Home

Warrant committee meeting

April 20, 2011

Warrant committee meething, Chenery Middle School, 2011-04-20, 7:30pm.

Scattered notes below, including one big image.

Shade tree committee, opposes tree by-law, 4-0

  • as written, unenforceable.
  • support idea, don’t like guidelines.
  • shade tree committee has list of species that do well here.
  • enormously punitive, unrealistic, out of proportion.
  • education is better than forcing people to save trees.
  • the problem is with the developers, they clear-cut.

Conclusion of the shade tree committee, was education. There should be some regulation that would control development, or not. It should be written by people who know something about trees. The proposed bylaw was taken from a state website for recreational areas, but it is more appropriate for towns with big hunks of open space.

Looking at new numbers

These will go up on the website, these will inform discussions of budget adjustments and revenue allocation.

Is it $1.5M or $1.2Mish. Local aid, plus circuit breaker aid, it is the larger number.
One revenue source is funds held against non-payment of taxes.
Treasurer works out payment plans, instead of placing a lien; it usually works, it is less disruptive, but it hangs up the money till taxes are paid. Or is it really $1.7M?

Does this include chapter 90 road money? Yes? No, it’s not. It goes to capital budget anyway, about $130K (total? Or extra?)

On the cost side, +38K to Minuteman, -39K to state charges, it’s a wash.

Adjustments to line item costs (health care, waste disposal, electrical), total -$564K (town and school combined). Some fiddling with sidewalk repair, 50k moved to capital budget.

Discussion of school budget (click on image to get full camera resolution)

At least one member of the warrant committee, is not understanding that the $45K net of salary, benefits, and unemployment, is symmetrical, as long as you are not-firing existing employees.
This got hashed out afterwards — the crucial thing to note, is that the budget you are adding employees to, includes a big fund of money being spent on unemployment, and for each not-fired employee, you get to use some of the unemployment fund to pay their salary.

Tom Younger, town side.

  1. Benefits mumble (I was not paying attention).
  2. Not adding staffing that he might need to lay off next year.
  3. Staffing added, have a 3-5 year outlook.

Straightforward list of town expansions with more money.

They are working their way through how they feel on the warrant articles.
I am not paying an enormous amount of attention, but it sounds like they wish to propose an amendment to the CPA stuff that is unlike anything passed in any other town, in terms of oversight.

Apparently, the Bylaw Review Committee felt it was necessary to “improve” the stretch code bylaw, that it was not good enough in its standard form (passed by other towns, proposed by the state). Why? Standard is better than better, guys.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: