NOTES OF JANUARY 31, 2015 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION
Part Three: Articles 23-30
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/118636551/
Summary
ARTICLE
23: BIG MONEY OUT OF POLITICS RESOLUTION
(0:00 elapsed)
Randy Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration on all articles not so restricted thus far. Mr. Low seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., spoke to the article stated that 96 percent of Americans believe that the influence of money in politics can be reduced, but 91 percent do not think that anything can be done about it. He stated that there are no statewide propositions in New Hampshire. Resolutions must come from the Town Meeting process, he said.
Deidre Smyrnos, 92 Clark Rd., stated that she supports the article. This will make us part of the collective voice. She provided statistics on the number of communities that had introduced similar articles.
Joe Cummins, 990 Washington Rd., asked for clarification of what is meant by “big money.” Would heating oil companies be included?
Mr. Borne stated that the drawing of lines as to what is big or small remains to be discussed by the legislature.
There being no further discussion, Article 23 was ordered placed on the ballot as written.
ARTICLE
24: INDOOR TURF FIELD STUDY (8:30
elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that the intent of the article was to be a catalyst to determine the needs. It would get the groups working together and discussing the coordination of funding.
Selectman Musselman stated that the Recreation Commission was embarking on a process to address needs and there is $20,000 budgeted for that. He stated that he does not know whether this sort of facility would be considered as part of that. A citizens committee would not be able to estimate cost without professional assistance. He moved to remove language referring to that. Mr. Borne seconded as a friendly amendment.
Steven Hillman stated that he coached a number of Lacrosse teams. He stated that he supports looking into something like this. An indoor facility would provide opportunities all year long. He offered to serve on the committee.
There being no further discussion on the amendment, Mr. Eaton called for a vote. The amendment passed.
(15:10 elapsed)
Susan Anderson suggested that “possible health issues related to artificial turf” be added. Mr. Borne seconded. There was no discussion. The motion to amend passed.
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, stated that the warrant article skips the question of whether there should be such a facility. This would be a lot of money, he asserted. He stated that he does not see the need. There are ten fields that could be used. If it’s wet it’s wet, he said.
Selectman Mills stated that he agreed with Mr. Jarvis. He has been involved in youth sports in Rye since 1960. A lot of other things are needed before an indoor turf facility. The kids don’t play as they have to be chauffeured by their parents and are not willing to ride their bicycles, he said.
Nancy Weiand, 1045 Washington Rd., moved that the words “assessment of need” be included under the “the report will include.” Jane Ireland seconded the motion.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., stated that the amendment was redundant as “utilization assessment from different groups” already appears. With regard to Selectman Mills comment there is no appropriation. It is a study. He is thrilled, however, that Mr. Mills is endorsing the creation of bike paths on all town roads, he said.
(22:40 elapsed)
Selectman Mills asserted that he had made the motion to make the roads wider to allow for bike paths well before Mr. Marion came to town. Mr. Mills stated that the last field created in Town, the one at Langs Corner, was done by Mel Low. He went down with his chain saw, the highway crew also came, the trees were cut down, the backhoe was brought in to straighten it out and it was reseeded, he said. Selectman Musselman turned to Selectman Mills and asked “did you abscond with the wood?” Selectman Mills responded “yes I did.” There was laughter.
There being no further discussion on the amendment, Mr. Eaton called for a vote. The motion carried.
Frank Drake, stated that everyone was for youth sports. However, this is a big project for the Town of Rye. The Town has so many more pressing things. He referred to Mr. Borne and Mr. Crawford having gone back ten years and shown how the tax rate has gone up and up and up but been hidden by “clever manipulative tactics.” This would be a huge warrant article and Rye Rec. probably does not have the area for it. He asked whether other Seacoast communities would be involved.
Steven Borne stated that he had tried to communicate that it would involve other communities as well. There is also a reference to grants and other funding options.
Steve Hillman said that, if all of these organizations could become involved at little or no cost to the town it would be a positive. Now, there are as many girls involved in youth sports as boys. It could be a moneymaker as it could be rented out to all of the organizations.
(28:45 elapsed)
Frank Drake asserted that a lot of citizens would be skeptical about the Town of Rye running the Commission. He asserted that the proponents could do all of what they are planning to do without it being under the municipal umbrella. He added “and you know how well the Selectmen run commissions, anyway,” he said. There was laughter. Mr. Eaton interjected “now, now.”
