Hail Mary Pass

Posted on Thu, May 9, 2013 by overeasy

That’s how Wright Pierce’s attorney’s characterized Wolfeboro’s attempt to amend their lawsuit to include allegations of fraud.  Their objection lays-out our attorneys, chapter and verse,  for “cherry picking” emails and advancing allegations based on “pure speculation and innuendo”.

Additionally, they argue that our lawyers didn’t even get right their brief about applicable law under which an amended complaint can be filed.  The court agreed in their denial of the amended complaint.

In their summary, WP’s attorney’s say:

For all of the above reasons, this Court should deny Wolfeboro leave to amend its Complaint because the good cause standard has not been met. The purpose of Rule 16 is to “assure that at some point . . . the pleadings will be fixed.” O’Connell , 357 F.3d at 154. Although Wolfeboro has cherry-picked phrases of emails and quoted them out of context, Wolfeboro has failed to satisfy the heightened pleading standard and particularity requirements under Rule 9(b). Specifically, Wolfeboro has not specified the time, place, and content of an alleged false or fraudulent misrepresentation, and, therefore, has only demonstrated the futility of the claims it seeks to assert which amount to “nothing more than ‘[a] Hail Mary pass.’”

I can’t wait for the trial.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | 2 Comments

Amended complaint denied in RIB case

Posted on Thu, May 9, 2013 by overeasy

Today, the court rejected Wolfeboro’s request to amend the complaint against Wright Pierce engineers to include allegations of fraud.  The ruling gets pretty technical in describing the various requirements for amending the complaint, but what I get out of it is that under the schedule agreed on by both parties, the deadline for amending was Nov 30, 2012.  In order to amend after that, Wolfeboro would have to show “just cause”.

Apparently, the court was unimpressed with the reasons provided.  The motion was “denied without prejudice to file a properly supported motion”.  So our lawyers are free to churn this some more and generate more fees from improperly prepared or unsupported allegations.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on Amended complaint denied in RIB case

WP Objects to Amendment of Complaint

Posted on Tue, May 7, 2013 by overeasy

Today, Wright Pierce’s attorneys filed an objection to the amended complaint filed by Wolfeboro.  You will recall that the modeling consultant that was hired by WP to model the site mentioned to the WP engineers that there was something not right about the elevation of one of the monitoring wells.  He had tried to cross reference it to the topographical maps and suspected that it might be off.  Here’s what he said:

“Neil, if you and Pete concur, would you have either Voltz [the surveyor] or internal WP staff reshoot MW7.  I don’t want to have this discrepancy picked up by reviewers and have it raise questions about the accuracy of the model and it’s results.”

Our attorney’s were all over this.  Citing the second sentence out of context to imply that the modeler was being careful to avoid close scrutiny of what they claim is shoddy work.   In actuality, the guy had picked up and corrected other surveying errors and was being meticulous to insure that he followed through on every detail.  This is the guy that our attorney’s are accusing of blatantly offering to falsify the model results to hide WP’s alleged mistakes.

In their objection, WP has cited an email (mapping error memo) confirming that there was indeed a survey error and it was verified as a transcription error by the surveying subcontractor.  And this email (survey error rerun) detailing that WP absorbed the substantial additional expense to rerun all of the simulations with the corrected elevations.

These exculpatory emails had been supplied to our attorney’s months ago.  So while our attorneys were trying to destroy the reputations of WP and their associates by claiming that they brushed this error under the table, they had already received a full description of WP’s meticulous attention to this detail and their efforts to insure the integrity and accuracy of the modeling.

I wonder if we can get the internal memos from our attorney’s to see exactly how they handle this internal error.  Do we get the bill for their preparation of professional character assassination of WP at hundreds of dollars an hour?  Count on it.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on WP Objects to Amendment of Complaint

Back at you

Posted on Sun, May 5, 2013 by overeasy

I keep reading those WP emails, trying to see the deceit and dishonesty that our attorneys find there.  Maybe if you know the WP engineers, or have access to other evidence, it’s obvious, but strictly reading the emails that they present, my impression is that it goes the other way.

So I have to wonder exactly how this is supposed to work?  We claim that the emails prove WP knew that the RIB wouldn’t work at 600,000 gpd, and hid that from the town.  Meanwhile, they also say that WP wanted to have the highest capacity RIB in he country at 800,000 gpd to enhance their professional reputation.  How does building the largest RIB in the country that doesn’t work enhance their reputation?

In fact, what I see is cautious optimism, and it gives me some respect for WP’s integrity.  Not so much for our lawyers.  It looks more to me like they’re trying to up the ante to force a settlement.  Makes me want to take a shower to know I’m paying for it.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on Back at you

New allegations in RIB lawsuit

Posted on Fri, May 3, 2013 by overeasy

The town is filing an Amended Complaint in the RIB lawsuit that contains a new Allegations of Fraud.  In the process of discovery they have reviewed Wright Pierce’s  (WP) emails, included as Amended Complaint Exhibits, and seem to feel they have uncovered a deliberate case of fraud.  In amending the case they are also now asking for treble damages.

Here’s the bullet:  WP hired a specialist to develop a computer model of the RIB operation.  They wanted to use it to predict the “mounding” (That’s the rise in water level under the RIB that spreads out across the water table) and the time it would take for the effluent to reach various key points such as wetlands and nineteen mile brook.  These are questions the State wanted answered for the permitting process.

Throughout the early design, the model was tested at various steady state loads – that’s a time period long enough that everything reaches equilibrium and nothing changes from day to day.

Early in the process, runs were made at various flow rates:  600,000, 800,000, and 1,000,000 gallons per day (gpd).  The most conservative model (that means worst case) indicated some potential “breakout” at 600,000 gpd.  Our attorney’s are saying that this means that WP knew from the start that it couldn’t handle the design flow, and that they covered it up.

The modeler said he could make the breakout “go away” by changing various parameters of the model.  Our attorneys are saying that he was offering to doctor up the model to get the RIB approved.  I read that email and, as an engineer,  it sounds to me like he was saying that the breakout scenario was the most conservative (worst case) assumptions and that if any of the parameters are actually more favorable, the problems “go away”.

The attorneys allege that in the memo, the modeler says that he was provided with insufficient data to accurately construct the computer model.  What I read is that he had insufficient data to model the breakout area well enough to determine if there isn’t already a spring or other outflow there.

Early on, the WP project guy mentioned in an email back to the office from his February vacation to the Caribbean that he would love to have the RIB permitted for 800,000 gal and also stated that would be the highest rated rib in the country.  Our attorney’s are saying that proves WP defrauded Wolfeboro to gain bragging rights.  It’s easy to believe that WP would want the highest possible capacity, and indeed, I bet Mr. Ford wanted the same thing.  The attorney’s don’t bring this up but in a later email it is revealed that the most compelling reason to shoot for 800,000 gpd was so that the town could rely on the RIB alone without the effluent storage pond (ESP).

The fact is that they eventually got a permit for 600,000 and these emails clearly show that  WP was not comfortable with 800,000 gpd and intended to develop a usage protocol that included buffering peak loads in the ESP.

WP is faulted in several of the allegations for not disclosing work-in-progress to Mr. Ford.  In those cases, it looks to me like the information in question was either incomplete or verbal.  It seems like it would have been irresponsible and counterproductive to keep Mr. Ford apprised of the day-to-day problem solving that is, after all, what engineering work is.

It is true that WP told Mr. Ford that the site could handle 600,000 gpd while they were aware of breakout problems in the worst case simulation at that rate.  At the time the 600,000 gpd breakouts were being discussed, it seem as if the final location of the various RIB beds had not been determined, so I’m not sure if that problem was resolved by actual design changes before the final report was made.  There is an exchange where WP asserts that even though the simulation people are saying 800,000 and 1,000,000 are OK, they believe that breakout does occur at 800,000.

While WP had confidence in the 600,000 gpd average rate, they seem to have been reluctant to advocate for flows of 800,000, even if offset by lower flows in preceding months.  They seem to have explored it, but indicated that the average was better achieved by maintaining 600,000 gpd using the ESP as a buffer.

In reading through the emails, I didn’t get the slightest notion that WP was doing anything other than straightforward honest engineering.  It’s true that the system today has a significantly lower capacity, and that perhaps mistakes were made. Maybe WP is incompetent, or was negligent, but there are brutally honest post failure emails from the simulation guy that says he suspects that the assumptions about the composition of the soils was off.  From these emails I think they sincerely believed that it would work fine at 600,000 gpd.

All this happened in Feb and March.  WP incorporated the results of the modelling in it’s phase III hydrological study and the town subsequently had it reviewed by Weston & Sampson (W&S).  They recommended some changes to the modeling parameters which I understand were done, and the results were the basis for approval of the 600,000 gpd permit by NHDES.

The town, during the first three weeks of operation, ran the thing at much greater than 800,000 gpd.  I don’t have any documentation of the instructions given to Mr. Ford about how to commission the RIB, but that seems to be when the damage was done.  It seems like it would have been prudent to run the thing at 600,000 gpd or less until steady state was achieved and the model could be re calibrated to real world conditions.  In trying to calibrate their model better using real data from the first month, they were hampered by confusing data that was collected by our operators Woodward and Cullen.

