Online Services

Pay Online
Online Vehicle Registration Renewal Online Property Tax, Water & Sewer payments Online Dog License Renewals Vital Record Request E-Reg Estimates
GIS & Property Database

View of Carroll from Sugarloaf

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

Search Minutes of Town Board Meetings

2017 Building Committee Archives

Older Archives

Back to 2024 Records

Minutes of 9/28/2017 APPROVED

October 13th, 2017

Town of Carroll Building Committee Meeting Minutes
September 28, 2017 @ 9:00 a.m.
Carroll Town Hall

Members present: Tadd Bailey, Paul Bussiere, Allan Clark, Mike Finn, John Gardiner, Greg Hogan, Brad Houston, Janet Nelson, Jeremy Oleson, Terry Penner, David Scalley, Imre Szauter, and John Trammell.

Guests present: Wayne Garneau and Kelly Trammell.

The Building Committee (the “Committee”) meeting began at 9:00 a.m. and was recorded.

Attendees stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

An agenda was distributed and a sign-in sheet was routed around.

Attendees introduced themselves.

The Sep. 14th draft meeting minutes were discussed. John Gardiner made a motion, seconded by Janet Nelson, to approve the minutes as written. The vote in favor was unanimous.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the draft PowerPoint presentation for the Sep. 28th informational session, to be held in Town Hall at 7:00 p.m. Using the projector borrowed from the Historical Society, he began a walk-through of each frame of the presentation, soliciting comments and suggestions from attendees.

The proposed agenda for the informational session was as follows:
o Introductions
o Objectives and accomplishments
o Process
o Existing buildings analysis
o Architectural discussion
o Conceptual drawing, elevations and floor plans
o Cost, schedule and property tax implication
o Questions?
o Concluding Remarks

On frame #7, Allan Clark emphasized that the presentation should make clear that any information being shared with the public is not final. The Committee’s work to date will be covered, but the emphasis of the informational session should be that public input is vital to success of the project.

On frame #10, Janet Nelson asked whether Allan Clark planned to discuss in detail the non-compliances of the existing buildings. Allan Clark responded that he would not go into detail on the issues with the existing buildings, as the deficiencies are documented elsewhere. Jeremy Oleson added that the Town Hall deficiencies, such as the interior paneling, means of egress, and alarm systems, have been documented and presented to the Select Board. Allan Clark stated that George Brodeur’s thorough 2014 renovation analysis of Town Hall sets the stage for arguing that building a new facility is in the best interest of the town.

On frame #12, Allan Clark suggested modifying the square footage bullet point to address the new Town Hall space requirements as opposed to the fire department’s space requirements because a resident had asked about repurposing the fire department building to serve as the new Town Hall.

Terry Penner asked about the office space used in the current Town Hall. Imre Szauter outlined the 4,186 sf (square feet) used in Town Hall, not including the now-closed gymnasium.

Kelly Trammell suggested that discussion of unused spaces in Town Hall should include a statement that the second floor of Town Hall is considered non-compliant and unsafe for occupancy. Imre Szauter replied that at the Sep. 25th Select Board meeting he asked that one of the Selectmen be willing to address issues such as this during the informational session. Further, he stated he expected that Police Chief John Trammell and Fire Chief Jeremy Oleson would address police department building and fire department building deficiencies, respectively.

Allan Clark suggested changing references to the Town Hall to exclude the community room, as it is not considered part of the administrative office space.

David Scalley asked if handouts were planned for the informational session. Imre Szauter indicated none were planned, as the quantity to print is always an issue and it seems a better use of resources to post relevant information on the town website.

On frame #15, Allan Clark stated that he and Peter Stewart did not include any recreational uses on the concept drawing, as they felt this topic was reserved for community input. Certainly the visitor area around the gazebo, the trails on the property, and the wetland area bordering US 3 and School Street present opportunities for community input.

On frame #21, a graphical comparison of the community room with the now-closed gymnasium is proposed. Wayne Garneau suggested including the stage area in the graphic, showing the actual size of the space as 3,900 sf instead of just the gymnasium floor as 3,400 sf. Imre Szauter agreed to modify the graphic.

