Windham Taxpayers

August 26, 2008
WMUR-TV

WINDHAM, N.H. — The start of the Interstate 93 widening project is causing headaches for some business owners, while others are trying to take advantage of the project.

Several businesses have been closed to make room for the expansion. Near exit 3 in Salem, a once-busy Dunkin’ Donuts has been shut down and will be demolished.

Pam Poole, owner of Hawaiian Heat Tanning, said she knew in February that she was going to have to move, but she wasn’t given a specific date.

“One day, they came in and said, ‘You have to be out in two weeks,’” Poole said. “So then, we had to shut down, and we didn’t have time to give our customers notice.”

The state helped Poole relocate to Range Road, but she said the money wasn’t enough to make up for closing for six weeks to get the new building ready. She said business has been slow because I-93 expansion work has begun near her new location.

“And now we have construction out here, which is awful,” she said. “I think it’s following us wherever we go.”

Owners of the Common Man restaurant hope to get some benefit from the project by voluntarily closing for six weeks for a major renovation. Owner Jason Lyons said he figured that roadwork would make it a hassle to get to the restaurant, so it will be renovated to add more seating.

“We could have stayed open during it while 93 was being expanded behind us, but at the same time, there was a need for us to renovate our building,” Lyons said.

Both businesses stand to benefit when the I-93 project is done. Lyons and Poole said the new exit 3 should drive more customers their way.

“I think it’ll be much better when it’s done,” Poole said. “It’s just the process of getting done.”

The project will be completed in phases and won’t be complete for six years. When it’s done, there will be four lanes of traffic in each direction between Salem and Manchester.

August 10, 2008
Eagle Tribune

The state is planning to sell 71 acres of land originally taken to build the new Route 111 in Salem and Windham.

The properties to be sold include two homes on Elizabeth Lane in Salem valued between $358,000 and $359,000, small lot corners, and even a site along Route 28 now being eyed for a new CVS store in Salem.

But whether two of the largest state-owned properties in Windham should be sold in today’s soft real estate market is something still up for debate.

Those two are 11.7 acres once owned by Delahunty Nursery, bought by the state in 2003 for $3.4 million, and 28.3 acres of a nearby golf course, purchased in 2000 for $3.7 million.

Both are lots prime for development — just off Interstate 93 and zoned for professional office space, according to town officials. Windham town assessor Rex Norman said the town’s tax revenue from the golf course site could possibly double or triple, depending on what is eventually built there.

The state typically will buy either parts or entire lots of property when expanding roadways, depending on how a new road will impact nearby landowners, according to William Oldenburg, an administrator with the state Department of Transportation.

“A lot of it is a matter of trying to be fair,” he said. “None of them asked for the project. They didn’t ask for the impact. … We’re trying to give them a fair deal … but also we realize we’re the stewards of taxpayers’ money.”

Most of the lots in Salem are much smaller, with the exception of one site along Route 28 that’s under consideration for a new CVS store, according to Salem planning director Ross Moldoff.

Not all lots are valuable

Many of the 26 surplus properties might not be very useful to anyone, with the exception of abutters wanting to expand their lots, Oldenburg said. Zoning restrictions could bar these smaller lots, which vary from 0.1 to 0.5 acres, from being developed.

It all depends on the shape, nearby infrastructure and location of the property, according to Christopher Goodnow, a commercial real estate consultant in Salem.

Windham Selectman Charlie McMahon has been pushing the state to sell the land in his town as quickly as possible.

“They own every significant parcel that is currently zoned for economic development,” said McMahon, who is also a state representative. “That’s the fact of the matter.”

McMahon said Windham needs to broaden its tax base because the town is building a new high school.

The state DOT has agreed to seek a number of market analyses from real estate experts once they’ve picked agents for the sale of the two Windham properties later this month. Price estimates for the properties may come in the next two or three months.

Depending on those analyses, a legislative committee will decide whether to move ahead. But Oldenburg, the DOT administrator, said he is sure the sale will go forward sooner rather than later.

A key factor in the decision to sell now was the calls from McMahon, asking on behalf of the town to sell the land, he said.

Oldenburg acknowledged the state has discussed whether selling the property now is a good idea, given the drop in property values because of the problems of the real estate market. He said real estate agents likely will want to sell the land promptly so they can make their commission.

Timing of sale matters to town

Ultimately, whether to sell now or hold onto the land until the market recovers rests with the state’s Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee. Once that committee gives the OK to sell, the towns have the first option to buy.

“That’s why we go back to the Long Range Committee and see the offers,” Oldenburg said. “If they’re too low, we may hold onto them.”

That may not sit well with McMahon.

“We need a broader property tax base to meet our needs, and the days of not having a reasonable economic tax base, as opposed to a home tax base, are, frankly, over,” McMahon said.

But state officials and legislators said they have a responsibility to try to break even or make a profit on such valuable properties.

“I appreciate Charlie’s position, but, by the same token, we’ve spent a significant amount of money and we shouldn’t take a loss,” said Sen. Lou D’Allesandro, D-Manchester.

Profits from selling surplus land go back into the state’s Highway Fund to offset the cost of repairing roads and bridges, according to Oldenburg.

D’Allesandro, a Long Range Committee member, said the state has a fiscal responsibility to make sure it doesn’t take a loss.

No estimates have been made yet on how much the state expects to get from reselling the properties taken for the road expansion project.

But Oldenburg said it’s unlikely the state will break even. “We impacted them with a road project,” he said. “We also limited the access to them, so we’ve diminished their value. With what we’ve paid for them, we don’t anticipate getting 100 percent of our money back.”

Norman, Windham’s assessor, doesn’t wholly agree the property values have been diminished. With the Delahunty property, drivers will only be able to take a right turn into and exiting the property. An access road has been built for drivers who want to turn left from the new road, after they pass a median.

The golf course property will be inaccessible from the new Route 111. It’s less clear what impact that will have on the property value, Norman said.

When the state bought that property eight years ago, it was zoned as commercial land that allowed for a grid of retail stores or restaurants, Norman said. The state’s purchase price was based in part on what could possibly be built there.

“The state must have bought that concept because they paid what they paid for it,” he said.

Zoning change could hurt price

That zoning changed around 2003 when planning officials decided to rezone the property for professional and technology-related businesses. The change restricts the nursery and golf course sites from retail use, and lowers the property value, according to Norman.

Moldoff, Salem’s planning director, said some private landowners are savvy when it comes to maximizing their property values before it comes time to sell it to the state.

“People do things to try to increase the value of land,” Moldoff said. “We had one guy come in with a request for a subdivision. They were getting the subdivision because it improved the value of land dramatically. Interesting things happen to the land market when a highway like this is planned.”

Goodnow, the real estate consultant, said if Windham wants to maximize its tax base with that property, it may be time to reconsider their zoning change. He said the current zoning for the two properties in Windham restrict the property value.

“It’s (zoned as) professional, high-tech commercial,” he said. “You can’t do retail, you can’t do more than 65 percent as a warehouse.”

“I want to get the most tax revenue out of a post-development project in some reasonable time frame, but a reasonable time frame is three to seven years,” Goodnow said. “The state could go out now and sell it to people. … But I’m not sure the state’s goals and town’s goal jibe.”

Oldenburg said buyers generally will approach town planners about what kind of development might be allowed on the land before making an official offer to the state. Once the legislative planning committee accepts an offer, it has to be finally approved by the governor and Executive Council.

Surplus property from Route 111 project

Parcel number%original property owner%original size (in acres)%current size

108%Beautage LLC (golf course property)%28.84%28.36

111%State of N.H.%0.60%0.60

128%Gail Realty Trust (Delahunty Nursery)%12.33%11.70

134%Helen M. McPhillips%1.47%0.30

136%Nick D. Katsoulis%1.11%0.59

139%CMC Realty Trust%5.88%0.28 on left of the road, 4.24 on the right

142%Evelyn F. Morley Revocable Trust%2.40%1.36 on left of the road, 0.50 on right

152%CMC Realty Trust%11.77%.04 on the left of the road, 5.50 on right

153%CMC Realty Trust%5.51%2.8

206%CMAB Associates LLC%0.54%0.46

209%E.G.D. Realty%0.31%0.10

210%Rogers, George, Robert and Dennis%0.46%0.35

222%Shirley E. Pivovar%3.7%0.47 on the left of the road, 0.19 on the right

225%Jarosky, Joseph Jr.%9.0%3.26 on the left of the road, 0.55 on the right

237%Marjorie J. Harris%0.41%0.35

238%Frank H. Galeucia%0.38%0.19

259%Merrill Family Trust%11.20%3.43

268%Garmine and Maureen Contrada%1.06%0.53

257D%Dana and Margaret Dumont%1.19%0.68

257E%William and Janet Choquetle%1.18%0.43

257F%Kenneth R. Foster and Kimberly Ford-Foster%1.26%1.04

257G%Lance and Lynne Dampier%1.05%0.56

267A%Giles Gagnon%1.48%1.0

267B%Giles Gagnon%1.20%.55

267C%Giles Gagnon%0.53%0.21

319A%Giles Gagnon%1.38%0.52

Source: N.H. Department of Transportation

August 10, 2008
Eagle Tribune

A new order requires local taxpayers and assessors to try to resolve differences before the taxpayers are given an appeal hearing before the state tax board.

