2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

...

ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Both of these articles speak to a revamping of fire / safety codes here in Town. When they are read quickly, the first impression is "sure, who can be against more safety"?  Who can be against the idea of more fire alarms, more tools against the loss of life?

Well, my first reaction over the last few years has grown to almost always to:

• And the cost / benefit to this proposal?
• Is this a case of incrementally relinquishing of our freedom?
  

Now, I'm not a planning maven nor a fire expert.  However, I did ask Mr. Ayers the question as to the cost of Article 3 to future development:

approximately $50,000 for a such a cistern.

Thus, for a housing development of just 5 homes, it is an additional cost of $10K / per.  This, just on a simple basis, effectively eliminates the standard family home at around $250,000 cost and may have the unintended (intended?) push to slant future development to much bigger homes - effectively shoving Gilford towards a future where our sons and daughters of median incomes might not be able to build for themselves in the town in which they now reside.  It also will effectively raise the cost of "Work Force" housing as well.

Or force a clamor for an extension of the town water system in order to build. Or, this could shut down development altogether - which might suit some in town just dandy.

I also ask folks to reread what was written in the Jan. 14 version of the Gilford Steamer (Pg. A2) where Chief Hays was interviewed about this change in the fire code:

Although the overall document has not significantly changed, fire alarm system codes have been updated, as well as a section dealing with outside cooking devices and gas grills. Hayes added that some sections have been rewritten solely for clarification purposes before being resubmitted this year.

“It prohibits the use on any exterior deck on a multifamily dwelling (such as a condominium). You can’t have a gas grill on a deck anymore,” said Hayes.

Any multi-family dwellings, new or substantially renovated units, either/ or consisting of four units or three stories or more, will now require sprinkler systems, regardless of the height or width of the building, said Hayes. Although an increased risk of fires are probable in multiunit dwellings with outside kitchen appliances, Hayes said part of the fire code prevention change has to do with the department’s abilities as well.

“It is really a matter of the size and capability of our fire department. It puts all occupants at risk. It is larger than what we are capable of looking at, and gives us a better chance to control the fire,” said Hayes.

I had to reread this a couple of times; each time I came up with the same conclusion.  Even though I like Chief Hayes (and thank him for his years of service to the Town and wish him an excellent retirement), I am aghast at the assumption:

Because the Fire Department cannot handle a given situation because of a lacking on its part, we must make the act of simply cooking hot dogs, hamburgers, steaks, and the like, illegal. With that statement, my take away is that because the Fire Department is unable to assure the safety of a home's residents, the use of the Property Owner of his or her cooking a meal is denied?

Doesn't this totally shift the responsibility from the homeowner for an adverse outcome to the State (give me a moment for waxing a bit philosophical here)?  Isn't this restricting the freedom of an individual to do what is otherwise legal activity?  This is not Boston where there are streets upon streets of three-deckers effectively rubbing siding on siding here, where an ignition could literally take out a block of houses or more.

A more philosophical question: Does the Chief believe like many Statists, that the responsibility for the safety of its citizens resides solely with the State and not with individual responsibility of its citizens?

And do we wish to cede more control over our lives to Government and limit freedom? Cooking the family's steak on the deck may sound like a rather puny dispute, but when does it stop?  

I may sound like I am going stark raving mad, and there are certainly those that already believe that, but I ask you to think this through - do not revert to what sounds good at the moment but instead, consider the basic philosophical tenets of our society at its founding (that is, if you can truly remember or if you received that education in the beginning) - who is really responsible for you?

I urge you to vote NO on both Articles 3 and 11.

Posted by Skip at 06:14 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

The question is, what is the boundary between controlling the character of the town and the Right to Private Property?  And this year, which are those that are:

• Concerned with defining the character of the town?
• Concerned with safety issues
• Concerned with safety issues but have, in my opinion, crossed that line of the "common good" vs the individual Right to Private Property?
• Simply using the the coercive force of Government to destroy someone else's Right to Private Property (and the value thereof) so as to facilitate their own well being the value of their Private Property (AKA - the Stephen Nix vs Ames Farm Warrant)?
  