On frame #22, Terry Penner asked if we were using the 2016 property values for discussion of the project’s potential impact on property taxes. Allan Clark replied that he planned to speak in general terms about the property tax implications. He also stated that while we anticipate applying for and receiving grants and rebates from government and other sources, we won’t know the final tax implication until the project cost is established, the loan type and rate is determined, and other factors. In addition, lower operating and maintenance costs will have an indirect effect on the cost of the project, with lower expenses for the new facilities partially offsetting the project cost.

John Gardiner asked where in the presentation the issue of School Street and the new driveway to the campus would be discussed. Allan Clark indicated that during the site plan discussion we would mention School Street and the proposed driveway. He cautioned that there may be an elevation difference between the current School Street and the proposed driveway, making it difficult to connect the two without substantial changes to School Street itself.

Paul Bussiere asked about constructing two buildings instead of one, and whether the buildings would be constructed on slabs or on foundations, possibly including a basement under Town Hall. Allan Clark indicated that a basement was not recommended under the public safety building, and while no basement was envisioned under Town Hall at this time, there could be a partial or full basement under a portion of Town Hall if there was a need for one. Allan Clark stated that the architect would address the issue of two buildings in more detail, but it comes down to cost. He offered that constructing a single building to stricter public safety building fire- and life-safety codes would be more costly than constructing two separate buildings, each designed to meet codes related to their intended use.

Kelly Trammell asked whether the Committee would raise the issue of the fate of the existing structures or wait until it was brought up by someone at the informational session. Following a discussion, attendees agreed that adding a bullet point that reads “Expectation of private sale” to the existing building analysis frames #10 and #12 would allow Allan Clark to raise the issue and defer to the Select Board members if attendees had additional concerns or questions.

David Scalley asked about the projected cost for the public safety building, referencing the bullet points on frame #10 that highlight George Brodeur’s analysis and the projected cost of a new Town Hall in the $1.25 million range. Allan Clark responded that he envisions the public safety building in the $2.5 million range. He emphasized that those projections were total project costs, not just construction of the building; the total included loan/bond interest, utilities during construction, furniture, equipment, moving expenses, and more.

Kelly Trammell asked whether using George Brodeur’s 2014 dollar cost estimate for renovation of the Town Hall should be stated in today’s dollars. Allan Clark answered that he preferred to leave the bullet item the way it is, and elaborate only if there are questions from attendees.

Wayne Garneau referenced the concept drawing and asked about the route shown for the snow mobile trail. Allan Clark stated that the route is conceptual at this time; once a civil engineer was retained, the actual route and intersection with US 302 would be determined.

Allan Clark stated that the informational session was not designed to convince attendees to vote for the project but rather to gather their feedback and questions to help the Committee refine the work completed to date. He suggested a marketing campaign should begin after the informational session, in which the Committee provides information to individuals, groups, and businesses about the project and its value to the town.

Allan Clark pointed out that the community room size is the one topic the public should debate and decide, as the Committee chose the 150-person capacity (1,477 sf) based on their expectations.

At the conclusion of the PowerPoint presentation discussion, Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the marketing campaign suggested previously by Allan Clark. John Trammell stated that the Committee should offer to speak with any town group or business interested in discussing the project. The Chamber of Commerce and the snow mobile club were mentioned as two potential groups with which to meet.

Imre Szauter mentioned that he accepted an invitation, arranged by Mike Finn and Terry Penner, to address the Bretton Woods Property Owners Association (BWPOA) on Oct. 14 at 11:00 a.m.

Terry Penner stated that he sent out a letter to Bretton Woods property owners advertising the informational session scheduled for Sep. 28th at 7:00 p.m. in Town Hall.

John Trammell suggested developing an informational tri-fold brochure for distribution to residents, businesses and groups.

