NOTES OF JANUARY 30, 2016 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION
Part Three
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present on the stage (left to right as viewed from the audience): Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, Town Counsel Michael Donovan, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Craig Musselman, Selectman Joe Mills, Finance Director and Assistant Town Administrator Cyndi Gillespie, and Town Administrator Michael Magnant. Present at the podium: Bob Eaton, Town Moderator.
Additional persons present from the Town included: Police Chief Kevin Walsh, Interim Fire Chief Tom Lambert, Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy, Recreation Director Lee Arthur. Planning Administrator Kim Reed.
Election workers present: Donna Decotis, Deputy Town Clerk, Andrea Morrissey, Assistant Town Clerk, Kendra Gemmett.
Editor’s
note: The elapsed times are relative to
start of each video segment. Segments
consist of one or more warrant articles.
To access the video for a particular warrant article, click on the
heading for the warrant article. The
video will be positioned to the beginning of the segment. You may then use the slider to position the
video to the appropriate elapsed time.
The video is available at http://vimeo.com/153926608/
Summary
Warrant Article
Links
Article 17: Contractor permits for use of Town Dump
Article 18: Septic pump out regulation adoption
Article 19: No parking at certain driveways and crosswalks
Article 20: See Part Two
Article 21: Parking kiosks to be presented on 2017 warrant
Article 22: Restrict Town Hall options to those saving the building
Article 23: Limit Town Hall space need
Article 24: Town Meeting approval of real estate transactions
Article 25: Transfer Station electioneering zone
Article 26: Authorize Selectmen to sell surplus equipment
Article
24: Town Meeting approval for real
estate transactions (0:00 elapsed)
Jaci Grote moved to take Article 24 out of order. Dr. Josephs seconded. Ms. Grote stated that she had a time constraint. Scott Marion moved to call the question on the motion to move the article forward. Jane Ireland seconded. The motion to end debate passed. The motion to move Article 24 forward passed.
Moderator Eaton read the article.
Peter Crawford spoke to Article 24. He stated that:
“This warrant article has been placed on the warrant by virtue of a petition signed by me and 35 other Rye voters. Like many Rye residents, I was surprised, when picking up the December 2015 copy of the Town of Rye Newsletter, to see that the Board of Selectmen would be proposing to sell the Parsonage Apartments, located adjacent to the Library across from the Museum. I knew from attending meetings of the Board of Selectmen that the proposal was to sell those apartments to the Housing Partnership for one dollar, although that fact is not mentioned in the Newsletter.”
“By way of background, in 1999, the Town entered into an agreement with the Housing Partnership to lease the apartment building to them. We currently get about $10,000 annually. The Housing Partnership then subleases it to individual tenants.”
“The Newsletter asserts that ‘[w]hile the Board of Selectmen has the power to buy and sell property, traditionally, Rye selectmen have opted to obtain voter approval for such transactions.’ It seemed incredible to me that the Selectmen could have such authority, when every year, we have to vote to renew their authority to sell surplus equipment, typically old police cars and worn out dump trucks that are only worth a few dollars.”
“As it turns out, I and some other residents objected to the sale for a dollar at a meeting of the Board of Selectmen and the proposed warrant article was hastily pulled. But, this left a lingering concern that, given the statement in the Newsletter, the Selectmen might wait until the heat died down and then exercise their asserted authority.”
“After researching the matter further, it turns out that the Selectmen’s authority is not quite as plenary as the Newsletter had suggested. There are some other steps and ways to block a proposed transaction. But, I confirmed that, in 2002, just three years after the Town voted not to sell the Parsonage Apartments, Article 12 passed, which gives the Selectmen the authority to bypass the Town Meeting to buy or sell real estate. This warrant article would rescind that authority.”
“As the proposed sale for one dollar of a building on valuable real estate in the center of town indicates, the Selectmen do not always behave rationally. I suggest that, based on the debate about the $460,000 acquisition of the 541 Washington Rd. parcel, that’s perhaps another example, and I would note also that the Rand Lumber parcel, which the Selectmen approved acquiring for $1.25 million, had been bought just 19 months before for $1.15 million, and when it was bought for $1.15 million, that included the land on which the twenty unit Retirement Community Development was placed, and those twenty units are worth an average of about $600,000 each.”
“The authority granted in 2002 has outlived its usefulness. We now have a fund established for Conservation acquisitions so that these can proceed quickly. The first such large fund was established in 2003, the year after this authority was voted, and another one was voted in 2014.”
“If a quick decision on a property sale is required, the Selectmen could call a special Town Meeting. Property acquisition approvals between the regular town meetings cannot typically occur in any event since, being unanticipated, there has by definition been no money appropriated. Because only Town Meeting can appropriate money, only by obtaining a court order to allow a special town meeting to be called could an unanticipated acquisition, in general, proceed. That is true whether or not this warrant article passes. But, this would have a real effect on sales of property.”
“In addition to requiring Town Meeting approval, this warrant article requires an appraisal, commissioned by the Town, when either the assessed value or the consideration exceeds $200,000. A survey plan is also required, unless one has already been recorded. These are needed so that the voters can conduct their own evaluations of the advisability of entering into the proposed transaction and make an informed decision at the polls, and so that it is clear what land is being bought or sold.”
“These provisions would apply to other Boards and Commissions in Town, except that Town meeting approval would not be required when State law specifically permits property acquisitions without further Town Meeting approval. This would be the case with conservation acquisitions, which are made from a fund, with money set aside by prior voter action.”
“It is time for the decisions on real estate acquisitions to be brought back under the control of the voters, by right and not by the grace of the Selectmen. In our collective wisdom, we are highly capable of arriving at correct decisions. In the secret confines of the voting booth, we are subject to neither corruption, intimidation, nor undue influence.”
(8:56 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the proposed amendment which would alter the third sentence to read “Any contemplated purchase, sale or gift by the Town where the assessed value or the consideration exceeds $200,000 will require an appraisal by a State-licensed appraiser commissioned by the Town.” It strikes the word “transaction” and replaces it with the words “purchase, sale or gift by the Town.” Mr. Chichester seconded the motion.
Mr. Crawford stated that it had been pointed out to him that it did not make sense to require an appraisal when a gift was being made to the Town and it would make sense to require an appraisal if there were a lease involved. This removes that requirement if it is a lease or a gift to the Town. A gift by the Town would still require an appraisal.
(11:25 elapsed)
Joe Cummins asked someone on the stage to respond to the question of whether the Town could make a gift to a private party.
Selectman Musselman stated that he is confounded by the warrant article. “I’ve never had the thought that we could transfer the Parsonage without Town Meeting approval. It is inconceivable to me that we would ever buy, sell or anything that would require an unanticipated $200,000 expenditure without Town Meeting approval.” He stated that they are obligated to do that, and all of them would want to do that even if it wasn’t required. He has no idea where this is coming from, but that is not on the amendment, that is on the motion. This is wrong-headed on both fronts. He stated that he does not care about the amendment.
