NOTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2017 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 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.
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/202748198/
Summary
Article
8: Operating Budget ($9,413,952) (0:00
elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Selectman Musselman stated that the budget had been through the ringer. He also noted that there were fewer employees than was the case earlier. It had been gone through on a line by line basis and systematically reduced to the lowest level that can provide the ongoing level of services to the Town. The Budget Committee went through the same detailed process by line item. In the process, the Selectmen reduced the requests of the department heads by $126,000, hundreds of dollars at a time. It is a tight budget. The budget, including Capital Outlay, is up 2.85 percent from the prior year. The default budget would require that expenses be reduced approximately $570,000. He referred to these cuts as “Draconian,” including non-union staff raises and capital. Rye has a very long history of being frugal, and I think we have been frugal again, he said.
(3:50 elapsed)
Peter Crawford said that this was going to be a big year for tax increases. The School Budget, according to their document, is going to be up 55 cents. There are a couple of warrant articles and things that were done that will add another 8 cents. If that passes it is going to be up 63 cents. The Town is going to be up because the kitty of extra funds from the prior year has been pretty much depleted, so the tax rate may be up 80 cents to a dollar, which is almost 10 percent. That is a big deal for those living on fixed incomes, he said.
Mr. Crawford said that he had gone through the budget. There is an issue with the Red Mill Lane culvert that he will address in a little more detail. Mr. Crawford made a motion to reduce the operating budget from $9,413,952 to $9,303,952, a $110,000 reduction and that the figure appearing in Article 8 be amended accordingly. Furthermore, he moved that Capital Outlay, account 4902 in the budget also be reduced by $110,000. Victor Azzi seconded.
Moderator Eaton said that the motion, if it were to pass, would not prevent the Selectmen from moving money into that account, although it would reduce the budget, he said.
Mr. Crawford said that the Capital Outlay budget is up enormously. According to the colored sheet available at the entrance, it is up almost 140 percent. One of the big reasons is that the Town-wide infrastructure is up significantly. The Selectmen are planning to use $110,000 of that account to redo one of the Red Mill Lane culverts. Last year, we had a warrant article for $150,000 that was to be used for doing one or both of the Red Mill Lane culverts. Only about $7000 of that was spent, leaving $143,000 unspent, he said.
Because the bids have come in at $220,000 per culvert, the total cost for both culverts is not going to be $150,000 as was stated last year, but closer to $500,000 with contingency and engineering, he said.
This should have been brought to the attention of the voters and this should be a separate warrant article. They are counting on adding the $143,000 that was unspent last year to the $110,000 in the budget this year to come up with $253,000 which, based on the recent bids, would be enough for one of the two Red Mill Lane culverts.
However, there is a legal problem with that, Mr. Crawford said. He stated that, according to his reading of the RSAs, when money that is not spent by the end of the year, that appropriation goes away unless there is a contract already existing allowing the funds to be encumbered, he said. There was no contract by the end of the year to enable these funds to be encumbered, he said. There are some exceptions in the RSAs, but he does not see any that apply, he said.
Moderator Eaton asked Mr. Crawford whether he was still talking about the amendment.
Mr. Crawford responded that he was, stating that the reason for the amendment is that the $110,000 is not enough money to do a $220,000 to $250,000 culvert. It is pointless to raise this money from taxes. The only way they can do it is to transfer the $143,000 and I don’t see how that can be done, he said.
Mr. Crawford handed two copies of a document to the Selectmen and Town Counsel and asked them to point out which part of RSA 32:7 applies here and allows them to encumber these funds.
(9:05 elapsed)
Town Counsel Donovan said that he was not sure he understood the question, but he reviewed the Town’s action as did the Town’s auditors and that his opinion several weeks ago was that these funds were properly encumbered. It is not directly relevant to the amendment and we don’t need to spend more time on it, he said.
Selectman
Musselman said that, over the last year, the Town has gone through a design and
bidding process. The Red Mill Lane
culvert is the next drainage priority in Rye.
Many of you remember the Mother’s Day storm, he said. There are other priorities as well. This was a culvert, but based on NHDES requirements,
this needed to be much wider than the current one. It became in essence a bridge of pre-cast
concrete. The least expensive way to do
this is to expend the funds. We have
appropriately encumbered approximately $140,000 from last year and have
proposed another $110,000 in Capital Outlay so that the first Red Mill Lane
bridge can be done. Red Mill Lane is
narrow, but the problem is that the bridge needed to be nearly as wide as the
existing channel. This is what is needed
for a proper design with minimum impact and to deal with the effects of climate
change long-term. This is within the
tidal zone coming in and out of Eel Pond.
It is all entirely appropriate and we would suggest you leave the budget
where it is, he said. Editor’s note: See the notes of the December 27, 2016 Board
of Selectmen meeting, and in particular the video of that meeting at 17:35
elapsed. At that meeting, Selectman
Musselman said that the replacement of the Red Mill Ln. culvert had nothing to
do with climate change.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton called for a vote. The motion failed.