Politically, it’s not going to go anywhere, Mr. Drake asserted. He gave the example of tennis courts having been voted down.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Eaton ordered Article 24 placed on the ballot as amended.
ARTICLE
25: PAY-AS-YOU-THROW (30:03 elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Susan Anderson spoke to the article, stating that the Recycling Education Committee had been established by the Board of Selectmen in April 2013. She stated that the Committee included Mel Low, Deidre Smyrnos, Alan Bucklin, Lynde Karin and her. Extensive research had been done by the Committee. They came to realize that pay-as-you-throw was the best option. Their proposal is supported by Dennis McCarthy, Director of Public Works, and Alan Bucklin, the Senior Attendant at the Recycling Center. Forty-seven communities in New Hampshire have implemented the program successfully.
Mel Low stated that he knows that this is not an easy sell. It has worked for 47 other towns. Concord, NH was generating 15,000 tons of trash. That was reduced by 42 percent. There has been a lot of discussion about future expenditures for the town, including the athletic building. The proposed program reduces the Town budget, he asserted. Rye produces 1200 tons of trash. It costs $140 per truck that goes to Rochester. The reduction would be 40 percent, which is a trailer truck a week. Dennis implemented the program in Raymond. It is not easy politically. “I can see fire in people’s eyes already,” he said. Mr. Low spoke about the original dump committee. The town had been burying its trash in the early 1970s. Old gravel pits were not an option as the State reviewed them and concluded that the water quality would be adversely affected. So, recycling was introduced. Rye is recycling only 31 percent. Eliot, Maine has gone over 50 percent with this program.
Mr. Low, asserting that his household would use only one small bag per week, computed the additional cost to him as about $50 per year, after considering that he would pay $10 to $15 for regular bags without the program, compared to about $60 for the pay-as-you-throw program bags.
Deidre Smyrnos asserted that no town has eliminated the program once it had been implemented. Tilton tried to go back, but the trash skyrocketed and the program was restored within six months. Five hundred extra tons of trash is costing the Town $40,000 annually. There is another $17,000 in recycling revenue projected. Trash needs to be treated as a utility like water and electricity. The reduction in carbon emissions would be the equivalent of taking 200 cars off the road, she said.
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, referred to the Mark Twain quote that “there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics.” There was laughter. He stated that he recycles everything that he can. He asked whether 31 percent was the percentage of households. He said that he doesn’t believe any of it, not because it’s not true but because he does not know what any of these things mean. It makes more sense to increase the types of items that can be recycled. This points to the wrong people, it’s the wrong approach and the statistics issue was addressed by Mark Twain.
(47:05 elapsed)
Selectman Mills made a motion to remove the statements that the article was recommended by the Energy Committee and the Recycling Education Committee. Those committees are appointed, not elected, he said. Selectman Musselman seconded the motion.
Susan Anderson stated that the amendment was fine.
Mr. McDonough asked Town Counsel whether the sentences were necessary to make the warrant article legal. Mr. Eaton responded that they were not. Mr. McDonough suggested that they remain.
Someone asked the Selectmen why they were opposed.
Selectman Mills stated that there had not been enough time spent. He said that they had voted as a board to remove the two sentences. The proponents had been asked to remove them, but did not, he asserted.
Mr. Pearson called the question. Mr. Marion seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Eaton called for a vote. He stated that he thought that it passed, but was unsure. He asked for a numerical count. He announced that the motion passed 39-25.
Charlie Hoyt, 891 Ocean Blvd., stated that the $150,000 divided by the number of taxpayers would be a minimal amount, but that he would have to spend over $3000. Just his household alone, with the renters, would be 3-4 bags a week.
Jaci Grote, 124 Washington, stated that she is in favor of the article. This is an experiment for only a year. The 31 percent came from the dump, she said. Mr. McCarthy agreed.
Tom Pearson, 51 Pine St., stated that he is in favor of recycling and uses the Recycling Center rather than Waste Management. From some of the tapes of Selectmen’s meetings, he found that they are interested in eliminating unauthorized use. This seems like a slap in the face to those who recycle, with a bag tax. The $100,900 is one of the principal parts of the savings from the bag tax. However, it’s actually $126,600. The difference is the profit to the bag company, which makes 30 to 35 cents per bag. The bags at Market Basket are 11 to 14 cents each. Mr. Pearson then enumerated the savings (if you believe the figures, he said):
$33,100 Trash costs
$17,100 Haulage costs
$ 7,000 Further recycling
To put out $126,600 to get savings of $57,200 is a loss of $68,400.
