State Rep. Aylward Update To Constituents

Andover Beacon Newspaper, Feb. Submission

Legislative Priorities

Following are my legislative priorities for the upcoming term: Protecting and expanding the wildly successful Education Freedom Account program, by making it universal through in HB115; Passing the Parents' Bill of Rights, HB10; Passing HB238, ending compulsory union dues as a condition of employment; Passing a ban on sanctuary cities as referenced in HB511; Blocking biological males from entering female locker rooms and sports, HB148; Repealing vehicle inspections; Reforming New Hampshire's pension program into a defined contribution system such as in HB581; Adopting an all of the above Energy approach such as in HCR2; Passing the Defend the Guard act HB104; Banning Taxpayer funded lobbying activities as referenced in HB314; Eliminating the office of the Consumer Advocate, HB610; Eliminating the Office of the Child Advocate; Banning mandatory mask policies, HB361.

In addition, I will support: Loosening business regulations, and promoting economic development; Protecting Election Integrity and tightening restrictions on college students voting; Lowering and cutting taxes; Blocking any vaccine mandates; Spending taxpayer dollars to subsidize housing development; Cutting burdensome regulations that impede housing development; Protecting clean water and improving infrastructure; Cutting funding to DEI programs; Protecting and expanding Second Amendment rights while slamming the door on gun control; Lowering property taxes; Ensuring and increasing government transparency; Protecting individual liberties and freedoms; School funding reform; Cutting wasteful government spending; Providing municipalities and citizens with more tools to establish and enforce tax caps.
I welcome any input from constituents, please contact Rep. Deborah Aylward at Deborah.aylward@leg.state.nh.us, or call 603-217-7842.

Abortion Ban

I will not vote to support House Bill 476 which proposes a 15-week abortion ban. I have only heard from one constituent over my past, 2-year term on abortion. Like our new Governor, I believe constituents feel the current law is both fair, and reasonable and should just be left alone.

Veterans and Tax Credits

The Municipal and County Government (MC&G) Committee, upon which I sit, voted 18-0 Ought to Pass on a bill proposing to enable municipalities to adopt a tax credit for veterans having a
service-connected, permanent and total disability anywhere from $701.00 up to $5,000.00 that is $1,000 more than provided by current law. We must support these veterans, and I see no obstacle to this proposal moving forward.

Danbury's “Phantom” Firehouse

Commentary by Deborah Aylward

$3.2 MILLION DOLLAR BOND HEARING

At the Jan 30, 2025 public hearing on a proposed $3.2 Million Dollar Bond to fund a new fire house and police department complex, I observed certain attendees express both anger and frustration about how the Town was omitting vital facts and figures for making informed decisions. For example, no estimated cost breakdown, nor evidence of bids were available for the public to review. I asked if a contingency fee was built into the quoted amount, to which Select woman Hatch responded “No”, which sparked a question from another attendee to the effect “What if there are cost over-runs?”

Hatch went on to explain that a grant writer (who was suspiciously absent from the hearing), would be able to obtain certain grants for funding of other than the construction of the building. However, there was nothing in writing to indicate what grants are available, the amounts, and what they would cover. Nothing whatsoever.

After a loud and clear defeat of Article 4., the $3 Million Dollar bond measure last year (133-265), Hatch stated that "people she spoke with wanted to see the fire/police departments combined" and that they proceeded to obtain a quote for that type of complex.

Could it be that voters she didn't speak with were actually opposed to the overall cost of the project, among other reasons that accounted for the measure’s defeat, and wanted to see the project scaled down instead? Likely so. So why didn’t the committee present a more modest proposal, as well?

TAX IMPACT

According to a two-page handout from the hearing, the 20-year bond would result in a tax impact rate of $1.69 per thousand of assessed value the first year, so that the owner of a property assessed at $300K would pay an additional $507.00 on their tax bill in 2026. This is in addition to what will most likely be other tax increases to keep the town operating, along with school, county and state increases.

