Town of Gilford, New Hampshire
Deliberative Session “First Session” Minutes
February 3, 2010
Peter Millham, Town Moderator called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. with the Pledge of Allegiance. Millham asked all Non-voters to stand up to be recognized. Millham introduced the following officials on the stage:
Denise Morrissette, Town Clerk
Richard “Dick” Hickok Chairman of the Budget Committee
Gustavo “Gus” Benavides, Selectman
J. Kevin Hayes, Selectman
John O’Brien, Selectman
Scott Dunn, Administrative Assistant
Millham took a moment of personal privilege – He stated that he has been Moderator since 1971 to current; for 39 years. He said, “That it has been an honor to have been the beneficiary of voters trust and confidence in me over those years. The townspeople desire to have the meetings run fairly and smoothly. It made the job easy because it’s not the Moderator who controls things, it’s the people and their desire to have them controlled that make it possible.” He said, “It’s been and enjoyable venture or adventure for me and I want to thank you.” Millham went back and looked at 1971 town report and pointed out a few interesting things, or rather a lot of interesting things in there that he would comment on today. What was not printed in the
report but was in his memory was that a lot of roads were not paved – hills would be paved but tops and bottoms would not be paved so that the roads wouldn’t wash out. He noted that there are not many unpaved roads in town today. Original Town Hall had a small hall in it for meetings, plays, and all the offices were in that building. That building now is a part or a wing on the Gilford Church. One of the biggest changes that affected the Moderator’s job was getting the voting machine. That saved so much work that it got everyone home 4 hours earlier at night. Millham said that the Town has grown tremendously. His recollection was that Gilford had 1000 or fewer registered voters in 1971 and now there are well over 6,000 registered voters today. Millham stated that if you looked at the 1971 Town Report it reveals the effect of the population and demand for services placed upon our Town government. Millham talked
about several Town Departments comparing size of employees and budgets and referenced how much the town has grown in all respects and further stated that it does not illustrate any wastefulness. What it does illustrate is inflation and increase of services that have been required because of the increase in population. Millham remarked that over his time he has work with only three Town Clerks. He explained that the Moderator and Town Clerk have to work together for the preparation of these meetings, also on the balloting and getting everything ready. Millham said, “It’s a great resource to have the Town Clerk to lean on to get those things done. Some of the responsibilities with regards to the meeting are the Selectmen, some are the Moderators, and some are the Town Clerks. Over that period of time the Town Clerk who also started in 1971 was Lorraine Royce. She was Town Clerk for many years and then we had Debbie Eastman.
Probably many of you can still remember Debbie because that was only five years ago; and of course we now have Denise Morrissette and all of them have been very conscientious and wonderful to work with. With that, I’m going to proceed with the meeting.”
Millham stated another change was that he has never had so few people at a town meeting. (A count by Jennifer Mooney, Deputy Town Clerk – Tax Collector confirmed that there were 59 people in attendance)
The citizens in attendance gave the Moderator a round of applause.
Millham went over the rules of the meeting. He said the debate will be courteous, no name calling, disorder will not be permitted. As a general procedure Articles will be moved and seconded. The proponent of the Article will be given an opportunity to explain it. Speakers will have five minutes to speak the first time and two minutes to speak the second time on one Article. Speakers will not be recognized the second time until all speakers have spoken the first time. Millham asked speakers to go to the microphones to speak and wait in line for your turn. Amendments must be in writing and stated positively. That means that if you vote “yes” you vote in favor of the Amendment. There will be no Amendments to Amendments. Once the Amendment is voted on
there can be a second Amendment. Amendments will determine the language appears on ballot. If the Article has been amended it will appear on the ballot in the amended form. There will be no final vote on any Article. Once there is no further discussion we will move on to discuss the next article. Moving the question except on Amendments will terminate the discussion but there will be no vote since we will have to go onto the next Article. Motions to dispose of Articles and attempt to remove them from the ballot will not be recognized. Balloting if required will be by checklist, by the ballot box in the center rear. Voters have the right to over rule the moderator by a majority vote at any time.
