Aylward: Wow! What A Week In Concord And Beyond

by Deborah Aylward

ANTI-SANCTUARY CITIES: The NH Journal reports: "SB 563, sponsored by Sen. Bill Gannon (R-Sandown), “prohibits state and local government entities from adopting sanctuary policies to prohibit or impede the enforcement of federal immigration law.” It also instructs local law enforcement officers to “use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.” The bill passed the Senate 14-10. The intent of the bill is to prevent towns/cities from adopting local ordinances that prohibit law enforcement from detaining individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally and contacting ICE to see if the agency wants to pick the individual up.

CONFILICT OF INTEREST: In the Municipal and County Government Committee: HB 1124 "relative to limiting conflicts of interest for municipal board and committee members” the measure passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote (19-1). This bill addresses problems that, based on testimony, are prevalent state-wide.

Whereas Towns are enabled by law to adopt ‘conflict of interest ordinances’ many have not. The overall intent of the bill is to prevent public servants from having their fingers in too many pies, and having the opportunity to unduly influence and/or to vote when having a direct or indirect, personal or pecuniary interest in the matters being decided, especially when involving financial transactions.

During public hearings, the committee heard testimony about numerous towns having officials, employees, and department heads occupying seats on boards and committees who engage in conduct that drives special, political, or self-serving interests that are not in the best interests of the citizens served. Separation of positions and powers will help protect against fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funds and town assets. From testimony, this is a widespread problem across the state, especially in certain smaller towns. This bill is long overdue, I voted to support Ought-to-Pass and it is anticipated the bill will sail through the full house.

###

DANBURY, ARTICLE 4: Danbury does not have a ‘Conflict of Interest Ordinance" per RSA 31:39-a, which allows:

"The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed", and ". . .[e]stablishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office."

If HB 1124 had been in place, Jeremy Martin would have been prohibited from serving on the committee studying the feasibility of a matter directly affecting him and his department. Such advisory-only committees must be populated by objective, impartial citizens having nothing to gain. Public officials must not be in a position to influence nor vote on any matter where there is any chance of there being the slightest appearance of impropriety.

###

INFORMATIONAL FLYER: Then there is the question of a so-called informational flyer sent to all Danbury residents supposedly from the Select Board regarding Article 4, the author of the content unknown. The flyer appears to be thinly veiled, if not actual ‘electioneering’ in that it failed to include the fact that the Budget Committee voted to ’not recommend’ Article 4. Therefore, it appears the author was biased in favor of the project, and advocated for Article 4’s success which was paid for by the taxpayers of the Town, many of whom are opposed, and like myself, are offended by the content given missing information, and;

The flyer also includes ‘fear-mongering’ in that it appears to suggest that if Article 4 does not pass, residents will not be able to receive mutual aid services. However, speaking with the Assistant Fire Chief from neighboring Grafton, whose department is known to respond to Danbury, he stated “I can't think of any reason we would cease providing mutual aid to the Town of Danbury, that is unless the town refuses it.” In my opinion, the flyer was ill-conceived. I believe it is unlawful to use taxpayer funds to lobby for or against a measure on the ballot as public officials must remain 'neutral' and not use their office to push personal or political agendas.

In June of 2023, the Town Clerk reported six citizens having liens on their properties, the amounts ranging from approximately $1,000 to just over $4,000, including interest and fees. Taxes jumped $2.50 over last year. With the $3M bond adding an additional $1.69 per thousand of assessed value to the anticipated (and unknown) additional jump in property taxes in the year the first payment would be due, how many other individuals would end up on the Town Clerk’s lien list? How would multiple hundreds of dollars added to the lien amounts or tax bills affect citizens' ability to pay what’s due? And beware of eventual, upcoming, re-evaluations where assessed values could skyrocket. Community members on low or fixed incomes, the elderly having to come out of retirement to take jobs, or the disabled who cannot work to make additional money to pay taxes, --were their circumstances taken into consideration whatsoever?

According to articles in the March issue of BusinessNHMagazine, food insecurity may be increasing and there is a serious childcare crisis in NH as much of the state lies in a childcare desert. A single mom can expect to spend just over a third of her income for one infant, according to data compiled by the NH Fiscal Policy Institute. The question is: Is the $3M bond ‘affordable’ for ALL citizens?

At a time when many are struggling to make ends meet, the CUSTOM-DESIGNED firehouse project is a LUXURY that average citizens say they cannot afford. Instead of studying the economic impact on citizens and setting a budget accordingly, then selecting an affordable stock plan from a company that provides 'design/build' services, and selecting a modest, one-story plan that could be customized to suit needs, including a police department, this committee had an architect CUSTOM-DESIGN a two-story firehouse building.

