NOTES OF JANUARY 30, 2016 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION
Part One
Revised Final Revision C – 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.
Town Moderator Robert Eaton called the meeting to order at 9:07 a.m.
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/153685091/
Summary
Warrant Article
Links
Articles 1-3: Election, Zoning
Article 4: 541 Washington acquisition ($450,000). Article 4 reopened.
Article 5: Ambulance ($275,000)
Article 6: New 6-wheel dump truck ($175,000)
Article 7: Red Mill Ln. culvert(s) ($150,000)
Article 8: Rescission of 2011 bond authorization
Article 9: Fire truck reserve ($100,000)
Article 10: Highway Equipment Capital Reserve ($75,000)
Introduction (0:00
elapsed)
Moderator Eaton introduced himself and started the meeting by reading a long list of “friends and neighbors” who had passed away in the past year.
(2:51 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton then introduced the persons sitting at the table on the stage, left to right as viewed from the audience. As he introduced Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, he noted that she was retiring and provided some comments praising her service. He then handed her a bouquet of flowers. Selectman Jenness provided additional praise for Ms. Yeaton and presented her with a copy of L.B. Parson’s History of Rye.
(7:44 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton then introduced the remaining persons on the stage.
Moderator Eaton then announced the candidates for town office (all are 1 seat for 3 years unless noted):
Town Moderator (1 seat, 2 years)
Bob Eaton
Board of Selectmen
Priscilla Jenness
Richard Moynahan
Cemetery Trustee
Richard Moynahan
Frank Drake
Library Trustee
Victor Azzi
Supervisor of the Checklist (6 years)
Jane Holway
Trustee of the Trust Funds
Chris Nee
Budget Committee (2 seats)
Shawn Crapo
Peggy Balboni
Mae Bradshaw
Planning Board (2 seats)
Phil Winslow
Bill Epperson
Zoning Board of Adjustment*
R.J. Lincoln
Patrick Driscoll
Sewer Commissioner
Dave Adams
School Board (2 seats)
Scott Marion
(Moderator Eaton noted that the winner of a write-in vote would be elected to the School Board)
School District Clerk (2 years)
Donna Decotis
School District Treasurer
Mark Zartarian
*Editor’s note: There is only one seat open on the Zoning
Board of Adjustment. Ray Jarvis’s term
is up and he is not running for reelection.
Moderator Eaton announced that the Candidates Night, hosted by the Rye Civic League will be held Monday, February 29 at 7:00 p.m. at the Rye Public Library.
Moderator Eaton announced that the Town election will be Tuesday, March 8 from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Rye Elementary School. The School District Deliberative Session will be Wednesday, February 3 at 6:30 p.m. at the Junior High.
Moderator Eaton then went through the rules. He noted that, in 2007, the Deliberative Session lasted only 64 minutes, but that they have now become marathons.
(16:02 elapsed)
Moderator
Eaton indicated that he was making a change this year. A motion to call the question requires a two-thirds
majority and is not debatable. When the
question is called, the person speaking would be permitted to finish before a
vote would be called for. Editor’s note: This continues a change first made in
2015. In prior years, those seeking the
floor to speak when the question was called would be permitted to speak.
Articles 1-3: Elections and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments (16:52 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton explained that Articles 1 and 2 related to elections. There is nothing to debate or discuss, he said. Article 3 relates to five amendments to the Zoning Ordinance recommended by the Planning Board. Traditionally these have not been discussed at the Deliberative Session as, by law, they may not be amended. There is a right to discuss them if there is a motion. There was no motion so Article 3 was ordered placed on the ballot as written.
Article
4: Acquisition of 541 Washington Rd.
($460,000) (17:36 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Selectman
Musselman stated the idea was initially that of Selectman Mills. The property is adjacent to a Town
facility. A variety of different
facilities could be constructed there.
The parcel includes a residence built in the late 40s or early 50s. It was owned by Carl Eric Johnson. Selectman Musselman stated that he sang with
him and knew him rather well. Last year,
discussions were started with him regarding sale. However, he passed away in May. Since then, there have been discussions with
his estate which had been in probate until last month. There was not an official representative
until recently. There has been an
interest expressed, but no purchase and sale agreement. The purpose is not necessarily for town hall
purposes and the warrant article does not say anything about town hall. It stated.
It says for public facility purposes which is the intent. Editor’s
note: The article, as it then existed,
did not include the word “facility” or indicate either that there was an
existing structure on the parcel, or that one might be constructed. It referred to land banking the property for
future use.
Selectman Musselman continued, stating that, as one of the options, a town hall could fit on this site. In the Capital Improvement Program there is an item down the road for a community center, which also could fit on this site, or there could be other office needs in the future. Editor’s note: The current CIP plan includes a $2.545 million community center in 2017. Selectman Musselman spoke about a lot line adjustment with the Public Safety Building which would permit sharing of septic systems and parking. A facility could be placed in the back of the property, with the front being layered and dense landscaping. The appearance to Washington Rd. is important, but the time for considering that is not necessarily when acquisition of the property is being considered. That should occur during process of design and consideration by the Historic District Commission.
