Community Center: March 2008 Archives
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
Recreation and municipal needs representatives have concluded that information on the proposed community center project given in a recent mailing by a citizens group were the result of figures mentioned during a past committee meeting and not an alleged information leak.
Recreational Strategic Planning Team member Laurie Whitley raised concerns during the March 13 selectman's meeting about a possible issue with information flow that may have resulted in information being released to the public on the proposed community center project before being reviewed by the selectmen.
Whitley cited an information flyer mailed to residents by the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance the week before that stated the operational costs of the proposed community center would be $350,000 a year according to the Municipal Needs Committee, while the RSPT had quoted a figure of around $208,000.
Whitley expressed concern that the figure cited by the Citizen's Alliance came from a document attached to the minutes of the March 4 Municipal Needs Committee meeting that would not have been made publicly available at the time the flyer was mailed out. Whitley expressed concern that there was a break in the flow of information, including the possibility a member of the municipal needs committee may have leaked the information.
Carrasco said the information in the flyer matched information from the minutes of the Dec. 4, 2007 meeting of the municipal needs committee where the members of the RSPT attended to review a list of points from the RSPT's report.
"He called me and he knew right where this information had come from," Whitley said. "It had come from a public meeting. My request has been satisfied and I was comfortable with that."
RSPT chair Tom Howard, who also attended the March 13 selectman's meeting with Whitley, said the $350,000 figure for potential operating costs had been discussed at the December meeting as a preliminary figure, while a figure of around $251,000, which Howard said would likely be closer to $208,000 after projected revenues from the proposed center, was more up to date.
"Some of the costs were in there only because they were not clear as to what we were presenting," Howard said, saying the "numbers reduced" when the prospect was discussed of eliminating other projects mentioned in the RSPT report on the town's overall recreational needs.
Howard said the $350,000 mentioned in the Citizen's Alliance flyer was an older number, saying Carrasco had also called him to confirm the source of the information.
In a letter to The Citizen, Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance member Nancy Wright confirmed the information in the flyer did come from the Dec. 4 meeting.
Carrasco spoke with Whitley and Howard on March 14, later saying the confusion was "cleared up" after that discussion.
"I think Ralph did a very good job," Whitley said. "He was responsive and professional."
Carrasco and Wright have both said they felt that their respective groups were falsely accused of wrongdoing and residents have asked for an apology from Whitley and Howard.
Whitley said it was never her intention to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, saying she was expressing a concern about the flow of information.
"I think any citizen in this town is allowed to express a concern to the selectboard at the public session of the meeting," she said.
|
| |||
|
|
| ||
 | |||
| March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — The Moultonboro community/ senior center will have to wait a few years, as Moultonboro residents voted down Article 9, $375,000 in architectural and engineering fees in a vote of 198-256. In the very next vote, however, $100,000 in capital reserve funds for the center was approved by a narrow vote of 148 to 137. | |||
| |||
Editor, The Citizen: Previously the Recreational Strategic Planning Team presented a list, claimed to be 300 signatures, attached to the petition to the Moultonborough Selectmen, requesting a $375,000 warrant article (article 9) for architectural, engineering fees, etc. for the possible construction of a "Community/Senior Center" on the Lions Property.
As reported by Hollis Austin, in his 3/13/2008 letter to the editor, the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance checked and found there were only 264 signatures and when you delete five that signed twice, numerous unregistered, illegible or missing signatures, etc., the total was under 200.
Now let's see what happened at the Town Meeting on March 15th. An amendment to lower the dollar amount, of article 9, was defeated by a hand vote of 137 for and 148 against. Then the original article 9 was put up for secret ballot and it was defeated by a vote of 198 for but 256 against. The illusionary 300 signers were nowhere to be found as only 198 voted for article 9.
When the secret ballot was employed, apparently many voters felt comfortable to express their true feeling and voted article 9 down. With SB2 all articles including expenditure articles are voted in the ballot booth and voters are guided by their personal opinion and their conscience.
These same so called 300 signers influenced some of the selectmen to change their vote to 4 to 1 to recommend article 9. It was an illusion and that is something for us all to guard against.
