New Durham committee tightens CIP request guidance, sets site-visit schedule to firm up budget requests

Kristen Burner, chair standing in for Scott, opened a New Durham CIP/budget work session by saying the committee would treat the meeting as a working session to "plow through the nuts and bolts" of the 2025 CIP/CFP request form and project prioritization.

The committee focused first on structural problems with the current request form. Burner said the template should ask for a single, project-level proposal that provides a clear description, a total cost, implementation steps and evidence of prior spending: "This is what it's gonna cost," she said, urging applicants to show estimates and how the project would be implemented rather than short, cramped answers.

Members pressed for historical spending records tied to specific projects so reviewers can see how much departments or applicants have invested over time. One committee member summarized the point: past line-item appearances on CIP lists are less useful than concrete dollars already spent toward a project stage. The group agreed the form should make it easy to display prior expenditures and completed milestones.

On eligibility, committee members reiterated the committee's long-standing threshold that a CIP project should total roughly $10,000 (spread across years if needed) for consideration as a capital project. The committee also debated how strongly proposals must tie to the master plan, with members urging a focus on demonstrated need and safety issues rather than discretionary wants.

Burner displayed a spreadsheet of CRF/ETF and warrant-article balances and said the committee's working total for CRF/CIP this year is $81,975.03. She noted a separate RSMS line for block-grant funds and asked staff to track carryover rules for that account so the committee can budget accurately.

To gather better evidence before hearings, members scheduled a round of site visits and grouped nearby locations to reduce travel: DPW, fire, library, town hall, ball fields and the cemetery were all named as priorities. The committee tentatively targeted Wednesday, the 27th, for a concentrated set of site visits (DPW in the afternoon followed by fire and library) and agreed to limit each department's presentation time and require department heads or knowledgeable staff to attend.

The committee also set process improvements: departments should submit materials in advance (ideally two weeks for large requests), include multiple quotes where relevant, provide photos and show prior progress so the committee and public can see how requested funds would be used. Burner said presentations should be "down and dirty"—focused on mission-critical needs, costs, maintenance and safety problems—rather than marketing or broad wish lists.

Members flagged outstanding engineering reports and records for the town hall dating back several years and directed staff to help pull historical documentation so safety and code-related issues can be prioritized in the CIP package.

There were no formal ordinance or grant votes recorded; at the end of the work session Burner moved to adjourn, a member seconded, and the motion passed by voice vote. The committee will circulate the revised template and the spreadsheet of balances, then attempt to confirm the site-visit schedule with staff before the next meeting.

The committee recommended departments come prepared with clear estimates and documentation at the scheduled hearings so the public and the select board can review a single, cohesive CIP package rather than fragmented requests.