Moultonborough Town Meeting

[Sue Doe-Nym]

June 29th at 4 P.M. at Moultonborough Academy is a huge improvement! The place will very likely be packed so I don’t know how they’re going to handle social distancing, but we’ll have air conditioning and actual indoor plumbing. In case any of your friends, neighbors don’t get Moultonborough email blast, please let them know about the change, and encourage them to please come the 29th to vote against this colossal waste of taxpayer money.

[Shipfitter]

I see all the snowflakes are melting over on the blog

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Stay tuned, everyone. It’s possible that there might have to be another delay. I will report anything we find out.

[Lakegeezer]

Seems like the practice of voter manipulation is going strong. Don't like it outside on a June day, forecast to be in the mid-80's? File a law suit. Instead, let's have it indoors at 4PM on a Monday. Moultonboro hasn't had many cases and perhaps this will fix that. Those trying to avoid large indoor crowds will be sure to stay at home and those with a job can stay away too. How many super-spreaders exercising their liberty to not wear a mask will be at the meeting? People that use voter suppression techniques disgust me. Is it too late to sneak a SB2 question on the ballot?

[longislander]

Due to threat of pending litigation, I will have to postpone town meeting once again. The new date will be Monday June 29th 2020 at 4pm at Moultonborough Academy.

Litigation is probably not the correct word. It would presume a contest between individuals, outcome to be determined by a judge or jury.

"Legal action" might be more appropriate.

Example might be an ex parte order, like a restraining order ... to not hold a meeting because of ...

Legal dictionary:
Ex parte: Latin meaning "for one party," referring to motions, hearings or orders granted on the request of and for the benefit of one party only. ... Ex parte matters are usually temporary orders (like a restraining order or temporary custody) pending a formal hearing.

No need for a hearing, the meeting date and time were changed.

I'm wondering if the 4:00pm meeting at Moultonborough Academy on the 29th is inside. Nothing stated. Maybe it will be on the outside Moultonborough Academy school property, called for in article 6! Jesting a bit. Maybe not!

I didn't attend the meeting at the fairgrounds today, but did hear about the possibility of another legal action. If it's from the same source, it will fail, and do not believe, now, it will even be attempted.

I'm all for SB2, especially now that the law changed last year, and now must be voted in, at town meeting instead of the official ballot (so-called Australian ballot). Couldn't be done for this meeting. Warrant is out and publicized. No changes that affect intent of the article.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[TheProfessor]

Taken from Moultonboro Speaks

"ERIC TAUSSIG, MARLENE TAUSSIG, AND OTHER MOULTONBOROUGH REGISTERED VOTERS, PETITIONERS
v.
PAUL PUNTURIERI, MODERATOR, TOWN OF MOULTONBOROUGH, RESPONDENT"

Have no idea what any of this means. Do not know any of the involved.

[longislander]

See today's Laconia Sun:

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...4a869c61d.html

[phoenix]

So what happened last night

[longislander]

Neither article, 5 nor 6, passed the 2/3rds majority vote needed.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by phoenix

So what happened last night

So.....Phoenix.....we missed you! We needed your votes. We killed almost 5 hours there before leaving, exhausted but happy that art. 6 was defeated.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Phoenix, I apologize for scolding you for not attending the town meeting. I think you are probably one of our beloved non- resident taxpayers....and the attitude of some in town who routinely try to stick it to the waterfront and non-resident taxpayers makes me crazy! The demands are relentless....what is provided by the taxpayers is never enough. Sickening.

