At this time there is no ballot. The present non-SB2 absentee ballots were voted last Tuesday. It would only contain electing officials and zoning amendments, anyway. See Article 1 in the warrant (First Session of Annual Meeting (Official Ballot Voting)

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...r_04.20.23.pdf

RE: The May 11th town meeting registrations are now useless. The moderator:
oThe Article number will be announced, and the text will be presented in full.
o The Moderator will seek a person to move and second the consideration of the Article.
o The Article will be placed on the floor for debate and final vote.


It has already been pointed out, in jest, to the moderator, Town Administrator, and select board, and will probably be re-iterated at the re-scheduled meeting.



Reminding the voters "point out that last night's craziness" will probably happen since I am the the SB2 presenter of Article 3, the SB2 petition.

Under SB2 the "screaming and hollering" happens a month before voting on the Tuesday ballot, voting with privacy behind a curtain, and can vote 7:00am to 7:00pm. Make out a "cheat sheet" beforehand, after getting informed, and go into the voting booth and check off the spots.

Does anyone believe the voters didn't already know how they would vote! on The Hub!

Classically, there are always more voters on the Tuesday than at the second session town meeting. In addition to that, there are no absentee ballots at traditional town meeting.

The Nov. 2022 general election had 21% of the ballots cast by absentee. Why aren't they allowed to vote on all warrant articles, not just electing officials and zoning amendments?

It is historically the case in NH for a proposal to come up again and again until it is passed. Sometimes attitudes change and it doesn't pass... but frugality is a thing of the past for now.

SB2 has been around now for ~30 years. In the early days there were many abuses and the rules have changed to resolve things. For example, you can amend an article at the deliberative session, but you are limited in the ability to change intent. You can't just insert "not" before "raise and appropriate. I see a lot of scheming underlying the questions and comments above. Mostly, these schemes have all been tried and been eliminated. Before you vote yes or no, have somebody from the Municipal Association or the AG's office give you a primer.

BTW, I believe it is up to the Selectmen to provide a place for the meeting and the moderator only runs the meeting. And the fire marshal has an obligation for safety. Each doing their job is not pointing fingers or placing blame.

Good point. The buck stops at the selectmen.

Some are not informed as others have already posted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bw0sfN8QBU

Keep it togetheer.

Excerpts from my presentation that will be revised for whenever the meeting occurs. Facts don't change, however.

History
SB2 stands for Senate Bill 2. It became law in1995. The town had previously voted SB2, 4 times; 2004,
2007, 2009, and 2011, on the Tuesday ballot. Some voters probably had no clue what it was. In 2019, the
law changed with House Bill 415 changing SB2 adoption to town meeting, as we are doing tonight.
Legislation in 2000 made “SB2” the official name. This is the first time Moultonborough will be debating at a town meeting.

Amendments
The following excerpts are based on a 2019 NH Municipal Association article by Stephen C. Buckley,
Legal Services Counsel.
“The content of warrant articles is either prescribed by statute, or is governed by common law, and
statutory ground rules, especially as applied to articles that contain appropriations. An “illegal” warrant
article is one that cannot have any legal effect, even if town meeting approves it, usually because it
violates some provision in the law. It is “unenforceable”.
After the public hearings are over and the warrant is drafted, and posted, it is up to the moderator—with
the assistance of other town officials and the town attorney—to make sure that the town’s business is
accomplished fairly and efficiently.

Opinion of the Justices, No. 4600 Decided July 9, 1957.
"The subject matter of all business to be acted upon at the town meeting, shall be distinctly stated in the
warrant, and nothing done at any meeting . . . shall be valid unless the subject thereof is so stated."
More recently, in Grant v. Barrington, (2008), the Court described the purpose of RSA 39:2 in the context
of an (SB 2) town meeting:
“[t]he prohibition against changing the subject of a warrant article is to ensure that subjects that were not
noticed to voters, are not inserted into the articles at the deliberative session. This protects the voters who
decided not to attend the first session, from new subjects being addressed, about which they had no
notice, and therefore, did not have an opportunity to consider, when deciding, whether they were
interested in attending the deliberative session.”

This is described as the “stay-at-home test”.

The court also stated that the statutes did not warrant that the court decide what is "intent".

