This set of minutes was approved at the February 4, 2013 ...€¦ · the new library to date --...

This set of minutes was approved at the February 4, 2013 Town Council meeting

Durham Town Council MINUTES

Monday, December 3, 2012

Durham Town Hall, Council Chambers

7:00 PM

MEMBERS PRESENT: Council Chair Jay Gooze; Chair Pro tem Jim Lawson; Councilor

Julian Smith; Councilor Diana Carroll; Councilor Peter Stanhope;

Councilor Robin Mower; Councilor Bill Cote; Councilor Kitty

Marple; Councilor Dave Howland

MEMBERS ABSENT:

OTHERS PRESENT: Town Administrator Todd Selig; Business Manager Gail

Jablonski; DPW Director Mike Lynch; Fire Chief Corey Landry

I. Call to Order

Chair Gooze called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm.

II. Approval of Agenda

Councilor Smith MOVED to approve the Agenda. Councilor Mower SECONDED the

motion, and it PASSED unanimously 9-0.

III. Special Announcements - None

IV. Approval of Minutes – October 15, 2012

, half way down the page, should say Councilor Smith SECONDED the motion.

Also, last sentence on the page, should say "She also said parking was available at all

parking areas on campus after 6 pm and on weekends.

Page 17, 2nd

paragraph from bottom, should say “…authorize this funding change,

Administrator Selig would not have to do anything with it.”

Councilor Smith MOVED to approve the October 15, 2012 Minutes as amended.

Councilor Marple SECONDED the motion, and it PASSED unanimously 9-0.

V. Councilor and town Administrator Roundtable

Councilor Carroll said she was happy to share information on a project to construct a

silhouette sculpture of Margery and Lorus Milne to be placed on the grounds of the new

Durham Public Library. She said Margery and Lorus Milne, Durham’s most published

authors (over 50 books), had made the largest contribution towards the construction of

the new library to date -- through a bequest of $475,000.

Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes

Monday, December 3, 2012 –

She said Walter Liff, a Newcastle sculptor, would construct the sculpture, and said

examples of his silhouette sculpture could be seen at Great Island Common, where “The

Artist” stood, and in front of the Newcastle elementary school where a seated woman

read to four children.

Councilor Carroll provided details on the sculpture, and said it would be placed in a

natural setting behind the Library in a rain garden, and would be visible from some

library windows. She said the sculpture would be dedicated at the time of the opening of

the new library next June, and noted that said Rhonda Little, a longtime friend of

Margery had designed it. She said they were currently working with the sculptor.

She said the cost of the sculpture was $7,000, and said the money was being raised

privately, from non-public sources. She said to date over $2,300 has been raised. She said

these and additional contributions would enable the construction of this piece of public

art, remembering the Milnes, and honoring their love of reading and writing books, their

love of libraries and their love for Durham, which they called home from 1948 till their

deaths in 1988 and 2006.

Councilor Marple said on Wednesday, the RHC would meet to quickly go over the final

version of the proposed ordinance regarding health and safety inspections. She said it was

her intention that the Committee would vote on whether to move this forward to the

Council for passage.

Councilor Howland said the Parks and Recreation Committee had recently met, and was

still discussing whether to hold the winter carnival at Mill Pond, with the Jacksons

Landing rink as a backup, or to go ahead and schedule the event at the rink. He also said

the Committee had started discussing prioritization of goals with Director Stefanie

Frazee. He said so far, improvements to Wagon Hill were topping the list.

He said the Agriculture Commission continued to focus on the process of legalizing the

keeping of fowl. He noted the recent tour of four properties in Town where fowl were

kept. He said there were about 15 people at the tour, and he thanked them for attending.

Councilor Howland said members of the Commission were eager for feedback on the

proposed ordinance. He noted that Chair Theresa Walker had talked that day with planner

Mike Behrendt, and they had decided that the Planning Board should have the

opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed ordinance, at which point the

Commission might go back to the drawing board and work on it more. He said Ms.

Walker also welcomed feedback from Councilors on the ordinance.

Councilor Howland said Administrator Selig had informed him that the Council would

take up the issue of the Town water supply on January 28th

. He encouraged anyone

concerned about the future of Durham’s public water supply to attend the meeting. He

noted that he had hoped the Council would tackle this issue as part of the Budget

discussions.



He said he would like to say a few things now about why this discussion mattered. He

said the $2.3 million Spruce Hole well and aquifer recharge project had been pitched by

the Town’s staff and engineering consultants as a solution to meet the Town’s long-term

public water supply needs. He said he had argued at previous meetings, in a formal

presentation on October 1st, and in a November 9th written report that the restrictions the

Town was poised to accept from the State as part of this project could leave Durham with

an uncomfortably low supply margin in very dry summers, even if the project worked

flawlessly. He said if they lost a well, they could be in big trouble.

Councilor Howland noted that Durham was in the midst of a building boom. He said

since writing his report on the Town’s public water supply, he had developed an estimate

of the potential impact on water use of a raft of new and proposed multi-unit housing

projects. He said new and approved housing projects off campus alone over the past year

would increase average summertime water demand by more than 10 percent. He said

proposed housing projects would push that figure to nearly 20 percent. He said this

demand projection was overly conservative, and didn’t included UNH development or

Durham development other than multi-unit housing.

He said access to water related to so many things, especially the ability to accommodate

new development and redevelopment, which was a pillar of the Town’s strategy to

maintain services and control the tax rate in coming years. He said experts wisely said

that Durham should take the long view concerning its public water supply, and said that

long view must factor in a warming climate and the growth of the community and its

demand for water.

Councilor Howland said he believed they must do better than the current plan, and should

take steps toward securing access to additional supply when it was needed, and take steps

to control water demand with an enforceable emergency drought ordinance. He said he

was learning that many residents shared these concerns. He noted that the recent Friday

Update includes a link to his November report on the Town website, and said he

welcomed feedback and questions on it. He said he looked forward to the Council’s

discussion on January 28th

, and to assisting in developing a constructive format for that

conversation.

Chair Gooze thanked Councilor Howland for giving his personal opinion about this issue.

Councilor Mower first thanked Councilor Smith, DPW Director Mike Lynch and the

Rotary Club for the recent work the Rotarians did to repair the Longmarsh Road

footbridge.

Councilor Smith said he had simply facilitated the communications concerning the

project. He noted that John Belcher had coordinated with this work as well as having

helped with the original construction of the footbridge. He said they all did a great job

with the recent repairs, on a cold and windy day. It was noted that DPW had done a lot of

work needed in preparation for the repairs, including clearing of fallen trees.



Councilor Mower noted Item VII D on the Unanimous Consent Agenda concerning the

purchase of iPads by the Fire Department. She said she was in favor of accepting the

grant funds, but also noted that she had spoken with IT manager Luke Vincent, who said

there would be about $1200 per year in ongoing costs in regard to the devices.