Now I call on the citizenry to refer to and follow the suggestions of the Municipal Needs Committee report entitled Municipal Needs Committee 12 Point Recommendations on RSPT Proposal which is available on the MCA website www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org and it's in category titled Municipal Needs Committee. It's a logical 12 point plan to get answers to questions and proceed to work with other departments to achieve citizen's needs.
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: What an excellent editorial in the Sunday Citizen (It's not the Tax It's the Spending). The last two paragraphs should be required reading for all Selectmen and Town officials throughout New Hampshire: "New Hampshire has to return to its roots. State, county and local governments have to step away from enacting budgets the people cannot afford to fund — budgets that represent 17 percent, 15 percent and even 4 percent increases. Government at all levels must step back from treating every request for taxpayers' dollars as entitlements."
Bravo Citizen editors. That concept was evident to our citizens on Saturday March 15th, 2008. Moultonborough voters rejected spending our tax dollars to fund a very expensive project. The message to the Selectmen was loud and clear: it's the taxes, not the concept. Our elected officials going forward should weigh all spending requests under the greatest of scrutiny. We have the opportunity to further reduce our low tax burden and find alternative creative funding means for projects that, while they would be nice to have, are simply not a necessity. Times are tough for middle and low income families. The cost of gas is rising out of control. Milk is approaching $5.00 a gallon. Just because we have a very low tax burden per capita, doesn't mean we should spend more. After all, property taxes do not consider a person's ability to pay, especially in these uncertain times.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
| |||
| |||
|
March 20, 2008 A vote can speak a thousand words, or at least it did in Moultonboro, where voters rejected architectural and engineering fees for a new community/senior center in a vote of 198-256, but approved $100,000 for a capital reserve fund for the center in a vote of 148-137. | |||
|
Editor, The Citizen: I am delighted to see the defeat of Article #9 ($375,000 to fund and an architectural and engineering study for a Community /Recreation Center) in Moultonboro's Town Meeting on Saturday March 15th. This sends a clear message that it is not a 'small vocal few' that objected to community/recreation/senior center on such a grand scale.
Few oppose a center of some sort. Unfortunately, there are those that would have us believe that there is a demanding and pressing need to build a massive center, one with more ball fields for our little town with a population of 4000, on the scale of one for a major university! It was a huge turnout at the ballot election on Tuesday March 11th with nearly 1300 people coming out to vote. SB2 was defeated by a very small percentage. So small that a recount will be done for both the school and town.
There were 570 people at the town meeting on Saturday, another huge turnout. That is nearly 800 less than were able to make it to vote in the election. What a shame to disenfranchise so many taxpayers. We were able to stay until after Article 9 was voted on, but had to leave. Later, we met a town employee at one of our town facilities who was very interested in how the town meeting was going. Like many other people, this individual had to work that day and could not vote. My mother is 80 years old, but she would not miss her opportunity to vote in the election at the public safety building. She was not able to attend such a lengthy town meeting as she has difficulty walking long distances and didn't want to sit that long. She also has a hearing disability that prevents her from being able to understand all that is being said. It's a shame too, as she was very interested in knowing what went on the very minute we came home. She too was pleased to learn that Article 9 was defeated. She would like a senior center but has no desire whatsoever to be in the same building as teenagers or small children.
If we had SB2 in place those 800 disenfranchised taxpayers would have had a chance to have their vote count on all the issues, including the school budget. Taxation without representation is tyranny!
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonboro
The distribution of a study document on the proposed community center before it was officially made public has troubled town officials.
Laurie Whitley and Tom Howard of the Recreation Strategic Planning Team approached the Board of Selectmen to express concerns that a document compiled by the Municipal Needs Committee for the selectmen was distributed to the public before the selectmen had reviewed it.
|
MOULTONBOROUGH — Voters rejected a petitioned warrant article that would have appropriated funds for the engineering and architectural costs associated with a proposed community center during town meeting, though the establishment of a community center fund passed by a narrow margin.
The Recreational Strategic Planning Team had proposed a $5.1 million community center as part of its 2007 report on the recreational needs of Moultonborough. The project has received both enthusiastic support and heavy criticism from residents, some feeling the center would be an asset to the community, others being outraged at the projected costs.
The Board of Selectmen had voted against putting an article for the project on the warrant with many members of the board saying it was too much of a cost for the moment, especially with the current economic climate.