[phoenix]

Correct i am not allowed to vote but glad it was defeated. Maybe at some point the selectmen will bring a reasonable proposal forward that might gain broad support

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Correct i am not allowed to vote but glad it was defeated. Maybe at some point the selectmen will bring a reasonable proposal forward that might gain broad support

Article 5 called for renovation/addition to the former Lions Club building on Old 109. That plan made sense to many, especially senior citizens, who saw the need and could swallow the $3 million. That article also didn’t pass. Stay tuned...in March 2021, we’ll have a rerun of Groundhog Day.... this goes on year after year ad nauseum.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Article 5 called for renovation/addition to the former Lions Club building on Old 109. That plan made sense to many, especially senior citizens, who saw the need and could swallow the $3 million. That article also didn’t pass. Stay tuned...in March 2021, we’ll have a rerun of Groundhog Day.... this goes on year after year ad nauseum.

I gotta think people see the economy getting crushed and are voting down anything immediately needed.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Susie Cougar]

Are they still using the Lions Club building?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

Are they still using the Lions Club building?

Yes, and it needs a facelift....actually more than a facelift, but $3 million is a lot more palatable than $6.7 with no real plans, other than knowing it would be more than the $6.7.

[Susie Cougar]

Why do you think they voted it down? If the Lions Club is in need of more than just a facelift, what is the objection?

[jbolty]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Yes, and it needs a facelift....actually more than a facelift, but $3 million is a lot more palatable than $6.7 with no real plans, other than knowing it would be more than the $6.7.

how does it cost $3m to renovate a 50x100 building?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by jbolty

how does it cost $3m to renovate a 50x100 building?

That price might be a tear down...this has been hashed and rehashed and regurgitated so many times that it’s hard to keep track. The location is preferable to the seniors because traffic is not a problem there as it would be abutting the school.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Article 5 called for renovation/addition to the former Lions Club building on Old 109. That plan made sense to many, especially senior citizens.

Not quite.

At the last Charette Meeting in Moultonborough, the regional director of Meals on Wheels was totally and completely against this. She spoke at that Charrette meeting. That ladies comments seem to have been placed into the dust bin of comments.

Note that the kitchen in the Lions Club building was upgraded a few years ago to the tune of $40,000. The proposed renovations would have dismantled that new kitchen.

I wonder if most/many of the seniors that utilize the Meals on Wheels sit down meal were just plain satisfied with what is there now.

[Cal-to-NH]

I have watched this for some years. Hopefully I can be balanced on this....

Yes, the Lions club has inadequate bathrooms/septic, roof, windows and kitchen. The building is (obviously) not ADA compliant. The parking lot is not near large enough. At the same time, they serve over 30,000 much needed meals per year, host numerous town events, etc... I think the big issue is why the $1.5M Lions club renovation and $3.5M rec center at the Taylor property turned into a nearly $7M all-in-one site.

As far as the kids, it's a red herring according to the Recreaion Dept head herself.. The Rec Director herself was at town meeting and said that you wouldn't build a rec center for the kids. They have a Gym at the Middle school and High School. The biggest Rec activities for kids are outdoor sports like Soccer and Baseball.Softball, etc....

That's not to say there won't be kids activities - there undoubtedly will, but I think the building would be used mostly for more mature residents during school hours.

The issue is the same every time we look at this. Since we don't have adequate facilities in the first place, usage information, etc... we have no idea what the use of such a facility might be. We simply don't have a baseline to go from. Let's face it, like most places on the Lake our average resident age grows with each census - we are a retirement resort community up here. Would it be highly used or a red-herring? THAT is the question that is very very hard to answer (nobody knows). Because of that, both sides have to admit one thing. We can't demonstrate need for such a facility using any available information. That leaves it up to the resident to decide - would I use it or not? And what about my neighbor, would they? People have their own ideas. There will always be the "people of no" on anything that increases their taxes, and that's fine. I would like to think that most people are prepared to fund it if it will be used. But simply put, nobody can know this.

Most people are nervous about such an expense without some idea of how much it will be used... And that I can respect.

One thing that's true. For each year we wait the construction costs will increase. Some estimate that since year 2000 construction costs have gone up an average of 3% per year. So that means next year the same project will cost $150,000 more. The only thing that fluctuates is interest rates, and they likely will never be lower than now. So in the end, if we DO decide to do this thing, then we should do it sooner than later. I don't like spending money, but I REALLY don't like spending money when I could have spent it 3 years ago for the same thing and saved hundreds of thousands of dollars....

