NOTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2017 RYE DELIBERATIVE SESSION
Part One
Final Revision C – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present on the stage (left to right as viewed from the audience): Town Clerk Donna Decotis, Town Counsel Michael Donovan, Selectman Priscilla Jenness, Selectman Craig Musselman, 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.
Town Moderator Robert Eaton called the meeting to order at 9:05 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 https://vimeo.com/202685089/
Summary
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.
(2:43 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton explained that Selectman Mills had had health issues over the last several months and is not running for reelection. He was first elected to the Board of Selectmen in 1992. Before that, everyone knew him as their mail carrier. In 1992, he ran as a write-in candidate, came in first in a field of five, and has won reelection ever since.
Moderator Eaton then introduced the persons sitting at the table on the stage, left to right as viewed from the audience.
Moderator Eaton then announced the candidates for town office (all are one seat for three years unless noted):
Board of Selectmen
Paul Goldman
Richard Moynahan
Phil Winslow
Town Clerk/Tax Collector
Wendy Bookholz
Donna Decotis
Cemetery Trustee
Roger Philbrick
Library Trustee (2 seats)
Karen Allen
Brian Klinger
Trustee of the Trust Funds
Jeff Balboni
Budget Committee (2 seats)
Peter Crawford
Jaci Grote
Planning Board (2 seats)
Jerry Gittlein
J. Merrill Lord
Planning Board (1 year)
Pat Losik
Zoning Board of Adjustment (2 seats)
Shawn Crapo
(Moderator Eaton noted that the winner of the write-in vote would be elected to the Zoning Board of Adjustment)
Sewer Commissioner
David Kohlhase
School Board (2 seats)
Gary Bowser
Jeanne Moynahan
Paula Tsetsilas
Moderator Eaton announced that the
Candidates Night will be held Monday, March 9 at 7:00 p.m. at the Rye Public
Library. Editor’s note: Although not
announced by Moderator Eaton, Candidates Night is hosted by the Rye Civic
League.
Moderator Eaton announced that the Town election will be Tuesday, March 14 from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Rye Elementary School.
Moderator Eaton encouraged people to attend the School Desliberative Session, Wednesday, February 8, at 6:30 p.m. at Rye Junior High.
Moderator Eaton then went through the rules.
(12:01 elapsed)
Moderator
Eaton stated that amendments may not eliminate the article’s subject
matter. Voters must be able to determine
what the article is about. However, the
New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled less than a month ago that an article may be
amended to change its intent or purpose.
Changing the dollar amount of a warrant article does not delete the
subject matter, he said.
Articles 1-5: Elections and
Zoning Ordinance Amendments (14:44 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 seven amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Article 4 relates to an amendment to the Building Code and Article 5 relates to an amendment to both the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Peter Crawford made a motion to discuss these article. Scott Marion seconded. The motion did not pass.
Article
6: Town Hall teardown/rebuild
($3,386,752) (17:20 elapsed)
Frank Drake moved that articles 6, 7, 24, 30 and 34 be discussed consecutively, in that order, as they all relate to town hall. Mr. Crapo seconded. The motion carried.
Steven Borne raised a point of order requesting that the positions of the Town Attorney on petitioned warrant articles be revealed now, so that the input could be considered well before the articles come up for discussion.
Attorney
Donovan said that he did not believe he had prepared any options on any of the
articles, other than a budget amendment override to Article 7.
(21:56 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman stated that this is the first of five articles on Town Hall. This one is for the construction of a new office building on the existing footprint, with an expansion to the back to provide office space in accordance with estimates made during the planning process over the past five to six years. The change adding the first sentence was made at a Selectmen’s meeting after the Budget Committee voted not to recommend the warrant article by a 6-3 vote. It adds the sentence “passage of this warrant article shall override the 10 percent limitation imposed on this appropriation due to the non-recommendation of the Budget Committee.” That same sentence will need to be added to the second article so that both of them are lawful and may be considered by the voters. When there is discussion of Article 7 there will be a motion by the citizen petitioners and then by the Selectmen to add that so it can be legally presented to the voters. He said that the language of the article speaks for itself. Half of the people here were present at earlier meetings. He said that they would be happy to discuss the article further.
(25:20 elapsed)
Shawn Crapo asked whether the sentence relating to the 10 percent limitation would provide for an unlimited cap.
Selectman
Musselman said that his understanding was that it was allowing the borrowing to
occur regardless of any cap limitations.
Editor’s note: See N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. (“RSA”) 32:18,
32:18-a. Normally, the voters may not
approve appropriations that are more than 110 percent of what the Budget
Committee recommends in total, including all warrant articles, with certain
adjustments. There is an exception for
bond articles, provided that this sentence is added.
Mr. Crapo said that one of the reasons it was voted against in the Budget Committee is that the numbers are inappropriate from a single bidder. He said that, even though there would be a contract, the builder would hold the Town hostage once the equipment is moved on site and they start work. He warned of cost overruns going through the roof.