Selectman Musselman read a letter from the Historic District Commission, received in January. It referred to the purchase of 541 Washington Rd. having been discussed at a meeting. It requests that the Town, if it went forward with the purchase, strictly comply with section 303 of the Rye Zoning Ordinance. It quoted from section 303.2 in particular, which refers to the preservation “for generations to come the unique collections of historically, architecturally and culturally significant buildings and structures which characterize the Town of Rye.”
Moderator Eaton asked Selectman Musselman to try to wrap it up.
Selectman Musselman stated that all of the points in the letter were well made and that it was the intent of the Town to comply with those. The issues of appearance that would be raised by neighbors could play out during the approval process. The site is of adequate size. There may be some motions today to reduce the number such that the voters would be voting on a lower number. That would be inadequate to acquire the property. He encouraged the Town Meeting to resist that so that the taxpayers rather than 100 people would decide the issue.
Opposition from nearby residents (28:02 elapsed)
Thomas King, 535 Wallis Rd., stated that he is on the Historic District Commission, but is speaking for himself. The primary part of the Historic District is that stretch of less than 400 yards in the center of town. There are roughly 13 single family homes fronting on Washington Rd. and another 7 homes on side streets. In addition there are the Parsonage, two multi-family buildings, the School, the Church, the Town Hall, the Public Safety Building, two businesses, the Library and the Museum. While there is mixed use, that is away from the single family area. One residence was lost to the Public Safety Building. Building a building on this site would take out what little is left of a nice rural, historic district.
Selectman Jenness suggested that people look at page 100, in the section on the town center, of the Master Plan. That is a description of the thoughts by those attending visioning sessions of what the center of town might look like. Before this idea is turned away out of hand, it would be a good idea for everyone to read that section.
Jeff Quinn, 71 Cable Rd., stated that the term “historical” is relative. He referred to the distinction between things that are historical and worth saving vs. those that have seen their time and should be renewed. He encouraged people to vote in favor as it offers a great deal of flexibility. A house that is 70 years old doesn’t fit the bill for historical preservation, he said.
Mel Low, 650 Washington Rd., stated that although he usually supports the Selectmen, in this case he must go against Joe Mills. Mr. Low stated that he had gone to a neighborhood meeting. Across the street are a couple of houses dating from 1725, fifty years before the Revolutionary War. The Town Hall has been under discussion for three years. He does not see going ahead with this as until a decision has been made on Town Hall. He cannot see putting a Town Hall there. Mr. Low talked about the traffic in the morning near the school, with the cars and the kids on bicycles and indicated that another municipal building in the area would be inadvisable. There was applause.
Lori Carbajal, 18 Tower Ave., stated that voters need to know that the property includes a building that would most likely be demolished. She spoke about the extension of blacktop and traffic on Lang Rd. It is extremely unfair to the residents of the area for the town to encroach upon a current residential area with oversized municipal structures while all the while there has been overwhelming support by taxpayers for the Town Hall to remain exactly where it is. This article should not be misconstrued that the purpose is for green space by land banking the property. There was applause.
Karen Stewart, 546 Washington Rd., stated that she is neighbor and was also on the Town Hall Committee and was a strong, if not the strongest, advocate for exploring the use of the Public Safety Building as a location for additional office space. She stated that she is the mother of a seven year old and a nine year old. They bike and walk to the School and the Library. The Town and School have done an unbelievable job of encouraging biking and walking to school. Ms. Stewart stated that she is also on the Historic District Commission and there are a lot of reasons not to spend taxpayer dollars on the purchase of this residentially-zoned property in the historic district. Ms. Stewart referred to demolishing a home for the purposes of locating a municipal complex on the site or just waiting until we figure out what to do with it. She stated about concern about the safety of the children and the traffic. There was applause.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., asked about the appraisal amount. He stated that he does not believe that the Town of Rye should be in the real estate business. It is easy to get burned buying and selling property, he said. He asked whether there had been any thinking about the risk.
Selectman Musselman stated that the assessed value, at full value, is $450,000. There was an appraisal done in the early fall in the low 400s for the property as it currently exists. The home is somewhat of a state of disrepair and needs a roof and other work, he said. Editor’s note: The appraisal is for $410,000, and notes greater than typical deterioration, lack of timely maintenance (failed roofing and paint), lack of updating to kitchen and baths and failed flooring around toilets. Click here to see the appraisal. The estate is willing to sell the property for something less than $460,000, Selectman Musselman said. The Town of Rye has the power of eminent domain but has never used it. They understand that there are discussions between the estate and others to acquire the property, but there is not an indication of the price. The number could be a little bit less than what has been proposed. There is a quote of $7500 to demolish the house. There is no intention of leaving the home there for a long period of time, as is, and there is no intention of renting it out. The intention is that the property would be acquired and a decision would be made within the next couple of years on the sites for a variety of Rye public facilities. If a decision is made not to use it, it would be sold at the market price, which could be more than, or less than $460,000, but would be somewhere in that range.
Mr. Marion stated that they needed to think about the appraised value without a house on the property. He is glad that we are not thinking of going into the rental business. He said that he is not prepared to make a motion now to lower the dollar amount, but it was helpful to get the clarification.
