2025 Town Election Voters Guide
Analysis of nine potentially controversial or confusing warrant articles. Issues about insufficient candidates.
The election will be held Tuesday, March 11, at the Community Center. The polls open at 7:00 am and close at 7:00 pm.
How to vote via absentee ballot
Board of Selectmen’s guide to voters - contains important commentary from the Selectmen about the warrant articles and proposed budget.
Candidates for Town Offices
The only town offices for which there are more candidates than seats are:
Board of Selectmen - see interviews with the candidates
School Board - see interviews with the candidates
Two positions have insufficient candidates: Budget Committee and Zoning Board. So far, no write-in candidates have stepped forward. This may lead to an interesting situation in which write-in votes for individuals who have not declared that they are write-in candidates could allow those individuals to be elected, in which case they could choose to accept.
If Tuesday’s election does not fill the empty seats on the Budget Committee and the Zoning Board, these bodies will after the election themselves choose candidates to fill those seats, from volunteers. Also, if Charlotte Fyfe wins her race for Selectman, she will have to resign from the Budget Committee, in which case the committee will choose a replacement.
Most of the 35 warrant articles appear to be uncontroversial and straightforward. Discussion here will focus on the 9 warrant articles that I have observed controversy or confusion about. Note that I have no special insight into the minds of the voters. I’m occasionally surprised about which warrant articles pass or fail. I’ve selected these 9 because I’ve observed them being discussed in social media or at the deliberative session or people have discussed them with me.
Town Warrant Articles
Article #6 - Steep Slope Zoning Ordinance
This would prohibit the kind of large-scale blasting and grading of steep slopes that is currently being done for the new Pawtuckaway Ridge housing subdivision off of Rt 156 just north of the town line. Those opposed say it infringes on property rights. Those in favor of it say it is needed for environmental and aesthetic protection.
Article #10 - Grant Spending Authority to the Selectmen for the Fire Vehicle Fund
At present, only the voters have spending authority for this fund, via warrant article. Passing this warrant article would give the authority to the Board of Selectmen. Opinions differ on whether the voters should retain this authority or whether it is better to delegate it to the Selectmen.
Article #12 - Highway Reconstruction
Last year, the voters rejected the Selectmen’s proposal for major highway projects. Last year’s proposal included paving the unpaved initial section of Stevens Hill Road, paving part of Priest Road, and putting in paved aprons where dirt roads meet paved roads. This year’s proposal again includes Stevens Hill Road, but replaces the other projects with Lucas Hill and Deerfield roads, and adds a provision allowing the Selectmen to spend the funds on any other roadwork the Selectmen choose.
There are two issues with this warrant article. The major one is that it is partially redundant with Warrant Article #22 about Stevens Hill Road. If #12 passes but #22 fails, it will prohibit road reconstruction on Stevens Hill Road. (Although the reverse is not the case. If #22 passes and #12 fails, work can be done on Stevens Hill Road.) Another concern is that #12 gives too much latitude to the Selectmen to do whatever road work they want. Last year, the voters rejected the Selectmen’s road work proposals, and two of the roads the Selectmen prioritized in last year’s warrant article are not in this year’s warrant article. The Selectmen say the virtue of this wording is that they can redirect funding to other roads if a need arises.
Article #15 - Grant Spending Authority to the Selectmen for the Highway Truck Fund
At present, only the voters have spending authority for this fund, via warrant article. Passing this warrant article would authorize the Board of Selectmen to spend from this fund if the board declares that the spending is needed to address an emergency.
As with Article #11, opinions differ on whether the voters should retain this authority or whether it is better to delegate it to the Selectmen. Concerns were sufficiently high about this that at the Deliberative Session this article was amended to only grant this authority in case of emergency.
Article #18 - Pawtuckaway Lake Water Quality Study
This article is a bit complicated. The beginning of it looks like it spends $100k in tax money, but that is not the case. It’s actually free. It’s just a complicated funding mechanism in the form of a loan that is forgiven when the work is completed (to ensure that the work is completed). It might be better understood as the town giving a guarantee that the work will be done. See here for a more detailed explanation from the Pawtuckaway Lake Improvement Association.
