Vice-Chairman Brian Hart Forrest Ransdell (School Board rep)
Robert Bestani
Eric Botterman
Leo Filion
Michael LaBranche (Town Council rep)
Larry Pickering
Al Zink
Chairman Caprioli called the meeting to order at 7:05pm. She welcomed the public explaining the Committee would review each warrant article individually and open the floor for questions or comments. The Budget and warrant articles being proposed tonight are what the Budget Committee is presenting at this point but does not mean changes won’t be made based on public input.
Chairman Caprioli opened the public hearing at 7:06pm.
Article 1. To choose all necessary Town Officers for the ensuing year.
Town Council Two for (3) three years
Town Clerk-Tax Collector One (3) three year position
Budget Committee Three for (3) three years
Two for (2) two years
Three for (1) one year
Planning Board Two for (3) three years
Trustees of Trust Funds One for (3) three years
Supervisors of Checklist One for (6) six-year position
Trustees of the Library One for (3) three years
Chairman Caprioli explained this warrant article does not apply tonight.
Article 2. Bond for New Village Water, Sewer and Drainage Improvements and for improvements to sewer manholes, acquisition of a step screen and water meters.
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $2,782,500 (gross budget) for the purpose of construction improvements to the New Village water, sewer and drainage systems, in addition to, improvements to the sewer manholes within the sewer district to eliminate infiltration and inflow of groundwater, acquisition of a step screen for the Creighton Street lift station, and water meters under the Federal Stimulus Package Program and will qualify the Town for Federal funds in the form of 50% principal forgiveness, such sums o be raised by the issuance of Serial Bonds or Notes not to exceed $2,782,500 under, and in compliance, with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (NH RSA 33:1 et seq., as amended) and to authorize the Town Council to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereon, and to take such other actions as may be necessary to effect the issuance, negotiation, sale and delivery of such bonds or notes as shall be in the best interest of the Town of Newmarket, NH, additional to participate in the State Revolving Fund (SRF) RSA 486:14 established for this purpose and to allow the Town Council to expend such monies as become available from the Federal and State Governments and pass any vote relating thereto. Subject to the receipt of Federal Stimulus Funding.
(3/5 ballot vote required).
Chairman Caprioli noted the Budget Committee would determine whether to recommend this article at the conclusion of tonight’s public hearing.
Ed Portyrata of Exeter Road asked if the Town knew yet how much would be received for stimulus funding.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the total cost for the projects proposed in this article is $2,782,500. The full expense of the project has been submitted. Stimulus funding would provide forgiveness for half the total expense. In order for the Town to receive stimulus funding, this article must pass. This project would not move forward without stimulus funding unless the Town Council voted such action.
Article 3. Operating Budget
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, as a gross operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget proposed with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,177,760. Should this article be defeated, the operating budget shall be $10,546,520, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous actions of the Town of Newmarket, or by the law, or the Town Council may hold one (1) special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.
Michael E. Ploski of 60 North Main Street expressed his concern with a couple line items within the budget because the actual expenditures for Fiscal Year 2008 are less than what is being proposed within the FY 2009/2010 budget. He noted under Conservation Commission contracted services there is $350 allocated. He asked what contracted services this would include.
Vice-Chairman Hart explained the Southeast Land Trust negotiated a five year contract with the Town when the Hilton Conservation easement was acquired in order to provide monitoring services and reporting.
Michael E. Ploski asked about the gasoline allocation noting the 2008 actual expenditures shows $10,907 as of December 31, 2008. The requested allocation is $48,842. He expressed his concern with the increase in this line item even while considering the gas spikes experienced last year.
Vice-Chairman Hart noted this budget is calculated on $2.90 per gallon of gasoline opposed to $1.90 per gallon with last year’s budget.
Eric Botterman added even though the actual expenditures recorded are as of December 2008, they may not necessarily represent actual usage due to the billing cycle. If the tank was recently filled a payment would not be made until the tank is filled again.
