By Patrick Adrian and Jordan J. Phelan
Staff Writers
NEWPORT — The Sullivan County delegates find themselves in a contentious stalemate over whether to fund the proposed $54 million nursing home renovation project, with one side recommending funding a lesser amount than requested and another side looking to defer the decision at least another six months.
The delegates, who convened on Monday to vote on whether to approve a bond for the extensive renovation project, called for a recess after 90 minutes of debate but no clear path how to remove the impasse between the parties. The vote to recess divided down party lines, with the seven Democrats casting the majority votes to recess and the six Republicans voting to continue the meeting.
The 13-member delegation faces an arduous dilemma: whether to fund a costly but necessary project amid economic uncertainty or risk higher costs by continuing to defer action.
The proposed renovation aims to replace the oldest building in the complex with a modern and energy-efficient building that meets modern federal standards for assisted living facilities, creates more spaces for visitations and social gatherings and maximizes overall operating efficiency.
Driving this project is also the need to repair the facility’s aging infrastructure, some of which is in critical condition, according to county administrators. These repairs will require extensive construction that will trigger requirements to comply with modern standards. The proposed renovation will bring residential quarters into compliance with these standards, which require every bed to have a window and a bathroom-to-resident ratio of 2:1.
But many delegates express worry over the project’s price tag, whose estimated cost has climbed $15 million in two years, from $35 million in 2019 to $49 million in September 2020 to $54 million today.
These cost increases stem from a combination of factors, including new state regulations that forced the county to modify its original plan and the surging costs of construction materials and labor amid the pandemic, administrators have explained.
On Monday, a group of delegates composed of Democratic legislators jump-started the discussion by motioning to defer bond-funding for the project for at least six months, due to concerns about the project’s cost and the tax impact on the local communities.
Democratic Rep. Sue Gottling (District 2), who made the motion to defer, questioned whether the scope and cost of this project was appropriate for “the second smallest and second least affluent county in New Hampshire.
“I want to be sure that the scope, size and cost of whatever new or renovated facility we agree to in the near future is within reach of all of our taxpayers,” Gottling said.
Several Democratic delegates conveyed concerns about the state budget being proposed in Concord, whose proposed cuts in state taxes and spending appear to indicate that tax burdens will shift to local communities.
“People are just getting back to work and many people are on fixed incomes,” said Democratic Rep. Linda Tanner (District 9). “It is time to be fiscally responsible and take in the whole picture of what [this cost] will mean in terms of a higher tax burden for our citizens, especially those who are trying to manage in towns with already high tax rates.”
Republican delegates objected to deferring the project further, saying that building costs and interest rates are only projected to increase in the near future.
“What do we gain by waiting six months?” asked Republican Rep. Judy Aron (District 7). “Will we know more than what we already know? I don’t think so. Will this project be less expensive in six months? I doubt it. Will our [facility’s] infrastructure continue to age and deteriorate for our residents? Yes.”
Aron warned that without action, the facility faces a growing risk of a serious system failure that could trigger dramatically costlier problems, including a state closure of the facility.
Aron also noted that delaying the decision by six months actually results in a full year before project construction could start.
Republican delegates backed an alternative suggested by Aron to approve a bond amount of $35 million, which had been the project’s estimated cost two years ago.
Given a $35 million bond the county could narrow the funding gap using $8 million received from the federal American Rescue Plan Act and $5 million from the county’s Capital Reserve Fund.
Remaining funds, Aron said, could come from President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s proposed national infrastructure bill, which is still in discussion.
But Democratic delegates called this idea irresponsible.
“If we are going to approve a bond with no design [plan] attached to the money, isn’t that out of sequence?” said Democratic Rep. Gary Merchant (District 4). “Shouldn’t we be going back and saying how much we can spend and how much tax impact we can afford . . . and decide a design based on that?”
“The deferral allows us to think before we act,” said Democratic Rep. Brian Sullivan (District 1). “[Aron’s recommendation] is a proposal to act before we think.”
Sullivan County Manager Derek Ferland said “he thinks” a $35 million bond would be enough for the county to allocate the remaining funds, though he would need to get another guaranteed maximum price (GMP) before being certain. The previous GMP expired last summer.
But the divide between the delegates proved too strong to move forward with any resolution.
Republican delegates, slightly outnumbered by their Democratic colleagues, would not allow a vote on the deferral motion to occur.
A roll-call vote requires a two-thirds majority to occur, according to Robert’s Rules of Order, which delegates said are the adopted rules of procedure.
The motion to vote on the deferral fell short of a two-thirds majority, with seven delegates in favor and six against.
In short, a two-thirds majority of delegates would not allow a vote on the motion to defer the issue, and there cannot be any consideration of a bond amount until after the deferral motion has been resolved. After 90 minutes with no intent of anyone yielding ground, the delegation, by a narrow majority, opted to call a recess.
The meeting will remain in recess until Cloutier, the chair, schedules a date and time to reconvene.
As of Tuesday afternoon a date to reconvene has not been determined.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.