Topic:
Facilities Study (CLOSED TO COMMENT) Eileen Stanley - Oct. 8, 2003 Here's how the issue was explained to the library staff: While technically the grant money is available until July 2004, the last referendum was the third, and final, attempt to pass the 20-year expansion plan, with grant, approved by the State Library Board. The voters have spoken. The town is, of course, now perfectly free to propose any other addition and/or improvement projects they wish, without having to meet the specific criteria that were attached to the state grant. Keith Allsop - Oct. 8, 2003 I was under the impression that this last vote was the absolutely final last chance to secure the state grant. Elizabeth Thornton, Library Director, is quoted in the Rare Reminder (October 7th, 2003 edition) saying that grant money will not be seen again. The Hartford Courant has reported that the grant money is available until summer 2004. Which is it? In the same Rare Reminder, Mr. Morra, First Selectman, is quoted "The first design was so grandiose, but this one was scaled back and more cost effective". I would hope that the original design was cost effective and this is just a poor choice of words. Is there an even more cost effective proposal? As Dick has mentioned, what are the conditions for grant eligibility? Do we have to double the size of the library to receive the grant? Is there a middle ground, with a smaller expansion but still performing the necessary repairs and upgrades? Would a smaller expansion proposal turn some No votes into Yes votes? I supported the existing library proposal but if there is a compromise solution that can pass the voters, let's do it. Terry Overstreet - Oct. 8, 2003 WHEW, I somehow missed that July 2004 deadline, I thought this vote was the last. Perhaps this is just our town taking its good ole sweet time as usual to require 3 or 4 votes to pass something. A whole other topic in itself... At the informational picnic I did not see anything floor space wise which I would deem overkill. The 100% increase in space probably is not out of line but I look forward to what Dick finds out. No one can stop the skyrocketing building costs. Thankfully rates are down which may also help the sewer situation. I'm sure if we just did it 3, 5 or even 7 years ago the cost would have been far, far less. I hope the library can somehow rally the support the way the PTA eventually does to help get things passed. Dick Tuthill - Oct. 7, 2003 Actually, while I voted YES, and while I advocated voting YES, the NO voters had a point. Was it really really necessary to propose a 100% floor space increase??? I have heard from several people that this was the minumum size the State would support for a grant. But when you ask the next question, what is the formula in that case because that sure seems like a disconnect, no one can tell you. And I have talked to several people who I thought would know. I am going to continue to poke at this topic for awhile until I get a warm feeling that we know whether we are on foot or on horseback. It is NOT too late to do something before July, 2004, when the grant runs out. And we ought to get to the real bottom line ASAP. Jackson Dellabotte - Oct. 7, 2003 I cannot believe that a no - brainer did not get passed. I didn't think the uninformed billboard at 44 & 85 would have influenced one person. Government waste? This is a town barely scraping by and doing the absolute best with what they have (thanks to all our officials and volunteers), not skimming off the top of huge budgets like Bridgeport, Waterbury, or the like. It warms my heart to read these postings to see the care and concern for our town. In recent years I sometimes wonder after moving here, starting a family, and then moving my parents here, all of us from towns with tremendous services and multiple libraries as to whether I've done the right thing or not. I am not discouraged, just a bit saddened for the library, and harkening back, the town workers who couldn't get better workplace conditions. I will continue car pooling residents who are unable to drive to vote and urging my neighbors to become better informed. I am already feeling sorry for those neighborhoods in which I have read about with the well water contamination. I hope many, many of this current "no vote block crowd" live there otherwise the December referendum will be just another lost cause. How we can all not sympathize and unamimously pass this is beyond comprehension but then again so were the past two referendums. Thanks for all the information you all provide in this medium. I'm not a complete stranger to town meetings yet I can count on the passionate people in this forum for a wealth of information to be better informed. Oh and to the ones who distributed the deemed illegal scare tactic flyer, I'll be writing down license plates from now on. Ed DelSignore - Oct. 3, 2003 Again, as is their right in a democracy, a small percentage (21%) of Bolton voters have outvoted an even more pitiful showing of 16% of the voters to stop the Library Project. In my opinion, the referendum defeat was a result of failure to convince the voters of the need for the project and not getting out the vote. A push to get out the vote like the PTA does for the Education Budget could have made a big difference. Bolton will now have to get by with what we have. Let's get on with what has to be done. Included in the list of what has to be done is: Address the diminishing space for adding new books to the Library. These problems are not going to go away. It will be interesting to see how they are resolved. Doing nothing is not a viable alternative. Tom Galeota - Oct. 3, 2003 I voted yes and would do so again. It's