Town of Carroll, New Hampshire

• Town Services
• Town Meeting Minutes
• Planning Board/ZBA
• Applications & Forms
• Town Clerk/Tax Collector
• Map
• Home

Minutes of Town Board Meetings

• Planning Board
• Board of Adjustment
• Select Board
• Budget Committee
• Building Committee
• Energy Commission

Minutes of 10/12/2017 APPROVED

October 27th, 2017

Town of Carroll Building Committee Meeting Minutes
October 12, 2017 @ 9:00 a.m.
Carroll Town Hall

Members present: Allan Clark, Mike Finn, John Gardiner, Greg Hogan, Janet Nelson, Jeremy Oleson, Terry Penner, and Imre Szauter.

Guests present: Susan Kraabel, Lois Pesman, and Kelly Trammell.

The Building Committee (the “Committee”) meeting began at 9:02 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. 28th draft regular meeting minutes were discussed. Mike Finn made a motion, seconded by Janet Nelson, to approve the minutes as written. The vote in favor was unanimous.

The Sep. 28th draft informational session minutes were discussed. Terry Penner made a motion, seconded by Mike Finn, to approve the minutes as written. The vote in favor was unanimous.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the Sep. 28th informational session. Mike Finn stated that he thought the informational session went well, with good comments and questions from attendees.

Lois Pesman commented that because the buildings are set back quite far from the road, there should be appropriate signage for travelers on US 302.

John Gardiner mentioned that the Committee has discussed removal of some trees between School Street and US 302, opening the view from the US 3 and US 302 intersection.

Jeremy Oleson added that the community may get more involved when recreational opportunities are proposed, such as rehabbing the trails on the property.

Allan Clark stated that lighting of the campus, proper signage and removal of some trees will make the buildings much more visible by night and during the day. Those issues will be addressed in Phase Two of the project.

Terry Penner commented that he was surprised with the attendance at the informational session, given that only twenty-two people (mostly Committee members and their families) attended the Jun. 22nd informational session. He also stated that it is likely that many of those attending already favor the project, so we have to work hard to reach out to those who don’t or who haven’t decided yet.

Kelly Trammell asked about a private sale of Town Hall and what can be done to prevent someone from purchasing it and just letting it sit vacant. Allan Clark replied that restrictions can be placed in the deed to address this. Terry Penner added that any repurposing of the building would likely have to go before the Planning Board, allaying fears that something undesirable would happen to the property.

Terry Penner asked if there were grant funds available for restoration of Town Hall, should it be designated as an historic site. Several Committee members offered that modifications to the building, including the town offices addition and the vinyl siding, make historic site designation very unlikely.

Imre Szauter commented that the informational session sign-in sheet was incomplete, as it wasn’t routed around during the meeting. Kelly Trammell offered to review the sign-in sheet to help identify those who did not sign in.

Imre Szauter mentioned that one attendee asked if the Committee had a contingency plan in place should the project proposal fail. John Gardiner offered that planning for something other than what has been proposed would likely cost more in the long run, especially if the contingency plan proposed completing the project in two or more phases.

Allan Clark stated that upfront costs for completing a multi-phase project would be much greater than if the project were completed in a single phase. Infrastructure costs, including septic and storm water retention systems, plus paving, lighting and utility services, should be done in one phase so as not to disrupt emergency and administrative services if just one building were constructed and another planned for a later date.

John Gardiner added that offering multiple project options usually results in confusion, and voters would opt for the lowest-cost warrant article, ignoring the additional expenses of delaying completion of all needed service facilities.

Kelly Trammell offered that perhaps the contingency plan question wasn’t so much a method for seeking a cheaper option as much as just getting something done, whether just public safety services (police and/or fire) or a replacement Town Hall.

Imre Szauter stated that he would have liked more discussion on potential recreational opportunities during the informational session. As Jeremy Oleson pointed out earlier, inviting residents to get involved in revitalizing the central and eastern portions of the property would help create a greater sense of community.

Janet Nelson commented that beautification grants may be available through non-profit organizations such as a garden club to help fund flower beds on the parcel.

