February 2009 Archives

February 28, 2009

Editor, The Citizen:

The Pemi-Baker School District deserves kudos for demonstrating to voters, once again, just how effective the Official Ballot form of Town and School District meetings can be. Since the adoption of RSA 40:13 by the district, gone are the days of heart-pounding, double-digit increases in the high school budget! Under the bridle of SB2, the P-B School Board has consistently presented a reasonable budget that voters soundly support. In fact, for the third consecutive year, the proposed budget is actually lower than what taxpayers would be required to provide in a default budget (minus warrant articles). Much credit is due board members and the administration for cutting back on increased appropriations and holding off on a much-desired track proposal this year, in light of the uncertainty we face in this ominous economic climate.

SB2 has also had the effect of sharpening the board's efforts to communicate budget proposals and explain the warrant articles to the public. The explanatory materials and documents available at the deliberative session (and from then, until voting day, at school offices) make the budgtet process much easier to understand than years before. District voters who could/did not attend last Tuesday's meeting have the advantage of being able to watch the discussion which took place for several weeks on Channel 3, and may take the opportunity to discuss any concerns/questions you have with board members, administrators and neighbors before casting your vote on March 10.

I hope Plymouth voters will join me in supporting the Official Ballot Bill, RSA 40:13, at the polls this year, for the Plymouth School District and Town of Plymouth ballots. I firmly believe SB2 preserves the best elements of the traditional annual meeting format, and actually prevents control of our budgets by special interests. It is a well established fact that 3-5 times as many people vote at the polls as those who attend annual meetings, and Plymouth voters are very well-informed. Please restore the right to vote, including by absentee ballot, to our absent family members, neighbors and friends who cannot make the annual meetings. Vote yes on RSA 40:13 at the polls on March 10.

Joan Randlett

Plymouth

HOME

Editor, The Citizen: Whether or not you support SB-2 comes down to one basic premise. Do you believe in small groups of individuals having the ability to make the decisions for your town or do you believe that every registered voter should have the right to cast their vote in hopes of affecting those decisions. And please don’t say that they can have their voice heard at town meeting because their voices can be heard in a deliberative session just as easily.
I come from a town that passed SB-2 quite a few years back. I am seeing all of the same arguments for and against the bill today that I saw years ago. Fortunately, the residents of the town in which I lived, finally realized that they wanted their voices to be heard and SB-2 was passed, much to the dismay of a small core of individuals who had a very strong voice in the town, prior to the vote.
I guess, for many people, change is a bit unsettling. But I can tell you, from experience, once SB-2 was passed, the majority of the townspeople were much happier. However, I must admit that those who lost power in pushing their own agendas through are still unhappy about the outcome of that vote. In the past, when special interest groups passed warrant articles that cost the town hundreds of thousands of dollars, many of the townspeople were extremely upset. Now that every voter has a say in what passes and what does not, they are much more accepting of the outcome. Even if the voting doesn’t have the outcome you had hoped for, you can at least justify it by saying that the decision was based on the wishes of majority of the voters. And isn’t that what a democracy is all about?
If you consider the number of people who actually have the ability to attend town meetings versus the number of actual registered voters, you can see that a very small percentage of people are controlling the vote. The world we live in today is not the same as the world even 25 years ago. We have many people who travel a great deal for work, we have many people who head south for the winter, and we have people with children whose bedtimes fall well before the conclusion of town meetings. We also have the elderly who may not find it easy to get out of their homes and we also have many people that just don’t have it in them to sit for hours on end in a town meeting. Do none of these individuals deserve to have a voice in how our town spends our money? And now, be honest with yourselves, for those who have attended town meetings, how many of you actually stay until the bitter end. In my experience, once the vote has taken place for a particular item of interest, those interested parties leave the town meeting. So ask yourself, who is really being represented at these town meetings?
In my experience, I have found that those who greatly oppose SB-2 are either currently in power and do not want to let go of the reins or those special interest groups who see their power to push through their agenda threatened.
Now onto another item that outraged me during the process … the strong opinion that a vote may be cast by an “uninformed” voter. No voter needs to attend a town meeting to be “informed”. With today’s overwhelming access to information via internet, TV, newspapers, mailings, radio, talking to friends and neighbors, etc. everyone has the ability to become informed without attending a town meeting. And I find it an insult to be classified as “uninformed” just because I am not present at one of these meetings.
Please remember, that voting is “a right” and no one should have to justify anything beyond being of legal age and legal residency. If another individual doesn’t vote exactly as you do, then is it fair to say that the individual must have been “uninformed”? Isn’t it possible that they might actually hold an opposing view?
Isn’t it funny how “uninformed” has nothing to do with collecting the property taxes being affected by the outcome of these votes?
With the current economic state of our country, it is also evident that everyone needs to tighten their collective belt. Why do towns then feel that they should be exempt from this? My experience has shown me that any townspeople who oppose a capital expenditure are portrayed as being against the children, firefighters, police officers, elderly or any other group that may benefit from the increased spending?
Why can’t they just be people who believe in living within their means?
If you support SB-2, then you believe that you should have your voice heard in how your town actually spends your hard earned property tax dollars.
If you oppose SB-2, then you believe that special interests should have a more heavily weighted voice in how the town spends your property tax dollars, even if it is in opposition to the wishes of majority of the registered voters.

