Town of Gilford, New Hampshire
Deliberative Session
“First Session”
February 6, 2007
At 7:02 p.m. Peter Millham, Town Moderator, opened the deliberative session with the Pledge of Allegiance. There were approximately 170 voters in attendance. Millham introduced the following officials seated on the stage: Denise Morrissette, Town Clerk, Dick Hickok, Budget Committee Chairman, Peter Millham, Moderator, Dennis Doten, Selectman, Alice Boucher, Selectman Connie Grant, Evans Juris, Town Administrator and Debra Shackett, Asst. Town Administrator/Finance Director.
The Moderator explained that this meeting was the third “First Sessions” held in the Town. The “Second Session” is to be held on March 13, 2007. The Moderator explained the procedure for moving the Articles. The procedure is to read, move, second, explain and discuss each Article. The Moderator explained that Articles may be amended and a vote on the amendment would be taken, but Articles cannot be voted on at this session. Millham explained that the first type of Articles were Zoning Amendments. He further explained that these Articles could not be amended but that John Ayer, Director of Planning and Land Use would explain each Article. Millham explained the procedure for voting by secret ballot would be located in the rear of the auditorium and a ballot box would be
available. Millham recognized all non-voters in attendance (Media, Department Managers, etc) and asked that they refrain from voting during the meeting. Millham explained the basic rules of the meeting such as courteous debate and no name-calling or accusing of bad acts. Millham stated that there would be no disorder permitted. Millham stated, “At any time during the meeting I may command constable to remove anyone, and you must be silent at the command of the Moderator.” The Moderator explained that speakers would have 5 minutes the first time at speaking on the microphone and 2 minutes the second time; after all speakers have spoken for the first time. Millham explained that the amendments must be in writing and stated in the positive. Millham explained that the amendment determines the language to be used on the “official” ballot in March. Moving the question will terminate the discussion and move
to the next Article. Millham explained the right of the voters to over-rule the Moderator by vote.
Article 2 was read as written:
Article 2: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend the existing Aquifer Protection District regulations of the Gilford zoning ordinance in the following ways:
1. Delete the existing Section 2.2.7, Aquifer Protection District, and replace it with a new Section 2.2.7, Aquifer Protection District, which is a revision and update of the existing wording, and which describes this special district and its purposes which are to protect, preserve, and maintain potential groundwater supplies and related groundwater recharge areas within known aquifers identified by the Town.
2. Delete the existing term “Aquifer” and its definition found in Article 3, Definitions, and include this term and a revised and updated definition of “Aquifer” in the proposed new Article 19, Aquifer Protection District.
3. Delete the existing Section 5.2.6, Aquifer Protection District, and replace it with revised and updated Aquifer Protection District regulations proposed to be a new Article 19, Aquifer Protection District, which describes uses that are prohibited within the district (including fuel dispensing stations), describes the district boundary, provides definitions of terms, describes how one may challenge the presence of the aquifer on a parcel and more accurately determine the precise boundary of the district if the boundary is disputed, and describes under what conditions pre-existing, non-conforming uses may or may not continue; and renumber the existing Article 19,
Administration and Enforcement, and subsequent Articles as Articles 20 through 24 respectively?
Ayer explained the controversy in last years Ordinance. Passage of this Amendment would remove last years Ordinance and replace with this one (Article 2). This Amendment is modeled after the State of NH 2006 model. Maps located in the lobby of the auditorium show the effected areas. Passage would prohibit gas stations within the Aquifer Protection District. Renumber Article 19 to 24 respectively. Exempts propane from prohibition of being buried. Puts all Aquifer regulations into new Article 19 and fixes many errors and concerns.
Resident Joseph Hoffman spoke in opposition and recommended no changes to the Ordinance. He stated, “This is to accommodate Cumberland Farms. Leave it alone.”
Ayer further explained that this Amendment is proposed by the Planning Board and will prohibit gas stations within the Aquifer District.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 3 was read as written:
Article 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 8.8, Signs Not Requiring a Permit, by creating a new Section 8.8.7, Charitable/Non-Profit Organization Event Sign, creating regulations permitting limited display of signs that advertise events conducted by charitable and non-profit organizations, establishing how and when such signs may be posted and removed, and establishing the size and number of signs that may be displayed?