Councilor Cote said the Planning Board met the previous week. He said the first item was

deliberations on the Peak application, which took quite some time. He said the Board

decided at a certain point to suspend the deliberations so that the public hearing on the

citizen petition for a Zoning change concerning building height on Main Street could be

held.

He said deliberation on the Peak applications then continued, and said the applications

were subsequently approved. He provided details on turning lanes that would be put in as

part of the project, for cars headed west on Mast Road and entering the site, as well as for

cars turning left and right onto Main St from Mast Road.

Councilor Cote said the public hearing on the citizen petition to change the Zoning

Ordinance was very enlightening, and said most people who came to the meeting and

sent emails were in favor of the proposed Zoning change. He also noted that some local

architects and engineers spoke against the proposal. He said the public hearing was then

continued to the December 12th

meeting.

He said the tour of the properties where fowl were raised went very well, and said there

was later a good exchange between Councilors, Planning Board members, and

Agricultural Commission members at the Planning Board meeting. He said he thought

the current proposal was somewhat overreaching, and said he hoped it was reworked so

they could come to a good consensus on it.

Councilor Lawson said at the recent EDC meeting, there was a good discussion on the

citizen petition concerning building height. He said it focused on the benefits as well as

potential negative impacts of the proposed Zoning change, and noted that the EDC didn’t

bring the discussion to any conclusion. He said if the EDC wanted to bring forward any

recommendations, it would have to bring them to the Council, assuming that the Planning

Board concluded its discussions before the EDC was able to provide an opinion.

He noted that the EDC had endorsed the Durham cash mob on Dec 8th

. He said the

theme of the event was exploring the retail opportunities available downtown, but was

also that what was bought in Durham stayed in Durham. He noted that a few meetings

ago, Administrator Selig had listed the many new businesses downtown.

Councilor Mower said she had read that 90% of a dollar spent locally would stay in the

community, which was pretty impressive. She noted that paying in cash was even more

important because if one paid by credit, that money left the community.

Chair Gooze noted a broken bottle he had seen over by the Grange building that morning,

and said as he started to pick it up, a college student saw him and started helping him. He



suggested that other residents who picked up trash would perhaps have a similar

experience.

Councilor Stanhope said the HDC would meet that week, and said there would be a

working session with Orion concerning the redevelopment of their properties. He said

people interested in the downtown should participate. He said discussion would also

continue on Great Bay Kennel’s proposal to construct an 8 ft fence along Route 108. He

said the HDC would also discuss the citizen petition concerning building height, as

expanded by the Town Planner to include some properties in the Historic District. It was

noted that the meeting would be on DCAT.

Councilor Mower asked Councilor Stanhope if his sense was that members of the HDC

were clear on what their authority was relative to the Planning Board, and what was

under their purview. She said she had heard a few residents question this.

Councilor Stanhope said earlier in the year, the HDC had asked legal counsel about this

as well as what the correct review path was for an applicant. He said historically there

were some serious misunderstandings, where the Planning Board overrode decisions of

the HDC even though it didn’t have that authority He said members of the HDC were

comfortable with their authority. He noted that the HDC was an architectural board and

not a land use board.

Councilor Smith said that regarding what Councilor Howland had said concerning new

development and demands for water, since 2008, nearly 1600 new bedrooms had been

built or approved by the Planning Board. He said that figure didn’t include the new

Orion project. He said the Council would have to pay attention to future water needs.

He said one suggestion was that the Town should begin discussion with the town of

Newmarket concerning supporting their board of selectmen in regard to keeping the

Macallen dam. He said the impoundment behind the dam was much larger in area and

volume than the impoundment above the Wiswall dam, and noted that a number of major

brooks in Durham discharged into the Lamprey River below Packers Falls before the

Newmarket town line. He said they might start the very long range process of thinking

about taking some water from below Packers Falls.

Councilor Smith noted that in the past, he had not contributed to the Council goals. He

said he thought that in the future, all new department heads should be required to live in

Durham. He said relatively few did so, with the exception of the new Town planner. He

noted that the Town Administrator was required to live in Durham. He also said they

should make practical efforts to allow Town employees to live here.

He said he would appreciate it if Administrator Selig would survey the entire workforce

to find out how many of them lived in Durham, and how many would like to live here if

they could. He noted that by emphasizing building student housing, they weren’t leaving

much room for workforce housing.



Councilor Stanhope asked Councilor Smith if he was suggesting some sort of tax relief

for town employees.

Councilor Smith said what he was thinking of was helping staff find housing, get

mortgages, etc. He also noted that there was vacant Town land on which workforce

housing could be built. He said he was sensitive to this issue because he had been able to

buy his first house on Packers Falls Road at a very good price in 1965 because the new

police chief had to sell his house and move into Town, so he could be on call from his

home. He noted that there was a small police force at that time. He said they could

perhaps start what he was suggesting now, with the proposed full time Parks and

Recreation Director position.

Councilor Lawson said there might be other opinions on this, and said before the Council

gave Administrator Selig direction on the idea and doing a survey, a discussion on this

should be scheduled at an upcoming Council agenda.

Councilor Mower said for the January 28th meeting, it would be helpful to have a

schematic of the river, tributaries and locations of dams, etc.

There was discussion about whether the meeting on January 28th would include public

comments. Administrator Selig said his thought was that it would include Council

discussion, along with discussion with the Town engineer, perhaps someone from DES

and perhaps their attorney.

Councilor Stanhope said he was comfortable that Town staff understood the economics

of Durham, and he spoke in some detail on this, noting among other things that Councilor

Lawson had made them aware of the good number of homes currently available in

Durham that qualified as workforce housing, and had also provided data on the per capita

tax burden. He said Durham was considerably more expensive than many attractive

surrounding communities, and said he didn’t expect an in-migration based on that and on

the salary level of Town employees.

Chair Gooze said it would be good to have a discussion on this, and said it would be put

on a future agenda.

Councilor Carroll noted the recent discussions she had listened to on the citizen petition

concerning building height on Main Street, at recent EDC and Planning Board meetings.

She thanked the members of the public who had attended these meetings. She said she

had realized that an important issue was not just the height of the buildings on Main

Street, and was what the use of these buildings would be.

She said the statement was made that the economics would not allow redevelopment of

these properties on Main Street unless there were two stories of student housing. She said

when she began to think about this, she questioned whether this was what they all wanted

downtown. She said they all needed to think about the use of the buildings that would be

built on Main Street. She noted that she had supported student housing projects like the



Capstone project, because it was to be a lovely facility that wouldn’t be near the

neighborhoods.

Councilor Mower asked that there be a discussion scheduled on the economics of

building construction downtown.

Chair Gooze noted that the Town couldn’t say that students couldn’t live in residential

housing.

Councilor Smith said the housing could be workforce housing, which could include

students who actually worked.