Jane Elliott
Moultonborough

If you live in Hillsboro and wanted to know your stuff at the SB2 meeting earlier this month, Braiterman's ( Business Administrator for Hillsboro-Deering School District)website was the place to go...Braiterman says that the site makes the school board's life easier and allows voters to head to the polls with more knowledge.

Sunday February 22, 2009

The Concord Monitor by Ray Duckler rduckler@cmonitor.com.

Lisa Braiterman, the business administrator for the Hillsboro-Deering School District, draws you into the annual school budget report with an animated bee buzzing up top. There are also photos of a woman dressed in colonial-style clothing, a court jester and kids fishing.

Then come 66 pages, information about district revenues and expenses, salaries and benefits, enrollment and district staffing trends, not to mention graphs and charts to illustrate and explain the vision for the next school year.

If you live in Hillsboro and wanted to know your stuff at the SB2 meeting earlier this month, Braiterman's website was the place to go.....

HOME 

Note from the MCA: The following is from the Town of Wakefield's web site which posts the Town Warrant. As you read the following you will note that it sounds a lot like Traditional Town Meeting ...and that's because it is! With SB2 Town Meeting does not go away. The only thing that changes is when you vote.

2009 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Wakefield in the State of New Hampshire

qualified to vote in town affairs:

You are hereby notified of the First and Second Session of the 2009 Annual Town

Meeting as follows:

FIRST SESSION

You are notified to meet for the First Session of the Annual Town Meeting, to be

held in the Opera House of the Wakefield Town Hall, 2 High Street, Sanbornville, New

Hampshire, on Saturday, January 31, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. The First Session will consist of

explanation, discussion, and debate of each of the following warrant articles, and will

afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate, and adopt

amendments to each warrant article, except those articles whose wording is prescribed by

state law.

SECOND SESSION

You are also notified to meet for the Second Session of the Annual Town Meeting

to elect town officers by official ballot and to vote by official ballot on the warrant

articles as they may have been amended at the First Session, to be held at the Opera

House of the Wakefield Town Hall, 2 High Street, Sanbornville, New Hampshire, on

Tuesday, March 10, 2009. Polls for voting by official ballot will open at 8:00 a.m. and

will close at 7:00 p.m., unless the town votes to keep the polls open to a later hour.

 These are the "disenfranchised" currently unable to vote at the Town and School District meetings who would gain their right to vote with SB2:

Those who are serving their country in the military.

Those with no means of transportation.

Those with health conditions that prevent them from attending lengthy meetings.

Those who are parents or single parents with young children.

Those who are sick.

Those students who are studying out-of-state

Those who are incapacitated or hospitalized.

Those retirees (senior citizens) wintering in a warmer climate.

Those emergency service professionals on duty.

Those doctors, nurses and other medical professionals on duty.

Those public employees on duty.

Those working a second job or working the second shift.

Those who are away on business.