Ayer explained each sign could be up to 6 square feet and up to 20 total signs.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 4 was read as written:
Article 4: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 11, Special Exceptions, by changing Section 11.1, Application, to authorize the Director of Planning and Land Use to issue letters of denial which would allow applicants to apply for special exceptions before applying to the Planning Board, and to rewrite the requirements of this section for clarity including arranging the requirements in individual paragraphs?
Ayer explained that the process would change. Currently the applicant goes to the Planning Board for denial and then is referred to the Zoning Board of Adjustments (ZBA). Passage would allow the applicant to go directly to the ZBA to obtain a Special Exception.
Hoffman stated that it is a waste of time to have to go to the Planning Board first.
Ayer explained that this was a way to streamline the procedure and eliminates having to go to the Planning Board first.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 5 was read as written:
Article 5: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 4 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 11, Special Exceptions, by changing Section 11.2, General Rules for Special Exceptions, in the following ways:
1. Change subparagraph (a) from requiring a finding that prior application was made to the Planning Board and notice was sent to various town boards, to requiring a finding that a letter of denial was issued for the special exception;
2. Delete from subparagraph (c) the requirement to find that the proposal is not “offensive” to the neighborhood.
3. Modify subparagraph (f) to require a finding that “the proposal is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan”?
Ayer explained that the Article amends rules for the ZBA to grant special exceptions and restates standards so they coincide with the changes proposed in Amendment 3. Removes the option to find that a proposal is “offensive” to the neighborhood (which can be subjective). Corrects the name “Master and Comprehensive Plan” so it reads “Master Plan” and revises the required finding to be “the proposal is consistent with the spirit of the zoning ordinance and the Master Plan” removing reference to the “intent” of the Master Plan.
Jack Woodward of Goodwin Rd., spoke in opposition of the Article. He further explained that he felt a “single word carries a lot of significance.” “Offensive to neighborhood” was referring to the York Farm senior housing/adult community. Woodward explained that a large group was opposed to the development with high density being a main issue. Wetlands and water were other issues. The Planning Board had concerns of the housing being built in a Residential area. He said that the ZBA did not support the Planning Board. ZBA denied the application and the developer took the case to court. The court ruled against the ZBA and the developer won the case. Woodward feels that the Planning Board “proposing to eliminate weakens ZBA and takes
away rights of citizens.” Woodward did not want to remove the wording “offensive” and “urged voters to vote no.”
Neil Flaherty spoke in opposition.
Everett McLaughlin spoke in opposition.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 6 was read as written:
Article 6: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 5 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 12, Variances, by changing Section 12.2, Application, in subparagraph a. to authorize the Director of Planning and Land Use to issue letters of denial which would allow applicants to apply for variances before applying to the Planning Board; correct the name of the Historic District and Heritage Commission in subparagraph c.; and clarify that a public hearing may be held by the Board of Adjustment once an application is accepted as complete?
Ayer explained denial of jurisdiction and that the Article would give the Director of Department of Planning and Land Use (DPLU) authorization to forward applicants directly to ZBA. He further explained that the Article corrects the name of the Historic District.
Hoffman asked, “Who determines if it goes forward? Boat yard doesn’t appear in the Zoning Ordinance. Lack of jurisdiction. Who has the supreme authority to look it over and send to Planning Board or ZBA?” Hoffman made a comment of obstruction to justice.
Ayer responded DPLU proposing use and would direct applicant to find different use or forward to ZBA. Ayer further explained the boat yard was Grand fathered.
Hoffman wanted to know if Fay’s Boat Yard was Grand fathered or not. Further stated that abutters were never notified and that the “golden rule doesn’t apply here.” “ZBA rules.”
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 7 was read as written:
Article 7: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 6 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 14, Historic District, by changing Section 14.3 to say “Department of Planning and Land Use” rather than “Planning Board office”; changing Section 14.7, Certificates of Approval, to correctly tell applicants where to obtain application forms and to make it clear that a review by the Historic District and Heritage Commission may be required even if no permit is required by the Zoning Ordinance or the Building Code; correcting the name of the Historic District and Heritage Commission throughout the Article; and making other minor grammatical corrections?