(47:45 elapsed)
Ray Jarvis, 83 Liberty Common, stated that he thought the presentation of Selectman Musselman was somewhat convincing, but that he disagrees. It is a black and white issue. He does not see how, with the constant flow of traffic coming down Lang Rd. whipping around the corner, that they can be thinking about increasing the number of cars coming out onto Washington Rd. 100-150 feet away from the intersection. “I do not comprehend it. I think it’s a bad idea which has been very skillfully presented… Do not compromise the safety of the Town by some we may do this, we may do that…” There was applause.
Anne Hoyt, Ocean Blvd. pointed out that there is the Library, the Old Police Station, Rye Rec. and the two schools for public purposes. If the property was purchased there would be two town hall locations that would need to be paid for. There was applause.
Charles Sleeper, 23 Fern Ave., stated that he was opposed the article as they would be taking a property off of the tax rolls. If the house is removed, the property would only be worth $285,000. The money would never be recouped if we try to sell it. It is a bad idea, he said. There was applause.
Motion to call the question
fails to achieve two-thirds (52:20 elapsed)
Frank Drake said that they had heard a lot of good arguments and moved the question. Ms. Ireland seconded. Moderator Eaton asked for a show of hands, then announced that the motion had carried and ordered Article 4 to appear on the ballot as written.
Peter
Crawford requested a recount, stating that it appeared that only about 50
percent had voted in favor. Moderator
Eaton looked through his notes and indicated that seven voters needed to
request a recount. After it appeared
that a sufficient number of cards had been raised, Moderator Eaton announced
that recounts would need to be conducted by secret ballot. There was then a motion to count the cards
rather than conduct a secret ballot, which carried. Moderator Eaton asked Mr. Marion to count to
his right, and Mr. Goldman to count to his left. Moderator Eaton then stated that the motion
passed by a vote of 55 to 33. Editor’s note: Moderator Eaton’s math was incorrect, as that
was 62.5%, while 66.7% (two-thirds) is required to call the question. After Article 5 was debated, he realized his
error and reopened debate on Article 4.
Selectman Musselman moved to restrict reconsideration. The motion was seconded by Ray Tweedie. The motion carried.
Article
5: Ambulance ($275,000) (56:28 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article. Selectman Jenness stated that, since 2005, 100 percent of the revenues from a cell tower off of Grove Rd. had been restricted to a new ambulance. The current balance is $331,832.64.
Interim Fire Chief Tom Lambert explained that the current ambulance is a 2008 Chevy that has 91,968 miles. The mileage is not a good indication of the use as the ambulance spends much time idling at the scene. It does not have the opportunity to warm up. Going from the bottom end to the top end takes its toll on the vehicle. For the past three years they have been averaging 475 emergency calls. Normally the budget for maintenance is $3000, but this past year over $9000 was spent on repairs and maintenance. It was out of service for over 25 days. All requests were covered through mutual aid. That resulted in loss revenue. The industry standard for fire department ambulances is usually in the 7-8 year range. There would be 6-8 month wait for the ambulance to be built after passage of the warrant article.
(61:10 elapsed)
Peter Crawford offered to amend the warrant article to change the last line to read “This article has no 2016 tax impact, the money having been set aside in prior years.” Steven Borne seconded the motion. Mr. Crawford stated that, as written, the article might mislead some voters. The cell tower revenue comes in and goes into a fund that was set up by vote of the Town Meeting. It cannot be used for anything else and there is now enough to buy an ambulance. However, it would be incorrect to imply that this is a free ambulance because if the money had gone into the General Fund it would have been used to reduce taxes in the years that the money came in. There was a tax impact in prior years, he said.
Selectman Mills stated that, if the money had gone into the General Fund it would have been wasted by the Selectmen.
Jeff Quinn asked how much the new ambulance would cost. Selectman Mills asked Mr. Quinn how many whistles he wanted on it, and noted that the price was “unlimited.” Selectman Musselman stated that $275,000 had been recommended. Selectman Jenness stated that there is the cost of the ambulance and then a cost for the equipment.
Chief Lambert stated that most of the equipment would be transferred to the new ambulance. The $275,000 should be sufficient for the new ambulance and equipment that could not be transferred, he said.
Paul Goldman, Chairman of the Rye Budget Committee asked whether the Budget Committee would need to revote if the amendment passed.
The motion to amend passed.
Tom King, 535 Wallis Rd., asked what percentage of the 475 annual calls are due to the Webster and Sanctuary Care and whether payments in lieu of taxes were being made by these non-profit entities. Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie stated that payments in lieu of taxes are being made and that Webster paid over $18,000.
Chief Lambert stated that the calls to both facilities are probably a little less than 100, and that a bill is sent whenever anyone is transported by ambulance.
Don Beeson, 691 Long John Rd. asked whether there would be reasonably modern equipment. Chief Lambert states that the equipment is sufficiently up-to-date to meet the State licensing requirements. The status of the equipment is reviewed on a constant basis and requests are made to update the equipment to state of the art status, he said.
