Anonymous said...
Publius please accept this as an article submission.
First, off the record, please post this as anonymous for now but I will tell you (personal information removed on request). given the short time we have, I can be reached at 800-555-1212. I'm extremely concerned over the nearly $700K proposed for the communications tower. I knew they were planning this but the cost absolutely astounds me. I'm a Electronics Engineer by trade and I also have a lot of experience in the area of radio communications and commercial 2-way radio systems. For an area of 11 square miles, the proposed cost is beyond imagination. I plan to attend Saturdays session with a list of questions, but, it would really help if I knew more about the consultants study.
On Record.
There is Warrant Article, 2008-09, asking that $682,000 be appropriated for the communications tower.
I have no doubt there are dead spots in town where officers portables cannot reach the base station on Academy Ave and that this is a legitimate safety concern. However, for a town that only covers 11 square miles the cost to remedy this problem, based on limited description in the article, sees to be excessive.
There was an engineering study done that led to this proposal. I'm asking, has anyone seen this study, or better yet, have a copy. I'd like to know exactly what its conclusions were, and, why it will take nearly $700,000 to solve. Publis knows how to contact me. Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ATKINSON's Vietnam HONOR ROLL as VOTED and PASSED by 2005 Town Meeting and re-approved at Special Town Meeting Sept. 12
EDITORIAL-
A voice of compassion, an example of fairness and reasonable government.
One who believes in the strength and comfort you, your children and your family can draw from good government leadership.
A person who knows Atkinson is our home -- our most important possession that must be preserved and protected through fair taxes and sound community planning and where our children must be safe to grow to become a new generation of leaders.
One who knows that the citizens of Atkinson are all neighbors with her leadership to be dedicated and responsive to all.
One who believes that when those from Atkinson have served our nation and honors are deserved, those honors must be given.
In Valerie Tobin, we now have a leader we know we can entrust with these responsibilities because they are part of her character.
It is our honor to endorse Valerie for election to Atkinson’s Board of Selectmen.
Just a note for those who wish to count the deer.
In January 08 this blog had 16,000 hits and 1,500 unique visitors (for the month).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
In 2007 this blog had over 100,000 hits and 5,750 unique visitors (for the year).
EDITORIAL-
"I offer nothing more than simple facts, plain arguments, and common sense . . ." [TP, 1776]
We take no small measure of umbrage at such a hostile official act against this BLOG’s patron. Therefore, a timely Editorial comment is both appropriate and necessary.
Discussion of Atkinson’s financial direction, from any viewpoint, is fundamental and encouraged and we will always attempt to limit and correct errors.
However, Righteous indignation towards purported error of such inconsequential nature is not appropriate.
The ENTIRE car deal is problematic. If it was caused by poor judgement, improper exercise of authority, neglect or mistake or even specious reasoning, this will never trump the facts that the entire questionable transaction started and ended within a very small circle of confidants.
We find the entire circumstances surrounding the disposition of the police Cruiser highly irregular at the least and the "explanations" somewhat trifling and exhaustive of our intellect.
Mr. Consentino: It’s time to go. Being Chief of Atkinson’s Police Department is NOT a birthright. That is a fabled legend of yesteryear.
Historically in Atkinson, police chief appointments were made "under the hand of the selectmen" for terms of one year at a time, as was also the case in the beginning of Mr. Consentino’s assorted and discontinuous stream of appointments to this position.
Your only remaining credential established on a claim of indispensability has faded.
So time is neigh. Plan a graceful exit, Clean out your desk, Accept the gratitude and tearful sentiments from some. We plan no editorial recriminations. It is time. Thank you for your service, We wish you a long and happy retirement. Bon Voyage.
LETTER
"To All Atkinson Residents,
I am writing to ask for your help. A member of the Atkinson Police Department needs our help. I am here to ask for your help in Corporal John Lapham's fight for his life. As you are aware, John has been diagnosed with Leukemia. He has been once again hospitalized with an infection that is threatening his life. He is one of the bravest people that I have ever met. He has never asked of anything from the residents of the town. Now is our chance to step up and help both him and his family out. As everyone is aware John has been out of work for a few months. His family has been busy helping John to get better. He needs our help, and I am hoping that this town can step up to the plate and help. From the moment that I met John, I have admired him. He does alot, but never asks for anything in return. He has helped so many people in this town. I for one am one of those people. Please help him.
There is a fund set-up in his name at TDBanknorth in Plaistow. Any amount will help John, while he is out of work. It would be great if this town could help ease a burden off his wife.
Thank You
Also if anyone would like to send a card, please address it to:
John Lapham
c/o Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Ctr.
Inpatient mail
75 Francis Street
Boston, MA 02115
United States
Please show Corporal John Lapham, that this community can stand up and show our support to those in need. I for one, miss John and can not wait until he can get better and return to work. Please show him that we support him. "
94 comments:
Because when this tower committee was formed it contained 4 members from the previous committee whose minds were already made up. They wanted a tower.
The option of vehicle repeaters were brought up twice, and not even discussed. They refused to even consider it.
Lt. Baldwin passed out a packet last year that listed all the equipment to go on the tower, and the price tag just for the equipment was $538,000. That did not include the $250,000 to build the tower in the first place. $300,000 of that equipment was supposedly for the fire dept. Chief murphy knew nothing about it, nor did he need it he said.
There is more to this than meets the eye, but the $15,000 for the study was wasted! We were suppose dto get two DIFFERENT proposals. Instead we got two variations of the same proposal, you get to choose between a tower in the center of town, or a tower in the center of town.
I am not even thinking of voting for either. I just don't see justification for the cost. And thank you for being so open as to attach you name to your post. Your braver than I.
I am still in shock over the Library. Way to much money for a small town, but let's not forget our wealthy neighbors who want a place to dump their kids off om a Saturday morning or the Gentlemen who lives in a 900,000 home who likes the free DVD rentals. Oh yea while I went completely off the subject, Who is framing the library Harry the snail? I have put up similar type buildings in the winter and have completed them in 4 months.
After listening to the budget comm. mtgs. & the selectmen's mtgs. & then thinking of how high my tax bill is now, I can't imagine voting for almost $700,000 for a tower (incidentally, that WON'T help the cell phone coverage!) It's ridiculous. I am getting priced out of living in town & I am a very long time resident. Don't vote for the tower.....have someone who knows something about it, look into the vehicle repeaters. That would do the job & not cost so much $$$.
Just think $700,000 means $0.70/thousand on your tax bill!
$300,000 home = $210 more taxes just for the tower
$400,000 home = $280 more
$500,000 home = $350 more
Plus everything else on the ballot, in the budget, plus the schools!
JUST VOTE NO!!!!!!!!
Article submission.
$659,000 Town Hall Expansion Plan.
First a little background. I have been on the Atkinson Cable Advisory Board since 1997. Chairman since 2001. Our board helped the town get the old cable system rebuilt by Adelphia while they were still in bankruptcy. We even got them to give us an extra $30.000 to settle old disputes. As a board, our goal was to secure a new franchise agreement with the cable company and then look to build a studio for Channel 20. The current "studio" is a walk in closet behind the Selectman's desks.
