Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Space‑needs appropriation for new town office fails on secret ballot
Summary
A $75,000 appropriation to continue space‑needs and design work for a new town office and public‑safety facility (Article 24) was decided by secret ballot and failed, 74 against to 22 in favor.
Article 24, a $75,000 request from fund balance to continue phase‑2 work (an alternatives analysis and related architecture design) for a potential new town office and public safety facility, was presented by staff and then decided by secret ballot after five voters requested it under RSA 44‑a.
Dave, who presented the proposal, emphasized the article funds planning work only and said the purpose was to obtain alternatives and cost estimates rather than commit to construction. Several voters questioned whether a design that could be built many years in the future was premature; others supported planning to avoid ad hoc repairs and to prepare for long‑term needs.
Supervisors collected pink ballots and the moderator announced the count: 74 opposed and 22 in favor. As a result, Article 24 failed. The moderator noted ballots would be counted and announced by supervisors following the meeting’s rules for secret ballots.
The failure means no additional funds were authorized at this meeting for the space‑needs analysis phase 2; the select board or residents could re‑propose planning work in a future meeting.
