Common Sense For New Hampshire

14 Comments

1. Katrina wrote:

   Matt and Colleen. The gift that keeps on giving

   Thursday, January 21, 2021 at 11:13 pm | Permalink
2. Tom Dilberger wrote:

   In other Matt news, his house is coming along famously.

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 6:24 am | Permalink
3. Bad management wrote:

   A settlement was eventually reached in 2017…
   Who was on the council when this happened? Councilman Brennen and Councilman now Mayor Walsifer. Yes, that same Councilman now Mayor Walsifer who voted on past budgets but was shocked by what was in them when he became Mayor, just like this missing bond. Today’s Belmar residents are already being killed with expensive water and sewer bills that increased during this Mayors tenure on top of the 20% tax increases since he was elected. We are told Mayor Doherty is to blame!
   Let me predict the next moves. The administration (and his lackey’s) will blame Doherty and Colleen while ignoring the fact that 2 people on today’s council were on the council then. The Mayor will re-assure the taxpayers of Belmar that he will find a way to fix this but by next year, even though he is up for re-election, the taxes and water & sewer bills will increase again. Bad Mayor Doherty will be the villain just as the excuse was used for everything bad that happened in the past 3 years. Mayor Walsifer will praise his razor-sharp staff of accountants even though this error was overlooked for 3 years. In the end no one will be held responsible for this criminal act because blame will come back to the 2017-2018 council including the now Mayor and a councilman. The taxpayer will take the hit in the end.
   Doherty and Colleen were the major erroring party on this, but others were elected to watch over the store. Even with new leadership in place this was overlooked for 4 years. On every year’s debt schedule lists the bonds that are taken out in Belmar’s name but this bond was forgotten. At what point do the Belmar citizens start holding their elected official responsible for their bad management? The answer seems to be never. Belmar deserves bad management.

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 7:51 am | Permalink
4. Katrina wrote:

   The last paragraph of the article says that in November of 2017 Colleen Connolly told everyone the lawsuit was settlement was being paid out of Water utility and would not have to alter budget.
   Does anyone truly believe that then Councilman Walsifer was told that they used otherwise bonded money for that settlement? I’d even say Councilman Brennon had no idea. Especially when the BA was stating the money came from the Water Utility.

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 10:45 am | Permalink
5. Anonymous wrote:

   It costs 350k to repaint a water tower?

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
6. Warner Wolfe wrote:

   As Warner Wolfe used to say with the sports report, “Let’s Go To The Videotape”! By law, isn’t it required that even in closed sessions with M&C that minutes and records are kept? If so, can this be reviewed as it relates to this topic to understand who knew what and who gave the marching orders?

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 1:42 pm | Permalink
7. Anonymous wrote:

   Headline of the article is misleading.

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
8. Anonymous wrote:

   #4- I guess you too believe everything you read. Perhaps DPW can paint it for the cost of the paint. I say impeach Connelly and Doherty. Seems to be the flavor of the Dems. nowadays.

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 3:43 pm | Permalink
9. Dylan wrote:

   #5 the typical cost of repainting a water tower is anywhere from $100,000 to over a $1,000,000 depending on size of course. From prep work to final coat ur averaging out about $300 a gallon

   Friday, January 22, 2021 at 5:33 pm | Permalink
10. Anonymous wrote:

    I believe the water tower they are referring to is the small one on 12th ave across from Jaeger Lumber that water tower had its roof replaced over 8 years ago and was supposed to be repainted after it was finished what happened to that money back then ?

    Friday, January 22, 2021 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
11. Tom Dilberger wrote:

    #5 – If it’s the tower down at the DPW yard, it’s not a lot of money – Some interesting rigging having to happen for that job plus their quite a bit of danger involved. If it’s the one at Jaeger’s, then it is a lot of money.

    Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 6:28 am | Permalink
12. Resident wrote:

    I agree with Katrina on this one. I’m sure Doherty and Connelly were not transparent to other council members at that time and did what they wanted.
    However, Walsifer and Brennan do know about hiring do nothing Drew Huisman at 83k!

    Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 7:45 am | Permalink
13. Ken Pringle wrote:

    I believe #10 is correct, this is about the 12th Ave ground storage tank, not the water tower.

    At the December 11, 2013 Council meeting, Doherty & Co. adopted a resolution authorizing emergency funding for the Ground Water Storage Tank roof. I suspect that the original cost of sand-blasting and painting this tank was included in Ord. 2013-11, which was a $5M bond ordinance for water & sewer improvements, adopted in about July of 2013, and that the need for a new roof was discovered after the painting contractor started that fall.

    At the Borough meeting of 5/20/2014, they adopted a Resolution authorizing payment on a 11/6/2013 work order to Bragaton Construction, Inc. for $49,980.00 for Ground Storage Tank Repairs, which was charged to Bond Ordinance “No. 13-11 w/s Improvements Unfunded.” According to the BlueBook.com, Bragaton is a painting contractor. The replacement of the roof would have required a ironworkers. $49,980.00 seems light if the entire steel roof of that tank had been replaced.

    On July 1, 2014, the Mayor & Council approved “Change Order Number One for the Waterworks Ground Storage Tank Painting and Repairs Project,” which amended the “the project costs by agreement with the contractor, Bragaton Construction for the waterworks ground storage tank painting and repairs project.” The change was for a “net decrease of $146,200.00.”

    I recall hearing at around that time that there was a picketing at this site due to a labor dispute, presumably because the contractor was not a union contractor. I did not see picketers myself, and don’t know why the amount of the contract to Bragaton was decreased so much.

    The Mayor & Council sought and rejected bids for the painting of the tank again in the fall of 2014, and authorized the receipt of bids at the 1/20/2015 meeting. I’ve OPRA’d the Borough for a copy of the $350k ordinance discussed in the article, and the records reflecting where that money went. But it’s obvious from the condition of the outside of the tank, that it was never painted.

    

    Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 7:50 am | Permalink
14. Average Joe wrote:

    Anybody know the average number of times the water tower was used in 2020?

    Saturday, January 23, 2021 at 2:24 pm | Permalink

Post a Comment