Administrator Selig provided several updates:

He said the proposed health and safety inspection ordinance had been scheduled for

first reading at the December 10th

meeting

He noted that the Town would be providing turkeys/hams to full time staff for the

holidays

He said the Durham Business Association had done a great job of holiday lighting at

town businesses and fraternities, and also noted that the Parks and Recreation

department was sponsoring a renewed Light up Durham ceremony, called “Durham’s

Annual Tree Lighting ceremony”

He said the license agreement for the 20 feet of fencing crossing the Durham

cemetery next to the Capstone development had been executed. He said the Town

was in the process of executing the conservation easement for the protected land on

the property, and noted that Capstone was donating the land and also would pay for

the perpetual monitoring of the land. He said Town staff was currently ensuring that

there would be clear title for it.

VI. Public Comments

Bill Hall, Smith Park Lane, noted a drought in Durham 13 years ago, and he passed out

a letter written at that time. He said the entire time, the water went over the Wiswall dam

sufficiently.

He said he had asked for a copy of the operations plan for the dam, and still hadn’t

received it.

He noted 25 pages of signed statements to DES from the Town Engineer, Mr.

Chamberlin and Mr. Emery, which he said agreed with, and which were the outline that

Councilor Howland was using. He said it was very perplexing to know how they got from

those statements, to extensive meetings with the utility committee, to giving up on water

from the Lamprey. He said the whole thing was very suspicious. He also provided

examples of the Town and the University not taking water conservation very seriously.

Karl Van Asselt, Fairchild Drive, said the Council needed to begin discussion on some

substantive issues reflected in the proposed 2013 Budget, including the long range impact



on Durham tax payers. He said these were still difficult economic times, and said

unemployment, lack of salary increases and reduced investment income were affecting

Durham residents. He questioned whether they could afford to continue to absorb double

digit Budget increases every two years, and said a discussion on this was needed.

He said the continued trend was bonding of budget items that historically had been paid

for with cash, and said this was setting up current and future homeowners having to pay

debts for 15-30 years. He said the fact that there was room within the Town’s bonding

limit was not justification to continually add substantial projects for bonding. He noted

that Councilors Carroll and Lawson had expressed serious reservations about bonding,

e.g. the Road Program, and said a discussion on this was needed.

Mr. Van Asselt said there had been a goal to use new revenues from a broader tax base,

e.g. Capstone and other projects to help the single family homeowner rather than just

spending the new monies and adding more. He said applying new revenue to the tax base

to help offset taxes was important, and said a discussion on this was needed.

He said despite the economy and tax burden, the Budget had expenditures for new

initiatives. He questioned whether in this economy, it was really the time for new

initiatives, including possibly three more multi-million dollar buildings. He said a

discussion on this was needed.

Mr. Van Asselt asked if there was supporting data to show that the proposed expenditures

for several items would in fact produce the desired results, e.g. would increased police

staffing really stop student issues in the neighborhoods; and would there really be long

term tax benefits. He said the facts and data must support the items requested, and make

it clear that they would reach the desired outcome. He said discussion on this was needed.

He said the 2013 Budget took one-time revenues, e.g. insurance dividends, and folded

them in as a revenue source. He said the result was that for 2014 and beyond, that new

“revenue source” became the single family home owner. He said discussion on this was

needed.

He said tax rate increases were annual and cumulative, and said the long term impact of

the recent Budget was alarming. He said Administrator Selig had already noted that the

tax increase could be 12% in 2014. He said the bonding proposed with the 2013 Budget,

and then bonding another $10-15 million for land and new buildings was unsustainable.

Mr. Van Asselt summarized that he had listed seven big picture, long range issues that

needed careful consideration and scrutiny by the Town Council, in the context of

Durham’s single family home owner and taxpayer.

VII. Unanimous Consent Agenda -

A. Shall the Town Council schedule a Public Hearing for January 7, 2013 on a referendum

question to be placed on the March 12, 2013 Town Election ballot to authorize the



issuance of not more than $2,500,000.00 of bonds or notes, issued in accordance with the

provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33), for the replacement of the sludge

dewatering equipment at the Wastewater Treatment Plant?

B. Shall the Town Council, upon recommendation of the Administrator, award an

engineering design contract to Wright-Pierce Engineering of Portland, Maine in the

amount of $69,250 for a Nutrient Removal Optimization Pilot Program at the Wastewater

Treatment Plant and authorize the Administrator to sign associated documents?

C. Shall the Town Council, upon recommendation of the Administrator, award an

engineering design contract to Wright-Pierce Engineering of Portland, Maine in the

amount of $23,900 for the College Brook and Faculty Drive Sewer Rehabilitation Project

and authorize the Administrator to sign associated documents ?

D. Shall the Town Council schedule a Public Hearing for Monday, January 7, 2013 on a

resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of $14,077 in Emergency

Management Planning Grant funds from the New Hampshire Department of Safety to

upgrade software and purchase iPads for the Fire Department ?

E. RESOLUTION #2012-23 creating a Margery and Lorus Milne Memorial Trust

Item A was removed from the Unanimous Consent Agenda at the request of Councilor

Smith.

Councilor Smith MOVED to approve Unanimous Consent Agenda Items B, C, D and

E. Councilor Mower SECONDED the motion, and it PASSED unanimously 8-0. (Councilor Stanhope was out of the room when the vote was taken.)

Councilor Mower asked that the wording for Item C be changed to say Faculty Road.

Councilor Marple MOVED to approve Unanimous Consent Agenda Item A.

Councilor Mower SECONDED the motion.

Administrator Selig explained that the Town practice with these types of projects was to

bond the full amount. He said the University would be obligated to pay two thirds of the

debt service over the term of the bond.

Councilor Stanhope returned to the table at 8:05 pm.

Chair Gooze noted that when this was presented on the ballot in March, some

information on the proposed sludge dewatering project would be provided to the voters.

The motion PASSED 8-1, with Councilor Smith voting against it.

VIII. Committee Appointments - None

IX. Presentation Item

Received annual report of the Historic District/Heritage Commission, Peter Stanhope,

Chair



Councilor Stanhope provided details on the current membership of the Historic

District/Heritage Commission (HD/HC), and noted that Director of Planning and

Community Development Michael Behrendt had been attending Commission meetings

since his employment with the Town began in April. He said the HDC meeting was now

broadcast on the DCAT channel, and also noted that the Commission had added a public

comments section to each agenda, which had allowed valuable input at the early stages of

the Commission's consideration of applications.

Councilor Stanhope said the Commission had reviewed a number of applications this

year, as the district became the focus of attention with the changes in ownership of the

Varsity rental housing portfolio. He said applications addressed by the Commission were

proposals for new building signage, modification of existing buildings, and demolition of

a number of buildings and redevelopment of the assembled parcels. He said the

Commission was able to reach agreement and approve minor building modifications after

working with the new ownership's architect.

