GilfordGrok

I think that this blog may start to be getting the response that we were hoping for - to give a voice to those that would otherwise remain silent as they fear (perceived or real; it matters not) retribution or bad reactions  from those that might know them. 

Here is one person (that I have vetted as living in Gilford) reaction to the updated assessments.

I'm sure the 10.9% budget proposal has you as up tight as I am. I think of your relationship with Doug & Neil and it reminds me of the "Tax Cap" they pushed thru in Laconia. I like the results of that so far. Maybe Gilford should not be far behind? I was a Mass resident (you probably were also) when the tax cap was implemented there and it had a very positive effect.

As near as I can tell, the 10.9% doesn't really touch the new house for the police - imagine that added on. I drove by the fire house yesterday while all doors were open and noticed all bays full - imagine what's next when the latest greatest fire truck arrives.

Note: I have corrected his percentage rate.... 

Guess you can tell from the couple of comments, I'm on your side - keep up the good work! 

MPBBH

=======================================

Subject:    So this is the Tax Abatement Procedure, eh? 

I thought it might be useful to share my perceptions of the proceedings relative to our Tax Abatement Application with the selectmen.

1. It is probably fairly typical that the Abatement Application follows an unsuccessful attempt to resolve differences with the Appraiser. This was the case with our property appraisal (an 87% increase). As a taxpayer with a difference of opinion on the appraisal put forth, it would seem reasonable that the abatement process directly involve the assessors (Selectmen). The application goes in to the appraiser’s office for his review and consideration. We filed in December of 2005. It is more than coincidence that the application was forwarded for hearing at the final Selectmen’s meeting prior to the deadline (July 1), and after my phone call to a selectmen. We appreciate your efforts.. Would the hearing have happened without the phone call? Our perception is NO, meaning it would automatically become a denial.

1. As the hearing proceeded it became apparent that the Selectmen had none of the data supplied in the Abatement Application. How can the Board seriously consider an application without the data provided? What this leaves is for the Board to simply take the recommendation of the Appraiser which the Board did. The land appraised value increase was reduced to a 71% increase from 87%,  in comparison to the average in the neighborhood of 43%.

1. Perhaps if the selectmen do not have the time and effort to dedicate to the process, a seperate Board of Assesors would make sense to hear a comprehensive appraisal issue.. We have always been willing to pay our fair share of taxes but are still not convinced that the current appraisal reflects a “Fair Share”. The result will be a lack of willingness on our part to vote for future capital improvements that further impact our property taxes.

Posted by Skip at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

PLEASE NOTE!

Oops! 

It seems that I have a few errors in my tables that describe the towns that were studied.  FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department spotted a couple of inconsistencies (Population Ranges, Valuation Per Capita chart, the Total Budgets by Town charts) that I need to review.  As needed, I will correct the data and signify the tables that have been changed with an UPDATE notification

So far, either I just fat fingered typing something in, or referenced the wrong spreadsheet cells for either the To Average or To Median numbers as to where Gilford stands - each table's corrections will show the old data and the updated results.

Speaking of which - so far, no updates have changed the relative standings of where Gilford stands with respect to the other towns.  If it does, I will report it back here. 

Hat Tip to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department  who alerted me to this.

-Skip 

Posted by Skip at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here is my column from the Gilford Steamer concerning the new food policies of the Gilford School District (a link to the Citizen  article, my column is here [the paper is free, online is paid], couldn't find it on the Steamer and the Daily Sun is not online):

Analytically Speaking

Disruptive Technology: A new technological innovation, product, or service that eventually overturns the existing dominant technology or product in the market.

The Gilford School Board recently announced updated nutritional and behavior policies seeking to have more healthy students. Dr. DeMinico, Gilford District Superintendent, had a Commentary (Steamer, 9/14) that outlined a number of changes in the nutritional, physical activities, and behavioral policies.

Let me loosely translate – the non-official message is two fold - they think our kids are fat and they now see, as part of their educational mission, that they are to take a leading role in reducing such fat in the aforementioned kids. When I read it, I immediately thought of the character on the Seinfeld show (“no soup for you!”).

How? Some outright NOs: caffeine, sports drinks, only 100% juice, low fat milk, or water, less fatty meats (does that mean that “mystery meat” is a thing of the past?), and smaller portions. More “healthy” foods such as veggies and fruits to be served. Seconds? Get real. Higher prices too.

The Citizen reported that High School Principal Ken Wiswell added the reason for so few food choices is because of the fact the new policies follow federal guidelines. “In the long run, it will be good for us all”. So is cod liver oil, but I don't see any runs on that happening any time soon either.

Now, I will be the last person to cast stones at the “chubby” category – looking at my Body Mass Index (used to determine if weight / height ratios are in balance), I'm over the norm, just like many pro basketball, baseball, and football players (to be honest, much of my mass, however, is no longer built of muscle).

However, it's not that I eat too much. Rather, like many of us, I am way under exercised. And that, my friends, is the problem. For kids, in this day of GameBoy, Nintendo, X box, email, text messaging, MySpace.com, Internet, and other sedentary activities, it isn't always that they are eating too much – it is that they are eating too much for the exercise that they are not doing.

