NOTES OF JANUARY 30, 2016 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION
Part Two
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present on the stage (left to right as viewed from the audience): Town Clerk Beth Yeaton, Town Counsel Michael Donovan, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Chairman of the Board of Selectmen Craig Musselman, Selectman Joe Mills, Finance Director and Assistant Town Administrator Cyndi Gillespie, and Town Administrator Michael Magnant. Present at the podium: Bob Eaton, Town Moderator.
Additional persons present from the Town included: Police Chief Kevin Walsh, Interim Fire Chief Tom Lambert, Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy, Recreation Director Lee Arthur. Planning Administrator Kim Reed.
Election workers present: Donna Decotis, Deputy Town Clerk, Andrea Morrissey, Assistant Town Clerk, Kendra Gemmett.
Editor’s
note: The elapsed times are relative to
start of each video segment. Segments
consist of one or more warrant articles.
To access the video for a particular warrant article, click on the
heading for the warrant article. The
video will be positioned to the beginning of the segment. You may then use the slider to position the
video to the appropriate elapsed time.
The video is available at http://vimeo.com/153713543/
Summary
3. An amendment to take the third option, to take demolition off of the table, failed.
4. An amendment to add the option of using other existing town space failed.
Warrant Article
Summary
Article 11: Town Hall study ($60,000)
Article 20: Seacoast Pathways ($1,500)
Article 12: Library HVAC fund ($60,000)
Article 13: Employee leave fund ($50,000)
Article 14: Mun. Buildings Maint. Fund ($25,000)
Article 15: Library Buildings Maint. Fund ($5,000)
Article 16: Operating budget ($9,104,794)
Motion to take
Articles 22 and 23 out of order after Article 11 (0:00 elapsed)
As Moderator Eaton called the meeting back to order, Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., moved to take articles 22 and 23 right after Article 11 as they all concern the same subject matter. Peter Crawford seconded. Selectman Musselman expressed concern as some people that may have wanted to speak to those articles may have gone home for lunch. The motion failed to pass.
Article
11: Town Hall architectural study
($60,000) (1:44 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton stated that the Article seeks to raise $60,000 to study Town Hall. He stated that the article is lengthy and that he would entertain a motion to waive the reading. Mr. King so moved and Selectman Musselman seconded. The motion carried.
Selectman Musselman stated that the article had come directly from the Town Hall Committee which was assigned a charge after the $4 million plus bond article last Spring failed. They were charged with coming up with a next step. They sent out a survey that had a remarkable response of some 1100 people, 39 percent. There were a number of themes, first that it cost too much. Four million dollars seemed to be too much, he said.
Selectman Musselman continued, saying that the Town Hall Committee thought that there was confusion with respect to the survey when support was gauged, inasmuch as no accompanying cost information was provided. That information is still not available. The community was split. A majority wanted to save the Town Hall. A super majority wanted to spend less. The Town Hall Committee did not have money appropriated to allow the hiring of architects, construction cost estimators or other professionals to provide additional information. The Town Hall Committee recommended that best estimated costs be provided for each identified alternative, followed by another town-wide survey in the Fall, he said.
The five alternatives are not in any order of preference. There were a variety of different views represented on the Town Hall Committee. They felt that more information is needed. Alternate five automatically drops off if the warrant article on 541 Washington Rd. fails. The Town Hall Committee recommends, and the Board of Selectmen agrees, that money should be appropriated so that an architect, with sub consultants from the construction trades, could identify differential costs that would lead to a solid community consensus as to a direction to proceed in, he said.
Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., Chairman of the Town Hall Committee, stated that the survey gave them a lot of good information, however there were some tensions or opposing forces. For example, a lot of people want the Town Hall in the existing building. At the same time, there are a huge number of people that are also concerned about cost. However, the Town Hall Committee does not have all of the information on cost, he said.
There were views and opinions all over the place on the Town Hall Committee. Such a wide set of alternatives was considered because the $4.1 million warrant article last year failed. That included renovating the Town Hall and building a second building on the same parcel. We were not sure what everybody in Town wants, which precipitated the survey, he said. There was a good team on the Committee, with people having building, engineering and business backgrounds. The $4.1 million warrant article failed last year not only because of the money, but because they had not been exhaustive in terms of the choices. The Committee tried to err on the side of making sure that the options are exhaustive. Some information needs to be provided to the voters on the cost of renovating the Town Hall vs. that of erecting a new building. There are some implications, that are not proven, that renovating the current Town Hall and preserving the features would be a lot cheaper than putting up a new building in the same place, he said.
Mr. Goldman stated that the charge this time was a lot broader than it was before. Previously, the charge required that the existing Town Hall be preserved. That failed because they came up with a solution that was $4.1 million with the secondary building.
(12:25 elapsed)
Russ Bookholz, Porpoise Dr., stated that he cannot support the warrant article. To date $350,000 has been spent on plans and other things for Town Hall. Mr. Bookholz stated that he works in the construction industry so has experience with this. It happens all of the time that a budget is developed, plans are come up with, and then a decision is made to build the building. He questioned the wisdom of spending another $60,000 for more research and more architects for something that has not been approved by the Town. We’re throwing money out the window by the wheelbarrow, he said. Let’s come up with a budget for whatever people in town feel comfortable with, whether it’s $1 million, $2 million or $2.5 million, then give that to the architects to show what could be done with that. Then it could be approved by the townspeople and move on from there. “We’ve wasted so much time, so much money, our money, on this project. I just don’t get it anymore. I think it’s disgraceful to continue to spend money on something we know nothing about.” There was applause.