The modeller says that he had requested more monitoring be included in the project so that he could better correct the model to real world conditions once it was started up.  That scope of work was rejected, though it’s not clear if it was rejected by WP or the Town.

The town has said that they were told that the RIB could handle 600,000gpd average and that means that it could handle higher loads in transient mode.  I haven’t seen any evidence of that produced in either the original or amended complaint.  What I see is WP designing a disposal SYSTEM that uses the storage pond to buffer high flow months with a constant loading at the RIB of 600,000.  That’s what these emails seem to be saying, that’s what the models simulate, and the failure that the town experienced was clearly caused by substantially higher sustained flows to the RIB.

You can read the allegations of fraud and the emails for yourself.

I’m not a lawyer, and I have no idea how this will turn out, but I read a lot of John Grishom and this could easily be a chapter about one of the money grubbing big law firms that he so colorfully depicts.  As a juror, they would have a hard time convincing me of fraud based on these emails, then again, there is no way any responsible lawyer would ever let me anywhere near a jury box.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on New allegations in RIB lawsuit

Stewart’s offer

Posted on Wed, May 1, 2013 by overeasy

I received this copy of a letter from Stewart’s Ambulance Service.  It apparently is the document that the Selectmen were working from at the April 17 meeting when they decided not to follow the town’s Procurement Policy for the pending renewal of contract ambulance service.

It’s a cordial letter that seems to be in response to a solicitation.  There’s not much new except to say that they feel that they would be successful if an RFP is required but would like too spare their employees the uncertainty of the process.

Posted in Town Politics | 1 Comment

Take a closer look

Posted on Mon, Apr 29, 2013 by overeasy

I’ve already written about why I feel that waiving the town’s Procurement Policy was both improper and unnecessary.  But there’s more to the story.  By negotiating with the current ambulance provider, bringing his terms for renewal to the board, and asking that they waive the policy and accept sole source renewal, the Town Manager had already violated the policy.

The whole thing was presented as a choice between sticking with Stewarts without bidding, creating a town run ambulance capability, or going in with Tuftonboro on a shared contract.

I’m not promoting a town run service.  I’m sure it’s complicated and the private sector has many advantages, but the argument presented against it was – silly.  The amount of the subsidy that the town pays in the ambulance contract was compared to the combined payroll expense for four dispatchers at the fire department.  Does anybody think that’s a thorough analysis?  Does anybody think that’s an analysis at all?

The town subsidizes the ambulance service.  The amount we pay them is intended to make up the difference between what they get paid by insurers, including Medicare, and what it costs them to do business.  The idea is that the town wants to exercise some degree of control over the quality of service by requiring, among other things, that two ambulances are dedicated to the town and that they are available and staffed 24/7.

The real money in the business is in the cash flow of those payments for service.  So in broad strokes, the equation is subsidy + insurance payments > payroll + operating expenses + equipment depreciation.   To do the comparison right, the Fire Chief would have to research what others have done, the cost of equipment, and get someone with a business acumen – that probably rules out our Town Manager – to make a fair assessment.

So how much money are we talking about with the insurance payments?  Well, let’s take a look at the presentation by the representative of Stewarts.  He says that they need a 13% increase in the subsidy because Medicare has reduced payments due to the sequester.  OK.  Let’s cut him some slack and say that maybe only 10% is due to the sequester and that they need and deserve 3% to cover other increases in costs.

Are you following me?  I’m using round numbers here to make it easy.  A 10% increase in our subsidy is about $20,000.  Effective April 1, Medicare reduced payments to providers by 2%.  So if you divide $20K by 2% you can see that the 10% increase will cover the reduced payments on $1 million in Medicare payments.

Do you think that Stewarts does $1 million worth of Medicare business in the town each year?  What proportion of their business do you think is medicare?  Say it’s half (I doubt it), but that says they do $2 million in billing.  With the town’s subsidy, that’s $2.2 million on the revenue side of the equation.  Still looking like a bad business at an estimated $200,000 in payroll expense?

Of course, I don’t believe they do anywhere near $1 million in Medicare business.  My point is that the Town Manager doesn’t seem to know anything about it and comes to the Selectmen’s meeting with a lame proposal, without any analysis, and hardly in command of the facts of the current contract.  He then wants to waive the standard procurement process and give Stewards everything they want.  One Selectman even suggested that they sign up for five years instead of three.

I can understand the Selectmen flubbing this issue.  They are not business people.  That’s why we have a well paid management professional.  Does anybody think we’re getting our money’s worth?

Posted in Town Politics | 8 Comments

Our Procurement Diploma

Posted on Mon, Apr 29, 2013 by overeasy

Nobody wants to jeopardize public safety by cheaping out on medical services. Remember those death panels? So the BOS recently decided to stay the course with our ambulance company and waive the requirements of the town’s Procurement Policy.

But is that really what it’s about? Would following the policy automatically lead to accepting a lower bidder and compromising public safety? On it’s first page, the policy says that in evaluating bids the town should consider not only price, but quality, warranty, service, availability, past performance with the town,and references. So the answer is no. Following the Procurement Policy doesn’t automatically mean low bidder.

It’s pretty clear that the town is satisfied with the current provider and that to be successful, a competing bidder would need a proven record and spotless reputation in addition to a significantly better price. It’s probably unlikely that would happen. But even if we only got the single bid, the public bidding process would serve to address the other stated objectives of the policy and legitimize the result.

What about those other objectives? They are: “To allow fair and equal opportunity among qualified suppliers”; and “To provide increased public confidence in the procedures followed in public purchasing”?

Can we tell taxpayers that they don’t have the right to compete for public contracts to spend those taxes? What if you were an EMT with a dream of starting your own service? Should a town be able to exclude one businesses simply because they like another? Maybe there’s another established company with a solid reputation that’s looking to expand. We’ll never know. It’s not just about getting a good contract. Doing the public’s business involves fairness, consideration of the rights of everyone, and a sense of propriety.

How hard is it to put the contract out to bid? More importantly, what does the town stand to gain by not doing it? Did the existing contractor come to the Town Manager like a car salesman and say “This offer is good for today only”?

It’s true that the town had a bad experience with a low bidder in a previous contract. That’s a good reason to put more emphasis on those other deciding factors when considering which bid to accept, but it’s not a reason to eliminate public bidding altogether. The acceptable reasons for waiving the policy are very clearly stated: In case of emergency; When there is only one source of supplies or services; When the service or products are received through the State or other joint bid processes. None of them apply here.

There were valid issues to be decided by the BOS at that meeting. Most important was whether we wanted to continue with two full time ambulances and whether we wanted to share service with Tuftonboro. They reached a reasonable consensus on those questions pretty quickly. Maybe they should have stopped there and let the Town Manager do his job.

The wizard said to the scarecrow “You don’t need a brain, you need a diploma”. I get the impression that some folks feel similarly about a Procurement Policy. It’s just window dressing to provide the illusion that we have integrity in our public procurement process.

Posted in Town Politics | 2 Comments

Quotable quotes

Posted on Fri, Mar 22, 2013 by overeasy

You could always count on him for a second.

Posted in Town Politics | Comments Off on Quotable quotes

See you in court?

Posted on Thu, Mar 21, 2013 by overeasy

The latest on the RIB lawsuit is that the defense law firm of Donovan Hatem LLP just noticed two additional attorneys to their team:  Kelly Martin Malone, a partner and seasoned litigator, and Matthew Lenzi, an associate who is also a Civil Engineer and a licensed Professional Engineer;

You can look at this in two ways:  There is so much at stake for WP and their insurers ($10 million) that even a couple of million in legal defense is justified;  Or, there is no way they are going to settle because they believe that they will do better in a trial, possibly recovering those legal fees.

I hope we know what we’re doing.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on See you in court?

Town Meeting Referendum – YES!

Posted on Tue, Mar 12, 2013 by overeasy

One Thousand Thirty Two citizens participated in this year’s Town Meeting Referendum.  Every warrant article passed.  Brad Harriman  defeated incumbent Chuck Storm 64%-36%.

ARTICLE 1: ELECTION OF TOWN OFFICERS

Selectman Brad Harriman 3-Years 623
Charles “Chuck” Storm 355
Treasurer John C. Burt 1-Year 858
Trustee of Trust Funds Richard Shurtleff 3-Years 815
Budget Committee Matthew Krause 3-Years 758
Frank Giebutowski 697
Robert “Bob” Tougher 673
Library Trustee Linda Matchett 3-Years 815
Police Commissioner Ron Goodgame 3-Years 846
Planning Board Katherine Barnard 3-Years 774
Paul O’Brien 701

 ARTICLE 2: CHANGE OF USE—ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
To amend the zoning ordinance to allow in all commercial zoning districts the conversion of one permitted use to another where there is no change to the exterior of the building or parking upon only the issuance of a change of use permit and compliance with all applicable building and life safety codes.