Editor’s note: It’s actually $69,400. More importantly, the analysis fails to
include the $100,900 in bag revenues which inures to the benefit of taxpayers. However, see Selectman Musselman’s comment
below about the experience in other towns being that the trash always decreases
by more than the recycling increases.
The question is who is paying for the disposal of that trash.
Mr. Pearson asked why the soft, rather than harsh, alternative could not be pursued first. He suggested education and held up a brochure.
Mr. Pearson challenged the practicality of their system. The 30 gallon bag would not overlap the rim so that it would fit in a 32 gallon trash container without falling to the bottom.
Mr. Pearson stated that the same plan was presented in Portsmouth recently and the City Council did not like it.
Alan Gould stated that he respects Mr. Low, however he disagrees with him. This is a tax, he said. He is saving on his tax bill but would pay much more for the bags. He does not want to spend $200 to $300 to do what he is already doing.
Steven Borne stated that he was tired of subsidizing people that do not recycle and have large volumes of trash. The pilot process will generate real numbers within a year.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., also spoke in support. Even if called a tax, the ideal tax is one which creates incentives for behaviors that you want to see. He offered a friendly amendment to permit an extension beyond the year based on a cost/benefit analysis by the Selectmen. There was a second. As Mr. Jarvis came to the microphone, Mr. Marion stated that he was an applied statistician, so he did not want any more offensive language. There was laughter.
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, asked how the cost/benefit analysis would be done. There would be no benefit from those who already recycle everything, he said.
Mr. Gould argued that the voters should be able to evaluate the program in a year, not the Selectmen.
Mr. Marion argued that a cost/benefit could be done based on the cost of the bags, the reduction in trash and the increase in recycling.
Susan Anderson pointed out that Mr. McCarthy has detailed statistics on the weight of what is discarded. That would be used for the cost/benefit analysis. A family of four should not need more than two 30 gallon bags per month if they recycle everything. That is $48 per year, she said.
Phil Winslow called the question on the Marion amendment. Mr. Drake seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Mr. Eaton read the amendment which would change the first sentence to read “to see if the town will vote to implement a SMART (Save Money and Reduce Trash) program for a one year trial period – to be extended based on a cost/benefit analysis conducted by the Board of Selectmen.” The remainder would remain the same, he said. After calling for a vote, Mr. Eaton indicated that a count was needed. Mr. Eaton stated that the amendment passed 26-25. Mr. Eaton stated that he would vote in favor and that it passed 27-25.
(80:00 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that he had spent half of his career implementing solid waste and recycling projects in New Hampshire. He uses a hauler as it saves energy. He would benefit from this through reduced taxes. However, he believes that this provides an incentive for current users of the Transfer Station to use a hauler. Families of 5 and 6 would use more than two bags a month. Every time that there is good data, communities that have adopted the program have experienced a decrease in trash exceeding the increase in recycling. There is no possibility that the delta could be explained by reduced purchasing of items. The incentive is to take trash elsewhere. He used the example of someone taking trash to a relative’s house that does not have pay-as-you-throw, such as Portsmouth. The trash also shows up in commercial dumpsters, he argued.
Selectman Mills asked for a recount. Mr. Eaton referred to RSA 40:4-b which requires that recount requests must be called for immediately before any other business is taken up. He argued that this occurred when Selectman Musselman started to speak. He ruled the request out of order.
Craig Krespach, 26 Appledore Ave., argued that he recycled so that this was just going to increase his cost as he would not recycle any more. Clear trash bags with volunteers to stand by the dumpster would be more effective. He offered an amendment to add “and $3 for 50 gallon bags.” Mr. Marion seconded.
Deidre Smyrnos stated that she did not believe there were 50 gallon bags available from Waste Zero. A 33 gallon bag would be available for $2.25.
The motion of Mr. Drake, seconded by Mr. Pearson, to call the question on the amendment carried.
The motion carried, after Mr. Eaton asked for a second show of cards.
Frank Drake asked whether the question could be called as the issue was not likely to be resolved that day and it was 3:00 p.m. Mr. Marion seconded the motion. The motion carried. Mr. Eaton ordered Article 25 to appear on the ballot as amended.
