Recently in Community Center Category
Karel was asked to explain about the fields for
in athletics. Donna Kuethe stated that more than just children are using the fields and the demand is increasing. The Selectmen were asked and Karel responded that there has been a review of the placement of playing fields and a future building at the Lions Club Property. Carter presented the plat, explaining that the design allows for the work to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other. He added that the design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build-out plan. Initially, drainage will be installed for the whole property. Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low. ABC Chair, Jean Beadle stated that they have recommended completing a quarterly budget review in order identify if department’s are within their budgeted amount.
The above is from the 2/9/09 Board of Selectmen’s meeting minutes. Funny how things have changed a bit since then. What statistics are there to back up the statement made by former School Board Member/Chair, Laurie Whitley, that the ‘fields at the at the Academy and Central School are over utilized’? How is it possible to over ‘utilize’ a field? What does that mean? Too many people on the field at the same time? People lining up to use the fields? Over scheduling or conflicting schedules? How do any of the above warrant building another field?
I wonder if the statement that 67% of all students are involved in athletics’ is still true. Show me the numbers. No one has ever come forth with the numbers. It’s always statements such as ‘more than just the children are using the fields and the demand is increasing’, according to Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. What does that mean? How many? When? How often? What were they doing? What time of year?
Let’s look further into these minutes. Carter explained the design for the Lion’s Club property is‘to be done in phases and one is not contingent upon the other’. Really? ‘The design has 6 to 7 phases with a 10 to 15 year build out plan’. I wonder how that changed to a 3 phase plan to start by 4/1/10, with the drainage and clearing of trees for all 3 phases to begin immediately. Where was I when this was announced?
How many times has the Town Administrator been asked about ‘staff meetings’ and where the minutes were for those meetings this last year? The citizens of Moultonboro are not dumb. While many people don’t care or pay attention to the activities of the government of our town, which is typical across the country, many do. Many pay attention to and follow what goes on at all the board and committee meetings. So do I. But it is apparent that our Town Administrator has little regard for the ‘frequent flyers’ as he condescendingly refers to the folks that regularly attend BoS meetings.
I am appalled at the activities of our Town Administrator and the actions that he has taken in so many meetings held under the guise of staff meetings.
According to the minutes of 2/09/09, there were many concerns about proceeding ahead with the Lion’s Club project.
Ed stated that he wished the plan had been presented earlier and his
concern about going forth with this project. He also stated his dismay that the 2008 amount budgeted was in excess of what was actually spent. Carter explained that the discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears and was due to many factors. He added that a large percent will be used towards the tax rate in an effort to keep it low.
Where did Carter learn mathmatics. ‘The discrepancy was not as large as it numerically appears’. I don’t get it. Numbers are what numbers are. We are talking dollars here, not some twisted statistics to prove something one way or the other. Or are we?
A few notes from 1/108 BoS meeting discussing the RSPC proposal for a community center:
He [Joel] feels that the project should be put off for a few years until the
state educational funding question is resolved. Joel suggested putting money in the
Gee, do you think? Why then are we less than a year later, proposing the same thing, only in a bigger hurry? What is going on here folks? Someone, somewhere is pushing harder and harder to get something going on the Lion’s Club property. But, why? Well, here’s a thought: once we get a ‘soccer field’ built, why not build something else? Like a Community Center? After all, there’s so much space there, right? How ‘bout 237 parking spaces for all the programs that will be conducted in that building? Human Services will be in there, too. Oh really? Since when? Who decided that and when? Was that in another staff meeting of which there are no minutes?
Goodness, folks, this is a bit too much for me to digest all at once. I’m overwhelmed by the magnitude of the arrogance that I am too ignorant to care as an ordinary citizen or an abutter to the Lion’s Club property to see that there are those with an agenda pushing forth to build something, anything on that land and as fast as possible.
I have personal reasons for not wanting anything built there, as an abutter, but the more that we see in writing and in conceptual ideas, and the more we hear of the history, the wetlands, wildlife, environmental concerns, the angrier I get.
I have nothing against a soccer field, but I believe it should be built in 1) a central location, which the Lion’s Club is not, 2) where the kids are, which the Lion’s Club is not, 3) not on a wetland, which the Lion’s Club is!! Has anyone consulted with the Town Planner on this project? Anyone at all?
