GilfordGrok

Charity

The first part of the BudComm meeting had to do with approving the Fire Dept. Budget.  Once again, as the requested budget was pretty much the same as least year, there was not a lot of angst about approving it (and I'll post the video of it later on). 

Next was what I call the NGO discussion (Non-Governmental Agencies) or what some call Outside Agencies.  And, THAT was interesting...and I guess the Press (whom I like, btw) thought so too - at least a couple of sentences I uttered.

Citizen:

"It's charity by coercion, it's not charity at all," said member Skip Murphy, who pointed out those who wish to can give privately to the agencies they want.

Sun:

"Coerced charity is not charity at all" declared Skip Murphy, who added that he resented what he called "triple-dipping" by the agencies, which solicited funds from the municipalities, counties, and state.  "We should tell them to get off their ass and go knock on doors and raise money", he said

There is no discussion that any of the Charities are not doing good work - they do!  While there are those that are trying to justify taxpayer money going to these Charities based on those good works,

Side Tangent:  At one point, Margo said that these agencies were not Charities (watch the video); my response was that they aren't part of local government and they are not companies; Terry followed up by saying that they are probably Charities or non-profits under the tax code - technically and in reality, I am correct.

for me, that is not the issue.  The underlying, and more fundamental issue, is that charity should be an individual gift; local taxpayer money should not be used to fund Charities.  While some may feel good that Gilford is supporting Charities, it is wrong to call that charity.  After all, the NRA is a non-profit; would some folks rebel at giving money to them - they have some great programs!  Ditto for some religious charities (Samaritan's Purse comes quickly to mind) that do TREMENDOUSLY good works - I am quite sure that there would be those that would quickly rise to swat them both down.  I actually have sent money to the latter - but I would not want taxpayer money sent to them.

What is charity?  Try this:

Charity is a voluntary act of assisting the poor, ill, or others that need help.

I have charities that I give to already (and yes, none of them are these NGOs).  My act of charity is voluntary - a heartfelt need to assist others.  As a taxpayer,  I do resent the recent trend of Charities asking for involuntary taxpayer money - at $81K, that's not a small chunk of change here in Gilford and I would rather see that go to direct Town functions or, better yet, left in the wallets of taxpayers who can then decide better where their monies should go.

And for those bleating Libs that wave and say "but then they WON'T SHARE IT", my response is - so what?  Is that YOUR business?  Is that the business of local government to enforce what you want in this regard? Do you truly believe that there there is now an enforced amount someone has to give, and by golly, we'll have the hand of government make sure you share?

THAT is NOT Charity!

It is easy for Charities to come to government, stick their hand out to a relatively few people, and convince them to hand over taxpayer monies to them.  It is harder, and more work, to do so on an individual basis.

My statement above was meant to say a few things:

• If you personally are in favor of a charity - get off your duff (and yes, I should have picked another word - very uncharacteristic of me) and go raise it PRIVATELY.  Get others of like mind and do some functions to help that organization.  THAT is charitable works.
  
• Don't lament that others are stingy and that we all should be giving.  I have heartburn with those that believe that it is a function of government to enforce mandated giving.  Yes, we all should give, but it is NOT the role of local government to be that conduit.  You have no idea what others are doing on their own in this regard; to assume otherwise is wrong.  Stop with the notion that government should act as the wallet-vacuum to enforce giving (a la the EU and UN that excoriate our "governmental giving" and fail to give proper respect to our private largesse).
• Charities - stop with the easy pickings - go and fund raise privately. Want a model to follow? The Red Cross does a great job - so does the Santa Fund here locally.

I am very much a free-market believer.  Not every program has a right to exist, no matter what good works it accomplishes.  If a program is failing to gather funds, it is an indication that the general public does not believe in its mission.  We should not make it easy for them to either prop themselves up or get bigger at the expense of taxpayers who well may NOT believe in their mission (for instance, I have no qualms about Planned Parenthood going out of existence due to my believe that their abortion services are wrong - especially in this state, being able to deliver it to minors without their parent knowing about it). 

