 |
Temple, NH Open Forum
A Place for Temple Residents to Speak Their Minds (Within Reason)
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
templenh
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Mar 2024
Posts: 22
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2024 7:32 am Post subject: Special Town Meeting date? |
|
|
| Did anyone go to the Selectmen's meeting on 4/12? If anyone did, it would be great to hear a report. Was a date set for the Special Town Meeting? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CCK
Joined: 14 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2024 7:23 am Post subject: Meeting Date |
|
|
The Special Town Meeting was set for May 13. The time and location will be posted in the newspaper.
RE: Conservation Fund
There continues to be much confusion and mis information spread regarding the Conservation Fund. For clarification please read the facts below:
This year the town voted
To see if the Town pursant to RSA 79:A:25 ; will vote to place 100% or $30,000, whichever is less, of the revenues of all future payments collected pursuant to RSA 79:A into the Conservation Fund which was previously created in acordance with RSA 36:A. (Majority Ballot vote)
The Conservation Fund is expended by vote of the selectmen upon recommendation of the Conservation Commission following the proceedural guideline of the RSA'a.
Below is the RSA re the disposition of the Current Use Taxation Revenue. Please note article IV
TITLE V
TAXATION
CHAPTER 79-A
CURRENT USE TAXATION
Miscellaneous
Section 79-A:25
79-A:25 Disposition of Revenues. –
I. Except as provided in paragraph II, all money received by the tax collector pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be for the use of the town or city.
II. The legislative body of the town or city may, by majority vote, elect to place the whole or a specified percentage, amount, or any combination of percentage and amount, of the revenues of all future payments collected pursuant to this chapter in a conservation fund in accordance with RSA 36-A:5, III. The whole or specified percentage or amount, or percentage and amount, of such revenues shall be deposited in the conservation fund at the time of collection.
III. If adopted by a town or city, the provisions of RSA 79-A:25, II shall take effect in the tax year beginning on April 1 following the vote and shall remain in effect until altered or rescinded pursuant to RSA 79-A:25, IV.
IV. In any town or city that has adopted the provisions of paragraph II, the legislative body may vote to rescind its action or change the percentage or amount, or percentage and amount, of revenues to be placed in the conservation fund. Any such action to rescind or change the percentage or amount, or percentage and amount, shall not take effect before the tax year beginning April 1 following the vote.
Source. 1973, 372:1. 1988, 120:2. 1991, 281:19, 20, eff. Aug. 17, 1991.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JenW
Joined: 04 Apr 2024
Posts: 15
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2024 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
May 13th, which is a Friday... wonderful. Not only will this ridiculous special Town Meeting waste the taxpayers' time and money, it will also force me to take the night off from my part-time job and lose a chunk of change that I can't really afford to do without.
I was out sick Tuesday and Wednesday, otherwise I would definitely have been there to express my opinions.
_________________
Ninth generation and counting... but not too quickly, thank you! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astamand
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 9
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2024 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JenW wrote: | | May 13th, which is a Friday... wonderful. Not only will this ridiculous special Town Meeting waste the taxpayers' time and money, it will also force me to take the night off from my part-time job and lose a chunk of change that I can't really afford to do without. |
$450,000.00 is no small chunk of change either. That's how much the land purchase will cost the taxpayers after interest and legal fees. Split that over about ~575 homes for the next 5-15 years. Then ask yourself, can I afford the land we just bought?
The real reason for the petition and special town meeting is that the taxpayers were not given the full story before they made the decision.
1) The taxpayers were told that there was an offer of $425,000.00 on the land by a developer, but what they were not told is that that offer was contingent on the builder being able to put 18 homes on the property. The offer subtracts $28,000.00 for each home that can not be built. It was the agreement of many on both sides that only 6 to 12 homes could be built on that property. This information is public record.
