]]>
]]>
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 3 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 4 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 5 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 6 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Workshop August 26th, 2010 Part 7 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>Letter to the Editor –
Is Moultonboro a Donor TOWN or are we Donor INDIVIDUALS?? And WHY??
The Selectmen’s Meeting on Thursday August 19th touched on the issue of taxes that are “due” from Moultonboro to the State to satisfy the commitment that the State has levied on us as a “donor town”. This tax is due in December of 2011, but the Selectmen have proposed billing taxpayers early. They propose billing in two assessments, half of the burden in each bill, one in July and one in December, to avoid one large “pre-Christmas” payment. A few issues arise….
1. No one would willingly accept a bill 6 months early of when it was due. If Sears billed us early to avoid one large December bill we would be furious. And if we had to pay early, who would collect (and benefit from) the interest? So why does this seem like a good idea to the town?
2. No one would willingly accept a tax bill without expecting that the source of the bill had tried to figure out some alternative. If the bill is a “Town” bill, we should expect that Moultonboro would try to find all (or at least part) of the $3.4M “Donor Town” bill from it’s operating budget. The Selectmen said that they would not be able to find the 14% in the town budget. But by not covering it, they imply that we, the taxpayers can (and, in fact, have to do so.)
3. In response to a question about whether the tax was for the town or for the individuals IN the town, the Selectmen responded that they thought that the tax was an Individual tax (not a town tax) but would check with Concord to determine whether that is really the case, but they believed that individuals could not pay the State directly. If it is an “individual” bill, we each have to plan our payment and plan our individual budgets to cover the tax from our personal operating budget. And if it is, we should pay the State directly. When it is due (not before)! And our response -in terms of our reaction to the tax- should then be directed to our State government, not to our local representatives.
4. The Donor concept suggests that some towns (Moultonboro, apparently) can afford to help other, less able (Amherst??) towns with their school bills. If it is an individual tax, the implication is that the State (and town) believes that we as individuals can afford to pay 14% more ($3.2M over a 2009 Budget of 24.2M) in taxes. Oh really? This is a clear redistribution of income issue that doesn’t belong in New Hampshire! We have been here before….and know what we’re facing again. It is no better this time. In the current economy, it’s a lot worse.
Property taxes are going to be up significantly (an across-the-board 14%) as a result of this change. Combined with the reassessment, many are looking at HUGE tax increases this year. Thursday at 4pm is a chance to see the Selectmen on the Reassessment. Come join in for that first step.
Janet Cramer
Moultonboro.
]]>Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting August 19th, 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting August 19th, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>Moultonboro School Board Meeting August 10th 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro School Board Meeting August 10th, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro School Board August 10th, 2010 Part 3 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>
Letter to the Editor Meredith News August 2010
The Vision Appraisal Process in Moultonboro has resulted in amazingly flawed results and frustrated homeowners have been given little hope that these results will be improved. With the devaluation of properties nationwide and locally that has been well documented, and the large number of properties that have languished, unsold, on the market in the last several years, the news that our lakeside property values have increased 28% (roughly $250,000 in a large number of homes) is ridiculous. The entire town valuation has increased! Have you heard of ANY town in the country whose values have increased?
As a Realtor, I can assure you that property values are not up. Assessments are NOT up. Private assessments (and they happen regularly every time a home mortgage is obtained for financing or refinancing) are down. Realtors work daily with clients to determine the selling price of a property through a “Comparative Market Analysis” process which has similarities to the assessment process, and I doubt that you could find a Realtor who would say that home prices have gone up from the prior appraisals to the new time period of April 2009-April 2010.
The DATA that Vision Appraisals has used for waterfront is flawed. With nearly 1800 waterfront lots in Moultonboro, there were 30 sales in the April 2009-April 2010 time frame. Of those 30, 5 were discarded (for a variety of reasons that VA deemed valid) and the remaining 25 sales formed the basis of the analysis of value in such a convoluded way that it can’t be simply summarized. Suffice it to say that the properties were sub divided into “zones,” sales price was compared to prior assessed value, and factors were assigned that were applied to get the new values. Essentially groups of 2-5 homes with widely varying prices and sizes were used to come up with the new assessment. And the results were hugely different from the prior year.