The Vote (from the Citizen):

Ultimately, the committee approved the removal of $81,453 from the budget, which represented the funding for the seven agencies. Doug Lambert, Terry Stewart, Bob Brent, Skip Murphy, Sue Greene, John O'Brien all voted for the measure with Phyllis Corrigan, Dale Dormody, Bill Phillips, and Margo Weeks voting in the negative. Selectmen Gus Benavides abstained from the vote and Chair Dick Hickok did not vote at all.

I ask for the general public to support this method of finally putting this to rest.  Let the townfolk in general (and not just the 10% of voters that show up to the Deliberative Session) decide whether their tax money should  fund Charities in the confines and privacy of the voting booth. 

Posted by Skip at 12:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: apologies to Jim Mull - bad name spelling earlier!

FPC, Library, Outside agencies, and Selectmen meetings times - I got to listen to them all!

Selectmen Meetings: 

Normally, the Selectmen meet at times during the day that prevents normal working schlubs from attending.  Today, having a day off, I finally had the chance to go to one, and I'm glad I did.  Frankly, I wish more people would go - remember, government is supposed to be for OUR benefit;  local government exists to make townfolk's lives easier, to do things in the aggregate that would be all but impossible for each of us to do individually.  Therefore, local government should cater to those that give it raison d'etre and not to itself (be it elected or appointed officials or employees).

And that's the concern that Gus Benevides tried to remedy today.  Following up on an item tabled 6 months ago, he made a motion to change the meeting time to the evening time for a trial period of 6 weeks.  I thought that the proposal was great - I understand that generally Selectmen meetings in the past have been ill attended.  Thus, if in 6 weeks attendance flops again, move it back, but at least it would have given the townfolk a chance.

However, Chairwoman Boucher immediately made it quite clear that for the remainder of her term, she is absolutely against moving the time to allow that.  While she rightfully pointed out that the meetings will be taped (with a big shoutout to Evans for pursuing this - the Gilford Channel beginnings!!!), they are TAPED - with that format, one only finds out what happens AFTER the fact and not having the opportunity to be part of the fact.  She complained, once again, that a change would force the town employees to either stay late or come back again.  Also, given what I heard at the meeting, it seems that her personal life as the newly appointed position District Governor with Rotary would come before making it possible for citizens  to try tom come (Citizen):

"I'm going to be a district governor for Rotary," explained Boucher in explaining her decision. "That will take up a lot of my time."

Thus...

...in order to participate real time in our town's governance, you have to be retired or self-employed due to Ms. Boucher's adamant tone in this regard.  This may sound a tad snarky (but is not meant to be such; merely an observation) but if it is the case that Chairwoman Ms. Boucher's new duties with Rotary are more important than her Selectman responsibilities to those that voted for her (and I am one)  from even a trial chance at allowing us to attend her meetings, she should  rethink on holding onto one of her positions.

Library:

I previously posted about what to do with the money from the sale of the land that was bought by the town for a new library.  It seems from Deb Shackett's conversation with the State DRA that if the land is sold, the $40K given by donors should get their money returned.  The money that was taken from a Capital Reserve fund ($100K) has to be returned to that fund.  Any money above the original purchase price must go into the General Fund.

The Selectmen will then have to decide to either close the Capital Reserve (money goes into the General fund - the equivalent of returning it back to the taxpayers) or just let it sit there for a time when an even newer Library will be needed (THAT would be a while) or create a Warrant Article that would just give the $100K to the Library Trustees.

Stay tuned.

FPC:

After a formal presentation, a lull in the activities, a quick "out in the corridor meeting with Jim Mull, Evans Juris, and I don't know who else", and Evans asking a few questions when the FPC Chair was invited back to the podium so that the Selectmen could hear some answers, the Selectmen authorized the FPC to continue discussing details and $$ with Horne Construction of Rochester.  This as out of the 5 RFPs that went out and 3 came back, they were the only one that met all of the specification.  No contracts to be signed but just trying to get all of the info for the Selectmen so that a Warrant could be ready for voting time.

Outside Agencies:

Gus brought up a request by Doug to have the Selectmen delete the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations; you know, the charities that want town tax monies) from the budget and submit them to the townfolk on Warrants - one Warrant for each NGO.  To be brief, they punted on the motion, saying that they wanted to hear from the BudComm first.  I thought it a bit odd, seeing that I and John O'Brian (both of us are on the BudComm AND on the Sub-Committee for the NGOs) were in the room (heck, all three Selectmen looked at me during their discussion) but neither of us were asked for any comment.