Shawn Crapo moved the question. The motion carried.
Moderator Eaton ordered that Article 8 appear on the ballot as written.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Selectman Musselman seconded the motion. The motion carried.
Article
9: New plow truck ($175,000) (13:45
elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article, which calls for replacement of a 2004 six wheel dump truck.
Selectman Jenness offered an amendment to reduce the $175,000 to $170,000 in the two places that it appears. At this moment, the balance in the fund is $171,163 and this brings the appropriation just under that figure, she said. Selectman Musselman seconded. The motion carried.
Peter Crawford is seen and heard on the video walking towards the microphone for more than five seconds prior to Moderator Eaton completing a statement that he did not see anyone wanting to discuss Article 9. After Mr. Crawford pointed out that he had been walking towards the microphone with his yellow card held up, Moderator Eaton asserted that he had not seen Mr. Crawford.
Mr. Crawford said that he understood that there was only about 25,000 miles on the vehicle, although there is a lot of rust. He asked what it being done to make sure that the Town is getting better life out of the vehicles in the future.
Public Works Director Dennis McCarthy pointed out that the truck was purchased in 2004, although it shows in the records as having been purchased in 2005. It’s a Freightliner, which has been a problematic truck. It does have limited mileage because it has been problematic. The drivers do not like to drive it. Buy in from the staff is needed for the equipment purchased, as if they don’t like it they will either not use it, or misuse it. The trucks are being replaced with Internationals, which is what this one will be. The Town owns about 18 pieces of heavy equipment. We try and replace something every year. He said that when he came to Rye, there had been no replacement program, and no program to extend the longevity of the trucks. They are run in the worst weather with the sand and salt. The day after a storm the trucks are washed and undercoated with oil. Unfortunately, for half of its life, this truck was not taken care of. Parts of the truck were taken from old trucks. The truck is low mileage because it is not used much in the summer but rather is saved for the winter, he said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered the warrant article placed on the ballot as written.
Article
10: Shoals View Drive paving ($125,000) (19:18
elapsed)
Selectman Musselman said that this road is a short gravel road from Ocean Blvd. to the road inland to the West. It used to be tarred, when the town used to do that. There are not many gravel roads left in Rye. This one is probably the most heavily used. In the summer the Town tries to keep the dust down, but it is difficult. There were two options, one was to put the money in Capital Outlay, the other was to place a warrant article. Since this is changing the road from gravel to paved they decided to place the warrant article so everyone could vote on it. There is no question that it is a Town road, he said.
There being no further discussion, Article 10 was ordered to appear on the ballot as written.
Article 11-16: Union Contracts
(22:11 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article and described the chart therein.
Selectman Musselman stated that this is the first of three similar articles settling new three year contracts. The first is with Public Works employees, the second with the police and the third with firefighters. The current contract calls for 2 to 3.5 percent increases. This provides for a 2.5 percent increase in 2017, but a range of 2 to 3.5 percent in 2018. Selectman Musselman referred to a Boston Globe article that stated that wage growth in the U.S. last year was 2.53 percent.
Selectman Musselman referred to a savings of $50,000 in the health care costs this year under this contract. That is primarily due to one of the three options having been eliminated. One of the settlements was at 2:00 a.m. before the deadline to put the warrant articles together. This was negotiated by Mr. Magnant, Ms. Gillespie and Tom Clawson, the Town’s labor attorney.
Mark Epply asked about the decrease between 2018 and 2019. Ms. Gillespie stated that 2017 is for nine months, but is at 2.5 percent, while 2018 is at 2 percent.
Mr. Epply asked whether there might be an error in the figures.
Selectman Musselman moved to table articles 11-16 so that the matter might be looked into further. Selectman Jenness seconded. The motion passed.
Article
17: Fire Truck Capital Reserve
($100,000) (29:55 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness stated that there is $254,508 in the account currently. A new fire truck is over $500,000. This is in keeping with putting funds in on an annual basis. This article would add 5.4 cents to the tax rate.
Peter Crawford said that the CIP Plan includes two big fire trucks. In 2022 there is a pumper truck as well for around $.5 million. At this accretion rate of $100,000 per year there would not be enough to pay for those two trucks. He said that he understands that discussions are ongoing with North Hampton and that there may be some other possibilities. He strongly encouraged the Selectmen and the Fire Chief to reach an agreement with another town so we don’t have to buy all of this equipment. Even with this amount being set aside, it is not going to be enough, he said. He asked where the talks stood.
Ray Jarvis said that he assumed that the big trucks are not used frequently and that there is no need to buy new trucks. He suggested that the Town obtain second hand trucks that might be used several times a year. He asked whether new or second hand trucks would be purchased.
Interim Fire Chief Tom Lambert stated that the decision would be made at the time. Buying used fire trucks is not as easy as buying a used car. There are also certain aspects that may need to be customized to the environment. It would be difficult at this time to make a blanket statement regarding whether it might be possible to acquire a used vehicle, he said.