And yes, this is the Article that I stood up in opposition to at the Deliberative Session (the FIRST SESSION, above), that in my belief, is yet more "legalfare (e.g., legal warfare) leveled by Mr. Nix against the Ames's. Let me address this Article first.

Mr. "no boats for you" Nix, from my viewpoint, would like nothing more than for the Ames Farm to go defunct.  Frankly, his cause is just about the same as the person who JUST moves into either the flight path of the Laconia Municipal Airport (just gotta love that name...given that is located in Gilford) or right near it complaining about the noise.

Er, who was there first (and Ames has been operating for 120 years), Mr. Nix?  And to me, that is a fundamental issue.  He moved to his present residence well after the establishment of the business which, by most accounts, has been a positive venue for tourists in Gilford.

I'd be willing to bet, if his home was on the other side of town near Meadowbrook, he'd be complaining there too (er, still).

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a lawyer than can freely throw up obstacle after complaint after lawsuit after lament (you get the idea) and try to spend / annoy / limit / deny the rightful owners of their Right to the free use of their Private Property strictly for his benefit.

What was important was the question that I asked of John Ayers, Director of Planning and Land Use department: "Would this article, in your professional opinion,  adversely impact the operations at the Ames Farm?"

His answer: Yes

This is NOT, it seems, about the character of the town - it is all about what Steve Nix wants and will not stop until his wants are met.  There's a word that describes that kind of behavior....

I URGE you to vote no on Article 9

After all, what would YOU do if a lawyer or developer felt that his needs came before yours, and he is a "Johnny-come-lately" to the neighborhood?

(cross posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 02:23 PM | Permalink

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 1: To choose the necessary Town Officers for the following year; to wit:

One Selectman for a 3 year term
One Moderator for a 2 year term
One Trustee of Trust Funds for a 3 year term
Two Library Trustees for 3 year terms
Three Budget Committee Members for 3 year terms
One Fire Engineer for a 3 year term
One Cemetery Trustee for a 3 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 6 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 2 year term

Posted by Skip at 02:18 PM | Permalink

There are going to be four Petition Warrant articles concerning the mandating town taxpayers to give charity to professional charitable organizations:

• Article 26 - Laconia area of Community Action Program (you know, the folks that run the two Winnie buses that run around town, pretty much empty all the time?) for $8,762
  
• Article 27 - Youth Services Bureau for $26,000
• Article 28 - Genesis for $9,402.89
• Article 29 - New Beginnings for $2,000
  

I urge all to vote these down - but contribute personally to these if you so feel led.

My problem, and has been since I learned of this practice of local government supporting these organizations.  In the case of CAP, this money won't even be going to aid people who need it - it is to pay admin costs.  No one will lose out on help that might be needed.

NOTE: The CAP warrant describes the activities of how CAP helps - it is disingenous as written as we on the BudComm were told this money was for OFFICE EXPENSES.

I believe in limited government that then allows individuals the freedom to choose what they wish to support, or not.  When all of the "outside agencies" were inside the budget (forcing us all to vote up or down on the entire budget), they were "hidden" from view.  Now that they are presented in warrant form (except for the two this year that are in the budget BECAUSE of the warrant voting last year), they have the visibility they should have.

You may support these organizations and decide to vote for the warrants.  In doing so, you help to increase your own taxes.  However, this is also a case to ask yourself - am I being a friend to my neighbors, am I being compassionate to my friends in town, by forcing them to pay extra in their taxes at the same time just because I like this organization?  What if they don't?  Am I being the one that is helping to tip that elderly couple's finances just enough such that property taxes just will be enough to push them over the edge?  Who am I to take that freedom away from others to make that choice individually?

Is that the right thing to do?  Or is the better thing to do is to personally canvas those same people and see if they would voluntarily contribute to these organizations?

Remember, these organizations, no matter their arguments otherwise (for they want you to believe that they ARE part of government even as they are not accountable TO that government), receive lots of your tax money already at the County, State, and Federal levels.