ARTICLE
26: REQUIRED VIDEO STREAMING (90:05
elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Burt Dibble, 106 Harbor Rd., spoke to the article. He stated that a couple of years ago the citizens had voted to implement video streaming. There were some concerns at the time. The system is simple enough to use that it has not been a problem. Also, the Library has apparently found video streaming to be useful as it has also implemented it. The system has also been useful as an archive. A lot of those not in the room are not involved in promoting good government. Some may be out of town. This gives a chance to address the people who are looking in remotely.
Mr. Dibble continued, saying that the system is being used to a significant degree. The reports from the last year indicate that 720 unique IP addresses have been utilized to access live streaming or the archives. Fewer than a third or a half of that number are here today. A proposal is being made to install a camera system in the cafeteria here at the Junior High School so that meetings that are too large for the courtroom could be streamed. That would allow the School District to use the system for curricular purposes. Not only have the anticipated problems not been realized, but there are many benefits that could be realized by expanding the system.
Scott Marion stated that he is a member of the School Board. He pointed out that a separate warrant article would be discussed at the School Deliberative Session. It is not clear whether “all Boards” would include the School Board. He suggested an amendment. Mr. Eaton stated that Mr. Donovan had indicated that the Town has no jurisdiction over the School Board so the amendment is unnecessary.
Frank Drake moved the question. Selectman Mills attempted to speak, but Mr. Eaton stated that the question had been moved. Peter Crawford seconded. Mr. Eaton suggested that people consider that there has not been much discussion and that Selectman Mills is trying to speak. The motion carried. Article 26 was ordered placed on the ballot as written.
ARTICLE
27: CONSERVATION ACQUISITION PROCESS
(99:13 elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Peter Crawford spoke to the article. He stated that the proponents had an opportunity to watch the Selectmen’s “a to p” process this past year when the Selectmen approved a $1.25 million purchase of the back portion of the former Rand Lumber property. In 2013, the entire parcel, including 17 front acres now being developed into 20 retirement homes, was sold to the developer for $1.15 million.
Mr. Crawford stated that there are a number of incremental process improvements included in the warrant article. He spoke about the need for an independent appraisal and cited the example of a bank being unwilling to grant a mortgage without an appraisal being done by someone of its own choosing. To protect taxpayer money, the warrant article requires that the appraisal be independent and at the behest of the Town, he argued.
Mr. Crawford spoke of large acquisitions typically involving appraisal based on a hypothetical subdivision. Just because a sketch may show lots meeting the minimum lot size and frontage requirements, doesn’t mean that that the lots would actually be developable, given wetlands setback and septic system requirements. Wetland delineation and test pits data should be required, reasonably approximating what the Planning Board would require for subdivision approval.
Mr. Crawford spoke about a need to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that waivers or variances would be granted. He used the example of a 600 foot maximum length for a dead end street. An appraisal based on the assumption that such a maximum would be waived inflates the value and dissipates taxpayer money, he argued.
Mr. Crawford stated that the town should not become liable for environmental cleanup costs, even for land which is a gift.
Mr. Crawford stated there needs to be a survey conducted so that the deed and plat recorded could establish the land acquired in perpetuity. He gave an example of a survey done a number of years earlier that was obviously incorrect as it described a boundary line proceeding southwestward from a lower to a higher latitude, an impossibility in the northern hemisphere.
As Mr. Crawford spoke, Mr. Eaton can be observed on the video walking back and forth to confer with Selectmen Musselman and Jenness while transferring pieces of paper back and forth.
(106:05 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman proposed an amendment. He stated that this accomplished the objectives of the original article. The first three points are overly prescribed and not necessarily applicable in all cases, he argued. Certain of them set the bar so high that you could almost not get over it, he said. The fourth item, absence of environmental liability has been addressed in the last month by a revision to the process. An independent survey is already addressed and is not required in all cases.
Selectman Musselman stated that they have a legal opinion that Mr. Donovan can speak to. The specifics outlined are something that the legislative body is being asked to do, but it is not the purview of the legislative body but of the governing body which is the Board of Selectmen. Most of the questions posed here would be deemed unlawful anyway, he argued.