Selectman Jenness asked about the frequency of use.
Interim Chief Lambert said that it would be hard to put a number to it. Certain vehicles are used every day, others not so often. It needs to be considered like an insurance policy. When it is needed it is vital to have it, he said.
Steven Borne referred to a quote saying that, when your house is on fire you want good firemen and good equipment.
Brian Murphy called the question, but it appeared that nobody else wanted to speak to the issue so Moderator Eaton ordered the article to appear on the ballot as written.
Articles 11-16 Union Contracts (35:28 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman moved to bring these articles off of the table. Randy Crapo seconded. The motion passed.
Selectman Musselman said that the 2018 number is lower than the one in 2019 as in 2018 a step increase comes into play. That is not the case in 2019. With the other two there is more education incentive payment in year one. The numbers are correct, he said.
Mr. Epply said that he did want to belabor the issue, but he does not understand why the 2 percent figure goes down but the 3 percent figure goes up.
Ms. Gillespie noted a spike in the fire department in 2018. In the second year three people are affected, but in the first and third years there is only one person affected. In one year there are 52 weeks and in another there are 53 weeks. They fluctuate back and forth with the different factors. There was impact from the clothing allowance and the insurance, she said.
There being no further discussion of Article 11, Moderator Eaton ordered it to appear on the ballot as written.
Moderator Eaton then read Article 12. Selectman Musselman said that the article went without saying. There was no discussion and Moderator Eaton ordered Article 12 to appear on the ballot as written.
Moderator Eaton read Article 13, the contract with the firefighters. Selectman Musselman said that the description was the same as for Public Works. There being no discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 13 to appear on the ballot as written.
(41:30 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton then read Article 14. Selectman Musselman said that the article went without saying. There was no discussion and Moderator Eaton ordered Article 14 to appear on the ballot as written.
Moderator Eaton then read Article 15, the contract with the police officers. Selectman Musselman said that the description was the same as for the other two contracts. With this we have labor peace with all three unions, they are fine staffs and if Town Meeting approves all of the contracts we will have agreements with all, he said.
There being no further discussion of Article 15, Moderator Eaton ordered it to appear on the ballot as written.
Moderator Eaton then read Article 16. Selectman Musselman said that the article went without saying. There was no discussion and Moderator Eaton ordered Article 16 to appear on the ballot as written.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration on Articles 9-17. Mr. Gould seconded. The motion passed.
Article
18 Community Center ($80,000) (45:16 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton read the warrant article.
Selectman
Jenness explained that the article asks for $40,000 from the Recreation
Department and $40,000 from the Town. Editor’s note: That statement is misleading as all of the
funds in the Recreation Revolving Fund belong to the townspeople and may, by
vote of Town Meeting, be returned to the General Fund, and from there to
taxpayers, by voting to rescind the fund.
In addition, while these funds may be spent only for Recreation
purposes, each year, approximately half of the cost of the Recreation
Department is supported by general taxation and half by money in the Recreation
Revolving Fund, which comes from fees from Recreation activities. The amount that needs to be raised by general
taxation may be reduced by increasing the proportion of Recreation Department costs
to be funded from the Recreation Revolving Fund. In fact there was a minor change in the
percentage for 2017. See N.H. Rev. Stat.
Ann. (“RSA”) 35-B:2, II.
Selectman Jenness referred to the work of the Recreation Facilities Needs Assessment Committee. She asked Gregg Mikolaities who chaired that Committee, to speak, after she referred to the 1780 individual participants in Recreation programs that were held in twelve different locations.
Gregg Mikolaities addressed the warrant article. He stated that he had been a member of the Recreation Commission for 14 of the last 17 years. He said that the Committee had met in 2016 and finalized the report in November. This has been 17-18 years in the making. In 1999 a Master Plan was done. Lee Arthur joined in 2000 and we are lucky to have her. The bathrooms constructed 17 years ago at the Rec. Area are now in tough shape. In 2004 there was a temporary modular unit acquired for programs. Thirteen years later that is used for staff. There are three staff people there now. In 2005 the Master Plan was updated again. In 2010 we started storing equipment in the Old Trolley Barn. In 2012 the over 55 program was taken over by the Rec. Department. That has over 150 participants. In 2014 the Rec. staff was moved to the modular due to overcrowding at Town Hall. In 2015 and 2016 an architect was retained to inventory the space. Storage is a problem. There is a lack of facilities for Middle School aged residents. We are a tenant at will at the Rye Congregational Church, he said.
Over the past 15-16 years we’ve waited our turn, he said. The Library, the Schools and the Town Hall have been improved over that time, he said. He then corrected himself and said that the Town Hall had not been improved. There was laughter. Lee is doing such a great job that the programs are very popular, he said.
With the $80,000, we want to update the land use plan done in 1999 and identify some storage solutions. They want to come up with some preliminary plans and budgets to see what a Community Center would look like. It would be for people from 4 to 94, he said.