I personally get tired of hearing the heads of these organizations that "we have to show that we have community support in order to get other grants".  When the NGOs were buried within the budget, what that actually translated to in reality is "we have to persuade a small number of politicians (2 Selectmen and 7 BudComm) members to not kick us out of the budget."

So tell me, is that really "community support"?  Nine people?  Or do the harder (but truer) work to actively seek those in the community to voluntarily contribute?

I plan on voting "NO" on these warrants.  The BudComm decided against recommending them all.   In my opinion, there is just too much duplication of services amongst all of the NGOs to support these folks with my tax dollars...

...and I do not want to force you to shell out your precious dollars during economic time either.

I want you to have the freedom, the liberty, of choosing with your own dollars whether to support them personally (and not raise your taxes).

Posted by Skip at 08:58 PM | Permalink

..

A petition with 65 signatures has been delivered to the Selectmen's office, effectively stopping their plan for a sweetheart deal with the non-profit Village Knolls group-- at least until the voters have their say at a special Town Meeting.

Here is the language of the petition:

As provided in RSA 41:14-a, and pursuant to RSA 39:3, we the undersigned registered voters of the Town of Gilford request the Board of Selectmen call a special Town Meeting to vote on “the proposed sale” of Town-owned land on 43 Potter Hill Road. We believe that the land must be sold as quickly as possible, without any special conditions favoring specific organizations, to a qualified buyer that submits the highest sealed bid offer.

The opposition consists of two camps: Those who don't wish to promote more tax-free or tax exempt subsets of citizens here in Gilford-- folks that won't feel the full impact of spending decisions made on voting day; and those that believe the village is already crowded enough in the area occupied by the parcel in question, and are concerned about the heavy impact of another multi-unit development.

Now we wait for the Selectmen to schedule the meeting. Waiting until the next annual meeting is NOT an option, by the way...

Posted by Doug at 03:59 PM | Permalink

Two “Grok” Thumbs - wish we had more!

This is the perfect opportunity for diverse students bring a range of skills to bring a single project to fruition.  This is not just engineering and building a robot, it is also marketing, public relations, fund raising, web site creation and maintainance, graphic designs, logistics, and a bunch of other skills.

This is theory and interests brought to a head just as in the real world.  Not one person can succeed, it takes a voluntary team united for a given purpose.

ARTICLE VI Citizen Petition – Gilford High School First Robotics Team

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Six Thousand Dollars,  ($6,000), to fund the registration fee and program materials for the Gilford High School FIRST Robotics Team. This will be an ongoing annual appropriation to be funded from general taxation. (Submitted by Petition)

School Board: Recommended Budget Committee: Recommended

Principle: Learning is just an intellectual exercise unless applied practically.  This is the epitome of theoretical application of knowledge.  Besides, it is just plain fun to watch the kids swarm over a problem with THEIR project!

Posted by Skip at 10:17 PM | Permalink

“Grok” Thumb - withheld

Last year, the Gilford Friends of Football tag teamed with the School Board to embed funding of Football into the overall budget.  This ignited a firestorm as it was shown that the GFoF had previously promised that when it was time, it would do as as a Warrant article.  Both the GFoF and the School Board bet on its success....and lost.  This year, they have fulfilled that promise and they are to be commended for it. 

Skip - I abstained on the recommendation vote of the BudComm; while nodding approvingly for the petition warrant, I am worried about future increases.

However, we can see that this may well be a harbinger of increased budget requests going forward - after all, when the Varsity reached the finals, the NHIAA imposed regulations on the final game for equipment et al.  The 'Grok also has concerns about the continued level of fundraising - will that actually happen or will taxpayers be forced to fill in the gap?

Further, given a new need for locker rooms that will meet requirements, once again we see additional dollars spinning as fast upward as the DOW spinning downward.

