NOTES OF JANUARY 31, 2015 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION

Part Two:  Articles 16-22

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.

 

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/118562323/

 

Summary

 

1.      The default budget was increased by nearly $600,000 because of an error.

2.      Residents appeared to support the fireworks ordinance which would not ban most sparklers.

3.      An attempt was made to amend a warrant article dissolving the Beach Commission and placing control of the lifeguards under the Fire Department to accomplish only the latter, leaving the Beach Commission in place.  The amendment was defeated after vigorous discussion of beach-related issues. 

4.      A petitioned warrant article to establish a $3000 Master Plan Expendable Trust was amended to leave the trust in place, but remove a requirement that the Planning Board update a chapter each year.  

 

ARTICLE 16:  $8,740,834 OPERATING BUDGET (0:00 elapsed)

 

Moderator Robert Eaton read the warrant article, which sets forth an operating budget as indicated above, and a default budget of $7,822,076. 

Selectman Musselman proposed an amendment to the default budget to make it $8,414,962.  He explained that a mistake had been made and the wrong number had been inserted in the warrant article.  This is not a budget number but a calculated one.  Editor’s note:  The default budget applies only if the voters reject the budget as proposed.  It is based on the 2014 budget, as adjusted to reflect contractual commitments that are no longer applicable, such as principal repayments on bonds that have matured, and other contractual commitments that have been made, such as the Police and Public Works union contracts entered into, with Town approval, in 2014. 

Joe Cummins, 990 Washington Rd., asked how the error was discovered.  Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie explained that she failed to include the special revenue funds and that the error had been found by Peter Crawford. 

Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., asked the process question of whether new votes would be needed by the Budget Committee and the Board of Selectmen.  Mr. Eaton stated that the Budget Committee would need to reconsider its recommendation.

There being no further discussion, a vote was called for on the amendment, which passed.

 

(6:25 elapsed)

Selectman Musselman explained that the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee had vetted each line item.  Significant budget increases that are not necessary have not been proposed.  This is a tight budget.  Over the past ten years, every bit of fat has been taken out of the budget. 

Peter Crawford, 171 Brackett Rd., asked whether any of the principal payments on the $1.3 million draw down on the Conservation Bond are in this budget.  Ms. Gillespie stated that this budget includes only the interest payments.  Mr. Crawford pointed out that the debt service principal is down by $570,000 from the prior year on the sheet passed out, while the General Fund is down by $331,000.  The good news is that the tax rate will be going down, but there is other debt that will be kicking in.  The Conservation Bond is the first piece of that.  If the Town Hall passes that would start in 2017.  Taking out the debt service the budget is still growing and has been for a number of years.

There being no further discussion of Article 16, it was ordered to appear on the ballot as amended. 

 

ARTICLE 17:  FIREWORKS ORDINANCE (9:41 elapsed)

 

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.  Mrs. Jenness stated that surrounding towns have ordinances.  Rye is posted in such a way that people know that Rye has no license so people are encouraged to come here, she said.

            Police Chief Walsh spoke of people not using good judgment when setting of fireworks due to having consumed alcohol.  So many are lit off at the same time such that debris and hot ash are going everywhere.  He spoke about legal fireworks being set off on a postage stamp sized lot at Jenness Beach and the difficulty of the police in managing the issues.  He spoke about an incident with significant injury in 2013. 

            Shawn Crapo, 676 Central Rd., asked whether sparklers and small fireworks would be included.  Chief Walsh stated that sparklers are not in the category of regulated fireworks.  He is not a fan of them, however.  He spoke about a boy having lost fingers due to sparklers having been placed in a bottle, which exploded.  This ordinance would not have prevented that.  Parents need to monitor and manage their kids, he said.

            Frank Drake, 5 South Rd., urged everyone to support the article.  He stated that he lives near the beach and people that live there can be awakened at night any time of the year. 

            Town Counsel Donovan stated that RSA 160-B:16 prohibits certain types of sparklers.  He read from the statute, which refers to class “C” sparklers which contain chlorates or perchlorates. 

            Ann Morrissey stated that when she was growing up in Rye there were no fireworks or firecrackers.  She asked why any sparklers or firecrackers would be allowed if they are going to harm the children and cause them to lose limbs or fingers.  Listen to Chief Walsh about the danger to the children, she said.   

