Residency remains a hot issue as T-N Fire District candidates meet voters
NORTHFIELD — Like generals fighting the last war, the three candidates vying for a seat on the Tilton-Northfield Fire District Commission — incumbent Pat Clark and challengers Jane Alden and Eric Pyra, all of Tilton — dwelt on the turmoil of the past two years while stressing the importance of looking to the future when they fielded questions from a roomful of voters at the Northfield Town Hall this week.
The turmoil arose from the commission's decision to require the successor of departing Chief Steve Carrier to reside in the district. With the appointment of Brad Ober, who found himself unable to sell his home in New Hampton, Commissioners Clark and Paul Auger, over the misgivings of Tom Gallant, chose to enforce the requirement. Faced with the prospect of dismissal, Ober moved to Tilton in February. Meanwhile, the controversy opened a rift among the three commissioners and aroused the ire of the Tilton selectmen.
Clark conceded, "I came under pressure around the residency requirement," but reminded his listeners that all three commissioners agreed to include it in the chief's contract. He acknowledged that initially the district was not precisely defined as the two towns or either a distance in miles or a response time, but insisted that the commission was entitled, if not obliged, to uphold the contract by enforcing the contract.
Alden, who chairs the Tilton Planning Board while serving on the budget committees of both the town and the fire district, said that the controversy cast a "negative light" on the commission. "The contract could have been negotiated differently," she said. When Clark interrupted to say that the issue has been resolved, she countered that "it may be resolved, but it keeps rearing its head. I'm tired," she continued, "of seeing the fire district at a standstill. The safety, welfare and well-being of our citizens have taken a back seat."
Pyra, also a member of the Tilton budget committee, said that the commission mishandled the residency issue by not properly defining the district and suggested that the controversy, which roiled the commission for two years, adversely affected morale within the fire service.
When the candidates were asked their positions on the residency issue, both Alden and Pyra answered that they preferred prescribing a response time rather than stipulating residency within either Tilton or Northfield. Pyra said he was comfortable with 20 or 25 minutes while Alden favored "not more than 30 minutes." Clark repeated that the commission chose to define the district as the two towns.
Speaking of the challenges facing the commission, Clark referred to the rising cost of health insurance and retirement contributions, both of which are beyond the control of the commission. "This is what is bankrupting communities across the country," he said.
Remarking that "there is still contention," Alden said that she would "heal the schism" on the commission while ensuring that public safety is its highest priority.
Describing himself as "an independent thinker," Pyra said that he had no connections the selectmen of either town and could rise above politics to address the the issues facing the fire district.
The turmoil arose from the commission's decision to require the successor of departing Chief Steve Carrier to reside in the district. With the appointment of Brad Ober, who found himself unable to sell his home in New Hampton, Commissioners Clark and Paul Auger, over the misgivings of Tom Gallant, chose to enforce the requirement. Faced with the prospect of dismissal, Ober moved to Tilton in February. Meanwhile, the controversy opened a rift among the three commissioners and aroused the ire of the Tilton selectmen.
Clark conceded, "I came under pressure around the residency requirement," but reminded his listeners that all three commissioners agreed to include it in the chief's contract. He acknowledged that initially the district was not precisely defined as the two towns or either a distance in miles or a response time, but insisted that the commission was entitled, if not obliged, to uphold the contract by enforcing the contract.
Alden, who chairs the Tilton Planning Board while serving on the budget committees of both the town and the fire district, said that the controversy cast a "negative light" on the commission. "The contract could have been negotiated differently," she said. When Clark interrupted to say that the issue has been resolved, she countered that "it may be resolved, but it keeps rearing its head. I'm tired," she continued, "of seeing the fire district at a standstill. The safety, welfare and well-being of our citizens have taken a back seat."
Pyra, also a member of the Tilton budget committee, said that the commission mishandled the residency issue by not properly defining the district and suggested that the controversy, which roiled the commission for two years, adversely affected morale within the fire service.
When the candidates were asked their positions on the residency issue, both Alden and Pyra answered that they preferred prescribing a response time rather than stipulating residency within either Tilton or Northfield. Pyra said he was comfortable with 20 or 25 minutes while Alden favored "not more than 30 minutes." Clark repeated that the commission chose to define the district as the two towns.
