Windham Taxpayers

August 19, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — The selectmen chairman cast the deciding vote last night on a proposal to spend $53,450 on renovating the historic Bartley Building, home to the town’s administrative offices.

The vote came one week after the board, also in a 3-2 decision, backed a plan to build a new multipurpose Town Hall that would house administrative, town clerk, tax collector and assessing offices as well as the Planning and Development office.

Chairman Dennis Senibaldi said that his vote last night for the $53,450 expenditure does not mean that he no longer wants a new Town Hall. Rather, he supports the Bartley upgrade because residents approved money for the improvements in a previous warrant article.

He also said the upgrade, including window replacements, second-floor wall construction and installation of a folding staircase to the attic, will increase the building’s value.

Selectman Galen Stearns said the improvements will bolster energy efficiency.

“I’m for it regardless of what we do in the future,” Stearns said.

Selectman Roger Hohenberger also voted for the proposal.

Selectman Charlie McMahon, a strong supporter of a new Town Hall, said putting money into the old building is unwise.

“It’s a monumental waste of money,” he said.

McMahon and Bruce Breton voted in the minority.

The work was awarded to low bidder Kingwood Builders of Windham and is expected to be completed by Oct. 31.

The Bartley House is located at 4 North Lowell Road, across the street from Town Hall.

A week ago, selectmen forwarded a plan for a new Town Hall to the Capital Improvement Committee for the group to rank the $2.25 million project among others. The 15,000-square-foot building would be constructed on Fellows Road, across from Nesmith Library.

Selectmen want to set aside money through 2011, then bond the remaining balance.

Earlier last night, residents of the Breezy Gale neighborhood at Cobbetts Pond voted 17-5 to establish a village district for reclassifying private roads as village roads, and to raise money for paving and other road improvements.

The voters elected commissioners, a village moderator, a clerk and a treasurer. Only residents of the village will pay for the road improvements.

August 14, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — A proposed easement on 83 acres of town conservation land would protect the land from development forever.

At the town deliberative session Tuesday, residents and the selectmen laid out their reasoning for and against the proposal, to be presented to voters as Article 2 on the warrant at the Special Town Meeting Sept. 9.

Supporters said the conservation easement lends legal protection to land the town already has decided to protect. Furthermore, the town will benefit from a $177,500 well water protection grant from the state if Windham deeds the easement to a third party.

Opponents said there is no way of knowing the town’s future needs and it would be inappropriate to tie the hands of future generations.

Under the easement, the town would continue to own the land and manage it as it sees fit, said Phil Auger, a forester with the University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension and a member of the Southeast Land Trust board of directors.

The easement merely extinguishes the rights to develop or mine the land, he said.

The only way the town could reclaim the development rights to the property would be through eminent domain court action — basically proving that there is an overriding public benefit for building on the conservation land.

Opponent Galen Stearns said there is no way of knowing what the town’s needs will be 25, 50 or 100 years from now.

“Let’s not give up our rights,” he said.

Supporter Margaret Crisler said the town has already decided it wants that area set aside as conservation land. She urged voters to trust the conservation effort of today and protect the land for tomorrow.

The land is made up of two parcels near several hundred acres of town conservation property.

Easement protection also would come through the oversight of a third party, the Southeast Land Trust. The trust would hold the easement deed and members would regularly inspect the land to ensure that it was not being built upon or used for dumping.

Selectmen have yet to vote on their recommendation for Article 2.

The town petitioned Superior Court to hold the special town meeting. Voting is slated for Sept. 9 between 7 a.m. and 8 p.m. at Golden Brook School. The article needs a simple majority for approval.

###

Note: Special meetings are ONLY supposed to be held for ‘emergencies’.

August 14, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — In a split decision, the selectmen sent a plan to construct a multi-office Town Hall to the Capital Improvement Committee for that group to rank among other projects.

A majority of the selectmen said a new Town Hall would save money on energy costs and better serve the public with one-stop shopping.

A minority of the board said the town should use its buildings for town services rather than build a new one, given the difficult economic times.

Construction of the 15,000-square-foot building on Fellows Road, across from Nesmith Library, would cost about $2.25 million.

Selectmen want to set aside available money through 2011, then bond the balance of the $2.25 million.

The new Town Hall would house offices for the town clerk, tax collector, assessing, administration, Planning and Development departments, and the cable station.

Today those offices are housed in older buildings at 3 and 4 N. Lowell St.

Selectman Charlie McMahon said it’s a waste of money to repair the old buildings and costly to heat them.