Ayer explained the article stating that if a building permit is not required the applicant would still need to be reviewed by Heritage Commission. The Article also updates the reference to the Historic District and Heritage Commission.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Article 8 was read as written:
Article 8: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 7 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Article 15, Wetlands District, by changing the first paragraph of Section 15.4.2, Special Exception, in regards to what boards and committees staff is to notify when an application for a wetlands-related special exception is submitted and when to notify them, and to make other minor grammatical changes?
Ayer explained that this Article currently directs staff to send a copy to Board of Selectmen and Town Engineer but the amendment would eliminate that step. Site study is to review and comment.
Article 9 was read as written:
Article 9: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 8 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 2.2, Special Districts, by changing Section 2.2.1, Historic District, to correct the name of the Historic District and Heritage Commission and reference the name “Gilford Village Historic District” by which the District is also known?
Ayer explained that this Article was a “housekeeping issue.”
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion. With there being none, he read the next Article.
Other Municipal Articles
The Moderator read Article 10 as written:
Article 10: To see if the town will raise and appropriate the sum of $1,025,000 to purchase the development rights on the Bean property (map & lot numbers 228-012 & 210-034), which borders Saltmarsh Pond and to authorize the issuance of not more than $1,025,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33) and to authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereon. (Passage of this article shall override the ten percent limitation imposed on this appropriation in the event of non-recommendation by the Budget Committee) (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee) 3/5 majority vote required.
Moved by: Sandra McGonagle
Seconded by: John Goodhue
McGonagle made a motion to amend as follows:
“To see if the town will raise and appropriate the sum of $980,000 to purchase the development rights on the Bean property (map & lot numbers 228-012 & 210-034), which borders Saltmarsh Pond and to authorize the issuance of not more than $980,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33) and to authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereon. (Passage of this article shall override the ten percent limitation imposed on this appropriation in the event of non-recommendation by the Budget Committee).”
Seconded by: Everett McLaughlin
McGonagle, Chairperson for the Land Task Force (a sub-committee of Board of Selectmen) explained the need for the reduction in funds due to fund raising efforts and an updated lower appraised value of the property.
Vote on Amendment: A voice vote in the affirmative, Amendment carries.
Hoffman spoke in opposition of the Article. Hoffman was questioning the assessed value of the property.
McGonagle explained the appraised value as of 1/15/2007.
Goodhue spoke in support of the Article.
McLaughlin showed a visual map to the audience and explained the criteria that the Committee looks for when considering land.
1. Unique – Pristine
2. Bargain Sale
3. Adjacent property to conservation land.
Kevin Hayes questioned the easement and rights to walk the property.
McGonagle explained that there is a 50’ strip around the Pond. The easement included an approved snowmobile trail for hiking and cross-country skiing.
Barry Grevatt asked who would be responsible for the mowing and picking up of debris.
McGonagle explained that the Bean’s would still be responsible.
Hoffman spoke in opposition of the Amendment again explaining the appraised value vs. the assessed value and the fact that the Town will never own the property.
A resident questioned whether the property is currently in a Current Use status. The answer was yes it is.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator Read Article 11 as written:
Article 11: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a long-term lease/purchase agreement with no non-appropriation clause, to purchase a new fire truck in the amount of three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($325,000) payable over a term of three years and to withdraw one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) from the Fire Equipment Capital Reserve Fund for the first year’s lease payment. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee) 3/5 majority vote required.
Moved by: Richard Hickok
Seconded by: Constance Grant
Hickok explained that the Budget Committee favored the Article in a 6 – 4 vote.
William Akerley made an Amendment as follows:
“To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a long-term lease/purchase agreement with no non-appropriation clause, to purchase a new fire truck in the amount of three hundred three thousand six hundred twelve dollars ($303,612) payable over a term of three years and to withdraw one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) from the Fire Equipment Capital Reserve Fund for the first year’s lease payment.”
