March 3 Public Hearing on the 2009-2010 budget

Well, there we were - All 8 of us. And that included the Fire Chief and 1 firefighter, the Chair of the Planning Board, and a former principal of the Holbrook School who were probably more there because of the general Selectmen meeting that followed the "Public Hearing" that took all of 30 minutes. So, in reality, there were only 4 people there specifically to hear about the budget - especially since the sign in front of the Town Office announced only the Public Hearing and the government access channel states that Selectmen meetings are the third Tuesday of the month. Of course, we don't often have anything on the sign at all, so I guess the fact that there was anything - and the sign was sufficiently plowed out so people could see it - is an improvement. Has anyone every noticed that there's ALWAYS something on the sign in front of the Holden Town Office?

BTW - there were only three Selectmen in attendance for the meeting. Both Chip Grover and Brian Glass were absent. Their absence being excused by the Chairwoman as "they have something to do." Apparently that didn't include the town business they were elected to do.

The Planning Board Chair was there to present that Board's recent actions on Sign Ordinances for the Town of Eddington. These ordinances apply to both Off Premises and On premises signs - ALL zones and (1) Real Estate signs when properties are placed For Sale, (2) Contractor's signs, (3) Home Occupation signs, (4) Residential Signs, (5) Political Signs, and (6) Temporary Signs. There are ordinances for On premises signs pertain to Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural zones. And there are ordinances pertaining to Public, Religious, and Civic Facilities signs which state these establishments shall comply with the standards governing Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural zones regardless of the zone in which the facility is located.

The March 17 Public Hearing on the proposed budget should be more interesting than last night since there certainly will be some questions following review of the proposed budget handed out last night. One newcomer to the meeting asked several good questions re: the referrals to various "funds" which the town pulls from to augment the amount needed for particular items - thereby making it appear that the "item" is being Budgeted at a lower amount than will actually be needed. Of course the "funds" or the "augmentation information" wasn't printed on the spread sheets passed out. Only when two individuals asked several questions (I was not either one) did the semi-understandable explanation come out. (Note: This new questioner - nice to have someone other than myself - has developed an Eddington space on Facebook. For those of you who follow this blog, check out the Facebook space as well. The more perspectives the better to get some activity and civic responsibility growing around here.)

Examples: the Capital Improvement Municipal Building Bond Revaluation (that's one line item) shows a budgeted amount in 2008-2009 at $56,102.00. The town expended (spent) $76,101.24. And yet the town is not asking for any increase or decrease in last year's budgeted amount for 2009-2010. Why? Some "fund" will supplement the base $56,102. Another interesting note: I have a neighbor who was on the Building Committee. She is really frustrated by never getting an answer to her question as to WHEN the final meeting of that committee is going to be held BECAUSE there were some monies that were supposed to come back to the town once the building was finished. But if the monies were never filed for, they would be lost to the town. And yet, here we are "augmenting" the ...Bond Revaluation. I shall try to contact her re: this.

Seems there is some "fund" from years past for an Eddington Police Department. Since we now contract with the county for a sheriff's deputy (and don't have a police department) there is money? Why would there still be money is a "police fund" for a department the town hasn't had for four years?

The town budgeted $59,000. for the County Sheriff contract last year - spent $69,000. and is only increasing the budgeting amount by $5,000. because they are budgeting $64,000. in 2009-2010. What makes the town believe we will need LESS county law enforcement protection when the meetings I have attended where the deputy made a report indicated an increase in burglaries and other non-traffic related activities, not to mention the abundance of signs of one house at the east end of Main Road proclaiming domestic violence - or the speeding big rigs, etc. Perhaps it's because of the momentary reduction in gasoline prices??? No explanation was offered.

Seems the news Fire Chief is up for an increase in $5,400. Why?

And the town is asking for $6,000. more for fire department compensation even though they only spent $644.55 more than budgeted last year ($38,000.) The $6,000. represents an increase of 15.8 percent and that does NOT include the Deputy Fire Chief or Fire Fighter 1 and 2 positions. Anyone think that's a bit high in these economic times when others are having to accept minimal compensation increases - not to mention the number of people who are losing their jobs. I would like a detailed explanation as to what the $6,000 is for along with the $5,400. increase for the Fire Chief. Not the wishy-washy explanation that didn't fly last year that Brian Glass questioned and got shot down for raising the former Fire Chief's budgeting explanations.

Other ?interesting? remarks last night was that (1) snow plowing cost the town $77,000. and that (2) the town bought its own sand and salt. Remember the amount that Lennie Williams bid for the snowplowing and sanding contract last year and the DISCUSSION re: that contract. It sure wasn't for $77,000/year - and it certainly didn't include the town buying its own sand. (Don Goodwin had quite a few caustic remarks a year ago directed toward David Aubaugh, the candidate running for one of the seats Don was running to be reelected to). Even so, the town is reporting it spent ALL BUT $35.50 it budgeted (and got passed at the Town Meeting) last March. (check out an earlier blog with info provided by an Eddington source re: snowplowing and sand costs and back charges to the town by the current contractor.) Apparently some people aren't on the same page.

So - bottom line here - It's called "Hiding the ball" in government. Hiding certain items and expenditures inside large ticket line items and "budgeting" enough dollars to cover items the taxpayers know about and being able to "hide" certain expenditures taxpayers aren't told and don't know enough about to question.

Even more "interesting" = this was the first of two publicized Public Hearings on the proposed budget. If this proposed budget was intended to be on the Up and Up, those who were responsible for preparing this document should have had ALL these explanations noted. (IDEA: Footnotes work really well to explain how X+Y=Z. Basic budget planning and management.) But what we heard was "I'll have it better explained - or clearer - at the next meeting." What if last night's attending people hadn't planned or weren't able to be at the next meeting? Is anyone thinking about how far in advance the Annual Report or the documents (to be handed out and voted on at the Town Meeting - March 24 at 6pm at the Eddington School) were/will be sent to the printers. In time for corrections and clarifications to be made?

More interesting the projected recycling trash collection contract is right up there at $11,800. I wonder if anyone at the Town Meeting will ask about the Recycling Newsletter they didn't get - or the questionnaire they never got a chance to answer.

The one item on the regular Selectmen agenda had to do with the Town of Holden's request for some property, located across from the Holbrook School, I think, to be turned over by the towns in SAD 63 to the town of Holden. The former principal stood and spoke for several minutes encouraging the Selectmen to think seriously about doing this (discouraging this action). He pointed out that although Holden said the schools could lease the property back should they need it at any future time, it was the towns (Eddington, Clifton for sure - and Holden?) that had purchased the property in the first place and spent money to improve the property. Turning it over to Holden and then paying MORE money to lease it back at some future point seemed a bit upside down. A letter will be drafted by Eddington to the School Board. Selectman Charles Baker will contact someone in Clifton re: the matter. It didn't sound as though this was a good idea for anyone but Holden the way it was presented.

All told the entire meeting - Public Hearing on the budget and the Selectmen meeting - took 45 minutes. Too bad more residents and TAXPAYERS don't think they should invest that much of their time to finding out what they're going to be expected to pay for.