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 11/16/2017 APPROVED

December 1st, 2017

Town of Carroll Building Committee Meeting Minutes
November 16, 2017 @ 9:00 a.m.
Carroll Town Hall

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

Guests present: Susan Kraabel, Michelle Palys, Lois Pesman, Kelly Trammell, and Rena Vecchio.

The Building Committee (the “Committee”) meeting began at 9:05 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 Oct. 26th draft meeting minutes were discussed. Tadd Bailey made a motion, seconded by John Trammell, to approve the minutes as written. The vote in favor was unanimous.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the project brochure; he turned the floor over to Allan Clark.

Allan Clark referenced the skeleton trifold brochure he distributed at the Oct. 26th meeting, noting the Committee favored removal of the self-mailer panel, leaving 6 panels on the 11” x 14” page (3 panels on each side). He also referenced the Town of Carroll Municipal Building Committee Report, Proposed Municipal Building Project, Report of Findings (the “Report”) document he distributed prior to the meeting.

Allan Clark summarized the contents of the Report and stated that he hoped the Committee would help refine the information in it and focus on what should be included in the brochure.

Allan Clark reminded attendees that a previous discussion regarding inclusion of Committee member names in the brochure was unresolved.

Allan Clark referenced the issue of local education taxation and how to represent this in the brochure. By contrast, other municipalities have a higher local education taxation rate than does the Town of Carroll.

Janet Nelson asked if the new Town of Carroll tax rate had been announced. Imre Szauter stated the new amount is $19.68, up from $18.98.

Michelle Palys asked what the impact of the project would be on the property tax rate, given the new rate and completion of the revaluation. Allan Clark replied the estimate is about a 75 cent increase per $1,000 assessed value.

Michael Hogan asked if the estimated tax rate impact includes anticipated reductions in maintenance and operating expenses for the new buildings, compared to the current structures. Allan Clark replied that it does. Michael Hogan replied that including this information in the brochure is important, as most voters are primarily interested in the total cost of the project and the impact on their property tax situation.

Brad Houston asked about expiration of the transfer station bond. Imre Szauter reported the transfer station bond obligation of about $27,500 per year expires in 2024, while the water project bond obligation of $49,460 per year expires in 2022.

Michelle Palys asked what the annual estimated payment obligation would be for the project. Allan Clark stated he didn’t have that figure in front of him, but would search for it as the meeting progresses.

Imre Szauter reported the breakdown of the new Town of Carroll tax rate at $19.68 per $1,000 assessed value as $7.73 for local education, $2.28 for state education, $5.41 for the county, and $4.26 for the town.

Lois Pesman offered that the brochure should contain information on the project’s benefits to the community.

Rena Vecchio stated that she has heard concerns about the size of the buildings, and feels information on square footage should be included in the brochure.

Michelle Palys asked if there was a project website for posting a PDF version of the brochure, other facts, figures, and photos, comparisons to facilities in surrounding communities, and how the project would benefit residents and businesses in the community. Imre Szauter replied that the project does not have a separate website, but is using the town website to post information such as informational session presentations and handouts, meeting announcements and minutes, and other materials related to the project.

Michelle Palys highlighted the benefits of a separate website, particularly for business owners and investors looking to Coos County and specifically the Town of Carroll as a location to invest in new business opportunities. A website that emphasizes the future, such as what this project conveys, may be an important factor for businesses deciding where to locate or expand.

Mike Finn asked if the concept of using a focus group would assist in creating an effective brochure. He suggested it would be helpful for each committee member to ask several people to review a draft brochure and provide feedback on what they considered were the most important elements included in and missing from the brochure.

Michael Hogan stated that residents who question the size of the project’s buildings are uninformed about the size and deficiencies of the current police and fire department buildings and Town Hall. There has to be one or more mechanisms to inform the voters of the need to look beyond today and build for the future. He suggested encouraging residents to visit the police and fire departments to tour their facilities, and then arrange a visit to a modern facility such as the Franconia Public Safety Building.

Michelle Palys mentioned that the potential tax impact is not as large as she imagined, and that taken in the context of current structural, fire- and life-safety, and operational deficiencies, she believes people will see the wisdom of building new, efficient structures rather than renovating or continually patching existing facilities.

David Scalley suggested that the brochure should offer information that voters need to make an informed decision. He stated that future businesses will not be the ones to decide the project’s fate, so the brochure’s target audience should be town residents who are likely to turn out for the March vote. David Scalley said that the project cost, its impact on the property tax rate, and estimated operational and maintenance savings are needed to justify voter support.