Let’s take a closer look at the entire ‘concept’ here. Let’s suppose it was determined that there is a real need for an additional all purpose ball field. What would the criteria be for choosing a location? Here’s a few that come to my mind, and I will admit that I have no training in town planning or civil engineering:1)High, dry land; 2) Central location and close to existing parking; 3) the least expensive land in clearing or developing a field. So, do any of those fit the Lion’s Club property? Uh, no.
Once upon a time, a long time ago, kids used to walk, bike and run all over the place. In this day and age, they don’t. They are driven or bussed to and from school, activities, etc. The proposed ‘safe routes to school’ doesn’t work for me either. This is a plan that was developed as a way to convince people that the Lion’s Club property is the perfect place for a ball field. I can tell you from my own observations driving passed the school, the high volume of personal vehicles driven by parents to bring their kids to school. No one walks to school. My neighbors drive their kids, and they live less than a mile away.
In my opinion, there are so many fingers in the pie. It’s hard to find out how this entire ‘conceptual plan’ came into existence. Nowhere can I find meeting minutes that have discussed these plans before the public. From the 9/17/09 BoS meeting, Karel summarized the costs for the Town engineers design for the ‘Recreational fields at the Lion’s Club property’ at $54,740. Gee, nothing like spending a good portion of the $300,000 approved for the construction of a new field and the repair of Playground Drive field, to come up with plans that the Planning Board have found unacceptable and of poor quality, looking as if they were thrown together at the last minute.
Here we are at the end of March 2010, and plans were discussed since Sept 09, and poor quality plans referred to as ‘conceptual plans’ are the best the Town Administrator and Town engineer have come up with? Gee, folks. This only cost us $54k! Let’s send them back to the coloring books for another $1500!!
Where does this madness stop?
I would, however, like to give kudos the the Board of Selectmen and the new Chair for questioning these 'conceptual plans' and sending them back to come up with plans that: 1) make sense; (I don't care how many times!) 2) that will be put forth in a public hearing! Finally!! Someone might actually be listening to the town's people and especially the abutters!
Maybe there is hope after all!
Linda N. Punturieri
Abutter
The following letter from Town Administrator Carter Terenzini to a member of the MCA was in response to inquiries about what is happening behind the scenes at the town owned Lions Club property. Apparently, a lot has been going on and as is typical it seems with our Town Administrator, out of the public eye.
MCA
I write in response to your document request for (a) "All the staff members of the team that is developing the Lions Club property Sonya, Donna, Tom ect" (sic) and (b) "Also the reason all the staff meetings since 2008, time and dates, why they do not come under RSA 91 A, meetings to be posted and minutes." I will respond in the order you raised the issues.
a.) I am managing the project. I include the user agency (Recreation) and the maintenance agency (DPW) as appropriate to each discussion. I also draw upon those with experience and institutional knowledge of the history of the proposal and those who I believe can give me insight as to various volunteer efforts that might be undertaken. To date that has been Mr. Tom Howard and Mr. Larry Cotter. The project is being designed under the direction of Ray Korber, P.E. Principal in the firm of KVPartners LLC which is the Town Engineer. He draws upon those professionals on his team as he needs.
b.) RSA 91-A was crafted to ". . . ensure. . . public access to the actions, discussions and records of all public bodies. . .". A "Public body" means ". . .Any legislative body, governing body, board, commission, committee, agency, or authority of any. . . town. . .or any committee, subcommittee, or subordinate body thereof, or advisory committee thereto." [RSA 91-A VI (d)]. Simply put, the appointed staff of any community is not a Public Body. The staff is not engaged hi a "meeting" as defined by RSA 91-A. Such a convening of staff and others thus does not trigger the requirement to produce and maintain minutes under this statute.
Notwithstanding that the Staff is not a public body for the purposes of RSA 91-A, we do and will provide substantial opportunity for the distribution of information and public discussion of the major construction projects being proposed or undertaken. For this recreation fields project I expect this meeting will be sometime in November.
I trust this has, again, answered these questions.