The Moderator read ARTICLE 1 with the list of Candidates running for the necessary Town Officers for the following year:
One Selectman for a 3 year term
Margo Weeks
“Gus” Benavides
Joseph F. Hoffman
One Moderator for a 2 year term
Dennis M. Corrigan
Joseph F. Hoffman
Sandra T. McGonagle
One Trustee of Trust Funds for a 3 year term
Peter “Rick” Moses
Two Library Trustees for 3 year terms
Steven Geer
Tracey G. Petrozzi
Three Budget Committee Members for 3 year terms
David R. Horvath
Mark Corry
Dale Dormody
Philip “Pat” Labonte
Dale Channing Eddy
One Fire Engineer for a 3 year term
Philip A. Brouillard
One Cemetery Trustee for a 3 year term
Judith A. Cott
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 6 year term
Mary E. Villaume
Irene Lachance
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 2 year term
Connie Moses
Millham explained that the Zoning Amendments are treated somewhat different than the rest of the Articles. The will be moved and explained but there can be no Amendment to a Zoning Article. Once they are explained and no one has anything to say the Moderator will move on to the next Article.
The Moderator asked if anyone objected to the mover as referring to the Article by the designated number. There were no objections.
ARTICLE 2: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Create a new Article 22, Workforce Housing, to comply with the requirements of state law (RSA 674:59), to provide a realistic opportunity for the development of needed workforce housing within Gilford, to promote the continued availability of a diverse supply of home ownership and rental opportunities, and to meet the goals related to workforce housing provisions set forth in the Gilford Master Plan. The regulation establishes standards to allow development of single-family, duplex, multi-family, and manufactured housing as Workforce Housing; establishes density bonuses for qualifying projects; and establishes related definitions, standards, and
requirements for Workforce Housing projects. Also to amend Article 4, Permitted Uses and Regulations, by creating a new Section 4.2.11 to allow Workforce Housing in the Single-Family Residential, Limited Residential, Professional Commercial, Resort Commercial, and Commercial zones; and by creating a new Section 4.7.2(k) to refer to standards of the new Article 22, Workforce Housing? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 2 and explained that the Planning Board was trying to create an environment where there could be more affordable housing – the term used is “workforce housing” which is a bit different than affordable housing. Workforce house was in the 2004 Master plan update and recently the State has created a requirement for towns to have regulations that provide a reasonable and realistic opportunity for the development of workforce housing. Ayer explained the particulars on the development of the Ordinance. It creates a new Article 22 and proposes an Amendment of Article 4 – it explains where the uses are permitted.
Dick Hickok asked if the Town currently meets the requirement for workforce housing.
Ayer replied that some would argue we do and some would argue we don’t and the only really way to know is to do a very thorough study of the Town and it has not been done. He further explained the types of current housing in Gilford.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 3 regarding fire ponds for fire fighting purposes. The Planning Board worked with the Fire Department to come up with a more reliable system that would not fill will silt.
Skip Murphy asked about the approximate cost of setting it up and would it conflict with Article 2 by raising the price of building affordable housing?
Ayer stated that the last couple of fires ponds that we had would have cost less if they would have started with that in the beginning in his opinion. He explained the cost differences and maintenance issue down the road. This would create a reliable water supply.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 4: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 3 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 5.1.4, Side Setback Area, and Section 5.1.5, Rear Setback Area, to allow detached accessory buildings up to fifteen (15) feet high to be built ten (10) feet from the side and rear lot lines, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 4 explaining that the current set backs are 10’ from rear but not the side and limited to 12’ for detached accessory buildings.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 5: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 4 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Delete the existing Section 6.2, Obnoxious Uses, and replace it with a new Section 6.2, Nuisances. The proposed new regulation prohibits creation of dangerous, injurious, noxious, hazardous, unhealthy, and similar objectionable disturbances, including exposures to smoke, noise, garbage, dust, odor, pollution, lighting, water runoff, and similar conditions. The proposed regulation exempts normal operations of agriculture-related uses? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 5 by explaining that there is a current Ordinance that is somewhat ineffective and this would define what specifics would qualify for nuisances for enforcing.
Skip Murphy asked about the lighting and the “dark sky” initiative that is being pushed a lot of communities and asked if a bright light in his back yard would be considered a nuisance because they can no longer see the stars?