To accomplish this goal, over the years we built a Cable Capital Reserve Fund with the excess franchise fees. Franchise fees are paid to the town from cable revenues in exchange for the use of our right of ways. Each year, we use some of the fees to pay for running Channel 20 and warrant the rest into the Capital Reserve Fund. This fund has well over $300,000 now. Since 2000 we have also let an additional $200,000 in franchise fees drop right into the general fund. Why? Some years we got even more than we expected but the major amount was due to delays in this warrant article. We were ready to go forward in 2006 only to be asked to step aside for the library. And again in 2007. Over $40,000 in 2006 and $60,000 in 2007 dropped right into the general fund since we did not warrant adding extra franchise fees to the Cable TV Reserve Fund. (Since we put forward a building addition warrant both those years only to see them pulled at the last minute we did not look to add money to the fund.) In 2008, another $50,000+ will hit the general fund. (Again, no cap reserve warrant.)
So to answer the burning question: How do we pay for it?
$309,000 from the Cable Television Capital Reserve Fund,
$150,000 from the general fund, (By the end of 2008, cable franchise fees will have dumped over $250,000 into the general fund this century.)
And then we borrow $200,000 for 5 years. This will cost us $45,000 a year (Maybe less with the drop in interest rates this year) and can be paid for with future franchise fees. (We get over $95,000 a year from Comcast and spend less than $50,000 to run Channel 20.)
So the end result is Harron/Adelphia/Comcast can fund our town hall expansion. Sorry to say either the Budget Committee did not understand this concept or they wanted cable fees in the general fund to help pay for the communications tower.
Now, why do we need a bigger Town Hall?
First, we need a studio for cable.
Go see the closet yourself, or the equipment spread all over the meeting room. We have saved the money to do it. If we only build a $300,000 studio, the town gets nothing else.
The current Town Hall was constructed in 1986. The Town has grown by over 40% since then. (And soon will grow more) Atkinson needs a bigger Town Hall.
The paperless society they promised us in the 90's is not happening. The town must keep more written records longer and they must be safe.
The Town Clerk needs a vault.
The Tax Collector needs a vault and space. (Again, a walk in closet for an office.)
The Town Administrator/Selectmen need a private office. (To meet with residents and keep important papers.)
Everyone needs more room and we can do this now with very little if any impact on the tax rate.
Sure, we could use this money for something else, like a 120' tower, but at this time I believe we should pass this warrant article in spite of the "Not recommended" by the Budget Committee.
I know the warrant says "raise and appropriate" but by my calculations we have raised or will raise from cable franchise fees and only need to "appropriate".
To Mike Torris -
By law, the town needs to raise and appropriate the entire sum. The cable money is listed as revenue on state forms. Regrettably, the 10% figure, as I understand it, is less than the amount listed for the town hall expansion. By state law, we can't go over the 10%, and that means that, even if it is approved, we can't do it.
There are ways around that. Keep your fingers crossed one of them comes up tomorrow.
Say 'No' to the tower, no to the expansion, etc. If we keep this crap up this town will be on the down size and then we can cut back on the police force, fire department, and eliminate other jobs that are not necessary. The tax bills are high enough!
regarding the February 1, 2008 9:27 AM anon reply...
you should edit this info out also. give the lady her personal opinion without posting her name, address and telephone number when she asked you not to.
A question that needs to be answered regarding the town hall is, has everything been done to maximize the space available now? With the tower, have all alternatives been considered?
In Town Hall there appears to be offices that are only partially used. The foyer is a large empty space. Fill up what you have before looking for more. Channel 20 is not available to all households. Why would they be interested in expanded facilities?
The bottom line is: The taxpayer well is only so deep. We have an economy that may be headed for recession and that would lead to lost jobs. Heating oil is over $3.00/gal. People are losing their homes left and right. The value of homes in general is declining. The price of everything seems to be going up.
Despite this, there seems to be an attitude that taxes can raised whenever. What should be happening is for the town fathers to find ways to reduce taxes and increase efficiency. Rather than buy everything new, check Ebay. Rather than go it alone for everything, collaborate with neighboring towns. I'm always amazed when I see every town replicate the same services. You get the idea.
To paraphrase the late Sen. Everett Dirksen, "A million here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real money." Try giving the taxpayer a break for a change.
And, speaking of declining housing values, is anyone thinking of adjusting assessments? If I could sell my home for what its assessed for, I'd be outa here.
In 2007, Taxpayers approved spending $2.7 MILLION on a new library that comes with a 100 person conference room. Move all committee meetings over to the new library and you will free up plenty of space in the town hall to reconfigure more optimal utilization of existing space.
We just spent $2.7 Million on new space for the town. Figure out how to make better use of it before you build more. This is common sense. One other thing, the current room where Selectmen's meetings are held is way too small, now. We need to move to bigger space and the library will not be negatively impacted if we use that new space in the evenings for town meetings, budget committee meetings, etc.
Have our selectmen ever thought to find ways to cut spending rather than always increase it like we are some kind of endless money source? My taxes and energy bills are making for tough times. Do they care one bit? Our selectmen have turned the town hall into a Money Pit.
The taxpayers were never presented with any analysis on the use of repeaters. This is a current, valid and highly useful technology used by law enforcement all around the country. Anyone who says it isn't has not done their homework.
I am stunned by the poor justification presented to the voters to spend so much money on something we can fix for a low cost investment. I just don't understand the reasoning or motivation behind it. It simply makes no sense. I am voting no for the communications tower because we can solve the problem in numerous other ways at a much, much lower cost.
I was at Town Hall today and took a good look around. There's plenty of room if you reconfigure the existing building space. Shirley sits in a big room alone and Russ is always out sick again, the selectman's room empty. If they want to find more space, they could get rid of all the files and store the town data on disks that would fit into one cabinet. We need to go paperless like the rest of the free world.
The addition is a waste of money and does not fairly serve the community, just those with cable. I'd prefer to see them use other town property for the meetings, that few attend. Clearly, not many people actally attend. Also, I really don't care if the cable company has space or not, tell them to by a mobile broadcasting van like other news groups.
We've just wasted $15k on a tower study that was biased, and who-knows-how-much on those lovely plans for town hall (that won't be used).
I am voting against all these articles.
To Michael Torris:
Cable is a business, not a Town owned asset, and they serve only a portion of the towns residents that pay for it. That this town doesn't stand up and get a web cam to Vcast meetings over the free internet is beyond me. The educated and well off people (who are quickly becoming the majority here), expect the latest technology and they will eventually have it. Why? Because it's CHEAPER AND BETTER. To build an expensive addition to make some service company more comfortable in OUR town hall is ludicrous and dumb.
The town does not 'have to' keep up with written records any more than they have to keep up with rubbing sticks together to build a fire.
We need educated and informed people to step up and fill the voids where the same old bunch of local politicians have been failing for so long.
Why not ask the state of Mass. State Police and the many local departments using the repeater system of communications what they think of it. I"m of the mind you'll find the repeater systems more than just worthy in road pursuits , bank robberies, killings, and many other crimes that are to many to list here. The system went from border to border for all departments to hear what was going on and definitely helping with the apprehension of subjects committing crimes . The safety factors were very high for the public and the police officers in all aspects of repeater use. Inside the police facilities an officer would alert all on the system of a crime committed and resolution the crime was usually quick . An officer in his cruiser, by simply turning the radio switch, could talk to any police facility or on an the road officer for any valid reason he had in relation to crime factors involved. The system ,if I remember correctly, was called Baypern that had repeaters from one end of the state to the other including Cape Cod. I highly recommend looking into it in the overall of the cost once installed vs. all the issues stated here. One only has to look back at what has happened in recent times state wide in areas of crimes committed with regard to the safety of its law enforcement officers and the public. I'm not a repeater official but I am a retired Mass. policeman still thinking of law enforcement as I knew it to be prior to my retirement.