Rena Vecchio stated that she believes promoting the town’s future to the business community should be a function of the Select Board, not the Building Committee.

Allan Clark reminded attendees that the size of the project’s buildings presented in the conceptual drawing is based on information gathered months ago and refined through discussions with department heads and town employees; the public safety and administrative buildings reflect current and future needs, not wants.

Allan Clark suggested that voter approval of the project in March would be an excellent catalyst for town officials and community leaders to promote the future of the Town of Carroll to the business community.

David Scalley asked if the brochure should highlight the project as “building for the future of our children,” as the economic success of the community has a direct impact on them. To make the town more attractive to younger generations, the leaders of today must focus on items that will give our children a reason to stay or return to this region.

John Trammell offered that it is just a matter of time before someone files a lawsuit against the town based on one or more deficiencies with the police department’s facilities. He cited incidents that highlight the difficulties the police department encountered when handling multiple suspects and/or juveniles.

Kelly Trammell asked if sponsoring one or more open house events at the police and fire departments would help educate voters to the deficiencies that both structures impose on our fire- and life-safety personnel.

Michelle Palys suggested that “virtual tours” of the police and fire departments, using photos posted on story boards in the Town Hall, might have a similar effect on likely voters as a guided tour.

Allan Clark stated that he located the financial information he was looking for, and reported that the project’s estimated cost is $3.75 million. He estimated $250,000 in capital reserve funding; $100,000 in grant funding; and $40,000 per year in operational savings, yielding a yearly obligation of $200,000 principal and interest financed for 20 years, based on a 4% interest rate. The net estimated impact on the tax rate is about 75 cents per $1,000 valuation. These calculations do not include a reduction in the town’s financial obligation following retirement of the transfer station and water project bonds mentioned earlier.

Janet Nelson asked about a firefighters grant from the US Department of Homeland Security. Allan Clark explained that this particular grant is not available for new construction projects, even those related to public safety facilities.

Janet Nelson followed up by asking if alternative energy production facilities, such as solar arrays, had been included in the project’s plan. Allan Clark replied that this topic had not been included in the conceptual planning process, but would be included following the project’s approval by the voters.

David Scalley asked if the potential sale of the fire department building was taken into consideration. He also asked if there were any town funds earning little or no interest that might be liquidated and applied toward the cost of the project. Susan Kraabel explained that the town does have funds in interest-bearing accounts, but she wasn’t sure what they were earning and whether they could be used to buy down the cost of the project.

Susan Kraabel offered that her recollection of the latest fire-fighting vehicle purchased by the town cost more because it was custom sized to fit within the fire department’s apparatus bay, not a standard size which would have been too large. This added expense could be avoided in the future with a properly-sized apparatus bay, as has been suggested in the conceptual plan for the public safety building.

Discussion on the benefits to residents, visitors and businesses of having a ladder truck in the town’s firefighting arsenal followed, with Jeremy Oleson pointing out that a ladder truck reduces hazardous situations for firefighting personnel as well as serving as a more effective rescue tool for the public.

Terry Penner asked if those opposed to the project are more likely to attend the February deliberative session than those supporting the project. Rena Vecchio offered that she is hearing from different age groups regarding their support, or lack of it, for the project.

Michelle Palys suggested posting video interviews with John Trammell and Jeremy Oleson as a means to highlight the deficiencies with the Police Department and Fire Department buildings, respectively, and to emphasize the new public safety services building is not just about meeting today’s needs but those of the future as well.

Michael Hogan asked if submitting one or more articles to the Coos County Democrat covering the project and current buildings’ deficiencies would be worthwhile. He also asked if the town had access to public service cable channels.

Imre Szauter brought the general discussion to an end by asking if the Committee still wanted to produce the brochure for a January mailing and/or face-to-face distribution to residents and businesses. Committee members and guests indicated the brochure should be produced.

Imre Szauter asked Committee members and guests to prioritize what should be included in the brochure. Project cost and tax rate impact, deficiencies, life- and fire-safety violations of current buildings, and providing for the town’s future – for its residents, businesses, and visitors – were identified as important items for the brochure. Adding URLs (Uniform Resource Locators) to additional information from the police and fire departments, and town administrative offices would enable those interested to dig deeper into the project.

Michelle Palys suggested adding photos of the current buildings to help make the case for the project’s modern, energy-efficient structures built in a traditional New England style.

Kelly Trammell suggested using a single URL in the brochure for more information, making access to additional information more convenient and in one place.

Allan Clark returned to the brochure layout, stating that the discussion on what to include has been helpful. He suggested a photo of the Committee should be on the first panel, showing the community that not just town officials, department heads and employees were responsible for the project proposal. The scope of the Committee’s work should be included.