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that he supported what Mr. Bookholz had just said. We started in 2011, spent $40,000; the conclusion was that the Town Hall was worth investing in. The Selectmen came forward and tried to push a 15,000 sq. ft. building. The Town voted that down. A petitioned warrant article said let’s figure out how much space we need. The Space Committee came back and we agreed to spend $60,000 to look at those designs. Editor’s note: The 2012 Space Needs Committee determined that the space need was 10,500 sq. ft., including the Recreation and Sewer Departments, and opening up the second floor Great Hall as a meeting room rather than offices. Click here to see the report. Mr. Borne continue, saying, then, we said let’s spend $250,000 to do the architectural design so we can get a quote. It came back with 12,000 feet and $4.1 million. It was voted down. We failed twice, he said.
I feel terrible for the people in Town Hall who do not have adequate working conditions, Mr. Borne said. If this warrant article goes through, we will be nowhere. We will be pushing six years of getting nowhere. The school population is declining and space is opening up in the schools. The Old Police Station is available. Mr. Goldman may get back up and tell you all of the reasons that the Safety Building cannot be used. I have drawings that I can show you demonstrating how much space there is there. It’s not that complicated to reconfigure the building. Until those options are addressed and considered, nothing may be approved by the voters. If this goes through, the cost will be up to $400,000. If 541 Washington Rd. is purchased the total will be almost $1 million and nothing would have been done, he said. There was applause.
(15:35 elapsed)
Selectman Mills stated that the upstairs of the Public Safety Building has been explored. The land area of the current Police Station (sic) has been explored. “None of them are suitable. Are you ever going to accept that?” he asked. Moderator Eaton interrupted Selectman Mills and stated that he would not tolerate a debate back and forth. Selectman Mills said “some people are allowed to get up here and take shots.” He asked John Loftus, who was on the Committee to answer. He stated that he would make sure that Mr. Bookholz would be on the next committee, given his experience.
John Hoyt, Ocean Blvd., stated that they have what the people want. He suggested that they get someone who wanted to build it. Then it would not cost another $60,000, he said.
(17:35 elapsed)
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., stated that he was on the Town Hall Committee and is also on the Historic District Commission as an alternate. One of the reasons that there cannot be a consensus is that there is a very emotional issue with regard to Town Hall which is very divisive. As Mr. Borne suggested, the people having the hardest time are those who work at Town Hall. The Town Hall Committee tried to look at all points of view, which is why they ended up with the five alternatives. Paul Goldman did a fantastic job trying to keep everybody coherent and working together, and this was the best we could do, he said. The survey was somewhat inconclusive. For one thing, it never really went into the cost of everything. There is a big difference between the cost of renovation and that of new construction. Mr. Loftus stated that he has a degree in engineering. For 25 years he ran his own construction company and did all of his own design work. He has been published in 47 countries, he said.
Mr. Loftus continued, saying that the warrant article last year for $4.1 million included a construction cost of $3.2 million. Looking at the addition only and using a construction cost of $200 per square foot, which is about $25 per sq. ft. more than what he had seen in any of the previous studies of any of the Town Hall committees, it came out to about $1.1 million. That means that the renovation of the existing Town Hall was almost double that, he said.
Mr. Loftus stated that he had looked at the building quite thoroughly and went through the construction documents from last year. It is an egregiously complex renovation project. The building has been let go for so many years that the cost is going to be extraordinary, not nominal. Some people want to spend the least possible and others want to renovate the Town Hall no matter what the cost is. Somehow, the electorate is going to have to meld together the feelings and come up with an alternative. That is why we ended up with five alternatives, he said. Mr. Loftus requested that the Board of Selectmen not hire one of the previous architects because their views are slanted. A Committee having people with construction backgrounds who understand what is going on should be appointed to work with this person. With all of the different opinions and a lot of people involved who do not understand construction or the complexity of this project, we’re not going to go anywhere, he said.
Jeff Quinn, 71 Cable Rd., stated that it had been suggested that the Town had expended a lot of money and we are nowhere, so the conclusion is that nothing should be done. He stated that, if nothing is done, we will still be nowhere. A solution needs to be found to accommodate the business of the Town, he said. He stated that he supports the warrant article as written.
Ned Paul, 48 Pine St., stated that he sees the Old Police Station or Trolley Barn across the street. He asked what the current situation is there. If more space is needed, that is readily available. Russ tells him that the building could be knocked down for less than $15,000 and then a new structure could be built for the Building Department. They need space. Perhaps the Building Department should go there and we should work with what we have, with a very small addition on Town Hall, he said.
Editor’s note: Mr. Paul was Chairman of the 2012 Space Needs
Committee that came up with a space requirement of 10,500 sq. ft. and a
projected cost of $2.1 million. The
space included room for the Recreation and Sewer Departments, and the opening
up of the Great Hall on the second floor of the existing Town Hall for large
gatherings. Recreation and Sewer moved
out of the building in 2015, and alternates one and two of Article 11 indicate
that the Great Hall would be used for offices.
Adjusting for these three factors, the space need would be approximately
7500 sq. ft., compared to the 6128 sq. ft. of the existing Town Hall. The report of the Space Needs Committee
recommends that the environmental issues be studied and states that the site
“could be refurbished for Town needs…”
Click here
to see the report.