In February, the RSPT submitted two petitioned warrant articles: one to appropriate $375,000 for an architectural and engineering study for the project and one creating a fund to save money for the proposed construction and starting it with a $100,000 appropriation.
x
Community center seems on fast track in Moultonborough
March 13, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
Saturday, March 15, 2008 at the Moultonborough Town Meeting voters will be considering Article 9 ($375,000) and Article 10 ($100,000) for a “community/senior center” recreation complex. Jointly promoted by the Recreation Department and public school personnel, it was originally represented as being years in the future but has since been on the fast track and heavily advertised. A petition presented to the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen on January 31 has become a critical selling point for their demand of immediate funding. There is information you need to know about this petition.
The minutes of that meeting state that the petition totaled 300 voters and the petition’s spokesman stated the purpose was to finalize the plan. The result was the 300 signatures apparently influenced a majority of the Selectmen to reverse their position and instead support the proposal. There are problems.
There never were 300 names, only 264. If all legitimate, this is less than 7% of the registered voters in Moultonborough. According to the latest Voter List for Moultonborough, they were not all legitimate.
|
 | ||||||||||||
Editor, The Citizen: This is in response to Mr. Howard's letter, of March 5th, entitled "Reasons to support new Community Center."
Mr. Howard, said in his opening statement that "accurate information is critical to making good decisions in any circumstances including the exercise to one's right to vote." Mr. Howard is correct. We do need accurate information and we're still waiting for the "accurate information" from the Recreational Strategic Planning Team in order to make that decision on March 15th.
One issue that keeps resurfacing is the wetlands, on the "Lion's Club" property, a problem which is evident and acknowledged by the surrounding abutters. Drainage, runoff and mold can be complicated and expensive issues to
Letters to the Editor - 2/18/07
Editor, The Citizen:
The Town of Moultonborough will benefit in many ways from the establishment of a modern, well-equipped Community/Senior Center. Those benefits will spread into every aspect of our town's population from young children to active and less active seniors. There has been opposition to the community center by a few vocal people, but I am willing to bet all our residents will enjoy some aspects of the center. I will not repeat the multitude of benefits derived from a community center as they have been extensively articulated in the committee's report and presentations to the Selectmen.
I retired with my family here in the summer of 2006. I have two children in the public school system and a pre-schooler. Previous to our move we vacationed in Moultonborough. My support is not based on a fiscal whim or that of an emotional stance, but rather from a position of need in all our lives here in Moultonborough. I have been very fortunate with my business successes to allow my family the opportunity to retire and live in probably one of the most beautiful regions in the country. We have great natural resources for tourism, our schools perform very well and our services are held in high regard given the small size of our full-time population. We need to continually look forward as a town to keep Moultonborough as a great place to raise families and to retire.
Our town is facing a critical juncture as to what we will leave our residents for the next 20 years. We all have concerns with the present state of the economy, the cost of housing, and a tax system that relies on property valuations. We have little or no commercial tax base to supplement our residential tax base and the uncertainty of statewide education funding puts further pressure into the equation. The solution at this time is NOT to starve the community of a key component that takes a major step toward enhancing our town's quality of life.
The community center will bring greater value to our town, our full-time and part-time residents, and visitors. This multi-generational facility will be a key factor in further establishing Moultonborough as a town where people want to live. People desire to be in towns/cities with good schools, amenities, and services. If we fail to continually add value to our town and enhance people's quality of life we will degrade our property values and lose our residents. It is evident throughout history in towns/cities that let their municipal facilities and services degrade, businesses move out, property values decline, and recovery often never happens. I applaud our town and your efforts to date with key investments in the Town Hall, Library, Life Safety Building and the High School. These have been very high value yielding investments by us that have moved Moultonborough into a "great town to live in" category.
The Community/Senior Center provides, in my mind, the glue to bring the entire community together with a variety of activities and social offerings geared for virtually all age brackets. This should be our next investment in our town. We do not have shopping malls, activity centers, senior programs, pre-school activities, teen centers, etc. where we can participate in social or physical activities as readily as other towns and cities. The result will be a better place to live, a higher quality of life and a town whose valuation will continue to be sustained/grow even in challenging economic times. Please realize we need to gather around and support this community center in the best interest of all the residents here in Moultonborough.