YES 826
NO 161

ARTICLE 3: RESIDENTIAL LOT COVERAGE—LOTS EQUAL TO OR SMALLER THAN 0.25 ACRES
To amend the zoning ordinance to increase the permitted lot coverage of all lots smaller than 0.25 acres to 40% in all ResidentialZoning Districts except Shoreland Residential.

YES 712
NO 262

ARTICLE 4: CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS
To amend the zoning ordinance by changing the definition of “lot coverage” to include the total area covered by all impervioussurfaces and to add a definition of “impervious surfaces” as a modified surface that cannot effectively absorb or infiltrate water.

YES 722
NO 240

ARTICLE 5: CENTER STREET RECONSTRUCTION
This article requests a total appropriation of $2.1 million, of which the Town’s share of $700,000 is proposed to be bonded, and the remaining amount will be reimbursed to the Town by the NH Department of Transportation. These funds will be used for the reconstruction of Center Street (Route 28) from South Main Street to Wolfeboro Falls, including new roadway surfaces, sidewalks, drainage improvements, and intersection improvements.
• 3/5 Majority Vote Required

YES 753
NO 255

ARTICLE 6: SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM UPGRADES
This article seeks approval for bonding in the amount of $400,000 to design and construct upgrades to the Town’s sewer collection system to reduce infiltration and inflow of water into the sewer system. This is part of the Town’s ongoing efforts to repair and maintain the Town’s sewer collection system to reduce excessive groundwater infiltration into the sewer system and reduce the operational costs of having to treat and dispose of that additional water along with actual wastewater.
• 3/5 Majority Vote Required

YES 786
NO 224

ARTICLE 7: PUBLIC WORKS GARAGE UPGRADES
This article seeks the appropriation of $400,000, of which $299,400 will be bonded and the balance of $100,600 will be transferred from an existing Capital Reserve Account, to make needed improvements to the Public Works Garage facilities on Pine Hill Road. These improvements include installing a new hydraulic truck lift and replacing the fuel pumps and fuel delivery system with one that meets current regulatory requirements. In addition, this article, in combination with an anticipated insurance settlement, will give the Department of Public Works the ability to remedy the damages caused by the fire at the DPW garage on January 29th, which badly damaged the 5-bay heated Highway Garage facility.
• 3/5 Majority Vote Required

YES 788
NO 216

ARTICLE 8: CONSTRUCT PARKS MAINTENANCE BUILDING
This article requests approval for bonding $200,000 to construct a 3,000 square ft. maintenance building for the Parks and Recreation Department’s Maintenance Division to serve as storage for the Department’s trucks, equipment and supplies, and suitable heated workspace for the Department’s maintenance staff. This new maintenance building will replace six old structures on the site, one of which was already demolished last year due to excessive mold issues, which all together combined only provided 1,600 square feet of storage space.
• 3/5 Majority Vote Required

YES 697
NO 305

ARTICLE 9: 2013 OPERATING BUDGET
$26,163,872—All Funds
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 the vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein totaling $26,163,872.  Should this article be defeated the operating budget shall be $25,331,916, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by the 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.

YES 705
NO 294

ARTICLE 10: TOWN ROAD UPGRADES
$600,000—General Fund
This is the annual warrant article for reconstructing and resurfacing Town roads and improving their drainage. It has been increased to $600,000 this year from $550,000 last year to allow more work on Town roads. The Town roads presently programmed for improvements in 2013 are:

  • Cotton Valley Road–Overlay
  • Pork Hill Road—Reclaim, Regrade, Base Pave, Drainage
  • Percy Drive—Shim Overlay, Drainage
  • Interlakes Way—Shim Overlay
  • Stoneham Road—Shim Overlay, Drainage
  • Pleasant Valley Road—Chip Seal (portion only)

YES 810
NO 189

ARTICLE 11: MIDDLETON ROAD—DESIGN OF IMPROVEMENTS
$50,000-General Fund, $100,000-NHDOT reimbursement
This article seeks a total appropriation of $150,000, of which $50,000 is the Town’s share of the project and the balance will be reimbursed to the Town by the NH Department of Transportation. These funds will be used to design improvements to Middleton Road from its intersection with Route 28 to the New Durham town line, including new roadway surface and drainage. This design will become the basis for bidding out the construction of these improvements in the next phase of the project. The article also seeks authority for the Town to acquire Middleton Road from the State of New Hampshire after completion of these designed improvements and the State of NH signing a project agreement to fund the improvements, after which it will be maintained by the Town as a Class V highway.

YES 794
NO 218

ARTICLE 12: ADA PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT TOWN HALL
$100,000-General Fund
This article seeks the appropriation of $100,000 to reconstruct the parking lots in front of and behind the Town Hall so as to bring them into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as required to complete the settlement agreement between the Town and the U.S. Department of Justice.

YES 623
NO 383

ARTICLE 13: ELECTRIC METER UPGRADES
$720,000-Electric Fund
This article calls for $720,000 to be spent from the fund balance of the Electric Fund over the next 5 years for purposes of replacing all 5,600 electric meters with new radio read electric meters. These new electric meters will eliminate the need for each meter to be manually read by a meter reader each month. The efficiencies and related savings to be realized by the Electric Department in terms of reduced staffing, vehicles, and fuel consumption promise that this project will pay for itself by the end of the sixth year after we start this project. This project will not result in any increase in tax rates or electric rates.

YES 650
NO 364

ARTICLE 14: PURCHASE REPLACEMENT BUCKET TRUCK FOR ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT
$225,000-Electric Fund
This article seeks approval to use $225,000 from the fund balance of the Electric Fund to purchase a new bucket truck for the Electric Department. This new truck will replace ME-3, a 1997 bucket truck, with 125,914 miles and 13,833 hours of operational use on it. This acquisition will not result in any increase in tax rates or electric rates.

YES 822
NO 188

ARTICLE 15: TOWN LIBRARY AND LIBBY MUSEUM BUILDINGS MAINTENANCE
$100,000-General Fund
This article requests $100,000 to address mechanical and structural problems at the Wolfeboro Public Library and the Libby Museum. Toward the end of last year issues arose with both facilities. The heating and cooling system at the Public Library is at the end of its useful life, and its controls need to be replaced with a more modern system. Possible structural issues at the Libby Museum are causing excessive moisture and cracking of walls. This appropriation will enable the replacement of HVAC controls at the Library and extensive evaluation of structural issues at the Libby Museum, which will result in plans and cost estimates being developed to address the issues at the Libby Museum.

YES 806
NO 214

ARTICLE 16: PUBLIC WORKS VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT
$160,000-General Fund
The Department of Public Works requests the appropriation of $160,000 to be placed in the Public Works Vehicle and Equipment Capital Reserve Account. By making annual contributions to this Capital Reserve Account, it enables the Town to avoid the budgetary spikes that otherwise occur when major capital vehicles and equipment needs to be replaced. In 2013 the purchases of a dump truck, a pickup truck, a sidewalk plow (to replace one damaged in the fire), and a Solid Waste bailer costing $460,000 in total are planned to be made from this account.

YES 743
NO 250

ARTICLE 17: FIRE TRUCKS AND APPARATUS REPLACEMENT CAPITAL RESERVE

ACCOUNT
$176,000-General Fund
The Fire/Rescue Department seeks the appropriation of $176,000 which will be placed in the Fire Trucks and Apparatus Replacement Capital Reserve Account. By setting funds aside in this manner on an annual basis, sufficient funds will be available for the Fire Department to make its next scheduled major apparatus replacements. In 2013, the purchase of a new fire engine costing $425,000 is planned to be made from this account.

YES 754
NO 256

ARTICLE 18: TOWN OFFICE FACILITY CAPITAL RESERVE ACCOUNT

$100,000-General Fund

This article requests the appropriation of $100,000 to be place in the existing Town Office Facility Capital Reserve Account. While no specific major improvements or repairs at Town Hall are planned in 2013 from this account, these funds will provide a reserve that can be called on in case emergency repairs are needed during the year. It will also provide a means of saving toward the eventual costs of renovating the Town Offices at Town Hall.

YES 640
NO 356

ARTICLE 19: ESTABLISH ABENAKI SKI AREA CAPITAL RESERVE FUND
$15,250-General Fund
This article seeks to establish a new capital reserve fund for the purpose of purchasing or repairing snowmaking equipment, the groomer, light poles and mechanical, electrical, and safety equipment at the Abenaki Ski Area. It further seeks the appropriation of $15,250 to be placed in this new capital reserve fund.

YES 743
NO 278

ARTICLE 20: AFSCME CONTRACT AGREEMENT
$45,015-General Fund
This article requests funding for the first year of a new 2-year contract agreement with the AFSCME bargaining unit. It covers most of the unionized, non-exempt employees of the Department of Public Works, Parks and Recreation Maintenance, and many of the Town’s administrative staff. It provides those employees with a wage increase of $0.50 per hour, but no step increases during the term of the contract. It also provides those employees who receive stand-by pay an increase of $5 per day. In exchange, these employees agreed to changes in health insurance plans which enabled the Town to achieve significant savings in its health insurance costs.

