The 2010 capital improvement plan with recommendations from the committee has been forwarded to me. You can find the file in MS Excel format here. Middle school lockers made the list ...
...along with boiler upgrades for the schools. Snow plows, police cars and a hydraulic rock buster attachment were recommended. Building maintenance or improvement includes the Old Town Hall, a large sprung building for the DPW and the Bullard Wellness Center. The total for all recommended projects is $2.7 million dollars
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Capital Improvements recommendation
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Bill, The lockers in question are in tough shape and need replacing. The question is, Why were they so neglected to get to this point? There are companies that do locker maintenance and for a small expenditure each year under the operating budget, this larger capital expense could have been avoided. I hope that they consider a better plan for maintaining the new lockers. I am not just criticizing the past practices but hoping we learn from them. A stitch in time saves nine.
These lockers have been in tough shape for many years. No doubt they would not qualify for a regular maintenance contract. Sometimes things get old, it's that simple.
Where did the other comments go?
On Feb. 4, it was reported in The Standard-Times that Ed Iacaponi had been offered the position of interim executive administrator by Select Board Chairman Joe Michaud and Select Board member Diane Gilbert. The decision to offer Mr. Iacaponi the position had never been discussed or voted upon by the entire Select Board at that time.
Besides what I feel is a clear violation of the state’s Open Meeting Law, what I found to be the most appalling is that Gilbert publicly reprimanded Michaud for making this information public by calling the Standard Times.
She conveniently forgot to mention publicly that she also participated in this meeting to offer the interim position to Mr. Iacaponi.
It is interesting that she is currently running for re-election to the Select Board on a transparent and open government platform, yet she remains publicly silent regarding what I feel is a violation. An elected official, especially one who is running on a transparent and open government platform, she cannot pick and choose when to publicly expose an issue regarding transparency.
But no one should be surprised by Gilbert’s actions. They are not unprecedented.
Back in early 2008 during the much debated issue regarding a split tax rate -- an issue vehemently opposed by Diane Gilbert -- she wrote a letter to the Massachusetts Department of Revenue without first notifying her fellow Select Board members. In her complaint, she criticized the Select Board’s behavior and the manner in which they handled the debate by allowing the public to have a voice in the decision.
Think about this for a moment, we the taxpaying citizens according to Gilbert should not have been allowed to have our opinion heard in a public forum on how we should be taxed. There is something inherently wrong with this philosophy and tactic.
What this illustrates is Gilbert’s propensity to pick and choose when transparency is appropriate. Transparency must always be appropriate whether it works for you or against you.
Gilbert has had a lot to say regarding transparency in Dartmouth politics, and it has been illustrated that she has an incredible ability to turn a blind eye to transparency when it suits her needs.
The time for this double standard must come to an end in Dartmouth. We must as a community move forward by electing the right people to the Select Board to bring back transparency and collaboration back to our community, for that is what is needed most in these trying times.
We, the voting citizens of Dartmouth, now have our chance to decide how our community will tackle the issues we face. Will it be one of transparency and collaboration or selective transparency and divisiveness? The choice is yours at the polls on April 7th.
This comment is complete nonsense. Ms. Gilbert has been a consistent and unwavering advocate for the public's right to know. Citing the Open Meeting law regarding the interaction of two members of the Select Board and the Budget Director is just factually incorrect. There can be no meeting of the Select Board without a quorum of three members present. There was no Select Board quorum, hence no violation is possible. After the two met with Mr. Iacaponi and reported back to the Select Board that he was amenable to taking on the task, there was a open meeting and debate on his appointment. Ms. Gilbert's contact with the DOR was an inquiry about the propriety of public statements by Select Board members in advance of a public hearing about the split tax. Her concern there was once again that all sides be heard. It was not an attempt to quell debate but to postpone it to an appropriate forum. No group has been more divisive than those who are opposing. I conclude that their agenda is to get a property tax override passed since they have little other policy difference with Ms. Gilbert. They will not come out and say so,instead citing a broader perspective on fiscal responsibilty or other vague language.
Thanks Bill, That ridiculous attack against Gilbert has got Jim Mathes' fingerprints all over it. You know, the guy that spoke against the split tax while with the chamber of commerce then flipped when his bread got buttered with grant money. He tried the exact same type of attack in another forum and got his butt whipped in that debate also.
Post a Comment