Carter Terenzini
Town Administrator
CC: BoS; Town Counsel
SARAH SCHMIDT
The Meredith News Marfch 19, 2009
MOULTONBORO —
Moultonboro residents voted in favor of creating a new playing field and beginning repairs on an old one, after an amendment shifted the majority of the tax appropriation to a reserve fund. “This is going to allow us to fix the existing field and continue to meet the recreational needs of the community,” said Parks and Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. “I’m happy.” The article called for $337,500 for field improvements, drainage design, and associated design costs for the construction of a playing field on the former Lions Club land.The total sum of the article will come from three places, and originally in these amounts - $87,500 from the Community Center Trust Fund established last year, $137,500 from general taxation, and $107,500 from the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Selectmen voted 3-2 to recommend the article last month. The first obstacle to passage of the article was in the article preceding it, asking for a rewording of the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. The change expanded the usage of the fund from constructing a building to using it to also design, engineer and equip a building. This article, created in 1993, and carrying a balance of $972,975.10, came with a bit of disagreement of its own, as selectmen voted 4-1 in favor of it. “Changing this fund is not in accordance with what people voted for in the past,” said Selectman Ed Charest. “If there is a new need, get
a new fund.” Selectman Joel Mudgett disagreed, however, asking residents to approve the article to clear the way for its use for other actions besides construction of a building. “We’ve got $972,975 in the fund, and no future plans for it,” said Selectman Chair Karel Crawford. The article passed by secret ballot, in a vote of 212- 78, attaining more than the necessary 60 percent to pass at 74 percent. In the next article, voters debated the issue of constructing a new playing field and repairing the old one on
part by the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Of the $337,500, $300,000 would go for field construction, drainage design, and design costs, and $37,500 for construction of a pathway. One resident asked how funds from the
Selectmen Charest and Betsey Patten voted against recommending the article earlier in the year. Both selectmen spoke of the uncertain economic outlook, and of future expenses to the
town, questioning whether the field repair and construction could wait a bit longer. “I did not support this as a state representative and a selectman,” said Patten. “If you look at what’s going on at the state level. We’re working hard not to spend so much, and put down as low a percentage as possible. I felt this was something we could put off - there are other factors involved in what we want here in Moultonboro.” Ken Tatro, who coached soccer in Moultonboro last year, called the
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
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
"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
"Through the Needs Assessment we are able to see where we are doing a good job and where we need to improve"
Lisa Morris, Executive Director of the Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health
The Citizen June 3rd,2008
Area residents are being asked to participate in the Lakes Region Community Needs Assessment. This needs assessment survey is being distributed via postal mail, email and hard copy to residents of
The assessment is completed every five years. This year's assessment will seek to identify concerns in the areas of health, safety, community life, and social and human services. Results will be used to develop new programs and/or alter current services.
"Through the Needs Assessment we are able to see where we are doing a good job and where we need to improve," remarked Lisa Morris, executive director of the Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health. "We want to encourage every resident of the Lakes Region to participate in this process."
The Lakes Region Community Needs Assessment survey is available online at www.surveymonkey.com or through the sponsoring organizations websites. Beginning June 9, surveys will be available at all town/city halls and libraries for the before mentioned areas, and by calling 528-2145. The results of this assessment will be distributed in local newspapers in late fall.
This assessment is sponsored by the Lakes Region Partnership for Public Health, Belknap County Citizens Council for Children and Families, Community Action Program Belknap-Merrimack Counties, Community Health and Hospice, Genesis Behavioral Health, LRGHealthcare, Lakes Region Community Services, Lakes Region United Way and the Taylor Community.