Those unable to attend because of personal or professional commitments.

Those intimidated by open voting.

Those who dislike politics (we understand).

Ordinary people from a diversity of backgrounds who all deserve the Right to Vote

Letter to the editor

February 19^th 2009

The Citizen

I understand the concern of those who oppose SB2 for their town. It takes the power away from a few and hands it to the majority.
To suggest that people in the ‘90s did not understand SB2 because it was a new idea, then why haven’t they rescinded SB2 in those towns.
One does not really have to call their friends in SB2 towns – let’s just look at how many efforts there have been to rid that town of SB2.
I can save you some time – only Orange, Dorchester, and Enfield have gone back to the “traditional town meeting.”
In the past two years Epsom and Epping have found the question on the ballot to discontinue SB2. The voters said NO in a big way.
The fear of those who oppose SB2 is that once it is part of the town charter the people like the idea – and it is tough to return to the days of intimidation and allowing only those present to vote.
Sort of like the tax cap in NH cities – once it is part of the charter – the taxpayers feel a lot safer with city officials handling “our money.”

Neil Young
Laconia

There are plenty of arguments for and against SB2. We’re not going to argue that, mostly because so many other people are arguing on both sides. There is one argument against SB2, however, that we find irritatingly patronizing – that a vote under SB2 is not an informed vote. We’re always a bit wary when someone tells us that our vote is uninformed – sometimes it means that that person believes we’re uninformed because we don’t agree. The imagery of a voter confused and alone in the booth, without someone to turn to for answers – give us a break. If someone is “uninformed,” it’s because they’ve made the decision not to pay any attention. New Hampshire voters are entrusted with the first presidential primary. Even if they can’t get to an ice cream social or town hall meeting to hear candidates speak, they generally take their vote extremely seriously, and do the required research. They know their vote counts, and are willing to take the time to find the candidate that they believe will best lead the country. The nice thing about SB2 is that it does give a window of time and opportunity for voters to research the issues on their own, sans impassioned rhetoric. No one has to make a split-second decision while listening to the arguments for and against warrant articles. No one has to decide on the spot whether one side is overstating their case for or against the article. As an aside, not to toot our own horn, but there’s a reason newspapers in New Hampshire are so busy in the weeks leading up to Town Meeting – they’re trying for as much coverage as possible on all the issues. In an SB2 town, there’s time to figure things out before you mark your ballot.

And that, we believe, makes for an informed voter.

The Laconia Daily Sun

Wednesday 2/18/2009

Editor: A letter writer on Tuesday  to your paper wrote that claims in recent letters in support of SB2 were full of “misstatements and half truths”. I would like to say that I too am proud to live in this town along with my “alliance friends”, but that doesn’t preclude us from trying to make it even better. I do agree with one statement the letter writer made which is “to get the facts about SB2 before they vote”.

Well, here are the facts:

•     There are 73 School Districts that are SB2. Since it’s inception in 1996 NOT ONE SINGLE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS EVER RESCINDED SB2.( Source NH Center for Public Policy)

•     The writer claims most towns with SB2 are very large Towns. No true. 32 of the 63 SB2 Towns (51%) ARE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE OR SMALLER THAN MOULTONBOROUGH. ( Source NH Department of Revenue Administration)

•     The writer said that less than 2 percent of towns per year for the last nine years have opted for SB2. This is FALSE. This past year alone (2008), SB2 Towns INCREASED BY 5% AND SCHOOLS HAVE INCREASED BY 6% ( NH Department of Revenue Administration)

•     She stated that services such as visiting nurses, fire, police and ambulance and road maintenance will be compromised. NOT TRUE. The town must prepare an operating budget and a default operating budget at the same time. The default budget is basically last years operating budget, adding contractual and other recurring expenses and eliminating one time operating expenses. A little bit more complicated, but not much. ALL OTHER APPROPRIATIONS ARE VOTED ON SEPARATELY AND ARE NOT PART OF THE DEFAULT BUDGET. So the “hearts and flowers” appropriations are not suddenly gone. By the way in Moultonborough last year there wer 18 of these Special Articles totaling $70,000 ALL VOTED INDEPENDTLY OF THE OPERATING BUDGET(Source: NH Department of Revenue Administration). She also neglected to mention that default budgets may happen in a town without SB2. That is why we actually vote at Town Meeting on operating budgets.