Vision Appraisal did their analysis without sharing the way that they did it, didn’t discuss the methods that they used, sent out the new valuations, and had “meetings” with residents.,,,not to answer questions, but just to provide a “step” (hurdle?) before owners were able to talk with the Selectmen or the Town Appraiser. Then the owners were told to wait for the tax bills to arrive, PAY THE TAXES and file for an abatement later.
Who does Vision Appraisals work for? They work for the Selectmen. The Town Assessor (we HAVE one!) works for the Selectmen. The Selectmen responded with surprise at the Selectmen’s meeting on Thursday night at the extent of the frustration and anger over the new appraisals. They promised to “look into” the situation. Until they do, and until the issue is resolved, waterfront owners should get together to agree on a response….whether they pay their last year tax rate or hold off payment altogether, a unified response to this abysmal process should be developed.
Janet Cramer
]]>It's called The Moultonborough Taxpayers Association and we hope you go there often and contribute your ideas.
]]>Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting August 5th, 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting August 5th, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>
To the editor,
This is a response, and correction to Marty Valengavich’s July 30 letter in The Laconia Daily Sun. I finally got to talk to him on the phone (nice guy) to find out where he ever got the idea
that I was in anyway opposed to anybody being allowed to vote. Even he couldn’t recall when I ever wrote such trash, but, eventually we related it to a letter I wrote supporting SB-2 in
Moultonborough. Seems that Marty had the idea that SB-2 was a way to block people from voting, when in fact, it is exactly the opposite of that: SB-2 is a way to conduct local voting
in a fair way with secret ballots, with greatly improved ways to educate voters about what they are to vote on. ALL of the opposition to SB-2 comes from those few local politicians who
don’t want the voters to know what those politicians are trying to sneak through! With SB-2 you get the usual Town Meeting (informational session) with discussions of issues, but only as an educational exercise, with chances to correct errors (accidental or intentional) THEN, before the final vote later (that’s the part the political thieves oppose). The actual vote comes much later, AFTER everyone has time to checkout all that was said at the informational meeting (“old
Town Meeting”). THEN every voter has a chance to vote SECRETLY over a full day, whenever they can (unlike the antiquated “Town Meeting” which eliminated those who couldn’t get to
or endure a late night of many hours of boring meeting). Sneaky politicians HATE that freedom for the electorate! Obviously we need that system at the state and federal level, where they
routinely pass bills they never read! NONE of Obama’s bills would have ever passed if all who voted for them had to prove they read and understood them first! Marty tried to exceed my humor about idiot ways to block illegals, and I think he won with the hiring of I.N.S agents. He should have stopped when he was the winner! Canadians are not a major problem to the USA, BUT, it does seem that many of the worst enemies of the USA come in legally through the Mexico and Canada borders. They are very few compared to the masses of Mexicans invading
our southern border with the aid of the Mexican police and army. Okay Marty, the old duck joke is often correct: in your case, it indicates you are a radical left wing socialist opposed to the U.S. Constitution, looking for Obama to take over the USA as Hitler did Germany. Any truth in that? I doubt it. Sorry, but I see you as a nice guy, upset with the crap our government has dumped on you, wishing that somehow the government can fairly take care of major long-term medical problems (a valid function of government). Many years ago Teddy Kennedy gave an excellent speech about government medical care (which everyone totally ignored, despite being the best
speech he ever gave). Talking about current medical problems, he noted that the super rich Kennedy’s could afford their outrageous medical costs, but most other can’t. He correctly suggested that the Feds must cover ALL major medical costs that might exceed the person’s annual income (please, someone get the actual numbers on that). With a provision like that, medical insurance costs will drop to under 10-percent of current prices. A good local person like Marty deserves at least that much from our government!
Jack Stephenson
Gilford
The object for which this corporation was established is:
An informal alliance of citizen volunteers promoting the ideals of an informed citizenry, protection of voters’ rights, sensible spending, and limited government.