I am PISSED! that tower committee wasted $15,000
They never considered any other options than a tower. ALL of the discussiion centered around how high should it be and where to put it. Not is there any other way to solve this cheaper. AND the consultants report does not even say that there is a problem, or how much of one there is. The upshot is this wasn't a "study" but a confirmation of what FOUR members of that committee did the year before, and wanted confirmed this year.
Atkinson certainly has an important need for a repeater. I'm not sure if the tower is the answer, but I think it is a much better solution compared to cruiser repeaters.
For example - if two officers were working together (I know it's a rarity in Atkinson, but it does happen on the day shift)... and those officers went to the same call... when one of them keyed up their portable radio it would then go to both cruisers. The two cruisers would have to decipher the transmission and utilize a voting system to decide which one would transmit the signals.
It can work, but I don't think it would be the best option.
Additionally - Mass State Police do not use the in car radios anymore. They use a tower repeater system.
To the retired officer - Massachusetts does have a large repeater system called BAPERN. It is utilized by all agencies and works incredibly. BAPERN is for mutual aid activites not for individual agencies. That would be a much better idea for the state of NH to adopt.
I love this. With uninformed, misinformed and ill informed voters, what chance does this Town Hall expansion have?
Where do I start?
Cable is a business, so true.
Channel 20 is owned and operated by the Town of Atkinson, not Comcast. We own the equipment, pay the employees and decide what programming runs. We would own the new studio also. It is being built for the residents of Atkinson. It has nothing to do with the cable company. Comcast broadcasts Channel 20 for us. Verizon would have done the same if we didn't chase them out of the town and state. (story for another day)
As for broadcasting online, sounds great. Erica had the money approved to spend out of our Capital Reserve and franchise fees.($90k for equipment in 2006) She was supposed to buy more high tech equipment and might have been able to do it, but was told not to spend it. (she spent $55,000) So ask the Selectmen and Russ what happened to the extra $35,000. (can you say general fund?)
Now try to get the state of NH to give us written permission that we do not need to keep all these records and I'll help you rub the sticks to start the fire. Corporate America may be paperless, but government is far from it.
I wish the posters with great ideas on how to use the current Town Hall space better had joined us in Building Needs and let us in on their secret solutions. But then again, they breezed through Town Hall one afternoon, saw all they need to know and decided this addition was not needed. Perception is reality.
As for the library, we looked into that a few years ago. We had $300k for studio space and could have incorporated it into the new building. Unlike channel 20, the library is not controlled by the Town or our Selectmen. They are a little government into themselves. The library trustees run it. If we had moved the cable studio there, towns people would still need the trustees permission any time they wanted to use this space. Same for Selectmen board meetings at the library. It would only be available if they did not have something planned. As a matter of fact, they didn't even want Building Needs to get involved with the new library planning, so we focussed our time on the Town Hall needs.
So again, great idea. Been there, done that.
All this brought us to a warrant article for an addition to Town Hall. As I posted earlier, we can fund this addition with money derived from the cable company. All residents, even those who do not purchase cable, would benefit.
But then again, it is so much easier to show up on voting day in March, read the Town Hall warrant for the first time in the voting booth and decide to vote this down. So be it.
Mr. Torris -
You state that the folks who don't have cable benefit, HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? We are at a disadvantage in this case. The town should be doing it's best to keep ALL residents informed, they are not.
If we all had cable then we would be informed about what the building needs committee was doing, but we don't have cable.
So why don't we find a solution for broadcasting that everyone can use. You should not put people down calling them uninformed when YOU my friend are perpetuating the problem of keeping them uninformed by promoting cable. You are either PART of the problem or you are part of the solution. Your demeaning words are not welcome.
Do you KNOW how many servers and a web cam we can get to support streaming video over the town web site for $659,000.00?
YOU are the one who is misinformed, uninformed, ill informed and probably UNIFORMED.
I DIDN'T BREEZE THRU TOWN HALL ONE DAY _ I HAVE LIVED HERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS! THERE WERE 7 PEOPLE WORKING AT TOWN HALL TODAY, ONE IN EACH ROOM.
DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITHOUT THE INSULTS.
THE POINT IS THAT CABLE SERVES ONLY PART OF THE TOWN.
VOTE NO.
If
"Channel 20 is owned and operated by the Town of Atkinson, not Comcast. We own the equipment, pay the employees and decide what programming runs. We would own the new studio also. It is being built for the residents of Atkinson. It has nothing to do with the cable company. Comcast broadcasts Channel 20 for us. "
then we can conclude that though Atkinson owns the channel, we can't operate without Comcast. Obviously this DOES have something to do with Comcast..........
I think we should move the meetings to a place that can accommodate the equipment. I'm sure the Library Trustees would block out the room on a weekly basis, after all, they work for the same organization (the residents).
NH State police use vehicle repeaters, so doe sthe Presidential Detail of the Secret Service, every gov't agency in the states of Va., W.Va., Md., Oh.,Pa., Ky. as well as the FBI.
But it obviously is not good enough for Atkinson. NYC has vehicle repeaters too, and they work with multiple radios being used simultaneously too.
If that were true, a tower mounted repeater would have the same problem, it IS still a repeater!
On a tower or in a car they do the EXACT SAME JOB!
It is a benefit to all.
The addition will be funded by cable franchise fees. The studio will take up only a portion of this addition. The remainder of the space will help serve all Town residents.
You will now be able to meet with selectmen or town employees in private and have better access to Town records. This space is being built for all.
Regarding cable, I guess I should have just pushed to have the other $200k in franchise fees moved into the Capital Reserve Fund over the past few years. That fund would then be able to build just a studio for $430k and it would not need to be raised, just appropriated. Then the Budget Committee would have given this project a green light but the town would get just a studio but no more much needed space at Town Hall.
I was trying to help all, even those who do not have cable.
I guess come tomorrow, the tower and addition are going to get the most debate. My thought on the tower:
I like the repeater idea.
If we do build a tower, make sure it can house cell service and other equipment. Then maybe our Hog Hill problem would go away.
(If we have a 180' public tower downtown, who would want to fight for space on Hog Hill)
Plus we would see some revenue off the 180'.
From a safety standpoint, as was mentioned at the Budget Com. public hearing, if ones cell phone does not work in town and they are in peril, the 180' tower can be justified.
So if we are going to have a monster stick in the center of town, does the height really matter?
I spent some time in Town Hall, and I have suggestions on utilization of space.
For instance, there is a stack of shelving in the middle of the storage room which makes it difficult to move around. I suggest closing off the back room of the SElectmen's office and moving those files in there (under lock and key, of course). They could shut the door to the middle room, which would one room for other meetings (Conservation also meets on Mondays) and alsoleave a small area for the Town Fathers, and a "spare" for other meetings, or they could even move cable in there and use the cable room for storage. True, not much room for large meetings, but they could always hold them at the Community Center. In the Planning Board, they could knock out the counter and put other files there. Lots of those records in the storage room belong to them anyway. In Linda's room, they could move one desk out into the foyer and let that person serve as a receptionist (when she's there).