Selectman Musselman stated that some money had been spent investigating options for the Trolley Barn. Renovating it is easier said than done. The building is afflicted with a lot of mold. Renovating it would be costly and not yield high quality space. With respect to demolishing the building and using the site, the site is challenged by a small footprint. There is limited, but not infeasible, room for the installation of a septic system. It does not have an adequate one currently. There is not much room for public access. It cannot take high traffic. They have looked at a crosswalk, but there is a parade ground and there is not a will to go into the other side of Central Rd. It is very limited in size. This was considered in two or three years and it has not been included as an option, he said. Initially, Selectman Musselman said, he had thought that it was more of an option than it is, but its site configuration and the status of the existing building have mitigated against its use for that fashion.
(25:50 elapsed)
Burt Dibble, 106 Harbor Rd., said that he had been intrigued with the Trolley Barn for some time. Dr. Dibble said that, in 2012, he believes, the Town spent $10,000 to have a professional assessment of the building done. The report can be looked up on the Town website. Editor’s note: Click here for the report. The building has 2600 sq. ft. There was an estimate to completely remodel the building and make all of it available for administrative functions for $450,000. To remodel half of it, and leave the other half as potential storage space, would cost $240,000. To rehabilitate the building but leave it unimproved, would cost $120,000. The report also stated that there was adequate space for a new septic system on the property. Those figures are available for consideration when the time comes to apportion the money available for this project. There has been talk around Town that rehabilitation of Town Hall would cost in the $1 million to $1.5 million range, perhaps a little more. There has been talk that the voters might approve $2 million or something less than $2.5 million, he said. Editors note: Click here for the results of the 2015 Town Hall Survey. See page 12 for voter price sensitivity results. Mr. Dibble stated that if the rehabilitation of Town Hall can be done for $1.5 million and the Trolley Barn for $.5 million, the project would cost $2 million. He stated that he believes that this could be sold to the voters. Dr. Dibble stated that he would present an amendment to Article 23 which outlines space needs for Town employees a little more accurately. He urged that the Trolley Barn not be off the table. There was applause.
(29:20 elapsed)
Jeanne Low, 650 Washington Rd., agreed with the sentiments of Mr. Loftus, stating that he had answered most of her concerns. She also agreed with what Mr. Quinn had stated. Comparative cost information by reliable people is needed, she said.
(30:17 elapsed)
Sam Winebaum, 52 Cable Rd., stated that he is proposing an amendment. He stated that he foresees a need to simplify what the $60,000 would do. He stated that they should consider Alternate 1. The amendment does not restrict any expansion beyond Town Hall, so the Trolley Barn might be in the picture. To help put a cap on costs, the the square footage for Town business functions, excluding meeting rooms that may not be in Town Hall and basement storage space, if there is any, should be about 7500 sq. ft. The current Town Hall is a bit larger than 6100 sq. ft. It also specifically states that the existing Town Hall is not to be torn down.
Moderator Eaton read the proposed amendment:
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) to retain a licensed architectural firm to study, determine and report on the estimated construction project costs and the key design parameters required to support Town Hall business functions, and to conduct a town wide follow up survey. The architectural firm will conduct its work under the following parameters:
1. The existing Town Hall shall not be torn down.
2. To meet the business functions, the existing Town Hall shall be renovated within its current envelope to serve as the primary location for Town Hall business functions. Construct an addition as necessary to meet the Town’s space needs. Renovation and any addition will preserve, to the maximum extent possible, Town Hall’s dimensional proportions, its historic integrity and architectural features, i.e. spiral staircases, tin ceiling, monumental windows while, however, utilizing the Great Hall for office space. The architectural firm will provide a summary of what would remain of the original building after renovation, or conversely, what would have to be removed, e.g.: siding, exterior trim, doors and windows, foundation, basement slab or other features.
3. The building(s) renovated and potentially expanded to conduct the Town Hall business functions shall not exceed 7,500 gross square feet, excluding basement storage space in a new addition and meeting rooms in facilities other than the existing Town Hall. NOTE: The existing Town Hall is 6128 gross sq. ft.
4. The architect shall be free to consider any other existing town-owned buildings to supplement the space in the existing Town Hall, keeping within the space constraints above.
Dominique Winebaum seconded the motion.
(34:32 elapsed)
Sam Winebaum appeared to read from a prepared statement:
“This has been a very long process, with much money and sincere effort expended. We all agree the Town Hall is in sad shape and getting worse. It really isn’t adequate or safe to conduct Town business for the employees or the public. It is not handicapped accessible, it is not to code, and it is inefficient. It is a beautiful landmark, a cornerstone of Rye that deserves to be renovated and brought up to date for modern and future needs while preserving its historic character. Rye is not about throwing away the past or we wouldn’t live here. The survey that’s been referenced and recent voting show that we do not have an appetite for the cost or impact of a large expensive addition and we want Town Hall where it is. At this point, after many studies, lots of work, we know what the space needs are and we do, by and large, as evidenced by the survey and recent votes over the last several years, know what the voters may be willing or not willing to vote for. The article should reflect what is known, what will work, and what voters would be willing to support and pay for. We absolutely need to focus this article and get this done together.”
Mr. Winebaum provided some numbers from the survey:
· 57% said Town Hall is an important landmark that should not be torn down.
· 61% thought it was somewhat or very important to preserve its historical aspects.
· The strongest support in the survey was for addition to current town hall.
· Of those who voted for last year’s town hall project, 69% picked the option to renovate and add to Town Hall
·
Mr. Winebaum continued, saying:
“The other options, which are two through five, including constructing a new building on site or off were opposed by nearly two-thirds. This amendment would eliminate 2, 3, 4 and 5. We have to be realistic with such a small budget. And much work has been done and money spent focused on a renovation and addition that an architect can leverage.”
