For those of you that didn't have a sample ballot (which appears to be practically everyone), We have created a short synopsis of each article.
Article 2: 629 yes; 111 no
The larger budget failed – we will be paying $3,071,587 (instead of $3,649,829)
Article 3: 581 yes; 159 no
The sewer dept budget passed
Article 4: 568 yes; 162 no
The water dept budget passed
Article 5: 597 no; 352 yes
The additional monies for the sidewalk failed
Article 6: 482 yes; 264 no
The COPS grant finally got approved.
Article 7: 412 no; 306 yes
The money for the COPS grant will be funded – since the #6 passed.
Article 8: 539 yes; 200 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for the Conant Library (if they don’t spend the monies this year, they will sit in this fund until they do and NOT be returned to the tax payers)
Article 9: 570 yes; 160 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for Fire Department.
Article 10: 509 yes; 247 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for property assessments
Article 11: 567 yes; 189 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for Dale Gray (same as #8 – he doesn’t have to return it to the tax payers)
Article 12: 437 no; 326 yes
The Police Interceptor was defeated
Article 13: 400 yes; 362 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for emergencies.
Article 14: 401 yes; 375 no
The Pickle Festival is funded again
Article 15: 404 yes; 360 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for the milfoil in Forest Lake.
Article 16: 534 yes; 230 no
We now have a capital reserve fund for computers at town hall.
Article 17: 446 yes; 310 no
The Evergreen Trust received $20,000 more this year.
Article 18: 514 no; 224 yes
Tim Hill and Jeanette Duhaime will not get a $1 for their speculative property.
Article 19: 428 yes; 225 no
The ELMMCC received their funds
Article 20: 455 yes; 296 yes
The Sheridan House will not receive any monies
Article 21: 373 no; 371 yes
The Sportsmen’s club did not get their insurance monies
Article 22: 426 no; 288 yes
The Budget Committee will remain intact
Article 23: 394 yes; 316 no
The Budget Committee will be reduce next year to 7 members instead of the current nine (9)
Article 24: 457 no; 226 yes
The Budget Committee will not determine the default budget
Article 25: 512 yes; 179 no
The town will continue to keep the bare minimum Conflict of Interest rules
Article 26: 470 yes; 240 no
The Highway agent will remain appointed
Article 27: 525 yes; 176 no
The ambulance can be used at will by the selectman’s families
Article 28: 405 yes; 226 no
Planning Board
Article 29: 378 yes; 264 no
Planning Board
Article 30: 393 yes; 252 no
Planning Board
Article 31: 429 yes; 241 no
Planning Board
Article 32: 326 no; 305 yes
Planning Board
Article 33: 368 yes; 267 no
Planning Board
Article 34: 328 yes; 292 no
Planning Board
Article 35: 384 yes; 275 no
We no longer have a Wetland protection policy ( Thank you Margaret Sharra )
Article 36: 392 yes; 233 no
Planning Board
Article 37: 558 yes; 139 no
Accept the reports of the auditors
Article 38: 549 yes; 143 no
Permission to the BOS to legally transact stuff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
If I was thinking of developing in wetlands, Article 35, I would be happy today. Remember, if you need the Ambulance and you don't have insurance or are friend and family, its 13 cents a mile.
Article 23, by reducing the budget committee to 7, it will be less people for the selectmen to try and intimidate. Nice going voters! How about 3 selectmen next year.
So just how do they plan on doing that before we just change it next year to add the positions already filled again. People are currently serving their voted terms and can not by law be removed . How about we just do away with Kevan Whippie the biased school board representative and Ken Gardner, the biased BOS lackey and call it a win?
The wetlands article is one they can be ashamed of themselves for. Good going. Now very obvious they have selfish plans in mind. Develop that land and destroy wetlands and streams. Cause that erosion and destruction for profit. The state has minimal staff to enforce and monitor; now it will be carte blanche to develop and destroy. The conservation commission can advise and report but has no legal rights to stop them. No wonder the PLanning Board never explains their articles ( as they always promise) Then no one would allow their selfish changes.
Would the wet lands plan be the yellow elaphant on Main Street that the Sharra's own
What do you think? Look at all the unauthorized changes Sharra has instigated the last couple of years using the "advice of counsel" crap. Who contacted Mayer and asked if "they" could make those changes? You guessed it, Sharra, now ask why?
Here's another question for you; who do you think is really responsible for the slew of lawsuits involving the Planning and Zoning boards? ... How long do we keep footing her bills?
Although the voters didn't vote NO on that many articles, it will be interesting to see how the BOS come up with the money to fund the ones they recommended.
Post a Comment