It wouldn't be pretty, but it'd serve until people start complaining about being cramped, and about the ugly storage.
Sorry, most of the records in the storage room have been determined to be held forever. Not much you can do about it. Also the property tax cards in the once-used-to-be a room in which to store tonic and some cleaning supplies. Also in the storage room at the bookkkeeping files, to be retained for 10 years. I think that's usually more than 2 boxes per year.
My basic, sarcastic, comment is only that perhaps Town Hall should put all the papers they are required to keep out in public, so the public can walk around it like the employees have to do.
Well great, I do not have cable yet you want me to pay for your studio? If that is the case, you can give me my cable for free!
Times are tough, money is going to be scarce. Do you want to bring this town to its knees?
We're not going to solve the storage problem here, and I don't deny there is a space problem.
But, if the law allows it, what if they were digitized, multiple copies made with one copy be stored at a professional storage facility?
With the right kind of copier, which could be leased, you can scan documents at a very fast rate. Hire a couple of college kids during the summer and let them go at it. Once the copies are reviewed and blessed, recycle the paper.
Maybe this is a poor idea and not feasible. Point is, when you have a problem there are usually alternative solutions. People are not convinced that every reasonable solution has been throughly thought out.
The town's problem with both issues discussed here, is that the proposed solutions cost a lot of money, are locked in place, take or leave it.
Worse still, some people, with vested interests or not, take these issues way to personally. To quote Michael Corelone, "Its not personal, its business." To the people who may get upset tomorrow if things don't go their way, I sincerely hope they keep this mind. Taxpayers are taking it on the chin and the kind of dollars being asked for make use feel like another punch is coming. We know there are problems. But, just like in the private sector, you need to show the best and most cost efficient solutions are being proposed.
Lets just say this, the two big warrant articles gave a lot of people sticker shock and were given only 3 days to absorb it. Expect people to be upset about it.
Here's a tidbit most people either don't know or don't remember. In 2004, the Chief's econd year as a selectman, the board of selectmen had the opportunity to buy the Hog Hill tower for the town for $60,000!!!
Yup, thats right! We had a chance to buy the existing tower for $60,000, could have taken all the cell stuff off it, by eminent domain, and used it for public safety only. Cheap and the best solution. And it can STILL be done by eminent domain. and no one is talking about it...
Just thought y'all might be interested. Jack Sapia did not sign up to run for Selectman. Candidates are Mr. Kriel, Rich O'Leary and Valerie Tobin.
I hear Jack did sign up for the Code of Ethics Committee.
The third candidate was Friehl, not Kriel. Jack Sapia running for the Conflict of Interest Committee. Isn't that an oxymoron?
That's 2 down in one week. Some relief to Atkinson at last. Now all we need is a new police chief. That's next.
friel is correct.
Sapia for conflict of interest?
You've got to be kidding! This guy didn't recognize that having a police chief as a selectmen dealing with police matters was a conflict, even AFTER the Court said it was.
He would be great on that committee! Jeez, you really can't make this stuf up.
With all due respect, Mr. Torris, do you really believe that insulting the rst of us as "uninformed, misinformed and ill informed voters" is going to HELP your cause?
It didn't work for Lt. Baldwin at last year's deliberative session, and I don't think it is going to win you any converts either.
You need to realize that there is a good number of us that are being taxed right out of town, and we don't want $1.9M in warrant articles to be added to those taxes.
Can anyone tell me someting about the candidates running for Selectmen. Is there one that is neutral and detached? Is there one who is Jack's right hand person, who will pick up where he leaves off? Sorry if I seem misinformed.
I also think that it is funny that Jack has signed up for the Code of Ethics. I hope he gets some ethics before the first meeting.
To Anon 5:49
Please read an article at the following site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_repeater
Pay attention to the section on vehicle repeaters.
Also - NH State Police does not use vehicle repeaters anymore. NHSP uses over 6 high powered towers throughout the state. Please get your facts in order before you try to debate an issue.
Vehicle repeaters are not the solution to Atkinson's problems. Atkinson's issues involve line of sight and that solution involves multiple repeaters throughout the town or at least one within the town that is high enough to transmit and receive signals throughout the hills and valleys of the town.
I'm glad you are not the one protecting and serving the community and relying on a radio to possibly save your life (or at least hope and pray it might). This has certainly been the case on several occasions throughout the past few years and is becoming more and more frequent.
So I ask you... is $700,000 too much money to save an officer's life?
To Anon 2:13
If you think $700,000 is a bargain, YOU pay it. There are those in Atkinson who struggle to survive on Social Security and diminishing pensions. We need to save up for that kind of money. I do believe you can't place a value on life, but this year, I believe my survival is just as important to an officer. Here's hoping next year is a better year.
Mr. Torris,
When I posted my criticism of your post earlier, I didn't realize that this article was NON-RECOMMENDED by the Budget committee!
You did all of this arguing and insulting here, and this article CAN NOT BE ENFORCED, EVEN IF PASSED, Because it will exceed 10% of the approved budget!
You were pushing a dead issue!
About Anon 3:58's comment -
I agree with you! What a person signs on as a Police Officer, he/she knows the life is on the line. And they have life insurance (paid for) to protect their families. I wish I could afford life insurance.
Re: 2:13 PM - Regarding Wikipedia: Not exactly the most reliable of sources. Anybody and their brother can make an entry and they may not necessarily know what they are talking about. I've seen it happen.
NH did use vehicle repeaters but they have switched to a trunked 800 MHz system. Same is true for Mass. I may be wrong on this but I believe the SP have kept their low band radios as a backup. I'll check the antennas next time I see a cruiser. Anyways, apples and oranges comparison. Statewide coverage vs. 11 sq. miles.
And, NOBODY wants to risk an officers life or limb. So, please don't imply we are willing to do that just because we question the cost. This is not a "If you're not with us, you're against us" situation.
If you go back and review the proceedings the consultant was asked if any of the vehicles (police and fire) were subject to the dead spots. He said no, they weren't.
So if you take this step farther, a repeater in a officers vehicle receives his hand held's signal and relay's it to PPD with more power from the vehicle radio. Implication is that it should work.
It has been said over and over vehicle repeaters won't work with no apparent substantiated data (Wikipedia doesn't count) to support that conclusion. So, why not prove it. Any repeater vendor would happy to give a demo, maybe even a loaners. Nothing to lose, and if they do work, $100's of thousands saved and a big fat tower in the middle of town is history.
What is everyone scared about with the mobile repeaters? Give'm a fair, which means unbiased, evaluation and if they don't meet the requirements, then the tower can be revisited. If the advocates are wrong, it can be admitted and we move on.
It May not Just be an Officers Life It could be yours as well...
Unfortunately over the last year I have seen and learned here that this town is not as "beautiful" as most see it. Now if this tower is passed it will just ruin the only "beautiful" part left, our outside appearance.
Maybe with the pitiful attendance of the town meeting we deserve both the outside and the inside to match!
