Quote:
Originally Posted by tummyman
Saturday, March 14th will, yet again, be a test as to how many people will support bonding for a new Community Center or a new combined Community/Recreation Center in Moultonborough. The Select Board has proposed spending $3M for a stand alone Community Center at the former Lions Club site off Old Rt 109 and separately a group of residents have petitioned the town to spend $6.7M for a combined Community/Recreation facility off Rt25. Seems like this happens every year just like mud season! Compromise seems to be off the table yet again for some. Below is a Letter to the Editor that may help to resolve things so that everyone can feel partially satisfied IF the town plan is not adopted !
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Can Moultonborough Compromise ?
Once more Moultonborough will consider two bonding proposals….Article 5 for $3.0M for a Community Center (CC) on the Lions and Article 6 for $6.72M for a Community/Recreation Center on the Taylor/school site. Both have long term implications.
The SelectBoard supports Article 5 for a CC on the Lions and will consider a Recreation Center on the Taylor after future extensive site studies (Article 7), as current Taylor site work is superficial. Many favor this approach, since the existing Lions CC needs upgrading, and locating this facility on Old Rt109 is beneficial for access and less disruptive to traffic on Rt25 and the Village District.
The BOS/CIPC/ABC/CDAC do not support Article 6 ($6.72M) for a combined facility on Taylor/school property. Some argue part of this is a “want” (Recreation Center) vs a “need” (Community Center). Many are adamantly opposed to a CC location adjacent to Rt25 within the Village District. And Schools have not weighed in on land ownership or siting.
At last year’s Town Meeting, the BOS did not offer a split site option…..a CC at Lions and a Recreation Center at Taylor. It is hard to understand why not! Many older folks don’t want to be co-located with youngsters and deal with Rt25, but younger families want a recreation facility near schools. So, why no option that satisfies both? Hello….is anyone listening ??
A compromise would amend Article 6 by splitting it into two sites….$3.0M for a CC at Lions and $3.72M for a Recreation Center at Taylor. The $3.0M is what the BOS proposed for the CC at Lions (Article 5), and $3.72M is almost a quarter million more than the Recreation Director proposed for a Recreation Center in the 2020 budget. Everyone gets something with two sites. While two sites vs. one may not result in the least expensive annual operating costs, it does provide for enhanced scheduling and most likely satisfies the greatest number of residents.
Benefits of two sites:
Provides BETTER access/egress for CC users
- Old Rt109 is less disruptive to traffic within the Village District
Allows enhanced scheduling options
- Imagine a large social gathering at a combined facility with an ongoing basketball game
Reduces footprint at Taylor where site conditions need extensive investigation
- Provides more Taylor space for potential Town Green
Reduces Taylor environmental impacts…stormwater runoff, tree removal, groundwater issues, etc.
- Planning Board and Conservation have yet to weigh-in on Taylor/school property
Accelerates CC at Lions….construction possibly by year end
- Combined facility may not happen for a number of years
Aligns with BOS, ABC, CDAC, CIPC APPROVAL of CC on Lions…
Aligns with BOS, ABC, CDAC, CIPC NON-APPROVAL of $6.72M Taylor project
The question remains…..can we compromise or is this “my way or the highway”? Moultonborough residents can come together. Amend Article 6 so everyone can declare victory.
Compromise is not a dirty word but an opportunity to do things right as a community!
|
Lets sit back, grab a coffee, beer or what ever and review what has really happened in M'boro.
Last year, the board of selectman decided, in a private meeting, that they would put an across the board raise in the valuation of water front property, no appraisals, nothing, just everyone with water front now owes 16.6% more. They started their public meeting and voted it in (review the online video). They then asked for public comment (after it was law), and dismissed the public input. Note, none of the selectman own waterfront, or are life time citizens of the town (except for one: thanks Joel, you are the most reasonable one).
The obvious result was the state reduced the per thousand tax rate. This creates the political inference the selectman have reduced taxes. Now they want to spend this illusionary windfall. Think maintenance fees for what they want to do, non waterfront tax payers will will participate in the bond repayment. I feel betrayed that those in charge think they can get away with this trickery.
Compromise, definition means two sides give in, I don't see any give in on the towns part. One would think they could wait a few years, for people to forget their tax raises, or get a flood of new unknowing tax payers, before pulling this chicanery. It is an outrage.