The role of the SB2 first session (town meeting/deliberative session) is to decide the final form of the Tuesday ballot questions.

SB2 is not a change in government. It only changes who can vote, when we vote, and how we vote.
Towns may adopt either March, April, or May town meeting.

The only difference between SB2 and Traditional town meeeting is:
who can vote, when we vote, and how we vote, and a default budget.

SB2:
All registered voters, especially absentees, can vote on all warrant articles (a biggie!)
Vote on all warrant articles on the Tuesday ballot (another biggie)
Vote on one ballot, after a month to research and decide (who is Bull S*ing) from 7am to 7pm, in privacy, and then do your thing!

Bring Moultonborough into the 21st century. Vote yes on Article 3 of the 2023 warrant.

Does Moultonborough have a place with a big enough capacity to handle that large a turnout?
One of the reasons for SB2 in our town was due to the growing residential population and the large turnouts.

So, what is the forum, smart-money prediction on the soon-to-be-happening Moultonborough town warrant vote on this 15-million dollar "Hub" indoor recreation facility that includes an indoor heated 25-meter swimming pool?

It needs a 60% vote to make it actually happen which seems like a high hurdle what with all the opposition expressed on this forum?

Is there an equally strong faction of Moultonborough voters out there who's voice is not really present on this forum and who could that be? ..... :eek2:

Is it the Moultonborough public school system, grades K-12, and their parents, local town supporters, and other Moultonborough residents who could reach a 60% voting result?

I'm biased toward no.

Hub Vote
 

From what I saw and heard at the aborted town meeting, I would be surprised if they broke 50% being for it.

We did one once with ~4500 people (yes, the first attempt was cancelled and rescheduled). Three gymnasia with big screen TV's assistant moderators and microphones. Even easier to do now. There must be a gym and a couple of churches suitable in almost any town. Might put a bit of a squeeze on the General Gov't section of the budget.

The moderator's Facebook page:
During Covid, the auditorium, cafeteria, and gym were utiized at the school that is the regular town meeting place, and accomodated a large turnout. I believe the Sandwich fairgrounds was utilized for a school district annual meeting once as well.

The Tuesday voting day always has a higher turnout than "Town meeting" day. It is doubfull that anywhere near 2,000 ever showed up for either. The Nov. 2022 General election had 3,202, but that is not a town meeting; note the 21% of voters were absentee voters.

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/sit...s_11082022.pdf

Note in moderator's comment the 2019 that 650 checked in. and then checkout the Voters Cast - 1366 on Tuesday voters prior.

Look up the turnout for the Tuesday vote by year here; right at the top of the first page of each year:

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/tow...eeting-minutes

I'm wondering what it will cost each month just to heat the water for the pools?

Cost of heating is a variable in NH... regardless of what is being heated.

Once a large body of water is heated though... it will lose and gain heat slowly.
The heat lost would be to the space around the pool, and any part of the building that is open to convection.

So probably not much difference than the same space without the pool.
Relative to the size of the overall building being conceived.

The gym in downtown Laconia... and the pool at the Gunstock Mountain Inn... have variables; but that would be to the GMI having a huge glass wall (low insulation) adjacent to the pool.

So design along with fuel type and cost are all variables.

Will (We) as in non residents of Moultonborough have access to swim in the pool and enjoy the building? Sure hope so, sounds like a beautiful facility.

Access to Swimming (15.4 miles vs. 25 meters)
 

Cobalt 12, I see you're a new (3/2023) member....we welcome you.

Great news, especially if you're speaking about beauty; Moultonborough's non residents and residents alike can swim in one of the most beautiful lakes country wide, Lake Winnipesaukee has over 59.7 miles of shorefront and 15.4 square miles of water in Moultonborough alone which also happens to be the largest lakefront community in the Lakes Region.

Hard to justify a "$15,000,000.00 beautiful facility," while within the community, we can all enjoy this natural treasure. It features easy access 24/7/365 to all residents and non residents.

Today is May 15 and the Lake Winnipesaukee water temperature at the surface is about 58-60 degrees, right now, too cold for swimming. Lake Winnipesaukee surface water warms up to 70-degrees by about July 1, gets up to 78 on August 1, and descends trough the month of September from 72 back down to 60-degrees on September 30.

