Town Election Correspondence

Providing “a real disservice to this community”

As I published the Nottingham Blog’s voters' guide to the annual town election, I breathed a sigh of relief that the penultimate article on that election was now done, and all there was left to do was to write about the results. I headed out for an afternoon of Nordic skiing. While I was out, my inbox flooded with letters taking issue about various aspects of the Nottingham Blog’s coverage of the election.

As I told readers in the voters’ guide article, this year the issues are especially hot. I’ve never before received concerns about the voters’ guide.

It’s a strange election year. There aren’t very many campaign signs out on the road, or many mailers that have been sent out (so far), but people are arguing a lot about what’s in the Nottingham Blog’s coverage of the election.

Here are the three concerns.

New Police Station Warrant Article

Eric Danis of the Facilities Committee, whose signature line in his email says “38 years in Commercial Construction Industry Experience with National and Multi-National Contractors Retired,” wrote:

In reference to the original look into Article #10 by the Nottingham NH Blog, I can’t help but try to clarify some of the statements and insinuations made by that article.

First and foremost, this was in fact brought up by the Facilities Committee in 2024. As a member of that committee and also this one, I can attest that the 2024 warrant article was rushed and had little research associated with it. That is not the case this time. This Committee did our research received input from contractors, other police departments and other professionals. We did our homework this time.

To scare the public with a cost of 6 to 10 million is a real disservice to this community. The sample Stations noted in the previous article might reflect similar town populations but as an example, the New London Station at 10.4 Million is a ground-up, 8,700 sq.ft. new facility, with landscaping. The Walpole NH station received over a $2,000,000. In USDA grant money. The Tilton NH station is another stand-alone station, brick exterior. I found this by doing some light research on the internet.

These are not fair comps to what the Facilities Committee is trying to accomplish for the Town of Nottingham. We are trying to be as cost conscious and efficient as we can for the town. The land is paid for, there are common systems that can be utilized, (septic, electrical feeds, driveway etc.). One wall is already there. Construction will match the Fire Station, metal frame.

I will not even attempt to put a dollar figure on any building project, as the previous article did. We need a set of concept drawings that can be put out to bid. This is what Article 10 is all about. Once these drawings are complete, Contractors will put GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) numbers on it. What I can guarantee you, is that final pricing will not be reflective of ground-up new construction with all the bells and whistles associated with it, as referenced in the previous article. We don’t need a brick exterior or intricate landscaping. We need a functioning facility to meet current PD standards with enough room for expansion. We need a facility that makes an employee feel comfortable coming to work.

If I could make an analogy please.

Say you own your home outright, no mortgage. This is what the Town of Nottingham is like, no debt service, no bonds. Your septic system fails. You have 3 choices. Keep using it until it gets really bad, pay for a new system out of pocket or use a home equity line to get a new system. It’s a rarity that a town has no debt service and our current facility is starting to get really bad.

It’s time to see what a new system (or facility) will cost.

Mr. Danis, if you “will not even attempt to put a dollar figure on any building project,” then how can you find fault with the Nottingham Blog’s giving facts about what other communities spent? Don’t you have to be able to put a dollar figure on the project to make a claim that I have “scared the public” with estimates that are too high? You yourself said you wouldn’t attempt such an estimate.

Besides, I didn’t make an estimate; all I did was look up what towns similar to Nottingham have paid for new police stations. And it’s not like that should come as a surprise to you. The blog’s 2024 article about the police station warrant article provided some of these same comparables that you now find fault with. Given the voters’ rejection of the 2024 warrant article, you should have been able to figure out that concerns about construction costs were a reason for that rejection and that it was incumbent on those advocating a new police station to address that issue.

The voters are not docile creatures who will vote to spend whatever their betters tell them to. They routinely reject warrant articles recommended to them by the Board of Selectmen, School Board, and Budget Committee. The voters get to judge what they’re willing to spend, and you are asking them to spend. If you have better information about what this project will cost, the voters deserve to hear it.

School Tax Cap Warrant Article

Tom Butkiewicz, sponsor of the warrant article, wrote:

In your most recent article “2026 Town Election Voters Guide” you say:

“The cost of operating the school accounts for 71% of Nottingham taxes,”

It is actually 79%. The 8% that is labeled “state school” or “state education” on the town’s website etc. is SWEPT ( statewide education property tax) funds, which are locally collected and locally retained. That is, our tax collector forwards those “state” funds directly to the school, they never go to the state or leave the town. I have confirmed this with the tax collector during budget committee meetings.

More info here: https://www.reachinghighernh.org/funding-series-part-4

Fair point. I cited the 71% figure from the town’s website to provide readers with an idea of the magnitude of the tax. It’s unclear to me how the additional 8% of tax revenue would be affected if the voters approve of the proposed school tax cap.

Selectman Candidate Ben Bartlett

Maureen Campiola wrote:

Much of what’s being brought up about Ben Bartlett dates back several years and has already played out publicly.

Voters declined to re-elect him as Selectman in 2024. The circumstances around his resignation from the legislature were widely reported, investigated by the Boston Globe, and confirmed by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. The civil dispute with a local contractor also went through the court system and was decided there.

At some point, communities have to decide whether continuing to relitigate old issues serves any productive purpose.

Yes, for those who closely follow town politics, this must feel redundant. However, in preparing articles like this, I take into consideration that there’s an ongoing influx of new residents to Nottingham who were not here when these events happened and who were not paying attention to them.

Also, even among existing residents, there are a lot of people who were not following the news when these things happened or who have forgotten. Most people in town do not pay nearly as much attention to town politics as you and I do. Heck, most eligible voters don’t even bother to vote in town elections!

One thing I do know is that the Nottingham Blog has gained a lot of new subscribers since the last time Bartlett ran for office. In just the past year the number has increased by 77, and 220 in the past two years. Those are net numbers, subtracting the unsubscribes. Clearly, there are a lot of people who are reading now who were not reading back in 2023 and 2024 when these events happened.

By making it easier to be informed about town government - including recounting issues from prior years - I hope to allow people to make their voices heard on election day.