Hearing no further discussion on the amendment, Moderator Eaton called for a vote. The motion to amend failed.
(13:43 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that with respect to conservation acquisitions, what we have been doing is appropriating money so that action could be taken when land becomes available. We all recall that we couldn’t act when the Rand property was auctioned off and we wound up paying the amount of money that was paid for the land and buying back land, he said. Rye has led the State in the transparency of the decisions that need to be made between Town meetings. He referred to the “a to r” process which requires publicly available information and a public hearing before a Selectmen’s vote can be held. The contention that we can simply hold a special Town Meeting is not true. We would need to petition the court and meet legal criteria for why this is an emergency. We have debated that in the past and more often than not have decided that the case could not have been made to the court. That has been considered a couple of times in the last couple of years. The need for conservation acquisitions to go to Town Meeting would preclude us from acting quickly. He stated that he would let the Conservation Commissioners address that.
Editor’s note: Both of these issues had been addressed by
Mr. Crawford in his statement, transcribed above. He specifically referred to a special Town
Meeting in connection with sales, and acknowledged that the need for a special Town Meeting would
prevent acquisitions from proceeding without voter approval. He also specifically stated that this warrant
article would not apply to conservation acquisitions from a fund that has been
specifically set aside. See RSA 31:5, I
which provides that no money may be appropriated at a special town meeting
unless at least half of the registered voters cast ballots. Alternatively, the selectmen may petition the
superior court for permission to hold a special town meeting, but an emergency
must be demonstrated. Since the turnout
at Rye elections is invariably less than 50 percent, as a practical matter,
petition to the superior court is the only option. However, if no appropriation is to be voted,
which would generally be the case with a sale, there is no bar to a special town
meeting to approve a sale of real estate.
(15:50 elapsed)
Jaci Grote stated that she had discussed this with Mr. Crawford. The second section of the last sentence reads “except that Town Meeting approval shall not be required where State law specifically permits acquisitions without approval.” She understands this sentence to mean that the Rye Conservation Commission does not need to follow this, however just to be sure, as they already have “a through r” that they are very diligently completing, she would like to amend the last sentence to read “except that the Town Meeting approval shall not be required where State law specifically permits acquisition without such approval, such as land purchased by the Rye Conservation Commission where RSA 36-A:5 overrides.”
Moderator Eaton read the amendment. Ms. Bradshaw seconded the motion.
Selectman
Musselman stated that they are concerned that the Conservation Commission also
accepts easements. Also, the Heritage
Commission has the authority to acquire certain assets. We are, on the fly, trying carve out
something with legal language that is not yet prepared and leave us with a
warrant article that only affects the Selectmen and doesn’t change anything
that they would have to do anyway. Editor’s note: That is incorrect. Article 12 of the 2002 Town Meeting adopted
RSA 41:14-a which specifically gave the Selectmen “the authority to acquire or
sell land, buildings, or both…” with
certain procedural requirements and a way to override or delay such a decision
until after a special Town Meeting called upon the petition of 50 registered
voters had acted on the matter.
Town Counsel Donovan stated that he had already given the Selectmen his opinion. Should this article pass without Ms. Grote’s amendment, it would not apply to either the Conservation Commission or the Heritage Commission and Mr. Crawford has admitted that with respect to at least the Conservation Commission and, if he thought about it would admit it doesn’t apply to the Heritage Commission either. That is all you need, without complicating it with an amendment that might be considered too narrow.
Ms. Grote withdrew her amendment. Ms. Bradshaw concurred.
(21:13 elapsed)
Shawn Crapo, 676 Central Rd., proposed an amendment to remove the word “purchase” from the second line, first sentence. While sale, gift or lease of already-owned town land has the time sensitive ability to go through the Town Meeting approval process, there is not always the availability of time when there is an acquisition. There may be probate or other matters at hand. As the petitioner and the Selectmen have pointed out, part of the problem with the Rand purchase was that the Town’s hands were tied and they were not able to do anything in a timely fashion. It went to auction and then we had to pay more towards market value for the remaining rights. If you tie their hands on purchases by putting in a process you may lose the ability to purchase a key piece of land, he said.
As some of the petitioners might forget, Mr. Crapo said, “that’s why we have elections and that’s why we elect these people to make these decisions, and the air of distrust by certain individuals in this Town is abhorrent.”
Mr. Winslow seconded the motion.
(23:15 elapsed)
Jean Low, 650 Washington Rd., asked whether, by deleting the word “purchase,” this would have implications to Article 4.
Selectman Mills stated that, if they both passed in the same election, this article would have no bearing on Article 4.
Ms. Low asked whether it would apply to something like Article 4 in the future.
Attorney Donovan said that it would apply in the future to something like Article 4, but if they both pass this year then the passage of this would have no effect on Article 4. Editor’s note: There is a second reason, which is that Article 4, as it stands prior to the Crapo amendment, complies with the requirement of Town Meeting approval of acquisitions. Mr. Donovan continued saying that, however, in the future, it would require Town Meeting approval. They could still place a warrant article, he said. Mr. Donovan said that he did not believe that Mr. Crapo’s amendment would accomplish what he wanted because the sentence that rescinds pursuant to RSA 41:14-c is still in there. It would still rescind the Selectmen’s authority, so that has to be addressed, he said.
Shawn Crapo, asked whether “rescind” should be changed to “revise.” Attorney Donovan suggested that the entire sentence be deleted. Mr. Crapo changed his motion to delete the entire sentence. Mr. Winslow agreed.
Moderator Eaton described the amendment as striking “purchase” in the first sentence, as well as all of the second sentence.
(26:08 elapsed)
Peter Crawford asked Town Counsel whether that would not also in effect remove the provision applying to “sale, gift or lease.” He stated that he was looking at RSA 41:14-a and 41:14-c and there is a specific adoption procedure whereby towns can adopt a warrant article giving the selectmen the authority, according to 41:14-a, I, to acquire or sell land, buildings, or both. Mr. Crawford stated that it seemed to him that, since this was adopted by the Town Meeting a number of years ago, unless it’s specifically rescinded, under the procedure in 41:14-c, it wouldn’t be effective and you’d still have the action from 2002 that allows both purchases and sales.
Attorney Donovan responded no.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that Mr. Crapo’s argument with respect to the Rand property was inapplicable because the selectmen couldn’t do anything as they didn’t have any money and would have had to go to Town Meeting. He does not see the connection in bringing that up to defeat this change, he said.
Selectman Mills said “that’s common sense, Mr. Borne.”
