October 3, 2020 ~ Public Hearing (Part 2)

2020-10-03 · Public Hearing · 2:28:02 · watch on YouTube →

The second of two public hearings, held over Zoom on Saturday 3 October 2020, on the municipal questions Durham would vote by secret ballot on 3 November alongside the national election. No votes were taken; the chair, Kevin, opened and closed a hearing on each of four subjects in turn. The Historic District Commission question, which would allow four alternate members instead of two, drew no comment at all. Shoreland zoning took the longest: the planning board explained that Durham never adopted a compliant ordinance in 1994 and has lived under two overlapping sets of rules since, and a landowner argued at length that a mapped wetland is on the wrong side of Bowie Hill Road. The town manager proposal drew both firm support, including from the fire chief and the planning board chair, and sustained objection to deciding it by referendum rather than on town meeting floor. The marijuana articles were explained as the first of two votes, with the ordinance itself to come back to a later town meeting.

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. 1:09
   Opening and procedure

   Kevin opened the second of two public hearings on the municipal questions to be voted on 3 November. Ruth and Tammy from the town office moderated the raise-hand queue, speakers were asked to give their name and street, comments were limited to three minutes, and only Durham residents and town employees were permitted to speak.

2. 1:09
   Why the questions are being put now

   Kevin (?) said the November national election offers a unique chance to get a large number of voters, with at least 2,500 residents expected to vote compared with about 150 at a typical in-person town meeting. State restrictions on indoor gatherings over 50 and outdoor gatherings over 100 remain and were expected to hold through the spring, with vaccines not widely available until spring or early summer.

3. 1:09
   Why a secret ballot

   The referendum form allows absentee voting, which state law does not permit for an in-person town meeting, so people who cannot attend on a particular Saturday still get a vote. Kevin also noted a secret ballot keeps a resident's vote confidential on contentious questions, where raising a hand in front of neighbours can be uncomfortable.

4. 6:27
   Time to digest before voting

   Kevin (?) argued that because the hearings are recorded and posted, residents can review, digest and even fact-check what they heard before voting. At a town meeting the comments are heard only by those in the room and the vote follows immediately.

5. 6:27
   What notice was given

   A notice of the public hearings with dates, times, the issues and where to find more information was mailed to every household in mid-September. There is a dedicated landing page on the town website, detailed explanations of the articles went out several weeks before the hearings, and notices ran repeatedly in the weekly town newsletter and on social media.

6. 6:27
   Historic District Commission question

   The historic district ordinance provides for two alternate members on the commission, and the commission asked for four. Because the number is set in an ordinance, the change has to go to a town vote, which is all the question does.

7. 6:27
   No comment on the Historic District question

   The chair opened the floor and neither moderator saw any raised hands. The hearing on that question was closed without any comment being made.

8. 11:39
   Shoreland zoning: the history

   Ann, the chair of the planning board, credited much of the work to John Simino (?), the previous chair. She explained the state writes shoreland rules that towns must adopt and enforce, applying within 250 feet of a water resource, and that in 1994 Durham was one of about 40 municipalities that did not adopt a compliant ordinance, after which the Board of Environmental Protection imposed rules on the town.

9. 11:39
   Why two sets of rules is a problem

   Durham currently has both its own shoreland rules and the state's, and the planning board, code officer, selectmen and appeals board must apply both. Ann (?) said they sit in two different places and are not easy for officials or homeowners to follow, and that because the town has no approved ordinance its enforcement powers are limited, giving the asphalt pile on Route 136 in a resource protection zone as the example.

10. 11:39
    How the amendments were prepared

    The planning board worked with George, the town planner, and hired Mike Morse (?), formerly the shoreland zoning contact for southern Maine at DEP, holding several meetings, workshops and public hearings. The state has given a tentative indication that if the amendments pass Durham will be in compliance, the state layer will drop away and there will be one set of rules to enforce.

11. 11:39
    The six new areas

    Beyond some definitional changes, six new areas would go into resource protection or limited residential, shown outlined in red against the existing zone in green. They were identified by DEP as required to be in the shoreland zone and were confirmed by the consultant.

12. 17:13
    Why the town is not surveying to verify

    Ann (?) said surveying the whole town to establish exactly what is in the shoreland zone would require hiring a wetlands scientist and a surveyor at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars if not hundreds, and that no other town in the state has done it. A landowner who believes a mapped area is really a hay field can hire a surveyor or wetland scientist to demonstrate that, which is already the position under the state rule and would not change.

13. 17:13
    The planner's technical context

    George (?) said the town adopted a shoreland framework meeting DEP guidelines last December and that the current amendments, beyond the map changes, mostly fine-tune language. He noted parts of Durham's rules are far more restrictive than the state's and a few less so, and the planning board is working with the consultant on regulating effectively by the least restrictive means that meet state law.

14. 17:13
    The comprehensive plan recommended it

    George pointed out that the comprehensive plan adopted in 2018 or 2019 made this recommendation, following a full public hearing and a unanimous town meeting vote. He said it is important for people to understand the planning board is following direction already given by the voters.

15. 17:13
    Question on areas removed from the map

    Heather Roy of Hallowell Road (?) asked whether any areas had been removed as well as added, and if so whether a property previously mapped would still need delineations done. Ann (?) said nothing has been removed, that identifying over-regulated areas is phase two of the work, and George (?) said the addition is the required 250 feet around large non-forested wetlands, which he called the most contentious piece.

16. 22:15
    A landowner disputes the map

    Mr Bowie (?) said the restrictive area on the map, marked as wetland three and floodplain two, is drawn on the west side of Bowie Hill Road where there is no water except a pond at Jane Rice's place, while the swamp is on the east side. He said about six houses sit under it, that his land had been surveyed twice with no water problem, and asked someone to drive up and look.

17. 27:57
    The planner's explanation of wet meadows

    George (?) said the land west of Bowie Hill Road is farmland classed under DEP criteria as wet meadows, with drainage ditches visible on aerial photographs that were cut more than a century ago to drain the swamp. Farming can continue in full compliance, but any subdivision or development would trigger Army Corps requirements enforced through DEP and imposed on the town by state law.

18. 27:57
    Whether the zone crosses the road

    George (?) said the area on the northeast side of Bowie Hill Road is still swamp and that the shoreland zoning does extend across the road to it, as the periphery of the wet meadows, so the landowner's account was not quite accurate. He offered to pull up the consultant's detailed map of that area.

19. 27:57
    The landowner's objection

    Mr Bowie (?) described water coming off the hill from the Rice property into the ditch his uncle put in, then to the brook, the half pasture and Runaround Pond, and said the land has been farmed for perhaps 200 years and by his family for about a century. He objected to being unable to do anything with it while being taxed at the top and to the devaluation that would follow, saying he is on a fixed income and cannot take that hit.

20. 33:33
    The reclaim pile on the state's land

    Neil (?) asked what the town wants to do about the reclaim area and why it cannot act now. Kevin (?) said the state owns the land and claims compliance, with a DOT letter backed by DEP, and that short of court action the town has little standing without a compliant shoreland ordinance; the town was told it was a temporary arrangement for work on State Route 9, not a permanent staging area.

21. 33:33
    Whether existing properties are grandfathered

    Asked about grandfathering, Ann (?) said the restrictions already exist because the state imposes them, so the town cannot declare areas lawfully non-conforming when it adopts them into its own ordinance. George (?) added that grandfathering applies only to existing development, not to new buildings or lots, and that existing houses and barns can stay with limited expansion allowed under both state law and the ordinance.