Mr. Eaton restated the amendment which would rewrite Article 27 to read:
“(By Petition) Under the “a to q” process (the “Process”) for conservation land purchases, promulgated by the Board of Selectmen on January 6, 2014, the written information (the “Information Submittal”) and testimony at the public hearing may be considered in approving or recommending any acquisition. The Selectmen may consider requiring as part of the Information Submittal, an appraisal at the behest of the Town appropriately addressing the development potential of the property and a property survey plan and boundary description.”
Mrs. Jenness seconded the motion to amend the warrant article.
Peter Crawford then spoke, stating:
“this has been very frustrating because I submitted this warrant article on January 8 to the Selectmen to be reviewed by counsel. They said they’d get back to me. They didn’t. I made a right-to-know request last Friday which wasn’t responded to until yesterday. I got an e-mail from the Town Administrator which said that, yes there was a written opinion from counsel but there had been subsequent oral discussions and that the original legal opinion was stale. Well, I submit that the original legal opinion was half-baked, because I believe it is completely incorrect.”
Mr. Eaton interrupted, saying “let’s be careful of our language, Mr. Crawford.”
Mr. Crawford continued, saying that “I believe he is completely incorrect that this is not in the purview of the voters of this town.” Mr. Crawford argued that saying that the
“Board of Selectmen may consider requiring as part of the submittal process an appraisal, all that does is it guts the warrant article by taking this back to the ‘a to p’ process that the Selectmen promulgated back in January that caused all the problems that we now have, particularly evidenced by the Rand acquisition which was rammed through at a value much higher, or significantly higher, than the entire parcel, and they’re going to make a lot of money on the front part of that parcel.”
“So, to say that we’re now going to trust the Selectmen to decide whether or not they want an appraisal and give them that freedom, I think we’re past that point. We need to insist, as voters of this town, that our taxpayer dollars are preserved by requiring an independent appraisal at the behest of the Town. With Rand, the developer got the appraisal, submitted that, and it had a lot of questions that I raised at the public hearing that weren’t answered. For example, the test pit data that was in the ‘a to p’ was on twenty test pits that were located on the RCD. That land was not being sold. It was completely irrelevant. It was thrown into the data submittal in order to have something there, hoping that nobody would recognize that there was no test pit data for the back land. And these are the sorts of games that we see going on.”
Mr. Crawford urged a no vote on the amendment. He said that it is not for the Selectmen to decide how to spend $3 million of our taxpayer money. He also pointed out that the CIP Plan for 2017 proposes another $3 million bond. “We just spent an hour arguing about $150,000. We’re talking about $6 million of our taxpayer money.”
Frank Drake suggested a friendly amendment to say “the Selectmen shall require, when the total consideration exceeds…” He suggested some figures.
(115:05 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman indicated that he would not agree to Mr. Drake’s friendly amendment, however, he acknowledged that the concept goes without saying. It would depend on the circumstances, however they are not prepared, with input from the Conservation Commission today, to prescribe what that threshold might be. He suggested that it be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. He continued, saying:
“I think in most cases, I think we ought to have an appraisal, myself. I think that whether, if the owner has an appraisal, whether the town has to spend the money to do another one I think is a question and it may, that would be a project-specific issue that we need to raise, as to what was in the appraisal, what the questions are. In this case that’s pointed out and made a big deal over what the appraisal was, it was a piece of land that was offered for x dollars and it was not available at y dollars. And, in that type of circumstance you have to make a decision and you have an appraisal available, would you pay for another appraisal to get to that point? I think you need to make that judgment at the time. But, I don’t think that you want to throw necessarily sticks in the pathway of the Conservation Commission of being able to acquire property...”
Joe Cummins, 990 Washington Rd., said that he is against the amendment because it removes the need for a hazardous waste test by the buyer. Although item “q” was added, if the Selectmen want to waive that it can be waived. He expressed concern that, as a purchaser, the town could be liable and would not have the immunity that a buyer would have if the reasonable step to have a test was done was performed. He stated that he understood that the Rand purchase did not involve a hazardous waste test.
Selectman Musselman used the example of the Conservation Commission acquiring two back acres without woods road access that had been “walked” to assert that a hazardous waste test is not necessary in every case. He also pointed out that, in some cases, a new property survey would be a waste of money.
Mr. Crapo called the question. Ms. King seconded the motion. Mr. Eaton then started to read the amended article, then stopped, indicating that the motion was to call the question. He asked for a vote, and that motion passed.