•     She incorrectly stated that the deliberative session replaces Town Meeting. NOT TRUE. Per the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration the deliberative session is a form of town meeting. The discussions, amendments etc work EXACTLY THE SAME AS TOWN MEETING.

•     She stated that warrant articles (at the deliberative session) “can be drastically changed by a handful of people that are NOT elected who do not have all the information or who have an axe to grind”. So how does that differ from Town Meeting? It doesn’t. People have EXACTLY THE SAME RIGHTS AT BOTH THE DELBERATIVE SESSION AND TRADITIONAL TOWN MEETING except that  SB2 WILL ALLOW ALL VOTERS 30 days to review and understand the articles AND THEN EVERYONE CAN VOTE INCLUDING BY ABSENTEE BALLOT.

We would invite anyone who wants to be better informed about SB2 to visit our website WWW.MoultonboroCitizensAlliance.org or email us at MoultonboroCitizensAlliance@Yahoo.Com. 

Paul Punturieri

Moultonboro Citizens Alliance

Moultonboro, NH

HOME

Moultonboro 2009 Slate of Candidates  

Selectmen ( 2 Open Seats) :  Al Hume, Terence Jatko, Joel Mudget, Jim Gray

There is an article in today’s (February 17, 2009) Citizen regarding the Interlakes School District SB2 hearings. The MCA commentary is in blue.

A citizen (from Moultonborough) said “"I was floored, II just walked out of there and I was like 'Wow, my opinion matters, my vote matters.' You wind up in the end with a better product because you know more. That town meeting is part of what makes New Hampshire New Hampshire.". Great. In SB2 Town Meetings (called deliberative sessions,) your opinion also matters, your vote matters and it is a big part of what makes New Hampshire New Hampshire because the rules are exactly the same as Town Meeting.  And we most definitely agree that you wind up with a better product because you know more: with SB2 you will have 30 days to understand and be a better informed voter before voting on all the articles.

A Center Harbor Selectman said, while traveling around the state as part of his job, he has spoken to people in SB2 communities about the process and "nine times out of 10 they'll say it really doesn't work all that well," Really? 9 out of 10? That would be 90%! It only takes 60% to approve or rescind SB2. Then why have no School Districts and only 3 Towns ever rescinded SB2? Two of those 3 Towns by the way are smaller than 400 people. Orange (pop. 300) in 1999 and Dorchester (pop. 353) in 1999.Enfield (pop. 4500) rescinded SB2 in 2001. In the words of a famous cartoon rabbit “That’s all folks”!

"It truly empowers people," said a Center Harbor resident and former school board member “When you leave a school district meeting or a town meeting, you don't feel you're just one 'X' in a box in a voting booth." You will feel the same way after an SB2 Town Meeting. But you know what will be different? Everyone who is registered to vote will get to place an ‘X’ in a box in a voting booth. Can’t do that at Town Meeting. I guess those who don’t get to go to Town Meeting are just not allowed to be empowered.

A resident said that while many people's schedules today are busy, if someone takes enough interest in the (Town) meeting "you're going to make the time to go."  But they don’t because many cannot and do not want to.  In 2006 in Moultonborough a whopping 78 voters (under 2% of registered voters) showed up at the School District annual meeting. 103 showed up in 2007. The town annual meeting was 285 in 2006 and 340 in 2007.
"I felt the people put a trust in me to do (the job) and it's almost as though they're not trusting the people you voted in that position to do the job," a former school board member said. "If you can't make it to the meeting, you can vote for your representatives." Now we get to the heart of the anti SB2 debate. Read the previous statement and then read this one. That’s right. They contradict one another. Make the time to go so your vote will count and then you don’t need to vote, we’ve got you covered. Sorry, I want everyone who is registered to vote to vote, not just a small minority.

