The annual Town Meeting will take place at the Middle School on June 1, 2010 at 9AM.
The town budget summarized in Schedule A of the warrant can be found on the Town Clerk's webpage here. The Schedule A budget posted here is not official. Only the Town Clerk can issue official Town Meeting documents.
A draft copy of the warrant for the Town Meeting can be found here. Again this is not an official copy, only the Town Clerk can issue an official warrant.
I will vote against Articles 3,8 and 20 on this warrant and in favor of all the other articles.
I may also vote against Article 6 ...
... but I have some more research to do on that.
June 1 will also have a Special Town Meeting.
The draft warrant for that meeting is here. Again, unofficial, only the Clerk has the official warrant.
I will probably vote against Articles 5 and 8 on this warrant and in favor of the other articles. I have some more to find out about Articles 5 and 8 before making a final decision.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Annual Town Meeting info
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
33 comments:
Hi Bill, I see that the wind turbine issue is coming to us again. Why? Can't you just leave the issue alone?
Hi Bill,
Glad to see that you are back posting on your blog. I do hope that you will vote against article 6 on the annual town meeting. I think that this is a waste of money. I can justify a play ground for FDK But a community park is a ridiculous idea when the town isn't even sure where the funds will come for 2012 FDK. Have you ever noticed the park in Smith Mills? Another waste of tax payer dollars. In all the years since that park has been built I have never seen one person there. I pass that way at least 8 to 10 times a week. If we continue with wasting OUR money on parks we will be turning off street lights and looking for ways to pay our expenses. Have we forgotten about the "bare bones budget" from 2 years ago? How on earth do we all of a sudden have so much money that we can be wasteful??? Maybe we should slow down a bit and see how the next couple of years go.
Hey Bill
I'm a new town meeting member. Can you explain what the Unrestricted Historic Preservation Reserve fund is all about? Where did they get so much money from? Why do they need town meeting approval to spend this money. I thought the town is broke or let's say it need money to support more important causes then some Stone Barn Farm project or any other project.
If you don't have the time to explain, I'll ask at town meeting.
Community Preservation money comes from a surcharge on our property taxes. The voters approved it several years ago in a town election. The state matches a part of the money (It was 100% at first but has steadily declined and can be as low as 5%).
Community Preservation funds may only be spent for historic preservation, recreation facilities, or affordable housing. A certain percentage of the total must be reserved for each of the three purposes each year. If no project is referred to Town Meeting for approval or the projects do not add up to more than the money allocated to each purpose, the remainder goes into a reserve fund that is earmarked for that purpose. Hence the Historic Preservation reserve fund.
Town Meeting is the only body in town that can authorize the expenditure of any money and they must authorize all expenditures.
The Smith Mills park was created more to protect the water supply than it was for an actual park. Remember the old junk yard, used car dealership that once occupied the property? Oil leaking everywhere and town water supply wells down river at the Chase Rd water supply property.
Bill,could you please comment on the questions from 11:51 (May 17).
Thanks
To Anon May 17, 2010 11:51 PM
The purpose of Article #6 is to save the town General Fund money by building the infrastructure needed for the Cushman Kindergarten playground using CPC funds. This work will qualify us for grants to finish the project. Because of the restrictions on the usage of Community Preservation funds they can not be used to build a school playground directly, they can only be used for " recreation " purposes; thus the "Community Park".
There is grant money available to build the playground but one of the prerequisites for obtaining the grant is that certain work / expenses be undertaken first by the Town. By using the CPC funds to satisfy this requirement we will end up with a playground for FDK and a small park area available to everyone at no additional cost to the taxpayer and without having to divert scarce capital improvement funds to do it.
Bottom Line :
Article #6 is Phase one of the project that will build the needed infrastructure using CPC funds; i.e. access road, parking, walkways, benches, landscaping, etc. Phase II is the seeking of grant monies and local fund raising to purchase and install the playground equipment. There is no General Fund money anticipated for this project. The school department will do the lion's share of maintaining the 'park' grounds.
As far as the Smith Mills park ... I'm with you on that one.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
We have some large parks in the north end of town as well as the south end. I don't think we need another park in South Dartmouth. Yes, to swings and a playground for the FDK, but the library should keep their land. Maybe a garden for readers to sit after taking out books at the library.
What about the Gulf Hill 'Y' having their own fundraisers to fix the barn? Come on! I could see spending money on the Russells Mills library, that's a little gem! and we own it! I think we need to RETHINK this whole CPC idea! Especially if we have this kind of money to spend!
As a frequent visitor to the beautiful park located off Old Fall River Road, I have to say that families do use parks and need access to FREE opportunities for recreation. When I'm there with my child, we see numerous families enjoying the facilities. I am not a tree hugger by any means, but I believe that parks are important to maintaining our quality of life in Darmouth.