Article #19 - Temporary Tax Cap Change
The article would, for two years, increase the tax cap from 4% to 6% to allow the town to catch up from the very high inflation of the past few years.
The complicating thing about this article is that the Town Attorney, Susan Lowery of Upton & Hatfield, has issued a statement that she thinks the article is illegal and unenforceable. Here’s what she said:
This article seeks to have the Town approve a temporary tax cap for the next two years. RSA 32:5-c, V provides that if a tax cap is approved by Town voters, it applies beginning with the next fiscal year and “for all subsequent years until it is rescinded as provided in paragraph VI.” RSA 32:5-c, VI then provides the mandatory language for rescinding a tax cap. RSA 32:5-c only permits a municipality to either adopt a tax cap or rescind a tax cap. There is no authority for the Town to adopt a temporary tax cap.
This reasoning does not obviously follow from the text of RSA 32:5-c. To get a free second legal opinion on this, I asked ChatGBT to give an analysis. This AI model says the Town Attorney is wrong, and that the article is legal and enforceable. Here’s the analysis:
To determine if this warrant article is legal and enforceable under New Hampshire RSA 32:5-c, we need to examine the specific provisions of the law in relation to the context of the warrant article.
New Hampshire RSA 32:5-c Overview:
RSA 32:5-c provides the ability for municipalities to adopt tax caps. These caps can limit the percentage increase in property taxes for a fiscal year. The law allows towns to impose a tax cap to ensure that taxes do not increase beyond a certain percentage from the prior year's budget. The RSA includes specific guidelines about how a tax cap can be structured and under what circumstances it can be adjusted.
Key aspects of RSA 32:5-c include:
Tax Cap Limitations: The cap is typically based on the percentage increase of the prior year's property tax levy and the total operating budget.
Town Meeting Approval: The cap must be approved by the town meeting (or similar governing body), and it must be outlined explicitly in the warrant article.
Adjustments: The cap can be adjusted for different fiscal periods, but those changes should generally follow the same procedures outlined in the law.
Key Points in the Warrant Article:
Temporary 6% Tax Cap: The article proposes raising the existing tax cap from 4% to 6% for a 2-year period (fiscal years 2026 and 2027).
Rationale: It cites the need for the higher tax cap to address "serious budget shortfalls resulting from recent high economic inflation."
Alignment with RSA 32:5-c: The proposed increase would need to comply with the mechanisms established by RSA 32:5-c, including specifying how the tax cap is calculated and ensuring it fits within the limitations and guidelines established by the statute.
Legal and Enforceability Considerations:
Compliance with RSA 32:5-c: Under RSA 32:5-c, municipalities have the authority to propose a tax cap, and the law permits a town to adjust the tax cap temporarily if the town meeting approves such a change. Therefore, as long as the warrant article follows the appropriate procedures (properly identifying the fiscal years, justifying the change, and adhering to the RSA guidelines), the proposal itself is legal.
Temporary Nature: The warrant article specifies that the 6% cap is temporary (for fiscal years 2026 and 2027). RSA 32:5-c does not prevent a temporary cap adjustment, so this aspect of the article is also legal.
Rationale for Increase: The warrant article justifies the increase by citing "serious budget shortfalls resulting from recent high economic inflation." While the RSA does not specifically require a detailed justification for tax cap adjustments, providing a reasoned explanation (such as the budget shortfalls due to inflation) is generally appropriate and could help ensure transparency in the decision-making process.
Enforceability: The enforceability of the tax cap will depend on the town's ability to implement and monitor compliance with the new cap. If the warrant article is passed, the town would be responsible for adhering to the tax cap during the designated fiscal years, ensuring that taxes do not exceed the 6% limit for those years.
Conclusion:
Based on RSA 32:5-c and the specific provisions outlined in the warrant article, the proposal for a temporary 6% tax cap appears legal and enforceable, provided that it follows the necessary procedural requirements (approval at the town meeting and adherence to the statute’s guidelines). The town would need to implement the temporary tax cap for the specified fiscal years, and it could enforce the limit during that period as long as it complies with the overall provisions of RSA 32:5-c.