I have no issue with either side on this Rec Center - it's a hard one. I do agree in the end that the Lions Club is kind of a slam-dunk. We know what it does and we know its importance to the people here. Its impact is great. It's impact is also quantifiable (unlike the Rec Center). And the cost of fixing it is FAR lower. The more that it is coupled to the Rec Center as the same project, the more it suffers.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

Not quite.

At the last Charette Meeting in Moultonborough, the regional director of Meals on Wheels was totally and completely against this. She spoke at that Charrette meeting. That ladies comments seem to have been placed into the dust bin of comments.

Note that the kitchen in the Lions Club building was upgraded a few years ago to the tune of $40,000. The proposed renovations would have dismantled that new kitchen.

I wonder if most/many of the seniors that utilize the Meals on Wheels sit down meal were just plain satisfied with what is there now.

I can’t speak for all the seniors, but it appears that the ones who care enough to come out to vote do want a new or renovated community center. To generalize, the art. 5 vote would have passed had it not required a 2/3 majority. We left after the vote, but before the Art.5 results were known. As for art. 6, the vote was approximately 47 short of the requisite 2/3. Please don’t hold me to exact numbers...it’s what I recall and I think it’s pretty close.

[longislander]

Article 6, a $6.72 million project, received a vote of 253 in favor and 237 against.

Article 5, received a vote of 158 in favor and 153 against. It called for building a $3 million community center

https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news...8c93413d6.html

[phoenix]

Interesting to see 200 plus more Total voting on 6 vs 5. Did they chose out of order and people left ?

[longislander]

2nd email I sent to the select Board:

"I should have added"...or as otherwise determined by the voters at the meeting" from the statute, when I read the statute at town meeting, after the push to place article 6 in front of 5. This is what the article 6 promoters were pushing at the CDAC presentation. Like it really makes a difference with the same 2/3rds requirement. All it did was instill more conspiracy theory.

Couldn't believe the statement "if both articles passed" ... in what world! Not the same items and locations.
Same 2/3rds majority ... and the legal beagles thought MoBo is dumb enough to pass both of them!

If the town wants and votes both ,whatevers ... sue anybody, including state officials, if they get in the way. Let the NH Supreme Court decide what a town can do with its money."



First email:

"Would the select board ask town counsel what is meant in:

" RSA 33:8-a Procedure for Authorizing Bonds or Notes in Excess of $100,000. –
II. All articles appearing in the warrant which propose a bond or note issue exceeding $100,000 shall appear in consecutive numerical order and shall be acted upon prior...

Is "numerical" referencing the sequence on warrant articles, like 2020 articles 5 & 6 ... or the dollar value, $3 million , $6.7 million .

Here's a Feb. 2020 moderator teaching tool "for experienced moderators" from the NHMA.

" Articles must appear on warrant in order of the amount proposed, highest to lowest" (page 12)
https://www.nhmunicipal.org/sites/de...p_advanced.pdf


Also, same teaching tool: (page 13)
"After a majority of voters have voted on the First Bond Article, the moderator could then begin discussion on the Second Bond Article, announcing that while discussion proceeds on the Second Bond Article, ballots on the First Bond Article will be accepted for not less than one hour.The same would be true for voting on the Second Bond Article and discussion and voting on the Third Bond Article."

The tool mentions SB2 at the top of the first page but the statutes may be for traditional town meetings as well.
Or start looking for new counsel or NHMA advice."



It had been suggested to the BoS and moderator that discussions for both 5&6 occur before balloting and thereby have the mandatory one hour open ballot rule overlap. It would have reduced the hours we spent between waiting for the vote on 6 before starting 5.

Yes it is legal, and mentioned by the NHMA Chief Counsel.

