Annual Town Meeting ~ Durham, Maine

2022-04-02 · Town Meeting · 4:18:32 · watch on YouTube →

Durham's annual town meeting, held the day after the elections with Bill Schneider as moderator, worked through a 35-article warrant. Voters approved most of the capital and operating articles, but defeated both land use ordinance amendments on the warrant (the resource protection district remapping and the roads amendments) and defeated the appropriation for bulky waste day. Several budget articles were settled by amendment, with the meeting substituting the budget committee's figure for fire and rescue and for administration, and the select board's figure for public works and for the raise pool. The levy limit framed much of the debate; after the public works vote the board reported the town would not need to exceed it. The recording ends partway through the discussion of the block of articles 25 through 35.

No written minutes could be matched to this meeting. The transcript records that the speaker changed but never who was speaking, so any name attached to a statement below is inferred from context and is marked (?).

What was discussed

1. 0:20
   Opening, moderator and ground rules

   Bill Schneider, of Roughrider Road, opened as elected moderator and had the select board and budget committee introduce themselves. Stan (?), pastor at a local church, gave the invocation. The Maine moderator's manual was adopted as the guide without objection, and non-residents were named as permitted to speak: interim town manager Mitchell Berkowitz, deputy treasurer Janet Bowie, road commissioner Calvin, and the code enforcement officer.

2. 5:20
   Election results and the Durham scholarship

   Schneider (?) announced 440 ballots cast. Select board seats went to Joseph Tom (?) with 327 votes and Joshua Golden (?) with 145; budget committee seats to Jill Gaston with 354, Jane Rice (?) with 91 and John Talbott (?) with 86; the RSU 5 board seat to Michelle Richardson with 231. The town scholarship was presented to Nathan Abbott, an Eagle Scout whose project built the guard rails and information box at Runaround Pond, who will study mechanical engineering at Norwich University.

3. 10:33
   Interim town manager; Articles 3, 4 and 5

   Mitch Berkowitz was formally introduced as interim town manager, with the select board due to begin discussing the search for a permanent manager the following Tuesday. Article 3, a leftover from the written-ballot years, drew no motion. Article 4 asked to transfer $63,000 from the fire department capital fund for self-contained breathing apparatus, and Article 5 to transfer $220,089 from the public works capital fund and raise $21,911 for a tandem-axle plow truck.

4. 15:35
   Article 6: tax impact and the case for the culverts

   A voter asked what the articles would do to the mill rate before more were passed. The answer given was that adopting all the select board recommendations would raise the municipal share of the tax rate by about 0.32 of a mill, and the budget committee recommendations by about 0.27, with the levy limit only at risk if the meeting took the highest figure on every question. Road commissioner Calvin (?) explained that the stream crossings will eventually have to be replaced whether or not the grant is taken.

5. 21:02
   Stream-smart design and the capital plan ranking

   Joe Roy (?) asked whether stream-smart principles (spanning 1.2 times bank width, open bottoms, natural stream channel) would be used in the crossing designs, and was told the larger crossings would be open-bottom or natural-bottom. Another voter asked whether the project was in a plan or simply chasing free money; the answer was that the capital improvement committee had ranked it second on the year's list, behind the fire department breathing apparatus.

6. 26:37
   Article 6 voted; Article 7 revaluation introduced

   Article 6 was put and declared passed. Article 7 proposed transferring $60,000 from the municipal capital account for a market-based revaluation. The select board explained that this is not a full revaluation (the last of those was done in 2009 for the 2010 bills, and a full one would cost about $260,000) but a correction to keep valuations within the state's threshold of market, since residents are currently receiving only part of the homestead exemption they would otherwise get.

7. 32:22
   Revaluation questions and vote; Article 8 opened

   Voters were told the state valuation used for school funding is a separate number and that no trigger in law sets a deadline for a full revaluation. Article 7 was approved. Article 8, for the fire department capital fund, opened with a question on rescue revenue; fire chief Rob Tripp (?) said roughly $45,000 came in last year and that Comstar, the town's third-party billing company, was at about 65 percent collected against a projected 80 percent.