Mike Finn suggested including the statement “Building for the Future” on the first panel, setting the tone for the rest of the brochure.

Allan Clark suggested that exterior photos and a list of major building deficiencies should be listed to help make the case for new buildings rather than renovation of existing structures.

Susan Kraabel commented that the police department deficiencies should perhaps be reordered to emphasize the lack of proper facilities for dealing with juveniles. John Trammell stated that the current holding cell is not appropriate for either a juvenile or an adult, so other arrangements must be made to properly detain individuals while they are in custody.

Tadd Bailey offered to escort anyone interested in touring the police station so they can witness the deficiencies first-hand.

Allan Clark suggested that the Report’s Findings and Recommendations should be further refined and listed, as these demonstrate the effort the Committee and guests have invested in creating a workable proposal for the town’s future.

Allan Clark added that he will provide a draft brochure for discussion at the next meeting, with a goal of consensus on the content so the brochure can be finalized and printed prior to the end of the year.

Janet Nelson reminded attendees of the discussion at the last meeting regarding listing Committee members in the brochure. Imre Szauter summarized that discussion by restating John Trammell’s point of not listing members’ titles and contact information, other than perhaps the Committee chair. This would allow interested readers to contact the chair with questions, comments and/or concerns.

Rena Vecchio suggested inclusion of a sentence or two regarding the fate of the current Town Hall, as this is an issue with some residents. Allan Clark suggested wording along the lines of “Potential for the Town Hall to be repurposed privately.”

Michelle Palys asked about the bullet item that reads: “A campus concept allows in the future for a separate library building and recreational trails and a future expanded visitor center.” Imre Szauter provided some background on the conceptual floor plan for the new Town Hall, indicating that if the library and/or historical society decided to build a stand-alone facility elsewhere on the campus, the vacated space could be repurposed for other town uses. Janet Nelson suggested making the statement less specific. Allan Clark offered to restate the bullet item to read: “A campus concept allows for future growth.”

Allan Clark suggested including the elevations and benefits for each new building, as low maintenance and energy efficiency are good selling points.

Terry Penner expressed a concern about two bullet points on the Findings and Recommendations page. He suggested removing the existing police station and fire station square footage numbers.

David Scalley suggested removing any reference to the existing Town Hall, as he stated this project is about looking forward, not backwards.

Allan Clark commented on the Report’s Expected Project Cost and Financial Impact page. He stated that new calculations place the tax impact at about 62 cents per $1,000 valuation. Other numbers will be updated as appropriate. Allan Clark asked attendees if any reference to the portion of property taxes paid for state and local education should be included. No consensus was reached, so it likely will not be included.

Michelle Palys asked if the cost of not moving forward with the project, as in ongoing and anticipated maintenance and operational expenses for the existing buildings, had been calculated and its impact on the tax rate estimated. Allan Clark stated that the cost of doing nothing would be less that the cost of the project, but that doesn’t address the deficiencies and fire- and life-safety violations in the current structures. It has already been determined that the cost of renovating the existing Town Hall exceeds the cost of building a new one. Renovating the police department building makes no sense, as it is a leased facility. Finally, the fire department building, even if renovated, cannot accommodate standard-sized firefighting vehicles, let alone a ladder truck. In short, taxpayer money expended on current facility renovations would likely be more than building new and still not address future issues, such as standard-sized versus custom-sized firefighting vehicles.

Allan Clark concluded the brochure discussion by offering to distribute in advance of the next meeting a draft version of the brochure for close analysis by Committee members and guests.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the January mailing, as discussed at the previous meeting. The Committee approved obtaining a quote from Mailings Unlimited for a first-class mailing of the brochure to all registered voters.

If a brochure is mailed to all 621 registered voters in town, the estimated cost would be $658.00. If the mailing list is reduced to 440 addresses, made possible by listing multiple names at the same address on each mailing label, the estimated cost would be $514.00.

Lois Pesman asked if a higher grade paper and a single panel of the brochure set aside for a mailing label would make it possible to eliminate the need for an envelope and reduce the cost. Imre Szauter responded that it could be done, but the Committee previously expressed a concern that a folded and taped brochure might be treated as junk mail while an envelope with the town’s return address might make it more likely that the recipient would open and at least scan the brochure.

David Scalley offered that the importance of distributing the brochure outweighs the minor cost savings of reducing the mailing list to save printing and postage costs. He commented that there are still adequate funds in the budget line for a Committee mailing, so it should be done correctly.

Michelle Palys suggested including significant dates, such as town deliberative session in February and town vote in March, in the brochure.

