Jim: March 2008 Archives

http://www.moultonboroughsfuture.com/minutes.html

http://www.moultonborough.org/survey.pdf

To The Moultonborough Citizen Alliance:

 

Just wanted to send a quick note out to the Alliance to say that I have received word back from the Attorney General’s office stating that they did not see any violation of the RSA statutes regarding the posting of the rules in advance of the Town meeting. The Moderator is only required to state the rules that he deems appropriate and inform the meeting attendees that the rules can be changed with a majority vote.

The bottom line is that the current Moderator is correct in his assessment of the RSA rules for town meeting situation and I was wrong.

If you would could you please post this letter on your website, I would be most grateful.

 

mnews@salmonpress.com

February 14, 2008 To the Editor: At the Moultonboro Selectmen's meeting Jan. 31, a petitioned warrant article was presented, by the Recreational Strategic Planning Committee, for an appropriation of $375,000 for architectural, engineering and other related fees for the phased construction of a $5.5 million dollar community/recreational complex. The petition had nearly 300 signatures. Selectmen Ed Charest said he though the RSPC focused too much on recreation and not enough on the needs of seniors. He stated his decision not to support the petition for $375,000 is based on the present economic factors and the state education funding question. Other uncertainties are the hefty cost increases that loom on our horizon. One is the return of the donor town status to Moultonboro, some estimate the cost at nearly twice the amount of our former assessment. Another is the recent decision by the state retirement system's Board of Trustees to cover a $128 million shortfall in the medical subsidy paid to state retirees by making "employers" i.e. cities and towns, and ultimately taxpayers liable – is an "unfunded mandate."

Town of Moultonborough

6 Holland Street · Post Office Box 139

Moultonborough, N.H.  03254

(603) 476-2347

 

Municipal Needs Committee

2008 Town Warrant Supporting Material

Presented to Selectboard March 6, 2008

 

The Municipal Needs Committee had a work session on March 4^th and the below two Warrant Articles were a matter of concern and discussion:

 

 

 

To assist the Selectboard and members of the community who ask “What is the $475,000 for?” the MNC has prepared the attached one page summary document.  Values are extracted from the RSPT proposal and appendices.  The new RSPT promotional flyer omits critical data needed for decision-making.

 

The warrant requests a specific dollar amount because the RSPT does have a specific concept to buy design plans for and do have specific cost estimates that were the basis for the A&E request. The MNC believes these initial cost estimates should be openly shared with the public.  The MNC used the voluminous RSPT documents to produce a chart  summarizing projected costs over the ten-year bond period.  It identifies areas where costs were omitted demonstrating the burden will be higher than stated. Revenue and fees are not yet  disclosed and excluded here.

 

Given the effort of the MNC to fully grasp the details within the ambitious RSPT proposal, the MNC wanted to share that same level of understanding with the Selectboard, and anticipate you will then share this with the public. 

 

 

2008 Town Warrant Supporting Material

 

 

What is this funding for?  What is the anticipated future project cost?

 

 

          Item Description                          Item Cost                              Comments                                      

Article 9: A&E and Fees Town Warrant 2008	$   375,000	Approx 8% of estimated project cost to refine projected costs, finalize design plus some additional site analyses
RSPT Estimated Bldg Cost	$ 5,024,000	Pg. 35 RSPT proposal
Interest on 10 Yr Bond	$ 1,247,500	$5 M @ 4.25% for 10 Years
Projected Operating Costs over 10 Year Bond (Adds 4 Full-time plus 4 Part-time employees to Recreation Staff)	$ 3,198,300	RSPT proposal appendix  (amount omits annual maintenance costs after year-one warranties expire, and excludes annual inflation factor on salaries, benefits, etc.)
Recreation Fields and Beach Improvements	$ 1,536,000	Pg. 6 RSPT proposal  (amount omits any future maintenance  costs)
Recreation Feasibility Study	$      50,000	Town Meeting 2006 authorization
Initial Lion’s Club purchase	$    495,000	Town Meeting 2007 authorization
Projected Total Recreation Study & Implementation	$11,925,800+	Full RSPT proposal in today’s dollars
Average Annual Cost - 10 Years	$ 1,200,000+	Approx $0.42 per $1000/Assessed Value

 

Omitted Operational Costs

$  ??????+

Adds approx.  5% - 10% annually

 

NOTE:  After the bond is fully paid, operational costs will run about $500,000 annually (or $0.25 per $1000/Assessed Value) before any future expansion.