The Fire Chief, himself, then shopped the plan to receive only a single, written estimate for $ 2,440,000.00 dated Nov. 13, 2023 (from Consrux, Inc., Plymouth, NH, a steel erector contractor) there being no evidence of written, competitive, cost comparisons or contingency fee added. Add a 20% construction contingency as recommended by the NH Municipal Association, and the estimated total is just under $3M. According to Procore.com: "Contingencies are used to cover unforseen costs, risks, or changes in scope over the project's lifetime. Contractors consider these funds as 'spent money'", so should not the total estimate for the firehouse building be $3M, which excludes a fire house renovation? We don't know because there is no budget worksheet or comprehensive, estimated cost breakdowns attached to the Feasibility Study.

Consider this:

• The written quote from Construx was not included in the feasibility study information, citizens never had a chance to review it before public hearings to ask questions, and the quote includes 'exclusions' the cost of which are undisclosed, in addition to, and therefore, unknown.

• What exactly is the estimated cost of the renovation with a 20% contingency percentage? The $500K figure that's been tossed around is not in writing from any renovation contractor and appears to be a guestamite.

• The preliminary estimate of a firehouse renovation for a police department and separate firehouse building was $4,575.000 -- so is the $3M project actually a $4.5M project in disguise?And, if not built-in, don't forget a 20% contingency on $4.5M! You do the math.

• Why was the single quote for a firehouse building kept secret, and the fact no written quote for the firehouse renovation exists -- not disclosed.

• In various minutes/hearing minutes there is reference to 'grants and other funds' that may be available for other than building costs, which includes $124,000 from the American Rescue Plan (i.e. Covid funds). The amount hardly covers the $500K w/20% contingency supposedly needed for the renovation. Would not citizens want to see the valid sources of grants and other funds identified before making a decision?
• Note: Chapter 33-B Municipal Revenue Bonds. 33-B:1, Definitions. III. "Construction" means acquisition, construction, reconstruction, equipping, enlargement or other capital improvement.
• So it appears bond money can be used for 'renovations', but why no quote?

Curiously, the second story (approx. 4,600 sq. ft.) 'mezzanine ' was pitched as disaster shelter space, however, neither the floor plan nor the quote from Construx, includes an elevator for ADA compliance, only stairs are indicated on the floor plan and the cost for same are indicated in the quote. The cost of constructing a shaft, elevator equipment, and installation are not included in the quote, and as a result, there seems to be no intent to allow public access for any reason.

Furthermore, why did Lenny Ryan (a budget committee member) at the Deliberative Session ask “Why were there no requests for proposals or bids?” Disturbingly, the Selectman’s Office subsequently confirmed that no such requests were posted or published and that there is no written quote for the firehouse renovation that is supposed to be part of the project!

Voters are urged to read the obscure minutes of a meeting held regarding this project on Jan. 18, 2024: https://townofdanburynh.com/site/assets/files/1096/dsb_notes_01-18-24.pdf. I must then ask: Do these minutes instill confidence in those who planned and would subsequently hold the purse strings on a $3,000,000.00 project?

BOTTOM LINE: The project does not pass muster, needs to go back to the drawing board, be proposed at a more affordable cost, and phased in over time. There is now a SECOND DESIGN by the architect that looks as if modern industrial style? The design must reflect the Village Area character per the zoning ordinance ( as anything less aesthetic can reduce surrounding properties' value).

The building design should be decided by a vote of the people -- since taxpayers are paying for it! The Town belongs to the people, and I can't think of anyone who would approve of government officials selecting the design for one's residence.

Think "Town of Wilmot Firehouse" with its charming copper roof and other small-town, low-profile firehouses that easily blend in and are unobtrusive in the landscape. The first rendering was far more in keeping with Village Character. It is unknown 'why' a complete remodel was suddenly undertaken -- at an additional cost with the new rendering not posted to the website or otherwise made available to the public until AFTER the Deliberative Session!

There is also the uncomfortable unknown of the Newfound School District having three towns voting on whether or not to secede, and just what the tax impact might be if successful that is also currently unknown. One might assume that subtracting schools from the equation would result in lower taxes, but the point is we don't know. Other representatives more involved than I, believe the remaining towns will bear more cost, not less. There is no mention in the public record of this possiblity being considered in conjunction with the firehouse project.

At the bond hearing on Jan. 11th, Chief Martin testified that fires accounted for 20% of about 200 calls for service in 2023. However, the Annual Report for 2023 reports only seven (7) fires that year. With 20% of 200 equaling 40, why the huge discrepancy? We had the same problem with the Joint PD proposal a couple of years ago, where the former police chief claimed to conduct far more arrests than those that were reflected in the annual report, with what turned out to be a low crime rate not supporting the need for a joint police department with Alexandria and a huge jump in the budget.