Note: Only one page of the two-page handout is posted to the Town website, the second page showing a sketch of the building and indicated as" used for quote purposes"is suspiciously absent. Why the secrecy?

Another attendee expressed frustration about the skyrocketing property taxes, indicating that he was on a fixed income, and that, basically, the ever increasing, exorbitant taxes -- are unsustainable.

For example, in Andover, according to the Town Administrator, in one case, an assessed value increased 86.5% from the previous year! The average Social Security retirement amount is only $1,900 a month, or $22,800 a year. Subtract five thousand to pay taxes, such leaves only $17,800 a year to live on. There are senior citizens having to take second jobs to survive.

Overall, the response to the proposal was very negative.

So what will your taxes look like 10 years from now with assessed values increasing each year and in addition to paying off the 20-year bond? The handout indicates that each year the debt will lessen, and by year 20, the tax impact rate will be $.90 per thousand of assessed value. At the current, out of control assessment rate, hypothetically, your $300K home could become a $1 Million (or more) assessed home by year 20, and your bond debt cost would be almost $1.00 per thousand. One million is one thousand thousands. And if you add up the annual tax liability year over year for 20 years, how much are you over-paying for a 'career department build' you, and inhabitants 75 years from now, will likely never need statistically speaking? You do the math. . .

PHANTOM EXCLUSIONS

But wait, there’s more! According to the handout, the $3.2 Million Dollar quote ‘DOES NOT INCLUDE’: Furnishings, such as "desks, tables, chairs, appliances, or specialized equipment". So where is the itemization, estimated cost breakdown, and disclosure of these these types of exclusions? What exactly is ‘specialized equipment’? I’m highly suspicious of this sweeping term ’specialized equipment’. If not currently needing this mysterious and unspecified ’specialized equipment’ why then would such equipment be needed -- just because there is a new building?
This lack of the same information is exactly what happened last year, and about which I strongly objected. So yet again, I feel the wool being slowly pulled down over my eyes, folks.

And wait a minute! The police and fire departments ALREADY HAVE ‘sturdy desks, chairs, types of appliances, computers, shelves, filing cabinets, etc.,” at their current locations, and that if ‘functional’ do not need to be replaced! Again, my mother always said ‘Use it up or wear it out before you throw it out”.

I would HOPE that frugality would reign the day, and that everything currently being used is all that is necessary, and would just be transferred over to the new digs, right? Under no circumstances would I want to see brand spanking new furnishings, etc., replace current and functional of same already owned by the town — on taxpayers’ dimes. In other words, I do not want to see current of functional Town assets piled up at the transfer station. . .

Would there not be the need for a designer?

From the web: "Interior design is the art and science of understanding people's behavior to create functional spaces within a building. The overall purpose is to provide guidance to optimize the functionality, efficiency and usability of a municipal government center building.” So who is going to assure ‘functionality and efficiency’, or choose the type, color, style, quality, durability, and vendor of materials and finishes used?

Design must also be in good taste, and these decisions can’t be left to amateurs. And how much would this service cost? Has the committee made an inquiry for full disclosure? I see no mention.

BUDGET COMMITTEE ‘DOES NOT RECOMMEND'

Of keen interest, according to the handout, the Budget Committee, for a second year in a row, "does not recommend" this project. Thank-goodness for those level-headed members of the committee who are looking out for the taxpayers’ best interests, and who are commended for ‘going against the flow’ both practically, and politically speaking! Their decisions alone should make taxpayers run to the polls and ‘Vote No!”. And frankly, I see no earthly reason for the Select board to ‘recommend’ this project given all the phantom circumstances, negative feedback, and impracticality of the project.

PLANNING BASED ON AFFORDABILITY

I believe that those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. Last year I challenged the Town to produce a ‘modest’ proposal, one that was based on ‘affordability’. I see no such study presented for taxpayer’s consideration.

