UPON PETITION of Bryan Provencal and at least twenty-five (25) registered voters of the Town of Hampton, New Hampshire, to see if the Town will vote to amend Chapter 149 of the Code of the Town of Hampton:  Entertainment Activities, as follows:

(In the event that you agree that there must be changes to the regulations of Entertainment Activities at the Beach, but cannot agree with the entire foregoing Warrant Article # 39).

8. § 149-9. Hours restricted

ADD: “The using, operating, or permitting of an entertainment activity, either inside or outside, in the BS or the BS1 zones shall not be allowed between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon on any day of the week.”

9. § 149-15. Noise standards applied

D. Noise Levels

ADD: “For entertainment activity in the BS or the BS1 zones, it shall be unlawful for an operator to emit or cause to be emitted any noise beyond the boundaries of his/her/its property in excess of eighty (80) decibels (db) measured in the A scale between 12:00 noon and 12:00 midnight and in excess of sixty (60) decibels (db) between 12:00 midnight and 1:00 a.m.

For determining the noise levels for entertainment activity in the BS and in the BS1 zones, the point at which the sound readings shall be taken and recorded shall be at those points which are located fifty (50) feet from the operator’s property lines.”

What it means: The main difference between Article 40 and Article 39 is that Article 40 maintains the current Entertainment Activities License.  The changes to the hours and decibel levels are the same.

Those in favor say: The people in favor of Article 39 have the same favorable things to say about Article 40.  Please see that statement.   They offer Article 40 for those who agree that the beach needs to be able to provide entertainment, but also feel that the licensing and enforcement procedures should remain as they are currently.

Those against say:  The people against Article 39 have the same issues with Article 40.  Please see that statement.

Fiscal Impact:  No tax impact.

On the petition of John Nyhan and at least 25 Hampton registered voters, shall the Town of Hampton raise and appropriate $3,000 to pay to Experience Hampton, Inc., the organizer of the 2010 to 2017 Hampton Christmas Parades, to help defray the expenses of the 2018 Christmas Parade and related activities?

What it means: This is an annual donation to Experience Hampton to help fund the Christmas parade in town.

Those in favor say: The parade involves many groups within town, including businesses, schools and local officials.  The total cost of the parade is $15,000, of which the taxpayers are being asked to absorb a small fraction.

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

Fiscal Impact: The average Hampton home valued at $408,000 would bear an increased tax cost of $.41 if this Article passes.  The cost per thousand of property valuation is .001.

On  Petition of Kim Grondin and 25 or more registered voters, to see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000 for the purpose of providing the additional funding needed to complete the reconstruction and associated activities of the  Grist Mill Dam,  also known as Mill Pond  Dam.  The sum of $100,000 of this amount is to come from  the Town’s Unassigned Fund Balance.  This will be a non-lapsing appropriation per RSA 32:7, VI and shall not lapse until the work is completed  or by March 31, 2020, whichever is sooner?

Note:  The additional funding is requested as the original value of the project was based on an opinion of cost from preliminary plans completed over five years ago.  Competitive Bids have been received for the reconstruction of the Dam and are based on actual field conditions and a fully engineered design.  The State of New Hampshire Dam Bureau required the Town of Hampton to either repair or remove the existing dam or face daily fines for not complying with the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services Letter of Deficiency dated July 11, 2012.  If this warrant article does not pass, a future warrant article will be required with additional money to meet the requirements of the State.

What it means: The Grist Mill Dam was originally approved by voters for minor repairs in 2012 at a cost of $34,000.  Later in 2012, the Town received a notice of deficiency from the state that required either decommissioning or reconstruction by the Town. In 2014, the voters agreed to decommission (deconstruct) it at a cost of $400,000.  The following year, a group of concerned citizens put forward a Warrant Article to rescind the deconstruction decision along with its funding but instead to raise $650,000 to restore it.  That funding was approved by the voters, but unfortunately, with the passage of time and with new engineering studies, the money raised with the latest appropriation was insufficient.  The latest request for $100,000 along with the earlier funding will allow the Town to complete the reconstruction of the Grist Mill dam.