Allan Clark offered that after the informational session, the Committee should focus on marketing the project. He suggested a PowerPoint presentation that emphasizes why the town needs new facilities; the process the Committee followed to get to this point; the efficiencies of the new structures in terms of energy usage, lower maintenance, and future expandability; and that the project is cost-effective because it uses simple construction techniques and maximizes space utilization. Further consideration should be given to the ever-increasing costs of construction and financing a project of this size.

John Gardiner asked if anyone had received feedback on the letter that was mailed Sep. 15th to all property owners. Several attendees shared what they heard from residents. Imre Szauter indicated a few letters had been returned to Town Hall, most without forwarding address information.

Terry Penner asked if the experience with the town transfer station provides any lessons the Committee can reuse. John Gardiner replied that he thought that project passed on the first attempt, in part because of the perseverance of several individuals. Greg Hogan offered that while the transfer station is well-built and efficiently-operated, it doesn’t produce much revenue for the town because of a saturated market for recyclables and scrap materials.

David Scalley reported the most persistent question he gets from the community is “How much will this cost me?” He stated that the cost should be addressed in the simplest terms possible, such as “The cost on a property with a valuation of $100,000 will be X dollars per year.”

David Scalley pointed out that delaying construction would likely cost taxpayers more in the long run because the town would still have to upgrade and maintain the existing buildings while construction costs and interest rates continue to rise.

Allan Clark emphasized that not only are construction costs increasing, but material scarcities are becoming evident as a result of major hurricane damage in the southern US. On a positive note, Allan Clark pointed out that an attractive municipal campus complex could become a catalyst for business investments in the community, as business owners and investors would view the new facilities favorably.

Kelly Trammell mentioned that future recreational opportunities, supported by the community, could attract additional support from voters because walking trails and picnic areas are tangible benefits for residents and visitors. The community room shown on the town hall floor plans should further enable residents to feel they will directly benefit from the project.

Kelly Trammell suggested that any promotional material created by the Committee contain information on providing feedback, whether online, by mail, or by dropping off comments at Town Hall, to encourage more community input.

Wayne Garneau asked if another informational session was planned after the Sep. 28th session. Imre Szauter replied that having at least one more, possibly in December, would keep the project visible in the community.

Imre Szauter agreed to create a promotional brochure skeleton for the next meeting.

Allan Clark commented on scheduling one or more additional informational sessions and how the Committee should continue to build support for the project between now and the February deliberative session and the March town vote.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on other issues. He reported on Committee reports to the Select Board. Additionally, he provided an update on Committee account balances. The miscellaneous expenses account has $1,591.48 (out of $2,500 authorized) and the warrant article account has $40,612.50 (out of $60,000 authorized).

Imre Szauter summarized current action items:
1) Post approved Sep. 14th Committee meeting minutes on the town website and Google Drive (Imre Szauter)
2) Finalize Sep. 28th informational session PowerPoint (Imre Szauter)
3) Create promotional brochure skeleton for next meeting (Imre Szauter)

There were no additional action items identified.

Imre Szauter polled attendees for any closing remarks.

David Scalley commented on Rena Vecchio’s letter in the Reader’s Forum column of the Sep. 20th edition of the Coos County Democrat. He stated that Rena’s letter was very positive and likely to sway some voters to support the project for reasons cited in her letter. David Scalley further emphasized that the project should be viewed as a long-term investment in the community by the community, signaling to current and future businesses that the town believes in its future and supports it.

Allan Clark suggested that the next meeting of the Committee should be determined by the outcome of the Sep. 28th informational session. The next regular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for Thursday, Oct. 12th at 9:00 a.m. in Town Hall. If questions and comments during the informational session suggest community disapproval or significant changes to the conceptual plan, floor plans and/or elevations, the Committee will meet on Oct. 5th at 9:00 a.m. in Town Hall. Imre Szauter will send out an email on Sep. 29th announcing if the Oct. 5th meeting is necessary.

Terry Penner made a motion, seconded by John Gardiner, to adjourn the meeting. The vote to adjourn was unanimous.

The meeting adjourned at 10:28 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Imre Szauter.