The vote on the amendment then passed.
(121:22 elapsed)
Frank Drake stated that he understood the argument about too much bureaucratic overlay, but stated that the spirit was “pretty good.” He stated that, at the $500,000 threshold the language should be “shall.” Mr. Eaton asked for a piece of paper showing where the language was to appear. Mr. Eaton then read from a piece of paper provided by Mr. Drake, saying that the last sentence would be changed to read:
“The Selectmen shall require, where the total consideration exceeds $500,000, as part of the Information Submittal, an appraisal at the behest of the Town, appropriately addressing the development potential of the property and a property survey plan and boundary description.”
Mr. Marion seconded the motion.
Mr. Crawford stated that he supported the amendment, and thought that it was a very important step. He indicated that one could argue about the amount, but that could be discussed later. He stated that the Selectmen should be required to obtain an independent appraisal before they spend $500,000 of taxpayer money, or about $200 per household in Rye. The cost is probably $4000 or $8000 and can probably be placed on the seller anyway, he said.
Jaci Grote, 124 Washington Rd., argued that the comment about placing the cost on the seller was said in a “haphazard way.” “You’re talking about people who could possibly even give us a bargain sale for their property and it could be worth more than $500,000.” She pointed out that the Town of Rye had voted for the $3 million. “It’s not like this money was forced out of anyone’s hands.” She pointed out that the additional $3 million in the CIP Plan would be voted on when requested. She suggested that the $500,000 be higher.
Joe Cummins responded to the comment about squeezing money out of the townspeople, pointing out that it was an extremely close vote, a lawful public hearing did not occur on the Conservation Bond vote and legislation was required to remedy that. He then said that he saw heads shaking and asked why that was untruthful.
Mr. Eaton requested that the discussion focus on the amendment.
Lee Perrault, 232 Brackett Rd., stated that $500,000 seemed arbitrary. She said that
“This money was appropriated because the Town trusted the people who are doing the work to conserve land in this town and at some point. It’s not that there weren’t mistakes made, but people are volunteering their time. They’re doing diligence to the best that they can and they care about the trust of the people.”
She asserted that the everyone on the Conservation Commission cares about every dime.
Phil Winslow moved the question. Mr. King seconded the motion. The motion passed.
The amendment failed.
Randy Crapo asked whether the petitioners could require a process that would add costs, and if so why this did not come before the Selectmen and the Budget Committee.
Mr. Eaton asked if anyone wanted to respond to Mr. Crapo’s question. Nobody did.
Joe Cummins proposed an amendment that he handed to Mr. Eaton. Mr. Eaton read the amendment, which would add a requirement of a hazardous waste environmental analysis. Mr. Marion seconded.
Mr. Cummins stated that he was sympathetic to Mr. Musselman’s point about back lots. He then stated that he had forgotten to add that this would apply only to commercial property. Mr. Marion agreed. Mr. Cummins stated that a hazardous waste study should be done when there is a non-remote possibility that hazardous waste was left on the property, as such a study provides some immunity to liability.
Mr. Crawford stated that he supported the amendment.
Sally King stated that she did not support the amendment as there are other ways to check hazardous waste. She referred to grants, Natural Resources Conservation Services and Wetlands Reserve Easement programs.
At Selectman Musselman’s request, Mr. Eaton read the proposed language, that he indicated would be added at the end: “A hazardous waste environmental analysis shall be performed for Town on bought commercial property.” Selectman Musselman questioned whether that would apply to property that is zoned commercial or property that had previously been developed commercially. If it was the latter, he said, it would be reasonable, he said.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., stated that he supported the amendment and stated that he is on the Board of the Southeast Land Trust, and that there is an environmental assessment in every case because the liability is so great. If that comes as part of the grant process that is fine, but it needs to be done to avoid exposing the Town to significant liability, he said.
Selectman Musselman stated that this would absolutely be required for previously developed commercial property, which is why “q” was added. He stated that the amendment is not necessary as the Selectmen intend to require this.
Mr. Crawford suggested changing “bought commercial property” to “property previously used for commercial use.” Mr. Cummins and Mr. Marion both agreed to the change.
Mr. Eaton then read the amendment language as “A hazardous waste environmental analysis shall be performed for Town on property previously used for commercial use.”
Selectman Musselman stated that he thought that was acceptable.