8. 37:35
   Fire apparatus fleet; Articles 8 and 9

   Tripp (?) described six apparatus averaging nearly 14 years old, with the quint dating to 1994 and a pumper and ambulance from 2019, and said he was trying to build a pool of roughly $150,000 for upkeep rather than purchase. The capital improvement committee chair noted the full request under the capital plan was $400,000 and that last year's unspent rescue revenue went back to undesignated rather than to reserves. Article 8 was settled at $59,000, and Article 9, for $49,000 to the public works capital fund, was moved with no discussion.

9. 42:38
   Article 10: resource protection district remapping

   Town planner George (?) explained the amendment. The 2018 comprehensive plan replaced the 2002 plan and eliminated the growth district, and it found the resource protection mapping rested on 1970s and 1980s data, including a floodplain map referring to a 1938 flood. An environmental consultant, Michael Morris (?), had reviewed which land state law requires to be in resource protection, and letters went to about 300 affected landowners; the work was split so that this phase only corrected properties already inside the district.

10. 48:18
    The six criteria, and an objection to the hearing procedure

    George set out six criteria for resource protection, including 100-year floodplain on the most recent FEMA mapping, land the DEP requires to be zoned that way, forested or open-water wetlands of ten acres or more, land within 250 feet of a wetland rated moderate to high value, and a new criterion for land rated six or more overlapping resources under Beginning with Habitat. A resident then argued that under state statute the municipal reviewing authority (the planning board, not the select board) must hold the public hearing on a zoning change, so the step had been skipped and any vote would be open to challenge. A second speaker cited 30-A M.R.S.A. 4352 and argued the proposed map did not match the sixth criterion in the ordinance text.

11. 53:21
    Conservation Commission asks for one combined step

    Joe Roy, speaking for the conservation commission, said the commission's recommendation was to do the removals and additions at once rather than in two phases, on the grounds that using only half the best available science is counter to the argument for using it at all. Other speakers objected that removals now with additions promised for next year increases development opportunity without the offsetting protection.

12. 58:24
    Notice to landowners and abutters

    George (?) said the roughly 300 notices went only to owners whose resource protection mapping would change, and that he had not calculated the acreage coming out against what phase two might add, because the point was accuracy rather than balance. A resident read the notice provision requiring notice to owners of property to be rezoned and to all abutting owners, and argued this was a second procedural defect. Joe Roy disclosed that his own property would gain protection under the change and still supported doing it all at once.

13. 1:03:44
    The select board's reason for splitting the phases

    The select board said the first step was simply to correct properties shown in resource protection that meet none of the criteria, and that it felt unfair to hold one owner's misidentified property hostage to adding another owner's land, which needs a much higher threshold of public involvement. Adding land, the board said, is the more involved process and was left for next year. A voter was told an ordinance change can go to a special town meeting rather than waiting a full year.

14. 1:09:25
    Closing debate on Article 10 and the vote

    Speakers pointed to development pressure in town, to a March 2 report by the Royal River Conservation Trust highlighting Durham's land, and to the change from four criteria in the comprehensive plan to six in the ordinance. The moderator noted that only he could call the question with a two-thirds vote and then put Article 10 to the meeting.

15. 1:15:04
    Article 11: roads amendments explained

    George (?) described three parts: allowing a 16-foot driveway rather than a 20-foot gravel road to serve a single backlot; consolidating the approval of private ways, which serve multiple lots outside a legal subdivision, into a single staff process with clear design standards; and replacing the growth-district-based subdivision road standards with one policy. After the public hearing the select board amended the private way standard so those roads may remain gravel rather than being paved.