Remember - there is a third option to the $680,000 tower, a $100,000capital reserve, proposed by Jane Cole and approved by the voters for an additional article.
It's a good idea. We know that we're going to have a better communications system eventually.
The establishment of the Capital Reserve will cost taxpayers about $30 on a $300,000 house. It postpones any action for a year, giving people who are seriously looking for a better (cheaper) alternative a year to work on it.
It keeps the tower out of the center of town.
Moreover, Jane was right. Any department looking for an expensive article, establishes a Capital Reserve primarily to allow the voters to space out the payments, thereby keeping taxes within reason.
There are three articles on communications now. Article 9 is the $680,000 Tower; Article 10 is the Capital Reserve; Article 11 is the second tower option.
VOTE FOR ARTICLE 10.
Rep. Garrity noted that the town would have to wait 7 years for improved communications. He didn't say that the Chief could have started his own Capital Reserve three, perhaps even four years ago, when he first decided he wanted a tower. But, he didn't.
The repeater system is a necessary thing for the town and the state for everyones safety. Why not look into what would be best for what is placed on any tower ,height or not,or m/v in town? The Baybern or other communication systems maybe grant funded by the state or federal government or both. The cost of citizen and law enforcement lives and safety is something we have to pay for no matter what, but, if the cost is cut down by grant monies why not take advantage of it before we lose another life due to communications problems .
When did we lose a life because of lack of communications? I know an officer was bitten, once. I never heard of a death.
RE: 2:13. You're implication mobile repeaters won't work is because Wikipedia says there are problems when two mobile repeaters are within range of each other.
Did you ever consider that the mobile repeater vendors might have a solution for that. Lets do a little research. Go www.futurecom.com/mbx_nf.htm and look at the section near the bottom titled "Simulcast Prevention Algorithm:" I believe that addresses the problem.
By the way, the Futurecom devices shown here are resold by Motorola so one could assume they meet Motorola's standards and will interface with Motorola equipment. The link to Motorola' web page for some reason will not replicate here but if you go to www.motorola.com and work your way down from products and services to the Government section and then two-way radios, and then mission critical, you'll find it.
So please, at least consider, for a moment, the possibility that the solutions on the ballot may not be the only solutions. All it takes is a phone call to Motorola and ask for a demo.
I remember a time when a resident could come into a selectmen's or any town meeting, for that matter, and speak his or her piece, and be treated with respect by the board.
If you look back at the selectmen's minutes from the early part of 2003, We had a gentleman in town Named Ed Radulski, some of you may remember Ed. He is in the minutes of the selectmen's meeting, because he came in to warn the town that Planet X is hurtling towards Earth and will wipe out half the Earth's population!
Now I know alot of people reading this are laughing right now, but my point is that there was a time when a resident could come in to a public meeting, and express such an opinion, without filling an agenda request form, without disclosing for selectmen prescreening, an opinion, even an opinion critical of them, and the Board would simply say;...
"Thank you, Ed, for coming in to tell is this"
There was a time, and it existed up until 3 years ago, when a resident would be treated with respect, NO MATTER WHAT THEIR STANCE ON AN ISSUE!
I fear it will be a couple more years before we can see that degree of civility again.
But I long for it.
To 8:51 , We may or may not have lost a life here by we certainly have come close due to communications problems. You may not remember hearing or reading of many people dead from heart attacks and accidents but I do. They are a lot of people who have said "only if they got here a little sooner maybe..." The issue is quick response by emergency responders for the safety of everyone here and elsewhere . I would hope you and I never are a statistic of slow response just to have saved a buck or two at this time .
But the Fire Department doesn't have a communications problem. And I believe they have someone in the building 24/7.
In my opinion, the lower cost options available to potentially solve the communications issues were not adequately analyzed and presented to the taxpayers.
There is so much confusing and contradictory information out there. I interviewed a Ham operator whose knowledge I greatly respect and lives outside of Atkinson. He reviewed the information from the town and concluded it was very likely we could solve this problem with repeaters. Especially for those instances where the officer is away from the car. Why we haven't been presented with analysis on why or why not repeaters either WILL OR WILL NOT work is a mystery to me. It was also stated by the town's consultant that Hog Hill tower could solve the technical problems assuming some work was done to it. It all makes me wonder where the trail of money leads.
Just because I want to explore lower cost options doesnt mean I'm not concerned about public or officer safety. I respect all sides of the debate so please discontinue attacks on people who have the right to ask valid questions. I believe we all understand the seriousness of the topic and don't need to be talked down to.
To 12:51: No one, and I mean NO ONE, wants to deny our offices and firemen reliable communications. No one here has advocated that or even suggested it. Please, it is insulting to even be accused of that.
What is being argued is that many believe that some possible viable solutions were dismissed out of hand and that the solution HAD to have a tower.
Go back to the proceedings. The consultant agreed mobile repeaters could be a viable solution. I can only speculate then that he was discouraged from investigating it further.
Another thing the consultant said was that the transmitter/receiver at APD is not being used. This is much closer to the middle of town than the PPD where all base operations are done now. That is a big reason why we have the dead spots. The PPD is relatively far to the east of Atkinson. Did anyone think to consider the possibility of increasing the height of the tower a APD and using it as Atkinson's base transmitter and receiver. The consultant could have just as easily done a coverage map with this scenario, but he didn't so we don't know how that would work.
It was commented several times at the session that the committee put in a lot of long hours and that they were being seconded guessed. I can appreciate how they could feel this. However, this is not like a typical construction project. This is a complex technical problem with details that most people don't understand.
For example, with a construction project you usually will be presented with conceptional drawings with details that anyone can understand. With the tower we were given grainy coverage maps that were calculated and equipment costs completely undecipherable to everyone.
For a small town $700000 is a god awful amount of money. It needs to questioned.
So, this is not about anyone wanting to risk someones life in order to a "a buck or two." $700,000 is only a buck or two to Bill Gates, not the Atkinson taxpayer. The issue is that it is perceived that the solution was predetermined, that all the alternatives were not investigated, and that the taxpayer should just blindly accept the recommendations and shell out the bucks because a lives are at stake. IT IS NOT WRONG TO ASK QUESTIONS.
RE: The previous. I do not have the slides with me. It may have been possible a coverage map was done with APD at the center. If so, I apologize for the error.
When $700,000 become a "buck or two." Wish I had that "buck or two."
Forgive me if I'm stupid. But Chief Murphy has said he doesn't have any communications problems. So.....
Is this $700,000 being built for the 5 full time officers?
There are no stupid questions and I doubt you are a stupid person.
The warrants cover equipment for BOTH the FD and PD.
The two departments use different radio technologies and for some parts of the system it requires two different pieces of equipment that do the same function for each technology. This drives up the cost.
The above is fact. The following is only rumor so take it as such. I heard both departments were included to provide additional justification for the system.
Publius, please accept this as an article submission.
Civility is disappearing from Atkinson politics.
I LOVE POLITICAL DEBATE!
I do, I admit it. I love the give and take, the raw examination of both sides of an idea, or issue. The effort by both sides to get thier point of view in front of the voters. And like any other contest, there are proper ways to do this, and there are gutter tactics.
I know; the old adage is "all is fair in love and war"(and politics) but I would disagree. I believe in the time honored military concept of honor; that you dont harm non-combatants.