Mr. Crapo asked how the revolving fund works.
Mr. Mikolaities explained that it is money in, money out. That covers our expenses. There is extra money that has accumulated when we have more participants and less cost, he said.
(52:14 elapsed)
Peter Crawford stated that, although he agrees with virtually everything that Mr. Mikolaities said, and agrees that the conditions at the Recreation Department are appalling, he said that, in its current form, he does not think that he can support the warrant article. Something like $20,000 has been spent already to study the Community Center and they came up with 10,000 sq. ft. and a cost of $2 million to $2.5 million. He said that he is hearing vague assertions that maybe this is something different, but is not sure that $80,000 is needed to revise that plan and come up with something that is palatable. This is the problem that we had with Town Hall, he said. With warrant article after warrant article, we appropriated money. It ended up costing $356,000 and we ended up with a 12,500 sq. ft. design that was going to cost $4.1 million that didn’t even get 40 percent of the vote. To go forward without figuring out what it is that we’re doing, and spend $80,000, I don’t think makes sense. Maybe $20,000 to figure out what we’re doing would be acceptable, but I don’t think this makes any sense at all, he said.
Mr. Mikolaities said that he is learning from the Town Hall. We absolutely watched what happened. I was on the first Committee. The problem with the first Committee was that the architect came up with a floor plan and elevations which was out of scope. It was very defined what we had the architect do. We looked at current facilities, what we had, and what we need. We are taking baby steps. The number you quote, he said to Mr. Crawford, is a place holder for the CIP Plan. We want to figure out what the square footage would be and the cost, and come back to the Town. We’re looking two, three, four years down the road. There is talk about a Master Plan for Town facilities with the school population declining. This fits perfectly with any study that may be done. We will be more educated. Right now we are not. We are taking baby steps. We haven’t solicited proposals yet. If we need to spend $20,000 or $80,000 that’s what we’ll spend. We need to come out of that with an educated, thorough proposal. I watched the Town Hall struggle for three hours this morning. I don’t want to be arguing in five years about 5000 sq. ft. vs. 10,000 sq. ft. for a Community Center. We’re going to lose participants. Something is going to happen when the church tells us we can’t use their facilities there will be 150 people without a place to meet, he said.
(56:03 elapsed)
Frances Erlebacher said that she does not consider $80,000 to be a baby step. She asked how that number was arrived at, and noted that the plan for Town Hall only cost $60,000 and that was later voted down by the voters.
Mr. Mikolaities said that he has been doing this for 35 years and is using his professional opinion.
Sam Winebaum said that he supports beginning the process for a Community Center. Although there is not a Facilities Master Plan, getting people of all ages together in one place is important to the vitality of Rye. He said that he had read the architect’s study and the phasing of steps from a smaller building to a larger one. He asked how big it would be and whether it would be at the Recreation Area. He asked whether the space there would accommodate the eventual needs.
Mr. Mikolaities said that they have two classrooms at the Elementary School which works well as parents don’t want to bus their children to the Recreation Area. There are 50 kids in that program for working families where two parents work. There is also a basketball program using the school facilities. The architect was told that they want the space to be flexible. The study is flexible as there might be an eventual need for a gym. We want to plan for the worst. We are doing the bare minimum. It will take two, three, five, ten years. If we don’t start planning now it is going to be too late, he said.
Maggie Duffy-Durkin, member of the Recreation Committee said that, sometimes when you do a lot with very little, people don’t think that you need much. There is increased participation across the board and we just want to do a study. We want a multi-generational space. She said that she is very supportive.
Ms. Ireland called the question. The motion carried.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 18 to appear on the ballot as written.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration. Randy Crapo seconded. The motion carried.
Article
19: Heavy Equipment Capital Reserve Fund
($75,000) (62:43 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness said that, if Article 9 is approved, this article begins to restore the balance, as there will be a little over $1000 left after buying the dump truck.
Peter Crawford said that he supported the warrant article, but he said that Article 10 from last year refers to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund. He asked whether that was a mistake and whether the article needed to be amended.
Town Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie stated that the warrant article is correct. Some time during the past ten years the word “heavy” was dropped. There is a new person at the DRA who noticed that the original article has the word “heavy,” so we put it back, she said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 19 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
20: Employees Leave Expendable Trust
($50,000) (65:00 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness said that the balance in the account is $167,567, but the liability is $483,577. That would be the amount that would need to be paid if all of the Town employees who could retire all retired at once. The Department of Revenue Administration expects towns to fund this account at fifty percent of the liability. That would be $241,788.50. By adding this $50,000, we will still be short by $24,000, she said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 20 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
21: Municipal Buildings Expendable Trust
($25,000) (66:42 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness stated that the current balance in the fund is $63,521. This is to maintain Town Hall, the Public Safety Building, the Public Works buildings, the Parsonage and the Outer Marker, she said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 21 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
22: Salt Shed replacement engineering
($25,000) (67:50 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman addressed the warrant article. He stated that this begins the process of replacing the old salt storage shed, which is small. The amount of salt delivered at any one time must be limited. The existing facility is too small to allow the loading of salt under cover. The salt shed is in the recharge area of the Rye Water District wells. This is only for design. Next year, in all likelihood, we will be back for construction funds. This is coming out of a fund created twelve years ago and it is time to proceed with this improvement, he said.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 20 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
23: Library Expendable Trust ($5,000)
(69:57 elapsed)
Selectman Jenness said
that the balance in the account is $23,045.