John St. Amand
Moultonborough
| |||
| |||
| 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." | |||
|
Printed 1/17/08
__________________________________________________________________________________
From the Meredith News
MOULTONBORO — Though the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously not to recommend the plan for a community center in Moultonboro last week, they do remain open to the option of setting aside money for future construction.
After listening to attending members of the community express their feelings on the community center during the past month, each selectman took a turn voicing their own opinion. The general opinion from the board was that although it was a good idea, it was an idea that could and should wait a few years, considering the potential for economic trouble ahead.
www.citizen.com March 7, 2008
Editor, The Citizen:
A letter from Suzane Fullerton appeared in the Laconia Citizen on Tuesday March 3rd promoting a yes vote on Article 9 of Moultonborough's 2008 Warrant. This particular article will authorize at least $375,000 to determine (per the Selectmen Minutes) just how much a new Recreation Center, oops I mean Community Recreation Center, oops again, I mean Community/Recreation/Senior Center will actually cost. I do not know the letter writer and I acknowledge her personal point of view and opinion, but I must respond and comment on some issues raised. 1. This proposed project was never primarily a Senior Center. Senior Center was tacked on to make the tax cost more palatable to the aging public. 2. Our current Selectmen voted the proposal down for 2008 due the uncertain economic times we live in and many pressing priorities in our town. 3. Our current Selectmen reversed their position by placing Article 9 on the ballot authorizing $375,000 as they were "so impressed" by the 300 petitioners who requested spending our tax dollars for a project supposedly put on hold. This despite the fact that only 25 of the signatures were actually verified as valid (as required by law). 4. I feel for the writer's situation with her mother-in-law being a winter shut in. She also makes it sound like living here in Moultonborough is akin to living at the North Pole. Nothing here for her? Nonsense. I fail to understand though how a new community center would affect the winter weather as "she was afraid to drive in winter". Did she live next door to the current Lions Club? My mother just moved in with us this past summer (she is 80 years old) and it has been challenging for her to get around. I sure wish I could afford to buy her a place in Florida. She would love it. In fact, I would love to afford to live in Florida for the winter. 5. The writer stated that the RSPT "has not been intimidated" and "continues to move forward in their quest to give the town the simple opportunity to vote". Intimidated by whom? The public that has many questions and worries about rising cost of living here in our little town? Also, there is no warrant article voting on a community center, Article 9 is authorizing a trust fund to determine cost if ( and a big if) the current proposal is to be built. Let me conclude by saying that in writing this response, I do not oppose a community center. The problem which the RSPT and a vocal minority can't seem to grasp is that we want further study to find a solution that we can all truly afford, not just the well off. My final word on this is how about putting that $375,000 into some local transport system so seniors could safely get out and about. Now that would make sense.
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonborough, NH 03254
Moultonborough Selectman
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: community center—
I am unable to attend the meeting on the 13th,but I would like for you to read this email at the meeting,so that all can hear my questions and concerns about the community center.
It seems like after attending past meetings, that the recreation dept is pushing for the community center more then any other group.
If what they are looking for is so urgent and in their minds needed-have they heard about ways other recreation departments in towns get money?, such as running fund raisers, instead of asking for tax money? My feelings are that they are being one sided and not thinking about the impact on the total community.
Being part of a sports minded family all my life and having a daughter involved in sports over the last 30 years, who has been coaching high school volleyball for 20 years and my son-in -law for 15 years, who is currently a college coach, I have had several discussions with them concerning their requests for recreation improvements both in the community and school systems.
The point I would like to make on this subject is that what I have found about both of them, is that they always wanted the best for their kids, which I can not fault them, have always had a hit list longer then my arm, of what they would like for improvements to their programs. This is the nature of their positions, which again I cannot, fault.
They have always put the community first and their requests second and I don't think that this is being done by our recreation dept in Moultonborough.
The town that I came from in Ma. had 4000 kids in the school system with 6 gyms-that's an average of about 670 kids per facility.
The town of Moultonborough has around 650 kids in the system -2 gyms-that's an average of 325 kids per facility.
My question is do we need another gym?- my answer would be no. Not at this time.
The additional ball fields I won't agree or disagree with- but would like to say lets first get a true cost and time frame to improving what we have first. I also truly believe that if we put our mind to it, our current fields at the playground can be redone and ready for use in less then 2 years and for the two years make some adjustments to our programs.