For example, according to the NH Fiscal Policy Institute, 9.8% of Merrimack County residents are ‘food insecure’. The population of Danbury is approximately 1,300 people, which means there is a good chance that just under 130 residents simply can’t afford food. . Furthermore, “. . .single-female-headed households with children have a higher poverty rate. In 2023, about 7.6 percent of individuals over the age of 64, lived in poverty, which is more prevalent among individuals with disabilities and those working part-time or not working.” New Hampshire is a rapidly aging state, and it only takes one accident or illness to become disabled, or suddenly left without a partner. Wouldn't you rather save or invest the equivalent of the bond debt amount to help secure your future instead?

Meanwhile, as of June 2024, the median single-family house sale price was $538,000! Hardly affordable for those forced from their properties and having to re-locate.

RENT CONTROL

And renters, beware! Any tax increases will, undoubtedly, be passed down by landlords. Renters, you can help control your rent by voting "NO" to the bond article.

“The U.S. Government Accountability Office estimated that a $100 increase in median rent was associated with a 9 percent increase in the unhoused rate!” And “.. . the number of people experiencing homelessness increased by about 52 percent between 2022 and 2023, at a much faster rate than the 8 percent increase from 2021 to 2022.” That’s 52 percent! Think about it.

"For people with low incomes, half of those paying rent and utilities pay for these necessities with 50% of their household incomes! In 2023, the median household income of renter households was about $53,816, while the median household income of homeowners was about $114,853.” In 2023, over one in four households had less than $50K per year in income, and more than one in six had less than $35K.” Whether property owners, or renters, this proposed, and substantial increase in taxes, or rent may determine whether or not they will become unhoused.

Should not these economic and other indicators have a bearing on whether or not $3.2 Million (+) is actually ‘affordable’ for each and every town inhabitant? And how can any voter look a cherished neighbor in the eye, knowing the crushing economic burden will cause loss of property, and say they are voting ‘Yes’ to this proposal?

PUBLIC DONATIONS ARE NON-EXISTENT

So here’s a fun fact! The Wilmot firehouse, located on Rt. 11, (which, from a street view, appears to currently house two engines and another emergency vehicle), was built entirely from public donations! Not one taxpayer dime was spent on the project. The firehouse (photo above) was stick-built, has four bay doors, and during a tour, was observed to have offices for the fire and police chief(s), a kitchen/meeting/training and storage areas. Wilmot has a current population of approx. 1,400.

Contacting Chief Martin and asking if Danbury's volunteer organization had collected any donations towards building a new fire house in Danbury, his response was they had not. So the question is “Why not?”

The question of a new firehouse has been bantered around for years and years. In that time, apparently no effort was put forth by our volunteers to supplement taxpayer dollars with public donations to build a new structure? Other cities and towns have volunteers who are seen out on the street with their boots, into which money is deposited as a donation, and holding annual fundraising events. There are plenty of opportunities for collecting donations, so why are these activities not seen in this town? Think about it. . .

There is also the question of whether or not volunteers (or others) have trade or other skills they could donate to the project to off-set labor costs? And how many medical calls are dispatched to Ragged Mountain Resort? Could not the resort make a sizeable donation to help off-set project expenses when town services are catering to their clientele? I see no mention of any such offers.

There is only ‘scant’ information found in the Danbury Public Safety Building Committee Minutes -- that stops at Aug. 29, 2024 on the town website by the way. Hardly enough information for making informed decisions, and apparently the Town wants inhabitants to have to visit Town Hall to read the more current minutes in paper form. . . hardly convenient for anyone. Why the secrecy?

CAREER VS. ALL-VOLUNTEER DEPARTMENT

To me, there is this sense of ‘over-building’, or building beyond the minimum requirements needed for the provision of emergency services -- in Danbury. The question is ‘Why?” From cryptic of the committee’s minutes ( that rarely show what was actually discussed in any detail) there is a sense that there are a few individuals who believe the fire department, at some point in time, will go ‘full time’, along with ambulance services!