Mr. Crawford stated that he wanted to clear up some confusion. This does not have anything to do with requiring Town Meeting approval of conservation acquisitions because there’s a state law that allows those acquisitions to occur out of a fund that has previously been created. That is what the last sentence accomplishes. To argue that the town’s hands would be tied with respect to something like Rand is incorrect. That was a conservation acquisition, and when it was being considered the Conservation Commission was going to buy the property. The only problem was that there was no money left in the fund when it came up, so it couldn’t happen. As long as there was money in the fund the Conservation Commission could still act quickly to buy the land. There is nothing that a warrant article could do to defeat that because it’s in the state statute that they can buy without Town Meeting approval. Editor’s note: See RSA 36-A:5, I. Mr. Crawford asked Mr. Donovan whether that was correct.
(29:30 elapsed)
Without
giving Attorney Donovan a chance to respond, Selectman Mills stated that “no…
the approval for the money was given at prior town meeting for them to buy the
land. So, when you say there was no
approval, yes there was approval. They
had a $5 million bond one year, and then they got a $3 million dollar bond the
next year, or two years later. That was
with town approval.” Editor’s note: In fact, the $5 million conservation bond was
approved by voters in 2003, and the $3 million bond approved in 2014, eleven
years later. It is unclear what
Selectman Mills is referring to in asserting that Mr. Crawford said “there was
no approval. A review of the video
indicates that he had never said that any acquisition had occurred without
approval.
(29:56 elapsed)
Frank Drake said that he didn’t know about anyone else, but he had “no friggin idea what this is all about.” There was laughter and applause. He moved the amendment and the question. Ms. Bitter seconded the motion.
The motion to call the question on the amendment passed.
Moderator Eaton asked for a vote on the amendment. After a show of cards, he stated that the amendment had failed. There was then discussion and he looked over at the table on the stage where the Selectmen and Town Counsel were sitting. He then called for a revote. After a second show of cards he announced that the amendment had passed. He stated that he may have gotten it backwards and apologized.
Frank Drake moved the question. Mr. Crapo seconded. The motion to end debate passed. He ordered Article 24 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Mr. Marion moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 24. Mr. Crapo seconded. The motion passed.
Article
17: Town dump regulation (33:05 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the article which provides for a $150 fee for contractors to use the Transfer Station.
Selectman Mills said that they are just trying to catch up with the times as a lot of contractors use the recycling facility. He turned it over to Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy. It’s all Rye waste that is going into the Recycling Center, he asserted.
Mr. McCarthy stated that this is part of an ongoing process of getting a handle on what is going on at the Transfer Center, who is using it and how much. It would allow them to develop a database of which contractors are using the Center. It will offset the ever-increasing costs of operating the Transfer Center, he said.
Russell Bookholz, 32 Porpoise Dr., asked why they are singling out contractors. The only people that are going to be hurt by this are the people of Rye as contractors will start charging them fees. He offered an amendment to refer to “non resident contractors.” He stated that resident contractors pay for the Recycling Center through their taxes. Ms. Sleeper seconded the motion.
Moderator Eaton stated that Mr. Bookholz’s amendment would add the words “non resident” wherever the word “contractor” or “contractors” appears in the article.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., asked Mr. McCarthy whether it would make more sense if the reference to non-resident contractors appeared after the $150.00 so that the fee would apply to non-resident contractors, but all contractors would have to get the permit so that you would have an idea of who they are, inasmuch as one of the intentions is to find out what is going on, he said.
Mr. McCarthy stated that that would be an excellent idea.
Mr. Borne stated that the amendment would be a friendly one to say “$150.00 for non-resident contractors.” Mr. Bookholz and Mr. Sleeper were in agreement.
Mr. McCarthy stated that the amendment would allow them to do half of what they were trying to do, which was get a handle on the use, but the resident contractors would not be paying the $150, so there would be less revenue. The other thing that they were looking at was a way to enforce compliance with the rules. One of the ways would be to remove their right to use the facility.
(39:44 elapsed)
Steven Borne stated that the amendment keeps contractors from being singled out, as all businesses pay taxes.
Tom Farrelly, 18 Gray Ct., ask whether the debris would be generated from jobs done in Rye. Mr. McCarthy confirmed. Mr. Farrelly said that $150 is a joke, and anyone using the facility should pay. He stated that he is in commercial real estate and one of the biggest costs of doing renovation in an office building is getting rid of the debris from what was ripped out. People pay $100 to unload a pickup truck loaded with debris. He objected to the idea of opening up the dump to non-resident contractors as you have no idea where their stuff is coming from. He stated that anyone caught bringing in debris from outside of town should lose their rights. As a taxpayer he does not want to pay for that, he said.
Mr. McCarthy stated that this is just an amendment to lengthy regulations. These say that debris is only accepted from town, although they question whether all of the debris is from Rye. There is also a charge for construction debris, he said. It allows us to generate a small amount of income to cover the cost of the time that it takes to figure out who those using the Recycling Center are. They plan on issuing hangers to hang on their windshields, he said.
Mr. Farrelly asked whether out-of-town shouldn’t at least produce a copy of the building permit or something else for validation.
Mr. McCarthy cited the lack of time, especially on Tuesdays and Saturdays. There would be hanger with a number on it. What Mr. Farrelly said makes sense, but it might be an administrative nightmare.
Mr. Farrelly expressed concern about non-resident contractors having access without proving that the debris is coming from Rye.
Mr. McCarthy stated that Mr. Farrelly was assuming that they know whether people are residents or non-residents. That’s the problem. “Right now, I question a lot of people and my people say oh that’s a resident or that’s not a resident, That’s why we’re going to the sticker system because I have a lot of people come up and say I don’t think that guy’s from town and I have no way of knowing.” As we lose our older staff, we’re not going to know where the people are from, he said.
Moderator Eaton stated that Town Counsel had noted that the $150 fee appears twice in the warrant article and suggested that the words “non-resident contractors” appear in the last paragraph as well. Mr. Bookholz and Mr. Sleeper agreed.
There was no further discussion so Moderator Eaton called for a vote. Someone suggested that “and landscapers” be added. Mr. Bookholz and Mr. Sleeper agreed. Moderator Eaton stated that the motion would add “for non-resident contractors and landscapers” after both places where $150 appears. The motion to amend passed.
There was no further discussion, so Moderator Eaton ordered Article 17 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Article
18: Pump out regulation (46:33 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that this is a health regulation that is proposed by the health officer and approved by the Board of Selectmen. We chose to run this by Town Meeting to make sure that the entire town is behind this. This applies to all homes and businesses in the Parsons Creek Watershed. He described the bounds. It is the drainage basin which exits to the ocean at the southern part of Wallis Sands at Pirates Cove Beach. The ordinance would require pump outs at least every three years. Homes that are not in the impaired water quality zone, a zone nearest the ocean and nearest the salt marshes on the inland side of Ocean Blvd., could request of the Building Inspector, if they use little water and have a good system, a waiver to pump out every seven years. The purpose is to get people to maintain their septic systems and also give the Town the ability to get onto the property. Notice of the pumping is required and the Building Inspector or his designee has the ability to inspect the pumping and see where the tank and leach field are and gather more information on the old systems in the area that are potentially contaminating surface water. Parsons Creek regularly has very high bacterial concentrations. Kids at low tide are playing in the water as Parsons Creek heads out to the ocean, he said.
