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
Page 1, 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 – Page 2
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 3
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 4
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 5
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 6
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 7
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 8
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 9
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 10
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 11
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 12
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 13
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 14
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 15
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 16
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 17
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 18
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 19
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 20
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 21
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 22
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 23
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 24
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.
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 25
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
Durham Town Council Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 3, 2012 – Page 26
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