Moultonborough voters again reject community center proposals

MOULTONBOROUGH — The first community center proposal for the town came in 2007 and subsequent attempts to build one have reappeared several times in the subsequent 15 years, but voters remain divided over the issue, killing both of two competing proposals during the May 14 Town Meeting.

The first article, submitted by petition, would have appropriated $865,000 for the design and construction of a 15,000-square-feet addition to the Moultonborough Function Hall, a former Lions Club building that serves as the distribution point for the Meals on Wheels program. The proposal included a commercial kitchen, multifunction room, offices, and storage that proponents said would be available to all town residents.

Opponents of the plan characterized it as serving only the senior population and argued that the town needs a facility that is designed for every resident. The selectboard’s proposal would have set aside $750,000 from the undesignated fund balance to complete designs and cost estimates for a building that would serve as a community/senior center.

The selectboard opposed the petitioned article as not addressing all of the safety and other issues with the building, and several residents criticized it as money not well-spent.

An amendment to the article that would have utilized the unassigned fund balance to pay for the function hall failed on a 136-211 vote. The unassigned fund balance is money previously raised by taxation but still unspent. It often is used to reduce the following year’s tax rate.

Some residents noted that Sandwich also uses the function hall and said that town should share in the cost of the building project. Sandwich does make payments to cover some of the operational costs.

Several people spoke of the need to be fiscally responsible right now, with inflation and taxation being a burden for some residents.

The petitioned article failed on a ballot vote, 98-284.

The proposed $750,000 appropriation for the Community/Senior Center Fund had been placed on the warrant by the selectboard's members, who later voted against recommending its passage, 2-3. Chair Kevin Quinlan explained his objection to putting aside money now for something that might not happen in the future. He said he was in favor of the article until he learned the town could not stipulate that the money would be returned to the fund balance if the project did not move forward.

Selectboard members Shari Colby and Jean Beadle said they were the two recommending passage. James Gray said he wanted to see how the town voted before going forward with the plan.

“This meeting will help us figure out how it will look in the future,” Gray said.

In addition to the cost, objections included the plans for a swimming pool and therapy pool, something proponents said was not part of the original proposal but which came out of community discussions about what the facility should offer.

Among those were senior parking, a commercial kitchen that is double the size proposed in the earlier petitioned article, walk-in refrigerators, space to allow two events to occur at once, a kitchenette and adult social room, ADA-compliant stage and bathrooms, classroom and program room, two offices for recreation, a break-out eating room, game room, nursing room, a multipurpose room with a basketball court, and the therapy pool and five-lane swimming pool.

One speaker noted that voters had rejected the earlier article that addresses “needs” and now they are being asked to approve one addressing “wants.”

After a motion to table the article failed, voters defeated it on a 181-192 ballot vote. When voters asked for a recount, the tally was closer still, at 181-183.

By contrast, the town’s operating budget passed on a voice vote without discussion.

Early in the meeting, voters moved up a petitioned article that would rescind last year’s vote to hold Town Meeting in May. Those in favor of the change argued that working people are less able to attend a meeting when the weather is good and there is a lot of activity, and that many people would rather be doing yard work on nice days.

The argument last year was that March Town Meeting is too prone to bad weather, which keeps people away, and many residents are still in warmer climes at that time. By holding Town Meeting in May, more people are around to vote on important matters for the community, they said.

A legal opinion noted that approving of the article would move elections back to March, but the selectboard still would decide the date of Town Meeting, so it would not necessarily accomplish what the petitioners were seeking to do. That would require a warrant article rescinding the selectmen’s right to set the Town Meeting date.

Voters rejected the article, 158-180.