He also said that after a number of meetings with the new ownership's sign designer, new

signage was approved that was more consistent with the architecture of the district. But

he said the application for demolition and redevelopment was withdrawn. He said Orion

had continued discussions with the Economic Development Committee (EDC), Town

planner, and Administrator on the potential use of their properties in the district.

Councilor Stanhope said signage for commercial uses in the redeveloped Grange building

was approved after revisions were made to location and style. He also said some minor

applications for exterior updates were accepted and improved after a review of the

property owner's proposal with their contractor.

He said the commission conducted a site walk of the Schoolhouse Lane Cemetery along

with the Director of the DPW, in order to review maintenance work scheduled for

summer 2012. He said it was an interesting discussion of what could and could not be

done in an historic cemetery, and said a significant amount of work was subsequently

done on the cemetery to address deterioration and improve its appearance.

He said after a presentation from Wiswall Historic Interpretation Committee member

Dick Lord, the Commission gave final approval to the commemorative panels at the

Wiswall Dam. He said this would be a "must visit" for Durham residents upon their

installation.

Councilor Stanhope said the Commission was currently considering an application for a

modification to the fencing previously approved as part of a site plan application for an

expansion of the doggy day care facilities at Great Bay Kennel.

Councilor Stanhope said before the end of the year, the Commission’s goal was to

communicate the HD/HC regulations and Durham's Demolition by Neglect ordinances to

all HD /HC property owners. He said the intent with this was to begin a process of better

exterior maintenance to preserve the architectural character of the district.



He said the HD /HC was working to organize an event to celebrate the 100-year

anniversary of the construction of the historic Mill Pond Dam, and said this event would

be held on September 13, 2013.

Councilor Stanhope said the Commission was successful in obtaining grants in the

amounts of $6,681 and $10,000, to be applied towards achieving National Registration

for Smith Chapel and making renovations to it. He said 2012 saw the completion of that

project as well as another high profile project, the Grange project. He noted that both

projects were initiated at the HD/HC, and said both had received local as well as regional

recognition for preserving significant historic buildings.

He said regrettably, not all of Durham's Historic District properties had been given the

attention needed to insure their preservation. He said the district represented a significant

component of Durham's downtown and gateway from the east, and said the HDC

remained dedicated to an agenda of preservation and improvement of all significant

properties in the district.

He said the HDC would be discussing the citizen petition relative to building height,

noting that some properties in the district were proposed to be included in the petition at

the recommendation of the Town Planner. He said the HDC looked forward to the

participation of the community in discussion on this.

Councilor Stanhope said he thought the most important thing the HDC did in 2012 was to

seek an opinion from Town counsel that clarified errors in HDC process in the past, as

well as responsibilities of other boards and committees relative to the HDC concerning

reviewing projects. He said a document on this had been circulated to relevant

committees, etc., and said he also hoped it would be provided to applicants so they would

be able to understand the road map when coming before the Town with a proposal.

It was noted that Councilor Stanhope had discussed with Mr. Behrendt the idea of

providing this document to applicants.

There was discussion that the work on the Smith Chapel was now complete. Councilor

Carroll asked if there would be an open house, and there was discussion with Councilor

Stanhope on this.

Councilor Howland noted that the Courthouse hadn’t been chosen as part of the “Seven

to Save” program, and asked about the status of this.

Administrator Selig noted that the idea with applying to the program in order to add some

prestige to the building and then perhaps get some grant funding for it. But he said the

“Seven to Save” program didn’t view the Courthouse as being endangered, and was

actually more concerned about maintaining the current Town Office site in its current

configuration and not being redeveloped. He said the Town would look for other

programs to add prestige to the Court house building.



Councilor Carroll thanked Councilor Stanhope for assuming the chairmanship of this

committee, and said he had been very focused and clear in the work he was doing.

Councilor Stanhope said no chair was any better than his committee members.

The Council stood in recess from 8:18 to 8:26 pm.

X. Unfinished Business

Continued discussion on the Administrator’s proposed FY 2013 Operating, Capital and

Special Fund Budgets and the 2013-2022 Capital Improvement Plan

Councilor Mower asked that in the future, the Council receive an Excel spreadsheets

rather than images of the Budget pages. She said they would be much easier to work with

this way. There was discussion.

Chair Gooze asked for an explanation on how the one time insurance refund was being

handled in the Budget, and Business Manager Gail Jablonski provided details on this.

Administrator Selig also explained the reason for this one time refund. There was

discussion on Mr. Van Asselt’s comment on the 2013 Budget taking the one-time

insurance dividends and folding them in as a revenue source.

Councilor Stanhope said Mr. Van Asselt had also raised the issue of bonding, and then

said the Council needed to decide on that issue before discussing the Budget further. He

said if they bonded, they would pay something short of $100,000 in interest over the

history of the bond. He said there were other issues relating to that as they continued to

take on greater amounts of debt, and noted that it put the Town’s credit rating at risk,

which meant the cost of subsequent borrowing for capital expenditures would be greater.

He said this went to a bigger concern, which was that as taxes were raised, there were

two components of the tax base population that would likely have an impact on the

Town’s tax base. He said one was the high value homes in Durham, which were not

selling, in large part because services weren’t offered to a level that competed with

services in other high value communities where the taxes were significantly lower. He

said when these properties sold, they would probably sell at significant discounts from

their current assessments.

Councilor Stanhope also said that as taxes on the commercial and industrial properties

increased, their assessed value decreased. He said the taxes these properties would have

paid historically would be transferred to the single family residences. He said the Town

was cannibalizing itself, and had to make some hard decisions on the services it would

offer.

He said at some point, the Town had to confront the fact that it subsidized the University,

despite its current yearly contribution of $200,000. He said this amount was significantly

short of the services the Town provided to it. He also said they subsidized the cost of

students in Lee and Madbury who attended the ORSD. He said that was a hard decision



in terms of sitting down with a 50 year old agreement, which probably had its flaws in

terms of where things stood today.

Councilor Stanhope said if the communities were unwilling to renegotiate the terms of

the agreement, the Town might have to face the fact that it had to withdraw and take

control of the School district as a municipality. He said these were hard issues. But he

said the elderly buyer and the workforce housing buyer including young families with

children wouldn’t come to Durham because it wasn’t economically feasible.

Administrator Selig provided some history on the bonding of road repairs. He said

annually the Town now spent about $450,000, while ten years ago it spent about

$250,000. He said in 2001, the Council had budgeted to bond the program, and then

worked its way back to paying cash starting in 2002. But he said with the Recession in

2008-2009, the Council moved back to bonding the Road Program because of concerns

about impacts on the taxpayers.