Ms. Bradshaw moved the question, which was seconded by Ms. Anderson.  The motion to call the question passed and the article was ordered placed on the ballot as written.

 

ARTICLE 18:  BOOTING OF VEHICLES (19:50 elapsed)

 

            Mr. Eaton stated that he would entertain a motion to waive the reading as the ordinance is lengthy. 

            Selectman Musselman stated that, some years ago, a boot had been purchased to deal with repeated scofflaws that were parking at the beach and had not paid their parking fines.  One of the explanations as to why the boot cannot be used is that there is not a durable ordinance that will hold up in court.  This is what is proposed, he said. 

            Selectman Mills asked former Chief Gould to explain the story of the boot.  He also asked for reconsideration of the calling of the question. 

            Alan Gould, 1210 Washington Rd., spoke as the former Police Chief who bought the boot.   He spoke about the difficulty of towing, particularly cars that are parallel parked.  He stated that the boot is a deterrent and that there have been cars parked at the beach with the boot on them.  Even if the boot is never placed on the car of a scofflaw it is a deterrent. 

 

RECONSIDERATION OF RULES ON CALLING THE QUESTION (23:40  elapsed)

 

            Selectman Mills referred to a woman who had been standing waiting to speak.  Mr. Eaton stated that Mr. Mills was moving to reconsider the body’s two-thirds and more determination to override his rule that, when the question is called, discussion would stop when the person speaking is finished.

            Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., suggested that, when the question is called, the Moderator should inquire as to who is waiting to speak. 

            Frank Drake asked why reconsideration of the rules was being considered in the middle of the discussion about the booting ordinance.  He called the question on the motion to reconsider.  Mr. McDonough seconded the motion.  Mr. Eaton called for a vote on the motion to reconsider, which motion failed.  No vote was called for on Mr. Drake’s motion to call the question. 

            Mr. Eaton asked whether there was a motion to restrict reconsideration on the issue.  Someone so moved and Mr. McDonough seconded.  The motion carried. 

            Mr. McDonough called the question on Article 18, which motion was seconded by Mr. Drake.  The motion carried and Article 18 was ordered placed on the ballot as written.

 

ARTICLE 19:  WINTER ROAD WEIGHT LIMITS (27:20 elapsed)

 

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article but not the proposed ordinance.

            Selectman Musselman stated that the ordinance had been adopted the prior Spring by the Board of Selectmen at the urging of the Public Works Director.  He stated that it permits weight limits to be put in place in the Spring if there is a significant risk of damage to the roads during pothole and mud season.  It is of short-term duration. 

            Tom Pearson, Pine St., asked about home construction during this period of time and whether the restriction of cement trucks and lumber trucks might necessitate the halting of construction.  Public Works Director McCarthy stated that Board of Selectmen are allowed to delegate the power to restrict the roads.  The restriction would apply to cement trucks but not oil trucks and more necessary deliveries.  Lumber and cement trucks could be restricted, however the law provides that delivery may occur if a bond is posted against damage to the road.  Lumber companies timber in the late winter and would be most affected.  Public Works tries to work with the companies, he said.

            Ann Morrissey, 575 Washington Rd., referred to gigantic trucks driving at what seems to be 50 m.p.h. through Rye Center.  She referred to a danger to the children.  She said that she wishes people would stop worrying about building houses and focus on the children.

            There being no further discussion, Mr. Eaton ordered Article 19 placed on the ballot as written.

 

ARTICLE 20:  HERITAGE COMMISSION EXPANSION (33:12 elapsed)

 

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.  Ms. Jenness stated that the Heritage Commission is ambitious and enthusiastic.  She referred to the graveyards and other projects and the need for more people to do the work.

            Mae Bradshaw, Chairman of the Heritage Commission, referred to Town Hall and the solicitation of grants for it as well as the graveyards program.  Seed money of $10,000 has been raised for various programs, she said. 

            There being no further discussion of Article 20, it was ordered placed on the ballot as written.

 

ARTICLE 21:  BEACH COMMISSION DISSOLUTION (36:17 elapsed)

 

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article, which included the text of 1999 Article 25, and provided for it to be repealed.  Selectman Mills stated that the conclusion had been made under the prior Fire Chief.  Other than Mike LaBrie, the Beach Commission was zero.  They had meetings but he was the only attendee.  The lifeguards check in at the Fire Station to get their radios so it would be ideal to place them under the Fire Department.  There have not been any problems that he is aware of, he said.