Amendments are not being sought at this meeting, Selectman Musselman continued. The ordinance is not before you to adopt. It has been adopted by the Selectmen. We have said that, if this is not supported by Town Meeting, we will pull it back. There was a suggestion that this should apply throughout the Town. In the late 1970s Priscilla was on a water quality committee, and I was the Town’s engineer, and we thought about doing that. We decided that that was not then indicated. It is now indicated for the Parsons Creek Watershed. Hopefully, this will be a start to improving water quality in Parsons Creek. We’ll start with this watershed, see how it works, and gather more information on what is a significant water quality problem.
(50:44 elapsed)
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that, as he reads the ordinance, he has three years to get his septic tank pumped out.
Attorney Donovan disagreed, stating that the ordinance is drafted such that it does not take effect until June 1. The Building Inspector would send out notices to those affected asking for records on when the last pump out occurred. If it had been pumped out recently it would not need to be pumped out again for three years. If no record could be produced then it would need to be pumped out, he said.
(52:18 elapsed)
Don Beeson, 691 Long John Rd., commended the Board for getting involved. It could be expensive if the EPA took some water tests.
Shawn Crapo, 676 Central Rd., asked whether this addresses those having holding tanks as he understands that these are a major contribution to the problem in the area. He stated that he hopes that these are pumped more often than every three years.
Selectman Musselman stated that that is a very good question. Holding tanks require a State permit. It is very difficult to get a new permit. Once there is a permit, they are required to report to the Town on a regular basis. This ordinance is intended to get our arms around those that have informal holding tanks. We suspect that there are people operating septic systems almost as holding tanks that don’t have a State permit. These would have to be inspected. This is intended to get us better information on who thinks they have a holding tank and who has one that is actually permitted, and getting them properly permitted and properly reporting. That’s a very good question, I’m not sure we know who does and who doesn’t, he said.
Selectman Mills asked Kim Reed whether she had told them at the last meeting that she believed that there were two permitted holding tanks. Building Inspector Peter Rowell held up four fingers. Moderator Eaton stated that Mr. Rowell had stated that he knows of four, and possibly five.
There being no further discussion of Article 18, Moderator Eaton ordered it to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
25: Transfer Station electioneering zone
(54:50 elapsed)
Joe Cummins asked whether Article 25 could be taken out of order as the person who was to speak to it may need to leave early. Steven Borne seconded. The motion passed.
Ms. Reed moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 18. Janice Ireland seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., said that it was self explanatory, and that those who run for public office want to have a guaranteed place where bumper stickers could be handed out without having to get any kind of restrictive approval, with the safety considerations obviously taken into account.
Selectman Mills moved to add “and operational” prior to considerations in the last sentence.
Selectman Mills stated that electioneering had been going on for quite a while. We tried to get a handle on it due to complaints. They were moved up the hill by the fence. He continued, saying “everything we thought was going fine, but evidently some people, you know, I don’t know, and we’ve never denied anybody to campaign there, okay, but this is that new group that, okay, don’t trust anybody. And we’ve never turned one down…” He stated that he would leave it the way it is, with the Selectmen giving the approval.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton called for a vote. The motion passed.
(59:25 elapsed)
Nancy Weiand, 1045 Washington Rd., stated that it is not clear who grants the approval.
Selectman Mills stated that nobody would be making the approval if this goes through.
Ms. Morrissey moved, and Ms. Ireland seconded a motion to amend the final sentence to state that “approval by the Board of Selectmen shall be continent only based on safety and operation considerations.”
Joe Cummins stated that he had signed the petitioned warrant article. His view is that it was relieving the Board of Selectmen of a burden of vetting who is at the Transfer Station and that safety would be in the hands of the Department of Public Works, Dennis McCarthy.
Selectman Mills stated that they discuss it with Mr. McCarthy. He raised his voice and said “we have never denied a permit yet, Mr. Cummins.” Mr. Cummins asked whether all permit applications had received 3-0 votes. Selectman Mills said something, but did not answer the question.
Mr. Cummins offered a friendly amendment to alter “Board of Selectmen” to “Department of Public Works.”
Mr. Marion appeared to assert that he would need to agree to the amendment. Moderator Eaton stated that he had introduced the article but that the motion to amend was not his. Scott Marion stated that he had been one of the signatories. Moderator Eaton asked whether Ms. Morrissey would agree to the friendly amendment. She did not agree.
Peter Crawford stated that approval by the Board of Selectmen was a problem as the Board of Selectmen only meets every couple of weeks. There needs to be enough advance notice to get in before them. He noted that he has collected petitioned warrant article signatures for several years at the Recycling Center and the discussion is always the same. They want to know what the articles are about and I have to tell them that there’s a group that is working on them to develop the language and that we can’t provide them advance notice. I run the gauntlet, and Selectman Mills voted not to allow me to collect signatures at the Recycling Center because I wouldn’t reveal what the warrant articles are in advance. That’s unfair. He recommended voting down the amendment.
(65:48 elapsed)
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., disagreed with Mr. Crawford. The Selectmen are duly elected and ultimately it is their responsibility. He agrees with allowing First Amendment rights there. Something promoting hate speech might be a problem, he said.
Mr. Crapo moved the question.
The motion to end discussion on the amendment passed.
The motion to change the last sentence passed.
Frank Drake moved the question. Mr. Winslow seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 25 placed on the ballot as amended.
Mr. Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Sleeper seconded. The motion passed.
Article
19: No parking at certain driveways and
crosswalks (68:31 elapsed)
Selectman Mills stated that they had been going back and forth with the parking study. Some of the problems with people trying to get out of their driveways had been alleviated. Certain areas on Ocean Blvd. had been striped for safety reasons, he said.
There was no further discussion, so Moderator Eaton ordered Article 19 placed on the ballot as written.
Frank Drake asked whether articles 22 and 23 could be taken out of order as he needed to leave. Someone said that that had already been voted down. Moderator Eaton asked whether a break should be taken. There was an outcry of “no.”
Mr. Drake determined that he would not make a motion to move these articles forward.
Article
21: Parking kiosks (70:43 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Tom Farrelly addressed the warrant article. He stated that a study had been done by a very reputable engineering group, Tighe & Bond, engaged by the Town of Rye. Ten thousand dollars was spent. It was a very thorough study. Quite beneficially, Gregg Mikolaities, who is a big person in the community and knows a lot about Rye, did the study. The outcome of the study was that, after payment for installation of the kiosks, year one would net $90,000 and each year after that would net about $400,000, he said.
