Town Meeting Recap-June 2, 2008
Here’s the skinny on the Town Meeting to vote on the Town budget. You will need to have Town of South Berwick Annual Report to get all the information about the Articles, but here’s a quick rundown of results of voting.
Article 1: Tom Harmon was elected moderator.
Richard Clough made a motion that Articles 8-24 be voted on in secret ballot. The motion passed with 90 yes and 80 no votes.
Article 2: To see if the Town will authorize the Town Council to dispose of tax acquired property in any manner in which the Town Council deems to be in the best interests of the Town. Passed on a voice vote.
Article 3: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Tax Collector to charge and collect interest at a rate of eleven percent per annum on all unpaid taxes not paid by the due dates…. Passed on a voice vote.
Article 4: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Tax Collector to accept prepayment of taxes not yet due or assessed. Any excess paid in over the amount finally assessed shall be repaid at zero interest. Passed on a voice vote.
Article 5: To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Tax Collector to continue and eight month payment plan known as the “Tax Club”… Passed on a voice vote.
Article 6: To see if the Town will vote to set the rate of interest paid on overpayment of taxes due to abatement at seven percent per annum…. Passed on a voice vote.
Article 7: To see if the Town will vote to appropriate from undesignated fund the payment of property tax abatements granted during this fiscal year…Passed on a voice vote.
Article 8: General Government (Includes Town Council, Town Manager, Town Clerk, Control/Collection, Computer, Administration, Tax Assessment Code Enforcement, Planning, Employee Benefits) Total Recommended: $1,626,814
-Richard Clough made a motion to amend to $1,541,814. Amendment passed 111 yes votes to 74 no votes.
-Vote to accept Article 8 at $1,541,814 passed 146 yes votes to 46 no votes.
Article 9: Water District Assessment/Fire Protection and Street Lights. Total recommended: $324,735.
-Councilor Burke motioned to suspend the secret ballot for this one article. The motion passed on a voice vote.
-Audrey Fortier made a motion to amend to $338,735. Amendment failed on a voice vote.
-Article 9 at $324,735 passed on a voice vote.
Article 10: Fire Department and Emergency Management Services. Total Recommended $182,372.
-Norma Tutelian made a motion to amend to $132,372. Amendment failed with 92 no votes and 81 yes votes.
-Article 10 at $182,372 passed with 132 yes and 37 no votes.
Article 11: Emergency/Rescue Services. Total recommended: $80,000.
-Cliff Cleary made a motion to amend to $68,000. Amendment failed with 84 no votes and 73 yes votes.
Article 11 at $80,000 passed with 115 yes and 39 no votes.
At this point a motion was made from the floor to go back to the usual voice/hand/stand/ballot system. The motioner pointed out that the meeting was likely to last for seven more hours if the secret balloting continued. Moderator Harmon agreed to entertain the motion. There were 7 challenges from the floor, challenging the Moderator’s right to do this. There was a vote to affirm the Moderator’s decision, which passed at 91 votes. A hand vote carried the motion to proceed with voice/hand/stand/ballot vote.
Article 12: Police Services, Animal Control, and Dispatch Center. Total recommended: $976,183.
-Cliff Cleary made a motion to amend to $950,000. Amendment failed on a voice vote.
-Article 12 at $976,183 passed on a voice vote.
Article 13: Board and Commissions (Economic Development, Historic District Commission, Zoning Board of Appeals, Conservation Commission). Total recommended: $9,260.
-Audrey Fortier made a motion to amend to $2,260. Amendment failed on a voice vote.
-Article 13 at $9,260 passed on a voice vote.
Article 14: Public Works (Highway, Town Garage, Transfer Station, Solid Waste Transportation, Public Facilities) Total Recommended: $1,113,872.
-Norm Fortier made a motion to amend to $1,063,872. Amendment passed on a hand vote with 77 yes and 75 no votes.
-Article 14 at $1,063,872 passed on a voice vote.
Article 15: Municipal buildings (Town Hall, Community Center) Total recommended: $152,141.
-Richard Clough made a motion to amend to $122,141. Amendment failed on a hand vote with 72 no and 70 yes votes.
Article 15 at $152,141 passed on a voice vote.
Article 16: Public Welfare (Social Services, Social/Civic Contributions) Total Recommended: $77,793.
-John Ford made a motion to amend to $75,793. Amendment failed on a hand vote.
Article 16 at $77,793 passed on a voice vote.
