March 24th Annual Town Meeting

(And I had it almost done when I hit the wrong key and the whole thing vaporized - Grrrr.)

We started prompty at 7pm. Not so many people in attendance as last year. This year maybe only 150 or so.

RESULTS OF MONDAY'S ELECTION: Selectman: Chip Grover (Incumbent Selectman) 37; Write-In candidates: Susan Shane: 4, David Astbury: 2, Hilma Adams: 1, Greg Campbell Boober: 1, Mike Dore:1, and Otis Godley: 1 for a TOTAL COUNT = 47.

For School Board: Therese Anderson (Incumbent Board Member) 44, Cindy Dore: 1, Rusty Gagnon: 1 (and No, I didn't vote for myself) for a TOTAL COUNT = 46

The Good News is that people used the Write-In Option. The Bad News is that, out of 1600 registered voters in Eddington, only 47 people made the effort to vote - that's .03%. The mantle of Shame should be draped around the shoulders of those who didn't vote - regardless of the number or names of the candidates.

For those of you who don't know what issues are included in the following Articles, pick up an Annual Report at the Town Office, Tradewinds, or The Eddington Store. (Why they aren't mailed out to everyone is an issue you all should be raising with the Selectmen. The Town can find your address when property tax bills are being mailed out and bulk mail postage rates aren't used for that, are they.) If some volunteer group can't be found to deliver them (i.e., the Boy Scouts), then they should be mailed out first class mail. Period. And any new Ordinances that people are supposed to vote on - AND know about, should be included - even if they have to be tucked in at the last minute. Government has the responsibility to inform the electorate.

Articles 3-10 were Passed as written, although:

Article 4: it was noted that since the Town's fiscal year ends Jan. 31 and the Town Meeting takes place during the fourth week of March (approximately), the requested amount should be 2/12 instead of 3/12. Russell noted the discussion.

Article 9: generated some discussion because - while the Town plans to advertise for three consecutive days "in a local paper" re: the sale/disposal of any real estate taken for unpaid taxes - (Russell said the "Bangor Daily News" was considered the "local paper"), it was pointed out by Mark Wellman (who is in the professional marketing and media business) that the BDN reaches significantly less than 50% of the local readership - AND that local newspapers are going out of business. Good grief, Ellsworth is as close as Bangor so why not include the "Ellsworth American" (I think that's the name), as well.(The point of this is that Eddington needs to "get with the program" and step up to the internet and cable network world.) Perhaps this also relates to advertising Requests for Bids..... Anyway, down off the soapbox and back to the Town Meeting business.

Article 10: generated some discussion since it was noted that last year at the Town Meeting there were several people who voiced objections to granting a three-year contract for the proposed snowplowing and sanding contract for several reasons and yet the 2008-2009 Annual Report shows the Selectmen awarded that vendor a three-year contract even though fuel prices have gone down and there are issues regarding the sand. Other discussion showed multi-year, trash-hauling contracts. It should be noted that the discussion from the townspeople was voiced without rancor but the Board of Selectmen would do well to realize that townspeople are not pleased with certain contracting decisions and the people DO remember from year to year what they have expressed and expect elected representatives to heed.

Article 11: generated discussion resulting in a motion for an Amendment which passed 25/21 (with a requested hand count). The issue had to do with the Selectmen applying for and/or accepting state and federal grants and nonprofit organization grants and having the authority to accept same and the conditions that come along with them as well as appropriating and expending the grant funds. The Amendment, which was added to the end of the article, reads as follows: "with the understanding that no grants may be accepted or applied for which will obligate the residents to long-term commitments unless approved by the town at a specially called town meeting in advance." The Article was Passed with the Amendment

Article 12:Passed

Article 13: generated the same kind of discussion as Article 11. The discussion of an amendment was not successful. Perhaps if the same language as was used for Article 11 had been used and just tacked on to the Article, the amendment would have passed. But the issue got muddled even though Gretchen who raised it wasn't talking about an oven being donated to the Firehouse (the Selectmen Chair's contribution to the discussion); Gretchen was talking about an entire building being given to the town. Nonetheless, the amendment was defeated and the Article was passed as written with objections.