Former School Board Member and also Chair said anyone has the opportunity to be informed in the period from when the draft budget is put out and district meeting. He said people can speak opinions, ask questions on the budget and make amendments at the regular school district meeting. It was also said that the budget can be amended and changed any time in the process to the end of district meeting under the current district meeting system. That doesn’t change under SB2. Once the budget makes the warrant it’s off the table for the deliberative session. It can only be voted up or down on ballot day. That’s the same as today except that voting   occurs at Town/School Meeting. This is a common anti SB2 argument that is full of holes.

"To me the great weakness in SB2, you could end up with unintended consequences as the result of an uninformed vote," said a board member saying paying for advertising and mailers on the issues could be too costly and the best way for people to be informed would be to attend the meeting and speak to officials and other board members. Some people do attend all the meetings and workshops. Only some though. In fact, very few.  Sometimes .. really a few… like 2. Has the School Board heard of the internet? There opposition to public access broadcasting school board meetings runs counter to the board members arguments. Being able to watch and re-watch board meetings will get the information out to where it belongs- in public.

"To me, I think democracy isn't just a matter of how many vote," it was stated by an attendee."To  me it's about the quality of that vote."  That’s democratic? I thought all votes were equal. Voting is a privilege.  Limiting that privilege is wrong and not  democracy, it’s preventing taxpayers from having a say in their local government.

MCA

The Citizen Editorial  Sunday, February 15, 2009

We are in difficult times and there are even more difficult times ahead of us. People are going to be hurt. Some will be hurt more than others. There are challenges we must face and challenges we must deal with. Where there are challenges, there are opportunities for achievement.

Gov. John Lynch has presented a budget that addresses today's challenges in the context of what comes tomorrow — a budget that cares for the budget that follows it.

"The budget I present today is balanced," Lynch told the Legislature Thursday. Today it is a goal. Grading of the test will come in two years.

It will be difficult. ...

HOME.

The Meredith News  February 12, 2009

To the Editor: It’s hard for me to believe that once again there is a small group of people that are coming through the back door to propose a plan to build new ball fields at the site of the Moultonboro Lions Club. This is only a back-door tactic to once again to try to build a recreation center after it was voted down at last year’s Town Meeting. This group of individuals must have not listened to the voters last year, who are made up of mostly retires on fixed incomes, that voted this whole issue down. Smarten up! Last year there was talk about a recession, when the recreation center/gym/pool/ ballfields were talked about and with the town once again becoming a donor town. Well, listen up! We are in a recession and in uncharted waters and we are going to become a donor town again. This group of people, looking to spend tax money at the expense of taxpayers at this time - get out of the bubble and quit watching Sesame Street! This economy is crumbling and thousands of people are out of work and losing jobs daily and citizens are hurting, both working and the ones retired. You may not at this point be affected from this crisis, but believe me, it could happen soon. No one will escape it. No one has a job for life today and I wonder if you were behind the eight ball, if you would want to see taxes go up? This is a year when budgets should and must be cut and no so-called pork

spending! I would also like to point out that there was a article a few days back that indicated that the youth population is declining in Moultonboro and there is going to be a study done to the cause of this. Question? Who are we building these new ball/soccer fields for? The retirees who make up the majority of the town? It can not be for the increase in our youth population. Message to the selectmen - please check with the Meredith selectmen to see if you can learn something from them, since their proposed budget is a decrease of 1.94 percent instead of an increase of 0.21 percent in ours!

Joe Quaresima

Moultonboro

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Response to letter from Ringelsteins

Editor, The Citizen

I would like to respond to a letter by Todd and Sandra Ringelstein in Tuesday's paper. I know the Ringelsteins and they are good people and wonderful parents as well as long time residents. Their children, as well as mine, have been the beneficiary of the Moultonborough School District. As a 62 year old native, I can tell you that making my decision to support SB2 changing from the old outdated town meeting method of voting was initially difficult for me.....

HOME

Editor, The Citizen Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Moultonborough will be having a "Meet the Candidates Night" at the former Lions Club property on Old Route 109 Sunday the 15th. There will also be a discussion on SB2. Mel Borrin will be moderating.