Editor’s note: Mr. Crapo, while losing his bid for
reelection to the Budget Committee as a member at large in 2016, was appointed
by the Rye Beach Village District as their representative to the Budget
Committee, even though he is not a Village District Commissioner. This is of questionable legality as, by
referring to “their respective boards,” the statute appears to contemplate that
only those serving on the various governing bodies in Rye may serve as ex
officio members (as opposed to at large members elected by the voters) of the
Budget Committee. See RSA 32:15. Mr. Crapo was one of those who voted against
recommending this article at the Budget Committee meeting on January 9, 2017.
Mr. Crapo, apparently referring to Articles 6 and 7, said that neither was acceptable.
Selectman Musselman disagreed that that there could be overruns. No more money than that provided in the warrant articles could be spent unless a vote of Town Meeting authorizes more funds, he said.
Mr. Crapo warned of a stalled project awaiting a vote.
Selectman Musselman said that that wouldn’t occur. Rather, there would be a revised project that would meet the budgetary constraint, he said.
(27:20 elapsed)
Frank Drake asked what the language about the 10 percent limitation meant.
Moderator Eaton explained that the Town cannot pass a budget that is more than 10 percent more than the Budget Committee’s approved budget, including warrant articles. If it does so, the history of the Department of Revenue Administration is to go down the ballot, and once the 110 percent limitation is reached, everything else fails.
Town Attorney Donovan added that the sentence in question is prescribed by statute.
Richard Hayden, 41 Garland Rd., suggested that the five articles dealing with Town Hall be placed together on the ballot to help the voter understand.
Town Attorney Donovan stated that the Selectmen have the authority to prepare the warrant. While the Deliberative Session may amend the articles, they may not change the order in which they appear on the ballot, he said.
(30:29 elapsed)
Steven Borne moved that the meeting ask that the Selectmen put the Town Hall articles together. Mr. Marion seconded.
Selectman Musselman said that Town Counsel appeared to have said that the Selectmen do not have that choice.
Town Attorney Donovan added that the warrant had already been completed and posted.
Moderator Eaton said that, since the motion is only advisory, he sees no harm in it, because the action would not need to be taken if it is later determined to be unlawful.
Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie spoke about DRA rules requiring that bond articles come first. The articles have already been submitted to the DRA, she said. She suggested a poster at the polls.
Ray Jarvis suggested a one line statement on the ballot advising voters about the various Town Hall articles.
Selectman Musselman suggested that it be done in the Town Newsletter.
Mr. Crapo moved the question.
Mr. Borne again stated his motion.
The motion to end debate carried.
After a hand count it was determined that Mr. Borne’s motion passed 52-49.
Selectman Musselman moved the question on Article 6. The motion carried.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 6 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
7: Town Hall renovation ($3,200,000)
(39:35 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Mae Bradshaw came to the microphone to speak to the article.
Selectman Jenness offered an amendment.
Mae Bradshaw explained the need to add the sentence overriding the ten percent limitation, to make it conform to the law. She said that she consented, and said that the Selectmen needed to make the motion. Moderator Eaton said that, since the Selectmen were joining the motion, he would allow Selectman Jenness to speak.
Selectman Jenness moved to add the same sentence as had been added to Article 6 to make the article legal: “passage of this warrant article shall override the 10 percent limitation imposed on this appropriation due to the non-recommendation of the Budget Committee.” Selectman Musselman seconded. Moderator Eaton asked whether that was a motion of the governing body. Selectmen Jenness and Musselman indicated that it was. The motion carried.
(44:20 elapsed)
Mae
Bradshaw stated that the space for the Town functions is limited by the size of
Town Hall. Currently the Town Hall is
6500 sq. ft. The space need has now been
determined to be 8000 sq. ft., which is down substantially from the 12,000 sq.
ft. associated with the $4.1 million, she said.
Editor’s note: In 2015, Article 5 for $4.1 million to
renovate Town Hall and construct connected new Town Hall office space failed,
575-887.
Ms. Bradshaw referred to the Recreation Department having moved out and the space upstairs being used for offices in the new plan.
Under both
Hutter proposals, including the one proposed by the Selectmen and the one by
the petitioners, there would be a net gain of 1500 sq. ft., Ms. Bradshaw
said. Editor’s note: In late 2016,
Hutter responded to the Town’s RFP for a design build proposal, which requested
quotations for two designs that were essentially identical on the outside, but
which had some minor differences in the interior layout. The first was a renovation, with a possible
addition, and the second a tear down and rebuild. Hutter’s bid was approximately $200,000 less
for the renovation. Warrant Articles 6
and 7 reflect Hutter’s two bids, with town-borne soft costs added.
There is
some flexibility of layout, Ms. Bradshaw said.
