I understand there are three non-union people within the Sewer Dept. who been left out with regards to budgeted raises.
For a raise to take place someone has to inform someone else and that someone would have to enter that into the system, unless told not to do so. There is another meeting coming up where that question will have to be asked and hopefully answered.
I do not believe the Sewer Dept. should move collections to town hall and thus not have to pay indirect costs to the Town until at least that issue is straightened out.
Me thinks there is a fox in the hen house.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
You can go to the Templeton Town website to find this:
http://www.templeton1.org/home/pages/fy19-town-budget-draft-annual-town-meeting-information
you can look at this as well:
http://www.templeton1.org/sites/templetonma/files/file/file/atm_2018_voter_guide_051118.pdf
look down until article #30 and see what it shows: infield groomer @ $10,000.00.
That is the dollar figure voted on (appropriated by Town Meeting)
Lawn tractor purchase report as $16,311.00
voted at town meeting - $10,000.00
http://www.templeton1.org/home/pages/fy19-town-budget-draft-annual-town-meeting-information
you can look at this as well:
http://www.templeton1.org/sites/templetonma/files/file/file/atm_2018_voter_guide_051118.pdf
look down until article #30 and see what it shows: infield groomer @ $10,000.00.
That is the dollar figure voted on (appropriated by Town Meeting)
Lawn tractor purchase report as $16,311.00
voted at town meeting - $10,000.00
purchase price less than appropriation?
JB
jeff bennett
Today, 6:59 AM
selectmen.fortes@templeton1.org;
Selectman Caplis (selectmen.caplis@templeton1.org);
Selectwoman, Diane (seldhaleybrooks@templeton1.org);
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
Okay, according to some, Templeton taxpayers saved $7,000.00 by being asked to vote for one thing and then end up paying for something else. Should taxpayers be happy with the savings, yet be upset with being the switch?
As selectmen Fortes said and is quoted in the snews, "I agree with the purchase but not the process"
So, if this lawn tractor is such a good deal, why did the company not suggest it in the first place, I mean it seems like a great way to build a customer base; showing a perhaps unknowledgeable customer how to get a machine that will do what you want it to and then some and save you money.
Looks like a department did not do enough research. Moving forward, how is anything presented to town meeting to be trusted, as in, is this one tone truck with a plow and wing really best for the job it is "sold" as doing. (as in sold or presented to the voters in order to get money for it)
I did see that trying to compare an infield groomer to the lawn tractor purchased was "it is really comparing apples to oranges comparing one machine to another" (that is from Padula Brothers John Deere dealership.)
Newspaper states new lawn tractor costs $16,311.00. I wonder what the bids came in at dollar wise?
Page 177 of spending plan lists infield groomer with a requested amount of $22,000.00*
* = moved to Capital
page 273 of the spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 request of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 273 of spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 T/A approved of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 274 of spending plan shows spread sheet for Capital:
DPW / B&G - defer - infield groomer/ $5,000.00 from TMLWP and $10,000.00 from free cash or overlay.
*TMLWP = Templeton Municipal Light & Water Plant.
Meeting minutes from TMLWP of March 6, 2018 show the TMLWP commissioners voting to "donate" $5,000.00 towards infield groomer for Templeton.
Article 30 from the May 2018 annual Town Meeting voters guide shows a capital item as Infield Groomer for $10,000.00.
So, the news paper has the lawn tractor at $16,311.00 and between the light department and town meeting vote, there is $15,000.00 voted/appropriated for an infield groomer. Looking at the information in hand, where did that $7,000.00 savings come from again?
From what is on the town website and meeting minutes from TMLWP, is shows $15,000.00 voted and now the newspaper shows $16,311.00 spent?
As selectmen Fortes said and is quoted in the snews, "I agree with the purchase but not the process"
So, if this lawn tractor is such a good deal, why did the company not suggest it in the first place, I mean it seems like a great way to build a customer base; showing a perhaps unknowledgeable customer how to get a machine that will do what you want it to and then some and save you money.
Looks like a department did not do enough research. Moving forward, how is anything presented to town meeting to be trusted, as in, is this one tone truck with a plow and wing really best for the job it is "sold" as doing. (as in sold or presented to the voters in order to get money for it)
I did see that trying to compare an infield groomer to the lawn tractor purchased was "it is really comparing apples to oranges comparing one machine to another" (that is from Padula Brothers John Deere dealership.)