ARTICLE V Citizen Petition – Gilford High School Varsity and JV Football

To see if the school district will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of Thirty ThousandDollars, ($30,000) to fund a varsity and junior varsity football team for Gilford High School. Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars, ($7,500), will be raised from gate receipts, fund raising and concession sales; the balance of Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($22,500) is to come from general taxation. This will be an ongoing annual appropriation and part of the operating budget to be funded from general taxation. (Submitted by Petition)

School Board: Recommended               Budget Committee: Recommended

Principle: The Gilford Friends of Football is bringing this matter to the taxpayers as they promised years ago. It will add significantly to the budget in years to come.

Posted by Skip at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

One 'Grok - One Thumbs up 

BUMPED and UPDATED:

We talked, and have decided to endorse this article. 

============================== 

The 'Groksters are talking...we're talking....and will talk a little bit more

Go ahead, leave a comment and talk to us. 

Article 7:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to be added to the Police Facility Capital Reserve Fund previously established.  This sum to come from undesignated fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee) 

Principle: TBD

Recommendation: We're talking - we'll get back to you when we've figured it out (up, down, or split decision)

Posted by Skip at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

We have no problem with commercial entities that spend their capital for signage to show whatever they want, when ever they want, and how they want.  As you can see, we're not all that enthused over the planning ordinance here. 

Article 2:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs, by adding to the existing Section 8.4.8 regulations regarding Electronic Changeable Copy Signs.  The proposed regulations limit the frequency at which messages are allowed to change; restrict hours of operation; and prohibit certain display methods including, but not limited to, flashing and image movement.

Principle: Private Properties rights.  If they are in the Commercial district, don't think us all so stupid that we adults will lose utter control of our vehicles just because a sign is changing.  Plain condescending (or appeals to those that wish to be overly "orderly")

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "No" on all of this article. 

Posted by Skip at 10:25 PM | Permalink

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down 

We believe that this is being brought by those, having moved in lately into the area and are not happy having to share it with businesses.  Steve Nix; I believe he lives in that area and he spoke in favor of the motion at the Public Session.

Our take?  This is like people who knowingly move near an airport and upon getting annoyed at the air traffic, want the hours of operation shortened because of the noise (our wants trump your rights).

Our feelings are primarily over what has been there (the Ames Farm, the Stephenson business, et al) a long, long time FIRST.  This feels like "we cannot shut it down, so let's use the leverage of government to make it difficult for them so they will give up and shut down".

Want another example? Think the Cheapo Depot problem and the Laconia folks who looked down at this business as "we want better" and used regulations to almost put them out of business.

Note to those residents: It was there before you moved there; if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have moved there.

Article 4:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by petition for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Gilford by changing from the Resort Commercial (RC) Zone to the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone the area along the southwesterly side of Route 11, a/k/a Lake Shore Road, generally between the Alton town line and Highland Drive.  (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.)

Principle: Private Property rights should not be abridged just because you are annoyed with the general environs (as long as they are otherwise following the law)

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO!" on  this article. 

 

Posted by Skip at 09:54 PM | Permalink

One 'Grok Thumb Up 

Awfully expensive...big ticket item.  Yet, because of the Town putting money away earlier, we won't get zapped as much this year. 

Article 6:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of two hundred fourteen thousand dollars ($214,000) to purchase a new ambulance and authorize the withdrawal of one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) from the Capital Reserve Fund created for that purpose.  The balance of one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000) is to come from general taxation.(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: putting money away a bit at a time works.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of this article.

Posted by Skip at 09:42 PM | Permalink

'Grok Thumb Up 

Like the later articles (13 - 16), they make sense.  We will be spending this money in the future, so let's put some away now. 

Article 8:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 9:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 10:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Ambulance Replacement Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 11:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of the maintenance of the Glendale Boat and Launch Ramp Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: put money away so as to not spike the tax rate later when the bill comes in.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of these articles.

Posted by Skip at 09:30 PM | Permalink

'Grok - neutral 

I will probably be voting no; I understand the longer term ramifications, but I'm not convinced that the amount of the monies needed will spike the tax rate.

Article 12:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of maintaining the Town’s Recreation Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: Capital Reserve Funds, IMHO, should be for larger amounts.

