"PRELIMINARY"
The detailed spreadsheets will be posted after the CIP is formally adopted by the Planning Board.
Capital Improvements Program for 2008 through 2017
Summary
Greenfield, New Hampshire
PUBLIC HEARING
November 5, 2007
Why Do a CIP?
New Hampshire RSA 674:5 provides for the creation and updating of a CIP if approved by the voters of the town. Greenfield approved the creation of a CIP in a warrant article by town vote in 1996. Greenfield’s last CIP covered the period 2006 through 2015 and the current update covers the period 2008 through 2017.
The CIP addresses these primary goals:
· Anticipate capital expenditures during the time frame of the CIP and help minimize spikes in the timing of those expenditures.
· Help minimize major fluctuations in the Town’s portion of property taxes.
· Provide a basis, along with our Master Plan and Impact Fee Ordnance, to levy Impact Fees should the town choose to do so.
· Assist in the preparation of annual town budgets.
Capital projects for a NH town the size of Greenfield are defined as “any expenditure for a project or facility having a useful life of at least three years, requiring a gross expenditure of at least $5,000 and creating a depreciable asset”.
The Process Used to Create Greenfield’s CIP
The CIP committee began its work in June, 2007 with the creation of a CIP project plan, updating the letter of introduction and questionnaire to be used in interviewing the town departments and assignment of committee members to interview department heads.
During July, information was obtained from each department head detailing the capital projects they’re proposing for the period 2008 through 2017. This data was entered into a spreadsheet and analyzed by the CIP committee / Planning Board. In addition, historical data on capital expenditures was updated to include the period 1995 - 2012 (committed items) for comparison purposes.
Meetings were held in July and August at which the department heads, budget advisory committee and the public were invited to attend.
Finally, priorities and recommended implementation time frames were assigned by the CIP Committee / Planning Board to each proposed capital project. In November, the Planning Board will vote whether or not to adopt the CIP as proposed by the CIP Committee. If it is adopted, a full text version of the CIP will be prepared and a summary will be resented to the Board of Selectmen.
Interviews of Greenfield’s Operating Departments
Departments not projecting capital expenditures exceeding $5,000 were not included.
Following are the committee members conducting the interviews and the department heads and/or other departmental staff members interviewed:
Department CIP Committee member Person(s) Interviewed
Fire Dario Carrara Chief Jim Plourde
Police John Halper Chief Brian L. Giammarino
Town Clerk Gilbert Morris Edith "Dee" Sleeper
Fran Kendall
Tax Collector Gilbert Morris Laurie May
Administrative Gilbert Morris Deb Davidson
Library Jim Fletcher Mary Ann Grant
Highway John Halper Wyatt ‘Duffy’ Fox II
DPW - Facilities / John Halper Wyatt ‘Duffy’ Fox II
Vehicles
Recycling Mike Borden Franklin Pelkey
Neal Brown
Parks and Jarvis Adams Molly Anfuso
Recreation John Halper
Mike Steere
Master Plan Review
The town’s Master Plan was reviewed for items relating to capital improvements. That review was undertaken by Jim Fletcher.
Capital Expenditure Compilation
The town’s capital expenditures for 1997 - 2006 were compiled by Dario Carrara.
Master Plan Related Issues
As mandated by New Hampshire statute, part of the CIP update process included a review of the town’s master plan as it relates to capital improvements. Details and estimated costs will be examined as part of next year’s CIP update.
Economic Development:
Master Plan Policy #6: "Enhance the appearance and economic vitality of the Downtown by upgrading its public infrastructure and encouraging fuller utilization of more Main Street properties."
Master Plan Policy #9: "Recognize the essential role that telecommunications Plays in today's economy."
· Is there anything that we can do as a town to make high-speed internet access available?
Traffic and Transportation:
Master Plan Objective #3: "Ensure, through site plan review, that adequate off-street parking is provided for in all future developments and that future parking for downtown properties is designed in coordination with existing parking."
· Should we be thinking about more parking for downtown?
Community Facilities:
Master Plan Policy #4: "Locate community facilities in the downtown area, design such facilities to reflect traditional character, and encourage the re-use of existing structures/lots rather than developing "Greenfield" sites for public uses."
Project Priorities
The CIP committee has assigned a priority to each project in accordance with New Hampshire RSA 674:6. The priorities used by the committee are defined below. They were derived from the Capital Improvements Programming Handbook, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, Manchester New Hampshire and from the CIP’s created by a sample of other small New Hampshire towns.
U = Urgent Cannot be delayed. Needed for health or safety.
C = Committed Part of an existing contractual agreement or otherwise legally required.
N = Necessary Needed to maintain existing level and quality of community services. Needed within 1 to 3 years.
D = Desirable Needed to improve quality or level of services. Needed within 4 to 6 years.
F = Deferrable Can be placed on hold until after 6 years, but supports community development goals.
R = Research Pending results of ongoing research, planning and coordination.
I = Inconsistent Conflicts with an alternative project or solution recommended by the CIP; contrary to land use planning or community development goals.