Michael E. Ploski referenced the heat for the Town Hall under Building and Grounds noting the actual expenditures as of December 2008 was $3,147. The proposed allocation is $24,500. He questioned the steep increase considering the Town Hall has experienced a reduction in cost as a result of the four day work weeks.
Chairman Caprioli explained in situations where prices vary greatly, it is important to estimate the cost per unit and calculate the total cost based on units used.
Michael E. Ploski questioned the increase for grounds maintenance under Building and Grounds noting the actual expenditures are $9,000 and the allocation proposed is $30,000.
Michael LaBranche suggested this is an area within the budget which has seasonal expenditures. Most of the expenditures for this line item occur during the spring and summer. Actual expenditures during Fiscal Year 2007/2008 were almost $40,000.
Michael E. Ploski referenced Social Service Grants noting for the past two years Big Brothers/Big Sisters have noted requested the funds allocated to them. He asked why the Town is continuing to provide this allocation if the funds are not requested.
Chairman Caprioli noted the updated version of the budget has no allocation for that line item.
Michael E. Ploski referenced the CIP allocation for the McAllum Dam reserve noting that allocation had been zeroed. He expressed his concerns with reports the dam may already be in trouble. Debris from the ice storm is still there. He felt the Town needed funds for emergency repairs. The problems this dam could create would be disastrous. He felt it was irresponsible to not have funds to address emergency situations.
Michael E. Ploski referenced the Veteran’s Memorial Trust Capital Reserve explaining he had been the Councilor to reduce that line item to zero. As a veteran himself, this had been a very difficult decision for him. He respects what the Veteran’s Trust Committee does but did not feel putting $5,000 away for a memorial at this time was not the wisest economic decision.
Chairman Caprioli understood that allocation had been cut from the CIP program, but had been included elsewhere within the budget.
Michael E. Ploski felt Chairman Caprioli was recalling the cut from Big Brothers/Big Sisters which had been added to Lamprey Health Care’s allocation under Social Service Grants.
Michael E. Ploski referenced the reduced allocation for Spring Clean Up under Solid Waste noting without this program residents would find other locations around Town to rid their homes of unwanted debris.
Chairman Caprioli noted the Spring Clean Up would be held this year. The reduced allocation would prohibit the program for next year. The transfer station would still be open next year allowing residents to get rid of their unwanted items; residents would pay for this disposal.
Michael E. Ploski thanked the Budget Committee for their hard work throughout the budget process.
Ed Portyrata of Exeter Road stated he has always felt the budget in Newmarket was high compared to other surrounding communities. Other communities are approximately 50% of the school budget; Newmarket is much higher than that. Recent audits have found wasted funds in past budgets. He asked if there was a catch since the default budget would be higher than the proposed budget.
Chairman Caprioli noted the Town Council and Budget Committee have worked hard to propose a fiscally responsible budget while understanding the economic hardships. This year’s proposed budget is less than last year’s budget.
Ed Portyrata asked how the budget would affect the tax rate if it passed.
Administrator Wojnowski noted the tax rate would reflect an estimated $.80 decrease. The petitioned warrant article would affect that rate slightly if passed.
Michael LaBranche noted article 2 would also have an affect on the tax rate.
Administrator Wojnowski agreed stating if article 2 passes it would have a future affect on the tax rate. If stimulus funding was received, the Town would secure a bond in the future. That bonding would affect future tax rates.
Ed Portyrata felt there were other areas that should be reviewed for possible cuts. He felt Town employees were being paid well and that overtime was high.
Rochelle Sharples of 10 Lamprey River Park asked if on the ballot, at the end of the warrant articles there could be an explanation of how the funding would affect the tax rate.
Chairman Caprioli explained DRA approves what is allowed to be on the ballot. DRA did not allow an explanation on the school ballot; she assumed an explanation would not be allowed on the Town ballot either. She suggested an information sheet could be prepared to review prior to the vote.
Rochelle Sharples suggested having the proposed budget less than the default budget could be confusing to residents.