Ayer responded by saying that it was not a reaction to the “dark sky” initiative but if someone had light aiming at your house all the time but it would be more along the idea of commercial use. Someone would have to look at it and evaluate the situation to see if a reasonable person would consider it to be obnoxious.
There was no further discussion. The Moderator moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 6: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 5 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Amend Section 6.6 by changing the title to Unlicensed and Commercial Vehicles; to require motor vehicles not intended or in condition for legal use be parked or stored in approved automobile repair or sales facilities except under certain circumstances; to require in residential zones that competition vehicles (such as stock cars), and vans and trucks with a carrying capacity greater than one (1) ton, be stored out of sight; and to allow storing at single-family or two-family dwellings in residential zones, motor vehicles not intended or in condition for legal use in quantities in bulk up to two (2) provided such vehicles are kept within a building and are out of sight of adjacent properties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office
and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 6 by explaining that the Article addresses unlicensed and commercial vehicles. The Article would modify the current regulations and require to be operable and not just registered – if it is dismantled it should be in a building out of sight (up to 2 vehicles in that case). It also requires restriction on vehicles such as vans and truck that are greater than one ton capacity to be stored out of sight whether they are registered or not.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 7: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 6 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:
Create a new Article 21, Conditional Use Permits, to establish general regulations, standards, and procedures for the processing, review, and approval of Conditional Use Permits by the Gilford Planning Board as authorized by RSA 674:21, Innovative Land Use Controls, and to renumber the existing Article 21 and subsequent Articles as needed; and to amend Article 4, Permitted Uses and Regulations, to include in its opening paragraphs an explanation for the references to Conditional Use Permits in Article 4? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Polly Sanfacon
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: John Ayer
Ayer summarized Article 7 by explaining this allows for use of some lots that have less than standard frontage. Town Council recommended having this in place and Ayer further stated that it has been in the Statutes for years. The change would make the Town more in compliance.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 8: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to repeal involuntary mergers of contiguous non-conforming lots in common ownership and allow lots involuntarily merged by the municipality to be unmerged and considered lots of record subject to all other aspects of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances by deleting language from Section 9.1, adding new language to Section 9.1 and deleting Section 9.1.1 in its entirety? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed
at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Barbara Aichinger
Seconded by: Skip Murphy
Discussion by: Barbara Aichinger
Aichinger introduced herself and she read testimony which she explains that she and 58 other Gilford citizens have organized the petitioned warrant article. It is their hopes to eliminate the involuntary lot merging in the Town of Gilford. She announced the website www.NHPropertyRights.com that she has started and referred citizens to her website for additional information on her research. Aichinger gave several examples of inconsistencies in regard to lot merges of non conforming lots with regards to town
officials; town owned property and forcing mergers on their citizens. She gave several examples of property owners including one on Diamond Island and her own property - this resulted in economic waste of tax revenues. Aichinger stated that it is a destruction of land values into thin air. Aichinger further gave historical data back to the late 1990 through 2007 when her property was remerged on Edgewater Drive and stated that unmerges stopped for everyone in town. She further stated that the results of the Planning Departments actions have been several law suits and reversal of the interpretation of the ordinance. Aichinger spoke in support of the Article and wants unmerged non conforming lots to be treated like any other non conforming lot. She concluded with a quote written decision by the late Justice Frederick Goode of Rockingham County as follows:
“What the town of Candia has done in this case by treating Mr. Snow’s separately deeded acreage as a single zoning lot is clearly unreasonable. When a restrictive policy, regulation, or ordinance as applied to a particular piece of land is unnecessary to accomplish a legitimate public purpose, or the gain, by such a restriction, to the public is non-existent or slight but the harm to the citizen and his property is great, the exercise of the municipality’s police power becomes arbitrary and unreasonable, and judicial intervention will afford relief under the constitution of this state.”