Mr. Winebaum stated that the amendment does not talk about cost. Going from 12,500 sq. ft. to 7500 sq. ft., excluding meeting rooms and a basement, would result in a project of significantly lower cost. He continued, saying:
“Is all of this reasonable and doable? Yes it is, of course we absolutely need to understand, as Mr. Loftus outlined, that it’s a historic building. It’s never simple to work on historic buildings and save our past. What I am proposing, I believe, is in line with the survey and what the voters said on Town Hall, and it will fundamentally maintain the character of Rye. Yes it is and yes it will. Let’s simplify this article giving the architect a focused charge that meets Town business function needs, respects our history, and is also scaled to be financially acceptable to the voters. Thank you.”
There was applause.
(38:15 elapsed)
John Loftus stated that, while he appreciates Mr. Winebaum’s views, he totally opposes the motion. There were 12 people on the Town Hall Committee representing a variety of views. This would substitute his view for those of the 12 people, who represented other people.
Mr. Loftus continued, saying that the Town Hall Committee looked very thoroughly at the space over the fire building and the trolley building. The consensus was that they tried to represent all of the diverse intake from the survey. They also tried to keep the offices in one place. There have been a number of space needs studies done. There is some disparity, but 7500 sq. ft. is not exactly correct. That is a net, not gross square footage figure, and he is not sure that is enough, Mr. Loftus said. Editor’s note: The difference between gross and net square feet is that the former is measured to the outside of the walls and incorporates everything that is within them. Net square feet excludes the thickness of the walls and “circulation” space, the hallways, stairways, elevators, lobbies and corridors needed to provide access to the individual offices and other rooms. The difference between gross and net square footage depends on the actual design, but the gross can be 30 percent greater than the net square footage. Mr. Loftus noted that the space need could change depending on whether the building is rectangular or square. He spoke about a need to provide space for expansion. The five alternatives were arrived at so they could get a good study done by an impartial person. The $60,000 will become peanuts in the whole scheme of things, he asserted.
Mr. Loftus spoke about Wolfeboro having gotten into trouble with the ADA. Editor’s note: ADA refers to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. If the Town does not do what needs to be done it will be forced to do it, he said. He stated that he has the settlement agreement with the Justice Department. They spent millions to go back and comply with the ADA. The best path is to proceed with an architect and review these five alternatives and have him give his opinion so that the voters can decide which way to move forward, he said. There was applause.
(42:05 elapsed)
Mae Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Rd., stated that Mr. Loftus stated that the renovation would eat up most of the $3.25 million that was the building projection last year. Ms. Bradshaw read from a document by Hutter, the builder that provided the bid that was accepted. She stated that she knows that Selectman Musselman will say that this cannot possibly be complete, but this is the physical document that she was provided after a request to be able to go out and seek funds through grants. She needed the numbers to do that, she said. The budget for the Town Hall restoration was under $1 million, Ms. Bradshaw said.
Ms. Bradshaw stated that Mr. Loftus had said that he had gone up to see the Wolfeboro project. Wolfeboro was picked as one of the Seven to Save three years ago. We have been picked as one of the Seven to Save this year. This is by the State Preservation Alliance that helps get grants for projects. Ms. Bradshaw stated that she has a stack of papers from the Alliance informing her of the grants that would be appropriate and that could be sought. They are not going to provide funds if three of the options on this article say “tear it down.” “They’re not going to give us funds. So, we’re going to waste another year studying, after the five years we’ve studied it, and we’re not going to be able to take advantage of any of these as long as demolition is on the table.” Ms. Bradshaw stated that she agrees with the amendment as it takes the three demolition options off of the table. We could then go forward to get grants, she said.
(45:15 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman asked Mr. Winebaum whether the additional space for storage and meeting rooms could be provided in the new addition and in excess of the 7500 sq. ft.
Mr. Winebaum stated that the basement storage could be, but the meeting rooms would need to be outside of the existing Town Hall to be exempt from the 7500 sq. ft. limit.
Selectman Musselman argued that that was not what the words say. Selectman Musselman stated that Mr. Winebaum would have meeting rooms, not in the offices where the employees are, but in some other building.
Mr. Winebaum started to respond, but Moderator Eaton interjected that there was too much back and forth and gave Selectman Musselman an opportunity to say what he thought.
Selectman Musselman stated that there is a legal disagreement playing out at the front table. Town Counsel believes this warrant article, which would fit as a fine amendment to Article 23, changes the intent of Article 11, which is intended to provide construction cost estimates for the five alternatives and a resurvey of Town views of those alternatives. He stated that he believes that the Moderator disagrees. He asked both of them to address the issue.
Moderator Eaton stated that Attorney Donovan had asked him whether this was a permissible amendment. Moderator Eaton stated that he does not opine on whether it changes the intent of the article. The law says that the subject matter of the article cannot be changed, which is different from intent. Editor’s note: It actually says that warrant articles may not be “amended to eliminate the subject matter of the article.” (emphasis supplied) See RSA 40:13, IV(c). Moderator Eaton stated that his view is that it does not change the subject matter. The discussion with Attorney Donovan related to whether the amendment raised a new issue that wasn’t noticed in the warrant to the Town, by virtue of the fact that it struck several paragraphs of the existing article. Editor’s note: See RSA 39:2 which requires that “[t]he subject matter of all business to be acted upon at the town meeting shall be distinctly stated in the warrant…” Moderator Eaton stated that his view is that it is still permissible, that it does not notice something that was not on the warrant. It may limit something that was noticed to the Town but that does not mean that it is noticing something new, which would be impermissible.