Hutter Option One relates to this warrant article. She referred to the possibility of grant
money, including for restoration of the monumental windows. The plan, she said, calls for the windows to
be replaced, but if grant funds can be found the windows would be
restored. Grants would not be available
for Hutter Option 2, she said. Editor’s note: That is the tear down and rebuild option.
The staircases in the front would be retained. There is some discussion about whether those could be seen. She said that she understands that there is a way to construct the renovation so that they would be.
When the Heritage Commission heard about Article 6, they proposed Article 7 as it is their view that the building can be saved. Even if the stairways or the tin ceiling will not be able to be seen in this plan, they would be retained so that, if the building is ever repurposed in the future, those would not have been permanently removed. Part of the goal of historic preservation is reversibility, she said.
Ms. Bradshaw referred to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the safety of the community. The Hutter proposal takes care of the ADA requirements. The costs are only going to increase in the future, she said.
There are a number of reasons not to build new, Ms. Bradshaw said. Funding sources that would be available for renovation, such as L-Chip and Moose Plate grants would not be available for a new building. Our Town Hall is on the State Register. Our community has spoken at least three or four times, in votes and surveys, by 66-69 percent, that they want to save their Town Hall in the Town Center. The Seven to Save listing encourages further public support from the State. We have been assured that the Preservation Alliance is very interested in this project and will help us accomplish it, she said.
The Hutter estimate for renovation is actually lower than to tear down and rebuild. When considered together with supplemental funding the lower cost is even more apparent. The $3.2 million is a lot of money, but the cost in year one of the renovation is $.21 per $1000. If your property is worth $500,000, you’re going to pay $102.78 in year one for principal and interest. It will go down every year after that, she said.
Ms. Bradshaw referred to the Rye Master Plan and its emphasis on preservation of cultural and architectural resources. In 2012, AG Architects did a town-wide survey, and 68 percent of residents wanted to keep the Town Hall. In 2016, Article 22 supported saving Town Hall, and passed 983-454, or 69 percent.
(53:48 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton asked Ms. Bradshaw to wrap up her presentation.
For the past six years, the condition of the Town Hall has been studied, Ms. Bradshaw said. The building is sound, as is the foundation, although some adjustment is needed on the South wall. The rest of the foundation is sturdy. It has new heating. The ANIX report said that “no structural deficiencies were noted in the original building or additions and all walls appeared to be plumb and sound.” The alarmists that have been saying that the building needs to come down because it is unsteady are not supported by the evidence in these reports that the Town has paid $365,000 for over the past five years, she said. She concluded by saying that the Town Hall is irreplaceable.
(55:10 elapsed)
Jaci Grote stated that, as a member of the Conservation Commission, she knows how difficult it is to get grant money. They have solicited money from the L-Chip and Moose Plate funds and the grants have been denied. She is not going to share her opinion regarding the articles but did want to make that observation. She asked whether the Historic District (sic) would include the money that it obtained for restoration of the windows in the warrant article and give that money to the Town.
Moderator Eaton asked whether anyone from the Heritage Commission wanted to respond.
Mae Bradshaw stated that the Heritage Commission has raised about $15,000 in their annual appeal. About $12,000 of that has been for saving Town Hall. That would be seed money for grants. She asked David Choate, a board member of the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance, to speak.
After Moderator Eaton confirmed that Mr. Choate was a Rye resident he was allowed to speak.
Mr. Choate stated that he lived two doors away from his friend Jaci, and that he will be talking later. He spoke about the Preservation Alliance having listed the Rye Town Hall on its Seven to Save list two years ago. It’s a top priority project of the Alliance right now to save, restore and renovate the Town Hall. Rye has one of the sorriest Town Halls in the state in terms of its condition and ability to accommodate staff, he said.
Mr. Choate disagreed with Ms. Grote and said that grants are available. He said that renovation maintains the integrity of a building. No matter what is said a new building always looks different. A renovation is much more green and sustainable. The materials are reused. One of things lacking in the past few years has been the involvement of a preservation expert, he said.
Funding assistance is available through the Preservation Alliance, Mr. Choate said. L-Chip and Moose Plate are two primary sources of funding. The Wolfeboro Town Hall was a $4 million project. Of that $750,000 was raised through grants and private fund raising. It is the intention of those involved with this to raise private funds. The Kensington Town Hall was one vote away from being torn down because of a mold problem. The voters rejected that and voted to remediate the mold and add an addition. That was about a $600,000 project of which about $150,000 was raised privately. There are other examples in Middletown, Langdon, Sandwich and Ashland, all Town Halls that were restored and renovated through private fund raising. The common them is that there is L-Chip and Moose Plate money available for this.
Mr. Choate said that he hoped everyone would support this and added that “demolition is forever.”
(62:05 elapsed)
Alex Herlihy offered to give a tour of the Town Museum.
Historic preservation is not only for history and nostalgia, he said. Historic preservation makes strong economic sense. Research has proven this to be true. Property values are enhanced when historic structures are preserved. The most public voice of this advocacy has been Dennis Robinson in his History Matters column in the Herald.