called progress. Without it, we'd still be living in caves waiting for someone to discover fire (and it would be people like Beth Harney or Karen Bergin that would make the discovery). Although I disagree with them, I respect those who voted "no". At least they voted. My uncle and others like him died protecting our right to vote. I'm sure there are a small number of people who couldn't vote because of extenuating circumstances. However, TWO-THIRDS of the registered voters DID NOT VOTE!!! The following is an excerpt from a speech by Teddy Roosevelt. I have taken the liberty to paraphrase to make it fit our situation, but the intent is the same. Apathy is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth voting for is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight for; nothing he cares about more than his own personal well-being; is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. Thanks for reading (I learned how at a library). Bruno Simonetti - Oct. 1, 2003 It is another sad day in Bolton. What does it take to motivate a community. I served two years as a Selectman and every endeavor that was attempted to bring any change to this town is almost always voted down. This library expansion was a no-brainer, no risk, no tax increases. It would solidify a community gathering place that was long overdue for an overhaul. Are we not worth it? Are our children not worth it? We just threw away $500,000 given to us to better our town. It's gone! Excuse me if I have a poor tone, I am sick over this. Town officials, volunteers, and townspeople worked hard to promote this project. I commend each and every one of you. For those who opposed this project and voted "NO", take my challenge here and now, explain why you did it. We, as a town, need to know what are the underlying reasons for this project's failure. Robert Johnson - Oct. 1, 2003 I use the Library quite a bit and soon all three of my children will as well. At least I hope so. Query: Yesterday's referendum kills the expansion, but do the problems still exist or did they go away as well? Do we still have to deal with the existing challenge? As the referendum did not pass and a space issue is still at hand, are there any other possible solutions for library expansion or relocation? Are there possible solutions that do not require a significant building project to succeed? It's new idea time. What about physical relocation with a minimum of renovation? Although I am sure it will not be popular either, what about - either on its own or as an inclusive part of the previously proposed Town Hall project - moving to the old Elementary School Building? Can the problem be boiled down to simply acquiring functional space or is it something else altogether? What is the single highest priority? Can we meet that priority with minimum resistance and or cost? If the functional libary relocates, can the problematic existing facility be used for other uses, possibly income generating? For instance and at a minimum - for a conceptual new system of "Town Clubs", event rental etc.? Can costs be minimized and or better proportioned this way? Maybe yes, maybe no? If not, let's hear why not and get another suggestion. Saying no and going home is not good enough. It was the individuals simple civic right to say no to the referendum. But, today it is everyone's more complicated civic responsibility to work for a "better" answer. There are a whole lot people with good common sense, outstanding intelligence and solid fiscal ability in this Town. If we work together on this single issue anything is possible. I am not being flip here... the status quo this afternoon seems to be either stop time so no new books or periodicals are ever needed again, or worse, begin revising history by picking a specific year and trashing everything that was published before that time to make shelf room. If another idea can be made workable I am quite willing to help. Bob Hewey - Oct. 1, 2003 I am very disappointed in the results of the referendum. The Library Project had endorsement from the PTA, the Democrats and Republicans and yet only a third of the voters turned out. There was no commentary from those opposed to the project and yet there were not enough positive votes to pass it. This does not bode well for any improvements in town services. I'm now afraid that the Sewer Project referendum will fail and we'll be subject to fines from the state until we finally comply. What a shame! Ed DelSignore - Sept. 30, 2003 Good comments, Dick. While a community's population is certainly a factor in the requirements for a library, the amount and kinds of services a community demands of a library are in my estimation most likely related to the makeup of that community, for example, the socioeconomic level, educational and cultural background of the library users. It would be interesting to see statistics comparing the circulation per capita of the various communities. While visiting the Library and going to vote today all should also take a view of the ponds of standing water in that area. Although many of us are fiscally conservative, this is a project proposal that Bolton should support. Dick Tuthill - Sept. 29, 2003 That paper-tube flyer this morning did not have an organization attribution at the bottom. Technically it was illegal. Folks who write things ought to have the intestinal fortitude to sign what they write. The flyer did raise an interesting point about floor space per capita in some surrounding towns although I found the towns selected to be kind of curious. Nonetheless, a valid point on the face of it. But do the numbers mean anything?? To get a good feel, visit our Library tomorrow before voting to experience