Outside agencies’ requests again dominate Gilford deliberative session

GILFORD — Those attending the town’s deliberative session on Tuesday evening had nothing to say about the proposed $13.657 million operating budget — and several other matters on the 23-article warrant — but they spent a long time talking about the petitioned warrant article seeking $21,000 for the Lakes Region Mental Health Center.

In the end, the body sent the warrant to the March 12 ballot with no changes.

Following a longstanding tradition, both the selectmen and the budget committee voted to “not recommend” the mental health center article and a similar one seeking $2,630 for New Beginnings Without Violence and Abuse. The budget committee split on the vote, 5-5, while the selectmen were unanimous — not because they opposed the spending, but because they did not have the option of making no recommendation.

As articulated by Selectman Dale Channing Eddy: “We don’t want to influence voters, so every year we vote not to recommend it. We want to leave it up to the voters.”

The Municipal Budget Act requires officials to recommend or not recommend articles involving money, and makes no provision for a middle course in which they do not make a recommendation.

Some members of the budget committee took the position that outside agencies — those not part of town government — should not be funded with taxpayer money.

Skip Murphy was one of them. He said that, if people want to support those agencies, they should write a check.

No one disputed the value of the services that outside agencies provide. Lakes Region Mental Health Center, which provides emergency services 24 hours per day, seven days per week, reported serving 4,067 children, families, adults, and elders, of whom 232 were Gilford residents. The services represent $44,782 in charitable care, according to the warrant article.

Murphy said his family is the recipient of services, due to his son’s opioid problem. “I understand they do good work,” he said. “I’m against this article because why should I say you should support an outside agency because I support it. To me, it’s immoral.”

Recycling Center

The budget committee voted 8-4 to not recommend the $400,000 appropriation selectmen are proposing to complete the improvements to the recycling center and construction of a transfer station. The town previously had appropriated $950,000 for the project.

Town Administrator Scott Dunn said the engineers originally said it would cost more, but the committee working with them thought it could be done at that price. The additional $400,000 would come from the town’s fund balance, so it would require no new taxation. It would cover electrical work, paving, a restroom facility with well and septic system, and some equipment — a baler, trash compactor and a Bobcat-like vehicle to move material.

Asked what would happen if voters turn down the article, Dunn said the town would make the best use it can of what is there.

Some speakers questioned the expense in light of what has happened to the recycling market. According to Dunn, it costs $280 per ton to process recyclables, while regular garbage can be hauled away at $84 per ton. Dunn said that replacing the current single-stream recycling with separated recyclables could bring the cost of recycling back to “0” or even make it profitable.

Resident Ken Sullivan said he objected that the scope of the plan increased to include the septic system and heated bathroom, but he was especially upset that it included no provision for solar panels.

“Ignoring solar seems to be not very wise going forward,” he said.

Lakes Business Park

Another disagreement between selectmen and the budget committee was the $58,000 appropriation for the Lakes Business Park Capital Trust Fund. It is money set aside for infrastructure improvements in the business park which is situated in both Gilford and Laconia. The annual appropriation is part of the inter-municipal agreement reached with Laconia when the park was established.

Murphy said he objected to municipalities getting involved in business development, which he said allows them to pick and choose the winners and losers. “Enough is enough!” he said.

Resident Norman Silber, an attorney, said, “As painful as it may seem, it is a contractual agreement. It’s not good policy to openly and blatantly ignore a contractual agreement.”

Murphy said he was confident that, if voters turn down the article, the selectmen and town administrator would find money elsewhere in the budget to meet their legal obligation.

Dunn disputed that. “If it’s voted down, the town could not make that payment — in the absence of court order,” he said.