Another argument in favor of preservation is that, if town offices move elsewhere in the future, the structure would be available for other purposes. Mr. Herlihy gave examples.
(63:25 elapsed)
Stephanie Patrick Shelton, 388 South Rd., stated that she had lived in Rye for 61 years. She saw her first play in the Town Hall. She has experience with putting on plays in various Town Halls and the advantage of this for those who might never be able to perform on Broadway. The building can be restored and the public servants can be given what they need and we can still have a wonderful building, she said. She spoke about the Bedford Town Hall having a similar circular staircase.
Frank Drake said that the Hutter plan to be voted on doesn’t comport well with the stated goal of preservation. It preserves certain features, but there is not any functionality to them in the final result, he said.
Ray Jarvis said that he has been involved in a lot of conservation in town. His heart is with preservation, but his brain goes in the opposite direction. He doesn’t see why the functions of the Town should be shoehorned into an historic church. He spoke about the lack of efficiency and the cost. He expressed concern about the lack of competition as both proposals are from the same organization.
(68:55 elapsed)
Frances Erlebacher stated that her understanding of the plan was that it did not include renovation of the windows, but rather replacement of them with Marvin windows.
Mr. Marion called the question. The motion carried. Moderator Eaton ordered Article 7 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Selectman Musselman moved to restrict reconsideration of Articles 6 and 7. Mr. Murphy seconded. The motion passed.
Article
24: Authorize Selectmen to proceed with
option with Town Hall option receiving the most votes if both Articles 6 and 7
get 60 percent (70:35 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman moved to add the word “will” between “voters” and “authorize.” Selectman Jenness seconded. The motion passed.
Selectman Musselman said that the article is presented to clarify the situation that could occur if both Articles 6 and 7 pass. The Town would move forward with the article that got the most votes. That might be the case anyway, but this was deemed prudent. It also allows people to vote for Article 6 or Article 7, or possibly both.
Frank Drake
pointed out that people could also vote for Article 34. Editor’s
note: This is the article that provides
for John Loftus and an architect retained by him to design a new building at no
cost to the town.
Mr. Hayden suggested that Articles 30 and 34 be included. Article 30 is the $500,000 article, he explained.
Moderator Eaton requested that the motion be put in writing.
Ms. Hodson seconded the motion.
Someone moved to table Article 24, to be returned to after Articles 30 and 34 had been completed. The motion carried.
Article
30: Repair and Refurbish Town Hall
($500,000) (76:05 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Burt Dibble stated that he is an unabashed preservationist. There was discussion about hearts and minds today, but we also heard from Mr. Choate that there is clear evidence that preservation makes good economic sense. It improves the economy of the community, he said.
Dr. Dibble expressed concern that nothing will happen and Town Hall will continue to suffer from neglect that has been seen over the past six years. He referred to one of the yellow handouts that shows how $365,000 has been expended in Rye over the last six years and how the Town has not meaningfully moved towards maintaining the building, let alone resolving the problems.
The principal reason that this is being discussed is concerns about the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility, Dr. Dibble said. A significant part of the expense is for an elevator. If less than 50 percent of the floor space is renovated, an elevator is not required. There are smaller installations that look like domestic elevators that are certified for this particular use and could be put in the facility. He is not arguing against an elevator, but pointing out that money can be saved, he said.
Dr. Dibble referred to the other side of the yellow handout and pointed out that there is a proposal on how to expend the $500,000 to achieve the things listed in the warrant article as well as some other things.
You have heard that the citizens of Rye want their Town Hall and they want it where it is, he said. There has been a great deal of controversy about the survey activities and people have criticized the survey on the basis of turnout and the people that did the survey. Some of those survey evaluations were done by architects who may represent best design practice but perhaps not the interests of the citizens of the Town.
There have been a number of votes for projects to fix the Town Hall, he said. It is pretty clear that the citizens will not vote to approve a $3.4 million, 8000 sq. ft. facility when they already turned down a 12,000 sq. ft. facility for $4.2 million. There is a significant sentiment that $3.1 million to $3.5 million warrant articles will not pass a vote of the citizenry. That raises the question of what we are going to do to at least preserve Town Hall in an effort to achieve more unanimity and move this project forward.
The numbers in the proposal were put together with the assistance of Mike Castagna whose business is to assist owners as their representative. He would be here today except that he is at the North Hampton Deliberative Session in connection with their civic facility. He was the representative for the City of Manchester when that city built the Delta Dental stadium. He put in a bid to represent the Town when the Town was considering the prior project. He is knowledgeable regarding the building and the history of the proposals regarding it. The numbers have the validity of his abilities, Dr. Dibble said.
The estimate of the space needs has been moving down, from 12,000 to 10,000 to 8000 sq. ft. I am reluctant to observe that the Town Government seems to be getting along in the building as it is. Although a better place to work in is owed to the employees, I am concerned that the two Hutter proposals will not pass and we will be left empty handed, he said.