Selectman Mills stated that Portsmouth and North Hampton provide mutual aid within “minutes.” Mr. King asked how many minutes.
Ms. Gillespie stated that the patients from Webster and Sanctuary Care typically have Medicare or insurance, and that they are billed for the calls.
Scott Marion suggested that there should be more cell towers to improve the coverage and provide more revenue. There was laughter. He then called the question. Frank Drake seconded. The motion carried and Article 5 was ordered to appear on the ballot as amended.
Article 4: Debate on 541
Washington Rd. reopened (74:44 elapsed)
Dispute over reopening discussion
Ben Chichester stated that Moderator Eaton had stated that everyone would be given a chance to speak, but the debate of Article 4 was closed off before he had a chance to speak. There was applause.
Moderator Eaton stated that he had said that he would let everyone speak before anyone was allowed to speak twice. The meeting, not him, determines when debate is ended.
Mr. Chichester stated that Moderator Eaton had asked people to stand behind the person at the mike and that he would be called on. Moderator Eaton apologized. Mr. Chichester asked for debate to be reopened.
Mark Josephs attempted to speak.
Moderator Eaton interrupted and stated that he had made an error with respect to Article 4 and had violated his own rules. The vote was 55-33, but the calling of the question, by his rules, requires a two-thirds majority. The 55-33 vote is not a two-thirds majority. He stated that he apologized. There was applause.
Moderator Eaton stated that he was reopening discussion of Article 4 as the vote to restrict reconsideration was invalid as he ended debate prematurely and violated the rules.
Moderator Eaton then allowed Mr. Chichester to speak to Article 4.
Mr. Chichester came to the microphone.
(77:54 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman moved to “override the determination of the speaker on the previous motion to reconsider.” Moderator Eaton stated that that would be a simple majority vote. Selectman Mills seconded. Moderator Eaton reiterated that he had cut off debate prematurely based on the 55-33 vote, which was not two-thirds. He stated that it would be unfair to override him because he made a technical error. The motion seeks to uphold the technical error by a majority rule where debate should have been cut off by a two-thirds majority.
Selectman Musselman asked Town Counsel to address the issue.
Town
Counsel Donovan stated that “the procedure allowing for the Town, the
Deliberative Session, to restrict reconsideration is a statutory procedure. In my opinion, that, and you have voted to
restrict reconsideration on Article 4.
In my opinion, because it’s a statutory procedure, it outweighs the
Moderator’s rules or any ruling that the Moderator would make.” Editor’s
note: See RSA 40:10, which states that
“[a] town may, at any time during a meeting, and without notice in the warrant,
vote to restrict reconsideration of any one or more votes previously taken at
that meeting, or warrant articles previously considered at that meeting.” It goes
on to say that, once passed, a motion to restrict reconsideration may not be
reconsidered. In this case, no vote,
either on the motion to call the question, or on the motion to restrict
reconsideration, was ever reconsidered.
The Moderator simply announced that his earlier determination that the
55-33 vote surpassed the two-thirds majority was erroneous and allowed debate
to continue. Therefore, it appears that
RSA 40:10 has no applicability and that Attorney Donovan is incorrect.
Steven Borne suggested that people be given a chance to hold their cards up so that people could gauge how many others were waiting to speak.
Moderator Eaton called for a vote. On the video, Selectmen Jenness and Musselman, as well Town Clerk Beth Yeaton and Ben Chichester are visible. Selectman Mills is not visible on the video. Selectmen Jenness and Musselman are visible holding up their cards in favor, Mr. Chichester holding up his card against. Beth Yeaton did not hold up her card. Attorney Donovan did not vote, but is not a resident of Rye and was thus not eligible to vote. The motion to overrule the Moderator failed.
More resident opposition (81:38 elapsed)
Mr. Chichester appeared to read from a prepared statement. He said that
“I oppose any plan that would remove a long-established single family home in Rye Center neighborhood. Many people have strong connections to the Ken Rand house. It is what is left of the twin home Rand estate, now largely replaced by the Public Safety Building. The rest, and certainly the better portion of the estate in terms of historic value, has been removed to Central Rd., with no consolation for those it left behind, leaving an oversized, out-of-scale mock period building in its place. I have been told that it’s a good building and it’s serving the purposes of public safety well.”
“The removal of the original Rand home was an unfortunate sacrifice of a piece of Rye Center. It was a practical and handsome architecture surrounded with Lilacs and Lilies of the Valley. It was perfectly suited for its place. It enhanced the rural, residential character associated with Rye. The home, and its grounds, remain a loss from the Historic District. This proposal is yet another affront to the homeowners of Rye Center and others who believe living in a historic town, with genuine historic buildings and a historic commission designed to conserve them has meaning.”
“Now, a new plan put forward would remove more of our history, grace and legacy, to chop it up and bulldoze it, and pave it over and shoehorn in a second substitute faux historic structure with its own sterilized landscape within the Historic District, while abandoning, without plans for the preservation of our current historic Town Hall. Don’t throw the baby with the bath water.”