He said this year the Road Program was budgeted at $478,000, and he reviewed the roads

it would address. He said the plan was that in 2014, they would go back to paying for the

program on a cash basis, but said there was a significant impact on the tax rate from

doing that. He said they could scale back the program; could pay for part of the Road

Program in cash; and could also go for a year without doing the program. But he noted

that paying for overlays now prevented having to do a total reclamation later, and so

saved money.

Administrator Selig noted that the Town received about $250,000 per year in State

highway block grant funds. But he said that money was in fact spent on roads as part of

the Town’s operating budget, for highway maintenance, vegetation management, snow

and ice removal, etc.

He said bonding roads was not optimum, but was done elsewhere. But he said the

preference would be to pay cash.

Chair Gooze asked if there was some way to work their way into paying cash over the

next few years.

Administrator Selig said they had thought of doing this, and noted that 2014 had been

targeted as the year to start paying cash again because it was thought that the economy

would be better by then. He also noted that the proposed cost for the Road Program for

2014 was a bit less to begin with.

Councilor Lawson said he didn’t understand that the economy getting better would mean

that there was a lot more money in peoples’ pockets, so he didn’t think it would be easier

if the Town stopped bonding the Roads Program in 2014. He said if they stayed with

bonding this year, they should be clear that they would keep on bonding, because when a

Town stopped bonding, the cost didn’t fall off dramatically because of the carrying of the

debt service.



He said he thought the only other option was to scale back the program and pay cash. He

said the question therefore was what projects were in danger of becoming a reclamation

project if they were deferred. He said if the answer was all of them, then they had other

decisions to make.

Chair Gooze noted that the Council had this same discussion last year, and Mr. Lynch

had said all of the roads were at risk of needing reclamation if they were put off.

Mr. Lynch said the numbers in the program did stabilize as they moved out in time, and

said if they scaled back the program this year, the numbers moving out in time would get

bigger. He said it was a balancing act. He said if some roads fell down on the schedule,

they wouldn’t completely deteriorate. He said they could perhaps modify the program, to

upgrade some roads in a way that provided a rougher state. He said this would be a 4-5

year fix as compared to the 12-15 year fix programmed in now.

Councilor Smith confirmed that the Town didn’t have a road grader.

Councilor Mower asked if the Town had ever hired someone to do an independent review

of the roads. She also noted that the town of Gray Maine didn’t bond the roads, and said a

report from the town indicated that it had laid out benchmarks to analyze the roads. She

said she would be in favor of stepping back to look at something like this. She also said

she didn’t think that not paying for improvements to a few roads this year would be the

end of the world.

Mr. Lynch said the Town relied on his 35 years of experience, and so avoided the cost of

consultants. He said the program they used to analyze the road system was very

extensive, and noted that one factor that came into play was winter conditions, and that

more snow created more stresses on roads. He said the schedule in the Road Program

was the end result of the analyses that the Department did.

Chair Gooze said if the Council decided to pay cash for half of the program, this would

increase the tax rate by about $0.22-0.24, assuming that they didn’t cut any roads. He

asked if paying cash could perhaps be done gradually.

Administrator Selig said the program was impacted by a lot of things, and said Town

staff had put together a good plan. He said they could step back to something less than

$478,000, and do this on a cash basis. But he said while he was not in favor of bonding,

he didn’t see how they could move to a cash basis, achieve other goals, and not shock the

taxpayers.

Councilor Lawson said he had a great deal of confidence in the Road Program. He said

Fire protection and roads were key services the Town provided, but they still moved

forward with things that were discretionary He asked why these discretionary things took

precedence over the services the Town had to provide, and asked if this was a

conversation the Council needed to have.



Chair Gooze said if things like flowers in Town were cut out, the question was whether

this meant more to people or if the roads meant more.

Councilor Stanhope said the flowers made the downtown a very attractive place. But said

a question was what services they could afford. He said his concern with bonding was

that the Town was committing to pay about $100,000 in tax dollars for interest. He said

they could buy a lot of flowers for that.

He said there was nothing in the Budget that was a Cadillac expenditure. But he said they

had to face the fact that they had to make the Town more affordable. He said the tax

burden on the single family home individual was striking, and said people were making

hard decisions about leaving Durham, because they couldn’t afford to live here.

Councilor Mower said she believed some people were willing to pay more taxes in order

to be able to live in Durham, because they wanted the quality of life here. She said she

understood that this choice wasn’t possible for some people, including people who had

lived here for many years and were now on a fixed budget. She said she didn’t think the

only reason some people were leaving Durham or weren’t coming to live here was high

taxes.

She said it was important to try to evaluate what impact even the small, discretionary

items had, and determine if they in fact were discretionary.

Councilor Marple asked how this discussion tied into the argument over the number of

stories downtown, and the bottom line regarding taxes.

Councilor Lawson said on Main Street, there had been no substantive redevelopment in

30 years. He said at the moment, someone redeveloping was more likely to redevelop

with 3 stories than 4 stories, because there would be concern about whether they could

fill the second floor of commercial space. He said this issue would require more focus by

the Council, because they probably wanted a downtown that was less dependent on

student housing. But he said that issue probably wouldn’t impact the issue they were

grappling with right now concerning bonding, and nondiscretionary vs discretionary

spending.

Councilor Marple said if in fact adding more rooms to a building with another floor

impacted the bottom line, the question was whether she should consider that.

Councilor Lawson said this was a complicated question, and said the EDC had agreed

that their recommendation on the building height issue had to be well thought out. But he

said he didn’t think the choice that was made would preclude redevelopment.

Councilor Stanhope said he would argue that right now, the 4th

story would make a

building less valuable. He said the vacancy rate was self-evident at the properties that had

been built. He said absent the Council giving away tax dollars at the 9-11 Madbury Road

property, they probably would have seen a 3 story building.



Councilor Marple said perhaps the Council needed to start talking today about

discretionary projects.

Councilor Lawson said he agreed with Councilor Stanhope regarding high value

properties in Durham selling poorly.

Chair Gooze said if they didn’t bond the Road Program, they needed to look for some

discretionary spending to cut out.

Councilor Mower said they could also discuss cutting back slightly on the Road Program

Administrator Selig provided some ideas for cuts in discretionary spending, and noted

that he was not suggesting that they be done. He said they could allocate the cable

franchise fee to the General Fund; eliminate the proposed additional hours the new

Library would be open; allocate all of the LUCT funds resulting from the Peak project to

the General Fund; save approximately $146,000 by eliminating curb side collection of

solid waste and adding an additional hour to the Transfer Station schedule. Administrator

Selig said this last item would mean that people would either have to contract out the

pickup of solid waste or bring it to the Transfer Station themselves.

He said the 19th

officer recommended for the Police Department could be eliminated, and

also said they didn’t have to bring the Parks and Recreation Director position to full time.

