Mosca responds to Bouchard criticism

Ed Mosca responds the Rep. Candace Bouchard's op-ed in today's Concord Monitor in our comments section. Since Bouchard led her column by claiming that "Edward Mosca gets his facts wrong", we're going to repost Mosca's complete response here.

The Representative's rant was a respnse to my op-ed, which exposed this $15 million boondongle. Just a quick response to the Representative’s rant, which is really all it deserves.

The Representative begins by claiming: “Edward Mosca gets his facts wrong.” According to her, what is a “fact” is that “Without renovating the interior, it would have been impossible to remove the asbestos and do necessary wiring and duct work.” This hardly qualifies as a fact. It is an assertion that the Representative does not support with any facts. It also begs a number of questions: Why not? Who says so? What is “necessary” wiring and duct work? That is, are we simply replacing what we have or are we doing more? Is the full $15 million in renovations necessary to remove the asbestos?

It certainly does not appear that the full $15 million is necessary to remove the asbestos. The Representative writes that: “there is only one major improvement included in the renovation plans: a sally port to safely transfer prisoners in and out of the building.” So we are not just putting things back the way they were. Of course, what is a “major improvement” and what is “minor improvement” is in the eyes of the beholder. Just how much of the $15 million in renovations necessary to remove the asbestos, and how much constitutes “major” and “minor” improvements?

The Representative cannot be taken seriously. She writes: “Furthermore, Mosca suggests this will cost the taxpayers $17 million in a year that budgets are tight. This is false and is an irresponsible attempt to scare the people of New Hampshire. The renovations will cost the state less than $1 million this year. Let's not confuse the state's biennial operating budget - the general day-to-day activities and expenses for all branches of state government - with the state's capital budget that deals with bonded projects for the construction, renovation, improvement and acquisition of buildings and facilities in the state.” What a totally fatuous argument! There is no money tree behind the Statehouse that pays for the “capital budget” versus the “operating budget.” The taxpayer pays for both.

She also writes: “the renovation of the courthouse will provide construction jobs.” Then, why don’t we build new county courthouses in every county? Indeed, why don’t we have multiple county courthouses, if building county courthouses is such a job creator? What the Representative conveniently leaves out is that jobs are lost whenever government takes money from us to “create” jobs. Has she looked at the price tag for the jobs the “stimulus” has supposedly “created”?

The Representative also misrepresents the op-ed to which she purports to be responding: “Asbestos had to be removed from the courthouse; not removing it was not an option.” Who said anything about not removing the asbestos “from the [Manchester] courthouse”? The two main points of the op-ed were that we don’t need the Manchester courthouse, given that the Nashua courthouse can accommodate both operations, and if we do keep the Manchester courthouse we shouldn’t be doing anything more than fixing the asbestos problem at a time when the Democrats out-of-control spending has bankrupted us at both the State and federal levels.

According to the Representative, one county courthouse is not an option because “During the 18 months that the court is being renovated, there will be fewer judges in the Nashua court than the judicial weighted caseload shows is needed for Hillsborough County.” Representative, do you really expect the “judicial weighted caseload” to say that the judiciary can get by with less? The judiciary, like you, believe that only the taxpayers can get by with less.

Bouchard: Nothing frivolous in court spending

House Public Works Chair Candace Bouchard justifies $17 million to renovate the Hillsborough County Courthouse in Manchester, when only $2 million is going towards asbestos removal.

There were significant safety concerns with the Hillsborough North courthouse that needed to be fixed. Asbestos had to be removed from the courthouse; not removing it was not an option.

Policy-makers looked at several alternatives and worked diligently to identify the most cost-effective approach to addressing this health safety issue. In 2007, the decision was made to remove asbestos from the courthouse. But after additional review and inspection, it turned out that this was not an option. Without renovating the interior, it would have been impossible to remove the asbestos and do necessary wiring and duct work.

NHBR: Rail Service in NH: "very" shovel-ready

Bob Sanders reports in New Hampshire Business Review that supporters of the proposed commuter rail line from Lowell to Manchester claim that work can be completed within a year:

“All the pieces of the puzzle are on the table,” said Mike Izbicki, interim executive director of New Hampshire Rail Transit Authority. “This is a very real project. This is the closest we’ve ever seen it — a real chance for rail to Manchester and maybe even to Concord.”

“This is very ready,” agreed New Hampshire Department of Transportation Commissioner George Campbell, who estimates that it would take two years for service to be put in place once the money is renewed.

But Dave Fink, president of Pan Am Systems, which owns the track and would presumably be doing most of the “shoveling” is even more optimistic. He thinks the necessary work can be done in a year. According to Fink, it would take a month to order the materials, and, in the current economy, there would be no problem calling back people, or hiring new ones, to do the work.