YES 735
NO 249

ARTICLE 21: POLICE UNION CONTRACT AGREEMENT
$26,768—General Fund
This article seeks to fund the first year of a new 2-year collective bargaining agreement with the Police Union, which represents both the uniformed officers and dispatchers. The new contract calls for a 2% cost of living increase in 2013 for all members of the unit, plus five employees who will also receive a 3.5% step increase. This group of employees also agreed to changes in health insurance plans which enabled the Town to achieve significant savings in its health insurance costs. These changes in the Police Union Contract were approved by both the Police Commission and Board of Selectmen.

YES 749
NO 240

ARTICLE 22: SUNDAY ACTIVITIES ORDINANCE
This article proposes to amend the Town’s depression-era blue laws, so that many of the activities currently taking place on Sundays are no longer in violation of the Town’s ordinance. This includes retail business operations, sporting events and games, concerts, etc. so long as the general public’s peace and quiet are not unreasonably disturbed.

YES 882
NO 111

ARTICLE 23: PETITION WARRANT ARTICLE
The following article was submitted by citizens petition:
To see if the Town will vote to require that all votes of the governing body and budget committee relative to budget items or any warrant article shall be recorded votes and the numerical tally of any such vote shall be printed in the town warrant next to the affected warrant article and further to require that the annual budget and all special warrant articles having a tax impact, as determined by the governing body, shall contain a notation stating the estimated tax impact of the article in accordance with RSA 40:13 V (a).

YES 689
NO 263

Posted in Town Politics | Comments Off on Town Meeting Referendum – YES!

Lawsuit update

Posted on Mon, Mar 11, 2013 by overeasy

Today I received more information from the town about the RIB lawsuit.  As it turns out, they do have the flow rates for the first three weeks, as well as a written description of how and why they feel they are inaccurate.  It’s all contained in a recent Supplemental Report by their expert witnesses.  Here’s the new info:

Revised RIB flow graphUnfortunately, they didn’t provide a copy of Wright Pierce’s expert testimony that this report is a rebuttal to.  I’ve asked for it.

With regard to the startup overloading issue, they argue that the flow rates were overstated, that WP knew of and approved the high flow rates, and that the system design of 600,000 average gallons per day over the course of a month was not exceeded because they effectively shut it down the last week.

The report also makes a lot of the claim that WP should have considered the possibility of slope failure because this RIB is unusual in that it has steeper slopes and greater elevation than most other RI sites that they (F&O) looked into.

They also say that the problem isn’t just reduced capacity.  They claim that the RIB is failing now, and that DES could shut it down anytime, the State could sue the town for damage, and that the abutters could sue the town for damages.

Most of that is news to me.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on Lawsuit update

First three weeks of RIB operation

Posted on Thu, Mar 7, 2013 by overeasy

I got the records of flow to the RIB during the first three weeks.  Here’s a graph from the RIB Worksheet data:

Mar RIB FlowsAfter that, the daily flows vary between practically nothing, and several days of similar high flow rates.  This goes on for about three more weeks until April 20 which is when the town reported to the State that they discovered the side of the hill blew out and effluent was running down the hill.

The capacity of the model that was developed by Wright Pierce, and subsequently reviewed by Weston and Sampson was 600,000 gallons per day.   Maybe that’s what Wright Pierce means when they say in their defense:

…the RIBs suffered a subsequent post design and construction event when it was operated by the Plaintiff at gallons per day levels exceeding the Defendant’s reports.

The town would have us believe that this is a simple case of poor design.  It looks more complicated than that to me.  What I don’t understand, is why this overloading at start-up was never mentioned by the town, either in their initial complaint to the court or to the public.  The town has said that they discovered more than a year later that the flow meter was inaccurate and reading high.  Maybe they can show that Wright Pierce told them to overload the system.  Let’s hope there’s a good explanation.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | Comments Off on First three weeks of RIB operation

I’ll Sue You!!!

Posted on Sat, Mar 2, 2013 by overeasy

We’ve all heard it before: “I’ll sue you!”. A wise lawyer once told me that people who say that have never tried it. The same lawyer also says that civil suits often have nothing to do with being right.

A few weeks ago I was stunned to find out that the town is doubling down on the RIB lawsuit. They have spent $200,000 to date and have put $500,000 into this year’s budget. As taxpayers, we have no idea as to the merits of the case. One Selectman told me directly that they were not going to “roll over”. Easy for him to say when taxpayers are footing the bill. I’m not so emotionally invested.

I’ve posted the case summary from the court’s website here. The Town is saying that Wright Pierce (WP) was negligent in their engineering of the RIB system because it is working at only half of design capacity. WP has claimed that there was no warranty of performance, that the town hired another engineering firm who positively reviewed the design, and that the damage may be due to the town exceeding recommendebd flow rates shortly after start-up,

The Wolfeboro Conservation Commission is a little less subtle: from their website – “…a state of the art facility fully permitted and of great promise, now presents a series of structural unexpected issues that require additional levels of monitoring and maintenance that were neither expected nor predictable”. So the State DES, our Conservation Commission, peer review engineers Weston and Sampson, as well as our own town professional engineers all thought it would work better. If only we had consulted our new expert witnesses who, with the benefit of hindsight, will be paid to tell a jury that WP was negligent.

One thing is certain. The lawyers are going to get a big payday. The other thing we can count on is that if there is a settlement, we are unlikely to see any money applied to reducing the tax rate. This year, 25 cents of your tax rate will be used to pay for the lawsuit. It’s going to cost my wife and I $450. Frankly, given the sparse information available, I’d prefer to put the money toward a solution to the problem that I can understand and vote on.

I’m weary of the Selectmen closing the doors into non-public session at every meeting. I understand the need to keep lawyer/client communication private, even if we too are technically the client, but surely there is a way that the town can better inform the citizenry about their reasoning and justification for this course of action. They can’t have it both ways: Tell us that everything is hunky-dory with the town’s waste water capability while they claim in court that we have been damaged to the tune of $10 million dollars.

So I’m going to vote NO on the town budget this year. They’ve cut other things to make room for their lawsuit, and I think most of the town will be just fine under the default budget.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | 2 Comments

The essential RIB lawsuit

Posted on Fri, Mar 1, 2013 by overeasy

This lawsuit has been a sleeper as far as discussion is concerned.  Aside from a brief article recognizing the filing, there has been zero reporting of the issues or developments in the case.  At the Deliberative Session a few weeks ago I was stunned to find out that $200,000 has been spent on legal fees and $500,000 is in this year’s budget.

Here is a brief, very readable summary of the Town’s complaint and the engineer’s response, as well as the court’s summary of the relevant legal issues that must be decided: Pretrial conference report with case summary.

Posted in RIB Lawsuit | 3 Comments

Best intentions

Posted on Mon, Feb 4, 2013 by overeasy

Tomorrow will be the Deliberative Session.  For the uninitiated, that’s the opening act in the annual town meeting process.  The second part is the actual ballot voting in March.  The warrant has been posted and hundred or so citizens will show up to discuss and possibly amend the articles as developed by the Selectmen.  In more than a few past years, the real decisions on some significant issues have been significantly influenced or outright decided at the “Deliberative”.

This year there is one article submitted by citizen petition:

ARTICLE 23: PETITION WARRANT ARTICLE

To see if the town will vote to require that all votes of the governing body and budget committee relative to budget items or any warrant article shall be recorded votes and the numeric tally of any such vote shall be printed on the town warrant next to the affected warrant article and further to require that the annual budget and all special warrant articles having a tax impact, as determined by the governing body, shall contain a notation stating the estimated tax impact of the article in accordance with RSA 32:5 V-a and b.

Sounds great doesn’t it?  I’m sure that the petitioners feel that this will serve to give pause to voters when considering expenditures.  Let’s take a closer look:

The first part will require that any vote of approval or disapproval by the Budget Committee and Selectmen be shown on the warrant.  We have been doing that voluntarily for several years now, and are unlikely to stop.

The second part is what troubles me – estimating the tax impact of all warrant articles and placing it on the ballot.  I’m not sure how that would work.  OK, the budget is an annual thing, and they could divide the amount by the tax base to determine the contribution that the budget makes to the town tax rate.  But how is that expressed?  The RSA isn’t clear on that.  Do they give the actual rate or the difference +/- from the prior year’s budget contribution?  It would seem that the difference relative to the prior year would be the useful figure, but I don’t see where that’s defined.

What about non-bonded expenditures like contributions to reserve accounts and the annual town road upgrades?  Are these expressed in absolute terms or as the net change from last year? Who decides?

Finally, what about bonded items?  The tax rate impact varies with interest rates and more significantly with the term of the bond.  The term is decided by the Selectmen on recommendation from the finance department, sometimes a year or more after the article is approved.  Does the article state the tax impact in the first year, last year, or average annual impact over the anticipated life of the bond?

Take a look at the new car adds in the Newspaper.  Many don’t actually state the price of the car, only the minimum monthly payment. Is that how we should be making decisions about town spending?  I like the old fashioned method of just considering the whole amount of each article.

Posted in Town Politics | Comments Off on Best intentions

But don’t call me Larry (the cable guy)

Posted on Wed, Jan 16, 2013 by overeasy

Update Dec 6, 2013 – Metrocast is changing their channels around as they transition to all digital for basic+.  They have moved TBS (Ch 14) to 34-5 (Digidal SD).  I’ll provide an updated post soon with a link here. Here’s the link.