Jeremy Oleson mentioned that information comparing current energy and operational expenses with anticipated expenses in the new facilities might convince some to support the project. Imre Szauter stated that some examples of current and future expenses were listed on the reverse side of the agenda. Some of the data were used during the January 31st informational session, including fuel oil and electricity costs for all three buildings and lease and tax payments for the police department building.

Terry Penner asked if Peter Stewart’s work with the Committee was complete. Allan Clark replied that other than renderings to be used in marketing the project, Peter Stewart’s work was complete. Terry Penner followed up by asking if comments made during the informational session on a sound barrier to the west of the campus, showers in the Town Hall restrooms for emergency shelter duty, and other issues would be included in this phase. Allan Clark replied those issues would be addressed in Phase Two.

Susan Kraabel asked about the bond payment amounts shown for the water project and the transfer station. Imre Szauter provided Susan Kraabel with bond payment tables for both projects, showing a steady yearly payment for the water project (bond retires in 2022) and a decreasing yearly payment for the transfer station (bond retires in 2024).

Imre Szauter concluded the discussion on the informational session by asking Committee members for ideas on when to hold the next informational session. Attendees indicated a mid- to late-January date would be appropriate. Jeremy Oleson texted the town moderator to determine the date for the 2018 deliberative session and he stated that the date in February is chosen by the Select Board.

Susan Kraabel asked if another letter would be sent out prior to a 2018 informational session. Imre Szauter stated that the September Mailings Unlimited distribution cost about $500. There were 787 letters sent out, with about 40 returned for bad addresses. Another letter could be created and sent out, perhaps using the registered voter roll, as opposed to the property owner mailing list that was used for the September mailing.

Kelly Trammell asked if email could be used for the next mailing, instead of the USPS. John Gardiner pointed out that a potential problem with email distributions is that some messages may end up being quarantined by SPAM filters, reducing the effectiveness of the distribution.

John Gardiner asked what information would be presented at the January informational session. Allan Clark replied that the firm “not-to-exceed” project cost and the tax impact would be shared with residents.

Susan Kraabel asked when the new town property valuations would be set. Kelly Trammell replied that the valuation process is not yet complete, so letters have not been mailed out to property owners.

Imre Szauter asked if a presentation should be made at the deliberative session. Jeremy Oleson offered that a brief presentation might be beneficial. It could contain some of the information presented at a January informational session, in case some deliberative session attendees missed the informational session.

Terry Penner asked if selecting an evening other than a Thursday for the fourth informational session might boost attendance from the Bretton Woods community. Allan Clark suggested not hosting an informational session on a weekend, as people are already busy with social activities and are unlikely to change their plans to attend a weekend (Friday or Saturday) informational session.

John Gardiner made a motion, seconded by Greg Hogan, to set Jan. 18, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in Town Hall as the next Committee informational session. With no additional discussion, the motion passed unanimously.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on a marketing campaign to promote the project. He outlined notes on the back of the agenda that could be a starting point for a tri-fold brochure that can be mailed, placed in a business, or hand delivered.

Janet Nelson asked about grants from other sources. Imre Szauter replied that the Tillotson Fund is a potential resource for grants related to community improvement.

Jeremy Oleson suggested keeping the numbers to a minimum. Presenting square footage in a simple box graphic makes the point better than too many numbers.

Allan Clark suggested a marketing trifold brochure with photos and/or artistic renderings, a brief cost analysis of current operating expenses and potential savings from the new structures, and the net effect of the project funding minus anticipated grants and rebates, operating expense savings, and the expiration of the water project and transfer station bonds. In order for people to read it, the brochure must be attractive and simple, not technical in nature. The Committee is now in campaign mode and must appeal to voters, not turn them off with too many facts and figures.

Kelly Trammell asked how soon the trifold brochures would be available. Allan Clark replied that January 2018 would be fine, as the Committee should not peak too early in the marketing campaign. He also stated that there should be press releases before and after the January informational session to keep the topic in front of the voters.