Article 17: Recreation and Library. Total recommended : $194,657.
-John Ford made a motion to amend to $164,657. Amendment failed on a hand vote with 79 no and 60 yes votes.
Article 17 at $194,657 passed on a voice vote.
Article 18: Debt Service (1989 CIP Debt, 1991 CIP Debt, Community Center Debt) Total Recommended: $172,472.
-Article 18 at $172,472 passed on a voice vote.
Article 19: Capital Improvements-Roads. Recommended appropriation from taxation: $121,300.
-Article 19 at $121,300 passed on a voice vote.
Article 20: Capital Improvements-Equipment (Highway Equipment, Public Safety Equipment). Recommended: $55,000
-Richard Clough made a motion to amend to $10,000. Amendment failed on a voice vote.
-Richard Clough made a motion to amend to $20,000. Amendment failed on a hand vote with 79 no and 64 yes votes.
Article 20 at $55,000 passed on a voice vote.
Article 21: Capital Equipment-Transfer Station. Recommended: $5500.
Article 21 failed on a hand vote with 71 no and 54 yes votes.
Article 22: Capital Improvements-Town Buildings (Town Building Reserve, Library Building Reserve) Recommended: $75,000
-Richard Clough made a motion to amend to $40,000. Amendment failed on a hand vote with 76 no votes and 46 yes votes.
Article 22 at $75,000 passed on a voice vote.
Article 23: Contingency Funding-Compensated Absence Reserve. Recommended $20,000.
Article 23 at $20,000 passed on a voice vote.
Article 24: Contingency Funding-Reserve Account. Recommend $50,000 appropriation from Undesignated Fund Transfer.
Article 24 failed on a hand vote with 64 no votes and 61 yes votes.
Article 25: To see what sum the Town will vote to appropriate from Excise tases, non-tax General Fund Revenues, Revenue Sharing, and Homestead Exemption Reimbursement to use towad the 2008/2009 Budget Appropriations, thereby decreasing the amount to be raised by taxation. Total Recommended appropriation: $2,336,424.
Article 25 passed with a unanimous voice vote.
Article 26: To see if the Town will vote to increase the property tax levy limit of $2,388,974 established for the Town of South B erwick by State law in the event that the municipal budget approved under the preceding articles will result in a tax commitment that is greater than that property tax levy limit.
My explanation (it was after 11 so I might not have this quite right): This is the vote to raise our LD1 cap. The cap will be raised by $236,000 regardless of how the vote on Article 26 goes because South Berwick made a mistake when they first figured the LD1 amount several years ago so it has to be brought up to the correct level. With the reductions of approximately $190,000 that were made at the Town Meeting, this brings the budget to approximately $52,490 over the LD1 cap.
Article 26 passed with a hand vote with 62 yes votes and 56 no votes.
Article 27: To vote to adjourn the Town Meeting–this passed unanimously and enthusiastically at approximately 11:15.
Tags: budget, so. berwick government
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:14 am
I would like to thank ALL the citizens who came out last night and participated in town meeting. Town meeting should not be considered a rubber stamping of the town budget, and last night it was not. Citizens provided valuable input, expressed their concerns and truly became part of the process. This was a very good thing! The town did not get into this financial situation over night, and it will take time to get out of it. Controling spending will be an integral part of that. Thank you again for your time and interest. Most sincerely, Jean D.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:45 am
I want to thank the Council and the Town staff for their work on bringing the budget down from the one they were originally presented with. I also want to thank them in advance for making other thoughtful cuts to get to the budget number that was voted in last night. Listening to voter comments last night made it clear to me how difficult it is to come up with a frugal budget that protects the safety and welfare of 7000+ residents and balances the different priorities and expectations of citizens.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:52 am
Hats off also to our able town moderator, Tom Harmon, for guiding us through long but very orderly meeting!
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:57 am
My biggest concern, and it involves not just the council, but all citizens who make comments, request action, etc… is that things are made as clear as possible.
When an item is place in the budget, and then put in a warrant to be voted on, the towns people deserve to know what the money is actually for, with no guess work involved.
The same holds true when people are debating a subject.
Be as clear as possible, and do not try to cloud the issues to confuse people.
Warrant article 26 did not clearly state that this would be a permanent increase in the LD1 cap.
Mr Clough also did not make clear in his final comments that the LD1 increase we would be voting on was an increase of $52,000 not the $286,000 it went up.
This of course is due to the $236,000 correction for past errors, which we could not vote on.