Approval would add three one-hundredths of a cent to the tax bill. Editor’s
note: As the total valuation of Rye is
$1,884,140,400, or 1,884,140.4 thousands of dollars, and the tax impact per
$1000 of assessed valuation is computed by taking the expenditure and dividing
it by 1,884,140.4, the impact is actually three tenths of a cent, or $.003.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 23 to appear on the ballot as written.
Shawn Crapo moved to restrict reconsideration of Articles 19-23. Dr. Klinger seconded. The motion passed.
Article
25: Rescission of Rye Fire Department
Ordinance (71:35 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman addressed the warrant article. He said that it is a housekeeping warrant article to deal with two Town Meeting votes in 1972 and 1990 which do not reflect how the Fire Department currently operates. That is all I know about that topic, he said. If anyone has any questions we will ask the Fire Chief to address it, he said.
Peter Crawford said that he too is confused. He said that he looked through RSA 154. There are a lot of provisions there. The ordinance is several pages long. It seemed that, by rescinding this, the firefighters were being given fewer rights but that was a bit unclear, he said. He asked someone to explain exactly what this warrant article does.
Interim Fire Chief Lambert said that the existing Town Ordinance gives guidelines and stipulations that aren’t currently applicable to the operation of the organization. When it was passed by Town Counsel he pointed out that everything that is discussed in the Ordinance is addressed in the RSAs in terms of how the Fire Department operates and its makeup. He suggested that it would be best to eliminate the Ordinance and follow the RSAs. There are a number of issues that are no longer applicable. There is no longer a Board of Fire Wards. The Fire Chief is currently appointed by the guidelines of the State statute. The powers of the Fire Chief are better defined in the RSA which has more current and updated verbage (sic). There are issues about the suspension and discharge of employees and how that is covered. Currently they don’t give a broad brush to the Fire Chief just to fire people. We won’t get into personalities or anything like that. These things have to be done not only with the recommendation of the Fire Chief, but through the guise of the Board of Selectmen. The compensation standards are set by the Board of Selectmen on the recommendation of the Fire Chief. There are a couple more things, but that’s it in a nutshell, he said.
Mr. Marion called the question. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 25 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
26: Parking ordinance, parking near Rec.
Area (76:00 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton summarized the warrant article and said that he would entertain a motion to waive the reading of the entire ordinance and read only the new section of the ordinance. The motion was made and carried. Moderator Eaton then read the new section p.
Selectman Jenness deferred to Chief Walsh.
Police Chief Kevin Walsh said that the Police Department had been approached by the Recreation Department regarding ways to make the area safer. He referred to multiple simultaneous activities including use of the Town Forest and baseball games. The Recreation Department reviewed the situation with the Town’s insurer and this was one of their suggestions. We will work with the Rec. coaches on educating people as to where they can park, he said.
(79:45 elapsed)
Randy Crapo asked Chief Walsh to explain where the No Parking Zone referred to in paragraph k is. He said that he thinks that that is where he parks to go fishing. There was laughter.
Moderator Eaton said that that was not part of the ordinance affected by the article but asked whether someone wanted to respond.
Chief Walsh stood next to Mr. Crapo at the microphone as they conversed inaudibly for almost 30 seconds.
Moderator Eaton then said that the private discussion is great, but we would like to hear it.
Mr. Crapo then pointed to the page and asked if that was where the Rye Harbor docks are. He referred to it being used by people on Harbor Rd. who have parties.
Moderator Eaton asked Mr. Crapo to wrap it up as that is not the section affected by the proposed amendment.
Mr. Crapo said, okay, and said that he would look at it and fight this fight later.
(81:35 elapsed)
Paula Tsetsilas asked whether there was enough parking in the two lots to accommodate everyone if this parking is eliminated.
Chief Walsh said there are 64 painted spaces plus extended parking in a dirt area that is chained off in the off season.
There being no further discussion of Article 26, Moderator Eaton ordered Article 26 to appear on the ballot as written.
Article
27: Dogs on the beach (82:57 elapsed)
Moderator Eaton explained that the article is long and seeks to amend the Beach Ordinance as it relates to times that dogs may be on the beach. It creates certain exceptions and includes a requirement that dogs be on a leash held by a person capable of physically restraining the dog. It also seeks to restrict the deposit of pet feces. He said that, since he expects a lengthy amendment, he would entertain a motion to waive the reading of the proposed ordinance. Shawn Crapo so moved. Burt Dibble seconded. The motion passed.