Moderator Millham questioned the double negative within the Article/Amendment.
Fire Chief, Jim Hayes, explained that this Article is to replace Engine 1. He further explained that the reduction was because he only had a “ballpark figure” at the beginning of the budget process. Chief explained the “no no appropriated clause” wording was because of it being a withdrawal in a Capitol Reserve Fund.
With no further discussion the Moderator called for a vote on the Amendment.
The vote was in the affirmative and the Amendment carried.
The Moderator opened discussion on the Article:
Theresa Walker asked if there is no tax increase how was it being paid for. Moderator Millham responded that it was being paid for with future expenditure.
Walker asked how much it would be. The Moderator explained that it would be similar to a bond payment.
Hoffman asked how old the truck was.
Hayes responded that the truck is 29-years old.
Hoffman commented that UPS never buys a new truck because of proper maintenance.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 12 as follows:
Article 12: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,658,122. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,449,495, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only. This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles.
(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)
Moved by: Hickok
Seconded by: Dennis Doten
Hickok explained the three pages in the hand out of the Budget Analysis.
Hoffman asked if each item was going to go over by account number.
Hickok replied that it was not going to be done that way.
Hoffman spoke about Arel resigning and Juris being hired. He further accused the Board of Selectmen of not having the authority to make a new position for Shackett, he quoted RSA 39:2.
The Moderator asked Hoffman to stop and to sit down.
Hoffman ignored the Moderator and continues speaking over him.
The Moderator asked Hoffman to stop and sit down again.
Hoffman continued to ignore the Moderator.
8:31 p.m. the Moderator asked for Constable to escort Hoffman from the meeting, Hoffman continued to speak over the Moderator. Hoffman was escorted from the meeting.
Alida Millham proposed an Amendment to the Article as follows:
“To see if the Town will raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,672,001. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,449,495, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only. This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant
articles.”
Amendment Seconded by Phil Arel.
Mrs. Millham further explained the breakdown of the increase as follows:
1. $8,749 – Genesis Behavioral Health
2. $1,800 – New Beginnings
3. $3,330 – Red Cross
$13,879 – Total Increase
Mrs. Millham further explained the Amendment of the increased spending for the “outside agencies.” Mental Health and Domestic Violence was a public – private partnership that is critical and she urged the support of the increase.
Hickok explained that the Budget Committee has struggled for years about the appropriation using taxpayer funds. He explained that private funding was available. He said that although they all do good work it was a small application to the citizens of Gilford. The Budget Committee voted 6 – 4 against funding.
Pastor, Michael Graham echoed Alida in Support of the Amendment. He spoke on behalf of the strength of the community for the vulnerable and voiceless.
Chief Hayes offered additional information in regards to the local chapter helping with immediate assistance to flood and fire victims.
Cinde Warmington spoke in support and on behalf of Genesis. She stated that the help to uninsured citizens was 166 residents in Gilford in the year 2006 and of the 166 residents, 47 were children.
Neil Flaherty – Past member of Red Cross and Board of Fire Engineers spoke in opposition. He stated that people should personally contribute to funding and was worried how many more agencies would ask for funding in the future.
Meg Jenkins spoke in favor funding. She explained her personal interaction with New Beginnings and the intervention provided. She values the vital community resource.
Doug Lambert spoke in opposition explaining that other towns also struggle with the funding through taxation. He explained that the Town has a welfare budget and that there is also State and Federal funding available. He does not feel that it is a prudent use of tax dollars.
Susan Smith spoke in support of the Amendment reminding the audience of the quality of life that the agencies provide for in the Town.
Alice Boucher spoke in support of the Amendment personally (not speaking as a Board member). She explained that the Board of Selectmen wants the choice to go to the voters. Personally speaking she states that the agencies are vital to the community.
Dennis Doten explained that the comments have been misconstrued; Initially the Board of Selectmen recommended expending the funding to the agencies.
Karen Thurston, a citizen of Gilford for 34 years spoke in support of the Amendment.