Aichinger urged the Citizen’s of Gilford to Vote yes on Article 8 to protect its citizen’s property rights and to treat property owners fairly and in a consistent manner.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 9: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to amend Section 5.2.1, Island and Shore Frontage District, of the Gilford Zoning Ordinance by adding a new Section 5.2.1 (g) to prohibit public boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots under certain circumstances, but to allow private boat launching ramps and related parking and storage facilities on shorefront lots as an accessory use under certain circumstances? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date
of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Stephen Nix
Seconded by: Maureen Nix
Discussion by: Stephen Nix
Nix personally thanked the Moderator for his years of service and recalled is first meeting with Millham and paraphrased Arthur Tilton.
Nix explained the purpose of Article 9 was to protect and preserve existing residential shorefront neighborhoods from excessive traffic and noise. It restricts public boat launching and related parking under certain circumstances but allows private boat launching and related parking and storage under certain circumstances. Nix explained that this Ordinance is in response to the Master Plan on page 43 – it further states that the Town should investigate additional boat launching on other properties.
Skip Murphy asked it the Ordinance was a result of Ames Farm Inn’s commercial activity?
Nix replied that it is not geared to any one piece of property specifically.
Murphy asked Ayer in his professional opinion would this Ordinance have an adverse effect on Ames Farm?
Ayer replied, “Yes it would.” He further explained that the Board’s recommendation was against the Ordinance because there was not enough time to research the effects of the Amendment. Board members were uncomfortable prohibiting boat launching in any zone.
Peggy Ames asked for permission to speak as she is not a registered voter of Gilford. The Moderator asked if there were any objections. There being no objections the Moderator allowed Ames to speak.
Ames spoke in opposition to the Article and further stated that Zoning is already in place protecting launching. She feels that the Article is truly directed to Ames Farm Inn.
The Moderator asked if there were any other questions. Hearing none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 10: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to amend the Gilford Zoning Ordinance to delete in its entirety the existing Article 15 that established the wetlands district and replace it with a new Article 15 establishing a water resources conservation overlay district to be applicable to all other zoning districts under certain conditions, including standards that create a fifty (50) foot protective buffer setback adjacent to wetlands, allowing certain uses and activities by special exception, establishing certain standards for special exception applications, and creating standards for mitigation plans for control of erosion and sedimentation? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: Larry Routhier
Seconded by: Lee Duncan
Discussion by: Larry Routhier
Routhier of Sleeper Hill Rd. explained that he is a member of the Gilford Conservation Commission and that he is officially speaking on behalf of the Gilford Conservation Commission. A wise friend once said to him, “A solution to pollution is dilution.” Natural dilution comes in wetland and the buffers act as filters for all the things that go into waters. Protection is needed in all the waters, lakes, rivers and streams. He explained how chemicals, fertilizer and silt work their way down into the drinking water and lakes. The Ordinance is designed to minimize the impact of the run off. He stated that on a side note Winnipesaukee was creeping close to exceeding the safe limit that is allowed on maximum phosphorus levels. The Gilford Conservation Commission fully
supports the Article and asks citizens to support it as well. Conservation Commission members were available for questions.
Diane Hanley of Labonte Farm Rd. spoke in favor of the Article. She explained that she is a new member of the Gilford Conservation Commission and shared her past experience from being on the City of Laconia Conservation Commission. She said that this Ordinance is standard in many towns and cities across the country. There is a negative trend on water quality. The set back is a good way for the water to be filtered naturally through the soil. She feels this is a standard operating procedure and it should not be a problem. She encouraged us to take care of our economic resource – Lake Winnipesauke.
Aichinger asked the Gilford Conservation Commission how this Ordinance differs from the shore land protection act. She further stated that there is already a 50’ set back with the shore land protection act.
Nix responded that the shore land protection act protects ponds and streams this Ordinance would protect other types of wood wetlands and smaller brooks and streams so that it’s a completely different item.
Aichinger ask for the definition of wetlands.
Nix explained that they use the State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental Service’s (DES) definition (RSA 485-A) so there will be no confusion.
The Moderator asked if it included vernal ponds.
Nix’s reply was, “yes” as defined by DES.
Aichinger asked about special exceptions. She asked if things were going to be allowed within the 50’ set back by special exception.
Nix responded that special exceptions would be permitted and gave an example where you have to cross the wetlands and impact the buffers to access the rear of a lot and it would require a plan by a professional that would take into consideration the run off.