The order seems to be working, at least from the state board’s perspective.

Melanie Ekstrom, deputy clerk for the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, said it has sent out about 300 letters to taxpayers and assessors this year, requiring the two parties to meet. About half of the cases have been settled or were withdrawn, she said.

“In effect, it got the parties to meet and communicate,” she said.

In the past, talks would often completely break down after a case was forwarded to the state board for a hearing, she said, even though assessors and taxpayers always have been encouraged to continue talking.

In some cases, it turned out, the disagreement between the town and property owner could have been resolved locally since their differences were so minor. Those differences include things like a mistaken recording on the property assessment card of the number of rooms in a house, she said.

A backlog of 1,200 cases — and long waits for taxpayer hearings — in January prompted the state board to require the local meetings, Ekstrom said.

Today, the state board has about 475 appeals pending, of which 420 are property tax appeals. The board’s four members are appointed to five-year terms by the state Supreme Court.

Ekstrom said both taxpayers and towns have told the board the new requirement is working.

Meanwhile, local assessing offices in Southern New Hampshire say the new requirement has yet to make much of a difference in the resolution of abatement denials.

Windham has six cases pending, which is not unusual, said assessor Rex Norman.

Still, Norman sees value in getting the two sides talking.

“Court is not always the best option,” he said.

Larger, more complicated cases may be bound for an appeal hearing regardless of whether the two parties are required to meet beforehand.

One pending case in Windham is over an abatement requested by The Commons at Windham Inc. for the 2006 tax year. The differences rest on the town’s $7.6 million assessment for the property, and the owner’s estimation of the property’s assessed value at $4.2 million.

The Commons was unable to meet the deadline for sitting down with the town, Norman said, so the case is headed to the state tax board. The two sides, however, plan to meet before it gets there and try to resolve differences, he said.

If the case is not resolved locally, it would be heard by the state board no sooner than March 2009, Norman said.

The new requirement hasn’t made a difference in Plaistow, said Marybeth Walker, assessor’s agent. But the town doesn’t have a large number of abatement cases, she said.

Pelham’s assessing assistant, Susan Snide, said she doesn’t know that the new requirement has made a difference locally.

The town settled three of 10 abatement cases filed for tax year 2006, she said.

Rick Brideau, assistant assessor for Londonderry, said the requirement is a good idea because it could save time and money for the town. It hasn’t yet this year — the town has had only two of those required meetings — but it could in the future.

A taxpayer can appeal a case to the state board or to Superior Court.

Ekstrom said the goal at the state tax appeal board is to get people talking and to resolve those cases that can be resolved.

And headway can be made even in those cases that have yet to be resolved.

“Regardless of whether they settle or not, they have narrowed the issues for when they come to the hearing,” Ekstrom said.

August 1, 2008
Pelham-Windham News

The future growth of Windham and how best to prepare for it is a frequent topic of discussion at selectmen’s meetings. The latest session relating to this issue involved town officials considering how best to use the ongoing Route 93 construction project to make those plans more efficient and less costly.

During the Monday, July 21 board meeting, Windham Highway Agent Jack McCartney raised the issue of the State Department of Transportation (DOT) digging two trenches that would run under Route 93, just south of the Weigh Station (north of Exit 3). The purpose of those two separate trenches would be to allow one path for water pipes, the other as a conduit for utilities such as cable, electric and phone. Under the current agreement with the DOT, the cost of construction would be paid by the state, while the Town of Windham would be assessed the cost of the pipes.

McCartney said the total cost to Windham taxpayers would be $15,407 for the water pipes; $10,276 for pvc conduits for other utilities. Four rows of pvc conduit would be required to do the project, while one row of water pipes would be needed to complete the job. Currently, water pipe costs 21 cents a running foot; while pvc conduit is four cents per foot, McCartney said. About 2,800 feet of conduit (four rows) would be needed, while approximately 600 to 800 feet of water pipe would be needed.
Selectmen were clearly divided on how much pipe should be laid under the highway. The final vote, which came after considerable debate, was three selectmen in favor of laying all five pipes, and two opposed. Voting in support of informing the DOT that Windham is in favor of laying five pipes under Route 93 during the road construction were Chairman Dennis Senibaldi, Bruce Breton and Charles McMahon. Opposed to putting in all five pipes as a single project were Selectmen Roger Hohenberger and Galen Stearns.

“At a minimum, we need to let the state know that the town is interested,” Senibaldi said, noting that it will be a couple of years before the money to fund the pipes would be needed. Senibaldi said whether one pipe or five pipes is eventually laid in that area makes no difference to the job that the DOT has to do. The state still has to do the trenching, he said.