Recommendation: your call. 

Posted by Skip at 09:20 PM | Permalink

One 'Grok Thumb Up

Run of the mill; "sure" - they make sense.  'Nuff said. 

Article 13:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be placed in the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 14:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Water Supply Maintenance and to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. 
(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 15:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Compensated Absences Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 16:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Building Repair Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: putting some money ahead of time keeps the tax rate steadier.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of these articles.

Posted by Skip at 09:11 PM | Permalink

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down

There is certainly much angst about this new "free" library both within the Selectmen.  The Selectmen  decided to not fund new Budget requests that the Library Trustees had made (and the BudComm supported) but then decided to give the following money to the Trustees (and the BudComm first did not recommend and then, with a later vote flip, supported).

Article 17:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $110,000 for use by the Library Trustees at the new library.  Funding to be provided from the proceeds of the sale of land at 43 Potter Hill Road, parcel number 226-078.001.  This parcel was purchased in 2004 to build a new library.  This article is a one time appropriation and is contingent upon adequate proceeds from the sale of the land.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: we believe that the the money should be returned to the citizens as the Library Trustees both built their own project and on their own land.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO" on all of this article.

Posted by Skip at 09:00 PM | Permalink

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down
(Wish we had more thumbs...) 

We are philosophically opposed to the use of local property taxes to fund these charities / Non-Governmental Organizations / Outside Agencies.

It is much easier to convince a few elected or appointed officials to give taxpayer money to them so that is why their concentration on Government instead of the citizenry. I believe that charity, and the donations to charities, should be an individual choice - the voluntary giving of one's personal funds is a true act of charity.

Governmental bodies giving tax money to charities is neither charity nor voluntary on behalf of the taxpayers.

Remember, if you vote "yes" to all of these, you are raising taxes by  $81,435.  While you may individually be in favor of one or more of these organizations, ask yourself "Is it right to coerce your neighbor to support that otherwise they would not"?

Personally, I have my slate of charities that I give to - I really do not want to give to this set and would rather be able to give my money to those I believe deserve it better.

Article 18:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $32,359 for the Youth Services Bureau.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 19:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $23,500 for Community Health and Hospice,Inc.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 20:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,400 for Child and Family Services.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen,  Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 21:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,345 for the Community Action Program.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 22:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $1,800 for New Beginnings.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 23:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,749 for Genesis Behavioral Health.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 24:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,330 for the American Red Cross.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle:  Charity, by definition, is an individual choice and decision, not governmental.  It is not Charity when tax money has to be given to fund a charity.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO" on all of these article.

Also, our recommendation to these NGOs is to reach out to citizens instead  of the Towns; solicit charitable donations and not tax money.

Posted by Skip at 08:24 PM | Permalink

Two 'Grok Thumbs Up

We have not amused at the politics being played out in and around the Town Clerk / Tax Collector's office lately (Who is Yanking Who'se Chain?).  We support Denise in her efforts of watching out for the independence of this elected office. 

Article 25:  To see if the Town will vote to pay the Town Clerk/Tax Collector an annual stipend of $57,952.  In addition the Town Clerk/Tax Collector shall be entitled to 95% of the premium for the town’s health insurance plan, 100% of the dental insurance premium, 100% of the short and long term disability plans, life insurance with a face value of 165% of the annual stipend (not to exceed $100,000).  Additionally, the Town will continue making contributions to the NH State Retirement System at the effective contribution rate (currently 8.74%).  Total value of package is $74,588. 

Principle: Public servants should be paid....even if they are elected. 

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes".

Question - being the Manager of a department, is this at a rate equivalent of the other department heads?   I guess it may be time to review salary and salary burdens again.......soon.....

Posted by Skip at 08:17 PM | Permalink

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in town affairs:

First Session

You are hereby notified to meet for the first session of the annual meeting, to be held at the Gilford High School Auditorium, Gilford, NH on the fourth day of February 2008 being Monday at seven o’clock  in the evening (7:00 pm).  The first (Deliberative) session will consist of explanation, discussion, and debate of each of the following warrant articles, and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article, except those articles whose wording is prescribed by state law. 