Aichinger asked how that was different from today.
Nix gave an example of parking lot being paved up to the brook on Route 11.
Jack Stephenson sees this as a creeping land confiscation and spoke in opposition of the Article.
Everett McLaughlin stated that Gilford is the only town in this area that doesn’t have these buffers in place. They are important for quality of water and for wildlife that use these as corridors extensively. State has control over prime wetlands but we have no control over wetlands that are not considered prime wetlands.
Ames (Non-Resident) asked for permission to speak again. The Moderator allowed Ames to speak. She spoke in opposition of the Article as a majority of their property is wetlands and will be greatly impacted by any buffer zones. She said that they realize the importance of the buffer zone. The concern is the lack of input and information. Ames Farm would like more information and that the Planning Board does not support this Article. She stated that there are a lot of unknowns.
The Moderator asked if there was any other discussion on the Article. There being none he moved to the next Article.
ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees
and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)
Motion to move: William “Bill” Akerley
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: Jim Hayes, Fire Chief
Chief Hayes summarized that this Article would replace the existing fire code adopted in 1989. It is the same warrant article that was on the warrant last year and explained there was a specific time frame for recording with the Town Clerk’s Office and they failed to meet the time frame. Even though it passed on the warrant last year, it was recommended by Town Council that the Selectmen nullify the vote and that we go through the adoption process again this year to make sure everything was done correctly in a procedural manner so that there could not be any challenges. There are no changes to the Ordinance that was proposed last year.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions. The Moderator asked if anyone wished to speak on the Article. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 12 as follows:
ARTICLE 12: Shall the Town 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 $11,113,660? Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $11,316,244, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the Board of Selectmen 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. (Recommended by the Budget Committee 10 to 0) (The Selectmen recommend a budget of $11,117,521 by a vote of
3 to 0)
Motion to move: Richard “Dick” Hickok
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: Dick Hickok, Budget Committee Chairman
Hickok commended the Board of Selectmen, Departments and Employees of the town for coming up with a great budget. More outstanding part way through the budget year health insurance benefits were up $100K. The Budget Committee was pleased by the out come as shown in the results of the vote to recommend.
Moderator asked what the difference between the Budget Committee’s recommendation and the Budget Committee’s recommendation of about $4K.
Administrator Dunn explained that the Selectmen wanted citizens to see that there was two different numbers. That being said the Selectmen were not prepared tonight to amend the warrant Article and in fact if the Article does not get amended the Selectmen will then take a vote on recommending the Budget Committee’s number.
Tim Sullivan – Bedford Ave said that there was no explanation of what the $4,000 was actually for and wanted to know what the extra $4,000 would go towards.
Millham explained that the $4,000 would not be in the warrant Article unless someone amends it and puts it in their. The ballot will not include it.
Sullivan wanted an explanation of where the funds were going to be used.
Hayes explained that it was from different line items within the budget. The best way to find it is in the detailed summary looking at the differences.
Benavides informed Mr. Sullivan that the particular areas are cemeteries and finance.
Millham asked it there was any other discussion on the Article. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 13 as follows:
ARTICLE 13: To see if the Town will vote to approve the cost items included in the one year collective bargaining agreement reached between the Board of Selectmen and AFSCME Local 534 on behalf of certain Public Works Department employees, which calls for an estimated increase of fifteen thousand six hundred three dollars ($15,603) for wages and benefits at the current staffing levels for the year 2010; and furthermore, to raise and appropriate the sum of fifteen thousand six hundred three dollars ($15,603), such sum representing the estimated additional costs necessary to fund the collective bargaining agreement in the current fiscal year over the appropriation for wages and benefits paid in the prior fiscal year. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended
by the Budget Committee 10 to 0)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: Gus Benavides
Benavides explained that DPW agreed to no COLA increases, merit raises with 4% increase. The town gave them uniformed items. He further explained that even though DPW has a contract, they agreed to give up sick pay bonus resulting in a tremendous savings in the Town of Gilford and that the Board is very grateful.
Hickok confirmed that the Budget Committee supports the Article.
