The following is a list of the voting results from the Town Meeting on Oct 21, 2009. The full warrant for the wording of each article can be found here. These are not official results. The Town Clerk has the official results.
*_ARTICLE 1:_DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE – PROPERTY LOCATED ON GARDEN STREET Approved
*_ARTICLE 2:_* DEED IN LIEU OF FORECLOSURE – PROPERTY LOCATED ON ARNOLD STREET Approved
*_ARTICLE 3_* UTILITY EASEMENT/DPW * Approved
*_ARTICLE 4_* EASEMENTS AND LAND/ DARTMOUTH STREET PROJECT * Approved
*_ARTICLE 5* PROMOTION IN POLICE DEPARTMENT* Approved
*_ ARTICLE 6 _*:AMENDMENT TO DARTMOUTH WATER REGULATIONS* Approved
*_ARTICLE 7:_*AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 60 SECTION 15 –DEMAND FEES* Approved
*_ARTICLE 8_**: LEASING OF FACILITIES (Vacant School Buildings) Approved
*_ARTICLE 9_**: ZONING BY-LAWS/AMENDMENT TO SECTION 16.101 OFF-STREET
PARKING REGULATIONS* Approved
*_ARTICLE 10_**HOME RULE PETITION FOR THE CREATION OF THE
LINCOLN PARK INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING DISTRICT* Amended to state that property owned by the district is taxable and that the town will not accept any infrastructure created within the park. Approved, Motion to postpone indefinitely failed
*_ARTICLE 11:_* *AUTHORIZATION TO SELL SCHOFIELD FARM* Approved
*_ARTICLE 12: _**GRANTING OF EASEMENT MOSHER LANE* Withdrawn
*_ARTICLE 13_**: SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND RETAINED EARNINGS/SUPPLEMENTING FY 2009 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BUDGET* Approved
*_ARTICLE 14_*: WATER ENTERPRISE FUND RETAINED EARNINGS/SUPPLEMENTING FY 2009 WATER DIVISION OPERATIONAL BUDGET* Approved
*_ARTICLE 15_** LINE ITEM TRANSFERS/SEWER ENTERPRISE FUND * Approved
*_ARTICLE 16_**: WATER ENTERPRISE FUND__(Court Judgment for $625,000 for land taking)* Approved
*_ARTICLE 17: _ PRIOR YEAR INVOICES* Approved
*_ARTICLE 18:_**DARTMOUTH TOWN EMPLOYEES CONTRACT AND NON-UNION EMPLOYEE SETTLEMENT FY08* Approved
*_ARTICLE 19:_** POLICE CONTRACT SETTLEMENT FY08* Approved
*_ARTICLE 20:_** *LINE ITEM TRANSFERS/SUPPLEMENT TO SCHEDULE A Approved
*_ARTICLE 21:_**LINE ITEM TRANSFERS/SUPPLEMENT TO SCHEDULE A Approved
*_ARTICLE 22: _**FUNDING OF READING LITERACY AND TEXTBOOKS – SCHOOLS Approved
*_ARTICLE 23:_ APPROPRIATION TO STABILIZATION FUND - CHAPTER 40 SEC. 5B Approved, Motion to amend to provide $125K for Middle school lockers failed
*_ARTICLE 24: _**COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT * (debt service payment) Approved
_ARTICLE 25 ¬¬_*COMMUNITY PRESERVATION – DARTMOUTH PRIDE EQUITY BUILDER PROGRAM/FIRST TIME BUYERS Approved, Motion to amend amount to $100K failed
*_ARTICLE 26:_** COMMUNITY PRESERVATION – PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TO DEVELOP AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT DARTMOUTH HOUSING AUTHORITY AND FORMER MASSACHUSETTS POLICE BARRACKS Approved
*_ARTICLE 27_**: COMMUNITY PRESERVATION –AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE 21 OF THE SPRING ANNUAL TOWN MEETING HELD IN 2005 Approved
*_ARTICLE 28:_**COMMUNITY PRESERVATION – ACQUISTION OF FORMER STATE POLICE BARRACKS Postponed to Spring 09 Town Meeting, Motion to postpone carried
*_ARTICLE 29:_**COMMUNITY PRESERVATION – PRESERVATION OF THE AKIN HOUSE Approved
*_ARTICLE 30:_**COMMUNITY PRESERVATION –ACQUISTION OF CORNELL FARM Approved
*_ARTICLE 31:_ COMMUNITY PRESERVATION –ACQUISTION OF LAND AND BUILDINGS ON RUSSELLS MILLS ROAD* (Paskamansett River park) Approved, This article was Not Recommended by the Finance Committee but approved by TM
*_ARTICLE 32_**: COMMUNITY PRESERVATION – GENERAL BY-LAWS—AMENDMENT TO MEMBERSHIP Approved
I was surprised that the Police Barracks funding was postponed and that the Russell's Mills road funding was approved. What do you think about the Town Meeting results?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Complete Results of Fall Town Meeting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
13 comments:
Im very surprised at a few things. I liked the idea of the park/canoe launch and many residents will benefit. As for the Akin House, I truly dont get it. So far in excess of 400K has been spent and there is a longway to go. I was saddened to see noone spoke on whats going on with the DHPT. The grant they applied for was denied becuase they had no plan. The DHC has continued to ask the DHPT for a restoration plan, and has yet to receive one. It was a matetr of public record that Ms Gilbert stated to the DHC that NO taxpayer money would EVER fund this project. Well, so far 195K just approved, and 185K for the purchase. I understand the CPC funds are meant for preservation, but when do we draw the line? I see many more overrides coming that is a fact, as mentioned to we didnt have the money to fund the contracts. How does anyone spend money they dont have? Oh heck the state and federal gov't does it why cant Dartmouth? Im very disappointed at the spending without and consideration for the future.