Mr. Farrelly commended the Board of Selectmen for wanting to go about it a scientific way, but from Maine to Florida, Rye is about the only beach community left that does not charge for parking. He stated that he had heard a lot about unintended consequences and excuses not to move ahead with this, but the State advertises the beach and pushes people here, Hampton, North Hampton and Seabrook charge for parking. Everybody charges but Rye. Hampton is about to increase their charges. That is going to drive more people looking for free parking to Rye so there will be more crowds. Some speaking against parking kiosks assert that parking will be driven to the side streets, he said. However, he contended that the fact that Rye is the only place left on the eastern seaboard with free parking will alone will drive people to the side streets more than $2 per hour kiosks.
Mr. Farrelly continued, saying it’s $400,000 to $500,000 of annual revenues that could be dedicated towards improved lifeguard safety, training, equipment, programs, and radios. Senator Nancy Stiles has been involved. Editor’s note: See the notes and minutes of the September 24, 2013 special Board of Selectmen meeting on beach issues arranged by Senator Stiles with a number of State officials. At that meeting she stated that the Town could install meters and keep the revenues. She has come to the Town multiple times saying that the Town can keep the money, Mr. Farrelly said. Memoranda have been drafted to that effect. The Attorney General signed off. The Commissioner of DOT had signed off. Now there is a new Commissioner and there is a step of reconfirming with the Commissioner that they are OK with it. Nancy Stiles confirmed this by e-mail. It would enhance safety, lower the tax burden, and the striping is consistent with what has already been done. Any spaces that might be lost with the striping could be easily be replaced through the use of shuttles, he argued.
Mr. Farrelly continued, saying that after the $10,000 study, the reaction of the Board of Selectmen was to pay to study the study. I don’t know why we’re studying the study. I called to find out when the study of the study was going to be ready. For whatever reason, it is not going to be ready until February 8, so we’re not going to have the benefit of the study of the study. I think we need to stop studying and start acting, he said. Mr. Farrelly said that he has been told that they are not going to move ahead because of the possibility that the State might decide to take the money from us. We’ve been promised that that would not happen, but if it did they would have to reimburse us for the money spent on the kiosks. A lot of people are coming up with a lot of reasons why we can’t do this when there are a lot of reasons to do it, he said.
(78:06 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated “we are all on the same page.” We are proceeding as quickly as we can. We are not restudying the study, we are taking the previous study to the next level of detail so there are more accurate construction costs and revenues. Meetings are lined up with the new DOT Commissioner. We are proceeding forthwith, hopefully to have a warrant article for the 2017 Town Meeting regardless of this warrant article. Who it is who is saying we shouldn’t do this, I have no idea. We have been proceeding through 2015. We haven’t seen the parking study yet. Even if we had seen it in December we would not have been ready for a warrant article in January anyway. There are other things that need to thought about being done before the kiosks go in with respect to where people are parking now for free. You cannot have them parking near the beach for free when there are parking meters there. We plan to take care of that in the near future, he said.
Selectman Musselman said that the amendment that I he has to offer takes care of a few things. It refers to the currently ongoing parking study. It references the fact that, while the warrant article says that we would be fully operational by June 30, 2017, at this point in time, we have no idea whether that is possible. Since the Board of Selectmen is proceeding forthwith, some of the language in here can change such that we recognize that we are all moving in the same direction, he said.
Selectman Musselman stated that the amendment would add the reference to the parking study currently underway, change “the Board of Selectmen to proceed” to “the Board of Selectmen consider proceeding.” It adds “i.e. the Tighe & Bond study.” Where it says “operation would occur by June 30,” we would say “might occur.” That should be our objective but we don’t know yet whether that is a reasonable requirement, he said. It would make a change, towards the end, to say “the Board of Selectmen shall review whether a warrant article should be presented for an up or down vote at the March 17 election,” and a reference to revision of the Tighe & Bond recommendations. We are getting new construction cost and revenue estimates. Selectman Musselman continued, saying:
“We intend to do everything that this warrant article lays out and we believe that these amendments to this petitioned warrant article set us all in that direction, giving the Board of Selectmen, assuming this passes, the impetus and the recommendation of the Town to move ahead forthwith, but leaving it to the Board of Selectmen to put together the details and get a warrant article back to the town for January.”
(82:45 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article with the proposed amendment.
Selectman Musselman asked for a further amendment to take out the word “infrastructure” in the second line. Jane Ireland seconded.
(84:50 elapsed)
Mr. Farrelly stated that
“might,” as opposed to “will” opens up the question of maybe or maybe not,
instead of we’ll do it at the earliest possible opportunity. He completely understands the question of
whether it can be done in June if it is voted in March. He stated that he is looking for a
commitment. The State is looking
everywhere for revenue. We should lay
claim to this and act on as soon as possible and not take the risk of delaying
it and have them rethink it. A lot of
people at the State House would love to get their hands on $400,000 per year,
he argued.
Mr. Farrelly stated that someone had raised the issue that the article should say 112 Ocean Blvd. instead of Marsh Rd., as it would otherwise say that parking meters would be installed in spaces that the State had already taken away.
Moderator Eaton asked Selectmen Musselman whether he would agree. Someone said that it should actually be 1112. Selectman Musselman stated that he does not know that there is no parking from Old Ocean Blvd. to Marsh Rd. If the State says there are no parking areas that the State insists on, we could not put them there. We want to maximize where we’re doing it. I suggest leaving it as is and we’ll go as far as we can, he said.
Mr. Farrelly said that a lot of work had gone into this, and 50 people had signed it. The State runs ads that send people here, but they contribute nothing towards the costs This is overdue and I do not want to see further delays. He objected to adding “might,” as opposed to “will.” Selectman Musselman suggested substitution of a reference to the earliest reasonable date in 2017. Ms. Ireland agreed.
Shawn Crapo moved the question on the amendment. Mr. Sleeper and Mr. Winslow seconded. The motion passed.
The motion to amend passed.
Frank Drake moved the question. Mr. Sleeper seconded. Frank Drake rescinded his motion.
Nancy Weiand asked whether the Selectmen would change their vote. Moderator Eaton stated there was a statement that the Selectmen were not recommending the article by a vote of 3-0, and asked whether anyone wanted to offer their thoughts as to whether the recommendation would change.
(91:28 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that they are going to have a Selectmen’s meeting after this meeting. We could put nothing on there. Personally, I’m in favor of it as it is.
Moderator Eaton stated that Selectmen Musselman and Jenness are in favor of the article as amended. Mr. Mills is thinking about it, he said.
Moderator Eaton stated that he had called on Mr. Crawford before Mr. Crapo moved the question.
Peter Crawford offered an amendment to strike the Selectmen’s recommendation. Moderator Eaton stated that he heard no second so the motion failed.
Someone moved the question.
Moderator Eaton stated that the question had been called by Mr. Drake and seconded by Mr. Sleeper. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 21 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Mr. Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Winslow seconded. The motion passed.