Arel commented that the agencies are not new to the funding process. He further stated that the conversation at the Budget Committees Public Hearing was to fund the agencies. He stated that the Budget Committee did not understand the core values of the Town. He stood in support of the Amendment.
With no further discussion the Moderator called for a vote on the Amendment.
The vote was in the affirmative and the Amendment carried.
The Moderator asked the audience not to applaud.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 13 as written:
Article 13: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of two hundred seventy one thousand, six hundred dollars ($271,600) to be added to the Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)
Moved by Hickok as read.
Seconded by Boucher
Hickok explained that the funds are to repair Hoyt Bridge.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 14 as written:
Article 14: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)
Moved by Hickok as read
Seconded by Boucher
Hickok explained the burden to replace in one lump sum.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 15 as written:
Article 15: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Ambulance Replacement Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)
Moved by Hickok as read
Seconded by Dale Channing Eddy of Chestnut Dr.
Hickok explained it was the same as the previous Article.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 16 as written:
Article 16: To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1 for the purpose of funding Compensated Absences and to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)
Moved by Hickok as read
Seconded by Doten
Hickok referred to Shackett for explanation.
Shackett stated the purpose of putting money aside per the Auditor’s recommendations is for employees leaving the Town’s employ.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 17 as written:
Article 17: To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Building Repairs and to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok
Seconded by Boucher
Hickok referred to Evans Juris for an explanation.
Juris stated the purpose is for funding any type of emergency building repair. He further explained the problems with the elevator in the Town Hall and the cost of $8,700 not being budgeted. He stated that the elevator had to be fixed due to ADA requirements. He expects the cap on the fund account to be around 25K.
Hickok added a point about support for a miscellaneous fund account. He explained that the reality is that the budget is all spoken for.
McLaughlin asked if the accounts were drawing interest.
Deb Shackett responded that they were drawing interest and the Trustees of the Trust Fund were responsible for obtaining the highest interest rate available.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 18 as written:
Article 18: To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1 for the purpose of a Police Facility and to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.
(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok as read
Seconded by Grant
Andy Howe explained the purpose of the money being used to develop plans for a cost estimate.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 19 as written:
Article 19: To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Sewer Maintenance and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok
Seconded by Doten
Shackett explained that the money would be used in the event of a break in the sewer line and/or station. The fund would be self-supporting by the sewer users.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 20 as written:
Article 20: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate sixty three thousand five hundred dollars ($63,500) to purchase a Highway Truck. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok
Seconded by Boucher
Hickok explained that the funds would be used to replace a snow plowing truck.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 21 as written:
Article 21: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the Laconia Airport Authority to be disbursed upon written notification that the major capital improvements have been approved by the Federal, State and Local agencies, as well as being in compliance with state and local land use and environmental requirements. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok
Seconded by Boucher
Hickok explained that this is the third year of funding.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 22 as written:
Article 22: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for invasive species management. This shall be used for milfoil removal in Smith Cove. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).
Moved by Hickok
Seconded by Grant
Hickok explained that the Budget Committee in favor of funding because of the $80K collected annually that the Town receives in the General Fund from boat registrations. The Budget Committee feels it will help to justify the use of the boat registration revenue.
Doten spoke in support of the Article as he is not in favor of using chemicals for treatment of the milfoil and feels that harvesting by hand will be the best method to protect our lake and waters.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 23 as written:
Article 23: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to accept the donation from the Friends of the Gilford Library, a non-profit corporation, by deed, of land and buildings~to house a new Gilford Public Library, provided that the building has been substantially completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued prior to conveyance.
Moved by William “Bill” Seed
Seconded by Eddy
Kate Hamel & Robert Kammeraad gave an overhead presentation explaining the gift of the Library as an opportunity of a lifetime. No tax dollars were going to be used in the future to build and that this Article will improve the quality of life in Gilford.
A resident asked about the parking situation.
Kammeraad explained that they were speaking with the church and that most of the parking would be located in the back of the building with 4-5 spaces for parking in the front of the building.
Rick Moses asked if the building was in the Historic District.
Kammeraad confirmed that it was in the Historic District and that they have been in contact with the Committee to appear on the next agenda.