Speaking of the challenges facing the commission, Clark referred to the rising cost of health insurance and retirement contributions, both of which are beyond the control of the commission. "This is what is bankrupting communities across the country," he said.
Remarking that "there is still contention," Alden said that she would "heal the schism" on the commission while ensuring that public safety is its highest priority.
Describing himself as "an independent thinker," Pyra said that he had no connections the selectmen of either town and could rise above politics to address the the issues facing the fire district.
Last Updated on Friday, 08 March 2013 05:51
Hits: 58
Council seen as warming to pay-as-you-throw
LACONIA — Among the options for restructuring the curbside collection of solid waste being considered by the City Council, a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) program, the most controversial of the three, appears to be gathering support as councilors prepare to address the issue when they meet on Monday.
Councilors Henry Lipman (Ward 3), who explored several alternatives to PAYT, and Matt Lahey (Ward 2) both favor PAYT over the other options presented to the council this week. Councilor Bob Hamel (Ward 5), who last month remarked he was on the brink of offering a motion to adopt PAYT, said yesterday that he intended to make his decision after considering all the options while acknowledging, "if you want the biggest bang for your buck, it's PAYT."
Councilors Brenda Baer (Ward 4), Armand Bolduc (Ward 6) and Ava Doyle (Ward 1) oppose PAYT, chiefly because it shifts the cost of collecting trash to property owners by requiring them to buy marked bags, effectively introducing a user fee. Baer said "I'm not going to kick and scream if PAYT passes, but it's not my first choice." She said that 99-percent of the calls and e-mails she receives from constituents are against PAYT. "I'm thinking of the reaction of the people," she said.
Likewise Councilor Armand Bolduc (Ward 6) said "my constituents don't want PAYT and I vote for my constituents." He said that he would like to delay a decision for another two weeks. "I think we've got to give taxpayers time to chew on it."
Councilor Ava Doyle (Ward 1) conceded that "at some point we may have to go to PAYT, but I want to exhaust all the alternatives before get there."
A stalemated council would throw the deciding vote to Mayor Mike Seymour, who yesterday expressed his unqualified support for PAYT. "PAYT is our best option," he said. "It would enable us to get where we need to be as quickly as possible." He said that "if the council were evenly split, I would vote for PAYT."
Earlier this year councilors agreed to take steps to increase the volume of recyclables in order to reduce the cost of collecting, transporting and disposing of solid waste in the 2013-1014 city budget. Lipman, who chairs the Finance Committee, explained yesterday that expenses beyond the control of the council are rising faster than revenues from sources other than property taxes, which last year fell nine-percent. In order to continue to budget within the limits of the tax cap, he said that operating expenses must be reduced. "Otherwise," Lipman said, "rising costs will crowd out expenditures for essential services and things like road repairs, police and fire protection will be threatened."
Among all the options, PAYT ensures the greatest increase in recycling and offers the greatest cost savings. PAYT encourages recycling by requiring residents to place the trash and garbage they do not recycle in a special-marked plastic bag purchased at local retail outlets. The trash, together with recyclable materials, is collected at the curbside once a week. Trash not contained in a marked bag is left at the curb. PAYT shifts the cost of handling solid waste from property taxpayers to households, businesses and other organizations through the purchase of marked bags.
PAYT is projected to save $286,000 by diverting recyclables from the solid waste stream and spare $156,000 in funding from property taxes.
Some 3,780 tons of trash would remain to be collected at the curb at a cost of $567,000. The tonnage would require the sale of some 378,000 marked bags. Priced at $1.75 apiece, the sale of bags would generate $661,500 in revenue, enough to defray the cost of purchasing the bags and collecting, transporting and disposing of all the remaining trash. Over ten years the program would spare $1.7-million in property taxes.
"Other communities have have adopted PAYT and proven its success," said Seymour. "It is something that we know will work." He questioned the alternatives as "stop gaps that will ultimately lead us to PAYT and getting there in increments doesn't make sense."
Without openly endorsing PAYT, Hamel agreed. "Whatever we pick is going to be there for a while. You don't want to keep messing with the taxpayers."