We’ve never been real big on TV technology, what with there being so little available in terms of content.  So  for years we have gotten by with a 21″ TV and Basic Plus cable.  Lately, we are doing more streaming internet content from sites like Netflix, Hulu, and VUDU.  So I decided to upgrade to a small HDTV with an internet server.

Over the holidays, I took a look at the latest offerings in HDTVs and decided to spring for a 32″ LED HDTV.  Not exactly a home theater, but a significant upgrade for us.  Along with an internet streaming device (brand withheld), we can now stream movies and TV episodes in HD.  Nice!

As a bonus, virtually all of the TV programming available to us via our Basic Plus package is available in HD as well, but getting it without adding monthly fees for a cable box turned out to be a hurdle.  I’ve managed to sort it out and decided to blog it so others might benefit from the experience.

First let me say that I give Metrocast credit.  Unlike Comcast who have forced all of their customers to go digital and get converter boxes, Metrocast has kept the Basic and Plus stations available in both standard and high-def format.  Most users lease cable boxes, digital converters, or DVRs to access HD and top tier programming, but you can avoid it.  Many subscribers may prefer to rent the box on their primary TV, but the monthly fees can run up fast if you have several TVs.

All of the Basic and Plus channels that Metrocast broadcasts can be received with a standard ATSC/QAM tuner.  Virtually any new HDTV, of any size or price, will have one.  The difference is that the HD channel numbers are more complicated and are subject to change.  The cable box usually takes care of that.  If you have a TV that can accept a Cable Card, Metrocast will give you up to two cards for free and your TV will use the standard published channel numbers.

But I don’t have a cable card capable TV, so I had to figure out the QAM channel numbers.  Realizing that this is the biggest hurdle, I decided to publish the map so others can do the same. You’ll find it here:

Metrocast QAM TV Channels

It is a little cumbersome to look up the HD channel number and punch it in, but I came up with a good workaround.  The TV allows me to enter a name for each channel – like WGBH, Comedy Central, etc.  So for each of the standard def channels, I simply named them with the HD  channel number.  So if I tune Comedy Central on 52, the TV briefly displays the name as 75-5, which is the clear QAM HD channel for Comedy Central.  The HD channel for most of the basic stations is the next consecutive QAM channel, so I just tune the standard def and press “channel +”.

The other problem that I encountered was that the high def channels require a much better signal than my home cable wiring was providing.  Because I have VIP (Video, Internet, and Phone) there is a splitter in my cable feed for the phone/internet box.  I also have a splitter in the basement, and another in a closet.  The net result is that by the time the signal gets to the TV, it’s been “attenuated” or weakened considerably.  The solution was to add an amplifier to the feed to boost the signal.  They cost $20-$40 and improved the picture on two other standard def TVs in the house.  One caution:  You should get quality splitters and an amplifier that is “bi directional” or has a “return path” so that any intelligent cable box or DVR you may have will be able to communicate back and work properly.

None of this will get you digital programs, pay-per-view, or premium channels.  Those are scrambled and still require a subscription from Metrocast and a cable box or DVR.  This is not cable theft, it is just describing how to access the signal that you are paying for without renting a cable box or upgrading to digital TV.

Now I’m waiting to see if the Red Sox can do any better in HD.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on But don’t call me Larry (the cable guy)

Better Pre-Buy

Posted on Mon, Dec 17, 2012 by overeasy

Five years ago, as part of the half-million restoration extravaganza, the town received a professional estimate of the heating cost of a renovated Brewster Hall. The official figure was about 9,000 gallons of oil. The engineer suggested two boilers and a 2,000 gallon tank “in case deliveries were interrupted for a few weeks”.

Most of the building was not going to be insulated, and of course those old historic windows had to stay. Several years later, on their second attempt, the new architect tried to tell us that old buildings are more energy efficient than new ones. Eventually, they brought in Building Science Corporation to quell the skeptics. Although there were some recommendations, the fact is that none of them have ever been incorporated into any plans. At best the old windows would get inside storm windows, and the historic crumbling plaster walls would get less than half the insulation that would be required by the minimum building code in any other building.

I bring all this up because there is a reason why the old auditorium has a false ceiling hiding the vaulted trussed ceiling: It’s very expensive to heat, and near impossible to make comfortable. A few years ago, I visited the similar building in Merrimac, MA. In talking to the people working there, I was told that they hardly ever use their hall for that very reason.

So now we see that the Friends are offering the place to all kinds of groups in town. In a letter published by a prominent member of the Friends and Town Hall Restoration Committee last week, we see that they plan to offer the space for free. That’s nice, just send us all the bill for 50 gallons of oil to heat the place for that Clearlakes Chorale rehearsal. Great Waters needs a space for 60 people to meet? Let’s just turn up that thermostat and heat 120,000 cubic feet of auditorium. Never mind that they only need less than 10% of that for 75 people.

The Friends will argue that they are going to be able to close off a smaller space. I don’t think so. Not if they intend to expose that cavernous ceiling. But not to worry. As the people sit there shivering in February, we can get a state historian to come down and tell them that’s all part of the historic experience. That’s the way these old buildings are. You’re either freezing or the steam heat is driving you out. Ventilation was provided by the zillion holes in the shell and by opening those huge windows. Sure, we can have a sophisticated modern system installed, but it’s going to burn oil like it’s 1955 and then never really get as comfortable as a modern building like the Kingswood Performing Arts Center that would cost much less to heat on any given winter night at twice the size.

Nobody ever seems to bring this stuff up. Maybe because the people that are controlling the conversation don’t really care.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | 2 Comments

Just perfect!

Posted on Fri, Dec 14, 2012 by overeasy

Someone sent me this report on the Brewster Hall upstairs usage forum held on Nov 13.  I’m going to renew my objection to this line of inquiry by the Friends and Selectmen when dealing with millions of dollars of the taxpayer’s money.

What I get out of the report is that organization after organization is saying that they do meet someplace, and that the second floor of Brewster Hall could serve that purpose.  There is a solid contingent, as previously described, that need a kitchen.  Others would need ample parking.

Sounds to me like this forum only reinforced that we need a new Community Center.  Right where the old one is only down the hill with the main entrance in the new expanded parking lot.  Compare this list of benefits with those of Brewster Hall:

  • Plenty of parking
  • Accessible without stairs or elevators
  • Easily could contain a wonderful kitchen
  • Would heat and cool for a small fraction of the cost of heating the old Brewster Hall
  • Would cost less than half of renovation of equal space in Brewter Hall
  • Could be designed to accommodate multiple groups at once.

All I’m saying is that if the Selectmen are serious about providing for the needs of these various organizations, there are alternatives that could cost the tax payers a lot less, and provide a better solution.  I understand the Friends putting on blinders, but the Selectmen should be looking out for the best interests of the town.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | 3 Comments

Everything looks like a nail

Posted on Thu, Dec 6, 2012 by overeasy

This was published in the Grunter today.

In last week’s paper there was a report on a future uses of Town Hall forum conducted by the Friends on November 13. The forum was attended by a quorum of our Selectmen and was described as an opportunity for representatives of 17 non-profit organizations to express their needs for community meeting space and other possible uses for a restored Brewster Hall.

So what’s wrong with that? Well, lets take a step back. This is a private group, along with our Board of Selectmen, conducting a needs survey of local organizations, with an emphasis on satisfying those needs through a particular publicly funded project that has been repeatedly rejected by the voters.

Concerts were identified as a potential use, yet we have a brand new performing arts center in town sporting a world class Steinway concert grand piano.  Lectures, film-screenings, and children programs sound like the short-list of justifications being given for a new library. Flower shows and off season farmer’s market – really? It’s a solution looking for a problem.

It all goes to my ongoing objection to the Selectmen moving planning authority for Brewster Hall outside of the public domain. If we are going to bring in the various service organizations of the town to discuss how the town might spend millions of dollars to accommodate their needs, we ought to have a process that allows all citizens to participate in deciding the best way to do that.

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 2 Comments

Everything including the kitchen sink

Posted on Sat, Dec 1, 2012 by overeasy

At the last BOS meeting, during the “tell me something I don’t already know” segment,  there was a report on the non-profit organizational needs meeting held at the Town Hall Meeting Room on November 13.  The meeting was organized by the Friends of Brewster Hall, so they weren’t really that interested in satisfying needs so much as matching needs up with their new Brewster Hall Multifunction Room concept.

They are looking for allies.  The Library Trustees are doing the same thing.  Both groups are trying to see what they can offer third party groups in return for support of their unpopular projects.  In fact, they are both vying for the attention of many of the same groups.

Anyway, what was said at the Selectmen’s meeting was that the underlying theme was a desire for a kitchen.  So I’m going to predict that we will soon see a kitchen added to the Brewster Hall multifunction room concept.

Now we all know that there are a lot of places in town with kitchens: Several church halls, Brewster’s Estabrook, Camp Northwoods, Camp Belknap, as well as commercial facilities like Wolfeboro Inn and Inn on Main.  If your organization is looking to have a one time or monthly feast, it’s pretty easy to get a venue.