            Interim Fire Chief Lambert came to the microphone.  Selectman Mills quipped that Mr. Sullivan had taken the speedo with him when he left.  Editor’s note:  Mr. Sullivan was the former Fire Chief.   Mr. Lambert stated that he had been Fire Chief since September 2.  The Fire Department has embraced this.  There is someone on staff who is a certified lifeguard and others are certified as lifeguard supervisors.  They are familiar with the responsibilities and what it takes to be a lifeguard. 

            Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., asked whether all of the wording from “vote to” down to “place all of operations” could be eliminated as that is the intent.  He asked why the Beach Commission should be eliminated. 

            Selectman Mills stated that the Beach Commission was non-existent.  Only Mike LaBrie had been involved recently, he said.

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article with the proposed amendment:

 

“To see if the Town will vote to place all operations of the Beach Lifeguards; including hiring of staff, supervision, training, preparation of the beach annual budget under the direction of the Rye Fire Department.”

 

Mr. Marion seconded the motion. 

            Selectman Musselman stated:

 

“My concern would be that, if we adopt this warrant article, we still have a warrant article that is in place that describes the role of the Beach Commission to manage a Beach Supervisor.  We need to, and the reason why this was proposed in this way is that we need to take out that role.  We need to change what was adopted by Town Meeting in 1999 so that we can move forward and do what this Warrant Article has authorized and, in fact, we’ve never had a Beach Supervisor, and we had a Beach Commission not playing the role that was described at the Town Meeting vote from years ago, since 1999, so we’re proposing to resolve that and to clarify that we’re going to continue doing what we’ve been done, doing which is to have the lifeguard staff work under the direct supervision of the Fire Department…”

 

(42:58 elapsed)

            John Sherman, 25 West Rd., stated that he feels very strongly that a Beach Commission is needed to monitor what is going on at the beach.  His wife was on a committee that did a study for an entire year, with a written report which was given to the Selectmen, and nothing changed.  This year, there was a Beach Committee.  Lori Carbajal and Keper were on it.  Editor’s note:  This is a reference to Keper Connell.  It was a balanced committee which also included Steve Hillman who has supported commercial activity on the beach.  They issued a written report with seven proposals that were felt to be critically important.  Those problems include excessive commercial activity on Sawyers Beach which is a public beach being used for free.  Parking issues were addressed.  The absence of a permit application fee was addressed.  Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being collected and nothing is being paid to the Town.  The Board of Selectmen did nothing.   None of the warrant articles today address any of the issues raised by the Beach Committee after a year of study, he said. 

            The Town also spent more than $10,000 for a parking study of Route 1 near the beach.  The comprehensive study included conclusions that the Town should have pay parking.  That would generate over $400,000 per year.  Specific safety issues were identified.  Despite these recommendations, the Board of Selectmen did nothing, Mr. Sherman said. 

            Mr. Eaton attempted to interrupt Mr. Sherman and ask him to address the warrant article.

            Mr. Sherman continued, saying that, what is being proposed by the Selectmen is to eliminate a Commission, established in 1999, to make our beach a better place.  After a study and two major committees, nothing is being followed.  He asked why the Beach Commission should be eliminated under these circumstances.  The warrant article that is being proposed to be eliminated states that the Board of Selectmen should hire a Beach Supervisor.  That did not happen, he said. 

            Mr. Sherman addressed Mr. Marion’s earlier point about the duties of the Beach Supervisor being undefined.  Mr. Sherman said that the 1999 warrant article addresses this issue, as point 3 provides for a job description.  The Town said that this was needed, but it has never been implemented, and now they’re trying to eliminate it and it’s wrong.  We shouldn’t be eliminating it, we should be following the article that the Town adopted 15 years ago, Mr. Sherman said.  He urged that the Beach Commission be kept in place and that the Selectmen be forced to follow the warrant article.  There was applause.

