Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: Engine 2, which the Town purchased as a 17-year-old vehicle in in 2017 to replace a 2002 engine that was lost to frame corrosion, would be replaced. When E2 was purchased, the plan was to run it for four years; it is now coming up on 6 years. If Article 11 is passed, the new engine would be delivered in mid-2024, roughly the same timing as the engine that was funded last year.

Those in favor say: One important factor in determining a town’s fire rating (and thus residential and business insurance rates) is the ability to deliver water in sufficient quantity to quickly extinguish a fire. Based on established criteria, Hampton needs (and theoretically has) four pumpers. Of the four, two are in excellent condition. Engine 3 is out of service, and a new one was ordered with funds approved by the voters last year.

The fourth pumper the Fire Department runs is a 2000 model year engine, acquired in 2017 with the goal of operating it through 2021. It is over its life expectancy, and has had issues. On several occasions, the department had to borrow a vehicle from Exeter because Engine 2 was out of commission. This is the engine that will be replaced if the voters approve Article 11.

Those against say: There was discussion about using the Unassigned Fund Balance, and how to properly advise the voters that the tax dollars were collected in previous years (as opposed to the term “no tax impact”.)

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it Means: Flood studies were done in 2018, funded by voter approval. As a result of those studies, recommendations were made to improve drainage. A subsequent grant in 2020 from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation allowed the Town to contract for a design to alleviate the flooding. That engineering design allowed the Town to apply for another grant sponsored by the NH Department of Environmental Services. Our grant bid was successful, and that funding will offset (by $2,000,000) the cost of constructing the proposed closed drainage system. If Article 12 passes, the remaining $800,000 cost will be paid for by a transfer from the Unassigned Fund Balance. Hence, there will be no need to raise new taxes to support this effort. Note that the improved drainage will alleviate (not eliminate) flooding.

Those in favor say: There are likely multiple factors at work with regard to the flooding in this area, but one definite issue is that the storm drains are not functioning. This causes flooding during average rain events. People are unable to get to or from their homes. That water does not subside for weeks in certain circumstances. In cold weather, that water freezes and causes mail to be undeliverable – among other safety issues and resident inconveniences. The proposed solution will not drain Meadow Pond, as some have questioned. It will collect water from storm events and pump it along Meadow Pond to the estuary where it can be naturally dispersed. This is the same path that the water now takes, ending up at the estuary on the south side of Winnacunnet Road. But rather than go through Meadow Pond, it will utilize a previously defunct pumping station to allow the water to be channeled with less damage as it progresses.

Those against say: Those who made negative comments about this Article were expressing frustration with the wording “no tax impact”. It was pointed out that the taxes were collected in prior years, so it really means “no additional tax impact in 2023”.

Fiscal impact: There is no new tax impact, because 71% of the funding will come from the state, and the remaining funds will come from the Unassigned Fund Balance, meaning previously collected tax revenue.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: Establishing and funding a Capital Reserve Fund helps spread the cost of needed work over multiple years. With this fund, monies are saved for current and future maintenance and improvements to the roadways and associated sidewalks within the Town of Hampton. Approval is required by Town Meeting to use this Fund. The current value, without this appropriation and after the allocation of $500,000 towards the 2022 approved High Street Improvements project is $1,981,710. Projects that may be considered using funds from this reserve account could include, but are not limited to:

• Moulton Road Improvements
• Ross Avenue Improvements
• Winnacunnet Road Improvements

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.127. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $50.80 for 2023.  However, $300,000 was approved and was part of our 2022 tax bill.  As a year-to-year comparison, this would increase the tax bill by .058 per $1,000 of valuation or $23.20 for a property valued at $400,000.

 

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: Hampton anticipates receiving a NH DOT Highway Grant that helps to maintain Class IV and Class V “highways” (basically compact sections of town roads). Funds are applied to specific projects identified by DPW and approved by the Board of Selectmen. Identifying projects is a fluid process, as many factors can affect priority and feasibility. However, the expected focus of these funds in 2023 includes Old Town Hall parking lot, St. Cyr and Falcone Circle, Roberts Drive, Warner Lane, Rosa Road and Donna Lane.

Those in favor say: This funding helps DPW improve roads that do not have extensive infrastructure issues, but do need of top-level repairs. The work helps to return roads to smooth working order. The cost is expected to be offset by a block grant from NH DOT.

Those against say: No one spoke against Article 14 at Deliberative Session.