The holy grail for both groups is the Senior Meals organization.  Lots of votes there, and they are currently doing a daily meal out of All Saints Episcopal Church.  Some of the members are satisfied with that arrangement, as is the church as I understand it, but there are some who would like a dedicated facility.

I’ll be curious to see the Friends try to sell their multifunction hall concept to that group and how it goes over.  The organization serves lunch daily and the seniors hang around for activities afterwards.  That should be a great fit for Brewster Hall.  Competition for limited parking, a long steep flight of stairs or small elevator up, a large hall with vaulted ceilings, no insulation and antique windows to heat to senior comfort.  I’m looking forward to a great lesson in salesmanship.

Contrast that with the notion of building a community center/Town Office down the street on Lehner St.  New large empty parking lot at walk in grade, easily built to heat and air condition economically, and plenty of flexibility to include a new well designed kitchen.

It’s going to be interesting.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 2 Comments

Dave’s looking pretty smart

Posted on Wed, Nov 28, 2012 by overeasy

Yesterday’s post exposes the plan that was used to justify the $4 million commitment to Brewster Hall restoration that was jammed into the CIP.  Anybody who watched the Oct 17 Selectmen’s meeting saw that Dave Senecal wasn’t impressed with the show.  He refused to consider the ridiculously conceived plan.

We should all consider the background and experience of the five people at that table.  Dave has been a builder and code enforcement officer for many years.  He has more experience with buildings, contractors, and projects than the other four combined.  He got something like 85% of the vote when he was elected.  Sarah Silk got 66% last March in an uncontested run.

Someday, one of the rubber stamp four is going to shock me and ask a serious question about one of these plans, or heaven forbid, vote to demand something reasonable. Meanwhile, only Dave seems to notice that the King has no Clothes.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 3 Comments

Anatomy of a plan

Posted on Tue, Nov 27, 2012 by overeasy

Last week I received my latest batch of documents obtained under the Right to Know law.  Now I have the details of the latest $4 million plan to restore Brewster Hall. Here they are:


That’s it folks.  That’s what the Selectmen had in front of them when they voted to approve this $4 million plan.  So you might be thinking that somebody must have put some thought into this and carefully decided on it.  Here’s how the Chairman developed the plan:

That’s right.  She had Rob Houseman change the name of the Auditorium to Multi-Purpose Room and then had the Town Manager make some copies for the meeting that night.  Need a plan to go with that $4 million CIP “placeholder”?  Check.

But wait, it gets better.  If you watched the 8 minutes of the Oct 17 Selectmen’s meeting where she presents and gets it approved (not on the agenda), you will hear Sarah Silk ask her if it includes an elevator. She says yes, it does.

Here is the  spreadsheet from last year’s meeting when they discussed this option. Look on the last page under “conveying systems”.  Hydraulic Passenger Elevator – nothing.  If you go back to the last $4 million plan from 2011, the elevator was estimated at $93,700, and that didn’t include the work required to build the shaft.

There is absolutely no documentation for the estimated $1 million cost of the new so-called Multi-Purpose Room.

These folks have simply never seen a Brewster Hall plan that they wouldn’t be willing to spend your money on.  I’m still waiting for one.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | Comments Off on Anatomy of a plan

Fortunately, people aren’t as dumb as the Grunter thinks.

Posted on Tue, Nov 20, 2012 by overeasy

From the minutes of the Oct 17, 2012 Board of Selectmen’s meeting:

It was moved by Chuck Storm for the Wolfeboro Board of Selectmen to support the proposal for renovations to Brewster Memorial Hall as presented at this meeting. Dave Bowers seconded. Members voted, Dave Senecal-opposed, being all others in favor, the motion passed.

From this week’s Grunter editorial:

In the meantime, regardless of what “placeholders”
the Capital improvement Plan may put in for Brewster
Hall renovation over the next 10 years, selectmen have
indicated no intention of proposing one any time soon.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 7 Comments

Let’s not Trash Public Opinion

Posted on Fri, Nov 16, 2012 by overeasy

As usual, the editor has gone over the top in cheer-leading for the Selectmen’s Brewster Hall plans. He discredits the voter rejection of their agenda last March by saying that only 29% voted. There’s an old saying: “Decisions are made by the people who show up”. These are the same people who show up every year and do the town’s business.

But OK, this is his fantasy, so let’s say that 29% is a little light. What if we had a normal turnout of say 33% and ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL VOTERS APPROVED of the Friend’s agenda? That would increase the approval from 48% to 54%. You need 60% to do a $4 million project.

The editor goes on to say that even though the Friends agenda was only supported by a minority of 48%, a subsequent question about funding indicated 51% were in favor of public/private funding. That’s a stretch too because fewer voters answered the question, and fewer voters actually supported public/private funding (622) than the 48% that supported restoration (627). Probably many of those who said no to restoration (680) didn’t bother to say no to public/private funding (598) of a restoration that they already said they don’t support.

But the editor also makes the bold claim that the Friends may raise enough money to pay for the whole $4 million project. I don’t know where he gets his information but there was no mention at the Selectmen’s meeting of how much the Friends were targeting or expecting to raise. They didn’t seem to care about that detail. It’s no secret that the chairman pretty much runs the efforts of the Friends of Brewster Hall, and she rides herd over the CIP committee. They have earmarked $4 million of public funding for the project. We’ve been hearing threats of private funding and grants for six years and it’s getting old. Meanwhile the taxpayers have put more than $800,000 into the schemes of the Friends and have little to show for it.

The Selectmen and CIP have no justification for making a $4 million commitment to restoration, and they certainly have no justification for handing the project over to the Friends to plan and develop in private. There are other reasonable ways to deal with the Brewster Hall problem. A majority of Wolfeboro voters are being disenfranchised by the Selectmen’s refusal to address this issue openly and publicly.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | 2 Comments

Sugar Coated

Posted on Thu, Nov 15, 2012 by overeasy

You gotta love the front page story in the Grunter headed “Wolfeboro 2012 tax rate up 3.6%”.  Ho-hum, so taxes are up, so what’s new?  The story goes on to completely obfuscate then spin the news with arbitrary factoids:  It’s not as bad as this, better than that, one of the lowest, etc. etc.  After you cut through all of the obfuscation and misleading comparisons you have no idea where we stand but after all, if the newspaper thinks things are great, must be OK.  But here’s a fact that they didn’t mention in their coverage:

In the three years since 2009, the town tax rate has increase more than 39%.

I don’t know why the newspaper feels compelled to hide the figures and present a slanted view of the facts.  Why not just publish the news in a clear and concise way and let the public decide if it’s good news or bad news.   It’s dumbed down and sugar-coated, and it’s an insult to responsible citizens who have a right to the truth.

So here are the figures, straight from the state’s website, for anybody that wants to draw their own conclusions.

Total Town Local State Total
Year Valuation Rate School Ed County Rate
2009 $2,051,930,195 3.38 3.96 2.23 1.04 10.61
2010 $2,048,930,072 3.93 3.79 2.33 0,99 11.04
2011 $2,048,479,200 4.46 4.39 2.34 1.01 12.2
2012 $2,043,252,747 4.71 4.48 2.4 1.05 12.64

 

Posted in Town Politics | Comments Off on Sugar Coated

Taking out the Trash

Posted on Tue, Nov 13, 2012 by overeasy

You may recall last March there were some questions on the ballot that asked your opinion on some Town Hall issues. The stated intent was to inform a discussion going forward to try to resolve the Town Office/Brewster Hall stalemate. Needless to say the Selectmen have avoided any such public discussion for eight months because a majority of voters indicated, among other things, that they do not support restoration of Brewster Hall for town offices.

There was nothing about Brewster Hall published in the agenda of the October 17th Selectmen meeting. You had to pay attention, because it all happened pretty fast. The chairman whipped out a new $4 million proposal that the Friends had put together and, with no serious discussion, voted to support the plan and to authorize the Friends to develop it. The justification given for including a multifunction hall was that we could have a flower show there or use it as a polling place. Is anybody excited about spending a million bucks more so we can have a flower show or have trouble parking and shlepping up a flight of stairs to vote? Credit to Dave Senecal who flatly said no.

It was perfect timing because the newspaper and the public were completely preoccupied with the presidential election. Now with the election frenzy over, the Friends have been authorized to privately develop their plan to spend our money, and the Selectmen can continue to publicly ignore 52% of voters who said they do not support the mission of the Friends of Brewster Hall.

I remember an episode of the TV series West Wing where Rob Lowe explained how to put out unpopular news with a minimum of backlash. The idea was to announce it on a Friday afternoon when there was another bigger story dominating the news. Even if someone picked up on it, it would be page two, and history by Monday morning. They called it “Taking out the trash.”.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | Comments Off on Taking out the Trash

Outsourced Government

Posted on Thu, Nov 8, 2012 by overeasy

Though I’ve never seen it in print, I’ve heard Joyce Davis say it a few times: The mission of the Friends of Town Hall is to restore Brewster Memorial Hall for use as Town Offices.

