Recently in Town Meeting Category
It's that time of year again! Town Meeting is fast approaching! We recommend that everyone take some time to read the Town Warrant for this year. Click below to see each Warrant Article.
There are several articles this year that we recommend paying particular attention to.We have highlighted a few of the Warrant Articles for readers to consider.
Article 9 for $718,804 for Road Improvement Program. No where does it mention that the bond dollars that the Town paid off for the Transfer Station las yeart, has been rolled into this project budget. Please vote No on this article.
ARTICLE 9
To see if the Town will vote to appropriate the sum of Seven Hundred Eighteen Thousand Eight Hundred Four dollars ($718,804) for a road improvement program, and to meet said appropriation with funds from a NH Department of Transportation Highway Block Grant of One Hundred Forty Three Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Nine dollars ($143,259) and the balance of Five Hundred Seventy Five Thousand Five Hundred Forty Five dollars ($575,545) from taxation.
Project Budget
Paradise Drive (Reconstruction of 2,000 +/- lf) $400,000
Randall Road (Remove pavement rebuild base 550 +/- lf) $12,000
Winaukee Road Shim & Overlay (7,000 +/- lf) $200,000
Geneva Point Road 1” Overlay – Shim (2,000 +/- lf) $32,181
Engineering $74,623 TOTALS $718,804
Note: Inclusion of any road on this list was based upon a condition assessment and budget estimate prepared in January of 2010. It is no guarantee of work being undertaken on the identified roadway. Final construction decisions are made upon detailed engineering and actual bids received. Recommentd vote NO
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0) (Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0)
Article 10 To amend Article 21 from 2009 Town Meeting to extend appropriation date to Dec 31, 2011. Please vote No on this article. This is something that never should have happened. Let Fox Hollow wait its turn. Time to put this one to bed.
ARTICLE 10
To see if the Town will vote to amend its action under Article 21 of the 2009 Annual Town Meeting, relative to the appropriation for Fox Hollow Road intersection improvements, by striking the date of December 30, 2010, at which time the appropriation was to lapse, and inserting in lieu thereof the date of December 30, 2011.
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0) Recommend vote NO
ARTICLE 11
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Three Hundred Thirty One Thousand dollars ($331,000) for a program of capital improvements and expenditures, and equipment as generally illustrated below.
a. Fire Equipment $ 13,000
b. Mosquito Abatement $ 52,000 X
c. Police Cruiser $ 32,500
d. Municipal Buildings Energy & Maintenance Upgrade $ 30,000
e. Highway Dept. Street Sign Upgrade – Phase 2 $ 15,000
f. Highway/B&G 1 ½ Ton w/Accessories $ 80,000 X
g. Highway Dept. Brush Chipper $ 30,000
j. Town Hall Generator $ 30,000
l. Fleet Passenger/Cargo Vehicle $ 25,000 X
m. Town Hall & Old Fire Station Repairs/Paint $ 23,500 Amend Article to eliminate ‘X’s
Total $ 331,000
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0)
Article 14 Phase 2 & 3 of Moultonboro Neck Pathway. This wasn't done right to begin with, so why should we throw good money after bad to extend this? Please vote No on this article.
ARTICLE 14
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($37,500) for a program of capital improvements to the Moultonboro Neck Pathway (Phase 2 and 3) and to meet said appropriation by Thirty Seven Thousand Five Hundred dollars ($37,500) from taxation and to designate the appropriation as non-lapsing, per RSA 32:7, VI, until December 30, 2012 or whenever the project is certified as completed by the Board of Selectmen, whichever shall first occur.
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 – 0) Recommend NO
ARTICLE 34
To see if the municipality will vote to establish an Expendable Trust Fund under the provisions of RSA 31:19-a, to be known as the Milfoil Control Trust Fund, for the purpose of ongoing management of milfoil in the town’s waterways and to designate the Selectboard as agents to expend both principle and interest from this fund under rules and regulations to be promulgated. Further to raise and appropriate the sum of Two Hundred Thousand dollars ($200,000) to be placed in this fund.
(By Petition)
(Recommended by Selectmen 5 - 0)
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 5 - 0) Recommend vote Yes
The Real BIG issue is the Town Budget. Frankly, there need to be more cuts. Some of the above mentioned, should be eliminated from the budget until such a time as our economy has improved for all of our residents. Then, they may be revisited. Please send the BoS back to the drawing board and make some more cuts! Vote No!
ARTICLE 41
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate, subject to any and all changes made at this meeting, the sum of Eight Million Two Hundred Fifty Three Thousand Six Hundred Seventy dollars ($8,253,670) to pay the general operating expenses of Town Government for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2010.
[Note: This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in any other
warrant articles.] Recommend vote NO
One article of interest is Article 17, the naming of the Lion's Club property to Veteran's Memorial Park. This is a wonderful tribute to our veterans that have, are and will serve our country. This is not an opportunity to make it a children's contest. This is for adults. Frankly, kids don't care about the name of a field or a park. They just want to play. Please support this article with a Yes vote. It's a shame that all the BoS and the ABC did not show support for this article.
