ANNOTATED MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2017 RYE BOARD OF SELECTMEN MEETING
Town Hall Bond Hearings
Final Revision B – Provided by the Rye Civic League
Present (clockwise around table): Town Administrator Michael Magnant, Selectmen Craig Musselman and Priscilla Jenness. Not present: Finance Director Cyndi Gillespie, Selectman Joseph Mills.
Persons present from the public included: Victor Azzi, Diane Bitter, Mae Bradshaw, Peter Crawford, Rich Davis, Frank Drake, Frances Erlebacher, Beverly Giblin, Paul Goldman, Alex Herlihy, Sally King, Alex LaCasse (Portsmouth Herald), John Loftus, Ann Malpass, Joe Tucker, Peter White, Phil Winslow.
Editor’s Note: These annotated minutes are provided by the
Rye Civic League. They have been
prepared using the PDF version of the draft minutes downloaded from the Town
website on January 28, 2017. Not all of
the text may have been converted properly.
Consult the Town website for the official minutes. All RCL annotations are in Times New Roman
font. The original minutes are in
Courier font. The absence of annotation
does not indicate that the RCL has confirmed that the minutes accurately
reflect what transpired. The time stamps
are in minutes and seconds relative to the start of the RCL video of the
meeting, which is available on the Town website. The draft minutes have not yet been approved
by the Selectmen and are subject to change.
Editor’s
note: For ease in finding particular
sections using the archived video and audio on the Town website, the elapsed
time is indicated. Use the slider and
the elapsed time indicated at the bottom of the video window to fast forward to
the desired section. Videos on the Town website may currently be accessed
at www.town.rye.nh.us by clicking on
“Town Hall Streaming” at the bottom left of the screen. Follow the link for “Town Hall Live
Streaming,” then find the meeting by date under “Previous.”
The video starts
at 6:30:38 p.m. (0:00 elapsed).
Summary
TOWN OF
RYE -BOARD OF SELECTME-BOARD OF SELECTMEN
TUESDAY,
January 17, 2017
6:30
p.m.
Rye
Town Hall
Members
Present: Acting Chair Craig Musselman, Selectmen
Priscilla Jenness
Others
Present: Town Administrator Michael Magnant
(2:32 elapsed)
I. CALL
TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Acting
Chair Musselman called the meeting to order at 6:33
p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance
II. PUBLIC HEARING: Town Hall Bond Issue
A bond
issue in the approximate amount of $3,386,752 for the purpose of constructing a
new Town Hall office building similar in exterior
design and on the same site of the existing Town Hall Building.
At 6:38
p.m., Acting Chair Musselman opened the public
hearing.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that they have estimates that
Finance Director Cynthia Gillespie put together related to the first bond
hearing for the new Town Hall Building. The interest
rate that was used is 2%, which is higher than what was given by banks this
past fall. The first calendar year payment for $3,386,752 ten-year bond issue
is $412,242.98. The annual payments decrease for ten years because the
principal that is paid is constant and the interest is variable, which
decreases each year based on the outstanding principal amount. With this bond,
the total interest payment would be $3,386,752. The total interest payments
paid over the life of the loan, with interest payments paid twice per year and
principal payments paid once per year, would be $378,375.46; for a total of $3,765,127.46 over the
ten-year life of the bond.
Acting
Chair Musselman opened to the public for comments.
(8:37 elapsed)
John
Loftus, 108 Straw’s Point, commented that he has a procedural question. He
asked what the difference is with this meeting and the meeting held last week
with the Budget Committee.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that the Budget Committee
met to vote on whether or not to recommend the warrant article. This is a bond
hearing.
Mr.
Loftus asked who votes on this.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted that there will be no votes on
this. It is to hear input on the two bond issues.
Peter
White, 58 Liberty Common, asked why the Selectmen chose a bond with principal
and interest higher than the alternative. Why was the chose made for a higher
amount of money?
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that proposals were
received from Hutter Construction on December , asked why the Selectmen chose a bond with
principal and interest higher than the alternative. Why was the chose made for
a higher amount of money?
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that proposals were
received from Hutter Construction on December 8th.
There was a lower proposal by a couple of hundred thousand dollars ($200,000)
for the renovation project than for the construction of a new building; same
size and same interior dimensions. The bond amount of $3,386,752 was Hutter’s base bid plus all of the town’s softcosts and the 5%contingency, which is reasonable for a
new building. The second bond hearing has a different number because it had a
different starting point.
Mr.