Fiscal impact: Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is $0.077. A household valued at $400,000 will see a tax cost of $30.80 in 2023. A similar Article was passed last year, and was part of your tax bill. This year’s number is a little higher, so on a year-to-year basis the increase would be around $10 (as opposed to $30.80).

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means:  

1. Replace Unit 85 – Sludge Truck – A 2011 flatbed Roll-off Hauler with 161,637 miles was taken out of service in 2022. It was used to haul waste from the Waste Water Treatment Plant to the disposal facility in Rochester. Currently this service is being contracted through a third-party at a cost of over $200,000 per year. The new truck will be used at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, and at the Transfer Station to manage yard recycling and trash containers.
2.  Replace Unit 43 – 6 Wheel Dump w/Plow Wing – This truck is a frontline responding vehicle used to treat roadways and is integral to plow operations. It is a 2001 vehicle with 51,051 miles, recently needing frame & body repairs, fuel tank, air canisters, coolant tank, brake valves, plow cylinders, chains and hooks. Condition issues will likely make this vehicle not inspectable due to safety concerns in the near future.

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

Fiscal impact: There would be no new tax impact in 2023.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: The plan is to upgrade the roof, HVAC system and security systems at Town Hall, paying for the improvements with transfers from the Unassigned Fund Balance.

Those in favor say: The HVAC system that is being replaced is over 30 years old. There will be some efficiencies with newer technologies, but essentially these are needed upgrades to maintain the integrity of the mechanicals in the building.

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

Fiscal impact: There would be no new tax impact in 2023.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: In 2020, the State of NH set up a commission to address Law Enforcement reforms, which resulted in recommendations for police body-worn and vehicle mounted cameras. This Article is requesting the funds necessary for the purchase of the equipment, accessories, training, and support materials to be paid off over a 5-year period. The costs for years 2-5 would be included in the annual budget and default budget for years 2024-2027. This program would also require the hiring of an additional full-time police lieutenant. The funding for the additional lieutenant is requested in Article 18. Failure to pass this Article would make Article 18 null and void.

 Those in favor say: Studies have shown that there is an 88% decrease in police department complaints when body-cams have been worn, and a 78% decrease in “use of force” complaints. The program is expected to enhance transparency and decrease liability for the Town. It provides protection for both the officers and the public. A $50,000 grant has been obtained from the NH Dept of Justice which would help defray costs, and more funding is being sought.

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.023. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $9.20 for 2023. In subsequent years 2024-2027, the cost of this equipment would be included in the Operating Budget.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: Should Article 17 pass, a position within the Police Department would be needed to manage the body-worn camera information. The video information could be used for training purposes, officer evaluation, or to evaluate what is happening on the streets. A law enforcement individual at the lieutenant level would have the decision-making skills to be able to evaluate the content of the videos, and use it in the most beneficial way. If this Article does not pass, Article 17 would be null and void.

Those in favor say: There are 28 towns in the area using body-worn cameras, and all but one has a lieutenant or higher level officer in the position.

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.034. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $13.60. In subsequent years, compensation for this position would be included in the Operating Budget at a comparable per-year cost.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

What it means: A certain portion of the parking meter revenue that goes to the Town (as opposed to the State) is deposited in the Recreation Infrastructure Special Revenue Fund, which has been designated by Hampton voters as a set-aside for the needs of the Parks and Recreation Department. Every year, needsare identified,andthevotersare askedto approve withdrawal oftherequested dollars from thefundfor infrastructure projects.

Those in favor say: Within the scope of the work for this year will be replacing the downtown holiday lights (which have failed); replacing sections of fencing, windows and window sills in multiple facilities; and addressing some trip hazards at the skate park.

Those against say: No one spoke against this Article at theDeliberativeSession.

Fiscal impact: There would be no new tax impact, as the Recreation Infrastructure Fund will be tapped.

Click here to see the wording of this Article as it appears on your ballot.

*Note: The Richie McFarland Center merged with Waypoint but continues with the services provided, so the donations that were previously separated were merged into the one larger payment to Waypoint.

What it means: Each of the listed agencies will receive a donation from the town in the noted amount. The funds raised and donated last year are provided for comparison. This is an “all or none” Warrant Article. If the Article passes, all the listed agencies receive the specified donations. If it fails, none do.

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is $0.049. A household valued at $400,000 will see a tax cost of $19.60 in 2023. A similar Article was passed last year, and was part of your tax calculation. This year’s number is roughly the same, so the increase over your tax bill from last year would be negligible if this Article is passed. Of course, if the Article is defeated, there would be a savings compared to last year’s tax bill.