Stearns said he’s concerned about laying water pipe under Route 93 when the Town of Windham has no public water system at the current time. Breton said he feels the job should be done as one whole package, to better prepare for “25 years down the road.”

“We’re talking about the future of Windham,” Breton said. “This needs to be done while 93 is already dug up.”

Hohenberger said he’d like to see the bid process for the pipes done separately as two projects, adding that he’s not sure Route 93, just below the Weigh Station is the right location. Hohenberger said he wants to have an option “for picking and choosing” which pipes to lay when the time comes to entrench them. McCartney said he agreed that it would be wise to bid the projects separately.
McMahon insisted that town officials need to plan the project in one package now, noting that it will be at least 10 years until the Route 93 reconstruction job is done.

“Windham is the dumping ground of traffic in Southern New Hampshire,” McMahon said, adding that the town should get “some benefit” from the work that’s taking place along Route 93. “We need to keep our flexibility open,” while the interstate highway is already being dug up, he said.
During the public input session of the meeting, resident and electrical engineer Tom Clarey asked why the DOT isn’t considering one giant concrete culvert, which would allow the installation of any number of conduits to run through a single pipe.

“Something big enough to walk through,” Clarey said. Clarey said this is the technique frequently used in California. Senibaldi said the DOT has said there needs to be at least 10 feet of separation between the water pipes and the pvc conduits for utilities. Clarey said it was his opinion that the electric conduits could run above the water pipes and this would eliminate the need for separate trenches. Hohenberger said he feels the cost of a single large culvert would be less cost-efficient than the separate conduits, anyway.

When questioned as to putting in conduits along the Route 111 By-Pass project, rather than under Route 93 near the Weigh Station, Windham Planning and Development Director Al Turner said that can be done at a future date, if deemed necessary for sewer lines, but that the Route 111 location isn’t far enough north to allow for efficient water flow. That should be done under Route 93, he said.
“This is not the time to get bogged down in finances,” Senibaldi said at the end of the discussion. “We can handle that down the road. We aren’t locking in anything,” he said. If the Town of Windham doesn’t allocate the money when the time for the pipes to be installed actually arrives, then fewer (than five) pipes will be laid, Senibaldi said. Following the 3 to 2 vote, Town Administrator David Sullivan was instructed to advise the DOT that Windham is interested in planning for the trenching of five pipes under Route 93 when the time for that portion of the reconstruction project arrives.

July 6, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — A widened Interstate 93 between Salem and Manchester will presumably carry travelers to destinations safer and sooner.

The town of Windham will soon decide whether to burrow under the old highway, building a passageway or conduit to carry utilities and attract commercial development to the northern part of town.

One proposed location is north of Route 111, in the area of the weigh stations at the side of I-93.

One thing is for sure, according to local officials, if the town wants the conduit installed, it’s only practical to do it before the two lanes are widened to four on each side of the highway. Digging up a new highway wouldn’t be an option.

In any event, the state Department of Transportation needs a decision soon on whether the town wants the conduit. That’s because the highway project will soon go out to bid and the underground work needs to be part of the design, according to I-93 project leader Peter Stamnas.

“We need to meet immediately,” he told Windham selectmen on June 23.

Town officials and Stamnas expect to sit down by mid-month and talk about the project. They also will talk about who would pay for it — the town, the state or both.

The price, which town highway agent Jack McCartney estimated at $50,000, would include the cost of the materials — a concrete or metal pipe at least 36 inches in diameter — and its installation.

The conduit has strong support on the Board of Selectmen, Selectman Charlie McMahon among them.

A conduit for sewer, water or utilities is critical to the long-term economic tax base of the town, McMahon said.

Board Chairman Dennis Senibaldi said the town has to plan for the future.

“And if this is an opportunity to bring in water and sewer, then it could be integral to expanding the commercial tax base in the future,” Senibaldi said.

Conventional wisdom holds that municipal water and sewer attract the interest of developers, because they do not have to rely on septic systems and wells.

Meanwhile, town planning director Al Turner said the conduit could be used to carry something in the future that hasn’t even been conceived of yet. Who would have foreseen the interest in fiber-optic cable years ago?

The conduit idea was first floated almost a decade ago, when the I-93 project was in the conception stage, according to Turner and McCartney.

They recalled state officials saying the state would pay to install the conduit if the town paid for the materials.

But Stamnas told selectmen recently that he believes the town would be responsible for both the conduit and its installation.

To that, Selectman Roger Hohenberger said he distinctly remembers the state agreeing that it would pay for the work.

Stamnas said he would find out more about whose responsibility payment would be.

If the town does have to pony up for the project, it remains to be seen whether townspeople would agree to do so. They would decide at Town Meeting, Town Administrator Dave Sullivan said.