Last Minute Rebuttals

On the town beach and school tax cap warrant articles

The Nottingham Blog has received two last-minute requests to publish rebuttals to earlier articles. The first of these rebuttals, below, is about town warrant article #25 concerning access to Town Beach. The Nottingham Blog previously published a guest article by the sponsor of that warrant article. I tried to recruit a guest writer for the opposing view, but I got no takers until today, when Joe Fernald, the owner of the land in question, submitted an article.

The second of these rebuttals is a follow-up to the article on the proposed school tax cap - school warrant article #10 - in which the sponsor of the warrant article refutes claims made by the opposition in the prior article.

---

Against Town Warrant Article #25

By Joe Fernald

A History of Cooperation — and a Path Forward

For years, the beach has been part of Nottingham’s shared history. For decades the abutting land and access owner has worked cooperatively with the Town so people could continue to enjoy it.

Recent discussions surrounding Article 25 have raised questions about access, ownership, and the history of the property. With so much information circulating, it’s important for residents to understand the historical record and the practical realities before deciding how best to move forward.

Historical Background

The beach property originally came from the abutting landowner. In the early twentieth century, a local mill acquired an interest in the land to set up two mills,now known as Dolloff and Drownes Dam. Over the decades the interest in the Drownes Dam parcel changed hands many times before eventually ending up with the State. The State later offered its interest to the Town through a quitclaim deed.

Clarifying the Deed Language

Supporters of Article 25 have suggested that the deed’s reference to the land being used “for recreational purposes” requires the Town to use it for recreational purposes or risk losing the property.

That interpretation is incorrect.

This type of language simply limits the use of the land to recreation and cannot use if for other purposes. Nor does it require the Town to provide or secure any specific kind of access.

What the 1961 Town Report Actually Says

The 1961 Town Report includes the 1960 meeting minutes for Article 14.

To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $250.00 for the developing of a Town Beach and picnic area, subject to agreement being reached with the abutters, which is necessary before the State will transfer title to Town. It was moved that Article 14 to read as follows: To see if the Town will raise and appropriate the sum of $250.00 for the developing of a Town Beach and pic- nic area. The motion was accepted as read. Passed in the affirmative.

No easement was created, described, or even discussed. There is no location, no width, no terms for an access — all of the components New Hampshire law requires to establish a right‑of‑way.

No Right‑of‑Way Was Ever Established

Nothing in the record supports the idea that a deeded right‑of‑way exists or was intended. The minutes simply note that the State required an “agreement” with neighbors before transferring the land. That is very different from creating a legal easement.

Even if someone tried to interpret the language as related to access, it still lacks the legal elements needed to form a right‑of‑way. For more than sixty years, access existed because it was permitted — not because the Town owned it. The use has always been known and permissive, not legal.

Why This Distinction Matters Now

If there is no right‑of‑way, the Town cannot simply declare one today. It would need to:

• prove one in court

• negotiate for one

• or pursue eminent domain

All of these options are risky, slow, and costly. That is why the proposed $85,000 is likely only enough to cover early procedural work like surveys, title research, and legal review. If litigation begins, the costs are likely to rise significantly.

And even if the money didn’t come through the usual budget process, it is still $85,000 of taxpayer funds — money that could have supported actual, ongoing needs in town.

Legal Rights‑of‑Way Aren’t Magic Solutions

A legal right‑of‑way would not create open, unrestricted access to the lake. Instead, it creates obligations:

• limits on use

• maintenance duties

• liability exposure

• management requirements

If the Town fails to meet any of these, the right can be challenged — and even dissolved — through litigation.

The Town’s Own History Confirms Access Was Never Unrestricted

From the very beginning, the Town treated the beach access as limited, seasonal, and regulated, not as a public highway. Over the years the Town:

• installed a gate on Deerfield Road

• posted signs limiting access from Memorial Day to Labor Day

• restricted pets, watercraft, alcohol, and conduct

• posted “No Trespassing — Violators Will Be Prosecuted” on the closed gate

• requested the landowner’s permission in 1992 to install a guard house

• never plowed or maintained winter access, even for emergency vehicles

These are not the actions of a Town managing a public road. These are the actions of a Town using private access under cooperative terms.

Believing that a legal right‑of‑way would suddenly allow year‑round, unrestricted access ignores the law, the facts, and six decades of Town policy.

Is Seeking a Legal Right‑of‑Way Wise Right Now?