Last March, the voters were asked a non-binding question: Article 30(a) Do you support restoration of Brewster Memorial Hall to serve as Town Offices?  Yes 627 (48%), No 680 (52%)

Do you see the problem?

Those questions were put to the voters in the interest of enabling an informed discussion about resolving this 5+ year problem that has seen defeat of two restoration initiatives and the waste of $800,000 with little to show for it.

If you were watching the October 17 Selectmen’s meeting and got up to get a quick snack, you might have missed when the chairman presented a new $4 million Friends plan in just under 4 minutes, followed by three minutes and twenty seconds of discussion and approval by 4 of the 5 selectmen.  It wasn’t even on the agenda.

So the Friends of Town Hall have been given approval to pursue what failed to muster even a simple majority referendum of actual voters.  Rather than come up with a process to reconcile the obvious public opposition to their plans, the Selectmen have avoided any public discussion of the issue and are now handing the whole project over to the Friends with a commitment to provide $4 million of taxpayer dollars.

Outrageous.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 13 Comments

Almost over

Posted on Mon, Nov 5, 2012 by overeasy

Many visitors to the blog were offended by my posting of commentary on the national issues, so I’ve taken a break and let the dust settle on it’s own.  For the past two weeks, it’s been looking more and more like a done deal for Obama, and on his coattails a preservation of the Democratic majority in the Senate.  If you doubt that, consider why Gov Chris Christie recently moved closer to the Obama Camp.  He knows the benefits of hitching his horse to the winning wagon.

I suppose anything can happen, and the media on both sides have been churning this as a close race, but the polls of the polls – five-thirty-eight and Real Clear Politics among others – have had the real story for some time.  The national polls have been a red-herring.  They are are measuring how the candidates are doing in an irrelevant contest.  The electoral college contest, the one they are actually working to win, has been tilting Obama for quite some time.

The poll aggregators use statistical methods to combine individual polls, and by doing so increase the sample size and reduce the margin of error.  Also, the five-thirty-eight model applies measures to weight the various polls by their historical accuracy, reducing the influence of statistical bias.

As one of the very few states that are actually in play, we here in New Hampshire probably get the sense that the democratic process is alive and well in America.  I don’t believe that’s the case.  The vast majority of the country has been sidelined and ignored by the process. Many of us who are sick of the unrelenting attack ads probably wish we were ignored too, but I can tell you that you would be spared only the presidential brawl.  We just got back from a couple of days in Chicago and the negative TV adds for their state and local elections are just as bad.

After tomorrow, this will all be behind us, and I’ll start back in on what you all came here to read about.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | 2 Comments

Bait and switch

Posted on Thu, Sep 27, 2012 by overeasy

I received the bid specifications for windows today.  Remember that my original question to the Selectmen was why are only looking at Pella windows at $2,000 average per window?  Their response was to say they would put it out to bid as required.

I don’t understand why they bothered.  The bid specification says they are looking for Pella windows, and they are only available from the guy that they were working with before.  The specs say that they will only consider Kolbe and Kolbe or Marvin as “substitutes”.  There are no Kolbe and Kolbe dealers in New Hampshire.  The nearest is 150 miles away.  Winni lumber handles Marvin windows but doesn’t install them.  Anyway, who is going to spend the time to put together a bid for the “substitute” windows, when the specifications are lifted right out of the Pella windows submittal sheets?

I have all of the communications with NCA architects, the firm that developed the bid specifications, and there is no mention of restricting the brands to select companies.  I sent a request to Mr. Houseman and Mr. Owen asking where that came from.  No reply.

We think that the assumption that the bids will be specifications only Pella could meet is unwarranted. – GSN Aug 2, 2012

I’m going to stick my neck out here and say that the reason they specified these companies is that they are the companies that NCA believes can supply “architecturally correct” windows.  Maybe that’s true, but there is no requirement that the town install restoration windows.  Good, functional, and attractive windows are available at a fraction of the cost of these premium architectural windows.  More to the point, that’s what they said and estimated in promoting the warrant article.

Gullible fool that I am, I believed them and stood up at the deliberative session to support it  I apologize to anyone that might have been swayed by my endorsement.  The way they figure these things, the article won by 83 votes.  I won’t make that mistake again.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | Comments Off on Bait and switch

Here we go again

Posted on Mon, Sep 24, 2012 by overeasy

The big news, buried in the minutes of the last CIP meeting, is that the Selectmen are planning to make another run at a $4 million restoration project.

Last March, there was a non-binding referendum question on the ballot.  It asked:

Do you support restoration of Brewster Memorial Hall to serve as Town Offices?

A majority of voters – 52% – said NO.

Do you favor rehabilitation of Brewster Memorial Hall by taxpayers as the sole financial support?

An overwhelming majority of voters – 81% – said NO.

The Selectmen have not had any public discussion as to the future plans for Brewster Memorial Hall.  Nothing whatsoever.  How is the decision to put $4 million dollars into the CIP being made?

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t know exactly what each individual voter thinks or why they responded as they did on the referendum.  But don’t you think it opens up some pretty serious questions about the viability of another $4 million project funded exclusively by taxes?

Folks, that was FIFTY-TWO percent that said NO!  That was you, telling the Selectmen that this isn’t what you want to see.  They don’t even have the courtesy to hold a public hearing to ask those 52% of voters to come in and say what they are thinking.  They couldn’t care less.

I know from talking to many people, that this isn’t about spending money to restore Brewster Hall.  It’s about not believing that it’s going to end up costing what they say.  And they are so right.

Look at the projects that are ongoing:  The fire alarm that was supposed to be $20,000 in the 2011 $4 million warrant is more than $30,000 now that they have properly bid it;  The asbestos removal that was supposed to be $15,000 ended up being $21,000;  The original price that they were using was from 2007!  Replacements for just 24 of the 120 or so windows in the place that were budgeted at $21,000 now cost out at $49,000.

We keep hearing the same old BS.  “This is the most studied building ever”. ” There won’t be any surprises”.  “Construction costs are much lower now”.  They continue to use the same architects who showed up last year with a phased construction presentation that had arithmetic errors resulting in the quoted price being off by $270,000!

I think a lot of voters feel as I do.  The people that are promoting this project, while well intentioned, are just not competent.  We have appropriated more than $800,000 to date and have virtually nothing to show for it.  This project, if it’s going to go anywhere, needs more public vetting, and less public funding.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office, Town Politics | 6 Comments

Done Deal

Posted on Sat, Sep 22, 2012 by overeasy

Couldn’t make the BOS meeting last Wednesday, so I just got to watch the finale of the Boat Trailer parking issue.  Can you guess?
A very articulate island resident got up to make a few points about their plight:

1) They don’t have anyplace else to put their trailers.  I think we covered that last week.  Local marinas will store your trailer for the summer for about $100.  Many non-island taxpayers like condo owners have restrictions against storing trailers on their property.  Many more would rather not have the eyesore.

2) They have been leaving them at Mast Landing for years.  OK, that’s a valid point.  But there is a relatively modern ordinance against that, and prior non-enforcement has been to their benefit.

3) They don’t get water and sewer.  Neither do a lot of other people.  Water users bear the entire cost of their service.  Sewer users bear the cost of operation, while the general fund, including island residents, bear the cost of the infrastructure.  That’s justified by the argument that everybody benefits from the protection of water quality and the enabling of townwide infrastructure like the downtown, hospital, and schools.

4) They don’t have fire protection.  That has always been the case, and is reflected in the value of the property, which is the basis for the tax bill.

What wasn’t mentioned was that there are already additional exclusive services provided to island residents:

1) Free unlimited boat slips at town facilities including Mast Landing and the Back Bay.  Anybody with a boat care to put a value on that?

2) Free unlimited parking at the water access parking lots.

Beyond that, the assessed values of Wentworth island properties were not increased dramatically a few years ago as were the land based waterfront values.  That’s probably because there are virtually no credible real estate transactions recorded to base a revaluation on.  These properties are typically transferred for $1, presumably between family members.  The net result is that Wentworth island lots are assessed at about $170,000 on average.  Where in the real world can you get private waterfront property, with a free unlimited land boat slip and parking, for $170,000?  Wentworth waterfront lots on the mainland are assessed at $500,000.

But all that just avoids the big picture.  It’s not the business of the Board of Selectmen to decide who is getting their money’s worth for their tax dollars.  The assessment is supposed to be based solely on the fair market value of the property – period.  We pay our share of the cost to run the town as a fixed rate tax on that assessment.  It doesn’t have anything to do with whether we have access to or use the various town services. Island residents can whine all day about their trailer parking plight.  We land based taxpayers have problems too, individually and collectively, and many of us that are paying, as in my case 7 times more in taxes than these undervalued island properties, are not being offered offsetting services.

Plain and simple, providing yet more exclusive town services to this select group of 40 taxpayers is nothing short of shameless pandering.

Posted in Town Politics | 2 Comments

Doing you proud

Posted on Thu, Sep 13, 2012 by overeasy

The overwhelming theme in the Grunter this week is the destruction and stealing of Obama/Biden signs around town.  For a party that wears “old fashioned values” on their sleeves, Romney supporters must be so proud.