Adding these two sums together could have had some people assuming we were voting to increase the cap by that total amount, which we were not.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:01 am
Great turnout last night. Now we need to attend the school budget meeting and provide our input.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 am
Artie,
I agree,
We need to get more than the 200 people they are expecting.
To have that few number of people vote on a budget that affects over 12,000 people is not acceptable to me. We need to fill the room.
June 3rd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
I’m with you Dave. I think it was a horrible turn out. It’s too bad some residents feel that it’s an inconvenience for them to go to the town hall to vote.
Artie thats like 1% of the population of South Berwick. I don’t like those percentages when it effects every house hold.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:08 pm
the turnout maybe “horrible” in relation to the overall %….but good when judged from previous years.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I just read the FAQ on the state web site concerning the LD1 calculation error.
During the budget meeting, I specifically asked if the $236,000 adjustment for the LD1 cap was going to occur whether we approved rasing the cap or not in warrant article 26.
The acting town manager confirmed that the $236,000 discrepancy that resulted from an error by the company that did the valuation was going to be added regardless of how article 26 was voted on.
The stat web site specifically says that this is not the case.
http://www.maine.gov/spo/economics/ld1/faqs.htm
“If the Municipal Property Tax Levy Limit was calculated incorrectly, how should it be adjusted?
If the Municipal Property Tax Levy Limit was calculated incorrectly, then the limit should be recalculated using correct information. The corrected limit should then be compared to the current municipal property tax levy. If the current levy is greater than the limit, then the municipality must vote to increase or exceed the limit, or to reduce appropriations. The article must be in the following form: “Do you favor raising the levy limit of the [name of municipality] for the purpose of [insert purpose]?”"
When the town manager answer my question that the voters in South Berwick had no say on that adjustment, she was incorrect.
The argument made by the manager and the council was that the $236,000 was an automatic adjustment, and we would only be voting to increase the cap by $52,000 they were wrong.
If the correct information had been provided Monday night, that warrant article may have been voted on differently be some people.
Since this was passed by such a narrow margin, and since there was incorrect information given as to waht we were actually voting for, does this create a legal issue with the vote on that warrant article?
June 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
In my mind, it looks like there should have been 2 warrant articles.
One to approve correcting the LD1 calculation, and one to exceed that new figure if the new budget exceeded that new amount.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
“If the Municipal Property Tax Levy Limit was calculated incorrectly, then the limit should be recalculated using correct information. The corrected limit should then be compared to the current municipal property tax levy. If the current levy is greater than the limit, then the municipality must vote to increase or exceed the limit, or to reduce appropriations.”
Doesn’t this predicate on the CORRECTED LIMIT? Reads that way to me. If so, only the difference between the corrected limit and the levy was required. With that, I think it was done correctly.
June 5th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
You may be correct.
As I stated in my first post, my concern is that this was done legally.
The last thing we need is for this to be dragged up again.
To me, it doesn’t matter whether I was for or against increasing the cap, but that this was done in the correct, legal manner.
June 6th, 2008 at 6:05 am
Hi Dave, As I read the law you quote it says “if the current levy is greater than the limit…” South Berwick’s current levy is less than the corrected limit based upon the error. The law does not seem to address this situation.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I think a lot of people are in for a shock when they get their next tax bill. After the way things turned out at the school budget vote last night, there will be some unhappy people.
I am a lowly tax payer and will be called a troglodyte for saying this, but there are some of us who are seriously concerned on how we are going to afford to stay in this town. I’ve lived her for forty three years, and honestly, I am worried about making ends meet.
I manage to do that now, and I own a very modest condo.
Maybe when people start to feel the ramifications of Monday and Thursday, they will wake up.
And by the way….Do you think any of us DON’T want a great school and a nice library? I do! But I want to be able to buy my groceries and fuel more than that.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Those concerned about keeping the town budget under control should vote NO on the recall amendment. The way to keep control of spending is to keep our decision-making process orderly, not subject it to the whims of small groups of residents.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Forgot to add this.
Thank You Richard Clough! You did your homework and I admire your courage. Thank you for being a voice for the “little people”.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Thanks Max, I couldn’t agree more. I certainly don’t mind that people wanted to lower the budget further, but to intentionally draw out the process so that some of us who had to work the next day (some earlier than others) weren’t able to stay and vote on all the articles seemed a bit ridiculous.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:22 am
Elita G.
Was someone trying to intentionally draw out the process?