"PAYT is a good long-run solution," echoed Lipman. "We can't keep tackling this over and over."
Supporters of PAYT said that in the first year the savings realized by the program would be returned to taxpayers by reducing the budget by an equal amount. Moreover, the one-time savings would be incorporated into future budgets by reducing the baseline amount to be raised by property taxes, from which annual increases — limited by the tax cap — are calculated.
The alternative to PAYT, preferred by Doyle, Bolduc and Baer, is a mandatory program, which aims to increase recycling by refusing to collect trash at the curb unless it is accompanied by a recycling container. No particular amount of recyclables would be required to quality for trash collection. But, this system would be supplemented by limiting the number of 64-gallon trash containers to one at single-family family homes and seven at multi-family buildings and commercial properties.
However, currently multi-family and commercial buildings are permitted seven 30-gallon containers amounting to 210 gallons of trash. If these buildings were allowed seven 64-gallon containers, holding 448 gallons of trash, the amount of trash would not be limited but more than doubled, providing not an incentive but a disincentive to recycle.
Mandatory recycling is projected to increase the amount of recyclables to 25-percent of the waste stream, reducing the cost of handling trash by $247,000 and funding from property taxes by $117,000. During the next ten years the program would reduce property taxes by $1.3-million.
Councilors Henry Lipman (Ward 3), who explored several alternatives to PAYT, and Matt Lahey (Ward 2) both favor PAYT over the other options presented to the council this week. Councilor Bob Hamel (Ward 5), who last month remarked he was on the brink of offering a motion to adopt PAYT, said yesterday that he intended to make his decision after considering all the options while acknowledging, "if you want the biggest bang for your buck, it's PAYT."
Councilors Brenda Baer (Ward 4), Armand Bolduc (Ward 6) and Ava Doyle (Ward 1) oppose PAYT, chiefly because it shifts the cost of collecting trash to property owners by requiring them to buy marked bags, effectively introducing a user fee. Baer said "I'm not going to kick and scream if PAYT passes, but it's not my first choice." She said that 99-percent of the calls and e-mails she receives from constituents are against PAYT. "I'm thinking of the reaction of the people," she said.
Likewise Councilor Armand Bolduc (Ward 6) said "my constituents don't want PAYT and I vote for my constituents." He said that he would like to delay a decision for another two weeks. "I think we've got to give taxpayers time to chew on it."
Councilor Ava Doyle (Ward 1) conceded that "at some point we may have to go to PAYT, but I want to exhaust all the alternatives before get there."
A stalemated council would throw the deciding vote to Mayor Mike Seymour, who yesterday expressed his unqualified support for PAYT. "PAYT is our best option," he said. "It would enable us to get where we need to be as quickly as possible." He said that "if the council were evenly split, I would vote for PAYT."
Earlier this year councilors agreed to take steps to increase the volume of recyclables in order to reduce the cost of collecting, transporting and disposing of solid waste in the 2013-1014 city budget. Lipman, who chairs the Finance Committee, explained yesterday that expenses beyond the control of the council are rising faster than revenues from sources other than property taxes, which last year fell nine-percent. In order to continue to budget within the limits of the tax cap, he said that operating expenses must be reduced. "Otherwise," Lipman said, "rising costs will crowd out expenditures for essential services and things like road repairs, police and fire protection will be threatened."
Among all the options, PAYT ensures the greatest increase in recycling and offers the greatest cost savings. PAYT encourages recycling by requiring residents to place the trash and garbage they do not recycle in a special-marked plastic bag purchased at local retail outlets. The trash, together with recyclable materials, is collected at the curbside once a week. Trash not contained in a marked bag is left at the curb. PAYT shifts the cost of handling solid waste from property taxpayers to households, businesses and other organizations through the purchase of marked bags.
PAYT is projected to save $286,000 by diverting recyclables from the solid waste stream and spare $156,000 in funding from property taxes.
Some 3,780 tons of trash would remain to be collected at the curb at a cost of $567,000. The tonnage would require the sale of some 378,000 marked bags. Priced at $1.75 apiece, the sale of bags would generate $661,500 in revenue, enough to defray the cost of purchasing the bags and collecting, transporting and disposing of all the remaining trash. Over ten years the program would spare $1.7-million in property taxes.