White asked why the Selectmen chose the higher aggregate figure of the two
alternatives.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated this was discussed two weeks
ago. He thinks that he and Selectman Jenness had a
different perspective.
Selectman
Jenness explained that the bottom line was not the
only consideration. It was what the town
was going to get in the end. Basically, the Selectmen had come to the
conclusion that it would be better to have the outside replicated and have the
construction be new, instead of trying to renovate so many things that have
deteriorated. As they have gotten more and more into the project, they have found
that every time another wall is open there is a problem. Everywhere they try to
find the unknown, there is a problem. It has become enough to make it a tipping
point for her.
Acting
Chair Musselman commented that he had some concerns
about the renovation of the building and the size they are dealing with now,
which he did not have a problem with two years ago, when the Great Hall was
being renovated.
(12:42 elapsed)
Peter
Crawford, 171 Brackett Road, stated he does not think it is the right move for
the town. The town is getting a lot less than two years ago atthe
4.1 million that got less than 40% of the vote two years ago. It’s 8,000sf, rather than 12,500sf.
The geothermal System would not be expanded and would only run part of
the
building, there is no Great Hall, no room for Recreation and no room for Sewer.
It’s a lot lower value and a lot more dollars per square foot. In looking at
the Capital Improvement Plan, taking the capital value of all the projects it
is about 17 million dollars. To spend 3.4 million dollars at this time seems foolish to him.
If the town wants to build a new building, it should be done somewhere else on
the site and the existing building left. The vast majority of the voters, 65
percent or so,
do not want to tear the existing building down. This is going to get voted down
because it is too expensive and people do not want to tear the building down.
(14:22 elapsed)
Mae
Bradshaw, 106 Harbor Road, following up on what Selectman Jenness had said, stated that she has heard there are holes everywhere and problems
every time the building is opened up. She thinks that this is not a responsible
statement unless it can be supported with what has been opened up and what has
been found when it was opened up. Every report over the last five years, all
of which she stated she has read, which have come from engineers for the building, say the building
is sound. The windows
are sound. Most everything about it is sound. There is some foundation work
that needs to be done. There may be some shoring up. For $165,000 the shoring
up can be done. The delta that is being asked for to tear down this historic
piece of property, that the Selectmen are the stewards of, would more than adequately pay for
the shoring up.
A
member of the public (Frances Erlebacher) asked how this warrant article
“jives” with Article 22 that was voted on last year that stated that all plans
have to include maintaining the old building. She thinks it was like 70% that
voted for that article.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated this issue has been raised and
will be run by legal counsel. He is pretty sure the answer will be that a
previous Town Meeting vote does not dictate a future Town Meeting vote. The town could decide to go in any different
direction that it chooses at any point in the future.
The
town could decide to go in any different direction that it chooses at any point
in the future.
(17:51 elapsed)
Burt
Dibble, 106 Harbor Road, stated that last year’s vote on this issue was the
fourth statement that the citizens want the existing building to be preserved.
He thinks that to try and create plans going forward to do something different,
leads down a pathway that is likely to lead to defeat. He thinks they need to
think carefully about what the citizens want for their town and exercises a
leadership role that leads in that direction.
Ms.
Bradshaw read Article 22 presented at last year’s Town Meeting. The warrant
article that is being proposed does not provide the town with an option.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that last year’s Article 22
does not move forward for the next 30 years by any stretch of the imagination.
The article does not apply for the next 30 years no matter what.
Michael
Steinberg, Sea Glass Lane, stated that the way Article 22 was written gives the
option of doing new and old. The article gives the town the option of looking
at everything. The article did not say “only to rehab”. It said “plus an
option”. He would look at all options.
Town
Administrator, Michael Magnant, stated that Ms.
Bradshaw brought her concerns to him in regards to Article 22 and he has
forwarded the question to the Town Attorney.
Referring
to the comment about the delta covering the shoring up, Mr. Crawford stated
that he believes the option to renovate included that cost.
Acting
Chairman Musselman noted that it includes structural
design to meet code.
Mr. Crawford commented that it includes
the new posts and “all of that.”
(21:58 elapsed)
Mr. Crawford referred to the survey and
people around town saying that they had not responded to the survey and that it
must therefore be invalid. He said that
25 percent of the residents had responded.
Editor’s note: It was actually 38%.
That is a pretty good sample, Mr. Crawford
said. He .
Mr.
Crawford commented
that the percentage of survey respondents who said that they had voted “no” a
couple of years ago was actually higher in the survey
than it was in the vote. If anything, it
was skewed more towards those who were opposed.