You are also notified to meet for the second session of the annual town meeting, to elect town officers by official ballot and to vote by official ballot on the warrant articles as they may have been amended at the first session, to be held at the Gilford Middle School on the eleventh day of March 2008, being Tuesday, at seven o’clock in the forenoon (the polls are to be open at 7:00 am and may not close prior to 7:00 pm) to act upon the following:

Article 1:  To choose the necessary Town Officers for the following year.

Article 2:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs, by adding to the existing Section 8.4.8 regulations regarding Electronic Changeable Copy Signs.  The proposed regulations limit the frequency at which messages are allowed to change; restrict hours of operation; and prohibit certain display methods including, but not limited to, flashing and image movement.

Article 3:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend subparagraph (a) of Section 5.2.1,  Island and Shore Frontage District, by increasing the minimum setback required from Lake Winnipesaukee, Saltmarsh Pond, Lily Pond, Poor Farm Brook, Meadow Brook, Jewett Brook, Gunstock River, or any other year_round brook, from forty (40) feet to fifty (50) feet.

Article 4:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by petition for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Gilford by changing from the Resort Commercial (RC) Zone to the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone the area along the southwesterly side of Route 11, a/k/a Lake Shore Road, generally between the Alton town line and Highland Drive.  

(The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.)

Article 5:  Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,825,284?  Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,874,772 which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.  NOTE: This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles.  

Continue reading "Warrant Articles - Town - 2008" »

Posted by Skip at 06:15 PM | Permalink

Town truck idling in donut shop parking lot approx 6:20am 6/19/07 

I hand delivered this to the Board of Selectmen:

June 19, 2007

To the Selectmen

Town of Gilford, NH

As you know, at this year’s Annual Meeting, voters adopted Warrant Article #30, the so-called “Gilford Climate Change Resolution”.

On Election Day, the measure’s supporters passed out literature (a copy of which is attached to this letter) noting that

Climate change is hurting our community, our state, our way of life.

The handout encouraged Gilford voters to

Vote YES on #30 to:

• Urge National Leaders to act against Global Warming
• Encourage real reductions of greenhouse gasses while protecting our economy and supporting alternative energy
• Create a committee in Gilford to reduce energy use and save taxpayer money
  

It further urged those taking a ballot to

Tell our elected leaders that you want action.

Your children and grandchildren will appreciate your YES vote on the Climate Change Resolution—Warrant # 30

Posted by Doug at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

No, I don't have the background to  get in on the inside of some of the global warming models myself (anymore).  However, I did start making the switch from biology to computer science in doing some (rather) crude computer models way back when.

In contemplating your vote on Warrant Article #21, consider the claims made by those touting the results of the various global warming climate models:

From the American Thinker, a chemical engineer speaks to the difficulties of modeling small tightly controlled environments and applying the lessons learned to that for the largest system in the world:

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

 Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers.  The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later.

 

Continue reading "Global Warming - comments on models" »

Posted by Skip at 08:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Article 21 on the ballot concerns itself with Global Warming.  With Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" (trying to persuade us that we have an immediate crisis and HAVE to change our ways) winning an Oscar, and then the inconvenient truth about his personal lifestyle being made public (e.g., using 220,000 kilowatt hours per year, versus about 10,000 for the typical family), there are a lot of people and scientific facts that are now throwing water on the idea of a consensus having been formed.

It seems that a consensus that man is causing that is only a consensus of those that believe it.  And not all scientists believe it.  Let's start with this:

As NewsBusters previously reported, there is a climate change skeptics conference going on in Canberra, Australia. One of the function’s organizers is the influential Lavoisier Group whose co-founder Ray Evans has written a fascinating publication on this subject that the media and global warming alarmists would hate for Americans to read.

Simply called “Nine Facts About Climate Change,” this piece carefully outlined the major issues concerning the anthropogenic global warming debate while countering claims by the alarmists including former Vice President Al Gore.