Most of you are familiar with SB2, the voting initiative, but at the risk of boring some I will remind everyone what SB2 does (and doesn't) do. Also, to keep the rest of you folks awake, I will take this opportunity for a bit of disclosure: I am a supporter of SB2. I have not always been so; however, for two and a half years I researched it from both sides and found three major arguments to support it. Also in the disclosure department; Mel Borrin intensely opposes SB2 (unless he changed position in the past few months).....

HOME

The Citizen

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

HOME

The BoS meeting tonight @ 7pm will contain a review of warrant articles for the 2009 Town Warrant. A few in particular have gotten the attention of some citizens who have told the MCA they are opposed to resurrecting the already voted down community center.

In brief, the Selectmen will attempt to place an article on the warrant to change the meaning of the Municipal Building Fund so that money can be taken from this fund for other purposes than from which it was originally intended. They would like to see a broad use of the fund to include site planning, equipment, repairs, etc. They also want to use up to $100,000 annually for “emergencies”. We disagree with this. Once a precedent is set, what will stop monies from being drawn from other trust and reserve funds for purposes other than what was intended?  Most of the money proposed to be withdrawn this year is for a soccer field to be designed and built at the Lions Club property as part of a 10-15 year “build out” for a possible community center. This is what voters said no to on Article 9 last year. We understand that the roof of the Town Hall needs major work and probably replacement. Put a warrant article for that purpose. Most of us in town can differentiate the necessity for a new roof vs. the non-necessity of a new soccer field in these difficult economic times.

.

MCA

The budget process is over. Both the town and the school district have presented  budgets for 2009-10.

The Town Budget that will be voted on at Town Meeting represents a decrease of approximately  $159,261 or -1.5%.

The School District did not quite fare as well with an increase in spending of $256,476 or +1.89%. 83% of the Districts increases were due to salaries and benefits.

The Library Budget shows and increase of $19,420 or +4.59%. The increase was reported by the ABC to be entirely due to salaries and benefits.

Click here for the Final ABC recommendations and budget numbers.

I. CALL TO ORDER: Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.

III. REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES: Joel Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of January

IV. NEW RESIDENTS: Donald R. & Janet M. Boulin, Jeff A. Carpenter, Michael A. Salsman,

V. PUBLIC MEETING:

Can we really justify $450,000 for a soccer field? Can we really justify pay increases for all school employees at the same level (5.7%) as the collective bargaining agreement and asking those of us ( the vast majority of taxpayers) who work in the private sector who are struggling to pay for it? No its not... 

Town budget “draft” shows small increase of .22%. Good job so far.

Budget Commentary Part 3

The BoS met 1/29/2009 in a “workshop” and reviewed warrant articles and related budget items. As of this writing, the still very rough budget is approximately $9,462,771 which is .22% above last year. Good job, we think. This does not include appropriations in petitioned warrant articles some clarification from the Town Clerk. It does include eliminating the States Landing study. As per Carter Terenzini, assistance from the Human Services department was approximately $10,000 for January 2009, double what it was for the past two Januaries. Monies were recommended to be moved ($7,500) from one account to Human Services. We think that is a good thing. It reflects the troubling and difficult times we live in and the fact that not all of Moultonborough is affluent. What doesn’t reflect the troubled times is the appropriation of approximately $100,000 in new tax dollars....

 A fairly long discussion regarding two warrant articles that seek to raise $100,000 in new taxes and changes also occured at this meeting. The MCA was there and the following is what was discussed ( not in the Selectmen workshop minutes)

MCA

-1-

OFFICE OF SELECTMEN

6 HOLLAND STREET

PO BOX 139

MOULTONBOROUGH, NH 03254

Selectmen’s Workshop January 29, 2009

MINUTES

Present: Karel A. Crawford, Ed Charest, Jim F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten, and Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator

Also Present: Advisory Budget Committee: Jean Beadle and Gary Haracz, Kathy Garry

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05pm

The Town Administrator handed out a variety of documents on the drafts to date and led off with a recent communications from the Town Clerk relative to whether or not she could or would be able to open on Thursdays with the Selectmen’s proposal on her budget. It was the general consensus they had agreed to increase the hours of the two staff members to 64 under their understanding this would enable the office to be open that extra day. Karel would speak with the Clerk and there may be a need for her to come back in for another conversation.