2) The town entered into a purchase and sale agreement with the sellers BEFORE the town meeting. The article we voted on was to give the selectmen the authority to pursue a PS for a sum not to exceed $399,000.00 (gross budget). That means all fees and interest -TOTAL. The selectmen agreed to $399,000.00 BEFORE interest, etc. The P&S is public record, check the date for yourself.
3) Most families in town have no idea how much the land purchase will cost them over the next 5 years. Sure it’s only $60 this year, but for some (me included) it costs an additional $250 next year and the next subsequent 5-15 years (depending on how the selectmen decide to spread it out).
4) Buying up land as a method of conservation is haphazard. When taxes go up too high people start selling property. Over the last 30 years we have had families in town tear down barns and sell large sections of land to developers because they simply can't afford living here otherwise.
5) We have NO IMMEADIATE NEED for the land. It has been on and off the market for almost 20 years, through two housing booms, and is currently right up the street from 3 brand new homes that have been on the market for over 6 months (and are still empty and unsold).
I’m not against buying anything simply because it will raise taxes, but would you personally buy something like land or a home without ever surveying it, without needing it, and without being able to afford it? I suspect not.
We hope that more of the town will come together to discuss this issue. Even if it is upheld families will be more aware of the direction the town is heading tax wise. Hopefully it minimizes the sticker shock…
Respectfully yours,
Alex St. Amand |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
templenh
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Mar 2024
Posts: 22
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2024 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Alex. Thanks for joining the discussion. I was hoping that someone from "the other side" would come in and give us a different view.
| Quote: | | 4) Buying up land as a method of conservation is haphazard. |
| Quote: | | ...but would you personally buy something like land or a home without... needing it...? |
I was under the impression that the Skladany land wasn't being bought for conservation. It sounded more to me like there was a push to put the town garage down there which I thought was where the need came in. Also, won't the town have to eventually build a new municipal building and/or maybe even a police department?
| Quote: | | Over the last 30 years we have had families in town tear down barns and sell large sections of land to developers because they simply can't afford living here otherwise. |
I was wondering about families in town with large parcels of land. Why don't more families who are having trouble with the property taxes put some of their land into CU? This is not a smart-ass question. I am genuinely curious why more people aren't putting their land into CU. Even the Skladany land is in CU and they barely paid more then $150 in taxes last year.
Alex, are you against buying the Skladany land entirely or just against it for now? If you are against it, would you be for buying at a later time? Or under what circumstances would you be for it? What if the land isn't bought now and sometime in the future a real need arises for this land, won't the price be higher? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astamand
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 9
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2024 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for providing us a forum.
I’m not against spending money or buying land, even this land. In fact, if we had the money I would love to see a park put there, or maybe a fishing pond, or anything, even woods.
The use of the land for a town barn or future town expansion was one of the reasons given. However, we purchased land next to the school for this very same reason several years ago; because the hypothetical question was given "what if we need it and it's not available?" Currently we have no need to expend any of these town buildings.
I am against it because it is fiscally irresponsible and the town can not afford it. It is terribly overpriced (our offer is $70K more than the appraisal). If we purchase the land we would not be able to develop or build on that lot for many years to come, at least until the burden of the purchase has past.
In fact, I'm worried that if we do have a true need in the town we'll have to turn it down. What if we desperately need a piece of safety equipment or have to do major building or road repairs? What if we decide to buy Greenville? (Don’t laugh, I bet we could get a deal on it )
Will it cost more in the future? Most likely, but not as much as people think. Temple enjoyed a quick and sharp expansion in its property value but it has hit the wall. At last look in MLS there were over 20 homes for sale in temple, many for over 6 months.
As for putting land in CU it's a great idea but the people that have problems with their tax bill are having it on their primary residence. Selling property provides income to cover existing and future taxes on the residence.
The truth is we are buying the land to prevent more homes from being developed, to lock up the town. We don’t need to do this; the real estate market in Temple will take care of this on its own.