Newspaper states new lawn tractor costs $16,311.00. I wonder what the bids came in at dollar wise?
Page 177 of spending plan lists infield groomer with a requested amount of $22,000.00*
* = moved to Capital
page 273 of the spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 request of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 273 of spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 T/A approved of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 274 of spending plan shows spread sheet for Capital:
DPW / B&G - defer - infield groomer/ $5,000.00 from TMLWP and $10,000.00 from free cash or overlay.
*TMLWP = Templeton Municipal Light & Water Plant.
Meeting minutes from TMLWP of March 6, 2018 show the TMLWP commissioners voting to "donate" $5,000.00 towards infield groomer for Templeton.
Article 30 from the May 2018 annual Town Meeting voters guide shows a capital item as Infield Groomer for $10,000.00.
So, the news paper has the lawn tractor at $16,311.00 and between the light department and town meeting vote, there is $15,000.00 voted/appropriated for an infield groomer. Looking at the information in hand, where did that $7,000.00 savings come from again?
From what is on the town website and meeting minutes from TMLWP, is shows $15,000.00 voted and now the newspaper shows $16,311.00 spent?
Okay, according to some, Templeton taxpayers saved $7,000.00 by being asked to vote for one thing and then end up paying for something else. Should taxpayers be happy with the savings, yet be upset with being the switch?
As selectmen Fortes said and is quoted in the snews, "I agree with the purchase but not the process"
So, if this lawn tractor is such a good deal, why did the company not suggest it in the first place, I mean it seems like a great way to build a customer base; showing a perhaps unknowledgeable customer how to get a machine that will do what you want it to and then some and save you money.
Looks like a department did not do enough research. Moving forward, how is anything presented to town meeting to be trusted, as in, is this one tone truck with a plow and wing really best for the job it is "sold" as doing. (as in sold or presented to the voters in order to get money for it)
I did see that trying to compare an infield groomer to the lawn tractor purchased was "it is really comparing apples to oranges comparing one machine to another" (that is from Padula Brothers John Deere dealership.)
Newspaper states new lawn tractor costs $16,311.00. I wonder what the bids came in at dollar wise?
Page 177 of spending plan lists infield groomer with a requested amount of $22,000.00*
* = moved to Capital
page 273 of the spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 request of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 273 of spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 T/A approved of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 274 of spending plan shows spread sheet for Capital:
DPW / B&G - defer - infield groomer/ $5,000.00 from TMLWP and $10,000.00 from free cash or overlay.
*TMLWP = Templeton Municipal Light & Water Plant.
Meeting minutes from TMLWP of March 6, 2018 show the TMLWP commissioners voting to "donate" $5,000.00 towards infield groomer for Templeton.
Article 30 from the May 2018 annual Town Meeting voters guide shows a capital item as Infield Groomer for $10,000.00.
So, the news paper has the lawn tractor at $16,311.00 and between the light department and town meeting vote, there is $15,000.00 voted/appropriated for an infield groomer. Looking at the information in hand, where did that $7,000.00 savings come from again?
From what is on the town website and meeting minutes from TMLWP, is shows $15,000.00 voted and now the newspaper shows $16,311.00 spent?
Was/is this tractor switch up used to get eyes off of something else or is it just another Templeton goof by a board of selectmen that are not engaged in Templeton business?
As selectmen Fortes said and is quoted in the snews, "I agree with the purchase but not the process"
So, if this lawn tractor is such a good deal, why did the company not suggest it in the first place, I mean it seems like a great way to build a customer base; showing a perhaps unknowledgeable customer how to get a machine that will do what you want it to and then some and save you money.
Looks like a department did not do enough research. Moving forward, how is anything presented to town meeting to be trusted, as in, is this one tone truck with a plow and wing really best for the job it is "sold" as doing. (as in sold or presented to the voters in order to get money for it)
I did see that trying to compare an infield groomer to the lawn tractor purchased was "it is really comparing apples to oranges comparing one machine to another" (that is from Padula Brothers John Deere dealership.)
Newspaper states new lawn tractor costs $16,311.00. I wonder what the bids came in at dollar wise?
