I have posted on a few of the article being proposed for the Fall Town Meeting here. Here are some of the other articles under consideration.
An article to raise the fee when the Town Collector has to send out a demand for payment letter due to nonpayment. The fee would be raised from $5 to $20.
An article to amend the Dartmouth Water Regulations to allow for restriction of non essential outdoor water use from ...
...May through September if a drought occurs.
An article to amend the zoning bylaws to allow the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance to build on a lot which is not big enough by combining it with other lots if certain conditions are met.
An article to amend the personnel bylaws.
An article to amend the zoning bylaws on temporary signs and banners.
An article to petition the General Court for a Special Act on Dartmouth police promotions
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More on Fall Town Meeting articles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Bill T-How are we going to fund our town needs if we don't seek more revenue. Why do you say cut and cut some more. What about the COA needs. What about the students? The youngest and oldest need support with dollars, not the least amount of pocket change. Increase the fuel emergency fund to $20,000 just in case and bill please support the textbooks and school and town CIP.
Yes, give and be giving anon 9:07. It is better to fund the dartmouth items and provide for all walks of life and people than to cut or skimp on basic democratic public services. What would Jesus or Bill's DLama do?
Anonymous,
Since you bring up the schools needing more money, I thought you should know that between fy06 and fy07 Dartmouth school administration costs went up by 12.2% while instructional materials, equipment and technology spending went down by 9.2%. Looks like the money for textbooks and computers went right into the pockets of school officials. Can't wait to see the fy08 numbers.
I have pointed out many times that more revenue via an override is a very temporary fix. The only solution is to reconcile the rate of growth of revenue with the rate of growth of expenditures. That means the rate of growth of expenditures has to be reduced to 3.5%. It has been running at 5-6%. Otherwise, we will continue to have problems. Additionally, let me point out that so called cuts are actually increases in funding. What we are talking about is reducing the rate of growth of expenses which means that departments will get less than they requested, not fewer dollars. We have to focus on the core tasks and be more efficient.
In refence to ANON (schools needing...) there is a reason admin went up 12.2%. In FY06 1/2 of the Director of Technology and Asst. Supt. budget was charged to Admin and half to Professional Development. This was required because of a statute(since waived) required a min of $25/student of chapter 70 funds be spent on professional development.In fy07 the statute was waived and the entire amount was charged to admin. This raised the admin and lowered Prof development. Also town charges added 54,379 to school admin. no conspiracy, nobody got wealthy , no additional personel. The textbooks spending decreased $27,000 due to the specific needs at the time. Instructional equipment budget decreased 51,000 to match lower than expected costs and the money was used elsewhere like covering the cost of utilities perhaps. first time I've heard someone complaining costs went down.
Phil,
Are you saying that money was moved from admin costs to professional development just to satisfy a statute? Sounds like a shell game to me.
Anonymous, take the chip off your shoulder. The man explained how the money was spent, answered your question, stated the law was (statute)met which explained the difference in spending you question and you call it a shell game. Have a problem with the state laws outlining how to spend educational monies? Call John Quinn.
Post a Comment