In a year where a $300K home is going to see an increase of $800.00 in their tax bill, it is simply irresponsible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCK
Joined: 14 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2024 10:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | the truth is we are buying the land to prevent more homes from being developed, to lock up the town. We don’t need to do this; the real estate market in Temple will take care of this on its own.
|
Maybe a little background would help you. Most recently the Skladnay property came to the forefront when a Building Committee (trying to resolve the need for more municipal space) was formed in 2024. At that time, it became clear to many committee members that the most appropriate place for a new Municipal Building was near the center of town. Many spoke of the mistake they felt was made by moving the elementary school out of the center.
There was much debate about adding on to the Town Hall. It was decided that if an addition were placed on the Town Hall for new municipal space, serious consideration would have to be given to finding a new home for the Highway Department. Alternatively, it was felt the Skladany land could be an option for a new municipal Building.
The conclusion of this committee was that the Skladany property was a very important piece of land to the town. Vince Mamone and John Kieley met with the Skladany’s and the Skladany’s agreed to sell to the Town for $280,000. A proposal was made on the2002 Warrant to purchase this property. This article did not pass.
Last year, Tedd Petro felt that a new committee should be formed to review the purchase of this land again. Tedd put together a very diverse group - a few of the key members were Nate Chamberlin, an engineer who makes a living from engineering developments, Bruce Kulgren Sr., Chair of the Planning Board, Steve Anderson, Chair of the Budget Committee and Paul Quinn, Chair of the Conservation Commission.
At their first meeting they made a list of pros and cons to purchasing the property. This long and diverse list was made available to the public at both hearings. Key to proposing the purchase of this land was a vision of Temple’s future as well as more pressing concerns regarding the highway department. The Highway department is facing serious environmental issues regarding how to store their sand and salt.
As you can see, the objectives were centered on preserving this land for municipal purposes: I attended all of the meetings and the concept of preventing homes from being built was never discussed. Matter of fact one of the proposed possible uses was to build low-income housing.
The roll of the Conservation Commission in this project
Protecting some of the wetlands as well as viewsheds will probably be considered important to conservation and may be a way of reducing some of the financial burden to the town. After the land is purchased by the town, the Conservation Commission will most likely assess what sections of this land should be considered for permanent protection. Following a study, recommendations would be presented to the Town in accordance with the same guidelines and process that is used when Conservation Funds are expended.
Please do give Tedd Petro and the Skladany Committee the credit they deserve for caring about the future of this Town. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
astamand
Joined: 23 Apr 2024
Posts: 9
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2024 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CCK wrote: | | Please do give Tedd Petro and the Skladany Committee the credit they deserve for caring about the future of this Town. |
I certainly do. However the offer is much too high and a good majority of the townspeople in favor of the land purchase state conservation and the prevention of new homes as the reason they voted for it. If the offer for the land was sensible, you and I would not be having this discussion.
I'm glad the select board is looking out for our future. However we simply can't afford it, now. We have town land we can use in case the need to expand arises. It's not as close as this land but it will do.
This is not the time to overpay for property we have no immediate need for. The repercussions of the tax burden on the town will be felt for generations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CCK
Joined: 14 Apr 2024
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2024 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would really love to have the chance to chat with you and discuss this issue in more depth. I am very concerned about your statement that people misunderstood the reasons for purchasing the property.
There is a group of people in town who knowingly spread a lot of misinformation. This is very frustrating and except for forums like this it is almost impossible to get the truth out there. I can suggest several people you could talk to if you are interested in knowing the truth about the appraisal and the purchase price of the Skladany property.
I too am concerned about taxes but am also very aware that the vast majority of our tax bill is due to the high cost of education –specifically the Conval School. Maybe we as taxpayers we need to pay more attention to that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
templenh
Site Admin
Joined: 30 Mar 2024
Posts: 22
Location: Temple, NH
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 26, 2024 8:30 am Post subject: School Taxes |
|
|
| I've started a topic in th School System General Discussion Forum if you want to start talking about school taxes (which I think are too high). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2024, 2024 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