“I believe the time is now (to build), because of the energy crisis,” McMahon said.

He said a new building with an energy-efficient design would save money.

Selectman Galen Stearns countered that the tax impact from the new high school, set to open in 2009, and from a new elementary school, if it is approved, demands fiscal restraint.

“We have the facilities for people to get their business transacted,” Stearns said.

Selectman Roger Hohenberger said residents previously invested in upgrades to the Bartley Building with the understanding that it would continue to house town administrative offices. Most recently, in March, voters approved $50,000 to upgrade the upstairs of that building.

Hohenberger also said he doubted there would be available funds in the capital improvement plan if the school district decides it needs a new elementary school.

McMahon and selectmen Chairman Dennis Senibaldi said they do not think town needs should be trumped by school needs.

Selectmen voted 3-2 to send their Town Hall proposal to the CIP panel. The panel and Planning Board will review all the town and school proposals and return their recommendations, ranked in importance, to the selectmen and the School Board.

McMahon, Senibaldi and Selectman Bruce Breton voted in the majority Monday. Hohenberger and Stearns voted in the minority.

August 13, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — Support for a $1.25 million secondary road to the new high school gained traction last night with answers to lingering questions on the project’s cost, history and whom it would benefit.

The answers came at a deliberative session attended by about 65 people at Town Hall, less than a month before residents vote on the bond Sept. 9. The money would be used to establish the access road on what used to be London Bridge Road.

Town officials petitioned Superior Court and were granted approval to hold the Special Town Meeting vote.

One question last night came from resident Tom Case, who asked the fire chief if he ever approved a plan for the school that did not include an emergency access road. Some residents have said the secondary access road was not part of the original plan and became an issue after the fact.

“The answer is no,” said fire Chief Tom McPherson. He said that at no time did the Fire Department approve the project without secondary access.

McPherson again confirmed he will not allow the school to open without the access road.

The fire chief has the authority to waive a secondary access but said he will not because it would put the students and others at risk. The primary entrance is about a mile off Route 111.

The school is slated to open next fall, but the town will need much of the time before then to clear trees, remove ledge and construct the 4,000-foot-long and 24-foot-wide paved road with curbing and drainage.

The former London Bridge Road is a rocky, root-strewn path through the woods that wends around curves and climbs over rolling terrain.

Selectmen Chairman Dennis Senibaldi told the audience that the town road agent has assured him the entire construction cost would be covered by the $1.25 million bond.

The 10-year bond, at 4 percent interest, would cost property owners eight cents per $1,000 valuation in the first year, then decline to six cents in the final year, he said.

Some residents want landowners along the site of the proposed access to foot the bill since the road would make their property more valuable by opening it to residential development.

Project designer Peter Zohdi countered this assertion, saying landowners already have access to the undeveloped property without the new road.

Several of these landowners have offered to donate property for the road so long as the town constructs a paved road.

Town lawyer Bernie Campbell said state law has no provision for charging these people fees to build the road.

Campbell also researched ownership of the town road and found that it was legally discontinued in 1935.

Several speakers spoke in favor of the road.

Among them was resident Betty Dunn, who said she withheld her support until last night. Now, she wants the road. The town is in a bind since the school cannot open without a second access road.

“We would effectively be shooting ourselves in the foot (to do otherwise),” she said.

Still others said the road remains too costly and would be unsafe for pedestrians.

Resident Tom Cleary said the road design includes no sidewalk. This would endanger students walking to school in the winter, he said.

Resident Carol Pynn called the paved-road proposal “overkill.” She supports a gravel road available to just emergency vehicles.

Resident Ginny Campiola said an unpaved road would be a nightmare to travel during the winter.

In addition, Senibaldi said Road Agent Jack McCartney estimates it would cost tens of thousands of dollars each year to regrade the gravel road.

Another speaker suggested that the road be gated, allowing only emergency access.

Selectmen are to vote on their recommendation at a regular meeting. But a majority of board members have said they support the road.

Selectman Roger Hohenberger said he feels better about the road’s chance for success after last night’s deliberative session.

“There were some questions answered that were hanging out there,” Hohenberger said.

On Sept. 9, voters will also cast ballots on an article that would permanently preserve, through a conservation easement, more than 80 acres of town land near Goodhue Road.

The conservation easement, held by the Southeast Land Trust, would prevent future development of the land except through taking by eminent domain.

Approval of the article would qualify the town for a well-water-protection grant from the state.

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