Imre Szauter opened a discussion on the January 18, 2018 informational session. He reiterated Allan Clark’s suggestion to take interior photographs of the police department building, the fire department building, and Town Hall to highlight deficiencies and fire- and life-safety code issues for presentation during the informational session and possibly on poster boards hanging in the Town Hall hallway. He stated he would coordinate with John Trammell and Jeremy Oleson to access the police department building and fire department building, respectively.

Imre Szauter invited Jeremy Oleson to comment on their attendance at the Nov. 14th Twin Mountain – Bretton Woods Chamber of Commerce meeting, during which they discussed the project and reviewed the conceptual drawings, floor plans, elevations and renderings produced by Peter Stewart. Michelle Palys stated she thought the information and drawings were well received, noting there were more attendees than have attended in the past. She said that she appreciated that the information was made available to Chamber of Commerce members and hoped it would result in more information sharing within the business community.

Michelle Palys emphasized the importance of continued public access to the information booth at the corner of US 3 and US 302.

Under Other Issues, Imre Szauter summarized the Nov. 6th and the Nov. 13th reports to the Select Board. He reported account balances of $1,480.23 ($1,019.77 spent; 59% remaining) in the Committee miscellaneous expenses fund and $31,710.19 ($28,289.81 spent; 53% remaining) in the warrant article authorization fund.

Imre Szauter summarized current action items:
1) Post approved Oct. 26th meeting minutes on the town website and Google Drive (Imre Szauter)
2) Continue development of informational trifold brochure (Allan Clark)

Imre Szauter polled attendees for any closing remarks.

Jeremy Oleson commented that he has heard concerns about the fate of School Street and suggested that if the project is approved, provisions for a civil engineer’s review of possible options for a School Street intersection with the new campus access road should be included. He also commented on the future of the existing Town Hall, suggesting that residents, businesses and/or organizations interested in acquiring and repurposing the building or portions of it (such as the gymnasium) should begin their planning efforts now and explore grant opportunities from various public and private entities.

Jeremy Oleson also commented on concerns he has heard about the size of the project’s fire department space. He stated that while there are no immediate plans to acquire additional firefighting vehicles, future acquisitions must be housed properly and the cost of future vehicles would be reduced by purchasing standard-sized vehicles instead of custom-sized vehicles. He mentioned that the fire department has been very mindful of the cost of equipment and apparatus. Lastly, he commented that the current fire department building provides no decontamination facilities for personnel returning from an incident and feels this should be noted in the information presented at the informational session and in the brochure. This is a health and safety matter for emergency responders and their families.

David Scalley noted that discussions regarding continued access to the information booth via School Street should include provisions to repair or replace the culvert under the road. He didn’t propose a funding source to address the issue; he only raised it to make everyone aware that the culvert’s condition was identified as an issue several years ago and should be addressed if School Street remains open in some capacity after the project’s completion.

Kelly Trammell suggested looking at the Highway Department Capital Reserve Fund to determine if funds are available for repair or replacement of the culvert.

Rena Vecchio asked for clarification on what portion(s) of School Street were being discussed. Imre Szauter explained the portion between US 3 and the proposed campus access road was identified by some as important for continued visitor access to the information booth; the portion from the campus access road to the current US 302 intersection must be eliminated for the NH DOT to approve the new campus access road intersection with US 302.

Allan Clark commented that he would bring to the next meeting a list of New Hampshire foundations for review by attendees to determine if anyone has any contacts within those groups. He also stated that he was very pleased with the attendance and discussions at today’s meeting. Regarding School Street, no determination of its fate can be made until voter approval of the project and a thorough review by a civil engineer.

Imre Szauter reiterated the new town tax rate of $19.68, up from $18.98 last year. He also suggested that the Committee begin discussion on the wording of the project’s warrant article, to be delivered to the Select Board as a recommendation by December 20th.

Kelly Trammell asked if the Committee plans to make recommendations to the Select Board on the use of funds in capital reserve accounts to reduce the project’s cost. She offered that creating a list of capital reserve funds and the amount from each the Committee would like used to offset the project’s cost would likely assist the Select Board in making a timely decision. Imre Szauter asked if the Committee agrees with this approach; attendees responded favorably, so he will create a list of capital reserve accounts and suggest amounts from each for the Select Board meeting on Nov. 27th.

Attendees agreed the next Committee meeting would be held on Thursday, Nov. 30th at 9:00 a.m. in Town Hall.

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

The meeting adjourned at 10:42 a.m.

Minutes prepared by Imre Szauter.

Town of Carroll, New Hampshire ®2024