Susan Kraabel asked if the trifold brochure would show the current operating expenses for the three existing buildings versus an estimate of operating expenses for the new facilities. Allan Clark replied those expenses and the estimated savings should be present in the trifold brochure to give residents another reason to support the project.

Lois Pesman asked if the potential savings in operating costs would have a significant impact over time. Allan Clark replied that a reduction in operating costs, coupled with the retirement of the water project and transfer station bonds, would help reduce the tax rate over time.

Terry Penner asked about the New Land & Building Capital Reserve Fund account balance. Imre Szauter stated that the fund was mentioned at the January informational session, and noted the Phase One project budget approved by the voters in the amount of $60,000 would be coming out of that fund. He thought there was about $240,000 currently in the fund. Terry Penner stated that using some of these funds for the project would show voters that previous warrant articles to build up the reserve were a good idea, even though the offset of using these funds would not be significant.

Jeremy Oleson stated that in January, the New Land & Building Capital Reserve Fund had a balance of about $283,000, meaning that Phase One project expenses would reduce that amount by up to $60,000.

Allan Clark suggested the Committee should consider using the services of a professional to design the trifold brochure, using images and information provided by the Committee.

Jeremy Oleson made a motion, seconded by Janet Nelson, to authorize Allan Clark to contract for the services of a professional graphic designer, not to exceed $500, to develop a trifold brochure with information and graphics supplied by the Committee. Printing and distribution of the trifold brochure would not be covered by this motion.

During discussion of the motion, Kelly Trammell asked if the Committee should consider another mailing to property owners or to just registered voters. She suggested that the trifold brochure, if made available in PDF form, could be distributed via email and posted on social media sites for additional exposure. Allan Clark indicated that the trifold brochure would be made available in PDF form for electronic distribution.

Allan Clark added the trifold brochure should be developed for printing in color on legal-sized paper, measuring 8.5” by 14”, to provide more space for graphics and information.

John Gardiner called the question. The motion passed unanimously.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on marketing campaign signage. Allan Clark cautioned that the Committee should avoid creating the appearance of running a political campaign-like operation using taxpayer money, something that yard-type signage may invoke. He stated that private donations could be used for this type of signage. John Gardiner suggested that if yard-type signs are created, they should be distributed just prior to the deliberative session so they aren’t visible too early.

Allan Clark suggested testimonials are another method of creating support for the project. He also mentioned submitting letters and publishing ads (using private funding) in local newspapers such as the Coos County Democrat.

Kelly Trammell offered that town residents speaking among themselves can be a source of support if they sense a renewed spirit of community from the project. Attendees mentioned that several multi-generational families in town can impact community support for the project, if any concerns or questions they have are adequately addressed.

John Gardiner mentioned that the community should be made aware that the new facilities would have wall and floor space to honor town residents who have served in the military and/or were significant within the community.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on other issues. He reported on the Oct. 2nd Committee report to the Select Board. Additionally, he provided an update on Committee account balances. The miscellaneous expenses account balance is $1,537.23 (out of $2,500 authorized) and the warrant article account balance is $35,695.75 (out of $60,000 authorized). He noted the account balances presented in the agenda were reversed and apologized for the error.

Imre Szauter summarized current action items:
1) Post approved Sep. 28th regular meeting minutes on the town website and Google Drive (Imre Szauter)
2) Post approved Sep. 28th information session minutes on the town website and Google Drive (Imre Szauter)
3) Arrange for development of trifold brochure skeleton for next meeting (Allan Clark)

There were no additional action items identified.

Imre Szauter mentioned that arrangements had been made by Mike Finn and Terry Penner for the Committee to present information at the Oct. 14th annual Bretton Woods Property Owners Association meeting at the Bretton Woods Ski Area Base lodge.

Imre Szauter polled attendees for any closing remarks; none were offered.

Attendees agreed the next Committee meeting would be held on Thursday, Oct. 16th at 9:00 a.m. in Town Hall.

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

The meeting adjourned at 10:26 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Imre Szauter.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024