It is a good sample and it needs to be looked at, not ignored, he said.
that that voted “no” to tearing down the
Town Hall was actually higher in the survey than the vote.
Mr.
Loftus stated that he knows people who voted “no” to tearing down the Town
Hall. However,
that was last year. This year, there seems to be a swing in a different
direction.
Beverly
Giblin, 120 Locke Road, stated that the voters need to have a choice. She does
not think they should be given only the option of having a new building. There
should be an option to renovate.
Hearing
no further comments or questions from the public, Acting Chair Musselman closed the public hearing at 6:53 p.m.
III.
PUBLIC HEARING: Town Hall Bond Issue (By Petition)
To see
if the town will vote to authorize the Rye Selectmen
. to
raise and appropriate the sum of $3,200,000 gross budget for the purpose of
renovating the Rye Town Hall 1839 building with due consideration of the
historical features . to construct pursuant to Option
1-Historic Renovation submitted by Hutter Corporation
on December 8, 2016
. to
authorize the borrowing of up to $3,200,000 through the issuance of not more
than $3,200,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the
Municipal Finance Act (N.H. RSA Chapter 33 as amended)
.
to
authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes, to
determine the rate of interest thereon, and to take such actions as may be
necessary to effect the issuance, negotiation, sale and delivery of such bonds
or notes as shall be in the best interest of the Town of Rye,
. to apply for and accept and expend Federal and State Grants
and any private donations toward this purpose, and
.
to
direct the Selectmen to authorize the pursuit of available grants to help
defray the cost of renovation.
Rye Town
Hall is listed on the New Hampshire State Register of Historic Places and was
designated as one of the Seven to Save Endangered Historic Properties for 2015
by the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance.
(3/5 Ballot vote required.) This appropriation is in addition to the operating budget.
At 6:53
p.m, Acting Chair Musselman
opened the public hearing.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that the proposed article
is for 3.2 million dollars for a building of similar appearance but with
renovation of some of the historic components of the building. The financial
estimates, for purposes of the bond hearing for a bond of 3.2 million dollars
over a term of ten years at an assumed interest rate of 2%, will have a first
calendar year payment of $389,511.11. That declines over the ten-year period.
The total payments would be $3,200,000 for principal and $357,511.11 for
interest; for a total of $3,557,511.11. He noted thatthis
is a Citizens’ Petitioned Warrant Article. If this receives 60% of the vote, it
would require a ten-year bond.
Acting
Chair Musselman opened to the public for comments.
(25:55 elapsed)
David Choate, 108 Washington Road, stated that he is on the Board
of Directors for the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance. The NH Preservation
Alliance clearly thinks the building needs to be preserved. It is on the ‘Seven
to Save’ list, which is a recognition that is not given lightly by the
organization. He noted that there were many, many more candidates in the year
the building was selected. There are a lot of people who feel the building
needs to be preserved. He continued that
one of the benefits of renovation versus new construction is it makes the
building eligible for certain grants. The Preservation Alliance would commit
itself to working with the town to try and realize the maximum
amount
of those grant options. He stated that renovation/restoration generally creates
a lot of great jobs and preserves the essential features. He suggested that
they look to fellow select boards all over the State that have chosen
preservation over new construction. It ranges anywhere from Alstead to the
southern part of the State. The one that is very much like Rye is the Wolfeboro
Town Hall. Recently, through a public/private partnership it was magnificently
restored. He urges the Selectmen to go see it. He continued that there would be
a lot of support for a public/private partnership, where private funds could be
raised to supplement any cost overruns. Obviously, there is a sentiment state
wide to preserve the that is very much like Rye is the
Wolfeboro Town Hall. Recently, through a
public/private partnership it was magnificently restored. He urges the
Selectmen to go see it. He continued that there would be a lot of support for a
public/private partnership, where private funds could be raised to supplement
any cost overruns. Obviously, there is a sentiment state wide to preserve the
building. There will be a very aggressive campaign to raise people’s awareness
and get them to the voting booth.
(28:54 elapsed)
Alex Herlihy, 55 Lang Road, stated that he has talked to a lot
of people and he does not sense any shift in the last year. The people have
spoken and he is glad they will have a choice. He said that he supports
preserving the building.