16. 1:20:14
    Private way standards and erosion control

    Voters pressed on whether the removal of language about the town not accepting roads created a new obligation; George pointed to draft section 5.23(c), which requires the plan to bear a note that the town will not be responsible for maintenance or repair of a private way. Will Werner (?), who said he writes requirements for a living, argued the wording of the paving exemption was unclear about whether the appendix 2 erosion and sedimentation standards still applied, and said he would vote against it unless that was clarified. He was told the legislative record of the public hearing shows the intent was to exempt paving only, with erosion control still required.

17. 1:25:20
    Backlot access costs and the driveway standard

    A resident of Maplewood Lane, a private drive off Stepp Hill Road, said that under the current ordinance she would have to pave a quarter mile at a cost of roughly $300,000 for a child to build on the land in front of her, and asked the meeting to approve the article. Mike Abbott (?) asked whether a 16-foot driveway could come off another driveway and was told it must front on a state, town or private road, and noted that the 16-foot figure in section 5.7 should have been underlined as new text.

18. 1:30:29
    Paving thresholds, maintenance and whether the town must take roads

    A voter asked whether the provision allowing streets serving no more than three dwelling units to stay unpaved would remove the subdivision paving requirement; George (?) said the subdivision regulations are separate and still require any road serving four or more lots to be paved. The select board said it removed the paving requirement because paving is not a public safety issue, unlike width, turnarounds and gravel base, and it did not seem right to require paving on roads the town takes no responsibility for. Several speakers said they could find nothing in writing that prohibits the town from accepting roads, only the absence of an obligation, and warned that creating many more private roads could generate pressure to have the town take them over later.

19. 1:41:24
    Article 11 put to a counted standing vote

    The moderator called for cards, said he was in doubt about the result, and had voters on each side stand and be counted.

20. 1:46:55
    Article 12 appeals process; Article 13 introduced

    George (?) explained that nine of the land use ordinance's 19 articles carry their own appeal clauses, and that Article 12 would consolidate them and remove the board of appeals' authority to add or remove conditions, leaving it able only to uphold, overturn or remand. A resident who had been through two appeals spoke for it, describing sitting with the planning board for nine hours only to have the appeals board add different conditions without that experience. Article 13 was then read, allowing the select board to periodically set permit and application fees based on actual costs and comparison with similar towns.

21. 1:52:47
    Article 13 voted; Article 14 and the amendment procedure

    A speaker said he would support Article 13 but would like resident oversight of the fee process in future; Kevin (?) said the board considered fee setting an administrative task done in public session, and that waiting another year would cost the town significant revenue. Article 14, the fire and rescue budget, then opened with a procedural question about the differing select board and budget committee recommendations, and the moderator explained that a voter who disagrees with the figure moved should move an amendment, which is voted first.

22. 1:57:53
    Amendment to Article 14 and questions on grants

    An amendment was moved and seconded to substitute the budget committee's recommendation of $496,153. Jill Gaston (?) asked the fire chief what grants had been applied for to offset the budget and what the town could do to improve his success rate.

23. 2:03:37
    The fire department's grant record

    Tripp listed a wildland firefighter matching grant that was not received, a state surplus delivery of PPE, an application for four sets of MSA Globe turnout gear worth about $8,000, a boat replacement grant being written through the Stephen King Foundation and Firehouse Subs, a radio grant of $20,000 to $50,000 through Maine Emergency Management, and a FEMA application of about $50,000 for diesel exhaust removal from the six apparatus bays. He said the town is shovel-ready with up to three ARPA proposals for the fire station.

24. 2:09:19
    Station facilities as a barrier to grants

    Asked about grants that were not captured, Tripp (?) said the FEMA breathing apparatus grant cannot be reapplied for once awarded. He said the station, whose last addition turns 20 years old this July, has no sleeping quarters, barely a kitchen, and no training facility, and that having a space that could be checked off as overnight accommodation would improve the town's position on the larger infrastructure grants. He confirmed that federal and state grants are largely for capital rather than operating costs.