Chairman Caprioli noted the Budget Committee, Town Council and Town Administrator have made major cuts to the budget due to the economy.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the default budget is calculated by adding last year’s warrant articles to the approved Fiscal Year 2008/2009 budget then subtracting one time expenses such as the Exeter Street Drainage Study and principal and interest bond payment for the Fire/Rescue/DPW Bond that was not taken out.
Vice-Chairman Hart noted the proposed budget also reflects a $230,000 reduction in road maintenance by utilizing some of the Municipal Transportation Improvement funds. The Town Council and Town Administrator had suggested using these funds for this year. Eventually the expense of road maintenance will once again be realized through taxes. The CIP Program had also reduced allocations, asking departments to use their vehicles for an additional year before replacement.
DanaGlennon of 2 Beech Street suggested an informative sheet to review prior to voting would be helpful. He suggested having an informative sheet at the deliberative session may also be helpful.
Ed Portyrata asked what would happen if this article is defeated.
Chairman Caprioli explained if this article fails, the default budget would take effect.
Article 4. Veterans Memorial Expendable Trust Fund
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $5,000 to be placed in the Newmarket Veterans Memorial Expendable Trust Fund. These funds will be used for the renovations to existing memorials and for proposed new memorials.
Submitted by petition. (Majority vote required).
John Carmichael of 44 Elm Street noted he is on the Veterans Trust Committee. The petition was signed to put the $5,000 back into the budget for the memorial. The funding allocated in the capital reserve had been removed by the Town Council. The bandstand renovations were put on hold due to the downtown renovations. He suggested it would be nice to have this war memorial before all the World War II veterans have passed on.
Michael E. Ploski of 60 North Main Street noted the Budget Committee had put $5,000 back into the capital reserve for the Veterans. If this warrant article passed, the Veterans would receive a total of $10,000.
Vice-Chairman Hart agreed noting the risk is if the warrant article does not pass, even though there are funds allocated for the Veterans within the budget, the Veterans would get nothing because of the “no means no” regulation.
Dana Glennon of 2 Beech Street noted he was the Town Councilor who suggested removing the allocation, not because he was opposed to the memorial or the work the Veterans Committee has been doing, but because his feeling was the Town should provide the space for the memorial and provide the upkeep, but the memorial itself should be built using donations so it does not affect the tax payers. He had spoken with an individual from Massachusetts who suggested their Korean memorial had been built the same way. He was concerned with the potential of now receiving $10,000. He noted the Riverwalk historically has received an annual allocation of $25,000 to be used as matching funds for other grants. Last year that allocation was reduced to $15,000 and this year it was reduced to $5,000. In the near future the Riverwalk Committee would make a presentation before the Town Council for the Gateway. He expressed his concern with the decrease in these allocations considering the Riverwalk Committee has a tangible design. The Veterans Committee does not have a design for the memorial. He cautioned the Budget Committee when cutting funding from the capital reserve for the Riverwalk as these funds are used to get matching funds. He asked for allocations to be consistent across the board.
Larry Pickering explained he had done some research and discovered the Newmarket Bandstand had been paid for by taxpayers through warrant articles two years in a row. He believed the Veterans continue to fundraise for the memorial along with funds received from the Town. He understood the memorial would cost approximately $80,000. The Veterans would continue their fundraising efforts.
Robert Gazda of Packers Falls Road and Vice-Chairman of the Veterans Committee noted there would be a proposal coming before the Town Council for the memorial. He felt there were a number of Town Councilors against the memorial. This was a long term project. He felt it was important not to be negligent to the sacrifices made by the veterans. There are more veterans from Newmarket than any other town in New Hampshire. This memorial is important to recognize and acknowledge those veterans. He would like to see more cooperation from the Town Council.
John Carmichael explained the expenses for the design have not been computed yet. The Veterans Committee is not trying to get an additional $5,000; the Committee is trying to get the $5,000 annual appropriation.
Leo Filion noted if the $5,000 is allocated to the capital reserve, it must go there; the Town Council does not have authority to rearrange those funds.