Although I did not attend the deliberative session this year(my first miss in 8 years) I have seen most of the tape, and I am appalled at the lack of civility on the parts of our elected, and appointed officials.
As I said earlier in a comment, there was a time in the not to distant past when a resident could come into a public meeting, and speak their mind, without fear of being belittled for their opinions on camera, without fear of retribution, without fear of having their names and reputations harmed within the community. Sadly, it would appear those times are gone.
This is the first town meeting that I have been to where I have heard the moderator start out the meeting by telling(it sounded like advice to me) the assembly that they could ammend an article till it meant nothing.
Unfortunately this is the third time I have seen our board of selectmen, who, by the way, have no official function at town meeting, abuse the privilege of having a microphone in front of them, to heckle, interrupt, and demean the very residents that elected them. That microphone is there, by the way, so that they may answer questions put to the board of selectmen by the people, not for them to pontificate from. The proper actions for town officials if they have something to say, is to descend from their thrones and speak from the floor like every other resident. And the moderator should have reigned them in for that, as a former moderator, Jack Herlihy, did many times.
I always thought the purpose of deliberative session was to debate issues, to debate warrant articles placed before the legislative body(the people), The actions of our selectmen, police chief, and moderator over the last three town meetings, four if you count the special town meeting in 2007, have shown me that there is an inherent risk for those who come into that meeting in opposition of those officials.
I have watched residents interrupted, bullied, belittled, heckled, demeaned, and for what? It is apparent to me that we have a town government of dictators, but not benevolent ones.
It is time for a change in town politics. It is time for the people to be treated with respect. It is high time we DEMANDED THIS FROM OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS!
With McAllister gone and Sapia no longer selectmen, we now have a chance to fix all of the damage done. I've spoken to many people who saw what Consentino did at deliberative and they were shocked at his behavior. We really need new police leadership. Once that bully is gone, we can move forward in a more civil fashion.
It seems as though with every bit of information brought forth, more questions are raised. If the FD uses different equipment, would this tower even benefit them? ...if they had communication problems, which I guess they have said they do not? And I guess another dumb question I have is WHY does the FD have different communications equipment, and would it be feasible to use the type they use, which they have said is not problematic. Sorry if I'm woefully uninformed.
To February 4, 2008 5:14 PM - The information was in the handout but here are the basics.
A few years ago Plaistow and Atkinson switched to a digital radio system. If you were to listen to their frequency all you would hear is noise. The major benefit of this is security. The PD's communication is in effectively encrypted and not available to prying ears. For a law enforcement agency, this is not such a bad thing.
The fire department uses the more traditional "analog" system. Basically, they are FM radios and easily heard over a scanner. They also operate on a different frequency from the police. Other than discouraging fire chasers, the FD does not need encrypted transmissions.
I can't substantiate this, but, it is very possible if the FD did switch to digital, they'd have to do a complete replacement of all their radios. This is sometimes called a forklift upgrade. Yet more money.
So, that is why different equipment would be needed in the new radio system to support both.
Now, would it benefit them. I've also heard the same story, that Chief Murphy said he does not now have a problem. If this so, then no, it would probably provide no additional benefit.
As far as being woefully uninformed, join the club. This is a very expensive system and the people who want it are very passionate about it. And it was made very clear at the session by the powers, this is the ONLY way to go and if you do not approve it, you will be responsible for any lives lost. Nothing like a quilt trip to justify $700,000,
Beyond the emotional pleas, all the public received for information was a bunch of fuzzy charts and a meaningless list of equipment costs. The town hired a consultant to help put this plan together. We should have also received more background on him.
The town is being asked to put a great deal of faith into a plan that seems to have more questions than answers and little data.
So it goes.
RE: February 4, 2008 1:29 PM. I just checked the handout from the session and,no,a survey was not done from the APD. The first slide shows the "calculate" coverage assuming a 60 ft. tower at the salt shed. I say calculated because the consultant said that the maps were made from a software program, not actual field measurements.
What is really curious about the calculated coverage maps, the 60' one in particular, is that it shows a dead spot that I estimate is only 2 miles away, yet there is coverage at the upper right corner of the town and also well into Hampstead. Same dead spot shows up with a 100' tower also. This is inconceivable and can only lead me to believe the coverage maps are not totally accurate.
Decisions were made based on these maps. You draw your own conclusions.
Anyone have anymore information on the consultant?
The anon. writer has to think they are immune from accidents and eventual mortality when they put the "buck or two" before their and everyones safety. The tower issue and its cost can never be that prohibitive when it comes to safety and lives . Look into the grants mentioned earlier by another Anon. and then think about the "renting" of space on the tower as a reduction of cost of the tower. The tower can be located else where in town if its so much of an eye sore at the presently proposed area of town. The repeater should allow for a place to be located. The "buck or two" would be paid for over a period of time with the help of "renters" fees and would be little on the tax rate when you compare it to human lives and safety. Its times of compromise and waiting to have other things from the towns wish lists that makes it good to act without any selfishness when it comes to public safety issues for everybody.
Sorry, but you're missing the point of what is being argued. NOBODY HERE IS ADVOCATING THE RISKING OF LIFE. PLEASE, TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT.
What is being discussed here is if the taxpayers have been given the best option, or have been given an option that is extremely expensive and may be done just as effectively less expensively.
We've been asked to place a great deal of faith in a solution that many people believe there may be a better way. They also believe the potential better way has been dismissed out of hand and not been given a chance.
The $700K option was thrown at the taxpayers 3 days before the session, and at the session little evidence presented to support that ALL the alternatives were examined. People kept asking, "Did you consider this", and the answer was always no. Add to that we're dealing with highly technical issues that few people understand.
So PLEASE, do not imply the people asking questions want anybody to die. They were given flimsy documentation by the lowest bidder (BTY, Goggle them and see what you come up with) who had difficulty in answering pointed questions. You are implying the questioners have no regard for life. That's very insulting.
What if the proposal had cost $10M, $20M, $30M, $100M. Would you accuse anyone questioning that as having a disregard for life?
This is a small town of only 11 Square Miles. Do you really believe that it costs $700,000 to remedy a number of dead spots? Do you understand the technology involved? Do you understand there are more than one way to solve a problem?
So Please, understand, we want the best for our public servants and the public. That does not mean that the only solution proposed IS the only solution. The data presented was weak and alternatives that were suggested were not considered. So, forgive us if we raise our hands and say,"excuse me"
It wasn't my real intention to give you or anyone else the impression they are willing to save a "buck or two" at the cost of lives. It was to raise eye brows to express the need for exploration of the cost and location of the tower via grants and"rental fees". Its obvious that I've been successful in doing so. The screw ball that said it will cost 7000,000 dollars had to be no friend of the town nor a good business person . You are right about my technical knowledge but I do have some better than average knowledge about the transmission of radio signals. The man who said he does ,having been or still is, is involved with this kind of thing is the one to see along with making inquiries of a tower and repeaters ,etc. Town hall or another agency have people that can look into grants because of the issues involved being the cost and need for safety that are very much needed in town.
To February 5, 2008 10:41 AM - I apologize. I was too harsh and should have shown more respect for your opinion. I'm sorry.