Selectman Musselman proposed an amendment that replaces the verbage (sic) in item 1 and replaces it with:
“All dogs shall be secured by a leash no longer than six feet and under the control of its owner or other custodian, and which is held by a reasonable person capable of physically restraining the dog. This does not apply to service dogs as defined in RSA 167-D:1. Foss Beach is exempted from this regulation, but the Town Dog Ordinance #7 (RSA 466:30-a) applies at Foss Beach.”
Selectman Musselman stated that all four definitions are deleted. This accomplishes the same thing as the original language, but is a whole lot clearer, he said. Burt Dibble seconded the motion to amend.
There being no further discussion, Moderator Eaton called for a vote on the motion, which passed.
(87:35 elapsed)
Scott
Marion said that he uses the beach for dog walking during the summer in
particular, and very responsibly picks up pet waste. He understands from friends and others with
concerns that, particularly in the early evening, dogs run into people’s picnics
and they are not really under control.
If picking up waste is the issue, owners who are not going to pick up
waste will fail to do so whether the dog is leashed or not. He proposed an amendment that would allow the
early morning walkers to have their dogs permitted on the beach. The amendment would insert language at the
beginning of paragraph 1 so that it would read “[a]fter 7:00 p.m., all dogs…”
and would follow with the rest. Mr.
Marion said that idea is that dogs could be walked off leash in the morning,
but once 7:00 p.m. comes the dog would need to be leashed. A number of people asked whether he meant
a.m. Mr. Marion confirmed that he meant
7:00 p.m. and that dogs could be unleashed through 9:00 a.m. Editor’s
note: The ordinance, as it reads in the
portion not being amended, prohibits any dogs on the beach between 9:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. from the Saturday before Memorial Day to the first Sunday after
Labor Day. By requiring dogs to be
leashed starting at 7:00 p.m., they would be allowed unleashed prior to 9:00
a.m., not at all between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., and leashed after 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Bradshaw seconded the motion.
Mary Murphy said that she disagrees as she walks in the morning. Last summer, she walked the beach just about every day. Everyone pictures dogs jumping and playing with their owners, but that is not what is happening. The owners let their dogs loose and walk 30 yards behind them, chatting with their friends. They are not under control. I don’t want the wet, sandy paws of a dog on me, she said. Last year a small dog on a leash was attacked by a larger dog. The owner of the small dog tried to separate them. She had scratches on her back and shoulder and her dog was bitten. The owner of the larger dog paid the vet’s bill, but that did not change the terrifying experience that the woman went through. A couple of years ago, a woman was knocked down and broke her shoulder. Another woman was knocked down at the edge of the water. By the time she got up, the owner had disappeared. She doesn’t walk the beach anymore as she is afraid the dogs will attack. She referred to owners with multiple dogs, or dog walkers with 3-5 dogs, and said that nobody can control that many dogs.
(93:28 elapsed)
Steven Borne referred to the confusion in the wording of the ordinance and suggested that it be cleaned up.
Shawn Crapo referred to difficulties in interpretation relating to the meaning of under control and the difficulty of knowing whether a charging dog is going to stop after being commanded to do so by its owner. That is why the resolution must be a leash, he said.
Tom King invited Chief Walsh to speak as, until he has spoken, these are spurious comments.
Ray Jarvis said that this is not a black and white issue. There is no question that dog poop should be picked up. There is no question that a dog who has a tendency to leap on people should be on a leash. There is no question that an aggressive dog should be on a leash. People have access to the beach without any dogs from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. To be healthy, a dog should run. The relationship between a dog and a person is often very emotional and heart felt. This is all one-sided, he said. There is responsibility on both sides. Leave a little room for others, he said. There was applause.
A woman living at 427 South Rd. said that she had been attacked by a pit bull in the water. She said that she walks the beach at 6:00 a.m. as she works a 12 hour day. The owner of the pit bull was on drugs, drunk. Pit bulls don’t break the skin. They crush. I’ve never walked the beach again. I am a responsible dog owner. I think the leash law is a good thing. If that had been a two year old, it would have been a broken or maimed leg or face, she said.
Mark Epply said that he had been walking his dogs on the beach in Rye for 35 years. I’ve never had an incident in 35 years. I occasionally see nuisance dogs. Something should be done about them, but not all dogs. There are 1100 dog licenses in Rye. With 2200 houses, about 50 percent of homeowners have dogs. Most of the nuisance dogs come from out of town. The nuisance issue needs to be dealt with. The Animal Control Officer is down at the beach almost every morning during the summer months. He should be given the authority to remove dogs from the beach if appropriate and hand out citations. If this article is passed it will be almost impossible to undo. A few years ago, ROMP (Rye Organization Monitoring Pets) was formed. Information on what is allowed is handed out. The Animal Control Officer hands out that same information in the Spring or early Summer. That has all helped, he said.
Moderator Eaton said that the discussion was on whether the words “after 7:00 p.m.” would be inserted at the beginning of subparagraph 1.