Michael E. Ploski noted his initial motion to remove the funds was not to take funding away from the Veterans. He respects all veterans; he served in Vietnam. He understood $5,000 when looking at a $10,000,000 overall budget seemed insignificant. He would rather see the memorial postponed for a year or two than to have residents be unable to pay their tax bills.
Ed Portyrata noted he is a World War II veteran. He left high school, enlisted in the military and is now asking whether it was worth it. The wars and conflicts have been fought to better the country. He felt the veterans won the wars just to allow politicians to screw things up. Once out of the military, it was hard for the vets. He suggested at this rate, he may not be around to see the memorial.
Robert Gazda noted allocating the $5,000 to the veterans would add one-tenth of a cent to the tax rate.
Rochelle Sharples thanked Larry Pickering for his comment noting the Committee does fundraise. She believed the Committee was charged with maintaining the memorials, not the Town. These projects were realized through various sources; not just Town allocations.
Article 5. Rescind Bonding Authority for Fire/Rescue/Highway Infrastructure Bonding
To see if the Town will vote to rescind the $1,600,000 bonding authority for the Fire/Rescue/Highway Infrastructure Bond adopted on May 11, 2004, and reaffirmed on August 27, 2008. (Majority vote required).
There were no comments for this article.
Article 6. Change the Purpose of Downtown Redevelopment Capital Reserve Account
To see if the Town will vote to change the purpose of the Downtown Redevelopment Capital Reserve Fund, established May 12, 1998, to the Town Clock Repair and Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund. (2/3 vote required).
Robert Gazda of Packers Falls Road noted he has been the clock keeper since taking over for his father who was a watcher/jeweler in town. His father began maintaining the clock in 1950. The clock was originally installed in 1871 and keeps good time. The last clock overhaul had been done in 1972. He noted it would be a shame to lose the historical clock due to lack of funding for maintenance over the years. The striking mechanism is not operating and the clock face is warped due to weather over time. This clock runs in 20 degree weather during the winter and 110 degree weather during the summer while only losing one or two minutes per week. This clock would be the centerpiece of the downtown area and is worth restoring to pristine condition. This in one of four clocks like this that is still operating, in all of New England
Michael E. Ploski of 60 North Main Street noted since the downtown renovation is almost complete, turning the balance of that fund into a fund for repair and maintenance of this clock would be beneficial. This clock is the highlight of the downtown area. He felt this would be a good use for the balance of this fund.
Dana Glennon asked if the article should include language of transferring the funds, should this article pass.
Administrator Wojnowski noted the article made it clear whatever balance is in the account would be transferred to the new account.
Chairman Caprioli suggested that would be a good item to include on the information sheet. DRA would not allow additional language to be added to the warrant article.
Robert Gazda noted he could not guarantee the clock would continue to run even as well as it has been without repair and maintenance done to it. There is wear and tear on all pivots within the clock.
Article 7. Revise the Purpose of the Sewer Fund Capital Reserve Account
To see if the Town will vote to change the purpose of the Sewer Fund Capital Reserve Fund, established March 8, 1977, to be used for the purpose of improvements to the Sewer System. (2/3 vote required).
There were no comments for this article.
Article 8. Allow Conservation Commission to expend funds.
To see if the Town will vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a I(b) to authorize the Conservation Commission to expend funds for contributions to “qualified organizations” for the purchase of property interests, or facilitating transactions related thereto, where the property interest is to be held by the qualified organization and the Town will retain no interest in the property? (Majority vote required).
Ellen Snyder of 26 Johnson Drive and member of the Conservation Commission explained there have been changes in legislature to RSA 36-A to clarify how Conservation Commissions can expend funds from the conservation fund. The Conservation Commission oversees the conservation fund, which is not related to the Town budget. In order for the Commission to be able to expend funds for conservation projects the Town will hold no legal interest in, this article must pass. The Conservation Commission unanimously supported this article.