I don't recall a surcharge on property tax. I do recall a 1 % home owners tax on property purchase that exceed the first 100,000 thousand dollars. It came with a 100% state matching fund. This was accomplished before the town hit a fiscal melt down, along with the national banking fraud. Stop approving money transferred from the historic preservation reserved fund and put an end to the property surcharge tax.
Be thankful the town voters allowed the town override for some of our town departments or we would be up the creak with out a paddle.
The same goes for the preservation money, NO MORE SPENDING. Save the whales, save the birds, save the tree's, start thinking about saving our tax money. Instead of increasing taxes, we should be decreasing taxes. Give a tax break to the local business owners and put people back to work.
I'm not going to touch the 2% health insurance increase or the so called 52/48.
It's time for our elected Dartmouth town meeting members to form a Dartmouth Tea Party. Except for the money needed to keep our town in business, just say NO to spending.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public parks open to the public all the time? Can you restrict usage of a public park only to school children? If not, I'm not sure I would want a public park used as a school playground.
Those remarks are pretty general. Is there a specific question in there? What would you like addressed?
To Greg L., are you saying that the land between Cushman school and the library will become a public park? From what I heard Ms. Stone say at a SB meeting, she wants a place to have events, etc. If taken over by the park dept, I'm thinking it would become a public park.It could be a problem to have a PUBLIC park right next to the school where FDK children would be playing. If it's PUBLIC, then ALL those from the community could use it, anytime.
Greg,
How did the other school play grounds get funded? However this was done can't the same be done for Cushman? I thought I heard somewhere that there will be walking trails in the wooded areas? Is this true? If it is I would be concerned that the druggies will be out in full force. Yes, for playground. NO for a public park.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but aren't public parks open to the public all the time? Can you restrict usage of a public park only to school children? If not, I'm not sure I would want a public park used as a school playground.
To Bill & Anons May 19, 2010 9:05 PM & May 19, 2010 9:14 PM
It is my understanding that the playground area for the FDK students will be fenced off and, of course, supervised during those times the Kindergartners are using it. It will open for public use all other times. While we are getting out of my area of expertise, certainly in any public park setting if 'a' activity is underway on a baseball diamond or a basketball court or a soccer field, that area is off limits to all others for the duration of that activity. Even though it is 'public' the public is denied access to the area where the activity is taking place unless they are a part of that group ...... I see no distinction here. You can see this in action in any of our parks on any given day and especially during the concert nights at Apponagansett park where the stage is restricted to those playing the instruments :)
The infrastructure for our other playgrounds was paid for from General Fund tax revenue through a capital improvement appropriation or by a borrowing. In either case these were monies taken from monies available for other General Government purposes including road, building and other infrastructure repairs and needs. In most cases the playground equipment itself was acquired by fund raising and the volunteer efforts of parents and interested citizens ... and a warm thank you to all those involved. This playground is proceeding along similar lines but without the need to spend General Fund monies.
What this article does is to use non-General Fund monies to build the park. A portion of Community preservation funds are set aside in law specifically for recreation purposes and if not spent for this project will be spent for another.... but rest assured they will be spent either way. We are talking about a significant amount of money.
My notes show the grant money available is up to $350K with a 50% match. The fund raising in Phase II is intended to raise the matching funds, but in order to qualify for the Grant money we have to complete this initial work / investment.
This article saves the taxpayer money ; money that can now be targeted for some of the many other capital improvements needed around town. The alternative is to write a check from the General Fund to build the playground.
While I agree that we have more than enough public parks already, the intent here is less to build another park than it is to build a first class playground for our kindergarten facility at no additional cost to the taxpayer and without draining scarce capital improvement funds from other areas in town where the need is greater than for a playground.
Greg Lynam
Fin Com
It seems to me that we benefit in many ways from our existing park system. Much more so than any other town in our region. We have combined many benefits to our residents including playgrounds, a beach, summer evening events, athletic facilities, etc. The parks are located in areas easily accessible to a majority of residents. Why change anything? What we have seems to work extraordinarily well.
How about we spring for some swings sets this year and every year after we could add to a playground for the children in FDK?
Why does this project have to cost so much money. I don't care if it comes from CPC or not, it's still money!
It should be one or the other, a public park or a schoolyard with swings, etc., for the schoolchildren. To allow the public, and not just from Dartmouth, access to where children are playing is courting trouble, even if they are monitored. I would assume teachers would monitor this park/schoolyard, but there could be so much interaction at one time that I would wonder how effectively a teacher(s) could watch the children, while keeping an eye on the adults, too?