Since no bond is involved, only a 50 percent vote is required, he said. This proposal has a significantly better chance of succeeding in March. There is no reason why this cannot be voted for as a backup to any of the others. It creates an opportunity to stop the neglect of the building and solve some of the problems that are going to have to be solved anyway.
There has been plenty of testimony by very qualified builders that the building is essentially sound. This notion that there is something wrong with the building has not been shown to be the case, Dr. Dibble said.
If you own
a $500,000 property, to pass this proposal would cost $70 in the current tax
year and $125 for a $1 million property.
Editor’s note: These figures are slightly incorrect. The increase in the tax rate would be $.27,
or $135 for the $500,000 property and $270 for the $1 million property. This seems like a sensible way to proceed,
he said.
Dr. Dibble suggested an amendment: “[i]n the event that the Board of Selectmen should determine that it is impossible, within the funds appropriated hereby, to accomplish all of the purposes of this warrant article, they shall nevertheless proceed, prioritizing the spending in such a fashion as shall be most economical and consistent with the goals established by this warrant article.” Dr. Dibble said that the amendment accomplishes two things. It gives the Selectmen the flexibility to create a plan that works for the building, the Town and the employees. It also creates the flexibility to receive grants and donations in such a way that additional projects can be taken on. It creates a win win win for the Town and an opportunity to stop the decay of the building if the other, more expensive, warrant articles do not pass.
Frances Erlebacher seconded the motion.
There was no discussion. The motion to amend passed.
Selectman Musselman offered another amendment, adding after “restore windows as appropriate,” “to provide adequate space for Town Hall employees.” Selectman Jenness seconded. Selectman Musselman stated that his concern was that, with the limited funds, they were to meet ADA requirements and accomplish the other objectives. Meeting the ADA requirements reduces space, but we need more space than we have. We can’t have less space than we have and an elevator and an ADA bathroom. Access ways to those will reduce space without money to expand the building. Without this we’d be left with having existing employees out back in trailers, he said.
Peter Crawford said that he believes that this is a worthy goal, but once you start to expand the building, different Building Code provisions kick in, and this could necessitate greater structural reinforcement and greater ADA compliance than might be required if the building is constrained to its existing envelope. He said that he doesn’t want the first thing done to be to bump it out and then discover that all of this other stuff must be done. That was kind of the problem that got us to $4.1 million in the first place, he said.
Steven Borne said that he is not in favor of that amendment. It would open a can of worms that would have the Selectmen’s focus be on expanding the building. We own this building and we have not done an adequate job of maintaining it. This warrant article takes care of our property until we can come up with a good, comprehensive plan to address all of our space needs, he said.
Selectman Musselman said that there is not enough money in the $500,000 warrant article to expand the building. That is not one of the options. There is no intent, and no ability, to expand the building at all with $500,000, he said.
Frances Erlebacher pointed out that the warrant article is drafted to address everything that the townspeople said that they wanted. Eighty percent said that they want the building to be more efficient, seventy-nine said that they wanted to meet ADA. She stated that she doesn’t understand how, after 25 years, the building has not been made ADA compliant. Seventy-four percent want to keep the Town Hall in the Town Center. Sixty-one percent said that they want to keep the historic aspects. Editor’s note: These data are taken from the 2015 Town of Rye Town Hall Survey, available at: http://www.town.rye.nh.us/Pages/RyeNH_BComm/TownHallComm/Town of Rye Report DRAFT.pdf
Ms. Erlebacher continued, saying that, with all due respect to Selectman Musselman, the lift only takes about 50 sq. ft. The toilet might take about 30, so hardly any space is being lost, she said.
Jeff Quinn stated that Selectman Musselman had captured with his amendment the crux of the problem. We’re trying to renovate an historic building, make it energy efficient, and we want it to be accessible. It is most important to consider the people that have to work there or we’re being very short sighted, he said.
Jaci Grote said that she lives in an old home. She said that it inevitably happens that things cost more than originally anticipated. She said that we do not know how much it is going to be ultimately. To address Selectman Musselman’s amendment, she asked whether he might add “without expanding the footprint” to address the concern that the building is going to be expanded. Selectman Musselman accepted it as a friendly amendment. He reworded his amendment to say “to provide adequate space for Town Hall employees without expanding the existing footprint.”
(98:00 elapsed)
Scott Marion said that one of the concerns of people is that we are not ADA compliant. He suggested that ADA compliance be given higher priority and suggested another friendly amendment along those lines.
Selectman Musselman said that he would not accept that as a friendly amendment and explained that, if this warrant article passes, there would be competing concerns that would require more expenditure to accomplish all of them. One of the issues that they might be faced with to fit everything in would be, in all likelihood, partial ADA compliance. It may be that we could provide ADA access only on the lower floor. The earlier amendment to the back part of the article is probably needed to provide that balancing. The help of an architect and a construction cost estimator is needed to determine what can be accomplished. The town may be able to make some progress on some of these issues and this may be what voters may want, he said.