Let me address your points. The primary warrant asks for $632,000 if I recall. If you add in follow-up maintenance cost, it will hit $700,000 next year. The $632,000 is in the warrant. The approx. $700,000 was in the follow-up documentation. The $632,000 was listed in the mailer before the session.
As far as grants, alternate tower locations, renting space - These are not part of the Warrants going on the ballot. There was no discussion of seeking grants and the suggestion of alternatives was not entertained. The warrants dictate specific solutions, including the tower behind the fire station. The warrants are what they are and if they pass, end of discussion.
Now, if they fail, hopefully the alternatives suggested can get more attention. If they truly won't work, I think that can be accepted and we move on.
There will be a Warrant article asking that a capital reserve fund be set up if the tower warrants fail. This should have been done years ago. If it passes, at least the funds required will start to accumulate and give more time for further study. We'll see.
As far as not being a friend to the town - here I have to take exception. If I, or the others here, did not care about the town we wouldn't be asking all these questions. No one is claiming there is not a problem and that we should do nothing. Just the opposite.
One correction to the previous. The less expensive warrant that includes a 180 ft tower does have provisions to rent out space. The downside is that in addition to a 180 ft. tower in the middle of town, it could in the future contain a set of antennas whose appearance may be upsetting to some.
It's not the tower that's important here, it's the equipment to boost the signal. This study and the comments here don't address this in the detail needed to provide a solid conclusion.
Since the PD uses digital equipment and the FD uses analog, the equipment cannot be the same for both depts.
The coverage maps are created using algorithms that access digital terrain elevation data (DTED) to plot an estimation of the expected signal strength for a particular lat/lon in town. These maps are only as good as the level of fidelity of the DTED data and the accuracy of the algoritms used by the software. Unless we have technical information to tell us these things, the maps are, in my view, unsubstantiated. To do an real coverage map you would need to generate the signal and capture the results, not a cheap or easy task, hence the software simulation approach. These maps are approximations only, tools to guide the decision. What comes out is only as good as what went in, and we don't know this.
To jump at any of the proposed solutions is not prudent and I encourage everyone to vote them all out. The repeaters are the best way to go at this point, and the technical information supports this.
One thought. Eventually, the town will be footing the bill for improved communications.
Go for the Capital Reserve Article (No. 10)? in March. We know we'll be spending money somewhere. At least this will be a reduction on what we might have to spend if there weren't a CR.
Amen Brother John!
Over 5 years, this thing will cost $800,000 according to our consultant. If this has been such a critical problem for so long I don't understand how we got to this point. This is nuts when there are lower cost options and from what I've researched, there definitely are options. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't done their homework.
The TOWER COMMITTEE, and thats what it was, they even referred to themselves that way a number of times, REFUSED to consider any options other than towers!
They were SUPPOSED to present TWO different options to the voters, instead they presented two variations of the SAME OPTION! A TOWER!
Is it any coincidence that four of the members on that committee wer eon the previous committee, and came into this with their agenda on the table?
These same people did the town a disservice by wasting $15,000 of OUR MONEY!
I have a question. Does anyone know the cost of the tower and also the cost of the equipment that goes on it?
I have a question. Does anyone know the cost of the tower and also the cost of the equipment that goes on it?
There are two warrant articles. From the material available, the cost breakdown for the 120' preferred option, is: $156,000 for the tower, $113,750 for contingency fees, leaving $412,750 for equipment and engineering services. Total is $682,500.
For the 180' option lesser preferred option (I say this because it was not recommended by the budget committee and had no recommendation, yea or ney, by the BOS), the tower is provided by others, $80,553.40 contingency, leaving $402,750 for equipment and engineering services. It would be logical to assume the "other" could be a cell company, or companies. This would provide revenue but result is a much taller tower and who knows what kind or amount of antenna arrays. Take a look at any cell tower and you'll get the gist.
RE: Last - Don't assume that if Option 2 is chosen it will solve your cell phone coverage. There are 4 major cell carriers and, if, it is a cell company providing the tower, it may not be the one you need. This needs to be taken into consideration by all.
With Option 2 we may end up in a law suit, like the folks on Hog Hill, when the company decides to stick 500 pieces of commercial use equipment on a tower and it looks like an eyesore.
VOTE AGAINST BOTH TOWERS.......
If we usually only have one patrol car on the streets (even two at a time for argument sake), get two repeaters and try them out. Cost - about $3k total (I believe). That's what they should have done FIRST as part of the trade study.
Anyone who is thinking of spending hundereds of thousands of taxpayers money with the thought that cell coverage might be improved as a part of this process, isn't thinking things through. The main issue for the TAXPAYERS is improving the PD signal strength in town.
If you're not happy with your cell carrier, switch over to someone else. I have Verizon and almost never lose a signal. The coverage areas are getting better in general and we do not need to be footing the bill to help the phone companies. If they don't improve their service on their own they will lose customers and they know it. If they need a place to park a tower, they will find it. Lets leave them out of this and focus on the PD equipment, not the tower, not the cell coverage.
To February 6, 2008 6:24 PM. You are absolutely right, this is all about police coverage, and good police coverage is a good thing.
The point is, Option 2 is counting on someone, presumably a cell company (and maybe not the one you need), coming in and ponying up for a tower which the town will piggy back on. Unless the town has a deal lined up, and given it was not the recommended solution, that is a rather risky assumption.
So, consider this. Option 1 fails, Option 2 passes. Nobody comes to the rescue. Back to square one.
Would have been a good question, but questions are not welcomed.
So, the best choice is Option 3, establish the capital reserve fund to at least get some money put away, and use the time to research Options 4,5,6, etc.
God bless you Jane Cole for offering a way out. Wish you were running for Selectman.
$100K is still to much money at this stage in the analysis. If the repeaters work we would have put too much aside again. Where would it end up? In the general fund.
I am voting against all the options, they are all bad ideas.
Capital Reserve money stays in the designated fund until (1) spent or (2) changed or released by the voters. I don't think you could take it away from the PD, but bear in mind that the Chief has been complaining about the existing building and I'd guess he's thinking about a new, bigger (than the Fire Department) building to serve his 5 full time officers.
I'm wondering; if we didn't need the capital reserve, could the town vote to release it for the purpose of off-setting the police portion of the tax rate? I'll have to look into that.
This wouldn't go into the police budget since it is supposed to cover the fire department also, would it?
If we're to approve this it should damn well be reserved for the use intended, nothing else.
Why throw ANY money at a problem that we don't understand?
We would need to buy different equipment for the PD and the FD because their signal type is different. The FD doesn't even have a problem. SO WHY BUY THEM ANYTHING RIGHT NOW?
The PD is the dept. with the problem and it's not going to be solved by putting money in an account.
This will ONLY be solved properly by examining the technical issues regarding signal boosting, something that the trade study should have done but did not do effectively or entirely. We HAVE TO look at the technical solutions and map them to the costs before we make a decision. I do technical trade studies in my line of work and the presentation given to us was not done thoroughly.
I am not in favor of throwing good money after bad. They need to reopen the analysis and the only way that will happen is if we VOTE DOWN ALL THE CURRENT OPTIONS. Then and only then will they back up and look at the facts. If they don't have $100k to throw away, they will most likely try a few repeaters, WHICH IS THE PRUDENT CHOICE.