Peter Crawford, 171 Brackett Road, stated there is a lot of
misinformation floating around. He thinks it stems from the plans that were
designed by SMP Architects. He continued that the architect, Jason
LaCombe, in September of 2014, had said there were break points. One at 30% and one at 50%. The town was in the 50% break
point because of the size of the expansion. At that time, it was a 6,000sf
building with an additional 6,000sf building being connected for 12,000sf. It
was about a 100% expansion. That meant the entire building had to be brought up
to code. (Tape was inaudible for the rest of Mr. Crawford’s
comments.)
Ms.
Bradshaw spoke on the estimates given by Hutter for
the renovation. (Tape was inaudible.)
Editor’s note: The audio on the Town video is inaudible for
approximately 12 minutes. The RCL has
reviewed the audio recording that it made during the meeting and provides the
following summary of the missing segment:
Mr.
Crawford continued, saying that, after Mr. LaCombe’s
introduction, Mr. Steffensen had spoken about how the
building could be brought up to code. Editor’s note: Mr. Steffensen is
the structural engineer who was brought in by the architect. There
was the less expensive option of adding approximately four-inch tubing in the
Great Hall for approximately $60,000. That was rejected in favor of installing new posts that would be
buried inside the walls and not be visible. A lot of people looked at that and said that
the Town Hall had serious structural problems.
Mr. Steffensen also said at the time that
selective demolition would need to be done in terms of the footings because of
the full force of the steel posts bearing on the foundation. Currently the stud wall on both sides spreads
out the forces. Mr. Steffensen
did not say that the foundation needed to be replaced, Mr. Crawford said. When the bids came in, the option was
selected to replace the South side of the foundation as an assurance that it
would be OK, he said.
Mr.
Crawford referred to a February 8, 2011 letter from AMEC to Mr. Magnant. He quoted,
reading “[d]uring our visit the foundation walls
showed no signs of overstress or excessive settlement. Although the top and bottom of the foundation
walls were concealed and we could not verify the existing condition of the
elements, it is our opinion that the existing foundation is in good
condition. We recommend filling in the
cracks in the poured concrete sections of the walls with pressure grout. At the granite walls, we recommend that the
deteriorated/cracked mortar be removed and new mortar be installed. Both of these recommended repairs are to help
prevent future deterioration due to water infiltration.”
Mr.
Crawford said that he had gone back and reviewed the video of the meeting with
Mr. Steffensen.
He said that he did not hear Mr. Steffensen
say anything that was inconsistent with the AMEC report. He stated that he thinks that the structural
problems with the building are being vastly overblown. He suggested that if the design is below the
30 percent breakpoint someone should look and see what needs to be done. Or, if the building is not to be expanded at
all, the structural issues to be addressed need to be determined. They may be small or nonexistent. It is certainly not what was proposed when
the building was doubling in size to 12,000 sq. ft., he said.
Frances
Erlebacher spoke about the loading being less if the
Great Hall is not to be occupied by people.
Selectman
Musselman spoke about the issue having been twisting
of the structure with wind loads.
Mae
Bradshaw said that the warrant article had come out of a meeting of the Rye
Heritage Commission. It is based on Hutter’s bid of $2.876 million with the soft costs added
in, in accordance with Selectman Musselman’s
estimate. A little bit more was added
for siding than he had provided, she said.
There will be savings because the time to renovate would be less than
that the demolish and rebuild. That was how they arrived at the $3.2 million
figure, she said.
Frank
Drake said that he had just walked in.
He said that, if $3.2 million is to be spent, it doesn’t make any sense
to leave in jeopardy things that might bite them in the tail.
Selectman
Musselman said that it would have to be built to
code. The question is what the
requirement would be. This proposal includes
the stiffening of the building for both alternatives.
Burt
Dibble said that, if the building is not expanded, the requirements
change. For example, a single unisex
rest room would be permissible and could reduce the cost. Those issues need to be considered. There seems to be an unwillingness to pursue
what might be done with grants. He is
concerned that those issues do not seem to be being given adequate recognition.
Peter
Crawford asked whether it was known whether Hutter
had used the criteria for a 30-50 percent expansion or whether they had based
it on the prior design, which had used a greater than 50 percent
expansion.
Selectman
Musselman said that Hutter
had not designed the building yet.
Mr.
Crawford said that their cost estimate must have been based on something.
Selectman
described the process of estimation, which added a contingency.
Mr.
Crawford said that “we” do not know that they did not just use the SMP
drawings. Editor’s note: The SMP design was for an expansion was more
than 50 percent. Mr. Crawford said that the expansion is now
about 40 percent.
Selectman
Musselman said that they do not know. Hutter has not yet
done a code review with the new architect.
In all likelihood they assumed what had been designed previously, but we
do not know that, he said.