Lastly, what is being said about a small increase to our taxes may be small to people in the 6 figure category, its a lot different to a senior on a fixed income getting a social security check for 700.00 dollars per month.Lets look after the people that make up a large majority of the year around residents-our seniors.
It is my hope that we put this project on the back burner at this time and move on, and use our energies to improve and work with what this great town,( with little debt}, of Moultonborough has today.
Respectively
Joe Quaresima
Town of
(
Municipal Needs Committee
2008 Town Warrant Supporting Material
Presented to Selectboard
The Municipal Needs Committee had a work session on March 4th and the below two Warrant Articles were a matter of concern and discussion:
ARTICLE 9
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $375,000.00 for architectural, engineering, and related fees relative to the eventual construction of a community/senior center, fields, and related outdoor improvements.
ARTICLE 10
To see if the Town will vote to establish an expendable general trust fund, with the Selectmen as agents to expend, under the provisions of RSA 35:1 to be known as the Community/Senior Center Fund for the purpose of constructing and/or developing a community/senior center and related expenses and to raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000.00 toward this purpose.
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
ARTICLE 9
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of $375,000.00 for architectural, engineering, and related fees relative to the eventual construction of a community/senior center, fields, and related outdoor improvements.
ARTICLE 10
To see if the Town will vote to establish an expendable general trust fund, with the Selectmen as agents to expend, under the provisions of RSA 35:1 to be known as the Community/Senior Center Fund for the purpose of constructing and/or developing a community/senior center and related expenses and to raise and appropriate the sum of $100,000.00 toward this purpose.
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 |
March 1, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: The Friends of Recreation in Moultonborough have published a misinformative brochure hawking the benefits of their project "The Community/Senior Center". Readers and fellow citizens of Moultonborough, there is very little accurate or real information in this document.
The truth? The projected tax impacts are purposely misleading and grossly underestimated, designed to sway public opinion. They state the annual operating cost for this center will be $208,000 per year. This despite the fact that the current 2007 budget for the Recreation Department is more than $350,000! In fine print, you will see net operating costs "adjusted for anticipated revenues." That means this project which they would have us pay dearly with our hard earned tax dollars will not be free for the citizens of Moultonborough to use once built. They don't mention how much this will be despite the fact that they seem to have it all laid out in the brochure.
Please voters, think of the seniors and others on fixed and low incomes that would like to see their tax bills go down and not up. Let's find a way to build a Community Center that is affordable.
Lastly, I would like to know who paid for this brochure? I certainly hope it was not paid for with Recreation Department funds.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: I would like to commend Selectman Joel Mudgett for maintaining his previous position, by voting against proceeding with the recommendation of spending of over a third of a million dollars until he has more information. At the Moultonborough Selectmen's meeting on February 14th, the Selectmen voted 4 to 1 to recommend the petitioned/warrant article that was presented, by the Recreational Strategic Planning Team (RSPT) on January 31, for an appropriation of $375,000 for architectural, engineering and other related fees.
Recommendation and Commentary on the RSPT Proposal
Prepared for the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen
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.
12-Point Recreation Action Plan
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.
We will be pleased to discuss these in further detail or answer any questions.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
www.citizens.com printed 3-6-2008
Chance to lower taxes
Editor, The Citizen: The Moultonborough Selectmen have stated that our town budget for this coming year is only 1% higher than last year. Nice work but the town of Sandwich is 6% lower than last year. There is no reason why Moultonborough's taxes couldn't be lowered by sensible spending. If this town stops spending on certain capital expenditures this year, our town tax portion would be lowered by about 18%.
There are four big ticket items. Article 9 is for $375,000 for the Recreation Complex. Article 10 is $100,000 to be put in reserve for this Recreation Complex. Article 12 is 392,000 for this town's portion to rebuild Ossipee Park Road. Article 15 ,which includes $400,000 for an unidentified Municiple Building. Article 15 should be amended at Town Meeting to reduce it by $400,000.
This $1,267,000 deduction in these Capital Expenditures in our Town Budget will reduce our taxes by 18%, not too shabby.
Let the townspeople show up Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 9:00 A.M. to vote on sensible spending. At the same time lower the Town portion of our taxes by 18%. Show up and make your concerns over our out of control spending be heard. Let your voice be heard by your vote .