“Select People should not be in the business of taking apart and disrupting, and threatening the fabric of a neighborhood based on the inability to construct solid plans to improve the valuable old building already in hand. With a good design, and far less money spent, we’ll have a beautiful Town Hall that will be worthy of being called Rye’s Town Hall. The current historic building has huge untapped potential to be retrofitted and modified for current need use at the same time preserving one of Rye’s most prominent historic buildings, making it much better by breathing new life, putting it right. And maintaining it will be easier, because the building will be loved and it will get the care that it needs after such work is done.”
Mr. Chichester then referred to the traffic that had already been discussed. There was applause.
(85:44 elapsed)
Mark Josephs, 540 Washington Rd., stated that he was opposed to the purchase. It would change the historic town from a residential area to a municipal area. There are many other places that are more suitable for Town Hall, which is really the purpose of this. If not, it would be some other high traffic building. “We’ve already suffered from the removal of one house, the Rand house, to build the behemoth Safety Complex which is only half used. There’s also the Old Rye Police Station on Central Rd. that’s just sitting there getting old going to waste.” He proposed the use of that building for additional Town offices. The survey said that people want to keep the Town Hall where it is. The Town is not a good steward of the properties that it has, he said.
Amendment to reduce appropriation to $50,000
Mr. Josephs proposed an amendment. He stated that the amendment was to reduce the price from $460,000 to $50,000. Mr. Sleeper seconded the motion.
Selectman Mills asked whether that would reduce (sic) the intent of the article. Moderator Eaton stated that the law does not prohibit eliminating the intent, but rather the subject matter. He ruled that it does not do that. Selectman Mills referred again to the reduction of the amount. Moderator Eaton stated that he was not going to debate the intent. He stated that RSA 40:13 prohibits eliminating the subject matter of the article.
Selectman Musselman stated that this was the trick amendment that he had referred to almost an hour and a half earlier. This, in essence has the 100 people in the room say that the taxpayers should not vote on this. We all know that $50,000 is inadequate to purchase the property. He asked why these 100 people would disenfranchise 1200 taxpayers. They may well vote it down, and if they do, this will never be a topic of discussion in Rye again. If they vote it up, it may not become a public facility. It becomes an option down the road, he said.
Moderator Eaton referred to RSA 40:13, IV(c) states that an amendment changing the dollar amount does not violate the subparagraph. Editor’s note: The subparagraph is the one prohibiting elimination of the subject matter of a warrant article.
Jaci Grote, 124 Washington Rd., stated that we are here to discuss these articles. This happens every year. This is something that is near and dear to your heart but there are other things that are near and dear to other people’s hearts. This is the purpose of the Deliberative Session and the reason why many of us are here, she said. There was applause.
Tom Farrelly, 18 Gray Ct., stated that when something appears on the ballot and it says that it is recommended by the Selectmen or the Planning Board it carries a completely different weight. People by default fall into thinking that this is the best thing for the Town, when oftentimes it is not. He stated that he has 30 years of commercial real estate experience and sometimes feels that he lives in an alternate universe in Rye. He said “we’re talking about spending 460 grand for this dilapidated house at the same time we’re talking about giving the Parsonage away for a dollar to the people, that, a lot of the people in town feel, drove it into the condition that it’s in.” Mr. Farrelly suggested putting the property out and letting other people that want to provide that service buy the real estate.
Mr. Farrelly said that there is discussion about replacing Town Hall, but he is going to make a big push to replace the town calculator as it is missing a couple of keys. We just can’t do the math and get there, he said. Mr. Farrelly stated that he believes in strategic acquisitions, and if the plan was to tear the house down and leave the land vacant he might support it. However, everyone believes that this is a location for Town Hall. He said that he cannot be in favor of this as he does not know what is going to be done with the land. There was applause.
Moderator Eaton clarified that articles that contain appropriations must by law contain recommendations or non recommendations of both the Selectmen and the Budget Committee. He stated that he realizes that there are other petitioned articles that do not contain appropriations yet include recommendations. The discussion of that issue will be taken up when we get to those articles, he said.
(95:43 elapsed)
Lori Carbajal, 18 Tower Ave., speaking to Selectman Musselman’s rebuttal, stated that there are signs all over town and that the auditorium could be filled with taxpayers and voters. They chose not to be here. Ninety percent of the people do not show up at the Deliberative Session and they vote what’s on the ballot without any knowledge as to the backdrop, she said. There was applause.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., stated that he sympathizes with the intent of the amendment, he thinks that the 1200 people who are not here would think that $50,000 for a piece of land is a fabulous deal. Then it would pass and there would be even more confusion. It would emasculate the intent of the article, he said.
Karen Stewart, 546 Washington Rd., said that most people voting would be smart enough to know that $50,000 is not enough to buy a house in Rye.
Selectman
Mills stated that Ms. Stewart had been on the Town Hall Committee and had voted
to buy the property. Ms. Stewart
disagreed. Editor’s note: Ms. Stewart was
correct. See the notes of the December
2, 2015 Town Hall Committee meeting, and the video of that meeting at https://vimeo.com/147837440/ at 39:25
elapsed.