This year, both residents and members of the Budget Committee resisted fully funding the Recreation Department’s management plan. There is a long history of acknowledging the need to manage the beach — but failing to fund that management.

What does that communicate to the landowner? What would it communicate to a judge considering a legal right of way?

Cooperative Agreements Are Common in New Hampshire

Across the state, snowmobile clubs, conservation groups, and municipalities rely on cooperative agreements with landowners to allow trails and access across private land. These agreements last for decades when both sides communicate and honor expectations.

We as the landowners are comfortable with the terms that we amicably negotiated with the town the past two seasons. Once the town proves an ability and desire to keep up with the terms, we hope this can be shifted to an automatic renewal.

Before We Risk Taxpayer Money and Set a Dangerous Precedent

Article 25 authorizes pursuing a right‑of‑way through court action or eminent domain. That means authorizing the Town to take control of private land.

Once a town sets the precedent that it can take or dictate access across private property, that precedent does not stay limited to one situation. It can be used again.

Before committing taxpayers to a long, costly, and divisive process, it’s worth remembering:

Cooperation — not litigation or force — is what allowed everyone to enjoy the beach for more than sixty years.

Cooperation Built This Access — and Can Preserve It

Residents have enjoyed the beach for generations because neighbors and the Town worked together. Cooperation is still the least expensive, least adversarial, and most genuinely “Nottingham” way to maintain access.

---

Rebuttal to Opposition Statement on the Proposed School Tax Cap - School Warrant Article #10

By Tom Butkiewicz

The opposing arguments submitted by Mrs. Verdrager rely heavily on sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt rather than addressing the core problem: that school spending has outpaced inflation for years, squeezing taxpayers with no end in sight.

First, it is claimed that “the proposed tax cap will operate more restrictively than the tax cap currently in place for [the] Town due to amendments to the statute”. However, those amendments (HB-1105 and HB-200) applied retroactively to existing caps adopted prior, thus both caps will operate the same way. In truth, the proposed school cap will be significantly less restrictive than the town’s fixed cap, as it provides flexibility to accommodate periods of high inflation and increases in school enrollment.

Vote totals from last year were presented to help “understand how high a burden a supermajority would be” to override the proposed cap. However, doing the math reveals that only FOUR more “Yes” votes would have been required to override a cap and allow unlimited spending. Convincing an extra four voters doesn’t sound like a high burden. In other years, the “yes” vote has exceeded a supermajority without any special effort.

Next, the opposing author engages their imagination and invents their own personal legal interpretations, raising a number of hypothetical legal ambiguities in an attempt to cloud the debate with uncertainty. Legal complexity is a distraction, not a disqualifier. If the town’s history operating under a tax cap is any indication, any legal ambiguities will be used entirely to the benefit of the school and not the taxpayer (such as when the town moved big ticket line items like road maintenance from the budget to warrant articles to evade the cap).

Continuing on the “uncertainty” theme, the opposing author states that “the proposed formula could be missing a critical value” and describes fears of potential federal government shutdowns making Consumer Price Index (CPI) figures unavailable. Despite Mrs. Verdrager being actively involved in speaking against this article during the school deliberative session, she seems to have forgotten the heated debate over using CPI versus Municipal Cost Index (MCI), which culminated in successful amendment of this article to remove CPI from the formula and replace it with MCI. The MCI figure used in the proposed formula has no reliance on the federal government; rather it is published by a private organization. Raising alarm about wording that no longer exists should give voters pause about her other arguments.

Next are the usual excuses for increased spending: state and federal mandates. Mandated expenses are real, but a tax cap doesn’t eliminate the ability to fund them, it just requires a 60% vote to exceed the cap. If the need is legitimate, making the case to voters should not be difficult.

Mrs. Verdrager’s final “perverse incentives” argument is revealing: She admits that, as a school board member, under a tax cap she would try to spend the maximum allowed every year, and stockpile funds in trust accounts. This spend-it-or-lose-it mentality is exactly what taxpayers are tired of. Responsible budgeting means spending what you need, not hoarding the maximum you’re allowed to take.

The town tax cap works, and the school tax cap will too. Our town has thrived while becoming more efficient, and that portion of our tax bill has stayed low. The school deserves the same mandate. With 79% of our tax bill now going to the school, and no current spending limits, taxpayers need this protection to keep Nottingham affordable.

Please vote YES on Warrant Article 10.