Evans wonderfully categorized the problem at hand in his introduction (emphasis mine throughout):

In January 2006 I wrote a pamphlet entitled Nine Lies about Global Warming in which I sought to summarise for the lay reader the state of the debate about increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and the widespread predictions of catastrophic global warming which would ensue as a consequence of man’s use of fossil fuels. Despite the inherent scientific implausibility of these predictions, and the complete lack of empirical evidence to support them, a number of current political leaders and former leaders, notably UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, former US Vice President Al Gore and Australian Labor Leader Kim Beazley, have embraced these predictions. The Environmentalist movement throughout the West has united behind global warming as its primary campaign ambition, and the political power of the Environmentalist movement has generated very large expenditures as a consequence.

 Evans’ introduction continued:

The science debate is at the heart of the global warming campaign. On one side of that debate we have those prominent scientists who preach the gospel of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-generated global warming. Without exception, their careers have been made in the shadowy world where science and politics intersect; a world described by the once celebrated but now forgotten novelist of the 1950s, CP Snow. Lord May and Sir David King in the UK, and James Hansen in the US, are outstanding examples of the genre. On the other side of the debate is a long and growing list of scientists whose careers have been built on successful research into the extraordinarily complex physics and chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, and the influence which the Sun has on the earth’s climate. The most recent example of devastating critique of the anthropogenist carbon dioxide school comes from William Gray, the doyen of American hurricane scientists.

After his introduction, Evans elaborated on the following nine facts:

1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th CenturyWarm Period 1900–2010 AD.

Continue reading "Global Warming" »

Posted by Skip at 08:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

These are the articles that will be on the ballot March 13.  They are as is - no commenting in this posting.
 

Warrant Articles – 2007

Article 1. To see if the town will raise and appropriate the sum of $1,025,000 to purchase the development rights on the Bean property (map & lot numbers 228-012 & 210-034), which borders Saltmarsh Pond and to authorize the issuance of not more than $1,025,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33) and to authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereon. (Passage of this article shall override the ten percent limitation imposed on this appropriation in the event of non-recommendation by the Budget Committee) The Selectmen recommend this appropriation. The Budget Committee recommends this appropriation. 3/5 majority vote required.

Note: this was changed at the Deliberative Session to add back in the $13K for the NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations.

Article 2. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a long-term lease/purchase agreement with no non-appropriation clause, to purchase a new fire truck in the amount of three hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($325,000) payable over a term of three years and to withdraw one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) from the Fire Equipment Capital Reserve Fund for the first year’s lease payment. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation. 3/5 majority vote required.

Article 3. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,659,122. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,449,495, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only. This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles. The Selectmen recommend this appropriation. The Budget Committee recommends this appropriation.

Continue reading "Warrant Articles - Town - 2007" »

Posted by Skip at 10:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Article 15. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Recreation Revolving Fund pursuant to RSA 35-B:2 II. The money received from fees and charges for recreation programs and donations shall be allowed to accumulate from year to year, and shall not be considered to be part of the Town’s general fund. The Town Treasurer shall have custody of all monies in the fund, and shall pay out the same pursuant to the policy developed by the Town (upon order of the Board of Selectmen). These funds may be expended only for recreation purposes as stated in RSA 35-B, and no expenditure shall be made in such a way as to require the expenditure of other town funds that have not been appropriated for that purpose.

Twenty one Warrant Articles will be presented to the voters this year on the Town side. One has to do with the Parks and Recreation department. By all accounts (including mine), Herb Greene, the new Director, did a very good job of presenting the needs of his department. He also held up well under intense scrutiny of the Budget Committee of his budget has when the topic of increasing programs and staff came up. Certainly what disturbed Budget committee members was a philosophical one and of serious debate: what is the proper role of local government? At what point is government stepping in because parents aren't?

Unlike some functions of the Town like road maintenance and safety services which are “needs”, Parks and Recreation is a “want”. To better illustrate the terminology, consider the following scenario – often in severe winter storms, state workers that are “non-essential” stay home. While Police, Fire, and DPW workers would be considered “essential”, Parks and Rec workers would not.