Page 177 of spending plan lists infield groomer with a requested amount of $22,000.00*
* = moved to Capital
page 273 of the spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 request of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 273 of spending plan shows Capital; FY 2019 T/A approved of $15,000.00 for infield groomer
page 274 of spending plan shows spread sheet for Capital:
DPW / B&G - defer - infield groomer/ $5,000.00 from TMLWP and $10,000.00 from free cash or overlay.
*TMLWP = Templeton Municipal Light & Water Plant.
Meeting minutes from TMLWP of March 6, 2018 show the TMLWP commissioners voting to "donate" $5,000.00 towards infield groomer for Templeton.
Article 30 from the May 2018 annual Town Meeting voters guide shows a capital item as Infield Groomer for $10,000.00.
So, the news paper has the lawn tractor at $16,311.00 and between the light department and town meeting vote, there is $15,000.00 voted/appropriated for an infield groomer. Looking at the information in hand, where did that $7,000.00 savings come from again?
From what is on the town website and meeting minutes from TMLWP, is shows $15,000.00 voted and now the newspaper shows $16,311.00 spent?
Was/is this tractor switch up used to get eyes off of something else or is it just another Templeton goof by a board of selectmen that are not engaged in Templeton business?
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
Where is Templeton? Where is sparky the fire chief?
Orange Fire Department getting $561K FEMA grant;
ORANGE — The Orange Fire Department received a $561,906 grant for a pumper truck and an air compressor refill system from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program.
It was announced Friday by the Massachusetts congregational delegation that FEMA awarded 18 Massachusetts fire departments with about $4.8 million in federal grants.
According to the FEMA website, the primary goal of the AFG program is to “enhance the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire-related hazards by providing direct financial assistance to eligible fire departments, nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services organizations and state fire training academies.”
Orange Fire Chief James Young and Town Administrator Gabriele Voelker did not return phone calls for comment.
Congressman Jim McGovern, D-Worcester, spoke about Orange firefighters and the commitment first responders make to helping their communities.
“Every single day, courageous firefighters in cities and towns across our Commonwealth put their lives on the line to protect us,” McGovern said. “Keeping our communities safe starts with making strong investments in our first responders, and I’m proud that this new funding for firefighting equipment in Orange and Shrewsbury will help us protect them.”
Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat, said firefighters helped ensure the safety of towns and the money will help them to do so.
“These heroes deserve the best equipment and resources available to them so they can continue to assist residents in their time of need. I commend all of the local leaders for their persistence in obtaining these critical federal funds,” Markey said.
Orange Fire Department getting $561K FEMA grant;
ORANGE — The Orange Fire Department received a $561,906 grant for a pumper truck and an air compressor refill system from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program.
It was announced Friday by the Massachusetts congregational delegation that FEMA awarded 18 Massachusetts fire departments with about $4.8 million in federal grants.
According to the FEMA website, the primary goal of the AFG program is to “enhance the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire-related hazards by providing direct financial assistance to eligible fire departments, nonaffiliated Emergency Medical Services organizations and state fire training academies.”
Orange Fire Chief James Young and Town Administrator Gabriele Voelker did not return phone calls for comment.
Congressman Jim McGovern, D-Worcester, spoke about Orange firefighters and the commitment first responders make to helping their communities.
“Every single day, courageous firefighters in cities and towns across our Commonwealth put their lives on the line to protect us,” McGovern said. “Keeping our communities safe starts with making strong investments in our first responders, and I’m proud that this new funding for firefighting equipment in Orange and Shrewsbury will help us protect them.”
Sen. Edward Markey, a Democrat, said firefighters helped ensure the safety of towns and the money will help them to do so.
“These heroes deserve the best equipment and resources available to them so they can continue to assist residents in their time of need. I commend all of the local leaders for their persistence in obtaining these critical federal funds,” Markey said.
What you do if you feel the pay or working conditions, etc., are that bad:
Police department in western Mass. town resigns en masse.
By Aimee Ortiz
The entire police department in Blandford, a small town in western Massachusetts, resigned Monday, leaving instructions for residents on what to do in the event of an emergency on its Facebook page.
“Attention Blandford residents: If you have a police, fire or medical emergency, please continue to call 911 as you normally would,” the post read. “The entire Blandford Police Department resigned this evening, effective immediately.”
