Tales from the BudComm: Upon Fred Butler (Gilford) beclowning himself again - Granite Grok

Tales from the BudComm: Upon Fred Butler (Gilford) beclowning himself again

BudgetThis past Tuesday night, my hamlet had its Public Session where the Budget Committee presented both its budgets (Municipal, School District) to the townfolk to explain the numbers and to take questions or listen to concerns.  Fred Butler approached the mic and decided to, once again, make a math fool of himself.  He knows how our SB2 system works – for a few years he was on BudComm as the duly appointed representative of the Water District.  He has participated in the the discussion, meetings – and the votes.  He also, along with a relative who also served on the BudComm, tried to get the townfolk to eliminate it via petition warrant (it failed miserably every time).  So when I say he was disingenuous, that is being far too kind as he decided to take on first one engineer who does math for a living, Selectboard Chair Chan Eddy, and then another (moi!).  Here is the reporting from the Laconia Daily Sun (I am hoping to get the actual transcript or video as the District was recording it. DANG!  It’s after 4pm – well, here’s hoping for Monday!) (emphasis mine, reformatted):

Fred Butler took the selectmen and budget committee to task for their statements about rising taxes, pointing out that Gilford’s tax rate is declining. “You need to do a little more research to break down the facts,” Butler said. Eddy explained that the tax rate is only part of the equation when it comes to taxes. The tax rate falls when the town’s assessed valuation increases, but it doesn’t mean the amount collected changes. The growth in budgets also comes into play, he said.

That doesn’t even beGIN to come close the tongue lashing that Chan gave to Fred who had the deer-in-headlight look as he thought he had a slamdunk – only to get fool slapped back in public. And I couldn’t help but pile on

Budget Committee Vice Chairman David “Skip” Murphy pointed out that both town and school budgets come into play and he maintained, “The only important number is the one you see on that paper that comes in the mail. The number you pay is the only one that matters.” Butler said he stands by his view that the only important number is the tax rate, and called officials disingenuous for suggesting that taxes are increasing.

Eddy responded that Butler is being disingenuous for not looking at all the factors involved.

Too many people only concentrate on the tax rate which is set by the NH Department of Revenue.  That is but one leg of the tripod that determines taxing in the town.  It isn’t the most important number but poor befuddled Butler, that is the uber of uber of all numbers.

It ain’t, at least not here in NH.

The town’s worth, in terms of its assessed values from the house trailer in one of our parks to the numerous home developments in town that serve various economic strata to the multi-million dollar mansions on Lake Winnipesaukee as well all of the commercial buildings also plays a major role in the setting of taxes.  It is the second leg of the tripod that determines how much taxes must be raised.

Third is the actual spending of the Town and the School District that helps (hurts??) the amount of taxes that must be raised.  Oh sure, there are other sources of revenues other than property taxes that play a role (e.g., from the Feds, from the State, fees, fines, and donations add up), but it is the overall spending that determines the REAL most uber of all uber numbers.

That would be the twice yearly white envelope that is issued by our Town Tax Collector (which I consider to be the third most important department in the town, with the Public Works first and the Police / Fire tied for second.  THAT is the most important number because that is the number we all have to write on our checks.  That’s the one that needs the closest examination.

Sure, one’s house appraisal can go up or done in any given year.  The Town’s appraised value can change, especially in times of good or bad economic times. That said, it is what is PERSONAL that is of most importance.

Yet Fred decided to show his math “floundering” in public.  He knows how the system works – at least I thought I did think he did know from his time on the BudComm.

No Fred, by itself, the tax rate is just a number, a singular number.  Methinks he was just using yet another opportunity to throw shade.  Too bad he looked like he was a late comer to the Ice Bucket Challenge – all wet.

************

He also repeated this nonsense in an LtE in the the Gilford Steamer, 1/18/18, page A4 (emphasis mine):

To the Editor:

The sky is falling! Or so certain members of Gilford’s Budget Committee would again have you think. Every year, they raise the alarm about runaway
taxes, with a combination of exasperation and anger in their voices so sincere that it’s hard to imagine they could be so utterly wrong. But they are.
Gilford’s overall tax rate actually declined 7 percent between 2011 ($18.55) and 2017 ($17.26). It’s now in the lowest/best 17th percentile in NH. The school’s tax rate declined from $9.35 to $8.86 during the same period.

But surely, we have the Budget Committee to thank for keeping rates low? Wrong again. Over the 2011-2017 period, the BC reduced the combined
town/school budgets by roughly $440,000 out of $255 million in recommended budgets. That’s only 0.17 percent!

So, to any residents who are concerned about how tax rates “grew to be so large,” as the BC Chairman stated in his Jan. 11 letter to the editor, please consider this a fact check. And I again plead with the BC Chairman to please stop perpetuating falsehoods. The truth is that Gilford’s Selectmen & School Board, respectively, have consistently been excellent stewards of our tax dollars and deserve our thanks.

Fred Butler
Gilford

And I’ve been in town long enough to remember all of the high increases in my taxes that happened before the BudComm was assembled.

Which stopped when the BudComm oversight began.

Time for Fred to stay away from the math when he understands nothing about how taxes are apportioned.

>