Article
22: Town Hall support only for options
saving the building (94:28 elapsed)
Mae Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Rd., announced that she was Chair of the Heritage Commission which put forward this petitioned warrant with the unanimous vote of all members. She read the warrant article:
“To see if the Town will vote to support only those options for Rye Town Hall that include saving the Town Hall, in order to allow pursuit of private and public grants and contributions.”
Ms. Bradshaw stated that
“this was drafted in response to the UNH survey, where 82 percent of the citizens who voted in that survey voted to preserve the iconic Town Hall standing at the center of our historic town since 1839 and functioning as the center of our Town’s government since 1874. It’s the visual marker of our community history as the oldest settlement in New Hampshire.”
Ms. Bradshaw stated that Town Hall was the subject of a 195 page application to the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance. That application is available at Town Hall, the Library and the Heritage Commission website. It contains five years of studies, space needs, ADA concerns, all of the structural problems. Those were presented to the Preservation Alliance. It also contains all the positives, the new geothermal system, the new roof and all of the historic features which would be wasted if the building is torn down. It is on the State Historic Register for genuine historic properties to use Mr. Chichester’s word. It was selected by the State as one of the seven most significant historic sites in the State to preserve, and with that recognition comes the opportunity for grants; actual preferential treatment in the application for grants and funds. It is our concern at the Heritage Commission that, while we have this recognition, we need to be moving forward to secure those grants. Grants are available for structural work, for protecting the windows. There are grants that would meet a number of the concerns that people have had about the status of this building or its health. She said.
(97:50 elapsed)
Ms. Bradshaw stated that their concern was with:
“the uncertainty of having another year of studies with the possibility of demolition being considered in that study will waste a substantial opportunity for fund raising and securing grants which would defray ultimately the costs that the citizens are concerned about having to pay. So, the building is falling into a sad state of disrepair and we need to determine how to move forward, but saving it is essential to the center of our Town. This warrant article gives the voters the opportunity to confirm their intent: that intent expressed by 82 percent of the people who voted on the issue in the survey that was done.”
Failure to vote for this article would create a significant missed opportunity for significant funds to the Town. The Preservation Alliance has provided us with repurposing information as well. If the building is saved and maintained and the option of demolishing it is removed, there are funds which could help convert it into other uses if it is not used for Town Hall. The most important thing this article does is preserve it for us, she said. There was applause.
(99:25 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness moved to add the word “building” after the second appearance of Town Hall to make it clear that it was the existing building that was being saved. Ms. Bradshaw seconded.
There was no discussion on the amendment. The amendment carried.
As Jane Holway approached the microphone, Moderator Eaton stated that she had been very quiet this afternoon. Ms. Holway responded “no comment.” There was laughter.
Ms. Holway asked how many people realized that the present church structure is 54 years old. It burned to the ground in 1959 and the fathers of the church had the insight to nearly replicate it. They now have a safe building with good facilities. We should have the option to consider replication. There is nothing sacred about those old planks. From the study that was done last year, the supporting beams don’t reach the floor. It torques, it sways. Please leave the option for the voters, she said.
Frank Drake referred to the idea of one article telling the whole town that they support only one possible solution. This is another one of those situations where we have Article 11 that has five, probably realistically only four, solutions. This is another attempt to take out of the hands of the discussion and the voters other options and ideas. At least get the pricing of these options out in a coherent, one time study, he said. There is something a little strong about this article. If I read this right, Article 11 would be neutered except for one option, or two. It’s way too heavy handed. The grant thing is interesting but things just have to run their course. Holding up a stack of papers, Mr. Drake said “the political consensus that’s lacking on this Town Hall will not be enhanced by this kind of heavy handed dictatorial sort of article.” There was applause.
Steven Borne called the question. Dominique Winebaum seconded. The motion failed.
(105:30 elapsed)
Charles Sleeper, 23 Fern Ave., stated that he also owns property at 245 West Rd. that has a post and beam barn on it. He stated that we could be getting into a whole big problem with the Town Hall. We could open it up and not be able to save it. We might have to build a replica of it to save it. There are foundation issues. Old post and beam buildings fall apart over time. They were not designed for the structural loads, he argued.
Alan Gould, 1210 Washington Rd., offered an amendment to strike the words “support only” and insert “consider.” Moderator Eaton stated that someone might raise the issue of whether that is acceptable. He stated that it is judgment that it does not eliminate the subject matter of the article and is acceptable. Jane Ireland seconded the motion.
Mae Bradshaw stated that, as one of the authors, and as reflected in the minutes of the Rye Heritage Commission meeting which voted unanimously to create this, “only” was the most important word. You are definitely destroying the meaning and the intent of the warrant article, she said.
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., stated that this seemed like a back door way to disregard the vote that was taken earlier in the day. Whether the word “only” is there or not, it doesn’t seem right to him.
Shawn Crapo stated that we need to know the cost. The grants may turn out to be only $50,000 against $2 million in added cost. If we don’t do the amendment and strike “only,” we will never know and we won’t get a fair vote.
Richard Davis, 195 Washington Rd., stated that we know the costs. When we were thinking about constructing a new addition to the building the costs were done. We’re not the only one who was Seven to Save. The hotel on the Isles of Shoals got a $100,000 grant recently. These grants are going to run out and we are not going to be there, he said.
Peter Crawford stated that people are concerned and want to amend the article because they believe that it would somehow affect Article 11. He stated that he does not read it that way. All of the options of Article 11 are still in place. Option four, which is building a new building on the Town Hall site and leaving the existing building would provide the cost information. Even if this were construed to eliminate any consideration of the third option, you’d still have the fourth one. So you’re going to get the cost data no matter what happens with this warrant article. I am against the amendment, he said. The removal of the word “only” guts the article and the townspeople should be allowed to vote on this, he said.
Mae Bradshaw related a success story so that people might rethink the way they are looking at the building. Wolfeboro went to their voters asking for $6 million to redo their Town Hall. The voters said no way, much as the voters said last March. A community got together and raised $850,000 to put towards the restoration. They went back to the voters, and told them that, with $60,000 of architectural spending, they were able to reduce the cost of the building from $6 million to $4 million. The citizens said that they would be proud to participate in the renovation and restoration of the building. The open house for it was a couple of months ago. She said, “I am very disappointed that this town does not think our history is as important as Wolfeboro’s, and doesn’t believe that this building is worth saving.”
Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., stated that he understands grants and how things can help with regard to historic landmarks. It’s a good thing, he said. But, I don’t think that conditions can be put on important issues when you do not have the money in hand. “We have a process, based on a need, that put a Town Hall Committee in place, based on a charge by the Selectmen to do some pretty important work to get to a set of alternatives and I don’t think you can allow necessarily, the possibility of grants to alter judgment on a process that was followed and an outcome based with a set of possible alternatives.” I’m not minimizing the importance of grants once we know what it is we want to do.