25. 2:14:46
    Ambulance billing and how the budget committee reached its figure

    Tripp (?) said rescue billing covers transports only, at basic, advanced and paramedic levels, and that billing for motor vehicle accidents and hazard mitigation would be a separate decision; a budget committee member said those are billable hours the town should look at. The budget committee explained that the original request was $499,990 and that it removed $3,840 of unused unemployment charge to reach $496,153, then asked how the select board arrived at its lower figure. Kevin (?) said the board trimmed several objects to bring the total municipal assessment under the levy limit and did not work to the line-item level.

26. 2:19:55
    Article 14 settled; Article 15 public works opened

    The amendment and then the article were put. Article 15, the public works operating budget, was moved at the budget committee's figure. The budget committee chair said the original request was $1,325,618 and that the committee had gone through the budget line by line with the public works director, who tried to reach the select board's $1,250,000 and could not get below $1,272,000.

27. 2:25:03
    The select board's public works figure

    Kevin (?) said the board's recommendation is $62,353 less than requested, that public works has returned the most unspent money in recent years, and that the figure restores the paving budget to its pre-pandemic level of $375,000 a year. He warned that approving the highest figure everywhere would put the town over the levy limit.

28. 2:30:12
    The levy limit explained

    Voters were told the levy limit comes from the previous year's assessment multiplied by a growth factor combining the increase in local property values and a state income growth factor, and that exceeding it requires a written ballot vote. The figures given put the select board's total a few thousand dollars below the limit and the budget committee's about $25,000 below, with the fire capital vote already having eaten into the margin.

29. 2:35:13
    Amendment to the select board's public works figure

    A budget committee member from Chesley Hill Road (?) said he supported the select board's number, and objected to the practice of choosing a lower capital reserve figure to pay for a higher operating budget, which only defers the expense. An amendment was moved and seconded to substitute the select board's $1,250,000.

30. 2:40:23
    Public works revenue; Article 15 settled; Article 16 opened

    The board noted that although public works has the largest budget, more than twice the fire department's, the tax dollars raised for it are less than half those raised for fire, the rest coming from excise tax and state plowing money. A speaker argued inflation is itself a tax, citing a study putting the cost at about $5,200 a year for the average family. After the vote the board reported the town would not need to exceed the levy limit, and Article 16, the administration budget, was moved at the select board's recommendation.

31. 2:46:06
    Undesignated funds and the part-time position

    The budget committee reported $116,690 turned over to undesignated at the end of last year, and that the select board recommendation would use more than that, including an extra $10,000 added after the committee finished. Kevin (?) explained the overlay on each tax bill as the other source of undesignated funds, and said the board's philosophy is to use at least as much undesignated each year as was unspent the year before rather than tax residents twice. He said the $20,000 difference between the two recommendations is to fund a part-time position in the town office, on advice from the auditors and in light of the town manager transition.

32. 2:51:41
    Fund balance target and what the position would do

    The undesignated balance was described as close to $1.1 million, against a target of over 10 percent of the tax assessment. Kevin (?) said the position would be a floater covering the window at busy hours rather than a permanent desk, and that the town manager would decide how to use it. The budget committee explained its $447,869 came from the prior town manager's request of $454,941 less $7,072 of raises moved to the raise pool, an 8.8 percent increase over 2021.

33. 2:57:37
    ARPA funds, office overtime and hiring authority

    Asked about grants on the administration side, the board said the main question over coming months is what to do with the ARPA dollars, now that the restrictions have broadened, with public hearings to follow. The interim town manager said overtime is not the answer, that the staff are understaffed, and that the office window had been closed from Thursday afternoon through Friday to catch up. He confirmed that hiring decisions belong to the town manager, not the select board.

34. 3:02:51
    Amendment to Article 16

    A resident thanked Janet and Jessica in the town office, said no transaction-history data had been produced to support the new position, and asked whether a four-day window schedule might be preferable to a third staff member. An amendment was then moved to substitute the budget committee's recommendation, seconded by Neil Berry (?), on the argument that the 8.8 percent increase over actual spending was itself roughly $30,000 and would fund the position.