Future Site Expansion

$ ??????

Pool ($2,286,000 + interest + annual operating costs and 7 more staff members) pulled from  consideration by RSPT Dec ‘07

 

Overview of What We Did

• We had a very good work session with the RSPT – they were very cooperative and helpful.  We have sincere respect for the work the RSPT has begun for our community.
  

• To help us with our part of the responsibility set forth in the 2006 Warrant Article 25, we reviewed the work done by the RSPT, listened to and considered input from the community, developed an initial set of questions to further help us, and analyzed RSPT responses.
  

• In response to a few of the questions we received summaries of studies to validate some elements in the proposal.
  

• We held two subsequent work sessions to digest the work product from the joint meeting and finalize our conclusions.

What we Recommend as the Next Step

• Work with RSPT and other committees to lead the development of a set of alternate recommendations that incorporate a step or tiered approach, to be considered and implemented independently of each other, and that lays out a roadmap for satisfying immediate needs, projected needs, and affordable desired enhancements.

• Ensure the recommendations complement the Master Plan Update and input from the community.

To this end, we present our alternate 12-point plan for this ambitious project. In summary, we recommend the Selectboard allocate funding of not-to-exceed $70,000 to begin three initiatives, and kick-off five teams to produce detailed findings and conclusions.


After reviewing the RSPT proposal, discussing the information in more detail with the Team, and listening to commentary from our community, the Municipal Needs Committee is prepared to offer the following dozen items for your consideration.  We acknowledge that the Master Plan, Master Plan Survey, and the Master Plan Update currently underway are key to any action.

The RSPT proposal is comprised of many elements, some with more compelling justification of need than others.  It is our recommendation that the Board move slowly on most, and more expeditiously on a few.  Our review of all the financials for the proposed development of the former Lions Club property plus proposed improvements at the playground and beach areas, including both the capital outlay and ongoing expense (without the pool), reflect a cost to the taxpayer after the first year to be roughly $0.51 per $1,000 of assessed value. 

1. Put “first things first” – i.e., do not recommend a “community center”, “senior center”, or existing facility modification or upgrade until after the Master Plan Update is completed and further discussion within the community is held.   Neither the “need” nor widespread and compelling “want” for a new complex in our town is clearly evident.
2. Create a subcommittee under MNC to gather specific knowledge with regard to alternative scenarios and potential funding sources for a community center that, at first, uses the RSPT proposed center as a baseline.  Produce a plan for community donation (similar to Moultonborough Library, Meredith Community Center, and Wolfeboro “The Nick” efforts) to lessen our taxpayer burden.  
3. Create a subcommittee under MNC to evaluate gymnasium and baseball field needs in town.  This committee will produce compelling statistical evidence and documentation to support need.  School and Recreation will be separate analyses to incorporate the documented trend of 15% reduction in enrollment over the next 5 years.  Then, the two analyses combined for a Town-wide recommendation and solution. 
4. Given the high water table and geotechnical survey results to-date, plus input from abutters, the water issue at the former Lion’s Club property requires further study.  Authorize not-to-exceed $25,000 to monitor the water levels at the test pits for a full year.  The engineering firm to include a statement as to the limitations of the property, and options for use of the property once test pit results are determined. Then, at that time, informed decisions could be made with regard to not only what is possible at the site, but cost-effective.  We are also concerned with run-off. 
5. Include not-to-exceed $25,000 in the 2008 Town Warrant to begin immediate repair of the drainage at the soccer field and baseball fields at Playground Drive.  Create a subcommittee under MNC to work the details, including an alternate location for fall 2008 Soccer.  Seek donations and volunteers to implement the improvements.
6. Include not-to-exceed $20,000 in the 2008 Town Warrant to hire an appropriate engineer to study for remedy the lake-bottom issues at States Landing Beach. 
7. Task the Recreation Advisory Board to take on scheduling issues throughout town (Recreation and Athletics), including a system to plan and monitor all needs and wants.  Include as output a centralized schedule that is posted on a town-wide website.
8. Consider and analyze a relocation of the existing after school drop-in program to the former Lion’s Club facility where space appears to be more than adequate.
9. Hold a series of community winter housekeeping days at the current Community Center to better utilize the space at this Town asset,  i.e., clear out the large room currently littered with stored materials so it can support active use by the community.
10. The Senior Needs Committee, plus others, to prepare a detailed recommendation with regard to specific transportation needs today, plus the next 10 years.  Include participant counts, operating scenarios, and destination information.  Address how this may or may not be coupled with the Carroll County Transit solution recently presented to the Selectboard.  Incorporate into the Master Plan Update currently underway.  If prudent and compelling, address at 2009 Town Meeting.
11. Create a subcommittee under MNC to work the details and cost estimates, including volunteer and donation scenarios, for a park-like setting at Playground Drive as identified in the RSPT proposal.
12. Before granting the go-ahead to the Hockey Dads to begin Ice Rink improvements consider a potential sharing of their building with Building and Grounds Department needs at this location.  MNC can coordinate a complete recommendation.