John
Loftus spoke about his 25 years of experience.
There is always a lot more in cost than is initially thought, he
said. He stated that he had been to
Wolfeboro and spent about four hours there.
It needed nowhere near the amount of renovation that this building
needs, he said. A new building would
meet the needs better than the old one, he said.
Mr.
Crawford said that any difference between the two proposals is slight. The Treasurer’s Office is a little larger in
the new build. There are one or two
other minor changes, but other than that they are exactly the same square
footage. The two spiral stairs are
replaced by one stairway, but it’s a pretty small difference, he said.
Frances
Erlebacher asked what would happen if both articles
pass.
Selectman
Musselman said that 30, 40 or perhaps 60 percent
would vote down each of them. These two
are going to share 25 to 30 percent of the vote, he said, chuckling. We will also pose that question, he said.
(41:32 elapsed)
In
regards to having two warrant articles, Acting Chair Musselman
stated that in the unlikelihood that both articles were to pass, the one that
garnered the most votes would be the one the town would most likely proceed
with. He noted that neither warrant article has language that deals with that.
One of the questions that needs to be posed is whether
or not language is needed to clarify what will happen in the event they both
pass.
A
member of the public (Frances Erlebaher) asked why this is being done if no
one thinks that either of the warrant articles are going to pass. She commented
that she does not think it is going to pass.
Acting
Chair Musselman commented that by having both
articles on it is going to split up the vote. He noted that at the last meeting
there were about 30 people in the room. Maybe two or three people were
supporting the renovation and thirty people were adamantly advocating the new building. Quite
frankly, we had already made our decision anyway, he said. Half of those people were preferring
something different. At this meeting, there are more people who are amendable
to the other side. One of the things that this will show is what people think.
Selectman
Jenness stated that at the Heritage Commission Meeting
she mentioned the contingency that is in this option is $149,000. She simply
stated that the contingency might be too small. The asbestos is unknown and the
lead paint is unknown. The unknowns that the town is going to run into is
probably
going
to cost more than anticipated. That contingency might not be enough. That might
be a problem with the lower price.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that the base bid on the
renovation option from Hutter included only replacing
20% of the clapboards and painting the rest. He is not sure that the existing
clapboards are going to hold paint. Hutter was asked
what the pricing would be to replace all of the clapboards and their
comment
back was that it would be $68,000. They also said that the town should keep in
mind that once the clapboards come off, all of the underlayment will be exposed
and more of that might need to be replaced. He stated that this is a very valid
point. The two contingencies are very different. The 5%
contingency in the first warrant article is more for voted directed finishes
and materials. The contingency for the second article is solely for
construction surprises. When Hutter was asked if a 5%
contingency was adequate for a renovation, the comment from them was “yes but
many people want more”. The likelihood of the 5% contingency being adequate in
the renovation alternative is not high. He noted that if the project is 3.2
million dollars, the town cannot spend a dime without further authorization.
Further authorization is not timely in renovation construction over a
twelve-month period. There is not time in there to stop and have a special town
meeting two to four months. surprises. When Hutter was asked if a 5% contingency was adequate for a
renovation, the comment from them was “yes but many people want more”. The
likelihood of the 5% contingency being adequate in the renovation alternative
is not high. He noted that if the project is 3.2 million dollars, the town
cannot spend a dime without further authorization. Further authorization is not
timely in renovation construction over a twelve-month period. There is not time
in
there
to stop and have a special town meeting two to four months.
Ms.
Bradshaw stated that it is the intention of the Heritage Commission that if the
warrant article passes on March 14th, the commission will be drafting grant
proposals from that point forward until they reach the limits for whatever they
can find from the State. She thinks it is shortsighted to not remember the
warrant article that is proposed includes the fact that the commission will be
seeking additional grant money for some of these things that might be
surprises, or at least provide more money in the budget to cover surprises.
(50:12 elapsed)
Victor Azzi, Old Ocean Blvd., asked if Mr. Choate could give an
idea of the likelihood of grant money being available given the present
economy. Could he also give an idea of the institutions that might be receptive
to such a proposal?
Mr.
Choate stated that he can’t predict whatthe current
legislation is going to do in Congress. Right now, there does not seem to be
any attempt to get rid of the L-Chip Grant or cut it back. He continued that
there is a bill right now that would allocate 30% of the L-Chip money back to
the towns for conservation. He is not
sure where that will go. He noted that there are a lot of grants but it is
unknown if they are available until they are applied for.