We have been successful in this short period of time in these areas:
A. Select Board Meetings and some major meetings are available on our web site www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org and www.moultonborocitizensalliance@yahoo.com .
B. We have been a major promoter of the Right to Know Law RSA 91-A and sponsored a seminar to make the Right to Know Law clearer to our town boards and surrounding communities.
We are promoters of Senate Bill 2 (SB2) in our town. As times change, and populations grow, the Town Meeting format becomes outmoded and impractical. SB2 allows all voters a vote on Election Day from 7am to 7pm in the privacy of the voting booth. It eliminates having to raise a hand or stand and be counted. Absentee ballots can be used when voters are unable to attend.
We all do this for no wages, only pride in helping to improve our community. We always welcome new supporters and financial help.
We proudly are the MCA at Box 678, Moultonboro, NH.
Officers: Linda Punturieri-President, Terence Jatko-Vice President, Jim Morrison-Treasurer, Al Hume-Secretary.
]]>Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting July 29th, 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Selectmen Meeting July 29th, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
MOV09d from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>Moultonboro Summer Informational Session July 22nd, 2010 Part 1 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Summer Informational Session July 22nd, 2010 Part 2 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
Moultonboro Summer Informational Session July 22nd 2010 Part 3 from Moulton Boro on Vimeo.
]]>By RAY CARBONE
New Hampshire Union Leader
Monday, Jul. 19, 2010
The New Hampshire Attorney General's office has issued a cease-and-desist order to five people, including a Moultonborough selectman and a former school board member, for their roles in distributing political flyers last year.
Assistant Attorney General Matthew Mavrogeorge said the five violated the state's election laws by failing to identify the flyer as "political advertising" and not including information identifying who was sending it out.
"(You) are hereby ordered to cease and desist from distributing any future political advertisement without first complying with the signature (identification) requirements contained in RSA 664:14," the order reads.
The flyer urged voters in March 2009 to turn down an article on town and school ballots regarding adoption of Senate Bill 2, which would replace town meeting with voters going to the polls on town election day. Voters turned down the SB2 idea at both the town and school district meetings. The district vote was 746-975, while the town vote was 704-975.
Selectman Karel Crawford and former Moultonborough School Board member and current Supervisor of the Checklist Laurie Whitley are cited by the Attorney General's Office. The three others are Lisa St. Amand, who has been a member of the town's Recreation Strategic Planning Group, Mary Ann McRae and Anita Blood.
Efforts to reach the five yesterday were unsuccessful.
According to the report, investigator Richard Valenti began looking into the issue last July after state officials received a formal complaint from resident Paul Punturieri. He charged that Whitley had violated RSA 664 by sending out the election flyers without identifying who was responsible for the material.
"It states at the bottom that the Selectmen, School Board and Advisory Budget Committee do not support SB2, but nowhere does it mention that she is a member of the School Board and running for office, nor that this flyer was not actually sent by the School Board, Selectmen or Advisory Board," the complaint reads.
In the interviews recorded in Valenti's report, none of the five reported knowingly sending out a flyer without their signature, but said that it was possible some flyers could have gone out unsigned. In his interview with Whitley, Valenti said she noted that "SB2 has been on the ballot two years in a row and it has come close to passing." Whitley said no town funds were used to mail the flyers.
Just days before the election, the flyers were criticized by the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance -- on whose website Punturieri identifies himself as a one-time member.
In his letter to the state, Punturieri said he feels as if voters did not get a fair chance to hear both sides of the issue before voting. Previous votes on SB2 in the town and school district have been close, (but) "I do not believe it was a fair fight (this time) as powers that be did not play by the rules."
Yesterday, School Board Chairman Mark Borrin said he would issue a formal statement this afternoon, but added he did not believe the report or the orders have anything to do with either the school board or the district.
"It never became an issue the board talked about," he said. "The issue involves individuals who are on the board, but it wasn't a board matter."
]]>Wednesday, July 1, 2010
We fought a fair fight for SB2 in March of 2009. We now find out that the election may not necessarily be reflective of the voice of the people perhaps as a result of the actions of the above board memebers.
]]>