Laura Brown, 943 Washington Rd., stated that the reason we are here is to make decisions on what is going to be on the ballot. There is plenty of time between now and the voting for people to become educated and for signs to go up in people’s yards. The article should go on the ballot as it is and people should become educated between now and then.
Moderator Eaton then called for a vote. The motion to amend to reduce the price to $50,000 failed.
Amendment to clarify the
purpose and what would be purchased (69:32 elapsed)
Peter Crawford offered another amendment. Moderator Eaton read the proposed amendment, which added language to clarify (1) that the property to be purchased included a house, (2) that it was to the northeast of the Public Safety Building, and (3) that the future uses might include a site for a new Town Hall.
Ms. Anderson seconded the motion.
Mr. Crawford stated that the amendment clarifies the language and addresses the concern expressed by those present that the voters may not know what this is all about. The article is made to appear that this is for land banking, but the Selectmen have said that either the property will be sold to someone else if it is not used for Town Hall, or it may be torn down. That is not the impression that one would get from reading this article, he said. Mr. Crawford summarized the three changes. The first change clarifies that the land is not currently vacant, which could be implied by the article. The second change sets out the location, as otherwise people might think that it is to the southwest and adjacent to the Library and the Museum. Southwest would be more in the Town Center. The third change indicates that this may be a site for a new Town Hall. That was left completely out of the warrant article. People would get completely the wrong impression if these amendments are not made. They don’t change the intent of the article, but merely inform the voters and allow them to vote it up or down with a more complete set of information, he said.
Selectman Musselman stated that the first two changes are fine, but including a mention of Town Hall without including the mention of a Community Center or other uses changes the intent. It makes it appear that the acquisition is for the Town Hall. Selectman Musselman stated that he believes that the existing Town Hall will be renovated in some fashion. It this was not on the table for the Town Hall, the Selectmen would be here anyway requesting the acquisition of the land, which would be gone in April if it is not acquired now. The amendment’s mention of a site for Town Hall is a lightning rod. It is not necessarily for a Town Hall, he said.
(104:33 elapsed)
Mark Josephs, 540 Washington Rd., stated that, having attended several Selectmen’s meetings, it’s all very tricky, but it was stated multiple times that the original intent was to build a Town Hall there. If there is resistance to giving up the iconic Town Hall, which there should be, well, we can’t let it go to waste so we’ll do something with it. It should read that it is for Town Hall because that is what the discussion has been, he said.
Joe Cummins stated that he got the impression from watching a Selectmen’s or Town Hall Committee meeting that the parcel had come up in the context of a Town Hall. If Mr. Musselman is suggesting that there could be a Recreation Center there, that could be added to the language, he said.
Selectman Musselman suggested an amendment to the amendment. Moderator Eaton stated that that would be confusing unless Mr. Crawford wanted to accept it as a friendly amendment.
Mr. Crawford indicated that it would be better to wait and take the vote on the amendment as it stands.
Mr. Sleeper stated that the question could be answered by looking at the next Town Hall article, alternate five, which refers to the option of building at 541 Washington Rd. being investigated only if Article 4 passes. Editor’s note: Mr. Sleeper was referring to Article 11. They want it to pass as they want that alternate. That’s the whole problem. They don’t want it to say that it is for Town Hall, but it says in the next article that it is, he said.
Selectman Musselman suggested a friendly amendment to retain the first two changes, but say that future uses would be for “Town of Rye public facility purposes.” It would be inappropriate to, as Mr. Cummins suggested, suggest a Community Center. That would be another lightning rod as the Town is only at the very beginning stages of identifying the location, scope and purpose of that. If this is not accepted as a friendly amendment it would be better to vote the amendment down as presented and then add the clarification referring to “public facility purposes.”
Mr. Crawford stated that the friendly amendment would add to the confusion and declined to accept it.
Frank Drake stated that it was not his intent to cut off debate as he did not know that Mr. Josephs wanted to make a financial amendment. He stated that the genesis of the idea came out of the Town Hall meetings. He said that he had been at one where it had been discussed quite a bit. It would be fair to accept Mr. Crawford’s amendment as that was where this came from. It is shading it too much not to. He is about right, Mr. Drake said. Mr. Drake said that he would vote in favor of the amendment, and moved the question.
Mr. Goldman seconded the motion.
The motion to call the question passed.
Moderator Eaton read the article as amended.
The motion to amend passed.
(114:02 elapsed)
Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., Chairman of the Town Hall Committee, clarified the process. The Town Hall Committee executed the charge by the Selectmen to the best of their ability, starting by conducting a survey through UNH. They went through the process of coming up with alternatives. At the time that all of this started, the Town Hall Committee had no knowledge of this opportunity at 541 Washington Rd. The Town Hall Committee was not predisposed to any particular alternative. They tried to understand what was in the survey, apply some judgment and provide to the Board of Selectmen a set of alternatives so they could generate a warrant article, which will come up later in the meeting. In the course of this process, this opportunity came up. Based on what the survey said, even though there is a predominance saying that Town Hall should be where it is currently located, for the sake of process completeness, as they did not want it said that the Town Hall Committee was not diligent, and because the property is in the center of Town, for the sake of due diligence that was considered as an alternative with no predisposition that Town Hall would be located there. Mr. Goldman explained that he had gotten up to speak as a lot of the discussion indicates misunderstanding or confusion. There is no intent that this warrant article be tied with any of the Town Hall Committee’s work, he said.
