Town Meeting Warrant

Marshfield related issues.
Forum rules
Please Click Here To View Rules ---- To contact the administrator please email admin@southshoreforums.com.
Post Reply
Swamp Yankee
Resident
Resident
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec Fri 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, Ma.

Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Swamp Yankee » Apr Tue 04, 2017 11:00 am

The Warrant

http://www.marshfield-ma.gov/sites/mars ... t_2017.pdf

Town Meeting Monday April 24 7:00 P.M.
Marshfield High School Auditorium

User avatar
Carson
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 8513
Joined: Dec Fri 13, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Carson » Apr Wed 05, 2017 4:30 pm

Wow,over $8M for a roof and skylights?This is going to be an override to pay for this???

Swamp Yankee
Resident
Resident
Posts: 2544
Joined: Dec Fri 22, 2000 1:01 am
Location: Marshfield, Ma.

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Swamp Yankee » Apr Wed 05, 2017 5:26 pm

Carson wrote:Wow,over $8M for a roof and skylights?This is going to be an override to pay for this???

Yes, there is a ballot question for our spring election asking for an override to pay for the roof. It doesn’t mention that in Article 3 of the Special Town meeting which is requesting $8,503,235.00 for the funding.

Ballot Question:

Shall the town of Marshfield be allowed to exempt from the provisions of Proposition two-and-one-half, so called, the amounts required to pay for the bonds issued in order to fund the replacement of the roof at furnace Brook Middle school 500 Furnace Street, Marshfield MA. which includes the complete replacement of the existing EPDM roofing system with a new modified bitumen roof and associated re-flashing of masonry walls and replacement skylights?

clover
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1442
Joined: Oct Fri 19, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by clover » Apr Wed 05, 2017 5:50 pm

Swamp Yankee wrote:Yes, there is a ballot question for our spring election asking for an override to pay for the roof. It doesn’t mention that in Article 3 of the Special Town meeting which is requesting $8,503,235.00 for the funding.
Did anybody hear the selectmen vote on placing the ballot question on the ballot, as is required by state law?

The BOS must have voted on February 7th at 5:55PM right before the flood map meeting held that night.

Their agenda read, "1) Vote to include the FBMS roof replacement project on the STM Warrant"

Does that look like a vote to place a debt exclusion (override) question on the ballot? Is this how open meeting LAW works?

Vote NO on the override. It isn't necessary. Employee contracts are up, and the elimination of a 1% raise will pay for the FBMS roof if there isn't already enough cushion in the budget or old debt falling off. There are options, and there are future needs and wants. The Martinson roof needs to be replaced also, and in Article 13 of the ATM we will be voting on establishing a "Permanent Building Committee." You know what that means??? ...A new "permanent building" or two.....and an even bigger "exclusion"/override.

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 519
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Eric K » Apr Thu 06, 2017 2:05 am

Making the rank and file employees pay for the roof is not the way to go. It's like your blaming them for how this town operates.
If you feel I am wrong then please let me know why.
How about looking at the maritime center first as that needs to be scaled way down. $$$$$$
How about looking at c.p.a. funding. $$$$$
I bet there are other areas that need a good looking over.
There would be no need for override if your town officials actually did their due diligence.
Here is some homework for everyone. There is money on top of those roof(s). The question is will it be put back or discarded when roofs are done? Can you tell me what it is?

specialties
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 12307
Joined: Jun Mon 15, 2009 11:27 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by specialties » Apr Thu 06, 2017 5:22 am

I bet there are other areas that need a good looking over.
Great understatement, Erik...

After 8 million $$ will the kids be brighter, more motivated, assimilated in to the ultimate master plan, and should we keep tinkering with 'culture'??

If it is all to implode then we should at least be thinking of where we want to spend eternity??
First it was the CHURCH, then the FAMILY, and now the NATION...

Seahag
Transient
Transient
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec Tue 10, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Seahag » Apr Thu 06, 2017 8:13 am

Eric, can u pls tell us what u are talking about when you say 'there is money on top of those roof(s)'.

User avatar
Carson
Pinnacle
Pinnacle
Posts: 8513
Joined: Dec Fri 13, 2002 1:01 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Carson » Apr Thu 06, 2017 11:07 am

clover wrote:
Swamp Yankee wrote:Yes, there is a ballot question for our spring election asking for an override to pay for the roof. It doesn’t mention that in Article 3 of the Special Town meeting which is requesting $8,503,235.00 for the funding.
Did anybody hear the selectmen vote on placing the ballot question on the ballot, as is required by state law?

The BOS must have voted on February 7th at 5:55PM right before the flood map meeting held that night.

Their agenda read, "1) Vote to include the FBMS roof replacement project on the STM Warrant"

Does that look like a vote to place a debt exclusion (override) question on the ballot? Is this how open meeting LAW works?

Vote NO on the override. It isn't necessary. Employee contracts are up, and the elimination of a 1% raise will pay for the FBMS roof if there isn't already enough cushion in the budget or old debt falling off. There are options, and there are future needs and wants. The Martinson roof needs to be replaced also, and in Article 13 of the ATM we will be voting on establishing a "Permanent Building Committee." You know what that means??? ...A new "permanent building" or two.....and an even bigger "exclusion"/override.
Your right clover,that there was no discussion of this override by the BOS and certainly nothing I saw in the news about this either!It seems also there was no talk of how much this roof was going to cost as well?Isn't this the same roof that the snow removal contractors put holes into?