Lambert asked why they were not using the land that was already purchased and he wanted to know what an explanation of “substantially completed” meant.
Kammeraad explained that “substantially completed” would me approval with a Certificate of Occupancy. He explained that the property chosen became available unexpectedly and all the Trustees agreed that it would be a better spot for the new Library. No taxpayers funds were used as it was paid for privately.
McLaughlin wanted to give a standing ovation for the very grateful gift. The Moderator warned McLaughlin that the standing ovation was not appropriate at this meeting. The conversation was followed by applause from the audience.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 24 as written:
Article 24: To see if the Town will vote to establish a Recreation Revolving Fund pursuant to RSA 35-B:2 II. The money received from fees and charges for recreation programs and donations shall be allowed to accumulate from year to year, and shall not be considered to be part of the Town’s general fund. The Town Treasurer shall have custody of all monies in the fund, and shall pay out the same pursuant to the policy developed by the Town (upon order of the Board of Selectmen). These funds may be expended only for recreation purposes as stated in RSA 35-B, and no expenditure shall be made in such a way as to require the expenditure of other town funds that have not been appropriated for that purpose.
Moved by Doten
Seconded by Boucher
Shackett explained that this Article would allow the Recreation Dept. to use fees generated from programs. Fees would be set a side in an account.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 25 as written:
Article 25: To adopt the provisions of NH RSA 41:14a to grant the authority to the Selectmen to acquire or sell land, buildings, or both; provided, however, they shall first submit any such proposed acquisition or sale to the Planning Board and to the Conservation Commission for review and recommendation by those bodies. After the selectmen receive the recommendations they shall hold two public hearings at least ten but not more than fourteen days apart on the proposed acquisition or sale; provided, however, upon the written petition of 50 registered voters presented to the selectmen prior to the selectmen’s vote, according to the provisions of RSA 39:3, the proposed acquisition or sale shall be inserted as an article in the warrant for the next town meeting.
Moved by Boucher
Seconded by Grant
Juris explained that the Article allows the Board of Selectmen to make decisions on purchasing land. Passage of this Article would take away the Town Meeting vote.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 26 as written:
Article 26: To see if the Selectmen will appoint a Welfare Director, rather than electing one annually. Appointment to be effective April 1, 2008.
Moved by Grant
Seconded by Doten
Juris explained that passage of this Article would result in the position being appointed by the Board of Selectmen to choose a qualified candidate.
Lambert asked if this would be an annual appointment or what would be the length of the appointment.
Juris explained the position would be similar to appointing a Town employee.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 27 as written:
Article 27: Are you in favor of changing the term of the town treasurer from one year to three (3) years, beginning with the term of the town treasurer to be elected at next year’s regular town meeting?
Moved by Doten
Seconded by Boucher
Shackett explained passage of the Article would stabilize the position.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 28 as written:
Article 28: To see if the Town will vote to designate as part of the Town Forest under RSA 31:110, the Weeks Tract of 236 acres, more or less (part of the tax map 238-005.000) purchased by the Town in 2005, to authorize the Conservation Commission to manage the property as part of the Wilson-Weeks Town Forest in accordance with RSA 31:112, and to authorize the placement of any proceeds that may accrue from forest management in the Conservation Fund to accumulate under RSA 31:113.
Moved by Boucher
Seconded by Grant
Doug Hill explained that this is a housekeeping Article. Enacted to add to the current Town Forest.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 29 as written:
Article 29: To see if the Town will vote to rescind the establishment of the Budget Committee under the provisions of RSA 32:14, and in its place establish an advisory budget committee, with authority limited to making recommendations to the Selectmen and School Board on their respective proposed budgets. If approved this advisory budget committee shall have six (6) members, who shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen, with input from the Gilford School Board. The members shall serve staggered terms, beginning the year of adoption with 1/3 of such members appointed to hold office for one (1) year, 1/3 for two (2) years and 1/3 for three (3) years, and each year thereafter, 1/3 shall be appointed for terms of three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified.
(Submitted by Petition)
Moved by Phil Arel
Seconded by David Buckman, Ridgewood Ave.