He said they didn’t have to have that position at all, but noted that the difference in

programming now was substantial. He said the Town didn’t have to support ORYA, and

also could decide not to support the UNH pool. He said there were many other examples

of things like this in the Budget. He said they were programs he thought should continue,

but said they were difficult choices.

Councilor Stanhope spoke further about the consequences of bonding and the choices the

Council faced in addressing this. He also said some of the discretionary services weren’t

broad enough such that the majority of residents benefited from them. He said if only

some residents benefited, the Council might have to say it couldn’t provide a subsidy for

that smaller population. He said these were tough choices.

Councilor Carroll agreed they were tough decisions. She noted that sometimes a smaller

group was a vulnerable population, such as children, so this needed to be considered.

Chair Gooze said each Councilor had discretionary services that he/she didn’t want to

give up. He noted that he didn’t want to give up the 19th

police officer.

Councilor Carroll noted the franchise agreement, and that municipalities could legally

add on a 5% franchise fee to cable TV bills.

Administrator Selig provided an estimate of the numbers involved, based on information

currently available, and said a 5% franchise fee would result in $180,000 for the Town.

He noted that they didn’t know if Comcast would actually agree to a 5% fee, especially in



the first year, and said typically the company would want to phase it in because

customers typically didn’t want to pay the charge.

Councilor Stanhope said paying this would be a cost of living expense, and said there

were a lot of people in the community on a fixed income who probably had cable TV.

Administrator Selig said the Town had planned to target the fee to cover what it would

cost to make the DCAT position full time so there could be more robust programming,

and to cover future capital costs for the station, so it would be self-sufficient. But he said

it was possible that there could be a surplus available.

Councilor Mower said a challenge of counting on the cable fee was negotiating with

Comcast, and Administrator Selig spoke further on this.

Chair Gooze calculated that if the Town paid cash for the Road Program, for a $300,000

house this would mean about $180/year in taxes. He noted that none of the tax money

would go toward paying interest, without a bond. He compared this with paying an extra

$75/year for Comcast because of a franchise fee.

He also talked about paying for half of the Road Program with cash, and working toward

paying all cash within a few years.

Councilor Lawson asked how the abatement overlay was set, and Administrator Selig

said Town staff had worked on this with Town Assessor Jim Rice. He explained that

there were still some outstanding abatements, including the Varsity Durham properties.

He said the overlay was in the Budget because they wanted to be sure they had enough

funds in the account to cover this potential abatement. He also said PSNH and Fairpoint

were challenging their assessments. There was discussion that funds in the overlay that

were not ultimately used were put into the fund balance.

Councilor Howland said if they were assembling a list of discretionary services to

consider cutting, he would recommend adding the item of $302,000 for engineering for

the Spruce Hole well. He said that would take this off the table for the time being, and

said the Town’s one third share of this would be $99,660.

Administrator Selig said they believed this was a good project and wanted to move

forward with it. He also said it could be delayed for a period of time, but said that

wouldn’t help with the 2013 Budget because the project was in the water fund, which

affected only the rate payers. He also said he believed the project would be bonded.

Councilor Stanhope said they seemed to be going around in circles.

Councilor Stanhope MOVED to not bond the Road maintenance costs in the 2013

Budget. Councilor Smith SECONDED the motion.

Councilor Smith noted that he had made this motion in previous years.



Councilor Cote said there was room to make some significant pairing back to the Road

Program, and he provided some details on this. He also said there were some other big

ticket items they were dealing with, including over $1 million for stormwater

management.

Chair Gooze said he liked the idea of using the franchise fee, and paring down the Road

Program.

Councilor Lawson said by taking that approach, a question was whether there would be

more road maintenance costs in the out years. He said he didn’t want to cut back on the

Road Program if it would cost more in the future, so he would rather spend now what

made sense as part of the program.

Councilor Stanhope noted that the intent with his motion was not to cut back on the

maintenance of the roads, and was simply to not burden the taxpayers with $100,000 in

interest payments.

Administrator Selig said they had moved to bonding of the Road Program to save

residents from having to pay an extra amount in taxes. He said the residents had benefited

from this for 3 years, and said perhaps it was now the time to pay the extra amount it cost

to maintain the roads.

There was discussion. Administrator Selig said there would be a lot of programs in place

at an adequate level next year, which would then allow them to deal with the Road

Program.

Councilor Marple said the franchise fee was a tax. She said most people in Town had

Comcast, and would pay for it one way or another.

Administrator Selig said it had been unclear whether or not the Town had the ability to

pass the fee on to students on campus, but said Comcast had determined that it could be

done.

There was discussion on the pool vouchers. Administrator Selig provided details on this,

and said regardless of how many vouchers were given out, the Town paid the University

$20,000.

At the request of Councilor Mower, Mr. Lynch provided details on projects in the Budget

for things like the downtown parking lot pavement for $72,400, and the work scheduled

for Coe Drive. He said the parking lot needed repairs but could be pushed off. There was

discussion that the cost for the work on Coe Drive came to close to $100,000.

Administrator Selig noted the Safe Routes to School program, and said the installation of

speed tables had been timed to go with the overlay for Coe Drive.



Chair Gooze said if they took the Coe Drive projects out of the Road Program for 2013,

the would defer a cost of about $375,000.

Councilor Stanhope said his issue, and the motion, were concerning bonding, regardless

of whether the Council decided to do a tax increase or cut programs.

Councilor Howland said perhaps after further deliberation, there could be another motion.

Chair Gooze said once they made the decision concerning bonding, they could decide

what came after that.

Councilor Stanhope called the question.

Councilor Cote said he wanted to make sure they wouldn’t be cutting off further debate,

if they voted not to bond.

Councilor Carroll said she was inclined not to vote to not do bonding until she had seen

where the money could come from. She said she didn’t want to overburden the taxpayers.

Councilor Howland said he shared Councilor Carroll’s concerns. He said bonding made

him uneasy, but said he thought further discussion was needed before voting on it.

Councilor Mower noted that calling the question required a 2/3 vote.

The vote was 3-6, concerning calling the question, with Councilor Stanhope, Councilor

Smith and Councilor Cote voting in favor of it. The vote to call the question failed.

Councilor Smith said he was sympathetic to those who were leery of not bonding the

Road Program, because they didn’t know where the funds would come from. He said that

was because some years ago, the Council made a decision to rely on bonding. He said it

was very hard to get out of this practice, but said it was a very expensive practice, adding

about 30% to the total cost.

Chair Gooze said he didn’t want to bond, and was comfortable putting off the Coe Drive

work.

Councilor Mower noted the downtown parking lot project as well, near the new Kostis

project. It was then noted that this project wasn’t proposed until 2015.

Chair Gooze said he was very much against giving up the 19th

police officer.

Councilor Carroll asked if there was a reason that Coe Drive couldn’t wait, and Mr.

Lynch said that was the road he would move down if he had to choose one.