So, I guess we'll address it at the BudComm level first!.  And if things go well, I'll live stream the meeting (or at least record it myself and put it up here if not).

Posted by Skip at 06:42 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been holding off on commenting on this, figuring that I'd let this noodle on its own for a while, but now (BING!) the timer has just gone off.

In the Sun, 11/16/07, there was an article that the Library Trustees are asserting that the land that the taxpayers bought for a previous incantation of a new library should rightly go to them.  Reasoning?  Since the voters approved the purchase of the land for a new library and that the Gilford Friends of the Library had donors that pitched in monies to help that process, 

"...it was appropriate to assign the proceeds from selling the lot to the Friends of the Gilford Public Library" [Robert Kammeraad, Trustee Chair].

I disagree with the logic, at least in part.

Yes, I believe the Selectmen should sell the land as at the present time, there are no long term plans (that I am aware of) that require a build-out of the town's infrastructure.  The only current thoughts are about having the SAU move out of the basement of the Town Hall and move into the Library contingent to the proper heirs assenting to the move.  Please note, however, that money may be needed to grease those skids, and certainly would be needed to rennovate the Library for the SAU's offices.  E.g., more money.

Yes, I agree that the donors should be repaid, as they made a good faith effort to assist - they should not be left dangling in the wind due to the FoGPL deciding that they'd go ahead and supply a new building because the voters voted down the last warrant for a new library.  If the sale happens, the right thing to do would be to return that money.

Which brings us to the meat of the problem - just giving the rest of the proceeds to the FoGPL.  The entire argument is that because the voters authorized the purchase of the land, the voters would want that money to go to them.  

No, I disagree.

As shown in bold above, while the voters did agree to purchase the land, they voted down the attempt of the last publicly funded library that was proposed.  This fact is not mentioned in the article.  Nor was that fact mentioned to me during the Sub-Budget Committee reviewing the Library budget (but the proceeds of the land idea was) nor during the full Budget Committee review (that I can remember - that's why the recording is helpful - let me know if you find otherwise!).

Like it or not, my reasoning is that while the taxpayers bought the land, I disagree that this fact automatically gives the right to the Library Trustees to assume it should be theirs for further funding of the new Library.  And no, I disagree with Bill Seed and his "embarrassed" remark as well, trying to guilt the BudComm into putting back in what the Selectmen removed.

The money used was taxpayer money, not the Trustees' money.  The Trustees stepped in, being unsatisfied with the voters judgement on the new Library, and did it themselves (and should be applauded for that action).  But that still does not change the fact that taxpayer money paid for the land.

How's this? The cost of the land in 2004 was $150K, with $40K from donors and $110K from the taxpayers.  For the sake of argument, given the current real estate climate, let's say it is sold for $150K. 

Give the donors back the money they raised as their money went for something other than the original intention (effectively, surplus land for the Town of Gilford rather than a new library).  What they do with that money afterwards is up to them.  The moral obligation will have been fulfilled.

The other $110K?  Here's a crazy idea - return that to the taxpayers as well!  That was used, at the majority vote of the citizens, for a library that the Town was going to build.  That purpose also became moot when the FoGPL decided to go their own way and do it on their own.

I do not know, off the top of my head, how many taxpayer units there are in Gilford - for the sake of argument, let's say 1,100 (heh - convenient for the math challenged amongst us!).  That means  $100 back, in the form of a check just like the $40K donors, to each taxpayer in Gilford. 

And then let the taxpayer, of their own free will, decide to donate to the FoGPL if they want!  After all, given the reasoning behind giving the donors back their money should also fit for the taxpayers, right? If the moral obligation to the $40K donators must be fulfilled for a purpose not taken, the same argument applies to the taxpayers.

Don't you agree? 