Amendment to reduce appropriation to land value (117:17
elapsed)
Lori Carbajal offered an amendment to amend the amount for the purchase to no more than the land value vs. an inflated amount to purchase the property. On the open market it would not sell for $460,000 or $410,000, she said. Editor’s note: Although not yet revealed at the meeting, the exact amount of the appraisal is $410,000.
Moderator
Eaton read the proposed article as amended which stated that the maximum amount
that the Selectmen could spend to acquire the parcel would be $234,600, and to raise
an appropriate $240,600, the land assessed value. Editor’s
note: It is unclear whether the
difference reflected an error or an additional amount for demolition.
Mr. Crawford seconded the motion.
Selectman Musselman stated that this is the same issue as the proposed $50,000 amendment. This would be inadequate to purchase the property. All of the prior discussion applies to this as well as the effect would be the same.
Peter Crawford, stated that he believes that the $240,600 is the assessed value of the land, which is all that it would be worth if the house is torn down, and that is what the Selectmen are contemplating. In addition, the appraised value is $410,000 and the proposal is to buy it for $460,000. The Town would be hard pressed, after transaction costs and real estate commissions, to make a profit.
Brian Klinger, 466 Washington Rd., asked whether the Selectmen’s and Budget Committee’s recommendations would remain, given that the article had been amended.
Moderator Eaton stated that it would be up to the Selectmen and the Budget Committee to decide after the Deliberative Session whether their recommendations would be changed. The warrant article would have to appear with a recommendation, he said. It could be up or down, or the numbers could change.
Selectman Mills stated that it would all depend upon the content of the warrant article.
The motion to amend failed to pass.
(123:35 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman moved the question. Frank Drake seconded. The motion passed and Moderator Eaton ordered Article 4 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Selectman Mills moved to restrict reconsideration on Article 4. Mr. Crapo seconded. The motion passed.
Article
6: Six wheel dump truck ($175,000)
(124:16 elapsed)
Scott Marion’s motion to restrict reconsideration of Article 5, seconded by Mr. Crapo, passed.
Moderator Eaton read Article 6 which provides that the money would be withdrawn from the highway equipment capital reserve fund, and that there was no tax impact.
Selectman Mills stated that this is a rotating “thing” as money is put away annually as with the ambulance.
Dennis McCarthy, Public Works Director, explained that they have approximately $1.5 million worth of equipment with an average service life of 15 years so each year they try to replace a piece of equipment. This is the second of four six wheel dump trucks that they are proposing to replace. Article 10 will be discussed later. It provides the funding for the capital reserve.
Peter Crawford stated that he would like to make the same amendment that he had made to the earlier warrant article to clarify the tax impact.
Moderator Eaton read the proposed amendment to amend the last sentence to read “[t]his article has no 2016 tax impact, the money having already been set aside.” Sam Winebaum seconded the motion.
Mr. Crawford stated that this was the same amendment that he had made earlier, and with which the meeting had agreed. Every year $100,000, or in this year $75,000, is set aside. The taxes are raised when that money is set aside. This is coming out of that, so there was a prior tax impact. We’re not getting a free truck, just as we are not getting a free ambulance, he said.
Selectman Mills stated that he would vote no as it would complicate the issue, as was done with Article 4.
The motion to amend failed.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 6 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
7: Red Mill Ln. culvert ($150,000)
(129:25 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the proposed warrant article, which referred to the replacement of one or both culverts on Red Mill Ln.
Selectman Musselman stated that this is the second priority in the Town’s plan to look at storm water management. The first priority was the bridge on Wallis Rd. behind Petey’s store which was done last year. Higher drainage capacity is needed, he said.
Randy Crapo, 8 Big Rock Rd., stated that this is part of the study of the Capital Improvements Committee. He stated that the group listens to the department heads and then prepares a report for the Selectmen with recommendations. They may move projects up or down, he said.
Peter Crawford noted that the warrant article referred to one or both culverts. He asked whether the Public Works Director could provide his best estimate of the cost to replace each of the culverts and asked why the warrant article is worded the way it is.
Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy stated that there are two box culverts on Red Mill Ln. which are both on the same waterway within a couple of hundred feet of each other. The design work would be repetitive for sizing and modeling. The engineers were asked to design both culverts. Then, a bid with a deductive alternate would be done. That would provide a cost to replace both culverts, but there is only a commitment to replace one or the other of the culverts. The bid will also provide a cost to come back to the Town Meeting the following year. He stated that he does not believe that $150,000 will be enough to do both culverts. The specific culvert of the two is not being identified, he said.
Mr. Crawford stated that he gathered that Mr. McCarthy does not have an estimate at this time as to what each culvert would cost.