With less than a dozen fires per year on average over the past four years according to annual reports, there is absolutely no rush to pass this project this year. I've spoken with Representatives who serve as town officials and it was suggested that given the low population, calls for service, and crime rate, funding the capital reserve fund for the next few years would be more prudent as it could take decades for the population to increase enough to afford $3M according to the US Census Bureau. Approximately 96% of the tax burden is on the backs of residential property owners as there is no thriving downtown commercial area to assist with taxes. Commercial land use accounts for approximately 3.7% of the tax base.

From minutes, I see no reaction to the $2.5M quote, such as "Whoa! How can we scale back this project to make it less expensive?"

If the Town cut the cost of the project in half, the tax impact would be .84 per thousand. I would think that any sound, $3M project would have the support of ALL the Selectmen with a unanimous vote -- which was not the case, the vote 2-1 with Ruby Hill voting 'NO'.

Along with lack of support from the Budget Committee -- voters should be concerned. Based on all the facts and lack thereof, I'm uncomfortable blindly writing a $3M check to the Town for this project.

###

JUST SAY ‘NO’: There are times when public officials, representatives, and voters just have to say ’NO’, such as when a proposal is not sound, reasonable, or affordable. They must be firm in their convictions for the ‘common good’, and base their decisions not on personalities or popularity, but instead use good judgment to advance good public policy based on sound principles and values.

So when I was asked to make a motion to ITL (Inexpediate to Legislate) a bill that was introduced by Sherman Packard, Speaker of the House. I agreed to do so because the bill would cause a loss of property tax revenue and an increase to taxpayers. But doing so without knowing the consensus of the other 19 members of the committee, as a freshman lawmaker, it felt as if falling into the abyss — because what if ALL the other members voted against my motion and I was left standing alone and in a position adverse to one of the most powerful political figures/personalities in the state? To my relief, the measure passed 19-1 in overwhelming favor of ITL. Standing firm in one’s convictions can be HARD to do --but it is always the RIGHT thing to do.

###

SELECTMEN’S RACE: Accordingly, I'm hoping voters in Danbury will seriously consider their choice for Selectman and select the candidate who: cannot be influenced; will not engage in pre-determination; will be fiscally conservative; make decisions based on fact and law; self-educate; ask questions and speak up when having doubts; do their own research; are able and willing to participate in training offered by NHMA; is firm in their convictions and not afraid to vote ’NO” if a proposal is not good public policy — all for the common good of Danbury residents and in concert with their Oaths of Office.

Therefore, I’m challenging candidates James Farmer or Bree Huntoon (who if becoming Selectman-elect) to initiate undertaking the following to strengthen the public's trust in how the Town is run:

1. Require all current ‘local ordinances, rules, policy, and regulations’ to be posted on the Town’s website for complete transparency.

2. Revise the town’s financial policy to protect against 'conflict of interest' and prohibit any public official from voting on any matter involving a person to whom they are related by blood or marriage, or is a housemate as a matter of ‘conflict of interest’, and;

a. That if requiring a municipal bond, or having a budget of $5,000.00 (for example) or more, ALL projects must be subject to publicly noticed and published sealed bids or request for proposals procedure rather than arbitrarily handing contracts out to 'select' or 'favored' contractors, and;

b. Require all boards and departments to create and maintain an inventory of town-owned assets.

(Currently, and for example, neither the highway department nor the fire department have an inventory of town-owned assets in their possession, which is essential for budget committee consideration.)

4. Create ‘Rules of Procedure’ for the Selectboard, which includes a 'Code of Conduct' whereas currently there are none!

5. Create a public’s right-to-know policy that is more stringent than RSA 91-A, whereby before any vote the Selectmen must individually state whether or not in favor, further state their reasoning, and cite the law, policy, rule, or regulation upon which relied for decision-making, with the vote tally indicating how members voted with said information accurately recorded and completely contained in the minutes of all meetings and hearings.

###

MERRIMACK COUNTY: At the Merrimack County Delegation meeting held 3/8/24 where a vote on the county budget was to be taken, a 7.6% increase was proposed. Merrimack County is well-run by highly dedicated individuals who are deeply appreciated and the budget was touted as 'the most lean in county history'. However, I would like to see the county strive to achieve a budget that reflects a 0% increase or better next budget season. My mother always said, “Use it up, and wear it out before throwing it out, or just do without!” And "Where there is a will, there's always a way."

Having signed a pledge to resist voting for measures that cause property tax increases, morally and ethically, I resisted going with the flow, and in the minority, voted ’NO’ to the budget increase. The motion to accept the budget as proposed, passed. I voted ‘Yes’ to approve the fees charged by the Sheriff’s Office for providing service of process, for example, that does not affect taxpayers, and that passed. I further voted ‘Yes’ to approve the ‘Community Power’ initiative that allows electric customers to save money on their electricity bills which passed by an overwhelming majority. Of the District 5 Towns, Webster has already enrolled.

Deborah Aylward resides in Danbury, N.H., and is an engaged citizen, county delegate, and state lawmaker.