I applaud the willingness of the School to be part of the solution by adding new sports programs in the last few years like football and lacrosse that appeal to those kids that have not shown interest in Gilford's traditional sports. But there is something that is nagging me.

The above nutritional altruism aside, I did note that some of the changes are strictly financially driven. NOT following the federal guidelines turns the money spigots off – anathema to public services. Taken somewhat cravenly, does this mean that our kids get less to eat so that other programs can be funded?

And my sense is that the School is taking more of an ownership position in student lives than in the past - “we have to get involved in our students' lives so that we can keep them from hurting themselves in any area possible, regardless if it is during school hours or on school grounds”. Regulating food consumption, dealing with bad or risky behavior at non-school activities, places, or times?

At what point was it decided that the School's “in loco parentis” role could be expanded into new areas that they have traditionally not been, such as what foods that can be send for celebrations, that behaviors outside of school time and grounds would be addressed by school officials (re: Canterbury's discussions a while ago about how to punish kids misbehaving while waiting for the bus?) Kids at private gatherings being punished for bad behaviors?

Isn't that straying into grounds that should be parental domain only? Isn't this more creeping Nanny State-ism?

Oh yeah, almost forgot - Disruptive Technology? This seemingly brand new technology that can pile-drive these new food regulations? Ya gotta hand it to those dang kids – sometimes they're pretty clever. Don't they understand that they shouldn't be doing an end around the policy that our officials spent all that time coming up with for their own good? The DT - a sandwich brought from home.

Imagine that, wanting foods that they like and not those they don't. Student Russ Hunter was quoted “There are not a lot of things to choose from and we are spending more money”. Gee, this is starting to sound like a consumer revolt – less choice at higher cost generally means that customers no longer patronize your services. Result: less revenues. Yes indeed – he continued to relate that other students were starting to bring in their lunches so they could eat what they wanted at a cheaper price.

What are the stats on food revenues?

Cross-posted at GraniteGrok 

Posted by Skip at 07:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Exercising the First    by Doug Lambert

Let’s join talking-dog Mr. Peabody and his pet boy Sherman on a trip to the past using the WABAC (pronounced “way back”) machine: Holding up a Citizen newspaper from 1998, the pet-boy exclaims, “Look, Mr. Peabody- this paper has an article written by Doug Lambert discussing the Gilford School Board’s reversal of a vote of the people! What’s that all about?”  Peabody nods and tells Sherman the story- Doug was on the original committee formed by a vote of the people at a special School District Meeting in July of 1997 that helped Gilford withdraw from a multi-town SAU, forming the present day single-school district SAU 73.

“It was quite revolutionary- the SAU Planning Committee, by unanimous vote, created an administrative structure to operate the Gilford School District without the use of a high-paid position of ‘superintendent.’ The voters, in March of 1998, approved the plan that called for an educational administrative organization- the ‘Administrative Cabinet”- and a ‘School Administrator’ with ‘strong executive ability.’ Additionally, the financial services would be contracted to the Town. Even the NH State Board of Education approved the plan, Sherman.”

 “Gee whiz, Mr. Peabody- what happened? What went wrong?” What went wrong was, after the vote at the annual School District Meeting, the school board decided that they had a better idea. Mr. Peabody tells Sherman to read from Doug Lambert’s 1998 piece about what the school board did to the plan: “Gone is the provision for contracted financial services from the town. Also missing is the ‘School Administrator.’ Instead, the Gilford School Board has hired a Superintendent and is now interviewing prospective Business Manager candidates and plans on hiring additional support staff beyond the Planning Committee recommendations.” Sherman stops. “The school board got away with this?” he asks. “They sure did,” replies Mr. Peabody. “Except for Doug and a few others, everyone remained silent when the school board thwarted the will of the voters.”

Sherman reads Doug’s parting words written December 17^th, 1998: “It really is too bad- instead of a forward thinking, sensible plan for Gilford, we are instead witnessing the birth of yet another empire.” He looks at Peabody, astounded by the accuracy of Doug’s prophesy. “He was exactly right, Mr. Peabody. It WAS the birth of a new empire!” The dog answers, “Precisely, my boy Sherman. Precisely!”

If anybody still doubts my prediction of eight years ago, I’m afraid you’re wrong- it WAS the birth of a new empire- and a very expensive one indeed. Despite repeated attempts at annual School District Meetings to remove the funding for the administrative structure in order to implement the will of the voters as expressed in 1997, the $uperintendent position lives on. And now, thanks to the current Gilford School Board, the “empire” has been rendered impregnable. The chance of eliminating the position of “$uperintendent” has been effectively killed due to early-morning actions by the school board back in June...

At 7:38 a.m., June 26^th, the Gilford School Board convened. (Note: morning, not evening) After a “non-public session the approved minutes of the meeting state “On a motion by Sue Allen and a second by Margo Weeks, the board voted to accept the written evaluation of the superintendent as proposed by Derek Tomlinson. It was a unanimous vote. On a motion by Sue Allen and Margo Weeks, the board voted to approve the contract extension of the superintendent by unanimous vote.”