In other words, it seems the committee is trying to push what is termed as a ‘career fire department’, for a town having a current population of approx.1,300, when indeed, in 2020, nationwide, only 18% of fire departments were ‘career’, or ‘mostly career’. Furthermore, nationwide, 37% of fire departments provide no emergency medical services; 46% provide basic life support, and only 17% provide advanced life support!

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1710 provides the standards for ‘career fire departments’ and NFPA 1720 does the same for ‘volunteer departments’ with ‘career department’ defined below.

From firelawblog.com: https://www.firelawblog.com/20...

The 2020 Edition contains several noteworthy changes.

"To address concerns about when NFPA 1710 applies compared to NFPA 1720 (the standard for volunteer fire departments), a definition of a career fire department was added that identifies a career department as one that utilizes full-time or full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel to comprise at least 50% of an initial full alarm assignment. In other words, if 50% or more of the personnel dispatched on the first alarm to a reported structure fire are career/FTE personnel, the department falls under NFPA 1710. The new definition will have no impact on fire departments that only employ career personnel. The biggest impact will be on fire departments that have career and part-time and/or volunteer personnel. FTEs would be several part-time employees whose combined hours equal a full-time employee. A simple example: if a fire department staffs a riding position 24/7 with 7 part time employees each working 24 hours a week while career personnel work 56 hours per week, the 7 part time personnel would constitute 1 FTE riding position (think it through). There will likely be a lot of discussion about this provision going forward. In particular, when a volunteer engine is dispatched along with a career engine, how many riding positions should be counted for the volunteer apparatus? Is it the total number of seats the apparatus has, or the number of seats actually occupied (perhaps on average), or might it be the number assumed in a policy dictating what each riding position is expected to do? Plenty of grist for the mill."

Therefore, I would like to see the committee produce a cost estimate of what it would cost to build and maintain a ‘career department’, including salaries, benefits, building maintenance, cost of an ambulance, training, uniforms, etc., to substantiate the need for what appears to be a ‘career department’ build. I don’t think that is too much to ask before handing over the purse strings to $3.2 Million (+) Dollars, with additional, but phantom other expenses.

PLANNING BASED ON POPULATION

Further research reveals that only large cities (population 100K +) are ‘primarily’ full-time (or career), with mid-size communities (between 10K - 100K) combining volunteer and paid staff, and ‘’small communities (less than 10K), being ALL volunteer. Building a ‘career department’ building flies in the face of national statistics -- that do not support such a build for a town the size of Danbury now, and well into the future.

DANBURY POPULATION LOOKING FORWARD 75 YEARS

From Neilsburg.com research:

Danbury, New Hampshire Annual Population and Growth Analysis Dataset: A Comprehensive Overview of Population Changes and Yearly Growth Rates in Danbury town from 2000 to 2023 // 2024 Edition

Key observations In 2023, the population of Danbury town was 1,296, a 1.09% increase year-by-year from 2022. Previously, in 2022, Danbury town population was 1,282, an increase of 1.34% compared to a population of 1,265 in 2021. Over the last 20 plus years, between 2000 and 2023, population of Danbury town increased by 230. In this period, the peak population was 1,296 in the year 2023. The numbers suggest that the population has not reached its peak yet and is showing a trend of further growth. Source: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates Program (PEP).

Ordering the dataset that shows the Town’s population from 2000 through 2023, in 2000, the population was 1066. Of those years, there was growth during 18 of those years, with the addition of approximately 12.7 people per year on average. Rounding up to 13 people per year, by year 75, there would be approximately an additional 975 people added to the current 1,296, for an approximate total of 2,271 of population — which means Danbury will STILL only be a ’small community’ and only needing a part-time, volunteer department seventy-five years from now.

Did the committee/Select board take projected, future population into consideration? I see nothing of the kind in writing. Why not? Logically, this ‘population' factor in and of itself is the primary factor for decision-making, and it was completely ignored. Why?

