What it means: This request is for an annual donation to Experience Hampton to help fund the Holiday parade, which generally occurs in early December.

Those in favor say: The parade involves many groups, 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 percentage.

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

Fiscal impact: Cost per $1,000 valuation is $0.001. A household valued at $400,000 would see $0.40 incorporated into the tax bill for 2024.  The town has supported this donation in the past at the same level, so it would technically not be an increase.

What it means: This Article if approved would form a new committee to oversee issues related to improving telecommunications in Hampton. The concept grew out of the issues faced by the community with the proposal to add cell towers at a Barbour Road property in conjunction with a developer of cellular infrastructure. That proposal highlighted the issues of spotty cellular connections in portions of Hampton, as well as home owner concerns about living in proximity to a cell tower structure.

What everyone seemed to agree upon:  Cell service in many areas of Hampton is poor.  We rely upon cell service for everything from emergency services to GPS to Two Factor Authentication.  There should be a proactive effort in Hampton to improve service while respecting the rights and concerns of homeowners.

Those in favor say: Technology is changing rapidly and there needs to be focus on the evolving options in order for the Town administrators to fully understand how to best maintain reliable communication capability for residents. It would be good if members of the community (as part of this proposed committee) could weigh in on this issue and help to steer the solutions.

Those opposed say: The way the Article is written, it is unclear how the Committee would function especially with regard to the Planning Board, Zoning Board or the Cable TV Committee, and whether it would be an advisory committee. The point was made that the members of the Boards that now have jurisdiction on issues related to communications are members of the community, too and seek commentary from the wider public – meaning the objective of including citizen participation is being met with our current Boards and Committees.  The Planning Board has taken note of this issue and has added the topic to its worklist for 2024.  There will be an exploration of the Ordinances and how they might be revised to address these concerns.  This is the work of the Planning Department and having another Committee will slow things down and potentially complicate matters. There is also a lack of clarity as to whether the members are appointed by the Planning Board, or are designated representatives from various Boards.

Fiscal impact: No direct tax impact.

What it means: A group of homeowners who have been maintaining their streets, as required by the permitting process and as agreed to by the developer, now request that the Town assume ownership of the roads and the maintenance responsibility.  The process of transferring the roads will be at no cost to the Town.

Those in favor say: No one spoke in favor of the Article at Deliberative Session.

Those opposed say: This Article would add to the services the Town needs to provide, and could potentially be an additional cost if defects are discovered under the roads, since the Town would be accepting the roads on an “as is” basis. The road is dedicated to 14 homes, and was allowed by the Town with the understanding that the Homeowner’s Association would maintain the roads.

Fiscal impact: There is no direct tax impact, but would add to services required, and could potentially be a cost if work is needed under the roads, which were built privately and thus outside of the Town’s specifications.

What it means: Cross Roads House, Inc. is requesting that the amount provided by Hampton each year (historically $15,000) be increased to $39,000, and to be added in that higher amount to the annual Social Services Article. As rationale, they note that the current donaton only handles about 10% of the average cost of serving a homeless person or family.  The increased amount, should it be approved, would be just over 25% of the average cost for Hampton residents who utilize Cross Roads House.

Because the amount requested was increased substantially, the Board of Selectmen asked the petitioner to keep the $15,000 amount in Article 23 with the other social services agencies, and to make the increased amount a separate Warrant Article this year.  If this Article passes, the intent would be to add the higher amount ($39,000) to the Social Services Article along with all the others in subsequent years. The new total for Cross Roads House in 2024 would be $39,000 (the $15,000 in Article 23 and the $24,000 under this Article), assuming voter approval.

Those in favor say:  Cross Roads House helps individuals and families to secure housing, and provides guidance to assist these individuals to regain their footing to become productive members of their communities.

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

Fiscal impact: The estimated 2024 tax impact is $0.006 per $1,000 valuation. A household valued at $400,000 would see a tax increase of $2.40 for this Article. The total $39,000 for Cross Roads House amounts to $3.90 for property valued at $400,000.

What it means: The petitioners had cited a salary of $29,701.40 but that dollar provision was deleted at Deliberative Session. As amended, it is impractical to enact.

Those in favor say: No one spoke in favor of the Article at Deliberative Session.

Those opposed say: The reason the attendees at the frist Town Meeting zeroed out the cost of this Article is that there were too many unknowns. There are many state and federal agencies that provide services for veterans. It is unclear why this position is necessary or how the person in this role would interact with other agencies. It is unclear to whom this position would report at Town Hall, or where they would have an office. The Article states that the person would not get benefits. Presumably, this is a reference to the 28 hours per week disqualifying the position from the benefits afforded full-time employees, but there are still benefits that part-timers qualify for, and this position would as well. It was suggested that the Board of Selectmen review the needs of Veterans and readdress the issue next year.

Fiscal impact: This Article was zeroed out at Deliberative Session, essentially making it impractical to implement. There would be no fiscal impact as amended.

What it means: The petitioner is requesting that the tax impact of Warrant initiatives be represented on the ballot as both the dollar cost per thousand (current) and the specific impact on a property valued at $400,000.

Those in favor say: The intent of the Article is to make it easier for people to understand how much their own tax would be.

Those opposed say: People will still need to do the math, since only a subset of homes will have close to the $400,00 valuation. It will be a moving target, even to present it as the “average”, since valuations are likely to change with periodic revaluations. The cost per $1,000 is the “least common denominator” approach and is easy enough for most people.

Note: In the Know Hampton provides the translation to the average home value of $400,000 and will update the average each year.

Fiscal impact: No direct tax impact.

What it means:  Zero-based budgeting (ZBB) is a method of budgeting in which all expenses must be justified for each new period. Every function within the department is analyzed for needs and costs. The budgets are then built around what is needed for the upcoming period, regardless of whether each budget is higher or lower than the previous one.

Those in favor say: The method of “Zero-Based” budgeting would help identify more urgent needs of the Town and prioritize over more minor needs. The practice is used in business in planning for future needs and adds clarity to how budgets are produced.

Those opposed say:  The Board of Selectmen have not taken a position on this Article since it would most likely be non-binding. This budgeting method works well in business, but due to the structure of current town management, this budgeting method would only be advisory. It would cross the authority of the Selectmen and Town Manager in the SB2 form of government (meaning towns that use a Town Manager), and would not add clarity due to the processes established for this type of town management. It was also noted that any resident currently has the right and opportunity to bring issues of priority to the Board of Selectmen.

Fiscal impact: No direct tax impact.

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.