For the low cost housing grants, how much income does a person make to qualify for low cost subsidy, Bill do you know?
I am not sure of the income that qualifies a person or family. If the amount for a family of 4 is the same as for the Schofield Farm, the amount is about $58,000. You can direct your inquiries to Doris Copley at the Town Hall. Her email is dcopley@town.dartmouth.ma.us and the phone number is 508-910-1883. The program is not up and running yet, but if you provide your contact information, the program information will forwarded to you as it becomes available.
Thank you for the information.
Bill Have you been attending School Committee meetings, what are they saying about pay freeze or 1 %? Now that all contracts on table.
CPC requests were $1.8mil. Revenues last year totaled $1.1mil. State match for this is being reduced this year so even with the sale of the Schofield property(about the same as this year's sale of the Carreiro property)total revenues will be reduced substantially. Town Meeting approved about $1.5mil in spending. The only thing they didn't approve was tabled till spring town meeting so that still has a chance. This was not responsible legislation on the part of town meeting. The citizens of Dartmouth have been failed again.
I agree that the spending from CPC this year was too high. I had thought that the Town Meeting would reject the Russell's Mills Road purchase as recommended by the Finance Committee and I hoped they would not fund the State Police barracks purchase. That would have reduced this year's outlay by $675K which is close to the $1.1 million received.
Guess TM felt generous again, hmm? Can I say, so what else is new?
Did we expect anything different, really?
I don't put all the blame or even most of it on town meeting. If there is fault to be found I believe it to be the CPC's fault in putting every proosal on the tabel for a vote. Did the Select Board meet with the CPC to talk about the wisdom of putting everything out there?
For my part, I was surprised to see the first time home buyer items pass so easily, especially after the disasters of the past month or so. The incluson of the state police barracks was faulty as well in my opinion. The $350k price tag would no way cover the acquisition, design and renovation cost for that building so they would be back again. With so many propoerties on the market at bargain rates surely there are better spots for the proposed vets housing. This proposal was not well thought out and should not have found its way to town meeting. The proposed reduction in committee membership is also a sign that this committee does not want more input or oversight, something they need more of.
Yes, I guess you're right to some extent. I think that most people agree that CPC certainly outdid itself with articles, more than fiscally prudent. But, then, TM didn't have to approve them all, either.
I was glad to see Cornell pass, but the others could and should have all been rejected at this time. Glad, too, the state police barracks didn't go through at this time, either.
anyone know about school pay in upcoming contracts
I for one will be watching all the contracts closely. You mention school contracts. Now that they can keep the money from renting the vacant schools, it will free up some money from their maintenance expenses. Will they install new Middle School lockers for the children or will they give themselves raises? Most of the private sector has lost 40% of their retirement in the last few months, but not them. Those who lost 40% of their retirement will take a double hit and make up the difference in the public employee retirement funds through taxes. So again I ask, will they use the extra money to fund needs of the children or pay raises for themselves?
whoa! first they have to find people willing to rent for a year or two before we can start complaining about them keeping the money Wally. And if they do get some money it is designated for maintenance of their buildings. Thats what the warrent clearly states.
Post a Comment