Dana Glennon of 2 Beech Street asked if this meant other organizations could purchase property outside of Newmarket using Newmarket conservation funds.
Vice-Chairman Hart noted this article is specifically for lands within Newmarket.
Ellen Snyder agreed explaining this would be to contribute towards the purchase of a property within town the Town would not have a legal interest in.
Vice-Chairman Hart referenced the Smith property noting the Town had contributed a small amount towards the purchase price of that parcel, but those funds had been necessary to complete the project.
Article 9. Allow Conservation Commission to expend funds outside the boundary of Newmarket
To see if the Town will vote to adopt the provisions of RSA 36-A:4-a, I(a) to authorize the Conservation Commission to expend funds to purchase interests in land outside the boundaries of Newmarket, subject to the approval of the Town Council? (Majority vote required).
Ellen Snyder of 26 Johnson Drive referenced the Smith property noting a portion of the property is in Newmarket, but the majority of the property is in Durham. This provision clarifies the authority of the Conservation Commission and allows the acquisition of interest in a property located in another town. This allows for the flexibility to protect land outside of Newmarket in an effort to protect critical resources such as Newmarket’s drinking water sources.
Ed Portyrata of Exeter Road stated he did not believe in using town funds to purchase land outside of town. He asked if such a transaction would need to be approved by the Town Council.
Chairman Caprioli explained there has been a change in the laws, which is why this article will be before the voters. Without voter approval, the Conservation Commission may not have the flexibility of acquiring interest in lands that could protect Newmarket’s resources.
Vice-Chairman Snyder referenced the Smith property noting that some of the property is located within the well head protection area for the Sewell well; it is important to protect that resource.
Michael E. Ploski of 60 North Main Street noted the last line of the article states “subject to the approval of the Town Council.” He asked if the Conservation Commission, using conservation funds, would need approval from the Town Council in order to proceed with acquiring interest in lands.
Ellen Snyder answered any time land is acquired in town, the Town Council needs to approve it. This would provide the flexibility of acquiring interest in property outside of town boundaries.
Chairman Caprioli closed the Public Hearing at 8:17pm.
Chairman Caprioli asked the Budget Committee if they felt there needed to be discussion based on any of the comments made this evening.
Al Zink asked why the gasoline cost varied so greatly from year to year.
Vice-ChairmanHart noted the budget is based on an estimated $2.90 per gallon this year; it had been based on an estimated $1.90 per gallon last year. He referenced the Police Department gasoline budget noting actual expenditures for 2008 had been $27,000. The proposed budget is $32,000. He agreed it may be a little high, but felt comfortable with that difference considering past history with gas spikes and how lean the budget is this year.
Police Chief Kevin Cyr noted the fuel line items within his budget are referred to the Director of Public Works; the town gets gasoline and diesel fuel from a vendor after going out to bid. The anticipate price per gallon from the vendor is $2.90. The budget reflects the same number of gallons as the 2008 budget. The discrepancy between December actual expenditures and final year totals is how tanks are filled and billed. He noted the Police Department has instituted cost savings measures including driving less and limiting idling. It is difficult to guess 18 months in advance what the cost of gas will do.
Eric Botterman confirmed the gallons proposed are the same as last year at 16,840.
Vice-Chairman Hart noted he had not been aware there would be a petitioned warrant article. He noted the Veteran’s Memorial Expendable Trust Fund is the capital reserve fund. He recommended the Budget Committee remove $5,000 from the budget from the Veteran’s Memorial Expendable Trust Fund and let the voters decide whether to fund the allocation. He noted the risk of having the warrant article was if it did not pass, the $5,000 within the budget could not be spent as “no means no.” He noted at the deliberative session, the petition article could be removed and the $5,000 placed within the budget.
Motion: To reduce the Veteran’s Capital Reserve line item from $5,000 to $0 in recognition of the petitioned warrant article.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Al Zink
Leo Filion cautioned the Committee from zeroing out the allocation as no funds could be spent out of that line item with a $0 allocation.