35. 3:07:56
    Town communications and the website

    Paul (?) said meeting minutes have not been posted for the past year, that the website carries very little information, and that the official warrant for this meeting had not been posted. Michelle Richardson (?) said last year's underspend partly reflected staffing gaps rather than genuine savings and spoke for the select board's figure. The interim town manager said there is now an opening for a public information technician and that the budget includes utilities work with Efficiency Maine.

36. 3:14:07
    Article 16 settled; Article 17 solid waste

    A speaker compared the day's figures with town warrants from the 1980s and 1990s and supported the lower amount. The amendment and the article were then put. Article 17 followed, to raise $307,821 for solid waste, funded by raising $279,131 and transferring $28,690 from solid waste revenue, with Kevin noting that bulky waste day had been broken out as a separate article.

37. 3:19:30
    Article 18: bulky waste day debate

    Article 18 asked for $10,300 for bulky waste day. Speakers who use the Auburn facility, at $90 a ton, said they would rather do without the annual pickup, while others argued it matters for residents without a vehicle or the physical ability to load one, and recalled trash accumulating around the old solid waste bins at the Eureka Grange. A resident offered her own truck and trailer and Boy Scout help to anyone who needs it either way.

38. 3:24:40
    Article 18 put to a standing vote; Article 19 read

    Dana Cook of Royalsborough Road (?) asked whether roadside cleanup day would continue if bulky waste day were voted down. The article was put on cards, then on a standing vote. Article 19 was then read: $969,803 for the town's annual debt service, funded by transferring $41,110 of EMT and ambulance fee revenue and raising $928,693.

39. 3:29:57
    Debt service questions and the town report misprint

    A voter asked why the report no longer carries the per-bond breakdown showing amounts and years remaining, and another asked what happens to the money when a debt payment ends; the answer was that nothing automatic happens and it would be a decision for the warrant at the time, possibly to move it into capital reserves. Staff explained that pages 35 to 41 of the printed town report were inaccurate and were reprinted on Wednesday and Thursday, which is why some copies jump from page 36 to page 42.

40. 3:35:10
    Article 20 combined budgets; Article 21 raise pool moved

    Article 20 covered animal control, assessing, cemeteries, conservation, recreation and parks, the Eureka Community Center and general assistance as a single article. The difference between the two recommendations on the Eureka line was explained as $1,800 requested by the building committee to replace front doors that do not close properly. Article 21, the raise pool, was then moved at the budget committee's $11,510 by Milt Simon (?) and seconded by Gaston.

41. 3:41:00
    The raise pool and comparisons with other towns

    The select board's $21,275 would fund a 5 percent cost of living adjustment across town office and fire department employees, and unlike previous years includes the fire department duty roster. Benchmarks quoted were a 5.9 percent Social Security adjustment, Turner at 5 percent, Cumberland at 3.75 and Poland at 5.4. A voter asked whether the pool would have to absorb a higher salary for the incoming town manager and was told that would come from the administration budget instead.

42. 3:46:20
    Budget committee rationale and the amendment

    The budget committee said its figure was based on a government cost of living increase of 2.2 percent, later corrected to 2.9. Speakers (?) argued 5 percent is the minimum given prices, suggested non-wage forms of recognition, and urged the town to reinstate annual reviews so raises can reflect performance. An amendment to set the article at the select board's $21,275 was put.

43. 3:58:11
    Article 21 concluded; Article 22 telecommunications

    The board explained the intent is a flat 5 percent across employees, that the fire chief is the only department head in the pool this year, and that the vacant code enforcement officer position is budgeted at 32 hours a week at $30 an hour. Article 22 was then moved at the select board's $54,065; Kevin (?) explained that franchise fees from cable subscribers are falling while technology costs rise, so the town can no longer fund this from fees alone. Matt Ware (?) moved to amend to the budget committee's figure.