[2thelakewego]

Hello. My husband and I would very much like to retire to Moultonborough in the near future. We are in our mid-60s. We are staying with friends in town and they love it and we want to be close to them and like the low tax rate.

I have been reading a lot about Moultonborough for the past year and following this Community Center issue here and also through our family. I have read posts and letters about both Article projects. From what I have read, and heard about the larger project ($6.7M) besides it costing more, (it is a larger building), I am unclear why people object to it. The smaller project seems to be just a new function hall.

Our friends brought home a booklet from town meeting about Article 6 with an FAQ document with links to other documents. There was a link to a study of the building site so I looked at it. To me, from reading the study, it looks like that property was okayed by an engineer to build on. And it looks like now there is already a road to access it.

The FAQs also mention that traffic was looked at on the DOT website and the number of cars are not different than the cars down closer to the roads that lead to the other building.

I exercise regularly at home now and would think for people of our age and older, having somewhere indoors to walk and take classes (if they are offered) during the day would be a good thing, especially in the long winters. In the booklet there was an article from the Conway Daily Sun about how important senior recreation is. Personally I agree, and I would like to see my husband exercise more.

Also, I was told that the person who talked about Article 6 at Town Meeting said that the cruise company on Rte 25 had pledged $15,000 and the water bottling company in town had pledged $10,000 to the project and a local furniture store had said they would discount furniture for the project. That sounds good.

The tax part seemed low, which I believe someone mentioned here on this discussion is $.14/$1000 so if my husband and I bought a $350,000 house (which is the range we are going to look in) it would be $49 per year? Also, someone here mentioned interest rates are very low, which is true.

It know this has been going on for a while and I am late to the party, but can someone explain what is the down side to the larger project if it fixes the issues with the older building so everything for the Seniors is there, and has the offices, and a gym which can be used during the day?

[mishman]

There were far less people voting on article 5 because the vote came late - literally 2 plus hours after the start of the meeting. Many of us did not feel comfortable being inside (mask and all) for that length of time. Some were outside at the beginning but the rain drove them to their cars or home. The town did their best on communications among the various locations but it was a long way from ideal - with sound cutting off regularly and confusion about what ballot to use for voting. In short, it was a less than ideal situation all around.

I agree with previous comments on several issues:

1. As someone who has been a town resident for only six years, my view is that town officials (employees and selectmen) are not as open to public participation as the town that I came from (where public input was welcomed, encouraged and listened to). Unscientifically, I feel this is part of the problem with the factions in town and with town leadership. The lack of public participation (and/or the inability or unwillingness to listen to public input -town charette and previous votes are examples) is at the heart of our town's problem. Few residents want to be in a middle ground/compromise position.
2. The town seems to operate in silos or fiefdoms. With decreasing enrollment in our schools, one would think we could find some compromise on availability of the current gyms for recreational use of children during summer and after school. When the adult pickle ball group wanted to explore the availability of the high school or grade school gym in the winter time, it was a flat no. There was no willingness to compromise or even discuss this creative option. Instead, they were relegated to the old gym/cafeteria and it was a grudging allowance at best.
Another example, the town library sale is an enormously popular even each Fourth of July weekend and raises significant dollars for the library. The biggest expense? Renting several large tents. Meanwhile the public safety garage housing fire trucks and emergency vehicles is 150 yards away. Why couldn't the trucks relocate or stay outside in a suitable location for three days and allow this large space to be used for the library sale? The answer I got (informally) was public safety would not allow this use. In the town I came from, the fire trucks were relocated several times a year so the space could be used for town events and fundraisers. My point is it is the unwillingness to think creatively to save money and use facilities efficiently. (and I also think for some residents just believe the town taxpayers can afford it, why not just build it.)
3. The town meeting process was a fiasco this year - largely due to Covid but also poor communication and haphazard decision making. If the town is to ever come together, we need to find a way to reach compromise that benefits all of us - to some degree. And the town leaders need to be much more open to listening to residents - all residents and invite them into the process to solve problems.