Frances Erlebacher stated that, contrary to what Selectman Musselman had stated, the budget had been developed with the assistance of a construction specialist. These are not numbers that we pulled out of the tops of our heads, she said.
A motion to call the question passed.
The amendment passed.
Moderator Eaton asked whether there was any further discussion of Article 30.
Selectman Musselman moved to restrict reconsideration, but Moderator Eaton stated that discussion of Article 30 had not been completed.
Mr. Kohlhase asked whether Article 30 should be amended to add “if Article 34 does not pass.”
Dr. Dibble said that he had considered that, but Article 34 does not provide any funds. It is a marvelous volunteer effort by John to look at other options, however, since there are no expenditures associated with it, it would not need to be considered secondary to this matter.
(104:40 elapsed)
Frank Drake asked whether this would automatically go forward if it gets a majority, if 6 and 7 fail to pass. He asked what would happen if 34 passes by a majority. There is an excellent chance of that, he said.
Town Attorney Donovan said that that Dr. Dibble made a good point, and pointed out that Article 34 does not appropriate any money. You would proceed with the article in which money is appropriated, he said.
Someone asked what would happen if Article 30 passed with 90 percent, but Article 6 and 7 passed with a lower percentage. It seems that one article is being favored over another, he said. Nobody responded.
Ray Jarvis asked what the relationship is between Articles 30 and 34. He asked whether Article 30 was to be considered because it has money.
Selectman Musselman said that, if both passed, the Selectmen would be able to spend up to $500,000 on Town Hall pursuant to Article 30, and Article 34 would allow the citizen-initiated process to continue without expenditure.
Brian Murphy suggested that there not be a motion to restrict reconsideration of Article 30 until Article 34 had been discussed, to retain flexibility.
A motion to call the question passed.
Article 30 was ordered to appear on the ballot as amended.
Frank Drake said that Mr. Murphy had had a good idea.
Moderator Eaton said that the same effect would be had by voting down a motion to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Drake agreed that no motion was needed at this time on Mr. Murphy’s suggestion.
Article
34: Volunteer design of new Town Hall
(110:43 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Joe Tucker spoke first. He stated that Mr. Loftus graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy in 1991 (sic). He has a BS degree in Engineering Transportation. He is a retired ship’s master, licensed to command any sized ship, anywhere in the world. He has owned his own firm, involved in design and construction, for 25 years in Albany, NY, Mr. Tucker said.
Mr. Tucker said that the design would include complete drawings, including site and structural plans, elevations, electrical, exterior, lighting fixtures, etc. Mr. Loftus has been published in various journals. He has been a resident of Rye since 2008, served on the last Town Hall Committee, and served on the Town Hall Subcommittee vetting the Public Safety Building. He is currently serving on the Historic District Committee (sic) as an alternate.
Mr. Tucker stated that he had had been a contractor in Rye for 40 years. He and the other major building contractors in the community support this article. They are Daryl Kent, Peter Kasnet, Bob Gray and Don Cook. He said that the support of these contractors was a compelling reason to support this article.
(114:45 elapsed)
Mr. Loftus corrected the date of his graduation to 1971. He said the site is important as it is in the center of Town. The process has been going on for five or six years and it is time to move forward. He said that he wrote the warrant article the night before it was due. He had a remarkable response from people around town, including many that he did not know. The morning of the last day, they were able to collect 117 signatures on the petition. The Sword of Damocles hangs over the Town as we put off ADA compliance and other code violations, he said.
Mr. Loftus said that he had been to Wolfeboro to visit the Town Hall there and did a thorough inspection of that building. It is in no way, shape or form comparable to Rye Town Hall. They did not collect $750,000. They collected $70,000 from citizens for furniture and another $250,000 from private citizens, however the majority of that was given by two people. They collected $60,000 from a FEMA grant for a generator. As far as he knows, they received no historical grants, he said.
Mr. Loftus said that they had amended the article to reflect the retention of a licensed architect as Selectman Musselman had questioned the legality of proceeding without a New Hampshire licensed architect.
The plan would allow a competitive bid. The proposal from Hutter is for more than $3 million. There is one person designing and one person bidding. It is not in the best interest of the Town to move forward with this. We have a website from which information may be obtained. He is not going to tear down Articles 6 and 7. The proposed design would be a smaller footprint than that of the current Town Hall. The current footprint is about 39 feet by 83 feet. The length would be reduced by 15 feet to 68 feet, but the building would be three floors. The envelope would essentially be the same as it is now as the second floor currently has 19 foot ceilings. Unlike Articles 6 and 7, there would be a full basement, with mechanical, electrical and HVAC functions. There will soon be an elevation and rendering of the front and Central Rd. sides to be posted on the website. There would be a meeting room larger than the current one, with chairs. The benches would be put in the hall. The side facing Central Rd. would look similar.