Posted in National Politics | Comments Off on Doing you proud

18 Pages!

Posted on Wed, Sep 12, 2012 by overeasy

The latest dis of the Affordable Health Care Act is that it took 18 pages to define what constitutes a full time employee.   The other complaint is that the criteria is 30 hours per week instead of 40.

So why does it take 18 pages to define what a full time worker is?  Actually, the definition is pretty straightforward:  a worker that regularly works 30 or more hours per week is a full time employee.  The rest of the document describes the various methods of determining if an employer has 50 or more full time employees and is therefore required to provide health insurance to those employees.

If you stop and think about it, the whole thing can get pretty complicated.  Seasonal employers may have less than 50 for awhile, then more than 50 for awhile.  What do they do, provide health insurance while there are more than 50 then drop it after the busy season?  The answer is that the memo provides a couple of methods for the employer to average their employee load using various length periods.

So what was the definition of full-time employee before this?  Well, it turns out that the government didn’t have one.  Individual employers were free to define it as they pleased.  But as it turns out, the one consistent definition of a full time employee that has prevailed for decades is that of group health insurance providers.  Yep, it’s 30 hours per week.  That’s how many hours per week an employee has to regularly work to qualify to be in an employer’s group insurance plan.

I’m still waiting for some legitimate complaints of this law that justify the hyperbole that has been generated against it.  Counting the pages in a memo from the IRS that just codifies what has generally been the case for years seems like just another indication that there really isn’t any legitimate objection.

I know there are a few readers out there who don’t like me pointing out that the king has no clothes, but I welcome any comment that would help me understand why this is such a bad law that it merits immediate repeal.  Even Romney is starting to realize that he as no substantive argument for when this comes up in the debates.  He’s been busy trying to modify his stance to say that he would keep various parts of the law like elimination of preexisting conditions.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t seem to realize that is why the insurance companies are insisting on the individual mandate.

Arithmetic.  It doesn’t add up.

Posted in National Politics | Comments Off on 18 Pages!

Tax equity

Posted on Fri, Sep 7, 2012 by overeasy

At the last Selectman’s meeting, there was a public hearing for a proposed changed to town code to provide free boat trailer storage to island residents from May to October.  I blogged about it here.

One of the reasons Sarah Silk keeps giving is that in her opinion island property owners are paying too much in taxes and getting little in return.  She says: “They are paying dearly”.   I take exception to that kind of reasoning, especially from one of our lawmakers.

Love it or hate it, property tax is just that.  It taxes each of us proportional to the value of the property we own.  In return we are guaranteed only one thing – that we will all be treated equally.  It is not a fee-for-service arrangement.

You consider the services that you can expect as a property owner when you decide what you are willing to pay for the property.  It is part of what determines the value of that property, and hence what share of the town’s revenue you will contribute.  It’s all baked into the cake.

I have no axe to grind with island property owners.  This trailer parking thing is a new accommodation being promoted by Sarah Silk to appease half dozen alleged island residents who decided to ignore a longstanding town ordinance against leaving their trailers in the Mast Landing parking lot for more than a week and got ticketed. After calling the police chief on the carpet to explain himself, she wants to reward them with a new program to allow exclusive access to town provided trailer parking. Most folks that I know pay to have their trailers stored at one of the local marinas, and these six scofflaws could easily do the same.

If the Board of Selectmen is going to start making decisions about who is entitled to specific services based on their perception of who is getting their money’s worth for their tax dollars, we’re going to have some serious tax-equity issues coming up.

Posted in Brewster Hall/Town Office | 2 Comments

Shameless

Posted on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 by overeasy

Here’s what I’m talking about.  If there was any substantive rational for repealing the Affordable Health Act, they wouldn’t have to put out stuff like this:

Forget about the fact that the Affordable Care Act is nothing even remotely similar to the single payer Canadian health care system, even the facts surrounding the woman’s plight seem to be wrong.

Her story has been out there for a few years.  She says she had brain cancer and would have been dead if she waited four months for treatment.  According to news reports at the time, she had a benign cyst that was not life threatening.

Our Medicare system is much more similar to the Canadian health care system than Obamacare will ever be.  You would think that after all these years, opponents of Obamacare wouldn’t have to misrepresent the 7 year old experience of a Canadian woman to make their point.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Cui bono?

Posted on Tue, Sep 4, 2012 by overeasy

Who benefits?  Follow the money.  Wise old principles that lawyers use to cut through the smoke to see the truth.  While we as Americans are not a uniquely greedy bunch, we have refined the art considerably in our political process.

Ever since the 2010 election, we’ve been hearing about how Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) must be repealed.  “It’s a job killer”.  “It’s a government takeover of health care”.  “It’s supported by Liberals.” [added].  If you’ve given it any thought, you may be wondering if the first two are true.

The CBO says that the measure, in it’s entirety, reduces the projected deficit.  I think coverage for individuals like me and my family is improved with elimination of preexisting conditions and enhanced preventive coverage.  As might be expected, there are some things that should to be changed, but why exactly am I supposed to throw the baby out with the bath water?

The American Medical Association doesn’t seem to think Obamacare a bad thing.  Check out their advocacy statement on their website.  They call it “An important first step”.

So back to the money, and who benefits.  It seems to me that insurance companies, drug companies, and large hospital conglomerates have a great thing going for them right now.

Competition for health insurance has been eliminated by dividing up the territory.  Here in New Hampshire,  there is only one provider of individual health insurance coverage.  More than 70% of the entire insurance market, individual and group, is dominated by two companies.  They control the premiums paid by you and/or your employer and they control the amount that doctors are paid for their services.

Drug companies have a huge stake in the repeal.  In 2003 they succeeded in getting an outrageous provision into the Medicare part D law that actually prohibited the Government from negotiating prices for drugs.  (You remember, the law passed by browbeating opponents in the middle of the night.)   The VA can negotiate and pays much less than Medicare.  Canadians and Brits even less.  The drug companies say negotiation would lead to the Secretary of Human Services price fixing at higher prices –  LOL.  When the Democrats regained control of the house in 2007, they passed a bill to allow negotiation.  That bill was killed in the Senate.  Obamacare makes a back door pass at it and reduces the price of Medicare drugs across the board. 

Large hospital conglomerates that operate hundreds of for-profit medical facilities are in no mood to be compelled to change their practices.  They have a good thing going with doctors feeding them patients for tests and treatments that are of questionable effectiveness but high profit.  The Affordable Care act establishes the mechanisms to determine the effectiveness of services and make that information available to consumers.  There are a few not-for-profit providers out there who have shown better results at lower cost using a more informed approach with better prevention and early intervention.

Healthcare is one of the largest industries in the country and a premier growth industry.  There are trillions of dollars at stake, and American enterprise will go to the mat to protect the cash cow that they have built.  But hey, they’re just spending those millions opposing the bill because it’s bad for consumers.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Nothing’s gonna change

Posted on Wed, Aug 29, 2012 by overeasy

Ever worked in a business that was sold?  The new guys show up one morning and say “Hi, we’re the new owners but don’t worry nothing’s going to change.”

By all reports, Mitt Romney is not only good at that, but he may have invented it.  So I guess he can take liberties with the technique and apply it to anything else.  Like Medicare.

In your old age, he’s going to give you vouchers to buy private medical insurance so you can get your cancer treated, hip replaced, and heart bypassed.  The insurers will pay the providers while giving everyone a better deal than the government did.

Nothings gonna change.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Nothing’s gonna change

By the numbers

Posted on Tue, Aug 28, 2012 by overeasy

There are a few disgruntled attendees at the RNC convention in Tampa tonight.  Gotta love the little lobsters on the clothespins – nice touch.

These are Maine Ron Paul delegates who were replaced by the RNC with Romney delegates.  Read the story here. I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, but he certainly has a strong following here in neighboring New Hampshire.

Apparently the script doesn’t have room for a distraction like a candidate who went the distance and accumulated a significant number of supporters.  You can bet that the whole thing is planned to have the nomination consummated at a specific time by the delegates of a specific state.

Is anybody surprised that the party whose strategy has incorporated voter ID requirements that target students and seniors would ramrod a credentials challenge through at the convention?

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Back to basics

Posted on Tue, Aug 28, 2012 by overeasy

Rather than listen to the inflammatory nightmare scenarios that are being hurled every two to three minutes on prime time TV, I read over the analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  They have looked at the major policy issues that are in play relative to the economic outlook,  applied them to their economic models, and published their best estimate of the short and long term effects.

They looked at what would happen under current law: Expiration of tax tax cuts, budget reductions mandated by the sequestering provisions of the debt ceiling extension, and predictions of what will happen to interest rates and the effect of the resulting bebt service on the deficit.  Then they contrasted what would happen with those policies reversed.

It’s not exactly light reading, but it’s not that hard either.  They also talk about the effects on unemployment, and the hard truth is that the better the policies for long term deficit reduction, the worse they are for short term unemployment relief.  Sort of frames the dilemma that Obama has had during this first term.  Debt reduction and creating jobs, jobs, jobs seem to fall into the category of  having your cake and eating it too.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Back to basics