Those in favor say:  The Grist Mill is a critical part of our Town’s heritage.  It, along with the Blacksmith Shop, the two fish houses, the cooper shop and the school house on the Tuck museum grounds are the last of the early historic buildings left around.  Once they are gone, they are gone forever.  From a financial standpoint, if the Town does not proceed at this point – it will likely require additional funding to go back to the deconstruction plan.  Some of the appropriated funds have already been spent on the engineering work to date.  So the requested funds not only preserve an historic landmark, it is also the least expensive way forward.

Those against say: The taxpayers have already contributed to maintaining it.  If more dollars are required, could the group of concerned citizens not raise the remaining balance privately?  (There is also lack of clarity about who owns the pond and dam.  It had been generally believed that they were privately owned but more recent research indicates no conveyance of the pond and the dam to any party other than the Town of Hampton.)

Fiscal Impact:  No tax impact in 2018 because the dollars would be taken from the Unassigned Fund Balance.

On petition of Norman R. Hurley and 25 or more registered voters, shall the Town vote to move the fire lane from the south side of Second Street to the north side of Second Street.

Background:  There are a maximum of three (3) on-street parking places on the north side of Second Street.  The property owners on the north side of the street have adequate off-street parking.

There is a maximum of seven (7) on-street parking places on the south side of Second Street.  The property owners on the south side of Second Street do not have adequate parking.  The Planning Board approved a subdivision on the south side of Second Street to allow two condominiums in one single-family dwelling and allowed parking in what is now the fire lane.

This Article would resolve a public safety issue that occurs when the residents of the condominium park in the fire lane, and vehicles also park on the north side of the street.

What it means: Second Street is a very short, narrow road that runs between Kings Highway and Ocean Blvd.  If vehicles park on both sides of the street, the remaining center passage is quite difficult to navigate.  There is a fire lane on the south side of the street where cars are not allowed to park in order to allow emergency response vehicles to access the homes on that street and to have room to turn around when necessary.  However, given the configuration of parking assigned to a nearby condo, people do park there for extended periods, causing a potential safety issue.  The police have been called, but the issue continues.

Those in favor say:  The petitioner (who lives on the north side of the street) has suggested that moving the fire lane to the north side of the street will allow those who live in the condo on the south side to have more room to park legally and would increase the likelihood that the fire lane would remain clear for everyone’s benefit.

Those against say:  There is no need to change to what has been working for residents for years.  The Fire Chief evaluated the situation and decided there was no need for a change now, but he agreed to take another look at the situation when the season begins and traffic in the area increases.

Fiscal Impact:  No tax impact.

On the petition of Sunny Kravitz and at least 25 Hampton registered voters, we request that a Warrant be placed on the 2018 Town Meeting of Hampton for the following:

Shall the voters of Hampton vote on all non-union wage and/or benefit increase that exceed the annual Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment.

For a number of years the Board of Selectmen has voted during the fall to grant wage and benefit increases to a few not elected non-union employees.  In the future all such increases must be approved in a Warrant Article by the-tax payers of Hampton.

What it means:  Some Town Hall employees do not belong to a union and are not elected. Those employees receive wage increases via an evaluation and recommendation process that culminates with a vote by the Board of Selectmen. The petitioner is asking that any such increases that are above the Cost of Living Adjustments afforded to Social Security recipients be placed as additional Warrant Articles rather than being approved by Town Boards.

Those in favor say: This would give voters more control over personnel costs for this group of employees.

Those against say:  There are 31 full and part-time employees who can be described as non-union and non-elected.  Their circumstances, evaluations, seniority and wage status will all be different and probably could not be incorporated into a single Warrant Article.  So this would involve several Warrant Articles, but the voters would have no way of knowing who is deserving of what increase.  In 2015, one Town employee tried asking for a wage increase by way of a Warrant Article.  That Article was defeated and comments at the time were that even if you agree that the employee deserves a raise, the ballot is not the way to do it. With regard to that issue, a Letter to the Hampton Union commented that personnel administration should not take place in the ballot box.

No rationale is provided for tying wage increases of working people to the increases of retired people on a fixed income.  People receiving Social Security get an increase every time the Cost of Living Adjustment is positive.  Town employees often go years without getting any increase at all.  Further, payroll deductions on the part of working men and women is what supports the current beneficiaries of Social Security.  There is no guarantee that workers currently paying in to the Social Security will ever be able to collect from the system themselves.  It is important that they save for their own retirement, and they need appropriate increases to be able to do that.

Fiscal Impact:  No direct tax impact.