Mr. Loftus said that, in his view, a renovation is not practical. He knows that it is an emotional issue for a lot of people. It is not that it cannot be renovated, but what it is going to cost and what would be gotten out of it. No matter what is put down for a budget, it always seems to be exceeded. With the age of the building and the way that it has not been taken care of, it would be a Pandora’s Box. The monumental windows are dictating the layout of the offices above, reducing the functionality of the offices. This is a Town Hall, not a museum. He said that he respects the people that want to preserve it, but it is not in the best interest of the Town in terms of either functionality or cost.
He said that he was not going to debate the UNH survey, but the questions were poor and there was a lack of information to allow the people who did take the survey to make good, qualified judgments. Seventy percent of 34 percent of the respondents is not as many people as you may think, he said. Editor’s note: According to the survey results document, page 2, it was sent to 2981 households and 1132 responded, or 38 percent. Mr. Loftus provided the e-mail address: [email protected].
(123:25 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton asked Mr. Loftus to wrap it up.
Mr. Loftus said that he had been told for a year and a half that it would be impossible to get the voters to tear down Town Hall. He said that “impossible” is not a fact, but an opinion. There was applause.
(124:14 elapsed)
Frank Drake proposed an amendment to change, after “taxpayer,” the word “conceptual” so it would read “conceptual design will be donated by John Loftus.” After that, the period would be replaced by a comma, “who has retained the architectural firm of Robert A. Schaeffer & David M. White, both licensed in the State of New Hampshire and who will be assisting in the conceptual design.”
Moderator Eaton noted that there were also some portions that are capitalized.
There was a second by Mr. Tarte.
Attorney Donovan stated that when petitioned warrant articles had come in there had been capital letters. He had advised the Selectmen to eliminate these as they are a form of electioneering.
Mr. Drake agreed to eliminate the capitals, as did Mr. Tucker.
Steven Borne stated that, a number of years earlier the Planning Board had inserted, in capital letters, “THE PLANNING BOARD DOES NOT APPROVE.” Editor’s note: See 2014 articles 5 and 6. Mr. Borne requested that we be consistent with that, moving forward.
Brian Murphy suggested a correction to change “then” to “than.”
Mr. Drake said that he had corrected that, and another “then” in his amendment, but did not mention it.
Frances Erlebacher said that she is opposed to the article as they have no idea what the plan will be or what it will cost. Fifty percent of the Town has said that they will not spend more than $2 million, and spending that much would require 60 percent. She proposed an amendment, but Moderator Eaton stated that there was an amendment on the floor.
Someone called the question. The motion carried.
The motion to amend passed.
Ms. Erlebacher returned and said that they had no idea what the plan would ultimately cost and it will require a 60 percent vote. She moved to amend, adding the sentence “approval of this article does not commit the Town to implementing the final design.” Mr. Eaton read the amendment and noted that the new sentence would appear at the end of the article. Peter Crawford seconded.
Jeff Quinn stated that a design would be put together, from which a dollar amount could be ascertained, and the town would then decide whether or not it wished to spend that money. The amendment is superfluous, he said.
John Loftus also stated that this was a totally superfluous amendment. With five articles on the ballot there would be the best survey indication that the Town can get. He views the amendment as trying to reduce the strength of his warrant article. It is very simply written and it has no cost to the taxpayer, he said.
(134:50 elapsed)
Jaci Grote said that she agreed with Mr. Quinn and said that the wording should be simple and clear.
Mr. Marion called the question on the amendment. The motion passed.
The motion to amend failed.
Steven Borne moved to amend to add “engage New Hampshire Listens to help achieve community consensus.” He then described that that organization helps communities achieve consensus when they are at a crossroads. The town has been lacking that. When the design has been done, that could help. Mr. Borne said that he would put the amendment at the end. Peter Crawford seconded.
Scott Marion stated that this, to him, is a next step. He encouraged people to vote against the amendment.
Frank Drake said that this concept could be worked on later. The article should be left as it is, he said.
Jane Holway moved the question. The motion carried.
The motion to amend failed.
(139:22 elapsed)
Shawn Crapo moved the question. Scott Marion seconded. The motion passed. Moderator Eaton ordered that Article 34 appear on the ballot as amended.
Selectman Musselman moved to restrict reconsideration on Articles 30 and 34. Randy Crapo seconded. The motion passed.
Article
24: Authorize Selectmen to proceed with
the Town Hall option receiving the most votes if both Articles 6 and 7 get 60
percent (140:35 elapsed)
Scott Marion moved to remove this Article from the table. Shawn Crapo seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton asked for the name of the person who had proposed an amendment. Richard Hayden gave his name.