Mr. Goldman read his friendly amendment which was to change the language to say “to see if the Town will vote to support options for Rye Town Hall that also include saving the Town Hall, in order to allow pursuit of private and public grants and contributions.” Mr. Gould and Ms. Ireland agreed to accept the friendly amendment.
Someone moved the question.
Moderator Eaton read the article with the amendment as “to see if the Town will vote to support options for Rye Town Hall that include saving the Town Hall building, in order to allow pursuit of private and public grants and contributions.”
Moderator Eaton stated that Mr. Crapo had called the question. Janice Ireland seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton read the article with the amendment again as “to see if the Town Hall will vote to support options for Rye Town Hall that include saving the Town Hall building, in order to allow pursuit of private and public grants and contributions.”
Moderator Eaton asked whether Mr. Goldman’s friendly amendment included the word “also.” Moderator Eaton looked at a piece of paper and concluded that it did. Mr. Gould stated that he was still OK with the friendly amendment. Ms. Ireland was not present, he said.
Moderator Eaton read the article with the amendment again as “to see if the Town will vote to support options for Rye Town Hall that also include saving the Town Hall building, in order to allow pursuit of private and public grants and contributions.”
The amendment passed.
(118:03 elapsed)
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, asked to add to the second line a reference to the rebuilt 1961 Town Hall. A number of people pointed out that the reference to the rebuilding in 1961 was to the church. Mr. Jarvis apologized, stating that it was his nap time. There was laughter and applause.
Mr. Crapo called the question. Mr. Gould seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 22 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Mr. Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Jarvis seconded. The motion passed.
Article
23: Town Hall space need limitation
(119:50 elapsed)
Burt Dibble, 106 Harbor Rd., stated that the article goes to information developed by the Town Hall Space Needs Committee about the amount of space required for our employees. He said that he would present an amendment. Selectman Mills asked what year he was referring to. The response was that it was 2012. Moderator Eaton read the first paragraph of the article as amended:
“To see if the Town will vote to require that all future Town office designs be limited to a space need equal to building space currently owned by the Town inasmuch as the space requirements have been reduced…”
Ms. Bradshaw seconded the motion.
Mr. Dibble stated that the Town Hall as currently configured has just over 6100 sq. ft. The Space Needs Committee did a survey of New Hampshire communities and learned that employees require 633 sq. ft. of space. We have 12 employees in the Town Hall now that some have sought space elsewhere in the Town. Some of those 12 people are not full-time employees. The basic math about the space need for Town Hall is 7600 sq. ft. There is other potential facility space in Town. New construction should not be required to meet the needs of our employees. That is the reason for this proposed article, he said.
(123:47 elapsed)
Shawn Crapo said:
“I am so glad that we have this process that the signatures of a few people can then take the numbers and make us want to be like every other town in the State, according to their survey. I thought we were Rye and I thought we like to be our own town, and therefore we make our own decisions, and, obviously I know we can’t remove this article, but, I don’t even think it can be amended to not be egregious, but I think it’s a complete waste of ink and paper and no one should support this.”
Editor’s note: The survey of other towns is available here. This survey was conducted by Town Finance
Director Cyndi Gillespie, as required by 2012 Article 27, submitted by
petition, which passed 1070-268, or with 80.0 percent of the vote. More information relating to the work of the
2012 Space Needs Committee is available here.
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, referred to the reference to the reduction due to the relocation of the Recreation and Sewer Departments. He asked whether Dr. Dibble knows how much square footage the moving of those departments freed up.
Mr. Dibble stated that there are four employees that are no longer in Town Hall, so that represents about 2600 sq. ft.
Mr. Jarvis referred to a room of 14 feet by 14 feet, or 196 square feet freed up on the second floor. That does nothing for the terrible conditions on the first floor, he said. This paints the Town into a corner and it is a first cousin to Article 22, he said.
Mr. Crawford asked whether the amendment was being discussed. Moderator Eaton confirmed. Mr. Crawford said that he had nothing more on that.
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., stated that there is a difference between net and gross square footage. Gross square footage is measured by the outside of the building. Net square footage is completely different when you’re talking about an office building. It is the space required for the people to perform their jobs. The Town Hall Committee looked at three different space surveys. They took into account the fact that the Sewer and Recreation Departments were not there. I don’t remember the exact number, but I think we came up with between 7500 and 8500 sq. ft. net. Then you have to add on for hallways and other things. So, I think Dr. Dibble is wrong. This article seems to be an end run to do away with the work that the Town Hall Committee did. We did look through all of this. It was done by a lot of people with different backgrounds and perspectives. The end run is to try to get only the renovation of Town Hall.
With regard to Wolfeboro, Mr. Loftus said, that he had been there on Wednesday and the Town Manager had told him that the Friends of the Wolfeboro Town Hall had raised $750,000, not $895,000. They raised an additional $85,000 for the furniture. It had nothing to do with the renovation. That was primarily done by a number of individuals who gave very large contributions, not that there were not contributions from a lot of people, he said.
The best thing for the Town is to have five alternatives and let the townspeople decide with further information available as to what each alternative will cost, what the finished product will give you. There are a lot of questions that have not been answered, he said.
(130:52 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that he agrees with Dr. Dibble’s amendment. Building space currently owned by the Town includes the existing Town Hall, which has a lot of unusable space, such as the spiral staircases, the Old Police Station, and space in the Public Safety Building that many of you have argued ardently could be used, and perhaps one could make the argument that some of that is building space currently owned by the Town. This space needs restriction is completely meaningless, he said. “I would note, also, that the Article is meaningless anyway. The word ‘require’ is inappropriate. For Town Meeting to require that everything be done from here on out, regardless, consider or be in a certain fashion. We set policy at Town Meeting policy. We set general direction, and it gets carried out with the details filled in.” Selecman Musselman stated that Dr. Dibble’s language, “building space currently owned by the town” is a very broad term and a fine term.
Mr. Crapo moved the question. Jane Ireland seconded. The motion carried.
The amendment passed.
(134:40 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that he had a further amendment to change “require” to “recommend” and to delete the words “all future.” Who knows what “all future” means, he said. Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Frank Drake offered a friendly amendment to use the word “consider,” rather than “recommend.” Selectman Musselman and Mr. Gould were in agreement.
Joe Cummins stated he had heard “stupid,” “waste of ink,” “idiot,” and “pseudo lawyer” and asked the Moderator to try and enforce his promise at the beginning.
Moderator Eaton stated that he is doing his best and does not appreciate the language either. He reminded everyone that they we’re all friends and neighbors and that they should try to use decorum and proper language.