Mr. McCarthy confirmed as the design is still in progress. There are a lot of variable factors as to what could go in that location, he said. He estimated that $150,000 would only be enough for one, and that the second one would be an additional $150,000.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 7 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
8: Rescission of backhoe loader notes
authorization from 2011 (135:47 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the proposed warrant article. Selectman Jenness explained that this is a housekeeping article. The backhoe has already been acquired with a lease purchase rather than a bond. The authorization now needs to be brought to the voters so it can be rescinded.
Phil Winslow, Harbor Rd., moved to restrict reconsideration on Articles 6 and 7. Mr. Drake seconded. The motion passed.
There being no further discussion of Article 8, Moderator Eaton ordered it placed on the ballot as amended.
Article
9: Fire Truck Capital Reserve ($100,000)
(137:34 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the proposed warrant article.
Selectman Mills stated that fire trucks are a big cost. This is putting money aside for their acquisition, he said.
Bill Epperson, 324 West Rd., noted that there is $331,000 of the cell tower money in a fund and the ambulance would be $275,000. He asked why the remaining $58,000 could not be transferred to the fire truck fund.
Selectman Mills stated that when he had done the warrant article he had specified “new.” The former Fire Chief tried to buy a used ambulance and a used fire truck. You cannot do it legally, he said.
Mr. Epperson repeated his question. Selectman Mills responded no, that it would need to come back to Town Meeting.
Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie noted that the cell tower money is restricted to new ambulance purchases only.
Selectman Mills quipped that he had stupidly done that. There was laughter.
Mr. Crawford asked how much money was currently in the reserve, and how much the new fire truck would cost.
Ms. Gillespie stated that there was $153,000 in the fund.
Selectman Mills stated that the purchase “ain’t happening.”
Mr. Crawford stated that he recalled $575,000 in the CIP Plan for 2017 or 2018 and asked whether his memory was correct. Town Administrator Magnant stated that it was 2018.
Selectman Musselman confirmed that that was what was in the CIP Plan, but the specific piece of equipment is still subject to consideration. Either way it is a hefty price and the Town needs to keep putting money aside as the price will be substantially higher than what is in the fund, he said.
Mike Thiel, 34 Brackett Rd., stated that setting aside money into a typed fund, such as the ambulance fund, is driving the decision on when an ambulance would be acquired. The Selectmen ought to address the issue and make the cell tower revenue more generally available for other funds where appropriations are being requested for other capital expenditures, he said.
Selectman Mills stated that the firemen love new toys. The next piece of equipment to come is a ladder truck. There are two ladder trucks over on Route 1 at the substation. He asked Mr. Thiel whether he thought it made sense for the Town to buy a new ladder truck. The trucks in Portsmouth are less than a minute and a half away, he said.
Moderator Eaton stated that the question had been why the ambulance money could not be used for the fire truck.
Selectman Mills stated that it specified new.
Selectman Musselman stated that Mr. Thiel had raised a good point. There would need to be a warrant article brought to the Town Meeting by the Board of Selectmen to amend the purpose of the use of funds from the cell tower. It’s about time to look at the rate at which revenue from the cell tower is coming in and the rate at which new ambulances are being bought. Although one would not want it to go into the General Fund and go away, there could be multiple dedicated purposes of which a new ambulance could be primary, he said. Selectman Musselman stated that Mr. Thiel had a good idea.
Mr. Thiel agreed and asked whether that could be done this year.
Selectman Musselman responded that it would need to be done in a future year.
Selectman Jenness stated that, when this was set up, they did not know what the cell tower revenue would be. It has fluctuated and is not a dependable source. This may be a good time to look at this, she said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 9 to be placed on the ballot as written.
Article
10: Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund
($75,000) (124:55 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Selectman Jenness explained that this article is linked to Article 6, the purchase of the truck and spreader. There is $264,825 in the fund now. If the Town purchases that truck, $89,825 would be left. This would bring it back to $164,825, still $100,000 less than today. The tax impact of Article 10 would be $.04 per $1000 of assessed value, she said.
Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy confirmed what Selectman Jenness had said, and stated that they had taken all of the Town equipment and projected it out for 25 years. He referred to the six year cycle of the Capital Improvement Program. This year the amount requested has been lowered as they believe that $75,000 annually should be sufficient to fund anticipated purchases for the next 6-10 years.
Jeff Quinn, 71 Cable Rd., asked what happened to the proceeds when a truck, ambulance or fire truck was sold after a replacement was purchased.
Selectman Mills responded that it goes into the General Fund.
Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., stated that there had not been a motion to restrict Articles 8, 9 and 10. Moderator Eaton clarified that they were still discussing Article 10. Mr. Goldman moved to restrict reconsideration of Articles 8 and 9. Mr. Winslow seconded. The motion passed.
Ned Paul, 48 Pine St., stated that he was Chairman of the Capital Improvement Plan and commended the Selectmen for reducing the amount to go into the Highway Fund from $100,000 to $75,000.
There being no further discussion of Article 10, Moderator Eaton ordered it to appear on the ballot as written.
Frank Drake moved to restrict reconsideration. Brian Klinger seconded. The motion passed.
Recess (150:34
elapsed)
Moderator Eaton ordered a recess with the meeting to reconvene at noon.