Hello Figment

response from their arrogance

Feb 24, 2005
If as you say the ''money being freed up is budgeted for the trash collection'' then how can we say, in all honesty, that the debt-exclusion is for capital needs only?

(The slight of hand that is played with the tax money in this town is impressive, they say its for one thing and use it for another purpose!)

Why is a fee for trash, funded from our operating budget, constantly linked with an override for capital needs?
(Have you ever heard of the carrot and the stick ploy, if you do what I tell you and you get the carrot, otherwise you get the stick!)

If on the other hand the monies currently in our budget, and as of today we are working on correcting a deficit budget, how does the trash fee miraculously disappear?
(The trash fee?’s went to the school budget and with an override/exclusion they won?’t need it. If the exclusion fails, will they have the gall to double the tax?)

Too much importance is being placed on this trash-fee, this fee should not be justification for spending money we do not have.
(It?’s a token only.)

I simply do not think it wise to make this fee a priority, nor to make it a deciding factor for voting an override.
(I agree with your reasoning, they instituted it as an punishment for not passing an earlier override.)

I believe the Ledger quoted Mr. Hubbard as saying, and I will paraphrase: '' we need an override for salaries, insurance costs, and utility increases, in order to get our financial house in order.
(Mr. Hubbard is a voice for the schools and their demands they, the schools, extracted his support as a condition!)

'' So which is it operating or capital needs? I think we simply need money and an override is the only means of temporarily filling the pot.
(So we as a town can live beyond our means, just like it was before prop.2.5%)

But without correcting the problems we have created, how will we meet next years, and the years to follow, budget(s)? (More bigger and better override/exclusions, no doubt!)

------The Absolute Arrogance of these people is astonishing
e of These people is

By The Absolute Arrogance of These

Also serve the people not

special interests! A poor example of elected officials are the school committee ,
elected for the purpose of containing a run away
school system, instead gives away everything including an illegal 3yr and 1yr where the State law spells a maximum of a three year contracts!
School contracts with excesses in pay for an already bloated teachers pay raises!
These people ran for office on a false pretense of serving the taxpayers and instead
were in the school unions pocket all the times, an false and treasonous lot!!


By Charity Dogood

Those of you who think...

we will be voting on a $12mil. d.e.override raise your hands, now those of you who think the vote involves a $20.9mil. d.e.override raise your hands. Well either the Ledger and Forum are correct and the Globe incorrect, or vice versa. The Globe states that ''$8.9mil. will be used to pay off existing debt.'' I didn't know that, did you? That would explain how the infamous 'trash fee' will dissappear. We will simply borrow anew, pay off the current, in order that a select few, not businesses nor condo owners, can dissolve their $l40. a yr. trash collection fee. Oh, and possibly hire 6 new police men and 6 new firemen, and subsidize the teachers raises. I mean it is all supposition, for as far as I know no one has mentioned the need for the additional $8.9mil. to be borrowed. TAAOT and anyone else, can you lend credence to the Globe report?

8.9 Million borrowing

Let me try to explain this seeming extra borrowing.

At the last Town Meeting, Oct 2004, Selectman Kokoras presented/illustrated a plan whereby the town had paid down it debt to some quite lower level.

To such a low level that the town actually could accomodate borrowing some more and still meet annual baseline / level budget expenditures and have no adverse impact upon the town's budgeting.

For example, let's say your family budget can accomadate a level of $10,000 of debt, and over some period you pay down $6,000 leaving a balance of debt of $4,000. Your family budget can still accomodate the $10,000 debt level without any adverse impact upon you family finances. So, you look at your family's infrastructure, your driveway needs replacing and the roof could use a new overlay so you borrow $6,000 bringing up your debt level to the $10,000 that you can afford and stay at level budgeting. Toss in the fact interest rates are very low and maintaining your debt level makes it an attractive financing method.

This is what Selectman Kokoras presented to Town Meeting and TM approved it after a spirited debate.
Half the borrowing for the schools and the other half for roads. I voted YES on this proposal because the plan was in keeping with level budgeting and was a responsible approach toward addressing the needs of the town's roads and school buildings and NOT negatively impact the residential burden.

I thought the numbers were more like
$7 million but you have $8.9Mil. I don't know how the extra $1.9 got in there, that would require some quesioning and some answers.

This borrowing plan only allowed Braintree to continue on it's then present plan of infrastructure reconstruction.

The override of $12Mil is a separate issue, that will impact the residents and I do plan on voting NO on the override.

I hope that helped to clear up the explanation of the $8.9Mil.

By Taxpayer