what Ed is talking about below. It is so crowded you can barely sit down and relax with a book. There is no more space. And personally, I would prefer not to go through an addition every ten years just to more closely follow the population increase. Let's get it done and forget it for awhile. Perhaps even enjoy it for awhile. Terry Overstreet - Sept. 29, 2003 I Wish the town mailing had the words Beth wrote " NO TAX INCREASE associated with the bonding on this project" in plain and simple text. I am afraid the mailing alone will hurt. I hope not... Ed DelSignore - Sept. 28, 2003 First of all, let me assure Beth Harney that there are many interested citizens out here who have an opinion about the town's needs. To put it bluntly, it should be obvious that today's voters don't care about the mechanics of town mangement. They just want to know what and why these projects are really needed, what are the priorities and what they will cost. If all that makes sense the voters will vote and the referendum will pass. You will note that almost all financial issues now go to referendum. Unfortunately, the town fathers/mothers have not considered it necessary to strongly advocate the need for an expanded library. The effort, from my vantage point, is concentrated on salvaging the grant money and proving that the town debt service is not going to increase rather than convincing the voters that the planned library expansion and upgrade is necessary. This approach is strategically flawed since one can take the position that the library project is not needed and therefore the grant and debt issues are moot. As a library patron and one who was involved in its construction as a member of the Buildings and Grounds Board, I can attest to the fact that the project is needed. There is no room for more books. I have tried to donate books from my personal library and been told they could not accept them because of space considerations. The septic and water table situation at the town green area has been a problem since day one. The parking area is inadequate and potentially an accident waiting to happen. Today's technology provides media capabilities for library patrons that cannot be accomodated within the current library. I could go on but I think the point is made. The town needs this project for all its citizens, young and old. The Town needs this project not because of a grant or its effect on the debt service; but rather because it will satisfy the need of the better library services it will provide to all. Dick Tuthill - Sept. 28, 2003 We are not likely to get as good a deal as this for a very long time in the future. The State is giving us a good chunk of money and interest rates are still down in the weeds. This is our last chance. I urge favorable consideration of the Library project in the form of a YES vote. Beth Harney - Sept. 22, 2003 I attended the public hearing on the library expansion that was held on Tuesday September 16th at Town Hall. It lasted a total of four minutes, during which time the town moderator read out the legal notice and a unanimous vote was cast to take the project to referendum. This was becasue there was no discussion. I was not surprised but am always disappointed to note that only the 'faithful' were there in attendance, those loyal members of the library board, the board of selectmen and the facilities study committee who have led the charge for last 7 years on this project and pretty much know the facts. Is anybody else out there? We were hoping to generate a little interest with the latest debt schedule, which shows that there will be NO TAX INCREASE associated with the bonding on this project. We had copies of the schedule showing the impact on the town's debt payments incorporating the library and the sewer project being proposed later this year. We had even invited Terri Larson, our financial consultant, to answer taxpayers questions. But no one asked any questions. After the hearing I asked Terri a question that may be of interest to forum readers. Why is the town borrowing a relatively small amount of money for such a long period of time, especially when interest payments are declining? The reason for a 20 year note rather than a shorter term note has to do with the debt management plan the town is adopting. According to Terri, the town has to consider two aspects of financing when planning for debt, one is existing debt levels and the other is future projects. Assuming that the town has other projects that they will want to bond down the road, like the sewer project, they will usually borrow for the maximum term to string out the payments as long as possible; in this case the maximum term is 20 years. In addition, Bolton probably has some capital projects that they would prefer to pay for with cash, ie. tax dollars rather than debt dollars, such as road improvements and building repairs, and creating some room with declining debt allows them to do this without raising taxes. Terri suggested that a comprehensive analysis of the debt management plan could not be done without looking at the long range capital plan, to see what projects are out there. There are so many good reasons to vote for this project at this time, but I know the most compelling will be the financial ones. I would encourage anyone with questions on these issues to call Joyce at Town Hall, or call Jerry McCall, our finance director. Or write them down here, and I will try to get answers. But don't let your misconceptions about the project cause you to vote against it - get the facts! It is your responsibility to vote smart!
| Home | Directories | Calendar | Government | Civic Groups | Recreation | Created and Maintained by: Eileen G. Stanley |