Attorney
Donovan stated that the Town Warrant is intended to warn all of the residents
of the subject matter to be voted on.
You are not allowed at the Deliberative Session to propose a new purpose
that was not already contained in the warrant.
He acknowledged that he believes that it is a close call. The article would study five options. As I understand the amendment, it narrows the
study to one particular option with some parameters, he said. He stated that he believes that that is a new
purpose that commits the Town to one specific course of action. That is opposed to the purpose that was
warned, which is a study. Editor’s note: The word purpose does not appear in RSA
40:13, IV, and does not appear in the context argued by Attorney Donovan in RSA
39:2. Rather, it appears in RSA 32:6
which provides that “[n]o [town] meeting shall appropriate any money for any
purpose unless that purpose appears in the budget or in a special warrant
article…” RSA 32:3, V defines “purpose”
as “a goal or aim to be accomplished through the expenditure of public
funds.”
Moderator Eaton stated that he agreed with Attorney Donovan that it is a close call. He said that his ruling stands, although those present may want to vote down the amendment based on Attorney Donovan’s opinion.
(52:30 elapsed)
Ray Jarvis
stated that he supports the original article.
He asked how an architectural firm could study, determine and report on
costs and key design parameters. He
asked whether there was a list of criteria.
Without the criteria how would they be able to do the design, he
asked. Editor’s note: The language
cited by Mr. Jarvis appears in both the original and the proposed revised
article.
Frank Drake stated that he does not support the amendment. Of the five options, only one is a tear down. It is incorrect to say that there are three. The Winebaums are declaring what is best and how the $60,000 should be allocated. Article 11 is a great article as it is. Mr. Drake stated that he had been to one of the meetings of the Town Hall Committee. They had worked really hard and had a lot of great perspectives. Mr. Drake noted that the answer for alternate five is answered in alternate three or four, if the cost of the land is added in. Mr. Drake stated that he disagreed with Russ that the effort had been a waste. It is a process that needs to be gone through to get consensus. It can’t be done without a lot of effort and a lot of discussion. The cost values of all of the ideas need to be looked into. If grants cannot be obtained because one of the options is to tear it down, so be it. That is putting the cart before the horse anyway, he said.
(59:20 elapsed)
Victor Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd., stated that he has a bit of experience with the Town and its buildings. Editor’s note: Mr. Azzi was the Owner’s Representative for the Public Safety Building project during the mid-2000s as well as Chairman of the Town Hall Committee during 2013 and 2014. This proposal wants to spend $60,000 of taxpayer money to get realistic cost estimates for five different scenarios, he said. The Town has already spent over $350,000 to get a reasonable cost estimate. Even then, they could not get a reasonable cost estimate. They wanted to go to construction with a project for which they really did not know the cost. The construction documents were not complete. We were told that they would balance the books by change orders and contingency monies so even there the realistic cost was something to be learned in the future. For $350,000 even one building could not be done. Here $60,000 would be spent to get five realistic cost estimates. That’s not realistic and that cannot be done. It needs to be rethought. A lot of the people’s money has been spent and you have nothing to show for it. Now you want to spend another $60,000 on top of the $356,000. He stated that he is not sure that those five options are the right five options. He spoke about the desires of the survey respondents not having been taken into account. These are not the right alternatives and good money is being spent after bad, he said.
(64:03 elapsed)
Jaci Grote, 124 Washington Rd. stated that she was not in favor of the amendment. She stated that she had not voted for the Town Hall because she felt that the options presented to the Town were not adequate enough. This article does that and she is in favor of that. Ms. Grote called the question. Ms. King seconded.
The motion to call the question carried.
Selectman Mills noted that Ms. Bradshaw had her card up when the question was called. That is the first time that he and Ms. Bradshaw agree, he said. Moderator Eaton overruled Selectman Mills.
Moderator Eaton reread the article with the proposed amendment.
The motion to amend failed.
(67:30 elapsed)
Jim Rand, 594 Wallis Rd., stated that a lot of people had voiced opposition to spending more money. He stated that he was Chairman of the Conservation Commission for one term and on the Commission for a number of years. There is no question that the space is needed. Instead of spending $60,000 on an architectural firm, he suggested requesting RFPs for each proposal. There was applause.
Scott Marion, 71 Washington Rd., stated that he is sympathetic with a lot of the comments and those who have been immersed in the project. With respect to an RFP, junk would be obtained if it is not well specified. He does not know how an architect can provide a complete enough specification to come up with costs for $60,000. He stated that he does not know whether the warrant article could be amended, but he believes that the constraints and the requirements are lacking in terms of space and ADA requirements. It appears that the $4.1 million is outside of the constraints. Mr. Marion said that he could tell an architect to design a house. He would get a different house if a $500,000 limit was imposed than if he let the architect go wild. He asked whether there might be a way of constraining all of the designs to a cost target. He asked why there was a belief that $60,000 would be enough.
(73:03 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman, responding to Victor Azzi’s comment, stated that it is true that you never have the final cost until the facility has been built and the issues dealt with. They are not planning on obtaining definitive costs for each alternative. The $60,000 is not to come up with a definitive bid price, but rather to come up with the differential cost. There are disagreements by those involved in the process as to the magnitude of the cost difference between renovating the building and constructing a new building. We have heard Mae Bradshaw show her $1 million and John Loftus show his $2 million, he said. Neither one includes all of the site costs. But the question of the approximate cost differential needs to be answered. That has been at the crux of the difficulty of reaching a consensus. There are years and multiple studies on space needs. All of these alternatives will be less costly than the $4.1 million last year because all of them entail use of the 3000 square feet on the second floor as office space and not as a Great Hall. We have cut the space needs down by at least 25 percent and probably more. With the cost differential information, a survey would be done to try to arrive at a consensus that would receive 60 percent of the vote, he said.
