State Representative, Deborah Aylward

Drum roll please!

It's just days before voting day, March 11th. Is everyone excited?? There is lots to unpack and share. First, I have it from a reliable source, but is unconfirmed, that the Town of Danbury Police Chief has, or intends to render his resignation. In Merrimack, Dist. 5, such would leave only Webster, and Andover having local chiefs. What to do when local control is no longer working? Regionalization.

POLICE CHIEF RETENTION PROBLEM

So Danbury has an apparent 'police chief' retention problem. I wonder if the Select board conducted an 'exit interview' and asked the chief to describe the reasons why he was leaving?? That if not for personal reasons, there should be an explanation. However, the Select board meeting minutes stop at December 17, 2024 online (with the Dec. 20th budget committee meeting minutes mistakenly posted), so by way of meeting minutes, the resignation can't be confirmed.

I believe the Town should go back to contracting with the Sheriff's office for a flat fee. This would free the town of all the overhead costs associated with maintaining an in-house department. There would still be coverage from the state PD as well.

ARTICLE 2. $3.2M BOND

Voters are being asked to foot the bill for a $3.2M, 20-year bond. But why would we build a bedazzled fire/police safety complex, that is anything but a ‘modest’, all-volunteer firehouse, and saddle taxpayers with a significant increase in property taxes, if we have a police chief retention problem and regionalization (i.e. county-wide fire and ambulance services, and likely law enforcement services, as well) is anywhere on the horizon?

Where was this topic addressed in the so-called ‘feasibility study’, or presented otherwise? Where was the ‘forward thinking” as to future population (say, 2,500 in 75 years); or the appearance of building an ‘all-career, or part-career’ building, with ambulance services idea disclosed, which are NOT supported according to national statistics already published in a previous article?

And. . .if deciding to go with the Sheriff's office alternative, then WHY on earth would we build a new police station? Think about it! Furthermore, with the potential for regionalization of fire/ambulance, and law enforcement services, would the county want to lease an 'over-built' safety complex, and only want to pay a lease amount that is proportionate to the actual, average calls for service, leaving taxpayers on the hook for the remaining amount of upkeep? This entire issue needs to be examined.

HEADS UP!

THE LIFESPAN OF A STEEL BUILDING IS. . .

According to , https://ccpia.org/estimated-li... the estimated life span of a steel building is ONLY 35-50 YEARS! Voters were being told this is a 75-year build! Where is the guarantee from the metal building company that their building will last 75 years?? Something just doesn't make sense!!

Until this project makes sense, voters should be very leery of the lack of transparency, a published, estimated cost breakdown, and other basic information necessary for informed decision-making.

COMING DOWN THE PIKE. . .

ANOTHER BOND, BET ON IT!

Of possible interest, the Merrimack County Delegation voted “NO” to a proposed, $50M Bond to rehab the nursing home. Republicans on the committee unanimously voted “NO” for a variety of reasons, but of most importance, was because, according to Rep. Aures (who is a ‘high finance’ professional), the numbers don’t add up!

This bond proposes to add $55.00 per thousand of assessed value on home assessed at $550,000. So here again, is a proposed project where ‘numbers don’t add up’ or don't make sense, and Republicans caught the anomaly. Speaking of numbers, has ANYONE seen ‘an estimated cost breakdown’ for the TOD, proposed fire/police building? Or that this $3.2M was the result of a study that included future population, or affordability? Hmmm?

So saddle up! The town tax rate is set at $22.00! So for future financial planning EXPECT a county bond for rehab of the nursing home, in the millions, from 20 to 30 years, and be prepared to tack on an increase for the bond cost in addition to the regular county tax rate, and if voting for this $3.2M bond, in addition thereto! Y'all do the math!

Vote “NO” on ARTICLE 2.

“No, means No’. Tell the Town to ‘get it right’

Election of Officers

So there are lots of new names on the ballot in Danbury! But do they know what they’re getting themselves into? I can only hope that with an influx of honorable citizens, that bad-actor habits will become ELIMINATED by public officials new to the game asking the simple question: “By what authority are we doing this?” and insisting that the laws, rules, or regulations governing proposed actions or conduct be produced so they can see for themselves that what they are being asked to vote for — are indeed lawful, and in order to preserve their good names and reputations.

To 'appoint' or 'not to appoint' is the question

ARTICLE 8. Is about changing the road agent job from an ‘elected’ to an ‘appointed’ position.

If changed to an ‘appointed’ position, anyone, I repeat, anyone can apply for the position, that must be publicly advertised to fill the vacancy that will occur as a result. There must be interviews of candidates, to include those from out of town, and the job must be given to the person most qualified for the job, and who may even do the job for less $$$! The appointing authority (i.e. Selectmen) cannot play ‘favoritism’, and just hand the appointed position over to the formerly- elected road agent, which means our current road agent will not necessarily get the job! In addition, the Selectmen will be ‘in charge’ of the road department!

Um, please tell me what are the qualifications of one or more of any of the selectmen, or selectmen-elect to oversee a road agent on a day to day basis? Will they have to field every complaint? And if not qualified, or don't have the time to field every complaint, will taxpayer's dollars become squandered as a result?

The Selectmen are not paid enough, and likely do not have the time to take on this additional burden, nor have the qualifications to know what makes a good road agent, or not, or to oversee this critical function, in my opinion.

We saw the select board spin their wheels trying to properly advertise for, and interview police chief candidates in the past, to no avail, and for which role none of the same were [then] apparently qualified. It took our Sheriff to step in an undertake the task. Furthermore, it is almost virtually impossible to terminate an appointed official's position. This is why we 'elect' a road agent, and the power to terminate is with the people at the polls.

Don't relinquish your power!

Vote “NO” on ARTICLE 8.

Let’s not give away any more of the People’s Power!

Deborah Aylward is a citizen of Danbury, NH, a state lawmaker and citizen activist