Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 31.pdf

What it means: The current ordinance reads: “A set of hydraulic calculations, floor plans and specification sheet on all control valves, alarm valves, Fire Department connection, pressure alarm switch, water flow switch, tamper switch and backflow preventers must be submitted with the application. Permit fee of $40 per structure, payable to the Town of Hampton, must be submitted with the application.” Article 31 would allow the Town to charge developers a fee more in line with the Town’s costs to review all of the information on the submitted plans.  The fees would be set by the Board of Selectman.

Those in favor say: The current fee is considerably less than the required resources to work with the developers on new and refurbished properties.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 32.pdf

What it means: The Town currently holds various financial instruments for which there are brokerage charges. These charges are currently expended out of our Operating Budget. New legislation allows each municipal entity to deduct the expenses associated with brokerage accounts directly from the individual capital reserve funds in their custody. Note that if Article 32 passes, we would not be able to change the system for 5 years from the time we adopt it.

Those in favor say: If this Article is approved, we will save some money, since the current system has the Town paying the brokerage fees for the school and the Village for their capital reserve funds. Under the new system, each group’s expenses would be deducted from their own Capital Reserve Funds.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $329,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $.18 if this Article passes.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 33.pdf

What it means: The town owns land known as “Twelve Shares”, which is a popular open space used for various recreational activities. This Article seeks to establish a self-funding reserve and a stewardship system to make small improvements such as trails or signage. Activities would be managed by a new Town Forestry Committee made up of the Conservation Commission and the town’s Tree Warden.

Those in favor say: This allows stewardship of the town’s forest for the safety and continued enjoyment of Hampton residents.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 34.pdf

What it means: Hampton currently participates in a regional group that cooperates with regard to the disposition of trash from the area. By withdrawing from the district, Hampton would be responsible for it’s own  trash logistics.

Those in favor say: Several towns have already withdrawn from the coalition, and other towns are considering doing so. Those that remain (other than Hampton) are smaller towns, several of which do not have Transfer Stations or other basic facilities. As they seek to build these facilities, the district is required to help defray the costs. Hampton represents 50% of the current District, and would be required to pick up a fairly large percentage of these “other town” costs. If we withdraw, we would need to establish our own logistics, but the Town Manager (who spoke at Deliberative Session) does not see this as problematic.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 35.pdf

What it means: The Heritage Commission, which helped to recognize and preserve structures of historical importance, has not been active of late and does not have a current budget. They have asked to be disbanded since other groups in town have taken on much of their intended focus. Apparently, based on discussion at Deliberative Session, there is a specific procedure that needs to be followed to abolish the Commission. Since that has not yet happened, it is unclear what the passing of this Warrant Article would actually mean. A “no” vote would mean the status quo – an inactive commission with no budget.

Those in favor say: It is appropriate to disband the commission, as it has not been active lately. Those who spoke were current or former members of the Commission.

Those against say: Why not leave it on the books in the event there is a grant that we might qualify for? We could at that point ask someone to steer it through.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 36.pdf

What it means: This article would reduce by half certain insurance required to be carried by Taxi drivers who operate in the Town of Hampton.

No one spoke either for or against this Article at Deliberative Session, but In The Know Hampton subsequently received further information about why this was being proposed. Since the Taxi Ordinance was passed several years ago with the higher premium requirements, only one or two applications have been received for taxis to operate in town – possibly because of the increased cost of the insurance. This Article attempts to maintain the availability of taxi service for those who need transportation by making it more affordable for taxis to operate in the town.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 37.pdf

What it means: The Ordinance in question currently reads: “Except for emergencies, no person shall cause the construction, reconstruction, remodeling or demolition of a dwelling or structure, the digging up or the filling in or leveling or contouring of the ground, the breaking of pavements, concrete, stone or foundations, the excavation of streets, the operation of heavy equipment of any kind or the use of blasting or the driving of pile or jacking of pipes within the Town of Hampton before 7:00 in the a.m. or after 7:00 in the p.m. local time, Monday through Friday of any week, or before 9:00 in the a.m. or after 5:00 in the p.m. local time on any weekend or any holiday. This Article seeks to exempt municipal and town-contracted vehicles doing street sweeping, beach raking and trash/recycling collection from these limitations.

No one spoke for or against this Article at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal Impact: No tax impact.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 38.pdf

What it means: Last year, voters approved decommissioning the Grist Mill Pond dam, as it was in a state of disrepair. $400,000 was appropriated from tax revenue for this purpose. A group of concerned citizens have banded together to get the dam restored as opposed to removing it. This Article seeks to re-allocate the $400,000 from 2014 and asks for an additional sum of $250,00 to help restore the dam.

Those in favor say: Many people spoke in favor of this article.  One speaker noted that the full story was not brought forward prior to last year’s vote.  Other comments related to the importance of maintaining our heritage (the Grist Mill and surrounding property being an important part of Hampton for over 300 years); that the existence of the pond helps the area with flood control; that the Grist Mill itself might be in jeopardy if the dam is not there to control the flow of water; and that it is used by townspeople and wildlife alike.  More information at: http://friendsofgristmillpond.net

Those against say: Those who spoke in opposition to this Article commented that the dam and the pond are technically on private property; that the project would benefit the surrounding home owners more than the town as a whole; or that the vote last year was to decommission so we should stick to that.

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $329,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $29.57 if this Article passes.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 39.pdf

What it means: This clock that was given as a gift to Hampton in 1897, and was a part of our town center for many years. It came crashing down during a fire decades ago. It was rescued by townspeople, only to be relegated to the basement of Town Hall for a number of years. At some point, a concerned group of citizens got access to the clock and have been working on their own dime and with donated energy to restore it. They have made progress, but have now been advised that it is best to proceed with the assistance of a restoration professional. About half the money needed has been raised through private donations and the sale of bricks that would surround the clock at its new location. The funds requested via this Article would match those already raised, and would fund bringing the clock back to functionality.

Those in favor say: This Town-owned clock is part of our heritage dating back to 1897 and should be salvaged. Individual taxpayers have cared enough about this to dedicate many hours to restoring it, but now need the help of Hampton homeowners.  More information on the history of the town clock is available on the Lane Library website.

Those against say: Prior to the need for professional services to restore the clock, it was presented as something that could be done with private funds. Some people think the funds needed should continue to be raised by private efforts and donations.

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $329,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $8.87 if this Article passes.

Here’s a link to the Article as it will appear on the Ballot:

Article 40.pdf

What it means: There are several large memorial walls dedicated to those who gave their lives in the Vietnam war. These moving memorials rotate throughout the country, by arrangement with local towns. The total cost is $20,000, much of which has been raised privately. The taxpayers are being asked to chip in the final $5,000 to have the moving wall come to Hampton Beach for approximately two weeks later this year.

Those in favor say: This would be an important educational experience for young and old alike. Those who have seen it in other locations say that it is very well done.

Those against say: It is a wonderful tribute, but the funds should all be raised privately, and not through property taxes.

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $329,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $.59 if this Article passes.