Windham Taxpayers

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

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 8, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — Selectmen went behind closed doors and picked a New London consultant to suggest changes on how the Planning and Development Department does its work.

The town will pay $8,000 to Gerald Coogan, planning and development consultant, for the review.

The department is responsible for land-use planning, economic development and other activities.

Coogan will interview selectmen and the town administrator to understand what they want out of the department. He also will talk with planning department employees and those who use the office, including applicants and developers.

Coogan expects to have a draft report for the selectmen within 60 days and a final report in 90 days. That report would include any suggestions for organizational changes. He’ll talk about the project with the selectmen Monday in public session.

Selectmen said a reorganization is needed due to the high turnover of town planners, and because the town needs to attract more economic development to help pay for the new high school, set to open next year.

This week, selectmen voted unanimously to go into nonpublic session to discuss the three bid proposals for the consultant work.

Selectman Bruce Breton said he wanted to talk in nonpublic session in order to be fair to the bidders and not influence their reputations. He also wanted the talk in private because of the nature of the topic, the possible reorganization of the department.

Town Administrator David Sullivan said the law allows for nonpublic talks on the consultant selection because public talks could affect the reputations of the companies involved. These kinds of talks are rare, but have, in the past, been held both in public and nonpublic sessions, he said.

The other two consultants that bid for the study were Municipal Resources Inc. of Meredith and Salem, which bid $8,500, and Naturesource Communications of Boscawen, which bid $6,100.

Sullivan said he and the selectmen came to consensus on Coogan because they liked his proposal.

Sullivan and Breton said Coogan carried out a similar review for Narragansett, R.I. Breton said he spoke with a former Planning Board member from that city, who highly recommended Coogan’s work.

Al Turner, the town’s director of planning and economic development, said all three companies seem to be fit for the job.

“I’ll work with whoever they pick,” he said.

Sullivan said he continues to advocate for a review of all town departments.

He said times are changing, with the new high school due to open, Interstate 93’s widening, the Route 111 bypass and other work. Windham is no longer a small town, but its departments have had similar organizational structures in place for the last 20 years, he said.

Regarding the planning department bids, the three companies made proposals for two phases of work.

Sullivan said the town is only going forward with the first phase at this point. The second phase would be a review of how the planning department handles applications for site plans and subdivisions.

August 5, 2008
Eagle Tribune

WINDHAM — A 65-lot neighborhood at Cobbetts Pond will become the Breezy Gale Village District if voters approve it later this month. The proposal’s intent is to get everyone to pay their fair share for road repairs and plowing.

Breezy Gale, including Cross, Spring, Short and Sawtelle streets, would become the second village district in town. The streets are downhill from Johnson Farm.

Some residents of the area have a hard time getting to their homes in the winter because of poor road conditions, according to Cross Road resident Jim Morrow.

Granting village status would allow Breezy Gale residents to elect representatives to establish a master plan for road maintenance and an annual budget for roadwork.

The town would set an assessment based on the valuation of properties in the district to fund its budget for road repairs. The tax would be paid solely by Breezy Gale residents.

Until now, residents in this area have funded annual road repairs on a volunteer basis, spending about $8,000 last year, said Morrow, who presented a petition to selectmen earlier this year asking that they form the district boundaries.

The problem, Morrow said, was that only about half the residents contributed money for road repairs. “We need everyone to participate,” he added.

The earliest the village district could have a budget in place — funding road repairs and plowing — would be next year.

If Breezy Gale voters approve the village later this month, they would then elect three commissioners, a clerk, a treasurer and a moderator.

The commissioners would later meet with members of the Breezy Gale Association to gather input on what the residents want in the way of road repairs and a budget, Morrow said.

The intent isn’t to do anything extravagant but to make the roads serviceable, Morrow said. On June 30, selectmen established the district’s boundaries before the town administrator posted details on the village district vote.

The 65 parcels include camps. Only registered voters who live in the Breezy Gale section are eligible to decide the issue.

The vote is scheduled for Aug. 18 at 7 p.m. at Town Hall, 3 North Lowell Road.

The village district in town encompasses the entire Cobbetts Pond. It would remain unchanged by the establishment of the Breezy Gale district.