 

(48:38 elapsed)

            Selectman Musselman stated that Mr. Sherman’s presentation had been entirely uninformed.  He stated that the Board of Selectmen intends to reappoint a Beach Committee to continue the process.  The role will continue, but not in the unworkable 1999 format.  The Beach Commission has not been playing the role described, and it is far more effective for the lifeguards to report to the Fire Department.  The Beach Committee report was made in November.  The recommendations were not acted on over Christmas.  There will be further consideration.  It would be unrealistic to expect a warrant article to be proposed in December.  The parking study was not completed until January 8.  Editor’s note:  The study was presented at the November 10, 2014 Board of Selectmen meeting.  The final version, with a few minor changes. was presented at the January 12, 2015 Board of Selectmen meeting. 

            Selectman Musselman continued, saying that the recommendations have been taken under advisement and $25,000 has been budgeted to begin the process of excluding parking in close proximity to driveways, crosswalks and intersections. Editor’s note:  See RSA  265:69, II (parking is already prohibited by State law within 20 feet of a crosswalk or intersection, or in front of a private driveway).  The recommendations will be evaluated in the Spring.  Significant study is required with respect to the other recommendations with respect to parking meters, the development of revenue, and remote parking lots.  Those will continue to be developed in 2015.  There may not be revenue on rainy Tuesdays and agreement with the State is needed.  Parking may be driven up the side roads if parking is restricted on Ocean Blvd., he said.

 

(53:08 elapsed)

            Keper Connell, 240 Washington Rd., stated that he was one of the members of appointed Beach Committee, along with Lori Carbajal, Steve Hillman and another individual who is not present.  Editor’s note:  Larry Rocha and Colin Drake were also members, however Mr. Drake did not attend after the initial meetings.  Mr. Connell stated that they had worked very hard.  A lot of issues relating to the beach keep growing, he said. 

            Lori Carbajal, 18 Tower Ave., stated that hours had been spent journaling at the beach.  She referred to the beach being unmanned at the height of the summer after August 8.  It is difficult to implement anything as the Committee has no power.  She referred to other communities that have a separate body to govern the beach. 

            John Sherman stated that he did not intend to attack the Board of Selectmen.  He stated that he does not understand why committees have been appointed for three years to address the same issues over and over and nothing changes.  “You as a Selectmen are not at the beach.  I have never seen any one of you at the beach on a Saturday afternoon…” 

            Mr. Eaton interrupted and asked Mr. Sherman not to get into this.  Selectman Mills started to say something, at which point Mr. Eaton left the podium and walked towards Selectman Mills with his hand raised asking him to stop talking.  Mr. Eaton then said that he would have to ask Mr. Sherman to get down if he was going to get into an argument.  Mr. Sherman said

 

“you have people in the town who want to help.  You have people who want to report.  You have people who are at the beach and are engaging in the activities.  Surfing.  Whatever it is.  Kayaking.  And there needs to be a liaison between those people and the board so that the board is advised, is educated when it’s making its decisions.  To eliminate that makes no sense…” 

 

            Mr. Sherman questioned the statement that the Board of Selectmen intends to create another Committee in light of the fact that the Beach Commission already exists.  

 

(60:05 elapsed)

            Peter Crawford, 171 Brackett Rd., stated the motion on the table is to place the beach lifeguards under the Fire Department.  The part about dissolving the Beach Commission has been removed.  He said that he supports the motion.  There has been quite a bit of misinformation provided.  The last time that the Beach Commission met was 2011.  While it is true that Mr. LaBrie was managing it along with the Fire Department, that is completely illegal as he was the Chairman and acts only through a majority vote of the Beach Commission.  That Commission was not meeting, he said. 

            Mr. Crawford continued, asserting that this is an attempt to make this a self-fulfilling prophecy.  This past year, five people came forward and offered to serve on the Beach Commission.  Two slots were opening up, Mr. LaBrie’s and one other.  But, rather than appointing people to the Beach Commission, the Selectmen decided to form a Beach Committee with no authority.  There are five people who are very capable.  The one who is not here was a lifeguard supervisor in New Jersey for many years with 30-50 people under him.  Mr. Crawford concluded, saying “the Selectmen are just too busy to deal with the beach issues.  We need a Beach Commission in place.  Thank you.”  There was applause.