On other budget issues, the changes to date on the “Build To” were affirmed and a consensus was to strike the States Landing study. The Town Administrator began a review of the Warrant. There was a question from Nat King as to why

the “endorsement” of the Master Plan was an article. After lengthy discussion of the merits of such an action to gain a formal town-wide endorsement of this, as opposed to the Planning Board’s statutory role in adopting the plan, it was determined to kick this back to the Planning Board for consideration.

The Town Administrator noted he had submitted to Town Counsel a question on whether or not we could omit certain language of statue relative to the Heritage Commission rolling over unexpended funds. While we were certain we could not expand the scope of statute the question was whether or not we could constrict the scope of statute. There was lengthy discussion of the Article which adopted additional language relative to effectively creating a Public Works Department.

Mr. Charest was concerned that people running for and voting for the Highway Agent needed to understand the scope of the position. The TA said that was why he was trying to bring this article forth now so that the scope of the job changed as did the new Highway Agent. The Town Administrator also noted it had been agreed that the Transfer Station would not be brought under the DPW umbrella until after the retirement of the current Supervisor.

The Town Administrator was asked to draw Article #14 (Credit Cards) down to its simplest bare bones elements. He noted the Selectmen would then develop Rules and Procedures to implement it.

On Article #17 (Building Fund) the Town Administrator was asked to provide that any insurance reimbursement or disaster relief (FEMA) would flow back into the fund automatically.

The order of Articles was reviewed with the Town Administrator being asked to move the operating budget to the last as well as looking at the possibility of tightening up (i.e. reducing) the number for the

planner.

On Article #22 the consensus was to change the end date in the non-lapsing language to 2010 and on Article #23 the elements related to the withdrawal from the Building Fund were to be moved behind it (the non-lapsing date was to be rolled back to 2012 here). It was noted the ABC report was due for the February 5th meeting with the ABC Chair noting she needed a bottom line number. Some quick math was done and the number was $8,249,747.

The Town

Administrator will do a revised comparison of the budgets and the next Draft of the Warrant to email out by the close of business the following Wednesday.

The Chair set a continuing budget/warrant workshop for February 12, 2009 at 5:00 pm. Motion by Joel, seconded by Betsey to adjourn at 8:03 p.m.

All in Favor.

Respectfully Submitted, Approved:

Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator Karel C. Crawford, Chairman

Selectmen ( Two Open Seats)

Al Hume

Terence Jatko

Joel Mudget

Jim Gray

School Board ( One Open Seat)

Kathy Garry  ( Uncontested)

Road Agent-

Scott Kinmond,

 Dave Rossetti,

Ed Wakefield,

Daniel Burbank, Sr..

Zoning Board ( Two Seats)

Raymond Heal

Herbert Farnham

Jerry Hopkins

Treasurer ( Uncontested

Laura Hilliard

Trustee of the Trust Fund ( Uncontested)

 Kenneth Taylor

Supervisor of the Checklis ( Uncontested)

 Laurie Whitley

.

Library Board of Trustees ( Two Seats Uncontested)

Barbara Putnam

Roger Simpson.

Moultonboro Planning Board ( Three Seats Uncontested)

Jane Fairchild

Joanne Coppinger,

Natt King

.

Cooperation between departments and town administration is credited with keeping Meredith's budget low this year, officials say.
On Monday, a public hearing was held for Meredith's proposed 2009 budget. This year's total budget request is $12,679,816.97, a decrease of $250,420.03……

Home

4. Moultonborough Planning Board Minutes, January 14th & 19th, 2009

The Meredith News January 29, 2009

SARAH SCHMIDT

SSCHMIDT@SALMONPRESS.COM

MOULTONBORO — In an attempt to get work started and take advantage of a federal

grant, the Parks and Recreation Department and team presented a possible phasing plan for the construction of a building and playing fields. Recreation Director Donna Kuethe and Recreation Strategic Planning Team Chair Tom Howard presented a plan to selectmen that would phase in the construction of playing fields on the Lions Club land on Rt. 109. Broken into a two-year plan, the construction of fields would begin this summer, with repairs on the soggy fields at Playground Drive to follow in 2010, per the requirements of a federal grant. Town Administrator Carter Terenzini said that the total cost of the project at the Rt. 109 site would be $450,000. .....

