Common Sense For New Hampshire

Some stuff you might want to know:

The suit brought on behalf of the beach utility was originally scheduled to be heard this week but was pushed to this coming Tuesday so new attorney Bill Northgrave could prepare to take over the case.  A decision is expected week after next.  It is being heard by Superior Court Judge Katie A. Gummer.

The outcome will be critical to the pavilion bond vote since the lawsuit, if successful, would deny the administration over 80% of the funds it planned to use to pay off the bond.  If that happens, and the voters know about it, the results of the referendum would probably be even more lopsided than last year.  The folks don’t want to pay for it.  They have other priorities.  If it’s free that’s one thing.  If we have to pay…..fuggetaboutit.

Here is the suit if you want to see it again:

Here is what I know about the current status:

The list of bills from Partner Engineering has been sorted through and the two parties have agreed on which are to paid by the beach utility and which are the borough’s responsibility.  That issue is settled.

The complaint against the ordinance that doubled the parking fees is not settled.  The plaintiffs argue that the high cost discriminates against beach goers in favor of the residents and also that the extra revenue is not needed because the beach utility already collects enough revenue.  Traditionally the utility got 60% off the parking revenue and the borough 40%, however now with the new electronic meters we can determine what time of day each payment was made.  Since the idea is that the beach should get the revenues from when the beach is open and the town should get the revenues from when the beach is closed, we no longer have to guess what the proper allocation should be.  That will help clear at least that issue out of the way, but the high hourly rate is still an issue.

The Partner bills and the parking fees have nothing to do with the pavilion bond question.  But the other three issues in the suit are make or break for it.  The borough had argued that the case was not yet “ripe”, in other words that they can’t be sued until they actually start spending the money.  Judge Gummer ruled against the borough on that issue this week because once the borough is ready to start spending the money it will be too late to stop them.

So.

The $727,000 in Buy-a-Board money is still out there.  From what I’ve heard, Gummer seemed skeptical that simply passing a rider saying they can spend the donations on things other than boards was sufficient grounds for using the money for building a pavilion with it instead.  If she decides that the funds were donated to buy “actual” boards like the promotions said, that money belongs to beach goers and should be put towards paying off the boardwalk construction bond.  That portion of money that was to be used for the pavilion bond debt would then have to be covered by the taxpayers.

The $484,000 insurance payment we received for the 10th Ave. pavilion is also an issue.  (Actually, it was $242,000 for the north wing of the building and $242,000 for the south wing.)  The building was rebuilt after the 1992 nor’easter with the entire project paid for by the beach utility.  The way the town’s bills are sorted and paid makes it not totally clear who was paying the insurance premiums on the property, but I don’t think it’s going to matter since it was the beach goers that paid the rebuilding cost.

Next and last is the FEMA bucks.

Here is what FEMA has committed to, at least as of last year.  The numbers may change, or may have already changed, but these are roughly the numbers the administration is using to get to its $4.1 million tax-free pavilion claim:

The BU is claiming 100% of the FEMA money for the 8th Ave. pavilion (since it also paid for its rebuilding after the 1992 storm), 100% of both 10th Ave. pavilion buildings, and 60% of the 13th Ave. pavilion money. The 5th Ave. pavilion doesn’t need to be allocated because the new building will be used the same way as the old building.  That would leave the borough with a little under  $745,000 from FEMA.

Here’s something else I bet you didn’t know: In 2012 the state DEP issued a new regulation saying beach fees could not be used to pay for anything other than basic support amenities for the beach and specifically excludes “additional amenities such as cabanas, pools and restaurants.”  This means that the borough would have to pay to build any food concessions at any of the pavilions, including the 10th Ave. pavilion.  The only bright side is we would get to keep all rents we collect rather than have to split them with the beach utility.

My question is: if the borough ends up with no Buy-a-Board money, no insurance money and only a small percentage of the FEMA money…but still wins the referendum vote…will they build the pavilion anyway but at taxpayer expense?