ARTICLE 17
Shall we adopt the name for town property located at 139 Old Route 109, formally known as the Lions Club Property, to be named the Veterans Memorial Park. And that any field or ball park be named Veterans Field. And that if more than one ball park or ball field, that name used will be Veterans Field 1, Veterans Field 2. This name shall remain in effect until changed by future warrant article.
(By Petition)
(Recommended by Selectmen 2 Yes - 0 No - 3 Abstain) Recommend vote Yes
(Recommended by Advisory Budget Committee 1 Yes - 0 No - 4 Abstain)
The Town will be holding a "sense of the meeting" vote at the March town meeting to determine the view of the voters as to whether a May town meeting would be desirable. It’s a non-binding vote, but why conduct it at the March town meeting? The people that would prefer a May town meeting won't be present in March. That’s the basic problem that moving to May would potentially solve. Here is a better idea: have a “non-binding" ballot question on ballot day so that many more votes can be counted (including absentees) that are traditionally disenfranchised at town meeting. Afterall, more than 1700 voted on ballot day last year vs. less than 300 at town meeting 4 days later. That would be a true “sense” of the town.
The town voted on the establishment of a Heritage Commission at Town Meeting this year and we have been waiting for months for the Board of Selectmen to finalize volunteers to that commission. Once volunteer letters to the Board have been submitted and reviewed, we would think that the commission would be properly appointed and the newly formed Heritage Commission could meet and begin the tasks ahead of them. Not so: and still we wait. The Board of Selectmen still have not yet finished determining who is on the committee. Why is that?
There are several things that concern us about the appointments made thus far. For instance, at the Board of Selectmen meeting on May 14, 2009, Chairwoman Karel Crawford said that they would work on it at their scheduled work session on May 28th. Yet somehow at the Selectmen’s meeting on May 21, the very next week, announcements were made as to who would be appointed to the Heritage Commission. When did they discuss that they would make appointments at their May 21 Board of Selectmen’s meeting rather than at their scheduled work session? Is it possible that all five of the selectmen were on the same wave length at the same time? If they had a discussion, it was not before the public. If so, where are the minutes? Or is this privileged information not available to the public?
We wonder if there was some kind of discussion behind the scenes that no one bothered to recognize as a need to bring to the public under the Right to know law.
Another issue is the selection of one volunteer who serves on several other committees. No questions were raised at the appointment of Jean Beadle who serves as the Chair of the Advisory Budget Committee, as well as a member of the Town Planner Screening Committee. Yet when Selectmen Betsey Patten suggested that Jane Fairchild should be assigned as an alternate, she implied that Jane would be far too busy to be on the Heritage Commission as she is already a member of the planning board. Not Jean Beadle however who is the Chair of the ABC. She should be quite busy finding a replacement for a member that resigned, not to mention all the time to bring a new member of the ABC up to speed.
Don’t forget folks, the school will be in the midst of contract negotiations with the teachers union, the school budget, and the town budget and that should be more that enough to keep the ABC Chair quite busy. Why is an alternate assignment good for one but not the other?
Is there some favoritism amongst the appointments?
The third issue at hand is the select board member that is required by statute to serve on the Heritage Commission. Another statute states that there cannot be 2 members of the Planning Board on the same committee or board. Selectmen Ed Charest is on the planning board as is volunteer Jane Fairchild. How will this be resolved?
How long must we wait? There is a worksession June 25, 2009 @ 4pm........
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 March 19, 2009
Editorial
At almost every town meeting we covered this year, there were debates about whether town employees and/ortown officials should get raises. The results were mixed.In Tilton, an amendment to cut the 3.5-percent raises allocated to all town employees – a total of more than $14,000 – was voted down. An amendment in Moultonboro that would have nixed 2.5-percent raises, plus step increases, for town employees was defeated. On the flip side, two towns’ residents voted down raises of much smaller doses. In
Editor: The Citizen March 18, 2009
On Saturday afternoon shortly before 3:30 p.m., 194 of the approximately 4,000 registered voters in Moultonborough (less than 5%) cast their vote on the $8,249,747.00 town operating budget. Such apathy is inexcusable. Those voters who were UNABLE to attend (work, health, travel,etc.) have my understanding. Those who CHOSE not to attend have no right to complain about EXCESSIVE SPENDING in these economic times.
Would I have preferred to be doing something else on a beautiful Saturday? - ABSOLUTELY! Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.
Penny Morrison
Moultonborough
To the editor, Laconia Daily Sun March 17, 2009
We just came back from the Moultonborough Town Meeting. It was a joke. The selectman are still
snaking all the ball field at the Lions Club, which they should hold off on. The economy is falling apart
and people are hurting. Ball fields are NOT needed at this time. What are the selectmen thinking?