There was no further discussion so Moderator Eaton called for a vote. The amendment passed.
(106:28 elapsed)
Brian Klinger said that he is not necessarily opposed to a leash law. He said that he has a dog which he keeps leashed. He said that he is opposed to the six foot leash requirement. His dog is kept on a retractable leash that may be shortened to three feet or extended to about 25 feet. If the six foot restriction stays in the article, I will not support it, he said.
Someone requested that Chief Walsh discuss the article.
Chief Walsh said that the officers appreciate the residents of Rye and what they do at the beach and around town. One problem is that Pierce Island in Portsmouth does not allow dogs any more. A lot of the problem is people from out of town. We welcome visitors but they have no buy in, he said. That is what the officers are dealing with. He provided some statistics on dogs counted between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. last year:
July 1 15
July 2 24
July 3 53
July 4 44
July 17 25
July 23 43
I could put the whole Police Department down there, Chief Walsh said. How can we possibly manage 25 to 43 dogs, under control? There’s no way we can do that. One instance that really hits me is the woman who was walking along Cable Rd. Beach. Two dogs came running down. They hit her and she fell into the water. At what distance from the owner is the dog not under control?
Chief Walsh continued, saying, that he has a lot of respect for Rye residents because they are picking up someone else’s dog waste bag. I have a problem with that, he said. They are not being respectful and responsible. I see ten dogs and fifteen dog waste bags. Well whose is it? “Well we just pile them there, Kevin, and then we come and get them, Officer.” In court I have to prove that that’s your dog waste bag and you got in your car and didn’t pick it up, he said.
The Selectmen and the Budget Committee are always asking why the hours are being increased. This is labor intensive. It is easy for me to get out of the car, walk between two houses and say “no leash.” It’s not right that people don’t go to the beach anymore. It’s not right that people are picking up after someone else’s dog because they don’t want to lose the privilege of having their dogs there.
Chief Walsh showed some slides.
Chief Walsh referred to increasing numbers of dogs at Parsons Field. The outside dogs are fighting with the Rye dogs, he said. He spoke about someone running a dog walking business.
(116:26 elapsed)
Mr. Warner said that he was the fifth grade teacher mentioned by Brian Murphy. During eighteen years, I have not seen anyone who I know is from Rye abuse the privilege. We will pick up other people’s waste. We will use shaming and rough talk to keep people in line, typically outsiders. He warned of curtailing activities, but acknowledged that, occasionally, things go awry. The Chief provided some statistics, he said. However, over a period of three or four hours that is not a whole lot of dogs. There is not a high density of dogs down there. If dogs needed to be leashed, they would not be able to swim. The laws put in place are working pretty well. It is absurd to make any significant changes right now, he said.
(121:13 elapsed)
Jeanne Low asked about Article 32 which refers to the recommendation of Chief Walsh that dogs be leashed at all times. She asked whether that, or what he said earlier, was true.
Chief Walsh said that he is not in favor of a town-wide leash law. He is in favor of requiring that dogs be leashed at the beach during the summer months.
Ms. Low whether the petition stated his views incorrectly.
Chief Walsh said yes.
Jane Holway said that she is at the beach every day. There is a lack of police there. They’re never down there, especially when it’s time for the dogs to get off the beach in the morning, she said.
Keith Evelund said that they walk almost every morning with their dog and have never seen anyone attacked at the beach. We have seen issues with the out of town people with regard to pick up, he said. He suggested an off leash license of $20 for Rye residents and $60 for those from out of town.
Mr. Epply said that he would not be opposed to increasing dog fees. An assistant could be hired to issue citations as there are problem dogs. With regard to the closing of Pierce Island, that is temporary during the construction of the sewer treatment plant there. Parsons Field is becoming more crowded with dogs. He proposed another amendment that would supercede the other amendments:
“1. All dogs shall be otherwise under the control of its owner or custodian. Dogs not properly under control of its owner or custodian shall be considered to be a nuisance as defined by the Town of Rye #7 dog ordinance which follows State RSA 466:31, II. Said dogs shall immediately be secured by a leash or removed from the beach.”
I deleted the rest of the language in the article as it is not necessary, he said. Scott Marion seconded the motion.
Shawn Crapo asked whether the language starting “[t]he animal control officer…” remained. Moderator Eaton confirmed, and said that Mr. Epply is proposing to change only sub paragraph one.
Ms. Murphy said that they are changing the petition that started it all. Moderator Eaton said that, as recently as January 18, amendments to warrant articles can change the intent or purpose. Editor’s note: See the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision in Cady v. Town of Deerfield, No. 2016-0152, January 18, 2017. The amendments are permissible, he said. It doesn’t sound very legal to me, Ms. Murphy said. Moderator Eaton said that she may not like it, but it’s legal. Ms. Murphy started to talk about the petition.
Moderator Eaton asked Ms. Murphy not to talk about her article, which was not on the table yet.