So's a huge issue with swimming in Lake Winnipesaukee all year around is that it is too danged cold for swimming like from September 15 through to June 15, it is too cold to swim.

Cobalt - Welcome to the Forum. As always, there are many ways to view things. None are wrong and deserve respect. However, swimming in our natural treasure can be a tad chilly for the 8 months of Oct - May. Probably why many people (most not on this forum) would like access to a year round pool. There can be a lot of numbers thrown around but best I can tell, the annual cost to a taxpayer is about $350-400/$1 Mil of Assessed Property for 15 years to support financing of the facility and about $100/$1 Mil of Assessed Property to pay for maintaining the facility, assuming the town can't claw back usage revenues for non town users of the facility, which are probably substantial. Each taxpayer can gauge for themselves the value of both paying and how much time they invest on this chatter board debating it.

Rescheduled Town Meeting
 

The Town meeting is rescheduled for Thursday, June 1 at 6PM.

Present tax rate is $4.78/$1,000 of assessment of which $1.25/$1,000 is municipal, only. County, Local Ed. , and State Ed. comprise the other three parts of total town tax
Then, depending on which year of a 15 or 20 or 30 year bond the increase will add to municipal.
The original bond used by the Hub proponents was a 20 year level principal bond at 5.5% interest. The fiscal year estimated tax rate increase ranged from .33 to .17 over the 20 years decreasing accordingly. The first year was .08 but the first year was interest only, and did not include the $775,000 annual principal payments. Total 20 annual payments would be $24,412,500.

Present tax rate is $4.78/$1,000 or $.00478 = annual tax
$200,000 x $.00478 = $956
$300,000 x $.00478 = $1,440
$500,000 x $.00478 = $2,390
$1,000,000 x $.00478 = $4,780

Then,
Using .25 as an increase:
$4.78/$1,000 + $.25/$1,000 = $5.03/$1,000 or $.00503

Assessment x Municipal tax rate = tax
$200,000 x $.00503 = $1,006
$300,000 x $.00503 = $1,509
$500,000 x $.00503 = $2,515
$1,000,0000 x $.00503 = $5,030

Assessment; new rate minus present rate = increase
$200,000 ; $1,006 minus $956 = $50 tax increase for that year
$300,000 ; $1,509 minus $1,440 = $69 tax increase for that year
$500,000; $2,515 minus $2,390 = $125 tax increase for that year
$1,000,000; $5,030 minus $4,780 = $250 tax increase for that year

Tax bills sent out semi annually.

Operating cost are not fixed, as is the bond. Extreme caution for operating cost.

No town should be in the recreation business of this magnitude.

Why hasn't a private for profict company presented a proposal ????

The elephant in the room is placing its nose inside your wallet or pocketbook.

Meredith town docks have to be in the vicinity of that level.

And none of the beach bathhouses are really cheap to build.

Private Company - The Professor
 

I looked on line, and there are several companies that this is their core business. I wonder if any of the ones who signed the document to put this on the ballot even contacted any one of these companies. If it is such a great need for the town, why wouldn't they fight to put a facility in Moultonborough??

So, I think all the proponents should form a company, pool their resources and purchase the property in question, build it and run it as a business, AND pay the real estate taxes to the town. A win-win-win for all!

I think that's a great idea.

The reason that government acts is because private business declines.

Since it only take 25 registered voters to petition it to town meeting vote, I expect that it will keep coming up.
That is unless it reaches the 60% threshold... after that they wouldn't need another vote.

They have bigger issues in my opinion, but this seems to be what the residents are focused on.

Because it's become harder and harder for businesses to compete with government, only government can afford it.

Waterville Valley is home to the www.wmacwv.com, a private business. It has an indoor 24-meter pool, heated to 82-degrees, and an outdoor, June thru October, 30-meter pool, heated to about 72-degrees.

For $600/year you can get an off-peak membership that excludes Saturdays, Sundays till 4-pm, Christmas week, MLK weekend, and the February Massachusetts school vacation week.

It has two large indoor hot tubs, heated to 104-degrees.