Arel explained that the Budget Committee was not functioning properly and not in the best interest of the community. He stated that a number of communities have this (appointed) form of government. He explained that the Board of Selectmen should be held accountable for appointing. He made reference to the Budget Committee checking their First Amendment Rights at the front door. He stated that he expects more from our Public Officials.
Richard Campbell made a motion to amend the Article by striking out all wording after the reference to RSA 32:14, so that it shall read as follows:
“To see if the Town will vote to rescind the establishment of the Budget Committee under the provisions of RSA 32:14.”
Nancy Campbell seconded the motion to Amend.
Arel questioned amending a petition warrant article.
Moderator explained that the amendment process was allowable.
Arel stated that he stands corrected.
R. Campbell explains the amendment is intended on cleaning up the Article even though he does not agree with the Article. He feels that the Article as written is misleading to the voters.
Doten spoke in favor or the amendment for a clearer decision to the voter. Doten made note that he was in opposition of the Article.
Buckman spoke in support.
Joe Wernig spoke against the amendment.
Wayne Snow a 50-year resident, Asst. Town Moderator, Former Selectman and Former Budget Committee member of 18 years stated that it would be a mistake to do away with the Budge Committee. He stated that the Budget Committee is elected and if they’re not doing their job it should be corrected at the election.
Moderator Millham explained to Mr. Snow that the comments should be directed at the amendment and not at the Article at this time.
With no further discussion the Moderator called for a voice vote on the Amendment. The vote was too close so the Moderator asked for a show of hands and for volunteers to count. The vote was in the affirmative 63 Yes – 43 No the amendment carried.
The Moderator read the Article as amended and opened the floor for discussion:
W. Snow spoke in opposition. He said, “The Budget Committee does work, you put everything back in tonight.”
Buckman spoke in favor of the Article.
Eddy spoke in opposition of the Article.
Lambert urged the voters to vote no. He spoke in opposition of the Article. He stated that the characterization of holding the Budget Committee is wrong, that there was no impoliteness on behalf of the Budge Committee. He further stated that work was done in depth and detail with much discussion. He feels that it is a functioning vibrant committee and that they have been mischaracterized. He is proud to be on the Committee.
Dale Dormody agreed that most part of the public sessions had good leadership skills from the Chairman and he held a level of decorum. Mr. Dormody commented that outside the meeting room is where things have broken down severely. He stated that the Committee made a spectrum of all Town Employees and Town Officials. He wants the Budget Committee populated by people that will drive the Town forward.
Kevin Roy stated that the petition warrant article came across by frustration by what has been heard and read in the newspapers. After thinking about it and setting personal feelings aside – He cannot support the Article as written. He said, “We need the Budget Committee, and we need to be represented by the people we elected.”
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. With there being no further discussion he read the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 30 as written:
Article 30: To see if the Town will go on record in support of effective actions by the President and the Congress to address the issue of climate change which is increasingly harmful to the environment and economy of New Hampshire and to the future well being of the people of Gilford. These actions include: 1. Establishment of a national program requiring reductions of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while protecting the U.S. economy. 2. Creation of a major national research initiative to foster rapid development of sustainable energy technologies, thereby stimulating new jobs and investment. In addition, the town of Gilford encourages New Hampshire citizens to work for emission reductions within their communities, and we ask our Selectmen to consider the appointment of a
voluntary energy committee to recommend local steps to save energy and reduce emissions. The record of the vote on this article shall be transmitted to the NH Congressional Delegation, to the President of the United States, and to declared candidates for those offices. (Submitted by Petition)
Moved by McLaughlin
Seconded by Woodward
McLaughlin explained that this is a non-binding resolution.
Lambert spoke in opposition.
The Moderator asked if there was any further discussion on the Article. At 10:05 p.m. (Approximately 140 people in attendance) there being no further business to come before the meeting, the Moderator declared the meeting adjourned to March 13, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
Signature on file
Denise A. Morrissette
Town Clerk – Tax Collector
Contact Denise Morrissette, Town Clerk for a certified copy of original minutes.
| 