I asked the same question to two other AI models, Claude and Grok. Both of them concluded that the legality was uncertain because the RSA was ambiguous about whether a town could adopt a temporary tax cap.
Hence, Upton & Hatfield’s conclusion “that it is not permitted and is unenforceable” appears to be unwarrantedly confident. The legality of the warrant article is debatable.
Should the voters adopt this article, the town’s new law firm, Drummond & Woodsum, may find itself in the awkward position of having to advise the town that Upton & Hatfield were wrong, or the issue may end up needing to be decided in court.
Article #21 - Censure Upton & Hatfield
Last autumn, the Board of Selectmen issued a request for proposals for legal services stating, “The Town’s RFP is not to be taken as a sign of dissatisfaction with its current vendor, but as part of its regular review of vendors.”
Despite this, the board discussed its dissatisfaction with Upton & Hatfield at its November 18 meeting, during which Town Administrator White noted, “There’s a reason why we’re putting out the proposal - some of the performance concerns we’ve had over the past year.”
Over the years, the Nottingham Blog has identified numerous reasons for performance concerns with Upton & Hatfield. The town’s legal expenses have been chronically over budget and have been chronically much higher than what similar towns spend. Because of decisions the town has made under the legal guidance of Upton & Hatfield, citizens have repeatedly had to seek relief from the courts and other legal bodies.
Here are the most important reasons for concern.
2018 - Chemical Trespass Ordinance
Upton & Hatfield failed to advise the town that this ordinance might be illegal and unenforceable. A citizen sued the town and won, getting the ordinance declared unconstitutional.
2020 - Camp Roads Lawsuit
Despite NH Supreme Court rulings and a near-identical case in the Town of Derry - which Derry lost - the Board of Selectmen decided to stop maintaining a large number of roads the town had continuously maintained for over half a century. This ignited a class-action lawsuit against the town. The litigation ended when the voters overturned the board’s decision by formally acknowledging that these were town roads.
2023 - Fire Chief Termination
Upton & Hatfield failed to advise the Board of Selectmen that it had the authority to officially not re-appoint Jaye Vilchock as Fire Chief. Once he was no longer Fire Chief, then the board would have authority to fire him without him having recourse to a hearing. Instead, Upton & Hatfield advised the board to spend $22k on an investigation to give the board grounds for termination. Vilchock exercised his right to a hearing in Rockingham Superior Court, which caused the town to incur over $40k in legal fees.
During this hearing, the town had to concede that three of the reasons for termination given in Vilchock’s termination letter were not substantiated by the investigation. This has led to the town being sued for defamation.
2024 - Right-to-Know Ombudsman
I filed a request with the NH Right-to-Know Ombudsman to have the Ombudsman conduct a confidential review of Upton & Hatfield’s redactions to the investigator’s report to ensure that the redactions complied with the state’s right-to-know law. Upton & Hatfield used over $5k of taxpayer’s money to pay themselves for their efforts to prevent the Ombudsman from reviewing their work. The Ombudsman ruled against Upton & Hatfield.
2024 - Town Beach Closure
Many months before the seasonal opening of Town Beach, the owners of the access road to the beach asked the Board of Selectmen to have the town more clearly assume liability for the public’s use of the access road. The board turned the matter over to Upton & Hatfield. The work was not done in a timely manner. This not only caused a delay in the opening of Town Beach, it resulted in rumor-mongering and conspiracy theorizing, engendering animosity among neighbors.
For these reasons, citizens have good cause to not only be dissatisfied with Upton & Hatfield’s services, but also to be disappointed with the Board of Selectmen’s decision to go on record that it was not dissatisfied when that was not truly the case.
The town routinely fires low-wage employees whom it is dissatisfied with. Sometimes these firings are even public spectacles. Is it fair that Upton & Hatfield should receive special treatment? Should we shirk our responsibility for letting other towns know that our experience was unsatisfactory?
I think not. That’s why I authored this warrant article. I know lots of people in town are upset with Upton & Hatfield because I had people calling me up and were eager to sign the petition.