And let's face it, the adults bear watching. You'd be a fool not to believe so.
I would not want my child playing outside in a public area under the supervision of any adult, under such circumstances. That is putting quite a burden on the individual(s) who are to be watching over the children out playing, among the public, no less.
And who would be responsible if something happened? Mixing the public of all ages with schoolchildren is not smart.
I think 5:08 has an excellent idea.
I will reserve my comments until Lara Stone gives a presentation on exactly what his whole park will look like when finished.
To 8:26 said, as it relates to the Cushman school park, teachers watching our children need to watch for adults, and you'd be a fool not to think so.
Wow....you stated a mouth full of watching. When a group of children are outdoors playing and a person ( adult ) is seen in the area watching the children, the police should be contacted at once.
As I understand the school department union contract, teachers do not watch students playing outside the school building. The school department must hire school yard monitors to watch the children. Schools also have building monitors. The high school has a full time police officer. The S.R.O. “nice title” is watching the students inside and outside the building. He/she also keeps an eye on the outside camera for the unexpected visitor(s).
Your post concerning adults mixing with children is an indication to me that you are a victim of abuse. As a former child abuse investigator, I understand your concern. It's true that pedophiles will be out looking for children and they do frequent schools and play grounds. Your warning is well mentioned but keep in mind that pedophiles come from all walks of life, including teachers, priest, scout masters, coaches, uncles, grandparents, stepfathers, and the list goes on...
Thanks for your warning, but I don't believe they are listening. It's all about the money.
Wow, I guess some people think I should get arrested for taking my granddaughter to the park and watching her enjoy herself playing with the other children. Should I be shot on the spot if I take her out for an ice cream cone afterwards?
To May 17 1151PM
The park in Smith Mills was NOT town tax money. The land was purchased through a grant and the grant is VERY specific (land use) If my memory is correct, no structures (buildings) are allowed and the idea was "open space" or "green space" in a comercially heavy area.
As for seeing noone there, I live in the Smith Mills area and on many occasions see people there. Some are walking, some are patrons the the pizza place and some are actually taking wedding photos. Its much better to see that open space than the old cars all lined up like it was when I was a child.
Could our new director of development write or get us grants for some of our projects?
Didn't Lara Stone tout the fact that SHE has experience in grant writing and/or seeking them out? Has SHE done any exploring to see if grants are available for some of the "nice-to-haves" on our spending list?
Does anyone know what's going on with the Police patroling the Harbor? More tax dollars waisted! I think the boaters pay enough fees to cover the Harbor patrol. Now the taxpayers who don't even own boats have to pay for thep police to drive boats around. Shouldn't the police stay in the cruisers to protect the Town and let the Harbor Master patrol the water? After all the Waterway fees are kept seperate for that reason..the boaters pay for the service they use. The Town taxpayers pay for the police. Is there some reason for the need to have police on the water, did something happen that the Harbor Patrol couldn't handle, is someone in need of overtime, do people know that although no overtime is promised for police patrol on the water, the overtime will then go to the police cruisers that are covering for the police in the boat?
9:09, how many people actually care, unfortunately?
.
What's the big deal if the police patrol the waterways? Don't we have breakins there too? Why wouldn't the Harbormaster welcome the help? Duh, it's all about turf, n'est ce pas?
The big deal about cops in boats? Why not add another few fire districts to overlap the three we already have, but let's have cops on OT man those trucks too? I guess the suckers (taxpayers) have not been duped enough yet? Taxes do not support the waterways activities, boater fees take care of that. Boaters are satisfied with that enterprise system. Police want to use tax funds to play on the water under the pretense of stopping crime against boats? How has that worked for those whose houses have been recently targeted? Dupes of Dartmouth will now have two redundant "marine patrols" BUT STILL NO SHELLFISH DEPARTMENT. We'll get the old shinola spin and eat this one too. Just who the heck is in control in this town anyway? looks like nobody, or maybe everybody who wants to be? Care to grab the brassed-up bull by the horns Bill? You wanted to be Chair.
It's not about turf, it's about the money.
Want to talk money? What was the budget for the Harbormaster when Art Dias ran things and what is the budget now? OMG, can you say four times more!
Jacques, So the answer is to have the police spend even more?
Waterway Commission fee's is just another name for selective taxation. It's paid by the users. Same for gasoline state/federal tax is a user fee, but they call it what it is a tax on gasoline. PAYT is another tax for the property owner and if you own rental property you pay for each family unit but the renter pays for the bags only. Is this a tax on one and a fee for the user or the owner/user? This town screwed the businesses by have a dual tax rate and the businesses have no use for the schools, which equal 50% of all taxes pay for their own garbage pick up and you still screw the people who give you a job.
Post a Comment