22. 39:34
    Objection to deciding this by ballot

    Tom (?) said people reading the article on a ballot may think it is no problem, whereas at a town meeting they would realise it is not what they wanted and corrections would be made. He said proceeding this way during the pandemic felt very sneaky to him and that he did not think it was right; the hearing on shoreland zoning was then closed. Attendance was noted at 22 attendees and nine panelists.

23. 39:34
    Town manager proposal: the case for change

    Kevin (?) presented the board's proposal to move from a select board and town meeting form of government to a town manager, select board and town meeting form. The presentation stated that it is increasingly difficult for part-time elected officials to manage town operations and staff, and that 85 percent of Maine communities over 3,500 population have a town manager.

24. 39:34
    Administrator versus manager

    The essential difference given was that a town administrator is responsible only for town office staff and the administrative budget, while a town manager has executive responsibility and accountability for all town employees and operations. The board's position was that Durham has simply outgrown the administrator model.

25. 44:35
    How the town has grown

    Durham now has 10 full-time employees against four in 2014, including a whole public works department that did not previously exist, with no change to the organizational structure in that time. All department heads report to the board as a group, individual selectmen have no authority alone, and the board meets roughly twice a month, so there is little day-to-day supervision.

26. 44:35
    The risk the board identified

    The presentation noted that select board members typically lack expertise in public administration, municipal operations, state and federal regulation or human resource management. The board's concern was that a mistake on a human resources issue could carry a significant cost to the town.

27. 44:35
    The three benefits claimed

    Human resource management, giving department heads daily supervision and continuity of leadership as the board turns over each year; townwide budget management across departments including long-term capital planning; and strategic guidance, identifying trends and threats and pursuing grants, with the anecdotal claim that additional grants often make up for the salary.

28. 50:15
    Cost of the change

    The manager post replaces the administrator post so there is no increase in headcount, with an estimated salary difference of about $35,000 between the current four-day-week administrator and an estimated $80,000 for a five-day-week manager, derived from surveying similar communities. Against a total municipal budget a little over $3.5 million, that is a little under a one percent increase.

29. 50:15
    The search cost and the second question

    A one-time expense of up to $8,000 for executive search services would come from undesignated funds, since the budget has already passed and the board would not want to issue a supplemental tax bill. The ballot carries two questions: whether to adopt the plan, and whether to approve the $8,000.

30. 50:15
    Transition timeline

    If both articles passed on 3 November the process would start immediately, with the search, interviews and selection running from November 2020 to March 2021. The change to a town manager would become effective at the annual town meeting in 2021, presumably in April.

31. 50:15
    The search process

    The board intends to use the Maine Municipal Association's director of personnel services and labor relations rather than the more expensive private law firms. The steps described were a needs assessment, recruitment, a rating document, an initial MMA review with all resumes still passed to the board, board resume review, first interviews with citizen stakeholders, background checks, second interviews, and MMA assistance in making and negotiating the offer.

32. 55:42
    What would change

    All town employees would report through the town manager rather than the board. The manager would hire all personnel, though department head appointments would need select board approval, would be responsible for the budget across all departments, and the select board would give direction through the manager rather than to individual department heads.

33. 1:01:02
    What would not change

    Town meeting continues as the legislative body and citizens vote on the same things, the board of selectmen continues as the executive body and still appoints committees and commissions, and there is no change to the budget committee process, planning board, board of appeals or other standing committees. The board would remain responsible under state law for appointing and supervising the manager.

34. 1:01:02
    Residents on the search committee

    A written question asked whether the search committee would include residents who are not elected officials. Kevin (?) said non-elected residents would be invited to take part in the first round of interviews.

35. 1:01:02
    Why the budget committee changed its recommendation

    Heather Roy (?) noted the printed town meeting book showed the budget committee not recommending the search funds while the new ballot shows it recommending them. Kevin (?) said they had been caught off guard the first time and that recommending the funds does not mean advocating for the position, only that if the town approves it the search should be done properly.

36. 1:06:17
    The budget committee member's account

    Neil (?) said that speaking for himself and from recollection, the committee felt it needed a town meeting discussion on the town manager before voting to approve money and starting the process. He confirmed the second vote was as Kevin had described.

37. 1:06:17
    Why the salary is not on the ballot

    Asked how the position would be funded if the salary is not voted on, Kevin (?) said the town has never voted on individual salaries, only on budget categories, and that this falls within the administrative budget. Most of the expense would not begin until after the first of the year, in the 2021 budget.

38. 1:06:17
    What public input would look like

    Kevin identified two points: the needs assessment, an open meeting with MMA present collecting views on what people want in a town manager, and the first round of interviews, where residents would apply, be selected by the board, ask questions of applicants and help narrow the field. Pressed on whether residents definitely will be appointed, he said as far as he is concerned yes, but the board has to vote on it.

39. 1:06:17
    Whether the board could alter the manager's remit

    Asked whether the selectmen could change the manager's role or which departments report to them, Kevin (?) said the statute requires all those employees to report to the town manager. Asked whether ordinances would need to reflect the change, he said adopting the state town manager plan at town meeting would be the official act, and reversing it later would take another town vote.

40. 1:11:38
    Where the town's governing rules are written down

    Heather Roy (?) asked whether a link could be posted to the rules the town is governed by, given Durham has no charter. The answer was that it is essentially Title 30-A of the Maine revised statutes, with no single document to point to.

41. 1:11:38
    Heather Roy states her position

    She said her line of questioning might suggest otherwise but she is in favour of a town manager. She said publicly she would apply to serve on the search committee because she wants the town to get this right.

42. 1:11:38
    What if town meeting will not fund it

    Rebecca Lazot (?) asked whether time would be wasted if the town approved the search and then town meeting did not vote the budget line. Kevin (?) said town meeting votes a total for administration, somewhere around $300,000, and while someone could move to reduce it, the town would still have a manager and the money would have to come from somewhere else.

43. 1:16:53
    Performance evaluations

    Michelle Richardson (?) asked whether annual performance evaluations of department heads are done by the board as a whole; they are. Under a manager, the manager would carry out department head appraisals and the board would appraise the manager.

44. 1:16:53
    Support from a resident

    Michelle Richardson (?) said she supports the change, citing the growth in staff over six years and the addition of a whole public works division, the value to department heads of a boss who is not up for election, potential budget efficiencies from someone seeing the whole picture, and grant opportunities. She said the cost is not pennies but is reasonable.

45. 1:16:53
    Challenge on what the statute requires

    A speaker said MMA material he had read gives the board considerable latitude over what it assigns to a manager, and that he did not believe any Maine statute assigns all department heads to report to the town manager, asking the board to check. Kevin (?) said he was 99 percent sure the town manager plan does provide for that but agreed it was worth checking.

46. 1:16:53
    Barbara Schneider on resident participation

    Barbara Schneider, chair of the board of appeals, said the proposal would get far more support if screened residents were included at every stage of the selection, from the job description through to reviewing resumes, because the town has expertise beyond the board's. She also said that if the plan passed but the budget did not, funds would have to be reallocated within the administrative line, possibly through furloughs or cut hours, since the town would be bound to continue the form of government.

47. 1:22:11
    What Title 30-A says

    Ruth (?) read from the statute: the board of selectmen shall deal with administrative services solely through the town manager and shall not give orders to any of the manager's subordinates publicly or privately, and unless otherwise provided by town ordinance the manager shall appoint, supervise and control all town officials the municipal officers are required by law to appoint, except members of boards, commissions, committees and single assessors. Kevin (?) noted the alternatives in state law are open only to towns with a charter, which Durham does not have.

48. 1:27:20
    Whether ordinances need changing

    Barbara Schneider (?) asked whether existing ordinances would need clerical or substantive changes. Kevin (?) said he did not think so, because anything in an ordinance calling for change or approval goes to town meeting, which is not changing, and the manager oversees implementation within what has been approved.

49. 1:27:20
    Adding a layer of oversight

    Barbara Schneider (?) suggested the town might later want enforcement actions routed through the manager, for example a code officer recommending enforcement actions rather than issuing them directly. Kevin agreed that would be possible but as a change to the land use ordinance rather than to the town manager plan, and could be explored after a manager was in post.

50. 1:32:24
    Fresh eyes and an iterative process

    Kevin (?) said one thing the board would want from a manager is to look at everything with a fresh set of eyes, from how the town office is staffed to how payroll hours are allocated and how applications move between the code officer and the appeals board, and to come back with recommendations over the first year. He described that as iterative rather than piecemeal.

51. 1:32:24
    Disagreement over the referendum route

    Barbara Schneider (?) replied that this underlines why it should be discussed at town meeting, since it is a different approach to governmental function rather than simply reorganising staff. Another speaker said a large number of people would vote without knowing what they were voting on, and Kevin (?) said he found it presumptuous to suggest a good decision only comes from a small group discussing it in a room, preferring over 2,000 voters to 150.

52. 1:32:24
    A former selectman's objection

    Deb Larby (?) of Hallowell Road, a former selectman, said the town has used a government study committee for key positions and changes, work that takes six months to a year and then goes to the selectmen, public hearings and town meeting. She said doing it on Zoom felt like coming in the back door when many people do not have Zoom or know how to use it, and that the town will need a manager but should wait until it can work with people in person.

53. 1:37:51
    Whether this is a special town meeting

    Asked directly, Kevin (?) confirmed it is technically a special town meeting, because any question put to the legislative body requires one, but in referendum rather than on-the-floor form. It is special rather than annual because officials are not being elected at it.

54. 1:37:51
    Posting the warrant and press notice

    Ruth (?) said the warrant has been signed by the selectmen and must be posted 7 to 10 days before the vote, that it was not yet posted, and that sample ballots are available at the office. Public hearing notices went into the legal section of the Sun Journal, postcards were mailed, and an article had appeared in the Times Record quoting the previous public hearing.

55. 1:43:06
    Approval of department head appointments

    Michelle Richardson (?) asked whether the town would need an ordinance to keep department head appointments subject to board approval. Kevin (?) said that requirement is in Title 30-A itself rather than in any Durham ordinance.

56. 1:43:06
    Support for reaching more voters

    Michelle Richardson (?) said that although she attends annual town meeting every year, she is one of roughly 150 who do in a town of about 3,500 people. She thought the board had communicated well and that this route gives a better sense of the whole community.

57. 1:43:06
    Heather Roy's (?) proposed compromise

    Heather Roy (?) said the ordinance also sets out how residents bring issues before the selectmen, so more than reporting lines might need attention. She proposed approving the change but bringing in a consultant, as the town did with George on land use, to work through the necessary ordinance changes before a manager is hired, saying residents in both hearings had asked for more concrete information.

58. 1:49:15
    The fire chief supports the change

    Chief Moore (?) said that as a resident and as a department head this directly affects his position and he thinks it an excellent idea, since the board does a good job but is a voluntary part-time body needing a quorum to act. He said a consulting process would spend more money and time telling the town what it already knows.

59. 1:49:15
    The chief's budget example

    Chief Moore (?) said he builds a budget that reflects his department's needs but is completely absent of what other departments or the town overall may need. Someone in a manager's role day to day could set his budget against public works, code enforcement and administration, which he argued would save money in the long run.

60. 1:49:15
    A call for a study committee

    Deb Larby (?) suggested the selectmen work with MMA or another consultant together with a government study committee of townspeople to put the rest of this together. She said she wished there were some way to disclose what a town manager is going to cost.

61. 1:55:02
    Whether the cost should be on the ballot

    Rebecca (?) said the estimated $35,000 increase should appear on the ballot, particularly with any proposed tax increase likely to be viewed negatively during the pandemic, and that the question would draw negative feedback without it. Kevin (?) said the figure had been disclosed and that a cost estimate would not typically appear on such a question, and that the ballots are already printed.

62. 1:55:02
    Concern the question is not set up to pass

    Rebecca (?) said that although the board had made valiant efforts, the same people always give input, and that departing from the town's historical approach of broader study commissions on major issues had not set the question up for success. She said she hoped it would pass but expected people to feel disenfranchised from the process.

63. 1:55:02
    The planning board chair answers the ordinance point

    Ann (?) said she had searched the land use ordinance and the board of selectmen appears 25 times, mostly in functions that would not change, such as appointing committee members. The other area is land use enforcement actions, which the selectmen initiate and settle through consent agreements, which is town litigation the board would want to keep rather than pass to a manager.

64. 1:55:02
    Her view on further study

    Ann agreed with Chief Moore that further study would delay the inevitable and cost more money, and pointed out how often residents bring the board what are effectively personnel complaints that a board finds hard to handle. She said she had been to one town meeting in about 20 years but is an informed voter, and that saying voters are uninformed does not give them enough credit.

65. 2:03:37
    Marijuana articles: how the questions are framed

    There are eight or nine questions, about half concerning medical and half adult use, asking what commercial marijuana activity residents want to allow, whether retail stores, cultivation, manufacturing, testing facilities or dispensaries. Each is voted separately because the town might accept one type of business and not another.

66. 2:03:37
    The two-step process

    A yes vote in November would not by itself permit anything: opting in is contingent on later approval of marijuana ordinances, which the board would draft, possibly with professional help, and put to a future town meeting. The board structured it this way because drafting the ordinances takes significant resources, so the town is asked first whether it wants the activity at all.

67. 2:03:37
    William Grimes on the gateway argument

    William Grimes of Royalsborough Road, of East Branch Farm, responded to concerns raised at the earlier hearing, saying the gateway drug theory has been disproved, correlation is not causation, and the vast majority do not go on to harder drugs. He acknowledged and applauded the person who had shared a recovery story.

68. 2:09:28
    His safety and black market argument

    Grimes (?) argued regulation is the best way to address safety concerns and would shrink the black market, and that remaining an island of prohibition leaves dangerous practices happening with no regulation. He proposed a citizens committee including people on both sides to draft the ordinance rather than hiring outside help, saying the town was selling itself short.

69. 2:09:28
    Fees and other benefits

    Grimes (?) said other towns charge licence and annual fees tiered to the state's cultivation tiers by canopy size, so small craft producers pay less and larger operations could bring in thousands a year. He also cited preserving open land, encouraging agriculture and creating jobs, and argued that butane blasting is dated black market practice while accredited extraction laboratories are held to very high standards.

70. 2:14:44
    Neighbouring towns already allow it

    Kate Parkin of David Lewis Drive (?) noted Lisbon has two dispensaries and there are businesses in Gray, and that from her observation Lisbon seems to be going along fine. She said she appreciated the explanation that this vote simply starts the ordinance process, with another vote to follow.

71. 2:14:44
    What revenue the town would see

    Kate Parkin (?) asked what tax or revenue benefit Durham would get, given the sales tax goes to the state. Kevin identified annual licensing fees, guessing perhaps a few thousand dollars a year depending on the size of the business, and additional property tax if the assessed value of the property rose, with no way to say how much.

72. 2:19:44
    A treatment provider's caution

    A written comment from Linda, who said she has been a treatment provider for adolescents and adults with substance use disorders for over 20 years, agreed the vast majority of people who use marijuana do not develop a cannabis use disorder. She said it is nonetheless a misrepresentation to present cannabis as risk-free or the gateway theory as debunked, and that the town should be realistic about risks, especially to adolescents.

73. 2:19:44
    Comparative risk and the fee example

    Grimes cited Georgetown's ordinance and a $4,000 annual fee for tier four cultivation as an example of tiered fees. Responding to the treatment provider, he said research on the ratio between a toxic dose and typical human intake puts cannabis at the lowest risk among alcohol, tobacco, methamphetamine, ecstasy, cocaine and heroin.

74. 2:19:44
    Written comments in the chat

    A comment from Sanborn (?) argued that if surrounding towns such as Lisbon allow dispensaries, Durham need do nothing, since anyone wanting to buy can go there. Ann wrote that licence fees are required by state law to relate to administrative costs, so the town could not set a fee significantly above its costs to raise general fund revenue.

75. 2:19:44
    Why not the same two-step approach for the manager

    Heather Roy (?) asked in writing why the town manager question was not being handled the way the cannabis questions are, approving first, then crafting the policies, then voting again to put it in place. Kevin (?) said they are completely separate issues, not analogous at all, and that the town manager hearing was already closed.

76. 2:25:21
    State support and who bears permitting costs

    Grimes (?) said his contacts at the state Office of Marijuana Policy have a division dedicated to compliance and will enforce it, so the town would not be without help. He also said any consultant or engineering costs the town incurs in reviewing an application fall on the applicant rather than the town.

77. 2:25:21
    Close of the hearing

    With no further hands or written questions, the chair closed the public comment on the marijuana articles. He thanked participants and invited further questions through the contact link on the town website.

What was decided

• 1:09
  Rule that only Durham residents and town employees may speak, with comments limited to three minutes and the limit applied flexibly depending on how many wish to speak. The chair noted that unlike a town meeting this did not need to be voted on, because no votes were being taken at the hearing.passed
• 6:27
  Close the public hearing on the Historic District Commission question, which would amend the ordinance to allow four alternate members instead of two. No comments, questions or hands were received on it.passed
• 39:34
  Close the public hearing on the proposed changes to the shoreland zoning ordinance, after the presentation and comments from a landowner disputing the mapping, a question on grandfathering and an objection to the referendum process. No vote on the substance was taken; that goes to the ballot on 3 November.passed
• 1:49:15
  Close the public hearing on the town manager proposal and take a three-minute recess. No vote on the substance was taken; both town manager questions, the change of government and the $8,000 for the search, go to the ballot on 3 November.passed
• 1:55:02
  Do NOT put the estimated $35,000 annual cost on the ballot itself. The chair said a cost estimate would not typically appear on a question of this kind and that the ballots are already printed, and that the reasons for budget changes would be explained during the 2021 budget process instead.passed
• 2:25:21
  Close the public hearing on the marijuana articles, and with it the hearing as a whole. No vote on the substance was taken; the eight or nine questions go to the ballot on 3 November, and any that pass would still require a marijuana ordinance approved at a later town meeting before anything is permitted.passed

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

• 1:09
  The board's reason for using the November ballot was turnout: at least 2,500 residents were expected to vote, against roughly 150 at a typical in-person town meeting, and a referendum allows absentee voting, which state law does not permit for an in-person town meeting.
• 50:15
  A town manager was estimated to cost about $35,000 a year more than the town administrator, at an $80,000 salary for a five-day week, roughly one percent of a municipal budget a little over $3.5 million, plus a one-time $8,000 for the search taken from undesignated funds.
• 11:39
  Durham never adopted a compliant shoreland zoning ordinance after the 1994 state mandate, so the town and the state rules have both applied ever since, in two places, and the town's own enforcement is limited as a result. The amendments would add six new areas to resource protection or limited residential.
• 1:32:24
  The sharpest disagreement of the hearing was over method rather than substance. One resident called putting these questions to a referendum during the pandemic sneaky, a former selectman said it was coming in the back door, and the chair replied that he did not accept that a good decision requires a small group discussing it in a room.

Elsewhere

2020-10-03 Public Hearing →All meetings