Big news right? The $uperintendent’s contract renewed for five years. Oh? You didn’t know about it? That’s because, until now, it evaded the usual publicity that would accompany such an event: “Superintendent Rehired for Five More Years! Citizens Rejoice!” Where were the headlines? Perhaps they don’t want us to know the details?

The contract goes from now till June 30^th, 2011. Aside from standard verbiage, a few key points struck me upon my reading. The first was the clause effectively denying the elimination of his job: “The SAU may relieve the Superintendent of his/her duties under the Agreement at any time, provided that the SAU continues to pay for the duration of the Agreement.” Also included: 25 vacation days- 50 max cumulative; 15 sick days- cumulative for a maximum of 120 days (totaling 170 days possible accumulated days for the end of the contract); additional personal leave time as needed, with the SAU chair’s approval; full max family health insurance; family Delta Dental Ins. Plan IV; life insurance 3 times annual salary; taxpayer-funded memberships: “one annual membership to one local civic organization, one state professional association, and one national professional organization”.

His salary for this year is the tenth-highest in NH: $120,123 with guaranteed COLA increases and an optional salary renegotiation for the last two years. Oh, and he gets an “additional benefit” too: “Following five years of employment with the SAU, the Superintendent shall be eligible for deferred compensation of one year of a 2-person Gilford SAU health insurance plan... for every year of service to the SAU,” with credit given for the two years worked prior to this contract. “Throughout the benefit period, the health insurance plan will be the plan used by the District and paid in full by the District.” Even after he’s gone, he will cost the hapless taxpayers!

Sweet deal, eh? Too bad they forgot to tell us when it happened back in June....

Doug Lambert’s column appears Thursdays in the Laconia Daily Sun. For more, visit online at www.granitegrok.com and www.gilfordgrok.com. Email:  doug@granitegrok.com

Posted by Doug at 09:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GilfordGrok welcomes contributor ITObserver, who writes:

A shiny new fire engine.

Just goes to show, 2 yr-olds do get elected to town hall...

Always nice to see our civic leaders spending $350K for our safety. Well, not that they paid for it. In reality a 20yr bond means our kids will pay for it, and todays politicians will enjoy the hidden and personal kickbacks.

So, you're spending $350K on a shiny new truck. And you'll use it for parades and bonfires at the local football games. Did anyone ask? Does it fit in the existing firehouse? Or is the whole point to get a new firehouse because the old one is too little, and doesn't have an Olympic size weight room?

Instead of sitting around washing your truck and dreaming up new ways to spend your kids money, why not install smoke detectors and sprinklers in every house? Its cheaper, and doesn't require a big honking truck putting ruts in residential streets. Assuming it does fit the existing side streets, have you thought about banning

Street parking? No sense buying a shiny new fire engine just to find out everyone parks on the street and you still can't get to the house. Makes sprinklers seem like the smarter investment already, and installing sprinklers helps Joe.Public save on his homeowners insurance. Of course, with everyone having a sprinkler, you won't need a shiny new fire engine, so you may not need a paid full time fire department either. Now that's saving some real money. hmmm - a shiny new fire engine, or cutting taxes - oh the difficult choices you must make.

If its really that important to you, put your money where your mouth is. Find 35 families (or businesses) willing to take out a $10K home equity loan. I'm willing to bet you won't find the selectmen or anyone on the fire engineer board willing to walk the talk.

Perhaps it could double as a school bus..at least the kids will get some use outa what they'll be paying for.

Posted by The IT Observer at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Lush gardens...

Fascinating History. T-A Heritage Day Festival in the village...

Saturday football...

Posted by Doug at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Post Lists the Towns by Population Densities. 

Please note that Gilford ranks 19th and is 39.5% below the average population density and is 16.8% lower than the Median.

Posted by Skip at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Post lists the populations of the towns against which Gilford is being compared.

Update 1: Hat Tip: Thank you to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department who alerted me to some problems in the tables!

He noticed that the narrative and the percentages at the bottom of the chart were incorrect, and he was right.  The old narrative was: 

Please note that Gilford ranks 12th highest overall in terms of population.  It is 5.3% lower in population than the overall average, but 36.3% more than the overall median population.

The new narrative is:

Please note that Gilford ranks 12th highest overall in terms of population.  It is 4.7% Above in population than the overall average and 7.5% above the overall median population.

Posted by Skip at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Post outlines the amount of Area each town has within its border by Alphabetical order.  Subsequent Posts will re-sort the data by other values. 

Values are given in terms of square miles. 

The Density column is the Population Density -  the amount the Population from the previous Post / Land Area.  These values are computed using the Land value only.

This information is important as it will show both the span of area that must be patrolled by the Police Department and responding to calls by the Fire Department.  Larger areas / higher densities require more resources - the converse is also true.

Posted by Skip at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1: Hat Tip: Thank you to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department who alerted me to some problems in the tables!

The percentages that were at the bottom of this chart,

Were still tied to the VALUATION (in an associated table) instead of the PER CAPITA column shown here.  This means a change to

 Thus, Gilford is