This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Community Update

In Reply to Mr. Wally Kilgore’s
Post of 2 March 2014: “Vote No on North Hampton Article 7”



Mr. Kilgore opposes siting the
Public Safety Building on the Homestead Property across Atlantic Avenue from
his home.



It is important that readers of
his “essay” on this subject are accurately informed to assess his statements.

Find out what's happening in Hampton-North Hamptonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.



Please consider the following
points in contrast to his:



1.     Cost:
Mr. Kilgore criticizes the cost of the Town Campus. He says that it will cause
the tax rate to increase $0.51/$1,000 in assessed value. This is misleading: In
the first year the increase in the tax rate is likely to be about $0.50/$1,000;
however, Mr. Kilgore does not mention that this rate will decline steadily to
$0.35/$1,000 in year 15 of repayment of the bond and to $0.20 in the 30th
and final year. All estimates depend on assumptions about the bond issue’s actual
interest rate, which cannot be known till the NH Bond Bank takes the bonds to
market.

Find out what's happening in Hampton-North Hamptonwith free, real-time updates from Patch.



Mr. Kilgore ignores the cost of alternatives. Implicitly, he
appears to favor doing nothing. The cost
of “doing nothing,” which the deteriorating condition of Town facilities, in
fact, makes impossible, would likely exceed the cost of building the Town
Campus.



Building a new Library on the Homestead Property would in the
end cost more than the Town Campus because this alternative eliminates savings
from sharing space with the Town Offices and requires added cost for
temporarily relocating EMS/Fire services and Police services while their
facilities are renovated -- and this would inevitably occur.



Finally, the Trustees of the Library now favor the Town
Campus site for the proposed Library/Cultural Center. They appreciate both the
cost savings and the benefits of being situated in the center of “civilian”
activities on the Campus.



2.     Need:
Mr. Kilgore criticizes the size of the proposed Public Safety Building. He says
it is “disproportionately large” for a town with 4,300 people. With which towns
is he comparing North Hampton? Very few towns of about this size in New
Hampshire have full-time EMS/Fire and Police departments, and fewer have
combined EMS/Fire and Police facilities. So, how can he say the proposed
facility is “disproportionately large?” Compared with what?



North Hampton’s
current fire station is too small and cannot be renovated economically.
Following
are only some spaces that are inadequate for their uses: Equipment bays, repair
and maintenance areas, sleeping facilities (especially for women), laundry
equipment and room, storage rooms, bathrooms and locker rooms (especially for women).
The proposed building remedies these inadequacies without excess. A study by
Municipal Resources Inc. (“MRI”) (February, 2008) detailed deficiencies of the
station and indicated expansion required to remedy these.



North Hampton’s
current police station is also too small and cannot be renovated economically
for use as a police station.
Too small or inadequate facilities in the
police station include: Detention cells that are unsafe for use, not secure, and
too few in number (no separate cells for minors, women and men, as required by
law); evidence storage rooms (now provided by the unused detention cells), a sally
port for secure transfer of detainees that is not secure and too small; lack of
space for required records storage, office space that is insufficient for staff
to carry out their duties (not all of which are “out patrolling the town,” to
quote Mr. Kilgore); inadequate bathroom and changing space for female officers,
and an improvised armory for weapons and ammunition storage. This is only a partial
list of inadequacies that would be eliminated in the proposed Public Safety
Building without excess space. An MRI study (July, 2008) indicated deficiencies
of the station and detailed expansion needed to remedy them.



Combining EMS/Fire and Police operations in one building
allows these departments to share space and thus to reduce the aggregate size
of the proposed Public Safety Building as much as possible.



3.     Location:
Mr. Kilgore says the location of the proposed Public Safety Building “is simply
unacceptable.” To whom?



The proposed building is only 120 yards west of the current
location of the EMS/Fire and Police Departments.



While larger by 40%, the proposed building will have better vegetative
buffers and more landscaping, and the Campus offers an attractive park-like setting.



The Building’s architecture minimizes apparent mass and
resembles traditional New England “big house, little house, back house, barn” architecture
– examples of which exist on Atlantic Avenue not far east of the Homestead Property.
The eaves are at same height as a typical two-story house, and the dormers are
functional.



Finally, building a new Library on the Homestead Property
would mean renovating or rebuilding the EMS/Fire and Police Stations in place,
which would to require $500,000 - $1,000,000 in added costs for leasing
temporary facilities during construction.



The Homestead Property is the best, most practical, and least
costly location for the proposed Public Safety Building.



4.     Fairness:
Mr. Kilgore says that the Select Board has “used $60,000 of town money to sell
this plan.”



No, $60,000 has been used to develop the plan and has paid for, among other things, the
PlanNH Charrette, architect’s fees, and expenses that any project like this
incurs. Developing any alternative plan would incur similar expenses. Is this
unfair?



Town funds have not
been used “to sell” the plan.
The Town Administrator has devoted much
personal time to leading “Neighborhood Meetings” designed to inform and educate
residents and to give them opportunities to raise questions and offer criticism
of the Town Campus. Mr. Kilgore has attended and spoken at more than one of
these. Is this unfair?



Mr. Kilgore says that the Select Board has been “controlling
the debate from the beginning.” More accurately, the Select Board has been leading a process to develop the Campus
plan and engage all residents who want to contribute. The process has been the
most responsive design effort that could have been used. Many residents’ ideas
and constructive criticism have “guided” -- if not “controlled” -- the
evolution of this Campus plan.



Mr. Kilgore says, “Only those that agree with them [the
Select board] have been allowed to participate in the process.”



Two points about this false statement:



First, following the Charrette in June, Mr. Kilgore was not
appointed to a committee whose charge was to move the process forward. He would
not agree to accept the main point that had been decided -- to locate the
Public Safety Building on the Homestead Property. Mr. Kilgore would have
continued to debate this point, but continuing to debate it would have stopped
the process and would not have helped move it to the next stage.



Second, from the Charrette to the presentation of the Town
Campus plan in December all Town residents have been encouraged to participate
and many have. Participants have agreed with some parts of the plan and
disagreed with others, and as a result, many changes have been made along the
way. The Select Board deliberately sought and appointed “skeptics” to ensure
that constructive debate occurred at every stage. A remarkable consensus was
achieved among stakeholders in the Campus plan.



Mr. Kilgore says, “We, as a
town, can do better.” For over a dozen years North Hampton has been studying,
reviewing, studying again, and reviewing again our Town facilities problem. Meanwhile,
these facilities have grown progressively worse as they have been neglected
during this period. At one point, the Town Hall was closed.



In April 2013 the Select Board
decided to bring the best, most practical, most affordable comprehensive
solution to this problem to voters for their decision in March 2014. The North
Hampton Town Campus is this solution.



Please consider all
available information about this plan before you vote on March 11.
I am
confident that you will conclude that, while it costs $6.1 million to complete,
it is the most prudent, least costly solution.





Phil Wilson



North Hampton, NH




We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?