Laconia Daily Sun May 13th, 2008
To the editor,
Last Wednesday, the Senior Needs Committee held their second open meeting and again asked those seniors (and those not so senior) to come and present any ideas, requests and needs to them in an informal format. It was slated to be a brain storming session of sorts. In attendance and speaking at some length was our new Town Administrator. Carter Terenzini comes to Moultonborough with a lifetime of experience in government administration and a mandate from the selectmen to resolve the challenges regarding the recreation proposal and the needs of the seniors. I had my first opportunity to meet Mr. Terenzini and I found him to be well spoken, focused, affable and dedicated to accomplishing that task (among many others) presented to him by his five bosses. He related a story that he once had his office door removed from its hinges to emphasize his “open door policy”. I had the sense that he is a fair man and will be working diligently towards his goals. This observer will be hopeful throughout the process, that he is successful. I predict that he will find the need to call on the supporters of the expansion of the recreation department and the selectmen as well to compromise as much as those of us that oppose the original RSPT report are expected to compromise. Last week I called for some common ground. My meeting with Tom Howard proved, to me at least, there may be that possibility. For disclosure, I need to state that Tom and I are friends, colleagues and once shared an office. I know him to be an honorable man notwithstanding the opposing sides of this issue we stand on. As a follow up to that letter of last week I would have a couple of suggestions. The first has in some element begun to take shape. The other needs to come from those that hold the keys to the town property that is the Lions building. The seniors have to decide what programs are needed and are affordable. From that process they will determine how much and what space, manpower and transportation needs will be critical to the success of this effort. The Senior Needs meetings that have taken place, I suggest have begun that process. On the recreation side, there needs to be a call for sensible spending and a more gradual approach towards the resolution of their needs. Please note here that I said “needs”... not “wants”. For the present, the space that the town owns and the Lions Club leases should be opened and available to these two venues. I believe at this time the Lions hold their meetings there, the meals program utilizes it at mid-day and there are some scattered rentals of the facility by the Lions. It would help the recreation department if they were able to use of the much larger space in their after-school programs. While I am not an advocate of burdening seniors with youth and youth with seniors, I believe there could be a time when the seniors could utilize this space as well. This initial first step could go a long way in resolving the issues of both recreation and seniors for the short term while a more conservative and acceptable approach is carefully and reasonably planned. As for the long term, I would rather see the town put $300,000 into updating and expanding the present facility than $5-million into the original proposal. This building that has been labeled as “functionally obsolete” has a new roof, new windows, and a commercial
grade kitchen that is about 4years old.
Moultonborough
March 12th, 2008 Email to the Selectmen
I am addressing this message to the attention of Mr. Charest and Mrs. Crawford.
Congratulations on your reelection. Your service is appreciated whether or not we are in agreement.
Since we use secret ballot to elect town officers, you have no way to know how and why I voted but I would like you to know that I did not vote for either one of you and why.
The reason? I think you did not act in the Town's best interest in endorsing the expenditure of $375,000 to cost out the athletic facilities/community center/senior center project (in that order) that the people of Moultonborugh have not yet agreed they want. I'm so old I think $375,000 is a h--l of a lot of money. At several Selectman's meetings leading up to the hearing when you gave your approval to this article, you stated many reasons why this is inopportune at this time. You heard them all, and agreed with many - too much money, rising taxes, school funding impact, retirement benefits costs, and on and on. However you finally stated that you were so impressed that 300 people had signed a warrant article that you decided to support it. If you indeed feel that the wants of 300 people is in the best interest of the 4500 inhabitants of the Town after you had such misgivings before the 300 (voters?) came forward, I say your thinking is wrong for the Town. The voting almost approving SB2 and the 353 write-in votes against the two of you demonstrates that I am not alone.
End of rant. My request is that on Saturday, Town Meeting Day, you will do the right thing and recant your approval of this warrant article.
Yours Respectfully,
Robert Damarell
www.citizen.com April 2, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: "Set up" is defined as "a contest prearranged to result in an easy or faked victory". The selectman's meeting of March 27 will live in the annals of Moultonborough's selectman history as a dark day. With an obviously pre-stacked audience of supporters of the RSPT's defunct 'country club', two of our selectmen chose to puff themselves up, if only in their own mind, to some perverted level of justification. Selectmen Charest and Crawford obviously conspired to use their bully pulpit to express their point of view and worse, publicly condemn the MCA and its members. (For the sake the above selectmen's naiveté and anyone else that may think I am accusing them of something I am not, "bully pulpit" is defined as "an advantageous position used for making one's view known or rallying support") Their indignation was motivated by the satirical response to a publicly published letter written by one member of the RSPT that had been posted on the MCA website. This response was not written by any member of the MCA and was removed (with apologies) from the website at the first notice of aversion by selectman Joel Mudget days prior to the meeting of the 27th. Assuming that Mr. Mudget and Ms. St. Amand seemingly accepted the removal and apology one would think that the incident was over. However, this was not to be. I suggest it all smells like the above defined "setup".
I will say here and now to Mr. Charest and Ms. Crawford that if you are selectman, governor or president and you want to express your support for an "offended compatriot" and you want to do that as a citizen, you ought not do it at the venue at which you preside, unless you are willing to deal with the criticism of which you are deserving. Cowardice is not too strong a word to describe this prearranged lynching.