Image of the Laconia Daily Sun article:

Posted by Skip at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Not to keep picking on the Budget Committee, but how is it that the committee hashed out the nitty-gritty details of how to save a few hundred dollars on business cards for the Finance Department, only to turn around and hardly second-guess (relatively speaking at least) an increase of more than 10 percent in the Department of Public Works budget? We realize that a lot of the department's costs are non-negotiable, and we expected an increase in light of the serious road damage caused by the flooding earlier this year, but 10 percent is a lot to swallow. It's possible, of course, that every last penny is being spent wisely. It just seems like the Budget Committee could have delved a little deeper into where and how those pennies are being spent. Not to keep bringing this up, but if they're going to dissect and revise some department budgets, maybe they should scrutinize all budgets in equal measure.

Posted by Terry S. at 11:23 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

MANCHESTER – Superintendent Michael Ludwell gave himself a 2 percent pay raise this summer without the school board's authorization, a revelation that prompted his abrupt resignation Monday night, Mayor Frank Guinta said yesterday.

Ludwell collected about $1,000 in unauthorized pay before Guinta and School Board Vice Chair Leslee Stewart confronted him Monday, the mayor said. He has agreed to refund the district in full by Dec. 31, when his resignation takes effect.

"What has occurred is a violation of the public's trust," Guinta said.

Posted by Doug at 05:11 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Update:

Dale has updated his site to better show that the Selectmen removed items from the proposed Library budget on his front page - no longer is it possible to assume that the Budget Committee did the cutting. Thank you!

Look, if Dale wants to play a game, he's not playing it very well.  In this screen shot from his website:

If he was going to be completely honest, his table should show that almost EVERY department had its budget changed by the Selectmen before sending it on to the BudComm.  But he didn't.

He is making a statement that his wife's department did not get what it wanted.  Plain and simple...and in my opinion, blaming the rest of the BudComm (Margo Weeks excepted, as she voted with him) for not giving that department what it wanted is not the right way to play "in a civil manner".  The Library budget, as reviewed and voted upon by the BudComm, was never amended. Making the claim that the budget that we voted on was amended is false.

Period. 

IMHO...

He ran as fiscal conservative during the election.  That has been proven as the BudComm was reviewing all the other departments.  His discussion and vote on the library, however, has shown a bias of not being as conservative when it came to his wife's department.

Making the rest of us look like the "bad guys" does not supply sufficient cover to pull that off.

Posted by Skip at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

You know: "he's in the tank so far that..."

I was not surprised by Dale's vociferious defense of the Library budget last night; even he made light of it with the comment of concerning "church and state" (his wife is the Director of the Library).  Frankly, even though he campaigned on the promise of not talking about the library budget, as soon as the election / recount was completed, he started the process of moving away from that process.  Most of us on the budget committee realized that he would be quite active when that budget came up as during the organizational meeting, he declared that he would be voting on it, and that was that.

My own feelings?  I made them clear at the organizational meeting - More speech is better than less speech, legally there is nothing we could do.  But a more proper thing would be to have recused himself during the discussion so as, as Gus pointed out during the first meeting, to avoid any sense of impropriety in this matter. 

But this?  Perhaps just a tad touch of hyperbole?

Let's face it - with a budget presented to the BudComm that overall was LESS than it was last year, it's hard to find a lot to disagree with to eliminate.  That's why the Town Clerk's office, the Planning, the DPW, the Police, and Parks N'Rec budgets went through unscathed.  And properly noted by Dale. Yet, he is giving the impression that the BudComm changed the Library Budget.

Did changes really take place?

NO! 

That's right, and I have two ways to prove it!  First, the video (see this post) - any motions to change any of those line items (try "no")?  And since I was the presenter of the Library Sub-Committee review, I can say with some authority that the Sub-Committee made no changes to the budget that the Selectmen presented to the Budget Committee (since I created the formal review passed out last night to the full committee, I have posted it after the jump).

In fact, I made the motion that was voted on that authorized the Library Budget the Selectmen gave to us...

It is disingenious of Dale to give people the impression that we changed the budget - it remains the same coming out as it did going in.  Trying to pull a sleight of hand to say that the BudComm changed the Budget - wrong!

Look, the Selectment disagreed with the Library Trustees and Administration asking for the new phone system, the new drop box, the new video surveillence system (which his wife admitted was needed because the new building had too many places where mischief could occur), and the new 10 computers. 