(76:22 elapsed)
Mike Thiel, 34 Brackett Rd., stated that the discussion had obviously been going on for years. He stated that he assumed that some specifications exist. Combining specifications with an RFP process does not sound like all that bad of an idea. In none of these discussions has he heard what would happen to Town functions during the rehabilitation of the old building.
Selectman Musselman stated that the plan last year was to build a new building in back, then move them into that while the old building was being renovated. Two of the alternatives give them that option. Three do not, so during the construction modular offices would be needed. That is a differential cost, he said.
Mr. Thiel stated that that sounded like a huge disruption for everyone.
Joe Cummins stated that he had always been sensitive to the ADA argument. He came up with a one page memorandum of understanding with regard to the Wolfeboro issue. A newspaper article referred to $50,000 worth of trouble. He asked for the gentleman to cite the document that he has referring to when he mentioned multi-million dollar expenses incurred by the Town of Wolfeboro.
Moderator Eaton asked whether Mr. Loftus had that information.
John Loftus stated that he did not have the information in hand but it is in his computer. It was sent by the Town Manager of Wolfeboro whom he had met with on Wednesday. He was referring to an off the cuff remark saying that it had cost millions. It wasn’t just the Town Hall. After they entered into the agreement with the Department of Justice, everything in the Town had to be made ADA compliant. The Town Hall had 21 different levels in it because the front of it was rented store spaces and the land is sloped. There were a lot of little staircases with one, two or three steps, he said.
(81:40 elapsed)
Phil Winslow, 100 Harbor Rd., asked for an explanation of the process if the article passes and the information comes back.
Selectman Musselman, off the top of his head, stated that a new Town Hall Committee would be appointed which might include people involved in the three prior Town Hall Committees and/or some new volunteers. They would need to select an architect. That could be done quickly if they went with one of the prior architects, otherwise a two month process would be required. The study would be completed in the June to December time frame. The questionnaire would likely go out around September, with results in October and rumination over the results in October and November, he said.
Mr. Winslow asked how a decision would be made as to which of the five options would be selected.
Selectman Musselman stated that the Committee would make a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen. There are two ways for a warrant article to come to the Town Meeting. It could be a Selectmen’s warrant article or a citizens petitioned warrant article. He asked whether a bond article could be done by a citizens petition. Attorney Donovan indicated that it could be done. The challenge would be getting from the results to the warrant article rather than completing the Committee process. It would be up to the Committee and the Selectmen to narrow the choice down. The warrant article would probably not be for construction but rather for a next step in a given direction.
(86:00 elapsed)
Steven Borne, 431 Wallis Rd., stated that the ballot will address alternate five and take that off the table. He stated that he would like to make an amendment that would eliminate alternate three in order to get more people in Town behind this, and to get the employees the space they need. Alternate three, which is to tear down Town Hall would be eliminated. With that stricken, Article 11 stands a much better chance of passing, he said. Burt Dibble seconded the motion.
(87:30 elapsed)
Jean Low stated that she thought that this had been put to bed when Mr. Winebaum’s amendment was voted down. People are leaving in droves. To deny the townspeople the right to have that information about the cost to tear down the building a terrible and undemocratic disservice would be done, she asserted. She stated that she agrees with Mr. Donovan that that would be changing the intent of the article. There was applause.
Moderator Eaton stated that nothing in State law prevents changing the intent of an article. He stated that the amendment passes muster.
Frank Drake stated that Jean Low is absolutely right. It takes off the table an option that was in the survey and got 20 percent approval.
Peter Crawford stated that he had heard from Selectman Musselman that what they were interested in was the differential cost, and Mr. Drake had said that you could get that with an option that requires renovation and one that requires a new building on the table. He asked whether, since Alternate 1 and Alternate 4 would remain, the differential cost would be obtained. There would be an estimate made of new construction and of renovating the Town Hall, he said. He wondered whether eliminating Alternate 3 might help the warrant article pass, as an emotional issue would be taken off the table.
Moderator Eaton asked whether anyone from the Board wanted to respond. None did.
Jeff Quinn stated that human emotion runs in every direction. If this alternate is removed, those inclined to support that solution would be denied the opportunity to see the cost.
John Loftus, 108 Straws Point Rd., stated that he agrees that this amendment would undo the work of the Committee, which spent a lot of time looking at the options. This article is not to finalize the cost but to get direction from an architect. As a builder, he knows that there is a wide range of costs between renovation and new construction as well as a wide range of emotion. There was not enough information on the survey for a good discussion, he asserted.
Jane Ireland called the question. Dr. Klinger seconded. The motion carried.
The motion to amend the article to strike alternate three failed.
Ned Paul asked the Space Needs Committee and the Board of Selectmen to put a Town Hall survey in the voting ballots. He asked for the five options to be fleshed out. The five areas should be narrowed down at the time of voting so they can get on with it. It is taking too long, he said.
Frank Drake stated that Article 11 will produce the needed information to incrementally move forward. The survey will provide some of the answers. There has been some concern about the adequacy of the $60,000. He offered an amendment to raise it to $66,000 which is all that he is allowed to do, he said.
Moderator Eaton stated that that is not true. The overall budget, plus warrant articles cannot be increased by more than 10 percent. Editor’s note: See RSA 32:18. Moderator Eaton said that he has plenty of room. Frank Drake withdrew the amendment. He stated that he wanted to call the question, after Burt Dibble.
