What it means: The petitioner requested at Deliberative Session to have this Article deleted from the Warrant. The rationale was that, with subsequent understanding of how the Unassigned Fund Balance works, it became clear that the Unassigned Fund Balance cannot be eliminated, and it would be better to remove the question from the ballot. That is not permitted by state law, however, once it is posted for Deliberative Session.

Those in favor say: No one (including the petitioner who was present) spoke in favor of this Article.

 Those against say: It is simply not possible – nor prudent – to eliminate the Unassigned Fund Balance. It serves as an emergency fund for the Town, and it helps to keep the cost of bond borrowing lower. There are only 3 ways to withdraw money from the Unassigned Fund: 1) Approval by the NH Department of Revenue Administration of an emergency expenditure; 2) Putting forward to the voters specific Warrant Article(s) that approve the purpose; or 3) Applying some of the revenue towards reducing the amount of tax revenue needed to be raised. Both #2 and #3 were utilized by the Town on this year’s Warrant.

Fiscal impact: No direct tax impact, however if it was even possible to do this, there would be increased costs each time we had a bond article. The bond rating agencies use the Town’s available emergency funds as a way of establishing credit-worthiness of the municipality. If we had no emergency funds on hand, it would reduce Hampton’s rating and increase the cost of borrowing.

Articles 11 & 12 are technically loans, and thus each requires a 3/5ths majority to pass (60%). The Funding will come from the State Revolving Fund, as a 100% reimbursement of our expenses. By state regulations, these expenses must be presented as a tax impact, even though the funds will eventually come from the State.

What it means: This project will replace over 2,200 feet of old vitrified clay sewer pipe with new pipes to remove inflow and infiltration issues; and it will eliminate inaccessible back lot sewers, sewers under buildings, assets in wetlands and in areas prone to flooding. Associated drainage and pavement repairs will be made. The cost includes design, engineering and construction. Because this is a bond Article, by state law it must receive a 3/5ths majority vote (60%).

Those in favor say: Because the current pipes are compromised and allow inflow and infiltration, excess groundwater and salt water is being transported via the pipes to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. Thus, the Town is having to treat this excess volume, costing us money and decreasing our capacity. Additionally, the salt is detrimental to the “good” bacteria that is needed break down the components of the wastewater.

Those opposed say: No one spoke against this Article at Deliberative Session or at any of the public sessions where the proposal was discussed.

Fiscal Impact: If a bond is issued in 2024, the first bond payment will be due in 2025. The estimated 2025 tax rate impact is $0.074 per $1,000 valuation (valuation changes may alter this estimate). A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $29.60 for 2025, and will impact future year’s taxes as well. The total of the bond’s principal and interest payments over a 15-year period at an interest rate of 4.75% are estimated to be $3,447,188.

Background: Hampton received an Administative Order-on-Consent (AOC) from the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) related to the amount of copper that is being discharged from our Wastewater Treatment Plant. At high concentrations, copper is toxic, affecting metabolic processes of marine organisms. An AOC is an agreement between an entity (Hampton in this case) and the regulatory body (EPA) in which they agree to address damages caused by violations, and to cease the activities that caused the problem.

What it means: This project will investigate various ways to remedy the high copper output from our Wastewater Treatment Facility. The plan is to evaluate the existing outfall location, site-specific water quality criteria, and and to look at outfall relocation alternatives including a dilution study.

The cost of this project is covered under a Clean Water State Revolving Fund, which means we will receive a 100% loan forgiveness for the cost.

Those in favor say: The discharge location for the WWTP has limited dilution, causing the copper limits leaving the plant to be unacceptable. Full-scale pilot testing demonstrated that total copper reduction to discharge permit levels is not achievable via chemical addition without significant infrastructure modifications (e.g. construction of tertiary treatment/filtration systems).

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.025. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $10.00 for 2024, a cost that would be reimbursed to the Town.)

What it Means: The Waste Water Treatment Plant Sludge Handling Study will explore options related to sludge disposal and sludge grind, compressed solids from the waste water treatment process). Financial implications of various disposal and treatment options will be investigated.

 Those in favor say: A constellation of factors is affecting how municipalities including Hampton handle biosolids. Biosolids are organic matter that remain after sewage is treated. In Hampton, we add a polymer coagulant to remove the excess liquid/water in order to reduce the cost to haul the biosolids to Rochester, NH. New PFAS regulations, landfills reaching capacity, and the ever-increasing fees for hauling and disposal mean that our current processing may become impractical. We need to start looking into how we handle our biosolids in the future.

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.025. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $10.00 for 2024, a cost that would be reimbursed to the Town.)

What it means

A “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) is the result of extensive negotiations between the Town and an employee Union regarding topics such as wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment. As an overarching statement related to the four CBAs in Articles 14, 15, 16 & 17, the Town has had difficulty hiring due to Hampton’s wages being non-competitive with surrounding municipalities. Further, the Town Departments have trained employees only to have them leave for higher-paying positions in the area. Thus, there are many unfilled positions. When the Departments are understaffed, it affects the service levels for Hampton residents and contributes to higher costs by way of overtime pay for the employees that the Town does have. To address this, the first year of the contracts reflect a market rate adjustment. In the subsequent 2 years of each of the contracts, the increases range from 2% – 4% (different by group but all within that range). Articles 14 and 15 also incorporate a pay matrix, where the employees are recognized for their skill sets. That provides a way of rewarding employees to remain with the Town and still advance with regard to responsibility and with regard to pay.

Those opposed say: No one spoke against Articles 14, 15 16 or 17 at Deliberative Session.  See each Article for more information.

What it Means: This Article asks for voter approval of a new CBA that seeks to give Public Work employees a way to improve their career standing by increasing their skills. This new approach is built into the salary scale that is reflected in the Article. This agreement covers 34 employees.

Those in favor say: Allowing existing employees to advance in a step fashion benefits both the employee (better wage opportunities) and the Town (better ability to retain employees and to recruit when needed.)

Fiscal impact: If Article 14 is approved, a property valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $14.40 in 2024, and an increase of $15.00 for the highest cost year in the contract period (2025). Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is .036 cents in 2024.

What it means: Similar to Article 14, this CBA allows for employee advancement by acquiring new skills that benefit the Town. The agreement covers 26 employees who work in Town Hall, as well as the civilian employees at the Police Department such as Police Dispatchers.

Those in favor say: Getting to competitive wages helps control costs, since the Town is not constantly having to go through repetitive hiring cycles. Increased costs for extensive (and sometimes unproductive) hiring efforts could be better invested elsewhere, and high turnover also hampers the ability to build cross-department rapport, which is critical for the smooth functioning of the Town.

Fiscal impact: If Article 15 is approved, a property valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $9.20 in 2024. Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is .023 cents in 2024.

What it means: This CBA covers 36 people: (4) fire alarm operators and (32) firefighters’ positions. The proposed agreement would bring our firefighers, who work in a more active community than many of the other towns studied, up to the average mark of compensation in the region.

Those in favor say: Firefighter salaries for Hampton were compared to Seabrook, Exeter, North Hampton, Rye, Dover and Portsmouth. Hampton was found to be the lowest, and this factor is making it difficult to hire and retain employees. This causes difficulty hiring. We currently have 4 openings, and only 10 applicants – not all of whom are qualified.

Fiscal impact: If Article 16 is approved, a property valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $30.40 in 2024, with lesser increases in each of the subsequent years in the contract period. Cost per thousand dollars of valuation is .076 cents in 2024.