Acting
Chair Musselman asked if L-Chip has given grants for
the preservation of historic buildings.
Mr.
Choate confirmed. He asked if there was anything that would prevent private
fundraising for any overruns on the project, whereby the funds would be
funneled through the Heritage Commission or directly to the town.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that once a warrant article is
adopted the town cannot expend more than that. The town can spend grants that
come in without a match for a purpose the town is proceeding on without town
approval. Whether or not that can be done with private donations on a public
project he is not sure. That would be a question that would have to be brought
to Town Counsel.
Bev
Giblin, 120 Locke Road, stated that a lot of this boils down to it being a
subjective thing; kind of like do you like modern art or classic paintings. It
becomes emotional and people feel very strongly one way or the other. She
thinks what is important is to let the voters decide; however, they need to be
given
proper
information. Communication has to be very clear.
Mr.
Loftus stated that his recollection is that Wolfeboro raised money for their
Town Hall. He thinks the money that was donated to the town was used to buy
furniture. Wolfeboro also received about $5,000 in terms of grants. The grant
money was really low but they were able to garnish funds from the public.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated the town does receive private
donations for the Heritage Commission, Fire Station and Conservation. The
Selectmen act on those and expend them for purposes. What can be spent on a
Capital Warrant Article is another question.
(55:26 elapsed)
Mr.
Crawford stated the survey shows that people are willing to spend about 2
million dollars. This article if for 3.2 million. He
asked if the warrant article should be amended to say that the project will not
proceed until a certain amount of money is received in grants and donations.
That might increase the chances of it passing. He wonders if the Selectmen
would support something like that.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted that this meeting is a bond
hearing. That concept would have to be reviewed by bond counsel. It matters
what bond counsel and the DRA thinks. He commented that this is an interesting
question.
Selectman
Jenness commented that bond costs change over time.
Acting
Chair Musselman pointed out that this is a question
that would have to be asked. He continued that there has to be a reasonable
expectation that this could be pulled off. If there is not a reasonable
expectation of that, he is not sure he would hold this out as a reasonable
possibility. If it was a small number it might be reasonable.
Frank
Drake, South Road, clarified that this is a bond hearing. It has really been
interesting but nothing can be changed on the article. He is wondering why they
are wandering all over the reservation with thoughts when this is just for one
purpose. These are arguments that can be rehearsed tonight for the future but
time is money.
(58:34 elapsed)
Sally
King, Wallis Road, stated that she wanted to respond to Mr. Crawford’s comment
about the availability of grant money for something that is not passed. She does not think that is very likely to
happen. There has to be a feasible, coherent project in order to apply for
grant money.
Mr.
Dibble stated that it is pretty clear what the townspeople want. This has been
surveyed not once, not twice but three times. The townspeople have said they
want the Town Hall on the existing site and they want it like it is. To have a
notion that the townspeople are going to say something different is
misguided.
His concern is that if neither option passes, the town has no money to do
anything. He would be more than dismayed to walk away from this election season
without a plan to tend to and preserve the building in the way that good
stewardship would require.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated there are two warrant articles
and that is not changing. The discussion is about a bond, not a project.
Mr.
Drake stated the meeting is not a dress rehearsal for arguments and
information. To the point that the citizens have spoken, they have a chance to
put their vote where their money is this March. If 60% of the people want to do
this, they will vote it in. This is not out of order or lacking in leadership.
Mr.
Loftus asked if there was a way to set up the warrant articles so people could
only vote on one.
Selectman Musselman
stated that he might vote for both Articles 6 and 7.
Acting
Chair Musselman replied no. Anyone can vote for all
warrant articles. Each warrant article
is its own thing.
A
member of the public asked if the warrant article could be presented together
at the Deliberative Session so they could be discussed at one time.
Acting
Chair Musselman explained that would be a motion from
someone on the floor to take the articles out of order.
Mr.
Drake commented that he will be making that motion. It only makes sense.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted that if this is done, there
would probably need to be a broad discussion of all of them and then each one
taken one at a time. It is important to remember that the Deliberative Session
is to perfect the words of the warrant articles. It is not to argue one or the
other. At some point, someone has to make a motion on the warrant article, and
a second, as to the words that get placed. Perhaps, someone ought to suggest
that there be public meetings in February for public discussion before the
voting in March. He noted that out of the 1400 people who vote about 50 will go
to a public meeting. There have been
comments about the information that was put out about the design build project
two years ago. The Selectmen did the best job they could without advocating it.