We will be pleased to discuss these in further detail or answer any questions.

Election results 3-11-2008
Selectmen
Edward Charest		582
Karel Crawford		707
Gary Torrenssen	write in	353
Al Hume	write in	353
Moderator
Melvin Borrin		840
James Castleberry	write in	336
Zoning Board Member
Herbert Farnham		491
Russel Nolin		796
Robert Stephens		737
Article 2 Town SB2 - did not pass
yes	748	55.99%
no	588	44.01%
total	1336
We needed 54 more votes to get 60%
Articles 3 thru 6 passed
Article 2 School SB2 - did not pass
yes	740	58.13%
no	533	41.87%
total	1273
We needed 24 more votes to get 60%

by Sarah Schmidt Staff Reporter	write the author
December 13, 2007 MOULTONBORO — Opinions on both sides of the issue were aired again at the Moultonboro Board of Selectmen, as the board heard more feedback from the community on the proposed recreation center. Arguing in favor of constructing the recreation center, Laurie Whitley, the School Board representative on the Recreation Committee spoke about the potential benefits that a recreation center could have for the Moultonboro schools. Whitley said that both the students and the community have outgrown the old gymnasium at Moultonboro Academy. "The gym was built back when there were four all-boy teams," said Whitley. "Now there are 16 girl and boy teams. It leaves little time for recreation." Though not all sports are played inside the gym, during inclement weather, both soccer and softball try and find space and time in the gym to practice. Whitley said that a larger gym would leave the community the option of getting some gym time as well, allowing pickup games and community teams time to play. On the other end of the spectrum, Moultonboro resident Jean Beadle earned a round of applause from meeting attendants, quoting less-than-stellar economic forecasts for the nation, and stating that she did not want the additional expense of a recreation center being constructed. Beadle also quoted results in the 2006 Moultonboro Master Plan survey, in which 1,355 Moultonboro residents responded to a survey on their hopes for the future of the town. She listed several, but highlighted that in the Moultonboro Master Plan, 86.3 percent of those responding did not want to spend additional money to improve recreation programs.

 http://www.citizen.com/

 

By ERIN PLUMMER eplummercitizen.com eplummer@citizen.com

Article Date: Saturday, December 8, 2007

Opponents of a proposed community center have made their voices heard at a recent meetings, though center organizers say more residents still support the project and recognize the advantages.

The Recreation Strategic Planning Team recently presented a five-year strategy report for the town's recreational needs after a two-year study. The major recommendation was a community and senior center with activity rooms, fields, gym facilities and other amenities aimed at residents of all ages and interests.