44. 4:03:21
    Article 22 amendment, ARPA and livestreaming

    Jill Gaston (?) explained that the budget committee advised against raising money here because ARPA rules bar the grant from offsetting tax money raised, so budgeting for telecommunications would forfeit the ability to spend grant money on the same project. Heather Roy, who was livestreaming the meeting to a YouTube channel on a cell phone and data plan, supported the smaller figure for the same reason. The town confirmed it received over $200,000 in ARPA funds.

45. 4:08:48
    Planner hours and rate

    The planning board, appeals board and historic district commission budget rises largely because the planner goes from 16 hours a week at $20 an hour to 20 hours a week at $32, roughly a $15,000 increase against actuals of $29,399 last year, calculated on a 50-week year. Kevin (?) explained George's rate had been held down by his retirement earnings limit and that the extra hours are largely to support the planning board. A budget committee member said nine comparable towns charge developers an hourly review fee on top of the application fee, which Durham could use to offset this budget.

46. 4:14:11
    Article 23, the levy limit article, and the remaining warrant

    Article 23 was put at the budget committee's $44,861, and the estimated municipal tax impact of everything voted was reported. The moderator read Article 24, which would authorise exceeding the maximum property tax levy limit of $1,690,543, and said he would pass over it if no one moved it. Articles 25 through 35 were then taken up as a single block, and discussion had begun on Article 26, concerning authority to accept and administer grants, when the recording ends.