The Trustees asked the sub-committee to promote a new item, a $15K moving expense, that hadn't even been shown to the Selectmen at the time of the meeting.  The sub-committee declined to add it during its review.  And during last night's meeting, the full BudComm did receive a letter from the Selectmen saying that they did not recommend it either.  Refusing to add an out-of-normal-cycle item is not changing the budget.

Upshot?  No changes by the BudComm...Dale needs to update his site - point out that the Selectmen changed the Library budget, not the BudComm

And yes, I voted to support the Selectmen's decision.  In fact, only Dale and Margo Weeks wanted to add the items.  The rest of us, all 10 of us, voted no. 

Note: both the sub-committee and the full BudComm approved adding a new full time position.

Here's the original review information that was presented to the Budget Committee:

As one can see, no line items were recommended to be changed! 

Posted by Skip at 04:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Hmm, I guess there's at least one reader of the 'Grok - a loyal reader asked that I put this up for them (albeit, perhaps a shameless plug!):

Do You Want To Be At Budget Committee Meeting From The Privacy Of Your Home?

Thanks to GilfordGrok, you can. The video is available as the meeting was taped.

Last night the Committee met with the Library Trustees to discuss their budget which included 5 extra items to be added in. These items included security system( $ 8,000 ), new book drop ($3,000) 10 new computers ( $10,200 ), moving costs ($15,000) and telephone system ($4,000) All these items should have been included in our FREE LIBRARY at no extra cost to the tax payers. Now, they are looking for taxpayers to come up with this. There are already extra costs as reflected in the department of Public Works Departments budget. These things were approved ,no problem, because it is part of maintaining the library. Taxpayers were promised that the library would not cost anything as the monies were being raised privately. If these items are to be covered by taxpayers, perhaps some of them could be added delayed so that the library budget does not increase by 14%, the largest increase be any department.

Posted by Skip at 03:37 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Last night was the turn of the Library's to be reviewed and voted upon by the entire Budget Committee.  Knowing that there might be some "discussion" about the items, the 'Grok recorded it - twice actually!.  There will be isolated clips later on (already in process).

The full video of the discussion is here.

Warning - it is long (1 hour, 26 minutes) and big (about 143MB).  However, it will give you the full picture of how the Budget Committee conducted its discussion.

I'll have more to say later.

Posted by Skip at 01:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Since the Chief went through a special effort to bring this message forward, I just HAVE to share it with all of you:

Chief Markland message - click here

And we are honored and privileged to bring it to you! 

Posted by Skip at 12:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

OK, so I went overboard on the title.  But Gus Benevides did tase one of the Police Officers.  I'm putting up the short clip now....a longer one that better explains what the Bud Comm listened to in arriving at their decision will come a bit later.

Gilford Police Officer getting tased at Gilford Budget Committee

(GilfordGrok file photo)

Note: after the demo, listening to the info, the Bud Comm approved the purchase of this capital budget item. 

Better report in a while! 

Cross posted at GraniteGrok 

Posted by Skip at 09:01 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Update: filling in names as I go along! 

I have a couple of still shots from the tasing demo:

Here, Selectman Gus Benevides is "lining up" his target, Officer Dustin Parent...target apprehensive! 

This shot was taken just after the Taser needles are activated.  Notice that Detective Eric Bredbury - a small smile as to say "Heh, glad it's you and not me!"

Notice, too, Chief Markland (right margin, half out of the frame) grimacing so as to say "Ooooh, that's gotta sting!" 

And no, that is NOT a smile on the Dustin's face - not by a long shot (pun intended). 

And I would be remiss if I failed to put up the following of the faithful reporters that cover the goings on in Gilford.  I generally get there early to set up the live streaming and to record the meeting, and they were all there to be ready for the demo:

Mike Kitch (Daily Sun), Cutter Mitchell (Citizen), and Danielle(Gilford Steamer)

 I may rag on the MSM (Main Stream Media) over at GraniteGrok about liberal bias (or conservative as it may be), but I am glad to report that these folks pretty much are straight up.