Mr. Warner said that, in order to show Mr. Murphy that he still has what it takes, the amendment should read “any dog,” not “all dogs” so that the noun and subject agree with the predicate.
Moderator Eaton asked whether those involved agreed. A vote so indicated.
(134:35 elapsed)
Selectman Musselman said that he thought that the Marion amendment changed it so that dogs could be walked in the morning on all beaches, but dogs could not be walked after 7:00 p.m., except at Foss Beach. This amendment that we’re now considering takes out any effect of this warrant article. It makes it so we’re back to what we currently have, which is unenforceable. He wondered whether that was what 50 of those present want to do, to preclude others from voting on this. It seems unfair, he said.
Moderator Eaton said that it was nonetheless permissible.
A number of those present were saying yes.
The question was called on the amendment. The motion passed.
The amendment passed.
Chief Walsh showed the picture again. He asked whether, in that case, the court would find that the dog is not under control. He said that he has three reports of dog on dog attacks. You guys are paying enough as it is and there are other responsibilities that we are supposed to have, he said. I’ll do whatever you want. I work for you, but this tool is not very effective, he said.
Ms. Anderson called the question.
Tom King said that the problem in Rye is that we’re blessed with an abundance of beaches. They are the best of any beaches nearby. More people come in, creating trash, parking and other problems. He referred to ways to handle population pressure. There are issues that can happen, but most people are responsible. Ten or twelve years ago when this came up, we came up with time restrictions. That is a reasonable accommodation. Don’t forget that there are State beaches that don’t allow dogs at any time. It’s not perfect, but this is “Live Free or Die,” he said. This is too much too soon, he said.
Mr. King said that, at a minimum, this should be put off to next year, he said.
Moderator Eaton said that his rule is that, once the question has been called, you may not speak unless the motion is defeated. Some people think that this shouldn’t be an endurance test and a marathon.
Jaci Grote called the question. The motion appeared to pass.
Selectman Musselman moved to take Article 32 out of order. Moderator Eaton said that Sally King had seconded.
Sally King said that she was trying to restrict reconsideration on Article 27. Steven Borne seconded. The motion passed.
Mae Bradshaw seconded the motion to take Article 32 out of order.
Article
32: Petitioned dog leash article (147:10
elapsed)
The motion
to take Article 32 out of order passed.
Ms. Murphy addressed the article. She said that the article is fine as it is and should appear on the ballot. The voters should decide, she said.
Moderator Eaton asked Chief Walsh to clear up any confusion on his position relative to what is stated in the article.
Chief Walsh stated that had spoken with Ms. Murphy prior to submitting his warrant article to the Selectmen. He said that he is not in favor of a town-wide restriction, but only one applicable during intensive use of the beach. He asked that the reference to him be stricken.
Moderator Eaton asked whether he was making a motion.
Chief Walsh asked whether he was allowed to.
Moderator Eaton confirmed, saying that Chief Walsh is a resident of Rye.
Scott Marion seconded.
Mr. Murphy called the question. The motion passed.
The amendment passed.
Mr. Epply moved to amend the article to read “we are in favor of Article 27 as amended.”
Moderator Eaton said that, while it is the same subject matter, he would be more comfortable if it made reference to the portion of Article 27 that talks about leashes. There was more discussion regarding the appropriate language. A piece of paper was passed to Moderator Eaton. He suggested “we are in favor of Article 27 regarding the control of dogs on the beaches.”
Moderator Eaton said that Mr. Epply had made the motion and Mr. Warner had seconded.
Someone asked whether we were voting on Mr. Epply’s amendment, or his amendment as Moderator Eaton had amended it.
Moderator Eaton said that Mr. Epply had agreed with the language.
Scott Marion said that he was opposed to the original article, but with all due respect to Mr. Epply and his clever crafting, it seems like…
Moderator Eaton interrupted and referred to the New Hampshire Supreme Court decision that the purpose and intent may be changed.
Mr. Marion said that voters will be voting twice on the same article.
Moderator Eaton said that he would leave that up to the voters.
Someone called the question. Someone else made a point of order. Moderator Eaton refused to consider it as the question had been called. The motion to call the question passed. The Epply amendment passed 34-18 after Moderator Eaton counted the votes. He then asked Mr. Crapo whether he wanted to make his point of order.
Shawn Crapo said that Moderator Eaton seemed to have ruled that the subject matter was “leashed dogs.” However, the subject matter of Article 32, as written, is dogs being leashed at all times. He said that that would violate the spirit of even the new case law. Moderator Eaton said that the subject matter was very similar between the articles.
Alan Gould called the question. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton ordered Article 32 to appear on the ballot as amended.
Ms. Hodson moved to restrict reconsideration of Article 32. Mr. Marion seconded. The motion passed.
There was discussion about whether reconsideration had been restricted on Article 27. Mr. Cady moved to restrict reconsideration. Mr. Warner seconded. The motion passed.
Moderator Eaton called a recess until 3:00 p.m.
Editor’s note: The meeting continues with Part Three, which
has a separate video and notes.