The Moderator asked if there was any other discussion. There being no further discussion the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 14 as follows:
ARTICLE 14: Shall the Town, if Article 13 is defeated, vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to call one special meeting, at its option, to address Article 13 cost items only?
Motion to move: Kevin Hayes
Seconded by: John O’Brien
The Moderator asked if anyone needed an explanation of the Article.
There being no discussion the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 15 as follows:
ARTICLE 15: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be added to the Compensated Absences Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 11 to 0)
Motion to move: John O’Brien
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: Geoff Ruggles
Ruggles explained that the fund was set up a few years ago to cover the sick time/vacation time payout to long term employees. The town could take a large hit to the budget. This fund is designed to use if several employees were to leave within the same budget year and if the monies could not be found within other areas of the current budget. Fund balance in 2009 is $20K and the $10K is scheduled to go into the fund this year.
The Moderator asked if there was any other discussion. There being no further discussion the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 16 as follows:
ARTICLE 16: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be added to the Glendale Boat and Launch Ramp Facilities Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 11 to 1)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: Sheldon Morgan
Morgan explained that this is the third installment of funds put aside for the restoration of Dock 1 at Glendale.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions. There being no further discussion the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 17 as follows:
ARTICLE 17: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be added to the Water Supply Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 8 to 1)
Motion to move: Kevin Hayes
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: Jim Hayes
Hayes explained that these funds were the third installment for the purpose to repair existing water supply used for fire protection. Hayes gave examples of Bickford Road washing out and filling the fire pond. It took 18 months for storm assessments to be completed and to receive the funds from the Federal Government. This would bring the fund to the $30K limit the Fire Department was looking to establish.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions. There being no questions the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 18 as follows:
ARTICLE 18: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of eighty-five thousand dollars ($85,000) for repairs, renovations and/or replacement of the Fire Emergency Rescue Vehicle and authorize the withdrawal of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) from the Fire Equipment Capital Reserve Fund previously established for that purpose. The balance of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) is to come from general taxation. This will be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7,VI and will not lapse until the Fire Emergency Rescue Vehicle is fully operational or by December 31, 2012, whichever is sooner. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 8 to 1)
Motion to move: John O’Brien
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: John Beland, Deputy Fire Chief
Beland explained that $60K would be removed from the fund and raise $25K by taxation to renovate the 1992 heavy rescue vehicle – it is not an ambulance it is a vehicle that responds to a host of incidents including motor vehicle accidents, technical rescue such as ice water rescues, below grade rescues, high angle rescues, building claps rescues and carries all of that equipment. The major scope of the project would deal with enhancing the power package on the vehicle to increase the generator size to more effectively and efficiently run the hydraulic power rescue tools which are more commonly known as the “jaws of life.” It would also provide better, safer scene lighting for the members. Secondly a redesign and reconfigure some of the compartments space to more ergonomically safe for
members lifting heavy tools out of the compartments. The “jaws of life” weighs 72 lbs. and members risk back injuries trying to lift out of the compartment. There is moderate corrosion to the vehicle that could get worse. The vehicle itself is mechanically sound all the work proposed would be to the body of the vehicle. The plan is to extend the life for 10 years by doing the renovation at this time.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or further discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
Beland congratulated Millham on his retirement and said that he would also like to congratulate Chief Hayes for 30 years of service to the Town; he will be retiring in April.
The Body applauded Chief Hayes.
The Moderator Read Article 19 as follows:
ARTICLE 19: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a three year lease/purchase agreement in the amount of one hundred sixty-eight thousand nine hundred forty-one dollars ($168,941) for the purpose of purchasing new breathing apparatus for the Fire-Rescue Department; and to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty-six thousand three hundred thirteen dollars ($56,313) for the first year’s payment for that purpose, provided that any such agreement shall contain a non-appropriation escape clause. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 8 to 1)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: John Beland, Deputy Fire Chief
Beland explained that these funds would be used for the most vital piece of equipment used in the Fire Department – it is for the replacement of breathing apparatus. This will be a 3-year lease/purchase agreement.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or further discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator Read Article 20 as follows:
ARTICLE 20: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 9 to 3)
Motion to move: Kevin Hayes
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: Sheldon Morgan
Morgan explained that this money is set aside for expensive items.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or further discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 21 as follows:
ARTICLE 21: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be added to the Recreation Facilities Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 11 to 0)
Motion to move: John O’Brien
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: Herb Greene, Recreation Director
Greene explained that the fund was set up for ongoing projects such as Phase II of the playground and other items to do with the Gilford Beach.