Article 14: After some explanation (which many of us appreciated), the Article was Passed

Then we got into the actual budget section:

Article 15: General Government for $23,400. - Passed with no discussion

Article 16: Administrative Salaries and Expenses for $286,226. - Passed with no discussion

Article 17: Highways for $199,400. (plus money from State Highway Funds) - Passed as written; however Russell was asked about the cost of paving the Rooks Road and how many culverts and other items of repair came out of the expensed items noted for 2008-2009. I am sure that this issue relates back to how much we were being told the snowplowing/sanding contract was going to be last year and how much the Annual Report is now showing being paid to that contractor. As people may remember, the Townspeople were told that unless the full amount was approved last year, NOTHING could be done under the Highways section of the budget - that the amendment to reduce the overall cost of the section by $10,000. would cripple that entire section. As noted above, people remember issues raised from year to year. Must be that Elephant in the room.

Article 18: Protection for $239,977. Passed as written; however it was noted that $12,500. more was being budgeted for 2009-2010 than had been budgeted for 2008-2009 in the line item for contracting with the County Sheriff's Department. Even though we are told that $10,000. is/has been being transferred from the Town's Police Department Reserve Fund (from the previous police position), the fact of the matter is that, at some point, the Fund will be depleted and ALL of the chickens will come home to roost. At that point the real cost will all be an increased request. It was for that reason that I pointed out that when our contracted Deputy (at our full price - he isn't working for us half-time) issues a speeding ticket, the full price of that ticket goes into the State's coffers. Nothing comes back into Eddington's cash register.

I suggested to Rep. Pratt (who was sitting behind me in the bleachers) that he should be working on this in Augusta. Perhaps some of you readers should be sending him a few letters to that effect. Otherwise, Deputy Daren needs to be spending some of his time citing violations that WILL generate some sheckels into the town coffers to help pay what is becoming an expensive contract with the county - not that I wouldn't want to have that protection right here but I doubt Daren is getting paid $71,500.oo a year.

Article 19: Human Services for $127,630. Passed

Article 20: Passed

Article 21: Passed

Article 22: Passed

Article 23: Passed

Article 24: Shoreland Ordinance. Code Enforcement Officer Norburg explained that the reason this was on the Warrant again this year was because of an error in the Article voted on last year. Seems the State requires a means of monitoring the "timber harvesting" being done and there were three options given by the state. The town had to choose one. Last year's "Ordinance" had combined two of the options into one (not the right thing to do) so we had to vote again to correct our error - as though many of us really understood what we were doing in the first place. I DO remember asking last year what the Ordinance said but Mr. Norburg was not in attendance and though Susan tried to explain we needed to come into compliance with the state regs - that didn't really tell me anything. (Can you tell I don't fall into step all that automatically? :-D Must be because of all those years I worked in government and know what goes on behind closed doors.) Add to the fact that this year, even though I and three of my neighbors have been calling and asking What the heck this Ordinance said and how it applied to us - no one told us that it only applies to commerical lots involved in the Business of Timber Harvesting. GEE, if anyone had told any of Us THAT before last night, when some people acted as though we were being sooooo unreasonable for really wanting an explanation.... Any hooo...Back to business...

What we needed to vote on was to allow the State to be responsible for monitoring the compliance of timber harvesting of such appropriate businesses INSTEAD of putting that job of Eddington's Code Enforcement Officer (which would have probably increased his workload and our costs). And so - the Article passed as written. (Things can be so much more simple when one can get an answer to a question. Even my family members today said, "If anyone had said that Ordinance doesn't apply to personal residential property lots.", none of us would have been so concerned. It's called "Communication from government" - my mantra.)

Article 25 - New Tower Ordinances: Passed after discussion regarding clarification and questions. Info provided by Gary Poisson and Susan Shane.

Article 26 - Sign Ordinances: Passed after discussion regarding clarification and questions. Info provided by Gary Poisson and Susan Shane.

Article 27 - Adjournment: PASSED! at approximately 8:30pm

And so, gentle townsfolks - That's how we conducted the business of the Town of Eddington. What I found MOST interesting was the Amendment that was added to Article 11 - and the discussion the brought it about. The townspeople were not the ones who had a problem with having a meeting to come together to decide whether or not to take on any long-term conditions of any grants. And the discussion re: WHY such a meeting should and could be conducted was quite reasonable and courteous. Now, wouldn't it be fantastic if some of those same people decided to start coming to regular Board of Selectmen meetings - just to see and hear what is going on...because business goes on every month and questions and discussions would be a good thing there, too. The meetings are never longer than 1 hour. Personally, I hope to see some of you there.