Burt Dibble stated that he is concerned that there is no specific provision in this article to provide for the use of other town-owned property for town business purposes. There are those that believe that the Town owns plenty of property without expanding the Town Hall. He proposed an amendment to alternate one to add “or utilize other space presently owned by the town” after the word “necessary.”
Moderator Eaton read the proposed amendment and stated that it passed muster. Mr. McDonough seconded the motion to amend.
Mr. Dibble stated that there had been testimony that construction work on the Town Hall would be a costly undertaking. There are less costly alternatives. It is important to keep that option open, he said.
(101:22 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that, if this passed, they would need to tell the architect what other spaces would need to be looked at, and they would need to be paid for that. He asked whether Mr. Dibble meant to include only the Old Police Station or the Public Safety Building as well. If both facilities were to be evaluated and compared to the other alternatives the $60,000 budget should be increased, he said.
Frank Drake stated that he felt the amendment would skew the analysis of each one of the options by putting this only in option one. Maybe there should be a motion to make it $120,000, he said.
Peter Crawford stated that he supports the amendment and asked Selectman Musselman how much additional would be needed.
Selectman Musselman said that it would depend on what was meant. If it was looking at an addition on the back of Town Hall or a renovated or new building at the Public Safety Building, it’s probably $5000 to $10000. If you wanted an architect to go into figuring out how to add 3000 or 4000 sq. ft. inside the Public Safety Building it’s more than that. He would suggest adding another $10,000 or $20,000.
Paul Goldman, 1190 Washington Rd., stated that they took a lot of pains to get to the level of clarity that they got to with these alternatives. All of the testimony heard and what is on the website.goes to support why certain pieces of property were examined to the best of their ability and eliminated. Second guessing all of that at this time is either going to change the intent or the dollar amount. It will get it to the point where it’s not supportable or passable in an election. There was applause.
The motion to call the question carried.
The motion to amend by Mr. Dibble failed.
Moderator Eaton stated that Mr. Drake had previously called the question after Mr. Dibble had spoken. The motion passed. Moderator Eaton ordered Article 11 to appear on the ballot as written.
Frank Drake moved to restrict reconsideration on Article 11, which was seconded by Mr. Quinn. The motion passed.
Article
20: Seacoast Pathways $1500 (111:06
elapsed)
Selectman Mills asked whether Article 20 could be taken out of order. It should only take about 15 minutes and then the person would not have to sit here and listen to all of this diatribe, he said. Mr. Sleeper seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Sharon Musselman, Sagamore Rd., addressed the warrant article. Ms. Musselman stated that she was a board member of Seacoast Pathways. It supports people on the road to recovery from mental illness, she said. They opened their doors 15 months ago. There are now over 60 members from 14 different communities in the Seacoast. They are requesting money from every community that has contributed members. In the past fifteen months four members have been residents of Rye. There was applause.
Selectman Mills stated that Selectman Musselman has abstained as Sharon is his wife. The votes of the Selectmen and the Budget Committee had otherwise been unanimous, he said. Next year, they will submit a letter justifying the amount that they have received, he said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 20 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
12: Capital Reserve for Library HVAC ($60,000) (116:41 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Mr. Goldman moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 20. Dr. Klinger seconded. The motion passed.
Selectman Musselman explained that there is a concern expressed that the system may require replacement at any time and they want to be able to act.
Phil Boynton, 21 Wayside Ln., stated that this is a preventative measure. The system is aging. The Trustees do not want to be in a position where they have no funds to fall back on. This is a one-time cost. The estimated total is $190,000. This is stepping up and being prepared for when the system will need to be replaced, he said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 12 to appear on the ballot as written.
Moderator Eaton stated that they had not recorded who had seconded the motion to restrict reconsideration on Article 11. Frank Drake said that a lot of people had. Moderator Eaton determined that Jane Ireland had done so.
Dr. Klinger moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 12. Mr. Sleeper seconded. The motion carried.
Article
13: Town Employees Leave ($50,000)
(120:00 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the article. Selectman Jenness stated that the current balance is $174,897 and the current liability is $474,244. The Department of Revenue Administration recommends that each town be funded at 50 percent of the liability, which would be $237,122. If the $50,000 is put in the Town would be just short of the 50 percent, she said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 13 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
14: Municipal Buildings Expendable Trust ($25,000) (121:52 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the article. Selectman Jenness stated that the current balance is $38,312. If the $25,000 is added, the balance would be $63,312. That takes care of any major problems in the Safety Building, Town Hall, Public Works, the Parsonage, the Outer Marker and the Old Police Building. If the Rec. Department was in trouble and did not have the funds it would take care of that as well.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 14 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
15: Public Library Building and Maintenance Fund ($5000) (123:25 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the article. Selectman Musselman said that the article is self-explanatory. Brian Klinger, 466 Washington Rd., made the point that this is a separate fund from the normal operating budget. It is for unexpected or emergency repairs. That balance is roughly $19,500. This will bring it up to about $20,000.
Dr. Klinger moved to restrict reconsideration on Articles 13 and 14. Mr. Boynton seconded. The motion carried.
Burt Dibble pointed out that the new balance would be $24,500, not $20,000. Dr. Klinger confirmed.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 15 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
16: Operating budget ($9,104,794)
(126:05 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article. It states that, should the article be defeated, the default budget would be $8,828,460.