"Other communities have have adopted PAYT and proven its success," said Seymour. "It is something that we know will work." He questioned the alternatives as "stop gaps that will ultimately lead us to PAYT and getting there in increments doesn't make sense."
Without openly endorsing PAYT, Hamel agreed. "Whatever we pick is going to be there for a while. You don't want to keep messing with the taxpayers."
"PAYT is a good long-run solution," echoed Lipman. "We can't keep tackling this over and over."
Supporters of PAYT said that in the first year the savings realized by the program would be returned to taxpayers by reducing the budget by an equal amount. Moreover, the one-time savings would be incorporated into future budgets by reducing the baseline amount to be raised by property taxes, from which annual increases — limited by the tax cap — are calculated.
The alternative to PAYT, preferred by Doyle, Bolduc and Baer, is a mandatory program, which aims to increase recycling by refusing to collect trash at the curb unless it is accompanied by a recycling container. No particular amount of recyclables would be required to quality for trash collection. But, this system would be supplemented by limiting the number of 64-gallon trash containers to one at single-family family homes and seven at multi-family buildings and commercial properties.
However, currently multi-family and commercial buildings are permitted seven 30-gallon containers amounting to 210 gallons of trash. If these buildings were allowed seven 64-gallon containers, holding 448 gallons of trash, the amount of trash would not be limited but more than doubled, providing not an incentive but a disincentive to recycle.
Mandatory recycling is projected to increase the amount of recyclables to 25-percent of the waste stream, reducing the cost of handling trash by $247,000 and funding from property taxes by $117,000. During the next ten years the program would reduce property taxes by $1.3-million.
Last Updated on Friday, 08 March 2013 04:14
Hits: 236
caption for special olympics
CAPTION - Laconia Police Det. Sgt. Scott Roy at a Special Olympics medal ceremony at Waterville Valley earlier this week. Local police departments are again participating in the annual Winni Dip, in which police and their supporters dive into the icy Winnipeasaukee to raise money for the N.H. Special Olympics. The Winni Dip begins at noon Sunday at the Margate Resort. (Courtesy photo)
Last Updated on Friday, 08 March 2013 03:46
Hits: 55
Gilford Police arrest two near Lowes
GILFORD — Police arrested two Laconia men after getting a report of seeing men drinking in a car outside of TJ Maxx yesterday at 2:45 p.m.
A media statement issued by Lt. Jim Leach said two officers went to the parking lot and found the car but there was no one in it. They did see an open container of alcohol inside.
Shortly after, police stopped the car on Lakeshore Road near Lowes.
Steven Fereshetian, 23, of 88 Phoenician Way was charged with receiving stolen property, transporting alcoholic beverages and possession of marijuana. He was released on $1,000 personal recognizance bail.
Austin Brue, 20, of 85 Sheridan Drive #3 was charged with receiving stolen property. He was released on $800 personal recognizance bail.
It was not immediately clear what stolen property the men were charged with receiving.
Both men were given court dates of April 18 in the 4th Circuit Court, Laconia Division.
A media statement issued by Lt. Jim Leach said two officers went to the parking lot and found the car but there was no one in it. They did see an open container of alcohol inside.
Shortly after, police stopped the car on Lakeshore Road near Lowes.
Steven Fereshetian, 23, of 88 Phoenician Way was charged with receiving stolen property, transporting alcoholic beverages and possession of marijuana. He was released on $1,000 personal recognizance bail.
Austin Brue, 20, of 85 Sheridan Drive #3 was charged with receiving stolen property. He was released on $800 personal recognizance bail.
It was not immediately clear what stolen property the men were charged with receiving.
Both men were given court dates of April 18 in the 4th Circuit Court, Laconia Division.
Last Updated on Friday, 08 March 2013 04:29
Hits: 136
More Articles...
- Tea Party members crash LRPC Open House
- Weirs Beach Lobster Pound burglarized
- Budget Committee member sees falsehood in Alton school bond flyer
- Correction: Cilley not a proponent of SB-2 for school district
- Officials say petitioned zoning amendmends will stop Market Basket from building in Plymouth 1203
- Man returns to girlfriend's apt. in violation of restraining order
