By Judy Aron and Steve Smith
By Judy Aron and Steve Smith
We read the opinion piece written by Reps. John Cloutier and Gary Merchant in the May 5 edition of The Eagle Times and felt it was in the public’s interest to set the record straight.
With all due respect to our colleagues, we were disappointed to read their misleading descriptions of the delegation’s previous actions regarding this project, incorrect summary of the state budget impact, doomsday tax implications, and their misguided plan to form another project study committee.
Our reaction is one of no surprise. We are seeing this sort of partisan behavior and delaying tactics up at the New Hampshire State House. Portraying themselves as fiscal hawks desiring “tax relief” is amusing. These are the same people who in the last two years voted in the State House to establish sales and income taxes in New Hampshire and increase fees on licenses and permits.
They offered a flawed recollection of the Sept. 25, 2020, delegation meeting. We actually voted 11-1 to defer the nursing home renovation to explore building a new facility thinking it might represent a better value for Sullivan County’s taxpayers, despite higher costs. Reps. Merchant, Sullivan, and Tanner pressed for the facility to be built somewhere other than the current Unity campus. Even though that option would never make economic sense, these “fiscal hawks” wanted to pursue it. Nonetheless, a documented analysis of building new, as well as relocating the facility elsewhere, was needed. The delegation directed the commissioners and county staff to gather data. We reviewed their findings in December.
That exercise proved that building new would be prohibitively expensive. It confirmed, too, that if we built away from the Unity campus, we would lose the benefits of using land we already own, abandon established well water and a biomass heating system already paid for by taxpayers, and lose other resources available on the Unity campus. Even so, some of our colleagues, including Rep. Merchant, as recent as a few weeks ago, requested more time to evaluate this option, including the additional scope of an assisted living facility to create a massive retirement community complex under county control. Does this vision sound like a fiscally responsible solution? Not to us.
State budget fear mongering has no place in policy discussions. Their claims about downshifting costs to municipalities are an untrue and shameless attempt to scare people into accepting their arguments. The reality is that the House always passes an austere budget. It is the halfway point of the process. It is easier to add things in as revenue estimates come in than to remove things. We are already seeing robust revenue actuals compared to earlier estimates. Our colleagues know this. Having said that, there is no version of the state budget that will cause our towns to lose millions in education funding, or slash services, as our colleagues claim. Our towns should see an increase, not a decrease, in their funding in the next two years. The state budget provides tax relief in many areas, one being $100 million in statewide education property tax which will not be collected from towns even though the Department of Revenue will still be sending $100 million to towns as statewide education property tax (SWEPT) funding.
As for Sullivan County’s fund balance, it is finally down to a recommended level. It is not intended to be used as “tax relief” nor is it a “rainy day account.” It is meant to cover county expenses if revenues are delayed for any reason, and insure a more consistent bank balance. We might add that our county tax rate has been level for the past 10 years despite increased personnel and operating costs. We are still facing a structural deficit in the county budget that has been dealt with for years by drawing down our fund balance, and using other county one time revenues, instead of raising taxes a little bit along the way.
Our colleagues believe that assembling a new committee to study this project will yield some magically different insight. Essentially, they are ready to toss two-plus years worth of work you have paid for. We have already consulted with stakeholders. We have disseminated information in meetings, print and on radio. As a reminder, the county has already spent $1.5 million of taxpayer money on current renovation designs and architectural plans. Those plans required licensed architects, experienced engineers, and hundreds of hours of thoughtful input from county staff overseen by our Board of Commissioners. We trust the results. We believe the design team appropriately considered every aspect of this project from future demographic projections to facility, staffing, and energy efficiencies. It is unfortunate and obvious that our partisan colleagues have no faith in our elected commissioners, the received input, or the excellent process involved.
The current project’s price tag is higher than any of us would prefer, but we also understand the cost is being driven by federal regulations, existing site conditions, and local construction climate. Our colleagues think inflation and construction costs will be stable or even decrease in the near future, yet we see articles everyday that indicate just the opposite. Also, local available contractors aren’t going to sit idly by waiting for our commitment. Just a few months ago bond rates were under 2%. July’s bond market, and beyond, may be different. The federal government is spending trillions of dollars and proposing to spend trillions more. It is hard to imagine inflation remaining at current levels. We are sure you have already had a taste of that at the gas pump and supermarket.
Here is the bottom line: We have a facility composed of 50- and 90-year-old buildings with dated and failing infrastructure and we need to do something soon, or accept the very real and very expensive risk of an event occurring that will either cause us to close and/or lose our license. In that event you, the taxpayer, will be absorbing the cost of relocating residents along with costs of repairs or facility closure while the resident revenue stream ends. This isn’t “doom and gloom.” It is reality. It is why renovation was pursued to begin with.
Along with $8 million in American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money and $5 million already reserved for this project, we have an excellent plan that can be executed right now with low interest bonding on $35 million, and we can get a shovel in the ground by fall 2021. Our current renovation plan was developed by a team of experts and reflects a correct assessment of needs, efficient use of space, and adheres to federal and state regulations. We should move forward while doing whatever we can to minimize the county tax impact.
Rep. Merchant and his colleagues prefer instead to wait another year-and-a-half or more and incur more costs while our nursing home residents and staff live and work in deteriorating and challenging space. Don’t be misled into believing more discussion and delay will magically make this project less costly, or even worse, thinking that cutting corners and reducing licensed bed space will better serve our constituents. If they want us to come together as a delegation, they must recognize that our constituents, nursing home residents, and staff deserve more than political posturing, revisionist history, and wishful predictions.
Judy Aron is a member of the Sullivan County Executive Finance Committee and Representative of Sullivan County’s District 7. Steve Smith is past chair of the Sullivan County Delegation and Representative of Sullivan County’s District 11.
As your daily newspaper, we are committed to providing you with important local news coverage for Sullivan County and the surrounding areas.