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 519
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Eric K » Apr Thu 06, 2017 2:10 pm

Seahag,
A lot of gravel.

Seahag
Transient
Transient
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec Tue 10, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Seahag » Apr Thu 06, 2017 2:44 pm

Eric, you're kidding, right? why would there be gravel on a roof?

clover
Resident
Resident
Posts: 1442
Joined: Oct Fri 19, 2007 10:52 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by clover » Apr Thu 06, 2017 3:18 pm

Carson wrote:Your right clover,that there was no discussion of this override by the BOS and certainly nothing I saw in the news about this either!It seems also there was no talk of how much this roof was going to cost as well?Isn't this the same roof that the snow removal contractors put holes into?
Well, they Board of Selectmen did start talking about it in their meeting on March 13, 2017. They were voting that night on the Special Town Meeting Articles and clearly said that this roof Article would be tied to a debt exclusion question on the ballot. Then they tabled the vote on the Article because they were unclear on the way the funding flow was going to work. So, there was talk, but not vote on a ballot question at that meeting.

Then on March 20th, the Selectmen held a meeting to vote on both the STM and the Annual TM Articles. I did not see this meeting and there are no minutes for it online and there apparently is no MCTV/Vimeo recording posted online. The Mariner did begin to write of the debt exclusion override around this time, but I still have never seen an agenda item that tells that the BOS voted to include a debt exclusion ballot question on the ballot.

The selectmen may have voted on this ballot question in February or maybe in March (or maybe never.) How did they know there was going to be a debt exclusion question when they hadn't had a discussion that was listed on an agenda to create and add a ballot question to the ballot? "We" do things strangely in this town. I have a records request in for the minutes and supporting documents to the February 7, 2017 meeting, but did not request anything for March 20th.
Eric K wrote:Making the rank and file employees pay for the roof is not the way to go. It's like your blaming them for how this town operates.
If you feel I am wrong then please let me know why.
How about looking at the maritime center first as that needs to be scaled way down. $$$$$$
How about looking at c.p.a. funding. $$$$$
I bet there are other areas that need a good looking over.
There would be no need for override if your town officials actually did their due diligence.
Eric K, unfortunately the salaries and benefits for employees is what takes up almost all new revenues that are paid to the town. There is no other place to get recurring revenues than from the place that pays employee salaries. And town employees should take some blame for how the town operates. Do you ever see a town employee speak up, or vote "no" on anything at town meeting? Town employees go with the flow of ever increasing growth of the budget. It's not only their salaries that grow, but it is the number of positions that grow, and they never speak up that it is too much.

Scaling back the Maritime Center wouldn't give dollars in the amount needed for the roof, and would not give an ongoing stream of revenues. That stream has to come from the tax levy that mostly pays for employee raises and benefits. That being said, I stated before that there are other options such has fitting the yearly payment into the debt as other debt falls off.

Fitting this borrowing into the budget can be done, and should be done. The yearly cost is probably about $400,000+ and the impact for each taxpayer/household will be about $40, but there is always the usual yearly prop 2 1/2 increase and there will be other overrides to pile on. The Town government needs to be told "no" some of the time. The Town's wishes and wants for new personnel (did you see Rocco's and the Facilities Department's wish for %250,000 worth of custodians to clean the bathrooms at Town Hall and other buildings???) and projects is out of control, and voting "yes" for this override only enables the town administration to continue with its out of control ways.

Seahag
Transient
Transient
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec Tue 10, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Seahag » Apr Thu 06, 2017 3:38 pm

The 3/20 BOS meeting was on MCTV this afternoon, so there must be a vimeo of it available at the station. I did watch it live - that was the meeting where only Robbins and Fitzgerald were at, no Bradley, so the two of them voted on what to include or not include and the language for all of the items in the warrant. They were slightly confused over several things. I actually think they mentioned the word 'override' at that time.

Seahag
Transient
Transient
Posts: 437
Joined: Dec Tue 10, 2013 12:38 pm

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Seahag » Apr Thu 06, 2017 5:46 pm

You know what Eric - you're a jerk and certainly not a gentleman or a scholar. you asked a stupid question, and when asked, you gave an even more stupid answer.

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 519
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Eric K » Apr Fri 07, 2017 8:27 am

Thanks for the kind comments.
Can I ask why you are making those comments to me?
I am perplexed by your response.

Eric K
Transient
Transient
Posts: 519
Joined: Jul Wed 29, 2015 11:22 am

Re: Town Meeting Warrant

Post by Eric K » Apr Sat 08, 2017 3:53 pm

Clover,
I almost forgot about ya.
I understand your thoughts about the lack of involvement from town employees, but keep in mind the last posting about Keith Polanski (if there is any truth to it) and one could wonder why there is no involvement.
The maritime center may not give the dollars needed in entirety but I am glad to hear that you may think it could help. It's a start.
I think a reduction in c.p.a. funds and redirecting that reduction would also help.
In regards to custodians being hired I have not heard that.

Post Reply