What was decided

• 10:33
  Article 3, to raise and appropriate an amount not to exceed the 2021 municipal budget for articles not approved at this meeting, drew no motion. The moderator declared that the article failed for lack of a motion.failed
• 10:33
  Article 4, to appropriate and transfer $63,000 from the fire department capital fund for self-contained breathing apparatus. The recording does not carry a stated result for this article.outcome unclear
• 10:33
  Article 5, to appropriate and transfer $220,089 from the public works capital fund and raise and appropriate $21,911 for the purchase of a tandem-axle plow truck. The moderator declared a clear majority had voted to approve it.passed
• 26:37
  Article 6, to raise $101,000 as the municipal share of stream crossing and culvert replacements on Swamp Road and Quaker Meeting House Road, with a $250,000 state stream crossing grant. Declared passed on a clear majority.passed
• 32:22
  Article 7, to appropriate and transfer $60,000 from the municipal capital account for a market-based revaluation. Declared approved.passed
• 37:35
  Article 8, to raise and appropriate for the fire department capital fund for future fire apparatus expenditures. Declared approved at $59,000.passed
• 37:35
  Article 9, to raise $49,000 for the public works capital fund. The article was moved and the question was put, but the recording does not carry a stated result.outcome unclear
• 1:09:25
  Article 10, to amend the land use ordinance and zoning map so as to revise the resource protection district criteria and boundary. The moderator declared that a clear majority had voted NOT to approve it, and that the article was not approved.failed
• 1:41:24
  Article 11, to amend the land use ordinance to allow driveway rather than road access to single backlots, set standards for private roads outside subdivisions, and update subdivision road design standards. After a card vote the moderator was in doubt and called a counted standing vote; he then declared that the article was NOT approved.failed
• 1:46:55
  Article 12, to amend the land use ordinance to eliminate redundant and conflicting appeals provisions and to remove the board of appeals' authority to modify decisions made by other boards and town officials. Declared approved.passed
• 1:52:47
  Article 13, to amend the land use ordinance to allow the select board to periodically set fees for permits and applications based on analysis of actual costs and comparison with similar towns. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 2:19:55
  Amendment to Article 14 substituting the budget committee's recommendation of $496,153 for the fire and rescue department budget. Declared accepted on a clear majority.passed
• 2:19:55
  Article 14 as amended, to raise and appropriate $496,153 for the fire and rescue department budget. Declared accepted and approved.passed
• 2:40:23
  Amendment to Article 15 substituting the select board's recommendation of $1,250,000 for the public works operating budget, in place of the budget committee's $1,272,000. Declared passed on a clear majority.passed
• 2:40:23
  Article 15 as amended, to raise and appropriate $1,250,000 for the public works operating budget. Declared passed on a clear majority.passed
• 3:14:07
  Amendment to Article 16 substituting the budget committee's recommendation of $447,869 for the administration budget. Declared passed on a clear majority.passed
• 3:14:07
  Article 16 as amended, to raise and appropriate $447,869 for the administration budget. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 3:14:07
  Article 17, to raise and appropriate $307,821 for solid waste, funded by raising $279,131 and transferring $28,690 from solid waste revenue. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 3:24:40
  Article 18, to raise and appropriate $10,300 for bulky waste day. After a card vote the moderator called a standing vote and declared that a majority had voted AGAINST the article, and that Article 18 was not approved.failed
• 3:29:57
  Article 19, to raise and appropriate $969,803 for the town's annual debt service, funded by transferring $41,110 of EMT and ambulance fee revenue and raising $928,693. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 3:35:10
  Article 20, to raise and appropriate $56,536 for animal control, assessing, cemeteries, conservation, recreation and parks, the Eureka Community Center and general assistance, at the select board's recommendation. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 3:46:20
  Amendment to Article 21 setting the raise pool at the select board's recommendation of $21,275 rather than the budget committee's $11,510. Declared approved.passed
• 3:58:11
  Article 21 as amended, to raise and appropriate $21,275 for a raise pool distributed through administration, public works, the fire department, telecommunications, the Eureka Community Center and planning. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 4:03:21
  Article 22, the telecommunications budget, moved at the select board's $54,065 and then amended by motion to the budget committee's $26,732. The recording does not carry a stated result for either the amendment or the article; the moderator moved directly into the planning board budget.outcome unclear
• 4:14:11
  Article 23, to raise and appropriate $44,861 for the planning board, appeals board and historic district commission budget, at the budget committee's recommendation. Declared approved on a clear majority.passed
• 4:14:11
  Article 24, to increase the maximum property tax levy limit of $1,690,543. The moderator said the article was not necessary and would be passed over if no motion came; no motion is heard on the recording and the meeting moved on.outcome unclear
• 4:14:11
  Motion to take up articles 25 through 35 as a single vote. The block was moved and seconded and discussion had begun on Article 26, concerning grant acceptance authority, when the recording ends.outcome unclear

An outcome reads "unclear" where the recording does not state it plainly. The recogniser drops short words, and "the motion does not carry" is one missing word from its opposite.

Worth knowing

• 15:35
  The estimated municipal effect on the tax rate was about 0.32 of a mill if every select board recommendation were adopted and about 0.27 under the budget committee's, with the levy limit at risk only if the meeting took the highest figure on every question.
• 1:09:25
  The resource protection remapping was voted down after residents argued the required public hearing had to be held by the planning board rather than the select board, so any vote would be open to legal challenge. The town's resource protection map, based partly on a floodplain map referring to a 1938 flood, stays as it is.
• 1:41:24
  The roads amendment was close enough that the moderator could not judge it on a show of cards and had both sides stand and be counted. A Maplewood Lane resident had told the meeting the existing rule would cost her roughly $300,000 to pave a quarter mile of private drive.
• 3:24:40
  Bulky waste day was defeated after several residents said they prefer hauling to the Auburn facility at $90 a ton, though others argued the pickup matters for residents without a truck or the ability to load one.

Motion language found in the transcript

Located by pattern matching, with no model involved: "I move that", "I'll second", "all those in favour". This is an independent check on the summary above: 3 passages of motion language, against 27 decisions summarised.

Elsewhere

← 2020-06-09 Town Meeting2022-08-16 Town Meeting →All meetings