Vice-Chairman Hart amended his motion to reduce the Veteran’s Capital Reserve line item from $5,000 to $1.
Al Zink seconded the amendment.
Michael LaBranche felt the intent of the warrant article had been to replace the $5,000, which had not been removed. He suggested the group who presented the warrant article could ask for the article to be removed. He suggested waiting for the deliberative session. A $0 dollar amount could be put on the warrant article and the same goal would be achieved.
Leo Filion noted the Budget Committee only has the authority to recommend or not recommend warrant articles. The Committee does not have the authority to change warrant articles; that is the jurisdiction of the Town Council.
Vice-Chairman Hart rescinded his motion.
Al Zink rescinded his second.
Vice-Chairman Hart recommended getting a legal opinion so the intent is not damaged unintentionally.
Leo Filion referenced warrant article #2 asking if the full amount could be bonded regardless whether stimulus funding was received or not.
Administrator Wojnowski agreed technically the Town Council would have the authority to go to bond for the full amount. He noted the project is subject upon receipt of stimulus funding and did not feel the Town Council would proceed without receipt of such funds.
Leo Filion referenced the 2002 warrant article for $1.5 million water tank construction which also stated the project would not go unless there were matching funds. The Town Council has discussed still having the authority to bond for that project even though matching funds have not been received.
Administrator Wojnowski suggested the Town Council would likely have discussions about which part of the project would move forward if partial funding was received. The state is still discussing how to allocate funds. The Governor has appointed a representative to be the contact person for determining allocation of the funds.
Motion: To recommend article 2 relating to the Bond for New Village Water, Sewer and Drainage Improvements and for improvements to sewer manholes, acquisition of a step screen and water meter.
Motioned: Michael LaBranche
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Eric Botterman noted the last line clearly stated this was subject to receipt of stimulus funding. He read that to mean if funds were not received, the project would not be done. He asked if the Town Council would still consider moving forward on this project if funds were not received.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the Town is under an administrative order from the EPA. Those issues would need to be addressed. This project would move forward in anticipation of receipt of stimulus funds.
Eric Botterman felt there was deception with this article as the voters would likely read it the same way he did, and believe the project would move forward only if stimulus funding was received.
Administrator Wojnowski noted the Town Council follows the resident’s lead. There would likely be an open discussion as to how to move forward if stimulus funding is not received.
Eric Botterman asked what effect this would have on the water and sewer rates.
Administrator Wojnowski explained the Town is undergoing a water and sewer rate study. Final numbers are not available yet. The new rates would be implemented at the conclusion of the study.
Vote: In favor: Robert Bestani, Eric Botterman, Chairman Caprioli, Vice-
Chairman Hart, Michael LaBranche, Larry Pickering, Al Zink
Opposed: Leo Filion
Motion: To recommend article 3 relating to the operating budget as presented.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor
The Committee discussed whether they needed to recommend the petitioned warrant article.
Motion: To recommend article 4 relating to the Veteran’s Memorial Expendable Trust Fund.
Motioned: Eric Botterman
Seconded: Michael LaBranche
Vote: All in favor
Ed Portyrata of Exeter Street noted for many years Newmarket did nothing in observance of Veteran’s Day. The celebration at the Legion last year had been the first time anything had been done in recognition of veterans.
Review and Approval of Minutes:
February 9, 2009
Motion: To adopt the February 9, 2009 minutes.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor
February 11, 2009
Motion: To adopt the February 11, 2009 minutes.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor – Robert Bestani abstained
Robert Bestani abstained because he had not been present at the meeting.
February 23, 2009
Motion: To adopt the February 23, 2009 minutes
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor – Robert Bestani and Leo Filion abstained.
Robert Bestaniand Leo Filion abstained because they had not been present at the meeting.
February 25, 2009
Motion: To adopt the February 25, 2009 minutes.
Motioned: Vice-Chairman Hart
Seconded: Eric Botterman
Vote: All in favor – Robert Bestani abstained
Robert Bestani abstained because he had not been present at the meeting.