An opposing view comes from School Board candidate Kamee Verdrager Leshner, who, at the Deliberative Session, spoke against this warrant article. She said:
I'm an attorney, for those of you who don't know me as a labor employment lawyer, and I want to speak to this motion because it's disgusting in my mind. I want to speak to this today because I think it's pretty disgusting. Frankly, it doesn't serve the interest of the town at all. We're not a censuring body, so it will have no legal effect. It really is only the purpose of it is to be a public spanking for a law firm that frankly led to us to prevailing in a legal matter. Reasonable minds may disagree all day long on the underlying facts of the [inaudible] matter, and I understand that. In my opinion, most of the disagreement comes from not really understanding the underlying facts. So what is not up for dispute is that the town did prevail in court, and as far as I know, we also avoided liability for other legal actions from the complaining employees, which is something that should not be overlooked when we're talking about legal fees and expenses to the town. What this will do to Upton & Hatfield is nothing. It will just publicly shame them. What could it do to the town potentially that I think we all need to really consider is what will it do when we're looking for qualified legal representation. If attorneys and law firms know that they could represent us, serve our interests, prevail on our behalf, and still be publicly shamed for the express purpose, as Mr. Bates has said, of trying to damage their reputation so other towns will know not to hire them, this is very dangerous for us. It doesn't serve our interest. It accomplishes nothing. If we're unhappy with representation we're free to seek other representation. We can move on. But the bottom line is we prevailed. We won. They advised us wisely. The investigation process - whatever your feelings are about the Vilchocks - which I understand is a hotly debated matter, including by me - but we came out on top here, and we should not be trying to tarnish the reputation of an entire law firm out of spite - which is what this is in my opinion.
Article #22 - Stevens Hill Road Reconstruction
Because of the existence of article #12, which also includes a proposal to pave this section of Stevens Hill Road, this article may confuse some voters.
If you’re in favor of paving this section of Stevens Hill Road, you MUST vote yes on this warrant article. Whether you vote yes or no on article #12 doesn’t matter. But if you vote no on #22, that will override a yes vote on #12 because of RSA 32:10, commonly referred to as “no means no.” In other words, if the voters reject #22, it is interpreted as rejecting the portion of #12 that overlaps with #22.
An effort at the Deliberative Session to amend #12 to remove Stevens Hill Road so as to eliminate this problem failed.
If both #12 and #22 pass, then the board will be able to use the money in #12 set aside for Stevens Hill Road for some other project of its choosing.
If #22 passes and #12 doesn’t, Stevens Hill Road will be paved, but there will be no other 2025 road reconstruction projects.
Very confusingly, on the ballot the Selectmen say that they unanimously do not recommend article #22, but then in their voters guide they encourage voters to vote yes for #22. The board says they could not recommend #22 on the ballot “because it would cause the total amount to be raised by taxation to exceed the 4% Local Tax Cap.” This is erroneous. Only the Budget Committee is constrained by the tax cap. The Board of Selectmen is allowed to recommend spending above the tax cap. See RSA 32:5-c.
Article #23 - Add an Adjustment for Inflation to the Town’s Tax Cap
I am the author of this warrant article.
When the voters adopted the 4% tax cap in 2021 it was not possible to enact a tax cap that accounted for changes in the rate of inflation. The dramatic increase in the inflation rate in the following years wreaked havoc on the town’s budgeting process as the 4% cap was far below the rate of inflation. One of the effects of this was that it was difficult for the town to raise employee wages fast enough to retain and attract staff, causing the town to lose employees and be unable to recruit replacements.
In 2024, state law changed to allow tax caps to be indexed for inflation. Voting yes on #23 would add an inflation adjustment to the tax cap.
While I’m unaware of any opposition to taking inflation into account, there were concerns expressed at the Deliberative Session that this article, by keeping the tax cap unchanged at 4%, has the effect of increasing the cap by the rate of inflation.
School Ballot
With the exception of articles #4 and #6, none of the school warrant articles appears to be controversial. Articles #4 and #6 both have to do with collective bargaining agreements. #4 was not recommended by the Budget Committee on a tied vote, and #6 was recommended on a 5-4-1 vote. The opposition to these articles appears to be based on opposition to collective bargaining.