In no way shape or form will the the Town of Danbury reach a population of 10,000 in 75 years to justify a ‘career fire department’. The statistics don’t lie, and apparently have not been taken into consideration. I feel this is beyond irresponsible.

INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION

The comparison to the Town of Bristol must stop! There is no comparison. Bristol has a ‘significant' commercial property base that helps off-set the tax burden on homeowners, Danbury does not!

So it appears the ’necessary allocation of resources’ have not been properly identified, and have somehow been grossly inflated by this committee that is comparing apples to oranges, if not also by the Selectmen, which have not produced sufficient information for voters informed decision-making.

PLANNING BASED ON POSSIBLE REGIONAL SERVICES

Recently speaking with another county’s sheriff, it is his belief that ‘local control’ regarding the provision of emergency services just isn’t working anymore, that each community (especially small communities) does not need a so-called safety complex, and that taxpayers are better off if certain types of services are centralized.

He further believes that ‘regionalization’ of such services is on the horizon for communities across the state. If so, why would we want to saddle Danbury taxpayers with an over-built building, if the services can be regionalized in the future? Where is regional planning input? We pay dues to a regional planning commission, why has the commission, or other experts in municipal complex planning not been consulted? Why is this project being held so close to the vest?

Responsibly speaking, and in my opinion, Danbury should build as if the building was to become a small "sub-station" in the not too distant future.

THE TWO-STORY CONTROVERSY

Does the Town need a new, two-story, 5-bay door fire /police department building? Absolutely not. Not for an average of about 12 fires per year, with only 9 reported in 2023! Furthermore, all-volunteer firehouses are typically NOT two-stories that adds greatly to cost per square foot, and annual maintenance (e.g. heating).

Remember last year, when the second-story was pitched as a disaster shelter, community gathering area, a place to house gym equipment, and beds (only needed for a career department, BTW), but I pointed out that the plans showed no indication of an elevator shaft for ADA compliance?

This year, Selectman Ruby Hill announced at the bond hearing that the second-story would NOT be publicly accessible, therefore, no elevator was needed, as if the savings of an elevator somehow justified having a second story. So that pretty much leaves the space for housing gym equipment, because beds are not needed since this department will likely never be a ‘career department’.

THE QUESTION OF PHYSICAL FITNESS

I’m all for firefighters being physically fit, but I’m concerned about having expensive second- story space for housing gym equipment when there are several individuals on the department who unfortunately, show no apparent signs of becoming physically fit since it doesn’t take a gym to lose weight, build muscle and endurance. This leads me to believe that the Danbury fire department does not have a sanctioned physical fitness requirement.

Here is an article on NFPAs standards for physical fitness:
https://www.firerescue1.com/he...

The only way I could support the expense of a second-story to house a gym was if the fire department implemented, and maintained the NFPA 1582 Physical Fitness Standard.

If not, I would propose immediately appropriating funds to provide each member of the department with an annual membership to the gym in Bristol with the condition the memberships will actually be used. Such would eliminate the need for second-story space to house a gym, and prevent liability in the event of injury, and would likely cost less in the long run.

That in fact, KitlerFitness in Bristol, has a ‘Responders Together Open Gym” every Friday, between 2 and 6 p.m. that is offered at no charge. I wonder how many of our volunteers are actually taking advantage of this fantastic offer?

A MODEST-SIZED, ALL-VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ALL THAT IS 'NEEDED'

Hint, hint: I’d personally like to know how much it would cost to replicate Wilmot’s firehouse in today’s dollars, both stick and steel built, as I perceive it to be an adequately-sized structure for Danbury, and design-wise, aesthetically in- keeping with “Village Character’. In other words a modest-sized structure for a modest-sized town having inhabitants with modest-sized incomes. I wonder if the Chief still has the plans for the Wilmot firehouse?

HOW TO BUDGET FOR A FIREHOUSE?