The project has an estimated cost of around $5.5 million without a swimming pool, equaling a tax impact of between 15 and 33 cents per $1,000.

The proposed project of around $5.5 million has received public support. The center's opponents, however, have been openly vocal against the project, saying the project is too expensive and would make too much of a tax impact for facilities that are not necessarily needed.

Views were expressed at a public presentation of the strategy committee's report and opponents have come to meetings of the Board of Selectmen to express their staunch opposition.

The selectmen allowed for public comment on the committee report during their last two meetings.

"I think it's ill-conceived, done largely in the dark," said resident Jim Castleberry. "I too would echo that at least I and a good many people are upset the town is considering spending this type of funds. I really think you need to go back to the drawing board."

Resident Jean Beadle cited recent reports indicating that the economy is likely to take a downturn as the price of fuel continues to rise. She also read figures from the recent master plan survey on people's opinions of the recreation department indicating "the majority of people in town are clearly happy with what we have in town, (they) don't think it's broken."

"I hope you would have a zero tolerance for anything that would rase our taxes," Beadle told the selectmen.

This letter was submitted via www.citizen.com.

Printed 2/7/2008

Editor, The Citizen:

I am writing to express my concern about the recent petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a "proposed" community center. The appropriation as I understand it is for $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lion's Club property. This represents ( per the petition I assume) 8% of the construction costs anticipated for this ( non) project.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought that the issue of even having a community center in Moultonborough was not yet decided. Are we now saying that it's okay to spend another $375,000 (on top of the $400,000 or so already spent to purchase the Lions Club property) on a project that doesn't yet exist and hasn't yet been voted on by the public?

I appreciate that 300 people put forth this petition as is their right, I just don't agree with it. I also don't agree with Lisa St. Amand, asking "why that doesn't supersede a small number that says they don't want it when that's what the larger body wants?" That is precisely why many of us in Moultonborough support SB2. 300 people signing a petition might be a majority at a town meeting, but it does not make a majority in terms of a ballot box. This is a perfect example of why SB2 is needed here. Despite the opposition of the Selectmen, the petitioners' still want to spend our money on a project that has not been put forth to the public to vote on up or down. And they want to spend still more money by setting up a capital reserve fund. The public at large has the right to know how and why we ( Moultonborough) came to own the Lions Club property and how it came to be that this is the only site that is being considered for a community center or for that matter, how it was decided we even need a community/senior center.

What I would like to see happen is SB2 implemented in Moultonborough, the Master Plan completed, then further study regarding the needs and scope for a community center which will then dictate the best site for this project. Then a proposed community center project could be voted on by the public in the privacy of a ballot box. That is logical, fair and truly representative of all of Moultonborough and of a democracy.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

             

Subject:	FW: Complaint of violation of Election law RSA 40:4
Date:	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:46:36 -0400

 

I have filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office today regarding the “rules” or rather lack of them for governance at Town Meeting. The moderator has since communicated with me, under advice of consul, that he is stopping communications with me. The issues I raise seem to me at least not of a personal nature but rather going directly to the issue of accountability of government so in my opinion still need to be raised. The messenger has been shot so I am appealing for other voices and citizens to look into the concerns I raise. Please see a copy of my complaint attached.

 

James R Castleberry

jcastleberry@verizon.net

   

              

 

 http://www.moultonborough.org/2008%20TOWN%20WARRANT.pdf

 

My name is Herbert L. Farnham and I am running for the three year term on the Moultonborough Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The Town officials have decided to cancel Meet the Candidates Night because only two (2) races are contested, ZBA being one of them.  I am dissappointed that I do not have that opportunity to meet Voters and discuss my credentials at that Forum versus others running.

 

     

At Town Meeting on Saturday, March 15th the registered voters in Moultonborough will set the course for future events.  Sure, the Community Center proposal is a big item and that has been actively debated at meetings and in the press.  A topic that has had limited exposure is the repair of Ossipee Park Road that has resurfaced, no pun intended.