The Selectmen can educate. They cannot
advocate. He does not think they can educate about the Citizens’ Petitioned
Warrant Articles.
Mr.
Crawford commented that he disagrees that the purpose of the Deliberative
Session is to amend the articles only. It is to deliberate and discuss them. He
noted that he is going to video tape the Deliberative Session and there will be
notes. The Town Clerk is going to do minutes. That is how people educate themselves
on the Deliberative Session.
Hearing
no further comments or questions, Acting Chair Musselman
close the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Acting
Chair Musselman recessed the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
IV.
2017 BUDGET WORK SESSION
Acting
Chair Musselman reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
(75:36 elapsed)
A.
Warrant Articles
ARTICLE _____. For $3,386,752 for the purpose of constructing a new Town Hall office building similar in exterior design and
on the same site of the existing Town Hall Building.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted this article has already been
placed by the Selectmen. It will be reviewed by Town Counsel.
Heritage
Commission’s Article
Citizens’
Petitioned Warrant Article:
To see
if the town will vote to authorize the Rye Selectmen
. to
raise and appropriate the sum of $3,200,000 gross budget for the purpose of
renovating the Rye Town Hall 1839 building with due consideration of the
historical features
. to construct pursuant to Option 1-Historic Renovation
submitted by Hutter Corporation on
December
8, 2016
. to authorize the borrowing of up to $3,200,000 through the
issuance of not more than
$3,200,000
of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance
Act
(N.H.
RSA Chapter 33 as amended)
. to authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds
or notes, to determine the rate
of
interest thereon, and to take such actions as may be necessary to effect the
issuance, negotiation, sale and delivery of such bonds or notes as shall be in
the best interest of the Town of Rye,
. to apply for and accept and expend Federal and State Grants
and any private donations toward this purpose, and
. to direct the Selectmen to authorize the pursuit of
available grants to help defray the cost of renovation.
Rye
Town Hall is listed on the New Hampshire State Register of Historic Places and
was designated as one of the Seven to Save Endangered Historic Properties for
2015 by the New Hampshire Preservation Alliance.
(3/5 Ballot vote required.) This appropriation is in addition to the operating budget.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated this should be referred to
legal counsel to pose the question what will happen if both articles pass and
whether there should be some language that might clarify that.
(76:56 elapsed)
Petitioned
Warrant Article:
If
Article 6 and 7 shall fail to pass, will the town vote to raise and appropriate
the amount not to exceed $500,000 to repair and refurbish the exterior of the
Historic Rye Town Hall, to provided handicapped access and facilities, to
replace the storm windows as appropriate and approve the energy efficiency,
while taking into consideration the impact of 21st Century technology on space
needs.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted that the Selectmen already
voted to not recommend the article. The Budget Committee voted not to recommend
by a vote of 7 to 1. He asked if the article requires that there be space for
the employees. This is probably a question for the Deliberative Session. If
this was done without expansion and space was taken up for an elevator and
handicapped bathrooms, there would be less office space. He continued that his
sense is that this is not close to the number that is required to do the things
that are listed. An architect or an engineer would be required in order to get
a number for
accomplishing the listed objectives. He commented that they will
learn more about this article at the Deliberative Session. The question should
be posed to Town Counsel what the town would be left doing, If
the $500,000 wasn’t going to cover the listed objectives along with giving
office space. This should be
explained
at the Deliberative Session.
(82:38
elapsed)
Petitioned
Warrant Article: :
To see
if the Town will vote to rescind, pursuant to RSA 41:14, Article 12 of the 2002
Town Meeting which gives the Board of Selectmen authority to acquire or sell
land, buildings or both, without voter approval. Nothing herein shall affect
the independent authorities of either the Conservation Commission or the
Heritage Commission to acquire land or buildings in the name of the town.
Selectman
Jenness stated that she does not understand the basis
for this warrant article. She thinks everyone needs to understand before they
vote.
Motion by Priscilla Jenness to not
recommend the Petitioned Warrant Article to rescind the Selectmen’s authority
to acquire or sell land, buildings or both. Seconded by
Craig Musselman.
Vote:
2-0
Petitioned
Warrant Article:
We are
in favor of dog’s being leashed as alltimes on Rye
New Hampshire beaches, as recommended by the Chief of Police.
Acting
Chair Musselman noted that input will be needed from
Town Counsel to determine if this will be a conflict with the Selectmen’s
Warrant Article regarding the same issue.
Motion
by Craig Musselman to not recommend the Petitioned
Warrant Article to favor dogs being leashed at all times on Rye beaches. Seconded by Priscilla Jenness.