Here is an EXCELLENT read on how to budget for a fire house: http://www.rfmarch.com/wp-cont...

POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPOSAL

Does the Town need a police department complete with a sally port and jail cell, etc? A sally-port is a secure, enclosed area where cruisers can enter, and safely move prisoners to the booking area.

The proposed police department takes up a massive amount of the space in the proposed 8,000 sq. ft. building. The current police department has served the town well over decades, and the town is not crime-ridden. No sally port, jail cell, etc., is needed because prisoners can be taken to Bristol or Merrimack County jail for bookings, to see a Bail Commissioner, or if ineligible for, or unable to make bail, is where they can be housed until arraignment.

Do we need a full-time police chief? Apparently not. In 2023, the ‘Average call volume per day was 2.1”! This was for calls to which the state police, sheriff department, the town and Franklin Police Departments combined responded. We would be much better off saving money by having a part-time chief, and putting on part-time police officers, if and when needed. And don’t be
deceived by folks who say there is no part-time police academy. Go to the Police Standards and Training Council website to see part-time officer training provided.

So statistically, and practically-speaking, there does not appear to be the need for a new, state-of-the-art police department. When asked at the bond hearing if having any input, Police Chief Kelby simply stated that he “. . .wanted what the people want.” I’m sure he’s a man of his word, and does not want to see Danbury inhabitants bankrupted by a pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic project. We are blessed to have access to these other police department's resources, we should NOT be duplicating efforts for something that is not ’needed’ according to all the facts and circumstances.

Danbury already has 24/7 law enforcement coverage, whether it is the part-time chief, a part-time officer, the state police, or sheriff’s office. In fact, many think we are better off just contracting with the Sheriff’s Department at a flat detail fee in which case there is no overhead whatsoever with such the case in Salisbury. Think about it.

The Town has previously admitted that there IS room for expanding the police department’s space out towards the back parking lot. So why have taxpayers NOT been presented with a comprehensive plan for doing so?Because expanding IS an option, the select board has not been diligent in their duty, as fiduciaries of tax-payer funds, to present the costs of ALL options, to possibly include installation of a steel security door with bullet proof window, pass-through transaction tray, two-way intercom and CCTV for police department personnel's safety — at its
current location.

I don’t see anything in writing that shows professional management of this project as outlined in the above, comprehensive budgeting document. Citizens want to see the reasoning behind the decisions being made, and the numbers, in writing! Until then, the fire and police departments will just have to ‘make do’. Understand this is simply business, not personal, and that sometimes it just takes some tough love based on FACTS to drive home a point.

JESSICA HATCH MUST RECUSE

I am also gravely concerned about Selectman, Jessica Hatch having any say in any vote regarding this project. She is a blood relative of Chief Martin ( her brother), thus creating an unethical situation -- which is clearly nepotism, and an obvious, personal ‘conflict of interest’. It's bad enough, that in her capacity of Selectman, she 'steered' the committee work, then advocated for the 'career department' build at the bond hearing.

If voting on any aspect of this project, Hatch’s vote would be wildly inappropriate, and likely void, or voidable in a court of law. I believe her obvious lack of due-diligence shows bias in favor of what may be her brother’s clear desire to head-up an eventual ‘career department’, that comes with full-time employment, costly benefits, other paid staff, training, uniforms, expensive vehicles, other equipment, upkeep and maintenance, with costs unknown, or ‘phantom’.

Nepotism defined: “The practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs: favoritism, preferential treatment, keeping it in the family, the old boy network, looking after one's own, bias, partiality, partisanship, patronage; unfairness." And if remembering last year, the Selectmen went to the expense of mailing out a flyer that promoted Article 4 regarding the $3.2M bond, and indicating that the board 'recommended' the measure -- but failed to include the fact that the Budget Committee 'did not recommend'. This mailer was clearly prejudicial towards the firehouse project, and was highly inappropriate. It was designed to unduly influence voters by the obvious omissions made -- and I still don't have an answer as to who actually wrote/approved the mailer's text.