To the St. Amands (whose letter was satirized) I will say, as a native that has seen any number of pompous nouveau riche come to this area, the first thing they want, 20 minutes after the ink is dried on the deed to their "Mc-Mansion on the Lake", is to change everything that makes this rural area desirable. I will also say that when you write a letter to the editor, or publish it in any other forum, you set yourself up for criticism. Realizing that you may be naive to such a concept, I will add here that I did not take the obvious opportunity for pot shots at your letter. I chose instead to let your letter speak for itself. It clearly showed your arrogance and lack of concern for the rest of us taxpayers, even to the most challenged of readers.
But back to our selectmen Charest and Crawford; methinks this vainly attempted assassination was not totally inspired by the Web site's misjudgment. Rather it came as a culmination of several recent challenges to your fiefdom. Facts speak for themselves: (A) the challenge to your 180-degree flip-flop on the $10-$13 million recreation center et al, (B) the 60 percent and 50 percent losses (respectively) of your voter support by a brief write in campaign, (C) the devastating loss of the proposed taxpayer supported country club (article 9), (D) and the fact that 58% of the voters in Moultonborough have weighed in, they want SB2 style voting for all town spending issues. We know how you two feel about these issues but your public whipping was not only uncalled for, it was an embarrassment to your position as selectmen and the responsibilities you have sworn to uphold.
With respect to some of the challenges you put forth I will offer the following opinion. While I may not personally agree with the methodology of the satirical format that the author chose for his comments, I support and defend his right to say it as a basic precept of our constitution, just as I support the St. Amands' right publish their effort in favor of the proposed golden palace, even at the risk of criticism. Mr. Charest, in his personal tirade, claims that we are "losing our rights little by little". I suggest that disguising his bully pulpit as a "citizen's speech", in a denunciation of the public that are exercising their rights, is a larger attempt at whittling away our rights. He also seems to think that Moultonborough has been nearly destroyed in "two short years". Funny, in his "personal" remarks condemning SB2 he spoke of the good old days when the women (who were not allowed the vote then) brought the bandages to town meeting to patch up the men folks. How did we ever survive that, Ed? I will say to Ms. Crawford that I have not heard, read or written that the present administration is "dishonest and power hungry" as you said in your portion of the screed, so stop crafting your own words. Words such as spin, tomfoolery, amazing, callous and cavalier have been used. I was, however the recipient of "belittling" at one of your selectmen's meetings, and accused of spreading of lies and misinformation by one of your fellow selectmen, while sitting in his selectman's role. Again, I will say that trying to decipher when you folks are selectmen and when you are not is like chasing a rat through a wood pile. As for the "negativism" that you claim is ubiquitous, the last I checked with Mr. Webster, "disagreement, dissent and opposition" are nowhere defined as negativism. So let's call a stop to that tired allegation. I would suggest that you keep selectmen's meeting for the business of the town and express your personal opinions and grievances at such times that you are not taking advantage of the assembled audience in the venue of the meeting you chair.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
March 31st, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: At Thursday's Selectmen's meeting our Chairperson Karel Crawford chose the start of the meeting to "speak as a private citizen" and belittle and denigrate a local citizen activist group that publicly sought her ouster at the recent elections. She commented against some items published on a public website about letters in the public domain that were, in her view, belittling to another citizen, a citizen that obviously supports the current Select board. Apparently, these insulted citizens chose to get in the ear of the Selectmen who then chose very inappropriately to speak on their behalf and denigrate others.
Karel Crawford has every right to speak as a private citizen, but in the proper forum. When you are the Chair of the Selectmen committee and you are taking the floor at a Selectmen meeting it is not the proper forum and you are being disingenuous. Calling this group and all that support it "intimidating" and "slanderous" are serious charges and makes me wonder what is next, an oath asking "have you now or have you ever been a member of the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance"? Do you seriously believe some will not see this as an opportunity for you to strike back at your opposition? How is it that one citizen (that agrees and supports you) can obviously get your ear while those that don't are put down and dismissed?
Shame on you Karel Crawford for traveling the low road and showing the public just how unfair and intolerant you can be. I expect our leadership to be above this and represent all of us, even those we don't agree with or didn't get your vote. You should publicly apologize for this outburst in the interest of true democracy. A sad day indeed in Moultonborough.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