Please don't get the wrong impression – this department adds to the overall quality of life here in Gilford (otherwise it would not exist). However, the contention is that this department was exhibiting behavior that many in the government do – wanting to expand and wishing to increase their level of service. Which, of course, increases budgetary needs. While this is true also in the private sector, the stark arbitrator of profit hold this “scope creep” to a minimum. There is often no such direct governor in local government outside of the Budget Committee – as always, it is easier to say “yes” to new programs and staff than to say “no”, especially nascent ones for kids, right?

The philosophical debate can be framed as “should government continue to expand into areas that chould be run by private citizens?”. In this case, why should Parks and Recs be spending time (and money) aggregating kids for a ski program that parents could easily do on their own? Certainly families can arrange trips to see a Red Sox game, right? At what point should parents be banding together to run programs instead of being dependent on growing government to provide yet another service?

Because some Budget Committee members raised the question, a vociferous debate ensued with those that felt that government should be always be able to continue to provide more and more services. And got upset that those BudComm members just wouldn't understand that the quality of life always overrides the need to use other peoples' money to fund it. After all, when the Warrant was originally approved by the Selectmen, the Citizen quoted Dennis Doten, chair of the Board of Selectmen, said that,

“with the change, the budget committee will no longer have to look over each program”.

Wow!  Trying to lighten the load of the BudComm! Methinks the thinking might have been:

“Now, the BudComm can no longer delete a program.”

By placing this mechanism in place, the Selectmen are effectively removing a portion of Town expenses and income from the oversight of the Budget. After all, they can't say no if they can't see it!

Tangental Note:

As I found out, there is a LOT more time and effort needed to adequately and properly analyze the Town and School Board budgets than what I would have ever thought.  There is a lot of preparation, there are a lot of meetings, and yes, calls to make sure that schedules and information is correct.

For those that have publicly stated that the attempts of the BudComm to slow the rise of spending were "arbitrary" or that we were "ignorant" in doing so, you are quite mistaken.  Frankly, my observation of most of those that have done so is that I could count the number of times they came either not at all or seldom enough that I could use, as the old saying goes, use one hand and still have fingers left over.

The Warrant does speak of donations to the Parks and Rec department. I have no problems with a revolving fund into which citizens can put money in to for funding these governmental services, above and beyond their necessary taxes. Anyone at any time can make donations, and I would encourage people to do so.

Don't get me wrong - kids need activities.  I just have a problem when some people have a knee jerk reaction that all needs have to solved by government because "parents are too busy; it is a different time than when you were small".  I obviously have problems with that philosophy - being a "tail ender" of the Boomer generation, I realize the impact of what the "Me" Generation has had - and that narcissim / lack of responsibility that is now passed to the subsequent generation. 

Part of this is a circular reason - when the $30 million Town/School budget is divided up by the 7400 residents, it is a cost of $4,054 / person.  Not voting person, not taxpayer, but each person.  I often hear that both parents have to work to make ends meet, thus government has to step in.  How come I don't hear from these same people, "hey, the reason why both parents have to work is partly because taxes are so high!".  If they were so concerned with families overall quality of life, they'd be spending their time trying to aid families keep more of their money instead of spending it for them because "we know better than you that some of you need this service more".

Here is another way to frame the question:

did the Warrant Article go too far, or not far enough?

For an expenditure of almost a quarter of a million dollars, serving what the Mr. Greene admits is a small number of residents at a cost of about a couple of hundred dollars per person for targeted programs (the Gilford Beach operation excepted), I ask the question:

Should the Warrant have privatized the Parks and Recreation department altogether?

or

The funds received by the  Parks and Recreation department from fees and charges shall be put into that revolving fund and the overall governmental funding be decreased by the same amount.

Anyways, in the vast majority of cases dealing with kids (which P&R does), parents are the key, not government.  Instead of providing an easy "out", sometimes we should be prodding them a bit more and also making it easier for them to do so. 

After all, government workers will almost always never love kids more than their parents, right? 

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