That's my two cents and probably what my thoughts are worth!

[tummyman]

Originally Posted by 2thelakewego

Hello. My husband and I would very much like to retire to Moultonborough in the near future. We are in our mid-60s. We are staying with friends in town and they love it and we want to be close to them and like the low tax rate.

I have been reading a lot about Moultonborough for the past year and following this Community Center issue here and also through our family. I have read posts and letters about both Article projects. From what I have read, and heard about the larger project ($6.7M) besides it costing more, (it is a larger building), I am unclear why people object to it. The smaller project seems to be just a new function hall.

Our friends brought home a booklet from town meeting about Article 6 with an FAQ document with links to other documents. There was a link to a study of the building site so I looked at it. To me, from reading the study, it looks like that property was okayed by an engineer to build on. And it looks like now there is already a road to access it.

The FAQs also mention that traffic was looked at on the DOT website and the number of cars are not different than the cars down closer to the roads that lead to the other building.

I exercise regularly at home now and would think for people of our age and older, having somewhere indoors to walk and take classes (if they are offered) during the day would be a good thing, especially in the long winters. In the booklet there was an article from the Conway Daily Sun about how important senior recreation is. Personally I agree, and I would like to see my husband exercise more.

Also, I was told that the person who talked about Article 6 at Town Meeting said that the cruise company on Rte 25 had pledged $15,000 and the water bottling company in town had pledged $10,000 to the project and a local furniture store had said they would discount furniture for the project. That sounds good.

The tax part seemed low, which I believe someone mentioned here on this discussion is $.14/$1000 so if my husband and I bought a $350,000 house (which is the range we are going to look in) it would be $49 per year? Also, someone here mentioned interest rates are very low, which is true.

It know this has been going on for a while and I am late to the party, but can someone explain what is the down side to the larger project if it fixes the issues with the older building so everything for the Seniors is there, and has the offices, and a gym which can be used during the day?

Welcome to the Forum.

In reading your note, there are some thing needing some clarification. First, the .14/$1000 is the mil rate per $1000 of property valuation. It has absolutely nothing to do with any mortgage financing. So not valid for any mortgage repayment calculation.

Second, the data from the DOT web site may not have been correctly interpreted. Traffic data on the NHDOT web site for 2016...the last year they posted information...traffic counts at RT25 east of Sheridan Road were 11,000. Traffic count on Old RT 109 was never measured. But traffic counts at RT109 south of Bodge Hill Rd. were 4,500. Nowhere does the DOT even mention Old RT109 traffic. It is false to try to equate traffic on RT25 and Old RT 109. However, when you look at traffic counts on RT109 in general, they are less than half of the volumes of RT25.

The "road" is not an access road. It is an emergency road for the Academy in case of a significant incident.

As far as I know, except for a couple of shallow test borings on the site, no other detailed engineering site evaluation has occurred, including ground water, drainage, traffic studies, excavation/foundation issues, etc.

[Susie Cougar]

Originally Posted by 2thelakewego

Hello. My husband and I would very much like to retire to Moultonborough in the near future. We are in our mid-60s. We are staying with friends in town and they love it and we want to be close to them and like the low tax rate.

I have been reading a lot about Moultonborough for the past year and following this Community Center issue here and also through our family. I have read posts and letters about both Article projects. From what I have read, and heard about the larger project ($6.7M) besides it costing more, (it is a larger building), I am unclear why people object to it. The smaller project seems to be just a new function hall.

Our friends brought home a booklet from town meeting about Article 6 with an FAQ document with links to other documents. There was a link to a study of the building site so I looked at it. To me, from reading the study, it looks like that property was okayed by an engineer to build on. And it looks like now there is already a road to access it.

The FAQs also mention that traffic was looked at on the DOT website and the number of cars are not different than the cars down closer to the roads that lead to the other building.