"We are in no way implying that we do or do not support the rec project; we’re simply pointing out that the town shouldn’t start spending money it will probably never see."

You can count your chickens before they hatch – it’s what we call estimating. But counting chickens before the rooster arrives at the coop – that’s another matter entirely. We’re talking about the plan to construct playing fields on the Lions Club land on Route 109, and specifically the thought that part of the nationwide $825 billion economic stimulus package, currently under debate in Congress, could go toward the project. Town Administrator Carter Terenzini explained  that the Parks and Recreation Department was looking into doing the project in phases, the first of which would focus on addressing drainage issues on the land and building the fields. The town would likely be asking for $300,000. The second phase would cost $130,000, an amount that Terenzini said they hoped to get through volunteer efforts and parts of the economic stimulus package. As selectman and State Representative Betsey Patten pointed out, the New Hampshire House is already talking about potential projects using economic stimulus funds, and that the more populous places in the state would be the more likely candidates to receive funding. In fact, on Monday morning Gov. John Lynch and the state's congressional delegation met to discuss the stimulus package. A press release quoted Lynch as saying the meeting was an important step in deciding “how New Hampshire can most effectively use funds to protect our most vulnerable citizens and create jobs." That was the sentiment repeated by Senator Judd Gregg and Congresswoman Carol Shea- Porter as well – that these funds need to create jobs and otherwise boost the economy. Improving the state’s infrastructure is high on the list as well. So how does the Town of Moultonboro factor in? It probably doesn’t. The project isn’t going tocreate many jobs or boost the economy. It may improve the well-being of the community, but in the grand scheme of things, it is a trivial project to the rest of the state. We are in no way implying that we do or do not support the rec project; we’re simply pointing out that the town shouldn’t start spending money it will probably never see.

HOME

"People in the private sector who have had their wages and salaries frozen have every right to expect similar direction in the public sector"

Editorial The Citizen

Friday, January 30, 2009 

Local municipal and school officials in the area are working at what they characterize as cuts in their budget proposals. In most cases what that means is that they are working at minimizing increases.
For example, the proposed budget for the Shaker Regional School District is $157,861 higher than the current budget, while Inter-Lakes is looking at an increase of $46,774.
It is not only the weather that has turned cold. The economic climate has turned icy, too.
Town administrators and school superintendents and school boards are faced with having to provide the best affordable services at the least possible cost.
Among the hard realities of budgeting for the coming fiscal year are these: The number of people who are out of work is increasing. There is little reason to expect increases in earnings. Investment values are melting. Energy costs are rising again. People have less money for discretionary spending.
There is little expectation of a change any time soon.
People in the private sector who have had their wages and salaries frozen have every right to expect similar direction in the public sector.
It is not only about wages and salaries. It is also about levels of service.
Provide funds for what has to be done. Do not abandon maintenance but approach new projects with caution.
This is not a time to expand programs. There might be program expansions and projects that are desirable or timely in the eyes of some people but are they affordable on the part of many? Probably not.
The expansion of a program is seldom if ever an emergency undertaking. What might be immediately beneficial to one family might add to the difficulties of another.
Cities and school districts must continue to whittle at their respective debt burdens. And it is false economy to add to the burden during difficult times, thinking it will be repaid in more prosperous times. Who among us can say when prosperity will return?
It is cruel to add to the tax burden of the unemployed and it is shortsighted to take from people and institutions who have not been hit as hard — yet.
Historically, taxes travel in only one direction and there is no sign of reversal later this year. While people toil to make ends meet and owners of businesses struggle valiantly to put their books in the black and maintain work for their employees, the tax collector will not be denied, though through no fault of his or her own.
America’s economy is in a crippled state. The pain is being felt in every state and every large and small community. The pain is widespread and it will be relieved only if each of us is willing to participate in the sacrifice.

 Home