Mr. Cummins
stated that he is uncertain about the article which is giving the Town an
opportunity to weigh in directly on the space, as opposed to the cost, of the
Town Hall. Mr. Cummins referred to the
space needs study done by a town employee who had interviewed other town
facility managers. He questioned the
result as the Town of Barrington was listed as using all of the space of a
school building when a call to the town would have identified that only a small
corner was being used. Mr. Cummins
stated that he has been reluctant to support Town Hall since then. Editor’s
note: In the survey, Barrington is
listed as having 11,800 sq. ft. for 12 employees, or 983 sq. ft. per employee,
which was above the 633 average. The
survey of other towns is available here.
(139:10 elapsed)
Mae Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Rd., stated that she wanted to correct two statements made by a prior speaker. First, the list of Town Hall expenses given to them by Hutter includes furniture and that was included in the figure provided previously. The Demolition Review Committee which is not directly under the Heritage Commission is unable to stop a demolition. The South School House is an example. They could not stop it. Demolition review delays the process by 45 days. It is completely inaccurate that anyone on the Heritage Commission would say that they would delay or prohibit demolition of the Town Hall, she said.
Peter
Crawford stated that he is against the amendment because it changes “require”
to “recommend” or to “consider.” He
stated that he was surprised that Selectman Musselman would say that the Town
Meeting recommends and the Selectmen decide because that’s not the law. Under the RSAs, the Selectmen manage the
prudential affairs of the Town. There’s
another RSA that says that the Town Meeting may adopt bylaws governing the
prudential affairs of the Town, so the Town Meeting overrides the Selectmen and
we can require that they do certain things, he said. Editor’s
note: See RSA 41:8 (“The selectmen shall
manage the prudential affairs of the town and perform the duties by law
prescribed.”); RSA 31:39, I(l) (“Towns may make bylaws for [m]aking and
ordering their prudential affairs.”) and Moulton v. Beals, 98 N.H. 461,
464 (1954) (“In New England town meetings the voters are the sovereigns, and
their will, when duly expressed, is supreme.”)
(141:35 elapsed)
Sam Winebaum, 52 Cable Rd., stated that he had just done some simple math that he wanted to share and the reasons why what Dr. Dibble initially proposed makes quite a bit of sense. If you take the survey finding of the $2 million investment for new Town business functions and you use the prior 7500 sq. ft. figure, that comes to approximately the 633 sq. ft. that was in the original study that Ms. Gillespie did. Editor’s note: Mr. Winebaum is referring to the 2012 study of space usages done by the Town Finance Director. Click here to view. That is a construction cost of $267 per sq. ft., he said.
Moderator Eaton questioned whether Mr. Winebaum was talking about the article or the amendment. Someone moved the question. Moderator Eaton allowed Mr. Winebaum to continue.
Mr. Winebaum referred to the 2012 Space Needs figure of 10,500 sq. ft. At $2 million that’s $195 per sq. ft. He stated that he doubts that decent construction of any of the options can be obtained for that number. All of these things are related: what the voters may accept and the space needs of about 7500 or 8000 sq. ft. The big numbers are related in terms of how big a meeting room is in that facility and how other facilities might be used for large meetings. It does not mean that there cannot be a small meeting room, he said.
Moderator Eaton stated that Mr. Crapo had called the question on the amendment. Mr. Gould seconded. The motion passed.
The motion passed.
(144:30 elapsed)
Peter Crawford stated that he thought that coming up with the appropriate space for Town Hall is critical. Ned Paul was very humble and avoided saying that he had led the 2012 Space Needs Committee. They did a great job and came up with 10,500 sq. ft. and a cost estimate of $2.1 million, he said.
Editor’s note: Click here
for the Committee’s report. On pages
36-38 of the pdf appears the space needs analysis arriving at a total estimated
gross square footage need of 10,506 sq. ft.
Of that need, Recreation is listed as needing 680 sq. ft., Sewer as
needing 150 sq. ft., and the Great Hall (i.e. large meeting room on the second
floor) as taking up 1698 sq. ft. The
stage associated with the Great Hall is not listed separately, but it is
currently occupied by the Town Administrator’s office, which is listed as
occupying 276 sq. ft. The total of these
four figures is 2804 net sq. ft. Article
23 refers to the departure of Recreation and Sewer and the use of the Great
Hall for offices as reducing the space need.
Subtracting the space needs for these yields a need of 7702 sq. ft.,
from which would also need to be subtracted additional square footage for the
circulation and wall space associated with the deleted functions. Applying the 20% factor used by the
additional used in the Space Needs Committee’s report to the 2804 reduction in
the net sq. ft. would yield a gross square footage need of less than 7500 sq.
ft.
Mr. Crawford continued, saying that people voted for furthering development on that basis, to the tune of about 70 percent of the voters. It slipped way back. The Town Hall got only 38 percent of the vote last time. Without reining in the space requirements, I’m afraid we’re going to go back to the sort of feature creep that we’ve had in the past, he said.
(145:40 elapsed)
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., stated that he had been involved in design work and construction for over 25 years. One of the worst things to do is to limit the designer before he even starts. There have been plenty of space needs studies done of what the Town Hall needs. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to interpolate that data. Personally, Mr. Loftus stated that the building should be torn down, but that is not the point. The point is that new construction is going to be considerably cheaper and renovation is going to be much more expensive and may be twice as much. When the building is opened up, it is going to be like Pandora’s Box. I’ve done a lot of renovations. One of the last jobs I did was $1.2 million on a house that did not change the footprint. We are trying to rebuild or renovate the Town Hall so that our town office people have a place to work and it’s caught up in this emotional debate about whether to save the Town Hall as an historical building. We have people on both sides pulling and I’m not sure how you get those people to meld together, but I think the recommendations of the Town Hall Committee with the five alternatives is a perfect place to start, he said.
Frank Drake moved the question. Ms. King seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 23 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Gould seconded. The motion passed.
Article
26: Sale of surplus equipment (148:15
elapsed)
Selectman Mills stated that this is a regular article that is put in annually. There are no big changes unless we’re going to sell the Parsonage, he said.
There was no discussion so Moderator Eaton ordered Article 26 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
27: Other business (148:58 elapsed)
Ned Paul referred to the Parsonage. He stated that he is a Rye investor in multi-family housing and he would like the opportunity to bid, if the town is selling it. The public should be allowed to bid on it, he said.
Selectman Mills thanked Mr. Loftus for volunteering for the Town Hall Committee and stated that he had done a lot of work. There was applause.
Shawn Crapo came up and showed some papers to Moderator Eaton and whispered to him.
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., thanked everyone who had worked on the Town Hall Committee. There was applause.
Peter Crawford, for the benefit of those who might have come in late and missed Mr. Eaton’s announcement, announced that Candidates Night, sponsored by the Rye Civic League, will be held on February 29. Moderator Eaton added that it would be 7:00 at the Library.
Selectman Mills objected to people asking to take something out of order and then remaining at the meeting.
Moderator Eaton interrupted Mr. Mills and ordered the meeting adjourned.