I agree that the night went a lot faster without secret ballots for all the amendments and articles.
However, I don’t find it “ridiculous” that secret ballots were proposed. There are many who do not feel comfortable expressing their intentions to others. For instance, a friend of mine who was in the back of the room was surrounded by guys he knew who were on the fire dept. I know he didn’t feel comfortable showing his support for cutting their budget.
Also, I found it interesting (and frankly, a little uncalled for), to have uniformed police officers clustered at the entrance to the gym. I found it intimidating and rude that I had to excuse myself to enter because there were several of them blocking the entrance. And speaking of that. We need another officer, huh? Wow. I think we need to decrease the staff of the PD. I was really hoping that amendment to cut their budget would pass.
June 7th, 2008 at 6:24 am
Forgot to add that I had to go to work the next morning as well. I was prepared to stay all night if I had to. Heck, I would have left the meeting and gone directly to work if that was what it would have taken. One miserable day of not sleeping isn’t as bad as a year of paying for the excessive budget.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Edward-
Before you decide to go slashing the police budget, perhaps you should purchase a scanner & listen to everything that goes on & how much they actually do…I think you would be quite suprised, and might change your tune a bit…
June 7th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Edward, Glad you are enjoying the blog so much. The Town and School budgets are low. Compare them them and tax rates to others and you’ll see. I think we have responsible budgets. Your tax bill in any surrounding Town would be as high or higher. I New Hampshire it would be much higher, because NH has little State aid for schools.
June 7th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Sorry,
I don’t need to compare anything. Nor do I need to get a scanner & listen to everything going on. I wish I had that kind of time on my hands.
Your defintion of responsible is evidently not the same as mine.
June 7th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Well, if you would compare, you’d get real information, and I’d give you more credibility. You would find that the tax rates in SB are not high; they are middle of the road. To complain without info is fine, but …………
June 7th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Edward,
Please don’t think that you speak for all the “little people” if by that label you mean hard working, modest income and long-time town residents. I fit all those descriptions, yet Richard Clough definitely does NOT represent my views nor do I appreciate his obstructionist tactics and shenanigans at every meeting. Every community seems to have one individual who abuses the rules of order and uses them as a way to hijack the process. The secret balloting was simply intended to drag things out and wear down the average citizen to the point of apathy. It didn’t work, it just wasted time.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:36 am
Well, Anonymous, since you point out that New Hampshire towns get very little state funding, why are there always articles in the news about “donor” towns?
New Hampshire adds an amount to the mil rate in every New Hampshirre town and city above and beyond that which each community collects for itself.
Considering this is done instead of income tax, add your property tax to your income tax and see if it is still lower than what is paid in New Hampshire.
Comparing only half is not a valid comparison.
If the state of Maine would not continually cut funding to the communities with out dropping the income tax collected, the proposed 10.3 percent increase in required local funding for the schools would not be as bad as it is.
June 8th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Wow.
That is not how I see it at all. The guy does his homework, and I appreciate his voice. There are not enough people who dedicate themselves to this town like that. And I will definately think of him as a voice for the little people. I’m sorry, but if you consider questioning leadership hijacking the process, I don’t think we have much common groung, because I am grateful for the opportunity to challenge anyone in a position of government. We do not have many chances to be counted, and I will be there for as many town meetings as I can now that I have woken up. So Mr. Clough did some good after all, to me anyway. I’m sorry he slowed things down for you. And I will say again, “Thank You Richard Clough”.
And Anonymous, it is my good fortune, that I’m not seeking your credibilty. I don’t care what other towns are paying. I don’t live in them. But I’ve lived in this on for the past 43 years, and I think that entitltes me to “complain” about pretty much whatever I want. I believe this forum is for people who want to voice their opinion. Frankly, I could not care less what others think of mine, but I’m going to give it anyway.
I don’t think I have anything more to say about it, so I will go complain on another thread now.
June 8th, 2008 at 11:46 am
“But I’ve lived in this on for the past 43 years, and I think that entitltes me to “complain” about pretty much whatever I want. I believe this forum is for people who want to voice their opinion. Frankly, I could not care less what others think of mine, but I’m going to give it anyway.”
Edward — Why is someone who has lived here a long time more entitled to complain than a newcomer? Exactly what is the logic there? If you moved to another town would you feel obligated to defer your views to those who have lived there much longer? Is that how the American Small Town is supposed to work?