Today, May 16, 2023, the surface water temperature in Lake Winnipesaukee is 58 to 60 degrees depending where it gets measured on different areas in the big lake. Lake Winnipesaukee water surface temperature usually gets up to 70-degrees not until June 28.

Is there a business in Moultonborough already providing these services?

Suggest you take a look at www.thehubmoultonborough.com to see it's a community center that includes a 25-meter indoor swim pool, a multi-purpose gym large enough for two or three pickleball courts, a game room with ping-pong, pool, and table hockey, an adult social room, a large function hall and a kitchen.

Teaching swimming to very young children, school age children, and adults as well as water exercise classes would be happening all year 'round.

While nearby Lake Winnipesaukee and the Moultonborough Town Beach are a beautiful scenic lake location, the big lake water temps is 70-76 degrees warm, only from June 15 to September 15. For the the other nine months, Sept 15 to June 15, the big lake is way too cold for swimming and in-the-water activity.

The new Moultonborough Hub will have a 25-meter warm water indoor pool, good for swim lessons, and water exercise classes like Splash 'n Burn lead by an instructor all twelve months of the year.

I didn't say that. I am saying I think it would be very hard for a private entity to invest 16 million dollars in such a business and operate it every year and be successful -in Moultonborough anyway, or any other area small town.

That is true. That is what is meant by government acts because private business declines.

When government acts, it frequently costs taxpayers huge sums because government has no idea how to manage things properly. Businesses don't act because they cannot rationalize the benefits of acting. Examples are everywhere. Frankly I would prefer government NOT act and it will save me money, whether it is in Wash., DC or Moultonborough !!! Waste is government's middle name !

You wouldn't have any roads.

That would fix a lot of problems pretty quickly.

An argument in the absurd.

There are obviously some essential services that government must provide. Road management, fire and police protection, etc. A swimming pool and gym are NOT essential services.

Also note that even within the essential services, things like roads, the construction is done by private companies. That is because government is spectacularly BAD at providing business services, especially when dealing with costs, management, quality control, honesty and accountability, etc. Further, WHEN have you seen government projections of cost be accurate? Actual costs greatly exceed government estimates, either due to incompetence or dishonestly. Generally, the less the government gets involved with issues, the better the outcome. Private companies that can't manage their business properly go out of business. Government just stumbles on to make another mess; there is low/no accountability.

Also note that voters that think they can vote themselves whatever they want are foolish. The economic constraints on what a community can afford are not subject to a vote. The unique conditions of each community determine its ability to generate income and money spent on one thing preclude it being spent on something else. It's not unlike the household where the husband wants a new BMW, the wife a new house, the child a pony, and none of those things are affordable or practical for their finances. They might find a bank that will loan them money but they will struggle to pay their bills and other, more essential things that come up may not be possible to do.

While I agree that government isn't always efficient, I see that as the price for equality.

As history has shown—through firefighting and policing organizations, education, information access, policy, etc.—private industry will always cater to those with money and disregard those without.

So, there is certainly a case to be made for establishments that benefit the public to be instituted and managed by the government, but the decision always pivots on collective value vs. cost.

It is hard for me to see a collective value to the whole of Moultonborough taxpayers, a sizable portion of which won't even be in the area half the year.

In fact, knowing how my local Y works in regards to pool access—which is barely available after local sports teams, other organizations, and restricted (cleaning/maintenance) times—I'm still not even sure what this place would be good for.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

From the Brookline, Mass. town swimming pool ...... www.brooklinerec.com/150/Kirrane-Aquatic-Center ..... a list of fees which people PAY for swim lessons, splash 'n burn water exercise class, and pool use/laps practice.

The people of Brookline's choices doesn't make them ESSENTIAL services.

Frankly, I don't care if the town could make a lot of money by providing a pool and gym and charging money for it. There are thousands of things that people need/want/crave and, the for the vast majority of it, government should have no role in providing it.

Government should be a last resort provider, when other suppliers of the service are not possible/practical. Then the service WILL be provided, probably overpriced, with less quality, and a mismatch in the features but at least an essential service is available.

Government used to be about needs not wants-at least in our small towns.

My point exactly. The key here is 'essential services'. In this live free or die state especially, taxpayers who will never use this service would prefer not to be forced into paying for it and its upkeep. If you want less government control over your money, don't vote for more of it.