Selectmen Fortes attended the Advisory Committee meeting and stated he is willing to try and help move a few items along for the betterment of Templeton, while talk is cheap and good whiskey costs money, hopefully this is a start with at least one selectmen who is willing to listen and hopefully help move some important things along.
One item of discussion was a monthly financial report (expenditure versus appropriation) was discussed, along with the financial policy (brought forward and voted on by selectmen) which states a monthly expenditure report will be present in accordance with state law.
Problem is the monthly report of June is not going to be made until late August; so is it good to have a policy but not follow it?
An unlikely duo of Bennett and Fortes having civil discussion on issues of Town governance; is that considered progress? I would say it does not mean that we agree on everything nor are we best friends, it means we are willing to have "the talk" to try and improve things, especially the perception of the residents, that their representatives, despite a contentious relationship, can and will move to get things done in an attempt attempt to help those residents out.
I believe that is one of the reasons people run for office; to try to help.
Again, thank you to selectmen Cameron Fortes for taking time to attend a meeting to hopefully assist in getting some needed changes completed.
Friday, August 3, 2018
From the weekly Town Administrator report:
Public Works
Highway Department: The street sweeper is down – again! The bridge on Stoney Bridge Road has had deterioration causing us great concern and the need to think of a possible closure. We are reaching out to our public safety team and the Phillipston folks as the roadway continues onto their Burnshirt Road. We are also researching the costs of a potential engineering report and possible sources of money especially given its historic nature.
If the Town owned sweeper keeps breaking down, maybe it is time to put that service out to bid just as the drain cleaning was.
Wednesday, August 1, 2018
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)