Millham interjected to thank Sheldon and his crew for setting up for the voting/elections.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or further discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 22 as follows:
ARTICLE 22: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be added to the Sewer Maintenance Capital Reserve Fund previously established. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 11 to 1)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: None
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 23 as follows:
ARTICLE 23: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of three thousand five hundred dollars ($3,500) to support a share of the services provided to Gilford residents to access counseling and family support services, without regard to income from Child and Family Services. Child and Family Services provides accessible and affordable programs to children, youth and their families leading to stronger family connections, improved school performance and better citizenship. From July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, 51 Gilford residents receive 728 units of service and 4 days of residential care valued at over $75,000 from Child and Family Services. (By Petition) (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 2 to 1) (Recommended by the Budget
Committee 6 to 5)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: None
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 24 as follows:
ARTICLE 24: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) to support the operations of Community Health & Hospice, Inc., a local agency that provides visiting nurse services, hospice care, homemaker services for the elderly, and pediatric care to residents of the Town of Gilford, NH. Town funds are used chiefly to support hospice care, pediatric care to children at medical or social risk, homemaker services allowing the frail elderly to avoid institutionalization, community wellness clinics, caregiver & bereavement support groups, immunization services and other charitable home care. In 2009 residents of Gilford received 4326 home visits from Community Health & Hospice, Inc., and 240 participated in
immunization clinics, wellness clinics and support groups. (By Petition) (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 7 to 4)
Motion to move: Kevin Hayes
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: None
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 25 as follows:
ARTICLE 25: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of eight thousand seven hundred sixty-two dollars ($8,762) to support the operation of the Laconia Area Center of Community Action Program. The Laconia Area Center staff provides low income, elderly and disabled residents of Gilford assistance with basic needs such as fuel assistance, electric assistance, Meals-on-Wheels, rental assistance, security deposits for housing and maintain a food pantry accessible every day during business hours. In 2008 residents of Gilford received $586,470 in services through the programs of Community Action Program, Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Inc. and the Laconia Area Center. (By Petition) (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 2 to 1) (Not Recommended
by the Budget Committee 5 to 6)
Motion to move: Judy Scothorne
Seconded by: Alida Millham
Discussion by: Judy Scothorne
Scothorne explained that she is a resident of Gilford and Director of the Community Action Program spoke in favor of the Article. The funds will be used for the operations of the center. She reiterated the amount of money that was used for staff salaries and that it is the biggest expense. The costs are share with other towns, state and federal funds. No county funding is received for the program. The area helps Gilford residents with basic life needs heat, lights and rent using resources other than local property taxes. The Town is required by law to provide these basic necessities to residents in need. Funding and generous donations are received and help to relieve the local tax burden. Entire amount will be used for those in need and not for administrative costs.
She explained the importance of the partnership with the towns they serve to provide relief to towns.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 26 as follows:
ARTICLE 26: To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand nine hundred sixteen dollars ($10,916) to Genesis Behavioral Health for the delivery of Emergency Mental Health Services. These services include access to Master’s level clinicians and psychiatrists by individuals, schools, police and others, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. (By Petition) (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 2 to 1) (Recommended by the Budget Committee 6 to 5)
Motion to move: Cindy Warmington
Seconded by: Gus Benavides
Discussion by: Cindy Warmington
Warmington explained resident and volunteer member asks for support of the Article. She explained that the services are for mental health emergency services for Gilford residents. Funds are for evaluations and involuntary hospital 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The explained the $400.00 deficit and they are asking towns for a total of $100K for support. This year they are experiencing a horrific budget deficit due to the cuts in the state budget.
Kelley White, resident, volunteer member and physician spoke in support of the Article stating that 150 Gilford residents were served with emergency behavioral health care last year.
