amherst Road, Planning Board member, understands where the board is going, but he doesn’t understand Mr. Danielson’s comments.  If we are going do talk about the ordinance, maybe we ought to broaden the ordinance to make sure.  What if a certain group in town funds a Councilor’s election?  Does he step down every time that group comes in front?  If we are  going to do it, then look at it as an ethics ordinance, put it in place, and have everyone sign it.    Mr. Van Anglen said he did not refer to this as an ethics ordinance.

Mr. Danielson said he is very dismayed by the fact that we have to have this discussion.  He believes the Charter is very specific in what it wants and what it intends.  He is not too keen on an ethics ordinance.    Mr. Young said he reads it differently, Mr. Danielson has taken his position, but that does not mean your position is right. 

Mr. Scanlon said the reason that you’re stipulating an abutter is because you would say that a person who abuts a piece of property that the Town owns that we make decisions on………  Mr. Greiner said not that the Town owns, but that’s in front of the board.   Mr. Scanlon said he would argue that you as an abutter, your financial gain was no greater than that of Mr. Danielson or Mr. Searing.  Mr. Greiner and  Mr. Searing said that’s not true.    Mr. Scanlon believes if he lives in a neighborhood say 100 yards away from this property, although I am not a direct abutter,  I probably have as much to gain as far as the person living right next to it  if I just want to go out and enjoy that property.    He believes everyone’s gain is equal.   He thinks that is what the Town Attorney alluded to. 

Deb Sklar, 44 Brick Mill Road, Planning Board member, 44 Brick Mill Road,  thinks this is a really important issue.  She doesn’t believe it is a single issue situation.   This has been an issue that has been ongoing in Town for a while.  The town has been struggling with it.   Everyone in town has an interest in what is going on in town, but nobody has a more direct and more primary

interest than an abutter.  She disagrees with where Mr. Egan has come out.  She thinks this isn’t about playing fields, and it isn’t about Joppa Hill, she thinks this is about the political system and the process.  She feels Mr. Egan should step down for the sake of the process. 

Mr. Egan said he has publicly stated if and when it is shown that he stands to benefit financially, he would recuse himself.    He doesn’t believe that is the case in this instance.    This has nothing to do with fields.   It has to do with representing people who elected him.  He has heard from hundreds of people who wish for him to stand his ground.  A municipality deals with 3 principle issues – judicial, legislative and administrative.    What he failed to recuse himself from was the master plan, which is a planning document, on Joppa Hill Farm.   That was it.  It is a pure and simple administrative document.   

Mary Hoyt, 13 Holbrook Road,  asked how does the Council feel about this ordinance if someone is serving on Conservation and on Parks & Rec.  Do you view that as a conflict of interest when voting as to what is going to happen with the master plan?   Mr. Greiner said we have different people on different boards and commissions.   Mr. Keyes does not think that would be a conflict.  Mr. Scanlon said  a member of this Council  sits on the Conservation Commission.  Conservation Commission puts forward a plan or a proposal that they feel is the best way to utilize Joppa Hill Farm.   Is it not a conflict for them to sit at the Council table and make an unbiased decision if they voted already for a plan?  Mr. Greiner said no because they are here to represent.    Mr. Scanlon sees an abutter as not just a person that physically abuts.  He thinks a person that lives in very close proximity could have the same argument as an abutter. 

Mr. Van Anglen said this form of government has worked since 1988.  He said when we sit on the Conservation Commission, our job is to be the liaison.    He thinks this needs to be tightened or broadened.    Mr. Keyes said we could extend this to a ridiculous point where we couldn’t vote on anything because at some point down the road we all benefit or are penalized by the decisions we make here. 

Mr. Danielson said he would not support this ordinance if it stays with the suggestion that our attorney gave us because he speaks about abutters.  Mr. Danielson thinks conflict of interest goes way above that.   Mr. Danielson said when we are elected we represent everyone, whether they voted for us or not.

Tom Riley said this is not a one time issue.  This has been happening for many years.  He sits on the State and National Professional Standards Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Board for real estate.  He hears many cases around the state and across the country.    This is not going to be a 3-page document.  It is going to take a lot of time.  He suggested  a charter revision. 

Mr. Van Anglen said what Mr. Riley is proposing is way broader than he can imagine.    He thinks some things need to be tightened. 

Ryk Bullock agrees with Mr. Danielson.   For a lot of years we self policed ourselves.    He feels there should be an ordinance.   It was just a couple of weeks ago that this Council, on a 5-2 vote said abutters could not serve on the Town Common Committee.   The reason the abutters were given was the fact that there could conceivably be a vested interest if you approve this it could help your property values.   He thinks we should go 2 steps further.   Is it being suggested that we  have a double standard where the poor peons that serve on committees or would like to serve on committees can’t serve on committees because of that abutter word.   You already took a position 2 weeks ago.  Are you rethinking your position?  Or are you saying there is a double standard in this Town?  

      Mr. Searing moved the question.  Mr. Greiner said there is no question.

Mr. Hickey said this is scheduled for a public hearing.  Is that still happening?  Mr. Greiner would like to see it happen.    Mr. Egan said on the Town Attorney’s proposed amendment,  that stands as it is, but then he additionally provided Title 3 in which he highlighted that “any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers.”   Mr. Egan said there is no statement to that effect in his ordinance.   Mr. Hickey said in that ordinance the sentence that he highlighted needs to be in some  manner included in that ordinance.    There has to be a time frame to allow anybody who may be involved in what would be a conflict of interest after you pass an ordinance.  He said the Council needs to come to a conclusion on whether they are going to adopt this ordinance and how long you are going to allow a person to remove himself from that conflict. 

Mr. Keyes asked if you could add the language he requested to exclude roads and immediate family.   Mr. Van Anglen asked to define abutter.  Mr. Danielson said if you are going down the abutter path, he is going to be

against it because abutter is way too narrow for conflict of interest.   It’s not addressing  the heart of the issue.   Mr. Hickey will try to rework this with the attorney.    He said his understanding was that you’ve got an interpretation of the Charter, which some may or may not agree with, that states that the person who does not have an immediate financial interest does not have a conflict.   His impression of where the Council was trying to get to was there’s the legal impression or interpretation of the conflict, and there’s the perceived conflict.   He thinks what some of the Council was trying to do was to address more of the perceived conflict because a legal conflict is defined now, and it’s pretty straightforward.  The concern he thought some of the Council had was

you were trying to get to a point if you could where you were trying to maybe have a rule or ordinance or portion of the Charter that would address something more rigidly than law.   So the Council and other boards and commissions would adhere to a code that’s more stringent than just legal. 

Mr. Danielson said it may be what he may be looking for is impossible because it’s going to call for someone’s sense of principle to make a decision.

 You can’t legislate it.   Mr. Hickey will try to put something together, but everyone seems to have a different opinion.  How do we put that on paper so the majority of the Council is comfortable with it? 

Discussion of taping all board and commission meetings – postponed until next meeting due to late hour.

Altering meeting nights for certain boards and commissions – postponed until next meeting due to late hour.

Mr. Greiner said we do  need to discuss the refunding of the bonds.  Mr. Hickey said there is an agenda item next week to make a recommendation on refunding the Library and the Safety Complex.

TOWN MANAGER’S REPORT

Mr. Hickey said it is the season to start working on the budget.  He would like to talk philosophy with the Council on what their expectations are for 2004, within the next 2-4 weeks.  Budgets