The chair of the town’s board of selectmen, Cara Letendre, confirmed Monday night that the town’s three officers and interim police chief, Roberta Sarnacki, had resigned earlier in the day
“Fortunately the sheriff’s office and State Police have reached out to make sure our town has coverage,” she said, noting that the “vast majority of calls are routed to State Police anyway.”
“They’re a small, part-time police department,” said State Police Sergeant George Beautre of the barracks in nearby Russell. “That they referred calls to us is not the least bit unusual.”
Letendre said the board of selectmen also reached out to surrounding communities for assistance.
“I’m disappointed, to say the least, but I have no concerns about the safety of our residents because we’re covered, as we always are,” she said.
In a statement Monday, Letendre praised Sarnacki’s work over the past two months, but said she was dismayed that the interim chief had led the walkout.
“It is unfortunate that she led this officer walkout as she would have been considered as one of our candidates for [the] acting chief position as we pursue the future opportunities with our police force,” Letendre wrote.
According to WWLP 22 News, Sarnacki and the three police officers resigned “after multiple complaints to the town about unsafe working conditions.”
Sarnacki said that Blandford officers “have been working with cruisers that don’t work, bulletproof vests that are not fitted to them or might be expired, poor radio communications, inadequate staffing and improper wages,” the news outlet reported.
Sarnacki could not be reached for comment Monday.
Police department in western Mass. town resigns en masse.
By Aimee Ortiz
The entire police department in Blandford, a small town in western Massachusetts, resigned Monday, leaving instructions for residents on what to do in the event of an emergency on its Facebook page.
“Attention Blandford residents: If you have a police, fire or medical emergency, please continue to call 911 as you normally would,” the post read. “The entire Blandford Police Department resigned this evening, effective immediately.”
The chair of the town’s board of selectmen, Cara Letendre, confirmed Monday night that the town’s three officers and interim police chief, Roberta Sarnacki, had resigned earlier in the day
“Fortunately the sheriff’s office and State Police have reached out to make sure our town has coverage,” she said, noting that the “vast majority of calls are routed to State Police anyway.”
“They’re a small, part-time police department,” said State Police Sergeant George Beautre of the barracks in nearby Russell. “That they referred calls to us is not the least bit unusual.”
Letendre said the board of selectmen also reached out to surrounding communities for assistance.
“I’m disappointed, to say the least, but I have no concerns about the safety of our residents because we’re covered, as we always are,” she said.
In a statement Monday, Letendre praised Sarnacki’s work over the past two months, but said she was dismayed that the interim chief had led the walkout.
“It is unfortunate that she led this officer walkout as she would have been considered as one of our candidates for [the] acting chief position as we pursue the future opportunities with our police force,” Letendre wrote.
According to WWLP 22 News, Sarnacki and the three police officers resigned “after multiple complaints to the town about unsafe working conditions.”
Sarnacki said that Blandford officers “have been working with cruisers that don’t work, bulletproof vests that are not fitted to them or might be expired, poor radio communications, inadequate staffing and improper wages,” the news outlet reported.
Sarnacki could not be reached for comment Monday.
Monday, July 30, 2018
Annual Town Meeting - May 2, 1994
article 48:
article 48:
To see if the Town will vote to adopt the provisions Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 44, section 53F 1/2, to establish a Sewer Department Enterprise Fund beginning with Fiscal Year 1996, or to take any other action relative thereto.
On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted to adopt the provisions Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 44, section 53F 1/2, to establish a Sewer Enterprise Fund beginning with Fiscal Year 1996.
Passed.
Annual Town Meeting - May 14, 1996
Article 46:
To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate or transfer from available funds a sum of money to operate the Sewer Department; or to take any other action thereto.
On a motion duly made and seconded the Town voted that the following sums be appropriated to the Sewer Enterprise Fund to be expended under the direction of the Sewer Commissioners:
(Note; the SEWER COMMISSIONERS, NOT the Town Coordinator or Town Administrator and NOT the board of Selectmen)
. . . . and that $182,508.49 be raised as follows: $120,000.00 be raised from Sewer receipts and $62,508.49 be raised from taxation.
Passed
So, I wonder if the selectmen and T/A still think that Sewer Commissioners only have a say so on policy with regards to Sewer Department?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)