Administrator Selig noted that if they didn’t do this work, they would also not do the

sidewalk project, so the cost for the Road Program would be down to about $300,000.



He talked about the stormwater projects that were planned, and some of the work

involved. He spoke about some possible flexibility in terms of work to be done and

money spent, based on the permit requirements. He said he would be willing to look at

this, while recognizing that there were federal requirements. But he noted that this work

would be bonded, so didn’t help with the current discussion.

Councilor Mower asked if DPW was looking into stormwater utility fees, given the entire

program. She noted that other states were doing this.

Mr. Lynch said it was only a question of when this would be done. He provided details

on a formula used to determine the tax.

Councilor Mower said DES had a page on their website on stormwater utilities and

funding for this. She also read from State statute on this. She noted that development was

a source of pollutant runoff, and said the Town should be looking at this. But she also

noted that doing this wouldn’t help the Budget this year.

Councilor Stanhope said adding a tax like this reduced the value of a property, so a

business would pay less in property taxes and would pay a rain tax instead.

Councilor Mower noted that Councilor Stanhope had said they needed to look at the

future in a holistic way, which was the full cost to a community of development.

Councilor Stanhope said he didn’t disagree with this, but said nothing was gained, and

also said it passed more property taxes onto the single family home taxpayer.

Councilor Carroll said if they really wanted to do something that wouldn’t cost money

regarding stormwater, they would ask residents to use less nitrogen fertilizer, and ask

farmers to compost wastes, etc. But she said this seemed to be something that almost

couldn’t be talked about.

Mr. Lynch also said that if the Town was able to inspect septic systems on private land, it

would be an eye-opening experience.

Administrator Selig said the roads that impacted the fewest number of residents were

Wiswall Road or Beech Hill Road. Mr. Lynch said Wiswall Road was a total

reclamation project, and said it was a project he recommended not touching because they

had already done half of it.

Administrator Selig noted that it wouldn’t cost the Town any more to let it go another

year, and also said the condition of the road caused people to drive more slowly. Mr.

Lynch agreed that the road condition was a good traffic calming device.

Councilor Stanhope said the Council seemed to be focusing on the DPW budget. He said

there were a number of areas that they were not discussing, and questioned the

appropriateness of focusing only on the Road Program.



Councilor Mower asked Mr. Lynch what the rationale was for the rubber tire excavator

purchase, and he provided details on this.

There was discussion that the Town would apply for grant money for the lighting project

that was planned. Mr. Lynch noted that this was a project where the Town would see a

relatively quick pay back, and it would then result in energy cost savings forever. He said

he wouldn’t advocate cutting it.

Chair Gooze noted the possible approach of taking LUCT funds resulting from the Peak

project. There was discussion that those funds might not be available until later in the

year, and that a public hearing would be required concerning using the funds for

something besides land conservation. Councilor Smith said the idea would go down in

flames.

There was discussion on possibly eliminating curb collection of solid waste.

Administrator Selig said if they cut this from the Budget, the employees who did this

work would be cut and the collection trucks could be sold off. He also said the majority

of residents would probably end up paying the same amount because they would still

want to have their trash collected. He said this would likely be more expensive privately

than through the Town.

Chair Gooze said he would have a hard time making that change without having a public

hearing on it. He noted that elimination of the program wasn’t in the proposed Budget.

Councilor Marple said if they were going to bring up the LUCT tax money, they needed

to bring up the Parks and Recreation director position and the 19th

police officer.

Councilor Stanhope noted that the LUCT money wouldn’t be a reoccurring amount. He

said they needed to look at budget items such as the police officer, trash pickup, and the

Recreation Director position, which would result in savings in future years as well if the

money was taken out of the Budget.

Councilor Mower said the LUCT was generally used for the purchase of property for the

benefit of the community in perpetuity, and was not equivalent to the roads, which

decayed every year.

Councilor Lawson noted that 34% of the land in Durham was in some type of

conservation, and also said putting 100% of LUCT into land conservation was

inconsistent with what most communities in NH did.

Councilor Mower said she wasn’t saying whether it should or should not be used, but was

saying that it was unreasonable to compare it to paying for roads.

Chair Gooze spoke about possibly paying for half of the Road Program with cash,

through taking out Coe Drive and without having to make cuts to the Library, cutting the

19th

police officer, etc.



In response to this, Administrator Selig said he would recommend cutting the Road

Program in half. He said he would work with Mike Lynch to see what a $250,000 Road

Program would be, and said in 2014, they would start with that amount and would add in

$100,000, while looking at the Budget as a whole. He said doing this for 2013 would

increase the tax rate by $0.30 as a result of adding $225,000 to the Budget.

Councilor Mower noted that Councilor Stanhope had spoken about budget items that

benefited only a portion of the population. She said the $38,000 proposed for ORYA was

an area for the Council to look at.

Councilor Lawson said he agreed that everything needed to be looked at, and said ORYA

was probably something they didn’t have enough information on in order to make a

decision now. He said whatever metric was used would indicate that Durham’s

contribution was probably less than that of Lee and Madbury. He also noted that the

Parks and Recreation Committee Chair had recently spoken eloquently about the

importance of recreational opportunities in attracting families to Durham.

Councilor Mower said she was glad to be reminded of this. She noted the email from

former Parks and Recreation Chair Diane Moore about supporting the recreation

programs.

Chair Gooze said each of the things the Council was now looking at had some bearing on

who wanted to live in Durham and who would move if something wasn’t there. He noted

all the support for the new Library, and the significant amount of money that was raised,

and said he couldn’t see not expanding the number of hours the Library was open, given

the relatively low number of hours it was currently open.

Councilor Mower suggested that the hours could be shifted to be more useful to the

community, could start out small, and could then increase.

Councilor Stanhope suggested making the Parks and Recreation Director position a ¾

time position; putting $25,000 into ORYA, and cutting 5 hours out of the Library budget,

so everyone would suffer some of the pain.

There was discussion. Administrator Selig said the Parks and Recreation Director

position was already at ¾ time, and also said the extra hours being asked for were

needed.

Mr. Lynch noted that the Parks and Recreation Director position brought in about

$50,000 in revenue, so cutting into it would also cut the revenue.

Councilor Lawson agreed that they didn’t want to bond the roads. He said if they made

that change this year and did the entire Road Program, there would be a significant

impact on the tax rate. But he said a problem was that the other programs that had been

added to the Budget had been very well thought out.



He said perhaps they should scale back the Road Program, not bond it, and step residents

into the tax increase. He also said they perhaps could look for some small cuts elsewhere

that together would start to add up. He recommended funding half of the Road Program,

and leaving it up to Administrator Selig and Mr. Lynch what to take out of it.

Chair Gooze said he was comfortable with that, and said it would even out the rate over

time.

Ms. Jablonski said this would result in another 4% increase in the Budget.