Posted by Skip at 09:00 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

As an on-going service to the Town of Gilford,we are offering this service to our fellow townfolk.  If you can't (or desire not to) come to the meeting, let the meeting come to you!  Just follow the directions and listen to the Bud Comm proceedings through your computer!

-The GilfordGrok crew

So if you want to join us:

                    Player choices:

                        WinAmp - Click  Here  
                        WinAmp or QuickTime - Click Here
                        Windows Media Player - Click  Here

Note: f there is a problem with Windows Media Player in listening to the stream and the "Click here" doesn't work (as we are still transitioning to a new server hosting company), follow the below instructions:

Open up Media Player (full mode and not with a "skin"), go to FILE, open URL, and paste in:

http://208.69.123.200:8000

That should work.  If not, email me:  Skip   GraniteGrok.com    (you know what goes in between Skip and GraniteGrok!)

Posted by Skip at 06:09 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From Phi Beta Cons (emphasis mine): 

Profit-Seeking Benefits Educational Customers   [Candace de Russy]

A study by the RAND Corp. early this year found no impact of private management on student performance.

In a new study, Paul Peterson and Mathew Chingo, researchers at Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, contradict this finding. Analyzing for-profit management in Philadelphia public schools, they conclude that “those who need to make a profit have strong incentives to do well by their customers” and that this approach succeeds well in educating students in even the most troubled of urban schools.

Chalk up yet another victory for Adam Smith.

11/07 10:40 AM

From a rollup of that Peterson/ Chingo study from the Wall Street Journal:

When for-profit management of public schools was first proposed in Philadelphia six years ago, many in that city were extremely skeptical, if not aggressively hostile. So the Philadelphia School Reform Commission, the entity responsible for the innovation, gave only the 30 lowest performing schools to for-profit companies, while another 16 were given to nonprofit organizations, including two of the city's major universities (Temple and the University of Pennsylvania). Others were reorganized by the school district itself.

In effect, a competition was run among the three types of management -- for-profit, nonprofit, and government-run. Four years into the race, here are the results: Students at schools managed by for-profit firms were roughly six months ahead in math than would be expected had the schools remained in the hands of the school district. In reading, students in schools managed by for-profit firms were two months further along than they would have been if the schools had been under district control, though that difference was not large enough to give us statistical certainty. Meanwhile the nonprofits -- and the school district's own reorganized schools -- did no better than expected.

Our findings are based upon information gleaned from nearly 400,000 student test scores made available to us by the School District of Philadelphia. They gave us the test scores of every tested student for the years 2001 through 2006, allowing us to track student performance at for-profit, nonprofit and low-performing district schools both before and after the management changes took place.

That data was subjected to a rigorous, quasi-experimental, "difference in differences" analysis that estimates management impacts at each type of school by making use of information on how much students were learning both before and after the management change while controlling for the students' characteristics.

Competition in the private market almost always results in higher quality products at a lower cost.  Couple that with complete transparency / information in the marketplace for both consumers and producers to research, contrast, and compare, and the results usually rewards those producers with the best products at the lowest costs.

That is, in optimal markets.

Unfortunately, the education marketplace currently (both in the monopoly part and the "fairly" unregulated portion) is not a perfect, or even close to optimal, marketplace. 

Posted by Skip at 06:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, still ironing out a few bugs.  I had hoped to have been able to "live stream" the entire proceedings (perhaps next week!) but given that it was not possible, we have this.

Complete audio of the meeting can be listened to here (2 hrs, 35 min).

We also had an interesting discussion near the end of the meeting concerning Wesley Woods, the new non-profit retirement community behind the United Methodist Church.

The discussion centered around the impact to Gilford taxpayers who are obligated to pay the Laconia Water fees for supplying water to this development at a cost of $47,544 (an increase of $13,544 or 39.84% over last year).

Nub of discussion - while there may be a payment in lieu of taxes, there is no indication that it will equal the equivalent amount if it were a private development.  Taken to an extreme case, the taxpayers may well be subsidizing via higher marginal taxes on them for people who can afford the cost of the that development (not cheap by the way).

The video of the discussion is here (9 min, 9 secs)

It is a discussion that needs to happen - if this continues, it will have ramifications not only in Gilford but across the state.

Posted by Skip at 09:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)