Now they say the Town Hall needs a new roof because the roofer who put it on did not do a good job and it isleaking. So why not take the money you want to use for the ball fields and use that for the Town Hall roof? Now that makes more sense. The ball field proposal is a joke. Where is the reason for this? Don’t you think the roof is the towns first concern and NOT the ball fields. Next you will be telling us the safety building needs a roof and the library. Where does it end? Our hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted. The selectman snake anything and everything they want. Our votes do not mean much. This is another reason why SB-2 should have gone through. We need to take the power back to the taxpayers, not the special interest. They know who they are. Someone needs to tell
them we are in a bad state of the economy.
Anna DeRose, Moultonborough
Library closing for town meeting
Editor, The Citizen: March 12th, 2009
Gentlemen, I see that the selectmen have closed the library this Saturday so the employees may attend town meeting. I had intended to go to meeting too but must work and so my right to vote on matters that affect me is denied. I have been disenfranchised. I went to the town office to talk to someone from the selectmen's office, no one was in. I did talk with the town administrator, he suggested I take a "personal" day off from my job at Aubuchon Hardware. He must not have worked in the private sector for some time as one does not just do that. I tried to find someone to trade days with, no luck. There are only four of us working that day so if I just didn't go to work they would be put in a bad bind and I wouldn't get paid.
I find it insulting that you would give the good folks at the library a chance to vote when the working stiffs in town don't get that opportunity (those of us not working for the town make on average $200 a week less than public employees by the way, I got that from the Moultonboro.gov site). A cynical person might surmise that town workers are free to over represent themselves at meeting while those working to pay their salaries lose our chance to have our voices counted.
Finally I would like to know if the person or persons who mounted a phone campaign telling residents that out of state property owners would have voting privileges should SB2 pass when that is not the case can be investigated for knowingly lying to affect the outcome of Tuesday's election. At least one of the callers might have an official connection to the town. I feel that that person or persons did a dishonorable thing and should at least issue a public apology.
Would like to say "see you Saturday" but I am not allowed to vote.
Michael Brooker
Moultonborough
To the editor,
At town meeting on March 14th, Article 18 is asking voters to approve $50,000 to hire a Town Planner to help enact planning issues in Moultonborough. The article as written does not mention that the $50,000 is for a half year’s salary. The Selectmen estimated the actual annual salary including benefits to be in the $90,000 to $100,000 range, depending on if the benefits package is a single or family plan. Are we at a point where adding permanent fixed staff to our payroll is fiscally responsible? Or should we be looking for other options? I understand the need for good planning and I’m all for Moultonborough keeping its rural charm and beauty. I had the opportunity this past year to serve on one of the Master Plan Committees and know implementing the Master Plans many recommendations will present challenges for the Planning and Zoning Boards. Because of the downturn in the economy, the number of new projects will most likely be reduced thus allowing those elected to the boards to focus more on administrative matters and planning. Moultonborough is a member of the Lakes Region Planning Commission, we pay a fee for its services as do 30 other towns. One of LRPC’s functions is to offer planning assistance. Some towns share a planner called a “circuit rider” and others contract with the LRPC on an as needed basis. In fact, neighboring
Nancy Wright
Moultonborough
40:4-a Secret Ballot. –
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the request of 5 voters who are present, the moderator shall conduct a recount on any vote taken by secret written ballot under subparagraph (a). The recount shall take place immediately following public announcement of the vote taken providing that the vote margin is not more than 10 percent of the total vote cast. There shall be no fee required for a recount under this section.
II. At any meeting of a town of a population 500 or less, 3 voters who are present may request secret balloting or recounting as provided in paragraph I.
Source. 1971, 524:1. 1994, 71:1, eff. July 5, 1994. 2006, 117:1, eff. July 9, 2006.
40:4-b Questioning a Vote. –
Source. 1971, 524:1, eff. July 7, 1971.
40:10 Optional Restriction on Reconsideration. –
II. Upon approval of a motion to reconsider any vote or warrant article subject to such a restriction, actual reconsideration shall take place at an adjourned session of the meeting, held at least 7 days after the date on which the motion to reconsider was approved. Notice of the date, time and place where the adjourned session is to be held shall be given by announcement prior to the close of the session at which the motion to reconsider was approved, and shall also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 2 days before the reconsideration.
III. A restriction adopted under this section shall continue until final adjournment of the meeting at which it is adopted, or any adjourned session of such meeting.
IV. A restriction adopted under this section shall apply to any subsequent action by the meeting which alters or modifies the result of the restricted vote, or which involves the same subject matter as does the restricted vote or warrant article, regardless of whether or not the term ""reconsider'' is actually used.
V. This section shall apply to town meetings, village district meetings under RSA 52, cooperative school district meetings under RSA 195, and school district meetings under RSA 197.
Source. 1991, 284:2; 1992, 244:1, eff. July 12, 1992. 1996, 64:1, eff. July 1, 1996.