PHANTOM CONTINGENCY FEE

All in all, the Town is not being completely transparent about the funds needed for such a project, and in my opinion, the $3.2 Million Dollar quote is not an honest number, and has been incompetently proposed. Failing to include a construction contingency fee, that typically runs from 10-20% of the estimated amount, is beyond comprehension. For example, 20% on $3.2M is $640,00 -- or more than an additional half a million dollars alone! Contingencies guard against unknown conditions, and reflects the amount of ‘risk’ that Town is willing to undertake — and is a basic factor to consider, but it was not. Why not?

With a 20% contingency, what we’re REALLY talking about is $3,840,000 — or close to $4 Million Dollars, which still DOES NOT INCLUDE the various and assorted non-specified items mentioned in the handout (otherwise known as ‘furniture, fixtures and equipment’ (FF&E), for which there is no estimated cost breakdown, and those that will be needed but are not mentioned, and those items that are 'wanted' but are not needed!

WHAT’S THE TRUE COST TO TAXPAYERS?

This quote further does not include the cost of a new engine the Chief keeps mentioning, that can cost over $1 Million . . nor annual costs of overall operation. This project could very well become a $5 to $6 Million (+) dollar project in no time, with the town having to come back to voters and say ‘Uh-oh, we need more (and more) money”. . . Citizens should not have to ‘dig’ for information, or rely on insufficient or non-existent information.

Where is this project’s budget, and projected escalation in costs? I want to see a breakdown indicating preliminary ‘hard costs, soft costs and contingencies’. Why has a professional cost estimator not been used? I have no confidence in any project where the budget has not been disclosed, nor when it is not accompanied by information on how the budget was determined to arrive to an honest, preliminary cost per square foot, plus and honest estimate of ALL other expenses!

NEW, IMPARTIAL COMMITTEE NEEDED

I would suggest that the Selectmen solicit participants for a new committee, comprised of participants who are able to to objectively examine all the facts and statistics, and arrive to a proper proposal that includes all the options. None of the members of the committee should have 'skin in the game', and no public official should steer the committee work. The committee would present its findings to the Select board, and it would go from there.

Demand transparency, and insist that a proper, modest, and practical proposal be put forth for voters consideration. Don’t let the Town pull the wool over your eyes.

JUST REMEMBER

— $3.2 Million is not an honest quote; does not include a contingency fee that could add over half a million additional dollars, and does not include ‘excluded items'

--Danbury’s current and projected population, and NFPA statistics do not support a ‘career fire department’build; future population was not taken into consideration

— Current statistics do not support having a full-time Police Chief, or expansive, new police department build

—This project was not planned based on taxpayer ‘affordability’

--Taxpayers and renters are at their breaking point already, the added burden of excessive bond debt can cause vulnerable residents to become unhoused

JUST SAY 'NO' TO A CAREER FIRE DEPT. BUILD!

Town elections have notoriously low turnout. Don’t let ’the other guy’ determine whether or not you pay exorbitant property tax or rent increases the result of an over- bloated build. Most importantly, and dangerously, please know there will be voters who are not taxpayers, and who are not educated about the ramifications if blindly voting in favor of the project.

Don’t let non-taxpayers saddle you with the costly bill for fulfilling other persons’ phantom fantasies!

REMEMBER TO VOTE!

Register to vote if not having done so already. If registered and opposed to a $3.2 Million (+) Dollar 'career department' build, with the PLUS a disturbing, unknown amount — Please Vote ’No”! Send a message that ’No, means No!” and that taxpayers will not settle for less than excellence from those wishing to spend their hard-earned tax dollars.

Deborah Aylward has been a resident of Danbury, NH since 2006. She is a citizen activist, and member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives serving her second term. She represents the citizens of Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, and Webster, and serves on the Municipal and County Government Committee. She supports holding government officials accountable, government transparency, and low property taxes.