I think a forum is a place for the exchange of opinions. If you want to just voice your opinion, and you don’t care about anyone else’s then get out your soapbox and make a speech on the corner. I think the American system will support you there. But don’t mistake a forum as a place to vent anger and then run off.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
OK,
First of all….
Did I say that I had more of a right than anyone else? S, you can say whatever you want. I don’t have to agree with it.
Do you have problem with that?
Sounds to me, like you are looking for an argument. Sorry, I won’t give it to you.
As I said before, there is nothing I really care to add to this discussion. If you want me to stay and “vent some more anger”, once again. I’m sorry. “Running away” is not something I do. As I said, why beat a dead horse?
Don’t really know the purpose to your last post, but I will decline your invite to stump on the corner. Now that summer is here there are way too many things to do.
And I don’t know why you say I “don’t care about opinions’. Isn’t that the reason for this blog? Just because you don’t like what I have to say about something, you can and should respond if you like, but your post seems a little personal.
What I said was what I said. You don’t have to like it. It is what is is.
My opinion. It obviously matters to me, but I don’t expect anyone else to subscribe to it. I didn’t mean by saying that I don’t care what anyone else thinks of MY opinion to sound callous.
Again, isn’t that what this blog is for? Whatever. I will take exception to some of your barbs. Like I said. It is what it is.
Have a good day. It’s gorgeous outside. Hope you can enjoy some of it.
June 8th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
“I don’t care what other towns are paying. I don’t live in them.” ……..
But there are realities. You might want a $6/1000 tax rate. You might want it a lot. But you are not going to find it. Better to complain, I guess.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
And vote.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
It’s one thing to question leadership…questions are good. Ideas, concerns, communication are all great things, and I am all for them. But the proposal to vote on articles 8-26 and all amendments thereto was made by people who knew that there was going to be an amendment to EVERY ONE of those articles. I would have had no problem with the secret ballot on just the articles themselves. I did originally vote for the secret ballot method, but regretted it by article 9. If you want to amend each ballot, go for it, but own it…not everything needs to be in secret. As for the police and fire in uniform in the back…some of the fire in uniform had to be for the honor guard (and I’m sure were quite hot in those uniforms given the temperature). I saw no problem with them being back there…where would you propose they had sat? Just seems kind of silly I guess.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Silly? Fair enough.
I will say that I didn’t appreciate it, but tha’s just how myself and the person was with perceived it. There were plenty of open chairs when I got there. Sit already. Whatever.
I don’t know of anyone wearing fire dept. gear. The faces were enough to identify most of them.
Now, I kind of agree that it was agony to think of ballots going in the box all night (It probably WOULD have been all night).
I think people should stand up for themselves vote however they want, regardless of what others think.
BUT…..I am not afraid of others knowing how I vote. That doesn’t mean we all feel that way. If you are someone who is afraid of reprisals (real or imagined), than you are apt to feel better about going about it in the secret way.
And I was glad myself that we changed the way we were proceeding initially. But, I appreciate the reasons behind the secret ballot, and truly think that is what was intended.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I can appreciate the fear of reprisals, especially in the current climate. So we do agree on some things, which is good.
By uniforms, I meant their dress uniforms, not their firefighting gear. 
I probably would not have been quite so annoyed at the secret ballot process if as you said, it had not been guaranteed to keep us there all night. And the fact that it was proposed by the people who knew they planned to attempt to amend every article but were not exactly forthcoming about that plan when they made the motion. If they had, I most likely would have still been okay with the secret ballot for those articles, just not for the (numerous) amendments.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:43 am
LOL,
Well, to be sure I will get lots of caffein in me before I go to another one. At first I thought it would be quick, but now I know to be prepared to stay a while! We were way past by bedtime. Maybe there is a way we can sort of break them up in future sessions? Like just vote on ten one night and then ten the next and so on?
I think I want to thank Molly (I think I read that she made it) for this forum. It’s made me consider a lot of other viewpoints. Thanks Molly!
June 9th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Edward,
I have to agree, this website has made it possible for people to exchange ideas and viewpoints, gather information, and get a feel for some of the general consensus on how people feel about different issues.
A heartfelt thanks to Molly for making it all possible.
June 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Yes, thank you. Re: the length of town meeting - I grew up in a town of 900 residents in the winter (with a summer population of 2,000), and our town meetings were always in early June on a Saturday. It was held in the elementary school, and there were hot lunches available, bake sales, activities for the kids, etc. It was a lot of fun, however, the political process was the same.