I exercise regularly at home now and would think for people of our age and older, having somewhere indoors to walk and take classes (if they are offered) during the day would be a good thing, especially in the long winters. In the booklet there was an article from the Conway Daily Sun about how important senior recreation is. Personally I agree, and I would like to see my husband exercise more.

Also, I was told that the person who talked about Article 6 at Town Meeting said that the cruise company on Rte 25 had pledged $15,000 and the water bottling company in town had pledged $10,000 to the project and a local furniture store had said they would discount furniture for the project. That sounds good.

The tax part seemed low, which I believe someone mentioned here on this discussion is $.14/$1000 so if my husband and I bought a $350,000 house (which is the range we are going to look in) it would be $49 per year? Also, someone here mentioned interest rates are very low, which is true.

It know this has been going on for a while and I am late to the party, but can someone explain what is the down side to the larger project if it fixes the issues with the older building so everything for the Seniors is there, and has the offices, and a gym which can be used during the day?

I’m trying to figure out what is most important to you. First, I am wondering where you are moving from. If you have not spent a winter in New Hampshire, it may be different than what you expect. I would certainly try to visit for a couple of weeks in the dead of winter to see how it feels.
You ask about the costs of many things.
You should probably expect to pay about $2500 to $3000 a year in taxes on a home worth about $350,000.
You asked about the lower mortgage rates as well, but I’m assuming that you own a home in your present location. Unless you’re moving from someplace extremely inexpensive, I don’t think you will have a problem financially.

If you’re hoping that the community center will be finished anytime soon so that you can use that for indoor exercise, I think you’re still in for a very long wait. There are too many things that no one can agree on.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by 2thelakewego

Hello. My husband and I

From what I have read, and heard about the larger project ($6.7M) besides it costing more, (it is a larger building), I am unclear why people object to it. The smaller project seems to be just a new function hall.

Some moving to Moultonborough may be millionaires. Some may have earned a very large salary. Some my be silver spoon babies who inherited lots of money. Others sell their 30 - 40 year old homes in NY, CT, NJ, MA - and make a huge profit.

For the locals here. Taxes are an important subject. Some live on pensions, some with Social Security, some have savings. Taxes may be "lower" in Moultonborough - but they are taxes just the same.

Politically, some think of "small" government. That the government should not be in the entertainment or recreation business.

Some think that the entertainment or recreation should be done by private enterprise. Not the government.

Some think that the two newer schools have enough gymnasiums and multi-purpose rooms already that are under utilized. Count them. There are plenty existing right now. Underutilized.

One of the camps on Long Island have a beautiful newer gymnasium that is under utilized and could be used by the town with a little financial help. Or rent.

There is a huge new gymnasium complex on Route 25B that is for sale right now. But that one is just over the line in Center Harbor. A strikingly beautiful complex that is empty and for sale.

The Town of Moultonborough has already purchased two vans that just sit at the town complex mostly underutilized.

Others do not mention the proposed sidewalk with traffic light costs associated with any complex. Those costs are "hidden".

Also hidden is the staffing and maintenance costs of any complex.

The Recreation Complex in Meredith although "new" is now needing expensive upgrades and repairs. A cost that is never mentioned.

These recreation complexes or gymnasiums or refurbishing have been on the town ballot for 9 years and have been voted down 9 times in 9 years. Down.

Yet each year this small cabal of folks keep asking for some massive complex and by doing so cause disharmony in the town.

The purchase of the former Lions Club property was a "bag" job done by the former superintendent of schools. No soil studies were ever done and the land proved to be mostly swampy and not buildable. A "con" job done by a town employee.

Maybe it is time for those who wish that this local government to extinguish this constant town turmoil and cease any warrant articles to construct a Taj Mahal complex. Paid for by a sizeable property tax increase for the next 20 years and longer if staffing and maintenance is thrown in. Never mind the increased costs of providing sidewalks and street lights as proposed by some.

There is plenty of recreation that already exists in the Lakes Region. No need to construct new taxpayer paid and expensive monuments for the few who dream of a utopia.