Al Hume
Moultonborough
| |||
| |||
| February 14, 2008 To the Editor: 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 Lions Club property. This represents (per the petition I assume) 8 percent of the construction costs anticipated for this (non) project. | |||
|
January 7, 2008
Editor, The Citizen: In the course of the RSPT to move forward with their effort of a large, very expensive list of improvements and new construction projects in Moultonborough, there has been a loud outcry from those that are in opposition to this excess. That opposition ranges from the quality of the site for Recreation Center, to the $5 million-plus price tag of that portion of the list, to the $180,000 for two outside toilets, to the "mandate" that was assumed by the vote at the late night Town Meeting last year that represented less than 10 percent of those eligible to vote, and to the misreading of the Master Plan Survey results of 2006.
The Selectmen announced that they would like to hear comments from "both sides of the issue but did not want to hear from the same people with the same points over and over". (I have paraphrased their comments) For the past several weeks they have heard from both sides. Occasionally, discussion was passionate and spirited. However, trying to keep to the facts and not wanting to take the arguments or the tone of the discussion to a personal level, those in opposition to the RSPT Report used information from the report itself, the Master Plan Survey, as well as from minutes of various meetings as their sources. When discussing facts that were contrary to the information that was put forth by the RSPT Report, words such as 'misunderstanding', 'spin', 'respectfully disagree', or 'respectfully correct' were used by those responding to the Selectmen's invitation. Many of the speakers, in fact most all of them, opened by stating that they appreciated the enormous work effort done by the RSPT. The only time I heard the words "lies" or "misinformation" it sadly came from one of the Selectmen and was directed at those in opposition of the Report.
There have also been many shouts of "negativism". Enough already! Reasonable people can disagree. There would not be much point in stating a point of view or one's opinion if we all had to be so "P.C." that we should sit on our hands if what we had to say might disagree with someone else. I for one am disappointed in those folks that are so offended by the open discussion over this huge public spending issue. We are not playing "no score soccer" here. We are spending taxpayer money, and in this case, lots of taxpayer money.
|
| |||
|
| |||
| |||
| 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. | |||
A petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a proposed community center was given to the selectmen with 300 signatures.
Tom Howard, the chair of the Recreational Strategic Planning Team, gave the petition to the board during Thursday night's weekly board meeting.
The petition calls for the appropriation of $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.
|
By |
Article Date:
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

This letter was read at the December 27, 2007, Selectmen’s Meeting
DEC 2 7 2007
To the Selectmen of The town of Moultonborough,
I would like to commend the Recreation Committee for all their work. They've put in a great deal of time and effort in identifying recreational facilities and programs in Town that need attention and have given us a splendid overview on where we stand. However, I think their enthusiasm has generated a plan that needs much reworking. Let's let the new Master Plan review tell us what's really needed not wanted before going further.
It has been suggested that we needn't worry, there's no problem paying for this entire project because we have all this assessed property to pay for it. I'm sorry, but assessed property doesn't pay taxes, people do. All town taxpayers would have to pay; resident taxpayers who are the more likely ones to use these facilities and non-resident taxpayers who are less likely users.
Some 12 to 15 years ago I was at a Town Meeting when a discussion was being held on a proposal we residents needed or wanted that would be significantly paid for by people who probably had no use for it and would have no recourse to object - our non-resident taxpayers. They just have the questionable pleasure of helping to pay for it.
At that meeting a gentleman, Bob foster, spoke to the issue. Bob served the town well in several capacities and also represented us in the legislature in Concord. I can't remember his exact words but their meaning was; hadn't we already taken enough advantage of the non-resident taxpayers, let's give these people a break. These people being taxed without representation. Here, I thought is a man with a conscience. We would probably not have the one town school system/SAU we have today with it's huge budget without this unique taxing situation.
As Bob said, let's give them a break - and me too.
Robert Damarell
A group of residents will be running for town positions in write-in campaigns created amid frustration with the town's response to efforts on behalf of the Official Ballot Act and other issues.
Residents Jim Castleberry, Al Hume and Gary Torressen submitted a letter to the town inquiring about the procedure on voting as write-in candidates. Hume and Torressen will seek the two positions on the Board of Selectmen up for vote and Castleberry will pursue the position of town moderator.