We can also afford to take some time to figure this out. Why are people so anxious to choose something they don't understand and can't afford????
I mention the FD because they are part the warrants. That fact is fixed in place, the discussion was closed.
What I have not heard is someone with the authority to say so acknowledge the FD does not have a problem.
If that can be acknowledged then the nature of the solution will change and the cost will change significantly downward.
Also, I don't think you'll get much argument that the proposals presented were weak, possibly faulty. They wouldn't have gotten to first base in the private sector. None the less, the majority approved the warrants. They are what they are, end of story.
So, I think it can be agreed the PD have a problem. FD, not so sure. More investigation is needed and money will have to be spent at some point to solve the PD problem. Goal is to solve it in the most effective way.
If both tower warrants fail, there will be no choice but to restart the investigation. That will be interesting to watch. I feel what the 3rd option does is hopefully diffuse some of the tension and emotion surrounding this and I think 100K is a good number. Hopefully it can be done for less but we have to be prepared if is more, but not a lot more.
I think we agree on most everything but I have no problem setting aside $100K. I also have no problem doing it a year from now. Chose your poison :<)
I'm all for voting down ALL spending articles! send our leaders the message! we are fed up!
The cost of a Capital Reserve to your tax rate will be $.10 per thousand. The Selectmen can probably apply some of the surplus to offset that amount, although you need to understand that they can cover that, possibly, but not the school costs.
And if you recall, the tower was voted down last year in favor of a "study". It wasn't effective last year and if it's going to work at all, the committee needs to be made up of people who are NOT associated with either Fire or Police. I'd rather see a committee of knowledgeable people not affiliated at all with government.
No matter what, an option will be submitted that will meet with the approval of the people, and it will cost money. If some money is set aside now, we will have to fund less in the future.
That's the purpose of a CR....finance something needed, but do it in such a way that it doesn't break the pocketbooks of the voters.
Problem is, they've been beat over the head time and time again and still don't get it. You can send a message but don't be surprised if it comes back, with postage due.
Previous was meant to be in response to February 7, 2008 1:35 PM
I am blaming the consultant for doing a poor job communicating his findings to the taxpayers which failed to include all potential options. First, his report was never mailed out to all taxpayers. You have to go to the town hall and pay copy fees to get a copy. While I consider this double taxation, the point is they couldn't put it on the Town website for public dissemination? Or was it there and I just missed it? This would push any printing costs out to the end user.
Then in deliberative session, the consultant presented his findings on a TV that was about 27" screen that only people in the front row could see. Can't he afford to rent a projector and a large screen? There were about 130-140 people there and only a small number could see the small, important details on the screen.
Is this any way to effectively communicate the consultant's findings to an entire town? And then ask us to spend $700K? No wonder we are all confused and have no idea what to do.
Future recommendation: Any fees paid to consultants should include the cost of mailing their report/findings to all taxpayers so we can see what the heck we paid for! Otherwise, we all have to drive over to town hall and pay for copies. How many people did that? What a waste of gas. This is no way to communicate important information to taxpayers. At least put it on the town website. Doesn't anyone think these things through?
Valid points. What also was needed was a public session before the deliberative session where the populace could get a better understanding, in detail, the problem, question the results and recommendations, and ask as many questions as it took to understand how they got the end. In the private sector this is called a design review. In academics, peer review.
Instead, a bunch of data was thrown out, some preaching occurred, questioning was shut down, and all enclosed in what can be best summed up as, "Trust Me".
From the Moderator section of the town web site. These are the tower warrants as they will appear on the March 11 ballot. Pay particular attention to the recommendations.
Article 2008-09 Communications Tower
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of six hundred eighty three thousand dollars ($683,000) for the construction and erection of a 120’ monopole communications tower and for the purchase, and professional installation of the public safety communications equipment needed as described in Option-4 of the CDCG engineering study of 2007, and to be constructed on Town owned property located behind the Atkinson Fire Station. The tower will be designed for the use of Town Emergency Communications equipment, with room for future expansion as the need arises, and will be maintained by the Town. Should this article pass, Article 2008-10 is null and void. This article is in addition to Article 2008-04, the operating budget.
Recommended by the Board of Selectmen
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee
Article 2008-10 Communications Tower
Shall the Town of Atkinson vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund for the Town’s public safety communications system and raise and appropriate the sum of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) to deposit in the newly established Public Safety Communications Capital Reserve? Should Article 2008- 9 pass, this Article, Article 2008- 10, is null and void.
Recommended by the Budget Committee
Article 2008-11 Communications Tower
Shall the Town vote to raise and appropriate the sum of four hundred eighty four thousand dollars ($484,000) for the purchase of public safety communications equipment needed and the professional installation of the public safety communications equipment on a monopole tower with a maximum height of 180’ in height located on Town owned property behind the Atkinson Fire Station as specified by Option-2 of the CDCG engineering study of 2007. The monopole tower shall be erected by a Commercial Communications or Development Company who shall be responsible for the construction costs and maintenance of said tower. Said Commercial Communications or Development Company shall secure the primary site location of Atkinson emergency communications equipment and microwave communication linkage equipment on said tower. Should either Article 2008-9 or Article 2008-10 pass this Article, Article 2008-11 is null and void. This article is in addition to Article 2008-04, the operating budget.
Not Recommended by the Budget Committee
The Budget Committee changed their minds on the 120' option. Most interesting.
WOW! If that is true there can be no tower this year because each of the tower articles exceed the 10% rule!
sorry chief, better luck next year.
Easy to prove. Go to www.town-atkinsonnh.com and click on the Town Moderator Department. It's there front and center.
Can you explain how the 10% rule works?
I just looked at the warrant on Frank's site on the town page. The Budget Committee is shown as NOT recommending either tower and recommending the Capital Reserve.
Phil and Bill have to be going out of their minds.
Well here is the law;
32:18 Limitation of Appropriations. – In any municipality electing this subdivision, or any district wholly within a town electing this subdivision, the total amount appropriated at any annual meeting shall not exceed by more than 10 percent the total amount recommended by the budget committee for such meeting. In official ballot referendum municipalities, the recommendation of the budget committee made for the first session of the meeting shall be used for determining the 10 percent limitation. These totals shall include appropriations contained in special warrant articles. Money may be raised and appropriated for purposes included in the budget or in the warrant and not recommended by the budget committee, but not to an amount which would increase the total appropriations by more than the 10 percent allowed under this paragraph. The 10 percent increase allowable under this paragraph shall be computed on the total amount recommended by the budget committee less that part of any appropriation item which constitutes fixed charges. Fixed charges shall include appropriations for:
I. Bonds, and all interest and principal payments thereon.
II. Notes, except tax anticipation notes, and all interest and principal payments thereon.
III. Mandatory assessments imposed on towns by the county, state or federal governments.
What that means, is you take the amount recommended by the budget committee for the operating budget, plus the recommended amount of any special warrant articles, subtract any union obligations, bonds, notes, and tax obligations to the schools or state, and whatever that amount is, you can not exceed it by 10% or more.
So the budget less those items is about $3.8 million + what? $700,000 or so in special warrant articles
= $ 4.5 million.
10% would be $450,000 in the above example. That is the limitation on appropriations, that can be exercised by the selectmen in response to the vote of the people.
Post a Comment