Vote: 2-0
Petitioned
Warrant Article:
Shall
the Town of Rye create a younger family housing committee that will explore
whether the declining school population, which is expected to decline by 54%
from 2011 to 2026, can be reversed to maintain the vitality of our school district. This committee should look to support Rye’s
dedication to excellence that complements our heritage as a quaint coastal
community. Committee shall consist of a minimum of five members, including a
mix of residents, elementary and junior high parents, and others, not serving
on current boards, committees or commissions, and can have planning board,
school board, selectmen and budget committee representatives. The committee
should self-elect a chairperson. Committee should commence its first meeting by
March 30, 2017 and should submit a report identifying an attempt to decrease the
school population and next steps for implementation to the town selectmen and
Long Range Planning Sub-Committee by September 30, 2017. Upon submitting this
report the committee shall cease.
Selectman
Jenness commented that she would like Town Counsel to
review this article.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that he reads into the words
two things. One is they could conclude that the town should tuition in
students. The idea of changing the zoning ordinance to create a lot of
Workforce Housing in order to reverse the trend at the school,
is contrary to the direction the town has been heading for a very long time. Financially, itis contrary to the town’s interest. He thinks they can deal with the schools in
other ways that are as educationally excellent and less costly in terms of the
town’s land use.
(90:08 elapsed)
Petitioned
Warrant Article:
Option 3 for the Town Hall. This will be for design and further study for a new Town Hall based upon a New England design. There is no
cost to the town or the taxpayer. Design work will be donated by John Loftus.
The belief is that a better design can be brought forward than proposed by Hutter and that the cost will be less. Design will have a
full basement and three stories, a similar footprint to Hutter’s
design, an envelope similar to the existing Town Hall, energy efficiency and
low cost maintenance. Care will be taken to reflect the historical significance
and location of the existing site. One vendor has already volunteered to sell
to the town at cost and we may expect others to donate time or pricing
advantages. This proposal also allows competitive bidding and further vetting,
as opposed to the 3.3 million dollar proposal.
Acting
Chair Musselman stated that if this was done on
behalf of the public, it would have to be done under the responsible charge of
a New Hampshire registered architect, in order to be lawful. He has thought
about what could be done to make this article lawful if it was adopted. He
thinks it would be lawful if Mr. Loftus was working as a citizen and with other
citizens, not under the guise of the Town of Rye. He does not think it would be
legal if it is under the charge of a committee by the Board of Selectmen or
under consideration by the Board of Selectmen. Once that is done by a public
entity, it needs to be done by people who are qualified and licensed to provide
those services. He commented that he would be very uncomfortable if this
was done under a Town Hall Committee.
However, if it were done by a self-appointed group of citizens, who
posted and noticed their meetings by email, met in the Town Hall or library and
reported back with a Citizens’ Petitioned Warrant Article next year, they are
free to do whatever they like. If this were to pass, this is what he would
advocate. He commented that this idea needs to be run by Town Counsel. He
stated that he would recommend that they not proceed in this direction. It is
confusing and should not be done, as a town, in this fashion. He thinks it is
unlawful for the Board of Selectmen to do this in this fashion.
Motion by Craig Musselman to not
recommend this Petitioned Warrant Article. Seconded by Priscilla Jenness.
Vote:
2-0.
(101:38 elapsed)
Petitioned
Warrant Article:
To see
if the town will vote to establish a Trail Access Feasibility Committee to
explore the feasibility and funding requirements of expanding one of the
existing public trails through Rye Woods, behind Parsons Field, for the purpose
of increasing access to the Rye Recreation area from the center of town in
general and from the Rye Junior High Students in particular. Committee would
develop recommendations for the best route, surface materials and maintenance
plan, and would provide a report to the town no later than September 1, 2017. Committee shall consist of a representative
from public safety, a representative from the recreation department, a planning
board member, a school board member and up to four citizen representatives who
are members of leagues who use Rye Recreation, as well as additional members as
needed and appointed by the committee. Committee shall self-elect a citizen
chairperson.
Town
Administrator Michael Magnant suggested sending the
article to the Conservation Commission for their review and recommendation
before voting.
The
Selectmen agreed.
V.
OTHER BUSINESS
.
None
(104:27
elapsed)
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Priscilla Jenness to adjourn
at 8:15 p.m. Seconded by Craig Musselman. All in favor.
Respectfully
Submitted,
Dyana
F. Ledger (amended by Rye Civic League)