 

(61:53 elapsed)

            Steve Hillman, 399 Central Rd., stated that he wanted to clear his name.  He said that he is an advocate of safe, clean and accessible beaches.  He is not an advocate of commercial activity on the beach.  The work that the Committee did this year regarding the excessive commercial activity was not one of the conclusions.  There were a lot of good, common sense conclusions.  He supports getting rid of the Beach Commission as it is useless.  However, he suggests continuing with the Beach Committee.  The Fire Department and the Police Department have done a tremendous job managing the beaches.  It is not true that the Beach Use Committee’s work accomplished nothing as a permit process was instituted.  Editor’s note:  He was referring to the Beach Use Ordinance Committee, which was formed in 2013 after 2013 Warrant Article 15 passed.  In 2014 Warrant Article 23 passed, providing a permitting process for beach activities.  Mr. Hillman stated that the needs of special interests and those who want to grab a piece of the beach is not welcome.  The way it is being set up, with everyone working together, is the way to go.  There was some applause.

            A clarification as to the motion on the table was requested.  Mr. Eaton reread the warrant article, as the proposed amendment would alter it.  Rob then spoke in favor of Mr. Borne’s amendment, stating that it would be premature to dissolve something because it isn’t working well.  They would be better served trying to make it work well.  The Beach Committee is a response to an ineffective Commission.  There seems to be a majority with the view that things are not working well at the beach.

            Betty Anderson, 88 Cable Rd., asked whether it was legal to delete completely one of the two subject matters of the warrant article.  Editor’s note:  Ms. Anderson is the wife of Moderator Robert Eaton.  Mr. Eaton stated that he did not believe that the amendment is illegal as there is still something for the voters to decide based on RSA 40:13 and Bailey v. Town of Exeter. 

            Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., asked the Selectmen if the four bullets are the only job description of the Beach Commission. 

            Selectman Musselman stated that he believes that what appears in the warrant article is quoting verbatim from the 1999 warrant article.  If all of the language is stricken as proposed, the language from the 1999 warrant article directing that there be a Beach Supervisor managing the beaches would remain as well as a direction to have the Fire Department perform such management.  There is not money in the budget to hire a Beach Supervisor.  Selectman Musselman encouraged everyone to vote down the amendment. 

            Mr. Marion stated that he agreed with many of the views expressed.  However, the Selectmen cannot just change the duties of the Beach Commission, so he is opposed to the amendment.  However, he agrees with Mr. Hillman that the town should move forward with the Beach Committee. 

            Frank Drake, 5 South Rd., stated that the Beach Commission’s duties have all been handed over to the Fire Department.  It has no purpose anymore.  He hears, however, that the public wants a liason to the Board of Selectmen.  That’s what the Beach Committee does.  They should move forward with that and vote down the amendment.  There are some great people on that Committee, including Steve Hillman.  The Beach Committee should field complaints, make recommendations and let the process run its course.  The commercial activity issue was settled last year and he was sorry that that was brought up again. 

            Mr. Sherman called the question and the motion was seconded.  The motion carried.

            Mr. Eaton then called for a vote on the amendment.  The motion to amend failed to pass. 

 

(73:25 elapsed)

            Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that, if the article is voted down the town would be left in no mans land.  He suggested that the Beach Commission be suspended for one year, which would give the Committee a year to figure out what to do.

            Frank Drake, stated that the Beach Commission is irrelevant as it has no role any more. 

            Lori Carbajal, 18 Tower, stated that she believed that the tenure of the Beach Committee went to December 31, and was ensure whether it was still in existence.  Selectman Musselman affirmed that its charge had expired, but stated that there was an intent to reappoint the Committee, however that had not yet been done. 

            Jane Ireland called the question, and it was seconded.  The motion carried.  Article 21 was ordered placed on the ballot as written.

 

ARTICLE 22:  $3000 FOR MASTER PLAN EXPENDABLE TRUST (77:33 elapsed) 

 

            Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.  He stated that it was not recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3-0 and not recommended by the Budget Committee 8-0.  Selectman Jenness attempted to offer an amendment, however Mr. Eaton permitted Mr. Crawford to speak first as sponsor.

            Mr. Crawford stated that the purpose was to set aside $3000 to defray the cost of outside assistance and to institute a process of chapter by chapter updates.  He referred to the last update, ending in March 2014 as having been a frustrating process, leading to this article being proposed by a group of citizens.  He spoke of the issues having been identified by the public during the three year update process, but not incorporated in the Master Plan as including (1) demographic issues with a rapidly aging population, with only 10 Retirement Community Development units remaining; (2) climate change, flooding and storm water management and pollution along the coast were addressed only haltingly; (3) no substantive changes were made to two chapters, including the legally required land use chapter; and (4) the Planning Board has been overwhelmed by all of its duties. 

