Doug Lambert

“Big Wind” update: Back in January, I wrote about Christian Loranger who is constructing a wind-generating farm on Mount Jericho in Berlin. I reported that Berlin’s mayor “is enthusiastic about the project, saying it will help diversify the city’s mill-based economy.” I also wrote of the project’s opposition, quoting from the Union Leader: “Some environmentalists are fighting the larger wind projects. They say 300- to 400-foot towers are too big, noisy, and destructive to birds and bats, which can be killed by the spinning blades... Lisa Linowes of National Wind Watch says a project on the scale of Loranger’s isn’t nearly as bad as some. But if it succeeds, she predicts big companies will try to move in to capitalize on the resource. ‘What we will do is invite big wind into Berlin.’”

Guess what? On July 7, the AP reported, “Three windmills on a Mount Jericho wind farm have been vandalized, likely destroying one and badly damaging the others... Vandals cut cables used to raise and lower the 160-foot towers. One toppled, breaking the tower and blades.” The mayor “called the damage senseless and intentional” and said “vandalism such as this hurts efforts to attract investors and entrepreneurs to the city.”

Physically attacking and destroying wind farms isn’t the only way to stop them. Those wanting to stop “big wind” have found a strong ally in the form of government. State involvement and paperwork issues are holding up a wind farm project in Lempster, NH. Vermont’s Public Service Board has killed a proposed wind project consisting of four 329-foot-tall wind turbines at a former U.S. Air Force radar base in that state. The board found that the proposed operator failed to provide studies showing the effect the project would have on birds and bats...

•••

With the Gilford selectmen seemingly headed in the right direction for solving legitimate police facility needs — utilizing the existing town hall with a possible addition — I offer the plan I suggested back in 2002 as a member of the committee tasked with studying and resolving the Gilford police department’s space issues and again in 2003 as a candidate for selectman...

(1) Move the SAU office out of the town hall building. (2) Move the planning department and all related persons to the vacated SAU office. The existing customer friendly entrance configuration is ideal for the form of business transactions that office handles. (3) Expand the town clerk/tax collector’s section into areas vacated by the planners. (4) Study exactly what records and evidence must be kept and perhaps classify into different levels, thereby creating a realistic storage/retrieval system. (5) Construct a multi-story addition right behind the existing sally port. (A “sally port” is a garage area where a police cruiser with a criminal can drive directly and securely into the building.) The bottom of the new addition would be the new sally port. The existing sally port can be renovated to create more efficient booking area. (6) Close off part of the existing lobby for “secure” waiting area. (7) Explore storage options. (8) Maximize efficient use of all existing areas.

The work could be done in phases through two budget years, minimizing impact on the taxpayers. By attaching a multi-story addition directly to the rear area of the present police station, work could be performed with little disruption to the daily department activities. Openings between new and existing areas would be created during the very last stages of the project.

There are two other main considerations to keep in mind for the project. First, we do not need the services of an architect. Working directly with the builder, a motivated facility planning committee can create the overall design and scope. Second, we must be wary that those still harboring ambitions of a free-standing megaplex don’t attempt to derail the concept of utilizing the existing space by claiming it somehow “unfeasible” or “too cost-prohibitive.” Remember — this is what is happening in Laconia, with certain entities standing to monetarily gain successfully convincing that city’s “leaders” that renovation is more costly than demolition/new construction. We cannot allow that to happen in Gilford.

As has been mentioned by selectman Connie Grant, the “design-build” method ought to be given serious consideration for the project. For those who may not know what that means, the website "constructionlinks.com" has an informative article penned by W. Samuel Niece: “The term ‘design-build’ refers to a range of alternatives to the traditional project delivery system. A useful way to look at design-build is by what it is not. Traditional design-bid-build is a segmented, sequential process in which the owner first contracts with a design professional to prepare detailed, suitable-for-construction plans and specifications (or sometimes has them prepared by its in-house engineers), then uses the detailed plans and specifications to solicit competitive bids for construction, and finally awards the construction contract to the low bidder. In design-build, one entity performs both design and construction under a single contract.”

Niece lists the chief advantages to the client using design-build: (a) cost savings, (b) earlier completion, (c) reduced claims exposure, (d) usage of newest technologies, (e) overall project optimization, (f) reduced administrative burden, and (g) earlier cost visibility. Why wouldn’t we do it this way?

Doug Lambert’s column appears on Thursday. For more, visit his blog at www.granitegrok.com. Email: doug@granitegrok.com.