Jane Ireland moved the question. Janice Ireland seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Eaton then reread the amendment. The motion passed.
Shawn Crapo moved the question. Mr. McDonough seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Eaton ordered Article 27 placed on the ballot as amended.
ARTICLE
28: CIP PLAN PROCESS (141:22 elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article.
Scott Marion spoke to the warrant article. He stated that he was one of the signers. He stated that he appreciated the work of the CIP Committee. However, they do not see is the consideration across financial purposes such as the School District, the Water District and the Beach Districts. This would require consideration across all of the different entities to prevent spikes. Taxpayers get one bill and it does not really matter where they come from, he argued.
Shawn Crapo, 676 Central Rd., stated that people are elected and put in place to run the government. Burdens are being added on top of a planning tool. Pretty soon, the Selectmen will have to follow it, he argued. The plan may need to change if a six wheel dump truck flips over in a storm, he argued. The article cannot be eliminated because enough people signed the petition. He indicated that he opposed the article.
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, stated that he is the Chairman of the Committee. He enumerated the members of the Committee: Phil Winslow, Ned Paul, Mae Bradshaw and Jeanne Moynahan. He argued that all of the projects are rated in three general areas: (1) to secure life and property (2) maintain standard of life and (3) try to make things better following the Master Plan. He argued that the Committee members have no qualifications to rank the projects.
Art Ditto came to the microphone to speak, but Mr. Eaton stated that Mr. Musselman had an amendment. Frank Drake stated that he also had an amendment. Mr. Drake quipped, “once again, upstaged.”
Selectman Musselman stated that they had the same issue with legality with respect to this article that they had with others. He proposed an amendment and read it:
“In addition to the requirements of 2013 Warrant Article 21, shall the CIP Committee annually fulfill the requirements of RSA 674:5 that it “prepare and amend a recommended program of municipal capital improvement projects” which shall take into account the Master Plan and guidance from the Board of Selectmen.”
Selectman Musselman said that this simplified the warrant article but still makes a change.
Mr. Crawford stated that this again guts the warrant article by removing the prioritization which was the whole point of the warrant article. He questioned whether the amendment made the article a nullity as it largely restates the requirements of RSA 674:5 which already apply. Mr. Eaton stated that the subject matter is not deleted.
Mr. Crawford stated that he was surprised at the amendment as, at the November 10, 2014 Board of Selectmen meeting, Selectman Musselman was begging Mr. Jarvis to come up with some sort of prioritization. With regard to the comment earlier about this mandating that the Selectmen follow the plan would be completely illegal. The only thing that the CIP Committee can do is recommend, he argued. Mr. Jarvis questioned the wisdom of the indoor playing field. That’s the perfect situation for the CIP Committee, which is better qualified than the voters in town to prioritize, he said.
Art Ditto read from RSA 674:5 “the sole purpose of the capital improvements program shall be to aid the mayor or selectmen and the budget committee in their consideration of the annual budget.” It’s an annual process and tool and can be changed every year, he said.
Frank Drake moved the question. Mr. McDonough seconded. The motion carried.
Mr. Eaton then read the proposed amendment. The amendment passed.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that there are at least three governing bodies in Town: The Town, the School, the Water District and other Districts. The CIP Committee and the Budget Committee are the only entities which span all of these. If you own a house and somebody is in charge of the yard, someone else the outside and a third person the inside, someone may say our debt is low, let’s put in new shrubs. Another may say let’s paint the house and put in new windows. A third may say let’s redo the kitchen. It would not all be done at the same time. A plan would be put together. The piece which is missing is a plan to level the debt.
Shawn Crapo moved the question. Randy Crapo seconded the motion. The motion passed.
Mr. Eaton ordered the article placed on the ballot as amended.
Phil Winslow requested restriction of reconsideration of all previous warrant articles. Mr. Marion seconded the motion. The motion passed.
ARTICLE
29: PUBLIC AUCTION OF TOWN PROPERTY
(158:28 elapsed)
Mr. Eaton read the warrant article. Selectman Mills stated that this was done every year.
There was no discussion. Mr. Eaton ordered the warrant article placed on the ballot as written.
ARTICLE
30: OTHER BUSINESS (159:03 elapsed)
There was no discussion. The motion to dissolve by Mr. McDonough was seconded by Mr. Winslow carried and the meeting was ordered dissolved by Mr. Eaton.