There was discussion on the fact that the Assessing budget for 2013 included a partial

rather than a full revaluation. Administrator Selig provided details on this.

There was discussion that the $50,000 cost for the design engineering for the Fire Station

would be pretty much the same regardless of the scale of the project.

Chair Gooze said if the Council voted to pay cash for the Road Program, they could

finalize the Budget at the next meeting.

The motion PASSED unanimously 9-0.

Councilor Smith said not bonding the Road Program was great, and said the Council had

started down the road to fiscal sanity. He said he didn’t know how they had gotten into

the bind where they were going to build a new fire station and buy a new Town Hall,

when they knew that the State and the EPA were after them regarding wastewater and

stormwater systems. He said he didn’t think the Town could do all that they had been

talking about doing.

He said they had now saved some interest on bonding. But he said in the next few years,

more and more bills would come due, especially if they built the Fire Station. He said

things would just get worse, and said they should come back ready to do some serious

cutting.

Chair Gooze said people lived in Durham for different reasons.

Councilor Marple said the point made about the Town Hall was somewhat

understandable. But she said the Fire Department was about to get kicked out of the

building they were in, and she asked where they were supposed to go.

Councilor Smith said the Town and University needed to have a Fire Department. He

said while the University wanted to repurpose the site for another use, perhaps it would

have to cut back on some of its dreams as well. He said the Department was making do

with a building that should have been improved years ago, but that hadn’t happened.

He said the University had chased them out of the University library and was trying to do

this with the Fire Station. He also said it had the Town chasing students around, and said



many of the high costs facing the Town were the result of a decision made by Ben

Thompson to give his land to the State College.

Administrator Selig said the engineering cost for the design of the new Fire station was

$557,400, which would be split 50/50 with UNH. He said there was $237,000 in the

bank right now to pay most of the Town’s $278,000 share of the cost, noting that this

money had been saved up over several years.

Councilor Howland said he had toured the public safety complex in Lee a few years ago,

and asked if there was a big difference between this building and one built to the

standards required by the University.

Administrator Selig said Durham had a full service Fire Department, while Lee did not.

He said the station proposed was a central station, so had to be big enough to house all of

the equipment. He also said because it would be on the University campus, it needed to

be a building that fit with the other buildings there. He said his sense was that Durham

residents would want this too, so such a building, which would probably have a brick

exterior, would be more expensive than a building such as the one that Lee had.

He spoke further regarding the process that would take place to determine how much

such a building would actually cost the Town and what it wanted to spend. He said this

would involve going into full design mode, and noted that this process had taken place

concerning the bank building proposed to be the new Town Offices. He said different

versions of those offices were possible, and said he was recommending the minimalistic

approach.

Chair Gooze noted that depending on which option they chose, it would be better cost

wise to move the Town Offices to the bank building than to upgrade the current Town

Hall property.

Councilor Howland said given the sobering discussion the Council was having, he would

be inclined to support a Fire Department facility that served the Town’s needs, but was

far more on the no frills side of things rather than something built to the standards of

Holloway Commons.

Administrator Selig note that the design from Lynn Reda had not been influenced by the

University, and reflected the vision of the Town’s Fire Department. He said he and the

Council would have to inject into the discussions the economic reality in terms of what

the Town could afford.

He also said the reason there were a lot of capital items on their plate was that they had

previously chosen to put them off. He said this was a bold Budget, which addressed a lot

of things. But he said this was the time to be bold, with federal mandates coming down

the line, and high aspirations of the community, in keeping with Council goals.



Chair Gooze asked about the culvert work proposed, and why the decision was made to

do it out of the operating budget.

Administrator Selig noted the iterative process that was used to determine this. He said

the proposal was unlike the federal budget, where long range planning and investing

wasn’t done. He said this Budget was investing aggressively, and said although the

economy wasn’t exceptional, bonding rates were good right now, and it was a good time

to build, and to be bold.

He then said he had some questions based on the discussion at the last Council meeting.

He noted that there was discussion about adding $60,000 for the microwave system, and

bonding that.

Councilor Carroll said if the Chief came in and said this was absolutely necessary, she

would look at it very carefully.

Administrator Selig recommended not adding it in, explaining that it was an issue they

would continue to follow, and said they potentially could spend some contingency money

on it next year. He said he didn’t have enough data right now to be confident about

adding it in.

He said there had also been discussion about adding in $24,000 for the part time code

officer.

Chair Gooze said he had planned to argue for the position this evening, but said after the

Council’s discussion, he couldn’t do it.

Councilor Carroll said she would like to see it added in, and Councilor Mower said her

concern was that if the position wasn’t added in, the Town would lose what it had already

invested in.

Administrator Selig said staff would look at the DCAT and franchise costs again, based

on the Council’s discussion.

Councilor Mower MOVED to extend the meeting beyond 10:30 pm. Councilor Lawson

SECONDED the motion, and it PASSED 7-2, with Councilor Stanhope and Councilor

Cote voting against it.

Administrator Selig said more information had been obtained regarding the health

organizations Councilor Lawson had spoken about, and said he would follow up with

this. He said he still didn’t have enough data on the traffic counter item. He said they

needed to adjust the firehouse software program amount in the Budget.

He said a recommendation would be brought back to the Council regarding cuts to the

Road Program



Chair Gooze said if there was any way to get some funds for the code enforcement

officer, he would like staff to look for a cut to counteract that. Some other Councilors

agreed.

Councilor Howland asked for the opportunity to have a separate vote on the Spruce Hole

well issue.

Councilor Lawson said he thought the intent was that if this was kept in the budget, there

would then be a thoughtful detailed discussion on it, and if it was then the will of the

Council as a result of this not to proceed, Administrator Selig would not proceed with the

project because the Council wouldn’t approve a contract for it. He asked why the Council

would want to pre-empt that more thoughtful discussion.

Councilor Howland said he didn’t want to vote to authorize the funding for the project

until the Council had the discussion. He noted that he didn’t want to vote against the

whole Budget.

Councilor Mower said based on one item, Councilors sometimes voted against the whole

Budget. There was discussion that Councilor Howland could make that separate motion

at the next meeting, and if the motion failed, he could make his decision concerning

whether or not to vote in favor of the whole Budget.

Councilor Lawson noted that Councilor Howland had done a very good job of

representing his concerns.

XI. New Business

XII. Nonpublic Session (if required)

XIII. Extended Councilor and Town Administrator Roundtable (if required)

XIV. Adjournment

Councilor Mower MOVED to adjourn the meeting. Councilor Cote SECONDED the

motion, and it PASSED unanimously 9-0.

Adjournment at 10:37 pm

Victoria Parmele, Minutes taker

This set of minutes was approved at the February 4, 2013 ...€¦ · the new library to date --...

Documents

Transcript of This set of minutes was approved at the February 4, 2013 ...€¦ · the new library to date --...