Historical Population Analysis
Although optional for a New Hampshire CIP, the committee tabulated Greenfield’s population history and projected growth for the period 1970 through 2020 and examined its capital and budgetary expenditures for the past ten years. This was done to establish a perspective for the proposed projects as compared to past expenditures.
Population history (1970: US Census) and projected growth for Greenfield as determined from the 1970 US Census as updated by the current Office of State (NH) Planning Estimates and from the NH Office of Energy & Planning.
Year |
1970 |
1975 |
1980 |
1985 |
1990 |
1995 |
2000 |
2005 |
2010 |
2015 |
2020 |
Population |
1058 |
1026 |
972 |
1322 |
1519 |
1559 |
1657 |
1790 |
1900 |
2010 |
2100 |
% Change |
|
-3.0 |
-5.3 |
+3.6 |
+1.5 |
+2.6 |
+6.3 |
+8.0 |
+6.1 |
+5.8 |
+4.5 |
The CIP Committee’s Findings and Recommendations
· In the original CIP created during 2005 and in the CIP update produced last year, various non-trivial upgrades needed to the Town Office Building were highlighted. While preparing this year’s CIP update it was decided to consider an alternative solution: constructing a new town office building.
A considerable amount of research must be undertaken to provide intelligent estimates of the cost of purchasing land and constructing a new building. Those figures must then be weighed against the cost of renovating the existing office building. It is anticipated that the necessary research will be undertaken during the preparation of next year’s CIP update. Having said that, it was decided to present both scenarios in this year’s CIP update to provide some advance information regarding the alternatives being considered.
· Capital projects proposed by Greenfield’s operating departments for the period 2008 through 2017:
· Summary of data including the alternative of renovating the existing town office building:
Total of all Proposals Urgent+Committed U+C+Necessary
$4,978,824. $601,633 (12.1%) $3,668,939 (73.7%)
· Summary of data including the alternative of constructing a new town office building:
Total of all Proposals Urgent+Committed U+C+Necessary
$5,832,253. $501,956 (8.6%) $4,810,337 (82.5%)
· All projections for 2008 through 2017 include an estimated 3% annual rate of inflation.
· All projects recommended by the CIP committee with a priority of ‘Urgent’ or ‘Necessary’ are to replace existing facilities or vehicles with a few exceptions.
· The CIP committee recommends that all vehicles be purchased through a lease-purchase arrangement with the costs spread over a four year period.
· All lease-purchases and proposed bond issues include a 6% annual rate of interest.
· Various projects may be funded through specific grants available.
· Following is a comparison of selected capital projects.
1997 - 2006 Actual capital expenditures for 1997 - 2006 $1,104,656
(less road maintenance)
Data including the alternative of renovating the existing town office building:
2008 - 2017 Recommended projects with ‘Urgent’ priority $601,633
(road maintenance not in this category)
2008 - 2017 Recommended projects with $1,875,609
‘Urgent’ + ‘Necessary’ priorities (less road
maintenance)
Data including the alternative of constructing a new town office building:
2008 - 2017 Recommended projects with ‘Urgent’ priority $501,956
(road maintenance not in this category)
2008 - 2017 Recommended projects with $3,017,007
‘Urgent’ + ‘Necessary’ priorities (less road
maintenance)
· Following are per-capita calculations to show how these capital expenditures (less road maintenance) compare with the projected population growth.
Period Population Est. Per-capita capital expenses
Year Used Pop.
For Calculation
1996 - 2005 2000 1,657 $653.05 (actual)
(mid range)
2008 - 2017 2010 2,100 $286.49 (“U” only w/ ‘renovate’)
2008 - 2017 2010 2,100 $239.03 (“U” only w/ ‘new bldg’)
2008 - 2017 2010 2,100 $893.15 (“U+N” only w/ ‘renovate’)
2008 - 2017 2010 2,100 $1436.67 (“U+N” only w/ ‘new bldg’)
Summary of Capital Expenditures 1997 - 2006
Capital expenditures in Greenfield for the period 1997 through 2006 are shown below. Note: road resurfacing / maintenance were not included in the historical data obtained.
DEPARTMENT |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000 |
2001 |
2002 |
2003 |
2004 |
2005 |
2006 |
Total |
Police |
0 |
24,961 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
10,123 |
7,008 |
12,662 |
6,070 |
60,824 |
Fire |
0 |
96,100 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
30,545 |
24,471 |
0 |
17,453 |
168,569 |
Highway |
0 |
8,875 |
21,000 |
21,000 |
21,000 |
21,000 |
73,788 |
103,270 |
100,619 |
90,812 |
461,364 |
Parks & Recreation |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
15,425 |
0 |
38,355 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
53,780 |
Library |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
29,500 |
29,500 |
Recycling Center |
0 |
0 |
0 |
8,970 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
43,610 |
7,800 |
0 |
60,380 |
General Government |
0 |
107,273 |
33,000 |
40,000 |
55,500 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
34,466 |
0 |
270,239 |
Total Capital Expense |
0 |
237,209 |
54,000 |
69,970 |
91,925 |
21,000 |
152,811 |
178,359 |
155,547 |
143,835 |
1,104,656 |
| 