Moderator Eaton read the amendment, which would replace Article 24 in its entirety to make it read “to see if the voters will authorize the Board of Selectmen to move forward with the Town Hall options (sic) that receives the most votes in the event more than one of the Town warrant articles (6, 7, 30 and 34) receive 3/5 majority vote or better.” Moderator Eaton suggested that it read in the event those warrant articles pass as articles 30 and 34 do not require a 3/5 vote. Mr. Murphy seconded.
Town Attorney Donovan then came up to talk to Moderator Eaton. After that, Moderator Eaton stated that Town Counsel had informed him that there was a problem as Article 30 is stated in the negative.
Scott Marion said that he appreciated the amendment, but as Article 30 is worded, it refers to Articles 6 and 7 failing to pass. All things can’t be true in this case so the amendment doesn’t really make sense. As Mr. Loftus explained, Article 34 doesn’t require any money, he said. This is moving in the direction of confusing amendments, he said. He recommended that it be voted down.
Peter Crawford said that he agreed with Mr. Marion. He said that it appears that the intent is that, if Article 34 gets the most votes, everything else is null and void. That would leave us with no money to do anything with Town Hall, he said. We really need to move forward, he said.
Selectman Musselman said that he would encourage that Article 34 not be modified in this fashion. If either Article 6 or 7 passes and Article 34 passes as well, we would be setting up an unanswerable legal conundrum as to what is to be done with a positive bond article to move forward and a subsequent article that refers to a non-money article that may have gotten more votes. There is probably no precedent for this, but it may be setting up a quandary whereby we may be unable to proceed in any direction, he said. Article 34 can proceed, no matter what happens, as the language stands, if folks wanted to. There is a real chance that neither Article 6 nor Article 7 will get a 60 percent vote, so Article 34 has a real chance, he said.
Mr. Murphy called the question on the Hayden amendment. Moderator Eaton reread the amendment, which did not match what he had indicated above. The motion passed.
The motion to amend failed.
(147:45 elapsed)
Jane Ireland called the question, but Shawn Crapo said that he had an amendment. Shawn Crapo moved to add a sentence at the end to require the Selectmen to solicit additional vendors and bids and not simply go with the Hutter proposal. Mr. Marion seconded.
Mr. Crapo said that this article would only kick in if both Articles 6 and 7 pass, which is unlikely, but both of those articles would tie us to one vendor. We had no money to put behind the bidding process, he said. Hutter is the only one that took the time to bid, however they do not have the best reputation, he said. He wants to make sure that the mistakes with the Public Safety Building are not repeated, he said.
Selectman Musselman encouraged that the amendment be voted down. Articles 6 and 7 are both bond articles. Adding this at the end of Article 24 is a back door preclusion of Articles 6 and 7 if they pass. If the Town went out to bid again the number and the timing would both be out the window. It doesn’t make sense, he said. He argued that one of the two articles could get over 60 percent. It wouldn’t make sense that a majority vote on Article 24 would override that, he said.
Town Attorney Donovan stated that reconsideration had been restricted on the two bond articles. This appears to be a back door attempt to amend those articles, he said. He added that if all three articles pass and the Town seeks his advice, he would advise that the article has no effect.
Moderator Eaton said that he was going to let the amendment proceed. It does not read as a new subject and all of the other previous articles have had reconsideration restricted, he said.
(152:50 elapsed)
Randy Crapo asked whether the Selectmen were going to take away their recommendation if they don’t like the amendment.
Selectman Musselman said that, at the end of the Deliberative Session, the two Selectmen would vote on whether to change their recommendations on any of the articles.
Shawn Crapo noted that Articles 6 and 7 had been voted down by the Budget Committee. Part of the concern had been that there had been only one bidder and one proposal.
Scott Marion said that he generally supports the amendment as locking into one vendor is a bad way to do procurement. He noted that Article 6 does not speak to a particular vendor. He asked what the next step would be if Article 6 passes and whether the Town would go out to bid.
Selectman Musselman said that the article had been based on Hutter’s bid and that, if Article 6 passes, the only reasonable way to proceed would be to enter into a contract with Hutter. He added that the contract had not yet been negotiated and that it would be different from their proposal. There would be changes to the proposal, he said.
Scott Marion suggested that bidders could be limited to the $3.386 million amount of the warrant article and that he does not see the article as locking the town into Hutter. He reiterated that he supported Mr. Crapo’s amendment.
John Loftus said that, if the Selectmen need to go back on Articles 6 and 7 and renegotiate, what is being voted for is not what would end up being contracted for. People have a choice of voting for one or all of the articles, or none of them. He said that the articles should stand and it should be a survey of the Town. Over the last five years the voters have gotten hearsay and second- and third-hand information, he said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton called for a vote. The amendment failed.
Moderator Eaton said that Jane Ireland had already moved to end debate. The motion passed.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration on Article 24. Mae Bradshaw seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton called for a recess until 12:05 p.m.
Editor’s note: The meeting continues with Part Two, which
has a separate video and notes.