            Mr. Crawford stated that there may be confusion as to the legality of mandating specific chapter updates.  He proposed an amendment that would turn the requirement of annual updates into a recommendation to the Planning Board.

            Mr. Eaton studied the amendment, submitted in writing, for a considerable amount of time and then read the proposed amendment.  Burt Dibble seconded the motion to amend.

            Selectman Jenness stated that, even with the amendment, the warrant article appeared to usurp the role of the Planning Board.  Town Counsel Donovan stated that Mr. Crawford has attempted to work around that with the amendment.  The problem is that it could still be considered to usurp authority even though the amendment would turn it into a recommendation.  

            Bill Epperson, Chairman of the Planning Board, read from RSA 674:1 regarding the duties of the Planning Board.  The requirement from the State Legislature that the plan be updated every 5-10 years has been met.  The Long Range Planning Subcommittee, under the leadership of Mel Low, did an adequate job of refining the chapters.  The focus was on demographics and the language, and it was not intended to be a complete rewrite.  Only the Vision and Land Use sections are required by State law.  He referred to his role on the Climate Change Committee.  However, their conclusions are not yet ready for incorporation in the Master Plan. 

            Mr. Epperson stated that he had recommended that the Planning Board accrue money for outside help in updating the Master Plan. 

            Phil Winslow called the question.  Ms. Franz seconded the motion.  The motion passed.

            The vote on the amendment failed to pass.

           

(88:52 elapsed) 

            Bill Epperson proposed an amendment, that he said was consistent with RSA 674:1 and 674:3.  He read the proposed amendment, which provided the $3000 for the expendable trust.  Mr. McDonough seconded the motion.

            Town Counsel Donovan stated that the language of the amendment stating “if other funds are not available” makes the appropriation unlawful.  It leaves it uncertain as to whether the $3000 had been appropriated or not.  He suggested that this be stricken.

            Mr. Epperson accepted that as a friendly amendment.  Mr. McDonough agreed.

            Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd. and Chairman of the Rye Budget Committee stated that the reason that the Budget Committee had voted not to recommend the warrant article had nothing to do with the Master Plan.   The reason that they voted not to recommend it was that it had not come from the Planning Board.  He asked the process question as to whether the Board of Selectmen and the Budget Committee would need to revote.  Mr. Eaton stated that, if the article is changed a revote would be needed. 

            Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that he, as one of the people who put in a fraction of the effort put in by others, it was difficult to track the changes being made to the Master Plan.  Rye has almost $1.8 billion in assessed property value.  There is no reason why there should not be a “best in class” process for the Master Plan.  Other towns have such funds and realize that the Planning Board doesn’t have the bandwidth.  They also have greater solicitation of resident input.   There is nothing more important to the future of Rye.  It drives everything, he said.

            Peter Crawford said that he supports the amendment.  He is disappointed that there would not be recommendation language in the article, but does not believe that the meeting would support that.  He said that he looks forward to the Budget Committee and the Board of Selectmen re-voting to recommend the warrant article.

            Mr. Epperson emphasized that the Planning Board works for no money, works countless hours and with the best interests of the Town in mind.  They leave politics at the door and the Board is non-partisan.  Everyone is invited to come to the meetings.  There was applause.

            Ms. Franz called the question.  Ms. Grote seconded.  The motion passed.

            Mr. Eaton read the article with the proposed amendment:

 

“(By petition) To see if the town will vote to raise and appropriate $3000, pursuant to RSA 31:19-a, to establish a Master Plan Expendable Trust Fund for the purposes of defraying the cost of outside assistance in updating the Master Plan and to appoint the Planning Board as agent to expend such funds.  The Planning Board shall, as required by RSA 674:3, inform the residents and invite input in refining a vision for their Town, to be set forth in the Master Plan, which shall then become the basis for revised land use regulations.”

 

            The motion to amend carried.  There was no further discussion, so Article 22 was ordered placed on the ballot as amended.

            Mr. Eaton then called for a twenty minute break.