Selectman Musselman stated that the operating budget had been through a significant process from September through December. It is first proposed by department heads. This year the Selectmen hacked away at the budget on a line item by line item basis to get it back to a reasonable level. The same process was again gone through with the Budget Committee. “Rye has been spendthrift (sic) over the years. We continue to do that.” Editor’s note: The word “spendthrift,” according to the dictionary, means “one who spends money improvidently or wastefully.” Undoubtedly, Selectman Musselman meant to say “thrifty.” Selectman Musselman stated that some of us call ourselves cheap and we like that. This budget continues to be spare, but adequate to take care of the Town’s needs, he said.
Peter Crawford pointed out that the sheet available at the door, which points out the tax rate history, is a bit misleading as the debt is being paid down. The sewer bond matured three or so years ago. Last year, the Public Safety Building came to maturity so the last payment was in 2014. If you look at the Town spending, it has been going up about four percent a year, which is about two percent above inflation, if you take the debt service out of the Town spending, he said.
Michael Thiel, 34 Brackett Rd., suggested that another column be added to the sheet showing the differential between actual and budget. Having looked at this in some detail, it appears that the budget for 2016 is fully 14.3 percent above the actual expenditures for 2015. That is not a small increase. He asked where they thought they had been spare on the budget. As Mr. Crawford said, budget to budget the spending is up four percent compared to inflation of two percent, he said. You would usually use actuals in the budgeting process to tune the next year’s budget. The budget is bigger than last year’s and not all of that was spent. Apparently things can be run tighter, but we’re giving ourselves a lot of leeway, almost 15 percent, he said.
Selectman Musselman stated that employees receive raises at a floor of two percent based on the three unions and the non-union employees. Health insurance costs have been going up year to year to year. There are also downshifted pension costs that are going from state to county to town. All of those things come into account. We looked at everything that we might be able to cut. There are encumbrances this year to the tune of $130,000. That is part of what was not expended and is carried over by contract, he said. Editor’s note: RSA 32:7 provides that appropriations generally lapse at the end of each fiscal year. One of the exceptions is that accounts that have become encumbered by a legally-enforceable obligation, such as a contract, may be spent in a year subsequent to that for which the funds were appropriated. Selectman Musselman was apparently arguing that the actual expenditure figure is low by $130,000 due to these encumbrances. Selectman Musselman noted that whatever we don’t spend goes back into the General Fund and reduces the tax rate. Whatever we don’t spend doesn’t get spent, he said. He suggested that people who think that the budget can be cut more come to the day long Selectmen’s meeting and the day long Budget Committee meeting and listen to the line-by-line discussion of what might be able to be cut. Editor’s note: The Selectmen’s budget session was on October 22, 2015, and the Budget Committee’s on November 12, 2015. The video of these sessions is available on the Town website www.town.rye.nh.us by clicking on “Town Hall Streaming” at the lower left and navigating to the appropriate date. A table showing the times that each line item was discussed is available here. Selectman Musselman argued that everything that could be cut has been without diminishing the services and still staying afloat as a Town.
(133:11 elapsed)
Tom Farrelly, 18 Gray Ct., referred to the article coming up on parking kiosks which directly relates to expenses at the beach. He sees that in 2015, $18,000 was budgeted, the actual was $22,000. This year, $53,000 is being budgeted, a 188 percent increase. He asked whether anyone could speak to the details.
Selectman Musselman stated that an additional $30,000 had been budgeted for Town expenses beyond the grant program for site investigation and pursuit of access to sites for improving water quality in the Parsons Creek Watershed. That is within the increase just cited, he said.
Peter Crawford stated that he would like to correct Selectman Musselman’s statement that all of the money goes back to the taxpayers. If one looks at the sheet that was at the table, it says that the amount of the surplus used to reduce taxes was $400,000. Mr. Crawford stated that he recalls that up to about $800,000 could have been applied to reduce taxes in 2015. So, the tax rate in 2015 was higher than it could have been and that money is now sitting there. It could be used to reduce taxes in the future, but the Selectmen could hang on to it as long as they want legally, he said. He asked whether someone could provide the exact number of what could have been used to reduce taxes.
Town Finance Cyndi Gillespie confirmed that Mr. Crawford is right, that there was about $800,000 available. The Selectmen made a decision to put $400,000 to lower the tax rate, knowing that, in this coming year the Town will have more debt service because of the bond payments that will be starting. This will level out the tax rate, she said.
Editor’s note: Ms. Gillespie was apparently referring to the
$3 million conservation bond that was approved by voters in 2014, by a vote
(after recount) of 1001-656, just six votes more than the necessary 60
percent. Only $1.3 million of the $3
million has been drawn down thus far and the debt service payments commencing
are only those on that portion. The
exact figure for the available surplus to reduce taxes in 2015 is $823,141,
which means that $423,141 which could have been used to reduce taxes was
instead retained by the Town. If that
had been returned to taxpayers, the tax rate would have been $.227 lower, or
about $113.50 on a house assessed at $500,000.
Selectman Mills stated that the auditors tell them to keep a certain percentage of the money that is left over in case something else happens. He said “I get a kick out of you Monday morning quarterbacks, that come in…” Moderator Eaton interrupted Selectman Mills and asked that he not get personal and that he did not want to remind him again.
Jaci Grote called the question. Jane Ireland seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 16 to appear on the ballot as written.
Beth Yeaton moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 16. Mr. Sleeper seconded. The motion passed.
Phil Winslow asked whether Moderator Eaton could automatically call for a vote on restricting reconsideration after each warrant article. Moderator Eaton looked over at the table and said that this was a great idea, but that he did not believe that it would be legal.