Skip Murphy spoke in opposition to the Article. He said that in all these cases they give good care and services but that he has a philosophical problem with giving to charities. He feels they should be funded by the voluntary act of giving and that it is wrong to fund these programs through taxation.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 27 as follows:
ARTICLE 27: To see if the Town will vote to establish a revolving fund pursuant to RSA 31:95-h for the purpose of providing public safety services by municipal employees outside of the ordinary detail of such persons, to be effective as of January 1, 2011; whereby all revenues received for public safety special details as of that date will be deposited into the fund, and the money shall not be considered part of the Town’s general fund unreserved fund balance. The Town Treasurer shall have custody of all monies in the fund, and shall pay out the same only upon order of the Board of Selectmen, whereby no further approval by the Town Meeting will be required to expend, provided that such funds may only be expended for the purposes set forth herein. (Recommended by the
Board of Selectmen 3 to 0)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: Scott Dunn
Millham questioned the language of the Article ending with “herein.” He asked if “herein” was referring to the public health safety services.
Dunn answered “yes.” He further explained that Legislative changes allow this change and it is specific to the purpose of fire and police details. Money will come out of the budget in future years and it will be self sustained.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 28 as follows:
ARTICLE 28: To see if the Town will vote to establish a revolving fund pursuant to RSA 31:95-h for the purpose of providing ambulance services; to be effective as of January 1, 2011; whereby forty percent (40%) of all revenues received for ambulance services as of that date will be deposited into the fund and the money shall not be considered part of the Town’s general fund unreserved fund balance. The Town Treasurer shall have custody of all monies in the fund, and shall pay out the same only upon order of the Board of Selectmen, whereby no further approval by the Town Meeting will be required to expend, provided that such funds may only be expended for the purposes set forth herein. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0)
Motion to move: Bill Akerley
Seconded by: John O’Brien
Discussion by: John Beland
Beland explained that it is the objective as Article 27. Revenues will support the ambulance services, equipment and supplies.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 29 as follows:
ARTICLE 29: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to retain and hold a parcel of real property acquired by Tax Collector's deed, consisting of approximately 0.8 +/- acres of undeveloped land situated at 10 Guild Circle and more particularly described as Map 240, Lot 30, to be retained for open space conservation purposes dedicated for public use pursuant to RSA 80:80. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0)
Motion to move: Gus Benavides
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: Scott Dunn
Dunn explained the property was taken by Tax Collector’s deed it was found to have a significant amount of wetlands. Instead of putting the property up for auction or sale the Selectmen asked the Conservation Commission for a recommendation. The Conservation Commission recommended the Town retain it for conservation purposes. In order to make that legal it requires a town meeting vote.
The Moderator asked if there were any questions or discussion. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 30 as follows:
ARTICLE 30: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to enter into a twenty-five (25) year lease agreement with the Gilford School District to provide administrative office space at the Old Library, located at 2 Belknap Mountain Road, to be known henceforth as the Wilbur & Louise Harding Building, under such terms and conditions as the Selectmen may deem to be in the best interest of the Town. (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen 3 to 0)
Motion to move: John O’Brien
Seconded by: Kevin Hayes
Discussion by: Gus Benavides
Benavides explained that the Town has shown success in the ownership of what is known as “the old library.” The Board of Selectmen recognized the Harding by having their name upon the building. The cost would be $1.00 per year for the next 25 years. Currently the SAU/Taxpayers have been paying $3,600 yearly. Savings will be passed onto the Taxpayers.
The Moderator asked if there were any other statements regarding the Article. There being none the Moderator moved to the next Article.
The Moderator read Article 31 as follows:
ARTICLE 31: To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representatives, our State Senator, the Speaker of the House and the Senate President: Resolved: The citizens of New Hampshire should be allowed to vote on an amendment to the New Hampshire Constitution that defines “marriage”. (By Petition)
Motion to move: Skip Murphy
Seconded by: Dale Channing Eddy
Discussion by: None.
At 8:45 p.m. Kevin Hayes mad a motion to adjourn.
Seconded by John O’Brien
All were in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
Denise A. Morrissette, CMC
Town Clerk
| 