Rep. Candace Bouchard chairs the House Public Works and Highways Committee, and she adds a comment to the online version of the story:

It is not that I am not a fan of rail. For the stimulus goal of creating jobs, building rail would create jobs. However, I am not convinced that at this time the proposed rail in New Hampshire is the most cost effective alternative to move passenger vehicles off the highways. The decision to use buses on I-93 for a commuter service was the correct one. But I do believe the state has to plan for the future. The Rail Authority is a way to do the needed planning, develop an operating budget and source of revenue. I do have concerns the use of state CMAQ funds are being considered. A lot is said about the success of the Down Easter but it is important to remember that Maine heavily subsidizes that service. It is not that I would rather see the funds spent on east-west highway links, such as upgrading roads between Concord and Portsmouth. What I said was transit - buses. An east -west service would fill a lacking public transportation need.
Representative Candace Bouchard

House Committee Keeps Toll Control with Council

(CONCORD) The House Public Works and Highways Committee has unanimously rejected a proposal to give the Legislature control over New Hampshire tolls. HB 137 would have set state toll rates in law, rather than by the Executive Council.

The five-member council last year raised toll rates around the state in order to make up for a projected shortfall in turnpike revenues. The Legislature currently retains the right to set discounts under the electronic "E-Z Pass" system, and to decide where and when toll booths will be installed.

Committee Chair Candace Bouchard (D-Concord) and Vice-Chair David Campbell (D-Nashua) urged their collegues to keep the current system, arguing that last year's toll increase showed that the Council had the political courage to raise toll rates.

Representative John Graham (R-Bedford) argued that such decisions should all be made by the same body, preferably the Legislature, but went along with the Committee's 17-0 decision. The full House will likely take up the bill on February 4th.

State Oil Board Backs Gas Tax Increases

(CONCORD) The state Oil Fund Disbursement Board is pushing a pair of gas tax increases to boost flagging funds used to clean up petroleum storage tanks. At its first meeting of 2009, the Board discussed two bills being drafted by Representative Chris Christensen (R-Merrimack), who was re-elected Chairman. The panel oversees several state funds which assist gas station owners, as well as cities and towns, to clean up leaking gas storage tanks and monitor groundwater near contaminated sites.

Christensen's first bill would increase the state's import fee on fuel oil by 25%, from a penny per gallon to 1.25 cents, with the revenues going to the Fuel Oil Discharge Cleanup Fund (FOD). The Department of Environmental Services estimates the increase would generate $680,000 in revenues. The FOD has received $925,000 so far this fiscal year, but has paid out over $1.7 million, and currently has a balance of just $125,000.

The second proposal would increase the import fee on diesel fuel by 17%, from 1.5 cents per gallon to 1.75 cents. Those revenues would flow to the Oil Discharge and Disposal Cleanup Fund (ODD). DES projects this fund to spend up to $2.5 million more than it takes in in Fiscal 2009, drawing the ODD fund down to just over $1.3 million.

The Board also weighed in on a draft proposal being prepared by Representative Candace Bouchard (D-Concord), which would lapse the ODD Fund in 2012, three years earlier than current law. Bouchard would then transfer some of the remaining money towards highway and bridge repair. According to Christensen, Bouchard would like major gas station chains to pay for their own oil tank cleanup projects, and not receive state reimbursement.

The Board spent several minutes discussing the legislation's political prospects, such as its chances of coming out of the House Ways and Means Committee. Senator Harold Janeway (D-Webster) suggested using the projected cost of the bill to kill it, noting that the Fiscal Note prepared by DES could "do the job.". The Board voted unanimously to oppose the bill as proposed. Under Section 146-D, the Oil Fund Disbursement Board lacks any authority to provide legislative recommendations or lobby the Legislature. The Board will meet next on March 2.

Gas Tax on the Horizon?

With gas prices dropping under $2 a gallon for the first time in over three years, maybe New Hampshire drivers are willing to pay higher gas taxes. Maybe not. But some lawmakers are turning to the gas pump to try to replenish a Highway Trust Fund depleted by spending on other agencies and drivers staying home this summer.

The Concord Monitor reports on two Representatives who see higher gas taxes as the only way to pay for roads:

Rep. David Campbell, who has chaired this year's committee to study the highway fund, has said he will sponsor a gas-tax-increase bill. He said he hasn't sorted out all the details - including how big a raise he'll support - because it's not clear how much federal aid the state will receive. But, he said, he's come to believe that cutting alone won't right the road budget.

"At some point you can't cut the highway fund any more," said Campbell, who is not related to the transportation commissioner. "Are you going to cut winter salt? Are you going to cut snowplowing? Are you going to cut paving?"

Campbell, a Nashua Democrat, said he has backing from both sides of the political aisle.

"It's something that I'm hopeful the leadership of both parties, in both parties, can get behind," he said. "If they don't, I want them, whoever they are, to answer for the consequences if we don't do it. Show me where we're going to cut."

Rep. Candace Bouchard, a Concord Democrat who chairs the Public Works and Highways Committee, said she will support Campbell's bill.

"I'm pretty hopeful that people will understand the need to maintain our transportation system," Bouchard said. "I think we need to make our argument and show everyone that we've done our homework."

New Hampshire drivers currently pay 38 cents per gallon in gas taxes, 19.4 cents to New Hampshire, and 18.4 cents to Washington.